Review: Should Humans Settle Mars? This Book Is Skeptical.
A City on Mars is a counterbalance to the growing optimism over space exploration.

The subtitle of the cartoonist-biologist husband-and-wife pair Zach and Kelly Weinersmith's book A City on Mars asks, Can We Settle Space, Should We Settle Space, and Have We Really Thought This Through?
The answers the couple suggest are "not any time soon," "maybe/maybe not," and "definitely no."
It's a buzzkill of a thesis for anyone with even the remotest sense of wonder and optimism about humanity's potential future among the stars. If you're a space nerd at all, parts of the book read as if someone is telling you over and over again that ice cream has calories.
But busting space dreamers' bubble is kind of the idea. The existing field of "space settlement" studies, the authors argue, is hopelessly captured by advocates for the idea. A City on Mars is intended as a pessimistic corrective. A punchy wit and exhaustive research make that pessimistic corrective both fun and compelling.
Much of the book is spent considering some very specific questions regarding space settlement, such as how people will be able to grow crops in razor-sharp radioactive lunar regolith, or what precise legal regime will govern asteroid miners shooting huge rocks somewhere closer to Earth.
Even if those technical problems are solved, the authors will still ask the existential question of why we'd go to enormous trouble and expense to expand to new planets just to live in a metal bubble, completely sealed off from our new home.
Hardcore space colonists won't be deterred by the book's pessimism. But they might gain some appreciation for how hard it is to replicate by design physical and social habitats that took millions of years of evolution here on Earth to get even somewhat right.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Now former mayor of College Park, Maryland and Pete Buttgieg’s protege Patrick Wojahn (D) may have told school children that he wanted to probe Uranus.
After catching a few Twilight Zone episodes on SyFy channel's New Years marathon I'm convinced we must colonize Mars before they colonize us.
In the meantime, I'll work on my peaceful colonization guidebook tentatively titled "To serve Martians."
Are you sure you wouldn't prefer to call it "How To Serve Martians".
I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone, Here is what I do. Follow details on this web page.
DETAILS-----....> https://www.getmoney3.com
I agree that the discussion of space settlement tends to be dominated by “pie-in-the-sky” optimists, like Robert Zubrin, and some balance would be nice. Unfortunately, cheering the optimists on are the ignorati, who think humans will soon have MacGuffin drives to zip us around – first through the solar system, then through the galaxy – and we’ll all be living the sci-fi dream we see on TV and in movies. Who knows? Perhaps some breakthrough will occur with drive technology but, that still doesn’t address the 2 fundamental problems with space settlement.
The first problem is gravity. The ISS is a zero-G environment. The moon has 1/6th of Earth’s gravity and Mars has 1/3rd of it. Humans cannot survive long-term under any of these conditions. We can live in space but, only once we can replicate a 1-G environment will we be able to do it long term. If we build 1-G orbital platforms, we can send people for short stays on the surfaces of other bodies. But, I wouldn’t exactly call that “colonization”.
This leads to the second problem, radiation. Orbital stations, the Moon and Mars offer no protection against solar radiation. Long-term exposure will be lethal, even at normal levels, and a powerful solar event might kill space-farers in a very short time-frame. This might be “just” an engineering challenge but, it’s still one that most of the optimists choose to ignore.
The reality is that space exploration is best left to robots for the foreseeable future. It’s not a popular opinion but, it is a reasonable one. And who knows, with the rise of AI, perhaps our role in the universe was never to colonize it. Perhaps our role is simply to create the machines that do it instead.
I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords (although I’ll probably be dead before they actually take over).
There's always the "Marching Morons" possibility 🙂
The moon has 1/6th of Earth’s gravity and Mars has 1/3rd of it. Humans cannot survive long-term under any of these conditions.
Better stated as "It's not clear how long humans can survive under these conditions long term or what any of the long term, especially generational, effects are." or "Humans, as a single species, cannot survive long-term under any of these conditions."
The latter part of the first statement is key on a couple of levels. History and biology is replete with examples of animals and humans surviving and even thriving on an individual, single-generational level but dooming their successive offspring to inevitably and progressively shorter, more painful, and more miserable lives.
The concept applies to all sorts of things from living space to nutrition and, yes, gravity, but one central lynchpin is "Minimum viable population". This is the number of people required to provide enough genetic diversity to effectively repopulated an area in-and-of themselves without inbreeding the species to death or something entirely different. No definitive experiments have or really could be done but, for humans, the number is generally projected to be between 500 and 5,000 people.
The real kicker for libertarians or even just average people is that, for the colony to succeed, these 500-5,000 people are really going to have to be regarded like livestock by pretty much everyone else (read Earth support staff primarily but, really, all Earthlings). As in, the closer the number gets to 500, the more absolutely imperative it's going to be that the "herd" is 50% male and 50% female (maybe more approximately 50.5/49.5% M/F) and that *every viable male successfully mates with as many viable females as possible*... for generations. Any losses, via disease or other, will have to be 'supplemented'. Once again, as in, if 10 female or 10 male babies die, we're going to have to send 10
womengirls, at/on the verge of sexual maturity, to Mars to mate with as many viable men as possible or 10 men to mate with all the viable women possible... for generations.Cycling back to it being "a lynchpin", and keeping "livestock" in mind, it's possible that 1 in 5 or 1 in 10 humans can survive in 0.33G indefinitely, maybe even successfully re-acclimate to 1G, maybe even produce offspring in 0.33G. What is almost certain, is that someone born and raised to sexual maturity in 0.33G almost certainly won't survive or function in "normal" 1G "reproductive customs" via a number of mechanisms. Even before we get to issues with ED and broken pelvises, the unknowns about blood volume make even "Let me buy you a drink?" a bit of "We can't, right now, be sure you won't wind up poisoning them with alcohol." proposition.
Even if humans can survive in 0.33G indefinitely we are, or would be, without a comparatively massive biological and ethical revolution, be between incidentally and forcefully speciating people. And, again, again, again, we aren't talking about "Does darker skin make you more tolerant to the sun but also lower your IQ while still allowing you to interbreed with lighter-skinned individual?"-style questions as troublesome as those are. We're talking about "Your body is used to 0.33G, on 'our' planet you and your children will literally be retarded." *statements*.
And who knows, with the rise of AI, perhaps our role in the universe was never to colonize it. Perhaps our role is simply to create the machines that do it instead.
I know some people feel like it but I've never felt like a brain trapped inside a body or that my body is colonizing a planet that my brain is not. I understand that such a feeling can and is regarded as various pathologies like phantom limb syndrome. I would surmise that, going forward through the Universe we would upgrade those algorithms to resolve phantom planet inhabitation syndrome.
This is bullshit.
Current 0-G indications do say it's not healthy. But that has nothing to do with long term adaptability.
The only experience with 1/6 G is extremely short duration, mere days.
There is NO experience with 1/3 G.
You are talking out your ass.
You are talking out your ass.
Says the guy refuting objectivity in favor of definitive homeopathy.
12Gs will kill you right quick and 1G kills you very slowly... so ~0Gs must make you live forever (even though we can observe it first-hand and in a dose-dependent manner rendering human bodies non-viable for 0, 1/6, 1/3, 1, or 12Gs)!
Fucking retard.
I complained about his 1/3 and 1/6 G statements, and you whine about 12G and 0G?
Go back to your negative G crib and suck your thumb.
Go back to your negative G crib and suck your thumb.
Apparently, I would have to get my crayons to draw it out for you. My 10 yr. old understands algebra and dose-response curves but it's apparently beyond you. But don't worry, signalling achieved, we're all now well aware we shouldn't listen to Mr. "The idea of having 1/6th of something that keeps us alive and functioning is a bad thing is bullshit." on the future of space travel.
Jeff might have a body mass index less than 30 in a one third gravity environment.
Yes and no. Mass is independent of gravity and so the BMI calculation is in theory unaffected - but the harm of a high BMI is due to weight not mass and so a low-g environment may well be healthier for those with pathological BMIs - say those 40% of US adults who are clinically obese. It is unlikely that there is only one poster here who falls into that category.
Guilty. At 285 lbs (post christmass at my mothers) I think I need to be 7 feet tall to be ok on the BMI.
ITS NOT FAT! ITS POWER!
Yup. It is “mass” but calculated using weight. The calculated number would fall in proportion to a drop in the gravitational coefficient.
I don’t disagree that there are multiple fatties in the comments section. Only one gish galloped support of covid mandates ostensibly due to their own inability to exercise portion control, exercise healthy dietary choices, and just plain exercise.
The harm of high BMI isn't solely due to weight; much of it is physiological.
In fact, weight may actually be helpful relative to weightlessness, since it forces people with high BMI to at least build some extra muscle under all that fat.
We have all our metaphorical eggs in this one basket. Anyone who is paying attention can see how a bad storm or an escaped Chinese virus can disrupt our infrastructure. Imagine what a giant space rock hitting the earth could do to that infrastructure.
If we want our species to survive and truly branch out to try all kinds of methods of governance the only answer is the planets and asteroids around our sun.
Is it dangerous? Of course. Life is dangerous. The question should be can we manage the risk with a proper application of technology. That's what we do as a species here on Earth. Why not use that same method on Mars, the Moon and the Asteroid Belt? After all, the EPA and the damn hippies can't complain. No Environment, No Impact.
If we want our species to survive and truly branch out to try all kinds of methods of governance the only answer is the planets and asteroids around our sun.
What do you mean "our", Kemosabe? See above. "Our species" (in the sense that you subsequently use "a species") almost certainly will not survive inhabiting anything other than Earth, maybe not even the entirety of Earth, and, per 'Tonto', maybe not even linguistically. Our species (species as a plural) might and likely even will, but that calls the "Our" into question.
In many ways, perhaps we deserve to perish.
Speak for yourself. I'd like my line to continue into infinity.
I thought Matt Damon already did it, so the issue is moot.
Matt Damon: I am The Martian.
Discount Matt Damon: OK, what kind of The Martian?.
Personal fav.
Isn't colonization the worst thing anyone can ever do? Or does that just apply to white colonists?
I am creating an honest wage from home 3000 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year agone i used to be unemployed during a atrocious economy. I convey God on a daily basis i used to be endowed these directions and currently it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybody, Here is I started.
This Website-----------> https://jobstime0909.blogspot.com
Zach's web comic 'Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal' is well worth checking out, I've been a fan for years.
His books are also interesting, he's a pretty smart guy, but generally I'm not as big of a fan of those. I think his wife has more to do with those, and it shows...at least to me.
I admire Elon Musk, but colonizing Mars sounds horrible.
Other planets would ultimately be little more than resources that are mined by machines with few humans ever setting foot on the planet. The future of humanity in space will be gigantic space stations. Being able to control the environment and move to better locations would be a much better way to go than being stuck on a planet. Just need to figure out how to create artificial gravity that is essentially equal all over the station.
So work to get out of a gravity well so that you can move between gravity wells and accumulate enough mass so that you can expend extra energy to do what a gravity well does naturally?
It's magical space thinking. Why not wish for an invisible pink pony while you're at it? It's space. At the bottom of gravity wells is where they keep all the good stuff. Get used to it.
Most gravity wells ( planets) are inhospitable to human life. Mars may be the second most hospitable planet to human life in the Sol system and even at the equator in mid summer the temperature is closer to a winter in Siberia than comfortable to humans and the atmosphere is extremely thin. Short of terraforming the planet the only way to survive would be to build domed cities which are basically space stations stuck in one place and would require huge advances in technology in their own ways.
Space stations in reality only need to solve the gravity situation and a way to recycle air and water efficiently. And the simple solution is to build really large space stations with huge sections dedicated to hydroponic systems. Space is large and mining the asteroid field would provide most of the material needed.
Another advantage to space stations is that they can be mobile so if danger approaches they can move out of the way. That planet destroying asteroid heading your way? Just fire up the engines and move s couple hundred miles in most any direction and zero worries? The neighbors have a Hamas/ Gaza mentality? Move away from them. Mobility is a major plus.
JFC. OK, candidate No. 2 to push out of the air lock before letting them command the space station.
OK, you realize that once you hop into your space station and fly away from orbit you haven’t actually averted a catastrophe that would kill all life in your particular gravity well, you’ve just made the asteroid required to do the job much, much smaller and harder to see, right?
No, space stations do not “only need to solve the gravity situation”. Unless they’re orbiting a planetoid, they need to address the radiation situation(s) too. And if you’re rotating them for gravity and adding in all the water for hydroponics, and fuel to push it out of the way, you’ve got a massively complex torque situation to figure out as well. A situation so complex that, even if you do find the asteroid (that would otherwise burn up in the atmosphere of a planet) in time, it’s not at all clear you wouldn’t simply tear the habitat apart trying to move away it. And, once you’ve moved, you’ve got to either float away, crash into something, or move back.
The entire mass of the asteroid field is less than the mass of our Moon. Certainly less than the mass of resources to be mined out of other planets and moons. There may be some sense in mining it for enriched metals, but the idea that it’s any more sustainable or habitable than our Moon, underground on Mars, under the waters of Titan, or in the clouds of Venus, or all of the above and then some is just retarded.
They’re *stations* people. A collection of parking spaces. You come, you stay for a little bit, you leave. They aren't homes. They aren't mines. Maybe they're storage areas but just like if you built a Wal-Mart over a bus station, the more stuff you keep there, the less of a station and/or Lagrange point it becomes.
So work to get out of a gravity well so that you can move between gravity wells and accumulate enough mass so that you can expend extra energy to do what a gravity well does naturally?
Rotating space habitats are different from "natural gravity wells": the combine the comfort of gravity with the zero cost launches of living in space.
A rotating space habitat doesn't cost "extra energy" to maintain; it just needs to be spun up once. Because that's how things work in space, you know.
At the bottom of gravity wells is where they keep all the good stuff.
"The good stuff" is floating around in the asteroid belt, from vast quantities of water and organics to iron and the rarest of metals.
A rotating space habitat doesn’t cost “extra energy” to maintain; it just needs to be spun up once. Because that’s how things work in space, you know.
Unless you launch stuff off of or onto it... you know.
“The good stuff” is floating around in the asteroid belt, from vast quantities of water and organics to iron and the rarest of metals.
If that's "the good stuff", then why are we here at the bottom of our gravity well and it there at the bottom of its gravity well? You know the total mass of the asteroid belt is on the order of like 3% of the mass of The Moon, right? That the total mass of all the water in the asteroid belt, assuming you could maneuver yourself around to collect it all, is several orders of magnitude less than all the frozen water on Mars and Europa, right?
I mean if Mars isn't viable because there's not enough water, atmosphere, minerals and gravity to keep it all together, what makes you think something a million times smaller is going to be more valuable? All the gold in them thar hills?!?
Unless you launch stuff off of or onto it… you know.
That's nonsense. You can arrange for arriving and leaving spacecraft to balance out. Even if you don't bother balancing it, energy and reaction mass are essentially free in the asteroid belt.
You know the total mass of the asteroid belt is on the order of like 3% of the mass of The Moon, right?
The problem with earth and the moon is that the most valuable resources are inaccessible below miles of rock at enormous pressures and high temperatures.
In the asteroid belt, it is spread out over millions of rocks with enormously large total surface areas, accessible at almost no cost and with free transport anywhere in the solar system.
what makes you think something a million times smaller is going to be more valuable? All the gold in them thar hills?!?
The same reason that even the crappy ISS is far more habitable than anything we can currently build on the moon or on Mars.
That’s nonsense. You can arrange for arriving and leaving spacecraft to balance out.
So what you're saying is, in order to avoid spending energy and bring 1kg of asteroid onto the station, I would have to launch 1kg of mass from... somewhere... to the station in order to balance things out and keep the station in position. Huh.
free transport
Magic!
The same reason that even the crappy ISS is far more habitable than anything we can currently build on the moon or on Mars.
Sure. It's got nothing to do with proximity to Earth, where a bunch of resources are sitting at the bottom of a gravity well. Those morons at NASA should've built it in the asteroid belt where the resources are so freely available you can just pluck them off the trees that grow there!
So what you’re saying is, in order to avoid spending energy and bring 1kg of asteroid onto the station, I would have to launch 1kg of mass from… somewhere… to the station in order to balance things out and keep the station in position.
Or launch 1kg of mass off the space station out into nowhere.
So what you’re saying is, in order to avoid spending energy and bring 1kg of asteroid onto the station, I would have to launch 1kg of mass from… somewhere… to the station in order to balance things out and keep the station in position. Huh.
Here is what I said: "A rotating space habitat doesn’t cost “extra energy” to maintain." That's just a fact.
Mr. Goal Shifter here now worries about launches. The energy cost of launches is attributed to the launches, not station maintenance, and furthermore, you can arrange for the effect of launches to cancel out.
free transport
Magic!
Yes, the Interplanetary Transport Network is indeed like magic. But it is also sound physics.
Those morons at NASA should’ve built it in the asteroid belt where the resources are so freely available you can just pluck them off the trees that grow there!
To the contrary, those smart people at NASA recognized that building an orbiting space station was easier than building a moon base, despite the fact that the moon has gravity and lots of other resources.
Exploitation of asteroids will likely happen first by moving small asteroids into lunar orbit and then stripping them and building new habitats there.
I haven't read this book yet (it's in my queue) but their previous book, "Soonish", is an excellent read.
In 4 billion years or so the sun is due to become a red dwarf and will expand to engulf the earth and burn it to a crisp. At this point, it's possible that mars will become a lot more comfortable for humans, naturally with heroic efforts at terraforming.
I’m totally fine with the rich tilting at that windmill. I’m even okay if they succeed. This is so far beyond anything that any of us have any influence over, let alone control, that it is quite literally science fiction.
When the USA vs. USSR space race reached its end with the moon landing, everyone thought that the Moon was another frontier. But it wasn’t, and it isn’t, it is a cold dead place.
The NASA concept that space is an inspirational and aspirational future destination for the common man stopped being true decades ago. The whole “look to the heavens” concept seems so delusional to me.
The rich can strap their asses to a rocket and escape the Earth, but they can’t escape their faults and flaws. They can’t outrun death.
But I’ll take the technological scraps that fall from NASA and Space X’s table, I mean in reality that’s all we get anyway right?
It's nice to see that the commentariat has responded in its usual manner - a mixture of rational and irrational comments. I'll address the more rational replies.
Yes, we don't really have any evidence of the long-term effects of living on the Moon or Mars. But, we now have extensive evidence regrading life in zero-G. Loss of bone density, loss of muscle mass and deleterious effects on internal organs are all well known by now. We evolved to live in a 1-G environment and living in any other gravity is bad for our health.
We might be able to evolve over time but, not without a lot of people dying first. Because that's how evolution actually works - those who can survive do, everyone else dies before successfully reproducing. Maintaining a viable breeding population is a lot harder when people keep dying due to an inability to survive the prevailing conditions. And, once we start evolving, how long do we keep calling the Martians "human"? It won't be long before Martians and Earthers are unable to interbreed.
That still doesn't address the problem of radiation. How many people actually want to leave Earth only to live underground on another planet? To me, it sounds a lot like prison - sealed inside under constant supervision and only doing what you're told to do when you're told to do it. Actually, prison sounds better because, at least you're allowed outside for some fresh air every day. Remember Biosphere 2? The "inmates" went crazy and started trying to avoid contact with each other as much as possible. Imagine that but on a larger scale.
My advice for anyone advocating colonizing space is: be prepared for a lot of people dying in the process... a LOT! How many people will sign up for that 1 in 1000 chance to survive?
[A guess but, one based on the statistics of populations exposed to lethal environments; i.e. the ability of organisms to evolve resistance to toxins we use to kill them.]
It won’t let me edit so, I’ll have to just add this.
Successful colonization does not just require people be able to survive; they must be able to reproduce as well. Many of the deaths which will happen will be children, stillborn or otherwise unviable. At this point, we have no idea whether humans can reproduce in other gravity environments.
Are there any pregnant astronauts willing to go their entire pregnancy on the ISS just to find out what happens? [It wouldn’t surprise me if the Chicoms forced a woman to do it, being as completely devoid of morality as they are.]
The ISS is obsolete crap.
A rotating habitat with a thick shell of water ice, on the other hand, is a perfectly fine place to be pregnant.
Is all the food they'd need for the journey crammed inside this thick shell of ice water or are they going to be growing some of it, under a thick shell of ice water on the way there?
Because even something like a habitat 1/10th the size of the ISS covered in a 1m shell (estimated to reduce the radiation on a trip to Mars to Earth background) of water is on the order of 2-3 full SpaceX Starship payloads.
Assuming someone is tending the crops while the pregnant woman is, somehow, managing her own birth, we're already talking something more like 10 and probably closer to 20-30 SpaceX Starship payloads, again, just for the shielding.
Also, none of this says or does squat about when they get to Mars, with a baby, and have to melt or cut all the ice and find a way to both shield the crops from radiation and allow sunlight through the ice dome.
I'm glad we agree that water shells are a solution to this problem. As for food, a simple solution would be to grow algae in the water shell.
You get the water and metals in the asteroid belt using robotic probes and move those resources via the ITN into lunar orbit. Then you construct large, shielded habitats for humans in lunar orbit from these materials. At this point, these are engineering challenges, and this is going to happen within the next few decades.
"Domes on Mars" is a pointless pipe dream. Mars has few useful resources and it is a deep gravity well without even the benefit of an atmosphere. The solar system will be primarily settled in rotating space habitats, not on planetary surfaces.
With modern molecular biology, we don't have to rely on evolution or natural selection to adapt to space.
Furthermore, we're not going to settle the moon or Mars; we're going to settle asteroid shells, protected from radiation, and spun up to give you a reasonable amount of gravity.
And the reason we're going to do it is because there is wealth beyond measure out there.
Once we mine the adamantium out of the asteroids, we'll be able to magicular biology it to everyone's skeletons so that they can survive all the gravity space has to offer. We can use the vibranium to make space suits so they won't have to use the asteroids for protection and we can use the dilithium to power the warp engines that will allow transport, for free, instantaneously between any two points in space known or unknown.
I'm sorry about your unfamiliarity with what's going on in molecular biology or space science. I recommend you catch up on the last half century of research before continuing to make a fool of yourself.
It won’t be long before Martians and Earthers are unable to interbreed.
As indicated, barring magic, less than a generation. Again, people aren't considering the "field effect" or 'permeance' of 0G. Your *veins* don't have to work as hard to pump blood *even while you sleep*. Your blood volume drops about as quickly as your body can shed it.
For anyone who's ever ridden one, the carnival ride "Gravitron" or "Starship 2000" that's essentially just a human centrifuge puts a sustained 3Gs on the human body which isn't a perfect model but would be approximately the 3-fold equivalent Earth to Mars. 4G is generally considered the maximum safe sustained G-force for average humans. Even then, that's oriented more around "passes out but doesn't die" which is very different when you can just return someone who has passed out to 1G and they aren't part of any sort of mission critical operation.
I can dig a book that dares to be a buzzkill on a beloved topic, especially if it’s backed by research and delivered with wit. So, “A City on Mars” sounds like it could be a refreshing antidote to the usual starry-eyed space operas. For more Business, Finance blogs.
The book apparently starts from a false premise. Places to settle in the solar system are not Mars, or the Moon, but the interiors of asteroids.
With less than half the irradiance on the surface of any given asteroid than that of Mars, which is half that of Earth's, how is that going to work? You're going to have to ship more fuel further to melt less ice/dig less rock/grow less food.
Even if any given asteroid is radioactively hot enough to facilitate water ice, you're proposing humans live inside of a radioactive ice bath further from the sun because... you really like Asteroids?
It would be much easier to just to live inside spent nuclear fuel retention pools here on Earth (where we already have lots of nuclear fuel because gravity)... unless of course you were somehow retrieving the water or fuel to bring it to someplace else where it could be of more use than just irradiating yourself in order to keep yourself from freezing.
I'm not sure there is any point in trying to use logic or reason to convince NOYB2. If he doesn't understand that the water in his ice shield will be constantly sublimating into space, thus needing to be regularly replenished, I don't believe any of your more technical points will penetrate his delusions about space travel. In the end, one would need so much water for the shield it would be cheaper and easier to make it out of lead (because it would be much smaller).
Space travel fantasies are just like any other - once you start picking at the holes with facts, the whole fantasy falls apart very quickly. The optimists are left sputtering: "But... but... some (not yet invented) MacGuffin will change everything!" People like that just prefer their cozy fantasies because, coming up with real solutions is damned hard work and one can only start solving a problem when one accepts the realities of it.
If he doesn’t understand that the water in his ice shield will be constantly sublimating into space,
Why in the world would you leave the water exposed to space?
Space travel fantasies are just like any other – once you start picking at the holes with facts,
You and mad.casual are scientific ignoramuses.
I'm laughing at your "superior" intellect!
And I'm laughing at your evident inability to read. I didn't make an argument for living off planet, didn't provide a timeline, or didn't state any "fantasies" about it.
I merely stated that "The book apparently starts from a false premise. Places to settle in the solar system are not Mars, or the Moon, but the interiors of asteroids."
I don't want to live off planet. It's not going to happen in my lifetime, nor in yours. But if stupidity like yours doesn't kill us off as a species or turn humans into social insects, yes, it is biologically, technologically, and economically feasible to live off planet.
(1) Asteroids are generally cold; that is how they retain water ice. Hot asteroids don't retain water ice.
(2) Even in the asteroid belt, you can still get 300W of solar power per square meter. This is more than enough so that we can use it to melt water and heat habitats. We also have the option of using nuclear reactors. Radioactive decay inside small asteroids is an insignificant source of heat.
(3) Asteroids don't just exist in the asteroid belt and asteroids can be moved.
Mining is one of the shittiest jobs ever. Space mining would be 100x worse.
No, space mining is 100x better, that's the reason why it is so attractive.
The combination of zero gravity, vacuum, solar energy, and exposed metallic deposits not only make mining easier, they make completely automated mining practical.
“…completely automated mining…”
Careful now, you’re starting to make the case for robotic space exploration. If you can completely automate the mining part, why not completely automate the whole operation? Space exploration is always cheaper if you don’t have to accommodate any pesky humans.
Because, that is the biggest flaw in your grand delusions: cost. If “humans” do start mining the solar system, it will all be done by robots because, it’s cheaper. Companies on Earth are already replacing people with machines wherever they can because, it’s cheaper (in the long run). In such a cost-intensive exercise as space exploration, why would anyone want to do it a more expensive way? To make some people’s fantasies come true? Not a chance.
Careful now, you’re starting to make the case for robotic space exploration.
I think robotic space exploration is great! The more the better. We need that to solve the many engineering problems involved in space colonization.
If you can completely automate the mining part, why not completely automate the whole operation?
For the same reason we automate the assembly of cars, but don't automate their repair. People need to be nearby to deal with the unexpected, to repair, and to take remote control of operations.
In such a cost-intensive exercise as space exploration, why would anyone want to do it a more expensive way? To make some people’s fantasies come true? Not a chance.
First of all, this argument started with me pointing out that arguments against settling space based on the difficulties of settling on Mars are bullshit; if humans are going to live off planet, it's going to be in space habitats. Settling Mars, the Moon, etc. doesn't make sense.
Now, about the economics: humans living in space habitats would be unimaginably more wealthy than humans living on any planet, simply because resources are so abundant in space.
Is it going to happen? It depends whether the world descends into a progressive/socialist dictatorship or whether it embraces free markets and individual liberties. With free markets, you are going to see small numbers of pioneers move into space, and it's going to take off from there. Even in the best case, it will likely take a century.
Last response because your invective bores me.
Getting into space is hugely expensive, which is why only governments and large corporations can afford to do it. Costs have come down recently but, it's still more expensive than any individual can afford. Even Elon Musk needs investors' money to make it happen. And the days of governments writing blank checks for flag-planting exercises are pretty much over.
Corporations (and more specifically, their investors) always want to maximize their return on investment, which usually means minimizing costs by any means. History shows that the first cost to be cut is the cost of labor (iow humans).
Given that sending humans into space is usually 10 times the cost of sending robots, corporations are always going to choose cheap robots over expensive humans. In the context of space, it will be cheaper to send another robot than it will be to send a human to repair the first one. If the robots become so big and complex that repair becomes imperative, it's more likely that they will be sent back to Earth orbit for human engineers to work on them, rather than sending the engineers out along with them. This will always be the cheaper option.
I think what I find most fantastical is that your musings seem to indicate that you believe space colonization will resemble the European colonization of the Americas. Small groups of individuals will set off into the unknown to make new lives and fortunes out in space.
But the economics of space travel suggest that only large, powerful corporations will be able to afford to go into space. They (and their investors) will be the ones making their fortunes. Corporations will want to minimize risk and maximize profit. This means they'll use cheap and dependable robots, not expensive and unreliable humans.
Your grand vision of human colonization of the solar system will have to wait until we have invented enough MacGuffins to make it cheap and safe enough for anyone to do it. I don't see that happening in the lifetime of anyone alive today. [But I could be wrong because, making predictions is hard - especially about the future.]
Your grand vision of human colonization of the solar system
I have articulate no "grand vision of human colonization".
I think what I find most fantastical is that your musings seem to indicate that you believe space colonization will resemble the European colonization of the Americas.
I believe no such thing, nor have I stated any such thing.
Last response because your invective bores me.
Your delusions and fabrications bore me. And you have nothing scientifically or technologically interesting to say either. You are worthless. Muted.
Could this be the The Haijin (海禁) for Whitey? Better to let the Chinese have Mars.
What little atmosphere Mars has is 95% carbon dioxide. Which should mean, according to the climate people, that Mars is a hothouse. Well, not exactly. The average temperature is 80 degrees below zero, but that hides the real problem which is the temperature can fluctuate by a hundred degrees between night and day -- and that's in the nice part of town.
Unless you're willing to live underground, Mars is uninhabitable. And yoy can live underground right here for free. Now, if you're willing to geoengineer an atmosphere, that's a different story.