upvote
Another interesting one is Mercury. There is a latitude where the average ground temperature is comfortable for us. You simply need to dig in deep enough to put enough thermal mass above you to get that average rather than the swings. I don't know how deep that is on Mercury, on Earth 10 meters is enough. Real world, you'll want to go a bit farther towards the pole so your station is comfortable with the thermal load of whatever equipment you put in it.
reply
the swings?
reply
Assuming they mean the ground acts as a heat sink, and sufficiently underground you’re not subjected to the above average heat of the day and below average cold of the night.
reply
Isn't mercury tidally locked? Day is always day, night is always night.
reply
deleted
reply
Without massive terraforming all of Mars is very hostile.

But having solid ground is still nice.

A workable compromise is making big habitats in a dome, that gives sunlight, but shields from radiation. And the ground needs to be processed obviously.

The advantage of Venus to me is is gravity.

reply
Gravity kind of cuts both ways. Closer to that of Earth is nearly guaranteed to be better for long term human health, but there's a possibility that martian gravity is "good enough" when supplemented with excercise while also making heavy operations and getting back out of the planet's gravity well easier.
reply
I wonder if it will turn out to be easier to adapt lifeforms to the planets than to try to adapt the planets to the lifeforms.
reply
Neither is realistic; living on the Moon or Mars or any other planet is a fantasy.
reply
Both probably, but you cannot really adapt life to no water and hard radiation. (at most sustain it in stasis, but not growing)
reply
Venus seems like a wonderful place to live, relatively speaking.

At the right altitude where you can "float" on the ocean, it's a pretty comfortable temperature and there's plenty of solar energy but you're shielded from the solar radiation. So, long term, your body will still work, assuming you can solve "the other problems."

Of course, the down-side is that there's nothing to stand on and probably more importantly, there aren't many useful materials to work with besides tons of carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. Not much hydrogen there, so not much water, which probably is the biggest problem. One of them, anyhow. Also, there's probably not a whole lot to do besides float (zoom, actually) around and slowly go stir crazy in your bubble.

But relatively speaking, it's way nicer than living in a hole on mars where you'll slowly die from gravity sickness, or radiation poisoning, or whatever.

reply
> Not much hydrogen there, so not much water, which probably is the biggest problem.

Actually, the cloud layer at that level is mostly sulfuric acid, from which you can get your water. It also means you need to be in a hazmat suit when you walk outside, but that's still a step up from everywhere else, where you need a bulky pressure suit instead.

reply
If we terraform mars, isn't the dirt still toxic?
reply
No, as terraforming means changing that.

Whether it is really possible, is a different question, but after you have an atmosphere, you could have engineered microorganism processing the soil etc.

reply
Just exposing the Martian soil to water for some time is enough to destroy the perchlorates.

(Turns out there's a region in Antarctic with them too, so we can always test things there.)

reply
In that sense then the term "terraforming" is on equal footing with alchemy.
reply
Doing something like that at planetary scale is science fiction anyway even if we did have the tech to do it.
reply
To put it into perspective, we are effectively terraforming Earth today, though maybe not in a good way.

We have converted most of the land to agriculture and released maybe trillions of tons of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, there are 8 billions of us working on it. And what did we do? Increased the global temperature 2 degrees? Made the sea level rise a couple of meters?

It may be bad for us, but compared to terraforming a planet like Mars, that's nothing, and we have the entire humanity industrial complex to do it while on mars, we need to build everything, starting from a hostile environment.

reply
Talking to computers and expecting computers to answer coherent English was science fiction 4 years ago. Don’t lose faith
reply
I wouldn’t go that far. It was pretty clear a long time ago that humans spending so much time filling the internet with content was going to eventually enable neural networks to pretend to communicate.

The advancements required to arrive at modern LLMs and the tech needed to get humans safely to Mars or live safely on the Moon are orders of magnitude in difference.

Keeping humans alive is hard.

reply
Emergent complexity doesn’t really apply to material sciences and organic chemistry in the same way it does for machine learning and digital systems.
reply
I would not be so pessimistic. Look what the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria have done for our atmosphere.
reply
Maybe we’ll turn all of Mars into paperclips with our efforts! Glorious paperclips. First Mars, then the universe!
reply
If you can kick off self-sustaining biological processes it’ll happen on its own eventually, but you’d just be looking at generational time scales to do it.

Of course you’ll probably have lots of side-effects.

reply
> In that sense then the term "terraforming" is on equal footing with alchemy

NASA has proposed using "synthetic biology to take advantage of and improve upon natural perchlorate reducing bacteria. These terrestrial microbes are not directly suitable for off-world use, but their key genes pcrAB and cld...catalyze the reduction of perchlorates to chloride and oxygen" [1].

[1] https://www.nasa.gov/general/detoxifying-mars/

reply
[flagged]
reply
Which dome construction material would be transparent to sunlight but block ionizing radiation?
reply
1) Why do you need sunlight?

2) If you have a source of hydrogen: water. Bonus as you don't have to make the dome hold pressure. A layer of water of the right depth will generate the force needed, the structure only needs to keep itself level. The only pressure holding is outside that, enough to keep the water from boiling. And, well, it's water--if it's hit by a rock that isn't too big you'll just have hole in the top layer, easily fixed. The same general idea would work on the Moon but the water is far from transparent if you pile up enough of it and you need a lot of hydrogen.

reply
Well, I did wrote "gives sunlight" and that is a valid reply to it. But ... I would need sunlight actually. That seems somewhat possible with light tubes, but the much nicer solution, a transparent dome to still see mars clouds at day and the stars at night, is indeed not possible with current materials.
reply
Since the perchlorate is generated by reaction with sunlight, it might be limited to a surface layer.

Well, I guess that's what regolith means.

reply
Regolith is all the loose stuff, everything that's not bedrock, even if it might be quite deep.
reply
Rocket fuel for the taking?
reply
Sadly we underestimate the liveability of this Earth. Muskism makes people believe to the false premise that we can just buy a new planet, make it habitable with magical tech. Supported with pseudoscientific buzzwords like Terraforming etc. So we can recklessly consume this planet and jump to our new home when this one depletes. No need to care about our current home because it's a jumping board. Interesting as an old Sci-Fi fantasy so it attracts smart people, but if you really think about it's just lies and stupidity.
reply
One of the worst things Musk did is link himself in peoples’ minds to things like space exploration and then linked these ideas to… other ideas I’m not going into on here.

All these ideas about space pre-date him by many decades.

reply
Musk was also into the solar panels and EVs so it's not all trash the planet. Even if living on Mars or Venus isn't practical we might develop interesting tech trying.
reply
Wasn’t the solar panels thing just some financial fraud scheme?
reply
Not exactly, it was a normal solar panel business started by Elon's cousins (SolarCity), but it wasn't going well, and in the end it was bought by Tesla for much bigger money than it was worth (let's say it was a bailout for Elon). Today Tesla solar panels are maybe 0.1%-1% of the business, they stopped giving any data on it years ago.
reply
If so, they are still going https://www.tesla.com/solarpanels so I guess not
reply
floating colony on venus I heard was debunked, but that was also GPT 4.1 which was misaligned so I should seek a different source, from people, when I revisit this chain of thought
reply
Mars is so bad, y'all.
reply