NASA Director Predicts Mars Settlement by 2060

  • metta

    Posts: 39104

    Nov 30, 2010 8:04 AM GMT

    NASA Director Predicts Mars Settlement by 2060


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2010 1:46 PM GMT
    We'll see. I'm still waiting on those hover cars I was promised.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2010 1:47 PM GMT
    I'll be dead then..
  • Bunjamon

    Posts: 3161

    Nov 30, 2010 1:57 PM GMT
    I'll feel sorry for the poor souls who'll have to go live out there. icon_confused.gif
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Nov 30, 2010 2:19 PM GMT
    I'll be 102 icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2010 2:20 PM GMT
    Bunjamon saidI'll feel sorry for the poor souls who'll have to go live out there. icon_confused.gif


    Hhahaha i would go but i will be to old maybe dead untill 2060
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2010 6:37 PM GMT
    I'll be 78. But I don't want to live on Mars then. I'll want to live in the United States, which will be United Mexico by then. Ahhhhh all those sexy little Latins and I'll finally be that old ugly guy with lots of money and therefore hookers. Who needs Mars?

    And judging from the past no, highly doubt there'll be a settlement on Mars, at least well...whoever is traveling to Mars at this time will not be traveling back. We put a man on the Moon in the late 60s, and 50 years later look: no settlement on the Moon. Now why on Earth do People think We're gonna settle on Mars in 50 years when a Man hasn't landed on it yet? And why am I capitalizing nouns? OH MY GOD My German heritage is leaking though again.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2010 6:48 PM GMT
    I was thinking the same thing about the hover/flying cars. I'd rather see those first beforehand.
    For chrissakes they havent' even got anyone living on the moon yet and now they're touting Mars. LOL
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2010 6:57 PM GMT
    I will be 101 in 2060 and more than likely dead. I will be about 20 in my new life so maybe I will have a chance to go there sometime.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2010 7:00 PM GMT
    and hopefully I would be able to take my new hover car with me when I go there.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2010 8:14 PM GMT
    I just read some articles about two "Scientists", Dirk Schulze-Makuch of Washington State University and Paul Davies of Arizona State University, and wondered when the government would get on board with the idea.

    The two scientists stress that it isn't a sucide mission, but the more they say about it the more apearent it becomes that it is exactly that.
    "The astronauts would go to Mars with the intention of staying for the rest of their lives, as trailblazers of a permanent human Mars colony" .

    Schulze-Makuch and Davies contend that Mars has abundant resources to help the colonists become self-sufficient over time. The colony should be next to a large ice cave, to provide shelter from radiation, plus water and oxygen, they wrote.

    Abundant resources? Do they mean ice and radiation? Does it occure to anyone else that those "abundant resources" may just be the reason there isn't life on Mars?

    They believe the one-way trips could start in two decades.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but two decades is 2030, not 2060.

    "You would send a little bit older folks, around 60 or something like that," Schulze-Makuch said, bringing to mind the aging heroes who save the day in "Space Cowboys."

    All of you calculating how old you are going to be, you're exactly who they want to send. So much for spending your golden years relaxing.

    That's because the mission would undoubtedly reduce a person's lifespan, from a lack of medical care and exposure to radiation. That radiation would also damage human reproductive organs, so sending people of childbearing age is not a good idea, he said.

    They say a Mars colony would be a life line for a sick planet and that it isn't a sucide mission. Really? Sure sounds that way to me. If it's a life line for a sick planet why send people unable to reproduce? More importantly, why send them to a radioactve planet?

    There have been seniors in space, including John Glenn, who was 77 when he flew on the space shuttle in 1998.

    Still, Schulze-Makuch believes many people would be willing to make the sacrifice.

    The Mars base would offer humanity a "lifeboat" in the event Earth becomes uninhabitable, they said.

    A lifeboat? All life boats should have as their ultimate goal radiation sickness for those onboard.

    "We are on a vulnerable planet," Schulze-Makuch said. "Asteroid impact can threaten us, or a supernova explosion. If we want to survive as a species, we have to expand into the solar system and likely beyond."

    If we want to survive as a species, why send people who can not reproduce, to a planet that is not capable of supporting human life?

    It all sounds so "Brave New World" (Aldous Huxley) or "Make Room Make Room" (Harry Harrison) and less "Space Cowboys". And we let these people teach our children!

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/scientists-propose-oneway-trips-mars/

    http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars108.html

  • mondo_trasho

    Posts: 89

    Nov 30, 2010 9:43 PM GMT
    Colonizing Mars? Really? Don't we have more pressing issues than the need to colonize another planet?

    It sounds like a waste of resources to me. I can't believe that someone would actually want to live on that hell hole of a planet.

    I just don't see the purpose, and can't image the effort it would take to make it sustainable. If it happens, I hope it will be after I die, so there would be one less thing for me to bitch about.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2010 10:01 PM GMT
    I am holding out to land on Uranus.




    Sorry, someone had to make the obvious juvenile comment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2010 10:05 PM GMT
    GwgTrunks saidWe'll see. I'm still waiting on those hover cars I was promised.

    Yeah, we were all supposed to be living a Jetsons life by now -- cars obsolete, flying everywhere, robots our slaves (not to mention talking dogs). I've been hearing this since the 1950s, and I'm still schlepping around in a car with 4 tires on the road, no robots to serve me, nobody living on the Moon, much less Mars.

    Future predictions are always a fail. icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2010 10:17 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    GwgTrunks saidWe'll see. I'm still waiting on those hover cars I was promised.

    Yeah, we were all supposed to be living a Jetsons life by now -- cars obsolete, flying everywhere, robots our slaves (not to mention talking dogs). I've been hearing this since the 1950s, and I'm still schlepping around in a car with 4 tires on the road, no robots to serve me, nobody living on the Moon, much less Mars.

    Future predictions are always a fail. icon_razz.gif


    We do have Roombas (I named mine Rosie) and moving sidewalks at airports. That's kind of Jetsons like.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2010 10:36 PM GMT
    Heartrobb saidWe do have Roombas (I named mine Rosie) and moving sidewalks at airports. That's kind of Jetsons like.

    I remember automatic lawn mowers back in the 1950s, but those are hardly interactive & talking Jetsons robots. And I rode moving sidewalks (fancy conveyor belts are all they are) at the 1964 New York World's Fair. You'll have to do better than that to convince me we're finally living in the future world we were promised would be here be now.

    It still looks pretty unimpressive to me, albeit some tweaks on stuff we already had decades ago. Flat-screen TV with 3D? I have one myself, but it's still television on a screen, which was the big breakthrough in 1939. Everything else is just improvements on it.

    Where are the holographic projections without need for screens, objects appearing right in front of us from thin air? Where is thought transmission, where a computer keyboard interface is no longer needed? Now those might be real advances. I see very little that is revolutionary today, just evolutionary.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2010 11:25 PM GMT
    I bet we'd get there a lot sooner if China or Iran had the means and the determination to colonize Mars.

    Sadly, our ego fueled NASA for many years instead of science, discovery and exploration. Then came in the politicans who helped to damage the progression or rockets--Reagan, who wanted to extend diplomatic relations with the USSR on international space stations.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2010 11:29 PM GMT
    ArtDeco saidYeah, we were all supposed to be living a Jetsons life by now


    Now that we have Skype, I think we're more than half-way there. We just need those phony masks like they had (here's a clip---you have to sit through TWO commercials, but then you'll see the Skype scene at 4:45 and a mask malfunction about a minute later).

    I forgot how good their theme song was,especially that opening riff!

    As for Mars, I'd love to visit, even though there's not much nightlife and the restaurants are all bad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 12:34 AM GMT
    At 74 years old WTF am I gonna be doing in mars
  • offshore

    Posts: 1294

    Dec 01, 2010 12:47 AM GMT
    Unless there's some kind of commercial incentive. I doubt we'll settle on any heavenly body (apart from earth) any time soon.

    If, however, they discover a huge deposit of gold or something, then we'll be there in a jiff.

    Capitalism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 1:14 AM GMT
    offshore saidUnless there's some kind of commercial incentive. I doubt we'll settle on any heavenly body (apart from earth) any time soon.

    If, however, they discover a huge deposit of gold or something, then we'll be there in a jiff.

    Capitalism.



    oh so true. I doubt unless they find plutonium or some other rare commodity there ... like unobtainium? :-)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 2:30 AM GMT
    offshore saidUnless there's some kind of commercial incentive. I doubt we'll settle on any heavenly body (apart from earth) any time soon.

    If, however, they discover a huge deposit of gold or something, then we'll be there in a jiff.

    Capitalism.


    Or some military application, like mounting a railgun or some other super nasty weapon (but that being said, it would be a better bet to weaponize the moon or a closer orbiting object)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 4:25 AM GMT
    mondo_trasho saidColonizing Mars? Really? Don't we have more pressing issues than the need to colonize another planet?


    No, the Earth will soon end due to world wars.

    But, 2060 is too soon. We haven't even colonized the Moon 50 years after we landed on it, and we haven't even landed on Mars yet.
  • Thirdbeach

    Posts: 1364

    Dec 01, 2010 4:42 AM GMT
    metta8 said
    NASA Director Predicts Mars Settlement by 2060


    Somebody is suing Mars?
    It will take 50 years to reach a settlement.
    I'd hate to be called to jury duty on that one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2010 8:36 AM GMT
    Mars? Sorry, it's not on my mind but I will be in Mars....... in next life.