Author Topic: Mars  (Read 4388 times)

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 899
  • Location: Ottawa
Mars
« on: October 01, 2017, 03:36:46 PM »
Anyone else come across Elon Musk's announcement that he intends to colonize Mars?    Youtube linky:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSv0Y7qrzQM   How cool is that!

Financial.Velociraptor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1030
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Houston TX
  • Devour your prey raptors!
    • Financial Velociraptor
Re: Mars
« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2017, 05:26:44 PM »
I'm more in favor of tackling the Moon first.  An order of magnitude easier and cheaper and bootstraps the Mars process by mining ice/fuel components.  We also will want a space elevator on both Moon/Mars.  It makes sense to work out the logistics on a smaller and closer scale first at Luna.

[Spoken as a card carrying member of NSS and Moon Society and Board member of local dual accreditation chapter]
Achieve Financial Escape Velocity - Financial Velociraptor

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 641
Re: Mars
« Reply #2 on: October 02, 2017, 08:02:55 AM »
I'm more in favor of tackling the Moon first.  An order of magnitude easier and cheaper and bootstraps the Mars process by mining ice/fuel components.  We also will want a space elevator on both Moon/Mars.  It makes sense to work out the logistics on a smaller and closer scale first at Luna.

[Spoken as a card carrying member of NSS and Moon Society and Board member of local dual accreditation chapter]

Why would we want to go through the work of crawling out of Earth's gravity well, only to crawl into one only a little bit shallower as a stepping stone to somewhere else? I'm not aware of siginificant fuel/mineral reserves on the moon, or am I mistaken on that?

SoundFuture

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 58
Re: Mars
« Reply #3 on: October 02, 2017, 08:48:48 AM »
I'm more in favor of tackling the Moon first.  An order of magnitude easier and cheaper and bootstraps the Mars process by mining ice/fuel components.  We also will want a space elevator on both Moon/Mars.  It makes sense to work out the logistics on a smaller and closer scale first at Luna.

[Spoken as a card carrying member of NSS and Moon Society and Board member of local dual accreditation chapter]

Why would we want to go through the work of crawling out of Earth's gravity well, only to crawl into one only a little bit shallower as a stepping stone to somewhere else? I'm not aware of siginificant fuel/mineral reserves on the moon, or am I mistaken on that?

I've been following this since the first press conference. I believe the idea is that the moon will work as a place to test technologies, tourism, and to serve as a general scientific base more than anything.  You can only go to Mars reasonably every two years (and it takes months of travel), you can go to the moon pretty much as needed (in a couple of days), that's why the moon is important.  We need a place with lower gravity, without a magnetosphere, with adverse environmental conditions to test things like how to setup the planned fuel depots, habitats, sun radiation protection, etc. for long term human survival on Mars without the expense and time of actually going to Mars. 

For those of us that don't wish our headstones to be on the red planet (or to have our ashes scattered violently and unexpectedly on Mars), going for a trip to the moon will be both more realistic and "affordable".  If it costs $200k to get to Mars one-way, and $200k to go to the moon-and-back for a couple of weeks, I could see a lot of wealthy people putting "trip to the moon" on their bucket lists and actually going through with it (as in a few thousand people a year going into space, instead of one or two like current space tourism).  If you're performing space related research, it will make performing observation and research directly similar in cost and scale to what an Arctic expedition is today.

If Elon can Henry Ford the space industry, I'm all for it.

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
Re: Mars
« Reply #4 on: October 02, 2017, 09:25:09 AM »
I'm skeptical. Humans can barely inhabit Nevada. The Antarctic circle is not a sustainable habitat for us. Both of these are much less challenging than living on Mars.

Financial.Velociraptor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1030
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Houston TX
  • Devour your prey raptors!
    • Financial Velociraptor
Re: Mars
« Reply #5 on: October 02, 2017, 09:31:58 AM »


Why would we want to go through the work of crawling out of Earth's gravity well, only to crawl into one only a little bit shallower as a stepping stone to somewhere else? I'm not aware of siginificant fuel/mineral reserves on the moon, or am I mistaken on that?

There is ice hidden in the permanently shadowed part of polar craters. 

Since we already have the technology to build a space elevator on Luna, with a little engineering; getting back out of that gravity well becomes trivial.
Achieve Financial Escape Velocity - Financial Velociraptor

CowboyAndIndian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1067
  • Location: NJ, USA
    • KOWines: Deep discount wine/spirits store.
Re: Mars
« Reply #6 on: October 02, 2017, 09:47:19 AM »
Since we already have the technology to build a space elevator on Luna, with a little engineering; getting back out of that gravity well becomes trivial.

Not sure of this. We need seriously advanced material science to build the elevator cables.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/5984371/why-well-probably-never-build-a-space-elevator

This article seems to think it might be possible on the moon.
Edit: Added link and the possiblity of the space elevator working on the moon.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2017, 10:58:25 AM by CowboyAndIndian »

CowboyAndIndian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1067
  • Location: NJ, USA
    • KOWines: Deep discount wine/spirits store.
Re: Mars
« Reply #7 on: October 02, 2017, 09:50:19 AM »
If I had to pick, I would pick Mars over the Moon for a colony.

At least it has an atmosphere and a lot more water than the moon. Like Elon said, easy to make propellant from CO2 and water (with a lot of power).

Also, the gravity is higher on Mars than the moon, which should help humans.

I would pick the Moon if we were putting a space observatory. The lack of an atmosphere would be awesome and even a small telescope (compared to the terrestrial ones) would be able to see far furthur. This may not need a permanent establishment, but could be run remotely from the earth.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2017, 09:53:13 AM by CowboyAndIndian »

Gondolin

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 435
  • Location: Northern VA
Re: Mars
« Reply #8 on: October 02, 2017, 11:09:56 AM »
I really hope they succeed.

That said, there are YUGE technical and logistical issues that must be solved. Unfortunately, several of these problems are not related to money or will but, fundamental scientific questions which may or may not be solvable in a given timeframe.

I'm really glad someone has this ambition but, I'd put their chances of succeeding on the timeline their proposing at less than 5%.
"There cannot be two skies"

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9449
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Mars
« Reply #9 on: October 02, 2017, 11:38:21 AM »
I also really hope that they succeed . . . but agree that there are some incredibly daunting obstacles that make it seem pretty pie in the sky at the moment.

Optimiser

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 424
  • Age: 34
  • Location: PNW
Re: Mars
« Reply #10 on: October 02, 2017, 11:58:03 AM »
I don't understand why anyone would want to live on Mars, but I think it is really cool that we are trying to go there.

Grog

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 272
Re: Mars
« Reply #11 on: October 02, 2017, 12:22:49 PM »
I just wonder if they will have a huge server on mars to clone the terrestrial internet, and what will they selectively clone and keep synchronized. My guess is wikipedia and porn.

Sent from my YD201 using Tapatalk


MrsWhipple

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Mars
« Reply #12 on: October 02, 2017, 03:30:22 PM »
There's a great Wait but Why article about Elon Musk's Mars project: https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colonize-mars.html

Very very long but well worth a read. It convinced me of the viability of such a project, and I look forward to seeing the progress that happens in my lifetime.

Financial.Velociraptor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1030
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Houston TX
  • Devour your prey raptors!
    • Financial Velociraptor
Re: Mars
« Reply #13 on: October 02, 2017, 03:38:46 PM »
Since we already have the technology to build a space elevator on Luna, with a little engineering; getting back out of that gravity well becomes trivial.

Not sure of this. We need seriously advanced material science to build the elevator cables.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/5984371/why-well-probably-never-build-a-space-elevator

This article seems to think it might be possible on the moon.
Edit: Added link and the possiblity of the space elevator working on the moon.

It has been widely reported that Kevlar has sufficient tensile strength for a Lunar Elevator.  It is believed a new material known as Spectra-9 is strong enough for Mars. 
Achieve Financial Escape Velocity - Financial Velociraptor

Gondolin

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 435
  • Location: Northern VA
Re: Mars
« Reply #14 on: October 02, 2017, 06:32:15 PM »
That "Wait but Why" is part of the reason I'm skeptical of SpaceX's chances - it's long on breaking down the business plan and rhapsodizing about the importance of a mars expedition while being very short on addressing the major technical problems that stand in the way.

I'll get excited when I see headlines like, "SpaceX launches 50th rocket without one exploding" or " SpaceX proves that humans really can live in low G".
"There cannot be two skies"

SoundFuture

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 58
Re: Mars
« Reply #15 on: October 02, 2017, 10:38:09 PM »
That "Wait but Why" is part of the reason I'm skeptical of SpaceX's chances - it's long on breaking down the business plan and rhapsodizing about the importance of a mars expedition while being very short on addressing the major technical problems that stand in the way.

I'll get excited when I see headlines like, "SpaceX launches 50th rocket without one exploding" or " SpaceX proves that humans really can live in low G".

They've landed their re-usable rocket booster successfully 16 times in a row, both on land and in pitching sea.  If they hit all their target launches for next year they'll hit that 50 number you're looking for :-P

cerat0n1a

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Location: Cambridge, UK
Re: Mars
« Reply #16 on: October 03, 2017, 03:03:10 AM »
We've had this discussion on here before, but I don't see any logical reason to go the Moon on the way to Mars; you're just going down a gravity well to a place that doesn't have anything useful there.

Musk has a pretty impressive record so far; if anyone can persuade humanity to devote the necessary resources to do this, it's him. I don't think we're too far from being able to land people on Mars and keep them alive there for some time. Bringing them back is massively more difficult.

Linda_Norway

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1887
Re: Mars
« Reply #17 on: October 03, 2017, 05:16:17 AM »
One of the reasons that humans should start to colonize other planets is that our own planet is becoming more challenging to live on due to climate changes. But a mass migration to Mars is going to give a LOT of pollution for every rocket that is lifted from Earth. And we will need to send a lot of rockets there for a migration.
I also think any climate change on Earth is way more easy to handle than creating a habitable space on an unhabitable planet. Why don't we invest all this effort and money in harvesting CO2, or some other smart solution?

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
Re: Mars
« Reply #18 on: October 03, 2017, 07:07:21 AM »
One of the reasons that humans should start to colonize other planets is that our own planet is becoming more challenging to live on due to climate changes. But a mass migration to Mars is going to give a LOT of pollution for every rocket that is lifted from Earth. And we will need to send a lot of rockets there for a migration.
I also think any climate change on Earth is way more easy to handle than creating a habitable space on an unhabitable planet. Why don't we invest all this effort and money in harvesting CO2, or some other smart solution?

It's less about AGW and more about extinction-level events that can occur on a single planet. Like, if for some reason a gamma ray burst fries all life on Earth, at least life on Mars will survive.

Also, it's probably best to start making plans NOW, before we all kill each other in nuclear war. Contrary to Star Trek, a nuclear war probably destroys our civilization and we never recover enough to make interstellar flight possible.

I personally put my money on "interstellar travel is impossible" as a resolution to the Fermi paradox, so IMO Musk is tilting at windmills.

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 572
Re: Mars
« Reply #19 on: October 04, 2017, 11:58:21 PM »
One of the reasons that humans should start to colonize other planets is that our own planet is becoming more challenging to live on due to climate changes. But a mass migration to Mars is going to give a LOT of pollution for every rocket that is lifted from Earth. And we will need to send a lot of rockets there for a migration.
I also think any climate change on Earth is way more easy to handle than creating a habitable space on an unhabitable planet. Why don't we invest all this effort and money in harvesting CO2, or some other smart solution?

It's less about AGW and more about extinction-level events that can occur on a single planet. Like, if for some reason a gamma ray burst fries all life on Earth, at least life on Mars will survive.

Also, it's probably best to start making plans NOW, before we all kill each other in nuclear war. Contrary to Star Trek, a nuclear war probably destroys our civilization and we never recover enough to make interstellar flight possible.

I personally put my money on "interstellar travel is impossible" as a resolution to the Fermi paradox, so IMO Musk is tilting at windmills.
There is no law of physics forbidding interstellar travel so it is an engineering problem that is soluble (at the very least, Von Neumann probes are feasible, and might be within our technological reach this century). I think the Fermi Paradox is best solved by presuming the Great Filter is in the distant past.

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
Re: Mars
« Reply #20 on: October 05, 2017, 07:06:07 AM »
One of the reasons that humans should start to colonize other planets is that our own planet is becoming more challenging to live on due to climate changes. But a mass migration to Mars is going to give a LOT of pollution for every rocket that is lifted from Earth. And we will need to send a lot of rockets there for a migration.
I also think any climate change on Earth is way more easy to handle than creating a habitable space on an unhabitable planet. Why don't we invest all this effort and money in harvesting CO2, or some other smart solution?

It's less about AGW and more about extinction-level events that can occur on a single planet. Like, if for some reason a gamma ray burst fries all life on Earth, at least life on Mars will survive.

Also, it's probably best to start making plans NOW, before we all kill each other in nuclear war. Contrary to Star Trek, a nuclear war probably destroys our civilization and we never recover enough to make interstellar flight possible.

I personally put my money on "interstellar travel is impossible" as a resolution to the Fermi paradox, so IMO Musk is tilting at windmills.
There is no law of physics forbidding interstellar travel so it is an engineering problem that is soluble (at the very least, Von Neumann probes are feasible, and might be within our technological reach this century). I think the Fermi Paradox is best solved by presuming the Great Filter is in the distant past.

I think you're probably right, but my pessimistic side refuses to let me believe that!

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1187
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: Mars
« Reply #21 on: October 05, 2017, 08:45:44 AM »
Other than saying "we have people 'living' on mars now!" It would be difficult and somewhat pointless, and probably run out of energy (eventually). Gravity and energy are the two biggest obstacles to being in space, even another planet. Mars =0.4 g, Venus=0.9g. Lots more solar and geothermal energy on Venus(There just isn't enough nuclear energy to 'heat up' mars). Getting the initial layout and established is clearly more difficult(a floating city, though filtered air and temp is just right), than just 'We made it Mars!, look at us!"

Trying making a city in Antarctica first(Mars), or a blimpe floating above the pacific(venus).

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2845
  • Age: 26
Re: Mars
« Reply #22 on: October 05, 2017, 08:57:34 AM »
Humans colonizing Mars would be amazing.  If his track record is any indication, Musk will succeed, but it'll take a little longer than he says/wants.

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 899
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Mars
« Reply #23 on: October 05, 2017, 05:32:46 PM »
Other than saying "we have people 'living' on mars now!" It would be difficult and somewhat pointless, and probably run out of energy (eventually). Gravity and energy are the two biggest obstacles to being in space, even another planet. Mars =0.4 g, Venus=0.9g. Lots more solar and geothermal energy on Venus(There just isn't enough nuclear energy to 'heat up' mars). Getting the initial layout and established is clearly more difficult(a floating city, though filtered air and temp is just right), than just 'We made it Mars!, look at us!"

Trying making a city in Antarctica first(Mars), or a blimpe floating above the pacific(venus).

According to wikipedia, there are about 1000 people living in Antarctica.   I think any type of space exploration is worthwhile.   If Elon's willing to fund it, he's got my support.

Linda_Norway

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1887
Re: Mars
« Reply #24 on: October 06, 2017, 02:30:43 AM »
<...>

Trying making a city in Antarctica first(Mars), or a blimpe floating above the pacific(venus).

According to wikipedia, there are about 1000 people living in Antarctica.   I think any type of space exploration is worthwhile.   If Elon's willing to fund it, he's got my support.


The challenge is to make a base on Antarctica/floating in the Pacific/on Mars self-sufficient. The station on Antarctica receives all the food by boat/plane. The whole point about colonizing a new planet is to let that planet support the people who live there, otherwise we on Earth must grow food for them and transport it there. Whether a spaceship needs to be self-sufficient can be discussed. That probably depends on how long the mission is. But a planet should be that. Otherwise it is not a colonization, but just a base.

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1187
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: Mars
« Reply #25 on: October 06, 2017, 06:10:57 AM »
<...>

Trying making a city in Antarctica first(Mars), or a blimpe floating above the pacific(venus).

According to wikipedia, there are about 1000 people living in Antarctica.   I think any type of space exploration is worthwhile.   If Elon's willing to fund it, he's got my support.


The challenge is to make a base on Antarctica/floating in the Pacific/on Mars self-sufficient. The station on Antarctica receives all the food by boat/plane. The whole point about colonizing a new planet is to let that planet support the people who live there, otherwise we on Earth must grow food for them and transport it there. Whether a spaceship needs to be self-sufficient can be discussed. That probably depends on how long the mission is. But a planet should be that. Otherwise it is not a colonization, but just a base.

how about a self sufficient 'colony' in antartica that only recieves supplies every two years just like the Mars one would. And instead of 1,000 add another comma; he wants 1,000,000 there!

Don't get me wrong. I think it is awesome and would love to see it, but I think it would be better to consider this a base instead of a colony. As I said above I don't think it is viable, at least until we have a coldish fusion reactor(there is plenty He3 out there), assuming 0.4 g is acceptable for humans.

lizzzi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1803
Re: Mars
« Reply #26 on: October 06, 2017, 06:41:30 AM »
ptf

aperture

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 406
  • Location: Colorado
Re: Mars
« Reply #27 on: October 06, 2017, 06:50:09 AM »
I think the Fermi Paradox is best solved by presuming the Great Filter is in the distant past.

This is some next level optimism! Thanks, aperture
Able was I, ere I saw Elba.

Milkshake

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 123
Re: Mars
« Reply #28 on: October 06, 2017, 07:59:24 AM »
Space elevators are the only way to make interplanetary travel cheap enough for the general public to be able to move between planets and moons, and without the general public being able to participate, you won't have the funding and quantity of people needed to sustain cities on mars and the moon. It'll continue to be like Antarctica, 1000 researchers living there.

And until we can spin carbon nanotubes into 25,000 mile long cables, we have a long ways to go.

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 899
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Mars
« Reply #29 on: October 06, 2017, 03:47:00 PM »
<...>

Trying making a city in Antarctica first(Mars), or a blimpe floating above the pacific(venus).

According to wikipedia, there are about 1000 people living in Antarctica.   I think any type of space exploration is worthwhile.   If Elon's willing to fund it, he's got my support.


The challenge is to make a base on Antarctica/floating in the Pacific/on Mars self-sufficient. The station on Antarctica receives all the food by boat/plane. The whole point about colonizing a new planet is to let that planet support the people who live there, otherwise we on Earth must grow food for them and transport it there. Whether a spaceship needs to be self-sufficient can be discussed. That probably depends on how long the mission is. But a planet should be that. Otherwise it is not a colonization, but just a base.

how about a self sufficient 'colony' in antartica that only recieves supplies every two years just like the Mars one would. And instead of 1,000 add another comma; he wants 1,000,000 there!

Don't get me wrong. I think it is awesome and would love to see it, but I think it would be better to consider this a base instead of a colony. As I said above I don't think it is viable, at least until we have a coldish fusion reactor(there is plenty He3 out there), assuming 0.4 g is acceptable for humans.

Are we allowed to modify the climate of antarctica so that it's more hospitable to human life?   I suspect that this is part of Elon's plans for Mars.

The 0.4g thing is a pretty big problem though.

Space elevators are a great idea.    Just need to prevent people from flying airplanes into them a la 9/11

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
Re: Mars
« Reply #30 on: October 07, 2017, 08:18:50 AM »
Nope, permanently settling Antarctica would be illegal, and the only permitted purpose is scientific. If you brought a weather-control machine to Antarctica, it is highly likely the US Navy would shoot about 100 cruise missiles at it. If they didn't, someone else would, because melting the ice in Antarctica would flood a huge chunk of the planet!

However, there are still other marginally inhabitable places that can be settled that have not been settled. I suspect it'll be easier to settle the Sahara than it would be to settle Mars.

Also, if Elon Musk started terraforming Mars...well, I think that's gotta break SOME sort of international treaty.

maizeman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1617
  • Location: The World of Tomorrow
Re: Mars
« Reply #31 on: October 07, 2017, 09:33:15 AM »
I'm pretty sure any gamma ray burst close enough to fry Earth would also take out life on Mars. A mars colony with the potential to be self sustaining gets you protection against extinction of our species as a result of asteroid/comet strikes both as a direct backup, and because having the colony means we'd by definition need to have a lot more space based infrastructure, increasing the feasibility of a diversion mission (like Deep Impact or Armageddon). 

But for protection from gamma ray bursts and supernovas we really need to be a multisolar system species, not simply a multiplanet one. Mars doesn't get us that directly, but again, the space based infrastructure we'd need to build to get there would also make it much likely we'd also eventually build interstellar ships. As said upthread there is no specific technical barrier to travelling between solar systems in the rules of physics (as long as you don't try to go faster than the speed of light). It just takes a lot of energy and a lot of time.
"It’s a selective retirement," Richard explained, "a retirement from boring s**t."

My source code & my journal

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 899
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Mars
« Reply #32 on: October 07, 2017, 11:34:11 AM »
Nope, permanently settling Antarctica would be illegal, and the only permitted purpose is scientific. If you brought a weather-control machine to Antarctica, it is highly likely the US Navy would shoot about 100 cruise missiles at it. If they didn't, someone else would, because melting the ice in Antarctica would flood a huge chunk of the planet!

However, there are still other marginally inhabitable places that can be settled that have not been settled. I suspect it'll be easier to settle the Sahara than it would be to settle Mars.

Also, if Elon Musk started terraforming Mars...well, I think that's gotta break SOME sort of international treaty.

Holy team America!   You guys think you can shoot cruise missiles at anything you like.   The US doesn't even claim part of Antarctica.

So, on the one hand you think America should take unilateral police action with regard to Antarctica.   But on the other hand, terraforming Mars needs to be settled by international diplomacy!





Raenia

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
Re: Mars
« Reply #33 on: October 08, 2017, 03:31:26 PM »
Nope, permanently settling Antarctica would be illegal, and the only permitted purpose is scientific. If you brought a weather-control machine to Antarctica, it is highly likely the US Navy would shoot about 100 cruise missiles at it. If they didn't, someone else would, because melting the ice in Antarctica would flood a huge chunk of the planet!

However, there are still other marginally inhabitable places that can be settled that have not been settled. I suspect it'll be easier to settle the Sahara than it would be to settle Mars.

Also, if Elon Musk started terraforming Mars...well, I think that's gotta break SOME sort of international treaty.

Holy team America!   You guys think you can shoot cruise missiles at anything you like.   The US doesn't even claim part of Antarctica.

So, on the one hand you think America should take unilateral police action with regard to Antarctica.   But on the other hand, terraforming Mars needs to be settled by international diplomacy!

