4 ms·

It’s would be orders of magnitude easier to make this “dead” planet more hospitable than to do the equivalent to Mars.

by bumby 4y ago

dijit 4y ago
this is the conclusion I keep coming to also; anything we develop that makes mars habitable would do so infinitely more effectively and easily here on earth. I guess that's not sexy but there is a part of me that looks on this planet with fresh eyes when I learn more about the universe. What we have is astonishingly beautiful and we will miss it terribly if leaving became the only option. So logically, emotionally, we shouldn't be looking at mars as longingly as we do.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > anything we develop that makes mars habitable would do so infinitely more effectively and easily here on earth This experiment turns CO2 into oxygen and expels CO. How is that “infinitely more effective and eas[y] here on Earth”?
  - dijit 4y ago
    Because we don’t have to ship the equipment to another celestial body where it cannot be maintained or debugged? If you’re suggesting that it has no use on earth then… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmo...
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > you’re suggesting that it has no use on earth Mars’ atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide with most of the remainder being inert gases [1]. That not only means this reaction yields a meaningful amount of oxygen per operating cycle [2], it also means you aren’t superheating corrosive gases. This is technology that has no use on Earth. It’s tremendously useful on Mars. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars [2] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abp8636 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abp8636
      - dijit 4y ago
        From my perspective anything we do to make mars habitable can make earth habitable. If you’re telling me that a corrosive byproduct cannot be captured or reused: then that is likely also true of mars.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > anything we do to make mars habitable can make earth habitable This is fundamentally false for the device this article highlights. Different chemistries. > you’re telling me that a corrosive byproduct cannot be captured or reused: then that is likely also true of mars It’s not. There isn’t oxygen. Superheating 95% CO2 with inert gases and running it over a catalyst in a device that can do about sixty operating cycles makes sense. Superheating a 20% oxygen gas mix [1] is immediately problematic for most metals; doing it to convert the 0.04% CO2 to oxygen makes no sense. (While pumping a bunch of CO into the atmosphere [2].) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth [2] https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/air-quality/carbon-monoxide https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/air-quality/carbon-mono...
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- ballenf 4y ago
  We should look at it about as longingly as as an offsite backup for critical data. If you only have one habitable planet, you have none. There's no need to romanticize our interest in Mars. It just becomes prudent at some point after becoming possible to evaluate other planets. Maybe we're close to that point, maybe not, but the only way answer that question is to begin the process of figuring out the cost to solve the challenges. The current equivalent GDP going toward Mars is rounding error on a rounding error on world total economic activity. There's probably more economic activity on discussions about Mars than there is in actual work toward Mars.
swarnie 4y ago
I'll text that to my Pakistani mate, presumably he can get SMS underwater
- bumby 4y ago
  Are you implying he’d prefer to migrate to Mars than for humans to address climate change on Earth?

It’s would be orders of magnitude easier to make this “dead” planet more hospitable than to do the equivalent to Mars.

by bumby 4y ago

It’s would be orders of magnitude easier to make this “dead” planet more hospitable than to do the equivalent to Mars.

this is the conclusion I keep coming to also; anything we develop that makes mars habitable would do so infinitely more effectively and easily here on earth. I guess that's not sexy but there is a part of me that looks on this planet with fresh eyes when I learn more about the universe. What we have is astonishingly beautiful and we will miss it terribly if leaving became the only option. So logically, emotionally, we shouldn't be looking at mars as longingly as we do.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> anything we develop that makes mars habitable would do so infinitely more effectively and easily here on earth This experiment turns CO2 into oxygen and expels CO. How is that “infinitely more effective and eas[y] here on Earth”?
- dijit 4y ago
  Because we don’t have to ship the equipment to another celestial body where it cannot be maintained or debugged? If you’re suggesting that it has no use on earth then… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmo...
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > you’re suggesting that it has no use on earth Mars’ atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide with most of the remainder being inert gases [1]. That not only means this reaction yields a meaningful amount of oxygen per operating cycle [2], it also means you aren’t superheating corrosive gases. This is technology that has no use on Earth. It’s tremendously useful on Mars. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars [2] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abp8636 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abp8636
    - dijit 4y ago
      From my perspective anything we do to make mars habitable can make earth habitable. If you’re telling me that a corrosive byproduct cannot be captured or reused: then that is likely also true of mars.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > anything we do to make mars habitable can make earth habitable This is fundamentally false for the device this article highlights. Different chemistries. > you’re telling me that a corrosive byproduct cannot be captured or reused: then that is likely also true of mars It’s not. There isn’t oxygen. Superheating 95% CO2 with inert gases and running it over a catalyst in a device that can do about sixty operating cycles makes sense. Superheating a 20% oxygen gas mix [1] is immediately problematic for most metals; doing it to convert the 0.04% CO2 to oxygen makes no sense. (While pumping a bunch of CO into the atmosphere [2].) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth [2] https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/air-quality/carbon-monoxide https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/air-quality/carbon-mono...
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
ballenf 4y ago
We should look at it about as longingly as as an offsite backup for critical data. If you only have one habitable planet, you have none. There's no need to romanticize our interest in Mars. It just becomes prudent at some point after becoming possible to evaluate other planets. Maybe we're close to that point, maybe not, but the only way answer that question is to begin the process of figuring out the cost to solve the challenges. The current equivalent GDP going toward Mars is rounding error on a rounding error on world total economic activity. There's probably more economic activity on discussions about Mars than there is in actual work toward Mars.

swarnie 4y ago

I'll text that to my Pakistani mate, presumably he can get SMS underwater

bumby 4y ago
Are you implying he’d prefer to migrate to Mars than for humans to address climate change on Earth?