Inhabiting Mars versus going straight for a Dyson swarmBuilding computer hardware on the Moon or MarsHow can...

How can an organ that provides biological immortality be unable to regenerate?

Inhabiting Mars versus going straight for a Dyson swarm

PTIJ What is the inyan of the Konami code in Uncle Moishy's song?

Why is indicated airspeed rather than ground speed used during the takeoff roll?

Violin - Can double stops be played when the strings are not next to each other?

Help prove this basic trig identity please!

Describing a chess game in a novel

Does the attack bonus from a Masterwork weapon stack with the attack bonus from Masterwork ammunition?

Geography in 3D perspective

Does .bashrc contain syntax errors?

Turning a hard to access nut?

What does "^L" mean in C?

What is the English word for a graduation award?

What does "mu" mean as an interjection?

Synchronized implementation of a bank account in Java

Do I need to consider instance restrictions when showing a language is in P?

Have the tides ever turned twice on any open problem?

How is the partial sum of a geometric sequence calculated?

Why is there so much iron?

Print last inputted byte

Worshiping one God at a time?

Print a physical multiplication table

Is there a creature that is resistant or immune to non-magical damage other than bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing?

Existence of a celestial body big enough for early civilization to be thought of as a second moon



Inhabiting Mars versus going straight for a Dyson swarm


Building computer hardware on the Moon or MarsHow can future Mars colonists combat intelligence loss?Can wind power run heavy weapon factories on Mars?Genetically modified foothill plants to terraform MarsMaking Mars more massiveVisibility of a Dyson ring/swarmLogical reasons for Forgoing a Dyson SwarmHow do I increase air pressure for the planet Mars?How Many Earth-Like Worlds Could Be Made Using Only Material From The Solar System?How would humans look after living many generations on a terraformed Mars?













2












$begingroup$


My question is as follows - let's assume our objective function is to have as many humans as possible living outside the confines of the Earth as soon as possible. For this, we need to provide those humans with some habitat outside Earth. One approach is to try and colonize other bodies in the solar system like Mars. Another is to build our own habitats, starting with the vicinity of Earth. Which of the two approaches will get us further in terms of the stated objective function if we start investing resources into one or the other now?





There is talk of inhabiting Mars and making life multi-planetary. I personally think the Moon is a better bet, but another approach is to simply start expanding the International Space Station so it can support more and more people. Then, we can simply build more of those. These large ships would start to collect more and more energy from the Sun, which is going towards a Dyson swarm. The question is, why even bother going to Mars and inhabiting it as opposed to just disassembling it for material when the time comes? Is it substantially easier to build a life-sustaining habitat on Mars than an independent spaceship?



The advantages Mars might have are that it has a lot of rock under which a human colony can get shelter from incoming radiation. Also, it has some gravity which we humans are accustomed to (though just a third of Earth).



The advantages of the space-station approach is that you can stay close to Earth. This is valuable in terms of being able to get supplies there much faster, help arrives quickly in case of emergencies, the close contact ensures much less psychological hardship for the inhabitants who can always go back to the planet for visits, do Skype calls with relatives, etc. You can also stay within the Van-Allen's belt so you don't need too much extra shielding, at least in the initial phases. Also, for intermediate economic motivation, this ever-expanding space station could start as being an exotic hotel for the wealthy.



So, if our goal is to have our species acquire a substantial footprint outside the Earth, should we invest our resources in going to Mars or the Moon and set up shop there or simply start expanding the space station to the point of a city and then rinse and repeat? To me, the latter option seems much more logical but am interested in alternate opinions.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    It's realy unclear what you're asking here, please re-read How to Ask and edit your question to make it clear. You don't seem to be asking about worldbuilding so much as present Earth's future, which is not on-topic here.
    $endgroup$
    – Agrajag
    5 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    If the ultimate objective is to have as many humans living outside the Earth as possible as soon as possible, is it more advantageous to spend resources trying to fly to Mars or the Moon and build a base there or in expanding the space station. That is the question.
    $endgroup$
    – Rohit Pandey
    5 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Advantageous to whom? Tell us about the world that you are building that requires this choice, what are the resources available, what are the limiting factors, what technology is available? At the moment your question is too broad and opinion based and would get closed. Could you please edit your question to narrow it down and ask the actual question, asking the question in comments doesn't guarantee anybody will read it.
    $endgroup$
    – Agrajag
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The objective function is to have as many humans living outside Earth and as soon as possible. That is assumed to be advantageous on its own to the entire species but I don't want to go into why. The technologies available are the ones we have available now. I don't see how I can narrow it further without changing the nature of it. Close it if you must.
    $endgroup$
    – Rohit Pandey
    4 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I think your question is clear enough. Perhaps it's the extra fluff that is causing some concern. I'd suggest paring down to the actual question.
    $endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    1 hour ago
















