Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-10 19:06:58

Well, except that Star Trek torpedos have interdimentional mass-mitigating superluminal propulsion generators made from materials not on the periodic table and quasi-living biological computers for control...

I think that the purely nationalistic interest will get us into space faster then any whole-world international push, because the world is still comprised of different counrtries, cultures, and ethnicities. Overcoming such barriers will be lots harder then actually going and settling Mars or a mining camp/spaceport on the Moon.

Dook · 2005-02-10 19:13:00

If we don't fix these structure issues before we could have space-based warfare and the best group wins the whole pot. (all the colonies, outposts and planetary bodies )
Nuclear Weapons don't act the same in space as they do on earth.
Also automated defensive platforms could be used to protect the access to the Mars colonies and the moons of Mars could be used as longer range weapons platforms.

You say you work in science reality then go on about automated defensive platforms over mars and it's moons? Hardly a reality, even in the next 50 years.

As far as nuclear weapons in space the blast effect from the compression of the atmosphere would not be there but the heat given off by a nuclear device would be greater over farther distances because there would not be an atmosphere to absorb it. A trade off but the weapon works the same way.

Grypd · 2005-02-10 19:15:07

Not to mention they use an awful lot of antimatter?

But you are right it is allways easier for one country to do it on its own but alas there are few that can afford the cost so it goes the way it has. Id love it for the UK to have gone to space instead of cancelling its space launchers but it really did come down to not able to afford.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-02-10 19:18:19

GCNRevenger,

WTO wouldn't work with private enterprise involvement it is only for government to government issues.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-02-10 19:24:47

Dook,

Colonization of Mars and beyond is about 50 years out, but the outposts and various infrastructure is 20-35 years out. The lunar outposts 10-15 years out, and lunar settlement is 25-40 years out. That is the latest timelines.

And planning has started on colonization of Mars from various groups, and Mars Society are talking and training for what ? outpost or colonization ?

The Moon Society is using Mars Society facilities to train for lunar outposts, and the Internet is discussing, planning and working on complex issues for an interstellar internet for communication between earth, mars, moon and orbiting stations and spacecrafts ( working party setup last year )

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-10 19:26:20

Which is why it will work, since only governments have the ability to start such a venture, and they will naturally favor domestic companies to get the first dibs.

The WTO has considerd fining America for subsidizing businesses that have difficulty compeating, how whould this be any different if the subsidy was to set up an initial Moon/Mars/Asteroid base for them?

...oh and the neat trick that Star Trek has of the intertialess drive.

Dook · 2005-02-10 19:28:15

At $50-60 billion total cost of Mars Direct/Semi-Direct or NASA's Design Ref Mission the USA can afford it alone if it is spread over 7-10 years. It would mean cancelling the space shuttle and failing to live up to our ISS requirements.

If we sold two crew spots for $6 billion each, maybe one to the EU and the other to Japan, it would make it easily affordable.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-10 19:32:06

For that kind of money, we could also set up shop perminantly on the Moon.

I doubt that anybody would cough up several billions for seats on Mars missions.

Dook · 2005-02-10 19:32:40

Dook,
Colonization of Mars and beyond is about 50 years out, but the outposts and various infrastructure is 20-35 years out. The lunar outposts 10-15 years out, and lunar settlement is 25-40 years out. That is the latest timelines.

So the automated nuclear weapons star trek torpedo platforms on mars moons protecting the 4-6 mars explorers should be operational by when?

Also, who or what exactly are these weapons systems supposed to fight? I thought the Klingons were our friends!

Euler · 2005-02-10 19:40:45

I doubt that anybody would cough up several billions for seats on Mars missions.

They would not cough up billions of dollars of currency, but billions of dollars worth of equipment is entirely possible.

Dook · 2005-02-10 19:48:07

I bet we could get $10 billion from China to include one of their astronauts on a mission to mars though I'm not sure I would take it. Might just be better to do it all on our own, like Apollo.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-10 19:50:19

A billion dollars for one man definatly not... but an ongoing trade of hardware for seats is possible. I don't think that only one seat would be bought for sentimental reasons, especially since it wouldn't have the nationalistic glory thing if the first Taikonaut on Mars had to hitch a ride with us.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-02-11 00:56:16

Dook,

I said colonization, means 100+ permanent people on mars not exploration for 4-12 people on a joyride ( temporary facility ) . In the same timeframe 5 - 10 times (500-1000+) that number for the lunar surface and in orbit above earth.

