4 ms·

> Failure is not an option There's guaranteed gonna be a catastrophic event outside of our control on Earth given a large enough timescale, be it climate chang

by Mahn 10y ago

> Failure is not an option There's guaranteed gonna be a catastrophic event outside of our control on Earth given a large enough timescale, be it climate change consequences, glaciation, collision with large meteorite, fatal epidemy, etc etc. Mars makes for a shitty backup plan, sure, but we can't pretend that the Earth is gonna last forever either. A shitty backup plan is still better than simply sitting on our ass and hoping that no natural catastrophes ever happen; taking good care of Earth is not enough on the long term.

m3ta 10y ago
"Failure is not an option" is not even in the same reality as "sitting on our ass". It is exactly the opposite.
neaden 10y ago
Most of the things you mention would still leave the Earth way more habitable than Mars. It would really need to be at the rogue planetoid/gamma ray burst level extinction event rather then global warming or nuclear war.
dogma1138 10y ago
By the time the colonization of mars is going to be an achievable reality all of those things would not be an issue. Large impact protection and geo-engineering are considerably easier efforts than colonizing mars considering just how hostile the environment is (even the martian dust is extremely poisonous to humans). You are effectively going to live on a planet with no effective atmosphere, no magnetic field, with extreme temperatures and plenty of natural hazards. The level of geo-engineering required to build martian colony which is both self sustainable and could serve as a lifeboat for the human species is currently insurmountable, we haven't even sent a single living thing to mars, we haven't sent a single person, nor we returned them safely. We have not studied the effect of long term exposure to the martian environment and we have virtually no clue on what is going to be required in practice to enable large number of humans to live there for eternity. And most importantly everything on that list with the exception of a gamma ray burst (which would fry mars also) is going to live earth considerably more liveable and hospitable to humans. If you can build a self sustaining colony on Mars you can build on on earth even after a mega impact event, supervolcano, another ice age or extreme pollution. Earth has an atmosphere that at best would require a rebreather, it has a magnetic shield that protects you from radiation, you won't die or suffer serious health effects because you were exposed to sand, and in any case the temperatures would still remain considerably more hospitable to humans than they'll ever be on mars. Earth also has a diverse biome, which means regardless of what is going to happen life would still continue to exist in one shape or form, if nothing else this would constantly provide humanity with food, energy, and oxygen.
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  It seems to me we should be putting more effort into building very large space-based habitats. With a large space station, it can generate 1g artificial gravity simply by rotating (which is much better than Mars with only 1/3g), you don't have to worry about a hostile environment because it's entirely artificial so you can make it whatever you want, solar power should be abundant if you locate the station not too far from Earth (which will give you power and heat), so the only real problem will be radiation, but that could be mitigated with lots of shielding, once you've found a cheap place to mine for materials in space. We already have small artificial environments here on Earth that people live in for extended periods; we call them "submarines". We also have the ISS and previous space stations, which people have inhabited for years at a time. So we know how to make artificial habitats which support life. Now we just need to scale them up a whole lot, make them rotate for gravity, and give them shielding since they won't be in LEO.
  - neaden 10y ago
    But why would you do that vs. just building a city in Antarctica or the Gobi Desert which is even more habitable? Outside of scientific research and tourism there just aren't a lot of reasons to go into space and neither of those require a huge colony of people.
    - Grishnakh 10y ago
      Antarctica is NOT more habitable. It's really cold there, so you have to use a lot of energy to keep it warm. Space-based habitats don't have that problem, because there's no convective cooling like there is in Antarctica. They're relatively easy to keep at a comfortable temperature. The only thing Antarctica has going for it is a ready supply of breathable air, but supplying that hasn't been a big problem on space stations for a long time. Also, a space station will have a much better view than an outpost in Antarctica. A city in the Gobi desert would be pointless. First, it's owned by China and they aren't going to let you just build a city there, and second, we have tons of cities in deserts, so why would we want another one? There's no compelling reason to bother with such a thing. More practically, it can be used for a lot of missions, like learning how to manufacture stuff in low-gravity (and taking advantage of low-g or zero-g for manufacturing) (the middle of the station would be zero-g), or acting as a waypoint for other missions to the Moon or asteroids or Mars, etc. The main disadvantage to the huge space station is, of course, cost. But there's enormous economic opportunities there beyond tourism and research, starting with resource extraction.

by Mahn 10y ago

m3ta 10y ago

"Failure is not an option" is not even in the same reality as "sitting on our ass". It is exactly the opposite.

neaden 10y ago

Most of the things you mention would still leave the Earth way more habitable than Mars. It would really need to be at the rogue planetoid/gamma ray burst level extinction event rather then global warming or nuclear war.

dogma1138 10y ago

By the time the colonization of mars is going to be an achievable reality all of those things would not be an issue. Large impact protection and geo-engineering are considerably easier efforts than colonizing mars considering just how hostile the environment is (even the martian dust is extremely poisonous to humans). You are effectively going to live on a planet with no effective atmosphere, no magnetic field, with extreme temperatures and plenty of natural hazards. The level of geo-engineering required to build martian colony which is both self sustainable and could serve as a lifeboat for the human species is currently insurmountable, we haven't even sent a single living thing to mars, we haven't sent a single person, nor we returned them safely. We have not studied the effect of long term exposure to the martian environment and we have virtually no clue on what is going to be required in practice to enable large number of humans to live there for eternity. And most importantly everything on that list with the exception of a gamma ray burst (which would fry mars also) is going to live earth considerably more liveable and hospitable to humans. If you can build a self sustaining colony on Mars you can build on on earth even after a mega impact event, supervolcano, another ice age or extreme pollution. Earth has an atmosphere that at best would require a rebreather, it has a magnetic shield that protects you from radiation, you won't die or suffer serious health effects because you were exposed to sand, and in any case the temperatures would still remain considerably more hospitable to humans than they'll ever be on mars. Earth also has a diverse biome, which means regardless of what is going to happen life would still continue to exist in one shape or form, if nothing else this would constantly provide humanity with food, energy, and oxygen.

Grishnakh 10y ago
It seems to me we should be putting more effort into building very large space-based habitats. With a large space station, it can generate 1g artificial gravity simply by rotating (which is much better than Mars with only 1/3g), you don't have to worry about a hostile environment because it's entirely artificial so you can make it whatever you want, solar power should be abundant if you locate the station not too far from Earth (which will give you power and heat), so the only real problem will be radiation, but that could be mitigated with lots of shielding, once you've found a cheap place to mine for materials in space. We already have small artificial environments here on Earth that people live in for extended periods; we call them "submarines". We also have the ISS and previous space stations, which people have inhabited for years at a time. So we know how to make artificial habitats which support life. Now we just need to scale them up a whole lot, make them rotate for gravity, and give them shielding since they won't be in LEO.
- neaden 10y ago
  But why would you do that vs. just building a city in Antarctica or the Gobi Desert which is even more habitable? Outside of scientific research and tourism there just aren't a lot of reasons to go into space and neither of those require a huge colony of people.
  - Grishnakh 10y ago
    Antarctica is NOT more habitable. It's really cold there, so you have to use a lot of energy to keep it warm. Space-based habitats don't have that problem, because there's no convective cooling like there is in Antarctica. They're relatively easy to keep at a comfortable temperature. The only thing Antarctica has going for it is a ready supply of breathable air, but supplying that hasn't been a big problem on space stations for a long time. Also, a space station will have a much better view than an outpost in Antarctica. A city in the Gobi desert would be pointless. First, it's owned by China and they aren't going to let you just build a city there, and second, we have tons of cities in deserts, so why would we want another one? There's no compelling reason to bother with such a thing. More practically, it can be used for a lot of missions, like learning how to manufacture stuff in low-gravity (and taking advantage of low-g or zero-g for manufacturing) (the middle of the station would be zero-g), or acting as a waypoint for other missions to the Moon or asteroids or Mars, etc. The main disadvantage to the huge space station is, of course, cost. But there's enormous economic opportunities there beyond tourism and research, starting with resource extraction.