4 ms·

Replace mars with America, and fusion reactors with frigates and you'll realise how silly this sounds

nullifidian 6y ago
They already had carracks (ocean-going ships) when they embarked on this voyage. So what you are really saying is that we should wait for fusion reactors.
- valuearb 6y ago
  We will have SpaceX Starship within two years, and it’s capable of making the Mars trip in 3 months, while landing 100 tons of crew, equipment and supplies.
inopinatus 6y ago
That comes out as ... "America is a really awful place for humans to live or visit, and it would be incredibly expensive to try". I put it to you that in 2020, this is a factually correct statement.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  It’s not factually correct because it’s too general. There are subdomains of America where that is true albeit.
asah 6y ago
America was/is extremely fertile, requires nothing special to settle and is only six weeks away. There's breathable air, fresh water, trees, arable land, etc. Mars is far more distant and hostile.
- valuearb 6y ago
  The point is Mars is far more attractive than the moon on that same scale. A self sustaining settlement on Mars is possible, it never will be on the Moon.
- StillBored 6y ago
  I think you simplify the reality of the situation. European colonies in the Americas overwhelmingly failed for centuries, and the ones that eventually succeeded were very fragile for a long time. Starting with the Norse settlements, and going until the English/French/Spanish started pouring massive resources into military and colony aid in order to control territories in America. The people in those colonies died very quickly either from violence, starvation or just malnutrition. It turns out that European agricultural knowledge either didn't work, or wasn't considered an important mix in many of the colonies. The plant life was diffrent enough that even living off the land wasn't possible because people were just as likely to poison themselves with sumac/whatever as get lucky and find something edible. The results were a lot of failed crops, and starving settlers only kept alive with frequent resupply missions from Europe and the occasional trade with native peoples. The latter of which, turned bloody more frequently then we are willing to admit. So, while they could breath the air, the difficulties and lack of knowledge were much the same as any mars colony we might try and start. Likely the results will be the same too. It will take hundreds of years of failures and people dying before the problem is understood well enough and the political/etc focus shifts sufficiently that one of them eventually succeeds. The results will likely be much the same, a vast increase in knowledge, not just for the colonists, but for those that remain. But instead of new foods, spices, gold and trading partners, there will be technology gains pushed forward in ways we cant imagine. For starters, think of the environmental and biological understandings required to make life on mars long term sustainable that we don't currently have.
  - asah 6y ago
    The native Americans were proof-by- example that they were habitable by humans.

They already had carracks (ocean-going ships) when they embarked on this voyage. So what you are really saying is that we should wait for fusion reactors.

valuearb 6y ago
We will have SpaceX Starship within two years, and it’s capable of making the Mars trip in 3 months, while landing 100 tons of crew, equipment and supplies.

inopinatus 6y ago

That comes out as ... "America is a really awful place for humans to live or visit, and it would be incredibly expensive to try". I put it to you that in 2020, this is a factually correct statement.

mensetmanusman 6y ago
It’s not factually correct because it’s too general. There are subdomains of America where that is true albeit.

asah 6y ago

America was/is extremely fertile, requires nothing special to settle and is only six weeks away. There's breathable air, fresh water, trees, arable land, etc. Mars is far more distant and hostile.

valuearb 6y ago
The point is Mars is far more attractive than the moon on that same scale. A self sustaining settlement on Mars is possible, it never will be on the Moon.
StillBored 6y ago
I think you simplify the reality of the situation. European colonies in the Americas overwhelmingly failed for centuries, and the ones that eventually succeeded were very fragile for a long time. Starting with the Norse settlements, and going until the English/French/Spanish started pouring massive resources into military and colony aid in order to control territories in America. The people in those colonies died very quickly either from violence, starvation or just malnutrition. It turns out that European agricultural knowledge either didn't work, or wasn't considered an important mix in many of the colonies. The plant life was diffrent enough that even living off the land wasn't possible because people were just as likely to poison themselves with sumac/whatever as get lucky and find something edible. The results were a lot of failed crops, and starving settlers only kept alive with frequent resupply missions from Europe and the occasional trade with native peoples. The latter of which, turned bloody more frequently then we are willing to admit. So, while they could breath the air, the difficulties and lack of knowledge were much the same as any mars colony we might try and start. Likely the results will be the same too. It will take hundreds of years of failures and people dying before the problem is understood well enough and the political/etc focus shifts sufficiently that one of them eventually succeeds. The results will likely be much the same, a vast increase in knowledge, not just for the colonists, but for those that remain. But instead of new foods, spices, gold and trading partners, there will be technology gains pushed forward in ways we cant imagine. For starters, think of the environmental and biological understandings required to make life on mars long term sustainable that we don't currently have.
- asah 6y ago
  The native Americans were proof-by- example that they were habitable by humans.