Author Topic: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?  (Read 21728 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rstofer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9885
  • Country: us
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #25 on: January 14, 2019, 03:23:09 pm »
How about for 'locational diversity'.  It only takes one big rock hitting the earth to wipe out all of mankind.  If we are to survive, we need locational diversity.  In other words, don't be here when it happens.  Or at least have multiple locations.

The dinosaurs were around for about 185 million years and were well adapted for their environment - right up until a big rock came through the atmosphere.

Inevitably, a similar event will happen to the human race.



Amoeba the unicellular organism has lived for 185M, longevity period of dinosaurs+ the period till date.So have the

rest of multicellular species belonging to various biological divisions of zoology  and botany.

We  can employ another set of arguments that is -Since rest of the creation with stood and survived  that adverse period, humans
being can survive an identical  repeat catastrphe.


Why can we not?

I think we are supposed to be too slow to adapt to a new environment.  Cockroaches are presumed to inherit the earth according to science fiction.

Even modest events like the Black Plague and the 1918 Spanish Flu do enormous damage and both of these occurred before modern transportation.  Remember the Ebola outbreak?  We got lucky because we darn sure weren't smart.  Physical separation helps and living on another planet would help a lot.  The path of the Black Plague, especially, shows the benefit of separation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu

The bigger motivation is advancing science and technology.  The NASA Moon project developed a lot of technology, including integrated circuits, that benefit all of us today.  The program also provided jobs at all levels.  I would far rather see the money spent on exploration than hand-outs.
 

Offline sainbabloTopic starter

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 94
  • Country: pk
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #26 on: January 14, 2019, 03:46:25 pm »
How about for 'locational diversity'.  It only takes one big rock hitting the earth to wipe out all of mankind.  If we are to survive, we need locational diversity.  In other words, don't be here when it happens.  Or at least have multiple locations.

The dinosaurs were around for about 185 million years and were well adapted for their environment - right up until a big rock came through the atmosphere.

Inevitably, a similar event will happen to the human race.



Amoeba the unicellular organism has lived for 185M, longevity period of dinosaurs+ the period till date.So have the

rest of multicellular species belonging to various biological divisions of zoology  and botany.

We  can employ another set of arguments that is -Since rest of the creation with stood and survived  that adverse period, humans
being can survive an identical  repeat catastrphe.


Why can we not?

I think we are supposed to be too slow to adapt to a new environment.  Cockroaches are presumed to inherit the earth according to science fiction.

Even modest events like the Black Plague and the 1918 Spanish Flu do enormous damage and both of these occurred before modern transportation.  Remember the Ebola outbreak?  We got lucky because we darn sure weren't smart.  Physical separation helps and living on another planet would help a lot.  The path of the Black Plague, especially, shows the benefit of separation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu

The bigger motivation is advancing science and technology.  The NASA Moon project developed a lot of technology, including integrated circuits, that benefit all of us today.  The program also provided jobs at all levels.  I would far rather see the money spent on exploration than hand-outs.



The motivation being advancing science and technology  to achieve physical separation by living on another planet  for safe living

presupposes nothing ever will go  wrong while heading in that direction and even after end is  reached.

Gene mutation is one   absorbing  thought looming along such a futuristic adventure.
 

Offline vtwin@cox.net

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Country: us
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #27 on: January 14, 2019, 03:50:45 pm »
The bigger motivation is advancing science and technology.  The NASA Moon project developed a lot of technology, including integrated circuits, that benefit all of us today.  The program also provided jobs at all levels.  I would far rather see the money spent on exploration than hand-outs.

Developing a permanent base on the moon would seem to be a more logical step -- it is closer and would allow us to develop the technology necessary to be successful on Mars.

However, long-term viability of off-planet colonization within our solar system is not good, since we essentially have to take our atmosphere with us where ever we go.

Long-term prognosis for the human species is not good... it is far more likely we will exhaust our limited supply of natural resources on the planet before we develop the technology necessary for interstellar travel, in whatever form that ultimately takes (FTL travel, wormholes, etc.)

