4 ms·

Yeah, the ground on mars is literally toxic. Makes the concept of a Martian colony less appealing. Almost equal to a floating station on Venus. At least there y

Yeah, the ground on mars is literally toxic. Makes the concept of a Martian colony less appealing. Almost equal to a floating station on Venus. At least there you’d have the correct pressure. I seem to recall that the temperature on Venus at an altitude of one atmospheric pressure is manageable. It’s just also acidic. Possibility easier to deal with than perchlorates.

MengerSponge 6mo ago
Mars is so bad, y'all.
card_zero 6mo ago
Since the perchlorate is generated by reaction with sunlight, it might be limited to a surface layer. Well, I guess that's what regolith means.
- kzrdude 6mo ago
  Regolith is all the loose stuff, everything that's not bedrock, even if it might be quite deep.
- vondur 6mo ago
  Rocket fuel for the taking?
lukan 6mo ago
Without massive terraforming all of Mars is very hostile. But having solid ground is still nice. A workable compromise is making big habitats in a dome, that gives sunlight, but shields from radiation. And the ground needs to be processed obviously. The advantage of Venus to me is is gravity.
- nradov 6mo ago
  Which dome construction material would be transparent to sunlight but block ionizing radiation?
  - LorenPechtel 6mo ago
    1) Why do you need sunlight? 2) If you have a source of hydrogen: water. Bonus as you don't have to make the dome hold pressure. A layer of water of the right depth will generate the force needed, the structure only needs to keep itself level. The only pressure holding is outside that, enough to keep the water from boiling. And, well, it's water--if it's hit by a rock that isn't too big you'll just have hole in the top layer, easily fixed. The same general idea would work on the Moon but the water is far from transparent if you pile up enough of it and you need a lot of hydrogen.
    - lukan 6mo ago
      Well, I did wrote "gives sunlight" and that is a valid reply to it. But ... I would need sunlight actually. That seems somewhat possible with light tubes, but the much nicer solution, a transparent dome to still see mars clouds at day and the stars at night, is indeed not possible with current materials.
- cosmic_cheese 6mo ago
  Gravity kind of cuts both ways. Closer to that of Earth is nearly guaranteed to be better for long term human health, but there's a possibility that martian gravity is "good enough" when supplemented with excercise while also making heavy operations and getting back out of the planet's gravity well easier.
- cduzz 6mo ago
  Venus seems like a wonderful place to live, relatively speaking. At the right altitude where you can "float" on the ocean, it's a pretty comfortable temperature and there's plenty of solar energy but you're shielded from the solar radiation. So, long term, your body will still work, assuming you can solve "the other problems." Of course, the down-side is that there's nothing to stand on and probably more importantly, there aren't many useful materials to work with besides tons of carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. Not much hydrogen there, so not much water, which probably is the biggest problem. One of them, anyhow. Also, there's probably not a whole lot to do besides float (zoom, actually) around and slowly go stir crazy in your bubble. But relatively speaking, it's way nicer than living in a hole on mars where you'll slowly die from gravity sickness, or radiation poisoning, or whatever.
  - jcranmer 6mo ago
    > Not much hydrogen there, so not much water, which probably is the biggest problem. Actually, the cloud layer at that level is mostly sulfuric acid, from which you can get your water. It also means you need to be in a hazmat suit when you walk outside, but that's still a step up from everywhere else, where you need a bulky pressure suit instead.
- operatingthetan 6mo ago
  If we terraform mars, isn't the dirt still toxic?
  - lukan 6mo ago
    No, as terraforming means changing that. Whether it is really possible, is a different question, but after you have an atmosphere, you could have engineered microorganism processing the soil etc.
    - operatingthetan 6mo ago
      In that sense then the term "terraforming" is on equal footing with alchemy.
      - fylo 6mo ago
        [flagged]
      - wolvoleo 6mo ago
        Doing something like that at planetary scale is science fiction anyway even if we did have the tech to do it.
        naravara 6mo ago
        If you can kick off self-sustaining biological processes it’ll happen on its own eventually, but you’d just be looking at generational time scales to do it. Of course you’ll probably have lots of side-effects.
        jodrellblank 6mo ago
        How do we do that? I imagine dumping Earth life on Mars it will just die. What if we buried a terrarium at the Martian pole with a radio isotope and solar heater and controls so that it could try growing bacteria inside and controlled-leaking some outside into a nearby warm (liquid water) surroundings, and that could get many chances to evolve strains that could survive further away - analogous to ocean life around deep hydrothermal vents. Anyone know of speculative plans of this sort?
- tarr11 6mo ago
  I wonder if it will turn out to be easier to adapt lifeforms to the planets than to try to adapt the planets to the lifeforms.
  - lukan 6mo ago
    Both probably, but you cannot really adapt life to no water and hard radiation. (at most sustain it in stasis, but not growing)
  - SoftTalker 6mo ago
    Neither is realistic; living on the Moon or Mars or any other planet is a fantasy.
    - SecretDreams 6mo ago
      This is the thinking of someone on the timescales of a single life. If humanity persists another 1000 years on our current trajectory (US/world politics not withstanding), I think nothing is really a fantasy. Rather, it's all possible but maybe just not in our own lifetimes. But it is also terribly difficult for us to plan for tomorrow, let alone for a future where our descendants are at the helm.
      - fellowmartian 6mo ago
        I agree, it’s just a failure of imagination. Some folks correctly foresee not being able to continue what we’re doing now in the exact same way in some new context and conclude everything is impossible. Life isn’t this fickle, it’s adapted before and will adapt again. This is why great science fiction is so valuable, as some people are better at imagining new ways of being more than others, and can show the rest of us the possibilities.
        jiggawatts 6mo ago
        The counterargument is a simple opportunity cost calculation: There will never, ever, ever[1] be a scenario where if you weighed up the options of "expand into some less habitable area of the Earth" versus "expand to Mars", the latter is the better option either 1) financially, or b) quality of life. Nobody[2] ever picks the dramatically more expensive and dramatically worse option! Also, people that are desperate enough to even consider living in the least desirable -- but still just barely habitable -- parts of planet Earth are essentially by definition too poor to afford interplanetary travel. And no, no amount future sci-fi technology can possibly overcome the simple energy costs of this! If someone can afford the hugely energy intensive interplanetary travel, and the up-front investment required to survive incredibly harsh environments, then by definition they could more productively invest that here on Earth! It's the cheaper and better option in every possible way, and always will be. This will remain true even if it's standing room only on the entire planetary surface -- it'll be cheaper to build levels upwards while digging downwards. Maybe our atmosphere will become horrifically polluted? Sure, okay, air filters are faaar cheaper than a full vacuum-capable space suit! Etc, etc, etc... [1] Okay, fine, maybe in a million years. Whatever ends up preferring Mars at that point will no longer be "human" by any sane classification. [2] For some values of nobody. There are morons that buy overpriced branded handbags made of literal trash. I doubt idiots like that will make for a successful, self-sustaining colony.
- OisinMoran 6mo ago
  You may enjoy this piece, Domes are over-rated: https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/11/28/domes-are-very-over-rated/ https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/11/28/domes-are-very...
  - lukan 6mo ago
    I did enjoy it, but I don't think domes are overrated. They are just way harder to build in reality, than in science fiction ..
ozgung 6mo ago
Sadly we underestimate the liveability of this Earth. Muskism makes people believe to the false premise that we can just buy a new planet, make it habitable with magical tech. Supported with pseudoscientific buzzwords like Terraforming etc. So we can recklessly consume this planet and jump to our new home when this one depletes. No need to care about our current home because it's a jumping board. Interesting as an old Sci-Fi fantasy so it attracts smart people, but if you really think about it's just lies and stupidity.
- tim333 6mo ago
  Musk was also into the solar panels and EVs so it's not all trash the planet. Even if living on Mars or Venus isn't practical we might develop interesting tech trying.
  - Gigachad 6mo ago
    Wasn’t the solar panels thing just some financial fraud scheme?
    - grosswait 6mo ago
      If so, they are still going https://www.tesla.com/solarpanels https://www.tesla.com/solarpanels so I guess not
    - oskarkk 6mo ago
      Not exactly, it was a normal solar panel business started by Elon's cousins (SolarCity), but it wasn't going well, and in the end it was bought by Tesla for much bigger money than it was worth (let's say it was a bailout for Elon). Today Tesla solar panels are maybe 0.1%-1% of the business, they stopped giving any data on it years ago.
- api 6mo ago
  One of the worst things Musk did is link himself in peoples’ minds to things like space exploration and then linked these ideas to… other ideas I’m not going into on here. All these ideas about space pre-date him by many decades.
LorenPechtel 6mo ago
Another interesting one is Mercury. There is a latitude where the average ground temperature is comfortable for us. You simply need to dig in deep enough to put enough thermal mass above you to get that average rather than the swings. I don't know how deep that is on Mercury, on Earth 10 meters is enough. Real world, you'll want to go a bit farther towards the pole so your station is comfortable with the thermal load of whatever equipment you put in it.
- permo-w 6mo ago
  the swings?
  - datsci_est_2015 6mo ago
    Assuming they mean the ground acts as a heat sink, and sufficiently underground you’re not subjected to the above average heat of the day and below average cold of the night.
    - pitaj 6mo ago
      Isn't mercury tidally locked? Day is always day, night is always night.
      - gnabgib 6mo ago
        It is not (it has a 88d year, and a 58.65d.. day[0]) , we just had a post about it - if you travel at 4kph you can chase the sun.. A Mercury Rover Could Explore the Planet by Sticking to the Terminator (18 points, 1 week ago, 6 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47720941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47720941 [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet)
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
yieldcrv 6mo ago
floating colony on venus I heard was debunked, but that was also GPT 4.1 which was misaligned so I should seek a different source, from people, when I revisit this chain of thought

MengerSponge 6mo ago

Mars is so bad, y'all.

card_zero 6mo ago

Since the perchlorate is generated by reaction with sunlight, it might be limited to a surface layer. Well, I guess that's what regolith means.

kzrdude 6mo ago
Regolith is all the loose stuff, everything that's not bedrock, even if it might be quite deep.
vondur 6mo ago
Rocket fuel for the taking?

lukan 6mo ago

Without massive terraforming all of Mars is very hostile. But having solid ground is still nice. A workable compromise is making big habitats in a dome, that gives sunlight, but shields from radiation. And the ground needs to be processed obviously. The advantage of Venus to me is is gravity.

nradov 6mo ago
Which dome construction material would be transparent to sunlight but block ionizing radiation?
- LorenPechtel 6mo ago
  1) Why do you need sunlight? 2) If you have a source of hydrogen: water. Bonus as you don't have to make the dome hold pressure. A layer of water of the right depth will generate the force needed, the structure only needs to keep itself level. The only pressure holding is outside that, enough to keep the water from boiling. And, well, it's water--if it's hit by a rock that isn't too big you'll just have hole in the top layer, easily fixed. The same general idea would work on the Moon but the water is far from transparent if you pile up enough of it and you need a lot of hydrogen.
  - lukan 6mo ago
    Well, I did wrote "gives sunlight" and that is a valid reply to it. But ... I would need sunlight actually. That seems somewhat possible with light tubes, but the much nicer solution, a transparent dome to still see mars clouds at day and the stars at night, is indeed not possible with current materials.
cosmic_cheese 6mo ago
Gravity kind of cuts both ways. Closer to that of Earth is nearly guaranteed to be better for long term human health, but there's a possibility that martian gravity is "good enough" when supplemented with excercise while also making heavy operations and getting back out of the planet's gravity well easier.
cduzz 6mo ago
Venus seems like a wonderful place to live, relatively speaking. At the right altitude where you can "float" on the ocean, it's a pretty comfortable temperature and there's plenty of solar energy but you're shielded from the solar radiation. So, long term, your body will still work, assuming you can solve "the other problems." Of course, the down-side is that there's nothing to stand on and probably more importantly, there aren't many useful materials to work with besides tons of carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. Not much hydrogen there, so not much water, which probably is the biggest problem. One of them, anyhow. Also, there's probably not a whole lot to do besides float (zoom, actually) around and slowly go stir crazy in your bubble. But relatively speaking, it's way nicer than living in a hole on mars where you'll slowly die from gravity sickness, or radiation poisoning, or whatever.
- jcranmer 6mo ago
  > Not much hydrogen there, so not much water, which probably is the biggest problem. Actually, the cloud layer at that level is mostly sulfuric acid, from which you can get your water. It also means you need to be in a hazmat suit when you walk outside, but that's still a step up from everywhere else, where you need a bulky pressure suit instead.
operatingthetan 6mo ago
If we terraform mars, isn't the dirt still toxic?
- lukan 6mo ago
  No, as terraforming means changing that. Whether it is really possible, is a different question, but after you have an atmosphere, you could have engineered microorganism processing the soil etc.
  - operatingthetan 6mo ago
    In that sense then the term "terraforming" is on equal footing with alchemy.
    - fylo 6mo ago
      [flagged]
    - wolvoleo 6mo ago
      Doing something like that at planetary scale is science fiction anyway even if we did have the tech to do it.
      - naravara 6mo ago
        If you can kick off self-sustaining biological processes it’ll happen on its own eventually, but you’d just be looking at generational time scales to do it. Of course you’ll probably have lots of side-effects.
        jodrellblank 6mo ago
        How do we do that? I imagine dumping Earth life on Mars it will just die. What if we buried a terrarium at the Martian pole with a radio isotope and solar heater and controls so that it could try growing bacteria inside and controlled-leaking some outside into a nearby warm (liquid water) surroundings, and that could get many chances to evolve strains that could survive further away - analogous to ocean life around deep hydrothermal vents. Anyone know of speculative plans of this sort?
tarr11 6mo ago
I wonder if it will turn out to be easier to adapt lifeforms to the planets than to try to adapt the planets to the lifeforms.
- lukan 6mo ago
  Both probably, but you cannot really adapt life to no water and hard radiation. (at most sustain it in stasis, but not growing)
- SoftTalker 6mo ago
  Neither is realistic; living on the Moon or Mars or any other planet is a fantasy.
  - SecretDreams 6mo ago
    This is the thinking of someone on the timescales of a single life. If humanity persists another 1000 years on our current trajectory (US/world politics not withstanding), I think nothing is really a fantasy. Rather, it's all possible but maybe just not in our own lifetimes. But it is also terribly difficult for us to plan for tomorrow, let alone for a future where our descendants are at the helm.
    - fellowmartian 6mo ago
      I agree, it’s just a failure of imagination. Some folks correctly foresee not being able to continue what we’re doing now in the exact same way in some new context and conclude everything is impossible. Life isn’t this fickle, it’s adapted before and will adapt again. This is why great science fiction is so valuable, as some people are better at imagining new ways of being more than others, and can show the rest of us the possibilities.
      - jiggawatts 6mo ago
        The counterargument is a simple opportunity cost calculation: There will never, ever, ever[1] be a scenario where if you weighed up the options of "expand into some less habitable area of the Earth" versus "expand to Mars", the latter is the better option either 1) financially, or b) quality of life. Nobody[2] ever picks the dramatically more expensive and dramatically worse option! Also, people that are desperate enough to even consider living in the least desirable -- but still just barely habitable -- parts of planet Earth are essentially by definition too poor to afford interplanetary travel. And no, no amount future sci-fi technology can possibly overcome the simple energy costs of this! If someone can afford the hugely energy intensive interplanetary travel, and the up-front investment required to survive incredibly harsh environments, then by definition they could more productively invest that here on Earth! It's the cheaper and better option in every possible way, and always will be. This will remain true even if it's standing room only on the entire planetary surface -- it'll be cheaper to build levels upwards while digging downwards. Maybe our atmosphere will become horrifically polluted? Sure, okay, air filters are faaar cheaper than a full vacuum-capable space suit! Etc, etc, etc... [1] Okay, fine, maybe in a million years. Whatever ends up preferring Mars at that point will no longer be "human" by any sane classification. [2] For some values of nobody. There are morons that buy overpriced branded handbags made of literal trash. I doubt idiots like that will make for a successful, self-sustaining colony.
OisinMoran 6mo ago
You may enjoy this piece, Domes are over-rated: https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/11/28/domes-are-very-over-rated/ https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/11/28/domes-are-very...
- lukan 6mo ago
  I did enjoy it, but I don't think domes are overrated. They are just way harder to build in reality, than in science fiction ..

ozgung 6mo ago

Sadly we underestimate the liveability of this Earth. Muskism makes people believe to the false premise that we can just buy a new planet, make it habitable with magical tech. Supported with pseudoscientific buzzwords like Terraforming etc. So we can recklessly consume this planet and jump to our new home when this one depletes. No need to care about our current home because it's a jumping board. Interesting as an old Sci-Fi fantasy so it attracts smart people, but if you really think about it's just lies and stupidity.

tim333 6mo ago
Musk was also into the solar panels and EVs so it's not all trash the planet. Even if living on Mars or Venus isn't practical we might develop interesting tech trying.
- Gigachad 6mo ago
  Wasn’t the solar panels thing just some financial fraud scheme?
  - grosswait 6mo ago
    If so, they are still going https://www.tesla.com/solarpanels https://www.tesla.com/solarpanels so I guess not
  - oskarkk 6mo ago
    Not exactly, it was a normal solar panel business started by Elon's cousins (SolarCity), but it wasn't going well, and in the end it was bought by Tesla for much bigger money than it was worth (let's say it was a bailout for Elon). Today Tesla solar panels are maybe 0.1%-1% of the business, they stopped giving any data on it years ago.
api 6mo ago
One of the worst things Musk did is link himself in peoples’ minds to things like space exploration and then linked these ideas to… other ideas I’m not going into on here. All these ideas about space pre-date him by many decades.

LorenPechtel 6mo ago

Another interesting one is Mercury. There is a latitude where the average ground temperature is comfortable for us. You simply need to dig in deep enough to put enough thermal mass above you to get that average rather than the swings. I don't know how deep that is on Mercury, on Earth 10 meters is enough. Real world, you'll want to go a bit farther towards the pole so your station is comfortable with the thermal load of whatever equipment you put in it.

permo-w 6mo ago
the swings?
- datsci_est_2015 6mo ago
  Assuming they mean the ground acts as a heat sink, and sufficiently underground you’re not subjected to the above average heat of the day and below average cold of the night.
  - pitaj 6mo ago
    Isn't mercury tidally locked? Day is always day, night is always night.
    - gnabgib 6mo ago
      It is not (it has a 88d year, and a 58.65d.. day[0]) , we just had a post about it - if you travel at 4kph you can chase the sun.. A Mercury Rover Could Explore the Planet by Sticking to the Terminator (18 points, 1 week ago, 6 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47720941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47720941 [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet)
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]

yieldcrv 6mo ago

floating colony on venus I heard was debunked, but that was also GPT 4.1 which was misaligned so I should seek a different source, from people, when I revisit this chain of thought