6 ms·

“ All things considered I think Mars colonization will probably be far easier than the guys who were engaging in civilization building in the past.” Those expl

“ All things considered I think Mars colonization will probably be far easier than the guys who were engaging in civilization building in the past.” Those explorers of eras past were going places that not only sustained ample plant and animal resources (in quantities that would surprise modern people) but entire human populations. There is almost nothing on Mars that will sustain us.

somenameforme 2y ago
Not entirely. I'd look up things like the 'Starving Time' at Jamestown. [1] Jamestown lost 90% of its population in a single winter, and was left resorting to cannibalism and other such things. In the past you were constantly preparing for winter. And if something went wrong, either with your crops, water, surprise weather, or whatever else - you died. And that's if disease, natives, weather, or a million other issues didn't get you. And that's after you got there. Crossing the sea meant you were completely subject to the whims of the weather, often sailing into the literal unknown, all the while your rations were slowly dwindling and your crew was starting to rot from the inside out dying rather unpleasant deaths - scurvy wouldn't be entirely resolved until the 20th century! With Mars we won't really have to deal with any of this, because the issues and variables will be mostly known ahead of time, and the supplies per settler will also be dramatically higher meaning a far greater window of time to reach self sustainability. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starving_Time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starving_Time
- germinalphrase 2y ago
  Jamestown is notable because of the deprivation, not because every settlement was a Jamestown. Certainly, we understand the variables and an identical journey on earth would be dramatically safer (though still not without peril). Even still, these explorers were able to harvest resources during their journey as well as immediately upon arrival at the destination. With Mars, there’s nothing there. No fertile soil. No potable water. No known life. It’s an actively hostile environment. Colonizers to Mars will be exceptionally reliant on carrying the totality of their survival resources. Sure - if we spend the next centuries terraforming Mars robotically (or some other scheme), we could change the math on this - but I have a hard time swallowing the argument that crossing to, and colonizing, Mars is anything but orders of difficulty harder than the feats of those explorers. I’m a nerd and want to believe, but it’s fanatical thinking for… a long time.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    Consider it this way - I would say that scaling Mt. Everest now a days is relative easier than it was for early adventurers and explorers to scale far lesser mountains, in the past. Of course Everest is far more difficult, yet modern supplies, knowledge, sherpas/guides, and more have enabled even 80+ year olds to scale it. It's still a huge achievement nonetheless, but modern competencies have really enabled us to minimize the dangers. Though of course there's still substantial danger - many people find their final resting place there. And I think it will be similar on Mars. What is being done is, itself, far more difficult than what was done in the past. Yet in this case we have a far better idea of what we need to do, what we will be facing, and so on. There will be unknown unknowns, and those will get people killed, but I think the frequency of such unknowns will probably be quite a bit lower, which I would claim makes it overall "easier." In the past even "just" doing a transatlantic crossing was basically accepting that a good chunk of your crew weren't going to make it. In the early Age of Sail, you'd be lucky if you were left with half your crew. The grand explorers like Magellan fared even worse. For his circumnavigation, he left with 5 ships and 270 men. "He" returned with one ship and 18 men, a 93% death rate. "He" in quotes as he was not one of those 18.
    - germinalphrase 2y ago
      I was commenting on a colonization effort, not merely exploration. I’ll happily concede that exploring Mars is perilous but also realistic.
      - somenameforme 2y ago
        As was I. The analog was more about the overall shifting in risk profile where something that is, in objective terms, more difficult than something else can, over time, become relatively easier than the easier thing was in the past.
    - paulryanrogers 2y ago
      Dust on Mars is quite problematic. Perhaps worse than lunar dust. Even exploring Mars and returning --without a dust hazard--is unlikely to succeed in this century.

somenameforme 2y ago

Not entirely. I'd look up things like the 'Starving Time' at Jamestown. [1] Jamestown lost 90% of its population in a single winter, and was left resorting to cannibalism and other such things. In the past you were constantly preparing for winter. And if something went wrong, either with your crops, water, surprise weather, or whatever else - you died. And that's if disease, natives, weather, or a million other issues didn't get you. And that's after you got there. Crossing the sea meant you were completely subject to the whims of the weather, often sailing into the literal unknown, all the while your rations were slowly dwindling and your crew was starting to rot from the inside out dying rather unpleasant deaths - scurvy wouldn't be entirely resolved until the 20th century! With Mars we won't really have to deal with any of this, because the issues and variables will be mostly known ahead of time, and the supplies per settler will also be dramatically higher meaning a far greater window of time to reach self sustainability. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starving_Time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starving_Time

germinalphrase 2y ago
Jamestown is notable because of the deprivation, not because every settlement was a Jamestown. Certainly, we understand the variables and an identical journey on earth would be dramatically safer (though still not without peril). Even still, these explorers were able to harvest resources during their journey as well as immediately upon arrival at the destination. With Mars, there’s nothing there. No fertile soil. No potable water. No known life. It’s an actively hostile environment. Colonizers to Mars will be exceptionally reliant on carrying the totality of their survival resources. Sure - if we spend the next centuries terraforming Mars robotically (or some other scheme), we could change the math on this - but I have a hard time swallowing the argument that crossing to, and colonizing, Mars is anything but orders of difficulty harder than the feats of those explorers. I’m a nerd and want to believe, but it’s fanatical thinking for… a long time.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  Consider it this way - I would say that scaling Mt. Everest now a days is relative easier than it was for early adventurers and explorers to scale far lesser mountains, in the past. Of course Everest is far more difficult, yet modern supplies, knowledge, sherpas/guides, and more have enabled even 80+ year olds to scale it. It's still a huge achievement nonetheless, but modern competencies have really enabled us to minimize the dangers. Though of course there's still substantial danger - many people find their final resting place there. And I think it will be similar on Mars. What is being done is, itself, far more difficult than what was done in the past. Yet in this case we have a far better idea of what we need to do, what we will be facing, and so on. There will be unknown unknowns, and those will get people killed, but I think the frequency of such unknowns will probably be quite a bit lower, which I would claim makes it overall "easier." In the past even "just" doing a transatlantic crossing was basically accepting that a good chunk of your crew weren't going to make it. In the early Age of Sail, you'd be lucky if you were left with half your crew. The grand explorers like Magellan fared even worse. For his circumnavigation, he left with 5 ships and 270 men. "He" returned with one ship and 18 men, a 93% death rate. "He" in quotes as he was not one of those 18.
  - germinalphrase 2y ago
    I was commenting on a colonization effort, not merely exploration. I’ll happily concede that exploring Mars is perilous but also realistic.
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      As was I. The analog was more about the overall shifting in risk profile where something that is, in objective terms, more difficult than something else can, over time, become relatively easier than the easier thing was in the past.
  - paulryanrogers 2y ago
    Dust on Mars is quite problematic. Perhaps worse than lunar dust. Even exploring Mars and returning --without a dust hazard--is unlikely to succeed in this century.