Against the Human Exploration of Mars if Everyone can't go.

Grypd · 2005-08-30 15:34:29

Welcome to new Mars Kaci_m and hope you enjoy yourself here.

It will really come down to who actually manages to get to Mars. Which country or collection of countries will make it. A lot depends on that as countries and cultures are different and it is they will flavour an initial Martian colony

clark · 2005-08-30 19:47:38

You all seem to argue about the same side of a two headed coin. What has become of the lovely forum?

So let us find compromise! The great killer of debates. The muddy middle ground where both side say, "yeah."

Grypd hinted at the basic premise, but let me expound upon it, and in the process, perhaps shed some light on what most already here know:

Opporunity of Chance. If you have ever played a game, then you have an idea. If you have ever been told you can't play a game, for one reason or another, then you will understand.

Some play better at certain games, and thus, excel. In games where teams are involved, the teams want the best individual players. "Don't pick me last!" Ever recall that adolecent stigma? And little children grow up to be big children, but they still play games. They still choose teams. Some still excel at certain games, and less so at others.

But what's the point to this ramble?

Ah, well, the great joy of any game is the attempt to play. The Opportunity of Chance.

"Equality" is not some shallow ideal that should be twisted to make everyone have the same seat on a plane. I mean, sure, that is an equality of sorts- but the people filling those seats are not made any more equal by the very fact of having the same seats.

And, if there are different seats available, well, that may look like a "class" based hierarchy, but in reality, it isn't. Why? Because those seats are available to anyone really.

A man, a woman, a child, a Muslim, a Christian, an Aethist, and even our beloved Mars lovers all have the opportunity to take one of those seats. If only blue eyed people named "clark" could buy those seats, well, then that is a class system.

Equality gets twisted around because to few stop to really think what drives it. It isn't about everything being the same for all people, at all times. Equality is simply the opportunity to *try*.

It is ultimetly why I support space a greater expansion of human exploration in space. Through the process of privatization, greater government investment, and just general interest, the opportunity for more people to just *have* a chance to try will increase.

Not everyone can be a chemist, or a doctor, or an astronuat- but everyone should have the opportunity to try and be any of the things they want to be.

We all should get a chance to play. Right now, not to many get the chance that really want to. I think that is a shame, and so i support the premise of space exploration and space expansion. Not really because I want to go myself, but because others want to. I think they should have that chance. I think most here would agree.

But maybe I am wrong. [shrug]

publiusr · 2005-08-31 15:44:54

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect textbook example of a classic, collectivist, Communist.

I have to disagree. The average Communist in the USSR at least had to work--often in harsh conditions to give us the Space race.

Todays lefties are lazy louts the NKVD would put down like mad dogs. That's why Oswald came back. It wasn't as nice as he thought.

Fledi · 2005-08-31 18:57:05

I agree, clark.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-01 12:00:38

But to make it so that everyone can get there, one must make it so that everyone can afford to go. To do that you must keep developement design costs, manufacturing cost, flight supply and launch cost all down.

First step seems to be in the choices of what we start with more than we know.

Design choices may hurry humans to Mars

2020 vision
By re-using similar designs for crew habitat modules, propulsion stages, and engines in various missions "we can get to Mars in the 2020 timeframe," Wooster told New Scientist.

Yahoo....

MrMorden · 2005-10-06 09:18:14

Traveling to Mars is not a lark, it is a JOB. You hire people for a job who are qualified. I'm sure that the checkout clerk at Wal-Mart is a nice guy, but he is not qualified to be on a Mars mission. He has none of the skills or knowledge to allow him to contribute to the trip.

What about handicapped people? Should we invite them along too? Wouldn't want to discriminate, you know. A quadrepalegic and an epileptic would make great additions to the crew, I'm sure.

The definition of "discriminate" the original poster needs to learn is "To make sensible decisions; judge wisely."

SpaceNut · 2018-09-09 08:22:24

While searching for the name "Wooster" this topic came up with the why we will only send the elite....of course I am sure they do not want to be janitors, sanitation engineers, ect... so we will want a cross of all that are fit and smart enough to go not just elite....

Oldfart1939 · 2018-09-09 12:04:43

Wow! Some of the early exchanges on this thread were highly entertaining! It became a politically charged discussion--and I use that word in jest--that really DOES deserve something of an answer in regards to who should go to Mars.

My comment: what should be done initially is make up a manifest of the necessary skills and knowledge base required, and then reverse engineer the crew.

In response to the "All Men are Created Equal," what Jefferson stated elsewhere was Equality before the Law. This individual, Ian, has probably an animus against IQ testing, too; since it divides people into categories that are not "equal."

louis · 2018-09-09 14:25:17

Initially I think we can all agree it has to be a narrow scitech elite who go - people with high level skills, and probably across two or three disciplines at that, not just one. They will have to be physically very fit, genetically blessed to reduce the risk of illness, and within a narrow age range - not too young and not too old - probably between ages 30 and 45.

The more interesting question is: what happens after you have a basic industrial and agricultural infrastructure in place?

Do you open the doors wide?

If you do as Musk naively suggested originally and offer tickets for sale I predict that system will be manipulated by people with nationalistic and religious agendas. Saudi, Russian and Chinese billionaires will all be funding ticket purchase, with the tacit approval of their governments.

I would not favour a ticket sale approach. My preferred option would be continued selection, to ensure you are bringing in people who have the right skills base, who are signed up for the basic values of what one would hope would be a free and democratic community.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

Wow! Some of the early exchanges on this thread were highly entertaining! It became a politically charged discussion--and I use that word in jest--that really DOES deserve something of an answer in regards to who should go to Mars.
My comment: what should be done initially is make up a manifest of the necessary skills and knowledge base required, and then reverse engineer the crew.
In response to the "All Men are Created Equal," what Jefferson stated elsewhere was Equality before the Law. This individual, Ian, has probably an animus against IQ testing, too; since it divides people into categories that are not "equal."

SpaceNut · 2018-09-09 15:44:29

louis wrote:

The more interesting question is: what happens after you have a basic industrial and agricultural infrastructure in place?

That is why before in another topic laying out a governmental structure I indicated that not every can be scientist and not do the work of labor, nor can they all be government officials when there is mining still to be done for survival a crop to pick....elites tend to look down on these sort of things as much as they do the waste engineer.....

I do not believe we can go forward without everyone working half way towards the colony survival as the work of science will last longer and can be a share experience of all that reside on mars. Come up with a personnel rotational schedule for all to join in for the colonies general toils of labor...

kbd512 · 2018-09-09 21:34:12

The fact that not everyone can afford an airline ticket or that it doesn't benefit everyone equally at all times and under all circumstances is not a valid argument for why there should or shouldn't be airlines that offer a transportation service for whatever price they feel they can make money at to stay in business.

The same would apply to any future spaceline services. As of now, space travel is still in its infancy. We're still trying to perfect the means to live and work in space indefinitely. I may or may not ever be able to afford to go to Mars, but I don't want to deny others that freedom to travel simply because it's not in the cards for me. The fact that our governments are paying some of our tax money to companies trying to open up doors for new growth opportunities doesn't bother me in the least. If not for those expenditures made on behalf of the private citizen, it's likely that far fewer of the new opportunities here on Earth would have come to fruition. Off the top of my head, air travel, computers, cell phones, the internet, and GPS are but a few of the benefits that members of industrialized societies benefit from, directly or indirectly.

In the end, everyone benefits from these public-private partnerships that expend some money to create new economies, just not all equally and all at the same time. Nothing about that invalidates the general rule that such partnerships creating new economic / employment opportunities will improve living conditions for humanity as a whole in the long run. Apart from being referees who aren't trying to choose winners and losers (favoritism), the proper role of government is to create new possibilities for their citizens and to protect their citizens at the same time.

Until space travel becomes so routine that the risks involved are not substantially greater than boarding a commercial airliner, the astronaut selection process is very much directed towards making sure the people we do send into space survive the ordeal and successfully complete their missions. If that qualifies as discrimination, then it's a very egalitarian form of discrimination since they open up the selection process to everyone who meets the basic health and educational requirements dictated by the science missions NASA undertakes. If that process eliminates people who are merely entertaining their own passing curiosity with becoming an astronaut, then I guess it does, but that also directly benefits our space program and other space exploration crew members by ensuring that those who pass the selection process are dedicated to ensuring successful outcomes of our space exploration endeavors.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-09-10 11:18:40

In any society, there will be a requirement for "grunt labor," but initially the need should be fulfilled by all able bodied personnel. Not all members of the initial crews will be scientists, but must of necessity include skilled laborers (machinists, carpenters, machinery operators, etc.). Should be something of an "able bodied condition" standard for everyone. Remember the saying about shovels: one size fits all.

louis · 2018-09-10 18:46:40

I don't really see the need for "grunt labour". I think Mars could be pretty much fully robotised from the get go. It's partly a matter of design. We already have automated public conveniences, that don't need cleaning by humans. You just need to build that approach into your habs. Likewise, we have

As regards heavy lifting, again that can be largely designed out with warehouse picking undertaken by robots and then have robot transport and delivery.

Part of the design requirement is that you avoidestaircases. Generally aim for one level construction, but where you have multiple storeys then of course you design in lifts or robot friendly escalators.

Robots can cook, wash up and clean habs.

Of course skilled engineers will be required. But these days engineers are really engineer-computer operators. Likewise skilled construction workers who will work closely with robots building walls or applying concrete.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

In any society, there will be a requirement for "grunt labor," but initially the need should be fulfilled by all able bodied personnel. Not all members of the initial crews will be scientists, but must of necessity include skilled laborers (machinists, carpenters, machinery operators, etc.). Should be something of an "able bodied condition" standard for everyone. Remember the saying about shovels: one size fits all.

SpaceNut · 2018-09-10 20:20:47

So just how many of these very high priced robots do you own as thats what we are saying as mars will not have all that many either....you will still need to do many things as we are the universal robot...we will have many tools to make many things easier with the most important robots being brought and made for mars....

IanM · 2018-09-10 20:23:15

With regards to the OP, I do agree that "Mars for the common man" is the (or at least an) ultimate goal, with theoretically anyone who can pony up the fare can go (similar to RobertDyck's statements in his Corporate Government thread; perhaps subject to some certain background checks but nothing more intensive than travelling between, for example, the US and the Schengen area), even if they have no background in space science or really any science. However, I realize that the forces of economics and capitalism that even with completely open borders (at the individual/household level, regardless of what happens w/ settlements and municipalities) prices would be too high for literally every single person to be able to afford it, and trying to make it otherwise would be economically unviable, with the best we can hope for is for technology to bring it within the reach of the middle class. (Perhaps there could be a merit-based system of financial aid for prospective Martians, especially in the earlier years, akin to colleges in the US, though I'm getting ahead of myself.)

(Also, for the record, I am not the same Ian in the OP. Looking at the date it turns out I was 8(!) when it was posted.)

kbd512 · 2018-09-10 22:40:20

Anybody who thinks we're going to send a bunch of overly complicated robots to Mars to do chores for astronauts has obviously never served in the military. Uncle Sam has money to buy whatever robots he wants, but his troops still cook and clean for themselves. In a place where a nonfunctional piece of technology is not just a waste of money, but a potentially lethal detractor from the mission if it wastes mass that could've been devoted to simple tools and people power, you can bet your last dollar that the simplest methods will reign supreme for quite some time to come. Tech is applied when required to overcome otherwise insurmountable problems.

A dishwashing machine in a frontier Mars colony is an absurd extravagance, given how heavy it must be to be durable and reliable. You'll use high grade plastic eating utensils to minimize mass and those utensils will be hand washed by the colonists after each meal. Fundamentally simple, durable, and reliable tools will be the mainstay of all mundane but important day-to-day living activities. Believe that.

A robotic rover with a feather duster might knock the dust off solar panels to prevent colonists from absorbing any radiation unnecessarily, but that's the type of automation that the Martian environment mandates. Having your own personal maid in space, robotic or human, is even more fantastic than living on Mars. I can tell that some people here have never lived or worked on a farm.

The "common man" on Mars will be well educated (BS or MS with at least a few years of practical experience) and trained (at least two years, if not four, and I'm being optimistic), capable of improvisational thinking when required to get jobs done (someone who can't think creatively and improvise need not apply, as we already have plenty of robots on Mars), and a very hard worker (like our farmers). He'll not be Superman nor anything of the sort, just very dedicated and disciplined. Any man lacking sufficient humility to believe that he needs other people will quickly be taught the error of his ways. Much like your average farm hand, the day ends as usable daylight fades and he collapses in exhaustion. The next day, he'll get up and do it all over again.

elderflower · 2018-09-11 03:05:34

Uncle Sam maintains a couple of large scientific bases in Antarctica, at McMurdo sound and at the South Pole. I bet they don't have much in the way of robots. Particularly domestic ones.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-09-11 09:25:37

kbd512 wrote:

Anybody who thinks we're going to send a bunch of overly complicated robots to Mars to do chores for astronauts has obviously never served in the military.
The "common man" on Mars will be well educated (BS or MS with at least a few years of practical experience) and trained (at least two years, if not four, and I'm being optimistic), capable of improvisational thinking when required to get jobs done (someone who can't think creatively and improvise need not apply, as we already have plenty of robots on Mars), and a very hard worker (like our farmers). He'll not be Superman nor anything of the sort, just very dedicated and disciplined. Any man lacking sufficient humility to believe that he needs other people will quickly be taught the error of his ways. Much like your average farm hand, the day ends as usable daylight fades and he collapses in exhaustion. The next day, he'll get up and do it all over again.

Well stated. There aren't going to be cooking and food preparation robots, bed making robots, carpenter robots, food harvesting and growing robots. This is all what falls into the category of "Grunt labor." Remember, Louis, a shovel fits all hands.

EdwardHeisler · 2018-09-11 11:04:47

What scientific contributions to understanding Mars and its history could non-scientist human explorers make?

I would want experienced test pilots to fly new untested aircraft, not untrained and unskilled passengers who are not licensed pilots.

And I would want highly trained astronauts, scientists and skilled engineers to begin the long trip to Mars and have them build the first settlements.

This is a "left-wing" opinion held by most people who are to the left of Jefferson Davis and Donald Trump.

Terraformer · 2018-09-11 11:48:50

Ah, but we're not going to Mars just for science, we're going to settle.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-09-11 11:59:43

All the settlers of the American West were extremely hard working people--who could build their own homes, raise crops, cut timber, mine for valuable minerals; not very many of them were Ph.D. Physical Scientists or engineers. The scientists sent on these missions will need "settlers" as their support personnel. The guys and gals who can go out and install powerlines from either Solar arrays or nuclear powerplants, run the backhoes and graders, maintain the fuel plants and make repairs when something goes wrong (and things WILL go wrong--Murphy was an optimist!). The more robotics we utilize, the more things that will "go wrong." Maintenance on robots isn't going to be done by other robots. Man--homo sapiens--is the ideal element in Mars exploration.

kbd512 · 2018-09-11 12:07:11

EdwardHeisler,

Engineers are typically not scientists, but space exploration missions wouldn't be possible without them. I quite agree that test pilots are the appropriate people to send on the first missions, but so are really sharp and creative engineers, sometimes called mission specialists or flight engineers, irrespective of what they directly contribute to NASA's science mission. JPL's robotic exploration campaigns are so successful in comparison to the human space flight program because JPL is run by top notch engineers and scientists, not politicians.

We have a politics thread where you can discuss your politics. This isn't the appropriate thread for that.

louis · 2018-09-11 12:10:13

It's an entirely different economic and social equation on Mars.

1. On Earth there are billions of people, so you might as well get them to do something (ie give them a paid job), otherwise there will be social problems: poverty, disaffection, riots etc and you will have to use expensive social coercion to keep a lid on everything. On Mars, there aren't billions of people, so that imperative does not apply.

2. If it's going to cost you millions of pounds per person to get someone to Mars and keep them alive (as it will for at least the first few years) then the economics of whether to use robots is completely changed. Humans won't be spending long on Mars for the first couple of decades. Let's say, optimistically, that people will stay for 4 years on average. Let's say that it costs £2million per person to fly them there and back, and to keep them alive with life support while there. That would be a cost of £500,000 per annum. Are you really suggesting we are going to send human cleaners to sweep floors and clean toilets at that cost when there are technological and robotic solutions. For floor cleaning all you need is a flat smooth floor.

