To the Moon or Mars

[Maharg67]

An odd idea!

 

Convert the International Spacestation into a spaceship for a slower journey to the moon by adding various modules such as propulsion, communications, extended storage, navigation and more stability structuring. Sounds crazy and maybe is but the spacestation could then be shifted by degrees to the moon's orbit where it could take up permanent residence. Remember, much of the work of constructing a relatively slow travelling spacecraft is already done, the money already spent.

 

Strange but it just might work.

[hoshi23]

An odd idea!

 

Convert the International Spacestation into a spaceship for a slower journey to the moon by adding various modules such as propulsion, communications, extended storage, navigation and more stability structuring. Sounds crazy and maybe is but the spacestation could then be shifted by degrees to the moon's orbit where it could take up permanent residence. Remember, much of the work of constructing a relatively slow travelling spacecraft is already done, the money already spent.

 

Strange but it just might work.

 

That we do it this way in the first place. It sounds so half done, bound together with a huge effort for what goal. There are yet so many things to be discovered down here on earth.

[Balagor]

I voted "Give up the whole space adventure"

True, mankind has always been curious, and wanted to explore, thats why we are where we are today. But where are we exactly? Can we be proud of our achivements, and make ready to move on for the next adventure?

No, we forgot something. We forgot to split the benefits of our discoveries equally. As @Surenas says, we can not find the drinking water in space, that we need for the 3. world, and I will add, nor any food.

This race for, yes, I don´t even know what we expect to find in space, minerals? Gas 25 cent a gallon? This race for other fields is only going to increase the distance between rich and poor further. To make the gab between the exploiter and the exploited wider. Through history technology advancements have only been limited beneficial to the ENTIRE world. So drop it, and spend the money in a wiser way. :thumbsup:

[Aurielius]

I voted "Give up the whole space adventure"

@Balagor

Nothing ventured nothing gained, where is your viking spirit? King Guthrum of old would be appalled with you. LOL

The challange alone should be enough of a reason, but if you need more, then what happens when we need a second refuge for our species?

[Balagor]

@Aurielius

True, I come from an old race of Vikings, and I also love to explore the world.

Exploring the universe, however is a big, big challenge. The resources we spend on it, could probably feed the entire world, get water where no water is.

To stay in the Viking mythology; a Norse or Danish king, would never leave his carstle, and go exploring, if he knew it was either too expensive, or everything was not well at his carstle, or even both. He would loose all if he failed.

 

I have read the arguments about 500 years ago, we started to explore the world (Norse and Danes even 1200 years ago). I think there is a very big difference, since we discovered the world bit by bit, very slowly, thus knowing just a little about what could be found. Marco Polo´s opening of a Far East trade route going on for centuries, gave us a hint, what it would be like. Columbus´ expedition just "happend" to come across America, believing it was India.

 

In outer space it is way different. We do only have vague knowledge of what to find, distance is huge, we can not live there, i.e. we can not grow anything, we will be dependant of supplies from Earth. If anything goes wrong, everybody dies, and we must start all over. And once more, it is simply too expencive.

 

Lastly, do we need it? The entire worlds population can stand side by side in Arizona. We have got so much space on earth, wich also calls for the pioneers and adventures to conquere. Even if we want to save some untouch nature, in wich we wil not allow people to live, we still have plenty of space.

 

In the future? Well, everything has a limit. How many must we be. Shall we fill up the universe, to outnumber the stars, or will we accept that everything has a limit, even human population. :thumbsup:

[Aurielius]

Lastly, do we need it? The entire worlds population can stand side by side in Arizona. We have got so much space on earth, wich also calls for the pioneers and adventures to conquere. Even if we want to save some untouch nature, in wich we wil not allow people to live, we still have plenty of space.

@Balagor

It's going to mighty crowded in Arizona, packed like sardines .Think strategically, we need to plan far ahead before it becomes an imperative necessity. I give anything to be young enough to join a Mars Exploration mission and break new ground..they should have done it already.Being an Aviator, pushing the envelope is in my blood; I could never stay at home when there was chance 'to go a viking'.

[Chaosblade02]

I agree that the whole space program as a whole could be stopped and instead put more money directly into research for more efficient and faster propulsion systems. I forget how many billions of dollars it costs to launch the space shuttle every time, but that is WAY too much money. Our space technology hasn't really gotten any better since the 80s, its lagging way behind the advances made in everything else. A more efficient space program means they don't need to hire as many people to run it. Which I think plays a large factor in the decisions being made in the direction of progress, because they are afraid they might lose their jobs. I believe NASA are also union employees, which makes me suspect this even more.

 

Seriously if they put half as much effort into researching more efficient/faster space propulsion as they did in developing the Atomic bomb back in the 1940s, then we might very well have a chance at getting to mars in the near future rather than the distant future.

[Balagor]

@Aurielius

I know you would give the best years of your life to be young enough to go on a Mars expedition. So far it is also ok for me. But what about the enviroment there. I could not imagine how it would be to live on a barren planet, with no atmosphere, no trees, no nothing. We would probably have to live in some kind of shelters, with UV protection, with a good insolation to protect against extreem temperatures both day and night.

We would have to grow crops in special kind of greenhouses, but with no glass(too much UV) but instead using artificial light in order to keep their photosythesis going.

How will we become mentally? Never hearing the birds sing, no wind in the face, no sound of the ocean. If this is the alternative to become extinct on earth, I prefer the latter. :confused:

[Aurielius]

@Balagor

It's not that I don't favor a more sylvan earth or that I wouldn't want to return to forests and blue skies. But we don't have to make an either or choice yet, given the choice of survival or termination I would choose the former. As I previously posted there are viable plans to terraform Mars, it will just take time to implement. I would wish that our future descendants will have the option to choose. We are just at the beginning of a vast open horizon, turning away from it won't make it any easier later on.

[LHammonds]

How will we become mentally? Never hearing the birds sing

They have an iPhone app for that.

 

no wind in the face

Any 'ol fan could do.

 

no sound of the ocean

They have an iPhone app for that too. Or you could bring a conch with you.

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist...but I'd agree that it would take some special individuals to live in a sterile environment like that. But before we do any kind of "terraform and populate" another world projects, shouldn't we see if we can go into the desert, construct a dome and figure out how to live in an eco system there? I don't think we have successfully done that yet...and that is without additional (and stressful) problems such as rocks falling from the sky, air leaks, etc.

 

LHammonds