It's a shame projects like this are getting ignored for the Mars nonsense. I think this is the real next step in making humanity a space faring species. There's an insanely long way to but we can...
It's a shame projects like this are getting ignored for the Mars nonsense. I think this is the real next step in making humanity a space faring species. There's an insanely long way to but we can do so much more with the moon.
The main stated goal of the Lunar Gateway is to develop technologies in preparation for a manned trip to Mars. So it's not getting ignored for the Mars nonsense, it's explicitly part of the Mars...
The main stated goal of the Lunar Gateway is to develop technologies in preparation for a manned trip to Mars. So it's not getting ignored for the Mars nonsense, it's explicitly part of the Mars nonsense.
Yes I know. I just think it’s a waste of effort. It’s eventually going to be obvious we’re not going to mars and I don’t love that things like this are possibly going to evaporate rather than be...
Yes I know. I just think it’s a waste of effort. It’s eventually going to be obvious we’re not going to mars and I don’t love that things like this are possibly going to evaporate rather than be reused for more reasonable goals
So is Gateway the real next step or a waste of effort? You've said both now, I can't tell where you actually stand. In my opinion we need to start somewhere. If telling Congress and the public...
So is Gateway the real next step or a waste of effort? You've said both now, I can't tell where you actually stand.
In my opinion we need to start somewhere. If telling Congress and the public we're shooting for Mars is what it takes to get the funding and political will to develop deep space exploration technologies then I am all for it. It's not even a lie; we'd like to get there eventually and we need to practice a lot of stuff on the Moon first.
It's the real next step but most people don't know that yet. Mars is a pipe dream. An extreme one. There's almost no arguments for mars that isn't better solved with the moon. The current proposal...
It's the real next step but most people don't know that yet.
Mars is a pipe dream. An extreme one. There's almost no arguments for mars that isn't better solved with the moon. The current proposal to get there is shaky at best, and I suspect it's going to fizzle. The actual idea that we're going to put people on mars, let alone any sort of real base, is sooo far from our current capabilities (or palnned ones) as to be fantasy.
We're eventually going to see the "mars program" die. Maaaaybe we put a team there and get them back (even that i'm extremely skeptical of), but it has no long term future. I understand from a marketing point that it's the sort of thing that gets people excited and ok with spending the money, but it's extremely foolish. Distance wise it's about the same as circumnavigating the globe rather than crossing the English channel.
I'm a layman when it comes to the topic (as I suspect most of us here are), but interested/enthusiastic nonetheless, and disagree. From my point of view, the primary downside of Mars is its...
I'm a layman when it comes to the topic (as I suspect most of us here are), but interested/enthusiastic nonetheless, and disagree.
From my point of view, the primary downside of Mars is its distance. Just about everything else about it is more suitable for long-term human habitation than the moon is — it's still extreme relative to any place on Earth's surface, but it's much less extreme than the moon in several respects.
Mars is not tidally locked and thus does not suffer month-long periods of light and darkness
Mars' day-night cycle is very similar to that of Earth, being only about one hour longer
Martian surface temperatures are not as extreme as those of the moon, and can even be Earth-like in some cases (noon at summer on its equator can reach 70°F/20°C)
The Martian atmosphere, though thin, provides a plentiful readily available feedstock of carbon and is thick enough to cut down surface radiation exposure significantly and helps regulate temperature
Martian gravity is significantly closer to that of Earth, which is likely better for humans physiologically and helps ensure that extraction, refinement, and manufacturing processes developed for Earth will work there will little to no adaptation
Martian regolith has undergone extensive erosion and is not sharp and statically charged like its lunar counterpart
…among other things.
With these factors in mind, I believe that if the issue of distance can be overcome and the trip to and from made safe and reliable, it's a better bet for long-term human habitation beyond small science outposts and pleasure cruises for tourists. I would also say that from a certain angle, the distance is actually a boon — it stresses the need to develop self-sustainability as soon as possible since Earth cannot serve as a convenient crutch, and the sooner there's self-sustaining offworld colonies the more likely it becomes that humanity will keep its spacefaring abilities permanently. Every day we're wholly dependent on Earth, the greater the chance that something catastrophic happens and we're marooned here until our extinction.
That's not to say I'm against missions to the moon or developing long-term human habitation there — in fact I'm a huge proponent of doing that and hope to see it happen sooner than later, but I fear the combination of its convenient access and challenging conditions will limit missions to lunar equivalents of antarctic science outposts and Bezos rocket rides, basically limiting it to a sandbox for scientists and wealthy people that governments and corporations can easily forget about if it becomes financially or politically advantageous to do so. I don't want to see a repeat of what happened to the Apollo program.
Short version, a lot of what you claim is overblown (again the atmosphere provides no meaningful protection from radiation for example. It's the magnetosphere that does that, and mars doesn't have one.), and there's a book coming out that while lite in tone has consolidated a lot of the information as to why it's such a bad idea in one place, and I think it's going to be a better discussion point for this in the future since too much of the mainstream knowledge of the subject has been influenced by misleading information portrayed in a less than accurate light.
What are the arguments in favor of sending people back to the moon? The usual argument I've heard is a vague assumption that it'll stimulate technological advances like the old Space Race did. The...
There's almost no arguments for mars that isn't better solved with the moon.
What are the arguments in favor of sending people back to the moon? The usual argument I've heard is a vague assumption that it'll stimulate technological advances like the old Space Race did. The best proposal I've seen is for a lunar observatory. I'm not convinced it would be worth the cost, not just in money and resources, but in lives.
My suspicion is that deep down, people just think it'd be cool, and it would. But we've been there already, and it's cooler to go further and set foot on Mars. I think that's a far as the Mars fanboys get, and honestly, I don't think it's all that much dumber than the weak rationalizations for another lunar program.
How are we ever going to advance into bigger and better space travel if we don't...space travel? You don't learn how to design a better car by sitting in a workshop and never trying things....
How are we ever going to advance into bigger and better space travel if we don't...space travel?
You don't learn how to design a better car by sitting in a workshop and never trying things.
Science needs testing, iteration, improvement, learning. All of that can only be obtained by doing the thing you're trying to do. Simulations will never be 100% accurate or catch everything. Real world testing is a must for any real advancement.
What suggests bigger and better space travel is feasible? Interplanetary travel is certainly within the realm of possibility, but without concrete reasons to do so it won't be sustainable. The...
How are we ever going to advance into bigger and better space travel if we don't...space travel?
What suggests bigger and better space travel is feasible? Interplanetary travel is certainly within the realm of possibility, but without concrete reasons to do so it won't be sustainable. The costs are simply too great. We just don't need anything out there badly enough to endure the costs of regular interplanetary travel, and even if we did, unmanned missions could likely accomplish everything we'd want to get done with far less risk and cost.
I like the idea of zooming around the galaxy as much as the next nerd, but sadly, I believe that will probably remain a fantasy.
Space can provide one resource that's become increasingly scarce here on earth, which is a frontier. Frontiers are important because they offer an outlet for the restless, a heightened sense of...
Space can provide one resource that's become increasingly scarce here on earth, which is a frontier. Frontiers are important because they offer an outlet for the restless, a heightened sense of purpose and impact, and a place unencumbered by entrenched interests to play with new ideas (and thus, room for growth as a species).
To borrow a greenhouse term, humanity is becoming root-bound here on Earth, the symptoms of which are becoming more apparent by the day. It needs somewhere to stretch its legs and blow off steam, and I think offworld colonies in some form or another are one of the only ways to meet that need.
There's lots of free resources out in space, much of it just floating around waiting to be picked up. That might not necessarily lead to interplanetary travel, but travelling to the asteroids will...
Interplanetary travel is certainly within the realm of possibility, but without concrete reasons to do so it won't be sustainable.
There's lots of free resources out in space, much of it just floating around waiting to be picked up. That might not necessarily lead to interplanetary travel, but travelling to the asteroids will involve the same technology that could be used to travel to planets.
I was actually thinking specifically of the belt when I wrote that, so I guess that qualifies as "interplanetary" to my mind. Also, what resources are floating around that we need that we don't...
I was actually thinking specifically of the belt when I wrote that, so I guess that qualifies as "interplanetary" to my mind.
Also, what resources are floating around that we need that we don't already have here on Earth? Everything from Mercury out to the asteroid belt is composed primarily of iron and nickel, neither of which we're running particularly low on. The problem is that the rocks we'll find out there are made from the same stuff as the rock we're on. I guess you could argue that the hydrogen and helium in the gas giants would be useful to have, but gas extraction from them would be whole other endeavor that we're nowhere near capable of at present.
Like I said elsewhere, I like the idea of space travel, it just doesn't make much practical sense to me.
There aren't many, but mars has been sold partly on the dream of "we could colonize there because it's more similar to earth than the moon!", which while technically true, isn't usefully so. It'd...
There aren't many, but mars has been sold partly on the dream of "we could colonize there because it's more similar to earth than the moon!", which while technically true, isn't usefully so. It'd like sailing across the world (twice) to colonize a desert that's 2 degree's cooler than the desert right next to your city.
I'm all for mars being a "look how far we've come" goal. If the tech makes it easy enough to put a human on mars and return them, great. Go ahead and do missions. Get even more data on the planet, and look into things more. That's not the case right now at all. The plan is outlandish, at best, and even ignoring the over-hyped deadlines and technologies, it's dangerously fragile.
To not ignore the over hyping, I really do hate it. The number of people who thought (and some still do) we'd have a spaceship orbiting earth by now that could hold 100ish people show's how poorly any of this stuff is understood, and how quick they are to believe someone claiming as much. Again it falls in the "i suppose technically it's possible" but so would tunneling under the Atlantic ocean, and as proposed it's nothing more than fantasy.
I get that "over promise to get interest" is part of the game (although i think it's shortsighted usually), but these claims are eventually going to bite us in the ass.
Mars' desert is substantially better in ways that matter, there's a far more regular length day and a thin but measurable atmosphere, which cuts surface radiation by a large amount. Mars also has...
Mars' desert is substantially better in ways that matter, there's a far more regular length day and a thin but measurable atmosphere, which cuts surface radiation by a large amount. Mars also has much more carbon available than the moon, needed for life. Mars' surface gravity is much higher than the Moon. Mars also likely has significantly larger supplies of water ice than the Moon, useful for drinking and hydrogen supply. All in all, the fact that Mars is an actual planet makes it significantly better to colonize than the Moon. I believe that eventually there will be colonies on Mars, but I'm less certain of the Moon. My instinct is to say there will never be permanent settlements, only work camps for space based industry.
These are the usual arguments yes, and the short version is they're all heavily overstated. To call out two that are easier to verify: The atmosphere on mars does not cut surface radiation by a...
These are the usual arguments yes, and the short version is they're all heavily overstated.
To call out two that are easier to verify:
The atmosphere on mars does not cut surface radiation by a large amount. It barely cuts it at all (since there's no magnetosphere, which is a huge portion of the protection). It's to the point for a human to colony to survive, you'll need equivalent shielding on either body.
Likewise the surface gravity of Mars is less than half of Earths. Yes the moon is roughly half of Mars (thus a quarter of Earth's), but both are low enough it's very likely you'll need the same setup for life to work there. Once again making the absurd trip to mars a much worse alternative.
This theme continues, but it's gotten a lot harder to research/source since the push in the last few years to hypothesize otherwise (it's still out there, but I really don't desire digging through all the media articles just regurgitating pipe dreams and speculation). The big issue is that at the end of the day, Mars is not likely to be self sustaining in any form or fashion for a very very very long time.
I suspect the release of https://www.acityonmars.com/ is going to dash a lot of dreams and bring up the same research I and others have bumped into looking into this, and be better sourced than anything I could offhandedly come up with, and I'm kinda just willing to wait for that to come out at this point rather than dig as hard as I have in the past whenever it comes up.
Just remember the moon is 228k miles from the earth, while mars is, at its closest, 33.9 million. So 148 times farther away than the moon in the most hostile and empty environment known. If you have to supply a colony, you're going to pick the closer one, and I'm quite positive you will.
The levels surface radiation on Mars is still under debate. A casual google brought up this paper, quote: "In this paper, we study the radiation level induced by SEPs at different locations on...
The levels surface radiation on Mars is still under debate. A casual google brought up this paper, quote: "In this paper, we study the radiation level induced by SEPs at different locations on Mars and find that the Martian atmosphere, even with the thinnest conditions on top of Mount Olympus, can reduce at least 65% of the radiation dose."
Even worse, many people assume radiation based on looking straight up at the zenith, while obviously the rest of the sky is going to be the larger source due to its larger area. Using an average of 45 degrees from the horizon interposes over 40% more mass.
As for gravity, that is still being looked at as well. We haven't spent enough time in reduced gravity to know the effects on Earth physiology, as the ISS is in free-fall weightlessness instead of experiencing a lower gravitational force. I'm inclined to believe that more gravity is better, but of course this remains to be seen.
Distance is conceivably its own problem... but if things are truly going wrong in space, I'm not sure there will be a huge difference between days and months.
Edit: I have to rewrite my edits as they included some bad/misread info. Background radiation on Mars varies but seems to lie between 20-30 rem/year. Nuclear workers are regulated to 5 rem/year whole-body accumulated dose. The Moon hits around 50-55 rem/year, so around twice that of Mars. Physiological effects described as "changes in blood" start at around 25 rem in a prompt dose. Extended doses are less clear, presumably increasing cancer risk.
Capturing /mining asteroids is hard, lifting mass from the moon is easier than from Earth; is I think the main argument I've heard. Also ongoing long term low gravity research / survivability...
Capturing /mining asteroids is hard, lifting mass from the moon is easier than from Earth; is I think the main argument I've heard. Also ongoing long term low gravity research / survivability studies. Sure best case we build a bigger space station or capture an asteroid in a lower orbit, but ~3 days for a rescue/resupply mission is a long ways better than it is for anything farther out.
Mars has all the problems the moon has and significantly lower tolerance for those problems, in transit or on the surface. Sure it's possible people'd find some benefits once they're there, but that's quite the gamble when the exploration stuff can be done by robots and the engineering stuff can be done closer to home.