Even if we did manage to find a suitable planet in the goldilocks zone of a suitable star, there's a whole host of other issues (microbes, bacteria, viruses, etc.) which would probably kill a huge number of colonists since we have no natural immunity. Interstellar colonization would have a very high mortality rate.
A hollow voice says 'PLUGH'.
 

Online SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 14230
  • Country: fr
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #28 on: January 14, 2019, 04:51:57 pm »
If we started making a concerted effort now, today, to invest into a strategy to colonize another planet or our moon, it would take hundreds of years to develop a sustaining habitat that could survive through the long period of revival of the planet (if it still existed) in the aftermath of a major extinction event.

It would not only take a very long time, but investments probably several orders of magnitude higher. Then governments would have to convince people to pay gigantic taxes in order to fund something very uncertain for a solution that may only be in working order centuries from now. And many countries would have to get a common agreement on this.

We don't even manage to do that for much, much simpler stuff.

Another thing to consider is IMO linked to the "convincing people" part: given the likely huge costs of resources and logistics to get there, it seems kinda obvious that even if we manage to do this, and eventually need to escape the Earth, it will only be for a very small proportion of people. I don't see any way of transporting billions of people in space. When people realize this will work for only a few priviledged (whatever the selection process would be, and however defendable), I doubt they will be OK with giving away so much money. May seem like a trivial point to some, but let's just be realistic. Only a small fraction of people would be OK with that based on the idea of saving humanity as a species. Just my opinion of course, based on simple observations of human behavior. We can even imagine, in some kind of dystopian scenario, that it would eventually lead to a major world-wide revolt. Funky times ahead. ::)
 

Offline CM800

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 882
  • Country: 00
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #29 on: January 14, 2019, 08:05:07 pm »
How about for 'locational diversity'.  It only takes one big rock hitting the earth to wipe out all of mankind.  If we are to survive, we need locational diversity.  In other words, don't be here when it happens.  Or at least have multiple locations.

And getting truly autonomous like this will take 500-1000 years minimum.
If you think setting up a colony on Mars can be truly self sufficient and sustaining long term if the Earth blew up in the shorter term then you need to think  about the logistics of it a lot harder.

I respectfully disagree.

Consider how far humans have got in 500 years, saying 500-1000 years is ludicrously nonsensical.

in 1831, the world's first electric generator was constructed by Faraday as a scientific curiosity.
Fast forward only 138 years we had the first man on the moon.

That's a short enough period of time that the parent could see the first electromechanical generator, then their child see men on the moon.

Sure, we hit a short stunt where we failed to progress further, however I imagine we will pick up, and indeed, it is picking up now more then ever.

Consider the following:

Manufacturing in Zero Gravity environments poses HUGE possibilism and benefits for humanity.

Once manufacturing in orbit there is significant incentive to find resource supplies that take less energy to deliver to orbital factories then lugging it up from Earth's gravity well.

A great source of materials would be the asteroid belt 'just past mars'

Given how Mars is so much closer then earth is to the belt, it would make sense to build a 'maintenance depo' on mars where equipment can be repaired by people in a 'safe', gravity laden environment without having to haul the equipment such a distance. Mars' gravity is also lower then Earth's which means it's cheaper to move materials up and down.

150 years tops :)

 
The following users thanked this post: cdev

Offline rstofer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9885
  • Country: us
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #30 on: January 14, 2019, 08:07:26 pm »
Interstellar colonization would have a very high mortality rate.

Well, hanging around here yields a 100% mortality rate, sooner or later.
 

Offline cdev

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • !
  • Posts: 7350
  • Country: 00
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #31 on: January 14, 2019, 08:32:56 pm »
If we want to have a backup for humanity, we should build lots of such backups here on earth where its a lot cheaper, first. Incorporate them into some other project.

Also, try to change the way we see our place in the universe and relationships with one another. Even in the context of creating backups for humanity, lets face it, this is the first period in humanity's existence we've been able to consider doing something like that, a relative LUXURY.

We're shifting in many ways from a world characterized by a never ending struggle for survival, to a world of relative abundance.

To recognize that fact, we need to change our behavior to one another. And to animals and other living things.
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #32 on: January 14, 2019, 08:45:33 pm »
It would not only take a very long time, but investments probably several orders of magnitude higher. Then governments would have to convince people to pay gigantic taxes in order to fund something very uncertain for a solution that may only be in working order centuries from now. And many countries would have to get a common agreement on this.
The US has currently spent $5 billion on a government shutdown in order to build a gigant pointless monument for another $5 billions. It's not like there isn't enough money in the world. ($10 billion is a tenth of the Apollo program).

Since it's about national security they can even fund it from military budgets (world total was about $1739 billion/year in 2017).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
« Last Edit: January 14, 2019, 09:07:17 pm by apis »
 

Offline raptor1956

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 868
  • Country: us
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #33 on: January 15, 2019, 04:40:15 am »
The short term value of sending people to Mars is to expedite exploration of it.  We've had rovers on Mars for more than a decade, but the cumulative mileage of all the rovers combined is less than most people drive going back and forth to work each week.  The problem we have now is that the rovers can't operate fully autonomously and instead each movement is carefully reviewed and limited to just a few meters before the loop begins again.  And, with signal delays upwards of 15 minutes or more each way you don't get very far.  If, OTH, the rover pilot was on Mars the signal delay would be small enough that the rover could be operated nearly continuously so long as battery power was sufficient and doing this would permit vastly greater mileage and exploration.

There are many challenges to sending even a limited number of people to Mars for even a short stay and chief among the problems would be refuge if the Sun starts acting up.  They'd need a pretty decent shelter, preferably under ground and covered by a water tank (hydrogen) and food, oxygen, water and energy would be required. 

We may see a 'there-and-back' mission within a decade or so but I think it will be a couple decades before any more prolonged visitation can happen.  A lot of infrastructure is needed which will take several landings BEFORE we put people on the surface for more than the there-and-back mission. 

The costs to do this will be high and no company will be able to do this on there dime alone.  It's hard to see any single country doing this on there own.  I think for this to happen we'll need the commitment of many nations over an extended time period -- that is the even bigger challenge than going there.


Brian
 

Offline sainbabloTopic starter

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 94
  • Country: pk
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #34 on: January 15, 2019, 05:35:19 pm »
The bigger motivation is advancing science and technology.  The NASA Moon project developed a lot of technology, including integrated circuits, that benefit all of us today.  The program also provided jobs at all levels.  I would far rather see the money spent on exploration than hand-outs.

Developing a permanent base on the moon would seem to be a more logical step -- it is closer and would allow us to develop the technology necessary to be successful on Mars.

However, long-term viability of off-planet colonization within our solar system is not good, since we essentially have to take our atmosphere with us where ever we go.

Long-term prognosis for the human species is not good... it is far more likely we will exhaust our limited supply of natural resources on the planet before we develop the technology necessary for interstellar travel, in whatever form that ultimately takes (FTL travel, wormholes, etc.)

Even if we did manage to find a suitable planet in the goldilocks zone of a suitable star, there's a whole host of other issues (microbes, bacteria, viruses, etc.) which would probably kill a huge number of colonists since we have no natural immunity. Interstellar colonization would have a very high mortality rate.