3. Every person on Mars not only has a real financial cost but also a huge ISRU input is required. Your ISRU is effectively going into feeding unnecessary cleaners, warehouse pickers and so on, if you go down that road, rather than facilitating the creation of your infrastructure, science and exploration.

4. A Mars farm will be nothing like a farm on Earth. But even so many farms on Earth are now highly robotised: virtually all processes
in farming have robot solutions: ploughing, seeding, picking, baling and so on - even dairy farms can be robotised. Of course you might need humans for some intricate jobs and certainly for monitoring the farm. But you don't need people to hurl bales of hay or use a spade or or mend a fence or anything else of that nature. Farms on Mars will be designed to facilitate robot acivity.

5. Is the cost of robotics going up or down? You know the answer as well me - down, down, and down...All the time the case for robotics is becoming stronger. Even now the cost of robots can be cheaper than you think. This amazing robot chef costs $15,000:

https://futurism.com/videos/meet-moley- … chen-2017/

There will be plenty of technicians available to maintain such robots to the extent that they don't maintain themselves.

kbd512 wrote:

Anybody who thinks we're going to send a bunch of overly complicated robots to Mars to do chores for astronauts has obviously never served in the military. Uncle Sam has money to buy whatever robots he wants, but his troops still cook and clean for themselves. In a place where a nonfunctional piece of technology is not just a waste of money, but a potentially lethal detractor from the mission if it wastes mass that could've been devoted to simple tools and people power, you can bet your last dollar that the simplest methods will reign supreme for quite some time to come. Tech is applied when required to overcome otherwise insurmountable problems.
A dishwashing machine in a frontier Mars colony is an absurd extravagance, given how heavy it must be to be durable and reliable. You'll use high grade plastic eating utensils to minimize mass and those utensils will be hand washed by the colonists after each meal. Fundamentally simple, durable, and reliable tools will be the mainstay of all mundane but important day-to-day living activities. Believe that.
A robotic rover with a feather duster might knock the dust off solar panels to prevent colonists from absorbing any radiation unnecessarily, but that's the type of automation that the Martian environment mandates. Having your own personal maid in space, robotic or human, is even more fantastic than living on Mars. I can tell that some people here have never lived or worked on a farm.
The "common man" on Mars will be well educated (BS or MS with at least a few years of practical experience) and trained (at least two years, if not four, and I'm being optimistic), capable of improvisational thinking when required to get jobs done (someone who can't think creatively and improvise need not apply, as we already have plenty of robots on Mars), and a very hard worker (like our farmers). He'll not be Superman nor anything of the sort, just very dedicated and disciplined. Any man lacking sufficient humility to believe that he needs other people will quickly be taught the error of his ways. Much like your average farm hand, the day ends as usable daylight fades and he collapses in exhaustion. The next day, he'll get up and do it all over again.

Last edited by louis (2018-09-11 12:12:52)

kbd512 · 2018-09-11 13:02:03

Louis,

Those are valid points, but I'm referring to the fact that the colonists will be wearing many hats when they show up for work. We don't typically put people to work on Earth simply to give them something to do. We have them do things that add value for their family, community, and/or humanity according to their ability and aptitude to contribute.

I can't think of a frontier colony requirement for a robot that cleans dishes when everyone can clean their own dishes. In contrast, stepping outside to clean off a solar panel is taking your life in your hands every time you do it. For the benefit of all involved, it makes a lot more sense to have that kind of robot than a dishwasher, even if you still have to fix it from time to time, because it prevents unnecessary exposures to a lethal environment. We use lots of robotics in deep sea diving for the same reason. The deep sea divers also clean their own dishes, but they use robots to perform work that's otherwise so dangerous that the risk of loss of life is unacceptably high.

Frontier life is not an easy life. If anything, it's far more demanding. Actual horsepower aside, recall that the early American colonists had little in the way of automation and were also heavily involved with making sure their ISRU was sufficient to survive. Such will almost inevitably be the case on Mars with the mass and volume constraints of current and developmental rockets.

louis · 2018-09-11 14:19:08

I think of this the other way round. For the Mars Mission you need to ask yourself: "No. 1: Can a robot do this job? If so how easily, what's the mass, what maintenance levels might be required...then, No. 2: How does that compare with a human doing the job."

