5 ms·
We don't even have permanent settlements on Antarctica. Don't hold your breath.
by elevaet 5mo ago
We don't even have permanent settlements on Antarctica. Don't hold your breath.
- AlexErrant 5mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_stations_in_Antarctica#Permanent_active_stations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_stations_in_Antarctic... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanza_Base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanza_Base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_Las_Estrellas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_Las_Estrellas
- ActorNightly 5mo agoPermanent means self sustaining. I.e biodome completely isolated from outside with its own atmosphere. None of those are self sustaining.
- femto 5mo agoThere's an argument that Earth, as a biodome completely isolated from outside with its own atmosphere, also isn't self sustaining. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day I'd keep the Moonraker film in mind as a metric for self sustaining colonies created by billionaires. They can't be trusted unless they are also working to fix what we already have.
- kelnos 5mo ago> Permanent means self sustaining. No it doesn't. "Permanent settlement" just means it's not temporary, only intended for a short-term mission.
- hvb2 5mo agoWhy on earth (pun intended), would you want that? You don't want to be there? Almost every other place on earth is better. So you send a skeleton crew along with what they need. If it is to test an actual community living isolated, sure. But I think it'll always be different because you know that help is at most a few months away and probably a lot less. I don't think you can fake that, unless you're never told you're not alone
- ActorNightly 5mo agoThe point is that we don't have technology (or at least not proven) to make a habitat on earth that can reliably provide isolation from harsh atmosphere. When you are sending people to space on an experimental rocket, with experimental supply for an experimental habitat, all of that shit better be engineered to a huge safety factor, because its not a matter of if things will go wrong, its how often will they go wrong and what the impact will be. To deal with that kind of unknown requires a level of technology that should make it possible to live in Antarctica for extended period of time without any external shipments coming in to resupply. That means heating, oxygen generation, food resources, air filtration, full medical bay capable of advanced surgery, and a bunch of other smaller things that all matter in the end.
- christophilus 5mo agoPlus insane storms and winds that I’m not sure Antarctica will properly simulate.
- mikeyouse 5mo agoAntarctica might be okay as a demo site on that front; https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QK5M_UfofRU https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QK5M_UfofRU
- hagbard_c 5mo agoThose "insane storms and winds" in an atmosphere with 2% of the density of earth's atmosphere won't be much of a problem.
- ActorNightly 5mo agoThat works both ways. Sure you won't have much density for air to move things, but things moving through air also don't have the drag to slow them down.
- tlb 5mo ago
- MagicMoonlight 5mo agoAmerica still isn’t self sustaining and it’s been hundreds of years.
- notachatbot123 5mo agoAnd the planet is dying
- hagbard_c 5mo agoThe planet cannot die since it doesn't live. Planet life isn't dying either.
- ponector 5mo agoYes, but it has some extra 5 billion years to live.
- Recurecur 5mo agoThat’s a misconception. The Sun is slowly growing more luminous, and inescapable global warming is expected to make the Earth uninhabitable in about a billion years. Life on Earth is about 3/4 of the way through its existence…
- echoangle 5mo ago> Permanent means self sustaining. I.e biodome completely isolated from outside with its own atmosphere. According to whom exactly? For me, permanent means "permanently without breaks".
- mapt 5mo agoIf you want another word for that, go with "Continuous". The ISS has been continuously occupied since November 2, 2000. But it was not, in fact, expected by anyone to be a permanent station; It is made of non-replaceable parts that age and fail (decade scale), it only has very limited life support supplies on board (month scale).
- echoangle 5mo agoI would call the ISS a permanent station. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#:~:text=module%29-,The,98%2E https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#:~... > It is made of non-replaceable parts Every part of the ISS is replaceable if you want to. > it only has very limited life support supplies on board (month scale) I still don't see why self-sustainability is a part of being "permanent".
- SideburnsOfDoom 5mo ago> I would call the ISS a permanent station. Since the ISS end of life is scheduled for 2030 - just four years from now - I really would not call it "permanent". Even if gets a few years reprieve, that's quite temporary. > Every part of the ISS is replaceable if you want to. There comes a point with buildings and with space stations where tearing down and completely replacing them is a better and cheaper option than repairing or extending them. The ISS is nearing that point.
- echoangle 5mo agoSomething that was permanent and is now scheduled for destruction is still permanent, no? Or can we at least agree that it was permanent at some point of its life? > There comes a point with buildings and with space stations where tearing down and completely replacing them is a better and cheaper option than repairing or extending them. The ISS is nearing that point. Sure, but that's the case for everything, including permanent things. My house won't be around forever, I would still call it a permanent housing.
- api 5mo agoNobody’s tried because they are a short flight away from South America. No point. It’s cheaper and easier to fly it in. There are skeptical arguments against Mars settlement but the Antarctica thing is kind of a weak one. To point out one more problem with it: there’s legal and treaty restrictions in play for that continent. You can’t just go. That’s another limiting factor.
- general1465 5mo agoYou can try the same thing in Greenland or far north of Canada. But nobody does that either, because there is no reason to do so. However put a reason to go to Mars, i.e. alien shipwreck and there is going to be multiple cities within end of the decade.
- elevaet 5mo agoCan you explain why and how we would build cities on Mars if we found an alien shipwreck there? That doesn't make any sense to me. It would likely cost bare minimum 10-100 billion dollars to put a few boots on the ground on Mars, how could we possibly build cities there within the end of the decade?
- ponector 5mo agoAccording to this, New York is not permanent settlement because it's not self sustaining.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- elevaet 5mo agoObviously there are research stations on Antarctica. And presumable your argument is that these are "permanent"? My point is that they are not, not in the sense that we will need for Mars. No one lives there full time, people aren't raising families there, they are very dependent on regular deliveries from the outside. Supply runs to Mars will be in the range of 10000x as expensive, possibly even higher. Something that costs $100 to get to Antarctica will cost $1million to get to Mars. Permanent Mars settlement will entail a level of self-sufficiency that we haven't proven on a place that is comparitively balmy and has the benefit of a breathable atmosphere and abundant water (Antarctica). Not to mention radiation... Don't hold your breath. I'm as much a fan of space colonization of as the next nerd, but it's premature.