
Mars is, at best, no less risky a place than Earth - lukestateson
http://nautil.us/issue/87/risk/mars-is-a-second_rate-backup-plan
======
roca
Seems to me this article entirely misses the point.

If we had sustainable industrial civilization on both Earth and Mars, then if
one planet gets hit we can repopulate it from the other planet, i.e. to kill
off humanity any disaster would have to hit _both_ planets at once, and of
course the probability of unguided space rocks doing this is effectively zero.

I'm skeptical about the value of settling Mars myself, but the article's
estimation of the probability of Mars being hit by civilization-killing rocks
is pretty much irrelevant to the value of settling Mars.

(And it kind of bothers me that "the director of astrobiology at Columbia
University" doesn't see this. It bothers me enough to wonder whether I'm the
one missing something obvious.)

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
Earth would have to turn into a lava planet for Mars to be a better option.
Antarctica is more habitable than Mars and nobody's planning to set up self-
sustaining colonies there. Every technology needed to survive on Mars could be
implemented far easier here no matter how bad it gets.

~~~
natch
As long as it’s on the same planet, it’s still all our eggs in one basket.

~~~
jhanschoo
What kind of failure scenario would have a Mars shelter better than any post-
apocalypse Earth shelter?

~~~
manicdee
Mass political unrest, another pandemic, combined with overpopulation leading
to complete collapse of food systems.

~~~
Can_Not
All of those scenarios combined are much more manageable than Mars.

~~~
manicdee
All the problems on Mars are resolved through engineering.

The problems on Earth are the result of humans thinking their egoes are more
important than the life support system of the spaceship they live on.

Eventually the people problems will ruin civilisation on Mars, but that will
come after the “common foe” of simply surviving on Mars has been sufficiently
cowed.

------
gpm
It probably isn't with current technology, but it has the potential to become
substantially less risky in the near future.

It has no earthquakes, no volcanoes, no hurricanes, no tornadoes, no floods,
no forest fires, and so on. It has exactly two types of natural disasters -
meteor strikes, and dust storms. The former are _very_ rare. The latter can be
mitigated much more thoroughly than natural disasters on earth.

Humans have to live indoors, which mean that it has no shared ecosystem. We
can control the spread of pathogens by isolating populations perfectly. We
don't have to worry about the atmosphere at large becoming poisonous because
we are already managing the local atmosphere as a distinct entity.

It has no large groups of people who do not have the technology to survive in
hostile environments who can come try and steal (and in effect destroy) your
technology.

~~~
chongli
It also has a type of natural disaster that we don’t have: solar flares. Mars
has no dynamo within its core the way Earth does. Mars therefore has a much
weaker magnetic field and so is far more susceptible to charged particles from
the sun.

Solar flares present a huge problem for people living on Mars unless they’re
underground. They destroy any technology that isn’t well-shielded. They also
represent a major obstacle to a project to terraform Mars because the charged
particles will strip away the atmosphere you’re trying to build.

~~~
EGreg
How do they strip it away though

~~~
bhickey
The solar wind hits molecules in the atmosphere and knocks them into space.
This is how Venus lost most of its hydrogen.

[https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-mission-reveals-
spee...](https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-mission-reveals-speed-of-
solar-wind-stripping-martian-atmosphere)

~~~
wahern
A prerequisite was that Venus lost its solid and liquid water. As the
temperature rose water couldn't precipitate, leaving it all exposed in the
upper atmosphere. Oxygen and hydrogen would photo-dissociate and the lower
mass hydrogen would get kicked out into space at a higher rate.

I don't think you need solar wind-magnitude energies for Venus to have lost
it's hydrogen, it just sped up the process. Venus is pretty big, but it's also
really hot. Venus' gravity to temperature ratio permit significant amounts of
free hydrogen to be lost thermally without any solar wind sweeping it away. I
_think_ it's possible that Venus lost most of its hydrogen to thermal escape,
particularly hydrodynamic escape, though today it's no longer the predominate
mechanism for what little hydrogen remains.

~~~
EGreg
Are you saying thermal escape can speed up molecules to such a speed that
gravity can't get them back down and they just escape into space?

~~~
wahern
Yes, not just hydrogen but even heavier atoms and molecules. See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape#Thermal_esc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape#Thermal_escape_mechanisms)

The Wikipedia article
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrodynamic_escape](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrodynamic_escape))
on hydrodynamic escape talks about escaping heavy molecules as if that's the
principle function of the mechanism. But in much of the scientific literature
on early Venus, hydrodynamic escape seems to refer primarily to the escape of
free hydrogen.[1] I'm not a scientist so I don't know what to make of that,
but in any event thermal mechanisms (i.e. Jeans and hydrodynamic) can
absolutely cause gaseous particles to reach escape velocity.

[1] Photodissociation splits H2O, hydrogen is kicked out into space via
thermal mechanisms, and much of the remaining oxygen, too heavy to escape at a
significant rate under the local parameters, is sequestered by the molten
core, volcanism, and surface weathering. At least, that's how I understand the
literature as a layman. The modern debates and research seem to be centered
around the particularities, especially the early geology, such as how long
core material was exposed.

------
miles
The actual title (" _Mars Is a Second-Rate Backup Plan_ ") seems a lot more
accurate than the current HN title (" _Mars is, at best, no less risky a place
than Earth_ ").

------
frank2
>But the closer we look, the more it’s apparent that Mars is, at best, no less
risky a place than Earth.

I thought everyone knew that.

------
no_wizard
I’ve always felt like a moon base would be the perfect stepping stone to Mars,
plus, you can sustainably mine H3!

I think going directly to Mars is going to be a heck of a lot more complicated
than figuring out the quarks of space living in the Moon, even though they do
not parallel 1 to 1 it would be an eye opening experience I think none the
less.

Also closer to the home planet, and could serve as a sort of “to Mars” way
station

~~~
LargoLasskhyfv
What is it with the H3? The only thing you'd need it for is fusion. If you are
capable of fusion you can breed it by that.

------
andai
It's backup earth. It doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be
_something_. Right now we have nothing.

Right now the only off-world humans are on the ISS, and that isn't capable of
continuing independently.

~~~
pfdietz
Now tell me how expensive it's going to be to make a Mars colony that, cut off
from Earth, can not only maintain all its equipment but reproduce it, so it
can grow.

I highly doubt this could be done anytime soon.

~~~
LargoLasskhyfv
Yah well, maybe, maybe not. Instead of force projection by aircraft carriers
and assorted gadgets one could instead invest in people projection by other
gadgets?

Anyways, PEANUTS!

[1] [https://wahre-werte-depot.de/wp-
content/uploads/image41.jpeg](https://wahre-werte-depot.de/wp-
content/uploads/image41.jpeg)

------
elihu
I think talking about the risk of civilization-ending meteor impacts being
more likely on Mars kind of misses the point, which is that having a major
meteor impact wipe out humanity on both the Earth and Mars within a narrow
window of time (like, say, 100 years) is far less likely than the odds of it
happening just on Earth, or just Mars.

There are some risks that would affect both planets (e.g. gamma ray bursts,
something happening to the sun), but many natural risks would be contained to
one.

There are also some risks that might or might not be contained, depending on
how they play out and how strongly Earth and Mars civilizations are tied to
each other. For example, nuclear war, a pandemic, or a severe economic
collapse.

------
pantaloony
Colonizing Mars is cool and I hope it happens for that reason, but it’s a
really expensive way to make our species more resilient. A network of hardened
bunkers and people paid to live in them part-time in shifts would be cheaper.
And if Earth goes through a nuclear war _and_ an fairly bad asteroid strike
you’d still rather be on Earth, in a bunker, than on Mars, in a bunker. Mars
is _that_ bad.

------
vajrabum
The average temperature on earth is 57F and the pressure at sea level is 32
psi. The average temperature on Mars is -81F and the atmosphere is .095 psi
and mostly carbon dioxide. Mars has a gravity of 0.376 g. Visiting sounds like
a fine idea, but I'm not sure why anybody thinks that its likely that people
can live for any length of time on Mars.

------
gavanwilhite
Anthropogenic (human-caused) existential and catastrophic risk is way higher
than risk from natural events (like asteroid strikes). It's unfortunate that
the author misses this point.

Bioterrorism, nuclear war, totalitarian governments, and other anthropogenic
risks would have a harder time spreading between planets than across just one.

~~~
roywiggins
For the forseeable future, life on Mars could plausibly be ended by one rogue
computer virus in the HVAC system.

~~~
LargoLasskhyfv
Go full Battlestar Galactica and make all controls analog.

------
markwaldron
I've always looked forward to the next Age of Discovery, when we set out to
colonize on other planets. What I've never understood, though, is the "plan"
that Mars is a good backup to Earth. Outside of some cataclysmic event - our
planet will continue to be more hospitable than Mars. I have little doubt we
would be able to set up a small station on the moon or Mars within my
lifetime, but I don't see us supporting large amounts of people on another
planet anytime soon.

If we inflict something on ourselves that makes the Earth no longer hospitable
for humans, I think that's when we should call it quits on humanity because we
obviously aren't mature enough a species to take care of our gifts.

~~~
lowdest
I've literally never heard of that plan except from people shooting it down as
a straw man. Mars is a good backup in that a tape drive is a good backup. A
catastrophic event on Earth will likely not impact Mars as well. It's a
biology backup, not a backup for a full life lived on Earth. It's still
something we as a species really need, but it's never going to be a
replacement for the original thing.

~~~
giantrobot
So you've never heard of people espouse Mars as a "backup" for Earth...then
espouse Mars as a backup for Earth? Weird.

Mars is not and at no point in the next century (likely centuries) capable of
being a backup of anything for Earth. It has zero industry, difficult to
exploit natural resources, and the surface and subsurface environments are
completely hostile to human life. A human can only live there with significant
amounts of advanced technology supporting them.

A tape drive can be a back up for a hard drive because it is only mechanically
different from a hard drive. A tape drive can use the same data bus, uses the
same electricity, and stores the same data as a hard drive. It's just slower
and less convenient. Mars is to Earth what soap bubbles for data storage are
to a hard drive. They might be able to store data but they're fantastically
fragile and trying to implement the system would be a waste of time.

~~~
titzer
> Mars is to Earth what soap bubbles for data storage are to a hard drive.

I had already +1'd you here but literally lol'd here.

Seriously though, I have no idea why you are being downvoted; this is a pretty
insightful comment. I guess your first sentence hit too close to home.

------
sigstoat
i don't see the words "correlated" or "decorrelated" in there, so they can't
be addressing the fact that the risks on mars (however great!) are
decorrelated from the risks of earth.

which is the point. not that mars is somehow magically safe.

------
natch
Not everyone is doing this, but I see a lot of smart people assuming that the
people going to Mars must necessarily have the current version 1.x human body
plan. Sure, at the beginning, some will. But in the timeframes we are looking
at, it is highly likely that we can start the process of incrementally
engineering bodies to be adaptable to Mars, not just the other way around. And
Mars is just the beginning.

~~~
paulryanrogers
Mars is only the beginning? Gravity wells take a lot of fuel to escape.
Doubtful we'll be bouncing around the stars without some major breakthroughs
in physics.

~~~
gpm
Venus? The moon? The various moons in the outer solar system?

Agreed that interstellar travel is a ways out if ever... (though it doesn't
require physics breakthroughs, just _massive_ engineering breakthroughs.
There's enough hydrogen in the solar system to make fusion powered thrusters
theoretically possible).

------
walrus01
I would believe we can 'colonize' mars successfully when we can set up a pilot
project, as a self-sustaining colony of people at Bir Tawil, which is
considerably less expensive and difficult to send cargo to on a per-kilogram
basis.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil)

This is what the climate and geography looks like there: [https://www.slow-
journalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/B...](https://www.slow-
journalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Bir-Tawil-5rgb-1194x895.jpg)

~~~
gpm
There are nomads who actively use Bir Tawil, it is not uninhabited.

As soon as you put anything of value there you would suddenly discover that it
is not as unclaimed as you thought, you would have to defend it from both
Egypt and Sudan.

It certainly wouldn't be a technical challenge though. We know how to live in
deserts.

~~~
walrus01
I'm not so much referring the the political problem of inhabiting the area, as
to the technical and logistical problem of having a near closed loop
environmental system. Sure people can and do live in northern Mali or the
southern Libyan desert but even those small towns are connected to somewhat
established networks of cargo truck delivery.

Set up a colony of 50 people in bir tawil and measure how much outside water,
food and other supplies they need (similar problem to biosphere 2) in kg per
person per year... And that's in a place where you can extract some water from
air moisture, with difficulty , and you can breathe the air outside.

------
chemmail
Mar is currently the only backup we have. There is no other choice.

------
dutch3000
species die off. one day humans might. if so, it was a good run. my bet is we
won’t get off this rock before we destroy it.

~~~
gregjor
It’s worse than that. 99.9% of all species that ever existed have gone
extinct. Human extinction is a near-certainty, unless we can colonize other
planets. Right now we can’t even respond to a pandemic or climate change, so
even putting the huge technological problems aside we can’t seem to organize
as a species to deal with actual problems we already have.

Individual lifespans are too short for human beings to plan and implement
large-scale projects that no one working on them will live to see finished.
Hard to get motivated about a distant future that doesn’t include us, even
worse when fewer people have children to think about.

------
modzu
what a linguistically awful title

------
Florin_Andrei
When the early humans came out of Africa, the other continents were not
necessarily safer overall. Better in some ways, worse in other ways. Yet there
they went.

~~~
pfdietz
Bad analogy is bad. The difference in livability between Africa and the other
continents was small. The difference between Earth and Mars is enormous.

If you go to Mars, you will find yourself confined in tiny metal living
quarters, surrounded by sudden death, and everything you want will either be
unavailable or extremely expensive. You can get that experience today in
places we call "prisons".

~~~
Florin_Andrei
> _If you go to Mars, you will find yourself confined in tiny metal living
> quarters, surrounded by sudden death, and everything you want will either be
> unavailable or extremely expensive._

It will not always be that way. We're not going to Mars to live in prisons, in
the long run. That's a very narrow perspective.

------
cryptoz
Of course it's risky. I haven't heard people say it isn't risky. Even me, an
avid Mars settlement enthusiast.

Since the article touches on BO at the end, it's worth mentioning that Bezos'
changing messaging about BO has me saddened. At first I recall him emphasizing
the goal of BO as the reduction of mining and heavy industry on Earth. That is
admirable. Earth as a place to live and space as a place to do dirty industry.
It makes sense.

But the newer espoused vision of BO is to allow humanity to grow to trillions
in population so that we can discover the wonder of having '15,000' Einsteins
or whatever. To me this is tone deaf to the extreme and is ignoring that we
probably already have 15,000 Einsteins but they are spending their whole lives
in poverty or working at Amazon warehouses to make barely enough to live (or
not even) without having much time in the day to read, study, experiment,
self-improve and otherwise become the kind of 'genius' that Bezos hopes to
have in plenty in the future.

~~~
bendergarcia
Exactly in order to have 15000 Einstein’s from a population of 1trillion. You
need 1 trillion living above poverty. We can’t even get 1 billion out of
poverty. Ha. To me colonize Mars seems like premature optimization.

