this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
959 points (98.6% liked)

People Twitter

5226 readers
2185 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
959
Elon (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Pressure is way harder to deal with than a vacuum, not that i think mars is happening any time soon

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

Both have unique challenges, but overall brucethemoose is right about the overall cost comparison. For instance, we could easily have a "space elevator" equivalent to the bottom of the ocean, it'd be a fraction of the cost of maintaining a freight network to mars. Pressure is hard to deal with, but not as difficult as it is to get shit out of a gravity well as dense as Earth.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

The main point is the usable resources. You'd have a damn near infinite source of usable resources at the bottom of the ocean meanwhile on Mars everything would need to be scavenged or shipped.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

The ocean is a lot closer though, which helps