(January 3, 2015 at 1:26 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(January 3, 2015 at 11:59 am)IATIA Wrote: What are you going to breath?

What are you going to grow?

Where will you put the cows?

And assuming there can be a 'science fiction' domed structure (while disregarding the resources necessary to build and maintain), what group of people can survive in a closed environment.

Talk about cabin fever. hock:

The logistics of -that- have already been thought out and we're capable (the last bit is hit or miss to an extent, I guess...but astronauts do get screened thoroughly..so we do all we can). The trouble, currently, is actually getting there. Notice they launched our little exploration pod atop an old engine. We still don't have those new engines yet. Big PR push right now to downplay that little kink. A lander and a probe is one thing. Habitation (even with the novel ideas bounced around) is a whole different type of payload.

What? Are you one of the Man on Mars people? Sending a human being to Mars is pointless and potentially disastrous. Not that I object to the idea of colonizing Mars, but doing something similar to the moon landing would be extraordinarily pointless. Well, maybe not, if PR is the point, but that's all. What can a person do that a robot can't? Die horrifically on live TV and cancel space exploration forever, for one thing.

People can go to Mars and live there, but we don't even have the beginnings of that technology. We can't built a self-sufficient closed ecosystem that can support human life. We have *no* idea how we might deconstruct and ship our technological base.

(January 13, 2015 at 11:49 am)Alex K Wrote: You have heard of Mars-500?

Pretend is all fine and dandy, but always knowing that you will get to go home or if anything bad happens the experiment can be interrupted. It did not include building the 'dome' or whatever they intend on living in on Mars. That is where people start really showing their colors.

"Hey idiot, not there" "Why are you sitting on your ass while the rest of us are working>" "What numbskull damaged the water recycler?" "Hey put that back, we are on rations until the next ship arrives, Hopefully that one does not crash also." "So your god is testing us HUH. How 'bout you test my foot up your ass." ETC.

It may give some insight, but camping out in your back yard is not the same as the middle of the rain forest.

And there is still the unaddressed biological issue of 0.38g.

Will people drink alcohol when they reach Mars?

(January 16, 2015 at 1:50 pm)tantric Wrote: What? Are you one of the Man on Mars people? Sending a human being to Mars is pointless and potentially disastrous.

The latter is what makes it full of awesome. However, the former is just underappreciation for the benefits of undertaking the task. To do it well (rather than just doing it), we'll have to learn a hell of alot, build very robust systems. That's just the tangible benefit. The intangible benefit is the sense of human accomplishment that encourages us to reach even further. The amount of cooperation required to achieve that end alone would be worth the attempt if only as proof of potential.

Quote: Not that I object to the idea of colonizing Mars, but doing something similar to the moon landing would be extraordinarily pointless. Well, maybe not, if PR is the point, but that's all.

No it wouldn't. We did it on a wing and a prayer last time, in hindsight. We'd never expect a person to assume those (then) unknown risks today with what we've learned since. We don't currently possess the equipment to put forward a robust moon attempt....mars is actually easier to get to than the moon, btw - just takes more time. But they both share similar problems and if we're going to shake the bugs out of a cosmic lifeboat it;s best to do so a little closer to home -so long as we value the lives of those involved. We know what the machines should look like, we have some idea as to what machines that could accomplish the task would be - but it;s one thing to have an idea, another to have a boat - and yet another entirely to put the idea to work, and the boat along with yourself into the water.

Quote: What can a person do that a robot can't? Die horrifically on live TV and cancel space exploration forever, for one thing.

Sure, there's potential for tragedy, tragedy itself can also bring us together, and so can overcoming potential tragedy. Apollo 13 might be a stronger moment for humanity than the successful landings were. But..human beings can improvise, they can wonder, they can inspire and share their experience face to face, some of these things are useful in the aftermath (whether we pop the bubbly to a mission usccess or a moment of silence for failure), and some are directly beneficial in the accomplishment thereof. Our hands are also pretty hot, robots aren't quite there yet, but we're working on that. It;s certainly more expensive to send humans and theres a wide range of things that robots are perfectly well suited for...but I find it incredibly discomforting that you're actually devaluing humans and all of the things that we can do here...in favor of robots. We can, do, and will send both - like always, no choice between the two needs to be made. Tell you this, no matter what things a robot may be suited for that a human is not, and VV...both working together are better than either independently.

Quote:People can go to Mars and live there, but we don't even have the beginnings of that technology. We can't built a self-sufficient closed ecosystem that can support human life.

That;s not a mission requirement, so it's irrelevant. We don;t even have a self sufficient earth based colony......

Quote: We have *no* idea how we might deconstruct and ship our technological base.

Actually we do, the only thing we don't have is the rocket. Sad truth, but that's all that's been holding us up. Take a look at Mars Direct. It was proposed in the 90's in it;s current iteration (the inkling of it stretch back to the 70's when we did have the rocket). We've had more than just an idea for quite some time. We have a solid plan based on experience and demonstrable results. We just lost the damned rockets through attrition. Since the cancellation of funding tfor projects that needed to be realized, private frims have taken an interest. SpaceX, for example. As far as plans go it wouldn't cut the mustard today, maybe, we expect more (and revisions are still being made, the plan itself is still alive and being continually refined even though Constellation was canceled). Basically shooting a can into the dirt on another rock, that;s all we're talking about here. We can keep doing it with robots, sure...and when/if we ever get around to sending a manned mission I imagine it;ll be grander than Mars Direct ever dreamed - but it was and remains a solid concept just waiting for some group of peple to pull together and pull a few dollars away from their usual fraud, waste and abuse...to accomplish something amazing.

I get it though, you're poo-pooing people in outer space, whats up, inner space seem more worthwhile to you? Maybe we should send a manned mission into your spirit, so we could then claim to have planted humanity within you for the first time?

Re: tech base. No, really, we don't. How do you replace broken parts? How could you even make a new space suit? The process of mining, refining, distilling, etc just to make a circuit board is ENORMOUSLY complex. This is besides our total inability to make a self-sustaining closed ecosystem. We do not have the knowledge to lock people up in a sealed area with energy and equipment have them recycle their water, air and food. Biosphere 2 was an utter failure. As a trained ecologist, I know that's because they went for too much complexity.

NASA is trying to figure out how to freeze dry cakes to send with the voyagers, when they need to be figuring out how to turn piss into algae bars. So...let's figure it out, here. In Antarctica. Everything has to be in place before the first colonists arrive, just as we'd pre-land their equipment on Mars. Select a location with geothermal power (Mt. Erebus) and send about 500 people. They get one shipment of equipment a year, and they have to request anything a year in advance, but otherwise have no physical contact with the rest of the world. They do have IT contact - make it reality TV to fund it, if you have to, but mostly they have the knowledge of Earth to draw from.

I don't understand why people fixate on planets. Not only do we not need them, they're far from ideal. There are enough raw materials in the asteroid belt to build rotating space habitats with a cumulative area of > 1000 Earths. You get exactly the amount of gravity you want, limitless solar power and you don't need to expend an enormous amount of energy to to escape a gravity well if you want to travel somewhere else. All your resources come from asteroids.

That's our future in space. There won't be any need to leave the solar system.

Yet we will. That instinct is too strong.

(January 21, 2015 at 12:59 pm)AFTT47 Wrote: I don't understand why people fixate on planets. Not only do we not need them, they're far from ideal. There are enough raw materials in the asteroid belt to build rotating space habitats with a cumulative area of > 1000 Earths. You get exactly the amount of gravity you want, limitless solar power and you don't need to expend an enormous amount of energy to to escape a gravity well if you want to travel somewhere else. All your resources come from asteroids.

That's our future in space. There won't be any need to leave the solar system.

Our need find a habital planet comes from our need to get out of the house once in a while. It's all about feeling free.

Also, we will need to leave our solar system when our sun goes nova again.

(January 21, 2015 at 11:08 am)tantric Wrote: Re: tech base. No, really, we don't. How do you replace broken parts? How could you even make a new space suit?

