Why Werner Herzog Thinks Human Space Colonization 'Will Inevitably Fail' (arstechnica.com) 179
Last Exit: Space is a new documentary on Discovery+ exploring the possibility of humans colonizing planets beyond Earth, reports Ars Technica.. "Since it is produced and narrated by Werner Herzog and written and directed by his son Rudolph, however, it goes in a different direction than your average space documentary. It's weird, beautiful, skeptical, and even a bit funny...."
Other times, Werner opts for dryly funny narration of how bleak certain space colonization efforts may turn out. "The reality of life on Mars would be sobering," he says. "Astronauts would hunker down in radiation-proof bunkers, enjoying drinks of recycled urine...."
For most of the film, Rudolph focuses on two options for where humans might travel, land, and establish space colonies: Mars or an exoplanet in the Alpha Centauri system. Along the way, Last Exit: Space follows a pattern. First, it lists a problem that might make a certain space travel proposition impossible. Then it briefly explains the most promising solution to that problem as developed by modern science and engineering. Finally, it brings the interstellar dream crashing back down to Earth with a grim recounting of why the solution won't work.... "We know the next planet outside of our solar system is at least 5,000 years away," Werner tells Ars. "It's very hard to do that, and [whatever is there is] probably uninhabitable. And we know that on Mars, there's permanent radiation that will force us underground in little bunkers...."
As Last Exit: Space explores the logistics of a possible 5,000-year journey to Alpha Centauri, the film asks wild questions that touch matters of the human spirit, each with a diverse pool of optimistic and pessimistic answers. Is hibernation feasible? Could a non-hibernating skeleton crew function in a sane way? And how would the human act of copulation play out — both mechanically, in terms of being a reduced-gravity exercise, and genetically, in terms of possible in-breeding if a ship can't hold at least 40,000 colonists to keep the gene pool diverse...? [Werner Herzog adds] "But as you hear it from Lucian Walkowicz, an astronomer in the film, it's very clear that we take her position: We shouldn't behave like locusts who are grazing everything empty here, then move on to the next planet. There's something not right to shift, to move our population to other planets, and it's a part of all these ethical questions....
[Space colonization] will fail. It is inevitable. You cannot travel to the next [Alpha Centauri exoplanet] that is 200,000 years away. Period. Good luck...."
The filmmakers make it clear that they admire and appreciate efforts to understand space and our universal neighbors. But in describing "space colonization" as "a dirty word," Rudolph paraphrases Walkowicz's film-ending pitch: "There is already a cross-generational spaceship operating right now — and we're already on it. Earth is a luxuriously furnished, wonderfully self-rejuvenating place, so we'd better treat it well...."
Werner admits that he does have some interest in space travel. "I would love to go out on Mars on a mission... if I had a camera with me," he says.
Rudolph immediately interrupts: "Yes, but I want to stop my dad. Don't encourage him on this, please. I want him to stay on Earth."
Other times, Werner opts for dryly funny narration of how bleak certain space colonization efforts may turn out. "The reality of life on Mars would be sobering," he says. "Astronauts would hunker down in radiation-proof bunkers, enjoying drinks of recycled urine...."
For most of the film, Rudolph focuses on two options for where humans might travel, land, and establish space colonies: Mars or an exoplanet in the Alpha Centauri system. Along the way, Last Exit: Space follows a pattern. First, it lists a problem that might make a certain space travel proposition impossible. Then it briefly explains the most promising solution to that problem as developed by modern science and engineering. Finally, it brings the interstellar dream crashing back down to Earth with a grim recounting of why the solution won't work.... "We know the next planet outside of our solar system is at least 5,000 years away," Werner tells Ars. "It's very hard to do that, and [whatever is there is] probably uninhabitable. And we know that on Mars, there's permanent radiation that will force us underground in little bunkers...."
As Last Exit: Space explores the logistics of a possible 5,000-year journey to Alpha Centauri, the film asks wild questions that touch matters of the human spirit, each with a diverse pool of optimistic and pessimistic answers. Is hibernation feasible? Could a non-hibernating skeleton crew function in a sane way? And how would the human act of copulation play out — both mechanically, in terms of being a reduced-gravity exercise, and genetically, in terms of possible in-breeding if a ship can't hold at least 40,000 colonists to keep the gene pool diverse...? [Werner Herzog adds] "But as you hear it from Lucian Walkowicz, an astronomer in the film, it's very clear that we take her position: We shouldn't behave like locusts who are grazing everything empty here, then move on to the next planet. There's something not right to shift, to move our population to other planets, and it's a part of all these ethical questions....
[Space colonization] will fail. It is inevitable. You cannot travel to the next [Alpha Centauri exoplanet] that is 200,000 years away. Period. Good luck...."
The filmmakers make it clear that they admire and appreciate efforts to understand space and our universal neighbors. But in describing "space colonization" as "a dirty word," Rudolph paraphrases Walkowicz's film-ending pitch: "There is already a cross-generational spaceship operating right now — and we're already on it. Earth is a luxuriously furnished, wonderfully self-rejuvenating place, so we'd better treat it well...."
Werner admits that he does have some interest in space travel. "I would love to go out on Mars on a mission... if I had a camera with me," he says.
Rudolph immediately interrupts: "Yes, but I want to stop my dad. Don't encourage him on this, please. I want him to stay on Earth."
Who cares what he thinks? (Score:2)
Hertzog is a film director with nearly no technical background (he worked as a welder in his younger days). So what he thinks about space colonization is irrelevant. Leave the technical part to us space systems engineers, and the administrative side to whoever is paying for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that nobody at this point is an expert in space colonization. True expertise is the product of experience.
The people who've spent the most time thinking about this are dreamers. That's not a bad thing; they play an important role in expanding human horizons. But there's nothing wrong with a sympathetic but skeptical examination of their dream scenarios.
Ignores Progress (Score:2)
Except that nobody at this point is an expert in space colonization.
True, but we know that if space colonization will ever become possible it will be due to advances in science in technology so the people who are in the best place to evaluate the future potential for space colonization are scientists and engineers, not film directors.
For a start, it seems he has utterly ignored scientific progress. Just 100 years ago even the Moon was completely unreachable because we lacked the necessary rocket technology. Who knows what we will be capable of a century from now - I don
Re: (Score:2)
the 1th century
*16th* century
Re: (Score:2)
*16th* century
Polynesians crossed the Pacific in the 11th century, reaching South America about 1200 AD.
Polynesian catamarans were superior in many ways to Spanish caravels.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, engineers can answer questions like, "Can we land stuff on Mars" or "Can we protect colonists from cosmic radiation on Mars." But really engineers are no better at being futurists than anyone else, because predicting the future is a profoundly multidisciplinary problem. Any educated person can take a stab at it, nobody is specifically trained to do it well.
Can we *physically* establish a Mars colony? I have no doubt of that, based on hard science. Whether we *will*, however, depends more on the so
Re: (Score:2)
...there's no economic reason to make a robot that can act just like a human.
Is this a joke? How about the fact that robots don't get tired, don't get sick, don't sleep, don't take vacation days and are infinitely replaceable without needing 18+ years to mature. There is every economic reason to make robots as smart as humans- it would literally transform production and make most jobs obsolete.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about the fact that robots don't get tired, don't get sick, don't sleep, don't take vacation days and are infinitely replaceable without needing 18+ years to mature.
Now, that doesn't sound all that human, does it?
There is every economic reason to make robots as smart as humans- it would literally transform production and make most jobs obsolete.
There is no reason to make a machine as smart as humans if the goal is to make most jobs obsolete.
Also, pretty dumb robots have already severely transformed production.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we *physically* establish a Mars colony? I have no doubt of that, based on hard science.
But that's really the only important question. Once the answer to that becomes "yes" then at some point in time we will undoubtedly have space colonization whether it be for economic, scientific, military, tourist, survival, religious persecution, or some other reason. When and how it happens will depend on all the usual socio-political and economic factors as well as how technology advances to make the prospect easier and cheaper. Can you really imagine a world where technology has advanced to the point w
Re: Ignores Progress (Score:2)
Staying on a surface rather than a
Re: (Score:2)
Once the answer to that becomes "yes" then at some point in time we will undoubtedly have space colonization whether it be for economic, scientific, military, tourist, survival, religious persecution, or some other reason.
If you realize that on mars people will need to live underground then it becomes obvious that the moon is a much more viable place to do such things.
Cheap and easy space colonization is not going to happen in our lifetimes but claiming that all space colonization will ultimately fail encompasses a much longer period than that.
Well, the problems start once you venture beyond the solar system. The distances are incredible.
It will become practical if we ever invent FTL travel. But if we do then all stops are off as we'd basically have hacked the universe.
Data was _Fully_ Functional... (Score:2)
For similar reasons, I don't think we're likely ever to see a robot like C3PO or Commander Data; I think we will continue to improve AI for applications that humans are bad at like plowing through gigabytes of data, but there's no economic reason to make a robot that can act just like a human.
I seem to remember that Commander Data was _fully_ functional. I think that would be a very strong economic reason to make such robots.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, clicked into this thread to say this. People will definitely pay to fuck a robot. They're already paying to fuck rubber manikins.
Re: (Score:2)
What he thinks is very relevant until you demonstrate that you can do it [wikipedia.org]. You're annoyed that he's bringing up the fact that you haven't demonstrated that capability, and your response is merely "trust us, we've got this."
No. Show us.
We know it can be done. (Score:3)
I'll admit I'd really like to see another Biosphere project attempted with more Mars-like constraints: e.g. you can bring in as much CO2, and water as you want, and have large, high-power fuel generators that can convert that to oxygen and methane. Methane which is a valuable feedstock for a large range of microbes that can efficiently produce a nutritionally complete diet, or be used as animal feed and fertilizer if we want to eat higher on the food chain (but microbial farming makes an *incredible* fall-
Re: (Score:2)
However, we already *know* the basic concept is viable. Exhibit one - Biosphere 1 - the Earth. A sealed ecosystem where life has thrived for roughly 4 billion years.
Humans != the whole of life.
In that 4 billion year period there is a tiny tiny window, with the right conditions, that is reasonable for people to live in.
Nice gatekeeping (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't need to be an engineer to see that the picture being painted of mars might not be that rosy. I often find that engineers are more susceptible to hype and and seeing things through rose colored glasses because they undervalue the psychological, social and political complexities of these endeavours.
Herzog understands those facets well. More importantly, he understands that they matter.
So, ironically, the only way we'll make it to mars is if we have critical thinkers like Herzog to help us keep our feet on the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
Another year, another subject for Werner Herzog to be a gloomy crank about. I'm surprised that he even bothered to reproduce.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah right?! I mean it's not like film makers can enlist experts in their fields to help inform the documentary.
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone with a Slashdot account is an expert in everything...
Still, it is a simple fact, "space systems engineering" notwithstanding, that humans can't live on Mars's surface and can't even get there safely. They'll get something like a third of the lethal ionizing radiation dose on the way, and there is no shielding from it. It is just simple physics. Also, there isn't anything in the theoretical works that looks like it will reasonably work.
So whoever lands on Mars will have at least mild radiation sickn
Re: (Score:2)
What if all the close star systems are similar to the Solar system minus a simile to
Re: (Score:2)
Leave the technical part to us space systems engineers
You're not a space systems engineer and you know it...
Besides, 99.999% of the engineering in space projects has nothing to do with the big picture of viability. These engineers design the door locking mechanisms or low gravity toilets or whatnot. They don't give a shit about space viability as long as someone is ordering the specialized parts they engineer.
Re: (Score:2)
Making probes work in space is admirable, making robotic landers and satellite orbiters capable of scientific discovery through use of precision tools is amazing. Putting people on planets other than Earth is stupid.
Establishing biology in a new place that has not previously had it is a Hard Problem. On the other hand, machines seem to love space as an operating environment. Our probes, including the most complex ones, keep operating for many times their design life. Even mechanical monstrosities like the JWST like it out there, and work much more smoothly than anyone dared hope for. But we can't leave space exploration entirely to robots because of the latency problem. Besides, humans want to get out there, by ancient
Inbreeding (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And does anyone seriously think having sex in reduced or zero-G is going to be a significant problem?
Every man on planet earth: "Challenge accepted!"
Re: (Score:2)
Especially pushers and shovers.
The problems of docking, and then interlocking,
are greatly increased when one hovers.
- Omni magazine
Re: (Score:2)
Solution: Rubber bands
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not fair - but until women figure out how to get men pregnant, it's going to be one of the fundamental realities of colonial life. All life, really, but population growth is a much higher priority in a colony.
If the women have equal rights and are even halfway clever, they shouldn't have any problem leveraging that reality into a significant advantage.
Re: Inbreeding (Score:2)
Have you heard of something called "biology"? I suggest you look it up particularly wrt human reproduction.
Because humans can't live in space. (Score:2)
Human colonization of space is a stupid idea that will never work at scale without massive support from earth. It cost billions each year to keep 6 people alive in space doing literally nothing but trying to keep themselves alive in space.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Planets do have some harvest-able resources so with enough energy supply I can imagine self sufficiency for at least the food, air, water, and building materials.
In a 100 years from now, unless there are some pretty significant tech breakthroughs.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's talk about Mars.
Everything about Mars wants to kill you. The atmosphere is poison. The soil is poison. But, if you step outside, you would instantly freeze to death. There are 1000 ways to die instantly on Mars before you even step out of the rocket.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's true, but we have people living in manmade environments long term in space already. A small science colony on Mars is probably doable eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
Only after the machines are there first, to provide everything for us. That's a lot sooner than terraforming the planet but it's still a bloody long way off.
We have to be more careful with Mother Earth much much sooner.
Re: (Score:2)
Colonizing Mars has nothing to do with Earth. Nowhere in the solar system, quite possibly nowhere in the entire galaxy, is likely to be remotely as pleasant as the planet we spent 4 billion years evolving to fit.
Mars is not a viable "escape hatch" for Earth. What it is is a stepping stone to spread life beyond Earth. We may be the only life in the galaxy, and Earth *will* die eventually - there's nothing we can do about that. We've likely only got a billion or two years left before being consumed by the
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, I don't think anyone is talking about long term natural destruction in a few billion years. The concern is about our own destructive treatment of Earth's ecology now and its effects within the next few centuries.
There's no chance of leaving in such sort time frames. The only solutions are all here on planet Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone talking about Mars as a place to escape destruction on Earth is a fool, and I've heard no mention (beyond dark humor) of such a thing from anyone seriously investing time or energy towards the goal.
There's (almost) nothing we could do to Earth that would make it less hospitable than Mars. (Bioweapons have some potential, nukes don't, global warming certainly doesn't, and will probably actually make things nicer... after a few thousand years of ugly transition period and thousands more of recovery.)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think comparing how bad we could make Earth's biosphere against Mars is a useful gauge. I'd rather we kept the natural biodiversity and habitability we already have.
As for living on Mars, for sure, we can't do it. And now is definitely not the right time to try. Maybe in a few thousand years ... in the mean time, we have to look after Earth. You might be surprised how poisonous Earth could become.
Of course, nothing wrong with experimenting right now either. It might be possible to do some rese
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone talking about Mars as a place to escape destruction on Earth is a fool, and I've heard no mention (beyond dark humor) of such a thing from anyone seriously investing time or energy towards the goal.
I'm pretty sure this is exactly the motivation excreted by Elon Musk.
Re: (Score:2)
What it is is a stepping stone to spread life beyond Earth.
LOL. How is Mars a better stepping stone than the Moon? Explain with numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, numbers... life is made primarily from hydrogen and carbon. The moon appears to have negligible quantities of either element. Both are plentiful on Mars. Meaning we can can grow an ecosystem from native materials on Mars - on the Moon we'd have to import almost the entire biomass from Earth (or the asteroid belt I suppose).
That said - I do think the Moon is a better starting point for industrial development in space - to support the economic development of the resource-rich Belt. After which the t
Re: (Score:2)
No numbers, and your qualitative assessment is completely wrong. While the element composition of all small planets is roughly similar, in comparison, the Moon is a lot closer to Earth (due to the common origin of the two) than Mars (see e.g. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/... [harvard.edu]).
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's true, but we have people living in manmade environments long term in space already.
That seems like a reasonable thing to say until you realize that the ISS is orbiting at a distance that you barely can call space.
It's basically a low earth orbit and that orbit provides a lot of the shielding that makes life on earth viable.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you by any chance a space systems engineer?
There is a lot of wishful thinking (Score:3)
In space colonization. We don't even know how to counteract the longterm effects of low G, let alone what effect it will have on pregnancy. There is also the matter of making a closed cycle environment viable. Biosphere 2 failed while admittedly it was amateur hour, no one has done better since.
Just for a record the first Spanish Colonies of Los Angeles failed and there's plenty of failed colonies/communities on the east coast.
Many blanks to fill in.
Re: (Score:2)
In space colonization. We don't even know how to counteract the longterm effects of low G, let alone what effect it will have on pregnancy.
One major reason for the ISS to determine whether we can live for extended periods in microgravity. If not, then the next space stations willl be rotating structures. The research front will then shift to "How much gravity do we actually need..."
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, we don't even know if there *are* any long term ill effects of low G - all we know for sure is that prolonged micro-G (aka freefall) causes serious problems. We haven't spent enough time on the moon to have any idea if its low gravity might be enough to ward off virtually all those problems, and haven't even visited anywhere else. Presumably a native-born Looney would at least find Earth's gravity crushingly strong, but that's only a problem for tourists who want to visit Earth.
Even if it turns out
Re: (Score:2)
"Low G" is the least of your problems. We don't know (or, rather, we know quite well it is impossible) to counter ionizing radiation exposure in the long flights that the available space "travel" technology promises us.
Just for the record, no colonization effort ever has had to deal with an environment that consisted of vacuum pierced by intensive radiation.
It will kill you a lot faster than any "low G" effects, the Expanse beltalowda bullshit notwithstanding.
And yeah, currently possible "nuclear propulsion
Re: (Score:2)
They key will be getting something like fusion working so we can accelerate all the way there, providing some artificial gravity and reducing travel time. The acceleration can be quite gentle, a fraction of a g.
It won't be easy but it is possible with foreseeable technological developments.
Re: (Score:2)
They key will be getting something like fusion working so we can accelerate all the way there,
If you accelerate all the way there then when do you plan on actually decelerating?
Also, how the hell do you figure you can accelerate with fusion? That's not how space travel works. Space travel works by using Newtonian physics. That means that you can only move in one direction if you throw something in the opposite direction. What does a fusion reactor throw out and how do you direct that out-throw?
Maybe you're confused with an ion engine?
Also, we don't actually have real working fusion reactors that act
Earth will die in 2bln years - we must colonize... (Score:2)
I just will not happen soon.
But for the problems listed there are already proposed solutions:
Radiation on Mars? Put strong magnetic dipole in orbit to create magnetic field.
Small gene pool? You can take a million of frozen human embryos and use in vitro.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure about the whole drifting around in space bit but we definitely will modify our biology. It seems likely that we make an AI that can somewhat accurately project the result of modifications before finally stumbling upon a way to increase our brain mass and/or density. This will be proto-homo superior as they will likely have the cognitive capacity to understand our own technology and progress it, fixing "defects" in our DNA, making theirselves stronger and more resilient aka homo superior. If
Re:Earth will die in 2bln years - we must colonize (Score:4, Insightful)
I just will not happen soon.
Spoiler alert: You already happened.
Re: (Score:2)
In 2008, a group of experts estimated the chance of human extinction at about 20% in a century:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_extinction#Risk_estimates [wikipedia.org]
Using that estimate, the chance of humans surviving for 2 billion years is 0.8^(20 million) ~ 10^(-1 million).
That's a million places after a decimal point, ending with a 1.
Thinking to spend any resources on such a contingency is institutional-grade lunacy.
space is massively anti-life (Score:2)
I'm all for exploration, but space in general and Mars in particular seem like zero fun to try to live in long term. The cosmic ray exposure alone requires either a large amount of shielding or powerful magnetic fields. If you want to live underground you can much more easily do it on Earth. I guess there could be a form of wearable shielding in a comfortable pressure suit some day that allows for safe in-person contemplation of the sterile deserts of Mars over the course of years, but if we just make you a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People do seem to manage a long time in orbit, 438 consecutive days is the record. I can see a science colony with personnel rotations, but for your average Earth denizen it could be pretty dull.
Re: (Score:2)
You would break down sobbing after not seeing a tree for a year.
I know lots of people who would prefer not to have to go outside for a year. Maybe send people like them.
Re: (Score:2)
The cosmic ray exposure alone requires either a large amount of shielding or powerful magnetic fields
Or genetic adaptation.
if we just make you a super-convincing virtual reality version of it would you be adequately satisfied?
Perhaps the average person but there is a subsection of humanity that wouldn't settle for anything but the real thing.
For interstellar travel there's no sense in trying to send "a non-hibernating skeleton crew" on a voyage lasting thousands of years to somewhere that is likely to also be very unpleasant.
This is true for the average person but again, there is a subsection of humanity that is absolutely driven by challenges like this.
Re: (Score:2)
There's just no reason to make people sit around waiting through the journey in a little metal box. If there's tech to do the trip, there will also be tech where the robot nanny will incubate the frozen embryos and raise up some colonists on demand. That takes only 20 years or so.
Re: (Score:2)
At fractional C velocities, time dilation would keep the trip relatively short (pun intended). While thousands of years may pass, the travelers may only experience a few years. It's been shown it's possible to induce hibernation in humans which means the travelers could be asleep for months before being awakened and returning to hibernation in order to keep them healthy and maintain the ship which could provide the same gravitational environment as the destination to make the transition smooth. Not sure
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it would require high level AI to raise some human kids, just something moderately nurturing plus a real good educational environment. A lot easier than figuring out how to propel a spacecraft to a significant fraction of lightspeed and decelerate it at the destination.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm... we already know how to go accelerate to that velocity: matter-antimatter reaction drive. Our current method of producing the stuff requires a crazy amount of energy but we will presumably figure out fusion energy, so that will make it more feasible.
I don't think it would require high level AI to raise some human kids
It does if you don't want a Lord of the Flies type situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true, sadly.
Time dilation only becomes usefully dramatic at speeds *very* near c. The formula is dt' / dt = 1 / sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)
So at 50% light speed the time dilation ratio is only 1/ sqrt(1-(.5)^2) = 1.15. In other words time passes 15% slower. At 90%c time dilation is up to 2.29, so only one year would pass on-ship for every 2.3 on Earth. Better, but not enough to allow you to survive a journey that lasts thousands of years as seen from Earth. To get to the 1000:1 time dilation you'd like to see
Re: (Score:2)
Or genetic adaptation.
The genetic adaptation you speak of is simply increasing reproduction. That is because most of your offspring will not be viable due to your damaged DNA. Maybe you can 'adapt' to lay thousands of eggs a time. Hopefully they will have some radiation shielding or else none of the will work.
Perhaps the average person but there is a subsection of humanity that wouldn't settle for anything but the real thing.
This is true for the average person but again, there is a subsection of humanity that is absolutely driven by challenges like this.
And they will win the Darwin award for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Ugly bags of mostly water. (Score:2)
Sweet nectar of relevance eludes my dying lips (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"But mein acczent - eet ees zo COOL!..."
Some reality checks (Score:2)
1. ALL water on Earth is recycled urine, at this point.
2. The lava tubes under Mars will be wider than the entire British Isles and tens, maybe hundreds, of times longer. That's a hell of a bunker.
(It's also easier to seal off such tubes from the outside than it is to build a dome. They'd also offer more protection and provide access to any Martian water.)
3. Based on NASA's solar sail calculations, a manned capsule can reach Alpha Centauri in around 20 years. Quite a bit shorter than Herzog's calculation.
In
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A lava tube 250 miles wide and 10 miles high is no different from living on Earth for any practical purpose. The only difference is that you'd need full spectrum lighting systems. You'd have absolute freedom of movement, no spacesuit, the ability to go where you liked, regular food farmed the way it is on Earth, the works. The narrowest one found has a cross-section of 190 x 160 metres - a decent-sized apartment complex could be built in one of those.
There's this thing called an induced coma. 20 years of sp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it different from a basement?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably we could extract some water from the subsurface of Mars with a lot of effort. Lava tubes may be an option for habitation but then you are still underground most of the time, no fun.
Solar sails means powerful lasers to boost them, the humans would have to be enclosed in something that isn't affected by all those megawatts. Then if you do get up to some fraction of light speed a craft might eventually be eroded to nothing by interstellar dust or even just gas molecules. And then how do you slow down
Re: (Score:2)
". ALL water on Earth is recycled urine, at this point."
I was going to make the same point. What does he think he's drinking now? Where does he think the fish piss?
As for the lava tubes, the submarine was 32 ft in diameter. It you can get bigger than that you'll be fine. I think the Tridents are 45 ft in diameter.
Whether crops will grow properly in 1/3 gravity is a bigger problem, or might be. Won't know until we try it.
Re: (Score:2)
corollary to 1: if you believe in homeopathic principles, you're drinking dinosaur piss _all_the_time_.
Re: (Score:2)
Not even homeopathy, which can take the diffusion beyond the point that any molecules of the poison exist in the "medicine". I seem to remember an analysis that amounted to "pick any Brontosaurus that ever lived - several atoms of its piss are in the glass of water you're drinking now".
There's just not that much water in the world compared to the number of atoms in a glass. And brontosaurs had large bladders.
Considering the number of brontosaurs and other dinosaurs that existed, that water is roughly 100
Clarke's First Law (Score:2)
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, they are almost certainly right. When they state that something is impossible, they are very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the corollaries:
1.1: When a non-scientist states that something is impossible, they are almost certainly wrong.
1.2: When an elderly non-scientist tells you something is impossible, you should ask yourself why you're even bothering to pay attention to them rather than doing something more educational, like watching old Sesame Street reruns.
(To be clear I'm talking science here - I have great respect for the wisdom of the elderly in less esoteric and fast-moving fields, such as human nature)
A diverse gene pool is not needed (Score:3)
I acknowledge that it is true that inbreeding for generations risks multiple mutated recessive traits genes being expressed as dominant. I know that is why some Egyptian pharaohs were super ugly. But then, what if we edited those genes out? Presumably by the time we can build a generational starship we would have a knowledge as to what human gene sequences are good and bad, and what genes control which phenotype. We can simply edit any negative traits out of the gene pool. Furthermore, we can even introduce diversity into offspring by editing the genes of the embryo with known good gene codes from a database of Earthâ(TM)s haplotypes. If we get tired of having too many brunettes, no problem we can lookup the code for the blonde hair gene and add it to some of the next generation kids.
Summary: Using technology, we can correct mutations before they cause a problem, and generate diversity in offspring if needed.
Top Geek Myths (Score:2)
(1) Colonization/living on other planets
(2) Uploading brains from bodies to computers
(3) War with robots implying no human deaths
(4) Technology giving the masses a life of leisure
Granted this is Geek Myth #1, there will be mostly just Slashdot outrage for Herzog's observations.
Leaving the trees was a terrible idea (Score:2)
Let's cut to the chase (Score:2)
So it's hard to disagree with part about huge challenges and possible misery and failure, but the ethical questions are perplexing. How many humans should be allowed to live, and where on Earth, in exactly how many cubic kilometers? It's hard for me to understand the ethical misgivings without some reasoning around that. In other words, what's the difference between leaving Africa and leaving the planet? I've never understood what makes humans unnatural. I'm not say we're not "bad", from the perspectiv
A lack of imagination (Score:2)
"No one will ever settle the New World - it is too far away".
Radiation: it is possible to create a magnetic field for Mars, which would block radiation just as the Earth's field does. All that is required is to place capacitors at regular intervals and charge them up with a static electric field. Mars's rotation and enormous momentum will do the rest.
Lack of breathable air: All that is needed is 1/10 sea level pressure. Humans can survive fine in that, as long as they have breathable oxygen, which can be ex
Re: (Score:2)
Power distribution cables at intervals longitudinally could produce a magnetic field and provide power to other colonies. We have the tech now, it'd just be expensive.
Zubrin's book "The Case for Mars" removed a lot of my skepticism. He details how terraforming might work.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Making that planet more livable is probably the biggest undertaking humans have ever faced. But just imagine if we can do it...
Some people do not have the imagination required, and that is okay. They can stay home and tend their garden :-)
How To Terraform Venus (Quickly) (Score:2)
Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell. July 2021. Worth a watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-WO-z-QuWI
Of course it will fail. (Score:2)
Of course humans will fail to colonize space. Evolution didn't stop once humans arrived on the scene. Space faring humans, separated from their land based cousins, will evolve into a separate species so adapted that humans will have no chance competing with. The universe will belong to these beings. If they behave, navigators may permit humans to be seeded on some of the habitable worlds the navigators discover.
Save earth first (Score:2)
Hence his opinion of fixing Earth first is correct. We are f-ing ourself with global warming and environmental damage without true global political will to fix that. That should be a priority.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Earth has all the ingredients required for life, ecosystem and the right amount of gravity and sunlight.
We don't know about any similar planets yet. None. We don't even have the tech to establish a colony on Mars given its extremely hostile environment and a lack of pretty much everything required to sustain life.
Re: (Score:2)
>lack of pretty much everything required to sustain life.
Let's see - it has large amounts of water, CO2, and sunlight at an intensity that a great many plants like as well as (or better than) direct sunlight on Earth.
All that's missing for life as we know it to prosper is atmospheric pressure, a little heat, and trace elements. The first two are easy to supply in artificial habitats, while the latter shouldn't be too difficult to mine locally once sufficient prospecting has been done.
Re: (Score:2)
The big question is, how many scams before the real thing?
Statistics (Score:2)
I am intrigued by your confidence that the massive resources required to get a few people to another planet are going to be devoted to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there's sampling bias in the examples you choose. The inventions that *failed* aren't useful examples for an analogy because they're unfamiliar.
The bicycle has a long and interesting history of successful military use, but inevitably there were attempts to marry it's transportation utility with firepower, for example using one as a mount for a heavy machine gun [onlinebicy...seum.co.uk]. Or how about this 1902 Edwardian invention: Parkin's Illuminating Tablecloth. Small contacts on the bottom of electric candlesticks d