How would Humans be able to live on Mars? How will we be able to build cities and settlements suitable for Humans...

Going to Mars in the next few decades is possible. Settling it is less possible.

Thread's about living and settling in.

I doubt it will take that long.

>Developments in magnetics might help remove the threat of overexposure as we attempt further exploration in space travel. Researchers are testing two methods of shielding: passive and active shielding. Passive shielding involves using a material capable of absorbing harmful radiation while active shielding repels the radiation using a magnetic field.

>Simulating a magnetic field like the one protecting Earth seems like an effective solution. Superconducting magnets are capable of deflecting radiation. A magnetic radiation shield for a spacecraft was originally thought impossible because the shield would require an expensive, energy-consuming cooling system. With developments in superconducting magnets, however, a more compact superconductor capable of operating without liquid helium cooling is possible. The shield would function like Earth’s by separating the electrons and protons of harmful particles. The separation would cause a charge and deflect the particles away from the spacecraft.

>Researchers and engineers are still working on developing a reliable magnetic radiation shield. Other methods of active shielding using simulated magnetic fields are also underway. One of these projects involves magnetic bubbles. The bubbles would consist of charged particles floating in space, which would be gathered to create a force field capable of deflecting particles.

Venus might be more practical for early colonization, has an atmosphere and gravity more like what people want.
If resources can be supplied by asteroids then the issues of mining on venus's surface might be negligible.

Or hypothetically flying plants who can live in the CO2 atmosphere could be genetically engineered

SpaceX will be moving fast, it will happen in the 2020's

> How would Humans be able to live on Mars?
Why would we want to? The gas giants are much more promising.

>Venus might be more practical for early colonization,
Unlikely. Even above the clouds, the weather there still pretty horrific.

>The gas giants are much more promising.
They have little available energy, and are almost inaccessibly far from Earth,
Any settlement is going to be highly dependent on supplies shipped in from Earth. Given that launch costs are basically per kg, that implies the cost of settlement per person-year climbs exponentially with dV.

>SOLAR RADIATION ON MARS IS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM
It's not that severe a problem.
The radiation levels on the surface are manageable for short-term trips, and moving underground (especially for sleeping) will vastly reduce exposure.

>ultimately, Mars's development will be determined by the amount of accessible water available
If you're willing to mine it, ice is supposed to be relatively common in some areas of Mars.

>as for terraforming
I don't know if I'm the only one with this opinion, but I actually find the subject of terraforming boring. The technology required is far into the future that it's basically just hand-waving. On the other hand, an ISS-to-McMurdo scale outpost is actually something that we could do without any major breakthroughs in technology, so it's an interesting problem to discuss.

>How would Humans be able to live on Mars?
Underground bases, with food, experiments, equipment and replacement parts shipped in from Earth. Oxygen and nitrogen can be produced from the atmosphere, and water extracted from sub-surface ice. If the ice isn't accessible, water can be manufactured from imported hydrogen, though that would necessitate heavy recycling and efficacy.

>what are the long term affects of Humans living on Mars after multiple generations?
That's almost completely unknown.

Meant to attach this.

> he doesn't know how to delete posts

I know how, I just couldn't be funded.

no one will fund you with such poor work ethic

>The technology required is far into the future

It isn't, most people would argue that climate change/global warming is a form of accidental terraforming. Of course, the real question is whether or not on Mars if whatever terraforming is done will remain permanent (or at least last long enough ie 3000+ years)

also most drinking water in the world is already "mined' via aquifers. A big problem with colonies/cities on Mars is that we don't know if Mars has a similar (or larger) amount of aquifers under it's surface.

>most people would argue that climate change/global warming is a form of accidental terraforming.
Sure, but the total mass of human industry on Earth is staggering.
Human CO2 emissions on Earth are about ~30Gt/yr. Trying to do that elsewhere would be challenging, to put it mildly.

>A big problem with colonies/cities on Mars is that we don't know if Mars has a similar (or larger) amount of aquifers under it's surface.
Ice actually appears to be fairly common on Mars. If you move away from the equator, there are entire glaciers.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars#Present_water_ice
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaciers_on_Mars
mars.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/gallery/latestimages/20030724a.html

Here's the less impressive low-latitude image.

gb2/b/, kid

>How would Humans be able to live on Mars?

With good science and technology. Just like how people are able to live at sea or in Alaska in winter.

>How will we be able to build cities and settlements suitable for Humans?

Same answer.

>Also what are the long term affects of Humans living on Mars after multiple generations?

Degradation of the human body due to micro gravity. They will be weak and brittle as fuck. They will eventually die out on their own, due to various problems with these facts. Natural childbirth alone will kill the mother whose bones will be too brittle to withstand it.

We don't evolve fast enough to adapt to the gravity. It'd be better to live in O'Neill cylinders off world where artificial gravity could be maintained around the same as Earth gravity.

>The surface gravity on Mars is only about 38% of the surface gravity on Earth, so if you weigh 100 pounds on Earth, you would weigh only 38 pounds on Mars.

Everything else we can beat easily, just not the lack of gravity on Mars. We won't be terraforming it though, there's no need.

>micro gravity

"macrogravity". stupid autocorrect

0

gb2 kid

gb2 kid

> limit of whats physically possible
and youre basing that on your PhD in particle physics right ?

Stay mad, lad.

In this case it's not so much about what's possible as much as it is singularityfags ignoring the economic and political factors that make going to mars extremely unlikely.

> economic factors
MarsOne is specifically dedicated to spend their budget for mars mission. They can manage the costs already.
> political factors
Oh, does the martian ambassador have objections humans coming over ?

Anti-matter, black holes, time dilation, and relativity are not /x/
Who makes this shit?

MarsOne? Really? That's been proven to be a scam. They literally don't have the capacity to reach mars.

I say political factors to say NASA ain't doing it. They have no funding and haven't done anything worth a damn since the 70s. Our only hope is spaceX, but I have my doubts about them.

It is all fake science.

>free will
>/x/

>>>/reddit/

>Our only hope is spaceX, but I have my doubts about them.

Agreed, but there's nothing viable about Mars other than to use it for mining and planetary science. Its orbit will be good for further exploration for resources and science. It won't be viable for colonizing in any way.

I'm afraid you don't belong on Veeky Forums, user.
home.cern/topics/antimatter

Antimatter has never been proven to exist. Everything about it, like blackholes, are just theoretical physics made up from extrapolation. Even the "antiprotons" are not really "antimatter". They are another type of matter completely.

You popsci guys are all the same.

>Even if it's real it's not real

Okay why is an Antiproton not real antimatter to you?

>Antimatter has never been proven to exist

Define 'proven'. We have observed particles with identical mass but opposite charge (as well as magnetic moment etc.) to certain fundamental particles which, upon contact with conventional particles, annihilate and release energy proportional to the mas of the system according to Einstein's mass-energy relationship. This seems like proof enough for the existence of something which we have chosen to call antimatter.

It doesn't even fit the model of what antimatter is supposed to be. Thus, it isn't antimatter. All you are seeing is a bunch of theoretical physicists trying to hold onto their grant money by moving goal posts all over the place.

None of that is true. Read the published papers on the subject. They are nothing at all like the popsci news bullshit you've been reading. You're repeating only conclusions of what news media makes up from things they do not understand.

>None of thatbis true

Except for the fact that it's observable in nature during beta decay where an electron positron annihilation happens.

Read the papers. Use google scholar for fuck sake.

What papers? Link them because they are bullshit. You can literally take a beta emitter and literally observe positron annihilation for literally yourself for fucks sake.

My main issue with Venus is how the fuck would we get back off? It's the same size as Earth so we would need to somehow build and launch a super-heavy rocket in mid-air

I think we should have a space launch general, we post links to livestreams in the OP, and discuss launches scrubbing all the damn time.

>study mars radiation
>make glass that blocks radiation
>???
>profit

>Link them because they are bullshit.

That is exactly what I'm saying. The papers that "prove it" for your argument are merely misinterpreted by the media. Also the rest of your post has nothing at all to do with antimatter you ignorant moron.

stop falling for bait.

Something I've not seen discussed is the threat of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) on Mars. The Martian atmosphere contains about 100ppm nitric oxide (NO). Whenever Martian atmosphere air is mixed with the atmosphere of the habitat, such as in an airlock, the nitric oxide will react with oxygen to form ~1ppm nitrogen dioxide. If it is allowed to build up in the habitat, it could harm the lungs and immune systems of the inhabitants.

>Degradation of the human body due to micro gravity. They will be weak and brittle as fuck. They will eventually die out on their own, due to various problems with these facts.
That's a rather pessimistic view, especially given the rate of advances in understanding microgravity adaption the ISS has given us. What are you basing that on?

Why are you responding to that shit? It's not even relevant to the thread.

You know I've always wondered, you hear about the first manned missions to Marx being no returning, usually do to no way to get them back off. Why couldn't we just send sections of a prefabricated launch vessel to the service along with fuel and when they are ready to leave they build it add the fuel and meet a new vessel in orbit that has come to take them home?

>you hear about the first manned missions to Marx being no returning, usually do to no way to get them back off.
I think only MarsOne has proposed to do that, and it's pretty debatable how serious they actually are about going to Mars. Virtually all plans include a return trip.

>Why couldn't we just send sections of a prefabricated launch vessel to the service along with fuel and when they are ready to leave they build it add the fuel and meet a new vessel in orbit that has come to take them home?
That's pretty much what most plans look like.

Technically, building the launch vehicle on Mars would probably raise the risk of failure. Given a Mars launch is just ~3.5km/s It might be better to just send the whole thing as one piece. Also, the fuel for the rocket could probably be made on Mars (2CO2->2CO+O2), and you don't need to send a new spacecraft to take the astronauts home - you can just re-use the old craft that they arrived on (which would still be in orbit). But yeah, a return trip is definitely manageable.

>you will never ride a sliver of steel and aluminum upon a column of fire and smoke, the roar of its awakened fury like a dragon out of legend, into the awesome, all-encompassing blackness of the Outer Dark
>you will never watch your home, our home, fade into a point of light midst the blackness
>you will never watch as the god of war waxes, ruddy and harsh in its barren splendor, to fill your vision with its alien beauty as you descend to your new home, to the next frontier
>you will never watch as the hatch swings open, and for the first time, feel the tickle of subtle winds upon your suit, like a thousand gentle fingers
>you will never whisper "We're here at last, Carl. We've taken the first step. The universe awaits."
>you will never work, for years, in the midst of radiation and percholates and desolation, to forge a jewel of human ingenuity among the rocks, to make life come from that which is long dead
>you will never be the spark that sets civilization blazing across those hushed plains like a prairie fire, cities and mines and farms and schools and parks, until the great stillness is a singing, vibrant, shining jewel of humanity at long last realizing its destiny, not as despoiler or destroyer, but as builder, creator, spinning out its genius from rock and fire and will

Back to On an unrelated note, who got ?

It could happen,user.

We are the music makers, we are the dreamers of dreams. The joyful obsessive power of pursuit, of some strange place that calls in soft, maddening voices to those so attuned, it can make men abandon all safety and reason, climb into rickety boats and wave goodbye to home and hearth for years, all to see a place that was once just a fuzzy outline on a map swell into view, ripe and beautiful and fresh.

Millions of people died trying to build communism. Ideas have power, power over even money, or self-preservation. But the only lives at stake are willingly laid down for this endeavor. To echo poor, deluded Marx,with a touch of irony, we have nothing to lose put our lives, and a world to gain.

I would gladly climb into a rocket to Mars, even if the odds of me making it alive were the same as the odds of me dying in the abyss. To die in such a way is an honor.

Elon Musk is already living on Mars. He is just keeping it a secret until the SpaceX IPO.

A self sustaining settlement on mars would take enormous resources, but is completely possible with today's technology.

imo the best way would be to robotically excavate part of a martian mountain, seal it, and grow plants inside using high efficiency LEDs. ideally this location would be close to resources like water (groundwater brine or ice), and mineral deposits.

fission or solar power is the way to go, fissile material is energy dense enough that it could be shipped from earth and sustain a small colony for a long time (napkin calculation: 1kg uranium-235 in a reactor could power a colony of 75 Americans for a year) If nuclear was unfeasible then it would take a lot of solar panels. Mar's recieved about 44% less solar irradiance than earth (meaning you would need 2.3X as many solar panels for the same amount of output power, and shipments/manufacturing of solar panels every decade as panel efficiency decreases.

getting a man-made ecosystem to produce the right balance of oxygen/food/removal of co2, is difficult and population would need to be rigorously controlled.
read: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2

water can by recycled back to a very high quality with a small scale MF-RO-AOP-GAC plant.

after all this effort what is the purpose of living in a hermetically sealed underground chamber on a different planet? I would really like to know.

>Mar's recieved about 44% less solar irradiance than earth (meaning you would need 2.3X as many solar panels for the same amount of output power,
It's a bit worse than that, thanks to Mars's dust.

>after all this effort what is the purpose of living in a hermetically sealed underground chamber on a different planet? I would really like to know.
You need somewhere to sleep while you go out to perform scientific research.

All very nice. Efficiency of solar panels. Um. Ignoring the calculation. How do solar panels fare in the PLANET WIDE dust storms?

I'd wager the approach would be to store as much power as possible and hide away/cover the panels during a dust storm.

>Um. Ignoring the calculation. How do solar panels fare in the PLANET WIDE dust storms?
Fairly well. We DO have quite a bit of data on the subject, thanks to the long histories of a bunch of rovers. Obviously the panels don't work during the storm, but they come back shortly afterwards.

and also worrying about keeping your ascent vehicle from melting kek

>How would Humans be able to live on Mars?
We could live beneath the surface of the planet , we could dig huge caves where to build our cities, problem is they could not be self-sufficient.

>It'd be better to live in O'Neill cylinders
How about an hollow asteroid that works like o'neil cylinder?

>problem is they could not be self-sufficient.
That really depends on what you consider "self-sufficient". Locally producing water and air is easy. Growing food on Mars would be difficult, but possible. Self-sufficiency for things like electronics is well outside our reach.

>How about an hollow asteroid that works like o'neil cylinder?
Asteroids don't do too well hanging in tension.

I really think that sustainable martian colonies are a simple matter of momentum.

Today, this feat is difficult because we have absolutely zero infrastructure and no people on Mars. It will remain difficult through initial attempts, but as settlements expand from science outposts to colonies and the number of Martian settlers climbs up through the tens and into the hundreds, the need, desire, and drive to develop what's needed for self-sustainability will skyrocket. Innovation borne of necessity will take root and it'll all be downhill from there.

But none of that will ever happen if people can't get over their hangups long enough to even try. The litany of copouts and excuses around the subject on the subject on the internet is almost sickening.

Why did the dome city trend die off? Wouldn't it be much feasible to raise a dome on mars with the low gravity and almost nil atmosphere?

Some radiation you can only block with sheer mass, so either a thick concrete wall or an atmosphere worth its salt.

Radiation shielding is the chief concern, and that's not something glass is all that amazing at. You'd also better hope nothing comes hurdling out of space at your dome, even if it's relatively small because the martian atmosphere isn't going to render such things nearly as harmless as Earth's atmosphere does.

Well if you're gonna pressurize a giant dome at 1 atm then obviously it's not going to be made of brittle glass but a much more robust material that may as well block cosmic rays and such. And if you're worried about asteroid impacts just vaporize them with lasers or something, use your head user!

>Be american astronaut
>Bring gun to spaceship, if NASA tries to take it off me sue them for 2nd ammentment something something
>Reach mars
>Shoot at the biodome
>It's just a prank bro

Plastic is easy to fix.

There's a thin line between "broken under pressure" and "about to break under pressure".
Strong materials under harsh condition don't take much more force to break than weak materials under normal conditions.

First off, any amount of breaking is going to ruin just about everything.
You can get around that somewhat by sectioning off parts, but at that rate you've switched models away from domes.
Secondly, you can make glass on Mars. I don't think anyone's ever checked, but I'd bet you any amount of anything that you won't find oil on Mars.

>be Yuropoverty
>a month into the trip, pick up a plastic knife
>entire ship interior glows red and the words "OI BIN THAT KNOIFE" are played at 120 dB on loop
>there is no bin on my space ship, the bin budget was used to gold plate the mosques in Londonistan
>government activates the kill switch they installed at the base of my brain stem to keep me safe
>refugees on the ship use my corpse as a sex doll

Dude? What? How does it having sections make it not a dome? And regardless, you can just patch it.

And plastics don't have to be made from petroleum.

Other than looking pretty, what advantage do dome cities actually provide? Even besides the poor radiation shielding, they're very heavy and expensive to produce, and have a large single point of failure.

>but a much more robust material that may as well block cosmic rays and such.
What.
I'm pretty sure thats not how materials work.

>just vaporize them with lasers or something
No.

>Plastic is easy to fix.
It also provides no radiation shielding, and is incredibly expensive to make on Mars.

>And regardless, you can just patch it.
Dome cities don't provide any redundancy or ability to seal off leaks - if there's a hole the entire city will start to depressurize. A good design shouldn't NEED to be rapidly patched.

>And plastics don't have to be made from petroleum.
No, but making them out of ice and CO2 would be incredibly difficult and energy expensive.

>Dome cities don't provide any redundancy or ability to seal off leaks - if there's a hole the entire city will start to depressurize. A good design shouldn't NEED to be rapidly patched.
None of that makes sense. A dome city would be no less vulnerable than a regular city to meteorites. Any small punchture would be patched with a friggin quadcopter in minutes, no one would even notice ground side. Anything larger and there is probably a fucking crater in the middle of the city to worry about and everyone would be having a bad day unless the city was a literal bunker, which is I'm assuming off the table since we are talking about cities that aren't simply buried under several meters of regolith. A good design is anything that works. We patch potholes all the time. Does that mean roads are a bad design?

And not that it is a significant design specification if we are talking about open cities, but FYI, anything with hydrogen makes for a decent radiation shield by mass. Plastic has lots of hydrogen atoms.

As for expense, you can literally grow it by making it out of corn, and it's not like expense is that much of an issue if there are many thousands of people on Mars and we are talking about building fucking metropolises.

>A dome city would be no less vulnerable than a regular city to meteorites.
A dome city has a single large structure that needs to be intact. The competing designs are modeler bases, where damaged sections can simply be closed off and repaired, and underground bases, which are inherently protected.

>FYI, anything with hydrogen makes for a decent radiation shield by mass. Plastic has lots of hydrogen atoms.
What? Particularly against gamma radiation, plastic is almost worthless as a radiation shield. It has an enormous HVL, so your dome would need to be increadibly thick. Also, hydrogen's pretty expensive on Mars.

>As for expense, you can literally grow it by making it out of corn,
Because Mars is well known for it's ideal corn-growing conditions.
Growing enough food on Mars to feed the inhabitants is going to hard, expensive, and demanding on both water and power systems. How do you expect them to grow enough to use as a construction material? Especially when you're trying to compete with compacted soil or widely available low-quality iron.

>and it's not like expense is that much of an issue if there are many thousands of people on Mars and we are talking about building fucking metropolises.
That sounds like a situation where the cost matters enormously. Also, I wasn't just talking about dollars when I said "expensive": it's demanding on the limited resources and labor available too.

At the end of the day, what advantage does a transparent dome actually give you?
It's a poor radiation shield, it's hard to protect against damage, it reduces modularity, and it's expensive to build.

A dome can be anything from metal lattice superstructure to a big ol' plastic bubble. Either way the weight is supported by air pressure.

It's true about hydrogen atoms. By mass, pure hydrogen gas is the best radiation shield. We only use lead when volume is an issue.

>Because Mars is well known for it's ideal corn-growing conditions.
I'm about ready to stop responding to you. Bioplastic isn't even that difficult to make. You are the one claiming it is impractical to produce on mars. It's not. If you have farms capable of feeding a million people on Mars then producing some plastic isn't a big deal.

>At the end of the day, what advantage does a transparent dome actually give you?
It depends on how much a million people need to live psychologically healthy lives. If it turns out a civilization needs some open air to survive then that's what we will have to do, and domes are capable of providing that.

>Going to Mars in the next few decades is possible
Going there has been possible since after Apollo.

underground is not inherently protected
the ground on these low grav planets will be substantially more porous than earth
Unless we're tunneling into rock

The normal construction material will obviously be something produced from some source on mars
Probably a concrete unless we find rich deposites of water/metals

>the ground on these low grav planets will be substantially more porous than earth
That's stupid, user. Just think about that for a minute.

>By mass, pure hydrogen gas is the best radiation shield.
So? It's going to be indigenously made, so mass won't be an issue.
Also, plastics aren't mostly hydrogen by mass.

>If you have farms capable of feeding a million people on Mars then producing some plastic isn't a big deal.
This isn't "some plastic"; in order to provide sufficient radiation shielding for an entire colony you would need VAST amounts of plastic. The half value layer of most plastics is absurdly large, so you're going to need several meters thick plastic to provide any defense. And the farms are going to be highly dependent on recycling to provide nutrients and water - which isn't possible with crops going to plastics manufacturing.

Finally, most plastics (including biologically sourced ones) degrade rather rapidly under exposure to ionizing radiation. On the surface of Mars you would need to be replacing the dome elements almost constantly.

A plastic dome just doesn't work.

>It depends on how much a million people need to live psychologically healthy lives. If it turns out a civilization needs some open air to survive then that's what we will have to do, and domes are capable of providing that.
You don't need to put the whole colony under a dome for that. At the absolute most, you can just build a domed above-ground "park". That way the radiation isn't a severe issue, and if something goes wrong you can just close it off and fix it.

>underground is not inherently protected
Yes it is, you have ground between you and the things trying to kill you.

>The normal construction material will obviously be something produced from some source on mars
>Probably a concrete unless we find rich deposites of water/metals
Mars is so rich in iron that it's visibly red from Earth.

Start in a crater at one of the poles.

Crater should provide some (not total) decent natural protection from radiation, poles have water, and if you place panels far out enough in all directions you'll be able to have year-round solar power.

I'm probably just in a bad mood, but I'm done replying to you. You are spouting the most inane facts that you know I already know, making downright silly assumptions about the structure of the dome, and bringing up problems with obvious workarounds.

Goodnight, user.

>Other than looking pretty, what advantage do dome cities actually provide? Even besides the poor radiation shielding, they're very heavy and expensive to produce, and have a large single point of failure.

Domes give you a lot of space and control of the weather inside that space, which is somewhat of a big deal on the real estate and tourism industry in case you didn't know. I guess a full blown city in a single dome is a bit of a stretch, but no one says you can't spread your settlement with stronger, albeit smaller, domes. Once you get the hang of it you may end up encasing several of those domes in bigger and better ones.

It doesn't matter how expensive it is, to get the spatial benefits of a dome on an inhospitable you're much better off building on the surface than hollowing out of the ground. Unless it's a colony of dwarves in which case fuck domes.

>I'm pretty sure thats not how materials work.

Have you seen dome structures here on earth? Now, imagine if you only had to worry about a fraction of the gravity and not at all about the stormy weather we have here. Furthermore, the engineers' lives, and their families, depend on them not fucking up and half-assing the design . Suddenly domes are not such a crazy idea.

>No.

Ok then send Bruce Willis, I'm not gonna do all your homework user, you have to be resourceful.

>A dome city has a single large structure that needs to be intact

Depends what you mean by intact. If you're smart and build your dome with a fail-safe coating or underside structure to prevent small leaks, then all there is to worry about is the broader subject of structural integrity, but if you picked a site with zero earthquakes and minimal meteorite impacts then all that remains to worry about is the craftsmanship.

>At the end of the day, what advantage does a transparent dome actually give you?

