3 ms·

There will be no terraforming of it for multiple reasons. This was already obvious. Human habitation of Mars will proceed nonetheless in closed habitats above

There will be no terraforming of it for multiple reasons. This was already obvious. Human habitation of Mars will proceed nonetheless in closed habitats above or underground. It require bringing vast amounts of starter resources from Earth, and then prospecting for water while scavenging atmospheric nitrogen and carbon. It would be difficult to sustain settlements on Mars if native resources cannot be extracted economically, or if bidirectional trade between Earth and Mars was unable to be established.

Someone 2y ago
Bidirectional trade would require Mars to have something Earth wants to pay for. Given the costs of sending stuff, it would have to be something that’s very valuable per kg. What is there that could conceivably fit that bill?
- outofpaper 2y ago
  Potential candidates might include rare minerals or isotopes that are scarce on Earth. Another possibility could be revolutionary scientific data or biological samples unique to Mars, which could be invaluable for research. Oh, and media, we love us some media and it travels light ;)
  - lazide 2y ago
    So…. Martian super kink porn? How insane would it have to be to cover the costs of that sort of expedition and not be more affordable to make on earth and just pretend it was made on Mars? We don’t currently know of any unique rare minerals or isotopes on Mars (except for stuff unique just because it was picked up on Mars).
    - Anarch157a 2y ago
      There are plenty of valuable stuff we need on the asteroid belt. Going straight there from Earth would be much more difficult and expensive than launching from Mars. A self sustaining Martian colony would serve as a trade and resupply post for asteroid miners.
      - lazide 2y ago
        With current technology, none of that checks out from an energy cost perspective. And why would someone go down the gravity belt to mars when building a station on one of those asteroids is cheaper and easier? They have the materials right there, after all. Even water, usually. Not like mars can grow food any easier, anyway, with all the soil being full of perchlorate and the like. It has just enough atmosphere and gravity to be annoying, without it really helping with things like shielding either.
- itishappy 2y ago
  Manufactured goods can hit arbitrary cost/kg ratios. It's also easier to launch for Mars than it is from Earth. (The Moon would probably be even better.)
- tim333 2y ago
  Holiday homes. If you can sell the rich super yachts you can sell them Mars bases.
  - Someone 2y ago
    Rich people can get to their super yachts within a day using luxury transport, and only do so when the weather is very nice. I don’t see them buying a mars home if it takes weeks to get there and I doubt the ‘weather’ will compete with that on a yacht in the Mediterranean or the Caribbean, even ignoring that you’ll have to wear a spacesuit while sipping your martini, getting a tan in the sun.

Someone 2y ago

Bidirectional trade would require Mars to have something Earth wants to pay for. Given the costs of sending stuff, it would have to be something that’s very valuable per kg. What is there that could conceivably fit that bill?

outofpaper 2y ago
Potential candidates might include rare minerals or isotopes that are scarce on Earth. Another possibility could be revolutionary scientific data or biological samples unique to Mars, which could be invaluable for research. Oh, and media, we love us some media and it travels light ;)
- lazide 2y ago
  So…. Martian super kink porn? How insane would it have to be to cover the costs of that sort of expedition and not be more affordable to make on earth and just pretend it was made on Mars? We don’t currently know of any unique rare minerals or isotopes on Mars (except for stuff unique just because it was picked up on Mars).
  - Anarch157a 2y ago
    There are plenty of valuable stuff we need on the asteroid belt. Going straight there from Earth would be much more difficult and expensive than launching from Mars. A self sustaining Martian colony would serve as a trade and resupply post for asteroid miners.
    - lazide 2y ago
      With current technology, none of that checks out from an energy cost perspective. And why would someone go down the gravity belt to mars when building a station on one of those asteroids is cheaper and easier? They have the materials right there, after all. Even water, usually. Not like mars can grow food any easier, anyway, with all the soil being full of perchlorate and the like. It has just enough atmosphere and gravity to be annoying, without it really helping with things like shielding either.
itishappy 2y ago
Manufactured goods can hit arbitrary cost/kg ratios. It's also easier to launch for Mars than it is from Earth. (The Moon would probably be even better.)
tim333 2y ago
Holiday homes. If you can sell the rich super yachts you can sell them Mars bases.
- Someone 2y ago
  Rich people can get to their super yachts within a day using luxury transport, and only do so when the weather is very nice. I don’t see them buying a mars home if it takes weeks to get there and I doubt the ‘weather’ will compete with that on a yacht in the Mediterranean or the Caribbean, even ignoring that you’ll have to wear a spacesuit while sipping your martini, getting a tan in the sun.