Scientists re-emerge after a year in Mars simulation project
dw.com
dw.com
I say this with experience. Living and working doing science in the Arctic and on ships is grueling. It's grueling, and not anywhere near as difficult or unpredictable as being in space. The things that happen in that pressure cooker are really hard to explain to people who haven't lived it.
It's not ethical or easy to do the kinds of simulations that would actually be useful. How do you simulate "your colleague is gravely wounded and on life support. now you have to work for 90 hours straight to fix whatever mamed them". Oh, also, you have 9 months of mission left with one less crew.
It was mediocre at best but "for all man kind" highlights just how weird things might get in these places. The only analogous efforts I can imagine are the adventures of sea-fairing people of centuries past. Maybe we should invent time travel and do some sociological studies.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7772588/
why should it be any different on mars than on earth?
> This show has a cool premise, that being what if the space race never ended. It's a sort-of alternate reality and it does a good job of weaving in actual historical events with where the timeline diverged. The main problem is that I feel like the show is being pulled in two directions. In one direction, there is the tension of the space race, engineers scrambling to be the first on the moon/mars and dealing with all manner of technical issues in a realistic-ish way. That part of the show I enjoy. Then, for some reason, the show also throws in a bunch of trite interpersonal drama and stupidity. Like inter-marital affairs, people leaking NASA secrets to the soviets, and a CLEARLY unstable drug-addicted astronaut being given solo control of a super important mission. It's like the showrunners thought the show couldn't stand on it's own without dumb drama, as if there couldn't organically be issues and drama in the context of Frigging SPACE. The first season does this better, but by the 2nd/3rd seasons most of the issues come not from unforeseen difficulties of life on the moon/mars but idiots. It really makes me wonder if they just aren't sure who their audience are. The people who like the technical stuff are not going to like the artificial drama, and vise-versa. Pick a lane, show, and stick with it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Nowak
https://www.space.com/spacex-employee-lawsuit-sex-discrimina...
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2019/04/30/after-video-of-sp...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/27/faa-pilot...
I wanted the technical sci-fi to be worth it, but it wasn’t. There really isn’t much catering to an engineer audience.
I like the show as-is. Maybe I'm not in love with every single subplot but in general the show is pretty great. IRL people have motivations that drive them to do greedy, irresponsible things -- even astronauts.
Mars seems more like a high boredom environment. It's a dead planet where nothing more than the occasional feeble dust storm happen.
Something tells me that the first few thousand people sent to Mars won't be bored. There will be tons of things to do in the pursuit of making a habitable space.
Besides that, you have the constant death factor. I know we all live with risk 24/7. But, unless we're doing something outside our comfort zone, our brains largely ignore it. Living on Mars will not be like that for a settler. There are real risks that some piece of equipment will fail and kill you all. You'll likely be well aware of that because you'll be working on it. (Or worse, that idiot over there holding the spanner the wrong way is working on it.)
This is the key, IMHO. We've simulated such things as human isolation and closed-loop ecologies before, numerous times. And we did learn some things. But I don't think there is much you can do, and surely not anything ethical, that would correctly simulate being months away from Earth.
Just as you said, when you're on-planet, anything that goes wrong can be dealt with. Have a leak you can't fix? Someone just had a medial issue and is unresponsive? You just can't take it any more? Whatever the case, help is just a press of the red button away. I'm not sure if you've played many video games on Hardcore mode, but it's a totally different experience to know your saved game file(s) are in jeopardy if what you're about to do goes south. I would imagine the feeling is somewhat like this, but worse.
A lunar base might simulate it. An undersea base (as you suggested) might work too if you put it deep enough. But again, you're entering unethical territory here by making something exceedingly dangerous just for the sake of increasing the risk/stress.
Adding to the difficulties imposed by the harshness of the environment and the paucity of its resources, a habitat there will be more remote than any human habitat that has existed in centuries, perhaps in history, in terms of difficulty of resupplying it.
Simply surviving without the vast support network of civilization at hand is a constant struggle on Earth, and all of this will be exponentially more challenging on Mars.
Even a technology as seemingly unrelated to Mars settlement as autonomous robots I believe would see significant advances as part of any effort to create a permanent human presence on Mars.
My point is not that it's safe, but that there isn't much to do there, and very little unforeseen happens.
I assume no one goes to Mars without the resources to live safely and feed themselves. If we're talking about some adventurers hijacking a Starship, I fully agree that they're in for a world of stress :)
[1] https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/chapea/about-chapea/
It'll be the same stuff with Mars, except the death ratio will likely be substantially higher. It'll again be from just incidents that will look stupid in hindsight. And they will have been, but when you're working to prevent a billion bad outcomes, a few will always manage to wiggle through the cracks. All things considered I think Mars colonization will probably be far easier than the guys who were engaging in civilization building in the past. Settlers in times past were dealing with hostile natives, hostile waters, unknown diseases, unpredictable weather, even mundane things like rats getting into your rations, and had very little ability to measure or adapt to what they were dealing with. For instance Vasco de Gama (Europe to India guy) took 3 weeks to cross the Indian ocean the first time. On his way back, it took 3 months. By the time he returned, about 70% of his crew was dead.
Colonizing Mars will be absolutely brutal but we will have quite far fewer unknowns. Of course the issues will will have to deal with will be far harsher than anything anybody else ever had to manage, but they are known - and so that really simplifies the process.
We will need to send smaller crews first. Not just to do the science and validation necessary, but also because it would be plain unethical to send a large group of people without knowing what effect that kind of travel will have on them. And all of that in spite of knowing how that venture would even be technologically feasible.
If you haven’t, I can highly recommend reading A city on mars by Kelly & Zach Weinersmith.
And on Mars roofing would look like the safest job imaginable. We're going to be doing absolutely everything from scratch - industry, construction, manufacturing/processing, and more. And doing it all in conditions unlike anything on Earth, and where if you're exposed to atmosphere - even briefly, you're dead. There's going to be an unavoidably high death rate. If you want to wait until things are safe then I think that's perfectly understandable. But in turn you should also understand that people have different perspectives on life.
This is not how engineering works. You can’t just hand wave all practical problems away and throw adventurers with a death wish at them until a few stick to Mars.
A single failed Starship mission with a full crew is going to be the death sentence for any further exploration of a mars colony. I would very much like to see this happening, but not at the cost of entirely avoidable deaths.
Work smarter, not harder.
The fact that we nailed each Moon landing was thanks largely to good fortune. There's just so many unknown unknowns that you simply cannot get risk down to levels where failure is not a very real possibility. And in fact even the original Moon landing very nearly ended in catastrophe and only succeeded due to some superhuman piloting and good luck on top. The autopilot was going to set them down in a boulder strewn area so Armstrong took manual control and ended up landing with less than a minute of fuel remaining. And even when landing, he failed to carry out a process (immediate shut down) that was thought necessary to avoid a catastrophic failure by NASA. But with ever-recurring good fortune, they were wrong.
I would highly recommend "Failure Is Not An Option" [1] by chief flight director Gene Krantz. What I am talking about is an acceptance that substantial risk is simply going to be involved in space flight for the foreseeable future, and very possibly forever. And now space flight to distances further than ever, with the goal of starting an entirely new civilization, for the first time ever? I think it's extremely important to accept and acknowledge that this will involve plenty of death, so as to ensure that those who do sign up are fully aware of the risks. Armstrong was probably lying to himself there thinking they had a 90% chance of survival, and that's not good for anybody.
[1] - https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Failure-Is-Not-an-Opt...
I'm adding that to my library, thanks!
There's also a lot of misconceptions about things like radiation. In general short extremely high energy bursts of solar weather can be quite dangerous. But it turns out that the Starship will already have a rather large volume of appropriate shielding - water! That shield can be used on an as-needed basis because you can see these events coming from far away (yet again, advantages the earlier colonists would not have had).
The ambient radiation is much less of a concern. The worst case scenario is you end up shaving some years off your average life expectancy with a higher overall chance of cancer, but there are some super interesting studies in places like Ramsar, Iran [1]. Ramsar is the most naturally radiated habitated location on Earth, with orders of magnitude higher radiation levels than generally recommended as safe. According to contemporary radiation-cancer models, increased cancer rates should be trivially detectable. Instead they actually seem to be showing a slightly reduced rate of cancer, which some have posited may be attributable to radio-adaptive effects in play! Presumably this would not be true of the first generation(s), but it suggests some extremely exciting generational possibilities.
Basically I would say here that anything a small mission can do, a larger one could do - more safely, more reliably, more efficienctly, with more data, and just generally better chances of success. The costs when you do fail will be higher, but the chances of failure will be lower, and the overall rate of progress will be dramatically higher.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Iran#Radioactivity
(edit) My intention wasn’t political correctness but that words are important. “unwanted” is more fitting than “hostile,” as it matches the intention of the settlers.
Those explorers of eras past were going places that not only sustained ample plant and animal resources (in quantities that would surprise modern people) but entire human populations. There is almost nothing on Mars that will sustain us.
And that's after you got there. Crossing the sea meant you were completely subject to the whims of the weather, often sailing into the literal unknown, all the while your rations were slowly dwindling and your crew was starting to rot from the inside out dying rather unpleasant deaths - scurvy wouldn't be entirely resolved until the 20th century! With Mars we won't really have to deal with any of this, because the issues and variables will be mostly known ahead of time, and the supplies per settler will also be dramatically higher meaning a far greater window of time to reach self sustainability.
Even still, these explorers were able to harvest resources during their journey as well as immediately upon arrival at the destination.
With Mars, there’s nothing there. No fertile soil. No potable water. No known life. It’s an actively hostile environment. Colonizers to Mars will be exceptionally reliant on carrying the totality of their survival resources. Sure - if we spend the next centuries terraforming Mars robotically (or some other scheme), we could change the math on this - but I have a hard time swallowing the argument that crossing to, and colonizing, Mars is anything but orders of difficulty harder than the feats of those explorers. I’m a nerd and want to believe, but it’s fanatical thinking for… a long time.
And I think it will be similar on Mars. What is being done is, itself, far more difficult than what was done in the past. Yet in this case we have a far better idea of what we need to do, what we will be facing, and so on. There will be unknown unknowns, and those will get people killed, but I think the frequency of such unknowns will probably be quite a bit lower, which I would claim makes it overall "easier."
In the past even "just" doing a transatlantic crossing was basically accepting that a good chunk of your crew weren't going to make it. In the early Age of Sail, you'd be lucky if you were left with half your crew. The grand explorers like Magellan fared even worse. For his circumnavigation, he left with 5 ships and 270 men. "He" returned with one ship and 18 men, a 93% death rate. "He" in quotes as he was not one of those 18.
My favorite fact about Mars is the soil fucks with our hormones. Children born on Mars won't be able to survive because the dust will literally destroy their ability to develop. Shit is haaaard.
Now that's happened all over just the past 4 years. What do you think of our chances 20, 50, 100, and more years in the future hold hold? It's pretty easy to see plenty of timelines where we do eventually manage to kill ourselves, and so expanding beyond Earth is critical. Of course that doesn't mean we should neglect Earth in any way, shape or fashion. But with 8 billion people on this planet, we can manage to do more than one thing at a time to quite a high degree of competence.
Wiki has other details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_soil
In any case, point is: We need to stop being a threat to ourselves, and hoping that another planet, for which we're not evolved to survive on, is a better choice feels like the wrong path. Humans are amazing at surviving... on earth. Because we evolved to survive here.
Having a "plan B" is not a bad choice, because a lot can happen that we cannot prevent. However we can't resettle everyone. Most will die. Plan B is to continue the species, but not necessarily to actually save us.
I also completely agree with everything re: Earth. But one thing I'd add there is that I think humanity actually starting to settle Mars will dramatically shift the mindset of both people and countries. Imagine China was engaging in mass transit to populate and build up New Beijing. It's not like the US would simply stand by. And today I think many people are not so interested in these ideas, because they think it's simply impossible. I'm thinking more like New World parallels rather than Space Race.
Which is an important and relevant boundary for this discussion. Any space extended space travel is going to be mind numbingly public. Which is not a good thing
If it turned out that mice can't properly reproduce in the zero-g environment of the ISS, it would be very likely that (much heavier) humans can't properly reproduce in the low-g environment of Mars. Which would be a very important thing to figure out. Perhaps more important than the mostly psychological Mars simulation project.
Coincidentally, I was looking for research into zero-g pregnancy myself a few days ago and was surprised just as you are. I did, however, find https://www.audubon.org/news/the-amazing-story-cold-war-spac.... The Soviets did some good research on this subject and were able to successfully hatch birds at least.
Unfortunately, the chicks often came out deformed and many died early. Though birds are not closely related to us (our last common ancestor lived more than 300 million years ago), so I really would like to see ISS experiments on whether mice fare any better, or perhaps even worse.
Overall, I'm pessimistic about colonizing Mars. In the interview mentioned before, Kelly and Zach Weinersmith also mention other problems, like the necessity to live underground in caves, due to radiation. Building an underground city on Earth would be vastly easier than on Mars, yet nothing like it has ever been tried.
I think the most likely thing that will happen is this: In about 20 years, NASA will use Starship (a SpaceX rocket currently in development) to send a few US Americans to Mars, they will plant the flag of the nation, and, having beat the Chinese, that will be mostly the end of humanity's Mars aspirations.
Basically like the moon missions: Once the novelty is gone, people will likely lose interest in earlier aspirations of establishing a permanent base. Especially if the ISS mice turn out crippled.
You'd stop the train every few days to allow for resupply and entry or exit. It'd certainly be a different society in which pregnant women were expected to sequester themselves in high-G trains for the duration of their pregnancies, but there's no law of nature stopping this approach working.
Also, we don't know the shape of the function mapping deformity to gravity. We just have two endpoints: 1g, normal; 0g, deformed. Maybe 0.2g is sufficient to reduce deformities below the noise floor? We need to get a sense of the shape of this curve, preferably using mammal models.
The point about the function of gravity and deformity is valid. More realistically, both gravity and mass of the organism are likely to influence deformities, since animals with larger mass are impacted more by gravity.
Friction from fine particles and abrasion.
The train and tracks would have to be shielded.
But if you have that, you can make the whole team work on the train.
It looks like we will be sending robots to mars for decades. Drilling out habitats before we can move people.
Or maybe dynamiting out caves to build habitats.
> "We can do these things together," Brockwell said. "We can use our senses of wonder and purpose, to achieve peace and prosperity and to unlock knowledge and joy for the benefit of everyone in every part of planet Earth," he added.
This should be the starting point, imho. Those cultures were honed in 10000 years just for Mars survival perfection.
There was somebody else married to eskimo too, interesting because he made an Umiak suitable for outboard engine.
I guess you would have to use an Earth-based remote desktop.
the "internet" is just a network of computers. "sync up the two" would involve replicating the servers and coming up with some sort of consensus protocol. Needless to say, that's non-trivial to implement and needs to be done for each site individually. If there was a martian colony it might be economically feasible for some sites to do this, but if it's just a few astronauts the most feasible way of implementing internet browsing would be something like archive.today, where you send a url to some server on earth, the server runs a headless browser and takes a screenshot, and sends the captured contents back to mars/spacecraft.
Counterstrike or zoom meetings? Not so much.
Robust caching would help but still be nothing like what we experience on Earth (particularly the interactive portions of the web like, say, HN).
For browsing the web, they would send a message requesting a page, and get back the messages for the page in 30 minutes. They would probably send a request for whole site instead of round-trips for links.
This means that interactive JavaScript sites would never work. There would need to be way to download app or web app that could send messages to update state. Or way to install local server that can sync with Earth.
Getting website articles and other media via rss feeds would be easiest. Email and usenet style nntp, also.
There's been work done on protocols optimized for inter-planetary networks, taking into round trip times when it comes to retransmissions and windowing, etc. Gateways can be setup between those protocols and earth's tcp internet.
But every communication back and forth still takes many minutes. Interactive websites would take at least one round trip minutes for every request, every form submission, every javascript call to a back-end server, etc. Remote desktop solutions would encounter this same problem, too.
At the moment the fastest link to Mars is about 6 megabits per second. Presumably that could be scaled up quite a bit, but I assume bandwidth will be a consideration for a while, too.
Early on it will make sense to bring a lot of your own entertainment media and reference materials via thumb drive or other storage media, to have instant access and save bandwidth for other things.
I'm surprised more effort wasn't put in to making the habitat homely. It's very austere and scientific. I'd have thought that this experiment would also provide means to test ways to provide comfort in trying situations.