4 ms·

This is such a tired argument. Yes, Antartica is less miserable than Mars. So what? Antartica is, crucially, part of Earth. It is missing the main thing Mars

This is such a tired argument. Yes, Antartica is less miserable than Mars. So what? Antartica is, crucially, part of Earth. It is missing the main thing Mars has to make it desirable, which is being another planet. If you don't get the point of ever leaving Earth that's fine, but don't pretend that $random_inhospitable_place_on_Earth is automatically better, for 'being on other planets' purposes, than another planet is.

nostromo 10y ago
Yes, if you're only solving for "not Earth" then Mars is good match. But if your only goal is to leave Earth, why not move to the Moon? It's much more practical. Without a plan to make Mars more habitable for humans, Mars will be a lot like ISS or Antartica: a place where a small number of lucky scientists go for a few months before returning home.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Terraforming Mars is an undertaking that may well be beyond humanity, but it doesn't have to be the whole planet to make it effective (though that would be the safest).
- kitsunesoba 10y ago
  The moon is only more practical in terms of distance/travel time. In every other way, the moon is drastically more inhospitable than even the worst day on Mars, so anything gained by the shorter distance is quickly nullified by the difficulty of existing there. If the issues surrounding transit can be addressed, Mars is by far a superior target for colonization.
- dgudkov 10y ago
  As far as I understand the Moon has no water which makes it far less suited for colonization than Mars, even if the Moon is closer. Also Mars has atmosphere and it's surface temperatures are less extreme than the Moon's.
jacquesm 10y ago
One could argue that Antarctica being on the same planet is actually an advantage, it is a lot easier to reach. It is worth splitting the species across multiple planets as some kind of insurance policy. But the long term viability of Earth in the worst of circumstances may still be better than any colony in space or on another planet in our own solar system. Such a colony would likely be dependent on Earth in many ways for a long long time into the future, and in many ways this may be desirable. For me the major reason to be positive about space exploration and colonizing space is similar to the reasons why some people will climb mountains: it's there, exploration is in our nature and meeting challenges is something we generally feel positive about. Setting foot on another planet in the solar system alone would be a huge milestone, even if we don't manage to establish a viable outpost. And for that purpose it doesn't matter much which planet we pick, Mars is for many reasons the best candidate. Here's to hoping it happens in the next 20 years. It may, it may not, I'm not going to hold my breath but I'm really happy to see some actual progress since 1969 on this front. I can still hear that roger beep...
novalis78 10y ago
Could not agree more. Reading "A Case for Mars" by Dr. Robert Zubrin, esteemed aerospace engineer and founder of the Mars Society, explains - in every possible detail - the why and the how of settling Mars. Anyone interested in this topic should check it out. I would not be surprised if that's what got Elon Musk excited (and convinced that it's quite possible) in early 2002.
vernon99 10y ago
You have to fuck up our planed really badly to make Mars better than Antartica. I don't get this argument - what really can happen here for Mars to become more appealing? Nuclear winter? Virus outbreak? Zombie apocalypse? Antartica still would be better by a solid margin. You can get water reserves with little effort, it would be easier to clean polluted air than to produce it out of nowhere and temperature range is still much better in any case. What's the point then?

nostromo 10y ago

Yes, if you're only solving for "not Earth" then Mars is good match. But if your only goal is to leave Earth, why not move to the Moon? It's much more practical. Without a plan to make Mars more habitable for humans, Mars will be a lot like ISS or Antartica: a place where a small number of lucky scientists go for a few months before returning home.

jacquesm 10y ago
Terraforming Mars is an undertaking that may well be beyond humanity, but it doesn't have to be the whole planet to make it effective (though that would be the safest).
kitsunesoba 10y ago
The moon is only more practical in terms of distance/travel time. In every other way, the moon is drastically more inhospitable than even the worst day on Mars, so anything gained by the shorter distance is quickly nullified by the difficulty of existing there. If the issues surrounding transit can be addressed, Mars is by far a superior target for colonization.
dgudkov 10y ago
As far as I understand the Moon has no water which makes it far less suited for colonization than Mars, even if the Moon is closer. Also Mars has atmosphere and it's surface temperatures are less extreme than the Moon's.

jacquesm 10y ago

One could argue that Antarctica being on the same planet is actually an advantage, it is a lot easier to reach. It is worth splitting the species across multiple planets as some kind of insurance policy. But the long term viability of Earth in the worst of circumstances may still be better than any colony in space or on another planet in our own solar system. Such a colony would likely be dependent on Earth in many ways for a long long time into the future, and in many ways this may be desirable. For me the major reason to be positive about space exploration and colonizing space is similar to the reasons why some people will climb mountains: it's there, exploration is in our nature and meeting challenges is something we generally feel positive about. Setting foot on another planet in the solar system alone would be a huge milestone, even if we don't manage to establish a viable outpost. And for that purpose it doesn't matter much which planet we pick, Mars is for many reasons the best candidate. Here's to hoping it happens in the next 20 years. It may, it may not, I'm not going to hold my breath but I'm really happy to see some actual progress since 1969 on this front. I can still hear that roger beep...

novalis78 10y ago

Could not agree more. Reading "A Case for Mars" by Dr. Robert Zubrin, esteemed aerospace engineer and founder of the Mars Society, explains - in every possible detail - the why and the how of settling Mars. Anyone interested in this topic should check it out. I would not be surprised if that's what got Elon Musk excited (and convinced that it's quite possible) in early 2002.

vernon99 10y ago

You have to fuck up our planed really badly to make Mars better than Antartica. I don't get this argument - what really can happen here for Mars to become more appealing? Nuclear winter? Virus outbreak? Zombie apocalypse? Antartica still would be better by a solid margin. You can get water reserves with little effort, it would be easier to clean polluted air than to produce it out of nowhere and temperature range is still much better in any case. What's the point then?