4 ms·
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. An
by b112 2y 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 2y 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 2y agoThere 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.
- ckemere 2y agoGiven that no one has yet traveled to Mars, “faced a far more dangerous journey” seems a ridiculously hyperbolic statement. (Thinking even about the lost colony at Roanoke.)