Fast Learner
First Post
Man, the "shoggoths" camp always have to pipe in.
[ot] Mars colonization
- Thread starter tleilaxu
- Start date
MavrickWeirdo
First Post
Back to Mars Colonies, technicly we can get people there and back, but there is more to it than that.
Remember the "Biosphere" project (take about half a dozen scientist and see how long they can live in a "mostly" enclosed environment.) I don't think any group has made it over a year yet. (Maybe they would have better luck if they made it a TV show like Survivor, or Real World
)
Now the Russian space station has people who have been in an enclosed environment for long periods, but they would send supplies regularly. Sending supplies to Mars every month would be more difficult.
What about food? Nasa has been making advances in "Hydroponics" but so far they have only developed: potatos, beets, soybeans, peanuts, and 1 or 2 other things I don't remember at the moment. How long would you like to have that for your diet.
These problems are solvable but as time goes on we discover problems we never considered before like: the communication trafic jam. There are a limited number dish antenas that can point at Mars at one time. The more "Space Race" it becomes the tougher to will be to communicate with Mars.
Personally I am in favor of humans exploring mars "first hand" but I don't think it will happen this decade, no matter who is in charge.
Remember the "Biosphere" project (take about half a dozen scientist and see how long they can live in a "mostly" enclosed environment.) I don't think any group has made it over a year yet. (Maybe they would have better luck if they made it a TV show like Survivor, or Real World
)Now the Russian space station has people who have been in an enclosed environment for long periods, but they would send supplies regularly. Sending supplies to Mars every month would be more difficult.
What about food? Nasa has been making advances in "Hydroponics" but so far they have only developed: potatos, beets, soybeans, peanuts, and 1 or 2 other things I don't remember at the moment. How long would you like to have that for your diet.
These problems are solvable but as time goes on we discover problems we never considered before like: the communication trafic jam. There are a limited number dish antenas that can point at Mars at one time. The more "Space Race" it becomes the tougher to will be to communicate with Mars.
Personally I am in favor of humans exploring mars "first hand" but I don't think it will happen this decade, no matter who is in charge.
Last edited:
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
MavrickWeirdo said:
As long as necessary, if the alternative is starvation...
tleilaxu
First Post
MavrickWeirdo said:
You could send huge amounts of cargo to mars in the years before human exploration. By the time humans got there, 100 semi-trucks worth of stuff could be dropped on the planets surface, full of heavy industry stuff, ready to assemble biospheres, the works.
In lots of countries that would be a pretty good diet. What do you expect them to start growing? Steaks? Hell, give me some spices and I'll make you a killer curry with that stuff.... I ate a peanut butter sandwich for lunch every single day between 1st and 6th grade (of course I can't stand the stuff today...)
Merely a technical problem, one which can forseeably be solved.
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
tleilaxu said:
Very true.
They got peanuts? Heck, you add hemp to the list and you have 90% of your basic food, clothing, and shelter covered right there.
Wulf
Airwolf
First Post
tleilaxu said:
That's pretty easy. I just need to know how fast you want the planet to accelerate. You can use the simple equation of F=ma, where F is the force, m is the mass, and a is the acceleration.
If you wanted to move the planet at an acceleration of 1g (Earth normal) you would need a force of:
F = ma
F = 6.04*10^23 * 9.81
F = 5.93 *10^24 N
Mass of Mars: 6.04*10^23 kg (at least according to one source)
1 g = 9.81 m/s^2
This is assuming that you want to move the planet perpendicular to its current path. Hope that helps.
Of course celestial mechanics was never my strong suit in school.
Last edited:
Celebrim
Legend
I've been avoiding this thread because it is too depressing of a subject to talk about.
NASA is dead. It hasn't been fully funded in 15 years. It hasn't a friend anywhere in Washington. The best scientists have left in frustration. Those that remain discourage good talent from joining (including my wife, who was told thier was no future in space careers). They have nothing. They are working on a shoe string. The American people aren't interested in space. They spend more money each year on golf than on space ships.
