Post New

After listening to this, I hope Elmo takes off to Mars ASAP or even before that.
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/21/1246202705/mars-col...

I read their book, and found it very entertaining.

But they basically reach the conclusion that we will never colonize Mars, or any other place in space. And that we probably shouldn't even try.

I read their book, and found it very entertaining.

Of course you did. But please don't tell me you read it in the time between the OP and your reply. 😊

But they basically reach the conclusion that we will never colonize Mars, or any other place in space.

On the science board, I posted an article about that (i.e. we will never be able to colonize anywhere). I don't accept "never", because we humans are very ingenious. But, as tech currently stands, we can't do it. We could overcome the microgravity problem by having sections of any vessel spin. The radiation is another problem, and having enough shielding to protect the astronauts would be prohibitively heavy.

The article I posted specifically mentioned renal failure (due to cosmic radiation). By the time any astronauts would reach Mars, they would already be sick (possibly terminal). They would never survive the homeward journey, suffering acute renal failure long before they got here. And all the time they were on Mars, they would suffer continued radiation since Mars has no magnetic field to speak of, and almost no atmosphere. Both those things protect us here on Earth, or else we never would have evolved.

On the science board, I posted an article about that (i.e. we will never be able to colonize anywhere).

Yes, we've long known the logistical and scientific problems with having a Martian colony, but we like our Science Fiction. IIRC Isaac Asimov wrote about the problems, but we either invent some shield, bury the colony far below the surface, and ignore the rest. Musk is aware, I'm sure, but likes to talk.

From what I've read about space, until we develop radiation shielding, artificial gravity, and can solve long term food issues, it is a place to do a lot of interesting research but not a place to live. Once we solve those issues we can work on multigenerational starships to get out of this solar system. There is no place in our neighborhood that is better than Earth no matter how badly we F-it up.

But they basically reach the conclusion that we will never colonize Mars, or any other place in space. And that we probably shouldn't even try.

That’s the mentality that told Magellan not to set sail or he might fall off the end of the Earth.

That’s the mentality that told Magellan not to set sail or he might fall off the end of the Earth.

You're old time. Knowledge that the earth was round goes well back to around 500 BCE. It was well know among all the educated in Rurasia by Magellan's time. What we were taught as kids is bunk.

That’s the mentality that told Magellan not to set sail or he might fall off the end of the Earth.

That mixes up exploration and colonization. Magellan (and others) discovered lots of places that no one chose to colonize. Because those places were completely horrible for long term human habitation.

The authors’ conclusions were based on a few points. First, it is impossible to overstate how unsuitable for human life any space location is. Everything is radioactive, poisonous, often incredible sharp and abrasive, and it lacks almost everything we need to survive.

Second, colonization requires babies and kids. We don’t know if we can reproduce without gravity. We don’t know if babies can develop properly without gravity, or with reduced gravity. You obviously can’t get a one year old on a treadmill for four hours a day to keep their body from deteriorating. And we can’t replicate gravity on a surface of a planet. And there’s no ethical way to find out - unlike adult astronauts, babies and kids can’t ethically consent to experimental or test efforts.

And finally, even trying to colonize space is probably more dangerous to humanity than going without a Plan B - because it increases the chances we lose Planet A. Historically, national efforts to compete for colonies have caused wars and conflict. So trying to establish colonies can make some of the scenarios we’re trying to insure against more likely.

First, it is impossible to overstate how unsuitable for human life any space location is. Everything is radioactive, poisonous, often incredible sharp and abrasive, and it lacks almost everything we need to survive.

And…?
That’s my point. At every instance in human existence someone said ‘don’t’ Because “it’s too hard” or a variation of that.

You guys need to re-watch JFK’s speech at Rice University.

You guys need to re-watch JFK’s speech at Rice University.

JFK stated a specific, achievable goal and time frame, and we achieved it.

Elon’s fever dream is more along the lines of “Hold my beer and watch this.”

And he’s willing to destroy this country in service to his ketamine fueled fantasy.

Second, colonization requires babies and kids. We don’t know if we can reproduce without gravity. We don’t know if babies can develop properly without gravity, or with reduced gravity.

That makes me wonder if they've had experiments on the ISS with mice being born and reared in space. Surely that must have been done already. But even if it was a complete success, mice aren't human beings.

And…?
That’s my point. At every instance in human existence someone said ‘don’t’ Because “it’s too hard” or a variation of that.

And...that's why we shouldn't do it.

You're absolutely correct that we should never avoid doing something that's worth doing just because it is hard. But that doesn't mean we should ever do something that isn't worth doing just because it's hard, either.

It's the reason we don't have undersea colonies today. We probably could establish an undersea colony, using current or near-future tech. It would be insanely difficult, but 1000x less difficult than a space colony. But we don't. Because it just isn't worth it to do it. It if were less difficult - if the humans who lived in an undersea colony could survive with less privation and less risk of instant death and less resources to persevere - then we might attempt it. But it's not.

The same is true of space colonization (not exploration). Given the stuff you'd have to do in order to make it work (including a lot of what are essential human experiments on babies and children), it's not worth it. Any more than it's worth establishing an undersea colony.

no, we dont have undersea colonies because we all watched the movie "Abyss" :))

And...that's why we shouldn't do it.

People said the same things in the 1960's during the Apollo program.
And before that with flight.
And before that with exploration.
And...

And so on and so on.

It would be insanely difficult, but 1000x less difficult than a space colony.

Actually, much harder given the pressure involved.

The same is true of space colonization (not exploration). Given the stuff you'd have to do in order to make it work (including a lot of what are essential human experiments on babies and children), it's not worth it. Any more than it's worth establishing an undersea colony.

Welp, that's certainly a take. For some folks it was too hard to set off and look for land in the New World and for some it was too hard to expand the United States out west. But exploration (and more to the point, the spirit of exploration) drives innovation and the problems you mentioned will eventually be overcome.

Actually, much harder given the pressure involved.

You don't have to go to the bottom of the deepest part of the ocean, any more than you have to have a space colony in the hardest parts of space to colonize. You can have an undersea colony in places where the pressure is modest and there's still sunlight.

But no one does, or has tried to, or has any plans to. Because it's not worth the difficulty. Just because something is really hard to do doesn't mean it's worth doing, any more than the converse.

Welp, that's certainly a take. For some folks it was too hard to set off and look for land in the New World and for some it was too hard to expand the United States out west. But exploration (and more to the point, the spirit of exploration) drives innovation and the problems you mentioned will eventually be overcome.

Except it's fairly easy to articulate the benefits of looking for land in the New World or exploring the United States out West. Getting more developable, arable land for cultivation and settlement is generally a valuable thing. Any land on earth that's capable of supporting human life can generally be settled, and have value for the settlers.

The same is not true of space, any more than it's true of the undersea floor (even in shallow areas). It's not worth it. You don't gain enough value from having that extra area of habitable land to make it worth the effort. It's always worth exploring those areas, but not worth maintaining a permanent human settlement with babies and children and such.

The same is not true of space, any more than it's true of the undersea floor (even in shallow areas). It's not worth it. You don't gain enough value from having that extra area of habitable land to make it worth the effort.

LOL. Eventually at some point we’re going to run out of things here on Earth. Isn’t that what the climate alarmists always tell us? It does happen to be true for certain things.

Mankind’s destiny is to explore and expand. Not retrench.

And…?
That’s my point. At every instance in human existence someone said ‘don’t’ Because “it’s too hard” or a variation of that.

You guys need to re-watch JFK’s speech at Rice University.

No. We are not saying "don't", another straw man by the dopester. We are aware and YOU ARE NOT. We sent up a twin in orbit space and measured both before and after. Near space changed the DNA. Musk isn't performing experiments there. He'd brag about it for one. We are far away from the ability to shield the human body, and Musk would probably want us to subsidize the experiments.

Make no mistake - we could send people up to cook and sterilize - bask in the radiation, figure out how to make air. Grow food? probably. Until we can do that without harming them, we're just asking them to sacrifice themselves. You wanna ask MAGA for volunteers?

Mankind’s destiny is to explore and expand. Not retrench.

Is it, though?

One of the main points of the book is that the limits to our colonizing space may not be technological know-how. It's that we inhabit bodies and have brains that were optimized through untold millions of years to live on earth. We have a pretty wide habitat range, since we're a fairly flexible species - but it's not unlimited.

One key example they explore is human psychology. Many humans tend to do poorly being confined in small spaces with other humans with no opportunity to get away. Some humans do well at it, but many many humans aren't going to be able to do it. Past experiments involving the types of conditions likely to be encountered in long-term space travel and/or colonization, like the Bio-Dome, reveal the need to carefully select participants for their ability to withstand those types of conditions. As I think you intimated upthread, explorers and pioneers have a certain spirit and personality. So if you're doing an expeditionary or exploratory mission, like every other space mission we've done, you can select for those traits.

But unlike exploration, colonization involves a second generation - and beyond. Instead of having participants that have self-selected or been chosen for their fitness for those conditions, now you're just getting random humans. Not entirely random, of course - but people that have not been screened for their suitability for living in small enclosed spaces with other people. Some of them, likely many of them, will not be able to do it.

While a mission can make sure those people aren't stuck in space conditions with careful screening and replace them with people who are, a colony cannot. Which makes the colony doomed to fail. Unlike any earth conditions, a space colony with any technology we're likely to have in the next century or so is not likely to be suitable for average humans with average human psychology to live in.

And that's before we get into what happens to babies as they grow up in 1/6 or 1/3 earth gravity. As in, we don't know if they can develop normally if they're not in earth-normal gravity, and develop their bone structure and musculature without it.

<<You can have an undersea colony in places where the pressure is modest and there's still sunlight. But no one does, or has tried to, or has any plans to. Because it's not worth the difficulty.>>


"DEEP’s Sentinel subsea habitat system radically expands human access to the ocean. Sentinel fills a technology gap unserved by diving or submersible methods, allowing people to live and work underwater for longer periods and unlock new discoveries."

https://www.deep.com

:-)

No. We are not saying "don't", another straw man by the dopester. We are aware and YOU ARE NOT. We sent up a twin in orbit space and measured both before and after. Near space changed the DNA. Musk isn't performing experiments there. He'd brag about it for one. We are far away from the ability to shield the human body, and Musk would probably want us to subsidize the experiments.

Make no mistake - we could send people up to cook and sterilize - bask in the radiation, figure out how to make air. Grow food? probably. Until we can do that without harming them, we're just asking them to sacrifice themselves. You wanna ask MAGA for volunteers? /i>

Are even aware of what you type? After you accuse me of a strawman you go on to state the No, Don’t case.

Sheesh. Next lib, please.

Is it, though?

Has been for, oh, the last 3,000 years or so. From Chinese sailors to Romans to Vikings to Spaniards and beyond…

One of the main points of the book is that the limits to our colonizing space may not be technological know-how. It's that we inhabit bodies and have brains that were optimized through untold millions of years to live on earth. We have a pretty wide habitat range, since we're a fairly flexible species - but it's not unlimited.

So there are no other planets like Earth out there?

Many humans tend to do poorly being confined in small spaces with other humans with no opportunity to get away. Some humans do well at it, but many many humans aren't going to be able to do it. Past experiments involving the types of conditions likely to be encountered in long-term space travel and/or colonization, like the Bio-Dome, reveal the need to carefully select participants for their ability to withstand those types of conditions.

You know the Navy has screens for people who spend 6 months underwater in nuclear subs, right? Obviously it’s not for everyone.

If we’re going to explore the stars, we’re not going to be able to do it launching from Earth. We’re going to have to have bases in orbit, on the moon, and perhaps other places.

Technology advances. Maybe this guy at NASA figures it out:


https://www.space.com/warp-drive-possibilities-pos...

Exactly. The technology exists today to get us to Mars. But any astronauts either wouldn't survive the journey, or would be ill and die before they could get back.

Also...just a quibble...we (mankind) are not destined to do anything. That would imply a plan; a puppetmaster. There is no evidence of such. We are driven to expand, likely a survival instinct. But we are not destined or preordained to do anything, except maybe die**.



**We all will die. It's just a question of terminology. It's inevitable, unavoidable, but not "destiny".

When I saw the quote at the top of albaby1's post my first thought was based on geologic history, the destiny is evolution or extinction or both.

"DEEP’s Sentinel subsea habitat system radically expands human access to the ocean. Sentinel fills a technology gap unserved by diving or submersible methods, allowing people to live and work underwater for longer periods and unlock new discoveries."

While it remains to be seen if they pull that off, again that's directed towards exploration (research) and not colonization. It's an entirely different endeavor. It's one thing to have self-selected or screened adults who are chosen for specific personality types and skill sets to spend time in an environment - even a long time. Continuing that with a second generation who will (essentially) represent a random cross-section of personalities and skills is a wholly other thing.

"DEEP’s Sentinel subsea habitat system radically expands human access to the ocean. Sentinel fills a technology gap unserved by diving or submersible methods, allowing people to live and work underwater for longer periods and unlock new discoveries."

https://www.deep.com/

Pretty cool. I couldn't tell whether this modular undersea habitat system has to be on the sea floor or not, but if it only has to be anchored to the sea floor, while remaining, say, 150 ft below the surface, it could provide a partial solution to rising sea levels robbing us of coastal living space. But, even 150 feet down, leaks could still be catastrophic.

So there are no other planets like Earth out there?

None close. The nearest one is 4.25 light years away. That's far enough away that adult humans won't be able to reach it using any propulsion system consistent with the laws of physics as we know it now before they age out of child-bearing years. Which means having kids on board - a colonization ark. Which means all the problems of physiology and psychology that make such an endeavor all-but-impossible to achieve.

Technology advances.

It's not a technology problem, though. It's a problem of biology, ethics, psychology, and economics/return on investment. We don't know what happens to babies and children if they have to grow up in an environment with significantly less than earth-normal gravity, lots of reasons to think it would be bad, and no ethical way to find out if it's safe. We know that most humans are not psychologically equipped to deal with long periods in confined spaces in close quarters with other people (which is why the Navy screens for the ones who are). And while there's plenty of economic reasons to explore space, there aren't any reasons to colonize it. Same dynamic as research in inhospitable areas on earth; there's plenty of reasons to do undersea research, but no incentive (economic or otherwise) to set up an undersea colony where people live for the rest of their lives and raise families.

We can see how it might be possible for technology to advance to the point where we can safely send adult humans to another planet for research and exploration. Or to establish a permanent research facility that adults travel to for long periods of time, like we have in Antarctica. But there's no real path forward for a human colony, which will (by necessity) involve babies and kids and lots of people that neither chose to be in that environment nor have any useful skills to contribute to that environment.

... a colonization ark.

There are some other non-FTL technologies that are as popular as multi-generational starships.

One is having the human cargo ride in stasis on robotically run ships or with a small human crew that reproduces in route.
The Last Cuentista by Dona Barba Higuera is a sci-fi story based on this model. It does not go well for the human cargo. This won the 2022 Newbery, but don't let that award for children's and young adult lit. fool you into thinking this is not a serious thoughtful book. It is like all the best writing in that it can be read on many levels.

Another is having the human cargo upload their consciousness to data storage and have their bodies cloned and their consciousnesses downloaded when needed.
From the title alone you can guess this does not go well in Six Wakes by Mur Lafferty. It tells the story of the murdered crew of the spaceship Dormire as the murders are investigated by the victims' clones. It is a terrific sci-fi murder mystery and it is like Murder on the Orient Express with all the suspects trapped together, and everyone has a motive and something to hide.

But if you are really committed to colonizing Mars then the Lady Astronaut series by Mary Robinette Kowal is a great one to get not just the science of such an undertaking but also the political and social aspects too.
The Calculating Stars is book 1 of the series. The story begins with a meteorite that stikes the Earth just off the coast of Deleware destroying most of the East coast and starting the space race a decade early in the days of human computers. Book 2 is what happens on the trip. Book 3 swings back to look at what is happening on Earth during the astronauts' trip. And Book 4, which I haven't read yet (saving it for a long road trip) is on the Mars.

While it remains to be seen if they pull that off, again that's directed towards exploration (research) and not colonization. It's an entirely different endeavor. It's one thing to have self-selected or screened adults who are chosen for specific personality types…..

You’ve been repeating this point, but so far, nobody has addressed it.

If we could accelerate a habitat to the speed of a voyager probe, then 75,000 years would get you to Alpha Centauri. But you would be traveling 17 kps and the above time interval fails to account for deceleration time to match orbit. Moreover, in 25,000 years, Alpha Centauri is projected to be moving away from us at 45 kps.

But then if we can travel faster at significant fractions of c, even slowly moving subatomic particles become highly energetic radiation. And when we get there, we have no idea what will be found, so be prepared to live on the depleted habit indefinitely.

And Mars will never have a breathable atmosphere. Those gases are gone and will not be re-extracted from the minerals remaining.

Some problems are insurmountable.

Science fiction does construct a pathway to the stars. Whether or not that pathway is practical, achievable, or even desirable, is a matter for future generation to discern.

The issues facing us at the moment are more concrete; how shall we care for the planet/home we inhabit right now?

When I listen to the pessimistic futurists today who speak of dwindling earth resources and the need to colonize other planets in order to preserve a future for the human species, I wonder why all of the future technologies that they claim will be needed to terraform other planets for human habitation….. might not first be dedicated to addressing the issues of our own earth habitat?

Why must we look at ourselves as a species that fouls its own nest and then goes searching for other nests to foul?

IF there exists any sort of Intergalactic Council that tracks developing civilizations of sentient beings, then surely their current analysis of human civilization has led them to the conclusion that we are akin to a lethal virus that destroys the ability of planets to sustain life. Having degraded earth, humans are now poised to seek other worlds in order to subdue, extract and ultimately- discard.

Perhaps our efforts would be better applied to earth’s flourishing than to its abandonment.

Just my thoughts on this beautiful April morning in Michigan

When I listen to the pessimistic futurists today who speak of dwindling earth resources and the need to colonize other planets in order to preserve a future for the human species, I wonder why all of the future technologies that they claim will be needed to terraform other planets for human habitation….. might not first be dedicated to addressing the issues of our own earth habitat?

Yes. Why these nonsense dreams of going somewhere else. It is not going to happen in any scalable way, if at all. Let's work on keeping this planet habitable!

<<While it remains to be seen if they pull that off, again that's directed towards exploration (research) and not colonization. It's an entirely different endeavor.>>

Al, it was just in fun, man.

Along the lines of Elon, there really are a few libertarian billionaires exploring ways they can establish their own colony undersea. Bless their hearts.

None close. The nearest one is 4.25 light years away.

Minor quibble. That is the distance to Promixa Centauri. To my knowledge, we don't know if there are habitable planets there. Proxima B is within the "goldilocks" zone, I believe. But we haven't had any measurements consistent with an oxygen atmosphere (and it would be foolish to send people there without confirming they could at least breathe). I recall reading a month or so ago that via spectroscopic analysis they had detected an atmosphere that contained either O2 or water vapor (can't find it quickly). Something like 20 LY away(?). That would be a potential candidate.

Also...a point of ethics: if it is conducive to carbon-based life, then there is a high probability some is already there. Would it be right for us to take their planet, or even a portion of it? A lot of sci-fi starts with aliens trying to do that with us (e.g. War of the Worlds, V, etc). We certainly wouldn't appreciate it if that happened to us.

Some problems are insurmountable.

While I'm a sci-fi guy, it's just "cool". In the end, if you were to ask me, it is better to take care of our own planet rather than just "using it up" and trying to move to a new planet.

Minor quibble. That is the distance to Promixa Centauri. To my knowledge, we don't know if there are habitable planets there. Proxima B is within the "goldilocks" zone, I believe. But we haven't had any measurements consistent with an oxygen atmosphere (and it would be foolish to send people there without confirming they could at least breathe).

It's super unlikely we would ever find an earth-like planet that's close enough to be reachable with less than faster-than-light transportation and have an oxygen atmosphere. I think any discussion of extraplanetary colonization has to start from the premise that there won't be a breathable atmosphere.

The huge advantage of Proxima B is that it's estimated to have a mass of about 1.07 Earth, which means it solves the one biological problem that can't be solved by any technology we have today - gravity. Many of the hazards to human life in space are environmental dangers like radiation, extreme temperatures, lack of breathable atmosphere. But those can mostly be solved by building a habitat underground, which shields against most of that. But the one thing you can't solve for is low gravity, like you would have on the Moon or Mars. Our entire physiology is based around the presence of Earth-normal gravity, and it takes a ton of very intentional and specific exercise by adult astronauts to keep their bodies from falling apart in zero-G. It's hard to imagine what would happen to a baby growing up in a low-G environment.

That's probably the biggest barrier to near-term space colonization: it's probably impossible for babies to grow to maturity in a healthy way anywhere that isn't close to Earth-normal gravity.

Speaking of deep sea bases, meet China's:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/at-6-500-feet...

According to Farmingdale Observer, the underwater station is being developed by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, with construction already underway.

The site, located near hydrothermal vents in the South China Sea, offers a unique opportunity to study complex ecosystems.

These vents, which release mineral-rich hot water, support over 600 distinct species of organisms, some of which have evolved in extreme conditions of pressure and temperature.

That's the BS stated reason. They want the geothermal vent to power the place up; they could give 2 rips about whatever marine life lives there.

The station’s design, which incorporates advanced autonomous submersibles and a fiber-optic communication network creating a “four-dimensional” monitoring system.

And there's it's real purpose.

The station’s design

From which (US) company(ies) did they steal the design?

The station’s design, which incorporates advanced autonomous submersibles and a fiber-optic communication network creating a “four-dimensional” monitoring system.

And there's it's real purpose.

And we've known that for years. Along with that they've been mapping the seabeds east of the Philippines. They know where to hide their subs.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.