undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbruce5111mo ago0 comments

There will never be a colony on Mars. Not in the way we think about "colonies".

For starters it's too cold, too dry, atmosphere is too thin, and there's no reasonably sustainable power source.

But all of that is irrelevant because there's no magnetic field. So radiation. So unlivable.

There's also no point in a colony there. If life ends on earth it ends on Mars. There are no materials there we want. It offers exactly nothing we can't do better here, for much less money.

Will we land on Mars? Sure. There's always the goal of being first. But live there? No. Unsupported by earth? Very much no.

0 comments

6 comments · 2 top-level

bentcorner1mo ago· 2 in thread

I personally believe that the legacy we send to the stars will be silicon.

Robots have landed on Mars. Maybe they will even figure out how to use minerals on Mars to build more of themselves. It is plausible to me that as far as space exploration is concerned that it will be autonomous within a few hundred years.

Nevermark1mo ago

I would think autonomous by the end of the century at the latest. More like 2055 or 2060.

The rush to the Moon and then Mars is going to push robotics along the learning curve toward an explosion in off-world activity.

Asteroids will be where resource extraction goes off the charts.

red-iron-pine1mo ago

earth's global ecosystem better not collapse before then -- and we're on track to make that happen

aeternum1mo ago· 2 in thread

'..it might be assumed that the flying machine which will really fly might be evolved by the combined and continuous efforts of mathematicians and mechanicians in from one million to ten million years- provided, of course, we can meanwhile eliminate such little drawbacks and embarrassments as the existing relation between weight and strength in inorganic materials. No doubt the problem has attractions for those it interests, but to the ordinary man it would seem as if effort might be employed more profitably.' Oct 9 1903

somenameforme1mo ago

I think many may not understand your quote, especially given the nature of the language and the apparent non sequitur: https://archive.is/F3nnP

That's an archive of the article it's originally from, from the NYTimes - "Flying Machines Which Do Not Fly", October 1903. The Wright Bros first successful flight would come in December 1903. The NYTimes also similarly published about the impossibility of spaceflight relatively shortly before it happened.

I anxiously await the day for the NYTimes to dismiss colonizing Mars as impossible, as it means we are most certainly on the cusp of achieving exactly that.

bruce511OP1mo ago

The value of flight is incalculable. Especially if we see it as a precursor to satellites. A lot of people invested a lot in getting g it to work. Many people died making it better and better. The cost in treasure and lives was substantial, but the return is worth it.

Contrast to the moon. The prestige was great, the investment enormous. The return was more-or-less zero. There was a reason Apollo 18 was canceled, and we stopped going.

(Current efforts are in no rush, and are mostly about prestige.)

The value of a colony on Mars is precisely zero. We might visit a couple times. But colonize? Nope.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse