Bir Tawil nation

[lepirate]

it would really be interesting to see what would happen and how would other nations react to this

Yeah, I think they'd get pretty upset, but thanks to their own treaty, they can't do anything about it!
Another, 3rd option would be to build this floating island earlier mentioned, and place it in the unclaimed waters in Marie Byrd land, and solve the problems that rough seas brings.

[lepirate]

Antarctica is impossible from a technological stand point (energy, temperatures and seasons), unless of course you want to live with Hitler and his scret base in antarctica, maybe he can take you in his Hanebu to the dark side of the moon (which is not dark actually)

But anyways if you can set a permanent base in Arctanctica, setting one in Mars shouldn't be an issue (apart from getting stuff to Mars )

Antarctica is not impossible at all.
Mars would not be impossible either, but it would be a lot harder.
Apart from getting materials to Mars, there would be problems with food and water supplies. And of course, we must not forget the problem with oxygen. And the risk of meteor crashes is much higher thanks to its thin atmosphere. Oh, the atmosphere would also be a big problem since it doesn't stop much of the cosmic radiation. So simply, it would be a LOT harder.
So, lets not mix apples and pears, shall we?

It is impossible, 6 month of night during polar winter at -70°C with nothing that can give you supply, you'll need a closed heated ecosystem to grow you own food which requires tons of energy

You can grow food on Mars and water is abundant on Mars and you can create a micro ecosystem CO2 is abundant in Mars plants will creat oxygene trough photosynthesis as there is abundant sunlight you just a green house to creat decent pressure, and yes you'll need space suite on Mars but you can creat oxygen being trough plants or water and air recycling and co2, as for meteorite, earth has more gravity and thus it is bound to attract more meteorites than Mars, also Atmosphere only burn small meteorites while for big ones it either makes them explode or split which is more devastating as for cosmic radiation is a non issue if the habitat is underground

Read my suggestion again. The nation would be build under ground. We'd have a closed ecosystem. The walls would be isolated. We'd be self-sufficient.

You can grow food on mars, and there is water there as well. But you'd still need energy to heat it up. Remember that it can be as cold as −153 °C during night times.
Earth may attract more meteorites than mars, but the martian atmosphere is a lot thiner than the earths.
And basically you're just copying my plan, but instead want to apply it on mars.
It would be much easier to build it on earth. Also, if we fuck up on our colony, we'll get help from the outside world. You won't.
Also, the gravity is much lower on Mars, and we don't know how the effects on the human body in such low gravity long term.

[Kiki112]

it would really be interesting to see what would happen and how would other nations react to this

Yeah, I think they'd get pretty upset, but thanks to their own treaty, they can't do anything about it!
Another, 3rd option would be to build this floating island earlier mentioned, and place it in the unclaimed waters in Marie Byrd land, and solve the problems that rough seas brings.

if we were to build a floating island why would we place it near Antarctica when we could place it in international waters with a much better climate?

[counter]

what about the possibility of going to an uninhabited part of a 3rd world nation and starting fresh?

[Kiki112]

what about the possibility of going to an uninhabited part of a 3rd world nation and starting fresh?

interesting idea, but large parts of Africa are filled with armed rebels and dictator goverments, not really safe to start a nation somwhere around there

[lepirate]

it would really be interesting to see what would happen and how would other nations react to this

Yeah, I think they'd get pretty upset, but thanks to their own treaty, they can't do anything about it!
Another, 3rd option would be to build this floating island earlier mentioned, and place it in the unclaimed waters in Marie Byrd land, and solve the problems that rough seas brings.

if we were to build a floating island why would we place it near Antarctica when we could place it in international waters with a much better climate?

Yeah, but then we'd have the problems with rough seas. Remember that the waves usually gets between 7-15 meters during storms, however, there have been waves reported as big as 30(!) meters. Good luck having a floating island that can resist that kind of waves.
If we place it in Antarctica we'd have protection from such, and we could have our perfect winter wonderland outside our door. Inside the island it would be kinda hot, preferably tropical climate, and outside we'd have a really cold, snowy landscape. We'd attract both tourists that wants a nice hot climate, and those who wants to go skiing. Win-win situation!

what about the possibility of going to an uninhabited part of a 3rd world nation and starting fresh?

What Kiki112 said.

