Neither Elon Musk Nor Anybody Else Will Ever Colonize Mars
September 12, 2024 6:21 AM Subscribe
Mars does not have a magnetosphere. Any discussion of humans ever settling the red planet can stop right there, but of course it never does. Do you have a low-cost plan for, uh, creating a gigantic active dynamo at Mars's dead core? No? Well. It's fine. I'm sure you have some other workable, sustainable plan for shielding live Mars inhabitants from deadly solar and cosmic radiation, forever. No? Huh. Well then let's discuss something else equally realistic, like your plan to build a condo complex in Middle Earth.
who tweeted over the weekend some silly shit about his Martian colony, ah—what even is the word here? Plan? Vision? Intention?
Concept of a plan?
posted by AlSweigart at 6:24 AM on September 12 [82 favorites]
Concept of a plan?
posted by AlSweigart at 6:24 AM on September 12 [82 favorites]
I came across this yesterday and it was a damn good fun snarky read.
But this was strong angering truth:
Capitalist society permits such profound inequalities of wealth and power, and the U.S. has allowed its public sector to lapse into such abysmal decay, that a guy like Musk exerts a terrible gravity on the world around him:
posted by Kitteh at 6:24 AM on September 12 [28 favorites]
But this was strong angering truth:
Capitalist society permits such profound inequalities of wealth and power, and the U.S. has allowed its public sector to lapse into such abysmal decay, that a guy like Musk exerts a terrible gravity on the world around him:
posted by Kitteh at 6:24 AM on September 12 [28 favorites]
Donald has the concept of a plan. Elon has the plan of conception.
posted by grog at 6:27 AM on September 12 [8 favorites]
posted by grog at 6:27 AM on September 12 [8 favorites]
What both the Moon and Mars have is gravity. It's looking increasing like long-term living in microgravity isn't good for humans at all.
They also have a lot of thermal mass to act as a heat sink. Excess heat, heat pollution really, is a big issue in space where it can be hard to get rid of quickly enough.
So we're either a single planet species forever, or we figure out ways to live in places that are significantly hostile to our needs.
Gravity, right now is one of those facts that's really hard to mitigate. No one has yet seriously considered building a micro/no gravity habitat that also addresses the issues of no atmosphere, cosmic ray protection and thermal management. So Mars, and the Moon potentially solve at least two of the hard problems humans face in living off of the Earth.
posted by bonehead at 6:35 AM on September 12 [7 favorites]
They also have a lot of thermal mass to act as a heat sink. Excess heat, heat pollution really, is a big issue in space where it can be hard to get rid of quickly enough.
So we're either a single planet species forever, or we figure out ways to live in places that are significantly hostile to our needs.
Gravity, right now is one of those facts that's really hard to mitigate. No one has yet seriously considered building a micro/no gravity habitat that also addresses the issues of no atmosphere, cosmic ray protection and thermal management. So Mars, and the Moon potentially solve at least two of the hard problems humans face in living off of the Earth.
posted by bonehead at 6:35 AM on September 12 [7 favorites]
idk i'm no astroscientist nor a billionaire but it seems like it would be more immediately beneficial and scientifically tenable to terraform the planet we currently live on than continue to entertain one of elon's many investment capital honeypots
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 6:39 AM on September 12 [40 favorites]
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 6:39 AM on September 12 [40 favorites]
The author didn't even go into the dust issue, which is that dust on the moon and mars will Wreck Your Shit. Because there's no water, there's no erosion, all of the dust is extremely sharp microscopic particles of very hard rock that will abrade the fuck out of anything it rubs against and, as a bonus, will give you extremely bad acute and chronic diseases if you breathe it. If you want to live on mars or the moon you have to live in a 100% clean room environment or you are going to get Fucked Up. And the seals of your clean room are going to get eroded really fast, and how are you going to make more seals hmmmmm
posted by seanmpuckett at 6:40 AM on September 12 [33 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 6:40 AM on September 12 [33 favorites]
see any reason why can't send Elon to Mars himself to try and live there himself.
Let's do it tomorrow.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 6:42 AM on September 12 [18 favorites]
Let's do it tomorrow.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 6:42 AM on September 12 [18 favorites]
And the seals of your clean room are going to get eroded really fast, and how are you going to make more seals hmmmmm
Musk hasn’t even figured out how to keep the seals of the Wedge Wagon from coming off, or how to stream audio, I wouldn’t exactly bet my life on his anility to solve this little issue.
posted by signal at 6:45 AM on September 12 [17 favorites]
Musk hasn’t even figured out how to keep the seals of the Wedge Wagon from coming off, or how to stream audio, I wouldn’t exactly bet my life on his anility to solve this little issue.
posted by signal at 6:45 AM on September 12 [17 favorites]
Yeah, time to say it yet again: it's not impossible to build a self-sustaining habitat that inputs light, outputs heat, and keeps a person alive, but get it working down here first. We've tried, and we haven't pulled it off yet.
posted by phooky at 6:46 AM on September 12 [5 favorites]
posted by phooky at 6:46 AM on September 12 [5 favorites]
I wasn't convinced by the article.
Wouldn't Mars soil provide shielding? If the colonists lived in habitats 100 meters underground.
What you need is a stable source of energy. With a stable source of energy you can put together lamps that provide light for photosynthesizing plants. Eliminating carbon dioxide build up is even more crucial than oxygen consumption over short periods. Plants do that and recycle oxygen.
His analogies of the South Pole and Mt. Everest didn't impress me. The question is not whether life forms are living and breeding on the South Pole, the question is whether with a greenhouse, for example, temperature control inside and light provided for plant growth, life could exist there. I would answer yes.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:50 AM on September 12 [7 favorites]
Wouldn't Mars soil provide shielding? If the colonists lived in habitats 100 meters underground.
What you need is a stable source of energy. With a stable source of energy you can put together lamps that provide light for photosynthesizing plants. Eliminating carbon dioxide build up is even more crucial than oxygen consumption over short periods. Plants do that and recycle oxygen.
His analogies of the South Pole and Mt. Everest didn't impress me. The question is not whether life forms are living and breeding on the South Pole, the question is whether with a greenhouse, for example, temperature control inside and light provided for plant growth, life could exist there. I would answer yes.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:50 AM on September 12 [7 favorites]
mars might be the magician's diversion for the real goal of bagging an asteroid
posted by torokunai at 6:51 AM on September 12 [3 favorites]
posted by torokunai at 6:51 AM on September 12 [3 favorites]
> If the colonists lived in habitats 100 meters underground.
sign me up1!!1
posted by torokunai at 6:52 AM on September 12 [6 favorites]
sign me up1!!1
posted by torokunai at 6:52 AM on September 12 [6 favorites]
By the way. I'm not suggesting Mars can support anything like huge colonies, more on the order of what can be done on space stations.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:54 AM on September 12 [4 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:54 AM on September 12 [4 favorites]
"terraform the planet we currently live on"
I really really think we should test planetary engineering on other planets first.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:55 AM on September 12 [8 favorites]
I really really think we should test planetary engineering on other planets first.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:55 AM on September 12 [8 favorites]
Before we go terraforming the Earth, we can try stopping ourselves from veneriforming it first.
posted by runcifex at 6:58 AM on September 12 [46 favorites]
posted by runcifex at 6:58 AM on September 12 [46 favorites]
Elon Musk, the mega-rich clod and dullard famous for buying things for more than they're worth and then making them worse, who tweeted over the weekend some silly shit about his Martian colony
SpaceX just sent me an email saying that they'd updated Starlink's ToS and that as a result my plan name might have changed. So I tried to log in to my Starlink account to read the new ToS and check my plan name, only to find that since last time I logged in they've added mandatory email/SMS-based two-step authentication, which I couldn't use because (a) the phone number they had on file for me was a landline which I've since dropped and which in any case could never receive SMS and (b) the 2FA passcode emails were not arriving.
It was well after midnight and I had no wish to wake the rest of my household with phone calls, but it turns out that the only way to contact Starlink Support online is to log in first.
Luckily I had left the Starlink app on my mobile phone logged in the last time I'd used it many months ago, and it was still logged in, and I was able to raise a support ticket that way. Took them 14 hours to respond (via email), and here's the first thing the response email said:
Since then, my inbox has been receiving, sporadically, all the now thoroughly expired 2FA passcodes I requested during last night's login attempts. Examining the mail headers shows that the delays were all between Starlink's last SMTP box and Fastmail's first one, and I know that Fastmail was receiving mails from other places the whole time because I checked.
Starlink does not offer Google Authenticator or any other kind of TOTP 2FA as an option, only this half-assed email/SMS thing. For which they appear to have put a Raspberry Pi in charge of the outgoing mail queue.
But whatever. Reading through the new ToS, right before the section forcing me to agree to use arbitration rather than take them to court, I came across this gem:
Starlink is an astonishing technological achievement, no question. But its customer service is dogshit.
posted by flabdablet at 7:02 AM on September 12 [31 favorites]
SpaceX just sent me an email saying that they'd updated Starlink's ToS and that as a result my plan name might have changed. So I tried to log in to my Starlink account to read the new ToS and check my plan name, only to find that since last time I logged in they've added mandatory email/SMS-based two-step authentication, which I couldn't use because (a) the phone number they had on file for me was a landline which I've since dropped and which in any case could never receive SMS and (b) the 2FA passcode emails were not arriving.
It was well after midnight and I had no wish to wake the rest of my household with phone calls, but it turns out that the only way to contact Starlink Support online is to log in first.
Luckily I had left the Starlink app on my mobile phone logged in the last time I'd used it many months ago, and it was still logged in, and I was able to raise a support ticket that way. Took them 14 hours to respond (via email), and here's the first thing the response email said:
A member of our customer support team has responded to your support request. Sign in to your account to respond.Couldn't work out whether to laugh or cry, so I just tried it. Three minutes later, got an email with the required 2FA passcode and I was in.
Since then, my inbox has been receiving, sporadically, all the now thoroughly expired 2FA passcodes I requested during last night's login attempts. Examining the mail headers shows that the delays were all between Starlink's last SMTP box and Fastmail's first one, and I know that Fastmail was receiving mails from other places the whole time because I checked.
Starlink does not offer Google Authenticator or any other kind of TOTP 2FA as an option, only this half-assed email/SMS thing. For which they appear to have put a Raspberry Pi in charge of the outgoing mail queue.
But whatever. Reading through the new ToS, right before the section forcing me to agree to use arbitration rather than take them to court, I came across this gem:
11. Governing Law and Disputes.Never mind the actual physical hazards. The chance that this clown car will ever get itself together enough to end up in dispute with an actual customer on Mars is nil.
For Services provided to, on, or in orbit around the planet Earth or the Moon, this Agreement and any disputes between us arising out of or related to this Agreement, including disputes regarding arbitrability (“Disputes”) will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New South Wales, Australia. For Services provided on Mars, or in transit to Mars via Starship or other spacecraft, the parties recognize Mars as a free planet and that no Earth-based government has authority or sovereignty over Martian activities. Accordingly, Disputes will be settled through self-governing principles, established in good faith, at the time of Martian settlement.
Starlink is an astonishing technological achievement, no question. But its customer service is dogshit.
posted by flabdablet at 7:02 AM on September 12 [31 favorites]
yes, i should have put "terraforming" in quotes there. you get the picture
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 7:03 AM on September 12 [4 favorites]
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 7:03 AM on September 12 [4 favorites]
Before we go terraforming the Earth, we can try stopping ourselves from veneriforming it first.
Not even a little terraforming, as a treat? Something modest like turning the atmospheric carbon dioxide down a couple notches?
posted by polytope subirb enby-of-piano-dice at 7:05 AM on September 12 [10 favorites]
Not even a little terraforming, as a treat? Something modest like turning the atmospheric carbon dioxide down a couple notches?
posted by polytope subirb enby-of-piano-dice at 7:05 AM on September 12 [10 favorites]
I'm sure this has been linked somewhere on the Blue (and probably deserves its own FPP if it hasn't had one), but A City on Mars is a great book that started off as a pro-Mars colony effort and the more the authors learned, the more they realized it was impossible.
posted by Ickster at 7:06 AM on September 12 [23 favorites]
posted by Ickster at 7:06 AM on September 12 [23 favorites]
The fantasy—and it is a fantasy—isn't one of space travel and exploration and some bright Star Trek future for humanity, but one of winnowing and eugenics, of cold actuarial lifeboat logic, of ever greater reallocation from the dwindling many to the thriving few.
