Colonies on Mars -- fundamental problem

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter arupel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fundamental Mars
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
47 replies · 6K views
Isn't that sophistry? Establishment and resupply of a colony (like Jamestown, for instance) presupposes enormous external state support. One can expect that other nations would vociferously object under the terms of the treaty. And I didn't say it couldn't be done; just that it would be illegal. We've built special secure housing for people, because the law is so often broken.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
I don't get it. If people are confident they can survive on Mars, and are willing to take the risk in exchange for being the first inhabitants on a new planet, who are you on this forum to tell them they can't or shouldn't? Nobody is forcing them or you to go. If it scares you, stay home.
 
Because of the moral hazard that their country assumes when they do (the huge expense of ongoing resupply, and the poor prospects of a return journey), and the damage they will do to a pristine ecosystem when they arrive. I'd be fully in favor of PROHIBITING any Americans from landing on Mars. And an international treaty saying the same for other nations. EVENTUALLY, when we have a better grasp of the ecosystem and whatever biome(s) we might find, then I would allow research stations. But not until then, and we're a very long way off that standard.
 
There's a thing called "Planetary Protection." Either we live by that as a moral code, or we just bulldoze it all until it looks like Texas to us.
 
Timber said:
Because of the moral hazard that their country assumes when they do (the huge expense of ongoing resupply, and the poor prospects of a return journey), and the damage they will do to a pristine ecosystem when they arrive. I'd be fully in favor of PROHIBITING any Americans from landing on Mars. And an international treaty saying the same for other nations. EVENTUALLY, when we have a better grasp of the ecosystem and whatever biome(s) we might find, then I would allow research stations. But not until then, and we're a very long way off that standard.

I agree with you that Mars shouldn't be colonized(until it becomes, if ever, practical to do so), but because the planet is a desolate, frozen rock with no food, air, or (liquid)water millions of miles away from any food, air, and water.

If biomes were to be found, then of course moral objections, but this is unlikely to happen. At best we may find evidence of microbes that lived there billions of years ago.

But, I have no objections to studying and advancing the technology required for colonizing other worlds. If it's possible and feasible to terraform Mars someday far in the future, I'm all for attempting it.
 
I say we get there BEFORE the beauracracy catches up.
 
phyzguy said:
I don't get it. If people are confident they can survive on Mars, and are willing to take the risk in exchange for being the first inhabitants on a new planet, who are you on this forum to tell them they can't or shouldn't? Nobody is forcing them or you to go. If it scares you, stay home.
That's one way of looking at it but there are people in all walks of life who can be persuaded into actions that put them in danger. Drug dealers use the fact that people can be lured into very dangerous behaviour and so can religious extremists and casinos. Make anything attractive enough and there will always be someone daft enough to take it up.
Who am I to make that comment? A thinking person who has concern for others. My opinion is what it's worth and no more but at least my point is a humane one.
 
p1l0t said:
I say we get there BEFORE the beauracracy catches up.
. . . . which was the attitude to destroying the rainforest and for fishing out the North Atlantic Cod etc. etc.. Then leave it to the grandchildren to sort out the result.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: phinds
sophiecentaur said:
Did you not get the Irony?

Does that mean there actually are no "Mars advocates" claiming something like that? Than what was the point of this post?
 
sophiecentaur said:
. . . . which was the attitude to destroying the rainforest and for fishing out the North Atlantic Cod etc. etc.. Then leave it to the grandchildren to sort out the result.
Well but Mars is already not suitable for humans. If anything we should send 2/3 of the population there and then maybe Earth will have a chance of being preserved.
 
DrStupid said:
Does that mean there actually are no "Mars advocates" claiming something like that? Than what was the point of this post?
I think the point was that all the 'simple' solutions for living on Mars seem to be dismissed as too hard when applied to surviving on a 'broken' Earth. I have to agree with that too. Temperature and gravity are two factors that make living on Earth (even in fall out shelters etc. ) far preferable to any other alternative yet Mars fans still favour the Mars solution.
 
p1l0t said:
Well but Mars is already not suitable for humans. If anything we should send 2/3 of the population there and then maybe Earth will have a chance of being preserved.
Or perhaps just have a good war. Alternatively just wait for a massive plague. Horrific circumstances but the outcome could be limited overall damage. People always assume that we can actually do something about it' and it may not always be the case.
PS Cost of a few billion one way tickets?
 
sophiecentaur said:
Or perhaps just have a good war. Alternatively just wait for a massive plague. Horrific circumstances but the outcome could be limited overall damage. People always assume that we can actually do something about it' and it may not always be the case.
PS Cost of a few billion one way tickets?
Be careful what you wish for... No sane person would make such a decision unless it was the only hope left for humanity. Which is probably why we will wait until it's far too late.
 
If you were a stranded humanoid space alien or just some AI; your warp drives had packed up, but you still had some fuel to do short distance maneuvers.
I'd say Earth would look like be a better place to attempt a landing than Mars.
 
Thread closed for moderation. This topic has been discussed many times already on PF; there might not be much point in another discussion.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: arupel and sophiecentaur
Thread will remain closed. Thank you to all who participated. :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: p1l0t