Good arguments. About the gravity issue: It is possible to construct rotating habitats on planetary surfaces, probably more easily than in free space—because humans are absolutely awesome at building things in a gravity environment. Compare videos of Apollo moonwalkers vs ISS EVAs. There is an obvious difference. Humans have been building large rotating doodads, including massive bridge spans and human-carrying centrifuges, for a long time. And, the “floor” of a rotating habitat in a gravity field is first-year calculus.
Nice point about the atmosphere; it's indeed true that humans could live comfortably at 1/5th Earth normal as long as the atmosphere was almost entirely Oxygen. And the stability of this wouldn't be materially altered by the absence of a buffer gas. About the only real problem this would present is cooking: You'd need a pressure cooker to get anything cooked past rare!
Mars' surface is super-oxidized, thus all those perchorates. But I suspect you'd still have to isolate an awful lot of reduced silicon, iron, and aluminum. The iron, I suppose, would be the real problem.
I have a major problem with Mars being portrayed as a backup plan for humanity. If there's any part of a "destroyed" earth that doesn't require a SPACESUIT, then it's still less "destroyed" than Mars. So, nuclear war, climate disasters, killer asteroids of dinosaur-killing scare STILL do not render earth LESS habitable than Mars. Even as a guy who's VERY pro Mars exploration. And I'm saying all this as a very PRO Mars exploration guy. I just see far more need to educate the Musk acolytes than the sceptics. Very few of them know that Mars atmosphere might as well be vacuum as far as the human body is concerned. Very few of them know of the huge gravity differences and the toll that takes on the human body. Very few of them have considered the Mars-to-Earth supply chain nightmare, and what it means if that goes south. Are we prepared to watch our brave explorers slowly die? We need to take this more seriously than we are.
The biggest obstacle to immigrating to Mars is not technical reasons, but economic reasons. There is no return on investment. Although low gravity and high radiation are also dangerous, it can still be overcome. The investment in immigrating to Mars is huge. If there is no corresponding return, the immigration to Mars is unsustainable. Onemillion people cannot go to Mars to do volunteer work just because of a dream, which cannot solve the problem of economic return of immigrating to Mars, This will never happen
Its a very strong statement to say "this will never happen" and you provide no evidence to back it up. The idea of "returns" is not the right way to think about it; nobody is going to invest in Mars colonies to get their money back. They are going to invest in Mars colonies because they want to. People spend money on things other than investments all the time.
The difference is Earth is self sufficient, Mars for a long time won't be. In the early decades or centuries before mars is self sufficient it will be importing a lot of stuff from earth and have little in the way of exports to pay for it.
I can see government funded research outposts being built in that environment, science is its own reward. But the classic idea of people and businesses flooding to the New Frontier for a better life or to strike it rich seems unlikely. Maaaybe if asteroid mining kicks off in a big way a Mars colony could pay off it's immense debt by acting as a staging point between the belt and earth but even that's a bit questionable.
"Oxygen is not hard to manufacture." No it isn't. Does NOBODY realize that perchlorates generate oxygen? All you have to do is mildly heat them and they break down into the base chloride and Oxygen. Sodium perchlorate, for example, can be broken down into salt and Oxygen - two very necessary ingredients for human life.. Far from being a disadvantage, the abundance of perchlorates on the surface will be an amazing ADVANTAGE.
define colonisation. Is it like Antarctica, like the Americas or like Pitcairn. The first might happen, on a very small scale, the others, not in the lifetime of the human species. No matter how many strawmen you might like to line up.
Have you considered that you are just making an unfounded assumption here? You offer no evidence for your claim, simply state it outright, and the phrasing of "Sorry..." comes across as very strident and arrogant. The theatre of your imagination is not the arbiter of what is possible or feasible.
Hey, good for you. Also, I enjoyed the article and agree with your views. In the long view, perhaps the longest view, for the DNA to survive, it will need to get off the planet, and out of the solar system. We know that in the biggest time frame both are doomed. It's very hard to remember that human history is only about 8000 years out of a geologic scale of 4.6 billion. Eight out of 575,000. Based on the Sun's expected burnout, we only have 7 billion years or so to figure it out. Since the Industrial Revolution is only about 250 years old, I bet we can do it.
Good arguments. About the gravity issue: It is possible to construct rotating habitats on planetary surfaces, probably more easily than in free space—because humans are absolutely awesome at building things in a gravity environment. Compare videos of Apollo moonwalkers vs ISS EVAs. There is an obvious difference. Humans have been building large rotating doodads, including massive bridge spans and human-carrying centrifuges, for a long time. And, the “floor” of a rotating habitat in a gravity field is first-year calculus.
Nice point about the atmosphere; it's indeed true that humans could live comfortably at 1/5th Earth normal as long as the atmosphere was almost entirely Oxygen. And the stability of this wouldn't be materially altered by the absence of a buffer gas. About the only real problem this would present is cooking: You'd need a pressure cooker to get anything cooked past rare!
Mars' surface is super-oxidized, thus all those perchorates. But I suspect you'd still have to isolate an awful lot of reduced silicon, iron, and aluminum. The iron, I suppose, would be the real problem.
Thanks for the updates,
I have a major problem with Mars being portrayed as a backup plan for humanity. If there's any part of a "destroyed" earth that doesn't require a SPACESUIT, then it's still less "destroyed" than Mars. So, nuclear war, climate disasters, killer asteroids of dinosaur-killing scare STILL do not render earth LESS habitable than Mars. Even as a guy who's VERY pro Mars exploration. And I'm saying all this as a very PRO Mars exploration guy. I just see far more need to educate the Musk acolytes than the sceptics. Very few of them know that Mars atmosphere might as well be vacuum as far as the human body is concerned. Very few of them know of the huge gravity differences and the toll that takes on the human body. Very few of them have considered the Mars-to-Earth supply chain nightmare, and what it means if that goes south. Are we prepared to watch our brave explorers slowly die? We need to take this more seriously than we are.
The biggest obstacle to immigrating to Mars is not technical reasons, but economic reasons. There is no return on investment. Although low gravity and high radiation are also dangerous, it can still be overcome. The investment in immigrating to Mars is huge. If there is no corresponding return, the immigration to Mars is unsustainable. Onemillion people cannot go to Mars to do volunteer work just because of a dream, which cannot solve the problem of economic return of immigrating to Mars, This will never happen
Its a very strong statement to say "this will never happen" and you provide no evidence to back it up. The idea of "returns" is not the right way to think about it; nobody is going to invest in Mars colonies to get their money back. They are going to invest in Mars colonies because they want to. People spend money on things other than investments all the time.
Earth doesn't have an export market to justify it's existence, neither will Mars
The difference is Earth is self sufficient, Mars for a long time won't be. In the early decades or centuries before mars is self sufficient it will be importing a lot of stuff from earth and have little in the way of exports to pay for it.
I can see government funded research outposts being built in that environment, science is its own reward. But the classic idea of people and businesses flooding to the New Frontier for a better life or to strike it rich seems unlikely. Maaaybe if asteroid mining kicks off in a big way a Mars colony could pay off it's immense debt by acting as a staging point between the belt and earth but even that's a bit questionable.
"Oxygen is not hard to manufacture." No it isn't. Does NOBODY realize that perchlorates generate oxygen? All you have to do is mildly heat them and they break down into the base chloride and Oxygen. Sodium perchlorate, for example, can be broken down into salt and Oxygen - two very necessary ingredients for human life.. Far from being a disadvantage, the abundance of perchlorates on the surface will be an amazing ADVANTAGE.
define colonisation. Is it like Antarctica, like the Americas or like Pitcairn. The first might happen, on a very small scale, the others, not in the lifetime of the human species. No matter how many strawmen you might like to line up.
Sorry, but trying to build a livable and sustainable colony there would be prohibitly expensive.
Have you considered that you are just making an unfounded assumption here? You offer no evidence for your claim, simply state it outright, and the phrasing of "Sorry..." comes across as very strident and arrogant. The theatre of your imagination is not the arbiter of what is possible or feasible.
Hi, it's "uninterested." "Disinterested" means something else entirely.
Thanks. I've changed it
Hey, good for you. Also, I enjoyed the article and agree with your views. In the long view, perhaps the longest view, for the DNA to survive, it will need to get off the planet, and out of the solar system. We know that in the biggest time frame both are doomed. It's very hard to remember that human history is only about 8000 years out of a geologic scale of 4.6 billion. Eight out of 575,000. Based on the Sun's expected burnout, we only have 7 billion years or so to figure it out. Since the Industrial Revolution is only about 250 years old, I bet we can do it.
Pp
Thanks, we need more of this FUD clearing.
Yes