Is colonizing Mars just a meme?

Space debris and solar radiation is a rather trivial thing when you have the tech which can build a solar orbiting space station.

> tech to build autism station
Yeah, might as well siphon water to Mars if we have the tech.

We already have all the technology to make a solar orbiting space station. Nothing new needs to be discovered, it just needs to be engineered and built. We don't have the tech for colonizing Mars and we never will.

> we never will
We didn't have the tech to build the internet, but now we do. Woah how time changes

>you can simulate gravity quite easily with rotation if your halo is big enough
It is still some shit you have to deal with, martian gravity isn't a huge problem either.

Space is pretty fucking big. Space junk is really only at LEO. You put your station at a slightly higher orbit and there is virtually no junk.

keep dreaming

>Is colonizing Mars just a meme?
>mfw

>too cold
>no atmosphere
>full of radiation
You'd be living in a habitat anyway, so I don't see how any of these points are relevant.

>It makes much more sense to just build this thing in our orbit and be comfy
Literally science fiction. You might as well tell NASA to make a dyson sphere.

would be better if we focused on discovering a something like a warp drive and search for an empty habitable planet

>Literally science fiction. You might as well tell NASA to make a dyson sphere.

>building a small space station is just as hard as building a space station the size of a solar system

Are you retarded?

Sorry to break this to you, meatbag, but while humans have been languishing on Earth, fretting over their next manned destination, robots are already at the edge of the solar system.

This is not a temporary deviation...it's a trend that will continue.

>martian gravity isn't a huge problem either
we don't know yet if it's enough to prevent health issues, make babbies etc.

A warp drive requires new physics. Building space colonies is an engineering problem
We don't have mind uploads though.

>too low gravity
Sources?

Do you have any besides saying you watched The Space Between Us?

We have lots of research on Earth and for extended time periods in orbit, but none regarding the developent and adaptation of life on 38% G; for all we know it could be the sweet spot with no detrimental effects whatsoever.

Everything else you mentioned is very easy to fix.

> makes much more sense to just build this thing in our orbit and be comfy
Fuck no, there are so many problems with that idea I don't know where to begin, but open to suggestions so I can shoot holes in your BS.

Now there's a proper meme
>>/x/

>the boring 'i'm mature and know better' opinion
Your pic is upsetting to me.

Not OP
While I'm agreeing with what you're saying, I don't think terraforming is really a realistic endeavor. Not sure how we could do it faster than Earth did, and that would take millions of years. Better to build permanent habitats on mars so that we don't need to try and control the whole planet's environment, no?

>1
>2
>3
>5

Agreed.

I wouldn't even worry about trying to terraform just let it happen by accident if it's going to happen (meaning don't concern yourself with CO2 or methane emissions from power plants, factories etc.)

Terraforming kind of joke, in the same way that every alien is humanoid to save Hollywood studio execs $. It's shocking that some people actually took that shit seriously, as a short term project we should begin.

>Building space colonies is an engineering problem
No, it's a logistics problem. The late Gerard K. O'Neil already provided a design that can be made with existing tech. It's the prohibitive costs of getting the materials where they need to build it in space that have deterred such endeavors.

>It makes much more sense to just build this thing in our orbit and be comfy
For what purpose would we do that? To extract all those materials and rare metals from the empty space in our orbit? to do science experiments that can already be done on the ISS? to make room for more people to live when we could just build more and taller buildings? to prove that we can live in space when we already know we can? to further exploration of their cramped little rooms in that thing? to mine asteroids when small unmanned ships are way more cost effective? to bring people to a different star system when they'd be moving at a snails pace run out of energy not too long after entering interstellar space?

Building something like that, would be a complete waste of time and resources.

Not him but a space habitat placed in lunar orbit could serve as a boom town for helium-3 miners so their bones won't grow brittle and their muscles atrophy from living in lunar gravity. Same for any family they bring along.

Well hey now, off-topic but there is some logical evidence to support the idea that life elsewhere doesn't look a lot different than we do.
Assuming we're talking about life developing in an environment similar to Earth, that life would be made of the same stuff as our life, and encounter a lot of the same things in its environment as our life. So, barring extra-planetary events that would obviously be unique to that planet (idk, meteor strikes?), what reason does life have to be all that insanely different from us?

>*and their muscles don't atrophy

I don't see the point of going to mars when Antarctica is so warm and inviting.

>Building something like that, would be a complete waste of time and resources.

The case for Mars really isn't that much better. Historically colonization starts when people find ways to make money off of the endeavor. Money (lack of return on investment) is why we stopped going to the moon.

Just get enough people interested in the project that will do it for free.
Kind of like the GNU project.

To ensure humanity's survival if something goes bad on the surface. That's literally the only reason anyone would ever live outside Earth

no atmosphere cancels out the cold temperature
Means you don't need to heat as much

The moon has a distinct lack of any compounds that we can extract water or organic compounds from. Making self-sustained settlements there a thing of the far far future. Also the moon has no volcanic history so the heavy, valuable metals are still deep beneath the surface.

Unlike at some rotating 'halo'-esque space station in our orbit: at least there would be new resources to obtain on either the moon or mars.

Humanity will never had the tech to successfully terraform Mars, within the life time of the human species, or increase Mars gravity.

You are deluded, ignorant, and childish to think otherwise.

>conveniently leaves out the gravity problem

J•E•L•L•O B•A•B•I•E•S

The logistics problem isn't a problem with current technology. Materials can be gathered in space using drones. There is plenty of material between Mars and Jupiter for such construction.

Halo rings to leave earth and head for TRAPPIST-1 when

>youtube.com/watch?v=0jXTBAGv9ZQ

>Halo rings

You mean Ringworld, kid.

Are you stupid? The moon has tons of water

Lower gravity/internal temperature means you could easily dig far deeper into the moon

>Veeky Forums meets /v/

>unironically thinking this much of your own opinion
>being this reddit on an anonymous sperm fertilization catalog

even halo calls them ringworlds

Mars can be colonized one dome at a time. Build a dome with enough personnel to build a new dome from Martian silicate glass and Martian hematite steel, pressurized with concentrated Martian oxygen and supplied with melted Martian water growing crops in carefully prepared Martian soil.

Focus on further refining and expanding and build another dome after that for your children. Make them all self sufficient so that if one is heavily damaged people can evacuate to another one and the loss of one would only be a tragedy on par with an airliner crash or ship sinking today.

After that, anything goes. Eventually small groups of people could pool their resources to buy a crawler truck and drive off into the dust to build their own colony elsewhere - high tech Oregon covered wagons.

You can't do that with a space station. A space station will only ever be what you send to it, Mars can be what you take from it.

this

Even without catastrophe, you're just managing humanity's slow extinction. If we are alone in the universe, then tell me why a century from now we shouldn't fling off, a million people in a time on city-ships carved from asteroids towards distant stars.

In search of another Earth, or even another Mars or another Ceres, to settle down around a distant star, be fruitful and multiply once more, then send their own descendants forth to distant stars.

To build great antenna to transmit news and data and music to our far-flung cousins so we'd know, even on years of delay, that there was someone out there.

Just today we spotted seven lovely rocks, any of which could be a new Eden or a new Antarctica, flung around a tiny star that we could reach under fusion power in 400 years. Build a great ring habitat like the one in OP, a pleasant place for people to live for generations, and accelerate it towards them.

>then tell me why century from now we shouldn't fling off
because a century is too long to wait you lazy cuck

I don't want my O'Neill cylinder to get kernel panic when I try to update it.

>colonies on things without 1g or artificial 1g

JELLO BABIES
JELLO BABIES
JELLO BABIES
JELLO BABIES

I wish I could move at 20,000,000,000 dollars per second.

>too far away
About six months trip with tech we have had since the 60's.
>too cold
IIRC some parts of the arctic ocean are colder than the surface of mars
>too low gravity
The gravity is low but that is hardly an insurmountable hurdle
>no atmosphere
What are self enclosed environments and the sabatier method?
>full of radiation
So is space which is why te best bet would be building bunker style bases into the ground using the rock as radiation shielding.

>it would be far cheaper to hollow an asteroid or build orbital structures than to colonize mars
It would be far easier to get to an asteroid if we have some low gravity area to launch missions from like mars or the moon.

>terraforming
Can't even decide on the Earths climate. All the models have been wrong so far.
What makes you think we can fix Mars when we can't even fix Earth?
Maybe in another 2 thousand years but by then we won't need a planet other than for resource mining to build more of OP's pic

>or increase Mars gravity.
Why is this a pressing concern?
Why do we have to change the gravity of Mars rather then just making ways to help people adapt to it's gravity?

Ring worlds are the most insanely impractical thing ever, the rotational speed necessary to keep an atmosphere contained in those things would make them pretty much impossible to land on for one.

Fek off well walla!
Xetamang tili du xeta
OPA 4 life

Aside from the whole problem with terraforming a planet or building habitat domes on its surface, I think the gravity problem is the biggest issue. Even the first settlers taking a trip to Mars and living there would be unable to survive in Earth gravity after a year or so, and this would only get worse for future generations. Birth defects sound likely, as well as health problems related to excess calcium from disintegrating bones entering the bloodstream.

I think space stations are a better idea for extra-planetary habitation. If built large enough, we could simulate sufficient gravity to keep humans healthy, and it would be much easier to control the climate for growing crops.
Also, who wouldn't want to live in an O'neill Cylinder? fuckin cool.

>we've discovered all the science the rest is just engineering hurr durr
that's what brainlet who can't appreciate material sciences say

kek

> think the gravity problem is the biggest issue
I doubt gravity is as big a problem as you fear it would be. Consider that mothers on earth will be in lot of different positions, meaning gravity tugs on gestating babies a lot of different ways and they form just fine. We're relatively resilient and don't show any change in probabilities of development defects as a function of mother posture during pregnancy.

I think there is probably just a huge different between low gravity and zero gravity. I'd be very surprised if birth defects are a big issue at 1/3 g or 0.1 g. But with 0g it is a lot more plausible.

Not sure if this translates to gravity but some women get miscarriages if they live at a higher altitude

that is why you use a spoked wheel design where you dock at the hub

Needs a a kickstarter.

Look at the insane diversity of life on this planet. Most of the things that live here look wildly different than we do.

>. Also the moon has no volcanic history so the heavy, valuable metals are still deep beneath the surface.

The moon had lava flows so huge we can see them from earth.

I don;t know, Satan -- is that what it would COST to move, or do you get paid that for moving?

>anonymous sperm fertilization catalog
Heh

>What makes you think we can fix Mars when we can't even fix Earth?

If Mars is a dead as it appears to be, we can fuck around with it until we get it right. Trial and error experimentation with the life support system of the place you live is a bad idea. Of the place you want to live later, that's not an issue.

thats an air pressure/oxygen availibility thing

>rotational speed necessary to keep an atmosphere contained

What is "a roof?" Niven was playing with ideas for a novel in a universe that included some insanely intelligent potential engineers.

In this universe, not trying to build a fun setting for a story but instead using real materials and the intelligence we actually have, we'd do it differently.

Guess who hangs here

>Even the first settlers taking a trip to Mars and living there would be unable to survive in Earth gravity after a year or so

We've had guys in ISS for a year or so, notably less g's than Mars.. Your argument is invalid.

Plus -- for a colonist, "I can't survive back on Earth," even if true, may be a non-issue, other then limiting his vacation options. He does not need to survive on Earth, he needs to survive where he lives.

>life on this planet
>posts picture of an alien

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade
Check yourself before you wreck yourself, famalam.

waterbear is clearly extraterrestrial
It just floated here from space

>don't know where to place it in taxonomic tree
>gene sequencing shows unique genes in waterbears that don't show up in other species
>gene sequencing shows horizontal transfer, indicating that any commonality with terrestrial species is due to alien gene theft

I say this all the time but I can't imagine 40% of Earth's gravity would be that onerous, considering how wide the range of physical mass and activity levels "healthy" human beings can have.

On Mars, an 80kg man would weigh 36kg. He's not exactly going to float away. One jog a day and he's still going to have better circulation than a desk jockey on earth.

why dont just use some heavy weights or something.

...

Maybe you're right about birth defects, but it'd still be a problem over time. Even if you're right and our bodies adapt to surviving without the normal pull of holding things in place, we'd still be breeding a society of humans that are weaker and more prone to injury/disease, who can do less.
This wouldn't be as apparent in a low gravity environment, but I believe the low weight of things wouldn't make up for the damage.

Fair point user, I did not know that. Still though, our astronauts of today are literally the best humanity as to offer. They're the most healthy, educated, and most motivated human beings on the planet. They also constantly do exercise on the ISS to reduce the effects on them as much as possible, and they still come back with problems in their circulation, eyesight (from swelling), bone density, and probably more.

So apparently I was exaggerating in my first post, but evidence suggests that long term, low gravity is a thing to avoid.

We don't have to live on Mars to colonize it
>Make multi purpose station orbiting Mars
>Send out drones, machines and all sorts to do the hard work for us
>Find a large cave
>Build underground complex
>Move on to next planet

>average temperature is -76 degree F
>not too cold

>when kike shillbots start to meltdown

>but it'd still be a problem over time.
Says who?
Until you can't make statements like this until there has been testing.
Just means that they need to exercise/stress their bodies

>Still though, our astronauts of today are literally the best humanity as to offer.
lol
no

There has been testing, on the ISS. That's one reason why they put astronauts up there for so long. And, yes, Mars is not microgravity, but that's not a reason to assume the effects on a human body, stemming from not enough gravity, wouldn't still be there.

>lol no
Great point. You know what, you're right.

astronauts are just old fuckers, they are nothing special, just had to pass through a lot of bureaucracy

Microgravity issues on the ISS are almost totally solved, its nonsense to think mars would have any
Plus you could just build centrifuges if you absolutely needed 1 g for whatever reason.

>almost totally solved
I'd be interested to hear how, as I haven't come across any news related to that.

a lot of the problems that those guys suffer on the ISS are from cosmic ray damage. Wouldn't be an issue for mars

>Implying I play video games for the story-line

VIIP

>Plus you could just build centrifuges if you absolutely needed 1 g for whatever reason.

Build them in space where it is actually viable.

It makes more sense to develop a warp speed drive and live like star trek.

>makes more sense
Like this guy asked, it doesn't.

Build it at Earth-Moon L4 then.

You could probably establish a research base on Mars but I don't think we're ever going to have billions of people inhabiting it, for all of those reasons that you mentioned.