Humans Will Never Colonize Mars(gizmodo.com)
gizmodo.com
Humans Will Never Colonize Mars
https://gizmodo.com/humans-will-never-colonize-mars-1836316222
86 comments
What if we build robots that are remote controlled by humans using tactile feedback? We could have a chassis that can work on mars while being controlled from Earth. Maybe that's one of the idea Elon has with Neuralink. A huge obstacle would be latency I guess
What kind of tactile feedback will you get with a delay of an hour (or however long it takes to communicate over a million miles)? This isn't like flying a drone a scant thousand miles away...
Why do you need that? Just send a datacenter with a nuclear power reactor to power it and then improve on the AI of the robots
Message delay makes this not feasible from Earth, but it may be a pretty good solution for people living on Mars who need to do some outdoor work (construction, mining, etc..) but don't want to deal with space suits and radiation. Sending a robot in their place sounds pretty good.
On the other hand, if AI technology is good enough, you might not need the human operator except for certain complex tasks. Most of the time you might be able to get away with high-level tasks like "dig a hole here" or "load this equipment onto this rover".
On the other hand, if AI technology is good enough, you might not need the human operator except for certain complex tasks. Most of the time you might be able to get away with high-level tasks like "dig a hole here" or "load this equipment onto this rover".
If the tasks look like “we’d like someone to eventually dig out a 3x3 room for an iron smelter across from the mechanic’s workshop,” that’s just Dwarf Fortress minus the booze.
I think the only thing that will ultimately determine it is if it is profitable for humans to go there in some sense: money, a chance for a better life for their kids, escape from tyranny.
Everything else is a challenge but to colonize you need upside motivation.
Everything else is a challenge but to colonize you need upside motivation.
While I somewhat agree to your point, I think it would be naive to think that any other colony will be different than what is going on the Earth itself. It's like moving goalposts instead of solving the issues.
Now I agree that "solving the issues" is not an easy thing whatsoever, but expecting different results from other colonies and going someplace else where we hope things would be different is a pretty low motivation for me at least.
By becoming distributed, we could get rid of our "single point of failure" by habitating just one planet... which might increase the overall uptime of humanity ;-)
Or perhaps it will make things worse, because mutually assured destruction is no longer as significant a threat.
Here's a legal code for the Mars Colony, drawn from the best laws from several nations: marslegalcode.org
Damn that's dystopian:
> A Citizens' Council of seven members, similar to a Board of Directors, will be popularly elected. The Citizens Council does not, however, manage day to day operations of the Colony. That task is left to a governor, who is appointed by the Council for a single, non-renewable six year term.
So a weak elected legeslative body and a strong indirectly elected executive with very few checks on their power.
> Under the Code, living and working in the Mars Colony is a privilege, not a right. All those who come to the Mars Colony will be permitted to stay under a license. That license is revocable. Similarly, all real property is held by the Mars Colony and leased to individuals or companies working in the Colony. Misbehavior results in losing the right to remain within the Colony.
Fun.
If you lose your license do you get a berth on the next shuttle or are you exposed to the elements?
This sounds less like the best laws and more like some of the more dystopian laws. Its basically a company town where you are not allowed to own property, don't have rights and are exiled if you step out of line.
Luckily the whole thing is bullshit. Nobody is on mars yet and nobody has adopted this. Easy to make laws when you don't yet have power.
> A Citizens' Council of seven members, similar to a Board of Directors, will be popularly elected. The Citizens Council does not, however, manage day to day operations of the Colony. That task is left to a governor, who is appointed by the Council for a single, non-renewable six year term.
So a weak elected legeslative body and a strong indirectly elected executive with very few checks on their power.
> Under the Code, living and working in the Mars Colony is a privilege, not a right. All those who come to the Mars Colony will be permitted to stay under a license. That license is revocable. Similarly, all real property is held by the Mars Colony and leased to individuals or companies working in the Colony. Misbehavior results in losing the right to remain within the Colony.
Fun.
If you lose your license do you get a berth on the next shuttle or are you exposed to the elements?
This sounds less like the best laws and more like some of the more dystopian laws. Its basically a company town where you are not allowed to own property, don't have rights and are exiled if you step out of line.
Luckily the whole thing is bullshit. Nobody is on mars yet and nobody has adopted this. Easy to make laws when you don't yet have power.
> Under the Code, living and working in the Mars Colony is a privilege, not a right.
So just like coming to US on a work visa. You loose your job - you’re out immediately.
So just like coming to US on a work visa. You loose your job - you’re out immediately.
I'm going to guess "misbehavior" here means being politically inconvinent. There's also a big difference between a small portion of people on work visas who can work their way up to full citizenship, and nobody having citizenship or the possibility thereof.
Yes, that's how a non-permanent visa works in just about every country. Some offer grace periods, but your residence there is still seen as extending a privilege.
The grace period is a major differentiator. Germany gives 3 months if you're on a Blue Card. That's plenty to find a new job.
And btw, Blue Card can be exchanged for unlimited residence after working there for 21 months.
And btw, Blue Card can be exchanged for unlimited residence after working there for 21 months.
Except being "out" of the US isn't being chucked into the vacuum of space or being on the hook for a million dollar trip back to Earth.
There's an irony here. It's almost as if the code is a parody of the unwritten one we have in the U.S, albeit more on the nose.
> So a weak elected legeslative body and a strong indirectly elected executive with very few checks on their power.
Weak elected legislative body (Congress) and a strong indirectly elected executive with very few checks on their power (the president).
> Under the Code, living and working in the Mars Colony is a privilege, not a right. All those who come to the Mars Colony will be permitted to stay under a license. That license is revocable. Similarly, all real property is held by the Mars Colony and leased to individuals or companies working in the Colony. Misbehavior results in losing the right to remain within the Colony.
It's a very roundabout way of saying: you can live in the U.S, but we can send you to jail and remove your rights as we wish. Similarly, your assets are tied up as collateral, that will be collected and liquidated if we decide to revoke your rights. Misbehavior is a "Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go" ticket.
> So a weak elected legeslative body and a strong indirectly elected executive with very few checks on their power.
Weak elected legislative body (Congress) and a strong indirectly elected executive with very few checks on their power (the president).
> Under the Code, living and working in the Mars Colony is a privilege, not a right. All those who come to the Mars Colony will be permitted to stay under a license. That license is revocable. Similarly, all real property is held by the Mars Colony and leased to individuals or companies working in the Colony. Misbehavior results in losing the right to remain within the Colony.
It's a very roundabout way of saying: you can live in the U.S, but we can send you to jail and remove your rights as we wish. Similarly, your assets are tied up as collateral, that will be collected and liquidated if we decide to revoke your rights. Misbehavior is a "Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go" ticket.
Never is a long time.
The atmosphere problem seems tractable by living indoors. I don't think we have any idea what mild gravity does to a person. We have some limited experience with microgravity but nothing with mars-like graviy.
Short term plans might be unrealistic, but never is a bit much.
The atmosphere problem seems tractable by living indoors. I don't think we have any idea what mild gravity does to a person. We have some limited experience with microgravity but nothing with mars-like graviy.
Short term plans might be unrealistic, but never is a bit much.
I think the point of the article is that the hype is a bit much, with a click bait headline.
The article actually makes a plausible argument that humans might never colonize Mars (post-humans might though in a far-off future).
No true human?
Just have to define colonize and human in a way that makes your argument work.
Just have to define colonize and human in a way that makes your argument work.
From one of the papers
> Recent observations have been made of the loss of Mars’s atmosphere to space by the Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution Mission probe and the Mars Express spacecraft, along with analyses of the abundance of carbon-bearing minerals and the occurrence of CO2 in polar ice from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and the Mars Odyssey spacecraft. These results suggest that there is not enough CO2 remaining on Mars to provide significant greenhouse warming were the gas to be emplaced into the atmosphere; in addition, most of the CO2 gas in these reservoirs is not accessible and thus cannot be readily mobilized. As a result, we conclude that terraforming Mars is not possible using present-day technology.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0529-6.epdf
> Recent observations have been made of the loss of Mars’s atmosphere to space by the Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution Mission probe and the Mars Express spacecraft, along with analyses of the abundance of carbon-bearing minerals and the occurrence of CO2 in polar ice from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and the Mars Odyssey spacecraft. These results suggest that there is not enough CO2 remaining on Mars to provide significant greenhouse warming were the gas to be emplaced into the atmosphere; in addition, most of the CO2 gas in these reservoirs is not accessible and thus cannot be readily mobilized. As a result, we conclude that terraforming Mars is not possible using present-day technology.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0529-6.epdf
It may be easier to terraform Venus back into Earth like planet it once was. But we will be capable of establish permanent presence across solar system before Venus terraforming could conclude. Even with exponentially growing effort it would have to take centuries.
Never is very long time...
If we do not destroy ourselves in next 50 years, it is quite certain without any doubt that we will move from Earth.
It does not matter is it 50 or 500 years, technological advances will undoubtedly lead to spread beyond the Earth. Historically, many things were "never" - until we do otherwise.
I agree with the author that we need to solve problems here first.
EDIT: For example, atmosphere is not a problem, we can have entire planet living in vast network of underground tunnels, powered by nuclear energy. We already know how to bore tunnels. In that ways, also, it would be significantly fewer problems with cosmic rays and solar storms. Anyway, point is, for each problem there will be some solution if we put our minds into it.
It does not matter is it 50 or 500 years, technological advances will undoubtedly lead to spread beyond the Earth. Historically, many things were "never" - until we do otherwise.
I agree with the author that we need to solve problems here first.
EDIT: For example, atmosphere is not a problem, we can have entire planet living in vast network of underground tunnels, powered by nuclear energy. We already know how to bore tunnels. In that ways, also, it would be significantly fewer problems with cosmic rays and solar storms. Anyway, point is, for each problem there will be some solution if we put our minds into it.
