From CNN:
QuoteCommentary: Let's aim for MarsStory Highlights
Editor's note: Buzz Aldrin, whose new book is "Magnificent Desolation," was one of the two American astronauts who were the first people to set foot on the moon.
Buzz Aldrin walks on the moon in a photo taken by Neil Armstrong, his colleague on the 1969 mission.
1 of 3 (CNN) -- Four decades have passed since the summer of 1969, when Neil Armstrong, Mike Collins and I flew America's first lunar landing mission.
The passage of time has not faded either the memory of that summer or the importance of what we achieved, for our mission was about more than just exploring the moon.
On July 20, 1969, Neil and I were peering out the window of our lunar lander, the Eagle, as it descended toward the lunar surface. The ship's computer was steering us toward a field of boulders the size of cars.
That same computer -- with less power than today's pocket calculators -- was signaling that it was overworked and dangerously overloaded. Our single tank of fuel was nearly empty as we approached the surface, invisible to us, cloaked in a cloud of swirling dust.
Neil took manual control and flew us toward a smoother terrain. Then, as the shadow of our landing gear appeared etched onto the surface in the gloom, a light on our console flashed that contact had been made.
"Houston, Tranquility Base Here," Neil radioed to the listening world back home. "The Eagle has landed!"
For more than two hours, we explored the moon's dusty surface. We could easily tell that the planet we had landed on was very different from our home. The horizon visibly curved away in the distance, a sign of the moon's much smaller landscape.
When my boot struck moon dust, the soils flew away in a straight line, a sign of the lighter gravity load, one-sixth that of Earth. When I looked around the stark landscape, it was a magnificent desolation.
An uninviting world greeted us in eerie silence, hostile to our presence and to all visitors from Earth.
The following day, we rocketed up off the surface, rejoined Mike Collins orbiting alone in our command ship, the Columbia, and headed home to a hero's welcome.
Buzz Aldrin on 'American Morning'
That welcome took us all around the world in parades, banquets and greetings from millions. I was astonished that so many had followed every facet of our flight from start to finish, almost as if they were part of the adventure. That spirit, of a world come together in celebration of a peaceful scientific achievement, was perhaps our greatest legacy.
More than just exploring a hostile new world, Apollo 11 was about bold vision and great risk, about the obstacles a great nation could overcome with dedication, courage and teamwork. It was about choosing a goal that exceeded our grasp -- and then reaching across history to make it happen.
For me, the most difficult part of the mission wasn't what happened during the flight but what happened after we came home. Without a new mission to train for, I felt lost and without a purpose. My personal life was marked by deep depression and bouts of drinking. Nothing I did seemed to have meaning or motivation for me.
Don't Miss
Two NASA space probes near moon
In Depth: Commentaries
I left the Air Force, the space program, and was adrift. But then, as I began to recover my bearings, something wonderful happened. I met a woman, Lois Driggs Cannon, who helped me to climb out of my depression and see a role for me in space -- but this time while on Earth.
I came to dedicate my life to opening space to the average person and crafting designs for new spaceships that could take us far from home. But since Apollo ended, such travels were only in our collective memory.
For these past decades, our country has achieved great things in space. It has built a reusable spacecraft and flown it more than 100 times. It has orbited great observatories that have unlocked the secrets of the universe.
Most impressively, it has helped construct an orbiting laboratory that offers the prospect of long-term research into the effects of space flight, research that can not just improve the health and safety of our astronauts but also of people on Earth. But what America hasn't done is inspire the world -- and itself --with a bold vision for our future in space.
We have remained, since our Apollo days, locked in Earth orbit. But five years ago, NASA was tasked with returning to the moon by 2020, rerunning the moon race that we won 40 years ago. Not surprisingly, this new race has failed to ignite the imagination of young Americans -- or their leaders.
What we truly need is not more Cold War-style competition but a destination in space that offers great rewards for the risks to achieve it. I believe that destination must be homesteading Mars, the first human colony on another world.
By refocusing our space program on Mars for America's future, we can restore the sense of wonder and adventure in space exploration that we knew in the summer of 1969. We won the moon race; now it's time for us to live and work on Mars, first on its moons and then on its surface.
Exploring and colonizing Mars can bring us new scientific understanding of climate change, of how planet-wide processes can make a warm and wet world into a barren landscape. By exploring and understanding Mars, we may gain key insights into the past and future of our own world.
Just as Mars -- a desert planet -- gives us insights into global climate change on Earth, the promise awaits for bringing back to life portions of the Red Planet through the application of Earth Science to its similar chemistry, possibly reawakening its life-bearing potential.
Four decades ago, I was privileged to have been part of a great mission of exploration and discovery. But America's future in space has only just started. It is time for us to continue the journey.
As an engineer I do appreciate the excitement of manned space flight to Mars, and all the new toys we'd need to build to get there; but what would be the point of colonizing it? :unsure:
Quote from: Savonarola on June 25, 2009, 03:16:37 PM
As an engineer I do appreciate the excitement of manned space flight to Mars, and all the new toys we'd need to build to get there; but what would be the point of colonizing it? :unsure:
So we don't all die if Earth has a catastrophe I guess.
Waste of money.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 25, 2009, 03:24:08 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on June 25, 2009, 03:16:37 PM
As an engineer I do appreciate the excitement of manned space flight to Mars, and all the new toys we'd need to build to get there; but what would be the point of colonizing it? :unsure:
So we don't all die if Earth has a catastrophe I guess.
Do you think any colony on Mars could *ever* be completely self-sufficient?
Quote from: Berkut on June 25, 2009, 03:28:04 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 25, 2009, 03:24:08 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on June 25, 2009, 03:16:37 PM
As an engineer I do appreciate the excitement of manned space flight to Mars, and all the new toys we'd need to build to get there; but what would be the point of colonizing it? :unsure:
So we don't all die if Earth has a catastrophe I guess.
Do you think any colony on Mars could *ever* be completely self-sufficient?
Depends on whether we could terraform it or not.
Anyways the final goal should be a planet around a near by star, and if we are ever going to develop technology that can get there, we'll have to develop the technology to get to Mars first.
Sure would suck if we spent huge resources on colonizing a planet around a nearby star, and then some other star went Nova and wiped both the Earth and our colony out.
Although in that case, I guess it wouldn't matter that we wasted all those resources.
Quote from: Berkut on June 25, 2009, 03:33:35 PM
Sure would suck if we spent huge resources on colonizing a planet around a nearby star, and then some other star went Nova and wiped both the Earth and our colony out.
Although in that case, I guess it wouldn't matter that we wasted all those resources.
The real world isn't star trek, the closest star that could go nova is too far away for the blast wave to do anything. The only way we could be damaged is if we were unlucky and got hit by a gamma ray burst. However the odds against both the earth and our interstellar colony would both be inline of the same burst is astronomical.
Quote from: Savonarola on June 25, 2009, 03:16:37 PM
but what would be the point of colonizing it? :unsure:
just because we can, or to find out iof we can. There needs to be no other point.
Rather than terafforming Mars, wouldn't it make sense to fix the Earth?
I mean, if we have the magic ability to give a dead world oceans, an atmosphere, an ozone layer, magnetic fields, functioning ecosystems... Why not fix Jersey?
Quote from: Faeelin on June 25, 2009, 03:48:22 PM
Rather than terafforming Mars, wouldn't it make sense to fix the Earth?
I mean, if we have the magic ability to give a dead world oceans, an atmosphere, an ozone layer, magnetic fields, functioning ecosystems... Why not fix Jersey?
Better to experiment with a dead world before you play around with a live one, and the methods could be quite violent, impact wise.
Quote from: Faeelin on June 25, 2009, 03:48:22 PM
Rather than terafforming Mars, wouldn't it make sense to fix the Earth?
I mean, if we have the magic ability to give a dead world oceans, an atmosphere, an ozone layer, magnetic fields, functioning ecosystems... Why not fix Jersey?
Obviously making Mars habitable is going to be easier than making New Jersey habitable. Everyone knows that, who has been through Newark. :P
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 25, 2009, 03:29:35 PM
Depends on whether we could terraform it or not.
You can't. At least not in any kind of a reasonable timeframe.
QuoteAnyways the final goal should be a planet around a near by star, and if we are ever going to develop technology that can get there, we'll have to develop the technology to get to Mars first.
To be honest, I'm not sure there's enough time for that. It might not be a reasonable goal. I mean, you'd probably have to invent a feasible way to build a ramscoop. Then, you'd have to send ramrobots to nearby stars, and you're probably looking at 20-30 years one way, and a huge cost. Then, the robots explore the local system (add another decade), and radio their findings back to Earth (another decade). Then, assuming that an earth-like planet is found, another ramrobot with a planetary probe has to be sent out to verify things like atmospheric composition, molecular chirality, those sorts of things (another 30-40 years). Then, the slowboats that would carry the settlers would have to be built, supplied and crewed. And assuming that we don't get a decent ramscoop, you can multiply those travel times by a factor of ten or more.
Quote from: Neil on June 25, 2009, 03:59:41 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 25, 2009, 03:29:35 PM
Depends on whether we could terraform it or not.
You can't. At least not in any kind of a reasonable timeframe.
QuoteAnyways the final goal should be a planet around a near by star, and if we are ever going to develop technology that can get there, we'll have to develop the technology to get to Mars first.
To be honest, I'm not sure there's enough time for that. It might not be a reasonable goal. I mean, you'd probably have to invent a feasible way to build a ramscoop. Then, you'd have to send ramrobots to nearby stars, and you're probably looking at 20-30 years one way, and a huge cost. Then, the robots explore the local system (add another decade), and radio their findings back to Earth (another decade). Then, assuming that an earth-like planet is found, another ramrobot with a planetary probe has to be sent out to verify things like atmospheric composition, molecular chirality, those sorts of things (another 30-40 years). Then, the slowboats that would carry the settlers would have to be built, supplied and crewed. And assuming that we don't get a decent ramscoop, you can multiply those travel times by a factor of ten or more.
The next generation space telescopes will be able to tell if near by planets are habitable.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 25, 2009, 04:01:14 PM
The next generation space telescopes will be able to tell if near by planets are habitable.
Interesting; how can they do that?
Quote from: Savonarola on June 25, 2009, 04:03:49 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 25, 2009, 04:01:14 PM
The next generation space telescopes will be able to tell if near by planets are habitable.
Interesting; how can they do that?
They will write the word "no" on the inside of the lens.
Quote from: Savonarola on June 25, 2009, 04:03:49 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 25, 2009, 04:01:14 PM
The next generation space telescopes will be able to tell if near by planets are habitable.
Interesting; how can they do that?
Spectrum analysis, it's already been done on some of the gas giants that have been found.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 25, 2009, 04:07:25 PM
Spectrum analysis, it's already been done on some of the gas giants that have been found.
I assumed that it was some sort of gas spectroscopy; but wouldn't that only tell only the content of the atmosphere? Can you determine habitablility from that alone?
Quote from: alfred russel on June 25, 2009, 04:06:24 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on June 25, 2009, 04:03:49 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 25, 2009, 04:01:14 PM
The next generation space telescopes will be able to tell if near by planets are habitable.
Interesting; how can they do that?
They will write the word "no" on the inside of the lens.
:lol:
Quote from: Faeelin on June 25, 2009, 03:48:22 PM
Rather than terafforming Mars, wouldn't it make sense to fix the Earth?
I mean, if we have the magic ability to give a dead world oceans, an atmosphere, an ozone layer, magnetic fields, functioning ecosystems... Why not fix Jersey?
The Earth isn't necessarily worth saving. After all, the planet is full of uncivilized pests. If it were possible to leave the Earth behind, the uncivilized peoples, who are poor, would be unable to follow us, and we could leave them to die.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 25, 2009, 04:01:14 PM
The next generation space telescopes will be able to tell if near by planets are habitable.
An earth-sized planet in close orbit around a main sequence star? I would be surprised.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 25, 2009, 04:07:25 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on June 25, 2009, 04:03:49 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 25, 2009, 04:01:14 PM
The next generation space telescopes will be able to tell if near by planets are habitable.
Interesting; how can they do that?
Spectrum analysis, it's already been done on some of the gas giants that have been found.
Last I saw, they had only been able to analyze large gas giants in distant orbits around brown dwarves.
Quote from: Savonarola on June 25, 2009, 04:10:47 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 25, 2009, 04:07:25 PM
Spectrum analysis, it's already been done on some of the gas giants that have been found.
I assumed that it was some sort of gas spectroscopy; but wouldn't that only tell only the content of the atmosphere? Can you determine habitablility from that alone?
The only way a planet could have a sizable oxygen component to their atmosphere like ours is if it has life.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 25, 2009, 04:40:56 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on June 25, 2009, 04:10:47 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 25, 2009, 04:07:25 PM
Spectrum analysis, it's already been done on some of the gas giants that have been found.
I assumed that it was some sort of gas spectroscopy; but wouldn't that only tell only the content of the atmosphere? Can you determine habitablility from that alone?
The only way a planet could have a sizable oxygen component to their atmosphere like ours is if it has life.
It's certainly an indicator that it's worth following up on. However, it would still have to be explored via ramrobot.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 25, 2009, 03:39:57 PM
However the odds against both the earth and our interstellar colony would both be inline of the same burst is astronomical.
Ba dum ching!
