The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-08 07:21:15

WE'VE BEEN TO THE MOON! WE HAVE A SPACE STATION IN ORBIT!
Then you criticize me for wanting to go to mars instead of the moon?

Yeah, if you call putting a dozen men at incredible expense just to grab a few rocks and take pictures "been there"

And that pitiful thing in Earth orbit they dare fein to dub a "space station?" Please.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-08 07:39:40

"I want the most and best science first and humans on mars second. If we were going to the moon with the intention of building an array of telescopes on the dark side I would support it and certainly if we are there for that purpose we can also recover platinum, test out our moon rocket fuel ideas, and conduct other moon science but that's not what the President said and that's not, as far as I can tell, what NASA intends to do."

Exploration is NOT just about science. Its not even about sending people for the sake of sending them. Part of exploration is to increase the quality of life for Humanity. The economic bennefit of exploration cannot be discounted entirely, or support will inevitibly fail, just when you need it most... And why don't you think the President's plan will do these things? We have "going back to the Moon to stay," why wouldn't these things be practical there?

Using platinum as a driving force and the justification for a moon base is very risky. With platinum in the impact craters spread out on the surface of the moon at some point we will need more than one base. And considering recycling, other metals taking it's place, and 513 million ounces of known world supplies, the price of it very well may not increase your speculated ten times it's current value."

Going with NO economic justification is political suicide. And you are simply lying when you state that "we would need multiple bases!" or something. Nonsense! We're talking small moutains made of Pt "ore" spread over a small area. Just finding one good fragment would keep us busy for years.

As I have said before, it doesn't matter if there are 5 or 500M or 5Bn ounces of Pt left on Earth: what matters is, what fraction of this is economical to extract? I assure you, it is much less then the total amount present. Speaking of economics, the whole reason of getting the stuff from the Moon would be to AVOID a catastrophic price spike, to prevent the 1,000% price increase as supplies dwindle. That way, the metal will be inexpensive enough for wide-scale multigram end-user technology. Such a venture would be economical, if NASA does its job and tests out a pilot plant and ferry, with a price increase of only much smaller then this. And then there is the He3 and orbital OMS fuel to think about selling too.

And recycling? You gotta be kidding me... You DO know that recycling doesn't actually MAKE more of the stuff, don't you? It will only prolong what supplies are available. So many of Platinum's applications are long-life or non-disposable that recycling will be all but useless.

"So then what does NASA do with it's moon bases and the architecture that won't work for a mars mission? You know what they do? They come up with more things to do on the moon and end up stuck there for another 20 years because they can't go back to congress and ask for another $50 billion to go to mars."

NASA won't need any huge extra infusion of money to get to Mars, they can operate a limited Lunar base at the same time. As I said before, the price of operating a Lunar outpost would not be that high with Lunar fuel and reuseable ferries. And what about the telescope arrays? Leave them there to rot? And there will be worthwhile geological science to do on the Moon for some time.

But this is really beside the point, a Lunar base is justifiable in itself if it helps to get to Mars or not. And it will, since it will be the ultimate way to retrain NASA to go places, and develop muchof the important Mars technologies in an environment even more hostile than Mars is.

"Biodiesel production is coming online. It's a race between gasoline hybrids, bio-diesel hybrids, and fuel cells."

Haha, thats funny... like watching a race between a VW Beetle, a Ford Focus, and an F-1 racer... A fuel cell car is INHERINTLY superior, because it does not waste energy as heat like ICE/ICE-Hybrid engines do, and does not need to lug the weight of a drivetrain.

Dook · 2005-05-08 08:29:36

We get technological advancement from research and development of new things but every new thing does not HAVE to work. Fusion, though it would be a great thing it does not HAVE to work, fuel cells may be better than internal combustion engines but we don't HAVE to have them, there are other options. Capitalism functions regardless because someones business benefits when others fail, and I got an A in Macro-Economics.

You want to spend a billion dollars of taxpayer money to set up moon base infrastructure just to mitigate a price spike in platinum to make privately produced fuel cells competitive with bio-diesel hybrids? If they are not competitive then they lose! That's the way it works. I don't want my tax money going to subsidize any more failed businesses. Amtrack failed a long time ago, they lost out to the more efficient bus companies and airlines but the US government subsidizes them to the tune of over $1 billion a year, costing us $25 billion since 1971.

Ignoring on-site reformers? How can I not ignore them, I've never seen one at a gas station yet?

Going into space with no economic justification is political suicide? Really? So every mission has an economic justification? Hubble? SOHO? Apollo? Bull! And if failed missions constituted political suicide then we sure would have had a lot more NASA Administrators in the past few years. They didn't even fire him when the shuttle blew apart.

If the President said "We are going to the moon to build a telescope array" I would be all for it but nobody seems to know what we are going to do there. What kind of 'vision' is that? The President says "Lets go to beat the Chinese to the moon." We beat them 45 years ago! "You NASA guys figure out what we can do when we get there."

The following points mitigate the need for moon platinum now:
-sufficient earth supplies for 300 years
-recycling helps keep the price stable
-other metals reduce the need for platinum

Fuel cells may be superior but most American's don't buy a Mercedes when a Ford or Dodge is sufficient to get the job done for much less.

Grypd · 2005-05-08 16:26:11

When electricity was first replacing the gas lit street lights and moving into peoples homes there where two dsystems that where in operation. The peoples favourite Direct Current and the other Alternating Current. DC also benefited form the sponsorship it recieved from Thomas Eddison the great american inventor. But AC won as it was the most effective system and most functional. And we all use AC now.

This is capitalism at its best and most simple form it wants to use the most effective system but like nature will allways give the next system if better a chance to ursurp the previous. In this way Betamax was replaced by VHS and now VHS is by Compact Discs.

Biodiesel engines depend on the use of platinum for many reasons. Biodiesel engines rely on platinum to make the fuel in the first place. Not only from the normal hydrocarbons that are mixed in but also in the actual bio products too. In a Biodiesel engine platinum is used in an engine as sparkplugs as well as the most common use in the exhaust system to reduce emissions. It is also used extensively in the creation of sound mufflers as diesels are very noisy. But Biodiesels have one more unique use of Platinum. For a Biodiesel engine to operate it needs pltinum to actually be present in the combustion chamber. Platinum is needed as the combustion agent itself and no other material has yet been found that comes anywhere near.

A Fuel cell needs an amount of platinum equivalent of 2 troy ounces to operate but does not need spark plugs or exhaust system. It has to be noted that a Biodiesel car needs just a little bit less in the way of platinum about equivalent to 1 and 2/3rds of troy ounces.

There are other reasons that Fuel celled powered vehicles are more likely to take over people in general less willing to accept polllution both physical and in the form of noise. Fuel cells are at the moment 2 x more efficient than a normal engine it really only needs small refinements for them to take over and in Europe Hydrogen gas stations have started to open. Add in that LPG stations could be converted to Hydrogen supply with some ease and we have already a quick infrastucture. Then it comes down to cost and Hydrogen cars are already a lot more cheaper to run and operate and they last a lot longer with less faults.(less moving parts).

hope this helps.

Dook · 2005-05-08 17:16:52

By the time our 300 year supply of platinum runs out we will be driving vehicles powered by something else anyway.

Grypd · 2005-05-08 18:02:25

By the time our 300 year supply of platinum runs out we will be driving vehicles powered by something else anyway.

What 300 year supply, 90% of Platinum is produced in just 4 mines, 3 are in South Africa and one in Russia. Above ground it is estimated that the supply available will only last us one year before we run out and this includes recycling.

You do know on Earth it takes about 10 tonnes of material to be dug to produce just one troy ounce of platinum. What does this mean, easy the platinum mines are very very deep and are very prone to be being played out. This 300 years means only one thing the south africans believed if we could extract every last ounce from the Bushveld mines it would have lasted 300 years in 1985 consumption figures.

And since 1985 our consumption of platinum has doubled then doubled again we find it is getting difficult to produce enough so the prices of platinum has increased and increased. This is even with South africa having increased production to maximum.

{Off the record this max production of platinum especially at the depths they are now is risky with the likehood of a serious disaster one day unless H+S is kept up to date, something the mines in South Africa and Russia have in the past not been famous for. But at least this is improving rapidly in South Africa but actually going the other way in Russia}

Dook · 2005-05-08 18:34:47

Do you know how much material it takes to get 1 ounce of gold? (33 tons-Alaska) Aluminum oxide?

The link I posted earlier was from a world platinum supply study conducted in 1999 and published in 2000.

Did you get your information from a website trying to sell platinum coins? What do you expect them to say?

If it's such a critical national asset why are we using so damn much of it in jewelry and to make coins?