That "interstellar colonization will  have a very high mortality rate  owing to lack of natural immunity", is one of many aspects of space medicine about which more is yet to be known. I do not know what kind of pathogens  space settlers body  systems  are likely to face. The response of their natural immunity already acquired on earth may or may not match the antigens their bodies  would challenge.But  again the basic  question is if  there are  unknow antigens up there in space , a search has  to be conducted to identify fauna and flora of space.(if any)

Again if hypothetical antigenic molecules do manage to cross the protective barriers and gain access within bodies of  would be victims
then in what way human body  responds will have to be identified ie diagnosed clinically by  totally  untrained medics working in  hostile environments  of  the  space, the  diagnostic tests, equipment  routinely  at  used  at  Earth  may not be able to help identify -and  if I may  use  the  term Pathogens-  because  we have no previous knowledge about antigen morpholoy  and  its  biochemistry etc. In  other  words new nomenclature of  diseases has is  to be invented, caused by poorly  understood  antigenic material  which may not be  amenable to   routine terrestrial modes of therapy.Once taken ill while living in outer space one better die  and get hermatically sealed and sent  on onwards   vovage  to havenly Father's  territory  rather  than  brought  back  to   earth for  fear of spreading  maladies unchecked.
There are many  "ifs" and "buts" in  above piece and full exposition of  the subject  rather unmerited at  this  stage.

 

Offline vtwin@cox.net

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Country: us
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #35 on: January 15, 2019, 05:53:28 pm »
I do not know what kind of pathogens  space settlers body  systems  are likely to face. The response of their natural immunity already acquired on earth may or may not match the antigens their bodies  would challenge.But  again the basic  question is if  there are  unknow antigens up there in space , a search has  to be conducted to identify fauna and flora of space.(if any)

Again if hypothetical antigenic molecules do manage to cross the protective barriers and gain access within bodies of  would be victims
then in what way human body  responds will have to be identified ie diagnosed clinically by  totally  untrained medics working in  hostile environments  of  the  space, the  diagnostic tests, equipment  routinely  at  used  at  Earth  may not be able to help identify -and  if I may  use  the  term Pathogens-  because  we have no previous knowledge about antigen morpholoy  and  its  biochemistry etc. In  other  words new nomenclature of  diseases has is  to be invented, caused by poorly  understood  antigenic material  which may not be  amenable to   routine terrestrial modes of therapy.Once taken ill while living in outer space one better die  and get hermatically sealed and sent  on onwards   vovage  to havenly Father's  territory  rather  than  brought  back  to   earth for  fear of spreading  maladies unchecked.

It would likely be necessary to simply expose test subjects to alien environments and monitor their vitals. How you could do this is questionable... for example, you could attempt to replicate, on-planet, the type of research facilities the CDC has, only isolating the scientists in the "sealed environment" from which they could study test subjects exposed (unprotected) to the native environment. Of course the isolated scientists could never return either because there's no guarantee an alien agent would be stopped/hindered by our isolation protocols. The whole expedition would be expendable.

Or release test subjects to the environment and monitor them from the comfort of the mother ship... but then, when they do become ill, there is no way to collect blood samples, etc., for study. I suppose scientists on the mother ship could come "home"... but would never be able to bring anything, other than information, back with them... safer to get the data from their computer system and then destroy the ship, "just in case".

Introduction of Europe to North America was devastating to the local cultures as they had no natural immunity to the diseases people in Europe brought with them. The converse would be true (if there were any)... so there is no reason not to think our interaction with an alien environment could not be very deadly.

All assuming we found a suitable planet to begin with, naturally.
A hollow voice says 'PLUGH'.
 

Offline mrpackethead

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2845
  • Country: nz
  • D Size Cell
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #36 on: January 15, 2019, 05:56:45 pm »
Moved to general chat, why on earth was it started in "beginners" ? :palm:

Maybe someone was goign to try to build a project....
On a quest to find increasingly complicated ways to blink things
 

Offline tszaboo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7281
  • Country: nl
  • Current job: ATEX product design
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #37 on: January 16, 2019, 08:47:14 am »
Because it is a megaproject. By deifinition it is to spend over 1 billion USD. Humanity needs megaprojects to keep on evolving and investing into technology. Projects like this are when you have blank checks, infinite spending and the best team put together to achieve something that is a technological breakthrough.
 

Offline mrpackethead

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2845
  • Country: nz
  • D Size Cell
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #38 on: January 16, 2019, 08:52:57 am »
A very interesting take on this topic in Steven Hawkings last book, " Breif Answers to the big questions ".  Hawking explains why such endevours are not only important but critical for the on going survial of humanity
On a quest to find increasingly complicated ways to blink things
 

Offline sainbabloTopic starter

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 94
  • Country: pk
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #39 on: January 16, 2019, 03:52:52 pm »
I do not know what kind of pathogens  space settlers body  systems  are likely to face. The response of their natural immunity already acquired on earth may or may not match the antigens their bodies  would challenge.But  again the basic  question is if  there are  unknow antigens up there in space , a search has  to be conducted to identify fauna and flora of space.(if any)

Again if hypothetical antigenic molecules do manage to cross the protective barriers and gain access within bodies of  would be victims
then in what way human body  responds will have to be identified ie diagnosed clinically by  totally  untrained medics working in  hostile environments  of  the  space, the  diagnostic tests, equipment  routinely  at  used  at  Earth  may not be able to help identify -and  if I may  use  the  term Pathogens-  because  we have no previous knowledge about antigen morpholoy  and  its  biochemistry etc. In  other  words new nomenclature of  diseases has is  to be invented, caused by poorly  understood  antigenic material  which may not be  amenable to   routine terrestrial modes of therapy.Once taken ill while living in outer space one better die  and get hermatically sealed and sent  on onwards   vovage  to havenly Father's  territory  rather  than  brought  back  to   earth for  fear of spreading  maladies unchecked.

It would likely be necessary to simply expose test subjects to alien environments and monitor their vitals. How you could do this is questionable... for example, you could attempt to replicate, on-planet, the type of research facilities the CDC has, only isolating the scientists in the "sealed environment" from which they could study test subjects exposed (unprotected) to the native environment. Of course the isolated scientists could never return either because there's no guarantee an alien agent would be stopped/hindered by our isolation protocols. The whole expedition would be expendable.

Or release test subjects to the environment and monitor them from the comfort of the mother ship... but then, when they do become ill, there is no way to collect blood samples, etc., for study. I suppose scientists on the mother ship could come "home"... but would never be able to bring anything, other than information, back with them... safer to get the data from their computer system and then destroy the ship, "just in case".

Introduction of Europe to North America was devastating to the local cultures as they had no natural immunity to the diseases people in Europe brought with them. The converse would be true (if there were any)... so there is no reason not to think our interaction with an alien environment could not be very deadly.

All assuming we found a suitable planet to begin with, naturally.


There is  lot  to be done on planet  Earth to achieve human progress in a safe and an assured  manner. Vast areas  of  land and ocean beds remain to be  explored and  populated. The  charm of being  the "first one" in space has  now  worn  off.There  was   some merit in the arguments  the  "World  Government" proponents of  yesteryears.
The latest  USA  probe  has yet  to report finding life on its  way to far  off  heavens. I would  say let common sense prevail and same human ingenuity be  used for Planet Earth  development to  its full potential.
 

Offline cdev

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • !
  • Posts: 7350
  • Country: 00
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #40 on: January 17, 2019, 05:14:05 am »
I really doubt if they will find life on any of the other planets in our solar system. I suppose there is always a chance but -

OTOH, the chance that intelligent life exists elsewhere, is pretty high. I would say, almost 100%
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Offline sainbabloTopic starter

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 94
  • Country: pk
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #41 on: January 17, 2019, 11:56:20 am »
I really doubt if they will find life on any of the other planets in our solar system. I suppose there is always a chance but -

OTOH, the chance that intelligent life exists elsewhere, is pretty high. I would say, almost 100%



How would you define "intelligent life" in terms  of shape, size, level of  intelligence <> humans, existing elsewhere.?
Where do you   reckon  is  that "elsewhere"?  These  are  some questions come  to one's mind to be answered to justify its quest
 

Offline vtwin@cox.net

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Country: us
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #42 on: January 17, 2019, 12:39:15 pm »
I really doubt if they will find life on any of the other planets in our solar system. I suppose there is always a chance but -

Depends on what you classify as life.

Life as we know it? Maybe (microbes, etc.)

However, would be recognize "life" in forms other than what our pre-conceived notions are (based on our current environment)? Maybe that rock sitting out in your front yard is really an alien here trying to make first contact.

Even if we did find "intelligent" life, would we ever be able to communicate with it? We haven't learned to communicate with any other species on our own planet, why do we think we would be able to communicate with an off-world species? Ultimately who knows if an alien species has the same 'senses' we do, and thus can 'interpret' the universe in the same way we do. Without some form of commonality to build upon, communication would be impossible. Heck, spoken languages in our own species is difficult to master, with tonal inflections and what not. What if an alien species used vocal intonations outside of our auditory range, or, outside of our vocal range.

"Arrival" addressed this in some respect.  There are so many aspects of communication we take for granted. At least human/human interactions have a commonality (sight, hearing, etc.) on which to build a vocabulary.

First contact will not bode well for the lessor-technologically-developed species. Ask the native americans how well it went from their interaction with western europeans, or the mexican/central americans from their interaction with the spanish.
A hollow voice says 'PLUGH'.
 

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • !
  • Posts: 2699
  • Country: tr
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #43 on: January 17, 2019, 01:41:52 pm »
What is it that you cant get on planet Earth but will get on Mars?
Is it for  sake of Science  or just  a  costly example of  basic human restlessness ?

It's Elon's wet dreams, and his flock of fanboy retards.
The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
 

Offline GreggD

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • Country: us
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #44 on: January 17, 2019, 02:49:40 pm »
Say you have landed on Mars.
How are you going to have enough cryo (liquid) oxygen for a return trip in two weeks or two years ?
 

Offline cdev

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • !
  • Posts: 7350
  • Country: 00
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #45 on: January 17, 2019, 03:20:11 pm »
If you have landed on Mars you have to either do what they did to get to the Moon, have the return vessel remain in low mars orbit, and only descend to the surface in a small landing craft, or wait for a return ride to come in a year to pick you up.

One or the other.

Your small landing craft would only need to get you back up into Mars orbit. Not go all the way back to Earth. It should then be parked and reused for descents to the surface and returns.

So, I think it would make the most sense actually for us for the first Mars "base" we build to be a space station, like the ISS, orbiting Mars, not on its surface.

Actually now that I think about it that is almost certainly how it will have to be. And doing it that way is far more doable. For the same reasons it was with the Moon.

If your main presence was at an orbiting space station, your return craft docked to it, remaining in orbit the amount of fuel needed to maintain the station in and for your return craft to escape Mars's orbit and return to Earth orbit and dock with an Earth orbiting craft would be far smaller.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2019, 04:05:43 pm by cdev »
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Offline coppercone2

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9166
  • Country: us
  • $
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #46 on: January 17, 2019, 03:24:00 pm »
You probobly wanna ship compressed oxygen tanks to mars along with a big ass compressor.
 

Offline cdev

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • !
  • Posts: 7350
  • Country: 00
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #47 on: January 17, 2019, 03:44:18 pm »
Why did 'the dinosaurs perish' but our ancestors did not?

Assuming that dinosaurs were cold blooded (like today's reptiles - not certain to be the case, last I heard) and that birds which survive to this day are not dinosaurs.

(which I think they are)

Here is perhaps why.

The reason the dinosaurs perished but we (i.e. our small rodent-like ancestors - mammalia) did not, may have had more to do with their body temperatures and the amazing adaptive evolutionary capabilities of fungi (which was illustrated on the Mir space station where in conditions of high radioactivity and high humidity the space station's resident commensal fungi evolved the ability to eat electrical insulation and some say even plastics and metal, leading to a dangerous situation and fire.) than anything else, on a cooler planet where some temporary blip in the climate caused a sudden increase in fungal growth, which led to widespread die off or many animals, especially the large reptiles, and the same reason may be why mammals survived to rule the earth, because our own body temperatures were much hotter than ambient temperatures fungi evolved in, at that time, while reptiles's cooler bodies were not, and so we were immune to fungal infections that dinosaurs were not at that time, its possible that we survived for that reason, says a scientist, Arturo Casadevall.

