[quote]There’s an old proverb that states “We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.” And if some in the scientific community have their way, that sentiment will extend to other planetary bodies as well. A movement among some in the spacefaring community believe that humans need to set up a kind of national parks system for planets prior to human and further robotic exploration to ensure that pristine environmental value--both scientific and intrinsic--is preserved beyond Earth orbit.
Earth orbit might be a good example as to why. The area of space where human activity has been most prevalent is filled with debris--the leftovers and byproducts of our presence there. And with private spaceflight now rapidly making up technical ground on even the world’s most capable space programs, it’s only a matter of time before manned exploration is happening elsewhere in the solar system and outside of the strict oversight of a state-sponsored space agency, advocates argue.
Therefore, given the fact that we have already mapped and extensively studied our closest planetary neighbors (like the moon and Mars) and we know what kinds of geologic features and areas are most valuable from both scientific and intrinsic standpoints, we should cordon off certain areas of interest within which exploration is either forbidden or restricted. For instance, Mars possesses various geographic regions like mountain ranges, deserts, polar ice caps, extinct volcanoes, and the like. And they could be scientifically interesting not just now but further down the road as we learn more about the universe.
So why not preserve sections of them now, as we do on Earth (at least somewhat) for our great forests, jungles, gorges, mountain ranges, wetlands, and so on? Such park designations wouldn’t have to render these areas entirely off limits for exploration, of course, but would create rules like no landing of unmanned spacecraft, no spacecraft or human debris left behind within the park, and more rigorous sterilization standards for any object crossing the boundary to mitigate microbial contamination.
In the land and resource grab that very well may be in the offing on bodies like the moon and Mars, advocates say, having a parks framework already in place could quell future potential-use conflicts and ensure that irresponsible exploration is limited to the spaces outside of the most scientifically interesting regions of planetary bodies. If you have thoughts on this (or some really good spam!) drop them in the comments below. We’re interested to hear what you think.
[img]http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/article_image_large/articles/mars-planetary-parks.jpg[/img]
Proposed "Mars Parks"
[/quote]
Source: [url]http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-01/should-we-establish-%E2%80%98parks-system%E2%80%99-other-planets-solar-system[/url]
I don't really agree with this. There's too many variables to watch out for "No debris" or "No unmanned spacecraft" in those areas. Maybe once we actually start a colony on Mars, then we could think about that.
First we establish historical museums/colonies on the Moon, then Mars!
UN has already ruled that any government on Earth cannot own land on another celestial body. As such, there cannot be a "national" park.
Baby steps; they should go with the moon, first. Sure, it might not be as [i]fancy[/i] as Mars, but it doesn't hurt to stick close (with the Moon).
[QUOTE=AbeX300;39296634]Baby steps; they should go with the moon, first. Sure, it might not be as [i]fancy[/i] as Mars, but it doesn't hurt to stick close (with the Moon).[/QUOTE]
go big or go home
lets build a theme park on venus
For a minute there I mentally omitted "national" from the title and imagined Roller Coaster Tycoon on Mars.
Actually, now that I think about it that would be an awesome idea, fuck Mars One, we need to put roller coasters on Mars.
[editline]13:37[/editline]
Also why would they be called "national" parks as opposed to "international" parks or something, I mean national park implies that it falls within the jurisdiction of one country and that's not how space works (yet).
I think we must all discuss and agree to what goals we have in space exploration first.
For instance, if it's about securing resources so when/if Earth is bled dry we have alternatives, then who gives a crap about preservation of other celestial bodies?
If we are looking for new places to live, then preventing pollution and other negative environmental impacts should be priority number one.
If we are just exploring for the sake of exploring, until such time as we have better technology and more choices, then we should refrain from doing any damage since we might regret it later.
[QUOTE=TheStateTrooper;39296645]go big or go home
lets build a theme park on venus[/QUOTE]
Son or bust bitch.
blaze it
we've ruined our own planet with tourism, let's ruin others!
[QUOTE=TheStateTrooper;39296645]go big or go home
lets build a theme park on venus[/QUOTE]
Even a tiny dip would require heatshields :v:
[QUOTE=DeathDoom;39296654]For a minute there I mentally omitted "national" from the title and imagined Roller Coaster Tycoon on Mars.
Actually, now that I think about it that would be an awesome idea, fuck Mars One, we need to put roller coasters on Mars.
[editline]13:37[/editline]
Also why would they be called "national" parks as opposed to "international" parks or something, I mean national park implies that it falls within the jurisdiction of one country and that's not how space works (yet).[/QUOTE]
I think they just said "national park" to give an idea what they're wanting to do. If you read "international park", a lot of people won't know what the hell they're talking about, I bet.
I don't think they actually mean, "this is for Americans here, this is for Chinese over there", etc.
[QUOTE=Judas;39296708]we've ruined our own planet with tourism, let's ruin others![/QUOTE]
I thought parks were good, my father being the manager of one. It keeps the city from mowing down every remaining tree and establishes some community service opportunities.
Without the park service, my family would be fucked.
[QUOTE=Corey_Faure;39296737]I thought parks were good, my father being the manager of one. It keeps the city from mowing down every remaining tree and establishes some community service opportunities.
Without the park service, my family would be fucked.[/QUOTE]
Not to mention that, long term wise centuries into the future, Mars will have to have major geological changes to become a major human colony across the entire planet. It's going to change vastly, so saving a few spots of "pre-human Mars" will be nice for posterity's sake.
[QUOTE=Ridge;39296631]UN has already ruled that any government on Earth cannot own land on another celestial body. As such, there cannot be a "national" park.[/QUOTE]
They probably would be selected by the UN if they ever tried to do it, so likely they would be "international parks" as opposed to "national parks." They probably just use "national park" in the article for the sake of simplicity.
For roosevelts sake, yes.
National parks are fucking awesome.
I just want some big ass "global parks" on the moon with big glass domes with catwalks and stuff keeping the landing sites untouched, but accessible. Like you'd have a hollow glass bubble and a catwalk that could take you to an observation point really close to the lander and stuff.
[QUOTE=Judas;39296708]we've ruined our own planet with tourism, let's ruin others![/QUOTE]
Don't know about you Judas but I'd love to have a tour of [I][B]Mars.[/B][/I]
( If it was safe of course! )
[QUOTE=Judas;39296708]we've ruined our own planet with tourism, let's ruin others![/QUOTE]
yeah man yellowstone has been absolutely trashed since we protected it from mining and shit
Bugger that, mine the hell out of it
I'd like Life Support up before i start strolling in my lunar park.
Screw that.
Unlike our own little blue marble, there isn't any major existing ecosystem that we have to worry about. We may as well develop as we want.
[QUOTE=latin_geek;39297285]I just want some big ass "global parks" on the moon with big glass domes with catwalks and stuff keeping the landing sites untouched, but accessible. Like you'd have a hollow glass bubble and a catwalk that could take you to an observation point really close to the lander and stuff.[/QUOTE]
Isn't something like that from futurama?
[QUOTE=ewitwins;39297706]Screw that.
Unlike our own little blue marble, there isn't any major existing ecosystem that we have to worry about. We may as well develop as we want.[/QUOTE]
Mars has the largest volcano in the system. I'd like to keep things like that looking natural.
The Grand Canyon is a geological spot that is kept clean not for the ecosystem but for its natural visual beauty.
We keep parks like this not just for "the ecosystems".
No, it would really get in the way of any attempt to terraform the planet. It is likely that an early step of any terraforming attempts include introducing plant life that generate the appropriate composition of byproducts to increase the pressure of the atmosphere and make it breathable. That would sort of be hindered if there were places it couldn't spread to.
Studying the history of mars is novel and all, but lets get our priorities straight. Figuring out how to survive on another planet with virtually no magnetic field or protective atmosphere is gonna take a hell of a lot of effort and time, and is leaps and bounds more scientifically interesting and ultimately beneficial to all of mankind.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
