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.

 

[Catastrophe]

Re: extraterrestrial life, there are two issues.

1. Is there life nowhere but on Earth?

2. Is life common throughout the "Universe" (read observable universe).

There are two considerations.

1. Scientifically speaking, we have observed no life other than on (originating) on Earth.

2. From a common sense (statistical) point of view, based on the trillions of galaxies which may exist, life, even intelligent life (though much rarer) is probably relatively common.

The problem, of course, is that of astronomical distance. Information transfer is limited by light speed being, however, over vast distances. This, in turn, leads to the relatively short life of civilisations, or, more correctly, of our so called civilisation.

In truth, we have little scientific we can say on the subject.

Cat

 

[arturo.v.dominguez@gmail.]

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.

Yes, but that could be more about what we mean by 'exploration'.
Sure, if we define exploration as just pure science (the systematic study of) then yeah automation will do it.
I would say that while that’s all well and good that kind of Compartmentalization can and does limit/kill curiosity.

As for the safety and comfort of their workstations.
Exploration like anything other science(?) has inherent dangers which cannot be removed/overcome until they are recognized/discovered.

 

[arturo.v.dominguez@gmail.]

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.

I can't but agree with what you say here. My question is do we limit our search to just the search for extra-terrestrial life? meaning is that the only purpose for our exploring,

Or do we go forward with/on the premise that our knowledge of what is. Grows as human existence expands throughout the universe; as it has here on earth.

 

[Catastrophe]

One problem I see with extraterrestrial development is that, so often, we see completely unsupportrd assumptions.

Ah yes. We can see there is iron ore there, or aluminium. So we just mine it there and produce the metal. Easy. Until you stop to think how to get a fully operational blast furnace to a distant planet. And they are all distant. First, let us see an operational blast furnace (or any other metal production) on the Moon.

The Manufacturing Basics of Aluminium - BA Systems

Aluminium manufacture - From bauxite mining to extruding and rolling. Find out how the world's most widespread metal is made into a finished product.

www.basystems.co.uk

Just check the equipment and additional chemicals needed. Are these all available locally? Well none of the plant is. Are all the processes transferable? What about precipitation, for example. Precipitation relies on gravity. Low gravity is not an advantage.

The sodium aluminate solution is then cooled and pumped into large precipitators (sometimes as tall as a 6-story building). Aluminium hydroxide seed crystals added to the solution to start the precipitation process. At this point, large aluminium crystals are formed.

Before this:

The ground mineral is pumped into large pressure tanks with a caustic soda or sodium hydroxide solution, and a steam heat is applied. The caustic soda reacts with the aluminium compounds in the bauxite material to produce a solution of sodium aluminate (also known as slurry). The unwanted residues (also known as red mud), containing iron, silicon and titanium, gradually sink to the bottom of the tank and are removed.

Approximately 100 kilograms of caustic soda (sodium hydroxide) are used in the production of each tonne of alumina, which is a crucial step in producing aluminum.

What is the cost of getting the caustic soda there - let alone the plant?

I am not suggesting that these processes are impossible on distant planets. I am just asking how much effort and money is involved.

Let us get accurate evaluations, including costs, of all the factors involved.

Cat

 

[arturo.v.dominguez@gmail.]

One problem I see with extraterrestrial development is that, so often, we see completely unsupportrd assumptions.

Ah yes. We can see there is iron ore there, or aluminium. So we just mine it there and produce the metal. Easy. Until you stop to think how to get a fully operational blast furnace to a distant planet. And they are all distant. First, let us see an operational blast furnace (or any other metal production) on the Moon.

The Manufacturing Basics of Aluminium - BA Systems

Aluminium manufacture - From bauxite mining to extruding and rolling. Find out how the world's most widespread metal is made into a finished product.

www.basystems.co.uk

Just check the equipment and additional chemicals needed. Are these all available locally? Well none of the plant is. Are all the processes transferable? What about precipitation, for example. Precipitation relies on gravity. Low gravity is not an advantage.



Before this:





What is the cost of getting the caustic soda there - let alone the plant?

I am not suggesting that these processes are impossible on distant planets. I am just asking how much effort and money is involved.

Let us get accurate evaluations, including costs, of all the factors involved.

Cat

What is the cost of getting the caustic soda there - let alone the plant? If we decide that we will be attempting such a venture are we talking about transporting (needed materials/equipment) once, twice, or forever?

I am not suggesting that these processes are impossible on distant planets. I am just asking how much effort and money is involved. Personally, I would say that anyone that attempts anything, even here, that does not know/realize there will be cost, is destined to failure.

Let us get accurate evaluations, including costs, of all the factors involved. A true entrepreneur will evaluate cost vs risk before he/she makes the attempt. Which would include where he expects his market to be eventually; that is in the long run.