Historians of the future will look back on the early 1970's as the beginning of the second dark age. Although technology continues to advance on some fronts in astounding ways (as it did in the Dark Ages I might add), the plain truth is that we have lost our way. We have given up on true progress. We haven't the will to accomplish anything difficult or far sighted. We (me and you, meaning I suspect under 30 Gen-Xer's for the most part) have had our inheritance stolen from us.
It will probably be 400 years before we get a man to Mars, if we ever do. I have come to the conclusion that it is very difficult for a sentient race to get off of the rock it evolved on. There is no biological necessity for doing so. No evolved reason to move on, to look up, to jump off into that dark cold void.
This is the second middle ages. The age that will be scorned by those that come after us.
If there is any hope, it is that some rich geeks will get together and privately do what publicly there is no will for.
NASA is dead. It hasn't been fully funded in 15 years. It hasn't a friend anywhere in Washington. The best scientists have left in frustration. Those that remain discourage good talent from joining (including my wife, who was told thier was no future in space careers). They have nothing. They are working on a shoe string. The American people aren't interested in space. They spend more money each year on golf than on space ships.
Historians of the future will look back on the early 1970's as the beginning of the second dark age. Although technology continues to advance on some fronts in astounding ways (as it did in the Dark Ages I might add), the plain truth is that we have lost our way. We have given up on true progress. We haven't the will to accomplish anything difficult or far sighted. We (me and you, meaning I suspect under 30 Gen-Xer's for the most part) have had our inheritance stolen from us.
It will probably be 400 years before we get a man to Mars, if we ever do. I have come to the conclusion that it is very difficult for a sentient race to get off of the rock it evolved on. There is no biological necessity for doing so. No evolved reason to move on, to look up, to jump off into that dark cold void.
This is the second middle ages. The age that will be scorned by those that come after us.
If there is any hope, it is that some rich geeks will get together and privately do what publicly there is no will for.
Ralts Bloodthorne
First Post
OK, let's look at some interesting things.
Colonizing the moon-Lunar soil IS fertile. It requires very little to work. It would be in abundance, since you'd have to bore out major tunnel systems to live inside.
Nuclear Fission is not the demon everyone makes it out to be (sigh, let's not debate it, my opinion is set in stone, and so is yours) and would be cheap and useful on the moon. Half the problem with it is cooling, and that would be solved easily.
So, we land some Von Nueman drones (robots programmed to make other robots) near a metal deposit (of which, several have been mapped, a fairly large one near Mare Imbrium) to start building. Mainly a factory. If we don't want to go that high tech, use the Freedom Space Station as a relay point for workers.
As for the workers, many people would volunteer. Highly capable people. I'd volunteer, wouldn't you? Yes, grinding, hard work, sweaty, with major chances of everything from a suit blowout, to starvation, to space induced agoraphobia. So what? I'd be part of history.
Now, let's look at from the tech point of view.....
Computer equipment is more than capable of handling the load. Hell, you could take some modern servers and have them run life support. $7200 each from Gateway. Let's see them service call that!
Anyway: Tubular aluminum. Light, strong, and useful. For additional solidity, add in lunar dust for weight and compression adjustment. Modular building forms.
Use thick plastic sheathing on tunnel and cavern walls (shipped to the Freedom station in drums, then moved to the moon) then add a form of lunar dust drywall. Burrow for the ice. We're talking major crawlers to reach it.
Listen, don't be fooled: We have the tech.
Volunteers: not a problem. A lot of qualified people would do it. It's not like your flying the shuttle or making space walks. Your living and working on the moon.
The space is vast, water is there (melted by heat and then electrically seperated into O2 for breathing and H for fuel) for the use, and mineral deposits.
The mineral deposits can be shipped back to earth via mass-driver (a long electromagnetic rail to fire the pigs of metal back to Earth)
Now, that's just for the moon. But you'll see why Mars isn't even on the agenda. Stick with me....
Now, why not? Why won't we go?
Power. Plain and simple.
What country owns the resources and tech advances? Which country gets to ship people? What if it becomes feasable? What if the technologically advanced countries have it easy? Is it right that 3rd World nations don't have access to those resources? Don't they have just as much right to space? (Uhhh, no, not in my opinion. If you can't get there on your own, tough)
Now, as for Mars, why? Asteriod mining could be processed there, then shipped to the moon for it's final destination.
Mars has unknown potential, with who knows what kind of mineral riches. It died early in it's geological stages, so know knows what minerals were not burned up by the atmosphere?
While we'll have to deal with "fines" and "dust", who knows what could be accomplished. Put the space center on top of that big-ass mountain, and use a mag-lift to get supplies and equipment there.
We have the gear, but nobody is willing to do it, because whatever country does it, will have everyone snivelling that that country must help them.
It's BS.
It's not worth the investment to many countries. We have the tech, but hell, everyone complains about the cost.
With the problems it would create on earth, its just not worth it.
Colonizing the moon-Lunar soil IS fertile. It requires very little to work. It would be in abundance, since you'd have to bore out major tunnel systems to live inside.
Nuclear Fission is not the demon everyone makes it out to be (sigh, let's not debate it, my opinion is set in stone, and so is yours) and would be cheap and useful on the moon. Half the problem with it is cooling, and that would be solved easily.
So, we land some Von Nueman drones (robots programmed to make other robots) near a metal deposit (of which, several have been mapped, a fairly large one near Mare Imbrium) to start building. Mainly a factory. If we don't want to go that high tech, use the Freedom Space Station as a relay point for workers.
As for the workers, many people would volunteer. Highly capable people. I'd volunteer, wouldn't you? Yes, grinding, hard work, sweaty, with major chances of everything from a suit blowout, to starvation, to space induced agoraphobia. So what? I'd be part of history.
Now, let's look at from the tech point of view.....
Computer equipment is more than capable of handling the load. Hell, you could take some modern servers and have them run life support. $7200 each from Gateway. Let's see them service call that!
Anyway: Tubular aluminum. Light, strong, and useful. For additional solidity, add in lunar dust for weight and compression adjustment. Modular building forms.
Use thick plastic sheathing on tunnel and cavern walls (shipped to the Freedom station in drums, then moved to the moon) then add a form of lunar dust drywall. Burrow for the ice. We're talking major crawlers to reach it.
Listen, don't be fooled: We have the tech.
Volunteers: not a problem. A lot of qualified people would do it. It's not like your flying the shuttle or making space walks. Your living and working on the moon.
The space is vast, water is there (melted by heat and then electrically seperated into O2 for breathing and H for fuel) for the use, and mineral deposits.
The mineral deposits can be shipped back to earth via mass-driver (a long electromagnetic rail to fire the pigs of metal back to Earth)
Now, that's just for the moon. But you'll see why Mars isn't even on the agenda. Stick with me....
Now, why not? Why won't we go?
Power. Plain and simple.
What country owns the resources and tech advances? Which country gets to ship people? What if it becomes feasable? What if the technologically advanced countries have it easy? Is it right that 3rd World nations don't have access to those resources? Don't they have just as much right to space? (Uhhh, no, not in my opinion. If you can't get there on your own, tough)
Now, as for Mars, why? Asteriod mining could be processed there, then shipped to the moon for it's final destination.
Mars has unknown potential, with who knows what kind of mineral riches. It died early in it's geological stages, so know knows what minerals were not burned up by the atmosphere?
While we'll have to deal with "fines" and "dust", who knows what could be accomplished. Put the space center on top of that big-ass mountain, and use a mag-lift to get supplies and equipment there.
We have the gear, but nobody is willing to do it, because whatever country does it, will have everyone snivelling that that country must help them.
It's BS.
It's not worth the investment to many countries. We have the tech, but hell, everyone complains about the cost.
With the problems it would create on earth, its just not worth it.
Ralts Bloodthorne
First Post
Oh-oh, I wanna add my thoughts to this!
Your right, no doubt, but they did it to themselves. They let us down, and now they are paying the price. They could have launched a Mars probe in the 1970's after the failure of that one probe (I can't remember the name offhand) but instead, they back off of exploration almost completely.
Voyager. So what? Instead of learning from the mistakes, they gave up, and let everyone down.
