NationStates Jolt Archive

Barring the doomsayers being right, and that the world will end in 2012 or some massive world war destroys us when do you think we (including by any nation or group of nations) will colonize the moon or another planet?

I feel it is plausible it will happen in my lifetime as I am in my 20s so I would say about 25 years if the rate of technological development remains the same, but I have not been keeping up with the latest technological breakthroughs.

By colonization meaning even having a moon base with people living there for at least a year. Basically humans living on another celestial body.

Not for a few hundred years. I say...2300-ish. That's a completely wild guess based solely on what I've seen in movies/TV etc.

Last weekend. Pics coming soon.

I think most of your answers could be found in the space exploration thread.

Not for a few hundred years. I say...2300-ish. That's a completely wild guess based solely on what I've seen in movies/TV etc.

By then though we will be hugely advanced in other fields. Their already saying we have technology for a space elevator, and will soon have (albeit primitive) commercial space travel.

So you think we will live in a cyberpunkish world with flying cars, but still not be to other planets?

Things move alot more slowly then people think. Look how just 40 years before how advanced people thought we would be by 2001 Space Odessy and in reality we are nowhere even close to that kind of advancement. In the 1950s people expected us to be in flying cars and flying cities by 2000.

Its quite possible that we will never expand to another planet, due to disease, war or other form of unexpected extinction. If we do, id make a wag that we are talking a 300-500 year wait.

The most likely candidate for colonization would have to be mars, but it is so far away and we've yet to land a person on mars. `colonization' will never happen before exploration and rape of natural recourses... Thats how North America was Colonized. Only then it was gold and fur hats that motivated first exploitation and then colonization. Even if you were able to find huge deposits of diamonds or platinum it still wouldn't be cost effective to mine those recourses and ship them from mars to earth ... simple economics. Until we have a better way of getting there or a better reason for going it's not going to happen ... and don't forget that any Mars colony would have to support itself ... that means technology for making air, mining water (it's under the surface), and growing food.

So I am guessing we can look forward more to robotic mining of the moon.

A major problem is we dont even know if the human body is even capable of long term space travel period. (radiation exposure, multiyear exposure to weightlessness etc)

We're running out of reasources while constructing increasingly more lethal weapons. I fear the answer is "twenty years or never," though I really hope I'm wrong.

By then though we will be hugely advanced in other fields. Their already saying we have technology for a space elevator, and will soon have (albeit primitive) commercial space travel.

So you think we will live in a cyberpunkish world with flying cars, but still not be to other planets?

In a futuristic Cyberpunkish society, will we have visited and explored other planets? yea, probably. But, by colonization, I was thinking terraforming other planets and making them habitable. That won't happen for a loooong time. If you are talking about Space colonies similar to the ones seen in anime like Gundam, or something like this

http://files.myopera.com/leirom/files/MoonInflatableHabitat.jpg

Then I would say maybe 70 to 100 years from now.

A major problem is we dont even know if the human body is even capable of long term space travel period. (radiation exposure, multiyear exposure to weightlessness etc)

I believe their was one Russian astronaught at least who went up for over a year. They've done tests on this sort of stuff you know.

I once saw a list of different types of cancers and how much the chance of getting each one would increase due to radiation recieved during a trip to Mars and back. Sadly I don't have access to the source right now. But I do recall that the increases were not particularily high.

We will hurl our spore into the vast reaches of outer space... oh wait wrong species huh?

A major problem is we dont even know if the human body is even capable of long term space travel period. (radiation exposure, multiyear exposure to weightlessness etc)

I thought the Soviets and later Russia had a couple of cosmonauts hanging around Mir for over a year.

In 30-40 years, we'll probably be setting up pilot colonies on Mars. I predict that we'll have cities by the end of the century.

Maybe we'll get lucky someday and while sailing westward find another continent.

Not any time soon with this economy.

btw hello everyone I'm new.

Not any time soon with this economy.

btw hello everyone I'm new.

Why Hallo! [/badbritishaccent]

Maybe we'll get lucky someday and while sailing westward find another continent.

Or we could just take China................what? Don't give me that look...

I don't think it will happen in the next 100 years, if ever. I say "if ever" as our economies are likely to shrink as we run out of unrenewable resources and suffer the effects of climate change, decreasing the amounts available to spend on long-term scientific investment that might not come up with sufficient technology for many decades.

