6 ms·

For those who are keen to travel to Mars: may I suggest a stint in the Peace Corps first, or on a nuclear submarine, or a tour in Antarctica. If that's not amb

by codex 13y ago

For those who are keen to travel to Mars: may I suggest a stint in the Peace Corps first, or on a nuclear submarine, or a tour in Antarctica. If that's not ambitious enough, please try attempting to terraform a desert, or establishing a colony under the ocean or on top of K2, or constructing a city that's mostly buried underground. All of these are cakewalks compared to Mars, and may give you a taste for what the best of times will be like there after the excitement has worn off after the first month or so. Personally, I think Mars is a destination for robots and tourists, not permanent colonies, as it's basically a hostile shithole. Of all the hostile shitholes in the solar system, there are others I'd rather visit, like Europa or Io. But to each their own.

stcredzero 13y ago
> For those who are keen to travel to Mars: may I suggest a stint in the Peace Corps first, or on a nuclear submarine, or a tour in Antarctica. If that's not ambitious enough, please try attempting to terraform a desert, or establishing a colony under the ocean or on top of K2, or constructing a city that's mostly buried underground. Actually, it would be like signing up for a Peace Corps tour in Antarctica, first travelling there for 6 months on a tiny 4-man nuclear submarine, then arriving to build then live in an underground city where the outside atmosphere is more rarefied than at the top of K2 and drier than most deserts. > it's basically a hostile shithole The only reason we think the Earth is so great is that we evolved to live there. Otherwise, it would be a shithole at the bottom of an annoyingly deep gravity well and annoyingly dense corrosive atmosphere. Technology changes everything, though.
- mikeash 13y ago
  I don't see the impetus for colonizing Mars until we've started building serious cities in Antarctica. What does Mars buy you that Antarctica does not? Even the doomsday scenarios of "all your eggs in one basket" don't really seem to work; an Antarctic colony could be made self-sufficient and survivable in the event of an asteroid strike or nuclear war more easily than a Mars colony. I think it's a cool idea, but people seem to severely underestimate the difficulty.
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    > What does Mars buy you that Antarctica does not? Geez, Mike, I know this isn't your first reading of such threads on HN. How about vastly easier access to most of the resources in the Solar System?
    - mikeash 13y ago
      Of course, how silly of me. I knew the answer all along and just wanted to waste people's time. I'm so sorry to have wasted yours. It couldn't possibly be that I'm actually curious what people think and haven't seen a good answer yet. Jerk.
      - stcredzero 13y ago
        The repeated question can act as a sort of propaganda. (See the CO2/climate "debate.") If you know what people will probably say in response, then it would be the civic thing to do to mention it. It would also make it more likely for you to see the alternative answers. I call that "progress."
        mikeash 13y ago
        What repeated question? What makes you think I know what people will probably say, beyond the doomsday scenarios I already mentioned? I actually found your idea of better access to space intriguing. I'd love to discuss it. But not with someone like you.
        stcredzero 13y ago
        Oh come on. I just did a search. Considering the amount of times you've been around such threads on HN alone, is this really the first time you've seen the "solar-system wide resource" rationale? I find your pose of victimhood incongruous here.
        mikeash 13y ago
rbanffy 13y ago
> it's basically a hostile shithole. Going somewhere is not about being there, but getting there. What we'll have to do to get there is worth the effort. The Moon is a "hostile shithole", even worse than Mars, but every time I look to that Apollo 8 picture of the Earth rising above the lunar horizon, or read about Neil Armstrong eclipsing the Earth with his gloved thumb, I realize how fragile this world is and how futile our big empires are. It was worth it.
- zensavona 13y ago
  Indeed the moon is a hostile shithole as well, but nobody is suggesting we go live there.
  - unwind 13y ago
    True, nobody thought of that seriously, at all. The page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon most certainly does not exist, and even if it did, it would be a lightweight article devoid of serious references. Note: I'm certainly not suggesting we go live there, but quite obviously it has been suggested. That kind of blanket statement is annoying to me, which is why I responded.
- JabavuAdams 13y ago
  Our biggest empire put Armstrong there. A digression, but just saying. The logistics of getting people to the moon in the late sixties are mind-boggling.
lmm 13y ago
Mars is perhaps large enough for comfortable gravity, but small enough that a space elevator is much more practical? I can see that making it a very nice place for colonies in the long term. (Short term of course it's going to suck for all the reasons you suggest. But the only way we're going to get better at moving beyond Earth is to start doing it)

by codex 13y ago

stcredzero 13y ago

> For those who are keen to travel to Mars: may I suggest a stint in the Peace Corps first, or on a nuclear submarine, or a tour in Antarctica. If that's not ambitious enough, please try attempting to terraform a desert, or establishing a colony under the ocean or on top of K2, or constructing a city that's mostly buried underground. Actually, it would be like signing up for a Peace Corps tour in Antarctica, first travelling there for 6 months on a tiny 4-man nuclear submarine, then arriving to build then live in an underground city where the outside atmosphere is more rarefied than at the top of K2 and drier than most deserts. > it's basically a hostile shithole The only reason we think the Earth is so great is that we evolved to live there. Otherwise, it would be a shithole at the bottom of an annoyingly deep gravity well and annoyingly dense corrosive atmosphere. Technology changes everything, though.

mikeash 13y ago
I don't see the impetus for colonizing Mars until we've started building serious cities in Antarctica. What does Mars buy you that Antarctica does not? Even the doomsday scenarios of "all your eggs in one basket" don't really seem to work; an Antarctic colony could be made self-sufficient and survivable in the event of an asteroid strike or nuclear war more easily than a Mars colony. I think it's a cool idea, but people seem to severely underestimate the difficulty.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  > What does Mars buy you that Antarctica does not? Geez, Mike, I know this isn't your first reading of such threads on HN. How about vastly easier access to most of the resources in the Solar System?
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Of course, how silly of me. I knew the answer all along and just wanted to waste people's time. I'm so sorry to have wasted yours. It couldn't possibly be that I'm actually curious what people think and haven't seen a good answer yet. Jerk.
    - stcredzero 13y ago
      The repeated question can act as a sort of propaganda. (See the CO2/climate "debate.") If you know what people will probably say in response, then it would be the civic thing to do to mention it. It would also make it more likely for you to see the alternative answers. I call that "progress."
      - mikeash 13y ago
        What repeated question? What makes you think I know what people will probably say, beyond the doomsday scenarios I already mentioned? I actually found your idea of better access to space intriguing. I'd love to discuss it. But not with someone like you.
        stcredzero 13y ago
        Oh come on. I just did a search. Considering the amount of times you've been around such threads on HN alone, is this really the first time you've seen the "solar-system wide resource" rationale? I find your pose of victimhood incongruous here.
        mikeash 13y ago

rbanffy 13y ago

> it's basically a hostile shithole. Going somewhere is not about being there, but getting there. What we'll have to do to get there is worth the effort. The Moon is a "hostile shithole", even worse than Mars, but every time I look to that Apollo 8 picture of the Earth rising above the lunar horizon, or read about Neil Armstrong eclipsing the Earth with his gloved thumb, I realize how fragile this world is and how futile our big empires are. It was worth it.

zensavona 13y ago
Indeed the moon is a hostile shithole as well, but nobody is suggesting we go live there.
- unwind 13y ago
  True, nobody thought of that seriously, at all. The page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon most certainly does not exist, and even if it did, it would be a lightweight article devoid of serious references. Note: I'm certainly not suggesting we go live there, but quite obviously it has been suggested. That kind of blanket statement is annoying to me, which is why I responded.
JabavuAdams 13y ago
Our biggest empire put Armstrong there. A digression, but just saying. The logistics of getting people to the moon in the late sixties are mind-boggling.

lmm 13y ago

Mars is perhaps large enough for comfortable gravity, but small enough that a space elevator is much more practical? I can see that making it a very nice place for colonies in the long term. (Short term of course it's going to suck for all the reasons you suggest. But the only way we're going to get better at moving beyond Earth is to start doing it)