4 ms·
They don't require more than a rover if you accept them doing their work far slower than their normal earth equivalents. Hence sending them years in advance to
by lupusreal 3y ago
They don't require more than a rover if you accept them doing their work far slower than their normal earth equivalents. Hence sending them years in advance to dig out a some holes that would only take a few days for excavators on Earth.
- tsimionescu 3y agoWhile speed is a factor as well, you still need a lot more energy consumption to move a mass of rock&dust some distance away than to move a small rover. This immediately follows from the formula for work and the gravitational force.
- lupusreal 3y agoGiven enough time, you can dig out a house foundation with a spoon, power is not an issue here. The less power you have available the slower you work. If your robots wear out, you send more. The real problem is finding enough time and money to waste on such a fruitless endeavor. If that can't be managed it nullifies the entire problem of digging a hole on Mars since a Mars base is nothing but a waste of time and money. Wasting time and money is table stakes.
- redmajor12 3y agoIf we can spend $100 billion on blowing people up, we can certainly afford a Mars colony.
- lupusreal 3y agoThat's easy to claim, but it's not so easy to actually convince a government of this. Before you get angry with me: I'm not saying this is the way it ought to be, but it's the way it is.
- tsimionescu 3y agoAs terrible as it is, blowing people up at least serves a purpose (an evil, mean-spirited, ego-driven purpose). A colony on Mars is entirely pointless. It would be like spending $100 billion on a performance art project.