This is the escapist power fantasy crap I'm talking about. Your proposed solution to the radiation problem is "Well, they'll just solve the problem."
"NASA made an estimate, so it'll just work out that way." It's asinine, it's not a real evaluation. The burden of proof is on you, by the way, to prove just how technology which exists today is sufficient to send a group of people to Mars and keep them alive indefinitely (at least three months according to your own link. How long did the Apollo missions claim to keep people alive on the moon, which is basically in our backyard? How many months was that?). The extraordinary claim being made has no basis.
Lol, they'll just shield the radiation! Easy. Just weld on a couple of the radiation shields from Lowes, duh.
What a rather annoying sort of person to have a discussion with, you make blanket statements, assume other peoples intention and motivation (and naturally assume the worse) and don't even try and present an argument much less evidence for your position. Oh well, it is Kiwifarms after all (that is a bit strange you'd think autists would be thrilled to engage in intellectual argument...).
As for the evidence.
Peggy Whitson set the record for longest space time at 665 days. It's physically possible to survive that time in low gravity.
Mars One seem to consider the radiation within acceptable limits for both the journey and long term habitation. The best counter I can find is the
ESA but their European so they're pussies, and secondly they're working of the ideal that there should be little to no radiation exposure, while it seems a more realistic goal is to limit radiation exposure to acceptable levels. And one of the solution to radiation really is just building
thicker wall, but best approach is to use better materials, technically
different materials protect against different types of radiation so you'd want to have different layered materials, and you'd have to consider secondary radiations. The problem here is largely one of cost, building thicker walls don't just use more material but getting them into space is more costly, and that seem to be the biggest issue not that we can't protect against space radiation on the way to Mars but that we want to do it cheaply. So for all your "Just weld on a couple of the radiation shields from Lowes, duh" that is actually a legitimate solution. Radiation protection is not like condoms, slapping on a few extra layers actually works.
There some numbers
here on radiation level on Mars itself but this article also presents some options for long term colonisation on Mars and how to handle radiation. It notes an exposure rate of 8000 millirads a year which is roughly 2.5x higher than what is experienced in the international space station, and a rather unsafe given the recommended exposure is
5000 millirads, But of course 8000 is the unprotected level, I know the idea of shielding against radiation seems to be unfathomable to you, but there legitimately are ways. I mean who do that exact thing in nuclear power plants.
I'd think building underground would probably be the most straight forward, we can even make use of concrete made from Mars itself: think nuclear bomb shelter, certainly you believe those exist? So again this is a possibility.
As for Martian soil there's some indication we could grow good in Martian soul, scientists have experimented with growing crop in
volcanic soil but this seems to be rather
challenging, unlikely we can just show up and plant some seed. The best solution is probably just to bring our own plants with us. Nasa has been studying
growing plants in space, and that looks like a possibility at very very least to limit the need for resupply. Obvious a Martian colony will not be immediately self sufficient, but with hydroponic there should at least be a way to prevent everyone from staving to death between resupplies.
As for electricity on Mars
nuclear,
geothermal (admittedly a bit outside our current technology),
solar is a option but not the best one for Mars, so it's likely a nuclear and solar hybrid.
So in summary, we can get to Mars with reasonable levels of safety, we can build Martian colonies which will provide a reasonable level of safety, we can bring our own hydroponics with us that will help sustain the colony, and we can power the colony.
The biggest issue is not existing technology it's money. There is no will to explore Mars, and this goes back to my original post "spirit of innovation and drive to explore is very rare". Most people don't want to go to Mars, sure there's naysayers like David who (which if I'm to be more charitable towards him than he has been towards me, holds his beliefs because he is simply not aware of existing technology available to us), but then you also get people like:
Yeah, so why should we want to go live on Mars? Give me specific reasons why the government should fund a Mars base. (I don't give a shit what people spend their own money on.)
Who when they see a mountain they do not see it as a challenge, as something to climb, as a goal to strive for.
That is what I'm lamenting in my post. My original stance is simple: humanity is held back because it has lost its drive to do more and achieve more. Mars colony is simply an example of something that is achievable but which there is no desire to do so.
People are just happy to sit around and bitch about Trump or Biden or go march in the street for some government gibs me. Maybe this is just the end product of hyper individualism, everyone is just myopically focused on their own lives and the things within a narrow boundary they've constructed.
So no I am highly doubting humanity will reach a type 2 civilisation, and as evidence I present you this thread. To achieve a type 2 civilisation will require a drive absent today, it will require sacrifice and in particular cooperation that seems impossible. Maybe you could argue that when the west falls another civilisation will arise and achieve these things, but what if all sufficiently advanced human civilisations inherently fall into this trap of stagnation?
EDIT:
This is just egoism. Why would it be good that your descendants remember you for putting a canopy in front of Venus? For what purpose? To impress people you'll never meet? What's wrong with just having Earth? Earth isn't good enough for you, somehow Venus is better?
No wait no need to be charitable here, David doesn't seem to care about the technological viability of it al. His stance seems purely oppositional, he is making moral and character judgements towards the people who want to go to Mars and then apposing it just because he doesn't like them very much.
I guess I'm not that far off myself though. Maybe just a difference in our underlying systems of values then?