The plan then involved constant resupply on a reasonable and well demonstrated scale. Was pretty much the least of anyone's worries. We can print now, but still, printing is in it's infancy, plenty would be resupply. Who knows, by 2030, the earliest we'll have the engines we need to get there with a payload appropriate? Things will break, to be sure...and at the worst times - but that's something that's been taken into account. We can't cover everything, of course, but the sorts of failures that would have to occur to doom those folks would probably doom them just as easily in a desert, on the ocean, or in the arctic here on earth. In terms of the solar system...Mars is a sweetheart environment, and there are certainly places on earth which are far less forgiving. We forget sometimes that our own rock is absolutely lethal - and that it's only because we're good at this kind of shit that we've done so well here.

Quote:The process of mining, refining, distilling, etc just to make a circuit board is ENORMOUSLY complex.

It's actually not, but I wouldn't expect them to put a pcb lab onboard. If they wanted to...they could, especially now that you can make a pcb with ink that's compatible with a home printer and MS notepad on the back cover of a magazine ( I still need to make that damned comp thread I promised...). Back when I made pcb's - it was alot more difficult (I can still taste the copper..lol). Nevertheless, I'd expect the usual redundancy and resupply that is precisely how we handle these things now.

Quote: This is besides our total inability to make a self-sustaining closed ecosystem. We do not have the knowledge to lock people up in a sealed area with energy and equipment have them recycle their water, air and food.

There's no need.

Quote:Biosphere 2 was an utter failure. As a trained ecologist, I know that's because they went for too much complexity.

Well, they also intentionally cut themselves off, which isn't something that will be a part of -any- mission plan to mars.

Quote:NASA is trying to figure out how to freeze dry cakes to send with the voyagers, when they need to be figuring out how to turn piss into algae bars.

Both would be fantastic (though, NASA already knows how to freeze dry cakes..cmon buddy), yes, and a mars mission would be great impetus to study that in greater detail - see.....these are the tangible benefits.

Quote: So...let's figure it out, here. In Antarctica. Everything has to be in place before the first colonists arrive, just as we'd pre-land their equipment on Mars.

Yep, it's just good procedure no matter what hostile environment you arrive in. Make sure the goods and the lifeboat get there first. On mars, it's the ERV (Earth Return Vehicle). With the plan as it stands some launches are double duty, and even though the "colony" is designed to be permanent, the "colonists" aren't. Consider them part of the resupply. Baby steps...baby steps.

Quote:Select a location with geothermal power (Mt. Erebus) and send about 500 people.

Not a requirement for a mars mission, but it would be nice if they could find it's equivalent. They plan to refine fuel (and thus water and oxygen) from soil (with the onboard reactors of secondary support vehicles as an initial power source), and the primary condition of a suitable LZ is the availability of water to existing equipment that fits the mission profile. The idea for this is twofold. The ERV lands with enough fuel to return, but there's no sense in counting on that if you can refuel every vehicle that you send - which we can.

Quote:They get one shipment of equipment a year, and they have to request anything a year in advance, but otherwise have no physical contact with the rest of the world.

The shipments in Mars Direct are slightly more aggressive, but not by much. It's a long way off, help is far away (though the boat home is always there, should they need it). This is true.

Quote: They do have IT contact - make it reality TV to fund it, if you have to, but mostly they have the knowledge of Earth to draw from.

You know, I think it would be a great way to fund initially, but, in the end...they wouldn't show the hilariously interesting shit and watching people stuck in a can will get boring quick. Especially these people, doing what they do. That said, there will probably always be a feed, if we decide to make the trip, yeah. They have the knowledge of earth (which is - impressive-) but also their own skills and experience, and whatever they can take or make. We've been in worse situations and fared very well. The plan has been doable for far longer than it was ever officially considered. We had the tech in the 70's (and alot of what we'll use if we ever do go..even in 2030 - is tech from the 50's-modified over the years, of course). The feasibility isn't even remotely an issue. It's just a matter of whether or not we have the will.

(January 21, 2015 at 2:16 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Also, we will need to leave our solar system when our sun goes nova again.

Ah, you've read "Rescue Party".