41–50 of 105 posts
(The Expanse covers ideas like this; inner planets (Earth and Mars) are more like-now human, but those who grew up on space stations and asteroids, aka 'Belters', are physically different, taller, lankier)
A different question altogether, but interesting none the less, let's say Russia or China get to colonize Mars first, then let's say they find a safe way to thrive there. could they then by extension manage new colonization of Mars the same way we colonized earth? That is the colonizer could regulate who might get to further colonize Mars --ie require a kind of interplanetary visa (if we allow many people from many p…
> And what if the new Martians just declare independence? We just cut their supplies for 3 months ;)
The idea of colonizing another planets is so surreal it makes me wish I would live another 100 years. Having mars as our launch pad, I wonder where we could go from there.
Strictly speaking, it should be possible for humans to go interstellar using current technology. Practically speaking, it's not, due to the partial nuclear test ban treaty. Here's a good start to that Wikipedia hole: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. It would be interesting to see how genetic engineering might be used to "steer" the changes needed to adapt to life on Mars. I've been concerned about the gravity issue for some time. It's not at all clear that 0.38g is healthy for humans in the long term. And the radiation threat is a very serious issue, even just for the trip out there. The long term effects are hard to predict. It really is a pity that Ven…
Or we could try to exploit the 78%+ of this planet we don't use... the oceans. Easier than space, that's for damned sure.
Say you wanted to create a city sized operation/colony. If we start by comparing to vessels and platforms already in operation we see that the price tag for such can vary between $250 million and >$1 billion for both cruise ships and oil platforms. Those costs are for established technologies with existing production infrastructure and with the assumption of constant resupply and a market for the goods and services they produce. If you were to break ground on a completely new area the costs would be much, much higher.
There's also the question of what special benefit we gain from moving an operation to the ocean when compared to doing something similar on land. Both are still on Earth with all its pros and cons but the ocean simply multiplies the engineering challenges. You could ask the same question of space but the difference is that a space based facility has several major advantages that go hand in hand with the challenges it presents. Namely, greatly reduced gravity, vast amounts of 'rare' elements, the potential to move large quantities of material with a comparatively small vehicle/engine, and the prestige that comes with a new frontier.
Finally, doing one does not necessarily mean we neglect the other. There are many areas where advances in one could benefit the other and there are proposals for systems that would see a great deal of overlap between the two, such as the Sea Dragon.[0]
Could Mars ever be terraformed to the point a human, or human derivative, could operate comfortably in the open atmosphere? It seems pretty cold, air pressure is low, and there's little-to-no protection from solar radiation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is the Outer Space Treaty [1]: > The treaty explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet.[3] Art. II of the Treaty states that "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means". However, the State that launches a space object reta…
So, while no one can actually claim the land, if they land a bunch of habitat shaped 'space objects' on the surface, it is still under the jurisdiction of the country that launched them. Sounds like a loophole? "We don't claim this land, it's just covered with a city sized grouping of space objects that we do claim."
The idea of colonizing another planets is so surreal it makes me wish I would live another 100 years. Having mars as our launch pad, I wonder where we could go from there.
Strictly speaking, it should be possible for humans to go interstellar using current technology. Practically speaking, it's not, due to the partial nuclear test ban treaty. Here's a good start to that Wikipedia hole: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propu...
A different question altogether, but interesting none the less, let's say Russia or China get to colonize Mars first, then let's say they find a safe way to thrive there. could they then by extension manage new colonization of Mars the same way we colonized earth? That is the colonizer could regulate who might get to further colonize Mars --ie require a kind of interplanetary visa (if we allow many people from many p…
There is the Outer Space Treaty [1]: > The treaty explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet.[3] Art. II of the Treaty states that "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means". However, the State that launches a space object reta…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine deep sea exploration. Someone finds something very valuable and worth extracting despite the cost. There are treaties for this, of course. But would it work the same for Mars? Or, would we revert to force, as you say, if the Mars colony declares independence and says, no more Earthlings or only Earthlings from Country X who pay us handsomely.
I mean... if a Mars colony really pisses people off, I imagine you'd hear the phrase, "Nuke them from orbit" bandied about a lot.