4 ms·

What is a better candidate for colonization?

by zizee 3y ago

giraffe_lady 3y ago
How do you look around at the legacy of colonialism on earth and be like "yes more of that please?" There's an incredible amount of scientific understanding to be achieved over the next few decades using unmanned probes in the solar system including mars. After that we'll see. We are barely capable of manned spaceflight at all, don't even have a proof of concept of a self-contained ecosystem that can be isolated for years at a time. We are simply not politically and scientifically sophisticated enough to attempt this on the scale of decades. Leave it for the future.
- zizee 3y ago
  > How do you look around at the legacy of colonialism on earth and be like "yes more of that please?" Are you talking about human race, spreading out from our cradle in Africa thousands of years ago? Or more recent colonization? Or more recent examples of one group of people subjugating another pre-existing habitat of a land? Because you know there are not people or animals on Mars right?
Qwertious 3y ago
The moon. It's closer, it has pre-made internal cavities, it's far easier to evacuate if something goes wrong (a catapult and a few days travel vs a rocket and months of travel). Also, we can actually get there. This Mars colony is in the realm of fantasy, when we don't have a means of getting astronauts there without dying of cosmic-ray cancer on the way. In contrast we've put a man on the moon. Multiple men. We know we can do it, which decreases the necessary scope dramatically. I don't see a good reason to set up a colony in the first place, but the least-bad option is very clearly the moon.
- zizee 3y ago
  You'll be pleased to know there are plans underway to setup a permanent moon base. I agree the moon has a lot going for it, but I think you have your finger on the scales when comparing the two. > a catapult and a few days travel We don't have catapult technology that would work on the moon without solving significant technological challenges. I don't think engineering challenges should hold us back (it's half the fun of these missions), but you cannot use "we don't have the tech" as an argument against mars, and handwave it away for the moon. > The moon. It's closer, it has pre-made internal cavities, Mars has lavatubes as well. > we don't have a means of getting astronauts there without dying of cosmic-ray cancer on the way People will not die of cancer of cancer in the way. It is likely there is an increased risk to developing cancer, it's not crazy. Some estimates put it at a 20% increase. Hardly a death sentence your post makes it out to be. > Also, we can actually get there. Energetically, Mars is not that much further away from us than the moon. It has a thin atmosphere that allows for aerobreaking, and is a useful resource once landed. > In contrast we've put a man on the moon. We've put a lot of robots on Mars as well. We've actually got more recent experience landing things on Mars than on the moon, especially large things. No one is talking about landing humans on Mars without first refining a lot of technology, without being able to reliably land craft with literally tonnes of equipment. Personally, I'm excited about both prospects, and I'm excited that SpaceX is finally developing the reusable heavy lift capability that we should have had years ago, but for whatever reason people stopped persuing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_lava_tube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_lava_tube https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/18417/how-big-is-the-risk-potential-damage-from-radiation-on-a-mars-trip https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/18417/how-big-is-t...
  - creatonez 3y ago
    The Mars atmosphere is not conducive to aero-braking. In fact, it is the worst of both worlds: thick enough that you cannot use thrusters without them getting destroyed by air friction, and thin enough that at the end of a parachute descent you still have to rely on either thrusters, or have your landing vehicle turn itself into a literal bouncy castle. It's no wonder NASA came up with the absolute craziest solution -- a wicked fast heat shield burn descent, followed by a wicked fast parachute descent, followed by an absurdly complicated and risky 'sky crane' procedure to shave off the rest of the velocity using thrusters.
    - zizee 3y ago
      > it is the worst of both worlds A thin atmosphere provides an additional option over the alternative of zero atmosphere. Zero atmosphere means you rely entirely on propulsion to slow your arrival, which is inherently expensive. I can agree that a thicker atmosphere would be easier, but a thin atmosphere is better than none. > absurdly complicated and risky 'sky crane' The skycrane was entirely related to not wanting to stir up huge dust plumes around the lander.

What is a better candidate for colonization?

by zizee 3y ago

What is a better candidate for colonization?

How do you look around at the legacy of colonialism on earth and be like "yes more of that please?" There's an incredible amount of scientific understanding to be achieved over the next few decades using unmanned probes in the solar system including mars. After that we'll see. We are barely capable of manned spaceflight at all, don't even have a proof of concept of a self-contained ecosystem that can be isolated for years at a time. We are simply not politically and scientifically sophisticated enough to attempt this on the scale of decades. Leave it for the future.

zizee 3y ago
> How do you look around at the legacy of colonialism on earth and be like "yes more of that please?" Are you talking about human race, spreading out from our cradle in Africa thousands of years ago? Or more recent colonization? Or more recent examples of one group of people subjugating another pre-existing habitat of a land? Because you know there are not people or animals on Mars right?

Qwertious 3y ago

The moon. It's closer, it has pre-made internal cavities, it's far easier to evacuate if something goes wrong (a catapult and a few days travel vs a rocket and months of travel). Also, we can actually get there. This Mars colony is in the realm of fantasy, when we don't have a means of getting astronauts there without dying of cosmic-ray cancer on the way. In contrast we've put a man on the moon. Multiple men. We know we can do it, which decreases the necessary scope dramatically. I don't see a good reason to set up a colony in the first place, but the least-bad option is very clearly the moon.

zizee 3y ago
You'll be pleased to know there are plans underway to setup a permanent moon base. I agree the moon has a lot going for it, but I think you have your finger on the scales when comparing the two. > a catapult and a few days travel We don't have catapult technology that would work on the moon without solving significant technological challenges. I don't think engineering challenges should hold us back (it's half the fun of these missions), but you cannot use "we don't have the tech" as an argument against mars, and handwave it away for the moon. > The moon. It's closer, it has pre-made internal cavities, Mars has lavatubes as well. > we don't have a means of getting astronauts there without dying of cosmic-ray cancer on the way People will not die of cancer of cancer in the way. It is likely there is an increased risk to developing cancer, it's not crazy. Some estimates put it at a 20% increase. Hardly a death sentence your post makes it out to be. > Also, we can actually get there. Energetically, Mars is not that much further away from us than the moon. It has a thin atmosphere that allows for aerobreaking, and is a useful resource once landed. > In contrast we've put a man on the moon. We've put a lot of robots on Mars as well. We've actually got more recent experience landing things on Mars than on the moon, especially large things. No one is talking about landing humans on Mars without first refining a lot of technology, without being able to reliably land craft with literally tonnes of equipment. Personally, I'm excited about both prospects, and I'm excited that SpaceX is finally developing the reusable heavy lift capability that we should have had years ago, but for whatever reason people stopped persuing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_lava_tube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_lava_tube https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/18417/how-big-is-the-risk-potential-damage-from-radiation-on-a-mars-trip https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/18417/how-big-is-t...
- creatonez 3y ago
  The Mars atmosphere is not conducive to aero-braking. In fact, it is the worst of both worlds: thick enough that you cannot use thrusters without them getting destroyed by air friction, and thin enough that at the end of a parachute descent you still have to rely on either thrusters, or have your landing vehicle turn itself into a literal bouncy castle. It's no wonder NASA came up with the absolute craziest solution -- a wicked fast heat shield burn descent, followed by a wicked fast parachute descent, followed by an absurdly complicated and risky 'sky crane' procedure to shave off the rest of the velocity using thrusters.
  - zizee 3y ago
    > it is the worst of both worlds A thin atmosphere provides an additional option over the alternative of zero atmosphere. Zero atmosphere means you rely entirely on propulsion to slow your arrival, which is inherently expensive. I can agree that a thicker atmosphere would be easier, but a thin atmosphere is better than none. > absurdly complicated and risky 'sky crane' The skycrane was entirely related to not wanting to stir up huge dust plumes around the lander.