Mars, our next home?

[Kadet]

Now I know that everyone has heard the possiblity of making Mars our home, but what are the requirements (Ships,
materials, etc)  and risks of getting there (Illness, death, off couse, sabotage, etc), and if by luck we do, what are we
suppose to expect (Life, nothing, etc)?

-----------------------------------
To the Idiot-mobile!
No this isn't where I parked my car, what the-
KATON:HOSENKA!

[ar81]

Imagine that you go to Antarctica, but you have colder temperatures, no ice, no water, no oxygen, and the trip takes
at least 2 years, and if something goes wrong you can't go back so easily.
On top of that, your bones will lose mass, crew could get crazy for being confined i nsmall spaces for months.
You can't carry the fuel for the trip back so you need to find a way to create fuel in Mars with local materials.
Atmosphere is so thin that some meteors might burn but some do not and they might hit you.
You might not have a charter flight that could leave some spare parts in time.

So basically reaching south pole is easy.

It is told that you could find ice at the poles... but the probe landed and I see no ice...
Is there ice that could be turned into LH2 + LOX fuel.

[DanSteph]

Kadet a écrit:
Now I know that everyone has heard the possiblity of making Mars our home

"everyone" as in "everyone has heard that moon landing was fake" or as in "everyone studied closely the
scientific data of Mars"

For now there is a small chance that up to 10 peoples land on Mars before the end of the century but any other
thought is only pure science fiction.

I would not spend one cents on mars colonisation before two or three century. In anyway I don't believe there will be at anytime a humain civilisation on Mars. Maybe in 1000 years ? (if we are still here and not fighting
with arc and stone)

Dan



Message modifié ( 17-06-2008 09:17 )

[SlyCoopersButt]

And I believe that hits the nail on the head. Especially with the budgets of today. I wouldn't expect much from
manned mars missions until many more generations and NASA is going to need more than quad and beyond the
amount of money they get now. And they'll probably just get more budget cuts in the future. I don't think the interest
and urge of everyday people to explore in space is as strong today as it was in the days when we landed on the
moon. I can't understand why the government is lacking the drive to be a power in space like it did in the Apollo days.
It isn't NASA's fault. Griffin always makes known the fact that money is a big factor and problem in everything. I feel
sorry for that guy! We'd probably already be at the early stages of moon colonization today if NASA never got cut
back. I think space agencies are the most neglected of all agencies by most countries. And they are so important.

[DanSteph]

We are all hard space exploration and science fan here but one must recorgnise that appart some costly scientifics
research the moon as absolutely no intterest yet. It's getting even worse with the latest discover that the moon is
much more dry than we thought before.

Helium 3, telescope or base for future Mars launch all those reasons where studied and it appear that they are invalid.
Yet only a litle fraction of apollo's moon stone have been studied.

So I'm all for "moon return" but scientists and nasa's question are still unanswered: why should we return too moon ?
"because exploration is the destiny of humain" is not a good reason when it's so expensive, robot do a much better
work for a small price.

Dan

[ar81]

To me it seems funny that "conquering the moon" was to put a flag there, and visit it for a few minutes, and then
leave it alone for decades.  What a way to conquer.

Colonizing Mars seems similar.  We are having problems to put people there for 2 years, let alone to have a
permanent base there.

If the money that was spent on weapons (use resources to produce ashes) was spent on space, you could have
space tourism to make money.  Those who make hi-tech gadgets for war could have a better chance if they made
components for space travels.

If there were no wars, you could have less poverty caused by war, and therefore more taxpayers who could fund
government spending on space travels.  Many countries with no poverty could mean more money for space
exploration.

Space exploration is expensive, so it needs big budget of many countries.  Provided that we have wars all the time, to
feed the pockets of weapon manufacturers that could feel a strong incentive to attack citizens of developed countries
to encourage them to support government spending in war, there will never be a chance to get out of this "bit of
space dust" called Earth.

[Kadet]

DanSteph wrote:

Kadet a écrit:
Now I know that everyone has heard the possiblity of making Mars our home

"everyone" as in "everyone has heard that moon landing was fake" or as in "
everyone studied closely the
scientific data of Mars"

For now there is a small chance that up to 10 peoples land on Mars before the end of the century but any other
thought is only pure science fiction.