... not ever? Or just not by the 2030s? I agree that we might not make it to Mars by next decade. Or, if we do, it'll be a token landing of a couple of people with no lasting impact. But humans...
It’s eventually going to be obvious we’re not going to mars
I agree that we might not make it to Mars by next decade. Or, if we do, it'll be a token landing of a couple of people with no lasting impact.
But humans will eventually go to Mars. There will be human colonies on Mars within the next century. It's practically inevitable. Humans have never not gone somewhere once they've figured out how to get there. We covered almost all of Earth by foot, then by boat, then by aircraft. We reached the Moon. And then we didn't. But that was because we didn't plan to stay on the Moon: it was just one American President's crazy dream to compete against the Russians during the Cold War. Once we got there, we didn't have a plan for how to stay there. But, 50 years later, humans are going back to the Moon. This time, we're taking it slower, and we'll eventually get there and stay there.
And there's absolutely no reason we won't then move on to the other planets in the Solar System - starting with Mars.
I don't think we're going to have a manned colony on mars until we've done it on the moon, and I think that's not happening for at least 100 years for a whole slew of reasons. The "not ever"...
I don't think we're going to have a manned colony on mars until we've done it on the moon, and I think that's not happening for at least 100 years for a whole slew of reasons.
The "not ever" probably falls into "well we could nuke ourselves to dust/die out before then", but yes, we'll eventually try to colonize mars, but not until it makes sense. With the moon absurdly closer and just as hostile, I don't see any push for mars happening until it's either trivial (requiring not just multiple tech breakthroughs but serious space infrastructure like stations/skyhooks/elevators/whatever) or necessary (moon no longer meets needs). In both cases the fact we don't even have a manned station that can hold 50 people speaks volumes to me, as even that is easier than the moon.
Timelines on this strike me as very optimistic and somewhat blinded by the crazy pace tech took from the industrial revolution. I think we're starting to see some of the serious limits of our technology and how big the gulf is to the next step, and that's ignoring the unstable nature of society.
I agree that we'll go to the Moon first. It's a necessary first step before going to Mars, whether we're testing rocketry or colonisation. Either way, as you rightly point out, the Moon is closer...
I agree that we'll go to the Moon first. It's a necessary first step before going to Mars, whether we're testing rocketry or colonisation. Either way, as you rightly point out, the Moon is closer and therefore easier to get to. We will definitely have a colony on the Moon before we have a colony on Mars.
However, I think your timelines are pessimistic. Humanity went from having zero space capability to landing people on the Moon within just 12 years. We can do it if we try hard enough. However, that 1960s space race was done for all the wrong reasons, and done in the wrong way. It was not done with a view to the long-term prospect of colonising the Moon, or even just having scientific and mining bases there. It was done solely for the purpose of one country having bragging rights over another country, and whatever achieved that goal was good enough.
There's a big difference between doing a job just good enough, and doing it properly. In the 1960s, we did a "good enough" job to get to the Moon. This time around, we're doing it properly.
For one thing, we're working more slowly and methodically. For another thing, it's not just one country leading the way. There are multiple countries (and supra-national unions) working towards getting to the Moon.
This time around, even private industry is involved. Because there is profit to be found in space. Not on the surface of planets, but orbiting freely. There are huge chunks of free resources just floating out in space, for whoever wants to go get them: asteroids, comets, even some satellites. That's profit. That will take private investment beyond Earth orbit, and into space.
And, eventually, inevitably, all this activity in Earth orbit, on the Moon, and in the asteroid belt, will lead to people going to Mars. For one thing, it's a great jumping-off point to mine the asteroids: the gravity well on Mars is shallower and therefore less expensive, and it's simply closer to the great big chunks of free resources in the asteroid belt.
Also, I think you're overlooking the fact that, apart from the travel time, colonising Mars is easier than colonising the Moon. There is at least a minimal atmosphere on Mars, to provide slightly more protection against solar radiation. The gravity is closer to Earth-normal. There's more free water on the surface. And so on. Everything we do to colonise the Moon will be so much easier to do on Mars. Even getting to Mars is easier from the Moon, because of the aforementioned shallow gravity wells on both objects, compared to Earth. And, after we've done it on the Moon, we'll have experience for doing the same thing on Mars. (And that's not even considering terraforming Mars!)
I therefore believe that colonising the Moon from Earth will be harder than colonising Mars from the Moon. Having achieved the former, the latter will follow quickly.
I agree completely with your sentiment about the 60's space race, but I have misgivings on the rest. This is mentioned all the time, and it seriously ignores how historically things have worked....
I agree completely with your sentiment about the 60's space race, but I have misgivings on the rest.
Humanity went from having zero space capability to landing people on the Moon within just 12 years. We can do it if we try hard enough.
This is mentioned all the time, and it seriously ignores how historically things have worked. Yes we had a technological boom and the right mixture of goals and industry to brute force our way to the moon in a pretty short period of time. The problem is we've solved basically none of the major problems from them in the ensuing 60 years.
We still have no graceful way to get into space. It's just a massive rocket. This is hellishly inefficient, and while research on space planes, scram jets, and even hypothetical's like the sky hook have been done, we're still at "use an absurd amount of fuel on a hyper expensive machine that causes scaling fuel cost issues". In fact, the only thing we've gotten better at is doing it badly (more efficient rockets, landing them, and higher lift loads. And i'm still curious to see how reusable they are given the challenger and the shuttle were supposed to be as well).
We still have no graceful way of returning from space. Because of the aforementioned issue with scaling fuel, we only take the absolute bare minimum to do the trip safely, and that doesn't leave enough to slow down any other way than screaming into the atmosphere at a blistering mach 20 with catastrophic results if anything even slightly goes wrong.
We still have no way of resupplying/extending supplies in space. Again thanks to scaling fuel, you're stuck with every ounce being a huge huge problem. Every drink, every meal, every replacement piece is more and more fuel, and it all has to come from earth. The proposed plan of multiple launches to an orbiting vessel preceded by orbiting/mars based resupplies is both unimaginably inefficient and something we essentially could've done in the 60s. There have been very very few changes to the hard math.
We haven't even seriously experimented with putting nuclear engines in space (for some very good reasons), which would at least change the energy/fuel issues.
It's all the same barriers, and we've got no better answers. Just more efficient inefficient methods. At some point you have to stop sharpening stone and discover iron or you're not going to progress, and we're still very much in the stone age space wise.
For one thing, we're working more slowly and methodically. For another thing, it's not just one country leading the way. There are multiple countries (and supra-national unions) working towards getting to the Moon.
I think we're slower and more methodical mostly because we had to go back to the drawing board, came up with the same design as before, and then had to start over completely because basically everything was so out of date it needed to be brought up to spec anyways. The other countries are interesting, but so far have been following the same bad path the US and Russia blazed, and none of have super promising results (although more on that in a bit).
This time around, even private industry is involved. Because there is profit to be found in space. Not on the surface of planets, but orbiting freely. There are huge chunks of free resources just floating out in space, for whoever wants to go get them: asteroids, comets, even some satellites. That's profit. That will take private investment beyond Earth orbit, and into space.
This is both true and very very wrong.
The only promising ways being researched to "mine an asteroid" mostly involve sending out probes which alter its orbit (a much much easier task than I ever thought, although very slow) to be closer to earth (moonish). The reason for this is that, even with current tech, if the moon was made of printer ink (probably the most expensive item per ounce the average person has interacted with), you wouldn't even come close to making a profit mining it. Let alone valuable but stupidly heavy metals like gold. The costs are that extreme. The asteroids of gold/platinum/whatever that always get talked about aren't even financially close to viable, and that's before you even consider that you're flooding the market and only going to make a major profit if you also have a disgustingly dangerous monopoly/cartel. Oh and remember that we still have no good way of getting that stuff back. Flying out to one of those asteroids could easily be even farther than Mars, and then you have to get it BACK and then even more so, back into the earths atmosphere.
So that said, there is profit in space. Mostly in satellites, information, and warfare. We're a hell of a lot more likely to hit kessler syndrome style issues before we ever come close to turning a profit on any matter mined from space. More and more companies and governments are seeing the value of putting up vast arrays of satellites (as that has gotten cheaper since they don't need to eat), and they're absolutely seeing the value of blowing them up should a war break out. China and the US (and maybe russia? I forget) have already proved this capability.
Point being, there is no money to be made in space with current tech at lunar orbit. All the money that can be made, and that is attracting private industry, is mostly much much closer.
And, eventually, inevitably, all this activity in Earth orbit, on the Moon, and in the asteroid belt, will lead to people going to Mars. For one thing, it's a great jumping-off point to mine the asteroids: the gravity well on Mars is shallower and therefore less expensive, and it's simply closer to the great big chunks of free resources in the asteroid belt.
Also, I think you're overlooking the fact that, apart from the travel time, colonizing Mars is easier than colonizing the Moon. There is at least a minimal atmosphere on Mars, to provide slightly more protection against solar radiation. The gravity is closer to Earth-normal. There's more free water on the surface. And so on. Everything we do to colonize the Moon will be so much easier to do on Mars. Even getting to Mars is easier from the Moon, because of the aforementioned shallow gravity wells on both objects, compared to Earth. And, after we've done it on the Moon, we'll have experience for doing the same thing on Mars. (And that's not even considering terraforming Mars!)
I've answered most of this elsewhere, so the quick version-
Most of the asteroids worth mining are farther out than mars. So assuming actual travel to them means they're way beyond the "get to mars" phase.
All these "advantages" that make mars easier to colonize technically exist, and with current technology amount to very very little that actually matters. There's less radiation, it's still enough to cancer the hell out of every human...so you need the same kind of shielding/tunneling you'll need on the moon. There's more gravity. It's looking like it's not enough for humans to live/procreate, so you'll need the same kind of centrifuge you'd need on the moon. etc.
There's no way we're doing mars until we have a way of actually staging missions from space, and getting past a lot of the very real physics issues we currently face. IF something like a skyhook or a space elevator becomes possible/is built, that could change things drastically (as suddenly the horrible physics go away). Alternatively a major space station (housing 50-200 people) is probably the next step. Being able to stage up enough equipment would be horrendously expensive, but again break apart the physics issues and at least make our current plan of just having something sit in orbit to hold supplies be more sustainable. If it's big enough to actually construct other ships, those won't have to deal with nearly as much gravity/atmosphere, and could accomplish much much more. Further having a more serious presence in space (close enough to where it might be feasible to maintain) will hopefully lead to more and more development of real solutions to the problems of space travel, not just sharper rocks.
Mars is for optics. The mission of Mars is more acceptable and exciting for the average every day voter than a space station or satellites. Those are 'normal' but Mars is 'novel'. Mars is...
It's a shame projects like this are getting ignored for the Mars nonsense
Mars is for optics. The mission of Mars is more acceptable and exciting for the average every day voter than a space station or satellites. Those are 'normal' but Mars is 'novel'.
Mars is marketing for more realistic actions. Once you read any PR in that way, it makes a lot more sense. Now, Mars is the ultimate goal., but overall it's a marketing gimmick.
Edit: Reading your other comment "It’s eventually going to be obvious we’re not going to mars"
Is there a reason that you put "voter" inside triple-parentheses like this? It sets off alarm bells for me since that's commonly used for antisemitic purposes in by those in the far-right, but I...
(((voter)))
Is there a reason that you put "voter" inside triple-parentheses like this? It sets off alarm bells for me since that's commonly used for antisemitic purposes in by those in the far-right, but I assume that's not your purpose here.
Edit: have become more aware, replaced with quotes. Thanks everyone.
No, that's just used for emphasis within my communities (mostly on LGBTQ+ servers and websites for... a decade? at least).
Commonly made for emphasis when there's more nuance, such as "voters, because politicians need to explain why space industry benefits their communities and jobs" for those in the know, not that it's more for overall public awareness, but voter awareness.
Edit: have become more aware, replaced with quotes. Thanks everyone.
@sparksbet is spot-on about there being a sinister racist meaning for triple parentheses. I picked up on the same thing, and was going to bring it to your attention - but they beat me to it. Your...
@sparksbet is spot-on about there being a sinister racist meaning for triple parentheses. I picked up on the same thing, and was going to bring it to your attention - but they beat me to it.
Your intentions might be pure, but that symbology has been subverted, and it now identifies you as an anti-semite, whether you intend that or not.
If you want to emphasise a word, you can use italics, or bold, or ALL CAPS, or even "scare quotes". But triple parentheses are no longer suitable for that purpose.
Yeah, definitely news to me. Thanks for letting me know! I've edited the comment, but yeah definitely subverted because I have been seeing that for a lot longer than the article states.
Yeah, definitely news to me. Thanks for letting me know! I've edited the comment, but yeah definitely subverted because I have been seeing that for a lot longer than the article states.
ah yeah we must be in different circles, I haven't encountered it in queer spaces. The far right use it to label something/someone as Jewish, so unfortunately it's probably wise to pick other...
ah yeah we must be in different circles, I haven't encountered it in queer spaces. The far right use it to label something/someone as Jewish, so unfortunately it's probably wise to pick other methods for emphasis instead of using it innocently and giving the wrong impression.
By what definition? I think that we might be able to put a person down and get them back, i doubt we'll do much more for 500+ years barring serious breakthroughs in fusion or some similar major...
We are definitely going to Mars.
By what definition? I think that we might be able to put a person down and get them back, i doubt we'll do much more for 500+ years barring serious breakthroughs in fusion or some similar major energy leap.
Most of the current plans are overly complex "well it's technically possible" nonsesnse, and the only reason it's mars instead of the moon is because, as you pointed out, it's way more exciting and gets funding. The difference in distances is insane, and the benefit so small it wouldn't be worth traveling farther if it was only 1 day farther, let alone the gulf it actually is.
I think it's very unlikely that there will be no breakthroughs in energy over the next 500 years. I know people say that fusion is 30 years away and always will be, but we are making tangible...
i doubt we'll do much more for 500+ years barring serious breakthroughs in fusion or some similar major energy leap.
I think it's very unlikely that there will be no breakthroughs in energy over the next 500 years.
I know people say that fusion is 30 years away and always will be, but we are making tangible progress toward it. Here's an overview of the state of the fusion industry; there are enough different countries and companies working on different approaches to fusion that it seems very unlikely that all of them will fail. The author of this article (who works in the industry) predicts a 90% chance someone will succeed by 2040.
Even if it takes twice as long as this guy thinks it will, and then several more decades to fit it into a spaceship, I think 500 years is unrealistically pessimistic.
I'll just say he'd hardly be the first expert in a field to be either over optimistic, or just wrong but couldn't have possibly known it. I'm hopeful it'll happen by then, as it could usher in the...
I'll just say he'd hardly be the first expert in a field to be either over optimistic, or just wrong but couldn't have possibly known it. I'm hopeful it'll happen by then, as it could usher in the next age for humanity, but until the entire industry is clamoring about it, and we're seeing movement from the commercial/government/military sectors, I think it's still too far out to reliably pin a date on it (as everyone who's tried before has been wrong).
Fusion is only a part of the puzzle, and just because we get it net positive, doesn't mean it's going to suddenly be useful. There's still a huge puzzle of making it "production ready" let alone "launch it into space" ready.
Then there's the simple issue of "why". Anything you can do on mars, you can do on the moon easier. Fusion or some similar energy breakthrough might make getting to mars easier, but it's also going to make the moon a much more attractive target, and I suspect that'd be where the majority of any effort goes. And that's ignoring the VAST changes such technology will cause on earth first.
Reasonable people can differ on this, but I don't see Mars as the ultimate goal. Mars and the moon are both part of the larger project of humanity stepping out into the solar system, just like the...
Reasonable people can differ on this, but I don't see Mars as the ultimate goal. Mars and the moon are both part of the larger project of humanity stepping out into the solar system, just like the Apollo missions and the ISS.
That's why I don't see much conflict between going to the moon and going to Mars. The moon is easier; we'll want to spend a good amount of time building infrastructure on and around the moon before we strike out for Mars. But assuming civilization survives, they will both happen eventually. And Mars is not the last stop: we can expand into the asteroid belt, access its vast mineral wealth, and hollow out rocks to build homes inside. Once we do that, the rest of the solar system is in reach.
The most important competition isn't between the moon and Mars. It's do we want to explore space, or not? Lots of people think we shouldn't—that our problems are at home and we should focus on them. And we do have important problems here, but I think that will always be true, and I don't think space exploration detracts from fighting climate change. Space exploration gives us new technologies and new ideas, and (for me, at least) it counteracts the burnout I get from reading bad news every day. But not everyone feels that way.
I don't think this is true. This article shows that both the moon and mars are about equally popular, and in my personal experience, the fact that Artemis is technically a step on the path towards...
I don't think this is true. This article shows that both the moon and mars are about equally popular, and in my personal experience, the fact that Artemis is technically a step on the path towards a manned mars mission is very obscure and not widely popularised by NASA. This is partially because the official NASA Mars architecture is not very well fleshed out and right now makes zero sense, and will IMO likely be kicked down to the next administrator for a while due to massive funding increases that would be required to accomplish it, which NASA never get given. Their funding is basically constant since post-Apollo, yet they're meant to be doing more and more. A mars mission is only really financially viable in the near term with a pared down, more risky approach which NASA/US gov wouldn't like, or Elon YOLOing all of SpaceX into funding it (conditional on starship being as good as promised), which are both unlikely.
The Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) and the Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO), the foundational elements of Gateway, which will launch together, were initially planned to launch this...
The Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) and the Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO), the foundational elements of Gateway, which will launch together, were initially planned to launch this year, but now the timeline they are putting out states, "no earlier than November 2025."
It's a shame projects like this are getting ignored for the Mars nonsense. I think this is the real next step in making humanity a space faring species. There's an insanely long way to but we can do so much more with the moon.
The main stated goal of the Lunar Gateway is to develop technologies in preparation for a manned trip to Mars. So it's not getting ignored for the Mars nonsense, it's explicitly part of the Mars nonsense.
Yes, but contrary to planning out mars dome colonies and other scifi bullshit, this is actually realistically possible.
Yes I know. I just think it’s a waste of effort. It’s eventually going to be obvious we’re not going to mars and I don’t love that things like this are possibly going to evaporate rather than be reused for more reasonable goals
So is Gateway the real next step or a waste of effort? You've said both now, I can't tell where you actually stand.
In my opinion we need to start somewhere. If telling Congress and the public we're shooting for Mars is what it takes to get the funding and political will to develop deep space exploration technologies then I am all for it. It's not even a lie; we'd like to get there eventually and we need to practice a lot of stuff on the Moon first.
It's the real next step but most people don't know that yet.
Mars is a pipe dream. An extreme one. There's almost no arguments for mars that isn't better solved with the moon. The current proposal to get there is shaky at best, and I suspect it's going to fizzle. The actual idea that we're going to put people on mars, let alone any sort of real base, is sooo far from our current capabilities (or palnned ones) as to be fantasy.
We're eventually going to see the "mars program" die. Maaaaybe we put a team there and get them back (even that i'm extremely skeptical of), but it has no long term future. I understand from a marketing point that it's the sort of thing that gets people excited and ok with spending the money, but it's extremely foolish. Distance wise it's about the same as circumnavigating the globe rather than crossing the English channel.
I'm a layman when it comes to the topic (as I suspect most of us here are), but interested/enthusiastic nonetheless, and disagree.
From my point of view, the primary downside of Mars is its distance. Just about everything else about it is more suitable for long-term human habitation than the moon is — it's still extreme relative to any place on Earth's surface, but it's much less extreme than the moon in several respects.
…among other things.
With these factors in mind, I believe that if the issue of distance can be overcome and the trip to and from made safe and reliable, it's a better bet for long-term human habitation beyond small science outposts and pleasure cruises for tourists. I would also say that from a certain angle, the distance is actually a boon — it stresses the need to develop self-sustainability as soon as possible since Earth cannot serve as a convenient crutch, and the sooner there's self-sustaining offworld colonies the more likely it becomes that humanity will keep its spacefaring abilities permanently. Every day we're wholly dependent on Earth, the greater the chance that something catastrophic happens and we're marooned here until our extinction.
That's not to say I'm against missions to the moon or developing long-term human habitation there — in fact I'm a huge proponent of doing that and hope to see it happen sooner than later, but I fear the combination of its convenient access and challenging conditions will limit missions to lunar equivalents of antarctic science outposts and Bezos rocket rides, basically limiting it to a sandbox for scientists and wealthy people that governments and corporations can easily forget about if it becomes financially or politically advantageous to do so. I don't want to see a repeat of what happened to the Apollo program.
I think my comment here is about as much as I'm willing to go into it: https://tildes.net/~space/18px/gateway_an_overview_of_a_proposed_small_human_tended_space_station_orbiting_the_moon#comment-9vli
Short version, a lot of what you claim is overblown (again the atmosphere provides no meaningful protection from radiation for example. It's the magnetosphere that does that, and mars doesn't have one.), and there's a book coming out that while lite in tone has consolidated a lot of the information as to why it's such a bad idea in one place, and I think it's going to be a better discussion point for this in the future since too much of the mainstream knowledge of the subject has been influenced by misleading information portrayed in a less than accurate light.
What are the arguments in favor of sending people back to the moon? The usual argument I've heard is a vague assumption that it'll stimulate technological advances like the old Space Race did. The best proposal I've seen is for a lunar observatory. I'm not convinced it would be worth the cost, not just in money and resources, but in lives.
My suspicion is that deep down, people just think it'd be cool, and it would. But we've been there already, and it's cooler to go further and set foot on Mars. I think that's a far as the Mars fanboys get, and honestly, I don't think it's all that much dumber than the weak rationalizations for another lunar program.
How are we ever going to advance into bigger and better space travel if we don't...space travel?
You don't learn how to design a better car by sitting in a workshop and never trying things.
Science needs testing, iteration, improvement, learning. All of that can only be obtained by doing the thing you're trying to do. Simulations will never be 100% accurate or catch everything. Real world testing is a must for any real advancement.
What suggests bigger and better space travel is feasible? Interplanetary travel is certainly within the realm of possibility, but without concrete reasons to do so it won't be sustainable. The costs are simply too great. We just don't need anything out there badly enough to endure the costs of regular interplanetary travel, and even if we did, unmanned missions could likely accomplish everything we'd want to get done with far less risk and cost.
I like the idea of zooming around the galaxy as much as the next nerd, but sadly, I believe that will probably remain a fantasy.
Space can provide one resource that's become increasingly scarce here on earth, which is a frontier. Frontiers are important because they offer an outlet for the restless, a heightened sense of purpose and impact, and a place unencumbered by entrenched interests to play with new ideas (and thus, room for growth as a species).
To borrow a greenhouse term, humanity is becoming root-bound here on Earth, the symptoms of which are becoming more apparent by the day. It needs somewhere to stretch its legs and blow off steam, and I think offworld colonies in some form or another are one of the only ways to meet that need.
There's lots of free resources out in space, much of it just floating around waiting to be picked up. That might not necessarily lead to interplanetary travel, but travelling to the asteroids will involve the same technology that could be used to travel to planets.
I was actually thinking specifically of the belt when I wrote that, so I guess that qualifies as "interplanetary" to my mind.
Also, what resources are floating around that we need that we don't already have here on Earth? Everything from Mercury out to the asteroid belt is composed primarily of iron and nickel, neither of which we're running particularly low on. The problem is that the rocks we'll find out there are made from the same stuff as the rock we're on. I guess you could argue that the hydrogen and helium in the gas giants would be useful to have, but gas extraction from them would be whole other endeavor that we're nowhere near capable of at present.
Like I said elsewhere, I like the idea of space travel, it just doesn't make much practical sense to me.
There aren't many, but mars has been sold partly on the dream of "we could colonize there because it's more similar to earth than the moon!", which while technically true, isn't usefully so. It'd like sailing across the world (twice) to colonize a desert that's 2 degree's cooler than the desert right next to your city.
I'm all for mars being a "look how far we've come" goal. If the tech makes it easy enough to put a human on mars and return them, great. Go ahead and do missions. Get even more data on the planet, and look into things more. That's not the case right now at all. The plan is outlandish, at best, and even ignoring the over-hyped deadlines and technologies, it's dangerously fragile.
To not ignore the over hyping, I really do hate it. The number of people who thought (and some still do) we'd have a spaceship orbiting earth by now that could hold 100ish people show's how poorly any of this stuff is understood, and how quick they are to believe someone claiming as much. Again it falls in the "i suppose technically it's possible" but so would tunneling under the Atlantic ocean, and as proposed it's nothing more than fantasy.
I get that "over promise to get interest" is part of the game (although i think it's shortsighted usually), but these claims are eventually going to bite us in the ass.
Mars' desert is substantially better in ways that matter, there's a far more regular length day and a thin but measurable atmosphere, which cuts surface radiation by a large amount. Mars also has much more carbon available than the moon, needed for life. Mars' surface gravity is much higher than the Moon. Mars also likely has significantly larger supplies of water ice than the Moon, useful for drinking and hydrogen supply. All in all, the fact that Mars is an actual planet makes it significantly better to colonize than the Moon. I believe that eventually there will be colonies on Mars, but I'm less certain of the Moon. My instinct is to say there will never be permanent settlements, only work camps for space based industry.
These are the usual arguments yes, and the short version is they're all heavily overstated.
To call out two that are easier to verify:
The atmosphere on mars does not cut surface radiation by a large amount. It barely cuts it at all (since there's no magnetosphere, which is a huge portion of the protection). It's to the point for a human to colony to survive, you'll need equivalent shielding on either body.
Likewise the surface gravity of Mars is less than half of Earths. Yes the moon is roughly half of Mars (thus a quarter of Earth's), but both are low enough it's very likely you'll need the same setup for life to work there. Once again making the absurd trip to mars a much worse alternative.
This theme continues, but it's gotten a lot harder to research/source since the push in the last few years to hypothesize otherwise (it's still out there, but I really don't desire digging through all the media articles just regurgitating pipe dreams and speculation). The big issue is that at the end of the day, Mars is not likely to be self sustaining in any form or fashion for a very very very long time.
I suspect the release of https://www.acityonmars.com/ is going to dash a lot of dreams and bring up the same research I and others have bumped into looking into this, and be better sourced than anything I could offhandedly come up with, and I'm kinda just willing to wait for that to come out at this point rather than dig as hard as I have in the past whenever it comes up.
Just remember the moon is 228k miles from the earth, while mars is, at its closest, 33.9 million. So 148 times farther away than the moon in the most hostile and empty environment known. If you have to supply a colony, you're going to pick the closer one, and I'm quite positive you will.
The levels surface radiation on Mars is still under debate. A casual google brought up this paper, quote: "In this paper, we study the radiation level induced by SEPs at different locations on Mars and find that the Martian atmosphere, even with the thinnest conditions on top of Mount Olympus, can reduce at least 65% of the radiation dose."
Even worse, many people assume radiation based on looking straight up at the zenith, while obviously the rest of the sky is going to be the larger source due to its larger area. Using an average of 45 degrees from the horizon interposes over 40% more mass.
As for gravity, that is still being looked at as well. We haven't spent enough time in reduced gravity to know the effects on Earth physiology, as the ISS is in free-fall weightlessness instead of experiencing a lower gravitational force. I'm inclined to believe that more gravity is better, but of course this remains to be seen.
Distance is conceivably its own problem... but if things are truly going wrong in space, I'm not sure there will be a huge difference between days and months.
Edit: I have to rewrite my edits as they included some bad/misread info. Background radiation on Mars varies but seems to lie between 20-30 rem/year. Nuclear workers are regulated to 5 rem/year whole-body accumulated dose. The Moon hits around 50-55 rem/year, so around twice that of Mars. Physiological effects described as "changes in blood" start at around 25 rem in a prompt dose. Extended doses are less clear, presumably increasing cancer risk.
Capturing /mining asteroids is hard, lifting mass from the moon is easier than from Earth; is I think the main argument I've heard. Also ongoing long term low gravity research / survivability studies. Sure best case we build a bigger space station or capture an asteroid in a lower orbit, but ~3 days for a rescue/resupply mission is a long ways better than it is for anything farther out.
Mars has all the problems the moon has and significantly lower tolerance for those problems, in transit or on the surface. Sure it's possible people'd find some benefits once they're there, but that's quite the gamble when the exploration stuff can be done by robots and the engineering stuff can be done closer to home.
... not ever? Or just not by the 2030s?
I agree that we might not make it to Mars by next decade. Or, if we do, it'll be a token landing of a couple of people with no lasting impact.
But humans will eventually go to Mars. There will be human colonies on Mars within the next century. It's practically inevitable. Humans have never not gone somewhere once they've figured out how to get there. We covered almost all of Earth by foot, then by boat, then by aircraft. We reached the Moon. And then we didn't. But that was because we didn't plan to stay on the Moon: it was just one American President's crazy dream to compete against the Russians during the Cold War. Once we got there, we didn't have a plan for how to stay there. But, 50 years later, humans are going back to the Moon. This time, we're taking it slower, and we'll eventually get there and stay there.
And there's absolutely no reason we won't then move on to the other planets in the Solar System - starting with Mars.
I don't think we're going to have a manned colony on mars until we've done it on the moon, and I think that's not happening for at least 100 years for a whole slew of reasons.
The "not ever" probably falls into "well we could nuke ourselves to dust/die out before then", but yes, we'll eventually try to colonize mars, but not until it makes sense. With the moon absurdly closer and just as hostile, I don't see any push for mars happening until it's either trivial (requiring not just multiple tech breakthroughs but serious space infrastructure like stations/skyhooks/elevators/whatever) or necessary (moon no longer meets needs). In both cases the fact we don't even have a manned station that can hold 50 people speaks volumes to me, as even that is easier than the moon.
Timelines on this strike me as very optimistic and somewhat blinded by the crazy pace tech took from the industrial revolution. I think we're starting to see some of the serious limits of our technology and how big the gulf is to the next step, and that's ignoring the unstable nature of society.
I agree that we'll go to the Moon first. It's a necessary first step before going to Mars, whether we're testing rocketry or colonisation. Either way, as you rightly point out, the Moon is closer and therefore easier to get to. We will definitely have a colony on the Moon before we have a colony on Mars.
However, I think your timelines are pessimistic. Humanity went from having zero space capability to landing people on the Moon within just 12 years. We can do it if we try hard enough. However, that 1960s space race was done for all the wrong reasons, and done in the wrong way. It was not done with a view to the long-term prospect of colonising the Moon, or even just having scientific and mining bases there. It was done solely for the purpose of one country having bragging rights over another country, and whatever achieved that goal was good enough.
There's a big difference between doing a job just good enough, and doing it properly. In the 1960s, we did a "good enough" job to get to the Moon. This time around, we're doing it properly.
For one thing, we're working more slowly and methodically. For another thing, it's not just one country leading the way. There are multiple countries (and supra-national unions) working towards getting to the Moon.
This time around, even private industry is involved. Because there is profit to be found in space. Not on the surface of planets, but orbiting freely. There are huge chunks of free resources just floating out in space, for whoever wants to go get them: asteroids, comets, even some satellites. That's profit. That will take private investment beyond Earth orbit, and into space.
And, eventually, inevitably, all this activity in Earth orbit, on the Moon, and in the asteroid belt, will lead to people going to Mars. For one thing, it's a great jumping-off point to mine the asteroids: the gravity well on Mars is shallower and therefore less expensive, and it's simply closer to the great big chunks of free resources in the asteroid belt.
Also, I think you're overlooking the fact that, apart from the travel time, colonising Mars is easier than colonising the Moon. There is at least a minimal atmosphere on Mars, to provide slightly more protection against solar radiation. The gravity is closer to Earth-normal. There's more free water on the surface. And so on. Everything we do to colonise the Moon will be so much easier to do on Mars. Even getting to Mars is easier from the Moon, because of the aforementioned shallow gravity wells on both objects, compared to Earth. And, after we've done it on the Moon, we'll have experience for doing the same thing on Mars. (And that's not even considering terraforming Mars!)
I therefore believe that colonising the Moon from Earth will be harder than colonising Mars from the Moon. Having achieved the former, the latter will follow quickly.
I agree completely with your sentiment about the 60's space race, but I have misgivings on the rest.
This is mentioned all the time, and it seriously ignores how historically things have worked. Yes we had a technological boom and the right mixture of goals and industry to brute force our way to the moon in a pretty short period of time. The problem is we've solved basically none of the major problems from them in the ensuing 60 years.
We still have no graceful way to get into space. It's just a massive rocket. This is hellishly inefficient, and while research on space planes, scram jets, and even hypothetical's like the sky hook have been done, we're still at "use an absurd amount of fuel on a hyper expensive machine that causes scaling fuel cost issues". In fact, the only thing we've gotten better at is doing it badly (more efficient rockets, landing them, and higher lift loads. And i'm still curious to see how reusable they are given the challenger and the shuttle were supposed to be as well).
We still have no graceful way of returning from space. Because of the aforementioned issue with scaling fuel, we only take the absolute bare minimum to do the trip safely, and that doesn't leave enough to slow down any other way than screaming into the atmosphere at a blistering mach 20 with catastrophic results if anything even slightly goes wrong.
We still have no way of resupplying/extending supplies in space. Again thanks to scaling fuel, you're stuck with every ounce being a huge huge problem. Every drink, every meal, every replacement piece is more and more fuel, and it all has to come from earth. The proposed plan of multiple launches to an orbiting vessel preceded by orbiting/mars based resupplies is both unimaginably inefficient and something we essentially could've done in the 60s. There have been very very few changes to the hard math.
We haven't even seriously experimented with putting nuclear engines in space (for some very good reasons), which would at least change the energy/fuel issues.
It's all the same barriers, and we've got no better answers. Just more efficient inefficient methods. At some point you have to stop sharpening stone and discover iron or you're not going to progress, and we're still very much in the stone age space wise.
I think we're slower and more methodical mostly because we had to go back to the drawing board, came up with the same design as before, and then had to start over completely because basically everything was so out of date it needed to be brought up to spec anyways. The other countries are interesting, but so far have been following the same bad path the US and Russia blazed, and none of have super promising results (although more on that in a bit).
This is both true and very very wrong.
The only promising ways being researched to "mine an asteroid" mostly involve sending out probes which alter its orbit (a much much easier task than I ever thought, although very slow) to be closer to earth (moonish). The reason for this is that, even with current tech, if the moon was made of printer ink (probably the most expensive item per ounce the average person has interacted with), you wouldn't even come close to making a profit mining it. Let alone valuable but stupidly heavy metals like gold. The costs are that extreme. The asteroids of gold/platinum/whatever that always get talked about aren't even financially close to viable, and that's before you even consider that you're flooding the market and only going to make a major profit if you also have a disgustingly dangerous monopoly/cartel. Oh and remember that we still have no good way of getting that stuff back. Flying out to one of those asteroids could easily be even farther than Mars, and then you have to get it BACK and then even more so, back into the earths atmosphere.
So that said, there is profit in space. Mostly in satellites, information, and warfare. We're a hell of a lot more likely to hit kessler syndrome style issues before we ever come close to turning a profit on any matter mined from space. More and more companies and governments are seeing the value of putting up vast arrays of satellites (as that has gotten cheaper since they don't need to eat), and they're absolutely seeing the value of blowing them up should a war break out. China and the US (and maybe russia? I forget) have already proved this capability.
Point being, there is no money to be made in space with current tech at lunar orbit. All the money that can be made, and that is attracting private industry, is mostly much much closer.
I've answered most of this elsewhere, so the quick version-
There's no way we're doing mars until we have a way of actually staging missions from space, and getting past a lot of the very real physics issues we currently face. IF something like a skyhook or a space elevator becomes possible/is built, that could change things drastically (as suddenly the horrible physics go away). Alternatively a major space station (housing 50-200 people) is probably the next step. Being able to stage up enough equipment would be horrendously expensive, but again break apart the physics issues and at least make our current plan of just having something sit in orbit to hold supplies be more sustainable. If it's big enough to actually construct other ships, those won't have to deal with nearly as much gravity/atmosphere, and could accomplish much much more. Further having a more serious presence in space (close enough to where it might be feasible to maintain) will hopefully lead to more and more development of real solutions to the problems of space travel, not just sharper rocks.
Mars is for optics. The mission of Mars is more acceptable and exciting for the average every day voter than a space station or satellites. Those are 'normal' but Mars is 'novel'.
Mars is marketing for more realistic actions. Once you read any PR in that way, it makes a lot more sense. Now, Mars is the ultimate goal., but overall it's a marketing gimmick.
Edit: Reading your other comment "It’s eventually going to be obvious we’re not going to mars"
We are definitely going to Mars.
Is there a reason that you put "voter" inside triple-parentheses like this? It sets off alarm bells for me since that's commonly used for antisemitic purposes in by those in the far-right, but I assume that's not your purpose here.
No, that's just used for emphasis within my communities (mostly on LGBTQ+ servers and websites for... a decade? at least).Commonly made for emphasis when there's more nuance, such as "voters, because politicians need to explain why space industry benefits their communities and jobs" for those in the know, not that it's more for overall public awareness, but voter awareness.Edit: have become more aware, replaced with quotes. Thanks everyone.
@sparksbet is spot-on about there being a sinister racist meaning for triple parentheses. I picked up on the same thing, and was going to bring it to your attention - but they beat me to it.
Your intentions might be pure, but that symbology has been subverted, and it now identifies you as an anti-semite, whether you intend that or not.
If you want to emphasise a word, you can use italics, or bold, or ALL CAPS, or even "scare quotes". But triple parentheses are no longer suitable for that purpose.
You should stop using them.
Like... immediately.
Yeah, definitely news to me. Thanks for letting me know! I've edited the comment, but yeah definitely subverted because I have been seeing that for a lot longer than the article states.
ah yeah we must be in different circles, I haven't encountered it in queer spaces. The far right use it to label something/someone as Jewish, so unfortunately it's probably wise to pick other methods for emphasis instead of using it innocently and giving the wrong impression.
By what definition? I think that we might be able to put a person down and get them back, i doubt we'll do much more for 500+ years barring serious breakthroughs in fusion or some similar major energy leap.
Most of the current plans are overly complex "well it's technically possible" nonsesnse, and the only reason it's mars instead of the moon is because, as you pointed out, it's way more exciting and gets funding. The difference in distances is insane, and the benefit so small it wouldn't be worth traveling farther if it was only 1 day farther, let alone the gulf it actually is.
I think it's very unlikely that there will be no breakthroughs in energy over the next 500 years.
I know people say that fusion is 30 years away and always will be, but we are making tangible progress toward it. Here's an overview of the state of the fusion industry; there are enough different countries and companies working on different approaches to fusion that it seems very unlikely that all of them will fail. The author of this article (who works in the industry) predicts a 90% chance someone will succeed by 2040.
Even if it takes twice as long as this guy thinks it will, and then several more decades to fit it into a spaceship, I think 500 years is unrealistically pessimistic.
I'll just say he'd hardly be the first expert in a field to be either over optimistic, or just wrong but couldn't have possibly known it. I'm hopeful it'll happen by then, as it could usher in the next age for humanity, but until the entire industry is clamoring about it, and we're seeing movement from the commercial/government/military sectors, I think it's still too far out to reliably pin a date on it (as everyone who's tried before has been wrong).
Fusion is only a part of the puzzle, and just because we get it net positive, doesn't mean it's going to suddenly be useful. There's still a huge puzzle of making it "production ready" let alone "launch it into space" ready.
Then there's the simple issue of "why". Anything you can do on mars, you can do on the moon easier. Fusion or some similar energy breakthrough might make getting to mars easier, but it's also going to make the moon a much more attractive target, and I suspect that'd be where the majority of any effort goes. And that's ignoring the VAST changes such technology will cause on earth first.
Reasonable people can differ on this, but I don't see Mars as the ultimate goal. Mars and the moon are both part of the larger project of humanity stepping out into the solar system, just like the Apollo missions and the ISS.
That's why I don't see much conflict between going to the moon and going to Mars. The moon is easier; we'll want to spend a good amount of time building infrastructure on and around the moon before we strike out for Mars. But assuming civilization survives, they will both happen eventually. And Mars is not the last stop: we can expand into the asteroid belt, access its vast mineral wealth, and hollow out rocks to build homes inside. Once we do that, the rest of the solar system is in reach.
The most important competition isn't between the moon and Mars. It's do we want to explore space, or not? Lots of people think we shouldn't—that our problems are at home and we should focus on them. And we do have important problems here, but I think that will always be true, and I don't think space exploration detracts from fighting climate change. Space exploration gives us new technologies and new ideas, and (for me, at least) it counteracts the burnout I get from reading bad news every day. But not everyone feels that way.
I don't think this is true. This article shows that both the moon and mars are about equally popular, and in my personal experience, the fact that Artemis is technically a step on the path towards a manned mars mission is very obscure and not widely popularised by NASA. This is partially because the official NASA Mars architecture is not very well fleshed out and right now makes zero sense, and will IMO likely be kicked down to the next administrator for a while due to massive funding increases that would be required to accomplish it, which NASA never get given. Their funding is basically constant since post-Apollo, yet they're meant to be doing more and more. A mars mission is only really financially viable in the near term with a pared down, more risky approach which NASA/US gov wouldn't like, or Elon YOLOing all of SpaceX into funding it (conditional on starship being as good as promised), which are both unlikely.
P.s.whats with the triple parens around voter?
The Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) and the Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO), the foundational elements of Gateway, which will launch together, were initially planned to launch this year, but now the timeline they are putting out states, "no earlier than November 2025."