>


Why woul anyone want to go live on Mars



That should be easy to answer for the hundreds of thousands of people who are interested in space and/or rocketry. It's a dream come true for them 


It would be pretty exciting for geologists too. Studying their area of interesting in a completely different planet, learning things that just years ago were beyond the realm of human possibility


Meteorologists could learn about the weather on another planet too. More things could be learned in a few years then in an entire life of remote observation


If we're taking a colony, city planners could get a blank slate in a unique environment. They'd probably relish the challenge.


Imagine the literally impossible to create on earth things a sculptor could create with new materials and lower gravity



We will ruin the earth launching people and things to a planet 

One rocket is equivalent to something like 200 fights in CO2. There are around 39 million commercial flights every year. SpaceX set a record by launching 60 rockets last year. We're a very very long way away from rockets being a significant source of CO2.
Oh, and you want to reduce waste? The entirety of human spaceflight spending from all sources is roughly $8 billion per year. That's about the same as the marketing budget of the major tobacco companies. Spaceflight should be way way down on your list of wasteful things to eliminate
We haven't sent anyone to Mars yet, that's just the long term goal and probably won't take place until we get more infrastructure up into space and the moon.
Rockets do emit carbon dioxide but there are so few of them that it won't make a huge difference, especially in comparison to all the other options for lowering carbon emissions that we have. >

To expand on the second point:
A single ~~average sized~~ large international airport causes more CO2 emissions in a day than every rocket launch on earth for an entire year. >

that makes no sense. source please. >

And rockets launch communication, broadcast and GPS satellites, without which our global shipping industry would also very much collapse.
They also launch weather satellites enabling us to better predict things like hurricanes, or allow us to detect wild fires early.
Research for Space applications has led to countless spin off technologies that make our daily lives possible. >

When the entirety of the human race is confined to one planet, then all it's takes is one astronomical event to wipe it out. If humans are to persist and survive, they need to eventually colonize other planets.
Mars is the easiest place to attempt it first. >

If human's were to build a self sufficient bunker in a remote location on Earth (say Antarctica) which made it's own food, oxygen, energy, material resources, etc. and had a population sufficient to repopulate the earth without inbreeding, what astronomical event couldn't it be designed to survive? Certainly building such a bunker would be far cheaper than a Mars colony. >


what astronomical event couldn't it be designed to survive?

A large enough meteorite impact, for instance. >

Are there any known asteroids/comets with an orbit that could theoretically intersect Earth's that would be so large that a bunker could not be designed to survive the impact? Clearly something the size of the asteroid that caused the K-T extinction (end of the dinosaurs) wouldn't be sufficient, since plenty of species survived so presumably people in a well built bunker would be fine (assuming we are not so unlucky so as to have the object impact directly on the bunker, maybe that is an argument for building 2). >


Are there any known asteroids/comets with an orbit that could theoretically intersect Earth's that would be so large that a bunker could not be designed to survive the impact?

No... we're not talking about the coming decades here, not even the coming centuries. We're talking about a fundamental mechanism of security for the next milennia, maybe beyond. It's not likely that anything of that scale will happen, but it is certainly a good idea to work towards the necessary technology while we can.

presumably people in a well built bunker would be fine

I think you're imagining this a little too optimistically. There is more to the whole thing than just surviving the impact - you need to have a somewhat stable society, enough genetic diversity, enough material and know-how, plenty of energy and the ability to function without any outside interference. 
"It's the same for Mars!", I can hear you say - but there is one fundamental difference: this bunker would likely be used when it is needed. A colony on mars could grow in relative isolation for a very long time before a cutoff would happen, allowing for a much greater possibility of relative stability - or otherwise, a retry. I would even say that life on Mars would be significantly easier than life on post-extinction-event earth, especially with potential decade-long ice ages that make any sort of progression and expansion nearly impossible. >

Why would life on Mars be easier than post extinction event Earth? Even after an extinction event Earth would still have more easily available oxygen, water, soil, a magnetosphere, etc. >


Why would life on Mars be easier than post extinction event Earth?

Primarily because you still have access to resources - metals and minerals are easier to find on mars than in antarctica. You also potentially have a greater ability to expand and most likely a much greater potential for gathering energy. In antarctica, you will be mostly limited to geothermal energy, whereas you can fall back to solar energy on Mars.
Key point is: Mars can be tested and problems fixed - in the bunker scenario, there is most likely not much testing, especially under real conditions. >

Why would there necessarily be more testing on Mars than on Earth? Any project on Mars is going to be orders of magnitude more expensive than a comparably sized project on Earth, so that would suggest less money for testing (given a similar budget).  
Why would mineral resources be easier to obtain on Mars than in Antarctica? Though much of the continent is covered in icefields, there are large dry areas (Antarctic oasis) which are essentially like the surface of Mars but with an atmosphere and magnetosphere. Metal and mineral resource would presumably be available in these areas.  
It's true in Antarctica you wouldn't have much solar potential, but there is ample wind power available. There are also coal deposits.
I feel like the only way Mars is better is if you are assuming that we will be willing to pay way more to set up a Mars colony, or that such a colony would have some way of being economically viable in a way that an Antarctic bunker colony could not. >


Why would there necessarily be more testing on Mars than on Earth?

Because you send people to Mars to never return - I doubt there would be sufficient amounts of people willing to be locked up in a bunker in Antarctica for the rest of their lives. And even if there are - how many times are you going to repeat that? Do you just put people in there now just in case? That seems quite unlikely to me.

Why would mineral resources be easier to obtain on Mars than in Antarctica?

Because the ice sheet over antarctica is, on average, two kilometers thick.
The amount of energy required to dig for resources is orders of magnitude higher.

there are large dry areas (Antarctic oasis)

2% of the total land mass. Arguably, building in one of these areas might be less secure than in others, especially since they could easily become completely submerged, which brings a whole other set of problems...

but there is ample wind power available

This becomes notably more difficult inside the antarctic oases, since those are generally valleys. Wind is, additionally, not an ideal source of electricity, as mechanical parts are prone to requiring more maintenance and breaking. If you still insist on wind power, the mars has martian dust storms that could be utilized.

There are also coal deposits.

Those would require notable mining operations and constructions of powerplants - including immense requirements for water consumption. That is generally difficult to accomplish.

I feel like the only way Mars is better is if you are assuming that we will be willing to pay way more to set up a Mars colony, or that such a colony would have some way of being economically viable in a way that an Antarctic bunker colony could not.

Since you're bringing it up: yes, absolutely. A colony on Mars has potential for growth - it's primary function is not to be a haven for survival; the function is to become a viable place to gather resources, including simply using the space that is still unused. It is an (arguably, extremely long-term) investment that would likely offer returns at a later point - which is simply not the case for the antarctic bunker. >

Antarctic ice sheet 

The Antarctic ice sheet is one of the two polar ice caps of Earth. It covers about 98% of the Antarctic continent and is the largest single mass of ice on Earth, with an average thickness of over 2 kilometers. It covers an area of almost 14 million square kilometres (5. 4 million square miles) and contains 26.

Climate of Mars 

The climate of Mars has been a topic of scientific curiosity for centuries, in part because it is the only terrestrial planet whose surface can be directly observed in detail from the Earth with help from a telescope. Although Mars is smaller than the Earth, 11% of Earth's mass, and 50% farther from the Sun than the Earth, its climate has important similarities, such as the presence of polar ice caps, seasonal changes and observable weather patterns. It has attracted sustained study from planetologists and climatologists.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5) >


heres a better idea lets launch ourselves into reality and stop emmitting so much carbon and start living more in harmony with our biosphere on our only perfect planet for life. lets just sit on the idea for a few hundred years and if it still seems like a good idea we can reconsider.

With current technology and resources, "living more in harmony with our biosphere" means subjugating poor countries, preventing Africa, India, and China from developing the way the western world has, as we don't yet have the technology for them to develop without increasing carbon emissions.
The only way we're going to be able to lift poorer parts of the world out of poverty while "living in harmony with our biosphere" is technological advancement, and that's not a linear path you can just decide to go down in one direction. The process of going to Mars and learning to live there is going to present us with problems that we will figure out how to solve one at a time, and some of those innovations will lend themselves to technology that can help us go green on Earth. If we can make Mars livable, we can solve any environmental problems we might have on Earth.
Beyond Mars, there's the resources of the asteroid belt we will most likely learn how to utilize. With current technology, going green requires lithium for batteries and a number of other metals for solar panels. We have limited supplies of those things on Earth, and mining them isn't clean, but the asteroid belt has them in spades. Reaching zero carbon emissions while also lifting the poorest parts of the world out of poverty may not be possible without those resources. >

Ok what your saying is rational.  but i disagree with you about the mars thing. if we send people to go live are  mars, they are not going to like it there. maybe for a few months or a year but the  people we send there will go mad and killl themselves. its not a healthy thing to do. it will be terrible to realize you have decided to leave the beautiful earth to live on mars. even if we had people who would sign up because they have terminal illness, you cannot just send anyone because if people go crazy you will have to execute them in favour of not having them do something crazy and risk hurting  everyone else. only military personel will be eligable in my mind. we really dont need to gain resources from asteroids, we need to use less non renuable resources and we need to stop polluting the atmosphere. we will eventually invent more  sustainable ways to do everything. its all just too rushed in my mind. but i can disagree and still acknowledge how reasonable your thinking is. >

Getting off this planet is one of the most important missions we have. 

but cmon, this idea was all an attempt to secure funding for starlink by musk. 

People have been thinking about this long before Musk. Stop letting him live in your head rent free.

We will ruin the earth launching people and things to a planet with no atmosphere in the hopes of changing it in to a more earth like planet. 

The earth was being destroyed even without space. That's a pro argument for going to Space, not against.

heres a better idea lets launch ourselves into reality and stop emmitting so much carbon and start living more in harmony with our biosphere on our only perfect planet for life.

Why not both?

lets just sit on the idea for a few hundred years and if it still seems like a good idea we can reconsider.

It seems like a good idea now. Why sit around and wait till we get bitch slapped by an asteroid to start thinking about getting life off the planet?

We are young technological civilization

And I would like it to last till the heat death of the universe. >

no delta.

Getting off this planet is one of the most important missions we have

Maybe to you, but to me that is drinking the coolaid. The single most important should  be  preserving this earth, the  environment,  the habitat, the other species. if we do that we  can live here for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. eagerly rushing off to put a "colony" on mars runs in direct opposition to this goal which i consider to be of primary importance.

Stop letting him live in your head rent free.

that is just kind of rude, i charge a high price for rent.

The earth was being destroyed even without space. That's a pro argument for going to Space, not against.

this is wrong, the earth is not being destroyed without space. ill look past the poor  grammar, and just say that its likely that the great filter is exatly this problem. that intellligent species  are too hasty to use their new tech and they distroy themselves. if we can  terraform  mars for  christs sake  we can live in harmony on earth.

Why not both?

THERE IS NO LIQUID MANTLE -> NO MAGNETOSPHERE. You dont think you are 1000% more likely to get blasted by asteroids on a planet with NO ATMOSPHERE.

And I would like it to last till the heat death of the universe.

you did it, i want off this planet. there is no winning with people on this topic.
the way you become a mature space fairing species is by not spending your whole paycheck the day you get it. you listen to scientists and you  develop your tech  over millenia. we  are destroying that very potential by  trying to live on a desolate planet with no hope of becoming a flourishing ecosystem. >


Maybe to you, but to me that is drinking the coolaid. The single most important should be preserving this earth, the environment, the habitat, the other species.

The earth is just a rock floating out in space. The life apon the earth is what is important. 

if we do that we can live here for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. 

Yeah we're off by many orders of magnitude. Im thinking trillions of years here. And you never know when a cataclysmic asteroid is going to come for a visit. It's already happened multiple times in Earth's life.

Eagerly rushing off to put a "colony" on mars runs in direct opposition to this goal which i consider to be of primary importance.

If protecting life is the primary goal for you, then you should agree with me. You protect life by not keeping all of your eggs on one space rock.

that is just kind of rude, i charge a high price for rent.

Apparently not.

This is wrong, the earth is not being destroyed without space. ill look past the poor grammar, and just say that its likely that the great filter is exatly this problem. that intellligent species are too hasty to use their new tech and they distroy themselves. if we can terraform mars for christs sake we can live in harmony on earth.

Lmao, you really think sending a few rockets up is the reason the earth is being destroyed?

THERE IS NO LIQUID MANTLE -> NO MAGNETOSPHERE. You dont think you are 1000% more likely to get blasted by asteroids on a planet with NO ATMOSPHERE.

If humans are in two different locations, then that makes it significantly more difficult for a meteor to take out both of them. Come on my man, did you even think about the arguments your making? No one is saying we should just all ditch earth and go live on Mars.

you did it, i want off this planet. there is no winning with people on this topic.

Glad you came around

The way you become a mature space fairing species is by not spending your whole paycheck the day you get it. you listen to scientists

Which scientists are claiming going to Mars is dumb?

and you develop your tech over millenia. 

Which space fairing species time line are you looking at as an example?

we are destroying that very potential by trying to live on a desolate planet with no hope of becoming a flourishing ecosystem.

And which stats do you have showing space travel particularly dangerous? >

i can provide stats for the danger / infeasibilty of human space travel. and also the space fairing species im referencing is that there seems to be none. it is likely that it is because they destroy themselves trying to rush the tech thats my point. look  into "the great filter" >


I can provide stats for the danger / infeasibilty of human space travel.

Great, please show me the evidence for the claim that space travel is destroying the planet. Waiting patiently.

and also the space fairing species im referencing is that there seems to be none. it is likely that it is because they destroy themselves trying to rush the tech thats my point. look into "the great filter"

Lol, so you look out into the universe, see no aliens and think "wow" that's proof they all destroyed them selves trying to get into space? >

sorry i thought you meant dangerous for us to travel in the interstellar medium. i am not saying that currently we are destroying the pllanet  with launches. im  saying  the amount of launches it would take and the tons of supplies needed to get to mars would significantly be higher than current launch numbers. and that would harm the planet. >


Im saying the amount of launches it would take and the tons of supplies needed to get to mars would significantly be higher than current launch numbers. and that would harm the planet.

Not really, we are already sending a fair amount of rockets into space and most of the journey to Mars takes place away from earth. 
A mars colony would probably only see a couple rockets going to it a year. Space X is already sending far more then that and these have minimal impact on the environment for amazing benefits.
Space travel opens up orbiting solar panels for clean energy. Orbiting farms reducing pesticides and land waste. Off planet mining for the minerals that we need. Protection of all life forms from cataclysmic events. 
until aliens are proven to exist then preventing all known life in the universe from going extinct is the most important thing we can be doing. And that means moving some of it off the planet known to have it. >


Not really, we are already sending a fair amount of rockets into space and most of the journey to Mars takes place away from earth.

you need to send all the stuff to build the domes people would live in. every device, every material, everything. we dont launch anything like that to space now. we are talking about a constant supply route to mars basically. >

This isn't something that would be expected to happen over night. Reusing rockets as living containers is looking like the methods we will be using in the earliest colonies.
The first colony would be small and grow as they grow more and more self sufficient. Pretty simple  it's not like NASA is going to announce a mars colony and then immediately send thousands of people over there. >

I'd want to.  I bet you can find lots of people here who would want to.  So...you know...that part is just empirically false!
And...what?  Starlink is wildly successful and he's planning on using the money from it to fund mars, not the other way around.  So...that perspective just seems false to me.  
I agree that we need to do much more on Carbon stuff, but I also believe that the pursuit of space exploration is a driver of technology that enables energy efficiency.  Massive advancements in solar power generation (PV) were developed in the space program in the early days.  And...that's a reason to use people.  Our energy needs here are people-needs, not robot needs. >

I agree that starlink is awesome, im a computer science student and i love it. i didnt say that is was a bad way to get investment, but the idea itself was a scam, which bought startlink which is awesome. i just think mars living is stupid.
to your first point, i think you would spend about a month or two on mars and then start to realized you fucked up. >

the idea itself was a scam?  What?  He didn't get distinct investment for it, his funding received from the government did not and was not allowed to include anything about the rest of spaceX - it was exclusively bound to rural internet efforts and spaceX was a minor recipient of that money compared to other ISPs.
Please don't think for me, i've told you what I think! >

I certainly agree in the short term, and Musk's proposal is ludicrous. But eventually if we continue to progress in technology Mars is the best planet for us to expand to and try to live on, which is something humanity has dreamed of for a while. I'd be surprised if it literally never happened, even if the current plans for it suck. >

Every decade there is a small chance that a nuclear war breaks out. Settling off earth as soon as possible is a good way to increase humanity's odds of survival. >

thats like saying every day there is a chance someone kills me so ill just kill myself before they get a chance. >

It's not like that at all actually >

i dont think it will even be allowed. you cant have people just go there and lose their minds and kill themselves. there is  no coming back... >

If you are into “space exploration” you should understand that you will need some experience before venturing far away, also, bases on the moon and other planets could be useful someday if we really go far enough >

ok thats totally true. although i am of the mindset that over the next hundred thousand years we will evolve/mix with cybertech and AI and that species if you will, will be more suited to spaceflight. i see these early  ventures to colonize mars as being a threat to that eventual success. i study theoretical machine learning and i see machines as being a superior biological form in the long term.