Please log in to view images

« prev   random   next »

1
0

Elon Musk Wants To Send You To Mars: TO DIE!

By OccasionalCortex follow OccasionalCortex   2020 Jan 21, 1:46pm 436 views   22 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    


This is a pic of Elon Musk's proposed colony on Mars. Also known as 'Musk Eisley' to those of us with even half a brain. Notice anything in particular about it?

The buildings are on the surface.



You know, where the rads will kill everyone living in such arrangements? THAT Musk Eisley.

So oh yeah, Musk Fluffers! Go ahead and drink the Flavor Aid....join the colony and D-I-E.


Death on Mars
https://outline.com/AKWdzp

The bottom line is that the extremely thin atmosphere on Mars, and the absence of a strong global magnetic field, result in a complex and potent particle radiation environment. There are lower energy solar wind particles (like protons and helium nuclei) and much higher energy cosmic ray particles crashing into Mars all the time. The cosmic rays, for example, also generate substantial secondary radiation - crunching into martian regolith to a depth of several meters before hitting an atomic nucleus in the soil and producing gamma-rays and neutron radation.






Yo Musk! Pass this little girl-born-on-Mars a toke, will ya? She needs it more than you do.
1   HeadSet   ignore (3)   2020 Jan 21, 2:00pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Why not just colonize the moon? A lot closer, and same issues.
2   Fortwaynemobile   ignore (2)   2020 Jan 21, 2:18pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Too easy to send distress signals from.

HeadSet says
Why not just colonize the moon? A lot closer, and same issues.
3   socal2   ignore (1)   2020 Jan 21, 2:26pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
Why not just colonize the moon? A lot closer, and same issues.


I believe Mars is much closer to the earth's atmosphere and has many more minerals and potential of water compared to the moon. I think they say it is actually easier to land on Mars than the moon - other than the longer journey.
4   socal2   ignore (1)   2020 Jan 21, 2:31pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

OccasionalCortex says
So oh yeah, Musk Fluffers! Go ahead and drink the Flavor Aid....join the colony and D-I-E.


He will have no shortage of volunteers.

Regardless if going to Mars is worthwhile or not, the work that Space X has already achieved toward this goal has dramatically reducing the cost of space travel by pioneering the ability to reuse rockets.

Later this year, SpaceX will be sending astronauts up to the ISS. We no longer have to hitch rides on Russian rockets.
5   rocketjoe79   ignore (2)   2020 Jan 21, 2:47pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

If you watch the opening to the Expanse series (on Amazon Prime) to can see lights in the canyon walls. Valles Marineris is 2500 miles long, 225 miles wide and up to 6 miles deep. You could fit several entire Grand Canyons inside it. That's a LOT of real estate. Probably water ice somewhere inside the structure that could be mined. Living under several meters of rock is good enough rad protection. And if it gets terrible, docs do research to mitigate radiation and promote DNA repair. Probably leading to life extension treatments as well.
6   theoakman   ignore (0)   2020 Jan 21, 2:58pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

socal2 says
HeadSet says
Why not just colonize the moon? A lot closer, and same issues.


I believe Mars is much closer to the earth's atmosphere and has many more minerals and potential of water compared to the moon. I think they say it is actually easier to land on Mars than the moon - other than the longer journey.


Closer? The pressure that exists on Mars is 2hat we refer to a vacuum by Earth standards. It's .006 atm.
7   Rin   ignore (7)   2020 Jan 21, 3:00pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The best option is Venus, in airship floating cities (think Bespin from Star Wars 2: ESB), 50+ miles above the surface, where the atmospheric pressure is ~1 earth atmosphere & where the gravity is similar to earth's own.

This way, ppl may need to wear an acid resistant suit while walking outdoors, along with a gas mask to an O2 tank, but won't have to be in pressurized space suits all day along.

Sure, if you fall off the airship, you're pretty much dead even before hitting the ground but at least it'll be quicker than long term radiation sickness for almost anyone deciding upon Mars.
8   HeadSet   ignore (3)   2020 Jan 21, 3:16pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

long term radiation sickness for almost anyone deciding upon Mars.

Venus has no magnetic field, so radiation may still be an issue.
9   Shaman   ignore (2)   2020 Jan 21, 3:33pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The moon is a much better bet. Not only is there a permanent dark side which would be virtually radiation free, but it’s close to Earth for resupply and such, and the regolith is full of Helium 3, which would be great fuel for fusion reactors. The moon would be an excellent Gas n Go for the rest of the solar system.
All habitations should be underground of course.

Mars is a death trap at this point. Not only is there no reasonable atmosphere, but the soil is HIGHLY toxic with heavy metals and arsenic pervasive. Cleaning it would be a highly involved and extremely intensive process. And importing soil to use to grow food would be ridiculously expensive. Add to this a gravity well that is significant, and it’s quite likely that any trip to mars would be both one way and a death sentence.

I’d want to look out a bit further to the planetoids like Ceres for bases off of Earth. Less gravity, radiation, and possible water to use. Some have mentioned the moons of Jupiter, but the planet itself is close and emits a ridiculous level of radiation which the moons provide no defense against.

Space is going to be difficult. Our best bet is to construct a large space station/hotel/shipyard in the LaGrange point between the moon and the Earth (the point at which the gravity of the moon and the Earth balances to zero.).
Near earth asteroids could be mined and their usable mass of water and minerals sent on unmanned vehicles back to this LaGrange Station, allowing for construction materials for both the station and larger more capable deep space ships which could try out various drives. With the means to test different engines, we might arrive at a truly revolutionary technology which would open the solar system to human exploration and exploitation. But we have to construct many of these ships outside a gravity well.

For example of a drive which would send us around much faster, check out the microwave drive. The thrust seems minimal, maybe 1/100th of a G, but it is constant and can be maintained indefinitely with a nuclear reactor on board. Constant thrust builds to significant velocities over time, which would allow us to make much longer journeys in a fraction of the time.
10   Rin   ignore (7)   2020 Jan 21, 3:44pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
long term radiation sickness for almost anyone deciding upon Mars.

Venus has no magnetic field, so radiation may still be an issue.


Oddly enough, given Venus's atmosphere, its ionsphere does interact with the Solar winds to generate a type of slim magnetosphere.

https://www.astrobio.net/also-in-news/a-magnetic-surprise-from-venus/

So while it's not as protective as the earth's intrinsically occurring one, it does give a bit for protection for the twilight and night time sides of the airships so that walking outdoors may still be a possibility whereas during let's say midday, all personnel may need to be indoors and under the airship's coverings ( varied composites summing up to 4" of lead in total), for maximum protection. All and all, while it ain't perfect, it certainly beats the automatic radiation sickness which will occur on Mars unless everyone lives underground in heavily lead shielded prison compartments. Seriously, if one wants to live like that, basically like a rat, it's better to be onboard a spaceship towards Alpha Centauri than rotting on a dead world like Mars.
11   OccasionalCortex   ignore (5)   2020 Jan 21, 4:21pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Rin says
Oddly enough, given Venus's atmosphere, its ionsphere does interact with the Solar winds to generate a type of slim magnetosphere.


Yup. Venus is more habitable for humans than Mars for that and other reasons. Second most habitable: Titan.
12   OccasionalCortex   ignore (5)   2020 Jan 21, 4:24pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

rocketjoe79 says
If you watch the opening to the Expanse series (on Amazon Prime) to can see lights in the canyon walls


...but the Mars of that era has already been partially terraformed. Including orbital magnetic field generators. And in the last season, it was quite clear that everyone was living like moles underground nonetheless.
13   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2020 Jan 21, 4:56pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Mars:
- gravity 38% of earth, no guaranty humans can live long term in such gravity.
- pressure low enough so the fluids in your lungs will start to boil instantly and kill you
- radiations: no magnetic field and atmosphere not thick enough to protect from deadly radiations
- temperatures: outer edge of habitable zone. Usually too cold.

Titan:
- gravity: 0.138 g: slightly less than moon. Too low for humans.
- pressure: 150% of earth. Good.
- radiations: thick atmosphere offers protection from radiations.
- temperature: receives 1% the sun light of earth, and 90% of that is absorbed by the atmosphere, leaving you with 0.1% of earth sunlight, and external temps of −180 °C.
- other challenges:
- Titan's atmosphere contains hydrogen cyanide, and is extremely toxic for humans, and it contains no oxygen.
- very very long trip to get there.

Venus:
- gravity: 90% of earth: check
- pressure on surface: 90x that of earth, around the same as 1000m under water. Enough to crush a car. But at 50km elevation: around 1 atmosphere.
- radiations: no magnetic field, but thick atmosphere can protect from radiations.
- temperatures: around 1000 degrees F on surface. At 50km elevation: 0-50C so good for humans.
- Other challenges:
- sulfuric acid
- constant lightening storms.
- days 117 earth days long, meaning long eras of frying followed by freezing. But high elevation winds circle the planet every four Earth days.


I feel pretty good here on earth. It's way easier to build artificial islands or live underground on earth.
14   socal2   ignore (1)   2020 Jan 21, 5:13pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I don't foresee colonies of people living on Mars ever. It will probably be more like small outposts of scientists like we have in Antarctica.

By the time we are ready to send the first humans, SpaceX will have already landed and retrieved the big Starship rockets and will have several more rockets pre-positioned for supplies.
15   theoakman   ignore (0)   2020 Jan 21, 5:22pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

the funny thing is, the same group of people that insist that a one degree shift in temperature is going to cause mass migrations and ecosystem devastation somehow think we can colonize a planet that has no atmosphere, ultrafreezing temperatures, solar radiation, and poisonous soil.
16   Onvacation   ignore (6)   2020 Jan 21, 5:42pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Shaman says
The moon is a much better bet. Not only is there a permanent dark side

It's called the dark side because we never see it. Which also helps to make it the ideal off planet launch pad. The moon always shows the same face to us while the rest of it faces the universe.
17   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2020 Jan 21, 5:50pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Some people think radiations are tolerable with a slightly higher risk of cancer. The reality is that space is full of high energy heavy ions that can kill human cells on impact, including brain cells. We just can't live in space until we have devised an efficient shield and one sufficiently light weight to be carried around.

"Based on calculations of heavy ion fluences during space flight as well as various experimental cell models, as many as 5% of an astronaut's cells might be killed during such missions. With respect to cells in critical brain regions, as many as 13% of such cells may be traversed at least once by an iron ion during a three-year Mars mission."
18   Ceffer   ignore (5)   2020 Jan 21, 6:32pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Wireless remote kill switches capable of electrocuting GPS monitored Tesla drivers, installed by NSA operatives, just weren't enough for Musk, were they?
19   NoCoupForYou   ignore (3)   2020 Jan 21, 6:42pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

You know how many people died in the beginning of air flight, not to mention the exploration of the New World and the Route around Africa?

The sooner rockets and colonies fail, and the more people die, the future will get better, faster. And they'll be no lack of daredevil sons of guns volunteering. Some will pay for the privilege of the first failed airlock and busted life support system.

30 Astronaut deaths* since the Space Age began in 1959 is a whole lot less than the number of Antarctica deaths just since 2010. But nobody talks about the futility of Antarctic research.


* Includes ground-based testing, like Apollo 1, and any flights involving astronaut program members while on duty.
20   NoCoupForYou   ignore (3)   2020 Jan 21, 6:54pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
It's called the dark side because we never see it. Which also helps to make it the ideal off planet launch pad. The moon always shows the same face to us while the rest of it faces the universe.


Awesome place for radioastronomy, too.
21   NoCoupForYou   ignore (3)   2020 Jan 21, 6:57pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Shaman says
The thrust seems minimal, maybe 1/100th of a G, but it is constant and can be maintained indefinitely with a nuclear reactor on board. Constant thrust builds to significant velocities over time, which would allow us to make much longer journeys in a fraction of the time.

Yep.

No nukes, no long term space travel. It's basically Fusion or Fission for on demand power, esp. beyond the Belt.

Dust off them NERVAs.

Moon is great for testing ISRUs. First step: Ice to Water to H2 and O2.
22   Rin   ignore (7)   2020 Jan 21, 8:18pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

socal2 says

I don't foresee colonies of people living on Mars ever. It will probably be more like small outposts of scientists like we have in Antarctica.


Except that Antarctica has air.

The crew on Mars will have to bring everything with them.

Even on Venus, the presence of a high density C02 atmosphere, along with high temps esp below 50M up, could be catalyzed into 02 by robotic factory airships, capable of handling the rough conditions, to pack & send 02 canisters for the human based airships above it which will have their own photosynthesis plants for both, breathable air along with food stuffs.

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions