What are your views on colonizing another planet?

[Fleek]

Respond to the question above and anything relative.

[Devinsoccer]

I would love to go to mars! It would be great for the human race.

[DVDan19]

Colonizing other planets would be so awesome ! The only thing is that, those bases up there should not be the property of the USA, or even Europe or Russia, etc etc. It should be open to every country that fits the category (like being able to pay the country that is keeping maintenance, for the fuel, rocket, payload and all that stuff).
Also, let's imagine in a really distant future, like colonies are thriving on Mars, there's water, breathable air, plants (yeah I said in a really distant future), are the colonies there going to be like, independent ? Whole new countries ? Or will they be like the overseas territories of today (overspace ?).
I'm thinking that those "martians" might feel less and less earthlings, so they will eventually start wars with us since humans are not intelligent enough to stop.

So, yeah I went far in the future, for the closest projects, I think a lunar base would be awesome, either for science and for a refueling station for other missions that would go further. And also, sending a rocket from the moon is WAY less costly than from the earth. You know, gravity, air and stuff. I think China, Russia and Europe are working on that project (especially China).
And for Mars, well I think it would be for scientific purpose during a long time, but maybe we could achieve a self-sustainable colony there and then it would develop itself way faster than waiting 6 months a payload (french post service delivered me a letter one year later for the fact).

Wooh what a monologue :D

[Fleek]

They have also spoke of Terraforming mars so it can be selfsustaining

[Leprous]

With the destructive nature of humanity soon we will have to start thinking about moving our population to another planet. Earth is slowly dying out on natural recourses and well, if the rainforests dissapear we'll all die eventually.

[Flapjack]

I think we should:) We need to sort out who owns what before we start though.

[Vlerchan]

I think a better question, is what proportion of GDP should be devoted to funding institutions such as NASA. I'm willing to say 1 - 2%.

[mattsmith48]

I think it would be kinda cool, it would be extremally dangerous tho but would be nice if humans would colonize Mars or and planets. We will soon need another planet anyway since were not planning to stop trying to make this one uninhabitable.

[dxcxdzv]

Incredible waste of time, money and resources at the moment.

PS: I'm not talking about the Research itself

[mattsmith48]

They have also spoke of Terraforming mars so it can be selfsustaining

That would take thousands of years until the atmosphere is breathable until then if something goes wrong your fucked plus even then there is still the problem that Mars doesnt have enough gravity to keep a thick atmosphere like we have here on earth and it doesnt have a magnetic field to protect whats living on mars from solar flares and other radiations

[Flapjack]

Incredible waste of time, money and resources at the moment.

PS: I'm not talking about the Research itself
Could eventually be a source of great amounts of rare metals:)

[dxcxdzv]

Could eventually be a source of great amounts of rare metals:)
Good luck to make all the operation of transporting those metals to Earth profitable.

The price of the targeted metal (let's imagine there is one that we want in particular) have to be high enough to incentivize investors and more generally society to go take it on another celestial body.
This will be done if the price on Earth of the targeted metal can cover the whole operation (assuming that the promise of finding this metal on a targeted celestial body will incentivize the research for the appropriate techniques).
And there is no such metal nor other material (even on the long-run) which the price can cover such an operation. From what I know, at least.
Anti-matter and other things like that are of course excluded.

[Fleek]

That would take thousands of years until the atmosphere is breathable until then if something goes wrong your fucked plus even then there is still the problem that Mars doesnt have enough gravity to keep a thick atmosphere like we have here on earth and it doesnt have a magnetic field to protect whats living on mars from solar flares and other radiations

Do you think it is possible to make an artifical magnetic field or is that too science fiction-y?

[DriveAlive]

Good luck to make all the operation of transporting those metals to Earth profitable.

The price of the targeted metal (let's imagine there is one that we want in particular) have to be high enough to incentivize investors and more generally society to go take it on another celestial body.
This will be done if the price on Earth of the targeted metal can cover the whole operation (assuming that the promise of finding this metal on a targeted celestial body will incentivize the research for the appropriate techniques).
And there is no such metal nor other material (even on the long-run) which the price can cover such an operation. From what I know, at least.
Anti-matter and other things like that are of course excluded.

Unubtanium?

[Flapjack]

Unubtanium?
That is not actually a mineral XD

Do you think it is possible to make an artifical magnetic field or is that too science fiction-y?
what do you mean? This might interest you: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/nov/06/magnetic-shield-could-protect-spacecraft

Posts merged. Use the multi quote button next time. ~Mars

[DriveAlive]

That is not actually a mineral XD

I think I literally shouted at how ridiculous this was when I saw Avatar in theaters.

[dxcxdzv]

Unubtanium?
I'm skeptical, even for REEs.

Let's do a simple math, imagine we have an enviable material, on the Moon, in decent quantity concentrated at a very precise location.

Price of launching a space shuttle from Earth: $260/Kg
Mass of an "empty" space shuttle in Kg: m
Transportable load: 29.5.10^3 Kg
Cost of a mission: $7,700,000
Travel's cost : k*
REE's value per Kg: r
Average drilling depth on Earth: 2,000m**
Earth's crust: 35 Km
Moon's crust: 50 Km***
Percentage by which the price per Kg of the material will be decreased due to an increase in the offer: q

Basically first we can say that in order to reach the desired material on the Moon we're likely to drill to a depth of 2000*(50/35) = 2.86 Km approx.
Basically, assuming that the drilling system is already in place and that we can launch the shuttle like that you must satisfy the inequation:

19.5.10^3 * r *(1-q) > k + 7.7.10^6 + 260m

This calculation might be wrong, and I don't have the ambition to present an indisputable inequation on this subject, take this just as an image.


Disclaimer: I used the 1971 NASA's estimations for the shuttle's costs, though you may say that the price has certainly decreased since then I must inform you that 1) I chose the cheapest scenario (out of the 5-6 available) and 2) not a lot of researches has been made to reduce these costs, or at least not a lot were relevant.

*Because I lack of both the data and the will for a proper estimation of anything related to the travel in itself once in orbit and the moon landing I'm going to keep this as a variable.
**tbh this is highly variable and didn't find accurate data, but by documenting a bit it seems clear that drillings beyond 1 Km are common.
Also I won't keep the density and the composition of each crust in the calculation as it would make it a bit too complicated.
I'll also assume inner convections are identical which is not true as our planet is definitely more active than the Moon.
***This is an average estimation of the visible face of the Moon.

PS: No guys, I haven't forgotten the inflation, let's assume that all the data here are with corrected inflation. Hence, real values.

[mattsmith48]

Do you think it is possible to make an artifical magnetic field or is that too science fiction-y?

I think we will figure out how to make an artificial one in the future. The problem is to make one big enough and strong enough to protect people and other organism on Mars. It would be awesome if we could make one and put it on spaceships would solves some of the problems people and spaceships traveling in space face and make it safer for humans to travel in the solar system. The other option would be figure out a way to start back Mars's magnetic field

[Flapjack]

I think I literally shouted at how ridiculous this was when I saw Avatar in theaters.
I was like that when in deadpool he set pure oxygen on fire -_-

[mattsmith48]

Good luck to make all the operation of transporting those metals to Earth profitable.

The price of the targeted metal (let's imagine there is one that we want in particular) have to be high enough to incentivize investors and more generally society to go take it on another celestial body.
This will be done if the price on Earth of the targeted metal can cover the whole operation (assuming that the promise of finding this metal on a targeted celestial body will incentivize the research for the appropriate techniques).
And there is no such metal nor other material (even on the long-run) which the price can cover such an operation. From what I know, at least.
Anti-matter and other things like that are of course excluded.

Theres asteroid worth billions and trillions passing close to earth all the time you dont do go that far the mine them and we already have the technology to do it

[dxcxdzv]

Theres asteroid worth billions and trillions passing close to earth all the time you dont do go that far the mine them and we already have the technology to do it
1. What asteroids are you talking about?
2. How do you know they're worth "billions and trillions"?

[Judean Zealot]

I think it wholly unnecessary. If overpopulation is what worries you, I reckon we'll begin seeing significant reductions to the global population through disease. Within the next 30 years our bodies' growing resistance to antibodies will land us back in the pre-penicillin age of medicine, and advances in locomotion will allow disease to spread at an unprecedented speed. Not to mention the havoc that will be caused by childbirth and infection.

[dxcxdzv]

Within the next 30 years our bodies' growing resistance to antibodies will land us back in the pre-penicillin age of medicine
Well, good thing it doesn't concern viruses, the most highly-spreadable kind of disease, then.
Good thing that antibodies are generated by our body itself, also.

and advances in locomotion will allow disease to spread at an unprecedented speed.
This surely is a threat.

Not to mention the havoc that will be caused by childbirth and infection.
I'm searching for the evolution of speed with which we make new vaccines for new diseases and I go back to you.

[Flapjack]

I think it wholly unnecessary. If overpopulation is what worries you, I reckon we'll begin seeing significant reductions to the global population through disease. Within the next 30 years our bodies' growing resistance to antibodies will land us back in the pre-penicillin age of medicine, and advances in locomotion will allow disease to spread at an unprecedented speed. Not to mention the havoc that will be caused by childbirth and infection.
They're developing new antibiotics. I have friends that will be going into careers researching them.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/researchers_find_new/
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2016/05/a-scientific-roadmap-for-antibiotic-discovery
http://www.nature.com/news/hundreds-of-antibiotics-built-from-scratch-1.19946

Good thing that antibodies are generated by our body itself, also.
I actually didn't notice that when I first read itXD You're sharp Reisey:')

[dxcxdzv]

I actually didn't notice that when I first read itXD You're sharp Reisey:')
French are rude, so I must be forgiven. #Sophism

Well, it's pretty obvious he meant antibiotics, this doesn't undermine his argumentation.

