Is Travel to Mars really out if the question?

[arturo.v.dominguez@gmail.]

If we want to minimized human exposure to the effects of outer space; at least as what will be experience within our solar system. The supposition being that we want to minimize that exposure. We know that we can only have missions to Mars which occur (actual coincide with) what we call/recognize as our two planets opposition orbits. Thus, if we accept the 90 day each way configuration as being possible on those opposition cycles and that human space flight, is at least as currently possible within that/those parameters. Then the time required for human travel to mars and back (aka a round trip) will take is a minimum of once every 2.137 years.

The question whether humans can survive space travel (although so far just to the moon) Yes.

Can humans survive on mars(?) and if so, how long(?) Neither of those questions which can be truly, answered, until we have humans there.

 

[promytius]

Perhaps not truly answered, but science can come pretty close to a prediction. Personally, from what I've read, getting there is doable, but humans will not live long on the surface; it must be subterranean; just because they find water somewhere, there's a small likelihood of anything else they also need being nearby. The extreme temperatures, the destructive winds, the Solar radiation, unknown bacteria and viruses, and so on. There's really no way to stay there; shipping is not free. Let the technology do the work; the old "hands-on" argument no longer applies, robots now have the better hands.
Too expensive unless unmanned.
We sent men to the Moon, and then what happened? Nothing.
We can send a few humans to Mars, if it fits some wild dream, but after they get back, nothing much more will happen, even with a fast vehicle.

 

[Ken Fabian]

@promytius - I think much the same. Except I don't think the winds will be a problem - air too thin. Bacteria seem very unlikely and only seem possible where liquid water exists - and viruses rely on other living cells to reproduce. Most life requires other life, an ecosystem.

Finding evidence of life would make missions there much more interesting - science-wise finding evidence of life has been a high priority for Mars missions. The colonisation goal has never been a priority, but a lot of space enthusiasts, including within space agencies, where the reality of how difficult that would be would be better understood than average, do hold hard to it. The idea of it remains quite popular - but most of that with unrealistic and exaggerated expectations.

I agree that further survey and sampling will continue to be uncrewed/remote-robotic rather than use astronauts.

 

[arturo.v.dominguez@gmail.]

In a sense I am in full agreement with you. Where we do however, part company, is on the robots only portion of your argument. Because, unless I am mistaken, you therein advocated no human exploration involvement of any type anywhere. As for cost, hey everything has cost; even right here on terra firma.

The need to overcome anything does not exist; until the want to be where the overcoming becomes a need.

The want of a science, especially that which is not in relative ease of the eye, and exploration go hand in hand; yet neither is possible without the funding via which to accomplish it.

Sadly, or more to the point without satisfying the public’s what’s in it for me?? Being part of the answer then the funding invariably dries up.

 

[promytius]

@promytius - I think much the same. Except I don't think the winds will be a problem - air too thin. Bacteria seem very unlikely and only seem possible where liquid water exists - and viruses rely on other living cells to reproduce. Most life requires other life, an ecosystem.

Finding evidence of life would make missions there much more interesting - science-wise finding evidence of life has been a high priority for Mars missions. The colonisation goal has never been a priority, but a lot of space enthusiasts, including within space agencies, where the reality of how difficult that would be would be better understood than average, do hold hard to it. The idea of it remains quite popular - but most of that with unrealistic and exaggerated expectations.

I agree that further survey and sampling will continue to be uncrewed/remote-robotic rather than use astronauts.

Thanks for pointing out the detriments to virus and active bacteria on Mars; although drilling a few holes and seismic measurements tell you little about the details of what the subterranean environment of Mars might be, and, with the proposed discovery of water, which would support both bacteria and virus, if a supportive environment was maintained. I must have seen that in a movie, where the astronaut sits down and is enveloped by local pathogens. It's a very high risk escapade. Once we figure out personal energy fields and warp drive, we'll be much closer to being Spacemen.

 

[arturo.v.dominguez@gmail.]

