Topic: SpaceX and the prospects of Mars colonization. - page 10. (Read 31904 times)
Going to Mars is an expensive gamble. But it DOES provide for more jobs, and DOES help to perpetuate the banking Ponzi so that we postpone the next Great Depression for a while longer.
Even though I'm pretty skeptical about the prospects of living on Mars, I believe the attempts to do so might bring some useful findings that might help us get an insight into a better way and destination for 'relocation.' Yes, it would be way too costly, including hundreds if not thousands of peoples' lives, but millions might benefit from it in the long run even if Mars proves to be a disaster to live on. After all, most important discoveries started with a dream. So, dream on! 
"You can tell it's real because it looks so fake" -- Elon Musk
Learn more: https://youtu.be/tsCVXX2BPRc
Learn more: https://youtu.be/tsCVXX2BPRc
Mars is pretty darn "unlivable," FYI.
On Mars you would be living in a tunnel, always. Outside, air pressure is 1-2% of Earth and crazy cold.
Why not then live in a tunnel on Earth?
On Mars you would be living in a tunnel, always. Outside, air pressure is 1-2% of Earth and crazy cold.
Why not then live in a tunnel on Earth?
You are right. Mars is currently unlivable for now, but in a few decades it could be possible. After all, it is not like no one is making research and studies about how we could survive on Mars. If all goes well, we could be looking at our future planet.
Huh? Mars will not change, it is what it is. Now or in ten years or in a hundred years you will be living on Mars in a pressurized cave or tunnel. Not on the surface.
.....you have limited health care facilities, what happens if someone gets seriously sick and needs special treatment only available on earth?
Simple. They die.
I find this whole project fascinating, Elon Musk is doing what no government on earth is capable too. But there is also a big risk, ehat happens if in some distant future SpaxeX tirns out to be inprofitable and shut down? Also for 200k you get a one way ticket. If you can't stand Mars anymore after a decade you would be forced to stay. These are my biggest red flags. On top you have limited health care facilities, what happens if someone gets seriously sick and needs special treatment only available on earth?
Mars is pretty darn "unlivable," FYI.
On Mars you would be living in a tunnel, always. Outside, air pressure is 1-2% of Earth and crazy cold.
Why not then live in a tunnel on Earth?
On Mars you would be living in a tunnel, always. Outside, air pressure is 1-2% of Earth and crazy cold.
Why not then live in a tunnel on Earth?
You are right. Mars is currently unlivable for now, but in a few decades it could be possible. After all, it is not like no one is making research and studies about how we could survive on Mars. If all goes well, we could be looking at our future planet.
I believe so too. Time will come when we are going to move and take over Mars, probably because Earth will no longer be livable.....
Mars is pretty darn "unlivable," FYI.On Mars you would be living in a tunnel, always. Outside, air pressure is 1-2% of Earth and crazy cold.
Why not then live in a tunnel on Earth?
People do. It's called the sewers of N.Y., L.A., or Chicago, etc.
I believe so too. Time will come when we are going to move and take over Mars, probably because Earth will no longer be livable.....
Mars is pretty darn "unlivable," FYI.On Mars you would be living in a tunnel, always. Outside, air pressure is 1-2% of Earth and crazy cold.
Why not then live in a tunnel on Earth?
But this is a good big dream !!!
Man is peculiar to dream, otherwise he will simply live dead!
In the future this project is very impressive, but let's first solve earthly problems: the most important thing is the ecology, and of course there will be enough wars on earth.
Man is peculiar to dream, otherwise he will simply live dead!
In the future this project is very impressive, but let's first solve earthly problems: the most important thing is the ecology, and of course there will be enough wars on earth.
The unreasonable part is the expense involved to make the trip safely. And with war always looming, why waste time and money going to Mars?
I wouldn't say those are very good arguments. It's very expensive to make Hollywood films. It could be argued that they aren't that good for much. We still make them though. "War is looming." Is there ever a time that war isn't "looming"? I can't think of a time like that. That's a horrible excuse to not strive for anything. "I had some goals, but war's looming. I'd better not do anything." Hey, who knows, maybe you're right. Maybe it's better to spend more money on wars. That sounds really productive. ....Why do you think it would take a manned spaceship longer to get to Mars than an unmanned one? I'm sure they would do everything possible to make it as quick as possible. This way they wouldn't have to worry about having extra food and resources.
....
....
Because the orbits of the two planets have to line up in a way that makes it a short trip. A short trip "coming AND going" isn't going to happen.
Face it, round trip to Mars is four years or longer.
The unreasonable part is the expense involved to make the trip safely. And with war always looming, why waste time and money going to Mars?
I believe so too. Time will come when we are going to move and take over Mars, probably because Earth will no longer be livable. In the next 20-30 years we would probably hear huge developments about space colonization and be able to actually transport ourselves in there where we could possibly extend our lives for a longer period of time, giving us all a fresh clean start.
....Why do you think it would take a manned spaceship longer to get to Mars than an unmanned one? I'm sure they would do everything possible to make it as quick as possible. This way they wouldn't have to worry about having extra food and resources.
....
....
Because the orbits of the two planets have to line up in a way that makes it a short trip. A short trip "coming AND going" isn't going to happen.
Face it, round trip to Mars is four years or longer.
....Why do you think it would take a manned spaceship longs to get to Mars than an unmanned one? I'm sure they would do everything possible to make it as quick as possible. This way they wouldn't have to worry about having extra food and resources.
....
....
Because the orbits of the two planets have to line up in a way that makes it a short trip. A short trip "coming AND going" isn't going to happen.
Face it, round trip to Mars is four years or longer.
This case appears to me to be one of misplaced priorities. The earth, our home still requires a lot of help from us. But we are fixated on something else. I know other things beneficial to mankind can be discovered as a result of this pursuit. But the cost of a possible Mars colonization is insanely high. And it is definitely not worth it. But as a Science lover, it is a very interesting pursuit. I just also would love to see those resources go in some other direction.
Why ever would they stay there for 20-40 years? Are they seriously planning to make ships that would only go one way? If I were going to Mars, I'd want a round-trip ticket. I don't think anybody's talking about leaving people up there for that long. I don't remember who threw out the numbers of it taking 2-3 years to get to Mars, but that's not what Google is telling me. Here is how long it took for historic missions to reach Mars:
Mariner 4, the first spacecraft to go to Mars (1965 flyby): 228 days
Mariner 6 (1969 flyby): 155 days
Mariner 7 (1969 flyby): 128 days
Mariner 9, the first spacecraft to orbit Mars (1971): 168 days
Viking 1, the first U.S. craft to land on Mars (1975): 304 days
Viking 2 Orbiter/Lander (1975): 333 days
Mars Global Surveyor (1996): 308 days
Mars Pathfinder (1996): 212 days
Mars Odyssey (2001): 200 days
Mars Express Orbiter (2003): 201 days
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (2005): 210 days
Mars Science Laboratory (2011): 254 days
It doesn't look like it's even going to take a year. That seems much more bearable. So, you could actually go to Mars, do some work there and come back within a few years.
Mariner 4, the first spacecraft to go to Mars (1965 flyby): 228 days
Mariner 6 (1969 flyby): 155 days
Mariner 7 (1969 flyby): 128 days
Mariner 9, the first spacecraft to orbit Mars (1971): 168 days
Viking 1, the first U.S. craft to land on Mars (1975): 304 days
Viking 2 Orbiter/Lander (1975): 333 days
Mars Global Surveyor (1996): 308 days
Mars Pathfinder (1996): 212 days
Mars Odyssey (2001): 200 days
Mars Express Orbiter (2003): 201 days
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (2005): 210 days
Mars Science Laboratory (2011): 254 days
It doesn't look like it's even going to take a year. That seems much more bearable. So, you could actually go to Mars, do some work there and come back within a few years.
Now, think about what you just said.
Those "spacecraft" were unmanned. They cost $millions or $billions. They often barely made it. They never came back, and couldn't if we wanted them to.
Even if a manned vehicle made it in a year, there's a $ton $more $expense to going there manned, and if we try to do it too fast, there would have to be even $more $expense to set things up onboard so that people could withstand the rigors of acceleration/deceleration to do it in a year safely.
With war looming, there's no way to focus on a manned Mars mission with any idea of practicality, safety, and success.
Doesn't look like we will ever be going. Looks more like a drive to get people to give more money to Congress for something that will never happen. I mean, what did we spend on going to the moon? And what did it get us? $Lots and virtually nothing. And the guys that went, barely came back. If there had been great success in all areas of manned moon missions, we would have had bases on the moon long ago, with daily flights for the public a reality.
Mars shots are just a publicity campaign... to sucker more money out of the people.
I agree that the benefits of getting to the moon or Mars seem questionable, but it seems to me that it's possible. You are saying nobody will go to Mars, just as, I'm sure, people said nobody would ever go to the moon, before it happened.
Actually, I did give a reason.
Why ever would they stay there for 20-40 years? Are they seriously planning to make ships that would only go one way? If I were going to Mars, I'd want a round-trip ticket. I don't think anybody's talking about leaving people up there for that long. I don't remember who threw out the numbers of it taking 2-3 years to get to Mars, but that's not what Google is telling me. Here is how long it took for historic missions to reach Mars:
Mariner 4, the first spacecraft to go to Mars (1965 flyby): 228 days
Mariner 6 (1969 flyby): 155 days
Mariner 7 (1969 flyby): 128 days
Mariner 9, the first spacecraft to orbit Mars (1971): 168 days
Viking 1, the first U.S. craft to land on Mars (1975): 304 days
Viking 2 Orbiter/Lander (1975): 333 days
Mars Global Surveyor (1996): 308 days
Mars Pathfinder (1996): 212 days
Mars Odyssey (2001): 200 days
Mars Express Orbiter (2003): 201 days
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (2005): 210 days
Mars Science Laboratory (2011): 254 days
It doesn't look like it's even going to take a year. That seems much more bearable. So, you could actually go to Mars, do some work there and come back within a few years.
Mariner 4, the first spacecraft to go to Mars (1965 flyby): 228 days
Mariner 6 (1969 flyby): 155 days
Mariner 7 (1969 flyby): 128 days
Mariner 9, the first spacecraft to orbit Mars (1971): 168 days
Viking 1, the first U.S. craft to land on Mars (1975): 304 days
Viking 2 Orbiter/Lander (1975): 333 days
Mars Global Surveyor (1996): 308 days
Mars Pathfinder (1996): 212 days
Mars Odyssey (2001): 200 days
Mars Express Orbiter (2003): 201 days
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (2005): 210 days
Mars Science Laboratory (2011): 254 days
It doesn't look like it's even going to take a year. That seems much more bearable. So, you could actually go to Mars, do some work there and come back within a few years.
Now, think about what you just said.
Those "spacecraft" were unmanned. They cost $millions or $billions. They often barely made it. They never came back, and couldn't if we wanted them to.
Even if a manned vehicle made it in a year, there's a $ton $more $expense to going there manned, and if we try to do it too fast, there would have to be even $more $expense to set things up onboard so that people could withstand the rigors of acceleration/deceleration to do it in a year safely.
With war looming, there's no way to focus on a manned Mars mission with any idea of practicality, safety, and success.
Doesn't look like we will ever be going. Looks more like a drive to get people to give more money to Congress for something that will never happen. I mean, what did we spend on going to the moon? And what did it get us? $Lots and virtually nothing. And the guys that went, barely came back. If there had been great success in all areas of manned moon missions, we would have had bases on the moon long ago, with daily flights for the public a reality.
Mars shots are just a publicity campaign... to sucker more money out of the people.
I agree that the benefits of getting to the moon or Mars seem questionable, but it seems to me that it's possible. You are saying nobody will go to Mars, just as, I'm sure, people said nobody would ever go to the moon, before it happened.
^^^
1. Pretends Mars and the Moon are heavy balls in the sky with no barrier between them and that men can ride rockets to get there.
2. Constructs some convoluted reason why landing a man on Mars won't happen knowing full well that it's impossible.
3. Profit.
1. Pretends Mars and the Moon are heavy balls in the sky with no barrier between them and that men can ride rockets to get there.
2. Constructs some convoluted reason why landing a man on Mars won't happen knowing full well that it's impossible.
3. Profit.
Come on and think a little.
Going to Mars might take 2 or 3 years. A teenager might be older than 22 when he gets to Mars. This is because he is in training now, as a teenager, but won't lift off for as many as 5 years or more.
Once he gets to Mars, he won't simply jump out of the lander and build a house and plant a garden. He might remain in the lander as long as a year, familiarizing himself with the terrain and climate, and sending out robot vehicles to get a clearer picture of what Mars really is.
Once the semi-robotic habitats are set up, and reasonable certainty has been made that they will support human life, then the teenager(s) might finally transfer to the habitats.
Then there's the setting up of the greenhouses, and finding out what kind of food will truly grow on Mars.
And on and on. It will be surprising if the kids haven't reached 50 years by the time that they are settled into "colony" life on Mars. But if things don't go smoothly, they might be 70... or they might be dead.
And what if there is war on Earth, and they have to reproduce on Mars, so that their kids and grandkids can possibly come back... after mining Mars for supplies to refuel the lander and orbiter. Will they be ready to avoid the radiation hot spots on earth from the home planet nuclear wars?
Sounds like science fiction, right? Well, it is. That's why teenagers... so they can live a long life out there if necessary.
Why ever would they stay there for 20-40 years? Are they seriously planning to make ships that would only go one way? If I were going to Mars, I'd want a round-trip ticket. I don't think anybody's talking about leaving people up there for that long. I don't remember who threw out the numbers of it taking 2-3 years to get to Mars, but that's not what Google is telling me. Here is how long it took for historic missions to reach Mars:Going to Mars might take 2 or 3 years. A teenager might be older than 22 when he gets to Mars. This is because he is in training now, as a teenager, but won't lift off for as many as 5 years or more.
Once he gets to Mars, he won't simply jump out of the lander and build a house and plant a garden. He might remain in the lander as long as a year, familiarizing himself with the terrain and climate, and sending out robot vehicles to get a clearer picture of what Mars really is.
Once the semi-robotic habitats are set up, and reasonable certainty has been made that they will support human life, then the teenager(s) might finally transfer to the habitats.
Then there's the setting up of the greenhouses, and finding out what kind of food will truly grow on Mars.
And on and on. It will be surprising if the kids haven't reached 50 years by the time that they are settled into "colony" life on Mars. But if things don't go smoothly, they might be 70... or they might be dead.
And what if there is war on Earth, and they have to reproduce on Mars, so that their kids and grandkids can possibly come back... after mining Mars for supplies to refuel the lander and orbiter. Will they be ready to avoid the radiation hot spots on earth from the home planet nuclear wars?
Sounds like science fiction, right? Well, it is. That's why teenagers... so they can live a long life out there if necessary.
Mariner 4, the first spacecraft to go to Mars (1965 flyby): 228 days
Mariner 6 (1969 flyby): 155 days
Mariner 7 (1969 flyby): 128 days
Mariner 9, the first spacecraft to orbit Mars (1971): 168 days
Viking 1, the first U.S. craft to land on Mars (1975): 304 days
Viking 2 Orbiter/Lander (1975): 333 days
Mars Global Surveyor (1996): 308 days
Mars Pathfinder (1996): 212 days
Mars Odyssey (2001): 200 days
Mars Express Orbiter (2003): 201 days
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (2005): 210 days
Mars Science Laboratory (2011): 254 days
It doesn't look like it's even going to take a year. That seems much more bearable. So, you could actually go to Mars, do some work there and come back within a few years.
Now, think about what you just said.
Those "spacecraft" were unmanned. They cost $millions or $billions. They often barely made it. They never came back, and couldn't if we wanted them to.
Even if a manned vehicle made it in a year, there's a $ton $more $expense to going there manned, and if we try to do it too fast, there would have to be even $more $expense to set things up onboard so that people could withstand the rigors of acceleration/deceleration to do it in a year safely.
With war looming, there's no way to focus on a manned Mars mission with any idea of practicality, safety, and success.
Doesn't look like we will ever be going. Looks more like a drive to get people to give more money to Congress for something that will never happen. I mean, what did we spend on going to the moon? And what did it get us? $Lots and virtually nothing. And the guys that went, barely came back. If there had been great success in all areas of manned moon missions, we would have had bases on the moon long ago, with daily flights for the public a reality.
Mars shots are just a publicity campaign... to sucker more money out of the people.
Jump to: