17 ms·

> Let's figure out how to house and sustain, say, 20K people in Antarctica for 100 years before we even dream about doing the same on Mars. Why? We established

> Let's figure out how to house and sustain, say, 20K people in Antarctica for 100 years before we even dream about doing the same on Mars. Why? We established a colony there in the 50s and by now the population of Antarctica ranges from 1K to 5K people depending on the season. We could build nuclear reactors and mining facilities and indoor vertical farms and a whole bunch of other industry to make the continent self sufficient and import more people but... why? We really won't learn much more there than we can from the ISS agriculture experiments, McMurdo's existing research, how Saudi Arabia and the other rich states grow and survive in extreme environments, and so on. And you want to delay everything while we twiddle our thumbs for another century? We need to aim higher to create the kind of cross disciplinary projects and environments that lead to real "innovation." We need to go into space - not Mars yet because there really is nothing to do there until we get our non-robotic space-footing closer to home - but we need to move on to a less pedestrian approach that pushes the boundaries. We need near Earth asteroid mining to understand the complexities of resource extraction in space, we need lunar colonies to study the day to day realities/psychology/etc of space colonization, we need orbital manufacturing so we can start adapting the lessons and tools of the industrial revolution to zero-G and convection-less environments, we need to continue nuclear rocketry research to improve our ISP and get real SSTO to solve the recovery problem once and for all, and so on. We're not going to make any progress on those problems in Antarctica and Mars will always be two decades away just like fusion.

