Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In another milestone with the SpaceX space program, they recently recovered their 300th rocket booster stage after a successful landing back on earth on a drone ship. The mission was to launch another 23 Starlink satellites into earth orbit.
I am skeptical about Elon Musk's Mars ambitions for a host of reasons. But there is no denying the remarkable success of the earth orbit operations of SpaceX. They're doing it reliably, inexpensively, and at high volumes, and that's been the case for some time now.
A remarkable accomplishment. Hopefully the Starship launches will become equally routine. To me the Mars ambition is a stretch goal; the same technology will enable a variety of other manned space missions. Perhaps we'll start seeing permanent manned space vessels capable of various cis-lunar missions?
A remarkable accomplishment. Hopefully the Starship launches will become equally routine. To me the Mars ambition is a stretch goal; the same technology will enable a variety of other manned space missions. Perhaps we'll start seeing permanent manned space vessels capable of various cis-lunar missions?
Even if it's technically possible, the transit time for trips to/from Mars would be about 4 months, each way. That means anyone who goes is on their own, which is very risky. And what really is to be gained? What's the upside? I have yet to recognize the rationale. Mars is an absolutely terrible place - a lifeless rock, with no breathable atmosphere and huge swings in temperature each day. Why would anyone consent to live there, even if you could carry it out? "Success" would be terrible, at least in my opinion.
Even if it's technically possible, the transit time for trips to/from Mars would be about 4 months, each way. That means anyone who goes is on their own, which is very risky. And what really is to be gained? What's the upside? I have yet to recognize the rationale. Mars is an absolutely terrible place - a lifeless rock, with no breathable atmosphere and huge swings in temperature each day. Why would anyone consent to live there, even if you could carry it out? "Success" would be terrible, at least in my opinion.
If there's enough people willing to go, why not? We aren't going to be living on Earth forever. It's good to become mobile. And just the mindset that is this the only place in the entire Universe where life is? Could gain some knowledge of prior life by setting foot there.
Even if it's technically possible, the transit time for trips to/from Mars would be about 4 months, each way. That means anyone who goes is on their own, which is very risky. And what really is to be gained? What's the upside? I have yet to recognize the rationale. Mars is an absolutely terrible place - a lifeless rock, with no breathable atmosphere and huge swings in temperature each day. Why would anyone consent to live there, even if you could carry it out? "Success" would be terrible, at least in my opinion.
There will always be those who are skeptical of breaking new boundaries. History is replete with examples. I doubt that will stop somebody from trying, once the technology is available.
Even if it's technically possible, the transit time for trips to/from Mars would be about 4 months, each way. That means anyone who goes is on their own, which is very risky. And what really is to be gained? What's the upside? I have yet to recognize the rationale. Mars is an absolutely terrible place - a lifeless rock, with no breathable atmosphere and huge swings in temperature each day. Why would anyone consent to live there, even if you could carry it out? "Success" would be terrible, at least in my opinion.
".... A Mars cycler (or Earth–Mars cycler) is a kind of spacecraft trajectory that encounters Earth and Mars regularly. The term Mars cycler may also refer to a spacecraft on a Mars cycler trajectory. The Aldrin cycler is an example of a Mars cycler.
Cyclers are potentially useful for transporting people or materials between those bodies using minimal propellant (relying on gravity-assist flybys for most trajectory changes) and can carry heavy radiation shielding to protect people in transit from cosmic rays and solar storms."
=- - == - -
It would also be prudent to establish an orbital station around Mars, for long term support of any surface based activity.
And if we embark on the construction of orbital habitats and vivariums, parking them on the same orbital radius, we won't need to rely on cyclic orbits. Intersecting orbits will make interplanetary travel as simple as "hitching a ride" from one orbiter to another.
Venus's atmosphere consists mostly of carbon dioxide. Because nitrogen and oxygen are lighter than carbon-dioxide, breathable-air-filled balloons will float at a height of about 50 km (31 mi). At this height, the temperature is a manageable 75 °C (348 K; 167 °F). At 5 km (3.1 mi) higher, using helium or hydrogen as lifting gas, it is a temperate 27 °C (300 K; 81 °F).
At an altitude of 50 kilometres (31 mi) above the Venusian surface, the environment is the most Earth-like in the Solar System beyond Earth itself – a pressure of approximately 1 atm or 1000 hPa and temperatures in the 0 to 50 °C (273 to 323 K; 32 to 122 °F) range.
At its most extreme, the entirety of Venus could be covered in aerostats, forming an artificial planetary surface. This would be supported by the atmosphere compressed beneath it. And completely shading the planet's surface would reduce the temperature, leading to surface utilization.
Yep, Elon Musk is still ranting about colonizing Mars. It's completely irrational. I would love to see him live there for one year, then come back to earth, and then once he understood what it was like, to go back to Mars again. If he did all that, then he is crazier than he seems.
Yep, Elon Musk is still ranting about colonizing Mars. It's completely irrational. I would love to see him live there for one year, then come back to earth, and then once he understood what it was like, to go back to Mars again. If he did all that, then he is crazier than he seems.
Explorers are often perceived as crazy, including those who went to Antarctica and other extreme environments. Meanwhile, a poll suggests that one in four Americans would be interested in living in a Mars colony for the rest of their lives.
But I'm skeptical that would hold up once people see what it's really like. The biggest hurdle for me is seeing how well people's health holds up in that low gravity environment over many years.
Explorers are often perceived as crazy, including those who went to Antarctica and other extreme environments. Meanwhile, a poll suggests that one in four Americans would be interested in living in a Mars colony for the rest of their lives.
But I'm skeptical that would hold up once people see what it's really like. The biggest hurdle for me is seeing how well people's health holds up in that low gravity environment over many years.
Trying to make these analogies to earlier explorers on earth are just offbase. The polar regions were/are somewhat hostile, but they have considerable life and they have plentiful clean water and a sweet, nurturing atmosphere and they can be approached and left within reasonable time. We know that Mars is a lifeless rock without a nurturing atmosphere and with brutal temperatures (-243F at night) - far worse than at earth's poles; it's a *completely* different level of hostile and it's a very long journey out there and back.
For all the people who keep arguing what a great idea it is to live on Mars - what exactly is it about life on Mars that would be better than life on earth??? Let's see the list. I've already listed HUGE factors that make it worse. I guess if you fear or hate people you can argue that Mars life would be better because there are no people on it - but I think that "benefit" is ill-considered and in any case, once people start living on it, that's over!
As far as 1/4 of Americans thinking that living on Mars indefinitely would be a positive change - LOL, the average person is not very smart, that's all I will say.
Last edited by OutdoorLover; 04-27-2024 at 03:16 PM..
For all the people who keep arguing what a great idea it is to live on Mars - what exactly is it about life on Mars that would be better than life on earth??? Let's see the list. I've already listed HUGE factors that make it worse. I guess if you fear or hate people you can argue that Mars life would be better because there are no people on it - but I think that "benefit" is ill-considered and in any case, once people start living on it, that's over!
If everyone felt this way, all of humanity would still be living in a small area of East Africa, afraid to venture over the river because it wouldn't be as comfortable or safe as where they currently are.
However, not everyone feels that way. It's because of the people who don't mind discomfort and hard work that there are humans in all of the hospitable locations on Earth, and some locations that aren't so hospitable.
Hard working people will move to Mars, and the asteroid belt, and any other location that with effort can become hospitable to humans. Once a location is well established, comfortable, and safe, many more people will follow to benefit from the hard work and sacrifice of the people who went first.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
