Credit: iStockphoto
I love our planet. I love its trees, its mountains, its oceans, its big beautiful skies and its extraordinary diversity of life. What we have on this world is precious — it's worth cherishing and nurturing.
But that doesn't mean I think that travelling beyond this planet is a waste of time or resources; or that I think we should instead focus on getting our world right before venturing into space. That's just plain silly: did we fix Europe before embarking for the Far East and the Americas? Did we perfect an idyllic nomadic society before leaving the African plains? Waiting to get our 'house in order' will achieve nothing but guarantee the demise and eventual destruction of our planet, our ecosystem and our species. Going into space is one of the best things we can do to save our world, and ourselves.
It's in our nature to venture out: since the dawn of our species, we have explored, adapted and expanded. In doing so, we have become the most powerful creatures on Earth, capable of splitting the atom and affecting the climate. Like a teenager experiencing the first flushes of hormones, we have felt powerful and invincible — then slowly grown aware that our behaviour and newfound strength can harm others.
It's because of our extraordinary success, our ability to harness resources and bend them to our will, that we are encroaching on our neighbours. We live in a closed system — the planet Earth — but often behave recklessly as if its resources are limitless. In the past, we've overcome these constraints by expanding into new territories.
The solution is not to abandon modern industrial civilisation: we're not going to give up our cities or technologies. In fact, without the large-scale mechanisation of industry, transport and agriculture, we would be unable to feed our massive and growing population. Going 'back to nature' may sound romantic, but would consign billions to starvation.
The first thing to do is reduce our impact on the planet: make technologies more efficient and our cities, transport systems and industrial processes less damaging to ecosystems. We rely on the web of life to sustain us: we need bees to pollinate, trees to make oxygen and worms to aerate the soil, or we would swiftly perish.
And after that? Do we mandate population controls? Do we nominate an arbitrary age at which people need to 'retire', as in the dystopian fictional vision of Logan's Run? Because populations will continue to grow, especially as child mortality falls and science finds ways of extending human lives. The logical thing to do is to expand beyond Earth: to build colonies on Mars, floating habitats in Earth's Lagrange orbits, mines on the Moon and the asteroids, and expand deeper into our Solar System.
It may sound unappealing to some. But so was the prospect — just a few centuries ago — of a long and arduous journey across treacherous oceans in cramped conditions, only to arrive in a harsh and unforgiving wilderness where conditions were difficult and starvation was a real possibility. And yet, tens of thousands of people set off for Australia and North America, among many other places, in search of a new life. Thousands perished. And yet, more came.
We need to expand into space because Earth alone cannot sustain us. Space provides a pressure valve, but exploring it will also ensure our survival. Because one day, a massive calamity will befall our world — an asteroid strike, ice ages, supervolcanoes, solar bursts or nuclear war — and we may disappear, or our civilisation fall.
Some ask: so what if humans pass into history? It's not just a tragedy for us, but also one for nature. Without us, there is no one to witness its infinite beauty; no one to marvel at a sunset, revel in a view, or thrill to the breaking of a wave on a beach. As the late astronomer and author Carl Sagan once said, "we are a way for the universe to know itself".
But we also deserve to continue because we have created things greater than ourselves. Not only scientific and engineering knowledge, valuable as this is — we have also created new and beautiful ways to see the world through art, music, literature and performance.
Think of the plays of Shakespeare, the concertos of Bach, the philosophy of Confucius, the epic poetry of Virgil, the suiboku ink painting of Shubun, the fado laments of Amália Rodrigues, the morality tales of Javanese wayang kulit shadow puppetry, the Islamic calligraphy of the Diwani Al Jali style, the novels of Cervantes, the harvest bhangra dances of Pakistan, the rhythms of the didgeridoo, and anything by Leonardo da Vinci.
Even if the cosmos is brimming with other advanced civilisations, we still deserve to be here. Nature in its diversity has made us as we are: we too are children of the universe, and have something to contribute.
Wilson da Silva is the Editor-in-Chief of Cosmos, and the past president of the World Federation of Science Journalists.
Hear Hear?
Wat is JKrinter you are not talking about the article which is stupid. You are stupid.
What stupid hippy talk! We
What stupid hippy talk!
We have done more in our tiny existence than any other animal on Earth has. No other species has learnt not to adapt to their surroundings but to adapt their surroundings to suit their needs to the extent that we have.
We are the most advanced species in the known universe so why not populate it?
Hippy, I do agree with you when you say that nature doesnt care if we exist or not. But who cares if nature doesn't give a crap, all that really matters is that we do and will do something about it.
Human Arrogance Supported by Human Ignorance
We have done more in our tiny existence than any other animal on Earth has.
I am not so impressed by what humankind has done. Humans have made the Earth into a mess. Humans have transformed the Earth into humankind's sewer. In the process our species has destroyed entire ecosystems and driven other species to extinction.
Somehow I don't see this story ending in any sort of utopia.
No other species has learnt not to adapt to their surroundings but to adapt their surroundings to suit their needs to the extent that we have.
This is humankind's weakness and extreme stupidity. Deciding to adapt the environment rather than adapting to the environment is one of the reasons why our species has become addicted to the consumption of fossil fuel resources, which we are presently burning at an ever-accelerating rate and thereby polluting the Earth at an ever-acclerating rate.
When the fossil fuels become depleted humans will lose the ability to adapt the environment and our species will face the harshness of Nature without any technological crutches.
The species which have survived for millions of years never made this stupid mistake. Instead of fighting against Nature and choosing comfort over adaptation they changed in response to their natural conditions and therefore made peace with Nature. None of the animals are addicted to fossil fuels nor to any sort of technology for their survival.
We are the most advanced species in the known universe so why not populate it?
If humans are the most advanced species in the Universe, woe unto the Universe. Evolution couldn't do better than this miserable, violent, self-destructive, planet-polluting, Nature-eradicating, perpetually-addicted animal?
You are mistaken. Humans are not the most advanced form of life in the Universe. Humans aren't even the most advanced form of life on the Earth.
Humans are a young and foolish animal which won't reach old age because the species has destroyed its means of existence. Fortunately space is sufficient harsh as to protect the Universe from the human plague.
Hippy, I do agree with you when you say that nature doesnt care if we exist or not. But who cares if nature doesn't give a crap, all that really matters is that we do and will do something about it.
Humans don't care whether Homo sapiens survive or go extinct. The extent to which humans have destroyed and polluted the Earth indicate that our species is afflicted with suicidal tendencies which must ultimately lead to the extinction of Homo sapiens.
There is nothing unusual nor unexpected in the extinction of our species. All of our closest ancestors have gone extinct. That would serve as a warning to an intelligent but wise species, but the warning escapes humankind because our species is merely foolish and suicidal.
David Mathews
David Mathews' Home Page
Corrections
David Matthews, there are a number of errors in your post which I feel must be corrected. First the technological/technical...
Those who wish for self-sustaining off-world colonies should wake up. Hasn't the Space Shuttle taught you futurists anything? What is the Space Shuttle suppose to teach us about self-sustaining off-world colonies? The shuttle was our first attempt at a reusable launch and return vehicle. It was never intended to sustain astronauts indefinitely. Besides, futurists use current and past technology to extrapolate future technological progress. Extrapolating our technological progress into the future, the future of the human species looks very bright.
Unlike the Earth, space is not bountifully supplied with oxygen, water, and food. No, open space isn't really full of the necessities of human life but that doesn't mean we can't bring it along. When we talk about colonizing space we don't tend to talk about colonizing OPEN space. We talk about colonizing planetary bodies which do tend to have the majority of the requirements for life. The rest of the requirements, like the colonists of olde, will be made in-situ (made when we get there). It will eventually have to be that way anyways if it is to be self-sustaining.
Humankind's unwillingness to adapt to the environment renders our species dependent upon technologies which cannot help but fail. True, no device can last forever. That's what backups and failsafes are for though. Give us engineers some credit.
If humans are the most advanced species in the Universe, woe unto the Universe. You missed one of the most important words in the entire quote you were responding to, KNOWN. As far as we know we are the most advanced. Statistically this is unlikely but he did say KNOWN Universe.
When the fossil fuels become depleted humans will lose the ability to adapt the environment and our species will face the harshness of Nature without any technological crutches. Fossil fuels are not the only fuels, they are just the easiest. There is a plethora of information on the topic all over the internet so I will leave you to learn more about them.
Your reasons for not expanding are, sadly, very masochistic. The only reason I really see you present is that the human race is undeserving. This appears to be a firmly ingrained belief of yours so I cannot hope to change your mind but I can give reasons for colonization to everyone else out there.
The most popular reason, the reason held by many prominent scientists such as Steven Hawking, is to avoid a cataclysmic extinction level astronomical event such as an asteroid impact. As the progression of time approaches infinity the probability of a cataclysmic event approaches 1. In other terms, the chance of a cataclysmic event occurring over a very long period of time is 100%. This is simple statistics. If the human species is limited to a single planet then this could be a species ending event.
On a simpler level, the purpose of any animal is self propagation. This is what the evolutionary process is geared towards. At this point you can begin considering the human species as a 'meta species' of Earth. As we colonize other planetary bodies and begin the process of terraforming them we bring other species from Earth to fill the new planet. During the process we assure the propagation of not only our individual species but that of each species we carry along. The process or terraforming will also teach us a great deal about how our own world works so there will be benefits which trickle back to Earth.
There are undoubtedly many more reasons scientific, philosophical, and religious to expand into space. I can only hope the majority of people aren't as pessimistic as yourself.
Even a fool knows you can't touch the stars, but it doesn't stop a wise man from trying.
-Harry Anderson
Self-Sustaining in Space
Hello Gizma,
> What is the Space Shuttle suppose to teach us about self-sustaining off-world colonies? The shuttle was our first attempt at a reusable launch and return vehicle.
The Shuttle doesn't teach us anything about self-sustaining off-world colonies. You did understand my comment.
Since the Shuttle and the ISS (and MIR before that) did not teach us anything whatsoever about self-sustaining off-world colonies it is evident that humans know absolutely nothing about this subject.
Humans know nothing about how to live in space because there is nothing to know.
> Extrapolating our technological progress into the future, the future of the human species looks very bright.
Extrapolations of this sort are universally erroneous. If thew Romand had extrapolated Rome's growth circa 100 A.D. they undoubtedly would have concluded that the Roman Empire would ultimately conquer the entire globe and the empire would endure forever.
> We talk about colonizing planetary bodies which do tend to have the majority of the requirements for life.
Are you serious? Of the planets of the Solar System, exactly one possesses these requirements. It is called the Earth and it is our home. Humans would die pretty quickly on all of the other planets and moons of the Solar System. They lack about 99.999% of the absolute minimum requirements for hosting human life.
> The rest of the requirements, like the colonists of olde, will be made in-situ (made when we get there).
God help the space colonists when their life-sustaining machines break down. Machines do have a habit of breaking down, I hope you know, and such events would prove fatal to any human colonies on other planets.
> True, no device can last forever. That's what backups and failsafes are for though. Give us engineers some credit.
I wouldn't bet my life on anything engineers develop. Backups and failsafes do not guarantee the eternal operation of self-sustaining machinery on another planet. Anyhow ... exactly how do you plan on powering the machinery you place on another planet?
> As far as we know we are the most advanced.
You are mistaken in asserting that Homo sapiens are the most advanced animal in the known Universe. There is at least one and perhaps as many as a dozen more advanced forms of life (including intelligent life) on the Earth. Humans overlook and dismiss these more advanced life-forms because there is an intrinsic pro-human arrogance in the human thought process.
Humans are not the best form of life on the Earth. Humans are, in reality, only the most violent, most destructive, and most deluded animal on the planet.
> Fossil fuels are not the only fuels, they are just the easiest.
True indeed. But there is a reason why humankind burns away 85 million barrels of oil a day and an equally huge quantity of coal and natural gas. When these resources run out you will discover that those other energy sources will not support a global technological consumer-oriented civilization.
> ... is to avoid a cataclysmic extinction
Have you failed to notice that Homo sapiens are a cataclysmic extinction event? Our species is this geological era's extinction event.
> If the human species is limited to a single planet then this could be a species ending event.
Certainly no moral arguments exist for the immortality of the human species since it has so casually driven thousands of other species to extinction. Humankind is absolutely responsible for humankind's extinction.
> At this point you can begin considering the human species as a 'meta species' of Earth. As we colonize other planetary bodies and begin the process of terraforming them we bring other species from Earth to fill the new planet. During the process we assure the propagation of not only our individual species but that of each species we carry along.
Do you know how ironic the above goal sounds when placed within the context of humankind's responsibility for trashing the Earth, polluting it horrendously, destruction of ecosystems worldwide, and extermination of numerous species?
If humans really wanted to save the other species of this Earth we would stop transforming the Earth into humankind's own special sewer. Sending such a recklessly destructive animal into space would only lead to humankind trashing other planets and leaving a mess which will linger for billions of years after Nature has finished exterminating the primate destroyer-of-worlds.
David Mathews
David Mathews' Home Page
> Humans know nothing about
> Humans know nothing about how to live in space because there is nothing to know.
Really?? What exactly do all of the aerospace engineers do then? twiddle their thumbs? What you meant to say was that in your opinion, no matter how much you know about space, it is impossible to build a self-sufficient colony in space. (be it planet, moon, asteroid or space station) This is highly debatable, but my opinion is that a great many scientists would disagree with you.
> Extrapolations of this sort are universally erroneous.
Thus, so too are your own extrapolations about our current head-long dive into self destruction. I agree that we are probably overpopulated, but I don't think that environmental collapse will be the cause of our demise, if it occurs. I would be more concerned about the proliferation of technology that allows for engineering of viruses and bacteria. Some wacko could easily decide to annihilate mankind with some engineered super virus, should such technology become accessible to him or her. This could conceivably happen within the next 20 years.
> Are you serious? Of the planets of the Solar System, exactly one possesses these requirements. It is called the Earth and it is our home. Humans would die pretty quickly on all of the other planets and moons of the Solar System. They lack about 99.999% of the absolute minimum requirements for hosting human life.
What is the deal? are you assuming that astronauts are Amish? Of course we can't just fly to Mars, take off our space suits and start farming corn. But most of the raw materials needed are already present there. All that is needed is sufficient processing. Human basic needs: Food, water, oxygen, shelter. Food: we can grow plants using hydroponics, this has already been shown to be possible in NASA experiments. Human waste would be recycled in the greenhouse as fertilizer. Water: known to exist in large deposits on the poles, though deposits may exist elsewhere under the surface. Oxygen: Exists in large quantities in martian soil, in the form of oxides, also could be obtained through electrolysis of water. The greenhouse plants would also recycle CO2 into oxygen. Shelter: Given water and various minerals it is a simple thing to produce concrete. We can build the majority of a martian colony underground. This would provide protection from radiation.
> God help the space colonists when their life-sustaining machines break down. Machines do have a habit of breaking down, I hope you know, and such events would prove fatal to any human colonies on other planets.
Granted, we would also need redundant systems, and facilities to construct replacements for failed equipment, but that is possible given sufficient effort.
> I wouldn't bet my life on anything engineers develop.
Ok, so you don't drive or ride in any vehicle, cross any bridge, stand idle as a plane flies overhead, drink from public water supplies, consume any commercial food or beverage products, enter any building... could go on all day. You bet your life on proper engineering a hundred (probably much more) times per day, that is unless you live in the wild without any modern technology. Better watch out for falling planes and satellites though.
> Backups and failsafes do not guarantee the eternal operation of self-sustaining machinery on another planet.
Already covered this.
> Anyhow ... exactly how do you plan on powering the machinery you place on another planet?
Modern nuclear reactors are actually quite safe to operate, and produce almost zero radioactive waste. I'm sure we would start there.
> Humankind is absolutely responsible for humankind's extinction.
So if a massive object (be it black-hole, star, or other unknown) flew through the solar system and sent the earth straight into the sun, that would be the fault of humankind? Please do explain.
> If humans really wanted to save the other species of this Earth we would stop transforming the Earth into humankind's own special sewer. Sending such a recklessly destructive animal into space would only lead to humankind trashing other planets and leaving a mess which will linger for billions of years after Nature has finished exterminating the primate destroyer-of-worlds.
Wow are you ever a hypocrite with a superiority complex. Maybe it did not occur to you, but do you think that the computer you use to access this site did not, in it's development and construction, cause any of said destruction? How about the electricity that feeds it? Not to mention that in frequenting cosmosmagazine.com you are contributing to its existence and any destruction that it causes. ie: it's servers and workstations, all the paper that is used in the office, the building it is housed in, the electricity it uses (probably from a coal plant) etc.
How to Live in Space
Hello Al,
> Really?? What exactly do all of the aerospace engineers do then? twiddle their thumbs?
Aerospace engineers don't design self-sustaining colonies in space, nor could they.