[kuroman]

Antarctica is impossible from a technological stand point (energy, temperatures and seasons), unless of course you want to live with Hitler and his scret base in antarctica, maybe he can take you in his Hanebu to the dark side of the moon (which is not dark actually)

But anyways if you can set a permanent base in Arctanctica, setting one in Mars shouldn't be an issue (apart from getting stuff to Mars )

Antarctica is not impossible at all.
Mars would not be impossible either, but it would be a lot harder.
Apart from getting materials to Mars, there would be problems with food and water supplies. And of course, we must not forget the problem with oxygen. And the risk of meteor crashes is much higher thanks to its thin atmosphere. Oh, the atmosphere would also be a big problem since it doesn't stop much of the cosmic radiation. So simply, it would be a LOT harder.
So, lets not mix apples and pears, shall we?

It is impossible, 6 month of night during polar winter at -70°C with nothing that can give you supply, you'll need a closed heated ecosystem to grow you own food which requires tons of energy

You can grow food on Mars and water is abundant on Mars and you can create a micro ecosystem CO2 is abundant in Mars plants will creat oxygene trough photosynthesis as there is abundant sunlight you just a green house to creat decent pressure, and yes you'll need space suite on Mars but you can creat oxygen being trough plants or water and air recycling and co2, as for meteorite, earth has more gravity and thus it is bound to attract more meteorites than Mars, also Atmosphere only burn small meteorites while for big ones it either makes them explode or split which is more devastating as for cosmic radiation is a non issue if the habitat is underground

Read my suggestion again. The nation would be build under ground. We'd have a closed ecosystem. The walls would be isolated. We'd be self-sufficient.

You can grow food on mars, and there is water there as well. But you'd still need energy to heat it up. Remember that it can be as cold as −153 °C during night times.
Earth may attract more meteorites than mars, but the martian atmosphere is a lot thiner than the earths.
And basically you're just copying my plan, but instead want to apply it on mars.
It would be much easier to build it on earth. Also, if we fuck up on our colony, we'll get help from the outside world. You won't.
Also, the gravity is much lower on Mars, and we don't know how the effects on the human body in such low gravity long term.

-153°C is the minimum temperature registered on Mars, it doesn't mean it gets that cold everywhere, in the equater the trempreture is more earth like that you might think.

This was answered, Atmosphere when it comes to meteorites won't make much difference, earth attract more and gives more kinetic energy to the incoming meteorites, and since we observe Mars and had probes and orbiters around it there was way more meteorites that impacted earth than on Mars.

Copying your plan? I didn't even read it, but as you mentioned your plan has some issues, like  the soil on Artanctica is 4km deep and to how deep you think you need your base to be built under to be adiabatic? how much would it cost? as for Mars just use an available cave, or use a 3D printer if you don't want to dig to built your own habitat, this plan was presented 3 decades ago by Dr Robert Zubrin, he didn't just present Ideas, but a whole plan presenting everything, from risk to cost. so no not copying your plan.

Getting to Mars and getting the material needed to Mars is the biggest problem in the equation, while when it comes to Artanctica that's a none issue, yet why there isn't a permanent scientific station to this day? while scientist runs whenever it is winter, the scientific research there is of such importance, from meteorological studies and ozone hole studies to, underground sealed lakes like the Vostok and what's not, (btw scientist had to leave because of winter just at the edge of it !)

As for gravity it's not much lower it is indeed lower but we aren't talking about the moon here we are talking about Mars which has around 38% of earth Gravity, which is easily negated with the heavy space suites, Gravity would be a problem getting to Mars on zero gravity not being there in a lower gravity that you can negate the effect.

Like I said before building a an a floating Island in international water is the most possible and cheapest plan to do

[Kiki112]

it would really be interesting to see what would happen and how would other nations react to this

Yeah, I think they'd get pretty upset, but thanks to their own treaty, they can't do anything about it!
Another, 3rd option would be to build this floating island earlier mentioned, and place it in the unclaimed waters in Marie Byrd land, and solve the problems that rough seas brings.

if we were to build a floating island why would we place it near Antarctica when we could place it in international waters with a much better climate?

