Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The rover and orbiter pics are cool.

BUt can we just get are asses to Mars, and back to the Moon. Besides some of the other planets moons, those are the only two places in our solar sytem that are visitible.

Mercury - practicaly parking itself on the sun.

Venus- extreme crushing gravity, and acid rain

Earth - (oh wait we're already here)

Mars - Lets do it

Jupiter, saturn, neptune, uranus - are believed to not even have a surface. If anything pure liquid and gas

Maybe you could give us some reasons that going to Mars is worth the millions (billions?) of dollars that it would cost? Why is that money spent best on putting a human being into such a hostile environment? What scientific data could it provide?

wall-e might be there

Stephen Hawking thinks that colonizing Mars is possible, but even if the atmosphere was changed for human living, gravity would still be the only problem. After several years of living on Mars, a person who return to Earth wouldn't be able to stand. And if they tried, he said, they'd probably break a lot of bones.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Stephen Hawking thinks that colonizing Mars is possible, but even if the atmosphere was changed for human living, gravity would still be the only problem. After several years of living on Mars, a person who return to Earth wouldn't be able to stand. And if they tried, he said, they'd probably break a lot of bones.

Well it's not like you would need to go back to Earth once you terraformed Mars.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well it's not like you would need to go back to Earth once you terraformed Mars.

True. A permanent exodus.

Originally posted by OB1-adobe
Venus- extreme crushing gravity, and acid rain
Em, Venus's gravity is less than Earth's.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Em, Venus's gravity is less than Earth's.

He probably means crushing pressure.

is that why aliens are all slender and small.. low gravity in their planet?

what about building domes and under ground facility with increase pressure by pressurizing of gasses?

You can't terraform Mars until you find a way to restore it's magnetic field. The reason it lost its atmosphere in the 1st place is that it had no magnetic field due to the fact that there is no planetary dynamo as this stopped 4 billion years ago. Once it stopped the solar winds from the Sun just blew the atmosphere away as there was no protection from the magnetic field.

The same thing will no doubt happen on earth eventually although we have a slightly longer time period due to be closer to the sun and being larger thus having a smaller surface area to volume so we lose less heat to space and the slightly larger force of gravity from the sun also contributes to the dynamo (as does the gravitational pull of the moon). While Mars has two moons, they are tiny compared to ours and so have little effect on Mars Dynamo

Besides why would we want to colonise Mars anyway? Phobos' orbit is slowly deteriorating and will smash into Mars in time. Seems pretty stupid to want to colonise a planet that a 7 mile wide chunk of rock is going to crash into.

Originally posted by jaden101
You can't terraform Mars until you find a way to restore it's magnetic field. The reason it lost its atmosphere in the 1st place is that it had no magnetic field due to the fact that there is no planetary dynamo as this stopped 4 billion years ago. Once it stopped the solar winds from the Sun just blew the atmosphere away as there was no protection from the magnetic field.

You don't need a new magnetic field just a massive weighted magsail at the L1 point.

Originally posted by jaden101
Besides why would we want to colonise Mars anyway? Phobos' orbit is slowly deteriorating and will smash into Mars in time. Seems pretty stupid to want to colonise a planet that a 7 mile wide chunk of rock is going to crash into.

Luna is on a slowly deteriorating orbit as well . . .

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos


Luna is on a slowly deteriorating orbit as well . . .

Pretty sure the moon's orbit is getting wider...around 4cm a year, I think.

Originally posted by jaden101
Pretty sure the moon's orbit is getting wider...around 4cm a year, I think.

I know it as 1.5 inches a year. 2.54*1.5 = 3.81. Had to think about that, a bit.

Also, I think that increase is decaying, as well. (meaning, it's slowing it's rate of distancing.)

Busy at work. Can't be arsed to look it up....

i dont understand how anyone could think that going to mars would be a good idea

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's not practical. The moon doesn't have any resources to build a spaceship with so you'd have to launch everything from Earth, land it on the moon and then launch again from the moon to Mars.

The fuel? Yes. The chassis and frame? Yeah, there's plenty of good stuff...but not all of it would be available at first.


I am all for mining operations on the moon. With manufacturing and processsing, to boot. Would be easier to do things: less energy required with solar being pretty much the best choice for power, lower gravity, bla bla bla. Even processing.

We have the technology now, just not a cheap enough way to get it too and from to make it practical.

Carbon nano-tube tether and make an elevator?

Originally posted by dadudemon
The fuel? Yes. The chassis and frame? Yeah, there's plenty of good stuff...but not all of it would be available at first.


I am all for mining operations on the moon. With manufacturing and processsing, to boot. Would be easier to do things: less energy required with solar being pretty much the best choice for power, lower gravity, bla bla bla. Even processing.

We have the technology now, just not a cheap enough way to get it too and from to make it practical.

Carbon nano-tube tether and make an elevator?

The moon's orbit around the earth is best described as the Moon and Earth orbiting around eachother, much like if you were to link 2 tennis ball's by a rope and throw them.

We would risk destabalizing the masses of the two objects, such that there are huge climate impacts upon the earth.

Its like space debris, its going to take a lot of us exploiting the resource before we see negative impacts, but just from human history, exploitation of this types normally advances well ahead of our understanding of its impacts.

Originally posted by inimalist
The moon's orbit around the earth is best described as the Moon and Earth orbiting around eachother, much like if you were to link 2 tennis ball's by a rope and throw them.

We would risk destabalizing the masses of the two objects, such that there are huge climate impacts upon the earth.

How would we accomplish destabilizing anything unless that was our direct goal?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Stephen Hawking thinks that colonizing Mars is possible, but even if the atmosphere was changed for human living, gravity would still be the only problem. After several years of living on Mars, a person who return to Earth wouldn't be able to stand. And if they tried, he said, they'd probably break a lot of bones.

What about turning it into a prison colony, like the British did with Australia.

This is a great idea. Obama will make it happen.

Originally posted by dadudemon
How would we accomplish destabilizing anything unless that was our direct goal?

How can your fire a gun at a bad guy and hit a bystander?

Originally posted by dadudemon
How would we accomplish destabilizing anything unless that was our direct goal?

we bring too much of the moon's mass to earth, thus changing the gravitational balance we have that dictates a lot of our whether and climate, afaik.

Its not like resource exploitation hasn't gone ahead of reasonable sustainability at pretty much every step of human history.

Originally posted by Robtard
What about turning it into a prison colony, like the British did with Australia.

This is a great idea. Obama will make it happen.

I would support that, as long as they didn't terraform the planet. The prisons should be in pressurized containment bubbles. So if an inmate escaped, they would die like in Total Recall.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The fuel? Yes. The chassis and frame? Yeah, there's plenty of good stuff...but not all of it would be available at first.


I am all for mining operations on the moon. With manufacturing and processsing, to boot. Would be easier to do things: less energy required with solar being pretty much the best choice for power, lower gravity, bla bla bla. Even processing.

I was under the impression that Luna was very poor in resources.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Carbon nano-tube tether and make an elevator?

That does seem like the best method for cheaply getting material into space.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How can your fire a gun at a bad guy and hit a bystander? Excellent point.

Cept, the difference is aiming for a human and accidentally hitting another object that weighs 1051428571428571428571 kilograms (the mass of the moon divided by 70kg).



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I was under the impression that Luna was very poor in resources.

No, there's plenty of resources. Lots of what the Earth is, is what he moon is. Also, the Moon has stuff in different ratios that we do not.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That does seem like the best method for cheaply getting material into space.

Indeed. And mix it up with a futuristic superconductive material, badda boom, we have a very efficient and cheap way to get out of escape velocity requirement.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Excellent point.

Cept, the difference is aiming for a human and accidentally hitting another object that weighs 1051428571428571428571 kilograms (the mass of the moon divided by 70kg).

Why did you divide the mass of the moon by 70kg? How did you divide kg by kg and get an answer in kg?

Anyhow, my point is that you don't have to intend harm to your victim in order to harm him.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, there's plenty of resources. Lots of what the Earth is, is what he moon is. Also, the Moon has stuff in different ratios that we do not.

w00t Stripmine away!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why did you divide the mass of the moon by 70kg? How did you divide kg by kg and get an answer in kg?

Freudian slip. Answer is not supposed to be in kg. It's a factor.


Think about it for a bit.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Anyhow, my point is that you don't have to intend harm to your victim in order to harm him.



w00t Stripmine away!

I know exactly what your point was. I countered with mass logic that I apparantly butchered because of a flying rogue "kg".

Originally posted by dadudemon
I know exactly what your point was. I countered with mass logic that I apparantly butchered because of a flying rogue "kg".

well, yes, but that really doesn't change anything

there is a risk

regardless of how probable or avoidable, it is a non-zero probability, and an eventuallity if we never acknowledge the problem

I'm sure we could do the math, but I'd imagine moving 1/70 of the moon's mass to earth would probably do terrible things to our climate just because of the gravitational forces. Mind you, a moon with less relative mass would also begin to decay in orbit, possibly compensating for the reduced gravitational forces by finding a closer equilibrium (so long as its mass is above whatever orbital threshold there is).

which is sort of all that I, and I assume Sym, are saying. Maybe before strip mining, we assess the long term impact of strip mining, which is something humans are notorious for not doing.

Sending people to Mars is useless at the moment. The risks are to high.

Why use humans when robots are getting it done? Sure Humans will be a lot more resourceful and get the job done a lot quicker but sending rovers has rocked and if one of these rovers fails no biggie.

Can you image a incident where say we try to sent a crew to mars and they all die. Won't be good for future mission.

Humans will go to Mars around the year 2060-2080 if the advancement in space technology is at a constant rate.

NO NEED TO RUSH.

There better be Gold in Mars...otherwise...I'm staying put here on Earth.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, yes, but that really doesn't change anything

there is a risk

regardless of how probable or avoidable, it is a non-zero probability, and an eventuallity if we never acknowledge the problem

I'm sure we could do the math, but I'd imagine moving 1/70 of the moon's mass to earth would probably do terrible things to our climate just because of the gravitational forces. Mind you, a moon with less relative mass would also begin to decay in orbit, possibly compensating for the reduced gravitational forces by finding a closer equilibrium (so long as its mass is above whatever orbital threshold there is).

which is sort of all that I, and I assume Sym, are saying. Maybe before strip mining, we assess the long term impact of strip mining, which is something humans are notorious for not doing.

We wouldn't even come close to mining 1/70th of the moon's mass for quite some time. At that point, we'd make way for Prince Ali. We'd definitely ring the bells and bang the drums.

Just because something affects a gravitational system (a non-zero probability, as you put it), does not mean the the system is impacted on a time scale relevant to humans. Remove 100,000,000,000 tons from the moon and bring them to Earth: the change in the gravitational system would be negligible for tens of millions of years.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Em, Venus's gravity is less than Earth's.

Maybe its the atmospheric pressure.

Whatever it is if you parked a school bus on the surface it would crush it in a instant

Originally posted by OB1-adobe
Maybe its the atmospheric pressure.

Whatever it is if you parked a school bus on the surface it would crush it in a instant


ZOMG!?!?!?!

You fer realz?


Is teh Venus Hulk? Pewpy woooooooowpy?!?!?

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
There better be Gold in Mars...otherwise...I'm staying put here on Earth.

Gold who needs gold, when the vast beauty of space is there to be enjoyed.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Gold who needs gold, when the vast beauty of space is there to be enjoyed.

You mean the vast trillions of miles of empty nothing? (minus a few hydrogen atoms and zero point energy you will never see)

Originally posted by Autokrat
You mean the vast trillions of miles of empty nothing? (minus a few hydrogen atoms and zero point energy you will never see)

And then the 80% dark matter stuff sprinkled in there...

ooh, let's go to 'mahs. did you know it takes 6 months to get there.

i believe humankind'll land it's fist person over there within the decade.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And then the 80% dark matter stuff sprinkled in there... Dark matter is what we call our inability to understand the mass of galaxies and galaxy clusters. It is invisible and so far has avoided all forms of detection so yes empty nothing.

NASA is not into space anymore.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Gold who needs gold, when the vast beauty of space is there to be enjoyed.

People who make computers need gold.

Originally posted by Magee
Dark matter is what we call our inability to understand the mass of galaxies and galaxy clusters. It is invisible and so far has avoided all forms of detection so yes empty nothing.

dark matter has been detected on several occasions

Originally posted by inimalist
dark matter has been detected on several occasions

Correction: the gravitational effect of dark matter has been detected. If we ever directly detect dark matter, it will no longer be dark matter.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Correction: the gravitational effect of dark matter has been detected. If we ever directly detect dark matter, it will no longer be dark matter.

?

detect =/= vision

Originally posted by inimalist
?

detect =/= vision

What are you talking about?

We have not detect, in any way other then gravitationally, dark matter. The reason it is called dark matter is because we don't know what it it. Dark matter may not even exist; there are other possible answers to why gravity seems to work in a strange way on the large scale. Under our current understanding of gravity, galaxies should spin apart. This lead to the idea that there is mass we cannot see holding the galaxies together. There would need to be about 60% more mass in a galaxy, then we can detect. The term Dark Matter was a way to deal with this problem.

Originally posted by Magee
Dark matter is what we call our inability to understand the mass of galaxies and galaxy clusters. It is invisible and so far has avoided all forms of detection so yes empty nothing.

i thought dark matter was the "invisible glue" inbetween it all, so to speak, that kept everything from protons to galactic clusters intact.

thats the force dude

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
i thought dark matter was the "invisible glue" inbetween it all, so to speak, that kept everything from protons to galactic clusters intact.

That would be a particle known as a Gluon.

Going to Mars would be a problem for us wouldn't it? I mean what about all of the ambient radiation? This isn't Star Trek, its real life.

Originally posted by Stoic
Going to Mars would be a problem for us wouldn't it? I mean what about all of the ambient radiation? This isn't Star Trek, its real life.

To only thing to worry about is a solar flare, for that engineers have suggested a sort of "storm shelter" for the crew.

we need to stop caring about the universe and worry about aids

Because AIDS is definitely not a part of the universe.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
we need to stop caring about the universe and worry about aids why? are you infected or at risk?

no.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
we need to stop caring about the universe and worry about aids

So, you want NASA to work on AIDS? That is almost as bad as Obama wanting NASA to work on global warming.

there is no solid evidence that global warming exist.
it was just created as a common enemy after ww2
so we can support government actions and what not.
if we were in peace with no enemies no one would support war or federal experiments and all that other sh

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
there is no solid evidence that global warming exist.
it was just created as a common enemy after ww2
so we can support government actions and what not.
if we were in peace with no enemies no one would support war or federal experiments and all that other sh

You missed my point. NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
there is no solid evidence that global warming exist.
it was just created as a common enemy after ww2
so we can support government actions and what not.
if we were in peace with no enemies no one would support war or federal experiments and all that other sh

No
No
and No

Originally posted by dadudemon
No
No
and No many people say that and even my 12 grade science teacher said that when i was in highschool

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
there is no solid evidence that global warming exist.

Totally untrue. The only debate that still exists is if humans are the primary cause. Even the global warming "skeptics" almost universally admit that the planet is warming up.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
if we were in peace with no enemies no one would support war or federal experiments and all that other sh

There's no such thing as a time when there are no enemies. As for federal experiments, few of the need the threat of war to justify.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Totally untrue. The only debate that still exists is if humans are the primary cause. Even the global warming "skeptics" almost universally admit that the planet is warming up.

the planet is naturally warming up, its a cycle. soon it would be cooling down into another ice age