Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Colonize Mars

pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 7:08:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I believe we are destined to colonize space within the ext 20 years or so.

Mar One is a private company which is accepting applications for anyone who wises to be part of the first colony on Mars in 2023.

I don't think this is a hoax, nor a marketing scam. However I can only speculate.

My question is, how likely do you think it is for this company to have a successful mission?
Do you think they will even be able to get off earth?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 8:24:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 7:08:51 PM, pozessed wrote:
I believe we are destined to colonize space within the ext 20 years or so.

Mar One is a private company which is accepting applications for anyone who wises to be part of the first colony on Mars in 2023.

I don't think this is a hoax, nor a marketing scam. However I can only speculate.

My question is, how likely do you think it is for this company to have a successful mission?

From what I've read, the chances are about a million to none.

Do you think they will even be able to get off earth?

Doubtful.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 8:33:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A colony in ten years? Not likely.

Also, any colonies on Mars are going to be so horribly limited in scope that they would be better off with a space station colony. The only thing you would need from Mars is your original resources (soil), after that, the closer to the sun, the better.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 10:52:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Depends how many people have to live there, and how long, for you to call it a colony.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 11:04:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 10:52:58 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Depends how many people have to live there, and how long, for you to call it a colony.

Because Mars has such a thin atmosphere, you won't be able to have an H2O cycle, so all farming must be done indoors, so the N cycle, C cycle, everything are within a controlled and limited environment, so might as well let that controlled environment be a colony in space that can either orbit close to the sun (and so soak up more solar energy) or traverse the solar system (for knowledge).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 11:12:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It takes months to get to Mars. I think a moon colony would be more viable just because we can travel back and forth more often. The atmosphere is a secondary concern. People can live in closed quarters. If people can live in Space stations for months at a time, they can most certainly live inside an enclosed area on the moon for years.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 11:15:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 11:12:54 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
It takes months to get to Mars. I think a moon colony would be more viable just because we can travel back and forth more often. The atmosphere is a secondary concern. People can live in closed quarters. If people can live in Space stations for months at a time, they can most certainly live inside an enclosed area on the moon for years.

But if they can live in a enclosed space station, what is the advantage of living on the moon? You now would have a secondary force of gravity to escape from in travels, thus making travel itself more challenging.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 11:18:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 11:15:53 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/16/2013 11:12:54 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
It takes months to get to Mars. I think a moon colony would be more viable just because we can travel back and forth more often. The atmosphere is a secondary concern. People can live in closed quarters. If people can live in Space stations for months at a time, they can most certainly live inside an enclosed area on the moon for years.

But if they can live in a enclosed space station, what is the advantage of living on the moon? You now would have a secondary force of gravity to escape from in travels, thus making travel itself more challenging.

They can explore the moon on moonwalks inside a space-suit, conduct long-term experiments, dig under the surface, harness energy (through moonwalks), etc.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 11:19:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 11:18:04 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 4/16/2013 11:15:53 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/16/2013 11:12:54 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
It takes months to get to Mars. I think a moon colony would be more viable just because we can travel back and forth more often. The atmosphere is a secondary concern. People can live in closed quarters. If people can live in Space stations for months at a time, they can most certainly live inside an enclosed area on the moon for years.

But if they can live in a enclosed space station, what is the advantage of living on the moon? You now would have a secondary force of gravity to escape from in travels, thus making travel itself more challenging.

They can explore the moon on moonwalks inside a space-suit, conduct long-term experiments, dig under the surface, harness energy (through moonwalks), etc.

What energy could they harness? The 28 day long days and nights would make heating and cooling the facility ri-freaking-diculous.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 11:23:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
They could use solar panels to get energy from the sun just like Space Stations but in this case, they would need to store it better. Perhaps, they could convert it into a different form of energy. Thermal is the first thing that comes to mind.

As for harnessing energy, they could dig under the moon for rare elements. I think Helium is more abundant on the moon but I'll have to double-check that.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 11:29:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 11:23:49 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
They could use solar panels to get energy from the sun just like Space Stations but in this case, they would need to store it better. Perhaps, they could convert it into a different form of energy. Thermal is the first thing that comes to mind.

As for harnessing energy, they could dig under the moon for rare elements. I think Helium is more abundant on the moon but I'll have to double-check that.

Yeah, well, F-16 can't fly to the Moon!

Helium can also be extracted from the Solar wind, and the rays from the sun will be more powerful the closer you get. Also, with those 28 day long nights, you'll need one heck of a power supply. I'd also say, that if we are on the moon to gather heavy metals, we could probably do it with either no human presence (just have a human or two in a station in orbit). Then it would be more cost effective to "change the guard."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 11:52:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We would want to have a moon base first. Since our moon has only 1/6 of the gravity of our planet, it's much easier to launch rockets off of. And since it always has one side facing out, you would be able to launch any time you want to while having your launch pad in only one place. A space elevator would also be nice, but very difficult.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 12:10:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 11:52:23 PM, drhead wrote:
We would want to have a moon base first. Since our moon has only 1/6 of the gravity of our planet, it's much easier to launch rockets off of. And since it always has one side facing out, you would be able to launch any time you want to while having your launch pad in only one place. A space elevator would also be nice, but very difficult.

The rotation of the moon is too slow for a space elevator.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 12:10:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 12:10:17 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/16/2013 11:52:23 PM, drhead wrote:
We would want to have a moon base first. Since our moon has only 1/6 of the gravity of our planet, it's much easier to launch rockets off of. And since it always has one side facing out, you would be able to launch any time you want to while having your launch pad in only one place. A space elevator would also be nice, but very difficult.

The rotation of the moon is too slow for a space elevator.

Not saying it is impossible, but so much more impractical.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 12:13:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It is my predication that, by 2050, space will be highly colonized and poverty will have been eliminated.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 12:17:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 11:29:35 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/16/2013 11:23:49 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
They could use solar panels to get energy from the sun just like Space Stations but in this case, they would need to store it better. Perhaps, they could convert it into a different form of energy. Thermal is the first thing that comes to mind.

As for harnessing energy, they could dig under the moon for rare elements. I think Helium is more abundant on the moon but I'll have to double-check that.

Yeah, well, F-16 can't fly to the Moon!

Helium can also be extracted from the Solar wind, and the rays from the sun will be more powerful the closer you get. Also, with those 28 day long nights, you'll need one heck of a power supply. I'd also say, that if we are on the moon to gather heavy metals, we could probably do it with either no human presence (just have a human or two in a station in orbit). Then it would be more cost effective to "change the guard."

Humans staying on the moon could realize other benefits besides heavy metals. All the experiments that require human presence and expertise could be conducted. Plants could be planted on moon soil inside an enclosure first and outside later. All this with the goal of eventual colonization.

Mars is not inhabitable. If we are going to choose another body to inhabit, it might as well be the moon as opposed to Mars. Why Mars?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 12:22:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 12:17:11 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 4/16/2013 11:29:35 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/16/2013 11:23:49 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
They could use solar panels to get energy from the sun just like Space Stations but in this case, they would need to store it better. Perhaps, they could convert it into a different form of energy. Thermal is the first thing that comes to mind.

As for harnessing energy, they could dig under the moon for rare elements. I think Helium is more abundant on the moon but I'll have to double-check that.

Yeah, well, F-16 can't fly to the Moon!

Helium can also be extracted from the Solar wind, and the rays from the sun will be more powerful the closer you get. Also, with those 28 day long nights, you'll need one heck of a power supply. I'd also say, that if we are on the moon to gather heavy metals, we could probably do it with either no human presence (just have a human or two in a station in orbit). Then it would be more cost effective to "change the guard."

Humans staying on the moon could realize other benefits besides heavy metals. All the experiments that require human presence and expertise could be conducted. Plants could be planted on moon soil inside an enclosure first and outside later. All this with the goal of eventual colonization.

Mars is not inhabitable. If we are going to choose another body to inhabit, it might as well be the moon as opposed to Mars. Why Mars?

The moon is too light to support an atmosphere. This means that you cannot have outdoor plants, as no H2O cycle can exist (nor N cycle, or C cycle) as the vapors will be pulled out by the solar wind, killing the cycle. Mars has a similar problem, though not to the same extent.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 12:24:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think asteroid mining will come before colonizing any planets for the hell of it, private business will find a way to make money in space before any group or national decide to take up the challenge.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 12:25:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 12:22:50 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:

The moon is too light to support an atmosphere. This means that you cannot have outdoor plants, as no H2O cycle can exist (nor N cycle, or C cycle) as the vapors will be pulled out by the solar wind, killing the cycle. Mars has a similar problem, though not to the same extent.

Given enough time, plants will evolve and adapt to their new environment. We would need to take many different varieties of plants and place them in many gradations of greenhouses with some plants outside on the surface, some with only half the atmospheric gases and pressure as on Earth, some with only 1/4 etc. Some plants will be able to survive and the ones that don't will mutate and evolve over time into plants that can survive the moon's surface.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 12:25:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 12:24:21 AM, lewis20 wrote:
I think asteroid mining will come before colonizing any planets for the hell of it, private business will find a way to make money in space before any group or national decide to take up the challenge.

private business already found a way to make money in space AFTER we took up the challenge.

Anyway, asteroid mining is a pipe dream. do you have any idea how not-dense the asteroid belt is?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 12:28:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Neil degrasse Tyson had a good view on it which I can't for the life of me find. Something about there only being 3 reasons nations would expand space exploration, one was war/threat of war ...trying to find the others...
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 12:31:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 12:28:11 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Neil degrasse Tyson had a good view on it which I can't for the life of me find. Something about there only being 3 reasons nations would expand space exploration, one was war/threat of war ...trying to find the others...

Knowledge is one. I was always under the impression that knowledge for knowledge's sake was a useful goal by itself. NASA's vision for instance is particularly vague:

To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 12:31:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 12:25:50 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 4/17/2013 12:22:50 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:

The moon is too light to support an atmosphere. This means that you cannot have outdoor plants, as no H2O cycle can exist (nor N cycle, or C cycle) as the vapors will be pulled out by the solar wind, killing the cycle. Mars has a similar problem, though not to the same extent.

Given enough time, plants will evolve and adapt to their new environment. We would need to take many different varieties of plants and place them in many gradations of greenhouses with some plants outside on the surface, some with only half the atmospheric gases and pressure as on Earth, some with only 1/4 etc. Some plants will be able to survive and the ones that don't will mutate and evolve over time into plants that can survive the moon's surface.

That's kind of a fallacy there. Suggesting that things will adapt to any environment, regardless of hostilities, is not soundly based. For one, in some of the more inhospitable environments on earth, only microbes have adapted to live in and it has taken hundreds of millions of years. To say "plants will evolve" is a bit of a deus ex machina.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 12:42:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 12:36:17 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
How is it different from colonizing Mars. Mars's environment would also be inhospitable.

1) Mars has more atmospheric potential, though still minimum.

2) Mars has more potential in the soil for organic.

3) I believe as far as long term colonization goes, space stations are better than Mars aswell.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 12:45:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 12:42:22 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/17/2013 12:36:17 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
How is it different from colonizing Mars. Mars's environment would also be inhospitable.

1) Mars has more atmospheric potential, though still minimum.

But is it significant enough to outweigh the additional cost of travel?

2) Mars has more potential in the soil for organic.

Same as 1.

3) I believe as far as long term colonization goes, space stations are better than Mars aswell.

I agree. I just prefer moon to mars.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 12:47:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 12:45:04 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 4/17/2013 12:42:22 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/17/2013 12:36:17 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
How is it different from colonizing Mars. Mars's environment would also be inhospitable.

1) Mars has more atmospheric potential, though still minimum.

But is it significant enough to outweigh the additional cost of travel?

Can't this same argument be made in regards to a space station over the moon? Lower travel costs (and by positioning anywhere you want, you can get better solar energy, which will benefit the plants and make it more successful).


2) Mars has more potential in the soil for organic.

Same as 1.

3) I believe as far as long term colonization goes, space stations are better than Mars aswell.

I agree. I just prefer moon to mars.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 12:50:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 12:47:04 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:

Can't this same argument be made in regards to a space station over the moon? Lower travel costs (and by positioning anywhere you want, you can get better solar energy, which will benefit the plants and make it more successful).

But for long term colonization, we need available land. For space stations, we are essentially creating land as we go and all the "land" that we have is stuff that we need to haul from Earth. Sure, we need to haul stuff for a moon base as well, but there is "ground" on the moon. We would only need to take the walls and roof. Where I am getting at is that planet/moon = free real estate. For a space station, we have to construct every bit of it.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 1:11:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 12:50:35 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 4/17/2013 12:47:04 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:

Can't this same argument be made in regards to a space station over the moon? Lower travel costs (and by positioning anywhere you want, you can get better solar energy, which will benefit the plants and make it more successful).

But for long term colonization, we need available land. For space stations, we are essentially creating land as we go and all the "land" that we have is stuff that we need to haul from Earth. Sure, we need to haul stuff for a moon base as well, but there is "ground" on the moon. We would only need to take the walls and roof. Where I am getting at is that planet/moon = free real estate. For a space station, we have to construct every bit of it.

But every house that you've likely ever been in has had an artificial ground (meaning, you are walking on a floor, not on dirt), so you are still enclosed on 6 all six sides. So what is the difference between six sides on the moon or six sides in space (that is totally my new band name).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"