Mars is ‘irrelevant to us’ if Earth is doomed, says Kim Stanley Robertson
vice.com
vice.com
The problem with this attitude is that there is no evidence that we will ever completely solve our problems on earth. There is always going to be something threatening us even if it's mainly ourselves. Also, it's the same philosophy critics of the space race espoused yet many of the tools we use to identify and track our global problems are an unintended outgrowth of that great power contest, e.g. climate sensing satellites. It's a deeply inspiring effort to colonize another planet and far from an "escapist" activity it's something which gives many people hope for the future. It's much easier to be an "escapist" by dabbling in distractions on earth than it is by building rockets or working on the science to make life possible on Mars! Sure, the endeavor shouldn't be a major global economic line item in the meantime but I'm not aware of the necessity to go that far.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yilan_crater
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karakul_(Tajikistan)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_craters_on_Eart...
Maybe we can deflect it. Maybe we can’t.
Right now we have no offsite backups. That should terrify everyone who cares in the slightest about human culture.
Don’t wait for the drive to start clicking to make backups.
Southern hemisphere is recommended, anyway, as probably few nukes will target there; maybe none!
You'll also note that humans do in fact have a permanent settlement there.
Early humans and their ancestors have experienced two major population bottlenecks in the past. We may well see a third relatively shortly, but that is very different from extinction.
on edit: fixed typo.
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2015-Coh...
It states in summary that:
"doubling atmospheric CO2 from the current level of 400 ppm to 800 ppm only decreases the pH of ocean water from about 8.2 to 7.9. This is well within the day-night fluctuations that already occur because of photosynthesis by plankton"
"doubling atmospheric CO2 from the current level of 400 ppm to 800 ppm only decreases the carbonate-ion concentration, [CO2−3], by about 30%. Ocean surface waters are already supersaturated by several hundred per cent for formation of CaCO3 crystals from Ca2+ and CO2−3. So scare stories about dissolving carbonate shells are nonsense."
"Over most of the Phanerozoic, the past 550 million years, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been measured in thousands of parts per million, and life flourished in both the oceans and on land. This is hardly surprising, given the relative insensitivity of ocean pH to large changes in CO2 concentrations that we have discussed above, and given the fact that the pH changes that do occur are small compared to the natural variations of ocean pH in space and time"
"This minimalist discussion already shows how hard it is to scare informed people with ocean acidification, but, alas, many people are not informed."
If you or anyone else thinks this paper's calculations are wrong, then that would be interesting to learn why.
Wikipedia claims, "[the] trigger for these mass extinctions appears to be a warming of the ocean caused by a rise of carbon dioxide levels to about 1000 parts per million":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event#Atmospheric_effec...
Here's the Scientific American article they cited:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/impact-from-the-d...
The most likely final outcome of full-flowered climate catastrophe is global thermonuclear war. Before that happens, we will probably have two billion people starve. After, another five billion. The ocean will cease to be a reliable source of protein, and whatever sea life survives acidification will be fished out at an increasingly frantic pace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extin...
>The Permian–Triassic extinction event, also known as the End-Permian Extinction and colloquially as the Great Dying, formed the boundary between the Permian and Triassic geologic periods, as well as between the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras, approximately 251.9 million years ago. It is the Earth's most severe known extinction event, with the extinction of 57% of biological families, 83% of genera, 81% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species.
>Possible causes supported by strong evidence appear to describe a sequence of catastrophes, each worse than the last: the Siberian Traps eruptions were bad enough alone, but because they occurred near coal beds and the continental shelf, they also triggered very large releases of carbon dioxide and methane. The resultant global warming may have caused perhaps the most severe anoxic event in the oceans' history: according to this theory, the oceans became so anoxic, anaerobic sulfur-reducing organisms dominated the chemistry of the oceans and caused massive emissions of toxic hydrogen sulfide.
According to this hypothesis which is well-supported by the archaeological evidence, it took Earth's atmosphere between hundreds of thousands to millions of years to return to conditions capable of supporting much life. That's a long time for biodomes, bunkers, and orbital stations not to break in irreparable ways.
Arguably that’d at least be a “human society extinction” event.
I find cities of less than about 5 million people uninteresting in terms of having enough of the entertainment and eating out options I enjoy.
A planet with a few million people scattered here and there would be incapable of much more than early industrial revolution technology I suspect. I can imagine people building steam engines, but making transistors is beyond that capability of pretty much everyone I know. Perhaps a few million people would get by scavenging electronics left behind by the 5 billion dead, but they’re not going to be running semiconductor fabs and buying new cpu or ram chips. And they’re not going to be mining rare elements and smelting alloys like modern metallurgy.
I’m not sure what small and distantly distributed bands/villages of humans trying to find habitable places with productively farmable land would look like, but it doesn’t sound fun to me…
I’m old, and _maybe_ I could justify my existence in post climate apocalypse society by being “that guy” who gets other people to carefully remove the wiring harness and everything plugged into it from every abandoned car they come across, and re purposing engine management and entertainment system components into useful computing devices and electrical gadgets, or perhaps by building carburettors and magneto ignition systems to make efi vehicles run on home grown biofuel. But I’d say I’m Rob ably way more likely be killed (and eaten?) as an old person with no useful contribution to the clan.
My personal fear though is more the model of large parts of earth's surface unlivable by humans, humanity down to a few million living near the poles.
Although both of the two you mention of course also strike me as potential catastrophic scenarios.
Would you be okay with the effort to go to Mars if the main person advocating for it were also simultaneously personally doing more than anyone else alive to reduce the human consumption of fossil fuels on Earth?
>That is to say that I don't think he means we need to fix every problem
in short, my post was really describing what I think Robinson was getting at and I am not really wedded to the argument that we shouldn't do both at the same time, especially as the stuff we do to make one planet habitable might give spark to scientific/technological advancement that could help save the one we have.
It's always "ourselves". We as a race are our primary enemy and your desire not to see the problems we create for ourselves here and now makes you exactly the reason we will suffer. I used to fear human extinction, now I'm resigned to it.
> It's much easier to be an "escapist" by dabbling in distractions on earth than it is by building rockets or working on the science to make life possible on Mars!
Yep, I'm resigned to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event#Atmospheric_effec...
but it is also hard to ignore the fact that it seems circular to turn the earth into something that looks like mars in the pursuit of turning mars into something that looks like earth.
so yes, doing basic science is good. but let's be clear that it's not a real plan and that the real problems at home are not only easier, but also far more pressing.
But there is little science of value left to do on Mars. They could have sent a microscope on any of the probes lofted, but chose against it.
Or if you realize that things authors write aren't necessarily what they think should happen in real life.
It is very short sighted to believe that we have to frame every problem as a terrestrial problem with limited scope we have to solve, and that narrow-mindedness is something that will make it more difficult to find general solutions that are applicable beyond the bounds of earth or may even involve utilization of beyond earth resources such as space, asteroids, low gravity, satellites, or something novel.
On the contrary humans will survive even if there are full blown nuclear attacks, we will go underground.
So except humans everything else is doomed.
The perchlorates are a problem, but not one that's impossible to deal with. One possible workaround is to have space suits that you never actually bring inside, you just sort of climb in and out through a hatch in the back that docks with the habitat. Similarly with vehicles, they could dock with the habitat so you can get in and out without going outside.
[1] https://images.adsttc.com/media/images/59ce/60f5/b22e/384e/1...
I don't think lava tubes are the only option, though -- they're just probably the best option in terms of most space for the least effort. Mars has a lot of sulfur which can be used to make a kind of sulfur-based concrete that isn't used much on Earth because Portland cement is much more useful and convenient. But let's say you can make building blocks out of sulfur-based concrete or some other native material. (Worst case you make them out of something light and bring them with you from Earth.) You dig a big hole in the dusty soil, then stack blocks igloo-fashion to make a dome in the bottom of the hole. Then you stack some more blocks to make a (relatively) dust-free stairwell, then pile the Martian soid set aside from digging the hole back over the top of everything else. So now you have a strong below-ground compressive structure that you can line with plastic or something and put in an airlock. The weight of the soil above counteracts the air pressure inside.
Ideally most of the habitat-construction work would be done by robots before people get there; that would be some tricky engineering though.
Short-term Mars plans aren't "terraform it so you can live outside"; it's stuff we can already likely accomplish in the Sahara or Antarctica if we really felt like it. Oases already exist in the Sahara; humans have permanent inhabitation in the Antarctic.
This baggage doesn't exist on Mars. (To the degree it does, it's de minimus compared with Earth's.) We can close off a canyon, pressurize it and call it a city. Try doing a tenth of that here without going bankrupt on the back of CEQUA challenges.
That's not the only challenge with terraforming Mars, e.g. you also have to remove perchlorates and install a healthy soil microbiome etc. Those are fertile ground (pun not intended) for earthly applications.
I don't know about you but I hate developing on the production system. It's just too high stress.
"Don't do the hard thing, easier things exist" is always true. Why not do the harder thing? Marathon runners don't typically go "man, it'd be better if I just did a 5K", right?
We can similarly go to Mars before we grow crops in Antarctica, even if the resulting tech would also have the side benefit of being useful there. They needn't even be mutually exclusive; some prospective techs for a Mars or Moon base already get tested in places like Antarctica.
And even if it wasn't, this town's area is minuscule compared to the area of the Sahara.
Life thriving in an inhospitable place.
> And even if it wasn't, this town's area is minuscule compared to the area of the Sahara.
As will the first couple hundred/thousand years worth of Mars bases. We'll be building oases first.
It's an oasis. Far from an inhospitable place. Certainly an order of magnitude more hospitable than Mars.
> As will the first couple hundred/thousand years worth of Mars bases.
Do you also intend to live forever to see the exponential leaps in technology required for this?
The presence of water makes an otherwise inhospitable place attractive. The same is likely to be true on Mars - colonies will be sited near ice for the same reason.
Do I intend to live forever? No. I think humans should make plans that benefit future generations, not just our own.
Mars is more like the rest of the desert, but with the addition of deadly levels of radiation and no breathable atmosphere.
United earth has a better chance than colonies elsewhere.
They were not correct. They were overly optimistic.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-mode...
It says the opposite. How do you explain that?
The next two sequels have some of the best socialist-without-calling-it-socialist storytelling of the modern era.
What's the compelling benefit of the bottom of the ocean that Mars lacks? A crack in your Mars dome is fixable; a crack at the bottom of the ocean means instant death beyond a couple hundred feet down.
Mars is always at best 9 months away. (Not 6 as Elon likes to lie.) Usually it would take much longer. And, how much stuff you can move at once is drastically limited.
There is no need to go below just a few atmospheres worth of pressure, in any case. Little that happens at the surface penetrates very deep.
Could a mod edit the title with the proper name please?
You can find plenty of info about each of them online.
It makes no sense to only invest in one of these ventures.
As far as I can tell the strongest evidence against my take is the $100M prize money Elon Musk has offered up for carbon capture that would supposedly be for making methane fuel on Mars. Making fuel that way would be pointless on Earth (except for greenwashing/PR.) But that's not even $100M spent, just $100M pledged.
"Isn't happening" was similarly a slam against the Falcon 9's reusability prospects not long ago. It should hardly be shocking that no one's making Mars habitats until the details of getting them there are known; it's entirely possible Starship will receive significant redesigns during development, just as F9 did.
> Are they building a bridge to nowhere?
Yes, just as ship captains in the 1500s largely didn't build their own colonies in the Americas. The Mayflower made other trips back and forth, providing transport to settlers who were responsible for deciding what to bring and how to use it.
Not so. SpaceX was visibly investing in reusable boosters more than 10 years ago. Everything SpaceX has actually spent serious money on is something that has a mundane commercial application, reusable boosters particularly. There has been no comparable investment in Martian habitats.
The "if you build it they will come" argument doesn't make sense. If serious Martian habitat development only starts after Starship is flying, it will take decades to be ready. The Europeans who sailed to America packed their ships with a bunch of commercially available supplies and hoped for the best. There is no commercially available Martian habitat, countless billions of dollars and many years of development will be necessary. That's presently not happening. Even if it starts tomorrow, that development would be laughably far behind Starship development.
They're not building a rocket for customers they think maybe might exist in 20 or 30 years.
And their competitors laughed at the idea. ULA doubted SpaceX's reusability prospects as recently as 2020 (https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-critic-ula-ceo-reusable-roc...).
> There has been no comparable investment in Martian habitats.
Nor were they investing in lunar landers or mission equipment, until NASA bought a ride on Starship for Artemis. If SpaceX can get Starship to Mars, the idea that NASA wouldn't bother to buy some flights for some Mars landings seems nonsensical.
> If serious Martian habitat development only starts after Starship is flying, it will take decades to be ready.
So? Mars colonization is a centuries/milennia sort of thing.
Well take that matter up with them. I wasn't among those laughing at their plan to develop reusable boosters. Reusable boosters have clear commercial application. Everything SpaceX has actually put serious money behind is something that has near-term commercial value.
> Nor were they investing in lunar landers or mission equipment, until NASA bought a ride on Starship for Artemis.
SpaceX won a contract. How much have they actually spent in developing lunar-specific equipment? I doubt they even expected to win that contract.
> So? Mars colonization is a centuries/milennia sort of thing.
A serious Mars colonization effort a century from now obviously won't be using Starship, unless rocket development severely stagnates between now and then. So if you're conceding that sort of timeline, let me reiterate my point: Starship will never bring a colony to Mars. There is presently no serious effort underway to colonize Mars.
> won't be using Starship
I wouldn't be so sure. Practically every non-SpaceX workhorse spacecraft in use today has roots in rockets developed in 1960s. That's 60+ years ago. Some are even earlier: Delta is the latest version of Thor from 1950s. Soyuz rockets were designed in 1960s. RD-180x series were built for Buran and is based on the NK-33 from 1960s.
It's not so difficult to imagine that 60 years from now, in the year 2082 we might be able to get people to Mars, perhaps using Starship.
> Starship will never bring a colony to Mars
Obviously. It will start with a small crew. Probably after we mastered getting to the moon.
I mean, a Mars habitat could be something as simple as: find a lava tube, unroll a giant plastic bag, inflate it with air so it's snug up against the walls, and put an airlock at one end? It'd be underground, away from radiation. It could be insulated to keep heat in.
The environment could be maintained by similar equipment to what's on ISS, but some of the problems would actually be easier on Mars because there's an available atmosphere and a landscape that can provide resources. No need to bring extra oxygen, and maybe not even extra water.
Obviously there's a lot of little details you'd need to work out, but Mars is a less hostile environment than ones we've already sent people to, like the moon or even low Earth orbit.
I don't think this is "20 or 30 years out". I think it could happen pretty quickly, assuming Starship meets expectations.
I think there is an economic problem, though: the first Starships to Mars are going to be stuck there for a long time because they won't have fuel for the return trip. Reusable ships are great, but if it's 10-20 years before any of them come back that kind of hurts the argument that reusability will make going to Mars cheap and convenient.
Starship is probably adequate to support a smallish Moon base, along McMurdo lines. The moon offers much of interest, particularly its billion-year-old lava tubes.
Lunar lava tubes are wholly unique. They will probably be filled with incredible filigreed crystal structures grown by differential vacuum sublimation over uninterrupted hundreds of millions of years.
This is, in a word, wrong:
https://www.space.com/26267-china-lunar-palace-space-researc...
https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Engineering_Techn...
https://www.css-inc.com/projects/bioregenerative_life_suppor...
We cannot sustain a million people on Mars just yet. That's a far cry from claiming there has been no progress. For that claim to sustain, the British Bombe was a dud for not being able to run one's taxes.
THAT SAID: the monarchist Thiel acolytes pushing Mars to profit off surveillance contracts while trashing anything resembling a response to our climate crisis can go stuff it. They are not only destroying what we have. They are, in the long run, undermining the Mars project as well.
I think, though, that if it's actually happening it might not be happening in a very public way. I mean, it's not exactly in the news every time someone develops a new space suit or a new air lock or a more efficient CO2 removal system. And a lot of the equipment sent to mars will probably just be boring industrial equipment, tools, construction materials, storage tanks, electrical cable, pipes, and so on, some of the same or only slightly modified from what's available at any hardware store. A few things will be highly specialized for the Martian environment, such as vehicles. Some things will be redesigned for no other reason than to reduce the mass so we can send more stuff cheaper.
I wonder if there are any large-scale coordinated projects to figure out what exactly is needed for a minimum viable settlement, or if it's all kind of ad-hoc with a bunch of private companies and universities working on projects more-or-less at random with no organization? Or if everyone is kind of just sitting on their thumbs waiting for someone to take charge and/or start giving out grants and making purchases?