6 ms·

Seems unlikely to me that anyone is ever going to live on mars. The conditions are unbelievably harsh. Radiation being a huge problem apart from the basic unli

Seems unlikely to me that anyone is ever going to live on mars. The conditions are unbelievably harsh. Radiation being a huge problem apart from the basic unlivability https://phys.org/news/2016-11-bad-mars.html https://phys.org/news/2016-11-bad-mars.html

gambiting 6y ago
Seriously, it would be a lot easier to build a colony on the bottom of the ocean or even on the moon - without the incredibly harsh penalty of many months of travel back and forth. There literally doesn't seem to be any benefit to living on Mars except for the romantic notions of it being another planet.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  The Moon is indeed the best place to "learn the ropes" before setting out further out. But it does not attract the same level of excitement as Mars does for some reason. We're already been there so it seems it's been ticked off the list...
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
    I've always hoped that by the time I am old I can look up at the moon at night and see lights on it's surface.
  - goatinaboat 6y ago
    The Moon is indeed the best place to "learn the ropes" before setting out further out. It is not because there is less in-situ there. Dr Robert Zubrin makes this case in his books.
    - rbanffy 6y ago
      I believe that our understanding of lunar surface resources has changed significantly since those books. We now know there is more water than we ever suspected. We also have found what look like lava tubes that form natural ice traps. Being about a week from Earth also means we can iterate a lot faster and the 2 second delay makes remote controlled exploration a lot simpler.
- reynhaim 6y ago
  Mankind undertakes numerous endeavours where the benefits might be non-existent or very indirect. I would argue that when it comes to colonising Mars, we're looking at the latter case. First rather obvious thing is that building the colony requires a great deal of technological advancement, which in turn creates employment throughout society from research positions to supply chain vacancies. These advancements might also lead to commercial successes which in turn create even more employment and likely an increase in the quality of life. Second it is a huge inspiration for a lot of people. The very idea that we can conquer space is something that makes me feel shivers. At the same time it is art, testament of the good parts of our species. That romantic notion might end up inspiring many young folk to take careers in fields that contribute to the betterment of mankind.
  - gambiting 6y ago
    No I totally get that. My point is if we want to get to that lofty goal of space exploration and colonisation, then our own Moon really is the obvious choice. The supply chains, the technology, the achievement is no smaller than it would be on Mars. For some reason people threat it as almost "too easy" which is obviously completely nonsense. We should built and maintain a permanently inhibited base(colony?) on the Moon before venturing out all the way to Mars. Surely having a visible colony so close to us would be a huge uplifting achievement to all of mankind. The bottom of the ocean is perhaps less glamorous, but it's no less technically challenging - the risks of having a permanent base on the bottom of the Mariana Trench would be huge, but we could try living there permanently, growing our own food, conduct research etc - it many ways it's more similar to space exploration than many people think.
    - vagrantJin 6y ago
      You raise a good point. Start with the low hanging fruit before leaping to the apex. Walk before sprinting.
    - Retric 6y ago
      The Moon is very difficult as the long days result in extreme temperatures. Daytime temperatures can reach 253.4 degrees Fahrenheit (123° C). Covering a large area in a reflective surface can dramatically lower that, but the Apollo missions only worked because they stayed for a few days near lunar dawn. There are ways around this, but the moon is a harsh mistress.
- emiliobumachar 6y ago
  I'm not sure the Moon would be that much easier than Mars. It's far enough that any transfer of anything needs a lot of planning. And no atmosphere. Mar's thin atmosphere means you can get some materials just by pumping air, which is a lot easier than mining.
  - m4rtink 6y ago
    Also no atmosphere = micrometeoroids striking directly the surface (and possibly you). On Mars the atmosphere takes care of burning up any meteoroids and Mars Climate Orbiters before they can hit you.
    - chongli 6y ago
      That’s a double-edged sword. Yes, Mars’s atmosphere can protect you from micrometeoroids, but it also makes it absolute hell to land anything there. The atmosphere is thick enough to burn up any spacecraft you try to land there but nowhere near thick enough to use a parachute. The moon, on the other hand, is much easier to land on using only retro rockets as brakes.
      - m4rtink 6y ago
        Sure, but you need to break all your speed at arrival with rocket engines. Not a big difference for regular trips from Earth - no need to make these more quickly than the regular few days. But say you are coming back from Mars and want to land on a Moon base or even just dock to a lunar space station. Now you have to brake all the excess interplanetary speed with your engines! And that might be quite a lot, especially if you opted for going faster to reduce the transit time. But if you are arriving with the same speed at Mars, you can use the atmosphere for aerocapture first without having to brake all that speed with engines. And people might do that for Moon bound trips as well - first do an aerocapture to an excetric Earth orbit using Earths atmosphere and only then adjust the resulting orbit for Moon encounter. That should reduce the raking requirements quite a lot. For that reason I can imagine future interplanetary ships always having a degree of aerodynamic capability, so they can make use of the atmosphere to slow down when needed. Even if they are not really made to land on a body with atmosphere.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  Good. And where are you supposed to go from the bottom of the ocean? From the Moon or Mars, access to the whole solar system is easier than from Earth's surface.
  - gambiting 6y ago
    Again, as I said in my other comment - the bottom of the ocean is increadibly challenging in itself. The need to build habitats that could permanently withstand tonnes of pressure is not that far off from habitats needing to survive the harshness of space. We could learn how to build those, how to live in them, how to grow food and obviously conduct science. Those findings would be valuable outside of our planet too. And importantly, when people say that they want to go to Mars in order to secure the future of our species - the bottom of the ocean is protected form nearly every natural or human made catastrophe imaginable. Even if the surface of the earth was vaporised in nuclear fire, 10km under the surface of water nothing would touch such a colony. But of course, please don't misunderstand me - of course a Moon colony would be far more preferable.
- swiley 6y ago
  At least one reason would be to win internet arguments with people that say the high price of housing is due to there being a finite amount of land on earth.
- _Microft 6y ago
  It is more a necessity than "romantic". Living on a single planet is a single point of failure for humanity. A nuclear war, an asteroid impact or a super vulcano eruption and we are done. (Living in a single solar system is still dangerous, as a gamma ray burst directed at the solar system would still wipe us all out. Leaving the solar system is a lot further out than (trying to) colonize other locations in the solar system.)
  - gambiting 6y ago
    And like I said in the other comment - colony at the bottom of the ocean would protect us from nearly anything, while simultaniously giving us opportunity to develop, test and perfect habitats for harsh environments. If it could become truly independent then that's your goal fully achieved and many technologies would transplant directly into space colonization. It's truly incredible what 10km of water can protect you from. The entire surface of Earth could be destroyed be it by nuclear war or an asteroid strike, and a colony on the bottom of the ocean would barely notice.
    - vvillena 6y ago
      Both types of colonies could (and should) be pursued, but for self-sustaining colonies, the isolation that spaces colonies provide is an actual advantage. There's no incentive for self-sustainability with ocean colonies, because they can easily obtain what they need from the surface. Space colonies have clear incentives, because help would always be 6-12 months away (for Mars colonies).
    - Veen 6y ago
      A colony on the bottom of the ocean won't protect us from overpopulation or from exhausting the Earth's resources. On a long enough timescale, we'll have to stop the population from growing or find somewhere else to live.
neals 6y ago
Really? Ever? Like, "nobody ever is going to do this?" I don't believe in absolutes like that. For sure, we'll make the trip possible technically. You have to agree that we can make the trip, right? So, what would it take for anybody (out of the billions of people on earth) to make that journey? Even it would mean certain death? Not much, is my guess. I think going down in history as the first human on Mars would be enough for at least 1 person. What about governments? To forever be known as the first nation on Mars. I can think of a few government who would 'force' people to do it... Dying in a dessert vs. dying on another planet, a true patriot would do it, right?. Or how is it different from living on a submarine, for example. What if you were a social media influencer. Imagine the engagement and followers of posting from Mars. There's so much profit to be made, somebody will make the journey, live in a sphere for a few years and maybe come back.
cesis 6y ago
There already are people living in LEO, where resource availability is even bigger problem. The same with radiation shielding.
lmilcin 6y ago
I can't imagine civilization has been improving science and technology for millennia and now will suddenly stop and never progress to when it is able to create a viable foothold on Mars. And if I know anything about the People of the Earth it is that if something is possible somebody will do it. For one reason or another. Even if it doesn't make economical or scientific or other reason. This is only going two ways, either humanity will land on Mars or we will all die or at least bomb / poison ourselves and go back to stone age. The only question is "when".
- lovemenot 6y ago
  Last time I read "bombed back to the stone age" was in the context of Americans talking about the Vietnam War. It seems Manifest Destiny is not in fact destiny.
ethagknight 6y ago
It makes me think of that Russian mining town that is very far north with high pollution and horrible winters that basically last year round.. no one lives there except for the people paid very nicely (in relative terms) to be there to mine valuable materials. There are probably materials in abundance on/in Mars that people get paid to live there to extract, process, and send back to earth. Only then does it make sense to say “well we could really use a dentist up here, and a little deli, and maybe a store for home goods. And we can’t keep the team members away from each other, what do we do with all these children that have popped up, perhaps an elementary school?” Like many colonies, the first large foray of onto another planet may involve slave or political exile labor. I’m not much of a sci fi person, but there are real economic reasons to set up shop on Mars beyond a mere achievement for mankind.
- m4rtink 6y ago
  Resouces from Mars will most likely be sent to orbiting shipyards to build ships for conquering The Belt rather than to Earth.
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    In that regard, the Moon may be a much better spot - lower delta-v to orbit, simple availability of highly specialized, long supply-chain components (from Earth), abundant solar (4+x Mars). It gets hotter than Mars, which is an issue, but I'd assume most delicate things would live underground, in lava tubes or similar places (which probably have abundant water ice easily extractable).
    - girvo 6y ago
      The lack of even a thin atmosphere might prove troubling, but we’ll have to conquer that if we wish to expand to the belt regardless, I think... The Expanse books really got my imagination going!
      - m4rtink 6y ago
        Right ? And they did that just by introducing a super efficient torch drive. Otherwise most technology is not that much advanced from what we have now, yet there is a believable human civilization spanning preatty much the entire Solar System. Expanse is a really nice demonstration that drive technology is one of the most important if not the most important technology for space settlement. :)
kilroy123 6y ago
Some argue it makes way more sense to build and colonize space in O'Neill cylinders instead. You can have "nice" artificial environments and gravity that matches Earths. You can have one orbit Mars and pop down anytime for short duration missions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder

gambiting 6y ago

Seriously, it would be a lot easier to build a colony on the bottom of the ocean or even on the moon - without the incredibly harsh penalty of many months of travel back and forth. There literally doesn't seem to be any benefit to living on Mars except for the romantic notions of it being another planet.

mytailorisrich 6y ago
The Moon is indeed the best place to "learn the ropes" before setting out further out. But it does not attract the same level of excitement as Mars does for some reason. We're already been there so it seems it's been ticked off the list...
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
  I've always hoped that by the time I am old I can look up at the moon at night and see lights on it's surface.
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  The Moon is indeed the best place to "learn the ropes" before setting out further out. It is not because there is less in-situ there. Dr Robert Zubrin makes this case in his books.
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    I believe that our understanding of lunar surface resources has changed significantly since those books. We now know there is more water than we ever suspected. We also have found what look like lava tubes that form natural ice traps. Being about a week from Earth also means we can iterate a lot faster and the 2 second delay makes remote controlled exploration a lot simpler.
reynhaim 6y ago
Mankind undertakes numerous endeavours where the benefits might be non-existent or very indirect. I would argue that when it comes to colonising Mars, we're looking at the latter case. First rather obvious thing is that building the colony requires a great deal of technological advancement, which in turn creates employment throughout society from research positions to supply chain vacancies. These advancements might also lead to commercial successes which in turn create even more employment and likely an increase in the quality of life. Second it is a huge inspiration for a lot of people. The very idea that we can conquer space is something that makes me feel shivers. At the same time it is art, testament of the good parts of our species. That romantic notion might end up inspiring many young folk to take careers in fields that contribute to the betterment of mankind.
- gambiting 6y ago
  No I totally get that. My point is if we want to get to that lofty goal of space exploration and colonisation, then our own Moon really is the obvious choice. The supply chains, the technology, the achievement is no smaller than it would be on Mars. For some reason people threat it as almost "too easy" which is obviously completely nonsense. We should built and maintain a permanently inhibited base(colony?) on the Moon before venturing out all the way to Mars. Surely having a visible colony so close to us would be a huge uplifting achievement to all of mankind. The bottom of the ocean is perhaps less glamorous, but it's no less technically challenging - the risks of having a permanent base on the bottom of the Mariana Trench would be huge, but we could try living there permanently, growing our own food, conduct research etc - it many ways it's more similar to space exploration than many people think.
  - vagrantJin 6y ago
    You raise a good point. Start with the low hanging fruit before leaping to the apex. Walk before sprinting.
  - Retric 6y ago
    The Moon is very difficult as the long days result in extreme temperatures. Daytime temperatures can reach 253.4 degrees Fahrenheit (123° C). Covering a large area in a reflective surface can dramatically lower that, but the Apollo missions only worked because they stayed for a few days near lunar dawn. There are ways around this, but the moon is a harsh mistress.
emiliobumachar 6y ago
I'm not sure the Moon would be that much easier than Mars. It's far enough that any transfer of anything needs a lot of planning. And no atmosphere. Mar's thin atmosphere means you can get some materials just by pumping air, which is a lot easier than mining.
- m4rtink 6y ago
  Also no atmosphere = micrometeoroids striking directly the surface (and possibly you). On Mars the atmosphere takes care of burning up any meteoroids and Mars Climate Orbiters before they can hit you.
  - chongli 6y ago
    That’s a double-edged sword. Yes, Mars’s atmosphere can protect you from micrometeoroids, but it also makes it absolute hell to land anything there. The atmosphere is thick enough to burn up any spacecraft you try to land there but nowhere near thick enough to use a parachute. The moon, on the other hand, is much easier to land on using only retro rockets as brakes.
    - m4rtink 6y ago
      Sure, but you need to break all your speed at arrival with rocket engines. Not a big difference for regular trips from Earth - no need to make these more quickly than the regular few days. But say you are coming back from Mars and want to land on a Moon base or even just dock to a lunar space station. Now you have to brake all the excess interplanetary speed with your engines! And that might be quite a lot, especially if you opted for going faster to reduce the transit time. But if you are arriving with the same speed at Mars, you can use the atmosphere for aerocapture first without having to brake all that speed with engines. And people might do that for Moon bound trips as well - first do an aerocapture to an excetric Earth orbit using Earths atmosphere and only then adjust the resulting orbit for Moon encounter. That should reduce the raking requirements quite a lot. For that reason I can imagine future interplanetary ships always having a degree of aerodynamic capability, so they can make use of the atmosphere to slow down when needed. Even if they are not really made to land on a body with atmosphere.
rbanffy 6y ago
Good. And where are you supposed to go from the bottom of the ocean? From the Moon or Mars, access to the whole solar system is easier than from Earth's surface.
- gambiting 6y ago
  Again, as I said in my other comment - the bottom of the ocean is increadibly challenging in itself. The need to build habitats that could permanently withstand tonnes of pressure is not that far off from habitats needing to survive the harshness of space. We could learn how to build those, how to live in them, how to grow food and obviously conduct science. Those findings would be valuable outside of our planet too. And importantly, when people say that they want to go to Mars in order to secure the future of our species - the bottom of the ocean is protected form nearly every natural or human made catastrophe imaginable. Even if the surface of the earth was vaporised in nuclear fire, 10km under the surface of water nothing would touch such a colony. But of course, please don't misunderstand me - of course a Moon colony would be far more preferable.
swiley 6y ago
At least one reason would be to win internet arguments with people that say the high price of housing is due to there being a finite amount of land on earth.
_Microft 6y ago
It is more a necessity than "romantic". Living on a single planet is a single point of failure for humanity. A nuclear war, an asteroid impact or a super vulcano eruption and we are done. (Living in a single solar system is still dangerous, as a gamma ray burst directed at the solar system would still wipe us all out. Leaving the solar system is a lot further out than (trying to) colonize other locations in the solar system.)
- gambiting 6y ago
  And like I said in the other comment - colony at the bottom of the ocean would protect us from nearly anything, while simultaniously giving us opportunity to develop, test and perfect habitats for harsh environments. If it could become truly independent then that's your goal fully achieved and many technologies would transplant directly into space colonization. It's truly incredible what 10km of water can protect you from. The entire surface of Earth could be destroyed be it by nuclear war or an asteroid strike, and a colony on the bottom of the ocean would barely notice.
  - vvillena 6y ago
    Both types of colonies could (and should) be pursued, but for self-sustaining colonies, the isolation that spaces colonies provide is an actual advantage. There's no incentive for self-sustainability with ocean colonies, because they can easily obtain what they need from the surface. Space colonies have clear incentives, because help would always be 6-12 months away (for Mars colonies).
  - Veen 6y ago
    A colony on the bottom of the ocean won't protect us from overpopulation or from exhausting the Earth's resources. On a long enough timescale, we'll have to stop the population from growing or find somewhere else to live.

neals 6y ago

Really? Ever? Like, "nobody ever is going to do this?" I don't believe in absolutes like that. For sure, we'll make the trip possible technically. You have to agree that we can make the trip, right? So, what would it take for anybody (out of the billions of people on earth) to make that journey? Even it would mean certain death? Not much, is my guess. I think going down in history as the first human on Mars would be enough for at least 1 person. What about governments? To forever be known as the first nation on Mars. I can think of a few government who would 'force' people to do it... Dying in a dessert vs. dying on another planet, a true patriot would do it, right?. Or how is it different from living on a submarine, for example. What if you were a social media influencer. Imagine the engagement and followers of posting from Mars. There's so much profit to be made, somebody will make the journey, live in a sphere for a few years and maybe come back.

cesis 6y ago

There already are people living in LEO, where resource availability is even bigger problem. The same with radiation shielding.

lmilcin 6y ago

I can't imagine civilization has been improving science and technology for millennia and now will suddenly stop and never progress to when it is able to create a viable foothold on Mars. And if I know anything about the People of the Earth it is that if something is possible somebody will do it. For one reason or another. Even if it doesn't make economical or scientific or other reason. This is only going two ways, either humanity will land on Mars or we will all die or at least bomb / poison ourselves and go back to stone age. The only question is "when".

lovemenot 6y ago
Last time I read "bombed back to the stone age" was in the context of Americans talking about the Vietnam War. It seems Manifest Destiny is not in fact destiny.

ethagknight 6y ago

It makes me think of that Russian mining town that is very far north with high pollution and horrible winters that basically last year round.. no one lives there except for the people paid very nicely (in relative terms) to be there to mine valuable materials. There are probably materials in abundance on/in Mars that people get paid to live there to extract, process, and send back to earth. Only then does it make sense to say “well we could really use a dentist up here, and a little deli, and maybe a store for home goods. And we can’t keep the team members away from each other, what do we do with all these children that have popped up, perhaps an elementary school?” Like many colonies, the first large foray of onto another planet may involve slave or political exile labor. I’m not much of a sci fi person, but there are real economic reasons to set up shop on Mars beyond a mere achievement for mankind.

m4rtink 6y ago
Resouces from Mars will most likely be sent to orbiting shipyards to build ships for conquering The Belt rather than to Earth.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  In that regard, the Moon may be a much better spot - lower delta-v to orbit, simple availability of highly specialized, long supply-chain components (from Earth), abundant solar (4+x Mars). It gets hotter than Mars, which is an issue, but I'd assume most delicate things would live underground, in lava tubes or similar places (which probably have abundant water ice easily extractable).
  - girvo 6y ago
    The lack of even a thin atmosphere might prove troubling, but we’ll have to conquer that if we wish to expand to the belt regardless, I think... The Expanse books really got my imagination going!
    - m4rtink 6y ago
      Right ? And they did that just by introducing a super efficient torch drive. Otherwise most technology is not that much advanced from what we have now, yet there is a believable human civilization spanning preatty much the entire Solar System. Expanse is a really nice demonstration that drive technology is one of the most important if not the most important technology for space settlement. :)

kilroy123 6y ago

Some argue it makes way more sense to build and colonize space in O'Neill cylinders instead. You can have "nice" artificial environments and gravity that matches Earths. You can have one orbit Mars and pop down anytime for short duration missions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder