Curiosity on Mars, secret announcement due?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Quote me where I said anything that would remotely suggest that preposterous claim.

[b]You coudn't even BEGIN to move that many people in one year, not with every airliner and every cruise liner on Earth in a massive undertaking.
Yet you propose shipping them to Mars? How exactly?

You still don't understand the devastating effects on the at ...[text shortened]... t least ten years?
What have I said that lead you to believe that I do not understand that?[/b]

Well you seem to take that fact pretty lightly. Just what would YOU do to get food to billions of people, that is, those still alive?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well you seem to take that fact pretty lightly.

What have I said that leads you to that conclusion? Did I not use ALL CAPS enough?

Just what would YOU do to get food to billions of people, that is, those still alive?
What makes you think I can feed billions of people?

What are you going to do to feed billions of people on Mars? How are you going to get them there?

I already know about the superconductor around the whole planet. What else?
Which of your billion person feeding strategies would work on Mars but not work on a post asteroid earth, and why?

Originally posted by twhitehead
What have I said that leads you to that conclusion? Did I not use ALL CAPS enough?

[b]Just what would YOU do to get food to billions of people, that is, those still alive?
What makes you think I can feed billions of people?

What are you going to do to feed billions of people on Mars? How are you going to get them there?

I already know about ...[text shortened]... ion person feeding strategies would work on Mars but not work on a post asteroid earth, and why?[/b]

Not talking about a billion people on Mars, that would happen only centuries after some colony starts, maybe a few thousand at the start. This is just an insurance policy. There is water on Mars, lots of water, there is a sort of atmosphere, there is no magnetic field yet but that can be manufactured, the gist is you don't put all your eggs in one basket, there will of course be anti asteroid hunters in a few decades and nobody is suggesting we are in eminent danger, the big one might not hit for ten million years, but all avenues of keeping humans alive should be used.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Not talking about a billion people on Mars, that would happen only centuries after some colony starts, maybe a few thousand at the start. This is just an insurance policy.

So why were you asking how I would feed a billion people?

So lets get this straight. Your strategy is to let everyone on Earth die. Surely that is WORTHY OF SOME CAPS!?

There is water on Mars, lots of water, there is a sort of atmosphere, there is no magnetic field yet but that can be manufactured, the gist is you don't put all your eggs in one basket, there will of course be anti asteroid hunters in a few decades and nobody is suggesting we are in eminent danger, the big one might not hit for ten million years, but all avenues of keeping humans alive should be used.
There is water on Earth. Lots of water. There is more than 'a sort of atmosphere'. There is also a magnetic field.
Also it is right here.
The gist is that this basket is the best basket by far and an asteroid strike would not destroy the whole basket. If the aim is to keep some humans alive, then establishing self sustaining colonies on earth is the easiest, cheapest and actually most likely to succeed plan by far. And you have made no rational argument to the contrary. Instead you keep making unfounded claims that I am not aware of the size of an asteroid strike.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So why were you asking how I would feed a billion people?

So lets get this straight. Your strategy is to let everyone on Earth die. Surely that is WORTHY OF SOME CAPS!?

[b]There is water on Mars, lots of water, there is a sort of atmosphere, there is no magnetic field yet but that can be manufactured, the gist is you don't put all your eggs in one b ...[text shortened]... Instead you keep making unfounded claims that I am not aware of the size of an asteroid strike.

What do you think would happen to humanity if the Chicxulub were to hit today?

How would you go about feeding anyone when the sun will be gone for 10 years or more?

It only takes a couple months maximum to starve with no food even if somebody survives.

How many places around the planet can sustain 10 years feeding thousands of people or even hundreds of people ATT?

I'm just saying we shouldn't put our eggs in one basket. I also am not losing sleep over an eminent large asteroid hit. There are a number of smaller ones that have caused some real damage like the Tunguska event in 1908, that hit like a 20 megaton nuke but even if it had hit NYC it would not kill humans as a species.

Even the most recent one that flew by in Russia was more than an atomic bomb in total energy and it injured a few people but we get that kind of thing all the time, most go blam over the ocean since ocean is 70 odd percent of total area of Earth.

There are plans being made as we speak to boost our ability to fry or deflect asteroids but not ones coming in, like SUPRISE, I'm BAAACK, see you in a month.

It's just that we ARE going to Mars, either NASA, ESA, Roscosmos, or China WILL be doing it come hell or high water and if successful (not a slam dunk by any means) they will go back in greater and greater numbers. I expect by the year 2100 for there to be small cities on the moon and Mars. Too bad I won't be around to see it. Hey, it could happen🙂 I'd only be a mere 160🙂

Speaking of asteroids, the 'dwarf planet' Ceres seems to be 30% water. That would mean there is more water there than total on Earth. Of course mostly ice but they have actually seen water geysers there also.

http://www.space.com/35052-water-everywhere-on-dwarf-planet-ceres.html?utm_source=notification

Originally posted by sonhouse
What do you think would happen to humanity if the Chicxulub were to hit today?

About the same as happened to the dinosaurs. But that is not what is being discussed is it?
What will happen to the people on Mars if Chicxulub were to hit today. Oh wait, there aren't any people on Mars.

How would you go about feeding anyone when the sun will be gone for 10 years or more?
First of all, the claim that the sun will be gone for 10 years is complete nonsense. That is not what happened to the dinosaurs, or almost all life would have gone extinct.

But lets grant you that.
Which is easier:
1. Feeding people with minimal sunlight on Earth.
2. Feeding people on Mars.

How many places around the planet can sustain 10 years feeding thousands of people or even hundreds of people ATT?
How many places on Mars can sustain feeding even one person for more than a day ATT?

I'm just saying we shouldn't put our eggs in one basket.
So am I. I am just saying that we should use the cheaper baskets.

Originally posted by twhitehead
About the same as happened to the dinosaurs. But that is not what is being discussed is it?
What will happen to the people on Mars if Chicxulub were to hit today. Oh wait, there aren't any people on Mars.

[b]How would you go about feeding anyone when the sun will be gone for 10 years or more?
First of all, the claim that the sun will be gone for ...[text shortened]... t our eggs in one basket.[/b]
So am I. I am just saying that we should use the cheaper baskets.[/b]

Well, you know, once a technology is on the table it will be used by someone. Maybe the first men on Mars will be Chinese, but there will be humans there in a few decades.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well, you know, once a technology is on the table it will be used by someone. Maybe the first men on Mars will be Chinese, but there will be humans there in a few decades.

And? What does this have to do with your repeated but unsupported claims that I do not realise how big an asteroid impact is and your repeated but unsupported claims that I must feed a billion people but you will let everyone die and somehow your plan is better?

Do you yet admit that when it comes to preparing for an asteroid strike, Earth is by far the better option in every conceivable way?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And? What does this have to do with your repeated but unsupported claims that I do not realise how big an asteroid impact is and your repeated but unsupported claims that I must feed a billion people but you will let everyone die and somehow your plan is better?

Do you yet admit that when it comes to preparing for an asteroid strike, Earth is by far the better option in every conceivable way?

If we have viable colonies on the moon and Mars and the like, if the big one hits Earth, there will be some semblence left of high tech in the hands of humans. You can for sure kiss off high tech if a big one hits Earth. And there is that pesky problem of growing crops when there will be no sun for at least ten years. And the there is the other pesky problem of world wide acid rain. I think in the long run, cities on luna and Mars are inevitable, maybe 100 years from now, maybe 200 but my guess is politics will kick in and there will be a new struggle to make Mars independent from Earth so they would not be dependent on Earth for anything. I think politics will ensure that to happen. THEN if the big one hits, at least tech won't die out completely.

They would naturally want all the crops and animals they could transport to those colonies and so they would be in a better position to repopulate the ecology of Earth which I imagine would recover eventually on its own but aimed in a different direction evolutionarily speaking. We would find it in our best interest to keep the old eco alive.

You know how politicians are, they LOVE huge programs. You want a program to say have a city deep inside a mountain with nuclear power enough for 50 years and a full seed bank, basically a stationary Ark.

That would certainly work, but even ten years later when the atmosphere clears it would be a mostly dead planet and it would be up to us to kick start the ecology. I would hope future Martians seeing Earth dealt a death blow, they would be in there pitching.

Originally posted by sonhouse
If we have viable colonies on the moon and Mars and the like, if the big one hits Earth, there will be some semblence left of high tech in the hands of humans. You can for sure kiss off high tech if a big one hits Earth.

That is simply nonsense. The fact is that there would be far more potential to regenerate a high tech society on Earth than sustain a colony on the Moon or Mars.

And there is that pesky problem of growing crops when there will be no sun for at least ten years.
There is also the pesky problem of growing crops on Mars or the Moon.
And the other pesky problem that you are yet to give any references whatsoever to support your 'no sun for 10 years' claim.
And the other pesky problem that it is far far easier to store 10 years worth of food right here on earth than to establish a Moon or Mars base.

And the there is the other pesky problem of world wide acid rain.
Where would that come from? Asteroids are not acidic.
But even if we grant you that invention, which is worse:
1. Acidic rain.
2. No atmosphere.

I think in the long run, cities on luna and Mars are inevitable, maybe 100 years from now, maybe 200 but my guess is politics will kick in and there will be a new struggle to make Mars independent from Earth so they would not be dependent on Earth for anything. I think politics will ensure that to happen. THEN if the big one hits, at least tech won't die out completely.
I actually think that cities on either are unlikely. There simply aren't any benefits to be gained. I do think there might be small colonies for the purposes of science and tourism, but no more.
But that's besides the point. You are claiming we should establish such colonies for a specific reasons. That reason is bogus.

That would certainly work, but even ten years later when the atmosphere clears it would be a mostly dead planet and it would be up to us to kick start the ecology. I would hope future Martians seeing Earth dealt a death blow, they would be in there pitching.
Which would be easier, kick starting a dead Earth or kick-starting Mars?

Why are you refusing to admit that you are wrong? Very very wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is simply nonsense. The fact is that there would be far more potential to regenerate a high tech society on Earth than sustain a colony on the Moon or Mars.

[b]And there is that pesky problem of growing crops when there will be no sun for at least ten years.
There is also the pesky problem of growing crops on Mars or the Moon.
And the other ...[text shortened]... rth or kick-starting Mars?

Why are you refusing to admit that you are wrong? Very very wrong.[/b]

It doesn't matter if I am right or wrong, humans on Mars is a given assuming our tech keeps developing as it is now.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It doesn't matter if I am right or wrong, humans on Mars is a given assuming our tech keeps developing as it is now.

It doesn't really matter sure. But its interesting that you won't admit it even when it is plainly obvious that you are wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_planet_killers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_catastrophic_risk

eggs, baskets, this is known
Plus we have a psychological need to explore, expand and colonize.
This isn't about money.

Originally posted by apathist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_planet_killers

Did you even bother to check what that was about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_catastrophic_risk
Which of those could be better protected against by going off planet?

eggs, baskets, this is known
Huh?

Plus we have a psychological need to explore, expand and colonize.
And? How is that relevant? Explore all you like. Just don't do it under false pretences.

It is clear sonhouse doesn't actually care about killer asteroids, he just wants and excuse for a Mars base.

This isn't about money.
Yes actually, it is in part. The question under discussion was what would be the cheapest as well as most sensible way to protect against killer asteroids. When you are talking about wasting trillions of dollars on unnecessary expenditure then that waste in itself is a threat to our well being. But even putting the money aside, the reality is that well made plans on earth would have a better chance of survival than a Mars colony.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Did you even bother to check what that was about?

[b]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_catastrophic_risk
Which of those could be better protected against by going off planet?

eggs, baskets, this is known
Huh?

Plus we have a psychological need to explore, expand and colonize.
And? How is that relevant? Explore all you like. ...[text shortened]... lity is that well made plans on earth would have a better chance of survival than a Mars colony.[/b]

You do realize money spent on space isn't like just taking a billion in cash and loading onto a rocket bound to crash on Luna, right? Money spent on space is like money spent anywhere else, it goes to people working in that system, contractors, engineers, mathematicians, physicists, chemists and so forth. That money is spent right here on Earth and benefits tens of thousands of people.

Besides, I don't just want some kind of Mars base with 20 people shivering in the cold, I want a thriving civilization capable of living independently of Earth.