Its very common for people who are unfamiliar with the arguments for space colonisation to suggest that its ridiculous on the face of it that humans can move to Mars and live there. They typically cite the fact that there are no permanent residents in Antarctica as proof of this.
However, for most purposes, I prefer the stony chondrite and carbonaceous chondrite near-Earth asteroids. The carbonaceous ones tend to include volatile elements that are likely scarce on Mars.
One additional potential of Mars compared to chondrtitic asteroids is the potential for terraforming an oxygen atmosphere from its vast stores of frozen CO2 and H2O. Lack of nitrogen, hence better air pressure, and fire hazards are issues. Fun trick: set steel wool on fire in pure oxygen. Better fun trick: toss a bra into a puddle of liquid O2. (https://combatace.com/forums/topic/2312-the-man-from-lox/) But forms of Earth life including perhaps our descendants might adapt.
Isn't the best counter to those "why go to Mars/space" people is to elaborate on the benefits of having an insurance policy against extinction level event on Earth? I found that argument to shut these types down very, very hard to the point that they stutter and drool.
There are relatively few extinction events that can't be survived by living underground for a period of time, unless it destroys the planet. Living underground here on Earth will be much easier than living underground on Mars, especially when you consider there's a point at which you can emerge to the surface again.
I think if were really serious about preservering the human race from extinction, we would be building hundreds of underground shelters to house hundreds of thousands of people, and we'd be doing it here on Earth. It's also gonna be much easier to build those shelters here, as opposed to another planet that's inhospitable to life.
The idea of using Mars as a lifeboat for humanity is romantic and inspiring, but it's not a practical solution. Even hundreds of years from now, I doubt a colony on Mars would be self-sustaining. Which means if humans on Earth die, it's only a matter of time for the people on Mars.
I agree that Mars habitats would be under a few feet of soil to avoid radiation. If the main benefit of Mars colonization is autarky (sovereignty or independence), then i'd think that a a civilization bored deep below earth's surface (maybe under a shallow sea) could eventually become independent as early and as easily as a Mars civilization. Of course the easiest way to get oxygen is from a pipe up to the surface that can easily be blocked, but you can also pull oxygen out of the ocean. If one entrance is blocked, just bore a new one, for human transport as well as oxygen & water.
In my experience their immediate response is to spend the money that would be spent on space development on preventing extinction-level events (primarily climate change) instead. They value the Earth, not humanity, and it is little consolation for a small outputs to survive on an unforgiving planet.
Peaks at the South/North Poles of the moon should have near-continuous Sunlight. The valleys nearby can contain volatiles. Admittedly, the Moon's gravity is not enough to maintain human strength, but it's just a more extreme case of a problem Mars has. And Moon dwellers would return to earth frequently for that. How is the lack of gravity going to be solved? Treadmills with bungee cords?
Rocket manufacturing is going to be on earth. So might as well do main-belt asteroid mining from there. Admittedly, Mars is certainly closer to main-belt asteroids by distance and by the Sun's gravity well. But again, their rockets come from earth, and asteroid miners have no need to visit Mars.
The only case I see for Mars is that it offers the greatest likelihood of autarky (independence & sovereignty). But it seems it would be a long time before that could be achieved, if earthly nations unite against Martians. If earthly nations don't unite, i guess it's easy to gain autarky by just dealing with friendly nations.
I'm assuming that a asteroid mining ship would remain out among the asteroids, not returning. It could send chunks of metal back to the Pacific Ocean with an attachment that inflates after ocean impact so that the chunk can float.
What economic justification is there to go to mars ? i.e. what is there on mars that can't be found on earth ......................or that is found more on mars, plus the fact that space travel is expensive as hell makes extracting resources from mars and transporting it back to earth a pipe dream . Even if you think that the starship will lower down the costs of space exploration maybe to idk 2 million, it still won't make sense. Since you can only go to mars within a reasonable amount of time by using a transfer widow which only happens every 26 months .
Not a whole lot of practical considerations, besides the idea that there's extra solar energy to be harvested on Mars. I would have liked to have read rebuttals about the actual criticisms of Mars colonization, since "we have enough solar energy here" isn't really one of them. It could be an argument that people raise 5000 years from now, but it's not gonna be relevant for a while.
There is an implicit argument about solar energy when people hit back with "why not colonise the deep oceans/Antarctica". This posts shows why such criticism is unfounded.
Excellent analysis.
However, for most purposes, I prefer the stony chondrite and carbonaceous chondrite near-Earth asteroids. The carbonaceous ones tend to include volatile elements that are likely scarce on Mars.
One additional potential of Mars compared to chondrtitic asteroids is the potential for terraforming an oxygen atmosphere from its vast stores of frozen CO2 and H2O. Lack of nitrogen, hence better air pressure, and fire hazards are issues. Fun trick: set steel wool on fire in pure oxygen. Better fun trick: toss a bra into a puddle of liquid O2. (https://combatace.com/forums/topic/2312-the-man-from-lox/) But forms of Earth life including perhaps our descendants might adapt.
Isn't the best counter to those "why go to Mars/space" people is to elaborate on the benefits of having an insurance policy against extinction level event on Earth? I found that argument to shut these types down very, very hard to the point that they stutter and drool.
There are relatively few extinction events that can't be survived by living underground for a period of time, unless it destroys the planet. Living underground here on Earth will be much easier than living underground on Mars, especially when you consider there's a point at which you can emerge to the surface again.
I think if were really serious about preservering the human race from extinction, we would be building hundreds of underground shelters to house hundreds of thousands of people, and we'd be doing it here on Earth. It's also gonna be much easier to build those shelters here, as opposed to another planet that's inhospitable to life.
The idea of using Mars as a lifeboat for humanity is romantic and inspiring, but it's not a practical solution. Even hundreds of years from now, I doubt a colony on Mars would be self-sustaining. Which means if humans on Earth die, it's only a matter of time for the people on Mars.
I agree that Mars habitats would be under a few feet of soil to avoid radiation. If the main benefit of Mars colonization is autarky (sovereignty or independence), then i'd think that a a civilization bored deep below earth's surface (maybe under a shallow sea) could eventually become independent as early and as easily as a Mars civilization. Of course the easiest way to get oxygen is from a pipe up to the surface that can easily be blocked, but you can also pull oxygen out of the ocean. If one entrance is blocked, just bore a new one, for human transport as well as oxygen & water.
In my experience their immediate response is to spend the money that would be spent on space development on preventing extinction-level events (primarily climate change) instead. They value the Earth, not humanity, and it is little consolation for a small outputs to survive on an unforgiving planet.
becoming a permanent resident of Antarctica is illegal (against UN treaty), so that dude's tweet was insufferable
Peaks at the South/North Poles of the moon should have near-continuous Sunlight. The valleys nearby can contain volatiles. Admittedly, the Moon's gravity is not enough to maintain human strength, but it's just a more extreme case of a problem Mars has. And Moon dwellers would return to earth frequently for that. How is the lack of gravity going to be solved? Treadmills with bungee cords?
Rocket manufacturing is going to be on earth. So might as well do main-belt asteroid mining from there. Admittedly, Mars is certainly closer to main-belt asteroids by distance and by the Sun's gravity well. But again, their rockets come from earth, and asteroid miners have no need to visit Mars.
The only case I see for Mars is that it offers the greatest likelihood of autarky (independence & sovereignty). But it seems it would be a long time before that could be achieved, if earthly nations unite against Martians. If earthly nations don't unite, i guess it's easy to gain autarky by just dealing with friendly nations.
I'm assuming that a asteroid mining ship would remain out among the asteroids, not returning. It could send chunks of metal back to the Pacific Ocean with an attachment that inflates after ocean impact so that the chunk can float.
So it can be used for a penal colony.
What economic justification is there to go to mars ? i.e. what is there on mars that can't be found on earth ......................or that is found more on mars, plus the fact that space travel is expensive as hell makes extracting resources from mars and transporting it back to earth a pipe dream . Even if you think that the starship will lower down the costs of space exploration maybe to idk 2 million, it still won't make sense. Since you can only go to mars within a reasonable amount of time by using a transfer widow which only happens every 26 months .
The point isn't to bring the resources back to Earth. Its to use them there, to provide a life for the colonists.
Not a whole lot of practical considerations, besides the idea that there's extra solar energy to be harvested on Mars. I would have liked to have read rebuttals about the actual criticisms of Mars colonization, since "we have enough solar energy here" isn't really one of them. It could be an argument that people raise 5000 years from now, but it's not gonna be relevant for a while.
There is an implicit argument about solar energy when people hit back with "why not colonise the deep oceans/Antarctica". This posts shows why such criticism is unfounded.