I'm reminded of the plot of the film "Moon". Did those guys really get to come home at the end or
Six would-be Mars colonists have emerged from eight months of isolation on top of a Hawaiian volcano as part of preparations for an eventual manned mission to the Red Planet. The six members of the fifth Hawai'i Space Exploration Analog and Simulation (HI-SEAS) experiment were sealed in a solar-powered geodesic dome with …
Can we have some information about sexual release during the stay?
I see this team is not well-balanced (nor very diverse actually, quick, someone get me an aggrieved well-financed organization not named after a Dead White Male on the phone)
'Hang on, Trump has done what??!?'
SFA, why do you ask?
Going to the moon is almost as hard as going to mars. It's just that going to mars takes a lot longer. The moon presents it's own and very different set of challenges to overcome compared to mars (ultra clingy, super sharp dust for one). There is not much of interest on the moon, so going there would only be half baked dry run for going to mars at best.
Mars has an atmosphere which blocks most of the radiation. It's not as good as Earth but it's comparable to being on the ISS. The Moon has no atmosphere and no magnetic field, so it has no protection from radiation at all, and so is far worse to colonise from that point of view. (And from most other points of view, too). Either way colonists will want to spend most of their time in shielded habitats, eg sited in lava tubes.
Difference is between the moon and mars is that it's not so close that there isn't actual immediate danger when something goes wrong (most things that could go wrong short of explosive decompression) like ISS but it's not so far away that if something goes wrong the only point in sending a vehicle for them would be to collect the bodies.
The other thing about the moon v mars is that you'd have to get the radiation issue sorted, in again a relatively controlled environment. When mars is colonised in the same sort of way that antarctica is *then* we can talk about manned mars missions, right now they're a one-way trip.
This team aren't working on the "space is really radioactive" problem. Instead, they're working on the "how do we keep people cooped up for years without them killing each other" problem.
Both* need to be solved for humans to go to Mars or the moon, and it makes sense to study them in parallel.
(* and a bunch of other problems)
Before we consider going to the Moon we need to look to see if we can find carbon and nitrogen hiding somewhere. After we find possible resources, we then have to figure out if they are extractable.
We've already figured out how to extract the carbon and nitrogen we'll need on Mars. We've found carbon and nitrogen on Ceres. Either of these are currently better options than the Moon.
"The real question is when Trump blows the planet up and there is nothing to come back to, what do the astronauts do?"
Well, I'm guessing that if there are three of them, one will be killed soon after they get back by a group of survivors. Another will be captured by them, and the third will somehow evade capture by remaining in the return capsule, but will be later captured by a more powerful group who is actually in control.
Bonus points if they happen to have some kind of nuclear weapon on board the capsule.
I read an article about the 'Biosphere 2' mission recently, and they had a fair few disagreements during their mission. Again they had the escape option (although in both cases everyone has stuck it out). I guess the test will be added stress and increased duration. Biosphere 2 was pretty big, and quite idyllic (they had their own waterfall), I imagine a Mars colony being a series of connected boxes initially, so very different environments.
Having worked on a couple of yachts, you find out fairly quickly if a crew-member can hack it or will succumb to "cabin-fever". And I think I could probably weed out most of the people that couldn't handle it after a half-hour interview. On a yacht, you do not have the option to walk out if you are on a long crossing. Some people are OK with it, some crack up. (It could also be to do with sleep-deprivation and long shifts with hard/dangerous work, but hey.)
"Being locked with a bunch of people for a long time, knowing that, push comes to shove, you can get out of it any time, is not the same as being locked with a bunch of people for a long time, knowing that whatever happens, you have no way out until the mission is over"
Foolish comment. Suspending disbelief is a natural human capacity and a huge amount can be learnt from simulating something. It does not have to be "the same"
An odd thing about tracking to stop those who wanted to isolate themselves, fail to see the issue if "crew members" want to spend time alone: Presumably there will be plenty of social interaction doing tasks, communal meals etc. but someone who is happy in their own company and does not need to seek out intearction from others does not equate to someone isolating themselves because they fear they may have a big argument with someone else: If I was given a choice between an hour of inconsequential chit chat with someone I already saw plenty of & chatted to in course of work, or an hour with one of the many great works of literature still on my "to read" list, I would take the book every time.
I still think the Air Forces are the wrong choice as space mission leaders for long term missions... You want submariners (like my uncle) who know all about long durations alone, in cramped conditions, surrounded by crushing (or explodey-vacuum) death and other people's farts.
"It's really important to get off Earth – if you look back at the geological records it is just full of mass extinctions."
Hopefully , we're a bit smarter than a Woolly Mammoth or a dinosaur and therefore wouldnt be totally surprised by an ice age or even a massive impact. I'd rather take my chances here than move to a small rock a billion miles away with no air, water , plants , animals , fuel .
Hell you'd be just as well off staying in the space ship.
Whats Mars got to offer apart from somewhere to stand on? and it dosent even do that properly cos the gravitys not been turned up enough.
Because we did such a good Job of spotting the Chelyabinsk Meteorite recently. And it's still pretty certain that if a Tunguska size Meteorite came along we would still have to be very lucky and looking directly at it to be able to spot it. And even if we do spot it, there's bugger all we can do to stop it. If something bigger comes along, frankly we will go extinct, nothing to do with being smarter than the dinosaurs, but when an extinction event comes along and wipes out 80% of life on Earth, we WILL be part of that 80%.
The Point of starting other colonies is the same reason you create new Habitats for endangered animals. If something happens to one Habitat and wipes out the animals there, you can use the other Habitat to keep the animals alive and prehaps repopulate that original area if/when it becomes habitable again.
When an extinction Event occurs on Earth, it would be nice to think that the human population on Mars would be OK and can eventually repopulate the Earth or move on to the rest of the glaaxy.
We know where to find water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen on Mars. We'll need to take the tools necessary to collect these. We'll also need a bubble in which we can grow crops. From here it is relatively straight forward. Step one, grow grains and hops. Step two, brew beer. Survival necessities solved.
Obviously this is an over-simplification. So far I haven't found any product that can't be made on Mars.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019