SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ed Regis writes in the New York Times that today we an witnessing an outburst of enthusiasm over the literally outlandish notion that in the relatively near future, some of us are going to be living, working, thriving and dying on Mars. But unfortunately Mars mania reflects an excessively optimistic view of what it actually takes to travel to and live on Mars, papering over many of the harsh realities and bitter truths that underlie the dream. "First, there is the tedious business of getting there. Using current technology and conventional chemical rockets, a trip to Mars would be a grueling, eight- to nine-month-long nightmare for the crew," writes Regis. "Tears, sweat, urine and perhaps even solid waste will be recycled, your personal space is reduced to the size of an SUV., and you and your crewmates are floating around sideways, upside down and at other nauseating angles." According to Regis every source of interpersonal conflict, and emotional and psychological stress that we experience in ordinary, day-to-day life on Earth will be magnified exponentially by restriction to a tiny, hermetically sealed, pressure-cooker capsule hurtling through deep space and to top it off, despite these constraints, the crew must operate within an exceptionally slim margin of error with continuous threats of equipment failures, computer malfunctions, power interruptions and software glitches.
But getting there is the easy part says Regis. "Mars is a dead, cold, barren planet on which no living thing is known to have evolved, and which harbors no breathable air or oxygen, no liquid water and no sources of food, nor conditions favorable for producing any. For these and other reasons it would be accurate to call Mars a veritable hell for living things, were it not for the fact that the planet's average surface temperature is minus 81 degrees Fahrenheit." These are only a few of the many serious challenges that must be overcome before anyone can put human beings on Mars and expect them to live for more than five minutes says Regis. "The notion that we can start colonizing Mars within the next 10 years or so is an overoptimistic, delusory idea that falls just short of being a joke."
(Score: 2) by pixeldyne on Wednesday September 23 2015, @01:26AM
I thought that if something goes wrong during the trip to mars, they could make a u-turn and come back using fuel meant for mars ascent. I'm not an expert but it would seem they should have enough fuel for a retrograde burn (twice the deltav) in mid flight?
It would still take a lot of time (and money) but at least there's this option if a mission to mars is really deemed impossible/too hard at thos stage. Personally I think it's quite possible, except the money was spent on wars instead.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Wednesday September 23 2015, @06:43AM
That's an interesting thought isn't it?
If humanity had accumulated all the resources it has spent in the last 100 years on wars killing each another and used it on something like space exploration instead, would we be living off-planet by now?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 23 2015, @10:16PM
No.