>Let's figure out how to house and sustain, say, 20K people in Antarctica for 100 years before we even dream about doing the same on Mars.
you argue that it isn't economically viable to do this, and this is the reason it hasn't been done.
Currently the people in Antarctica are there on research projects, increasing it to 20K people would imply what? Something other than research? What do you think will be required to make Antarctica housing of 20K people for 100 years economically viable.
Finally, what do you think will be the effect on climate change of at minimum quadrupling the people in Antarctica and providing them some sort of economically viable reason for being there?
What do you think the effect of putting an output on Mars will be on Climate Change? I'm thinking negligible in comparison. Aside from all the other arguments that we CAN put people in Antarctica the complexity and side effects for our environment are more dangerous than putting them on Mars.
> What do you think the effect of putting an output on Mars will be on Climate Change? I'm thinking negligible in comparison.
If you are seriously saying that getting 20k people to Mars is impacting Earths climate less than getting them to Mars then you need a reality check.
Hint: You can't not just not walk there, but anything apart from sunlight to support life isn't there which even Antarctica has in abundance (oxygen and water).
Emissions per human on a Falcon 9 (assuming 4) : 106
Emissions for a Starship launch: 2700
Emissions per human on a Starship launch (assuming 100) : 27
Emissions per year for America: 5,000,000,000
Emissions per year for a single American: 15
Emissions per for for a single American over an 80 year lifespan: 1200
----
I don't know if people don't really appreciate how many people there are, overestimates rocket pollution, or just like some person reads something on the internet, somebody else repeats it, and nobody at any point bothers to see if what anybody is saying makes any sense. Rocket launches are such a nothing-burger in terms of emissions that yes sending people to Mars (assuming they stay for a while) would definitely be a net reduction in emissions.
For some fun tangential data, to match the current emissions of the US, alone, you'd need to launch about 12 million Falcon 9s. Last year was the biggest year, for space, by far with a whopping global total of 178 orbital launches. So the entire global pollution impact, for that record breaking year, was equivalent to ~5,000 Americans.
> seriously saying that getting 20k people to Mars is impacting Earths climate less than getting them to Mars
It impacts the pristine nature of Antarctica less. You’re also ignoring motivation. There are smart people motivated to see Mars. (Maybe not to settle. But to visit. The same way one may be curious to visit Antarctica without wanting to live there.)
>If you are seriously saying that getting 20k people to Mars is impacting Earths climate less than getting them to Mars then you need a reality check.
no I'm saying their excess heat generated in a polar region will be more detrimental than the excess heat generated on Mars will be. Among other things.
Basically that the day to day living in the area being damaged is going to be more damaging than the one off transportation. That said I haven't done the calculation, but since I was the first one to even bring it up I doubt anyone has done it either.
> no I'm saying their excess heat generated in a polar region will be more detrimental than the excess heat generated on Mars will be
This is not how climate works, not at all. The issue isn't “the amount of excess heat”, it's about how many shit-tons of greenhouse gases we would put in our atmosphere by sending those people to those two places.
And given you need to send more stuff on Mars to make it livable than on Antarctica + the fact that you'd send them with freaking rockets instead of boats, it's going to be several orders of magnitude more damaging.
That's the problem tho: we are operating on definitions of economic viability, not socio-ecological viability. Humanity on Earth is currently unsustainable because we're crashing face-first into a climate catastrophe and pulling any stops is not an option because it's not "economically viable".
I don't think there's any point in making life in Antarctica sustainable for now. But there's even less of a point in making life on Mars sustainable until we have made life on Earth sustainable first. Burning through resources on Earth to chase a pipedream of maybe having a self-sustaining colony on Mars a few hundred years from now is a luxury we can't afford at the moment -- and because we can't afford it it's doomed to fail even if we try.
There's a theory that these kinds of hard problem solving creates new technical solutions to similar, albeit easier problems, so sustainability of life on Mars may provide solutions for sustainability of life on Earth. As it happens I believe in this theory so I think developing for making a self-sustaining colony on Mars may be worth the extra effort.
that's often the retort to that theory, true, to which the comeback is generally something along the lines about every enemy of progress having said the same thing about every major discovery ever.
I mean I suppose you are familiar with these things, it's not like the history of this debate should be new and strange to readers of HN.
We’re not solving climate change because the solutions endanger the wealth of powerful interests and because getting large groups of people to agree to do things is hard. But the overall cost of solving the problem is quite modest: a few percent of world GDP for a few decades should do it. Not small, but a much smaller effort than war mobilizations.
Meanwhile NASA costs 0.15% of US GDP. I might want to bump that up to 0.3% or so, so that we can do Mars. Much more than that and I agree that we have other priorities (like climate change).
>you argue that it isn't economically viable to do this, and this is the reason it hasn't been done.
Whereas the 100x more costing and 100x logistically harder case for Mars is?
>Currently the people in Antarctica are there on research projects, increasing it to 20K people would imply what?
That at least this level is realistic, and we're not jumping to conquer Everest when we aren't even fit to climb our 2% incline hill next to our house.
And that we can coordinate, invest, invent, build, and deploy, the infrastructure to make living there more livable and have an actual community there - even at "baby steps" level.
If anything that would make the idea of setting up anything more permanent and not a repeat of the moon-visits on Mars more viable: Lots of much simpler problems would have to be solved in a place like Antarctica first before one can even pretend to be able to solve the 100x bigger issues on Mars.
>What do you think the effect of putting an output on Mars will be on Climate Change?
Hugely detrimental, if not for anything else, for the false hope that climate change doesn't matter, we can always go to Mars if push comes to shove.
> Currently the people in Antarctica are there on research projects, increasing it to 20K people would imply what? Something other than research? What do you think will be required to make Antarctica housing of 20K people for 100 years economically viable.
This is besides the fact that we've mandated by international law that Antarctica is forbidden from being "economically viable" because of the restriction on any economic activity. Plentiful (more than 20K) people live and work in the far northern arctic on the European and the North American continent with conditions roughly equivalent to those seen in the less extreme portions of Antarctica.
That is because there is something to exploit. Be it gas, oil, diamonds, some ore, or having a military presence with sensor platform (radar, whatever). What they all have in common is constant resupply, or at least the possibility there of, if need be. Or bailing out.
you argue that it isn't economically viable to do this, and this is the reason it hasn't been done.
Currently the people in Antarctica are there on research projects, increasing it to 20K people would imply what? Something other than research? What do you think will be required to make Antarctica housing of 20K people for 100 years economically viable.
Finally, what do you think will be the effect on climate change of at minimum quadrupling the people in Antarctica and providing them some sort of economically viable reason for being there?
What do you think the effect of putting an output on Mars will be on Climate Change? I'm thinking negligible in comparison. Aside from all the other arguments that we CAN put people in Antarctica the complexity and side effects for our environment are more dangerous than putting them on Mars.