9 ms·

Can't get the fascination with this desert? It's like post apocalyptic Earth.

by reset2023 4y ago

z3phyr 4y ago
Short answer: It is in space and relatively easier to get to than other planets in the system. It is a gateway to becoming space-faring civilization.
- idlewords 4y ago
  The second part of this answer is a non-sequitur. Why Mars in particular? The technology needed to get there doesn't carry over to any other destinations except the Moon and Venus, and it's much easier to build next-generation rockets on Earth. Why not just skip Mars and go straight to step 2?
  - xboxnolifes 4y ago
    It's not just the technology to get there we need. We need the technology to live there.
    - idlewords 4y ago
      Absolutely true, but my point is that there's no destination beyond Mars reachable with the spaceships we build to get there. So I don't get how it's some sort of gateway rather than a detour / dead end.
      - moloch-hai 4y ago
        The good news is we don't have anything to get to Mars with, either. SpaceX cans are comically inadequate.
  - mlindner 4y ago
    You need resources to build with. Venus isn't an option because you can't get resources from it. (If there's two things you need, it's energy, and physical materials.) The Moon is certainly an option, but while Mars is a desert, the moon is volcanic rock and never had active geology that concentrates metals. Additionally while Mars has an atmosphere of sorts, the Moon has none which means anything mounted on the surface of the moon is in an equivalent environment to being in deep space. This means there's zero protection (besides the planetary body itself) from radiation and micrometeorites (and bigger meteorites). They rain down constantly on the moon slowly carving divots into whatever you build things out of or punching holes in them. Also I disagree that the technology to get to Mars or the Moon is inapplicable to elsewhere in the solar system. And most of the other options are generally worse than Mars for one reason or another. I'd like to hear what you think "Step 2" actually is.
    - idlewords 4y ago
      We have resources at home!
      - mlindner 4y ago
        We do! And for a long while most of the resources will come from Earth. However you can't keep doing that forever as the costs will grow to an unsustainable level. If you could magic up a civilization on Mars today, it'd exponentially cheaper to launch materials from Mars to elsewhere in the solar system than to launch those same materials from Earth. Similarly it'd be cheaper to dig those materials out of the ground for use on Mars than it would be for them to be used directly on Mars. Counterintuitively, it's cheaper to launch materials from Mars to Earth's Moon than it is to launch them from Earth's surface to the Moon.
      - mlindner 4y ago
        One note on the "exponentiality" in the other comment. Getting from Earth's surface to the moon (without staging) requires a rocket that is approximately 99% fuel by mass (calculated using rocket equation and engine performance of a high quality engine). That leaves you with very little margin for building a rocket's structure which means it needs to be built extremely carefully with little room for error. Also in order to get reasonable payloads, you need to make rockets of tremendous sizes in order to get reasonably sized payloads to locations. On the other hand a rocket that flies from Mars surface too Earth's moon only needs to be 90% fuel which is a lot easier to do with modern materials. This also means that you can carry significantly more payload as your total mass. With some napkin math, this allows you to launch, with the same rocket, from the surface of Mars to Earth's moon a payload 10 times bigger than if you launched it from Earth. The penalty you pay getting stuff out of Earth's gravity well is just simply huge.
  - lmm 4y ago
    > The technology needed to get there doesn't carry over to any other destinations except the Moon and Venus. The technology for living there, and some of the technology for going places, does. Would you really want to try to go to Epsilon Eridani without going to Mars first? > it's much easier to build next-generation rockets on Earth Ultimately probably not; Earth's gravity well is too deep. Mars is, AFAIK, the only place we could conceivably build a space elevator with current materials technology, so if we assume interstellar rockets will need to be built with materials from both asteroids and planets then Mars orbit is likely the best place for that.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      >Mars is, AFAIK, the only place we could conceivably build a space elevator with current materials technology That's not true: the Moon would be much easier. But if you're just comparing Mars to Earth, then definitely yes. Building a space elevator on Earth is sci-fi for now. I'm not sure about Mars, but on Moon it would be rather easy actually, since not only is the gravity 1/2 of Mars', but there's no pesky atmosphere.
      - lmm 4y ago
        > the Moon would be much easier Really? The moon's gravity is 1/2 or 1/3 that of Mars, but its angular velocity is about 1/27th.
algo_trader 4y ago
I logged in to un-down-vote you. Going to Mars is a legitimate goal. But i would also like to see a make-the-Sahara-green-(ish) program. Why not a Neom-but-in-a-viable-way program. ALso, an even bigger debate is Appolo-mission-to-Mars vs 10-other-unmanned-programs-for-the-Solar system.
- kitsunesoba 4y ago
  Intentionally radically altering the climate of large areas like the Sahara seems very dangerous in a way that nothing that could be done on other celestial bodies could ever be. Not that it shouldn’t be considered, but I think it calls for a far greater degree of caution than e.g. experiments to bring life to small domed areas of the surface of Mars.
  - idlewords 4y ago
    If you have the technology to make small domed oases, make them in the Sahara (or Antarctic, or wherever). No need to change the climate, and you save the cost of a Mars trip.
airstrike 4y ago
I upvoted you because it's a fair question, but I would argue it is easier to criticize than to offer solutions. What other solar system destination would you propose instead? It's not like we have a lot of convenient alternatives to choose from. I'd rather visit Mars than Venus, that's for sure.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  Venus is great! Come visit! Stay at the beautiful Hyatt Floating Resort! It's got everything you want - Earth temperature and pressure, lots of solar energy to power your every whim, beautiful sunrises and sunsets. Just don't visit the surface. It's really, really nasty down there.
- idlewords 4y ago
  We can visit everything for much less than the price of Mars if we drop the requirement to send people. There's cool stuff in the solar system and the future where you can flip between live feeds from every moon is much more fun than watching space dads sit in a radiation shelter on Mars for 17 months.
- abecedarius 4y ago
  There are asteroids in near-Earth orbits. There was a startup some years back hoping to exploit some of them.
kossTKR 4y ago
After researching this a bit it's mostly a money and reputation laundering scheme for the elite classes that millions of upper middle class westerners buy into to smokescreen what's wasted on war and geopolitical efforts to protect various western family dynasties hold on power. Even though it's a future that is grotesquely unfeasible and unwanted for anyone besides the richest 100 people on earth as as ultra decadent projects while 95% of the population on earth lives in societies on their way to collapse from resource depletion and rising inequality.
- ultramegachurch 4y ago
  This is a shockingly cynical and reductive take on Mars exploration. The enthusiasm for human exploration of the solar system is earnest and valid, and I assure you, not a cog in an international conspiracy. One doesn't have to choose between space exploration and addressing resource depletion/inequality. You can care about both.
  - melling 4y ago
    Yes, we could explore the solar system much more quickly and much more cheaply, if we simply leave out the humans. This has been explained repeatedly for decades. There will be more humans on Mars in 100 years, if we skip sending the humans now and develop the technology to automate process first. maybe someone can find Weinberg’s detailed explanation for others to read. https://www.space.com/4357-nobel-laureate-disses-nasa-manned-spaceflight.html https://www.space.com/4357-nobel-laureate-disses-nasa-manned...
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      >There will be more humans on Mars in 100 years, if we skip sending the humans now and develop the technology to automate process first. We can't do that anytime soon. We can't even reliably automate most manual labor jobs right now. We can do some neat stuff with robots, but we always need humans supervising them and ready to step in and reset things because the reliability is poor.
  - 4y ago
burkaman 4y ago
If you discovered a post apocalyptic Earth somewhere in the solar system, you wouldn't have any interest in checking it out? It's ok to say no to this, but just be aware that most people consider "because it's there" to be a legitimate and relatable answer to your question.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > most people consider "because it's there" to be a legitimate and relatable answer to your question I don't think hackers, explorers and founders have ever been most people.
  - burkaman 4y ago
    No, but most people think hacking, exploring, and founding stuff is cool even if they don't do it themselves.
    - bavila 4y ago
