Two thoughts on this topic:<p>1. The film <i>Gattaca</i> (1997), in addition to being an excellent, inspiring film all around, centers on an aspiring astronaut's upcoming trip to Titan. Highly recommended.<p>- <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZa83dTf4JA" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZa83dTf4JA</a><p>2. The colonization of Venus is also a fascinating idea that isn't talked about much in comparison to the Moon or Mars. Essentially, the surface is too hot for colonization, but it may be possible to build floating cities ±31 miles above the surface.<p>- <i>Venus's atmosphere is made mostly out of carbon dioxide. Because nitrogen and oxygen are lighter than carbon-dioxide, breathable-air-filled balloons will float at a height of about 50 km (31 mi). At this height, the temperature is a manageable 75 °C (348 K; 167 °F); or 27 °C (300 K; 81 °F) if we could get 5 km (3.1 mi) higher</i><p>- <i>The atmosphere also provides the various elements required for human life and agriculture: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur.</i><p>- <i>Additionally, the upper atmosphere could provide protection from harmful solar radiation comparable to the protection provided by Earth's atmosphere. The Atmosphere of Mars, as well as the Moon provide little such protection.</i><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus</a>
Everyone in the comments here debating the merits of Mars vs the Moon vs Titan seems to have missed the whole point of this article. The author is arguing that anywhere <i>other</i> than Titan is infeasible due to recent research suggesting that Galactic Cosmic Rays cause significant brain damage (not just increased risk of cancer). In fact, the article argues that the danger is so severe that even getting to Titan quickly enough to mitigate the risk of brain damage during the trip will be a major challenge.<p>If true, this complicates things significantly. Does anyone know if the dangers of Galactic Cosmic Rays are really as significant as the author is claiming? The author references the 2016 paper "Cosmic radiation exposure and persistent cognitive dysfunction"[1] which was a study conducted on mice. Has there been any further research into the possible effects of cosmic radiation exposure on humans?<p>[1]: <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/srep34774" rel="nofollow">https://www.nature.com/articles/srep34774</a>
The dangers of radiation on Mars are greatly exaggerated. The dangers of low gravity on Titan and elsewhere are greatly understated, as is the immense distance between Mars and Titan.<p>A floating habitat on Venus is harder and less attractive in every way than a rotating space station, which is clearly our next milestone in space. In terms of planets though, there's a reason Mars gets the most attention: it's obviously the best choice.
The whole idea of colonizing other parts of the solar system just seems like a fool’s errand to me. Colonizing Antarctica or even the bottom of the oceans seems like a <i>more</i> practical endeavor to me.<p>As uninhabitable as Antarctica is, just think about the advantages it has over a place like Mars or Titan: a breathable Earth pressure atmosphere, 1G gravity, abundant water, not outrageously extreme temperatures, low radiation levels, close to civilization, etc.<p>Probably most importantly, you don’t have to escape Earth’s gravitational pull to get there. In fact, you can use one of humankind’s earliest inventions—a boat.<p>If we were really afraid of an extinction level event such as a nuclear war or extreme climate change, humanity could survive by doing the same sorts of things here that we would have to do on Mars—building large underground habitats. <i>Except</i>, we could survive in much larger numbers since it would be so so so much cheaper to build those habitats here.
Let’s colonize Mercury. It’s not actually hot at the poles - it’s shaded enough from the consistent low angle to the sun that there’s even water ice. And the planet is full of useful metals (more than earth), and as much solar energy as you can handle. The article dismisses Mercury out of hand as “too hot” but I think it’s our best bet.
<a href="https://www.universetoday.com/130109/how-do-we-colonize-mercury/" rel="nofollow">https://www.universetoday.com/130109/how-do-we-colonize-merc...</a>
Hmm. I have always considered low-gravity to be quite a big issue for any planetary colonization. Unless some cure is invented like a genetic mutation, it would seem that there is no way of coming back to Earth after spending a lifetime in eg 0.2 G.<p>This in mind I have always thought that Venus would make the best candidate in the solar system. With 0.9 G it would be as close as we could possible get to Earth yet however I have to admit, having no magnetosphere would be a giant pain in the ass. But since Venus already has a thick atmosphere, it would seem that after the required amount of gas has been removed, it would stay stable whereas in Mars you'd constantly have to offset the escaping gas. Possibly though that would not be an issue, since we are pretty great at the green-house gas generation.<p>But yeah, Mars would definitely be the easiest to terraform. But you wouldn't come back to Earth from there. And you'd mostly spend your life in bunkers underground to avoid getting beamed to death by the solar wind, same as with Venus. Unless we some day find a way to achieve immunity against it.
I'd tend to Jupiter's outer big moon, Callisto, as a good place to live. The surface is a vacuum, sure, but it's got surface ice which probably has liquid water underneath making it (and Ganymede and Europa for the same reason, and Venus 50 km up, and Earth) one of the few places in the solar system you could theoretically go outside with just a breather and no space suit. Plus it's got protection from charged particles via Jupiter's magnetic field without suffering from Jupiter's own radiation. And you've got both volatiles <i>and</i> minerals accessible on the surface which strikes me as really nice.
Colonize the moon first:<p>1. plenty of solar power<p>2. close to earth<p>3. easy to launch out of its gravity well<p>4. lunar base technology can be iterated far more rapidly
> It’s cold on Titan, at -180°C (-291°F), but thanks to its thick atmosphere, residents wouldn’t need pressure suits—just warm clothing and respirators.<p>I'm no space colony expert but am I missing something here? -180°C sounds like constant space suit level, not "just warm clothing".
If you can you should check out the TV series Avenue 5. It’s a sci-fi comedy and whoever they hired to do their science is really knocking it out the park. Some of the true science I’ve seen in the shown: the ship is massive enough to have its own gravity. Objects that get lost in space don’t float away. They orbit the ship. They use passenger effluent as a cosmic radiation shield. And due to an anomaly they don’t get flung off into space. Their orbit gets wider so instead of a year trip it’s now 5.<p>Oh and the real engineers work in the basement of the ship. The bridge crew are actors.
Am I missing something here?<p>"On the surface, vast quantities of hydrocarbons in solid and liquid form lie <i>ready to be used for energy.</i> Although the atmosphere lacks oxygen, water ice just below the surface could be used to provide oxygen for breathing and <i>to combust hydrocarbons as fuel.</i>" [my emphasis.]<p>They are proposing splitting water to get oxygen for burning hydrocarbons to produce energy - but splitting water itself takes a lot of energy, and low-entropy energy at that. Could this process possibly result in a net increase in useful energy?
Let's colonize LEO. You get radiation protection from earth's magnetosphere. You get zero G for funsies. You get a new perspective on earth and interesting new kinds of manufacturing. It's not too far away, so you can get there and back in a day. It's far enough in space that you need to improve your closed cycle systems. You might survive a number of different cataclysms. It seems like a good stepping stone.
The article argues that on Mars we'd have to live underground which requires a lot of construction of tunnels and excavation. It does not appear to take into consideration the huge lava tubes that are present on Mars (and even bigger on the Moon). These are estimated to be dozens of kilometers long and hundreds of meters wide. They could be very attractive for human colonies.<p>On the other hand on Triton, even if you live at the surface, the Sun will be very weak. The main advantage of not living underground will be less resources to create a habitat.<p>I consider sufficient natural sunlight to be important for human wellbeing.
Not a single comment calling out this article's complete lack of scientific references, including the "iron smashing our brains at relativistic velocities" quote?<p>I think it's great to consider other planets we can colonize, and indeed a thick atmosphere has a lot of benefits, but it's hardly rational to state Mars has "a deal-breaking problem" without providing any hard evidence to back up this claim.
This reminds me of Wanderers, by Erik Wernquist.
<a href="https://vimeo.com/108650530" rel="nofollow">https://vimeo.com/108650530</a><p>There's a scene at the end when one of our future generation looks at the surface of Saturn while standing on a station floating atop a Saturnian moon.<p>Very motivational.<p>Other videos by Erik Wernquist are motivational too:
New Horizons: <a href="https://vimeo.com/132183032" rel="nofollow">https://vimeo.com/132183032</a>
Serious question, since this is out of my swim lane. The Author keeps talking about the effects of Galactic Cosmic Rays, do we have any usable materials we can build habitats out of that can block them? I mean usable in the sense we can produce in scale and they are non toxic to humans.
Let's first <i>ensure</i> we do all possible things as a species and a collection of communities to restabilise Earth and give ourselves a 99.5% chance of healthful survival for the next 200 years, which is probably the reasonable timeline until we can establish more or less independent non-Earth habitats that can survive without Earth indefinitely.<p>This is like expressing the wish of wanting to run while simultaneously ignoring the fact that your hands are uncontrollably stabbing your legs with safety pins.
Let's start with a self-sustainable colony at the South Pole. Or, for that matter, a self-sustainable colony in Death Valley.<p>"But even if we could, why would anyone want to?" you might ask...<p>And that's the point.<p>Nobody would want to as there is no economic reason to be there.<p>My two cents: we'll never colonize a moon or planet. There are, on the other hand, some economic perks to manufacturing in zero-g. Consequently, I'd put my money in massive orbiting space stations.
terraform venus. it's much closer, has a nice .9g and maybe a viable long-term project<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Venus" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Venus</a>
There has been a few people I've read about proposing a solution to this on Mars. Mars is absolutely chock full of these "lava tubes" caused by old long dormant volcanos. If those could be sealed, they could be used for humans to live in effectively shielded from this sort of thing. Sure it would be difficult, but so would everything on mars. The great thing is that there are lots of these lava tubes that could potentially be inhabited.<p><a href="https://phys.org/news/2017-09-lava-tubes-hidden-sites-future.html" rel="nofollow">https://phys.org/news/2017-09-lava-tubes-hidden-sites-future...</a><p><a href="https://www.inverse.com/article/36777-mars-moon-human-colony-lava-tubes" rel="nofollow">https://www.inverse.com/article/36777-mars-moon-human-colony...</a>
What’s more likely in the next 5000 years that we colonize Mars or that we scan the human brain and move it to software so that it doesn’t need a specialized atmosphere to persist?
