40 ms·

Couldn't we do a practise run on earth? I'd expect an underground colony built to specs to survive indefinitely on Mars or Mercury could also do so on Earth ev

Couldn't we do a practise run on earth? I'd expect an underground colony built to specs to survive indefinitely on Mars or Mercury could also do so on Earth even in the event of a large impact (assuming it isn't a direct hit on the colony itself).

rosser 13y ago
An extinction-level impactor on earth would opaque the skies for decades. Unless you have a power source that's going to last that long without refueling, and that's sufficient not only to supply the direct needs of the human occupants, but also their indirect needs, in the form of light for their crops, then no; probably not. That's one of the more compelling points about Mercury, according to this argument: pretty much nowhere else in the solar system is power going to be that cheap and abundant.
- aaron695 13y ago
  > Unless you have a power source that's going to last that long Geothermal, nuclear, tidal. Perhaps wind, I'd think heating the upper atmosphere would still cause turbulence? I'd say the main reason is that it's not as cool. Which at the end of the day is why we do stuff. Living on Mercury would be dam cool.
  - taproot 13y ago
    +1 for oblivious optimism.
  - vec 13y ago
    I've got to say "cool" is not the first word that springs to mind when I think about setting up shop that close to Sol.
- robryan 13y ago
  In terms of the situation on earth, you don't need a large amount of survival from an extinction level event. Even if it was a few thousand diverse people in underground nuclear powered bunkers we would eventually build back up.
- rogerbinns 13y ago
  On Mars you'd need a long running power source anyway, so the same one used on earth should suffice. I think a good argument could be made that Earth is better than Mars for a survivable outpost, and that Mercury has a compelling energy advantage but not much else.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - rosser 13y ago
    Earth is better than Mars for a survivable outpost ...except that the context of the discussion is having a survivable outpost for humanity in the event that Earth was no longer habitable. TFA makes the case that, of the options we have left, Mercury may actually be among the best.
    - rogerbinns 13y ago
      > ... in the event that Earth was no longer habitable The most likely scenario is that regular city folk find it no longer habitable. Self contained/reliant underground outposts could still survive. An event that makes all of those outposts untenable is far less likely.
Elv13 13y ago
If the impact is big enough, the resulting worldwide earthquake and volcanic activity would destroy the colony, surface or underground. Given underground colonies _rely_ on equipment just to stay alive, the destruction of this equipment would have greater damages than surface colonies. Then, if the main power source of an earth underground colony is solar power, then they would not end up much better than the surface one. Getting closer to earth core as seismic insulation and power source may or may not solve the 2 problems mentioned above.
rbanffy 13y ago
> Couldn't we do a practise run on earth? Probably yes. Surviving indefinitely is not a requirement - we can always ship supplies from Earth (or Mars, or one of the ice-rich moons further out). But I'd still suggest a permanent presence on the Moon before we attempt one on Mars or Mercury. When things break (and they certainly will, multiple times) we can plan a rescue mission. If we have to plan one for Mercury, the colonists will have to sit patiently and wait for rescue. On the Moon, we can also perfect remote control heavy machinery, something we just can't do anywhere else, only putting humans there when the habitat is assembled and operational.
- VLM 13y ago
  Redundancy and continuous rescue are the way to do it. The standard space program is to talk about it for 20 years (paying salaries all the way) to figure out the "best" way to do it, then do it, once, then fire everyone and destroy all the construction jigs, blueprints, etc. The way to colonize is to ship them enough "stuff" to build 2 or 3 colonies per shipping season. Every time. And ship somewhat less than 100% staffing so there's plenty of spares. The only safe way to live on a space colony is truly post-scarcity by limited population. Current aerospace standards would be 5 years in, The air cleaner fails and it'll be 20 years of R+D and one shipping season before we can send you another. The right way to do it is 5 years in, the air cleaner fails and that's cool because there's 10 spares on site, two shipped for each year the colony has been in operation, and there are 3 backup colonies within one short walk and/or we'd just abandon the one building of this colony because we wisely don't centralize anything. And enough junk will arrive on the next transport ship to set up yet another small colony.

rosser 13y ago

An extinction-level impactor on earth would opaque the skies for decades. Unless you have a power source that's going to last that long without refueling, and that's sufficient not only to supply the direct needs of the human occupants, but also their indirect needs, in the form of light for their crops, then no; probably not. That's one of the more compelling points about Mercury, according to this argument: pretty much nowhere else in the solar system is power going to be that cheap and abundant.

aaron695 13y ago
> Unless you have a power source that's going to last that long Geothermal, nuclear, tidal. Perhaps wind, I'd think heating the upper atmosphere would still cause turbulence? I'd say the main reason is that it's not as cool. Which at the end of the day is why we do stuff. Living on Mercury would be dam cool.
- taproot 13y ago
  +1 for oblivious optimism.
- vec 13y ago
  I've got to say "cool" is not the first word that springs to mind when I think about setting up shop that close to Sol.
robryan 13y ago
In terms of the situation on earth, you don't need a large amount of survival from an extinction level event. Even if it was a few thousand diverse people in underground nuclear powered bunkers we would eventually build back up.
rogerbinns 13y ago
On Mars you'd need a long running power source anyway, so the same one used on earth should suffice. I think a good argument could be made that Earth is better than Mars for a survivable outpost, and that Mercury has a compelling energy advantage but not much else.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- rosser 13y ago
  Earth is better than Mars for a survivable outpost ...except that the context of the discussion is having a survivable outpost for humanity in the event that Earth was no longer habitable. TFA makes the case that, of the options we have left, Mercury may actually be among the best.
  - rogerbinns 13y ago
    > ... in the event that Earth was no longer habitable The most likely scenario is that regular city folk find it no longer habitable. Self contained/reliant underground outposts could still survive. An event that makes all of those outposts untenable is far less likely.

Elv13 13y ago

If the impact is big enough, the resulting worldwide earthquake and volcanic activity would destroy the colony, surface or underground. Given underground colonies _rely_ on equipment just to stay alive, the destruction of this equipment would have greater damages than surface colonies. Then, if the main power source of an earth underground colony is solar power, then they would not end up much better than the surface one. Getting closer to earth core as seismic insulation and power source may or may not solve the 2 problems mentioned above.

rbanffy 13y ago

> Couldn't we do a practise run on earth? Probably yes. Surviving indefinitely is not a requirement - we can always ship supplies from Earth (or Mars, or one of the ice-rich moons further out). But I'd still suggest a permanent presence on the Moon before we attempt one on Mars or Mercury. When things break (and they certainly will, multiple times) we can plan a rescue mission. If we have to plan one for Mercury, the colonists will have to sit patiently and wait for rescue. On the Moon, we can also perfect remote control heavy machinery, something we just can't do anywhere else, only putting humans there when the habitat is assembled and operational.

VLM 13y ago
Redundancy and continuous rescue are the way to do it. The standard space program is to talk about it for 20 years (paying salaries all the way) to figure out the "best" way to do it, then do it, once, then fire everyone and destroy all the construction jigs, blueprints, etc. The way to colonize is to ship them enough "stuff" to build 2 or 3 colonies per shipping season. Every time. And ship somewhat less than 100% staffing so there's plenty of spares. The only safe way to live on a space colony is truly post-scarcity by limited population. Current aerospace standards would be 5 years in, The air cleaner fails and it'll be 20 years of R+D and one shipping season before we can send you another. The right way to do it is 5 years in, the air cleaner fails and that's cool because there's 10 spares on site, two shipped for each year the colony has been in operation, and there are 3 backup colonies within one short walk and/or we'd just abandon the one building of this colony because we wisely don't centralize anything. And enough junk will arrive on the next transport ship to set up yet another small colony.