5 ms·

I think the point is not that it is technologically infeasible to live in deserts, but that doing it years with only what you can fit in a capsule the size of a

I think the point is not that it is technologically infeasible to live in deserts, but that doing it years with only what you can fit in a capsule the size of a U-Haul or dig out of the ground (with a drill you brought with you in the U-Haul) is extremely difficult. And, that no one has demonstrated how that can be turned into a positive, long-term revenue stream, even in principle.

ChuckMcM 12y ago
Camping in the Sierras as I have done over the years has lead to seeing a lot of mining towns. And a mining town in the 19th century was a modest analog of a Mars colony in that they made most of their own tools out of locally available material, lived off food that could be sourced locally, and had few support structures outside of their own ingenuity. The argument that presumably robotic missions would pre-supply a landing site with materials that could not be locally sourced, tools for processing locally sourced materials into useful form (including but not limited to air/water). Puts what is left being there for the hell of it. Failed earth experiments like the Biosphere ones depended primarily on self containment (good for when you are surrounded by vacuum), successful experiments like the Russian 'mobile home from hell' [1], and some things in the middle like 'earth ships'[2] actually point to feasibility. What is lacking is the certainty that you will die if this doesn't work. And that, is pretty hard to simulate on Earth because there is always an "option" of some sort for rescue. [1] http://www.space.com/13500-mock-mars-mission-mars-500-ends.html http://www.space.com/13500-mock-mars-mission-mars-500-ends.h... [2] http://earthship.com/ http://earthship.com/