But "we" will be something else. Not humans, probably not even biological forms.
Difficult to judge from this point where will future lead us.
Biological super humans, cyborgs, collective mind, AI meld mind ... but any "non-human" form can also lead to exponential advance that could entirely change our dreams and goals. We are what we are because of sums of all our needs, dreams, fears, emotions, thoughts and the microbiome (we are unseparately connected to) ... any change in it will completelly change what we do next.
Yes but if it's going to be "non-humans" or "post-humans" as the article calls it, then the article's title is accurate.
You can't extrapolate the future from the past. It's definitely possible that there are some very hard technological ceilings that we'll hit at some point of our development. The universe (probably) isn't designed to be easily conquerable by humans or any other species, so it's not given that we'll emigrate from our solar system or even Earth.
Colonization of other planets in our solar system is probably feasible, but I doubt such a colony could be self-sustaining as modern technology requires incredibly complex supply chains to manufacture. And as long as we don't have any replicator-style technology this won't change. Imagine e.g. how difficult it would be to manufacture a microchip on Mars (or a space suit, which requires complex materials and processes). I think a colony on Mars could not survive on its own for more than a few decades. Colonizing other systems seems even more outlandish and outright in the realm of science-fiction to me.
I think we just believe that colonization will be normal in the future because science fiction works regularly tell us this story, so we naturally normalize it.
Colonization of other planets in our solar system is probably feasible, but I doubt such a colony could be self-sustaining as modern technology requires incredibly complex supply chains to manufacture. And as long as we don't have any replicator-style technology this won't change. Imagine e.g. how difficult it would be to manufacture a microchip on Mars (or a space suit, which requires complex materials and processes). I think a colony on Mars could not survive on its own for more than a few decades. Colonizing other systems seems even more outlandish and outright in the realm of science-fiction to me.
I think we just believe that colonization will be normal in the future because science fiction works regularly tell us this story, so we naturally normalize it.
Historically, many things were "never" - until we do otherwise.
The opposite is also true. Many things we thought would be possible are either economically or technologically out of our grasp:
- Nitrogen fixation in wheat.
- A computer simulation of the catalyst that fixes Nitrogen in plants.
- Fusion power stations.
- Room temperature super-conductors
Maybe its possible to point to research that is almost there in most of these areas -- just like the 1950s.
The opposite is also true. Many things we thought would be possible are either economically or technologically out of our grasp:
- Nitrogen fixation in wheat.
- A computer simulation of the catalyst that fixes Nitrogen in plants.
- Fusion power stations.
- Room temperature super-conductors
Maybe its possible to point to research that is almost there in most of these areas -- just like the 1950s.
Regarding nitrogen fixation I recommend watching "Kiss the Ground Film Trailer (2020)" documentary ...
- Financially sustainable recycling of all plastics
> Fusion power stations
We've made slow but steady progress on this pretty much since we figured out that man made fusion is possible.
We've made slow but steady progress on this pretty much since we figured out that man made fusion is possible.
So we will be there in 30 years or so?
Fusion is mostly a certain amount of funding away. We're quite sure that ITER and DEMO will work if we put enough money in. If we had more funding we could simultaneously also pursue other approaches, like Stellarators, to increase success changes more.
With all those problems we are very near solution, and goes same as for Mars:
- nitrogen fixation, I think we are doing it wrong, we are trying to pluck rose with a jack hammer, we simply do not have enough knowledge, plants in general have more genes than humans.
- Fusion is around the corner, (and this time it is not yet again 30 years) it is just shifting more money into research, I read that globally only 50 bn is invested in fusion, jApple on its own has value of 2250 bn.
...
- Fusion is around the corner, (and this time it is not yet again 30 years) it is just shifting more money into research, I read that globally only 50 bn is invested in fusion, jApple on its own has value of 2250 bn.
...
I have heard that "fusion is around the corner" thing was apparently because of some early assumptions about the core physics of fusion that turned out to be spectacularly wrong. It turned out to be orders of magnitude harder.
So that was one clear scientific reason. But people got the impression that the teams working on it are somehow unreliable, unorganized or keep moving the goal posts and are a butt of jokes.
I think the messaging around it doesn't help. It's the same with batteries or renewable energy as well though.
So that was one clear scientific reason. But people got the impression that the teams working on it are somehow unreliable, unorganized or keep moving the goal posts and are a butt of jokes.
I think the messaging around it doesn't help. It's the same with batteries or renewable energy as well though.
Whatever we could do to earth it would still be more hospitable place than Mars.
I’m sure we can have bases on any body in the universe, but that’s far from “colonizing”. If we want to live in tunnels or hermetically sealed bases we can do it on earth with much less effort!
The only reason to do it on Mars is hedging bets against extinction events. And I find it extremely hard to think you’d find someone interested in going anywhere otherwise.
It would be a lot more convenient to re-colonize earth after an extinction event than to colonize anywhere else!
I’m sure we can have bases on any body in the universe, but that’s far from “colonizing”. If we want to live in tunnels or hermetically sealed bases we can do it on earth with much less effort!
The only reason to do it on Mars is hedging bets against extinction events. And I find it extremely hard to think you’d find someone interested in going anywhere otherwise.
It would be a lot more convenient to re-colonize earth after an extinction event than to colonize anywhere else!
It would make more sense to colonize the bottom of the ocean than it would be to colonize Mars, even in disaster scenarios.
It is a good point, but there are far more hospitable places in the Solar system - Europa, Titan, Saturn's rings, without much of Sun's radiation, more heat and water than Mars can ever dream of. Also a bunch of metals to mine.
I think you meant Europa? It's amusing to read though with Europe listed as an exotic space destination.
Triton is a nitrogen saturated, frozen wasteland colder than Pluto. Perhaps you're thinking of Titan? Titan is also an icy hellscape at nearly -200 C, but you can look forward to an ocean of ammonia once you manage to break through the surface.
Europa has liquid water, but the average surface temperature is still colder than the worst ever recorded on Earth. The speculative oceans you seek would be encased under miles of solid ice, just like Titan's. Europa is likewise catastrophically radioactive.
These places are all extremely small, extremely far away and extremely deadly. They make Mars seem pleasant.
Europa has liquid water, but the average surface temperature is still colder than the worst ever recorded on Earth. The speculative oceans you seek would be encased under miles of solid ice, just like Titan's. Europa is likewise catastrophically radioactive.
These places are all extremely small, extremely far away and extremely deadly. They make Mars seem pleasant.
Right, I mixed both.
I'm not sure I'd call Europa more hospitable. Thing that most people don't know about is that Jupiter throws a huge amount of radiation out, and the surface of Europa is basically a radioactive hell. Yes, if you get under the ice you will probably find a warm water ocean you could build stuff in.....but you still have to somehow get to the moon without exposing yourself to lethal amounts of radiation, and of course get under the surface. And then.....we have a perfectly serviceable ocean on Earth? If you want to build an underwater self sustainable colony, start here.
Clouds of Venus are practically Earth like -oxygen +acidic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus#Advantag...
Amusingly yes, this is probably the best bet. The temperature and atmosphere around 34-35 miles from the surface are comparable to Earth. And you get comparable gravity and radiation shielding as a bonus.
Good luck storing water and other supplies though. I foresee water piracy in the floating cities.
Good luck storing water and other supplies though. I foresee water piracy in the floating cities.
I don’t know why we should even bother settling on other planets (in the Solar system at least). They only have gravity wells, making the transportation extremely costly, and not much resources. We should build orbital habitats instead, and develop space industry in-place, say, by mining asteroids.
Can martians colonize Mars?
Neptunians already tried and went home. Martians are free to give it a go.
One alternative is to radically terraform Mars with comets and asteroids. It is a violent process that would destroy colonies if they existed. Also, an artificial magnetic field might be possible. Only colonize after terraforming.
Freeman Dyson suggested a focus on colonizing the asteroid belt. The main advantage is 1. Purpose (mining) 2. Low-gravity makes it easy to leave. The main barrier, in his opinion, was the genetic engineering of warm blooded plants.
For what it's worth, I think we will have cities of 10,000 on the moon because it's only 1 day travel and offers great recreational activities (moonball, moonbiking, etc). Televised sports offers a scalable business model.
For what it's worth, I think we will have cities of 10,000 on the moon because it's only 1 day travel and offers great recreational activities (moonball, moonbiking, etc). Televised sports offers a scalable business model.
One thing's for sure. The Elon Musks of today who say that we'll be there in a decade or so are telling big fat lies. They want to scam your money.
All this plans assume a human behaviour model that has been prooven to regularly fail on earth. Yes, there are spartan places on earth(monasteries, poor regions), but even they usually depend via "lifelines" on a continuous surplus on resources from some far away bristling nexus (city) or are permanently stuck in cycles of strife. A colony on mars, would break down with the first generations kids reaching maturity and realizing the remote prison their parents choose is for life.
In my mind, the whole colonize mars plan, is nothing but a elites escapism, who refuses to deal with the problems the species causes on earth and the necessary political change that entails. Its in that, very human, not very different from a neanderthal, who wants to escape his tribe, to find new mammoths beyond the horizon. But easy mammoth is extinct now and all there is to do, is to sit on electrically charged rocks and meditate for enlightenment.
In my mind, the whole colonize mars plan, is nothing but a elites escapism, who refuses to deal with the problems the species causes on earth and the necessary political change that entails. Its in that, very human, not very different from a neanderthal, who wants to escape his tribe, to find new mammoths beyond the horizon. But easy mammoth is extinct now and all there is to do, is to sit on electrically charged rocks and meditate for enlightenment.
I sincerely doubt there are many elites seriously considering colonies on Mars. I'm sure they're happy to push their personal brand using the space nostalgic idealism, though.
