Mars is barred: why we shouldn't go to the red planet

[Toaster]

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.

[Toaster]

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.

[Eric Mc]

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.

[Toaster]

ash73 said:

Sounded more like they have GCSEs in "media studies".

The only positive thing I can say is Prof Lewis Dartnell has the patience of a Saint.

Yup things are simplified for the public both in the press and broadcast media.

[Toaster]

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 but good to hear you are not a Musk fan boy

[deckster]

Toaster said:

He was being interviewed by two science journalists who happen to have Phd’s One of which was biomedical imaging.

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.

[Toaster]

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.

[4x4Tyke]

Toaster said:

It is a perspective being presented and a valid one and that is what should be debate.

However, you are not debating the subject, you're making rather broad generalisations.

Your title for this thread is "why we shouldn't go to the red planet".

I linked a strong rebuttal piece from a highly respected expert in the field of space exploration and you dismiss it out of hand as irrelevant because it is not tourism. Your subsequent post prove you probably never even read it, never mind take on board the points it raises. The promise of space tourism plays a minor part in funding of commercial projects, it is one means to obtain funding; sponsorship and investment are others.

Was Magellan a tourist, Drake, Cook, Hudson or Darwin or many other early explorers who sought patronage for their expeditions? The method of funding is immaterial to the ends of these projects. Some people have the vision to put their own money where their mouth is. Who are you to tell them they cannot, because you have better ideas, but actually refuse to set them out.

[Kccv23highliftcam]

Toaster said:

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.

Hell yeah, we got ourselves a real life 'tinternet stalker here padraes!

[Talksteer]

deckster said:

Toaster said:

He was being interviewed by two science journalists who happen to have Phd’s One of which was biomedical imaging.

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.

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.

[Toaster]

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.

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]

Toaster said:

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

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.

[Eric Mc]

We do these things, not because they are easy, but BECAUSE they are hard.

I wonder who said that?

[Gandahar]

Toaster said:

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.

Ah, I see what you mean now Eric !

[Toaster]

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 go

[Jinx]

ash73 said:

What is the point of our existence if we don't go?

Agreed. We are the earth's best hope for survival. This planet will die (CO2 sequestration via ocean life or when the sun uses up all its hydrogen - timings are a little confused). We cannot survive without the earth (atmosphere, plant life, environment) as such we will have to recreate it where-ever we go.
If we don't at least try we may as well lie down and die now........

[dukeboy749r]

Toaster said:

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 go

Rather than that - best we prepare them (and the robots prior to them), so that 'we' are best placed to make a success of it, surely?

[Toltec]

LivingTheDream said:

I couldn't agree more

maffski said:

Toaster has paid for the 5 minute argument.

Yes you could.

[Toaster]

ash73 said:

What is the point of our existence if we don't go?

Even if we did go and happened to be successful the question "What is the point of our Existence" will still be asked.

[Toaster]

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