‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

The Mars Delusion

24 points · 59 comments · Tomte

  1. ck2 · · focus · HN ↗
    it's not just "fraught with risk"

    it's physically impossible with current technology for humans to survive a trip to Mars and live on the surface

    space really, really wants to kill life

    cosmic rays will kill humans before they even make it to Mars

    there is no current technology that shields from cosmic rays

    we should appreciate the earth greatly for its atmosphere and magnetosphere that shields us from them

    best emulation idea so far is to surround astronauts with several feet of water

    but we don't have the lift capacity for that much water weight

    the total time on the moon outside the capsule per person maximum was 22 hours

    the astronauts kept seeing bursts of light even with their eyes closed

    when NASA inspected the helmets there were microscopic groove where some had made it all the way through

    cosmic rays are physical particles traveling near the speed of light

    the bursts of light were their nerves and other cells being destroyed by the cosmic rays

    it was happening to their brains and CNS too

    mice exposed to simulated cosmic rays became slow and stupid

    1. rf15 · · focus · HN ↗

      [dead]

    2. r3trohack3r · · focus · HN ↗
      > it's physically impossible with current technology for humans to survive a trip to Mars and live on the surface

      You seem to say this as if it’s some sort of enlightened reason to “not”

      Instead, I suspect for many, enumerating, quantifying and solving the impossible is precisely the reason we venture into the unknown.

      1. vor_ · · focus · HN ↗
        Respectfully, this is one of the many starry-eyed "we seek to achieve the impossible" posts in these comments that refuses to address the practical realities. You're not going to erase radiation exposure with a motivational speech.
        1. ElectronCharge · · focus · HN ↗
          Radiation exposure will be easily survivable in the short term. Astronauts have already lived in space for longer than a Mars flight, and Mars explorers will have, at a minimum, highly shielded sleep areas during the trip. With a VR setup, spending a lot of time there might not be too bad...

          Spaceflight oriented radiation shielding will also improve over time.

          On Mars, radiation won't be much of a concern at all, since all living quarters will be underground, either under piled regolith, or deeper underground.

        2. r3trohack3r · · focus · HN ↗
          You’re not going to land on the moon by standing at a podium and saying “we do hard things because they’re hard” either.

          We call moon shots “moon shots” because we landed on the moon and generated incredible generational wealth from the technology in the process.

          Had we not, we would call moon shots something else.

    3. WalterBright · · focus · HN ↗
      Magnets can reduce the cosmic ray risk:

      <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;phys.org&#x2F;news&#x2F;2026-07-permanent-magnets-astronauts-solar-storms.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;phys.org&#x2F;news&#x2F;2026-07-permanent-magnets-astronauts-s...

    4. criddell · · focus · HN ↗
      There are plenty of people who would trade twenty or thirty years of their Earth life for a final five or ten as a pioneer on (or in) Mars. I probably wouldn’t volunteer yet, but once I’m in my 60’s? Maybe… It’s one way of eliminating anxiety around living too long with dementia.
      1. bot403 · · focus · HN ↗
        Something nags at me the ideal mars astronaut would be more late 20s and 30s rather than 60&#x2F;70.
        1. criddell · · focus · HN ↗
          Sure, but there are political considerations as well. It&#x27;s a lot harder to sell sending a 30 year old to die in five years on Mars than it is to sell a 60 year old doing the same.
      2. ck2 · · focus · HN ↗
        you wouldn&#x27;t have even five to ten MONTHS on Mars

        not unless there is a leap in shielding technology

        and as someone 60, let me explain you have no idea how your shift in desire will become quality of life, less pain and suffering

        but we&#x27;ll actually get technology to improve aging and quality of life in aging way before humans are able to travel to Mars and live there

        I mean what&#x27;s there if you aren&#x27;t going to survive?

        Go live in a desert if you want a living challenge, it&#x27;s same thing but far less radiation

        1. ElectronCharge · · focus · HN ↗
          As to &#x27;shielding&#x27;, there&#x27;s plenty on Mars. It&#x27;s called dirt and rock. There&#x27;s a high likelihood that caves are available, for one thing. In the short term, other needs may be satisfied via shipment from Earth. The initial colony can be scouted, supplied, and constructed using unmanned missions.

