Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Life-Swapping Scenarios for Earth and Mars
Space.com ^ | 13 December, 2004 | Leonard David

Posted on 12/13/2004 2:40:12 PM PST by tricky_k_1972

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last
To: carlr

Distance from the sun is less a factor in the dramatic temperature shifts on Mars than the absence of a significant atmosphere. With an atmosphere full of greenhouse gases, solar energy would be retained, and Mars would have a much more stable temperature range, possibly quite livable.


61 posted on 12/13/2004 7:26:35 PM PST by NC Native ("Bombing begins in five minutes"... Ronald W. Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: transhumanist
They will have to grant private property rights. From the Treaty and the treatment of the West and Alaska that seems unlikely. Without private property rights there will be no investment.

The thing with Tourism is that there will be no development of space resources. You will continue to own what you already owned before launch, no more. That is covered in the Treaty.

62 posted on 12/13/2004 7:31:08 PM PST by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: transhumanist

5-7 MILLION IS A JOKE! EVIDENCE OF A YOUNG EARTH COULD BE RIGHT IN THEIR FACE AND THEY WILL STILL TRY TO PROVE THE UNPROVABLE. SO, TO EACH THEIR OWN CROWD.


63 posted on 12/13/2004 7:31:53 PM PST by Right in Wisconsin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: calex59

I haven't heard that a magnetic field/molten core are requirements for a planet to retain an atmosphere. I would be interested to learn more of this, if you could point me in the proper direction.


64 posted on 12/13/2004 7:32:17 PM PST by NC Native ("Bombing begins in five minutes"... Ronald W. Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: carlr

Setting up an enclosed environment using hydroponics techniques for an initial colony wouldn't be too big an ordeal. The limiting factor has always been the prohibitive cost of lifting enough water to sustain human endeavors into space with us. If the water is already there in usable amounts and form, lo and behold, suddenly it isn't nearly so expensive a proposition to set up shop.


65 posted on 12/13/2004 7:38:20 PM PST by NC Native ("Bombing begins in five minutes"... Ronald W. Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
The thing with Tourism is that there will be no development of space resources. You will continue to own what you already owned before launch, no more. That is covered in the Treaty.

You miss my point. Without property rights... real property rights as we understand them on Earth... there won't be any real development of space tourism. And when the government figures out the economic benefits to be had therefrom (and I happen to think they already have; witness the recent vote) they will make sure those rights are upheld. Hyatt and Hilton won't commit until that is the case, and the government WANTS them to commit. The government sees the potential revenue (not to mention the potential energy benefits) and knows that private enterprise is the way to obtain it. Yet another reason to be thankful that Kerry didn't win.

66 posted on 12/13/2004 7:39:49 PM PST by transhumanist (Science must trump superstition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Right in Wisconsin
Thanks for that cogent and well-supported argument, Right in Wisconsin.
67 posted on 12/13/2004 7:42:44 PM PST by transhumanist (Science must trump superstition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: transhumanist
The point is, and this is covered by the Treaty, you already have property rights to what you will need for Tourism.

Space resource development is a different story. It isn't happening yet should be already. Why is it not happening?

68 posted on 12/13/2004 7:43:53 PM PST by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: NC Native

For what it is worth, water is abundant in the solar system. That won't be a problem if we ever get started.


69 posted on 12/13/2004 7:48:39 PM PST by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Space resource development is a different story. It isn't happening yet should be already. Why is it not happening?

Before now, because the Department of Transportation was too busy guarding NASA's monopoly on space transportation. That's been broken now (thank you X-Prize!). If you can't get to space, it's hard to develop it.

I, for one, think the government has turned the corner on this (twenty years too late, but let's take what we can get), and is ready to get the hell out of the way of private enterprise. The next five years will tell us for sure.

70 posted on 12/13/2004 7:49:10 PM PST by transhumanist (Science must trump superstition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: transhumanist
That's not it. It's been possible to buy a ride far cheaper than NASA if somebody wants. Besides, the monopoly is still far from broken if somebody can't claim land or resources in space.

Fact is, there is so much investment money sloshing around that nobody knows what to do with it so they bid up houses and cars to 10 times their real value.

None of that investment is going to space development any more than it is going to coalfield development in Alaska. Why not?

71 posted on 12/13/2004 7:54:52 PM PST by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

I'm aware of water's abundance, But I bring to mind the lack thereof on the moon specifically (that too may have been proven not to be the case, incidentally). I saw that bemoaned more than once as the main impediment to development on the moon. Water weighs roughly 6 or 7 pounds to a gallon, and lugging enough along to the moon to sustain even modest operations would break the bank.(or so it was before water was supposedly spied in some of the moon's polar craters). Other places in the solar system are another story, as you suggested.


72 posted on 12/13/2004 8:03:28 PM PST by NC Native ("Bombing begins in five minutes"... Ronald W. Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Last try, because it's late.

The 1969 Space Treaty will be toast the minute our government realizes it will make tax money from real estate taxes on lunar settlements and orbital habitats. I think they've already realized that, and that's why they passed the recent Space Tourism bill, as a first step in that direction.

The investment money you mention has been holding off, waiting to see what the regulatory envionment is going to be like. For 50 years, the government has maintained a death-grip on NASA's monopoly. It doesn't matter that the ESA can launch a satellite cheaper; there simply isn't the infrastructure to have a put-people-into-space industry. Tourism will open the door; encourage the development of spacecraft, habitats, and more. It's the thin edge of the wedge, and while NASA will still have a role in big-ticket projects like the initial exploration of Mars and pure-science missions, Virgin Galactic is going to be the true herald of the new age.


73 posted on 12/13/2004 8:08:01 PM PST by transhumanist (Science must trump superstition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: carlr

Lichen survive in Artic environments (below the freezing point).

Bio-engineer some of the survival characteristics of lichen into fast-growing plants and the problem is solved.

Besides, if we screw it up, we only screw up Mars... not Earth.


74 posted on 12/14/2004 3:08:02 AM PST by gogogodzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

Or a few hundred cometary impacts per year for the next 500 years?

Impact 2~3 hundred 'dinosaur-killer' comets hitting Mars every year for 500 or so years.

I think that Mars would get VERY hot from that.

(and no radioactivity to boot)

:-)


75 posted on 12/14/2004 3:10:43 AM PST by gogogodzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

That's nice.

Just remember my prior claim to the Andromeda Galaxy and the Greater and Lesser Magellanic Clouds.

:-)


76 posted on 12/14/2004 3:18:15 AM PST by gogogodzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: transhumanist
The future of man in space, other than in venturing beyond our own solar system and discovering Class M planets, is going to be in manufactured orbital space colonies. the moon and asteroid belt have the resources needed to produce a self sustaining development system. Just add people and livestock to seed extra-terrestrial agriculture and plant life, and then see humanity quickly become fruitful and multiply. Want to escape the possibility of strict population controls with one or two child limits worldwide, go to space. Want to avoid Logans Run-esque age-based euthanasia policies--go to space. Once we break the earth's gravity well, we're a third of the way to anywhere we want to go in the solar system....

not only that, but space colonies could become havens for social experimentation where they could self-govern, live the way they want to, without interference from Washington or anywhere else on earth. We could simply abrogate the 1969 treaty, as we did the ABM treaty (signed with a nation that no longer exists--why Russia claimed a contiunace of validity of treaties is beyond me--seems illegal), and at this point it would not get much negative response....

77 posted on 12/14/2004 3:20:50 AM PST by Schwaeky (Junk Jody 06---Elect new Leadership in KY's 20th State Rep District)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: tricky_k_1972

Pseudo-science and speculative-wishing ping!


78 posted on 12/14/2004 3:35:22 AM PST by Lurking2Long
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: transhumanist

I didn't feel like arguing, so I made a non-committal statement. You'll attack my beliefs and I'll retaliate. Frankly, life is too short. Yes, I posted a comment, but only to point out a hardly ever heard sentiment of "I don't know" by the scientific community. I was actually impressed by the sincerity of that statement and thought, hey, it's a start!


79 posted on 12/14/2004 7:54:43 AM PST by Right in Wisconsin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: NC Native

The moon is moisture-challenged. This situation can be improved if we gear up to the point that we can move ice-rich bodies from the vicinity of Jupiter to the moon. Drop an icy comet or moonlet onto the surface of the moon and cover it with a tarp and the water shortage will become a water utility management situation.


80 posted on 12/14/2004 9:27:34 AM PST by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson