Reason to Move to Mars Now.

[romenx2]

Now for all of you who played Halo, Starwars, Star Trek, or even Mass Effect. <br /><br />Life is almost everywhere, but most common was human not any of the other species. Which is kinda odd, cause why would it be mostly human populating the universe when there was actualy a bigger population of other Species. (Oddball Idea)<br /><br /> Ok well what im tryin to say is the reason to goto mars, is to finaly move on. To create a better future for use or finaly start expanding countrys boundrys to other planets, like for the US to claim land on mars. Even moving to mars would improve technology due to much more minerals to use, sence no human has went to mars, there is no telling if there is new, or even unknown minerals/materials that can be used. <br /><br />Think of it this way, what if we are living in the beginning of the universe still, and there is actualy others like us kinda out there somewhere to that is as high tech and modern as we are. And in the golden age of space exploration. If this is all true, then our task is to expand our selfs from one place to other, just like we did on land, in the past before we found the other side of the world. Staying here longer and longer puts up just a little tinny bit more behind in the race. The race for the answer.<br /><br /> Out of the hundreds of plants discovered looking for habitable land. you would probably atlest expect we are in the beginning of the universe or maybe where we are at is just a dead zone of rubble and rock, and life is actualy on the other side. <br /><br />It could be one or the other. <br /><br />But what i am really saying is the reason we need to start thinking about or human selfs to survive is to move on, cause what happens when the end comes like tomorrow, and the humans had not made any progress of making out to a new world. <br /><br />Understandable work for such theory takes a long, long time and could waste to much money incase of failure, just to get to the stage of able to even walk naked on

 

[haywood]

You might try using some Capital letters at the beginning of each sentence so that your post is easier to read.<br /><br />Paragraphs might be a good idea too to separate your thoughts.<br /><br />Is English your first language?<br /><br />

 

[romenx2]

Understandable.<br /><br />When i type things i don't ever think of editing it like that. but keep this topic open. cause i will come back and edit the topic so that it makes (100%) Sense. Sorry, i have bad computer grammar. <br /><br />If you want to understand it before i edit it. go ahead and do your best a reading it. as everything i write just to something else. and Capitalizing something never really came to my importance for computer. but if it helps. ill do better.

 

[romenx2]

Now for all of you who played Halo, Starwars, Star Trek, or even Mass Effect. <br /><br />Life is almost everywhere, but most common was human not any of the other species. Which is kinda odd, cause why would it be mostly human populating the universe when there was actualy a bigger population of other Species. (Oddball Idea) <br /><br />Ok well what im tryin to say is the reason to goto mars, is to finaly move on. To create a better future for use or finaly start expanding countrys boundrys to other planets, like for the US to claim land on mars. Even moving to mars would improve technology due to much more minerals to use, sence no human has went to mars, there is no telling if there is new, or even unknown minerals/materials that can be used. <br /><br />Think of it this way, what if we are living in the beginning of the universe still, and there is actualy others like us kinda out there somewhere to that is as high tech and modern as we are. And in the golden age of space exploration. If this is all true, then our task is to expand our selfs from one place to other, just like we did on land, in the past before we found the other side of the world. Staying here longer and longer puts up just a little tinny bit more behind in the race. The race for the answer. <br /><br />Out of the hundreds of plants discovered looking for habitable land. you would probably atlest expect we are in the beginning of the universe or maybe where we are at is just a dead zone of rubble and rock, and life is actualy on the other side. <br /><br />It could be one or the other. <br /><br />But what i am really saying is the reason we need to start thinking about or human selfs to survive is to move on, cause what happens when the end comes like tomorrow, and the humans had not made any progress of making out to a new world. <br /><br />Understandable work for such theory takes a long, long time and could waste to much money incase of failure, just to get to the stage of able to even walk naked on mars

 

[holmec]

I like your ambition, but unfortunately reality has to catch up.<br /><br />If colonizing Mars is the goal, then commercial space has to be successful. No government would or could support an all out colonization project. It really has to be gradual.<br /><br />1. Get more people interedsted in space with suborbital flights (Virgin Galactic is about to accomplish that in the next few months (18 or so)).<br /><br />2. Get people into orbital space with a hotel<br /><br />3. Expand hotel into observatories and labs<br /><br />4. get people to orbit the moon.<br /><br />5. get people to land on the moon.<br /><br />6. Then land and camp on Mars and gradually build the infrastructure.<br /><br />The thing is we have to learn to live off the land in what ever environment we are in. That not only includes farming but manufacturing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[romenx2]

Well every living things instinct is to live and do what ever to live. Id expect to carry more then plastic tubing with mushy food. <br /><br /> they would have to bring plants and lots of plants.<br /><br />The camp would be quite very huge, i have a dream of being in a scientific colonie on mars. Atlest doing the plants with water.<br /><br />but as i hear u have to know how to pilot to be in a ship, and/or have 20/20 vision and i dont, i have 20/200 but i wear contacts and have good abilty with my eyes, id be a pilot but can't.<br /><br />so going in space would be hard for many people to get through unless there was a transportation ship like in the movies, thinkin it would be costly to, cause look how expensive just riding a plane can be.<br /><br /><br />So pretty much we have aready been trying to work thoes steps already. <br /><br />this idea/question was a big question.<br /><br /><br /> but in result i still wounder about the Huge Rock that is to Miss us by a range about the same of the moon.

 

[halman]

RomenX2,<br /><br />Sorry, but I think that you have it all wrong. Take a look at the Cosmos, and figure out what percentage of it is made up of planets. Pretty durned small, eh? Space, the place between planets and suns, is where we have to learn to live. Planets are for extracting resources, but not for processing them, and eventually, we won't even need them for that, because we will be able to find everything that we need floating around in asteroids and comets.<br /><br />Adapting Mars to suit humans would take a very long time, it is possible at all. Creating ecosystems in space is a process we are already learning, with our primitive space stations. Try reading "Ringworld" by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, or study the concept of a 'Dyson sphere', if you want to talk about increasing the amount of real estate under human control.<br /><br />Mars is a myth, as it exists in most people's minds, the result of countless science fiction stories and movies. It is no more habitable by humans than Antarctica is, probably even less so, because you can breathe in Antarctica.<br /><br />But Mars is generations away at our current pace of development, anyway. We are about to start over in building the hardware used to get off of this planet, trading in our reusable space plane for expendable step rockets. Without some definite, quickly attainable goal in space, we are going to continue to see budgets cut, as people get fed up with spending money on programs which never go anywhere.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[romenx2]

I already know someone was going to say that.<br /><br /> But not say that the universe is small. Thats not true at all. The Universe is Big, /*ad hominem removed*/<br /><br />And traveling here to mars is a long trip, not short.<br /><br />The the asteroids is the best peices of minerals you can get, i know this. <br /><br />everyone should know that atlest.<br /><br />And don't comment me on my typing.<br />Im only saying what i wanted to say.<br /><br />And i already know it would require the base on the moon first for mars to happen. <br /><br />I read alot about the plans that nasa did have over puting man on mars.

 

[halman]

RomenX2,<br /><br />I was NOT commenting on your typing! My sig line is a pitch for a keyboard layout called the 'Dvorak', which is different than the 'QWERTY' layout used by 99.9 percent of computers. A woman named Barbara Blackburn was able to maintain an average of 150 words per minute using the Dvorak. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"But not say that the universe is small. Thats not true at all. The Universe is Big, so you are blind."</font><br /><br />I don't think halman was suggesting tht the Universe is small, but that the amount of solid bodies in the Universe is relatively small. <br /><br />BTW, welcome to Uplink and I would suggest you read the TOS and learn what an ad hominem is before you accidentally use one <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

in reply to<br />------<br />the amount of solid bodies in the Universe is relatively small.<br />------<br /><br />Hmmm, logically no.<br />Mass tends to be evenly distributed (as an integral) for each body size range.<br />For each body in the 2000-20000km range, you should have on average:<br />one thousand objects in the 200-2000km range<br />one million objects in the 20-200 km range<br />one billion in the 2-20km range<br />one trillion in the 200m-2km range<br />and so on<br /><br />So you see there should be no shortage of solid objects.<br />Small objects, yes, but best-suited for space colonization in the long run (low grav well, generally simultaneously rich H2O, organics and ore, within a short range and easy access, unlike a large planet that differentiates these elements and bury them several kms or tens of km deep) <br /><br />Note that there are now more than 350,000 objects identified in the sole solar System, of which only three to five have no "solid" surface (Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, with Uranus and Neptune debated upon).<br />The average rate of discovery is 50,000 per year, with one body larger than 500km every three months on average, and one 900km+ object every year on averge since year 2000.<br /><br />Best regards.

 

[drwayne]

RomenX2 - you have a blinking item on your screen, it is a message for you. Please read it.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[romenx2]

Has anyone heard about the other planet that had been found by the hubble, a planet that could be habitable, but has a green house effect at 212degree

 

[halman]

H2)universe,<br /><br /><br />"Mass tends to be evenly distributed (as an integral) for each body size range.<br />For each body in the 2000-20000km range, you should have on average:<br />one thousand objects in the 200-2000km range<br />one million objects in the 20-200 km range<br />one billion in the 2-20km range<br />one trillion in the 200m-2km range<br />and so on"<br /><br />A logical analysis may provide a nice distribution of mass in the Cosmos, but, for some reason, it tends to be locked up in stars, more than anything else. Next in line are probably gas giants, like Jupiter. Of course, we have only a single sample to work with, as we are completely ignorant of the composition and structure of other solar systems. Granted, we have located a few Jupiter-size planets, but that tells us nothing about the rest of the solar systems that they inhabit.<br /><br />Rather than trying to find a planet that will support human life, or terraforming one till it will, we are much more likely to create our own environments, which will be precisely suited to our needs. I believe it to be entirely possible that humans eventually will be unable to survive on the surface of ANY planet, as a result of generation after generation growing up in a controlled environment. Already, most people in Western European cultures are no longer adapted to surviving prolonged cold below about 60 degrees, whereas our ancestors must have been able to survive temperatures down into the 10 degree (C) range with minimal shelter. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

I agree with "we are much more likely to create our own environments, which will be precisely suited to our needs".<br /><br />What I meant was that for every planet-sized body, there should be millions of large asteroids, far easier to colonize (with easy access to matter). Unlike a large planet for which 99% of the mass is unaccessible or not processable (too deep). They represent the vast majority of the cumulated surface of solid bodies.<br /><br />This being said, let me insist with my argument that the distribution of matter mass per size has been for now found constant over:<br />* on one hand the [1e9kg - 1e22kg] range (small asteroids to dwarf planets range)<br />* on the other hand the [2e29kg - 2e32kg] range(stars)<br />Stating that inbetween, in the [1e22kg - 2e29kg] range, the cumulated mass per size range should be discontinuous, sounds hazardous to me.<br />The point is that there is a huge observational bias that is currently supporting this discontinuity. It may be real, may be due to a real trend driving most matter to be accreted into stars and preventing from lower-scale accretion. Maybe. But we should take care, because we have no significant statistical base there .<br />This is as if you inferred from the exoplanets detected so far that the majority of exoplanets in the universe should be hot jupiters orbiting close to their star.<br />Because we have only a very limited sampling in the [1e22kg - 2e29kg] range, it is imho highly hazardous NOT to interpolate the even-mass distribution.<br /><br />We should see once we have the capability to make a representative census of icy dwarves, captive planets, free planets and brown dwarves in the Milky Way.<br /><br />Best regards.

 

[Swampcat]

H2Ouniverse, I agree there is plenty of solid body real estate out there. The point was made concerning the relative amount of solid bodies for building habitations on versus empty space for free-flying habitats, a la O'Neill colonies. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

OK<br />To build O'Neill colonies, you will need to mine to get the materials anyway, but that's probably more efficient indeed. It has been pointed out rightly in this thread that densely populated habitats tend to be more efficient energy-wise.

 

[qso1]

RomenX2:<br />Life is almost everywhere, but most common was human not any of the other species. Which is kinda odd, cause why would it be mostly human populating the universe when there was actualy a bigger population of other Species. (Oddball Idea)<br /><br />Me:<br />This has yet to be proven.<br /><br />RomenX2:<br />Even moving to mars would improve technology due to much more minerals to use, sence no human has went to mars, there is no telling if there is new, or even unknown minerals/materials that can be used.<br /><br />Me:<br />We know quite a bit about mars chemical makeup from data transmitted back by unmanned probes. There could still be some unknown chemicals useful to us, but we'd have to discover it by robotic means currently to justify a human mission.<br /><br />RomenX2:<br />Think of it this way, what if we are living in the beginning of the universe still, and there is actualy others like us kinda out there somewhere to that is as high tech and modern as we are. And in the golden age of space exploration. If this is all true, then our task is to expand our selfs from one place to other, just like we did on land, in the past before we found the other side of the world.<br /><br />Me:<br />This is pretty much what advocates of space colonization suggest. Unfortunately, any mass migration to mars will probably have to wait till private industry can provide the means to get mass numbers of people there. Not to mention having to get generations of people accustomed to living in environmental enclosures.<br /><br />RomenX2:<br />Out of the hundreds of plants discovered looking for habitable land. you would probably atlest expect we are in the beginning of the universe or maybe where we are at is just a dead zone of rubble and rock, and life is actualy on the other side.<br /><br />Me:<br />I'm assuming you mean extrasolar planets we have detected through indirect means. We are not yet at the stage of looking for habitable lands...or earthlike worlds around other stars sim <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

When we live in mars,there shall be lot of martians.I hope this may happen soon.

 

[tralsace]

I like your spirit RomenX2.<br /><br />I generally think the problem to doing Mars in our life time is the approach. The Moon is cool and necessary for the long term...I see it as the Earth Garage. Do projects and experiments for the future of Space there that you wouldn't want to do here.<br /><br />But I think we could go to Mars soon with some sacrifice and a different approach than what I've seen. And if what I suggest has already been done so...sorry haven't read through all the threads.<br /><br />The more we learn the sooner the better. We need volunteers that don't plan on a return trip...for the start.<br />We could resupply them more cheaply with multiple launches. ..several before we send humans...and then there after. So supplies are on hand when we do send people.<br /><br />The persons launch would be the hardest for all the life support equiptment for the flight...but probably half the cost if no return is factored in. I personally think the life support people are figuring on for ferryng back and forth is the expense that seems insurmountable.<br /><br />A small team of humans could do more research than any robots in the next 100 years could...IMO.<br /><br />It would be tough and it would suck big time...but the reward would be huge.<br /><br />I personally don't think the Chinese would have any problem with such an endeavor mentally/morally...when they get up to speed with say where we are now...or where we were...the tech part is so hard now to compare because there are so many new things that make comparing to like the Apollo progam almost impossible.<br /><br />Well you can get the gist of what I'm suggesting.<br />

 

[qso1]

I can see it happening on the permanent residency thing in around 200 years, maybe way less. Your right, lots of martians. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

tralsace:<br />But I think we could go to Mars soon with some sacrifice and a different approach than what I've seen. And if what I suggest has already been done so...sorry haven't read through all the threads.<br /><br />Me:<br />No biggy, that would be an awful lot of threads to search but this one way mars thing has been done before and I never really saw any convincing evidence it would be cheaper to do than two way. For one thing, the only way it would be cheaper is to stop at some point in which case you simply end up with people on mars that can no longer be resupplied.<br /><br />The actual quoted figures for mars missions range in the $20 to 100B dollars, sometimes more. But thats miniscule to the money we waste on deficits and the rebuild or whatever it is in Iraq. We can afford Mars, we just refuse to do it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[tralsace]

Thanks for the Reply.<br /><br />I would love to see some of the rough oulines of the plans you mention. I just think that making a craft that maintains a secure habitat...I take it that would orbit...send craft down then return to the ship and the ship return to Earth...would be enormous.<br /><br />And there are other obsticles for that long a space time...there and back...like bone loss for instance.<br /><br />A series of rockets that were built just to send stuff not people seems way cheaper. I have some military missile experience via white sands.<br />And to me a one build two-way craft the R&D ect. sounds very expensive.<br />We have the rocket tech to put missiles just about any where we want on Mars now.<br /><br />Have to run now but would love to continue the thought line tomorrow.<br /><br />Thanks for your input and I like how you made it a dollars and will thing.

 

[qso1]

Your quite welcome, main link to what I consider to be one of the best, if not the best space exploration resource.<br /><br />http://astronautix.com/<br /><br />The link below has practically every mars mission proposal ever seriously considered, including former Soviet Union proposals.<br /><br />http://astronautix.com/craftfam/martions.htm<br /><br />As for bone loss, one way to at least slow that down is select crew members who are already habitual exercisers. This way, you know your getting someone who is already in the habit of exercising rather than getting someone who might quite a month or two out.<br /><br />One of the mars mission plans did involve sending stuff out first. Robert Zubrin in the early 1990s along with a few other folks who I cannot recall, proposed "Mars Direct". That proposal involved sending out an Earth Return Vehicle (ERV) unmanned, and upon landing on mars, its first task would be to manufacture propellant for the return mission.<br /><br />The crew arrives, and has an fully fueled ERV upon landing. NASA modified this plan in the mid 1990s. Heres where the cost thing comes in. G. Bush 1 proposed a lunar return and mars mission in 1989 IIRC. The estimated price tag totalled around $500 B dollars. Of course Congress and the public balked.<br /><br />Yet when "Mars Direct" was proposed, its estimate was $20 B dollars and the modified NASA version came in at around $50B dollars. To top that off, the latter 1990s were the Clinton budget surplus years. The first surplusses since Nixon. The Y2K surplus was over $200B dollars. NASAs annual budget is about $17B dollars today and was about $14B dollars in 2000. With all that surplus cash, the Clinton Admin never seriously proposed anything beyond status quo where NASA was concerned.<br /><br />There has been a lack of will among the vast majority of the public since Apollo ended. Recall w <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[romenx2]

To the message before this. (what i think)<br /><br />I think that is kinda weird how mars is taking more then twice as long as the moon did.<br /><br />Im sure when the landing on mars will be a honor to be on, to me being on mars would be the greatest honor ever given in current human history, cause you are to change history when you land there.<br /><br />I hope we put a flag down of america there just like on the moon.<br /><br />Speaking of our moon, why do we just call it the moon, you know there is more then 1 moon, our moon don't even have a name. <br /><br />Does that even seem weird to anyone?<br /><br />----------------------------<br />Just a Thought.?