4 ms·
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.
by 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 agoI'm not sure 500⁰C and 100x earth pressure is in any range of viable...
- nativeit 1y agoElevation.
- Xss3 1y agoNo, the surface sucks. The clouds are where its at.
- dotnet00 1y agoThe 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 agoI 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 agoYou 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.