I really hope I get to see a permanent settlement on Mars or the moon. I don't care who settles it I just want to see humanity reach for the stars.
I really hope I get to see a permanent settlement on Mars or the moon. I don't care who settles it I just want to see humanity reach for the stars.
There's a whole book positing that a permanent settlement on Mars is unlikely to work, and I have not seen their arguments debunked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_City_on_Mars
Is it possible that their arguments haven't been noticed to be debunked? These are apparently the authors:
> The book was written by married couple Kelly Weinersmith, an adjunct professor at Rice University in the BioSciences Department, and Zach Weinersmith, a cartoonist known for the webcomic Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal.
Its a good read. I'd encourage you to read it and come to your own conclusion on your question. Personally, they earned my trust but other members of our book club did not agree.
Space is very very unforgiving and they ultimately conclude humanity is better served focusing our resources here on earth first. But the Trekkies have a tough time with that answer because its a bit of a let down.
> Its a good read. I'd encourage you to read it and come to your own conclusion on your question. Personally, they earned my trust but other members of our book club did not agree.
I'm not saying I'm dismissing the arguments for that reason, at all, to be clear! Thanks for the recommendation.
> Space is very very unforgiving and they ultimately conclude humanity is better served focusing our resources here on earth first. But the Trekkies have a tough time with that answer because its a bit of a let down.
Well - it's a tricky one because that is susceptible to slippery slopes. If we hadn't gone to space at all and focused on Earth first we wouldn't have GPS, for example. We can always spend more on Earth to achieve a temporary boon for the current population. We could have not spent money on developing Golang and used the salary to dig wells in Africa, for example.
Spending a tiny amount on space for the chance of a permanent upgrade for the species does sound like quite a good idea, and I'm personally glad the American taxpayer is doing it.
> glad the American taxpayer is doing it.
For Starship development specifically, the American taxpayer is mostly not doing it; Starlink customers worldwide are contributing most, if I understand correctly.
As someone from within the space industry, their arguments are beyond bad. Indeed they miss the point entirely. If you don’t see much people talking about it, it’s because most people in the industry don’t want to stoop to that level.
But there are a few who have bothered. Here is one of the better ones: https://planetocracy.org/p/review-of-a-city-on-mars-part-i
Whole article is trying to solve problems of human society through space exploration and colonization. Like trying to mask one's mental illness by not talking about it.
We don't even have permanent settlements on Antarctica. Don't hold your breath.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_stations_in_Antarctic...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanza_Base
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_Las_Estrellas
Permanent means self sustaining. I.e biodome completely isolated from outside with its own atmosphere.
None of those are self sustaining.
> Permanent means self sustaining. I.e biodome completely isolated from outside with its own atmosphere.
According to whom exactly? For me, permanent means "permanently without breaks".
If you want another word for that, go with "Continuous".
The ISS has been continuously occupied since November 2, 2000. But it was not, in fact, expected by anyone to be a permanent station; It is made of non-replaceable parts that age and fail (decade scale), it only has very limited life support supplies on board (month scale).
I would call the ISS a permanent station.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#:~...
> It is made of non-replaceable parts
Every part of the ISS is replaceable if you want to.
> it only has very limited life support supplies on board (month scale)
I still don't see why self-sustainability is a part of being "permanent".
Why on earth (pun intended), would you want that?
You don't want to be there? Almost every other place on earth is better. So you send a skeleton crew along with what they need.
If it is to test an actual community living isolated, sure. But I think it'll always be different because you know that help is at most a few months away and probably a lot less. I don't think you can fake that, unless you're never told you're not alone
Are you talking a Mars or Antarctica settlement? ;)
(eg any place on Earth is infinitely better than any place on Mars, maybe a couple of scientists are ready to endure Mars for a couple of months at a time, but beyond that? It will be like living in a labour camp in (frozen) hell.
The point is that we don't have technology (or at least not proven) to make a habitat on earth that can reliably provide isolation from harsh atmosphere.
When you are sending people to space on an experimental rocket, with experimental supply for an experimental habitat, all of that shit better be engineered to a huge safety factor, because its not a matter of if things will go wrong, its how often will they go wrong and what the impact will be. To deal with that kind of unknown requires a level of technology that should make it possible to live in Antarctica for extended period of time without any external shipments coming in to resupply. That means heating, oxygen generation, food resources, air filtration, full medical bay capable of advanced surgery, and a bunch of other smaller things that all matter in the end.
Plus insane storms and winds that I’m not sure Antarctica will properly simulate.
Antarctica might be okay as a demo site on that front; https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QK5M_UfofRU
Those "insane storms and winds" in an atmosphere with 2% of the density of earth's atmosphere won't be much of a problem.
> Permanent means self sustaining.
No it doesn't. "Permanent settlement" just means it's not temporary, only intended for a short-term mission.
Nobody’s tried because they are a short flight away from South America. No point. It’s cheaper and easier to fly it in.
There are skeptical arguments against Mars settlement but the Antarctica thing is kind of a weak one.
To point out one more problem with it: there’s legal and treaty restrictions in play for that continent. You can’t just go. That’s another limiting factor.
You can try the same thing in Greenland or far north of Canada. But nobody does that either, because there is no reason to do so.
However put a reason to go to Mars, i.e. alien shipwreck and there is going to be multiple cities within end of the decade.
There's an argument that Earth, as a biodome completely isolated from outside with its own atmosphere, also isn't self sustaining.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day
I'd keep the Moonraker film in mind as a metric for self sustaining colonies created by billionaires. They can't be trusted unless they are also working to fix what we already have.
America still isn’t self sustaining and it’s been hundreds of years.
And the planet is dying
The planet cannot die since it doesn't live. Planet life isn't dying either.