It's amazing how you all get so upset and focus on a very small aspect of an entire argument. You want some kind of permanent space settlement, anywhere, you don't care where, and you think moon platinum is going to get you just that. If we go there only for platinum and the need or price doesn't pan out, then what? Now we shuffle around trying to switch gears for something else. We fumble along doing this and that on the moon trying to validate all the money we spent and time we wasted.

I'll take a moon base if it gives us some good science (telescope array, moon regolith science, tests mars hardware) and you can have your platinum even though that's not what you really want.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-05-08 18:58:37

Dook,

We can achieve the larger space components, when we stop throwing the space components away in orbit or burn-up in the atomsphere. ( RECYCLE the name of the game ) and also (Re-Engineer the current designs for recycle and secondary use principles in all future designs ) use the question what happens after we use the component for the first use what then ? and create a second use . A second use industry can be developed for space objects and eventually lunar objects and martian objects as well.

First and foremost we don't new a junkyard in the orbit but a recycle center in orbit and break down launch vehicles, satellites, and other systems into base components and materials that can be used in new satellites, or launch vehicles from LEO to Moon and Mars, the control can be done from earth through human controlled tele-robotic teams. But we need the construction and engineering skills work teams that control the robotic systems in orbit.

I just showed another two industry sectors that are spin-offs from the main space program sector and can advance humans in space and reduce expenditure of space programs for future missions. That can lead to human residents in orbit and beyond.

dicktice · 2005-05-08 19:27:28

That's right: Orbital our "space junk" can become someone elsed "space resource depot" if only we dispose of it systematically. Like cars, designed-obsolescence produces accumulated useless junk, unless it is countered by designed-disposal and eventual reclaimation. There's a good commercial opportunity out there, for the planet's first few space junk dealers.

Dook · 2005-05-08 19:30:52

I just showed another two industry sectors that are spin-offs from the main space program sector and can advance humans in space and reduce expenditure of space programs for future missions. That can lead to human residents in orbit and beyond.

You just want human settlement in space somewhere. An orbiting station, the moon, mars, or a damn asteroid for all you care. It costs so much to launch anything into space that getting money out of it is very tough. Communication satellites are about the only thing that makes money but you want something that can support a lot of people, not for any real scientific need, but just because that's what you want.

As far as recycling spent rocket parts I think most rocket engines are not meant to be re-used and those that are (Space Shuttle Main Engines) don't come off in space (not yet anyway). Some of these rocket parts fall back and burn up in the atmosphere too soon after use to be recycled. Even if you could get to them and somehow corral them while they are spinning about how would you fuel them in space? I don't see any money in it and it's certainly full of risk.

If you want Star Trek sooner, time and money wasted on a huge space station or moon base is not going to give it to you. You should be lobbying for giant particle smashers instead.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-05-08 19:53:52

Dook,

The orderly progression of Humanity into space would be from earth to LEO to Moon to Mars and beyond for colonization, industry and society. Before this, We would have explorer missions and small outposts and mining camps then settlements.

As perviously outlined the large budget would provide the funding for the LEO Space assets, then provide the lunar infrastructure facilities and mining operations then the combined group would provide the necessary resources for Mars settlement.

By 2055 The governing authorities would be in a interplanetary security council and government with Lunar government and a Mars colony governor. The Lunar Government would have respresentatives attending the UN or (whatever the World government body is called ) and the Mars Colony will have overall government control from earth until they grow to the size of the Lunar Settlements then they are self governing.

The construction / development costs for infrastructure can be paid back through repayments based on a mining infrastructure development process on earth where the costs are capitalized and the settlers repay the costs back over a 30 year basis like a mortgage and to limit the costs other products could offset the costs like commodities etc.

A system can be developed easily for private enterprise not governments to build the infrastructure shipping and other transportation systems for interplanetary economy to function. Governments could build their internal economies based on taxation systems levied on their individual planetary bodies.

Dook , It can be done within the timeframe outlined previously to get 50,000+ humans ( approximately 5,000 in LEO and L Points, 28,000 on Moon in multiple locations, 15,000 on Mars in multiple locations, 2,000 on outposts across the star system and/or ships ) in space by the start of the 22nd century.

Grypd · 2005-05-09 05:01:58

Do you know how much material it takes to get 1 ounce of gold? (33 tons-Alaska) Aluminum oxide?
The link I posted earlier was from a world platinum supply study conducted in 1999 and published in 2000.
Did you get your information from a website trying to sell platinum coins? What do you expect them to say?

My publish was from the anglo mine corporation who stated in 1985 that the Bushveld held about 300 years of production capacity at the then production amount though most was beyond mining capability at that time. Since then research on the current amount being mined and actual potential reserves are now South African goverment secrets and held very tightly. Obviously the reserves are well below 300 years but at what level and when does diminishing returns start to occur.

It's amazing how you all get so upset and focus on a very small aspect of an entire argument. You want some knid of permanent space settlement, anywhere, you don't care where, and you think moon platinum is going to get you just that. If we go there only for platinum and the need or price doesn't pan out, then what? Now we shuffle around trying to switch gears for something else. We fumble along doing this and that on the moon trying to validate all the money we spent and time we wasted.

No you put your blinkers on and ignore that people have a reasonable means to increase space infrastructure to actually increase the spread of the Human civilisation. All you see is Mars Direct and anything else can go and hang if it means that Mars Direct does not happen as fast as possible. I pity you. You see the goal but not the reason.

Mars Direct as it is will do nothing for mankind we might find life but then so what, there are lots of unique lifeforms that exist on Earth. We cannot even be sure that some of the lifeforms on Mars are not the result of contamination from Earth. What will your plan do for people here on Earth.

I'll take a moon base if it gives us some good science (telescope array, moon regolith science, tests mars hardware) and you can have your platinum even though that's not what you really want.

Of course its not the only reason I want to go to the Moon. It is though just a step but one that will hopefully bring enough of a return that we can take the next step and the next step after that. You have frequently told me that my support of the Moon first means im a traitor to the Mars society. I charge that you really dont understand the Mars society. We must go for the opportunity. The settling of the Martian world, We must go for our Humanity. Humans beings are more than merely another kind of animal, we are lifes messengers, we must go for the future.
Nice statements these look up the founding declaration and have a good read.

Moon first will give us the capacity to create infrastructure that will allow further expansion and to allow more people to get to Mars without bursting the bank down here. As long as we have to keep sending items only from the Earths deep gravity well then we cannot and willnot afford to go too far

Dook · 2005-05-09 06:31:40

How is the moon an opportunity? Been there, done that. We have the bumber sticker already. You think the moon is going to turn into some giant rest stop on the way to the outer solar system and beyond? You really need to start living in 2005. Humans won't be going beyond mars for a very, very, long time and when we do it will be with star trek level technology.

I don't just see Mars Direct. I have seen NASA become a giant space shuttle social employment department and they bet the farm that their little machines would return some real science, and they have. Their machines (Hubble, mars rovers, SOHO...) have produced almost ALL of the science return for the past twenty years while the shuttle has simply taken pictures and built the ISS.

There is no reason to send people out any farther than mars. Our machines can return very good science without the high cost and risk of manned missions. As far as settlement is concerned, maybe an orbiting station with scientists and some workers (in 100-200 years) with a small very expensive hotel, a small moon science outpost , and terraformers on mars. Anything else is just science fiction fantasy. It's not going to happen because it would be a burden, not a benefit. What you are saying is equal to "Lets go live in Antarctica because we must go for humanity." It's stupid, nobody with any kind of life at all will go, other than scientists.

All those 50,000 people you want to send out into the solar system and beyond, they would all be dead in less than a year.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-05-09 06:59:07

Dook,

Its great to have a blinker carrying person in this forum. By the end of this year the multi-core computer processor will be out for commercial use starting with dual-core. Already the people at Intel and AMD have tested the quad -core as well. The 64 Bit language is getting rolled out by the end of next year we will have a 64 bit desktop, notebook, and servers.

That is current computer technology which supports all facets of the space sector. As the years move forward the technology within the vehicles gets increase in all aspects - speeds, complex calculations, graphics, voice, vision and more.

The spin-offs into energy research and control technologies including management systems for nuclear reactors will be updated and advanced. In every aspect of space requirements will be enhanced over the time and by the 2030's we will have advanced metal technologies and improved on new metals including extreme heat resistant and super strength alloys.

These are some areas that will be enhanced by the continuous improvements that are happening in Computer technology and the effects to other industry sectors that we need in space. So to answer you "blinker question of the 50,000 Humans in space by the end of (2199) of course they will be there and possibility of more, because our level of technology is growing at 400-700% faster than the speed of the industrial revolution.

Sorry not 2199 but 2099 through to 2101 the and end of the 21st century start of the 22nd Century

Dook · 2005-05-09 08:06:14

What you are saying is that technology is advancing without the need or burden of a human settlement of space.

Computers are great but they don't provide propulsion, or oxygen, food, heat/cooling, or recycle waste.

BWhite · 2005-05-09 08:32:41

Anything else is just science fiction fantasy. It's not going to happen because it would be a burden, not a benefit. What you are saying is equal to "Lets go live in Antarctica because we must go for humanity." It's stupid, nobody with any kind of life at all will go, other than scientists.
All those 50,000 people you want to send out into the solar system and beyond, they would all be dead in less than a year.

Yup. This is the precise question.

Are we to be a multi-planet species or a one planet species? In the long run, it is the ONLY question that matters.

And if we chose to stay on Earth, forever, then I guess those spider monkey thingees on Alpha Gamma Epsilon will inherit the cosmos rather than us.

It's not Drake's Equation, its Drake's Race!

Edited By BWhite on 1115649198

Dook · 2005-05-09 08:49:40

You think I don't want that too? But with our current technology it's just not reasonable and you know what improves technology-SCIENCE!

Martin seems to think we will have 50,000 people living off the planet by 2199, I don't know, I doubt it. Even so, what does that have to do with us living in the year 2005 and our current level of technology? 2199 is 194 years in the future!

If that is your only goal, and it's a very strange one at that, then your best bet to have that many people living away from the earth is a partially terraformed mars-water on the surface and an atmosphere.

You think people will want to live in mobile homes in space, the moon, or on mars? Because that's the best we can do now. Very expensive, high risk, cramped spaces, systems breaking down, leaks, radiation, a few deaths. That's the level of today's space exploration.

2199? Heck you guys might as well be talking about the year 21,999.

BWhite · 2005-05-09 10:37:29

Dook, the science we need is CELSS.

Once we learn to re-cycle CHONs with a high degree of reliability then the solar system starts looking like a sterile petri dish brimming with the stuff we can thrive on.

Perhaps its a reprise of when our aquatic ancestors flopped onto dry land.

Dook · 2005-05-09 11:09:58

A perfect waste recycling system is definately one of the main things we need before we do any really long space missions but I would put propulsion system right up there with it.

Theoretically solar sails are supposed to reach a tenth of the speed of light but that is still a 5 year trip to Pluto and a 1,000 year trip to the nearest star.

Then there is the matter of a food supply, spare parts, gravity, radiation, a reliable and very long term energy supply, and fuel for attitude thrusters.

BWhite · 2005-05-09 11:13:17

A perfect waste recycling system is definately one of the main things we need before we do any really long space missions but I would put propulsion system right up there with it.
Theoretically solar sails are supposed to reach a tenth of the speed of light but that is still a 5 year trip to Pluto and a 1,000 year trip to the nearest star.
Then there is the matter of a food supply, spare parts, gravity, radiation, a reliable and very long term energy supply, and fuel for attitude thrusters.

My focus is on living out a "normal" life span on Mars where it appears that abundant water and CO2 are there for the taking. "Perfect" recycling is not necessary since H2O and CO2 can be readily imported into the artificial eco-system.

Energy, nitrogen and whether children can be safely born and raised in 3/8ths gravity are very significant issues that need massive research.

Yet since Mars simply is the 2nd safest known place to raise a family where else do we start?

Edited By BWhite on 1115658867

SpaceNut · 2005-05-09 11:17:40

Our problem for recycling satelites or other space junk is that we can not get the item to us unless we are in an orbit below it, not to mention the need for any minor delta v changes.

But that is where a solar sail might come in if it where part of the standard package of items for when it is no longer needed. Such that it unfurls to mitigate it to the salvage yard as deemed necessary.

Dook · 2005-05-09 11:37:22

Yet since Mars simply is the 2nd safest known place to raise a family where else do we start?

Why would anyone want to take their family to mars? In a few hundred years when it's terraformed, sure I can see that but before?

You want to raise a family inside a dome, or worse, a cave? Like Matrix Revolutions, with everyone hiding from the hostile and deadly things that exist just outside the thin walls.

BWhite · 2005-05-09 12:46:24

Yet since Mars simply is the 2nd safest known place to raise a family where else do we start?
Why would anyone want to take their family to mars? In a few hundred years when it's terraformed, sure I can see that but before?
You want to raise a family inside a dome, or worse, a cave? Like Matrix Revolutions, with everyone hiding from the hostile and deadly things that exist just outside the thin walls.

Why would anyone leave England to live in the wilds of Massachusetts? Or hike across the plains to barren Utah?

Roanoke colony failed. So what?

Those who choose to live on Mars inside tin cans and raise their children will die knowing that their children and children's children will be in a favored position to engulf an entire planet with their offspring.

And children raised on Mars will be far more capable of settling the asteroids that Terran raised children as they will be accustomed to the rigors of living off of the Earth.

Of course, there are two examples that depend on one's religous sensibilities. For the scientist, there is the early homo sapien migration out of the horn of Africa. For the western religiously minded - - Jew, Christian, Muslim - - there is the example of Avrum who left Ur to found a new people in the wilds of Canaan.

Why did Avrum make that trek? Wasn't Ur a nice enough place to live?
:;):

BWhite · 2005-05-09 12:51:44

But don't listen to me. Try http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10683]Dr. Michael Griffin:

Allow me to begin, if I might, with some "truth in advertising". I am an unabashed supporter of space exploration in general, and of human space flight in particular. I believe that the human space flight program is in the long run possibly the most significant activity in which our nation is engaged. For what, today, do we recall renaissance Spain, King Ferdinand, and Queen Isabella? Unless one is a professional historian, the memory which is evoked is their sponsorship of Columbus in his voyages of discovery. For what, in five hundred years, will our era be recalled? We will never know, but I believe it will be for the Apollo lunar landings if for anything at all. And this is entirely appropriate. Human expansion into space is a continuation of the ancient human imperative to explore, to exploit, to settle new territory when and as it becomes possible to do so. This imperative will surely be satisfied, by others if not by us.
We know this, if not with our logic then with our intuition. We are all the descendants of people who left known and familiar places to strike out for the risky promise of better places, in an unbroken chain going back to a small corner of east Africa. Concerning the settlement of the American West, it has been said that "the cowards never started, and the weaklings died on the way." But this has been true of every human migration; we are all the descendants of those who chose to explore and to settle new lands, and who survived the experience.

If not done by us, it will be done by others.

So, recognizing that others may differ, for me the single overarching goal of human space flight is the human settlement of the solar system, and eventually beyond. I can think of no lesser purpose sufficient to justify the difficulty of the enterprise, and no greater purpose is possible.

Edited By BWhite on 1115664865

Dook · 2005-05-09 13:19:37

Settling asteroids? Why would we do that? How is that a good thing? It's like children who spend the night pretend camping in the backyard. They can have their fun sleeping on the hard ground, I'll take my mattress.

But maybe it's just me since no other Mars Society member is speaking up against this kind of talk. Maybe we should petition for a name change, become the Asteroid and Beyond Society, ABS.

Early settlers didn't have to worry about whether there would be enough oxygen to breathe, carbon dioxide and monoxide toxicity, ventilation systems breaking down filling the dome with the smell of manure from the ranch, a sudden problem with the hydroponics that means some people are chosen to starve to death, electrical shorts in the wires that lead to the outside solar panels, nuclear reactor waste, the taste of grey water... You want to subject children to this? It's a lot of work, nothing much to buy. No trips to Disneyland.

So why don't you take your family down to Antarctica to live? It's just like mars, though not as cold. There is plenty of ice for water and oxygen. The reason you don't is because you know that people would think you are stupid. How is living on an asteroid different? Choosing a dangerous life is up to you, putting your children through it is not acceptable.

Settlement? Sure, some day. But not to live in a box, rebreathing air that someone else just exhaled.

I think if an advanced alien life form were to enter our solar system and find that some humans left the earth to instead live on an asteroid that they would ask "Wasn't the earth beautiful enough for you?"

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2005-05-08 07:21:15

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#102 2005-05-08 07:39:40

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#103 2005-05-08 08:29:36

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#104 2005-05-08 16:26:11

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#105 2005-05-08 17:16:52

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#106 2005-05-08 18:02:25

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#107 2005-05-08 18:34:47

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#108 2005-05-08 18:58:37

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#109 2005-05-08 19:27:28

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#110 2005-05-08 19:30:52

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#111 2005-05-08 19:53:52

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#112 2005-05-09 05:01:58

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#113 2005-05-09 06:31:40

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#114 2005-05-09 06:59:07

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#115 2005-05-09 08:06:14

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#116 2005-05-09 08:32:41

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#117 2005-05-09 08:49:40

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#118 2005-05-09 10:37:29

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#119 2005-05-09 11:09:58

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#120 2005-05-09 11:13:17

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#121 2005-05-09 11:17:40

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#122 2005-05-09 11:37:22

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#123 2005-05-09 12:46:24

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#124 2005-05-09 12:51:44

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

#125 2005-05-09 13:19:37

Re: The reason to go to mars - Going to mars is not a waste of money

Board footer