5 ms·

As long as you have a dozen potatoes, some human poop, a sample of earth soil for necessary nutrients and bacteria, and rocket fuel to burn to make water, it sh

As long as you have a dozen potatoes, some human poop, a sample of earth soil for necessary nutrients and bacteria, and rocket fuel to burn to make water, it should be pretty easy.

ANewFormation 2y ago
Sabatier reaction also rocks in this context. CO2 + O2 => methane with water as a byproduct. So all you really need is hydrogen. And conveniently part of the water you produce or harvest can be split into H2 and O2. The absurd convenience of such things realllly makes one think more deeply about the simulation hypothesis.
acdha 2y ago
If you can’t think of reasons why it would be harder than that, consider that you might want to read up on the problem first before saying it’s easy. For example, you’re assuming compatible soil (no), nutrients (also no), and the absence of toxins (again no). https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01158-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01158-6 Another way of looking at: have humans over-wintered in Antarctica without relying on outside inputs? That’s a much easier problem on multiple scales (oxygen, soil, temperature, water, etc.) so I wouldn’t take any mars proposal seriously before they’ve sent the same equipment to Antarctica and survived longer than the proposed mission.
- ANewFormation 2y ago
  Antarctica isn't this great example people think it is. International treaties require people leave it in as close to its natural condition as possible. Taking a piss outside is illegal, even peoples crap has to be collected and shipped back home. Any sort of development is essentially impossible. And that article is an interview with the hipster cartoonist who wrote a largely junk science book on Mars..
  - acdha 2y ago
    Multiple countries have bases in Antarctica, so it seems unlikely that a spacecraft-sized addition to the 50 acre McMurdo station is the proverbial straw on the camel’s back for a continent’s environment. Reusing human waste shouldn’t be a problem, either, since the proposals are to use that as fertilizer - it’s awfully expensive not to use everything that you shipped between planets! And, yes, I linked to a best-selling popular science book at the level of the conversation here. I should note that the book has two authors, and the first one isn’t the illustrator but the professional biologist. You’re welcome to provide dissenting views if you want, I’m sure they wouldn’t claim to be the last word on the topic.
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      It's far below the level of discussion here or anywhere where there is discussion with varying views. The reason is that the book is broken in near to every single argument it makes, often intentionally by relying on misleading arguments or assuming the lack of knowledge of the reader -- knowledge which, crucially, I'm fairly certain they themselves had or should have had with even cursory level research on the topic. In a forum with debate those arguments rapidly emerge. So for instance, their very first effort is to try to 'debunk' the idea of having Mars as a sort of 'backup' to Earth by claiming that even in the case of a doomsday event Earth would still be far more hospitable than Mars. That statement is completely true but also completely irrelevant. Take a typical doomsday event, an asteroid impact or a supervolcano. Both kill you the same way which isn't the initial event, but rather the sun ending up getting blotted out for years by mass debris/ash not only causing an extreme freeze across the planet, but also ending photosynthesis rapidly killing all plant life which starts a mass extinction on up the food chain to animals that ate those plants then animals that ate those animals and so on. This is the sort of event that could easily completely kill off humanity, but it's not because it'd make Earth a worse place than Mars. Even at the climax of mass extinction, Earth would still be dramatically more hospitable than Mars. The reason it will be so deadly is because it's so different than the conditions to which we prepare for -- more people die in the desert of drowning than of thirst. An offworld colony in this case would help ensure humanity is perpetuated, Earth is recolonized, rescue survivors, ensure global order, and so on. In fact this is the case for most of all conceivable disasters. I wanted to dig into more of their arguments but this is already fairly lengthy. If you mention what you found most compelling, I can offer the data (or, as in this case, logic) to the contrary.
- rwyinuse 2y ago
  Neither Antarctica or Mars should be a problem, as long as you have sufficient energy source, and bring some soil & nutrients with you. After all, people make money growing weed indoors with only electrical lights. My country has freezing and dark winters, yet we enjoy fresh tomatoes all around the year, grown in heated greenhouses with extra artificial light.
  - acdha 2y ago
    I’m not saying it’s beyond possible, only that it’s not “easy”. If someone is saying that we can colonize Mars, it’s orders of magnitude easier to send the same payload to Antarctica and see if it works somewhere that, say, a failure in the air processing system can avoid loss of life by opening the windows.
nuancebydefault 2y ago
I am not sure why you got downvoted but probably they did not watch 'the Martian'.
- DebtDeflation 2y ago
  At least someone got the reference, thank you.
greenie_beans 2y ago
i hope this is sarcasm because this is exactly what i'm talking about. i will not be joining you on that endeavor but more power to you. good luck!

