Everything about Mars is the worst (2017)
Skepticism about colonizing Mars dominates this exchange, with many pointing to toxic soil, intense radiation, low gravity, dust storms, and extreme distance as reasons it is a poor candidate for a self-sustaining human settlement. Commenters contrast Mars with alternatives such as the Moon, Venusian cloud habitats, orbital space stations, and asteroid-belt industry, arguing these may be more practical for science, industry, or even long-term refuges. Underneath the technical points runs a deeper question: whether scarce resources should go to off-world colonies as a “backup” for humanity, or to making Earth more resilient instead.
Moon vs Mars for Near-Term Habitation
- Many argue the Moon is a far better first target than Mars: only days away, real-time communication, emergency resupply possible, and tourism is at least plausible.
- Proposed lunar advantages: peaks of (near) eternal light for continuous solar, potential lava tubes for radiation-shielded habitats, easier construction of large telescopes and spacecraft in low gravity, and mass drivers / gun launch for exporting materials.
- Mars is seen by many as a “worst of both worlds”: poisonous perchlorate dust, near-vacuum pressure, weak sunlight plus dust storms, no magnetic field, significant radiation, unknown effects of 0.38g on long‑term health, and huge distance / launch-window constraints.
Venus Cloud Cities and Terraforming Concepts
- Some prefer Venus at high altitude: near‑Earth pressure and temperature, strong solar flux, potential for balloons / “cloud cities” using plastics like HDPE or PTFE, with breathable air as lifting gas.
- More speculative ideas: giant sunshades to cool and partially terraform Venus, using Venus platforms as power stations, or even retirement colonies exploiting 0.9g gravity.
- Skeptics question economic purpose, political stability, and vulnerability to Earth-based crises or attack.
Space Habitats, Asteroids, and Cislunar Space
- Strong current for “skip planets, build orbitals”: O’Neill cylinders and asteroid mining seen as more flexible than planetary gravity wells.
- Cislunar space and near‑Earth asteroids suggested as prime industrial zones; planets and moons mainly as science or staging sites.
Radiation, Dust, and Health
- Mars and Moon both pose significant radiation risks; underground habitats are repeatedly proposed.
- Lunar and Martian dust are viewed as severe engineering and health hazards.
- Long-term effects of partial gravity (Moon/Mars) are unknown; ISS microgravity data may not extrapolate.
Energy and Nuclear Power Off‑World
- Debate over lunar nuclear reactors: moonquakes seen as manageable; lack of biosphere and water table reduces meltdown consequences.
- Others stress maintenance burden and historical issues (e.g., Antarctic reactor); modern remote/robotic operation could help.
- Some favor solar at lunar peaks of eternal light over nuclear, at least initially.
Mars as Backup vs Earth-Based Resilience
- “Backup civilization on Mars” is widely challenged: a self‑sufficient Martian colony is seen as vastly harder than robust Earth bunkers or even an Antarctic colony.
- Counterpoint: redundancy on another world—even if initially fragile—is still better than a single‑planet species, especially for some low‑probability disasters.
Motivations, Economics, and Psychology
- Many doubt any near‑term economic case for Mars (or Venus) colonies; extraction and export to Earth look uneconomic.
- Others defend exploration for its own sake, technological spinoffs, and “because it’s there” human drive, while acknowledging high risk and likely long timelines.