• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

One way trip to Mars

Would you take a one way trip to Mars

  • Sign me up

    Votes: 16 32.7%

  • Are you freamin insane?

    Votes: 33 67.3%
  • Total voters
    49
specklebang said:
I'm not the OP. I'm not stupid.

This is a philosophical discussion. I promise not to actually leave for Mars unless I'm properly equipped. Honestly, I'm not going to go although it sounds like fun and something I might have done 50 years ago.

This thread is a welcome relief from the all-day, all-night Obama bashing / Obama praising on this board. I thought we were here to have fun and present points of view. If you are taking this seriously, I suppose I must seem stupid to you so I withdraw my request for you to reconsider what seems to be rudeness for no actual purpose.
Click to expand...

What do you mean? It's Obama's fault we don't have a space station on Mars now. It was all ready to go, but he took all the money for ObamaCare. Bastard! :2razz:
 
joko104 said:
And once these brave explorers reach Mars, what are they supposed to do?

Watch bean sprouted grow?
.
The future of the human race doesn't depend on going to Mars, it depending upon what we do with Earth.

Those thinking there are wondrous advancements out in space as we colonize planets really have no clue the realities involved. Mars does not sustain life. Therefore it offers no "hope" to the human race. There is no analogy to the discovery of the Americas, Mars has already been discovered. It makes less sense to think of colonizing Mars than colonizing Antarctica and colonizing the oceans' bottoms - as those can sustain life.

I see those who seek space as solutions to problems as a cop-out, a punt on reality in deference to reality to avoid reality. To say, "it's TOO much work to improve Earth and our planet." And then fantasize there is some marvelous new planet we can find perfect for us. Walter Mitty solutions. By declaring an impossible solution, a person had declared they favor doing nothing at all.

The nearest planet is 4 light years away. It would take 107,000 YEARS to reach it. And it is so uninhabitable no one could survive on it in an space craft for 1 second. The massive gravity would crush the person like being under a steel press.

So the punters-on-reality are simply opting out of any solutions and have the same attitude as those who believe their only hope is to be found in death and going to heaven. Sure, they hate life on earth, meaning they hate their own life - and I suppose everyone around them too. So it maybe predictable that "hope" only lies in fantasy. Claiming the future is "out there" is no different than looking at a painting of scene and declaring "I want to go there" - and if you take LSD I suppose you could. Even that is more a reality than "colonizing" another planet.

Such a view is also incredibly naïve about how complex a life eco system is. You really can't just take a Noah's Ark to another planet and "terraform" an eco system. It took 3,600,000,000 years for this to reach the point it's at on earth.

Looking for a better life "out there" has a billion times worse odds than a person declaring "I don't have to work, I'll just buy a lottery ticket."

We should take care of our own planet before we go screw up another one. Fantasizing of utopia "out there" is the perfect definition of a lazy ass making excuses.
Click to expand...

There is one reason and only one reason I would prefer going to Mars or more preferably the Jovian moons than staying here and living under the ocean or in Antarctica, and that's government is now too close and will always have easy reach. Its not like the 1600's or 1700's or even the 1800's were bugging you was a chore. Settling Mars or the Jovian moons, while it doesn't prevent government from reaching out to you, it sure does make it awfully inconvenient for them to do much to bug you. Distance has a way of disentangling people.
 
PirateMk1 said:
You are absolutely right. The trick is to make them RV or trailer absolutely huge. I mean bigger than an aircraft carrier. Significantly so. That means assembling that living space in space. We have a few things to learn yet before we can do the trip comfortably and efficiently.
Click to expand...

Something like this!


 
We'll have to go REALLY REALLY SUPER FAST to explore space.


 
joko104 said:
What do you mean? It's Obama's fault we don't have a space station on Mars now. It was all ready to go, but he took all the money for ObamaCare. Bastard! :2razz:
Click to expand...

Good catch. The wily fox has stolen space travel for his nefarious food stamps!

Good job Detective.
 
Goshin said:
That would be annoying, yes... but it's not like Mars has a crime problem, and I've heard the hunting sucks. :lamo
Click to expand...

Don't you want ANY movies about space? It's a slaughter out there. :lol:
 
Are you kidding? In a heart beat.

Country is circling the drain, what a great way to escape.
 
joko104 said:
No, it isn't "just down the road." How is Mar's rich?

There was a lot of talk and even a couple companies trying to promote mining an asteroid. However, when looked by economists, even if it was made of pure gold and platinum, it doesn't work economically.

I'll ask it again. What can a manned probe do that a remote probe cannot? For size and survivability issues, a remote probe can have 100 times as much equipment and 1/100th the risks - and can stay there and function virtually indefinitely.

Do you have any clue of the challenges, prices and size of a spacecraft that has to support a crew and travel for 1 year (there and back) is? What is your budget for this adventure question? Plus big enough for landing and take off fuel too? $1 Trillion? $3 Trillion? More?

What is rational about not finding out what they might be worth going for and where at least before going there?
Click to expand...


First of all the calculations you are looking at are for boosting out of our gravity well, which entails significant cost both in money and resource. If someone is already there then the cost to move the material is much more minimal and the product that can be moved and processed is truly staggering, the scales which could this could be done are mind blowing. Right now we have the technology in existence to build the tools necessary to build massive processors able to consume fair sized asteroids with very little in internal energy input. Most of the input would be solar, which out in space is plenty at least in the near earth orbits. The Saturnine and Jovian orbits energy can be harvested via the magnetic belts. Making a living and thriving would be very possible.

The only reason for Mars really would be for mining a rare hard to get material. Settling there would be difficult but not prohibitably so, most of the living structure would have to be underground which would make expansion fairly easy. There is water and plenty of CO2 to break into oxygen. People could do well there too.
 
Negativity and can't-do-ism, the driving force for progress for all the human race. Oh, no, wait...



:doh
 
Mason66 said:
Why would you need to pack anything other than your best suit?
Click to expand...

Mason66 said:
So this is a veiled attempted at population control?

Get rid of the stupid people first?

I could go for that.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I find these kinds of attitudes patently hilarious. If everyone thought like this, we would've never even left Africa, let alone gone on to become the dominant species on this planet.

When in the heck did we become a society of, for lack of a better word, "Hobbits?" Why's everyone so risk of adverse?

Where's your sense of adventure, people!? :lol:
 
PirateMk1 said:
First of all the calculations you are looking at are for boosting out of our gravity well, which entails significant cost both in money and resource. If someone is already there then the cost to move the material is much more minimal and the product that can be moved and processed is truly staggering, the scales which could this could be done are mind blowing. Right now we have the technology in existence to build the tools necessary to build massive processors able to consume fair sized asteroids with very little in internal energy input. Most of the input would be solar, which out in space is plenty at least in the near earth orbits. The Saturnine and Jovian orbits energy can be harvested via the magnetic belts. Making a living and thriving would be very possible.

The only reason for Mars really would be for mining a rare hard to get material. Settling there would be difficult but not prohibitably so, most of the living structure would have to be underground which would make expansion fairly easy. There is water and plenty of CO2 to break into oxygen. People could do well there too.
Click to expand...

What would REALLY work swell would be to bust up an asteroid after using solar sails to alter it's course and speed slightly, so the shotgun effect of all the smaller pieces would obliterate some country, say like N. Korea. Then we could mine the material there on earth. We could use the troops we previously had on the border to do the mining. Thereafter N. Korea would be the new collection site. Sure, a lot would burn up on entry, but it's not like there'd be a shortage.

Should run that by the military. Get the military behind a plan and it's gonna happen. I bet no one would mess with the USA after that, huh?:lol:
 
Gathomas88 said:
It worked out not only for him, but for Western Civilization in general, anyway. What's the problem? :shrug:

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Click to expand...

Columbus didn't sail off to the unknown. He sailed off believing he would reach India by going around the world. That's why Native Americans are called "Indians."

No venture, no lose. How's the ObamaCare venture working out?
 
Goshin said:
Negativity and can't-do-ism, the driving force for progress for all the human race. Oh, no, wait...



:doh
Click to expand...


Actually, I think a REAL problem in the USA and much of the Western World is a failure to live in reality, and instead live in the fantasyland of feel-good slogans and "wouldn't it be great if..." with NO thought as to what this costs, no thought of negative consequences, and no thought of what is being lost in pursuit of those cool things.

Wouldn't it be great if everyone was guaranteed at least $50,000 a year from the government. Wouldn't it be great if we had everything we want in social programs, free medical care, unlimited military budgets, and no taxes.

Wouldn't it be great if we spend $100 Trillion dollars searching for a new planet so we don't have to deal with the problems of this one - and we'll just get around all the scientific, mathematic, time, speed and cost factor limitation somehow. We can't get hung up on those little negatives the naysayers complain about. I mean it would be SOOOOOO cool to colonize Mars!

How about we colonize the Sahara Desert first? It'd be easier. And actually would be possible. Then we can try to figure out how to do it 35 million miles away with no atmosphere, 200+ degree heat and lots and lots of radiation all the time.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
Columbus didn't sail off to the unknown. He sailed off believing he would reach India by going around the world. That's why Native Americans are called "Indians."
Click to expand...

