Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars

[apis]

It is possible to make it habitable... by nuking the poles.

I hadn't heard about that before, interesting.

So you release a lot of CO₂ which provides a thicker atmosphere, rises the temperature and in turn melts water. Liquid water and CO₂ might be enough for micro organism and some plants which then could oxygenate the atmosphere over a time period of 100 000's of years. That could make the planet more friendly to biological life but not enough to make it habitable to humans. Earth's atmosphere has about 410 ppm CO2 (used to be 280 ppm before the industrial era). Even at concentrations as low as 0.1% CO₂ has negative health effects on humans and at 7% it's lethal.

There's also the problem of toxic perchlorate in the soil mentioned earlier:
https://www.space.com/21554-mars-toxic-perchlorate-chemicals.html

because it lost it's atmosphere at some point of time.
EDIT: BTW while Venus has slightly lower mass and gravity compared to Earth, atmospheric pressure is 90 times higher than on Earth.

Mars has no magnetic field like the earth, so Mars has no shield against charged particles from the sun which is what is believed to have stripped away its atmosphere in the past. If humans managed to create a new atmosphere on mars, why wouldn't the sun blow it away again?

Living on Mars will be like living in a bunker in the middle of a toxic dessert in a vacuum (or at least a non breathable atmosphere). It would be quite a challenge.

[wraper]

If humans managed to create a new atmosphere on mars, why wouldn't the sun blow it away again?

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere.html

[rdl]

Considering Mars as somewhere to live is a big mistake. It would be far more trouble than it's worth, not to mention expensive and time consuming.

[In Vacuo Veritas]

This sure is very sound and strong argument.

stupid sci-fi picture

From someone just a while ago wrote V 

The typical logical fallacy from your camp is usually in the form of: "they laughed at (insert famous historical figure here) too!". Unfortunately, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Being laughed at is no guarantee that you're actually right.

Psst: in this example, you are Bozo the Clown.

[In Vacuo Veritas]

If humans managed to create a new atmosphere on mars, why wouldn't the sun blow it away again?

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere.html

Yes, linking to sci-fi is very much the same as proof. Thank you, my mind is changed now. Maybe we can be neighbors on Mars and chat over the fence when we are mowing our space lawns with our space lawnmowers...

PS: No one is going anywhere. Not you, not me, not Elon Freaking Musk. Get over it.

[apis]

BTW while Venus has slightly lower mass and gravity compared to Earth, atmospheric pressure is 90 times higher than on Earth.

Actually, colonising Venus would probably be easier, by living in floating cities in venus atmospere:

In effect, a balloon full of human-breathable air would sustain itself and extra weight (such as a colony) in midair. At an altitude of 50 kilometres above the Venerian surface, the environment is the most Earth-like in the Solar System – a pressure of approximately 1000 hPa and temperatures in the 0 to 50 °C range. Protection against cosmic radiation would be provided by the atmosphere above, with shielding mass equivalent to Earth's.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus

And even if you find people who would like to live under such extreme condition (I'm sure there are some who would like the challenge), there is still the question of why go through the trouble (i.e. who would be willing to pay for it and why, same as with a colony on Mars). Naah, at most there will be small research bases, but to me it still makes much more sense to just send "disposable" robotic rovers.

A moon base and larger space station with spin gravity seems a lot more realistic and potentially useful.

[@rt]

I had a video of mine get related by YouTube to the last SpaceX live feed, which one would think is a YouTuber’s dream,
but who’s going to exit the live feed to go watch some other video I got 1500 views out of it

[wraper]

This sure is very sound and strong argument.

stupid sci-fi picture

From someone just a while ago wrote V 

The typical logical fallacy from your camp is usually in the form of: "they laughed at (insert famous historical figure here) too!". Unfortunately, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Being laughed at is no guarantee that you're actually right.

Psst: in this example, you are Bozo the Clown.

FYI this is a name-calling and in given context ad hominem fallacy.

[wraper]

If humans managed to create a new atmosphere on mars, why wouldn't the sun blow it away again?

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere.html

Yes, linking to sci-fi is very much the same as proof. Thank you, my mind is changed now. Maybe we can be neighbors on Mars and chat over the fence when we are mowing our space lawns with our space lawnmowers...

PS: No one is going anywhere. Not you, not me, not Elon Freaking Musk. Get over it.

Seems you have no real argument just as always. That is not sci-fi but theory.

[ebastler]

FYI this is a name-calling and in given context ad hominem fallacy.

... while "reponding to tone" is two levels better in Graham's Hierarchy! 

Come on, guys, can't we cool it a bit? Wraper loves space stuff (although he does not state that everything which can be contemplated should also be done), others are more skeptical. So what? 

[Brumby]

So what is worse...

Aiming low and hitting your target
  or
Aiming high and possibly missing - but hitting a mark higher than where you currently are?

[In Vacuo Veritas]

If humans managed to create a new atmosphere on mars, why wouldn't the sun blow it away again?

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere.html

Yes, linking to sci-fi is very much the same as proof. Thank you, my mind is changed now. Maybe we can be neighbors on Mars and chat over the fence when we are mowing our space lawns with our space lawnmowers...

PS: No one is going anywhere. Not you, not me, not Elon Freaking Musk. Get over it.

Seems you have no real argument just as always. That is not sci-fi but theory.

It's not even theory.

[wraper]

... while "reponding to tone" is two levels better in Graham's Hierarchy! 

Sorry but you need to read the definition of it again. Not to say, I'm not pointing out his logical fallacies just because. He claimed that others are full of logical fallacies but himself being holier than thou.

VVV

I'm certain you want to return to the state of science of those years. Just avoid inquisition frying your ass on a bonfire.

Ah yes, that old chestnut.

So Giordano Bruno wasn't burned at the stake after all?

So you don't understand your logical fallacy after all?

Says walking logical fallacy itself.

There is no logical fallacy on my part, the burden of proof is entirely on the people making the extraordinary claims. You are nothing but cloud-shoveling daydreamers with an odd techno-religion.

[ebastler]

... while "reponding to tone" is two levels better in Graham's Hierarchy! 

Sorry but you need to read the definition of it again. Not to say, I'm not pointing out his logical fallacies just because. He claimed that others are full of logical fallacies but himself being holier than thou.

I was referring to the very post which I quoted, where you complained about the ad-hominem attack and name-calling. That is "responding to tone", right?

[wraper]

I was referring to the very post which I quoted, where you complained about the ad-hominem attack and name-calling. That is "responding to tone", right?

I did not complain about the used language. Just pointed out logical fallacies which by then were already part of the discussion.

[In Vacuo Veritas]

FYI this is a name-calling and in given context ad hominem fallacy.

... while "reponding to tone" is two levels better in Graham's Hierarchy! 

Come on, guys, can't we cool it a bit? Wraper loves space stuff (although he does not state that everything which can be contemplated should also be done), others are more skeptical. So what? 

So did I.

I was 8.

[Koen]

And going on 14 it seems.

[apis]

Wraper loves space stuff

Most people loves space stuff, I certainly do too.

In a 2011 Pew Research survey, 58% of Americans said it is essential that the U.S. be a world leader in space exploration.

source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/14/5-facts-about-americans-views-on-space-exploration/

It's one of the few science and engineering related subjects that also interests non-technical people I know.

[EEVblog]

BTW while Venus has slightly lower mass and gravity compared to Earth, atmospheric pressure is 90 times higher than on Earth.

Actually, colonising Venus would probably be easier, by living in floating cities in venus atmospere:

In effect, a balloon full of human-breathable air would sustain itself and extra weight (such as a colony) in midair. At an altitude of 50 kilometres above the Venerian surface, the environment is the most Earth-like in the Solar System – a pressure of approximately 1000 hPa and temperatures in the 0 to 50 °C range. Protection against cosmic radiation would be provided by the atmosphere above, with shielding mass equivalent to Earth's.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus

And even if you find people who would like to live under such extreme condition (I'm sure there are some who would like the challenge), there is still the question of why go through the trouble (i.e. who would be willing to pay for it and why, same as with a colony on Mars). Naah, at most there will be small research bases, but to me it still makes much more sense to just send "disposable" robotic rovers.

Exactly. There is absolutely no point in a human habitat floating high in the venus atmosphere. You couldn't go outside, you probably couldn't see much if anything interesting in the surface, just stuck in a bubble with no goal.
The problem with any human habitation of anything is either giving people a goal (e.g. spending 9 months in deep space to Mars), or keeping it interesting for them (e.g. doing science and exploring the martian surface, or on the moon being able to just constantly gaze at the earth.
Humans get bored easily.

A moon base and larger space station with spin gravity seems a lot more realistic and potentially useful.

Like I said, tourists would line up to go there, seriously.
If anything could work financially, and in the hearts and minds of the people, it's a moon base. People can look up and see the moons surface and think about the people up there, and maybe dream of going in their retirement, or as a scientist etc. You don't get that same dream with mars, it's not visible enough.
A Mars colony would be super cool, but I always doubt it's viability.

[Rick Law]

Mars to be habitable though, it's the closest other than Earth in our own solar system but that's not saying much.

It is possible to make it habitable... by nuking the poles.

How would nuking the poles help make Mars habitable?

It would release frozen CO₂ trapped in the ice caps. That would start greenhouse effect. Due to temperature increasing the rest of frozen CO₂ would vaporize as well increasing the greenhouse effect. Then you could use plants to release oxygen from CO₂. It's not like it can be terraformed in one human generation but in theory it's possible.

