Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

I am not sure why you think we are looking to feed non-existent Martians.

????....you did read the OP didn't you?......the one that starts out....
"Mars explorers could use complicated mechanical systems to produce oxygen and filter waste, and eat food carried from Earth. Or they could just save a lot of hassle and plant crops."

it was about growing things in hostile environments.....which is why I responded with "Sahara desert".......this isn't that complicated unless you're stretching just to have an argument......

__________________
....attached to sanity by a bungee cord.....

Fair point, PmP.

But there is a shortage of water both on Mars and in the Sahara desert. In the Martian gravity you may be able to do with 90% less water than on Earth, but that is not helpful if you have no water at all, or if it costs you $100,000 a kilo (I am guessing here) to ferry it from Earth.

The Sahara water shortage, while not intractable, might turn out to be an affordable project if food crops flourish in an irrigated desert. On the minus side, since the Sahara surface cover consists mainly of sand over a large proportion of its area, it scarcely appeals as a place to find fertile soil.

Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet

????....you did read the OP didn't you?......the one that starts out.... "Mars explorers...

So, it's not about Martians but about Terrians who would make the move to colonize Mars. Just as the Spanish who started colonising the New World where, at first, heavily dependent on supplies from Spain...

Quote:

it was about growing things in hostile environments.....which is why I responded with "Sahara desert".......this isn't that complicated unless you're stretching just to have an argument......

The reason we're debating this is that I think colonising Mars is worth any reasonable expense ($100 billions a year seems reasonable to me, all things considered). You don't seem to share that opinion and seem to think that any amount could be best employed sorting out problems on Earth. To that objection, I countered that most Earthly problems are about politics rather than money... AFAIK, this is where the conversation stands.

I am not looking for a fight, just discussing things with you.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

The point about "feeding martians" is about the sustainability of a colony; it would be very expensive to transport food from here.

This is not a discussion of "open air" farming. Water used once can be recycled and used again; water taken up by plants and emitted can also be captured and reused. Further, it has been shown that Mars does have water.

Actually the downside to this seems to me to be one that was not mentioned; under the low gravity conditions, if you tracked a bit of mud into the habitat it woulkd become an excellent bacterial breeding ground.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

So, it's not about Martians but about Terrians who would make the move to colonize Mars. Just as the Spanish who started colonising the New World where, at first, heavily dependent on supplies from Spain... The reason we're debating this is that I think colonising Mars is worth any reasonable expense ($100 billions a year seems reasonable to me, all things considered). You don't seem to share that opinion and seem to think that any amount could be best employed sorting out problems on Earth. To that objection, I countered that most Earthly problems are about politics rather than money... AFAIK, this is where the conversation stands. I am not looking for a fight, just discussing things with you.

"discussing" whether it's wrong to call Martian colonists "martians" instead of "terrans" is picking a fight.....you knew perfectly well what I was talking about......

__________________
....attached to sanity by a bungee cord.....

Okay, maybe I was wrong... but that was my way of emphasizing that we are not recommending going to Mars for the fun of it but because we need to.

Technically, I think oceans are also good places to explore - They are supposed to be lots and lots of interesting stuff down there and enough SF has been written about floating, semi-submerged and on-the-seabed stations to make the prospect appealing...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

Okay, maybe I was wrong... but that was my way of emphasizing that we are not recommending going to Mars for the fun of it but because we need to. Technically, I think oceans are also good places to explore - They are supposed to be lots and lots of interesting stuff down there and enough SF has been written about floating, semi-submerged and on-the-seabed stations to make the prospect appealing...

There are many things we "need" to do....do you really think going to Mars has as high a priority as solving world hunger?.....I think if I had to make a list in priority of those things we 'need' to do, going to Mars would rank somewhere in the second or third thousand.....maybe on a par with saving the three toed sloth from extinction.........

__________________
....attached to sanity by a bungee cord.....

Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet

Do you really think going to Mars has as high a priority as solving world hunger?

1- Yes.
2- But, even if you do not share that opinion, the beauty, in that case, is that solving world hunger is not competing with colonising Mars.

Now, I guess that, on your own list, there will be things that require money and so would compete with Mars colonisation and that are ranked higher. OK, I get that.

But I find it incredible that you do not think getting a new planet is important. Even if you do not believe in Climate Change. Remember, "the rapture is not an exit strategy", to quote whoever said that first...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

But I find it incredible that you do not think getting a new planet is important. Even if you do not believe in Climate Change. Remember, "the rapture is not an exit strategy", to quote whoever said that first...

I'm surprised you do.....I would put "stop fucking up THIS planet" on a much higher priority than "Look for a new planet to fuck up"...........

__________________
....attached to sanity by a bungee cord.....

Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet

I'm surprised you do.....I would put "stop fucking up THIS planet" on a much higher priority than "Look for a new planet to fuck up"...........

Since we can't seem to stop fucking this planet (partly because we don't agree on what's wrong with it), I think we will need a new one. Besides that, it would allow for our surplus pop. to go somewhere...

i.e. i think it's easier to get to Mars than to convince everyone on Earth to behave for the long term benefit of all...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.