A lot of the lack of interest, is, let's face it, every time we get excited, they drop the ball. They have no real interest in other planets, they'd rather suck up cash and make excuses, so we quit caring.
[QUOTE}
Historians of the future will look back on the early 1970's as the beginning of the second dark age. Although technology continues to advance on some fronts in astounding ways (as it did in the Dark Ages I might add), the plain truth is that we have lost our way. We have given up on true progress.[/QUOTE]
There is some truth on this. But it's not us, the common people. It's called "economic feasability" and "fear". Many people are afraid of new things, people that should not be. They worry about jobs, the children, whether or not it will turn thier brains to go, ect. Companies see no reason to do a lot of research in making new technology. It's much more cost effective and profit generating to improve something new. (Think DVD's are new? In the 1970's there were Laser Disks. They were the size of records. All a DVD is a smaller one of those) But, for the most part, I definately agree with you there. Everthing that has come out has merely been an improvement on EXISTING tech. So what. Impress me.
The people who have the will are usually "gotten rid of" or if you are a real hard charger, you are "overqualified" and end up working at McDonald's.
Some of us have the will, but the people who make the decisions are small men, in the places where we need giants.
We need to move outward, or we all might as well vanish up each others butts.
But we won't, because it's easier to squat in a garbage heap then build a new house.
No kidding. That's because, when you get right down to it, they lost thier balls somewhere. They spend waay too much on crap. Look at the specs on that Mars probe. I could have built that thing my first year of Electronic Engineering! That think was a hunk of crap! I don't feel a bit sorry for them.Celebrim said:
Your right, no doubt, but they did it to themselves. They let us down, and now they are paying the price. They could have launched a Mars probe in the 1970's after the failure of that one probe (I can't remember the name offhand) but instead, they back off of exploration almost completely.
Voyager. So what? Instead of learning from the mistakes, they gave up, and let everyone down.
People my age (around 30) are intersted in space. It's the movers and the shakers on capitol hill (most of them are 50+ and more interested in thier won little fuedal kingdoms than anything truly useful. I'm just disallusioned with NASA. They couldn't launch a rowboat right, as far as I'm concerned.
A lot of the lack of interest, is, let's face it, every time we get excited, they drop the ball. They have no real interest in other planets, they'd rather suck up cash and make excuses, so we quit caring.
[QUOTE}
Historians of the future will look back on the early 1970's as the beginning of the second dark age. Although technology continues to advance on some fronts in astounding ways (as it did in the Dark Ages I might add), the plain truth is that we have lost our way. We have given up on true progress.[/QUOTE]
There is some truth on this. But it's not us, the common people. It's called "economic feasability" and "fear". Many people are afraid of new things, people that should not be. They worry about jobs, the children, whether or not it will turn thier brains to go, ect. Companies see no reason to do a lot of research in making new technology. It's much more cost effective and profit generating to improve something new. (Think DVD's are new? In the 1970's there were Laser Disks. They were the size of records. All a DVD is a smaller one of those) But, for the most part, I definately agree with you there. Everthing that has come out has merely been an improvement on EXISTING tech. So what. Impress me.
Pretty much. Let's all give the Baby Boomers a hand. Rather than take risks, it was easier to gut thier revolution for a BMW and a pair of Nike's, then keep anyone from doing anything that they did not. Thanks guys. Remind me to put you in the same old folks home you put Gramma in.
The people who have the will are usually "gotten rid of" or if you are a real hard charger, you are "overqualified" and end up working at McDonald's.
Some of us have the will, but the people who make the decisions are small men, in the places where we need giants.
Lack of resources? Overpopulation? We have 4 choices. War. Plague. Suboceanic Colonization, or Space Colonization.
We need to move outward, or we all might as well vanish up each others butts.
But we won't, because it's easier to squat in a garbage heap then build a new house.
We can change it, but we have to desire it, and it will not be easy. Let's face it, nobody likes to take the risks, and those that do are NEVER put in positions of power. Don't rock the boat. I wish I could argue with you, but I can't.
They are. Check out the Hilton Hotel's plans. There is always hope. Maybe I'll apply to be a janitor.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
