Hacker News Reader

Comment by oneoff786 | Hacker News Reader

Author’s reasoning seems far fetched. I would believe that SpaceX will go to mars in the next 5 years. But to think that building a city on mars is a simple next step seems silly

View on HN

Maybe establish a self-sufficient moonbase first? But before that, establish a self-sufficient (modulo raw materials) orbital base. But before that, establish a self-sufficient undersea base. But before that, establish a self-sufficient base at the South Pole. But before that, establish a self-sufficient base in the Atacama Desert. But before that, establish a self-sufficient base in Arizona.

A self-sufficient base in Arizona is beyond our current capability. Good luck with Mars.

While not perfect, BioSphere 2 in Arizona did pretty well considering it was a first of its kind (or second if you count Earth). Wonder how well another attempt would be with modern tech and the lessons learned from the past missions.

All they did was try to live in it, sealed off, for two years. That failed because, it turns out, concrete absorbs oxygen for months after it hardens. Nobody knew that, before. They didn't manufacture anything, not even cloth.

Mars will be thousands of times harder, with correspondingly-many likely-fatal lessons. Anybody who doubts that even a little is not somebody you want on the project.

That seems like an easily solveable problem?

I don’t think thousands of times harder rings true, conditioned on having accessible shipments of new goods. On a slow but regular scale. A colony wouldn’t even need to be self sufficient. Just protected from the elements.

I have no doubt it’s very difficult, but thousands of times harder? Seems extreme to me.

You would, therefore, not be useful on the project.

Anybody useful would be able to list dozens of debilitating problems to prevent before even starting research.

I can name a great number of problems obviously, but at the end of the day, most of these challenges are bypassed with frequent supply drops that include massive steel edifices.

Oxygen? Send a fuck ton of the candles they burn on nuclear subs

Food? Send a fuck ton of food

Water? Probably better ways to do this but, fuck it, send a fuck ton of water.

Power? Send them a bunch of solar panels and batteries. 100x daily needs.

Shelter from radiation temperature and weather? Go sit in the starships. Stack them together. They’re not going anywhere. Send 50x the space suits. 50x the rovers. 50x the fruit loops.

The hard part of colonizing a planet is the self sufficiency. If you can just keep the supplies coming then it’s not all that different from the ISS. You can try and build your moxie units if you want, or your Martian farms, or whatever, but there’s not much in the way of mission critical goals. Mars’ dust storms aren’t nudging the starship heavy.

You have only thought of the most obvious problems, and your solution to each is the least manageable that could be imagined.

They tried to use the Sabatier process on the ISS, and it failed for unpredicted reasons.

So, again, you and everybody who thinks like you would be bad choices to have involved.

Or if we have the power to terraform Mars, and not just be stuck in a space colony out there, but be able to explore the planet freely, why not just terraform Earth back to Earth [1]?

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XdkKMhAdnA&t=458s (Neil deGrasse Tyson)

Psst. Don't tell them. Let them try.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com