3 ms·
We've breached countless barriers that, at one point, seemed impossible or insurmountably challenging. Crossing the ocean by boat - later by plane, breaking the
by rjf72 7y ago
We've breached countless barriers that, at one point, seemed impossible or insurmountably challenging. Crossing the ocean by boat - later by plane, breaking the sound barrier in human flight, living in 'unlivable' locations on Earth, getting into space, putting a man on the moon, living in space for months at a time, and so on.
But one important factor here is that well before we accomplished any of these, it became evident that we eventually would. And that's because the technologies involved were no longer fantasy. What I mean here is that for a person in the 18th century putting a man into space was fantasy. We could foresee it as maybe being possible, but it might also be that the technologies to achieve such might simply never be able to be developed. By contrast, by the earlier part of 20th century century it became clear that such an achievement not only could, but would happen - sooner or later. The technologies necessary were no longer fantasy. And so all that remained was bearing the costs and pushing forward.
And we've now long since passed the same point for Mars. We can, and will, put men on Mars - sooner or later. And this is what I was referring to by 0 risk of failure - technical failures, as in some insurmountable roadblock that simply makes further progress impossible. Colonization is of course a social question, which is going to inherently be much more subjective than a technical one. But I find it not only difficult, but impossible, to imagine any scenario where humans, all, somehow decide to simply stay on a single planet. And if we assume that humans will leave Earth, Mars is arguably the most logical first permanent destination. Mineral rich, water rich, atmosphere with CO2 (sabatier reaction for methane + water), large land mass, reasonable gravity, reasonable temperature extremes, near identical day-night cycle, etc. Big downsides are extremely low atmospheric pressure which is of course unbreathable, as well as high radiation exposure.
- eesmith 7y agoWe can certainly send someone to Mars. But doing so is "of course a social question" ... and you haven't answered the question of why must do it now. You've used the same rhetorical constructions that I've read in books written before I was born. They also argued that then was the time. Why were they wrong, and you are right? Oh, and those proposing undersea cities made many of the same arguments. I'll point out that "living in 'unlivable' locations on Earth" can be done with neolithic technology, so that's a rather odd one to list. Crossing the ocean by boat" through stages was something the ancient Polynesians did without metal. And 'breaking the sound barrier in human flight' hasn't yet proven to be economically feasible for general passenger services. As for "more subjective than a technical one" ... there's a major problem of how to create a self-sustaining ecosystem, much less one where the people who live in it have enough time to train the next generation to run the ecosystem.