Okay, so suppose that we set off to colonize a "barren" moon, and wind up finding something we didn't expect (Helium 3, for instance), therefore changing our society forever?

How is that any different from what happened with Columbus?

Frankly, even if we don't account for such discoveries, there are exploitable resources in space that we are aware of even now. A single metallic asteroid can carry more ore than it would possible to mine in a decade here on earth.

The introduction of that large an amount of raw resources into our economy could very lead to societal effects that would make the Industrial Revolution look like a mere footnote by way of comparison.

No venture, no lose. How's the ObamaCare venture working out?
Click to expand...

Ask the Imperial Chinese how well that philosophy worked out for them. :roll:

Stagnation is death.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Okay, so suppose that we set off to colonize a "barren" moon, and wind up finding something we didn't expect (Helium 3, for instance), therefore changing our society forever?

How is that any different from what happened with Columbus?

Frankly, even if we don't account for such discoveries, there are exploitable resources in space that we are aware of even now. A single metallic asteroid can carry more ore than it would possible to mine in a decade here on earth.

The introduction of that large an amount of raw resources into our economy could very lead to societal effects that would make the Industrial Revolution look like a mere footnote by way of comparison.



Ask the Imperial Chinese how well that philosophy worked out for them. :roll:

Stagnation is death.
Click to expand...

They suspect Helium 3 is in the moon.
Artemis Project: Lunar Helium-3 as an Energy Source, <br>in a nutshell
Don't have to go to Mars for it. Nor is there a need for it now since such a reactor has not be successfully built.

We can do "suppose ifs" forever. Suppose if we alter the course of an asteroid that causes a gravitational shift leading another massive asteroid to destroy all life on earth?

Suppose as such massive funds are shifting to "wouldn't it be cool if..." stagnates other research of more likely results.

To claim science is stagnate is absurd. Rather, I am reading Star Trekkie kindergarten science proposed to replace real scientific research that is just that, real.

I already posted a link to it once. Even if we found an asteroid of pure gold and platinum, it is not economically viable for mining.

Are you one of those people who has a contract that when you die they will quickly cut off your head and freeze it, with the prospect that in the future it could be defrosted, restarted and given a genetically lab created new body? "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." If not, just think if all of medical practice had instead taken your negative views?

Just like I asks on military threads, you can NOT just say want you WANT. You also have to say what you GIVE UP to pay for it. Tell us in detail what Trillion+ dollars you want to take away from science for this, or is your's the ObamaCare plan of "BUT IT COSTS LESS IN THE LONG RUN" logic - the free money theory?

We hear this "it saves in the long run!" crap all the time. Nuclear power for here - would save money in the long run, so they raised rates 25%, then another 25% for a few years to fix the busted old nuke and build 2 more - then announced it wasn't economically viable - so now that money is gone and it will take 60 YEARS to shutdown the old one at $1.2 BILLION - which of course will be $10 BILLION by the time we're done - and we're paying for that.

SO... tell us the trillions plus dollars in scientific and technological development you would shut down for your plan. Be specific.

BTW, there is fantastic amounts of mineral wealth at the bottom of the oceans. MUCH cheaper to get that. Why do you oppose doing that instead?

Nor have you told any way to get massive amounts of material from space to earth economically or without potential massive environmental damage. With current and even realistic theory it can't be done. Fortunately for us, the atmosphere and earth's gravity is very "negative" towards stuff in space reaching land. If it didn't we'd all be dead.
 
Last edited:
A venture to Mars and bringing back material and the travelers also could destroy all life on earth. Below is on relevant link, but not the only claim that microscopic life and indications of it otherwise has been found in space.

Life on Mars Found by NASA's Viking Mission?

NOTHING more threatens human (and all) life than disease. Anyone who understand the environment in Florida understands the massive destructive damage an invasive species can cause. Nothing of earth and certainly humans shows evolved protection against alien microbes.

So what if a mission to Mars and asteroids destroys every life form on earth? "Oh well, nothing ventured nothing gained?"

IN FACT, since everyone keeps mentioning Columbus, IN FACT that exploration lead to taking diseases to where there was no evolved protection, literally genociding entire races - such as 100% of the human race in the entire Caribbean and much of the entire populations of South, Central and North America - and those were earth origins micro-organisms.

Space is not a nice, forgiving place. Nor are invasive life forms.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
They suspect Helium 3 is in the moon.
Artemis Project: Lunar Helium-3 as an Energy Source, <br>in a nutshell
Don't have to go to Mars for it. Nor is there a need for it now since such a reactor has not be successfully built.

