87 réponses à ce sujet

[Volus Warlord]

MASSEFFECTfanforlife101 wrote...

The Woldan wrote...

MASSEFFECTfanforlife101 wrote...

Yeah, but, Space Travel should be available for everyone. Why take it away? Why is the Ticket price so damn high? Is NASA ever going to answer that question? I mean, how will they answer that question?

Because space travel is OUTRAGEOUSLY expensive?

Expensive for NASA. It shouldn't be for a civilian. NASA pretty much screwed the Middle and Lower classes over. We'd be screwed over anyway if the World were to end, and if there was a way to save humanity.

You underpriviledged folk have no right to exist in the first-class haven we will make on Mars.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Some sciences (knowledge) are a mixture of Natural Sciences and Human Sciences. Like Geography which has two branches with trend to one of them. The point is Geography and its social and environmental knowledge helps you understand the situations well.
Also natural scientists and those who rely on them cannot understand most of the situations related to the humans.

Mars is a good planet to be the first mineral planet and humankind's base outside the Earth. Red Shogun has explained good enough. Moon is inferior to Mars in every aspect (expect some minerals which are also available on Earth)...
Dat rich asteroid field between Mars and Jupiter should not be forgotten!

Modifié par Legatus Arianus, 13 janvier 2013 - 08:26 .

[Volus Warlord]

Legatus Arianus wrote...

Some sciences (knowledge) are a mixture of Natural Sciences and Human Sciences. Like Geography which has two branches with trend to one of them. The point is Geography and its social and environmental knowledge helps you understand the situations well.
Also natural scientists and those who rely on them cannot understand most of the situations related to the humans.

Mars is a good planet to be the first mineral planet and humankind's base outside the Earth. Red Shogun has explained good enough. Moon is inferior to Mars in every aspect (expect some minerals which are also available on Earth)...
Dat rich asteroid field between Mars and Jupiter should not be forgotten!

I doubt resources are a priority. The energy efficiency would be ****** poor. The general deal is to "prove that we can"

[Mr. Sprinkles101]

Indentured service will be reintroduced

[Volus Warlord]

Mr. Sprinkles101 wrote...

Indentured service will be reintroduced

Did it ever die? Lol.

But if it reappeared in its pure form for this project, it would not surprise me.

[Jozape]

[quote]RedArmyShogun wrote...

Antartica and Mars. Much in common no? Well minus Mars can get very hot as well.[/quote]

The equator of Mars can be warm during the warmest hours of the warmest days at the equator, but not hot. It also drops well below freezing at night.

[quote]Both have harshness to them. In the case of Antartica however, terraforming and greenhouse gases being added in to make it liveable isn't a good idea, as you know we can't limited the spread of it to just that area. Nevermind the ice melting.[/quote]

Melting ice is definitely an issue. Mars has its share of similarly bad issues, like global dust storms that last for weeks.

[quote]The Question remains where to get, mine, and break down these materials. Mars is the answer. Its own national resources should equal our own, it has Ice, an atmosphere, and a gravity much like our own needing little adaption.[/quote]

I am not sure if any person knows the full effects of living on Mars will have to human health. We will see when the first generation of humans on Mars leave their mothers' wombs how safe the lack of gravity of Mars is, but I remain skeptical.

[quote]Plus it makes a useful first step on terraforming, and only takes at current speeds 6-9 months to reach. The Jupiter Moons would take SEVEN YEARS. YEARS, not months. And require even more effort and have even less gravity.[/quote]

Indeed, trying to settle Jupiter's moons would be much crazier than trying to settle Mars.

[quote]At the same time you have the Asteriod Field near Mars, which has some rocks that contain more materials than humans have mined in all of its history. By allowing Mars to also handle the break down of the resources, plus a few controlled impacts, you could in theory start the martian mantel back into action jump starting its magnetic field, while at the same time processing the ores in factories on mars allows for the pumping of green house gasses, on a global scale, thus building up the martian atmosphere and making non dome habitation more and more possible with each passing year.

The above is NOT possible with Antartica unless you want to **** over most of the planet for it. Mars also contains the resources to allow for natural agriculture. Antartica does not.[/quote]

It would be amazing if we could engineer Mars to provide ideal living conditions. I would seriously consider moving to Mars then.

[quote]In short Mars could easily be made into a 2nd home, an industrial and agircultural world, that can act as a springboard to ventures elsewhere.[/quote]

It does not seem easy to me.

[quote]In place of being such a negitive ass hat maybe you should try and see that.[/quote]

I am not trying to be a negative ass. I am just reasonably skeptical of the merits of Mars colonization.

[quote]And before you go in with "well drones and Machines" Earth is a target[/quote]

What do you mean 'well drones and machines'? And what do you mean by 'Earth is a target'?

[quote]and the greenhouse effect is playing hell with us, and I doubt we have a way to stop it, or reverse it.[/quote]

It is certainly possible to reduce the human species' contribution to the greenhouse effect, though it will require some drastic actions.

[quote]Nevermind its likely some day or another a huge rock will slam into us[/quote]

There is not much of a chance a huge rock will collide with Earth. Apophis is believed to be the biggest danger, but most do not believe it will hit Earth. Even if Apophis is determined to be more likely to collide(recents predictions are indicating no collision), we can probably prevent it from colliding.

[quote]As to your Government talk. Yes a government made up of those who chose to go there, and have the same vision, rather than selfish **** heads who waste our few resources just to earn votes while driving the whole of humanity to a new global war. Self determination is far better to have than the so called "democracies" of this world, who's only freedoms are shackless for all, and where a small few try and force there will upon all. Maybe it won't change anything. But unless we try we'll never know.[/quote]

You could have an idealogical utopia for a time if you are lucky. Based on history however, it is reasonable to assume that a utopia will not last.

[quote]As a final edit to your position and maybe others, who want to wait till we have the technology to go someplace more of your liking.

What if we never do? What if its not in your life time?[/quote]

Assuming we did not find a better planet than Mars, we did not have a means to reach a better planet than Mars, and we somehow knew Earth was about to become permanently uninhabitable but not Mars, then the answer would be clear; however, I am not placing any bets on such a specific doomsday scenario occuring during my life.

[UpDownLeftRight]

Jozape wrote...
Mars is a ball of dust with a weak gravitational field. Mars is not a good place for growing kids. I will consider other planets when NASA develops a safe warp drive.

The warp drive you're referring to is hypothetical. No space agency will wait for a working warpdrive before exploring the universe. That would be a waste.
Zero gravity isn't very good for humans. Marsian gravity, vhile not as optimal as the one we have here on Earth is still much better than zero gravity.

Jozape wrote...
Disclaimer: all of the research is theoretical. I am sure you can google what you need to find.

Hypothetical not theoretical. Sorry, but this needs to be repeated. When something is theoretical it works, two good examples are the Special Theory of Relativity(every GPS works because of it and it is also used to understand Nuclear Fission) and Quanutm Theory(much of modern technology works because it). A theory has evidence, a very large amount of evidence.

ReconTeam wrote...
I predict it will all start great at first, but then contact will be lost and the next wave of colonists returns to find that everybody has become mutants or something. And it will make for a great movie.

Lol!

ME_Fan wrote...

If it's privately funded and feasible, then go for it I suppose. The problem I have is when organisations like NASA and the ESA waste taxpayers' money on completely useless or unproductive projects which will never actually benefit anyone. If it's a private expedition, however, sure, why the hell not? If someone's stupid enough to go and live their entire life on a cold, dead, rock, then go for it.

Thoroughly and utterly false. Enriched baby food? NASA. LEDs? NASA. Safer highways? NASA. Fire resistant reinforcement? NASA. There are more than 1600 spinoffs that come from NASA. If you're interested in more information you can find it here. http://spinoff.nasa.gov/

Space will ALWAYS create technological breakthroughs that will help the rest of our species. Why? Because the universe does not give a sh*t about us. Humanity will be forced to adapt every time it tries to venture into the extreme environment of space.

ME_Fan wrote...
What's interesting for me though is, hypothetically, if large numbers of humans do settle the red planet, how they would construct the new society and how it would be structured politically. It would need it's own police force pretty much from the start, because I can imagine that it would be quite easy to lose one's mind out there. But there are no laws in space or on other terrestrial bodies other than Earth as of yet, so maybe some kind of Mass Effect esque extra terrestrial parliament/ Justice system would be set up. Who knows?

Hm...it might be somewhat of an anarchistic system. No actual governemnt and laws. More of a system where the group decides upon different rules and regulations through volountary association or participation. Until the society becomes too large for a such a system. Then a government/governments might arise. Unless they succeed in that which Earth has failed for so long. A fully functioning human society without a governing body.

Modifié par UpDownLeftRight, 22 février 2013 - 02:51 .

[ME_Fan]

UpDownLeftRight wrote...

Thoroughly and utterly false. Enriched baby food? NASA. LEDs? NASA. Safer highways? NASA. Fire resistant reinforcement? NASA. There are more than 1600 spinoffs that come from NASA. If you're interested in more information you can find it here. http://spinoff.nasa.gov/

What?

You've clearly misunderstood my statement. Yeah, I'm sure that they have indeed created many helpful and productive things. But for every billion they put towards useful stuff, they would seem to be wasting two billion on completely useless projects. I know it's the difference between current and capital spending; every economy needs capital spending to ensure long-term, infrastructural stability. As a result, organizations such as NASA can be quite beneficial in that regard. But when it's billions and billions of taxpayers' money put towards projects which will never actually, or only minimally, benefit anyone, be it physically, socially. or economically, and are simply done for research, then no, that's just not right.

With the examples you just gave, sure, those things can benefit everyone in one way or another, so they should be researched, along with other projects which may benefit people in the generations to come. But a Mars colony? There may indeed be benefits to such an idea, but the opportunity cost is just so high it doesn't warrant the funding of taxpayers. Billions and billions of dollars, or whatever other currency, would be spent, and for what? A relatively negligible benefit at most. That money, taken from the pockets of normal people, could have been spent on research projects for medicine, food and agriculture, alternative energy, and many others, all of which would be substantially more useful and productive spending of money than a goddamned space colony.

Who knows? In the future things may change. Technology may adapt to make such a thing more feasible, but for now, it's a pipe dream.

Modifié par ME_Fan, 22 février 2013 - 05:57 .

[Jozape]

UpDownLeftRight wrote...

Jozape wrote...
Mars is a ball of dust with a weak gravitational field. Mars is not a good place for growing kids. I will consider other planets when NASA develops a safe warp drive.

The warp drive you're referring to is hypothetical.

True. It may be philosophically theoretical(I am not sure), but in science theory requires empirical evidence.

No space agency will wait for a working warpdrive before exploring the universe. That would be a waste.

No space agency worth noting has waited for a warp drive. NASA has been exploring a very small portion of the universe for decades; however, if we intend to explore much more than than the Solar System in much less time, we will need a warp drive. During 35 years of space travel, Voyager 1 has only reached the Heliosphere. We need to move faster.

Zero gravity isn't very good for humans. Marsian gravity, vhile not as optimal as the one we have here on Earth is still much better than zero gravity.

I agree. I do not recommend zero gravity as a living environment. Is your statement relevant to what I wrote or to what some other poster wrote?

[UpDownLeftRight]

ME_Fan wrote...
What?

You've clearly misunderstood my statement. Yeah, I'm sure that they have indeed created many helpful and productive things. But for every billion they put towards useful stuff, they would seem to be wasting two billion on completely useless projects. I know it's the difference between current and capital spending; every economy needs capital spending to ensure long-term, infrastructural stability. As a result, organizations such as NASA can
be quite beneficial in that regard. But when it's billions and billions of taxpayers' money put towards projects which will never actually, or only minimally, benefit anyone, be it physically, socially. or economically, and are simply done for research, then no, that's just not right.

With the examples you just gave, sure, those things can benefit everyone in one way or another, so they should be researched, along with other projects which may benefit people in the generations to come. But a Mars colony? There may indeed be benefits to such an idea, but the opportunity cost is just so high it doesn't warrant the funding of taxpayers. Billions and billions of dollars, or whatever other currency, would be spent, and for what? A relatively negligible benefit at most. That money, taken from the pockets of normal people, could have been
spent on research projects for medicine, food and agriculture, alternative energy, and many others, all of which would be substantially more useful and productive spending of money than a goddamned space colony.

Those things were not researched for the sake of achieving enriched baby food, or safer highways. They are accidental spinoffs. How many firefighters do you think have been saved because NASA's spinoff? How many more healthier babies do we have because of their reasearch that accidentally led to enriched baby food?
How many people without limbs got better robotic arms and legs because of NASA? The list goes on and on. The point of this? They are all spinoffs. You really can't see what things can be gained from a Marsian colony? All the necessary research into sustaining lives in such a hars climate, research into terraforming, protection against radiation and so forth? Research concerning space always gives something back to the rest of humanity us.
Wasting billions and billions of taxpayer dollars? NASA's budget is less than one penny of a taxdollar. Around 0.48 percent of the federal budget went towards NASA in 2012. Not only that, NASA's funding is getting smaller and smaller. You want billions of dollars wasted you have 700 billion dollars going to the D.O.D in 2012. That number could be decreased by 350 billions and the DOD would, more or less, have the same amount of funding as the militaries of the next five countries combined.

ME_Fan wrote...
Who knows? In the future things may change. Technology may adapt to make
such a thing more feasible, but for now, it's a pipe dream.

It can, only if we commit to the research. More feasible? Sure, but it will still be costly. Both in human lives and money. Always.

Jozape wrote...
True. It may be philosophically theoretical(I am not sure), but in science theory requires empirical evidence.

It doesn't matter what it is philosophically. But yes, a scientific theory requires evidence.

Jozape wrote...
No space agency worth noting has waited for a warp drive. NASA has been exploring a very small portion of the universe for decades; however, if we intend to explore much more than than the Solar System in much less time, we will need a warp drive. During 35 years of space travel, Voyager 1 has only reached the Heliosphere. We need to move faster.

Faster yes, but that doesn't mean that we need a warp drive. Humanity shouldn't wait for a reality that might never be if it wants to spread itself and expand.
We don't need a working Alcubierre drive to expand. 50% of lightspeed is already quite kickass. Traveling at near
lightspeed would be...most impractical in a sense. By the time you return
from your nine year journey more than twenty years might have passed on
earth. At best.

Jozape wrote...
I agree. I do not recommend zero gravity as a living environment. Is your statement relevant to what I wrote or to what some other poster wrote?

Uhh...I think uh...don't know..

huh

...

Just pretend I said something funny.

Modifié par UpDownLeftRight, 23 février 2013 - 09:26 .

[Jozape]

UpDownLeftRight wrote...

Jozape wrote...
True. It may be philosophically theoretical(I am not sure), but in science theory requires empirical evidence.

It doesn't matter what it is philosophically. But yes, a scientific theory requires evidence.

If semantics matter, then whether theory refers to scientific theory or another theory matters. But this is off topic and we already know I was writing in the context of science.

Jozape wrote...
No space agency worth noting has waited for a warp drive. NASA has been exploring a very small portion of the universe for decades; however, if we intend to explore much more than than the Solar System in much less time, we will need a warp drive. During 35 years of space travel, Voyager 1 has only reached the Heliosphere. We need to move faster.

Faster yes, but that doesn't mean that we need a warp drive. Humanity shouldn't wait for a reality that might never be if it wants to spread itself and expand.
We don't need a working Alcubierre drive to expand. 50% of lightspeed is already quite kickass. Traveling at near 
lightspeed would be...most impractical in a sense. By the time you return 
from your nine year journey more than twenty years might have passed on 
earth. At best.

Half the speed of light is definitely acceptable for exploring the nearest star systems during our lives. We could start receiving data and information from Alpha Centauri 13 years after launch. I personally would not be so keen on spending the 8.5 years necessary to travel to any habitable planets in Alpha Centauri though, if there are any. The time would be acceptable if Earth is no longer an option of course.

Jozape wrote...
I agree. I do not recommend zero gravity as a living environment. Is your statement relevant to what I wrote or to what some other poster wrote?

Uhh...I think uh...don't know..

huh

...

Just pretend I said something funny.

Ha! It happens.

Modifié par Jozape, 24 février 2013 - 03:06 .