5 ms·

100 years optimistically!? That's an incredibly pessimistic timeline, maybe one of the most hardline "nothing ever happens" outlooks I've ever heard articulated

100 years optimistically!? That's an incredibly pessimistic timeline, maybe one of the most hardline "nothing ever happens" outlooks I've ever heard articulated.

Spivak 1y ago
Eh, it's a reasonable prior. The timeline is "it will never happen" until the leap forward happens that makes it "within 2 years." Basically the same as air flight. You can't know when the leap will happen so it's basically picking a year that seems far enough off to be pretty darn sure.
- Unit327 1y ago
  It doesn't require a leap forward, we could put boots on the ground with 1990s tech.
  - red-iron-pine 1y ago
    aye we could have. and they'd all be long dead on the surface of Mars by this point. getting them there isn't enough.
    - Unit327 1y ago
      Keeping them alive and returning them doesn't require "a leap" which is the central point of OP I am disagreeing with. We have all the technology, material science etc to do it. Sure, it requires some research, engineering and a crapload of investment, but it doesn't require anything that is currently "science fiction".
paulryanrogers 1y ago
Have you read about the natural conditions on Mars? I doubt there will be a permanent settlement in a thousand years.
- Unit327 1y ago
  I think you are both on different pages about settlement vs just a visit.
pasquinelli 1y ago
that's crazy to say. mars is very cold and very dry and not shielded from radiation and doesn't have much air and that air isn't breathable. i wouldn't say we've settled antarctica, which is on our planet and has air. 100 years would be a wild amount of time for us to settle mars.
- peterlada 1y ago
  Add to that a soil and dust that's toxic to humans. Our biology, unsurprisingly, is only compatible with a single planet.
- b112 1y ago
  We purposefully decided not to settle there socially, yet we have settled there permanently with research and military stations. Just as we will with Mars. And yes we grow things there, even if just green onions and herbs. Not to mention the reason for this isn't that it is insurmountable, merely that far better land is close by. 100 years is beyond pessimistic. We could easily have settled Mars with 1970s tech.
  - griffzhowl 1y ago
    > the reason for this isn't that it is insurmountable, merely that far better land is close by. times a few orders of magnitude and this is the main reason to doubt a settled Mars colony. Possibly a research outpost, but why would that be staffed by humans rather than robots?
    - b112 1y ago
      There is no 'few orders of magnitude', because it's conquered, you're not allowed to settle there, and it's not a new frontier. Yet Mars is a new frontier, and endless, massive numbers of humans would go to Mars in a heartbeat. Frankly, settlers travelling to the new world in the 1400s faced a far more dangerous journey and living conditions than a trip to Mars. We're talking first explorers here, so many died on boats, of starvation the first year, on and on. Modern tech does not remove said risk, but it tips the playing field.
hnbad 1y ago
Colonizing Mars isn't a problem. Colonizing Mars is a goal. Making that happen requires addressing a ridiculous number of problems and sub-problems. If history teaches us anything, the biggest problem is supply chains - and supply chains have been so difficult to get right that they've led to countless famines, lost wars, failed businesses and economic crises. And those have all been supply chains here on Earth, mostly between fixed locations at fixed distances with relatively few environmental hazards and risks compared to space travel. If we want to create a sustainable multi-planetary future, we need to solve this incrementally. Colonizing the moon would be a logical stopgap. But as it stands now we haven't even established a presence on the moon - let alone a permanent one. The only presence we have off-planet is the ISS and that one's still in Low Earth Orbit, no different from regular communication satellites, so that only qualifies as "off-planet" by not being on the surface of the planet. Remember that we can't just scale up space travel indepently either. Even if SpaceX figures out how to do space launches every other day, that still requires a supply chain for fuel, parts, refinement, resource extraction, etc, all of which also needs to be scaled up accordingly. And that's just for launching stuff into space, which so far has mostly meant LEO.

100 years optimistically!? That's an incredibly pessimistic timeline, maybe one of the most hardline "nothing ever happens" outlooks I've ever heard articulated.

Spivak 1y ago

Eh, it's a reasonable prior. The timeline is "it will never happen" until the leap forward happens that makes it "within 2 years." Basically the same as air flight. You can't know when the leap will happen so it's basically picking a year that seems far enough off to be pretty darn sure.

Unit327 1y ago
It doesn't require a leap forward, we could put boots on the ground with 1990s tech.
- red-iron-pine 1y ago
  aye we could have. and they'd all be long dead on the surface of Mars by this point. getting them there isn't enough.
  - Unit327 1y ago
    Keeping them alive and returning them doesn't require "a leap" which is the central point of OP I am disagreeing with. We have all the technology, material science etc to do it. Sure, it requires some research, engineering and a crapload of investment, but it doesn't require anything that is currently "science fiction".

paulryanrogers 1y ago

Have you read about the natural conditions on Mars? I doubt there will be a permanent settlement in a thousand years.

Unit327 1y ago
I think you are both on different pages about settlement vs just a visit.

pasquinelli 1y ago

that's crazy to say. mars is very cold and very dry and not shielded from radiation and doesn't have much air and that air isn't breathable. i wouldn't say we've settled antarctica, which is on our planet and has air. 100 years would be a wild amount of time for us to settle mars.

peterlada 1y ago
Add to that a soil and dust that's toxic to humans. Our biology, unsurprisingly, is only compatible with a single planet.
b112 1y ago
We purposefully decided not to settle there socially, yet we have settled there permanently with research and military stations. Just as we will with Mars. And yes we grow things there, even if just green onions and herbs. Not to mention the reason for this isn't that it is insurmountable, merely that far better land is close by. 100 years is beyond pessimistic. We could easily have settled Mars with 1970s tech.
- griffzhowl 1y ago
  > the reason for this isn't that it is insurmountable, merely that far better land is close by. times a few orders of magnitude and this is the main reason to doubt a settled Mars colony. Possibly a research outpost, but why would that be staffed by humans rather than robots?
  - b112 1y ago
    There is no 'few orders of magnitude', because it's conquered, you're not allowed to settle there, and it's not a new frontier. Yet Mars is a new frontier, and endless, massive numbers of humans would go to Mars in a heartbeat. Frankly, settlers travelling to the new world in the 1400s faced a far more dangerous journey and living conditions than a trip to Mars. We're talking first explorers here, so many died on boats, of starvation the first year, on and on. Modern tech does not remove said risk, but it tips the playing field.

hnbad 1y ago

Colonizing Mars isn't a problem. Colonizing Mars is a goal. Making that happen requires addressing a ridiculous number of problems and sub-problems. If history teaches us anything, the biggest problem is supply chains - and supply chains have been so difficult to get right that they've led to countless famines, lost wars, failed businesses and economic crises. And those have all been supply chains here on Earth, mostly between fixed locations at fixed distances with relatively few environmental hazards and risks compared to space travel. If we want to create a sustainable multi-planetary future, we need to solve this incrementally. Colonizing the moon would be a logical stopgap. But as it stands now we haven't even established a presence on the moon - let alone a permanent one. The only presence we have off-planet is the ISS and that one's still in Low Earth Orbit, no different from regular communication satellites, so that only qualifies as "off-planet" by not being on the surface of the planet. Remember that we can't just scale up space travel indepently either. Even if SpaceX figures out how to do space launches every other day, that still requires a supply chain for fuel, parts, refinement, resource extraction, etc, all of which also needs to be scaled up accordingly. And that's just for launching stuff into space, which so far has mostly meant LEO.