Is there any reason to go to Mars other
than a small chance of finding fossils of past life forms or finding something that lives?
What utility can a Mars base have?
I feel a moon base would make more sense.
It's close, and it can probably be funded by tourism.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
The only reason to have a Mars base is to get the eggs out of one basket. It isn't a good first choice for that though given that the Mars population would have to live underground or some other heavy shielding.
Venus cloud cities would ultimately have more utility in at least being able to offer up gas mining and earth-like gravity as additional incentives on top of getting the eggs out of one basket.
The reason for colonizing Mars is simple:
1. some people want to go
2. some people can go
Once there is and overlap between 1 and 2 that's all the reason you need to go to Mars, or do anything ever really.
If you're not interested or able, do something else. No further justification needed.
Mining for space habitation and industry
Moonbase can be for more mining for space habitation and industry
Jobs. There are lots of valuable resources in space. There are probably lots of valuable resources on mars. Where there are jobs, there are homes.
People are fucking crazy. There are a lot of people who are and aren't very smart who want to do dangerous and difficult things so that they can say "it has been done." We can rationalize reasons to go to Mars all we want, but in the end, its so we can say for the rest of recorded history, "people were there." It's the same mentality about climbing Mt. Everest, "I want to go there, even if it kills me."
>yeah go ahead and withstand temperatures of 700 K here on venus and by the way the air here is made of sulfuric acid. Have fun!
Fix our problems on earth first.
>moon base
The moon will only ever be useful for small scientific or military stations, or possibly fuel depots. It doesn't have the mineral resources or enough water to sustain industry, so there will never be a self-sufficient lunar base.
>What utility can a Mars base have?
Well, apart from the pure expansion-of-humanity factor ("what utility can the New World have?"), it will be useful as one corner of a trade triangle between itself, Earth and the asteroid belt. Mars will provide fuel and servicing to Belt mining ships, which will lob rare minerals across the void to Earth, which will provide Mars with manufactured goods.
I would literally let a billion third worlders, drug addicts, refugees and single moms starve to death before delaying space exploration by a single year. I do not give a shit about people or countries which are incapable of solving their own damn problems, and I don't see why those of us who can should be held down to the lowest common denominator by them.
>cloud cities on the ground
>Small Chance of finding evidence of past/ extremely slim chance of present life
>There has to be some useful resources on Mars
>Could set up a base/ "gas station" for future space travel
The terra-forming stuff is mostly a pipe dream but why the fuck not go its better then spending the money on bombs and military shit
>better then spending the money on bombs
user pls
The trick is you don't land on Venus, you build an airship 55km above the surface where the average temperature is 27 degrees, the atmospheric pressure is just dense enough that a blimp filled with any gas would float and you're still feeling 90% of Earth's gravity.
If you're not sailing through a sulfuric cloud you could probably walk around comfortably on an external observation deck wearing nothing but an oxygen mask.
well bombing other people at least
You sound like my papa
...
Imagine if Mars was full of water, with a breathable atmosphere, protected from cosmic radiation and even slightly warmer.
Wouldn't you want to go there and enthusiastically colonize such a paradise?
In that case I have good news for you guys, because Antarctica fits the bill, and you can go there with a ship.
Definitely way cheaper than space rockets, actually the cheapest existing method of transportation.
Does anybody do that? Oh yes, there is a treaty to not do that, but treaties can be rewritten if needed, the fact is nobody wanted to go there in the first place.
I'm of the opinion that flying to another planet might actually be marginally easier than rewriting a multilateral international treaty
Mars is a meme, Venus master race
>so there will never be a self-sufficient lunar base.
Once a casino resort is built on the moon tourism bucks will make it self sufficient long before any other place in space.
Mining doesn't make sense, and the research isn't necessarily profitable, the bucks and therefore the sustainable industry are in tourism.
>Mining doesn't make sense.
Helium-3 strip mining actually would be quite profitable with proper equipment and if we can actually build either a Fuel Cell or Fusion generator that'd use it.
>if
>if
>if
We already know people want to chill in space for a few days, we already know rich people exist and like to party.
Lets stick with what we know instead of mining exotic gasses to fuel a pie in the sky unpopular version of vapor tech.
figuring out how to move to and live on mars will create technology to help us on earth.
no one will R&D an automated hydroponic farm dome for earth. people will be lining up to do it for mars.
>What utility can a Mars base have?
we can pollute the ever living fuck out of it and it won't matter.
lol your ancestors were those same people though and you've most likely never contributed a single thing to space exploration other than a tiny fraction of your tax money.
That's OK it's time to take the next step.
Let's see if user makes the cut, if he doesn't, so be it.
The purpose of a Mars base is to live there indefinitely.
The purpose of a moon base is to have a nearby facility with access to lots of mass.
That's fucking stupid.
Annoying as fuck to get in and out of Venus's gravity well for a benefit of just a little sulfuric acid atmosphere?
We could live at the bottom of the ocean, but we don't.
>We could live at the bottom of the ocean, but we don't.
Underwater cities are a terrible idea because they would disturb native marine life.
Space colonies are great because space is devoid of life.
There isn't much life in the deep parts and I don't think they give a fuck if a few acres of sand have been bubbled over.
it is easier and cheaper to build cities on Mars. Than it is under water.
Also solar is about 4 times as effective as on Earth
build it orbital and scoop any air you need from the surface/atmosphere.
Venus is so goddamn shit, you might as well go Mercury.
Is this mathematically true?
Depends how deep you want your underwater city to be.
For shallower depths it's cheaper to sink your structures than launch them. But once you go deep enough that you need to reinforce them against the pressure from the sea, it becomes cheaper to launch inflatable structures to Mars.
Not sure where the cut off point is in terms of meters depth.
The problem is dealing with the electromagnetic storms in the upper atmosphere
MARS NEEDS WOMEN
Truth
If we decide to help out these subhuman wastes of air we'll be stuck doing so for eternity. Better to be rid of them and go onwards to greener pastures
Mars is a frontier. Breaching it does not just get you to Mars, it also guarantees you to find new technology along the way and improve existing technology, which would be used on earth. A lot of stuff we all take for granted right now comes from nasa, while they were figuring out how to keep people alive in space. Going to Mars will do the same thing.
New problems arise on the new planet which need to be fixed. The new tech, or improved tech, this brings can then be used on earth too.
So the public would immensely profit from a Mars Misson, wether or not the people find it useful.
>Go to space, ensure the survival of your species, explore new frontiers, join the interstellar community and make a mark on the history of the universe
>Pay refugees to live in your country, get beheaded, stagnate on Earth forever
Why is this even a debate?
>So the public would immensely profit from a Mars Misson, wether or not the people find it useful.
nice bait, the complete manned space travel is a giant meme, that evolved from superpowers comparing their dick sizes, and let the brainlets believe sending humans into space has a scientific value....
>spread capitalism and oppression as well as spend precious resources that could have helped unfortunate and even starving people
>instead deconstructing society to create a new one free of hate and inequality
Debate shouldn't even be legal.
>Develop new technologies, ascend humanity to immortality, explore the wonders of other worlds, live in post-scarcity society, make breakthroughs in physics, finally comprehend the vast universe you ancestors dreamed of exploring
>Watch your nation's economy collapse, humanity descend to starvation, chaos and war, eventually dying cold and alone of a desolate rock floating through a cold void
Right. It's not like satellites have any use to us. Who need television and phones anyways? Or microwaves. Or the nice fluffy material many car seats are made from.
Even scientists don't get anything from space. Because who cares about the big bang or maybe what the shit is going on in our solar system.
The world would be a better place if we had never gained any of that.
>doesn't even economics
There will always be better things to spend your Mars colonisation budget on, than actually colonising Mars.
Step. Away. From. The. Anime.
>we wouldn't have satellites if it wasn't for manned space program
brainlet
>colonizing Mars
JELLO BABIES
JELLO BABIES
JELLO BABIES
If people want to go to Mars that's all it takes. The primary motivating factor of a person isn't necessarily just going to be money. As silly and poorly constructed as it is, that Mars One plan still had tens of thousands of people signing up to potentially travel to Mars. Many people are bored and restless and yearn for the opportunity to go somewhere where they can do new and exciting and cutting-edge things. Economies adapt depending on what people want. If enough people want mars, it can happen.
>Arthur C. Clarke is anime
Wow, kids today.
Does Mars have an appreciable amount of helium-3?
Not really, Mars has an atmosphere, which prevents Helium from reaching the surface, and not enough gravity to keep it in the atmosphere. If your looking for Helium 3, your best bet is maybe Mercury, The Moon or a Gas giant.
So you're admitting you got your ideas from pulp science fiction. Sure adds credibility to your thesis ...
>implying the squillions of public funds required for a Mars program won't be squandered on bribes for voters
No govermment will ever have that amount of spare cash. And only governments are capable of funding Mars missions.
Do you ever do anything else other than post this retarded opinion in every space thread?
>to us who can
>us
Hehe
Because large gene pools >>>> small gene pools, you utter fuckwit.
>it doesn't have the mineral resources
nigga, it's a giant easily exploitable ball of every mineral on earth, with endless amounts of craters filled with all the shit rare on earth
educate yourself you mouthbreathing retard
space is not empty, it is filled with minerals galore, and would be legendary for anyone with a boner for industrialization
>needing feral africans and genetic rejects for a diverse genepool
Europe and Asia had their gene pool just fine, and built empires that stand in legends now
we do not need the worthless dregs of humanity to shit in it for "diversity"
There's no way a mars base would work without diversity. Nasa is barely "white" anymore and that's a good ting
The moon actually has pretty poor resources. After the Theia impact, the lighter materials left in orbit formed the Moon while the heavier ones fell back to Earth (metals and the like). This results in the moon having a low density compared to the Earth. But the asteroid craters would definitely be worth exploiting, without wind or erosion they would be just sitting there a few meters under the surface.
The population of just 1 European country would be plenty of genetic diversity. You could probably get away with only 200 people, all from European countries, and not worry about genetic diseases as long as they are were specially chosen. Also:
>Nasa is white: Put a man on the moon 6 times
>Nasa isn't white: Relies on Russian rockets to get a few people into low orbit
A moon base does make more sense, it's has minerals to be mined, it has some ice that can be turned into fuel, air, and water, it can act as a jumping off point for other interplanetary flights, it has enough proximity to earth that it's still easy to reach, building megastructures like space elevators is extraordinarily easier due to it's low gravity and vacuum, etc etc etc.
SpaceX for example wants mars specifically because they think people have completely lost interest in space travel and new hunger for expansion into space can only be kindled by a completely new achievement.
You can't do shit on Mars besides kidnap people and brainwash them to be loyal cannon fodder for an invasion on Earth.
You're fucking retarded
soros pls go
why so friendo
we gave mubuntu the farming equipment he wanted, but he never used it, just showed it around and let it collect dust
We could have had fusion in the late 90s if it weren't for Africa.
...
I couldn't honestly blame the lack of nuclear fusion technology on Africa, yes we've wasted a lot of money on pointless and harmful """aid""", but the heart of the issue is the cowardice and ignorance of the population regarding nuclear power.
just watch this
youtube.com
There are thousands of problems on Earth that will never be solved. And colonizing a new planet could help with overpopulation,pollution, and lack of farmland.
Yeah, even if no funding went to Africa, it would probably go to other shit and not fusion, but I was pointing out that money to Africa is greater than money needed to develop fusion.
Figured it was something like that. I suppose the gas giants have the best amount of He3, but has anyone had a not insane idea of how to extract it? I don't think we even figured out how to get close to the things.
>The only reason to have a Mars base is to get the eggs out of one basket
Mars will never be an Earth 2.0, certainly not in our lifetimes. It won't even be able to support a couple of dozen people in our lifetime, just look at the ISS, it's much easier to get people there and ship them resources, yet it's only ever manned by like 6 people.
>Venus cloud cities would ultimately have more utility
Are you for real? Fucking cloud cities? This isn't Star Wars faggot, that's worse and harder to do than Mars.
Threads like these are fucking retarded, they're nothing more than pop-sci masturbation.
Besides floating airships or scoops, not really. But the Moon is much easier to access, so it would be a better destination for mining.
The Venus upper atmosphere has a temperature of 27 degrees, a pressure of around 2 atm, gravity at around 0.9g, ample protection of radiation, and regular earth atmosphere acts as a lifting gas.
Venus' atmosphere is the most Earth-like environment discovered in space.
>Venus' atmosphere is the most Earth-like environment discovered in space.
And no water or cultivable land, not even metals or any other reasonable resource, you have to take everything with you.
At that point it would be a lot more reasonable to build an artificial environment out of the gravity well of a planet.
Planets are overrated.
>Are you for real? Fucking cloud cities? This isn't Star Wars faggot, that's worse and harder to do than Mars.
Actually, not really. A cloud city on Venus would consist of blimps filled with either oxygen or helium.
>brainlet doesn't know how anything works, but shitposts anyways
gases, like everything else, has density
if you put something with greater density, it will sink, if it is lesser density, it will float
Hydrogen and helium are lower density than CO2, thus they will float on it
This is how balloons work, Heated air is lighter than non-heated
so if you have a large balloon, you could put a structure on it and rely on the floating effect to keep it stable, Too much weight? add more hydrogen balloons
Cloud cities are not complex or arcane, they're literally just a fuckton of balloons holding shit up
The cost of space travel is in freefall. Even if musk fails, bezos and others are chomping at the bit to make space access easier and easier.
I think you could get a colony going on mars with moderate support from government and academia. It all comes down to building a lucrative satellite and space launch market via opening it with lower costs and higher volume.
youtube.com
>entire smorgasboard of launch assist methods
>we only need to build 1 (ONE) of them do become space fairing
IT'S NOT FUCKING HARD
WHY DO WE SPEND SHIT ON ECO BULLSHIT INSTEAD OF STUFF THAT WOULD MAKE MONEY
They want cold hard cash? this would give them it, why would they not want money raining down on them
>clearly doesn't know who Arthur Clarke is at all
>posting in Veeky Forums
Just kill yourself.
Most needed resources could be extracted atmospherically on Venus. That would limit the need for resupply and significant recycling.
A space station environment of whatever type will need a significantly larger initial investment and ongoing support or 100% recycling.
The main differences between a habitat space station and a Venus colony is location, gravity, radiation shielding and in-situ resources. If you're building a space station anyway, why not make it float and put it in Venus's atmosphere.