Post by: bearnard1212 on 28/12/2020 15:17:23
Post by: evan_au on 28/12/2020 21:46:55
Quote
Does humanity actually need Mars colonization?You could equally ask: "Did humanity actually need colonization of North America?".
- In "colonization of North America", I include colonization by the ancestors of today's South & Central Americans, today's North American Indians, today's Inuit and the Europeans who followed Christopher Columbus.
Quote from: To paraphrase
But as most people know the journey to this continent is not a piece of cake and it is rather dangerous for the crew of the boats, as well as those who walked. Also, they did not figure out how to solve the food issue to get to the continent and bring the crew back. (Not even mentioning the harsh environment of the continent. To prepare the crew for it will be very costly to invent special clothes or boats.)
You could make the same comments about colonization of Australia or the Pacific Islands.
Same, same...
Post by: alancalverd on 28/12/2020 23:31:07
Post by: bearnard1212 on 29/12/2020 13:03:34
This continent is not so difficult to reach and it doesn`t have such a harsh environment and high level of radiation like Mars has, talking about no way back, it`s a bit odd, if we send crewed mission to the red planet, we will send the crew to die, how they survive there???QuoteDoes humanity actually need Mars colonization?You could equally ask: "Did humanity actually need colonization of North America?".
- In "colonization of North America", I include colonization by the ancestors of today's South & Central Americans, today's North American Indians, today's Inuit and the Europeans who followed Christopher Columbus.Quote from: To paraphraseBut as most people know the journey to this continent is not a piece of cake and it is rather dangerous for the crew of the boats, as well as those who walked. Also, they did not figure out how to solve the food issue to get to the continent and bring the crew back. (Not even mentioning the harsh environment of the continent. To prepare the crew for it will be very costly to invent special clothes or boats.)
You could make the same comments about colonization of Australia or the Pacific Islands.
Same, same...
Post by: Halc on 29/12/2020 13:45:09
if we send crewed mission to the red planet, we will send the crew to die, how they survive there???If they come back, it's not colonization. If they die there, it isn't successful colonization. If the task isn't colonization, the task can probably be accomplished on a fraction of the budget with unmanned missions.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/12/2020 13:46:42
There is enough sunlight on Mars to grow crops in a greenhouse, but for much less cost than a return ticket, you can resupply me in much the same way as the International Space Station is resupplied.
Surface radiation doserate is about 10 times the legal limit for employees. No big deal as it can be reduced to a legally tolerable level by about 0.2 mm of lead, which I often wear at work anyway and at 0.4 g gravity, won't be a burden.
Post by: bearnard1212 on 29/12/2020 14:10:32
Yeah, that is a good point, it depends on the target the mission will have. Immediate colonization it`s a bit wrong, we need to make recon missions or something like that. And why do we need colonize Mars?)if we send crewed mission to the red planet, we will send the crew to die, how they survive there???If they come back, it's not colonization. If they die there, it isn't successful colonization. If the task isn't colonization, the task can probably be accomplished on a fraction of the budget with unmanned missions.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/12/2020 17:33:06
Post by: charles1948 on 29/12/2020 20:57:19
In a previous Age, when we were observing only through our Earth-based telescopes, we used to think Mars might have life on it. In the form of intelligent Martians. Building their canals to distribute water from the polar ice-caps, so as to fertilise the orange deserts, and make them bloom into green vegetation, which we saw in our telescopes.
Alas this was pure carp, and merely the product of of chromatic aberration in refracting telescopes such as Lowell used, plus wishful thinking and possibly some deliberate drawing on the imagination.
The vision was busted by the Mariner-4 space-probe in 1965, and all the subsequent probes. No Martians.
Mars is just a bigger version of our Moon. Plastered with craters, completely sterile, and no use to any one.
Post by: evan_au on 29/12/2020 21:50:31
Quote from: bearnard1212
This continent (North America) is not so difficult to reach and it doesn`t have such a harsh environment and high level of radiation like Mars hasYou are talking like someone who lives in North America, or who (last year) could have caught a plane to North America.
I take your point about radiation being higher on Mars, but I think the population of bears, cougars, etc would have been much higher in North America.
It is thought that some of the colonists who populated North America had to wait until an ice age reduced sea levels to the extent that the Bering Strait was dry land (or at least, snow & ice).
- But a lot of Russia and North America would have been covered by thick ice sheets at that time
- Not an easy place to live if you can't grow anything, and the only protection you have is the skin of whatever you can kill (before it killed you)
Quote
talking about no way back, it`s a bit odd, if we send crewed mission to the red planet, we will send the crew to die, how they survive there???Same question about the early colonists of North America.
- The difference is that we can see what the climate is on Mars, through telescopes, and (now) orbiting surveyers and landers.
- All they knew was that life was tough in frozen Russia, and tough in frozen Alaska
Post by: charles1948 on 29/12/2020 22:21:51
This State is by no means "frozen", except temporally in winter. In other seasons, it is a fruitful environment.
Which the Vikings acknowledged, by calling it "Vinland", which may be roughly translated as "Wine Land", ie, the place to grow wine-generating grapes. Which would only be possible in a temperate country. Not a frozen one.
I think you'll find this is correct.
Mars has no chance of becoming a modern Vinland. Mars is permanently frozen, has only a very thin CO2 atmosphere, which affords little protection from the solar UV radiation. Very inhospitable, and not worth further consideration as a place for colonisation.
To find planets suitable for human life, we must go outside the Solar System. Given the distances involved, we'll need an FTL drive, and this may take some time to develop. But - it will come by the end of the 21st century.
Post by: bearnard1212 on 30/12/2020 08:39:32
Nobody needs to colonise anything. It's an activity undertaken for fun or profit. Refugees sometimes end up forming colonies but it's an odd sort of refugee that seeks a less hospitable environment.
[/quote
In relation to the Mars colonization, I wanna say that we have a lot of issues on Earth and it would be better to solve them. A lot of money is needed to make the crewed mission to Mars. It`s not me who must decide but I`d rather spend this money on solving some issues on Earth or on some useful space projects than investing in Mars colonization. There is no planet in the Solar system like Earth ( I mean affordable for humans to live on ) so, why do we need colonize something if we can preserve Earth.
Post by: Slickscientist on 30/12/2020 09:45:33
The astronauts will have to transport many things to the Martian planet to survive: oxygen and hydrogen for fuel and water, lots of food, seeds and portable greenhouses, and other stuff. Instead of investing in expensive spacesuits and air filtration systems for capsules, could we at least try this technology underground. For example, we can take a disused (and safe) old mine, connect electricity, gas and water from above/below and use the air filtration system to provide fresh air. You can take the rubble from the excavation and use it for seawalls, weights, 'sandbags' and other things so that does not go to waste.
I have heard that some miners in America live underground, and have everything there to resemble a home: beds, sofas, stoves, heating, and fake windows!
If not Earth, why not the moon? It is far closer in case something goes wrong, and you can build extended facilities there, because of the availability of frequent supply shuttles from Earth.
Post by: bearnard1212 on 30/12/2020 10:07:29
The Red Planet has been the most severe disappointment of our "Space Age".Scientists found out that there is a huge amount of ice on the red planet. So if we take a sample of this ice, we can find there some forms of life.
In a previous Age, when we were observing only through our Earth-based telescopes, we used to think Mars might have life on it. In the form of intelligent Martians. Building their canals to distribute water from the polar ice-caps, so as to fertilise the orange deserts, and make them bloom into green vegetation, which we saw in our telescopes.
Alas this was pure carp, and merely the product of of chromatic aberration in refracting telescopes such as Lowell used, plus wishful thinking and possibly some deliberate drawing on the imagination.
The vision was busted by the Mariner-4 space-probe in 1965, and all the subsequent probes. No Martians.
Mars is just a bigger version of our Moon. Plastered with craters, completely sterile, and no use to any one.
Post by: Slickscientist on 30/12/2020 10:28:06
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/12/2020 10:28:33
Does humanity actually need Mars colonization? Elon Musk and Space X invest a lot of resources in Starship and Mars colonization. But as most people know the journey to this planet is not a piece of cake and it is rather dangerous for the crew of the spacecraft. Also, they did not figure out how to solve the fuel issue to get to the red planet and bring the crew back. ( Not even mentioning the harsh environment of the red planet. To prepare the crew for it will be very costly to invent special suits or capsules )Elon Musk's speeches available on Youtube have answered most of your questions. His goal is to make humanity a multiplanetary species in order to pass the "great filter". It's a prerequisite to form type 2 civilization in Kardashev scale.
The starships are designed and built using methane as fuel for that very reason. Methane can be produced on Mars using materials available there, i.e. CO2, H2O, and sunlight.
Post by: bearnard1212 on 30/12/2020 10:38:27
Is there any method how to take the apropriate amount of methane to get to the red planet without refueling?Does humanity actually need Mars colonization? Elon Musk and Space X invest a lot of resources in Starship and Mars colonization. But as most people know the journey to this planet is not a piece of cake and it is rather dangerous for the crew of the spacecraft. Also, they did not figure out how to solve the fuel issue to get to the red planet and bring the crew back. ( Not even mentioning the harsh environment of the red planet. To prepare the crew for it will be very costly to invent special suits or capsules )Is there any method how to take the appropriate amount of
Elon Musk's speeches available on Youtube have answered most of your questions. His goal is to make humanity a multiplanetary species in order to pass the "great filter". It's a prerequisite to form type 2 civilization in Kardashev scale.
The starships are designed and built using methane as fuel for that very reason. Methane can be produced on Mars using materials available there, i.e. CO2, H2O, and sunlight.
As far as I know, scientists did no figure that stuff out.
Post by: evan_au on 30/12/2020 10:49:10
Quote from: charles1948
Weren't the earliest European settlers in North America, Vikings, who set foot in a kind of "off the record" way, in the area which roughly corresponds to the modern State of Maine.Yes, the Vikings did reach Newfoundland in Canada, but did not create a permanent settlement.
- Traveling across the North Atlantic was a rough trip, and resupply was undoubtedly difficult
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Anse_aux_Meadows#Pre-European_settlements
However, there were colonists in North America well before the Vikings.
- And the climate was even tougher than for the Vikings, perhaps more like the Inuit face today
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#Migration_into_the_continents
Post by: Slickscientist on 30/12/2020 10:59:07
Elon Musk's speeches available on Youtube have answered most of your questions. His goal is to make humanity a multiplanetary species in order to pass the "great filter". It's a prerequisite to form type 2 civilization in Kardashev scale. The starships are designed and built using methane as fuel for that very reason. Methane can be produced on Mars using materials available there, i.e. CO2, H2O, and sunlight.Is there any method how to take the appropriate amount of methane to get to the red planet without refueling?
As far as I know, scientists did no figure that stuff out.
Yes, I know that, but they most probably need to cary large amounts of oxygen and hydrogen to create water using a special machine. This has many logistical problems but will multiply in complexity as they are travelling the longest distance yet.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/12/2020 12:34:01
Yes, I know that, but they most probably need to cary large amounts of oxygen and hydrogen to create water using a special machine. This has many logistical problems but will multiply in complexity as they are travelling the longest distance yet.The water would be "mined" from Mars surface. They might need some digging/drilling and purification.
Post by: bearnard1212 on 30/12/2020 13:40:02
Yeah, definitely this water is not acceptable for drinking. If we have there a high level of radiation, the water is 100% radioactive, and I don`t think that such a purification system exists to clean water from radiation.Yes, I know that, but they most probably need to cary large amounts of oxygen and hydrogen to create water using a special machine. This has many logistical problems but will multiply in complexity as they are travelling the longest distance yet.The water would be "mined" from Mars surface. They might need some digging/drilling and purification.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/12/2020 13:40:49
the water is 100% radioactive,No it isn't
I don`t think that such a purification system exists to clean water from radiation.Yes we do.
Post by: Janus on 30/12/2020 20:03:40
???Yeah, definitely this water is not acceptable for drinking. If we have there a high level of radiation, the water is 100% radioactive, and I don`t think that such a purification system exists to clean water from radiation.Yes, I know that, but they most probably need to cary large amounts of oxygen and hydrogen to create water using a special machine. This has many logistical problems but will multiply in complexity as they are travelling the longest distance yet.The water would be "mined" from Mars surface. They might need some digging/drilling and purification.
While radiation levels on Mars are higher than those on the Earth ( an average of 8 rad/yr vs 0.62 rad/yr) and would be unhealthy over long term exposure, we are not talking about sitting next to an unshielded nuclear pile levels.
Besides, that isn't how radiation works. Just being exposed to radiation doesn't make something "radioactive".
For water on Mars to be unsafe due to radiation, it would have to be contaminated with a radioactive element*. (which like any other contaminant be filtered out.)
*or having a higher than normal H3 vs H1 content. But since H3 only makes up a trace amount of all Hydrogen, and any process energetic enough to convert H1 in a water molecule to H3 would rip apart the molecule, this is not likely.
Post by: evan_au on 30/12/2020 20:35:55
Quote from: bearnard1212
If we have there a high level of radiation, the water is 100% radioactiveThe kinds of radiation are:
- high levels of ultraviolet: Protected by a spacesuit (which you also need due to near-zero atmospheric pressure).
- high levels of cosmic rays: Could be protected by building sleeping quarters underground, or putting a layer of dirt over the base
- Apart from that, there is just the usual rates of radioactive decay due to Uranium, Potassium and Thorium etc that you find on Earth. Except that these elements may be distributed more uniformly on Mars, due to the thinner crust and continental drift of Earth
Surface water is unstable in the low atmospheric pressure of Mars (it sublimates).
- So the water would be mined from below the surface of Mars, where it has been somewhat protected from cosmic rays.
- The first step in refining is to raise the temperature a bit, so pure water distills off, leaving dry dirt
Since transport to Mars is expensive, the idea is to ship equipment which can build stuff from raw materials found on Mars.
- Water: Mined
- Breathable air: Refined from water with solar power
- Rocket fuel from water and carbon dioxide (with solar power)
- Construction materials: Mined on-site
- This equipment would be shipped to Mars before humans arrived, so they could build up stocks of essential supplies, ready for the colonists.
NASA recently ran a competition to design buildings that could be made on Mars from local materials.
Post by: bearnard1212 on 31/12/2020 10:26:54
Yeah, I`ve read that Elon Musk wants to send an uncrewed mission to Mars as a recon project. I far as I remember he wants to do that in 2024 and in 2026 crewed mission is about to be sent to Mars. I don`t know it for sure and I don`t know if it`s possible to happen.Quote from: bearnard1212If we have there a high level of radiation, the water is 100% radioactiveThe kinds of radiation are:
- high levels of ultraviolet: Protected by a spacesuit (which you also need due to near-zero atmospheric pressure).
- high levels of cosmic rays: Could be protected by building sleeping quarters underground, or putting a layer of dirt over the base
- Apart from that, there is just the usual rates of radioactive decay due to Uranium, Potassium and Thorium etc that you find on Earth. Except that these elements may be distributed more uniformly on Mars, due to the thinner crust and continental drift of Earth
Surface water is unstable in the low atmospheric pressure of Mars (it sublimates).
- So the water would be mined from below the surface of Mars, where it has been somewhat protected from cosmic rays.
- The first step in refining is to raise the temperature a bit, so pure water distills off, leaving dry dirt
Since transport to Mars is expensive, the idea is to ship equipment which can build stuff from raw materials found on Mars.
- Water: Mined
- Breathable air: Refined from water with solar power
- Rocket fuel from water and carbon dioxide (with solar power)
- Construction materials: Mined on-site
- This equipment would be shipped to Mars before humans arrived, so they could build up stocks of essential supplies, ready for the colonists.
NASA recently ran a competition to design buildings that could be made on Mars from local materials.
Post by: alancalverd on 31/12/2020 11:19:11
No point in erecting buildings above ground. The landscape doesn't change and there's nobody else around, so a photograph is as good as a window. All you need is a flagpole so you can find your way back home after an expedition.
Post by: charles1948 on 03/01/2021 18:23:39
We could fight our wars on Mars.
For example, armies of Americans, Russians and Chinese, could conduct military campaigns on Mars. For the possession of the Syrtis Major, or Olympus Mons, or the Vastitia Borealis, or the Martian icecaps, or any other suitably prestigious objectives.
Such long-distance "Martian Wars" would provide an outlet for pent-up human aggression. Without incurring disastrous damage to our home planet Earth. Nuclear weapons could be freely and abundantly used on Mars.
There'd be no fear of them turning Mars into a lifeless desert, since it already is to start with.
I wonder whether this possible military benefit of Martian colonisation has been considered?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/01/2021 22:00:19
Perhaps the colonisation of Mars might offer one advantage:Mars colonizers would disagree.
We could fight our wars on Mars.
For example, armies of Americans, Russians and Chinese, could conduct military campaigns on Mars. For the possession of the Syrtis Major, or Olympus Mons, or the Vastitia Borealis, or the Martian icecaps, or any other suitably prestigious objectives.
Such long-distance "Martian Wars" would provide an outlet for pent-up human aggression. Without incurring disastrous damage to our home planet Earth. Nuclear weapons could be freely and abundantly used on Mars.
There'd be no fear of them turning Mars into a lifeless desert, since it already is to start with.
I wonder whether this possible military benefit of Martian colonisation has been considered?
Why would they fight the war in the first place? Reminding them that they have common international goals and showing them objective reality should be a more efficient method to prevent wars.
Post by: evan_au on 03/01/2021 22:14:54
Quote from: charles1948
We could fight our wars on Mars.I would prefer it to be treated more like Antarctica - each country develops their own base, and they are willing to help each other out if they get into trouble.
- The whole thing is done in the context of a treaty which bans military activity, specifically including nuclear weapons
- And an associated treaty protecting Fauna & Flora
The hardest part may be the ban on disposing of nuclear waste.
- In the case of Antarctica, it is possible to keep supplying diesel fuel. Not possible for Mars (plus there is no natural oxygen to burn it).
- In the case of Antarctica, it was possible to remove the US nuclear reactor, and clean up the mess it made. Not possible for Mars.
- So the whole settlement will probably need to run on solar power (wind power being very diffuse there)
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Measures_for_the_Conservation_of_Antarctic_Fauna_and_Flora
Post by: alancalverd on 03/01/2021 23:08:24
Post by: bearnard1212 on 04/01/2021 08:31:18
Yeah, I was wrong about the contamination of the water on the red planet.???Yeah, definitely this water is not acceptable for drinking. If we have there a high level of radiation, the water is 100% radioactive, and I don`t think that such a purification system exists to clean water from radiation.Yes, I know that, but they most probably need to cary large amounts of oxygen and hydrogen to create water using a special machine. This has many logistical problems but will multiply in complexity as they are travelling the longest distance yet.The water would be "mined" from Mars surface. They might need some digging/drilling and purification.
While radiation levels on Mars are higher than those on the Earth ( an average of 8 rad/yr vs 0.62 rad/yr) and would be unhealthy over long term exposure, we are not talking about sitting next to an unshielded nuclear pile levels.
Besides, that isn't how radiation works. Just being exposed to radiation doesn't make something "radioactive".
For water on Mars to be unsafe due to radiation, it would have to be contaminated with a radioactive element*. (which like any other contaminant be filtered out.)
*or having a higher than normal H3 vs H1 content. But since H3 only makes up a trace amount of all Hydrogen, and any process energetic enough to convert H1 in a water molecule to H3 would rip apart the molecule, this is not likely.
The type of radiation present on Mars is not due to any radioactive materials present on the Red Planet, but is due to regular exposure to cosmic rays and solar wind, plus it receives occasional lethal blasts that occur with strong solar flares.
Contamination versus Exposure:
However, a body of water exposed to radiation is not necessarily contaminated with radioactive material.
For water to be contaminated, radioactive material must be present; either floating on or dissolved in the water. Since cosmic and solar radiation is delivered in the form of rays, it simply passes through the water and does not contaminate it or make the water radioactive.
Post by: alancalverd on 04/01/2021 11:45:04
(a) can be quickly and cheaply satisfied with a very few expendables like myself who would be happy to run whatever experiments are required, die there, and be packaged so as to cause minimal disturbance to the planet.
(b)(i) is only necessary if we have made Earth intolerable, which is a very good reason for not polluting another planet.
(b)(ii) is a Pilgrim Fathers or Botany Bay exercise, where society has deemed the colonists themselves intolerable, which is a very good reason for not sending them to behave badly on another planet.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/01/2021 12:29:00
Post by: bearnard1212 on 04/01/2021 12:44:07
Let's invert the question: Does Mars need humans? The only reasons for going there are (a) curiosity or (b) colonisation.I still don`t understand why we should go there and waste a lot of money on this project. Yes, we need to expand our boundaries of space-traveling and develop our technology. But as for me, it would be better to invest in other space projects that would be very useful for humans.
(a) can be quickly and cheaply satisfied with a very few expendables like myself who would be happy to run whatever experiments are required, die there, and be packaged so as to cause minimal disturbance to the planet.
(b)(i) is only necessary if we have made Earth intolerable, which is a very good reason for not polluting another planet.
(b)(ii) is a Pilgrim Fathers or Botany Bay exercise, where society has deemed the colonists themselves intolerable, which is a very good reason for not sending them to behave badly on another planet.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/01/2021 13:07:10
I still don`t understand whyBecause...
this planet is doomed- for example, by a star that's going to go red giant- and we need to practice getting to another one.
Post by: evan_au on 04/01/2021 20:30:55
Quote from: bearnard1212
as for me, it would be better to invest in other space projects that would be very useful for humans.What projects do you think are useful for humans?
Overall, I think we can agree that getting a COVID-19 vaccine deployed is useful for humans in 2021 (which will drift into 2022+ for many of the intermediate and poor nations)
- The politicians will look back and see that we have spent a lot of money on COVID-19 vaccines, and they will want to wind back all science research for the next decade to pay for it
The Chinese have a long-running goal to put taikonauts on the Moon
- Donald Trump had a sudden enthusiasm to have astronauts on the Moon to
- We know about Biden's COVID policies, but it's unclear what his space priorities will be.
- At present, the ISS is looking for commercial buyers, otherwise it might be de-orbited as early as 2024
In contrast, Elon Musk will continue to look forward, and will look for new and innovative ways to put astronauts on Mars...
Post by: alancalverd on 04/01/2021 22:43:39
The Chinese have a long-running goal to put taikonauts on the MoonI read this too quickly. Chinese takeouts on the Moon? Best laugh of the day.
As for projects useful to humans
1. Abolish religion
2. Reduce the human population
Then our descendants can enjoy life on the planet for which they evolved, for as long as the sun shines.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/01/2021 02:44:53
Let's invert the question: Does Mars need humans? The only reasons for going there are (a) curiosity or (b) colonisation.As far as I know, currently Mars is lacking of native conscious beings. The only known form of consciousness there are artificial and came from earth. So I think it doesn't need anything, including humans.
(a) can be quickly and cheaply satisfied with a very few expendables like myself who would be happy to run whatever experiments are required, die there, and be packaged so as to cause minimal disturbance to the planet.
(b)(i) is only necessary if we have made Earth intolerable, which is a very good reason for not polluting another planet.
(b)(ii) is a Pilgrim Fathers or Botany Bay exercise, where society has deemed the colonists themselves intolerable, which is a very good reason for not sending them to behave badly on another planet.
Making Mars a habitable planet takes a lot of time. There are many things need to study with a lot of unknowns and uncertainties. If we wait for earth to become intolerable before we start exploring there, we wouldn't have enough time to do that and face the risk for human extinction. Maybe that's acceptable for you, but certainly not for many others.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/01/2021 12:27:25
Post by: bearnard1212 on 05/01/2021 12:29:00
(b)(iii) This planet is doomed- for example, by a star that's going to go red giant- and we need to practice getting to another one.We still can save it. There is no such planet like Earth in the whole Solar system. It`s much easier to preserve Earth than trying to colonize other planets where it`s impossible to live.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/01/2021 13:11:18
It`s much easier to preserve EarthHow do you plan to stop the Sun expanding near the end of its life?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/01/2021 13:11:57
trying to colonize other planets where it`s impossible to live.The plan is to colonise planets where it IS possible to live.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/01/2021 13:15:53
Post by: bearnard1212 on 05/01/2021 15:34:14
As I have already mentioned, there is no such planet in the Solar system, the most similar to Earth planet is Venus. But unfortunately, we can`t even get there because of the high pressure and high temperature.trying to colonize other planets where it`s impossible to live.The plan is to colonize planets where it IS possible to live.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/01/2021 15:45:33
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/01/2021 16:04:39
Should we care? Nobody worried too much about the dinosaurs. If the end happens slowly, our descendants will get used to it, like the desertification of the Sahara. If it happens quickly, what's the problem? A bit of chemistry happened on a rock, then it evaporated.I believe dinosaurs did worry about their own and children's lives.
Those who care just happen to be more likely to survive compared to those who don't.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/01/2021 16:09:05
As I have already mentioned, there is no such planet in the Solar system, the most similar to Earth planet is Venus. But unfortunately, we can`t even get there because of the high pressure and high temperature.Humans can already live in ISS for years now.
Venus is similar to earth only in size and distance to the sun. Their temperatures are much different. Venus is the hottest planet in our solar system.
Condition on Mars surface is more suitable for human life since room heater is much easier than room cooling.
Mars colonisation is just a stepping stone to a more ambitious goal, which is building a multistellar civilization.
Post by: charles1948 on 05/01/2021 19:13:52
Should we care? Nobody worried too much about the dinosaurs. If the end happens slowly, our descendants will get used to it, like the desertification of the Sahara. If it happens quickly, what's the problem? A bit of chemistry happened on a rock, then it evaporated.
Absolutely! One shouldn't treat a biological incident as a cosmological tragedy.
Post by: Halc on 05/01/2021 20:37:29
We still can save it. There is no such planet like Earth in the whole Solar system.Save it from what? It seems to me that what the environment needs saving from is us.
And no, humanity seems entirely incapable of doing what it takes. I've seen no viable suggestions from anybody, and this whole thread seems to revolve around plans to destroy another planet in addition to this one.
Actually, the natural course of things seems to be on a good path for self-correcting the problem as has always occurred in the past. The elimination of civilization will halt the progression of the Holocene extinction event, and the subsequent presence of humans or not seems not to matter from that point onward. New species will replace the ones lost. The planet is not in need of being saved.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/01/2021 21:46:55
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/01/2021 21:57:01
New species will replace the ones lost. The planet is not in need of being saved.Unless when entire earth is no longer habitable, such as when it merge into the sun. Unconscious beings need nothing. It's just some conscious agents happen to live there want to survive, and are trying to figure out how. It's something we can learn from the movie Thor Ragnarok.