giantg2 4y ago
The obvious answer to "why" is that you can use Antarctica as a low(er) cost, low risk, practice run. Similar to space tech of the 60s, the tech developed this way could have a big impact on many areas of life. And yes, it won't solve everything, nor give us a second planet. Why should anyone do anything, really?
- saberdancer 4y ago
  Hard thing in living on Mars is not the cold, it is the lack of oxygen or easily accessible water. All of these are abundant on Antarctica so it is not really a practice run. I see little point in exploring this on Antarctica which is why I believe no one really is entertaining idea of this type of test run on Antarctica.
  - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
    Sealing yourself off from the abundant water and oxygen in Antarctica seems pretty easy though.
- kiratp 4y ago
  Antarctica has the same gravity and radiation levels (magnetosphere) as everywhere on Earth. In HN speak - “to learn to build a filesystem, build a web server first!”
  - wruza 4y ago
    Raising radiation levels is not a problem here on earth at all. Not sure about gravity and health effects, maybe it can be simulated with some amphetamine + sedative cocktails.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
jcranmer 4y ago
> We could build nuclear reactors and mining facilities and indoor vertical farms and a whole bunch of other industry to make the continent self sufficient and import more people but... why? We really won't learn much more there than we can from the ISS agriculture experiments, McMurdo's existing research, how Saudi Arabia and the other rich states grow and survive in extreme environments, and so on. The reason why is because you will learn a lot more by doing that stuff. The things that are going to doom a first Mars colony attempt isn't necessarily something like "we don't know how to grow plants on Mars" but "we don't know how to build a proper door for the Martian environment" (inspiration for this is taken from https://brr.fyi/posts/doors-of-mcmurdo https://brr.fyi/posts/doors-of-mcmurdo, which has appeared on HN recently). If your ultimate goal is to build a self-sustaining interplanetary colony, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that maybe we should start by trying to figure out how to build a self-sustaining colony anywhere inhospitable first because it's never been done before, and all previous attempts have failed.
- ocdtrekkie 4y ago
  But we... have already mostly done that in Antarctica already. There's not a lot more to learn by moving a few thousand more people to a particularly unpleasant place to live.
  - mvnuweucxqokii 4y ago
    Is Antarctica self-sustaining?
    - ocdtrekkie 4y ago
      No, but there's also little we gain from trying to make it so. We know how to operate all sorts of things in Antarctica, and anything else we bring there just... needs to be operated pretty much the same way.
      - moloch-hai 4y ago
        Finding out we can't, yet, would be pretty important.
baron816 4y ago
I think this whole argument boils down to "people need to be inspired to do something great". Settling Antarctica isn't as inspiring as colonizing Mars. But in my estimation, colonizing Mars would run out of steam really quickly. Mars is horribly inhospitable, yes, but it's also pretty boring. There isn't that much geological diversity, and there's no life. You wouldn't want to take a vacation there. I know there's going to be a lot of people here who are going to say "No! Mars is really cool!" The people here aren't normal. Living in a cave underground without being able to go outside and see the sun or take a walk is a nightmare for most people. Landing on Mars could inspire lots of people. But once it's done, its mystique is just going to wear off. People will lose interest and it'll be about as interesting as Antarctica. And then what?
- mikea1 4y ago
  > People will lose interest and it'll be about as interesting as Antarctica. And then what? Sports! Imagine playing basketball (or football, etc.) on a dome on Mars with less than half the gravity of Earth. People back on Earth would love to watch it. People on Mars would love to play it.
  - baron816 4y ago
    I actually think this would be a great idea...for the Moon. Pro-athletes making millions of dollars per year won't want to spend their whole lives in a desolate, extremely remote desert. The Moon has a much more reasonable commute. And I think some new sport would need to be invented.
    - lostlogin 4y ago
      Maybe the sport is sending them there? It was tried with Australia, so maybe Mars is the new frontier? Said as a joke or sarcasm or something.
  - arkh 4y ago
    We could already try for sports in Earth Orbit. 0-G sport, 3D terrain: the inflatable habitat projects could be a way to get some big enclosure.
jiggawatts 4y ago
What we have on Antarctica is an outpost, not a colony. It's made up of habitats, not homes. It has virtually no local industry, and cannot support itself. The only way it could endure for longer than its food reserves is by fishing, which is obviously not an option on Mars. We haven't even solved the easy case where water and oxygen are available in unlimited quantities, let alone the much harder scenario of space or another planet.
- Ferrotin 4y ago
  That is because of a treaty, not because of inability.
  - idlewords 4y ago
    There's a similar treaty preventing Mars settlement.
    - 493579620678 4y ago
      I don't think that's true. What is the alleged treaty called? The Antarctic Treaty binds the contracting states to prohibit individuals from doing various things in Antarctica, the Outer Space Treaty doesn't really do that, and arguably does the opposite by prohibiting territorial claims. Regardless, I don't think any treaty should be taken very seriously. They will both be violated whenever it's expedient to violate them.
      - idlewords 4y ago
        Quoting the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, "States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies."
        DonHopkins 4y ago
        The 1960's definition of "harmful contamination" sure leaves a lot of wiggle room.
nine_k 4y ago
Near-Earth asteroid mining? Is there anything close and worth mining? AFAIK most asteroids, including those containing valuable heavy metals like platinum, are in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter orbits. Which is significantly farther than Mars. I more easily believe in mining rocks on Moon as cool souvenirs. (And as a first step in developing the technology.)
- mulmen 4y ago
  Near Earth asteroids are rich in experience.
- danjac 4y ago
  Just as with scientific research, asteroid mining will be the domain of robots. There's no economic case for sending humans for that job, and AI is improving year on year. So sadly no Belters, whatever the value of mining space rocks.
- m4rtink 4y ago
  Even a completely useless piece of rock is already a piece of rock in space. It can be used for shielding, counterweight for a spinning habitat, melted into simple shapes to support your habitats, etc.. You can even use it for propulsion - fling it away with a mass driver or vaporize with an arc-jet through a thruster nozzle!
8n4vidtmkvmk 4y ago
we haven't solved vertical farming yet. it's not energy efficient. i imagine its even harder/more expensive in Antarctica to keep the plants warm enough. cheap and clean energy production is where we should spend our money.
- ben_w 4y ago
  I'm not a farmer so I may be way off, but I thought the one thing we had done with vertical farming was beat natural energy efficiency? Photosynthesis doesn't use sunlight all that well, PV + wavelength tuned LED can turn the same amount of sunlight into more biology. But! Farmland is dirt cheap, so that's more of a solution in search of a problem than anything else.
  - 8n4vidtmkvmk 4y ago
    You mean efficiency in terms of the plants absorbing the energy? Probably. But in most parts of the world it's still cheaper to just use more land.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      Yes to the question. Also, agreed to the final point. Plus, the comparison shouldn't be "open farmland vs. PV+LED", it should be "for the resources cost of PV+LED, what can you build in the way of polytunnel or greenhouse?" Which in turn reminds me of this YouTube Mars botany simulator, whose validity I can't help but doubt, but which is nevertheless moderately interesting: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKhDkilF5o6-Hfsnhn_HFxjJ0jz45D3oE https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKhDkilF5o6-Hfsnhn_HFxjJ0...
- saberdancer 4y ago
  Energy efficiency vs outdoor farming with Sun is not applicable to any Mars colony. You can be very inefficient if it is your only method of producing food.
rtpg 4y ago
> We need near Earth asteroid mining to understand the complexities of resource extraction in space, we need lunar colonies to study the day to day realities/psychology/etc of space colonization We already know about the realities of space colonization: it’s not possible. People in space for a month already have permanent health defects. If you are up there you have to constantly be training your body to not disintegrate. Unlike other places where there are living beings, there is nothing in space for a reason!! People don’t want to accept that space science fiction is as real as Middle Earth or Hogwarts, but there is already an abundance of evidence that the human body is not capable of existing for years on end in space.
- _joel 4y ago
  People said just over 100 years ago that we'd never be able to fly, yet here we are. We're welll aware of the issues but there are solutions. I mean, we happen to exist in space, so it's not impossible, is it.
  - otabdeveloper4 4y ago
    People said just over 100 years ago that magic wands are not real and wizards don't exist, yet here we are. (Magic still doesn't exist. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯)
    - _joel 4y ago
      "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
      - tsujamin 4y ago
        “When one begins to live by habit and by quotation, one has begun to stop living.”
    - m4rtink 4y ago
      I'm not so sure - I have this slab of crystal I can use to talk talk to people on the other side of the Earth, see things from above and make things do my bidding without touching them. And apparently it can transfer ideas in text form to your head. Also looks like I can fly if I book the right tickets.
tasuki 4y ago
> how Saudi Arabia and the other rich states grow and survive in extreme environments Mostly slave labour and infinite oil money?
- roboben 4y ago
  Was thinking the same: Mostly with huge imports of external resources, whatever they will be but surely not accessible in space.
antonvs 4y ago
Your “why” questions apply just as much to sending humans into space. Sending machines makes sense. Sending humans, not so much.
- mulmen 4y ago
  Becoming a multi planetary species is the end. Machines are merely a means to that end.
  - antonvs 4y ago
    Becoming a multi-planetary species is a fantasy which only seems plausible when you’ve watched too much science fiction, and don’t have a good understanding of the physical, biological, technological, economic, and political challenges that prevent it from happening.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
AngryData 4y ago
It would provide proof of concept and troubleshooting for many technologies which Mars colony proponents seem to think already exist and they can just buy or slap together on short notice. If nobody can manage a self-sufficient biodome on Earth, there is basically no chance of it working in a much harsher and demanding environment. Mars is a harsher environment than actual empty space, you can't just toss a space capsule onto the surface and expect to live in it for the next 2 years even if you had the food and power and extra parts.
xnx 4y ago
Trying to escape the confines of Earth in our fragile meat-bag bodies is probably 100x less practical than escaping the confines of our fragile meat-bag bodies.

giantg2 4y ago

The obvious answer to "why" is that you can use Antarctica as a low(er) cost, low risk, practice run. Similar to space tech of the 60s, the tech developed this way could have a big impact on many areas of life. And yes, it won't solve everything, nor give us a second planet. Why should anyone do anything, really?

saberdancer 4y ago
Hard thing in living on Mars is not the cold, it is the lack of oxygen or easily accessible water. All of these are abundant on Antarctica so it is not really a practice run. I see little point in exploring this on Antarctica which is why I believe no one really is entertaining idea of this type of test run on Antarctica.
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  Sealing yourself off from the abundant water and oxygen in Antarctica seems pretty easy though.
kiratp 4y ago
Antarctica has the same gravity and radiation levels (magnetosphere) as everywhere on Earth. In HN speak - “to learn to build a filesystem, build a web server first!”
- wruza 4y ago
  Raising radiation levels is not a problem here on earth at all. Not sure about gravity and health effects, maybe it can be simulated with some amphetamine + sedative cocktails.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

jcranmer 4y ago

> We could build nuclear reactors and mining facilities and indoor vertical farms and a whole bunch of other industry to make the continent self sufficient and import more people but... why? We really won't learn much more there than we can from the ISS agriculture experiments, McMurdo's existing research, how Saudi Arabia and the other rich states grow and survive in extreme environments, and so on. The reason why is because you will learn a lot more by doing that stuff. The things that are going to doom a first Mars colony attempt isn't necessarily something like "we don't know how to grow plants on Mars" but "we don't know how to build a proper door for the Martian environment" (inspiration for this is taken from https://brr.fyi/posts/doors-of-mcmurdo https://brr.fyi/posts/doors-of-mcmurdo, which has appeared on HN recently). If your ultimate goal is to build a self-sustaining interplanetary colony, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that maybe we should start by trying to figure out how to build a self-sustaining colony anywhere inhospitable first because it's never been done before, and all previous attempts have failed.

ocdtrekkie 4y ago
But we... have already mostly done that in Antarctica already. There's not a lot more to learn by moving a few thousand more people to a particularly unpleasant place to live.
- mvnuweucxqokii 4y ago
  Is Antarctica self-sustaining?
  - ocdtrekkie 4y ago
    No, but there's also little we gain from trying to make it so. We know how to operate all sorts of things in Antarctica, and anything else we bring there just... needs to be operated pretty much the same way.
    - moloch-hai 4y ago
      Finding out we can't, yet, would be pretty important.

baron816 4y ago

I think this whole argument boils down to "people need to be inspired to do something great". Settling Antarctica isn't as inspiring as colonizing Mars. But in my estimation, colonizing Mars would run out of steam really quickly. Mars is horribly inhospitable, yes, but it's also pretty boring. There isn't that much geological diversity, and there's no life. You wouldn't want to take a vacation there. I know there's going to be a lot of people here who are going to say "No! Mars is really cool!" The people here aren't normal. Living in a cave underground without being able to go outside and see the sun or take a walk is a nightmare for most people. Landing on Mars could inspire lots of people. But once it's done, its mystique is just going to wear off. People will lose interest and it'll be about as interesting as Antarctica. And then what?

mikea1 4y ago
> People will lose interest and it'll be about as interesting as Antarctica. And then what? Sports! Imagine playing basketball (or football, etc.) on a dome on Mars with less than half the gravity of Earth. People back on Earth would love to watch it. People on Mars would love to play it.
- baron816 4y ago
  I actually think this would be a great idea...for the Moon. Pro-athletes making millions of dollars per year won't want to spend their whole lives in a desolate, extremely remote desert. The Moon has a much more reasonable commute. And I think some new sport would need to be invented.
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    Maybe the sport is sending them there? It was tried with Australia, so maybe Mars is the new frontier? Said as a joke or sarcasm or something.
- arkh 4y ago
  We could already try for sports in Earth Orbit. 0-G sport, 3D terrain: the inflatable habitat projects could be a way to get some big enclosure.

jiggawatts 4y ago

What we have on Antarctica is an outpost, not a colony. It's made up of habitats, not homes. It has virtually no local industry, and cannot support itself. The only way it could endure for longer than its food reserves is by fishing, which is obviously not an option on Mars. We haven't even solved the easy case where water and oxygen are available in unlimited quantities, let alone the much harder scenario of space or another planet.

Ferrotin 4y ago
That is because of a treaty, not because of inability.
- idlewords 4y ago
  There's a similar treaty preventing Mars settlement.
  - 493579620678 4y ago
    I don't think that's true. What is the alleged treaty called? The Antarctic Treaty binds the contracting states to prohibit individuals from doing various things in Antarctica, the Outer Space Treaty doesn't really do that, and arguably does the opposite by prohibiting territorial claims. Regardless, I don't think any treaty should be taken very seriously. They will both be violated whenever it's expedient to violate them.
    - idlewords 4y ago
      Quoting the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, "States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies."
      - DonHopkins 4y ago
        The 1960's definition of "harmful contamination" sure leaves a lot of wiggle room.

nine_k 4y ago

Near-Earth asteroid mining? Is there anything close and worth mining? AFAIK most asteroids, including those containing valuable heavy metals like platinum, are in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter orbits. Which is significantly farther than Mars. I more easily believe in mining rocks on Moon as cool souvenirs. (And as a first step in developing the technology.)

mulmen 4y ago
Near Earth asteroids are rich in experience.
danjac 4y ago
Just as with scientific research, asteroid mining will be the domain of robots. There's no economic case for sending humans for that job, and AI is improving year on year. So sadly no Belters, whatever the value of mining space rocks.
m4rtink 4y ago
Even a completely useless piece of rock is already a piece of rock in space. It can be used for shielding, counterweight for a spinning habitat, melted into simple shapes to support your habitats, etc.. You can even use it for propulsion - fling it away with a mass driver or vaporize with an arc-jet through a thruster nozzle!

8n4vidtmkvmk 4y ago

we haven't solved vertical farming yet. it's not energy efficient. i imagine its even harder/more expensive in Antarctica to keep the plants warm enough. cheap and clean energy production is where we should spend our money.

ben_w 4y ago
I'm not a farmer so I may be way off, but I thought the one thing we had done with vertical farming was beat natural energy efficiency? Photosynthesis doesn't use sunlight all that well, PV + wavelength tuned LED can turn the same amount of sunlight into more biology. But! Farmland is dirt cheap, so that's more of a solution in search of a problem than anything else.
- 8n4vidtmkvmk 4y ago
  You mean efficiency in terms of the plants absorbing the energy? Probably. But in most parts of the world it's still cheaper to just use more land.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Yes to the question. Also, agreed to the final point. Plus, the comparison shouldn't be "open farmland vs. PV+LED", it should be "for the resources cost of PV+LED, what can you build in the way of polytunnel or greenhouse?" Which in turn reminds me of this YouTube Mars botany simulator, whose validity I can't help but doubt, but which is nevertheless moderately interesting: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKhDkilF5o6-Hfsnhn_HFxjJ0jz45D3oE https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKhDkilF5o6-Hfsnhn_HFxjJ0...
saberdancer 4y ago
Energy efficiency vs outdoor farming with Sun is not applicable to any Mars colony. You can be very inefficient if it is your only method of producing food.

rtpg 4y ago

> We need near Earth asteroid mining to understand the complexities of resource extraction in space, we need lunar colonies to study the day to day realities/psychology/etc of space colonization We already know about the realities of space colonization: it’s not possible. People in space for a month already have permanent health defects. If you are up there you have to constantly be training your body to not disintegrate. Unlike other places where there are living beings, there is nothing in space for a reason!! People don’t want to accept that space science fiction is as real as Middle Earth or Hogwarts, but there is already an abundance of evidence that the human body is not capable of existing for years on end in space.

_joel 4y ago
People said just over 100 years ago that we'd never be able to fly, yet here we are. We're welll aware of the issues but there are solutions. I mean, we happen to exist in space, so it's not impossible, is it.
- otabdeveloper4 4y ago
  People said just over 100 years ago that magic wands are not real and wizards don't exist, yet here we are. (Magic still doesn't exist. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯)
  - _joel 4y ago
    "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
    - tsujamin 4y ago
      “When one begins to live by habit and by quotation, one has begun to stop living.”
  - m4rtink 4y ago
    I'm not so sure - I have this slab of crystal I can use to talk talk to people on the other side of the Earth, see things from above and make things do my bidding without touching them. And apparently it can transfer ideas in text form to your head. Also looks like I can fly if I book the right tickets.

tasuki 4y ago

> how Saudi Arabia and the other rich states grow and survive in extreme environments Mostly slave labour and infinite oil money?

roboben 4y ago
Was thinking the same: Mostly with huge imports of external resources, whatever they will be but surely not accessible in space.

antonvs 4y ago

Your “why” questions apply just as much to sending humans into space. Sending machines makes sense. Sending humans, not so much.

mulmen 4y ago
Becoming a multi planetary species is the end. Machines are merely a means to that end.
- antonvs 4y ago
  Becoming a multi-planetary species is a fantasy which only seems plausible when you’ve watched too much science fiction, and don’t have a good understanding of the physical, biological, technological, economic, and political challenges that prevent it from happening.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

AngryData 4y ago

It would provide proof of concept and troubleshooting for many technologies which Mars colony proponents seem to think already exist and they can just buy or slap together on short notice. If nobody can manage a self-sufficient biodome on Earth, there is basically no chance of it working in a much harsher and demanding environment. Mars is a harsher environment than actual empty space, you can't just toss a space capsule onto the surface and expect to live in it for the next 2 years even if you had the food and power and extra parts.

xnx 4y ago

Trying to escape the confines of Earth in our fragile meat-bag bodies is probably 100x less practical than escaping the confines of our fragile meat-bag bodies.