
Colonising Mars is unlikely and a bad idea - EvilMonkeyMat
https://theconversation.com/sorry-elon-musk-but-its-now-clear-that-colonising-mars-is-unlikely-and-a-bad-idea-100964
======
SirensOfTitan
I found this article incredibly frustrating to read. It doesn't do anything to
support either of its two titular stipulations.

The best I could find as to why colonizing mars is unlikely:

> But according to a new study, published in Nature Astronomy, Mars has lost
> so much of its potential greenhouse gases to space over billions of years
> that there is now no possibility of transforming the remaining atmosphere
> into a breathable one with available technology.

... of course terraforming Mars would be difficult with available technology.
Certainly the author doesn't imagine technological process standing still?

On the second stipulation, that colonizing Mars is a "bad idea," could we
please get there first then figure out the ethical issues? Does the author
really think we should have a perfectly correct ethical plan of moving off of
the planet?

~~~
tunesmith
I thought there was one clear assertion in there:

1) Previously, terraforming was thought to be possible, given there being
enough trapped greenhouse gasses to establish an atmosphere

2) Recently, it was shown that there is not enough trapped greenhouse gasses
to establish an atmosphere

3) Therefore, terraforming Mars is seen as far less possible (or
alternatively, would require much more advanced technology) than before.

~~~
_rpd
We've long known that we need more nitrogen. One idea is to use ammonia
asteroids, which do double duty as a greenhouse gas ...

[http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/zubrin.htm](http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/zubrin.htm)

------
greedo
Searching for life robotically would take centuries not "years or decades."
And the idea that human colonization will wait until we're sure we're not
disturbing nature is a non-starter. We'll go to the moon when we are
technically and financially able.

And nothing in the article indicates why terraforming is unfeasible, except
the caveat of "with available technology."

------
mercwear
This reads like a piece that is just meant to garner attention since Tesla is
high up in the news cycle (as usual).

------
geuis
The primary points the article raises are:

* Potential life after recent detection of suspected liquid deep water

* Not enough reserves of gases remaining to eventually thicken the atmosphere

* Lack of a magnetic field to preserve the remaining and new atmosphere if created

1\. Life has always been possible on Mars. The discovery of liquid water
improves this but doesn’t affect possible colonization efforts. Short term,
people will be setting up to survive either on or near the surface. It will be
important to stay away from such areas except for study, but that doesn’t
preclude human settlement efforts.

2\. Terraforming in any form is a long term (centuries) goal. The state of the
atmosphere won’t degrade in anymore significant way in the mean time. There
are more than enough resources in the solar system to import material if that
ever becomes a goal for Martians.

3\. There are proposals already for satellites in Lagrange points between Mars
and the Sun to generate artificial magnetic fields to slow down and prevent
the stripping of the atmosphere. By the time technology like this is required,
millions of people will already be living there for at least a century or
more.

So overall the gist of the article would be like telling colonists to the
Western Hemisphere in the 1500’s that it’s not worth trying because building a
highway across the continent is impossible with current technology. While true
at the time, there was no need for such a long term goal back then and wasn’t
for centuries.

Plus one thing about Mars is that no one’s there to displace. Scientifically I
care a lot about planetary protection and discovering if life exists there,
but that is ultimately less important than colonizing Mars. It’s not like it’s
going to spring complex life on its own and we would ruin those chances. It’s
a planet’s worth of gravity and natural resources that aren’t going to do
anything on their own.

------
Nasrudith
Really terraforming Mars in itself is peripheral to if we can colonize it.
Creating a vast possibility subterranean "bubble-city" is technically also a
possibility that would reduce the needed gases by orders of magnitude. It
would probably also call for a lot of design work to be psychologically
tolerable to its residents long term. The why bother remains the same however
- unlikely to pay off directly in itself but the research from trying will
likely have other applications. Emergency backup for humanity is likely the
biggest "practical" reason.

Technically we could theoretically recreate a magnetosphere and import gases
from other sources but calling it recordbreakingly expensive would be a
massive understatement. Even attempting it calls for a degree of megalomania.

------
BerislavLopac
Honestly, I see no point in colonising Mars when there are still places like
the Antarctica and ocean floor which are, with all the difficulties, much more
hospitable and easier to reach.

------
eljimmy
Article mentions nothing about why it's a bad idea...

~~~
EvilMonkeyMat
I didn't even realize that. I guess that with hopes of finding new life at
their highest ever, we wouldn't want to contaminate that (if that's the right
way to say it).

~~~
superbaconman
I'm not sure that is the right way to see it. If we did find life on Mars
would that mean humans could never travel there? I don't so. More than likely
we need to transplant Earth life to Mars for large scale terraforming.

------
Leary
Let's get to Mars first before worrying about whether colonizing it is
feasible.

------
EvilMonkeyMat
The part that I've been asking myself for years, is how do you create an
atmosphere without (or almost without, can't remember) a magnetic field. Is it
possible or we would have to generate one?

~~~
_rpd
> While it is true that the solar wind has stripped Mars of much of its
> original atmosphere (due to the lack of the planet's magnetic field), and
> that any man-made atmosphere on Mars would eventually be dissipated by the
> solar wind - the speed at which this occurs is measured over geological time
> frames - on the scale of tens, if not hundreds of millions of years. If
> humanity were to create an artificial, life-conducive atmosphere on Mars,
> any atmospheric output due to economic activity (CO2 + other gases) would
> easily exceed any atmospheric losses. Thus, the atmosphere would be stable.

From ...
[https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceX/wiki/faq/mars#wiki_what_will...](https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceX/wiki/faq/mars#wiki_what_will_colonists_do_to_stop_mars.27_terraformed_atmosphere_being_lost_to_the_solar_wind.3F)

------
bmcusick
The idea that humans shouldn’t expand into the cosmos for fear of displacing
some xenoplanktons is nuts. I’m not anti-xenoplankton, but I’m very pro-human.
We will inherit the stars.

------
tunesmith
I thought the plan to bomb the poles wasn't just to melt ice, but also to
restore the magnetic field to help trap the atmosphere from escaping, is that
true?

------
valgor
Clickbait nonsense. Remove this article.

~~~
EvilMonkeyMat
I understand that this isn't a very great article, but like I thought would
happen, it started a nice discussion here. I love the quality of comments on
HN.

------
cultifier
tldr; The author wishes to speak for " _the world_ " but only shares an
opinion with people who would not be interested in risking, indeed, devoting
their lives to forging civilization in an inhospitable environment.

Truth be told, lots of people would be interested in giving it a shot. This
leaves the idea in a space of political hazard, as a high risk zone for cults
of various flavors, each according to leaders that manage to establish
themselves or stir vectors of internal influence.

