Kharkovchanka – Soviet Antarctic Cruisers [video](youtube.com)
youtube.com
Kharkovchanka – Soviet Antarctic Cruisers [video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6R-h06IsJw
107 comments
If you like this stuff check https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mdi_Fh9_Ag they most informative and dryly hilarious historian I know is Drachinifel.
His stuff is beautifully researched and you can tell it's his passion.
I posted that one on HN a while back but it didn't go anywhere.
I've listened to it several times entirely because it reminds me of dysfunctional companies so much.
His stuff is beautifully researched and you can tell it's his passion.
I posted that one on HN a while back but it didn't go anywhere.
I've listened to it several times entirely because it reminds me of dysfunctional companies so much.
Hahahah, oh man, one of Drach's best. Highly recommend his episode on what to do if your ship is sinking/exploding/disagreeable too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbX8rJMI9GM
btw, did anyone else see Japanese torpedo boats???
btw, did anyone else see Japanese torpedo boats???
The Battle of Samar is my 2nd favourite.
> "After 17 bombs and 19 torpedoes, at least some of which were probably unnecessary..
> After firing all their armor penetration rounds, they switched to high explosive, then anti-aircraft, then starshells which was was surprisingly effective as it caused a massive number of fires to break out
That and the USS Johnston,
> "[Johnson] seeing the ship under attack by a Heavy Cruiser, it promptly shoots up this ship as well....because of course it does."
A light destroyer escort mistaken for a cruiser because literally no light destroyer captain would charge a fleet and trade fire with a cruiser (never mind damage it so badly it was out the fight then trade fire with another and then we’ll watch the video it’s surreal), it’s so unthinkable that to stay in a sane world where the rules made sense it had to be a cruiser.
That and the pilot landing his plane, helping defend the airfield then buggering off into the jungle coming back with a new wing to replace his damaged one.
If it was a movie you simply wouldn’t believe it.
And it should be a movie.
> "After 17 bombs and 19 torpedoes, at least some of which were probably unnecessary..
> After firing all their armor penetration rounds, they switched to high explosive, then anti-aircraft, then starshells which was was surprisingly effective as it caused a massive number of fires to break out
That and the USS Johnston,
> "[Johnson] seeing the ship under attack by a Heavy Cruiser, it promptly shoots up this ship as well....because of course it does."
A light destroyer escort mistaken for a cruiser because literally no light destroyer captain would charge a fleet and trade fire with a cruiser (never mind damage it so badly it was out the fight then trade fire with another and then we’ll watch the video it’s surreal), it’s so unthinkable that to stay in a sane world where the rules made sense it had to be a cruiser.
That and the pilot landing his plane, helping defend the airfield then buggering off into the jungle coming back with a new wing to replace his damaged one.
If it was a movie you simply wouldn’t believe it.
And it should be a movie.
Only in the North Sea.
Fun fact, the trawlers they fired on where from my home town and there is a statue to the ones killed not a mile from where I was born, it’s a small world in many ways.
The resulting war would have likely changed Europe as well, in 1904 the U.K. was still the pre-eminent global naval power but a dreadnought isn’t a lot of use on the steppes.
Fun fact, the trawlers they fired on where from my home town and there is a statue to the ones killed not a mile from where I was born, it’s a small world in many ways.
The resulting war would have likely changed Europe as well, in 1904 the U.K. was still the pre-eminent global naval power but a dreadnought isn’t a lot of use on the steppes.
> ... it reminds me of dysfunctional companies so much.
Thanks for the link. Sad as is a bizarre display of hazards of imperial ambitions. Looking back, Kamchatka's annoyance must be symbolic in this context.
Reading this depiction of dysfunctions of navies of the country on the brink of historical changes, hard not to draw parallels with the recent sad adventures of Russian Federation's only aircraft carrier [1].
In this light, I really appreciated the In-Memoriam at the end of Drachinifel's video to remember the lives of officers and sailors lost in the imperial battles.
[1]: https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/hole-...
Thanks for the link. Sad as is a bizarre display of hazards of imperial ambitions. Looking back, Kamchatka's annoyance must be symbolic in this context.
Reading this depiction of dysfunctions of navies of the country on the brink of historical changes, hard not to draw parallels with the recent sad adventures of Russian Federation's only aircraft carrier [1].
In this light, I really appreciated the In-Memoriam at the end of Drachinifel's video to remember the lives of officers and sailors lost in the imperial battles.
[1]: https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/hole-...
Here's a twitter thread by a guy who built a nice model of one:
https://twitter.com/PeterOlsson/status/1280940641472655367
https://twitter.com/PeterOlsson/status/1280940641472655367
Thanks for sharing, very good scratch-build on display with the track extension and cabin build.
It also shows interesting deep-nerd cross-pollination in the model building/military history/art scenes.
I'm not quite sure why apparently accepted english name for the town is Kharkiv, and author wrongly (understandably) pronounces it as Charkovchanka. Yeah, it's hard - no biggie.
just wanted to let those of you who interested to know how to pronounce it is: first 3 characters are same as in word 'harvest' and rest almost the way author pronounces it - kovchanka, so
har-kov-chanka
only r has to be softer. It just sounds so much better
try russian sound ->
https://translate.google.com/?rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS806US806&um=1&...
just wanted to let those of you who interested to know how to pronounce it is: first 3 characters are same as in word 'harvest' and rest almost the way author pronounces it - kovchanka, so
har-kov-chanka
only r has to be softer. It just sounds so much better
try russian sound ->
https://translate.google.com/?rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS806US806&um=1&...
I am highly impressed by the production values as well as the research quality here. Edited in an attic studio, facilitated by Google Translate.
The YouTube auto transcription is brutally bad with Callum’s Scottish accent, though. Do uploaders have the ability to manually edit subtitles?
The YouTube auto transcription is brutally bad with Callum’s Scottish accent, though. Do uploaders have the ability to manually edit subtitles?
Later designs moved the engine outside to reduce noise. I'm not aware of any operational difficulties but I'd rather cope with noise than service a V12 diesel in -60C wind.
The video mentions that this was done because the people in the driver cabin became covered in diesel soot as the sealing between engine and cabin was not 100%.
You don't typically see soot dispersed from under the hood of diesel trucks, that would mean leaky exhaust (a big no-no even with external engines). Sure they had their reasons.
A lot of diesel engines have a certain amount of blow-by, which is exhaust pressurizing the crankcase by bypassing e.g. the piston rings. This can leak out from valve rocker covers, etc.
Yeah like the other comment said, they leak.
Especially when it's a tank diesel, not designed for longevity at all.
You have to keep in mind that those were just campers thrown on top of a T-55 tank chassis.
Especially when it's a tank diesel, not designed for longevity at all.
You have to keep in mind that those were just campers thrown on top of a T-55 tank chassis.
German Wikipedia says this was done to avoid overheating:
"Since September 1975 the further developed Charkowtschanka-2 was built. One of the most important differences was the external cabin, which also facilitated access to the engine and transmission, which were mounted under a classic engine hood and avoided overheating problems."
"Since September 1975 the further developed Charkowtschanka-2 was built. One of the most important differences was the external cabin, which also facilitated access to the engine and transmission, which were mounted under a classic engine hood and avoided overheating problems."
You can’t shut off the engine in that climate, if you do you would need a way to heat it up before restarting so, it’s redundant.
In other words if you will anyway need a warmer environment [hangar, large building] to enable the engine to start, there is no point to “fixing it” in the cold as it will not turn over anyway.
In other words if you will anyway need a warmer environment [hangar, large building] to enable the engine to start, there is no point to “fixing it” in the cold as it will not turn over anyway.
While looking for more info on Kharkovhanka 2, I found a blog of a russian guy who actually lives on the Vostok station [1]. There is an additional engine+generator inside [2], which is used for heating of the interior, but probably can also be used to heat up the main engine.
I was not aware of the fact that all the stations in Antarctic are on the ice actually, so they drift as time passes. There is a map of that [3]. Given the extremely low humidity, non-existing grounding (since the station is on the ice), when there is a blizzard or strong wind outside, snowflake rub themselves, and the station accumulates significant static charge which affects all the equipment.
[1] https://pikabu.ru/@deratizator (in russian, but google translate is capable of translating most of the text, except profanity words which appear occasionally to highlight the complexity of life in such climate conditions :) )
[2] https://pikabu.ru/story/kharkovchankaii_5499165 (still in russian, same blog)
[3] https://cs7.pikabu.ru/post_img/big/2017/12/11/7/151299321313...
I was not aware of the fact that all the stations in Antarctic are on the ice actually, so they drift as time passes. There is a map of that [3]. Given the extremely low humidity, non-existing grounding (since the station is on the ice), when there is a blizzard or strong wind outside, snowflake rub themselves, and the station accumulates significant static charge which affects all the equipment.
[1] https://pikabu.ru/@deratizator (in russian, but google translate is capable of translating most of the text, except profanity words which appear occasionally to highlight the complexity of life in such climate conditions :) )
[2] https://pikabu.ru/story/kharkovchankaii_5499165 (still in russian, same blog)
[3] https://cs7.pikabu.ru/post_img/big/2017/12/11/7/151299321313...
The pictures are pretty cool. It looks like the cabin of the kharkov II is significantly less insulated than the crew space? The hatch between the two looks as thick as the "external" doors (actual door and transmission hatch). I was also surprised to hear the windows are only double-paned in kharkov, and it doesn't look like model II is any better.
Understandable but a bit sad to see how decayed they got, especially if they're still in somewhat active use.
Understandable but a bit sad to see how decayed they got, especially if they're still in somewhat active use.
>all the stations in Antarctic are on the ice actually
Many of the ones on the peninsula are built on land with some open to visitors!
[0]http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/antarctica-2/living-and-wor...
Many of the ones on the peninsula are built on land with some open to visitors!
[0]http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/antarctica-2/living-and-wor...
Both models have auxiliary heaters and later models have generators.
There's no warmer environment for thousands of kilometers there, doesn't mean you can't change a belt or oil in the field.
There's no warmer environment for thousands of kilometers there, doesn't mean you can't change a belt or oil in the field.
no one ever changes oil in a diesel in those conditions.
a belt - maybe, if it breaks.
otherwise one just does not shut down the engine, auxillary heaters or not.
otherwise one just does not shut down the engine, auxillary heaters or not.
The documentary says that original expedition swapped a whole 600kg gearbox on a Kharkovchanka when one of them failed. Crew worked for 5 days at less than -50C.
So they ceranly did change much more than just belts :)
So they ceranly did change much more than just belts :)
Do they even use belts? I imagine it's all internally chained, that way a diesel engine can last well over 100k miles... With oil change or at least top up, however. Mechanical pump/injectors don't even need electricity, just have fuel.
Two words: pony motor
They've been used since forever to heat and start large engines. Depending on size the pony motor might even produce enough heat when idling to keep the crew cabin warm while you service the main engine.
I still wouldn't want to share a box with an old soviet diesel though.
They've been used since forever to heat and start large engines. Depending on size the pony motor might even produce enough heat when idling to keep the crew cabin warm while you service the main engine.
I still wouldn't want to share a box with an old soviet diesel though.
> They've been used since forever to heat and start large engines. Depending on size the pony motor might even produce enough heat when idling to keep the crew cabin warm while you service the main engine.
The much larger problem is that the engine will have seized by the time you're done. In central siberia (oymyakon and friends) locals will keep the engine running from when they leave home (having possibly heated it up by starting a fire under the engine block to thaw it) to when they're back so it doesn't freeze solid. Even the gasoline will start coagulating at the temperatures involved.
The much larger problem is that the engine will have seized by the time you're done. In central siberia (oymyakon and friends) locals will keep the engine running from when they leave home (having possibly heated it up by starting a fire under the engine block to thaw it) to when they're back so it doesn't freeze solid. Even the gasoline will start coagulating at the temperatures involved.
Gasoline (I'm not a petroleum engineer so I make no claim about certain additives) is fine down to any earthly temperature. It was used extensively in 1930s antarctic expeditions for this reason.
The pony motor can be heated with a gasoline blow torch (yes that's a thing) to start easily. Then it can heat the coolant (and through that coolant the oil and cylinder heads) of the main engine so that the main engine may start easily. Depending on the size of the pony motor it may even be able to provide cabin heat.
The pony motor can be heated with a gasoline blow torch (yes that's a thing) to start easily. Then it can heat the coolant (and through that coolant the oil and cylinder heads) of the main engine so that the main engine may start easily. Depending on the size of the pony motor it may even be able to provide cabin heat.
My friend from Alaska took him about 20 years and his wife putting her foot down to give up on the white gas stove for that reason.
Diesel trucks often have a diesel powered coolant heater and pump for that reason as well. Turn on the heater and you can shut down the engine knowing it'll start again. And so you still have cabin heat.
See random sales website.
https://www.webasto-comfort.com/en-us/heating-solutions/off-...
Diesel trucks often have a diesel powered coolant heater and pump for that reason as well. Turn on the heater and you can shut down the engine knowing it'll start again. And so you still have cabin heat.
See random sales website.
https://www.webasto-comfort.com/en-us/heating-solutions/off-...
[deleted]
Maybe I'm crazy but wondering if your engine is gonna overheat, field modifying tracks and swapping a gearbox in the middle of nowhere in -40 weather sounds like a fun time.
a wonder what on earth made the guy pronounce kh as ch
Author commented on this:
"...the worst thing was (and this is my fault) I consulted with someone who taught me how to pronounce it, but then I sort of reverted back to the wrong pronunciation while I recorded and I’m ashamed to say it was 3am and I just didn’t want to record for the 10th time . I figured if people understood that it was an honest mistake and not me being lazy they might forgive me! Next time I’ll be taking much better care!"
"...the worst thing was (and this is my fault) I consulted with someone who taught me how to pronounce it, but then I sort of reverted back to the wrong pronunciation while I recorded and I’m ashamed to say it was 3am and I just didn’t want to record for the 10th time . I figured if people understood that it was an honest mistake and not me being lazy they might forgive me! Next time I’ll be taking much better care!"
i was also completely puzzled what the hell "yearny" (or something) meant until i saw мирный on the map
god, is it that hard to check up at least the approximate pronunciation of things and places when you are making a video like that?
god, is it that hard to check up at least the approximate pronunciation of things and places when you are making a video like that?
I've been studying Russian for several years. The pronunciation of certain letters and letter combinations can be difficult; give people a break. Or at least correct them in a helpful way.
I still wonder why many people think colonizing Mars is doable, when we can't even colonize Antarctica.
I mean, weather might be slightly better, but the lack of breathable air, water and the distance from Earth far outweigh that.
Neither Mars nor Antarctica offer anything of real use, even asteroid capture and mining seems like a more viable idea.
I mean, weather might be slightly better, but the lack of breathable air, water and the distance from Earth far outweigh that.
Neither Mars nor Antarctica offer anything of real use, even asteroid capture and mining seems like a more viable idea.
It's about the 'why'. The thing that Mars has to offer that Antarctica does not is "backup solution for humankind". An asteroid impact can make earth uninhabitable. With a self sustaining backup on Mars we can keep humans around even after that. Asteroids are interesting too, but more far fetched than Mars.
I recommend watching the Elon Musk presentations on Mars / making life multiplanetary.
I recommend watching the Elon Musk presentations on Mars / making life multiplanetary.
>The thing that Mars has to offer that Antarctica does not is "backup solution for humankind". An asteroid impact can make earth uninhabitable.
I've actually come around to strongly agreeing with the "backup solution for humanity" thing, but I think "asteroid/whatever making earth uninhabitable" is one of the least compelling and direct threats. I now believe the single biggest thing having humanity out amongst the stars would bring is some level of guaranteed diversity and resistance to dystopia. There remains no indication that FTL will ever be possible, and while that's generally treated as an obstacle and bad thing for interstellar humanity, it also has some silver linings. It will always be fundamentally hard for many kinds of potential dystopia to coordinate in a uniform way if comms have a minimum time in the minutes, days, months or years and direct physical travel time ranges from months to years/centuries to "essentially never the energy cost is so high".
If humanity was "out there", yeah it'd provide some redundancy against certain kinds of biosphere ending events. But I think the biggest thing it'd provide redundancy for would be human failures and/or the failures of our creations. Falling into locally optimal controlling regimes that are hard/impossible to escape from internally, runaway technological singularities that go bad (be they information, bioengineered or whatever), etc. A lot of what could happen is very hard or impossible to predict, but the speed of light and rocket equation are both less so. And it's also less likely that the same thing would go wrong simultaneously everywhere, so at least everyone else would be able to observe what had happened. Space level distance also inherently fights the kind of uniformization that we're seeing on Earth, far enough apart there is no way to keep everything sync'd.
I've actually come around to strongly agreeing with the "backup solution for humanity" thing, but I think "asteroid/whatever making earth uninhabitable" is one of the least compelling and direct threats. I now believe the single biggest thing having humanity out amongst the stars would bring is some level of guaranteed diversity and resistance to dystopia. There remains no indication that FTL will ever be possible, and while that's generally treated as an obstacle and bad thing for interstellar humanity, it also has some silver linings. It will always be fundamentally hard for many kinds of potential dystopia to coordinate in a uniform way if comms have a minimum time in the minutes, days, months or years and direct physical travel time ranges from months to years/centuries to "essentially never the energy cost is so high".
If humanity was "out there", yeah it'd provide some redundancy against certain kinds of biosphere ending events. But I think the biggest thing it'd provide redundancy for would be human failures and/or the failures of our creations. Falling into locally optimal controlling regimes that are hard/impossible to escape from internally, runaway technological singularities that go bad (be they information, bioengineered or whatever), etc. A lot of what could happen is very hard or impossible to predict, but the speed of light and rocket equation are both less so. And it's also less likely that the same thing would go wrong simultaneously everywhere, so at least everyone else would be able to observe what had happened. Space level distance also inherently fights the kind of uniformization that we're seeing on Earth, far enough apart there is no way to keep everything sync'd.
Ok, this is now seriously off-track, but ...
> It will always be fundamentally hard for many kinds of potential dystopia to coordinate in a uniform way if comms have a minimum time in the minutes, days, months or years and direct physical travel time ranges from months to years/centuries to "essentially never the energy cost is so high".
I'm not sure, that works necessarily against a dystopia. What let one, e.g. dictatorship, come to power on one planet, could work the same on others. Arguably the Axis were defeated because the Allies were well coordinated. Imagine Great Britain, USA and Soviet Union could not have communicated and there wouldn't have been a Lend-Lease policy ...
> It will always be fundamentally hard for many kinds of potential dystopia to coordinate in a uniform way if comms have a minimum time in the minutes, days, months or years and direct physical travel time ranges from months to years/centuries to "essentially never the energy cost is so high".
I'm not sure, that works necessarily against a dystopia. What let one, e.g. dictatorship, come to power on one planet, could work the same on others. Arguably the Axis were defeated because the Allies were well coordinated. Imagine Great Britain, USA and Soviet Union could not have communicated and there wouldn't have been a Lend-Lease policy ...
Dystopias are unfortunately subjective, but I do think societies where citizens aren't free to leave qualify.
What matters is that these anti-defection cultures' expansion is contained. If not, pray to Seldon for a relatively short Galactic Dark Age.
What matters is that these anti-defection cultures' expansion is contained. If not, pray to Seldon for a relatively short Galactic Dark Age.
It might be far from fool-proof, but I think it might have the same effect as terrestrial oceans / distance had in the past.
Oceans and long distances have always allowed wildly different governments and cultures to flourish contemporaneously; these barriers have become lower and lower lately, but space-scale distances might bring them back.
Oceans and long distances have always allowed wildly different governments and cultures to flourish contemporaneously; these barriers have become lower and lower lately, but space-scale distances might bring them back.
> redundancy against certain kinds of biosphere ending events
Self-sustaining Antarctic base would provide redundancy against many kinds of biosphere ending events.
Self-sustaining Antarctic base would provide redundancy against many kinds of biosphere ending events.
Even after the worst imaginable asteroid impact, Earth would still be much more habitable than Mars. Keeping a "backup" on Earth would be far easier than keeping a backup on Mars. At the end of the day, Earth has a thick atmosphere, abundant water, 1g of gravity and topsoil, and Mars lacks all those things.
We are pretty sure that an impact liquified the entire surface of the Earth (creating the Moon by casting a big chunk of molten material into space). So clearly the “greatest imaginable” impact does not leave the Earth more habitable than the alternatives.
That was an impact by a Mars-sized body early in the history of the solar system. That's not going to happen again. The dangers now come from objects a few kilometers across, at most.
Now that you mention it, Antarctica actually does seem like a good backup solution. Not as good as Mars, and not against Earth shattering asteroids, but much easier to set up.
It's pretty far away from everywhere, so it would be a decent shelter for humans and important resources alike.
Though tbf, good underground bases around the world would work pretty well.
The problem with Mars is it would take hundreds of years with current technology to settle and become self-sufficient. If something wipes out Earth in the meantime, Martians would just die a slower death.
And again, bases on asteroids (especially if they're brought into Earth's orbit) seem like a better idea.
It's pretty far away from everywhere, so it would be a decent shelter for humans and important resources alike.
Though tbf, good underground bases around the world would work pretty well.
The problem with Mars is it would take hundreds of years with current technology to settle and become self-sufficient. If something wipes out Earth in the meantime, Martians would just die a slower death.
And again, bases on asteroids (especially if they're brought into Earth's orbit) seem like a better idea.
beware the "mineshaft gap"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23712008
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23712008
> An asteroid impact
I wonder whether this is more likely to happen on Mars (due to its relative proximity to the asteroid belt).
I wonder whether this is more likely to happen on Mars (due to its relative proximity to the asteroid belt).
This is a very valid question and we should all be asking this. Mars has approximately 200 estimated asteroid impacts per year (https://www.space.com/21198-mars-asteroid-strikes-common.htm... - a bit dated) while earth has about 10-12, most hitting water. The vast majority disintegrate in our atmosphere (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/impact.html).
While I understand the need for us to look to the stars and dream big, if catastrophic destruction is the primary driver for looking for settling on Mars, we should ask if Antarctica might be a better first choice.
While I understand the need for us to look to the stars and dream big, if catastrophic destruction is the primary driver for looking for settling on Mars, we should ask if Antarctica might be a better first choice.
average person on Mars would be much better prepared to the impact.
While the environmental impact would be minimal (primarily because there's not much environment to speak of to begin with), no one can possibly prepare for a direct hit on the head.
Access to rocket would be greater on Mars so you can temporary evacuate. Access to tools to say underground etc.
All of this can be built on Earth, much more easily
I think almost any post-asteroid earth will be more inhabitable than Mars.
I still think it's worth going and trying. IMHO it's more interesting and potentially useful than what's done with a lot of other money.
I still think it's worth going and trying. IMHO it's more interesting and potentially useful than what's done with a lot of other money.
Impacts can and have liquified the entire surface of the Earth (eg the one that formed the moon). How do you plan to survive that?
I feel that us going to Mars is like re-writing an enormous legacy code base, maybe using fancier tools, but still stuck in the same culture as before.
Of course, we’ll build the same mess as before and forget the million special cases we didn’t bother thinking about.
No need to be defeatist though. The prospect of space exploration picking up again is an exciting one. And even if we’re not going anywhere, we’ll learn new stuff along the way.
Other than that, Antarctic or below the sea are other viable options to escape to. And they’re right here.
Of course, we’ll build the same mess as before and forget the million special cases we didn’t bother thinking about.
No need to be defeatist though. The prospect of space exploration picking up again is an exciting one. And even if we’re not going anywhere, we’ll learn new stuff along the way.
Other than that, Antarctic or below the sea are other viable options to escape to. And they’re right here.
I see it less as a rewrite and more as the founding of a competing company.
> Other than that, Antarctic or below the sea are other viable options to escape to. And they’re right here.
That's the problem. There is no strong barrier to incentivize independence.
> Other than that, Antarctic or below the sea are other viable options to escape to. And they’re right here.
That's the problem. There is no strong barrier to incentivize independence.
For an overall less pessimistic outlook for what life on Mars might be like, I can highly recommend the Mars Trilogy from Kim Stanley Robinson.
It begins with an initial colonization with 100 scientists and ends ~150 years on with some far-out yet IMO occasionally plausible ideas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy
It begins with an initial colonization with 100 scientists and ends ~150 years on with some far-out yet IMO occasionally plausible ideas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy
I can't actually imagine what could happen to Earth that would make it worse than Mars.
After an asteroid impact at least there'd likely be breathable air and some water and oceans still around. Most of an atmosphere.
Mars is a radioactive, extremely cold, thin atmosphered dustbowl without breathable air and no life to speak of.
After an asteroid impact at least there'd likely be breathable air and some water and oceans still around. Most of an atmosphere.
Mars is a radioactive, extremely cold, thin atmosphered dustbowl without breathable air and no life to speak of.
Much like life at the top of Mt Everest. People go there for a few minutes at a time, but nobody can imagine living there.
I've argued, put a colony on top of Mt Everest first, as a kind of kindergarten step. If that works out for a year or so, then we've solves some of the problems of a colony on Mars.
I've argued, put a colony on top of Mt Everest first, as a kind of kindergarten step. If that works out for a year or so, then we've solves some of the problems of a colony on Mars.
> I can't actually imagine what could happen to Earth that would make it worse than Mars
Global thermonuclear conflict.
Global thermonuclear conflict.
Even after a thermonuclear conflict, Earth would still have an atmosphere, water, soil and lower levels of dangerous radiation. There's really nothing that can cause Earth to become worse than Mars.
The issue is not with long term effects, it’s that the impact itself wipes out human race entirely.
I think it's a highly dubious proposition to imagine human beings lasting on Mars for more than a generation or two.
They'd be better off reading Zubrin's The Case for Mars since SpaceX is essentially just following the plan he outlined in that book.
well let us not kid ourselves, select humans will be protected and may survive. how many must survive to have survivable off Earth population viable?
A bit off-topic, but whoever is interested in such during- and post-apocalyptic scenarios from sci-fi point of view may want to check the Seveneves book by Neal Stephenson [1]. One of my personal favourites.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seveneves
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seveneves
> There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again… We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_choose_to_go_to_the_Moon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_choose_to_go_to_the_Moon
> I still wonder why many people think colonizing Mars is doable, when we can't even colonize Antarctica.
I think it's highly likely we could colonize Antarctica on a technological level, but various treaties prevent it.
I think it's highly likely we could colonize Antarctica on a technological level, but various treaties prevent it.
We have colonized Antartica- multiple nations overwinter there.
They are not self-sustaining, and self-sustaining colonies are what is entailed in the justification of colonizing Mars to provide a backup for Earth.
Of course, then it is illegal to “colonize” Antarctica by that definition since mining is prohibited by treaty (and many other activities are constrained by treaty as well). Not prohibited on Mars.
Cannot realistically be self-sustaining without mining.
And of course, basically no country on earth is self-sustaining, although almost any country COULD be (if your population is reduced and willing to sustain a low enough quality of life).
Additionally, a self-sustaining and independent settlement on Mars is by definition NOT a colony!
Cannot realistically be self-sustaining without mining.
And of course, basically no country on earth is self-sustaining, although almost any country COULD be (if your population is reduced and willing to sustain a low enough quality of life).
Additionally, a self-sustaining and independent settlement on Mars is by definition NOT a colony!
Why would we invest the resources? Mars provides a huge benefit to humanity Antarctica unless just used as a testing ground for Mars doesn't have the same benefits to justify the expense.
Yes, I agree, but strictly speaking, colonization doesn't require self-sustainment.
Not to mention Mars' lack of protective magnetic fields....
It really is not that important. Solve the atmosphere problem, and the surface radiation levels would be plenty low enough. Additionally, even without a magnetic field, it’d take on the order of 100 million years for Mars to lose an atmosphere if it were terraformed. Earth, due to Sun increasing in temperature, may become uninhabitable in about ~250-500 million years without active measures as well.
Humans will be long extinct in 500 million years. That's not really something we need be planning for.
But our ancestors need not be.
Also, that's something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. In order to be a long-lived civilization, species, or even biosphere, we must learn to think and plan far beyond one's own lifespan.
Anyway, you're proving my original point about the (lack of a) "need" for a magnetic field. It isn't necessary (on any kind of reasonable timescale), provided you have sufficient atmosphere. On Earth as well, the atmosphere is much more important than the magnetic field for shielding us from space radiation.
EDIT:Which isn't to say we couldn't build one. In fact, building a magnetic field for Mars (say, by many parallel superconducting cables around the equator) may be easier than making enough atmospheric pressure.
Also, that's something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. In order to be a long-lived civilization, species, or even biosphere, we must learn to think and plan far beyond one's own lifespan.
Anyway, you're proving my original point about the (lack of a) "need" for a magnetic field. It isn't necessary (on any kind of reasonable timescale), provided you have sufficient atmosphere. On Earth as well, the atmosphere is much more important than the magnetic field for shielding us from space radiation.
EDIT:Which isn't to say we couldn't build one. In fact, building a magnetic field for Mars (say, by many parallel superconducting cables around the equator) may be easier than making enough atmospheric pressure.
Creating an atmosphere and magnetic field for Mars should be easily doable, although I don't think either is necessary for human life on Mars, by comparison to ensuring our species survives for 500 million years. Only a handful of simple species have survived that long, e.g. sponges and jellyfish. I don't see why you think humans could do the same. But assuming we are at most .04% into our species lifetime seems ridiculous.
Feel free to calculate the probability that a randomly selected species will survive 2500 times longer than they have to present.
Feel free to calculate the probability that a randomly selected species will survive 2500 times longer than they have to present.
Why would we randomly select the species? We have agency, here... We can foresee hundreds of millions of years into the future in ways that literally no other species can (as far as we can tell, we're the only species that has developed the mathematical abstractions to even contemplate such numbers).
Anyway, the point isn't humans as a species, unchanging and eternal. But humans as the progenitors of future intelligent lifeforms that may indeed be around for 500 million years or whatever. Stasis isn't a requirement or even desired.
...by CHOOSING to contemplate survival on such timescales and making decisions based on that contemplation, we are, in fact, changing the odds of surviving that long. So a random selection is not appropriate...
Anyway, the point isn't humans as a species, unchanging and eternal. But humans as the progenitors of future intelligent lifeforms that may indeed be around for 500 million years or whatever. Stasis isn't a requirement or even desired.
...by CHOOSING to contemplate survival on such timescales and making decisions based on that contemplation, we are, in fact, changing the odds of surviving that long. So a random selection is not appropriate...
You are assuming that abilities potentially unique to humans make us, or our progeny, more likely to survive long-term than a randomly selected species. I don't think that is well supported.
Also, why do you think that we have agency? That seems another unsupported assumption.
I could see a general AI, if one is ever developed, being more likely to survive that long, given we even consider it alive to begin with. But a hominin descendant seems incredibly unlikely.
I guess I don't see why you think contemplating long-term survival would be correlated with longer survival rates.
Also, why do you think that we have agency? That seems another unsupported assumption.
I could see a general AI, if one is ever developed, being more likely to survive that long, given we even consider it alive to begin with. But a hominin descendant seems incredibly unlikely.
I guess I don't see why you think contemplating long-term survival would be correlated with longer survival rates.
AI would count as a descendant of humanity.
But yeah, we have agency on this question to the same extent we or anything else has agency.
But yeah, we have agency on this question to the same extent we or anything else has agency.
Look and compare the military and space budgets of all countries... it doesn't matter really what we do - it will always be better than what we are doing now.
>Neither Mars nor Antarctica offer anything of real use
What about experience and knowledge?
What about experience and knowledge?
Maybe we'd be better off investing in developing technology that can take the risk of exploring Mars for us, and also benefit from the side effect of being able to use that same tech here at home for any number of things.
But colonizing the Moon or Mars is a competition where the prize is far more than "well, we're here".
But colonizing the Moon or Mars is a competition where the prize is far more than "well, we're here".
Starship is a technology that will enable the colonization of Mars, but also many other things such as large-near earth O'Neill Cylinders, manned exploration of the entire inner solar system, far more massive space telescopes at a fraction of today’s cost, high bandwidth low latency satellite communications all over the world.
But this isn't about the development of Starship. Colonizing Mars entails far more than that. I simply believe that developing some tech that can successfully and efficiently "colonize" and explore other planets for us would have a far bigger impact at home. This doesn't imply in any way that Starship development should or would not continue anyway. It is not predicated on colonizing Mars but simply "going to space".
You go to Mars for science, to maybe find the first extraterrestrial life, or proof of its former existence.
You go to Mars to discover it’s unknown history.
You go to Mars to find out how to keep humans alive on others planets.
All those things will naturally produce byproducts that will be useful on Earth. Starship will ensure it’s cheap to do them.
You go to Mars to discover it’s unknown history.
You go to Mars to find out how to keep humans alive on others planets.
All those things will naturally produce byproducts that will be useful on Earth. Starship will ensure it’s cheap to do them.
I think you may have missinterpreted my comments. "Developing technology that can take the risk of exploring Mars for us" and "developing some tech that can successfully and efficiently colonize and explore other planets for us" meant using machines instead of humans to do it. Your arguments don't actually contradict this.
It would be incredibly expensive to do anything ambitious with machines. Right now we have a multi billion dollar rover attempting to dig a tiny hole on Mars, and it’s been failing for two years.
By comparison sending hundreds of tons of supplies and dozens of astronauts using three Starships will likely cost less than that single rover did.
By comparison sending hundreds of tons of supplies and dozens of astronauts using three Starships will likely cost less than that single rover did.
Perhaps but you don't judge space travel by the half a trillion dollars it cost us to put boots on the Moon. It gets cheaper as we do it and this was my whole point. In the long run we will probably have to develop such tech anyway if we want to go anywhere beyond Mars so it would be a worthwhile investment. It would pay off by letting us explore every place that humans can't feasibly reach but hold a lot of promise for exploration. Like Europa, Enceladus, Ganymede, Callisto, Titan, maybe even Venus. It would probably also pay off here at home, there are plenty of applications for such tech (hopefully to improve life rather than as a military tool).
Anyway either option has no real impact on the development of rocketry tech. Whatever we choose it still has to get there somehow.
Anyway either option has no real impact on the development of rocketry tech. Whatever we choose it still has to get there somehow.
At least as far as colonization goes, I feel like we're getting really close to not needing to colonize a place to learn a great deal.
How would you judge what you could learn being close to a place for extended, uninterrupted periods of time? How would you get incentivised to invent something out of this world because you're in another one?
Unique experiences are something which you can't have otherwise. So you're missing them if you're not close. Why to have such a disadvantage, maybe not for everything, but for something?
Unique experiences are something which you can't have otherwise. So you're missing them if you're not close. Why to have such a disadvantage, maybe not for everything, but for something?
I just wonder if the scale of effort to colonize and support humans really provides a net benefit considering how successful remote programs have been.
There's so much you don't need to do if you're not sending humans.
There's so much you don't need to do if you're not sending humans.
The first astronauts will explore more of Mars in their first few days than rovers have done in 50 years.
Mars likely had life and we won’t be really sure of what kind and it’s history until we get boots on the ground. Robots are great for very limited tasks, but take decades and billions to design, build and deliver to do what a scientist can do in an afternoon. Right now we have one rover that bern failing to dig a hole fir nearly two years.
Mars likely had life and we won’t be really sure of what kind and it’s history until we get boots on the ground. Robots are great for very limited tasks, but take decades and billions to design, build and deliver to do what a scientist can do in an afternoon. Right now we have one rover that bern failing to dig a hole fir nearly two years.
Considering the volume of resources expended to get people to mars and host them there and return them... I'm not sure that it is a fair comparison.
The volume of resources for a NASA style plan is indeed mind boggling.
But the Mars DIRECT and SpaceX plans are more than an order of magnitude cheaper and easier. The SpaceX plan it’s hundreds of explorers on Mars for less than $10B.
But the Mars DIRECT and SpaceX plans are more than an order of magnitude cheaper and easier. The SpaceX plan it’s hundreds of explorers on Mars for less than $10B.
Yeah no doubt they can save money but no getting around the sheer amount of mass you need to move to maintain humans.
Of course that's worth it, but it just takes a few teams and could even be done exclusively with robots.
> weather might be slightly better
On a hot day there will be around 25 degrees Celsius, tops; the following night, minus 100.
On a hot day there will be around 25 degrees Celsius, tops; the following night, minus 100.
If only there were some way to modify the axis of rotation of the earth. If we could get antarctica into temperate zones we'd add a major continent for settling.
A planet colonised and dependent solely on high tech for its own survival is a potential catalyst for radical innovation and trade. We could turn it into a place free or our earthly issues. Antarctica is just a cold place which we may colonise once it melts, start a few wars over it maybe, destroy it, exterminate its tiny wildlife and so on. Mars is already dead, hopefully not stimulating enough for our primitive instincts and will let us focus solely on tech advancement.
Because if you believe in it gives you the comfort of not having to care about long term sustainability on earth. It's one of the many facets of the "tech will fix everything" people.
What life do you want to live, the "we're slowly fucking up the only hospitable place humanity will ever step foot on" or the "we'll be sipping UBI financed mojitos with Musk on Mars by 2050" ?
What life do you want to live, the "we're slowly fucking up the only hospitable place humanity will ever step foot on" or the "we'll be sipping UBI financed mojitos with Musk on Mars by 2050" ?
Your argument is severely undermined by the fact that mars is already fucked up and we need to employ lots of tech to fix it. We can then use that tech to solve some of the issues on earth.
Such an interesting machine.
There seems to be some unintended irony in the naming. There was a popular sedan car Moskvitch [1] (masculine for Moscow resident), and Zaporozhets [2] (masc. for resident of Zaporizhia in Russian). Both of these cities had resp. car factories. However, Kharkiv, had none, instead it had a tractor and tank factory... The product is literally out of the league, so is the name Kharkovchanka (fem. for resident of Kharkiv in Russian)
I'd guess the choice of masculine for a car name is in line with masc. for 'automobile' in Russian. Meanwhile, the feminine in this case is, perhaps, for fem. 'machine' in Russian. Just a guess.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moskvitch_402
[2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZAZ_Zaporozhets