      What data do you have that demonstrates what "most" people think is "cool" in this respect?
  - sophacles 4y ago
    You are correct: historically hackers, explorers and founders are significantly more likely to respect "because I can" as a reason for doing something than the average person.
    - burkaman 4y ago
      I think "because it's there" is the more respectable subset of "because I can", covering stuff like climbing Mount Everest and venturing to the South Pole. "because I can" for me often implies something like asserting power over other people or just generally being an asshole.
- idlewords 4y ago
  Venus is the post-apocalyptic Earth you're looking for.
ipnon 4y ago
To be fair plenty of Earthlings say the same about their own planet. I for one am glad enough people do not share your opinion, which is completely valid, so that we can do the adventurous and exciting things that make life wonderful.
molsongolden 4y ago
> Earthers get to walk outside into the light, breathe pure air, look up at a blue sky, and see something that gives them hope. And what do they do? They look past that light, past that blue sky. They see the stars, and they think, 'Mine.' (from The Expanse)
- kitsunesoba 4y ago
  This is a great quote from a series I love, but I think it’s important to consider other angles. Earth, metaphorically speaking, is humanity’s “cave”. A very nice and comfortable cave of course, the possibility space for the development of our species is bounded by it. It’s in our best interest to develop the ability to venture beyond the cave for increasingly longer periods and eventually become able to live outside of it indefinitely. With this in mind, the moon is too close and convenient for long term self sufficiency to develop. Mars on the other hand is only reasonably accessible once every couple of years or so, which forces the issue of self-sufficiency right out of the gate. The first few decades of human presence there will be focused almost exclusively on self-sufficiency. This is important, because that means it has a far better chance of continuing to exist if/when political will for it wanes. The upper layers of the Venetian atmosphere may seem attractive at first glance but it has several impracticalities, namely having to stay permanently aloft and total inaccessibility of the resources on and below Venus’ surface. Will some take part in efforts to move beyond Earth’s surface with greed as a driving factor? Undoubtedly, but I don’t think it’s a valid reason to not do it.
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  So? That's what got us out of the caves in the first place. The first words spoken on Mars should be, "Cool. Now, how far is Jupiter from here?"
  - idlewords 4y ago
    We've known since Pioneer 11 that Jupiter is a no-go for the type of spaceships that can get to Mars. Too much radiation on the way, and too much around Jupiter. Mars is the end of the line until we can build spacecraft in the 10,000 ton range.
yrgulation 4y ago
Without the desire to explore and expand there would be no America. If the Spanish and Portuguese would have waited to solve all of humanity’s problems first and then set out to explore new worlds the world would be a different place today. Same with space exploration. It is in our dna as the most advanced life forms to go out there. It is also a duty to all life on this earth to expand beyond. Finding even a hint of former life on mars means life is a rule not an exception in the universe. Being able to colonise it means we can outsource all our destructive resource gathering to mars. Or even better we can live on it. Doing so would mean trade with earth and as a result development on a scale never seen before.
- HillRat 4y ago
  The Americas and Africa would probably like to have a word about the legacy of Spain and Portugal's decision to "explore new worlds"...
  - klyrs 4y ago
    - mlindner 4y ago
      The ride home is free because the vehicles need to come back anyway to carry more people. And not within our lifetimes will we be in a situation where people stop being the citizens of the country on Earth they are from.
      - ben_w 4y ago
        The vehicles have to come back, but the people have to eat and breathe on the way. And right now, I’m more than a little worried he’s heading the same way as the French royal family, even if "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" predates Marie Antoinette.
        mlindner 4y ago
verdenti 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
matheusmoreira 4y ago
It's an entire planet. Full of resources, land, opportunity for the entire human race if we could only get there and tame it. Surely everone can agree that it's a noble goal.
SoftTalker 4y ago
A post-apocalyptic Earth would still be much more inhabitable than Mars ever will be. Wildlife flourished in the Chernobyl exclusion zone.

Can't get the fascination with this desert? It's like post apocalyptic Earth.

Short answer: It is in space and relatively easier to get to than other planets in the system. It is a gateway to becoming space-faring civilization.

idlewords 4y ago
The second part of this answer is a non-sequitur. Why Mars in particular? The technology needed to get there doesn't carry over to any other destinations except the Moon and Venus, and it's much easier to build next-generation rockets on Earth. Why not just skip Mars and go straight to step 2?
- xboxnolifes 4y ago
  It's not just the technology to get there we need. We need the technology to live there.
  - idlewords 4y ago
    Absolutely true, but my point is that there's no destination beyond Mars reachable with the spaceships we build to get there. So I don't get how it's some sort of gateway rather than a detour / dead end.
    - moloch-hai 4y ago
      The good news is we don't have anything to get to Mars with, either. SpaceX cans are comically inadequate.
- mlindner 4y ago
  You need resources to build with. Venus isn't an option because you can't get resources from it. (If there's two things you need, it's energy, and physical materials.) The Moon is certainly an option, but while Mars is a desert, the moon is volcanic rock and never had active geology that concentrates metals. Additionally while Mars has an atmosphere of sorts, the Moon has none which means anything mounted on the surface of the moon is in an equivalent environment to being in deep space. This means there's zero protection (besides the planetary body itself) from radiation and micrometeorites (and bigger meteorites). They rain down constantly on the moon slowly carving divots into whatever you build things out of or punching holes in them. Also I disagree that the technology to get to Mars or the Moon is inapplicable to elsewhere in the solar system. And most of the other options are generally worse than Mars for one reason or another. I'd like to hear what you think "Step 2" actually is.
  - idlewords 4y ago
    We have resources at home!
    - mlindner 4y ago
      We do! And for a long while most of the resources will come from Earth. However you can't keep doing that forever as the costs will grow to an unsustainable level. If you could magic up a civilization on Mars today, it'd exponentially cheaper to launch materials from Mars to elsewhere in the solar system than to launch those same materials from Earth. Similarly it'd be cheaper to dig those materials out of the ground for use on Mars than it would be for them to be used directly on Mars. Counterintuitively, it's cheaper to launch materials from Mars to Earth's Moon than it is to launch them from Earth's surface to the Moon.
    - mlindner 4y ago
      One note on the "exponentiality" in the other comment. Getting from Earth's surface to the moon (without staging) requires a rocket that is approximately 99% fuel by mass (calculated using rocket equation and engine performance of a high quality engine). That leaves you with very little margin for building a rocket's structure which means it needs to be built extremely carefully with little room for error. Also in order to get reasonable payloads, you need to make rockets of tremendous sizes in order to get reasonably sized payloads to locations. On the other hand a rocket that flies from Mars surface too Earth's moon only needs to be 90% fuel which is a lot easier to do with modern materials. This also means that you can carry significantly more payload as your total mass. With some napkin math, this allows you to launch, with the same rocket, from the surface of Mars to Earth's moon a payload 10 times bigger than if you launched it from Earth. The penalty you pay getting stuff out of Earth's gravity well is just simply huge.
- lmm 4y ago
  > The technology needed to get there doesn't carry over to any other destinations except the Moon and Venus. The technology for living there, and some of the technology for going places, does. Would you really want to try to go to Epsilon Eridani without going to Mars first? > it's much easier to build next-generation rockets on Earth Ultimately probably not; Earth's gravity well is too deep. Mars is, AFAIK, the only place we could conceivably build a space elevator with current materials technology, so if we assume interstellar rockets will need to be built with materials from both asteroids and planets then Mars orbit is likely the best place for that.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    >Mars is, AFAIK, the only place we could conceivably build a space elevator with current materials technology That's not true: the Moon would be much easier. But if you're just comparing Mars to Earth, then definitely yes. Building a space elevator on Earth is sci-fi for now. I'm not sure about Mars, but on Moon it would be rather easy actually, since not only is the gravity 1/2 of Mars', but there's no pesky atmosphere.
    - lmm 4y ago
      > the Moon would be much easier Really? The moon's gravity is 1/2 or 1/3 that of Mars, but its angular velocity is about 1/27th.

algo_trader 4y ago

I logged in to un-down-vote you. Going to Mars is a legitimate goal. But i would also like to see a make-the-Sahara-green-(ish) program. Why not a Neom-but-in-a-viable-way program. ALso, an even bigger debate is Appolo-mission-to-Mars vs 10-other-unmanned-programs-for-the-Solar system.

kitsunesoba 4y ago
Intentionally radically altering the climate of large areas like the Sahara seems very dangerous in a way that nothing that could be done on other celestial bodies could ever be. Not that it shouldn’t be considered, but I think it calls for a far greater degree of caution than e.g. experiments to bring life to small domed areas of the surface of Mars.
- idlewords 4y ago
  If you have the technology to make small domed oases, make them in the Sahara (or Antarctic, or wherever). No need to change the climate, and you save the cost of a Mars trip.

airstrike 4y ago

I upvoted you because it's a fair question, but I would argue it is easier to criticize than to offer solutions. What other solar system destination would you propose instead? It's not like we have a lot of convenient alternatives to choose from. I'd rather visit Mars than Venus, that's for sure.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
Venus is great! Come visit! Stay at the beautiful Hyatt Floating Resort! It's got everything you want - Earth temperature and pressure, lots of solar energy to power your every whim, beautiful sunrises and sunsets. Just don't visit the surface. It's really, really nasty down there.
idlewords 4y ago
We can visit everything for much less than the price of Mars if we drop the requirement to send people. There's cool stuff in the solar system and the future where you can flip between live feeds from every moon is much more fun than watching space dads sit in a radiation shelter on Mars for 17 months.
abecedarius 4y ago
There are asteroids in near-Earth orbits. There was a startup some years back hoping to exploit some of them.

kossTKR 4y ago

After researching this a bit it's mostly a money and reputation laundering scheme for the elite classes that millions of upper middle class westerners buy into to smokescreen what's wasted on war and geopolitical efforts to protect various western family dynasties hold on power. Even though it's a future that is grotesquely unfeasible and unwanted for anyone besides the richest 100 people on earth as as ultra decadent projects while 95% of the population on earth lives in societies on their way to collapse from resource depletion and rising inequality.

ultramegachurch 4y ago
This is a shockingly cynical and reductive take on Mars exploration. The enthusiasm for human exploration of the solar system is earnest and valid, and I assure you, not a cog in an international conspiracy. One doesn't have to choose between space exploration and addressing resource depletion/inequality. You can care about both.
- melling 4y ago
  Yes, we could explore the solar system much more quickly and much more cheaply, if we simply leave out the humans. This has been explained repeatedly for decades. There will be more humans on Mars in 100 years, if we skip sending the humans now and develop the technology to automate process first. maybe someone can find Weinberg’s detailed explanation for others to read. https://www.space.com/4357-nobel-laureate-disses-nasa-manned-spaceflight.html https://www.space.com/4357-nobel-laureate-disses-nasa-manned...
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    >There will be more humans on Mars in 100 years, if we skip sending the humans now and develop the technology to automate process first. We can't do that anytime soon. We can't even reliably automate most manual labor jobs right now. We can do some neat stuff with robots, but we always need humans supervising them and ready to step in and reset things because the reliability is poor.
- 4y ago

