Buzz Aldrin: To Infinity and Beyond!

[jimmy olsen]

Traveling to Mars and colonizing it would be more akin to polar exploration and colonization.  There are a number of science stations in Antarctica; so we could have colonies of scientists on Mars.

I agree with caveats: colonizing Mars will be orders of magnitude more difficult/expensive than colonizing the polar ice caps, and the scientists on Mars would likely be much less useful than those in Antartica (who are telling us useful things about our own planet).

Depends on what they find. If they find bacteria native to Mars the research done on that would be an order of magnitude more valuable than anything the scientists in Antarctica could ever discover.

[Berkut]

Traveling to Mars and colonizing it would be more akin to polar exploration and colonization.  There are a number of science stations in Antarctica; so we could have colonies of scientists on Mars.

I agree with caveats: colonizing Mars will be orders of magnitude more difficult/expensive than colonizing the polar ice caps, and the scientists on Mars would likely be much less useful than those in Antartica (who are telling us useful things about our own planet).

Depends on what they find. If they find bacteria native to Mars the research done on that would be an order of magnitude more valuable than anything the scientists in Antarctica could ever discover.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to study it back here on Earth though?

[Neil]

Traveling to Mars and colonizing it would be more akin to polar exploration and colonization.  There are a number of science stations in Antarctica; so we could have colonies of scientists on Mars.

I agree with caveats: colonizing Mars will be orders of magnitude more difficult/expensive than colonizing the polar ice caps, and the scientists on Mars would likely be much less useful than those in Antartica (who are telling us useful things about our own planet).

And the key is this:  If Mars is to be colonized, men will die in space.  Does the West have the moral courage to send people to certain death, and waste tens of billions of dollars?  I'd wager not likely while voters are able to vote themselves money from the public treasury.

[Caliga]

Pretty much impossible in a usable timespan, I'm afraid.

We should at least try.  Plus, as an added bonus, if it suffers catastrophic structural failure it will fall to earth and wipe out many poors who live around the equator.

[Neil]

Traveling to Mars and colonizing it would be more akin to polar exploration and colonization.  There are a number of science stations in Antarctica; so we could have colonies of scientists on Mars.

I agree with caveats: colonizing Mars will be orders of magnitude more difficult/expensive than colonizing the polar ice caps, and the scientists on Mars would likely be much less useful than those in Antartica (who are telling us useful things about our own planet).

Depends on what they find. If they find bacteria native to Mars the research done on that would be an order of magnitude more valuable than anything the scientists in Antarctica could ever discover.

That very much depends.  After all, we live on Earth, and understanding it is far more valuable to our civilization.  However, I certainly understand the value of finding life off of Earth and further eroding Christianity.  It'd be interesting from a mechanical perspective, but given that pretty much everyone who is worth anything concedes the certainty of extraterrestrial life, I'm not sure how valuable it would turn out to be.

[Neil]

Pretty much impossible in a usable timespan, I'm afraid.

We should at least try.  Plus, as an added bonus, if it suffers catastrophic structural failure it will fall to earth and wipe out many poors who live around the equator.

Well, we can continue to study the matter, but it doesn't  make sense to actually make plans to build it.  Hell, we can't even build a tower that's one kilometre in height, let alone a structure 35,000 times higher.

[jimmy olsen]

er all

Traveling to Mars and colonizing it would be more akin to polar exploration and colonization.  There are a number of science stations in Antarctica; so we could have colonies of scientists on Mars.

I agree with caveats: colonizing Mars will be orders of magnitude more difficult/expensive than colonizing the polar ice caps, and the scientists on Mars would likely be much less useful than those in Antartica (who are telling us useful things about our own planet).

Depends on what they find. If they find bacteria native to Mars the research done on that would be an order of magnitude more valuable than anything the scientists in Antarctica could ever discover.

That very much depends.  Aft, we live on Earth, and understanding it is far more valuable to our civilization.  However, I certainly understand the value of finding life off of Earth and further eroding Christianity.  It'd be interesting from a mechanical perspective, but given that pretty much everyone who is worth anything concedes the certainty of extraterrestrial life, I'm not sure how valuable it would turn out to be.

If God created life on Earth why couldn't he do the same on Mars?

I was thinking of the research that could be done on their genetic structure. I think a lot of breakthroughs in biology could be made by studying life from another world.

[alfred russel]

Depends on what they find. If they find bacteria native to Mars the research done on that would be an order of magnitude more valuable than anything the scientists in Antarctica could ever discover.

Maybe not. The climate and atmospheric work in the artic regions has already provided information that can help us keep the planet livable. I can think of some practical uses for extraterrestrial bacteria, but don't see them as necessarily significant. In terms of finding life on other planets, if it is limited to subsoil bacterial I don't know if it is that much of a big deal (it wouldn't be to me, though I'd certainly be interested).

[Neil]

er all

Traveling to Mars and colonizing it would be more akin to polar exploration and colonization.  There are a number of science stations in Antarctica; so we could have colonies of scientists on Mars.

I agree with caveats: colonizing Mars will be orders of magnitude more difficult/expensive than colonizing the polar ice caps, and the scientists on Mars would likely be much less useful than those in Antartica (who are telling us useful things about our own planet).

Depends on what they find. If they find bacteria native to Mars the research done on that would be an order of magnitude more valuable than anything the scientists in Antarctica could ever discover.

That very much depends.  Aft, we live on Earth, and understanding it is far more valuable to our civilization.  However, I certainly understand the value of finding life off of Earth and further eroding Christianity.  It'd be interesting from a mechanical perspective, but given that pretty much everyone who is worth anything concedes the certainty of extraterrestrial life, I'm not sure how valuable it would turn out to be.

If God created life on Earth why couldn't he do the same on Mars?

Because it would defeat human exceptionalism, without which you can't have Jesus.

I was thinking of the research that could be done on their genetic structure. I think a lot of breakthroughs in biology could be made by studying life from another world.

It could be.  I'm not really a very good molecular biologist.  I always looked at it as just a very narrow field of chemistry.  I suppose it would be interesting to see how other systems have used carbon, and the structures they've built.

[Savonarola]

Maybe not. The climate and atmospheric work in the artic regions has already provided information that can help us keep the planet livable. I can think of some practical uses for extraterrestrial bacteria, but don't see them as necessarily significant. In terms of finding life on other planets, if it is limited to subsoil bacterial I don't know if it is that much of a big deal (it wouldn't be to me, though I'd certainly be interested).

All life on Earth has a common ancestor.  Any extraterrestrial life would be a boost to our understanding of biology; since it could not share that common ancestor...

(...or could it? )

Even so it seems like it would be a lot cheaper and easier to look for that from Earth.

[Neil]

Maybe not. The climate and atmospheric work in the artic regions has already provided information that can help us keep the planet livable. I can think of some practical uses for extraterrestrial bacteria, but don't see them as necessarily significant. In terms of finding life on other planets, if it is limited to subsoil bacterial I don't know if it is that much of a big deal (it wouldn't be to me, though I'd certainly be interested).

All life on Earth has a common ancestor.  Any extraterrestrial life would be a boost to our understanding of biology; since it could not share that common ancestor...

(...or could it? )

Even so it seems like it would be a lot cheaper and easier to look for that from Earth.

It would be interesting if they confirmed the panspermia hypothesis.  Of course, given how much human junk there is on Mars, it would have to be very carefully tested.

[DisturbedPervert]

And the key is this:  If Mars is to be colonized, men will die in space.  Does the West have the moral courage to send people to certain death, and waste tens of billions of dollars?  I'd wager not likely while voters are able to vote themselves money from the public treasury.

That's why Mars will belong to the Chinamen. 

[Neil]

And the key is this:  If Mars is to be colonized, men will die in space.  Does the West have the moral courage to send people to certain death, and waste tens of billions of dollars?  I'd wager not likely while voters are able to vote themselves money from the public treasury.

That's why Mars will belong to the Chinamen.

I seriously doubt that Chinamen will make it to Mars.  Totalitarian murder-regimes have a low tolerance for failure, and Chinese society is far too unimaginative and lazy to do anything great.

[PRC]

Hell, we can't even build a tower that's one kilometre in height, let alone a structure 35,000 times higher.

Wouldn't it only be 35 times higher?

[Neil]

Hell, we can't even build a tower that's one kilometre in height, let alone a structure 35,000 times higher.

Wouldn't it only be 35 times higher?

A space elevator that only went 35km up from ground level wouldn't be very useful.  The elevator would have to be thousands and thousands of kilometres long in order to function.