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 25, 2009, 03:39:57 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 25, 2009, 03:33:35 PM
Sure would suck if we spent huge resources on colonizing a planet around a nearby star, and then some other star went Nova and wiped both the Earth and our colony out.
Although in that case, I guess it wouldn't matter that we wasted all those resources.
The real world isn't star trek, the closest star that could go nova is too far away for the blast wave to do anything. The only way we could be damaged is if we were unlucky and got hit by a gamma ray burst. However the odds against both the earth and our interstellar colony would both be inline of the same burst is astronomical.
It's more conical than line-shaped. I don't think that worrying about supernovae is cost-effective in any event. I wouldn't put a colony on Betelgeuse or Eta Carinae, but I wouldn't worry about it in the local area.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 25, 2009, 03:29:35 PM
Depends on whether we could terraform it or not.
Anyways the final goal should be a planet around a near by star, and if we are ever going to develop technology that can get there, we'll have to develop the technology to get to Mars first.
There is no need to terraform it to be completely self-sufficient with resource recycling in a sealed dome. Experiments of a similar nature have been carried out in the desert with communities surviving six months completely sealed off from the outside. As it is, there are designs for landers that can produce their own fuel from elements in the soil and limited atmosphere, the same could be done for water and gases.
And it will happen, the only question is: sooner or later?
The ones crying "waste of resources!" are the exact kind of people who thought it is pointless and impossible to cross the ocean.
Quote from: Neil on June 25, 2009, 05:05:59 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 25, 2009, 04:40:56 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on June 25, 2009, 04:10:47 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 25, 2009, 04:07:25 PM
Spectrum analysis, it's already been done on some of the gas giants that have been found.
I assumed that it was some sort of gas spectroscopy; but wouldn't that only tell only the content of the atmosphere? Can you determine habitablility from that alone?
The only way a planet could have a sizable oxygen component to their atmosphere like ours is if it has life.
It's certainly an indicator that it's worth following up on. However, it would still have to be explored via ramrobot.
I don't know what good it would do, but okay.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg191.imageshack.us%2Fimg191%2F2914%2Fannsmithramsculpture.jpg&hash=7941a84bdfd4d83a4fd9345d3e544ba4d2292fca) (http://img191.imageshack.us/i/annsmithramsculpture.jpg/)
Quote from: Tamas on June 26, 2009, 06:01:52 AM
And it will happen, the only question is: sooner or later?
'Never' is also a possible answer. The lifetime of the human race is finite, and it would be an extremely difficult task to go to Mars.
Quote from: Tamas on June 26, 2009, 06:01:52 AM
And it will happen, the only question is: sooner or later?
The ones crying "waste of resources!" are the exact kind of people who thought it is pointless and impossible to cross the ocean.
AFAIK there aren't any resources on Mars. There were in Asia and the Americas.
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.
Quote from: Tamas on June 26, 2009, 06:01:52 AM
And it will happen, the only question is: sooner or later?
The ones crying "waste of resources!" are the exact kind of people who thought it is pointless and impossible to cross the ocean.
No to wasting my tax dollars so you and Tim can masturbate to rover photos.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 25, 2009, 04:40:56 PM
The only way a planet could have a sizable oxygen component to their atmosphere like ours is if it has life.
That's a good point; but supporting an oxygen cycle alone wouldn't make the planet habitable to humans. Neil is right; we would have to study the planet more closely before sending people there and even travelling there would take decades.
Quote from: Savonarola on June 26, 2009, 08:02:47 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 26, 2009, 06:01:52 AM
And it will happen, the only question is: sooner or later?
The ones crying "waste of resources!" are the exact kind of people who thought it is pointless and impossible to cross the ocean.
AFAIK there aren't any resources on Mars. There were in Asia and the Americas.
Well, there are resources on Mars, but nothing that could justify the expense of colonizing it. Mars is most interesting (to me at least) as a paleogeological project.
Quote from: Tamas on June 26, 2009, 06:01:52 AM
And it will happen, the only question is: sooner or later?
The ones crying "waste of resources!" are the exact kind of people who thought it is pointless and impossible to cross the ocean.
Oddly, America was settled by the Virginia Company, the Massachussetts Bay Company, etc. The Spanish ran the New World settlements as a Crown Monopoly. So in today's capitalist age, surely you can get investors to jump on board for a Martian colony. Go to it!
Quote from: Faeelin on June 26, 2009, 09:24:55 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 26, 2009, 06:01:52 AM
And it will happen, the only question is: sooner or later?
The ones crying "waste of resources!" are the exact kind of people who thought it is pointless and impossible to cross the ocean.
Oddly, America was settled by the Virginia Company, the Massachussetts Bay Company, etc. The Spanish ran the New World settlements as a Crown Monopoly. So in today's capitalist age, surely you can get investors to jump on board for a Martian colony. Go to it!
they're getting there:
currently phase one: private flights into orbit is underway.
We all know that soon enough the thrill of that will wear of for the rich and famous, and they'll require something else to get one over on the Joneses. So queu orbital hotels (they're already on the drawing boards iirc).
That too will get boring
etc etc
In the meantime getting into orbit will get cheaper.
Anyways, chances are that the Moon and Mars will be settles by Virgin Galactic or soemthing similar. Something that will probably result in a collective facepalm by the species. <_<
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 26, 2009, 09:32:18 AM
In the meantime getting into orbit will get cheaper.
This is the key, and so far it has only been a stumbling block.
IIRC, it doesn't cost much less today to place a pound into orbit than it did in the 60s. Epic failure here.
I vote for sending Tim to Mars to see if it is ready for colonization.
Quote from: Berkut on June 26, 2009, 09:40:59 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 26, 2009, 09:32:18 AM
In the meantime getting into orbit will get cheaper.
This is the key, and so far it has only been a stumbling block.
IIRC, it doesn't cost much less today to place a pound into orbit than it did in the 60s. Epic failure here.
true enough, sadly enough the way we put mass into orbit has changed little since people started experimenting with rocketry in earnest.
Something we'll need to have a look at.
Space elevator :)
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 26, 2009, 09:32:18 AM
In the meantime getting into orbit will get cheaper.
Actually, that's the funny thing: It hasn't, and is unlikely to do so in the near future. It still takes 62.7 megajoules per kilogram to lift something into orbit. Now, I can believe that small economies can be made here and there, but until something that can replace chemical rocketry comes along, there won't be any appreciable drop in cost.
Quote from: Caliga on June 26, 2009, 11:46:13 AM
Space elevator :)
Pretty much impossible in a usable timespan, I'm afraid.
real advanced civilizations astral travel. hardware is not needed.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstarcontrol.classicgaming.gamespy.com%2Fhappycamper%2Fgifs%2Farilou-sitting.gif&hash=7f5f1c84d100cbb3a740e8a4038ed4e1dfe4511b)
Quote from: Savonarola on June 26, 2009, 08:02:47 AM
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).
Quote from: saskganesh on June 26, 2009, 11:57:38 AM
real advanced civilizations astral travel. hardware is not needed.
Unfortunately, astral travel is impossible. It violates Neil's Law: The universe is invariably hostile to human life.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 26, 2009, 12:07:09 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on June 26, 2009, 08:02:47 AM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2009, 12:13:58 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 26, 2009, 12:07:09 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on June 26, 2009, 08:02:47 AM
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?
Quote from: alfred russel on June 26, 2009, 12:07:09 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on June 26, 2009, 08:02:47 AM
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.
Quote from: Neil on June 26, 2009, 11:54:01 AMPretty 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. :)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2009, 12:13:58 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 26, 2009, 12:07:09 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on June 26, 2009, 08:02:47 AM
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.
Quote from: Caliga on June 26, 2009, 12:23:12 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 26, 2009, 11:54:01 AMPretty 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.
Quote from: Neil on June 26, 2009, 12:23:36 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2009, 12:13:58 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 26, 2009, 12:07:09 PMer all
Quote from: Savonarola on June 26, 2009, 08:02:47 AM
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? :huh:
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2009, 12:13:58 PM
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).
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2009, 12:29:35 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 26, 2009, 12:23:36 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2009, 12:13:58 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 26, 2009, 12:07:09 PMer all
Quote from: Savonarola on June 26, 2009, 08:02:47 AM
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? :huh:
Because it would defeat human exceptionalism, without which you can't have Jesus.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 26, 2009, 12:30:24 PM
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? :tinfoil:)
Even so it seems like it would be a lot cheaper and easier to look for that from Earth.
Quote from: Savonarola on June 26, 2009, 12:42:17 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 26, 2009, 12:30:24 PM
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? :tinfoil:)
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.
Quote from: Neil on June 26, 2009, 12:17:23 PM
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.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on June 26, 2009, 02:49:29 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 26, 2009, 12:17:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Neil on June 26, 2009, 12:28:08 PM
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?
Quote from: PRC on June 26, 2009, 03:22:21 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 26, 2009, 12:28:08 PM
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.
Geostationary orbit is 35000 kilometers or so.