Humans are destroying this planet. The air is polluted, the land is polluted, the water is polluted. And this is all being done for the profits of a few selfish people over the rest of us in a counterfeit money system. If human beings can't come together and share the resources of this planet and live in harmony with the Nature, how will they be able to survive on another planet? They will be killing and destroying there, also. We need a new human.
even if they somehow manage to terraform mars...i'm pretty sure fucking corporations would find a way to turn it into some kind of business where only the rich can go and evetone else withers and dies
It is time for the eyes of the world to look to space again. We must chose to go to Mars, not out of greed, or international competition, but out of regard for us as a species. We must chose to go to Mars by the next decade, not because it's easy but because it is hard. Mankind must unit if it is to survive, are we to leave our children and grandchildren to a unsurvivable planet just because a few rich people didn't want higher taxes? It is time to start looking to the future.
If we could terraform mars and sustain human life beyond earth .I recommand we start as soon as possible .expanding our human race is the only way to escape extinction.
Well, I'd like to keep Earth :) But Excellent :) Check out HomesWOW.com it has Yahoo! Real Esatte, zillow, trulia, har, zip realty and all home searches. It is now the largest Homes, MLS Real Estate site.
@walter0bz Well, the earth is always is danger whether or not we are even there to do anything about it, 90% of animals species have died, and of course its not our fault, its just the way the earth works, adaptation.
a beetle that eats trees evolves slowly, as part of a balance (dynamic balance i know), and if those beetles become too numerous something else evolves to eat them.
But human brains engineer quickly and nature can't evolve around it, e.g. we decide to harvest trees nature can't keep up. We'd be waiting for a pandemic to keep us in check. Wouldn't it be smarter to avoid getting to that point, given that we can reason about it.
@walter0bz Why can't nature adapt quick enough to our imminent surroundings? I think you're forgetting that an comet hit earth 1 million years ago, and our planet it still alive and well. Earth and its inhabitants have been through ice ages, pole shifts, and disastrous phenomena we cant even account for, the only issue we need to wrap up is global warming, and that will be settled in the next 10 years, i dont think a single species will be held accountable for the death of its planet
@Putz4Ever - no, Nature can't adapt fast enough to cope with human action. evolution works very slowly.
Human action is easily equivalent to a comet impact or super volcano explosion, and the difference is we keep growing.
You want to keep growing till nature is forced to respond with a pandemic? unlike other species which rely on being eaten to stay in balance, we can plan ahead.
@Putz4Ever - we take a habitable earth for granted, yet oxygen is a gift from plants, before they evolved the atmosphere was c02 etc like other dead planets. as we dominate every species and play havoc , we do indeed risk doing irreversible damage... or at least damaging it in a way that it's no longer habitable to us. nature evolved balancing symbiosis over time via trial and error (destructive species creates feedback that extincts it), at the minute humans are looking more like "error"
@walter0bz Again, this is as said caused by global warming or is an alternate to it, yes there is more Co2 then there was 100 years ago, but we could easily solve this issue, either by planting more trees, or even stopping the production of these cars itself, the government is already releasing chemical trails into the air that merge with co2 and form compounds heavier then air, solving our problem, tell me, have you, physically, without tv, noticed any difference in the world?
we can't just stop car production - it's the use of fossil fuels generally which allows 7billion people to exist (population used to be in the 100m's range prior to industrial revolution).
we have fast forwarded a geological age.
cars are the least of the problems. it's FF's applied to agriculture,trade,industry that allowed an exponential human population explosion independently of our balanced place in the biosphere as part of a plant-animal symbiosis.
@Putz4Ever - Speculation about pollution started at the beginning of the industrial revolution when london very quickly became smog ridden, and they asked the very valid question "what if every city did this and it continued for decades". whether it's global warming/dimming/acid rain, it's highly likely that sustained release of material into the atmosphere will cause some sort of change which may , from our POV , be for the worst.
There are a small number of countries with declining populations, if you understand mathematical limits you know the population graph will tend toward that of the ones that are rising. also I don't think africa is declining. Maybe all is well with the world in your particular bubble but the world as a whole is in a bad way..
@walter0bz The world is fine, it will not die, and we are not overpopulated, there are species in our world that overpopulate us 4 to 1, and only 33% of animals have been identified.
The best word is Overshoot. if you understand the process of fossil-fueled overshoot - and the extent to which we have overwhelmed entire ecosystems you should be very afraid.
it shows up first in the current economic crisis, perpetual growth engine hitting the limits..
@walter0bz Scientists are already prepared and know what to do when the sun dies 6 billion years from now, i sure any of these issues you seem to constantly bring up are reversible. We can repair our ozone layer, so much so that we are planning on building one on mars.
@walter0bz Are you kidding me? Mars has an atmosphere although very thin, it also has necessary chemicals like co2, h2o, argon, and much more, it's tectonic plates are STILL moving, and there are still monoxide fumes being released from its surface meaning their is either bacerial life esposing it, or there is volcanic activity under there. It is a living planet, scientists already have a way to strengthen the atmosphere through a release of co2, its far form science fiction...
@walter0bz Which is what the scientists saw before they sent rovers to mars. How are they lacking mountain ranges? There are thousands of mountains taller then mount everest stretched along side mars. They even found layers of bedrock on the side of mountains meaning there used to be flowing water there.
but other than the info presented there, plate tectonics are one symptom of a hot liquid core. the other is the **Strong Magnetic Field**. this is much more important. Mars has a thin atmosphere because it lacks the Van Alan Belt - cosmic rays erode the atmosphere and would cause cancers for any life. If you want to live on mars, you need to provide power for this service we take for granted on earth
Throughout human history, we have been destroyers of life, now it is our chance to turn that around, we shall terraform Mars! is that the chance you are willing to miss out? Humanity can be the seeds of life, we will terraform Mars!
7:28 the plants that create oxygen ? seemingly biosphere scientists believed in this theory and almost suffocated,get oxygen from melting ice #LLAP #climate #china #Obama
There are lots of questions about Mars lack of magnetosphere. Once you teraform Mars and give it a thick atmosphere like the Earth, it's atmosphere and future ozone would protect us from alot of the radiation, however the biggest problem is without a magnetosphere, solar flares can blow off the atmosphere.
However it would take millions of years to blow off to the point of inhabitability again, between those times we can construct an artificial magnetic field.
an artificial magnetic field would take technology beyond our current comprehension. But again it would take millions of years for the sun to blow off most of the newly teraformed planet of Mars, so we might have quite some time.
It's curious that people are always worrying about how we would terraform other planets or maybe moons or how to live there in bases. But it would really be vastly more economical to live in huge rotating space stations. It would create unfathomable richess from mining meteors (often pure metal) and zeroG industry.
Think about it:
we spent thousands of years basically trying to clamber out of a huge gravity well (earth). Lets jump down the next one on the road, it'll feel so much like home!
there you have it. Humans are not the cause of global warming. they just said it. it's simply the fact the the "safe zone" is moving. nothing we can do about that.
@chemicalsweet13 Actually, this moving of the comfort zone has little to do with the current global warming problem: it's on a completely different scale. They dont really mention this clearly. And the suggestion that this is something we should be worrying about insinuates the same level of urgency. Well its not, greenhouse warming would be a matter of decades. The sun getting hotter *might* matter on a scale of centuries. reducing greenhouse effects seems cheaper than moving to space...
@wishcraft4u2 That seems like a pretty good explanation but I still don't buy the global warming thing. I do however believe that we should do everything we can to clean up the planet, especially the air and water because it's our duty to do so and because it makes for a better quality of life for future generations. I just don't think it's being done correctly at present.
@chemicalsweet13 Why dont you buy it actually? Glaciers are disappearing that have been around for milennia. Climate scientists generally agree that it is happening. It's just people with a non-scientific agenda foolish enough to believe they are going to gain something by claiming the opposite who are creating misinformation. Why would you even take chances with something like that?