The transparency is for concept art eye-candy. It may look cool on the outside, but the visuals from within a transparent dome would be just that of a grim deserted wasteland, top that with days that don't match our 24 hour schedules and a transparent dome doesn't sound so nice to live in. It's much better to have full control of the lights inside the dome and have them behave however you like, hopefully in the style of The Truman Show if you can pull it off, or just settle for localized illumination if not.

>t's much better to have full control of the lights inside the dome and have them behave however you like
So why not just live underground?

Make the glass really thick. It's not rocket science.

Because that's where the niggers will be living. YEAH YOU HEARD ME.

Fuck underground bases everyone will just complain of claustrophobia

Alright how about small dome modular? So instead of 1 dome like 10 connected domes? You have to think of aesthetics here, you are trying to attract people to spend their lives here, I'm not traveling 50 million miles to live in something looking like the ISS.

What is even the point of a transparent dome?
What practical effect are you expecting to achieve?

>which is somewhat of a big deal on the real estate and tourism industry in case you didn't know.
I confess, Martian tourist resorts are not what I was considering.

>Suddenly domes are not such a crazy idea.
They seem less resilient and provide less shielding for more effort.

>Depends what you mean by intact.
I was really referring to the "all your eggs in one basket" aspect; A large dome is a very big thing to evacuate and deal with if something DOES happen.

>the visuals from within a transparent dome would be just that of a grim deserted wasteland,
It's still a less claustrophobic view than a wall of iron and rock on all sides.

>top that with days that don't match our 24 hour schedules
It's actually pretty close: 24 hours 37 minutes. People would adapt.

>Fuck underground bases everyone will just complain of claustrophobia
>Alright how about small dome modular?
Small domes at least aren't completely ridiculous. You could build them out of radiation-shielding materials like lead-borosilicate glass (not plastic!), and if a dome breaks you could just seal it off from the rest of the base while you repair it.

Unfortunately something like that isn't going to be cheap compared to iron-based underground construction. The labor will probably be similar (manufacturing + assembly vs excavation), but the materials will require far more effort to gather and turn into a usable form. Also, the radiation levels are still going to be significantly elevated, especially compared to underground.

I could potentially see domes being used to provide living space or meeting areas ("parks"?), with more utilitarian areas built underneath. That may help to prevent cave adaption in the inhabitants. You also can't sleep in domes - the radiation levels will be too high.

I'm still not sure they're practical.

>What is even the point of a transparent dome?
Being able to see outside could help with moral.
They're not terribly functional though.

>It's still a less claustrophobic view than a wall of iron and rock on all sides.
>Being able to see outside could help with moral.
>I'm still not sure they're practical.

I don't think I'm sure where you're coming from any more, user. If it's a strictly industrial operation you're running then yeah by all means go for the underground and give people space suits if they want to stretch their legs. If what you want is to attract residents and/or tourists then it's domes or nothing.

>It's actually pretty close: 24 hours 37 minutes. People would adapt.

I was thinking other planets in general, Mars just happens to have that happy coincidence. The sky there is still pretty boring to watch though.

I used to be super interested in this, but for a while now I don't find it realistic that humans will EVER settle Mars. We'll fall back into extreme hunger and poverty before we get that far.

>I'm probably just in a bad mood, but I'm done replying to you. You are spouting the most inane facts that you know I already know, making downright silly assumptions about the structure of the dome, and bringing up problems with obvious workarounds.
>Goodnight, user.

>What is even the point of a transparent dome?
>Being able to see outside could help with moral.
>what are windows?

DUDE RADIATION LMAO
People arent even going to make it to mars unless we solve our genetic damage issue.

You can use a shield in L1 to protect against radiation and reflectors in L2 to increase lighting and temperature.

Pic related.

They'll spend most of their days in radiation shielded habitats. An occasional jaunt in the park isn't going to kill you. Radiation is sub optimal, but in no way does it preclude a happy and productive life.

If it turns out that humans need big open spaces more than they need absolute protection from cancer then by god, they'll take a jaunt under a miles diameter dome.