It's not that the US claims Antarctica, but that most of the world signed a treaty to agree that no one could claim it or settle it, it will be preserved for research purposes only.  Action against anyone breaking the treaty would be expected, and not just from the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System

Quote
Article 10 – All treaty states will discourage activities by any country in Antarctica that are contrary to the treaty;
« Last Edit: October 08, 2017, 03:33:28 PM by Raenia »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9449
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Mars
« Reply #34 on: October 08, 2017, 04:08:32 PM »
Nope, permanently settling Antarctica would be illegal, and the only permitted purpose is scientific. If you brought a weather-control machine to Antarctica, it is highly likely the US Navy would shoot about 100 cruise missiles at it. If they didn't, someone else would, because melting the ice in Antarctica would flood a huge chunk of the planet!

However, there are still other marginally inhabitable places that can be settled that have not been settled. I suspect it'll be easier to settle the Sahara than it would be to settle Mars.

Also, if Elon Musk started terraforming Mars...well, I think that's gotta break SOME sort of international treaty.

Holy team America!   You guys think you can shoot cruise missiles at anything you like.   The US doesn't even claim part of Antarctica.

So, on the one hand you think America should take unilateral police action with regard to Antarctica.   But on the other hand, terraforming Mars needs to be settled by international diplomacy!

It's not that the US claims Antarctica, but that most of the world signed a treaty to agree that no one could claim it or settle it, it will be preserved for research purposes only.  Action against anyone breaking the treaty would be expected, and not just from the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System

Quote
Article 10 – All treaty states will discourage activities by any country in Antarctica that are contrary to the treaty;

Quote
Article 1 – The area is to be used for peaceful purposes only; military activity, such as weapons testing, is prohibited but military personnel and equipment may be used for scientific research or any other peaceful purpose

Quote
Article 11 – All disputes to be settled peacefully by the parties concerned or, ultimately, by the International Court of Justice;

The first article of the treaty indicates that any peaceful purpose is OK.  Settling is a peaceful purpose, and firing cruise missiles at settlers is a clear violation of article 11.

daverobev

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Location: Canada
Re: Mars
« Reply #35 on: October 08, 2017, 08:30:04 PM »
If anyone is into sci-fi, I can strongly recommend the Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. The first book is Red Mars.

I am currently reading the third book in the series for probably the fourth or fifth time. A great combination of politics, science, humanity... One of my favourite series. And the author's best (though his other stuff is good as well, nothing compares to Mars IMHO).
Great Canadian Rebates good extra sign up bonuses on credit cards, among other things

Tangerine Orange Key: 48322202S1. Honestly I prefer Simplii (was PC Financial) to Tangerine, but you get $50 for signing up (and so do I), so whatever. Simplii is a stupid name.

Raenia

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
Re: Mars
« Reply #36 on: October 09, 2017, 05:40:52 AM »
Nope, permanently settling Antarctica would be illegal, and the only permitted purpose is scientific. If you brought a weather-control machine to Antarctica, it is highly likely the US Navy would shoot about 100 cruise missiles at it. If they didn't, someone else would, because melting the ice in Antarctica would flood a huge chunk of the planet!

However, there are still other marginally inhabitable places that can be settled that have not been settled. I suspect it'll be easier to settle the Sahara than it would be to settle Mars.

Also, if Elon Musk started terraforming Mars...well, I think that's gotta break SOME sort of international treaty.

Holy team America!   You guys think you can shoot cruise missiles at anything you like.   The US doesn't even claim part of Antarctica.

So, on the one hand you think America should take unilateral police action with regard to Antarctica.   But on the other hand, terraforming Mars needs to be settled by international diplomacy!

It's not that the US claims Antarctica, but that most of the world signed a treaty to agree that no one could claim it or settle it, it will be preserved for research purposes only.  Action against anyone breaking the treaty would be expected, and not just from the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System

Quote
Article 10 – All treaty states will discourage activities by any country in Antarctica that are contrary to the treaty;

Quote
Article 1 – The area is to be used for peaceful purposes only; military activity, such as weapons testing, is prohibited but military personnel and equipment may be used for scientific research or any other peaceful purpose

Quote
Article 11 – All disputes to be settled peacefully by the parties concerned or, ultimately, by the International Court of Justice;

The first article of the treaty indicates that any peaceful purpose is OK.  Settling is a peaceful purpose, and firing cruise missiles at settlers is a clear violation of article 11.

Settling would violate Article 4 'no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force."  Setting up a permanent settlement would be making a claim on the land.  I'm not saying it's ok to fire missiles at anyone, just saying that whichever country sent settlers would also be in violation of the treaty and would need to be prevented/discouraged (hopefully by the international courts).

