7 ms·

Some people wonder why we should go to Mars. There's not much to profit by going there. In terms of mining, not much is useful there, plus asteroids are easier

Some people wonder why we should go to Mars. There's not much to profit by going there. In terms of mining, not much is useful there, plus asteroids are easier to mine. The benefit is that a colony on Mars would be an engine of innovation. People keep pointing out that NASA has produced hundreds of useful innovations (like space blankets). Imagine how many innovations would a colony of 500 people come up with when stranded there for months and years. It's not that we send them there with only sticks and stone tools, they'll have the most advanced technology we can fit them with, but they'll still find themselves in thousands of situations where their tools will be puny compared to their problems. Some in this thread mention boring machines. Well, just after a boring machine cuts a few meters of tunnel, someone lines that tunnel with some concrete elements. Where's the concrete coming from on Mars? Oh, I guess they can make it locally. Great, where are the components coming from? I guess you can mine them locally, but you'd need to bore some tunnels for that. A bit of a chicken and egg. What if the concrete does not set exactly like on Earth, because, you know, there's not enough humidity in their air (and there's not enough air either). These guys will face millions of problems. And they'll have no choice but solve them. It's going to be awesome.

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago
Couldn’t this exact same argument be made for building a colony a mile under the ocean? except, of course, that we could easily rescue those people.
nickparker 7y ago
Citation needed that asteroids are easier to mine. They win on arbitrarily long timelines, but they start to look a lot worse if you want ROI in under 10 years. It takes a ton of energy to reach and return from most asteroids in a sensible period of time. With unlimited time you can use various slow tricks to park them in accessible orbits, but this is a gold rush not a 100 year infrastructure project. O'Neill had it right IMO, Lunar and Martian mass drivers firing up to Lagrange points are going to win. In the early days those bodies win because you can iterate on your mining tech way, way, way faster and keep up with the falling cost curve. In the later days economies of scale win the day.
beaconstudios 7y ago
can't we just be honest with ourselves and say we want to do it because we have an innate desire to explore and expand our horizons? I think that's a good enough reason - economics should exist to support human endeavours, not the other way around.
afarrell 7y ago
> they’ll have no choice but solve them Isn’t that a bit like saying if you toss a 10-year-old off a boat, he has no choice but to swim? The focusing effects of a clear goal are real and powerful. But lets not pretend that the default option isn’t death.
- credit_guy 7y ago
  You are missing the part where the colonists go there on their own volition. Trivia question: did you know that most of the Mayflower colonists died? Ahem, I mean, all of them died. All of us will die sooner or later, some people find it meaningful to go where no one has gone before, even if that means danger of death.
arminiusreturns 7y ago
There are already devices designed to melt the rock as it is being bored and use that molten rock to line the tunnel as the machine progresses. Not sure how that would impact your statement about needing concrete, but thought I would share anyway.
shrimp_emoji 7y ago
Red Mars is a good book to read for this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy Arkady wouldn't like this article.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Taniwha 7y ago
  On the other hand they also assume that tenting large areas of Mars will be the way to go, just like this article
glitchdout 7y ago
Why not create a colony on the Moon then? Much faster, cheaper and easier to reach, etc, etc
- ben_w 7y ago
  While I like the moon for those reasons, it has the downside of 14-day-long night and wild surface temperature variation. While solar + batteries will last an Earth night or a Mars night, for something with a big enough population to be called a “colony” rather than a “base”, you suddenly find you need either a nuclear reactor, or some very big orbital mirrors, or a circumlunar powergrid. None of these options are impossible, but they might make people prefer Mars.
  - tartoran 7y ago
    There are places on the moon where there is quasi permanent sublight. These places also have some ice and are perfect for a moon base project. Although not “eternal” in the original sense, they are sunlit for extended periods, well beyond the typical lunar day-night cycle. What is the significance of such features? Permanently lit areas of the Moon are important for future habitation and use of the Moon for two principal reasons. First, these sunlit areas are prime locations for the establishment of solar photovoltaic arrays. The constant sunlight here means continuous generation of electrical power using solar panels. This solves one of the most difficult problems of lunar habitation, survival during the 354-hour lunar night. Prior to the discovery of the quasi-permanently lit areas, we imagined that the only feasible power source to survive this long night was nuclear reactors. Such a power system does not