Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Odds & Ends (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=21)
-   -   Colonizing Mars a reality? (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=492434)

Highway Gambler 02-19-2014 05:15 AM

Colonizing Mars a reality?
 
I'd love to see this happen.

http://www.mars-one.com/

Overdrive 02-19-2014 07:33 AM

Mastering interstellar travel would be more beneficial than colonizing Mars. However, I can see the colonization of Mars occurring between 100-200 years.

ollinger 02-19-2014 08:01 AM

^^ Article in science section of NY Times a few weeks ago dealt with the health hazards of long distance space travel, specifically a hypothetical trip to Mars. Doesn't look very appealing. As for "interstellar travel" this seems unlikely since the nearest star would take about 5 years to reach travelling at the speed of light, a task that special relativity suggests would increase your mass to something approaching infinity.

r2473 02-19-2014 08:11 AM

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


Anyway, I think its going to be a long, long time.

Manus Domini 02-19-2014 08:12 AM

Hopefully we colonize the Martians, before the Martians colonize us.

Sentinel 02-19-2014 08:14 AM

If you ask me, interstellar travel should be #1 on mankind's agenda (although slightly long-term, but still on top). But for that we need to stop all these silly wars, this infighting which is sucking up science, money, time, and brainpower. We need to get mundane stuff totally automated so we don't need to struggle to make ends meet all our life.

All daily chores and work need to taken care of by robots or automation so we do not _have_ to work.

Then science can focus on important things like interstellar travel. It just sucks that our entire lives are spent trying to pay bills and doing stuff that is just so uncreative. Science needs to be creative and free too, not tied down and stifled by industrial lobbies and politicians afraid of change.

I know my thoughts on this are totally uninformed and silly, but i'd like people who know better to respond.

To repeat and summarize, it absolutely and totally sucks that interstellar travel is on no one's agenda, on no one's horizon even. Are we (the living) dead ?

PhrygianDominant 02-19-2014 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sentinel (Post 8133572)
If you ask me, interstellar travel should be #1 on mankind's agenda (although slightly long-term, but still on top). But for that we need to stop all these silly wars, this infighting which is sucking up science, money, time, and brainpower. We need to get mundane stuff totally automated so we don't need to struggle to make ends meet all our life.

All daily chores and work need to taken care of by robots or automation so we do not _have_ to work.

Then science can focus on important things like interstellar travel. It just sucks that our entire lives are spent trying to pay bills and doing stuff that is just so uncreative. Science needs to be creative and free too, not tied down and stifled by industrial lobbies and politicians afraid of change.

I know my thoughts on this are totally uninformed and silly, but i'd like people who know better to respond.

To repeat and summarize, it absolutely and totally sucks that interstellar travel is on no one's agenda, on no one's horizon even. Are we (the living) dead ?

Sentinel for President

NadalDramaQueen 02-19-2014 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sentinel (Post 8133572)
If you ask me, interstellar travel should be #1 on mankind's agenda (although slightly long-term, but still on top). But for that we need to stop all these silly wars, this infighting which is sucking up science, money, time, and brainpower. We need to get mundane stuff totally automated so we don't need to struggle to make ends meet all our life.

All daily chores and work need to taken care of by robots or automation so we do not _have_ to work.

Then science can focus on important things like interstellar travel. It just sucks that our entire lives are spent trying to pay bills and doing stuff that is just so uncreative. Science needs to be creative and free too, not tied down and stifled by industrial lobbies and politicians afraid of change.

I know my thoughts on this are totally uninformed and silly, but i'd like people who know better to respond.

To repeat and summarize, it absolutely and totally sucks that interstellar travel is on no one's agenda, on no one's horizon even. Are we (the living) dead ?

Star Trek or bust. :)

ollinger 02-19-2014 08:25 AM

Sentinel
yes.....uninformed. The nearest star is what, about 5 light years away? So that's five years to get there if you travel at the speed of light, 186,000 miles per second. Matter-energy equations tell us that your mass increases as your velocity does, and at those very high speeds your mass would approach infinite, if you can consider such a thing. So no sensible scientist foresees how such travel would be feasible. And if it were, you're still talking about at least 10 years round-trip -- and that's the NEAREST star, which might not even have planets (remember that the star itself is merely a ball of hydrogen fusion fire, not a place you'd care to vacation).

