Why Humans Can't Even Colonize Mars

[forkup]

God knows what is out there ??
Could be a planet of just insects or even just oceans of huge fish
Maybe a planet of dinosaurs like creatures

I think more likely is a planet that has nothing more than bacterial life at best, if that much. Solely going by how life is distributed in our solar system.

 

[Dusty]

why do you have trouble accepting that space exploration might be a solution for that?

Do you know how many TONS of propellant it takes to get a 150 pound person even into low earth or it, let alone take him to the nearest star in 70,000 years?????

It takes a shitload to get a person into low orbit. Once in actual outer space, all it takes is the amount to get up to speed, and then minor amounts to make course corrections and avoid obstacles.

Yes you need 5 miles per second to get to low orbit
Rocket fuel is extremely ineffective

If the space craft is built at a space station, the need to get into low orbit and still be safe for the frail human body, will not be as big a factor.

Yes but Rocket fuel will never get you far

Nuclear power can. So can fusion engines. First is possible with today's technologies. The second is feasible probably in our lifetime.

There are no fusion engines

 

[forkup]

why do you have trouble accepting that space exploration might be a solution for that?

Do you know how many TONS of propellant it takes to get a 150 pound person even into low earth or it, let alone take him to the nearest star in 70,000 years?????

It takes a shitload to get a person into low orbit. Once in actual outer space, all it takes is the amount to get up to speed, and then minor amounts to make course corrections and avoid obstacles.

Yes you need 5 miles per second to get to low orbit
Rocket fuel is extremely ineffective

If the space craft is built at a space station, the need to get into low orbit and still be safe for the frail human body, will not be as big a factor.

Yes but Rocket fuel will never get you far

Nuclear power can. So can fusion engines. First is possible with today's technologies. The second is feasible probably in our lifetime.

There are no fusion engines

Yes, I acknowledged that.

 

[Dusty]

We can visit Mars for a short time like we did the moon but the soil is toxic and the radiation is intense. We won't stay very long.

The problem is, it's a 2 year trip, minimum. To the moon is only a few days.

That's a LOOONG time to go without an equipment malfunction that could cost everyone their lives.

And MOST of the mars landings ended in failure

Most people don't have a clue how big Space is.

If the sun was the size of a golf ball the nearest star would be about 760 miles away.

It would take the entire energy output of the world for three years to propel a spacecraft the size of a Shuttle to 20% the speed of light.

...and Mars is relatively "close".

Not if an ion drive is employed, though I agree that blowing stuff off the Earth is meaningless

Nobody wants to face the fact that the earth is humanity's home/prison.

People have been brainwashed by science FICTION

Not so long ago the Oceans imprisoned people to where they were. Soon space will just be another ocean to cross

You've Chewed More Than You Bit Off

It took years for someone to finally swim the English Channel. Does that mean that someday someone will swim the Atlantic? Ocean? Comparing this escapist Trekkie circus to anything but childish self-indulgence by nerdy misfits is an insult to mankind's brave explorers.

Normal people take a boat.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It took years for someone to finally swim the English Channel. Does that mean that someday someone will swim the Atlantic? Ocean?

Someday... 23 years ago....

Man who beat Atlantic Ocean poised to become 1st person to swim across the Pacific

A historic expedition is scheduled for next week when long-distance swimmer Ben Lecomte begins a roughly 5,500-mile swim across the Pacific Ocean.

abcnews.go.com

 

[Carl in Michigan]

why do you have trouble accepting that space exploration might be a solution for that?

Do you know how many TONS of propellant it takes to get a 150 pound person even into low earth or it, let alone take him to the nearest star in 70,000 years?????

It takes a shitload to get a person into low orbit. Once in actual outer space, all it takes is the amount to get up to speed, and then minor amounts to make course corrections and avoid obstacles.

Yes you need 5 miles per second to get to low orbit
Rocket fuel is extremely ineffective

If the space craft is built at a space station, the need to get into low orbit and still be safe for the frail human body, will not be as big a factor.

Yes but Rocket fuel will never get you far

Constant low acceleration can get you to a relatively high speed reasonably quickly.

Yes but still slow to travel to the stars

Adam was created 6,000 years ago.
With todays technology it would take him another 64,000 years to get to the nearest star

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

why do you have trouble accepting that space exploration might be a solution for that?

Do you know how many TONS of propellant it takes to get a 150 pound person even into low earth or it, let alone take him to the nearest star in 70,000 years?????

It takes a shitload to get a person into low orbit. Once in actual outer space, all it takes is the amount to get up to speed, and then minor amounts to make course corrections and avoid obstacles.

Yes you need 5 miles per second to get to low orbit
Rocket fuel is extremely ineffective

If the space craft is built at a space station, the need to get into low orbit and still be safe for the frail human body, will not be as big a factor.

Yes but Rocket fuel will never get you far

Constant low acceleration can get you to a relatively high speed reasonably quickly.

Yes but still slow to travel to the stars

Adam was created 6,000 years ago.
With toda6s technology it would take him another 64,000 years to get to the nearest star

Please leave religious mythology out of the science section.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

why do you have trouble accepting that space exploration might be a solution for that?

Do you know how many TONS of propellant it takes to get a 150 pound person even into low earth or it, let alone take him to the nearest star in 70,000 years?????

It takes a shitload to get a person into low orbit. Once in actual outer space, all it takes is the amount to get up to speed, and then minor amounts to make course corrections and avoid obstacles.

Yes you need 5 miles per second to get to low orbit
Rocket fuel is extremely ineffective

If the space craft is built at a space station, the need to get into low orbit and still be safe for the frail human body, will not be as big a factor.

Yes but Rocket fuel will never get you far

Nuclear power can. So can fusion engines. First is possible with today's technologies. The second is feasible probably in our lifetime.

There are no fusion engines

Yes, I acknowledged that.

Folding space seems like the way to go. Why travel to another star, when we can just bring it to us?

 

[forkup]

why do you have trouble accepting that space exploration might be a solution for that?

Do you know how many TONS of propellant it takes to get a 150 pound person even into low earth or it, let alone take him to the nearest star in 70,000 years?????

It takes a shitload to get a person into low orbit. Once in actual outer space, all it takes is the amount to get up to speed, and then minor amounts to make course corrections and avoid obstacles.

Yes you need 5 miles per second to get to low orbit
Rocket fuel is extremely ineffective

If the space craft is built at a space station, the need to get into low orbit and still be safe for the frail human body, will not be as big a factor.

Yes but Rocket fuel will never get you far

Nuclear power can. So can fusion engines. First is possible with today's technologies. The second is feasible probably in our lifetime.

There are no fusion engines

Yes, I acknowledged that.

Folding space seems like the way to go. Why travel to another star, when we can just bring it to us?

Maybe. If we can conquer the theoretical, technical, and engineering problems this will entail. Maybe we find a way we haven't even envisioned yet? It's just too hard to tell how. I'm pretty sure though that we will find a way.

 

[Dusty]

why do you have trouble accepting that space exploration might be a solution for that?

Do you know how many TONS of propellant it takes to get a 150 pound person even into low earth or it, let alone take him to the nearest star in 70,000 years?????

It takes a shitload to get a person into low orbit. Once in actual outer space, all it takes is the amount to get up to speed, and then minor amounts to make course corrections and avoid obstacles.

Yes you need 5 miles per second to get to low orbit
Rocket fuel is extremely ineffective

If the space craft is built at a space station, the need to get into low orbit and still be safe for the frail human body, will not be as big a factor.

Yes but Rocket fuel will never get you far

Nuclear power can. So can fusion engines. First is possible with today's technologies. The second is feasible probably in our lifetime.

There are no fusion engines

Yes, I acknowledged that.

Folding space seems like the way to go. Why travel to another star, when we can just bring it to us?

What makes folding space different than dilithium crystal warp drive?

 

[Dusty]

why do you have trouble accepting that space exploration might be a solution for that?

Do you know how many TONS of propellant it takes to get a 150 pound person even into low earth or it, let alone take him to the nearest star in 70,000 years?????

