Mars is barred: why we shouldn't go to the red planet
Discussion
Toaster said:
es you should try: those discussing the issue are:
1) Hannah Devlin is the Guardian's science correspondent, having previously been science editor of the Times. She has a PhD in biomedical imaging from the University of Oxford.
2) Ian Sample is science editor of the Guardian. Before joining the newspaper in 2003, he was a journalist at New Scientist and worked at the Institute of Physics as a journal editor. He has a PhD in biomedical materials from Queen Mary's, University of London.
3) Lewis Dartnell who's research is in the field of astrobiology and the search for microbial life on Mars
So we have 3 Scientists one of who will know more about Mars than I dare suggest you, which is why you should spend 1/2 hour you never know it may make you curious to learn more.
The argument from authority is one of the weakest, so as a counterpoint Zubrin's fire back is that:1) Hannah Devlin is the Guardian's science correspondent, having previously been science editor of the Times. She has a PhD in biomedical imaging from the University of Oxford.
2) Ian Sample is science editor of the Guardian. Before joining the newspaper in 2003, he was a journalist at New Scientist and worked at the Institute of Physics as a journal editor. He has a PhD in biomedical materials from Queen Mary's, University of London.
3) Lewis Dartnell who's research is in the field of astrobiology and the search for microbial life on Mars
So we have 3 Scientists one of who will know more about Mars than I dare suggest you, which is why you should spend 1/2 hour you never know it may make you curious to learn more.
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.
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.
Not remotely true, the first rock to be tracked and warnings be given took place in 2009.It is just a matter of distance vs size which determines what we can and can't do about an incoming rock.
With a space telescope located away from the earth we should be able to see the section of the sky that we can't see easily from earth and getting more telescopes into space will improve our ability to divert objects.
With megaton nuclear weapons and existing space rockets we could divert rocks in the order of a few km in size over the course of a year,
If we had routine access to space from reusable super heavy rockets we could do even better.
Toaster said:
I agree as most humans will never go to Space it’s quite a distraction. I am not saying no money should be spent on Space Science but why for Joyrides space tourisem helps no one.
Not a remotely valid argument:1: It is perfectly possible for a significant proportion of humans alive today to aspire to travel into space in their lifetimes.
2: Space flight is mostly expensive because of the requirement to amortise fixed costs such as development and infrastructure costs over a small number of launches. Thus every launch contributes to reducing the cost, this then enables other uses which then further lowers the cost.
Of these further uses expect utilitarian uses (space based internet, persistent global observation in multi spectrums) and also recreational and business uses.
The first people to fly on jets were rich, now they support the businesses and lifestyles of most of the people in the western world. The same will eventually be true of space travel.
Talksteer said:
Not remotely true, the first rock to be tracked and warnings be given took place in 2009.
It is just a matter of distance vs size which determines what we can and can't do about an incoming rock.
With a space telescope located away from the earth we should be able to see the section of the sky that we can't see easily from earth and getting more telescopes into space will improve our ability to divert objects.
With megaton nuclear weapons and existing space rockets we could divert rocks in the order of a few km in size over the course of a year,
If we had routine access to space from reusable super heavy rockets we could do even better.
Maybe not:It is just a matter of distance vs size which determines what we can and can't do about an incoming rock.
With a space telescope located away from the earth we should be able to see the section of the sky that we can't see easily from earth and getting more telescopes into space will improve our ability to divert objects.
With megaton nuclear weapons and existing space rockets we could divert rocks in the order of a few km in size over the course of a year,
If we had routine access to space from reusable super heavy rockets we could do even better.
Nasa's plan to deflect deadly asteroid will not work on asteroid that could collide with Earth, study finds
If the asteroid Bennu collided with Earth, it would have an impact 80,000 times stronger than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/asteroi...
https://www.llnl.gov/news/scientists-design-concep...
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.
Toaster said:
Talksteer said:
Not remotely true, the first rock to be tracked and warnings be given took place in 2009.
It is just a matter of distance vs size which determines what we can and can't do about an incoming rock.
With a space telescope located away from the earth we should be able to see the section of the sky that we can't see easily from earth and getting more telescopes into space will improve our ability to divert objects.
With megaton nuclear weapons and existing space rockets we could divert rocks in the order of a few km in size over the course of a year,
If we had routine access to space from reusable super heavy rockets we could do even better.
Maybe not:It is just a matter of distance vs size which determines what we can and can't do about an incoming rock.
With a space telescope located away from the earth we should be able to see the section of the sky that we can't see easily from earth and getting more telescopes into space will improve our ability to divert objects.
With megaton nuclear weapons and existing space rockets we could divert rocks in the order of a few km in size over the course of a year,
If we had routine access to space from reusable super heavy rockets we could do even better.
Nasa's plan to deflect deadly asteroid will not work on asteroid that could collide with Earth, study finds
If the asteroid Bennu collided with Earth, it would have an impact 80,000 times stronger than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/asteroi...
https://www.llnl.gov/news/scientists-design-concep...
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.
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
Toaster said:
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.
Ever read about the Dunning Kruger effect? Edited by Toaster on Thursday 25th October 08:08
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...
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.
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...
Toaster said:
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
Toaster said:
tut tut Eric my friend you said that you were not going to respond to my posts. But you couldn’t help yourself 
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".
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. Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff