Colonizing Mars: "Can you hear me now?"

WorldNetDaily ^ | 1-12-04 | Doug Powers

[maestro]

WWW-III..................'mark'.....!!

:-(

[Frank_Discussion]

"One of the first problems will be convincing qualified people to even consider going."

Well, THAT's false. A whole trainload of appropriate personnel would volunteer.

[gcruse]

would the eventual colonization of Mars really make us a happier species?

Did the settling of the New World make mankind happier?  Well, no.
Why should it? Man's reach must exceed his grasp, else what's a heaven for?

[RadioAstronomer]

Not sure if I am "qualified" but I sure would volunteer.

[Frank_Discussion]

Aye, I here ye...

[Ex-Dem]

Exactly.

The Daily Record

"But there will be no lack of volunteers to go. NASA sources say hundreds of hopefuls have already come forward."

[Restorer]

The photos show a flat, barren, rock-speckled surface, awash in a red glow, leading into absolute nothingness; a maroon of desolation and emptiness – like wearing 3-D glasses and looking at Anna Nicole Smith's CAT scan.

Not typical of the Martian surface. It is considerably larger than the land area of the Earth. Landforms are at least as diverse than those of the Earth, possibly more so due to reduced gravity and erosion.

They chose a flat boring area to land in for obvious operational reasons.

[Citizen Tom Paine]

?T����?ap� that there are quite a few persons willing to take a ride to Mars and back. Yes, the first one will have a tough time, but look at the settlement of North America. Some settlers disappeared entirely, some had 50% deaths, but still they came.

Personally, I am waiting for a hyperspace drive so I can visit another star. Present a challenge, they will come.

[fish hawk]

When we get there the first thing we should do is put all those Martians on reservations, for their own protection,of course.

[Benjo]

I'm all for going to Mars but then what? There's no other planet in our solar system remotely suitable for human habitation. Travel to the stars is 500 years away, if it's possible at all.

The space shuttle has no place to go but the space station and the space station exists so the shuttle will have a place to go. As for all these vaunted experiments they do in orbit, I've seen similar ones at my son's high school science fair.

On the other hand the Mars rover is great (if they can ever deflate the airbag).

[Indie]

Not typical of the Martian surface. It is considerably larger than the land area of the Earth. Landforms are at least as diverse than those of the Earth, possibly more so due to reduced gravity and erosion. They chose a flat boring area to land in for obvious operational reasons.

Your post is proof of the author's bias...or stupidity.
I say..."Make it so."

[Restorer]

The space shuttle has no place to go but the space station and the space station exists so the shuttle will have a place to go.

For space travel to be truly practical, we need to come up with some sort of reactionless (or almost) drive. We're never going to get anywhere by the high-tech equivalent of throwing rocks out the back to make the car move forward.

Of course, to get such a drive will require amazing advances in theoretical and practical physics.

I see nothing unlikely in that prospect. Personally, I expect we will have such a drive in this century.

[KevinDavis]

Where do I sign up?

Space Ping! This is the space ping list! Let me know if you want on or off this list!

[KevinDavis]

I'm with you, forget Mars, Alpha Centauri....

[Unmarked Package]

They chose a flat boring area to land in for obvious operational reasons.

The vast majority of the surface of Mars (95%) is out of bounds for landing with a craft like Spirit and Opportunity due to unacceptable engineering risks. Acceptable landing zones must be; 1) located in a narrow band at the equator of Mars where solar radiation is sufficient to power the rover, and 2) in lower altitudes of the equatorial band where the parachute has sufficient time to work in the descent phase. Even given these restrictions, there are safer places to land on Mars than Gustav crater. For example, Meridiani Planum where Opportunity will land on Jan 24th is considered a safer landing. Treacherous surface winds known to exist at Gustav crater posed special risks in the descent and landing phase for Spirit. Additional engineering safeguards were added to insure acceptable risk for a landing there.

The MER science team was very keen on landing at Gustav crater because it holds great potential to provide physical evidence of liquid water on the surface of Mars at some time in the past. Gustav crater is located at one end of a long, winding canyon that appears to have been carved out by water on Mars.

[RightWhale]

One of the first problems will be convincing qualified people to even consider going.

That's BS. There are about a billion who would do it even if it were one-way and live there forever after.

[Simmy2.5]

Volunteer? I'm certain MANY people would want to be the first person on Mars...or even the first colonist. To explore, to take a challange, to make history, to do something that is litterally "out of this world" will attract MANY people.

Heck, even I would volunteer. Though, given my last chemistry grades...I don't think I'm qualified. ;-)

[festus]

Dreamed of going to space since I was a wee lad. Spoke of it to the wife one night while looking at the moon on a warm summers eve. Said I'd give anything to go there even if it was for good.

She said she didn't really want to go. Asked if I had to choose between going to the moon and staying on earth with her if I'd pick the moon. I gathered from her response that "In a heartbeat" was not the answer she was looking for ;-)

It was the truth though.

I'm banking on Burt Rutan to revamp the way space travel happens. Even if he just gets the X-Prize he'll have shown that you can do space travel for a few hundred million instead of billions that Nasa wants.

[Benjo]

"For space travel to be truly practical, we need to come up with some sort of reactionless (or almost) drive. We're never going to get anywhere by the high-tech equivalent of throwing rocks out the back to make the car move forward."

Here's the thing I've never understood. If someone were to come up with a new kind of space drive hundreds or thousands of times faster than what we have today, what happens when the spacecraft hits dust or other fine but ubiquitous space debris, as it surely must at some time or another during a trip to the nearest star? At speeds approaching some large fraction of the speed of light won't a collision with even so much as a grain of sand be like taking multiple rounds from a 120 mm cannon?