In earth orbit - a permanent space station for large amount of personnel and facilities for corporate to lease space both personnel quarters and office space to operate in space with floating factories these numbers are very small indeed. The transport of cargo, personnel to and from orbit will increase the value of space industrial sector in orbit and increase participation within these activities.

I didn't say that I would use nuclear weapons ( too primative ) requires a delivery mechanism, good quality rail gun weapons platform is far better and could target and eliminate targets incoming to Mars from the moons of Mars. ( If I was going to use an offensive security device.)

Dook Austin Stanley, GCNRevenger,

I have said only to get the right framworks in place, and should be pushed by groups like Mars Society and other societies throughout the world. We need to try or we have a world without united and common activities in space.

Dook · 2005-02-11 04:40:08

100+ permanent people on mars in 50 years? No way. We'll be lucky if even the first human mission there happens in that timeframe.

500-1,000 in orbit? Aboard what station? The ISS? Again no way.

500-1,000 on the moon? For what purpose? We'd need constant supply ships and there's no way you could produce enough oxygen for that many from the moon's resources.

If we ever do get to mars a rail gun is about the least likely thing they will need.

The US doesn't need a combined effort in space. I doubt NASA even wants anyone else in their way. They turned down China's request for joint efforts in space. Other countries have to earn the right to be involved there.

Grypd · 2005-02-11 04:59:53

Unfortunatly to make space open we will need infrastructure. to do that means relatively easy and cheap access to space and that means people in space and a lot of them for not more than a country like the USA can afford now.

That is why we will go back to the Moon so that we can use resources there and in the NEOs to make for cheaper long term approaches to space. But it does not help us now when it comes to who can afford to start the process.

And an international agreement that allows resource utilisation and freedom of action while still allowing access to all and a means to resolve the disputes that will happen is a good idea. Its going to take years to create one so someone should start now. Or what may happen is that countries remove themselves from the Moon treaty and it becomes a space free for all. Especially if the price to enter space comes down enough that returning strategic resources to Earth becomes financially possible.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-11 05:19:01

But what is stopping the US from having more people in space? IMO it is the high cost of the rockets that Nasa chooses to use as much as who provides them at that huge cost.
If we did space at the cost of a soyuz approximate 20 million plus what ever small amount to make and launch them. We would already have hundreds of people in space for the same cost as a few shuttle launches.

Dook · 2005-02-11 05:31:27

Why in the world would we want 100's of people in space?

Grypd · 2005-02-11 05:54:55

Why in the world would we want 100's of people in space?

In previous threads you have said that the USA can claim the whole Moon and go on to Mars if it was to show leadership. But if you dont want hundreds of people in space what then do you want to do with these places. Any really useful increase in infrastructure and of bases will lead to an increased Human prescence in space. We will need these amounts so that we can start on medium sized infrastructure and space resource utilisation. But maybe you only want to go and visit, that is fine. Then you will have no problem with other countries going and staying and utilising what is there. Probably eventually leading to a colonisation effort to Mars minus the USA.

Dook · 2005-02-11 08:47:09

What I said was "The US can go to mars and back. We just need the leadership." Mars, not the moon. But we certainly could go to the moon as well if the President thought it was more important than the space shuttle and ISS. We can do anything with the right leadership.

What I want is a human mission to mars sooner rather than later. The moon is a distraction. There is nothing there for us. The space shuttle and ISS are a waste, they do not benefit science for their cost. We could cancel them both and put it all into space telescopes and robot missions and the science return would be 100 times what we get now.

What if there is definate proof of life on mars now living just under the top layer of regolith?

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-11 09:03:10

As far as science yes, the Moon is somthing of a distraction. About future industrial bennefit for the Earth though, Mars holds nothing because of its extreme distance. The Moon would be even more superior if substantial quantities of water ice are present.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-02-10 19:06:58

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#52 2005-02-10 19:13:00

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#53 2005-02-10 19:15:07

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#54 2005-02-10 19:18:19

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#55 2005-02-10 19:24:47

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#56 2005-02-10 19:26:20

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#57 2005-02-10 19:28:15

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#58 2005-02-10 19:32:06

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#59 2005-02-10 19:32:40

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#60 2005-02-10 19:40:45

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#61 2005-02-10 19:48:07

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#62 2005-02-10 19:50:19

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#63 2005-02-11 00:56:16

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#64 2005-02-11 04:40:08

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#65 2005-02-11 04:59:53

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#66 2005-02-11 05:19:01

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#67 2005-02-11 05:31:27

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#68 2005-02-11 05:54:55

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#69 2005-02-11 08:47:09

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#70 2005-02-11 09:03:10

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

Board footer