For things like water ice and iron ore mining, the benefit of using robots is obvious. Similarly for PV panel maintenance. But I think it applies across the board. Humans should really only be doing the monitoring (or rather, interacting with AI monitoring) of systems in life support, agriculture and so on. Humans will be required for machine maintenance, complicated electrical wiring installation, a lot of exploration, infrastructure planning, communications with Earth, medical support and so on. I think it's a waste of time, resources and money to get humans to wash dishes, cook food, clean toilets, pick items in warehouses or lift heavy loads.

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
Those are valid points, but I'm referring to the fact that the colonists will be wearing many hats when they show up for work. We don't typically put people to work on Earth simply to give them something to do. We have them do things that add value for their family, community, and/or humanity according to their ability and aptitude to contribute.
I can't think of a frontier colony requirement for a robot that cleans dishes when everyone can clean their own dishes. In contrast, stepping outside to clean off a solar panel is taking your life in your hands every time you do it. For the benefit of all involved, it makes a lot more sense to have that kind of robot than a dishwasher, even if you still have to fix it from time to time, because it prevents unnecessary exposures to a lethal environment. We use lots of robotics in deep sea diving for the same reason. The deep sea divers also clean their own dishes, but they use robots to perform work that's otherwise so dangerous that the risk of loss of life is unacceptably high.
Frontier life is not an easy life. If anything, it's far more demanding. Actual horsepower aside, recall that the early American colonists had little in the way of automation and were also heavily involved with making sure their ISRU was sufficient to survive. Such will almost inevitably be the case on Mars with the mass and volume constraints of current and developmental rockets.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-08-30 15:34:29

Re: Against the Human Exploration of Mars if Everyone can't go.

#27 2005-08-30 19:47:38

Re: Against the Human Exploration of Mars if Everyone can't go.

#28 2005-08-31 15:44:54

Re: Against the Human Exploration of Mars if Everyone can't go.

#29 2005-08-31 18:57:05

Re: Against the Human Exploration of Mars if Everyone can't go.

#30 2005-09-01 12:00:38

Re: Against the Human Exploration of Mars if Everyone can't go.

#31 2005-10-06 09:18:14

Re: Against the Human Exploration of Mars if Everyone can't go.

#32 2018-09-09 08:22:24

Re: Against the Human Exploration of Mars if Everyone can't go.

#33 2018-09-09 12:04:43

Re: Against the Human Exploration of Mars if Everyone can't go.

#34 2018-09-09 14:25:17

Re: Against the Human Exploration of Mars if Everyone can't go.

#35 2018-09-09 15:44:29

Re: Against the Human Exploration of Mars if Everyone can't go.

#36 2018-09-09 21:34:12

Re: Against the Human Exploration of Mars if Everyone can't go.

#37 2018-09-10 11:18:40

Re: Against the Human Exploration of Mars if Everyone can't go.

#38 2018-09-10 18:46:40

Re: Against the Human Exploration of Mars if Everyone can't go.

#39 2018-09-10 20:20:47

Re: Against the Human Exploration of Mars if Everyone can't go.

#40 2018-09-10 20:23:15

Re: Against the Human Exploration of Mars if Everyone can't go.

#41 2018-09-10 22:40:20

Re: Against the Human Exploration of Mars if Everyone can't go.

#42 2018-09-11 03:05:34

Re: Against the Human Exploration of Mars if Everyone can't go.

#43 2018-09-11 09:25:37

Re: Against the Human Exploration of Mars if Everyone can't go.

#44 2018-09-11 11:04:47

Re: Against the Human Exploration of Mars if Everyone can't go.

#45 2018-09-11 11:48:50

Re: Against the Human Exploration of Mars if Everyone can't go.

#46 2018-09-11 11:59:43

Re: Against the Human Exploration of Mars if Everyone can't go.

#47 2018-09-11 12:07:11

Re: Against the Human Exploration of Mars if Everyone can't go.

#48 2018-09-11 12:10:13

Re: Against the Human Exploration of Mars if Everyone can't go.

#49 2018-09-11 13:02:03

Re: Against the Human Exploration of Mars if Everyone can't go.

#50 2018-09-11 14:19:08

Re: Against the Human Exploration of Mars if Everyone can't go.

Board footer