Colonization of Mars

Exactly, more to the point why would they?

If an advanced race had the capability to go all over the galaxy, what is the point of meeting less advanced civilizations?

They like us would want to meet more advanced civilizations.

Regards,

In human history, meeting a more advanced civilization was generally a recipe for disaster.

I do not necessarily subscribe to Dark Forrest theory, but it is certainly possible that any space faring species might be highly xenophobic - the idea goes back at least as far as Larry Nivens ‘Pak Protectors’ in the 1960’s.

But if c is the legal speed limit of sentient life, then likely all sentient life dies alone.
 
Yeah, that is 100% a bunch of people who did not grok the personal responsibility side of libertarianism. Not to mention even the most basic theory of "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose"
The Fourth Age had a video on how the WWII "Myth" is crumbling...a part of me can understand some of that--another part wants to hop in a deuce-and-a-half with the ghost of Steven Ambrose, Sgt. Rock and Rosie..and we're all out of bubble gum. Yeah--call the Greatest generation backwards while thinking fops with pantaloons and powdered wigs aren't dated. NUTS!

It is bad enough they ran a town into the ground--they won't do the same to American spaceflight if I have anything to say about it.

To Josh_TN

I thought the name Moon-unit Zappa was weird...
 
Last edited:
In human history, meeting a more advanced civilization was generally a recipe for disaster.

I do not necessarily subscribe to Dark Forrest theory, but it is certainly possible that any space faring species might be highly xenophobic - the idea goes back at least as far as Larry Nivens ‘Pak Protectors’ in the 1960’s.

But if c is the legal speed limit of sentient life, then likely all sentient life dies alone.
As interesting as this train of thought is, I again note it has nothing to do with the colonization of Mars; so it should split into its own topic, should anyone else care enough to submit a request for it.
 
Looking at all the ridiculous solutions for "fixing" global warming like swarms of umbrellas in space
I dare put forth the idea of encasing Mars in a thin layer of light material like aerogel but elastic and less porous to gases. This could hold an atmosphere. It just needs to be "regenerative" to deal with holes made by space dust/micro meteorites.
You would need a space elevator(s) for traffic, though.
 
The ridiculous part is how big the umbrella(s) would have to be.
Quite tiny. The idea is basically to have a bunch of big mylar baloons (or mesh) in L1 Earth-Sun Lagrange point, so they would intercept some SMALL percentage of sunlight. Mainly in the part of the spectrum that plants did not use.
 
Quite tiny. The idea is basically to have a bunch of big mylar baloons (or mesh) in L1 Earth-Sun Lagrange point, so they would intercept some SMALL percentage of sunlight. Mainly in the part of the spectrum that plants did not use.
Yeah, it doesn't need to be one giant solid structure. Same for Mars; while you could build a single enormous solar sail to serve as a mirror, you don't need to.
 
Once you leave the protection of Earth and the Van Allen Belts you might as well build a large microwave oven at home, wave everyone goodbye and sit inside it with the oven on.
In the same way that noone lives or works under the oceans as forecast in popular books sixty or so years ago.
Wanting to do things is not a reason for doing them.
 
Last time I checked he had 12 kids. Wikipedia probably has a list...
 
In human history, meeting a more advanced civilization was generally a recipe for disaster.

I do not necessarily subscribe to Dark Forrest theory, but it is certainly possible that any space faring species might be highly xenophobic - the idea goes back at least as far as Larry Nivens ‘Pak Protectors’ in the 1960’s.

But if c is the legal speed limit of sentient life, then likely all sentient life dies alone.

Yes, correct in "Human History". As above we are always looking for what is in it for us, hence the chaos we continually live through. Yet we are a young civilization I would think.

If an advanced race came to earth probably the first thing we would do is greet them with a missile.

So you're at your two wormholes, one going to a less advanced civilization who would no doubt treat you as threat.

Number two going to a more advanced race who would not perceive you the same way.

I would believe an advanced civilization would look at the universe potentially in a far different way we might currently, so very hard to say either way.

But if c is the legal speed limit of sentient life, then likely all sentient life dies alone.

In this case a wormhole may allow you to reach a distant location faster than light could travel the same distance through normal space. Moreso the speed of light itself is not exceeded within the wormhole itself.

This is almost faster than light travel as the distance between two points is less due to the wormhole.

Regards,
 
Once you leave the protection of Earth and the Van Allen Belts you might as well build a large microwave oven at home, wave everyone goodbye and sit inside it with the oven on.
In the same way that noone lives or works under the oceans as forecast in popular books sixty or so years ago.
You realize that engineers and scientists worked on radiation protection for decades?

Wanting to do things is not a reason for doing them.
Oh, but it's the way mankind evolved - by doing things even if it didn't look like mkst reasonable idea at this moment)
 
Yes, correct in "Human History". As above we are always looking for what is in it for us, hence the chaos we continually live through. Yet we are a young civilization I would think.

If an advanced race came to earth probably the first thing we would do is greet them with a missile.

