4 ms·

Life expanded because there were resources and opportunities on land. Plants grew there because there were no predators and then some animals managed to go eat

by rtkwe 7y ago

Life expanded because there were resources and opportunities on land. Plants grew there because there were no predators and then some animals managed to go eat them and benefited because there was little competition, I don't see a real analog there for Mars. [0] I think an actual Mars colony is centuries out just due to the amount of things left to invent to make it viable. We still haven't really even retried a closed circuit environment here on Earth where it's easier to ship in base requirements like additional nitrogen. [1] [0] Beyond that I'm increasingly skeptical of any attempts to draw parallels or inferences from evolution about humans today because so much like evo-psych turns into unfounded garbage. Once a species gets to the point it can manipulate it's own environment and mortality evolution gets shaky as a framework. [1] Simpler atomic components and resources could be mined on Mars where they couldn't in space so I'm allowing for some basic supplements extracted on Mars.

naravara 7y ago
> I think an actual Mars colony is centuries out just due to the amount of things left to invent to make it viable. More importantly, there just isn’t enough reason to bother doing it aside from satisfying the Edmund Hillary “because it’s there” urge. If you want more space to live, you’d be better off investing in women’s health and education so long run population trends can go down here in Earth. If you want natural resources, you’d be better off figuring out how to mine asteroids so you don’t need to contend with overcoming a planetary gravity well to get them home. If you want to push the envelope with terraforming, you’d be better off focusing on ambitious plans for carbon sequestration on Earth. If you want to engineer us out of the “all our eggs in one planetary basket” problem, you probably want to first build permanent stations in outer space that are as self-sustaining as possible since those technologies will be foundational for both a Mars colony AND for building generation ships. Basically, there are much more useful and generalizable technologies you can throw money at than a pointless Mars colony. I don’t get the obsession with that over everything else.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  Mars does have some benefits as the main living space over a space station at least. Gravity is gratis for one which really helps with long term health and we don't have to completely redesign our current technology to work if there's gravity where we will in space. And yes the resources for Earth are better found in the asteroid belt but it would probably be easier to mine and extract on Mars again because of gravity and locality. [-1] The atmosphere, thin as it is, is still a convenient source for carbon and oxygen to support the life support cycle and could maybe be a source of nitrogen for growing plants. In those ways it's maybe an easier first long term settlement than space or the moon ignoring the cost of bringing everything there and resupply missions. [0] I think it may be more likely to happen somewhere with gravity just given how much development still needs to be done to extract materials out of asteroids. There's a lot to work through in being able to refine stuff like metals in micro gravity that hasn't even started yet. If history is any judge though we'll go to Mars long before it's really viable simply because it's there. Hopefully not too many people get caught up in it. [0] Unless it's turns out to be viable to bake similar resources out of lunar regolith. I haven't read deeply enough to see if that's just SciFi or a viable source of the basic elementals needed to support a settlement. [-1] edit: To clarify here I mean on Mars for consumption on Mars of course. Though Mar's much thinner atmosphere would also make some more exotic launch technologies potentially viable. eg: a rail/coil gun launch to a skyhook maybe given the much lower atmospheric drag it would experience.
  - naravara 7y ago
    >Gravity is gratis for one which really helps with long term health and we don't have to completely redesign our current technology to work if there's gravity where we will in space. And yes the resources for Earth are better found in the asteroid belt but it would probably be easier to mine and extract on Mars again because of gravity and locality. The atmosphere, thin as it is, is still a convenient source for carbon and oxygen to support the life support cycle and could maybe be a source of nitrogen for growing plants. In those ways it's maybe an easier first long term settlement than space or the moon ignoring the cost of bringing everything there and resupply missions. [0] Well, sort of. Most of these aren't as convenient as they sound. Gravity is only about 40% of Earth's IIRC, so if you had humans there you'd still be contending with loss of muscle and bone density. If we're talking about ambitious future technology I think a spinning wheel station is probably a more stable way to keep people healthy. Plus you have to contend with seasons and weather. Wind, dust, wild temperature swings and all the extra wear on materials you will get as a result. . . It would also take forever to actually thicken up the atmosphere, so you would probably want to be careful how much you go pulling CO2 out of the air to grow plants if long-term viability is your priority. As for mining, locality is a big help, especially if you're going to be remote-controlling drones, but contending with landing/taking-off on a planet is a huge logistical expense. Particularly if you're dealing with lots of heavy machinery for mining.
kamaal 7y ago
>>Life expanded because there were resources and opportunities on land. You could make a similar case for Asteroid mining. There are plenty of resources up there.
Tepix 7y ago
You're saying there are no resources and opportunities beyond Earth? It may require some adaption (as you mentioned, we can manipulate our own environment) but the rewards are likely to be substantial eventually.

by rtkwe 7y ago

naravara 7y ago

> I think an actual Mars colony is centuries out just due to the amount of things left to invent to make it viable. More importantly, there just isn’t enough reason to bother doing it aside from satisfying the Edmund Hillary “because it’s there” urge. If you want more space to live, you’d be better off investing in women’s health and education so long run population trends can go down here in Earth. If you want natural resources, you’d be better off figuring out how to mine asteroids so you don’t need to contend with overcoming a planetary gravity well to get them home. If you want to push the envelope with terraforming, you’d be better off focusing on ambitious plans for carbon sequestration on Earth. If you want to engineer us out of the “all our eggs in one planetary basket” problem, you probably want to first build permanent stations in outer space that are as self-sustaining as possible since those technologies will be foundational for both a Mars colony AND for building generation ships. Basically, there are much more useful and generalizable technologies you can throw money at than a pointless Mars colony. I don’t get the obsession with that over everything else.

rtkwe 7y ago
Mars does have some benefits as the main living space over a space station at least. Gravity is gratis for one which really helps with long term health and we don't have to completely redesign our current technology to work if there's gravity where we will in space. And yes the resources for Earth are better found in the asteroid belt but it would probably be easier to mine and extract on Mars again because of gravity and locality. [-1] The atmosphere, thin as it is, is still a convenient source for carbon and oxygen to support the life support cycle and could maybe be a source of nitrogen for growing plants. In those ways it's maybe an easier first long term settlement than space or the moon ignoring the cost of bringing everything there and resupply missions. [0] I think it may be more likely to happen somewhere with gravity just given how much development still needs to be done to extract materials out of asteroids. There's a lot to work through in being able to refine stuff like metals in micro gravity that hasn't even started yet. If history is any judge though we'll go to Mars long before it's really viable simply because it's there. Hopefully not too many people get caught up in it. [0] Unless it's turns out to be viable to bake similar resources out of lunar regolith. I haven't read deeply enough to see if that's just SciFi or a viable source of the basic elementals needed to support a settlement. [-1] edit: To clarify here I mean on Mars for consumption on Mars of course. Though Mar's much thinner atmosphere would also make some more exotic launch technologies potentially viable. eg: a rail/coil gun launch to a skyhook maybe given the much lower atmospheric drag it would experience.
- naravara 7y ago
  >Gravity is gratis for one which really helps with long term health and we don't have to completely redesign our current technology to work if there's gravity where we will in space. And yes the resources for Earth are better found in the asteroid belt but it would probably be easier to mine and extract on Mars again because of gravity and locality. The atmosphere, thin as it is, is still a convenient source for carbon and oxygen to support the life support cycle and could maybe be a source of nitrogen for growing plants. In those ways it's maybe an easier first long term settlement than space or the moon ignoring the cost of bringing everything there and resupply missions. [0] Well, sort of. Most of these aren't as convenient as they sound. Gravity is only about 40% of Earth's IIRC, so if you had humans there you'd still be contending with loss of muscle and bone density. If we're talking about ambitious future technology I think a spinning wheel station is probably a more stable way to keep people healthy. Plus you have to contend with seasons and weather. Wind, dust, wild temperature swings and all the extra wear on materials you will get as a result. . . It would also take forever to actually thicken up the atmosphere, so you would probably want to be careful how much you go pulling CO2 out of the air to grow plants if long-term viability is your priority. As for mining, locality is a big help, especially if you're going to be remote-controlling drones, but contending with landing/taking-off on a planet is a huge logistical expense. Particularly if you're dealing with lots of heavy machinery for mining.

kamaal 7y ago

>>Life expanded because there were resources and opportunities on land. You could make a similar case for Asteroid mining. There are plenty of resources up there.

Tepix 7y ago

You're saying there are no resources and opportunities beyond Earth? It may require some adaption (as you mentioned, we can manipulate our own environment) but the rewards are likely to be substantial eventually.