• Serinus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 days ago

    Difficult and stupid aren’t the same thing. There aren’t many goals on the same scale of human progress.

    The attempt would likely teach us lessons about our own atmosphere and maintaining it. Learning the failure conditions of a biosphere and how to avert disaster seems extremely relevant for the upcoming decades.

    • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      OK, let me rephrase, because i’m misrepresenting the book.

      Colonizing Mars is extremely, insanely complex and we have no idea how to even start, and there are SO many better places that we need to try first unless we’re just willing to throw away lives (and trillions of dollars). It goes pretty deeply into all the stuff we either don’t know but need to know, or know but can’t fix, and of course there’s all the stuff we don’t know we don’t know. It discusses the insane logistical effort you need just get the bare minimum going, and how it’s not remotely like living there for a year, or colonizing a new country.

      • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Ceres would be a way better start. Lots of water for shielding, consumption, and fuel; easy access to asteroid orbits; and a shallow gravity well to make transport easy.

        Similarly, many of the icy moons around the gas giants would be good, also with decent mining, but better science opportunities too!

        Our Moon is good too. Close, big enough to not need zero gravity setups. That’s actually about it really, it’s just right here. May as well do Orbit I guess.

        Start with Antarctica and the ocean floor. That’s still 80% as difficult, and rescue can take 30 minutes, not 3 days or 10 months!