What is Digg?99 Comments
- voze, on 07/04/2009, -5/+50I don't know how everyone else feels, I'm probably crazy, but how is developing space technology and exploring and colonizing other planets not the SINGLE most important thing for us to achieve as a race? (Aside from the obvious such as disease and hunger)
- badqat, on 07/04/2009, -0/+33It's not going to be long until the original astronauts are all gone. :(
- BrandonJM, on 07/03/2009, -13/+44For a second, I thought the headline was "Buzz Lightyear urges unity for mission to Mars". Not as cool, but still interesting.
- AlanCayce, on 07/04/2009, -2/+28Here are seven reasons why we should colonize Mars:
1. Its Similarity to Earth
Mars has water, frozen underground and at the polar caps. There is evidence that this water has, in the past and present, flooded the surface in liquid form. Signs of erosion can be found on the slopes of craters and volcanoes. Geological features resembling those on Earth suggest that Mars was once a wet and hospitable planet.
A day on Mars is 24.5 hours long. Mars is a third the size of Earth, but it has as much land area as the seven continents combined. Its gravity is 2.7 times less than that of Earth: enough to remain flat-footed on the surface, but a low enough escape velocity to make launching from Mars relatively simple. Remember, it was much easier for Apollo to lift off from the moon than it was to leave Earth. Construction materials would be lighter as well, facilitating labor in the early colony. The health benefits of such an environment are unknown, but it is theorized that Mars might prevent and relieve forms of arthritis and back pain. Also, Martian-born children might be taller than their Terran cousins.
Both planets have seasons and similar rotational patterns. Mars is roughly in the same heat-range as Earth, being next-door in the solar system, and if it had a thicker atmosphere it is likely the two planets would share the same climate. Today, Mars's temperature varies from +1°F to -178°F, with an average global temperature of -85°F. That's cold, but still the solar system's most hospitable for humans.
2. Its Scientific Secrets
With its similarity to Earth, there is a strong possibility that bacterial life (or something more?) exists on the planet. Some people believe that Viking detected it way back in 1976. Others believe that we found it in a Martian meteorite. Rovers are on their way to Mars to settle the debate, but we may only be sure if humans look for themselves. As any engineer will tell you, the ease with which a human being can cover a stretch of ground and examine specimens along the way, gathering and processing data, cannot be emulated with a machine. If we ever find life, we can begin to answer some of the biggest questions we've ever asked: "Are we alone in the universe? What else is out there? What is the basic unit of life? What does life need to survive?"
From a geological standpoint alone, Mars is exciting because it offers scientists a view of how planets develop. Mars is billions of years older than the Earth, and its features are much more exaggerated. The largest canyons, volcanoes, and craters in the solar system are available for our study.
3. Its Diplomatic Potential
It is obvious that the world isn't perfect, but we've been trying for the entirety of our civilized existence. We've reached a point now where the majority of the world's superpowers are on good enough terms to begin an international joint-project to colonize Mars. This was much the theory with the International Space Station, but dirty politics proved how immature the world's superpowers are. Ending the quarrelling and going to space might sound like ignorant idealism, but imagine the diplomatic potential. When we become united in a goal, not just as Americans or as Russians but as mankind, all of humanity puts aside its differences.
Even if the initial trip to Mars is sponsored by one nation or one space agency, in the end Mars will be for everyone. The Old World's boundaries will not be able to restrain the emigration. Who knows, the concept of countries might remain a thing of the Earth, an archaic reminder of castles and kings and the battle for power. Mars could be the beginning of a new era in human diplomacy.
4. Its Economic Value
Mars is worth a lot of money. There are 144 trillion square meters of surface area, roughly the land area of the Earth, available for development. I'm not going to tell you how great all that land is for residential, commercial, and industrial use... go play Sim City.
