Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually we may never colonize mars if an FTL systems are invented- Mars would be literally be in the rear view mirror. Yeah, let’s blow this pop stand and really get out there.
Well if we poured more money into technology for science instead of technology for bombs we might make some headway.
some of the smartest people are working in government research labs.
^ I don't think you read my comments above. But let's state it a different way, as a simple visual. Think of about five "links" that need to be together in a "chain", to make it possible. We only have about three links now, and none are connected. Getting the others are unlikely, and connecting what we have now is also not likely.
Unless we want to resort to fantasy, the components sadly aren't going to be able to come together.
I read your comments but I waxed quixotic about going to the Moon and Mars.
Regarding "starting over", yes and no. Nasa has abandoned the Space Shuttle approach and returned to the tried-and-true multi-stage booster with the "capsule" atop.
But, while they have been pursuing the traditional approach, the quasi-private company SpaceX has been perfecting reusable boosters that self-land on ocean platforms, and have adopted the latest tech in their spacecraft -- modern processors, tablets, etc. -- versus the 1980s hardened tech used in Nasa craft up until recently.
In terms of lifting capacity, the SpaceX Falcon Heavy is #4 behind the Saturn V, the Energia, and the SLS (space shuttle) boosters. SpaceX is currently working on a successor to the Heavy, the Starship, which will have twice the thrust of the Saturn V.
Between Nasa pushing its Moon landing program and developing a nuclear thermo propulsion system capable of reaching Mars in 45 days, and SpaceX pushing heavy lifters capable of boosting Mars-capable craft to orbit, it seems as though the Americans are pretty committed to touching both points in the Solar System within the next couple of decades if not sooner.
Mars would be even more accessible if they were to revisit the nuclear pulse propulsion system known as Project Orion in the early 1960s. Such a system, based on nuclear explosions pushing against a heavy shielded plate, could push a spacecraft from the surface of Earth to Mars in two weeks. It was abandoned as impractical and dangerous, and in any case the Test Ban Treaty with the USSR made it impossible to test.
But cheap lifting approach of SpaceX could change the equation, moving the nuclear pulse drive a safe distance from Earth before activation.
Space is extremely dangerous. Humans were not designed to survive in space; particles rip through our tissues, causing cellular damage and cancer. Micro-meteorites moving thousands of miles per hour can hit ships with the force of a bullet or even a hand grenade; the Space Shuttle has been hit by flecks of paint or similar orbital debris, leaving inch-wide craters in the shell of the ship.
Then there is the damage caused by living in zero-gravity. Under constant acceleration, the passengers will feel a gravity-like force which at least is better than zero-G, but the ship will have to decelerate at some point. Probably the best approach will be a rotating structure that provides centripetal pull to simulate Earth-like gravity, during the periods when the craft is not under acceleration. It's not ideal; the lateral coriolis forces exerted in a small rotating structure would make you dizzy every time you turned your head. In a larger structure, such forces would be barely noticeable.
Then there is the question of what to do once you reach the Red Planet. Nasa has gotten pretty good at landing a robotic craft, for example the bouncing balloon approach, parachute with rocket assist, and some variants thereof. But humans will need a much safer and gentler landing system, and of course will need a way to get off the planet just as safely and dock with the orbital mother ship.
I don't see us landing people on Mars in the near future but it's still a noble goal.
Yes, we will. We have no choice, not to mention Space is the 6th Level Economy.
There's no doubt we need a better propulsion system, but that's what research is for and I've always advocated using the Moon to practice what we're going to do on Mars.
The US is #330 Million people but only 5% of the world's population and Americans consume 32% of the non-oil resources.
India has 1 Billion people and China 1.5 Billion. If both had a 330 Million strong Middle Class living large like Americans you can see this equation does not compute:
US 32% + India 32% + China 32% = 96% of the world's non-oil resources.
Who seriously believes the world's other 196 countries are going to fall on their swords and live Medieval-style so's the US, India and China can live large?
Yeah, can you say "conflict"? Sure, I knew you could.
So, either you war for resources or everyone lives a late 1960s/early 1970s US life-style or you explore Space.
Yes, we will. We have no choice, not to mention Space is the 6th Level Economy.
There's no doubt we need a better propulsion system, but that's what research is for and I've always advocated using the Moon to practice what we're going to do on Mars............................
So, either you war for resources or everyone lives a late 1960s/early 1970s US life-style or you explore Space.
Why do you say we have no choice?
The fact is, we have no way. There could, in theory, be a person or even a crew that could make it to mars, but there is no point and no reason to stay. So I say we'll never go.
The world's population will begin to decline very shortly. In fact, China has already reported a decline, which is never - insofar as you or I may be concerned - going to stop. So it won't be population explosion that drives us. And national debts, owed by the only countries that could possibly have financed a mars adventure, will prevent the money from ever coming available.
The current iteration of human is not going to mars. You may have been advocating for use of the moon, but I have to remind you we have not been back in 50 years, even though we are perfectly capable of doing so if we wanted. Only four of the 12 Americans who went to the moon are still alive, and the youngest of them is 88. It has been that long.
Robots? Rovers? ..... Sure. And let them die there. But people, there and back?.......... I don't think so. There is simply no compelling reason other than it would make a great story.
Yes, we will. We have no choice, not to mention Space is the 6th Level Economy.
There's no doubt we need a better propulsion system, but that's what research is for and I've always advocated using the Moon to practice what we're going to do on Mars.
The US is #330 Million people but only 5% of the world's population and Americans consume 32% of the non-oil resources.
India has 1 Billion people and China 1.5 Billion. If both had a 330 Million strong Middle Class living large like Americans you can see this equation does not compute:
US 32% + India 32% + China 32% = 96% of the world's non-oil resources.
Who seriously believes the world's other 196 countries are going to fall on their swords and live Medieval-style so's the US, India and China can live large?
Yeah, can you say "conflict"? Sure, I knew you could.
So, either you war for resources or everyone lives a late 1960s/early 1970s US life-style or you explore Space.
If we can develop fusion power systems, or space-based solar, or some other reasonably sustainable energy source, we can look to space for mineral resources. That still leaves potable water, food & other resource bottlenecks, but with major energy concerns solved, we can take more time (& afford to) clean up the biosphere. Maybe a happy ending is possible for civilization, but we need to get cracking on the energy front.
Unfortunately I am less optimistic than some of the other posters although it pains me since I am definitely a space nerd. Unlike the space race, I do not see any real motivation beyond Elon's to get to Mars. I am not sure any government(s) have the palate for the risks and costs associated with such a venture for humans.
It is like WMFJ all over again.
If you watch some old sci-fi films you will see where they take place in the future in like 2000 and they were flying around all over space, encountering aliens, space outposts and visiting planets. Many people in the theater were probably of the opinion, yep, that is what it will be like, Martians and all. Many of those people are probably now already gone.
Humanity is too busy infighting to bother with any substantial space exploration push and the politics in the US have surpassed toxic. Every president comes in an makes some arbitrary space exploration declaration now. If the US hits economic hard times again you can expect progress to be hindered further for a decade or more. Privatization has definitely helped progress but I am not sure that alone is going to get us there because of the underlying profit motive. Maybe if a space race v2 or the discovery of life kicks off but absent that I have come to the conclusion at the ripe old age of 47 that people on Mars isn't happening in my lifetime.
Perhaps a suicide mission of sorts which is possible but that is about all I can expect IMO.
If you watch some old sci-fi films you will see where they take place in the future in like 2000 and they were flying around all over space, encountering aliens, space outposts and visiting planets. Many people in the theater were probably of the opinion, yep, that is what it will be like, Martians and all. Many of those people are probably now already gone.
Advancements in mechanical engineering haven't been as rapid as in computers or biology. Rockets today are fundamentally the same as those built during the decade after WW2. A mechanical or aerospace engineer magically transported from 1963 to 2023 would be shocked at the paucity of progress. This is why so many aspects of what might have been considered to have been plausible science-fiction 60 years ago, remain mere fiction today.
But slow progress isn't equivalent to zero progress. The current mission to the moon, for example, looks largely derivative of the Apollo program. But there are profound differences under the hood.
So whereas the futurists of the 1960s may have supposed a manned Mars program by something like the 1990s, and nothing like that actually happened, even so, we may very well have a viable Mars program by the 2090s.
My own view is that good stewardship of the earth is not inconsistent with more aggressive space exploration and eventual colonization. The reason to make permanent settlements on Mars isn't to escape a polluted earth, but to expand our destiny as a species. Even if we solve problems of environment, energy and so on, right here on earth, to confine ourselves to a single planet is underwhelming and downright defeatist. In the very distant future, it's not unreasonable to suppose that humanity might resemble something like Asimov's Foundation series, where Mankind has spread throughout the entire galaxy.
I think your title is misleading but I understand you're talking about living on Mars rather than just visiting. Unless something totally unforeseen happens (eg. huge asteroid hitting Earth), I'd expect humans to one day visit Mars, just like they visited the Moon. Living there is a totally different ballgame. With today's technology, no ways. But as we know technology is always advancing and it's impossible to predict all advancements centuries or longer in the future. What will technology 100, 500, 5,000 years into the future allow us to do? Nobody knows. Now if you include a defined time period such as in my lifetime or the next 100 years, I'd say no, but never? I can't even make an educated guess.
But whatever technology that may be, it would work better in the more remote unhospitable parts of Earth. Even frozen Siberia and Antarctica are immensely more hospitable than Mars. You can breathe the air, have ample water, and get people and cargo there and back in hours. I don't see there ever being anything more on Mars than a pilot settlement just to say we can do it. It would never amount to any significant population.
And if we are going the "you never know" in 500 years possibility, you can pretty much say anything about anything is possible. Maybe we will be immortal? Maybe we will be bionic?
Yes, we will. We have no choice, not to mention Space is the 6th Level Economy.
There's no doubt we need a better propulsion system, but that's what research is for and I've always advocated using the Moon to practice what we're going to do on Mars.
The US is #330 Million people but only 5% of the world's population and Americans consume 32% of the non-oil resources.
India has 1 Billion people and China 1.5 Billion. If both had a 330 Million strong Middle Class living large like Americans you can see this equation does not compute:
US 32% + India 32% + China 32% = 96% of the world's non-oil resources.
Who seriously believes the world's other 196 countries are going to fall on their swords and live Medieval-style so's the US, India and China can live large?
Yeah, can you say "conflict"? Sure, I knew you could.
So, either you war for resources or everyone lives a late 1960s/early 1970s US life-style or you explore Space.
Why do you think technology can advance to the point of solving the immense problems of going to and living on Mars but not to the point in solving the resource issues here on Earth? I think solving the problems Earth faces will be far cheaper and easier than solving the problems of Mars colonization. And such colonies would never be more than a near-zero percentage of the population and have a near-zero effect on Earth resources.
Besides, many people believe the world will see population declines soon. A new study published in the Lancet journal revealed that for the first time in centuries, the world’s population is set to decline starting in the next few decades. https://nationalpost.com/news/world-...ies-study-says
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But there's no time to waste
