What a REAL City On Mars Will Look Like
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 06. 2024
- Science fiction taught us that Mars cities are inevitable. That we will sooner or later have those cool looking glass domes with spaceports and stuff. But the world is a cruel place and reality is unforgivable. So, how will a realistic Mars habitat of the future will look like? Discussing it with Kelly and Zach Weinersmith.
📖 "A City on Mars" by Kelly Weinersmith and Zach Weinersmith
www.acityonmars.com/
🦄 Support us on Patreon:
/ universetoday
📚 Suggest books in the book club:
/ universe-today-book-club
00:00:00 Intro
00:01:10 Space sucks. The Reality of living in space
00:09:35 Why go to space
00:22:28 Minimum size of the population
00:30:30 Fascination with the apocalypse
00:33:51 Simulating Mars missions
00:38:12 Childbirth is space
00:40:24 Technological progress
00:44:32 Economical growth
01:01:38 Current obsessions
01:05:21 More thoughts and more interviews
📰 EMAIL NEWSLETTER
Read by 60,000 people every Friday. Written by Fraser. No ads.
Subscribe for Free: universetoday.com/newsletter
🎧 PODCASTS
Universe Today: universetoday.fireside.fm/
Astronomy Cast: www.astronomycast.com/
🤳 OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA
Mastodon: astrodon.social/@fcain
Twitter: / fcain
Twitter: / universetoday
Facebook: / universetoday
Instagram: / universetoday
📩 CONTACT FRASER
frasercain@gmail.com
⚖️ LICENSE
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
You are free to use my work for any purpose you like, just mention me as the source and link back to this video. - Věda a technologie
A list of challenges to be overcome isn’t an argument for not taking them on.
Yeah but a really good reason not to prioritize them over other research that has higher probabilities to improve things.
If there were amazing reasons to go, then the challenges are merely obstacles.
@@ChromeKong Fair point, but it depends on how many of the challenges on the long list really are unsolved. For example, a closed loop ecosystem (a la Biosphere 2) isn’t a prerequisite, as the guests seemed to imply. Nearly-closed-loop would be far more robust.
An earlier interview on this channel, about 1 year ago, with some engineering detail on what a realistic mission to Mars might look like: czcams.com/video/tujL0xrQ2Os/video.htmlsi=ZWJz96Qglxi__Zdo
@@frasercainIf the per-seat price can be brought down low enough thanks to the fully reusable Starship fleet, then the reasons are two-fold:
- Countries: Prestige and pride
- Individuals: Personal significance.
The first is what has consistently funded human spaceflight for decades.
The second is subjective but real. Wanting new experiences. Wanting to play an historic role personally (e.g. be that ancestor who came on the Mayflower). Impress one's peers. Represent you religious, political, or national people group. Individuals would bring their savings like they do at active retirement communities. These are the early business cases.
It's hard to imagine wrecking the Earth for human habitation worse than Mars is already wrecked.
Mars has it's own allure and advantages you won't find on earth. It's also a much harsher environment compared to anywhere on the surface of earth.
Take Haiti and put it on Mars. Is that an improvement?
I do not exactly know if this relates to your comment but it really pi$$e$ me off when @$$H0L3$ like Elon Musk and certain scientists spew their bullcr@p about how we need a colony on Mars in case the Earth becomes uninhabitable. NO. If the Earth becomes uninhabitable we are effed as a species. GAME OVER. At best Mars is an "added bonus" that we can have IN ADDITION to the Earth but we still need to keep the Earth. To borrow a Star Trek Term Mars is NOT a "class M" world.
Or another analogy. Certain board games in the game store offer "expansion sets" that you can buy that enlarge and enhance the original game but on the box it says that its not a game by itself and can only be used if you own the original game. Mars is an "expansion" to Earth but NOT a "game" all by itself.
Only a damned NUT JOB thinks that Mars is appropriate for PERMANENT colonization. YES send astronauts to EXPLORE FOR A WHILE but then BRING THEM THE HELL BACK TO EARTH. This "permanent colony" bullcr@p is INSANE.
For example we sent astronauts to explore the MOON decades ago but then we BROUGHT THEM BACK TO EARTH. We absolutely did NOT have them live the rest of their lives there.
@@Bitchslapper316What advantages? Please elaborate.
It is technically feasible to turn Earth into Venus. It would take a concerted effort but it can be done.
So far humanity has aerated most of Earth’s fossil fuels and a portion of its shale gas. We have yet to go after the calcium carbonate (limestone). Once we’ve aerated Earth’s limestone, perhaps in a fit of excessive cement production, water vapour will step up and join in the global warming effort. The over-warm, anoxic oceans will burp hydrogen sulphide and methane to complete the transformation.
We can do it humanity! Just tie oil executive pay to aggressive GHG emissions targets and sit back and watch capitalism do the seemingly impossible!
"There is a ton of exploration you can do around your own house"
Yes, and it doesn't have to be some new restaurant or man-made place. You can be an explorer in your own yard - discovering and observing the creatures in it and how they fit into your local ecosystem. Finding a bug or plant you haven't encountered before is fascinating as is learning about the interactions that occur in nature right there before you.
There was a great paper where a team of scientists identified every living creature in their house and lot, and found over 1,000.
@@frasercainAnd those only the big ones! 😂
@@frasercain A sick tree in my backyard had a fungus growing on it that had a stink of rotting flesh. Turns out it evolved so that it's fruit would attract flies that spread it's spores. From the micro to the macro, it is all fascinating.
I agree there is so much we haven’t discovered yet on earth
@@katrina6627A colonization of Mars could enliven one's awareness of the variety Earth offers, when you'd all the time hear what things do not exist on the other planet.
If we now can‘t dream about space anymore, could we maybe genetically modify Tardigrades to be as large as Grizzlies and train them to be ridable? That would be nearly as great as space! Great show, thank you so much!!!
Now that would be epic.
Water bears the size of bears?! Now THAT'S something the people will get behind
Yeah but they need to be small to be so tough
Oh hell yah ! 😆
Yay! Let's come with stupid, dangerous and above all fun things to do :)
I know this is a sobering cup of black coffee for many of my fellow scifi space fans, but I think the questions raised, and the objective overview of the REAL challenges for human society flourishing on the Moon and Mars, are very important. These incredible challenges don't mean the dead-end of space pioneering, instead they list the things required to succeed. I think it will take many generations before we have anything beyond Antarctic-style outposts that cling to life between resupply runs from earth. It will get easier with faster transport, but all the needed ecosystem requirements for life and industry will likely mean that success teeters on the edge of failure. One diseased crop cycle, or one human disease sweep, or some critical hardware failure could prove to be mission ending. Living in space beyond research outpost level will continue to be very hard for a long time.
the actual reality of ppl who want to live in star trek is that they are just dysfunctional and trying to escape their own lives for various reasons
clinging to bigfoot, or UFOs, or mars colonies is absolutely no different from religion
there's absolutely no reason we shouldn't be able to enjoy science FICTION as entertainment, without imagining we're actually living in it
this shouldn't be a sobering idea for anyone unless they're drunk off their ass 24/7 and need an intervention
'our third triple redundency system has failed...'
precisely, people who answer questions that seem to have little background knowledge. Like you and I already know, the stuff they take will be multi-use, bullet proof reliability, redundancies up the wazoo, in other words, really thought about....
Before we build on Mars, we should have built the stations that we can maintain in orbit that provide not only the level of redundancy that is truly needed, but also provide the 1G of artificial gravity that is required to have children and allow them to develop physically into human beings capable of returning to the Earth, if desired, as well as orbital logistics for efficient transfer of cargo, and importantly, to recover from 2/3G exposure for prolonged periods.
These stations, which should be at least a km in diameter to provide artificial gravity, should be the next step for humanity.
@@jklappenbach Nice and reasonable comment, far better than the starry eyed comments about space colonies you normally see online.
Did these two consider that innovation is a thing?
I think there's an unspoken part of the argument that governs how I feel on this topic. If the question is "which is better, a madcap dash or slow and steady progress" then yeah, slow and steady progress. But not only does that presume there's no third option, it presumes that those are the two most likely options. I think we've already seen what the natural alternative of the madcap dash is, and it's not slow and steady progress, it's near stagnation, at least on the front of figuring out the science needed for eventual human expansion into space. The Space Station is an exception, but not even as much of one as you'd think, because while it's certainly doing interesting science, it's not actually a great analogue for the moon or Mars, even on some very basic levels like amount of gravity or self sufficiency. It's certainly given us a lot of data on how much exercise you need in microgravity to prevent atrophy, but microgravity is a quite short percentage of the time spent on a moon mission, for instance.
And it's not like the science that needs to get done is always that complicated, it just can't be done on the ISS. We have practically no data on how life deals with lunar or Martian gravity, and there have been proposals to get that data for decades with no success. More nuclei between you space is a good brute force radiation shielding technique, but we have no idea if there are better ones, because we've never actually tested any alternatives because the ISS doesn't have to worry about it. And in a different category, the first mammal embryo was grown on the ISS only last year, so even when there is a critically important experiment that could have been run on the ISS pretty quickly, it has still taken more than two decades.
That's where I struggle with the argument the Weinersmith's put forward. It feels like they assume slow and steady progress would be the natural alternative, but I'm not sure we've ever managed that. And "which is better, effective stagnation or madcap rush?" is a much different and much harder question. And another harder question is which is a better way to get to slow and steady progress, speeding up stagnation or slowing down a madcap rush? Hard to know, but the latter certainly seems more promising to my instincts, and it's not like the former hasn't been tried.
I agree, and adding to your point, if you have a goal, it's easier to progress towards it.
If I tell you to run, you might run a few steps, wonder what the point is, stop, maybe run a little tomorrow etc, but if I tell you to run 1 kilometer, you'll know very well what you need to do, even if you are not a runner you can start making progress towards that goal today, whilst if you are not a good running and you have no clear direction you might not be able to run a kilometer ever.
I think you missed the underlying message they are putting forwards here. "We don't believe we will ever colonize space, we actually are hoping we don't, we should just go extinct here on earth, uploading our minds to the matrix so we don't use up that many resources and we stop reproducing"
They have what i call the modern lefty/socialist/communist mental illness, you can very easily exrapolate it from all their talking points and buzzwords they use. (of course you could just stereotype them just by the way they dress, look and their mannerisms)
Yes, some good points there. This question of progress, I think at some stage, when we start putting humans in the loop, then an element of 'self regulation' will become evident and necessary. If we push too far and too hard, then people will die. It's that simple. And, people will start showing symptoms of serious illness, perhaps radiation induced, and it will become evident that we are destroying their health. So, there will be periods of easing up and proceeding more cautiously.
We will always have to ask ourselves, what is the cost? What are the risks? What is the benefit?
As was mentioned several times, when there is no clear economic imperative, it makes the whole debate so much more ambiguous.
The idea would be that in a few decades on earth we would have increased our productivity to a level where a city on the moon would be a lot cheaper and easier. 3d printers, robots, AI are getting better each year. We don't need to rush it now, because Elon is getting old. In time space will become more accessible and ppl will do awesome projects just for fun and some challenge.
@@zhuljens No amount of on Earth or on Station improvement of robots or 3d printers is going to answer the question of what the lowest (or highest) acceptable gravity threshold for long term human habitation and reproduction is. No amount of science on lunar regolith simulants could ever compare to running the experiment of trying to grow plants or create building materials with actual lunar regolith in situ on the moon. (This isn't by any means an insult to the people doing good science on lunar regolith simulants, in fact they'd probably be the first to say that they'd love to run their experiments in situ on the Moon instead.) There are a lot of problems that need to be solved to make space accessible, and no amount of sitting around waiting on Earth is going to make any of them happen.
Now, like I said, there are ways to learn about and solve those problems without doing a madcap rush. Send a couple spacecraft up, tether them together, and spin them at whatever the appropriate rate is to get lunar or martian gravity, and there are a lot of experiments that could be done with much lower risk than going to the Moon or Mars. Drastically reduce the cost to land mass on the moon or mars so you can send lots of robotic experiments trying out the various techniques before humans get there. There's a step-by-step path towards those answers that minimizes risk while maintaining progress. I'd even prefer it, personally.
But the issue is we've never done it. We raced to the moon, and then stopped there, building a shuttle that never lived up to its promise, and a space station that's trapped us in low Earth orbit for 25 years without answering any of the questions most relevant to living on other planetary bodies. If we could try slow and steady progress I'd love to, but if that's not politically or economically realistic, if the only options are bureaucratic stagnation or billionaire speedrun, at least one has a theoretical chance of exploring important problems.
While I agree with the general conclusion that colonizing space will be way harder than many think today, some of the arguments mentioned remind a bit of the the "Great Horse Manure Crisis" of 1894, when the London Times predicted that “In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure,” not realizing that horse drawn carriages would soon get replaced by motor vehicles and rendering the manure issue moot. In other words, when identifying only roadblocks to progress one risks suffering a lack of imagination about innovations that could circumvent these roadblocks. One part of the discussion particularly comes to mind: when discussing how at least 1 billion people would be needed for a totally self reliant colony, it is ignoring the fact that recent innovations such as additive manufacturing could drastically reduce the colony size need for self-sufficiency. Again, a great discussion, but also wanted to add this caveat for balance😀
They do have a list of excuse
"It's hard" "it's wrong" "it's problematic" "we shouldn't do it, but it's awesome if we could do it properly and safely" "it's scary" "i don't think we can do it"
Man i hate to say it like this but i can smell the stench of soy through the screen. This is the type of people who would hate the idea of moving to a town because the city already has everything there after all. The whole comparing Cuba and North Korea to a space colony shows how disconnected they are from reality.
Compost on mars and 3 d print before arrival bunch of creepers already stay inside , light as well there make sure the wifi works haha
Agreed...they also made disingenuous representations of some rationales...e.g.: Bezos proposes space stations to save earth not by pure population relief but mostly by moving heavy manufacturing and polluting industries off earth and into space. 🤷♂️
That is not a caveat.
They are pimping a coffee table book, not actually examining an idea and the rational attending concepts. It's just a soy party, and only SOME of us are invited. Oh! Watch out!Here come the Mammoths!
The single one problem I have with the line of thinking from the people that are interviewed, is that with that mindset, nothing radically new or exciting would emerge. So I'm actually glad some people think different than them, and risk life, limb and finance to try out these things. There are so many examples of things that at first seemed stupid at the time (like going to the moon?) that turned out to be a really good investment with exciting developments down the road. The same thing with wanting to "colonise mars". Just this idea alone from Elon, has effectively given us Starship, which in turn will make so much interesting things happen that directly effect us. So sure, managing expectations is not bad, but saying everything is a bad idea, or it isnt going to work, isn't motivating. How do you think explorers got a crew together? By telling them how futile and stupid the whole endevour would be?
@Fraser Space is definately cool. Always. But saying it is the only thing that matters, is just wrong. It offers more than just that.
Can’t help but think of that guy in the movie ‘Kelly’s Heroes’ that was saying ‘stop hitting me with all those negative waves’ :-) Heck SpaceX have already created a whole new type of steel for their rockets the nah sayers overlook all the advancements that will come just trying to achieve these goals.
@@user-zo2pc5lu5q they've also made it so their boosters can be reused and are working on a reusable ship too which looks very promising already. Haters gonna hate, brainwashed people gonna keep spewing their propaganda based ideas, like suggesting people who want to build a mars civilization are having a "super masculine fantasy" coming from such a femenine man. Or the idea that we should just fix our problems by uploading our minds to a server and live in a matrix, a ridiculously shallow idea. They are just expecting humans to go extinct, after all we are just a virus for people with that mindset.
@@user-zo2pc5lu5q watch spaceX be replaced by blue origin for NASAs choice for artemis.
the guests, for good reasons detailed in the video, said NO to Martian cities. They had nothing against science bases. Nothing against exploration, crewed or uncrewed.
I have given mankind starship. I mean, my space ship has spent as many minutes in orbit as Musk's starship. Don't expect a Mars mission from that rig any time soon.
(a secret hint: space X never showed anything serious about the ship's inner layout when they kept talking about a 100 settlers. Because they KNOW that the necessary equipment for 100 humans would NOT fit in there. By the way, I haven't seen an inner layout for 10 people, either)
@@user-zo2pc5lu5qYou're right inasmuch as the Soviets have developed novel technologies for food production in cold areas. Alas, the Soviets did so because they wanted autarky, which made it necessary for them to mine at such places. They could also have renounced autarky from the beginning.
Living in underground pressurized habitats, the mental pressure of isolation, lower Gravity, and totally dependent on supplies coming from Earth, many colonists would quickly wish to be back on Earth.
Come back to Earth, we've got beaches.
Once we figure out how to grow stuff on Mars, trees and grass will probably quickly become hot commodities over there…
@@musicdev Get easy on the hype. Would already be a huge Humanity feat in the current century, to have some Crew missions to Mars, for scientific research.
Yes, that's what I was commenting under some videos. It will be worse than the isolation from C...
You can't go out for a walk, you can't even open the windows to get fresh air, not much food pleasure, you know each and every evailable food after a week or two.
And you don't see very much of the surrounding, especially when your habitat is under ground level.
And making food is not easy. We still don't know how to grow plants in a closed loop system without any fresh air from the outside, we have not progressed since Biosphere2, except LED lights for the plants. And such a typical container that we can see from time to time cannot grow the food for 4 people. And it still needs fresh air from somewhere. So they need to take the food for 3 years with them from Earth.
Please do not go.@@richard--s
In my view, exploring the unknown and pushing the boundaries of knowledge and engineering is reason enough.
Nothing wrong with that. But a lot of people seem to think that we will be a Star Trek like civilization by next Tuesday.
@@nicholashylton6857 for sure, but he is arguing with these two who believe we should just stay and die on earth while living with our brains uploaded to the matrix. It's their way of saying we are a cancer and we should just be erased.
Not until we advance the political arena , as it stands we are chimpanzee fail .
@@nicholashylton6857 "Star Trek like civilization by next Tuesday" and Elon Musk violating international space law are two very different comparisons, especially when they have built better rockets than NASA and revolutionized 3d printed circuitry. Elon has funded many of these ventures and pushed boundaries, and using him as an example the way done in this video is unfaithful to our seeking of new knowledge. I don't know how serious Elon Musk is about creating a civilization on mars, and I don't think it will happen in my lifetime, but violating international space law? OSHA violations aside, many of his companies are revolutionizing engineering and the future! His companies BRINGS the rockets down as to not contribute to space debris in orbit, speaking of, I wonder how many people could be prosecuted under international laws who have done truly horrible things, or nothing at all. It is a subject of debate and seemed like a subpar argument for somebody she clearly dislikes imo.
It's cool and all
But whose gonna pay the billions for "pushing boundaries"
Everyone disagreeing with them think that corporation will build and maintain colonies for free
I lived in Tucson when they were building Biosphere 2, and was often on the construction site. Most of the workers thought it was a joke, it was absolutely not some perfectly sealed biodome, not any more than your house is
earth surface is mostly water so should a mars habitat
no, it will by necessity be very different. Technology will essentially be an integral part of the system because humans have too many requirements that cannot be sustained by small footprint of land.
And yet a primary problem encountered by Biosphere2 was falling oxygen levels. After 18 months, they had to pump outside oxygen into the system to keep the crew from dying. Perhaps those workers did a better job than they realized.
It must have been sealed fairly well as the air they were breathing became toxic to them. It would be interesting to run a similar experiment again. I would on building smaller sealed environments in college (this is more difficult than we had anticipated)
I still imagine Pauly Shore and Stephen Baldwin sneaking in to trash the place
Overpopulation isn't an issue, the population of earth is going to collapse in the next few decades on every continent except Africa. Underpopulation is the comoing issue.
Nope
Mathermatically correct. Exponential decay in population size is very real and is as hard to turn around as increasing national fertility rates in most countries will be.
It’s predicted that Nigeria will rise to one of the highest population countries as others decline.
@@AP-qs2zf Yes. It’s a fact that every advanced nation is experiencing low birth rates and have been for decades, leading to a population decline, and on in which we will have far more older people than young, in itself presenting many economic and working issues.
Heat transfer from a mars base would be far less than heat transfer from a Antarctica base. With less air you have less ability to for that air to pull heat out of your structure.
And with dirt / regolith shielding over the habitats the problem will be to reject the heat from electronics, grow lights, motors, etc. There will need to be a way to pump the heat to radiators.
@@dougspace6734 Or utilizing that heat energy for useful purposes.
Heat transfer is by convection, yes, but also radiation and conduction. Mars is very cold so you want to keep the heat most of the time, depending on how much machinery you operate. And then you roll down an isolation segment.
but the energy for the south pole station comes from burning tons of oil. Where does the energy on Mars come from?
(saying solar and nukes means you don't really understand the problem)
the settlement will be underground, deep enough for constant room temperature. zero heat transfer
What is the temperature 10 meters underground on Mars? And wouldn’t it shield people from radiation to live and work underground and be less energy to heat. First send a fleet of boring machines.
Yeah, cool, imagine living with tens or hundreds of people in a cramped cave working sixteen hours a day for your basic survival needs.
@@AdrieKooijman By cave you mean massive tech bunker \ city.
@@shawnfoogle920 No. I mean a cave, with primitive lights, minimal heating, and very little comfort.
Even if Elon would make transportation costs ten times cheaper (which he doesn't, an will not do because even Elon cannot change the laws of physics) it will be very, very expensive to build a Hilton Hotel underground on Mars and who will pay for that and for what reason? Tourism?
@@AdrieKooijman The lower gravity doesn't exactly have any health benefits either, and its the one environmental hazard on Mars that you can do absolutely nothing about to make less bad for you
@@wildcardbitchesyeehaw8320 How bad would Martian gravity actually be? Ofc its bad on the ISS since there's 0G, but having almost half of the gravity there is on Earth would make a difference, I'd imagine
Like a kid with a smartphone who says "I dont want to play outside in the snow because its cold"
I haven't seen anyone who is even mildly keeping up with space developments who thinks that "space is going to be easy". Rather, most people are of the mindset that we should get to working on solving the problems involved with it. Because the sooner we start, the sooner we will be able to figure things out. Being overcome with and dwelling on pessimism instead of actively working to mitigate and overcome - that's what will delay exploration by decades upon decades unnecessarily - that is the fear.
Problems are fastest solved by tackling them head on.
As long there's a good "why" that's driving it. We could expend the resources of Earth in numerous directions. Which ones should we focus on?
@@frasercain I think that is a question that solves itself and that thus isn't worth the mental space to think about. If people with resources want to direct them toward it and thus go, it will happen. That includes whole populations and policy makers.
The only concern would be law-makers taking an active stance against it and outlawing it, which is something that was brought up in this video as well.
Of course, but there are a lot of people who are impatiently wondering why nobody's moving to Mars. Their book explains it.
@@frasercain That is very true, and if that's the only point of this video, then it is a point well taken. I guess you could say that it's a sensitive topic, so framing is important. Not being deliberate about it might cause people to react with apprehension and dare I say, trigger them (including myself). I apologize if my reaction to it was overly negative, harsh, or unfair.
Btw, about the number of volunteers thing. There is this great quote:
"It is not the critic who counts;
not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles,
or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena,
whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood;
who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again;
who spends himself in a worthy cause;
who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement,
and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly,
so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
Which is to say, talking, be it critically or otherwise, is easy. But the real test will always come at the hands of dreamers, not doubters. Because it's always dreamers who do.
Within bounds of reason, of course. There are some things that are ridiculous on their face and that are hard invalidated (by physics) or soft invalidated (by economics, which can be overcome if there is enough will).
People are always let of the hook for laziness and inaccuracy when they're being "skeptical".
I found the negativity expressed here quite depressing.They seem to base all their suppositions on current technology. History has shown that humanity finds solutions.
In particular, they decidedly overlook the recent progresses of AI. They seem to do so because they've written their book before them.
Finding a better way to do something doesn't change the facts of whether that something is worth doing.
I've met the same argument many times. The "we'll get better with the technology". Yes, we sure will. But no one has provided an answer to the basic question. Does any human being stand to gain, individually, personally, from living on Mars long term? A benefit not available on Earth. A benefit not available from mere tourism. I've seen no sensible, let alone convincing responses to this question. After all, there's lots of things we know how to do, but don't do, because there's no rational benefit from doing so.
when i was a kid, so in the seventies, i had a book which had an illustration of a rotating space station, that had a swimming pool in it. so one could be swimming, then look up and see other swimmers. this impressed me greatly, im still bloody waiting to see a real one! sigh.
had the same books, everything back then was wildly optimistic
Had the same book. Gerard k O'Neil book, the high frontier. Been dreaming of that low gravity pool ever since.
Dream killer for sure. Those of us who grew up with Heinlein were looking forward to Luna City and Mars City. Still, my dad told me he was waiting for the wristwatch communicator from Dick Tracy. He got his wish perhaps I can still dream.
No. Humans have about 4 decades left on this planet. Trying to reach another will only shorten that time.
@@angryhairpeicethis line of thinking will kill humanity. "Too late let's just roast"
I worked for Apple when the Apple Watch came out. I used to tell people “yeah, its like the Dick Tracy watch! You’ll use that feature once… and then realize why nobody invented a wrist phone until now.”
🤣@@angryhairpeice
@@angryhairpeice You base that on what exactly???
It takes 8 square meters of Spirolina to make enough oxygen for one person in space. it takes 13 square meters of spirolina to FEED an astronaut perpetually. This is your back up plan for food when your garden does not keep up. In space you need some rotating gardens and some in just planters depending on if it's a root food or a stem food or fruit. Given about 20 square yards of high production garden per person you could live on just that but have the spirolina as a suppliment, then have aquaponics with fish and lobster and crab and veggies with that like kelp for the saltwater side and lettuce on the fresh water side. Consider fast growing foods, kelp, bamboo shoots, spirolina, mushrooms, sprouts and talapia. You can live in space easier than on Mars though Mars does have extra regolith and water supplies.
Marijuana actually produces the most oxygen and is the most useful . They will use other stuff probabaly algaes too and send way more oxygen then needed before arrival . It will be like the mayflower and they can work to self sustainment
Is that under earth insolation, or mars insolation? Does it count plant respiration?
@@liam3284 13 Square meters of spirulina for food and oxygen is from the research done on the ISS and in Zero G. My plan has triple redundancy for food and double for oxygen so I hope that will solve any problems so that CO2 scrubbers are not needed much. If at all. Something I had not considered is the lack of calories needed in a Zero G environment such as space. But my design has many rotational rings for different levels of G force, but the ISS metric is probably for zero G.
As far as light absorption it must be what the earth gets, for plants are dependent upon a lot of U.V. light as well as red light to convert sugars, capture carbon and make food out of nutrients in soil, so extra artificial light will almost always be needed. This is why going to live in a solar system with a red dwarf is not practical, it cannot sustain plant growth, so Alpha proxima is out and Centauri is in.
No nitrogen, no plant growth. No atmospheric nitrogen, and no viable habitat. No sources of Nitrogen on Mars or the Moon.
I was waiting for someone to write this book. So I was really pleased to read it. People that love space exploration (like me) should not be put off by it but instead welcome it because it crystallizes the real challenges involved and by doing so, allows us to prioritize the research and experiments that need to be done so we can get on with it and stop waving our hands and shouting on social media.
Frasier i really adore these videos in which you are having a long conversion. Id love to see more videos like this.
Since you mentioned him as your inspiration for starting universe today... Would be awesome if you could also interview Robert Zubrin (again) about this topic. He just wrote a review about why he hated this book and how Zack and Kelly are wrong about everything. So it would be a fun conversation 🤭 🍿🍿🍿
Hah, maybe.
Centuries of tiny steps pushing out tiny research stations further into space sounds good to me, somewhere along the line the first luxury space condos will crop up but not for a long time
I'm endlessly impressed by how all over the place Zach is as a creator. I've been following him since he was acting in CZcams sketches where he would stand in a dumpster making vulgar gestures. Years later his comics about quantum computing genuinely helped me out during college physics and his writing on immigration helped inform my beliefs about ethics and politics. He's truly a modern Renaissance man
Also if Kelly ever ends up writing a book about parasite conservation I will absolutely pick that up, that sounds incredibly interesting
And now he's trying to learn old English.
I’m a big space settlement enthusiast, and I think im in complete agreement with everything here.
There is no business case for space settlement at the moment, and there is a list of problems it could take generations to solve. But on the other hand, we are not stuck. We are not waiting for warp drive. There are many worthwhile things to do towards space settlement and many of them are directly relevant to living sustainably on earth as well.
A lot of those projects are happening right now, such as that nasa food growing experiment in Antarctica? I would also like to see a lot more biosphere projects. Also projects to decouple technology from massive fragile supply chains.
For human space flight, I think it is all about the small budget that large countries are willing to expend long term. I think the tiny fraction of the US budget for HSF is enough. We just have to make sure it is directed to worthwhile goals ie a substantial fraction actually reaching tech development, eg reliable closed cycle LS and ISRU. The lunar gateway combined with robotic asteroid retrieval would satisfy this IMO.
lunar gateway, robots, automated foundry in space, permanent space station.
The only way forwards for humanity is to become an intergalactic civilization, unlike these ideology based doomers think. They don't want to do it? Fine, let everyone else move forwards while you're stuck wiht your crazy ideology and view of the future. If you've read between the lines, they are just waiting for humanity to perish trapped here in an impossible communist digital utopia.
This goes well beyond the 'glass is half empty' type of cynicism. This is like telling me how many carcinogens are in glass and how many people die every year from broken glass.
And justifiably so.
Glass ground into a powder is incredibly dangerous when ingested or breathed in. It continuously scrapes into any body tissue leading to cancer. Mars (and Moon) regolith is actually toxic as well as highly abrasive.
Totally cynical, these two "opinion repeaters" are definitely not experts in space habitats. They clearly have no grasp of the subject matter. All they do is repeat anti space tropes. I'm not even halfway through the video and it's very clear these two know nothing. I know more as a layman than they do.
@@happy.in.philippines757 soy, that's all i could grasp from their arguments. As someone who consumes political content every now and then from both sides i could immediately tell not just by their looks but by stuff like "problematic" "safe and proper" and "super masculine dudes fantasy" they really didn't think of most of these themselves, and the points they thought about lacked so much depth.
I've been reading and writing about habs in space for decades, but never once have I seen them advanced as a solution to overpopulation on the Earth, unless it's in some very far future scenarios. Smells like a strawman to me.
I wish I could quote the author better, but 25 years ago I read a book (older than that) where the author said several times that the future of space exploration in our solar system would involve people finding new, horrible ways to die. I thought the author must be Robert L. Forward, or possibly Charles Sheffield, but a search of my books, and online, has turned up nothing to jog my memory.
We die anyway.
@@ts2495 yes, there are countless doomers and negativists writing books without being properly informed or working on the field just like these two special special subjects.
@ts2495 what makes you think "it's very possible"? All evidence is in opposition to that statement.
That sounds like something Heinlein might have said.
If everyone had this mindset we would still be living in trees using stone tools.
They are not saying "don't bother" they are just giving a sober appraisal without the hype.
Rubbish
@@attichatchsound-bobkowal5328 It's not a "sober appraisal" at all. Given what was said in this interview about "glass domes" they don't even know the difference between the vacuum of space and the surface of mars. They call for more government regulation which is the main thing that ran our space program into a brick wall decades ago. They talk about financial incentives as if everyone thinks this is the 1900's gold rush and people actually want to take a pickaxe and a shovel to an asteroid. This kind of thinking would set space exploration back decades at least.
No we wouldn‘t because cave men prioritized building better tools from better materials over something completely impractical. It‘s like a cave man thinking „I need to set sail to India/America“ without a basic idea of how to hunt or grow crops more efficently. And…without any real reason why to do so in the first place.
Also… we made it to the moon with a government regulated space agency. So why this bogeyman attitude? I think it’s a mistake to just turn this debate into a thing of „government regulations are either the only solution or the devil impersonated“.
I loved the suggested country name for the hyptohetical Mars nation. I also agree it's usually a good idea for a colony or settlement to at least wait until it's self-sufficient before declaring a secession from its host nation.
Nobody should be able to say no. The UN charter which the US has signed says specifically that people have a right to leave their respective countries. I qualify leaving to go into space into that category.
Absolutely, they said that in the interview. Anyone is free to try living on Mars.
This is not depressing at all...
This is the way my understanding of developing the solar system has been trending for my entire life and I am at peace with it.
Economically useful things will eventually lead to people in orbit on a small scale and eventually, in a few centuries, there will be bigger and bigger habitats, but we're in between. There was a century of resource harvesting before colonies were planned and planted; fishermen came across for the summer to fish the Outer Banks and that sort of thing.
They will build tiny little habitats, then eventually slightly more ambitious ones, creeping up to island one and then O'Neil cylinders, rich enclaves, then company towns and cities, city-states and someday, a long way off, nations.
But not this century
Absolutely, it feels like a timescale thing. It's a question of when, not if. But I think people believe it's going to happen in the next couple of decades.
Haven't read the book, but the one possibly economical way of living in space, that I think should have been included in the interview, is catering to tourism. I would have loved to hear your thoughts on that.
I'm not sure it's a plausible scenario, but it ties nicely into: "because space is cool." What would it take for tourism to be the driver for space settlement? Probably in conjunction with research.
Micro gravity for medical research is already a big field, there are other fields as well that could benefit greatly from space, such as precision machining, growing organs in 3 dimensions and plenty of other things. Companies are already paying for it with the launch costs as they are, they'll surely just do more of it if it's cheaper to launch and they can run longer experiments.
Mars-ville will initially be populated by Optimus Robots running Grok v17 and a few humans, with a nuclear or thorium power plant; and I'm not expecting that until 2067.
First comes Moon base and Lunar Gateway for a few decades.
Amazing reasons to go:
1) to confront the challenge.
2) develop technology
3) backup location for Terrain biome.
4) do it while we have the motivation/interest/opportunity (before complacency sets in).
I foresee terraforming (environmental engineering) technology to push our capabilities and understanding. This tech can help Earth’s issues. If we can do air/water filtration on Mars/Moon, that is a focused challenge. Also, complete environmental cycles/connectivity. Bacteria, fungus, worms, plants, animals…
DNA repair and printing technology. Improve human life. Mars/Moon radiation will be a challenge. We will need technology to repair humans out there. That focus can benefit Earth’s population. We never had Velcro in use until the space program. Print organs, filter out radiation, etc.
Robotics, automation, infrastructure, technology development, etc = the reason to go. Can it be developed here on Earth? Of course, and likely will continue to be developed here (abundant population to free people from farming/mining/sustenance to focus on technology).
ANTARCTICA is a GREAT EXAMPLE. Hydroponics, living indoors, environmental protection (freeze outside), latency in delivery to Antarctica…
Overpopulation is not an issue.
Resource mining? There is no need to bring resources back to Earth.
Pride/ego? Irrelevant.
Space is hard/challenging. Exciting and cool, for sure!
Who's willing to spend billions of dollars for "confronting the challenge"? You?
@@rotem20061997 I already am. It is called Taxes. It is also employment.
Moving off Earth is a project of a thousand years. We first have to demonstrate that we'll last that long.
I can just hear a teenager born on Mars say, sarcastically, "Thanks Dad!", after they find pictures of the Earth paradise his idiot parents decided to deprive them of. And there is no return for someone whose skeleton and muscles will be far to weak to survive Earths gravity. Technical problems can be solved in time, but the ethical issues inherent in establishing a Mars colony, like making babies and condemning them to live on a deadly and markedly un-scenic rock, are significant. Thanks for pointing that out!
earth visits be mandatory for all martian born (every mars garage will have orbital rockets )
So they will be motivated to make enclosed parks, lakes and forests, to make their home nice. You could be born in Somalia or many other such places on Earth and still be worse off, blame your miserable parents for that.
@@replica1052 yeah bro sure
@@bpg5530 -and they will always be the most interesting persons in the room
Couldn't it be possible to mimic Earth's gravity with rotating bowl-shaped habitats?
They must be high. They were just a little too Goofy and pessimistic and didn't seem to take it seriously. I mean no s*** space is going to be hard but so is everything else we do here on earth.
Keep the faith. Being naive is obviously preferable to being realistic.
Where are Martian settlers going to get nitrogen?
The atmosphere and the soil.
Nitrogen is a major component of the atmosphere on Mars.
@@duncanbeggs40883%
Biological routes as well from urea.
@@duncanbeggs4088no its not. Mars has almost no atmosphere, and most of it is CO2.
I am so glad I found this interview. Great job btw on covering so many topics. I had this book on my 'to get' list and then I read a review by Robert Zubrin who essentially shredded it (which I was thinking would be normal given his stance on the topic). He said it was silly and frivolous, but after hearing your guests, I am intrigued now and its now back on the 'to get' list.
Loved this one. As an engineer who studied astrophysics I've always been skeptical of many of our current approaches, especially with our limited understanding of any ability to reproduce in microgravity. I'm excited for the exploration of the solar system in increasing detail, faster, and cheaper, because we've sent so few probes to explore so many amazing places, but permanent habitation seems to be skipping many steps. If a flawed space race means an exponential increase to send AI driven exploratory probes to the planetary bodies I'm all for it though, for the joy of what we will learn and see. As far as humans in space and industry, I think the most realistic use case, if any, will be for entertainment for short trips. That could be more of a stepping stone if there ever will be a stepping stone to permanent habitation off of Earth, but that last bit is getting ahead of ourselves.
I'll check out the book because it'll be nice to see an in-depth review of the realistic limitations
Overcoming challenges is what makes us intelligent. If we want it, we will figure out a way to use science and have it.
Can't be bothered to keep our own planet viable. Heck can't be bothered to wear masks during a pandemic.
Both are infinitely easier than building any kind of habitat on Mars.
@TheStephaneAdam mostly due to the rise of far right fascism.
the masks literally did nothing 😂😂@@TheStephaneAdam
@@CCaribou yeah right.
@@CCaribou ... See guys? That's the people who are gonna try to conquer Mars.
First flu epidemic is gonna wipe out *the whole enclosed colony* where people will be forced to live on top of each other.
Are they bored? They can't keep their heads up! Yes, space is very challenging. But Kelly and Zach are shortsighted.
RE conservation of parasites, i would have a few Qs:
What benefits do they bring to the ecosystem? Obviously they increae biodiversity but
Do they improve the genetic health of their hosts over generations?
What negative outcomes would there be if they became extinct?
If we can't find any benefits (unlikely) how do we decide they don't deserve protection as life in their own right?
I thoroughly enjoyed this interview! Thanks for having them on.
An okay interview but I think my biggest problem is that they have just a completely different mindset from the sort of visionaries who make things happen. In 1400s they would have been like "Well, crossing the sea is dangerous as we show in our book, we have a long list of examples. And what will we do when we get to these hypothetical lands? You seriously think we can just build whole new cities? It's just too expensive to build these ships. And don't we have a lot of problems to solve here in Europe first? There could be sea monsters and no one has definitely proven that there's not an edge to the planet that you could sail off, we just don't know yet..."
The only valid argument would be "well, we're going to really ruin life for the existing inhabitants" and that's not something that is applicable to Mars unless you're counting hypothetical microbes deep underground.
The major difference is that the people sailing across the oceans in that age were also doing the work that we do with probes and they happened to find new livable land, resources and animals and people to exploit and when word got out, more people went. Our space probes have just found empty rocks with resources that aren't worth the cost of exploiting so Kelly and Zach are absolutely correct that only real reason to go is because it's awesome and someone probably will eventually
They also shut down or ignore counter arguments and also they don’t know what kind of innovation is around the corner I personally believe if we don’t have a colony in space within the next 1000 years the reason will be that we are extinct or something royally fucked up humanity
They were sailing from one side of a speck of dust to another part of that speck of dust, supported by a perfect biosphere wherever they arrived or died sailing to.
Going to Mars is nothing like that. Nitrogen and oxygen will have to be manually collected from the thin atmosphere and regolith. Water won't naturally fall from the sky - we will need to excavate it from the ground. And there won't be chopping down trees and hunting and gathering native plants and animals to survive. You're going to a world that can kill you within 30 seconds without sophisticated technology to keep you alive.
I'm glad your video covered Antarctica. I've been saying for years, that if we haven't set up permanent towns and cities there, why on earth would we want to try it on Mars
I agree with your closing statement about it being cool, but that will stop when we get our first fatality on Mars. Humanity's helplessness to do anything about it will stop it being any fun.
What happened when the Pilgrims had their first fatality in the Plymouth colony? Did they all go back to England?
The fact is that people can speculate about it all that they want, but we won't know for sure until we try.
I know it's popular now a days, especially amongst people under 35 to believe that everything is horrible, and it's only going to get worse. But imagine every time that humans in the past would have just given up, because they thought that the task would simply be impossible, how far back in evolution we would be today.
Humans are curious and we have always been that, no matter how big the risk was, it's only within the last 12 years that we have become super worried about everything.
Amazing fresh thinking, great dilemmas and challenges! loved it!
Problem is that they don't consider advances in material science... I expect glass technology to be able to block radiation in the near future.
Exactly! Have the occasional Lead-infused Crystal domes for the subterranean Martians to view the outside from time to time. Or you can have bored out tunnels behind a cliff face, serving as the main working areas, and then each apartment is a shorter bored out tunnel, extending out from the deeper tunnel system, going out to the cliff face with it's own lead-infused crystal window.
Unfortunately that's not likely to happen unless you're willing to use a meter thickness of glass.
But fortunately also probably not really necessary.
The Mars surface radiation environment is about 35x more intense than at Earth's surface.
But if you put 1 meter tall windows at eye height all the way around a 20 meter wide, 10 meter tall dome otherwise covered with thick Mars soil, your average exposure would be less than outdoors on Earth. You could also add skylights with bent reflective channels through the thick dome. Might be a good idea to have planters next to the windows to keep people from standing right up against them for hours a day. And maybe a nice thick wall 5 meters from the East and West windows, in case of a solar storm at sunrise or sunset, so you can use the rest of the dome while avoiding the sunny side.
you missed the point. Nobody can EARN money on Mars. Even if you find the purest diamonds there, you won't send a lot of costly, fragile humans. You'll send a happy few, and a sh!tton of robots.
For this reason: Science bases, yes.
Colonies and cities, no.
"All of these boring things that they leave out of the movies, are going to make up most of your life in space."
Good point, but also true of basically every movie ever made, except some by Andy Warhol.
Andy Weir? :-)
Great topic! Love the show🙌🏾
At one time all the “experts” said the human body couldn’t withstand speeds in excess of 22 miles per hour and your flesh would fall off your bones because of it. If we didn’t try to build machines to go faster, we’d still only be riding horses and oxen to this day.
But there were good reasons to go fast, people just thought it wasn't possible. In this case, there are no good reasons to build a city on Mars.
Except that we saw cheetahs and birds proved that wrong all the time. We know what space does to a human body, and it's extremely not pretty.
@@frasercainhow about having some influence on a new society? I want something new, that's what space is all about.
When we go to space, we'll take "us" with us. It'll just be us, but on Mars.
@@frasercain Any realistic outlook on an early Martian city must indeed sober one. In spite of this, good reasons can be identified. For example, being strong on Mars furthers your strategic position as regards the possibility to reach Earth ballistically. From there to here a ballistic body is attracted by the Sun - from here to there, it's braked. Is that not a good reason?
Beyond national interests, Mars is one major opportunity in the space around Earth to establish backup settlements for mankind. It has plenty of resources to offer for construction and life support, also much level terrain on which one basically can walk. This facilitates the movement between habitats producing gravity by rotation. In empty space or on an asteroid, you'd have to move between such habitats with rockets. That would rob you of workout and would often have you trapped when your fuel is exhausted. Having the surface of Mars on one side of one's body should halve the amount of cosmic radiation reaching one. And Mars is much farther away from the Sun than Venus, which allows for earlier warnings against solar flares and altogether ensures that less particles per a given area arrive, in such an event.
As with any settlement in space on a city scale, there of course would be the caveat of the safety and overall support of the children. It's indeed not strongly in favor of such settlements that also Earth would experience risks for children in a war - the particular dependency of such settlements on sophisticated equipment, for a long time certainly still, especially, on imports from Earth, would indeed seem to nullify such a defense. One solution to this problem which comes to my mind is that one could offer citizens from regions of Earth with problems like a high infant mortality or wars already going on tickets to Mars. Regardless of the outcome for the safety balance, children taken to Mars on such a basis would at least not have to feel degraded.
I know it gets hard, but I remember watching the last moon mission at the same time as Star Trek … people scoffed at transponders
transponders? transporters?
This one piece of technology in Star Trek turned out to be possible, therefore all technology is possible... That is highly illogical captain.
Great interview!!! As always
Great discussion - really enjoyed it
These two people will be the ancestors of Terra Prime from Star Trek
That was very interesting. It really makes me have more respect for Cody Don Reader for what he's done at Chicken Hole Base, next to no money, just him, occasionally his dad and robo Cody. He's grown food, has a sleep pod and doesn't have water just coming out of the ground, so basically it's mars.
The only thing at the moment is it's not its own ecosystem, but that will come.
Cody is a legend. I'd love to see Chicken Hole Base in person some day.
@@frasercain
That would be awesome. I'd love to go there and give him some help building etc, unfortunately I'm in the UK and don't have a passport.
While I remember have you seen Astronomy Live or Reds Rhetoric? They have some really good videos of rockets taking off and landing. Reds is away for a while but AL is around. They're CZcams and twitter.
Thanks for the education. 😀👍
Thank you so much for this interview, very informative.
Thanks for yet another great interview!
“Don’t go outside today because you might catch a cold, Zachy.” Weinersmith mom.
I think these goofy experiments here on earth in close loop systems need to be done a LOT more if we are serious about staying in space.
Biosphere 2 showed how NOT to do it. Terribly complicated ecological relationships between species is unnecessary. Rather, we should grow food and provide life support like that show at the Prototype Lunar Greenhouse at the University of Arizona.
@@dougspace6734isn’t it valuable to understand the relationships between different species in a closed system
Very good discussion and valuable perspective on the whole business of space exploration.
This is like a scholar arguing to Alfred the Great that finding and colonising new continents an ocean away will never be viable because the benefit will never outweigh the risk and cost.
if a king finds a tiny island, he can send cheap humans there. And cheap humans are the only way he can profit from the island, for he has no robots. And those cheap humans often have a sh!t life. Or they are prisoners. Or slaves. Either way, they are motivated to go. If they die, the king does not mind. If they arrive to the new world, they, even the untrained ones, can do stuff. Chop wood, hunt, fight the natives, plant crops, mine stones, etc. The more the merrier.
now what would motivate any leader (country or company) to send humans en masse?
nobody can EARN money on Mars. Even if you find the purest diamonds there, you won't send a lot of costly, fragile humans. You'll send a happy few, and a sh!tton of robots.
For this reason: Science bases, yes. The fewer humans, the merrier. Because even IF the humans there want more humans, nobody will pay for it.
Colonies and cities never happen with a few people. Bases do.
@@istvansipos9940 I guess the analogy went over your head.
@@Nemophilist850 sure. That's why I described in detail how your analogy is wrong.
@@istvansipos9940 No, you made precisely the same mistakes the scholar in the analogy made.
@@Nemophilist850 then feel free to explain who builds a Mars colony and why.
Bases? yes. Engineering? A question of time. The only thing missing for a colony is business. Producing what? Selling where?
If Big Boss you is sitting on a huge heap of money, what is your financial motivation to fly settlers to Mars?
to return to the king example a bit:
- Sire, send humans to this island. It will be great!
- What would my kingdom gain and how and when?
- I don't know, Sire.
The End
As I see it. And if I made a mistake, then you sure won't have any difficulties describing the business model of a Martian colony.
At the end of the day we imagine things and we make it happen, like the definition of intelligence, we see a problem we solve it, a monkey sees a river as a barrier to cross and imagines that dead tree trunk it sees as a bridge, then acts on that thought to push it across the river to make it a bridge, we imagine star travel.. we don’t know how, we invent AI though that will say, give me the physics, and I’ll tell you how.. we’re heading in to exciting times
My grandpa saw the digital calculator being invented when he was a teen, years later he saw it become a regular thing for businesses and stores. He used to listen to the radio at home and watch black and white TV's displayed in stores and was happy to have one at home years later, which then turned into a color tv, which later came with a remote controller, then they became bigger and thin, then he could use internet to watch his favorite movies whenever in his TV.
He had a line phone with a disc dial, which then turned into buttons, then a small device with a tiny screen, then a flip phone, then a smartphone with unlimited internet from his WiFi.
He witnessed air conditioning, electrical bikes so he could finally ride a back for longer than a couple hundred meters again! A hearing device to help her wife listen better. Vinyl to cassettes to discs to mp3. He saw the moon landing on TV, was saddened that space exploration stopped but he one day called me and asked me to visit so we could watch the first attempt at falcon's first attempt to land it's reusable booster and I would then go visit him to watch every other attempt until they finally made it safe three times, then when falcon heavy recovered their two boosters, and now we've watched the IFTs for starship, and we still watch other launches whenever I visit him and there is a launch that day.
Gramps has always been a technology enthusiast, I guess that's why I became one too, we really live in exciting times. Just try and live a long life like my gramps, keep that mind and body active when you get old and you'll be lucid enough at 92 to still be excited about tech advancements like me gramps.
Good convo. it’s a bit cynical tho. I disagree with your assessment of the “existential risk” part. If the dinos had made it to Mars, they would still be around. And yes, I know DART program was successful, but a larger asteroid/comet could wipe us out if we don’t see it soon enough. Love the content Frasier🫶
one thing I've noticed with commentary on a lot of science vids is WHAT IF
like, for example, ppl want to believe in aliens flying around here in spaceships cuz they grew up on UFO movies, so when ppl tell them this is basically impossible they just say WHAT IF
ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE
the idea of any kind of realistic mars colony is absolutely impossible in our lifetimes, whereas the identification and solution to once in a billion yr dino killers is actually somewhat possible
nobody is ruling out some kind of mars colony like 500 yrs from now, which is like a fraction of a second in cosmological asteroid threat time
If the dinosaurs had made it to Mars, they would have died out within a few generations due to inability to provide enough protection from radiation, mental and physical stress of only 30 minutes a day of mobility and freedom outside of a subterranean bunker, and that limit would still result in cancer within a decade, so the next generation stopped complying. Almost like, if breathing the natural air gives us lung cancer anyway why not smoke cigarettes? Then these exploratory species of intelligent spacefaring dinos also reached Mars and built a colony before truly solving the gravity issue, and are paying the price with bone density loss and cardiovascular problems. The push to develop genetic modification technology for their species was prohibited by laws as a taboo, no DNA modification allowed. So they begin the gene mods when they get to Mars, but its too little too late. If they had began the genetic modification to build distinctly non-Terran astronauts and dismissed the ethical concerns maybe they’d have survived Mars.
It's cynical, because that's the reality. If the dinos had made it to Mars, they would have had all the same problems we're dealing with. The harsh, hazardous, poisonous environment, full of radiation, and regolith that sticks everywhere. They would have also been highly dependant on regular resupply missions from Earth, and every last one of them would've still died when Earth was devastated by that asteroid. To survive, they would've needed a minimum viable population on Mars to repopulate Earth, and that's a lot of dinos on their Mars expedition. Second, they would've needed to find a safe and viable way to travel back to Earth, without any assistance from their space command control back on Earth. Third, they would've needed food, water and other resources not only for the months long trip, but a long while after they landed to Earth, because Earth after an asteroid impact of that size would be a very hostile place to live. All the infrastructure, vegetation and surface life would've been basically scorched away. Nothing would grow for years, because of the impact winter; all the ash, dust and other particles in the atmosphere. It would be a barren, cold desert. Planet Antarctica, basically. They would've had to survive a long, difficult and dangerous journey from one lethal planet to another. Not very good odds.
Much more feasible plan would've been to just burrow and construct deep underground bunkers back on Earth in the first place, and try to survive through the ordeal that way. Going to Mars and space would just complicate things hundred times over.
Dinosaurs survived just fine, they've just become birds tens of millions years later
The two guests obviously have no knowledge on the topic of Mars habitats. They wrote a book and now they want lots of people to buy it. I would never buy any book as devoid of factual information as this.
So many scientists and engineers have been working on the problems and solutions, even NASA. Yet these two so-called experts have zero knowledge about any of that. In reality making habitats for humans living on Mars will be no more difficult than the international space station (ISS), and humans have been living and working on the ISS for decades.
Digging underground and possibly using cave systems then extending them may be an effective option. Very little resources may be needed. Tunnels can provide protection from radiation and other threats. Some surface structures would be needed. There is also the possibility that water can be found in layers underground. Machinery could do much of the work eventually when they become available.
I don't agree with their conclusions, but I find their skepticism refreshing. We need to look at the challenges of living on Mars with clear minds and work efficiently to solve the immense problems that will be presented.
I also love that they are a couple. It's very fun to watch them interact.
Thanks for hosting them!
Cheers from Alaska
What a great interview with lovely people I wish I could disagree with :) Thank you so much for sharing, regardless for how much it punches me in the optimism lol
Question: Given no surface or atmospehric issues, what is the furthest planet with enough light to read the newspaper with sunlight alone?
Mars.
Jupiter - "So at Jupiter there are 5200 lx. That is comparable to a clouded sky at noon in winter with 6000 lx."
@@dougspace6734 Except given no surface or atmospheric issues, Jupiter still has gravity and radiation that would kill a person before they had a chance to read a newspaper.
iirc the sun is about moon bright on pluto, and you can read a newspaper under moonlight.
Anywhere in the solar system without any atmospheric interference. The sun is quite bright even seen from the outer planets. For context the sun is 300x brighter then our full moon is on earth all the way at Pluto.
Excellent discussion.
No swimming in lakes, no blue sky or trees, no snow, no cheeseburgers no freedom, no fun
They may be writing some aspects but they’re really pessimistic. This things are going to happen. It’s inevitable as technology progresses as humanity progresses. As a civilization. We are destined to move out. It’s inevitable be at hundred years 1000 years 100,000 years it’s going to happen.
They're pessimistic about current technology and knowledge. People are claiming that people could colonize Mars with essentially current technology. If we spend decades working on the issues, things will be become pessimistic. Too many people think it's easy when it's absurdly difficult. The cost per person is going to absurdly expensive and society has to be willing to support a very small number of people living in these locations.
I have to say I'm a little disappointed by these guests. Let me start with, I do think they are correct if we look only at the way things are right now. But things change. I'm sure there were a fair amount of people who thought colonizing the New World was a bad idea because there we no place to get a glass of ale and no not a single burger joint. Yes, I know that there were no burger joints back then but in a way that is my point, there may not have been hamburgers at all if people did not colonize the Americas (and yes, I am over looking all the horrors that were inflicted on the indigenous people for the sake of this analogy). Technology, changes. What is impossible today will most likely be just inconvenient in a 1 to 2 hundred years. The people who are looking to colonize space are actively trying to solve the problems associated with space travel and building a city on Mars. They aren't just sitting around and looking into reasons why it can't be done....YET. If we have AI and a robotic work force that can pre-build a city on Mars or an O'Neill cylinder for us by using the recourses found in the asteroid belt then it becomes easy. What I do know is that if we don't try then it will be impossible, but we humans love to try. I would rather stand with the person who tries and fails then a person who just says it can't be done. Because the next person to try will learn from the previous person's failure and they might be the one who actually does it.
The comparison with the new world to Mars is kinda silly. Mars is nothing like land across an ocean. But sure people looking into it aren't looking for reasons to not do it, but ya gotta walk before ya run.
@@DistinctiveBlendA continent across an ocean is an intensification of an island across a channel, and another rocky planet of the Sun is an intensification of a continent across an ocean. A gas giant of the Sun is an intensification of another rocky planet of the Sun, another star light years away is an intensification of a gas giant of the Sun. I do not believe that man will never arrive at such places. I assume that he'll arrive, and will procreate children, one day, even in the Andromeda Galaxy.
@@HansDunkelberg1 While considering it as an intensification is better it's still silly. Space and all it's objects we know of (apart from our home planet) is mind numbingly hostile to us. Simplifying it to a 'crossing the ocean' analogy might be poetic but it also displays a lack of understanding (you can breathe, find food + water, and even go outside on another continent).
So while it might be fun to imagine, pontificate, or even wax lyrical about space travel.. you have to walk before you can run and so that means focusing on the moon.
@@DistinctiveBlend I do see some sense in your distinction between a place which one cannot easily reach but which still affords a biotope like you need it and a place which does not afford such a biotope. Alas, it's a pity that you give up this point yourself when you de-intensify Mars into Luna.
A trait I as a European have experienced in the Americas has been that everything to me appeared as most unpleasantly alien. That is a psychological factor, but nevertheless, it concerns livability. So there seems to be some reason in my notion that one can consider a journey to an alien planet as an intensified journey to an alien continent. When the first Europeans arrived in America, they had perhaps just learned, at home, how to endure changes to styles, to psychological universes, thanks to the renaissance and its thorough transformation of the spiritual world of Europe. The people of the Earth of today have now just learned other methods of adaptation - more technical ones.
An application of such methods on alien planets will have to combine with a massive need also of a psychological adaptation, just like the journeys of Columbus have already required quite a revolutionary technology.
@@HansDunkelberg1 I'm not really concerned about the psychological effects but they will be many. I'm more concerned with the technical feasible of keeping people alive outside of our planet, so a good place to test would be the moon as it's a lot closer than Mars.
The notion of a glass domed city on Mars is not feasible, not only because of radiation from space but also because of the danger from meteorites. Mars' atmosphere is only 1% as dense as the atmosphere on Earth. So right away you can expect that about two orders of magnitude more meteors impact Mars than do on Earth. Living under a dome on Mars strikes me (pun intended) as playing Russian Roulette.
This confirms my hypothesis that the primary export of both the Moon and Mars will be doctoral dissertations and Phds.
First we will get research stations like the ISS with permanent occupancy. Those will grow to the scale of the research stations on Antarctica.
The big milestone that I hope will happen in my lifetime, will be fully accredited degree granting Universities on Mars.
Just starting this video but just finished that book it’s a great book excited you have them.
I fell asleep at least 4 times watching this interview.
No one really thinks colonizing other planets is going to be anything but a massive challenge at our technology level, but why take all the fun out of the idea?
Because many people think it's going to happen tomorrow, and not decades or even hundreds of years from now.
hypothetical:
you are a big boss, sitting on a heap of money.
Why would you send many many many humans to Mars?
If you send scientists and the staff and stuff they need, then you have a space Antarctica. A base, not a colony. That's not the topic here.
You need a series of small missions to start the show.
First you need to locate a water source. You need to find out how to exploit it. You need to land the equipment to exploit it.
Can you go underground near a water source? Think permafrost, build a house on permafrost and the surrounding soil thaws and your structure becomes unstable.
You need to select some sites and install seismometers so you can tell if your site is safe. A series of weather stations so you can predict weather.
Do you need to drill a well into solid ice and heat it to extract water? If so solar panels are probably not enough power for this function.
Then you need to stage a lot of equipment before you drop off a crew.
You need 3 nuclear reactors, 3 oxygen generators, 3 carbon dioxide scrubbers, 3 potable water plants. You need a method of breaking up rock. Electric bulldozers, a track hoe, a truck, maybe a brush to clear a landing spot. Several small skid steers with attachments might work. You need a huge parts supply.
If you decide to go underground you need a tunnel boring machine, mucking machine. You need an initial prefab structure to live in. Modified walk in freezers might work.
I think a lunar base is needed to perfect the tools you need on Mars.
There will be long periods when you can't work on Mars because of sandstorms.
I'm so glad there's people actively working on getting people to other planets.
Sitting around and thinking about how hard it will be won't get us there.
OMG!! I've read SMBC for years! Glad to see them in an interview.
The real story behind the male-female connector was far less fun. Its just far more useful to have a docking port that can attach to anything instead of requiring a specific male or female port. Effectively if we DIDNT bother with the androgenous ports, it would mean that to be able to connect soviet and US crafts together, it would also mean soviet space stations would only be able to connect to soviet craft, and US stations would only be able to connect to US craft even if they used the same connector technology. This is because one would put the male connector on crafts and the female on stations, and one would put the female on crafts and male on stations. The designers had the FORESIGHT to not allow that to happen, hence the androgenous connectors that allow mixing and matching.
I guess the story told as it was makes a nice feminist story about petty people though.
great video😄
Thanks a lot!
Ive always loved the analogies to the Age of Exploration, because it gives me an opportunity to remind people how horrifically brutal life was on cross-oceanic sailing ships and in the 'new lands.' It _suuuuuuuucked_ for most people.
Historic analogies are generally misleading. e.g. The Spanish explored to find gold. Therefore we wouldn't be able to explore the Moon because there's no gold. And yet we did. Rather, let's reason from first principles / the relevant factors. Apollo occurred for national prestige not for wealth. Different factors = Different results.
It'll be easier engineer ourselves to live in space than to engineer space to support human bodies. We can knock out life extension and space colonization in one fell swoop
I'm no scientist, I'm just a regular dude, but the idea of settling a planet with no atmosphere is insane.
Great talk.
Earth could suffer an all out nuclear holocaust and it would still be a safer habitat than Mars
I think their main problem is they only think of the problems without taking one step more and thinking it through. Is the problem an insurmountable one or just one that needs some thought. Everything they talk about is an engineering problem not a physics one.
Also about the not enough people being there, humans from earth can still talk to people on mars so if you need a consultation or a new design for something you can just send the information.
Why do they think the engineers need to be the ones actually in danger, i want to solve problems so give me a problem and ill try to solve it. If no one is ever going to face a challenge then why would i solve it.
You are generally correct. They certainly focus on the problems. But unlike most cynics (i.e. don't want to believe) they do go a step further and "debunk" proposed solutions. But since they almost always reject proposed solutions, they appear to be biased towards the negative.
@@dougspace6734 "It is not the critic who counts;
not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles,
or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena,
whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood;
who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again;
who spends himself in a worthy cause;
who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement,
and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly,
so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
Fun, engaging. Great guests
Why should we go to Mars? Like a certain American president said in 1961. Not because it's easy but because it's hard.
Agreed. Although he could have also added that it's awesome.
cool, a lot of this stuff is in For All Mankind. It’s alt history so i’m surprised.
That's one of my favorite shows. But it's science fiction. :-)
Indeed indeed, but the whole Apollo Soyuz docking having that whole complication with the “male to female” docking parts. I was very surprised to learn that was what really happened, but also i suppose not surprising at all because it does sound true. Petty geopolitical squabbles, in space!
The Fermi paradox is very much dependent on the considerations discussed here. I think it's always assumed that advanced global communities will have 19th/20th century values. We've moved beyond Victorian style empires, perhaps we will move beyond expansionism and growth economies. For that matter, why think other intelegences in the universe will pursue that either.
Might we not be Eloi without Morlocks for instance?
The fermi paradox is BS.
Interesting! How about this: Having the good with the bad makes us appreciate and yearn for the former while shunning the latter. Without Morlocks, we have no frame of reference, hence no concept of goodness.
I forget who said it but someone I heard a long time ago made the realistic claim that politics and culture will quickly splinter from Earth because of the distances and challenges. So much so they will be distinct species.
Finally .... REALISTS.
Institutional knowledge cannot completely go away like the putative “Tasmanian fishermen” because computers have better memories than people.
Ironically enough, for a book that is supposed to 'quantify' or attempt to showcase a reality of space exploration and its future with relation to sci-fi, the book itself is taking limited views or incompatible technologies and concepts to then highlight the incompatibility of the concepts and technologies. That's like being in Egypt in 2000 BCE and saying flying is not feasible because we can't make flying birds out of limestone and such thoughts of flight are just 'sci-fi'.
It certainly would make for an entertaining read, that's for sure. But the believability of the book is simply defeated by the limitation of its own scope. Thank you for the video and introduction, though! I'll be suggesting or perhaps gifting this book to a friend I know who would be super entertained by this.
In Egypt in 2000 BCE, it would've been 100% accurate to say flying is not feasible, because it wasn't back then. They did not have the technology, resources or knowledge that we have now. It would've taken a huge amount of resources, man-hours of work and technological progress to achieve. More than any civilization back then had. There wouldn't have been any incentives to dedicate that much resources and effort into something that wasn't possible nor economical at the time. They got along just fine without flying. And they wouldn't do it as a civilization just because some crazy person thought it would be awesome to see in their lifetimes. It would take 3903 years before flying became topical and feasible.
@@Baalaaxa um... well this is kinda awkward but yeah, that literally reiterates my point about the book in an expansive manner. It's not technically untrue to say that as an ancient Egyptian yet it is also completely untrue due to shortsightedness in trying to visualize something that needs a much broader vision.
I'm sorry for finding this strange but were you stating a counter point or were actually just reiterating my point to begin with?