3 ms·

> Mars is not strictly worse than Everest. It absolutely is. The only way in which it might be slightly more hospitable is that the regolith is easier to bury

> Mars is not strictly worse than Everest. It absolutely is. The only way in which it might be slightly more hospitable is that the regolith is easier to bury roots into than rock. > Moss can survive extremely low temperatures as long as it occasionally gets above freezing but it can’t grow on ice Granted, though I doubt it can survive martian temperatures for long. > Lack of oxygen on Mars precludes flowering plants but not every organism needs oxygen. The almost complete lack of an atmosphere on Mars definitely prevents any multi-cellular Earth-like organism from developing and thriving there, though. It's not just that there is no oxygen, there isn't almost anything at all, atmospheric density is 20g/m^3 at ground level, compared to Earth's 1200g/m^3 at sea level, or about 400g/m^3 at the top of Everest. And you also have to remember the extreme radiation and the toxic regolith, plus the complete lack of any easily extractable nutrients in the "soil", and the lack of any kind of humidity (as all water is frozen more or less at all times).

Retric 2y ago
Radiation is probably the least important factor. Annual dose on the surface is only 240-300 mSv. An issue for humans but we’re terrible at withstanding radiation. A colony of Deinococcus radiodurans is capable of withstanding an acute dose of 5,000,000 mSv (5,000 Gy) with minimal issues. Temperature is similarly less problematic than you would assume. Daily temperatures can reach well over 20C near the equator. It gets really cold, but once an organism freezes going super cold doesn’t really do anything. Thus storing human sperm at minus 196C even though they clearly weren’t evolved to deal with such temperatures. Lack of water is the major issue. So yes overall Mars is significantly worse for life but it’s surprisingly close.
pvaldes 2y ago
The problem with temperature should be technically solvable at small scale. Something like a transparent fridge fueled by a small nuclear reactor that would trigger a thermostat to grant a minimum temperature each night. This could hypothetically hold arctic plants for a while, maybe a lot of time being extra optimistic. A problem would be to protect the reactor and windows to be damaged by sand but if you have nuclear energy you have a source of electricity. The production would be really low in any case, but... not impossible, just extremely difficult.

Retric 2y ago

Radiation is probably the least important factor. Annual dose on the surface is only 240-300 mSv. An issue for humans but we’re terrible at withstanding radiation. A colony of Deinococcus radiodurans is capable of withstanding an acute dose of 5,000,000 mSv (5,000 Gy) with minimal issues. Temperature is similarly less problematic than you would assume. Daily temperatures can reach well over 20C near the equator. It gets really cold, but once an organism freezes going super cold doesn’t really do anything. Thus storing human sperm at minus 196C even though they clearly weren’t evolved to deal with such temperatures. Lack of water is the major issue. So yes overall Mars is significantly worse for life but it’s surprisingly close.

pvaldes 2y ago

The problem with temperature should be technically solvable at small scale. Something like a transparent fridge fueled by a small nuclear reactor that would trigger a thermostat to grant a minimum temperature each night. This could hypothetically hold arctic plants for a while, maybe a lot of time being extra optimistic. A problem would be to protect the reactor and windows to be damaged by sand but if you have nuclear energy you have a source of electricity. The production would be really low in any case, but... not impossible, just extremely difficult.