Mars by 2033 - - - or 2060

a reply to: Allaroundyou

What proof is there of Drake's accuracy (in the slightest degree)?

Oh yeah. None whatsoever. I might as well throw a bunch of random symbols together and call it "Nth's Equation". It would be just as accurate.

Y(OU812+4)=C

There are approximately 12 advanced civilizations in our galaxy.

Why?

Because I said so.

a reply to: NthOther

Not find any proof if we don't look all the same.

And to do so we really need to get out there in person.

To think we are the only intelligent(semi-intelligent) race considering the size and age of the universe in question is sheer arrogance in the extreme.

a reply to: andy06shake

To believe something exists without any evidence at all is sheer ignorance in the extreme.

Right?

Or is that only for Christians.

Using the moon as a stepping stone has some drawbacks. For one, the moon has much less gravity than Mars. It would be useless for long-term studies on the effects of the reduced gravity on the human body. Whatever data you gather will be inapplicable to Mars.

The kind of systems you need to survive on the moon will be different than those for Mars as well. While it doesn't have a global magnetic field like Earth, Mars actually has some localized magnetic fields and it would be wise to set up a base within one of these to utilize them for some protection from radiation. No such zones are available on the moon so you'd need to bring all your shielding with you or place the base underground. (there are also some localized magnetic fields on the moon but they're so weak they'd be pretty much useless).

Trumps space command is the perfect approach. Let's start as soon as the wall is finished and paid for.

www.cnn.com...

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: Mach2

So you want to bring that mentality into the cosmos?

Do you want to explore it or subdue and conquer it?

The galaxy doesn't need war-mongering humans running amok.

That's an odd reply, given my statement about how stupid war is, not to mention the fact that I took no position on going to Mars.

I guess you're just here to argue.

Back on topic, having a permanent base on mars, just for the sake of doing it doesn't make much sense. If there are resources there that make it worth the investment, that is a different matter.

If we, as a species, want to insure our existance, we are going to have to leave this ball eventually, but the technology is not at that point yet.

originally posted by: face23785
Using the moon as a stepping stone has some drawbacks. For one, the moon has much less gravity than Mars. It would be useless for long-term studies on the effects of the reduced gravity on the human body. Whatever data you gather will be inapplicable to Mars.

The kind of systems you need to survive on the moon will be different than those for Mars as well. While it doesn't have a global magnetic field like Earth, Mars actually has some localized magnetic fields and it would be wise to set up a base within one of these to utilize them for some protection from radiation. No such zones are available on the moon so you'd need to bring all your shielding with you or place the base underground. (there are also some localized magnetic fields on the moon but they're so weak they'd be pretty much useless).

Very true, but the moon could be used to test out the equipment and systems for Mars to find the bugs. Being only a few days from Earth would be a lot better than 6 months from Earth, when you find out the stuff doesn't work right or starts to fail. Maybe not all the bugs would be found, but it's the best place we have to test it out.

a reply to: Mach2

Not really spreading cancer isnt a fix.

Another thing I will point out though is that there are very few things that could actually lead to the extinction of the human race. Most of the common culprits (nuclear war, global pandemic, etc) aren't likely to actually kill every human. Diseases, for example, become much less dangerous as they kill more and more people. The more people you kill, the fewer potential carriers you have and infection rates actually go down. There are likely to be isolated pockets that don't contract the disease. While it's obviously devastating, it's not extinction-level. Even supervolcanoes are unlikely to actually render us extinct. Gamma ray bursts are in that camp too because they only affect the side of the earth actually facing the burst when it hits. People on the other side of the planet would survive, although then the effects on the atmosphere would come into play and kill more people.

Large asteroid impacts are the most likely thing to actually end our race right now. In the future, maybe some kind of technological disaster.

originally posted by: face23785
Another thing I will point out though is that there are very few things that could actually lead to the extinction of the human race. Most of the common culprits (nuclear war, global pandemic, etc) aren't likely to actually kill every human. Diseases, for example, become much less dangerous as they kill more and more people. The more people you kill, the fewer potential carriers you have and infection rates actually go down. There are likely to be isolated pockets that don't contract the disease. While it's obviously devastating, it's not extinction-level. Even supervolcanoes are unlikely to actually render us extinct. Gamma ray bursts are in that camp too because they only affect the side of the earth actually facing the burst when it hits. People on the other side of the planet would survive, although then the effects on the atmosphere would come into play and kill more people.

