seriously : great video; amazing to see that the drawings in SMBC look a lot like the real life people (plus a haircut is never a bad idea 🙂) good stuff guys!
@@ptb1ptb2 It had too much science, and not enough engineering. Scientists are not trained as people who make things work. Before you were going to get any science out of it, it had to work first. Imagine if astronomers had been in charge of the Apollo vehicle development, instead of aerospace engineers.
And you don't think issues with management/preparation are important factors to learn about when sending people to live in space? That's half the point of the experiment, not the technical stuff (which Musk fanboys love) but the human stuff (which is much, much harder)
@@GraniteGeek please try again because I'm nowhere near understanding what your trying to argue. All I was saying is that management/preparation were the main issues not what happened in the dome. The experiment was considered useful and the building is still used today. It's the public that decided it was a failure. An experiment is rarely a eureka moment. Failure is expected, the goal is to gather data so we can be better in the future. My only gripe with this video was that they seemed to be sensationalizing the reported "failure". They used the experiment as an example of how we barely understand living in space/another world yet they mostly ignored all of the advancements that have been made in the past 50 years. The video itself was very one-sided
@@sciptick the issue really seemed more that they tried their hand at too many things at once. But to be fair they did gather a lot of useful data at the end
@@JesbaamSanchez Right, it's also not helpful to be naive about it. We are not a few years or ten years away from colonizing Mars, as a certain famous entrepreneur used to say.
That does not follow. There is a logical progression to build our knowledge and capabilities. Without solving fundamental questions, you're simply doomed to fail.
I love how these two are suddenly experts at whether or not we can colonize mars. Humans are adaptable and will make it happen. They are saying the obvious.
I get what they’re saying, but they are the same people that would say “we can’t cross the ocean, you can’t walk out there!” Really not a fan of people like that. It will be hard, but everything we’ve ever done has been hard. Why stop now.
Yeah they're right. We should just stay at home and never push the limits of what's possible. Except that's not really how human history has played out is it?
Support. We are not even colonizing Antarctica. We have research stations there where we perform science. But there are no significant resources there that we need so we are not colonizing Antarctica. Extend that to Mars.
It’s way past time NASA abandoned their focus on bespoke one off multi billion dollar mission every 10 years that come in way over budget with just enough capability to complete the mission goals. We need to rethink space exploration missions into development of capabilities. Like let’s set up production lines to produce exploration space probes, rovers, quadcopters, icy moon melt probes etc. Then the per unit cost will go way down and each product line can be developed and improved over time. This approach is what spaceX is doing with starship. Imagine if instead of one Europa Clipper we had a production line and produced one every year. They could be sent all over the solar system. Once we attempt to go through the ice of a moon like Enceladus the current approach will cost 10 billion and take 20 years. If instead we developed a series of melt probes each more capable and have a production line of them we can actually explore the outer solar system. Space stations, space telescopes, and moon and mars bases all the same -we need a capabilities based approach to all of it. Otherwise, it’s like we’re building massive passenger airliners to just fly once and then throw it away. You’ll never have affordable global transportation and we’ll never any serious presence in outer space.
There is a lot of talk about using robots to build the colonies on Mars and such, but the most advanced robot ever created is on Mars right now and what does it do? It licks rocks, drills out pieces and then poops those samples back onto the ground, to be picked up by another robot that hasn't been designed yet. It's going to take Humans in person to make colonies on Mars, just like on Earth and they are going to die there, just like on Earth, but on Mars, they may also end up being food. We need to spend about fifty years on the Moon, ironing out some of the kinks close to home, before we try Mars or even Space itself, like we are doing at the ISS. We could have started doing that, back in the 1970s but our Leaders preferred to make war and spent all our money on that, so we watch Super Hero movies and make our plans based on them, with super robots and super spaceships and supermen doing impossible things, and not Working Class people digging out underground habitats and making actual flying cars needed to get around toxic geography, keeping the sewage recycling going and all the things that make civilization happen back home.
What we should be doing now is working on 0 gravity manufacturing, building teleoperated / autonomous lunar industry, mining asteroids, making low gravity rotating space habs for tourism and science and building powersats to provide energy to the earth. We aren’t ready for mars.
Female experts getting often short changed and belittled on media, I really liked Kelly being titled the co-author of City on Mars and Zach just "Kelly's husband" :D
We're very close to being able to send intelligent machines to Mars. That still doesn't mean it's gonna be a good place for people, it's just not. But those machines are an expression of human society, them going there IS us going there. The upper atmosphere of Venus looks better, some nice floating cities.
While I think experimenting should continue, I reject sending big quantities of resources to mars. If mars had an atmosphere , it lost it and will do so again (no van allen belt)
These people see the problem in technology, I don't. What I see as a problem is politics on planet Earth. The construction of the 1st colonization ship would cost about 6 trillion € or $ (10% up or down). The problem is that right now even the US can't afford it. This means that a wider integration of states and their space programs is needed. A change of strategy in conquering space is also needed. You can think the other way around on the questions: 1. What do we want? Colonize the Milky Way galaxy 2..What is the 1st step to do this? To colonize Alpha Centauri. 3. What is the 1st step to do it? To learn how to colonize another planet in the Solar System. 4. How to colonize another planet in the Solar System? Colonizing another planet in the solar system has no advantages if the planet is not terraformed. 5. How to terraform a planet? Ships need to be built to produce energy and tow asteroids. 6. What is the cheapest way to produce ships? By mining and manufacturing parts in space. 7. How to mine in space? We need a mining-processing ship that can protect the human crew outside the Earth's magnetic field. To become completely self-sufficient in space (80%) we need 6 such ships (together they make one colonization ship for Alpha Centauri.) and it costs 6 trillion. Any more questions? I think he basically said everything.
could the information density be any lower? First two minutes was just people yapping on about how unhospitable/dangerous/strange space is, without any examples. Downvoted.
It’s not A vs B. Many of these problems are solved by actually going and doing it. Having children in low (not micro) gravity seems more moral than having children in a war torn starving country.
If people were always so pessimistic, we would never have explored space in the first place, nor would we have reached places like the North Pole or the top of Mount Everest. There will be a lot of hurdles along the way, but that's part of exploring. You cannot prevent everything upfront. Yes, some people will die. A lot of things will go wrong, but I'm afraid we don't have 10 lifetimes. When you consider the geopolitical tensions, global warming, the risk of economic and global instability, these will definitely halt these extremely long-term commitments. We need to go. Now. So that conscious life can survive for the long term.
@MrNielsify They're speaking of colonization. We can explore, now. What they're saying is that we are incapable of colonization now and for the foreseeable future. It's not that "some people will die", but that _nobody_ is able to live off Earth as a colonist or settler until we solve some hard problems.
The problem with colonizing the moon or mars is once that is started, you are looking at a planetary commitment to continue to send parts and supplies for the foreseeable future because either one of those planets cannot replace all of the needed parts.
If JFK had said, "Mars" instead of "Moon", we would probably already be on Mars. Why? Because... there was a generation of brave and brazen test pilots along with battalions of sliderule-packing Boomers, all of which had a uniquely aggressive and fearless work ethic. They pressed ahead with a "no-matter-what" attitude... solving shitwaves of seemingly-impossible problems while mostly using their own heads as the computing power.
Going to the moon was brutally expensive and complex thing done at the time. Mars is 150M miles away. The moon is just .225 away. And Mars has a more complex orbit. And really: what would be the dramatic PR moment of landing on Mars? Its A) we sent a robot there. Or B) we sent humans there. To die. Horribly. AND if we went to Mars and not the moon then the Soviets would have landed there while we studying Mars.
It's easy to point out problems, especially when you're making money from it, what's hard is making solutions. "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..." But yeah, these two and everyone else in the comments are definitely smarter than all those NASA scientists. 😂
Maybe due to the pic for the video on SMBC, i expected Zach to sound like Luke McGregor, and then Kelly to sound like Celia Pacquola. Rosehaven in Space!
Even Galileo Galilei had critics, The space community has more balls than the Critic Community. This factor is more than enough to turn the tide in our favor.
People have survived for very long periods in space already. Make a larger version of spacelab as compartmentalized, concentric, shielded, rings to produce artificial gravity. We are already experimenting on babies on Earth: barely tested vaccines, bioengineered foods, attempts at cloning, gender surgery, etc… I can’t imagine space would be worse. And if you are worried about babies in space, then send single-sex crews or only sterilized astronauts. Fifteen years ago I might’ve volunteered for such a mission even knowing it might very well be one-way. I’d consider moving into a Biosphere on Earth this year if it existed!
I'm interested what your definitions of "space" and "long periods" are. The ISS is still within earth's magnetosphere. And even these pinnacles astronauts, pinnacles of man, with proper exercise, are still losing 1% bone density in their hips every month. These are really difficult problems that will take a lot of engineering to solve, and are not going to be solved in our lifetimes and probably not our children's, or our children's children. One of the other big points is how hostile space travel is, and how poorly communicate and understood this is by the ley-person. You say you would've volunteered but I highly doubt that were you told that there's a decent chance you'd lose your fingernails on a space walk, or that hot sauce would be the most flavorful food you'd be eating. It's a really shitty time and this is only scratching the surface.
Lmao, so much stupid. Gravity ring don't work like in movie, their a reason why we don't have some yet. We don't test on baby, every vaccine is tested and approved, every vaccine work, that why you're not in a iron lung, nobody perform "gender surgery" on baby you creep. Long term effect on heath still happen even if you send only dudes, we're not immune to mental health effect, radiation and regolith. You wouldn't have a chance to be part of that one way ticket fantasy, we don't send transphobe idiot into space.
LOL we do heart transplants and you are worried about "gender surgery", whatever that is. If Musk actually takes all conspiracy-minded bigots with himself to Mars, I'll happily pay for it.
I'm going to say this before I even watch the video and then I'm going to watch the video. Why are they trying to colonize on another planet and they not doing well on this planet?
Mars, despite its challenges, is the closest candidate to Earth in our solar system with the potential for liquid water and a more moderate temperature range. It also has a day-night cycle similar to Earth's, which could be easier to adapt to for humans. While the Moon and Venus might be easier to reach in terms of distance, the harsh environments they present make Mars a more realistic option for long-term human habitation, at least with current technology.
Venus isn't even a conteneder for colonization. It is way outside of bounds for what is doable. The moon is a mixed bag: It is really close, so all of the resupply is easier. The sharp, destructive moon dust on the other hand is a big problem.
I think these people underestimate Elons plans. He already has answers to most of there problems. And that’s with current tech; and things that he has done already. I don’t think it will be perfect but it’s def closer than they think. People will die but lots of people die on oil fields, oil rigs in the middle of oceans, building construction, and dam construction. That’s just one of the cost for progress. Scientists disappoint me so much these days. Science use to push they boundaries and create now realities. We for get that E=MC2 wasn’t a real thing. We forget that Newtons laws were hated! We can’t be afraid to be wrong because if we did that the pass 1000 years we wouldn’t be where we at now.
@marcuscoward1158 Musk doesn't have actual factual answers in this regard. He has untested ideas. Most of those ideas are wrong and will fail. Throwing money and smart people at problems will take time. The Weinersmiths have researched the issues for space colonization and say it's a hard problem that will not be solved in a half century. Given Musk's history of overly optimistic predictions and claims, and overpromising tech solutions, why would you think that Musk has "answers to most of these problems"?
We always mess up initially. But always persist. Biosphere is a good learning experience imo. It’s just as valuable to learn how not to do something and biosphere is a classic example.
@TheLYagAmi Exactly. Biosphere was a huge success by my estimate. Gotta learn to crawl before you can walk. One example was 'trees don't have wind so they don't grow specific roots to prevent from tipping over' Yay. We now know we need to push baby trees around every once in a while. Glad we know that now instead of on Mars.
Learning how to live together, "On Earth", without destroying the earth and each other will take much too long (if ever). We'll all die on what's left of earth before we learn how to live in space. :-(
We've lasted hundreds of thousands of years precisely because we've gotten progressively less bad at that over time. There isn't much that could plausibly kill *all* humans - not even humanity itself. That said it is a real problem for colonizing other planets. It's not just an engineering problem; it's a political science problem as well.
What everyone forgets: A colony is only a colony if it is self sustaining and independent (otherwise it's just an outpost), which means the population there will have to procreate. But only the first generation will be there out of free will. Children born there will be slaves of Mars or whatever they were born on. Growing up under a dome in low gravity, perhaps never able to visit earth, no free choice of profession - because everyone in the colony is needed for it's maintenance, no traveling, no free choice of partners, probably even genetically modified, also against their will. Who wants to do that to their children? And if someone does, do you think these children will feel as part of humanity? More likely they will at some point take matters in their own hands, separate from earth and see themselves as a different species, with no love for those who condemned them to this life.....
After reading your comments I think perhaps colonize mars by robots with artificial inteligence would be a better choice But what if robots see themselves as a different species and seperate from the earth and human being?
"Who wants to do that to their children?" Colonists. Your inability to grasp that people do not all think like you will not make everyone think like you.
You could look at it as "slaves to mars" or you could look at it as "a higher calling and a true purpose". We have so many suicidal guys in modern society because nothing they do matters. On a mars settlement? EVERYTHING they would do would matter. It would be a hard life, but a fulfilling one.
Yeah, mars colonisation by humans doesn't seem likely for a good while but I do hope to see some sort of restoration and maybe like introduction of BGA or archaebacteria ecosystem or some other very fundamental autotroph in the hierarchy of ecosystem, basically trace the evolution of life here on earth, that is certainly bound to kickstart the purification of land and air and eventually even dampen the hostilities of the environment. I love the book and I agree with it but it did come off as a lil bit defeatist (even though it wasn't meant that way I'm sure). Chaos and adversity breeds innovation; i don't think the unforgiving situation is something that should deter us, we always knew Mars was always hostile, we're just learning the magnitude. It is just one of the those efforts compounding over generation so our progeny can benefit, even though we may not for the most part.
Yeah, all I'm seeing are engineering challenges we can't yet meet. Just give us time. I see the first step as intelligent machine gardeners tending terraforming algae. Makes way more sense to go underground than live on the surface anyways. The only way we will learn how to terraform planets is to get started on it. In the process we will learn more about managing this one. We need to move industries off planet. Humans can stay here, but we need to begin the space expansion for sure. Our power is growing too large for this planet.
My assumption with the current discourse around space colonization is that it’s really a trojan horse for mining colonies. People risking their lives in a hostile environment solely to enrich a person far above their status has been done before.
it feels like everything here is just a reaction to elon musk but no one is saying it because they don't know anything else anyway lol he rlly has been one of the best and worst things for the space industry - more so peoples reactions to his attention seeking behavior - its a negative feedback loop for 130 IQ midwits
I think it would be better to build space habitats in orbit such as an O'Neill cylinder, mining asteroids and lunar regolith to use as raw materials. The cylinder would spin to generate simulated gravity and could fit an entire city's population inside it and still have room for some crops to produce food and recycle oxygen.
And by "closest thing" of course you mean that it wasn't really sealed, they had to release CO2 --- but you're right, they should have tried again, we can do it for shrimp, I have an ecosphere I bought at the smithsonian, we can learn to do it for people (and how many other organisms? A billion?)
What really happened was they had to inject huge tanker loads of oxygen because curing concrete turns out to absorb a huge amount of it, which nobody knew before. So it was enough of a success that it taught that. The real thing that made it a failure was that they had scientists treating it as if it were legitimately an experiment, and not engineers and agronomists trying to _make it work,_ first. If the first session had been treated as a shakedown cruise, nobody would have treated injecting oxygen as something that compromised the whole project. That the crew relationships were so poorly managed didn't help any. So ultimately it was a management failure. But that should not have been fatal. There has to be more to the failure, somehow really about money.
The biggest problem I have with biosphere is that it really isn't a good analog for a space colony. With biosphere, they were trying to literally recreate the whole Earth system. In other words, they wanted a perfectly balanced mini-biosphere that could be sustained with nothing more than sunlight. They didn't want CO2 scrubbers cleaning their air or filters cleaning their water; they wanted to do it like the Earth does, biologically. But there is zero reason a Mars colony has to operate in such a way. Sure, do as much with biological systems as you can. If most of your oxygen can be produced by the plants you eat; that's a very efficient system. But there's nothing that says you have to do everything biologically. I heat my home with a furnace; I don't keep tons of livestock in my home and try to heat it all by their body heat. If a Mars colony needs some CO2 scrubbers, that doesn't make the concept nonviable. We don't need to be able to build perfect self-sustaining biospheres before we can colonize Mars.
@@TanyaLairdCivil Why shouldn't we, though? I mean, colonizing Mars is kind of stupid anyway, if we're going to do it, might as well do it right, and that means figuring out how to make sure it's survivable if something goes wrong with a resupply mission. There's no urgency to colonize Mars RIGHT NOW, we've got time, and even if we're wrong about having time because we're going to blow ourselves up, if a Mars colony isn't able to sustain itself that won't matter, it'll be gone too. Let's do the smart thing and keep sending cool robots to Mars for the next few hundred years, it makes more sense than sending humans to try to live there. And if we decide we just have to send humans, send them to visit, like we did with the moon. As long as humanity doesn't kill itself off, we'll get there eventually. We're just not ready yet. "I heat my home with a furnace" is a perfect example of just how flawed the idea is. A furnace isn't going to happen on Mars. There's not enough oxygen to be able to afford to burn it, there's no fossil gas because there's no fossils. At the very least, we need to advance to the point that we don't do that on earth, because burning fossil gas is screwing up the environment here, and we don't have to have 100% perfect control of the climate here, on Mars we would have to. There's a lot of research that needs to happen first, most of it on earth, some of it in low earth orbit space stations.
I get what they're saying - but they are lacking in problem-solving mindset. Their technical arguments are like saying "you can't live in Earth orbit - it's too deadly". Except when posed as a challenge rather than as insurmountable problems, engineers quickly found answers to pretty much all the technical problems (some of which weren't implemented due to cost, e.g. a big rotating station to simulate gravity) and got humans to orbit in just a few years, and on to the moon in less than a decade more. You don't get hard things done by waiting until they're easy - the problems get easy only by working hard to solve them. You go for the goal and solve the problems as you go. Consider their "there's no way to make it pay for itself" argument. Of course there is - Mars has an enormous future value for humanity, and therefore has immediate speculative value for long term investors (and space fans), providing we're willing to establish a legal framework that enables tapping that value. Easy? No. Possible if someone works hard at it? Yes.
They're specifically talking about space colonization, not just hanging out in orbit or visiting another world. We'll likely have a moon base sometime in the next thirty years, but it won't be self-sustaining. What they're pointing out is that there is an awful lot of groundwork that needs to be done first before we can live in space without needing constant resupply from Earth - enough that it's not going to be possible any time soon. If we want to see it happen, we need to get busy.
"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." It might indeed turn out that Mars or any sort of off-Earth colonization simply cannot be done. That's no reason not to give it a shot anyway. It's not like the attempt detracts at all from what's goings on down here on Earth. The US spends more on McDonalds than on NASA.
@@jeffspaulding9834 It appears we agree - waiting until it becomes "easy" is the wrong approach, we need to do the hard work that will get us there. Because that is where they end up - we just wait 100 years and new technologies will make it much easier. That might happen - IF we ever developed those new technologies. Note that they could probably have written "A City on the Moon" and likely would have come to similar conclusions. And the moon is quicker/easier to get to, but that makes it far less likely to focus onlong term self-sufficiency technologies. By default, it'll likely remain more like the bases in Antarctica. And for that matter it might simply be abandoned when we realize "we've done all the important research and it's SO expensive to maintain and supply" and "huh - we can mine water for rocket propellant, but the only place we have to go in space is the moon...so if we stop going to the moon...we don't need that propellant!". The main counter to the latter arguments might be a military argument - not the best basis for establishing human presence in space.
I think you might have misinterpreted what their saying. They never said don’t work on going and building a place on mars. They actually said the opposite. Let’s work on fixing the potential problems now so that when we get there it’ll be easier on us.
@@candaceforeman640 No, pretty sure the conclusion in the book was more like 'there's no reason not to just wait until tech is better.' That's been the argument for about 30 years now, maybe 50. Only recently, mostly SpaceX actually working toward going to Mars, have we gotten reusable rockets that start to make the trip affordable. That is the only model we've seen work for space. They don't object to that idea, but it isn't what they propose as being sensible.
Perhaps we should try to put just the basic bits of life as we know it there first, and see if it can survive and evolve to conditions on Mars. Some hardy bacteria! Create a small bunker to give it the best possible chance before it gets out into the open.
I bought and read Mary Roach's book, "Packing For Mars" several years ago. That alone convinced me I didn't have any business wanting to go off planet (minus my age), much less wanting to live on another planet. It's time to realize that Earth is our species' home and that it's way past time to clean it up and save it and ourselves.
Great video, and I'm glad to see some common-sense discussion of how difficult this is, and how the universe is anything _but_ "fine-tuned" for life. Also the two of you are much better- looking than Zach draws you. Phew.
I always find it necessary to remind people the the word expert comes in to parts ex is a hasbeen and spert is a drip under pressure! with proper understanding less people will make claim to be one! although sceptism is good!
Robot gardeners + slow adaption plus a little gene editing + shotgun approach (just take every seedling species and just plop it on mars) and see what happens. There is a chance. Self terra forming ecosystem.
Maybe let's master gravity, fusion and radiation sheilding first, so that it all becomes cheaper and safer to send and land megatons. Meanwhile, let's get to manageable numbers here on Earth, whether by our own choosing or by natural (increasing) disasters. Maybe living to 120 isn't really necessary or desirable.
The best environment on Mars, perhaps near a buried glacier near the bottom of Mariner Valley for water supplies and maximum atmospheric pressure, is much worse than the worst environments on Earth but it could be survivable for a research crew for a limited period. Toxins in the soil would probably require hydroponic food growing but water from the ice could provide oxygen for breathing and hydrogen and oxygen for rocket fuel. A roof filled with water or ice would absorb most of the radiation. Unlike the imitation Mars habitat on Earth the crew should be fully busy with exploration and research on Mars so psychological issues might be reduced.
Kelly is the first author. Why did the video (twice) introduce them as "Zach and Kelly" rather than "Kelly and Zach"? And besides the front-on camera, the other camera showed him in the foreground and her in the background. Not good, Freethink.
![[Limbus Company - Teaser] Season5 - Oblivion](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8anKuEeZLeI/mqdefault.jpg)
Some lore about these two: their last names before they got married were Smith and Weiner, so they just combined the two into Weinersmith :D
i dare not say it.... must resist.... someone put the weiner in weinersmith............... aaaargh
seriously : great video; amazing to see that the drawings in SMBC look a lot like the real life people (plus a haircut is never a bad idea 🙂) good stuff guys!
WEINERSMITH😂😂😂
I didn't know SMBC guy looked like Veritasium Guy and Adam Savage had a baby
huh
This comment is GOLD 😆😆
F.. I can't unsee now
my god its so strange seeing them now after watching SMBC theater so long ago!!
No kidding!
Ah the good old days....
He looks taller in cartoonish
@@whatgamesweplay Cold, man! You're literally replying to her...
@@kellyweinersmith4743 i still go back and watch your stuff every so often. the date fight always cracks me up!
I didn't know SMBC man wore clothes.
Added in post
What is SMBC?
@@brucepeters4274 : SMBC = Saturday Morning Breakfast Cerial = a web comic created by Zac Weinersmith (he on the right).
That was a very enjoyable watch.
I really liked seeing the real people behind SMBC.
To be fair biosphere 2 had more of an issue with management/preparation that caused knock on effects
Biosphere 2 had not enough science in the mix, and too much concrete.
@@ptb1ptb2 It had too much science, and not enough engineering. Scientists are not trained as people who make things work. Before you were going to get any science out of it, it had to work first. Imagine if astronomers had been in charge of the Apollo vehicle development, instead of aerospace engineers.
And you don't think issues with management/preparation are important factors to learn about when sending people to live in space? That's half the point of the experiment, not the technical stuff (which Musk fanboys love) but the human stuff (which is much, much harder)
@@GraniteGeek please try again because I'm nowhere near understanding what your trying to argue. All I was saying is that management/preparation were the main issues not what happened in the dome. The experiment was considered useful and the building is still used today. It's the public that decided it was a failure. An experiment is rarely a eureka moment. Failure is expected, the goal is to gather data so we can be better in the future. My only gripe with this video was that they seemed to be sensationalizing the reported "failure". They used the experiment as an example of how we barely understand living in space/another world yet they mostly ignored all of the advancements that have been made in the past 50 years. The video itself was very one-sided
@@sciptick the issue really seemed more that they tried their hand at too many things at once. But to be fair they did gather a lot of useful data at the end
If 90% of people thought like this, we wouldn’t ever make any progress towards Mars at all.
Optimism is necessary for discovery.
Yet no matter how optimistic we can get there are logical issues that we must realize
@@JesbaamSanchez Right, it's also not helpful to be naive about it. We are not a few years or ten years away from colonizing Mars, as a certain famous entrepreneur used to say.
That does not follow. There is a logical progression to build our knowledge and capabilities. Without solving fundamental questions, you're simply doomed to fail.
There’s no planet B 🤔 huh
The new iPhone 16 : " it contains hydrocarbons" 😂😂😂
I love how these two are suddenly experts at whether or not we can colonize mars. Humans are adaptable and will make it happen. They are saying the obvious.
I get what they’re saying, but they are the same people that would say “we can’t cross the ocean, you can’t walk out there!”
Really not a fan of people like that. It will be hard, but everything we’ve ever done has been hard. Why stop now.
I love that, while the VO talks about how hospitable the earth is for humans, the clouds on screen spell out "FU".
Yeah they're right. We should just stay at home and never push the limits of what's possible.
Except that's not really how human history has played out is it?
They didn't mention that Biosphere 2 was externally powered.
Support. We are not even colonizing Antarctica. We have research stations there where we perform science. But there are no significant resources there that we need so we are not colonizing Antarctica. Extend that to Mars.
I love Zach and Kelly Weinersmith! Very talented, funny, and intelligent people and I'm so glad you guys had them on your channel.
Thanks!
Thank you! :)
It’s way past time NASA abandoned their focus on bespoke one off multi billion dollar mission every 10 years that come in way over budget with just enough capability to complete the mission goals.
We need to rethink space exploration missions into development of capabilities. Like let’s set up production lines to produce exploration space probes, rovers, quadcopters, icy moon melt probes etc. Then the per unit cost will go way down and each product line can be developed and improved over time. This approach is what spaceX is doing with starship.
Imagine if instead of one Europa Clipper we had a production line and produced one every year. They could be sent all over the solar system. Once we attempt to go through the ice of a moon like Enceladus the current approach will cost 10 billion and take 20 years. If instead we developed a series of melt probes each more capable and have a production line of them we can actually explore the outer solar system. Space stations, space telescopes, and moon and mars bases all the same -we need a capabilities based approach to all of it.
Otherwise, it’s like we’re building massive passenger airliners to just fly once and then throw it away. You’ll never have affordable global transportation and we’ll never any serious presence in outer space.
Refreshingly truthful. Great stuff !
Great perspective and insight! Found it depressive at first, but finally beautiful and rejoicing as an approach.
AI will colonize Mars before humans do.
There is a lot of talk about using robots to build the colonies on Mars and such, but the most advanced robot ever created is on Mars right now and what does it do? It licks rocks, drills out pieces and then poops those samples back onto the ground, to be picked up by another robot that hasn't been designed yet. It's going to take Humans in person to make colonies on Mars, just like on Earth and they are going to die there, just like on Earth, but on Mars, they may also end up being food. We need to spend about fifty years on the Moon, ironing out some of the kinks close to home, before we try Mars or even Space itself, like we are doing at the ISS. We could have started doing that, back in the 1970s but our Leaders preferred to make war and spent all our money on that, so we watch Super Hero movies and make our plans based on them, with super robots and super spaceships and supermen doing impossible things, and not Working Class people digging out underground habitats and making actual flying cars needed to get around toxic geography, keeping the sewage recycling going and all the things that make civilization happen back home.
Honestly, this has been so obvious all along. We already have a perfect planet. Why not just stop destroying it?
What we should be doing now is working on 0 gravity manufacturing, building teleoperated / autonomous lunar industry, mining asteroids, making low gravity rotating space habs for tourism and science and building powersats to provide energy to the earth. We aren’t ready for mars.
not to mention that plants like direct sunlight so growing behind glass is very difficult also.
I have your book in my TBR pile…I might have to move it up the queue!
Female experts getting often short changed and belittled on media, I really liked Kelly being titled the co-author of City on Mars and Zach just "Kelly's husband" :D
We're very close to being able to send intelligent machines to Mars. That still doesn't mean it's gonna be a good place for people, it's just not. But those machines are an expression of human society, them going there IS us going there. The upper atmosphere of Venus looks better, some nice floating cities.
Pretty sure it's fine for the tech bro VC ethical system.
Just so long as it's someone else's babies, of course.
While I think experimenting should continue, I reject sending big quantities of resources to mars.
If mars had an atmosphere , it lost it and will do so again (no van allen belt)
That's why we need to NUKE MARS!
Only 2 billion years minimum for teraforming .im sure elon will live that long
Having babies in space isn’t the same as having babies on mars!
These people see the problem in technology, I don't.
What I see as a problem is politics on planet Earth.
The construction of the 1st colonization ship would cost about 6 trillion € or $ (10% up or down). The problem is that right now even the US can't afford it. This means that a wider integration of states and their space programs is needed.
A change of strategy in conquering space is also needed.
You can think the other way around on the questions:
1. What do we want? Colonize the Milky Way galaxy
2..What is the 1st step to do this? To colonize Alpha Centauri.
3. What is the 1st step to do it? To learn how to colonize another planet in the Solar System.
4. How to colonize another planet in the Solar System? Colonizing another planet in the solar system has no advantages if the planet is not terraformed.
5. How to terraform a planet? Ships need to be built to produce energy and tow asteroids.
6. What is the cheapest way to produce ships? By mining and manufacturing parts in space.
7. How to mine in space? We need a mining-processing ship that can protect the human crew outside the Earth's magnetic field. To become completely self-sufficient in space (80%) we need 6 such ships (together they make one colonization ship for Alpha Centauri.) and it costs 6 trillion.
Any more questions? I think he basically said everything.
Wow Zach is looking great, nice haircut
but who said that it would happen in months. it will take years of research which is why we need a moon base, and the sooner we start the better
Hey, it was called "Biosphere 2" for a reason
Breaking news. We had no idea until now.
Yeah, we should go when it's easy.
This is nothing short of AWESOME!
could the information density be any lower? First two minutes was just people yapping on about how unhospitable/dangerous/strange space is, without any examples. Downvoted.
It’s not A vs B. Many of these problems are solved by actually going and doing it. Having children in low (not micro) gravity seems more moral than having children in a war torn starving country.
I will smoke that space weed in my lifetime by any means necessary
If people were always so pessimistic, we would never have explored space in the first place, nor would we have reached places like the North Pole or the top of Mount Everest. There will be a lot of hurdles along the way, but that's part of exploring. You cannot prevent everything upfront. Yes, some people will die. A lot of things will go wrong, but I'm afraid we don't have 10 lifetimes. When you consider the geopolitical tensions, global warming, the risk of economic and global instability, these will definitely halt these extremely long-term commitments. We need to go. Now. So that conscious life can survive for the long term.
@MrNielsify They're speaking of colonization. We can explore, now. What they're saying is that we are incapable of colonization now and for the foreseeable future. It's not that "some people will die", but that _nobody_ is able to live off Earth as a colonist or settler until we solve some hard problems.
The problem with colonizing the moon or mars is once that is started, you are looking at a planetary commitment to continue to send parts and supplies for the foreseeable future because either one of those planets cannot replace all of the needed parts.
If JFK had said, "Mars" instead of "Moon", we would probably already be on Mars. Why? Because... there was a generation of brave and brazen test pilots along with battalions of sliderule-packing Boomers, all of which had a uniquely aggressive and fearless work ethic. They pressed ahead with a "no-matter-what" attitude... solving shitwaves of seemingly-impossible problems while mostly using their own heads as the computing power.
Going to the moon was brutally expensive and complex thing done at the time. Mars is 150M miles away. The moon is just .225 away. And Mars has a more complex orbit.
And really: what would be the dramatic PR moment of landing on Mars?
Its A) we sent a robot there.
Or B) we sent humans there. To die. Horribly.
AND if we went to Mars and not the moon then the Soviets would have landed there while we studying Mars.
It's easy to point out problems, especially when you're making money from it, what's hard is making solutions.
"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..."
But yeah, these two and everyone else in the comments are definitely smarter than all those NASA scientists. 😂
Dang. all those trillions we gave to the mRnaBros. might have been spent on real useful stuff. what happened?
"Weinersmith"... Deep breaths.... you're an adult....
Maybe due to the pic for the video on SMBC, i expected Zach to sound like Luke McGregor, and then Kelly to sound like Celia Pacquola.
Rosehaven in Space!
this narrators is like nails on a chalkboard, guy loves the sound of his own voice lmao
Actually, I am only mildly fond of the sound of my own voice. But I LOVE the sound of nails on chalkboards!
This feels profoundly condescending and unscientific. But hey, it has an audience. Kind of like Kurzgesagt.
249th to comment.
Even Galileo Galilei had critics, The space community has more balls than the Critic Community. This factor is more than enough to turn the tide in our favor.
I like these two. 🥸🥸
AI is going to take over soon and end humanity, make robots, so point is moot. 🤣
but who is talking about sending 10,000 people to space. I feel like they should've interviewed real scientists about it
... is Musk trying to make a space Rhodesia?
... are RACE hustlers all like you?
if an asteroid were to hit the earth in 30 years time, we would be ready by 5 years. miss me with the bs
Mars gonna have USA open border policy problemo solved
People have survived for very long periods in space already. Make a larger version of spacelab as compartmentalized, concentric, shielded, rings to produce artificial gravity. We are already experimenting on babies on Earth: barely tested vaccines, bioengineered foods, attempts at cloning, gender surgery, etc… I can’t imagine space would be worse. And if you are worried about babies in space, then send single-sex crews or only sterilized astronauts. Fifteen years ago I might’ve volunteered for such a mission even knowing it might very well be one-way. I’d consider moving into a Biosphere on Earth this year if it existed!
I'm interested what your definitions of "space" and "long periods" are. The ISS is still within earth's magnetosphere. And even these pinnacles astronauts, pinnacles of man, with proper exercise, are still losing 1% bone density in their hips every month. These are really difficult problems that will take a lot of engineering to solve, and are not going to be solved in our lifetimes and probably not our children's, or our children's children.
One of the other big points is how hostile space travel is, and how poorly communicate and understood this is by the ley-person. You say you would've volunteered but I highly doubt that were you told that there's a decent chance you'd lose your fingernails on a space walk, or that hot sauce would be the most flavorful food you'd be eating. It's a really shitty time and this is only scratching the surface.
Lmao, so much stupid.
Gravity ring don't work like in movie, their a reason why we don't have some yet.
We don't test on baby, every vaccine is tested and approved, every vaccine work, that why you're not in a iron lung, nobody perform "gender surgery" on baby you creep.
Long term effect on heath still happen even if you send only dudes, we're not immune to mental health effect, radiation and regolith.
You wouldn't have a chance to be part of that one way ticket fantasy, we don't send transphobe idiot into space.
LOL we do heart transplants and you are worried about "gender surgery", whatever that is.
If Musk actually takes all conspiracy-minded bigots with himself to Mars, I'll happily pay for it.
@@Gutsquasher you underestimate the advances we are going to make in the next 50 years
“Very long periods” ≠ living permanently and exclusively on Mars
I'm going to say this before I even watch the video and then I'm going to watch the video. Why are they trying to colonize on another planet and they not doing well on this planet?
Colonizing the Moon or Venus would be so much easier i dont understand the obsession with Mars
Mars, despite its challenges, is the closest candidate to Earth in our solar system with the potential for liquid water and a more moderate temperature range. It also has a day-night cycle similar to Earth's, which could be easier to adapt to for humans. While the Moon and Venus might be easier to reach in terms of distance, the harsh environments they present make Mars a more realistic option for long-term human habitation, at least with current technology.
Venus isn't even a conteneder for colonization. It is way outside of bounds for what is doable. The moon is a mixed bag: It is really close, so all of the resupply is easier. The sharp, destructive moon dust on the other hand is a big problem.
@@dougperrins8716 Venus is the one you would have floating towns on blimps and helicopters.
I think these people underestimate Elons plans. He already has answers to most of there problems. And that’s with current tech; and things that he has done already. I don’t think it will be perfect but it’s def closer than they think. People will die but lots of people die on oil fields, oil rigs in the middle of oceans, building construction, and dam construction. That’s just one of the cost for progress. Scientists disappoint me so much these days. Science use to push they boundaries and create now realities. We for get that E=MC2 wasn’t a real thing. We forget that Newtons laws were hated! We can’t be afraid to be wrong because if we did that the pass 1000 years we wouldn’t be where we at now.
@marcuscoward1158 Musk doesn't have actual factual answers in this regard. He has untested ideas. Most of those ideas are wrong and will fail. Throwing money and smart people at problems will take time. The Weinersmiths have researched the issues for space colonization and say it's a hard problem that will not be solved in a half century. Given Musk's history of overly optimistic predictions and claims, and overpromising tech solutions, why would you think that Musk has "answers to most of these problems"?
Elon can't even plan a truck.
Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make.
Love SMBC. I still hope that Musk makes it to Mars.
I just want healthcare. 🤣😂
😂😂😂
Facts
Let the rich folks leave so we can rebuild the earth. During the pandemic, the air and ecosystem has never been fresher.
@@SetZek Misanthropy, it's a HIT!!!
Bioshphere was a success. It successfully showed how bad humanity would get messed up.
We always mess up initially. But always persist. Biosphere is a good learning experience imo. It’s just as valuable to learn how not to do something and biosphere is a classic example.
@TheLYagAmi Exactly.
Biosphere was a huge success by my estimate.
Gotta learn to crawl before you can walk.
One example was 'trees don't have wind so they don't grow specific roots to prevent from tipping over'
Yay. We now know we need to push baby trees around every once in a while. Glad we know that now instead of on Mars.
@@TheLYagAmiYou formulate a good example of survivor bias. Those who mess up and those who survive are not the same. So please, after you ...😅
Learning how to live together, "On Earth", without destroying the earth and each other will take much too long (if ever).
We'll all die on what's left of earth before we learn how to live in space. :-(
We've lasted hundreds of thousands of years precisely because we've gotten progressively less bad at that over time. There isn't much that could plausibly kill *all* humans - not even humanity itself.
That said it is a real problem for colonizing other planets. It's not just an engineering problem; it's a political science problem as well.
What everyone forgets: A colony is only a colony if it is self sustaining and independent (otherwise it's just an outpost), which means the population there will have to procreate. But only the first generation will be there out of free will. Children born there will be slaves of Mars or whatever they were born on. Growing up under a dome in low gravity, perhaps never able to visit earth, no free choice of profession - because everyone in the colony is needed for it's maintenance, no traveling, no free choice of partners, probably even genetically modified, also against their will.
Who wants to do that to their children? And if someone does, do you think these children will feel as part of humanity?
More likely they will at some point take matters in their own hands, separate from earth and see themselves as a different species, with no love for those who condemned them to this life.....
After reading your comments I think perhaps colonize mars by robots with artificial inteligence would be a better choice
But what if robots see themselves as a different species and seperate from the earth and human being?
Yes, socially, psychologically impossible. You’re not getting ME off this beautiful planet! I’ll die with and for it if I have to. 😅
"Who wants to do that to their children?"
Colonists. Your inability to grasp that people do not all think like you will not make everyone think like you.
It is as basic as, is there a dentist? Who will take care of your cataracts?
You could look at it as "slaves to mars" or you could look at it as "a higher calling and a true purpose". We have so many suicidal guys in modern society because nothing they do matters. On a mars settlement? EVERYTHING they would do would matter. It would be a hard life, but a fulfilling one.
Yeah, mars colonisation by humans doesn't seem likely for a good while but I do hope to see some sort of restoration and maybe like introduction of BGA or archaebacteria ecosystem or some other very fundamental autotroph in the hierarchy of ecosystem, basically trace the evolution of life here on earth, that is certainly bound to kickstart the purification of land and air and eventually even dampen the hostilities of the environment.
I love the book and I agree with it but it did come off as a lil bit defeatist (even though it wasn't meant that way I'm sure).
Chaos and adversity breeds innovation; i don't think the unforgiving situation is something that should deter us, we always knew Mars was always hostile, we're just learning the magnitude. It is just one of the those efforts compounding over generation so our progeny can benefit, even though we may not for the most part.
Yeah, all I'm seeing are engineering challenges we can't yet meet. Just give us time. I see the first step as intelligent machine gardeners tending terraforming algae. Makes way more sense to go underground than live on the surface anyways. The only way we will learn how to terraform planets is to get started on it. In the process we will learn more about managing this one. We need to move industries off planet. Humans can stay here, but we need to begin the space expansion for sure. Our power is growing too large for this planet.
@@HoboGardenerBen yeah, exactly. we should be friends, we'll fix Mars together.
@@deepmalyadas6585 Pretty sure we are friends who simply don't know each other :)
@@HoboGardenerBen hey man, you got a discord ?
A great video about a great book!
Glad you enjoyed the video and the book! :)
My assumption with the current discourse around space colonization is that it’s really a trojan horse for mining colonies. People risking their lives in a hostile environment solely to enrich a person far above their status has been done before.
Well, if we're going to be experimenting on babies at scale, Elon seems to making babies at scale....
it feels like everything here is just a reaction to elon musk but no one is saying it because they don't know anything else anyway lol
he rlly has been one of the best and worst things for the space industry - more so peoples reactions to his attention seeking behavior - its a negative feedback loop for 130 IQ midwits
Then send him first
@@travishylton6976 Pretty sure that's his plan. I have no issues with MarsMusk, though I feel bad for his kids, whichever planet they're trapped on.
That's why he's started giving them serial numbers instead of names.
Lol
This guy immediately lost al credibility when he said iPhones are made of hydrocarbons.
I call BS, I saw Matt Damon do it a few years back.
I think it would be better to build space habitats in orbit such as an O'Neill cylinder, mining asteroids and lunar regolith to use as raw materials. The cylinder would spin to generate simulated gravity and could fit an entire city's population inside it and still have room for some crops to produce food and recycle oxygen.
And by "closest thing" of course you mean that it wasn't really sealed, they had to release CO2 --- but you're right, they should have tried again, we can do it for shrimp, I have an ecosphere I bought at the smithsonian, we can learn to do it for people (and how many other organisms? A billion?)
What really happened was they had to inject huge tanker loads of oxygen because curing concrete turns out to absorb a huge amount of it, which nobody knew before. So it was enough of a success that it taught that.
The real thing that made it a failure was that they had scientists treating it as if it were legitimately an experiment, and not engineers and agronomists trying to _make it work,_ first. If the first session had been treated as a shakedown cruise, nobody would have treated injecting oxygen as something that compromised the whole project. That the crew relationships were so poorly managed didn't help any. So ultimately it was a management failure. But that should not have been fatal. There has to be more to the failure, somehow really about money.
The biggest problem I have with biosphere is that it really isn't a good analog for a space colony. With biosphere, they were trying to literally recreate the whole Earth system. In other words, they wanted a perfectly balanced mini-biosphere that could be sustained with nothing more than sunlight. They didn't want CO2 scrubbers cleaning their air or filters cleaning their water; they wanted to do it like the Earth does, biologically. But there is zero reason a Mars colony has to operate in such a way. Sure, do as much with biological systems as you can. If most of your oxygen can be produced by the plants you eat; that's a very efficient system. But there's nothing that says you have to do everything biologically. I heat my home with a furnace; I don't keep tons of livestock in my home and try to heat it all by their body heat. If a Mars colony needs some CO2 scrubbers, that doesn't make the concept nonviable. We don't need to be able to build perfect self-sustaining biospheres before we can colonize Mars.
@@TanyaLairdCivil Why shouldn't we, though? I mean, colonizing Mars is kind of stupid anyway, if we're going to do it, might as well do it right, and that means figuring out how to make sure it's survivable if something goes wrong with a resupply mission. There's no urgency to colonize Mars RIGHT NOW, we've got time, and even if we're wrong about having time because we're going to blow ourselves up, if a Mars colony isn't able to sustain itself that won't matter, it'll be gone too.
Let's do the smart thing and keep sending cool robots to Mars for the next few hundred years, it makes more sense than sending humans to try to live there. And if we decide we just have to send humans, send them to visit, like we did with the moon.
As long as humanity doesn't kill itself off, we'll get there eventually. We're just not ready yet.
"I heat my home with a furnace" is a perfect example of just how flawed the idea is. A furnace isn't going to happen on Mars. There's not enough oxygen to be able to afford to burn it, there's no fossil gas because there's no fossils. At the very least, we need to advance to the point that we don't do that on earth, because burning fossil gas is screwing up the environment here, and we don't have to have 100% perfect control of the climate here, on Mars we would have to. There's a lot of research that needs to happen first, most of it on earth, some of it in low earth orbit space stations.
Some very good points for SANCTUARY EARTH 🫶
yes industry will be moved to space
I get what they're saying - but they are lacking in problem-solving mindset. Their technical arguments are like saying "you can't live in Earth orbit - it's too deadly". Except when posed as a challenge rather than as insurmountable problems, engineers quickly found answers to pretty much all the technical problems (some of which weren't implemented due to cost, e.g. a big rotating station to simulate gravity) and got humans to orbit in just a few years, and on to the moon in less than a decade more.
You don't get hard things done by waiting until they're easy - the problems get easy only by working hard to solve them. You go for the goal and solve the problems as you go.
Consider their "there's no way to make it pay for itself" argument. Of course there is - Mars has an enormous future value for humanity, and therefore has immediate speculative value for long term investors (and space fans), providing we're willing to establish a legal framework that enables tapping that value. Easy? No. Possible if someone works hard at it? Yes.
They're specifically talking about space colonization, not just hanging out in orbit or visiting another world. We'll likely have a moon base sometime in the next thirty years, but it won't be self-sustaining.
What they're pointing out is that there is an awful lot of groundwork that needs to be done first before we can live in space without needing constant resupply from Earth - enough that it's not going to be possible any time soon. If we want to see it happen, we need to get busy.
"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it."
It might indeed turn out that Mars or any sort of off-Earth colonization simply cannot be done. That's no reason not to give it a shot anyway. It's not like the attempt detracts at all from what's goings on down here on Earth. The US spends more on McDonalds than on NASA.
@@jeffspaulding9834 It appears we agree - waiting until it becomes "easy" is the wrong approach, we need to do the hard work that will get us there. Because that is where they end up - we just wait 100 years and new technologies will make it much easier. That might happen - IF we ever developed those new technologies.
Note that they could probably have written "A City on the Moon" and likely would have come to similar conclusions. And the moon is quicker/easier to get to, but that makes it far less likely to focus onlong term self-sufficiency technologies. By default, it'll likely remain more like the bases in Antarctica. And for that matter it might simply be abandoned when we realize "we've done all the important research and it's SO expensive to maintain and supply" and "huh - we can mine water for rocket propellant, but the only place we have to go in space is the moon...so if we stop going to the moon...we don't need that propellant!". The main counter to the latter arguments might be a military argument - not the best basis for establishing human presence in space.
I think you might have misinterpreted what their saying. They never said don’t work on going and building a place on mars. They actually said the opposite. Let’s work on fixing the potential problems now so that when we get there it’ll be easier on us.
@@candaceforeman640 No, pretty sure the conclusion in the book was more like 'there's no reason not to just wait until tech is better.' That's been the argument for about 30 years now, maybe 50. Only recently, mostly SpaceX actually working toward going to Mars, have we gotten reusable rockets that start to make the trip affordable. That is the only model we've seen work for space. They don't object to that idea, but it isn't what they propose as being sensible.
They are clearly an awesome couple.
ah, yes, don't do something because it might be hard. Pass on these two.
Really not what they are saying though is it.
Perhaps we should try to put just the basic bits of life as we know it there first, and see if it can survive and evolve to conditions on Mars. Some hardy bacteria! Create a small bunker to give it the best possible chance before it gets out into the open.
more like adapt evolution could take 1,000-1,000,000 of years
Nobody wants to live to Mars because it will be easy
I bought and read Mary Roach's book, "Packing For Mars" several years ago. That alone convinced me I didn't have any business wanting to go off planet (minus my age), much less wanting to live on another planet. It's time to realize that Earth is our species' home and that it's way past time to clean it up and save it and ourselves.
yes by moving industry off planet etc - the two are in no way exclusive but mutually beneficial in development - this is just plainly obvious
"Earth first, we spoil other planets later", seen on Sumerian clay plates.
Note to self: Don't invite Weinersmiths to my baby lab.
An infamous quote from "For All Manking": Progress is never free, there is always a cost.
literally just class antagonisms - ad astra
Great video, and I'm glad to see some common-sense discussion of how difficult this is, and how the universe is anything _but_ "fine-tuned" for life. Also the two of you are much better- looking than Zach draws you. Phew.
Ha! Thanks. I think he also often draws me as quite grumpy, which I don't think fits with my personality in real life. But maybe Zach disagrees. :)
@@kellyweinersmith4743 And your kids! Always glaring at dad.
That's the thing, Human redemption isn't for Mars, Stay on Earth.
The Universe is decaying and it's hostile to us, humans. Stay safe
Jesus Loves you.
they feel like characters from an episode from "You"
The worst thing about Biosphere was that Steve Bannon survived it.
Better to save our own earth to be always liveable
Colonization wont happen in our life time but a visit and landing to mars? Yea definitely its just when
I see the future of humanity in large thickly shielded rotating habitats, not patches of dirt at the bottom of big gravity wells
Colonize? Not yet. Explore and put boots down? Yup
I always find it necessary to remind people the the word expert comes in to parts ex is a hasbeen and spert is a drip under pressure! with proper understanding less people will make claim to be one! although sceptism is good!
Ant ArktiKa would be way easier.
The answer is always robots
Robot gardeners + slow adaption plus a little gene editing + shotgun approach (just take every seedling species and just plop it on mars) and see what happens. There is a chance. Self terra forming ecosystem.
Maybe let's master gravity, fusion and radiation sheilding first, so that it all becomes cheaper and safer to send and land megatons. Meanwhile, let's get to manageable numbers here on Earth, whether by our own choosing or by natural (increasing) disasters. Maybe living to 120 isn't really necessary or desirable.
The best environment on Mars, perhaps near a buried glacier near the bottom of Mariner Valley for water supplies and maximum atmospheric pressure, is much worse than the worst environments on Earth but it could be survivable for a research crew for a limited period. Toxins in the soil would probably require hydroponic food growing but water from the ice could provide oxygen for breathing and hydrogen and oxygen for rocket fuel. A roof filled with water or ice would absorb most of the radiation. Unlike the imitation Mars habitat on Earth the crew should be fully busy with exploration and research on Mars so psychological issues might be reduced.
Kelly is the first author. Why did the video (twice) introduce them as "Zach and Kelly" rather than "Kelly and Zach"? And besides the front-on camera, the other camera showed him in the foreground and her in the background. Not good, Freethink.
It’s sucks there, it’s not even free, and we’re going to be drinking each others recycled urine…. Sounds just like New York City?!