http://www.aavso.org/observing/programs/pep/pepnewsletter/may2001.shtml
The survival of the species isn't a strong enough argument for you? Pray tell, what would be strong enough?
Not sure what your point is here. Are you denying that humans have survived for over a year in zero-gravity?
Sorry, I'm not up to speed on this giant disaster. In what way did this attempt fail and how does it conclusively show anything at all?
Of course we have the resources. We may not have the finished blue-print but that is why the endevour needs to begin now.
What exactly is the breakthrough which you seem to think is missing?
Why continue to delay? Let's decide to go, look at what technologies are "missing" and put dedicated effort into finding these technologies.
We don't have the blue-prints now, but we will only get those by dedicating effort to that effect.
You'll need to expound on that last sentence. What major new breakthrough in physics is needed in your opinion?
Of course it would be a major undertaking. But even you can't claim that it would be an almost insurmountable task given that it was done almost 40 years ago. And how was it done? By having set a goal and funding it not just monetarily but politically. In short, by having the political will.
Yes, and when the "land a man on the moon" endevour was initiated, you barely had the capacity to but people in LEO.
Why would you think that colonizing Mars might require sending a Biosphere2 there?
If we can deliver 250 kg to Mars, we can do so multiple times. While we continously build up a depot to build a base, we can work on how we deliver the humans themselves.
By deciding that we need to and then allocating the necessary funds to do it.
My point is that in LEO, they are not far from home and receive everything via transports (ever here of those shuttle and rocket launches to 'resupply' the ISS?). This is not how a self-sustaining colony on another planet could possibly work.
What it says, publicity stunt or not, is that we are not prepared to sustain recyclable resources on another planet. If you like, we'll send you to Mars first and you can figure out where to get your air, water, and food from the vast amounts there (that is sarcasm). None of our current technologies are sufficiently efficient (some aren't even tested beyond small trials).
We don't even have a started blue-print! No one has ever even researched in a meaningful way how such a thing would be accomplished. I've already mentioned using the Moon as a research platform for colonization. Here's one even closer to home. We could 'colonize' the oceans. Many of the same issues exist and they could be normalized by setting up some of them to be self-sufficient (to develop the technologies and remove the problems). We haven't even done this yet and you want to go to another planet this unprepared?
The ability to recycle air and water, renew food supplies, renew/create energy, mine for raw materials to maintain and expand, manufacture of those materials for same reasons. Do you really think that it would be possible to continuously supply a distant colony from Earth resources? If so, then you really are insane. That would also defeat the entire "the Earth is about to explode, thankfully we have that Mars colony" point wouldn't it?
Because of bureaucratic nonsense, popular lack of interest, distractions, you name it. One person (or a million) isn't enough. You need an internationally funded, long term R&D, planning, and execution architecture for something like this. I just read an interesting message from Robert Zubrin. Since the former NASA Administrator O'Keefe was replaced, Griffin, the new one, is trying to implement realistic plans. But the plans for an HLV (heavy launch vehicle capable of 125 metric tons as compared to the shuttle's measely 20 tons) have been pushed off until the end of the shuttle program - in 13 years. That means no start of such an endeavor for over a decade. That's over 40 years since the last Moon landing. And who knows what will occur in that intervening time to further reduce our will and capability to perform such plans.
Yes, those with experience of zero-gravity (or micro-gravity if you like) were in LEO. Why is that of interest as far as our experience of such conditions are concerned?
Sorry, but my question was: "In what way did this attempt fail and how does it conclusively show anything at all?" I look forward to your reply.
No, I want to launch the effort now.
We already know how to recycle air and water, create energy and mine new resources. I was asking what the major breakthrough in physics, not technology, is?
My highlighting. As I said early on, the only thing missing is the political will.
I agree.
We have the experience of keeping humans in space for over a year now. - Your quote.
It showed that a manmade self-sufficient habitat (very much like what will be needed for a planetary colony) was untenable at the current time. It failed since the air levels dropped to near fatal and food dwindled - the naive system didn't work. Can you show references to other research into self-sufficient habitats wherein the occupants went for years without any external support? Thought not. I believe NASA or similar has done preliminary researches like this, but only for a month or so at a time. That ain't going to cut it for a permanent colony. We are ill prepared.
Quote: One person (or a million) isn't enough. You need an internationally funded, long term R&D, planning, and execution architecture for something like this.
We can recycle air and water on Earth. We're talking about recycling air and water on a much larger scale than a bathosphere or space station and since air and water are not abundant commodities on other planets, we'll either need processes to make them and have very efficient systems to recycle them (99.99%) or you'll run out of them. How about taking the raw materials and turning them into components for the colony? How are you going to smelt ores, form plates and beams, make electronic components, mold plastics? Are you going to send entire manufacturing facilities to Mars? I think you underestimate the complexity of what a 'permanent colony on Mars' actually entails.
And the R&D and experience and proper technologies. Technologies are not impossible, but most of them currently don't exist or are in their embryonic states.
Jay wants the survival of the poor. I think Jesus put it best; "The poor will always be with us." Jay, people are poor for reasons that have very little to do with money. There are poor in the richest of counties. Rest assured in the coming centuries when the questions of colonization becomes moot, there will be poor people on those colonies.
Well, I'm sure not to you. But any people living 100,000 years from now may be a little concerned.
Earth's environment does not need to get as "bad" as Mars to make life extremely difficult for us. But then, there's always Soylent Green.
An off world colony would have to be something that would be built slowly over time. Although if something like the space elevator ( http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1.htm ) ever gets built, things would go much more cheaply and smoother.
A "colony" on Mars would depend on a great deal of sophisticated equipment. Although repairs could be made locally, spare parts and new equipments could not. Such a colony would never be even half way self sufficient.
Nah, don't colonize other planets, let's just go extinct with this one when the sun fries it.
http://www.aavso.org/observing/programs/pep/pepnewsletter/may2001.shtml
Mind, we do have a few more billion years to quibble over this.
Vitamin C is Ascorbic acid, actually; and there are sources that are higher in vitamin C than citrus fruits. Peppers are much higher in vitamin c (the first large-scale isolation of ascorbic acid was done using Hungarian paprika peppers), and they can be easily grown hydroponically.
)
