Astronauts Will Get Dumber on Their Way to Mars

a reply to: rickymouse

We could not survive long on another planet if the earth was gone.

Not now. That's why we should get started on figuring out how to do it because it won't be easy.

We need to take steps to take better care of this place so we can live here easier and it doesn't turn out like Mars.

And wait for that comet, or asteroid, or the Sun to cook us. But what do you think made Mars the way it is, anyway? Maybe by studying it we could learn something? Hmm?

Astronauts Will Get Dumber on Their Way to Mars.

How dumb do you have to be to want to go there in the first place?

Talk about miserable conditions…

Probes are working just fine.

a reply to: Phage

You must work in a field that benefits from us believing that we need to colonize another planet.

Sorry, I don't believe in fairy tales, but many people will believe what your saying.

a reply to: rickymouse

You must work in a field that benefits from us believing that we need to colonize another planet.

Perfect. Great argument. See my sig.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Neutrality

But what advancement will come out of a trip to Mars. What application of this knowledge will be relative to anything. Is this about designing toothpaste that we can survive on for long periods of time?

That thing you're on the net with? That came out of Apollo.

Apollo......mouse......sounds about right.

Try integrated circuits. Maybe you've heard of them

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Thomas Paine, George Low and Wernher von Braun all claimed in the early 1970's that manned missions to Mars could get there in the 1980's.

They would have been proven correct if the money kept rolling in to NASA.
Lets not forget that in 1967 NASA got 4.5% of the total federal budget.
That would be 175 billion today instead of the 18 they get now.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: Phage
Water would be great, but it too is inordinately heavy.

All the water is already in space... hidden in craters on the moon & asteroids. They just have to collect enough of it to construct a massive water shield.

Massive = hard to move.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Neutrality

But what advancement will come out of a trip to Mars. What application of this knowledge will be relative to anything. Is this about designing toothpaste that we can survive on for long periods of time?

My opinion? Experience. Mars is better choice than the moon for sure, and if we're doing it for the first time I'd imagine we wouldn't want to pick the farthest place possible to try it, unless ofc we achieve light-speed or FTL travel.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Neutrality
a reply to: Bedlam

I hate to break it to you too! It's our magnetosphere that keeps us safe. Want proof? Go extreme north or south and view the lights. If those amazing displays of physics were to hit you, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The light part is electrons smacking air. Lots of people still alive in the polar regions.

that's because the light is in the sky, not on the ground

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse
Not lately. But what does that have to do with what I said.
If we aren't wiped out by a cometary or asteroidal impact in the "near" term, the Sun will kill us in the long term.
Earth may be our nest but it is not a safe place.

We could not survive long on another planet if the earth was gone. They would need constant supplies from here or they would die. There is no other planet that we can inhabit in this solar system in the case of a major event unless your hiding the existence of one. It is a sophisticated pipe dream excuse.

Reaching another solar system with a habitable planet would add to the depletion of the resources of this planet. We need to take steps to take better care of this place so we can live here easier and it doesn't turn out like Mars.

Everything on this planet also exists on other planets, moons, comets, etc... Once interplanetary travel becomes a norm, I would assume space mining would be the logical next step.

a reply to: lostbook

Ha i knew it. Our congress went to mars one to many times.

Oh never mind they were going to uranus.

Finally the tinfoil hat wearer will be vendicated.

Look forward to reading the article when i get a chance.

originally posted by: Neutrality
that's because the light is in the sky, not on the ground

Given the low penetrating power of beta particles, it doesn't take a lot to stop them.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Neutrality
that's because the light is in the sky, not on the ground

Given the low penetrating power of beta particles, it doesn't take a lot to stop them.

Given the strength of our magnetosphere, it collects a LOT more than that

www.space.com...

ETA- If we were bombarded constantly by deadly radiation, well, we would be dead!

a reply to: Neutrality

Everything what? There is no trees up there, no fish, no grass, no birds, no food growing outdoors. No apple trees, no brat fries, no taverns, no Menards to go buy stuff to fix your dome. They cannot survive without constant replenishment from earth. One accident and they are all dead before a ship can come to pick them up.

Look at the shipments to the space station, even if it was three times the size it would never be self sufficient.

We need to try to moderate our destruction of earths ecosystem, it can fail. We can destroy it.

a reply to: rickymouse

You basically referenced everything alive or "life" related. That ALL can be recreated in a Martian environment if we go and try. Referencing the ISS is a bad example, it's man-made, not geological. Mars IS geological, so everything we need from Earth...is already there.

a reply to: Neutrality

It would never be cost effective. The area needed would be pretty hard to accomplish if you had to build it on Mars because everything would have to be shipped. I'm thinking there are no factories up there either, and to build one would not be cost effective. This ordeal will be a drain on the working man if it happens. The rich who fund it will just raise the price of what they sell. We the people will pay everything..

a reply to: rickymouse

The manned mission would be the only real costly part, everything else can survive a slow trip. We could send everything needed slowly in advance at a low cost, putting it in Mars orbit awaiting human arrival. It's getting us there that seems to be the serious complication

a reply to: Neutrality

If we were bombarded constantly by deadly radiation, well, we would be dead!

Yes. But the atmosphere does far more to protect us than the magnetosphere does. And the magnetosphere just directs charged particles to the polar regions (or captures them). It does nothing about neutral particles or electromagnetic radiation (UV, X-rays, gamma). The thing that causes the aurora, CMEs, not enough energy to penetrate the atmosphere, with or without the magnetosphere. But they do make pretty lights when they try.

If the magnetosphere were gone the surface would not receive deadly amounts of radiation. There would some increase in cosmic radiation effects on the surface which might result in a small increase in the incidence of cancer, about 1.3% according to some calculations (in reference to the "dead" period between magnetic reversals).

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Neutrality

If we were bombarded constantly by deadly radiation, well, we would be dead!

Yes. But the atmosphere does far more to protect us than the magnetosphere does. And the magnetosphere just directs charged particles to the polar regions (or captures them). It does nothing about neutral particles or electromagnetic radiation (UV, X-rays, gamma). The thing that causes the aurora, CMEs, not enough energy to penetrate the atmosphere, with or without the magnetosphere. But they do make pretty lights when they try.

If the magnetosphere were gone the surface would not receive deadly amounts of radiation. There would however, be a small increase in the incidence of cancer, about 1.3% according to some calculations (in reference to the "dead" period between magnetic reversals).

If our magnetosphere was gone wouldn't that basically mean the Earth core is dead, therefore reducing our atmosphere as well? I thought they played a balance (again a layman here)

a reply to: Neutrality

If our magnetosphere was gone wouldn't that basically mean the Earth core is dead, therefore reducing our atmosphere as well? I thought they played a balance (again a layman here)

No. The magnetosphere pretty much goes away during the magnetic reversals which have happened periodically.

Earth is massive enough to retain it's atmosphere without a magnetic field shielding it from the solar wind. Venus is slightly less massive yet has a very dense atmosphere in spite of having no magnetic field. Mars is much less massive so, after billions of years with no magnetic field, its atmosphere was gradually dragged into interplanetary space by the solar wind.