4 ms·

I agree that colonizing another world is important as a "backup policy" but I'm still skeptical that Mars is inhabitable in the long term with current technolog

by jhou2 10y ago

I agree that colonizing another world is important as a "backup policy" but I'm still skeptical that Mars is inhabitable in the long term with current technologies. I feel like human civilization would have a better chance of surviving deep underground or in the oceans than spending so many resources attempting to colonize Mars.

ceejayoz 10y ago
> I'm still skeptical that Mars is inhabitable in the long term with current technologies. Then the Moon is, as well.
- nameless912 10y ago
  I would argue the moon is more difficult than Mars to colonize. No atmosphere means landing will always be, at best, a giant pain in the ass, and at worst, extremely dangerous. A lack of water of any kind makes life nigh-on impossible, as well as the moon's extremely long days; Imagine being in the sun (albeit at a toasty 100C or something, but whatever) for fourteen days straight, followed by the longest, coldest night you've ever experienced (to the tune of -120C or worse) for fourteen days straight. That would be a nearly insurmountable engineering feat in and of itself, totally neglecting the other problems. I think Mars will ultimately prove much easier to colonize. Getting there isn't necessarily hard once we've figured it out; we have the life support systems to keep the ISS going (albeit with constant support from the ground) for 15 years, and we can already do all the orbital math and whatnot. It's just a matter of doing it.
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    In general, I agree. Temperature changes will likely be dealt with by living underground, and there's something to be said for the ability to nope out of there in a couple days instead of months/years. I think there's value to figuring out both - a giant space telescope on the far side of the Moon would be amazing for science - but Mars seems like the more logical first spot.
adrianN 10y ago
Putting a semi-permanent colony on Mars is cheaper than you might think, on the order of $50 billion [1]. That's about 10 aircraft carriers, or 1/3 of the cost of the ISS. Making it independent of the Earth is of course orders of magnitude more expensive, but making a self-sufficient underground habitat on Earth isn't exactly cheap either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct

by jhou2 10y ago

ceejayoz 10y ago

> I'm still skeptical that Mars is inhabitable in the long term with current technologies. Then the Moon is, as well.

nameless912 10y ago
I would argue the moon is more difficult than Mars to colonize. No atmosphere means landing will always be, at best, a giant pain in the ass, and at worst, extremely dangerous. A lack of water of any kind makes life nigh-on impossible, as well as the moon's extremely long days; Imagine being in the sun (albeit at a toasty 100C or something, but whatever) for fourteen days straight, followed by the longest, coldest night you've ever experienced (to the tune of -120C or worse) for fourteen days straight. That would be a nearly insurmountable engineering feat in and of itself, totally neglecting the other problems. I think Mars will ultimately prove much easier to colonize. Getting there isn't necessarily hard once we've figured it out; we have the life support systems to keep the ISS going (albeit with constant support from the ground) for 15 years, and we can already do all the orbital math and whatnot. It's just a matter of doing it.
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  In general, I agree. Temperature changes will likely be dealt with by living underground, and there's something to be said for the ability to nope out of there in a couple days instead of months/years. I think there's value to figuring out both - a giant space telescope on the far side of the Moon would be amazing for science - but Mars seems like the more logical first spot.

adrianN 10y ago

Putting a semi-permanent colony on Mars is cheaper than you might think, on the order of $50 billion [1]. That's about 10 aircraft carriers, or 1/3 of the cost of the ISS. Making it independent of the Earth is of course orders of magnitude more expensive, but making a self-sufficient underground habitat on Earth isn't exactly cheap either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct