Is getting humans to Mars the most important Human Endeavour of our Times?

[Henri Christophe]

I'm not sure if it is "the most important human endeavour", but it is an importand endeavour yes.
I would like to move to mars, even if it was just one direction ticket, without condition to come back. But I think I'm too old to see it's happens in my life time.

Maybe mars can be a wasteland, but the idea to colonize other planets is fascinant. And, if we colonize other planets, we will be safe as specie if one day the life on earth ends. (the life on earth can ends via an attomic war, what can happens any time, we just don't know when).

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Our descendants will not give two s**** about anything we left for them on Mars.

Unless they're on Mars, looking back.

 

[MrCynical]

I just recently read an article why Venus would be the more realistic candidate for a human colony (magnetic field and atmosphere). The point was not to settle in the surface but in the higher atmosphere. So probably flying cities before extraterestrial colonies.

I've seen this idea a few times, but I've never been too convinced by it. It's true that if you go up enough from the searing heat and crushing pressure of Venus' surface you'll find an atmospheric layer where temperature and pressure are quite similar to that of Earth's surface. Also a breathable oxygen/nitrogen mix would act as a lifting gas relative to Venus' atmospheric composition, so you could in principle float a big bubble full of air in it.

This does however gloss over a couple of issues. Firstly the amount of corrosive acid in the atmosphere is incredibly destructive to practically anything we can build. The record for keeping probes working on the surface of Venus still stands at a few hours. Moving to higher altitude means instead of sulphuric acid vapour, it's now just raining acid, which isn't much of an improvement. Secondly, wind speeds in this layer of the atmosphere can hit 500 mph, far above even the most intense hurricanes and tornados of Earth. I seriously doubt our ability to build something to withstand this longterm, and any kind of failure of this "bubble" means everyone inside is extremely dead.

There's also the issue that even if you could build such a floating city - what's the point? It's certainly going to be harder to maintain than a structure in plain old vacuum due to the extreme difficulty of accessing the outside of it. It's not like you can access much in the way of resources from Venus either. I suppose you could bring in some of the atmospheric gases, but it's not as if CO2 or sulphuric acid are particularly worth going there for. At least on Mars you could go outside your city with just a pressure suit.

As to the original question, sure I'd like to see a permanent human presence on Mars, but it's nowhere near as important as anything required for maintaining Earth. Realistically we might get a small, somewhat self sustaining little village there if we threw enough resources at it. The idea of Mars as an "escape route" or backup plan for catastrophe on Earth tends to fail to grasp that we'd be talking a few hundred survivors even if we're extremely optimistic. As to human expansion to other worlds, that's great - but if you're looking for return on investment, you'd better be looking over a timescale of millennia. It's not going to alter the situation on Earth in any of our lifetimes.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I've seen this idea a few times, but I've never been too convinced by it. It's true that if you go up enough from the searing heat and crushing pressure of Venus' surface you'll find an atmospheric layer where temperature and pressure are quite similar to that of Earth's surface. Also a breathable oxygen/nitrogen mix would act as a lifting gas relative to Venus' atmospheric composition, so you could in principle float a big bubble full of air in it.

This does however gloss over a couple of issues. Firstly the amount of corrosive acid in the atmosphere is incredibly destructive to practically anything we can build. The record for keeping probes working on the surface of Venus still stands at a few hours. Moving to higher altitude means instead of sulphuric acid vapour, it's now just raining acid, which isn't much of an improvement. Secondly, wind speeds in this layer of the atmosphere can hit 500 mph, far above even the most intense hurricanes and tornados of Earth. I seriously doubt our ability to build something to withstand this longterm, and any kind of failure of this "bubble" means everyone inside is extremely dead.

There's also the issue that even if you could build such a floating city - what's the point? It's certainly going to be harder to maintain than a structure in plain old vacuum due to the extreme difficulty of accessing the outside of it. It's not like you can access much in the way of resources from Venus either. I suppose you could bring in some of the atmospheric gases, but it's not as if CO2 or sulphuric acid are particularly worth going there for. At least on Mars you could go outside your city with just a pressure suit.

As to the original question, sure I'd like to see a permanent human presence on Mars, but it's nowhere near as important as anything required for maintaining Earth. Realistically we might get a small, somewhat self sustaining little village there if we threw enough resources at it. The idea of Mars as an "escape route" or backup plan for catastrophe on Earth tends to fail to grasp that we'd be talking a few hundred survivors even if we're extremely optimistic. As to human expansion to other worlds, that's great - but if you're looking for return on investment, you'd better be looking over a timescale of millennia. It's not going to alter the situation on Earth in any of our lifetimes.

I think Venus isn't a good option to colonize, it's closer to the sun, the day the sun expand and destroy the earth it will also destroy Venus, we as specie need to go farway of the sun, not closer.

Also a flutuant city is way more harder to develope and if what prupose?

 

[Senethro]

In one sense, there is a gigantic quantity of implied pessimism behind too much focus on space colonization instead of first achieving successful long term Earth colonization.

 

[Fippy]

Everything has been said by now, we will neither travel in space (meaningful) nor improve earth (climate, nature etc) while the big countries are loose cannons.

When i read the news (not often) i always stumble upon boring stories about superbillionaires. Son of famous person x marries rich daughter x.
They "work" as influencer, model, media personality, business(wo)man.
Or translated: they make money from brainwashing peoples, selling overpriced and usually pointless products. Or just cheap entertainment.

We are not exactly heading into a direction here where majorities care about the important things for our future.
So about the original topic..what would i consider the most important Endeavour of our times?
Getting rid of this nonsense, making place for useful & important goals.
How high are the chances of that happening? Prolly around 1%.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

It’s a decent long shot idea that should be the province of NASA or something, not rich dbags like Elon. It’s also such an incredibly long way off that we need to focus on global warming/pandemics/deaths of despair way more first. Going to Mars and ruining it too would be pretty bad.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I just recently read an article why Venus would be the more realistic candidate for a human colony (magnetic field and atmosphere). The point was not to settle in the surface but in the higher atmosphere. So probably flying cities before extraterestrial colonies.

I dare you to read Venus by Ben Bova and then tell us this is a good idea.

There isn't enough money in the universe to get me to even visit Venus, let alone live in the atmosphere.

Unless they're on Mars, looking back.

This is one of the most poignant moments of Ray Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles. The people on Mars are all that's left of humanity, after a nuclear war on Earth.

I've seen this idea a few times, but I've never been too convinced by it. It's true that if you go up enough from the searing heat and crushing pressure of Venus' surface you'll find an atmospheric layer where temperature and pressure are quite similar to that of Earth's surface. Also a breathable oxygen/nitrogen mix would act as a lifting gas relative to Venus' atmospheric composition, so you could in principle float a big bubble full of air in it.

This does however gloss over a couple of issues. Firstly the amount of corrosive acid in the atmosphere is incredibly destructive to practically anything we can build. The record for keeping probes working on the surface of Venus still stands at a few hours. Moving to higher altitude means instead of sulphuric acid vapour, it's now just raining acid, which isn't much of an improvement. Secondly, wind speeds in this layer of the atmosphere can hit 500 mph, far above even the most intense hurricanes and tornados of Earth. I seriously doubt our ability to build something to withstand this longterm, and any kind of failure of this "bubble" means everyone inside is extremely dead.

There's also the issue that even if you could build such a floating city - what's the point? It's certainly going to be harder to maintain than a structure in plain old vacuum due to the extreme difficulty of accessing the outside of it. It's not like you can access much in the way of resources from Venus either. I suppose you could bring in some of the atmospheric gases, but it's not as if CO2 or sulphuric acid are particularly worth going there for. At least on Mars you could go outside your city with just a pressure suit.

As to the original question, sure I'd like to see a permanent human presence on Mars, but it's nowhere near as important as anything required for maintaining Earth. Realistically we might get a small, somewhat self sustaining little village there if we threw enough resources at it. The idea of Mars as an "escape route" or backup plan for catastrophe on Earth tends to fail to grasp that we'd be talking a few hundred survivors even if we're extremely optimistic. As to human expansion to other worlds, that's great - but if you're looking for return on investment, you'd better be looking over a timescale of millennia. It's not going to alter the situation on Earth in any of our lifetimes.

Of course it won't be in our lifetimes. That's not the point. The point is being able to do it at all, and that takes planning on generational scales, requiring decades, even a couple of centuries. It's pretty selfish of us to say "nah, we won't benefit personally, so why bother?"

In one sense, there is a gigantic quantity of implied pessimism behind too much focus on space colonization instead of first achieving successful long term Earth colonization.

Focus on one thing does not mean dropping everything on the other.

 

[El_Machinae]

Here's food for thought; interstellar travel will be gruelling.

Measured in time, we are probably closer to the humans who built the Great Pyramid of Giza, than we are to the first humans that will arrive at a solar system other than our own.

I ran a graph awhile ago of trendlines, back when the world was more optimistic. On that trendline, our per capita energy resources got us to the point where I could be interstellar at 0.1 c by about 3100 CE, in a reasonably sized star-ship.
A lot of things had to go my way for that to happen, granted. Shortly thereafter, I pivoted hard into eliminating desperate poverty, because I realized that we needed more people wanting the things I want (to provide market support) instead of working desperately on other things.

 

[citizenofdoom]

If SpaceX's astronauts go to Mars in our times, it would be the greatest thing that people who work and(or) own SpaceX could have done.
In their perspective, that is the most important human endeavour.

It is the same for people who work and(or) own pharmaceutical industry, iirc, someone in stock thread in civfanatics said that he/she has bias toward healthcare industry by investing in them more.
In his/her perspective, curing cancer (and curing manything more) probably is the most important endeavour.

I think some people work in math might think proof of millennium problems are the most important human endeavour in their lifetime.
And people or worker in construction/chemical industry, might think some future supermaterial is the most important endeavour in their lifetime.
Except, there is no sight of those things before they were discovered/industrialized.

It seems like everything is the most important endeavour since society progresses in everything somehow.
And if people reach Mars, there would be hope of a Mars colony thriving, it means your piece of real estate on planet Earth and my piece of real estate on planet Earth can defy nature somehow and overcome climate.

It means if it's okay to privatize air on Mars, then it would be okay to privatize fresh air on Earth.
I long for this. Therefore, if somehow some specific humans reach Mars in my lifetime, that's great news.
Currently, there are privatized fresh air sold as "air-purifier machines".
The demand of fresh air will be hike up like the demand of water, and soon, people will pay for fresh air usage.
I have around 50 years to live left, according to life expectancy statistics.
I feel like, the privatization of air will be the most important thing in this era, getting into Mars seems like the first step and look like achievable in my lifetime.
Hence, it's the most important human endeavour in my perspective.

But why people even care about or proud of something they do not possess?
It's always SpaceX(owners(Elon and investors), workers)'s reusable rockets, Colombus(and his crews and the royal supported him)'s voyage, Pingala(or probably other in other culture)'s zero, Wiles' proof, ...
There is no humanity in those great things but individuals. Saying why didn't they put their wealth and mindpower into solving those problems that someone other than them think it's important is pointless.
They think your problems are insignificant and boring to them so they didn't pursue those. ~ Some people might think climate change is an insignificant problem to get out of Earth, therefore, they chose to study space, instead of climate science.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

How will we colonize and terraform another planet if we can't even protect the one that we evolved to exist on?

The colonization problem requires a solution to the Earth climate problem. There are no M-class worlds for us to escape to.

there probably are "m class worlds" out there. getting to them alive would be significantly harder than regulating climate change on earth. stupidly harder. i can't envision us even possibly having the capability to go to other star systems while simultaneously not having addressed issues on earth first. the latter is probably necessary to survive long enough, but even if it isn't, the amount of tech/energy/engineering capability required to move living human beings those distances while keeping them alive is insane. where are we getting that, if we can't solve earth's problems?

there's that inconvenient speed limit too, which means maybe even *being* human and traveling as such is off the table. unless we can fully block aging and have perfect radiation shields while going a large fraction of the speed of light, somehow...each of those individually being sci-fi options right now. again, wtf kind of tech allows that which doesn't trivialize energy production/limiting emissions on earth?

 

[Hygro]

"Fix here first" is an infinite trap.

I think there are other endeavors of greater importance and virtue. But for the sake of the poll, sure, I vote yes.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Some people might think climate change is an insignificant problem to get out of Earth, therefore, they chose to study space, instead of climate science.

Nowadays you can't study space without being aware of climate science, unless you're studying some part of it that has nothing to do with planets. Even people searching for exoplanets have to be aware of climate science, because the only time the people of our world will sit up and take real notice will be if the exoplanetary scientists find one that's not just Earthlike in terms of a rocky core and maybe being in the Goldilocks zone, but one that shows actual signs of an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere and real organic life on it.

 

[Hygro]

I think Venus isn't a good option to colonize, it's closer to the sun, the day the sun expand and destroy the earth it will also destroy Venus, we as specie need to go farway of the sun, not closer.

Also a flutuant city is way more harder to develope and if what prupose?

I don't know how to describe this in an elegant way, but it's a sin of sorts to avoid the medium term because you've foreseen a collapse at the end and it demotivates what's a worthwhile middle step.

We have millions of years before the sun's position is a problem for Venus. We went from caves to space in 10,000 years.

Venus is the only planet with similar gravity to Earth. It's the best option in the solar system for a second home, given the tech to make it liveable. I imagine overcoming gravity, other than space station donuts, is a much harder tech than making Venus liveable.

 

[emzie]

This is simple! Mine asteroids for the resources we need to terraform Earth and everything else should follow from that. Now, for the first step, how do I market myself to venture capitalists?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I don't know how to describe this in an elegant way, but it's a sin of sorts to avoid the medium term because you've foreseen a collapse at the end and it demotivates what's a worthwhile middle step.

We have millions of years before the sun's position is a problem for Venus. We went from caves to space in 10,000 years.

Venus is the only planet with similar gravity to Earth. It's the best option in the solar system for a second home, given the tech to make it liveable. I imagine overcoming gravity, other than space station donuts, is a much harder tech than making Venus liveable.

Hm. Mars has 1/3 the gravity of Earth. The lack of breathable atmosphere and an ozone layer means that unless terraforming occurs, anyone living on Mars will be perpetually confined to domes and underground habitats.

Venus has an acidic atmosphere that only an acid-loving extremophile could survive in. Gravity is irrelevant if the atmosphere is going to eat you before you ever reach the surface.

This is simple! Mine asteroids for the resources we need to terraform Earth and everything else should follow from that. Now, for the first step, how do I market myself to venture capitalists?

That's Bova 101. You'll need very strong, very wealthy political connections. For a how-to, I recommend the early novels in the Grand Tour series, focus on the ones with Dan Randolph, Pancho Lane, and Lars Fuchs as the protagonists (there's a whole 4-novel arc known as The Asteroid Wars). Ignore the parts with the various love interests; Bova couldn't write a convincing romance basically ever, with one exception... which oddly enough does have a connection to the planet Venus.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Venus is the only planet with similar gravity to Earth. It's the best option in the solar system for a second home, given the tech to make it liveable. I imagine overcoming gravity, other than space station donuts, is a much harder tech than making Venus liveable.

Similar gravity? If there is similar gravity why we should to be in ballon in atmosfere? I think Venus is too much inospitable to be a option, the humankind need to focus in Mars or in the Moon.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Venus has an acidic atmosphere that only an acid-loving extremophile could survive in. Gravity is irrelevant if the atmosphere is going to eat you before you ever reach the surface.

The only place where it makes sense to go on Venus is at 60 km in altitude where temperature and pressure are equivalent to earth. If I'm not mistaken the sulfuric acid haze is below that. As a matter of fact, venus clouds may be the most hospitable place for Humans in the solar system outside earth. In theory, you could go outside with a simple scuba diving equipment.

Of course going below that altitude is not an option. Yet when you think about it, living at the bottom of earth abyss is not an option either, which is not a reason to consider earth to be inhospitable to humans. I know the comparison has its limits consindering abysses are quite rare on earth whereas the whole Venus surface is hell, but you may see my point.

Similar gravity? If there is similar gravity why we should to be in ballon in atmosfere? I think Venus is too much inospitable to be a option, the humankind need to focus in Mars or in the Moon.

Gravity is determined by the size of the planet. Venus and Earth are of a similar size. However, Venus atmosphere is a lot denser and heavier than Earth atmosphere, meaning that a balloon filled with Earth atmosphere could technically float in Venus atmosphere with the proper weight balance.

 

[Hygro]

Similar gravity? If there is similar gravity why we should to be in ballon in atmosfere? I think Venus is too much inospitable to be a option, the humankind need to focus in Mars or in the Moon.

Mars is first, Venus is the prize.

 

[emzie]

Mars is first, Venus is the prize.

Nope. Asteroids first. Then the moon. Then Antarctica, because of all the scifi places to live, I think Antarctica would be pretty rad. We can finally try manifest destiny without killing anyone! Apologies to the penguins. Then Mars.