4 ms·
You don't go to Mars because life support is easier (than even a catastrophe-damaged Earth.) You go to Mars so the starving mass of human survivors can't reach
by matthewdgreen 3y ago
You don't go to Mars because life support is easier (than even a catastrophe-damaged Earth.) You go to Mars so the starving mass of human survivors can't reach you to steal, and probably inadvertently destroy, whatever habitat you're living in. That's the only way Mars makes any sense as a backup plan.
- throwaway290 3y agoI'm not sure. You're saying instead of protecting Earth from outside threats like gamma burst they work to create a backup place to go when Earth is destroyed from inside. Result: still no protection from outside threat or radiation but more contamination of Earth adding up to its destruction.
- matthewdgreen 3y agoI’m saying there are plenty of places on Earth that will still be more hospitable than Mars after a GRB or even a massive asteroid/comet impact. You could operate multiple colonies underground or underwater for a fraction of the cost of a Mars colony. Mars is so inhospitable that the only conceivable reason for using it as a backup plan is (1) you’re planning for events that completely destroy the Earth’s surface and oceans to a depth of hundreds of meters on all sides (this is not GRBs) or (2) you’re correctly worried about eight billion starving and well-armed humans trying to get in.