Humans on Mars

[speiss]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4tgkyUBkbY

 

[intpz]

Yea, let's bring fake vomit to space.

 

[Cognisant]

Filthy humans stay off my planet!

Also I assume the people involved are going to be all gay or something (all one gender either way) so there's more, well, options, because "the rest of your life" is a long time and I doubt there will be much else to do, aside from reading, writing, watching movies and so forth.

They'll probably play the single most epic D&D game ever

 

[Pizzabeak]

Looking forward to seeing how this pans out.

 

[Latte]

They should bring Snooki.

 

[intpz]

They should bring Snooki.

The fuck is Snooki?

 

[Cognisant]

Spoiler

I still don't know who or what Snooki is.

 

[Architect]

I actually don't find transporting people around the solar system that interesting or worth while. The problem is so difficult, and the payoff is ...? Questionable at best. I think the reason we haven't met aliens yet, or even seen radio traces of them, is because the present laws of physics are pretty much it. No warp drive, no transporters, no sub space disturbances (or sub space). Revolutions in science so far have been refinements and extensions of existing science, and not contradictions. So extrapolating our present science out to possible future discovery seems to indicate that it will always remain very hard to transport people around in space.

I think the best way to explore is to continue how we are doing it now - with machine intelligence. Our research dollars should be spent on that, and on improving computing technology - which is where the real payoff is.

 

[Amagi82]

^
I think it's arrogant to assume we know everything and FTL transportation is impossible. There *are* loopholes that we know of today to get around the universal speed limit- it's just well beyond our current abilities to access them. We are little more than some stupid monkeys playing with sticks on this planet. Hell, we still murder each other en masse over territory, destroy our own environment, and get excited over commercialism.



For the original post, I'm interested to see where this leads, and I think we should continue exploring, but I have utterly zero desire to be one of the people that spends the rest of his life in a tube drinking recycled piss in close contact with several other people and can't go outside without a space suit.

 

[Minuend]

I actually don't find transporting people around the solar system that interesting or worth while. The problem is so difficult, and the payoff is ...?

AWESOMENESS

 

[Architect]

I think it's arrogant to assume we know everything and FTL transportation is impossible.

I disagree. I'm not claiming this is the truth, I'm saying that if I were to lay a bet on the issue the money would be on c is invariant. My background is in physics - maybe you're not aware of the mountain of experimental evidence for the speed of light? Or the engineering dependence on it. For c to not be invariant, there would be an enormous amount of data and engineering that would have to be explained away.

This reminds me of the god vs evolution debate. For a supernatural being to have placed us here 6000 years ago it would take an enormous amount of explanation to account for all the data we've accumulated on evolution. Again not a good bet.

There *are* loopholes that we know of today to get around the universal speed limit- it's just well beyond our current abilities to access them.

Enlighten me, graduate school at one of the top 7 physics schools didn't do so.

One caution, when it comes to loopholes, and these kinds of discussions, you have to be careful of the source and context. There are a number of physicists and laymen running around making big claims, including mainstream physicists (such as the string theorists) who are mostly pulling it out of their collective asses. The 'multi-universes' idea is of this sort. Sure it's an idea, with no evidence or good theoretical basis. Yet many people cite it as near truth.

Time travel is another. We've known of solutions to the General Field eqns called 'closed timelike curves', in which time runs backwards. There is no experimental verification of them - they might not be possible in the real, physical universe - but they are real solutions to a theory which is on rock solid ground. But I have my dental hygienist citing time travel as real (she heard it from some nerdy friends). However, perhaps oddly seeming, I would actually support the idea of time travel more than FTL, because at least there is a strong theoretical basis for the idea.

Ultimately I'm not trying to crush anybodies dream, or sound like an old sourpuss on this. It is certainly possible that we break c. However, the matter is pure pop-sci speculation AFAIK - I wouldn't bet my paycheck on it.

 

[Architect]

Furthering this idea, another thing you should consider is that, like all human endeavors, science follows the path of least resistance. The reason is simply that scientists (and those that fund them) have limited resources - time and money - and so they'll put energy into directions that seem likely to have the biggest payoff. A career is maybe only 20-30 years, and you're unlikely to feed your kids (or make any mark on the world) by chasing after unlikely research. So even if FTL were true, we would be unlikely to discover it unless our noses were rubbed in the fact.

Take Einstein as an example. During the 'Annus Mirabilis' he discovered what probably constitutes the most miraculous about face that has ever occurred in science. However he had a solid basis for the work - the enigma of the Michaelson-Morley experiments. Solid evidence that something was unexplained, and it turned out that the explanation was literally beyond imagination.

The biggest hole I'm aware of is that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics don't agree. Gravity refuses to be quantized. However this isn't an experimental problem, QCD (quantum chromo dynamics) is our best verified science (to an amazing 8 or 9 sig figs) as is GR (a little less so). Two theories , both true, however they both disagree, or at least don't mesh.

But this isn't like unexplained phenomenon like Michaelson-Morley, this could easily be due to deficiencies in our theories (and in fact probably is).

Blah blah blah ...

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I honestly can't understand how people could be okay with providing funding for research & development for space exploration while ignoring the problems of the planet we already live on.

 

[Architect]

I honestly can't understand how people could be okay with providing funding for research & development for space exploration while ignoring the problems of the planet we already live on.

Because innovation is synergistic and time dependent. In other words, not going to Mars won't magically solve other problems, would rather slow them.

 

[Amagi82]

I disagree. I'm not claiming this is the truth, I'm saying that if I were to lay a bet on the issue the money would be on c is invariant. My background is in physics - maybe you're not aware of the mountain of experimental evidence for the speed of light? Or the engineering dependence on it. For c to not be invariant, there would be an enormous amount of data and engineering that would have to be explained away.

Enlighten me, graduate school at one of the top 7 physics schools didn't do so.

One caution, when it comes to loopholes, and these kinds of discussions, you have to be careful of the source and context. There are a number of physicists and laymen running around making big claims, including mainstream physicists (such as the string theorists) who are mostly pulling it out of their collective asses. The 'multi-universes' idea is of this sort. Sure it's an idea, with no evidence or good theoretical basis. Yet many people cite it as near truth.

Time travel is another. We've known of solutions to the General Field eqns called 'closed timelike curves', in which time runs backwards. There is no experimental verification of them - they might not be possible in the real, physical universe - but they are real solutions to a theory which is on rock solid ground. But I have my dental hygienist citing time travel as real (she heard it from some nerdy friends). However, perhaps oddly seeming, I would actually support the idea of time travel more than FTL, because at least there is a strong theoretical basis for the idea.

Ultimately I'm not trying to crush anybodies dream, or sound like an old sourpuss on this. It is certainly possible that we break c. However, the matter is pure pop-sci speculation AFAIK - I wouldn't bet my paycheck on it.

Nobody's arguing that the absolute speed of light can be altered. Loopholes are numerous, of which warp drive and wormholes are popular examples, both of which are theoretically possible, but would require resources and technology vastly beyond us. As I've heard it explained, warp drive would likely require negative matter or energy, something we have no reliable evidence of in the universe. Wormholes are theoretically sound, but we also have no clue how to manipulate such a thing.

My point is that two hundred years ago, the idea man could fly was ridiculous. A hundred years ago, many people thought it impossible for an aircraft to exceed the speed of sound. Technology like computers couldn't have been fathomed a hundred years ago. We have a long history of scientists and popular figures stating "x is impossible", and then being proven wrong a handful of years later. We don't know if FTL travel is possible or not, so confidently claiming one way or another is foolish and arrogant. It's quite possible there are simple ways of accomplishing FTL travel that nobody has yet conceived.

 

[Architect]

Nobody's arguing that the absolute speed of light can be altered. Loopholes are numerous, of which warp drive and wormholes are popular
examples, both of which are theoretically possible,

Point me to the Physical Review Letters please

As I've heard it explained,

Not trying to be offensive, but you're simply repeating <something> from <some source>

warp drive

Outside of Star Trek, what is 'warp drive'?

would likely require negative matter or energy, something we have no reliable evidence of in the universe. Wormholes are theoretically sound, but we also have no clue how to manipulate such a thing.

And what is negative matter and negative energy? I've not heard of either. You don't mean 'anti-matter', which we know a lot about and can reliably produce (and is powering the LHC)?

My point is that two hundred years ago, the idea man could fly was ridiculous. A hundred years ago, many people thought it impossible for an aircraft to exceed the speed of sound. Technology like computers couldn't have been fathomed a hundred years ago. We have a long history of scientists and popular figures stating "x is impossible", and then being proven wrong a handful of years later. We don't know if FTL travel is possible or not, so confidently claiming one way or another is foolish and arrogant. It's quite possible there are simple ways of accomplishing FTL travel that nobody has yet conceived.

Oh please, that isn't an argument. In the past there were many things we could conceive of that we can't seem to bring around either. Such as hot or cold fusion, planet cracking, gods and fairies and pixie dust. Saying that we've produced seemingly inconceivable things doesn't mean that we will produce you're pet theory one day.

Besides which you're wrong. Computers have been conceived for a long time. Ada Lovelace and Charles Babbage thought about the implications of a thinking machine, and they were working with a simple mechanical computer in the 1800's. Thinking machines go at least as far back as the greeks who had the idea of brass robots that acted like men. In fact, on that example we're a bit slow up on the uptake. We've enjoyed several A.I. 'winters' because of the grand predictions made by early practitioners. In the 50's they thought we would have intelligent robots in every house by now.

In this case I'm fully sure that we will eventually reach the long held dream of thinking machines, in the meantime you can work to improve your argument.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Because innovation is synergistic and time dependent. In other words, not going to Mars won't magically solve other problems, would rather slow them.

Sure but throwing money towards the promise of space exploration and colonization which won't be around for at least a decade(not to mention the later date when such a thing could even be ready for mass movement)when there are present day issues which could be given the same attention just doesn't make any sense. Of course there are various contributions coming from different places, but still more funding for space exploration means less available sources of funding for projects on Earth.

I think the problem is that Earth's collective move towards space exploration was premature considering the technology of that time. Though it's true a lot of advances in modern science & technology have trickled down from space science.

 

[Cognisant]

We don't even need FTL, there's quite a few stars within a dozen light years of us, near light speed would be enough to get humans that far, assuming they don't go mad or die of radiation poisoning on the way.

 

[Architect]

Sure but throwing money towards the promise of space exploration and colonization which won't be around for at least a decade(not to mention the later date when such a thing could even be ready for mass movement)when there are present day issues which could be given the same attention just doesn't make any sense. Of course there are various contributions coming from different places, but still more funding for space exploration means less available sources of funding for projects on Earth.

Well I'd argue that it does make sense, because people are throwing money at the problem. We've been trying to solve problems here on earth for a long time and some of them, such as poverty, seem to be tough.

In this case, it could happen that exploration of space will tell us how to harvest that abundance and bring it to earth. Do you know how much energy and material exists in the Solar System? There is absolutely no energy or material crisis - there is 'just' a problem with distribution. One of the Saturn moons is covered with hydrocarbons, all the metals (rare and not) in the asteroids, the enormous energy wasted by the sun, and so on.

Ultimately however if you look at the history of innovation you'll see that what gets innovated is what could get innovated at the time and place that it did. In other words, we obviously don't have the means to solve world hunger right now, so why throw billions into the problem? Instead take those billions and put it into space travel, and you know history shows us that, more often or not, solving that problem will solve a bunch of others along the way (and introduce new ones).

 

[GeneralPatton]

I actually don't find transporting people around the solar system that interesting or worth while. The problem is so difficult, and the payoff is ...? Questionable at best. I think the reason we haven't met aliens yet, or even seen radio traces of them, is because the present laws of physics are pretty much it. No warp drive, no transporters, no sub space disturbances (or sub space). Revolutions in science so far have been refinements and extensions of existing science, and not contradictions. So extrapolating our present science out to possible future discovery seems to indicate that it will always remain very hard to transport people around in space.

I disagree. How do you know that the payoff is, questionable? Quite frankly, it's one of those questions that neither you, nor I, nor any other person of this planet is qualified to answer. While making a coverable statement, being that the outcome is questionable, you leave open for direction the basis of your comment. Questionable could mean worthless, yet at the same time it could end up being the answers to all the questions man has ever wanted answered. I also don't think that all the laws of physics are chiseled in stone. Now, since based on what I've read that you've posted, you'll ask me for reference to something written in a scientific journal or some other educational publication. Obviously, I don't have that to offer. What I would propose, would be that 1500 years ago people KNEW that the earth was the center of the universe.......500 years ago people KNEW that the world was flat.....bottom line, scientific theory changes. I also won't postulate that warp drives will be in use today, tomorrow, or in 2245. However, given the rate of advancement in the last say, 50 years, I do believe that we will conquer at least our solor system in the coming future. The obvious drive of greedy bastard politicians and CEO's is the infinite possiblity of resources that could be gathered from places outside of earth. Given this, they will find a way to make it financially feesable to transport not only humans, but machinery and cargo. Very recently I began reading many of Edgar Rice Burroughs novels (yes, I know these are science fiction) and the idea of getting to Mars or Venus doesn't seem all that outlandish to me. After seeing the panoramic pictures taken by NASA's Mars rovers, I don't see why we couldn't get there. Whats the feesability of living there? Probably so far off in the future that there is no reason to speculate it. Meeting ET? Well, I think that Hollywood has turned ET into something that people believe aliens will be, when another life form is most likely far different from ours, similiar to the way the lifeforms in Burroughs novels advanced far from the way we did. Not only do I find it fascinating, but I think that you touched upon the fact that many answers to many questions unrelated to space exploration could "accidentally" be answered in the process. New rare elements could lead to new alloys that made even deeper space travel possible, new fuel sources could lead to more efficiant methods of propulsion that require far less storage from greater potential from lesser mass. The possibilities are endless. What we know, with our meager few thousands of years on earth, could be just scratching the surface of infinite possibility. Or perhaps you are right, it could be just nothing. If I was to gamble, I'd put my money on the fact that we humans know very little, and our stone cold hard facts could quite possibly be nothing more than our own little false reality.

 

[Cognisant]

I love this web-comic

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I love this web-comic

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20120716.gif

That woman in the green shirt is pretty smart.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

In 2013 Mars One will conduct a global search to find the best candidates for the first human mission to Mars in 2023. On Mars, the primary responsibility for the astronauts is to keep everything, and everyone, up and running. This will be a particular challenge for the first teams. They will need the skills to solve any potential problem - some of which will be completely unforeseeable. Their combined skill sets of each team member must cover a very wide range of disciplines. The astronauts must be intelligent, creative, psychologically stable and physically healthy. On this page, we offer a brief introduction to the basics of our astronaut selection process.​

http://mars-one.com/en/faq-en/21-faq-selection/251-do-i-qualify-to-apply
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/01/mars-astronaut-requirements

 

[Analyzer]

I honestly can't understand how people could be okay with providing funding for research & development for space exploration while ignoring the problems of the planet we already live on.

Yes, economics and medicine are the big two that humans need to get a better grip on. Computers can revolutionize these fields.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

In 2013 Mars One will conduct a global search to find the best candidates for the first human mission to Mars in 2023. On Mars, the primary responsibility for the astronauts is to keep everything, and everyone, up and running. This will be a particular challenge for the first teams. They will need the skills to solve any potential problem - some of which will be completely unforeseeable. Their combined skill sets of each team member must cover a very wide range of disciplines. The astronauts must be intelligent, creative, psychologically stable and physically healthy. On this page, we offer a brief introduction to the basics of our astronaut selection process.
​

http://mars-one.com/en/faq-en/21-faq-selection/251-do-i-qualify-to-apply
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/01/mars-astronaut-requirements

I volunteer for duty.
My qualifications are as follows:
I have played Area 51 and am a proficient alien killer.
I am great at putting bandads on cuts.
And I really, really want to go to Mars.
Oh and I've watched Mars Attacks so I know what the aliens will look like.

But in all seriousness this is pretty cool. It will be a great achievement for humankind. Hopefully it leads to some leaps in space technology or technology in general. Mainly better engines and different fuel supplies. Then the stars will be ours!

 

[mindtheplatonicgap]

While I applaud the efforts of this non-profit, if they plan to succeed in execution, I suggest they team up with Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX, who has recently announced plans to build a colony on mars.

SpaceX has sent two capsules to the international space station in the last few months, in a rocket designed from the ground up by the company, and directed from their own mission control. They are now working on a reusable Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) rocket which, if successful, will greatly reduce the cost of going to and from space (think about how expensive flying would be if you had to scrap the aircraft after every flight).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4PEXLODw9c

 

[Felan]

Point me to the Physical Review Letters please

Michu Kaku talks about it in Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos and possibly other books of his.

 

[Amagi82]

That's not necessarily FTL, depending how you think of the situation. It's not like a signal is traveling back and forth at faster than the speed of light.

 

[BigApplePi]

I think it's arrogant to assume we know everything and FTL transportation is impossible. There *are* loopholes that we know of today to get around the universal speed limit- it's just well beyond our current abilities to access them.

I thought I heard of a thing called, "quantum entanglement." That says that one can have two particles (electons?) that are tied together. If I'm correct, experiments have been run where when you measure one for something, the other one always has the opposite measurement. This happens instantaneously no matter how far apart they are.

If my memory serves, "instantaneous" is faster than the speed of light.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

And a Chinese research team sent(/teleported) their entangled particles 109km. Quite the feat.

 

[joal0503]

the biggest mindfuck would be finding out that mars being is somehow the true home planet of our species ancestors.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

the biggest mindfuck would be finding out that mars being is somehow the true home planet of our species ancestors.

Mission to Mars / IMDb

 

[TheScornedReflex]

the biggest mindfuck would be finding out that mars being is somehow the true home planet of our species ancestors.

And Jesus was John Carter.

 

[joal0503]

Mission to Mars / IMDb

And Jesus was John Carter.

never seen em

but seriously...just trying to imagine mars hundreds of millions of years ago...or at least a mars when it was able to support life forms with an atmosphere...why the hell could it not be possible?

 

[A22]

One has to be insane to spend the rest of one's life trapped with unknown people inside a house, eating cereals and being watched 24/7 (it'd be a reality show if I got it right) in a giant, oxygenless, desert with a 30min ping to the nearest server.

And there are no cops nor laws so that'd be an interesting sociological experiment - which would probably turn out bad.

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

@Architect, any of the below may prove to be interesting:

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P7wNXpOuy8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfEF3ED9hGg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw3gzlwhMNc

 

[Architect]

I disagree. How do you know that the payoff is, questionable?

I don't, but it's a matter of placing bets. Space stuff gets the lions share of dollars at any rate, people like space.

Actually it's a little ironic, I happened to work on one of the first Mars probes. We did a detector that measured radiation from the planet. Unfortunately that was the probe that got lost, you know the one where there was a math error in its trajectory (not my fault )