4 ms·

Earth still has vast oceans and polar deserts which are virtually unclaimed and uninhabitable, yet still offer a more inviting environment than mars: ample wate

Earth still has vast oceans and polar deserts which are virtually unclaimed and uninhabitable, yet still offer a more inviting environment than mars: ample water, protection from radiation, in some cases more available solar power, low-latency communication with other inhabited areas, etc. There's an opportunity to work toward the kinds of radical self-sufficiency that would be needed on Mars without leaving the planet.

api 5y ago
I see this brought up often and I think it glosses over a lot of things. Antarctica is a common red herring in these discussions. It's illegal to settle there, otherwise there already would be settlements likely bootstrapped through mining. The entire continent is locked down by treaty. Seasteading is technically possible but there are many issues once it gets to the point of declaring oneself a nation state. It's also worse in certain respects than Mars. The climate is obviously far better, but you can't mine anything and land in the form of floating platforms is vastly more costly. Lastly though, I really think space as a frontier is qualitatively different and people know it. Compared to the scale of current or even foreseeable future human civilization, it's infinite and near inexhaustible even without positing any kind of FTL or near-light-speed travel. The solar system alone is just monstrous. It's called space for a reason.
- kitsunesoba 5y ago
  > Lastly though, I really think space as a frontier is qualitatively different and people know it. Compared to the scale of current or even foreseeable future human civilization, it's infinite and near inexhaustible even without positing any kind of FTL or near-light-speed travel. The solar system alone is just monstrous. It's called space for a reason. This is really key. Once the cat is out of the bag with spacefaring being democratized and relatively cheap, the frontier is truly endless. It won’t peter out like all of Earth’s frontiers have — space will always have more wilderness than we have people.
  - giantrobot 5y ago
    > democratized and relatively cheap This is not and is unlikely to ever be a thing. Every human surviving off Earth needs to carry a minimum amount of infrastructure with them at all times. They need air, heat, water, and food (roughly in that order). None of those things can be found in usable quantities off Earth. They also can't be easily fashioned out of local materials. So even your cheapest most democratized scrap yard rocket needs reliable life support. It also needs a lot of fuel to actually get to a "frontier". Willpower and desire don't have enough mass to provide propulsion. Like with life support fuel for any given rocket is not easily synthesized from local materials. Doing anything in space requires expensive infrastructure and complicated supply chains. Promises of 3D printed rockets from Mars rocks are as realistic and practical as rockets constructed of unicorn bone and powered by dragon farts. The cheapest and most democratized things you can send into space currently are CubeSats. They are several orders of magnitude away from "cheap and democratized" manned spaceflight.
    - api 5y ago
      You could have said the same thing about air travel if you were in the 1930s. Ultimately the limiting factor is energy. If we can transition Earth's power systems to renewable and nuclear power our remaining fossil fuels (mostly gas) will become cheap and can be used for space flight. In space nuclear fission is much less problematic than it is down here inside a biosphere. If we crack fusion we are done and eventually nobody else in the galaxy will be wondering about a Fermi paradox.
      - giantrobot 5y ago
        > You could have said the same thing about air travel if you were in the 1930s. Space travel and air travel are not comparable in the way you're implying. For instance the Taylor Cub (predecessor of the Piper Cub) came out in 1930. A little 500lb plane could carry two people ~200 miles. It could do this because the atmosphere does a lot of the work lifting the plane and the crew doesn't need to bring their own life support system everywhere they go. A tear in their jacket wouldn't cause them to suffocate. Space travel has much higher minimum requirements to simply keep a human alive. Humans need their life support systems, power for the same, and ample supplies of everything because there's none wherever they're going. > Ultimately the limiting factor is energy. That is the first of several problems. > In space nuclear fission is much less problematic than it is down here inside a biosphere. Fission has its own problems in space. Reactor design is more complicated due to lack of gravity, the non-trivial challenges of excess heat, and no ready sources of a working fluid for turbines. > If we crack fusion we are done and eventually nobody else in the galaxy will be wondering about a Fermi paradox. Marginally better than fission but has several of the same problems. Heat is an even bigger issue to deal with because some sort of fusion engine is always wanting to melt itself. Space travel is hard. It's not at all safe to assume it can ever be "cheap" or democratized. Air travel is just not a good comparison. The atmosphere does a lot of the work involved in flying. In space there's no medium to work in. You've got to take everything with you everywhere you go.

api 5y ago

I see this brought up often and I think it glosses over a lot of things. Antarctica is a common red herring in these discussions. It's illegal to settle there, otherwise there already would be settlements likely bootstrapped through mining. The entire continent is locked down by treaty. Seasteading is technically possible but there are many issues once it gets to the point of declaring oneself a nation state. It's also worse in certain respects than Mars. The climate is obviously far better, but you can't mine anything and land in the form of floating platforms is vastly more costly. Lastly though, I really think space as a frontier is qualitatively different and people know it. Compared to the scale of current or even foreseeable future human civilization, it's infinite and near inexhaustible even without positing any kind of FTL or near-light-speed travel. The solar system alone is just monstrous. It's called space for a reason.

kitsunesoba 5y ago
> Lastly though, I really think space as a frontier is qualitatively different and people know it. Compared to the scale of current or even foreseeable future human civilization, it's infinite and near inexhaustible even without positing any kind of FTL or near-light-speed travel. The solar system alone is just monstrous. It's called space for a reason. This is really key. Once the cat is out of the bag with spacefaring being democratized and relatively cheap, the frontier is truly endless. It won’t peter out like all of Earth’s frontiers have — space will always have more wilderness than we have people.
- giantrobot 5y ago
  > democratized and relatively cheap This is not and is unlikely to ever be a thing. Every human surviving off Earth needs to carry a minimum amount of infrastructure with them at all times. They need air, heat, water, and food (roughly in that order). None of those things can be found in usable quantities off Earth. They also can't be easily fashioned out of local materials. So even your cheapest most democratized scrap yard rocket needs reliable life support. It also needs a lot of fuel to actually get to a "frontier". Willpower and desire don't have enough mass to provide propulsion. Like with life support fuel for any given rocket is not easily synthesized from local materials. Doing anything in space requires expensive infrastructure and complicated supply chains. Promises of 3D printed rockets from Mars rocks are as realistic and practical as rockets constructed of unicorn bone and powered by dragon farts. The cheapest and most democratized things you can send into space currently are CubeSats. They are several orders of magnitude away from "cheap and democratized" manned spaceflight.
  - api 5y ago
    You could have said the same thing about air travel if you were in the 1930s. Ultimately the limiting factor is energy. If we can transition Earth's power systems to renewable and nuclear power our remaining fossil fuels (mostly gas) will become cheap and can be used for space flight. In space nuclear fission is much less problematic than it is down here inside a biosphere. If we crack fusion we are done and eventually nobody else in the galaxy will be wondering about a Fermi paradox.
    - giantrobot 5y ago
      > You could have said the same thing about air travel if you were in the 1930s. Space travel and air travel are not comparable in the way you're implying. For instance the Taylor Cub (predecessor of the Piper Cub) came out in 1930. A little 500lb plane could carry two people ~200 miles. It could do this because the atmosphere does a lot of the work lifting the plane and the crew doesn't need to bring their own life support system everywhere they go. A tear in their jacket wouldn't cause them to suffocate. Space travel has much higher minimum requirements to simply keep a human alive. Humans need their life support systems, power for the same, and ample supplies of everything because there's none wherever they're going. > Ultimately the limiting factor is energy. That is the first of several problems. > In space nuclear fission is much less problematic than it is down here inside a biosphere. Fission has its own problems in space. Reactor design is more complicated due to lack of gravity, the non-trivial challenges of excess heat, and no ready sources of a working fluid for turbines. > If we crack fusion we are done and eventually nobody else in the galaxy will be wondering about a Fermi paradox. Marginally better than fission but has several of the same problems. Heat is an even bigger issue to deal with because some sort of fusion engine is always wanting to melt itself. Space travel is hard. It's not at all safe to assume it can ever be "cheap" or democratized. Air travel is just not a good comparison. The atmosphere does a lot of the work involved in flying. In space there's no medium to work in. You've got to take everything with you everywhere you go.