this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
1367 points (98.5% liked)

People Twitter

5034 readers
1671 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.
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
1367
Elon (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MycelialMass 16 points 1 month ago (3 children)

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

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe 10 points 1 month 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.

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001 5 points 1 month 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] 4 points 1 month ago

The ocean is a lot closer though, which helps