About that.....since Star Trek has always been about holding the mirror up to the present day and since people seem want darker and gritter Star Trek, why not a series that's set pre-Enterprise where humanity has started to colonize the solar system and nearby star systems under the leadership of competing billionaires and everything is just that shitty? Heck, you could even retcon Khan as one of those billionaires and refer to the space race as the Eugenics Wars! I'd call it Star Trek: Revolution, but that would probably be a little too on-the-nose.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 7:18 AM on September 12 [8 favorites]
About that.....since Star Trek has always been about holding the mirror up to the present day and since people seem want darker and gritter Star Trek, why not a series that's set pre-Enterprise where humanity has started to colonize the solar system and nearby star systems under the leadership of competing billionaires and everything is just that shitty? Heck, you could even retcon Khan as one of those billionaires and refer to the space race as the Eugenics Wars! I'd call it Star Trek: Revolution, but that would probably be a little too on-the-nose.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 7:18 AM on September 12 [8 favorites]
Was just coming here to recommend A City on Mars! Its tone is less pessimistic, but it does a through job of cataloguing all the problems that have to be overcome before a self-sustaining colony on Mars can be established. Problems that rarely, if ever, get addressed by Musk et al. Things like pregnancy and childbirth off of earth, what laws will cover a Martian city, the psychological effects of that sort of life, and so on.
posted by TedW at 7:18 AM on September 12 [6 favorites]
posted by TedW at 7:18 AM on September 12 [6 favorites]
The last human is going to die on the same rock the first human died on. The quicker we all realize that, the better.
Capitalism needs there to always be a new frontier to exploit and consume, and new captive markets generating wealth. But sooner or later you run out of other people's labor.
posted by pattern juggler at 7:20 AM on September 12 [13 favorites]
Capitalism needs there to always be a new frontier to exploit and consume, and new captive markets generating wealth. But sooner or later you run out of other people's labor.
posted by pattern juggler at 7:20 AM on September 12 [13 favorites]
No one has yet seriously considered building a micro/no gravity habitat that also addresses the issues of no atmosphere, cosmic ray protection and thermal management
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station?
> ...
a little terraforming, as a treat?
il faut cultivar son jardin [bigthink]
posted by HearHere at 7:22 AM on September 12 [3 favorites]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station?
> ...
a little terraforming, as a treat?
il faut cultivar son jardin [bigthink]
posted by HearHere at 7:22 AM on September 12 [3 favorites]
Haaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaaaa! Guh! Gasp! omg I love this guy.
"For planning purposes, the planet to prepare for use as a base of survival in an apocalyptic event is the one where you're reading this blog."
"Smearing the natural world flat and pouring toxic waste across it so that every American can drive a huge car from their too-large air-conditioned freestanding single-family home to every single other place they might choose to go turns out to be incompatible with the needs of basically all the other life we've ever detected in the observable universe. Whoops!"
"Even in the most optimistic plausible daydream, in which some descendants of humanity still exist four billion years from now to concern themselves with the ballooning sun, they will not be anything like us; they might even be all fucked-up and gross; they can go to hell. In any case you can unpack the canned goods."
posted by Don Pepino at 7:23 AM on September 12 [12 favorites]
"For planning purposes, the planet to prepare for use as a base of survival in an apocalyptic event is the one where you're reading this blog."
"Smearing the natural world flat and pouring toxic waste across it so that every American can drive a huge car from their too-large air-conditioned freestanding single-family home to every single other place they might choose to go turns out to be incompatible with the needs of basically all the other life we've ever detected in the observable universe. Whoops!"
"Even in the most optimistic plausible daydream, in which some descendants of humanity still exist four billion years from now to concern themselves with the ballooning sun, they will not be anything like us; they might even be all fucked-up and gross; they can go to hell. In any case you can unpack the canned goods."
posted by Don Pepino at 7:23 AM on September 12 [12 favorites]
This ordering of priorities, in which the sacrosanct goal is to extend "the probable lifespan of consciousness" and space colonization the means, is above all else a monstrous permission structure for this outspoken bigot's vile social ideas, a kind of reductio ad absurdum for what's been doing business as "effective altruism" for a while now. The fantasy—and it is a fantasy—isn't one of space travel and exploration and some bright Star Trek future for humanity, but one of winnowing and eugenics, of cold actuarial lifeboat logic, of ever greater reallocation from the dwindling many to the thriving few. That's the world as Elon Musk and his cohort want it; Mars colonization is just a pretext.
This essay gets it, but I wish this part had been sooner. It's not that Elon, etc, wouldn't go to Mars if it were possible, but the Mars narrative appeals to them because it's a eugenics narrative. If they didn't have the Mars narrative, they'd latch onto something else. The whole point for all these people is to create a hell in order to rule it because otherwise there's some possibility that they'd have to serve in heaven.
~~
Should there be a meaningful reading public in a hundred years, it's possible that all the vaunted "hard science fiction" that deals with "real science" and is Serious and Important totally unlike soft SF written by women, etc, will be classified as fantasy right along with fairies and unicorns - fun to imagine that space travel is possible, just like it's fun to imagine being an elf bard going on a heroic quest.
posted by Frowner at 7:26 AM on September 12 [37 favorites]
This essay gets it, but I wish this part had been sooner. It's not that Elon, etc, wouldn't go to Mars if it were possible, but the Mars narrative appeals to them because it's a eugenics narrative. If they didn't have the Mars narrative, they'd latch onto something else. The whole point for all these people is to create a hell in order to rule it because otherwise there's some possibility that they'd have to serve in heaven.
~~
Should there be a meaningful reading public in a hundred years, it's possible that all the vaunted "hard science fiction" that deals with "real science" and is Serious and Important totally unlike soft SF written by women, etc, will be classified as fantasy right along with fairies and unicorns - fun to imagine that space travel is possible, just like it's fun to imagine being an elf bard going on a heroic quest.
posted by Frowner at 7:26 AM on September 12 [37 favorites]
(Caveat: wild, off the cuff comment from a total non-expert who once spent a couple days talking to NASA scientists specializing in Mars about the challenges of colonization, and was a lifelong best friend of the former NASA Chief Scientist of Mars Research’s late son - we talked about this topic a ton)
Humans will never terraform Mars, not ever ever, because of the lack of magnetic field. Given unlimited energy and godlike geoengineering skills - neither of which we have or are likely to develop - there is still no sane timeframe for restarting the core that doesn’t shatter the planet. No magnetic field, no atmosphere.
Temporary habitation and longterm colonization of the general vicinity of Mars is possible. Radiation is pretty easily addressed by NASA’s plans: we know there are truly massive lava tubes because a few of them have, over the last few billion years, been punctured by a meteorite and can be seen from orbit. Given the 1/3rd Earth gravity, these tubes are potentially kilometers in size, many will have several dozen meters of rock overhead - more than enough to keep out ionizing radiation. “But meteorite puncture…?” Anything with that much mass-energy is going to kill you just as dead on Earth, atmosphere notwithstanding. Doesn’t change your odds.
Point is: there are loads of oversized pre-made bunkers ready to go. You still need to at minimum level off and seal the interior surfaces because the rock will be slightly porous, and install a pair of elevator+surface airlock structures, but the actual rough superstructure needed for radiation-free dwelling exists. It’s free real estate.
The actual problem is gravity: 1/3rd gravity is unlikely to be long-term viable for sustained human habitation without the most awful of medical complications, especially for anyone still growing. Anyone working on Mars would probably need to rotate out on a regular basis to a heavily shielded orbiting space station with a decently high rotation rate. Doesn’t necessarily need to be a full g - it’s hard to see why 0.75 or 0.8 wouldn’t suffice - but the closer the better.
“What about the radiation on the station?” Fortunately water in external water tanks is a fantastic radiation shield. And Mars has - compared to places that are not Earth or Jovian moons - a relative shit-ton of water.
“And getting that water into orbit?”
Ah. Here is where we get into the basic point of bothering with any of this: space elevators. Mars and Luna are the two most convenient masses in the Solar system - Earth included, this time - for any sort of space elevator because they have gravity just low enough that we could build the tether with existing materials. No unobtanium exotic carbon filaments that will likely never be practical / produced in bulk. Admittedly something slightly better than Kevlar or similar exotics would be preferrable, but we can do it with the science we know.
So why Mars? As mentioned upthread it’s a giant heat sink and water deposit as close to the mineface that is our asteroid belt as we’re likely to get. It’s a place that bringing material into and out of the gravity well can be done at pennies on the dollar relative to Earth. It’s a location where we can park asteroids we’d like to mine in orbit, near water/heatsink, without threatening human civilization.
So what is Mars to human civilization in the future? Constantinople and Boulder, Colorado rolled into one. That’s why, very long term, we should bother with Mars. But the human race will have long died out or changed into something else entirely before we managed to render it habitable without a spacesuit or any kind of surface dwelling.
posted by Ryvar at 7:32 AM on September 12 [26 favorites]
Humans will never terraform Mars, not ever ever, because of the lack of magnetic field. Given unlimited energy and godlike geoengineering skills - neither of which we have or are likely to develop - there is still no sane timeframe for restarting the core that doesn’t shatter the planet. No magnetic field, no atmosphere.
Temporary habitation and longterm colonization of the general vicinity of Mars is possible. Radiation is pretty easily addressed by NASA’s plans: we know there are truly massive lava tubes because a few of them have, over the last few billion years, been punctured by a meteorite and can be seen from orbit. Given the 1/3rd Earth gravity, these tubes are potentially kilometers in size, many will have several dozen meters of rock overhead - more than enough to keep out ionizing radiation. “But meteorite puncture…?” Anything with that much mass-energy is going to kill you just as dead on Earth, atmosphere notwithstanding. Doesn’t change your odds.
Point is: there are loads of oversized pre-made bunkers ready to go. You still need to at minimum level off and seal the interior surfaces because the rock will be slightly porous, and install a pair of elevator+surface airlock structures, but the actual rough superstructure needed for radiation-free dwelling exists. It’s free real estate.
The actual problem is gravity: 1/3rd gravity is unlikely to be long-term viable for sustained human habitation without the most awful of medical complications, especially for anyone still growing. Anyone working on Mars would probably need to rotate out on a regular basis to a heavily shielded orbiting space station with a decently high rotation rate. Doesn’t necessarily need to be a full g - it’s hard to see why 0.75 or 0.8 wouldn’t suffice - but the closer the better.
“What about the radiation on the station?” Fortunately water in external water tanks is a fantastic radiation shield. And Mars has - compared to places that are not Earth or Jovian moons - a relative shit-ton of water.
“And getting that water into orbit?”
Ah. Here is where we get into the basic point of bothering with any of this: space elevators. Mars and Luna are the two most convenient masses in the Solar system - Earth included, this time - for any sort of space elevator because they have gravity just low enough that we could build the tether with existing materials. No unobtanium exotic carbon filaments that will likely never be practical / produced in bulk. Admittedly something slightly better than Kevlar or similar exotics would be preferrable, but we can do it with the science we know.
So why Mars? As mentioned upthread it’s a giant heat sink and water deposit as close to the mineface that is our asteroid belt as we’re likely to get. It’s a place that bringing material into and out of the gravity well can be done at pennies on the dollar relative to Earth. It’s a location where we can park asteroids we’d like to mine in orbit, near water/heatsink, without threatening human civilization.
So what is Mars to human civilization in the future? Constantinople and Boulder, Colorado rolled into one. That’s why, very long term, we should bother with Mars. But the human race will have long died out or changed into something else entirely before we managed to render it habitable without a spacesuit or any kind of surface dwelling.
posted by Ryvar at 7:32 AM on September 12 [26 favorites]
I have slowly been coming around to the idea that anyone who strongly supports manned spaceflight is probably, at best, a protofascist Musk-humper.
Sorry NASA, but he's managed to poison the well so thoroughly that I'm not sure it can be saved.
posted by aramaic at 7:32 AM on September 12 [11 favorites]
Sorry NASA, but he's managed to poison the well so thoroughly that I'm not sure it can be saved.
posted by aramaic at 7:32 AM on September 12 [11 favorites]
I am 100% behind any Mars colonising plans that has Leon Musk on the first, pioneering team. He could bring Thiel with him. There's promise here.
posted by From Bklyn at 7:43 AM on September 12 [7 favorites]
posted by From Bklyn at 7:43 AM on September 12 [7 favorites]
Starlink is an astonishing technological achievement, no question. But its customer service is dogshit.
Elon shrugged.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:52 AM on September 12 [8 favorites]
Elon shrugged.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:52 AM on September 12 [8 favorites]
I'd favor nuking outer space, but for all intents and purposes it's already been done
posted by jy4m at 7:54 AM on September 12 [2 favorites]
posted by jy4m at 7:54 AM on September 12 [2 favorites]
i think the broader issue for me is about our future as a species, and the best possible course for survival. this is related to a recent video i saw from an astrophysicist attempting to resolve fermi's paradox, citing this article, "Asymptotic burnout and homeostatic awakening: a possible solution to the Fermi paradox?"
the simplified thrust of this is that as a civilisation grows, it requires more resources, reaching towards a finite point where those resources run out. technological advances can mitigate this, but only temporarily; sooner or later you'll run into a wall (asymptotic burnout). but self-destruction is not fate, because as she put it, it is possible to reach instead for homeostatic awakening:
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 7:54 AM on September 12 [19 favorites]
the simplified thrust of this is that as a civilisation grows, it requires more resources, reaching towards a finite point where those resources run out. technological advances can mitigate this, but only temporarily; sooner or later you'll run into a wall (asymptotic burnout). but self-destruction is not fate, because as she put it, it is possible to reach instead for homeostatic awakening:
This is when the doomsday trajectory is avoided; not delayed, but fully and permanently averted. Basically, because we've been able to predict this trajectory of our own looming asymptotic burnout, intelligent alien species should be able to do the same and realize that their survival requires a reorientation towards something more sustainable than infinite growth. ... And this is the solution they propose for the Fermi Paradox; its status as a paradox is contingent on the assumption that increased intelligence brings with it a need for infinitely increasing energy requirements that can only be supported by unbounded galactic colonization. ... this paper posits that there can never be a Type III civilization to observe because aliens will either die trying to become one OR figure out that it's wiser to do something else.i love space exploration, truly. i love space telescopes and probes and all they are and will show us. but i think we have yet to master how to survive on our current planet with the resources it produces, and we should probably figure that out first. if we can manage that, then maybe we might be able to figure out how to create a sustainable colony on a planet with no breathable atmosphere let alone most of the crucial resources needed for survival. i truly hope we can get to that point; as it is, elon's mars colony talk, if not just straight-up self-enriching fraud, is at the very least completely backwards in terms of what our priorities ought to be for the continuation of "the probable lifespan of consciousness"
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 7:54 AM on September 12 [19 favorites]
"...That professor Goddard, with his 'chair' in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react -- to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools..." - NY Times, 1920
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 7:55 AM on September 12 [8 favorites]
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 7:55 AM on September 12 [8 favorites]
I think it's useful to divide thinking about a colony on mars into the near term (next several decades) and the long term.
In the near term, the author has a solid case. In the long term, it seems a lot less clear, because of the difficulty in predicting technological advances that far out.
At a horizon of 100+ years, barring some form of civilization collapse, we will probably have some new technologies that seem indistinguishable from magic when viewed from 2024. It's possible (but not at all certain) that some of these advances will making solving previously intractable problems possible, or even trivial.
Betting against the long term ingenuity of the human race is a bold move, and not a bet I would take.
posted by Pemdas at 7:56 AM on September 12 [7 favorites]
In the near term, the author has a solid case. In the long term, it seems a lot less clear, because of the difficulty in predicting technological advances that far out.
At a horizon of 100+ years, barring some form of civilization collapse, we will probably have some new technologies that seem indistinguishable from magic when viewed from 2024. It's possible (but not at all certain) that some of these advances will making solving previously intractable problems possible, or even trivial.
Betting against the long term ingenuity of the human race is a bold move, and not a bet I would take.
posted by Pemdas at 7:56 AM on September 12 [7 favorites]
what laws will cover a Martian city
For that, at least, the Starlink ToS show that Elon has a concept of a plan.
posted by flabdablet at 7:59 AM on September 12 [8 favorites]
For that, at least, the Starlink ToS show that Elon has a concept of a plan.
posted by flabdablet at 7:59 AM on September 12 [8 favorites]
Here to second (third, forth?) the recommendation of A City On Mars. The takeaway I got from the book is that it's not impossible to colonize Mars or the Moon, it's just that it's a very long term plan that needs a lot of study (and no one is doing that) and figuring out the legalities of active space colonization. And that, along with that study, we really should be working on how to keep this planet habitable which is a lot easier task. I really enjoyed the book and told my partner "it's killing my childhood dreams of seeing space colonization in my lifetime, but it's doing it in a really nice and fun to read way!"
posted by snwod at 8:02 AM on September 12 [9 favorites]
posted by snwod at 8:02 AM on September 12 [9 favorites]
Betting against the long term ingenuity of the human race is a bold move, and not a bet I would take.
Bets against our long term wisdom, by way of contrast, remain absolutely solid.
posted by flabdablet at 8:10 AM on September 12 [23 favorites]
Bets against our long term wisdom, by way of contrast, remain absolutely solid.
posted by flabdablet at 8:10 AM on September 12 [23 favorites]
This has been covered on the blue a bunch of times; this FPP is from nearly ten years ago.
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:16 AM on September 12 [1 favorite]
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:16 AM on September 12 [1 favorite]
I really really think we should test planetary engineering on other planets first.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:55 AM on September 12
I asked ExxonMobil about your idea, but they told me to go fuck myself
Be careful that Kelsey Warren doesn't sue you for such talk. I think it qualifies as defamation in Paxton's Texas.
posted by eustatic at 8:18 AM on September 12
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:55 AM on September 12
I asked ExxonMobil about your idea, but they told me to go fuck myself
Be careful that Kelsey Warren doesn't sue you for such talk. I think it qualifies as defamation in Paxton's Texas.
posted by eustatic at 8:18 AM on September 12
Betting against the long term ingenuity of the human race is a bold move, and not a bet I would take.
The issue isn't a lack of ingenuity. It is that trying to build in space is a massive waste of time, effort, and resources that doesn't actually make sense to pursue.
The question is whether we are able to move past the imperial imagination that views reality as a resources to be burned up in pursuit of endless growth before we wreck the sustainability of technological civilization.
posted by pattern juggler at 8:24 AM on September 12 [7 favorites]
The issue isn't a lack of ingenuity. It is that trying to build in space is a massive waste of time, effort, and resources that doesn't actually make sense to pursue.
The question is whether we are able to move past the imperial imagination that views reality as a resources to be burned up in pursuit of endless growth before we wreck the sustainability of technological civilization.
posted by pattern juggler at 8:24 AM on September 12 [7 favorites]
what is Mars to human civilization in the future? Constantinople
-
Istanbul?
posted by HearHere at 8:25 AM on September 12 [4 favorites]
-
Istanbul?
posted by HearHere at 8:25 AM on September 12 [4 favorites]
"...That professor Goddard, with his 'chair' in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react -- to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools..." - NY Times, 1920
I don't understand the point of quoting this beyond showing how both science journalism and science education have always been terrible. People knew then that rockets could work in a vacuum and that this statement was full of shit, just like we know now how absolutely difficult it is to get to Mars, let alone colonize it.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 8:26 AM on September 12 [4 favorites]
I don't understand the point of quoting this beyond showing how both science journalism and science education have always been terrible. People knew then that rockets could work in a vacuum and that this statement was full of shit, just like we know now how absolutely difficult it is to get to Mars, let alone colonize it.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 8:26 AM on September 12 [4 favorites]
Let's see a large-scale base working in Antarctica first...you know, where you can still walk outside and breathe.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 8:32 AM on September 12 [7 favorites]
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 8:32 AM on September 12 [7 favorites]
> "this does not preclude the possibility of other ‘great filters’ as well"
i feel like they see us
posted by HearHere at 8:37 AM on September 12 [8 favorites]
i feel like they see us
posted by HearHere at 8:37 AM on September 12 [8 favorites]
"Musk hasn’t even figured out how to keep the seals of the Wedge Wagon from coming off, or how to stream audio, I wouldn’t exactly bet my life on his anility to solve this little issue."
Assumed that "anility" was just a typo - but actually anility works pretty well:
ANILE: Unable to think clearly or infirm because of old age. An imbecile
posted by speug at 8:41 AM on September 12 [3 favorites]
Assumed that "anility" was just a typo - but actually anility works pretty well:
ANILE: Unable to think clearly or infirm because of old age. An imbecile
posted by speug at 8:41 AM on September 12 [3 favorites]
i think it also underscores that one might not want to put too much credence into what the nytimes has to say ever
posted by i used to be someone else at 8:47 AM on September 12 [3 favorites]
posted by i used to be someone else at 8:47 AM on September 12 [3 favorites]
I was surprised to read this about the South Pole:
Mars though? Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids.
posted by swift at 8:56 AM on September 12 [2 favorites]
Here is a list of the plant-life that grows there: Nothing. Here is a list of all the animals that reproduce there: None.Is that really true? I guess I imagined the South Pole was exactly where penguins fucked, but I guess they just hang out on the Antarctic beach, far from the actual Pole.
Mars though? Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids.
posted by swift at 8:56 AM on September 12 [2 favorites]
For anyone curious regarding the magnitude of the difficulty in erecting a Martian magnetosphere: How to create an artificial magnetosphere for Mars (PDF).
From the summary:
No individual solution comes without vast technical challenges, many of which go beyond what can be described here. The primary challenge is not the intensity of magnetic field needed but the size of the required spatial dimensions. Evidence from Earth’s magnetosphere is that the magnitude of the magnetic field intensity to hold back the solar wind is about ~100nT. However, to protect the whole of Mars this would need to be a continuous field over an absolute minimum area of ~109km2 (the surface area of Mars assuming a 100km atmosphere). To allow for such a magnetosphere to persist during the interaction with the solar wind under all conditions, this would need to be very much larger.
posted by Hot Pastrami! at 9:24 AM on September 12 [1 favorite]
From the summary:
No individual solution comes without vast technical challenges, many of which go beyond what can be described here. The primary challenge is not the intensity of magnetic field needed but the size of the required spatial dimensions. Evidence from Earth’s magnetosphere is that the magnitude of the magnetic field intensity to hold back the solar wind is about ~100nT. However, to protect the whole of Mars this would need to be a continuous field over an absolute minimum area of ~109km2 (the surface area of Mars assuming a 100km atmosphere). To allow for such a magnetosphere to persist during the interaction with the solar wind under all conditions, this would need to be very much larger.
posted by Hot Pastrami! at 9:24 AM on September 12 [1 favorite]
Especially given the fact that we have absolute zero idea of what a non-earth-environment will do to developing humans.
posted by snwod at 9:29 AM on September 12
posted by snwod at 9:29 AM on September 12
I came here to make a "concepts of a plan" joke. I can see that's definitely going to be a joke response in the near term.
Anyway, I imagine there must have been some human "reproducing" at the south pole. Those scientists are sometimes pretty boring, but they are still apes.
Also, if all you are going to do is live in a lava tube, why do that way down the Martian gravity well? You can live in a tube way out in space just as easily, save on launch costs, and have all the advantages of doing it near Earth. Plus, if you figure out long-term space habitats, the entire solar system becomes habitable.
posted by surlyben at 9:29 AM on September 12
Anyway, I imagine there must have been some human "reproducing" at the south pole. Those scientists are sometimes pretty boring, but they are still apes.
Also, if all you are going to do is live in a lava tube, why do that way down the Martian gravity well? You can live in a tube way out in space just as easily, save on launch costs, and have all the advantages of doing it near Earth. Plus, if you figure out long-term space habitats, the entire solar system becomes habitable.
posted by surlyben at 9:29 AM on September 12
I am so tired of this genre of article that's like "this thing will never, ever be possible even though I have basically no expertise in whatever I'm writing about"
We all have networked pocket supercomputers. We regularly fly above the clouds. If you went back to the Roman Empire or the Han Dynasty and demonstrated this to anyone they'd think you were a god and/or wouldn't even begin to understand it.
Are we gonna colonize Mars? I don't fucking know, and no one else does, either.
posted by rhymedirective at 9:30 AM on September 12 [10 favorites]
We all have networked pocket supercomputers. We regularly fly above the clouds. If you went back to the Roman Empire or the Han Dynasty and demonstrated this to anyone they'd think you were a god and/or wouldn't even begin to understand it.
Are we gonna colonize Mars? I don't fucking know, and no one else does, either.
posted by rhymedirective at 9:30 AM on September 12 [10 favorites]
I want to plug Girlfriend on Mars which not only deals with the radiation angle but also has a quasi hilarious send-up of Elon Musk as well as his SpaceX lackey. It’s a fun read.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:30 AM on September 12
posted by warriorqueen at 9:30 AM on September 12
So we're either a single planet species forever, or we figure out ways to live in places that are significantly hostile to our needs.As much as I love sci-fi, I've always said that in reality we will always be a single-planet species because space is hell.
posted by june_dodecahedron at 9:31 AM on September 12 [5 favorites]
~ "terraform the planet we currently live on"
~ I really really think we should test planetary engineering on other planets first.
NIMBY
posted by Thorzdad at 9:31 AM on September 12 [2 favorites]
~ I really really think we should test planetary engineering on other planets first.
NIMBY
posted by Thorzdad at 9:31 AM on September 12 [2 favorites]
I want to plug Girlfriend on Mars
And I'll throw in Natasha Pulley's The Mars House (Amazon; Bookshop) which handwaves the magnetosphere stuff but directly tackles climate change and the shittiness of people in power (and also has talking mammoths!).
posted by joannemerriam at 9:43 AM on September 12
And I'll throw in Natasha Pulley's The Mars House (Amazon; Bookshop) which handwaves the magnetosphere stuff but directly tackles climate change and the shittiness of people in power (and also has talking mammoths!).
posted by joannemerriam at 9:43 AM on September 12
We all have networked pocket supercomputers. We regularly fly above the clouds. If you went back to the Roman Empire or the Han Dynasty and demonstrated this to anyone they'd think you were a god and/or wouldn't even begin to understand it.
I doubt it. I mean there are gulls in every time and place, but the Imperial Romans and Chinese were not illiterate simpletons, and the idea of humans with better tools would not terrify them. The idea of building flying machines was only made practical in the last few centuries, but it was something attempted over and over again. They can see the reasons it was possible, but not the reasons it was difficult. They didn't have the knowledge to work out the engineering and energy requirements necessary.
The reason we can be sure we can't colonize Mars is because we do understand the scale of the problem. We have lived in the era of low hanging fruit since industrialization. It has resulted in people thinking endless inprovement is a natural law, and not contingent on the availability of easily accessed resources and small scale goals. Interplanetary travel is not a natural next step, just because we have run out of territory to exploit here.
posted by pattern juggler at 9:45 AM on September 12 [16 favorites]
I doubt it. I mean there are gulls in every time and place, but the Imperial Romans and Chinese were not illiterate simpletons, and the idea of humans with better tools would not terrify them. The idea of building flying machines was only made practical in the last few centuries, but it was something attempted over and over again. They can see the reasons it was possible, but not the reasons it was difficult. They didn't have the knowledge to work out the engineering and energy requirements necessary.
The reason we can be sure we can't colonize Mars is because we do understand the scale of the problem. We have lived in the era of low hanging fruit since industrialization. It has resulted in people thinking endless inprovement is a natural law, and not contingent on the availability of easily accessed resources and small scale goals. Interplanetary travel is not a natural next step, just because we have run out of territory to exploit here.
posted by pattern juggler at 9:45 AM on September 12 [16 favorites]
We all have networked pocket supercomputers. We regularly fly above the clouds. If you went back to the Roman Empire or the Han Dynasty and demonstrated this to anyone they'd think you were a god and/or wouldn't even begin to understand it.
i would also like to point out that every time we do create these "magical" things that those backwards simpletons of the recent past would never be able to understand, we've done so at a massive cost and by concentrating resources ever more dramatically.
sure, we'll eventually have the tech to colonize planets--but will we have the resources? will we have the ability or the desire to concentrate all of those resources into an even more restricted, limited result?
posted by i used to be someone else at 9:53 AM on September 12 [2 favorites]
i would also like to point out that every time we do create these "magical" things that those backwards simpletons of the recent past would never be able to understand, we've done so at a massive cost and by concentrating resources ever more dramatically.
sure, we'll eventually have the tech to colonize planets--but will we have the resources? will we have the ability or the desire to concentrate all of those resources into an even more restricted, limited result?
posted by i used to be someone else at 9:53 AM on September 12 [2 favorites]
I mean, Venus is just sitting there, and you don't even have to land, which is one of the tricky bits.
posted by credulous at 9:57 AM on September 12 [3 favorites]
posted by credulous at 9:57 AM on September 12 [3 favorites]
We regularly fly above the clouds. If you went back to the Roman Empire or the Han Dynasty and demonstrated this to anyone they'd think you were a god and/or wouldn't even begin to understand it.
Bullshit. The Chinese were flying kites (around 300 or 400 BC) long before the Han Dynasty (220 BC) and it wouldn't be much of a reach for one of them to imagine that a big enough kite could lift a small child...
posted by math at 9:58 AM on September 12 [2 favorites]
Bullshit. The Chinese were flying kites (around 300 or 400 BC) long before the Han Dynasty (220 BC) and it wouldn't be much of a reach for one of them to imagine that a big enough kite could lift a small child...
posted by math at 9:58 AM on September 12 [2 favorites]
The idea of building flying machines was only made practical in the last few centuries, but it was something attempted over and over again.
I mean, yeah, but the principles we used to achieve successful flight weren't understood until the 19th Century. Who knows what is going to be discovered in the coming centuries? We're not even really sure that our understanding of basic principles of physics are correct.
posted by rhymedirective at 9:59 AM on September 12 [2 favorites]
I mean, yeah, but the principles we used to achieve successful flight weren't understood until the 19th Century. Who knows what is going to be discovered in the coming centuries? We're not even really sure that our understanding of basic principles of physics are correct.
posted by rhymedirective at 9:59 AM on September 12 [2 favorites]
I am so tired of this genre of article that's like "this thing will never, ever be possible even though I have basically no expertise in whatever I'm writing about"
We all have networked pocket supercomputers. We regularly fly above the clouds. If you went back to the Roman Empire or the Han Dynasty and demonstrated this to anyone they'd think you were a god and/or wouldn't even begin to understand it.
Are we gonna colonize Mars? I don't fucking know, and no one else does, either.
We have quite a bit better understanding of the outermost bounds of chemistry, biology, and physics than we did even a century ago. Yes, we continue to discover new chemistry, biology, and physics, but it's mostly pushing at the edges and filling in the gaps, not "and now we have gravity generators and an unobtanium that blocks cosmic rays while requiring almost no mass or volume". The problems with space colonization are extremely fundamental. None of the technological achievements of the past century have really done anything to put a dent in those fundamental problems.
A City on Mars makes a very good case that a true Martian colony (i.e. a self-sustaining, essentially independent settlement that requires little or no input from Earth) would have to be absolutely massive in order to have the complex division of labor that enables manufacturing things like computer chips, virtually all medications, etc. It means having enough people, space, materials, and power to make not just the chips and medication, but all of the infrastructure that undergirds that. You have to make the machines that make the machines that make the chips. You have to make the machines that process the chemicals that are used to make the machines that make the filters, mass spectrometers, gas-chromatographs, centrifuges, bioreactors, DNA sequencers, isotope analyzers, microscopes, X-ray machines, CT scanners, MRIs, PET scanners, hematology analyzers, etc, etc, etc.
A first-order estimate of the number of (educated, experienced-but-still-young, physically fit) people it would take to bootstrap a colony is something like a million people. A first-order estimate of the cost to get a human to Mars for a relatively brief stay in a temporary habitat is $50 billion per person (taking this amortized estimate of $142 billion per mission and assuming a crew of three). So we can assume something like 50 quadrillion dollars to send those million people to Mars. To make that remotely feasible to accomplish in a reasonable timeframe would require not an order of magnitude in savings but 3 orders of magnitude, and it would still be a planetwide undertaking for a decade or more. There is nothing in even the speculative research pipeline that would make interplanetary space travel a thousand times cheaper.
For that 50 trillion dollars we would be far better off sending complex robots to do all the science we want, ending global poverty, and solving climate change, with trillions left over.
posted by jedicus at 9:59 AM on September 12 [19 favorites]
We all have networked pocket supercomputers. We regularly fly above the clouds. If you went back to the Roman Empire or the Han Dynasty and demonstrated this to anyone they'd think you were a god and/or wouldn't even begin to understand it.
Are we gonna colonize Mars? I don't fucking know, and no one else does, either.
We have quite a bit better understanding of the outermost bounds of chemistry, biology, and physics than we did even a century ago. Yes, we continue to discover new chemistry, biology, and physics, but it's mostly pushing at the edges and filling in the gaps, not "and now we have gravity generators and an unobtanium that blocks cosmic rays while requiring almost no mass or volume". The problems with space colonization are extremely fundamental. None of the technological achievements of the past century have really done anything to put a dent in those fundamental problems.
A City on Mars makes a very good case that a true Martian colony (i.e. a self-sustaining, essentially independent settlement that requires little or no input from Earth) would have to be absolutely massive in order to have the complex division of labor that enables manufacturing things like computer chips, virtually all medications, etc. It means having enough people, space, materials, and power to make not just the chips and medication, but all of the infrastructure that undergirds that. You have to make the machines that make the machines that make the chips. You have to make the machines that process the chemicals that are used to make the machines that make the filters, mass spectrometers, gas-chromatographs, centrifuges, bioreactors, DNA sequencers, isotope analyzers, microscopes, X-ray machines, CT scanners, MRIs, PET scanners, hematology analyzers, etc, etc, etc.
A first-order estimate of the number of (educated, experienced-but-still-young, physically fit) people it would take to bootstrap a colony is something like a million people. A first-order estimate of the cost to get a human to Mars for a relatively brief stay in a temporary habitat is $50 billion per person (taking this amortized estimate of $142 billion per mission and assuming a crew of three). So we can assume something like 50 quadrillion dollars to send those million people to Mars. To make that remotely feasible to accomplish in a reasonable timeframe would require not an order of magnitude in savings but 3 orders of magnitude, and it would still be a planetwide undertaking for a decade or more. There is nothing in even the speculative research pipeline that would make interplanetary space travel a thousand times cheaper.
For that 50 trillion dollars we would be far better off sending complex robots to do all the science we want, ending global poverty, and solving climate change, with trillions left over.
posted by jedicus at 9:59 AM on September 12 [19 favorites]
Metafilter has a severe problem any time Anal Musk turns up in a conversation. I dislike the guy too, but it doesn’t automatically make anyone that dunks on him correct. The guy that wrote this article sounds like he knows almost as much about colonizing Mars as me, which is to say “nothing.” But he writes a mean essay.
Most everyone that writes about what will happen in a few hundred years is wrong. But there are enough people bloviating that someone will be right. See the famous con where you send 2^N people stock market predictions and keep trimming the list until a much smaller bunch of people got ten correct predictions in a row.
The way to see if anyone will ever colonize Mars is to try to colonize Mars, otherwise it’s just internet yammering. You can certainly argue it will be expensive and we can spend the money better on Earth, but that is an entirely different discussion (which some folks have been pursuing in this thread). I tend to think we’re rich enough that we can pursue a lot of low-probability stuff (though it would be nice if we dealt with basics like medical care on a priority basis).
posted by Gilgamesh's Chauffeur at 10:01 AM on September 12 [9 favorites]
Most everyone that writes about what will happen in a few hundred years is wrong. But there are enough people bloviating that someone will be right. See the famous con where you send 2^N people stock market predictions and keep trimming the list until a much smaller bunch of people got ten correct predictions in a row.
The way to see if anyone will ever colonize Mars is to try to colonize Mars, otherwise it’s just internet yammering. You can certainly argue it will be expensive and we can spend the money better on Earth, but that is an entirely different discussion (which some folks have been pursuing in this thread). I tend to think we’re rich enough that we can pursue a lot of low-probability stuff (though it would be nice if we dealt with basics like medical care on a priority basis).
posted by Gilgamesh's Chauffeur at 10:01 AM on September 12 [9 favorites]
Okay, I see, this is another one of those classic naysayer "I'm so smart" Mefi threads. Enjoy! I'm out.
posted by rhymedirective at 10:01 AM on September 12 [3 favorites]
posted by rhymedirective at 10:01 AM on September 12 [3 favorites]
Yet another Why We Can't Colonise Mars article recycling tired gottchas lifted from a older similarly generic Why We Can't Colonise Mars articles but this time with more snark masquerading as wit.
I have read this article, or ones very like it, so many times.
What this author and others like him miss is the giant hidden carrot that living on mars represents. A mars colony requires us to solve or at least radically improve living sustainability. Colonising mars will be a net benefit to humanity on earth because it will necessitate levelling up on sustainability to such a degree that the enabling technical and cultural improvements developed for the martian colony will permeate the human zeitgeist.
Even a modest back flow of sustainability improvements to earth will more than justify a large investment in martian/space colonisation.
This article grossly underestimates human resourcefulness and adaptability and the rapidity of technological developments.
posted by neonamber at 10:03 AM on September 12 [5 favorites]
I have read this article, or ones very like it, so many times.
What this author and others like him miss is the giant hidden carrot that living on mars represents. A mars colony requires us to solve or at least radically improve living sustainability. Colonising mars will be a net benefit to humanity on earth because it will necessitate levelling up on sustainability to such a degree that the enabling technical and cultural improvements developed for the martian colony will permeate the human zeitgeist.
Even a modest back flow of sustainability improvements to earth will more than justify a large investment in martian/space colonisation.
This article grossly underestimates human resourcefulness and adaptability and the rapidity of technological developments.
posted by neonamber at 10:03 AM on September 12 [5 favorites]
We've known since the 70s that Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids.
posted by horsewithnoname at 10:07 AM on September 12 [3 favorites]
posted by horsewithnoname at 10:07 AM on September 12 [3 favorites]
I mean, yeah, but the principles we used to achieve successful flight weren't understood until the 19th Century. Who knows what is going to be discovered in the coming centuries?
That is the point, though. There is no reason to believe scientific or technological development are openended. Maybe we will discover we have been wrong about some very basic physical properties in inportant ways, but I don't think we have any reason to suspect so.
I can't absolute prove we won't discover conservation laws are bunk or faster than light travel is possible in the next few hundred years, but I would bet any sum that we won't.
posted by pattern juggler at 10:09 AM on September 12 [2 favorites]
That is the point, though. There is no reason to believe scientific or technological development are openended. Maybe we will discover we have been wrong about some very basic physical properties in inportant ways, but I don't think we have any reason to suspect so.
I can't absolute prove we won't discover conservation laws are bunk or faster than light travel is possible in the next few hundred years, but I would bet any sum that we won't.
posted by pattern juggler at 10:09 AM on September 12 [2 favorites]
The steely-eyed rocket men in threads like this exhaust me.
posted by german_bight at 10:09 AM on September 12 [8 favorites]
posted by german_bight at 10:09 AM on September 12 [8 favorites]
Fantastic read so far. I got to this point:
posted by andycyca at 10:18 AM on September 12 [1 favorite]
> Second are the scenarios that are not even worth considering. These are your planet-destroying asteroid strikes.And here I must mention that these scenarios are unrealistic for a myriad of interesting reasons. Please enjoy «How to destroy the Earth»
posted by andycyca at 10:18 AM on September 12 [1 favorite]
anyone who strongly supports manned spaceflight is probably, at best, a protofascist Musk-humper
Seems the Neanderthals may have been an evolutionary dead end because they stayed in one place, safe for a few thousand years, then poof. Perhaps like the Nuevo “man can never fly”(ers)…
posted by sammyo at 10:25 AM on September 12 [1 favorite]
Seems the Neanderthals may have been an evolutionary dead end because they stayed in one place, safe for a few thousand years, then poof. Perhaps like the Nuevo “man can never fly”(ers)…
posted by sammyo at 10:25 AM on September 12 [1 favorite]
Luckily the cost of space flight will be reduced by orders of magnitude, assuming SpaceX survives the regulators.
posted by sammyo at 10:27 AM on September 12
posted by sammyo at 10:27 AM on September 12
Good troll. You almost got me.
posted by pattern juggler at 10:34 AM on September 12
posted by pattern juggler at 10:34 AM on September 12
I mean, Venus is just sitting there, and you don't even have to land, which is one of the tricky bits.
?
Why, though?
I mean, Earth is also just sitting here, and if you did have to land for some unforseen reason like somebody Boeinged the deal, which somebody absolutely would as we have seen proven over and over and over and over and over and over, you could. Which is, I think even the most space-enamored rocket scientist would have to admit, a pretty cool aspect of Earth. And we could send our dirigible builder kits up into Earth's atmosphere without even having to leave orbit or build a space elevator or whateverthefuckall and have people--Phase 2.5!--live on them for 30 days and--phase 3.8!--live on them for an Earth year and--phase 6.64!--live on them forever. So why? Why would we spend the as-of-now-unimaginable assload of blood and treasure to schlep all the airship-creating horseshit to godforsaken motherknocking Venus?
Are we just pissed because Cortez et al. had all the fun stomping whiteguy footprints on new ground? Is that legit the main problem? I tell you what, if some of these orb-annihilating asteroids got rid of a couple of these irritatingly close-by sister planets for us it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.
posted by Don Pepino at 10:35 AM on September 12 [1 favorite]
?
Why, though?
I mean, Earth is also just sitting here, and if you did have to land for some unforseen reason like somebody Boeinged the deal, which somebody absolutely would as we have seen proven over and over and over and over and over and over, you could. Which is, I think even the most space-enamored rocket scientist would have to admit, a pretty cool aspect of Earth. And we could send our dirigible builder kits up into Earth's atmosphere without even having to leave orbit or build a space elevator or whateverthefuckall and have people--Phase 2.5!--live on them for 30 days and--phase 3.8!--live on them for an Earth year and--phase 6.64!--live on them forever. So why? Why would we spend the as-of-now-unimaginable assload of blood and treasure to schlep all the airship-creating horseshit to godforsaken motherknocking Venus?
Are we just pissed because Cortez et al. had all the fun stomping whiteguy footprints on new ground? Is that legit the main problem? I tell you what, if some of these orb-annihilating asteroids got rid of a couple of these irritatingly close-by sister planets for us it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.
posted by Don Pepino at 10:35 AM on September 12 [1 favorite]
I mean, yeah, but the principles we used to achieve successful flight weren't understood until the 19th Century.
The Wright Brothers never seem to get enough credit for how innovative their engine was. If I recall, a big part of the debate on whether heavier-than-air flight was possible focused on whether or not you could design a means of propulsion that was light enough to fit on an air frame and still fly.
Even a modest back flow of sustainability improvements to earth will more than justify a large investment in martian/space colonisation.
But we have a definite need for sustainability improvements now. Can't we just develop them without going through the whole trouble of martian colonization?
I'm reminded of the arguments people use for bringing the Olympics to town. Sure they cost an exorbitant amount of money and are incredibly disruptive, but think of how much they'll improve the city's infrastructure. How will they improve the city's infrastructure? By encouraging us to build more already-needed subways, parks, and amenities!
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:36 AM on September 12 [7 favorites]
The Wright Brothers never seem to get enough credit for how innovative their engine was. If I recall, a big part of the debate on whether heavier-than-air flight was possible focused on whether or not you could design a means of propulsion that was light enough to fit on an air frame and still fly.
Even a modest back flow of sustainability improvements to earth will more than justify a large investment in martian/space colonisation.
But we have a definite need for sustainability improvements now. Can't we just develop them without going through the whole trouble of martian colonization?
I'm reminded of the arguments people use for bringing the Olympics to town. Sure they cost an exorbitant amount of money and are incredibly disruptive, but think of how much they'll improve the city's infrastructure. How will they improve the city's infrastructure? By encouraging us to build more already-needed subways, parks, and amenities!
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:36 AM on September 12 [7 favorites]
I mean, Venus is just sitting there, and you don't even have to land, which is one of the tricky bits.
Why, though?
For practice living on Earth, in case we don't stop veneriforming it?
posted by polytope subirb enby-of-piano-dice at 10:48 AM on September 12 [6 favorites]
Why, though?
For practice living on Earth, in case we don't stop veneriforming it?
posted by polytope subirb enby-of-piano-dice at 10:48 AM on September 12 [6 favorites]
I'm perfectly willing to concede that given enough time and space (sorry, not sorry) that the scientists the billionaires hire will figure out a way to do this. But I think this is a much more complicated process than people like Musk acknowledge. And the consequences that failure will have on Earth via falling rockets, space debris, rocket fuel in places it's not supposed to be are much more important than their vibe being harshed.
posted by beaning at 10:53 AM on September 12 [1 favorite]
posted by beaning at 10:53 AM on September 12 [1 favorite]
Maybe this is a question for AskMe, but how does one invest a small sum of money in the catastrophic FAILURE of the Musk plan? Would short selling Tesla shares work? Financial brains of MetaFilter help me! Maybe we could pool some cash for this project (anti-project?)!
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 10:58 AM on September 12 [2 favorites]
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 10:58 AM on September 12 [2 favorites]
We're not even really sure that our understanding of basic principles of physics are correct.
I'm about as tired of this line of argument as the people who reliably wheel it out say they are of having their space colonization fantasies dunked on.
If our understanding of basic principles of physics were significantly incorrect, that pocket supercomputer you cite would not even exist, never mind work.
posted by flabdablet at 11:01 AM on September 12 [10 favorites]
I'm about as tired of this line of argument as the people who reliably wheel it out say they are of having their space colonization fantasies dunked on.
If our understanding of basic principles of physics were significantly incorrect, that pocket supercomputer you cite would not even exist, never mind work.
posted by flabdablet at 11:01 AM on September 12 [10 favorites]
My go-to question for advocates of colonization in anything less than 1000 years or so is: name one disaster that could possibly happen to the Earth that would be more challenging to survive than creating a self-sustaining Mars colony.
There’s nothing. Even if another dinosaur killer hits the planet and the entire globe’s forests are on fire for a couple months and we have a decade of winter, it would STILL be way easier to bounce back from that than it would to conceivably survive on Mars forever, if for no other reason than we know how to dig a really big hole, pack it with literal billions of tons of non-perishable food, and stick a few million humans in it.
The only good reason to have off world humans is because we want to. And that’s not a very good reason when the current opportunity cost of applying those resources is quite high.
posted by Room 101 at 11:15 AM on September 12 [10 favorites]
There’s nothing. Even if another dinosaur killer hits the planet and the entire globe’s forests are on fire for a couple months and we have a decade of winter, it would STILL be way easier to bounce back from that than it would to conceivably survive on Mars forever, if for no other reason than we know how to dig a really big hole, pack it with literal billions of tons of non-perishable food, and stick a few million humans in it.
The only good reason to have off world humans is because we want to. And that’s not a very good reason when the current opportunity cost of applying those resources is quite high.
posted by Room 101 at 11:15 AM on September 12 [10 favorites]
design a means of propulsion that was light enough
Materials science props to Héroult, Hall, and Bayer for making aluminum economical not long before the Wrights (and Charlie Taylor) used it to make their engine.
posted by McBearclaw at 11:15 AM on September 12 [5 favorites]
Materials science props to Héroult, Hall, and Bayer for making aluminum economical not long before the Wrights (and Charlie Taylor) used it to make their engine.
posted by McBearclaw at 11:15 AM on September 12 [5 favorites]
Talking about how severe the obstacles are isn’t going to talk the people who are interested in colonizing Mars out of that interest, because, well I think there’s a famous quote on a closely related subject.
But if you happen to be a wealthy technologist, addressing energy and climate crises here on Earth is also hard enough to get you in the history books, and far more important if you are actually concerned with the near-term survival of humanity.
posted by atoxyl at 11:24 AM on September 12 [1 favorite]
But if you happen to be a wealthy technologist, addressing energy and climate crises here on Earth is also hard enough to get you in the history books, and far more important if you are actually concerned with the near-term survival of humanity.
posted by atoxyl at 11:24 AM on September 12 [1 favorite]
But if you happen to be a wealthy technologist, addressing energy and climate crises here on Earth is also hard enough to get you in the history books, and far more important if you are actually concerned with the near-term survival of humanity.
Bill Gates reportedly could have been trillionaires in 2005 but instead diversified to help build charity efforts. Melinda French Gates (his ex-wfe) and Mackenzie Scott (Jeff Bezos' ex-wife) have given away billions also. Be interesting to see how history treats them and other quiet givers compared to Musk.
posted by beaning at 11:43 AM on September 12 [1 favorite]
Bill Gates reportedly could have been trillionaires in 2005 but instead diversified to help build charity efforts. Melinda French Gates (his ex-wfe) and Mackenzie Scott (Jeff Bezos' ex-wife) have given away billions also. Be interesting to see how history treats them and other quiet givers compared to Musk.
posted by beaning at 11:43 AM on September 12 [1 favorite]
Anybody who has seen videos of what happens to a Cybertruck when you slam the doors will have an excellent idea of how important it is to Elon Musk to keep regular folks safe on Mars.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 11:51 AM on September 12 [7 favorites]
posted by Sing Or Swim at 11:51 AM on September 12 [7 favorites]
Even if we accept that colonizing Mars might someday be both desirable and possible (both of which I think are at least debatable), it doesn't seem like a great use of our resources in our current context when there are so many unsolved and potentially existential problems to deal with before the end of this century.
It feels like betting your retirement savings on your kid someday winning the Tour de France before they've even learned to ride their bike without training wheels.
posted by nickmark at 11:58 AM on September 12 [3 favorites]
It feels like betting your retirement savings on your kid someday winning the Tour de France before they've even learned to ride their bike without training wheels.
posted by nickmark at 11:58 AM on September 12 [3 favorites]
Let's see a large-scale base working in Antarctica first...you know, where you can still walk outside and breathe
Now that I've had time on my lunch break to read the article, apologies. I still stand by my statement, but the basic gist of my comment was made almost immediately in the article. RTFA, Abehammerb!
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 12:08 PM on September 12 [1 favorite]
Now that I've had time on my lunch break to read the article, apologies. I still stand by my statement, but the basic gist of my comment was made almost immediately in the article. RTFA, Abehammerb!
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 12:08 PM on September 12 [1 favorite]
Life on earth writ large, the grand network of life, is a greater and more dynamic terraforming engine than any person could ever conceive. It has been operating ceaselessly for several billions of years. It has not yet terraformed the South Pole or the summit of Mount Everest. On what type of timeframe were you imagining that the shoebox of lichen you send to Mars was going to transform Frozen Airless Radioactive Desert Hell into a place where people could grow wheat?Left out Poisonous.
posted by flabdablet at 12:15 PM on September 12 [2 favorites]
I think we should send more robots first. They do science, they're ok being bored in space for long periods, and they're pretty good influencers. They don't even need to bring a ring light or oversized podcaster microphone or anything, and they never/seldom get Milkshake Ducked.
posted by credulous at 12:18 PM on September 12 [2 favorites]
posted by credulous at 12:18 PM on September 12 [2 favorites]
Being part of a realistically achievable Mars colony would mean spending the rest of your life locked into a tin can no bigger than the ISS (or possibly a lot smaller) and smelling the shit of the same small group of increasingly obnoxious people every single day with no hope of ever seeing Earth again.
On the plus side the strict 16 hour work schedule required to keep everything functioning would help to keep your mind off things.
posted by donio at 12:19 PM on September 12 [3 favorites]
On the plus side the strict 16 hour work schedule required to keep everything functioning would help to keep your mind off things.
posted by donio at 12:19 PM on September 12 [3 favorites]
On the minus side, you'd inevitably get fired for refusing to comply with Corporate's return-to-office policy.
posted by flabdablet at 12:23 PM on September 12 [2 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 12:23 PM on September 12 [2 favorites]
Sure, but think of the work-life balance!
By which I mean, "work, because your life is in the balance."
posted by nickmark at 12:27 PM on September 12 [6 favorites]
By which I mean, "work, because your life is in the balance."
posted by nickmark at 12:27 PM on September 12 [6 favorites]
The Weinersmiths excellent book "A City on Mars" does a great job of exploring a lot of the more difficult things and downsides to extraterrestrial colonization. And they've got an entire section of the book devoted to something you NEVER hear Musk or even the people into space colonization who aren't egomaniac jerks talk about.
The legal situation.
The TL;DR is that the legal aspects of setting up a colony off Earth are massive have significant implications on geopolitics and no one in space colony fandom wants to even think about it.
Now, IMO the magnetosphere aspect isn't as dire as the linked stuff claims, there are proposals (which may or may not work) for a magnetic umbrella and anyway people are unlikely to live on the surface so it's not as big a deal as it could be.
As far as terraforming goes I've gone from being an ignorant young fan of the idea of forging brave new worlds for humanity by terraforming planets like Mars to view terraforming as planetary scale vandalism and I'm a pretty major opponent.
Also, actual terraforming isn't going to be like the early SF writers imagined. Heinlein talked about "atmosphere plants" (he meant "plant" there in the "power plant" sense of a mechanical installation not in the botanical sense) which in just a couple of centuries made Mars have a breathable atmosphere.
IRL we've learned that liberating the oxygen locked up in the Martian soil would involve melting the entire surface of Mars to a depth of about 8 meters. Which, in theory, you COULD do over the course of many centuries, using giant ass solar pumped lasers to blast the Martian landscape and melt a bunch of eight meter deep holes. And that shows you how destructive actual terraforming efforts would be. And that even imagining an entire fleet of death star type solar pumped orbital lasers it'd still take a lot longer than a human lifetime to even get a good start on the project.
On the dust front, the Martian dust isn't as razor sharp as lunar dust, but it's poisonous so you know, not really much of an improvement.
posted by sotonohito at 12:59 PM on September 12 [2 favorites]
The legal situation.
The TL;DR is that the legal aspects of setting up a colony off Earth are massive have significant implications on geopolitics and no one in space colony fandom wants to even think about it.
Now, IMO the magnetosphere aspect isn't as dire as the linked stuff claims, there are proposals (which may or may not work) for a magnetic umbrella and anyway people are unlikely to live on the surface so it's not as big a deal as it could be.
As far as terraforming goes I've gone from being an ignorant young fan of the idea of forging brave new worlds for humanity by terraforming planets like Mars to view terraforming as planetary scale vandalism and I'm a pretty major opponent.
Also, actual terraforming isn't going to be like the early SF writers imagined. Heinlein talked about "atmosphere plants" (he meant "plant" there in the "power plant" sense of a mechanical installation not in the botanical sense) which in just a couple of centuries made Mars have a breathable atmosphere.
IRL we've learned that liberating the oxygen locked up in the Martian soil would involve melting the entire surface of Mars to a depth of about 8 meters. Which, in theory, you COULD do over the course of many centuries, using giant ass solar pumped lasers to blast the Martian landscape and melt a bunch of eight meter deep holes. And that shows you how destructive actual terraforming efforts would be. And that even imagining an entire fleet of death star type solar pumped orbital lasers it'd still take a lot longer than a human lifetime to even get a good start on the project.
On the dust front, the Martian dust isn't as razor sharp as lunar dust, but it's poisonous so you know, not really much of an improvement.
posted by sotonohito at 12:59 PM on September 12 [2 favorites]
with no hope of ever seeing Earth againWhy wouldn’t people ever be able to return from Mars to Earth?
posted by mbrubeck at 1:04 PM on September 12
They may be referring to the possibility that living long enough in a lower gravity environment might make returning to a higher gravity environment a major health risk.
Or just the extreme cost of the trip.
posted by sotonohito at 1:09 PM on September 12 [1 favorite]
Or just the extreme cost of the trip.
posted by sotonohito at 1:09 PM on September 12 [1 favorite]
It's not like there will be a ferry that goes back and forth.
All the things you need to send someone to Mars you'll also need on Mars to send someone back to Earth, and uh, Mars has way fewer resources and infrastructure than we already have here on Earth.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 1:12 PM on September 12 [3 favorites]
All the things you need to send someone to Mars you'll also need on Mars to send someone back to Earth, and uh, Mars has way fewer resources and infrastructure than we already have here on Earth.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 1:12 PM on September 12 [3 favorites]
Yes and no. If you've got an Aldrin Cycler going, or even just an actual ferry getting stuff off Mars and into orbit is vastly less expensive than getting stuff off Earth and into orbit. Being at the bottom of a gravity well that's only 3.7m/s/s vs 9.8m/s/s is a big advantage.
But yeah, I'd assume most supply drops would be one way. Make the delivery vehicle out of stuff the colony needs so it's part of the drop and is intended to be dismantled not reused.
On the radiation front, the ~9 month trip to or from Mars is NOT good for you. We can't afford to build a ship with enough armor to keep you as safe from radiaiton on the trip as you are here on Earth thanks to our atmosphere and magnetosphere.
Some estimates say you could expect an estimated lifetime 3x greater chance of developing one of the really bad kinds of cnacer just from the radiation you'll pick up on the trip over. And that's assuming once on Mars you get to stay safely underground and protected from the sn by several meters of rock.
That's another thing that the early SF writers mostly just completely ignored. Heck, Heinlein thought that in addition to having a family rocket ship to take a trip from the moon to Mars and all the solar and cosmic radiation that entails you'd ALSO want to make it atomic powered and have a nice toasty reactor and several large blocks of enriched uranium in the back of your ship.
posted by sotonohito at 1:24 PM on September 12 [2 favorites]
But yeah, I'd assume most supply drops would be one way. Make the delivery vehicle out of stuff the colony needs so it's part of the drop and is intended to be dismantled not reused.
On the radiation front, the ~9 month trip to or from Mars is NOT good for you. We can't afford to build a ship with enough armor to keep you as safe from radiaiton on the trip as you are here on Earth thanks to our atmosphere and magnetosphere.
Some estimates say you could expect an estimated lifetime 3x greater chance of developing one of the really bad kinds of cnacer just from the radiation you'll pick up on the trip over. And that's assuming once on Mars you get to stay safely underground and protected from the sn by several meters of rock.
That's another thing that the early SF writers mostly just completely ignored. Heck, Heinlein thought that in addition to having a family rocket ship to take a trip from the moon to Mars and all the solar and cosmic radiation that entails you'd ALSO want to make it atomic powered and have a nice toasty reactor and several large blocks of enriched uranium in the back of your ship.
posted by sotonohito at 1:24 PM on September 12 [2 favorites]
Maybe this is a question for AskMe, but how does one invest a small sum of money in the catastrophic FAILURE of the Musk plan? Would short selling Tesla shares work? Financial brains of MetaFilter help me! Maybe we could pool some cash for this project (anti-project?)!
Generally, you should never, ever short sell stocks unless you're 100% sure of what you're doing. Short selling has potential unlimited losses. If you're a person who says "Financial brains of MetaFilter help me!", you're definitely not someone who should consider short selling. (Also, you don't really need cash to short sell, you generally borrow the money, which needs to be 50% of the value of the position, although again, you probably won't be able to.)
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 1:28 PM on September 12 [3 favorites]
Generally, you should never, ever short sell stocks unless you're 100% sure of what you're doing. Short selling has potential unlimited losses. If you're a person who says "Financial brains of MetaFilter help me!", you're definitely not someone who should consider short selling. (Also, you don't really need cash to short sell, you generally borrow the money, which needs to be 50% of the value of the position, although again, you probably won't be able to.)
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 1:28 PM on September 12 [3 favorites]
We all have networked pocket supercomputers.
Hopefully they don't have an apple on them if there's a chance of helium.
posted by maxwelton at 2:02 PM on September 12
Hopefully they don't have an apple on them if there's a chance of helium.
posted by maxwelton at 2:02 PM on September 12
So we're either a single planet species forever, or we figure out ways to live in places that are significantly hostile to our needs.
On the timescale where you're worried about the sun burning out in four billion years, we have plenty of time to come up with entirely new species to send to Mars, or to anywhere else reachable in the universe.
I mean, if you're really serious about extending the probable lifetime of consciousness and spreading organic life beyond Earth, then homo sapiens is a TERRIBLE place to start. They're big, clumsy, fragile, needy, stupid and way too overcomplicated to adapt to other environments.
Seriously, start with the damn microbes. Design a spacecraft that's just a Noah's Ark containing every known species of extremophile bacteria, and constantly launch hundreds of them at every plausible environment in the solar system. And meanwhile keep genetically engineering them on Earth, and repeat the process until something sticks.
And then either sit back and wait a billion years for it to evolve, or give it a helping hand. Eventually, you'd find some sort of truly weird, gross, alien critter that actually wants to exist in the horrible environment of Mars.
Now take that bizarre lifeform, inevitably called something weird like elongatis moschus rattus, and fling it out as far the fuck away from Earth as you can.
Then, with our duty to the future fulfilled, we can all continue living happily here on Earth.
posted by automatronic at 2:03 PM on September 12 [11 favorites]
On the timescale where you're worried about the sun burning out in four billion years, we have plenty of time to come up with entirely new species to send to Mars, or to anywhere else reachable in the universe.
I mean, if you're really serious about extending the probable lifetime of consciousness and spreading organic life beyond Earth, then homo sapiens is a TERRIBLE place to start. They're big, clumsy, fragile, needy, stupid and way too overcomplicated to adapt to other environments.
Seriously, start with the damn microbes. Design a spacecraft that's just a Noah's Ark containing every known species of extremophile bacteria, and constantly launch hundreds of them at every plausible environment in the solar system. And meanwhile keep genetically engineering them on Earth, and repeat the process until something sticks.
And then either sit back and wait a billion years for it to evolve, or give it a helping hand. Eventually, you'd find some sort of truly weird, gross, alien critter that actually wants to exist in the horrible environment of Mars.
Now take that bizarre lifeform, inevitably called something weird like elongatis moschus rattus, and fling it out as far the fuck away from Earth as you can.
Then, with our duty to the future fulfilled, we can all continue living happily here on Earth.
posted by automatronic at 2:03 PM on September 12 [11 favorites]
Why would we spend the as-of-now-unimaginable assload of blood and treasure to schlep all the airship-creating horseshit to godforsaken motherknocking Venus?
Because sending science probes into the atmosphere of Venus has direct relevance to the atmospheric challenges we are currently failing to address here on Earth. There's so much we can learn about climate patterns by studying Venus, certainly more so than Mars. It's astonishing more folks don't immediately get that.
That said, getting actual humans who might be floating in cities in the heavy atmosphere of Venus back into orbit (i.e., back to Earth), would require, I'm told, massive and unrealistic booster power being sent with them. If that's so, robotic science probes with humans adjusting them from orbit around Venus seems a more likely scenario. Certainly more so than humans living on Mars for any significant length of time.
posted by mediareport at 2:06 PM on September 12 [2 favorites]
Because sending science probes into the atmosphere of Venus has direct relevance to the atmospheric challenges we are currently failing to address here on Earth. There's so much we can learn about climate patterns by studying Venus, certainly more so than Mars. It's astonishing more folks don't immediately get that.
That said, getting actual humans who might be floating in cities in the heavy atmosphere of Venus back into orbit (i.e., back to Earth), would require, I'm told, massive and unrealistic booster power being sent with them. If that's so, robotic science probes with humans adjusting them from orbit around Venus seems a more likely scenario. Certainly more so than humans living on Mars for any significant length of time.
posted by mediareport at 2:06 PM on September 12 [2 favorites]
Also, if all you are going to do is live in a lava tube, why do that way down the Martian gravity well? You can live in a tube way out in space just as easily, save on launch costs, and have all the advantages of doing it near Earth.
Touché. Add to this the fact that the tube, as an untethered structure freefloating in space, can be 1) rotated and 2) lined with water tanks, thereby circumventing, at a single go, the medical hazards posed by microgravity and radiation.
posted by Gordion Knott at 2:20 PM on September 12 [1 favorite]
Touché. Add to this the fact that the tube, as an untethered structure freefloating in space, can be 1) rotated and 2) lined with water tanks, thereby circumventing, at a single go, the medical hazards posed by microgravity and radiation.
posted by Gordion Knott at 2:20 PM on September 12 [1 favorite]
Mars does not have a magnetosphere.
*pats cloaking device*
Yasss, keep the Earthings away, that's a gooood cloaking device
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:37 PM on September 12 [3 favorites]
*pats cloaking device*
Yasss, keep the Earthings away, that's a gooood cloaking device
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:37 PM on September 12 [3 favorites]
But we have a definite need for sustainability improvements now. Can't we just develop them without going through the whole trouble of martian colonization?
I recall an example of steam power the ancient greeks had in one of those old encyclopedias, a ball with nozzles that must have spun like the dickens. Why then did they not use steam engines to putter over to Troy? The did not know they needed discover metallurgy and a bunch of other details. Going to another planet has many known problems, but the unknown unknowns is where the big returns to humanity (and doggos and cassowaries) will come.
posted by sammyo at 3:20 PM on September 12 [3 favorites]
I recall an example of steam power the ancient greeks had in one of those old encyclopedias, a ball with nozzles that must have spun like the dickens. Why then did they not use steam engines to putter over to Troy? The did not know they needed discover metallurgy and a bunch of other details. Going to another planet has many known problems, but the unknown unknowns is where the big returns to humanity (and doggos and cassowaries) will come.
posted by sammyo at 3:20 PM on September 12 [3 favorites]
Given a long enough timeline, perhaps we should consider the Quatermass and the Pit solution? When the Martians realized their world was doomed, they visited Earth and captured specimens. After some experimentation, the specimens were returned with... strange new faculties. A colonization by proxy, if you will. This would explain the actions by some, like Musk, that urge a "cleansing of the hive."
posted by SPrintF at 4:15 PM on September 12 [1 favorite]
posted by SPrintF at 4:15 PM on September 12 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I get the point of the article, Mars is hard, Elon's hubris, etc. but the framing of this, 'Humans will never colonize Mars' just makes me batty. I looked up the word 'never', and guys, it's a really, really long time.
posted by newdaddy at 4:44 PM on September 12 [1 favorite]
posted by newdaddy at 4:44 PM on September 12 [1 favorite]
"sending science probes into the atmosphere of Venus" because that "has direct relevance to the atmospheric challenges we are currently failing to address here on Earth" seems reasonable, but "getting actual humans... floating in cities in the heavy atmosphere of Venus," which is what was proposed at that Wikipedia link, does not seem as reasonable. I freely admit that taking a year+ sabbatical to go hang out for 30 days over another planet in a giant blimp does sound really fun.
posted by Don Pepino at 4:54 PM on September 12 [2 favorites]
posted by Don Pepino at 4:54 PM on September 12 [2 favorites]
what, all this talk about the magnetosphere, and the razor-sharp dust, and nobody yet has brought up the toxic perchlorates which permeate all the Martian soil?
posted by ivan ivanych samovar at 5:22 PM on September 12 [1 favorite]
posted by ivan ivanych samovar at 5:22 PM on September 12 [1 favorite]
guys, it's a really, really long time
Yes. You are entirely correct. And, as a corollary, if anything does colonize Mars, it won't be human as we understand it.
...nevertheless, a million people is a huge number. Bigger than anyone, here on Earth surrounded by people, has any concept of.
Colonization is not sending a couple people to Mars who wander around for a couple days/months before leaving.
Colonization is also not sending a hundred people (one Starship load), in order to watch them (and a couple unfortunate babies) die horribly.
Colonization is, even more, not a matter of sending a thousand people to Mars to watch them, their children, and a few unfortunate grandchildren, die horribly.
Colonization is sending a million people to Mars. That's a Starship launch every day for a bit over twenty-seven years, without considering the fact that you'll need supplies and infrastructure already built when the first people arrive. That's without considering how many people need to die horribly before the remainder stop dying quite so frequently.
If NOBODY died ever with 1000 people you'll hit a million population in a bit over 230 years at 3% growth.
...human population growth rates being actually between 1-2%, so at 3% you'd need to literally turn women into baby machines. Hope you're OK with that -- Elon most emphatically is, so he's definitely your guy if you wanna do this.
Take the several quadrillion dollars needed to do this, and spend it making life better here first.
...if you can't, or won't, it's because you don't really want to improve anything.
You just want a tightly-enclosed biosphere where you can rule with an iron fist and have all the ladies whether they want it or not.
That's his motivation, what's yours?
posted by aramaic at 6:33 PM on September 12 [6 favorites]
Yes. You are entirely correct. And, as a corollary, if anything does colonize Mars, it won't be human as we understand it.
...nevertheless, a million people is a huge number. Bigger than anyone, here on Earth surrounded by people, has any concept of.
Colonization is not sending a couple people to Mars who wander around for a couple days/months before leaving.
Colonization is also not sending a hundred people (one Starship load), in order to watch them (and a couple unfortunate babies) die horribly.
Colonization is, even more, not a matter of sending a thousand people to Mars to watch them, their children, and a few unfortunate grandchildren, die horribly.
Colonization is sending a million people to Mars. That's a Starship launch every day for a bit over twenty-seven years, without considering the fact that you'll need supplies and infrastructure already built when the first people arrive. That's without considering how many people need to die horribly before the remainder stop dying quite so frequently.
If NOBODY died ever with 1000 people you'll hit a million population in a bit over 230 years at 3% growth.
...human population growth rates being actually between 1-2%, so at 3% you'd need to literally turn women into baby machines. Hope you're OK with that -- Elon most emphatically is, so he's definitely your guy if you wanna do this.
Take the several quadrillion dollars needed to do this, and spend it making life better here first.
...if you can't, or won't, it's because you don't really want to improve anything.
You just want a tightly-enclosed biosphere where you can rule with an iron fist and have all the ladies whether they want it or not.
That's his motivation, what's yours?
posted by aramaic at 6:33 PM on September 12 [6 favorites]
I look at this article maybe a different way, but man, this thread, it’s making me look at metafilter a different way. One of Burneko’s main points is that the sheer gravity of the wealth Musk gives incredibly weight to even his smallest whims. He makes noise about Mars, and, because there’s money in it (his) because he’s focused on it, people (enablers, sycophants, and people hoping to, remora-like make a buck off of him) come out of the woodwork, and money that could be used to, just maybe, mitigate some of the ruin we’ve visited on the only place we know of where we are capable of living right now is being spent on a half thought out power fantasy by the richest person on earth.
The thing is, ideas and theories about colonizing Mars aren’t new, and there have been a lot of very dedicated researchers looking into it for years. Maybe some of the pushback in this thread is from people like that? I feel bad for the people who have been doing the work. On the one hand, they’re most likely getting more funding and attention than ever before, but on the other, they’re going to see their life’s work lumped in with a guy who thinks one lane underground tunnels in prone to flood areas is the great secret to solving traffic problems.
For any serious scientist working on setting up a colony on Mars, do they actually think Musk would listen to any of their very real concerns? Fanboys love Musk because he flouts conventional wisdom, but a lot of others see it as Musk deciding he’s rich enough he shouldn’t have to abide by the concerns of lesser mortals in matters like, say, workplace safety, consumer safety, or other silly things like that.
Someone like that? Involved in something as delicate and difficult as keeping humans alive and well in an environment as hostile as Mars? I’m not excited about the Mars habitat version of Musk claiming the cybertruck windows were impregnable, only to have it shatter when someone threw a baseball at it.
The extreme technological and environmental barriers to a Mars habitat, let alone a colony, can’t be just hand waved away, and any serious attempt needs to be undertaken by people serious enough to be up to the task.
Past all that, the why of settling, and the push to settle now, you only need to listen to Musk to know what he wants, a place where the only rules that exist are the ones he makes, and that he doesn’t himself have to follow.
In the end (and yes, nthing A City on Mars) there’s the economic “why” of it. What does Mars have that we need? What would Mars produce that could, in any realistic way, make for enough trade to sustain the traffic that would be needed to handhold any kind of colony until it was self-sufficient? If there isn’t any real way to make a profit, isn’t this just an immense public cost? Shouldn’t we make sure we can feed people on this planet before we start diverting astronomical funding to keeping a handful of people alive on a largely pointless attempt to put a foothold in a place that can’t sustain us?
posted by Ghidorah at 6:37 PM on September 12 [2 favorites]
The thing is, ideas and theories about colonizing Mars aren’t new, and there have been a lot of very dedicated researchers looking into it for years. Maybe some of the pushback in this thread is from people like that? I feel bad for the people who have been doing the work. On the one hand, they’re most likely getting more funding and attention than ever before, but on the other, they’re going to see their life’s work lumped in with a guy who thinks one lane underground tunnels in prone to flood areas is the great secret to solving traffic problems.
For any serious scientist working on setting up a colony on Mars, do they actually think Musk would listen to any of their very real concerns? Fanboys love Musk because he flouts conventional wisdom, but a lot of others see it as Musk deciding he’s rich enough he shouldn’t have to abide by the concerns of lesser mortals in matters like, say, workplace safety, consumer safety, or other silly things like that.
Someone like that? Involved in something as delicate and difficult as keeping humans alive and well in an environment as hostile as Mars? I’m not excited about the Mars habitat version of Musk claiming the cybertruck windows were impregnable, only to have it shatter when someone threw a baseball at it.
The extreme technological and environmental barriers to a Mars habitat, let alone a colony, can’t be just hand waved away, and any serious attempt needs to be undertaken by people serious enough to be up to the task.
Past all that, the why of settling, and the push to settle now, you only need to listen to Musk to know what he wants, a place where the only rules that exist are the ones he makes, and that he doesn’t himself have to follow.
In the end (and yes, nthing A City on Mars) there’s the economic “why” of it. What does Mars have that we need? What would Mars produce that could, in any realistic way, make for enough trade to sustain the traffic that would be needed to handhold any kind of colony until it was self-sufficient? If there isn’t any real way to make a profit, isn’t this just an immense public cost? Shouldn’t we make sure we can feed people on this planet before we start diverting astronomical funding to keeping a handful of people alive on a largely pointless attempt to put a foothold in a place that can’t sustain us?
posted by Ghidorah at 6:37 PM on September 12 [2 favorites]
but the framing of this, 'Humans will never colonize Mars' just makes me batty. I looked up the word 'never', and guys, it's a really, really long time.
This article is arguing against the right-now extremely popular, but utterly garbage idea, that colonising Mars is going to happen in the near future; that this is an actual thing which people who are alive today should be investing in, making plans about and preparing for.
When the author uses the word "never", they are trying to convey that the fact that the chance of this happening within our lifetimes, or even our children's or grandchildren's lifetimes, is literally and precisely zero.
If it turns out, one million years into the future, that humans do in fact colonise Mars using technologies not even dreamed of today, then I can absolutely assure you that they will have better things to do than to look back through the mists of time and say "hah, those folks on Metafilter 1 million years ago were really stupid to use the word never".
You can, in fact, let it go. I can assure you that you will be long dead, and entirely forgotten, and that none of them will be posthumously congratulating you for being technically correct about this awful misuse of a word.
posted by automatronic at 6:46 PM on September 12 [8 favorites]
This article is arguing against the right-now extremely popular, but utterly garbage idea, that colonising Mars is going to happen in the near future; that this is an actual thing which people who are alive today should be investing in, making plans about and preparing for.
When the author uses the word "never", they are trying to convey that the fact that the chance of this happening within our lifetimes, or even our children's or grandchildren's lifetimes, is literally and precisely zero.
If it turns out, one million years into the future, that humans do in fact colonise Mars using technologies not even dreamed of today, then I can absolutely assure you that they will have better things to do than to look back through the mists of time and say "hah, those folks on Metafilter 1 million years ago were really stupid to use the word never".
You can, in fact, let it go. I can assure you that you will be long dead, and entirely forgotten, and that none of them will be posthumously congratulating you for being technically correct about this awful misuse of a word.
posted by automatronic at 6:46 PM on September 12 [8 favorites]
deciding he’s rich enough he shouldn’t have to abide by the concerns of lesser mortals in matters like, say, workplace safety, consumer safety, or other silly things like that.
Someone like that? Involved in something as delicate and difficult as keeping humans alive and well in an environment as hostile as Mars?
nah, Musk's simply dodging safety (again):
Someone like that? Involved in something as delicate and difficult as keeping humans alive and well in an environment as hostile as Mars?
nah, Musk's simply dodging safety (again):
> ...parties recognize Mars as a free planet and that no Earth-based government has authority...posted by HearHere at 7:01 PM on September 12
Oh, and also an interesting data point for those still speculating, NASA has detailed studies on the mass balance for astronauts on long-term missions. An 82kg astronaut on a long-term space mission will require 5.74kg of support material (food, water, etc) per day. Life support system designs should incorporate greater (and lesser) requirements, but 5.74 is a reasonable midline to aim for in consumables planning.
...those of you riding a Starship launch, that means 574kg of material per day for your team. On your average 115 day one-way trip.
Gonna be exciting to see how the mission planners manage to get 5.74kg/person/day landed on Mars before the first people actually arrive, unless they're really doing it out of a fetish for watching people starve.
posted by aramaic at 7:29 PM on September 12 [2 favorites]
...those of you riding a Starship launch, that means 574kg of material per day for your team. On your average 115 day one-way trip.
Gonna be exciting to see how the mission planners manage to get 5.74kg/person/day landed on Mars before the first people actually arrive, unless they're really doing it out of a fetish for watching people starve.
posted by aramaic at 7:29 PM on September 12 [2 favorites]
science-fiction writers—and their contemptible counterparts, futurists
Just slag off an entire profession, eh, without actually knowing what we do? Charming.
posted by doctornemo at 7:45 PM on September 12 [2 favorites]
Just slag off an entire profession, eh, without actually knowing what we do? Charming.
posted by doctornemo at 7:45 PM on September 12 [2 favorites]
I have slowly been coming around to the idea that anyone who strongly supports manned spaceflight is probably, at best, a protofascist Musk-humper.
Please try retreating from this idea. It's not a good, accurate, or useful one.
Consider, for example, the many nations which aren't the US (I know, weird thought, but bear with me) who are committed to human spaceflight: China, those in the EU, India, Britain. Are they all protofascist Musk-humpers?
posted by doctornemo at 7:47 PM on September 12 [1 favorite]
Please try retreating from this idea. It's not a good, accurate, or useful one.
Consider, for example, the many nations which aren't the US (I know, weird thought, but bear with me) who are committed to human spaceflight: China, those in the EU, India, Britain. Are they all protofascist Musk-humpers?
posted by doctornemo at 7:47 PM on September 12 [1 favorite]
I read this rant a few days ago. As others have pointed out, it's shallow and very derivative. As others have pointed out, the Weinersmiths are *far* more interesting in this score.
It takes me several months to put together my space exploration posts. I don't have the spare cycles to burn taking down this... stuff.
posted by doctornemo at 7:49 PM on September 12 [3 favorites]
It takes me several months to put together my space exploration posts. I don't have the spare cycles to burn taking down this... stuff.
posted by doctornemo at 7:49 PM on September 12 [3 favorites]
You just want a tightly-enclosed biosphere where you can rule with an iron fist and have all the ladies whether they want it or not.
Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned a ratio of 10 women to each man. Wouldn’t that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship – I mean, as far as men were concerned?”
Strangelove: “Regrettably, yes. But it is a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics – which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.”
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 8:57 PM on September 12 [1 favorite]
Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned a ratio of 10 women to each man. Wouldn’t that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship – I mean, as far as men were concerned?”
Strangelove: “Regrettably, yes. But it is a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics – which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.”
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 8:57 PM on September 12 [1 favorite]
Are they all protofascist Musk-humpers?
Literally none of those have a credible plan for colonizing Mars, which is the question at hand.
...unless you know different, in which case I strongly encourage you to share those plans, unless of course that will get you killed (oh, hello Modi & Xi, famous for killing people who disagree!). We're not talking electric cars here (which are going to be obliterated by Chinese EV firms, btw).
Yes, again, to be clear: anyone who claims they're going to colonize anything outside of Earth is trying to hump Musk in an effort to gather his sweet monies. Quote me on that.
posted by aramaic at 9:31 PM on September 12 [1 favorite]
Literally none of those have a credible plan for colonizing Mars, which is the question at hand.
...unless you know different, in which case I strongly encourage you to share those plans, unless of course that will get you killed (oh, hello Modi & Xi, famous for killing people who disagree!). We're not talking electric cars here (which are going to be obliterated by Chinese EV firms, btw).
Yes, again, to be clear: anyone who claims they're going to colonize anything outside of Earth is trying to hump Musk in an effort to gather his sweet monies. Quote me on that.
posted by aramaic at 9:31 PM on September 12 [1 favorite]
My go-to question for advocates of colonization in anything less than 1000 years or so is: name one disaster that could possibly happen to the Earth that would be more challenging to survive than creating a self-sustaining Mars colony.
Not exactly what you're asking but yes, the last 1000 years have seen a disaster unfold that justifies increased investment in human space flight. That disaster is the exhaustion of great swaths of Earth's high quality and easily accessible mineral resources. As the low hanging fruit of industrial feedstocks are depleted our production efficiencies drop while material costs increase. Sure, technology has been improving to help offset these losses but day by day from a resource perspective, we are making it harder for future generations to build a space program.
Of course we should already be striving for this radical sustainability now but we aren't because it's distant and abstract and on earth it's all too easy to side step the hard bits. Mars colonisation brings this dire incentive to the now and shackles it to some of our brightest minds and increased funding.
Time is critical because not just due to what we're losing but also for what we stand to gain. Humanity can do so much more than stagnate in LEO. We must audaciously reach for the radical sustainability that humanity in space entails because that's when we make our most consequential advances.
what, all this talk about the magnetosphere, and the razor-sharp dust, and nobody yet has brought up the toxic perchlorates which permeate all the Martian soil?
Perchlorates aren't actually that big of a problem. Perchlorates are water soluble and pretty easy to wash out of martian regolith (netting colonists a useful resource in the process) plus we have also found microbes that can bioremediate perchlorate soil contamination. As for the razor sharp dust, you're thinking of the wrong planetary body. Dust on mars has been worn by environmental processes and does not pose the same hazard that lunar dust does.
Also, if all you are going to do is live in a lava tube, why do that way down the Martian gravity well? You can live in a tube way out in space just as easily, save on launch costs, and have all the advantages of doing it near Earth.
Touché. Add to this the fact that the tube, as an untethered structure freefloating in space, can be 1) rotated and 2) lined with water tanks, thereby circumventing, at a single go, the medical hazards posed by microgravity and radiation.
Humans have practically zero expertise smelting and refining metals in microgravity. An awful lot of processes involved in separating and processing minerals requires a significant gravitational field. Building an industrial base in such unfamiliar territory is far riskier prospect than adapting existing processes to a reduced but still significant gravitational field such as mars. Even simple things like transferring fluid between containers becomes MUCH more complicated in microgravity. Microgravity is NOT where we want to start bootstrapping an off world industrial base.
posted by neonamber at 9:34 PM on September 12
Not exactly what you're asking but yes, the last 1000 years have seen a disaster unfold that justifies increased investment in human space flight. That disaster is the exhaustion of great swaths of Earth's high quality and easily accessible mineral resources. As the low hanging fruit of industrial feedstocks are depleted our production efficiencies drop while material costs increase. Sure, technology has been improving to help offset these losses but day by day from a resource perspective, we are making it harder for future generations to build a space program.
Of course we should already be striving for this radical sustainability now but we aren't because it's distant and abstract and on earth it's all too easy to side step the hard bits. Mars colonisation brings this dire incentive to the now and shackles it to some of our brightest minds and increased funding.
Time is critical because not just due to what we're losing but also for what we stand to gain. Humanity can do so much more than stagnate in LEO. We must audaciously reach for the radical sustainability that humanity in space entails because that's when we make our most consequential advances.
what, all this talk about the magnetosphere, and the razor-sharp dust, and nobody yet has brought up the toxic perchlorates which permeate all the Martian soil?
Perchlorates aren't actually that big of a problem. Perchlorates are water soluble and pretty easy to wash out of martian regolith (netting colonists a useful resource in the process) plus we have also found microbes that can bioremediate perchlorate soil contamination. As for the razor sharp dust, you're thinking of the wrong planetary body. Dust on mars has been worn by environmental processes and does not pose the same hazard that lunar dust does.
Also, if all you are going to do is live in a lava tube, why do that way down the Martian gravity well? You can live in a tube way out in space just as easily, save on launch costs, and have all the advantages of doing it near Earth.
Touché. Add to this the fact that the tube, as an untethered structure freefloating in space, can be 1) rotated and 2) lined with water tanks, thereby circumventing, at a single go, the medical hazards posed by microgravity and radiation.
Humans have practically zero expertise smelting and refining metals in microgravity. An awful lot of processes involved in separating and processing minerals requires a significant gravitational field. Building an industrial base in such unfamiliar territory is far riskier prospect than adapting existing processes to a reduced but still significant gravitational field such as mars. Even simple things like transferring fluid between containers becomes MUCH more complicated in microgravity. Microgravity is NOT where we want to start bootstrapping an off world industrial base.
posted by neonamber at 9:34 PM on September 12
That's right, entire space-industrial complex and also professional futurists: Albert Burneko and his sports blog are coming for you.
posted by german_bight at 10:38 PM on September 12
posted by german_bight at 10:38 PM on September 12
Colonising mars will be a net benefit to humanity on earth because it will necessitate levelling up on sustainability to such a degree that the enabling technical and cultural improvements developed for the martian colony will permeate the human zeitgeist.
With a surprisingly small number of tweaks this is one of the genuinely proposed arguments for Brexit.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 12:55 AM on September 13
With a surprisingly small number of tweaks this is one of the genuinely proposed arguments for Brexit.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 12:55 AM on September 13
It seems to me that once you pare it down, a lot of the space colonization arguments end up consisting of just two statements, which are clearly contradictory:
"We cannot possibly know what scientific and technological advancements there will be in the future. Therefore what I wish for will certainly come about."
posted by Pyrogenesis at 1:07 AM on September 13
"We cannot possibly know what scientific and technological advancements there will be in the future. Therefore what I wish for will certainly come about."
posted by Pyrogenesis at 1:07 AM on September 13
« Older “word in one hand and a Danish axe in the other” | *squeeks* And One More Thing Newer »
This, I think, is a consequence of more people having gotten their science education from the movie character Ian Malcolm than from actual science classes.
The doomsday scenarios that science-fiction writers—and their contemptible counterparts, futurists—
Shipping a pound of coffee from the Bean Belt to Connecticut is nothing at all compared to shipping flour to goddamn Mars.
...Elon Musk, the mega-rich clod and dullard famous for buying things for more than they're worth and then making them worse, who tweeted over the weekend some silly shit about his Martian colony, ah—what even is the word here? Plan? Vision? Intention?
Capitalist society permits such profound inequalities of wealth and power, and the U.S. has allowed its public sector to lapse into such abysmal decay, that a guy like Musk exerts a terrible gravity on the world around him
The fantasy—and it is a fantasy—isn't one of space travel and exploration and some bright Star Trek future for humanity, but one of winnowing and eugenics, of cold actuarial lifeboat logic, of ever greater reallocation from the dwindling many to the thriving few.
In a saner society, a rich guy with Musk's well-known and unapologetically expounded views would sooner find himself under a guillotine than atop a space agency with the power to dragoon the world's resources into his k-hole John Galt cosplay.
posted by AlSweigart at 6:22 AM on September 12 [61 favorites]