6 ms·

So making life multiplanetary, what Elon Musk has been saying, is basically the only feasible protection? Not a Musk fanboy but happy that at least something is

by akie 5y ago

So making life multiplanetary, what Elon Musk has been saying, is basically the only feasible protection? Not a Musk fanboy but happy that at least something is happening.

brudgers 5y ago
Earth after a massive meteor impact will almost certainly be more habitable than Mars on its best day. Every step to make Mars more habitable is much more easily taken to make Earth more habitable in preparation for a massive impact. And Mars might get hit the same way.
- AstralStorm 5y ago
  The problem with this line of thinking is that first we'd have to be elsewhere to survive the initial destruction of this magnitude, which would be a huge tsunami and cloud of dust that would stay in the atmosphere for years. There are ways to build bunkers that are capable of withstanding this kind of disaster (we'd have at least a month of warning), but not yet a way to keep a biome running. Therefore, (and considering climate change, priority) research should be focused on maintaining large scale artificial biomes for now. We'll need that for space travel and colonization anyway.
  - brudgers 5y ago
    The Earth atmosphere you describe is more life sustaining than Mars. <- that is a period. The problem of survival after a massive impact on Earth is more readily solved than survival on Mars. Indeed survival on the Moon is easier simply for logistics. If you want go to Mars. I will stay here. Natural selection will work its magic either way. My bet is on six billion years of priors. Not Mr. Musks Tweets.
    - AstralStorm 5y ago
      Totally agree there. Then again, without the pie in the sky goal, nobody will fund the necessary research it seems.
      - brudgers 5y ago
        The funding is the end in itself. Scare tactics are a proven way to get money for self enrichment.
    - CamperBob2 5y ago
      Did you watch the video pmoriarty linked? If that is a valid model of the aftermath of a very large asteroid collision, then no, you would not be better off here than on Mars. It would literally be hotter than Venus for an extended period of time, if what they are saying is correct.
      - flukus 5y ago
        That was an extremely rare event that has only happened once in the history of our planet when the solar system was young. It's incredibly unlikely to happen in future, it's even less likely to happen by the time we've moved to Mars because the sun has expanded enough to make earth like Venus anyway.
      - dividedbyzero 5y ago
        It's probably not a good model as that's an absolute giant as asteroids go. The one at the end of the Cretacous would have had 1/10000 or something of this one's mass, and we consider that a planet killer already. I think a 500km monster really is exceedingly unlikely, there are a lot less of those and getting hurled in our direction probably gets way harder, too, at that size. More realistic scenarios with smaller (city-scale) bolides would be absolutely devastating, too, but still way more survivable.
- est31 5y ago
  The structures we build on Mars will be made to anticipate the Martian conditions. Most of the structures we have here on earth were not built to anticipate an asteroid impact. Usually it is known beforehand when an asteroid will collide. We might not manage to build structures quickly enough to save all humans, and the resulting scramble for the few spots in the bunkers might destroy them. There also won't be any time to test the design and subsequently improve it. On Mars we have plenty of opportunity to measure the environment. Even if the worst happens, we can still repopulate the colony from earth, as long as our society is not being scared by such failures and stops manned Martian efforts completely.
- lelanthran 5y ago
  > Earth after a massive meteor impact will almost certainly be more habitable than Mars on its best day. Yeah, but during the impact we need to be somewhere else. Making Mars habitable for a year might be better than making Earth habitable during an impact.
  - dividedbyzero 5y ago
    > Yeah, but during the impact we need to be somewhere else. Bunkers should be fine, the deep sea may be fine, moon will pretty much certainly be fine, high orbits should be fine as well. If you can manage to be on the other side of the planet, surviving the impact should be quite manageable if you have the kind of resources that can build a deep, shock-resistant bunker, and you should be able to do that much, much easier than build Mars colonies that are independent enough for this, and large enough to not just save a hundred people. After the initial effects wear off, you're probably facing conditions topside that are absolutely brutal, but still way less so than Mars with its toxic soil and dust, thin, useless atmosphere, supercold temperatures, very low gravity, scarcity of easily-accessible nitrogen (let alone easily accessible metals), high radiation environment, ... Basically, if you can set up a naval nuclear reactor and some lighting and greenhouses, you should be able to get food production going in spite of any realistic asteroid winter, the air will still be breathable, the soils will still work for agriculture, ... and you can make use of all that survives of our artifacts and civilization, which should be a lot. Mining former cities for resources could be a big jump-start.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    A lot of lifeforms survived the meteor that killed the dinosaurs. Almost 100% lifeforms would y not survive even 10 minutes on mars on a best sol.
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  Earth with structures designed to withstand Chicxulub will be more habitable than Mars with structures designed to withstand Mars, sure. However, Earth doesn't have structures designed to withstand Chicxulub, there is no incentive structure to build a substantial number of them and we have no way of testing them even if we had them. Earth without structures designed to withstand Chicxulub is less habitable than Mars during Chicxulub. And without a substantial atmosphere Mars is much less vulnerable to Chicxulub than Earth is, and the structures on Mars would mitigate it much better than Earth's structures mitigate it here on Earth.

by akie 5y ago

So making life multiplanetary, what Elon Musk has been saying, is basically the only feasible protection? Not a Musk fanboy but happy that at least something is happening.

brudgers 5y ago

Earth after a massive meteor impact will almost certainly be more habitable than Mars on its best day. Every step to make Mars more habitable is much more easily taken to make Earth more habitable in preparation for a massive impact. And Mars might get hit the same way.