I am pretty sure the Martian congressional republic is not going to stop colonizing just Mars. They’ll have every incentive to push further, faster :-)
> The weak gravity—similar to the Moon’s—combined with the thick atmosphere would allow individuals to aviate with wings on their backs.<p>Sign me up.
Both Mars and Titan currently lack an economical reason to try and live there.<p>As long as it's just about the science or bragging rights, it will be completely paid for from earth's resources, instead of building on its own.<p>Any idea what tangible "export products" could make a Mars colony sustainable? I don't think space tourism is enough.
Technically, much of the spaces needed for food production or other industries on mars don't need to be underground to protect Humans from radiation. Plants and machines can tolerate it much better, and a Mars colony can't sustain itself without levels of automation that look ridiculous to our present day.
I thought Elon Musk wanted to terraform the poles of Mars to make it more habitable. He even has promised t-shirts that say Nuke Mars.<p><a href="https://www.space.com/elon-musk-nuke-mars-terraforming.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.space.com/elon-musk-nuke-mars-terraforming.html</a>
It looks a better bet to colonize Mars with genetically modified humans to sustain radiation. If such technology is not available at the time, having DNA correcting machines to give birth to sane humans is probably going to be a solved problem by then. Even though adults will suffers from the radiations.
This article projects too linearly to the future: terraforming Mars, for instance, would probably be easier right now than getting people to Titan quickly. Seems like an article written for the purpose of getting clicks by being contrarian, not seriously investigating the science
OMG! It's full of fumes! All the times!<p>That is all i could think about when reading about the hydrocarbons. Imagine having to live in the all permeating STINK of a gas station, or worse (petro)chemical factory.<p>/me shudders
Nitpicking, but ... If one says :<p>>> We reached this conclusion after looking at the planets in a new way: ecologically<p>then, why can he say :<p>>> Housing could be made of plastic produced from the unlimited resources harvested<p>Ecology is also about realizing that resources are limited.
I think it’s a better idea to just build a rotating space habitat.<p>Harvest the metals from the moon, and build a mass driver to launch it into Earth orbit, where it’ll get assembled into the space habitat. Then spin it to get 1g.
How does this Methane develop on Titan vs. other hydrocarbons (Ethane, Propane) etc. ?<p>Could we not bomb Titan with some sort of water catalyser and burn up a large amount of Methane?<p>Certainly would be good as a fuel source.
It all seems like a huge waste of resources and effort to me. Personally, I would rather see all that money/resources going into developing some kind of FTLT. There are planets out there, way out there, which are much more suitable for life. Even without FTLT even if it takes us 2 generations to get there.
It’s “Scientific” American yet they quote negative 300 degrees Fahrenheit. Use kelvin for low temperatures or, if you have to, at least degrees Celsius. For the benefit of the reader -300 F is 89 kelvin or -184 Celsius which is about 10 degrees c above liquid nitrogen’s boiling point.
Great idea. We should use Titan to build a bunch of insane asylums there. And then perhaps we can neglect the insane asylums, the patients can escape and start their own societies based on the type of disease they have.
The page is "temporarily unavailable" for me.<p>To help in your fight against paywalled and temporarilty unavailable pages, here's this (officially recommended) Firefox extension that looks up the current page in one of 18 web archives:<p><a href="https://github.com/dessant/web-archives" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/dessant/web-archives</a>
It is deeply disturbing to see a lot of effort put into colonizing another planet, while rampant pollution increases at Planet Earth. While science advances, at what opportunity cost?<p>It Remains to be Seen if we have Spoiled the Nest. <--
What exactly is the problem that colonizing another planet or moon is trying to solve? This seems like a solution without a problem. And if that problem is that the earth becomes uninhabitable, what kind of moron thinks we can colonize a planet or moon when we can't even keep ourselves alive on earth?
As a doctrine, colonization hasn't worked too well for humanity. It assumes an ethnocentric view where the colonizer has the right to take or use resources that they believe they "discovered". Just because there aren't any humans there, doesn't mean it doesn't already belong to someone. And just because we are able to take over a moon, doesn't mean we have the right to.<p>Instead of colonizing, we should be talking about zero impact exploration where we leave things exactly as they were before we arrived. Then focus on using what we learn to fix and protect our own planet.