          Longer term habitation will involve Martian agriculture. Microbes have already been developed to transform Martian soil into an arable form.

          Back to the radiation question, after some quick research it&#x27;s clear that as long as the living quarters are shielded (as above), a few hours of exposure a day are very low risk. The average dose rate at the Martian surface is well under 220 micrograys per day, and the levels only very rarely exceed that value. If one were out on the surface for five hours a day, the yearly dose would be less than that allowed for radiation workers in the USA. That level is considered negligible for increased cancers and other health problems.

          Given that survival is assured, what&#x27;s there is a new world, virtually unlimited resources, and unlimited potential.

    5. delichon · · focus · HN ↗
      &gt; there is no current technology that shields from cosmic rays

      Hydrogels.

      <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.esa.int&#x2F;Enabling_Support&#x2F;Space_Engineering_Technology&#x2F;For_astronaut_radiation_protection_just_add_water" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.esa.int&#x2F;Enabling_Support&#x2F;Space_Engineering_Techn...

      1. ck2 · · focus · HN ↗
        neat

        but it&#x27;s at least a decade away from practical use

        <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;m.xkcd.com&#x2F;678&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;m.xkcd.com&#x2F;678&#x2F;

    6. SubmarineClub · · focus · HN ↗
      It was “physically impossible with current technology for humans to survive a trip” to the Moon when the space race kicked off, too. The whole POINT of the space race was inventing the technology to solve those problems.

      Space exploration nay-sayers really are the lamest people imaginable.

      1. vor_ · · focus · HN ↗
        &gt; It was “physically impossible with current technology for humans to survive a trip” to the Moon when the space race kicked off, too.

        No, it wasn&#x27;t. For one thing, the moon is a heck of a lot closer than Mars.

        &gt; The whole POINT of the space race was inventing the technology to solve those problems.

        The point of the space race was to demonstrate technological superiority, especially with regard to missile capabilities, in the Cold War.

        Calling people &quot;lame&quot; isn&#x27;t going to address the realities of space travel, from the destructive effects of radiation on pregnancies to the physical and cognitive decline from living in a non-Earth environment for extended periods of time, effects that have been measured in astronauts who spent time on the ISS. Sending humans to Mars would practically be a death sentence for that subset of the species.

        1. ElectronCharge · · focus · HN ↗
          You&#x27;re uninformed.

          Humans on Mars will live in radiation shielded environments, and people have already endured longer space radiation exposure than received during the trip. At least the astronaut&#x27;s sleeping habitat will be heavily radiation shielded on board the spacecraft.

          Nuclear interplanetary craft will also shorten trip times appreciably within a decade or so.

          See my other reply for more details...

    7. ElectronCharge · · focus · HN ↗
      Most of what you wrote is provably incorrect.

      Humans have survived in orbit, exposed to full-strength cosmic rays, for much longer than for the trip to Mars. Improved shielding will become practical as nuclear powered spacecraft come into their heyday, which will be sooner than you think. I believe that within ten years, nuclear transporters will be receiving Starships for docking, then making the trip to Mars substantially faster than using Hohmann type orbits.

      Once on Mars, life will be mostly underground due to the high background radiation. Most surface activity will be via teleoperated robots, though surface vehicles should have enough shielding to be safe. Short excursions in suits should be fine too, subject to a yearly radiation dose limit.

      Life underground can be as luxurious as effectively unlimited energy and resources can provide. Very large underground habitats can eventually be excavated, perhaps with the assistance of nuclear explosions. Large lava caves are also known to exist, and may provide sites for early settlements. Regardless, radiation exposure will absolutely NOT be an issue.

      Martian gravity, while fun, may pose physiological issues. It may be necessary to construct large centrifuges providing some higher effective gravity level for some portion of Martian&#x27;s days. Perhaps sleeping in those conditions will be sufficient, more research is needed for sure. I do think a large orbital hotel with simulated gravity would be a great SpaceX project, both for space tourism and research. It&#x27;s a shame NASA has dropped the ball on simulated gravity for decades...

      At any rate, the future is incredibly bright, and the spirit of human exploration will live on! I&#x27;m excited for the first Starship orbital flight in a few minutes!!!

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.