We can do "suppose ifs" forever. Suppose if we alter the course of an asteroid that causes a gravitational shift leading another massive asteroid to destroy all life on earth?

Suppose as such massive funds are shifting to "wouldn't it be cool if..." stagnates other research of more likely results.

To claim science is stagnate is absurd. Rather, I am reading Star Trekkie kindergarten science proposed to replace real scientific research that is just that, real.

I already posted a link to it once. Even if we found an asteroid of pure gold and platinum, it is not economically viable for mining.

Are you one of those people who has a contract that when you die they will quickly cut off your head and freeze it, with the prospect that in the future it could be defrosted, restarted and given a genetically lab created new body? "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." If not, just think if all of medical practice had instead taken your negative views?

Just like I asks on military threads, you can NOT just say want you WANT. You also have to say what you GIVE UP to pay for it. Tell us in detail what Trillion+ dollars you want to take away from science for this, or is your's the ObamaCare plan of "BUT IT COSTS LESS IN THE LONG RUN" logic - the free money theory?

We hear this "it saves in the long run!" crap all the time. Nuclear power for here - would save money in the long run, so they raised rates 25%, then another 25% for a few years to fix the busted old nuke and build 2 more - then announced it wasn't economically viable - so now that money is gone and it will take 60 YEARS to shutdown the old one at $1.2 BILLION - which of course will be $10 BILLION by the time we're done - and we're paying for that.

SO... tell us the trillions plus dollars in scientific and technological development you would shut down for your plan. Be specific.

BTW, there is fantastic amounts of mineral wealth at the bottom of the oceans. MUCH cheaper to get that. Why do you oppose doing that instead?

Nor have you told any way to get massive amounts of material from space to earth economically or without potential massive environmental damage. With current and even realistic theory it can't be done. Fortunately for us, the atmosphere and earth's gravity is very "negative" towards stuff in space reaching land. If it didn't we'd all be dead.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I simply don't understand all the hostility.

There are people in this world who are willing to take risks that you won't. Why does this seem to bother you so much?

Plenty of supposedly "impossible" things have been made workable by the efforts of devoted men and women. Even if their efforts fail, they are ultimately the ones history will remember. Not you.

Ambition and aspiration should be respected, not scorned.
 
Gathomas88 said:
I'm sorry, but I simply don't understand all the hostility.

There are people in this world who are willing to take risks that you won't. Why does this seem to bother you so much?

Plenty of supposedly "impossible" things have been made workable by the efforts of devoted men and women. Even if their efforts fail, they are ultimately the ones history will remember. Not you.

Ambition and aspiration should be respected, not scorned.
Click to expand...

You responded to no actual tangible issues. Just now spouting generic slogans.

Yes, there are plenty of people willing to risk destroying all life on earth for their project. Yes, there are plenty of people who think their idea must be done and everything else stopped to do it. People that fixate, brain fever, on one thing and that - only that - matters.

Slogans are nothing, they are lazy thinking. Nothing else. I could list all sorts of really cool things to spend trillions on for the adventure of discovery. Adds up to nothing.

Simple realities:
1. The oceans, here, on Earth, are not 10% explored. They offer fabulous amounts of mineral resources and are essential to human life. The oceans are slowly dying. They die, we die. Much of our oxygen originates there, as does much of even land-based food.
2. The Earth is not well managed in usage. Call it efficiency or call it harvesting, the same thing.

Both those would be MASSIVE undertakings. To me, it is absurd to ignore and neglect scientific development towards Earth, while exploring a dead planet 35 million miles away as astronomical costs and in a manner just to have people walk on it because walking on Mars is cool. Not for a moment have you given ANY reason this can not be done more effectively, successfully, cheaply and permanently remotely by robotic probes.

All you are writing is "wouldn't it be super cool if we put a space station on Mars" - and then you prove it with generic slogans that could be applied to any of a million potential ideas.

And yes, I'm being hostile. I'm hostile to the climate change fanatics too. My response? "NO! ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF OUR OCEANS BEING POISONED AND KILLED FIRST!" But there are no big graft-bucks to be made at it, no taxes to be collected from it, and no mega-costly projects to skim money off of.

My "hostility" is real in the sense of "take care of Earth first. Fully explore Earth first, before playing Buck Rogers and Captain Kirk."
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
It worked out not only for him, but for Western Civilization in general, anyway. What's the problem? :shrug:

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Click to expand...
It didn't work out for the native Americans so good.
He was a problem for them.
 
Buck Ewer said:
It didn't work out for the native Americans so good.
He was a problem for them.
Click to expand...

My guess is his response would be from the bag of generic slogans, like "no pain, no gain" or something like that. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom