71–80 of 113 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But how is the Moon not a sufficicent backup plan?
How can a moon civilization support itself without the Earth?
What would we need from Earth? What would be economical to ship from Earth?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also think Dyson swarms are the future. But I think the Mars effort is helpful towards getting there. Elon's public motivation for Mars is basically a human backup plan. And for that, it probably may be the best shot of the next 100 years. It seems like a million people living and working on Mars is more likely to survive a worst case scenario that a million people in rotating space habitats.
But how is the Moon not a sufficicent backup plan?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With this mindset we won't get very far as a species. It was probably already a mistake to climb down from the trees, right? But seriously, what else we should do as humans? I just can't imagine we will sit on our asses because that's a reasonable thing to do. If the benefits of going to Mars only results in a new generation of humans to fall in love with space, that's already good enough. Also don't forget all the c…
> With this mindset we won't get very far as a species. I assume you're saying this in good faith but it's really a straw man argument because it's a false dichotomy. For one there's the obvious: I'm not saying "go nowhere". I'm saying "the Moon makes more sense to colonize than Mars". Also, that doesn't preclude ever colonizing Mars. A Moon-first policy just makes way more sense. Another flaw: why do we even need to…
It seems odd to quibble about which rock we should colonize when you think this far ahead.
Any species that lives in a "cloud of orbitals" or a "Dyson Swarm" is going to have colonized other planets in its solar system, if only as a temporary experiment. The thing to do now is push farther out and explore. Any rock will do but Mars has more romance to it and, for better or worse, that's a requirement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ISRU profiles of both bodies are significantly different and Mars has much higher gravity. The Moon is, first and foremost, a weapons platform, and any every competent military sees it as such. There will never be a functioning colony on the Moon until the Earth is unified under a single government. Mars is far enough away that colonization is possible, and the technology needs are so dramatic that we’ll have to…
> The Moon is, first and foremost, a weapons platform This just isn't true. To quote Isaac Arthur, "there is no such thing as an unarmed spaceship". Kinetic energy is all the weapon you need. Any colony on the Moon or Mars would need to be essentially self-sufficient from day one because the cost of getting payloads to eitehr are so vast to be uneconomical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do anything?
This is a very flippant comment, but I will try to respond anyway - we simply haven't achieved a post scarcity society yet. Maybe we will at some point, but we just aren't there yet. So right now our time, money and natural resources are quite simply limited. So maybe it's not that we shouldn't have a base on Mars - it's just that maybe that shouldn't be the first step in human habitation in space.
We don't need to have a post-scarcity society before progressing science and technology by trying to and succeeding in colonizing Mars. Similarly we create plenty of technology while also not solving the post-scarcity "problem". Adding more resources or more people to solving a problem doesn't mean that it makes the problem easier or more likely to be solved. So you're creating this idea that we can't do X until we've done Y, when the truth is we can do X and Y.
Strategically I think we should create an international moon base first before going to Mars, but we can do both.
Sure let's continue unmanned exploration of Mars but manned exploration let alone colonization makes absolutely zero sense. mars is nothing more than a further, more annoying version of the Moon. Similar gravity, less sunlight (ie further from the Sun), communication latency (~10 minutes vs 1.5 seconds), no magnetosphere (just like the Moon so you'll probably need to live underground) and just enough atmosphere to pr…
With this mindset we won't get very far as a species. It was probably already a mistake to climb down from the trees, right? But seriously, what else we should do as humans? I just can't imagine we will sit on our asses because that's a reasonable thing to do. If the benefits of going to Mars only results in a new generation of humans to fall in love with space, that's already good enough. Also don't forget all the c…
Ultimately: what does Mars offer that you can't get on Earth or the Moon? Is it worth the extra trillions of dollars worth of expense and effort? Even if you're talking about surviving dinosaur-killing asteroid impacts the subterranian or subsea self contained colony offers many advantages over an offworld colony.
We must go to Mars, if only to convince people on Earth that there really is no second planet.
Hopefully people start to behave as though there is no second plant long before we go to Mars. Otherwise there will be nobody left to send there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With this mindset we won't get very far as a species. It was probably already a mistake to climb down from the trees, right? But seriously, what else we should do as humans? I just can't imagine we will sit on our asses because that's a reasonable thing to do. If the benefits of going to Mars only results in a new generation of humans to fall in love with space, that's already good enough. Also don't forget all the c…
> With this mindset we won't get very far as a species. I assume you're saying this in good faith but it's really a straw man argument because it's a false dichotomy. For one there's the obvious: I'm not saying "go nowhere". I'm saying "the Moon makes more sense to colonize than Mars". Also, that doesn't preclude ever colonizing Mars. A Moon-first policy just makes way more sense. Another flaw: why do we even need to…
I agree that a Moon colony makes sense, but I think both will happen. What we must see is that our future will take parallel evolutionary paths and that will involve colonisation of planets too, whatever that means. Why not have a permanent settlement on Mars? We have people living in the harshest environments already. It will probably be a good exercise to learn our limits. Maybe we can't have healthy, viable offsprings on Mars and we will settle with cloud cities on Venus.
It's probably not the best idea to pick a winning scenario, let's try everything till we can.
Sure let's continue unmanned exploration of Mars but manned exploration let alone colonization makes absolutely zero sense. mars is nothing more than a further, more annoying version of the Moon. Similar gravity, less sunlight (ie further from the Sun), communication latency (~10 minutes vs 1.5 seconds), no magnetosphere (just like the Moon so you'll probably need to live underground) and just enough atmosphere to pr…