Post by: bearnard1212 on 06/01/2021 09:41:15
Yeah, but in Thor Ragnarok, asgardians had an alternative plan where to go after the Asgard had been completely destroyed. And we don`t have this plan. We don`t have the alternative place where to go like asgardians had in that movie.New species will replace the ones lost. The planet is not in need of being saved.Unless when entire earth is no longer habitable, such as when it merge into the sun. Unconscious beings need nothing. It's just some conscious agents happen to live there want to survive, and are trying to figure out how. It's something we can learn from the movie Thor Ragnarok.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/01/2021 11:34:29
Yeah, but in Thor Ragnarok, asgardians had an alternative plan where to go after the Asgard had been completely destroyed. And we don`t have this plan. We don`t have the alternative place where to go like asgardians had in that movie.We don't have it yet. That's why some of us want to build one.
Post by: bearnard1212 on 06/01/2021 13:01:46
So, the Solar system doesn't have such a planet as Earth that humans can live there without any problem. That fact I have already mentioned in that discussion. There is a possibility that such a planet like Earth or similar to it exists in another galaxy but that is much more difficult task than travel to Mars.Yeah, but in Thor Ragnarok, asgardians had an alternative plan where to go after the Asgard had been completely destroyed. And we don`t have this plan. We don`t have the alternative place where to go like asgardians had in that movie.We don't have it yet. That's why some of us want to build one.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/01/2021 22:04:22
So, the Solar system doesn't have such a planet as Earth that humans can live there without any problem. That fact I have already mentioned in that discussion. There is a possibility that such a planet like Earth or similar to it exists in another galaxy but that is much more difficult task than travel to Mars.A thousand miles journey starts with the first step. The goal of space exploration is not limited to finding other planets like earth. There are other ways such as terraforming.
I've mentioned in other thread that the vast majority of volume in the universe is nearly vacuum deep space. So anyone who wants to survive should learn and try to live there. We could build spacecity or city sized spaceships. Planets, moons, asteroids and comets could be used as material sources. In short, we should be independent from any particular heavenly body, such as earth or the sun.
Post by: charles1948 on 08/01/2021 21:38:19
Post by: Halc on 08/01/2021 22:14:55
What would be the advantage of living on Mars, from living on Earth?Gets your name in a history book, if there's anybody around to write one.
If the colony doesn't die out, it's a fantastic way to have a significant number of descendants.
Post by: charles1948 on 08/01/2021 22:29:59
What would be the advantage of living on Mars, from living on Earth?Gets your name in a history book, if there's anybody around to write one.
If the colony doesn't die out, it's a fantastic way to have a significant number of descendants.
I get your point. Looking at it from an individual perspective. As a pioneer explorer of Mars. Mucho kudos.
Is that all? Are there any benefits to human life?
-
Post by: alancalverd on 08/01/2021 23:52:00
Post by: charles1948 on 09/01/2021 00:16:51
As a physical scientist of any description, what could be more fun than a whole new planet with lots of undiscovered geology, geography, atmospheric physics, huge stable platform with a thin dry atmosphere for astronomy.....to say nothing of the opportunities for structural engineering at 0.3g with no significant wind - think of the telescope you could build!....crap posting for botanists and zoologists, perhaps, but just suppose you found a hint of complex organic chemistry in an apparent desert?....meanwhile, imagine the joy of doing complex surgery on an entirely sterile planet!
You make a good case for Mars. But the same advantages could be gained from Luna, which is much closer.
On your point about complex organic chemistry, many observers of the Moon have noted subtle colour changes on the lunar surface, which could be attributed to vegetational growth.
To back this up, one of the most respected past students of the Moon, W.H Pickering, claimed that the darkening of lunar craters, such as Plato, was caused by the massing of lunar insects. Like locusts.
That seems implausible. But the Moon may have many secrets to reveal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/01/2021 06:42:45
What would be the advantage of living on Mars, from living on Earth?Being independent from a particular heavenly body, namely earth.
So humanity can still exist even when the earth stop existing.
Post by: evan_au on 09/01/2021 08:01:21
So, the Solar system doesn't have such a planet as Earth that humans can live there without any problem.Correction: The Solar system doesn't have any planet that humans can live there without any problem (not even Earth)!
- 70% of Earth's surface is inhospitable, and humans need to stay in ships with supplies of oxygen to sustain life.
- 33% of the land surface is deserts, where humans would starve and/or die of exposure
- 12% of the land surface receives seasonal snowfall, where humans need insulating clothing & shelter to avoid death by hypothermia
- In much of the rest, humans use protective clothing and/or shelter for comfort
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/01/2021 11:52:31
To back this up, one of the most respected past students of the Moon, W.H Pickering, claimed that the darkening of lunar craters, such as Plato, was caused by the massing of lunar insects. Like locusts.You can't "back up" an assertion which is known to be wrong by citing something which was believed a hundred years ago- before we found out the truth.
Post by: bearnard1212 on 16/01/2021 12:31:32
But still, Earth is much better to live on than Mars and Venus, where it`s impossible to live for humans like we do on Earth.So, the Solar system doesn't have such a planet as Earth that humans can live there without any problem.Correction: The Solar system doesn't have any planet that humans can live there without any problem (not even Earth)!
- 70% of Earth's surface is inhospitable, and humans need to stay in ships with supplies of oxygen to sustain life.
- 33% of the land surface is deserts, where humans would starve and/or die of exposure
- 12% of the land surface receives seasonal snowfall, where humans need insulating clothing & shelter to avoid death by hypothermia
- In much of the rest, humans use protective clothing and/or shelter for comfort
Post by: syhprum on 16/01/2021 13:17:45
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/01/2021 06:15:50
But still, Earth is much better to live on than Mars and Venus, where it`s impossible to live for humans like we do on Earth.For the time being. But when the sun engulf the earth, the case would be different.
Post by: bearnard1212 on 18/01/2021 09:06:41
I assume humans will destroy Earth earlier than the Sun engulfs Earth. I think we have a few million years to this eventBut still, Earth is much better to live on than Mars and Venus, where it`s impossible to live for humans like we do on Earth.For the time being. But when the sun engulf the earth, the case would be different.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/01/2021 09:57:08
Except if we can convince humans that they share a common goal, hence they will be able to organize and cooperate effectively to achieve that goal. In another thread I discussed specifically about that goal, and arrived at a conclusion which is a logical necessity. It means that its alternatives are self defeating or lead to contradiction.I assume humans will destroy Earth earlier than the Sun engulfs Earth. I think we have a few million years to this eventBut still, Earth is much better to live on than Mars and Venus, where it`s impossible to live for humans like we do on Earth.For the time being. But when the sun engulf the earth, the case would be different.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/01/2021 10:32:23
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/01/2021 22:14:25
Humans will almost certainly be extinct before the planet becomes unfit for any form of life.How do you come to your conclusion? What evidence do you have to support it?
Post by: Halc on 18/01/2021 22:28:31
I assume humans will destroy Earth earlier than the Sun engulfs Earth. I think we have a few million years to this eventDestroying a planet is an orders of magnitude greater task than that which humans are capable. So I think not. Earth will go on just fine as it has after every single significant extinction event. The Holocene extinction event is no different. With our luck, humans might even survive it. With Earth's luck, we won't.
Fermi paradox seems awful good evidence that technological prowess isn't particularly healthy for the continued existence of the species involved. Human seem no smarter than bacteria in a nutrient-filled petri dish. We've absolutely no self control, made all the more pathetic because unlike the bacteria, we can see the problem but we still ignore it.Humans will almost certainly be extinct before the planet becomes unfit for any form of life.How do you come to your conclusion? What evidence do you have to support it?
Post by: bearnard1212 on 19/01/2021 08:46:06
I don't` think that humans will die out completely (of course it will depend on the factor of the extinction) but still, I think that some will survive. However, I hope that we will start to take care of Earth and prevent it from and us being extinct.I assume humans will destroy Earth earlier than the Sun engulfs Earth. I think we have a few million years to this eventDestroying a planet is an orders of magnitude greater task than that which humans are capable. So I think not. Earth will go on just fine as it has after every single significant extinction event. The Holocene extinction event is no different. With our luck, humans might even survive it. With Earth's luck, we won't.Fermi paradox seems awful good evidence that technological prowess isn't particularly healthy for the continued existence of the species involved. Human seem no smarter than bacteria in a nutrient-filled petri dish. We've absolutely no self control, made all the more pathetic because unlike the bacteria, we can see the problem but we still ignore it.Humans will almost certainly be extinct before the planet becomes unfit for any form of life.How do you come to your conclusion? What evidence do you have to support it?
Post by: alancalverd on 19/01/2021 10:40:14
Probable extinction of life due to the fate of the sun is ~ 5 x 10^9 yearHumans will almost certainly be extinct before the planet becomes unfit for any form of life.How do you come to your conclusion? What evidence do you have to support it?
Genus homo has been around for about 10^6 years, other primates (leading to chimpanzee) about 5 x 10^6 years
Bayesian statistics says the most probable extinction of genus homo is thus 1 - 5 x 10^6 years
All dinosaurs came and went over about 2 x 10^8 years, which seems a reasonable upper limit for an entire family.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/01/2021 14:59:10
In the next few millenia humans may evolve into something so different than they are now. They may branch into several different species, depending on their new environments.
Last universal common ancestor may had gone extinct long ago. But we as their descendants still have a chance to continue their legacy.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/01/2021 21:57:56
Post by: bearnard1212 on 20/01/2021 09:00:56
Yeah, you are right. We should convince everybody that Earth is our home and there is no planet like this ( at least in the Solar system) So we need to protect it and chande a bit the way we live.Except if we can convince humans that they share a common goal, hence they will be able to organize and cooperate effectively to achieve that goal. In another thread I discussed specifically about that goal, and arrived at a conclusion which is a logical necessity. It means that its alternatives are self defeating or lead to contradiction.I assume humans will destroy Earth earlier than the Sun engulfs Earth. I think we have a few million years to this eventBut still, Earth is much better to live on than Mars and Venus, where it`s impossible to live for humans like we do on Earth.For the time being. But when the sun engulf the earth, the case would be different.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/01/2021 12:55:19
Not all dinosaurs have gone extinct. Biologically speaking, birds are dinosaurs too.But the species tyrannosaurus rex has disappeared completely, and the last homo teter (for a while at least) is leaving the White House today. Admittedly the definition of species is itself not defined but it's pretty clear that the gallus gallus in my garden would not be interfertile with any member of the diplodocus genus. I think homo will be unrecognisable as sapiens in a thousand years at the observed rate of growth of stupidity, and the genus is unlikely to survive a million.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/01/2021 09:42:52
But the species tyrannosaurus rex has disappeared completely, and the last homo teter (for a while at least) is leaving the White House today. Admittedly the definition of species is itself not defined but it's pretty clear that the gallus gallus in my garden would not be interfertile with any member of the diplodocus genus. I think homo will be unrecognisable as sapiens in a thousand years at the observed rate of growth of stupidity, and the genus is unlikely to survive a million.The effectiveness of democracy relies on the assumption that majority of its citizen are rational thinkers, hence their decisions would be mostly taken rationally. Citizens who think irrationally are minority, and must follow the decision made by their fellow majority who are rational.
The good thing about democracy is that it amplifies the effect of decisions made by majority of its citizens. When they make bad decisions, e.g. majority of them are being irrational, some possibilities can follow. Majority of the citizen can learn from their mistakes, change their mind and make better decisions in the future. Alternatively, they keep making the same mistakes, and if they are severe enough, the consequence can shuffle the composition of population, either by birth, death, and/or migration. It could repeat indefinitely until rational citizens control the government. Although still possible, I think it's unlikely that they keep being irrational until the population go completely extinct.
Post by: axscientist on 26/01/2021 01:33:23
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2021 02:08:59
Not now, we don't. We've got Earth for now and until its demise, we probably won't be leaving anytime soon. So colonization on other planets is not so necessary right now.Even if you don't want to, someone else will do it, just because they can.
Post by: Pseudoscience-is-malarkey on 26/01/2021 03:56:25
Post by: bearnard1212 on 26/01/2021 09:10:56
I honestly believe we would have more motive to go to Mars if there were beautiful, single women there.If that were true, we have already visited that planet. Moreover, we would have already colonized it and make appropriate stations to live there)
Post by: cheeeezy on 26/01/2021 13:52:11
Post by: evan_au on 26/01/2021 20:36:40
Quote from: cheeeezy
Inertial drives...rockets are ridiculous for space travel!Rockets are inertial drives!
- The inertia of the exhaust pushes against the inertia of the spaceship, accelerating both in opposite directions.
What sort of inertial drives were you talking about?
Post by: cheeeezy on 26/01/2021 21:28:13
Post by: Halc on 26/01/2021 21:50:41
the kind that are reactionless, and simply convert matter into force. yes it's easier to do than you thinkEasy target to hit since I think that a reactionless drive is impossible, being a violation of conservation of momentum.
Such a drive would be an example of a non-inertial drive since all the ones we have (rockets) are inertial.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/01/2021 23:32:23
I honestly believe we would have more motive to go to Mars if there were beautiful, single women there.There are plenty here. The real question is whether Martian women are inclined to fancy ugly, stupid men.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/01/2021 11:48:59
The article proposed an alternative solution.
Quote
Janhunen, an astrophysicist at the Finnish Meteorological Institute in Helsinki, described his vision in a research paper published this month.
He laid out the blueprint for floating “mega-satellites” around the dwarf planet Ceres, which lies roughly 325 million miles from Earth.
“The motivation is to have a settlement with artificial gravity that allows growth beyond Earth’s living area,” Janhunen wrote.
Post by: bearnard1212 on 28/01/2021 08:39:47
the kind that are reactionless, and simply convert matter into force. yes it's easier to do than you thinkI found an interesting consept of the rocket engine and it`s called the hybrid rocket. The term ``hybrid`` has been given to this rocket because it combines solid Hydroxyl Terminated Polybutadiene (HTPB) fuel and 90% Hydrogen Peroxide (H202) liquid oxidiser. This rocket has been build by a private space company from Scotland and it`s called Spam rocket (http://Soam) I wonder wether such consept be developed so, that it can travel humans to Mars. I know that there is the easier way how to do it but still it is an interesting point to think.
Post by: charles1948 on 28/01/2021 20:58:29
I honestly believe we would have more motive to go to Mars if there were beautiful, single women there.There are plenty here. The real question is whether Martian women are inclined to fancy ugly, stupid men.
Some of us might be interested in what Martian men would be like. They'd have evolved in a low-gravity environment. Which allowed them to grow appendages of extraordinary dimensions, by terrestrial standards.
Isn't that a fascinating subject for speculation?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2021 21:35:25
Some of us might be interested in what Martian men would be like. They'd have evolved in a low-gravity environment. Which allowed them to grow appendages of extraordinary dimensions, by terrestrial standards.They also have to live in a dry environment with low pressure, low oxygen and high concentration of CO2 atmosphere. If we find Martian lifeforms, they are most likely microscopic.
Isn't that a fascinating subject for speculation?
Post by: charles1948 on 28/01/2021 21:56:12
Some of us might be interested in what Martian men would be like. They'd have evolved in a low-gravity environment. Which allowed them to grow appendages of extraordinary dimensions, by terrestrial standards.They also have to live in a dry environment with low pressure, low oxygen and high concentration of CO2 atmosphere. If we find Martian lifeforms, they are most likely microscopic.
Isn't that a fascinating subject for speculation?
That's disappointing. I'd like a Martian with big dimensions. To conduct mutual investigations of our corporeal bodies.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/01/2021 22:24:10
This rocket has been build by a private space company from ScotlandSo any attempt to fly it out of Scotland would be prohibited by Nicola Sturgeon as an inessential journey.
Why bother with HTPB? Hae ye no' seen the effect o' peroxide on a fried Mars bar?
Come to think of it, that would be the entire point of the journey. I rest my case.
Post by: charles1948 on 28/01/2021 22:41:38
This rocket has been build by a private space company from ScotlandSo any attempt to fly it out of Scotland would be prohibited by Nicola Sturgeon as an inessential journey.
Why bother with HTPB? Hae ye no' seen the effect o' peroxide on a fried Mars bar?
Come to think of it, that would be the entire point of the journey. I rest my case.
Och, yon bonnie scots scintists, ye ken ma meanin hoots, are workin' on a grand rocket, powered by haggis-fuelled bagpipes. Hoots, an awa wi' yon Sassenachs! Och aye, hoots, an gissum more UK government fundin, ye ken?
Post by: bearnard1212 on 29/01/2021 12:38:39
Yeah, that`s a good point. I`ve already mentioned that. It would very difficult to survive there ( I assume almost impossible ) Building ISS near Mars might be the best idea. But still, it has it` own difficulties.Some of us might be interested in what Martian men would be like. They'd have evolved in a low-gravity environment. Which allowed them to grow appendages of extraordinary dimensions, by terrestrial standards.They also have to live in a dry environment with low pressure, low oxygen and high concentration of CO2 atmosphere. If we find Martian lifeforms, they are most likely microscopic.
Isn't that a fascinating subject for speculation?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/01/2021 14:36:42
Post by: bearnard1212 on 29/01/2021 15:10:43
Average atmospheric pressure on Mars is 7 millibars, compared to 1,013 millibars on Earth. But the Martian atmosphere is almost entirely carbon dioxide. Compared with 400 parts per million on earth, giving a partial pressure of 0.4 mb, this is a factor of 30 richer for plant growth. So we need to import (or find) and conserve water, but there should be no problem growing food and thus generating oxygen in a suitable greenhouse. If we can find a source of hydrogen, even if it requires substantial amounts of electricity to dissociate a hydride mineral, we can then generate water.That is why we are not ready for this yet. Without supplies humans will not be able to survive on Mars. To make these supplies we will have to make journeys to the red planet more often. Years and are needed to develop our technology for that
Post by: charles1948 on 31/01/2021 18:58:11
Average atmospheric pressure on Mars is 7 millibars, compared to 1,013 millibars on Earth. But the Martian atmosphere is almost entirely carbon dioxide. Compared with 400 parts per million on earth, giving a partial pressure of 0.4 mb, this is a factor of 30 richer for plant growth. So we need to import (or find) and conserve water, but there should be no problem growing food and thus generating oxygen in a suitable greenhouse. If we can find a source of hydrogen, even if it requires substantial amounts of electricity to dissociate a hydride mineral, we can then generate water.
Couldn't our colonists get ready-made water from the Martian ice-caps?
Post by: bearnard1212 on 01/02/2021 09:27:30
I am not sure about that. To consum water from Mars we need to make a proper purification system that will allow us to use it. That is a good idea to figure out the water problem on Mars in case we colonize it but again, we do not have appropriate technology for that now.Average atmospheric pressure on Mars is 7 millibars, compared to 1,013 millibars on Earth. But the Martian atmosphere is almost entirely carbon dioxide. Compared with 400 parts per million on earth, giving a partial pressure of 0.4 mb, this is a factor of 30 richer for plant growth. So we need to import (or find) and conserve water, but there should be no problem growing food and thus generating oxygen in a suitable greenhouse. If we can find a source of hydrogen, even if it requires substantial amounts of electricity to dissociate a hydride mineral, we can then generate water.
Couldn't our colonists get ready-made water from the Martian ice-caps?
Post by: alancalverd on 01/02/2021 12:13:47
Quote
The northern lowlands comprise about one-third of the surface of Mars and are relatively flat
Colonisation of Mars is beginning to look like a job for a man with a tractor and a greenhouse - Essex Man!
Quote
Tonight's edition of Jimmy's Farm comes to you from Newest Harlow....
"Yeah, Jamie, we had a few spuds left over from when they were filming The Martian, so I knocked up a low-pressure still from some rocket scrap and made a lovely poteen...."
Post by: bearnard1212 on 01/02/2021 14:15:27
You can distil water with waste heat from your body, or make a solar still. Fresh water on Mars begins to boil at 10 °C, and condenses rapidly with an average outdoor temperature of about -40. And for all we know, the ice caps may be inherently sterile or may contain something we could cultivate and eat if we moved it to the equator.To colonize this planet we still have to figure out a lot of stuff. Our technology is too weak for that mission now.QuoteThe northern lowlands comprise about one-third of the surface of Mars and are relatively flat
Colonisation of Mars is beginning to look like a job for a man with a tractor and a greenhouse - Essex Man!QuoteTonight's edition of Jimmy's Farm comes to you from Newest Harlow....
"Yeah, Jamie, we had a few spuds left over from when they were filming The Martian, so I knocked up a low-pressure still from some rocket scrap and made a lovely poteen...."
I have some doubts that we can do that now or in this decade like Musk claims.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/02/2021 14:57:31
Post by: charles1948 on 01/02/2021 19:26:43
I have a small tractor and a greenhouse. Just need a big rocket, like the ones they have already sent to Mars. An electric tractor would be better, though - like the Mars Rovers, perhaps?
Instead of going to Mars, couldn't you create a Martian environment inside your greenhouse.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2021 03:32:09
Instead of going to Mars, couldn't you create a Martian environment inside your greenhouse.The point of colonizing Mars is to liberate humanity from dependency to a specific space object, namely earth. AFAIK, Experiment of artificial biosphere has been done in Hawaii.
Post by: bearnard1212 on 02/02/2021 11:37:02
You are talking about Mars` colonization like it`s a piece of cake. The part about the liberation of humanity from dependency to a specific space object sounds great. But I don`t think that Mars is exactly the right planet that can substitute Earth and devinetely at that time and at least in the decade.Instead of going to Mars, couldn't you create a Martian environment inside your greenhouse.The point of colonizing Mars is to liberate humanity from dependency to a specific space object, namely earth. AFAIK, Experiment of artificial biosphere has been done in Hawaii.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/02/2021 10:51:47
You are talking about Mars` colonization like it`s a piece of cake. The part about the liberation of humanity from dependency to a specific space object sounds great. But I don`t think that Mars is exactly the right planet that can substitute Earth and devinetely at that time and at least in the decade.The reason why we need to start efforts for Mars colonization as soon as possible is precisely because it's hard, hence would likely take decades or even centuries. Therefore we shouldn't waste time and risking of not having enough time when it's needed.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/02/2021 10:54:29
https://www.wired.com/story/jeff-bezos-blue-origin/?mbid=social_twitter&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_brand=wired&utm_social-type=owned&s=03
Post by: bearnard1212 on 03/02/2021 14:50:43
It will take decades. It will take decades to invent appropriate technology and figure out a lot of issues to get there and survive. However, I agree that we need go further in space exploration area.You are talking about Mars` colonization like it`s a piece of cake. The part about the liberation of humanity from dependency to a specific space object sounds great. But I don`t think that Mars is exactly the right planet that can substitute Earth and devinetely at that time and at least in the decade.The reason why we need to start efforts for Mars colonization as soon as possible is precisely because it's hard, hence would likely take decades or even centuries. Therefore we shouldn't waste time and risking of not having enough time when it's needed.
Post by: LookOut2021 on 05/02/2021 14:48:56
All I wanna say is, that if we - humans - colonize mars, our paths WILL split. An earth human can live on mars, but a mars human probably can't live on earth due to its high gravity. A great motivational factor if you are already there, but if you're still undecided, you have to keep in mind, that a stay on mars for at least ten years might be a one-way trip. No return, no familiy visits.
Post by: bearnard1212 on 17/02/2021 15:22:00
A thing we have to consider too, if we wanna make a living on mars, would also be the irreversible consequences on our human biology. We can mimic a lot in closed facilities: atmosphere, ecosystems, probably even social live if we manage to get enough people there - but there's one thing we can't mimic and that's gravity. Mars only has a third of earth's gravity. Great for earthborns on mars probably, not so much for marsborns on earth. If you were born on mars or even spend a lot of time there, a return to earth might be fatal for you.I consider that we can use Mars not for living aims. If Mars has some fossils we can use for our benefits, we can use red planet for that purpose. But now we can only dream and disscus that as our technology is too weak for that.
All I wanna say is, that if we - humans - colonize mars, our paths WILL split. An earth human can live on mars, but a mars human probably can't live on earth due to its high gravity. A great motivational factor if you are already there, but if you're still undecided, you have to keep in mind, that a stay on mars for at least ten years might be a one-way trip. No return, no familiy visits.
Post by: Zer0 on 25/02/2021 22:18:07
" Do Not keep All your Eggs in the same Basket ".
👍
If WE have the inert capability & potential, then WE shall Survive...
If Not, then We go Extinct...Simple!
✌️
Copyrights/Credits/Thanks -
Secondary Account Channel/YouTube.
🙏
Post by: bearnard1212 on 26/02/2021 09:07:07
There is an old proverb...According to the data we have about the environment of the red planet we wont survive there. In case we will not build special capsule which will remind the Earth`s environment and can give us the opportunity to live the life we do on Earth.
" Do Not keep All your Eggs in the same Basket ".
👍
If WE have the inert capability & potential, then WE shall Survive...
If Not, then We go Extinct...Simple!
✌️
Copyrights/Credits/Thanks -
Secondary Account Channel/YouTube.
🙏
Post by: Hanni32 on 26/02/2021 18:24:50
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/02/2021 03:50:48
Post by: bearnard1212 on 01/03/2021 08:49:19
I hope that Mars colonization can deliberate more humans from mythical beliefs and superstitions left over from dark ages.Nevertheless, these mythical beliefs will desapear not in the nearest future as Mars colonization. As I have already mention here for a several times that our technology is too weak and I guess we need a few decades or even more at least to travell there like we do with our Moon.
Post by: Zer0 on 01/03/2021 19:42:19
WE shall make up for it with our sheer Will!
👍
P.S. - They tried to Enslave US with Religious codes of conduct, They tried to Stop US from thinking for Ourselves, They almost buried US Alive!
But The Fools did Not Realize...WE were Seeds!
🌻
(Exiting OP due to cyclic Repetetive content)
✌️
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 26/06/2021 02:19:55
You are so right , we can't even figure out how to make an effective poop-recycler yet !
We also haven't solved the extreme abrasion problem with the exo-dust .
And god help any 'stro-nuts that have to rely on a theoretical fuel-refinery , a hundred-million miles from any real technical support !
*Talk about Tech-Ready-Level-0 !
**.Reference Post below : quora.com/Guys-give-it-to-me-straight-we-ain-t-going-to-Mars-Are-we/answer/Derek-Hendricks-7?ch
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/06/2021 10:07:00
Mr. Beardnard ,Do those things answer the question?
You are so right , we can't even figure out how to make an effective poop-recycler yet !
We also haven't solved the extreme abrasion problem with the exo-dust .
And god help any 'stro-nuts that have to rely on a theoretical fuel-refinery , a hundred-million miles from any real technical support !
*Talk about Tech-Ready-Level-0 !
P.M.
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 26/06/2021 16:33:15
Do we need it so badly that we turn our brave astronauts into freeze-dried mummies , and push a humiliating disaster upon the entire watching planet Earth ?
Also , it specifically addresses the two Replies directly above it .
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/06/2021 23:11:26
My Reply addresses it in this sense :If you think that something is important enough, you'll do it even if it's hard, costly, or risky.
Do we need it so badly that we turn our brave astronauts into freeze-dried mummies , and push a humiliating disaster upon the entire watching planet Earth ?
Also , it specifically addresses the two Replies directly above it .
But you won't do it if you know for sure that it's impossible. You should try to find some better alternatives.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/06/2021 23:37:02
The point of colonizing Mars is to liberate humanity from dependency to a specific space object, namely earth.I disagree. Humanity has no cosmic importance, and where it lives is of even less significance. But from a human point of view the reason to visit Mars is because it would be interesting to do so.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/06/2021 05:13:49
You may disagree. But someone elses clearly agree with me. Elon Musk and his supporters are some examples.The point of colonizing Mars is to liberate humanity from dependency to a specific space object, namely earth.I disagree. Humanity has no cosmic importance, and where it lives is of even less significance. But from a human point of view the reason to visit Mars is because it would be interesting to do so.
One side wants to preserve consciousness, while the other doesn't. We can predict which one would be more likely to survive in the long run.
History might be written by the winners. But it's read and revised by the survivors.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/06/2021 09:31:26
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 27/06/2021 13:04:59
Let's up our game step-by-step , by starting with near-Earth asteroids , then distant ones , then Phobos/Deimos, then the surface of Mars .😎
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/06/2021 04:32:06
the sooner homo sapiens is eliminated from the universe the better.From whose perspective?
Post by: alancalverd on 28/06/2021 08:33:39
Human colonisation of other human societies has been a shameful process, and expansion into desert regions merely litters the landscape with our waste. There is no reason to expect that successful colonisation of any alien planet will be less disgusting, unless the colonists are exterminated by superior forces or cosmic indifference.
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 28/06/2021 11:21:26
Would you rather have thousands of beautiful eggs , or the occasional Robin that hatches out of a few of them ? .🤔
Post by: Origin on 28/06/2021 12:30:37
As far as having a self sustaining colony on mars that really makes no sense. The cost of a colony and the distance makes it impractical.
If for some reason it is felt that we need to colonize another celestial body the moon is the obvious choice. The moon is obviously closer and since it is smaller than Mars the escape velocity is much lower so it is much easier to launch a ship from there.
Maybe after we have about 10 to 20 year experience with a colony on the moon, we would have a better idea if a colony on Mars would even be feasible.
I think it would be a terrible life to live on Mars. Your entire life would be spent living in doors - yuck.
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 28/06/2021 13:21:27
You make good points mahn , but consider... there are a variety of possible human activities which Mars might be optimal for .
Martian ecotourism, low-gravity sports venues, low-g entertainment complexes, low-g medical treatment facilities, low-g hospice housing , low-g retirement communities , artist and alternative-lifestyle communities , mining operations with company housing , and scientific bases/complexes , to name a few .
The decider with this is the creation of both fast , and affordable , means of interplanetary transportation . If the mousetrap is good enough , the mice assuredly will come running ! .
**For a light-hearted examination of Martian settlement , read my post :
quora.com/Guys-give-it-to-me-straight-we-ain-t-going-to-Mars-Are-we/answer/Derek-Hendricks-7?ch
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/06/2021 14:27:10
From the perspective of every other warmblooded creature, fish or plant on this planet, and, logically, any other habitable planet. The only creatures that benefit from our existence are mosquitoes and gut bacteria, and we have no god-given right or apparent reason to export them to the rest of the universe.Do you think that killing human is a good idea? Have you done that?
Human colonisation of other human societies has been a shameful process, and expansion into desert regions merely litters the landscape with our waste. There is no reason to expect that successful colonisation of any alien planet will be less disgusting, unless the colonists are exterminated by superior forces or cosmic indifference.
What's the success rate?
If you haven't, what stopped you?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/06/2021 15:19:59
As far as having a self sustaining colony on mars that really makes no sense. The cost of a colony and the distance makes it impractical.The main reason Mars was chosen is that it contains the resources to sustain life and refuel the rockets, namely H2O and CO2, which can be converted into CH4 and O2 through some simple processes.
If for some reason it is felt that we need to colonize another celestial body the moon is the obvious choice. The moon is obviously closer and since it is smaller than Mars the escape velocity is much lower so it is much easier to launch a ship from there.
Post by: benvong on 01/07/2021 14:58:00
Post by: alancalverd on 01/07/2021 20:05:58
Do you think that killing human is a good idea? Have you done that?I haven't, because it hasn't been necessary or part of my job. However I have ex-military friends who have done it very sucessfully: the penalty for failure in their profession is usually instant death.
What's the success rate?
If you haven't, what stopped you?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/07/2021 22:42:19
But you do think that killing them is a good idea. Is it all of them, or some of them? What's the distinguishing characteristics, of whom should be killed, and whom should not?Do you think that killing human is a good idea? Have you done that?I haven't, because it hasn't been necessary or part of my job. However I have ex-military friends who have done it very sucessfully: the penalty for failure in their profession is usually instant death.
What's the success rate?
If you haven't, what stopped you?
Post by: bearnard1212 on 02/07/2021 12:20:30
I think this question is very relevant. At the moment, humanity is not ready to colonize Mars, but I have no doubt that the time will come and people will live on Mars.Probably you are right and one day we will colonize the red planet. But we should understand that the life of human beings will be changed completely as as a result of the harsh environment of the red planet and will not be the same as we have on Earth.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/07/2021 17:45:28
But you do think that killing them is a good idea. Is it all of them, or some of them? What's the distinguishing characteristics, of whom should be killed, and whom should not?In my case, yes, otherwise I wouldn't waste time doing it, and the distinguishing characteristic is that said person(s) pose a serious threat to me or those I care about.
In the soldier's case, a politician has chosen the enemy, a general has decided how he (they) should be killed, you have contracted to obey orders, and the chances are that the enemy does indeed pose a threat to whatever it is that you are defending.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/07/2021 14:15:36
So, only some of them.But you do think that killing them is a good idea. Is it all of them, or some of them? What's the distinguishing characteristics, of whom should be killed, and whom should not?In my case, yes, otherwise I wouldn't waste time doing it, and the distinguishing characteristic is that said person(s) pose a serious threat to me or those I care about.
In the soldier's case, a politician has chosen the enemy, a general has decided how he (they) should be killed, you have contracted to obey orders, and the chances are that the enemy does indeed pose a threat to whatever it is that you are defending.
Does that include Iraq's WMD?
Post by: evan_au on 04/07/2021 09:33:57
Quote from: Origin
a self sustaining colony on mars that really makes no sense. The cost of a colony and the distance makes it impractical.You could say the same for colonies in Iceland, North America or Australia.
- Some of them failed, but some eventually succeeded to the point where they became self-sustaining
- There were different motivations - exploration, national pride, conquest, land, resources, escaping from a difficult situation or getting rid of a difficult problem.
- For now, Mars is in the exploration and national pride stage
- It is hard to imagine what resources would justify the trip - water is valuable for space exploration, but it should be easier to get it from the Moon
- Elon Musk is concerned about one difficult situation: humanity currently has all its eggs in one basket - and the basket is turning into a basket-case. In this scenario, the great distance is a benefit.
Post by: bearnard1212 on 05/07/2021 12:38:15
Talking about the colonization of other planets, This is a video about the possibility of the colonization of Venus put forward by NASA. Personally, I think the idea of colonizing Venus is a completely useless idea. Even more useless than colonizing Mars. Venus's environment is even more harsh than the environment on Mars which will we should understand that the life of human beings will be changed completely as a result of the harsh environment of Venus and will not be the same as we have on Earth.Quote from: Origina self sustaining colony on mars that really makes no sense. The cost of a colony and the distance makes it impractical.You could say the same for colonies in Iceland, North America or Australia.
- Some of them failed, but some eventually succeeded to the point where they became self-sustaining
- There were different motivations - exploration, national pride, conquest, land, resources, escaping from a difficult situation or getting rid of a difficult problem.
- For now, Mars is in the exploration and national pride stage
- It is hard to imagine what resources would justify the trip - water is valuable for space exploration, but it should be easier to get it from the Moon
- Elon Musk is concerned about one difficult situation: humanity currently has all its eggs in one basket - and the basket is turning into a basket-case. In this scenario, the great distance is a benefit.
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 05/07/2021 16:02:55
You are so right that it's ridickulous ! .
There's no way that humanity will ever really colonize Venus , by floating above that furnace , while soaking in acid-rain . Such would be absurdly expensive , economically unproductive , and an obscene flouting of the sanctity of human life .
The only real answer there is to fully geoengineer the planet itself ; in otherwords... shade planet Venus .
If self-guiding solar-shades were kept librating in Lagrange Point L-1 , then over a period of several hundred years , the planet's atmosphere/surface would cool down to reasonable levels . This would cause the CO2 to condense , and rain out onto the venusian surface . That badly cracked , granulated , and extremely desiccated crust would soak the liquid carbon-dioxide up like a baked sponge . The CO2 would then combine with the abundant alkali-metals therein , and form carbonate compounds , thus naturally sequestering the 1-km. high (equivalent) column of liquid CO2 .
When only two atmospheres worth of CO2 were left , carbon-dioxide snow would replace the rain . The shading would be reduced at this point , the precipitation would stop , and man and his machines would descend . These would begin long-term atmospheric processing , and mechanical deep-sequestration .
Eventually , a mostly nitrogen , partly O2 atmosphere would be produced , and artificially maintained . The sulfuric-acid clouds would yield water for human use , the planet would become a desert resembling 'Arrakis', and the solarshades would be removed . The thick N2 shell would protect the population from all space-based radiation , thus allowing for dispersed paraterraformed environments to cover Venus' lands .
**To examine this subject in greater detail read my Post #21at :
quora.com/Which-one-would-be-easier-to-terraform-Venus-or-Mars/answer/Derek-Hendricks-7?ch
Post by: bearnard1212 on 06/07/2021 14:59:16
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 06/07/2021 16:02:37
It's just a seductive image , is all .
You really might enjoy my Post at the address in my last Reply ..😎
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/07/2021 02:03:22
Post by: bearnard1212 on 09/07/2021 08:54:36
Someone has thought about it.I assume a better would be to invest in technology and projects that can preserve the environment and Earth. I have already mentioned on this forum but in another thread satellite technology (http://Spam) that can track rare species of animals to prevent them from being killed by poachers.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/07/2021 10:06:13
It would be much better to invest in technology and projects that can preserve Earth. I have already mentioned on this forum but in another thread satellite technology that can track rare species of animals to prevent them from being killed by poachers. Also, there are special satellites that can observe coral reefs in order to help scientists to save it.Of course preserving earth is mandatory, since it's the only place in the universe which we know for sure contains and supports existing conscious entities, at least for now. But we shouldn't restrict ourselves to become too dependent on it. We know that the universe is much larger than earth, and it's mostly unexplored. Terraforming other planets is just a stepping stone to expand consciousness further, even beyond our solar system. It's extremely unlikely to achieve the universal terminal goal if we restrict ourselves to a tiny spot so insignificant in size, compared to observable universe.
(https://futurism.com/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwordpress-cached.futurism.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F11%2FEarth-on-a-Celestial-Scale-1.jpg&w=1080&q=75)
Post by: bearnard1212 on 16/07/2021 14:48:04
You are right, the universe is very large and it may contain the second Earth. However, the Earth's atmosphere not only gives us O2 but also saves us from the harmful rays of the sun. This is also very rare, none of the planets in the solar system has that kind of atmosphere. There are many other things that may extinct all life on Earth but are not happening because the Earth is, the way it is(example: Earth's magnetic property)It would be much better to invest in technology and projects that can preserve Earth. I have already mentioned on this forum but in another thread satellite technology that can track rare species of animals to prevent them from being killed by poachers. Also, there are special satellites that can observe coral reefs in order to help scientists to save it.Of course preserving earth is mandatory, since it's the only place in the universe which we know for sure contains and supports existing conscious entities, at least for now. But we shouldn't restrict ourselves to become too dependent on it. We know that the universe is much larger than earth, and it's mostly unexplored. Terraforming other planets is just a stepping stone to expand consciousness further, even beyond our solar system. It's extremely unlikely to achieve the universal terminal goal if we restrict ourselves to a tiny spot so insignificant in size, compared to observable universe.
(https://futurism.com/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwordpress-cached.futurism.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F11%2FEarth-on-a-Celestial-Scale-1.jpg&w=1080&q=75)
Post by: Halc on 16/07/2021 18:15:46
This is also very rare, none of the planets in the solar system has that kind of atmosphere.It's not just rare, it isn't naturally occurring at all. Life isn't here because the air is this way. The air is this way because life is here, and free oxygen is actually poison to most original life forms, the remainder of which has had to retreat to the few places where the poison cannot get to them, such as the bottom of the dead sea.
Point is, if we can breathe the air on some other planet (which requires a whole lot more improbabilities than there just being oxygen), it means that life is already there.
Post by: Professor Mega-Mind on 17/07/2021 04:08:57
Post by: bearnard1212 on 17/07/2021 11:36:41
You are right, the universe is very large and it may contain the second Earth. However, the Earth's atmosphere not only gives us O2 but also saves us from the harmful rays of the sun. This is also very rare, none of the planets in the solar system has that kind of atmosphere. There are many other things that may extinct all life on Earth but are not happening because the Earth is, the way it is(example: Earth's magnetic property)You are right, the universe is very large and it may contain the second Earth. However, the Earth's atmosphere not only gives us O2 but also saves us from the harmful rays of the sun. This is also very rare, none of the planets in the solar system has that kind of atmosphere. There are many other things that may extinct all life on Earth but are not happening because the Earth is, the way it is(example: Earth's magnetic property)It would be much better to invest in technology and projects that can preserve Earth. I have already mentioned on this forum but in another thread satellite technology that can track rare species of animals to prevent them from being killed by poachers. Also, there are special satellites that can observe coral reefs in order to help scientists to save it.Of course preserving earth is mandatory, since it's the only place in the universe which we know for sure contains and supports existing conscious entities, at least for now. But we shouldn't restrict ourselves to become too dependent on it. We know that the universe is much larger than earth, and it's mostly unexplored. Terraforming other planets is just a stepping stone to expand consciousness further, even beyond our solar system. It's extremely unlikely to achieve the universal terminal goal if we restrict ourselves to a tiny spot so insignificant in size, compared to observable universe.
(https://futurism.com/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwordpress-cached.futurism.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F11%2FEarth-on-a-Celestial-Scale-1.jpg&w=1080&q=75)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/08/2021 06:03:52
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/10/2021 10:38:46
0:00 Intro
0:58 Conditions on Mars
2:02 Step 1: Creating a Magnetic Field
4:50 Step 2: Creating an Atmosphere
6:06 Step 3: Converting CO2 to O2
8:46 Sponsor Message
Post by: alancalverd on 22/10/2021 14:15:30
Why Mars? Why are we not going for other planets first? Details analysisBecause it is feasible to get there, land on it, spend some time exploring it, and return. Or better still, stay there until we die.
But the fact that something is feasible doesn't make it sensible, desirable, morally justifiable, affordable, important, or even interesting.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/10/2021 15:12:32
But the fact that something is feasible doesn't make it sensible, desirable, morally justifiable, affordable, important, or even interesting.It's the best known starting point for making humans multiplanetary. Not everyone is interested to go there. But some of us clearly are. Some others prefer to let humans go extinct when the earth undergo a cosmic catastrophe than to contaminate other planets.
A great insight from Elon Musk.20210325_175312.jpg (511.77 kB . 1692x1480 - viewed 5030 times)
Post by: alancalverd on 22/10/2021 23:03:37
So far, all that this much-vaunted characteristic has achieved in its human embodiment has been to destroy the habitat of practically every other living thing, eradicate more species than remain alive, overpopulate the planet with humans with no obvious function except to be top predator, propagate disease amongst its own species, invent religion and politics as reasons for killing its own species, and apparently trigger a climate crisis that will make this planet uninhabitable for itself.
Now if a teenager did that in your home, would you be justified in encouraging him to do the same in somebody else's home?
Until homo becomes sapiens and starts behaving responsibly, it has no right to attempt to colonise and destroy another planet. If the species extinguishes itself before it can transplant, that will be no loss to the universe and a considerable benefit to the remaining life forms on this planet.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/10/2021 23:35:05
Which begs a definition of consciousness; presumes that whatever it is, is only possessed by homo selfstyledsapiens; presumes that it is a Good Thing; and demands that it should be exported.I've offered the definition of extended consciousness in my thread, which is necessary for determining the universal terminal goal. It doesn't even have to be biological.
Ps - Perhaps We are Destined to sow the seeds of Our own Destruction.Or else, we can improve our own body and mind to merge with the machines, and restrict ourselves from excessive reproduction, which would use up resources unnecessarily.Quote“Most important, the intelligence that will emerge will continue to represent the human civilization, which is already a human-machine civilization. In other words, future machines will be human, even if they are not biological. This will be the next step in evolution, the next high-level paradigm shift, the next level of indirection.”
― Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/47744.Ray_Kurzweil?page=3
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/10/2021 23:42:52
So far, all that this much-vaunted characteristic has achieved in its human embodiment has been to destroy the habitat of practically every other living thing, eradicate more species than remain alive, overpopulate the planet with humans with no obvious function except to be top predator, propagate disease amongst its own species, invent religion and politics as reasons for killing its own species, and apparently trigger a climate crisis that will make this planet uninhabitable for itself.Have you heard about zeitgeist movement? We can continually improve ourselves. As long as we survive. Being a multiplanetary society is one necessary step to increase our chance to survive. Improving earth condition is another step.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/10/2021 23:46:29
Until homo becomes sapiens and starts behaving responsibly, it has no right to attempt to colonise and destroy another planet. If the species extinguishes itself before it can transplant, that will be no loss to the universe and a considerable benefit to the remaining life forms on this planet.What will you do to prevent it from happening? Will you sabotage them?
Neanderthals, Vikings, Aborigins, and Native Americans didn't need someone to give them right to conquer new territories. They did it anyway. Because they were willing and able to.