You're viewing a single thread.
It's not about prime real estate, it's about increasing the redundancy of humanity's survival. Two planets are better than one.
There seems to be a large amount of overlap between people who say things like "It's hubris to think that humans can change the atmosphere of the earth enough to make a noticeable difference in 400 years" and "we can make Mars inhabitable by humans in 50 years"
What the fuck, no there isn't. Are you actually implying most people that are interested in a mars colony are climate change deniers?
More the other way around, I know a surprising amount of climate change deniers that think we need to colonize Mars to save the human race.
I'm not trying to say it can't or it shouldn't be done, but it has to be both. We have to find a way to live sustainably and also expand.
That seems to be exactly what they're implying.
It's also not about Terraforming! That's a goal for a few thousand years down the line. For now, just spreading out our habitats is a good idea.
I could say the same about the opposite position
What do you mean by opposite position?
That there's an overlap between people who think "climate change is manmade and requires systematic change to overcome" and also "terraforming Mars is a laudable long term goal, but can't be done at the expense of the earth"?
Yeah, there's a lot of overlap there, it's not particularly hypocritical.
In order to colonize mars, having a good space station in orbit would help out immensely. We're talking big enough to stretch out and hold a few hundred people.
The station would need to grow crops and have minor but flexible manufacturing.
At that point, why would you colonize mars vs just make more stations?For real, resource extraction is a big one. Finding ice means they can make, besides water, oxygen and rocket fuel. Not to mention that shelters for radiation are incredibly hard to make without a huge amount of mass, which we cannot efficiently get into orbit without a space elevator. Hence being able to extract it from the location of the colony, say dig into the ground or build thick walls with bricks made from soil, is necessary for long term survival of the inhabitants. I think it is cool that due to these reasons having air balloons over Venus might even be a better option due to it having a protective atmosphere.
You can make a radiation field by running a large motor that would save you from the solar radiation.
In space you always have access to the sun. A cheap form of power. You need a lot more batteries if you're on the planet.Venus is a much better idea over mars.
Didn't know that it was feasible to create a radiation field by running a large motor. Not that I doubt you, but if you have a source I would be very happy to read more about it.
I heard about it on one of Isaac Arthur's videos. I can't remember which one, but the analogy he used was that earth's magnetosphere is essentially a big motor created by earth's metal core spinning. (Oversimplified) So you should be able to build a motor that would shield a station
Sure, and theoretically we could do a lot of shit. Isaac Arthur isnt a scientist he's a edutainment YouTuber.
Creating our own magnetosphere is a little more complex or we'd have already done it, plus what happens if it fails? Where's your backup? You just gonna die when it shuts down?
Creating our own magnetosphere is a little more complex or we'd have already done it
There hasn't been a need for it until now, thats like expecting people to invent parachutes before aircraft
We've been to space and understood radiation for decades, we've known that any potential lunar colony would need radiation shielding for long term habitation and Mars as well, which as a nation we've planned on going to since the Apollo program was still flying.
You're making a false equivalency here, the aircraft has been around for decades we just don't have the financial backing in our space program to actually develop the technology. However, I can guarantee you that it's not as simple as "just make a big electric motor!" Or some enthusiast would have already done it.
Arthur is literally a scientist.
He also does edutainment
Space stations don't produce raw materials, even if they could self sustain their human populations with food grown onboard they'd require the resources of earth to build and expand, so they're still dependent on Earth.
A space station wouldn't make anything inherently easier, unless it was attached via space elevator just having a chunk of metal in orbit doesn't change how much energy you need to get things out of the gravity well.
You could have resources from asteroids. There's lots of options out there
Mining is a big reason. And radiation shielding, as others have said.
Right now, even with water recycling systems, we still have to ship water to the ISS. A planet or moon also offers way more radiation protection by tunneling underground than any spacecraft at this time could provide.
I'd say we go for Deimos and Phobos first and set up mining operations there before spreading to the Martian surface. Their super-low gravity will make shipping materials easier. They essentially are natural space stations, just add infrastructure.
Space colonies are cool but we're nowhere close to being able to make a self-sustaining colony
Who cares about human survival without Earth?
Doesn't sound like a life to me
Star Trek even without Earth would be pretty nice.
While I fundamentally agree, it's inevitable that Earth and Mars would go to war in that scenario.
Why is it inevitable? We don't even have a colony there let alone a government and you think it would inevitably lead to war?
Put down the sci fi novels for a second.