3 ms·
The article argues that on Mars we'd have to live underground which requires a lot of construction of tunnels and excavation. It does not appear to take into co
by Tepix 7y ago
The article argues that on Mars we'd have to live underground which requires a lot of construction of tunnels and excavation. It does not appear to take into consideration the huge lava tubes that are present on Mars (and even bigger on the Moon). These are estimated to be dozens of kilometers long and hundreds of meters wide. They could be very attractive for human colonies.
On the other hand on Triton, even if you live at the surface, the Sun will be very weak. The main advantage of not living underground will be less resources to create a habitat.
I consider sufficient natural sunlight to be important for human wellbeing.
- DarthGhandi 7y agoShielding Mars is possible with current technology. https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere.html https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmo...
- dylan604 7y agoIs it though? The link only discusses the theory of placing a large magnet in the Mars-Sun L1 point. It does not discuss the makings of that magnet. What's going to power it? Solar? Nuclear? So at the end of the day, I'm still left not knowing if we have the tech to be able to do this. This seems like a no-brainer of something should/needs/must be done to make humans living on Mars anything more than just a though exerciser.
- DarthGhandi 7y agoAt it's simplest is a ring with power flowing through it, the power requirements would be minimal, 1 Tesla needed and a deflection of a fraction of a degree. I've seen estimates in the single digit MW range which we build solar plants on Earth for a few million each. Power generation is somewhat irrelevant, getting the material up there and maintaining it will be the real monetary challenge. Read the link at the end of the popsci article. There's a huge amount of research going into generating magnetic fields for spaceships and inhabited bases.