Slashdot Mirror
Bill Nye: We Are Not Going To Live on Mars, Let Alone Turn It Into Earth (usatoday.com)
pgmrdlm writes: Bill Nye says the idea of Mars colonization and terraforming -- making a planet more Earth-like by modifying its atmosphere -- is science fiction. "This whole idea of terraforming Mars, as respectful as I can be, are you guys high?" Nye said in an interview with USA TODAY. "We can't even take care of this planet where we live, and we're perfectly suited for it, let alone another planet." As for living on Mars permanently: Sorry, Nye says that's not happening either. "People disagree with me on this, and the reason they disagree is because they're wrong," he quipped. The famous science educator and CEO of The Planetary Society appears on National Geographic Channel's series "MARS." While the series explores human beings living on the Red Planet and even mining it, that doesn't mean Nye buys into the idea. For starters, he points to Antarctica, where scientists are stationed even during the harsh winter months but no one lives permanently.
"Nobody goes to Antarctica to raise a family. You don't go there and build a park, there's just no such thing. Nobody's gonna go settle on Mars to raise a family and have generations of Martians," Nye said. "It's not reasonable because it's so cold. And there is hardly any water. There's absolutely no food, and the big thing, I just remind these guys, there's nothing to breathe." Plus living in a dome, then putting on a spacesuit to go outside will get tiring -- fast. "When you leave your dome, you're gonna put on another dome, and I think that will get old pretty quick," he said. "Especially the smell in the spacesuit 00 all the Febreze you can pack, I think it will really help you up there."
"Nobody goes to Antarctica to raise a family. You don't go there and build a park, there's just no such thing. Nobody's gonna go settle on Mars to raise a family and have generations of Martians," Nye said. "It's not reasonable because it's so cold. And there is hardly any water. There's absolutely no food, and the big thing, I just remind these guys, there's nothing to breathe." Plus living in a dome, then putting on a spacesuit to go outside will get tiring -- fast. "When you leave your dome, you're gonna put on another dome, and I think that will get old pretty quick," he said. "Especially the smell in the spacesuit 00 all the Febreze you can pack, I think it will really help you up there."
In the interests of unity ... whatever our positions on various issues might be, can we all just agree that the guy is annoying as heck (on anything but very basic science education)? ;)
Aside from being cold, barren, and lacking an atmosphere... The place is covered in chemicals that are hazardous to humans. How many people would go to Antarctica if the snow was made of perchlorates.
At the moment we're showing great dexterity in de-terraforming Earth.
I think as long as we don't tackle this one we should be at least careful with prospective terraforming projects.
Because.... SPACEFORCE!
(Go ahead and down rank me. I deserve it. Sorry.)
The moon would require roughly 1,000 comets to terraform. Comets would provide both water, oxygen, and momentum (spin). Due to its weaker gravity, the moon would hold onto its atmosphere for tens of thousands of years.
Moving 1,000 comets seems not too far off from our capabilities today. Reaching the moon is definitely possible - we've done it. The only difficulty is social - as far as I know, we haven't pulled off such a multi-generational project.
. . . on the other side of the solar system. Obviously, he is right in the very short term, nobody is moving there today and, likely, not in the next decade or three. Will there be a base on mars in the next century? Maybe. Will we go there to live once we have mastered genetic engineering to adapt to any environment? Duh? We may live on Jupiter. Of course, that might be centuries away, so who gives a fuck?
Hey, I have an engineering degree, too.
Do you have to listen to me pontificate on "science", only to change my opinion when the political winds change direction?
Bill Nye: There are only two genders
... there will be enough people to try.
As for success of any permanent colonization attempts? I'm sort of with Bill on this one. Right now, with our current level of technology and environmental concern, all we'll do is shit all over Mars over a dozen failed colonization attempts before anyone gets one to stick. After that, I have a feeling that a Mars colony is going to be a money loser for a long, long time. And, if they make it past the economic hurdle, I have no doubt that they will be politically tied enough to Earth to be nothing more than a outpost for a long, long time So sorry dissidents, no revolution from space is coming to foment building your {Libertarian, Socialist, Facist, No Assholes} paradise.
All this and no air, too - what's not to love?
That is all.
He's a science educator. (aka science guy)
Think of him as a science teacher for adults, very science illiterate adults.
From Bill Nye the Strawman Guy
"We can't even take care of this planet where we live, and we're perfectly suited for it, let alone another planet."
We absolutely can take of this planet, we just aren't doing it. Like a fat man that knows everything about proper exercise and diet. Pretending that we don't know what we're doing is disingenuous and childish.
"People disagree with me on this, and the reason they disagree is because they're wrong," he quipped. The famous science educator and CEO of The Planetary Society appears on National Geographic Channel's series "MARS." While the series explores human beings living on the Red Planet and even mining it, that doesn't mean Nye buys into the idea. For starters, he points to Antarctica, where scientists are stationed even during the harsh winter months but no one lives permanently.
Of course we don't live in Antarctica, there's no point when we have delightful places like Disneyworld available. But if you invest 500 billion into making it a fun place I'm damn sure it would work just fine. And Antarctica is actually harder to work with than Mars in some cases since the materials these two ecosystems provide differ drastically. Breathing is easier in Antarctica while finding natural caves, suitable silicon-based building materials, and stable sources of wind is easier on Mars.
"Nobody goes to Antarctica to raise a family. You don't go there and build a park, there's just no such thing. Nobody's gonna go settle on Mars to raise a family and have generations of Martians," Nye said. "It's not reasonable because it's so cold. And there is hardly any water. There's absolutely no food, and the big thing, I just remind these guys, there's nothing to breathe."
The whole point of going to Mars is not because it's fun. It's to protect the human race from the extinction that certain orange people would like to lead us into. It would give us some initially expensive space for living, with hopefuuly cheaper space eventually as terraforming kicks in, that is safe from the destruction of Earth should that happen. Who has ever posited that the Mars project is "for fun"?
I must say that I have lost what little respect I had for Bill Nye. He doesn't seem to care much for scientific rigour or good faith arguments, and sounds just like any other loon on Twitter with this.
"Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done". Robert A. Heinlein
We will have used up this rock long before we have figured out how to go live somewhere else.
How can we ever hope to colonize the New World, when we can't even live at peace among ourselves here in continental Europe? The climate experiences wild swings, our ships are not reliable, and the land is populated with murderous savages. I know you all really like Queen Isabella, but this is all just fantasy. There may be riches in the New World, but it will never be worth the time or effort to extract them.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Um, are you high? Perhaps the "Science Guy" should learn a little bit about Mars before talking about it. A large portion of the planet has permafrost at or near the surface.
I'm not actually that much of a Mars advocate, and think the simplicity of using water there is overplayed (people talk about it like it's some sort of pure snow that you just pick up and melt, but it's (mostly) a rock-hard toxic brine mixed with sand and clay) - but come on, if you're going to talk about something, learn the basics.
"Define 'interesting'". "Oh God, oh God, we're all gonna die?"
He says we can't take care of Earth so how could we take care of Mars. The difference is the people to me.
People who live on earth are every kind of person. Most of them selfish, short-sighted, etc. I'm not trying to be insulting, but it's how it is. Just look at how we fund science and space.
But if we hand pick people who care about the sort of thing, then the greediness (for a time) won't hold people back. I'm sure if we teraform Mars we'll ruin it later once it's commercialized, but that's a different challenge.
There are plenty of places on Earth that we have not set up shop which are still a trillion times more hospitable than Mars. Go 400 km straight north of Ottawa (which in Canadian terms is pretty well next door) and you are in absolute wilderness. It is great country full of rocks, swamps and lakes but living there is hard. Except for a few valley towns, First Nations reserves and settlements, and some mining centres, people are measured in 1s and 10s per 100 square km. And it is pretty much endless. Now look at Mars - it is worse in every way. No air, no plants, no water and winters that are even colder! There is no economic argument for mining Mars when the potential of most of the Canadian Shield, the Australian Outback, and Siberia has not been explored . Even mining the ocean floor would be easier! What we need is to clean up our act here. Use less stuff, make less of a mess and start to work on the over-population problem in a sensible way (whatever that would be).
"If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
-https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/arthur_c_clarke_100793
It's pretty sad that a guy that used to be the poster-child for science education and the limitless possibilities of the future has become essentially nothing more than a strident leftist mouthpiece.
cf from Bill Nye Saves the World
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Yes, that's serious. Not satire.
-Styopa
It's a problem, but one that is probably solvable even with current technology and a lot of engineering.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
As much as I lament to say this the current Bill Nye that we have now is either a corrupted version or a mere shadow of the guy we had once known. I do not make these statements lightly as I had at once looked to him as a scientific role model of sorts. He is one of the people that set me on the path to being more of a man of science.
However...he has stopped dreaming apparently. Now do not get me wrong the idea of living on Mars "Currently" and I use that word as in currently we may not have the tech to do it. But again however...we have no idea what the future can hold. And it will be a bunch of crazy people that make the first trip to see if it can be done. And probably after more failures than we can count we will get a method that sticks. That is the very essence of science itself, venturing into the unknown for knowledge. And this quest can sometimes mean that it requires a stupid amount of trial and error to get something to work.
As such to just wave his hand away at the idea itself just means that whatever childhood wonder that poor man had possessed has clearly been extinguished.
Nye will eat his word when Musk bores a hole all the way t Mars
The ONLY reason companies want to push Mars exploration is a monetary reasons. To mine it and exploit it like we do this one.
During the "Gold Rush" of the mid 1800s the people who made the most money were not the miners. Most of them went broke and died mining for gold. The big money was made by the people selling equipment and supplies to the miners.
Mars is no different. A few companies will make a lot of money selling rockets, building materials and supplies. And all the people who die trying to live on Mars (or die just trying to get there) is none of their concern.
How many genders are there?
The Elon Musk/Space Nutters are going to tear him alive. They fully expect Hyperloops in Mars before 2050. This is despite the fact that Musk's "Hyperloop" is rusting out in California and all he has built is a short tunnel in a parking lot.
What an absurd comparison.
First.. Antarctica? People don't live there because of *treaties*.
Can you mine in Antarctica, without the international community stopping you? What about setting up a mining community?
You know there's loads of fish there, yes? What else do the penguins eat?
No, the reason people don't live in Antarctica -- is because there are no jobs, nor the possibility of a job (even self employed) there.
Look at the *North* Pole. There are resources. And there are loads of people living there. For research, for hunting, for fishing, and for mining/resources.
This is more like Mars.
If there is work there (and riches to be made!), people will go. Typically young men, which (according to everything -- including insurance company stats and rates for drivers) are more prone to taking risk. And who will follow? Why, the ladies! Hoping to land a man who struck it rich!
People will go. People travelled to the Yukon, where (guess what) you can't grow food, you have to import everything, and may as well be the South Pole before gold was discovered.
Nye? Make a real comparison. Not one where international treaties prevent resource exploitation.
Going to the moon was never impossible, and neither is going to Mars. No one is going to LIVE on Mars though.
If we've learned anything from recent Sci-Fi movies, it's that you can send Matt Damon anywhere and he'll somehow survive.
Perhaps we should send him to Antarctica and have him make that place habitable before moving to Mars. Unlike Bill Nye, I think that people would miss having Matt Damon around if we lost him in space.
Cold? Well, you are going to generate power somehow, and most methods generate plenty of heat as a by-product.
Hardly any water? Well, collect some and keep reusing it. Sounds icky? Well, here on Earth we're doing the same thing, except that the water here has been recycled and reused for millions of years. That's even more icky than anything you'll find on Mars.
Absolutely no food? We've just talked about power, heat and water. If you have those three, you can make/grow food.
Nothing to breathe? There's CO2. There are plants (for growing food, see above). Why shouldn't there be oxygen?
Seriously. Dismissing life on Mars and then talking about the things that are among the easiest? What about radiation, (temporary) dependence on supply flighty that take half a year to arrive, or how to build a production infrastructure (so you can build enough domes that taking a walk won't involve donning a space suit)?
Think of him as a science teacher for adults, very science illiterate adults.
Well put. I find him annoying as fuck, because he plays such a bad cliche. But, hey, if that's what sells to the cheap seats, go for it.
If you actually want to learn science as an adult, there are a ton of free lectures online from good schools, some directed specifically at older learners. Plus there are the commercial shops you'll see advertised on your favorite science and math YouTube channels.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I think he is right, perhaps for different reasons. We are a long way away from making the "monkeys in a can" model of space colonization workable. If we ever had sufficient technology to get there safely in significant numbers, supply the needed raw materials, manufacture or transport the needed equipment, manipulate biology to deal with various poisons and other environmental factors, etc. etc. I don't think we would be especially interested in terraforming and living on Mars. At that point we probably won't even be human anymore and will have no interest in living on Mars
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Riches is the key word here. People took those chances because it was not that expensive to throw people at the problem and the wealth it could generate was staggering. Mars, not so much.
Yeah, because one unrelated thing is possible, all things must be possible. When I was a kid my computer had only 1MB of RAM and now it has 16MB! The future is limitless!
With stupid people electing stupid politicians there's a great incentive for some people to move to a place which is a technical meritocracy. Even if it's barren and hostile as Mars. Like populating the Earth by the Golgafrinchams in HHGG, but in reverse. There won't be any telephone sanitisers going there for sure :-)
Antarctica is a pretty poor comparison as to why people don't settle there and make a living (there are these things called treaties, and they are worded in such as way to keep it as pristine as possible, limited personal and camp sizes, no mining, etc...).
He's also wrong about how much frozen water is available because truth be told no one knows for a matter of fact yet (but some argue there is actually a great deal locked away below ground).
There is nothing technically preventing people from living in a self sustained manner (from a constant resupply standpoint) so long as they are able to use the natural resources available on mars and have the energy they need (even if water reclamation is a major concern, it is possible to recycle most of the water needed).
Last but not least, exploration and pushing onward to new vistas is one of our defining traits. Ergo, I argue Bill Nye is no longer human. He was abducted after his tv show in the 90's and replaced with one of the prune people of planet asshole.
Give us a hundred years and maybe we could grow crops in Antarctica. Dinosaurs once roamed Antarctica.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
you can send Matt Damon anywhere and he'll somehow survive
Or, we will spend tons of resources trying to find and/or kill him.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
I have been a huge fan of space exploration and colonization. But then I grew up.. Now I can only see the craven cynicism of the very rich who claim the earth is lost, and the survival of our species depends on moving off a planet we have evolved to live on. Why not build a domed isolated colony in Arizona? That would have a far greater chance of success towards their ends. Think of what the money spent on space exploration could achieve with dedication to research in water purification or production alone!
The best planet available to us to consider making habitable is the planet EARTH.
He's a propagandist to the gullible of all ages, masquerading as a science teacher.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Are we going to go to colonize Mars in the next 10 years? Not likely. 300 years from now? Could be. If we don't blow the planet up in the next decade or two I'll be surprised but anything can happen. Thinking it'll be soon is crazy but thinking it can't happen is not science.
I am tired of bringing up Antarctica argument as an example of difficulties on the interplanetary expansion.
Finally, somebody else with a name, even as dubious as Bill Nye, brings it up as well
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
The idea of living on Mars is more than a century old.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Bill Nye says the idea of Mars colonization and terraforming -- making a planet more Earth-like by modifying its atmosphere -- is science fiction.
Of course it is... for now anyway. It's so absurdly beyond our current technology that it beggars the mind. If we cannot manage controlling the climate on Earth (Terra) we sure as hell aren't going to be able to do it on Mars.
Is it utterly impossible? Maybe. Maybe not. Certainly not worth worrying about by anyone currently living. We maybe could feasibly colonize Mars within my lifetime in a very basic way. But terraforming it will take thousands of years and it will be hundreds at best before we achieve a sufficient technological sophistication to even ponder the idea seriously. I could see us inhabiting Mars but I think it's highly unrealistic to seriously try to turn the entire planet into some sort of garden. The energy requirements and economics alone should point out the folly of the idea.
Yes it is a hostile environment but three things drive expansion -
1. economics
2. technology
3. discontent
The technology and economics still don't work. Those are the current limiting factors. When we get a an economic model that matches available technology to potential resources we WILL start sending large numbers of people into space. There are too many potential resources not to.
At that point it comes down to WHO will be willing to go out to the new frontier - based on history it's going to be those who are unhappy with the societal limitations here on Earth. They are probably NOT going to go out with the intent of starting a family but that will come unless there is some reason pregnancy is not viable in space.
The next big question - does it make more sense to gown down a gravity well like Mars or mine asteroids and build in space?
Once people CAN get into space cheaply they WILL go into space if they can find the freedom economic/political/societal that they can't find on earth.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Well put. I find him annoying as fuck, because he plays such a bad cliche.
Well we cannot all be as cool as you. I'm sure you are much better and more impressive public speaker than he is. [/sarcasm] What were you expecting, a real life Buckaroo Banzai?
But, hey, if that's what sells to the cheap seats, go for it.
He has a following and is quite popular and he's a good teacher. What more do you really want? He's had a lot of success in getting people interested and informed about science who otherwise would not have been. Stop being so picky.
If you actually want to learn science as an adult, there are a ton of free lectures online from good schools, some directed specifically at older learners.
Great. There are a shit ton of people that aren't going to do that but they still need to understand some amount of science to be useful in a modern society. People vote and make policies about science and it's not good when they don't understand the science underlying the policies. Nye helps reach people that your online lectures will never touch. Yes a lot of what he talks about is superficial (and he knows that) but there is a need for that. He knows his stuff and does a good job.
I am really glad that you call him out like that. It is properly in the nature of a scientist to be critical but they should not be condescending or critical toward people but give critical analysis to a problem or a suggestion. In contract, it is in the nature of an engineer to be be optimistic. She/He doesn't ask if some can or can't be done but how it can be done.. He/she works around known problems and around the unknown.
So impossible that you were worried about other nation's getting there first?
And neither you - nor those other nations, nor anyone else - has bothered to go back, not even once, not even for a fleeting visit like originally in 50 years.
Not much over 50 years before Apollo, planes didn't exist. Now, 50 years after, we still haven't been back to the Moon even once.
Because it's expensive, risky, wasteful and unsustainable even with current technology. And the Moon is only ~400,000 km away. Mars is 54,600,000 km away.
Even getting there is ONE HUNDRED TIMES more difficult than the thing we did once, 50 years ago, and haven't even tried to replicate ever since.
Dreaming is ok if it doesn't go too far. Mars is impossible in the next century; at least. Impractical possibly forever.
The HARM is planning life around your grandchildren leaving the Earth you wrote off as disposable.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
No, the reason people don't live in Antarctica -- is because there are no jobs, nor the possibility of a job (even self employed) there.Look at the *North* Pole. There are resources. And there are loads of people living there. For research, for hunting, for fishing, and for mining/resources.
You think there are no resources in Antarctica of economic value? It's a freaking continent. The only reason they haven't been tapped yet is because it's a freaking miserably place and the cost of getting the resources is too EXPENSIVE to be worth the bother currently. So we have a gentleman's agreement between nation states for now but if the ice melts (as seems likely) or there is a shortage of a key resource (like oil) expect that agreement to fall apart rather quickly when the mining companies move in. The only real question is how cooperative the countries will be. If the US or Russia or China decides to mine Antarctica, nobody is really going to be able to stop them.
He's right in the next 20 years, probably the next 50 years. But in a hundred years? Two hundred? I'm not so sure.
A couple of hundred of years ago people would have said going to the moon was a crazy idea. Or flying faster than sound was nuts. But we can do it today.
This is just obvious.
"Nobody's gonna go settle on Mars to raise a family and have generations of Martians. It's not reasonable because it's so cold."
--Bill Nye, 2018
Mars is not the place to raise your kids/In fact, it's cold as Hell
--Elton John, 1972
A musician figured this out 46 years ago.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't walk and text.
Perhaps the "Science Guy" should learn a little bit about Mars before talking about it.
He's the CEO of The Planetary Society which is concerned with among other things this very topic. I'm certain he's better informed about the topic than you are.
I'm not actually that much of a Mars advocate, and think the simplicity of using water there is overplayed (people talk about it like it's some sort of pure snow that you just pick up and melt, but it's (mostly) a rock-hard toxic brine mixed with sand and clay) - but come on, if you're going to talk about something, learn the basics.
Who is arguing it is simple? The argument is that it is necessary and possible if you want a manned Mars mission. Shipping water from Earth is simply unrealistic in any sort of large scale. There are a host of very serious technical problems in gathering and utilizing any resource on Mars and water is no exception.
Because they don't have to. If a bunch of zealots try to colonize Mars, they probably won't have the choice to turn back.
Much of his statements are about it being very unpleasant. However, unpleasantness doesn't kill. Those who grow up with unpleasantness will be used to it; it's all they will know. Eskimos didn't stop being eskimos because the weather sucked.
I agree that our "space camping" technology will have to improve some before it's viable, but it may not take a revolution in technology, mostly just experience and trial and error. That's how Eskimos learned to live in dire places.
Table-ized A.I.
The immutable question is:
If we don't colonize Mars, the moon, space, or somewhere else other than this rock then what happens to our species when (insert catastrophic event here) hits and we have no backup plan?
We are an apex species, and evolution is not kind to apex species. There is literally an entire planet full of creatures evolving to kill us. It doesn't have to be that either. A giant meteor, nuclear despot, major tectonic event, biological weapon, or an as-yet unknown thing could pound off a big chunk of the population and we are back in the stone age finishing each other off with rocks and sticks.
If not Mars, where?
To visualize the colonization of Mars requires some imagination - the ability to think beyond current approaches.
I recall circa 1998 telling someone that eventually paper books would be mostly replaced by electronic sources, and the response was, "That will never happen - people won't want to read a book on a computer screen".
The person who said that was not able to imagine beyond the bulky and low resolution CRTs of the day.
To imagine the colonization of Mars, one needs to consider that (1) getting there and back might get a-lot easier and quicker, given that fusion propulsion is actively under development, (2) people who live there for years, on assignment, might well want to have their families with them, and (3) Mars is a potential base for mining asteroids, which is a very real prospect (http://www.asterank.com/).
Not everyone is able to imagine these things. Regarding Bill Nye, just because he likes science does not mean that he is someone with imagination - in fact, my impression of his is that he is something of a luddite.
Then just call it a dream and don't pretend it is scientifically sound.
That is the problem with you guys: you think that "tech" will eventually happen, and will just be "developed". You cannot develop technology to add an atmostphere and a magnetosphere to a planet. It is a waste of time. If you want to keep Earth livable, work on technology to do it. Stop thinking you can escape to Mars: it won't happen.
Thank you Bill Nye for being a real scientist and refusing to be merely a pathetic shill for the scientific-industrial complex as so many scientists today are.
E Proelio Veritas.
I do not think we would ever terraform Mars, but that is the real question, not whether or not we could, we can do anything if we put the resources behind it, but rather if we would.
Would men decide to live constantly in domes beneath the surface of the planet (shielding from radiation requires burying habitats)? Probably, if they had a good enough reason to, but what is that reason?
I see no compelling reason to so do today or in the near future, other than to use that experience to develop the expertise needed for generation ships to other stars... but that is another discussion. And for that expertise, the Moon works just as well as Mars.
As yet we have no desire to build such generation ships, nor any star to go to that would support the population (with any level of certainty), so no need is extant to push us to develop the desired expertise.
"Governments have been dominated by the corporate entities and citizens have ceased to matter in public policy" true in
Neil Degrasse Tyson: We'll Never Get to Mars
Unless we find diamonds or oil.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
The tech to get us to Mars and help us survive there is nearly available. Weather we pull our will to do so is another issue.
However, to live and 'thrive' on Mars independently from mother Earth is another matter all together.
Surviving on Mars does not look like a better choice than to survive on whatever is left on poisoned Earth.
4wdloop
Nye is entitled to his opinions and ranting. However, the fact that mainstream media continues to lend credence to these views only underscores how much our respect for - nevermind understanding of - science has atrophied. Nye was a mechanical engineer who decided to try his hand at comedy. He became a kids show persona. If wearing a lab coat makes him some sort of expert, then maybe next week we can have the cast of Chicago Med lecturing us about cancer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And those of us from Seattle know a lot about figuring out people are high.
Sorry to disappoint you.
Look, you get one Earth.
You don't get a do-over.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
At our current level of technology? No, we're not going to 'terraform' anything.
Is he right about how we can't even take care of this planet? Yes, 100%. We haven't learned, as a species, to get our shit together and stop shitting up the Earth. Every year that passes that we fail in that puts another nail in humanitys' coffin, too. Small chance right now we'll pull it out of the fire.
Live on Mars? Maybe. Personally I think we need a permanent colony on the Moon, as a test-bed if nothing else, to work out the details. If things start going terribly wrong on the Moon, at least people have a shot at evacuating back to Earth instead of just dying. Mars is for all intents and purposes a one-way trip. And yes, it wouldn't be pleasant on Mars, no more so than on the Moon, and it would be anyones' best guess whether having children in either place would be a good idea or not.
"Nobody goes to Antarctica to raise a family. You don't go there and build a park, there's just no such thing. "
Because there is no reason to. Since it's just a few days to travel back home, why would you try to setup a permanent community? The difference with Mars is that travel back and forth is so long and costly, you would HAVE to setup a permanent colony if you wanted to do any long term exploration of Mars.
Why does anyone treat a comedian who had a moderately successful child's TV show like an authority on anything related to science? Every scientific achievement was, at one point, science fiction.. if not "magic".
For humans to permanently live anywhere there needs to be a good reason to do so. The problem with Mars is there doesn't seem to be anything super valuable to justify landing there. Not to mention landings on Mars is extremely difficult. It's got just enough atmosphere to make it super dangerous and just not enough to slow you down properly. The scenery is pretty close to a red desert. Not super exciting if you've been there a while. I picture humanity is space stations colonies long before we decide to permanently live on Mars.
I've been saying this for years. It's fun to dream about, and it's fun to talk about, and while exploring the surface of Mars will probably happen at some point, there will never ever be permanent human habitation of Mars.
.. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
....why nobody talks about the fact Mars gravity is something along the lines of 0.37ish that of Earth's? Doesn’t such low gravity have disastrous health effects on any living organism from Earth? Moreover, this is something we will not be able to change about Mars.
Or how the soil is contaminated with perchlorates, which is toxic to us. All of it....
Or how the lack of magnetic field will make it impossible to actually keep an atmosphere even if somehow we manage to terraform Mars in the first place.
The cold, IMHO, is the easiest problem to deal with. In fact we have technology to deal with cold weather since the dawn of human civilization. The reason nobody lives in Antarctica is because it makes absolutely 0 financial sense to do so, rather than any kind of technological barriers. It's permanently covered by kilometre(s) thick ice sheet, making access to local resources extremely expensive & impractical. In addition, no colony can survive for long with a negative balance sheet (meaning if the costs of keeping a human alive > the wealth he can extract from said colony over the course of a human lifetime, it dies out). Unless the mother nation is willing to keep the colony artificially afloat while it slowly bankrupts itself.
Bill is a Mechanical Engineer, yet he seems to think he knows everything. So Bill thinks that humans can only cause climate change on Earth not not on Mars. What a hypocrite! He's has his political agenda -- he's not a scientist -- he's an ideologue. The bow tie doesn't make him smart.
What about Columb? What he thougt when he sail west? Did he plan to explore America? No! We will have exactly the same situation exploring the Mars. We don't plan what to do there. Just exploring. We will set our goals later and we will change them mames.
That guy is a worst kind of self-aggrandizing blowhard.
"People disagree with me on this, and the reason they disagree is because they're wrong,"
Sickening.
It's like something Sheldon Cooper would say on TBBT. Only there we all KNOW it's sarcasm. Nye's actually serious!
Except Boston apparently.
Yes, but we can grow potatoes using the soil and poop.
Why a dome? Perfectly good lava tubes. And unless you're up for 200 mile walks every day, no reason to go outside.
Lack of water? We know there's plenty underground.
Lack of food/air? Biosphere 2, without the mistakes, could supply both.
I respect the guy but these are sixth former mistakes. I never accept second best, and that goes double for those I respect. Those I don't respect, I expect to screw up. Them screwing up is why I don't respect them.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
My point wasn't to invent the perfect analogy, but to show how people could live a little bit too much in the now. Circumstances and technology change. The assumptions you are using as the baseline for your argument (expensive to throw people at Mars, no riches to be had) could change very quickly with either improvements in technology or scientific discovery.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
A large set of insolation mirrors, that reflect solar energy onto the planet, might help with the temperature. They might also trigger mars-quakes. They wouldn't help with the air pressure, oxygen content, or toxic chemicals in the soil. Most of the benefits of going to Mars would be better found in the asteroids. Anything mined out there wouldn't have to be raised out of Mars's gravity well.
Set up housekeeping on Mars or Chicago? Nice warm and safe tunnel vs taken out by a gangsta. Hmm, tough one.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I'm really interested in the dynamics of a new colony, any advice on where to start reading? Presumably all applicants would be screened extensively but what mix would you choose? Aside from book-related stabbings, scientists in remote areas seem to do well... I guess there is actually very little use for overly practical people though, who would likely be bored shitless for 90% of the time.
Wouldn't changing the momentum of the moon have bad effects on earth, like messing with the tides?
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Would you rather live in a bubble on Mars or in the path of a wildfire in California?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Ahh Bill, True but not pertinent.
We not going to Mars to find a new home. We're going so we can learn how to go. We need to learn how to travel and live in hostile environments.
Mars isn't "the new world" like North America was to Europe. Mars is more like Greenland... Hostile but perhaps livable and the trip is short enough to succeed but long enough to compel advances in viking ships and navigation.
We have to go to the stars sooner or later or we'll all die when the sun becomes a red giant. Plus we may find that we need to travel before then.... after all bad things do happen. We may find ways to terraform Mars but it's a 1,000 year project (optimistically)
And since it's going to take us a little while to figure this stuff out we need to start now.
Okay.. move Mercury into a lunar orbit around Venus for a while to skim off the excess atmosphere, the move it out of the way after it's done it's job. Not like Mercury is good for much else anyway.
There are strategies for terraforming today which are left unexplored because of planetary NIMBY-ism. Having a planet we don't care about could advance the science greatly. In fact, I'd say that's just the type of high concept science we may need to address climate change on Earth.
Hey Bill,
My cousin lives in Fairbanks, Alaska. They've had temps at -40 below.
Alaska has valuable oil resources which have generated a market for its extraction, and thus economics has motivated humans to live in such a harsh habitat. Trust me, if a resource or economically valuable aspect was discovered regarding Mars, humans would build habitats upon it.