>...who refuses to deal with the problems the species causes on earth
The same person advocating most strongly for colonising Mars is, er, also responsible for bootstrapping solar, battery and EV technology, and having a good go at working on traffic congestion specifically to preserve the environment on Earth. In fact that was his first passion, and his interest in Mars originated from an attempt to raise awareness of environmental issues here. He's devoting huge resources, time and energy to solve Earthside problems. So I really don't see where you got this idea that colonising Mars is about abandoning Earth, what did you base that on?
The same person advocating most strongly for colonising Mars is, er, also responsible for bootstrapping solar, battery and EV technology, and having a good go at working on traffic congestion specifically to preserve the environment on Earth. In fact that was his first passion, and his interest in Mars originated from an attempt to raise awareness of environmental issues here. He's devoting huge resources, time and energy to solve Earthside problems. So I really don't see where you got this idea that colonising Mars is about abandoning Earth, what did you base that on?
> The same person advocating most strongly for colonising Mars is, er, also responsible for bootstrapping solar, battery and EV technology, and having a good go at working on traffic congestion specifically to preserve the environment on Earth.
Is he? To an extent, but he's also extremely anti-better solutions that didn't originate with one of his companies. He thinks that digging thousands of tunnels for a vehicle per person is better for congestion than digging a significantly smaller amount of tunnels for rapid mass transit, which would cost less and is drastically better for the planet than everybody rolling around in a car, even a Tesla car.
Solar has been a steadily growing thing before Tesla was, so i'm not sure you can credit him with anything there.
Is he? To an extent, but he's also extremely anti-better solutions that didn't originate with one of his companies. He thinks that digging thousands of tunnels for a vehicle per person is better for congestion than digging a significantly smaller amount of tunnels for rapid mass transit, which would cost less and is drastically better for the planet than everybody rolling around in a car, even a Tesla car.
Solar has been a steadily growing thing before Tesla was, so i'm not sure you can credit him with anything there.
Hyper loop is literally a mass transit system. Ok, probably not all his ideas will pan out and ok maybe you prefer other solutions, but ‘refusing to deal with’ those problems? Really?
Colonies will happen once mining and manufacturing happen because people will follow the money. Same as colonising on earth.
> Life in a Martian colony would be miserable, with people forced to live in artificially lit underground bases, or in thickly protected surface stations with severely minimized access to the outdoors. Life in this closed environment, with limited access to the surface, could result in other health issues related to exclusive indoor living, such as depression, boredom from lack of stimulus, an inability to concentrate, poor eyesight, and high blood pressure—not to mention a complete disconnect from nature.
I don't know why there's this assumption that living underground has to be in some dank basement with flickering fluorescent tubes, and that this is an absolute unsolvable barrier to Mars settlement.
I think we should just accept that if humans go to Mars, they're going to live underground and either go outside rarely or not at all, and just get over it. Maybe it won't be all that bad if it's done the right way. Realistically, a lot of space is going to be needed just for growing food, and that means the population per square foot of usable pressurized habitat floor space might not actually be very high. There may be wide open spaces and the opportunity to go on long walks through pleasant farms.
In Oregon near Bend we have a pretty decently large lava tube that's about a mile long, and in some parts it's huge. It's not exactly a pleasant place to imagine living when it's cold inside and lit by flashlight or latern, with walls that look like the inside of a dragon's colon and a floor of featureless sand that plays tricks with depth perception, but if one imagines it well lit with sealed, insulated walls, painted in light colors, or made to mimic the sky, with clusters of apartments and workshops and rows of plants, it actually could be pretty nice. The weirdest thing to get used to would be the one-dimensionality of the cave; it's just one long shaft with no side tunnels. That's what I imagine an early Mars habitat looking like: find a natural lava tube (due to reduced gravity they should in theory be bigger than the ones on Earth), and seal the walls and divide it into large compartments. Install solar panels on the surface, and then move right in.
Eventually one could imagine a habitat expanding by digging side tunnels once the right kind of heavy equipment is available, and maybe establish production for native building materials like sulfur-based concrete.
I don't know why there's this assumption that living underground has to be in some dank basement with flickering fluorescent tubes, and that this is an absolute unsolvable barrier to Mars settlement.
I think we should just accept that if humans go to Mars, they're going to live underground and either go outside rarely or not at all, and just get over it. Maybe it won't be all that bad if it's done the right way. Realistically, a lot of space is going to be needed just for growing food, and that means the population per square foot of usable pressurized habitat floor space might not actually be very high. There may be wide open spaces and the opportunity to go on long walks through pleasant farms.
In Oregon near Bend we have a pretty decently large lava tube that's about a mile long, and in some parts it's huge. It's not exactly a pleasant place to imagine living when it's cold inside and lit by flashlight or latern, with walls that look like the inside of a dragon's colon and a floor of featureless sand that plays tricks with depth perception, but if one imagines it well lit with sealed, insulated walls, painted in light colors, or made to mimic the sky, with clusters of apartments and workshops and rows of plants, it actually could be pretty nice. The weirdest thing to get used to would be the one-dimensionality of the cave; it's just one long shaft with no side tunnels. That's what I imagine an early Mars habitat looking like: find a natural lava tube (due to reduced gravity they should in theory be bigger than the ones on Earth), and seal the walls and divide it into large compartments. Install solar panels on the surface, and then move right in.
Eventually one could imagine a habitat expanding by digging side tunnels once the right kind of heavy equipment is available, and maybe establish production for native building materials like sulfur-based concrete.
If you just want to live underground, isn't it simpler to do it on Earth?
That's what I never understand about these proposals...we can't manage to stop climate change on Earth, but we're going to somehow terraform a planet? Or failing that, establish "colonies" the same way we have people live in Antarctica? I don't envy the colonists.
I think the urge to just hit reset and start from scratch is attractive because it removes all the messy unquantifiable problems like politics. But the reality is you'd just get more of that on top of virtually insurmountable technological problems.
I think the urge to just hit reset and start from scratch is attractive because it removes all the messy unquantifiable problems like politics. But the reality is you'd just get more of that on top of virtually insurmountable technological problems.
We can quite easily, probably for less than 1T dollars [0], stop climate change with geoengineering, but nobody wants to experiment with Earth climate.
Cost analysis of stratospheric albedo modification delivery systems
> We conclude that (a) the basic technological capability to deliver material to the stratosphere at million tonne per year rates exists today, (b) based on prior literature, a few million tonnes per year would be sufficient to alter radiative forcing by an amount roughly equivalent to the growth of anticipated greenhouse gas forcing over the next half century, and that (c) several different methods could possibly deliver this quantity for less than $8B per year. [1]
Benefits, risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering
> Using existing U.S. military fighter and tanker planes, the annual costs of injecting aerosol precursors into the lower stratosphere would be several billion dollars.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering#Costs
[1] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034...
[2] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/200...
Cost analysis of stratospheric albedo modification delivery systems
> We conclude that (a) the basic technological capability to deliver material to the stratosphere at million tonne per year rates exists today, (b) based on prior literature, a few million tonnes per year would be sufficient to alter radiative forcing by an amount roughly equivalent to the growth of anticipated greenhouse gas forcing over the next half century, and that (c) several different methods could possibly deliver this quantity for less than $8B per year. [1]
Benefits, risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering
> Using existing U.S. military fighter and tanker planes, the annual costs of injecting aerosol precursors into the lower stratosphere would be several billion dollars.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering#Costs
[1] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034...
[2] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/200...
We might eventually end up doing something like that if we don't get CO2 emissions under control. However, it's not a complete solution. It wouldn't do anything to address ocean acidification, for instance, which is one of the lesser-known consequences of excess CO2 in the atmosphere. That's why we really ought to be concentrating on emitting less carbon dioxide.
Is this the cost of geoengineering the entire planet or just a localized region? Does this cost include research? Is this guaranteed to work?
Scrolling the cited wikipedia article down shows that this is not without criticism including skepticism that this will work at all. I’m personally gonna remain skeptic. There is a lot of atmosphere out there, and there is a lot of CO2 in it. Spraying aerosol sounds a little like trying to stop a hurricane by exploding a nuke inside it. Not only will it do nothing to stop the hurricane, but now you’ve made the hurricane radioactive.
Scrolling the cited wikipedia article down shows that this is not without criticism including skepticism that this will work at all. I’m personally gonna remain skeptic. There is a lot of atmosphere out there, and there is a lot of CO2 in it. Spraying aerosol sounds a little like trying to stop a hurricane by exploding a nuke inside it. Not only will it do nothing to stop the hurricane, but now you’ve made the hurricane radioactive.
The entire planet and it's ongoing cost per year.
The difference between CO2 emissions and geoengineering is that CO2 just randomly happens to change Earth climate. If we start changing climate directly and intentionally we can optimize all variables for maximal effect.
I agree that it's very underdeveloped and underresearched field. That's why I put my estimate at bellow 1000 billion dollars or 1 trillion.
Compared to potential costs of the climate change it would be worthwhile to invest 1 to 10 billion $ into geoengineering research to make sure that it will work, what side effects could it have and to figure out the costs precisely. We may have already triggered tipping points in the ecosystem that will lead to substantial global warming even if we stop all emissions tomorrow.
But my original point was that geoengineering appears to be feasible. If we can do it on Earth we can do it on Venus and to some extend on Mars too.
The difference between CO2 emissions and geoengineering is that CO2 just randomly happens to change Earth climate. If we start changing climate directly and intentionally we can optimize all variables for maximal effect.
I agree that it's very underdeveloped and underresearched field. That's why I put my estimate at bellow 1000 billion dollars or 1 trillion.
Compared to potential costs of the climate change it would be worthwhile to invest 1 to 10 billion $ into geoengineering research to make sure that it will work, what side effects could it have and to figure out the costs precisely. We may have already triggered tipping points in the ecosystem that will lead to substantial global warming even if we stop all emissions tomorrow.
But my original point was that geoengineering appears to be feasible. If we can do it on Earth we can do it on Venus and to some extend on Mars too.
> we can't manage to stop climate change on Earth, but we're going to somehow terraform a planet?
The fact that we caused climate change shows that we can terraform this planet. We could also do the reverse if we all stopped burning fossil fuels right now, but we are generally unwilling to do so.
If Mars were covered in easily accessible hydrocarbons and had an atmosphere with sufficient oxygen, we could terraform it the same way by sending over a lit match. But those preconditions are not present.
The fact that we caused climate change shows that we can terraform this planet. We could also do the reverse if we all stopped burning fossil fuels right now, but we are generally unwilling to do so.
If Mars were covered in easily accessible hydrocarbons and had an atmosphere with sufficient oxygen, we could terraform it the same way by sending over a lit match. But those preconditions are not present.
Climate change is the result of literally all human production ever. How do you propose we reproduce the last several hundred years of industry and development, cumulatively, on another planet?
It doesn't matter. CO2 is literally the one thing Mars doesn't need us to add to the atmosphere. With that problem solved, we just need to add the other 99.95% of the atmosphere it lacks.
I don't propose anything. Like I said, the preconditions aren't there.
If Mars were almost exactly like Earth before the Industrial Revolution, only a bit cooler, we could make it exactly like Earth in a few hundred years by mining/drilling for fossil fuels and burning them in big piles.
If Mars were almost exactly like Earth before the Industrial Revolution, only a bit cooler, we could make it exactly like Earth in a few hundred years by mining/drilling for fossil fuels and burning them in big piles.
I don't see colonizing Mars as an alternative to fixing the major problems on Earth. We definitely need to do something about climate change whether we go to Mars or not. I see going to Mars as just something we're going to end up doing eventually anyways, as long as technology keeps advancing as it has. It used to be almost impossibly difficult to send people to Mars. Right now it's still hard, but becoming easier, mostly due to recent progress with respect to high-efficiency reusable rockets. In a hundred years it may be almost trivial. (Or not, if we don't address our climate and political and economic problems.)
Having access to space along with manufacturing and mining capabilities may give us some surprisingly large benefits in the long run. Right now the idea may seem a little silly because we don't even know for sure if we can do it, much less construct a plausible business plan to make a profit at the same time.
Having access to space along with manufacturing and mining capabilities may give us some surprisingly large benefits in the long run. Right now the idea may seem a little silly because we don't even know for sure if we can do it, much less construct a plausible business plan to make a profit at the same time.
Honestly, I kind of wish that underground megastructures were more of a thing here on Earth. Here, you'd run into trouble with groundwater, but that should be solvable. A bigger objection is that natural caves really ought to stay natural so that people can enjoy them or animals can use them as habitat. Filling in man-made quarries and pit mines with human structures could be done, though. I live in a city that has a giant hole in the ground that I never knew about until I drove past it one day; I fantasize about building a massive apartment complex / shopping center / park there, but am prevented from doing so because a) I don't have even a tiny fraction of the money required for such a project and b) the city land use planning department (which happens to be next door to the giant hole) would never allow me to do that even if I could afford it.
Anyways, part of the interest in living in a habitat on Mars is that it would be on Mars, doing (potentially) important work establishing an outpost in space that gives us easier access to the rest of the solar system. Rocket fuel can be made on Mars, and the weak gravity makes it easier to transport stuff up and down the gravity well. Getting back and forth to the belt (which may have significant mineral resources) is easier than from Earth. Basically, going to Mars isn't about just going to Mars, it's about establishing a foothold in space. It's also something we could plausibly do with current technology, if there's enough funding and enthusiasm to make it happen.
Anyways, part of the interest in living in a habitat on Mars is that it would be on Mars, doing (potentially) important work establishing an outpost in space that gives us easier access to the rest of the solar system. Rocket fuel can be made on Mars, and the weak gravity makes it easier to transport stuff up and down the gravity well. Getting back and forth to the belt (which may have significant mineral resources) is easier than from Earth. Basically, going to Mars isn't about just going to Mars, it's about establishing a foothold in space. It's also something we could plausibly do with current technology, if there's enough funding and enthusiasm to make it happen.
[deleted]
I can imagine around 100 000 people visiting Mars by 2100. Currently around 50 000 people attempted eight-thousanders with death rate of around 1-2%. The first recorded successful ascent of an eight-thousander was in 1950. I imagine going to Mars will be something similar towards the end of this century.
If we get AI with human like object manipulation and engineering skills before 2050, then I expect prices of basically everything to go down to the cost of impact on other market participants by 2075. Building stuff will be brought down to the impact of raw resources extraction etc.
We will may be technologically short of 1M people on Mars by 2075 if we assume no AI. Take nuclear submarines as first order approximation. Currently we seem to have around 500 submarines, although only 1 in 5 seems to be nuclear. So, with the current GDP doubling time of 25 years we could expect 2000 submarines by 2075 and 400 nuclear submarines.
For 1M people on Mars we would need an effort comparable to 8000 Ohio-class submarines with the current cost of 16 trillions dollars. In 2000 Bill Gates was worth 60 billion, today Musk is worth some 180 billions. If Musk or other billionaires could keep that rate they still would be short to command it alone, but only by an order of magnitude with ~3 trillion assets.
IMO impossible without AI, but possible with AI.
But even if it's possible, I think that people will not want to live on Mars in that numbers. It would require around 1 in 10 000 people to migrate to Mars and I don't see the apatite for it.
So, IMO it will not happen, not because it will be impossible, but we will not want to do it.
Some space exploration timeline from Metaculus [0] a prediction aggregator with established track-record [1]:
- When will Starship reach orbit? 50% after 2022
- When will SpaceX's Starship carry a human to orbit? 50% after 2024
- When will SpaceX launch humans around the Moon? 50% after 2026
- NASA lands people on Mars before 2030? 4%
- Will SpaceX land anything on Mars by 2030? 80%
- SpaceX Lands People on Mars by 2030? 26%
- When will the first humans land successfully on Mars? 50% after 2036
- When will the first AGI be first developed and demonstrated? 50% after 2047
- What will be the longest uninterrupted stay in deep space at the end of 2050? 50% less than 650 days
- One Million Martian Residents by 2075? 4%
[0] https://www.metaculus.com/questions/
[1] https://www.metaculus.com/questions/track-record/
If we get AI with human like object manipulation and engineering skills before 2050, then I expect prices of basically everything to go down to the cost of impact on other market participants by 2075. Building stuff will be brought down to the impact of raw resources extraction etc.
We will may be technologically short of 1M people on Mars by 2075 if we assume no AI. Take nuclear submarines as first order approximation. Currently we seem to have around 500 submarines, although only 1 in 5 seems to be nuclear. So, with the current GDP doubling time of 25 years we could expect 2000 submarines by 2075 and 400 nuclear submarines.
For 1M people on Mars we would need an effort comparable to 8000 Ohio-class submarines with the current cost of 16 trillions dollars. In 2000 Bill Gates was worth 60 billion, today Musk is worth some 180 billions. If Musk or other billionaires could keep that rate they still would be short to command it alone, but only by an order of magnitude with ~3 trillion assets.
IMO impossible without AI, but possible with AI.
But even if it's possible, I think that people will not want to live on Mars in that numbers. It would require around 1 in 10 000 people to migrate to Mars and I don't see the apatite for it.
So, IMO it will not happen, not because it will be impossible, but we will not want to do it.
Some space exploration timeline from Metaculus [0] a prediction aggregator with established track-record [1]:
- When will Starship reach orbit? 50% after 2022
- When will SpaceX's Starship carry a human to orbit? 50% after 2024
- When will SpaceX launch humans around the Moon? 50% after 2026
- NASA lands people on Mars before 2030? 4%
- Will SpaceX land anything on Mars by 2030? 80%
- SpaceX Lands People on Mars by 2030? 26%
- When will the first humans land successfully on Mars? 50% after 2036
- When will the first AGI be first developed and demonstrated? 50% after 2047
- What will be the longest uninterrupted stay in deep space at the end of 2050? 50% less than 650 days
- One Million Martian Residents by 2075? 4%
[0] https://www.metaculus.com/questions/
[1] https://www.metaculus.com/questions/track-record/
Let's colonize the sahara first and leave the moon to the robots
It's kind of colonized already https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuareg_people
Colonizing another place in the solar system makes sense in long run. We eventually need to escape our star and reach others. Not even in thusands, more like in few millions of years to come. Mars would be one baby step. But doing it now would be huge misuse of our resources what we need to keep our current planet alive. Elon needs to hold his ego trip, try to make first Earth to sustainably inhabitable place and then maybe in a century or two come back with the Mars project.
[deleted]
A colony on Mars would be child abuse, even assuming the fetuses gestated normally in that environment. And the resources needed would devastate Earth, the one planet which makes our ideal home.
I don't believe a word. From the Superman comics I definitely know that when you are on a planet with a tenth of gravitation you become extremely strong.
Plus the radiation on the planet will give you superpowers like flying and x-ray view.
Plus the radiation on the planet will give you superpowers like flying and x-ray view.
I have said decades ago, what goes out there will no longer be human, one way or the other.
Much more opportunities and less risk for robotic AI out there.
Lagrange point stations may be feasable again.
They were a thing in the '70s.
Less hassle with those pesky biological necessities.
Of course still problems with radiation, but much thinner shielding needed.
And thinner Umbilical/Lifeline to Mutha Oith.
Low Life Need Not Apply.
Of course much less romance. But who cares, it's business anyway.
Much more opportunities and less risk for robotic AI out there.
Lagrange point stations may be feasable again.
They were a thing in the '70s.
Less hassle with those pesky biological necessities.
Of course still problems with radiation, but much thinner shielding needed.
And thinner Umbilical/Lifeline to Mutha Oith.
Low Life Need Not Apply.
Of course much less romance. But who cares, it's business anyway.