Mars is barred: why we shouldn't go to the red planet
Discussion
Talksteer said:
The argument from authority is one of the weakest, so as a counterpoint Zubrin's fire back is that:
1: Humans trump bacteria, we aren't landing on a populated island
2: Martian bacteria will either be vastly different to earth bacteria and will be easy to isolate even if contaminated, Or if Martian bacteria shares a common heritage with earth bacteria the fossil record will be easy to find.
In short dead rocks don't have rights that trump human rights.
Until bacteria is found you will not know the difference so you cannot state that martian bacteria will be vastly different, there is nothing that says that humans have "rights" to colonise another planet, it may well be humans do but its not a "right" 1: Humans trump bacteria, we aren't landing on a populated island
2: Martian bacteria will either be vastly different to earth bacteria and will be easy to isolate even if contaminated, Or if Martian bacteria shares a common heritage with earth bacteria the fossil record will be easy to find.
In short dead rocks don't have rights that trump human rights.
Talksteer said:
To summarise, study finds that some previously suggested theoretical method of stopping an asteroid will not stop a specific asteroid. Instead it will require nuclear bombs to deflect it.
Where would we get any atomic bombs or rockets from?
Said article does not in any way invalidate my claim that routine access to space would not enable us to locate and deflect a dangerous object.
1: Detection, basic physics means that enough telescopes in a number of locations can detect and dangerous rocks in the solar system. The large dangerous ones are the easiest to detect.
2: These objects may be displaced by atomic explosions
3: Current chemical rockets are fast enough to get a warhead to them in time provided a comprehensive sky survey is in place to locate dangerous rocks.
we do not have regular access to space maybe the project suggested may work but there is a large chance it wouldn’t. I am not saying that humans wouldn’t try but there is a large chance we would be wiped out. The insane thought that technology will save our species is just that insane. Everything have a beginning and everything has an end. As I said humans populating mars is bad idea, being human you have to take in to account the bio psycho social aspects along with the spiritual (nothing to do with religion) and environmental aspects. The Likley hood of high suicide rates for long term living on Mars is just one example. Let alone the impact of lower gravity and it’s long term effect will effect people. Where would we get any atomic bombs or rockets from?
Said article does not in any way invalidate my claim that routine access to space would not enable us to locate and deflect a dangerous object.
1: Detection, basic physics means that enough telescopes in a number of locations can detect and dangerous rocks in the solar system. The large dangerous ones are the easiest to detect.
2: These objects may be displaced by atomic explosions
3: Current chemical rockets are fast enough to get a warhead to them in time provided a comprehensive sky survey is in place to locate dangerous rocks.
Edited by Toaster on Thursday 25th October 08:08
4x4Tyke said:
A similar question was asked of NASA Director of Science Dr Ernst Stuhlinger in a letter by Sister Mary Jucunda. His response, "Why (spend money to) explore space" as been published many times.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-s...
The simple fact is Space exploration as a scientific endeavor is giving us the tools we need to solve these problems. So for example Oceanic plastic is being monitored by satellite, climate and weather have been monitored for decades.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/10/25/fig...
you will see from my posts I have no issue with scientific research or exploration of space. It is the self obsessed waste of space “tourisem” http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-s...
The simple fact is Space exploration as a scientific endeavor is giving us the tools we need to solve these problems. So for example Oceanic plastic is being monitored by satellite, climate and weather have been monitored for decades.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/10/25/fig...
Kccv23highliftcam said:
Toaster said:
umans like Dinosaurs would become extinct even if we could track one right now, its unlikely we could play space invaders and shoot a NEO out of its trajectory Boom we would all be gone.
Which brings us nicely back round to Mr Musks motivation. 
" A PhD in biomedical imaging." How very grand.
Prof lewis dartnell I would argue is slightly more qualified than the average PH blogger to consider a case Why it may be a bad idea man shouldn’t colonise Mars his research is in the field of astrobiology and the search for microbial life on Mars.
He was being interviewed by two science journalists who happen to have Phd’s One of which was biomedical imaging.
Interestingly “A Pew Research Centre survey carried out in June asked US adults to rank the relative importance of nine of Nasa’s current primary missions. Sending humans to Mars was ranked eighth (ahead only of returning to the Moon) with only 18% of those surveyed believing it should be a high priority”
So maybe some reflexivity should be given to both sides of the argument. For and against as clearly not everyone thinks going to Mars is the nervana Musk portrays it to be. And this is without considering the biomedical, physical and mental impact of of those former humans who stay or stray to that barren planet called Mars
Eric Mc said:
Scientists are people. Like any "people", their opinions vary. Have you listened to Professor Martin Rees? He seems right up your street.
most scientists use facts rather than opinions. Research is peer reviews and if robust the evidence not oppinion is followed. So do tell how will Mars affect former humans if colonisation goes ahead. Eric Mc said:
I do try but now and then your persistent negativity needs a response.
I really do think that you are by far the most negative person who frequents the science forum. I find you utterly depressing and just wish you would post something a bit more uplifting and positive now and then.
All you ever do is create threads telling us about what programmes you think are "pointless" or a "waste of time". And how the rest of us are not very clever in being interested in those programmes We get that,. In fact, we got that ages ago and at this stage you are adding absolutely nothing new to your argument. You are now the proverbial stuck record constantly repeating the same point over and over.
Here's a challenge, the next time you start a thread on here, rather than tell us what you don't like about certain space propgrammes, start talking about a programme that you agree with and support.
My hunch is that you are pathologically incapable of doing that.
And I repeat, I am not your "friend".
Oh Eric as I have said before I reckon we could be mates if we had a beer it’s the flat nature of these blogs that seem intolerable. It isn’t me being negative I brought up a discussion point on why it’s a bad idea to colonise Mars. I didn’t Wright the article it’s an alternative view point which you choose not to consider as every thing “should” be viewed through rose tinted glasses. But what of the human cost and what about the potential damage to another planet and it’s living organisms? What right as humans do we have to wipe these out or contaminate the planet? These are real considerations and not negative thinking. I really do think that you are by far the most negative person who frequents the science forum. I find you utterly depressing and just wish you would post something a bit more uplifting and positive now and then.
All you ever do is create threads telling us about what programmes you think are "pointless" or a "waste of time". And how the rest of us are not very clever in being interested in those programmes We get that,. In fact, we got that ages ago and at this stage you are adding absolutely nothing new to your argument. You are now the proverbial stuck record constantly repeating the same point over and over.
Here's a challenge, the next time you start a thread on here, rather than tell us what you don't like about certain space propgrammes, start talking about a programme that you agree with and support.
My hunch is that you are pathologically incapable of doing that.
And I repeat, I am not your "friend".
Eric Mc said:
Most scientists are human beings last time I looked and they certainly do have opinions, often very strong ones. Two scientists can look at the same set of facts but draw different conclusions from them by exercising their opinions.
Can you not understand that?
of course they have opinions but will work to the evidence provided by research. There is a wide view between being a posivist, constructivist or social constructvist along with your epistemological, ontological and your personal philosophy. Which is why there is often fierce debate amongst peers but always you have to return to the research that provides the evidence not opinions. Can you not understand that?
Eric Mc said:
Nope - you are relentlessly negative and seem dreadfully reluctant to talk about things that actually excite you. You prefer to be a bit of a whinger..
I actually don't think Mars will be "colonised" as an alternative earth - ever. But it will be a place for humans to visit and work - just like Antarctica. It will be a base where we learn how to live "off earth" and the knowledge gained will allow humans to work out how to live and work in other variable planetary environments.
I am no Musk "fanboy". I do think he is over promoting what SpaceX can do at times and his Mars colonisation looks extremely far fetched to say the least. I also believe that may come unstuck because of his sometimes eccentric (borderline illegal) behaviour which could eventually cause financial backers to lose faith and pull out of some, if not all, of his projects.
HOWEVER, he has also been very inspirational with his Falcon rocket programme and has shown genuine originality in making certain innovative aspects of launching work - such as genuine recovery and reusability of boosters in an economical manner (unlike the Space Shuttle).
I'm prepared to sit and watch how he and his company gets on over the next few years and I will not stand on the sidelines moaning at his plans. They cost me nothing and they provide me with something of genuine interest to follow in the realm of space and launcher technology.
The same goes for Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin.
Interesting in how you feel that I am being negative, I did not produce the article, it is a perspective and a valid one, you would be highly surprised about what excites me Eric along with those who know me cannot believe how positive I am, its not my words its theirs I actually don't think Mars will be "colonised" as an alternative earth - ever. But it will be a place for humans to visit and work - just like Antarctica. It will be a base where we learn how to live "off earth" and the knowledge gained will allow humans to work out how to live and work in other variable planetary environments.
I am no Musk "fanboy". I do think he is over promoting what SpaceX can do at times and his Mars colonisation looks extremely far fetched to say the least. I also believe that may come unstuck because of his sometimes eccentric (borderline illegal) behaviour which could eventually cause financial backers to lose faith and pull out of some, if not all, of his projects.
HOWEVER, he has also been very inspirational with his Falcon rocket programme and has shown genuine originality in making certain innovative aspects of launching work - such as genuine recovery and reusability of boosters in an economical manner (unlike the Space Shuttle).
I'm prepared to sit and watch how he and his company gets on over the next few years and I will not stand on the sidelines moaning at his plans. They cost me nothing and they provide me with something of genuine interest to follow in the realm of space and launcher technology.
The same goes for Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin.
but good to hear you are not a Musk fan boy deckster said:
The only important word in that sentence was 'journalists'. You are not reading a piece of scientific research, produced and peer reviewed by experts in that particular subject. You are reading a piece of journalism that exists to sell publications and push an opinion. Nothing more.
I know many people with PhDs and many years of post-doctoral research behind them, and whilst they are indeed in some cases world-renowned experts in their own narrow fields, most of them can barely be trusted to tie their own shoelaces, let alone produce well-rounded philosophical tracts that consider the big issues that are going to affect the human race in the coming centuries.
It is a perspective being presented and a valid one and that is what should be debate.I know many people with PhDs and many years of post-doctoral research behind them, and whilst they are indeed in some cases world-renowned experts in their own narrow fields, most of them can barely be trusted to tie their own shoelaces, let alone produce well-rounded philosophical tracts that consider the big issues that are going to affect the human race in the coming centuries.
Talksteer said:
Yep, our poster seems to be obsessed with arguing from "authority". Therefore I will make the following statement I supervise 5 PhD/EngD's, that's two more than he has, my opinion thus trumps his and those science journalists.
The debate is now over.
id rather debate with the PhD's/Eng/D's than a teller who says when something is over I bet your a barrell of laughs, Eric posed a really ballanced view about what he feels the future hold regarding Mars exploration (But dont tell him I said so). Will man go to mars maybe maybenot should man go to mars is another question and one worth considering, as a counter to "lets go and colonize". It may be just as beneficial from an exploration peice to send the robots.The debate is now over.
Lets just consider a few of the challenges for Humans who after all are quite fragile
its fricking cold
there is no atmospher to speak of
Dust storms can cut out light by 99%
potential contamination both to the potential martian Microbes and of course could the Microbes be a threat to Humans (we don't know yet, do we really want to bring these back to earth)
Physical Health issues from low gravity etc
Mental health issues due to living in cabins never feeling the wind rain or sun, blue skyes
Key Bio, Psycho, Social, spiritual and enviromental conditions that make us human can not or should not be ignored
Simpo Two said:
Either your account has been hacked or you've had too much Baileys.
The reasons you give for not going is exactly why we SHOULD go. Because it is hard. If we have no challenges what do we do? Ah yes, be snowflakes getting fat on our sofas and whining when our pizza is late.
Pity the poor sods who do goThe reasons you give for not going is exactly why we SHOULD go. Because it is hard. If we have no challenges what do we do? Ah yes, be snowflakes getting fat on our sofas and whining when our pizza is late.
Nanook said:
I don't really spend much time in the Science part of PH, because I like Science, and PH can ruin topics with bickering, much like this (pointless) one.
But this chap Toaster, I've never heard of him before, he's absolutely brilliant. How any of you believe he can be genuine is beyond me
But this chap Toaster, I've never heard of him before, he's absolutely brilliant. How any of you believe he can be genuine is beyond me
Jinx said:
Toaster said:
Even if we did go and happened to be successful the question "What is the point of our Existence" will still be asked.
To spread the earth to other worlds - we are its gametes. 
ash73 said:
We can't live in equilibrium if a large asteroid comes our way. If we don't spend money on space exploration we are signing a death warrant for all life on Earth; presumably you and your descendents will be giving up their tickets on the Earth 2.0 ark?
Missions to Mars means scientists can play around digging in the dirt opining about the origin of life etc, but the real reason for going is to learn how to survive for extended periods in deep space, and develop bigger and better rockets.
I can't abide this depressing pseudo intellectual atheist attitude that life is pointless, you might as well just kill yourself. Find a purpose and get on with it. Survival seems a good place to start.
Lol well I am an atheist, and intellectual and have purpose in my one and only short life. If you think people will be happy by chasing the mars dystopia think again and anyway Robots can do all the digging and analysing we do not need to subject humans to do that. Missions to Mars means scientists can play around digging in the dirt opining about the origin of life etc, but the real reason for going is to learn how to survive for extended periods in deep space, and develop bigger and better rockets.
I can't abide this depressing pseudo intellectual atheist attitude that life is pointless, you might as well just kill yourself. Find a purpose and get on with it. Survival seems a good place to start.
Simpo Two said:
I think of it as a cry for help.
Nope I am quite happy by not chasing what many seem to think is utopia, even though I am guilty as most in some aspects of what the video portrayshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dZQelULDk
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff