/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12007384
1. The point of colonizing another planet is to have a safeguard against extincting through a planet-wide catastrophy.
2. We'd advance much more technologically if we had to survive on Mars.
3. Ocean habitats wouldn't be the eco-paradises in pic related. They'd just give us a more efficient means of polluting the oceans.
4. Ocean is dum and space is cool.

>>12007384
You can do both at the same time, it doesn't take such a significant amount of resources that either would hamper the development of the other.

>>12007384
While oceanic colonization makes more sense than Maritan colonization (ocean mining, geothermal energy) it will be space habitats that will be our first habitats because from there we can direct the asteroid mining, the industralization of belt and moon and the helium-3 mining of saturn and uranus. But of course I don`t expect biological humans to do that all, the future belong to genecially augmented cyborgs or even digital intelligences that can not merely survive the harsh extremes but thrive in them.

because the goal of space colonization in the eyes of non schizos (basically everyone other than musk and his followers) is to relocate most industrial activities to space. Humans will never live in space and if they did live in space, it would be worse than prison. The reason for space colonization is to access the mineral resources of space to custom build supply chains in space. Manufactured goods (or partially manufactured goods) will then be sent back from space to Earth.

Most of Earth will become heavily protected ecological zones while the rest of the planet is turned into dense metropolises

In the ocean, salt corrodes everything to shit. Martian atmosphere doesn't even have enough air to oxidize any metal.

>>12007537
I never really thought of it this way. I've always been kind of apathetic about space travel and exploration, but as an environmentalist your perspective actually makes me somewhat enthusiastic about it. Would we be able to effectively prevent space trash and industrial waste from falling to Earth?

>>12007537
>Humans will never live in space and if they did live in space, it would be worse than prison.
Define human and do not forget O`Neil cylinders or other space habitats. Terraforming will not be a thing in the next millenia but posthumanity will spread out across the entire solar system and even beyond as immortal beings can accept travel time of several thousand years or more.

>>12007413
2nd these.

>>12007785
Don't we already live in space, trapped in a type of atmosphere controlled ship?

>>12007833
The only valid argument is 1. and it's easy to argue that Mars is very shit as a potential safe heaven compared to other alternatives like moon.

>>12007492
>>12007785
O`Neil cylinders are very impractical. It's pretty much an outdated thought experiment from era when overpopulation was precieved as a big issue for future sustainability.

>>12007537
The most land itensive activity is an agriculture and thats easy to solve with vertical farming and ocean farming.
>Humans will never live in space and if they did live in space, it would be worse than prison.
But it's hikikomori paradise.

>>12007843
Ship of Stone
>>12007923
You will of course burrow them into asteroids and to incorporate their own structures within them. But I also suspect that future humanity won`t need gravity as genetic engineering and cybernetics will allow them to live without it. This may go even so far that they advance beyond the need of food, water, air and atmosphere - being bound into fully cybernetic bodies that can freely move in the void of space.

>>12007413
>The point of colonizing another planet is to have a safeguard against extincting through a planet-wide catastrophy.
Humans will just ruin the next planet. I say let them die.

>>12007976
The chances of any of that happening are very low, especially since regular civilizational collapse seems to be built into humanity almost as if it were part of our evolutionary strategy.

I want to hear more about ocean colonization ideas.

>>12008041
>The chances of any of that happening are very low
GRAIN is making good and steady progress, we all know that gene augmented babies are possible today, cybernetic is becoming better and better, especially in the MMI department and nanomachines are also readiuly being used as surgeon tools.
Collapse is a meme, compared to the Cold War all modern problems are panik-making. Climate Change won`t be the end of civilization, at worst we will some hundred millions refugees from the desertificated areas but the great powers will survive that shit.
GURPS Transhuman Space: Under Pressure got some good stuff for ocean colonization.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5NgMFdmQX0&index=6&list=UUZFipeZtQM5CKUjx6grh54g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GusIC3RMhbI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6mRjsxQQJE&list=UUZFipeZtQM5CKUjx6grh54g&index=142

>>12007982
Go ahead and set the example bro, we'll all be right behind you!

>>12007384
Salt water is one of the most corrosive substances imaginable.

>>12007384
First off, Mars will never be terraformed. It’s a fools errand and a massive waste of the potential of the red planet. Mars is going to be colonized as a forge world where we outsource all of our high pollution industrial processes and probably a good portion of our energy production. Melt down a nuclear reactor on Mars? Who cares, fill in the hole and build another one a couple miles away. Got toxic exhaust? Dump it straight to atmosphere. Sludge? Lol just put it in a pit. Those precious metal asteroids can be slammed into the planet and all the good bits scooped up. You could argue that the moon would be suitable for this purpose but NIMBYs look at the moon. No one can really “see” Mars from earth so no one will care.

Now, back on earth we are free to “terraform” all the little normally inhospitable places like the oceans and desert and convert them into gardens. The whole of earth would be purposefully changed into an agricultural eden for the sole purpose of habitation and sustainment of mankind.

>>12007384
>Name at least 4 reasons why should we colonize Mars instead of Earth's oceans.

The political Earth police won't have any reach to mars. Society can be rebuilt in a way that is not retarded. Ocean cities would have every nations navy coming knocking twice a week.

Only reason needed.

>>12007982
>Humans will just ruin the next planet.
Yup, cause we are going to dismantle all planets we can get access to and convert them into either habitats or industry.
>I say let them die.
Rocks don`t have rights.

>>12007384

>buildings with tentacles

>when u realize the Atlantans free energy was just a massive Floating city generator harnessing the infinite power of ocean waves

>>12009120
I think they might be generators and sea anchors, like as the current moves through them they flex and bend and generates a little bit of power.

>>12007413
>3. Ocean habitats wouldn't be the eco-paradises in pic related. They'd just give us a more efficient means of polluting the oceans.
And it wouldn't look as cool as it's concept art in real life.

>>12007384
oceans are boring
rockets go BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

>>12007785
WHY would you build an ONeill cylinder? Why? At least terraforming has several reasons (spreading life/biosphere, science, etc.)

>>12007573
isn't martian soil toxic as fuck? Let alone abrasive as 32 grit sandpaper

>>12009712
>can't spread life/biospheres in cylinders
based retard

>>12008570
>The political Earth police won't have any reach to mars.
If we can send colonists to Mars then we can send police to Mars.

>>12008540
>Mars is going to be colonized as a forge world where we outsource all of our high pollution industrial processes and probably a good portion of our energy production.
That doesn't make any sense. Just put factories in space and haul asteroids, can be done with AI and remote control. Energy production is also better in space. Mars is virtually useless.

>>12008245
Then don't build from steel.

>>12007982
>oh no, humans will ruin this dead wasteland!

>>12010012
You need square footage for industry. Square footage on Mars is way cheaper than in space. You also don’t have heat sinks in space, Mars itself is a giant heat sink. You’d need radiators almost as large as the orbital industry stations your thinking of. More importantly, you don’t need AI or a bunch of tech that doesn’t exist yet, we can get started now.

>>12010004
That didn't work when all we had to cross was an ocean. What makes you think it will work when dealing with interplanetary separation?

>>12007982
What's to ruin on Mars?

>>12007384
Because it harder to try and fool the masses that you are building a giant ocean base instead of just coing fake shots from greenland and fake CGI claiming "were in space".

>>12010014
In a god damn high pressure environment? What are you, made of money?

>>12007537
>the rest of the planet is turned into dense metropolises
>every human forced to live in New York City is fine but being in space is "worse than prison"
Move out of the city and get a job on a farm for a year or two. Your perspective is fucked and that will fix it.

>>12008570
Who controls who gets to go to Mars? Do you actually think they'll send anyone who isn't a devoted goyim?

>>12007384
It sucks that there's not more aquatic habitats

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquarius_Reef_Base

Ocean makes more sense, how do I do it?

>>12007697
Yeah, just keep everything in high enough orbits and you're good.

>>12007537
I've used this argument to convert more than one staunch environmentalist to supporting space development.

>>12007413
>They'd just give us a more efficient means of polluting the oceans.
>Ocean is dum and space is cool.
so why care if we pollute them? also you had a point till you went into this gay treehugging shit.

>>12008612
>pic
This looks based as fuck

1) Mars colonization doesn't endanger protected biology
2) More profitable than ocean exploration and habitation
3) Drives innovation; significantly high technological challenge
4) Greater anthropic value, science payout

>>12013751
>more profitable
>launch costs in the hundreds of dollars per kg
there is literally nothing On mars which could justify adding 300$ per kg in it vs getting it on earth

>>12007537
I love this idea of the future. A few sparkling metropolises among a vast wilderness.

>>12010004
Bruh, synods.

Mars will go independent fast by necessity.

>>12013864
>>12013552
>>12012796
>>12012164
>>12012083
>>12012078
>>12009657
>>12008245
>>12007384
Underwater liquid breathing fluid colonies ! >>12013898

>>12007384
because you won't drown on mars

>>12009712
Are you serious?

>>12012799
retarded post, the more space junk in orbit, the higher chance of causing damage to spaceships and satellites