5 ms·

I really don't buy this argument though. It you want a colony that can survive almost any planetary-scale catastrophe, build a colony at the bottom of the ocean

I really don't buy this argument though. It you want a colony that can survive almost any planetary-scale catastrophe, build a colony at the bottom of the ocean. Kilometres of water will shield you from literally any amount of radiation, the surface of the earth could be a scorched wasteland and you'd be fine. And you'd have access to ocean floor resources as well as limitless resources still on the surface, even if you need to use robots to get them. And yes I mean sure - colonizing another planet is the ultimate backup plan. But like this article(and many others) have said, it feels like jumping the shark - we can barely keep people alive for a prelonged period of time on a space station, and we are jumping straight to mars outpost from there? Why not make a self-sufficient base on the moon first, where literally everyone on earth would be able to see it almost with a naked eye and it would inspire countless generations of people to pursue science?

hparadiz 4y ago
Maybe I'm wrong but I think it's actually more difficult to keep an airbubble under the ocean from flooding than it is to keep an air bubble around yourself in thin atmosphere.
- ljf 4y ago
  Under the ocean the bubble is held in place but the water pressure. This is already a solved problem - see diving bell: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diving_bell#:~:text=A%20diving%20bell%20is%20a,greater%20than%20the%20external%20ambient https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diving_bell#:~:text=A%20divi... In the atmosphere, how do you meaningfully keep that bubble around you?
bhaak 4y ago
> Why not make a self-sufficient base on the moon first, where literally everyone on earth would be able to see it almost with a naked eye and it would inspire countless generations of people to pursue science? Yes. This. I hope that we piggyback on Mars exploration for building infrastructure on the Moon. The Moon is a much better target for a first self sustainable colony and also could become economically interesting. There is nothing on Mars that is economical interesting AFAIK.
- m4rtink 4y ago
  Well, its the gate to the Asteroid belt & even has two asteroids full of resources in low orbit! Not to mention having and a (thin) atmosphere and usable gravity, that also opens a lot of opportunities (aerocapture, no micrometeoroids, easier thermal control, etc.).
  - c-cube 4y ago
    Why do you need to be on Mars to do that? It's simpler to do everything in orbit, which is the real gate to the asteroid belt. Or directly establish bases in the belt, if we knew how.
    - m4rtink 4y ago
      Yes, that's also certainly an option. Still, it seems to me that a lot of people still can't really think in terms of space only infra and "a hight tech city, but on Mars/Moon" gets them to a more familiar context. So I think it makes sense to talk also about surface bases, to get more people on board, even if those are potentially quite inefficient.
Ygg2 4y ago
> almost any planetary-scale catastrophe > build a colony at the bottom of the ocean Sun enters red giant phase. Oceans boil away. You boil with them, before being engulfed by the sun. Mars is a stepping stone.
- uuvs8 4y ago
  For the average American, a crazy MAGA freak with a gun is a much higher risk to life than the sun turning into a red giant. Other countries have similar scenarios.
  - webXL 4y ago
    There are probably at least 20 stereotypes/organizations objectively more dangerous than "crazy MAGA freak with a gun", but congratulations, you've contributed to political divisiveness on a tech-oriented forum!
- hnbad 4y ago
  We have literally millions of years to prepare for that. Mars isn't a stepping stone, Mars is a stretch goal. A few hundred or even thousand years sooner or later is a rounding error in the kind of timeframe you're talking about. At the current rate we don't have to wait for the sun to kill us, climate change will do that first. Sure, it might not be an extinction level event but societal collapse requires much less than that. Disruption of the supply chains needed to maintain a Mars colonization program requires even less than that.
  - Ygg2 4y ago
    > We have literally millions of years to prepare for that. So do sea anemones. What are their chances of inhabiting Mars? ~0%. You can have billions of years of spare time. If you only concern yourself with Earth and never move beyond it, you'll end up just like anemones > Mars is a stretch goal. If Mars is a stretch goal, we're fucked. By time of red giant sun Mars will also be toasted. > climate change will do that first It probably won't. Devastate and depopulate anything outside arctic circle? Yes. Nuclear winter has a good chance but even that's not a certainty.. > societal collapse requires much less than that I don't care about societies I care about totality of humans. All societies exist while their energy/work production can ballance the expanding complexity, or are knocked out of balance by another society. Societies aren't immortal.

hparadiz 4y ago

Maybe I'm wrong but I think it's actually more difficult to keep an airbubble under the ocean from flooding than it is to keep an air bubble around yourself in thin atmosphere.

ljf 4y ago
Under the ocean the bubble is held in place but the water pressure. This is already a solved problem - see diving bell: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diving_bell#:~:text=A%20diving%20bell%20is%20a,greater%20than%20the%20external%20ambient https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diving_bell#:~:text=A%20divi... In the atmosphere, how do you meaningfully keep that bubble around you?

bhaak 4y ago

> Why not make a self-sufficient base on the moon first, where literally everyone on earth would be able to see it almost with a naked eye and it would inspire countless generations of people to pursue science? Yes. This. I hope that we piggyback on Mars exploration for building infrastructure on the Moon. The Moon is a much better target for a first self sustainable colony and also could become economically interesting. There is nothing on Mars that is economical interesting AFAIK.

m4rtink 4y ago
Well, its the gate to the Asteroid belt & even has two asteroids full of resources in low orbit! Not to mention having and a (thin) atmosphere and usable gravity, that also opens a lot of opportunities (aerocapture, no micrometeoroids, easier thermal control, etc.).
- c-cube 4y ago
  Why do you need to be on Mars to do that? It's simpler to do everything in orbit, which is the real gate to the asteroid belt. Or directly establish bases in the belt, if we knew how.
  - m4rtink 4y ago
    Yes, that's also certainly an option. Still, it seems to me that a lot of people still can't really think in terms of space only infra and "a hight tech city, but on Mars/Moon" gets them to a more familiar context. So I think it makes sense to talk also about surface bases, to get more people on board, even if those are potentially quite inefficient.

Ygg2 4y ago

> almost any planetary-scale catastrophe > build a colony at the bottom of the ocean Sun enters red giant phase. Oceans boil away. You boil with them, before being engulfed by the sun. Mars is a stepping stone.

uuvs8 4y ago
For the average American, a crazy MAGA freak with a gun is a much higher risk to life than the sun turning into a red giant. Other countries have similar scenarios.
- webXL 4y ago
  There are probably at least 20 stereotypes/organizations objectively more dangerous than "crazy MAGA freak with a gun", but congratulations, you've contributed to political divisiveness on a tech-oriented forum!
hnbad 4y ago
We have literally millions of years to prepare for that. Mars isn't a stepping stone, Mars is a stretch goal. A few hundred or even thousand years sooner or later is a rounding error in the kind of timeframe you're talking about. At the current rate we don't have to wait for the sun to kill us, climate change will do that first. Sure, it might not be an extinction level event but societal collapse requires much less than that. Disruption of the supply chains needed to maintain a Mars colonization program requires even less than that.
- Ygg2 4y ago
  > We have literally millions of years to prepare for that. So do sea anemones. What are their chances of inhabiting Mars? ~0%. You can have billions of years of spare time. If you only concern yourself with Earth and never move beyond it, you'll end up just like anemones > Mars is a stretch goal. If Mars is a stretch goal, we're fucked. By time of red giant sun Mars will also be toasted. > climate change will do that first It probably won't. Devastate and depopulate anything outside arctic circle? Yes. Nuclear winter has a good chance but even that's not a certainty.. > societal collapse requires much less than that I don't care about societies I care about totality of humans. All societies exist while their energy/work production can ballance the expanding complexity, or are knocked out of balance by another society. Societies aren't immortal.