I think we should, we could use VASMIR ion engines to get there in just 39 days and designer plastic to shield against space radiation.
-
We should. With the way things are going now we will render Earth useless before the year 3000.
-
We should colonize space itself in space habitats where we can have atmospheric pressure, 1 g of gravity, a balanced ecosystem with farms, agriculture and wild life, easy access without having to fight gravity at lift off and as much shielding as we would want.
On Mars, you'll be in cramped spaces, a toxic atmosphere outside, eating algae and sweet potatoes, marmots would be your livestock and your health will deteriorate from the low Martian gravity.
On Mars, you'll be in cramped spaces, a toxic atmosphere outside, eating algae and sweet potatoes, marmots would be your livestock and your health will deteriorate from the low Martian gravity.
-
No.
What's the point? Just so we can hulk around in stuffy biodomes with the same people all the time until they get on your nerves? Be totally dependent on Earth, thereby diverting precious funding away from real research?
If we spend trillions of dollars sending a few elite people to eke out an existence on Mars, what do we gain in return? What could they do that a team of robotic exploreers could not do at a fraction of the cost, and at the same time advance the science of robotics?
You do realise that ion engines have extremely low thrust and their use would enormously increase the time in space for any live crew?
The idea of the Earth somehow being on the brink of cosmic doom is sheer fantasy. Nothing has ever struck the Earth yet which has led to the extinction of all life. The chance of it happening now is zero. However the chance of financially provoked doom due to massive overspending on totally unproductive projects is very real.
I want to see progress in ssience and technology too. But Mars colonies and human spaceflight are something out of the mid-twentieth century. We need to move into the twenty first century where the hot areas of research are biotech, nanotech and robotics.
What's the point? Just so we can hulk around in stuffy biodomes with the same people all the time until they get on your nerves? Be totally dependent on Earth, thereby diverting precious funding away from real research?
If we spend trillions of dollars sending a few elite people to eke out an existence on Mars, what do we gain in return? What could they do that a team of robotic exploreers could not do at a fraction of the cost, and at the same time advance the science of robotics?
You do realise that ion engines have extremely low thrust and their use would enormously increase the time in space for any live crew?
The idea of the Earth somehow being on the brink of cosmic doom is sheer fantasy. Nothing has ever struck the Earth yet which has led to the extinction of all life. The chance of it happening now is zero. However the chance of financially provoked doom due to massive overspending on totally unproductive projects is very real.
I want to see progress in ssience and technology too. But Mars colonies and human spaceflight are something out of the mid-twentieth century. We need to move into the twenty first century where the hot areas of research are biotech, nanotech and robotics.
12
keywords: Should,Mars,we,colonize,Should we colonize Mars