this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
1369 points (98.4% liked)

People Twitter

4973 readers
877 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying.
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
1369
Elon (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (33 children)

Do people really think we'll colonize mars soon?

Colonizing the bottom of the ocean would be orders of magnitude cheaper, and more practical. Same with Antarctica. And there's a reason we don't do that.

I hate to sound anal, but I don't think the public appreciates how monumentally difficult space travel is, and how it gets exponentially worse with every ounce you have to carry. Even with theoretical, morally questionable tech like fission fragment drives or whatever.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Pressure is way harder to deal with than a vacuum, not that i think mars is happening any time soon

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago

Both have unique challenges, but overall brucethemoose is right about the overall cost comparison. For instance, we could easily have a "space elevator" equivalent to the bottom of the ocean, it'd be a fraction of the cost of maintaining a freight network to mars. Pressure is hard to deal with, but not as difficult as it is to get shit out of a gravity well as dense as Earth.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

The main point is the usable resources. You'd have a damn near infinite source of usable resources at the bottom of the ocean meanwhile on Mars everything would need to be scavenged or shipped.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

The ocean is a lot closer though, which helps

load more comments (29 replies)