Mars isn’t a good place to colonize.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 окт 2024
- Join my Discord server here: / discord
Elon Musk and SpaceX plan to have 1 million people on Mars by 2050. But going to Mars isn't easy. There are a lot of problems we need to solve if we want to colonize Mars.
In fact, colonizing Mars is just a bad idea in its entirety.
If you enjoyed, please like and subscribe
footage in this video taken using Space Engine
![The Insane Science of Neutron Stars [4K]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qX6h72IyKSo/mqdefault.jpg)
“occupy mars” mfs when they lose their minds from being stuck in a spaceship for a year before even getting to mars
This isn’t really a good point tho since you’d be on a ship with many other people and you’d probably have things like games and movies to keep you and the crew entertained during the whole voyage. Not to mention there’s many people who are stuck on ships for long amounts of time here on earth and they’re fine.
how do you know what the crewed version of starship is going to be like? the only think we’ve seen so far is a prototype that can only carry 40 tons of starlink satellites.
@@clementine_awesomeness I never said anything about starship. Starship would not be able to go all the way to mars on its own. I was thinking a large spaceship to move crew to mars, which is most realistic.
@@clementine_awesomenessIt can't even carry that, it barely got to suborbit with no payload and just spun out of control back to Earth. It's a ridiculous waste of money
@@Sizifus Your statement shows you know very little about rocket development. Scott Manely has pretty good videos on the subject here on RUclips.
You forgot that Mars could one day be a prison colony. You know like Australia :)
I thought about that many times. Where do you put a group of people that repeatedly start wars, and disturb the peace? We're trying to live with nuclear weapons, and we don't need new wars in the 21st and 22nd centuries, while some people live in the 7th century and ignore how dangerous nuclear weapons are, deciding to start wars of world conquest, others think its the 19th or 20th centuries and want world revolution and don't let minor points such as the extinction of the human race stand in the way of their military ambitions. So all these wannabe Napoleons, or Messiahs need to be put someplace where the rest of the human race will be safe from their machinations, maybe Mars is that place!
than a teleportation research between fobos and damos. than we will find hell and demons will arise, and only one man can stop the demon invasion.
@@thomaskalbfus2005 Oh I know! In the ground. It's cheap, quick, and effective.
And change the name of mars to australia
@@thomaskalbfus2005Euthanasia without consent
Marscels seething and coping rn
Moonchads stay winning
🤣
I wish I could carve these words onto a stone tablet and send them back in time to have people decipher it.
Currently moonmaxing
Mars is trash
I believe the effects of low gravity is more of a problem than people realise
I feel it’s mostly due to its assimilative tendencies
bones and muscle will be affected a lot
i disagree because i think it would be really fun to hop around everywhere
@smoceany9478 that's not the best argument, when your muscles and bones start weakening
@@kinggalactix you muscles and bones will be weakening while ill be hopping around everywhere, simple skill issue on your part
Mars seems like a miserable place.
so is literally every planet in the solar system besides earth
@@Funky-dude681 Not Titan i guess. It's thick atmosphere makes it reasonable to get a colony there. Then again it is very cold, we need habitats.
@@halit147 it takes 7 years to get there
@@Funky-dude681 For now yes, but there could be new developments of propulsion techniques and technologies to shorten the length
@@Funky-dude681 Venus is fine from 50 km up.
You forgot one very important thing. Mars has the ruins of ancient civilisation that would allow us to create portal technology to harvest energy straight from Hell.
Does the moon have that ? I don't think so
The moon is alive, though.
The moon has the monolith
The Moon is hollow.
YOU CANT JUST SHOOT HOLE IN TO THE SUFACE OF MARS
Um, what fiction are you reading from?
So mars would basically be the solar system equivalent of Antarctica
Lol I haven't caught up until the 7 minute mark until now
Nah
Even more hostile. At least Antarctica has air and a magnetosphere.
@@tonytaskforce3465 There are dangers in Antarctica that you will never face on Mars. For one thing, you won't get knocked over in a Polar Vortex, you won't face white out conditions on Mars, the day in most places on Mars is only 37 minutes longer than a day on Earth, not several months without sunlike during the winter.
Also remember the scene in the Martian where the Earth Return Vehicle had to take off to avoid being knocked down by a Martian dust storm on Mars? That actually can't happen on Mars, but it could happen in Antarctica, the wind is quite strong there and there is a full atmosphere of pressure there so the wind can blow things around and knock stuff down! As for the other planets in the Solar System, Mars is the best prospect for colonization, Venus would be hard, Mercury is hard to get to, Jupiter is far away.
@@thomaskalbfus2005 Mars is perfect to send cute little rovers and cool baby helicopters. However, if we want to go ahead with this, we should send all our billionaires and politician in first, just to make sure it's safe.
the low gravity environment on the moon would be perfect for manufacturing, and would have a real benefit for everyone on earth. as we offload our factories to the moon, we can preserve the biosphere on earth. furthermore, goods from the moon can be easily transported anywhere on earth very inexpensively. i agree that if we want to colonize mars, we need to have a strong manufacturing base on the moon
You would only be able to gain that benefit from locally mined resources, though. So any process which uses lots of water or other chemicals is a no-go. Lunar material exports would be very niche.
@@monkeysfromvenusYou can by using sealed habitats to protect the manufacturing process, then when it's out from the sealed environment, the products are sealed in protective cargo containers or boxes
@@FebiMaster That's not the point. Any sufficiently advanced manufacturing process involves a lot of steps with a large number of ingredients used in each. And most of these ingredients would not be available on the moon. Simply put: you won't be able to produce even basic steel, as enrichment process requires a lot of water, smelting requires carbon and oxygen, and steelmaking requires oxygen as well.
If we are talking about manufacturing of some kind of machinery from materials imported from Earth, then it would require a lot of oil product chemicals, which would have to be imported from Earth as well. Then what is the point of lunar manufacturing, if we can do that locally on Earth at a lower cost?
You said so many wrong things in one paragraph it’s crazy
@@monkeysfromvenusDoesn't the moon have a lot of water at the poles though?
We are still centuries away from building any form of self-sustaining colony outside of Earth, so I think avoiding extinction is a silly reason to explore space at the moment.
We should focus on our realistic capabilities right now, advancing our technology in the process and only once we're closer to that stage we should start worrying about potential for colonization.
That was my first thought when I heard about Musk's Mars plans
To be fair isnt mars’ proximity to the asteroid belt a bonus? Even if mars is a barren wasteland it could one day be an asteroid mining hub
after we settle the moon though
In that case Phobos or Deimos would fare better as mining and transport hubs between the Belt and Earth/Moon. Miniscule gravity, already in orbit, no atmosphere. The main advantage a Martian mining hub would have is easier access to water, and you can just drag some carbon asteroids into Martian orbit. An ice asteroid/comet too if you they get lucky enough
What no one seems to talk about is, we build a mars city but what are the martians gonna be doing? Just base subsistsnce farming in arcologies to not starve to death on the barren rock they've made their home? There is nothing there, on earth we dont just set cities up just anywhere, you dont see a thriving metropolis in the middle of the Sahara Desert or on Antarctica.
