Mars Settlement
-
harold aptroot wrote:
it's just that no one paid for it.
Which is exactly why one should wonder how realistic it is.
-
I think it is a little bit optimistic in terms of years, make it 20 years and I'm on board. We need to be able to start shooting building material to Mars in the next couple of years and have them land safely in in close proximity to each other to be feasible. No need to have fancy equipment (those will come after with the humans), but just sturdy enough and foolproof to limit the cost of shipping ( and failure ). The big issue is that we need to time the delivery with the proper "alignment" to Mars; outside of those windows of opportunity, it is not cost effective to launch stuff to Mars. So, how many launches can we make per year ? 2, 3 ? Another issue is that we need to have better robots (human guided) to help us build on site; we can't just do it aboard big caterpillar bulldozers. Anyway, looking at their timeline, it looks like a rehash of Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy.
Watched code never compiles.
Maximilien wrote:
The big issue is that we need to time the delivery with the proper "alignment" to Mars; outside of those windows of opportunity, it is not cost effective to launch stuff to Mars.
So, how many launches can we make per year ? 2, 3 ?Launch windows[^] to Mars occur about once in two years. Of course you can make multiple launches during each window.
-
That was the date that was in my head as well. Not sure where I heard it, but it seem to stick.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Think it came from Presiden George Bush jr, first the moon again then Mars, that is people wise.
-
I have a PowerPoint presentation somewhere that a friend sent me some years ago that he got from a friend at NASA that shows the time line. I'll see if I can find it and post it somewhere.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Quote:
Mars One will take humanity to Mars in 2023, to establish the foundation of a permanent settlement from which we will prosper, learn, and grow. Before the first crew lands, Mars One will have established a habitable, sustainable settlement designed to receive new astronauts every two years. To accomplish this, Mars One has developed a precise, realistic plan based entirely upon existing technologies. It is both economically and logistically feasible, in motion through the aggregation of existing suppliers and experts in space exploration. We invite you to participate in this journey, by sharing our vision with your friends, by supporting our effort, and perhaps, by becoming the next Mars astronaut yourself.
Is this even realistic? 11 years?
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
I believe the original NASA estimate was to get boots on Mars around 2030. This seems a little ambitious but I wish them luck.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
I thought that the settlement was supposed to be in place before the turn of the millennium (2000, not 3000). That got shelved when the Apollo mission was cancelled because the live broadcasts clashed with reruns of 'I love Lucy' on American TV. Later, G W Bush tried to restart the Mars race, but his replacement cancelled that. In a world where thousands / millions are dying daily due to malnutrition, drought, wars, diseases etc, spending billions of dollars on flying to a dead rock seems as though we have slightly lost focus. I am a fan of the concept of space exploration and would love to walk on Mars; and I know that the billions of dollars that would be saved by not going would be squandered on making the mega rich even richer, making even more vile ways of killing people, and in polluting what is left of our own planet; and it is highly improbable that any of that money would be used to benefit mankind in general, rather than just a handful of the privileged few. [Edit] Re-read whatI have written and decided to add the 'Rant' icon
-
Quote:
Mars One will take humanity to Mars in 2023, to establish the foundation of a permanent settlement from which we will prosper, learn, and grow. Before the first crew lands, Mars One will have established a habitable, sustainable settlement designed to receive new astronauts every two years. To accomplish this, Mars One has developed a precise, realistic plan based entirely upon existing technologies. It is both economically and logistically feasible, in motion through the aggregation of existing suppliers and experts in space exploration. We invite you to participate in this journey, by sharing our vision with your friends, by supporting our effort, and perhaps, by becoming the next Mars astronaut yourself.
Is this even realistic? 11 years?
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
What are they gonna do about the Mars Planetary Defense Force, which apparently shoots down or otherwise destroys about 50% of the stuff we send there? :)
Currently reading: "The Prince", by Nicolo Machiavelli
-
A foreseeable problem is that it will become a lot harder to terraform a planet when it's already inhabited, unless we kill everyone on it. So, seriously... it would be better if we build bigger space stations and colonize the moon first; then wait until we have the technology to crash a bunch of space debris on mars and THEN colonize it.
Giraffes are not real.
I somewhat agree with you on this... But, there could be technological break-throughs by colonizing it with pods. Terra-forming technology is still just a dream, and it would be silly to sit idly by waiting for it to be "discovered". While space stations would be an effective way to colonize off of Earth, it still requires constant supply loads from Earth (to expand at the minimum). It is my understanding that the Mars colony would at some point be able to 'expand' on its own.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Quote:
Mars One will take humanity to Mars in 2023, to establish the foundation of a permanent settlement from which we will prosper, learn, and grow. Before the first crew lands, Mars One will have established a habitable, sustainable settlement designed to receive new astronauts every two years. To accomplish this, Mars One has developed a precise, realistic plan based entirely upon existing technologies. It is both economically and logistically feasible, in motion through the aggregation of existing suppliers and experts in space exploration. We invite you to participate in this journey, by sharing our vision with your friends, by supporting our effort, and perhaps, by becoming the next Mars astronaut yourself.
Is this even realistic? 11 years?
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
It is amazing to me that people forget we went from zip to the moon in less than 10 years. Or first powered flight to the moon in only 70 years. When 2001: A Space Odyssey came out in '68, the only thing that seemed to be science fiction was the monolith. I'd dare say our technology is a wee bit more advanced since then. But then they cancelled the scheduled remaining moon flights for fear that aside from Apollo 13 near catastrophe, there would be a complete failure. Besides, all the money had already been spent (completely on Earth instead of space as some complain) and the variant on the Law of the Seas, prevented celestial bodies from claims of ownership, so where was the economic incentive? Followed by the L5 in '95[^] fizzle. The shuttle never achieved the flight rate and cost estimates that were promised. Let there be an accident and the shuttles get shut down for years. When the Russians lost a booster, they just rolled another one out two weeks later. So yes, we could do it if we wanted to. We've just become so risk adverse that it probably won't happen until 2123, if then. Admittedly my attitude has changed from wanting man in space to wanting robots in space. Only a very few get to space, but if we built a zillion robots (getting economy of scale), the losses will not be catastrophic and anyone with an Internet connection can get into the fun. Certainly whenever we do go to Mars, I'd want to see the habitats already built, tested, and running, before we send anyone there. That will require telepresence to do that. But yes, we do need to put boots on another planet, if for naught else, than to have a backup.
Psychosis at 10 Film at 11 Those who do not remember the past, are doomed to repeat it. Those who do not remember the past, cannot build upon it.
-
It is amazing to me that people forget we went from zip to the moon in less than 10 years. Or first powered flight to the moon in only 70 years. When 2001: A Space Odyssey came out in '68, the only thing that seemed to be science fiction was the monolith. I'd dare say our technology is a wee bit more advanced since then. But then they cancelled the scheduled remaining moon flights for fear that aside from Apollo 13 near catastrophe, there would be a complete failure. Besides, all the money had already been spent (completely on Earth instead of space as some complain) and the variant on the Law of the Seas, prevented celestial bodies from claims of ownership, so where was the economic incentive? Followed by the L5 in '95[^] fizzle. The shuttle never achieved the flight rate and cost estimates that were promised. Let there be an accident and the shuttles get shut down for years. When the Russians lost a booster, they just rolled another one out two weeks later. So yes, we could do it if we wanted to. We've just become so risk adverse that it probably won't happen until 2123, if then. Admittedly my attitude has changed from wanting man in space to wanting robots in space. Only a very few get to space, but if we built a zillion robots (getting economy of scale), the losses will not be catastrophic and anyone with an Internet connection can get into the fun. Certainly whenever we do go to Mars, I'd want to see the habitats already built, tested, and running, before we send anyone there. That will require telepresence to do that. But yes, we do need to put boots on another planet, if for naught else, than to have a backup.
Psychosis at 10 Film at 11 Those who do not remember the past, are doomed to repeat it. Those who do not remember the past, cannot build upon it.
BrainiacV wrote:
It is amazing to me that people forget we went from zip to the moon in less than 10 years. Or first powered flight to the moon in only 70 years. When 2001: A Space Odyssey came out in '68, the only thing that seemed to be science fiction was the monolith.
I'd dare say our technology is a wee bit more advanced since then.Right. But we are not talking about 'going' to Mars. It is a settlement being set up. I honestly would have doubts about a moon colony as well. A colony is different then a 'visit'. In addition a colony is significantly different than a space station. A colony needs to be able to function on its own. While I agree, we can accomplish great feats and in a short amount of time. But this just seems a little far fetch IMO. I guess it depends on how much they can keep to schedule. 2016 is not too far out. I wonder if they will even hit their first landing honestly.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Quote:
Mars One will take humanity to Mars in 2023, to establish the foundation of a permanent settlement from which we will prosper, learn, and grow. Before the first crew lands, Mars One will have established a habitable, sustainable settlement designed to receive new astronauts every two years. To accomplish this, Mars One has developed a precise, realistic plan based entirely upon existing technologies. It is both economically and logistically feasible, in motion through the aggregation of existing suppliers and experts in space exploration. We invite you to participate in this journey, by sharing our vision with your friends, by supporting our effort, and perhaps, by becoming the next Mars astronaut yourself.
Is this even realistic? 11 years?
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Mars is several magnitudes more inhospitable than Antarctica. Maintaining a relatively simple facility there is complicated and requires a complex resupply effort. Three huge problems: 1) Radiation. Mars has no radiation belt and no magnetosphere. You'd have to build underground; you can't just put up an airtight hut. 2) Water. People need lots of it. While there is evidence of water on mars, we don't know how much there is. 3) Low gravity. Mars as 38% of the gravity of earth. So far the evidence is that this would be problematic in the short term and likely lethal over the medium to long term. (Then there are issues of the tilt, the orbit and so forth.)
-
For NASA, yes, that is true. Mars One is a private enterprise. Interesting side note, the introductory video says that the astronauts will go there to live out the rest of their lives :~
Be The Noise
Karl Sanford wrote:
the introductory video says that the astronauts will go there to live out the rest of their lives
That counts me out (not that they'd ever count me in). I have a feeling the deer hunting on Mars isn't that great.
XAlan Burkhart
-
It means the only thing that's stopping them is something that is definitely possible. Maybe not in 11 years, though, but I guess we'll see.
harold aptroot wrote:
It means the only thing that's stopping them is something that is definitely possible.
Not sure what that means but unless the cost comes down significantly, where 'down' means in relation to economies that might be willing to do it, it isn't going to happen.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
It means the only thing that's stopping them is something that is definitely possible.
Not sure what that means but unless the cost comes down significantly, where 'down' means in relation to economies that might be willing to do it, it isn't going to happen.
-
Quote:
Mars One will take humanity to Mars in 2023, to establish the foundation of a permanent settlement from which we will prosper, learn, and grow. Before the first crew lands, Mars One will have established a habitable, sustainable settlement designed to receive new astronauts every two years. To accomplish this, Mars One has developed a precise, realistic plan based entirely upon existing technologies. It is both economically and logistically feasible, in motion through the aggregation of existing suppliers and experts in space exploration. We invite you to participate in this journey, by sharing our vision with your friends, by supporting our effort, and perhaps, by becoming the next Mars astronaut yourself.
Is this even realistic? 11 years?
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Wow, It's a planet just like our beautiful Earth.. Without the oceans, rainforests and life. What a great step forward. We lack the technology to live comfortably somewhere easy; like a desert or under the ocean. We are wiping out life. due to simple fundamental problems such as human population growth. Yet, the geniuses living in a box somewhere in 1950s NASA, think your future and mankinds' destiny is on a lifeless red hell-planet. Perhaps there will be a circa-eighties city there, and a woman with three breasts. I am ashamed of you all. yes it is a planet, but it is not earth. For many obvious reasons. Too many movies, not enough exercise, outside, in the fresh air.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
it's just that no one paid for it.
Which is exactly why one should wonder how realistic it is.
Also, we don't have a president like Kennedy who vowed that by the end of the decade, we would have a man on the moon. I don't think Obama, Bush, or any future president will say that. We have more important internal troubles to get over. Damn politics.
-
It means the only obstacle is not an insurmountable one. They would only need to wait until the donations + the expected value of the broadcasts are more than the costs. It's just a matter of time.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
They would only need to wait until the donations + the expected value of the broadcasts are more than the costs. It's just a matter of time.
Again unless the costs come down that is not going to happen.
-
Also, we don't have a president like Kennedy who vowed that by the end of the decade, we would have a man on the moon. I don't think Obama, Bush, or any future president will say that. We have more important internal troubles to get over. Damn politics.
James Lonero wrote:
Also, we don't have a president like Kennedy who vowed that by the end of the decade, we would have a man on the moon.
Which completely ignores the history of the time then and now. The reason that was possible then was mostly due to the cold war, the apparent success of the USSR and the very real fear of nuclear war. Fear is a great motivator. And of course the US was having a very successful economic boom and one that many people thought would last forever. If that had not been going on then the US would have probably gone to space and maybe the moon but certainly would not have kept going back.
-
Wow, It's a planet just like our beautiful Earth.. Without the oceans, rainforests and life. What a great step forward. We lack the technology to live comfortably somewhere easy; like a desert or under the ocean. We are wiping out life. due to simple fundamental problems such as human population growth. Yet, the geniuses living in a box somewhere in 1950s NASA, think your future and mankinds' destiny is on a lifeless red hell-planet. Perhaps there will be a circa-eighties city there, and a woman with three breasts. I am ashamed of you all. yes it is a planet, but it is not earth. For many obvious reasons. Too many movies, not enough exercise, outside, in the fresh air.
penguinman573 wrote:
We are wiping out life. due to simple fundamental problems such as human population growth.
Population grow is a problem but we are not "wiping out life".
penguinman573 wrote:
Too many movies, not enough exercise, outside, in the fresh air.
Too simplistic in many ways. First of course there is the simple fact that economic growth is the only known solution to population growth. So one could hypothesize that an economic boom caused by a growing space presence (wherever) which is fed by raw resources being sent to earth and high end goods being shipped out could produce such a boom. And if it occurred it is hard to see how it would not be a long running one as well. Other than that your statement has an implicit suggestion that quality of life is somehow worse now which ignores the fact that when people did in fact get more "exercise, outside, in the fresh air" it was because the vast majority were dirt farmers living day to day and life for all humans was significantly worse in all aspects.