@wishcraft4u2 Hahaha, the "scientists" disagree a lot and besides they haven't shown any proof that global warming is a direct result of carbon dioxide emissions from humans. It seems more like a trend to me. Just part of the natural ebb and flow of the earth. They elitists are using 'global warming' as an excuse to affect the changes they want in the economy. My solution would be very different. Not that it matters what my solution would be.
@chemicalsweet13 First of all, why would you even doubt it? Science is supposed to be transparent, that means they actually write down the complete argumentation leading to their conclusions in publications. You just assume people wouldnt disagree with scientists if there wouldnt be something wrong with their arguments, well there isnt. Wouldnt you rather question the motives of those who insist to disagree? Dont you think its more convenient for politicians to allow unhealthy economical growth?
@chemicalsweet13 So what reason do you really have to assume politicians would care more to have people believe in the greenhouse effect than otherwise? Dont you think maybe its because politicians keep trolling the public on global warming that you even doubt science on this in the first place?
Really, the greenhouse properties of these gases are rather straightforward. If the climate wouldnt be changing that'd really be something strange, since we know thats how it works... And it is changing.
@wishcraft4u2 I stated one reason already, the 'scientists' are dramatically divided on the issue (recall the e-mail scandal etc.) If the practitioners of the religion of 'science' cannot even agree on the assumptions being made then why should i take one side or another? Also I know politicians very well I know what drives them and I know they are filthy liars, so when they tell me the sky is falling i tend to immediately be skeptical. Especially when the statements have such deleterious effect
@chemicalsweet13 The scientists really arent so divided at all. And even if they were, why indeed should you "take one side or another"? Because the stakes are so high, of course. Suppose 30% of serious climatologists would defend the position that there is no evidence for greenhouse warming. Even then action should be considered since it could lead to a worldwide catastrophe. But again, they arent 30%, let alone there should be that many who believe theres evidence against it.
@chemicalsweet13 Really, the vast vast majority of scientists agree on this. No, go on, show me otherwise. There are people who will make it seem otherwise, again, they are the political noisemakers, those who are willing to gamble away our future over a taste of political mastery.
Besides, science a religion? So who do you imagine are the champions that defend humanity from this greenhouse conspiracy? Scientists? Politicians? :)
Not that it matters because the evidence speaks for itself...
@wishcraft4u2 Seeing that i'm not going to convince you anytime soon on this subject and since i don't know you it really doesn't matter to me; let's just concede the main point: there are serious problems with pollution today; problems that effect our air, water and food sources. Something comprehensive and drastic must be done to fix this. Now the question of of details really doesn't figure in until we start talking about the solution and that is what we should be focused on.
@chemicalsweet13 Lol suddenly it seems like you dont disagree with my point at all. How peculiar! Anyways, you do what you feel like by all means of course :)
@wishcraft4u2 I don't disagree that pollution is a problem, the question of whether it's causing global warming is quite another issue but in my opinion one that doesn't matter. I'm not the type of person who does whatever I feel like. I believe in discipline and rules and structure. What I want is a plan that addresses the issues of improving/preserving air, water and food quality. That would have to include eliminating genetically altered foods and animals, safer oil collection methods,
@wishcraft4u2 provisions for more organically grown foods and animals, long term solutions for emissions that harm air quality and more. All of which would have to be done in such a way as to benefit middle class people. Pollution is literally everywhere, from the foods that we eat to the drugs we're being sold by pharma companies and it ALL must be eliminated, along with the PEOPLE who intentionally perpetrate various types of pollution on us for the purposes of population control and profit.
@wishcraft4u2 The ultimate goal of course is to improve the quality of life for EVERYONE living on this planet. Provide clean air, water and food along with non-harmful medicine etc. Let me ask you a question, since the late 80's i've been seeing plans for "greenhouse skyscrapers" huge vertically oriented green houses that provide a lot of crops with a small geographical foot print. Why do you think we haven't seen any of them built?
but it offends me that someone who so eagerly embraces the convenient opinion that climate science is this big hoax would be so eager to give lessons on how lack of vision and false ambitions cripple humanity's ability to shape its own future.
What is there left to say? All the facts are there for the reading, but you dismiss it as "religion"!
You should seriously first take a good look at the real basis for your assumptions, and then take a good look at yourself.
@wishcraft4u2 oh i see, you don't really care about the solution to our problem. You simply want to argue about your ridiculous theory. Thinking you would actually be interested in a solution was obviously giving people like you too much respect. Rather than focusing on resolving problems for humanity you want to stick to your repugnant and inconsequential argument. Keep it then you philistine but you'll be talking to yourself from here on.
@chemicalsweet13 So I am being selfish because I care more about this theoretical game called "the greenhouse effect is going to be a global catastrophy" than about the real future of mankind, is that it?
Whow...
Preventing global warming would be a solution to our problems, in a big way.
The point I was making is that you have little claim to this moral superiority you pretend to in your previous posts while you simply ignore perhaps the biggest problem out of pure psychological convenience.
@WarmongerWW3 Of course your correct; but that doesn't make it right. Besides, 'massive depopulation' leaves a lot of problems in it's wake, not the least of which is the fact that you and I would both be dead. It would behoove us, and the rest of the world to find a solution that doesn't include murdering millions of people.
@chemicalsweet13 That's your personal opinion. Particularly, I see no problem.
But if you are so sensible, the overpopulation can also be solved by a totalitarian global regime through laws to force people to be infertile. Mandatory surgeries, drugs in the water supply, etc.
@WarmongerWW3 all the things you described are already in practice and much more. That doesn't strike me as the 'sensible' option. On the other hand if you are feeling suicidal maybe some professional help should be sought. just a friendly suggestion.
This makes no sense to me. We're worried about Earth transitioning out of the "comfort zone", so we decide to purposely move to ANOTHER planet outside the comfort zone??? If hostile Mars can be adapted to support human life, then so could a hostile Earth. Think about it.
@Tribefull Earth isn't shifting out of the habitable zone, atleast not at a noticable rate. :) The main reason for terraforming isn't about room or comfort or anything, but about preservation of the human race. If a huge asteroid hit the earth, and wiped it clean of life, that would be OK, because there would be a completly self sufficient colony on mars, so we wouldn't go extinct. And also it would just be totally bad ass if we could do it!
@Helge129 That doesn't stop conspiracy theorists from thinking that the sapients, whoever they were, dug into MArtian aquifers to continue their civilisation there
@SCOREFIVE everyone will take a piece of the pie, I mean, planet. And if the communication is too distant, they may rebel without even us realising it.
@baabaaer i dont know about that, everyone is greedy they arent just going to give something like that to share i reckon they will be like kids " finders keepers no sharing" or it could go the other way around, it might even unite humanity or maybe they will leave all the poor people on earth and all the rich people will go to this new planet.
we probably wont see man on mars in our lifetime, but we sure will see those mushrooms a risin' as china rolls on in. LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS.
@Reyaweks War and space exploration are virtually inseparable. If you will see " those mushrooms a risin' as china rolls on in" this means that humans will become more and more able to colonize space.
@CHRISIDDON17 It will take 10,000 years at least for mars to be colonised and terraformed. Be grateful though, it took millions of years for our planet to be terraformed. :-)
after terraforming all we gotta do is find a way to reheat our planets cores, destroy black holes, and keep the sun going forever and humanity will never end.
@edvirus321 You do realize that black holes keep galaxies from separating and breaking up... Their gravitational pull keeps solar systems like ours in a trillion-year orbit. Although, we don't need a galaxy to exist as a lone solar system... it simply wouldn't be pretty. Say good bye to stars at night should we escape the galaxy. Just a PITCH BLACK sky except for the moon.
Plus we run the risk of getting sucked into a rogue black hole quietly lurking in the eternal blackness.
@soldierassasin dude you want to go to a shitty dark ugly planet and leave the blue sky blue water natural air green trees thousands of plants life behind for a pile of shit with nothing but rocks? we were created in earth are blood and dna is of the earth why the fuk would you leave this bueatiful planet for a giant red rock? and no im not sarcatic im serious
@soldierassasin you can make an ugly person look good but it will never be natural nothing beats naturalness and im not angry i only say the truth its destiny every being or life has lived then died the cycle will continue and i really dont think it will be possible to anyway i may be wrong but i might be right bye.
Picking the type of people to go will also make a difference between a successful mission, a delayed outcome, or a failed mission if they all kill each other after so much time alone in the black void. Remember Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy?
When they do this, Ill probably buy an old beat up fishing spaceship, hire some guy to help me bounty hunt, his name probably be Spike, I think Ill call the ship the Bebop
FOR ME....The Skies of Mars will be the new heaven and Mars itself will be the new earth as what i analyze in the bible..... GOD will create new heaven and new earth after his judgement...So, U think were all lucky? Only believes in HIM Can Live there...... No one can survive in mars for now.. But in time,, One who believes in him Can DO live someday
FOR ME....The Skies of Mars will be the new heaven and Mars itself will be the new earth as what i analyze in the bible..... GOD will create new heaven and new earth after his judgement...So, U think were all lucky? Only believes in HIM Can Live there...... No one can survive in mars for now.. But in time,, One who believes in HIm Can DO live someday
FOR ME....The Skies of Mars will be the new heaven and Mars itself will be the new earth as what i analyze in the bible..... GOD will create new heaven and new earth after HIS Judgement...So, U think were all lucky? Only believes in HIM Can Live there...... No one can survive in mars for now.. But in time,, One who believes in HIm Can DO live someday
FOR ME....The Skies of Mars will be the new heaven and Mars itself will be the new earth as what i analyze in the bible..... GOD will create new heaven and new earth after HIS judgement...So, U think were all lucky? Only believes in HIm Can Live there...... No one can survive in mars for now.. But in time,, One who believes in HIm Can DO live someday
FOR ME....The Skies of Mars will be the new heaven and Mars itself will be the new earth as what i analyze in the bible..... GOD will create new heaven and new earth after HIS judgement...So, U think were all lucky? Only believes in HIm Can Live there...... No one can survive in mars for now.. But in time,, One who believes in HIm Can DO live sumday
@nickflicks1128 I thought the little thumbnail on the right looked like him, I click on the link and it is! Love Sam, and I really hope he comes back for JPIV (though even he couldn't save III from sucking- that was Johnston's fault, as well as the writers).
Thing is you are right, Space Elevators are out of our technoloical grasp and our tallest structure to date is only half a mile high due to structual limitations. To make something 62 miles high would take alot of time, resources, money and the technological know how, all of which we don't have at the moment. Once VASIMIR's are built and launched, they would shorten joureny to even the moon from hours to minutes and are more cost effective with greater achieveable speeds.
@NANOFORGE Also developed and operational space stations in "orbit " around the moon when manned missions head for NEOs. In the meantime plans for manned missions to the moons of Mars (good location to make them into a 'space service center station).
Do want manned landings on Mars but they have to be able develop the ability to have underground bases there.
@rangeclerk Yes the bases would need to be underground as there is no protection from the suns cosmic rays on the surface. I think we could establish building on the surface of the moon but it's hulls would need to be lined with lead etc.
@NANOFORGE For a short time, systems were worked on during the 60s and 70s by North American Aviation which became part of ROCKWELL & MD all did design studies as to what kind of shelters could be built for the crews on the moon until underground systems could be established...In the late 1990s ROCKWELL sold to BOEING North American Aviation; MD merged with Boeing in the latter of 1990s as well..Boeing was Prime Contractor for the SATURN V 1st Stage-Boeing, 2nd-Stage NAA; 3rd-Stage-MD
@tandis97 Thats not possible and never will be. Suns need Hydrogen to keep burning. Although Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe it is limited. We cannot make replicators like on Star Trek that can make objects and atoms out of thin air, that is a sheer impossiblity. Stars will never last forever and will burn out. There are some things possible and some things that are not, to make stars last forever is one of them.
Terraforming on Mars has been the biggest con pulled on the scientific and American Communtiy by the same people who were and are against manned missions to the moon, the Space Shuttle Program, ISS and our rtn to the moon. Mars has no geomagentic field and as such any proto-atmosphere would be ripped way by the solar wind and CMEs! Additonal problems will be listed---waste of short amt of funds; use them to get us back to the moon and lunar settlements under moon surface! +Mining Operations!
@rangeclerk It is definitely possible. About 100 years ago, people lacked true scientifical advancements and thought that travel in space was preposterous. Now, in one decade, we have anti gravitational equipment, the space shuttle, primitive propulsion systems capable of reaching Saturn, and who knows what's lurking in secret military bases.
It can be done, and it has to be done to ensure the survival of mankind, as overpopulation is destroying the planet as we speak.
@KawasakiPlant terraforming studies are a total waste of very limited funds for getting us off this mudball and becoming a space-faring civilization---it would takes 100s if not 1000s of yrs even if Mars had what was needed and a total waste of resouces---Get back to manned landings on the moon, underground settlements. O'Neill Space Settlements--Mars has no geomag field and without one cannot shield from CMEs! "antigrav" u need to take basic science 101--u do not understand the concepts
@rangeclerk You are correct. Mars will never beable to support life even if we tried. The Gravity is too weak and thus the atmosphere will be thinner, plus with no Magnetosphere means no protection from harmful rays form the sun. The only real way to make Mars habitable is to bombard it with asteroids or moons to increase it's mass and gravity however this would take thousands of year to happen. And even after that the Sun would destroy Mars. Space Stations are the only option for now.
@NANOFORGE Thank You for your comments. For those that claim using asteroid/comet bombardments on Mars would increase its mass; it would be throwing away rare earth elements which can be used for space-based mining and industry. Also taken all the asteriods within our solar system the mass = about 1/1000 of the Earth! Humans could colonize Mars but in underground systems---this 'terraforming' crap even engulfed our moon, with some of them claiming we could do it to our Moon!
@rangeclerk About the asteroid thing, if we bombard it too much it could knock Mars of it's orbit or even destroy it. If we do increase the strength of it's gravity it would also effect the orbits of every other planet in the solar system for better or worse, everything in our solar system is bound by gravity and it is'nt wise to mess with it. People mention turning it's Magnetosphere on, it's not like there is a button to press, Mars has no Magnetosphere, and we can't just make one.
@rangeclerk To Teraform the moon is 10000% impossible. The moon is just a rock, that's the perfect discription of it. It barely has any gravity at all and has no atmosphere or Magetosphere. The only thing I can see the moon be used as is one big solar panel, a space station for NASA scientists and a ship launching platform. There is no possible way turn a baren rock like the moon into a Earth like planet.
@NANOFORGE Agree with you but believe it or not the 'terraforming crowd' has made the claim that they might be able to do it to the moon. There was a book in the late 70s early 80s written by James Oberg showing paintings of clouds and oceans on our moon! The astronomer I was working with at the time just shook his head and said; "wonder if they understood what kind of destruction that would cause the earth"? Those funds could be used for reasonable space-based studies...
@rangeclerk I bet that astronomer you were working with also thought the same thing as me....impossible. People who think terraforming is possible on every chunk of rock out there clearly know nothing about physics or astronomy. For one for an atmosphere to form requires gravity and to make the moon have an atmosphere in equal density to the Earth would mean making it's gravity and mass equal to the Earth's aswell as giving it a magnetosphere to stop the suns rays from eroding the atmosphere.
@rangeclerk Yet that has it's problems in the form of the unbelievable costs and recourses it would require being sent into space from Earth not to mention the amount of time it would take. It costs 1 Billion dollars just to send a Space Shuttle into orbit and would cost a whole lot more to make a 230,000 mile trip to the moon. Another problem is increasing a planets gravity will effect the entire solar system and would cause planetary orbits to shift and could also cause collisons.
@NANOFORGE The real problem, I think is those scientists who bring up 'terraforming*' as a possibility for Mars are usually the ones who are opposed to the shuttle and ISS programs...in the past I have heard them and seen some of their written statements where they question those space programs but then bring up TRF* as a reasonable approach---the cost of lunar flight next....