An important part of the fusion reaction process is deuterium, a stable isotope of hydrogen. Once we can contain a fusion reaction, the deuterium-tritium reaction has a high yield of energy for the small amount of fuel put in. Deuterium, or heavy hydrogen, is hard to obtain on Earth, but on Mars it is five times more abundant in the form of Hydrogen-Deuterium-Oxygen (See Also: Compositions). A milliliter of liquid heavy-hydrogen fuel would produce as much energy as 20 tons of coal. Deuterium is also important in chemistry because it reacts the same way as hydrogen, but can be distinguished from hydrogen by its mass. These reactions occur slower than normal hydrogen reactions.
There is an abundance of rare metals on Mars such as platinum, gold, silver, and others. Shipping from Mars to Earth, as mentioned above, is much easier than the other way around. Even more promising is the proximity of the asteroid belt to Mars. Dactyl, the moon orbiting the asteroid Ida shown in this picture, is 1.4 kilometers in diameter, yet it contains more iron that the human race has used in its entire existence. These asteroids could be mined near Mars and shipped from the planet for little cost. What we could see develop is a triangle trade route, much like the one in the 18th century between Britain, the West Indies, and America. The economic potential is colossal.
5. Its Location
That brings us to our next point: location. Mars is relatively close to the Earth. Mars sits between the asteroid belt and us, acting as a kind of stepping stone to what lies beyond. It remains close enough to the sun to benefit from its heat (and light) but remains far enough away to be protected from any significant change in the sun's heat output. (We still know little about the sun's long-term heat cycles.)
6. Its Home for Mankind
My personal favorite reason for colonizing Mars is that it offers a backup plan for humanity. Every few million years, the Earth tends to be wiped clear of almost all life in a globally catastrophic event (read: asteroid collision). An asteroid the size of Dactyl could wipe us off the face of the Earth. Who knows how close we've already come to blowing ourselves to smithereens.
A colony on Mars is not far off, but the question remains: could that colony be self-sufficient? The time will come when Mars will not need Earth to sustain it, much like the United States found itself long before the Revolutionary War. Does that mean life will be self-sufficient? No. We may be able to grow our own food on the planet in greenhouses, but what about wild animals, and birds, and fish, and rivers, and oceans? Terraforming, then, becomes a necessity in more than one way. Terraforming is the process of creating another Earth, and you can find out more about it by reading the various terraforming articles on this site. The general consensus is terraforming is necessary for global colonization and global colonization is necessary for terraforming. The two go hand-in-hand.
7. Its Challenge for Mankind
Colonizing Mars will no doubt be the most difficult thing that humanity has ever pursued. Like building a bridge or a skyscraper, it will represent the pinnacle of human achievement up to that time. We can begin colonization now with technology that exists now; this is not science fiction anymore.
Before he began his fateful expedition to Mount Everest, George Mallory was asked why man kept trying to reach the summit of that mountain. "Because it is there," he said.
In the words of the great science fiction author Kim Stanley Robinson, "We are the consciousness of the universe, and our job is to spread that around, to go look at things, to live everywhere we can. It's too dangerous to keep the consciousness of the universe on one planet; it could be wiped out. Mars will always remain Mars, different from Earth, colder and wilder. But it can be Mars and ours at the same time. And it will be. There is this about the human mind: if it can be done, it will be done. We can do it, so we will do it. So we might as well start."
*****( via http://www.redcolony.com/features.php?name=whycolo ... )***** - inactive, on 07/04/2009, -1/+24On one hand I understand why people might not want these missions, but the other side of the coin is that pure science pushes the envelope so that new technology advances at a rate that would only occur through militaristic means.
Case in point, the integrated circuits used on the Apollo missions drove the price down drastically which helped seed the the tech revolution of the 70's and eighties. And I'm sure someone in the early 60's thought wtf microchips for a flight computer, who the hell will ever need those? - pkon, on 07/04/2009, -1/+20Buzz Aldrin makes a valid point, we have to start colonizing outside of Earth eventually. The Earth itself cannot sustain such an exponentially growing population for very long. It is a shame I won't be alive around the time (if it ever comes) where humans start traveling into the outer regions of our galaxy and seeing what is really beyond our own system and what lives out there.
- jasdf, on 07/04/2009, -1/+20It is sad that none of the Apollo astronauts will likely live to see man set foot upon Mars.
- rocknog, on 07/04/2009, -1/+12I believe the phrase you're looking for is "***** or get off the pot."
- DarkCloud515, on 07/04/2009, -2/+12Why not colonize it? Better our chances for survival. Sooner or later I know we'll come to the realization that we have to act as a planet.
- canudiggit123, on 07/04/2009, -1/+10BUT THERES MORE
GO NOW AND YOU WILL GET NOT 1 NOT 2 BUT 3 MOONS! - NMRgentleman, on 07/04/2009, -1/+8Don't know exactly what he has in mind, but I can't help but think that if we really wait for some sort of unified and functional multi-nation partnership to go to Mars, by the time we get there we'll have to ask for permission to land in New Beijing.
- TM22, on 07/04/2009, -1/+8Good thinking, Johnston.
- inefekt, on 07/04/2009, -6/+13What's with all these 'OMG I though the headline read blah blah blah'??? Who gives flying ***** and why tell the world you don't know how to ***** read?
- blakebixler, on 07/04/2009, -2/+9All in favor of Buzz Aldrin to become the Head of NASA?
- Basefree, on 07/03/2009, -4/+10I don't know if it's they way he was quoted or what -- but isn't the plan to use the moon to assemble a larger space craft with the ability to hold everything we would need to get to mars because the moons atmosphere or lack there of would make for an easier take off? It's not that we want to colonize it.
- briandeloach, on 07/04/2009, -2/+8Not sure if some missed the reference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTKedyQQkZQ - jaymzdean, on 07/04/2009, -3/+9Pitchman.
- ridd1e, on 07/04/2009, -1/+6Two words: anger. management.
- zeebo, on 07/04/2009, -0/+5Colonization has to start somewhere.
- jroussell, on 07/04/2009, -0/+5go at night then the sun wouldn't burn you up.
- PsychoBrat, on 07/04/2009, -1/+6On the contrary. Fear of striking out because "there are things to fix back home" first is a surefire way to further stagnate an economy.
- Ocyris, on 07/04/2009, -0/+4We'll get wiped out by something else long before the sun goes Red Giant. The truth is the odds are stack against the human race. What's the saying? "99% of species that ever existed are now extinct."
- kspanks04, on 07/04/2009, -1/+5with enough lsd - anything is possible
- gweedo767, on 07/04/2009, -1/+58. Just ask the dinosaurs if colonizing other planets is important...
- AlanCayce, on 07/04/2009, -0/+4"The initial cost estimate for Mars Direct was put at $55 billion, to be paid over ten years."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct - anakast, on 07/04/2009, -2/+6They came close to doing that in Sunshine.
- egemenbor, on 07/04/2009, -1/+4not sure if youre being sarcastic but wow is that a pessimistic way of looking at things..
glass is half full buddy - P5ycHo, on 07/04/2009, -0/+3Global leadership?
We can't even lead a single country without resorting to war. - TomGfromCanada, on 07/04/2009, -2/+5Yeah! lets go to Mars.
- Ocyris, on 07/04/2009, -0/+3Yeah, too bad we didn't leave those pesky little reflector that astronomers use to measure the distance between the earth and moon...
- anonymousmedic, on 07/04/2009, -1/+4The Moon is ten times higher than the Van Allen radiation belts. The spacecraft moved through the belts in just 30 minutes, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft. In addition, the orbital transfer trajectory from the Earth to the Moon through the belts was selected to minimize radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions. Dosimeters carried by the crews showed they received about the same cumulative dosage as a chest X-ray or about 1 milligray.[53] Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem, which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years.[44], pp. 160–162 The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt in a matter of minutes and the low-energy outer belt in about an hour and half. The astronauts were mostly shielded from the radiation by the spacecraft. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year.[54]
The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that thirty-three of the thirty-six Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip.[55] However, only twenty-four astronauts left earth orbit. At least thirty-nine former astronauts have developed cataracts. Thirty-six of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo lunar missions.[56] - anonymousmedic, on 07/04/2009, -2/+5You're either a troll, or a very stupid person. Your arguement focuses on one flaw: That thousands of people would be able to keep a secret for nigh on fifty years.
- majormajor42, on 07/04/2009, -0/+3If you are going to die anyway, why digg?
- AlanCayce, on 07/04/2009, -0/+3READ:
http://www.redcolony.com/features.php?name=whycolo ... - Khast, on 07/04/2009, -2/+4Well, we could send you to the sun to try it out. We will even supply you with a full asbestos exoskeleton.
...now the problem is, what was the melting temperature of asbestos again? - inactive, on 07/04/2009, -3/+5Well unless they actually push ahead with space travel like buzz wants, they are wasting money.
it's been 40 years, either move forward or stop and do something else. - anonymousmedic, on 07/04/2009, -2/+4STFU, you paranoid *****. A united humanity is the only way we can hope to survive the impending loss of worldwide resources within the next 100 to 200 years. We will have to reach beyond our planet for minerals and fuels, if not to Mars, then to the mineral rich asteroid belts.
- foofightrs777, on 07/04/2009, -3/+5How is babby formed?
- bushnoh, on 07/04/2009, -1/+3Be a little more respectful.
- afruff23, on 07/04/2009, -3/+5We have billions of years until that happens. Right now, we have much greater priorities.
- appleofdischord, on 07/04/2009, -1/+3Because it's funny?
- PeppermintPig, on 07/04/2009, -1/+3Being buried by the science fascists for even suggesting such an idea. lol
- whoreable, on 07/04/2009, -0/+2I hope they realize that if they make the craft too heavy or with too much thrust it could alter the orbit of the moon and throw off the pattern of tides in our oceans. Fish and other sea life could die and we could starve. But hey on the other hand it is the fourth of July and I have an ample amount of weed.
- Akairenn, on 07/04/2009, -3/+5"out how to get *back* to the moon?"
Yes. You do realize that the manufacturing equipment and in many critical cases, the actual plans behind the engineering involved - no longer exist? It's 2009, and we're kind of out of luck when it comes to recruiting brilliant Nazi scientists to beat the Reds. (Godwin be damned - yeah, nobody wants to hear it, but yes, indirectly, Nazi Germany put us on the moon.)
"And it's not a money issue -- we've spent more (in constant dollars) bailing out AIG than NASA spent in *all* of the 1960s."
I think you just answered your own delusions. Yes, it is partly a money issue. Because - exactly, we've spent more bailing out AIG than NASA spent in all of the '60s.
"There is no technological achievement mankind could do in 1969 that we cannot do much easier and much cheaper now. "
Certainly we could do it easier and cheaper. But on NASA's shoestring budget? They don't have the money - they're throwing the cash they have at the International Space Debacle.
In NASA's defense, they've made some damned fine robotic probes of late. A bunch of robots crawling around Mars isn't inspiring, though. And sadly, if NASA wants a bigger slice of our ridiculous budget, they need to start inspiring people again. Not cosmology and astronomy geek people, normal people. Tiny little probes aren't going to do that. Some dude hopping off a landing module onto a Martian surface will.
"That's why we call 'em sheople!"
...And that's why nobody really listens to conspiracy loons. :p - Loki101, on 07/04/2009, -1/+3Your use of the word "sheeple" indicates to me you aren't worth arguing with. Only arrogant, self-centered conspiracy theorists, convinced of their own intellectual superiority use that word.
Or trolls. Either way, it ain't worth anyone's time. - inactive, on 07/04/2009, -2/+4Im getting together a group of people to track down these ***** posting this virus ***** on digg and we will kill them all.
- ahac, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1> It's been 30 years and we, or any other country, has claimed to have gone there since.
That's because there is no oil on the moon. - lnactive, on 07/04/2009, -10/+11does you thinnk man will ever walk on the sun
- TheTaoOfBill, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1Nature always has a way of evening out the population. Should resources become too scarce for our population we will just have to starve out until resources fit out population needs. We'll still be here. But our population numbers will be significantly lower.
- sTiKyt, on 07/04/2009, -2/+3How do you suppose we live on earth for millions of years when we currently don't have enough resources to live 100.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is