Life on a mars colony would be utterly miserable. Stuck underground, there is no prospects of doing anything but subsistance work, there is no future for those born there, they get to grow up in an inescapable hell they can't escape from knowing the only reason they were born there was to fufull the fantasy of human expantion by people living comfortably on earth.
Mars is full of carbon dioxide and water, making it easier to grow food in-situ compared to places like the Moon. People on Mars will do the same thing people on Earth do. Work, sleep, socialize, etc. Mars will have physicians, psychologists, scientists, engineers, architects, mining technicians, logistics coordinators, police, fitness trainers, lawyers, farmers, chefs, nutritionists, tour guides, artists, comedians, musicians, administrative personnel, etc.
Amen, praise the lord and pass the ammunition!
I think that colonies are not going to happen. We might get a base or two happening in on the Moon or Mars, but I think they will be largely manned by robots, especially after the first 'Titanic'-style disaster. The few Humans will need to be rotated in and out to stop them going mad.
@@SubtleHawk Mars is a desolation, worse than Tolkien's Mordor. Tiny amounts of water at the poles, no dirt, no air and enough hard radiation to fry you down to the cellular level in a few days. Forget about it.
Existing as a backup for when the inevitable 10 km asteroid smacks earth and makes human life impossible there. Are you dumb? Not listening to anything Elon has been saying?
@@SubtleHawk
I don't think you understand economics that well. The reason we have the normal lives we have in western countries is quite complex. Our service economies aren't a natural state of economics and can only exist due to a massive foreign underclass of workers that do the work that we don't that make society function.
A self sustaining mars would require most people to just be doing backbreaking farming just to not die. Getting constant shipments of supplies to alleviate that would be near impossible due to the distance and the cost would be immense, not made up by the non existent economic resources of mars.
Let me phrase this another way. If you had a city built in the middle of the Antarctica, completely cut off from wider society, forced to be self sustaining. Do you think it'd be thriving? You think it'd ever thrive? Or would life there be miserable and pointless?
It would, and settling Antarctica is orders of magnitude easier than mars with the same non existent gains.
Come on, we just need a bit of moss and a few cockroaches
Oh no, oh god, I know what you are talking about, we would make Mars worse by that
bruh, don't. It will make that wasteland even more uninhabitable
@@emojothejojoor just discover a renewable energy source wich is hotter than the sun
I've been thinking that on our way to colonize the solar system, We might just skip most of the inner solar system (aside from Asteroids) and go straight for the outer solar system.
If we need a huge space station just to get colonists to Mars, we might as well send them to the moons of the gas giants. Since I imagine they might be worth a lot more than Mars.
Especially Titan.
Titan is better yes
My alternative is just SEP tugs delivering NEA samples to a lunar gateway. Master self sufficiency there, only a couple of days from home, and you have a recipe to colonise the entire asteroid belt and all the icy moons and dwarf planets beyond.
We don't yet actually know how much gravity the human body needs for long term health. It is quite possible even Mars does not have enough in which case there is no other solid surface in the entire solarsystem that does, unless you want to brave the surface of Venus. So in any case we should resolve that question with some sort of spin gravity experiment nearer to home first.
My understanding is that by the time you get out there there's not much to be had by way of solar energy. If so, it'll have to wait for fusion to arrive. And, as usual, I am scratching my head for a reason to do it at all, unless it's to get there before the Russians/Chinese/Martians...
@@tonytaskforce3465 depending on what fuel the fusion reactors use, Jupiter and possibly the other outer planets would be a great source of Helium 3. In quantities found nowhere in the inner solar system, potentially allowing fusion power to become cheaper.
Edit: It also seems like at the very least out at Jupiter, Solar power is still technically possible.
You'd need much more or larger panels to make up for the dimmer sun, but it's still doable.
Same with photosynthesis. It's doable, but you'd need red LEDs in addition to the sun light.
It's only out at Saturn and beyond when fusion power becomes a requirement.
@@tonytaskforce3465 Its all academic at the moment, but I have wondered how (short of fusion powerplants that are still SF today) we could power colonies out there sustainably.
One possibility could be hydrogen bombs detonated deep under the ice. Maybe they melt down first like those europa probe ideas.
Another possibility on moons could be tidal forces. I did dig up some statistics on how many meters the ice flexes by on Enceladus. Come to think of it, Enceladus also has geysers from this flexing which implies energy to tap.
A third possibility could be electrodynamic tethers attached to moons as they move through Jupiter's magnetic field. I did manage to dig up some values on that as well at some point for the voltage difference per km of tether.
(I cant remember what the values were, just saying they are available with some googling)
You had me at "Elon Musk" and "bad idea". :-)
Video Idea: Best moons in the Sol system to set up bases on. I wish I could live in a time where there was more than just manned missions to the Moon and Mars.
#1 Earth's moon.
Great video! Relatively speaking, the moon is right in front of us lol… it’s the first next big thing. I’m confident Mars will be more important in space exploration later in the millennium but as you said focusing on the moon is much easier and with the same benefits, especially with the current difficulties of long flight times to Mars.
I think Mars would be as useful to a future world government for the next million years as North America is to the Spanish back in the day, basically an afterthought in the colonization game with just a few stragglers and prisoners going there without any choice on the matter. The Moon is just that ideal for getting shit out to the rest of the solar system.
My fear concerning space travel is that I'm not convinced that there will be human rights in space. I imagine a dystopian solar system where space expansion is driven by corporate profit motive. The people who mine the asteroid belt could just be indentured slaves who live in cramped casket-like craft and sattelite stations where minimal expense is put towards their living conditions, etc.
We are CURRENTLY living in a solar system where the only thing driving our species is corporate profit, with minimal consideration to our living conditions. What else is new?
So... Earth but worse.
@@kintustis I hate to tell ya but it can get so much worse, especially in space if corporate interests hold a monopoly on interplanetary travel. However well or poorly they are upheld, at least many governments on Earth have some concept of human rights and enfranchisement. Whatever law enforcement and regulation there is on Earth will most likely not be able to extend its reach out to the asteroid belt and so on. It will be the ultimate international waters, where ANYTHING is permissible.
@@kintustis It can still get so much worse
@@Easttowest45 it certainly will.
I made a riddle for Mars =)
I am the fourth, though not the lastly,
In a battle, or a war, I conquer vastly;
When you glare at me in my great cold,
through the great black,
I am sanguine; and I’m staring back.
What am I?
Thank you! So much misinformation about Mars. Almost every discussion about terraforming fails to address the lack of a magnetosphere.
A good video on terraforming mars was made by a guy known as Kurzgezagt. He addresses the magnetosphere problem.
THANK YOU!!! I keep saying before we colonize other planets we need to practice on the moon first! Get the feel of being away from earth but at a reasonable distance! Not to mention it would be beneficial economically unlike a dead world like mars. I do still want mars to become a new home for us someday, but not before the moon.
Yeah, Mars is just too far, signals sent there take 15-25 minutes to reach Mars but for the Moon, it just takes 1.28 seconds
Magbe it would be the funny to destroy ourselves
the funny
"I completely believe humanity will become a space civilization"
At the rate it's going humanity is not surviving the next 150 years
Great video tho
You seriously think humanity is so stupid that it will go extint in just 150 years????
Nah id give it only 60
We should be trying to colonize Venus first. It’s closer and the cloud city colonies wouldn’t have the low gravity problem like mars.
Venus would be a lot more harder than mars to colonize.
The surface is hot enough to melt led.
Just colonize the moon.
It could easily make a nice vacation spot
@@Mewdo45 Did you seriously not see "cloud city" in the other person's comment?
You missed one obvious point. Mars colonists will be completely dependent on technology. And all equipmnent requires repairs and spare parts. Without them colonists would simply die.
The moon does have a rather annoying lack of an atmosphere which makes landing simple but expensive and means absolutely zero protection from space weather for anything at the surface. Even Mars' 1 kPa atmosphere is leaps and bounds better at protecting its surface.
The moon also has the issue of spending 2 weeks out of every month in darkness, and 2 weeks in constant daylight on a surface blacker than a freshly paved parking lot.
We also don't know the longterm effects of the solar radiation outside of Earth's magnetosphere... how detrimental is it? We're talking potentially huge increases in cancer, CNS problems, DNA degradation, birth defects, sterility, etc. Is it ultimately fatal to colonies? We don't really know yet.
This is already a thing. Even within the relative radiation safety of close Earth orbit for relatively short missions compared to colonization, astronauts already experience measurable somatic mutations in their hematopoietic stem cells.
We do not currently believe that Mars has a full magnetic field. If it has one, it is so weak that we can't conclusively prove it's existence. We don't even know the radiation levels there longterm.
The Moon has as high as 150x earth's radiation levels: 60 microsieverts of radiation every hour. (For comparison, uninhabited Pripyat in the Chernobyl exclusionary zone currently has just under 1 microsieverts per hour.)
Space is very dangerous to us.
Honestly, I think Europa will be a major contender in the future, a moon that potentially has a warm water center is much more feasible than Mars as a colonization location. We can start development of underwater bases here on earth without ever even leaving to set that up. If we get affordable transportation in space, and a way to drill to the water of Europa, we could be able to set up underwater living areas there.
Which would be underground for extra protection, the downside being difficulty of access, virtually limitless water source, the downside being water pressure, and could also be a major research point for the conditions of life in the universe.
europa is massively irradiated on the surface and ganymede and callisto also have subsurface oceans and water, with much more hospitable surface conditions. On europa if you were standing on the surface you’d be dead in a matter of days even with radiation protection, that doesn’t happen on ganymede or callisto
europa is the second worst galilean moon after io
Properly colonizing Mars is impossible *right now.* We still need to advance as a species before we can even dream of making permanent settlements on Mars, but that doesn't mean it'll never happen. There are steps we need to take before we can do it.
very cool video cheers from Toronto
While I have long agreed that colonising Mars wont happen for economic reasons I would still count Mars's atmosphere as an advantage. On the Moon the lack of weathering from wind means the dust is razor sharp and electrostatically charged, it's a nightmare to engineer around. The atmosphere on Mars also filters out a decent amount of space radiation and meteorites.
I could see Mars as not just a scientific and extreme tourism outpost like Antarctica is today, but also a minor mining outpost like Svalbard is, too. It's a decent prospect for bulk materials mining for in-space applications.
I think mars just serves as the next frontier for humanity after the moon.
Been watching a few of these vids now & these are very well put together. With that said, yeah, Mars isn't something we should focus on too hard as a species. The other advantage of the Moon is that it is essentially the ultimate training ground for long term space habitation. In addition to the Moon, we should really be focusing on cislunar space as well. You can set up all the neccessary infrastructure there in addition to the Moon & pretty much speedrun the colonization of the entire solar system from there as instead of sending a few small capsules, you can start seriously entertaining the notion of sending several fleets of multi-megaton freighters to anywhere in the solar system. The scientific potential would be immense as well as not only do missions become cheaper & more prolific but also can increase significantly in scale.
The colonization of space has the potential to be like a snowball. Slow start sure but once it gets going, it will fucking get going.
Imagine the prices of GPU if we could mine the moon. It will be hella affordable.
I'd never want to live on any extraterrestrial place, Moon, Mars, asteroid or space station. Imagine spending the rest of your life indoors or in a spacesuit! I think these places will be beneficial as sources for mining raw materials like metals and other things, manufacturing sites, power generation, and especially as bases for scientific research of all sorts. But who would really want to spend more than a year or two cooped up inside a moon-base or spaceship? Does anyone really want to live full-time in Antarctica (where at least you can go outside and breathe) or under the ocean surface? I don't think so. A long visit for a productive reason, or even tourism, yes, a lifetime, no.
Earth: Europe
Moon: North and South America
Mars: Antarctica
europa: asia
You would not believe me, but this is exactly how I have divided moon and planets of the solar system for colonization, I ranked them as Antarticas, Americas and Australias.
I basically make the cross connection between colonisation here on earth and colonization of solar system and space.
My model was that are three types of places in the solar system based upon the places here on earth:-
1.) First is antarticas, which are just barren wasteland with hostile environment with no point of colonization like Venus.
2.) Second is, Australias which are places which are mostly like antarticas but with some point of Interest, where colonies could thrive.
Think of Australia, most of the Australia is barren empty hostile wasteland but there is some level of good green living space in mostly Eastern and South-west coasts which is why they were colonise by the British, where vast majority of the population is concentrated. Now compared it with Mars, Mars is exactly like Australia, a empty barren hostile wasteland but there is some point of interest in the martian poles because of water polar icecaps. My guess is that martian colonies would be like Australia, a few million people living in a handful of cities located in either of the martian poles.
3.) Third, Americas:-
These are places full of resources which are perfect for human habitation and mining operations, these are moon of the gas giants like Titan, a place full of hydrocarbons and water ice.
According to my Model Mercury and Venus are Antarticas, Mars is like Australias, and moons of gas giants are like the Americas for us.
Mars should be more like a tourist spot, a refueling station where spacecraft would refuel in Orbit, hotels on surface and Orbit for people to stay, a comman center for mining operations in astroids belts, a junction between inner and outer solar system.
Therefore, in my opinion, We should colonise and bulid cities for millions of people to open up a new frontier in the outer solar system.
The issue is that, in Solar system, Antarticas and Australias are closer while Americas are really far away.
I am planning to create 4th category Africa's for moon and similar places:-
Places that aren't really great for human habitation but are great for minerals for mining industries like Ceres or Moon.
Earth - Eurasia
Luna - Greenland
Mars - the Americas
Venus - Australia
The problem with terraforming is that while it's possible, the physics do allow for it, the resources required are monumentally massive on a scale most human beings cannot comprehend.
Just imagine how much atmosphere is above your local city, even if it's a small town. Imagine all the resources needed to terraform that alone, now do this with an entire planet.
It has a wrecked dynamo, end of story
There is the show For All Mankind that tackles the challenges you listed of colonizing the Moon and then Mars. Especially how to make Mars a sustainable and profitable colony for Earth.
yeah and the only way FAM found to make mars profitable was to have an asteroid flyby it lol
which isn’t gonna happen irl
they had to put so many unrealistic things into it just to make mars profitable (finding an incredibly lucky underground aquifer, the asteroid flyby, a whole space race so people would even have the motivation, and people searching for life)
none of that is gonna happen irl except for probably the life part, and that needs a scientific base not a colony
FAM literally couldn’t find a way to make mars profitable so had to make stuff up lol
(not to mention the asteroid flyby was going to be more profitable if it went to earth. This is the reason i stopped liking this show. sending the asteroid to earth was the objectively better option, it would’ve been faster to mine and benefitted more people, and much cheaper and easier)
Planetes does it better, the moon is colonized and they build a giant corporate ship on the moon to skip mars and go the juipter to study.
@@Kyplanet893 yeah of course some of the stuff that happened in the show couldn’t have happened in real life. But like any alt history show, it just presenting one hypothetical possibility. Even if it’s a little unrealistic with what it depicts, seeing those possibilities is still fun.
When it comes to where the asteroid was headed, I don’t think the show was disagreeing with you that it would have benefited people quicker, but the characters clearly did a selfish thing that in that universe will ultimately push humanity into colonizing more of space in the long run. This likely isn’t this colonization will happen in our world but that’s okay.
@@alex30425 Calling FAM “a little unrealistic” is a huge understatement. It is super unrealistic. The fantastical alternate history, the nuclear shuttle, the H3 mining, and its portrayal of mars colonization it is all wildly unrealistic.
The only plausible thing that happened in the show was when Apollo 11 almost crashed when landing on the moon and even that was a stretch. The rest is more akin to historical fantasy than genuine alt history.
FAM’s relationship with realism is that of an artistic aesthetic and nothing more.
So, why would space stations far away from planets be built in the first place?
space stations are not built far away from planets, the ISS is only 400Km up, barely noticeable over the scale of the earth.
One good reason I could see for colonizing Mars is just the experience. Like obviously we aren't going to be sending humans to any other star system any time soon, but in the far future, it could be a good way to train astronauts about landing on a planet. Not just physically landing a craft on another planet, but everything that comes along with exploration and setting up a base all by yourself. Sure the moon can arguably be used for that, but that's closer to earth and you'll have it in the back of your head that help is right there if anything goes wrong.
earth is not "right there" if anything goes wrong, it's 400,000 Km away.
this exact same experience is already achieved by camping in remote regions; deserts, rainforests, mountains, arctic etc.
@@afgor1088 "Right there" in terms of distances in space, like Mars etc
@@akuai4408 ☝meaningless gibberish
@@afgor1088 So in other words, you don't have a legitimate rebuttal, got it lmfao
@@akuai4408 "rebuttal" you are not in debate club, you are not worth it. it is not possible to rebut gibberish, it just has to be pointed out as gibberish.
goodbye, i pity you.
The main thing is that most people are making a mental calculation where they want to live, and for the vast majority, the downsides of Mars (uninhabitabl moderately irradiated lifeless cold desert where you can never go outside without a pressurized suit or even have decent ping times back to Earth making real-time communication impossible, with import prices in the hundred dollars per gram range) outweigh the upsides (scientifically interesting with low gravity for construction, safety, and space launches, cheap real estate with mineral rights and no taxes with limited enforcement of environmental laws).
Totally agreed. Read The Case for Space for some great uses of the moon. We should focus on the moon and mining near earth asteroids and put Mars on the back burner.
Prob cuz thats where THEY THINK the aliens are at
How about artificial settlements? Like O'Neil space colonies? Would they be better suited as humanity's next home?
yes
The worst day in Antartica is vastly more survivable than the best day on Mars!
Mars would be a great farming planet, if we can fix the atmosphere and radiation shilding problem. But that is terraforming timespans and that is hundreds of years from now.
not hundreds,but millenia,which is not how things work today.
mars would not be a great farming planet.
you overestimate it's size, you do not understand the timescales needed to solve the more complicated problems with mars or build the complex ecosystems all farming depends on.
a far greater return on investment could be gained by just changing our diets to focus less on inefficient animal calories and protein & more on plants.
@@afgor1088 I am taking in consideration that whatever will be farmed on mars will be more efficient. Like insects and mushrooms, or even bacterial film.
And roughly one fifth of earth's surface area is... good enough for a giant farming project, I think. This is assuming the "turn a desert into a lush field" technology is even possible to begin with.
To be fair, we'd have a better shot at terraforming unclaimed regions of Antarctica, if we want to go down this path.
@@ForThePrinceNot millennia. It can be done in around 500 years.
Definitely agree that Moon is the next step, but I would not discontinue Mars, however a realistic timeline to colonize is like around 1000 years.
While I enjoyed Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars Trilogy, I can’t see Mars being colonized until the 2500s or later. The Moon will likely have a manned base this century. Whether it will be a full fledged colony? Perhaps. I also foresee mining the asteroids long before establishing a Mars habitat/colony. Unless there’s a reason for people to set foot on Mars, I just don’t see it happening.
Moon having more resources than mars is currently questionable
it’s not, we have mineral maps of both the moon and mars and know exactly where and how much of various materials there are
mars is bigger so it has more, but that doesn’t matter because the moon has it more abundantly and easier to get
it’s like the oil in antarctica, there’s a ton of oil but it doesn’t matter because it’s hard to reach, so we use the smaller but easier to get and higher quality reserves
Beg to differ. The main issue, believe it or not, is beauty, at least for big civilian colonies. Even if profitable the moon won't be a center for anything as it's purely a barren rock, and a dangerous one at that, having no atmosphere to hamper asteroids. After ending their shift the Moon colonist won't be able to take leisure in anything other than reading and working out, which is a pretty miserable prospect for anyone not obsessed with space or science. On Mars the view is more or less akin to what you would find in the Australian outback or other red deserts, minus the life of course. Gravity and atmosphere would make it so you are actually able to live a semi-normal life if you are willing to ignore the space suit.
that’s pretty subjective
for me personally being able to see earth in the sky over a gray landscape is more beautiful than a red desert with an atmosphere
plus with the sheer amount of people you can bring to the moon for much easier than mars, you’re bound to find people who are fine with it
but both places will start with underground colonies most likely, so you won’t be seeing much of either landscape anyway
there’s also the problem of length. You only have to stay on the moon for a few weeks. You have to stay on mars for years. Even if the moon is less beautiful you don’t have to experience it for as much time. You’re going to get bored looking at the same red landscape for the 600th day in a row
>the view
Aren't there literally constant, strong dust storms on Mars? What will you be able to see?
@@anonymousbloke1 The frequency of the storms depends on the region and time of year.
They filmed the Martian in the Arabian desert. Go live there in the same spot for 2 years and tell me how great the landscape is after that.
"minus the life of course"
Sounds positively wonderful 😐
Colonizing mars is even dumber than colonizing the moon. At least we agree on that 😂
Mars has the raw elemental material for life compared to the moon, which shouldn't be dismissed off-hand but doesn't seem like it's enough in any near term to justify anything more than science and extreme exploration, I think. People have settled less (relatively) ideal places before, so it may be an inevitable eventuality once we're out there, but I do think you're largely right.
Thinking about it makes me imagine an earth-mars cycler station, started to regularly supply science operations, constantly growing from new sections being added to the point it becomes a small city, becoming quite an interesting place
Wait why does travel time matter if you're sending back mined ore? of which the only type that I can presume would be worth the trip is Uranium or Gold
it’s not so much the travel time as it’s just expensive to launch when there’s an atmosphere and high gravity in the way
the moon has neither of those so is much cheaper even if it was as far away as mars
@@Kyplanet893 That is definitely a better reason
Does the moon have much in the way of that stuff though? I assume you're just talking about using it for habitat supplies but that runs back into the economic issue where it makes much more sense to just build settlements on earth instead of in a Giant spinning tube in outer space
@@universome511 the moon has a lot of raw materials
it’s actually where we would want to build the first spinning habitats because of that
@@Kyplanet893 oh I meant the valuable stuff, because again it's not economical to go to Mars and it's not economical to go to the Moon. It's not economical to go anywhere
We have plenty of rocks, they don't need to be Moon ones. We don't need spinning habitats because we're already on one
Space Travel is going to be Irrational, it's going to be Faustian
Man didn't go to the Moon to turn a profit he went there for the same reason there was a race to the South Pole and a Summiting of Everest
@@universome511Eh, capitalism has a way of ruining everything. When something intends to stick around for long enough for it to stop being a novelty, profit comes into the equation. Businesses don't believe in scientific development, ideology, or morals. They care about 💵.
Seeing as the moon is an offshoot of the initial impact that created Earth however, I don't doubt it'll have a lot of resources.
I pretty much couldn't disagree more. I'm sure we will make bases on the moon, but it's probably not suitable for colonization. As you yourself said, the low gravity likely means that cycling crew is necessary. At that point it's not a colony. A colony means at least some people living their entire lives there. We don't know if Mars has sufficient gravity to be suitable for colonization, but 38% of Earth gravity is certainly a lot better than 17%. It could easily be the difference between bases and a colony.
Beyond that, the moon has a terrible day-night cycle, 656 hours of day followed by 656 hours of night, while Mars is quite similar to Earth. On the Moon, you would have to get used to an artificial day-night cycle, and would rarely see the sun. And for infrastructure, it's a problem. Any hardware has to survive lunar night, and if you use solar, you need massive energy storage for the nights. Regular agriculture is probably not realistic. The plants would die during the nights. (*Maybe* you could grow some sort of crop in 656 hours, and harvest at the end?)
And Mars has an atmosphere, which is a huge advantage. It allows for aerobraking, meaning that it actually takes less delta-v to go from LEO to the Martian surface than from LEO to the moons surface. And it is a major resource, providing CO2 for plants and O2 for humans/animals. Beyond that it provides shielding against low energy ionizing radiation. Basically no solar radiation reaches the Martian surface. You can live on the Martian surface without much fear of the radiation. The same thing can't be said of the Moon - you would have to live under meters of regolith.
For rocket launches, the atmosphere isn't a huge deal *on Earth*, on Mars it's almost completely irrelevant.
In terms of mineral resources, it is expected that Mars is much richer. The vulcanic activity is expected to have made various metal ore deposits. The Moon also has a vulcanic past, but to a lesser extent.
Micrometeoroids are a huge hazard for the Moon. Space suits, vehicles and habitats will need to include micrometeoroid protection, and it will be very important to try to avoid generating micrometeoroids. Rocket launches from the moon could put lunar regolith into moon orbit, where it could be brought back down after hours, days or weeks, and potentially hit any infrastructure. On Mars, the atmosphere prevents micrometeoroids. It is slowed down and rains down as mostly harmless dust. (You will need to deal with impacts from larger objects, but that is also true on the Moon, and even Earth.)
As I see it, the Moon is largely a dead end. For colonization, we need to focus on Mars and possibly some of the moons of the outer solar system, like Titan.
We are nowhere near fast enough propulsion to reach Mars in weeks. The shortest trip currently takes months and there are no faster technologies on the horizon. This is why we aren't even sending explorers there soon. People just can't function weightless for months on end. Until there is a big, unexpected breakthrough in propulsion, we are not going anywhere.
Scienttific value------>-Scientific base-----> Ajob that a robot can do better then a human on mars.
Even though you mentioned, that you're not interested in mentioning radiation, I still think this is the main problem. Iradiated water, iradiated sand, rock, you name it.
To my knowledge modern solutions are just "get something very dense, to stop the particles in their track".
How would they tackle the issue of food, tissue, living space irradiation?
Simple: you live underground. No fancy domes or big space houses, just metal tubes burried under the surface. It would be miserable, and probably drive people insane. Just another reason not to go to Mars.
A long term solution is a superconductor ring station that will deflect the solar radiation. This bad boy would be placed in a special orbit that makes it so that the station is always between the Sun and Mars.
Idiot doesn't understand how radiation works. Material irradiated by radiation doesn't become radioactive, that only occurs if the material is CONTAMINATED by radioactive materia.
Idiot
@@SawedOffLaser i don't know about driving insane tho. Imagine a life of an average white collar these days. Do they touch grass really often? Even the sun lol. If you live and work full time in an office, it's not much different from living in an underground bunker. And if we talk about mentally strong professionals here, who prepared for their whole lives for this, then we have soldiers on atomic submarines that live in even worse claustrophobic nightmares for years in some expeditions, and somehow don't turn insane. On Mars astronauts could at least have a walk on that red sand for an hour or two
I don't remember anyone saying "good" In a a vacuum. Its probably the ONLY planet we can realistically colonize.
You're looking at it from a business standpoint, which is understandable. People are motivated by money.
Colonizing Mars isn't meant to be a business venture, most space travel never was. If you want that, look into mining asteroids or like you mentioned the moon.
Colonizing Mars serves 1 primary focus, become a multi-planetary species, which is good for many reasons:
1. you have a fallback if something goes wrong on earth, it's the difference between being wiped out on our planet, and having even a sliver of a chance of survival on another
2. the task itself will help incentivize development for cheaper and more available interplanetary transportation, which would allow for business ventures in space, like previously mentioned asteroid mining.
3. You have more places to stop if you are traveling in space. If your lifeline extends only to earth, you have fewer options when you need to leave fast.
More so, Mars isn't commonly picked as a potential colonization because of what's there to make money off of, but what could be terraformed into the most earthlike conditions. Mars fits that extraordinarily. It has poles of ice, and its gravity isn't vastly different like the moon. It's just a matter of being able to transform its atmosphere and finding a way to create a magnetic field. After you have done that, plant life and human life can thrive on Mars and you have essentially a second habitable planet. This is over a long period of time, but the first step is getting people on Mars to begin with. And honestly, i agree that we should focus on getting a base on the moon first, i think that is probably the best way of doing it, but that is something that the moon does not provide, is a planet that is realistically able to be terraformed.
the problem is none of that stuff will happen if we don’t see immediate profitable returns
just look at apollo. it was also for the betterment of humanity and was objectively very cool and created many spinoff technologies. But it didn’t make any money and had zero long term goals so we cancelled it. A mars colonization program right now has the very real (and honestly very likely) chance of going down the apollo route unless there’s immediate returns
yes you can eventually make phobos into a giant skyhook but there’s no point in doing that unless you have places to send people to. You don’t need a highway on mars if the outer solar system is still untouched. Mars colonization will only be valuable *after* we start going to asteroids and outer system
We’ve seen this again and again with space colonization. It’s either immediately beneficial or it doesn’t happen.
And Mars is not a good fallback for extinction. Even if you terraform mars (which i have a whole video about) earth is still the cultural, technological, and military hub of the solar system. It’ll have by far the most population and probably control most of the solar system. It’ll have the most life diversity and most of the airless rocks will rely on it
If there’s ever a disaster scenario on earth, your goal is not to give up and restart somewhere else. It’s to get back to earth as fast as humanly possible to rebuild. And the Moon is right there, with all the capability to become an industrial powerhouse capable of fixing earth. So i’d also argue the moon offers much better extinction protection than a terraformed mars
and the thing about a stopping place for travel, this isn’t like the americas. Going anywhere in the solar system requires energy. Mars orbits the sun and is constantly moving. Sometimes it’ll be behind the sun, for example. For the vast majority of time, you would be going out of your way and adding *extra* travel time just to get to mars, not to mention wasting fuel slowing down. It’s safer and cheaper to skip the middle man and go straight from earth to wherever you’re going
Can we appreciate Astrodude and SAR destroy the machine that colonized Mars
The “eggs in one basket” argument never made sense to me. The technology required to colonize Mars or the Moon would work 100 times better on post apocalyptic Earth.
Who here thinks Venus is better than mars?
Tbh, it's probably loads of times harder. It has denser atmosphere than Earth (by 93 times).
How do we know what materials are on Mars? What percentage of the planet have our robots actually visited? Something like less than 1%? It would be like landing a probe in a dessert on earth and assuming that dessert represents the entire planet. We don't know what is under the surface of different areas of Mars. This is an entire planet we are talking about. It will take forever to explore the whole thing and know what materials exist.
we have satellites that have mapped the entirety of mars, through that we know generally where valuable materials are and how much of them there are
including underground because many of them have ground-penetrating radar
@@Kyplanet893 Then why are we still not sure about parts of the moon and even earths oceans?
@PaulClipMaster because making an accurate map is a lot more difficult when theres several miles of water in the way
you cant just look at the ocean floor from orbit like mars or the moon, theres water blocking your view
@@Kyplanet893 Then why are their still questions about the dark side of the moon?
what questions are you talking about
Tesla is not a good example tbh. Look what they've promised versus what they've done with EVs. It's just a niche market for the ultra rich, meanwhile the Chinese are trying to fill in the gap and being thwarted.
Being thwarted? You mean building exploding cars that have harmed many Chinese citizens?
The companies don't care about regular people, so safety isn't a concern. The best part is that arrogant foreigners, especially westerners, will happily deflect the blame so that those responsible for the harmful decisions will never be held accountable.
We have a word for people who only praise them, called "Wumao" 五毛. Your uninformed comment made you sound like such a person.
There is filling in the gap in the market, and then there is making dangerous devices that are harmful to the user, rich and poor alike.
Negligence should not be praised, whether it is Changan, BYD or Tesla.
One of the things you noted was that the travel time was simply too long for any practical benefit, but it also took the European colonists in America months to cross the ocean. While yes, this is much longer and more dangerous, it is still possible to travel to mars and could provide opportunities for numerous people to start a new life on another planet (similar to in the colonies in America). Another point, while the atmosphere on Mars also makes it difficult to launch and land, it is still MUCH more expensive to reach Earth orbit, and we do that all the time (just look at Starlink). In my opinion, after we colonize the moon, we should ABSOLUTELY go towards mars and AT LEAST try to make it a new home for the human race.
the colonization of the americas is *not* the same as the colonization of mars
for a real equivalent you’d have to drop literal Atlantis right off the coast of Europe with all the resources they could possibly need, then remove the Mississippi river, the great lakes, all the easily accessible resources, and all the natives from the americas
it is by no means a fair comparison
mars is just awful in every way. If the moon wasn’t here then we should go there, but because the moon exists there just isn’t a reason
why go past the city of gold to go live on a desolate abandoned continent with resources
@@Kyplanet893 It's inevitable, though, that Humans will expand beyond the moon at some point. When that happens, besides Mars, where do you suggest we go? We can't just stay on the moon forever and other subjects won't work much better. For example, Titan is simply too far away (It takes 7 months to get to mars, whereas 3 or more years to get to Saturn)
@@fertileplanet7756 Titan has more actual reason to travel to
@fertileplanet7756 i know it’s inevitable, my argument is we shouldn’t do it right now
@@fertileplanet7756 it is not inevitable, yes we can just stay on the earth and moon forever.
For any person dreaming of living on Mars, I just have one question? Do you want to live in the middle of the Sahara desert or the middle of Antartica? If the answer is no, then living on Mars would be way more misreble and boring.
"Mars' atmosphere complicates landing"
Maybe complicates it but it makes it cheaper. You can probably aerocapture and land at Mars for 300 m/s. Versus >5000 m/s for a fully rocket-decelerated capture and landing on a similar object devoid of atmosphere.
It’s quite possible to terraform Mars. In my opinion, terraforming a planet(Mars) is to identify the reasons for its current condition. In the case of the Red Planet, the lack of a large moon for a satellite is the root of the problem. If Mars once had a thick atmosphere, then it must have had a moon the size of Pluto. What might have happened is that Mars original moon(Aries) crashed into it, thus shutting down the planet’s magnetic field. That’s right, a large moon as a satellite is what helps a terrestrial planet to generate and maintain a strong magnetic field that allows a planet to retain its thick atmosphere. A thick atmosphere not only makes life possible, it increases its gravitational pull. In hindsight, if Mars once had a strong magnetic field, then its gravity would be similar to Earths because atmospheric pressure would ensure it.
To terraform Mars, the only real way to do so is by importing Jupiter’s moon Io as it new satellite. This would revive Mars magnetic field and allow the planet to terraform itself in under 100 years. The moon Io would allow Mars to internally warm itself up to generate a strong magnetic field
Great video man
Only shows how shit our timeline is.
If Mars was just 2000 miles bigger, that equation would have been shifted in favor of Mars colonization.
Or maybe not, since that would be a ruzzian roulette for both worlds' ecospheres.
If only we could change the history of the solar system and switch Venus and Mars. Maybe also not have Venus be so hostile. humanity then would really have a great place to have a colony.
Our timeline actually went *perfectly:*
1) Our star doesn't constantly shoot flares at us
2) Our planet has cleared most of the asteroid junk out of its way
3) Our planet's core has enough internal heat to keep the water cycle
4) Our planet's core has enough angular momentum and correct chemical ingredients to form magnetic field, that is just strong enough
5) The collision that occurred 4,5 bilion years ago with Thea didn't kill us all (for that, Jupiter and Venus had to align themselves perfectly)
6) Moon that was formed from collision with Gaia turned out to be large enough to keep our orbit stable (it is a big problem e.g. for Mars)
7) Jupiter was formed
8) Jupiter was caught by Saturn's gravity and returned to safe or it rather than getting eaten by Saturn
9) Saturn and Jupiter shot out a dangerous 9th Planet out of our way
10) Our planet's atmosphere is composed mainly of chemically passive base (nitrogen) and just right amount of oxygen, to not make us suffocate to death or grow spiders to the size of large car.
11) Our planet's pressure is large enough to allow lungs to catch enough of it, but small enough to crush us to death
12) Our planet's temperature is low enough to keep water from vaporising into space, but high enough to keep it a liquid and make it circle around in water cycle. It was achieved thanks to just the right amount of greenhouse gasses, like CO2.
@alex30425 if we switched places of Venus and Mars in early formation of the Universe, the Moon could have never been formed. Thea hit the Earth with just right velocity thanks to Venus's and Jupiter's gravity assists.
@@Admiral45-10
Obviously it's assuming all other factors are the same
So if everything was the same except mars and Venus switched positions
@dillonblair6491 let's say Mars and Venus somehow switch positions after the formation of Moon (I'm not really certain how it would work like without putting an Earth in a death spiral, but let's pretend we ignore that for a moment) - who's to say such a system would be stable? Mars could not be able to keep the orbit of Mercury with its gravity, which may result in it falling into the Sun, while Venus, affected by Earth's gravity, could be pulled closer and closer to us, maybe even on a crushing course.
It's really a bad idea to mess with positions of the planets - each have their own reasons for why they're there.
The biggest get for building extractitive industries on the moon is Duterium. I forget why but I know its very useful for fusion energy and the moon has a lot of it.
Why is everyone focusing on Mars and not the Moon?
The thing is that Mars is the only other planet that has even remotely similar conditions to Earth
Value from Mars? Don't we usually do space stuff for fun and entertainment? Would be cool to have a small 20-man colony just because lol
The best solution for colonizing Mars is to focus on its moons Phobos and Deimos. Not the Red Planet. Easy and cost effective to create a artificial magnetic field to block the solar radiation, as well as create a artificial atmosphere to encompus Phobos and Deimos. What might be a good idea is to relocate one of Mars moons as a space gap between the distance between Earth and Mars. This would allow for resupplying a spacecraft at the midway point on its journey to Mars.
EDIT: I have to redact this because after checking out your channel more you do talk about Space Habitats.
Everyone, your imaginations are just far too limited. Check out Isaac Arthur and the Orion's Arm Project. This video is a step in the right direction but not far enough.
No we’re just realists. Colonizing anywhere is pointless when we can’t even maintain the most habitable planet in the known universe. Fix things here and we can think about it. Even then. What’s the point? We can’t go faster than light and expansion will eventually leave us alone in an abyss anyways.
Before we even form a moon colony, we need to prove that we can inhabit the south pole just as easily as kansas, with travel, maintenance and supply lines so effortless that we can support any colony anywhere on earth with ease. We need to have an ISS that isnt constantly on the brink of being dismantled. In fact, we should have dozens in orbit before we can consider the moon. After that, we'd need to actually go back to the moon, which I'm not aware of that happening any time since 1972, and it will not happen any time in the next decade (unless we as a species re-learn how to actually engineer things). Then we'd need to go back to the moon so readily and cheaply that sending a ship there is like sending a boat across the atlantic. Then we'd need a LOT of EXTREMELY expensive and heavy equipment being sent over there, and a lot of expensive and time-consuming labor to set it up and support it.
People are still stuck in this 19th-century mentality of what "colonize" implies. That we can just stroll over, plant our flag, and that either the land will provide, or we'll have a steady stream of supply ships. Thats not even close to true. This isn't a backpacking trip (which can be dangerous enough on its own). Its an environment where you die if a fuse blows in your generator. You die if you the complications of reality delay a supply shipment. You die if hail breaks your window. You die if your car/rover breaks down on the side of the road. You die if your heater breaks, cause its not like you can just walk out and gather some firewood. You die if you stand outside without a 100,000$ spacesuit and oxygen canisters.
It's a musk-eteer techbro's wet dream to imagine wanton use of tech that is THEORETICALLY possible, without actually understanding or regarding any complications coming from both the trade-offs and limitations of said tech, as well as the complications that happen to real people organizing in the real world. In case you haven't been outside in the last decade, humanity is not constantly at the peak of all theoretical tech at all times. While computing has gone far, id say the mechanics and construction involved havent really made a big leap. ESPECIALLY in the department of durability and maintainability of electromechanical devices, which I would argue has taken a nosedive since the late 2000s. And I'm not an expert, but im pretty sure "throwing it away and ordering another from china" isn't an option when your oxygen processor breaks down on the moon.
Until we are able to live without breathing we are not colonizing a planet without an oxygen atmosphere
"The moon's proximity to Earth makes it better than Mars for water."
A few seconds later...
"Should a catastrophe happen on Earth, the moon is far enough away to not be affected by it."
What if that catastrophe makes the water on Earth unusable or unobtainable? At that point, the closest water source for Lunarians WOULD be Mars.
mars has a lot more water, but the moon still has enough on its own for a relatively large population
and it’ll probably last long enough for people on the moon to get to earth and get water from there
@@Kyplanet893 I would also like to add that water can be recycled virtually indefinitely, at least for life support purposes. Organisms don't "use up" water they way they use up nutrients, they just borrow it, so the main losses would be from inefficiencies in reclamation and purification systems. At least, that's my understanding.
C-type asteroids also have water. Like... a lot of water. And that water is already in space so can be moved toward Earth with less momentum.
What about using it as a stop point to the outer planets
that’s a bad idea unfortunately
the solar system is not a straight line, for the majority of mars’s orbit it would actually cost more time and money to stop at mars and then keep going
it’s much easier to just go direct from the moon to the outer planets, because all pit stops require you to slow down which wastes fuel
The Moon is like the Caribbean while Mars is like North America. The most profitable colonies in the New World were the sugar colonies of the Caribbean, they sent slaves there to grow sugar cane, and they were very profitable, while North America was a settler colony and a penal colony, but the thing is, most of those former sugar colonies are third world colonies today!
Anything outside of Earth is about as useful as the salt flats of the former Aral Sea. I wish the Artemis program was cancelled.
if we`re forcing history analogies then the moon is more like siberia and mars is the north pole. Siberia actually gives russians a ton of resources but its still frozen hell for most of the year so nobody wants to live there and the north pole is just impossible but humans still go there for the symbolism and to achieve something i guess
@@toreq1127 Maybe you should talk to some of the Apollo astronauts, ask them if they think going to the Moon was like traveling to Siberia, I don't think any of them got frostbite while in their spacesuits, the weather on the Moon was just fine, everyday was a sunny day, more than can be said for either Siberia or the North Pole.
@@thomaskalbfus2005 they wouldn’t freeze in astronaut suits in Siberia tho would they
@@thomaskalbfus2005 and if the weather was so nice and sunny, why the space suits at all am I right Xd?????
In his well-known book The Case for Mars, Robert Zubrin describes a number of advantages of Mars over the Moon - for example, contrary to your claim in this video, the Moon is severely depleted in light elements which are plentiful on Mars. If you want to make the case that the Moon is a better bet, then you absolutely need to address Zubrin's points.
Thems is fighting words on the internet 💀
A science base with 10 people - sure. But a colony would bankrupt the Earth! Does Mars have Unobtanium?
But wouldn't mars be a port that would make going to the outer planets easier?
no, mars has high gravity and an atmosphere, and because of its orbit around the sun getting to the outer planets would actually be harder on mars than on earth, because launch windows are less frequent
it’s better to make a port on the moon, with no atmosphere, low gravity, and more frequent launch windows
i think leaving mars for research like antarctica is fine actually
Do you have videos on Venus colonozation?
I still think we should land on mars, the technology that it would force us to create to get there would be worth it for the later colonization of space.
EDIT: I agree with one part of the video's thesis, that being that the Moon is a significantly less challenging and more rewarding target for colonization than Mars is. But I don't buy that a Mars colony this century is improbable.
Once you put people on Mars, they're staying there. Once the colony becomes self-sustaining then it needs no economic justification. If the cost of creating a self-sustaining, self-expanding colony on Mars is low enough, we might do it just for the glory.
The main obstacle to a self-sustaining Mars colony is the complexity of civilization, the sheer number of machines and specialists required to produce the technology that would be necessary (chip foundries, etc.). But I don't think it's impossible that the Mars colony starts small and solves its immediate life support issues, then gradually grows, complexifies, and weans off support from Earth.
You said you believe that we will create a research station on Mars. Given the round trip is 18 months, isn't it thinkable that some researchers would just choose to stay, and work on improving their resource extraction and life support expansion? Then they might have kids (if it is even possible).
I'm just curious where anybody thinks they're going to get the fuel on Mars for return trip😂
they will have to make their own fuel using solar power and carbon dioxide and water. Hope they pack a chemistry set 😂😂
Doesn't matter if it's "a bad idea", by which I assume it is meant that colonizing some other place on Earth is preferable. Tough s---. Walking around on the moon was never objectively a great idea, but that trick still makes the very short list of greatest achievements in human history. We're gonna do what we wanna do. Don't pretend it isn't something that the average person will find exciting.
dude im sure nasa knows its a bad idea but theyre doing it anyway
There is very little carbon on the Moon. And currently it is unknown how much usable water (if any) there is.
Better than any other option in the solar system
the moon:
@@Kyplanet893 LOL ur wrong. The moon doesn't have nitrogen, no oxygen, no atmosphere, messed up gravity and no magnetic field, temperature fluctuations, can't retain gases properly... And so on. In this case I'd pick Venus over the moon
@@Supernimo735 doesn’t matter because earth has it, and the moon is very close to earth
also the moon’s crust is literally made of oxygen, there’s enough for 8 billion humans to breathe it for 800,000 years
and the low gravity is an advantage, not a downside (rockets are stupidly easy to launch from the moon)
the moon’s close distance is also a blessing. Crews don’t need to stay on the moon for years, just a few weeks. So the problems with low gravity and radiation are avoided entirely
and we know how to deal with temperature fluctuations, the ISS goes through them every 90 minutes
and who cares about retaining gases, we aren’t trying to terraform it (terraforming the moon would just remove the advantages it has)
so all the problems on the moon have already been solved, don’t matter, or are actually good things
but even if none of this was true and the moon was actually as bad as you think it is, it would STILL be the best place to colonize because of the low gravity, lack of atmosphere, and distance to earth. I talk about this in several videos. We aren’t going to be able to colonize anywhere else unless we’re building and launching rockets from the moon, as the moon is the only place where we can reliably build rockets too big to be built on earth in the near term future
so if you want to colonize venus, then sorry but you need a moon colony first
earth-based rockets, even ones as big as starship, simply aren’t big enough to build a sustainable presence beyond cislunar space
but imagine a starship ten times bigger, for a fraction of the cost and complexity. We could build that on the moon
@@Kyplanet893 only 800k. The gravity isn't an advantage. The moon's gravity is only like 15 or so percent that of Earth's, and the moon is leaving the earth 4 cm a year, which is not good. These are the good and downsides of the red planet: The atmosphere is thin with some carbon dioxide for potential warming up. There's evidence of ice and possibly liquid water under the surface. Gravity is about 38% of Earth's gravity, which is better for human health compared to lower gravity environments, such as the Moon. The various minerals and potential for original resource utilization. However it's cold and dusty with a lot of temperature fluctuations, also lack of a strong magnetic field results in higher radiation. I'd love to see your feedback on this
@@Supernimo735
1. "only 800k" thats 6 times longer than humanity has EXISTED for. Not to mention thats only the top layers of rock and assuming we're trying to support 8 BILLION people there. If we only had say a million people there, it would last us hundreds of millions of years
2. who cares, by the time the moon moves far enough away to be a problem the sun will have already become a white dwarf
3. as I already explained, we dont have to worry about low gravity because you dont have to stay on the moon for years, just weeks. Which leaves only the advantages of low gravity
4. the moon has ice under its surface too
5. Mars is very resource poor, the Moon has far more abundant resources. The only thing Mars has more of is carbon
6. Just like low gravity, radiation problem can be avoided because the crews arent going to be stuck on the Moon for years
I'm 29 and to be fair I doubt I'll see moon bases in my lifetime. I'm certain I'll maybe see some visits there, but not a base, let alone an orbital hotel. I hope that I'm wrong and that you are right though.
While the points you make are valid, I think mars could be used as a forward base for the exploration of the outer solar system, specially the asteroids belt. It would be the midpoint bewteen the Earth-Moon system and the outer colonies.
This meaning there's an economic activity that could make mars profitable: Trade. Just like Samarcand profited off from being in the middle of the silk road despite being in a desert
it’s easier to get to the asteroid belt if you launch from the moon
mars is actually a step in the wrong direction in this case
it’s closer distance wise but it doesn’t matter when there’s a large gravity well and an atmosphere in the way
Also, Mars being closer to thr asteroid belt than the Moon is actually a handicap.
As the time separating launch windows between an asteroid belt object and Mars would be longer.
If you have are on Ceres and need to go Mars, you almost need to wait twice longer for Mars to be on the right position.
The best place to reach any point in the asteroid belt is Venus, as it goes around the sun quickly and thus offer plenty of launch windows.
Overall, the Mars cost 3k more deltaV (out of 11k) than the Moon to go to the Moon while offering 2x less launch windows.
Unless we develop a way to get to other solar systems there is no point building bases on the moon.
no, the moon is useful to get to the solar system planets
it’s also a great place to build ships going to other places in the solar system
Starship's main purpose for now is to go to the moon. Once that is done (maybe 2026/7) then we will think about going to Mars.
Look, you're not going to stop me.
The slowest transfer time for Mars is like 8 months with optimal position of earth and mars, but a few weeks where did you get that time frame from?
that was assuming we had nuclear rockets
it was an “at best” scenario
@@Kyplanet893 Yeah I get that but still a few weeks would require some insane acceleration I'm curious if you can link me any info on this statement
A complete asspull based on his last play through of starfield
@@kintustis i’ve never played starfield
@@KickenItOldSchool sorry for being late i didn’t get the notification until that other guy replied
i have the original paper saved somewhere (i’ll try to find it) but for now here’s an article about it www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a44753442/nasa-nuclear-rocket-could-get-to-mars-in-45-days/
(i don’t think this is very likely to happen btw, it was supposed to be a best case scenario)
3:40 you don't 'need' parachutes on mars, its just cheaper.