5 ms·

I don't get the fascination with this barren gravity well called Mars. Other than scientific curiosity there is nothing there of value that is not 1 billion tim

I don't get the fascination with this barren gravity well called Mars. Other than scientific curiosity there is nothing there of value that is not 1 billion times more abundant in the belt. I genuinely don't understand why there is this need to be multi-planetery species and not just space-fairing civ? the tech we need for either seems kind of the same to me, but the belt has a much higher return so what am I missing?

devoply 9y ago
It's an interesting point. The potential advantage would be if Mars has resources like water and hydrogen that we can use to colonize it which would not be possible in the barren expanse of space. Also radiation and gravity have a rather large effect on human physiology...
dhruvarora013 9y ago
I think you're mistaking Mars to be an end goal. Much like the Moon exploration missions, it's only an extension of the frontier and another rotation in the humanity progress wheel. You're absolutely right in terms of absolute financial value the belt is a better bet, but the goal is more of if we can, and starting the effort of spreading humanity beyond Earth permanently. Mars isn't the end goal. It's just the closest starting point.
- adrianratnapala 9y ago
  I interpreted @humanfromearth as not talking about end goals either: presumably setting up shop on some near earth asteroids is easier than Mars. It is arguably more useful too. So yeah: I suspect that in 1000 years time when we look back at the history of space colonisation (however the heck it happens) my guess is that Mars will not figure strongly in the story until we are much more advanced than we are now.
- babyrainbow 9y ago
  > It's just the closest starting point. The closest starting point is right here on earth. Are we yet able to make it work here? I don't think so.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    We will while preparing for making Moon or Mars work. Actually we already are, though there isn't much effort going into it as it is still driven by non-economic reasons.
- valuearb 9y ago
  Mars isn't the closest starting point. Asteroids are. Some are far closer, and even those in the belt are easier to reach than Mars because you don't need atmospheric braking and a ton of fuel on your return flight just to get back out of the gravity well. And the asteroids provide us with more livable habitats and access to far more resources.
sfRattan 9y ago
Having two planets with launch capability makes resupplying, servicing, and responding to emergencies for eventual facilities in the belt would make logistics across the solar system an order of magnitude easier. Suddenly, you have twice as many launch windows over the course of a year to any given point as well as two 'ports' to return to if something goes seriously wrong.
- kitsunesoba 9y ago
  Launching from the surface of Mars takes a lot less fuel, too. Martian gravity also happens to be high enough for earth manufacturing machinery to mostly work as it does here on earth, meaning that we can mostly reuse the systems we're using today. These two factors combine to make Mars quite ideal for building and launching staggeringly huge space vehicles, habitats, and mining machinery which in turn makes bootstrapping a human presence in the asteroid belt and other locations in the solar system a lot easier than if we were to just start at those destinations.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    You have it backwards. Mars is a deep gravity well that adds huge energy costs to both landing and return trips. You don't want to build anything on Mars. Asteroids are much less costly to reach, offer better living environments and far more resources. You want to build out a few asteroids with fuel depots, ship construction/maintenance equipment, and mine cheap extra delta V to spend on mars.
shoo 9y ago
> why [...] not just space-fairing civ? the tech we need for either seems kind of the same to me cstross has a web of old blog posts about the difficulties of spaceships, generation ships http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/11/the_myth_of_the_starship.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/11/the_myth... > how simple can you make a minimal self-maintaining interstellar transport system"? > To a first approximation, the best answer I can come up with is "not very". Separately from "the tech" http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/11/designing_society_for_posterit.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/11/designin... > If you can crank yourself up to 1% of light-speed, alpha centauri is more than four and a half centuries away at cruising speed. > We humans are really bad at designing institutions that outlast the life expectancy of a single human being.
- Eupolemos 9y ago
  I must admit, I don't understand this often repeated notion of "cruising speed" in interstellar space. To me, it feels like some people think of crossing the void between stars as crossing the the Atlantic in a bottle, trying to blow my mind with how long the crossing will take, even if that bottle is given an absolutely amazing initial throw. For interstellar travel to make sense, there _must_ be a 'cruising acceleration', not speed. The notion isn't that strange - after all, cruising speed in a ship on earth requires a constant engine power, which in space would mean constant acceleration. IIRC, a comfortable cruising acceleration of 1G would make it a 4 year trip (6 as experienced by Earth). We just need a whole lot of efficient fuel and an interstellar propeller :P
  - andrewflnr 9y ago
    How do you think a ship is going to power a continuous acceleration? 1G for 4 years is... I don't really know, but it's a heck of a lot of energy even if you've somehow beaten Tsiolkovsy's rocket equation. You don't get to hand-wave this away in a remotely serious conversation. There's also the small problem of the interstellar medium wrecking your hull at high velocity, if you ever get there.
    - 9y ago
the8472 9y ago
> Other than scientific curiosity there is nothing there of value that is not 1 billion times more abundant in the belt. Gravity? Sunlight? Atmosphere acting as radiation shield?
- danaliv 9y ago
  > Atmosphere acting as radiation shield? Does Mars have much atmosphere to speak of? The figure on Wikipedia is that surface pressure is a measly 0.6% of mean sea level pressure on Earth. And there's no magnetosphere at all.
  - the8472 9y ago
    It's not great. But it's better than spending your time in the interplanetary vacuum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Radiation_Environment_Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Radiation_Environment_Exp...
    - slfnflctd 9y ago
      Another thing-- radiation shielding, once installed, has little to no continuing maintenance cost on Mars. Space borne shielding constantly requires additional fuel just to move around.
      - valuearb 9y ago
        Asteroids are free space borne shielding.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
> I don't get the fascination with this barren gravity well called Mars. Other than scientific curiosity there is nothing there of value that is not 1 billion times more abundant in the belt. Well, it's the very gravity well that's useful. The fact that you'd have lots of solid ground under your feet. Also, lots of space to use (including underground), stable orbit, lots of potential for expansion. Sure, resources will be easier to get from the belt (and even easier from near-Earth asteroids). I expect resource-driven space exploration to focus there. But Mars is primarily about alternative habitat.
adekok 9y ago
It's sexy! It's cool! Space ships! SOLAR FREAKING ROADWAYS! Oh, wrong thread... Dreams are nice. Dreams don't feed people. But they do give people reason for hope. Which is why it's easier to concentrate on "OMFG we colonize Mars!", than the engineering realities of: * climate change could very well destroy modern human civilization. Fixing that will involve convincing rich, powerful, people that they're wrong. And, spending lots of money which they'd rather spend on pretty toys or lining their pockets * feeding the planet is easy (from an engineering point of view). Getting the food to people involves dealing with psycho warlords, or corrupt politicians Etc. etc... It's easier to dream about "OMFG MARS!" than to go through the decade-long daily grind of fixing problems at home.

devoply 9y ago

It's an interesting point. The potential advantage would be if Mars has resources like water and hydrogen that we can use to colonize it which would not be possible in the barren expanse of space. Also radiation and gravity have a rather large effect on human physiology...

dhruvarora013 9y ago

I think you're mistaking Mars to be an end goal. Much like the Moon exploration missions, it's only an extension of the frontier and another rotation in the humanity progress wheel. You're absolutely right in terms of absolute financial value the belt is a better bet, but the goal is more of if we can, and starting the effort of spreading humanity beyond Earth permanently. Mars isn't the end goal. It's just the closest starting point.

adrianratnapala 9y ago
I interpreted @humanfromearth as not talking about end goals either: presumably setting up shop on some near earth asteroids is easier than Mars. It is arguably more useful too. So yeah: I suspect that in 1000 years time when we look back at the history of space colonisation (however the heck it happens) my guess is that Mars will not figure strongly in the story until we are much more advanced than we are now.
babyrainbow 9y ago
> It's just the closest starting point. The closest starting point is right here on earth. Are we yet able to make it work here? I don't think so.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  We will while preparing for making Moon or Mars work. Actually we already are, though there isn't much effort going into it as it is still driven by non-economic reasons.
valuearb 9y ago
Mars isn't the closest starting point. Asteroids are. Some are far closer, and even those in the belt are easier to reach than Mars because you don't need atmospheric braking and a ton of fuel on your return flight just to get back out of the gravity well. And the asteroids provide us with more livable habitats and access to far more resources.

sfRattan 9y ago

Having two planets with launch capability makes resupplying, servicing, and responding to emergencies for eventual facilities in the belt would make logistics across the solar system an order of magnitude easier. Suddenly, you have twice as many launch windows over the course of a year to any given point as well as two 'ports' to return to if something goes seriously wrong.

kitsunesoba 9y ago
Launching from the surface of Mars takes a lot less fuel, too. Martian gravity also happens to be high enough for earth manufacturing machinery to mostly work as it does here on earth, meaning that we can mostly reuse the systems we're using today. These two factors combine to make Mars quite ideal for building and launching staggeringly huge space vehicles, habitats, and mining machinery which in turn makes bootstrapping a human presence in the asteroid belt and other locations in the solar system a lot easier than if we were to just start at those destinations.
- valuearb 9y ago
  You have it backwards. Mars is a deep gravity well that adds huge energy costs to both landing and return trips. You don't want to build anything on Mars. Asteroids are much less costly to reach, offer better living environments and far more resources. You want to build out a few asteroids with fuel depots, ship construction/maintenance equipment, and mine cheap extra delta V to spend on mars.

shoo 9y ago

> why [...] not just space-fairing civ? the tech we need for either seems kind of the same to me cstross has a web of old blog posts about the difficulties of spaceships, generation ships http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/11/the_myth_of_the_starship.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/11/the_myth... > how simple can you make a minimal self-maintaining interstellar transport system"? > To a first approximation, the best answer I can come up with is "not very". Separately from "the tech" http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/11/designing_society_for_posterit.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/11/designin... > If you can crank yourself up to 1% of light-speed, alpha centauri is more than four and a half centuries away at cruising speed. > We humans are really bad at designing institutions that outlast the life expectancy of a single human being.

Eupolemos 9y ago
I must admit, I don't understand this often repeated notion of "cruising speed" in interstellar space. To me, it feels like some people think of crossing the void between stars as crossing the the Atlantic in a bottle, trying to blow my mind with how long the crossing will take, even if that bottle is given an absolutely amazing initial throw. For interstellar travel to make sense, there _must_ be a 'cruising acceleration', not speed. The notion isn't that strange - after all, cruising speed in a ship on earth requires a constant engine power, which in space would mean constant acceleration. IIRC, a comfortable cruising acceleration of 1G would make it a 4 year trip (6 as experienced by Earth). We just need a whole lot of efficient fuel and an interstellar propeller :P
- andrewflnr 9y ago
  How do you think a ship is going to power a continuous acceleration? 1G for 4 years is... I don't really know, but it's a heck of a lot of energy even if you've somehow beaten Tsiolkovsy's rocket equation. You don't get to hand-wave this away in a remotely serious conversation. There's also the small problem of the interstellar medium wrecking your hull at high velocity, if you ever get there.
  - 9y ago

the8472 9y ago

> Other than scientific curiosity there is nothing there of value that is not 1 billion times more abundant in the belt. Gravity? Sunlight? Atmosphere acting as radiation shield?

danaliv 9y ago
> Atmosphere acting as radiation shield? Does Mars have much atmosphere to speak of? The figure on Wikipedia is that surface pressure is a measly 0.6% of mean sea level pressure on Earth. And there's no magnetosphere at all.
- the8472 9y ago
  It's not great. But it's better than spending your time in the interplanetary vacuum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Radiation_Environment_Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Radiation_Environment_Exp...
  - slfnflctd 9y ago
    Another thing-- radiation shielding, once installed, has little to no continuing maintenance cost on Mars. Space borne shielding constantly requires additional fuel just to move around.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      Asteroids are free space borne shielding.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

> I don't get the fascination with this barren gravity well called Mars. Other than scientific curiosity there is nothing there of value that is not 1 billion times more abundant in the belt. Well, it's the very gravity well that's useful. The fact that you'd have lots of solid ground under your feet. Also, lots of space to use (including underground), stable orbit, lots of potential for expansion. Sure, resources will be easier to get from the belt (and even easier from near-Earth asteroids). I expect resource-driven space exploration to focus there. But Mars is primarily about alternative habitat.

adekok 9y ago

It's sexy! It's cool! Space ships! SOLAR FREAKING ROADWAYS! Oh, wrong thread... Dreams are nice. Dreams don't feed people. But they do give people reason for hope. Which is why it's easier to concentrate on "OMFG we colonize Mars!", than the engineering realities of: * climate change could very well destroy modern human civilization. Fixing that will involve convincing rich, powerful, people that they're wrong. And, spending lots of money which they'd rather spend on pretty toys or lining their pockets * feeding the planet is easy (from an engineering point of view). Getting the food to people involves dealing with psycho warlords, or corrupt politicians Etc. etc... It's easier to dream about "OMFG MARS!" than to go through the decade-long daily grind of fixing problems at home.