DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: kimba1 on June 07, 2013, 01:17:33 PM
-
Shouldn't we try a moonbase first? Am I missing something? Wouldn't the very least a lunar base will be helpful on training people for low gravity living . Also maybe installing relay stations on the moon might benefit earth . Not sure the distance from the moon has much of a signal delay though.
http://mars-one.com/en/faq-en/21-faq-selection/251-do-i-qualify-to-apply (http://mars-one.com/en/faq-en/21-faq-selection/251-do-i-qualify-to-apply)
-
I suspect that experience on the Moon would be useful for exploring the Moon, and not Mars.
I think they have written off colonizing the Moon as a fruitless pursuit, since it is so similar to the Earth in terms of the minerals available. Mars seems to have water, the Moon does not. A major feature useful to humans.
-
I think the most interesting use of the Moon is as a building and living site.
If, there is enough raw materiel on the moon to build with it would be cheaper to build orbital stations and spaceships with moon materiel than Earth materiel because the Moon takes less power to leave.
It might be possible to get a lot of metal from captured asteroids , if so it may still be usefull to have factorys to use it on the moon because it takes less power to land on the moon also.
-
It is fine with me if someone wants to colonize the Moon before colonizing Mars, or vice versa. I was merely speculating about why someone might want to forget about the Moon and start with Mars first. Water is essential to humans and pretty much everything we do.Mars seems to have some, the Moon does not.
-
Actually the lack of water is another reason the moon would be a good reason because the trip to mars will takes months and they need pound out as much of the problems. Biosphere two has proven how hard it is to live that completely cut off. Remember they early on miscaculated the air quality due to the materials the building was made from. They didnt know concrete effects oxygen. People outside thought sex would be an issue,but it turnout not knowing your getting enough food was a mood killer.
I really think a six month stay on the moon will greatly help the colonist deal with the trip to mars. Learning to live in a place with a self contain enviroment will take some getting used to. Remember this trip is oneway and they will need to find out who can take it.
-
I do not think that NASA is going to fund any one way trips to the Moon or to Mars. You can send someone on a dangerous public mission, but certainly not a 100% fatal one. The public would be against funding a fatal mission. Perhaps China, Russia, Belarus or come other nation could do this. not the US.
There is certainly far more information about both places that can and should be discovered by other means than sending a person or persons up to scope either place out.
-
America doesn't do space missions . But you're point explain why we finally have mars one way tripd since itd a global venture. America is not likely to do this
-
What is unattractive about a one way trip?
It would only be emmigrating, and pioneering.
You would certainly need to bring a good set of tools.
-
If people are sent to Mars, I am sure that NASA would be involved in some way. This country will not fund a one way mission to Mars. Watch and see.
The first mission would surely be exploratory, just as expeditions to Antarctica were exploratory. That means that the explorers will return. Perhaps they will leave robots behind to make things easier for future expeditions.
We have yet to send a permanent mission to Antarctica. Everyone who goes is expected to return. And Antarctica has water and air you can breathe. Mars has neither. Nor is the temperature on Mars as conducive to human life. In Antarctica, at least the temperature is consistent.
-
If people are sent to Mars, I am sure that NASA would be involved in some way. This country will not fund a one way mission to Mars. Watch and see.
Yes , that is what is wrong with depending on NASA.
I would chip in on such a mission, if there was a raffle held with a seat on the flight as the prize.
I would probly buy several tickets over time.
Then of course the training of the emmagrating Astronaughts would be a profitable reality show.
-
Again, if they send people to Mars, they are NOT going to send them unless they have some provision to return them. That would be awful PR and simply intolerable, since it would be paying people to commit suicide. The more publicity they used to get funding, the harder it would be to send them on a suicidal mission.
The first manned mission to Mars would not be a colonization attempt. And I would imagine that it will take a long time before any such mission happens.
I think that NASA is doing a fine job at present, with the robotic and satellite missions. We have learned more from these than the manned missions. The first Moon missions were not mainly for scientific purposes, they were basically ego trips. That was not necessarily a bad thing, but we do not need to repeat the same sort of thing on Mars.
-
If Mars can be colonised , Mars should be colonised.
If it is possible to bring enough kit to live there indefinately , why return?
Coloumbus returned to Spain , but pretty soon people were coming on one way tickets.
-
If it is possible to bring enough kit to live there indefinately
===============================================
You would have to bring edible plants and a way to grow them. I doubt that the first expedition to any planet would be a mission to colonize it.
This seems a long way off in the future. We still are not flying around in the autogyros Popular Science promised us we'd have by now in the 1952 issue.
-
The thing is one way trips is more workable than two way. Right at this moment no human can survive a oneway trip to mars but in ten years its more possible but not likely make it back. The issue is radiation. Unless we get star trek shields the two way trip issue will not happen in our forseeable future
-
It is the nature of rocket travel that you can carry more than ten times the luggage on a one way trip than you can on a round trip.
The plan I like best would send a lot of supplies ahead so that there would be plenty in place before the astronaughts arrived.
-
It would make sense to send supplies in advance of colonists. But again, i do not see Earth colonizing Mars for many, many years. A century or more.
-
http://www.space.com/21005-mars-one-colony-applications.html (http://www.space.com/21005-mars-one-colony-applications.html)
About 78,000 people have applied to become Red Planet colonists with the nonprofit organization Mars One since its application process opened on April 22, officials announced today (May 7). Mars One aims to land four people on the Red Planet in 2023 as the vanguard of a permanent colony, with more astronauts arriving every two years thereafter.
"With 78,000 applications in two weeks, this is turning out to be the most desired job in history," Mars One CEO and co-founder Bas Lansdorp said in a statement. "These numbers put us right on track for our goal of half a million applicants."
http://www.space.com/ (http://www.space.com/)
Hey at $40 per application , ....
-
I'm not sure colony is the right word. Outpost with people spending thier whole life there. Getting there hatd enough but sending enough people for a self sustaining colony? Technology may change even faster as each supply ship arives to the point. A real colony will get sent there
I want to go but I know I can't pass the physical. I won't be able to the survive the launch.sigh...
It's crazy dreaming of space flight and now know it's doable.
-
It's crazy dreaming of space flight and now know it's doable.
==================================
Not to Mars, and if it every is possible, it will be only with billions of someone else's money.
I have reconciled myself to the fact that I will never leave this planet alive.
The chances that any part of me will leave it when dead also seem most unlikely.
But for a modest $40 you can join the club and dream about it.
-
It is like a lotto ticket.
But you would need to be fit, young and able to learn a lot of new skills.
-
fail on all three counts.
my only chance now is be andy Griffith and assemble some army surplus stuff and go myself
-
It is not like a lotto ticket, it is like a club for people who dream of winning a lottery that does not exist.
But it could be fun to discuss the dreams the members have about living on Mars.
$40 seems like a fair price. One day at Disney World will set you back more than twice that (now $95).
-
Just realize another factor on how hard to get a return trip. Mars and earth will not be the same distance on the way back and more likely be farthur since the flight to mars will be the shortest. These launch dates are not random times.
-
Again, I would say that if there is ever a colony of Earthlings on Mars, it is not happening for another century or more.
Perhaps it will be more like the Era of Universal Autogyros predicted in the 1950's.
-
That entirely depends on how far we advance. If our demand for better technology has a collateral effect which make better space travel possible. Then it maybe faster than we think. Better shielding means more durable sattelites. Better sattelite internet requires less space junk. Means better space crafts for cleanups. Innovation is not a straight line. I remember neil degrasse tyson explain that a MRI technology was actually based on the radio telescope and we shouldnt think oneway was will lead to predictable results.
It's too bad america is out of the game and the rest of the world will now get to space. Our astronaut will be hitching rides from now on.
This might mean our more space minded innovators will be leaving america since thier not likely getting work here.
-
It's too bad america is out of the game and the rest of the world will now get to space. Our astronaut will be hitching rides from now on.
This might mean our more space minded innovators will be leaving america since thier not likely getting work here.
===============================================================================
I really doubt this. NASA is simply not sending people into space. That does not mean that they have abandoned all exploration.
Exploration does not require people in space. In many cases unmanned ships can make discoveries that manned flights could never make, because to do so would be fatal because of the temperature, radiation or other factors.
The Air Force increasingly does not need pilots. Drones piloted from far away can do a better job. In the same way, space expeditions do not require humans. I think that discontinuing manned flights temporarily was a wise decision, certainly economically and perhaps technologically as well.
-
maybe
I`m in the camp the manned aspect pushes advancement due to the higher requirements involved. ex. computers if left to the engineers our computers will likely not have advance to far . designing them to be used by normal consumers has greater advanced their functions. remember the only folks who liked vista were the engineers.
Steve jobs understood consumers because he did customers service to understand the exact needs of his clients.
-
Much can be learned about making manned flights successful by making unmanned flights.
I do not see Mars expeditions of any sort as being a consumer product like Windows.
There was a lot of work done in the field of computers before it was even remotely possible to make a personal computer. The first of these were quite computer unfriendly: paper tape, banks of switches, teensy memories. Tape drives, disk drives and hard drives were all adapted from mainframe computers.
I remember using an Apple 2e at Barry University. It was not user friendly at all. My Commodore 64 and my TI-994A were far easier to use.
But again, I do not see a parallel between PC's and Mars expeditions. I do not see a good reason to accelerate Mars expeditions with manned personnel. We have been to the Moon, and probably we could learn a lot more about the Moon with unmanned expeditions. We are not going to see our astronauts leave NASA for other countries, because other countries (so far only Russia) are not doing anything that we have not already done.
-
Just realize another factor on how hard to get a return trip. Mars and earth will not be the same distance on the way back and more likely be farthur since the flight to mars will be the shortest. These launch dates are not random times.
Right , there is an ideal launch every two years, returning at other times has a time and fuel penalty.
-
When windows cameout bill gates didn't see a need for storage beyond 500mg. He thinks like an engineer. No concept of the potential demands of the consumer. Remember when steve jobs came back he didnt do computers. Ipod stated the ball rolling. A ultra portable jukebox that fits in the pocket that anyone can use with a computer. First stage of consumer engineering. If you look at most of apple device are not meant for business but the general masses . As i said before space travel maybe a byproduct of us simply wanting better internet. Remember cellular internet is extremly underpower and expensive and more advance satelite technology is much needed.
-
There are limiting factors (a huge distance, huge expense, radiation, meteorites) that make space travel and interplanetary colonization a lot more difficult than building a computer. I think that eventually there is a good chance of this happening, but we tend to make it seem a lot easier than it is, because we are imagining Star Trek and Star Wars more than reality. There is likely no warp drive possible. Transporters have yet to be invented. We would be foolish to think that the Vulcans will come to help us through the rough patches.
-
I was using computers as an example on innovation but also as a factor of how space travel might be made due to collateral development. research toward teleportation might not work. research toward better communication might yield teleportation accidentally. somebody said innovation is not a straight line, it`s more like a how a drunk person walks afew steps forward with some stumbles and a couple of steps backward and at times no progress at all.
the irony is intelligence is not always a factor. the most intelligent person is perfectly capable of not coming up something ever.
-
That is the basis for the BBC series "Connections", done by James Burke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Burke_%28science_historian%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Burke_%28science_historian%29)
This is a study of how one technical innovation led to another.
-
kimba1
Hero Member
Posts: 5609
Re: Uhm what about the moon??
« Reply #31 on: June 12, 2013, 02:07:39 PM »Quote I was using computers as an example on innovation but also as a factor of how space travel might be made due to collateral development. research toward teleportation might not work. research toward better communication might yield teleportation accidentally. somebody said innovation is not a straight line, it`s more like a how a drunk person walks afew steps forward with some stumbles and a couple of steps backward and at times no progress at all.
the irony is intelligence is not always a factor. the most intelligent person is perfectly capable of not coming up something ever.
Report to moderator Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xavier_Onassis
Hero Member
Posts: 18173
Re: Uhm what about the moon??
« Reply #32 on: June 12, 2013, 02:45:47 PM »Quote That is the basis for the BBC series "Connections", done by James Burke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Burke_%28science_historian%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Burke_%28science_historian%29)
This is a study of how one technical innovation led to another.
[/quote]
These are good points!
I think that as aircraft improved and automobiles improved so spacecraft may improve.
Very rapidly , I mean , once there were a lot of them being built and a lot of people involved.