Large asteroid impacts are the most likely thing to actually end our race right now. In the future, maybe some kind of technological disaster.

It would be a lot easier to rebuild if the knowledge and tech we have is preserved. How many times has the human race had to start from scratch? Maybe never, maybe many times. We can't know for sure.

If we haven't been back to the moon since 72. In fact we haven't even been out of low earth orbit. Why do you think that is?

We are not being told something....

originally posted by: olaru12
If we haven't been back to the moon since 72. In fact we haven't even been out of low earth orbit. Why do you think that is?

We are not being told something....

The US can't even put humans in low Earth orbit and hasn't been able to for a while now. I agree with you that somethings not being shared. I would like to think we have found a better way to get off the Earth and it can't be shared because of national security reasons.

originally posted by: LookingAtMars

originally posted by: olaru12
If we haven't been back to the moon since 72. In fact we haven't even been out of low earth orbit. Why do you think that is?

We are not being told something....

The US can't even put humans in low Earth orbit and hasn't been able to for a while now. I agree with you that somethings not being shared. I would like to think we have found a better way to get off the Earth and it can't be shared because of national security reasons.

There is the whole black triangle and secret space program conspiricy.

originally posted by: LookingAtMars

originally posted by: face23785
Another thing I will point out though is that there are very few things that could actually lead to the extinction of the human race. Most of the common culprits (nuclear war, global pandemic, etc) aren't likely to actually kill every human. Diseases, for example, become much less dangerous as they kill more and more people. The more people you kill, the fewer potential carriers you have and infection rates actually go down. There are likely to be isolated pockets that don't contract the disease. While it's obviously devastating, it's not extinction-level. Even supervolcanoes are unlikely to actually render us extinct. Gamma ray bursts are in that camp too because they only affect the side of the earth actually facing the burst when it hits. People on the other side of the planet would survive, although then the effects on the atmosphere would come into play and kill more people.

Large asteroid impacts are the most likely thing to actually end our race right now. In the future, maybe some kind of technological disaster.

It would be a lot easier to rebuild if the knowledge and tech we have is preserved. How many times has the human race had to start from scratch? Maybe never, maybe many times. We can't know for sure.

The DNA evidence indicates we were reduced to near extinction about 70,000 years ago. See the Toba catastrophe theory. If we were able to survive and recover from that at our evolutionary level 70,000 years ago, I'd say supervolcanoes are out as a possible cause of human extinction given our technological level today compared to then. It would have to be many magnitudes bigger than the biggest eruption on record to actually end us as a species.

originally posted by: LookingAtMars

originally posted by: olaru12
If we haven't been back to the moon since 72. In fact we haven't even been out of low earth orbit. Why do you think that is?

We are not being told something....

The US can't even put humans in low Earth orbit and hasn't been able to for a while now. I agree with you that somethings not being shared. I would like to think we have found a better way to get off the Earth and it can't be shared because of national security reasons.

That wouldn't explain why we're not still doing it the "old" way that is tried and proven to work. There's a simple reason we don't: cost/benefit. Nothing is being withheld from us. Our leaders simply don't think it's worth the investment.

a reply to: NthOther

Plenty of things exist that we cannot see through nor presently measure in any kind of definitive manner.

The quantum universe or the individual Plank unit for instance.

We could not regularly see single atoms and/or atomic columns before the invention of the electron microscope.

Evidence comes in all forms i suppose, repetition is the key, refined results, and all that jazz.

As to Christians, well let's face it, the Bible is nothing more than a rehash of earlier religious texts, presented as the word of God.

That's not evidence of anything other than Mans fear and fallibility at play mixed with a rather unhealthy penchant for control.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: LookingAtMars

originally posted by: face23785
Another thing I will point out though is that there are very few things that could actually lead to the extinction of the human race. Most of the common culprits (nuclear war, global pandemic, etc) aren't likely to actually kill every human. Diseases, for example, become much less dangerous as they kill more and more people. The more people you kill, the fewer potential carriers you have and infection rates actually go down. There are likely to be isolated pockets that don't contract the disease. While it's obviously devastating, it's not extinction-level. Even supervolcanoes are unlikely to actually render us extinct. Gamma ray bursts are in that camp too because they only affect the side of the earth actually facing the burst when it hits. People on the other side of the planet would survive, although then the effects on the atmosphere would come into play and kill more people.

Large asteroid impacts are the most likely thing to actually end our race right now. In the future, maybe some kind of technological disaster.

It would be a lot easier to rebuild if the knowledge and tech we have is preserved. How many times has the human race had to start from scratch? Maybe never, maybe many times. We can't know for sure.

The DNA evidence indicates we were reduced to near extinction about 70,000 years ago. See the Toba catastrophe theory. If we were able to survive and recover from that at our evolutionary level 70,000 years ago, I'd say supervolcanoes are out as a possible cause of human extinction given our technological level today compared to then. It would have to be many magnitudes bigger than the biggest eruption on record to actually end us as a species.

That sound right, where there is a will there is a way

But, where would we be today if we had the knowledge and tech of today 70,000 years ago? Not saying 70,000 years ago we were as advanced as we are today, but there must of been some knowledge that could have been built upon that was lost. The human race would be more advanced today than it is, if that knowledge was not lost 70,000 years ago and we didn't have to start from scratch all over again.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: LookingAtMars

originally posted by: olaru12
If we haven't been back to the moon since 72. In fact we haven't even been out of low earth orbit. Why do you think that is?

We are not being told something....

The US can't even put humans in low Earth orbit and hasn't been able to for a while now. I agree with you that somethings not being shared. I would like to think we have found a better way to get off the Earth and it can't be shared because of national security reasons.

That wouldn't explain why we're not still doing it the "old" way that is tried and proven to work. There's a simple reason we don't: cost/benefit. Nothing is being withheld from us. Our leaders simply don't think it's worth the investment.

There is no doubt that things are being withheld from us. What they are is the question.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: NthOther

Plenty of things exist that we cannot see through nor presently measure in any kind of definitive manner.

The quantum universe or the individual Plank unit for instance.

We could not regularly see single atoms and/or atomic columns before the invention of the electron microscope.

Evidence comes in all forms i suppose, repetition is the key, refined results, and all that jazz.

As to Christians, well let's face it, the Bible is nothing more than a rehash of earlier religious texts, presented as the word of God.

That's not evidence of anything other than Mans fear and fallibility at play mixed with a rather unhealthy penchant for control.

None of those things are really comparable to a belief in extraterrestrial life. Atoms, for example, had been indirectly detected long before electron microscopes. Before that there were theories going back many centuries of a fundamental unit of matter like an atom, but there was no evidence of it. At that point it was more of a belief than a theory. It's similar to how some scientists currently believe in certain concepts of what happened before the Big Bang, even though there's no evidence for them or even any real scientific framework to call them theories. These things are more like religious beliefs than science. By the same token, there's zero evidence of extraterrestrial life, direct or indirect, at this time. I myself happen to believe extraterrestrial life exists simply by the sheer mathematical odds, but it's still just that--a belief. It really is no different than belief in God. Zero evidence is still zero evidence.

By the way, the Plank length really doesn't fit into this discussion the way you tried to use it. It's an abstract concept. It's not something you could observe any more than the speed of light is something you can observe. All you can potentially observe is some object that is that length (or moving at that speed, for the speed of light.) You can conceptualize a length shorter than the Plank length, or a speed faster than that of light, although our current understanding of physics says matter can't attain such a length or speed.

The Bible does indeed contain reused ideas from previous religions, but that really isn't evidence of any of the things you characterized. Those are just your opinions.

originally posted by: LookingAtMars

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: LookingAtMars

originally posted by: olaru12
If we haven't been back to the moon since 72. In fact we haven't even been out of low earth orbit. Why do you think that is?

We are not being told something....

The US can't even put humans in low Earth orbit and hasn't been able to for a while now. I agree with you that somethings not being shared. I would like to think we have found a better way to get off the Earth and it can't be shared because of national security reasons.

That wouldn't explain why we're not still doing it the "old" way that is tried and proven to work. There's a simple reason we don't: cost/benefit. Nothing is being withheld from us. Our leaders simply don't think it's worth the investment.

There is no doubt that things are being withheld from us. What they are is the question.

Of course there are things being held from us, but some super secret reason why we're not doing much manned space exploration? Not needed. There's a very simple reason: cost.