People on Mars by 2024 ??

[RandomAccess]

IMO that's way too soon. But I'll be honest: I'm totally biased against the whole thing. Not that I disapprove, just that I'm totally creeped out by the whole idea. And this article does nothing to assuage that at all (but it's a fascinating article, nonetheless). I'm just creeped out by the idea of taking a one-way trip to someplace like that. That's it -- one way only, with NO prospect of EVER getting to come back "home."

I mentioned that once before and someone responded that that's what people were facing when they came to the New World but it's categorically different by an order of magnitude in my book. In the New World instance, it might have been improbable, maybe even nearly impossible, but definitely not totally, completely, no way in hell impossible.

In any case --

Astronauts may one day use this tube to eat, drink, breathe, and recycle poop on the moon or Mars — here’s how it works

In recent years, Elon Musk has said his rocket company, SpaceX, is working toward colonizing Mars with 1 million people. His "aspirational" timeline is to launch an uncrewed Big Falcon Rocket in 2022, followed by the first human landing in 2024.

. . .

Mars is a far more difficult challenge to survive. The red planet is an average of 158 million miles away from Earth, with a small window — just once every 26 months— to launch a relatively quick multi-month mission. Any hiccup in an infrequent supply chain of fresh air, food, and water, such as a launchpad explosion, might doom unprepared explorers.

"If you are stranded there, you need a lot of redundancy so you don't starve to death,'" Phil Sadler, a botanist-turned-machinist in Arizona, told Business Insider. "That's the worst-case scenario you can have, is a crew of six people on Mars calling back saying, 'We're starving to death, we're dying, we just ate Bob.'"

http://www.businessinsider.com/astronaut-plants-air-food-water-life-support-2018-5

Needless to say, I'm not a risk-taker to start with, but I can't even IMAGINE the degree of risk-takingness this would require. IMO you'd have to have a death wish to be among the first.

[KatyMan]

1. Agree

Why not send "robots", like we've been doing? Much cheaper and safer, and probably would provide more data. I am not, however, a scientist.

[RandomAccess]

4. Good idea.

I didn't even think of that.

You know, if they want to have the first human landing in 2024 -- or WHENEVER they have it -- there's SO MUCH infrastructure that needs to be in place or very quickly put in place for that to make any sense at all.

And the article says there's only a very brief window every 24 years to launch a successful mission -- so there's that too: whoever lands has to make it for 24 years or (literally) die trying.

[unc70]

7. Best launch window every 26 months, not years

The voyage lengths you cite are for reaching escape velocity and then just drifting to Mars. If you have a continuing propulsion system, you can cut the travel time dramatically.

[RandomAccess]

10. Oh.

Silly me. Thanks. "Drifting to Mars . . ." -- interesting thought.

[dawg]

2. We could easily have people on Mars by 2020.

Dead people.

But they'd be there.

[RandomAccess]

3. ANOTHER good point

except for the grotesqueness of the idea.

[misanthrope]

20. Most certainly. Musk will continue to move these goalposts over time

keeping them tantalizingly close enough to garner media excitement.

[tblue37]

26. "I see dead people." nt

[LeftInTX]

5. Doesn't it take 2 years to get there?

I think our spacecrafts travel around 22,000 mph.
From what I understand they use minimal fuel at this speed. I think they set a trajectory and coast through the solar system.

They would have to devise a spacecraft that travels much faster if people are going to get there in less than 2 years, so it would probably need to carry a bunch of fuel......

Edit: NASA says it has the technology to get there in 6-9 months.

[Blue_true]

30. The problem is relative rates.

A spacecraft as slow as the one one mentioned would have to be shot well ahead of Mars orbit and if it missed getting into orbit at Mars, game over, it might as well turn back and head for home. Getting into Martian orbit has complexities that Earth orbit does not, one is the powerful sweep of solar winds that planet faces, the second is it's much lower gravitational field. It is one thing to go to a tidal-locked satellite like the Moon, an entirely diffent ballgame to go to a plant that has it's own orbit and is hauling ass in that orbit (54,000 mph).

Lastly, Mars has almost no atmosphere. Astronauts would need to guard against heavy draw if their body fluids.

I can foresee Mars being colonized one day, but way into the future, and successful colonization will come after a lot of death.

[LeftInTX]

6. More info about future technology:

Nuclear thermal propulsion allows a spacecraft to travel faster by providing a more efficient, and light weight system. We would not use nuclear propulsion systems until the spacecraft was far from Earth. Spacecraft would still be launched from Earth with chemical rocket engines or be built and launched in space. A nuclear thermal propulsion system could potentially be over 100 times more powerful than chemical systems of comparable weight. A system like this could easily cut down the time needed to travel to Mars and other places in our solar system.

NASA is studying a plasma-based propulsion system called project VASIMR (Variable-Specific-Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket). Franklin R. Chang-Diaz, the first Hispanic astronaut, is studying this system. VASIMR works by using a large electric power source (such as nuclear power) to then utilize hydrogen as a rocket propellant. Hydrogen is plentiful in the solar system, possibly allowing a VASIMR-powered spacecraft to be launched with only enough propellant to reach its destination. When it arrives, it could pick up more hydrogen to use as propellant for the return trip. According to NASA, a VASIMR flight to Mars could take a little over three months, compared to the six to nine months required by a conventional chemical rocket. Shorter flight times lessen an astronaut’s time in reduced gravity and decreases the time an astronaut is exposure to space radiation.

[Thekaspervote]

8. Not for travel to Mars other than robots. I'm all about science and discovery, but such a stretch

[Cyrano]

9. Space travel/exploration may save humanity

We're using up this planet pretty damn quick.

The only hope for the continuation of our species is to get "out there." To explore, learn, terra-form and colonize other planets -- starting, perhaps with Mars, -- and then moving out beyond our solar system.

Yes, yes, I know that interstellar travel is currently "impossible."

Crossing oceans was once "impossible." Flying was once "impossible." Going to the moon was once "impossible."

Humanity is struggling to live through our period of growing up. We are learning. We are pushing the envelope. We are fighting the ignorant who are trying to hold us back. We are trying to ensure the survival of our species.

In 1961, Jack Kennedy challenged us to put a man on the moon before the end of the decade. We -- Humanity, did it.

Time to grow up. Can't travel faster that the speed of light? Google Einstein-Rosen bridge. Who knows. Maybe there is a way to go to places that are far, far away.

But one thing that I'm certain of. If we decide to stay here, our species will be over in a couple of centuries, at most.

[RandomAccess]

11. If we can't survive here, we don't deserve to go dirty up some other place

IMO.

So I'm not in favor of trying some Planet B because we've fucked this one over. Let's UNfuck it, and live happily here. It's imminently doable.

[EX500rider]

12. I don't think you can fuck up a planet that is already dead like mars or the moon.

[Cyrano]

14. We must move on. Overpopulation

is a reality we are facing. There are those who want to "thin the herd," through one means or another. Do you really not understand who and what they are?

Anyhow, if we limit ourselves to this single rock in space, our species will be gone in a few hundred, or a few thousand years.

Read Isaac Asimov. Read Carl Sagan. Read Robert Heinlein. Or read any other visionary. But, please. Read.

Our species was born here. Time to leave the cradle.

[RandomAccess]

17. This was as much to you

as to the poster whose post I responded to:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10607994

[misanthrope]

19. You don't have to worry about "thinning the herd"

We're already helping nature toward that end in the next couple of centuries. We're also taking most of the biosphere with us.

[MicaelS]

15. Guess you don't like Science Fiction.

Since the topic of most SF is the colonization of the Moon and other planets in the Solar System and galaxy. Here's a clue. The Moon is DEAD, it will STAY dead.

Scientists like Hawking have stated we must colonize the Solar System and galaxy to survive. You don't want the human race to survive, too bad. You can take your Luddism and file it in 13.

[RandomAccess]

16. I'd MUCH rather see far more effort going into

saving ThIS planet. I don't consider that Luddism at all. We're here and now -- and so are our children and grandchildren. THEY're the ones who need help with THIS situation. So no, "saving the human race" isn't on my list of priorities if it means abandoning THIS planet for another.

That said, I understand very well that it's not an either/or situation. But it is for me and for most individuals. I choose THIS planet. That others choose to plan some "escape" because they don't believe in their ability or our ability to live here is their business, but I'll have no part of it.

Oh, and there's no reason we have to continue to overpopulate.

[meadowlander]

36. It may not be possible to save this planet.

If a black hole swallowed the earth tomorrow that could be the end of the only known intelligent life in the universe. The earth could also be hit by a devastating asteroid or an incurable pandemic.

Survival has always depended on diversification. And as long as all of our eggs are in one fragile basket, the human species is at a more significant risk of extinction than it needs to be.

Life by its nature isn't meant to be contained and in stasis.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

24. I don't think a Mars colony is "human survival".

It would require a regular schedule of supplies: oxygen, water, food, etc. It's not as if the colonists can farm the soil, fish in the lakes. Plus, we don't know the long-term effects of other features: low gravity, odd day length.

Moving to planets in other systems in the galaxy would have the same logistics problems, times a million.

We can't sustain such an endeavor while depleting our own Earth's resources. We'd have to make the hard decision, at some point, to stop the supply ships. Or the decision would be made for us by economics, war, pestilence, etc.

I think the best we could do is launch ships containing earth's various micro-organisms, some of which might survive, thrive, and evolve on some distant planet.

[RandomAccess]

25. Well, if you read the article,

it purports to solve some of this. And I do believe some of it is solvable. It's just not something I'm interested in. At all.

[Uncle Joe]

23. I agree Cyrano

[Blue_true]

31. And keep doing the same old shit that got us in trouble here.

If aliens saw us trying to land on their planet and knew anything about us, they would kill us and call it a day. Better that than let us bring our poison to their world.

We need to fix our planet. Develop technology to make that possible.

[loyalsister]

13. Wasted money, time, and energy

We have limited resources and widespread problems that need our immediate attention. Throwing significant resources into something that will serve only to entertain for the foreseeable future is not helpful.

[RandomAccess]

18. Yeah, I mostly agree with that.

and put it this way: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10607994

[misanthrope]

21. The big difference is the New World

was covered by a magnetosphere and an atmospheric ozone layer, had liquid fresh water, diverse biology, plant life and was in 1 G. None of that is the case with Mars and we have no way to solve those issues currently and certainly won't in six years.

Then there's the perils of the journey there, a lengthy trip in zero gravity while being bombarded by solar winds and all manner of cosmic rays. The astronauts living on the ISS are beneath the Van Allen Belt and yet still contact the byproduct of beta decay. Lunar astronauts were only beyond the Van Allen Belt for just about a week, with the longest mission lasting 12 days.

There are all sorts of fantastic ideas out there, things still basically in the hypothetical or early experimentation phase. That's not quite as simple as building a wooden ship with sails.

[CTyankee]

22. Interesting movie that explores this subject...

"Mission to Mars" plays on one of our movie channels often and we watch it. It's intriguing, especially about the "face" on Mars and whether our DNA is from Mars.

You have to watch the entire movie to get the full gist of what it is saying about this particullar step in space exploration.

[USALiberal]

27. Spend the same money on renewable energy IMO. nt

[dameatball]

28. Count me out. I'll bet the fishing sucks!!

[RandomAccess]

29. +1

You might have just won the thread, and that's from someone who doesn't fish!

[Blue_true]

32. Yeah, yeah. But would you eat what you hooked?

[dameatball]

33. Oh no, I practice catch and release!!!

[Blue_true]

34. Might have to reconsider that on Mars since food would be scarce.

Hmmm, fish with ten eyeballs!

[Xolodno]

35. Far as I'm concerned....only a matter of time.

Contrary to belief, colonies will be set up similar to the movie "Total Recall". That is, underground. Terraforming like the TV series fire fly will occur, but will take place much later than the colonies. Then again, who knows, we may break the light speed barrier.