MIT students come up with host of problems with Mars 1
- Thread starter DarthTom
- Start date
Well, with billionaires like Elon Musk and Richard Branson backing the idea with their personal fortunes - it has a better chance IMO.
In my opinion the concept of human exploration and habitation of Mars is a flawed one. It would be more efficient, less costly, and more practical to invest in continued robotic exploration of the planet. I understand the appeal of sending humans to Mars, and the value of these "big dream" type projects, but realistically its a waste of money and time.
It turns out few people actually want to spend money on a deliberate suicide mission.
The argument has been made by Musk and others that in order to try to avert likely eventual extinction humans need to colonize nearby planets.
Regarding comments made about Musk. We'll see if he'd be willing to plow his billions into a colonization of Mars effort but he recently spoke about our need to colonize the planet.
It is not an either or type of situation. We can do both. Arguments that reduce things to false dichotomies have always been a pet peeve of mine.
Colonizing other planets to avoid the eventual extinction of the human race makes sense in 4 billion years or so when Sol becomes a type of star that will no longer support life on Earth.
Oh, Musk definitely wants to go to Mars. He just doesn't have any interest in Mars One.
There are other extinction level events that are much more likely to occur much sooner than 4 billion years. The most likely being self inflicted.
It's not a false dichotomy. There is a finite level of resources that can be devoted to space exploration, and spending those resources on trying to get humans to Mars, or further out in the Solar System is impractical.
If humans can't figure out a way to avoid killing themselves off on this planet, it would seem illogical to assume they would know how to avoid killing themselves off on a different planet.
The fact that they wouldn't all be on the same planet might help. The whole "eggs in one basket thing".
I believe cost is what will kill any effort at manned space exploration. Humans are terraforming our world into a phase of its earliest self, 300 million years ago, in the Mesozoic Era. Information on the climate in that time is barely understood. Humans will be spending money to save cities and various other things. Indonesia is looking at spending $40 billion, over thirty years, to save Jakarta from sinking.
http://gizmodo.com/saving-this-sinking-city-will-cost-40-billion-1646704184
* $8 billion is the cost for the James Webb Space Telescope
* $6 billion is the cost for the east span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge
* $23 billion for Crossrail, a major infrastructure project in London
* $41 billion for three Gerald Ford class aircraft carriers
* $66 billion for high speed rail in California
The cost of Apollo in today's money was $33 billion. Going to Mars is going to be much, much higher.
There are many variables which work against a Mars mission. The list of issues seems to grow as we learned more about the planet. The idea of returning humans to the Moon is sounder, both as an experimental waypoint and as a first step beyond inner space. An astronaut on Apollo XI believed that because we had been to the Moon before that we shouldn't go back there and that we should turn our attention to Mars. If humans had followed that thinking, we would not have become the species we are now. We succeed when we take our time to expand and our knowledge grows as we visit areas visited before, even if it takes hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of years to get there.
I was born in the last year of the moon landings, and I expect to die with humans never having returned to the Moon or sending an expedition to Mars.
http://gizmodo.com/saving-this-sinking-city-will-cost-40-billion-1646704184
* $8 billion is the cost for the James Webb Space Telescope
* $6 billion is the cost for the east span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge
* $23 billion for Crossrail, a major infrastructure project in London
* $41 billion for three Gerald Ford class aircraft carriers
* $66 billion for high speed rail in California
The cost of Apollo in today's money was $33 billion. Going to Mars is going to be much, much higher.
There are many variables which work against a Mars mission. The list of issues seems to grow as we learned more about the planet. The idea of returning humans to the Moon is sounder, both as an experimental waypoint and as a first step beyond inner space. An astronaut on Apollo XI believed that because we had been to the Moon before that we shouldn't go back there and that we should turn our attention to Mars. If humans had followed that thinking, we would not have become the species we are now. We succeed when we take our time to expand and our knowledge grows as we visit areas visited before, even if it takes hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of years to get there.
I was born in the last year of the moon landings, and I expect to die with humans never having returned to the Moon or sending an expedition to Mars.
The fact that without nitrogen, that there is no way to sustain a colony or expedition in any permanent way, shape, or fashion.
That alone will stop Mars One from becoming real, even IF they can overcome the cost.
Unless we can find a way to make nitrogen as needed away from home, then this means that any colonies at all within the Solar System would be impossible, since a colony should be self sufficient, or it will be very open to catastrophic failure.
Then again, I feel that the Mars One project would be unlikely to succeed in the long run, and that without the contingency plan to deliver help if needed, that one unfortunate, unforeseen accident could screw the colonists.
Mars is a hostile environment that mankind has no experience living on. Without being able to return home if something goes wrong, they would constantly be in danger, with limited options.
That alone will stop Mars One from becoming real, even IF they can overcome the cost.
Unless we can find a way to make nitrogen as needed away from home, then this means that any colonies at all within the Solar System would be impossible, since a colony should be self sufficient, or it will be very open to catastrophic failure.
Then again, I feel that the Mars One project would be unlikely to succeed in the long run, and that without the contingency plan to deliver help if needed, that one unfortunate, unforeseen accident could screw the colonists.
Mars is a hostile environment that mankind has no experience living on. Without being able to return home if something goes wrong, they would constantly be in danger, with limited options.
Yeah. Either way, the nitrogen's kind of essential.
