- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Life on Mars. Why go through the trouble?
Posted on 10/24/16 at 4:19 pm to BlackCoffeeKid
Posted on 10/24/16 at 4:19 pm to BlackCoffeeKid
quote:Huh? Jupiter is well outside the habitable zone.
I just don't understand why we never look at other celestial bodies that have a climate more suited towards the Hospitable Zone to do this. For example Europa or another moon of Jupiter.
Mars is cold, but could be relatively warm with an ideal atmosphere. Europa is fricking hopelessly frozen the frick over.
1
Posted on 10/24/16 at 4:21 pm to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:
Other than technology capable of colonizing another planet and the know-how to make it a reality? Nothing at all.
Sounds good, but-but-but, too much to cover in such a short period of time. Dinner is in a half hour.
Just for giggles though, we're 20T in debt. If Obarry gets his way, he'll be king of UN and Hildawg will give out free shite for the next 8 yrs...so... What's the first step in feasibility funding of such a long-term project?
Posted on 10/24/16 at 4:22 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
If that's the life to expect there, why wouldn't we just colonize the Arctic or the vast deserts around the world. There are many unlivable places currently on Earth that would be made livable if we're just going to live in glass domes.
Survival of a species
Posted on 10/24/16 at 4:23 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:In my layman's understanding, these drives (if they work) will be useful for attaining high speeds in low/zero gravity, but they will not be able to lift a ship off the surface of a planet. I think we will still need traditional rockets for that.
I already posted about the reactionless Cannea drives and EM drives to be tested in space early next year.
Posted on 10/24/16 at 4:25 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
Do you even Star Trek bro?
Posted on 10/24/16 at 4:25 pm to Korkstand
quote:I think that's correct. But Elon and other companies are perfecting landing spent rockets so they can be refueled and reused. That will greatly reduce the cost of getting to orbit.
I think we will still need traditional rockets for that.
Also we need to build a space elevator. There are advancements everyday in nanotechnology that may allow us to do that sooner than later.
Posted on 10/24/16 at 4:35 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Europa is fricking hopelessly frozen the frick over.
Yeaaa pretty sure I was thinking of some other planet/moon and got carried away and put Europa.
But my main point to that was just "Why does this discussion always lead to Mars?"
Posted on 10/24/16 at 4:37 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
Space elevator!
Posted on 10/24/16 at 4:40 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
Not sure if it has been mentioned, but the main reason is species survival. If we are constrained to one planet, we will experiance a mass extension event. If we diversify and become a multi-planet living species, then our chances for survival and knowledge progression can continue.
This post was edited on 10/24/16 at 4:42 pm
Posted on 10/24/16 at 4:41 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
To further ourselves as species. Not to mention the technological innovations that would come with it.
But just sit on your arse and continue to eat Doritos all day instead, and not worry about anything more than 4 years in the future. Let's just continue to frick up the environment, breed out of control, and be a species of instant gratification who is divided.
We will eventually need to leave this planet. It is inevitable, and Mars will secure us as a species (barring some Independence Day event). As Insterstellar's tag line says:
"Mankind was born on Earth. It was never meant to die here."
But just sit on your arse and continue to eat Doritos all day instead, and not worry about anything more than 4 years in the future. Let's just continue to frick up the environment, breed out of control, and be a species of instant gratification who is divided.
We will eventually need to leave this planet. It is inevitable, and Mars will secure us as a species (barring some Independence Day event). As Insterstellar's tag line says:
"Mankind was born on Earth. It was never meant to die here."
Posted on 10/24/16 at 4:44 pm to BlackCoffeeKid
quote:
But my main point to that was just "Why does this discussion always lead to Mars?"
I think the only two other planets that are in the habitable zone are mars and Venus. Venus is much less hospitable than Mars. Mars is much much much closer than Jupiter and further out. It is the natural next stepping stone unless you want to concentrate more on asteroids.
Posted on 10/24/16 at 4:44 pm to BlackCoffeeKid
quote:Because it's by far the best option. Venus is both closer to Earth and its gravity is more similar to Earth's, but it is much too hot and not at all viable for life. Mars is a bit further away and smaller, but at least nearly every material that we use won't burst into flames or melt into a puddle before we even touch down.
But my main point to that was just "Why does this discussion always lead to Mars?"
Posted on 10/24/16 at 4:44 pm to rintintin
quote:
Because humans are natural explorers and some people seek to change life as we know it as opposed to bitching about stuff on the interwebs.
Yeah, this is like a caveman saying "Why plant seeds in the ground and plow it? Why not continue to run around chasing mammoths and deer all the time?" We would have never left the cave if we as a whole thought this way. We are meant to spread through the cosmos.
Posted on 10/24/16 at 4:48 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
But just sit on your arse and continue to eat Doritos all day instead, and not worry about anything more than 4 years in the future. Let's just continue to frick up the environment, breed out of control, and be a species of instant gratification who is divided.
Sorry I didn't know you guys were counting on me.
But, the planet ending scenario is valid. We need to have a presence on another planet in case ours ends. The environmental/global warming one is not. Any environmental issues could be solved by "colonizing" the Earth and developing non-environment dependent societies, just as we would on Mars.
Posted on 10/24/16 at 4:50 pm to OMLandshark
NASA needs to stop doing earth science and turn it's gaze outward. Also it needs to put people into space, safety be damned.
Posted on 10/24/16 at 4:50 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
What I've never understood is why don't we attempt to do some colonization of the Moon first? Wouldn't that make sense as a trial run before we attempt Mars, which would be a much, much bigger undertaking.
I actually do agree with this. It is so fricking embarrassing that nearly 50 years after the Apollo Landings that we don't have a Moon Base. And hell, that could start a profit quickly, since it's easy to get things off of it and back into Earth's orbit for us to utilize.
And so many more things can go wrong on Mars than the Moon it's not even funny.
And any colony on the Moon, I can't imagine anyone living there for good, just for a couple of months at a time. Mars though.... they may not come back.
Posted on 10/24/16 at 4:59 pm to Breesus
quote:
Further, Mars offers the possibility of resources and terraforming, etc.... The moon doesn't.
That's actually wrong. Mars' only resources for the next few centuries that we'll be in interested are materials we can use to help terraform the planet. It's outrageously expensive to lift off from Mars and to transport something back to Earth. And there's not much on Mars we can't find in abundance on Earth.
The Moon though has tons upon tons of materials, that have been largely undesturbed for its existence. Natural solidified isotopes and very rare metals, which can be launched into the Moon's, intercepted, and then dropped into the Earth's atmosphere for a much cheaper price than launching from Mars. Plus the Moon is the practical launching point for any journeys into the cosmos at large.
Granted, the Moon can not be feasibly terraformed, but it's got plenty of materials for us to churn a profit.
Posted on 10/24/16 at 5:06 pm to OMLandshark
NASA has gone from this
To this
To this
Posted on 10/24/16 at 5:08 pm to OMLandshark
The resources aspect was one of my questions and you kind of answered it. Mars resources could be used on planet for development. Moon resources could potentially be returned to Earth for profit. Correct?
Posted on 10/24/16 at 5:08 pm to larry289
quote:
Huh? So, hypothetically speaking for a moment, we colonize Mars and it explodes first. What was gained??
That's like saying I shouldn't buy a second house just in case it catches on fire. If it hits Earth, then we're all fricked. Why not have a bit of insurance on our side?
And shite, Earth is way more likely to blow up now than Mars is. Do you have any idea how close we got to World War III over a flock of geese? I'll take my chances that a major asteroid somehow doesn't hit Mars in the next thousand years.
And by the way, striking Mars with an Asteroid is a viable theory on heating up the planet. An asteroid hitting Mars wouldn't do near the level of damage to the planet as one hitting the Earth would.
quote:
My favorite on this topic is the brilliance it takes to actually believe that we could convert the atmosphere over time to a 20% O2 earth-like atmosphere. Whatever floats your boat.
Well, the materials are there for it. We know Mars had a similar atmosphere to Earth once. The magnetosphere is the problem, not that we couldn't get the air pressure and consistency to a place where we can live. And I have enough faith in science to think we could build some sort of fake magnetosphere.
This post was edited on 10/24/16 at 5:09 pm
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News