Why go to Mars?

[lpetrich]

The Case Against Mars | Boston Review

Contrary to the boosterism of billionaires, the need for space colonization must be argued for, not assumed. And the arguments aren’t good.

Tomorrow a manned orbital rocket will launch from U.S. soil for the first time since the Space Shuttle Program was cancelled in 2011. The astronauts are NASA boys, but the rocket belongs to SpaceX, Elon Musk’s most dazzling corporate brainchild. Though the objectives of this particular mission are modest, the company’s ultimate goal, Mars colonization, is anything but. Musk himself—along with those other ultra-rich space enthusiasts Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson—clearly believes this goal wears its merits on its sleeve. But does it? You might be disappointed if you visit SpaceX’s website seeking to understand the point of these otherworldly ventures. Apart from a will-o’-the-wisp video clip misleadingly titled “The Case for Mars,” there’s nothing there that might count as a sustained justification of this monumental project.

... There have been three broad patterns of attempted justification. The first appeals to evolution, the second to long-term human security, and the last to the expansion of human freedom.

Evolution - a sort of "Manifest Destiny" argument, that here are new places to expand into. But such expansion depends on the feasibility of doing so, and spaceflight continues to be enormously difficult.

Long-term human security - The Sun is slowly brightening, and about 500 - 1000 million years from now, the Earth will become too hot to be easily habitable by us. Its temperature has been maintained by a carbonate-silicate geochemical effect, but that is slowly running out as CO2 levels decline to compensate for the Sun's increased luminosity.

But that's a heck of a long way in the future, and there's plenty of time to devise the necessary technologies for getting off of our planet.

What about freedom? There’s a strong strain of libertarianism among recent space expansionists (as well as among many Silicon Valley types, especially when it comes to the regulation of technology), but it is not obvious that the project will enhance human freedom overall, whether for remaining Terrans or in space. This is in large measure a product of the perpetual war footing on which such adventurism will place us all. Each world in the space archipelago can legitimize steep political hierarchies as a necessary means for dealing with perceived external threats. And such security-based political hierarchies inevitably bring more or less severe restrictions of individual liberties, at least for those on the bottom of the heap.

...
The association of space expansion with the preservation and expansion of individual freedom is probably extremely dubious. Space expansion, far from being a form of freedom insurance, is more likely to produce the perfection of despotism and the complete subordination of the individual to the collective. Those who value individual liberty should be strong skeptics and opponents of space expansion, not enthusiastic supporters.

I like this response also: Space Cadets - Charlie's Diary - it would be everybody living close together in a tin can, rather than spread out. Sea voyaging isn't nearly as culturally salient now as it was for before half a century ago, but living aboard a ship is the closest approximation to living in a spacecraft that is readily accessible. Air vehicles are typically airborne for only a few hours, and submarines are usually inhabited only by military crews or by researchers.


My own position: it's not worth the trouble to try to colonize Mars, because it would be easier to build free-flying space colonies. But it is definitely worth exploring with remote-controlled spacecraft. They have proven their worth by an enormous amount, so we should do more, more, more of that kind of exploration, even if it means no human space travelers anywhere in sight.

 

[Jokodo]

The only argument I can see for self-sufficient colonies off earth is an "insurance" against a freak event that'll make earth temporarily or permanently uninhabitable - and Mars isn't even the best candidate for that. In any scenario, this event will most likely kill a majority of humanity, but while the primary goal has to be thus to ensure that civilisation can be reconstructed, the number of people who'll survive deserves consideration too, and that's were Mars fares really bad in any realistic scenario.

There are two main candidates for such a freak event - a supernova/gamma ray burst in our stellar proximity, and an asteroid hit. If it's the former, Mars and Earth will both get sterilized, the only protection is going underground (or hoping that it's short enough to only affect one hemisphere that's facing the star at the time). And if we can go underground, with enough supplies to last us until it's safe on the surface again, we can do so - much easier and cheaper - on earth. For the same money it costs to build a self-sufficient colony on Mars, staffed with a few thousand people at best, we can build such bunkers for 100s of millions of people right here.

For most realistic versions of the second scenario, the same holds true - even a real big impact that'll temporarily vaporize the oceans will not raise the temperatures in a bunker deep inside the permafrost below Antarctica above room temperature. And eventually, earth will cool off again.

An impact that melts the crust is another matter, but even that is best survived not on Mars but in rotating ring space station - building such a station or stations holding 10s or 100s may well be cheaper than colonising Mars with just a few 1000.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wouldn't life on Earth need to get pretty bad to make Mars a viable substitute? I ponder whether Mars is a good hub for mining the asteroid belt, but otherwise, low gravity, not much of a magnetic field, atmosphere is almost non-existent. The benefit of humans going to Mars would be more elaborate testing at the planet. Inhabiting the planet seems silly. We aren't evolved for it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, Mars is rather inhospitable. That makes it good practice for colonizing even more inhospitable places.

Ecological degradation will never drive us to need Mars--the same tech would permit survival on Earth--but there could be more catastrophic things.

 

[skepticalbip]

Colonizing Antarctica would be good practice for colonizing Mars. Antarctica is rather inhospitable but much, much less so than Mars. Antarctica has plenty of fresh oxygen, water, atmospheric shielding from cosmic rays, some available food sources, and even has a warmer climate than Mars. If a colony of a couple thousand people couldn't become self sufficient in Antarctica then I don't see that there is any chance for one to become self sufficient on Mars.

 

[DBT]

Maybe Elon Musk, et al, are doing it for the hell of it, something cool, just because they have the means and feel they can do it.

Something never done before, put their name in the history books....some combination of a sense of challenge, achievement and ego?

 

[lpetrich]

The Mars Society - advocating going there. But here is why I think that the Mars Society people are serious. Because they are working on approximations of Mars colony habitats to see what it is like to live and work under such conditions.

About the MDRS – Mars Desert Research Station

The Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS), owned and operated by the Mars Society, is a space analog facility in Utah that supports Earth-based research in pursuit of the technology, operations, and science required for human space exploration. We host an eight month field season for professional scientists and engineers as well as college students of all levels, in training for human operations specifically on Mars. The relative isolation of the facility allows for rigorous field studies as well as human factors research. Most crews carry out their mission under the constraints of a simulated Mars mission. Most missions are 2-3 weeks in duration, although we have supported longer missions as well. The advantage of MDRS over most facilities for simulated space missions is that the campus is surrounded by a landscape that is an actual geologic Mars analog, which offers opportunities for rigorous field studies as they would be conducted during an actual space mission.

About the Mission – FMARS - the Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station

Our crews at FMARS are required to conduct a sustained program of geological, microbiological and climatological field exploration in a cold and dangerous remote environment while operating under many of the same constraints that a human crew would face on Mars. It is only under these conditions, where the crew is trying hard to get real scientific work done, while dealing with bulky equipment, cold, danger, discomfort, as well as isolation, that the real stresses of a human Mars mission can be encountered, and the methods for dealing with them mastered. It is only under these conditions that all sorts of problems that Mars explorers will face can be driven into the open so they can be dealt with. Only by doing these missions can we make ourselves ready to go to Mars. Nothing like this has ever been done before.

 

[fromderinside]

Two reasons to attempt human Mars landing.

1. Atmosphere and gravity are within range of human technology capabilities.

2. Mars is a much easier launch point for commercial exploitation of astroid belt.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Colonizing Antarctica would be good practice for colonizing Mars. Antarctica is rather inhospitable but much, much less so than Mars. Antarctica has plenty of fresh oxygen, water, atmospheric shielding from cosmic rays, some available food sources, and even has a warmer climate than Mars. If a colony of a couple thousand people couldn't become self sufficient in Antarctica then I don't see that there is any chance for one to become self sufficient on Mars.

But Antarctica has far worse weather than Mars.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Two reasons to attempt human Mars landing.

