4 ms·
Well, if you put it like that it sure sounds awful. Why do you assume they will die? I sincerely doubt they'd send anyone to their deaths nor that anyone would
by arien 17y ago
Well, if you put it like that it sure sounds awful. Why do you assume they will die?
I sincerely doubt they'd send anyone to their deaths nor that anyone would accept it, that would be absurd (tho accidents can happen). Consider the amount of effort, time and money such a trip would take. With the right focus, in 50 years we could have the technology to sustain life in space. However, the right focus probably means "if we have something to gain from it". I guess that's why he thinks of a "Big Brother in Space" program that would cover part of the costs. I see the idea has some logic, even if I don't agree completely with it.
On a side note, I always heard that Biodomes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_ecological_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_ecological_system) would be the answer to living on Mars or other planets in the initial phases. Not sure if I'd want to live in lava tubes.
- inklesspen 17y agoWe've had an awful lot of problems getting biodomes to work here on Earth. I'd want them to be pretty much perfected before we try them on Mars.
- arien 17y agoWell, what makes you think a lava tube is safer? :P I think they'd have to be conditioned and sealed and that might be just as problematic. But what I said before applies here, too. With enough focus and budget we can advance in pretty much any technology we want. The question is, the ones that can make it happen (investors, governments), do they really want to do it? Does it pay for them?
- inklesspen 17y agoI think you may be confusing me with the author of the article; I never said lava tubes were safer.