Guest Plastic Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Our next venture in The Solar System is to visit the planet Mars. After that we will colonize it. But before that we'll go back ,back to The Moon. Just 4 days max away from Earth The Moon is an excllent training ground. While gravity is limited and there's no atmosphere there are elements and plenty of solar radiation.Imagine it, in 20 years there could be Earth people living on The Lunar Surface. Probrably a small base it would be our first habitat on another celestial body. A place to study sciences and Astonomy it would also be a launching spot for our first craft to get to Mars. WHile starting the first colony off the world will be no small challenge the real interesting thing will happen decades ahead.Look even further forward 75 maybe 250 years and you'll probrably see a city the size of if akteast half Houston's area. The challenge is how do we buiild it? Building on The Moon while surely alter the concept and idea of civic areas. Streets would have to be almost totally different being that they'd have to be in airtigh enclosures too keeop in oxygen. We'd probrably need some new form of energy to power cars and vehicles being that oil is to exspensive to import, there couldn't be any polloution in the enclosed enviroment,,and there's no fossil fuels on The Moon.]Perhaps a small condensed city will develop at first like New York. There's be no need for a car and you could rely on public transportation(buses,trains,subways). First question is how do you build in non-atmosphere enviroment? The construction workers would have to wear space suits whichjust moving around in is hard enough. Don't know of The Mooon has enough of all the right materials. You'd have to have work,transportation,infastructures,resteraunts,nightclubs,arenas,stadiums,schools,collleges,parks, high rises,and of course government. That as well as electricity,telecommunications,water, and perhaps air.There'd be no real way for you to walk out in the lunar enviroment unprotected. Closest you could get is aan enclosed glass structure placed over a couple acre area so you could feel like you were outside. regolith,rocks,hills and all,get's no better without a space suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Before we go spending billions on Mars, why don't we try to get things right here on Earth first. We don't need a space program anymore, let private business buy out NASA, and lets use those resources to better use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Plastic Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Cause it's exspensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Cause it's exspensive.Yes, I believe that cements TJ's point. I agree that private business should worry about space travel. We need to take care of our elderly, schools, and god forbid.. our unemployed/homeless first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talbot Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 I think the Moon will be a big suburb of earth one day.And then even farther down the line Earth will be one big city center, with the moon being earths version of a street car suburb and Mars finally being The Woodlands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Plastic Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 believe it or ot I thought if that once. Nuclear propulsion is the vey fastest technology we can concieve right now. If it works it could you to Mars in 8-12 days. While that's not quick enough for a commute it could probrably get you to The Moon pretty quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 I can't wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Sweet mother of pearl! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 believe it or ot I thought if that once. Nuclear propulsion is the vey fastest technology we can concieve right now. If it works it could you to Mars in 8-12 days. While that's not quick enough for a commute it could probrably get you to The Moon pretty quickly. Nuclear Propulsion ? I guess all those Subs we have are moving faster than I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 So Plastic, what's it like on Mars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Plastic Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 The only Mars I've been to wa s music store,and their instruments were just like the ones here on Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 We should go to Mars because it's good for mankind. We will never solve hunger, poverty or homelessness on Earth. There will always be some degree of hunger, poverty, or homelessness. But there are two big ways that science gets advanced: War and exploration. I'd rather have NASA doing the research and inventing than the Pentagon. If we left everything up to private industry there would be no weather satellites. No microwave ovens. No supercomputers. No communication satellites. No internet. No trans-ocean flights. All of those inventions are the product of the military or space programs. If we didn't have NASA, life today would be a lot more like life in the 1950's. And if we privatize NASA now, look around you and say hello to your future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 We should go to Mars because it's good for mankind. We will never solve hunger, poverty or homelessness on Earth. There will always be some degree of hunger, poverty, or homelessness. But there are two big ways that science gets advanced: War and exploration. I'd rather have NASA doing the research and inventing than the Pentagon. If we left everything up to private industry there would be no weather satellites. No microwave ovens. No supercomputers. No communication satellites. No internet. No trans-ocean flights. All of those inventions are the product of the military or space programs. If we didn't have NASA, life today would be a lot more like life in the 1950's. And if we privatize NASA now, look around you and say hello to your future. Editor, I hate to disagree with you, but there is about 80% of THIS planet, that still hasn't been explored. Why don't we finish up here before we go looking elsewhere ? A cure-all for cancer, and AIDS, is on this planet somewhere, I have to believe that. The Earth provides everything we need to stay alive, and achieve the things we have thus far. I don't believe the Earth is "tapped" of it's resources, and now we have to "outsource" other planets to find a glimmer of hope, or advance ourselves, when it's all right here ? Look how far we have come in just 100 years. The knowledge has grown exponentially, why not find out everything we can about this planet, before moving on to the next. We are in no danger of running out of places to live. Truth is that only 5 or 10% of this panet's liveable surface is being "lived-on". The rest is either undeveloped as of yet, or protected, which in most cases should be, right now. Let's explore the rest of Earth, it's oceans, it's polar ice caps, it's crust, it's mantle, the whole nine yards. Perhaps a renewable power source is yet to be found right here under Houston. I'll let everyone chew on that for awhile. We got way bigger problems here, than trying to go find E.T., and I am tired of my tax dollars being spent on what appears now to be outdated rocket ships, that NASA can't be sure will make it there and back. That's a big risk with lives and my money on a floundering business. Editor, I do agree that we may never solve hunger and poverty worldwide, but for ourselves here at home, we can make a pretty damn good dent in it with the money we pour into NASA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Editor, I hate to disagree with you, but there is about 80% of THIS planet, that still hasn't been explored. Why don't we finish up here before we go looking elsewhere ? A cure-all for cancer, and AIDS, is on this planet somewhere, I have to believe that. The Earth provides everything we need to stay alive, and achieve the things we have thus far. I don't believe the Earth is "tapped" of it's resources, and now we have to "outsource" other planets to find a glimmer of hope, or advance ourselves, when it's all right here ? Look how far we have come in just 100 years. The knowledge has grown exponentially, why not find out everything we can about this planet, before moving on to the next. We are in no danger of running out of places to live. Truth is that only 5 or 10% of this panet's liveable surface is being "lived-on". The rest is either undeveloped as of yet, or protected, which in most cases should be, right now. Let's explore the rest of Earth, it's oceans, it's polar ice caps, it's crust, it's mantle, the whole nine yards. Perhaps a renewable power source is yet to be found right here under Houston. I'll let everyone chew on that for awhile. We got way bigger problems here, than trying to go find E.T., and I am tired of my tax dollars being spent on what appears now to be outdated rocket ships, that NASA can't be sure will make it there and back. That's a big risk with lives and my money on a floundering business. Editor, I do agree that we may never solve hunger and poverty worldwide, but for ourselves here at home, we can make a pretty damn good dent in it with the money we pour into NASA. It would be nice to know theres not Giant Squids living in the oceans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 The current climate does not bode well for Mars exploration. NASA is in a shambles, beset by management problems that inhibit growth and research. Science is under siege by political opportunists. The US budget is hemorhaging red ink, with no no signs or will to rein it in. This forces even NASA's friends to pull back on any dreams of big-budget exploration programs. Current world political climate strains the ability to partner with other countries to share research and expenses.Finally, the historical American quest for exploration, coupled with it's willingness to make sacrifices to advance the cause, has been replaced, or at least over-shadowed by a national selfishness that makes any big dreams, such as space exploration problematic or impossible. I don't believe this to be the case forever, but it certainly will be so for the next 5 to 10 years, especially if your belief that a huge government research program is the only way to achieve a Mars landing is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 I propose sending Plastic on an exploratory mission to the Sun. I'm sure we'd all find his/her conclusions facinating. it would ta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Plastic Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 BTW how'd this get in Way Off Topic?I just wonder if ther'll be concerts on The Moon. If you thought addingIndia or Russia to your tour was off track try Mars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dominax Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Mars Its quite normal on Mars! 91% dirt/rocks 5% water 3% weather diasaters 1% life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dominax Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Can someone tell me have someone discovered another planet after PLUTO do we have 10 planets now or what or still nine http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1560_1.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Plastic Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Well it's disputed, it's so small they don't know wether to call it a planet or a moon.But then there's Pluto,it's so small they don't know whter to call it a moon or a planet. Anyway the new "planet" is larger thna Pluto so we might end up with 8 plents either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Scientists are working on a new definition for "planet". Pluto makes the cut depending on how you define the term, but there's some sentimental value toward keeping it designated as planet since it has been though of that way for a long time. There a potentially a lot of bodies in the Kuiper Belt that might qualify as planets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.