As long as you have a dozen potatoes, some human poop, a sample of earth soil for necessary nutrients and bacteria, and rocket fuel to burn to make water, it should be pretty easy.

ANewFormation 2y ago

Sabatier reaction also rocks in this context. CO2 + O2 => methane with water as a byproduct. So all you really need is hydrogen. And conveniently part of the water you produce or harvest can be split into H2 and O2. The absurd convenience of such things realllly makes one think more deeply about the simulation hypothesis.

acdha 2y ago

If you can’t think of reasons why it would be harder than that, consider that you might want to read up on the problem first before saying it’s easy. For example, you’re assuming compatible soil (no), nutrients (also no), and the absence of toxins (again no). https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01158-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01158-6 Another way of looking at: have humans over-wintered in Antarctica without relying on outside inputs? That’s a much easier problem on multiple scales (oxygen, soil, temperature, water, etc.) so I wouldn’t take any mars proposal seriously before they’ve sent the same equipment to Antarctica and survived longer than the proposed mission.

ANewFormation 2y ago
Antarctica isn't this great example people think it is. International treaties require people leave it in as close to its natural condition as possible. Taking a piss outside is illegal, even peoples crap has to be collected and shipped back home. Any sort of development is essentially impossible. And that article is an interview with the hipster cartoonist who wrote a largely junk science book on Mars..
- acdha 2y ago
  Multiple countries have bases in Antarctica, so it seems unlikely that a spacecraft-sized addition to the 50 acre McMurdo station is the proverbial straw on the camel’s back for a continent’s environment. Reusing human waste shouldn’t be a problem, either, since the proposals are to use that as fertilizer - it’s awfully expensive not to use everything that you shipped between planets! And, yes, I linked to a best-selling popular science book at the level of the conversation here. I should note that the book has two authors, and the first one isn’t the illustrator but the professional biologist. You’re welcome to provide dissenting views if you want, I’m sure they wouldn’t claim to be the last word on the topic.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    It's far below the level of discussion here or anywhere where there is discussion with varying views. The reason is that the book is broken in near to every single argument it makes, often intentionally by relying on misleading arguments or assuming the lack of knowledge of the reader -- knowledge which, crucially, I'm fairly certain they themselves had or should have had with even cursory level research on the topic. In a forum with debate those arguments rapidly emerge. So for instance, their very first effort is to try to 'debunk' the idea of having Mars as a sort of 'backup' to Earth by claiming that even in the case of a doomsday event Earth would still be far more hospitable than Mars. That statement is completely true but also completely irrelevant. Take a typical doomsday event, an asteroid impact or a supervolcano. Both kill you the same way which isn't the initial event, but rather the sun ending up getting blotted out for years by mass debris/ash not only causing an extreme freeze across the planet, but also ending photosynthesis rapidly killing all plant life which starts a mass extinction on up the food chain to animals that ate those plants then animals that ate those animals and so on. This is the sort of event that could easily completely kill off humanity, but it's not because it'd make Earth a worse place than Mars. Even at the climax of mass extinction, Earth would still be dramatically more hospitable than Mars. The reason it will be so deadly is because it's so different than the conditions to which we prepare for -- more people die in the desert of drowning than of thirst. An offworld colony in this case would help ensure humanity is perpetuated, Earth is recolonized, rescue survivors, ensure global order, and so on. In fact this is the case for most of all conceivable disasters. I wanted to dig into more of their arguments but this is already fairly lengthy. If you mention what you found most compelling, I can offer the data (or, as in this case, logic) to the contrary.
rwyinuse 2y ago
Neither Antarctica or Mars should be a problem, as long as you have sufficient energy source, and bring some soil & nutrients with you. After all, people make money growing weed indoors with only electrical lights. My country has freezing and dark winters, yet we enjoy fresh tomatoes all around the year, grown in heated greenhouses with extra artificial light.
- acdha 2y ago
  I’m not saying it’s beyond possible, only that it’s not “easy”. If someone is saying that we can colonize Mars, it’s orders of magnitude easier to send the same payload to Antarctica and see if it works somewhere that, say, a failure in the air processing system can avoid loss of life by opening the windows.

nuancebydefault 2y ago

I am not sure why you got downvoted but probably they did not watch 'the Martian'.

DebtDeflation 2y ago
At least someone got the reference, thank you.

greenie_beans 2y ago

i hope this is sarcasm because this is exactly what i'm talking about. i will not be joining you on that endeavor but more power to you. good luck!