But all bets may be off if the average ambient temperatures here on Earth rise to near our body temps. Then fungi may likely evolve the ability to invade our bodies much more than they have now, and given a chance, they might be successful in killing us off in large numbers!

Especially if a sudden die off of a great many trees (from volcanism, as it has in the past, or a meteor, or not unlikely, a combination of both, as a really large meteor may cause the Earth to ring like a bell and suddenly erupt in volcanic activity, especially at the opposite point on the Earth to where the meteor had struck, as the oblate spheroid shape of the Earth might act a bit like a lens to focus the mechanical stress on its opposite side.

Suppose that happened, large numbers of plants and animals would die, and "return into dust".

Indeed, it seems that this has happened almost planet wide on multiple occasions, (however each time some portions of the planet escaped the massive die off despite the fact that some huge shift seems to have killed a great many animals almost everywhere else..) Its quite possible the thing that killed them, which wouldnt survive in any way we could record now, were toxins produced in large quantities by fungi in order to kill other fungi, with ourselves and reptiles and other animals being 'collateral damage'.

Spores, and toxic fungal metabolites would fill the atmosphere and all the planet, except maybe some islands, with immune system suppressing mycotoxins (dead trees = fungi to eat those dead trees, which produce a witches brew of dangerous chemicals, including hundreds of toxic mycotoxins -including abundant respirable quantities of ergot alkaloids closely related to the drug LSD- which cause symptoms best known as those which caused humans to believe themselves to be possessed by demons, leading to the witch burnings of the Middle Ages, (caused by eating ergot contaminated bread). (The ergot alkaloids are a virulence factor produced by aspergillus fumigatus, the 'most successful' pathogenic fungi in existence today, when it sporulates, its a very common fungi that eats decaying wood.) It also produces large amounts of bacterial toxins, (such as endotoxins) and also a large amount of glutathione depleting mercury vapor would be liberated from those trees by the process of decay which produces heat putting the mercury vapor into the atmosphere where it then condenses onto the next thing it can find once the temperature and water vapor pressure allows it to.) The dangerous state of toxicity created might last a very long time. Under those conditions, survival would be difficult even without the rapid evolution of fungi to contend with.

How about for 'locational diversity'.  It only takes one big rock hitting the earth to wipe out all of mankind.  If we are to survive, we need locational diversity.  In other words, don't be here when it happens.  Or at least have multiple locations.

The dinosaurs were around for about 185 million years and were well adapted for their environment - right up until a big rock came through the atmosphere.

Inevitably, a similar event will happen to the human race.



Amoeba the unicellular organism has lived for 185M, longevity period of dinosaurs+ the period till date.So have the

rest of multicellular species belonging to various biological divisions of zoology  and botany.

We  can employ another set of arguments that is -Since rest of the creation with stood and survived  that adverse period, humans
being can survive an identical  repeat catastrphe.


Why can we not?
« Last Edit: January 17, 2019, 04:11:41 pm by cdev »
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Offline tszaboo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7281
  • Country: nl
  • Current job: ATEX product design
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #48 on: January 17, 2019, 04:30:19 pm »
I really doubt if they will find life on any of the other planets in our solar system. I suppose there is always a chance but -

OTOH, the chance that intelligent life exists elsewhere, is pretty high. I would say, almost 100%
Then can you please give us your explanation to the Fermi paradox?
 

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • !
  • Posts: 2699
  • Country: tr
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
« Reply #49 on: January 17, 2019, 04:37:31 pm »
How about for 'locational diversity'.  It only takes one big rock hitting the earth to wipe out all of mankind.  If we are to survive, we need locational diversity.  In other words, don't be here when it happens.  Or at least have multiple locations.

¿Isn't it easier to build a "bunker" for that in the earth, than a colony in Mars?
The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf