Space rock 'on collision course' with Earth!!!

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Not quite, Mobius. We just suddenly have the ability to see how crowded it is. We're doomed. Doomed I tell you, DOOMED!!

"I'm gonna sing the doom song!" -Gir.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by MOBIUS

While I might not exactly be a Mars Geology expert, why do you consider that it is nothing but a barren rock?

It's not like we've really been able to directly examine much more than a few square metres of it's surface

Why should it not have as complex a make up as Earth?

I didn't mean to suggest that Mars was just a desert wasteland (which it certainly isn't) - rather that any attempt to locate/exploit any mineral wealth will have to be an extremely long-term project.

Consider - lack of basic fundamental resources - have to import food supplies, oxygen, water ...
While it may eventually become possible to synthesize/extract certain quantities of these from the red planet, a colony could not count on it - not for a very long time.

- basic infrastructure - or rather lack thereof. To support a dedicated exploration/mining colony you'll need maintainance. transportation, refining, ... the list goes on and on - all taken for granted and readily available during similar terrestrial excursions but all of which would have to be imported/supported on Mars.

- Geology - I'm not an expert on Martian geology either - (There might not be any such thing ) - but it is by all accounts geologically dead. No quakes, crustal movement to speak of - no shifts to bring new mineral veins to the surface, not even any remaining fault lines to point explorers in the right direction.

I think its very worthwhile to set up a small colony or two on Mars, the Moon and the Ocean floor to serve as scientific outposts for further exploration but it'd be a huge mistake to go into it with the purpose of making it profitable. Unrealistic expectations have almost killed space programs before and the absolutely cost factor in both money and resources required to make this one work - before even knowing whether or not there's anything to find - would be a completely unjustified risk IMO.

[Dan Severn]

What was that experiemnt called where they had a closed environment? Geodome, or something like that. Now, imagine that technology was applied to mars, but with a nuclear powerplant to power water and air recycling and the like. It would be hard to set up, but the end result would be a colony requiring only a shipment of uranium every few years. And who knows, there may be fissionable material on mars.

[Lung]

Alas, by the time we could have a self-sufficient colony on Mars, we would be able to deal with any asteroid headed our way

Still, human expansion into space is surely a noble endeavour? It's certainly more ethical to colonise other planets and moons that to transform our entire planet to meet the needs of humans when we should be sharing it with other, existing life forms. I say we go with it

The crucial requirement to colonising other stellar bodies is the promise of financial independency. I've read much of H.G. Wells' work, and his foresight collapsed to farcical wishful thinking whenever he failed to take into account financial considerations. People will only invest money in something when there's the promise of long term rewards. Mars or the moon will have to have something worth mining or some other potential industry to ever be successfully colonised. You know, I'm sure Britain never intended to support Australia forever! NASA's Mars Odyssey mission is identifying potential landing areas for basic exploration as we speak. An eventual landing will hopefully identify available resources and potential colony sites, so the potential of a Mars colony is certainly realistic.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by ravagon
I didn't mean to suggest that Mars was just a desert wasteland (which it certainly isn't) - rather that any attempt to locate/exploit any mineral wealth will have to be an extremely long-term project.

I think that's the whole point - hopefully we'll see a manned mission to Mars in our lifetime, but for all these things we're talking tens of decades. This is a long term project, especially if we consider trying to terraform the place!

What I'm talking about is using our solar system as an ongoing lab in which to experiment. Remember, although from a military POV SDI is a colossal waste of time - it has spawned hundreds of inventions/applications for everyday life (laser eye surgery IIRC was a byproduct of work on SDI for example, IIRC)

Consider - lack of basic fundamental resources - have to import food supplies, oxygen, water ...
While it may eventually become possible to synthesize/extract certain quantities of these from the red planet, a colony could not count on it - not for a very long time.

Well apparently they are confident the are actually huge reserves of ice on Mars. That's your water, and your Oxygen - and Hydrogen for that matter... You just need a bit of electricity is all. I'm thinking solar power would actually be a way to go, what with Mars' lack of atmosphere to impede the albeit weaker rays of the sun.

basic infrastructure - or rather lack thereof. To support a dedicated exploration/mining colony you'll need maintainance. transportation, refining, ... the list goes on and on - all taken for granted and readily available during similar terrestrial excursions but all of which would have to be imported/supported on Mars.

Well you can save on much of the infrastructure if you go direct to source, but yes, the biggest problem will be resources - as it is as expensive as hell to blast things into space from Earth. Perhaps stage one would be a base on the Moon to mine as many of the resources as possible there (though I'm thinking the Moon is rather barren!).

Geology - I'm not an expert on Martian geology either - (There might not be any such thing ) - but it is by all accounts geologically dead. No quakes, crustal movement to speak of - no shifts to bring new mineral veins to the surface, not even any remaining fault lines to point explorers in the right direction.

The problem is no one has been there to examine Mars 1st hand - for all we know it is rich in minerals, and has it's own clues to give as to where to mine them...

I think its very worthwhile to set up a small colony or two on Mars, the Moon and the Ocean floor to serve as scientific outposts for further exploration but it'd be a huge mistake to go into it with the purpose of making it profitable. Unrealistic expectations have almost killed space programs before and the absolutely cost factor in both money and resources required to make this one work - before even knowing whether or not there's anything to find - would be a completely unjustified risk IMO.

I agree - funny if communism actually worked, we'd have probably already landed on Mars...

But no, we're saddled with capitalism where no one sees any profit in such an endeavour - at least not in the lifetime of the person making the decision...

So very selfish!

Therefore, the point is to find as many other reasons as possible to get us into space, hopefully for profit, or by being able to deflect an asteroid bound for our planet, getting the fat cats to stump up the cash to save their arses!

What was that experiemnt called where they had a closed environment? Geodome, or something like that. Now, imagine that technology was applied to mars, but with a nuclear powerplant to power water and air recycling and the like. It would be hard to set up, but the end result would be a colony requiring only a shipment of uranium every few years. And who knows, there may be fissionable material on mars.

Biosphere 2 in Oracle, AZ. I've been there and been inside - it's awesome! It works too, after a fashion if you don't mind waiting two weeks to grow enough beans for a cup of coffee...

They had eight people in there mostly self sufficient (they did need some outside help) for two years. It's currently run as a campus by Columbia University, who are continuing the experiments and therefore improving it's future effectiveness as an educational facility...

Still, human expansion into space is surely a noble endeavour? It's certainly more ethical to colonise other planets and moons that to transform our entire planet to meet the needs of humans when we should be sharing it with other, existing life forms. I say we go with it

Well the point is if we give it a go, we might find it easier than we think! Remember, we STILL haven't even reached the centenary of Man's first powered flight (as opposed to float ). If we apply ourselves, who's to say what advances we'll make?

Hell, your average new car has more CPU power than the Apollo spacecraft.

None if we don't try!

If I were a smart businessman, with loads of money I would put together some sort of consortium that would have some sort of exclusive rights to any new technology for my financial backing...

[Heresson]

Well I don't mind this stone as long as it hits a proper state far enough from my home.

[Dauphin]

Opportunity costs

Originally posted by MOBIUS
What I'm talking about is using our solar system as an ongoing lab in which to experiment. Remember, although from a military POV SDI is a colossal waste of time - it has spawned hundreds of inventions/applications for everyday life (laser eye surgery IIRC was a byproduct of work on SDI for example, IIRC)

I don't like the argument of using spin-off technologies as a justification for a dead end (i.e prohibitively expensive) mission. The money spent could just have easily been directed at other practical technologies to begin with.

[KrazyHorse]

Right, but you have to count the value of spun-off technologies against the overall cost of mission. If you'd spent on pure R&D, you'd get the tech, but no spaceflight. The question then becomes whether or not the spaceflight alone was worth the additional cost...

[Dauphin]

True, but I was thinking along a slightly different line.

I would argue it is cheaper to develop a generic technology and make it specific ( e.g to a space mission), than to make a specific technology that is then made generic.

Hence space missions should only be developed if they are based on emergent technologies, not objective technologies.

[Dauphin]

The question then becomes whether or not the spaceflight alone was worth the additional cost...

That is why I mentioned 'prohibitive' costs. Implicit that the spaceflight was not worth that much. Hence I think the Apollo programme was an unwarranted scientific expense as it is too expensive to capitalise on the Moon landings..

[Richard I]

So now I have to do everything I'd planned for my life in 17 years!!! Well, I haven't planned that much... I'm probably finished this time next year... Bruce Willis will be an old fart in 2019!

[The Mad Monk]

The problem is, there is no amount of theorizing or modeling that will match up to reality. We do not know what will be required for a long term presence on another world until we actually start to do it.

For an example, just consider where we would be right now if we had to build an 'asteroid mover' in under two decades, but had never done lunar or interplanetary missions, because of the 'worthlessness'.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ravagon


Current rocket boosters don't have the capability to intercept a target far enough out with the desired accuracy - nor are the guidance packages able to intercept a target moving at that velocity. This could of course change fairly quickly given sufficient need.

How far is far enough? We DO have the accuracy. We had a probe in orbit around an asteroid. Thats good enough for a nuke anyway and we even landed the thing on the asteroid. One nuke won't vaporize the thing of course but I am just pointing out that a rendevous is possible with current technology.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/near.html

[The Mad Monk]

BTW, I'm getting a real kick out of SD complaining about 'unwarrented scientific expense' in a thread that trumpets why this particular category of expense is indeed warrented...

[Gangerolf]

is this the wrath of god?