8 ms·

How so? Mars has an atmosphere unlike the moon, it has water in some form and quantity and has approximately the same length of the day as Earth, plus it has gr

by nixarn 7y ago

How so? Mars has an atmosphere unlike the moon, it has water in some form and quantity and has approximately the same length of the day as Earth, plus it has gravity much closer to Earth than what the moon has.

e2le 7y ago
The moon also has water and it's a lot closer. Whatever goes wrong on Mars, it might be months or years before they receive help. Building the technology and experience with something a lot closer might be a better option before moving onto bigger things.
- EthanHeilman 7y ago
  Thats the value of Mars. It forces whatever is built there to be sufficient and is largely a one way trip. A moon base will probably function more like a research station on Antarctica. New supplies will be shipped, people will transition back home every 4-12 months. For health reasons you'll want to avoid people spending too much time on Lunar gravity. A similar issue exists on Mars, but causes the opposite result. Due to the time scales involved with sending someone to Mars and returning them, it will be a larger health risk for them to return to Earth than stay on Mars (3-9 month trip to Mars + mission time + 3-9 month trip back). Think about the impact on culture as well. The sort of perspective you have working at a job site that you will only spend 4 months at is very different from the sort of perspective you have working at a home you expect to die in 30 years later. People that don't expect to come back to Earth may have kids on Mars. Most of the Martian kids will not be able to come back to Earth because of cost and health reasons. A Mars research station is far more dangerous, more likely to fail, but if it succeeds is far more likely to result in long term habitation of an other planetary body.
  - est31 7y ago
    There is nothing stopping you from building self-sufficient and secluded colonies on Earth as well. Svalbard has a no-visa-needed policy and is barely populated. If you can convince the Norwegian government to sell you land, you can build your colony there and will mostly be kept alone (compared to a colony in say Sahara which lies on a heavily populated continent).
    - EthanHeilman 7y ago
      The problem is that it is too to leave Svalbard. If something goes wrong, your Svalbard colony can call for help. On Mars if something goes wrong, help is at least 6 months away. On Svalbard if you aren't having fun anymore you can leave, on Mars it is likely a oneway trip unless you are a billionaire.
  - war1025 7y ago
    > Thats the value of Mars. It forces whatever is built there to be sufficient and is largely a one way trip. The immediate parallel that came to my mind were the first European settlers that came to America. For instance, Jamestown where they started the winter with 500 people and made it to spring with 60 [1] It may be an "advantage" but it's also very high risk. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starving_Time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starving_Time
    - EthanHeilman 7y ago
      Yeah, first few Mars colonies will likely be TPKs.
vixen99 7y ago
Yeah - Mars has great atmosphere with 95% carbon dioxide and 800ppm carbon monoxide. Home from home really however at minus 80 degrees C, global warming doesn't seem to have caught on.
keanzu 7y ago
> Mars has an atmosphere It does, but not much, only 1% the volume of Earth's atmosphere and it is 95% CO2.
- A_Parr 7y ago
  The fun part about those numbers is that Mars and Earth have roughly the same amount of CO2 in their atmospheres.
Amezarak 7y ago
Mars’ atmosphere is less than 1% the density of Earth’s. It’s completely unusable for any practical purpose and would likely cause more problems (dust and erosion) than it would help.
- est31 7y ago
  > would likely cause more problems (dust and erosion) than it would help Agreeing with your comment but to add: To my knowledge, the biggest problem the athmosphere is causing is the dust storms which can go on for months and which occlude the sky. This means you have to be able to hold out for that period. The Moon has pesky dust too (which got everywhere, it's so small it got through the joints in the space suits).
- socialdemocrat 7y ago
  No offense, but you could not possibly be more wrong. While just 1% the quantity of CO2 is enormous and large important resource. With CO2, ice and martian soil you got everything to get plants to grow. Nothing can grow on the moon unless you import carbon. Also CO2 can be used with electrolysis of water and sabatier reaction to produce methane which can be used as rocket fuel. The fact that the atmosphere is almost pure CO2 makes this much easier to do than on earth. This is also important feedstock for producing plastic. If you want to build any advance industrial base, you need to be able to produce plastic. This is a huge disadvantage of the moon. You are limited to metals and rock.
  - Amezarak 7y ago
    > you got everything to get plants to grow. Nothing can grow on the moon unless you import carbon. Nothing is going to be growing on Mars either, outside of pressurized chambers, which, in the event of a loss of pressure, will kill everyone inside. The atmosphere is so thin that you really aren't gaining anything by not just bringing the carbon with you. Frankly, the idea of colonizing the Moon or Mars, except in the sense of a temporary science post like the ISS, is a sci-fi fantasy that will never make practical or economic sense. Why am I going to want to build an industrial base on Mars? Why is it economically feasible? How many people are going to want to live in a cramped cage their entire life, never able to go outside, afflicted by low-gravity diseases? What can be produced or gotten on Mars that can't be on Earth for 1% of the effort and cost? People don't want to live in Antarctica or the bottom of the ocean right now, and these environments are much more survivable than the Moon or Mars, and more economically feasible to boot. Why is anything going to change?
zerr 7y ago
There's the plenty of places on Earth which are uninhabited due to climate conditions. What makes Mars a better place?
- socialdemocrat 7y ago
  Nobody has EVER suggested we should colonize Mars to save ourselves from global warming expect people against colonizing Mars. We can survive global warming for sure. If we can build habitats on Mars we can do it on Earth. However there are many conditions far worse than global warming which we cannot protect ourselves from: All out nuclear war. Asteroid hitting earth etc. It is stupid to put all eggs in one basket. Colonizing other planets in the solar system safeguards our future. You got to start early because it is a very time consuming effort. You cannot suddenly begin colonizing Mars once you discover an asteroid on collision course. It will be too late. It is an effort that will likely take far more than 100 years to complete. Humanity also risk regression. Global warming while not killing us could cause such regression in our technological ability and science that we simply loose the ability to send things into space. We have been in dark ages many times before in history. It can happen again.
  - baroomba 7y ago
    Earth after most disasters short of getting hit by a full-on planetoid that liquefies the entire crust is still much easier to live on than Mars, and hardened Earth-based bunkers are a lot cheaper and easier to make than a Martian colony. Really, for most planet-wide disasters the thing they do is force us to live a little bit like we'd have to on non-disaster-stricken Mars. [EDIT] for the record I'm not against Martian exploration or even a Martian colony—I'm susceptible both to the "because it was there" and the "we'll come up with some cool tech in the process" arguments—I'm just very unconvinced Martian colonization is a good path to better survivability for the human species.
- C14L 7y ago
  If a 100 km asteroid hit earth tomorrow, then all known intelligent life in the universe would cease to exist. Why not allocate 0.00..001% of our resources to ensure that the only intelligent life we know of in the entire universe, has a life insurence.
rsync 7y ago
"plus it has gravity much closer to Earth than what the moon has ..." But still, I believe, only 1/3 of the gravity that the Earth has. This is the insurmountable problem with human habitation of Mars - we would need to become, in many ways, a different species in order to withstand the very greatly reduced gravity - and humans, as we know them, would succumb to all manner of disease and physical maladies until that transition (millenia ?) took place. Any discussion of colonizing Mars that does not discuss gravity, front and center, is just silly.
- jkqwzsoo 7y ago
  > This is the insurmountable problem with human habitation of Mars - we would need to become, in many ways, a different species in order to withstand the very greatly reduced gravity - and humans, as we know them, would succumb to all manner of disease and physical maladies until that transition (millenia ?) took place. Well, you don’t know that humans can’t survive indefinitely at 1/3 gee. I know that because no one knows that, so let’s not speculate on what the threshold gravity would be before we need to “become a different species” would be. But I’ll admit, unlike radiation and resource concerns, gravity is something we’re never going to overcome. If humans can’t thrive at 1/3 gee, we will never permanently colonize any terrestrial body in our solar system. However, given the range of adaptations humans present, e.g. to extreme altitude, continuous saltwater diving, or long-distance running, I’m willing to bet we can handle, and adapt to, reduced (not micro) gravity.
  - rsync 7y ago
    "Well, you don’t know that humans can’t survive indefinitely at 1/3 gee. I know that because no one knows that, so let’s not speculate on what the threshold gravity would be before we need to “become a different species” would be." Yes, you are correct. However, I think you'll agree that all evidence points in the direction that 1/3 earth gravity would be highly detrimental, somewhere along the scale that zero-gee appears to be...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

by nixarn 7y ago

e2le 7y ago

The moon also has water and it's a lot closer. Whatever goes wrong on Mars, it might be months or years before they receive help. Building the technology and experience with something a lot closer might be a better option before moving onto bigger things.

EthanHeilman 7y ago
Thats the value of Mars. It forces whatever is built there to be sufficient and is largely a one way trip. A moon base will probably function more like a research station on Antarctica. New supplies will be shipped, people will transition back home every 4-12 months. For health reasons you'll want to avoid people spending too much time on Lunar gravity. A similar issue exists on Mars, but causes the opposite result. Due to the time scales involved with sending someone to Mars and returning them, it will be a larger health risk for them to return to Earth than stay on Mars (3-9 month trip to Mars + mission time + 3-9 month trip back). Think about the impact on culture as well. The sort of perspective you have working at a job site that you will only spend 4 months at is very different from the sort of perspective you have working at a home you expect to die in 30 years later. People that don't expect to come back to Earth may have kids on Mars. Most of the Martian kids will not be able to come back to Earth because of cost and health reasons. A Mars research station is far more dangerous, more likely to fail, but if it succeeds is far more likely to result in long term habitation of an other planetary body.
- est31 7y ago
  There is nothing stopping you from building self-sufficient and secluded colonies on Earth as well. Svalbard has a no-visa-needed policy and is barely populated. If you can convince the Norwegian government to sell you land, you can build your colony there and will mostly be kept alone (compared to a colony in say Sahara which lies on a heavily populated continent).
  - EthanHeilman 7y ago
    The problem is that it is too to leave Svalbard. If something goes wrong, your Svalbard colony can call for help. On Mars if something goes wrong, help is at least 6 months away. On Svalbard if you aren't having fun anymore you can leave, on Mars it is likely a oneway trip unless you are a billionaire.
- war1025 7y ago
  > Thats the value of Mars. It forces whatever is built there to be sufficient and is largely a one way trip. The immediate parallel that came to my mind were the first European settlers that came to America. For instance, Jamestown where they started the winter with 500 people and made it to spring with 60 [1] It may be an "advantage" but it's also very high risk. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starving_Time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starving_Time
  - EthanHeilman 7y ago
    Yeah, first few Mars colonies will likely be TPKs.

vixen99 7y ago

Yeah - Mars has great atmosphere with 95% carbon dioxide and 800ppm carbon monoxide. Home from home really however at minus 80 degrees C, global warming doesn't seem to have caught on.

keanzu 7y ago

> Mars has an atmosphere It does, but not much, only 1% the volume of Earth's atmosphere and it is 95% CO2.

A_Parr 7y ago
The fun part about those numbers is that Mars and Earth have roughly the same amount of CO2 in their atmospheres.

Amezarak 7y ago

Mars’ atmosphere is less than 1% the density of Earth’s. It’s completely unusable for any practical purpose and would likely cause more problems (dust and erosion) than it would help.

est31 7y ago
> would likely cause more problems (dust and erosion) than it would help Agreeing with your comment but to add: To my knowledge, the biggest problem the athmosphere is causing is the dust storms which can go on for months and which occlude the sky. This means you have to be able to hold out for that period. The Moon has pesky dust too (which got everywhere, it's so small it got through the joints in the space suits).
socialdemocrat 7y ago
No offense, but you could not possibly be more wrong. While just 1% the quantity of CO2 is enormous and large important resource. With CO2, ice and martian soil you got everything to get plants to grow. Nothing can grow on the moon unless you import carbon. Also CO2 can be used with electrolysis of water and sabatier reaction to produce methane which can be used as rocket fuel. The fact that the atmosphere is almost pure CO2 makes this much easier to do than on earth. This is also important feedstock for producing plastic. If you want to build any advance industrial base, you need to be able to produce plastic. This is a huge disadvantage of the moon. You are limited to metals and rock.
- Amezarak 7y ago
  > you got everything to get plants to grow. Nothing can grow on the moon unless you import carbon. Nothing is going to be growing on Mars either, outside of pressurized chambers, which, in the event of a loss of pressure, will kill everyone inside. The atmosphere is so thin that you really aren't gaining anything by not just bringing the carbon with you. Frankly, the idea of colonizing the Moon or Mars, except in the sense of a temporary science post like the ISS, is a sci-fi fantasy that will never make practical or economic sense. Why am I going to want to build an industrial base on Mars? Why is it economically feasible? How many people are going to want to live in a cramped cage their entire life, never able to go outside, afflicted by low-gravity diseases? What can be produced or gotten on Mars that can't be on Earth for 1% of the effort and cost? People don't want to live in Antarctica or the bottom of the ocean right now, and these environments are much more survivable than the Moon or Mars, and more economically feasible to boot. Why is anything going to change?

zerr 7y ago

There's the plenty of places on Earth which are uninhabited due to climate conditions. What makes Mars a better place?

socialdemocrat 7y ago
Nobody has EVER suggested we should colonize Mars to save ourselves from global warming expect people against colonizing Mars. We can survive global warming for sure. If we can build habitats on Mars we can do it on Earth. However there are many conditions far worse than global warming which we cannot protect ourselves from: All out nuclear war. Asteroid hitting earth etc. It is stupid to put all eggs in one basket. Colonizing other planets in the solar system safeguards our future. You got to start early because it is a very time consuming effort. You cannot suddenly begin colonizing Mars once you discover an asteroid on collision course. It will be too late. It is an effort that will likely take far more than 100 years to complete. Humanity also risk regression. Global warming while not killing us could cause such regression in our technological ability and science that we simply loose the ability to send things into space. We have been in dark ages many times before in history. It can happen again.
- baroomba 7y ago
  Earth after most disasters short of getting hit by a full-on planetoid that liquefies the entire crust is still much easier to live on than Mars, and hardened Earth-based bunkers are a lot cheaper and easier to make than a Martian colony. Really, for most planet-wide disasters the thing they do is force us to live a little bit like we'd have to on non-disaster-stricken Mars. [EDIT] for the record I'm not against Martian exploration or even a Martian colony—I'm susceptible both to the "because it was there" and the "we'll come up with some cool tech in the process" arguments—I'm just very unconvinced Martian colonization is a good path to better survivability for the human species.
C14L 7y ago
If a 100 km asteroid hit earth tomorrow, then all known intelligent life in the universe would cease to exist. Why not allocate 0.00..001% of our resources to ensure that the only intelligent life we know of in the entire universe, has a life insurence.

rsync 7y ago

"plus it has gravity much closer to Earth than what the moon has ..." But still, I believe, only 1/3 of the gravity that the Earth has. This is the insurmountable problem with human habitation of Mars - we would need to become, in many ways, a different species in order to withstand the very greatly reduced gravity - and humans, as we know them, would succumb to all manner of disease and physical maladies until that transition (millenia ?) took place. Any discussion of colonizing Mars that does not discuss gravity, front and center, is just silly.

jkqwzsoo 7y ago
> This is the insurmountable problem with human habitation of Mars - we would need to become, in many ways, a different species in order to withstand the very greatly reduced gravity - and humans, as we know them, would succumb to all manner of disease and physical maladies until that transition (millenia ?) took place. Well, you don’t know that humans can’t survive indefinitely at 1/3 gee. I know that because no one knows that, so let’s not speculate on what the threshold gravity would be before we need to “become a different species” would be. But I’ll admit, unlike radiation and resource concerns, gravity is something we’re never going to overcome. If humans can’t thrive at 1/3 gee, we will never permanently colonize any terrestrial body in our solar system. However, given the range of adaptations humans present, e.g. to extreme altitude, continuous saltwater diving, or long-distance running, I’m willing to bet we can handle, and adapt to, reduced (not micro) gravity.
- rsync 7y ago
  "Well, you don’t know that humans can’t survive indefinitely at 1/3 gee. I know that because no one knows that, so let’s not speculate on what the threshold gravity would be before we need to “become a different species” would be." Yes, you are correct. However, I think you'll agree that all evidence points in the direction that 1/3 earth gravity would be highly detrimental, somewhere along the scale that zero-gee appears to be...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]