A City On Mars

[mikegarrison]

I've started reading this book, by Kelly and Zach Weinersmith. Seems pretty good, so far.

They started out wanting to write a pop-sci book about all the engineering issues and solutions that would be needed for colonizing away from Earth, but ended up becoming what they call "space *******" (the forum won't let me quote their own self-description), because what they found was just a massive number of ignored or hidden problems. Issues with law, issues with biosphere stability, issues with human reproduction, issues with social stability, etc.

Looks pretty interesting.

https://www.acityonmars.com

Edited November 9, 2023 by mikegarrison

[HebaruSan]

12 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

"space *******" (the forum won't let me quote their own self-description)

If you let the forum software censor the original word, then we can figure out what it was.

[mikegarrison]

2 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

If you let the forum software censor the original word, then we can figure out what it was.

stand-up guys

It's a usually-considered-derogative word for a child born out of legal wedlock.

Edited November 9, 2023 by mikegarrison

[Spacescifi]

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

I've started reading this book, by Kelly and Zach Weinersmith. Seems pretty good, so far.

They started out wanting to write a pop-sci book about all the engineering issues and solutions that would be needed for colonizing away from Earth, but ended up becoming what they call "space *******" (the forum won't let me quote their own self-description), because what they found was just a massive number of ignored or hidden problems. Issues with law, issues with biosphere stability, issues with human reproduction, issues with social stability, etc.

Looks pretty interesting.

https://www.acityonmars.com

Very likely they will mention some stuff we already know about living on mars, namely:

1. The dirt is toxic, thus any plants you grow for food are bound to have toxins unless you make a way to filter them out... and the plants grown so far using simulated martian dirt were yellow rather than green so let that sink in.

2. Much less water than earth, which obviously means it will need to be both heavily recycled and conserved.

3. Radiation hazard due to thin atmospheric protection, requring heavy under ground infrastructure tunnels before you can have population safe... unless we make a  scifi thin material that can block/reflect it... which we have'nt yet.

 

And there is so so much more... don't get me started lol.

Edited November 9, 2023 by Spacescifi

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

I've started reading this book, by Kelly and Zach Weinersmith. Seems pretty good, so far.

They started out wanting to write a pop-sci book about all the engineering issues and solutions that would be needed for colonizing away from Earth, but ended up becoming what they call "space *******" (the forum won't let me quote their own self-description), because what they found was just a massive number of ignored or hidden problems. Issues with law, issues with biosphere stability, issues with human reproduction, issues with social stability, etc.

Looks pretty interesting.

https://www.acityonmars.com

From what I've read so far, it is interesting.  I do find their timeline more realistic, but I also think it won't be met unless we push for sooner.  Because that is how people and timelines work.  They are bearish, and reasonably so in some ways in my view, but I find many of their assumptions behind their bearishness to be more ideological than based in factual knowledge.  They go on about solar and wind, but I haven't seen a reference to nuclear power (other than bombs) yet.  Which seems incredibly blindered given the energy obstacles they delineate.

They also seem to put an incredible amount of faith into the idea that bigger committees with the correct viewpoints taking more time will somehow make humans less fallible when from what I've seen one of humanity's biggest foibles is its belief that it can committee and regulate its way into a committee knowing the exact right thing to do at the exact right time and so justify telling everyone else what to do and when.  Which often leads to our biggest failures.

Civilization is emergent, not centrally planned, mostly.  At least the parts worth keeping.

I'm looking forward to finishing the book and could very well change my views on it from the above.   It will provide good cultural data points and a punch list of problems to be pondered I imagine

 

[mikegarrison]

As someone who has read a lot of science fiction, the issues about social governance seem to have been long-discussed. At least, well-discussed in a fictional context.

They mention that many space colony advocates seem to envision some sort of communal society, despite that the current leading proponents are both capitalist billionaires. However, there has been a *lot* of science fiction written about capitalist (or ruthlessly exploitive capitalist) space colonies. Enough so that I think even casual space fans can probably name multiple stories pointing to this being a potential problem.

On the other hand, I was quite amused by the authors' description of the annoyance felt by legal scholars of space law and space treaties when they hear that supposedly no one has ever considered such issues.

Edited November 9, 2023 by mikegarrison

[TheSaint]

The book showed up on my porch today. But I'm not allowed to read it yet because it's a Christmas gift.

[KSK]

Looks interesting - thanks for the shout-out,

I have a suspicion that Santa may well be dropping this down the chimney on Christmas Eve, so I'll hold off on buying it for now.  Looks like a definite 'to buy' though if I don't get it as a Christmas present.

Edit:  after following the link, I see that Mary Roach gave it a recommendation.  If you'll forgive a slight threadjack, I found her Packing for Mars, to be a good read about the problems of having canned monkeys living in zero-g for extended lengths of time. Think lavatories rather than launch vehicles.

Edited November 9, 2023 by KSK

[SunlitZelkova]

5 hours ago, darthgently said:

They also seem to put an incredible amount of faith into the idea that bigger committees with the correct viewpoints taking more time will somehow make humans less fallible when from what I've seen one of humanity's biggest foibles is its belief that it can committee and regulate its way into a committee knowing the exact right thing to do at the exact right time and so justify telling everyone else what to do and when.  Which often leads to our biggest failures.

I think committees can fail and “Leaders” (with a capital L) can fail.

The Soviet space program was driven by both Leaders and committees to some extent. The Leaders proposed things and then had to modify it until the “committee” of the Communist Party, government, and Ministry of Defence signed off. That didn’t work for them getting to the Moon. This was both due to the mistakes of the Leaders and inexperience with spaceflight matters on the part of the “committee”.

On the other hand, Leaders at NASA utterly failed to prevent the Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia disasters when they could have. It was NASA committees that helped solve the issues related to those incidents, at least in the former two. If a committee hand been formed beforehand, of a similar type to the one that only showed up after the disaster, it might not have happened.

I can’t think of what big failures you’re hinting at. I’d be interested to hear them.

I think this quote from Vasily Mishin, who succeeded Sergei Korolev after his death and thus has first hand experience with both being a Leader and working with committees, embodies what a proper space program should look like. I used to have it as my forum signature.

“Space exploration has been hampered by monopoly and secrecy, and by nepotism and politically dealing in the allocation of buildings and subsidies. We need broad, open competition in projects for a unified technical task. And discussion of tasks, ideas, and proposals, and independent expert evaluations, and open selection of the winners. Only after this, in full view of everyone, should there be implementation of projects in which the whole of society is convinced of their need and soundness.”- Vasily Mishin

[DDE]

5 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

They mention that many space colony advocates seem to envision some sort of communal society, despite that the current leading proponents are both capitalist billionaires.

I see no contradiction. Many successful capitalists like Robert Owens committed to un-capitalist experiments in communal utopias. Granted, I know my ideological slant makes me seek those examples out, but it's immediately obvious to me that a modern corporate space colony would be run under at least a veneer of communal governance and all the other pink unicorns.

[kerbiloid]

https://barsoom.fandom.com/wiki/Jeddak

[darthgently]

14 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I can’t think of what big failures you’re hinting at. I’d be interested to hear them.

I meant big failures when societies get to the point where leadership is micromanaging the lives of the populace because they are so confident in their views that they feel justified in running over those who "don't get it" or are "on the wrong side of history".  I think committees/groups are echo chambers at heart that amplify the common assumptions of the members and this led to famines in the USSR for example.   

To avoid the p-word and get back to the narrower topic at hand, when dealing with a frontier, if we aren't learning by doing, then we are speculating.  If we group-ponder space settlement for centuries instead of fail-learn venturing into it we will be solving imaginary problems based on common pre-frontier assumptions rather than solving real problems encountered in the frontier based on real data and real experience. 

If there are people willing to do it, what moral standing do those unwilling to do so have to prevent the first from trying?  I would argue that it is quite unethical to prevent life from seeking new niches in general given the apparent uniqueness of life so far. 

In the bigger picture human technology is part and parcel with terrestrial life and with it life can move outward.  We'd be failing to pay the gift of life forward if we balk at this challenge

Edited November 9, 2023 by darthgently

[SunlitZelkova]

5 hours ago, darthgently said:

To avoid the p-word and get back to the narrower topic at hand, when dealing with a frontier, if we aren't learning by doing, then we are speculating.  If we group-ponder space settlement for centuries instead of fail-learn venturing into it we will be solving imaginary problems based on common pre-frontier assumptions rather than solving real problems encountered in the frontier based on real data and real experience. 

If there are people willing to do it, what moral standing do those unwilling to do so have to prevent the first from trying?  I would argue that it is quite unethical to prevent life from seeking new niches in general given the apparent uniqueness of life so far.

I think the issue with fail-learning is that people talk about how this worked well when the Europeans crossed to the Americas and the US expanded westward, but ignore the massive costs involved in that.

Someone from Bulgaria made a good statement when talking about the p-word over on the For All Mankind Reddit. To use it here in the context of how we should go about colonizing space, “yes, the 1800s pioneers were successfully in colonizing, but with great loss of human life along the way. That was fine for the 1800s but unacceptable for modern society.”

IMO, I think it’s in engineering where that “fail-learning” is best applied, but a good level of discussion by multiple parties is necessary for ethics and broader goal planning.

Soviet space goal planning in the 60s was not unlike Musk’s “we’ll land on Mars in 2024” style of doing things. It cost a number of people their lives, such as in the Soyuz disaster of November 1966. A little more thoughtfulness might have prevented loss of life, and if the program wouldn’t have been so secretive, it might have benefited from think tanks auditing the design bureaus’ engineering practices, in the same way Soviet nuclear strategy was influenced positively by both civilian and military think tanks.

That’s not a jab at present day SpaceX by the way. They’ve clearly done well so far, with a darn good safety record and impressive engineering feats. I’m talking about SpaceX in the 2040s or 2050s, which may be a wildly different organization from the one we have now, much in the same way 1990s NASA did not resemble 1960s NASA that much.

The Soviet method of management and organization performed just fine for Sputnik and Vostok, but failed when they tried to go to the Moon. There’s a thin line between insanity and genius, and I’m just concerned SpaceX will tip the wrong way in the future.

[darthgently]

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I think the issue with fail-learning is that people talk about how this worked well when the Europeans crossed to the Americas and the US expanded westward, but ignore the massive costs involved in that.

Someone from Bulgaria made a good statement when talking about the p-word over on the For All Mankind Reddit. To use it here in the context of how we should go about colonizing space, “yes, the 1800s pioneers were successfully in colonizing, but with great loss of human life along the way. That was fine for the 1800s but unacceptable for modern society.”

IMO, I think it’s in engineering where that “fail-learning” is best applied, but a good level of discussion by multiple parties is necessary for ethics and broader goal planning.

Soviet space goal planning in the 60s was not unlike Musk’s “we’ll land on Mars in 2024” style of doing things. It cost a number of people their lives, such as in the Soyuz disaster of November 1966. A little more thoughtfulness might have prevented loss of life, and if the program wouldn’t have been so secretive, it might have benefited from think tanks auditing the design bureaus’ engineering practices, in the same way Soviet nuclear strategy was influenced positively by both civilian and military think tanks.

That’s not a jab at present day SpaceX by the way. They’ve clearly done well so far, with a darn good safety record and impressive engineering feats. I’m talking about SpaceX in the 2040s or 2050s, which may be a wildly different organization from the one we have now, much in the same way 1990s NASA did not resemble 1960s NASA that much.

The Soviet method of management and organization performed just fine for Sputnik and Vostok, but failed when they tried to go to the Moon. There’s a thin line between insanity and genius, and I’m just concerned SpaceX will tip the wrong way in the future.

This is exactly what I mean by speculation based on pre-frontier assumptions, no offense intended.  Speculations like this in the West that delay pushing outward and learning could go on for centuries, or as long as it suits those whom it benefits

[DDE]

13 hours ago, darthgently said:

If there are people willing to do it, what moral standing do those unwilling to do so have to prevent the first from trying?

Opportunity costs. Not all of the naysayers who have better ideas how the resources and time could be spent are necessarily wrong. Some of them would bear the costs directly.

1 hour ago, darthgently said:

Speculations like this in the West that delay pushing outward and learning could go on for centuries, or as long as it suits those whom it benefits

Do not assume malice when a self-perpetuating, recalcitrant mode of thinking is explanation enough.

[darthgently]

15 minutes ago, DDE said:

Do not assume malice when a self-perpetuating, recalcitrant mode of thinking is explanation enough.

For all we know a self-perpetuating, recalcitrant mode of thinking may be the "condensation nuclei" around which malice "forms".  It isn't like we understand how these things work really, but the relationship is suggested by many psychological researchers and philosophers.  The line gets blurry and we don't know enough to draw conclusions.  Which is why I restricted my statement to "benefit" as that is potentially an external measure, not a guess at intention

[Nuke]

On 11/8/2023 at 4:10 PM, mikegarrison said:

stand-up guys

It's a usually-considered-derogative word for a child born out of legal wedlock.

and a motorhead album.,

[kerbiloid]

Why avoid the p-words for the Martian colony description, when it's exactly the realistic scheme of the staff structure?

As the colony is a standalone self-sufficient unit, i.e. a regiment, the leader Leader of the colony is polkovnik, i.e. colonel.
The deputy leader is podpolkovnik, i.e. "Lt. Colonel".

The technicians, the low-middle managers, etc., are praporshchik, i.e. Master Sgt.

The moral(e) officer is politruk.

Btw, the billionaire can be a founder of the Private Space Military Company, you know...

[SunlitZelkova]

19 hours ago, darthgently said:

This is exactly what I mean by speculation based on pre-frontier assumptions, no offense intended.  Speculations like this in the West that delay pushing outward and learning could go on for centuries, or as long as it suits those whom it benefits

It benefits people who are alive. More speculation during the early Shuttle development era might have prevented Challenger and Columbia.

One thing I would like to ask you, and anyone else who holds the belief we need to get to Mars and elsewhere for the purpose of colony building ASAP- what’s the rush? Why do we have to have Musk timelines of a self-sustaining city by 2050?

Realistically the probability of Earth getting hit by an asteroid or some other catastrophe wiping out all life is low. In fact, the last time an asteroid big enough to cause an extinction event hit, life was just fine.

Unless we adopt levels of fear and urgency on par with the worst of the climate alarmists, I don’t see why a Mars colony or colony anywhere else can’t be a project with lead times lasting in centuries, if not millennia.

A space colony should be done right, not fast, right? Kinda like how achieving net zero emissions should be done in a way that doesn’t cause economic and societal havoc.

Note that I underlined “for the purpose of colony building” because a simple Mars expedition is another story. That is something that can be done pretty fast (at least fast compared to how long it would take to build a space colony) and it’s understandable one would want to see humans set foot on Mars in their lifetime. I don’t think it is absurd to demand a human Mars mission by 2040 in the same way expecting a city on Mars by 2100 is.

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

One thing I would like to ask you, and anyone else who holds the belief we need to get to Mars and elsewhere for the purpose of colony building ASAP- what’s the rush?

A scheduled event... *evil smile*

3 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Why do we have to have Musk timelines of a self-sustaining city by 2050?

Already breaking the deadline...

3 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I don’t think it is absurd to demand a human Mars mission by 2040 in the same way expecting a city on Mars by 2100 is.

Who says, it is human? 
Boston Dynamics + Neuralink + SpaceX + Mars ....

[DDE]

9 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Unless we adopt levels of fear and urgency on par with the worst of the climate alarmists, I don’t see why a Mars colony or colony anywhere else can’t be a project with lead times lasting in centuries, if not millennia.

Or a million years, as per Tsiolkovsky (granted, he was telling about the Solar System as a whole). We already outrun his plans for first man in space by 39 years.

[magnemoe]

On 11/9/2023 at 3:05 AM, Spacescifi said:

Very likely they will mention some stuff we already know about living on mars, namely:

1. The dirt is toxic, thus any plants you grow for food are bound to have toxins unless you make a way to filter them out... and the plants grown so far using simulated martian dirt were yellow rather than green so let that sink in.

2. Much less water than earth, which obviously means it will need to be both heavily recycled and conserved.

3. Radiation hazard due to thin atmospheric protection, requring heavy under ground infrastructure tunnels before you can have population safe... unless we make a  scifi thin material that can block/reflect it... which we have'nt yet.

And there is so so much more... don't get me started lol.

1 Is an problem, solution is probably not to use martian dirt do grow plants. 
2 we assume its plenty of permafrost many places. This is critical not so much for crew or farming but making oxygen and hydrogen / methane for the return trip.
3 yes its an problem, the moon is worse. 

[55delta]

What's the rush? Well, a wide-scale disaster that renders Earth's surface uninhabitable doesn't just wait until 2100 to happen. I mean, there's many potential disaster we know can happen, like climate change  or that nuclear war is as close as its ever been. But those are just examples, because I figure they could just as easily get to us before 2050.

No, the real big reason for the rush is because most people don't see a reason to try for a city on Mars right now. The lack of motivation to move is called, like in physics, inertia. The thought is, and Elon has pretty much said as much, that if there's not push to do it, then it'll never get done. No rocket to Mars, no development on solving the problem with living on Mars, no city on Mars, it all chains together. So someone has to put forward the resources for the initial push, and hope that after the push that the viability of the project gives it momentum. With it, you might get a city on Mars by 2050. Without it, you never get a city on Mars.

[mikegarrison]

10 hours ago, 55delta said:

What's the rush? Well, a wide-scale disaster that renders Earth's surface uninhabitable doesn't just wait until 2100 to happen. I mean, there's many potential disaster we know can happen, like climate change  or that nuclear war is as close as its ever been. But those are just examples, because I figure they could just as easily get to us before 2050.

And of course they discuss this, but their point is that it is nearly impossible to imagine any kind of wide-scale disaster on on Earth that would actually make it less habitable for humans than Mars is right now.

No air, no nitrogen, toxic dirt that sometimes blows in planet-wide dust storms, high levels of radiation, low gravity....

[SunlitZelkova]

10 hours ago, 55delta said:

What's the rush? Well, a wide-scale disaster that renders Earth's surface uninhabitable doesn't just wait until 2100 to happen. I mean, there's many potential disaster we know can happen, like climate change  or that nuclear war is as close as its ever been. But those are just examples, because I figure they could just as easily get to us before 2050.

If you’re going to be this paranoid I would say it makes more sense to build fallout shelters deep underground on Earth. There might be a war on Mars or an asteroid might impact the site of the city for all we know.

EDIT- That was rude. I’m sorry. I just think this fear of a disaster is really silly.

10 hours ago, 55delta said:

No, the real big reason for the rush is because most people don't see a reason to try for a city on Mars right now. The lack of motivation to move is called, like in physics, inertia. The thought is, and Elon has pretty much said as much, that if there's not push to do it, then it'll never get done. No rocket to Mars, no development on solving the problem with living on Mars, no city on Mars, it all chains together. So someone has to put forward the resources for the initial push, and hope that after the push that the viability of the project gives it momentum. With it, you might get a city on Mars by 2050. Without it, you never get a city on Mars.

Going by this logic airplanes were never going to be invented because no one pushed for studying the possibility of men flying after the story of Icarus was written.

Obviously they were invented, even if no one really worked on it for thousands of years.

The idea that if we don’t do it immediately, no one ever will is absurd.

It should be noted that unlike space exploration, which is for “you” (a science and exploration lover, also astronauts and engineers and what have you) and thus the consequences of a disaster would be limited to those who really wanted to participate, space colonization is for society. It will entail affecting the fates of people who just want to live life, as well as children who have yet to be born.

Any time one clique tries to shove society in a certain direction by force, imposing their own will on others without discussion amongst society of the way their plans should be executed or the way it might effect things, needless death occurs.

I’d go as far as to say that any space colonization project that doesn’t involve all the “speculation” that seems to be despised will go down in history like agricultural collectivization. It won’t be like when the Americas were settled. The settlers built their own homes and own society when they landed in America, while with the way things are going, it seems any pitiful Mars colonist will have their and their children’s lives dictated by either one man or a small group of men 145 million miles away, hellbent on “saving humanity” like humans were their pets and not independent beings with rights.

One more thing- I feel this sense that an extinction level disaster is going to happen at any moment is borderline end times prophesizing.

Edited November 12, 2023 by SunlitZelkova