It takes a shitload to get a person into low orbit. Once in actual outer space, all it takes is the amount to get up to speed, and then minor amounts to make course corrections and avoid obstacles.

Yes you need 5 miles per second to get to low orbit
Rocket fuel is extremely ineffective

If the space craft is built at a space station, the need to get into low orbit and still be safe for the frail human body, will not be as big a factor.

Yes but Rocket fuel will never get you far

Nuclear power can. So can fusion engines. First is possible with today's technologies. The second is feasible probably in our lifetime.

There are no fusion engines

Yes, I acknowledged that.

Folding space seems like the way to go. Why travel to another star, when we can just bring it to us?

Maybe. If we can conquer the theoretical, technical, and engineering problems this will entail. Maybe we find a way we haven't even envisioned yet? It's just too hard to tell how. I'm pretty sure though that we will find a way.

God Got here, so we shall get there

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What makes folding space different than dilithium crystal warp drive?

No idea!

 

[forkup]

why do you have trouble accepting that space exploration might be a solution for that?

Do you know how many TONS of propellant it takes to get a 150 pound person even into low earth or it, let alone take him to the nearest star in 70,000 years?????

It takes a shitload to get a person into low orbit. Once in actual outer space, all it takes is the amount to get up to speed, and then minor amounts to make course corrections and avoid obstacles.

Yes you need 5 miles per second to get to low orbit
Rocket fuel is extremely ineffective

If the space craft is built at a space station, the need to get into low orbit and still be safe for the frail human body, will not be as big a factor.

Yes but Rocket fuel will never get you far

Nuclear power can. So can fusion engines. First is possible with today's technologies. The second is feasible probably in our lifetime.

There are no fusion engines

Yes, I acknowledged that.

Folding space seems like the way to go. Why travel to another star, when we can just bring it to us?

What makes folding space different than dilithium crystal warp drive?

The first has a theoretical underpinning. The second is made up.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

why do you have trouble accepting that space exploration might be a solution for that?

Do you know how many TONS of propellant it takes to get a 150 pound person even into low earth or it, let alone take him to the nearest star in 70,000 years?????

It takes a shitload to get a person into low orbit. Once in actual outer space, all it takes is the amount to get up to speed, and then minor amounts to make course corrections and avoid obstacles.

Yes you need 5 miles per second to get to low orbit
Rocket fuel is extremely ineffective

If the space craft is built at a space station, the need to get into low orbit and still be safe for the frail human body, will not be as big a factor.

Yes but Rocket fuel will never get you far

Nuclear power can. So can fusion engines. First is possible with today's technologies. The second is feasible probably in our lifetime.

There are no fusion engines

Yes, I acknowledged that.

Folding space seems like the way to go. Why travel to another star, when we can just bring it to us?

What makes folding space different than dilithium crystal warp drive?

The first has a theoretical underpinning. The second is made up.

I was hoping for some Trekkie gold from him. I have never been much of a Trekkie.

 

[forkup]

why do you have trouble accepting that space exploration might be a solution for that?

Do you know how many TONS of propellant it takes to get a 150 pound person even into low earth or it, let alone take him to the nearest star in 70,000 years?????

It takes a shitload to get a person into low orbit. Once in actual outer space, all it takes is the amount to get up to speed, and then minor amounts to make course corrections and avoid obstacles.

Yes you need 5 miles per second to get to low orbit
Rocket fuel is extremely ineffective

If the space craft is built at a space station, the need to get into low orbit and still be safe for the frail human body, will not be as big a factor.

Yes but Rocket fuel will never get you far

Nuclear power can. So can fusion engines. First is possible with today's technologies. The second is feasible probably in our lifetime.

There are no fusion engines

Yes, I acknowledged that.

Folding space seems like the way to go. Why travel to another star, when we can just bring it to us?

Maybe. If we can conquer the theoretical, technical, and engineering problems this will entail. Maybe we find a way we haven't even envisioned yet? It's just too hard to tell how. I'm pretty sure though that we will find a way.

God Got here, so we shall get there

To quote Piere-Simon Laplace when asked about the place of God in his description of the movement of planets.

“I Have No Need of that Hypothesis”

 

[forkup]

why do you have trouble accepting that space exploration might be a solution for that?

Do you know how many TONS of propellant it takes to get a 150 pound person even into low earth or it, let alone take him to the nearest star in 70,000 years?????

It takes a shitload to get a person into low orbit. Once in actual outer space, all it takes is the amount to get up to speed, and then minor amounts to make course corrections and avoid obstacles.

Yes you need 5 miles per second to get to low orbit
Rocket fuel is extremely ineffective

If the space craft is built at a space station, the need to get into low orbit and still be safe for the frail human body, will not be as big a factor.

Yes but Rocket fuel will never get you far

Nuclear power can. So can fusion engines. First is possible with today's technologies. The second is feasible probably in our lifetime.

There are no fusion engines

Yes, I acknowledged that.

Folding space seems like the way to go. Why travel to another star, when we can just bring it to us?

What makes folding space different than dilithium crystal warp drive?

The first has a theoretical underpinning. The second is made up.

I was hoping for some Trekkie gold from him. I have never been much of a Trekkie.

I'm a huge Trekkie, to be honest. I'm however very much aware of the difference between fact and fiction. That doesn't mean it's not fun to watch.

But just for you. Heghlu'DI' mobbe'lu'chugh QaQpu' Hegh wanI' (Death is an experience best shared.)

 

[Dusty]

What makes folding space different than dilithium crystal warp drive?

No idea!

Then stop babbling about folding space

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

why do you have trouble accepting that space exploration might be a solution for that?

Do you know how many TONS of propellant it takes to get a 150 pound person even into low earth or it, let alone take him to the nearest star in 70,000 years?????

It takes a shitload to get a person into low orbit. Once in actual outer space, all it takes is the amount to get up to speed, and then minor amounts to make course corrections and avoid obstacles.

Yes you need 5 miles per second to get to low orbit
Rocket fuel is extremely ineffective

If the space craft is built at a space station, the need to get into low orbit and still be safe for the frail human body, will not be as big a factor.

Yes but Rocket fuel will never get you far

Nuclear power can. So can fusion engines. First is possible with today's technologies. The second is feasible probably in our lifetime.

There are no fusion engines

Yes, I acknowledged that.

Folding space seems like the way to go. Why travel to another star, when we can just bring it to us?

What makes folding space different than dilithium crystal warp drive?

The first has a theoretical underpinning. The second is made up.

I was hoping for some Trekkie gold from him. I have never been much of a Trekkie.

I'm a huge Trekkie, to be honest. I'm however very much aware of the difference between fact and fiction. That doesn't mean it's not fun to watch.

I'm sure it is. I was kind of hoping for the detailed Trekkie explanation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then stop babbling about folding space

Why? Tourette's outburst on your part, here? Settle down.

 

[Dusty]

why do you have trouble accepting that space exploration might be a solution for that?

Do you know how many TONS of propellant it takes to get a 150 pound person even into low earth or it, let alone take him to the nearest star in 70,000 years?????

It takes a shitload to get a person into low orbit. Once in actual outer space, all it takes is the amount to get up to speed, and then minor amounts to make course corrections and avoid obstacles.

Yes you need 5 miles per second to get to low orbit
Rocket fuel is extremely ineffective

If the space craft is built at a space station, the need to get into low orbit and still be safe for the frail human body, will not be as big a factor.

Yes but Rocket fuel will never get you far

Nuclear power can. So can fusion engines. First is possible with today's technologies. The second is feasible probably in our lifetime.

There are no fusion engines

Yes, I acknowledged that.

Folding space seems like the way to go. Why travel to another star, when we can just bring it to us?

Maybe. If we can conquer the theoretical, technical, and engineering problems this will entail. Maybe we find a way we haven't even envisioned yet? It's just too hard to tell how. I'm pretty sure though that we will find a way.

God Got here, so we shall get there

To quote Piere-Simon Laplace when asked about the place of God in his description of the movement of planets.

“I Have No Need of that Hypothesis”

Ask Simon how nothing creates DNA in ponds