Thanks for pointing out the detriments to virus and active bacteria on Mars; although drilling a few holes and seismic measurements tell you little about the details of what the subterranean environment of Mars might be, and, with the proposed discovery of water, which would support both bacteria and virus, if a supportive environment was maintained. I must have seen that in a movie, where the astronaut sits down and is enveloped by local pathogens. It's a very high risk escapade. Once we figure out personal energy fields and warp drive, we'll be much closer to being Spacemen.

Too funny ...isn't that the premise for the Martians losing as depicted in "War of the Worlds".

That notwithstanding presupposing that more than enough robotics exploration(s) has to happen and has happened. Via which to decide that precautions to any virus /antigens found there are addressed; just to make that happen. Then going further, even just within our solar system, would not be a smart, let alone worthwhile endeavor?

 

[promytius]

An excellent point; the Earth defeated the aliens, they didn't fit in. Mars might be equally inhospitable.
While eventually expansion to the moons and planets is inevitable, it is far into the future, and we have a good deal of other Earthly problems to solve.

 

[arturo.v.dominguez@gmail.]

@promytius - I think much the same. Except I don't think the winds will be a problem - air too thin. Bacteria seem very unlikely and only seem possible where liquid water exists - and viruses rely on other living cells to reproduce. Most life requires other life, an ecosystem.

Finding evidence of life would make missions there much more interesting - science-wise finding evidence of life has been a high priority for Mars missions. The colonisation goal has never been a priority, but a lot of space enthusiasts, including within space agencies, where the reality of how difficult that would be would be better understood than average, do hold hard to it. The idea of it remains quite popular - but most of that with unrealistic and exaggerated expectations.

I agree that further survey and sampling will continue to be uncrewed/remote-robotic rather than use astronauts.

The colonization of Mars from everything as I can understand and realistically point to. Is more of an off shoot (after thought) of the human desire to explore the Universe. In my opinion if when it ever happens it will be a short-lived history in the human existence. More of a learning experience on the how to of colonization.

At most it will eventual be recognized/seen as a way station.

Now I can and do understand that based on our science so far it is preposterous to assume there are other life (forms?) on different planets out there. But then again based on that same science that is and or, has been, proven wrong more than once as our knowledge and understanding expands. Then it is also just as preposterous to conclude that this little blue ball of ours is all there is to that.

 

[Ken Fabian]

you therein advocated no human exploration involvement of any type anywhere.

Yes, but that could be more about what we mean by 'exploration'. I don't think humans actually do exploration in space by going there, we do it by sending fly-by's, orbiters, probes, rovers and we use high resolution photography and other instruments that go beyond the limitations of human sight. All get recorded and transmitted and can be studied by Earth's experts from the safety and comfort of their workstations.

If humans go to Mars they will go where machines have already surveyed, mapped and identified the resources of interest and the hazards; the extreme and dangerous environments out there seem to make that a necessity.

Humans will go where we already know what to expect, because we know what to expect - because we have found something worth the cost and effort. I expect even any crewed missions, if they happen, will rely on remote-robotic rovers for more detailed 'exploration', surveying and mapping and collecting samples rather than going in person.

I do have trouble imagining what could be discovered that would be worth sending a crewed mission - what they could do that a well resourced, well planned crewless mission cannot do as well and much cheaper, without putting lives at risk.

Perseverance rover carries an extensive array of cameras and instruments including several kinds of spectrometers that can analyze minerals, including from a distance.

 

[Ken Fabian]

Now I can and do understand that based on our science so far it is preposterous to assume there are other life (forms?) on different planets out there.

I don't think finding life somewhere besides Earth is considered preposterous - not by me.

Liquid water does seem to be a minimum requirement for life as we know it and several places in the solar system have it but more than water alone is needed; those locations within the solar system are very different to Earth. Mars, in it's ancient history, looks like the least different. I think it is unlikely but not impossible there is life or evidence of past life there. Given we have meteorites that originated on Mars found on Earth there is reason to think life on Earth could be spread around, so any found may even have Earth origins.

Other stars and solar systems exist in vast numbers and it seems not just possible but likely some will have worlds that experienced primordal conditions similar to Earth's. Evidence of that won't come from sending crewed missions or even uncrewed probes, but from astronomy - spectroscopy of chemical signatures in atmospheres and reflected light.