311–320 of 393 posts
What’s more likely in the next 5000 years that we colonize Mars or that we scan the human brain and move it to software so that it doesn’t need a specialized atmosphere to persist?
The dangers of radiation on Mars are greatly exaggerated. The dangers of low gravity on Titan and elsewhere are greatly understated, as is the immense distance between Mars and Titan. A floating habitat on Venus is harder and less attractive in every way than a rotating space station, which is clearly our next milestone in space. In terms of planets though, there's a reason Mars gets the most attention: it's obviousl…
A floating habitat on Venus is actually more attractive. Venus (upper atmosphere): -human livable temperatures with modest temperature control -Earth-like pressure (Himalayans) leads to slow leaks that can be patched, and pressure can be increased inside to stop the leaks inward -protected by thick atmosphere from radiation, meteors, asteroids -strong magnetic field against radiation -atmosphere still thin enough for…
Serious question, since this is out of my swim lane. The Author keeps talking about the effects of Galactic Cosmic Rays, do we have any usable materials we can build habitats out of that can block them? I mean usable in the sense we can produce in scale and they are non toxic to humans.
For Cosmic Rays the only thing is just a lot of atomic nuclei. You need pure mass. This is why a transit to Mars or Saturn is going to be hard for us to pull off in the near term. All those nuclei are expensive to get into orbit right now. Outside of that, there is a 'graded Z' shield. Here, you make a layer cake of various atomic nuclei (the Zs), going from heavier to lighter. Typically Tantalum down to Tin and down…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only thing going for the moon is its proximity to Earth. Mars has more than double the gravity of the moon, an atmosphere, nearly earth-like day night cycle and satellites have a much easier time orbiting mars
The only thing going for the moon is its proximity to Earth. Oh...that's all . So let's ignore for just a second the logistical advantages of figuring out how to actually mount a manned mission to build something non-trivial on another body when you're 3 days away, not 6 months away. Pretend that isn't important. The moon has water, raw materials, enough gravity things don't just float away, abundant solar and we've…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no atmospheric absorption though, so that would compensate a bit. Building very tall structures would be easy in the low gravity, and you wouldn't need to worry about earthquakes or storms.
I'd often though that a rail or even cable should be strung to the top of Mt Everest, you'd make a fortune off of it shuttling tourists up and down all day.
Pikes Peak used to have a train going to the top, but they closed it a couple of years ago. https://www.cograilway.com/rates-times.asp
Everyone in the comments here debating the merits of Mars vs the Moon vs Titan seems to have missed the whole point of this article. The author is arguing that anywhere other than Titan is infeasible due to recent research suggesting that Galactic Cosmic Rays cause significant brain damage (not just increased risk of cancer). In fact, the article argues that the danger is so severe that even getting to Titan quickly…
I expect colonizing the solar system will not be completely practical without genetic modification of the colonists to partially adapt to local environments.
Software-life, on the other hand, can tailor its physical form(s) to particular environments, consume solar/nuclear energy directly, and even shut off its consciousness during long journeys.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of solar system colonization, interstellar generational ships, etc; and manual genetic manipulation (or repair) may be a necessary tool to accomplish that. But in terms of life forms being well-adapted to their ecological niche, humans becoming a space-faring species is a billion times more difficult than a mudskipper learning to breathe air.
The dangers of radiation on Mars are greatly exaggerated. The dangers of low gravity on Titan and elsewhere are greatly understated, as is the immense distance between Mars and Titan. A floating habitat on Venus is harder and less attractive in every way than a rotating space station, which is clearly our next milestone in space. In terms of planets though, there's a reason Mars gets the most attention: it's obviousl…
A floating habitat on Venus is actually more attractive. Venus (upper atmosphere): -human livable temperatures with modest temperature control -Earth-like pressure (Himalayans) leads to slow leaks that can be patched, and pressure can be increased inside to stop the leaks inward -protected by thick atmosphere from radiation, meteors, asteroids -strong magnetic field against radiation -atmosphere still thin enough for…
Wait, what? Isn't escape velocity from Mars lower than that from Venus? The surface gravity is far lower on Mars.
I also note that you list "no surrounding breathable atmosphere" as a negative for a rotating space station, but the surrounding atmosphere on Venus isn't exactly breathable either...
The dangers of radiation on Mars are greatly exaggerated. The dangers of low gravity on Titan and elsewhere are greatly understated, as is the immense distance between Mars and Titan. A floating habitat on Venus is harder and less attractive in every way than a rotating space station, which is clearly our next milestone in space. In terms of planets though, there's a reason Mars gets the most attention: it's obviousl…
We just need a craft that can thrust that strength for three days straight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You get radiation protection from earth's magnetosphere. Only in very specific orbits (NOT the ones we are currently using, btw.) The Earth's magnetosphere actually captures dangerous radiation and various anomalies in the belt distribution cause portions of low-Earth orbits to be irradiated. > You get zero G for funsies. And the medical issues. > interesting new kinds of manufacturing. There are a handful of (very…
I'm not trying to take the wind out of the sails of any vehicles going elsewhere, just think LEO is a good place to start. Something like, before crossing an ocean, let's cross the Florida straits over to the Bahamas. > The Earth's magnetosphere actually captures dangerous radiation and various anomalies in the belt distribution cause portions of low-Earth orbits to be irradiated. Pick the favorable orbits. We have d…
All I ever learned from that is that I hate camping... and would much rather have a house / hotel room.
Extending that analogy further, maybe we can figure out how to build a "mother in law apartment" in our "back yard" first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mars is definitely the easiest place to colonize, by far. It's much closer than the gas giants, there's no craft capable of taking people to Saturn even devised, let alone constructed. Meanwhile, we have SpaceX actively building a rocket for Martian colonization. Second, the Venusian atmosphere is oppressive as hell, you'll not be solving that problem anytime soon, as we can't even solve Earth's much easier atmospher…
> SpaceX actively building a rocket for Martian colonization. It's unknown whether it is capable of protecting the human cargo on its way to Mars. Maybe a design with habitation encased in the propellant tanks is a better idea for longer transits. In any case, Starship is well positioned for Earth and Moon travels, as well as for sending equipment to LEO and the Moon.