Yeah, but then we'd have the problems with rough seas. Remember that the waves usually gets between 7-15 meters during storms, however, there have been waves reported as big as 30(!) meters. Good luck having a floating island that can resist that kind of waves.
If we place it in Antarctica we'd have protection from such, and we could have our perfect winter wonderland outside our door. Inside the island it would be kinda hot, preferably tropical climate, and outside we'd have a really cold, snowy landscape. We'd attract both tourists that wants a nice hot climate, and those who wants to go skiing. Win-win situation!

what about the possibility of going to an uninhabited part of a 3rd world nation and starting fresh?

What Kiki112 said.

daaamnn

how do ships shipping stuff handle these waves?
if they can, how couldn't we?

other then that, couldn't we just drill the ice downwards and use the ice as isolation from the wind and place ourselves there?

[kuroman]

it would really be interesting to see what would happen and how would other nations react to this

Yeah, I think they'd get pretty upset, but thanks to their own treaty, they can't do anything about it!
Another, 3rd option would be to build this floating island earlier mentioned, and place it in the unclaimed waters in Marie Byrd land, and solve the problems that rough seas brings.

if we were to build a floating island why would we place it near Antarctica when we could place it in international waters with a much better climate?

Yeah, but then we'd have the problems with rough seas. Remember that the waves usually gets between 7-15 meters during storms, however, there have been waves reported as big as 30(!) meters. Good luck having a floating island that can resist that kind of waves.
If we place it in Antarctica we'd have protection from such, and we could have our perfect winter wonderland outside our door. Inside the island it would be kinda hot, preferably tropical climate, and outside we'd have a really cold, snowy landscape. We'd attract both tourists that wants a nice hot climate, and those who wants to go skiing. Win-win situation!

what about the possibility of going to an uninhabited part of a 3rd world nation and starting fresh?

What Kiki112 said.

daaamnn

how do ships shipping stuff handle these waves?
if they can, how couldn't we?

other then that, couldn't we just drill the ice downwards and use the ice as isolation from the wind and place ourselves there?

that's way I said a place like near the Moroccan shore a strategic place between America, EU and Africa where there is almost no storms, and you have everything near by, including continental internet Fiber optics

[Kiki112]

it would really be interesting to see what would happen and how would other nations react to this

Yeah, I think they'd get pretty upset, but thanks to their own treaty, they can't do anything about it!
Another, 3rd option would be to build this floating island earlier mentioned, and place it in the unclaimed waters in Marie Byrd land, and solve the problems that rough seas brings.

if we were to build a floating island why would we place it near Antarctica when we could place it in international waters with a much better climate?

Yeah, but then we'd have the problems with rough seas. Remember that the waves usually gets between 7-15 meters during storms, however, there have been waves reported as big as 30(!) meters. Good luck having a floating island that can resist that kind of waves.
If we place it in Antarctica we'd have protection from such, and we could have our perfect winter wonderland outside our door. Inside the island it would be kinda hot, preferably tropical climate, and outside we'd have a really cold, snowy landscape. We'd attract both tourists that wants a nice hot climate, and those who wants to go skiing. Win-win situation!

what about the possibility of going to an uninhabited part of a 3rd world nation and starting fresh?

What Kiki112 said.

daaamnn

how do ships shipping stuff handle these waves?
if they can, how couldn't we?

other then that, couldn't we just drill the ice downwards and use the ice as isolation from the wind and place ourselves there?

that's way I said a place like near the Moroccan shore a strategic place between America, EU and Africa where there is almost no storms, and you have everything near by, including continental internet Fiber optics

that is true and a good location for tourists while Antarctica not so far
or Mars lol

[kuroman]

We aren't getting to Mars, or building a permanent base on Artactica anytime soon

For such plan, you need to built a floating Island somewhere, and then pull it international Seas and plant it there, like we do with Oil platforms (this is something we already have the know how to

[lepirate]

-153°C is the minimum temperature registered on Mars, it doesn't mean it gets that cold everywhere, in the equater the trempreture is more earth like that you might think.

This was answered, Atmosphere when it comes to meteorites won't make much difference, earth attract more and gives more kinetic energy to the incoming meteorites, and since we observe Mars and had probes and orbiters around it there was way more meteorites that impacted earth than on Mars.

Copying your plan? I didn't even read it, but as you mentioned your plan has some issues, like  the soil on Artanctica is 4km deep and to how deep you think you need your base to be built under to be adiabatic? how much would it cost? as for Mars just use an available cave, or use a 3D printer if you don't want to dig to built your own habitat, this plan was presented 3 decades ago by Dr Robert Zubrin, he didn't just present Ideas, but a whole plan presenting everything, from risk to cost. so no not copying your plan.

Getting to Mars and getting the material needed to Mars is the biggest problem in the equation, while when it comes to Artanctica that's a none issue, yet why there isn't a permanent scientific station to this day? while scientist runs whenever it is winter, the scientific research there is of such importance, from meteorological studies and ozone hole studies to, underground sealed lakes like the Vostok and what's not, (btw scientist had to leave because of winter just at the edge of it !)

As for gravity it's not much lower it is indeed lower but we aren't talking about the moon here we are talking about Mars which has around 38% of earth Gravity, which is easily negated with the heavy space suites, Gravity would be a problem getting to Mars on zero gravity not being there in a lower gravity that you can negate the effect.

Like I said before building a an a floating Island in international water is the most possible and cheapest plan to do

Yeah, sure it can get quite hot during the summers, day time. But the lack of martian atmosphere makes the temperatures vary a lot. The average on Mars is about −55 °C.

You didn't even read the plan, but still you criticize it? Good job.
How deep i'd need to build our base? It could be just below surface. As long as the isolation is good it doesn't matter. How much would this cost? I have no idea. I didn't even come up with it until yesterday, lol!
Build your base using a 3D-printer? Seriously? Do you know how much that would cost?
He came up with the plan 3 decades ago? By that time the Soviet union was still a country, and most people had never even touched a computer. We know a lot more about the conditions on Mars now.

Yes, getting to Mars would be a gigantic problem. That would cost billions just to develop the Spacecraft that would get you there. And then of course you'd need it to carry all materials needed for you to start a colony on a new planet. That would cost an unthinkable amount of money.
Also, FYI there are permanent research centers on Antarctica. And that argument doesn't even make sense anyway. I could as well ask "Why are there no permanent research centers on Mars?".
Lets not either forget that it's not that uncommon with massive dust storms on Mars, lasting up to a few weeks. During those you would not be able to produce any electricity from solar panels

So you would wear heavy space suites all day long? That doesn't even matter. None knows what effects the "38% of earth" gravity would have on humans. It might be enough for the human body to not suffer heavy muscle loss and bone demineralization, or it might not. It's also very unclear if it would be possible to breed the next generation of humans whilst on Mars because of the same reasons.

A floating island would not be the easiest, but it's the most realistic.
I mean, it's not hard to dig even if the ground is frozen, and then it would just be the building part left. It's not that hard. However the world would probably get quite mad if we did so, and therefore the floating island would be the better option. The Mars thing you talk about however is completely unrealistic (for now, atleast).

daaamnn

how do ships shipping stuff handle these waves?
if they can, how couldn't we?

other then that, couldn't we just drill the ice downwards and use the ice as isolation from the wind and place ourselves there?

If they're hit by those monster waves they usually don't make it.
Those ships are designed to ship some stuff and keep afloat. It's not a very pleasant experience for the ones onboard either. If we want an island that can support a bigger population we'd have to take much bigger precautions. I mean, what if the island doesn't make it? Just think of the headlines "Breaking news: 10000 dead in Bitcoin island catastrophe", that's not what we want is it?

that's way I said a place like near the Moroccan shore a strategic place between America, EU and Africa where there is almost no storms, and you have everything near by, including continental internet Fiber optics

We cannot place it within the EEZ, so that's not an option.

We aren't getting to Mars, or building a permanent base on Artactica anytime soon

For such plan, you need to built a floating Island somewhere, and then pull it international Seas and plant it there, like we do with Oil platforms (this is something we already have the know how to

Atleast not Mars. Antarctica would be very possible with some money and devotion.
Placing it on such deep waters as in the Atlantic ocean is not possible atm. It's just way too deep.

[Kiki112]

as the conversation goes on, purchasing an islands seems getting better and better

[kuroman]

Yeah, sure it can get quite hot during the summers, day time. But the lack of martian atmosphere makes the temperatures vary a lot. The average on Mars is about −55 °C.

You didn't even read the plan, but still you criticize it? Good job.
How deep i'd need to build our base? It could be just below surface. As long as the isolation is good it doesn't matter. How much would this cost? I have no idea. I didn't even come up with it until yesterday, lol!
Build your base using a 3D-printer? Seriously? Do you know how much that would cost?
He came up with the plan 3 decades ago? By that time the Soviet union was still a country, and most people had never even touched a computer. We know a lot more about the conditions on Mars now.

Yes, getting to Mars would be a gigantic problem. That would cost billions just to develop the Spacecraft that would get you there. And then of course you'd need it to carry all materials needed for you to start a colony on a new planet. That would cost an unthinkable amount of money.
Also, FYI there are permanent research centers on Antarctica. And that argument doesn't even make sense anyway. I could as well ask "Why are there no permanent research centers on Mars?".
Lets not either forget that it's not that uncommon with massive dust storms on Mars, lasting up to a few weeks. During those you would not be able to produce any electricity from solar panels

So you would wear heavy space suites all day long? That doesn't even matter. None knows what effects the "38% of earth" gravity would have on humans. It might be enough for the human body to not suffer heavy muscle loss and bone demineralization, or it might not. It's also very unclear if it would be possible to breed the next generation of humans whilst on Mars because of the same reasons.

A floating island would not be the easiest, but it's the most realistic.
I mean, it's not hard to dig even if the ground is frozen, and then it would just be the building part left. It's not that hard. However the world would probably get quite mad if we did so, and therefore the floating island would be the better option. The Mars thing you talk about however is completely unrealistic (for now, atleast).

The mean temperature is indeed -55°C but that's due to very low MIN temperatures, Where we can agree is that temperature swings are stronger on Mars not because of the lack atmosphere but the lack of Ocean that store heat and release it over time and spread it all around the world (the Atmosphere does the same thing, but unlike seas and ocean, the atmosphere cannot the necessary amount of heat to maintain earth warm on it own but there is an interaction between water and air that helps spread the heat) but lets get back to our cats, the things is about Mars while it is cold a typical habitable area have a temperature ranging from 10 to -30 or -40 or even a lower don't forget that due to the light atmosphere heat dissipation and heat propagation less is much much less severe than on earth. and this is not the main problem here ! On Mars you have many sources of Energy, Methane abundant, Solar Energy, abundant (for god sake you just need to build a green house to have earth like temperatures) On Antarctica it is not the case, everything you bring with you, will be used for over 6 month for everything.

Yes I didn't read it in my initial reply because I answered a different reply of yours aka the initial one about Antarctica, so what's the problem with that? I did read it when you mentioned it and claimed I "copied it"  You cannot have perfect Isolation, and will never happen, and on the surface it's even worst, you can minimize the heat dissipation and heat transfer in contact of -80° Ice/Air/Snow in permanent darkness, so you'll need to waste energy to keep the temperature at a decent level, energy that you are getting from no where.

3D printing habitat is expensive? please take a moment of reflexion because what you are saying here is stupid, let me put things in perspective for you, what's the most expensive part in such a project would be? getting stuff to Mars is the most expensive part! and every KG of Mass cost thousands of dollars to get to space, so which is cheaper? getting full base equipment and modules that would weight hundred of tons to Mars and risking the atmospheric entry on Mars with such a heavy cargo and what's not, or Sending a 3D Printer that could use Mars soil and rocks to build buildings? and you just carry the necessary accommodations with you of course these would the complementary buildings.

Did you even read about his plan or are you just claiming it is obsolete? the Plan was updated several times to include the most recent data we have, in addition to computer simulations from the most powerful computers, using the data, from every rover and orbiter in Mars ect ect ect...

Yes, getting to Mars would be a gigantic problem. That would cost billions just to develop the Spacecraft that would get you there. And then of course you'd need it to carry all materials needed for you to start a colony on a new planet. That would cost an unthinkable amount of money.
Also, FYI there are permanent research centers on Antarctica. And that argument doesn't even make sense anyway. I could as well ask "Why are there no permanent research centers on Mars?".
Lets not either forget that it's not that uncommon with massive dust storms on Mars, lasting up to a few weeks. During those you would not be able to produce any electricity from solar panels

It will cost billions! I agree the same goes for your polar base that will need permanent resupply, so you agree here that Mass is important and you don't gasp the important of 3D printer and other complementary solutions? it won't take the development of a new space craft, Dr Zubrin plan for example uses CURRENT technology hence it is one of the most realistic plans, Such a plan is spread over a decade to two and doesn't happen like that, if such a plan would cost lets say 20 billion $ that would be around a billion of $ a year, so what's a billion Dollar, it's too much for us the common of humans, but on a country scale it is nothing, US of A for example spends trillions of dollars on defense A YEAR there is nothing to compare here.
Also you are confusing between the existence of Permanent research centers on Antarctica (the building) (of course I'm not talking about stations near the shore on the edge of water where you don't even have the real severe polar weather those have people of course because the situation is not as harsh as in the middle of Antarctica) I'm talking about Stations in the middle of the continent like the Vostok station for example , all the Permanently used research centers in the middle of Antarctica like I said whenever winter closes scientist leaves Antarctica and comes back 7 or 8 months later. It's not hard to understand. No the argument doesn't go both way, because the hardest part of a Mars station is getting to Mars and getting everything needed there, while that's a non issue for Permanent station in the southpole (filled with people living there 24/7 365.6 in independence)
If you are talking about a station on the edge of Antarctica on ice, then why bother, like I said before just make island on international seas in very advantageous position.

Of course they'll wear "heavy" (ON EARTH) space suite, to do explorations on Mars surface they'll not feel heavy due the low gravity it will negate/compensate the effect of lack of gravity, also a Martian suite is nothing like an EV suite, if they wear those for extensive amount of time, any effect of low gravity would be negligible if not null.

There are massive dust storm on Mars, while in scale they are big, storm on Mars do not have the destructive power of their earth counterparts, due of course to the atmospheric pressure and density, the danger of being destroyed on earth by a storm is much much higher than on Mars the only thing of concern is Electrostatic shocks due to dust friction but that again if you build your equipment with that in mind you have nothing to fear, as for energy like I explained before it's a non issues, different resource of energy, Hydrogen is abundant, solar energy is abundant there is wind as well (not as efficient as on earth tho, but as a complementary solution why not) , geothermal, aerothermal ect ect ect.

So you agree with me that a floating island is a realistic solution? good, the point of Mars, is that you said that Antarctica is a viable solution, my whole argument is if Antarctica is a viable solution, then Mars is also a viable solution, in the perspective, that both would requires billions of $ long term planning and building, not to mention that Antarctica would cause many political issues unlike Mars.

[kuroman]

as the conversation goes on, purchasing an islands seems getting better and better

The thing about an island is that you want have a independent country which is the whole point of this thread I think ^^

[Kiki112]

Yeah, sure it can get quite hot during the summers, day time. But the lack of martian atmosphere makes the temperatures vary a lot. The average on Mars is about −55 °C.

You didn't even read the plan, but still you criticize it? Good job.
How deep i'd need to build our base? It could be just below surface. As long as the isolation is good it doesn't matter. How much would this cost? I have no idea. I didn't even come up with it until yesterday, lol!
Build your base using a 3D-printer? Seriously? Do you know how much that would cost?
He came up with the plan 3 decades ago? By that time the Soviet union was still a country, and most people had never even touched a computer. We know a lot more about the conditions on Mars now.

Yes, getting to Mars would be a gigantic problem. That would cost billions just to develop the Spacecraft that would get you there. And then of course you'd need it to carry all materials needed for you to start a colony on a new planet. That would cost an unthinkable amount of money.
Also, FYI there are permanent research centers on Antarctica. And that argument doesn't even make sense anyway. I could as well ask "Why are there no permanent research centers on Mars?".
Lets not either forget that it's not that uncommon with massive dust storms on Mars, lasting up to a few weeks. During those you would not be able to produce any electricity from solar panels

So you would wear heavy space suites all day long? That doesn't even matter. None knows what effects the "38% of earth" gravity would have on humans. It might be enough for the human body to not suffer heavy muscle loss and bone demineralization, or it might not. It's also very unclear if it would be possible to breed the next generation of humans whilst on Mars because of the same reasons.

A floating island would not be the easiest, but it's the most realistic.
I mean, it's not hard to dig even if the ground is frozen, and then it would just be the building part left. It's not that hard. However the world would probably get quite mad if we did so, and therefore the floating island would be the better option. The Mars thing you talk about however is completely unrealistic (for now, atleast).

The mean temperature is indeed -55°C but that's due to high low temperatures, Where we can agree is that temperature swings are stronger on Mars not because of the atmosphere but lack of Ocean that store heat and release it over time and spread it all around the world (the Atmosphere does the same thing, but unlike seas and ocean, the atmosphere cannot the necessary amount of heat to maintain earth warm on it own but there is an interaction between water and air that helps spread the heat) but lets get back to our cats, the things is about Mars while it is cold a typical habitable area have a temperature ranging from 10 to -30 or -40 don't forget that due to the light atmosphere heat dissipation and heat less is much much less severe on earth. and this is not the main problem here ! On Mars you have many sources of Energy, Methane abundant, Solar Energy, abundant (for god sake you just need to build a green house to have earth like temperatures) On Antarctica it is not the case, everything you bring with you, will be used for over 6 month for everything.

Yes I didn't read it in my initial reply because I answered a different reply of yours aka the initial one about Antarctica, so what's the problem with that? I did read it when you mentioned and claimed I "copied it"  You cannot have perfect Isolation, and will never happen, and on surface it's even worst, you can minimize the heat dissipation and heat transfer in contact of -80° Ice/Air/Snow in permanent darkness, so you'll need to waste energy to keep the temperature at a decent level, energy that you are getting from no where.

3D printing habitat is expensive? please take a moment of reflexion because what you are saying here is stupid, let me put things to you in perspective, what's the most expensive part in such a project would be? getting stuff to Mars is the most expensive part! and every KG of Mass cost thousands of dollars, so which is cheaper? getting full base equipment and modules that would weight hundred of tons to Mars and risking the atmospheric entry on Mars and what's not, or Sending a 3D Printer that could use Mars soil and rocks to build buildings? and you just carry the necessary accommodations with you of course these would the complementary buildings.

Did you even read about his plan or are you just claiming it is obsolete? the Plan was updated several times to include the most recent data we have, in addition to computer simulations from the most powerful computers, using the data, from every rover and orbiter in Mars ect ect ect...

Yes, getting to Mars would be a gigantic problem. That would cost billions just to develop the Spacecraft that would get you there. And then of course you'd need it to carry all materials needed for you to start a colony on a new planet. That would cost an unthinkable amount of money.
Also, FYI there are permanent research centers on Antarctica. And that argument doesn't even make sense anyway. I could as well ask "Why are there no permanent research centers on Mars?".
Lets not either forget that it's not that uncommon with massive dust storms on Mars, lasting up to a few weeks. During those you would not be able to produce any electricity from solar panels

It will cost billions! I agree the same goes for your polar base that will need permanent resupply, so you agree here that Mass is important and you don't gasp the important of 3D printer and other solutions? it won't take the development of new space craft, Dr Zubrin plan for example uses CURRENT technology hence it is one of the most realistic plans, Such a plan is spread over a decade to two and doesn't happen like that, if such a plan would cost lets say 20 billion $ that would be around a billion of $ a year, so what's a billion Dollar, it's too much for us the common of living, but on a country scale it is nothing, US of A for example spends trillions of dollars on defense A YEAR there is nothing to compare here.
Also you are confusing between the existence of Permanent research centers on Antarctica (the building) (of course I'm not talking about stations near the shore on the edge of water where you don't even have a polar weather those have people of course because the situation is not harsh) I'm talking about Stations in the middle of the continent like the Vostok station for example , all the Permanently used research centers in Antarctica like I said whenever winter closes scientist leaves Antarctica and comes back 7 or 8 months later. It's not hard to understand. No the argument doesn't go both way, because the hardest part of a Mars station is getting to Mars and getting everything needed there, while that's a non issue for Permanent station (filled with people living there 24/7 365.6 in independence)
If you are talking about a station on the edge of Antarctica on ice, then why bother, like I said before just make island on international seas in very advantageous position.

Of course they'll wear "heavy" (ON EARTH) space suite, to do explorations on Mars surface they'll not feel heavy due the low gravity it will negate/compensate the effect of lack of gravity, also a Martian suite is not anything like an EV suite, if they wear those for extensive amount of time, any effect of low gravity would be negligible if not null.

There are massive dust storm on Mars, while in scale they are big, storm on Mars do not have the destructive power of their earth counterparts, due of course to the atmospheric pressure and density, the danger of being destroyed on earth by a storm is much much higher than on Mars the only thing of concern is Electrostatic shocks due to dust friction but that again if you build your equipment with that in mind you have nothing to fear, as for energy like I explained before it's a non issues, different resource of energy, Hydrogen is abundant, solar energy is abundant there is wind as well (not as efficient as on earth tho, but as a complementary solution why not) , geothermal, aerothermal ect ect ect.

So you agree with me that a floating island is a realistic solution? good, the point of Mars, is that you said that Antartica is a viable solution, my whole argument, if Antarctica is a viable solution, then Mars is also a viable solution, in the perspective, that both would requires billions of $ long term planning and building, not to mention that Antarctica would cause many political issues unlike Mars.

I took some time to read this and you got some points there but we would have to be self-sufficient on Mars, which is really hard to achieve

that is the main problem..

altough on the other side we would be the first to land on Mars and we would have massive and I mean massive media coverage, that would benefit us greatly!

[lepirate]

It still gets very cold on Mars during nights, even on the equator. A normal greenhouse (built above the ground) would become cold quite fast.
Of course it has a lot to do with the atmosphere to do.
Thick atmosphere - good at keeping temperatures.
Thin atmosphere - not so good at keeping temperatures.

Sure the lack of oceans is also a factor, but don't forget how important the atmosphere is.
The Antarctica idea would be to become self-sufficient. Food can be grown and raised underground, there are lot of fish in the oceans around, so that would not be a major problem.

The plan, also, which you seem to have missed, is to build the colony at the coast. Isolation won't be a that big problem either, since most building will be built underground, but their roofs on surface level. The soil itself is quite good isolation, and add some thick layers of isolating material, and there won't be much of a problem there either.

My polar base would not cost billions. It would cost a few millions to build, but not billions. It would not need to be resupplied either, at least not with the essentials, since we'd be self-sufficient. Food can be grown and raised underground, there are lot of fish in the oceans around, so that would not be a major problem.

Yes, the USA spends trillions on defense each year, sure, but do you have access to that money? It would not be realistic to fund your plan with donations and stuff either. So that's very unrealistic. I'm not saying getting the money to fund my project would be easy either, but it would sure as hell be much easier.
And of course we'd build the base along the coast! Why would we want to build it in the middle of nowhere? And as stated in this post and earlier ones as well, we would build it on (under) soil. Not on ice.

When it comes to the gravity part, of course I'm not talking about when you're outside exploring Mars, but when you're inside the base. We don't know how the martian gravity affects humans. We don't know if it will even be possible to breed children or anything. Neither if it's possible to grow larger plants.

Solar power would not work during these dust storms and wind power would probably not be a very good idea either during them (= damage).

A big advantage on the Antarctica plan would also be that it would not be a one way trip, which it would be to Mars. The trip would not take up to a few years either.

As I stated earlier in this post Antarctica would not cost billions. Mars would.
Of course it would be possible to build a colony on mars as well, but it would take a lot more work to get it up and running. Much of the easy accessible water on mars is on its poles, and in the atmosphere. Since your plan would to be place the base on the equator the atmosphere would be the best option, correct? To obtain enough water to support a large population would become very expensive as well.

To summarize; Antarctica would be simpler and cheaper, even though it would cause more diplomatic problems.

[lepirate]

altough on the other side we would be the first to land on Mars and we would have massive and I mean massive media coverage, that would benefit us greatly!

We'd get massive media coverage from Antarctica as well. But we'd probably get more negative attention comparing to the Mars mission which would probably almost exclusively generate positive attention.

[Kiki112]

altough on the other side we would be the first to land on Mars and we would have massive and I mean massive media coverage, that would benefit us greatly!

We'd get massive media coverage from Antarctica as well. But we'd probably get more negative attention comparing to the Mars mission which would probably almost exclusively generate positive attention.

we would get media attention for building an island too

but colonising Mars, that's a whole new level of media coverage!

we would be on the news for years not days

another thing, one of the most imporant ones regarding Mars

what about the internet?

[lepirate]

altough on the other side we would be the first to land on Mars and we would have massive and I mean massive media coverage, that would benefit us greatly!

We'd get massive media coverage from Antarctica as well. But we'd probably get more negative attention comparing to the Mars mission which would probably almost exclusively generate positive attention.

we would get media attention for building an island too

but colonising Mars, that's a whole new level of media coverage!

we would be on the news for years not days

another thing, one of the most imporant ones regarding Mars

what about the internet?

There would be a delay on about 3 - 21 minutes one way. So double it to get the actual time.