Let’s not send a few thousand people to Mars as a big experiment in survival.

A book review on the latest Weinersmith creation. It’s true, there is so much we don’t know.

Just throwing this out there on this forum because missing technology is the problem that kills the dream of Mars, according to the authors.

      • AA5B@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        The most not caveat is we don’t know how much gravity is how necessary. We know that microgravity in orbit is too little and not really sustainable. Is gravity on the moon enough more for long term health? Is that on Mars? That’s just two of the questions we can’t know until we get there

      • ItsMeSpez@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        So you build spinning space stations instead of settlements on the martian or lunar surface. Likely close to the same material cost, if not cheaper, while allowing us to actually choose the amount of gravity to generate. We don’t know if martian or lunar gravity would even be sufficient to avoid negative health affects.

        • bluGill@kbin.social
          1·
          1 year ago

          Do those count for gravity ? Are there other downsides that we haven’t even thought of? Many unknowns.

    • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      1 year ago

      You do realize that Martians abandon Mars because the protomolecule opens up worlds that are already habitable, so terra forming becomes pointless? It has nothing to do with infrastructure or economy, Mars is supposed to be an eventual second home, not a place to mine. They leave because interstellar travel becomes a reality before Mars becomes viable.

      Unless we discover that Charon is actually a Mass Relay, Mars is the best possible second place for humans.

      Titan is too cold and the atmosphere would require a full changeover, and the Galilean moons are constantly bombarded with radiation, Venus could support a floating colony but thats tenuous at best. Mars is basically it, if we can develop the tech to turn it into a reasonable place to be.

    • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      But gravity may be useful in many applications. We don’t really know how to effectively manufacture many things in microgravity at the moment. The moon would still be important for early space infrastructure.

      Edit: In addition, the moon will be useful for mining and resource extraction for a long time, most likely, due to its proximity to earth and size.

      • ItsMeSpez@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        The gravity problem is also best solved away from the surface of any celestial bodies. Massive spinning space stations would be much more pleasant to live in in almost every way. Unless a planet or moon has a good reason to land on it (e.g. material to be mined) it makes much more sense to simply build a habitat away from the gravity well and build smaller work camps on the surface that can be supported by the main habitat(s).

        • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          2·
          1 year ago

          The problem is that such space stations are very complex to build and maintain, and can more easily catastrophically fail. It’s certainly an option, but it may not be worth it.

          Of course, all of this is speculation, but my point is mostly that if we don’t have sufficiently advanced space construction capabilities, surface habitats and infrastructure on the moon may be preferable.