2












$begingroup$


My question is as follows - let's assume our objective function is to have as many humans as possible living outside the confines of the Earth as soon as possible. For this, we need to provide those humans with some habitat outside Earth. One approach is to try and colonize other bodies in the solar system like Mars. Another is to build our own habitats, starting with the vicinity of Earth. Which of the two approaches will get us further in terms of the stated objective function if we start investing resources into one or the other now?





There is talk of inhabiting Mars and making life multi-planetary. I personally think the Moon is a better bet, but another approach is to simply start expanding the International Space Station so it can support more and more people. Then, we can simply build more of those. These large ships would start to collect more and more energy from the Sun, which is going towards a Dyson swarm. The question is, why even bother going to Mars and inhabiting it as opposed to just disassembling it for material when the time comes? Is it substantially easier to build a life-sustaining habitat on Mars than an independent spaceship?



The advantages Mars might have are that it has a lot of rock under which a human colony can get shelter from incoming radiation. Also, it has some gravity which we humans are accustomed to (though just a third of Earth).



The advantages of the space-station approach is that you can stay close to Earth. This is valuable in terms of being able to get supplies there much faster, help arrives quickly in case of emergencies, the close contact ensures much less psychological hardship for the inhabitants who can always go back to the planet for visits, do Skype calls with relatives, etc. You can also stay within the Van-Allen's belt so you don't need too much extra shielding, at least in the initial phases. Also, for intermediate economic motivation, this ever-expanding space station could start as being an exotic hotel for the wealthy.



So, if our goal is to have our species acquire a substantial footprint outside the Earth, should we invest our resources in going to Mars or the Moon and set up shop there or simply start expanding the space station to the point of a city and then rinse and repeat? To me, the latter option seems much more logical but am interested in alternate opinions.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    It's realy unclear what you're asking here, please re-read How to Ask and edit your question to make it clear. You don't seem to be asking about worldbuilding so much as present Earth's future, which is not on-topic here.
    $endgroup$
    – Agrajag
    5 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    If the ultimate objective is to have as many humans living outside the Earth as possible as soon as possible, is it more advantageous to spend resources trying to fly to Mars or the Moon and build a base there or in expanding the space station. That is the question.
    $endgroup$
    – Rohit Pandey
    5 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Advantageous to whom? Tell us about the world that you are building that requires this choice, what are the resources available, what are the limiting factors, what technology is available? At the moment your question is too broad and opinion based and would get closed. Could you please edit your question to narrow it down and ask the actual question, asking the question in comments doesn't guarantee anybody will read it.
    $endgroup$
    – Agrajag
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The objective function is to have as many humans living outside Earth and as soon as possible. That is assumed to be advantageous on its own to the entire species but I don't want to go into why. The technologies available are the ones we have available now. I don't see how I can narrow it further without changing the nature of it. Close it if you must.
    $endgroup$
    – Rohit Pandey
    4 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I think your question is clear enough. Perhaps it's the extra fluff that is causing some concern. I'd suggest paring down to the actual question.
    $endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    1 hour ago














2












2








2





$begingroup$


My question is as follows - let's assume our objective function is to have as many humans as possible living outside the confines of the Earth as soon as possible. For this, we need to provide those humans with some habitat outside Earth. One approach is to try and colonize other bodies in the solar system like Mars. Another is to build our own habitats, starting with the vicinity of Earth. Which of the two approaches will get us further in terms of the stated objective function if we start investing resources into one or the other now?