exist and would require several tens of billions of dollars to develop. So sunlit zones allow us to go to the Moon and stay there without this expense and technology development. The second advantage of a sunlit area is that it is thermally benign. The surface temperatures at the lunar equator and mid-latitudes depend almost entirely upon incident solar illumination and range from less than -150° to over 100° C, a 250° temperature-swing over the course of a day. In contrast, the surface temperature of these quasi-permanent lit areas is nearly constant – a nice, toasty -50° ± 10° C. This simplifies the thermal design of surface habitats and equipment and greatly relieves the energy required for thermal control at an outpost. The sunlit areas of the poles occur in close proximity to high concentrations of water ice and other volatiles at the poles of the Moon. Their presence indicates the lunar poles are the best places we have found off-planet for human habitation. Constant sunlight, benign temperatures, near the water and a great view – that’s prime real estate. []: https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/new-light-on-the-lunar-poles-156800678/ https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/new-light-on-the-lu... https
cdirkx 7y ago
Starting a colony on the ocean floor is also challenging and possibly leading to a lot of innovations [1]. However, compared to the efforts around Mars, there is no-one trying to settle the deep seas (that I know of). You don't need to go to another planet to find problems. So for Mars, I don't think merely the opportunities for _any_ innovation, are a convincing enough argument, at least for those investing in Mars. For them the specific innovations around spaceflight and non-earth construction are indeed valuable, because of future expansions into space and first mover benefits, using Mars as a stepping stone. As for the colony on Mars itself, I speculate that having somewhere outside of existing jurisdictions is also attractive for a lot of people; the new unclaimed West. Some may imagine this to become a scientist utopia, free from the restraining politics of Earth; others might be more cynical. We will see. [1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20130930-can-we-build-underwater-cities https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20130930-can-we-build-und...
- fastball 7y ago
  I don't think it's about space in general, but rather the vision of making humanity an inter-planetary species (at least that is what Elon Musk talks about a lot). I think the idea of expanding humanity beyond our single planet inspires a lot of people, myself included. Fundamentally that is how it is different from colonizing the ocean floor.
huntertwo 7y ago
Let’s send people to Mars where there’s a million reasons unknown and known they can’t survive so that they are forced to innovate to survive. Or you know, they die. This is a moronic argument for Mars colonization. They’ll have the same or worse technology we already have on earth. They’ll have far fewer people and far less access to things to solve problems they didn’t plan for. But nah they’ll innovate and make great innovations, more than could ever be done here. I don’t wish to be rude but I honestly cannot understand for the life of me the rationale of this argument.
- jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
  It is a moronic argument. Try building a self-sufficient city on earth first. I think space colonialists will be surprised just how difficult it is. Solving interplanetary space travel is the most expensive form of procrastination I have ever seen.
  - grabbalacious 7y ago
    If we look at the reasons why people have historically colonised parts of the Earth, many of them would now seem pretty crazy. But craziness was apparently no barrier to entry. Perhaps colonists just are morons? (Myself I think we'll go when it's easy. The best way to make it easy is to work on relevant technology like nuclear fusion, automated manufacturing, CRISPR, and so on.)
    - DoctorOetker 7y ago
      except they didn't truly conquer those places, they just colonized the populations (and sustainabloid life patterns) already present...
      - fastball 7y ago
        What exactly does conquering mean to you?
      - lovemenot 7y ago
jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
You do realize you can innovate here on earth right? And that you'll have a lot more money with which to innovate, because you didn't waste it all trying to strand yourself on another planet?
- credit_guy 7y ago
  Necessity is the mother of invention. Imaginary necessity not so much though...
  - jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
    There are plenty of unmet needs right here on earth.
goto11 7y ago
Think about all the innovation coming out of military research. Like the internet - arguably more useful to humanity than the space blanket! So should we spend trillions more on military? Well maybe it is just that spending trillions on research towards anything tend to lead to some useful inventions on the side. But what if we spent the same amount of resources on researching something actually useful for humanity? We might still get the side inventions. Building a colony on Mars is a useless waste of money.
testplzdeleteme 7y ago
Correct me if I am wrong but aren't the Martian moons uniquely suited to build sky tethers for inter solar slings shots using current tech?

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago

Couldn’t this exact same argument be made for building a colony a mile under the ocean? except, of course, that we could easily rescue those people.

nickparker 7y ago

Citation needed that asteroids are easier to mine. They win on arbitrarily long timelines, but they start to look a lot worse if you want ROI in under 10 years. It takes a ton of energy to reach and return from most asteroids in a sensible period of time. With unlimited time you can use various slow tricks to park them in accessible orbits, but this is a gold rush not a 100 year infrastructure project. O'Neill had it right IMO, Lunar and Martian mass drivers firing up to Lagrange points are going to win. In the early days those bodies win because you can iterate on your mining tech way, way, way faster and keep up with the falling cost curve. In the later days economies of scale win the day.

beaconstudios 7y ago

can't we just be honest with ourselves and say we want to do it because we have an innate desire to explore and expand our horizons? I think that's a good enough reason - economics should exist to support human endeavours, not the other way around.

afarrell 7y ago

> they’ll have no choice but solve them Isn’t that a bit like saying if you toss a 10-year-old off a boat, he has no choice but to swim? The focusing effects of a clear goal are real and powerful. But lets not pretend that the default option isn’t death.

credit_guy 7y ago
You are missing the part where the colonists go there on their own volition. Trivia question: did you know that most of the Mayflower colonists died? Ahem, I mean, all of them died. All of us will die sooner or later, some people find it meaningful to go where no one has gone before, even if that means danger of death.

arminiusreturns 7y ago

There are already devices designed to melt the rock as it is being bored and use that molten rock to line the tunnel as the machine progresses. Not sure how that would impact your statement about needing concrete, but thought I would share anyway.

shrimp_emoji 7y ago

Red Mars is a good book to read for this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy Arkady wouldn't like this article.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Taniwha 7y ago
On the other hand they also assume that tenting large areas of Mars will be the way to go, just like this article

glitchdout 7y ago

Why not create a colony on the Moon then? Much faster, cheaper and easier to reach, etc, etc

ben_w 7y ago
While I like the moon for those reasons, it has the downside of 14-day-long night and wild surface temperature variation. While solar + batteries will last an Earth night or a Mars night, for something with a big enough population to be called a “colony” rather than a “base”, you suddenly find you need either a nuclear reactor, or some very big orbital mirrors, or a circumlunar powergrid. None of these options are impossible, but they might make people prefer Mars.
- tartoran 7y ago
  There are places on the moon where there is quasi permanent sublight. These places also have some ice and are perfect for a moon base project. Although not “eternal” in the original sense, they are sunlit for extended periods, well beyond the typical lunar day-night cycle. What is the significance of such features? Permanently lit areas of the Moon are important for future habitation and use of the Moon for two principal reasons. First, these sunlit areas are prime locations for the establishment of solar photovoltaic arrays. The constant sunlight here means continuous generation of electrical power using solar panels. This solves one of the most difficult problems of lunar habitation, survival during the 354-hour lunar night. Prior to the discovery of the quasi-permanently lit areas, we imagined that the only feasible power source to survive this long night was nuclear reactors. Such a power system does not exist and would require several tens of billions of dollars to develop. So sunlit zones allow us to go to the Moon and stay there without this expense and technology development. The second advantage of a sunlit area is that it is thermally benign. The surface temperatures at the lunar equator and mid-latitudes depend almost entirely upon incident solar illumination and range from less than -150° to over 100° C, a 250° temperature-swing over the course of a day. In contrast, the surface temperature of these quasi-permanent lit areas is nearly constant – a nice, toasty -50° ± 10° C. This simplifies the thermal design of surface habitats and equipment and greatly relieves the energy required for thermal control at an outpost. The sunlit areas of the poles occur in close proximity to high concentrations of water ice and other volatiles at the poles of the Moon. Their presence indicates the lunar poles are the best places we have found off-planet for human habitation. Constant sunlight, benign temperatures, near the water and a great view – that’s prime real estate. []: https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/new-light-on-the-lunar-poles-156800678/ https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/new-light-on-the-lu... https

cdirkx 7y ago

Starting a colony on the ocean floor is also challenging and possibly leading to a lot of innovations [1]. However, compared to the efforts around Mars, there is no-one trying to settle the deep seas (that I know of). You don't need to go to another planet to find problems. So for Mars, I don't think merely the opportunities for _any_ innovation, are a convincing enough argument, at least for those investing in Mars. For them the specific innovations around spaceflight and non-earth construction are indeed valuable, because of future expansions into space and first mover benefits, using Mars as a stepping stone. As for the colony on Mars itself, I speculate that having somewhere outside of existing jurisdictions is also attractive for a lot of people; the new unclaimed West. Some may imagine this to become a scientist utopia, free from the restraining politics of Earth; others might be more cynical. We will see. [1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20130930-can-we-build-underwater-cities https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20130930-can-we-build-und...

fastball 7y ago
I don't think it's about space in general, but rather the vision of making humanity an inter-planetary species (at least that is what Elon Musk talks about a lot). I think the idea of expanding humanity beyond our single planet inspires a lot of people, myself included. Fundamentally that is how it is different from colonizing the ocean floor.

huntertwo 7y ago

Let’s send people to Mars where there’s a million reasons unknown and known they can’t survive so that they are forced to innovate to survive. Or you know, they die. This is a moronic argument for Mars colonization. They’ll have the same or worse technology we already have on earth. They’ll have far fewer people and far less access to things to solve problems they didn’t plan for. But nah they’ll innovate and make great innovations, more than could ever be done here. I don’t wish to be rude but I honestly cannot understand for the life of me the rationale of this argument.

jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
It is a moronic argument. Try building a self-sufficient city on earth first. I think space colonialists will be surprised just how difficult it is. Solving interplanetary space travel is the most expensive form of procrastination I have ever seen.
- grabbalacious 7y ago
  If we look at the reasons why people have historically colonised parts of the Earth, many of them would now seem pretty crazy. But craziness was apparently no barrier to entry. Perhaps colonists just are morons? (Myself I think we'll go when it's easy. The best way to make it easy is to work on relevant technology like nuclear fusion, automated manufacturing, CRISPR, and so on.)
  - DoctorOetker 7y ago
    except they didn't truly conquer those places, they just colonized the populations (and sustainabloid life patterns) already present...
    - fastball 7y ago
      What exactly does conquering mean to you?
    - lovemenot 7y ago

jacobwilliamroy 7y ago

You do realize you can innovate here on earth right? And that you'll have a lot more money with which to innovate, because you didn't waste it all trying to strand yourself on another planet?

credit_guy 7y ago
Necessity is the mother of invention. Imaginary necessity not so much though...
- jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
  There are plenty of unmet needs right here on earth.

goto11 7y ago

Think about all the innovation coming out of military research. Like the internet - arguably more useful to humanity than the space blanket! So should we spend trillions more on military? Well maybe it is just that spending trillions on research towards anything tend to lead to some useful inventions on the side. But what if we spent the same amount of resources on researching something actually useful for humanity? We might still get the side inventions. Building a colony on Mars is a useless waste of money.

testplzdeleteme 7y ago

Correct me if I am wrong but aren't the Martian moons uniquely suited to build sky tethers for inter solar slings shots using current tech?