I assumed A Definite Beta Buy was utilizing hyperbole about the missiles.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2017, 05:48:35 AM by Raenia »

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
Re: Mars
« Reply #37 on: October 09, 2017, 07:07:35 AM »
Well, I was being a bit hyperbolic, but so is terraforming Antarctica. I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime, but I can tell you that anyone who brought a working weather machine to Antarctica falls squarely into Comic Book Supervillain territory and would probably get a whole bunch of pissed off nations attacking them. Melting the Antarctic Ice sheets would most likely kill 1+ billion people.

Linda_Norway

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1887
Re: Mars
« Reply #38 on: October 09, 2017, 07:51:26 AM »
Well, I was being a bit hyperbolic, but so is terraforming Antarctica. I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime, but I can tell you that anyone who brought a working weather machine to Antarctica falls squarely into Comic Book Supervillain territory and would probably get a whole bunch of pissed off nations attacking them. Melting the Antarctic Ice sheets would most likely kill 1+ billion people.

Haven't we humans started doing this already with our climate changes?

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
Re: Mars
« Reply #39 on: October 09, 2017, 08:37:43 AM »
Well, I was being a bit hyperbolic, but so is terraforming Antarctica. I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime, but I can tell you that anyone who brought a working weather machine to Antarctica falls squarely into Comic Book Supervillain territory and would probably get a whole bunch of pissed off nations attacking them. Melting the Antarctic Ice sheets would most likely kill 1+ billion people.

Haven't we humans started doing this already with our climate changes?
Yes, and a lot of people are pissed off at the current rate of change. This century will likely see global pollution controls added to the international legal regime, same as gross human rights abuses or rules of war in the 20th and 19th centuries.

Terraforming of Mars is, like, several magnitudes of order more difficult than simply heating the Earth through fossil fuel emissions, though.

SecondBreakfast

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Mars
« Reply #40 on: October 09, 2017, 09:00:33 AM »
I don't quite buy that Elon Musk is being honest about his chances, given that he's struggling to build electric cars or turn a profit whilst eating public subsidies and treating his workers like shit. I also don't buy that there's much on Mars for us. But I do hope that this leads to research that keeps our own planet livable. If, in the course of evangelising about Mars bases and helping the rich flee into space, he tricks people into developing sustainable earth-based technologies then I'm all for him.

maizeman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1617
  • Location: The World of Tomorrow
Re: Mars
« Reply #41 on: October 09, 2017, 09:38:19 AM »
Rapid growth and turning a (net) profit are generally contradictory goals. Look at Amazon.

In my experience people either have the space bug or they don't so I won't try to talk you into thinking that going to (and living) on Mars is an exciting and worth endeavor. Personally I'm thrilled that this morning I woke up, opened my laptop and discovered I was two minutes away from a spaceX launch, and got to watch a rocket enter orbit, with the first stage landing on a robotic ship in the pacific, before I even had my morning coffee/breakfast.
"It’s a selective retirement," Richard explained, "a retirement from boring s**t."

My source code & my journal

CowboyAndIndian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1067
  • Location: NJ, USA
    • KOWines: Deep discount wine/spirits store.
Re: Mars
« Reply #42 on: October 09, 2017, 10:04:54 AM »
...
In my experience people either have the space bug or they don't so I won't try to talk you into thinking that going to (and living) on Mars is an exciting and worth endeavor. Personally I'm thrilled that this morning I woke up, opened my laptop and discovered I was two minutes away from a spaceX launch, and got to watch a rocket enter orbit, with the first stage landing on a robotic ship in the pacific, before I even had my morning coffee/breakfast.

+100

I am an engineer who has workd in the space industry. I grew up seeing the moon landings and am absolutely fascinated by space. I missed the launch today, but saw the highlights. I definitely have the space bug.

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1463
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: Mars
« Reply #43 on: October 09, 2017, 10:22:37 AM »
Space is just the next big ocean to get across.

Columbus sailed off into the unknown, some next wave of explorers will do the same to space. We have to, or will be hit with an extinction event at some point. 

I suspect the uber-rich will drive space tourism and it'll grow legs from there.
SWAMI (Satisfied Working Advanced Mustachian Individual) 1 stash, 1 DW, 7 Mini MM's...
God, Family, Country. Everything else is details.

SecondBreakfast

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Mars
« Reply #44 on: October 09, 2017, 12:48:47 PM »
I appreciate the difficulty of the work, the engineering challenge, the incredible work that has to go into it. But I can't see the outcome as laudable anymore. It's more like the fashion industry, or advertising. Or even the giant fangs of the saber-toothed tiger. Took huge amounts of time, effort and energy to develop, artfully done and you have to agree they achieve what they set out to do, but ultimately they're either actively killing us or distracting us from what needs to be done.

maizeman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1617
  • Location: The World of Tomorrow
Re: Mars
« Reply #45 on: October 09, 2017, 02:21:13 PM »
I appreciate the difficulty of the work, the engineering challenge, the incredible work that has to go into it. But I can't see the outcome as laudable anymore. It's more like the fashion industry, or advertising. Or even the giant fangs of the saber-toothed tiger. Took huge amounts of time, effort and energy to develop, artfully done and you have to agree they achieve what they set out to do, but ultimately they're either actively killing us or distracting us from what needs to be done.

Yup, that view came through clearly in your first post as well.

I disagree (vehemently), but given that neither you nor I are in a position to dictate how much effort our civilization devotes to spreading humanity to other worlds, it likely is going to be as silly for you to try to convince me this is not an important and worthy goal as for me to try convince you that it is.
"It’s a selective retirement," Richard explained, "a retirement from boring s**t."

My source code & my journal

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 572
Re: Mars
« Reply #46 on: October 09, 2017, 02:43:32 PM »
Ran across this article against Musk's plans that is so bad it's actually kind of good.

One major part of the argument is Musk's unforgivable pre-crime of mistreating his Martian employees.

Another part of the argument holds that since there is no government involved, it will necessarily lead to Very Bad Things (but what does Spencer think of the Mayflower Compact?).

And I'm not sure how this is an argument against Mars colonization:

This is not a giant leap for mankind; this is the next great leap in plutocracy. The mere notion that global wealth is so unevenly distributed that a small but sufficient sum of rich people could afford this trip is unsettling, indicative of the era of astonishing economic inequality in which we suffer.

maizeman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1617
  • Location: The World of Tomorrow
Re: Mars
« Reply #47 on: October 09, 2017, 04:19:18 PM »
I cannot tell if that article is a parody or meant to be taken seriously. ... but yes, the writer appears to be concerned that, since there are no indigenous martians, earth-based humans will voluntarily sign up to be shipped to mars to be lowly paid, powerless, and oppressed housekeepers.
"It’s a selective retirement," Richard explained, "a retirement from boring s**t."

My source code & my journal

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
Re: Mars
« Reply #48 on: October 10, 2017, 07:14:51 AM »
It's not an unreasonable fear that the future labor relationships of our species are going to be shaped solely on the whims of private billionaires who happened to land somewhere first.

It's certainly a more reasonable fear to me than worrying about an extinction level event on Earth within the next several centuries.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9449
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Mars
« Reply #49 on: October 10, 2017, 09:15:44 AM »
Nope, permanently settling Antarctica would be illegal, and the only permitted purpose is scientific. If you brought a weather-control machine to Antarctica, it is highly likely the US Navy would shoot about 100 cruise missiles at it. If they didn't, someone else would, because melting the ice in Antarctica would flood a huge chunk of the planet!

However, there are still other marginally inhabitable places that can be settled that have not been settled. I suspect it'll be easier to settle the Sahara than it would be to settle Mars.

Also, if Elon Musk started terraforming Mars...well, I think that's gotta break SOME sort of international treaty.

Holy team America!   You guys think you can shoot cruise missiles at anything you like.   The US doesn't even claim part of Antarctica.

So, on the one hand you think America should take unilateral police action with regard to Antarctica.   But on the other hand, terraforming Mars needs to be settled by international diplomacy!

It's not that the US claims Antarctica, but that most of the world signed a treaty to agree that no one could claim it or settle it, it will be preserved for research purposes only.  Action against anyone breaking the treaty would be expected, and not just from the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System

Quote
Article 10 – All treaty states will discourage activities by any country in Antarctica that are contrary to the treaty;

Quote
Article 1 – The area is to be used for peaceful purposes only; military activity, such as weapons testing, is prohibited but military personnel and equipment may be used for scientific research or any other peaceful purpose

Quote
Article 11 – All disputes to be settled peacefully by the parties concerned or, ultimately, by the International Court of Justice;

The first article of the treaty indicates that any peaceful purpose is OK.  Settling is a peaceful purpose, and firing cruise missiles at settlers is a clear violation of article 11.

Settling would violate Article 4 'no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force."  Setting up a permanent settlement would be making a claim on the land.  I'm not saying it's ok to fire missiles at anyone, just saying that whichever country sent settlers would also be in violation of the treaty and would need to be prevented/discouraged (hopefully by the international courts).

I assumed A Definite Beta Buy was utilizing hyperbole about the missiles.

There exist 7 countries with pre-treaty territorial claims on Antarctica.  Any of them should be able to set up a permanent settlement without violation of the treaty . . . which specifically guarantees that none of the original countries with claims need to give them up to be signatories.

:P