There is talk of inhabiting Mars and making life multi-planetary. I personally think the Moon is a better bet, but another approach is to simply start expanding the International Space Station so it can support more and more people. Then, we can simply build more of those. These large ships would start to collect more and more energy from the Sun, which is going towards a Dyson swarm. The question is, why even bother going to Mars and inhabiting it as opposed to just disassembling it for material when the time comes? Is it substantially easier to build a life-sustaining habitat on Mars than an independent spaceship?



The advantages Mars might have are that it has a lot of rock under which a human colony can get shelter from incoming radiation. Also, it has some gravity which we humans are accustomed to (though just a third of Earth).



The advantages of the space-station approach is that you can stay close to Earth. This is valuable in terms of being able to get supplies there much faster, help arrives quickly in case of emergencies, the close contact ensures much less psychological hardship for the inhabitants who can always go back to the planet for visits, do Skype calls with relatives, etc. You can also stay within the Van-Allen's belt so you don't need too much extra shielding, at least in the initial phases. Also, for intermediate economic motivation, this ever-expanding space station could start as being an exotic hotel for the wealthy.



So, if our goal is to have our species acquire a substantial footprint outside the Earth, should we invest our resources in going to Mars or the Moon and set up shop there or simply start expanding the space station to the point of a city and then rinse and repeat? To me, the latter option seems much more logical but am interested in alternate opinions.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




My question is as follows - let's assume our objective function is to have as many humans as possible living outside the confines of the Earth as soon as possible. For this, we need to provide those humans with some habitat outside Earth. One approach is to try and colonize other bodies in the solar system like Mars. Another is to build our own habitats, starting with the vicinity of Earth. Which of the two approaches will get us further in terms of the stated objective function if we start investing resources into one or the other now?





There is talk of inhabiting Mars and making life multi-planetary. I personally think the Moon is a better bet, but another approach is to simply start expanding the International Space Station so it can support more and more people. Then, we can simply build more of those. These large ships would start to collect more and more energy from the Sun, which is going towards a Dyson swarm. The question is, why even bother going to Mars and inhabiting it as opposed to just disassembling it for material when the time comes? Is it substantially easier to build a life-sustaining habitat on Mars than an independent spaceship?



The advantages Mars might have are that it has a lot of rock under which a human colony can get shelter from incoming radiation. Also, it has some gravity which we humans are accustomed to (though just a third of Earth).



The advantages of the space-station approach is that you can stay close to Earth. This is valuable in terms of being able to get supplies there much faster, help arrives quickly in case of emergencies, the close contact ensures much less psychological hardship for the inhabitants who can always go back to the planet for visits, do Skype calls with relatives, etc. You can also stay within the Van-Allen's belt so you don't need too much extra shielding, at least in the initial phases. Also, for intermediate economic motivation, this ever-expanding space station could start as being an exotic hotel for the wealthy.



So, if our goal is to have our species acquire a substantial footprint outside the Earth, should we invest our resources in going to Mars or the Moon and set up shop there or simply start expanding the space station to the point of a city and then rinse and repeat? To me, the latter option seems much more logical but am interested in alternate opinions.







planets mars dyson-spheres






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 4 hours ago







Rohit Pandey

















asked 5 hours ago









Rohit PandeyRohit Pandey

1265




1265












  • $begingroup$
    It's realy unclear what you're asking here, please re-read How to Ask and edit your question to make it clear. You don't seem to be asking about worldbuilding so much as present Earth's future, which is not on-topic here.
    $endgroup$
    – Agrajag
    5 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    If the ultimate objective is to have as many humans living outside the Earth as possible as soon as possible, is it more advantageous to spend resources trying to fly to Mars or the Moon and build a base there or in expanding the space station. That is the question.
    $endgroup$
    – Rohit Pandey
    5 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Advantageous to whom? Tell us about the world that you are building that requires this choice, what are the resources available, what are the limiting factors, what technology is available? At the moment your question is too broad and opinion based and would get closed. Could you please edit your question to narrow it down and ask the actual question, asking the question in comments doesn't guarantee anybody will read it.
    $endgroup$
    – Agrajag
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The objective function is to have as many humans living outside Earth and as soon as possible. That is assumed to be advantageous on its own to the entire species but I don't want to go into why. The technologies available are the ones we have available now. I don't see how I can narrow it further without changing the nature of it. Close it if you must.
    $endgroup$
    – Rohit Pandey
    4 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I think your question is clear enough. Perhaps it's the extra fluff that is causing some concern. I'd suggest paring down to the actual question.
    $endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    1 hour ago


















  • $begingroup$
    It's realy unclear what you're asking here, please re-read How to Ask and edit your question to make it clear. You don't seem to be asking about worldbuilding so much as present Earth's future, which is not on-topic here.
    $endgroup$
    – Agrajag
    5 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    If the ultimate objective is to have as many humans living outside the Earth as possible as soon as possible, is it more advantageous to spend resources trying to fly to Mars or the Moon and build a base there or in expanding the space station. That is the question.
    $endgroup$
    – Rohit Pandey
    5 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Advantageous to whom? Tell us about the world that you are building that requires this choice, what are the resources available, what are the limiting factors, what technology is available? At the moment your question is too broad and opinion based and would get closed. Could you please edit your question to narrow it down and ask the actual question, asking the question in comments doesn't guarantee anybody will read it.
    $endgroup$
    – Agrajag
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The objective function is to have as many humans living outside Earth and as soon as possible. That is assumed to be advantageous on its own to the entire species but I don't want to go into why. The technologies available are the ones we have available now. I don't see how I can narrow it further without changing the nature of it. Close it if you must.
    $endgroup$
    – Rohit Pandey
    4 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I think your question is clear enough. Perhaps it's the extra fluff that is causing some concern. I'd suggest paring down to the actual question.
    $endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    1 hour ago
















$begingroup$
It's realy unclear what you're asking here, please re-read How to Ask and edit your question to make it clear. You don't seem to be asking about worldbuilding so much as present Earth's future, which is not on-topic here.
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
5 hours ago






$begingroup$
It's realy unclear what you're asking here, please re-read How to Ask and edit your question to make it clear. You don't seem to be asking about worldbuilding so much as present Earth's future, which is not on-topic here.
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
5 hours ago














$begingroup$
If the ultimate objective is to have as many humans living outside the Earth as possible as soon as possible, is it more advantageous to spend resources trying to fly to Mars or the Moon and build a base there or in expanding the space station. That is the question.
$endgroup$
– Rohit Pandey
5 hours ago






$begingroup$
If the ultimate objective is to have as many humans living outside the Earth as possible as soon as possible, is it more advantageous to spend resources trying to fly to Mars or the Moon and build a base there or in expanding the space station. That is the question.
$endgroup$
– Rohit Pandey
5 hours ago






1




1




$begingroup$
Advantageous to whom? Tell us about the world that you are building that requires this choice, what are the resources available, what are the limiting factors, what technology is available? At the moment your question is too broad and opinion based and would get closed. Could you please edit your question to narrow it down and ask the actual question, asking the question in comments doesn't guarantee anybody will read it.
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
Advantageous to whom? Tell us about the world that you are building that requires this choice, what are the resources available, what are the limiting factors, what technology is available? At the moment your question is too broad and opinion based and would get closed. Could you please edit your question to narrow it down and ask the actual question, asking the question in comments doesn't guarantee anybody will read it.
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
5 hours ago












$begingroup$
The objective function is to have as many humans living outside Earth and as soon as possible. That is assumed to be advantageous on its own to the entire species but I don't want to go into why. The technologies available are the ones we have available now. I don't see how I can narrow it further without changing the nature of it. Close it if you must.
$endgroup$
– Rohit Pandey
4 hours ago






$begingroup$
The objective function is to have as many humans living outside Earth and as soon as possible. That is assumed to be advantageous on its own to the entire species but I don't want to go into why. The technologies available are the ones we have available now. I don't see how I can narrow it further without changing the nature of it. Close it if you must.
$endgroup$
– Rohit Pandey
4 hours ago






2




2




$begingroup$
I think your question is clear enough. Perhaps it's the extra fluff that is causing some concern. I'd suggest paring down to the actual question.
$endgroup$
– elemtilas
1 hour ago




$begingroup$
I think your question is clear enough. Perhaps it's the extra fluff that is causing some concern. I'd suggest paring down to the actual question.
$endgroup$
– elemtilas
1 hour ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















5












$begingroup$

Mars is the better bet



There's a reason why building habitats on Mars makes more sense, and many of them are covered in the Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. The simplest and most plausible reason though is that Mars is already a 'spaceship' in a stable orbit around the sun, so all you have to do is populate it with the people and resources you need. You don't need to design spinning habitats, then build them while depleting the Earth's resources to do so. In theory at least, Mars is likely to have some mineral wealth that can be exploited once we're there and there seems to be some compelling evidence that it also has a water (or ice) table that can be exploited as well; for drinking, fuel and oxygen.



Whether or not Mars could be terraformed in the same manner as described in the trilogy above without massive investment from Earth is a question for which I don't have an immediate answer but if it can, then it's going to beat out habitats every time simply by virtue of the scale. You may be able to put thousands on a habitat, but Mars could (potentially) hold up to a billion. That is likely the upper bound I grant you, but the simple reality is that in terms of scaleability Mars will beat habitats every time.



If you're looking for the greatest possible numbers off the earth in the shortest possible time, and you've got unlimited resources to do it, then Mars is a bit like a steam engine car racing a petrol engine car; if you're measuring shortest possible time in terms of years, or even decades, then go with the habitats because Mars simply can't scale up that fast. But, if you're measuring shortest possible time on a scale of centuries, then go to Mars straight off the bat. It'll take longer to ramp up, but once you get it going you'll simply be able to house more people faster because building a habitat on the surface of Mars is going to be MUCH simpler than building one on Earth, launching it into orbit and assembling it, then filling it with air and populating it.



Also, there's a chance that Mars might eventually be able to build habitats out of materials sourced from Mars, whereas that will never happen in orbit. That means that your efficiency goes through the roof.



A quick comment on the Moon; pretty much everything that I've just said about Mars could also apply to the moon, except that it's unlikely to have water reserves. Also, we don't know a lot about mineral wealth housed on the Moon, although He3 has to be a great energy source if we can use it in fusion generators. The moon would also have the advantage of being closer, and the lower gravity well by comparison to Mars also means that if the moon ever has anything to export, it's going to be able to do so at a much cheaper rate than Mars can.



All that said, if people have to be off the Earth, whatever is going to cause them harm there, if it's astronomical in nature (say the sun, or an asteroid) is just as likely to cause issues for the Moon as well. Also, no water would mean that lots of it would have to be shipped up (at great cost) with potential colonists, and being smaller means that the upper bound of colonists is much smaller than what might be possible on Mars.



But again if you're not staying there for the long haul (no pun intended) and you're only interested in numbers over a short period, it might be a viable option, especially with the aforementioned unlimited resources to do it.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    +1, I think you covered everything I wanted to say on this. Impressive really. I'd accuse you of reading my mind but you answered before I even read the question.
    $endgroup$
    – Ville Niemi
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @VilleNiemi thank you - I consider that high praise.
    $endgroup$
    – Tim B II
    2 mins ago











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f141716%2finhabiting-mars-versus-going-straight-for-a-dyson-swarm%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









5












$begingroup$

Mars is the better bet



There's a reason why building habitats on Mars makes more sense, and many of them are covered in the Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. The simplest and most plausible reason though is that Mars is already a 'spaceship' in a stable orbit around the sun, so all you have to do is populate it with the people and resources you need. You don't need to design spinning habitats, then build them while depleting the Earth's resources to do so. In theory at least, Mars is likely to have some mineral wealth that can be exploited once we're there and there seems to be some compelling evidence that it also has a water (or ice) table that can be exploited as well; for drinking, fuel and oxygen.



Whether or not Mars could be terraformed in the same manner as described in the trilogy above without massive investment from Earth is a question for which I don't have an immediate answer but if it can, then it's going to beat out habitats every time simply by virtue of the scale. You may be able to put thousands on a habitat, but Mars could (potentially) hold up to a billion. That is likely the upper bound I grant you, but the simple reality is that in terms of scaleability Mars will beat habitats every time.



If you're looking for the greatest possible numbers off the earth in the shortest possible time, and you've got unlimited resources to do it, then Mars is a bit like a steam engine car racing a petrol engine car; if you're measuring shortest possible time in terms of years, or even decades, then go with the habitats because Mars simply can't scale up that fast. But, if you're measuring shortest possible time on a scale of centuries, then go to Mars straight off the bat. It'll take longer to ramp up, but once you get it going you'll simply be able to house more people faster because building a habitat on the surface of Mars is going to be MUCH simpler than building one on Earth, launching it into orbit and assembling it, then filling it with air and populating it.



Also, there's a chance that Mars might eventually be able to build habitats out of materials sourced from Mars, whereas that will never happen in orbit. That means that your efficiency goes through the roof.



A quick comment on the Moon; pretty much everything that I've just said about Mars could also apply to the moon, except that it's unlikely to have water reserves. Also, we don't know a lot about mineral wealth housed on the Moon, although He3 has to be a great energy source if we can use it in fusion generators. The moon would also have the advantage of being closer, and the lower gravity well by comparison to Mars also means that if the moon ever has anything to export, it's going to be able to do so at a much cheaper rate than Mars can.



All that said, if people have to be off the Earth, whatever is going to cause them harm there, if it's astronomical in nature (say the sun, or an asteroid) is just as likely to cause issues for the Moon as well. Also, no water would mean that lots of it would have to be shipped up (at great cost) with potential colonists, and being smaller means that the upper bound of colonists is much smaller than what might be possible on Mars.



But again if you're not staying there for the long haul (no pun intended) and you're only interested in numbers over a short period, it might be a viable option, especially with the aforementioned unlimited resources to do it.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    +1, I think you covered everything I wanted to say on this. Impressive really. I'd accuse you of reading my mind but you answered before I even read the question.
    $endgroup$
    – Ville Niemi
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @VilleNiemi thank you - I consider that high praise.
    $endgroup$
    – Tim B II
    2 mins ago
















5












$begingroup$

Mars is the better bet



There's a reason why building habitats on Mars makes more sense, and many of them are covered in the Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. The simplest and most plausible reason though is that Mars is already a 'spaceship' in a stable orbit around the sun, so all you have to do is populate it with the people and resources you need. You don't need to design spinning habitats, then build them while depleting the Earth's resources to do so. In theory at least, Mars is likely to have some mineral wealth that can be exploited once we're there and there seems to be some compelling evidence that it also has a water (or ice) table that can be exploited as well; for drinking, fuel and oxygen.



Whether or not Mars could be terraformed in the same manner as described in the trilogy above without massive investment from Earth is a question for which I don't have an immediate answer but if it can, then it's going to beat out habitats every time simply by virtue of the scale. You may be able to put thousands on a habitat, but Mars could (potentially) hold up to a billion. That is likely the upper bound I grant you, but the simple reality is that in terms of scaleability Mars will beat habitats every time.



If you're looking for the greatest possible numbers off the earth in the shortest possible time, and you've got unlimited resources to do it, then Mars is a bit like a steam engine car racing a petrol engine car; if you're measuring shortest possible time in terms of years, or even decades, then go with the habitats because Mars simply can't scale up that fast. But, if you're measuring shortest possible time on a scale of centuries, then go to Mars straight off the bat. It'll take longer to ramp up, but once you get it going you'll simply be able to house more people faster because building a habitat on the surface of Mars is going to be MUCH simpler than building one on Earth, launching it into orbit and assembling it, then filling it with air and populating it.



Also, there's a chance that Mars might eventually be able to build habitats out of materials sourced from Mars, whereas that will never happen in orbit. That means that your efficiency goes through the roof.



A quick comment on the Moon; pretty much everything that I've just said about Mars could also apply to the moon, except that it's unlikely to have water reserves. Also, we don't know a lot about mineral wealth housed on the Moon, although He3 has to be a great energy source if we can use it in fusion generators. The moon would also have the advantage of being closer, and the lower gravity well by comparison to Mars also means that if the moon ever has anything to export, it's going to be able to do so at a much cheaper rate than Mars can.



All that said, if people have to be off the Earth, whatever is going to cause them harm there, if it's astronomical in nature (say the sun, or an asteroid) is just as likely to cause issues for the Moon as well. Also, no water would mean that lots of it would have to be shipped up (at great cost) with potential colonists, and being smaller means that the upper bound of colonists is much smaller than what might be possible on Mars.



But again if you're not staying there for the long haul (no pun intended) and you're only interested in numbers over a short period, it might be a viable option, especially with the aforementioned unlimited resources to do it.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    +1, I think you covered everything I wanted to say on this. Impressive really. I'd accuse you of reading my mind but you answered before I even read the question.
    $endgroup$
    – Ville Niemi
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @VilleNiemi thank you - I consider that high praise.
    $endgroup$
    – Tim B II
    2 mins ago














5












5








5





$begingroup$

Mars is the better bet



There's a reason why building habitats on Mars makes more sense, and many of them are covered in the Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. The simplest and most plausible reason though is that Mars is already a 'spaceship' in a stable orbit around the sun, so all you have to do is populate it with the people and resources you need. You don't need to design spinning habitats, then build them while depleting the Earth's resources to do so. In theory at least, Mars is likely to have some mineral wealth that can be exploited once we're there and there seems to be some compelling evidence that it also has a water (or ice) table that can be exploited as well; for drinking, fuel and oxygen.



Whether or not Mars could be terraformed in the same manner as described in the trilogy above without massive investment from Earth is a question for which I don't have an immediate answer but if it can, then it's going to beat out habitats every time simply by virtue of the scale. You may be able to put thousands on a habitat, but Mars could (potentially) hold up to a billion. That is likely the upper bound I grant you, but the simple reality is that in terms of scaleability Mars will beat habitats every time.



If you're looking for the greatest possible numbers off the earth in the shortest possible time, and you've got unlimited resources to do it, then Mars is a bit like a steam engine car racing a petrol engine car; if you're measuring shortest possible time in terms of years, or even decades, then go with the habitats because Mars simply can't scale up that fast. But, if you're measuring shortest possible time on a scale of centuries, then go to Mars straight off the bat. It'll take longer to ramp up, but once you get it going you'll simply be able to house more people faster because building a habitat on the surface of Mars is going to be MUCH simpler than building one on Earth, launching it into orbit and assembling it, then filling it with air and populating it.



Also, there's a chance that Mars might eventually be able to build habitats out of materials sourced from Mars, whereas that will never happen in orbit. That means that your efficiency goes through the roof.



A quick comment on the Moon; pretty much everything that I've just said about Mars could also apply to the moon, except that it's unlikely to have water reserves. Also, we don't know a lot about mineral wealth housed on the Moon, although He3 has to be a great energy source if we can use it in fusion generators. The moon would also have the advantage of being closer, and the lower gravity well by comparison to Mars also means that if the moon ever has anything to export, it's going to be able to do so at a much cheaper rate than Mars can.



All that said, if people have to be off the Earth, whatever is going to cause them harm there, if it's astronomical in nature (say the sun, or an asteroid) is just as likely to cause issues for the Moon as well. Also, no water would mean that lots of it would have to be shipped up (at great cost) with potential colonists, and being smaller means that the upper bound of colonists is much smaller than what might be possible on Mars.



But again if you're not staying there for the long haul (no pun intended) and you're only interested in numbers over a short period, it might be a viable option, especially with the aforementioned unlimited resources to do it.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Mars is the better bet



There's a reason why building habitats on Mars makes more sense, and many of them are covered in the Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. The simplest and most plausible reason though is that Mars is already a 'spaceship' in a stable orbit around the sun, so all you have to do is populate it with the people and resources you need. You don't need to design spinning habitats, then build them while depleting the Earth's resources to do so. In theory at least, Mars is likely to have some mineral wealth that can be exploited once we're there and there seems to be some compelling evidence that it also has a water (or ice) table that can be exploited as well; for drinking, fuel and oxygen.



Whether or not Mars could be terraformed in the same manner as described in the trilogy above without massive investment from Earth is a question for which I don't have an immediate answer but if it can, then it's going to beat out habitats every time simply by virtue of the scale. You may be able to put thousands on a habitat, but Mars could (potentially) hold up to a billion. That is likely the upper bound I grant you, but the simple reality is that in terms of scaleability Mars will beat habitats every time.



If you're looking for the greatest possible numbers off the earth in the shortest possible time, and you've got unlimited resources to do it, then Mars is a bit like a steam engine car racing a petrol engine car; if you're measuring shortest possible time in terms of years, or even decades, then go with the habitats because Mars simply can't scale up that fast. But, if you're measuring shortest possible time on a scale of centuries, then go to Mars straight off the bat. It'll take longer to ramp up, but once you get it going you'll simply be able to house more people faster because building a habitat on the surface of Mars is going to be MUCH simpler than building one on Earth, launching it into orbit and assembling it, then filling it with air and populating it.



Also, there's a chance that Mars might eventually be able to build habitats out of materials sourced from Mars, whereas that will never happen in orbit. That means that your efficiency goes through the roof.



A quick comment on the Moon; pretty much everything that I've just said about Mars could also apply to the moon, except that it's unlikely to have water reserves. Also, we don't know a lot about mineral wealth housed on the Moon, although He3 has to be a great energy source if we can use it in fusion generators. The moon would also have the advantage of being closer, and the lower gravity well by comparison to Mars also means that if the moon ever has anything to export, it's going to be able to do so at a much cheaper rate than Mars can.



All that said, if people have to be off the Earth, whatever is going to cause them harm there, if it's astronomical in nature (say the sun, or an asteroid) is just as likely to cause issues for the Moon as well. Also, no water would mean that lots of it would have to be shipped up (at great cost) with potential colonists, and being smaller means that the upper bound of colonists is much smaller than what might be possible on Mars.



But again if you're not staying there for the long haul (no pun intended) and you're only interested in numbers over a short period, it might be a viable option, especially with the aforementioned unlimited resources to do it.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 4 hours ago









Tim B IITim B II

31.2k668125




31.2k668125








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    +1, I think you covered everything I wanted to say on this. Impressive really. I'd accuse you of reading my mind but you answered before I even read the question.
    $endgroup$
    – Ville Niemi
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @VilleNiemi thank you - I consider that high praise.
    $endgroup$
    – Tim B II
    2 mins ago














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    +1, I think you covered everything I wanted to say on this. Impressive really. I'd accuse you of reading my mind but you answered before I even read the question.
    $endgroup$
    – Ville Niemi
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @VilleNiemi thank you - I consider that high praise.
    $endgroup$
    – Tim B II
    2 mins ago








1




1




$begingroup$
+1, I think you covered everything I wanted to say on this. Impressive really. I'd accuse you of reading my mind but you answered before I even read the question.
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
+1, I think you covered everything I wanted to say on this. Impressive really. I'd accuse you of reading my mind but you answered before I even read the question.
$endgroup$
– Ville Niemi
3 hours ago












$begingroup$
@VilleNiemi thank you - I consider that high praise.
$endgroup$
– Tim B II
2 mins ago




$begingroup$
@VilleNiemi thank you - I consider that high praise.
$endgroup$
– Tim B II
2 mins ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f141716%2finhabiting-mars-versus-going-straight-for-a-dyson-swarm%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

VNC viewer RFB protocol error: bad desktop size 0x0I Cannot Type the Key 'd' (lowercase) in VNC Viewer...

Couldn't open a raw socket. Error: Permission denied (13) (nmap)Is it possible to run networking commands...

Why not use the yoke to control yaw, as well as pitch and roll? Announcing the arrival of...