To melt an appreciable amount, one would probably need a fairly large number of nukes.  The dust resulted by the nuclear winter would probably exceed whatever greenhouse effect may gain.  That green house v nuclear winter effect estimation is just a guess work, but even if that is wrong, any CO2 gained will be temporary.

Many Mars scientist believes the evidence points to Mars once having an atmosphere and an ocean.  It lost both because of a frozen core which doesn't support a protective magnetic field.  If they are right, melting the CO2 (or water) on the pole is but a waste.  That small amount of CO2/water vapor will be lost to space quickly as well for the same reason it lost its original atmosphere.  Whatever CO2/ice it may have, it may be far better to use them in a "targeted" manner such as melting it directly into use as oppose to letting the CO2/vapor sit inside a temporary atmosphere.

[EEVblog]

Artemis is being made into a movie, can't wait! 
It'll be really interesting to see a large colonised style moon tourist base on the big screen.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/culture/movies/a22238110/artemis-andy-weir-movie-treatment/

[CatalinaWOW]

All talk about modifying the climate of Mars is speculative, but it isn't as far fetched or futile as some are saying.

All of the science says that any atmosphere created will be "quickly" blown away by the solar wind.  But that is "quickly" on geologic scales.  The time would be measured in tens or even hundreds of thousand years.  Which might be long enough in its own right, and certainly long enough to allow additional technology to be applied.  Like shifting Oort belt objects to replace existing atmosphere.  That would be energetically difficult if attempted in years or decades, but given the rate of solar wind erosion transit times of millenia could be adequate.   Requires thinking differently than we have as a race, but who knows, maybe we will grow up someday.

[Eka]

or "Asteroid of DOOM!!".

If any one of the largest 5 chunks had hit earth, we would not be having this conversation. If it didn't kill you outright, you likely will have eventually starved. I say this as a farmer with a garden and the ability to can food. I'd be lucky to have food on the table a few years later. Those of you in cities would have most likely starved. Our infrastructure for producing and delivering food is to fragile, and stretched to the limit. The medium and smaller fragments likely would have caused famines, but would not have been civilization ending.

The moon is to close. It would be peppered by huge numbers of meteors thrown up from the impact. Any colony there would be wiped out by them. Same goes for any space stations in earth orbit. That leaves the asteroid belt, moons around other planets, and other planets.

Mars has the raw materials needed for building a colony all in one place. The asteroids may not. Once Mars is self sufficient, it doesn't need space capabilities. Any colonization of the asteroid belt will forever need space ships. At the minimum to divert asteroids on collision courses with the habitats. That means fuel to propel them. Where will you get it?  Shipping fuel around requires lots of fuel.

Yeah, any self sufficient colony is a multi generational project, but it must be started some time. We don't have a choice. That clip of Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 hitting Jupiter in 1994 is a warning. BTW, in 2009 another slightly smaller sized impact hit Jupiter. That time nobody knew it was going to happen. We only got to see the pacific ocean sized scar left behind.

So what is worse...

Aiming low and hitting your target
  or
Aiming high and possibly missing - but hitting a mark higher than where you currently are?

Always go for batting the ball out of the heliosphere.

So far NASA is the only one to have done it. Voyager 1 left the heliosphere back in 2012.

[Eka]

All talk about modifying the climate of Mars is speculative, but it isn't as far fetched or futile as some are saying.

All of the science says that any atmosphere created will be "quickly" blown away by the solar wind.  But that is "quickly" on geologic scales.  The time would be measured in tens or even hundreds of thousand years.  Which might be long enough in its own right, and certainly long enough to allow additional technology to be applied.  Like shifting Oort belt objects to replace existing atmosphere.  That would be energetically difficult if attempted in years or decades, but given the rate of solar wind erosion transit times of millenia could be adequate.   Requires thinking differently than we have as a race, but who knows, maybe we will grow up someday.

Yep, also let the sun do the work. Black carbon soot distributed all over the polar ice caps. It would take a lot, but it would be doable if you didn't expect it to all show up in a year. It's something that could easily be robotized. Nukes would be much quicker.

[Brumby]

So what is worse...

Aiming low and hitting your target
  or
Aiming high and possibly missing - but hitting a mark higher than where you currently are?

Always go for batting the ball out of the heliosphere.

So far NASA is the only one to have done it. Voyager 1 left the heliosphere back in 2012.

Yet there are some who feel that looking to the skies is an exercise in futility and our efforts should be focussed on the ground in front of them.

It seems a shame that such people could never dream of the benefits of air travel or consider quantum mechanics as being useful in any way - before their success - when they were just ideas.  The word 'visionary' would seem to not exist in their lexicon.