Going to Mars: Yea or Nay

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Kylo Renskins, Nov 19, 2017.


should earthlings try to go to Mars?

  1. Yes

    7 vote(s)
  2. No

    0 vote(s)
  1. Kylo Renskins Registered Member

    Saw this video theorizing why going to the fourth planet would be a terrible idea, for such reasons as the affect prolong space travel would have on the human body; radiation exposure; adjusting to life on the red planet once humans got there, etc, etc.

    All seemed like valid points.

    However the same group made a counter argument explaining why going to Mars would be "awesome."

    So what does everyone else here vote? Going there would be worth it or is it better to stay put here on Earth?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Yes dangerous in the extreme: yes difficult in the extreme:
    Irrespective, in time we certainly will go...and go in a safe and protective manner as far as our technological know how allows...its called progress, adventure, going where no man has gone before...it's us...it's human nature.
    And of course we have quite a few companies/orginizations already making plans to achieve a manned landing, despite the difficulties, dangers etc.
    We were not born to stagnate on this fart arse little blue orb we call earth.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Stay at home if you wish, yee faint of heart. Nobody's stopping you from doing that.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I have no objection to going to Mars, but I would suggest we first practice establishing a habitat in a suitable place on earth.
    Mars is much colder than the earth and has no atmosphere or shielding from solar rays.

    Thus it would seem to me that either of our poles would provide at least a somewhat similar condition to test equipment necessary to live in such an inhospitable environment.

    Going to Mars would be an enormous project just for the payload which would be required to even build a habitat which is completely independent of the atmosphere. This could be simulated on earth much cheaper and would prepare us to quickly build a habitat.

    The habitat could be sets of connected domes on the surface or below the surface.
    We already have experience in building large complexes underground such as the NORAD comand posts at Colorado springs and has given us excellent experience in building a self sustaining underground habitat which was designed for long term habitation and is shielded from radiation (nuclear radiation). I have visited the NORAD command post in Colorado springs and it was impressive.
    Almost a mile deep inside a mountain, five large connected buildings spanning about 5 acres, which is almost totally independent of the earth's surface and which can be hermetically sealed.

    I believe this would be the least problematic as Mar's surface would provide a natural shield from radiation, I would think, one of the main problems of living on the surface. Moreover as such a type of habitat would not need to be built to withstand atomic blasts it could be much constructed with far less materials . Basically we would need only excavate sufficient space and construct an internal support frame, to prevent collapse.

    This might give an idea of the advantages of building underground, rather than on the surface. Even so it would required an enormous payload to transport all the equipment and raw materials necessary to construct a reasonably safe and spacious livable habitat.

    While we have experimented with ocean habitats, which theoretically could be adapted to surface domes, IMO,
    practicing construction on earth, while we send materials and equipment to Mars in the mean time would be the most efficient way, as building a viable habitat on Mars which could function independent from earth would require a faily large population, not only of technicians and scientists, but also a large workforce. A breeding ppoulation could be sent as soon has the habitat has been established and finctional.
    If we plan on establishing a peranent habitat on Mars we must eventually import a breeding population, but that could come later.. The main problem lies in the construction, which must be safe for habitation and procreation..

    As I understand it, it would give us severl million years to perfect the habitat befoe we face having to move further out still, but would allow time to contruct a good base for further exploration as lauching from Mars would be considerably easier, due to its lower gravity.
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2017
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    We have been. For decades.

    I expect you're going to ask why these hermetically-isolated habitats aren't permanent, small, thriving towns.

    They're not permanent habitats because there's only so much one can learn. You get the data you need in the months of the experiment, then you end it. Keeping the thing going for longer doesn't gain you any more data.
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    It would, if you stop the constant traffic in and out of the NORAD facility, which would be impossible on Mars..
  10. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    I thought you were going to say that we should try to make earth inhabitable first.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    On the bright side, there isn't much of an environment on Mars for us to ruin.
  11. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    A sustainable, self-supporting infrastructure on Mars, best guess as to the date?
  12. orcot Valued Senior Member

    - I still think we need more research on the martian system. Especially the moons much depends if their is water on them that can be mined.
    The moon in one form or a other could actually be the safest bet it's close distance means any emergency rescue can happen in a matter of days in stead of months.
    - The back of the moon is also the only safe place in the solar system to build a Railgun or mass driver that can not be turned around and be aimed at earth, from there you can launch not only mass in space but also for example accelerate a star whisp towards other solar systems. You can imagen what sort of damage these devices would do to the earth if they fell into the wrong hands.
    - Whilst the time of oil is passing their is a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere it might actually be cheaper to launch refelctive material in orbit that blocks some of the light. Then do the clean up here on earth.
    - The moon being 3 days away from earth might actually have some tourist potential very few tourist would be willing to travel several months to get to mars and then their is the way back but apollo did the the trips in 3 days (one way) people couldtake that time to go vacation.
    - With a 3-4 second delay it could actually have internet
    - manufactoring on the moon benefits from micro gravity and extreme enviroments.
    - building a o neil cilinder is probably cheaper (both time and money) and more feasonable then terraforming mars (I'm not saying that we shouldn't terraform mars but doing so will probably cause flash flooding and mayor earthquakes for the first 10 Thousand years or so. Then their is the finite change their is actual life on mars
    - 1 g can actually be achieved on the moon with a 420 m diameter base (centrifuge). A nice step between a city and a actual o neil cilinder.

    for these reasons the moon is a safer bed then mars for colonization and by the time we are done with it we might not actually live on planets anymore and either life in O neil cilinders in little worlds of our own design or digital on some server to be inmortal
  13. orcot Valued Senior Member

    depends if we decide to terraform and if we can handle the gravity.
    If we decide to terraform then it will never be on thenever, but their might be many in orbit.
    if we can handle the gravity without becoming ill then around 2200 with a permanent hub of civilization
    If we can't handle the gravity then 2150 in orbit around mars
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Sure the Moon is a lot safer bet, and we'll certainly return there, probably before a Mars manned landing...Both, in time will be done as will many other examples of space exploration, both manned and robotic.
  15. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Have you considered the equipment to be transported to Mars to make a habitat>>>> based on your post,
    and how long would it take to transport it.
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Certainly, all important, and all in hand with potential planes already. As I said, very dangerous, very difficult but in time, it all will be done....Its who we are.
  17. orcot Valued Senior Member

    true but for the first true years of expansion we need mobility that will mean better (reusable) rockets and mass drivers Earth will be central in this. meaning that in the beginning it must benefit the earth, but it must also not bring earth in danger. That means any true mass driver that is basicly a planetary machine gun should be build in such a way that it can not harm earth (meaning the backside of the moon) that can never see the earth and can therefore never be aimed at the earth. This also means you can't aerobrake asteroids using earths atmosphere. But you can use both mars it's atmoshere and venus it's atmosphere to do that. This provides opportunities for both of these worlds altough it's mostly in orbit
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    NASA is developing a first-ever robotic mission to visit a large near-Earth asteroid, collect a multi-ton boulder from its surface, and redirect it into a stable orbit around the moon. Once it’s there, astronauts will explore it and return with samples in the 2020s. This Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) is part of NASA’s plan to advance the new technologies and spaceflight experience needed for a human mission to the Martian system in the 2030s.
    orcot likes this.
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Not a bad idea, being that we have all the resources readily available on earth.

    The problem is that the earth is getting warmer while Mars is still very cold, but eventually also will get warmer as the sun continues to expand.
  20. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    I'm sorry, but I didn't follow that at all.
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Er. These two phenom are unrelated. And disparate in timescales by many orders of magnitude.

    Earth is getting warmer by the year, due to GW.
    It is safe to say that, for all practical purposes, we do not need to worry about warming Earth or Mars due to the Sun's aging.
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    You are right I neglected to take GW into account. However the main point was that we have on earth conditions which may resemble conditions on Mars, except for the earth's gravity and atmosphere.

    But as Mars has neither, we are forced to create an isolated self contained artificial habitat anyway, and that can be duplicated on earth with relative minimal cost before we launch ten massive rockets with enormous pay-loads and then hope we have done the right theoretical mathematics.

    IMO, building a functional model on earth would be much cheaper and could actually be used for practical purposes, but in the process would give us invaluable information of how to do this in the mean time.

    Obviously, Terra forming of Mars is out of the question at this time, so we must start with a self sustaining habitat which is completely independent of external conditions, be they heat or cold, atmosphere, or gravitation (for which we can make theoretical compensatory calculations).

    IOW, if we can structurally build it on earth, the task would be easier on Mars, due to its lesser gravity, which would not require the weight of materials and power of equipment necessary for building.
  23. orcot Valued Senior Member

    I can see 4 futures for mars.
    1 we decide to terraform. basicly the surface turns to much as the permafrost melts there are no rivers to guide meltwaters to lower basins causing massive flooding, therese massive erosion and earthquakes the coastlines are extremly unpredictable areas rise because the pressure of all the ice dissapears, land sink below the sea because the permafrost disapears, land rises as flash floods, Salts and minerals get deposited over large surfaces and the liquids get's boiled off by sunheat and(still) low pressure turning entire areas toxic (like Salts). All of that get's acompanied by major eartquakes.
    Don't get me wrond it's still a decend future but humans will never settle on the surface on mars and by the time things become normal we probably wouldn't resemble humans anymore more machine.
    2 let's say we can not handle the gravity for example we get issues that reduces life expectancy significantly , we get malformed children, something screws with gender selection and we get predomantly either male or female children etc again no mars cities. But we do end up in orbit, mars and it's atmosphere get's used to aerobrake asteroids and comets people live and work in orbit. And cities become independent quicker because their simply is no need to expand significantly your there to work and sell the fruits of your labor nothing really get's invested locally unless it's forbidden to do in earth orbit. So I'm guessing 2150 (more of a dutch east india company)
    3 we can live there people will actuelly go to war for peaces of land and waste time drafting constitutions deal with embargoes from foes on earth etc it takes longer to become truly independent and makes for nice space opera (more of a 13 colonies)
    4 we do nothing because we're gone a good reason the invest in option 1 also it's grim to think of a world without us but eventually something will rise again that said changes double if you terraform mars

Share This Page