I would not spend one cents on mars colonisation before two or three century. In anyway I don't believe there will be
at anytime a humain civilisation on Mars. Maybe in 1000 years ? (if we are still here and not fighting
with arc and stone)

Dan

Well, I've seen a documentary on Nat Geo that explained how, if we are truely to inhabit Mars, the shortest time
possible to make it just like Earth is about 300 years, that is, if we find a way to speed up green house effects (which
won't be that hard), make plants adjust to the climate and bring in other life forms.

[DanSteph]

Serious documentary explained to us that in 2000 we would all have flying care and we would be able to make
journey to moon's hostel.
2008: 40'000 child still die of hunger every day and nobody have flying cars or live on moon.

I don't say the documentary is wrong theorically it's possible to make a lot of things, but reallity is often very far from
what we can do in theory.
About mars terrafforming we understand yet only some of the earth's system. So I'm not even sure it would be
*practicaly* possible in 1000 years.

It's good to dream but I personnaly don't believe in Santa Claus anymore.

Dan



Message modifié ( 18-06-2008 03:40 )

[ar81]

I discovered some time ago that the macroeconomic model invented in Chile that is used by World bank and IMF lacks
one sector of economy:  Internal market composed by people-customers.  It happens because Chile exports too
much, so customers were mostly jurisdiction of USA.  Chile used that system and now they have a socialist
government, as reaction to this model.  This model was used during the failed reforms of 1990s.  USA used this model
for years but the absense of significant inflation/deflation neutralized the negative effects of this model for years, so
the gap was not discovered.

I discussed this finding that I made some years ago with economists like Leonardo Garnier (ministro de planificación
during Figueres administration and currently Ministro de Educación).  With the incomplete model, inflation is controlled
with poverty.  With the complete model, inflation is controlled by using the excess of liquidity to invest in service jobs
in poor countries.

Why service jobs in free zones?  Because it does not require too much investment or natural resources.  This could be
a good solution for EU and other developed countries to reduce excess of liquidity that is overheating their countries,
for example.  It seems contadictory to invest in a time where you see contraction of sales due to inflation.

Poor countris in a globalized world are more competitive than expensive workers.  Therefore, as you invest excess of
liquidity in jobs in such countries, you reduce the competitiveness of poor countries and therefore you protect jobs in
developed countries against companies that leave.  Reducing such competitiveness is good, for it prevents
immigration and poverty.

The idea is that one less poor is one more customer.  Give the poor a good job and you get rid of poverty.  Fighting
poverty is not about giving a fish to a begger one day.  It is to give the poor a job, that allows him to buy fish
everyday.

More customers means a bigger market.  Unfortunately, capitalists have not understood how good for capitalism is
reduction of poverty, because of their medieval idea of richness.  With no poverty in the world the size of market is
maximized.

More poor means less taxpayers and less taxes.  Countries at war cannot ally to afford aerospace projects to go to
space.  So to me, poverty is the enemy of capitalism and space exploration.  Maximizing capitalism involves to reduce
poverty to zero to maximize size of markets.

[sunshine135]

You guys are depressing me    

You have to have hope that one day we can do it. We can colonize the Moon and Mars. Too many times, especially here in the
US, I hear nothing but dire news- Higher gas prices, no relief in sight for people, decreasing job growth... Whatever
happened to hope?

We have shown often that a group of people can work together and make great progress in multinational projects. The ISS in
any shape and form is a wonderful international project. I do think though, that looking toward the IMF or the UN for
anything is ludicrous.

The true hope is in private space enterprise. If you have the technology and the desire to do it. If you feel that the
venture is positive, and could get some tax breaks from your government, funding also should not be a problem. Guarantee
someone 7.5% ROI and you will easily do what is desired.

Keep Hope Alive,

[DanSteph]

Hey, we dont speak about making a new car or sending some men on mars, we are speaking about terraforming
mars and sending there a humain civilisation.

I feel depressing also that I can't fly with my leg

Kadet write this with strong meaning that it's possible *now* and we'll do it *soon* "everyone know that", I just say
no way yet, this is still completely sci-fi "everyone serious know that". So are we talking about star wars or real space
exploration ?

If we are going star wars, no problem for me, but one must not say it's a reality that can happen soon.

Cheers

Dan

[Racecarlock]

I see you have been watching BBC Space: New Worlds, and are of course talking about the far future where we would have the
technology to go to mars and change mars to make it habitable for the good of humanity.

[ar81]

I am not depressed.  I see the next few meters in the road to reach the future.  It looks like a big stone is in the
way.  Seeing a stone is not depressing.  Not being able to move it is.