Pages:
Author

Topic: Colonizing Mars - page 6. (Read 4695 times)

hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 501
April 24, 2014, 11:49:53 AM
#97
Terraforming Mars doesn't require Nuclear fusion per say, just energy, in fact using your average coal or oil energy station would much much more effective (as it produce, greenhouse gas) than nuclear fusion which basically a clean energy. The thing about terraforming is that it takes times, and resources, I believe that before thinking about terraforming it's more important to start by getting there and turning Mars into a permanent habitat for a group of humans to justify going trough a terra forming process

Btw in around a billion years the sun will be hot enough that Mars will be hot as hot if not hotter than our current earth, and with the CO2 and water melting in caps it might terraform the planet (atmospheric pressure will increase dramatical and liquid water will form) and and life on earth will not be possible anymore, heck even Jupiter moons will start to become more earth like (the ones with atmosphere like titan).
How well does coal burn on mars then? It's no/very little oxygen there, and oxygen is one important factor to CO2.

Also, I hardly doubt that humanity is still around in a billion years. I see no reason to wait that long anyway.

Of course you'll need to extract oxygen from other chemicals that are abundant.
And I agree humanity might disappear by the end of the century, if it keeps going with it stupidity and doesn't start thinking globally and for the best of the whole human race rather than just individual (being it a person a group or a country) greed. And one of the most important steps it's starting to seriously work on plans to move and spread to Mars (easiest location beside earth to live on) to have a backup plan when at least something serious happens on earth, and start easing up on earth in general, but for now it's all about greed and killing each other to each that ...
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
April 24, 2014, 11:33:31 AM
#96
Terraforming Mars doesn't require Nuclear fusion per say, just energy, in fact using your average coal or oil energy station would much much more effective (as it produce, greenhouse gas) than nuclear fusion which basically a clean energy. The thing about terraforming is that it takes times, and resources, I believe that before thinking about terraforming it's more important to start by getting there and turning Mars into a permanent habitat for a group of humans to justify going trough a terra forming process

Btw in around a billion years the sun will be hot enough that Mars will be hot as hot if not hotter than our current earth, and with the CO2 and water melting in caps it might terraform the planet (atmospheric pressure will increase dramatical and liquid water will form) and and life on earth will not be possible anymore, heck even Jupiter moons will start to become more earth like (the ones with atmosphere like titan).
How well does coal burn on mars then? It's no/very little oxygen there, and oxygen is one important factor to CO2.

Also, I hardly doubt that humanity is still around in a billion years. I see no reason to wait that long anyway.
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 501
April 24, 2014, 11:11:04 AM
#95
Terraforming requires Nuclear Fusion energy, actually mars is perfect for nuclear fusion because there is no will by current governments to adopt fusion on earth so Mars will be a good scenario.

However the logistics involved to construct massive fusion plants and teraforming technology will require another 300-500 years+ of advancement.

For the last time Mars One is a bullshit project, that will fail or significantly delayed.

Terraforming Mars doesn't require Nuclear fusion per say, just energy, in fact using your average coal or oil energy station would much much more effective (as it produce, greenhouse gas) than nuclear fusion which basically a clean energy. The thing about terraforming is that it takes times, and resources, I believe that before thinking about terraforming it's more important to start by getting there and turning Mars into a permanent habitat for a group of humans to justify going trough a terra forming process

Btw in around a billion years the sun will be hot enough that Mars will be hot as hot if not hotter than our current earth, and with the CO2 and water melting in caps it might terraform the planet (atmospheric pressure will increase dramatical and liquid water will form) and and life on earth will not be possible anymore, heck even Jupiter moons will start to become more earth like (the ones with atmosphere like titan).

 
member
Activity: 105
Merit: 10
April 24, 2014, 10:31:44 AM
#94
Terraforming requires Nuclear Fusion energy, actually mars is perfect for nuclear fusion because there is no will by current governments to adopt fusion on earth so Mars will be a good scenario.

However the logistics involved to construct massive fusion plants and teraforming technology will require another 300-500 years+ of advancement.

For the last time Mars One is a bullshit project, that will fail or significantly delayed.
We could send asteroids into the martian surface as well. That would rise the temperature.
full member
Activity: 532
Merit: 100
PrimeDAO - An Adoption Engine for Open Finance
April 24, 2014, 09:57:42 AM
#93
Terraforming requires Nuclear Fusion energy, actually mars is perfect for nuclear fusion because there is no will by current governments to adopt fusion on earth so Mars will be a good scenario.

However the logistics involved to construct massive fusion plants and teraforming technology will require another 300-500 years+ of advancement.

For the last time Mars One is a bullshit project, that will fail or significantly delayed.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
April 24, 2014, 09:55:48 AM
#92
The earliest we can realistically expect to send an exploration mission to Mars is probably 2030-2035, and that is just one mission, NOT a colony. Someone will probably have to come up with an economic justification for such a colony, and right now that is hard to see.

Maybe, if we want to return the astronauts to earth after they are done exploring.

By keeping them there we greatly reduce the technological and mission needs.

