• Mars To Stay
    15 replies, posted
Since 1972 the human exploation of space has been boldly going nowhere, and with the cancellation of the Constellation project due to the latest NASA budget, it looks as if human spaceflight to the moon and beyond is going to be set back, again. But what if the Astronauts who left for Mars were to stay there indefinatly? For the $50 Billion that it cost to sent and return a crew of 4 Astronauts from the red planet, 20 could be sent knowing they would propbaly never return. Mars has all the reasorces nessicary to surport human life (Water, Nitrogen, Carbon and Oxygen) locked in its soil. Using a roman style atria underground or in mountain sides could provide ample shelter from sub-zero temeritures and steller radiation, while glass and plasic domes could be built from materials found on the planetary surface. These domes could them be used as terrariums and crop areas. With an abundace of rare metals and deturium the perminant colonization of the red planet is comecially viable for both earth based and mars based buiesness. Mars to Stay, Cheaper, Sustainable and Mankinds next big step into the comos.
Yeah, but wouldn't it take decades to set the colonisation of Mars in motion? Not to mention the Money and Resources required to send a spaceship there and setup a sustainable life. Also Mars isn't the most aesthetically pleasing planet in the solar system...Quite frankly: [I]It's FUCKING ugly![/I]
If the $50 Billion were paid off over a 10 year period it would fit with Nasa's current budget. With intatianal coperation from the ESA, Russia and China, it could be so much faster. As for getting potential colonists, im sure there would be no sortage of volenteers, i for one would not give it a second thought.
This is pretty hard to read, so I've edited it to my best ability. [Quote] Since 1972, the human exploration of space has been boldly going nowhere, and with the cancellation of the Constellation project due to the latest NASA budget, it looks as if human spaceflight to the moon and beyond is going to be set back again - but what if the astronauts who left for Mars were to stay there indefinitely? For the $50 billion that it costs to send and return a crew of 4 astronauts from the red planet, 20 could be sent knowing that they would probably never return. Mars has all of the resources necessary to support human life (water, nitrogen, carbon, and oxygen) locked in its soil. Using a roman-style atria underground or in mountainsides could provide ample shelter from sub-zero temperatures and stellar radiation, while the glass and plastic domes could be built from materials found on the planetary surface. These domes could then be used as terrariums and crop areas. With an abundance of rare metals and deuterium, the permanent colonization of the red planet is commercially viable for both Earth-based and Mars-based business. Mars to stay - cheaper, sustainable, and mankind's next big step into the cosmos.[/Quote] whew
But it would be a one-way trip, yes? Also what [I]is [/I]NASA's budget?
[QUOTE=groin-smashy;20953439]If the $50 Billion were paid off over a 10 year period it would fit with Nasa's current budget. With intatianal coperation from the ESA, Russia and China, it could be so much faster. As for getting potential colonists, im sure there would be no sortage of volenteers, i for one would not give it a second thought.[/QUOTE] I think the first colonists would need to be highly trained specialists, there is no help to get there if something fails.
$19 billion next year, subtract pay roll and ongoing reasach and missions and you have around $11 Billion to spend. as far as my math goes anyway
Some of us facepunchers have already gone to Mars. It's nothing special. [editline]07:21AM[/editline] Just a lot of red dirt everywhere, and some rocks.
If humanity could start to enhance Mars, it could be transformed into a habitat like Earth one day. But that would take a very long while.
[QUOTE=groin-smashy;20953439]If the $50 Billion were paid off over a 10 year period it would fit with Nasa's current budget. With intatianal coperation from the ESA, Russia and China, it could be so much faster. As for getting potential colonists, im sure there would be no sortage of volenteers, i for one would not give it a second thought.[/QUOTE] Don't forget the newly formed UKSA, they could chip in a bit.
It's not really viable right now.
[QUOTE=groin-smashy;20953439]If the $50 Billion were paid off over a 10 year period it would fit with Nasa's current budget. With intatianal coperation from the ESA, Russia and China, it could be so much faster. As for getting potential colonists, im sure there would be no sortage of volenteers, i for one would not give it a second thought.[/QUOTE] Okay in you original post, you mentioned having all the chemicals needed to synthesis plastic. Not a chance. You try synthesising raw carbon into polyethylene, not to mention all the catalyst chemicals and conditions needed, like platinum and the like, and try the haber process on mars? That'll be lulzy.
They should rather focus on developing better propulsion. That way it would save a lot of time on anything space related.
Sure, it's possible, but why? Any other reason other than "LOL IT'D BE COOL TO LIVE ON MARS"? Maybe when shit hits the fan on our own rock and we have better technology, until then, no point.
In America, money is not an issue :smug:
[QUOTE=cam_93;20953400]Yeah, but wouldn't it take decades to set the colonisation of Mars in motion? Not to mention the Money and Resources required to send a spaceship there and setup a sustainable life. Also Mars isn't the most aesthetically pleasing planet in the solar system...Quite frankly: [I]It's FUCKING ugly![/I][/QUOTE] Try centuries.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.