> What you meant to say was that in your opinion, no matter how much you know about space, it is impossible to build a self-sufficient colony in space. (be it planet, moon, asteroid or space station) This is highly debatable, but my opinion is that a great many scientists would disagree with you.
What I am saying is that it is impossible to build a self-sufficient colony in space. If there are any scientists who disagree they are wrong.
> Thus, so too are your own extrapolations about our current head-long dive into self destruction. I agree that we are probably overpopulated, but I don't think that environmental collapse will be the cause of our demise, if it occurs.
We don't (and cannot) know anything with certainty about the future. But when comments about humankind's headlong dive into self-destruction is an observation not a prediction.
Environmental collapse alone will not be the cause of humankind's demise. Human nature is what dooms humankind, environmental collapse is only a contributing cause to humankind's extinction.
> Of course we can't just fly to Mars, take off our space suits and start farming corn. But most of the raw materials needed are already present there. All that is needed is sufficient processing.
You are mistaken about a great many things. Mars is lacking in several life-essential properties which no amount of processing can provide.
Anyhow, those who wish to process Mars' natural resources must confront one rather significant problem: Energy. Mars lacks fossil fuels and the sun is significantly dimmer from that distance. How will you power all of the machines necessary to sustain life on Mars?
> We can build the majority of a martian colony underground. This would provide protection from radiation.
Life underground on Mars is problematic. The job that you are describing would demand thousands of astronauts (at the very least) and even then it would take centuries to accomplish. Radiation would kill these people before they finished their underground colony.
> Granted, we would also need redundant systems, and facilities to construct replacements for failed equipment, but that is possible given sufficient effort.
Redundant systesm and replacements ... exactly how many tons of equipment are you planning to send to Mars? The project which you are describing would demand $trillions of funding from an American government which is already bankrupt and an American economy which is poised to collapse.
> Ok, so you don't drive or ride in any vehicle, cross any bridge, stand idle as a plane flies overhead ...
When technology fails on the Earth death does not inevitably result. If my air conditioner breaks down I can always open the windows. In space a failure of this sort would inevitably lead to death. That's not a risk which I am willing to accept, may God have mercy on those who would.
> Modern nuclear reactors are actually quite safe to operate, and produce almost zero radioactive waste. I'm sure we would start there.
Nuclear reactors are extremely heavy. They require plenty of skilled workers to assemble and operate. Exactly how many astronauts do you plan to send to Mars?
> So if a massive object (be it black-hole, star, or other unknown) flew through the solar system and sent the earth straight into the sun, that would be the fault of humankind? Please do explain.
The explanation is simple: Humankind's extinction will not occur because of an asteroid, black hole or any other natural catastrophe. Humankind's extinction will result from humankind's self-inflicted wounds.
> Wow are you ever a hypocrite with a superiority complex.
Yes, the computer, the Internet and websites such as this one contribute to humankind's self-destruction, the depletion of the Earth's resources, and climate change.
But I must communicate this warning with the tools which are available. If humankind wasn't on a path to self-inflicted extinction there would be no need to say anything.
I do not need to warn the dolphins about extinction. The dolphins are not on the path to self-inflicted to extinction. I do not need to warn the squirrels about extinction. The squirrels live wisely and therefore they are not in any sort of danger.
I am only worried about humankind. Homo sapiens, the allegedly intelligent ape, is destroying the Earth and rendering this planet inhospitable to human life. All these things which you take for granted (the computer, internet, etc.) will pass away. Nothing that you see will remain.
If humankind clings desperately to technology our species will suffer the same fate. Technological civilization will not survive the exhaustion of the Earth's resources. Climate change will destroy humankind's basic necessities (food and water for billions of humans).
Does humankind want to live or does humankind want to die? Those familiar with the history of life on the Earth know that survival is by no means guaranteed. The vast majority of species which have ever existed have already gone extinction. Those billions of species which have already departed were never as foolish, violent or self-destructive as humankind.
How can humankind survive on this Earth?
I don't imagine that humankind will survive. Given all the damage that humans have already inflicted it appears that our fate is sealed, inevitable and inescapable.
Those who wish to escape from the Earth are correct. Humankind's future here is bleak. Voyage into space, if you wish, or hope for the Rapture. Your dreams will remain unfulfilled and you will experience the Apocalypse.
David Mathews
Further Corrections
David Matthews,
You really must elaborate on your answers, they make no sense.
Aerospace engineers don't design self-sustaining in space, nor could they.
I will again refer you to "The Case for Mars: The plan to settle the red planet and why we must" by Dr. Robert Zubrin. He is, in fact, an Aerospace Engineer (among many other degrees) and is also seriously working on the colonization of Mars. Engineers in general are more than capable. We are well grounded in physics and mathematics. You will have to make quite a well reasoned argument to convince me it's infeasible.
What I am saying is that it is impossible to build a self-sufficient colony in space. If there are any scientists who disagree they are wrong.
Why are they wrong? I have seen much to the contrary.
We don't (and cannot) know anything with certainty about the future.
Here you are contradicting the statement that we can predict the future by extrapolating based on the present and past yet in the exact same post you say "Your dreams will remain unfulfilled and you will experience the Apocalypse.". You contradict yourself by predicting the future. In the last paragraph you also make yourself sound like a religious fanatic.
Mars is lacking in several life-essential properties which no amount of processing can provide.
What might these be? Air can be recycled. Food can be grown. Energy can be supplied by solar or nuclear power. Until the colony has reached critical mass it can be supplied by Earth. I, personally, cannot fathom the connection you made to the implication that the only fuel that could be used on Mars is fossil fuel.
The project which you are describing would demand $trillions of funding...
Again, I refer you to "The Case for Mars". Keep in mind this is just one very credible source. There are undoubtedly many more out there.
Please give more than just anecdotal evidence. One thing I suggest you keep in mind when you continue to talk about humanity's self-destruction is that change is happening and will continue to happen. It will be slow due to the massive social inertia. There is always hope. I leave again with a quote. Give it some thought.
"Even a fool knows you can't touch the stars, but it doesn't stop a wise man from trying."
- Harry Anderson
Life on Mars
Hello Gizma,
> You really must elaborate on your answers, they make no sense.
This is not a format well-suited to elaboration.
> I will again refer you to "The Case for Mars: The plan to settle the red planet and why we must" by Dr. Robert Zubrin. He is, in fact, an Aerospace Engineer (among many other degrees) and is also seriously working on the colonization of Mars. Engineers in general are more than capable. We are well grounded in physics and mathematics. You will have to make quite a well reasoned argument to convince me it's infeasible.
Proving a negative is a fool's errand.
Engineers who speak confidently of colonizing Mars don't impress me. Things which look easy on paper are often impossible in real life.
If Dr. Zubrin claims that such a mission is possible he must not have spent enough time thinking about the problem. How many Europeans died in the colonization of the New World? How many European settlements collapsed in the process?
The Europeans never encountered any environment as harsh and deadly as either the vacuum of space or Mars. Most of the unmanned missions to Mars have failed, too:
Historical Log of Mars Missions
This sort of success does not lend much confidence to the prospects of humans ever colonizing Mars.
> Why are they wrong? I have seen much to the contrary.
This is a complicated, difficult subject which is not well suited to this sort of discussion format. But they are most certainly wrong and thwy will always remain wrong.
> You contradict yourself by predicting the future. In the last paragraph you also make yourself sound like a religious fanatic.
I speak in whatever manner I wish. Yes, I have made predictions about the future. And, yes, these predictions will certainly come true. But this is a pointless argument. Time itself will resolve the fate of all these predictions.
> What might these be? Air can be recycled. Food can be grown. Energy can be supplied by solar or nuclear power. Until the colony has reached critical mass it can be supplied by Earth. I, personally, cannot fathom the connection you made to the implication that the only fuel that could be used on Mars is fossil fuel.
The equipment that you will need to colonize Mars are energy-intensive. Solar power cells and the little nuclear power plants currently in use for robotic space exploration aren't sufficient to supply these energy needs.
Fossil fuels serve to make many energy-intensive industrial processes possible on the Earth. On Mars -- of course -- there are no fossil fuels, nor any other energy source. So you will have to "import" your energy source from the Earth and this is problematic for many reason. Certainly you would not want any power source which requires fuel because fuel (whether fossil fuel or uranium pellets for a nuclear power plant) is extremely heavy and therefore very expensive to transport from the Earth to Mars.
So, essentially, your Mars colony will have no choice except to rely upon solar power. But solar power is also problematic on Mars. Not only is the sun more distant but Mars has dust storms which can last for months. A colony relying upon solar power to keep its life support operating will face some rather serious problems during these dust storms.