1. Atmosphere and gravity are within range of human technology capabilities.

2. Mars is a much easier launch point for commercial exploitation of astroid belt.

3. While Mars can't support a true space elevator current technology permits a dual skyhook cable system that can launch to targets from Earth to the asteroid belt with aircraft. The cable anchored to Deimos does the actual throwing but it can't reach Mars. It can, however, drop a payload such that a cable on Phobos can catch it and the Phobos cable can dip into the atmosphere low and slow enough to rendezvous with an aircraft.

 

[bilby]

Because it's there.

 

[DBT]

Because it's there.

That may be reason enough to go there.

 

[SLD]

I agree there’s no real need to go to mars for now. The technical difficulties are just too great. It takes way too long, too much radiation exposure, and there’s need for artificial gravity to keep people healthy. Until we can sail there in a few weeks, or months at the most, it will be a bridge too far. We need to figure a new non chemical type propulsion method as that can only generate so much power. I just don’t see it happening in our lifetimes.

 

[fromderinside]

We're humans. Exploring the unwitnessed and exploited is firmly embedded in our jeans (hee, hee). Its not that mars is there. Rather its we're here.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Maybe Elon Musk, et al, are doing it for the hell of it, something cool, just because they have the means and feel they can do it.

Something never done before, put their name in the history books....some combination of a sense of challenge, achievement and ego?

Musk has been seeming more and more like a narcissist, so I think he wants to be viewed as the "Savior" of humanity or some bullshit. It's not even about saving humanity, he just wants the title.

 

[thebeave]

Because it's Matt Damon's there.

FIFY

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

It is an idea that is going to flop big time. There is no way we can afford the cost of sustaining a population of humans there. Without a steady stream of supplies from Earth, life there would end rather quickly. It is a very poorly thought out idea.

Santa Claus machines. A concept of automated machines that can mine a planet's surface, refine materials, and build copies of themselves. To eventually create useful things for us in large quantities. For free. This is what would in fact be needed for colonizing the Moon or Mars. We are not even close to being able to do that. And nobody seems to be working on that as far as I know.

We would be better off developing that to say, create free photovoltaic systems to supply mankind with free power, pollution free. If we cannot do that on Earth, we sure are not going to be doing that on the Moon or Mars. Or on asteroids we want to mine. And without that, Mars colonization will never be viable. Automated systems to create materials for livable habitats on Mars or the Moon are so much day dreaming now. Eric Drexler's nanotechnology dreams of 20 years ago still are far, far from being the Santa Claus machine we all hoped it would someday be.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

http://www.molecularassembler.com/KSRM/3.10.htm

...
3.10 Taylor Santa Claus Machine (1978)
Following Shoulders’ original suggestion in the early 1960s of particle beam-based replicating machines (Section 4.7), Theodore B. Taylor’s concept of the “Santa Claus Machine” was reported in a popular book on advanced space technology published in 1978 by Nigel Calder [1041]. This is the only known extant source on Taylor’s idea.
Calder first quotes Taylor, a well-known nuclear physicist and advocate of arms control and small-scale solar energy production on Earth, as follows: “It’s possible to imagine a machine that could scoop up material – rocks from the Moon or rocks from asteroids – process them inside and produce just about any product: washing machines or teacups or automobiles or starships.
....

Dream on, dream on.

 

[fromderinside]

Because it's Matt Damon's there.

FIFY

Who cares. That dope only grew potatoes, now between commercials. sheesh.

 

[DBT]

Maybe Elon Musk, et al, are doing it for the hell of it, something cool, just because they have the means and feel they can do it.

Something never done before, put their name in the history books....some combination of a sense of challenge, achievement and ego?

Musk has been seeming more and more like a narcissist, so I think he wants to be viewed as the "Savior" of humanity or some bullshit. It's not even about saving humanity, he just wants the title.

It looks that way. I don't see how a self sustaining colony on Mars is even possible given the conditions.