• imgonnatrythis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yep. People definitely want to colonize the first one. The only thing keeping apartments off that location is strict governmental regulation of space like that. The desire is definitely there though.

  • Flaky@iusearchlinux.fyi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think space travel is inherently a bad idea. But I don’t think it’d be the billionaires to get us there, especially not someone like Elon.

    • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      SpaceX is a rocket ship manufacturer, NASA outsourced that like the US military outsources aircraft manufacturing to Boeing or Lockheed Martin.

      Elon is not going to/was never going to “get us there” he’s just the guy who owns the company that makes the vehicles. Idk what this huge miscommunication is and how people got to the idea that he’s personally going to be the one who pushes humanity to mars, he doesn’t even have a say in the operations NASA uses his spacecraft for.

      • spauldo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Elon used to say he was going to found a Mars colony. I don’t pay much attention to him so maybe he doesn’t talk about it anymore, but it was a big thing maybe fifteen years ago.

        • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just talk to get him in the cultural zeitgeist, the man has essentially adopted the philosophy of “no bad press” and just said and done whatever he could to manipulate the market.

          Look at Twitter, he didn’t want to buy it, he just said so while he quietly sold the Tesla stock and started claiming Tesla was going downhill. It was a ploy to dumpster Tesla so he could reacquire it at a lower value. At that point he’d claim Tesla is amazing and rocket the stock value again.

          That’s why he’s making all these short term cash grab solutions while destroying the long term value of Twitter, he never wanted it in the first place and is just trying to scrape up any dollar he can while it burns down. He’s not dumb, he’s manipulative and willing to commit to massive lies in order to make more money. He’s a sociopath, but he’s good at playing his fanboys like a marionette and it’s been working for him for years.

          This idea that he’s just accidentally stumbled into making Tesla and SpaceX into multi billion dollar companies is a fantasy created by people who can’t conceive that someone can be evil and intelligent at the same time. If it was that easy to be a bumbling moron and become a multi billionaire I wouldn’t be middle class.

          You don’t become one of the wealthiest people on the globe by being an idiot, you do it by being conniving, exploitative, and having a quick enough wit to see the potential avenues of profit by doing the aforementioned things.

          I don’t like Elon, he’s a POS that needs heavy taxation to regulate the industries he’s a part of, but I’m so sick of people on here pretending he’s just somehow accidentally moron’d his way into being richy rich. That doesn’t happen or most of you would be millionaires as well.

    • jherazob@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      He very definitely would pull the same shit as the bad guys in Total Recall while pretending he’s a hero

  • son_named_bort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    The poor moon, it gets skipped over. Doesn’t it deserve to be colonized too? Maybe we could put an amusement park there or something.

  • ekZepp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    Shhhh!!! 🤫 This the best chance we have to get rid of a bunch of them all at once

    • MajinBlayze@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There seems to be a large amount of overlap between people who say things like “It’s hubris to think that humans can change the atmosphere of the earth enough to make a noticeable difference in 400 years” and “we can make Mars inhabitable by humans in 50 years”

      • Grimy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        What the fuck, no there isn’t. Are you actually implying most people that are interested in a mars colony are climate change deniers?

        • MajinBlayze@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          More the other way around, I know a surprising amount of climate change deniers that think we need to colonize Mars to save the human race.

          I’m not trying to say it can’t or it shouldn’t be done, but it has to be both. We have to find a way to live sustainably and also expand.

      • photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s also not about Terraforming! That’s a goal for a few thousand years down the line. For now, just spreading out our habitats is a good idea.

        • MajinBlayze@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What do you mean by opposite position?

          That there’s an overlap between people who think “climate change is manmade and requires systematic change to overcome” and also “terraforming Mars is a laudable long term goal, but can’t be done at the expense of the earth”?

          Yeah, there’s a lot of overlap there, it’s not particularly hypocritical.

    • Jaytreeman@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      In order to colonize mars, having a good space station in orbit would help out immensely. We’re talking big enough to stretch out and hold a few hundred people.
      The station would need to grow crops and have minor but flexible manufacturing.
      At that point, why would you colonize mars vs just make more stations?

      • Urist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        For real, resource extraction is a big one. Finding ice means they can make, besides water, oxygen and rocket fuel. Not to mention that shelters for radiation are incredibly hard to make without a huge amount of mass, which we cannot efficiently get into orbit without a space elevator. Hence being able to extract it from the location of the colony, say dig into the ground or build thick walls with bricks made from soil, is necessary for long term survival of the inhabitants. I think it is cool that due to these reasons having air balloons over Venus might even be a better option due to it having a protective atmosphere.

        • Jaytreeman@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can make a radiation field by running a large motor that would save you from the solar radiation.
          In space you always have access to the sun. A cheap form of power. You need a lot more batteries if you’re on the planet.

          Venus is a much better idea over mars.

          • Urist@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Didn’t know that it was feasible to create a radiation field by running a large motor. Not that I doubt you, but if you have a source I would be very happy to read more about it.

            • Jaytreeman@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I heard about it on one of Isaac Arthur’s videos. I can’t remember which one, but the analogy he used was that earth’s magnetosphere is essentially a big motor created by earth’s metal core spinning. (Oversimplified) So you should be able to build a motor that would shield a station

              • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sure, and theoretically we could do a lot of shit. Isaac Arthur isnt a scientist he’s a edutainment YouTuber.

                Creating our own magnetosphere is a little more complex or we’d have already done it, plus what happens if it fails? Where’s your backup? You just gonna die when it shuts down?

                • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Creating our own magnetosphere is a little more complex or we’d have already done it

                  There hasn’t been a need for it until now, thats like expecting people to invent parachutes before aircraft

      • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Space stations don’t produce raw materials, even if they could self sustain their human populations with food grown onboard they’d require the resources of earth to build and expand, so they’re still dependent on Earth.

        A space station wouldn’t make anything inherently easier, unless it was attached via space elevator just having a chunk of metal in orbit doesn’t change how much energy you need to get things out of the gravity well.

      • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Right now, even with water recycling systems, we still have to ship water to the ISS. A planet or moon also offers way more radiation protection by tunneling underground than any spacecraft at this time could provide.

        I’d say we go for Deimos and Phobos first and set up mining operations there before spreading to the Martian surface. Their super-low gravity will make shipping materials easier. They essentially are natural space stations, just add infrastructure.

    • MBM@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Space colonies are cool but we’re nowhere close to being able to make a self-sustaining colony

    • Haus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      While I fundamentally agree, it’s inevitable that Earth and Mars would go to war in that scenario.

      • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why is it inevitable? We don’t even have a colony there let alone a government and you think it would inevitably lead to war?

        Put down the sci fi novels for a second.

  • miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Okay, but The Planet Crafter is really cool for exactly that reason. You slowly but surely make a barren wasteland livable, it’s extremely rewarding

  • Gianni R@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wouldn’t mind leaving a lot of Earth’s natural beauty alone, as much as SpaceX’s mission doesn’t resonate with me very much

    • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Economics Explained recently published a video explaining how using space as a way to get resources will never be economically viable. It doesn’t matter how cheap you can produce something if the shipping cost is $5,000 per gram. We’d sooner syphon gold out of ocean water than get it from an asteroid.

      Space travel is a great investment when it comes to discovering new technologies that revolutionize life, but a terrible investment for resource extraction.

      • 🐑🇸 🇭 🇪 🇪 🇵 🇱 🇪🐑@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s great if the resources go from space, to space and stay the hell away from major gravity wells.

        So space station colonies or colonies on dwarf planets and smaller moons.

        Remember, a good 90% of the cost is “how do we leave the planet” and then most of the rocket is shed. All that waste wouldn’t be needed if we never touch down on planets to begin with.

    • Rozaŭtuno
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago
      1. That’s not the reason Space Karen and other billionaire are pushing for space colonization. They want to make their own kingdom where they don’t need to follow Earth’s rules, Elon pretty much said it himself.
      2. Space mining is cool, but you don’t need to go to Mars for it, mining the Moon and captured asteroids would be far more practical.
      • As for point 2. For any space project for resource gathering you want to stay FAAAR away from any major gravity wells as escaping them is currently 99% of the cost for our current rocketsm it’s genuinely wasteful in terms of fuel and most of the rocket is shed afterwards too.

        Gravity wells would be one way delivery only while resource gathering operations, as you said, would stay on dwarf planets, asteroids and lesser moons like our own.

        Just felt like giving an explanation to your post for anyone who reads by and doesn’t understand why mining asteroids/ the moon is a plainly superior option.

  • vreraan@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    However, Mars has mountains 10 times higher, Deeper and larger canyons. In general it would be suitable for megalophobic scenarios.