Posted on 10/01/2015 12:00:20 PM PDT by EveningStar
In the early years of the 20th century, zeppelins filled with flammable and explosive hydrogen were all the rage in Germany, a reckless infatuation that ended with the eruption and crash of the Hindenburg in 1937. Sometimes, technology is a triumph of wild-eyed enthusiasm over the unpleasant facts of the real world.
Today we are witnessing a similar outburst of enthusiasm over the literally outlandish notion that in the relatively near future, some of us are going to be living, working, thriving and dying on Mars ...
Unfortunately, this Mars mania reflects an excessively optimistic view of what it actually takes to travel to and live on Mars, papering over many of the harsh realities and bitter truths that underlie the dream.
First, there is the tedious business of getting there. Using current technology and conventional chemical rockets, a trip to Mars would be a grueling, eight- to nine-month-long nightmare for the crew ...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“Because the exploration of space is exactly like starting a war that kills millions of people!”
In terms of driving technological innovation as a side effect, rather than the main goal, yes it is.
Engineers finding solutions to problems that don’t exist have been at the heart of most all of the major important advancements in history
Look at just the inventions of Tesla alone. There was no such thing as alternating current before he invented it. So none of the items that it led to were even thought of, let alone were ‘problems’ to solve.
MOST great discoveries were not the result of a search for them and a sudden shout of “Eureka! I found it” but more often began with “Hmmm...thats funny...”
“The sooner the government stops interfering with commercial activities in space...”
Good, campaign for that then, and more power to you. Just don’t try to rob me to fund socialism for aerospace engineers in the meantime.
“Major bulkheads and hulls could be printed in concrete....”
Where do you propose to find quicklime (Calcium oxide) on Mars required to produce the cement for the concrete, and how do you propose to keep the Martian atmosphere from decomposing the cement and concrete with its near total composition of Carbon dioxide?
“part of a larger strategy for spacefaring Humans which is mandatory for the survival of the Human race”
Unsupportable assumption in the first sentence?
Not going to even waste my time reading the rest.
“Sending 6 people through space is a whole lot different then starting a World War.”
Not in terms of the context of what I was talking about. Both are ventures that people can attempt to justify by pointing at the technological innovations produced as a mere side effect. I specifically chose the example of a world war because when you apply that kind of argument to that example, it is immediately clear to everyone what a bad justification that is.
It’s exactly the same for space travel. If you have to point at an unpredictable and unreliable side effect as the main benefit to justify it, then you have already gone off the rails. These things need to be justified based on their own merits, the merits of the main goal of the mission, and the feasibility of obtaining that goal. Once you can do that, THEN you can factor in the side effects as additional benefits.
“Good, campaign for that then, and more power to you. Just don’t try to rob me to fund socialism for aerospace engineers in the meantime.”
The primary purpose of the U.S. space program has been to develop the technologies necessary to fulfill the Constitution’s mandated obligation to maintain the national defense. You can always argue any provisions for the national defense is associated with the efforts of the community and therefore socialist in nature, but doing so would rob any form of republic of its ability to mount an effective defense force in a technological culture.
There is no “unsupportable assumption in the first sentence,” so you can go bury your head in the ground like a Know Nothing and we will proceed to ignore your baseless objections.
Of course there is. You’re not a fortune teller, so you have no idea what the ultimate fate of the human race will be, with or without colonizing other planets. You assume that we must colonize other planets or face doom, because you require that assumption to make the rest of your arguments.
I suggested alerting the EPA that there was water there...
...maybe they’d make like a tree and leave...and take all their darling sycophants with them.
The biggest problem with settling Mars is that Mars has no magnetic field and we need a magnetic field for protection from cosmic rays and for as yet undiscovered biological requirements. We still do not understand how electromagnetism affects biology.
OK....
Focus on deep sea rather than deep space
Make sense??
We are here and can solve our issues, running off to another world breeds inventions that MAY have application in the earthly realm, my understanding is that this “impact” is far less than it used to be so you may want to research and then let me know, I am always willing to learn
You wouldn’t build ships on the surface of mars because you couldn’t lift a large ship to orbit.
However if you want to print structures on mars with martian “concrete” using the abundant martian sulfur mixed with native sand and gravel. Sulfur melts to liquid at a low temperature and solidifies rock hard pretty quickly. You could probably print it into structural walls.
Very stupid. Humans are optimized for Earth. They will NOT thrive on Mars. It is child abuse to give birth to a child on another planet with the intent of making the child live there his/her entire life.
We know exactly what problem we’re trying to solve. It is inevitable that this rock will cease to sustain us at some point. Even if we humans don’t mess it up, between ice ages, asteroids, pole reversals, and an eventual turning off of the sun we are on a ticking clock here. And if we don’t have a self sustaining subsection somewhere else when that happens nothing else we’ve done matters at all.
Not vanity at all. SURVIVAL.
Had a thought based on Slavery Reparations...
The original deal was land, mule, freedom...
Not enough
OK, all who feel they are owned a return to homeland I will go one better
You and the entire BLM cadre can colonize Mars. Yep, you run the planet the way you want all by yourselves to show how competent you are at doing so
Deal??
“It’s gonna be hard and dangerous... Therefore... We shouldn’t do it.”
With an attitude like that, we never would have left our caves...
Wouldn’t it be just grand after making a trip to Mars, there was accommodations ready and waiting for us?
This is a possibility if the first colonists to Mars are nuclear powered tunneling robots, who build large and spacious underground tunnels, mine and purify water, and create the infrastructure that people need to establish a foothold there.
In other words, doing it like the first Moon landing is foolish. Though all these systems can be tested first by using robots to build a Moon base. Once we do that, we will be able to do the same thing on Mars.
I hear and appreciate your point of view, truly
I take the Spiritual path and it makes no mention of our need to colonize beyond that which we have been given
To each his/her own
God Bless
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.