Re:Colonizing Mars: A Critique of the SpaceX Interplanetary ...
by narag on Friday October 21, 2016 @10:53PM
(#12766848)
Ceres is a much better hub for mining asteroids or as an intermediate step to gas giants. Martian atmosphere is a b as the sad yesterday news show. Also less gravity. If you're going to need living in an underground bubble, look for the practical arrangements, not for the planet status.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Colonizing Mars: A Critique of the SpaceX Interplanetary ...
by kitsunesoba on Saturday October 22, 2016 @12:50AM
(#12767244)
Ceres isn't well-suited for long term human habitation due to extremely low gravity and a surface environment much more hostile than that of Mars. You'd either have to have a sizable rotating space station nearby or do everything with remotely controlled and/or autonomous robots, and in the case of the latter you'd be much better building the robots and/or space station on Mars and launching from there than trying to get all of that out of Earth's gravity well.
Re:Colonizing Mars: A Critique of the SpaceX Interplanetary ...
by narag on Saturday October 22, 2016 @09:38PM
(#12771416)
I took for granted that you would not use surface. The rotating station can be built inside a cave. The main advantage over orbiting is mining.
In other words, I believe that Mars' appeal is a mirage. Musk and company are seeing it as another Earth where people can live like here, with a little terraforming.
I think it would be much more difficult. Of course I could be wrong, or I could be right but, even then, Musk could be modern Columbus.