50-80 years I say, we really have to focus on population control and such first though
(move everbody into Arizona, there's plenty of room)

If by some freak of nature Series of Unfortunate Events Caribou Barbie becomes President in 2012, Planet will pre-emptively invade Earth with Mindworms to keep us from headin' on over.

I thing self sustaing martian "dome city" colonys in 30 to 40 years time. Is that an Alpha Centauri reference Gauthier?

I think we'll be terraforming mars and the moon by the mid-2150's. We'll have pressurized, not self-sustaining moon and mars cities by 2070.

I think we'll be terraforming mars and the moon by the mid-2150's. We'll have pressurized, not self-sustaining moon and mars cities by 2070.
TERRAFORMING PLANETS TAKES MILLENNIA!


Phew, now that that's off my chest...

Moon, mid-22nd century.

First permanent base perhaps in 2030s, tourism in 2050s, arcologies in 2100s, self sustaining colonies 2150s onwards...

For Mars, add 50 years to each number.

edit:
Terraforming perhaps 3000s the earliest.

TERRAFORMING PLANETS TAKES MILLENNIA!


Proof?:p

Proof?:p
For example, look at the Ice Ages.

TERRAFORMING PLANETS TAKES MILLENNIA!

Humans have materially altered Earth's climate in less than 200 years, of which the vast majority has happened in the past 50 or so. I'd say with the right set of circumstances, it can happen very quickly. Barring major changes, those effects are basically going to be permanent at one level or another.

That being said, it's not going to be that easy. Mars has low gravity and no magnetosphere, which means it would take even more work to offset the effects of that and the solar wind to materially alter the climate. It's certainly possible, but the sheer amounts of resources involved would make it take a very, very long time.

Personally, I think Venus is a better target for terraforming than Mars.

For example, look at the Ice Ages.
For example, that was by nature. Remember?

For example, look at the Ice Ages.

A series of fusion warheads ignited over the poles --> Effectively instantaneous global flooding. Upset of the oceanic currents, global climate, pressure, etc., leads to most of that water freezing within less than a century.

Terraforming in all of 50 years.

define colonisation, if you mean cities then not for at least a hundred years as not only is there no real need for us to move planet just yet (although we are working hard on that) and innovation is driven by necessity

Humans have materially altered Earth's climate in less than 200 years, of which the vast majority has happened in the past 50 or so. I'd say with the right set of circumstances, it can happen very quickly. Barring major changes, those effects are basically going to be permanent at one level or another.
2.5 x 10^16 kg (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html)

That's the weight of the current Martian atmosphere.

3.9 × 10^18 kg (http://www.google.com/search?q=%282.5+x+10%5E16+kg%29+%2A+1atm%2F6.36+mb&lr=)

That's the weight of the Martian atmosphere required for atmospheric pressure (the previous number multiplied by Earth's atmospheric pressure divided by Martian atmospheric pressure. The actual number would probably be somewhat smaller, but of similar magnitude, because of the different composition of gases.)


The mass difference: 3.9 * 10^18 kgs or 3,900,000,000,000,000 TONNES...Ok, perhaps we don't need full atmospheric pressure...Let's divide it by 4...that leaves as with mass-deficit of, oh I don't know, 975,000,000,000,000 tonnes. :tongue:

And it's not just any kind of mass, it's gas: Oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, methane...

We would have to spew and/or transport 1000 teratonnes of correct material into Martian atmosphere AND do it in a way that wouldn't lead into devastating storms that would destroy the planetary structures.

For comparison the known oil reserves total to 180 billion cubic meters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves). That's roughly 162 gigatonnes (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2007/ArtemGindin.shtml), which comes up to roughly 1/6,000th of the required mass of the Martian atmosphere.

In short: Do you *REALLY* think we could inject 6000 times the known oil reserves into Martian atmosphere within several centuries?

edit: For reference; Earth's atmosphere weighs approximately 5200 teratonnes
Personally, I think Venus is a better target for terraforming than Mars.
Almost, you're forgetting the length of the day.

Otherwise, I'd agree.

Almost, you're forgetting the length of the day.

Otherwise, I'd agree.

Time of day, in addition to an atmosphere almost purely composed of CO2, the current high temperature around the equator is hot enough to melt lead, and even if the greenhouse effect solved, you would still have the sun close enough to give you ten kinds of cancer within a month, not to mention proximity enough to everyone's favorite star that surface temperatures will likely still be above survivability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus

<3 Wiki.

BTW, only the CO2 thing was from Wiki; I just added the link b/c I found it. I thought it was sulfur something in Venus's atmosphere. (shrugs)

Time of day, in addition to an atmosphere almost purely composed of CO2, the current high temperature around the equator is hot enough to melt lead, and even if the greenhouse effect solved, you would still have the sun close enough to give you ten kinds of cancer within a month, not to mention proximity enough to everyone's favorite star that surface temperatures will likely still be above survivability.
- Take a huge canvas woven from spacelift nanotubes...At least 100 kilometers long, 10 kilometers wide.

- Make hundreds of such canvases.

- Use nuclear drive spaceships with those canvases to siphon off the excess of atmosphere (might as well dump some of it to Mars)

- Wait two-three millennia for planet to cool off.

Was that one Venus to go? :tongue:

We would have to spew and/or transport 1000 teratonnes of correct material into Martian atmosphere AND do it in a way that wouldn't lead into devastating storms that would destroy the planetary structures.


If you're doing a planetary terraforming project, it's something that you're going to be spending huge chunks of money anyway. Why not simply drag/push cometary bodies including ice asteroids and smack them into Mars?

If you're doing a planetary terraforming project, it's something that you're going to be spending huge chunks of money anyway. Why not simply drag/push cometary bodies including ice asteroids and smack them into Mars?
This would probably be the most reasonable way to do it.

The problem is four fold:
- Finding the right impactors
- Colliding the right impactors
- Waiting out the effect of impact
- Repeating the process enough times

Finding the right impactor could be a problem. Asteroid belt would be the prime candidate for proper sized, composited and orbiting bodies but are there any such balls of ice there?

Collision course: If the asteroid belt isn't stacked with ice asteroids we're looking at 50-250 years per cometary impact (remember that eg. Halley's comet has orbital period of 75 years). Optimally finding one from the asteroid belt and retargeting it might take 10-15 or so years for several kilometer sized lump of ice. Here's the catch: The time taken is exponentially increased, because the mass is increased by 3rd power of radius.

Waiting - no less than 2-3 years - could be done while next impact is coming, so it's not an issue.

Reptition...Now that's a problem. One kilometer diameter ice comet would have roughly 2 gigatonnes of water in it (one cubic kilometer of ice = 0.9 gigatonnes)...We need 1000 teratonnes. That's 500,000 x 1 kilometer sized cometary impacts. What about 10 kilometer comets? They would have roughly 500 (http://www.google.com/search?q=(4/3*pi*(5+km)%5E3)+in+cubic+kilometers&spell=1) gigatonnes of water so you would only need 2,000 of those. The ultimate 25 kilometer space lump...Well, the mass of water would still be only 50-60 teratonnes and you'd need 15-20 of those.

Out of interest, here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Solar_System_objects_by_mass#Exagram_range) the list of known solar system objects weighing in between 1 teratonne (10^15 kg) and 1000 teratonnes (10^18 kg). Let's pick 50 of those and fling them to Mars, eh?

edit:
Note: This post is deliberately misleading. :tongue:

Have you asked yourself how we get all the construction materials "up there" (Mars etc) with today's technology? Not enough money in print to fund those missions. 100+ years, if ever.

The main issue for me is the establishment of an oxygen supply. There isnt any on a nearby planet so how will they breathe? Life must be established in a decent amount prior to any real human arrival. If we want to live on mars (or another plannet) the first thing we should do is launch chemotrophic bacteria where there is water and see what happens

The main issue for me is the establishment of an oxygen supply. There isnt any on a nearby planet so how will they breathe? Life must be established in a decent amount prior to any real human arrival. If we want to live on mars (or another plannet) the first thing we should do is launch chemotrophic bacteria where there is water and see what happens

Terraforming is a possible long-term solution. In the short-term, domes full of plants will do.

Well, on Mars they will. On the Moon, the absurd day/night cycle require growing with artificial power. A big reason I prefer Mars for a major coloney.

[Terraforming is a possible long-term solution.
Show me ONE scientific source which says terraforming Mars would be viable using foreseeable technology.

Well, on Mars they will. On the Moon, the absurd day/night cycle require growing with artificial power. A big reason I prefer Mars for a major coloney.
You get oxygen from moon rocks, there's PLENTY of oxygen (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1120755,00.html) in the lunar regolith.

As for day/night cycle...27 days of uninterrupted solar light without any worry about weather? Does that spell solar power to anyone?

And farming, you use hydro/aerophonics with artificial lighting anyways...Neither Mars nor Moon has favourable conditions to farming using solar light as lighting.

I repeat: Mars colony with current technology levels is both PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE and EXTREMELY DANGEROUS compared to a Moon colony.

Show me ONE scientific source which says terraforming Mars would be viable using foreseeable technology.

I think The Case for Mars and Entering Space, by Robert Zubrin would qualify. Since they're written by an aerospace engineer;). Haven't read them in a while though, so I'm not sure what details they give on terraforming beyond arguing that its possible and that we should do it?


You get oxygen from moon rocks, there's PLENTY of oxygen (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1120755,00.html) in the lunar regolith.

As for day/night cycle...27 days of uninterrupted solar light without any worry about weather? Does that spell solar power to anyone?

And farming, you use hydro/aerophonics with artificial lighting anyways...Neither Mars nor Moon has favourable conditions to farming using solar light as lighting.

You also get more than 20 days of uninterrupted night to kill any plants you try to grow. And it will take a lot of power to grow sufficient plants to provide food and air for a large coloney using artificial light.

And why couldn't you farm using natural light on Mars? Its day/night cycle is much closer to Earth's. Their are the dust storms, but that's still better than zero sunlight every day for a month, isn't it?

I repeat: Mars colony with current technology levels is both PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE and EXTREMELY DANGEROUS compared to a Moon colony.

Bolding it doesn't make your argument any more valid.

Mars is more dangerous, but probably worth more in terms of scientific research (possible life, lots of geological phenominon, weather patterns) and is a better hope for a large, self-sufficient coloney. As for cost, we could get their for 20-50 billion, adjusted for inflation since the 90's. Once we've designed the spacecraft and launch systems, etc, follow up flights will probably be cheaper. We can manufacture fuel on Mars, and use solar, wind, or perhaps geothermal power. We can get food and air from plants grown with natural light. Do you consider that prohibitively expensive?

I thought the Soviets and later Russia had a couple of cosmonauts hanging around Mir for over a year.

Yep, and that pretty much fucked them up too. *nod*

Yep, and that pretty much fucked them up too. *nod*

How so?

How so?

Muscle deterioration, bone loss, cardiovascular problems, I'm still searching, but I believe some of the effects of long stays in space still persist in some Mir cosmonauts. I'll post info when I get it. Here's some:

http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/pdf/educator-microgravity_science_stu.pdf

I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.

J. Handey

We've already colonized another planet.
We call it America. :p


Bad joke, I know.

I can see it now...

2120- Roanoke, Mars
Their food supplies gone, the survivors took to the miles of tunnel which made up the colony. Those who could tried to barricade themselves into food storage units. Soon after the chaos erupted, the water mining and purification unit failed. Water supply was out for a week... nearly 45 men died fighting for control of the main unit. Just seven months after its fifth annual resupply shipment (laden with smuggled goods. Contraceptives, toiletries and liquors were among the most heavily sought after items, an alligator, 6' long, was among the strangest."

The next supply ship was halted due to a botched take-off. There were no survivors.
It'll be 3 years before another supply ship can be built and a military unit trained in space battle sent to the colony.

I think The Case for Mars and Entering Space, by Robert Zubrin would qualify. Since they're written by an aerospace engineer;). Haven't read them in a while though, so I'm not sure what details they give on terraforming beyond arguing that its possible and that we should do it?
Sounds like very unbiased source...
You also get more than 20 days of uninterrupted night to kill any plants you try to grow. And it will take a lot of power to grow sufficient plants to provide food and air for a large coloney using artificial light.
Your plants could live in a cavern using artificial lighting. There are such caves on Moon, are there such caves in Mars? Perhaps they could be grown in orbit of Earth also?

As for energy, there's still half of the surface covered in silicate based sand basking in sunlight. Also, by the time we really begin to colonize other planets I hope we've perfected nuclear fusion and the prime source for fuel is...yes, that's right...He3 found plentiful in the Lunar sands.

Out of interest, how would you go around powering Martian colonies?
And why couldn't you farm using natural light on Mars?
Few points:
Distance: The average solar input per square meter is around half of what reaches Earth.
The atmospheric pressure is 6 millibars on the surface, so you need airtight "greenhouse".
The temperature during nighttime is -100 degrees celsius. Although, because of the ambient air pressure measured temperatures are relatively meaningless. In anycase, you also need a warm thermally insulated "greenhouse".
There's also no protective ozone layer on Mars so not only the above you also need UV protected "greenhouse"
And finally, there's no magnetosphere. You therefore need protection from cosmic rays & solar wind

So exactly what were the benefits of farming in Mars?
Bolding it doesn't make your argument any more valid.
Didn't I run through the numbers in another topic quite recently with a quote from some poor NASA scientist who probably didn't know any better...?
Mars is more dangerous, but probably worth more in terms of scientific research (possible life, lots of geological phenominon, weather patterns)
Which is why Mars should be EXPLORED instead of being the first target of colony/permanent base.

Moon OTOH is better both economically and for future space industry & research.
...and is a better hope for a large, self-sufficient coloney.
You still haven't given a single reason why this would be true.

Moon is closer - travel in matter of days - has a source of oxygen and (possible) hydrogen/water reservoirs near the poles.

Furthermore, moon has shallow gravity well and no atmosphere to mess things up.
As for cost, we could get their for 20-50 billion, adjusted for inflation since the 90's.
For that price we could have permanent moon colony instead of a short trip to Mars.

And the price tag NASA uses for Mars voyage is 2-300 billion dollars.
Once we've designed the spacecraft and launch systems, etc, follow up flights will probably be cheaper. We can manufacture fuel on Mars, and use solar, wind, or perhaps geothermal power. We can get food and air from plants grown with natural light. Do you consider that prohibitively expensive?
With current technology any long term Mars project would cost TRILLIONS of dollars.

Sounds like very unbiased source...

Right, because arguing evidence in favor of something, being biased, automatically means your evidence is false.

We all have opinions. What matters is weather the evidence supports our views. You want to attack a profesional engineer's arguments, you better have a damn good argument.

Your plants could live in a cavern using artificial lighting. There are such caves on Moon, are there such caves in Mars? Perhaps they could be grown in orbit of Earth also?

Takes a lot of energy. I don't remember the numbers, but I recall it would be substatial. Same source as above.

And about those caves, I highly doubt they're airtight.;)

As for energy, there's still half of the surface covered in silicate based sand basking in sunlight. Also, by the time we really begin to colonize other planets I hope we've perfected nuclear fusion and the prime source for fuel is...yes, that's right...He3 found plentiful in the Lunar sands.

I seem to recall hearing He3 is rare on the Moon. Of course I may be wrong, but I'd like to see a credible source regardless.

Out of interest, how would you go around powering Martian colonies?

Read my post.

Few points:
Distance: The average solar input per square meter is around half of what reaches Earth.
The atmospheric pressure is 6 millibars on the surface, so you need airtight "greenhouse".

Still needs to be air tight on the Moon.

The temperature during nighttime is -100 degrees celsius. Although, because of the ambient air pressure measured temperatures are relatively meaningless. In anycase, you also need a warm thermally insulated "greenhouse".[/QUOTE]

Same on the Moon. Only more so.

There's also no protective ozone layer on Mars so not only the above you also need UV protected "greenhouse"
And finally, there's no magnetosphere. You therefore need protection from cosmic rays & solar wind

Well Mars does have a thin atmosphere. You're probably right about the ozone though.

So exactly what were the benefits of farming in Mars?

That's what I've been telling you about in my previous posts.

Didn't I run through the numbers in another topic quite recently with a quote from some poor NASA scientist who probably didn't know any better...?

I don't know. If you have numbers, post them here.

Which is why Mars should be EXPLORED instead of being the first target of colony/permanent base.

A permanent coloney could conduct that research, probably more effectively than it can be done from Earth.

Moon OTOH is better both economically and for future space industry & research.

If by industry you mean space ship construction, that's an old and foolish idea. Yes, the gravity's less, but you still have to launch the parts to the Moon. Then decellerate, land, assemble on the Moon, then launch again. Won't you waste fuel?

I'm not saying the Moon couldn't be used for research. It has its uses. And ideally we would build bases on both Mars and the Moon. But if we're going to prioritize one, I'm inclined to say Mars.

You still haven't given a single reason why this would be true.

Since you can clearly comprehend English, I can only suspect this is dishonesty on your part.

Moon is closer - travel in matter of days - has a source of oxygen and (possible) hydrogen/water reservoirs near the poles.

Mars definately has frozen water. No maybe about it. And what is this oxygen source, unless this also refers to the possible water:D.

And again, a source would be apreciated.

Furthermore, moon has shallow gravity well and no atmosphere to mess things up.

How is having an atmosphere a disadvantage? All things considered.

For that price we could have permanent moon colony instead of a short trip to Mars.

Prove it. Do you have any source at all?

And the price tag NASA uses for Mars voyage is 2-300 billion dollars.

And I have a source by a professional aerospace engineer that debunks such numbers. I don't pretend NASA does things in the most efficient way possible.

With current technology any long term Mars project would cost TRILLIONS of dollars.

I've given a source. The same would be apreciated from you.

Edit: I suppose you're refering to the NASA numbers again, in which case I suppose NASA would be your source. At best still only proves NASA's plan would cost that much though.

I seem to recall hearing He3 is rare on the Moon. Of course I may be wrong, but I'd like to see a credible source regardless.
It's not exactly common but it's worth it energy wise.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/226053.stm
Energy calculations suggest that the energy gained from Helium-3 mined on the Moon and shipped back to Earth would be 250 times that used to obtain it.

Notice how that figure includes shipping the He3 back to Earth...
Read my post.
Lessee: We can manufacture fuel on Mars, and use solar, wind, or perhaps geothermal power.

What fuel can you manufacture on Mars that provides more energy that is put into manufacturing it?

Solar power is only half as efficient as on Earth/Moon.

Wind power cannot be used because the atmosphere is too thin for it.

Geothermal power is also a no-no because there are no "hot-spots" on Mars: Mars is tectonically dead planet.

The temperature during nighttime is -100 degrees celsius. Although, because of the ambient air pressure measured temperatures are relatively meaningless. In anycase, you also need a warm thermally insulated "greenhouse".

Same on the Moon. Only more so.
Infact...I'd wager less so, although marginally: There's no atmosphere on Moon so there's less heat exchange with the environment. While on Mars during the night, your "greenhouse" would have to give off energy to both carbon dioxide solid/gas cycle - it would be bombarded by Carbon Dioxide "snow" - and other gases siphoning off heat through the outer shell.
Well Mars does have a thin atmosphere. You're probably right about the ozone though.
So, what were the benfits of farming on Mars again compared to farming on Moon?
That's what I've been telling you about in my previous posts.
But none of those benefits make any sense, especially when compared to the disadvantages:
- Mars is much, much longer away than Moon, hence the costs and dangers are exponential.
- Mars has a bigger gravity well so travel is necessarily more expensive
I don't know. If you have numbers, post them here.
Here's (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14219744&postcount=120) my previous post.

A permanent coloney could conduct that research, probably more effectively than it can be done from Earth.
Probably?

For that matter, name a single pure exploration task on Mars a dedicated robot couldn't handle cheaper and safer?
If by industry you mean space ship construction, that's an old and foolish idea. Yes, the gravity's less, but you still have to launch the parts to the Moon. Then decellerate, land, assemble on the Moon, then launch again. Won't you waste fuel?
By industry I mean all sorts of industry.

Remember, there's no atmosphere on Moon and secondly Moon has a shallow gravity well. Combine those two and you open up a possibility for...
1) Electromagnetic acceleration rails firing off resources throughout the solar system
2) Immense optical telescopes. There's also plenty of material for glass present on Lunar surface.
3) Cheaper travel even by using old fashioned rocketry. For example, look at the Lunar Lander used by USA...
Since you can clearly comprehend English, I can only suspect this is dishonesty on your part.
I meant a single reason that would convince me, I apologize if I came across too bluntly.

I haven't seen any numbers or links backing your way up, only vague references to a book with a title that casts doubt on its writer's bias.
Mars definately has frozen water. No maybe about it. And what is this oxygen source, unless this also refers to the possible water

And again, a source would be apreciated.
I keep linking (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/14apr_Moonwater.htm) the same articles (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1120755,00.html) over and over again... :p
How is having an atmosphere a disadvantage? All things considered.
Friction during space launches, disturbs space observation, affects heat exchange with the environment, toxicity of the atmospheric gases, all the nasty & permeating dust it lifts..

Did you know that the dust on Mars has to be finer than Earthly sand because otherwise Martian wind wouldn't have enough energy to pick the grains up? (a source (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/09jul_marsdust.htm) backing the assessment up)

Sure there are benefits too: Friction during space landings & thin layer of protection from space hazards.

Prove it. Do you have any source at all?

And I have a source by a professional aerospace engineer that debunks such numbers. I don't pretend NASA does things in the most efficient way possible.

I've given a source. The same would be apreciated from you.
See the post I wrote earlier and linked to in this one.

Here's another take on cost estimates (http://www.scribd.com/doc/653/NASA-Plans-To-Build-Moon-Base) between Mars expedition and Moon base:
[Permanent Moon Base] is very expensive: an estimated 100 billion dollars. However, the estimated cost of sending astronauts to Mars is 600 billion dollars. Senior Andy Ferrall said, “I believe the moon base is a great idea, and it’s not a waste of taxpayer dollars.”

Here's another take on cost estimates (http://www.scribd.com/doc/653/NASA-Plans-To-Build-Moon-Base) between Mars expedition and Moon base:
[Permanent Moon Base] is very expensive: an estimated 100 billion dollars. However, the estimated cost of sending astronauts to Mars is 600 billion dollars. Senior Andy Ferrall said, “I believe the moon base is a great idea, and it’s not a waste of taxpayer dollars.”

Only $100 billion for a moon base, and $600 billion to send astronauts to Mars?

Christ, we've blown that much on that stupid, pointless war in Iraq...next time somebody wants to argue against expanding human knowledge and our presence in the solar system on the basis of cost, I can just point to Iraq as a good counterexample. If we can throw away cash on wars of aggression, we can afford to spend it on meaningfully enhancing human civilization.

Only $100 billion for a moon base, and $600 billion to send astronauts to Mars?

Christ, we've blown that much on that stupid, pointless war in Iraq...next time somebody wants to argue against expanding human knowledge and our presence in the solar system on the basis of cost, I can just point to Iraq as a good counterexample. If we can throw away cash on wars of aggression, we can afford to spend it on meaningfully enhancing human civilization.

To which the response is that the military spending is nessissary for security. Not nessissarily the case with Iraq, but military spending is still going to be around for the foreseeable future.

The trick is to cut the cost of space travel, and find ways to make it turn a profit. Oh, and the 600 billion number quoted above is a steaming pile of BS. That was the estimate for the Bush space plan, which was in some respects a repeat of his father's space plan, which failed for being too expensive. Their have been cheaper proposals on how to reach Mars. The Bush plan was either ignorant of them, or chose to ignore them. One more thing President Shrubby managed to screw up.

To which the response is that the military spending is nessissary for security. Not nessissarily the case with Iraq, but military spending is still going to be around for the foreseeable future.

Of course, any military strategist has to realize how important space is to the future of national defense. I mean, with sufficient military presence you could devastate an enemy's GPS and communications satellites or even attack ground based targets from space.

The trick is to cut the cost of space travel, and find ways to make it turn a profit. Oh, and the 600 billion number quoted above is a steaming pile of BS. That was the estimate for the Bush space plan, which was in some respects a repeat of his father's space plan, which failed for being too expensive. Their have been cheaper proposals on how to reach Mars. The Bush plan was either ignorant of them, or chose to ignore them. One more thing President Shrubby managed to screw up.

Yeah, but I do have to give him credit for revitalizing NASA after it was underfunded and marginalized during the Clinton-Gingrich years. That was like so many other programs...we rested on our laurels during the 1990's and rode the dot-com bubble rather than invest in the next generation of economic development, and now we're paying for it.

That being said, we do need a new direction in NASA. The additional funding is laudable, but more is needed in key fields to capitalize on the next phase of space development.

TERRAFORMING PLANETS TAKES MILLENNIA!

you speak from experience?

A series of fusion warheads ignited over the poles --> Effectively instantaneous global flooding. Upset of the oceanic currents, global climate, pressure, etc., leads to most of that water freezing within less than a century.

Terraforming in all of 50 years.

Already answered him.

To which the response is that the military spending is nessissary for security.

I don't get it. What have sissy NES-nerds got to do with military spending and security?

Of course, any military strategist has to realize how important space is to the future of national defense. I mean, with sufficient military presence you could devastate an enemy's GPS and communications satellites or even attack ground based targets from space.

The veulnerability of GPS satelites is a serious issue but that's for another thread. I am optomistic about colonising other planets I think the international co-operation needed will be a huge step in the right direction.

It's really a funding issue. If space exploration becomes more popular, it may come in a decade or two. If not, it could take much longer.

Already answered him.
Do you know what happens to water at Martian temperatures & atmospheric pressure? Because the Martian atmosphere is too thin water cannot exist (on the surface) there in liquid phase but only as a gas or as a solid. Basically, while water can temporarily exist in liquid phase it would instantly boil because of the atmospheric conditions.

Also, do you have any idea of the magnitude of energy involved? It would be much easier to ram 3-4 small asteroids to the polar regions to achieve similar effect.

you speak from experience?
I speak about the magnitudes.

edit:
Speaking of terraforming...Wouldn't it be better to, say, terraform Sahara back to grassland first, eh? :p

I speak about the magnitudes.

and what were humans up to a thousand years ago? what was our energy consumption and productive capacity like?

and what were humans up to a thousand years ago? what was our energy consumption and productive capacity like?
Lessee, year 1000 the population was around 300 million, that's 1/20th of today.

There was no electricity, mass transportation or energy sources beyond wood, but OTOH even today most of the world's population lives using similar magnitudes of energy. Let's put the growth to 25-50 fold per person. That would be around 500 to 1000 fold increase in energy use within a millennium...Would this be an OK assessment?


Let's project similar growth to next 1000 years:
- Current energy expenditure of people of Earth is around 13 terawatts
- That's 6,500 to 10,000 terawatts in the year 3000

That's not the whole truth though, because the growth is most likely somewhat exponential....Let's say a magnitude more?

That would put the estimate to 100,000 terawatts or 100 Petawatts, which would still be less than what Earth receives energy from the Sun (~174 PW).

Of course, if we do invest into space and found several extraterrestrial colonies and asteroid farms we might increase the energy expenditure by half-a-magnitude more: Let's say we reach 500 PW - 40,000 fold increase in energy expenditure over a millennium.

Now, as an example of the magnitudes: Let's say they use 5% of that energy with 50% efficiency - 10 Petawatts - just to haul the atmosphere - yes, it's silly but it's an example of the magnitudes ok? - from Earth to Mars.

How long would it take to haul 1000 teratonnes of material from Earth to Mars using 10 petawatts of power to do it?

According to Wikipedia the delta-V budget from Earth to Mars is ~20 km/s (without aerobraking). This gives us yearly capacity of 1.5 teratonnes/annum (http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=2+*+year+*+10+petawatt+/+((20+km/s)%5E2)+in+tonnes). That would put the total to 600-700 odd years.

Meaning that terraforming Mars would STILL be a millennium class project a millennium away.

edit:
Here's (http://www.marssociety.org/portal/TMS_Library/Zubrin_1993_3/?searchterm=terraformed) one view published by Mars society - Somewhat biased source, I'm willing to bet:
Orbital transfer of very massive bodies from the outer solar system can be accomplished using nuclear thermal rocket engines using the asteroid's volatile material as propellant. Using major planets for gravity assists, the rocket ∆V required to move an outer solar system asteroid onto a collision trajectory with Mars can be as little as 300 m/s. If the asteroid is made of NH3, specific impulses of about 400 s can be attained, and as little as 10% of the asteroid will be required for propellant. Four 5000 MWt NTR engines would require a 10 year burn time to push a 10 billion tonne asteroid through a ∆V of 300 m/s. About 4 such objects would be sufficient to greenhouse Mars....
...
Greenhousing Mars via the manufacture of halocarbon gases on the planet's surface may well be the most practical option. Total surface power requirements to drive planetary warming using this method are calculated and found to be on the order of 1000 MWe, and the required times scale for climate and atmosphere modification is on the order of 50 years...
...
Humans operating on the surface of such a Mars would require breathing gear, but pressure suits would be unnecessary. With outside atmospheric pressures raised, it will be possible to create large dwelling areas by means of very large inflatable structures. Average temperatures could be above the freezing point of water for significant regions during portions of the year, enabling the growth of plant life in the open. The spread of plants could produce enough oxygen to make Mars habitable for animals in several millennia

It's really a funding issue. If space exploration becomes more popular, it may come in a decade or two. If not, it could take much longer.

At this point I wonder if the only things that could generate that excitement would be an alien contact or else an impact sennario.

At this point I wonder if the only things that could generate that excitement would be an alien contact or else an impact sennario.

Given the probabilities of current detecting methods, a detected ELE impact scenario will be detected too soon, resulting in a "not my problem" attitude, or too late to do anything.

Given the probabilities of current detecting methods, a detected ELE impact scenario will be detected too soon, resulting in a "not my problem" attitude, or too late to do anything.

A good reason to increase the space program's budget. But it might not be done until its too late to make a difference.

That's a nasty catch 22.;)

They have detected an underground ice lake on Mars. They will attempt to explore this. If there is a chance of water then they can create an atmosphere - even if it is under a dome....... bringing Mars back to life again? Ooh! Wouldn't it be nice? Then they can come back here and start on the earth.

exits saying, "Space, the final frontier....."

Never.