Mining is the biggest immediate economic justification.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
April 24, 2014, 09:43:48 AM
#91
The earliest we can realistically expect to send an exploration mission to Mars is probably 2030-2035, and that is just one mission, NOT a colony. Someone will probably have to come up with an economic justification for such a colony, and right now that is hard to see.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
April 24, 2014, 09:22:56 AM
#90
Sorry, I didn't read the first part to well I guess! Tongue
I don't think they realize that they're actually going on a one-way ticket to mars. With only 4 people to live with the first two years.
Someone WILL go nuts. If they wanted to make a serious attempt they would send lots more people.
Read the link. It's all hypothetical and theoretical.
It is hypothetical, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. It has just never been done before!
I'm certain that he will quote you again and say that it is theoretical and hypothetical and it might never be tested.  Cheesy
You will see that I was right in 15-20 years.
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1000
April 24, 2014, 09:22:01 AM
#89
That's not it at all. It's hypothetical because it's just fantasy based on what's theoretically possible. None of what they suggested has been tested and unlikely ever will.
It will be tested, and Mars will be terraformed. Who the hell wants to live on barrens?

It won't ever be terraformed or inhabited. It's not feasible or probably even possible at all.

Never ever say never...  100 years ago if I told you we were going to the moon you'd tar and feather me and I'd be the laughing stock of the city.. Guess what we landed on?
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
April 24, 2014, 09:18:29 AM
#88
I think a large part of the reason for them sending a small group is cost. Every person you add makes it much more expensive. The ship has to have more space which means a large ship, which in turn makes it more difficult and costly to escape from Earth's gravity. Every additional person means more supplies are needed, both on the initial ship and each subsequent delivery. I don't agree with the solution of sending just four people to start, but I understand how they reached that decision.

There may also be a psychological motive. There is a weird effect on isolated groups where people start to form rifts and divide into factions over the most trivial disagreements. So if they sent 8-12 people I think it is highly likely that they would find 2 or 3 splinter groups forming and dividing the team. With only 4 people, this is less likely and less significant.
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
April 24, 2014, 12:29:30 AM
#87
Yes, but people went to America because they wanted a better life, political and religious freedom and such things. It didn't cost that much to cross the ocean either. They were aware that they would probably never return, and accepted it since they were desperate.
The problem with Mars is that it would require extremely much money, and that would require government funding or from some really rich person. But non of them are interested in wasting enormous amounts of money to let refugees from 3rd world country move to Mars (on the same terms and reasons as people moved to America).

Huh? I'm talking about when the government encouraged people to move west within America. It had little if anything to do with immigration as far as I know, it was Americans moving west not foreigners desperate to leave their native country to come to America.

There are hundreds of thousands of extremely qualified people applying for the Mars One project, and believe me they are not refugees lol.
Sorry, I didn't read the first part to well I guess! Tongue

I don't think they realize that they're actually going on a one-way ticket to mars. With only 4 people to live with the first two years.
Someone WILL go nuts. If they wanted to make a serious attempt they would send lots more people.
Read the link. It's all hypothetical and theoretical.
It is hypothetical, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. It has just never been done before!
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
April 23, 2014, 03:09:19 PM
#86
Yes, but people went to America because they wanted a better life, political and religious freedom and such things. It didn't cost that much to cross the ocean either. They were aware that they would probably never return, and accepted it since they were desperate.
The problem with Mars is that it would require extremely much money, and that would require government funding or from some really rich person. But non of them are interested in wasting enormous amounts of money to let refugees from 3rd world country move to Mars (on the same terms and reasons as people moved to America).

Huh? I'm talking about when the government encouraged people to move west within America. It had little if anything to do with immigration as far as I know, it was Americans moving west not foreigners desperate to leave their native country to come to America.

There are hundreds of thousands of extremely qualified people applying for the Mars One project, and believe me they are not refugees lol.
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 500
April 23, 2014, 03:03:32 PM
#85
That's not it at all. It's hypothetical because it's just fantasy based on what's theoretically possible. None of what they suggested has been tested and unlikely ever will.
It will be tested, and Mars will be terraformed. Who the hell wants to live on barrens?
It's a good point. It's not that easy to terraform a planet though. First of all Mars would need a thicker atmosphere, and that's not an easy thing to do. Then we'd have to make the air breathable to us as well which would also be a huge problem.
One day maybe, if we haven't destroyed ourselves before that of course, it might actually be done. Smiley
It won't ever be terraformed or inhabited. It's not feasible or probably even possible at all.
It is possible. It's just very hard to do that, but absolutely possible with the right funding and devotion.
Wikipedia even has a page about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars

Read the link. It's all hypothetical and theoretical.
sr. member
Activity: 366
Merit: 250
April 23, 2014, 03:02:27 PM
#84
That's not it at all. It's hypothetical because it's just fantasy based on what's theoretically possible. None of what they suggested has been tested and unlikely ever will.
It will be tested, and Mars will be terraformed. Who the hell wants to live on barrens?
It's a good point. It's not that easy to terraform a planet though. First of all Mars would need a thicker atmosphere, and that's not an easy thing to do. Then we'd have to make the air breathable to us as well which would also be a huge problem.
One day maybe, if we haven't destroyed ourselves before that of course, it might actually be done. Smiley
It won't ever be terraformed or inhabited. It's not feasible or probably even possible at all.
It is possible. It's just very hard to do that, but absolutely possible with the right funding and devotion.
Wikipedia even has a page about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars

Link was already posted.
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
April 23, 2014, 02:51:53 PM
#83
That's not it at all. It's hypothetical because it's just fantasy based on what's theoretically possible. None of what they suggested has been tested and unlikely ever will.
It will be tested, and Mars will be terraformed. Who the hell wants to live on barrens?
It's a good point. It's not that easy to terraform a planet though. First of all Mars would need a thicker atmosphere, and that's not an easy thing to do. Then we'd have to make the air breathable to us as well which would also be a huge problem.
One day maybe, if we haven't destroyed ourselves before that of course, it might actually be done. Smiley
It won't ever be terraformed or inhabited. It's not feasible or probably even possible at all.
It is possible. It's just very hard to do that, but absolutely possible with the right funding and devotion.
Wikipedia even has a page about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 500
April 23, 2014, 02:49:28 PM
#82
That's not it at all. It's hypothetical because it's just fantasy based on what's theoretically possible. None of what they suggested has been tested and unlikely ever will.
It will be tested, and Mars will be terraformed. Who the hell wants to live on barrens?

It won't ever be terraformed or inhabited. It's not feasible or probably even possible at all.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
April 23, 2014, 02:46:43 PM
#81
That's not it at all. It's hypothetical because it's just fantasy based on what's theoretically possible. None of what they suggested has been tested and unlikely ever will.
It will be tested, and Mars will be terraformed. Who the hell wants to live on barrens?
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
April 23, 2014, 02:45:32 PM
#80
Americas were colonized thanks to furs, and gold.  But the price to get something into orbit is on the order of the price of gold itself.  Why not colonize Antarctica or the depths, instead?   

Antarctica : Very cold, but air and even some animals.
Mars        : Makes Antarctica look like Hawaii:  There is air but too thin to breathe maybe deep underground the air might be think enough

It's not like another temperate continent just farther away.  The species will not spread (i.e. people will not move) to Mars on an altruistic notion of protecting the species.  There needs to be an economic incentive for it.

Shawn Pringle
I totally agree with you. That would be easier and cheaper.
But, just to warn you, kuroman will not agree, and he'll start telling you how wrong you are, and how much better his plans of colonizing Mars are. You have been warned.


When the United States was still a new country, they faced a problem. They had acquired a massive piece of land in the west but it was wild and dangerous, and they needed to populate it in order to solidify their ownership and control of said land. So what did they do? They basically told people that if they went west, they could claim a chunk of land for free just by settling on it. And people went in fucking droves. They heard stories about other settlers not surviving the journey, being attacked by hostile native tribes, dying of disease, etc. And yet they still went.

Mars is a new frontier. People will want to go just to get a fresh start and have a chance to be in on something new from the ground floor.
Yes, but people went to America because they wanted a better life, political and religious freedom and such things. It didn't cost that much to cross the ocean either. They were aware that they would probably never return, and accepted it since they were desperate.
The problem with Mars is that it would require extremely much money, and that would require government funding or from some really rich person. But non of them are interested in wasting enormous amounts of money to let refugees from 3rd world country move to Mars (on the same terms and reasons as people moved to America).
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
April 23, 2014, 02:38:40 PM
#79
Americas were colonized thanks to furs, and gold.  But the price to get something into orbit is on the order of the price of gold itself.  Why not colonize Antarctica or the depths, instead?   

Antarctica : Very cold, but air and even some animals.
Mars        : Makes Antarctica look like Hawaii:  There is air but too thin to breathe maybe deep underground the air might be think enough

It's not like another temperate continent just farther away.  The species will not spread (i.e. people will not move) to Mars on an altruistic notion of protecting the species.  There needs to be an economic incentive for it.

Shawn Pringle

When the United States was still a new country, they faced a problem. They had acquired a massive piece of land in the west but it was wild and dangerous, and they needed to populate it in order to solidify their ownership and control of said land. So what did they do? They basically told people that if they went west, they could claim a chunk of land for free just by settling on it. And people went in fucking droves. They heard stories about other settlers not surviving the journey, being attacked by hostile native tribes, dying of disease, etc. And yet they still went.

Mars is a new frontier. People will want to go just to get a fresh start and have a chance to be in on something new from the ground floor.
sdp
sr. member
Activity: 469
Merit: 281
April 23, 2014, 02:33:32 PM
#78
Americas were colonized thanks to furs, and gold.  But the price to get something into orbit is on the order of the price of gold itself.  Why not colonize Antarctica or the depths, instead?   

Antarctica : Very cold, but air and even some animals.
Mars        : Makes Antarctica look like Hawaii:  There is air but too thin to breathe maybe deep underground the air might be think enough

It's not like another temperate continent just farther away.  The species will not spread (i.e. people will not move) to Mars on an altruistic notion of protecting the species.  There needs to be an economic incentive for it.

Shawn Pringle
Pages:
Jump to: