Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #605832 > unrolled thread

Why colonise Mars?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Why colonise Mars? alal65536@gmail.com - 2016-11-21 19:07 -0800
    Re: Why colonise Mars? Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-21 22:09 -0600
    Re: Why colonise Mars? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 20:28 -0800
      Re: Why colonise Mars? Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-21 22:31 -0600
        Re: Why colonise Mars? edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-21 22:08 -0800
          Re: Why colonise Mars? Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-22 22:42 -0600
        Re: Why colonise Mars? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-22 06:17 +0000
          Re: Why colonise Mars? edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-22 10:20 -0800
            Re: Why colonise Mars? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 11:03 -0800
              Re: Why colonise Mars? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-22 19:39 +0000
              Re: Why colonise Mars? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-11-22 11:58 -0800
            Re: Why colonise Mars? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-22 19:37 +0000
            Re: Why colonise Mars? Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-22 22:45 -0600
        Re: Why colonise Mars? alal65536@gmail.com - 2016-11-21 23:21 -0800
          Re: Why colonise Mars? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-22 18:17 +0000
            Re: Why colonise Mars? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 11:06 -0800
            Re: Why colonise Mars? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 13:19 -0800
              Re: Why colonise Mars? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-11-22 16:12 -0800
              Re: Why colonise Mars? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 12:50 -0800
                Re: Why colonise Mars? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-12-01 13:16 -0800
                  Re: Why colonise Mars? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-01 16:15 -0800
                  Re: Why colonise Mars? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-04 12:03 -0800
                    Re: Why colonise Mars? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-04 12:42 -0800
                    Re: Why colonise Mars? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-12-04 13:24 -0800
                    Re: Why colonise Mars? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-04 13:42 -0800
                Re: Why colonise Mars? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-01 16:15 -0800
                Re: Why colonise Mars? Earle Jones27 <earle.jones@comcast.net> - 2016-12-04 17:24 -0800
            Re: Why colonise Mars? edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-22 20:16 -0800
              Re: Why colonise Mars? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-23 05:33 +0000
                Re: Why colonise Mars? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-11-23 11:20 -0800
    Re: Why colonise Mars? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-11-21 22:03 -0800
      Re: Why colonise Mars? Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-28 08:38 -0600
    Re: Why colonise Mars? Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-12-04 23:25 -0600
      Re: Why colonise Mars? Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-12-05 12:48 -0600
        Re: Why colonise Mars? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 13:15 -0800
          Re: Why colonise Mars? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-05 13:38 -0800
          Re: Why colonise Mars? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 10:21 -0800
            Re: Why colonise Mars? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-07 11:13 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#605832 — Why colonise Mars?

Why colonise Mars?  The standard reason given, is to ensure the survival of the human species.  But an extinction level event on Earth is not likely going to effect orbiting space stations or the moon.  Why can't we establish permanent self sustaining human settlements in Earth orbit or the Moon?

Abhinav Lal 
Writer & Investor

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#605843

On 11/21/2016 9:07 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> Why colonise Mars?  The standard reason given, is to ensure the
> survival of the human species.  But an extinction level event on
> Earth is not likely going to effect orbiting space stations or the
> moon.  Why can't we establish permanent self sustaining human
> settlements in Earth orbit or the Moon?
>
> Abhinav Lal Writer & Investor
>


a self sustaining settlement on Mars will NEVER happen.
	no air,
	no water,
	no protection from radiation
	no food
	no metals
	no wood
	no machine tools

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#605844

On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 5:07:48 PM UTC-10, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> Why colonise Mars?  The standard reason given, is to ensure the survival of the human species.  But an extinction level event on Earth is not likely going to effect orbiting space stations or the moon.  Why can't we establish permanent self sustaining human settlements in Earth orbit or the Moon?
> 
> Abhinav Lal 
> Writer & Investor

Establish a refugee camp in Antarctica. It is cheaper and better weather than Mars. A million homeless folks warmed by coal fired stoves. Cheap. Easy, scenic, all paid by the peace benefits.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#605846

On 11/21/2016 10:28 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 5:07:48 PM UTC-10, alal...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> Why colonise Mars?  The standard reason given, is to ensure the
>> survival of the human species.  But an extinction level event on
>> Earth is not likely going to effect orbiting space stations or the
>> moon.  Why can't we establish permanent self sustaining human
>> settlements in Earth orbit or the Moon?
>>
>> Abhinav Lal Writer & Investor
>
> Establish a refugee camp in Antarctica. It is cheaper and better
> weather than Mars. A million homeless folks warmed by coal fired
> stoves. Cheap. Easy, scenic, all paid by the peace benefits.
>

or in the Australian outback...

or Utah, or Arizona, or the Saheria,


there is no real need to colonize the moon, mars or even have men in 
space.  Only political.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#605853

On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 11:31:42 PM UTC-5, Yuri Kreaton wrote:
> On 11/21/2016 10:28 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 5:07:48 PM UTC-10, alal...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >> Why colonise Mars?  The standard reason given, is to ensure the
> >> survival of the human species.  But an extinction level event on
> >> Earth is not likely going to effect orbiting space stations or the
> >> moon.  Why can't we establish permanent self sustaining human
> >> settlements in Earth orbit or the Moon?
> >>
> >> Abhinav Lal Writer & Investor
> >
> > Establish a refugee camp in Antarctica. It is cheaper and better
> > weather than Mars. A million homeless folks warmed by coal fired
> > stoves. Cheap. Easy, scenic, all paid by the peace benefits.
> >
> 
> or in the Australian outback...
> 
> or Utah, or Arizona, or the Saheria,
> 
> 
> there is no real need to colonize the moon, mars or even have men in 
> space.  Only political.

You and Alan do not seem to understand the meaning of an extinction
level event.  IF life survives at all, there are some cases where it
could be knocked back to microbial levels.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606068

On 11/22/2016 12:08 AM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 11:31:42 PM UTC-5, Yuri Kreaton wrote:
>> On 11/21/2016 10:28 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 5:07:48 PM UTC-10, alal...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> Why colonise Mars?  The standard reason given, is to ensure the
>>>> survival of the human species.  But an extinction level event on
>>>> Earth is not likely going to effect orbiting space stations or the
>>>> moon.  Why can't we establish permanent self sustaining human
>>>> settlements in Earth orbit or the Moon?

>>>> Abhinav Lal Writer & Investor
>>>
>>> Establish a refugee camp in Antarctica. It is cheaper and better
>>> weather than Mars. A million homeless folks warmed by coal fired
>>> stoves. Cheap. Easy, scenic, all paid by the peace benefits.
>>>

>> or in the Australian outback...
>>
>> or Utah, or Arizona, or the Saheria,
>>
>>
>> there is no real need to colonize the moon, mars or even have men in
>> space.  Only political.

> You and Alan do not seem to understand the meaning of an extinction
> level event.  IF life survives at all, there are some cases where it
> could be knocked back to microbial levels.
>

we have millions of microbe here on earth yet to be identified and named.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#605856

Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 11/21/2016 10:28 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
>> On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 5:07:48 PM UTC-10, alal...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>> Why colonise Mars?  The standard reason given, is to ensure the
>>> survival of the human species.  But an extinction level event on
>>> Earth is not likely going to effect orbiting space stations or the
>>> moon.  Why can't we establish permanent self sustaining human
>>> settlements in Earth orbit or the Moon?
>>>
>>> Abhinav Lal Writer & Investor
>>
>> Establish a refugee camp in Antarctica. It is cheaper and better
>> weather than Mars. A million homeless folks warmed by coal fired
>> stoves. Cheap. Easy, scenic, all paid by the peace benefits.
>>
> 
> or in the Australian outback...
> 
> or Utah, or Arizona, or the Saheria,
> 
> 
> there is no real need to colonize the moon, mars or even have men in 
> space.  Only political.

It is more basic then that; the only reason for humans to go to space
is ego.

There is nothing on any other body in the solar system that can not
be had cheaper on Earth.

There is nothing off the Earth that can not be explored cheaper and
more extensively by remote machines.

It is difficult to find a scenario that would make the Earth a worse
place to live than Mars or the Moon.

If some private entity wants to send humans off planet, fine, but it
is a waste of public resources for governments to do it with the end
of the Cold War, which was the primary reason for going to the Moon.



-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#605957

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 1:31:05 AM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> wrote:
[]
> > 
> > there is no real need to colonize the moon, mars or even have men in 
> > space.  Only political.
> 
> It is more basic then that; the only reason for humans to go to space
> is ego.

Actually that is a big factor.

> 
> There is nothing on any other body in the solar system that can not
> be had cheaper on Earth.
> 
> There is nothing off the Earth that can not be explored cheaper and
> more extensively by remote machines.

Part A: okay, part B I respectfully disagree
> 
> It is difficult to find a scenario that would make the Earth a worse
> place to live than Mars or the Moon.

Really, How about a simple thermonuclear world war.
That will ruin our planet pretty thoroughly.

> 
> If some private entity wants to send humans off planet, fine, but it
> is a waste of public resources for governments to do it with the end
> of the Cold War, which was the primary reason for going to the Moon.
> 

Elon Musk is putting a lot of his own money into his plans for Mars.
I am less upset about some public funds going to that than I am for
the trillions wasted in recent wars AFTER the cold war.

ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#605967

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 10:20:08 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 1:31:05 AM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> wrote:
> []
> > > 
> > > there is no real need to colonize the moon, mars or even have men in 
> > > space.  Only political.
> > 
> > It is more basic then that; the only reason for humans to go to space
> > is ego.
> 
> Actually that is a big factor.
> 
> > 
> > There is nothing on any other body in the solar system that can not
> > be had cheaper on Earth.
> > 
> > There is nothing off the Earth that can not be explored cheaper and
> > more extensively by remote machines.
> 
> Part A: okay, part B I respectfully disagree
> > 
> > It is difficult to find a scenario that would make the Earth a worse
> > place to live than Mars or the Moon.
> 
> Really, How about a simple thermonuclear world war.
> That will ruin our planet pretty thoroughly.
> 
> > 
> > If some private entity wants to send humans off planet, fine, but it
> > is a waste of public resources for governments to do it with the end
> > of the Cold War, which was the primary reason for going to the Moon.
> > 
> 
> Elon Musk is putting a lot of his own money into his plans for Mars.
> I am less upset about some public funds going to that than I am for
> the trillions wasted in recent wars AFTER the cold war.
> 
> ed

If JFK lived we would have a colony on the Moon.Now commie China will have Chinese takeouts on the Moon.Its a   shame what the GOP Mafia did after they killed JFK and Bobby. TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#605976

reber g=emc^2 <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 10:20:08 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 1:31:05 AM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> > Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> wrote:
>> []
>> > > 
>> > > there is no real need to colonize the moon, mars or even have men in 
>> > > space.  Only political.
>> > 
>> > It is more basic then that; the only reason for humans to go to space
>> > is ego.
>> 
>> Actually that is a big factor.
>> 
>> > 
>> > There is nothing on any other body in the solar system that can not
>> > be had cheaper on Earth.
>> > 
>> > There is nothing off the Earth that can not be explored cheaper and
>> > more extensively by remote machines.
>> 
>> Part A: okay, part B I respectfully disagree
>> > 
>> > It is difficult to find a scenario that would make the Earth a worse
>> > place to live than Mars or the Moon.
>> 
>> Really, How about a simple thermonuclear world war.
>> That will ruin our planet pretty thoroughly.
>> 
>> > 
>> > If some private entity wants to send humans off planet, fine, but it
>> > is a waste of public resources for governments to do it with the end
>> > of the Cold War, which was the primary reason for going to the Moon.
>> > 
>> 
>> Elon Musk is putting a lot of his own money into his plans for Mars.
>> I am less upset about some public funds going to that than I am for
>> the trillions wasted in recent wars AFTER the cold war.
>> 
>> ed
> 
> If JFK lived we would have a colony on the Moon.Now commie China will have Chinese takeouts on the Moon.Its a   shame what the GOP Mafia did after they killed JFK and Bobby. TreBert

