3 ms·

What would have to happen to earth to make it less viable a place to live than mars? An asteroid rendering earth’s surface uninhabitable? Even that wouldn’t be

by enneff 3y ago

What would have to happen to earth to make it less viable a place to live than mars? An asteroid rendering earth’s surface uninhabitable? Even that wouldn’t be enough - there’s still so much more on earth to sustain human life than any planet in our solar system. Apart from proof of concept I just don’t see any practical reason to colonise mars.

maxlin 3y ago
I don't get your point. Having a self-sustaining colony on Mars ready when suddenly the brother of the Chicxulub impactor appears on the radar and will hit in less time than it would require to create massive underground cave systems utilizing geothermal power would take to build, will literally save the species. And that is just one apocalypse variant. Nuclear holocaust. Antimatter bombs. Possibly even a massive gamma ray burst, are all safe from Mars even if they might kill everyone on Earth. Our species took an incredible amount of time to evolve, likely long enough to not re-appear in this solar system if lost. Which is a very weird point for me feeling that I have to argue for lol
- modeless 3y ago
  I think Earth after nuclear holocaust or reasonably likely asteroid impact is still significantly more hospitable to human life than Mars. And any gamma ray burst affecting Earth would hit Mars too. Building survival silos on Earth would be cheaper and likely more effective to save the species in these situations. Elon often talks about how exploration is exciting and inspirational and a prerequisite for future interstellar travel, and that works better as a justification to go to Mars, IMO. Also, while those disasters might not completely wipe out humans on Earth, they could reverse centuries or millennia of progress and delay further space exploration for hundreds or thousands of years if we don't do it now while we have the chance.
  - maxlin 3y ago
    You might be right about the gamma ray burst. From what I understand, for a nuke war, it is still _possible_ it will take out everyone considering the nuclear winter it will cause. In my thinking a redundant colony is worth even saving us having to play existential Russian Roulette with one loaded.
- LargoLasskhyfv 3y ago
  Which gamma ray burst would be so focussed that it would hit earth, but not mars?
aspaviento 3y ago
A colony in Mars opens the door to improving space travelling which at the same time opens the door to explore other planets. In a distant future humanity may be able to visit other solar systems and who knows, maybe find other species out there.
- Retric 3y ago
  Colonizing mars doesn’t particularly help colonize space just mars because space is mostly empty not cold inhospitable planets. A useful asteroid mining base might eventually let you expand into the Oort cloud and then colonize the rest of the galaxy assuming they could be 100% self sufficient and didn’t need solar power. But even here the hard bits are 99% technology we could develop on earth for other things like fusion power.
mft_ 3y ago
There are a couple of ways to think about this that might help overcome your conservatism. First: how awful would you consider a world-wide apocalypse to be, where the human race is effectively ended? Let’s call it massively, enormously bad. How likely is it that that happens? Well, probably incredibly small, but not zero. Multiply the two together and you’ve got a weighting for how much we should care and prepare. In this case, the incredibly small probability is likely balanced by the enormous awfulness - meaning some level of reasonable preparation for existence beyond Earth makes rational sense. Second: think a thousand years into the future. Do you imagine that humans will be still only on earth, or will we have reached out and explored further - beyond our planet, beyond our solar system? If you can imagine any version of ‘beyond Earth’ - then Starship and Mars might represent the first baby steps needed to ultimately achieve that outcome.
GeekyBear 3y ago
> What would have to happen to earth to make it less viable a place to live than mars? Another global airborne pandemic, but this time with a much higher fatality rate?
- LargoLasskhyfv 3y ago
  And how wouldn't that magically move to mars, given that it had to spread slowly, with relatively long incubation time, because otherwise it would kill its hosts too fast? I mean, isn't the whole vision that rather comfortable and fast ride, like in an airliner, but the duration of a cruise? Without all that quarantine shit?
  - GeekyBear 3y ago
    The time it takes to get to Mars itself would serve as a quarantine period.
    - LargoLasskhyfv 3y ago
      Well... there is the phenomenon of antibiotica-resistant bacteria building up in places where they shouldn't be at all, surgical operating theatres for example. Do you expect the masses to mars movers to be left alone unattended after reaching their destination, no maintenance, except under BSL-4 conditions, for being ready to go back? Or the passengers showered and scrubbed in airlocks with antiseptic foam, ultraviolet light, and whatnot else, while their clothing is being 'recycled'? The airlocks probably will be there, but the rest? One could probably argue that it all won't matter, like it mostly doesn't in Antarctica, because air too dry and cold, etc. But can you be sure?
jwells89 3y ago
To me the whole “Earth backup” aspect of humans on Mars is secondary at best. The bigger benefit is how it gets the ball rolling on development of all the technologies associated with keeping humans alive and thriving in space and on the surfaces of other bodies in a way that the moon can’t. The problem with the moon is that its distance. It’s convenient, which means that doing anything there isn’t much of a commitment and thus, can be canceled and forgotten about on a whim. It also means that there’s not much pressure to make human presences there self-sustaining — worst case scenario, another rocket full of supplies and/or personnel is only a week away. A presence on Mars on the other hand by nature has to be something less frivolous. You have to plan to be there a long time no matter what, and from the moment the first crew’s boots touch the ground they’re going to be pouring themselves into becoming self-sustainable. The nations and companies behind the project can’t so conveniently pull the plug. Once it’s there, everybody involved is in it for the long haul and the longer it exists and more it grows the harder it is to back out of. So I guess more than anything, out of the destinations that are being seriously considered by NASA, SpaceX, etc, Mars is the best at providing some kind of insurance against stagnancy and malaise in the crewed space program like we saw from the late 70s through 2010 or so.

by enneff 3y ago

maxlin 3y ago

I don't get your point. Having a self-sustaining colony on Mars ready when suddenly the brother of the Chicxulub impactor appears on the radar and will hit in less time than it would require to create massive underground cave systems utilizing geothermal power would take to build, will literally save the species. And that is just one apocalypse variant. Nuclear holocaust. Antimatter bombs. Possibly even a massive gamma ray burst, are all safe from Mars even if they might kill everyone on Earth. Our species took an incredible amount of time to evolve, likely long enough to not re-appear in this solar system if lost. Which is a very weird point for me feeling that I have to argue for lol

modeless 3y ago
I think Earth after nuclear holocaust or reasonably likely asteroid impact is still significantly more hospitable to human life than Mars. And any gamma ray burst affecting Earth would hit Mars too. Building survival silos on Earth would be cheaper and likely more effective to save the species in these situations. Elon often talks about how exploration is exciting and inspirational and a prerequisite for future interstellar travel, and that works better as a justification to go to Mars, IMO. Also, while those disasters might not completely wipe out humans on Earth, they could reverse centuries or millennia of progress and delay further space exploration for hundreds or thousands of years if we don't do it now while we have the chance.
- maxlin 3y ago
  You might be right about the gamma ray burst. From what I understand, for a nuke war, it is still _possible_ it will take out everyone considering the nuclear winter it will cause. In my thinking a redundant colony is worth even saving us having to play existential Russian Roulette with one loaded.
LargoLasskhyfv 3y ago
Which gamma ray burst would be so focussed that it would hit earth, but not mars?

aspaviento 3y ago

A colony in Mars opens the door to improving space travelling which at the same time opens the door to explore other planets. In a distant future humanity may be able to visit other solar systems and who knows, maybe find other species out there.

Retric 3y ago
Colonizing mars doesn’t particularly help colonize space just mars because space is mostly empty not cold inhospitable planets. A useful asteroid mining base might eventually let you expand into the Oort cloud and then colonize the rest of the galaxy assuming they could be 100% self sufficient and didn’t need solar power. But even here the hard bits are 99% technology we could develop on earth for other things like fusion power.

mft_ 3y ago

There are a couple of ways to think about this that might help overcome your conservatism. First: how awful would you consider a world-wide apocalypse to be, where the human race is effectively ended? Let’s call it massively, enormously bad. How likely is it that that happens? Well, probably incredibly small, but not zero. Multiply the two together and you’ve got a weighting for how much we should care and prepare. In this case, the incredibly small probability is likely balanced by the enormous awfulness - meaning some level of reasonable preparation for existence beyond Earth makes rational sense. Second: think a thousand years into the future. Do you imagine that humans will be still only on earth, or will we have reached out and explored further - beyond our planet, beyond our solar system? If you can imagine any version of ‘beyond Earth’ - then Starship and Mars might represent the first baby steps needed to ultimately achieve that outcome.

GeekyBear 3y ago

> What would have to happen to earth to make it less viable a place to live than mars? Another global airborne pandemic, but this time with a much higher fatality rate?

LargoLasskhyfv 3y ago
And how wouldn't that magically move to mars, given that it had to spread slowly, with relatively long incubation time, because otherwise it would kill its hosts too fast? I mean, isn't the whole vision that rather comfortable and fast ride, like in an airliner, but the duration of a cruise? Without all that quarantine shit?
- GeekyBear 3y ago
  The time it takes to get to Mars itself would serve as a quarantine period.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 3y ago
    Well... there is the phenomenon of antibiotica-resistant bacteria building up in places where they shouldn't be at all, surgical operating theatres for example. Do you expect the masses to mars movers to be left alone unattended after reaching their destination, no maintenance, except under BSL-4 conditions, for being ready to go back? Or the passengers showered and scrubbed in airlocks with antiseptic foam, ultraviolet light, and whatnot else, while their clothing is being 'recycled'? The airlocks probably will be there, but the rest? One could probably argue that it all won't matter, like it mostly doesn't in Antarctica, because air too dry and cold, etc. But can you be sure?

jwells89 3y ago

To me the whole “Earth backup” aspect of humans on Mars is secondary at best. The bigger benefit is how it gets the ball rolling on development of all the technologies associated with keeping humans alive and thriving in space and on the surfaces of other bodies in a way that the moon can’t. The problem with the moon is that its distance. It’s convenient, which means that doing anything there isn’t much of a commitment and thus, can be canceled and forgotten about on a whim. It also means that there’s not much pressure to make human presences there self-sustaining — worst case scenario, another rocket full of supplies and/or personnel is only a week away. A presence on Mars on the other hand by nature has to be something less frivolous. You have to plan to be there a long time no matter what, and from the moment the first crew’s boots touch the ground they’re going to be pouring themselves into becoming self-sustainable. The nations and companies behind the project can’t so conveniently pull the plug. Once it’s there, everybody involved is in it for the long haul and the longer it exists and more it grows the harder it is to back out of. So I guess more than anything, out of the destinations that are being seriously considered by NASA, SpaceX, etc, Mars is the best at providing some kind of insurance against stagnancy and malaise in the crewed space program like we saw from the late 70s through 2010 or so.