How will the Mars colony provide itself with sufficient and sufficiently reliable power?
This problem alone precludes any Mars mission and renders absurd any talk of humans colonizing Mars.
> One thing I suggest you keep in mind when you continue to talk about humanity's self-destruction is that change is happening and will continue to happen.
A change which is happening now is happening too late. Humankind's fate is already sealed because of the damage that humans have already inflicted upon the Earth.
At this time in history humankind has no choice except to await the consequences. Humankind hasn't yet encountered an enraged Nature. When Nature becomes angry she shall destroy technological civilization.
Everyone should keep in mind that civilization developed during a 10,000 year climatic stable period. Should the climate change radically this civilization won't survive.
David Mathews
> Aerospace engineers don't
> Aerospace engineers don't design self-sustaining colonies in space, nor could they.
> What I am saying is that it is impossible to build a self-sufficient colony in space. If there are any scientists who disagree they are wrong.
I challenge you to present the facts you base this on. If not here, then provide links to them. Currently nobody here has any reason to believe anything you say.
> We don't (and cannot) know anything with certainty about the future. But when comments about humankind's headlong dive into self-destruction is an observation not a prediction. The explanation is simple: Humankind's extinction will not occur because of an asteroid, black hole or any other natural catastrophe. Humankind's extinction will result from humankind's self-inflicted wounds.
You are again contradicting yourself...
Observations only apply to the present. Ex: humanity appears to be currently destroying itself. But since "We don't (and cannot) know anything with certainty about the future." we do not (and cannot) KNOW that humanity will destroy itself. Also, we cannot KNOW that a gama-ray burst will not occur nearby in the next ten minutes killing every living thing on the planet.
> You are mistaken about a great many things. Mars is lacking in several life-essential properties which no amount of processing can provide.
Oh really? So what is missing? And explain how it is proven impossible to find a source of said life-essential property elsewhere in the solar system/beyond and bring it to the colony.
> Anyhow, those who wish to process Mars' natural resources must confront one rather significant problem: Energy. Mars lacks fossil fuels and the sun is significantly dimmer from that distance. How will you power all of the machines necessary to sustain life on Mars?
Nuclear reactors are definitely an option. They can be built lighter and with more automation than you are assuming. Also, solar is an option, perhaps you didn't notice that the mars rovers operate on solar energy. Mars receives 43.1% of the intensity of light that the earth receives. This just means that you need 56.9% larger solar panels to provide the same energy. More work, yes, but not impossible by any means.
> Life underground on Mars is problematic. The job that you are describing would demand thousands of astronauts (at the very least) and even then it would take centuries to accomplish. Radiation would kill these people before they finished their underground colony.
Holy crap, were you planning to have the colonists dig out the colony by hand? And just how large of a metropolis are you planning here? Not to mention we would build a little at a time and move-in immediately as soon as each chamber was complete. There would not be thousands of astronauts living on the surface without protection.
> Redundant systesm and replacements ... exactly how many tons of equipment are you planning to send to Mars? The project which you are describing would demand $trillions of funding from an American government which is already bankrupt and an American economy which is poised to collapse.
I'm sorry, did I ever give a time-line? Or specify what group of people would build the colony? You are jumping to conclusions. A mars colony would not be self supporting immediately. It would likely take many many years with many shipments from earth. Yes, it would be expensive, but it would not be impossible to ship millions of tons of equipment to mars.
> When technology fails on the Earth death does not inevitably result.
So you DO trust engineers with your life, so long as the likelihood of death is significantly low. Contradicting your earlier statements again I see. But anyway, the people that would volunteer for moving to mars would be aware of the risks.
> If humankind clings desperately to technology our species will suffer the same fate. Technological civilization will not survive the exhaustion of the Earth's resources. Climate change will destroy humankind's basic necessities (food and water for billions of humans).
Technology is not causing our resources to be exhausted, in fact it is allowing our resources to be stretched further than would otherwise be possible. We can grow much more food on an acre of land than was possible 100 years ago, for example. If we run our of available resources, it will be because of over-population, not technology. Also, before you bring up fossil fuels again... there is technology on the horizon that would allow us to produce carbon-neutral gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, whatever... I predict that we will be running on cheap synthetic fuels long before we run out of fossil fuels.