JFK's goal was to beat the Soviet Union to the Moon, not to stay there.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#605980

"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote:
> "we would have a colony on the Moon.Now commie China 
> will have Chinese takeouts on the Moon. Its a   shame 
that" Glazier is such a loud mouthing cretin, who does
not know the difference between the Moon and Mars.
ROTFLMAO

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#605975

edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 1:31:05 AM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> wrote:
> []
>> > 
>> > there is no real need to colonize the moon, mars or even have men in 
>> > space.  Only political.
>> 
>> It is more basic then that; the only reason for humans to go to space
>> is ego.
> 
> Actually that is a big factor.

As it is the only reason, yes it is a big factor, i.e. 100%.
 
>> There is nothing on any other body in the solar system that can not
>> be had cheaper on Earth.
>> 
>> There is nothing off the Earth that can not be explored cheaper and
>> more extensively by remote machines.
> 
> Part A: okay, part B I respectfully disagree

If you send humans to Mars they will be using the same equipment to
explore that the machines would be using but only doing it for a 
fraction of the day until their food, water, or air run out. Humans
require time to eat, sleep, and shit.

Machines run 24/7 and can be left on Mars forever without resupply.

If you insist we can even send a machine to hit a golf ball on Mars.

>> It is difficult to find a scenario that would make the Earth a worse
>> place to live than Mars or the Moon.
> 
> Really, How about a simple thermonuclear world war.
> That will ruin our planet pretty thoroughly.

A thermonuclear world war would not blow away all the air and water
from the Earth nor destroy the protective magnetic field. The results
of a major thermonuclear world war would be grim, but nowhere as grim
as Mars is.

>> If some private entity wants to send humans off planet, fine, but it
>> is a waste of public resources for governments to do it with the end
>> of the Cold War, which was the primary reason for going to the Moon.
>> 
> 
> Elon Musk is putting a lot of his own money into his plans for Mars.
> I am less upset about some public funds going to that than I am for
> the trillions wasted in recent wars AFTER the cold war.

Perhaps you can persuade groups like ISIS, FARC, Taliban, Hezbollah,
Boko Haram and Al-Qaeda that they should just get along with everyone else.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606069

On 11/22/2016 12:20 PM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 1:31:05 AM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> wrote:
> []
>>>

>
> Elon Musk is putting a lot of his own money into his plans for Mars.
> I am less upset about some public funds going to that than I am for
> the trillions wasted in recent wars AFTER the cold war.
>
> ed
>

Must doesnt have money, he has goverment grants, who is supporting 
Tesla, and Sundial ?  the US Taxpayer, Musk doesnt have anything that 
makes money on its own.

Must is trying to get $$ from congress to fund his companies, a 16 
billion dollar MARS package just passed the senete by Cruz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#605859

On Tuesday, 22 November 2016 10:01:42 UTC+5:30, Yuri Kreaton  wrote:
> On 11/21/2016 10:28 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 5:07:48 PM UTC-10, alal...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >> Why colonise Mars?  The standard reason given, is to ensure the
> >> survival of the human species.  But an extinction level event on
> >> Earth is not likely going to effect orbiting space stations or the
> >> moon.  Why can't we establish permanent self sustaining human
> >> settlements in Earth orbit or the Moon?
> >>
> >> Abhinav Lal Writer & Investor
> >
> > Establish a refugee camp in Antarctica. It is cheaper and better
> > weather than Mars. A million homeless folks warmed by coal fired
> > stoves. Cheap. Easy, scenic, all paid by the peace benefits.
> >
> 
> or in the Australian outback...
> 
> or Utah, or Arizona, or the Saheria,
> 
> 
> there is no real need to colonize the moon, mars or even have men in 
> space.  Only political.

