XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics
From: fjmccall@gmail.com
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>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.
>
Well, eventually, but you don't have to START big. You do just what
mankind has done every other time we colonized someplace. You start
with small facilities and grow them over time, while reducing what you
have to import (again over time).
>
>If all you want is a research station, no need to produce anything
>locally.
>
Sure there is, if you ever plan on having your researchers come home.
>>> >> > 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.
>>
>
>That is true enough, but people keep confusing a handfull of something
>with a natural resource.
>
No, they don't. People keep denying the existence of things that are
known to exist. I'll ask you again, just how many TRILLION ACRE FEET
of water in the form of ice must exist before you accept it's a
'natural resource'?
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
