| ▲ | krunck 5 hours ago |
| Mars has toxic levels of perchlorates in the regolith. That will require that humans never come in contact with the regolith or things that touched it. Those space suits that dock to vehicles seem like a necessity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perchlorate#On_Mars |
|
| ▲ | tim-tday 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Yeah, the ground on mars is literally toxic. Makes the concept of a Martian colony less appealing. Almost equal to a floating station on Venus. At least there you’d have the correct pressure. I seem to recall that the temperature on Venus at an altitude of one atmospheric pressure is manageable. It’s just also acidic. Possibility easier to deal with than perchlorates. |
| |
| ▲ | LorenPechtel 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Another interesting one is Mercury. There is a latitude where the average ground temperature is comfortable for us. You simply need to dig in deep enough to put enough thermal mass above you to get that average rather than the swings. I don't know how deep that is on Mercury, on Earth 10 meters is enough. Real world, you'll want to go a bit farther towards the pole so your station is comfortable with the thermal load of whatever equipment you put in it. | | | |
| ▲ | lukan 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Without massive terraforming all of Mars is very hostile. But having solid ground is still nice. A workable compromise is making big habitats in a dome, that gives sunlight, but shields from radiation. And the ground needs to be processed obviously. The advantage of Venus to me is is gravity. | | |
| ▲ | cosmic_cheese 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Gravity kind of cuts both ways. Closer to that of Earth is nearly guaranteed to be better for long term human health, but there's a possibility that martian gravity is "good enough" when supplemented with excercise while also making heavy operations and getting back out of the planet's gravity well easier. | |
| ▲ | tarr11 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I wonder if it will turn out to be easier to adapt lifeforms to the planets than to try to adapt the planets to the lifeforms. | | |
| ▲ | lukan 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Both probably, but you cannot really adapt life to no water and hard radiation. (at most sustain it in stasis, but not growing) |
| |
| ▲ | cduzz 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Venus seems like a wonderful place to live, relatively speaking. At the right altitude where you can "float" on the ocean, it's a pretty comfortable temperature and there's plenty of solar energy but you're shielded from the solar radiation. So, long term, your body will still work, assuming you can solve "the other problems." Of course, the down-side is that there's nothing to stand on and probably more importantly, there aren't many useful materials to work with besides tons of carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. Not much hydrogen there, so not much water, which probably is the biggest problem. One of them, anyhow. Also, there's probably not a whole lot to do besides float (zoom, actually) around and slowly go stir crazy in your bubble. But relatively speaking, it's way nicer than living in a hole on mars where you'll slowly die from gravity sickness, or radiation poisoning, or whatever. | | |
| ▲ | jcranmer 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Not much hydrogen there, so not much water, which probably is the biggest problem. Actually, the cloud layer at that level is mostly sulfuric acid, from which you can get your water. It also means you need to be in a hazmat suit when you walk outside, but that's still a step up from everywhere else, where you need a bulky pressure suit instead. |
| |
| ▲ | operatingthetan 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If we terraform mars, isn't the dirt still toxic? | | |
| ▲ | lukan 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, as terraforming means changing that. Whether it is really possible, is a different question, but after you have an atmosphere, you could have engineered microorganism processing the soil etc. | | |
| ▲ | marcosdumay 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Just exposing the Martian soil to water for some time is enough to destroy the perchlorates. (Turns out there's a region in Antarctic with them too, so we can always test things there.) | |
| ▲ | operatingthetan 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In that sense then the term "terraforming" is on equal footing with alchemy. | | |
| ▲ | wolvoleo 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Doing something like that at planetary scale is science fiction anyway even if we did have the tech to do it. | | |
| ▲ | baq 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Talking to computers and expecting computers to answer coherent English was science fiction 4 years ago. Don’t lose faith | |
| ▲ | generic92034 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I would not be so pessimistic. Look what the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria have done for our atmosphere. | |
| ▲ | wincy 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Maybe we’ll turn all of Mars into paperclips with our efforts! Glorious paperclips. First Mars, then the universe! | |
| ▲ | naravara 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you can kick off self-sustaining biological processes it’ll happen on its own eventually, but you’d just be looking at generational time scales to do it. Of course you’ll probably have lots of side-effects. |
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > In that sense then the term "terraforming" is on equal footing with alchemy NASA has proposed using "synthetic biology to take advantage of and improve upon natural perchlorate reducing bacteria. These terrestrial microbes are not directly suitable for off-world use, but their key genes pcrAB and cld...catalyze the reduction of perchlorates to chloride and oxygen" [1]. [1] https://www.nasa.gov/general/detoxifying-mars/ | |
| ▲ | fylo 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nradov 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Which dome construction material would be transparent to sunlight but block ionizing radiation? | | |
| ▲ | LorenPechtel 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | 1) Why do you need sunlight? 2) If you have a source of hydrogen: water. Bonus as you don't have to make the dome hold pressure. A layer of water of the right depth will generate the force needed, the structure only needs to keep itself level. The only pressure holding is outside that, enough to keep the water from boiling. And, well, it's water--if it's hit by a rock that isn't too big you'll just have hole in the top layer, easily fixed. The same general idea would work on the Moon but the water is far from transparent if you pile up enough of it and you need a lot of hydrogen. | | |
| ▲ | lukan 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well, I did wrote "gives sunlight" and that is a valid reply to it. But ... I would need sunlight actually. That seems somewhat possible with light tubes, but the much nicer solution, a transparent dome to still see mars clouds at day and the stars at night, is indeed not possible with current materials. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | card_zero 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Since the perchlorate is generated by reaction with sunlight, it might be limited to a surface layer. Well, I guess that's what regolith means. | | |
| ▲ | kzrdude 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Regolith is all the loose stuff, everything that's not bedrock, even if it might be quite deep. | |
| ▲ | vondur 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Rocket fuel for the taking? |
| |
| ▲ | ozgung 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sadly we underestimate the liveability of this Earth. Muskism makes people believe to the false premise that we can just buy a new planet, make it habitable with magical tech. Supported with pseudoscientific buzzwords like Terraforming etc. So we can recklessly consume this planet and jump to our new home when this one depletes. No need to care about our current home because it's a jumping board. Interesting as an old Sci-Fi fantasy so it attracts smart people, but if you really think about it's just lies and stupidity. | | |
| ▲ | tim333 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Musk was also into the solar panels and EVs so it's not all trash the planet. Even if living on Mars or Venus isn't practical we might develop interesting tech trying. | | |
| ▲ | Gigachad an hour ago | parent [-] | | Wasn’t the solar panels thing just some financial fraud scheme? | | |
| ▲ | oskarkk 14 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Not exactly, it was a normal solar panel business started by Elon's cousins (SolarCity), but it wasn't going well, and in the end it was bought by Tesla for much bigger money than it was worth (let's say it was a bailout for Elon). Today Tesla solar panels are maybe 0.1%-1% of the business, they stopped giving any data on it years ago. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | yieldcrv 21 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | floating colony on venus I heard was debunked, but that was also GPT 4.1 which was misaligned so I should seek a different source when I revisit this chain of thought | |
| ▲ | MengerSponge 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Mars is so bad, y'all. |
|
|
| ▲ | chromacity 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Calcium perchlorate is only slightly toxic. Not good for you, but living in an environment with background radiation levels 50x higher than on Earth may be your bigger worry... Still, I'm pretty sure we have plenty of people who wouldn't mind giving it a try. |
|
| ▲ | LorenPechtel 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Personally, I suspect all anoxic environments will turn out to be unhealthy for humans. You'll have a bunch of reactive stuff about that on Earth would have been neutralized long ago. |
|
| ▲ | mr_toad 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > That will require that humans never come in contact with the regolith or things that touched it. It’s really only a concern if you ingest it. |
| |
|
| ▲ | darknavi 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If this fact piques your interest, the book Delta-v by Daniel Suarez glances off this fact and uses it to justify exploring asteroid mining instead of a colony on Mars. |
| |
|
| ▲ | imglorp 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Or effective decontamination performed in the airlock. There was a recent demonstration of an electrostatic repulsion device reducing dust on suit fabric which might help with sticking. And an air shower like used for clean rooms does not seem too far out. |
| |
| ▲ | nomel 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Is that required? Could the suit itself be used as a type of airlock, to leave outside things outside? For example, mounting yourself onto a wall, then the back/whatever of the suit opens to the inside, and you hop out? (yes, there would be some dust recovery required, but minimal in comparison) | | |
| ▲ | imglorp 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The challenge with the "suits stay outside" model is that you basically need some kind of airlock between the suit hatch and the ship hatch. You might imagine both hatches get contaminated when the suit is detached. Then when you dock, that whole between-hatch space needs to be decontaminated before you can open the two hatches, because the outside of the suit hatch brought that stuff into the airlock. Someone else linked to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Exploration_Vehicle#Spec... edit: in that context^ search for "SEV suitport design" find NASA has written some docs on the matter, eg https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20130013652/downloads/20... | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > mounting yourself onto a wall, then the back/whatever of the suit opens to the inside, and you hop out? Isn't there a plan for the Artemis lunar rover to be configured this way? The outside of the suit never comes inside the rover. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ck2 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| there's a great PBS Space Time for that (of course) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5FqozA4IpA |
|
| ▲ | aaron695 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [dead] |
|
| ▲ | snthpy 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| TIL |