AstralStorm 5y ago
The problem with this line of thinking is that first we'd have to be elsewhere to survive the initial destruction of this magnitude, which would be a huge tsunami and cloud of dust that would stay in the atmosphere for years. There are ways to build bunkers that are capable of withstanding this kind of disaster (we'd have at least a month of warning), but not yet a way to keep a biome running. Therefore, (and considering climate change, priority) research should be focused on maintaining large scale artificial biomes for now. We'll need that for space travel and colonization anyway.
- brudgers 5y ago
  The Earth atmosphere you describe is more life sustaining than Mars. <- that is a period. The problem of survival after a massive impact on Earth is more readily solved than survival on Mars. Indeed survival on the Moon is easier simply for logistics. If you want go to Mars. I will stay here. Natural selection will work its magic either way. My bet is on six billion years of priors. Not Mr. Musks Tweets.
  - AstralStorm 5y ago
    Totally agree there. Then again, without the pie in the sky goal, nobody will fund the necessary research it seems.
    - brudgers 5y ago
      The funding is the end in itself. Scare tactics are a proven way to get money for self enrichment.
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    Did you watch the video pmoriarty linked? If that is a valid model of the aftermath of a very large asteroid collision, then no, you would not be better off here than on Mars. It would literally be hotter than Venus for an extended period of time, if what they are saying is correct.
    - flukus 5y ago
      That was an extremely rare event that has only happened once in the history of our planet when the solar system was young. It's incredibly unlikely to happen in future, it's even less likely to happen by the time we've moved to Mars because the sun has expanded enough to make earth like Venus anyway.
    - dividedbyzero 5y ago
      It's probably not a good model as that's an absolute giant as asteroids go. The one at the end of the Cretacous would have had 1/10000 or something of this one's mass, and we consider that a planet killer already. I think a 500km monster really is exceedingly unlikely, there are a lot less of those and getting hurled in our direction probably gets way harder, too, at that size. More realistic scenarios with smaller (city-scale) bolides would be absolutely devastating, too, but still way more survivable.
est31 5y ago
The structures we build on Mars will be made to anticipate the Martian conditions. Most of the structures we have here on earth were not built to anticipate an asteroid impact. Usually it is known beforehand when an asteroid will collide. We might not manage to build structures quickly enough to save all humans, and the resulting scramble for the few spots in the bunkers might destroy them. There also won't be any time to test the design and subsequently improve it. On Mars we have plenty of opportunity to measure the environment. Even if the worst happens, we can still repopulate the colony from earth, as long as our society is not being scared by such failures and stops manned Martian efforts completely.
lelanthran 5y ago
> Earth after a massive meteor impact will almost certainly be more habitable than Mars on its best day. Yeah, but during the impact we need to be somewhere else. Making Mars habitable for a year might be better than making Earth habitable during an impact.
- dividedbyzero 5y ago
  > Yeah, but during the impact we need to be somewhere else. Bunkers should be fine, the deep sea may be fine, moon will pretty much certainly be fine, high orbits should be fine as well. If you can manage to be on the other side of the planet, surviving the impact should be quite manageable if you have the kind of resources that can build a deep, shock-resistant bunker, and you should be able to do that much, much easier than build Mars colonies that are independent enough for this, and large enough to not just save a hundred people. After the initial effects wear off, you're probably facing conditions topside that are absolutely brutal, but still way less so than Mars with its toxic soil and dust, thin, useless atmosphere, supercold temperatures, very low gravity, scarcity of easily-accessible nitrogen (let alone easily accessible metals), high radiation environment, ... Basically, if you can set up a naval nuclear reactor and some lighting and greenhouses, you should be able to get food production going in spite of any realistic asteroid winter, the air will still be breathable, the soils will still work for agriculture, ... and you can make use of all that survives of our artifacts and civilization, which should be a lot. Mining former cities for resources could be a big jump-start.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  A lot of lifeforms survived the meteor that killed the dinosaurs. Almost 100% lifeforms would y not survive even 10 minutes on mars on a best sol.
bryanlarsen 5y ago
Earth with structures designed to withstand Chicxulub will be more habitable than Mars with structures designed to withstand Mars, sure. However, Earth doesn't have structures designed to withstand Chicxulub, there is no incentive structure to build a substantial number of them and we have no way of testing them even if we had them. Earth without structures designed to withstand Chicxulub is less habitable than Mars during Chicxulub. And without a substantial atmosphere Mars is much less vulnerable to Chicxulub than Earth is, and the structures on Mars would mitigate it much better than Earth's structures mitigate it here on Earth.