The Martian atmosphere is 1/100 the density of earth's. So even if you had the huge amount of plant life in your habitat that you would need to convert that much CO2 into oxygen, that would still have to be one helluva huge compressor (eating up a LOT of energy).
No, I acknowledge that a true planet-smashing asteroid could do the job. But those don't come along too often. We've only seen maybe (and even this is debated) *ONE* of those in the 4 billion years of this planet's existence. We're talking a disaster that would completely strip the earth of all its atmosphere, water, ozone, destroy the earth's magnetic field, etc. Only that could make Mars more attractive than earth (but still not survivable, sadly).
And if we manage to preserve it until the sun goes cold and dies, then what?
If you're going to take that view, you had may as well include the heat-death of the universe as well. Humanity will not (and cannot) survive *forever*, of course. Nothing will. But for the next few billion years, earth is it.
If every nuclear weapon in existence were detonated all at once in a war-to-end-all-wars, the earth would still be much more inhabitable than any other body in our solar system.
If even a few bunkers of isolated survivors on earth lived through a super-plague of epic biblical proportions, they would still be far more likely to survive than any colonies of humans in space (who would all be dead very shortly after the supply drops stopped coming from earth).
Keeping all our eggs in this basket is our only option.
If a homeless guy walks into your office, rubs shit in his hair, proclaims himself a god, and asks you to follow him, would your line of reasoning be "Well, he COULD be crazy...but I had better follow him anyway, because I could just be being too pessimistic"?
The charge of pessimism and "lack of vision" are catch-all attacks you could use against anyone who dares questions anything, no matter how crazy. Yes, when THEY say that "X can't be done" they're sometimes wrong. But most of the time they're actually right. It just so happens that we're more likely to remember when they were wrong. You often hear the skeptics of human flight derided for their lack of vision. But no one ever brings up that the skeptics of "skies full of flying cars" were RIGHT.
I hate idiots who compare voyaging to the New World with voyaging into space.
Columbus had water, oxygen, sunlight, fishing, and air pressure on his journey. He reached a New World with soil that crops could be grown on, wild game that could be hunted and eaten, forests with trees that could be used to build shelters. It was hard work, but a self-sustaining (even resource producing) colony *could* be built in the New World. It wasn't a *completely* foreign or hostile land for human survival.
There is no other body in our solar system that could sustain human life in any self-sustainable way, not even in the short term. And the odds of any such body being in any solar system within even a hundreds-of-light-years radius is miniscule.
We're stuck on earth. That's not a lack of vision, it's a reality that we need to accept. We need to accept that because it emphasizes how closely humans are tied to this planet and how important it is to maintain it in a way that keeps it habitable. There is no science fiction rescue coming. Earth is our one and only hope in the long-term.
To everyone with the "We HAVE to leave earth or we're doomed!" argument:
With the exception of a planet-destroying asteroid (similar to the one that formed the moon), there is no conceivable disaster that will leave the earth less inhabitable by humans than any other body within our conceivable reach. The nearest planet or moon where humans could live in an even remotely self-sustainable way is so far away that even if we could travel near the speed of light, it would still be well out of our reach.
Come on, that's not fair. NASA has SEVERAL functions:
1) Diverting government funds to employment programs in every major Congressional district 2) Employing the best engineers in the country to maintain a large scale deployment of campaign donations to Congress 3) Keeping the Russian space program afloat 4) Generating thousands of metric tonnes of vague promises that are far enough out to ensure no one ever calls them out for not delivering on them 5) Generating several gigawatt hours of PR each day 6) Paying a bunch of contractors to send up another fucking probe that will help advance the science of sending cool pics back to the media
It's similar to Siri, but Siri's voice is replaced by the voice of a hipster douchebag who keeps telling you how uncool it is to not buy Apple products. He also won't STFU about vinyl records and how his handlebar mustache sets him apart for us boring mainstreams.
Here's a pro tip: The picture with the kid wearing a "Class of 1990" t-shirt in the background is probably not an honest reflection of what she really looks like.
Please. Do not subject your kid to this. It brings back nostalgia for you
My brother-in-law makes my poor niece and nephew play his old games and they hate it. He talks about how much they love it, but they just do it to humor him. Why do parents always feel the need to turn their children into tiny versions of themselves, instead of just letting them be who they are?
In most first world countries, no one ever digs up your lines or breaks into your relay facilities to steal the copper. Armed gangs don't demand bribes for building or digging on their turf. Local officials aren't constantly hassling you for kickbacks and no-show jobs for their friends. Your workers don't get robbed when they try to perform maintenance alone. Those are just SOME of the problems with building infrastructure in the third world.
The odds of a given planet being able to support life is low to begin with, the odds of a given planet that can support life actually DEVELOPING that life is much lower, the odds of that life developing into intelligent species is even lower than that, and the odds that said intelligent life would exist in an adjusted coincidental time-frame with OUR intelligent life on earth is down infinitesimal.
Now there are a huge number of planets in the universe so even infinitesimal odds mean that there is probably lots of other coincidental intelligent life out there. But the odds of it being anywhere near to us (let's say, within 1,000 light years or so) is slim to none.
Slashdot Mirror
The Martian atmosphere is 1/100 the density of earth's. So even if you had the huge amount of plant life in your habitat that you would need to convert that much CO2 into oxygen, that would still have to be one helluva huge compressor (eating up a LOT of energy).
Keeping this world habitable will be several orders of magnitude easier than making any nearby planet or moon habitable.
This same song-and-dance seems to play out with every big hack now:
Week one:
"It was just a few people who had some data limited compromised"
Week two:
It was just a few people who had most of their data compromised, but not their passwords
Week three:
"It was a lot of people, who had most of their data compromised, but not their passwords"
Week four:
"They got everything on everyone"
I know those words, but in that context they make no sense.
You can force your kids to do things, but you can't force them to like it.
Here is a transcript of how I think the whole thing went down:
Wojcicki: "My daughter doesn't like the things I want her to like. Can I pay you to force her to like them?"
iD Tech Camps: "Absolutely! Just give us lots of money."
Wojcicki: "Can my friends give you lots of money to force their daughters to like stuff too?"
iD Tech Camps: "Sure!"
No, I acknowledge that a true planet-smashing asteroid could do the job. But those don't come along too often. We've only seen maybe (and even this is debated) *ONE* of those in the 4 billion years of this planet's existence. We're talking a disaster that would completely strip the earth of all its atmosphere, water, ozone, destroy the earth's magnetic field, etc. Only that could make Mars more attractive than earth (but still not survivable, sadly).
And if we manage to preserve it until the sun goes cold and dies, then what?
If you're going to take that view, you had may as well include the heat-death of the universe as well. Humanity will not (and cannot) survive *forever*, of course. Nothing will. But for the next few billion years, earth is it.
Well, my definition of "Reach" is something along the lines of "Won't take thousands of years of travel through cold empty space to get to."
If every nuclear weapon in existence were detonated all at once in a war-to-end-all-wars, the earth would still be much more inhabitable than any other body in our solar system.
If even a few bunkers of isolated survivors on earth lived through a super-plague of epic biblical proportions, they would still be far more likely to survive than any colonies of humans in space (who would all be dead very shortly after the supply drops stopped coming from earth).
Keeping all our eggs in this basket is our only option.
If a homeless guy walks into your office, rubs shit in his hair, proclaims himself a god, and asks you to follow him, would your line of reasoning be "Well, he COULD be crazy...but I had better follow him anyway, because I could just be being too pessimistic"?
The charge of pessimism and "lack of vision" are catch-all attacks you could use against anyone who dares questions anything, no matter how crazy. Yes, when THEY say that "X can't be done" they're sometimes wrong. But most of the time they're actually right. It just so happens that we're more likely to remember when they were wrong. You often hear the skeptics of human flight derided for their lack of vision. But no one ever brings up that the skeptics of "skies full of flying cars" were RIGHT.
Be sure to bring lots of oxygen.
I hate idiots who compare voyaging to the New World with voyaging into space.
Columbus had water, oxygen, sunlight, fishing, and air pressure on his journey. He reached a New World with soil that crops could be grown on, wild game that could be hunted and eaten, forests with trees that could be used to build shelters. It was hard work, but a self-sustaining (even resource producing) colony *could* be built in the New World. It wasn't a *completely* foreign or hostile land for human survival.
There is no other body in our solar system that could sustain human life in any self-sustainable way, not even in the short term. And the odds of any such body being in any solar system within even a hundreds-of-light-years radius is miniscule.
We're stuck on earth. That's not a lack of vision, it's a reality that we need to accept. We need to accept that because it emphasizes how closely humans are tied to this planet and how important it is to maintain it in a way that keeps it habitable. There is no science fiction rescue coming. Earth is our one and only hope in the long-term.
To everyone with the "We HAVE to leave earth or we're doomed!" argument:
With the exception of a planet-destroying asteroid (similar to the one that formed the moon), there is no conceivable disaster that will leave the earth less inhabitable by humans than any other body within our conceivable reach. The nearest planet or moon where humans could live in an even remotely self-sustainable way is so far away that even if we could travel near the speed of light, it would still be well out of our reach.
Screw changing anything, just stick with the A-10 Warthog, a proven worthy opponent on the battlefield (and a beautiful, tough aircraft to boot!)
If the Resistance considers it good enough to fight Skynet, it's good enough for me too!
I would respect him more if he just said "Money. It was money."
Come on, that's not fair. NASA has SEVERAL functions:
1) Diverting government funds to employment programs in every major Congressional district
2) Employing the best engineers in the country to maintain a large scale deployment of campaign donations to Congress
3) Keeping the Russian space program afloat
4) Generating thousands of metric tonnes of vague promises that are far enough out to ensure no one ever calls them out for not delivering on them
5) Generating several gigawatt hours of PR each day
6) Paying a bunch of contractors to send up another fucking probe that will help advance the science of sending cool pics back to the media
See, PR is only one of the many things NASA does!
It's similar to Siri, but Siri's voice is replaced by the voice of a hipster douchebag who keeps telling you how uncool it is to not buy Apple products. He also won't STFU about vinyl records and how his handlebar mustache sets him apart for us boring mainstreams.
Here's a pro tip: The picture with the kid wearing a "Class of 1990" t-shirt in the background is probably not an honest reflection of what she really looks like.
I usually just type in "blonde Thai ladyboy" into the search box and the results are almost 100% what I'm looking for.
Is that so hard?
Please. Do not subject your kid to this. It brings back nostalgia for you
My brother-in-law makes my poor niece and nephew play his old games and they hate it. He talks about how much they love it, but they just do it to humor him. Why do parents always feel the need to turn their children into tiny versions of themselves, instead of just letting them be who they are?
I can build them a nice place in Second Life.
They have tens of thousands of dollars worth of rare videogame stuff in a walk-up in Oakland and they haven't been robbed??
Shit, I'm impressed! KUDOS!
In most first world countries, no one ever digs up your lines or breaks into your relay facilities to steal the copper. Armed gangs don't demand bribes for building or digging on their turf. Local officials aren't constantly hassling you for kickbacks and no-show jobs for their friends. Your workers don't get robbed when they try to perform maintenance alone. Those are just SOME of the problems with building infrastructure in the third world.
The odds of a given planet being able to support life is low to begin with, the odds of a given planet that can support life actually DEVELOPING that life is much lower, the odds of that life developing into intelligent species is even lower than that, and the odds that said intelligent life would exist in an adjusted coincidental time-frame with OUR intelligent life on earth is down infinitesimal.
Now there are a huge number of planets in the universe so even infinitesimal odds mean that there is probably lots of other coincidental intelligent life out there. But the odds of it being anywhere near to us (let's say, within 1,000 light years or so) is slim to none.