Professors urge one-way Martian colonization missions

[kevin11951]

MAKE THIS HAPPEN AT ALL COSTS! ;)

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-professors-urge-one-way-martian-colonization.html


For the chance to watch the sun rise over Olympus Mons, or maybe take a stroll across the vast plains of the Vastitas Borealis, would you sign on for a one-way flight to Mars?

It's a question that gives pause to even Dirk Schulze-Makuch, a Washington State University associate professor, who, with colleague Paul Davies, a physicist and cosmologist from Arizona State University, argues for precisely such a one-way manned mission to Mars in an article published this month in the "Journal of Cosmology."

In the article, "To Boldly Go: A One-Way Human Mission to Mars," the authors write that while technically feasible, a manned mission to Mars and back is unlikely to lift off anytime soon – largely because it is a hugely expensive proposition, both in terms of financial resources and political will. And because the greatest portion of the expense is tied up in safely returning the crew and spacecraft to earth, they reason that a manned one-way mission would not only cut the costs by several fold, but also mark the beginning of long-term human colonization of the planet.

<snip>

[Cuddles McKitten]

Where do I sign up?

[Dustin2128]

Where do I sign up?

Also, making it two way wouldn't be terribly difficult; you'd just need a space elevator on both worlds. Plasma-ion engines can reach speeds fast enough to facilitate interplanetary travel taking less than 39 days.

[MisterGaribaldi]

Ooh! Ooh! I have a few people I would like to send there first. To um, you know, test Martian polar region survivability. I won't mention names, but possibly their initials could be something like KJI and OBL and WHG, and...

Just kidding, just kidding. Besides, their egos would never fit one one of our rockets all at the same time. :P

[mkendall]

Where do I sign up?

Ditto. I would volunteer without hesitation.

[Ctrl-Alt-F1]

I think there are some flaws in the logic of comparing a Mars landing to traversing the ocean. While both have substantial risk in the transit stage, the Americas at least had a hospitable climate and...yaknow food, water, and air.

[Dustin2128]

I think there are some flaws in the logic of comparing a Mars landing to traversing the ocean. While both have substantial risk in the transit stage, the Americas at least had a hospitable climate and...yaknow food, water, and air.
mars has water ice, the materials to make air, and you could have a greenhouse to grow food. My hope is that we're on mars to stay by 2025. It's probably going to be more like 2125 if lunar exploration has taught us anything...

[Ahava591]

The cost of sending a crew to Mars will probably be ridiculous for a long, long time. Continuing to supply them until they are self-sufficient will probably be ridiculously expensive for a long, long time.

We don't know if humans can procreate on Mars; we don't know if we should, (the moral problem of procreating if we know that the relative gravity or radiation is going to cause birth defects, death, etc.)

How many are we going to send? How many are going to make it there, and how long are they going to live once there? If they can procreate without problem, (other than, ahem, those associated with low-gee horizontal shuffle,) how long until they are "self-sufficient?"
We would need to send doctors and nurses and dentists; physicists, chemists and biologists. We are going to need psychologists.

Terraforming Mars so that colonies are truly, entirely self-sufficient and sustainable in nature is science fiction and we should all admit it. The only other option is to create artificial enclosures, "dome-cities," something like that. We'll probably extinct ourselves before we get there.


The article mentions political will and money. There's the political problem, the fact that many nations would need to band together to get this thing going. Even if we knew peace and worked on this, I think a Mars colony would bankrupt the entire world within the first ten years.

The political will would quickly fade; people would still be starving and thirsting to death. We would still have rape and murder and drug addiction. We would still have disease. People would start to wonder if it is worth it to pay trillions upon trillions of dollars for a Mars colony, (which is always promised to be at the edge of self-sufficiency by the politicians!) while they're still dying of cholera in the 2000's. Unless the scientific research was immediately beneficial to the average people, they probably wouldn't care about it without constant reminders that it could help them in the future, (if it even could!)

As for a lifeboat...meh.

I'm not saying we don't need one; and my position is not that the Earth will become unlivable for our species in the future, that to survive we would need to be able to leave, (assuming we stay around to that point.)
I just don't think we're ever going to do it.


As for the volunteers, have at it people. Just don't send a message back to Earth asking me to bail you off the rock when you figure out that we can't hack it there.

[Khakilang]

I would probably use the the money to save the earth and its inhabitant.

[Ctrl-Alt-F1]

mars has water ice, the materials to make air, and you could have a greenhouse to grow food.
Of course but that's not even remotely the same thing as having those elements available in the wild. We can't even handle nature on our own world and we hope to dominate the forces of nature on another planet. Pipe dream.

[DeadSuperHero]

If I'm going to live on Mars permanently, or at least long term:

-I want to start my own civilization with a bunch of Free Software-loving people.
-I want to start a small Socialist society with said people.
-I would work to ensure that we'd have the best vegan rations so that everyone could enjoy good food.
-Terraforming FTW.
-Statues to the great programmers and philosophers of the last 100 years.
-Implement as many ideas from The Venus Project as possible.
-Culture and Multimedia would be encouraged to be open and free to help social growth.

Then I can wash my hands of all of the Earthling's problems and be happy in this society-that-could-only-happen-through-planetary-colonization-place.

[handy]

For those that still don't realise how easy it is for us to go to Mars, find the (readily available on the internet & my local tiny country town's community library) documentary called "The Mars Underground"
which realistically explores Robert Zubrin's, Mars Direct proposal, & NASA's modified Mars Semi-Direct modification.

We have had the technical expertise to go to Mars for well over 20 years.

There have been multiple threads on this topic (here in this forum) over the last 4->5 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Zubrin

[Oxwivi]

If it were me, I would go as long as I get internet connection.

[3rdalbum]

If it were me, I would go as long as I get internet connection.

The round-time ping would really suck.

[3rdalbum]

I think we should start seasteads first, and move toward a Martian colony once the surface of the sea is full.

[Oxwivi]

The round-time ping would really suck.
Yeah that's why I'd be reluctant to sign up, given the opportunity.

The order of things could do with a little modifications. First a robot should be sent to set up a base with at least a green house and other essentials, and when things are set up, then the humans should be sent it.

[ve4cib]

Personally I'm a fan of doing something with the moon before branching out to Mars with a permanent colony. Getting to (and from) the moon is far easier and cheaper than Mars, which could make it a good testbed for long-term Martian colonization technology.

I don't see starting off with one-way missions to Mars being feasible. If a two-way trip is a political minefield then sending a group of people to die on another planet would be even more so. We have very little idea how well people would survive there from both a physical and a psychological perspective.

Starting off with small two-way trips, Apollo-style, seems like a better first step. Get people landing on Mars, looking around, and doing science. Then after we've had a chance to actually field-test Martian survival equipment and know that it works (i.e. we don't kill any astronauts) we can look about an actual colony mission.

Just like the Europeans didn't start colonizing the Americas before they explored a bit of it, I don't think it's wise to start colonizing Mars until we've had some proper human exploration on it.

[Swagman]

Penal Colonies FTW

Monies normally used to incarcerate jailbirds is used to send them to Stalag Mars

Problem/Job solved.

[Grenage]

I'm not really sure what the point of colonising Mars would be, other than 'for props'; it's a crappy wasteland.

We've got trees and everything down here.

[ve4cib]

Penal Colonies FTW

Monies normally used to incarcerate jailbirds is used to send them to Stalag Mars

Problem/Job solved.

So basically turn Mars into the new Australia is what you're saying?

[ve4cib]

Penal Colonies FTW

Monies normally used to incarcerate jailbirds is used to send them to Stalag Mars

Problem/Job solved.

So basically turn Mars into the new Australia is what you're saying?

[handy]

I think we should start seasteads first, and move toward a Martian colony once the surface of the sea is full.

The surface of the sea (& the depths as well, due to 80% of plastic sinking) is already full, of toxin loaded (plastics by their nature absorb all chemicals) plastics.

For anyone who cares in the slightest, there are superb quality documentaries available on the subject of what we have done to our oceans & seas:

http://www.ted.com/talks/jeremy_jackson.html?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2 010-05-05&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email

"Addicted to Plastic" (2007), is a magnificent documentary; if you can't afford to buy, or rent it, there are other ways to find it.

http://www.bullfrogfilms.com/catalog/atp.html

[Oxwivi]

Personally I'm a fan of doing something with the moon before branching out to Mars with a permanent colony. Getting to (and from) the moon is far easier and cheaper than Mars, which could make it a good testbed for long-term Martian colonization technology.

I don't see starting off with one-way missions to Mars being feasible. If a two-way trip is a political minefield then sending a group of people to die on another planet would be even more so. We have very little idea how well people would survive there from both a physical and a psychological perspective.

Starting off with small two-way trips, Apollo-style, seems like a better first step. Get people landing on Mars, looking around, and doing science. Then after we've had a chance to actually field-test Martian survival equipment and know that it works (i.e. we don't kill any astronauts) we can look about an actual colony mission.

Just like the Europeans didn't start colonizing the Americas before they explored a bit of it, I don't think it's wise to start colonizing Mars until we've had some proper human exploration on it.
Moon's not gonna receive the same treatment - it's not habitable.

I agree. If they're gonna be sending people up there, they should at least make some preparations. But with today's technology, it's not necessary for exploration to be done by humans. A solar-powered flying explorer could do the job much easily.

[Oxwivi]

I'm not really sure what the point of colonising Mars would be, other than 'for props'; it's a crappy wasteland.

We've got trees and everything down here.
Right, we know less than 1% of the ocean...

[Swagman]

So basically turn Mars into the new Australia is what you're saying?

Or America.

didn't turn bad for them did it ?

[Grenage]

Or America.

didn't turn bad for them did it ?

When was America ever a penal colony?

[Swagman]

When was America ever a penal colony?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_colony

[Oxwivi]

That's not gonna be good. If they become independent, then that's it. We can expect nothing less the GW (Galactic Wars) I.

[ve4cib]

Moon's not gonna receive the same treatment - it's not habitable.

I agree. If they're gonna be sending people up there, they should at least make some preparations. But with today's technology, it's not necessary for exploration to be done by humans. A solar-powered flying explorer could do the job much easily.

Mars isn't habitable in the strictest sense of the term either. Yes, Mars is more hospitable than the Moon, but I'd argue that that is more than mitigated by the Moon's relative ease-of-access.

In any case, Lunar colonies would at the very least help us design robust, air-tight, maintainable colony structures. You can try building a whole bunch of different colony layouts on the Moon, and see what works best. Then you can carry that information with you when designing Martian colonies.


I agree that human exploration is no longer strictly necessary, but robots can't really tell us much about the psychological impact of being that far from home is, nor what kinds of long-term health benefits/risks would come from prolonged exposure to the Martian environment. There's something to be said for a long-term, two-way mission of astronaut-guinnea-pigs who can find these things out.

A prolonged "colonization test" mission, where a group of astronauts establishes a semi-permanent base to test out the technologies and facilities that one-way missions would later use would be of enormous benefit. After their year or two on Mars they can come back on their return flight (possibly an inter-planetary shuttle that goes out with the new crew -- kind of like a Martian ISS), leaving their initial base on the surface for future missions to use and/or expand.

[Grenage]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_colony

Thanks! You learn something new every day.

[Oxwivi]

Mars isn't habitable in the strictest sense of the term either. Yes, Mars is more hospitable than the Moon, but I'd argue that that is more than mitigated by the Moon's relative ease-of-access.

In any case, Lunar colonies would at the very least help us design robust, air-tight, maintainable colony structures. You can try building a whole bunch of different colony layouts on the Moon, and see what works best. Then you can carry that information with you when designing Martian colonies.
But it's not going to be as sustainable as Mars colony and more expensive to maintain if compared to a successful Mars colony.


I agree that human exploration is no longer strictly necessary, but robots can't really tell us much about the psychological impact of being that far from home is, nor what kinds of long-term health benefits/risks would come from prolonged exposure to the Martian environment. There's something to be said for a long-term, two-way mission of astronaut-guinnea-pigs who can find these things out.

A prolonged "colonization test" mission, where a group of astronauts establishes a semi-permanent base to test out the technologies and facilities that one-way missions would later use would be of enormous benefit. After their year or two on Mars they can come back on their return flight (possibly an inter-planetary shuttle that goes out with the new crew -- kind of like a Martian ISS), leaving their initial base on the surface for future missions to use and/or expand.
Well, that is not feasible either for which this one-way mission is proposed. They can't send a load of stuff to Mars enough for a long-term mission, and have enough fuel for a return flight.

[TheNessus]

Ooh! Ooh! I have a few people I would like to send there first. To um, you know, test Martian polar region survivability. I won't mention names, but possibly their initials could be something like KJI and OBL and WHG, and...

Just kidding, just kidding. Besides, their egos would never fit one one of our rockets all at the same time. :P

Garibaldi, you're supposed to help free Mars from the corrupt Earth Government.

[handy]

I wish you guys would spend the time to watch the freely available on the net "The Mars Underground".

Then at least you would have half an idea of what you are talking about. :)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0437325/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3REZZWeWcU

[TheNessus]

But it's not going to be as sustainable as Mars colony and more expensive to maintain if compared to a successful Mars colony.


Well, that is not feasible either for which this one-way mission is proposed. They can't send a load of stuff to Mars enough for a long-term mission, and have enough fuel for a return flight.

The moon has Helium 3, a very sought-after rare mineral that we don't even know what to do with it, we just know it would be extremely beneficial. We can colonize both the moon and mars, and we will.

[Oxwivi]

Colonise the underwater world first, please.

[Gremlinzzz]

NO way to one way! I would be more in favour of warming Mars polar caps. then sending the seeds of life and watch it develop from afar.once in a while send them a idea to speed up there technology.

[handy]

Research!

What's that?

:lolflag:

[NightwishFan]

There is not much gain in this, and it may cause war if one nation gains too many extra-planetary "bases".

[3rdalbum]

Penal Colonies FTW

Monies normally used to incarcerate jailbirds is used to send them to Stalag Mars

Problem/Job solved.

Read "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein.

[Oxwivi]

There is not much gain in this, and it may cause war if one nation gains too many extra-planetary "bases".
Galactic War I anyone?

[wkhasintha]

That's not gonna be good. If they become independent, then that's it. We can expect nothing less the GW (Galactic Wars) I.

aha an Asimov fan :)

Reminds me of Sir Arthur C Clark's "Sands of Mars" . He has elaborated on the issues of terra-forming mars more thoroughly in that book.

[3rdalbum]

The surface of the sea (& the depths as well, due to 80% of plastic sinking) is already full, of toxin loaded (plastics by their nature absorb all chemicals) plastics.


Maybe, but it is not full of PEOPLE, which is what seasteading is all about: creating colonies on the water. Even eventually underwater.

[3rdalbum]

aha an Asimov fan :)

Reminds me of Sir Arthur C Clark's "Sands of Mars" . He has elaborated on the issues of terra-forming mars more thoroughly in that book.

A more dull book I have never read. The science may be sound, but the story is a snooze-a-thon.

[Sporkman]

WHG

???

I got the KJI & OBL, but this one stumps me...

[Oxwivi]

aha an Asimov fan :)
What the hell is 'Asimov'?

[wkhasintha]

What the hell is 'Asimov'?

:rolleyes:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov

[Oxwivi]

Well, never read his books. All the opinions I stated in this thread are mine alone.

[wkhasintha]

Well, never read his books. All the opinions I stated in this thread are mine alone.

ok bro, The notion of Galactic Empire was created by him in his "Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_series)" series. Very insightful writer.

[Oxwivi]

Taking a leaf out of history books, all the colonies of the Europeans became independent, and hostile for a brief period. I suppose if history repeats itself, a similar interplanetary war will take place I believe.

[handy]

What the hell is 'Asimov'?

As previously stated (at least once): Research anyone?

People don't even bother to look up things that they have no understanding of on wiki, let alone do any genuine research!

Therefore, the quality of discussion in the Cafe, is, I suppose, what one should expect when talking to an absolute stranger in a cafe, that one may have never visited previously.

You pay your penny & take your chances here, as the quality of the responses to statements are as random as a lotto draw.

[handy]

Taking a leaf out of history books, all the colonies of the Europeans became independent, and hostile for a brief period. I suppose if history repeats itself, a similar interplanetary war will take place I believe.

I look forward to your exposition / proof, of the above statement?

I expect it will be quite a long discourse, as you certainly have some HUGE generalisations to justify in it.

[Oxwivi]

What's a lotto draw? :P

I'm too lazy to do research, y'know.

[Oxwivi]

Which part have I generalised?

[t0p]

A one-way Martian colonization mission is a ludicrous idea right now. Before we can entertain the possibility of manned interplanetary travel, we will need some infrastructure. A "skyhook"/"space elevator" or great advances in rocket technology would be good. Setting up a semi-permanent base on the moon would be a very good idea. It could function similarly to the scientific bases in Antarctica, where personnel are sent for extended stays. Or we would need large space stations. To even think of carrying out complex off-planet missions without getting a lot more experience of living and working in space would be suicidal. Then we build space-ships in orbit: the ship we fly to Mars would be too large to actually land on/take off from a planet. It orbits Mars, and the astronauts use smaller craft to actually go to the surface.

Before anyone goes to Mars, we would need to send unmanned crafts carrying all sorts of supplies, building materials, fuel for return flights etc. Robotic rovers and fliers would also precede any manned missions, to explore and locate suitable landing sites, carry out experiments and test equipment, and build some domes or whatever for the first human explorers.

The first manned missions would not be one-way - the first astronauts to go to Mars would use fuel and/or craft already waiting for them in orbit round Mars to return to Earth. It would be necessary for astronauts to return so they could be hailed as heroes and all that, which would make it much more likely that public opinion continues to support these expensive projects.

After a lot of short-term, then long-term missions, to gain experience of living on Mars, build greenhouses, domes and other infrastructure and maybe terraforming - after all that, it might be possible to send permanent colonists. Unfortunately that won't be in my life-time - I doubt anyone using this site today will live to see permanent colonization of Mars. But it will be fantastic to see any of the stuff I've written about here. I really do hope I'll be able to go into space before I die. But I'm enough of a realist to accept that I won't be going to Mars.

[Grenage]

I can't be the only one who has no desire to go into space, or see a government spend 16 quadrillion pounds growing leeks on a dead rock in space.

[Simian Man]

How about we just stop ****ing up the planet we already have?

[Grenage]

How about we just stop ****ing up the planet we already have?

Agreed; bring forth the eugenics and population culling.

[Swagman]

Read "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein.

Thanks.. Added to Amazon Chrimbo Wish List

[t0p]

Agreed; bring forth the eugenics and population culling.

That is one good reason for colonization of other planets. Over-population and environmental damage might make the Earth uninhabitable. It'd be cool of we could survive global climate change by going to live on Mars. Then we could start from scratch and mess up another world. :)

[Oxwivi]

You realise that Earth is one in a zillion that can naturally support life, right? No matter what other planet you find, it won't be as easy to inhabit it.

[Swagman]

That is one good reason for colonization of other planets. Over-population and environmental damage might make the Earth uninhabitable. It'd be cool of we could survive global climate change by going to live on Mars. Then we could start from scratch and mess up another world. :)

Bit like a virus then ?

[Oxwivi]

Bit like? More virus-like than a virus!

[Grenage]

You realise that Earth is one in a zillion that can naturally support life, right? No matter what other planet you find, it won't be as easy to inhabit it.

When someone has built a faster-than-light ship (lol), and actually explored the universe - I might believe that. I don't readily believe that someone can look at a grainy, post-coloured 2-pixel speck, and tell us whether it can support life.

[NightwishFan]

If estimates are off by a power of 10, and your number of one in a zillion (ill say billion) is correct, then there are still probably millions of planets that could potentially support life in our galaxy alone.

[Oxwivi]

Potentially but not within our reach. Even if we achieve the speed of light year or faster, it's still gonna be difficult finding one.

[NCLI]

1. I would go.
2. I really think this should happen, soon. At the rate we're using up out natural resources and ruining the environment, we'll soon need an alternative habitable planet.

[NightwishFan]

I suppose I should answer. I would go if I had an honorable reason to do so. I can not think of one off the top of my head so I would stay here where things are interesting.

Take a hilly forest and coast town. Wipe out the forest, the ocean, and the town, and be left with rocky hills and you got Mars. :)

[kevin11951]

When someone has built a faster-than-light ship (lol), and actually explored the universe - I might believe that. I don't readily believe that someone can look at a grainy, post-coloured 2-pixel speck, and tell us whether it can support life.

Not to mention the fact that if the star is 1 billion light years away, then you are looking 1 billion years in the past... imagine our planet 1 billion years in the past... not very interesting either.

[3Miro]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy

Great piece of Sci-fi. For anyone thinking about going to Mars, this is a must read.

[NCLI]

Not to mention the fact that if the star is 1 billion light years away, then you are looking 1 billion years in the past... imagine our planet 1 billion years in the past... not very interesting either.
Not true. It's true that the light of a planet 1 billion lightyears away will be 1 billion years old when it reaches us, but if we were able to instantly teleport there, that wouldn't be the case.

[handy]

...
Take a hilly forest and coast town. Wipe out the forest, the ocean, and the town, and be left with rocky hills and you got Mars. :)

Central Oz, is in many ways a lot like Mars.

On the same old tack; all I read here is uninformed opinion, backed up by no research. As usual.

Why people don't at least watch the high quality documentaries available is beyond me.

Obviously people would rather spout never ending BS, than do some study & then intelligently discuss the subject.

[Spice Weasel]

Bit like a virus then ?

I'd like to share a revelation I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we… are the cure.

[NightwishFan]

Central Oz, is in many ways a lot like Mars.

On the same old tack; all I read here is uninformed opinion, backed up by no research. As usual.

Why people don't at least watch the high quality documentaries available is beyond me.

Obviously people would rather spout never ending BS, than do some study & then intelligently discuss the subject.

I still do not see what you are saying. Did you expect any less from a forum? If you mean uninformed with what I said; I was just being colorful and indeed stating opinion. There is nothing on Mars to interest ME. I can study anything from there in a purely academic way.

[kevin11951]

Not true. It's true that the light of a planet 1 billion lightyears away will be 1 billion years old when it reaches us, but if we were able to instantly teleport there, that wouldn't be the case.

Ok? My point was that you can't look at a planet 1 billion light years away, and judge the state of life there, because you are seeing an image of what it looked like 1 billion years ago. In many cases I suspect a planet's life forms can change a whole heck of a lot in a billion years. Just look at us, we went from giant reptiles (dinosaurs) to small mammals with construction capabilities and space flight in only 65 million, much less a billion.

[Gremlinzzz]

The only way they'll colonise Mars is if they discover OIL on it.

[kevin11951]

The only way they'll colonise Mars is if they discover OIL on it.

Abso-freaking-lutely!

[forrestcupp]

I think there are some flaws in the logic of comparing a Mars landing to traversing the ocean. While both have substantial risk in the transit stage, the Americas at least had a hospitable climate and...yaknow food, water, and air.Lol +1

Let's go to a place that has no breathable atmosphere, where liquid water can't exist on the surface because of the low atmospheric pressure, and where it gets up to a balmy -5 degrees C in the summer. Let's go live there and work our tails off trying to come up with ways to breathe, eat, and drink before our supplies run out. That sounds like fun to me.

It's not really like Total Recall. :)


The only way they'll colonise Mars is if they discover OIL on it.
:lol:

Come on, guys. The Martians have been trying to get to the earth for years; why would we want to try to get to Mars? :)

[Paqman]

Mars isn't really a great target for an attempt at permanent human settlement IMO. It'd be difficult and achieve relatively little.

Until we find planets with an environment that's fairly similar to Earth and have the ability to bioengineer humans who are suited for that environment then long-term settlement of other planets ain't going to happen. In a lot of ways it'd be easier to build completely artificial habitats in space than it would be to try and live on a very foreign world. And even living long-term in space it might be very useful to modify our bodies to suit.

Either way, humans will be very much a sideshow in our civilisation's space exploration for a long time to come. In almost every situation it makes far more sense to send a machine than a live human, especially when you consider how much more capable our machines will be in the future.

[MasterNetra]

Where do I sign up?

Also, making it two way wouldn't be terribly difficult; you'd just need a space elevator on both worlds. Plasma-ion engines can reach speeds fast enough to facilitate interplanetary travel taking less than 39 days.

Yea but there is one snag. The planets have this tendency to move and mars can be on the other side of the sun to earth at times. It might take 39 days at the closet point but the window is quite small for it. And a elevator? Really? Who wants to be stuck in a elevator for over a month? :P

[Windows Nerd]

"To explore strange new worlds
to seek out new life an civilizations
to boldly go where no man has gone before..."

Though this is indeed a bold move, it is a waste of money. Solve the problems on Earth first.

[macem29]

edit: hmm, can't be bothered to finish my thought....

[WinterMadness]

i will pay good money to be on that ship to mars

[wilee-nilee]

Central Oz, is in many ways a lot like Mars.

On the same old tack; all I read here is uninformed opinion, backed up by no research. As usual.

Why people don't at least watch the high quality documentaries available is beyond me.

Obviously people would rather spout never ending BS, than do some study & then intelligently discuss the subject.

Robert Zubrin gives very good arguments for the one way trip, I have watched everyone you have linked in this thread.

This bold portion is why I rarely post in the cafe.;)

[MasterNetra]

"To explore strange new worlds
to seek out new life an civilizations
to boldly go where no man has gone before..."

Though this is indeed a bold move, it is a waste of money. Solve the problems on Earth first.

lol it could help in that. I mean we could always send our trash heaps to mars. Its not like its going to ruin its ecosytem sense its been dead for what millions of years prehaps? Assuming there ever was one to begin with.

[Dustin2128]

I'm sorry, the one thing I can't stand is a person against space travel. How about I and those like me go into space, explore and terraform new worlds, watch a double sunrise in orbit over the moon of a gas giant in a binary system light years away, sitting on a terraformed world in a forest watching 5 moons rise.... and you just stay on earth. Look, I get where you're coming from, but not going to other worlds is the single most suicidal thing humanity is doing right now.

[Gremlinzzz]

Hope we don't find other beings and worlds.odds are we would just exploit them and steal there resources.

[Ahava591]

Central Oz, is in many ways a lot like Mars.

On the same old tack; all I read here is uninformed opinion, backed up by no research. As usual.

Why people don't at least watch the high quality documentaries available is beyond me.

Obviously people would rather spout never ending BS, than do some study & then intelligently discuss the subject.

Weren't you the one who claimed that the technology has been around for twenty years and then acted like that was the only problem, totally ignoring posts like mine and others which point out that while technologically possible there are more, historically more difficult problems for our species to overcome? A video on YouTube, or a couple books by a single man, (Robert Zubrin, in this case,) is not research. It's propaganda. If you seriously expect us to go through every NASA document referencing it so that it goes from propaganda to actual research, you must be delusional. Please don't volunteer, I don't want delusional people to stab me in my sleep when they go space-mad. (Read: Humor)

Okay, okay, we're paying attention to you now. (Read, without humor: Al Gore)

Now can you please thank your higher power that we're a community water-cooler forum within the Ubuntu Linux forums and that whether or not we have viewed the "high quality documentaries," (according to you and the proponents, anyway,) is of absolutely no importance because even if said documentaries were to convince every human upon viewing that the Mars deal is viable and that they should work to make it happen we're a community water-cooler forum within the Ubuntu Linux forums? -If you want to take your highly educated opinions and go to the space agencies and cover each other in spittle debating the subject in the manner which you apparently haven't seen here, I ask that everybody make way for your exit.

If I may just one more line of my unintelligent dialogue? I lyke teh reedin materelz u proovidez, kthanxbye!



P.S. I've actually watched a couple of pieces of television about the Mars Analogue Research Stations before this. Ho-hum without addressing the problems I mentioned in my first post to the thread.

Mars Society Australia also apparently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct#cite_ref-1) argues for solar and chemical power, in contrast to nuclear. What happens to the rovers every time their solar panels are covered in dust? They have to sit tight and wait for another storm to blow the dust off. With people, we could manually maintain the panels; but chemical power, (or nuclear,) should obviously be the first and foremost supply for a colony.
The solar is of such little use that I posit the weight of the initial shipment completely negates planning for it in a primary-source role at the colony within the first five years. If solar efficiency, (and the efficiency of the equipment they will be powering,) improves dramatically within the next two years, (and the high efficiency equipment is brought into a consumer price range,) I will reconsider my position on Mars Direct.

[Grenage]

I'm sorry, the one thing I can't stand is a person against space travel. How about I and those like me go into space, explore and terraform new worlds, watch a double sunrise in orbit over the moon of a gas giant in a binary system light years away, sitting on a terraformed world in a forest watching 5 moons rise.... and you just stay on earth. Look, I get where you're coming from, but not going to other worlds is the single most suicidal thing humanity is doing right now.

You've been watching too much sci-fi.

[handy]

@Ahava591: It is a long way to fall from that long legged equine you sit astride.

You should probably apply for a job at NASA, where possibly someone will appreciate your fine insights & your technical critique on their various projects...

[Ahava591]

@Ahava591: It is a long way to fall from that long legged equine you sit astride.

You should probably apply for a job at NASA, where possibly someone will appreciate your fine insights & your technical critique on their various projects...
I did but they were only taking pointers from crackpots like you and Robert Zubrin who don't know how to have a coherent conversation with people like us.


A pointer for you:
Shut up with the smartass act and address the problems with the theory or stay out of the thread if you're too far above us to actually contribute something of your own.

You haven't argued us about the political will. You didn't even acknowledge that I have looked into the MARS stations and found them wanting. In your high-culture, deliberately demeaning rant against my post and myself you wouldn't bother to tell me exactly why I am wrong about them with reference to the monetary cost and public will of a Mars colony.

In short, you've done nothing but give us some links and then complain about us not having "half an idea," while all you have offered is half the idea, half the problem, the technical battle and not the public battle.


I think I've seen you talk down to others before; it's rude and boring and getting old. I would wonder if I'll get in trouble with the mods for this post; but I don't think I'd mind my account not being around to interactively learn if its' from high-horse jerks like you.
No, I won't miss learning from you a bit; not that it's likely I would have. You are, in fact, the very pompous moron that you've made me out to be.


I see that you're apparently retired; I hope you grow up soon. If you stop being such an arrogant jerk, I sincerely hope you live a happy and full life.

[handy]

@Avaha591: It is really easy for you & I to get on. Just put me in your ignore list like I'm about to do to you. After which we can travel on sweetly together in the same environment without having to listen to each others rubbish. :)

[Oxwivi]

My, aren't you guys so sweet.

[NMFTM]

I watched the movie Handy recommended last night. Everything the main guy in it was saying seemed reasonable. But then again, I'm not a space engineer so I don't know what's feasible and what's not. The only part of the mission that'd be dangerous for the astronauts that the movie failed to mention is the effect of prolonged less-than-1G gravity on the Human body. We know from the ISS that even with exercise, people's muscles (and bones too, I think) deteriorate in space. Now, they do have gravity on Mars. But the crew would be spending a total of a year in transit and about a year on mars sandwiched between the two trips to and from. I would venture to guess that Human colonists born on Mars would have lesser life expectancies and suffer more health problems due to the effect lf less than 1G gravity.

[Oxwivi]

They can health problems, or their body can adapt to that environment.

[handy]

I watched the movie Handy recommended last night. Everything the main guy in it was saying seemed reasonable. But then again, I'm not a space engineer so I don't know what's feasible and what's not. The only part of the mission that'd be dangerous for the astronauts that the movie failed to mention is the effect of prolonged less-than-1G gravity on the Human body. We know from the ISS that even with exercise, people's muscles (and bones too, I think) deteriorate in space. Now, they do have gravity on Mars. But the crew would be spending a total of a year in transit and about a year on mars sandwiched between the two trips to and from. I would venture to guess that Human colonists born on Mars would have lesser life expectancies and suffer more health problems due to the effect lf less than 1G gravity.

Decades ago (in the 1960s), the Russians developed technology that uses vibration to maintain & develop muscular strength, bone density & has quite a few other physical benefits.

Here is some marketroid blurb on the technology (I'm sure you can find more detailed info' if you have a search for it):

http://www.cardiotech.com.au/vibration-machines/

[Spice Weasel]

Decades ago (in the 1960s), the Russians developed technology that uses vibration to maintain & develop muscular strength, bone density & has quite a few other physical benefits.

So what they did to Neo wasn't faked! :)

Wait, second Matrix reference I've made in this thread... I should probably go lie down.

[NightwishFan]

I think they used acupuncture on Neo. It is not fake but certainly not something you would desire all the time.

[Oxwivi]

I think they used acupuncture on Neo. It is not fake but certainly not something you would desire all the time.
Have some robot do it while you're asleep? O_o

[NightwishFan]

I wouldnt trust a person to stick needles in me so I wouldnt trust a machine either. :)

[handy]

At least the Russian vibration system is not physically invasive, as in it doesn't puncture the skin.

I've actually got one of the units (VT-12, linked to in previous post), I bought it for my aging mother in an effort to help her maintain muscular strength, bone density & the other benefits. Unfortunately it was no good for a problem that she has with her heart rhythm. I knew that this was a possible problem for her, but it was worth a try.

Anyway, it is at my place now, I just have to do some very serious rearranging in my office to be able to fit the VT-12 machine in, as there is nowhere else in our small house that I can fit it.

[samjh]

I'm sorry, the one thing I can't stand is a person against space travel. How about I and those like me go into space, explore and terraform new worlds, watch a double sunrise in orbit over the moon of a gas giant in a binary system light years away, sitting on a terraformed world in a forest watching 5 moons rise.... and you just stay on earth.

I'm less concerned about nice scenery, and more concerned at what seems to be a very "dead" spirit of enterprise and progress -- both generally as well as on these forums.

As I mentioned some time ago in another space-related thread, the value of scientific endeavour cannot be measured in mere decades, but rather after centuries have passed.


I would probably use the the money to save the earth and its inhabitant.

Save Earth? We may be able to save or destroy ourselves, but saving or destroying Earth is very far from our power yet. The K-T extinction event -- a meteor strike two million times more powerful than the most explosive nuclear weapon ever tested, couldn't destroy Earth or life on it.

Having said that, one-way colonisation of Mars will probably be suicidal without much much more research and development.

Perhaps we should stop wasting money on wars, and direct some of that to scientific research instead. The cost of the Iraq War (US$1.9 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office) has been 100 times more expensive than the 2011 fiscal budget for NASA (US$19 billion).

[Oxwivi]

I think he meant destroying Earth not in the sense of pulverising it to nothing, but it's ability to support life - and humans. Dropping a few nuclear bombs on each continent is enough to completely rid of terrestrial life.

[NightwishFan]

I doubt we should talk like this on here please.

[Oxwivi]

Like what?

[Gremlinzzz]

There's nothing on Mars.We sent robots to look for resources.NO one is going to invest going to a useless rock.You all seem to think its about exploring and science.Its about MONEY.All old time explorers killed robbed the people they encountered. Its all about the Benjamin's.

[whiskeylover]

What the hell is 'Asimov'?

:o

[Gremlinzzz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov

[Oxwivi]

Um... please read through the thread before posting, that has already been answered.

[Paqman]

Dropping a few nuclear bombs on each continent is enough to completely rid of terrestrial life.

There's been hundreds of atmospheric nuclear tests since WWII, and we seem to still be here. I think you overestimate how powerful nuclear weapons really are. I'm not saying i'd like to hug a sunbomb when it went off, but we just don't have the kind of firepower you're suggesting.

[WinterMadness]

I'm sorry, the one thing I can't stand is a person against space travel. How about I and those like me go into space, explore and terraform new worlds, watch a double sunrise in orbit over the moon of a gas giant in a binary system light years away, sitting on a terraformed world in a forest watching 5 moons rise.... and you just stay on earth. Look, I get where you're coming from, but not going to other worlds is the single most suicidal thing humanity is doing right now.

i agree with you.

space travel and extraterrestrial colonization is mans destiny

those who dont care or want it seem to want to doom mankind

[t0p]

There's nothing on Mars.We sent robots to look for resources.NO one is going to invest going to a useless rock.You all seem to think its about exploring and science.Its about MONEY.All old time explorers killed robbed the people they encountered. Its all about the Benjamin's.

There's a saying: "Necessity is the mother of invention." But that isn't necessarily true. All through history we have seen that warfare is the mother of invention. Except for that brief period in the 1960s when travel to the moon turned out to be one mother of a mother of invention.

If NASA/ESA/whoever else decided to go to Mars, there would be all sorts of wonderful byproducts. And even though Mars is a "useless rock" right now, that would change soon enough. We can't say precisely what the benefits of a Mars mission would be, because we are not fortune tellers. But I feel confident in saying that a Mars mission would pay for itself many many times over.

Of course, a bunch of people refuse to invest in anything unless they know what they're gonna get out of it. I vote that such people should shut up and go do something else. Those of us who are truly interested in the future of our species will push for the "impossible", as we have all through human history (remember Christophe Columbus? Hardly anyone could see the point of his mission. But in hindsight his was one of the greatest achievements in history.)

[handy]

As the documentaries previously mentioned state, it would take 100 years or so (probably quicker as they learn more) to create a more useful atmosphere on Mars (which has a lot of frozen water on it).

Another thing (that I don't think has been previously mentioned) is that in the looong term future as our Sun starts the process of dying, it will become (temporarily) stronger, which will make life on Earth impossible, but it will for some time make life on Mars far more ideal.

I know, we have a few other problems to manage before we start looking down the barrel of that one, but it is still a reality.

Personally, I find the colonisation of Mars, which would in reality be a stepping stone to other Moons in our Solar System, & beyond; to be incredibly stimulating & exciting.

I particularly love Zubrin's enthusiasm, the doco' gives me more hope for humanity & its collective future adventures.

[malspa]

It really is an exciting idea. I do hope humans are able to one day travel to Mars and beyond and colonize distant planets. But from everything I've read, I think that successful colonization of Mars is really a very long way off -- still very much in the realm of science fiction.

[phrostbyte]

I think it's funny that space technology actually seems to be devolving in some respects. As an outside observer, it seems like NASA is doing less impressive things as time goes on. The new NASA Ares rocket can't hold a candle to the Saturn V. :(

[NCLI]

I'm sorry, the one thing I can't stand is a person against space travel. How about I and those like me go into space, explore and terraform new worlds, watch a double sunrise in orbit over the moon of a gas giant in a binary system light years away, sitting on a terraformed world in a forest watching 5 moons rise.... and you just stay on earth. Look, I get where you're coming from, but not going to other worlds is the single most suicidal thing humanity is doing right now.
We have 200 millions years before the sun kills us all, so there's time yet ;)

Incidentially, Danish scientists discovered the exact date very recently :guitar:

[Dustin2128]

We have 200 millions years before the sun kills us all, so there's time yet ;)

Incidentially, Danish scientists discovered the exact date very recently :guitar:
Actually from what I've read, it's a billion years. None the less, many other events could end life on this fair planet well before that happens. What always happens when you partition your drive without backing up?

[Paqman]

As the documentaries previously mentioned state, it would take 100 years or so (probably quicker as they learn more) to create a more useful atmosphere on Mars


I'm no expert, but I don't think creating a breathable atmosphere on Mars is a realistic prospect. Atmospheres don't exist in isolation. Our atmosphere here on Earth is a complex balance of interactions between the rocks, the oceans, living creatures, the magnetosphere, and probably a dozen other things. You can't just magic one into existence by pumping out the right gas. If you don't have the magentic field to retain it, or the right geology to keep it in balance, you're scuppered.

In short, terraforming is bunkum. We have no technology that even begins to approach what would be required to pull off engineering on that scale here on Earth, let alone on another planet.

[handy]

I'm no expert, ...

Some people who are experts, say that it IS possible, they already know how to do it, & they say that the time frame (which I previously mentioned) would most likely come down as they continually learn & optimise the technology.

There are always two prime schools of thought/attitude; half full & half empty.

One pays, one doesn't.

Both suffer failures.

I know where I prefer to live as it pays moment by moment, & ultimately, my moments are all that I own.

[standingwave]

I think it's funny that space technology actually seems to be devolving in some respects. As an outside observer, it seems like NASA is doing less impressive things as time goes on. The new NASA Ares rocket can't hold a candle to the Saturn V. :(We should have pursued the Nova program (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/nova.htm) back in the day. Imagine a rocket with ten times the payload of a Saturn V.

[del_diablo]

Actually from what I've read, it's a billion years. None the less, many other events could end life on this fair planet well before that happens. What always happens when you partition your drive without backing up?

Nuclear war? Won't kill of humanity.
Meteor hitting? Still won't do the trick.
Rapid change in oxygen level towards lower state? That could do damage, but we could also get around it.
Sorry to say so, but we will likely be around as whatever is splinted up on our race by that time.

[ve4cib]

Some people who are experts, say that it IS possible, they already know how to do it, & they say that the time frame (which I previously mentioned) would most likely come down as they continually learn & optimise the technology.


It may be possible to create an atmosphere, but maintaining it is an entirely different matter. Mars' atmosphere is thin and constantly deteriorating because ionized particles in the upper atmosphere are constantly being blown off by solar winds. Without a magnetic field there is nothing to stop this from happening with whatever artificial atmosphere we might create.

There are really two possible ways of rectifying this fundamental issue with the Martian atmosphere:

1- Keep a steady stream of new atmospheric gases flowing to replace what is lost. This is the easiest solution technologically, but probably the most-expensive in terms of execution: you need to acquire the gases from somewhere, ship them to Mars, and then pump them into the upper atmosphere. Constantly. It's like keeping a boat from sinking by constantly tossing bucketfuls of water over the side. It works, but it's not very energy-efficient in the long-term.

2- Artificially induce a planet-wide magnetic field. On Earth we have our spinning iron core that produces our magnetic field. Mars does not appear to have any kind of a fluid mantle or core. We could try melting the mantle to reproduce the same effect we have on Earth; there is evidence that Mars once had Earth-like geology in that sense, so we'd be restarting it. Obviously no one has any real idea how to do that, but ultimately that's the "prettiest" solution.

Alternatively we could place an array of magnetic field generating stations either on the surface or in orbit that would create an entirely-artificial field. Powering these stations is a huge problem though; creating a magnetic field that strong on a planetary scale would require vast amounts of energy, which ultimately must come from somewhere.


Teraforming Mars is a great idea, and it looks good in sci-fi, but at our present state of technology we're simply not there with any kind of sustainable, long-term solution. Will we get there eventually? Yeah, probably. We may even be able to thin Venus' atmosphere to the point where it could be rendered habitable as well.

But for the time-being I think the prospect of long-term, enclosed domes is the more practical solution to the Martian-habitation problem. And I would hazard to guess that most respected experts in the field would agree with that.

[handy]

@ve4cib: I suggest you take the discussion up with the experts. They may have a thing or two to say that disputes your views.

Hazarding guesses is not the way they work. Though they may start with an inspiration (a hazardous guess), they then have to work at proving/disproving it, & then move on from there.

They (the experts) have to do enormous amounts of mathematical calculations, usually on software that they have written (or have had written) to help them solve or at least further their understanding of these problems.

I'm not an expert on the subject, so it is a total waste of everyone's time for me to gather whatever info' I can from the web & argue with you. As the info' I'd gather is mostly superfluous rubbish, that would then be reinterpreted by me, & spat out into a non-scientific forum, by a non-scientific person.

I prefer to waste my time on the web in other ways that I find more enjoyable these days. :)

I shall continue to refine my expertise in not being an expert.

Though I'll always rely on my experience, as I know that it was at least for me, real & true at the time.

[Gremlinzzz]

There's a saying: "Necessity is the mother of invention." But that isn't necessarily true. All through history we have seen that warfare is the mother of invention. Except for that brief period in the 1960s when travel to the moon turned out to be one mother of a mother of invention.

If NASA/ESA/whoever else decided to go to Mars, there would be all sorts of wonderful byproducts. And even though Mars is a "useless rock" right now, that would change soon enough. We can't say precisely what the benefits of a Mars mission would be, because we are not fortune tellers. But I feel confident in saying that a Mars mission would pay for itself many many times over.

Of course, a bunch of people refuse to invest in anything unless they know what they're gonna get out of it. I vote that such people should shut up and go do something else. Those of us who are truly interested in the future of our species will push for the "impossible", as we have all through human history (remember Christophe Columbus? Hardly anyone could see the point of his mission. But in hindsight his was one of the greatest achievements in history.)

I believe Columbus fell into this category.All old time explorers killed robbed and exploited the people they encountered .

[t0p]

It may be possible to create an atmosphere, but maintaining it is an entirely different matter. Mars' atmosphere is thin and constantly deteriorating because ionized particles in the upper atmosphere are constantly being blown off by solar winds. Without a magnetic field there is nothing to stop this from happening with whatever artificial atmosphere we might create.

There are really two possible ways of rectifying this fundamental issue with the Martian atmosphere:

1- Keep a steady stream of new atmospheric gases flowing to replace what is lost. This is the easiest solution technologically, but probably the most-expensive in terms of execution: you need to acquire the gases from somewhere, ship them to Mars, and then pump them into the upper atmosphere. Constantly. It's like keeping a boat from sinking by constantly tossing bucketfuls of water over the side. It works, but it's not very energy-efficient in the long-term.

2- Artificially induce a planet-wide magnetic field. On Earth we have our spinning iron core that produces our magnetic field. Mars does not appear to have any kind of a fluid mantle or core. We could try melting the mantle to reproduce the same effect we have on Earth; there is evidence that Mars once had Earth-like geology in that sense, so we'd be restarting it. Obviously no one has any real idea how to do that, but ultimately that's the "prettiest" solution.

Alternatively we could place an array of magnetic field generating stations either on the surface or in orbit that would create an entirely-artificial field. Powering these stations is a huge problem though; creating a magnetic field that strong on a planetary scale would require vast amounts of energy, which ultimately must come from somewhere.


Teraforming Mars is a great idea, and it looks good in sci-fi, but at our present state of technology we're simply not there with any kind of sustainable, long-term solution. Will we get there eventually? Yeah, probably. We may even be able to thin Venus' atmosphere to the point where it could be rendered habitable as well.

But for the time-being I think the prospect of long-term, enclosed domes is the more practical solution to the Martian-habitation problem. And I would hazard to guess that most respected experts in the field would agree with that.

I remember reading (in Red Mars or perhaps Green Mars - SF novels about the colonizing the planet) that some people had the idea of getting an asteroid that consisted mostly of water ice, fitting it with thrusters, then putting it on a very near-collision with Mars. The icy asteroid would "bounce" off Mars's atmosphere, billions of tons of ice would melt or vaporize, thus delivering a huge amount of water vapour to the Martion "eco-system").

I don't know how realistic a prospect this might be (I read SF, not astro-physics or ecology) but it sounds pretty cool. There's so much water ice flying around the solar system, why go to the trouble and expense of taking it from Earth?

Of course, it'd all be pretty pointless while Mars's lack of a magnetic field allows the solar winds/cosmic rays frm stripping the planet of whatever atmosphere we introduce. Figuring out how to create and maintain a magnetic field or its equivalent is a major goal towards any kind of terraforming. Maybe we'd just have to accept the need to live in air-tight domes and greenhouses, and develop lighter and tougher pressure suits for those who'd need to go on forays outside. If we can't change Mars to suit us, we'd have to change ourselves to suit Mars.

[kevin11951]

One of the main ideas for "taraforming" Mars, is not really taraforming, but polluting the crap out of Mars (basically just continue doing what we are doing now). This would create a dense atmosphere, and allow people to walk around on its surface without a space suit. They would still need oxygen, but nothing else.

[NightwishFan]

I think it is way more complicated than that. I remember there was a movie I watched with Val Kilmer about a manned mission to Mars. It was very very inaccurate but entertaining.

[forrestcupp]

These efforts will never be spearheaded by any government. The only possible way anything like this will ever happen is if some very wealthy group in the private sector take it on.

It will have to be done by people who are so fanatical about it that they don't pay attention to all the scoffers. It will also have to be done by a group of people who are totally selfless and don't care that it would take longer than their lifetime to generate an atmosphere on Mars, and even so long that they will never even live to see whether it will actually work or not.

[handy]

...
If we can't change Mars to suit us, we'd have to change ourselves to suit Mars.

I think that it would be somewhat of a dynamic compromise between those two. As time went by we would be changing Mars; all of the time we would have to be functioning in a fashion that allowed us to survive in an environment that was not at all like Earth.

But I really know next to nothing about the subject, so?

[handy]

One of the main ideas for "taraforming" Mars, is not really taraforming, but polluting the crap out of Mars (basically just continue doing what we are doing now). This would create a dense atmosphere, and allow people to walk around on its surface without a space suit. They would still need oxygen, but nothing else.

That is my understanding also.

What we get to do with Mars, is bring a dead planet back to life. Which is quite the opposite of what we are doing to this one!

All very interesting, involving & hopefully useful.

[handy]

These efforts will never be spearheaded by any government. The only possible way anything like this will ever happen is if some very wealthy group in the private sector take it on.

It will have to be done by people who are so fanatical about it that they don't pay attention to all the scoffers. It will also have to be done by a group of people who are totally selfless and don't care that it would take longer than their lifetime to generate an atmosphere on Mars, and even so long that they will never even live to see whether it will actually work or not.

I agree with all that you say forrestcupp, except that I think the science would be well understood before the big corporation(s) invested in the project. I think that they would basically know that it will work before they invest.

Unlike our useless politicians who think in 3 or 4 year terms, the corpies that enter into this one, (Rothschild?) are going to be very serious about a long term plan for expansion.

With all the positives it is still a bit scary in some ways...

[Paqman]

It may be possible to create an atmosphere, but maintaining it is an entirely different matter.

Exactly. Mars is a dead world precisely because it lost its atmosphere.

Raising the dead is somewhat tricky when you're dealing with one organism. Doing it for an entire planet isn't a realistic expectation. You'd need to have the ability to make fundamental changes to the planet's structure and composition. We may one day have engineering capabilities on that level, but it won't be for a very long time. Creating a planetary magnetic field and raising the average temperature of an entire planet would require phenomenal expense of energy. I just don't see how it could ever be attractive economically.

Forget terraforming. There's faster, cheaper and more efficient ways to get what we wanted done on Mars. A small cadre of humans overseeing a large machine workforce would be much more realistic, and would tick all the boxes.

[handy]

I find it really intriguing that so many people consider themselves to know more than the people who specialise in the various aspects of the human, Mars operation/interaction.

Me, I hope I get to see it start happening in my life time, if not, so be it...

There certainly are a range of arguments that at one extreme could say that we have wasted our wealth & have therefore made (doomed) ourselves to be earthbound.

As usual, time will tell it all. :)

P.S. When I say doomed to be earthbound, my meaning is in no way whatsoever meant to be casting any negative aspersions on this miraculous & wondrous planet.

[ve4cib]

@ve4cib: I suggest you take the discussion up with the experts. They may have a thing or two to say that disputes your views.

My views have nothing to do with the fact that maintaining a dense atmosphere on Mars without a magnetic field to protect it from solar winds and other sources of ionization is impossible without constantly refreshing the atmosphere with fresh gases. That is a simple fact, supported by the laws of physics and empirical observations performed by experts in the field.

In order for Mars to have a permanent, self-sustaining, dense atmosphere, a planetary magnetic field must be generated through some artificial mechanism.

[Paqman]

I find it really intriguing that so many people consider themselves to know more than the people who specialise in the various aspects of the human, Mars operation/interaction.


Hopefully that wasn't directed at me, because I said previously that i'm not an expert. Things like terraforming are purely hypothetical ideas, and i'm pretty confident the majority of experts would agree that they're not practically achievable with any current or impending technology.

To get an idea of what the experts really think, look at what is actually happening in space exploration. A human hasn't left low Earth orbit in nearly 40 years. Space exploration is a job primarily for machines, any human involvement will be pretty minimal for the foreseeable future.

[forrestcupp]

I find it really intriguing that so many people consider themselves to know more than the people who specialise in the various aspects of the human, Mars operation/interaction.
How can you have a decent discussion if you're that closed minded on it? There are experts who specialize in these things that say that it can be done, so that's the end of the story.

If that's the end of the story, then why even discuss it? A one sided discussion gets old pretty quickly. Even experts don't always think of everything and can grow from brainstorming.

[Shakz]

Oh I could see it now...
Shakz@marzterminal:~$ ping google.com
64 bytes from 74.125.227.52: time=1200000000000000000000000.5 ms

[handy]

The only reason that we haven't yet sent manned space craft to Mars, is the lack of political will (money).

Apparently China, Japan & some members of the EU, all have plans for future manned Mars missions.

If & when we ever see anything materialise in this regard remains to be seen.

I don't expect to be around in another 35 years. Hopefully I will see it happen in my life time.

I consider a manned Mars mission would be a truly galvanising event for humanity, just as the first manned Moon landing was.

The Moon landing happened because JFK said we are going to do it, & made the funding available.

[ve4cib]

I've often wondered how much more advanced our space programs would be if the Soviet Union hadn't collapsed. The Space Race saw HUGE advances in space technology simply because the race between the capitalists and the communists put huge social and political pressure (and therefore funding) behind the programs. When two nations are desperately competing with each other like that the amount of funding that gets tossed around is huge.

Once the Soviet Union collapsed the vast majority of the political impetus behind the American space program died with it. The Americans were the undisputed kings of space, so there was no point in spending millions of dollars to do anything quickly.

Obviously the collapse of the USSR wasn't the only cause of the cutbacks faced by NASA. The public lost interest after the first few moon missions; space became "routine" so the media didn't cover it, meaning people stopped caring.

Honestly, I'm glad countries like China, India, and the EU as a whole are eying space exploration seriously. If enough countries start having such lofty, stellar goals we may be able to rekindle some of the public-interest spark that existed through the 50s and 60s at the height of the Space Race. High public interest means politicians will start throwing more money around, in the hopes of winning votes.

[handy]

I've often wondered how much more advanced our space programs would be if the Soviet Union hadn't collapsed. The Space Race saw HUGE advances in space technology simply because the race between the capitalists and the communists put huge social and political pressure (and therefore funding) behind the programs. When two nations are desperately competing with each other like that the amount of funding that gets tossed around is huge.

Yes, I agree, it was due to Russia leading in the early days of the space technology in combination with the cold war that motivated the US to spend the bucks & focus on being the first to plant their flag on the Moon.



Once the Soviet Union collapsed the vast majority of the political impetus behind the American space program died with it. The Americans were the undisputed kings of space, so there was no point in spending millions of dollars to do anything quickly.

The US lost their prime motivating competitor after they managed to send the USSR broke (& make the US arms manufacturers even wealthier); interestingly, in sending the USSR broke, they broke the USSR.



Obviously the collapse of the USSR wasn't the only cause of the cutbacks faced by NASA. The public lost interest after the first few moon missions; space became "routine" so the media didn't cover it, meaning people stopped caring.

I agree. I'd love to see the enthusiasm or at least stimulation that a publicly exhibited, continually publicly updated manned Mars mission would create throughout the world. I think it would have a huge positive effect on the collective consciousness of humanity.



Honestly, I'm glad countries like China, India, and the EU as a whole are eyeing space exploration seriously. If enough countries start having such lofty, stellar goals we may be able to rekindle some of the public-interest spark that existed through the 50s and 60s at the height of the Space Race. High public interest means politicians will start throwing more money around, in the hopes of winning votes.

One would think (I hope) that a collaborative effort, with many countries all contributing to the project one way or another will eventually materialise. It certainly makes the most sense resource (broadest meaning) wise to do it that way.

As usual, time will tell. :)

[Paqman]

The only reason that we haven't yet sent manned space craft to Mars, is the lack of political will (money).

<snip>

The Moon landing happened because JFK said we are going to do it, & made the funding available.

The reason we haven't sent a manned mission to Mars is that there's no strong scientific or commercial argument to do so. You could argue that the same was true of the moon, but in the 60's manned missions had a better scientific case, as they lacked the skill in robotics that we have now. These days we're quite capable of building a very competent geological rover and put it on Mars, which kind of chops the case for a manned mission off at the knees. The cost-benefit ratio for sending meatbags isn't good.

IMO, manned missions will only happen when there's a commercial driver for it, and there won't be one of those until we bring the price of getting off Earth waaaaay down. At the moment the only real contender for that looks like a space elevator, but the capital expenditure involved in building one of those means it's not likely to happen quickly even if they solve the technological hurdles. In the meantime, we need rockets an order of magnitude more efficient than we have now.

[handy]

The reason we haven't sent a manned mission to Mars is that there's no strong scientific or commercial argument to do so. You could argue that the same was true of the moon, but in the 60's manned missions had a better scientific case, as they lacked the skill in robotics that we have now. These days we're quite capable of building a very competent geological rover and put it on Mars, which kind of chops the case for a manned mission off at the knees. The cost-benefit ratio for sending meatbags isn't good.

Firstly, in a previous post you questioned whether I was taking a personal shot at you.

I wasn't. I have always held your input in these forums in very high regard. :) That's that.

As far as your statement above goes, I see it differently. I see Mars as the next step for humanity. A step that starts our exploration of this most incredibly miraculous & mysterious creation that we happen to have been born into. The Galaxy/Universe.

I absolutely LOVE this universe, & so look forward to the possibility of humanity adventuring into its near (to our minds) infinite realms.



IMO, manned missions will only happen when there's a commercial driver for it, and there won't be one of those until we bring the price of getting off Earth waaaaay down. At the moment the only real contender for that looks like a space elevator, but the capital expenditure involved in building one of those means it's not likely to happen quickly even if they solve the technological hurdles. In the meantime, we need rockets an order of magnitude more efficient than we have now.

I don't know about that stuff. I'm a scientific technical ignoramus. Information that I have been exposed to says that because the atmosphere is currently so thin on Mars, it makes it a vastly cheaper place, energy wise for us to launch whatever to further our space exploration.

Strange as it may seem; it costs more in fuel to fly to & land on the Moon (because it has NO atmosphere) than it does to fly to & land on Mars (because it does have some atmosphere).

The energy used in breaking the fall of the landing craft is apparently the reason. An atmosphere, even a thin one like that on Mars, is apparently an incredible energy saver when it comes to landing.

It is all so very interesting. I wish I was a wiz kid, I think I would happily dedicate my life's work to this Mars stuff.

I would find it to be such stimulating, educational good fun. :)

As a fit young person, I would be incredibly enthusiastic & grateful for the opportunity to go & do what it takes to colonise Mars.

[t0p]

Why doesn't someone just fake a Mars landing?

Granted, back in the 60s and 70s it was easier to con the world (fewer sufficiently-equipped eyes looking on) but I'm sure Hollywood could still pull it off. Special effects are so much better now than they were back then.

[Oxwivi]

Why bother?

[handy]

Why doesn't someone just fake a Mars landing?

Granted, back in the 60s and 70s it was easier to con the world (fewer sufficiently-equipped eyes looking on) but I'm sure Hollywood could still pull it off. Special effects are so much better now than they were back then.

You may enjoy this site:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

[handy]

Why bother?

Great post? :confused:

Due to its lack of succinctness it is near impossible to give an appropriate reply...

If you meant why bother going to Mars? Then I say it is the next step for human exploration of the solar system, galaxy, & ultimately beyond.

A truly great adventure for us as a species on the whole.

It furthers mankind to have somewhere to go. :)

[Oxwivi]

It was in response to faking the landing post.

And there are zillion stuff unknown about Earth itself, so why not leave the universe exploration to when we have better technology? The way I see it, maintaining an orbital presence is enough to support humanity for now.

[Paqman]

I see Mars as the next step for humanity. A step that starts our exploration of this most incredibly miraculous & mysterious creation that we happen to have been born into. The Galaxy/Universe.


We've already taken that step though. We've got orbiters and rovers on Mars now. The next step is to go looking at the moons of the gas giants. After that, the asteroid belt.

It may be useful to set up small outposts that are manned some or all of the time somewhere in the solar system at some point, but that's not a given. It's more likely that the vast majority (or all) of the exploration and exploitation is conducted from Earth, as it is now.

As far as colonisation goes, I think we're going to have to wait until we've found a way to cross interstellar distances to a suitably Earth-like world that humans could be adapted to live on. That's going to be centuries down the track, at least.

[Grenage]

Why doesn't someone just fake a Mars landing?

Granted, back in the 60s and 70s it was easier to con the world (fewer sufficiently-equipped eyes looking on) but I'm sure Hollywood could still pull it off. Special effects are so much better now than they were back then.

Get Michael Bay involved, and you're onto a winner... provided Mars is occupied by savage rock people uttering witty one-liners, and setting off impressive explosions.

[Paqman]

Granted, back in the 60s and 70s it was easier to con the world (fewer sufficiently-equipped eyes looking on)

Nonsense. The Soviets had a highly sophisticated space programme of their own, and tracked every move the Americans made in great detail (and vice-versa). They also had an enormous motive to expose any potential NASA fakery.

The only way the US could have faked a moon landing would have been to get the Russians in on it, which is a ridiculous idea.

[handy]

It was in response to faking the landing post.

And there are zillion stuff unknown about Earth itself, so why not leave the universe exploration to when we have better technology? The way I see it, maintaining an orbital presence is enough to support humanity for now.

My immediate reaction to your post is the half empty / half full thing.

Enjoy life. :)

[handy]

We've already taken that step though. We've got orbiters and rovers on Mars now. The next step is to go looking at the moons of the gas giants. After that, the asteroid belt.

It may be useful to set up small outposts that are manned some or all of the time somewhere in the solar system at some point, but that's not a given. It's more likely that the vast majority (or all) of the exploration and exploitation is conducted from Earth, as it is now.

As far as colonisation goes, I think we're going to have to wait until we've found a way to cross interstellar distances to a suitably Earth-like world that humans could be adapted to live on. That's going to be centuries down the track, at least.

I understand what you are saying, but still disagree. But that's ok. What do I know? :)

[handy]

Nonsense. The Soviets had a highly sophisticated space programme of their own, and tracked every move the Americans made in great detail (and vice-versa). They also had an enormous motive to expose any potential NASA fakery.

The only way the US could have faked a moon landing would have been to get the Russians in on it, which is a ridiculous idea.

I totally agree, I'll post this link again:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

[Oxwivi]

My immediate reaction to your post is the half empty / half full thing.

Enjoy life. :)
Yeah, we should enjoy life. Fix the flight to the next planet when Earth's destroyed not whet it can still be saved. :P

[handy]

Yeah, we should enjoy life. Fix the flight to the next planet when Earth's destroyed not whet it can still be saved. :P

I prefer to back up my drive before its inevitable failure.

[Oxwivi]

Yes well, Earth's not gonna be destroyed just like that - not inevitably. And if it's not inevitable, we can relax and back up each folder one by one, making sure we don't miss anything. If a missile is already on it's way, then run - but if it's not launched yet, then prepare yourself to either prevent it hitting you or prepare the things that you'd need on the run.

[whiskeylover]

Yeah, the moon landing was totally fake. Also, Linux is fake. Its actually cleverly disguised Windows.

[handy]

Yes well, Earth's not gonna be destroyed just like that - not inevitably. And if it's not inevitable, we can relax and back up each folder one by one, making sure we don't miss anything. If a missile is already on it's way, then run - but if it's not launched yet, then prepare yourself to either prevent it hitting you or prepare the things that you'd need on the run.

Actually it is a 100% inevitability that our entire solar system will be destroyed by our dying sun. Long term, I agree. But it IS inevitable.

Anyway some of us are adventurous & others are not so adventurous. There is no reason why both types of people can't get on about their business & hopefully enhance each others lives in the mean time. :)

[Grenage]

Actually it is a 100% inevitability that our entire solar system will be destroyed by our dying sun. Long term, I agree. But it IS inevitable.

Perhaps. ;)

As far as I'm aware, we've no empirical reason to presume much about the life of a star.

[whiskeylover]

Perhaps. ;)

As far as I'm aware, we've no empirical reason to presume much about the life of a star.

The stars gotta burn out sometime.

[Grenage]

I couldn't agree more, I'm merely playing Devil's advocate; there is no proof, only theory.

[handy]

Perhaps. ;)

As far as I'm aware, we've no empirical reason to presume much about the life of a star.

No two ways to it.

Apart from what the scientists do already know; George Harrison wrapped it up in his song: "All Things Must Pass".

[Grenage]

No two ways to it.

Apart from what the scientists do already know; George Harrison wrapped it up in his song: "All Things Must Pass".

I think we've reached a new low, using song titles as a basis for scientific theory. :p

[handy]

I couldn't agree more, I'm merely playing Devil's advocate; there is no proof, only theory.

When it comes to science, the definitions of the words proof & theory, are very interesting.

My understanding is that they have been observing & measuring what happens to stars. The life cycle of a star is pretty well understood by cosmologists.

There certainly is a use by date for everything, stars & solar systems included.

Humanity wants to be firstly off of this planet by a certain time & then out of this solar system at a later time.

Huge periods of time I know.

My concern at this point in time is that we have wasted our oil based wealth & may (hopefully not of course) have left our run too late for this very expensive off planet endeavour.

Of course if countries like the US diverted their funds from arms manufacture to space travel we wouldn't have a problem. Though they still have a gross external debt of way over 13 trillion dollars!

Which is a number so big I don't know how to relate to. :confused:

Anyway, I always live in hope. :D

[handy]

I think we've reached a new low, using song titles as a basis for scientific theory. :p

At times poetry works for me in a fashion that is unique & irreplaceable.

Different strokes for different folks.

(Did you notice that, that rhymed?) ;)

[Grenage]

At times poetry works for me in a fashion that is unique & irreplaceable.

Different strokes for different folks.

(Did you notice that, that rhymed?) ;)

Aye, smartass ;)

I agree that the human race could well end on this planet; so many people, such rapid consumption of resources. Still, we can have some fun before that happens.

[whiskeylover]

Aye, smartass ;)

I agree that the human race could well end on this planet; so many people, such rapid consumption of resources. Still, we can have some fun before that happens.

That reminds me... I need a beer. G'night guys.

[forrestcupp]

Why doesn't someone just fake a Mars landing?

Granted, back in the 60s and 70s it was easier to con the world (fewer sufficiently-equipped eyes looking on) but I'm sure Hollywood could still pull it off. Special effects are so much better now than they were back then.:guitar: I was waiting for someone to say that. I'm glad it didn't have to be me. :)


What do I know? :)Someone needs to do a psychological analysis to figure out why you keep saying that. ;)


Anyway some of us are adventurous & others are not so adventurous. There is no reason why both types of people can't get on about their business & hopefully enhance each others lives in the mean time. :)Now that's a sensible thing to say. There's no reason I should care if you want to try to colonize Mars if you're not trying to make me go, too.

[Gremlinzzz]

Martian colonization A list of stuff we'll need
First allot of brooms to clean up all that red dust.Big job maybe we can outsource it to save money.
Then we'll need water have to find a company that delivers that far.
Don't forget sunscreen spf70 should be good enough.
Lets not forget shelter maybe some refrigerator boxes.
Yeah its doable

[del_diablo]

I agree that the human race could well end on this planet; so many people, such rapid consumption of resources.

I always find this ironic, because you can't destroy resources, only reform them into different resources.
So long the oxygen level does not change to much, we could just decide to screw that we have a money based system(whatevers its called) and decide to just gather the needed resources and get **** done.

[Grenage]

I always find this ironic, because you can't destroy resources, only reform them into different resources.
So long the oxygen level does not change to much, we could just decide to screw that we have a money based system(whatevers its called) and decide to just gather the needed resources and get **** done.

True, but I'm not sure what good wood, and a big pile of plastic and metal slag will do us. I hear that the metal used in touch-screens is already in short supply.

[Jolicoeur]

I would probably use the the money to save the earth and its inhabitant.


I think we (the world) are capable of doing more than one thing at a time. Also, the cost spent to go to Mars would not nearly be enough to save the earth.

[handy]

...
Then we'll need water have to find a company that delivers that far.
...

There is plenty of water on Mars. It is frozen. A prime part of the terraforming process would apparently create a more dense atmosphere; this would then intern trap heat, eventually defrosting the place.

Or so the theory goes anyway.

[Gremlinzzz]

Martian colonization missions would be interesting but we didn't even build a moon station.

[Grenage]

Martian colonization missions would be interesting but we didn't even build a moon station.

Still, we have the International Space Station (let's not forget Mir), so there are steps.

[Gremlinzzz]

We landed on the moon 40 odd years ago and no moon station!
when we land on MARS how long before Martian colonization?
I just don't see it happening.

[samjh]

I think it's funny that space technology actually seems to be devolving in some respects. As an outside observer, it seems like NASA is doing less impressive things as time goes on. The new NASA Ares rocket can't hold a candle to the Saturn V. :(

Saturn IV was a freak project. Unfortunately, if you don't keep up projects like that, you lose the intellectual investment. People with the knowledge and skill die/retire due to old age, etc.

[handy]

We landed on the moon 40 odd years ago and no moon station!
when we land on MARS how long before Martian colonization?
I just don't see it happening.

As I think was mentioned much earlier in this thread; it is apparently far more expensive to land on the Moon than it is to land on Mars.

Unlike the Moon, Mars does have atmosphere, which saves an enormous amount of fuel when it comes to landing there.

[Chronon]

Some people who are experts, say that it IS possible, they already know how to do it, & they say that the time frame (which I previously mentioned) would most likely come down as they continually learn & optimise the technology.

This is an appeal to authority. Please give some concrete arguments about why ionization by the solar wind is irrelevant.

[forrestcupp]

There is plenty of water on Mars. It is frozen. A prime part of the terraforming process would apparently create a more dense atmosphere; this would then intern trap heat, eventually defrosting the place.Which, in turn, would completely destroy one of the benefits you mentioned in this post:


Information that I have been exposed to says that because the atmosphere is currently so thin on Mars, it makes it a vastly cheaper place, energy wise for us to launch whatever to further our space exploration.

[kevin11951]

Which, in turn, would completely destroy one of the benefits you mentioned in this post:

Mars is also half the size of Earth. Half the size means half the gravity, fuel, and atmosphere needed to make it work like Earth (for liftoffs).

[samjh]

Mars is also half the size of Earth. Half the size means half the gravity, fuel, and atmosphere needed to make it work like Earth (for liftoffs).

Mars' gravity is only 38% of Earth's, so the fuel savings would actually be more than your estimate. :)

Terraforming seems a little too ambitious though. We could certainly build a base there, if there was enough political will to do so, and we certainly could send people to colonise it. But it would be a pretty artificial and lonely life on the Red Planet. Bleak scenery, green-house produced food, intense bombardment from solar radiation, extreme temperature variations, would have heavy physiological and psychological effects as well. You'd have to spend most of your day in bunkers or tunnels.

[handy]

We are not all the same. There exist people that would thrive in the circumstances that the initial human inhabitants of Mars would experience.

In parts of Oz we have places so hot in the day time that people mostly live under ground. Not only is it extremely comfortable all year round (same temperature inside your house); in some places (Coober Pedy) they not only pay for the building of their house they make quite a profit out of the opal that they find in the excavated earth. :)

In other parts of the planet, people live in freezing cold conditions, (the Inuit for example) & they have been adapted to these extreme conditions for a very long time.

Man is nothing if not adaptable.

I'm surprised that there is so much negativity in this thread regarding the idea of humanity settling on & colonising Mars.

I would think that in the end it would be a very worthwhile experience. Who knows what new discoveries would be made in the years following?

Perhaps in the ice/water/rock they will find signs of life of some kind having previously existed on Mars?



...Please give some concrete arguments about why ionization by the solar wind is irrelevant.

I don't know. Go to the Mars Society website & have a read? Or watch the Zubrin documentary. He probably covers it there.

Seeing as NASA agreed (years ago) that the project was not only possible but doable (though they modified Zubrin's Mars Direct, to Mars Semi-Direct to make it easier on the astronauts) then I expect that they have long had the problem sorted.

[samjh]

We are not all the same. There exist people that would thrive in the circumstances that the initial human inhabitants of Mars would experience.

In parts of Oz we have places so hot in the day time that people mostly live under ground. Not only is it extremely comfortable all year round (same temperature inside your house); in some places (Coober Pedy) they not only pay for the building of their house they make quite a profit out of the opal that they find in the excavated earth. :)

In other parts of the planet, people live in freezing cold conditions, (the Inuit for example) & they have been adapted to these extreme conditions for a very long time.

Man is nothing if not adaptable.

I'm surprised that there is so much negativity in this thread regarding the idea of humanity settling on & colonising Mars.

Man is adaptable: true.

But people like the Inuits have adapted over many many generations, and even evolved to a degree to cope with their environment. Furthermore, they live in fairly organised communities.

The initial colonists to Mars will not be living in any kind of "community" as they are familiar with. Perhaps a small handful of people... stuck in the same steel pressure vessel buried underground for many months, perhaps years, with little prospect of meeting their families on Earth ever again, or interacting with a wider population face-to-face.

It will be very trying circumstances. No doubt that there will be people who will be able to cope with that, but finding such people will be a herculean task and not something to be underestimated. Even a small psychological breakdown by one member can destroy a small crew, even if the others are fine.

You're confusing "negativity" with realism. There are very real challenges that need to be overcome to make colonisation of Mars a viable project -- that is not to say we are not technically capable of it, but technical capability doesn't necessarily equate to success.

[handy]

That's your take on it samjh.

I expect that there would be an enormous amount of psychological study beforehand, as well as training, & vetting, which would evaluate as intelligently & accurately as possible who is suitable. Just as is done for astronauts already, though tailored for the more complex Mars mission.

As I've said before, (one way or another) some very intelligent people who are highly skilled in a great variety of areas & also capable & willing to learn a whole lot more, & synthesise their knowledge to create the best future outcome, would thrive on meeting the challenges of life on Mars.

I think that there are many people who are bored stiff with living under what our society has thus far deemed to be the apparently immutable paradigm of consume at any cost.

Those that went to Mars would know from the start that they are never coming back to Earth.

A one way trip to with the intention of bringing a dead planet back to life. Quite the opposite of what we are doing here & now.

[Gremlinzzz]

What after Mars colony mission?
Its a big universe checkout this video.
The Most Important Image Ever Taken
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw

[Paqman]

We are not all the same. There exist people that would thrive in the circumstances that the initial human inhabitants of Mars would experience.


Er, not really. One thing we've learned from long duration space flight is that reduced gravity is a problem.

The environment on Mars is hostile to 100% of all humans. It's lethally cold, there's no breathable air and harsh radiation. Maintaining even a small short-duration party on the planet would be a major challenge medically and practically. We're still learning how to keep astronauts healthy in low Earth orbit, which is only a short ride down in a lifeboat to safety. Doing so on Mars would involve a much higher degree of risk. The margin of safety becomes a lot smaller. We'd need to do a lot of baby steps before making the big leap.

Which again is why it's so unattractive to send humans. We can build machines today that can go straight to Mars and be useful right away with acceptable risk. A manned programme would involve huge investments in time and money, it'd be risky, and i'm not convinced the science would be any better. We can explore much faster, better and more safely using machines than we can with humans. Given how much smarter machines are going to get in the future i'd say that's only going to get moreso. The only people I could see possibly mounting a manned mission to the red planet are the Chinese, who would conceivably be prepared to throw the money at it purely as a flag-waving exercise. Every one else will be too busy doing real science to bother.

[handy]

Time will tell. :)

[forrestcupp]

Time will tell. :)

Maybe, but I kind of doubt it. At least not in our lifetime.

I'm not saying I have a problem with people wanting to do it (as long as they're not using my tax dollars). I just don't think it's going to happen any time soon.

[Swagman]

Maybe, but I kind of doubt it. At least not in our lifetime.

(as long as they're not using my tax dollars). I just don't think it's going to happen any time soon.

I think there is a cultural difference here then.

I DON'T mind My "Tax Dollars" being spent on the greater good of society.

Remember.. "*uck you Jack, I'm alright" WILL come back to bite you in the **** in the end.

No ifs ands or buts. It's definite.

[Oxwivi]

True, but I'm not sure what good wood, and a big pile of plastic and metal slag will do us. I hear that the metal used in touch-screens is already in short supply.
Know the thing called recycling? Chemistry is not to be underestimated.

[Grenage]

Know the thing called recycling? Chemistry is not to be underestimated.

Recycling, yes; efficient recycling, sometimes; magical material conversion, no.

[handy]

Its ok, the Chinese are apparently investigating deep sea mining:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/deepsea-mining-adds-to-fears-of-marine-pollution-2016292.html

[Khakilang]

What after Mars colony mission?
Its a big universe checkout this video.
The Most Important Image Ever Taken
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw

That is interesting video. I have always wonder whether there is life in other galaxy beside earth.
:guitar:

[Gremlinzzz]

The video shows how life most likely exist elsewhere in the universe.
We don't need solar sails or space shuttles.We need a new form of space travelling!light years will take forever at speeds we accomplished.Maybe we should try to colonise Mars before this happens.
Asteroid Impact (HD)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zvCUmeoHpw
every picture tells a story and I don't like the way this one ends.
To save the earth from that fate you can have all my tax dollars

[handy]

Don't get your knickers in a knot Gremlinzzz: One day you will find that death is an old friend. :KS :D

[Gremlinzzz]

Don't get your knickers in a knot Gremlinzzz: One day you will find that death is an old friend. :KS :D

Never wore knickers and didn't know they could knot!
Death should not be a old friend to life as we know it.

[Oxwivi]

Recycling, yes; efficient recycling, sometimes; magical material conversion, no.
Efficient recycling do exist, almost like a magical conversion. Just not popular enough.

[Oxwivi]

Asteroid Impact (HD)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zvCUmeoHpw
The music could've done with less screaming. It falls on China! Someone is feeling China's become too populous.

Anyway, so according to the video, with an asteroid on Earth, it'll become the next Red Planet, huh?

[Gremlinzzz]

Efficient recycling do exist, almost like a magical conversion. Just not popular enough.

Scrape metal recycling has become very popular.Any day at the recovery site you'll see pick up trucks cars and dump trucks from construction sites lined up full of scrape metal.

[handy]

Scrape metal recycling has become very popular.Any day at the recovery site you'll see pick up trucks cars and dump trucks from construction sites lined up full of scrape metal.

Before you know it all those trucks will be running (at least a partial blend of) bio-fuel produced by algae:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/13/algae-solve-pentagon-fuel-problem

[Oxwivi]

Yeah, there are as many different biofuels as the number of Linux distros out there. But fossil fuels, like Microsoft, are still way too popular. And the hardware manufacturer's are yet to optimise the things for best Linux/organic fuel use in mainstream.

[Gremlinzzz]

Before you know it all those trucks will be running (at least a partial blend of) bio-fuel produced by algae:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/13/algae-solve-pentagon-fuel-problem

That's good algae fuel must be easy make and we'll have a endless supply.

[Gremlinzzz]

Now if we can find a way to speed up space travel so we can visit are distant cousins.

[Gremlinzzz]

Yeah, there are as many different biofuels as the number of Linux distros out there. But fossil fuels, like Microsoft, are still way too popular. And the hardware manufacturer's are yet to optimise the things for best Linux/organic fuel use in mainstream.

Make the fuel available and a dollar cheaper and biofuels will be the mainstream.

[handy]

Yeah, there are as many different biofuels as the number of Linux distros out there. But fossil fuels, like Microsoft, are still way too popular. And the hardware manufacturer's are yet to optimise the things for best Linux/organic fuel use in mainstream.

If you read the link, you will see that a top advising agency to the pentagon is at the heart of this one:

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 13 February 2010

The brains trust of the Pentagon says it is just months away from producing a jet fuel from algae for the same cost as its fossil-fuel equivalent.

The claim, which comes from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) that helped to develop the internet and satellite navigation systems, has taken industry insiders by surprise. A cheap, low-carbon fuel would not only help the US military, the nation's single largest consumer of energy, to wean itself off its oil addiction, but would also hold the promise of low-carbon driving and flying for all.

Darpa's research projects have already extracted oil from algal ponds at a cost of $2 per gallon. It is now on track to begin large-scale refining of that oil into jet fuel, at a cost of less than $3 a gallon, according to Barbara McQuiston, special assistant for energy at Darpa. That could turn a promising technology into a *market-ready one. Researchers have cracked the problem of turning pond scum and seaweed into fuel, but finding a cost-effective method of mass production could be a game-changer. "Everyone is well aware that a lot of things were started in the military," McQuiston said.

The work is part of a broader Pentagon effort to reduce the military's thirst for oil, which runs at between 60 and 75 million barrels of oil a year. Much of that is used to keep the US Air Force in flight. Commercial airlines – such as Continental and Virgin Atlantic – have also been looking at the viability of an algae-based jet fuel, as has the Chinese government.

"Darpa has achieved the base goal to date," she said. "Oil from algae is projected at $2 per gallon, headed towards $1 per gallon."

McQuiston said a larger-scale refining operation, producing 50 million gallons a year, would come on line in 2011 and she was hopeful the costs would drop still further – ensuring that the algae-based fuel would be competitive with fossil fuels. She said the projects, run by private firms SAIC and General Atomics, expected to yield 1,000 gallons of oil per acre from the algal farm.

McQuiston's projections took several industry insiders by surprise. "It's a little farther out in time," said Mary Rosenthal, director of the Algal Biomass Association. "I am not saying it is going to happen in the next three months, but it could happen in the next two years."

But the possibilities have set off a scramble to discover the cheapest way of mass-producing an algae-based fuel. Even Exxon – which once notoriously dismissed biofuels as moonshine – invested $600m in research last July.

Unlike corn-based ethanol, algal farms do not threaten food supplies. Some strains are being grown on household waste and in brackish water. Algae draw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere when growing; when the derived fuel is burned, the same CO2 is released, making the fuel theoretically zero-carbon, although processing and transporting the fuel requires some energy.

The industry received a further boost earlier this month, when the Environmental Protection Agency declared that algae-based diesel reduced greenhouse gas emissions by more than 50% compared with conventional diesel. The Obama administration had earlier awarded $80m in research grants to a new generation of algae and biomass fuels.

For Darpa, the support for algae is part of a broader mission for the US military to obtain half of its fuel from renewable energy sources by 2016. That time line meant that the Pentagon needed to develop technologies to make its hardware "fuel agnostic", capable that is of running on any energy source including methane and propane.

The US Air Force wants its entire fleet of jet fighters and transport aircraft to test-fly a 50-50 blend of petroleum-based fuel and other sources – including algae – by next year.

The switch is partly driven by cost, but military commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq are also anxious to create a lighter, more fuel-efficient force that is less dependent on supply convoys, which are vulnerable to attack from insurgents. Give the military the capability of creating jet fuel in the field, and you would eliminate that danger, McQuiston said. "In Afghanistan, if you could be able to create jet fuel from indigenous sources and rely on that, you'd not only be able to source energy for the military, but you'd also be able to leave an infrastructure that would be more sustainable."

McQuiston said the agency was also looking at how to make dramatic improvements in the photo-voltaic cells that collect solar energy. She said making PV 50% more efficient would create a future when even the smallest devices, such as mobile phones, would be *powered by their own solar cells.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/13/algae-solve-pentagon-fuel-problem

[forrestcupp]

I think there is a cultural difference here then.

I DON'T mind My "Tax Dollars" being spent on the greater good of society.

Lol. So because I don't want my tax dollars spent on attempting to colonize Mars, it means that I don't want them spent on the greater good of society? :confused:

I think if you could poll the entire world on this subject, an overwhelming majority would probably have their doubts that attempting to colonize Mars is the most efficient route to "the greater good of society."

[Exodist]

Where do I sign up?

Better question..
Where can I sign my wife up...

[Swagman]

Lol. So because I don't want my tax dollars spent on attempting to colonize Mars, it means that I don't want them spent on the greater good of society? :confused:

I think if you could poll the entire world on this subject, an overwhelming majority would probably have their doubts that attempting to colonize Mars is the most efficient route to "the greater good of society."

Yeah sorry about that comment, it didn't come over well.

In my defence, I had just heard my Mum, who lives in America has just been handed a $25K medic bill even though she had health insurance. (and I'd been drinking)

Apparently Plan "A" cover only covers staying in a hospital bed. If you actually want any further help you need Plan "B" ?

WTF is that all about ?

At 74 years of age she's really going to be able to pay for that isn't she !!

[Gremlinzzz]

Mars Magnetic Field is the reason its a dead planet it doesn't have one!
Where did it go how would you jump start it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or5ctagh0to

[kevin11951]

Mars Magnetic Field is the reason its a dead planet it doesn't have one!
Where did it go how would you jump start it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or5ctagh0to

You wouldn't, you would create an artificial one using an electro magnet. Perhaps powered by solar panels...

PS... Not for the whole planet, just a localised one...

[Gremlinzzz]

If we pollute Mars thin atmosphere humans are good at that. then it should heat up the core then clean up the pollution should cool the mantel. creating a magnetic field .Ill take my noble peace prize in cash.
seriously no magnetic field= no terraforming Mars