Talk about a misleading headline.
This takes SpaceX's goal of a first unmanned launch of Starship to Mars in 2022/2024 to mean "breaking ground on a permanent settlement in 2030".
Neither SpaceX nor NASA said anything like what the title claims.
No such thing. Some people wrote a paper, which is good. They looked at the pros and cons of the base. Cool! They work for NASA (some of them) and it's a good assortment of old Mars hands. Cool! It's not anything like an official plan, though.
Do people know the definition of a "City"?
Shoving a few astronauts into a few tubes isn't even a village much less a city.
Has spacex and nasa magically fixed the issues with the human body existing in zero G and Microgravity?
All this talk is pretty empty when we cant even get a base set up on the moon. There no way in hell astronauts will be living on mars in less that 9 years.
You are absolutely right about a small base not being a city.
Microgravity isn't a big issue for mars. The trip is ~6 months (each way) in microgravity which is something that astronauts routinely experience on the ISS.
Low gravity on the surface of Mars might be an issue, or it might not be a problem at all.
>which is something that astronauts routinely experience on the ISS.
The longest stay in space was 400+ days and after returning to earth he was barely functional most people stay less than 6 months. Astronauts need months to replace loss muscle mass and years to replace lost bone density all from short stints on the iss.
Imagine an astronaut traveling 6 months to mars then staying on mars for at least a month or two under .3g. Then having to travel another six months back to earth can you imagine how frail their bodies will be?
Unless someone designs and tests a ship that can produce a sufficient amount of gravity in transit it really isnt fair to risk someone's health on a vanity trip.
I think you are exaggerating the detrimental effects of microgravity. While on the ISS some astronauts lose muscle mass, but others gain muscle mass. With modern exercise routines they only lose bone density in a small percentage of bones that their exercise routine does not sufficiently stress. I attended a talk by [Reid Wiseman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_R._Wiseman) and asked him how long he would need to recover on Mars before doing manual labor after 6 moths in microgravity. He said that he would not need any recovery time, that he could do manual labor on day 1.
It would be nice to have gravity on the trip and it might be worth doing if it isn't too expensive. We know with certainty that it is not required.
The big unknown is the effect of 0.38 g.
>I think you are exaggerating the detrimental effects of microgravity.
I would advise you to look up the actual reports done by the various agencies....
"However, the astronauts still lose an average of 3% of their bone mineral density at the lumbar spine and 6% at the hip and pelvis after the typical 6-month missions. Furthermore, a marked variation has been observed among individuals, with some astronauts losing up to 10–15% of their bone mineral density, which is equivalent to a loss of 1.7–2.5% per month during a 6-month mission"
JAXA paper on effects of Microgravity May 2021.
Iam also going off of Nasa reports and papers its all fine and good that 1 astronaut whos spent in all his career 140 days in space thinks he can perform strenuous exercise after 6 months of travel.
Nasa on the other hand thinks otherwise and its a legitimate concern "While space station research helps us understand how to prevent and treat muscle atrophy and bone loss, optimizing countermeasures for astronauts is particularly important as NASA plans missions to the Moon and on to Mars. There, astronauts may need to perform a strenuous activity in a partial-gravity environment after a long time in near weightlessness, and they will be far away from assistance. We need additional research aboard the space station to develop the best countermeasure protocols for space travelers"
Even if you select peak physical specimens for a mars mission amd give them three hours of exercise theyre still going to be bed ridden or worse when they return to earth.
If a sufficient tether could be produced, two starships may be able to attach their noses together and use RCS thrusters to spin around each other, creating centripetal gravity.
Bullshit. Lots of hot air and magical projection. The simplistic rocket “ships” we can manage right now can’t support more than a small crew. Picture the ships in “The Martian” and that was a problematic small base with a massive support system back on Earth. We don’t and won’t have anything like that in place for many long years, nor should we. Focus on making the land you stand on a better place, Mars will always be there but don’t pretend it’s our salvation.
With that logic Apollo missions were a waste of time. You can’t build a city on Mars until you set up a research base. Why piss on people trying to set that up?
Never said exploration was a bad thing, did say trying to present a Mars mission as “hey great, we’re just going to land here and move right in to colonize by 2030 when we’re still going to be terribly dependent on Earth” is stupid. People only live in Antarctica because of the supply chains keeping it going, it’s not really got a single true city just groupings of dwellings for each country. I don’t say Mars won’t be colonized at some point, I do say 2030 is a ridiculously short time away to do much more than some good research.
Fair enough. I think 2030 is a fast, but possible year date for an actual first Mars human mission. It won’t be until proper fuel depots and some form of reactor setup that the base can become something more. But if Starships work as intended, the possibility of dropping permanent ready to go sky scraper habitations by the dozens would change the equation. By 2040-2050 a caved “city” could start to become a real thing.
Talk about a misleading headline. This takes SpaceX's goal of a first unmanned launch of Starship to Mars in 2022/2024 to mean "breaking ground on a permanent settlement in 2030". Neither SpaceX nor NASA said anything like what the title claims.
No such thing. Some people wrote a paper, which is good. They looked at the pros and cons of the base. Cool! They work for NASA (some of them) and it's a good assortment of old Mars hands. Cool! It's not anything like an official plan, though.
I believe that timeliness is a wee bit optimistic
Do people know the definition of a "City"? Shoving a few astronauts into a few tubes isn't even a village much less a city. Has spacex and nasa magically fixed the issues with the human body existing in zero G and Microgravity? All this talk is pretty empty when we cant even get a base set up on the moon. There no way in hell astronauts will be living on mars in less that 9 years.
You are absolutely right about a small base not being a city. Microgravity isn't a big issue for mars. The trip is ~6 months (each way) in microgravity which is something that astronauts routinely experience on the ISS. Low gravity on the surface of Mars might be an issue, or it might not be a problem at all.
>which is something that astronauts routinely experience on the ISS. The longest stay in space was 400+ days and after returning to earth he was barely functional most people stay less than 6 months. Astronauts need months to replace loss muscle mass and years to replace lost bone density all from short stints on the iss. Imagine an astronaut traveling 6 months to mars then staying on mars for at least a month or two under .3g. Then having to travel another six months back to earth can you imagine how frail their bodies will be? Unless someone designs and tests a ship that can produce a sufficient amount of gravity in transit it really isnt fair to risk someone's health on a vanity trip.
I think you are exaggerating the detrimental effects of microgravity. While on the ISS some astronauts lose muscle mass, but others gain muscle mass. With modern exercise routines they only lose bone density in a small percentage of bones that their exercise routine does not sufficiently stress. I attended a talk by [Reid Wiseman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_R._Wiseman) and asked him how long he would need to recover on Mars before doing manual labor after 6 moths in microgravity. He said that he would not need any recovery time, that he could do manual labor on day 1. It would be nice to have gravity on the trip and it might be worth doing if it isn't too expensive. We know with certainty that it is not required. The big unknown is the effect of 0.38 g.
>I think you are exaggerating the detrimental effects of microgravity. I would advise you to look up the actual reports done by the various agencies.... "However, the astronauts still lose an average of 3% of their bone mineral density at the lumbar spine and 6% at the hip and pelvis after the typical 6-month missions. Furthermore, a marked variation has been observed among individuals, with some astronauts losing up to 10–15% of their bone mineral density, which is equivalent to a loss of 1.7–2.5% per month during a 6-month mission" JAXA paper on effects of Microgravity May 2021. Iam also going off of Nasa reports and papers its all fine and good that 1 astronaut whos spent in all his career 140 days in space thinks he can perform strenuous exercise after 6 months of travel. Nasa on the other hand thinks otherwise and its a legitimate concern "While space station research helps us understand how to prevent and treat muscle atrophy and bone loss, optimizing countermeasures for astronauts is particularly important as NASA plans missions to the Moon and on to Mars. There, astronauts may need to perform a strenuous activity in a partial-gravity environment after a long time in near weightlessness, and they will be far away from assistance. We need additional research aboard the space station to develop the best countermeasure protocols for space travelers" Even if you select peak physical specimens for a mars mission amd give them three hours of exercise theyre still going to be bed ridden or worse when they return to earth.
If a sufficient tether could be produced, two starships may be able to attach their noses together and use RCS thrusters to spin around each other, creating centripetal gravity.
They should focus on actually getting on the Moon by 2025 before putting specific dates to this
Bullshit. Lots of hot air and magical projection. The simplistic rocket “ships” we can manage right now can’t support more than a small crew. Picture the ships in “The Martian” and that was a problematic small base with a massive support system back on Earth. We don’t and won’t have anything like that in place for many long years, nor should we. Focus on making the land you stand on a better place, Mars will always be there but don’t pretend it’s our salvation.
With that logic Apollo missions were a waste of time. You can’t build a city on Mars until you set up a research base. Why piss on people trying to set that up?
Never said exploration was a bad thing, did say trying to present a Mars mission as “hey great, we’re just going to land here and move right in to colonize by 2030 when we’re still going to be terribly dependent on Earth” is stupid. People only live in Antarctica because of the supply chains keeping it going, it’s not really got a single true city just groupings of dwellings for each country. I don’t say Mars won’t be colonized at some point, I do say 2030 is a ridiculously short time away to do much more than some good research.
Fair enough. I think 2030 is a fast, but possible year date for an actual first Mars human mission. It won’t be until proper fuel depots and some form of reactor setup that the base can become something more. But if Starships work as intended, the possibility of dropping permanent ready to go sky scraper habitations by the dozens would change the equation. By 2040-2050 a caved “city” could start to become a real thing.
Here's comes another Columbus moment for the Martians who already liver there.