Highway Gambler 02-19-2014 08:47 AM

This is from their site regarding the health hazards of long distance travel:

"A recent study of International Space Station (ISS) astronauts, with mission durations ranging from 4-6 months, showed a maximum loss of 30% muscle performance (and maximum loss of 15% muscle mass). However, we intend even to lower these numbers. With recent and emerging scientific research of effective long-duration countermeasures, Mars One will take advantage of the ~10 years prior to the launch of the first colonization mission to observe and select the most suitable astronauts and countermeasures to ensure a safe and successful mission."

They also mention decreases in bone density and aerobic capacity. It definitely sounds unappealing, but it doesn't seem like something that would prevent us from going. They seem optimistic about minimizing the health hazards.

According to their roadmap, the first crew of four people will land in 2025. Not too far away, if all goes as planned.

ollinger 02-19-2014 08:56 AM

^^ lots more risks than that, including blindness. It's thought that a zero gravity environment would cause cerebrospinal fluid to redistribute in such a way as to increase pressure at the back of your eyeballs, possibly leading to blindness.

Highway Gambler 02-19-2014 09:01 AM

That would put a damper on my one-way trip to Mars.

r2473 02-19-2014 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Highway Gambler (Post 8133665)
According to their roadmap, the first crew of four people will land in 2025. Not too far away, if all goes as planned.

As I said, Mars ain't no place to raise your kids:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57...s-ken.html.csp

Highway Gambler 02-19-2014 09:14 AM

"Dr. Weir briefs the crew that the Event Horizon was built to test an experimental gravity drive which generates an artificial black hole to use the immense gravitational power to bridge two points in spacetime, greatly reducing travel time over astronomical distances."

sureshs 02-19-2014 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ollinger (Post 8133603)
Sentinel
yes.....uninformed. The nearest star is what, about 5 light years away? So that's five years to get there if you travel at the speed of light, 186,000 miles per second. Matter-energy equations tell us that your mass increases as your velocity does, and at those very high speeds your mass would approach infinite, if you can consider such a thing. So no sensible scientist foresees how such travel would be feasible. And if it were, you're still talking about at least 10 years round-trip -- and that's the NEAREST star, which might not even have planets (remember that the star itself is merely a ball of hydrogen fusion fire, not a place you'd care to vacation).

The more recent books do not use the equation which shows mass increase. They club the denominator (which is less than 1) with the energy term. The mass is assumed to remain the same as the rest mass. Look at the formula for Ek in the section "Relativistic kinetic energy of rigid bodies" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy. In older formulations, the m in the second term used to be written as m0, and the m in the first term would have the denominator included in it, to describe m as more than m0.

The more problematic fact is the acceleration required to get to the high speeds, which will destroy the body.

Forehand Of Doom 02-19-2014 10:10 AM

I think people need to get their priorities straight. The first order of business should be establishing an anti asteroid strategy to protect Earth from a catastrophic impact. There have been some close calls, and it only takes one impact to send humankind back to the Stone Age (or to the pool of Primordial Soup).

Also, reversing climate control, eradicating nuclear energy, abolishing atomic warhead stockpiles, controling overpopulation...

The only benefit of colonizing Mars would be to increase the living space for human kind and avoid having all eggs in the same basket. But it would be far more intelligent to take care of the planet we have now, and protect it. Perhaps even colonizing the deep seas. The cost/benefit ratio for colonizing Mars is very bad and it doesn't make any sense from a practical point of view.

ollinger 02-19-2014 11:49 AM

^^ there is a group called Spacewatch at the University of Arizona's Lunar and Planetary Lab (of which my brother was Director, before leaving for Rice U.). One of its missions is to monitor for asteroids that might present a hazard to earth. Things look rosy enough for the moment.

r2473 02-19-2014 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forehand Of Doom (Post 8133897)
I and it only takes one impact to send humankind back to the Stone Age

Perfect timing. Paleo man is all the rage these days.

Manus Domini 02-19-2014 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ollinger (Post 8134100)
^^ there is a group called Spacewatch at the University of Arizona's Lunar and Planetary Lab (of which my brother was Director, before leaving for Rice U.). One of its missions is to monitor for asteroids that might present a hazard to earth. Things look rosy enough for the moment.

For all we know, that is. One could be on its path towards the Earth any second http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...h_a_visit.html

chrischris 02-19-2014 01:17 PM

Why not opt for colonizing the desert and outback instead? it fairly sandy and rocky too but the temps can be human and the fare return is cheaper .


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse