(essay) Mars Is a Hellhole. Colonizing the red planet is a ridiculous way to help humanity.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-earth/618133/
Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom
They're called O'Neil cylinders...
"Occam" is the name of the alien race that will enslave us all eventually. And they've got razors for hands. I don't know if that's true but it seems like the simplest answer."
Stephen Colbert.
"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
That’s the claim. So what do you think about the article? For sure, Mars is better than Jupiter’s moons or Titan or other outer worlds in terms of habitability.
For my part, I saw precious little detail. Yeah, we all know Mars doesn’t have much atmosphere and habitats would be needed to live there. I dispute the idea that it would remain so difficult and unpleasant to do as technology advances, especially when research is turned towards development of advanced habitats. Early habitats would be very limited, but there is no reason why they would have to remain that way. As a larger population developed, with real manufacturing on Mars, with habitats the size of a small city, they could be quite comfortable places to live. And no, people wouldn’t need to live underground in tunnels. Yes, radiation shielding is needed, but there are ways to do that with above ground structures that allow sunlight in.
What I did notice is that the author really doesn’t like Musk. I had a bit of an eye roll reading this:
Like, oh, selling electric cars, solar panels and battery systems to store renewable power to reduce fossil fuel use perhaps?But I question anyone among the richest people in the world who sells a story of caring so much for human survival that he must send rockets into space. Someone in his position could do so many things on our little blue dot itself to help those in need.
Last edited by Van Rijn; 2021-Mar-01 at 06:32 PM.
"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Help is a long way away: The challenges of sending humans to Mars. (how to cope with sickness, equipment failure, and plain old loneliness)
https://phys.org/news/2021-03-humans-mars.html
Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom
Astronauts in crewed missions to Mars could misread vital emotional cues due to cognitive problems.
https://phys.org/news/2021-03-astron...s-misread.html
Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom
And it is much better than, for instance, Callisto, which we’ve discussed in another thread. Mars is much warmer, has more gravity, much more sunlight, has some atmosphere, an Earthlike day/night cycle, is rocky (not an ice ball with the occasional bit of rock included), easier to mine/better access to needed and important elements, eventually it might be possible to actually terraform Mars.
The article is basically an argument for never leaving Earth, which strikes me as foolish.
"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
I'm sure this has been gone over before, and it's a little bit of a general statement, but if we are planning to try to establish colonies as a way to have humanity survive some kind of catastrophe, we (almost wherever we create it) face a really different issue from living on earth, because on earth the environment allows us to survive even if we do not maintain it (though we are trying hard to ruin it...) Whereas on Mars or somewhere else, the colonists will almost certainly have to make continuing efforts to maintain the environment. Unless we can develop a system that automatically maintains an earth-like environment even if there are no colonists there. I wonder if that is possible. Otherwise, there seems to be a high likelihood that given enough time, the colony will experience a catastrophe and die out.
As above, so below
A space colony will require constant work, yes. As does most living situations for most people on Earth.
Space is a hazardous environment. As individual entities closed space biomes will probably have a shelf-life. The answer is to have a community of modular units, capable of covering for each other in case of catastrophe, like compartments on a sea vessel. And when possible, have a swarm of stations or a scattering of domes with the capacity to transport and support refugee populations. It's more engineering and resources than a standalone colony, which is usually what's been imagined, but you don't send one biplane to fight King Kong.
The time to start practicing for this is ASAP, and much of the initial prep can be done here on Earth, as with developing life supporting closed-cycle biomes in general.
"I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
The first city on Mars: Plans are unveiled for home for 250,000 people that will be build with materials on the Red Planet (many illos).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-33-years.html
Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom
I will not be around to collect, otherwise I would place a bet against that happening.
sicut vis videre esto
When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
Originally Posted by Ken G
In specifics of time and construction details or are you claiming there won’t eventually be cities on Mars? I fully expect there will be cities on Mars as long as technological civilization continues, timing is debatable. Though if SpaceX is successful with their great experiment, I could see it beginning sooner than many used to the rut we’ve been in for decades would expect.
"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
It is interesting at least, and I like seeing interest growing again. People had largely lost hope for near term space development and turned to fantasy or far future space in fiction. People are starting to hope again with the first really important shift in thinking about launch systems in decades.
As for the idea, I especially like it being built into a cliff. For a story I toyed with, but didn’t develop into something serious, I had a city built into the side of Valles Marineris, where people would have dramatic views of the canyon. It would be a visually stunning setting.
I also like that they are taking radiation into consideration but this is no underground tunnel like the “Mars is hell” author claimed would be needed.
"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Hi Van Rijn and Roger,
I bet against it too. I hope we will actually live in space. Going down a gravitational well to a hostile environment, at an imposed .38g might be tolerable for a few early hearty souls but I would bet these long journeys, and space tourism, will drive the development of better radiation protection and rotationally generated gravity. At that point it will likely be no more expensive to live in space proper than on Mars. And it will be comfortable.
In 100 years there will be people living in orbit around Mars at 1g enjoying way better views than what you get on the surface. Planetary scientists will explore through telepresence. Exceptionally, people will go to the surface, but why? And why would they want to live there? Who will be first to raise children in a .38g environment, and why?
My $0.02,
Yes, the timing is debatable. I say we are not ready to go live on Mars biologically. I am not sure about the rut you say we are in. We face another population pinch point in my opinion, so we are rolling downhill rather than sitting tight. Mars is interesting for science of course, so is the Ocean floor. There seems to be a growth argument that goes unchallenged. As in: we are destined to grow and therefore need more space. Technology actually means that we need fewer people to be stable, and a stable or reducing population is what is loosely called sustainable. Of course we are nowhere near global agreement on stability, which is partly a biological barrier, and part of why cities on Mars will not happen any time soon. I greatly admire Musk as visionary and willing to use his own money to follow his dreams, but I don’t think he is right about everything. Who is? I find the argument that Mars is the next step just full of holes. The next step literally is to get our civilisations onto a sustainable footing here on Earth. That is the challenge for science, technology and policy.
sicut vis videre esto
When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
Originally Posted by Ken G
sicut vis videre esto
When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
Originally Posted by Ken G
This week's Space Review carries an article relevant to the discussion - "The politics of settling space"
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4144/1
Around 100,000 years ago, people we refer to as modern humans because they were physically like us began to move out of their African home and into the wider world. Those few humans and their descendants had much to learn, but they learned well enough, and quickly enough, to survive, and multiply, and prosper, not just for a few generations, but to the present day. Intelligence capable of grappling with the cosmos may or may not exist elsewhere, but it exists here, partly because those few people decided to roam.
These days, space advocates like to assert that exploration is part of human nature, citing history, including the move out of Africa. Exploration is likely a complex phenomenon—most humans, after all, never did it in the grand, physical sense—and it’s not clear those first humans to leave Africa were actually exploring. They were likely searching for food, for safety, for an easier life. Evidence seems to suggest they initially followed coastlines, where food might have been easier to gather. At some point, they seem to have mastered sailing enough to reach Australia. At some point, too, groups obviously turned inland, to settle everywhere in Eurasia. Exactly where deliberate exploration came into the picture may be difficult to determine.
I am because we are
(African saying)