3 ms·

I don’t get it. He uses Everest and the South Pole as proof that Mars can’t support human life. But there’s a base at the South Pole and people climb Everest

by h_tbob 2y ago

I don’t get it. He uses Everest and the South Pole as proof that Mars can’t support human life. But there’s a base at the South Pole and people climb Everest I think these are substantial engineering issues, but I think he must be kidding. They are obviously solvable. I read, for example, that you can put a nuclear powered electromagnet in one of the Lagrange points that will protect Mars from solar wind.

db48x 2y ago
Sadly the magnet at L1 needs too much metal to be economical. It would be cheaper to run a belt of copper around the entire equator of Mars! Calculating the amount of metal needed is a bit more complicated than it originally looked.
- EricE 2y ago
  Economical with metal from earth maybe - what about from an asteroid? Time to think outside the box.
  - db48x 2y ago
    I failed to adequately convey the degree of uneconomicalness involved. No such simple fix would save the idea. The magnetic rings would have to be _larger around than Mars_. A ring around Mars’ equator would do the same job while being smaller! Plus there’s the slight problem that the atmospheric loss rate on Mars is too low for us to really care about. Mars with an atmosphere as thick as Earth’s would lose about 1% of that atmosphere after a million or two years. If it will take us less than 10,000 years to build that atmosphere up then it will be much cheaper to just top it up every so often.
jellicle 2y ago
Yes, at great expense, we bring in tons of life-sustaining supplies from habitable parts of Earth so that people can live briefly at the South Pole or on top of Everest. In the absence of those supplies, of course everyone on Everest or the Pole would die, quickly. And the South Pole and the top of Everest are way, way, way, way, way, way, way more habitable than Mars is. And there are no nearby habitable areas on Mars to get supplies from. I don't know how I can spell this out for people: when Musk wakes up from a drug-addled haze and says "we're going to colonize Mars in two years" what he means is something like "I'm really high right now" or perhaps, if we grant him a little cunning, "I want my share price to stay high so I'll say some bullshit". It should not be interpreted as a factual statement.
- big-green-man 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - dotcoma 2y ago
    He has also given us “self-driving cars”, multiple times already — at least on Twitter, or whatever that shithole is now called.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- quesera 2y ago
  > I don't know how I can spell this out for people This part is unfair -- way too simplistic and dismissive. Elon is not drug-addled. He has high executive function, and is very consistent about his big ideas. Elon is simply a smart guy with wild ideas (so far, so common) but, crucially, he commands and commits enormous resources toward his best attempts at making them happen. That's what sets him apart from you and me, and it's a big deal. He deserves a lot of credit for the logistical success of diverting US government tax revenue to his attempts. This article is a good summary of why the Mars thing is implausible. I love the phrase "Frozen Airless Radioactive Desert Hell" and hope FARDH becomes a thing. For Elon to be right about Mars (at least on anything near his timeline), a lot of sufficiently-advanced technology will have to be invented soon. If there's a 1% chance of him being right, maybe there's a reasonable amount of public funding for it. TBF, even if there's a 0% chance, there are probably enabling technologies that will succeed, and have enough value to make the investment worthwhile.
dfansteel 2y ago
It’s that there’s no life native to those environments. The authors is making the point that lay people, us, lack a frame of reference for how inhospitable Mars is.
gamblor956 2y ago
People stay at the South Pole and Everest for short times. Nobody lives there permanently.
DerekL 2y ago
A scientific outpost on Mars is actually feasible, but such an outpost would be funded by grants from the government or private foundations. It's a self-sufficient colony that's not possible right now or anytime soon. You'd have to spend so much to create an air-tight and heated environment that could generate air, water, and food. How are you going to pay for, especially when anything you can't make yourself has to be rocketed in from Earth? Is there anything on Mars that you could sell back to Earth?
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 2y ago
But you don't need to protect entire Mars with magnetic field, just a tiny piece of it where the colony is based. What about a lead roof and thick concrete walls?

by h_tbob 2y ago

db48x 2y ago

Sadly the magnet at L1 needs too much metal to be economical. It would be cheaper to run a belt of copper around the entire equator of Mars! Calculating the amount of metal needed is a bit more complicated than it originally looked.

EricE 2y ago
Economical with metal from earth maybe - what about from an asteroid? Time to think outside the box.
- db48x 2y ago
  I failed to adequately convey the degree of uneconomicalness involved. No such simple fix would save the idea. The magnetic rings would have to be _larger around than Mars_. A ring around Mars’ equator would do the same job while being smaller! Plus there’s the slight problem that the atmospheric loss rate on Mars is too low for us to really care about. Mars with an atmosphere as thick as Earth’s would lose about 1% of that atmosphere after a million or two years. If it will take us less than 10,000 years to build that atmosphere up then it will be much cheaper to just top it up every so often.

jellicle 2y ago

Yes, at great expense, we bring in tons of life-sustaining supplies from habitable parts of Earth so that people can live briefly at the South Pole or on top of Everest. In the absence of those supplies, of course everyone on Everest or the Pole would die, quickly. And the South Pole and the top of Everest are way, way, way, way, way, way, way more habitable than Mars is. And there are no nearby habitable areas on Mars to get supplies from. I don't know how I can spell this out for people: when Musk wakes up from a drug-addled haze and says "we're going to colonize Mars in two years" what he means is something like "I'm really high right now" or perhaps, if we grant him a little cunning, "I want my share price to stay high so I'll say some bullshit". It should not be interpreted as a factual statement.

big-green-man 2y ago
[flagged]
- dotcoma 2y ago
  He has also given us “self-driving cars”, multiple times already — at least on Twitter, or whatever that shithole is now called.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
quesera 2y ago
> I don't know how I can spell this out for people This part is unfair -- way too simplistic and dismissive. Elon is not drug-addled. He has high executive function, and is very consistent about his big ideas. Elon is simply a smart guy with wild ideas (so far, so common) but, crucially, he commands and commits enormous resources toward his best attempts at making them happen. That's what sets him apart from you and me, and it's a big deal. He deserves a lot of credit for the logistical success of diverting US government tax revenue to his attempts. This article is a good summary of why the Mars thing is implausible. I love the phrase "Frozen Airless Radioactive Desert Hell" and hope FARDH becomes a thing. For Elon to be right about Mars (at least on anything near his timeline), a lot of sufficiently-advanced technology will have to be invented soon. If there's a 1% chance of him being right, maybe there's a reasonable amount of public funding for it. TBF, even if there's a 0% chance, there are probably enabling technologies that will succeed, and have enough value to make the investment worthwhile.

dfansteel 2y ago

It’s that there’s no life native to those environments. The authors is making the point that lay people, us, lack a frame of reference for how inhospitable Mars is.

gamblor956 2y ago

People stay at the South Pole and Everest for short times. Nobody lives there permanently.

DerekL 2y ago

A scientific outpost on Mars is actually feasible, but such an outpost would be funded by grants from the government or private foundations. It's a self-sufficient colony that's not possible right now or anytime soon. You'd have to spend so much to create an air-tight and heated environment that could generate air, water, and food. How are you going to pay for, especially when anything you can't make yourself has to be rocketed in from Earth? Is there anything on Mars that you could sell back to Earth?

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 2y ago

But you don't need to protect entire Mars with magnetic field, just a tiny piece of it where the colony is based. What about a lead roof and thick concrete walls?