3 ms·

Places people don't want to live in: - a submarine - the middle of Death Valley - the middle of Antarctica - the (completely lifeless) top of mount Fuji Li

by rtpg 9y ago

Places people don't want to live in: - a submarine - the middle of Death Valley - the middle of Antarctica - the (completely lifeless) top of mount Fuji Living in a Mars colony would be a combination of all these experiences. If you somehow have the magic sauce to make Mars enjoyable, you could offer this experience in the middle of the desert as well. You could tackle real habitation problems on this planet. Just building a couple school buses (ISS) to float around the Earth took hundreds of billions. And to the "what about nuclear war on Earth" argument: are you going to build a lightbulb factory on Mars? Semiconductor fab? Smelter? No Mars colony would be self sufficient for a realllllly long time EDIT: Earth 2 Earth is interesting, though I don't know how you solve the vomit problem. Or the "sometimes the rockets explode " problem.

simonh 9y ago
>Just building a couple school buses (ISS) to float around the Earth took hundreds of billions. Absolutely, but then just one of these things will dwarf the ISS all on it's own. The old equations of space exploration affordability are being rewritten. As for people wanting to go, there's a permanent base at the south pole, the peak of Mount Fuji is often a churned up field of mud from all the visitors and Burning Man looks like a ton of fun. Ok so some of that is frivolous. I'm ambivalent about the idea of Martian cities in the next 30 years say, but who can really look further ahead than that? There's nothing that seems un-achievable about BFR. It seems to me these things will be going to space, and the Moon, and Mars at a ludicrously low cost compared to previous space missions. The real question is what will we do with that capability? I'm guessing we are going to do something with it. Musk's graphics are explicitly aspirational, but we'll do something with these vehicles and its going to be a heck of a lot more than any other plans I've ever seen.
- rtpg 9y ago
  Do you think the billionaires in their RVs at Burning Man would be willing to spend 6 months in that condition? Even at a "ridiculously low" price of $500k, you're basically offering a mount Everest experience for people. Dangerous , uncomfortable, generally hard to do if you're not super free. A crazy adventure Some people are interested, but you can't argue much for economy of scales when the total market of affordability is probably tiny. Only 5000 people have ever climbed Mt Everest.
  - DrBazza 9y ago
    You are also ignoring the pioneer spirit. Don't forget that essentially built America. Imagine if no-one wanted to cross the Atlantic because it was too expensive or it was 'unsettled'? People want to go to Mars. People want to try and live there. Scientists want to go there and learn, and explore.
    - Asdfbla 9y ago
      Well, America had something going for it, especially when reports came back from the early explorers that it's lush and habitable (in many areas at least). On the other hand, people know what to expect from the rock that is Mars. If Mars was an unknown and people would want to go there to discover what's there, then the analogy would be correct. Of course, people will still go, but reaching a critical mass for an unnecessary settlement (at which point it might turn slightly more alluring for more immigrants) remains to be seen. But I guess what happens happens, we'll see.
greedo 9y ago
I think you underestimate how quickly Mars could become an industrial powerhouse. It won't be starting at a Mayflower level of technology.
- rtpg 9y ago
  Why would it? It has less usable resources than loads of places on Earth that aren't used at all. Maybe if Mars is some sort of lawless territory it can become the libertarian haven some rich people want, and could trick some future slaves to get sent over there....
  - greedo 9y ago
    It still has enough available resources (that we know of) to do well. And getting people to emigrate won't be an issue at all. Think of it like nuclear technology; developing an atomic bomb isn't difficult at all since the physics has been done 70+ years ago. Now it's just a matter of engineering. Same with building up an infrastructure on Mars. Somethings like large foundries probably won't need to be replicated, since 3d printing will probably suffice, but off the top of my head, I can't think of any technology that is out of reach.

by rtpg 9y ago

simonh 9y ago

>Just building a couple school buses (ISS) to float around the Earth took hundreds of billions. Absolutely, but then just one of these things will dwarf the ISS all on it's own. The old equations of space exploration affordability are being rewritten. As for people wanting to go, there's a permanent base at the south pole, the peak of Mount Fuji is often a churned up field of mud from all the visitors and Burning Man looks like a ton of fun. Ok so some of that is frivolous. I'm ambivalent about the idea of Martian cities in the next 30 years say, but who can really look further ahead than that? There's nothing that seems un-achievable about BFR. It seems to me these things will be going to space, and the Moon, and Mars at a ludicrously low cost compared to previous space missions. The real question is what will we do with that capability? I'm guessing we are going to do something with it. Musk's graphics are explicitly aspirational, but we'll do something with these vehicles and its going to be a heck of a lot more than any other plans I've ever seen.

rtpg 9y ago
Do you think the billionaires in their RVs at Burning Man would be willing to spend 6 months in that condition? Even at a "ridiculously low" price of $500k, you're basically offering a mount Everest experience for people. Dangerous , uncomfortable, generally hard to do if you're not super free. A crazy adventure Some people are interested, but you can't argue much for economy of scales when the total market of affordability is probably tiny. Only 5000 people have ever climbed Mt Everest.
- DrBazza 9y ago
  You are also ignoring the pioneer spirit. Don't forget that essentially built America. Imagine if no-one wanted to cross the Atlantic because it was too expensive or it was 'unsettled'? People want to go to Mars. People want to try and live there. Scientists want to go there and learn, and explore.
  - Asdfbla 9y ago
    Well, America had something going for it, especially when reports came back from the early explorers that it's lush and habitable (in many areas at least). On the other hand, people know what to expect from the rock that is Mars. If Mars was an unknown and people would want to go there to discover what's there, then the analogy would be correct. Of course, people will still go, but reaching a critical mass for an unnecessary settlement (at which point it might turn slightly more alluring for more immigrants) remains to be seen. But I guess what happens happens, we'll see.

greedo 9y ago

I think you underestimate how quickly Mars could become an industrial powerhouse. It won't be starting at a Mayflower level of technology.

rtpg 9y ago
Why would it? It has less usable resources than loads of places on Earth that aren't used at all. Maybe if Mars is some sort of lawless territory it can become the libertarian haven some rich people want, and could trick some future slaves to get sent over there....
- greedo 9y ago
  It still has enough available resources (that we know of) to do well. And getting people to emigrate won't be an issue at all. Think of it like nuclear technology; developing an atomic bomb isn't difficult at all since the physics has been done 70+ years ago. Now it's just a matter of engineering. Same with building up an infrastructure on Mars. Somethings like large foundries probably won't need to be replicated, since 3d printing will probably suffice, but off the top of my head, I can't think of any technology that is out of reach.