burkaman 4y ago

If you discovered a post apocalyptic Earth somewhere in the solar system, you wouldn't have any interest in checking it out? It's ok to say no to this, but just be aware that most people consider "because it's there" to be a legitimate and relatable answer to your question.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> most people consider "because it's there" to be a legitimate and relatable answer to your question I don't think hackers, explorers and founders have ever been most people.
- burkaman 4y ago
  No, but most people think hacking, exploring, and founding stuff is cool even if they don't do it themselves.
  - bavila 4y ago
    What data do you have that demonstrates what "most" people think is "cool" in this respect?
- sophacles 4y ago
  You are correct: historically hackers, explorers and founders are significantly more likely to respect "because I can" as a reason for doing something than the average person.
  - burkaman 4y ago
    I think "because it's there" is the more respectable subset of "because I can", covering stuff like climbing Mount Everest and venturing to the South Pole. "because I can" for me often implies something like asserting power over other people or just generally being an asshole.
idlewords 4y ago
Venus is the post-apocalyptic Earth you're looking for.

ipnon 4y ago

To be fair plenty of Earthlings say the same about their own planet. I for one am glad enough people do not share your opinion, which is completely valid, so that we can do the adventurous and exciting things that make life wonderful.

molsongolden 4y ago

> Earthers get to walk outside into the light, breathe pure air, look up at a blue sky, and see something that gives them hope. And what do they do? They look past that light, past that blue sky. They see the stars, and they think, 'Mine.' (from The Expanse)

kitsunesoba 4y ago
This is a great quote from a series I love, but I think it’s important to consider other angles. Earth, metaphorically speaking, is humanity’s “cave”. A very nice and comfortable cave of course, the possibility space for the development of our species is bounded by it. It’s in our best interest to develop the ability to venture beyond the cave for increasingly longer periods and eventually become able to live outside of it indefinitely. With this in mind, the moon is too close and convenient for long term self sufficiency to develop. Mars on the other hand is only reasonably accessible once every couple of years or so, which forces the issue of self-sufficiency right out of the gate. The first few decades of human presence there will be focused almost exclusively on self-sufficiency. This is important, because that means it has a far better chance of continuing to exist if/when political will for it wanes. The upper layers of the Venetian atmosphere may seem attractive at first glance but it has several impracticalities, namely having to stay permanently aloft and total inaccessibility of the resources on and below Venus’ surface. Will some take part in efforts to move beyond Earth’s surface with greed as a driving factor? Undoubtedly, but I don’t think it’s a valid reason to not do it.
CamperBob2 4y ago
So? That's what got us out of the caves in the first place. The first words spoken on Mars should be, "Cool. Now, how far is Jupiter from here?"
- idlewords 4y ago
  We've known since Pioneer 11 that Jupiter is a no-go for the type of spaceships that can get to Mars. Too much radiation on the way, and too much around Jupiter. Mars is the end of the line until we can build spacecraft in the 10,000 ton range.

yrgulation 4y ago

Without the desire to explore and expand there would be no America. If the Spanish and Portuguese would have waited to solve all of humanity’s problems first and then set out to explore new worlds the world would be a different place today. Same with space exploration. It is in our dna as the most advanced life forms to go out there. It is also a duty to all life on this earth to expand beyond. Finding even a hint of former life on mars means life is a rule not an exception in the universe. Being able to colonise it means we can outsource all our destructive resource gathering to mars. Or even better we can live on it. Doing so would mean trade with earth and as a result development on a scale never seen before.

HillRat 4y ago
The Americas and Africa would probably like to have a word about the legacy of Spain and Portugal's decision to "explore new worlds"...
- klyrs 4y ago
  - mlindner 4y ago
    The ride home is free because the vehicles need to come back anyway to carry more people. And not within our lifetimes will we be in a situation where people stop being the citizens of the country on Earth they are from.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      The vehicles have to come back, but the people have to eat and breathe on the way. And right now, I’m more than a little worried he’s heading the same way as the French royal family, even if "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" predates Marie Antoinette.
      - mlindner 4y ago

verdenti 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

matheusmoreira 4y ago

It's an entire planet. Full of resources, land, opportunity for the entire human race if we could only get there and tame it. Surely everone can agree that it's a noble goal.

SoftTalker 4y ago

A post-apocalyptic Earth would still be much more inhabitable than Mars ever will be. Wildlife flourished in the Chernobyl exclusion zone.