[Durham Giant]

Re: Would you move to Mars? : Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:18 am  

If you can get Sky so i can watch RL i might consider it.

Re: Would you move to Mars? : Fri Jan 10, 2014 1:29 pm  

then it would be a bummer ... its the specialists I need.

There's another point: whereas going to be a pioneer has many attractions, I would also have to consider my and other persons' motives: are we hoping to find happiness and succcess by going away from where we have not found it? As this will probably fail, it means being stranded in the 21st Century equivalent of mid !7th Century New England.
No thanks to that.

Re: Would you move to Mars? : Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:02 pm  

Starbug wrote:

No, but I'd be happy to contribute to Smokeys ticket, providing he was boarding within the next couple of months

I'll chip in if he's strapped to the outside of the vessel.

Re: Would you move to Mars? : Fri Jan 10, 2014 11:19 pm  

Is terraforming even possible?

What about the atmosphere and the vast temperature changes from day to night?

It's all pie in the sky stuff surely?

The selection process too, it's practically a suicide mission, not actual death but you're giving up everthing and never returning.

Re: Would you move to Mars? : Sun Jan 12, 2014 12:51 pm  

Wire Yed wrote:

Is terraforming even possible?

What about the atmosphere and the vast temperature changes from day to night?

It's all pie in the sky stuff surely?

The selection process too, it's practically a suicide mission, not actual death but you're giving up everthing and never returning.

Yes it's possible. The basic plan is to create and release lots of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (you must admit we're good at that).

As the temperature increased, some of the frozen carbon dioxide in the south polar cap would vaporise, leading to more warming, leading to more vapourisation, etc until all the CO2 was vaporised. NASA scientists know the numbers and have calculated that this would produce an average temperature rise of 70 degrees C. That would be warm enough to start melting the ice, thus producing water, which would evaporate into the atmosphere, increasing atmospheric pressure. NASA reckons to maybe the equivalent of Earth's highest mountain tops. So you would basically still need an oxygen tank, but not unliveable.

And once you have those conditions, you can start planting and growing trees, which of course remove CO2 and produce oxygen.

As for selection, over a quarter of a million people applied. Plenty of people have in the past volunteered for what appear to be practically suicide missions and I reckon it is part of the human psyche, you will always find some individuals willing to risk everything, they don't look on it the same way as other people. WWII fighter pilots or bomber crews, to name just one of many examples.

I know it isn't quite the same thing in that the actual PLAN was to return to Earth, but many viewed the Apollo missions as not far off suicide, and my point is that the astronauts risked everything on missions where there were so many critical things that had to work, or there would be no second chance, such as the burn to slow speed and go into Moon orbit; such as the one chance that the lander engine would work to take off the Moon; such as the burn to get a survivable return speed and trajectory back into Earth's atmosphere.

And that is with full scientific and technical back-up in a health and safety culture. History has legions of pioneers who went out to almost certain death in, say, exploration - like sailors when there was a geniune widespread belief in falling off the edge of the world, and zero guarantee that you would find anything, let alone anywhere where there would be food and drink.

The fact is that if the main space powers wanted to and were able and willing to pump all their resources into a Mars colony then it COULD be done, and in a much shorter timescale. By far the biggest issue is it being a certain one-way ticket but as there are hundreds of thousands of people who don't consider that a problem then it isn't. You talk of "giving up everything and not returning", but that's just you. If your selection pool consists 100% of individuals who attach zero importance to that consideration, in the same way you attach high importance, then it really isn't an issue for the mission at all.

Re: Would you move to Mars? : Sun Jan 12, 2014 1:16 pm  

Fascinating, I couldn't live with knowing I could never attend another rugby match.

I'm guessing the majority would be from an engineering background, you'd need doctors/surgeons, biologists, chemists, physicists.

I won't see it happen in my life time but if it happens that would be humanities greatest achievement and possibly put a few of the religion botherers in their place.

Re: Would you move to Mars? : Sun Jan 12, 2014 2:11 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Yes it's possible. The basic plan is to create and release lots of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (you must admit we're good at .

Sorry FA, but I thought that Mars had lost its atmosphere because it had lost its magnetic field which protected it from, by deflection, depletion by solar wind.
Wouldn't an artificial atmosphere be blown away?

Re: Would you move to Mars? : Mon Jan 13, 2014 12:48 am  

Stand-Offish wrote: Sorry FA, but I thought that Mars had lost its atmosphere because it had lost its magnetic field which protected it from, by deflection, depletion by solar wind. Wouldn't an artificial atmosphere be blown away? That was the reason for the loss, yes, about 4 billion years ago, but the NASA (and other) bods, not known for being gung ho or wildly optimistic, are "confident" they can solve it, within 30 years. I wouldn't dare argue with them. They will know more once MAVEN is up and running. Incidentally if you haven't already - try this http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/

Stand-Offish wrote: Sorry FA, but I thought that Mars had lost its atmosphere because it had lost its magnetic field which protected it from, by deflection, depletion by solar wind. Wouldn't an artificial atmosphere be blown away? That was the reason for the loss, yes, about 4 billion years ago, but the NASA (and other) bods, not known for being gung ho or wildly optimistic, are "confident" they can solve it, within 30 years. I wouldn't dare argue with them. They will know more once MAVEN is up and running. Incidentally if you haven't already - try this http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/

Re: Would you move to Mars? : Mon Jan 13, 2014 8:43 am  

I know from other posts you are not a religious man, but I think I've been chosen.

Walked in the house Friday evening after posting to hear on the CD player:
"Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids
In fact it's cold as hell
And there's no one there to raise them if you did
And all this science I don't understand
It's just my job five days a week
A rocket man, a rocket man"

Sheesh
didn't post at the weekend as lost telephone connection (again)

Re: Would you move to Mars? : Mon Jan 13, 2014 4:57 pm  

Hillbilly_Red wrote:

I know from other posts you are not a religious man, but I think I've been chosen.

Walked in the house Friday evening after posting to hear on the CD player:
"Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids
In fact it's cold as hell
And there's no one there to raise them if you did
And all this science I don't understand
It's just my job five days a week
A rocket man, a rocket man"

Sheesh
didn't post at the weekend as lost telephone connection (again)

Its no coincidence that you keep losing your internet connection - there is a Being out there in space who is sending you these subliminal messages telling you not to send your kids to Mars and he's switching off your broadband to let the message get through.