5 ms·

I believe in the use of Mars as a sort of space-hub. It's better fit for this purpose than Earth, in many ways. It has less atmosphere, allowing for easier laun

by Meegul 10y ago

I believe in the use of Mars as a sort of space-hub. It's better fit for this purpose than Earth, in many ways. It has less atmosphere, allowing for easier launches. Additionally, with around 1/3 the gravity, launches and landings are even easier. It's also closer to the asteroid belt, potentially making it useful as a sort of space mining hub and providing an economic incentive other than resources found on the planet. That said, I am also doubtful. I don't foresee a trade-hub attracting 1 million people - if there are really a million people who want to go. Who the hell wants to risk their life and net worth just for the privilege of living on a rock less hospitable than Antarctica?

narag 10y ago
Ceres is a much better hub for mining asteroids or as an intermediate step to gas giants. Martian atmosphere is a b as the sad yesterday news show. Also less gravity. If you're going to need living in an underground bubble, look for the practical arrangements, not for the planet status.
- kitsunesoba 10y ago
  Ceres isn't well-suited for long term human habitation due to extremely low gravity and a surface environment much more hostile than that of Mars. You'd either have to have a sizable rotating space station nearby or do everything with remotely controlled and/or autonomous robots, and in the case of the latter you'd be much better building the robots and/or space station on Mars and launching from there than trying to get all of that out of Earth's gravity well.
  - ajmurmann 10y ago
    In the Expanse series they solved Ceres' gravitation issue by speeding up rotation and walking on "the being" of their tunnels.
  - narag 10y ago
    I took for granted that you would not use surface. The rotating station can be built inside a cave. The main advantage over orbiting is mining. In other words, I believe that Mars' appeal is a mirage. Musk and company are seeing it as another Earth where people can live like here, with a little terraforming. I think it would be much more difficult. Of course I could be wrong, or I could be right but, even then, Musk could be modern Columbus.
spc476 10y ago
I would rather see the moon colonized than Mars. First, it has a resource that has economic value both there and here on earth: H3. Second, transporting that H3 would be cheap (as it's going "down hill" so to speak). There's also water, which makes it a bit cheaper to support a lunar colony. It's close by and we could certainly learn a lot about self sufficient support on alien worlds.
- snrplfth 10y ago
  Not that people shouldn't go to the Moon, but there are a few 'amenities' that make Mars more attractive for a lot of people: - Water and free carbon dioxide are hugely more abundant on Mars than on the Moon. These are essential supplies for increasing biomass and making fuel. - There's a nice, somewhat-protective atmosphere. - There's a 24.66 hour day. - Temperatures are relatively moderate.
  - pmoriarty 10y ago
    There's also the possibility of starting a greenhouse effect on Mars[1], which would make it more habitable. No such possibility on the Moon. [1] - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6908408/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/greenhouse-effect-could-make-mars-livable/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6908408/ns/technology_and_science-...
    - snrplfth 10y ago
      True - over the long term it has more potential.
- DennisP 10y ago
  I think a lunar colony would be great but helium-3 isn't a good reason for one. If you can get net energy by fusing He3, you can also do it by fusing deuterium, which is easier. And the end product of deuterium fusion is He3! (Half the time directly, the other half producing tritium which decays to He3.) So instead of sifting through millions of tons of dirt on the moon, you can just make He3 on Earth and gain energy in the process. Deuterium fusion produces neutrons but they're lower energy than D-T neutrons. Fusion startup Helion (funded in part by YCombinator) is working on a hybrid D-D/D-He3 fusion reactor, and says only 6% of the output energy would be as neutron radiation.
Someone 10y ago
"Additionally, with around 1/3 the gravity, launches and landings are even easier." Launches, yes, but landings? Athmosphere is your enemy during launches, but your friend in landing. Mars has an atmospheric pressure less than one percent of that of earth. That makes losing speed other than with rockets a problem, and that requires bringing lots of fuel. In addition, the athmosphere that's there can be windy and turbulent. That can directly affect a spacecraft, but also causes dust storms that can make it hard to measure distance to ground.
- drakonandor 10y ago
  you must note mars G is also not 9.8 m/s^2

by Meegul 10y ago

narag 10y ago

Ceres is a much better hub for mining asteroids or as an intermediate step to gas giants. Martian atmosphere is a b as the sad yesterday news show. Also less gravity. If you're going to need living in an underground bubble, look for the practical arrangements, not for the planet status.

kitsunesoba 10y ago
Ceres isn't well-suited for long term human habitation due to extremely low gravity and a surface environment much more hostile than that of Mars. You'd either have to have a sizable rotating space station nearby or do everything with remotely controlled and/or autonomous robots, and in the case of the latter you'd be much better building the robots and/or space station on Mars and launching from there than trying to get all of that out of Earth's gravity well.
- ajmurmann 10y ago
  In the Expanse series they solved Ceres' gravitation issue by speeding up rotation and walking on "the being" of their tunnels.
- narag 10y ago
  I took for granted that you would not use surface. The rotating station can be built inside a cave. The main advantage over orbiting is mining. In other words, I believe that Mars' appeal is a mirage. Musk and company are seeing it as another Earth where people can live like here, with a little terraforming. I think it would be much more difficult. Of course I could be wrong, or I could be right but, even then, Musk could be modern Columbus.

spc476 10y ago

I would rather see the moon colonized than Mars. First, it has a resource that has economic value both there and here on earth: H3. Second, transporting that H3 would be cheap (as it's going "down hill" so to speak). There's also water, which makes it a bit cheaper to support a lunar colony. It's close by and we could certainly learn a lot about self sufficient support on alien worlds.

snrplfth 10y ago
Not that people shouldn't go to the Moon, but there are a few 'amenities' that make Mars more attractive for a lot of people: - Water and free carbon dioxide are hugely more abundant on Mars than on the Moon. These are essential supplies for increasing biomass and making fuel. - There's a nice, somewhat-protective atmosphere. - There's a 24.66 hour day. - Temperatures are relatively moderate.
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  There's also the possibility of starting a greenhouse effect on Mars[1], which would make it more habitable. No such possibility on the Moon. [1] - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6908408/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/greenhouse-effect-could-make-mars-livable/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6908408/ns/technology_and_science-...
  - snrplfth 10y ago
    True - over the long term it has more potential.
DennisP 10y ago
I think a lunar colony would be great but helium-3 isn't a good reason for one. If you can get net energy by fusing He3, you can also do it by fusing deuterium, which is easier. And the end product of deuterium fusion is He3! (Half the time directly, the other half producing tritium which decays to He3.) So instead of sifting through millions of tons of dirt on the moon, you can just make He3 on Earth and gain energy in the process. Deuterium fusion produces neutrons but they're lower energy than D-T neutrons. Fusion startup Helion (funded in part by YCombinator) is working on a hybrid D-D/D-He3 fusion reactor, and says only 6% of the output energy would be as neutron radiation.

Someone 10y ago

"Additionally, with around 1/3 the gravity, launches and landings are even easier." Launches, yes, but landings? Athmosphere is your enemy during launches, but your friend in landing. Mars has an atmospheric pressure less than one percent of that of earth. That makes losing speed other than with rockets a problem, and that requires bringing lots of fuel. In addition, the athmosphere that's there can be windy and turbulent. That can directly affect a spacecraft, but also causes dust storms that can make it hard to measure distance to ground.

drakonandor 10y ago
you must note mars G is also not 9.8 m/s^2