Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if we had the artificial magnetosphere and then populated the atmosphere we would get similar effects to Earth's protection?
You're never going to get the same atmosphere on Mars vs Earth. Not only are you going to need to make a lot of tradeoffs with respect to gas content (eg, that much nitrogen is going to be very difficult to find/relocate) but the same amount of atmospheric pressure is going to take a larger mass of atmosphere since there is less gravity. So it really is a hard question to answer since to answer it you'd need to know…
James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'
321–330 of 330 posts
Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can breathe and find sustenance in Fort Bridger if you have human skills that have existed for dozens of millenia.
To be pedantic, evidence indicates that humans have not existed (on Earth) for dozens of millenia. Human skills to breathe and find sustenance below the ocean surface have been common enough for 70+ years. Do you really require that we wait millenia before we try it on another planet?
Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
The part about cancer was where I stopped reading. I got cancer they just cut it out it isn't that bad! Middle class people don't die of cancer?
That may be his confirmation of ignoring the protest. You stop reading and thinking when you hear a trigger you don't like. Making your commentary sort of ...simplistic. I don't claim to be deep. But he's 100 and lived thru 5 cancers. Maybe he knows more... I'm a boomer, read his stuff, was thrilled with SimEarth 30 yrs ago. I believe in climate change, but have worked with climate data on EOS/NASA projects, also saw…
Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm gonna take the risk of being extremely unpopular and I'll say that Musk is completely overrated. I think he's nowhere near the level of people that we usually think of as geniuses. In certain ways he's good at marketing and hyping things up, but a lot of his ideas, especially the Mars one, are nonsensical. Just try to think about this: how bad do the conditions on Earth have to get before it makes sense to try to…
It is not that he is a one-in-a-billion kind of genius, no. He is probably in the 99.99th percentile of engineers, but that still means there's many many thousands of engineers as smart as he is. However, he is also in the 99th percentile for marketing, 99.9th percentile in leadership, 99th percentile of celebrity, etc. No, he is not special on any single dimension, but it is extremely rare to find this distribution,…
Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'
#325Perhaps it might have been possible in some long distant past to underestimate Elon Musk and write him off as a crazy person. That time is gone. If Musk appears to be doing something crazy you've not understood it. > It’s crazy, completely crazy. Elon Musk has read too much science fiction. He got carried away with it. If I were in his position, I would not waste my fortune on colonizing Mars. And all they would lear…
I'm gonna take the risk of being extremely unpopular and I'll say that Musk is completely overrated. I think he's nowhere near the level of people that we usually think of as geniuses. In certain ways he's good at marketing and hyping things up, but a lot of his ideas, especially the Mars one, are nonsensical. Just try to think about this: how bad do the conditions on Earth have to get before it makes sense to try to…
Going to Mars makes a lot of sense to some fairly capable folk. Getting there, and sustaining life, is going to be hard.
But, we will make it easier eventually. I can think of a way we could turn Earth into a recovering paradise, full of natural wonder, and it would definitely involve using Mars to fix it.
Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
Life on Earth didn't leave the ocean and ventured onto land because the ocean became uninhabitable. It was still a good idea. Expanding beyond Earth is something we must do eventually. If we can do it now, why wait? We risk that we are unable to do it later.
Life expanded because there were resources and opportunities on land. Plants grew there because there were no predators and then some animals managed to go eat them and benefited because there was little competition, I don't see a real analog there for Mars. [0] I think an actual Mars colony is centuries out just due to the amount of things left to invent to make it viable. We still haven't really even retried a clos…
Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'
#327I see Mars not so much as a "plan b" or "insurance". That's just a nice side effect. Humans venturing out into space and establishing colonies is a big step in human evolution. It's a bigger step than when animal life left the oceans and ventured onto land. If you look at all of life on Earth from far away, there would be only a few achievements you could see. Rather shortly after life began, it changed Earth's atmos…
I think you underestimate how far apart galaxies are.
Anyway, to come back to your point: Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_galaxies we would start with satellite galaxies, the closest one is 25.000 light years away. Unthinkable for now.
Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
No offense, but you could not possibly be more wrong. While just 1% the quantity of CO2 is enormous and large important resource. With CO2, ice and martian soil you got everything to get plants to grow. Nothing can grow on the moon unless you import carbon. Also CO2 can be used with electrolysis of water and sabatier reaction to produce methane which can be used as rocket fuel. The fact that the atmosphere is almost…
> you got everything to get plants to grow. Nothing can grow on the moon unless you import carbon. Nothing is going to be growing on Mars either, outside of pressurized chambers, which, in the event of a loss of pressure, will kill everyone inside. The atmosphere is so thin that you really aren't gaining anything by not just bringing the carbon with you. Frankly, the idea of colonizing the Moon or Mars, except in the…
Absolutely but I think you underestimate human desire for adventure and breaking boundaries. Living on the arctic is not something that really push the boundaries on anything.
Helping to establish a human presence on another planet is something a lot of people would find meaningful. Why by another cog in the wheel among 7 billion other people? Why not go to Mars instead a make a significant difference?
Be among the few names who established the first colonies and secured humanity's presence on an alien world?
> Nothing is going to be growing on Mars either, outside of pressurized chambers, which, in the event of a loss of pressure, will kill everyone inside. The atmosphere is so thin that you really aren't gaining anything by not just bringing the carbon with you.
Yes you gain something, are you kidding? How practical is it to have to send a spacecraft to earth every time you need to expand your farm?
With Mars you don't have to. Initially you will. But Mars has all the resources to build everything we have on earth. All resources for expanding farms on Mars exist on the planet.
> which, in the event of a loss of pressure, will kill everyone inside.
It is not like you immediately die when there is a breach. For a large dome, there will be plenty of time to fix the leak.
Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claas_Relotius#Fabrication_of_... That guy had won several awards for his "reporting".
Which is more a reason why they wouldn't slip here.
Re: James Lovelock: 'I Would Not Waste My Fortune on Colonizing Mars'
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is more a reason why they wouldn't slip here.
Is it though? If you catch somebody in a lie, will you trust his next statement more or less? On the one hand, you could argue "he will likely not lie again, knowing that I've uncovered his previous lie, therefore I can trust him more", on the other hand, past behavior isn't bad at predicting future behavior.
Claus Relotius has left Der Spiegel, I don't need to trust him. Would you trust his boss not to triple check everything after a massive scandal?