I have been told that if there is an ELE on Earth, like a large asteroid strike, it has the potential to wipe out all human life on Earth.  Now, only humans living outside of Earth will survive.  Thus the need to make a permanent human settlement outside of Earth.  I just don't know why it should be Mars where we make the settlement.  Mars is far and presents a wide variety of technical challenges.  If it is possible to make a human settlement on the moon or earth orbit, that would probably be far cheaper.

Many nations can unite to fund this, and develop and manufacture the technology necessary.  Thus space colonisation has the potential to unite humanity.  The global spending will also give a stimulus to the global economy.  It will give meaning those involved in the effort, and provide entertainment for the masses.

Ensuring the survival of the human species is a good reason to send humans into space.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#605959

alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 22 November 2016 10:01:42 UTC+5:30, Yuri Kreaton  wrote:
>> On 11/21/2016 10:28 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
>> > On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 5:07:48 PM UTC-10, alal...@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>> >> Why colonise Mars?  The standard reason given, is to ensure the
>> >> survival of the human species.  But an extinction level event on
>> >> Earth is not likely going to effect orbiting space stations or the
>> >> moon.  Why can't we establish permanent self sustaining human
>> >> settlements in Earth orbit or the Moon?
>> >>
>> >> Abhinav Lal Writer & Investor
>> >
>> > Establish a refugee camp in Antarctica. It is cheaper and better
>> > weather than Mars. A million homeless folks warmed by coal fired
>> > stoves. Cheap. Easy, scenic, all paid by the peace benefits.
>> >
>> 
>> or in the Australian outback...
>> 
>> or Utah, or Arizona, or the Saheria,
>> 
>> 
>> there is no real need to colonize the moon, mars or even have men in 
>> space.  Only political.
> 
> I have been told that if there is an ELE on Earth, like a large asteroid strike, it has the potential to wipe out all human life on Earth.  Now, only humans living outside of Earth will survive.  Thus the need to make a permanent human settlement outside of Earth.  I just don't know why it should be Mars where we make the settlement.  Mars is far and presents a wide variety of technical challenges.  If it is possible to make a human settlement on the moon or earth orbit, that would probably be far cheaper.
> 
> Many nations can unite to fund this, and develop and manufacture the technology necessary.  Thus space colonisation has the potential to unite humanity.  The global spending will also give a stimulus to the global economy.  It will give meaning those involved in the effort, and provide entertainment for the masses.
> 
> Ensuring the survival of the human species is a good reason to send humans into space.
> 
> Abhinav Lal
> Writer & Investor 

The universe got along just fine before humans appeared and it will get
along just fine if humans disappear.

Other than sentimentality there is no reason for the human race to exist
forever.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#605968

Jim
"The universe got along just fine before humans appeared and it will get 
along just fine if humans disappear. 

Other than sentimentality there is no reason for the human race to exist 
forever. "
Except that, as humans, we kinda have a
vested interest.9

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#605989

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 10:31:06 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 22 November 2016 10:01:42 UTC+5:30, Yuri Kreaton  wrote:
> >> On 11/21/2016 10:28 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> >> > On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 5:07:48 PM UTC-10, alal...@gmail.com
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> Why colonise Mars?  The standard reason given, is to ensure the
> >> >> survival of the human species.  But an extinction level event on
> >> >> Earth is not likely going to effect orbiting space stations or the
> >> >> moon.  Why can't we establish permanent self sustaining human
> >> >> settlements in Earth orbit or the Moon?
> >> >>
> >> >> Abhinav Lal Writer & Investor
> >> >
> >> > Establish a refugee camp in Antarctica. It is cheaper and better
> >> > weather than Mars. A million homeless folks warmed by coal fired
> >> > stoves. Cheap. Easy, scenic, all paid by the peace benefits.
> >> >
> >> 
> >> or in the Australian outback...
> >> 
> >> or Utah, or Arizona, or the Saheria,
> >> 
> >> 
> >> there is no real need to colonize the moon, mars or even have men in 
> >> space.  Only political.
> > 
> > I have been told that if there is an ELE on Earth, like a large asteroid strike, it has the potential to wipe out all human life on Earth.  Now, only humans living outside of Earth will survive.  Thus the need to make a permanent human settlement outside of Earth.  I just don't know why it should be Mars where we make the settlement.  Mars is far and presents a wide variety of technical challenges.  If it is possible to make a human settlement on the moon or earth orbit, that would probably be far cheaper.
> > 
> > Many nations can unite to fund this, and develop and manufacture the technology necessary.  Thus space colonisation has the potential to unite humanity.  The global spending will also give a stimulus to the global economy.  It will give meaning those involved in the effort, and provide entertainment for the masses.
> > 
> > Ensuring the survival of the human species is a good reason to send humans into space.
> > 
> > Abhinav Lal
> > Writer & Investor 
> 
> The universe got along just fine before humans appeared and it will get
> along just fine if humans disappear.
> 
> Other than sentimentality there is no reason for the human race to exist
> forever.
>  
> 
> -- 
> Jim Pennino

Without humankind there need not be universes. In reality the universe created humans so it could see itself. There are more universes than flakes of snow in an endless storm,and they are all thge same,other than their time of now(evolvement in time by gravity) Since Treb's universe is our twin,and its positive the "time laps" in the first trillionth of a second of BB was and always be the greatest of time.Reason it did not create an explosion that would have distroyed all that be. TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606031

"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> Cretin Glazier wrote:
In reality Glazier was created so he could see himself,
as a flakes of snot in an endless storm, and his positive 
"time laps" Beer Belly (BB) in an explosion that would 
have distroyed all of that Bucket that Bert shits into in
his Minnie Mouse van.........        ahahahahahahaha.....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607415

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 1:19:39 PM UTC-8, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 10:31:06 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 22 November 2016 10:01:42 UTC+5:30, Yuri Kreaton  wrote:
> > >> On 11/21/2016 10:28 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > >> > On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 5:07:48 PM UTC-10, alal...@gmail.com
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >> Why colonise Mars?  The standard reason given, is to ensure the
> > >> >> survival of the human species.  But an extinction level event on
> > >> >> Earth is not likely going to effect orbiting space stations or the
> > >> >> moon.  Why can't we establish permanent self sustaining human
> > >> >> settlements in Earth orbit or the Moon?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Abhinav Lal Writer & Investor
> > >> >
> > >> > Establish a refugee camp in Antarctica. It is cheaper and better
> > >> > weather than Mars. A million homeless folks warmed by coal fired
> > >> > stoves. Cheap. Easy, scenic, all paid by the peace benefits.
> > >> >
> > >> 
> > >> or in the Australian outback...
> > >> 
> > >> or Utah, or Arizona, or the Saheria,
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> there is no real need to colonize the moon, mars or even have men in 
> > >> space.  Only political.
> > > 
> > > I have been told that if there is an ELE on Earth, like a large asteroid strike, it has the potential to wipe out all human life on Earth.  Now, only humans living outside of Earth will survive.  Thus the need to make a permanent human settlement outside of Earth.  I just don't know why it should be Mars where we make the settlement.  Mars is far and presents a wide variety of technical challenges.  If it is possible to make a human settlement on the moon or earth orbit, that would probably be far cheaper.
> > > 
> > > Many nations can unite to fund this, and develop and manufacture the technology necessary.  Thus space colonisation has the potential to unite humanity.  The global spending will also give a stimulus to the global economy.  It will give meaning those involved in the effort, and provide entertainment for the masses.
> > > 
> > > Ensuring the survival of the human species is a good reason to send humans into space.
> > > 
> > > Abhinav Lal
> > > Writer & Investor 
> > 
> > The universe got along just fine before humans appeared and it will get
> > along just fine if humans disappear.
> > 
> > Other than sentimentality there is no reason for the human race to exist
> > forever.
> >  
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jim Pennino
> 
> Without humankind there need not be universes. In reality the universe created humans so it could see itself. There are more universes than flakes of snow in an endless storm,and they are all thge same,other than their time of now(evolvement in time by gravity) Since Treb's universe is our twin,and its positive the "time laps" in the first trillionth of a second of BB was and always be the greatest of time.Reason it did not create an explosion that would have distroyed all that be. TreBert

Better to have Pluto as our stepping stone to very deep space.We could even make an ice spaceship to tow our supplies?  Or we could make its tiny moon into a very nice large spaceship and never bother bgoing back to Earth. A one way trip to the stars in our galaxy and beyond. We can call it the Ark.It can run on anti-matter.It would need only one good push,and cruise at 73% of c. TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607428

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 12:50:27 PM UTC-8, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 1:19:39 PM UTC-8, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 10:31:06 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > > alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, 22 November 2016 10:01:42 UTC+5:30, Yuri Kreaton  wrote:
> > > >> On 11/21/2016 10:28 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > > >> > On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 5:07:48 PM UTC-10, alal...@gmail.com
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >> Why colonise Mars?  The standard reason given, is to ensure the
> > > >> >> survival of the human species.  But an extinction level event on
> > > >> >> Earth is not likely going to effect orbiting space stations or the
> > > >> >> moon.  Why can't we establish permanent self sustaining human
> > > >> >> settlements in Earth orbit or the Moon?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Abhinav Lal Writer & Investor
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Establish a refugee camp in Antarctica. It is cheaper and better
> > > >> > weather than Mars. A million homeless folks warmed by coal fired
> > > >> > stoves. Cheap. Easy, scenic, all paid by the peace benefits.
> > > >> >
> > > >> 
> > > >> or in the Australian outback...
> > > >> 
> > > >> or Utah, or Arizona, or the Saheria,
> > > >> 
> > > >> 
> > > >> there is no real need to colonize the moon, mars or even have men in 
> > > >> space.  Only political.
> > > > 
> > > > I have been told that if there is an ELE on Earth, like a large asteroid strike, it has the potential to wipe out all human life on Earth.  Now, only humans living outside of Earth will survive.  Thus the need to make a permanent human settlement outside of Earth.  I just don't know why it should be Mars where we make the settlement.  Mars is far and presents a wide variety of technical challenges.  If it is possible to make a human settlement on the moon or earth orbit, that would probably be far cheaper.
> > > > 
> > > > Many nations can unite to fund this, and develop and manufacture the technology necessary.  Thus space colonisation has the potential to unite humanity.  The global spending will also give a stimulus to the global economy.  It will give meaning those involved in the effort, and provide entertainment for the masses.
> > > > 
> > > > Ensuring the survival of the human species is a good reason to send humans into space.
> > > > 
> > > > Abhinav Lal
> > > > Writer & Investor 
> > > 
> > > The universe got along just fine before humans appeared and it will get
> > > along just fine if humans disappear.
> > > 
> > > Other than sentimentality there is no reason for the human race to exist
> > > forever.
> > >  
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Jim Pennino
> > 
> > Without humankind there need not be universes. In reality the universe created humans so it could see itself. There are more universes than flakes of snow in an endless storm,and they are all thge same,other than their time of now(evolvement in time by gravity) Since Treb's universe is our twin,and its positive the "time laps" in the first trillionth of a second of BB was and always be the greatest of time.Reason it did not create an explosion that would have distroyed all that be. TreBert
> 
> Better to have Pluto as our stepping stone to very deep space.We could even make an ice spaceship to tow our supplies?  Or we could make its tiny moon into a very nice large spaceship and never bother bgoing back to Earth. A one way trip to the stars in our galaxy and beyond. We can call it the Ark.It can run on anti-matter.It would need only one good push,and cruise at 73% of c. TreBert


Pluto has 5 moons.

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web