Water, Mars and ?

Amen, little sister.

Mars, water, and from what I've read, some nasty salt concentrations, including perchlorates. Not a conducive environment for us, but if what I believe is true,we'll find life almost everywhere we look.
 
I think that Mars is not the next Earth we are looking for. After all the expeditions we sent to Mars, up until now we still don't have a conducive conclusion that it can sustain life. I mean, the universe is massive. Why just spent time and resources in one planet when there are millions more out there.
 
naturallygorg said:
I think that Mars is not the next Earth we are looking for. After all the expeditions we sent to Mars, up until now we still don't have a conducive conclusion that it can sustain life. I mean, the universe is massive. Why just spent time and resources in one planet when there are millions more out there.
Click to expand...

Because there is only very slim evidence that any others out there are capable of sustaining life

plus

current, and i would love to be proven wrong, and foreseeable future technology cannot build spacecraft capable of carrying enough diverse Earth life to any of those suspected millions of planets

Really the Universe is sooo much bigger than massive

:)
 
naturallygorg said:
I think that Mars is not the next Earth we are looking for. After all the expeditions we sent to Mars, up until now we still don't have a conducive conclusion that it can sustain life. I mean, the universe is massive. Why just spent time and resources in one planet when there are millions more out there.
Click to expand...
1. Because it's close.
2. Because it's relatively accessible.
3. Because in many ways it's similar to Earth.
4. We're also spending time and resources on other accessible planets and moons. We're not particularly blinkered about Mars.
 
naturallygorg said:
I think that Mars is not the next Earth we are looking for. After all the expeditions we sent to Mars, up until now we still don't have a conducive conclusion that it can sustain life. I mean, the universe is massive. Why just spent time and resources in one planet when there are millions more out there.
Click to expand...
When you were learning to swim, did you first try swimming across an ocean or across a pool?
 
naturallygorg said:
After all the expeditions we sent to Mars, up until now we still don't have a conducive conclusion that it can sustain life.
Click to expand...
A hundred and fifty years ago or so, a British explorer named Captain Palliser came through the area where I live and decided that it couldn't sustain (human) life. I beg to differ.
 
naturallygorg said:
we still don't have a conducive conclusion that it can sustain life.
Click to expand...

Scientists have concluded several years ago that humans can not live on mars.
There is no breathable atmosphere
the dust storms would wipe out almost any type of modern building built on the surface, and some dust storms last for many days on end resulting in no solar power.

soo the answer has always been a fairly clear no.

can bacterial life survive on mars ?
that is a completely different question
did bacterial life exist on mars ?
that is another different question
can humans live on mars given the right technology ?
yes

but, at the moment it is a one way trip. no way to get back to earth and if you get sick, you die horribly or have to kill yourself.

added;
what i suspect is completely lost on the vast majority of people is the type of people who did the Gemini and Apollo Missions.
statistically they were probably around .08% of the population who had the ability.
out of that 0.08% probably only 50% of them qualified medically for one reason or another.
these people were the type of people who a trainer would say
"we need to teach you a new type of mathamatics by next week so you can use formulas to calibrate life or death decisions"
and they would be all like
"oh ok, what do i take home to read tonight ?"
so when they say they could survive on mars, they are talking about living in a situation that would drive the 95% of the population into clinial insanity and probable homicide then suicide.

modern technology has allowed ordinary people to have access to opinions of great minds.
that does not make ordinary people capable of the same level of skill.
many like to think so though.
 
Last edited:
It's not a one way trip at the moment. You could argue that, at the moment, it's just an idea, so it's a no way trip. When it happens, it will be a two way trip.

Do I think that humans will ever live for any substantial length of time on Mars, no.
 
RainbowSingularity said:
Scientists have concluded several years ago that humans can not live on mars.
There is no breathable atmosphere
the dust storms would wipe out almost any type of modern building built on the surface, and some dust storms last for many days on end resulting in no solar power.
Click to expand...
All that means is we have to prepare properly, not that we can't live there. A few years ago there was an underwater lodge where people could stay for a week. Just a matter of engineering.
 
RainbowSingularity said:
so when they say they could survive on mars, they are talking about living in a situation that would drive the 95% of the population into clinial insanity and probable homicide then suicide.
Click to expand...
But we're not thinking of sending 95% of the population. Even the tiny proportion who were eminently qualified would have to be pruned down to a manageable number.
 
Of course a colony could be established on Mars. Various types of structure have been proposed - domes are the most popular and likely the most practical. Terraforming is not feasible, even in the long term, so all life would be confined to domes and tunnels, except for short forays on the surface in properly sealed ATV's or in space-suits.
Every building component would have to ferried there - not from Earth; too much lifting - probably from an orbiting factory, and assembled on the surface, at least until a local plant was built to produce struts and panels and furnishings. Not sure where the raw materials would come from - presumably some could be found on Mars, maybe some mined from asteroids close at hand - but any sophisticated equipment would still have to shipped from Earth, quite until the colony reached a level of population density, skills and suitable housing for reliable food production, waste, water and air recycling, scientific exploration and then manufacturing. Even at its peak function, the colony size would be constrained by its life-support capacity.

On the whole, I think it would be cheaper and more efficient to clean up Earth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top