Sending people to Mars, keeping them alive there, and bringing them back (optional) is hard.

Sending robots to Mars is easier. It's been done in 1997 and artificial intelligence and robotics have made major strides since.

A semi-autonomous* settlement with life support should be built before we send people there. This will save a lot of time and make the mission far more likely to succeed than if we treat it like a camping trip and make astronauts set their own "tents" up.

* with high-level operations being managed remotely, but real-time operations requiring automation due to the unavoidably high ping between Earth and Mars

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 20 hours ago (1 child)

you're right that settling mars seemed impossible for the last 20 years, but that's not so much because of the toxic dust or the radiation or sth; but simply for financial reasons.

basically, as you've already said, it costs a lot of money to do this. and the question is: is it worth it? the question has always been a resounding "no" since the 1970s, but things are starting to turn. the reason is because while the costs are high and the reward is small, it is still positive. self-sustainance can be achieved 99%, it does not have to be 100%, you don't need to produce computer-chips on-site from the get-go; you just need to reduce the mass of necessary imports low enough to make it worth-while. say if people could just produce water and food and maybe some plastics (3d-printing) on-site, that would already cover more than 95% of their import mass, i reckon, and that would make sustaining the whole settlement a whole lot more feasible.

now, about finances: capitalists are constantly looking to invest into the next branch of the economy that promises growth. for decades, this has been computer stuff and similar earth-bound technology because it promised a higher return-on-investment than some astronautics project. but that is starting to turn as it is becoming increasingly clear that IT is a bubble today (AI bubble) and there's economic stagnation threatening all around us. so the economic system will naturally seek to explore new fields that are not bound by the space constraints of Earth, and i think that if you look at it this way, space settlements are not just a wet dream but an economic imperative. (in the sense of, some economics professor will look at this and say "we have to do this").

the dust on-site is less of a problem, i guess, because there's toxins in the soil on earth too. you're not supposed to just eat dirt that you find in your garden because it can contain toxins from bacteria and you can suffer from that. however, we still live just fine on that soil. people have managed to live in the sahara desert and in the midwest as well (where dust storms occurr regularly, i think). with technology, the western edge of the midwest, where it borders into the desert, is actually one of the most agriculturally fertile regions on earth these days (center-pivot irrigation article mentions it).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 18 hours ago (2 children)

    You're ignoring the problem that can't be solved with current tech. Gravity. Humans don't do well in low gravity environments, and Mars is 1/3 the mass, and therefore 1/3 the gravity of Earth.

    Venus would be much easier to get into habitable and self sustaining conditions. Venus just needs a few comets worth of ice and some cyanobacteria.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 hours ago (1 child)

    You’re ignoring the problem that can’t be solved with current tech. Gravity.

    oh by the way. the issue can be solved with current tech. centrifuges. they produce the same net effect as a higher gravity. but also that is irrelevant as there's no clear proof that we actually need 1g. probably we could do well with less?

    AFAIK, other animals experience the world differently. for example, if an insect (like an ant) falls of a 12-story building, it doesn't even hurt itself when it hits the ground. that is because its surface area is so large compared to its mass, that it never really gets fast while falling down because the air resistance. also, fish don't even feel their own weight because they are about the same density as the water that they swim in, so in net effect, they barely feel any of their own weight.

    what i'm saying is, many animals seem to be doing just fine while not really experiencing the effects of gravity. what makes you so sure that we, the humans, definitely can't do without the gravity?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 hours ago

    It can be solved in space, sure. Just spin the craft at the right speed. You can't be strapped into a centrifuge all the time planetside, and be very productive.

    I'm pretty sure we need the gravity to be close to 1 G because we have had issues bringing astronauts back from the ISS, and no one has been on the ISS for as long as a round trip to Mars would currently take. It also does weird things to fetuses, so you couldn't have a self sustaining colony.

  • source
  • parent
  • Humans don't do well in low gravity environments

    Do we know this for sure? We know that humans don't do well in zero-G environments, but we have barely any dataponts between zero and one. Just a few weeks of data at 1/6 gravity from the Apollo missions.

  • source
  • parent