Let’s Not Move to Mars

The New York Times ^ | September 21, 2015 | Ed Regis

[EveningStar]

In the early years of the 20th century, zeppelins filled with flammable and explosive hydrogen were all the rage in Germany, a reckless infatuation that ended with the eruption and crash of the Hindenburg in 1937. Sometimes, technology is a triumph of wild-eyed enthusiasm over the unpleasant facts of the real world.

Today we are witnessing a similar outburst of enthusiasm over the literally outlandish notion that in the relatively near future, some of us are going to be living, working, thriving and dying on Mars ...

Unfortunately, this Mars mania reflects an excessively optimistic view of what it actually takes to travel to and live on Mars, papering over many of the harsh realities and bitter truths that underlie the dream.

First, there is the tedious business of getting there. Using current technology and conventional chemical rockets, a trip to Mars would be a grueling, eight- to nine-month-long nightmare for the crew ...

[Dead Corpse]

You are only part right...

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2008/1710.html

[Dead Corpse]

Weird, I harbor the same feelings about New York City...

And yet...

[discostu]

Depends on if we’re alone. There are instructions to spread The Word to all those who can hear (or close to that). Given that it’s a REALLY big universe there are probably those who can hear not here. And really even if we are alone, if we were given this then we were given the whole caboodle.

[Dead Corpse]

11th Commandment?

“Thou shalt not colonize any other celestial body”...

Not in any Bible I’ve ever read.

[Lurking Libertarian]

If something is discovered on Mars that could make one RICH, we will soon be living there.

If Mars were covered with diamonds and uranium (it isn't), there would still be no way to get at them that wouldn't cost more than the diamonds and uranium. 140 million miles is a long way to travel.

Not saying there will never be an easier or cheaper way to get there, but under current technology it's simply not practical.

[x]

In the early years of the 20th century, zeppelins filled with flammable and explosive hydrogen were all the rage in Germany, a reckless infatuation that ended with the eruption and crash of the Hindenburg in 1937. Sometimes, technology is a triumph of wild-eyed enthusiasm over the unpleasant facts of the real world.

....

Ed Regis is the author of “Monsters: The Hindenburg Disaster and the Birth of Pathological Technology.”

____________

Okay, so we know what his obsession is.

Pathological anti-hydrogenism poisons everything.

Like Kennedy said:

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

That answers Mr. Hydrogen-Hater.

I wonder, though.

What were "the other things" that were so darned hard?

[familyop]

"The most easily exploitable non-renewable mineral and energy resources of the Earth have been consumed to build the current state of technologies capable of embarking on the human colonization of extraterrestrial habitats."

All that is "consumed" really continues to exist and can be reconstituted and used again. But yes, there are higher costs that would be more acceptable to smaller production efforts only in the absence of broad monopolies.

As for a sizable enough asteroid destroying all life on earth, the chances are unimaginably remote. Preparations for such an event would also be feasible (shelters, etc.).

Scarcity is artificial--manufactured by monopolies and their regulations against new, domestic competition in each country. Contrary to the proclamations of the debt regime, there is plenty of earth, water and air. Too many products are designed to degrade too quickly and make repairs difficult. Recycling is too often avoided because of costs that would make a global monster of manufacturing less competitive.

A much more distributed economy with open source equipment designs and far fewer regulations against new competition would be more conducive to economic security and avoidance of material waste.

So far, though, some of the more visible efforts for open source equipment designs are aimed at engineers who are not competent as technicians (ongoing intern and administrator failures for lack of technical skills), and plans are to have contemporary local, bosses in government-linked services as owners of community manufacturing efforts (even more likely failures in both skills and management). The current debt regime may not preserve its rule.

The more successful open source equipment collaboration projects, from radios to transportation, are very informal and conducted by many technicians and a few engineering technologists (mostly not licensed professional engineers) without formal leadership.

[Lurking Libertarian]

“Thou shalt not colonize any other celestial body”... Not in any Bible I’ve ever read.

I had a teacher in my (Orthodox Jewish) elementary school, who told us that the space program was sinful. He quoted Psalm 115:16. (That was not a view that was widely shared, even in Orthodox Jewish circles.)

[Buckeye McFrog]

Well I guess that's it for us then.

[familyop]

"Where do you propose to find quicklime (Calcium oxide) on Mars required to produce the cement for the concrete, and how do you propose to keep the Martian atmosphere from decomposing the cement and concrete with its near total composition of Carbon dioxide?"

Compressing soil and rock would be one way to solve the problem. If that wouldn't be enough for structural strength, heating compressed structural blocks would do it. Finding a source of heat, though, would probably not be so difficult in space or on a planet with a thin atmosphere (solar).

A material that would act as an alternative adhesive without needing much heat might also be found--maybe even something that would provide enough elasticity to negate any need for conventional extra support (conventional being steel, glass fiber, straw, etc.).

[familyop]

I’m not against space exploration, by the way, but am saying that more solutions are possible. But technical minds should also be enlisted and tolerated by the impatient, sensitive class—a tolerance that’s somewhat rare now.

In my opinion, every extensively educated engineer, manager and investor should watch “Tucker and Dale Vs. Evil.” It’s a movie fiction, but there’s much truth in it. It’s also very funny and entertaining. [I once lived in the Ozarks.] In equipment development, more experiences and associated perspectives from more realistically grounded people (sans much from the liberal arts or academic social concerns) are needed along with much more distributed efforts.

[Another Post-American]

I’m very interested in space exploration and colonization, but I’ve never shared the interest most other people seem to have of colonizing bodies like Mars and the moon. After all the trouble and danger and expense of escaping one gravity well, why would you want to drop down into another one?

Particularly since the low gravity will doubtless lead to serious long term health problems that will leave the population more or less trapped in a low-G environment even if they could leave. It makes much more sense to me to concentrate on building customized space habitats (spinning for artificial gravity), leaving the low-G locations to drones/robot operations for mining and exploitation.

[100American]

Why screw up another one...

Hey, Democrat Planet!

Sounds like a great reality show

Let them colonize and run it as a democracy

Cowbell

popcorn

Roll the movie!

[Mr. K]

Why not both?

It is almost harder to explore the deep sea. The pressure is just too great.

By comparison floating around in space is easy

[doug from upland]

39-day trip to Mars

http://news.discovery.com/space/private-spaceflight/mars-rocket-vasimr-nasa.htm

[cripplecreek]

Most oceanographers these days say there is no good reason for men to go to the bottom of the sea. ROVs can do pretty much anything men can do in real time without the risk.

[Oztrich Boy]

Perhaps Americans should be satisfied with remaining in their ancestral homeland?

[GOPJ]

Yeah, the Hindenburg was the prime example why aircraft will never be practical.

The New York Times is soooooo lame.

[Impy]

I can think of lots of people I’d like to see move to Mars, and I’d hope they found conditions to be........non-oxygeny.

[Impy]

Indeed.

I don’t really get that guy’s objection, vanity?