5 ms·

To what end ?. Mars is a total boondoggle - a colony would require constant supply runs from Earth to support a double-digit population - who is going to field

To what end ?. Mars is a total boondoggle - a colony would require constant supply runs from Earth to support a double-digit population - who is going to field the cost and what are they going to do there ?. "The Martian" was work of fiction. A lunar colony is cheaper and way more feasible.

thinkingtoilet 1y ago
I don't understand your response. I clearly said it's not worth it right now.
- Forgeties79 1y ago
  Their point (I believe) is “why do we want to go there over the moon?” What is there that makes the effort worth it at all now or later (until we can truly move a large population there permanently/for very long stretches)? If the point is a colony, then we should just do it on the moon. If the point is for the advances in technology it will bring, we don’t have to go to Mars to explore those things. We could just keep practicing on the moon. Obviously it’s not exactly the same but idk, most of why I’d be interested in our going to mars can be answered with “it’s easier, more feasible, and generally just as useful to do it on the moon instead.” It’s still low gravity, no oxygen/breathable atmosphere, a hostile desert essentially, etc. but far closer. We can respond to emergencies more easily. We know for a fact we are currently capable of getting there and back safely. TL;DR: we will likely get a lot more out of dumping our resources into trips to and from the moon and building something there than trying to go to mars for a very long time.
overfeed 1y ago
> To what end ? Funnelling a lot of government money into the pockets of the best candidate for the world's first trillionare.
Xss3 1y ago
Even a Venusian colony would be significantly more viable than mars. Mars sucks. The moon sucks too. We need rotating space habitats. With gravity and hookers.
- viraptor 1y ago
  I'm not sure 500⁰C and 100x earth pressure is in any range of viable...
  - nativeit 1y ago
    Elevation.
  - Xss3 1y ago
    No, the surface sucks. The clouds are where its at.
    - dotnet00 1y ago
      The clouds are even less viable, every resource would have to be imported from space. Mars is infinitely more viable than anywhere in Venus for the simple fact that you are on solid ground with resources all around you.
      - Xss3 1y ago
        I haven't seen any evidence we could actually harness the resources on mars without tech that doesn't exist. E.g. fusion power. Without orbital infrastructure shipping supplies in neither are viable.
        dotnet00 1y ago
        You don't need fusion power to melt ice, to move regolith over habitats for shielding, or to melt rocks to extract and process metals. I have absolutely no idea where you get the notion that it meeds fusion power? Solar power or things like kilopower reactors are a great option for Mars, especially for bootstrapping.

thinkingtoilet 1y ago

I don't understand your response. I clearly said it's not worth it right now.

Forgeties79 1y ago
Their point (I believe) is “why do we want to go there over the moon?” What is there that makes the effort worth it at all now or later (until we can truly move a large population there permanently/for very long stretches)? If the point is a colony, then we should just do it on the moon. If the point is for the advances in technology it will bring, we don’t have to go to Mars to explore those things. We could just keep practicing on the moon. Obviously it’s not exactly the same but idk, most of why I’d be interested in our going to mars can be answered with “it’s easier, more feasible, and generally just as useful to do it on the moon instead.” It’s still low gravity, no oxygen/breathable atmosphere, a hostile desert essentially, etc. but far closer. We can respond to emergencies more easily. We know for a fact we are currently capable of getting there and back safely. TL;DR: we will likely get a lot more out of dumping our resources into trips to and from the moon and building something there than trying to go to mars for a very long time.

overfeed 1y ago

> To what end ? Funnelling a lot of government money into the pockets of the best candidate for the world's first trillionare.

Xss3 1y ago

Even a Venusian colony would be significantly more viable than mars. Mars sucks. The moon sucks too. We need rotating space habitats. With gravity and hookers.

viraptor 1y ago
I'm not sure 500⁰C and 100x earth pressure is in any range of viable...
- nativeit 1y ago
  Elevation.
- Xss3 1y ago
  No, the surface sucks. The clouds are where its at.
  - dotnet00 1y ago
    The clouds are even less viable, every resource would have to be imported from space. Mars is infinitely more viable than anywhere in Venus for the simple fact that you are on solid ground with resources all around you.
    - Xss3 1y ago
      I haven't seen any evidence we could actually harness the resources on mars without tech that doesn't exist. E.g. fusion power. Without orbital infrastructure shipping supplies in neither are viable.
      - dotnet00 1y ago
        You don't need fusion power to melt ice, to move regolith over habitats for shielding, or to melt rocks to extract and process metals. I have absolutely no idea where you get the notion that it meeds fusion power? Solar power or things like kilopower reactors are a great option for Mars, especially for bootstrapping.