I would not assume any other species went through a very divergent evolutionary cycle than earth, and on earth there is generally a healthy competition to see who dies and who lives among species. A more technologically advanced species might feel no need to exterminate other potential threats or it might decide there is zero reason to risk their existence for some kind of altruism that might not even exist in their culture. If I see a yellow jacket queen, I kill it, because I consider it a pest species. What if I think yellow jackets could eventually be an existential threat?

IMO, it is a lot more likely a more advanced species turns us into pets, food, or history rather than waste any time even communicating.

But again, if c is the legal limit, it probably does not matter - no one can get anywhere fast enough to care.
 
Last edited:
You realize that engineers and scientists worked on radiation protection for decades?
I suspect because of antinuclear campaigns, radiation has become a boogeyman people assume is way too complex for us to tackle. While it has challenges, they’re solvable. The primary constraint is how much mass we’re able to add to a system in order to shield it. That’s as true on Mars as it is in space, and there are multiple ways of tackling radiation shielding.
Oh, but it's the way mankind evolved - by doing things even if it didn't look like mkst reasonable idea at this moment)
Right. If we only did what was immediately and obviously useful, we’d probably be much poorer, and certainly less happy. Materialism doesn’t tend to think much of the arts, and many of our scientific discoveries have come by accident. There’s a tale about a guy in the Middle Ages who spends most of his time on projects the village needs, but sometimes he takes time to grind down glass into various shapes. The villagers complain that he should be spending all of his time helping them, but their lord protects the guy and says to let him work. They can’t see that one day being able to shape glass leads to glasses, telescopes, and more, only that he isn’t exclusively focused on what they want.
 
An interesting analogue and as the presenter says, 'Antarctic buildings might represent a preliminary form of space architecture.'

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_cGGdZRXD8&ab_channel=Louped
Interesting...

On Mars life
 
An interesting analogue and as the presenter says, 'Antarctic buildings might represent a preliminary form of space architecture.'

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_cGGdZRXD8&ab_channel=Louped
It's not exactly wrong, but a lot of details would have to change as well.

In general, you'd need airlocks on all the main doors, as well as some airlocks between sections internally in case of emergency. Exterior airlocks, I'd want some kind of washdown mechanism to prevent getting space dust into the interior.
 
It is impossible to build something that is totally idiot-proof, we can send a few psychologically stable people to a planetary colony, but nothing guarantees that they will not have teenage children who decide to commit suicide for love, opening all the hatches of the base.

Humans are not suitable for serious long-term jobs, it is better to send robots where they are needed and keep humans busy in something that does not cause problems. Music, sports, elections, sex scandals... etc.
 
It is impossible to build something that is totally idiot-proof, we can send a few psychologically stable people to a planetary colony, but nothing guarantees that they will not have teenage children who decide to commit suicide for love, opening all the hatches of the base.
Nothing other than total surveillance and people being ready to jump on a potentially-suicidal hormonal idiot all the time.

Plus mechanical interlocks on airlocks, so that only one door can be open at a time. This makes it so that it would take massive physical damage to vent large parts of the base to vacuum; 1) raising the effort to commit suicide, and 2) making any such attempt a lot more obvious.
 
The biology of human life on mars would probably play heavinto its culture and survival, or lack there of. That’s why I find it fascinating that people are conjuring cultures there when we have no idea if the simplest mammals can live there.
 
It is impossible to build something that is totally idiot-proof, we can send a few psychologically stable people to a planetary colony, but nothing guarantees that they will not have teenage children who decide to commit suicide for love, opening all the hatches of the base.
Survival of societies like Eskimos means some cultures can have reliability rates high enough to sustain life in hash environments without much tech overmatch.

That said, total surveillance is nothing in the playbook for human survival. More radical things have been done and is merely alien to people of modern cultures.

And paranoid settlers should know better to share an airlock with "other people."

Frankly I'd expect the settlers and their children to be cult-like more than anything due to initial selection pressures and isolated environment.
 
Survival of societies like Eskimos means some cultures can have reliability rates high enough to sustain life in hash environments without much tech overmatch.

That said, total surveillance is nothing in the playbook for human survival. More radical things have been done and is merely alien to people of modern cultures.

And paranoid settlers should know better to share an airlock with "other people."

Frankly I'd expect the settlers and their children to be cult-like more than anything due to initial selection pressures and isolated environment.
Humans survive when they have air, water, and food, but if you leave them at the bottom of an empty pool, they only last fifty hours.
 
Heating is also not to be underestimated. Depending on actual radiation loss and the temperature level you want to keep constant, the requirement can be staggering. The hotter the faster the rate of loss. For reference air has cp = specific heat of air (1.006 kJ/kg C°). As much of half of that could be lost per hour.
 
Yes, launching thousands of chemical rockets with up to 330t of methan fuel is certainly bad for global warming. And that is if this can even be sustained to begin with. But this only matters to those left behind on Earth.

That said imho space technologies like a real life support system would help us build and survive in future enclosed cities on Earth.
There's a reason the saudis rushed and started building their Neom city this year.
 
The carbon generated from a Starship launch is a minuscule (think less than a thousandth) of the carbon from a typical day on Los Angeles’s freeways. Should SpaceX begin using synthetically produced methane, it will effectively be carbon-negative. If one believes carbon is a threat rather than the building block of life, there are far better targets.
 
What we should do is send as much in the way of organisms that can live on Mars as it is there to start populating the planet with some sort of life.
 
What we should do is send as much in the way of organisms that can live on Mars as it is there to start populating the planet with some sort of life.

Probably not something you want to do without a bit of thought to the consequences and benefits…

But effectively we have already sent life to mars; there’s no way to completely clean a spacecraft of it. How long the bacteria survive is probably going to warrant its own space mission in a couple decades…
 
Probably not something you want to do without a bit of thought to the consequences and benefits…

But effectively we have already sent life to mars; there’s no way to completely clean a spacecraft of it. How long the bacteria survive is probably going to warrant its own space mission in a couple decades…
Different planet, not a problem. The biggest thing needed to make Mars really into somewhere habitable is getting it either a magnetic field or finding a way to block the solar wind from stripping the atmosphere. Once you do that, the atmosphere will thicken and everything gets easier.
 
What we should do is send as much in the way of organisms that can live on Mars as it is there to start populating the planet with some sort of life.
What we should do is send as much in the way of organisms that can live on Mars as it is there to start populating the planet with some sort of life.



That was already proposed at the beginning of the seventies.

We now have the technology to fabricate in the laboratory all kinds of life forms specially adapted to the conditions of life on Mars, including radiation resistance. The problem is that these life forms could exterminate the possible life forms originating from Mars (if they exist) and we could never answer the big question of whether life originally formed on other worlds and then came to earth by the process of panspermia. If someone tried to send life to Mars, every sentient soul on the planet would scream genocide! And they would have ideological fuel to cripple the space program for another forty years, including dozens of prequels and sequels to Alien.

We also have the ability to seed the upper atmosphere of Venus with microorganisms that alter its toxic composition and cause a new flood on the surface, but that will not make the planet more habitable, because, even if we manage to reduce the solar radiation it receives, its geological structure lacks the plate system of the Earth. The cooling would generate apocalyptic cataclysms on the surface for millions of years and by then the solar photosphere would have already begun to grow.
 
Different planet, not a problem. The biggest thing needed to make Mars really into somewhere habitable is getting it either a magnetic field or finding a way to block the solar wind from stripping the atmosphere. Once you do that, the atmosphere will thicken and everything gets easier.
I don’t think that’s a serious problem - the rate of atmospheric loss is well below the quantity of gases humanity is able to produce, and while yes, that won’t be the case on Mars for many generations, we can paraterraform much of the planet’s surface in the interim. No doubt someone will try to find a way to do one or the other regardless, but it isn’t strictly necessary.
 
If humanity is ever wealthy enough and possesses the technology necessary to create a self-sustaining planetary magnetic field, it won't need to terraform other worlds because it will be able to build orbital arcologies of any size, with 1G, clean air, and all the amenities needed to thrive. These arcologies will obtain energy and food from the sun, through artificial photosynthesis, mineral resources and hydrocarbons from asteroids and water, oxygen and hydrogen from comets. Nitrogen can be a problem, but advanced technology can replace it with other designer gases. And if the sun starts to cause problems, arcologies can migrate to the outer regions of the system using a relatively modest propulsion system.

In theory, Mars' magnetic field could be strengthened by generating an orbital cloud of ferromagnetic particles that would be electrically charged during coronal mass ejections from the sun, but the life of Martian colonists would be very difficult at best: evolutionary problems caused by low gravity, difficulties with farming in poisonous soil, and the need to import absolutely everything due to the absence of an industrial base of their own. If the earth became uninhabitable, Mars would not be a good lifeboat, it would die too.
 
How about a simpler and "faster" solution:
Send robots to borrow and build an underground deep enough for gravity to be higher. Since the core is no longer active this shouldn't be a problem. And with higher gravity the atmosphere don there could be kept better.
Only problem is you can't have large cavities without risking colapse and you kind of have to go as deep as ~889.5 km to get ~0.7g. :D
With the excavated material you can reshape the landscape for more ambitious endeavers later.
 
I don’t think that’s a serious problem - the rate of atmospheric loss is well below the quantity of gases humanity is able to produce, and while yes, that won’t be the case on Mars for many generations, we can paraterraform much of the planet’s surface in the interim. No doubt someone will try to find a way to do one or the other regardless, but it isn’t strictly necessary.
It is a serious problem. Solar wind was responsible for stripping Mars of a much denser atmosphere.



It's likely that Mars lost its magnetic field fairly early in its geologic history and that allowed the solar wind to rip away the atmosphere. Finding a way to shield the planet from the solar wind would allow the atmosphere to start to thicken and that could be helped along by various manmade means too.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom