Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacquesm | Hacker News Reader

You write that as if it is a done deal. Mars' atmosphere is roughly .5% of that of Earth and almost exclusively CO2. Temperature ranges are well out of what they are on Earth. It is hard for technology to survive there, it is impossible for people to survive there until there has been an unbelievable investment in infrastructure.

If you think there will be a million people colony on Mars in your lifetime than you are not in touch with the physics of this kind of endeavor. All of our GDP for the next 50 years pooled together would likely not be enough to pull off a feat like that. The scale we're talking about here is too large to even contemplate.

10 people in a shitty little dome, maybe. Right up to the moment they die because of some small mishap.

View on HN

I million people will be very hard.

But the first starship missions will drop 100 tons each to the surface of Mars at a cost of a few hundred million dollars each. And they will send dozens of Starships that first trip, building an camp with over a hundred explorers and scientists the first synod.

They will have thousands of tons of equipment and supplies, and their habitats will have multiple redundancies and be easily repaired.

Mars is far easier to survive on than the Moon, for example. The temperature ranges are far milder, Mars reaches 70 degrees Fahrenheit at its equator during the day. The day is the same length as ours. There is adequate solar for power, tons of water, and a plethora of other easily accessible resources from CO2 to Iron.

Although I’m also not expecting 1 million people on Mars in my lifetime, I think you’re assuming SpaceX never gets close to the Musk price goals.

You might be right to do that — I’m no rocket scientist — but the target price would get a million people there for $200 billion, not your $5 quadrillion.

Yes, I also expect the first few thousand to be in easily damaged domes. I also expect them to bring some of The Boring Company equipment with them, as it is part-owned by SpaceX and the stated raison d'être of TBC being pointless in a future of fully self-driving cars.

The other factor is that Musk has nothing better to spend his money on. With Tesla + SpaceX + Boring + Neuralink he'll likely be a trillionaire by the time Mars colonization is full swing. Even if the price was $2T instead of $200B, Musk might be able to fund most of this himself.

How are tunnels pointless in a future of self driving cars, the opposite is true, tunnels make even more sense when cars drive themselves.

Self driving cars done right will be able to do full speed while literally, not metaphorically, touching bumpers.

Traffic jams with human drivers happen spontaneously when the cars get close enough that overcompensation turns into a negative spiral.

So in the city of the future you gone have 1000s of self driving cars going full speed threw the city? It makes much more sense to open up the city for people and ban cars for the most part. Move the transportation under ground.

Please, millions.

The roads are already there, electric cars are quiet, road trains are even more efficient.

I am no fan of American city design, having half encircled Davis CA on foot, having found the suddenly-terminating sidewalks in Salt Lake City, and having walked the really boring route from San Jose railway station to the hotel in the top left corner of the Apple Maps icon.

(NYC is surprisingly pedestrian friendly though).

In Europe we are already trying to make more space for pedestrians specially around the city center. The value of the land above ground is incredible. Freeing up those spaces from cars makes sense and is incredibly nice.

I know, check my profile ;)

But:

1. Musk doesn’t live in Europe, he set up TBC while stuck in a traffic jam in Los Angeles.

2. Solid car trains moving at full speed (whatever that is for the road, 20 kph for residential or much higher than the current rules for highways) use less land area than any other traffic, so some lanes can become bicycle only or whatever.

3. They can “perfectly” obey traffic lights and give way to pedestrians

4. Raised walkways are cheaper than tunnels

To get a sense of the difficulty, imagine sending a million people to the South Pole to set up a self-sustaining colony. That would be much more than 1000 times easier than establishing such a base on Mars.

I’ve often said the same thing. South Pole and underwater cities would be easier than mars or even moon colony. As much as I want the later to happen- I think 1 million people on Mars or Moon will require something that makes them more appealing than even the worst Earth locations. That has to be something pretty drastic. Elon says motivation will be “it’d be cool”. I don’t think that is enough motivation. Still, I’d rather have the capability developed than not, and hopefully those motivations present themselves without being too dire (like a comet heading our way)

A science outpost, specifically as a place to put telescopes, seems the most compelling. The rest of the population would then grow along side the science outpost to service it (food, transportation, etc.) A looong time until a million people, though.

Why would you put a telescope in a gravity well though?

Would it not be easier to build large structures in orbit or at one of the Lagrange points?

There's been some really interesting ideas for a new generation of telescopes that Starship's cargo capacity could enable. Telescopes on the far side of the moon are the classic example. They'd be shielded from the sun for 14 days out of 28, permanently shielded from Earth, and still have all the advantages of being in a vacuum. Gravitational-wave telescopes on the geologically-stable lunar surface are another interesting idea.

But I think my favourite idea is infrared scopes in the polar craters, some of the coldest places in the solar system. You don't need a complicated JWST-style extendable sun shield or limited helium supply. You are limited in terms of direction, but that's not a bad tradeoff.

Africa was in Europe's back yard yet when they got the opportunity they colonized the Americas. Colonizing a formerly unexplored place where nobody has yet laid claim has a lot of appeal (and this time we (probably) don't have to kill/displace the natives to do it).

Europeans were kept out of Africa by disease.

I'd rather say the Europeans were kept out of Africa because of nowhere near European levels of valuable resources (think farmland, wood) other than slaves for centuries. Diamonds and uranium are a recent thing.

I always heard it was a logistic issue more than anything else? Getting from Europe to the Americas and then back in a sailing vessel is easier than getting to Africa's East coast and back.

Which explains why Africa was colonized so much more successfully than (checks notes) ... Australia?

I'm interested in living on Mars. I'm not interested in living in Antarctica.

Massive domes to act as greenhouses, melting a couple miles of ice cover. Fossils and untapped resources. Antarctica could be a lot of fun to colonize.

Easier is a downside.

It would be smart to demonstrate ability to do thing A before attempting thing B that is 1000 times harder.

With any luck, things you learn actually doing A, and then A' that is 10 times harder, and then A'' that is 100 times harder, will all turn out to be useful, even necessary, in tackling B. Failure is always an option, but there is no point in choosing it at the outset.

Maybe SpaceX should practice colonizing in Antarctica. They could fly all their gear in on Starships and do a dress rehearsal.

True, but I'm not sure difficulty is as relevant if the motivation is there. You can't terraform the South Pole. Mars reopens the frontier whereas the South Pole is a dead end

The South Pole starts out way more terraformed than Mars can ever be. It has air, water, gravity, and is warmer. You can just put up domes and it's already way better than Mars. Mineral wealth is only a mile down, under the ice.

Under the sea starts out way more terraformed than Mars can ever be. It has water, gravity, and is warmer. Mineral wealth is right at hand.

The cloud tops of Venus start out way more terraformed than Mars can ever be. It has air pressure, gravity, water, carbon, sulfur, and shirtsleeve temperature.

What motivation does Mars provide that those don't?

If your goal is to be a multi-planet civilisation, neither Antarctica nor the oceans of Earth would work; also the layer of Venusian atmosphere that you’re describing is way too cold for there to be useful quantities of metals you could extract from the rain (unlike the lower layers, where mountain tops are frosted with metal: https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a11506/hea...).

The other option is the Moon, which has even less atmosphere and even bigger temperature swings than Mars.

Planets are for extreme primitives, anyway.

But the point was, if you haven't even proven you can settle a mildly challenging environment, your odds on an actually difficult one don't look good.

We know by demonstrations that we can make settlements in Antarctica and underwater, we just don’t have any reason to do more than science and military.

Venus, you could only settle by bringing in everything from outside unless and until you can convert the atmosphere in a large way into building materials — Mars at least you only need to convert it into fuel, because you can do at least some of your construction from rocks.

All the settlements on Antarctica are utterly dependent on enormous support frequently airlifted from outside. There have been no settlements underwater at all; little more than camping trips have been essayed.

On Venus, plastics, carbon fiber, water, buoyancy gas, and breathing air (I repeat myself) can be made directly from the air and clouds. Plastic and carbon fiber gives you building materials. Robots can gather minerals from the surface and deliver them by balloon to the cloud tops. Insolation provides abundant power, moreso than here; or, a lightweight, unshielded nuke plant may be suspended a mile or more below industrial plant, supported on its own balloon.

Mars will be much more unpleasant than Antarctica. We don't even know whether people can live for long in Mars gravity. We know that long weightlessness is quite harmful.

If you’re going to use that standard against nuclear submarines and deep-sea oil drilling, it is unreasonable to also say we can make those things from Venusian air. Yes, in a lab, sure — that’s proof of concept, far less than a camping trip, and roughly the same level as extraction of oxygen from rocks.

TBM FTW.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com