XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics   
      
   In sci.physics Jeff Findley  wrote:   
   > In article <4rj5dd-cab.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com   
   > says...   
   >>   
   >> In sci.physics Jeff Findley  wrote:   
   >> > In article , invalid@invalid.com says...   
   >> >>   
   >> >> On 10/11/2016 6:10 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:   
   >> >> > In article , invalid@invalid.com says...   
   >> >> >>   
   >> >> >> there is no reason for man to go to Mars.   
   >> >> >   
   >> >> > Opinion.   
   >> >>   
   >> >> Fact. Mars is Dead.   
   >> >   
   >> > Good, then there are no locals to object when we start using its natural   
   >> > resources.   
   >> >   
   >> >> >> It is rocks and sand in a vaccum.   
   >> >> >   
   >> >> > False, Mars has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, albeit a very thin one.   
   >> >>   
   >> >> 1% of Earths, 96% CO2, nothing on earth that uses its atmosphere can be   
   >> >> used on Mars, therefor Mars has no air.   
   >> >   
   >> > Chemistry.  CO2 is one of the materials needed to make methane and   
   >> > oxygen for the return trip back to earth.  Also, note people breathe   
   >> > oxygen, so this chemical process also is useful for life support.   
   >> >   
   >> > The chemistry needed to do this is quite well studied and has been done   
   >> > in the lab many times.  We just need to send the necessary equipment to   
   >> > Mars and "just do it" (to steal a marketing phrase).   
   >>   
   >> Which would be a big industrial plant, a nuclear reactor to power it,   
   >> and a shitload of support equipment.   
   >   
   > No, it's not "big".  Mars reference missions include this because the   
   > "plant" needed can be small, if you give it many months to do its work.   
   > Hint:  The life support equipment on ISS contains chemical "plants" as   
   > well.  The Russians have been using them for quite some time.  And they   
   > have the disadvantage that they had to work in zero gravity.   
      
   Except to support and grow a colony you need production which means big.   
      
   If all you want is a research station, no need to produce anything   
   locally.   
      
   >> >> > If you   
   >> >> > want rocks and sand in a vacuum, the moon is a better destination, but   
   >> >> > even the moon looks to have water.   
   >> >>   
   >> >> "looks" => conjecture   
   >> >   
   >> > Actually, there is a lot of scientific of evidence for water deposits on   
   >> > the moon (I believe the location of interest is the south pole).  No   
   >> > there are no flowing oceans, but if there is water and it can be   
   >> > extracted and used.  It's a natural resource despite your whining to the   
   >> > contrary.   
   >>   
   >> Generally something is called a natural resource when it is concentrated   
   >> and easy to extract.   
   >>   
   >> The Earth's oceans are full of gold but no one is recovering it.   
   >   
   > On earth, fossil fuels are still relatively cheap, given advances in   
   > technologies like fracking.  So, we simply won't ramp up on renewable   
   > energy on earth until its cost effective to do so.  On Mars, it would   
   > likely be hideously expensive to try to mine fossil fuels, especially   
   > since we have no idea if there are any fossil fuels on Mars.   
   >   
   > Jeff   
      
   That is true enough, but people keep confusing a handfull of something   
   with a natural resource.   
      
      
   --   
   Jim Pennino   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)