[Flapjack]

French are rude, so I must be forgiven. #Sophism

Well, it's pretty obvious he meant antibiotics, this doesn't undermine his argumentation.
I actually had to google what sophism is!!! You are so smart:')

Yeah I actually responded to it without noticing and I will never judge someone because of typos and if I did that would be like the most hypocritical thing ever:D:D

[mattsmith48]

1. What asteroids are you talking about?
2. How do you know they're worth "billions and trillions"?


1. http://www.asterank.com/
2. Well depending what is in them and how much its worth here on earth

[Judean Zealot]

Well, good thing it doesn't concern viruses, the most highly-spreadable kind of disease, then.
Good thing that antibodies are generated by our body itself, also.


That was an error on my part, I do apologise. I was referring to viruses and bacteria, but my mind must have wandered as I was typing.


I'm searching for the evolution of speed with which we make new vaccines for new diseases and I go back to you.

Might I then bring this (http://annals.org/mobile/article.aspx?articleid=706245) to your attention?

TheFlapjack

While new variations on our antibiotics are being produced, so far as I'm aware there hasn't been a single discovery of a new class of antibiotics in approximately 30 years. (http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2013/view/risk-case-1/the-dangers-of-hubris-on-human-health/#/view/fig-18)

[Fleek]

Volcanic
Clay Fights 'Super-bugs' (http://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/volcanic-clays-kill-bacteria/3183724.html)

[FuTo]

Incredible waste of time, money and resources at the moment.

PS: I'm not talking about the Research itself

I agree we have sooooo much to work to do here on our own planet first.

[Porpoise101]

I believe that it will be necessary for humanity in the long term.. we will either need to completely move to other planets or export material from them for Earth's usage. I think it will be interesting to see how this gets done. But before any of this could happen, I'd wager we would need to have a world government. I can't exactly see a good future where a bunch of different nations carve up and divide the planets of the universe.

To me, I think a more promising space-enterprise would be Space-based solar power. We think of space lasers as being a weapon, but that tech could be used to transfer energy from space solar panels to Earth at a reasonably high efficiency. In space, solar is much more efficient too.

[DVDan19]

They have also spoke of Terraforming mars so it can be selfsustaining

Are you talking about Elon Musk's program to nuke Mars ? :D :D (it's not even a joke)

[SethfromMI]

It would be a long time before it could be done reasonably so it is not impossible to think in the future it could be a possible option. there are of course so many questions which would have to be asked (is it it's own country, what type of government/governments,etc.) but who knows. personally, I don't think that day will come (at least not in our lifetime), but it is intriguing to think about.

I guess my biggest concern would be humans would find a way to screw it up like we have done in many ways here, but then again, I guess we can't let fear prevent us from going forward. above all, such future projects would have to be done as responsibly as possible and with the desire to benefit those would be there as much as possible

[mattsmith48]

I agree we have sooooo much to work to do here on our own planet first.

Colonizing another planet could fix some of the problem we have here like that its getting dangerously over populated we have no intension to stop fucking, or that we making this planet unsuitable for anything to live on it

[PlasmaHam]

As much as I love seeing Captain Kirk and the Enterprise zooming from planet to planet, it just won't happen. Trying to get to other planets will just be a waste of time and otherwise futile.

Population is not a big a problem as you might think. The population is still increasing, but in many regions, mainly first world countries, the rate is decreasing. So many people nowadays are only having one or two children, instead of the five or six of prior generations. Some European countries are actually experiencing a population decrease due to this. As more countries become more modernized, the population rate will undoubtedly go down or even in reverse.

[dxcxdzv]

Might I then bring this to your attention?
People often talk about the way antibiotics become less and less proficient.

Those substances are made to fight against bacteria.
And as far as I know the apocalyptic hardcore shit tends to be about viruses which are highly spreadable and mutable (hello Influenza).

Need to say that in the case of antibiotics a decent part of the consumption is made by animal farming.

P. aeruginosa will kill us all.

[Judean Zealot]

People often talk about the way antibiotics become less and less proficient.

Those substances are made to fight against bacteria.
And as far as I know the apocalyptic hardcore shit tends to be about viruses which are highly spreadable and mutable (hello Influenza).

Need to say that in the case of antibiotics a decent part of the consumption is made by animal farming.

P. aeruginosa will kill us all.

I'm not saying that we are developing immunity to vaccination - I'm afraid you've combined two separate points I was making. With regards to viruses, we have to realise that the speed with which we travel highly increases the probability of some terrible cross-species mutation (avian flu etc) wreaking havoc before a vaccine can be discovered. Bacteria is the other, and far more immediate problem. Should resistant bacteria proliferate, even the most routine scratches or medical procedures can result in infection and death.

It's worth noting that the Black Death, Cholera, Diphtheria, Scarlet Fever, Tuberculosis, and many others besides are bacterial as opposed to viral diseases.

[Deactivated]

Colonisation of space is a necessity if we wish for humanity to survive. Whether you believe it'll happen soon, or in the distant future, it'll be needed. Sure, we can have sustainable and healthy society on Earth, and develop technology to protect Earth from various threats. However, we as humans are very curious, and will always want to explore and expand.

Now that we have the planet explored, it's only a matter of time before we see permanent settlements on the Moon, Mars and perhaps other various bodies in our Solar System? When? Who knows. Many believe this can happen soon, while others don't think it'll happen for quite some time. I personally hold the belief that by 2100, settlements will be on the Moon and Mars for sure. Any further, that's in the air.

[lliam]

I'm thinking that those "martians" might feel less and less earthlings, so they will eventually start wars with us since humans are not intelligent enough to stop.


I see there many contradictions.

These Martians are descendants of earthly settlers who were smart enough to make Mars habitable by a high technical effort.

So if this progeny think they're smarter, something went wrong during their history.

And imo, a war with Earth would be quite a waste of resources.

[sqishy]

Go for it, as long as consciously and/or automated minimal disruption to the environment of wherever you are going to is practiced.

Terraforming is of course another matter, but I'm confidently saying that all the matter we have ever manipulated in human history, is orders of magnitude smaller than what is needed to terraform (e.g.) Mars in any significant way.

I'm also an advocate for sending used (and non-reusable) forms of transportation to the Sun, or Venus. Venus is a lazy but still sufficient option for interplanetary incineration of waste we produce; the Sun is the best option as it incinerates everything.

[mattsmith48]

I'm also an advocate for sending used (and non-reusable) forms of transportation to the Sun, or Venus. Venus is a lazy but still sufficient option for interplanetary incineration of waste we produce; the Sun is the best option as it incinerates everything.

We already doing this with spacecraft visiting Jupiter and Saturn when were done with them we make them crash into the planet to destroy so why not if its cheaper for Venus you would just have to make sure it will burn out completly in the atmosphere

[sqishy]

We already doing this with spacecraft visiting Jupiter and Saturn when were done with them we make them crash into the planet to destroy so why not if its cheaper for Venus you would just have to make sure it will burn out completly in the atmosphere

We have with Jupiter but not Saturn. For the sake of those extremist few who want a minimally human-touched solar system, the Sun and Venus are the two best options with regard to ease and effectiveness in disposing waste. Jupiter would come third.

I'm advocating we dispose of as much as we possibly can, not just probes here and there. The amount of uncontrolled waste out there, especially in Low Earth Orbit, is threateningly serious and disappointing taking our drive for exploration and apparent good intentions.

[mattsmith48]

We have with Jupiter but not Saturn. For the sake of those extremist few who want a minimally human-touched solar system, the Sun and Venus are the two best options with regard to ease and effectiveness in disposing waste. Jupiter would come third.

I'm advocating we dispose of as much as we possibly can, not just probes here and there. The amount of uncontrolled waste out there, especially in Low Earth Orbit, is threateningly serious and disappointing taking our drive for exploration and apparent good intentions.

for Saturn we will later this year with the one currently orbiting Saturn

Most of the junk in low earth orbit are small enough they would burn out in the re-entry anyway and is only a danger to satellites and astronauts

[sqishy]

for Saturn we will later this year with the one currently orbiting Saturn

That is planned yes, in 14 months from now.



Most of the junk in low earth orbit are small enough they would burn out in the re-entry anyway and is only a danger to satellites and astronauts

Have you heard of the Kessler Syndrome?

[mattsmith48]

Have you heard of the Kessler Syndrome?

I have yes but we dont have a cheap way to collect all that garbage and crash it on another planet or the sun

[sqishy]

I have yes but we dont have a cheap way to collect all that garbage and crash it on another planet or the sun

We have set plans on where spacecraft go to good precision; the computing ability is there to find the most efficient orbits that takes a spacecraft to its destruction.

At this point we can't collect all the garbage that wasn't cleanly dealt with in the first place, but some ideas are out there such as tethers and the like.

[mattsmith48]

We have set plans on where spacecraft go to good precision; the computing ability is there to find the most efficient orbits that takes a spacecraft to its destruction.

At this point we can't collect all the garbage that wasn't cleanly dealt with in the first place, but some ideas are out there such as tethers and the like.

still wouldnt it be easier to try bring it down to burn out during re-entry then trying to crash it on another planet?

[sqishy]

still wouldnt it be easier to try bring it down to burn out during re-entry then trying to crash it on another planet?

For all spacecraft within the Earth-Moon gravitational field, yes.

[bandofbros20]

I think it would be dope. And one thought process is the more spread out we are the higher chances of survival. Like one mass event won't wipe us all out lIke if we were all stuck on earth

[Ghaem]

Seriously, we couldn't handle one planet in 200 years. How are we supposed to colonize another company while still we have a mess on our hands?

[mattsmith48]

Seriously, we couldn't handle one planet in 200 years. How are we supposed to colonize another company while still we have a mess on our hands?

Well to start we know better how to not destroy a planet than 200 years ago when we started this mess. Also part of what were doing here that threatens the habitability of this planet by putting shit in the atmosphere on a planet like Mars could help us make it habitable. And like I said in a earlier post this planet is getting dangerously overpopulated and sence people dont plan to stop fucking and were able to get people to live longer and longer a 2nd planet wouldnt be a bad idea

[Ghaem]

Well to start we know better how to not destroy a planet than 200 years ago when we started this mess. Also part of what were doing here that threatens the habitability of this planet by putting shit in the atmosphere on a planet like Mars could help us make it habitable. And like I said in a earlier post this planet is getting dangerously overpopulated and sence people dont plan to stop fucking and were able to get people to live longer and longer a 2nd planet wouldnt be a bad idea

Instead of thinking about Sci-Fi, we need to consider the reality. The problem in earth is not so serious yet, but let us see why in Oblivion this mess has happened? Let's just say that I believe the world has gone to mess because of irresponsible scientists and abusive politicians and rulers and ambitious industrialists.

This is a paradox that no cause has ever harmed humanity as much as it has served more than Science itself. Now the same irresponsible scientists are suggesting that:

"Oops! Our bad but we can fix it! Let's get rid of this old planet and embrace a new one!"

[mattsmith48]

Instead of thinking about Sci-Fi, we need to consider the reality. The problem in earth is not so serious yet, but let us see why in Oblivion this mess has happened? Let's just say that I believe the world has gone to mess because of irresponsible scientists and abusive politicians and rulers and ambitious industrialists.

This is a paradox that no cause has ever harmed humanity as much as it has served more than Science itself. Now the same irresponsible scientists are suggesting that:

"Oops! Our bad but we can fix it! Let's get rid of this old planet and embrace a new one!"

Its not Sci-Fi being a two planet specie is very posible and doable. Theres ofcourse some challenge to it like that Mars doesnt have a magnetic field but science could figure this out faster than you think. How ''irresponsible scientist'' are responsible for this mess getting worst they are the ones who are trying to fix shit. corrupt politician are the ones to blame for us soon not being able to live on this planet. climate change is really serious now and we have to do something about it now. Were not saying lets get rid of this planet we say lets get to a 2nd one and live on both planets.

What as harmed humanity the most is religion.

[bandofbros20]

Colonizing other planets would be so awesome ! The only thing is that, those bases up there should not be the property of the USA, or even Europe or Russia, etc etc. It should be open to every country that fits the category (like being able to pay the country that is keeping maintenance, for the fuel, rocket, payload and all that stuff).
Also, let's imagine in a really distant future, like colonies are thriving on Mars, there's water, breathable air, plants (yeah I said in a really distant future), are the colonies there going to be like, independent ? Whole new countries ? Or will they be like the overseas territories of today (overspace ?).
I'm thinking that those "martians" might feel less and less earthlings, so they will eventually start wars with us since humans are not intelligent enough to stop.

So, yeah I went far in the future, for the closest projects, I think a lunar base would be awesome, either for science and for a refueling station for other missions that would go further. And also, sending a rocket from the moon is WAY less costly than from the earth. You know, gravity, air and stuff. I think China, Russia and Europe are working on that project (especially China).
And for Mars, well I think it would be for scientific purpose during a long time, but maybe we could achieve a self-sustainable colony there and then it would develop itself way faster than waiting 6 months a payload (french post service delivered me a letter one year later for the fact).

Wooh what a monologue :D

I mean if we could pull amy independence day or HALO and all unite with each other as humans it could work well, but I mean the chances of that are small. And realistically we would need a common enemy for that to work.

[Ghaem]

Its not Sci-Fi being a two planet specie is very posible and doable. Theres ofcourse some challenge to it like that Mars doesnt have a magnetic field but science could figure this out faster than you think. How ''irresponsible scientist'' are responsible for this mess getting worst they are the ones who are trying to fix shit. corrupt politician are the ones to blame for us soon not being able to live on this planet. climate change is really serious now and we have to do something about it now. Were not saying lets get rid of this planet we say lets get to a 2nd one and live on both planets.

What as harmed humanity the most is religion.

By Sci-Fi I mean instead of acting on logics that we have to save this planet we put our efforts to colonize another one. Researches required to accomplish such goal need funds and resources which are only available on the surface of earth itself more than you could ever think about it, which means we have to ignore a huge part of earth's resources for improving local conditions or even make it worse so we can get on another planet and make it just survivable and not even really fit for human life.

Tell me my friend who exactly provides enough funds and resources for researchers to make progress in their scientific works? Governments mostly and without their support seriously there is no way science can go any further. So yes scientists who use abusive politicians support and pay them back by helping them filling their pockets more are irresponsible, which counts for a lot of scientists, not most of them, since at least 200 years ago.

Oh yes, God personally said that "Oh humans! Use all resources of earth and suck to the last drop of every oil in the world in lesser than 200 years to accomplish the will of God about destroying your home!"

Seriously science is like any other cause. When it gets out of its own way, which it has in recent years, it will harm. Definitely science with providing means for destruction and with its very thirst for extreme progress in last centuries which requires lots of resources, has led to more atrocities in 500 years than religion in 1000; willingly or unwillingly.

On the other hand, when science is logic, which it really is, it helps to improve conditions. Let's say that everything has to be used properly and moderately, science is not an exception.

[sqishy]

Seriously, we couldn't handle one planet in 200 years. How are we supposed to colonize another company while still we have a mess on our hands?

I'm sceptical that we will ever be able to get out of a mess of any social/political/economic mess from where we are now, so I wouldn't let that be good enough reason to not bother colonising elsewhere.

Still though, it is irrationally optimistic to think that we can control any other planet in the system in hundreds of years only, so I agree there. Small and measures steps can still be taken.


Also part of what were doing here that threatens the habitability of this planet by putting shit in the atmosphere on a planet like Mars could help us make it habitable.

Even if we were to cut down all forests everywhere, burn all the fossil fuels we have stored and the regions they are being mined from, and start a full-scale nuclear war, the Earth in that state would still be way more habitable than Mars, which is the most habitable planet in our star system relative to Earth. I wouldn't have that reasoning be what drives us to another planet.
But...


And like I said in a earlier post this planet is getting dangerously overpopulated and sence people dont plan to stop fucking and were able to get people to live longer and longer a 2nd planet wouldnt be a bad idea

It is never a bad idea to spread the human population to other planets/moons, even if only for a precautionary measure against a cataclysm happening that reduces/removes the population on ours.


Instead of thinking about Sci-Fi, we need to consider the reality. The problem in earth is not so serious yet, but let us see why in Oblivion this mess has happened? Let's just say that I believe the world has gone to mess because of irresponsible scientists and abusive politicians and rulers and ambitious industrialists.

This is a paradox that no cause has ever harmed humanity as much as it has served more than Science itself. Now the same irresponsible scientists are suggesting that:

"Oops! Our bad but we can fix it! Let's get rid of this old planet and embrace a new one!"

The fault here is not with the great majority of scientists, it is with those scientists and politicians/economists/etc who used scientific knowledge and technology as a tool to pollute, build mass industry, and so on.


I mean if we could pull amy independence day or HALO and all unite with each other as humans it could work well, but I mean the chances of that are small. And realistically we would need a common enemy for that to work.

Preferably not :P .

[mattsmith48]

Even if we were to cut down all forests everywhere, burn all the fossil fuels we have stored and the regions they are being mined from, and start a full-scale nuclear war, the Earth in that state would still be way more habitable than Mars, which is the most habitable planet in our star system relative to Earth. I wouldn't have that reasoning be what drives us to another planet.
But...



It is never a bad idea to spread the human population to other planets/moons, even if only for a precautionary measure against a cataclysm happening that reduces/removes the population on ours.

The problem with Mars is theres no magnetic field if we can figure out how to generate one we know how to do the rest

[sqishy]

The problem with Mars is theres no magnetic field if we can figure out how to generate one we know how to do the rest

I quote myself from earlier:


Terraforming is of course another matter, but I'm confidently saying that all the matter we have ever manipulated in human history, is orders of magnitude smaller than what is needed to terraform (e.g.) Mars in any significant way.


A planetary dipole magnetic field is within these scales.

However, I think it's within our technology to generate magnetic fields of sufficient size such that they shield landing probes and small habitations.

[mattsmith48]

I quote myself from earlier:



A planetary dipole magnetic field is within these scales.

However, I think it's within our technology to generate magnetic fields of sufficient size such that they shield landing probes and small habitations.

I agree but if your gonna terraform mars you need a magnetic field big enough for the entire planet if you dont have one the solar wind are just gonna blow the atmosphere at the sametime were creating it. If dont plan on terraforming Mars you could use smaller ones

[sqishy]

I agree but if your gonna terraform mars you need a magnetic field big enough for the entire planet if you dont have one the solar wind are just gonna blow the atmosphere at the sametime were creating it. If dont plan on terraforming Mars you could use smaller ones

The magnetic field is necessary for the terraforming, yes.

[jamie_n5]

I think that this would be alright if we can find an other planet that is suited for life. Hopefully we won't make as big a mess out of the new planet as we have of this one.

[WhoWhatWhen]

It would be awesome! But I feel like there would be wars over who would own it. Maybe we could make a new country or sorts on the planet. But it will be a long time until we have to worry about any of this :wow:

[mattsmith48]

It would be awesome! But I feel like there would be wars over who would own it. Maybe we could make a new country or sorts on the planet. But it will be a long time until we have to worry about any of this :wow:

No one can legally own anything in space except for the stuff what you put out there.

If we really wanted to go to another planet we could do it in about 6 months

[WhoWhatWhen]

No one can legally own anything in space except for the stuff what you put out there.

If we really wanted to go to another planet we could do it in about 6 months

Couldn't you technically own a space on a planet if you colonize it first? And yes we could go to a planet but definitely not in 6 months. Wouldn't theoretically planets be miles or light-years away? Not to mention that most planets don't have air and water and things we need to survive.

[sqishy]

If we really wanted to go to another planet we could do it in about 6 months

There are many factors at play when it comes to intending to do a human mission to another planet, but generally with current technology we can get to Venus within 3 months, that being the closest. Mars might be reachable in about 12 months at best, every other planet would take longer.


Couldn't you technically own a space on a planet if you colonize it first?

mattsmith48

This page will give you the answers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty .



And yes we could go to a planet but definitely not in 6 months. Wouldn't theoretically planets be miles or light-years away? Not to mention that most planets don't have air and water and things we need to survive.

Can get to Venus within that time.

The planets within our star system are between tens of millions of km, and over 4 billion km away. Neptune is 4.5 billion km away, which is about over 4 light-hours away.

For other star systems, light-years yes.

As for air and water, some chemistry can be done with the substances present on other planets to get water and possibly air even, it is theoretically doable, but you'd need a lot of good equipment to bring and how much stuff comes along in the spaceflight is a big deal.

[mattsmith48]

Couldn't you technically own a space on a planet if you colonize it first? And yes we could go to a planet but definitely not in 6 months. Wouldn't theoretically planets be miles or light-years away? Not to mention that most planets don't have air and water and things we need to survive.

You could claim it when you colonize it but no country on earth would recognise it and nothing would stop someone else to move to the same place and it couldnt never legally become a country.

We can go to mars in about 6 months and Venus in 4 months when the planet is at their closest point to earth

[sqishy]

We can go to mars in about 6 months and Venus in 4 months when the planet is at their closest point to earth

For Mars maybe, but with a huge stretch in technology that sees the journey as happening in a close-to-straight line (needing a lot of acceleration).

Journeys to other planets are not done when they are closest to Earth, instead they are done with a compromise between the shortest journey time and the least amount of acceleration done during it (which basically means the least amount of fuel needed). The destinations tend to be some distance off when the probe takes off from Earth, than where they will be when the probe gets there.

[PlasmaHam]

Couldn't you technically own a space on a planet if you colonize it first?

If I recall correctly, there was a treaty during the Space Race discussing this. Signed between multiple countries, it basically said that any celestial bodies or parts of celestial bodies cannot be legally claimed by a country. If a country or individual did attempt to claim celestial lands, those claims would be invalid and wouldn't be recognized as such.

I don't know why I know about this, but I do. To sum it up, you can claim a piece of Martian real estate if you wanted to, but no one will really care about your property.

Paraxiom Yea, you are right about how you wouldn't want to launch when the planets are closest together. For those who want a simpler explanation, lets say we are playing football. You don't throw the football to where your teammate is right now, because he is running and the ball will pass behind him. Instead, you throw to where your teammate will be, so once the ball is at the right distance, so will your teammate be. Now, imagine doing that on a scale thousands if not millions of times larger, and you have going to another planet. As you can guess, it takes extreme calculations to pick the perfect time for launch. A miscalculation of a percentage of a percent can result in being thousands of miles off course.

The book,"The Martian" does a good job of showing interplanetary travel within our own solar system in a pretty accurate way. An interesting fact about NASA's interplanetary missions is that they use a geocentric, instead of a heliocentric model. Perhaps Ptolemy was right all along...

[Ragle]

Can get to Venus within that time.


Venus? What do we want on Venus? I think, the effort to terraform that planet isn't even worth to think about it. If that's even possible. Supposed we do it, then there's the possibilty that the sun expands someday. Then all the effort was in vain. Forget Venus.

[mattsmith48]

Venus? What do we want on Venus? I think, the effort to terraform that planet isn't even worth to think about it. If that's even possible. Supposed we do it, then there's the possibilty that the sun expands someday. Then all the effort was in vain. Forget Venus.

Actually we could live in the atmosphere in cloud cities about 50kms above the ground, the pressure is about the same then here on earth so you would only need something to breath, the Gravity is about the same than here on earth and its closer so less expensive to go there

[bandofbros20]

I'm sceptical that we will ever be able to get out of a mess of any social/political/economic mess from where we are now, so I wouldn't let that be good enough reason to not bother colonising elsewhere.

Still though, it is irrationally optimistic to think that we can control any other planet in the system in hundreds of years only, so I agree there. Small and measures steps can still be taken.




Even if we were to cut down all forests everywhere, burn all the fossil fuels we have stored and the regions they are being mined from, and start a full-scale nuclear war, the Earth in that state would still be way more habitable than Mars, which is the most habitable planet in our star system relative to Earth. I wouldn't have that reasoning be what drives us to another planet.
But...



It is never a bad idea to spread the human population to other planets/moons, even if only for a precautionary measure against a cataclysm happening that reduces/removes the population on ours.




The fault here is not with the great majority of scientists, it is with those scientists and politicians/economists/etc who used scientific knowledge and technology as a tool to pollute, build mass industry, and so on.




Preferably not :P .

But I mean in the past common enemies have done wonders for humanity

[Jane Eyre]

Venus? What do we want on Venus? I think, the effort to terraform that planet isn't even worth to think about it. If that's even possible. Supposed we do it, then there's the possibilty that the sun expands someday. Then all the effort was in vain. Forget Venus.

I agree with you. Venus is probably too hot for humans to live on, even with all modern scientific equipments. Even the possibility of terraforming it is highly unlikely in the corrosive sulphuric atmosphere.
But as for the expansion of the sun, it will happen at a time when life will have already perished in our solar system, except maybe in the liquid oceans of Titan. Still, Venus is probably not a suitable option for terraformation.

[sqishy]

If I recall correctly, there was a treaty during the Space Race discussing this. Signed between multiple countries, it basically said that any celestial bodies or parts of celestial bodies cannot be legally claimed by a country. If a country or individual did attempt to claim celestial lands, those claims would be invalid and wouldn't be recognized as such.

I don't know why I know about this, but I do. To sum it up, you can claim a piece of Martian real estate if you wanted to, but no one will really care about your property.

The Outer Space Treaty is probably what you mean, which I have the link of in the last few posts.



Yea, you are right about how you wouldn't want to launch when the planets are closest together. For those who want a simpler explanation, lets say we are playing football. You don't throw the football to where your teammate is right now, because he is running and the ball will pass behind him. Instead, you throw to where your teammate will be, so once the ball is at the right distance, so will your teammate be. Now, imagine doing that on a scale thousands if not millions of times larger, and you have going to another planet. As you can guess, it takes extreme calculations to pick the perfect time for launch. A miscalculation of a percentage of a percent can result in being thousands of miles off course.

Exactly this, good way of putting it.



The book,"The Martian" does a good job of showing interplanetary travel within our own solar system in a pretty accurate way. An interesting fact about NASA's interplanetary missions is that they use a geocentric, instead of a heliocentric model. Perhaps Ptolemy was right all along...

I did not know that NASA did that, thanks for the info.

I'd argue that Ptolemy is right in the pragmatic sense 'out there' in space, but for Earth itself, you can go either way and justify the view. I prefer geocentric as that's how the calendars work.


Venus? What do we want on Venus? I think, the effort to terraform that planet isn't even worth to think about it. If that's even possible. Supposed we do it, then there's the possibilty that the sun expands someday. Then all the effort was in vain. Forget Venus.

If you are interested in the literally IMMENSE task of terraforming an entire terrestrial planet, then even still Venus is doable. It already has a substantial atmsosphere, which means getting rid of most of it is needed. The amount of nitrogen present in it is around four times greater than of Earth's atmosphere.

One approach is directing comets repetitively to the planet in such a way that the atmosphere will be lessened, but it would take a VERY long time.

To say that Venus is not even worth thinking about, is an uncalled-for write-off. Atmospheric conditions about 40-50 km up are of similar pressures and temperatures of that of Earth, our air is a lifting gas in that atmosphere like helium is for our one, and the acidic clouds can be shielded against. With this, there is a huge abundance of solar power, and some chemistry can be done with the compounds in the atmosphere for sake of resources (sulfuric acid is a very useful chemical).


If we assume that we can terraform anything (and IF we as humans persist for billions of years to see the Sun expand and destroy Mercury + Venus + probably Earth), thinking that terraforming efforts on Mars and beyond will survive the old age and death of the Sun, is completely wrong. Just because a planet doesn't get swallowed by a star, does not mean that it escapes with little or no changes to it.

To see a terraforming project lasting billions of years as being an ultimate waste, doesn't make sense. Terraforming is to make a planet Earth-like enough to live without body suits on its surface. That has nothing to do with making that goal something that lasts forever. Anyway, nothing would last forever. IF we survive for billions of years (assuming we as this civilisation survive for hundreds even), then losing a terraformed planet will mean little to us.

By all means do not forget Venus, even if you forget about terraforming. It is very important.


But I mean in the past common enemies have done wonders for humanity

I don't get you, is it that conflict between countries/etc have technological advancement as being a side effect?

[mattsmith48]

I agree with you. Venus is probably too hot for humans to live on, even with all modern scientific equipments. Even the possibility of terraforming it is highly unlikely in the corrosive sulphuric atmosphere.
But as for the expansion of the sun, it will happen at a time when life will have already perished in our solar system, except maybe in the liquid oceans of Titan. Still, Venus is probably not a suitable option for terraformation.

Like I said earlier we could live in the atmosphere temperature and pressure is about the same and we almost have the same gravity, no one knows eventually we might create the technology to transform Venus's atmosphere.

Humans will most likely be extinct when the Sun starts expanding