Mars Is a Hellhole

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
WetEV said:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/02/mars-is-no-earth/618133/

Mars Is a Hellhole

Colonizing the red planet is a ridiculous way to help humanity.

Too true. If the body public had any notion of just how hostile Mars is compared to Earth, we'd be having a different discussion entirely about space exploration. A day on Mars makes overwintering in Antartica seem like a beach vacation on a sunny tropical island.

Colonize Mars? Whatever. Good luck with that. Talk to me in 100 years when we have the technology to do so more affordably. If you're still so inclined. Colonizing Mars today is like the Vikings colonizing North America in 1000 AD. They got here. Didn't stay long.

There is no planet B. Better be taking care of planet A.

***

Explore Mars robotically to better understand the conditions that prevailed on Earth while life was evolving here? Heck ya. That's a worthwhile project. Mars preserves conditions such as they existed on both Earth and Mars in that critical time far better than Earth has... because life on Earth happened.

It may have happened there too. Likely did. Might still be there. Perseverance will investigate Jezero Crater and with it one of 2 leading theories of how life here got started. We should also be making a similar effort in Eridania Basin to investigate the other. It might be that both are viable. Mars just might tell us.

***

OK, so OT, back to Teslas, LOL.
 
I think that all of the science fiction movies that have been made that postulate little habitable micro-climates in the Big Valley on Mars have skewed perceptions of what is and isn't possible there in the way of human habitation. Further, it is likely that what is actually driving the rush to colonize Mars is resource exploitation, not altruism. Musk is the kind of "altruist" who lets slip every now and then what's really going on in his head, as evidenced by how he treats his workforce...
 
I hope they put a human on mars in my lifetime but as far as "colonizing" it I can't imagine it would be done even in a hundred years. What is even the point? Its environment is completely unhospitable and it lacks most natural resources we rely on as well. Earth could literally be in the middle of a brutal nuclear winter and it would still be massively more accommodating to human life. They may very well have a base there but as for it being self-sufficient indefinitely probably never going to happen.
 
I seem to have missed the post that started the Mars thread, but Elon's a fan of Kim Stanley Robinson's award-winning (Hugo, Nebula) sci-fi Mars Trilogy ("Red Mars", "Green Mars", "Blue Mars"), which assumes large scale terraforming over centuries, including thickening and changing the composition of the atmosphere, now a very thin layer of mostly CO2, through the use of bio-engineered plants, boosting temps through various measures, etc. It also involves lots of autonomous robotic construction machines, often self-replicating, to do most of the mining, processing, construction etc. (and you thought Autopilot was an end in itself ;) ) and various other techs we either don't have yet or are just starting to develop. Initially, habitation is largely underground for protection from radiation, later craters are domed. Well worth the read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy

Jeff Bezos is another fan.

BTW, Robinson himself takes a dim view of the "Mars as a lifeboat", idea, and there's also the near certainty that terraforming to the extent required would take thousands if not tens if thousands of years, even assuming the tech existed. Here's an excerpt if an interview he did with Bloomberg - the full interview is behind a paywall: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/10/17/kim-stanley-robinson-musks-mars-scenario-believable/

Somewhat more on-topic for this forum is Robinson's "New York 2140", about NYC transformed into a super Venice thanks to AGCC-caused sea-level rise: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_2140
 
LeftieBiker said:
The generally accepted way to terraform Mars would be to steer comets from the outer system into collisions with it.

That and move/mine asteroids for elements lacking on Mars. There's also the large lens that Robinson postulated being built in space and parked between Mars and the sun to boost insolation, and thus temps and photosynthesis.

Then there's a space elevator, which allows a huge reduction of payload-to/from orbit energy costs, Robinson tethers it on the south edge of the summit crater on Pavonis Mons, a location both high and on the Martian equator. Here on earth Mt. Chimborazo in Ecuador has been postulated as a tether site for similar reasons.

There seems to be some dispute about whether current materials (Kevlar) have the necessary strength-to-weight ratio for Martian gravity (0.38 earth), or whether some nanotube-based material would be needed. A space elevator definitely isn't possible here yet given the available materials.
 
For those wondering what a "space elevator" is, it's a truly Nifty as yet un-built device: you park a space station or even just a big rock in synchronous orbit above one spot on a planet or moon, then stretch a tether between the two points. Then, instead of having to launch things into orbit, you can just 'winch' them up and down the tether in an elevator - or a hundred elevators. As noted you need a stronger material for the tether than we currently have in production.
 
LeftieBiker said:
For those wondering what a "space elevator" is, it's a truly Nifty as yet un-built device: you park a space station or even just a big rock in synchronous orbit above one spot on a planet or moon, then stretch a tether between the two points. Then, instead of having to launch things into orbit, you can just 'winch' them up and down the tether in an elevator - or a hundred elevators. As noted you need a stronger material for the tether than we currently have in production.

in other words, a straw.
 
LeftieBiker said:
For those wondering what a "space elevator" is, it's a truly Nifty as yet un-built device: you park a space station or even just a big rock in synchronous orbit above one spot on a planet or moon, then stretch a tether between the two points. Then, instead of having to launch things into orbit, you can just 'winch' them up and down the tether in an elevator - or a hundred elevators. As noted you need a stronger material for the tether than we currently have in production.

But worse, you'd need some truly good elevator music for that long ride.


I've seen a lot of arguing pro and con about going to mars.
One thing I think for me that makes moon and mars so important is that often when humans are pushed to our limits, that is when we are most inventive and creative. Necessity is the mother of all invention. Who knows what kind of technology we will invent - technology that could also help the earth - if we push ourselves.

But we need a better zero G toilet for the masses! I can't wait to see what the restroom in the crewed version of Starship looks like.
 
WetEV said:
WetEV said:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/02/mars-is-no-earth/618133/

Mars Is a Hellhole

Colonizing the red planet is a ridiculous way to help humanity.

Yes, that is one of the articles I was referring too.

My comments above stand.

Edit: I would add though that learning to live on mars is, to me, has never been an excuse to not take care of Earth.
 
LeftieBiker said:
For those wondering what a "space elevator" is, it's a truly Nifty as yet un-built device: you park a space station or even just a big rock in synchronous orbit above one spot on a planet or moon, then stretch a tether between the two points. Then, instead of having to launch things into orbit, you can just 'winch' them up and down the tether in an elevator - or a hundred elevators. As noted you need a stronger material for the tether than we currently have in production.

A detail: need to park the space station above geosynchronous orbit so there is tension on the tether. At geosynchronous distance, the tether would be slack at the top, but would have drag forces, and the space station would de-orbit fairly quickly. Just 5% beyond that should be good enough. Might want more than that, so the station at the top has "gravity".
 
I don't see how that would actually work. The motion of bodies in free space is determined by force, which converts quite readily to acceleration (F=MA). So any force lifting a mass up the elevator would tend to accelerate the lifter in orbit down (opposite and equal and all that). That downward force could be cancelled by thrust or inertia. Thrust is pretty obvious but at that point why not just put a rocket on the load? If using inertia aka 'centrifugal force', what happens when the load lift is done? Without additional thrust to correct the trajectory the orbiter would simply fly off into space. Am I missing something?
 
goldbrick said:
I don't see how that would actually work. The motion of bodies in free space is determined by force, which converts quite readily to acceleration (F=MA). So any force lifting a mass up the elevator would tend to accelerate the lifter in orbit down (opposite and equal and all that). That downward force could be cancelled by thrust or inertia. Thrust is pretty obvious but at that point why not just put a rocket on the load? If using inertia aka 'centrifugal force', what happens when the load lift is done? Without additional thrust to correct the trajectory the orbiter would simply fly off into space. Am I missing something?

Besides the wiki link he gave you, I would assume the counter weight would be sufficient to exceed any opposite forces you might ever put on the system as a climber. You could oversize your counter weight and Earth wouldn't really care, so the system is not in balance, the counter weight constantly pulls. Technically you are changing the system center of mass, but earth is big.

I'd bet we are on mars long long before we have a space elevator though.
 
I think it says a lot about this concept that the original idea started as a very, very tall tower, inspired by the Eiffel tower. I don't completely understand how this would enable a 90+% decrease in the cost of putting things in space but since t's currently impossible with today's technology maybe no one does.
 
Back
Top