@rangeclerk There is also the Space Elevator which would illiminate a ships need to re-enter and return to the Earths surface. Ships can be built on Earth, send up and the they would dock at the counterweight which would most likely be a space station on the end of the elevator cable. That would be very cost efficient in the future to build a Space Elevator as instead of lauching shuttle to take supplies upto space stations, they can just be sent up in the Elevator with the push of a button.
@NANOFORGE The cost of lunar flight....from launch to Earth-orbit a ship uses about 1/2 of its fuel...now the trip to the moon and back is the other half of of the fuel...once in space, the costs drop way off---we think along the same lines---LEO and the Moon is where we need to establish our launch systems into the solar system; the moon is 'Titanium Mine" as so are the asteroids/comets---what a waste of stuff every time a comet flys-by and its material vaporizes into space...
@rangeclerk That is what we need to consider doing to make long distance space flights cheaper and easier to undertake. Ships will no longer have billions spent on them to be lauched from Earth, they would simply dock at the space station the space elevator is attached to and fuel and supplys can just simply be send up via the Elevator. Why start from Earth's surface and waste fuel when you can start from 62 miles up using a sling shot method saving fuel.
@NANOFORGE Well even that is problem for the foreseeable future as have heard those working on the concept admit the materials needed have not been developed yet. Have questions concerning the facts that at different alititudes above the earth there are different rotational velocities and cannot see how a 'space elevator' would avoid those problems---nevertheless we need to increase NASA's budget of 0.45%---get America back to the moon and start work on locating regions there for manufacturing..
@rangeclerk Scientists say that a Space Elevator would need to be made out of a material strong enough to support 21 miles of itself that would also withstand high altitude pressure and winds and also the Earth's gravity, the counterweight which would most likely be a large space station would support the Elevator to an extend but that would begin to lag due to orbit and would need to fire it's thrusters to stop it from snapping. They say that Carbon Nanotubes would a good construction material.
@NANOFORGE Well as u know there are no winds in space and the velocities at say 110 miles above the surface is faster then say at a distance of 1,000 miles above the earth. Here is the major problem; the technology nor the carbon Nanotubes, from what I have read do not exist yet. Instead of speculation(s) on future possible techologies use those funds to develop that we have today and have been developed such as the plasma engines being developed and tested by a retired astronaut
God i love this guy. Rember this dude From jurassic Park.
BackyardSpaceman 5 hours ago
Humans are destroying this planet. The air is polluted, the land is polluted, the water is polluted. And this is all being done for the profits of a few selfish people over the rest of us in a counterfeit money system. If human beings can't come together and share the resources of this planet and live in harmony with the Nature, how will they be able to survive on another planet? They will be killing and destroying there, also. We need a new human.
freedomfighterone 1 week ago
@freedomfighterone "We need a new human"
That's exactly what a woman thinks each time her biological clock ticks faster.
TableWolfMusic 2 days ago
@TableWolfMusic That's not what I meant when I said, "New Human." I'm talking about genetic evolution.
freedomfighterone 2 days ago
Dayium! It's Dr. Grant! How much cooler can you get?
FractalBolt 1 month ago
even if they somehow manage to terraform mars...i'm pretty sure fucking corporations would find a way to turn it into some kind of business where only the rich can go and evetone else withers and dies
LASuperboy 2 months ago
It is time for the eyes of the world to look to space again. We must chose to go to Mars, not out of greed, or international competition, but out of regard for us as a species. We must chose to go to Mars by the next decade, not because it's easy but because it is hard. Mankind must unit if it is to survive, are we to leave our children and grandchildren to a unsurvivable planet just because a few rich people didn't want higher taxes? It is time to start looking to the future.
southparkfan2717 2 months ago
If we could terraform mars and sustain human life beyond earth .I recommand we start as soon as possible .expanding our human race is the only way to escape extinction.
saberfb89 3 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Well, I'd like to keep Earth :) But Excellent :) Check out HomesWOW.com it has Yahoo! Real Esatte, zillow, trulia, har, zip realty and all home searches. It is now the largest Homes, MLS Real Estate site.
HomesWOWrealestate 3 months ago
Its far more likely we'll turn Earth into Mars rather than Mars into Earth
walter0bz 3 months ago 11
@walter0bz Explain.
Putz4Ever 1 month ago
@Putz4Ever -
environmental damage.
walter0bz 1 month ago
@walter0bz Well, the earth is always is danger whether or not we are even there to do anything about it, 90% of animals species have died, and of course its not our fault, its just the way the earth works, adaptation.
Putz4Ever 1 month ago
@Putz4Ever - the difference is we are doing avoidable deliberate damage rather than random damage.
walter0bz 1 month ago
@Putz4Ever -
a beetle that eats trees evolves slowly, as part of a balance (dynamic balance i know), and if those beetles become too numerous something else evolves to eat them.
But human brains engineer quickly and nature can't evolve around it, e.g. we decide to harvest trees nature can't keep up. We'd be waiting for a pandemic to keep us in check. Wouldn't it be smarter to avoid getting to that point, given that we can reason about it.
walter0bz 1 month ago
@walter0bz Why can't nature adapt quick enough to our imminent surroundings? I think you're forgetting that an comet hit earth 1 million years ago, and our planet it still alive and well. Earth and its inhabitants have been through ice ages, pole shifts, and disastrous phenomena we cant even account for, the only issue we need to wrap up is global warming, and that will be settled in the next 10 years, i dont think a single species will be held accountable for the death of its planet
Putz4Ever 1 month ago
@Putz4Ever - no, Nature can't adapt fast enough to cope with human action. evolution works very slowly.
Human action is easily equivalent to a comet impact or super volcano explosion, and the difference is we keep growing.
You want to keep growing till nature is forced to respond with a pandemic? unlike other species which rely on being eaten to stay in balance, we can plan ahead.
walter0bz 1 month ago
@Putz4Ever - we take a habitable earth for granted, yet oxygen is a gift from plants, before they evolved the atmosphere was c02 etc like other dead planets. as we dominate every species and play havoc , we do indeed risk doing irreversible damage... or at least damaging it in a way that it's no longer habitable to us. nature evolved balancing symbiosis over time via trial and error (destructive species creates feedback that extincts it), at the minute humans are looking more like "error"
walter0bz 1 month ago
@walter0bz Again, this is as said caused by global warming or is an alternate to it, yes there is more Co2 then there was 100 years ago, but we could easily solve this issue, either by planting more trees, or even stopping the production of these cars itself, the government is already releasing chemical trails into the air that merge with co2 and form compounds heavier then air, solving our problem, tell me, have you, physically, without tv, noticed any difference in the world?
Putz4Ever 1 month ago
@Putz4Ever
>>"noticed any difference in the world?"
- this is a bit immature..
we're talking trends that play out over decades, recorded history is billions of years.
But for the record, yes. more extreme winds and there used to be more recognizable 'proper seasons' when I was a kid.
walter0bz 1 month ago
@Putz4Ever
we can't just stop car production - it's the use of fossil fuels generally which allows 7billion people to exist (population used to be in the 100m's range prior to industrial revolution).
we have fast forwarded a geological age.
cars are the least of the problems. it's FF's applied to agriculture,trade,industry that allowed an exponential human population explosion independently of our balanced place in the biosphere as part of a plant-animal symbiosis.
walter0bz 1 month ago
@Putz4Ever - Speculation about pollution started at the beginning of the industrial revolution when london very quickly became smog ridden, and they asked the very valid question "what if every city did this and it continued for decades". whether it's global warming/dimming/acid rain, it's highly likely that sustained release of material into the atmosphere will cause some sort of change which may , from our POV , be for the worst.
walter0bz 1 month ago
@Putz4Ever - currently 7billion people; without fossil fuels, earth will only support 2billion max
walter0bz 1 month ago
@walter0bz Well thats no problem since the death rate is overpowering the birth rate in most countries like Canada and africa.
Putz4Ever 1 month ago
@Putz4Ever -
There are a small number of countries with declining populations, if you understand mathematical limits you know the population graph will tend toward that of the ones that are rising. also I don't think africa is declining. Maybe all is well with the world in your particular bubble but the world as a whole is in a bad way..
walter0bz 1 month ago
@walter0bz The world is fine, it will not die, and we are not overpopulated, there are species in our world that overpopulate us 4 to 1, and only 33% of animals have been identified.
Putz4Ever 1 month ago
@Putz4Ever -
The best word is Overshoot. if you understand the process of fossil-fueled overshoot - and the extent to which we have overwhelmed entire ecosystems you should be very afraid.
it shows up first in the current economic crisis, perpetual growth engine hitting the limits..
walter0bz 1 month ago
@walter0bz Scientists are already prepared and know what to do when the sun dies 6 billion years from now, i sure any of these issues you seem to constantly bring up are reversible. We can repair our ozone layer, so much so that we are planning on building one on mars.
Putz4Ever 1 month ago
@Putz4Ever
LMAO.
we're planning to build one on mars?
this is Science Fiction.
the industrial age is built on millions of years of energy stored in algae.
Mars has no resources worth the travel.. no energy stores. just rust.
it is 1/3rd the surface area of earth, and has no van-alan-belt - the planet lost its internal heat.
fossil fuels gave us an age equivalent to finding another 7 earths
walter0bz 1 month ago
@walter0bz Are you kidding me? Mars has an atmosphere although very thin, it also has necessary chemicals like co2, h2o, argon, and much more, it's tectonic plates are STILL moving, and there are still monoxide fumes being released from its surface meaning their is either bacerial life esposing it, or there is volcanic activity under there. It is a living planet, scientists already have a way to strengthen the atmosphere through a release of co2, its far form science fiction...
Putz4Ever 1 month ago
@Putz4Ever
LMAO.
we're not going anywhere after peak oil.
and even if we could, mars's carrying capacity would be tiny compared to what we used to on earth under fossil fueled conditions
walter0bz 1 month ago
@walter0bz
Old fashioned thinking won't carry us into the future.
asubjectiveopinion 1 month ago
@asubjectiveopinion - neither will unrealistic thinking.
walter0bz 1 month ago
@Putz4Ever mars lacks the linear mountain ranges /ridges that would show evidence of plate tectonics
walter0bz 1 month ago
@walter0bz Which is what the scientists saw before they sent rovers to mars. How are they lacking mountain ranges? There are thousands of mountains taller then mount everest stretched along side mars. They even found layers of bedrock on the side of mountains meaning there used to be flowing water there.
Putz4Ever 1 month ago
@Putz4Ever -not the linear ranges typical of plates being suashed together at boundaries.
there USED to be plate tectonics, but no more.
google "mars tectonics", all the links appear to say 'no tectonics', with the explanation i gave as one telltale sign.
walter0bz 1 month ago
@walter0bz Alright, but mind enlightening me on why we need plate tectonics?
Putz4Ever 1 month ago
@Putz4Ever -
google "plate tectonics life" and read.
but other than the info presented there, plate tectonics are one symptom of a hot liquid core. the other is the **Strong Magnetic Field**. this is much more important. Mars has a thin atmosphere because it lacks the Van Alan Belt - cosmic rays erode the atmosphere and would cause cancers for any life. If you want to live on mars, you need to provide power for this service we take for granted on earth
walter0bz 1 month ago
@Putz4Ever
Canada?! Canada of all places? o.0 Why and how?
FrostbitexP 3 weeks ago
@FrostbitexP No, in canada the death rate is exceeding thing birth rate, this was confirmed by my teachers at my university.
Putz4Ever 3 weeks ago
@Putz4Ever
Is that recent information? Because i looked up data that was recorded in june 2011.
FrostbitexP 3 weeks ago
@FrostbitexP I am pretty sure, since i was last beefed up on the statistics last month.
Putz4Ever 3 weeks ago
@Putz4Ever
Checked data from jan 1st...birth rate is still higher than death...
FrostbitexP 3 weeks ago
@Putz4Ever
Just looked it up...Birth rate is MORE than death rate...-.-
FrostbitexP 3 weeks ago
@Putz4Ever
And africa? Africa is claimed to be one of the largest rising populations?
FrostbitexP 3 weeks ago
we aiteeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!
jwhite50421 4 months ago
Zubrin seems happy in this documentary. He is usually pissed off every waking moment.
SpazzyMcGee1337 4 months ago
He sure seems positive about terraforming Mars for a man who was nearly eaten alive by velociraptors last time men played god.
SpazzyMcGee1337 4 months ago
Mars has almost no magnetic field...we'd die from solar flares. It's impossible to terraform mars...don't even try..
chaosbringer127 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Throughout human history, we have been destroyers of life, now it is our chance to turn that around, we shall terraform Mars! is that the chance you are willing to miss out? Humanity can be the seeds of life, we will terraform Mars!
curingaging00 4 months ago 3
haha moxy i think it is all about money it would cost billions and billons to do any thing like this
n1234ick 4 months ago
hahaha, I remember this programme right when I was a wee boy, and I asked my dad, dad im scared, he says in the future we are all going to die!
And my dad had a discussion with me and I presumed from what he said that 'The future' was simply the people on the television :L
xaxie1 4 months ago
yay its the dinosaur man! :)
saulwilliams56 4 months ago 11
#FREE fill up of hot-air balloons 24/7 at Darvaz Pit,the real cause of global warming and low oxygen levels #FAIL
2sillytube 5 months ago
#FAIL 7:28 the plants that create oxygen ? biosphere scientists believed this theory and almost suffocated,get oxygen from melting ice
blackle4ps3 5 months ago
7:28 the plants that create oxygen ? seemingly biosphere scientists believed in this theory and almost suffocated,get oxygen from melting ice #LLAP #climate #china #Obama
blackle4ps3 5 months ago
we will be wiped out when the ice melts, cos were stupid enough to not do nothing cos it costs too much.
opollo 5 months ago
@opollo We'll be on Mars long before the Ice Melts
ThatAdelaideGuy 5 months ago
Fuck you, Sun. :(
Trentest0 5 months ago
OH SHIT! IT'S DR. WEIR FROM 'EVENT HORIZON!!!! HOW THE HELL DID HE GET BACK FROM THE CHAOS DIMENSION!?!
helljumpr5150 5 months ago
@helljumpr5150 LET ME SHOW YOU *horror sequence*
adze1969 5 months ago
There are lots of questions about Mars lack of magnetosphere. Once you teraform Mars and give it a thick atmosphere like the Earth, it's atmosphere and future ozone would protect us from alot of the radiation, however the biggest problem is without a magnetosphere, solar flares can blow off the atmosphere.
However it would take millions of years to blow off to the point of inhabitability again, between those times we can construct an artificial magnetic field.
SereneiBE 6 months ago
an artificial magnetic field would take technology beyond our current comprehension. But again it would take millions of years for the sun to blow off most of the newly teraformed planet of Mars, so we might have quite some time.
SereneiBE 6 months ago
Why isn't NASA doing shit like this now? Seesh. We'll need a new home eventually1
MrJ2234 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The pacifist threat must be avoided if we want to survive. We will need more wars to encourage technological development to colonize space.
WarmongerWW3 6 months ago
4 Martians disliked this.
Grog85 7 months ago
It's curious that people are always worrying about how we would terraform other planets or maybe moons or how to live there in bases. But it would really be vastly more economical to live in huge rotating space stations. It would create unfathomable richess from mining meteors (often pure metal) and zeroG industry.
Think about it:
we spent thousands of years basically trying to clamber out of a huge gravity well (earth). Lets jump down the next one on the road, it'll feel so much like home!
wishcraft4u2 7 months ago
there you have it. Humans are not the cause of global warming. they just said it. it's simply the fact the the "safe zone" is moving. nothing we can do about that.
chemicalsweet13 7 months ago
@chemicalsweet13 Actually, this moving of the comfort zone has little to do with the current global warming problem: it's on a completely different scale. They dont really mention this clearly. And the suggestion that this is something we should be worrying about insinuates the same level of urgency. Well its not, greenhouse warming would be a matter of decades. The sun getting hotter *might* matter on a scale of centuries. reducing greenhouse effects seems cheaper than moving to space...
wishcraft4u2 7 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 That seems like a pretty good explanation but I still don't buy the global warming thing. I do however believe that we should do everything we can to clean up the planet, especially the air and water because it's our duty to do so and because it makes for a better quality of life for future generations. I just don't think it's being done correctly at present.
chemicalsweet13 7 months ago
@chemicalsweet13 Why dont you buy it actually? Glaciers are disappearing that have been around for milennia. Climate scientists generally agree that it is happening. It's just people with a non-scientific agenda foolish enough to believe they are going to gain something by claiming the opposite who are creating misinformation. Why would you even take chances with something like that?
wishcraft4u2 7 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 Hahaha, the "scientists" disagree a lot and besides they haven't shown any proof that global warming is a direct result of carbon dioxide emissions from humans. It seems more like a trend to me. Just part of the natural ebb and flow of the earth. They elitists are using 'global warming' as an excuse to affect the changes they want in the economy. My solution would be very different. Not that it matters what my solution would be.
chemicalsweet13 7 months ago
@chemicalsweet13 First of all, why would you even doubt it? Science is supposed to be transparent, that means they actually write down the complete argumentation leading to their conclusions in publications. You just assume people wouldnt disagree with scientists if there wouldnt be something wrong with their arguments, well there isnt. Wouldnt you rather question the motives of those who insist to disagree? Dont you think its more convenient for politicians to allow unhealthy economical growth?
wishcraft4u2 7 months ago
@chemicalsweet13 So what reason do you really have to assume politicians would care more to have people believe in the greenhouse effect than otherwise? Dont you think maybe its because politicians keep trolling the public on global warming that you even doubt science on this in the first place?
Really, the greenhouse properties of these gases are rather straightforward. If the climate wouldnt be changing that'd really be something strange, since we know thats how it works... And it is changing.
wishcraft4u2 7 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 I stated one reason already, the 'scientists' are dramatically divided on the issue (recall the e-mail scandal etc.) If the practitioners of the religion of 'science' cannot even agree on the assumptions being made then why should i take one side or another? Also I know politicians very well I know what drives them and I know they are filthy liars, so when they tell me the sky is falling i tend to immediately be skeptical. Especially when the statements have such deleterious effect
chemicalsweet13 7 months ago
@chemicalsweet13 The scientists really arent so divided at all. And even if they were, why indeed should you "take one side or another"? Because the stakes are so high, of course. Suppose 30% of serious climatologists would defend the position that there is no evidence for greenhouse warming. Even then action should be considered since it could lead to a worldwide catastrophe. But again, they arent 30%, let alone there should be that many who believe theres evidence against it.
wishcraft4u2 7 months ago
@chemicalsweet13 Really, the vast vast majority of scientists agree on this. No, go on, show me otherwise. There are people who will make it seem otherwise, again, they are the political noisemakers, those who are willing to gamble away our future over a taste of political mastery.
Besides, science a religion? So who do you imagine are the champions that defend humanity from this greenhouse conspiracy? Scientists? Politicians? :)
Not that it matters because the evidence speaks for itself...
wishcraft4u2 7 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 Seeing that i'm not going to convince you anytime soon on this subject and since i don't know you it really doesn't matter to me; let's just concede the main point: there are serious problems with pollution today; problems that effect our air, water and food sources. Something comprehensive and drastic must be done to fix this. Now the question of of details really doesn't figure in until we start talking about the solution and that is what we should be focused on.
chemicalsweet13 7 months ago
@chemicalsweet13 Lol suddenly it seems like you dont disagree with my point at all. How peculiar! Anyways, you do what you feel like by all means of course :)
wishcraft4u2 7 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 I don't disagree that pollution is a problem, the question of whether it's causing global warming is quite another issue but in my opinion one that doesn't matter. I'm not the type of person who does whatever I feel like. I believe in discipline and rules and structure. What I want is a plan that addresses the issues of improving/preserving air, water and food quality. That would have to include eliminating genetically altered foods and animals, safer oil collection methods,
chemicalsweet13 7 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 provisions for more organically grown foods and animals, long term solutions for emissions that harm air quality and more. All of which would have to be done in such a way as to benefit middle class people. Pollution is literally everywhere, from the foods that we eat to the drugs we're being sold by pharma companies and it ALL must be eliminated, along with the PEOPLE who intentionally perpetrate various types of pollution on us for the purposes of population control and profit.
chemicalsweet13 7 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 The ultimate goal of course is to improve the quality of life for EVERYONE living on this planet. Provide clean air, water and food along with non-harmful medicine etc. Let me ask you a question, since the late 80's i've been seeing plans for "greenhouse skyscrapers" huge vertically oriented green houses that provide a lot of crops with a small geographical foot print. Why do you think we haven't seen any of them built?
chemicalsweet13 7 months ago
@chemicalsweet13 Im sorry,
but it offends me that someone who so eagerly embraces the convenient opinion that climate science is this big hoax would be so eager to give lessons on how lack of vision and false ambitions cripple humanity's ability to shape its own future.
What is there left to say? All the facts are there for the reading, but you dismiss it as "religion"!
You should seriously first take a good look at the real basis for your assumptions, and then take a good look at yourself.
wishcraft4u2 7 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 oh i see, you don't really care about the solution to our problem. You simply want to argue about your ridiculous theory. Thinking you would actually be interested in a solution was obviously giving people like you too much respect. Rather than focusing on resolving problems for humanity you want to stick to your repugnant and inconsequential argument. Keep it then you philistine but you'll be talking to yourself from here on.
chemicalsweet13 7 months ago
@chemicalsweet13 So I am being selfish because I care more about this theoretical game called "the greenhouse effect is going to be a global catastrophy" than about the real future of mankind, is that it?
Whow...
Preventing global warming would be a solution to our problems, in a big way.
The point I was making is that you have little claim to this moral superiority you pretend to in your previous posts while you simply ignore perhaps the biggest problem out of pure psychological convenience.
wishcraft4u2 7 months ago
@chemicalsweet13 Massive depopulation is the most efficient way to solve the problem.
WarmongerWW3 6 months ago
@WarmongerWW3 Of course your correct; but that doesn't make it right. Besides, 'massive depopulation' leaves a lot of problems in it's wake, not the least of which is the fact that you and I would both be dead. It would behoove us, and the rest of the world to find a solution that doesn't include murdering millions of people.
chemicalsweet13 6 months ago
@chemicalsweet13 That's your personal opinion. Particularly, I see no problem.
But if you are so sensible, the overpopulation can also be solved by a totalitarian global regime through laws to force people to be infertile. Mandatory surgeries, drugs in the water supply, etc.
WarmongerWW3 6 months ago
@WarmongerWW3 all the things you described are already in practice and much more. That doesn't strike me as the 'sensible' option. On the other hand if you are feeling suicidal maybe some professional help should be sought. just a friendly suggestion.
chemicalsweet13 6 months ago
@chemicalsweet13 Of course all the things I described are already in practice but needs to be intensified.
WarmongerWW3 6 months ago
3:32 LOOK A RAINBOW! :DDD
attackperson47 6 months ago
We need another cold war, hence, another space race.
EODsplosion 7 months ago
This makes no sense to me. We're worried about Earth transitioning out of the "comfort zone", so we decide to purposely move to ANOTHER planet outside the comfort zone??? If hostile Mars can be adapted to support human life, then so could a hostile Earth. Think about it.
Tribefull 7 months ago
@Tribefull Earth isn't shifting out of the habitable zone, atleast not at a noticable rate. :) The main reason for terraforming isn't about room or comfort or anything, but about preservation of the human race. If a huge asteroid hit the earth, and wiped it clean of life, that would be OK, because there would be a completly self sufficient colony on mars, so we wouldn't go extinct. And also it would just be totally bad ass if we could do it!
omgwtfbbqxD 7 months ago
@omgwtfbbqxD Oh for sure! I'm not saying we shouldn't do it. I was just confused by the way they presented the idea.
Tribefull 7 months ago
@z98indiegames There never were humanoids, or sapients for that matter, on Mars. It losts its water and most of its atmosphere too long ago.
Helge129 7 months ago
@Helge129 That doesn't stop conspiracy theorists from thinking that the sapients, whoever they were, dug into MArtian aquifers to continue their civilisation there
baabaaer 7 months ago
you bread raptors???????
bigbluntburnin22 8 months ago
okay lets say that we do find a planet where humans can live. Who will it belong to ? USA ? Russia? i smell another war :D
SCOREFIVE 8 months ago
@SCOREFIVE who ever funds the expedition.
fishtankbank 8 months ago
@SCOREFIVE everyone will take a piece of the pie, I mean, planet. And if the communication is too distant, they may rebel without even us realising it.
baabaaer 7 months ago
@baabaaer i dont know about that, everyone is greedy they arent just going to give something like that to share i reckon they will be like kids " finders keepers no sharing" or it could go the other way around, it might even unite humanity or maybe they will leave all the poor people on earth and all the rich people will go to this new planet.
SCOREFIVE 7 months ago
i hope im alive to see man on mars !
CHRISIDDON17 8 months ago 25
@CHRISIDDON17
we probably wont see man on mars in our lifetime, but we sure will see those mushrooms a risin' as china rolls on in. LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS.
Reyaweks 5 months ago
@Reyaweks War and space exploration are virtually inseparable. If you will see " those mushrooms a risin' as china rolls on in" this means that humans will become more and more able to colonize space.
WarmongerWW3 5 months ago
@CHRISIDDON17 lol you wont be nyuckah
iNarbage 4 months ago
@CHRISIDDON17 It will take 10,000 years at least for mars to be colonised and terraformed. Be grateful though, it took millions of years for our planet to be terraformed. :-)
Montyleeny14 4 months ago
@CHRISIDDON17 They say children today may live to 1000
TheHappyWhaleshark 1 month ago
@TheHappyWhaleshark I heard 1200.
Maddolis 1 month ago
after terraforming all we gotta do is find a way to reheat our planets cores, destroy black holes, and keep the sun going forever and humanity will never end.
edvirus321 9 months ago
@edvirus321 and try not to kill our selfs off in the prosses
eorgeburns7 9 months ago
@edvirus321 You do realize that black holes keep galaxies from separating and breaking up... Their gravitational pull keeps solar systems like ours in a trillion-year orbit. Although, we don't need a galaxy to exist as a lone solar system... it simply wouldn't be pretty. Say good bye to stars at night should we escape the galaxy. Just a PITCH BLACK sky except for the moon.
Plus we run the risk of getting sucked into a rogue black hole quietly lurking in the eternal blackness.
Xilosphere 8 months ago
@Xilosphere I didnt mean to destroy all the black holes we could find, just the ones like you said, posed a threat.
edvirus321 8 months ago
fuck mars i was born in earth and will stay and die in my beautiful planet
TheAlivstyson 9 months ago
@TheAlivstyson I'd rather live on a far away space colony
ELEMENT1111100 9 months ago
@TheAlivstyson Your Earthly pride blinds you from logic.Earth is not beautiful it's full of pollution,war,disease,and crime.
I hope you were being sarcastic.
soldierassasin 4 months ago
@soldierassasin dude you want to go to a shitty dark ugly planet and leave the blue sky blue water natural air green trees thousands of plants life behind for a pile of shit with nothing but rocks? we were created in earth are blood and dna is of the earth why the fuk would you leave this bueatiful planet for a giant red rock? and no im not sarcatic im serious
TheAlivstyson 4 months ago
@TheAlivstyson You can make Mars feel just like Earth after some terra forming.If you want to die here fine by me but there's no need to get angry.
soldierassasin 4 months ago
@soldierassasin you can make an ugly person look good but it will never be natural nothing beats naturalness and im not angry i only say the truth its destiny every being or life has lived then died the cycle will continue and i really dont think it will be possible to anyway i may be wrong but i might be right bye.
TheAlivstyson 4 months ago
@TheAlivstyson You are right in one sense but things change.
Melozerg 2 months ago
Picking the type of people to go will also make a difference between a successful mission, a delayed outcome, or a failed mission if they all kill each other after so much time alone in the black void. Remember Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy?
helljumpr5150 9 months ago
@herpderp691 And politics, and kill all people of different colors! Bann free speech to eliminate the risk of people building their own opinion!
ohedd 9 months ago
4:29 animals can adapt to the temparature ...
SmoshFan4ever101 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Upvote this if Nasa should get more money from the Federal Government.
anthonysuliman 10 months ago
Comment removed
ecemkarthick 10 months ago
What about the magnetic field that mars does not have?
Mowglibaloo2 11 months ago
Sam Neil is awesome
yorgan007 11 months ago
@yorgan007 Yes. Yes he is. :D
sonbuhitsunei 10 months ago
When they do this, Ill probably buy an old beat up fishing spaceship, hire some guy to help me bounty hunt, his name probably be Spike, I think Ill call the ship the Bebop
agip07 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FOR ME....The Skies of Mars will be the new heaven and Mars itself will be the new earth as what i analyze in the bible..... GOD will create new heaven and new earth after his judgement...So, U think were all lucky? Only believes in HIM Can Live there...... No one can survive in mars for now.. But in time,, One who believes in him Can DO live someday
tototlola 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FOR ME....The Skies of Mars will be the new heaven and Mars itself will be the new earth as what i analyze in the bible..... GOD will create new heaven and new earth after his judgement...So, U think were all lucky? Only believes in HIM Can Live there...... No one can survive in mars for now.. But in time,, One who believes in HIm Can DO live someday
tototlola 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FOR ME....The Skies of Mars will be the new heaven and Mars itself will be the new earth as what i analyze in the bible..... GOD will create new heaven and new earth after HIS Judgement...So, U think were all lucky? Only believes in HIM Can Live there...... No one can survive in mars for now.. But in time,, One who believes in HIm Can DO live someday
tototlola 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FOR ME....The Skies of Mars will be the new heaven and Mars itself will be the new earth as what i analyze in the bible..... GOD will create new heaven and new earth after HIS judgement...So, U think were all lucky? Only believes in HIm Can Live there...... No one can survive in mars for now.. But in time,, One who believes in HIm Can DO live someday
tototlola 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FOR ME....The Skies of Mars will be the new heaven and Mars itself will be the new earth as what i analyze in the bible..... GOD will create new heaven and new earth after HIS judgement...So, U think were all lucky? Only believes in HIm Can Live there...... No one can survive in mars for now.. But in time,, One who believes in HIm Can DO live sumday
tototlola 11 months ago
@tototlola what a strange belief you have about mars :D
SCOREFIVE 7 months ago
3 viewers must be Christian fundamentalists
PsexyPsychopath 1 year ago
Is this Sam Neil from Jurassic Park? It is!
nickflicks1128 1 year ago 22
@nickflicks1128 no
AnimalStomper 10 months ago
@nickflicks1128 I thought the little thumbnail on the right looked like him, I click on the link and it is! Love Sam, and I really hope he comes back for JPIV (though even he couldn't save III from sucking- that was Johnston's fault, as well as the writers).
sonbuhitsunei 10 months ago
Thing is you are right, Space Elevators are out of our technoloical grasp and our tallest structure to date is only half a mile high due to structual limitations. To make something 62 miles high would take alot of time, resources, money and the technological know how, all of which we don't have at the moment. Once VASIMIR's are built and launched, they would shorten joureny to even the moon from hours to minutes and are more cost effective with greater achieveable speeds.
NANOFORGE 1 year ago
@NANOFORGE Also developed and operational space stations in "orbit " around the moon when manned missions head for NEOs. In the meantime plans for manned missions to the moons of Mars (good location to make them into a 'space service center station).
Do want manned landings on Mars but they have to be able develop the ability to have underground bases there.
rangeclerk 1 year ago
@rangeclerk Yes the bases would need to be underground as there is no protection from the suns cosmic rays on the surface. I think we could establish building on the surface of the moon but it's hulls would need to be lined with lead etc.
NANOFORGE 1 year ago
@NANOFORGE For a short time, systems were worked on during the 60s and 70s by North American Aviation which became part of ROCKWELL & MD all did design studies as to what kind of shelters could be built for the crews on the moon until underground systems could be established...In the late 1990s ROCKWELL sold to BOEING North American Aviation; MD merged with Boeing in the latter of 1990s as well..Boeing was Prime Contractor for the SATURN V 1st Stage-Boeing, 2nd-Stage NAA; 3rd-Stage-MD
rangeclerk 1 year ago
lol if humans are to survive 7 bilion years. we would have some sort of tech to keep the sun alive forever XD
tandis97 1 year ago
@tandis97 Thats not possible and never will be. Suns need Hydrogen to keep burning. Although Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe it is limited. We cannot make replicators like on Star Trek that can make objects and atoms out of thin air, that is a sheer impossiblity. Stars will never last forever and will burn out. There are some things possible and some things that are not, to make stars last forever is one of them.
NANOFORGE 1 year ago
@NANOFORGE ye but. cmon 7 bil. years you could never know :P
tandis97 1 year ago
It's called paraterraforming, that technology IS available at the moment.
Cloakoa 1 year ago
Terraforming on Mars has been the biggest con pulled on the scientific and American Communtiy by the same people who were and are against manned missions to the moon, the Space Shuttle Program, ISS and our rtn to the moon. Mars has no geomagentic field and as such any proto-atmosphere would be ripped way by the solar wind and CMEs! Additonal problems will be listed---waste of short amt of funds; use them to get us back to the moon and lunar settlements under moon surface! +Mining Operations!
rangeclerk 1 year ago
@rangeclerk It is definitely possible. About 100 years ago, people lacked true scientifical advancements and thought that travel in space was preposterous. Now, in one decade, we have anti gravitational equipment, the space shuttle, primitive propulsion systems capable of reaching Saturn, and who knows what's lurking in secret military bases.
It can be done, and it has to be done to ensure the survival of mankind, as overpopulation is destroying the planet as we speak.
KawasakiPlant 1 year ago
@KawasakiPlant terraforming studies are a total waste of very limited funds for getting us off this mudball and becoming a space-faring civilization---it would takes 100s if not 1000s of yrs even if Mars had what was needed and a total waste of resouces---Get back to manned landings on the moon, underground settlements. O'Neill Space Settlements--Mars has no geomag field and without one cannot shield from CMEs! "antigrav" u need to take basic science 101--u do not understand the concepts
rangeclerk 1 year ago
@rangeclerk You are correct. Mars will never beable to support life even if we tried. The Gravity is too weak and thus the atmosphere will be thinner, plus with no Magnetosphere means no protection from harmful rays form the sun. The only real way to make Mars habitable is to bombard it with asteroids or moons to increase it's mass and gravity however this would take thousands of year to happen. And even after that the Sun would destroy Mars. Space Stations are the only option for now.
NANOFORGE 1 year ago
@NANOFORGE Thank You for your comments. For those that claim using asteroid/comet bombardments on Mars would increase its mass; it would be throwing away rare earth elements which can be used for space-based mining and industry. Also taken all the asteriods within our solar system the mass = about 1/1000 of the Earth! Humans could colonize Mars but in underground systems---this 'terraforming' crap even engulfed our moon, with some of them claiming we could do it to our Moon!
rangeclerk 1 year ago
@rangeclerk About the asteroid thing, if we bombard it too much it could knock Mars of it's orbit or even destroy it. If we do increase the strength of it's gravity it would also effect the orbits of every other planet in the solar system for better or worse, everything in our solar system is bound by gravity and it is'nt wise to mess with it. People mention turning it's Magnetosphere on, it's not like there is a button to press, Mars has no Magnetosphere, and we can't just make one.
NANOFORGE 1 year ago
@rangeclerk To Teraform the moon is 10000% impossible. The moon is just a rock, that's the perfect discription of it. It barely has any gravity at all and has no atmosphere or Magetosphere. The only thing I can see the moon be used as is one big solar panel, a space station for NASA scientists and a ship launching platform. There is no possible way turn a baren rock like the moon into a Earth like planet.
NANOFORGE 1 year ago
@NANOFORGE Agree with you but believe it or not the 'terraforming crowd' has made the claim that they might be able to do it to the moon. There was a book in the late 70s early 80s written by James Oberg showing paintings of clouds and oceans on our moon! The astronomer I was working with at the time just shook his head and said; "wonder if they understood what kind of destruction that would cause the earth"? Those funds could be used for reasonable space-based studies...
rangeclerk 1 year ago
@rangeclerk I bet that astronomer you were working with also thought the same thing as me....impossible. People who think terraforming is possible on every chunk of rock out there clearly know nothing about physics or astronomy. For one for an atmosphere to form requires gravity and to make the moon have an atmosphere in equal density to the Earth would mean making it's gravity and mass equal to the Earth's aswell as giving it a magnetosphere to stop the suns rays from eroding the atmosphere.
NANOFORGE 1 year ago
@rangeclerk Yet that has it's problems in the form of the unbelievable costs and recourses it would require being sent into space from Earth not to mention the amount of time it would take. It costs 1 Billion dollars just to send a Space Shuttle into orbit and would cost a whole lot more to make a 230,000 mile trip to the moon. Another problem is increasing a planets gravity will effect the entire solar system and would cause planetary orbits to shift and could also cause collisons.
NANOFORGE 1 year ago
@NANOFORGE The real problem, I think is those scientists who bring up 'terraforming*' as a possibility for Mars are usually the ones who are opposed to the shuttle and ISS programs...in the past I have heard them and seen some of their written statements where they question those space programs but then bring up TRF* as a reasonable approach---the cost of lunar flight next....
rangeclerk 1 year ago
@rangeclerk There is also the Space Elevator which would illiminate a ships need to re-enter and return to the Earths surface. Ships can be built on Earth, send up and the they would dock at the counterweight which would most likely be a space station on the end of the elevator cable. That would be very cost efficient in the future to build a Space Elevator as instead of lauching shuttle to take supplies upto space stations, they can just be sent up in the Elevator with the push of a button.
NANOFORGE 1 year ago
@NANOFORGE The cost of lunar flight....from launch to Earth-orbit a ship uses about 1/2 of its fuel...now the trip to the moon and back is the other half of of the fuel...once in space, the costs drop way off---we think along the same lines---LEO and the Moon is where we need to establish our launch systems into the solar system; the moon is 'Titanium Mine" as so are the asteroids/comets---what a waste of stuff every time a comet flys-by and its material vaporizes into space...
rangeclerk 1 year ago
@rangeclerk That is what we need to consider doing to make long distance space flights cheaper and easier to undertake. Ships will no longer have billions spent on them to be lauched from Earth, they would simply dock at the space station the space elevator is attached to and fuel and supplys can just simply be send up via the Elevator. Why start from Earth's surface and waste fuel when you can start from 62 miles up using a sling shot method saving fuel.
NANOFORGE 1 year ago
@NANOFORGE Well even that is problem for the foreseeable future as have heard those working on the concept admit the materials needed have not been developed yet. Have questions concerning the facts that at different alititudes above the earth there are different rotational velocities and cannot see how a 'space elevator' would avoid those problems---nevertheless we need to increase NASA's budget of 0.45%---get America back to the moon and start work on locating regions there for manufacturing..
rangeclerk 1 year ago
@rangeclerk Scientists say that a Space Elevator would need to be made out of a material strong enough to support 21 miles of itself that would also withstand high altitude pressure and winds and also the Earth's gravity, the counterweight which would most likely be a large space station would support the Elevator to an extend but that would begin to lag due to orbit and would need to fire it's thrusters to stop it from snapping. They say that Carbon Nanotubes would a good construction material.
NANOFORGE 1 year ago
@NANOFORGE Well as u know there are no winds in space and the velocities at say 110 miles above the surface is faster then say at a distance of 1,000 miles above the earth. Here is the major problem; the technology nor the carbon Nanotubes, from what I have read do not exist yet. Instead of speculation(s) on future possible techologies use those funds to develop that we have today and have been developed such as the plasma engines being developed and tested by a retired astronaut
rangeclerk 1 year ago