4 ms·

Two questions: 1) why isn't the URL linking to the article on Popular Mechanics? (which is a lot better than this article) http://www.popularmechanics.com/sci

by TriinT 17y ago

Two questions: 1) why isn't the URL linking to the article on Popular Mechanics? (which is a lot better than this article) http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4322647.html http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4322647.ht... 2) would someone care to explain what the point in colonising Mars is? Unmanned exploration of Mars would be a whole lot cheaper because robots don't need life-support systems. Moreover, losing a couple of robots is more acceptable than losing a couple of human astronauts. Sure, we could colonise Mars, but at what cost, and what for? In case Aldrin hasn't noticed, the USA is not in the same financial situation as in 1960.

stcredzero 17y ago
Humans living on Mars are in a much better position to access the resources of the Solar System than humans living on Earth. With a 24 hour day-night cycle, local access to water and necessary elements, it's also a lot easier to grow food. These two facts alone are enough to position human settlement on Mars for economic, military, and political domination of the Solar System. Basically, colonizing Mars is desirable for the same reasons that colonizing North America was. Whichever nation does it can expect the resulting civilization to break away and surpass those on Earth. But the "old country" can expect much better relations with the new superpower. (Actually, we could build a space elevator on Mars with materials we already have. The citizens of a Mars colony could eventually access space with the same ease with which we fly overseas.)
- TriinT 17y ago
  "Humans living on Mars are in a much better position to access the resources of the Solar System than humans living on Earth." Has the Earth run out of resources already? What is the rationale here: the Chinese seize the resources on Earth, so the USA goes to outer space to seize the resources of the Solar System? If this endeavor were cheap, it could be worth it. But let's face it: it won't be cheap. I understand the allure of colonizing Mars. But I also believe in prioritizing. The US is fighting two unwinnable wars, and is in a grim financial situation. One step at a time. In a few decades the time might be right. Sending humans to Mars in the next couple of decades would be a bad investment imho. Why not start small? We could keep sending robots to Mars. Since Mars has ice and CO2, one could introduce plants in Mars and try to start recycling all that CO2 into oxygen. That would perhaps create a tiny habitat and make things easier for the first humans to ever land on the red planet.
  - stcredzero 17y ago
    Has the Earth run out of resources already? What is the rationale here: the Chinese seize the resources on Earth, so the USA goes to outer space to seize the resources of the Solar System? Sorry, but you're not quite there yet. The old world hadn't run out of resources when the American Industrial Revolution hit full stride. A big part of the reason why the US rocked the world economically was because of advantageous economic geography. (No need to devote resources to defend borders, lots of ports with easy access to waterways, waterways with good access to vast agricultural resources, advantageously situated synergistic natural resources like iron and coal, etc.) If you look at the economic "geography" of the Solar System, it's quite obvious that Mars will eventually be the next North America. It's much cheaper to get almost anywhere in the Solar System from Mars than Earth. Heck, it even takes less energy to get to Earth's Moon from Mars than Earth. (This makes it likely that initially lunar industrial equipment will be made on Mars, shipped to the Moon, and teleoperated from Earth's surface.) Also note that you are making the classic mistake of not extrapolating technology. Perhaps certain English shipwrights pooh-poohed the vast American forests. After all, the infrastructure was all in Europe. How many of them could have predicted that ships would be made of steel, sails would be obsolete, and ships would be propelled by coal and steam? Industrial technology in the late 21st century is likely to even more unpredictable to us as our industry was unimaginable to all but a few denizens of 1909. The only sure thing is that they will want to be able to marshall vaster resources and energies. To do that, you must go to space. I understand the allure of colonizing Mars. But I also believe in prioritizing. The US is fighting two unwinnable wars, and is in a grim financial situation. Yes, but whatever we do, we need to do it first. It will be much better for the US if the future superpower of Mars is not settled by the Chinese. Why not start small? We could keep sending robots to Mars. Since Mars has ice and CO2, one could introduce plants in Mars and try to start recycling all that CO2 into oxygen. That would perhaps create a tiny habitat and make things easier for the first humans to ever land on the red planet. Have you read Zubrin? He thinks along similar lines. However, he's probably spent a lot more time working out the difficulties, likely steps, even specific chemical processes.
    - TriinT 17y ago
      "The old world hadn't run out of resources when the American Industrial Revolution hit full stride." I don't understand what point you're trying to make. American Industrial Revolution?!? Let us look at Europe. In the early 15th Century, while England was fighting France and Spain was fighting the Moors, the Portuguese started exploring the western coast of Africa. The goal was to seize access to commodities such as gold, silver, silk, spices, etc. Spain then started its own explorations, but while the Portuguese went east, Spain went west. Then the Dutch, the French and the English joined the party. The old continent had no resources, so yes, it was a hunt for resources that triggered the European expansion. Of course technology is constantly changing. If space exploration becomes really cheap, then going to Mars for resources would make economic sense. However, I keep saying there are more urgent problems to be addressed. One of them is energy. If we could come up with relatively clean and safe nuclear energy, then the hunt for oil and coal would cease to make sense. The world would be a safer place. It took the Portuguese 100 years to reap the benefits of their expansion overseas. I don't know if the U.S. can afford to wait that long to start reaping the benefits of going to Mars.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  Don't forget the larger moons of Jupiter and Saturn: low gravity, plenty of water and carbon-rich environments. The major downside is that the vicinity of Jupiter is as cozy as the interior of a microwave oven and sunlight is not that abundant as it is down here. As for the Martian space elevator, it would involve the demolition of Deimos and Phobos or some moving of the counterweight in order to miss their orbits.
  - stcredzero 17y ago
    Mars is so much easier to get off of, space elevators are almost irrelevant. However, I would vote for moving a moon of Mars and using it as a counterweight. The major downside is that the vicinity of Jupiter is as cozy as the interior of a microwave oven and sunlight is not that abundant as it is down here. Helium 3 is probably going to be the next oil. It will be the stuff you run your military machine with. Mars is in a better position than Earth to control the resources of the gas giants, and it is in a very good position for even control of the Moon's He3. The higher population of Mars due to agriculture and vast potential living space will probably mean political domination of the Jovian moons by Mars.
    - rbanffy 17y ago
      I don't see He3 being the next oil. By the time we are able to colonize the solar system like that, fusion power may very well seem like an interesting antique.
      - stcredzero 17y ago
        Tech gets obsolete a lot faster than physics. The energy of fusion is physics, not tech.
rbanffy 17y ago
Colonizing other planets is one of the best ways to ensure the survival of our species. It's damn hard, but it's also very safe. The sooner we start, the sooner we are safe from the next global extinction and once we are settled, nothing short of a Gamma-ray burst frying our solar system could kill us off. I am not willing to bet on faster-than-light travel and finding Earth-like worlds, first because FTL must be somewhere between insanely hard and plain impossible and second because we would have first to get permission from the natives. And that arrangement, provided the ludicrously lucky situation of environment requirements being compatible, would make a lot of sense - by allowing reciprocal settlement both species would be insured against extinction. Sound even like the start of a nice screenplay. Most probably someone already did it.

by TriinT 17y ago

stcredzero 17y ago

Humans living on Mars are in a much better position to access the resources of the Solar System than humans living on Earth. With a 24 hour day-night cycle, local access to water and necessary elements, it's also a lot easier to grow food. These two facts alone are enough to position human settlement on Mars for economic, military, and political domination of the Solar System. Basically, colonizing Mars is desirable for the same reasons that colonizing North America was. Whichever nation does it can expect the resulting civilization to break away and surpass those on Earth. But the "old country" can expect much better relations with the new superpower. (Actually, we could build a space elevator on Mars with materials we already have. The citizens of a Mars colony could eventually access space with the same ease with which we fly overseas.)

TriinT 17y ago
"Humans living on Mars are in a much better position to access the resources of the Solar System than humans living on Earth." Has the Earth run out of resources already? What is the rationale here: the Chinese seize the resources on Earth, so the USA goes to outer space to seize the resources of the Solar System? If this endeavor were cheap, it could be worth it. But let's face it: it won't be cheap. I understand the allure of colonizing Mars. But I also believe in prioritizing. The US is fighting two unwinnable wars, and is in a grim financial situation. One step at a time. In a few decades the time might be right. Sending humans to Mars in the next couple of decades would be a bad investment imho. Why not start small? We could keep sending robots to Mars. Since Mars has ice and CO2, one could introduce plants in Mars and try to start recycling all that CO2 into oxygen. That would perhaps create a tiny habitat and make things easier for the first humans to ever land on the red planet.
- stcredzero 17y ago
  Has the Earth run out of resources already? What is the rationale here: the Chinese seize the resources on Earth, so the USA goes to outer space to seize the resources of the Solar System? Sorry, but you're not quite there yet. The old world hadn't run out of resources when the American Industrial Revolution hit full stride. A big part of the reason why the US rocked the world economically was because of advantageous economic geography. (No need to devote resources to defend borders, lots of ports with easy access to waterways, waterways with good access to vast agricultural resources, advantageously situated synergistic natural resources like iron and coal, etc.) If you look at the economic "geography" of the Solar System, it's quite obvious that Mars will eventually be the next North America. It's much cheaper to get almost anywhere in the Solar System from Mars than Earth. Heck, it even takes less energy to get to Earth's Moon from Mars than Earth. (This makes it likely that initially lunar industrial equipment will be made on Mars, shipped to the Moon, and teleoperated from Earth's surface.) Also note that you are making the classic mistake of not extrapolating technology. Perhaps certain English shipwrights pooh-poohed the vast American forests. After all, the infrastructure was all in Europe. How many of them could have predicted that ships would be made of steel, sails would be obsolete, and ships would be propelled by coal and steam? Industrial technology in the late 21st century is likely to even more unpredictable to us as our industry was unimaginable to all but a few denizens of 1909. The only sure thing is that they will want to be able to marshall vaster resources and energies. To do that, you must go to space. I understand the allure of colonizing Mars. But I also believe in prioritizing. The US is fighting two unwinnable wars, and is in a grim financial situation. Yes, but whatever we do, we need to do it first. It will be much better for the US if the future superpower of Mars is not settled by the Chinese. Why not start small? We could keep sending robots to Mars. Since Mars has ice and CO2, one could introduce plants in Mars and try to start recycling all that CO2 into oxygen. That would perhaps create a tiny habitat and make things easier for the first humans to ever land on the red planet. Have you read Zubrin? He thinks along similar lines. However, he's probably spent a lot more time working out the difficulties, likely steps, even specific chemical processes.
  - TriinT 17y ago
    "The old world hadn't run out of resources when the American Industrial Revolution hit full stride." I don't understand what point you're trying to make. American Industrial Revolution?!? Let us look at Europe. In the early 15th Century, while England was fighting France and Spain was fighting the Moors, the Portuguese started exploring the western coast of Africa. The goal was to seize access to commodities such as gold, silver, silk, spices, etc. Spain then started its own explorations, but while the Portuguese went east, Spain went west. Then the Dutch, the French and the English joined the party. The old continent had no resources, so yes, it was a hunt for resources that triggered the European expansion. Of course technology is constantly changing. If space exploration becomes really cheap, then going to Mars for resources would make economic sense. However, I keep saying there are more urgent problems to be addressed. One of them is energy. If we could come up with relatively clean and safe nuclear energy, then the hunt for oil and coal would cease to make sense. The world would be a safer place. It took the Portuguese 100 years to reap the benefits of their expansion overseas. I don't know if the U.S. can afford to wait that long to start reaping the benefits of going to Mars.
rbanffy 17y ago
Don't forget the larger moons of Jupiter and Saturn: low gravity, plenty of water and carbon-rich environments. The major downside is that the vicinity of Jupiter is as cozy as the interior of a microwave oven and sunlight is not that abundant as it is down here. As for the Martian space elevator, it would involve the demolition of Deimos and Phobos or some moving of the counterweight in order to miss their orbits.
- stcredzero 17y ago
  Mars is so much easier to get off of, space elevators are almost irrelevant. However, I would vote for moving a moon of Mars and using it as a counterweight. The major downside is that the vicinity of Jupiter is as cozy as the interior of a microwave oven and sunlight is not that abundant as it is down here. Helium 3 is probably going to be the next oil. It will be the stuff you run your military machine with. Mars is in a better position than Earth to control the resources of the gas giants, and it is in a very good position for even control of the Moon's He3. The higher population of Mars due to agriculture and vast potential living space will probably mean political domination of the Jovian moons by Mars.
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    I don't see He3 being the next oil. By the time we are able to colonize the solar system like that, fusion power may very well seem like an interesting antique.
    - stcredzero 17y ago
      Tech gets obsolete a lot faster than physics. The energy of fusion is physics, not tech.

rbanffy 17y ago

Colonizing other planets is one of the best ways to ensure the survival of our species. It's damn hard, but it's also very safe. The sooner we start, the sooner we are safe from the next global extinction and once we are settled, nothing short of a Gamma-ray burst frying our solar system could kill us off. I am not willing to bet on faster-than-light travel and finding Earth-like worlds, first because FTL must be somewhere between insanely hard and plain impossible and second because we would have first to get permission from the natives. And that arrangement, provided the ludicrously lucky situation of environment requirements being compatible, would make a lot of sense - by allowing reciprocal settlement both species would be insured against extinction. Sound even like the start of a nice screenplay. Most probably someone already did it.