this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
1371 points (98.5% liked)

People Twitter

5809 readers
1361 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
1371
Elon (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months 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 5 months 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 5 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.

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001 5 points 5 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] 5 points 5 months ago

The ocean is a lot closer though, which helps