Mars not as hellish as you think.

[W2DR 1,860]

3 hours ago, birdguy said:

Maybe before we venture out into space we should first learn how to behave ourselves.

Wise words indeed....

[birdguy 3,943]

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

We can fix environmental problems and work on improving our relations with other nations AT THE SAME TIME

Where's your evidence?

Sure we can both if the nations of the world wanted to.  But they DON'T!  The League of Nations fell apart after World War 1.  The United Nations had never been able to get their act together.  Parachial interests ALWAYS outweight mutual interests.  We can't even get two political parties of the same nation to talk to each other.

Your pie in the sky hopes and dreams sound good on paper and in inconsequential forums like this one.  But they don't fit the real world.

Before we can talk cooperation we have to talk peace and we never have been able to.  World War 1 was called the war to end all wars because it so terrible.  So was World War 2.  The nations of the world have been at war with each other  CONTINUOSLY for the past 80 years with no end in sight.

We aren't allowed on this small forum to bring up the topic of global warming and climate change and what can be done about it because it gets out of control.

We can't do both.  We can't even do one.  History tells us so.

But let's give it a try.  As a first step lets get rid of something simple like internet spam and telemarketer calls.

Noel

Noel 

Noel

[martin-w 3,234]

3 hours ago, birdguy said:

Where's your evidence?

Sure we can both if the nations of the world wanted to.  But they DON'T!

We can't do both.  We can't even do one.

 

Wrong!

The evidence is all around you. Its happening now! In 2018 it was reported that the US alone spent $154 billion on climate change related activates. Globality that figure is even higher. Thousands of climatologist and those in other fields are working on this as we speak. NASA has used the expertise we have developed in the field of spaceflight to launce numerous Earth Observation satellites to study climate change. There have been numerous climate summits to plan a way forward. There is a huge investment in renewable energy exceeding  $500 billion! Non of that is related, or negated, by Elon going to Mars!

Is it enough? No, its not! But the point... is that it relates in no way to Elon Musk or NASA putting a man on Mars or the Moon. None of those activates HAVE or WILL impact our ability to combat climate change or any other environmental issue we face. Not once has anything Elon Musk done or will do prevented us from addressing environmental issues. In fact the opposite applies, in that his companies are creating products that combat climate change. One does not negate the other! We can and ARE doing both as we speak. The issue is political will, not what Elon or NASA are doing. We can and are doing both because they are not related and not mutually exclusive. 

Same applies to getting on with China or Russia... going to Mars or the Moon has nothing to do with our efforts to get on with other nations on this planet. Its not about where we are located. It doesn't matter if we visit the Moon or Mars or anywhere. In fact it could be argued that the opposite is true... the joint Apollo Soyuz mission was the first joint mission between the two nations. It was in July 1975. The purpose of this joint mission was "détente" between the two cold war adversaries. Tensions were very high between the two cold was adversaries. The Apollo Soyuz project was a great success and paved the way for later missions where space shuttles visited the Russian Space Station, Cosmonauts flying on US Space Shuttles and US astronauts staying for months on the Russian MIR Space Station. Culminating of course in the Russians jointly being involved in the creation of the ISS and ferrying US astronauts to the ISS until quite recently. Space brought us together! 

 

Climate change mentioned above because it was necessary to address the argument made but it is not an excuse for someone else to arrive and argue about whether its happening or not!

 

 

Edited May 14, 2021 by martin-w

[Pascal_LSGC 298]

19 hours ago, birdguy said:

22 hours ago, Pascal_LSGC said:

if we don't become a self sustaining multiplanetary species we WILL become extinct. 

Birdguy, you misquoted me, I didn't write that, Martin-w did.

[dmwalker 603]

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

Space brought us together!

Except that China has always been excluded and is developing its own space stations and Russia is considering to build its own, new space station and move out of the ISS.  Definitely, the ISS has been a shining example of international cooperation but how can such cooperation continue and be expanded to include China?

Also, thanks for the colour map of the moon's minerals. I have since found the equivalent one for Mars.

Edited May 14, 2021 by dmwalker

[Pascal_LSGC 298]

12 hours ago, martin-w said:

This will be my last comment. I'm bored with repeating the same things. WE CAN DO BOTH! We can fix environmental problems and work on improving our relations with other nations AT THE SAME TIME as space exploration. Its not one or the other. We don't have to live in a stasis field and freeze all activities untill we live in a utopia. 

If anything, the way NASA and the US have had to cooperate with access to the ISS and joint missions has helped us to get on with each other. 

True. But may I remind you that we are not talking about space exploration here. We are arguing about if we should pursue the goal to be a multi-planetary specie, or not. And I tried to explain that having people on Mars is not the same as having a fully autonomous civilization there. I don't mean that it could not happen in the long term. We don't know the future. I mean that it's not a reasonable goal.

And may I remind you that we didn't even put one human on Mars yet. And you're already talking civilization. In french, we have a nice saying for that: "mettre la charrue avant les boeufs" - oh wait... it exists in english too: "put the cart before the horses" ! 🙂

Here's a video that explains a bit what's involved in manufacturing chips, and of course, it just scratches the surface:

 

 

[martin-w 3,234]

36 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

Definitely, the ISS has been a shining example of international cooperation but how can such cooperation continue and be expanded to include China?

 

That takes political will. Whether it's cooperation on this planet or any other. 

Now the thing about Mars is that it's a planet, and planets are big, 144.8 million square kilometres surface area to be precise.

If we take China for example, when they eventually get there, if they do, currently they are decades behind, they can chose to locate themselves thousands of kilometres away if they so wish, away from the Westerners.

I wonder if they won't though. I wonder if the Russians won't either. Or any other nation. (I may be wrong)

I wonder if they won't because the Martian environment is harsh, and initially all the nations will be doing something difficult, something dangerous, something that could generate an emergency situation. Thus, it make sense to locate yourself near to others doing the same in case you need assistance.

 

 

Edited May 14, 2021 by martin-w

[martin-w 3,234]

15 minutes ago, Pascal_LSGC said:

True. But may I remind you that we are not talking about space exploration here. We are arguing about if we should pursue the goal to be a multi-planetary specie, or not.

 

Becoming a multiplanetary species is space exploration. We cant do it without space exploration. If we are occupying other worlds we are also exploring those worlds. 

 

Quote

And I tried to explain that having people on Mars is not the same as having a fully autonomous civilization there. 

 

Of course its not. But a fully autonomous civilisation is possible. It is and should be the ultimate aim. Its also feasible. 

 

Quote

And may I remind you that we didn't even put one human on Mars yet. And you're already talking civilization.

 

In terms of WHY its a good idea to go there, because in time we can develop a self sustaining civilisation there. Nobody is saying it will happen next week. Its the ultimate aim.

 

Quote

"put the cart before the horses"

 

Nobody is doing that. Its an aim for the future.

 

Quote

manufacturing chips

 

Irrelevant. Again, we aren't talking about a fully autonomous civilisation on mars next week, or next year, or in 12 months, or in 12 years. It mat be decades before that's manifest. It's the long term goal. By that time we will have the manufacturing capability to make your silicon chips and anything else we require. Again... the resources are there, we have the knowledge base, we have the personal, the scientists, the engineers. All we need is energy. 

Edited May 14, 2021 by martin-w

[dmwalker 603]

38 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Nobody is saying it will happen next week. Its the ultimate aim.

Do you think a 50 year timeline is realistic to become completely self sustaining or could it be as much as 100 years?

[birdguy 3,943]

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

The issue is political will, not what Elon or NASA are doing. We can and are doing both because they are not related and not mutually exclusive. 

I did not mention Elon Musk or Nasa or Mars in my last post.  It was in response to nationalism leading to seperate colonies and military presence on Mars brought up by someone else.

I was a only alluding to the fact that world peace and the slowness of responding to climate change demonstrate the nations of the world  have never been able to get along.  

Look at China's militarization in the South China Sea.  Look at the United States military presence, both public and secret, around the world.  Look at the MidEast, especially the periodic conflicts between Israel and the Palestinians.  Look at Russia and Ukraine or Georgia.  Look at sub-Saharan Africa.

Wikipedia lists around 40 ongoing wars and conflicts with over 100 combat deaths in 2020 or 2021.

Noel

 

[martin-w 3,234]

1 hour ago, dmwalker said:

Do you think a 50 year timeline is realistic to become completely self sustaining or could it be as much as 100 years?

 

Ive no idea to be honest. So many variables. Given that the private sector is involved now, with companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, Orbital, Sierra Nevada and numerous others, the time frame is accelerated. Doesn't just rely on political will anymore. Might be sooner than we think. 

[dmwalker 603]

I don't know how to do external quotes but I presume this information is widely known

"But some day, the station's time will come. The facility is aging and at constant risk of impacts from space debris and micrometeorites. If humans don't retire it, eventually the hazards of space will."

It's depressing to think that every space station which will be built and put in orbit around Earth or Moon or Mars will have to be discarded and replaced every 25 years or so. There must be ways to protect them so they can last indefinitely but which are not employed because of budget constraints. 

[martin-w 3,234]

3 hours ago, dmwalker said:

t's depressing to think that every space station which will be built and put in orbit around Earth or Moon or Mars will have to be discarded and replaced every 25 years or so. There must be ways to protect them so they can last indefinitely but which are not employed because of budget constraint

 

I recall that the issue with the ISS is that all the important stuff is in the core module. Life support etc. So they can replace aging modules but not the important core module. 

Something like that.

 

[n4gix 4,947]

6 hours ago, dmwalker said:

It's depressing to think that every space station which will be built and put in orbit around Earth or Moon or Mars will have to be discarded and replaced every 25 years or so. There must be ways to protect them so they can last indefinitely but which are not employed because of budget constraints. 

A viable space station would likely be more useful in a geosynchronous orbit. There's much less change of debris collisions. Micro-meteorites could possibly be taken care of from an armor-belt or some form of generated force field.