| Tango01 | 08 Dec 2014 4:09 p.m. PST |
…Suffocate, Starve. "Thinking of joining the Mars One mission to establish a permanent colony on the red planet? Here's something to consider before signing on the dotted line: a new computer simulation by students at MIT shows that the colonists would likely face a range of deadly problems, including starvation and suffocation. "We found many problem areas, many of which revolve around the current capability of state-of-the-art technologies," Sydney Do, a doctoral student in aeronautics and astronautics at the university and one of the students behind the simulation, told The Huffington Post in an email. "These problems in turn impact the long-term sustainability of the Mars One Plan." What exactly did the simulation show? For starters, oxygen given off by the colony's crops would build up--raising the risk of fires and placing structural stress on the habitat. The habitat would automatically vent excess gas into space, but eventually the colony's nitrogen tanks would be depleted. That would make it impossible to sustain sufficiently high air pressure within the habitat, and the colonists would suffocate…"
Full article here
link Amicalement
Armand |
| Mardaddy | 08 Dec 2014 4:50 p.m. PST |
And if you do not want it from a political website: link
link
link |
| RavenscraftCybernetics | 08 Dec 2014 6:03 p.m. PST |
|
| Mithmee | 08 Dec 2014 7:08 p.m. PST |
There is always risks with space travel and colonizing other planets. |
| mandt2 | 08 Dec 2014 8:41 p.m. PST |
Colonizing Mars is nuts. I think our next step should be colonizing the Moon. It would give NASA the ability to test the Mars plan at a much more affordable distance. Emergencies would have a chance of positive resolution. It might even be developed into a tourist destination. Colonize the moon. Work out the bugs, and then start thinking about Mars. |
| nvdoyle | 08 Dec 2014 10:06 p.m. PST |
Yeah, going direct to Mars seems…ill-advised. We should go back to the early plans: 1) LEO infrastructure
2) ship to moon
3) Lunar infrastructure
4) ship to Mars/Belt
5) etc. |
| Coelacanth1938 | 08 Dec 2014 10:56 p.m. PST |
When I was a banquets & catering houseman during the 1980s, I used to wait on conservative groups that talked about colonizing Mars like it was some kind of Holy Land (that "Shining City on the Hill"). One group even had this idea in their heads about making slaves out of the "aborigines". I used to laugh at these guys, but these same groups used to get together and talk about doing something about all those "demon-possessed" people in Iraq and Iran. |
| Lupulus | 09 Dec 2014 3:28 a.m. PST |
Colonize the moon. Work out the bugs, and then start thinking about Mars. Exactly. Kill all the Moon Bugs before waging war with the Mars Bugs. |
| Tango01 | 09 Dec 2014 11:41 a.m. PST |
Agree about the Moon. Amicalement
Armand |
dilettante  | 09 Dec 2014 9:28 p.m. PST |
Actually, I found the HuffPost article the most neutral of the 4 websites offered. The others go into much more detail about why colonization at our current level of technology is a possibly bad idea.
I would recommend reading all four articles. It takes all four articles to give the reader all the information. By themselves, each aticle leaves out some information that one would really want to know.
P.S. I also agree about starting on the Moon. But that's not SEXY enough to get the money. |
| RTJEBADIA | 09 Dec 2014 10:49 p.m. PST |
I think a lunar colony would totally be sexy, it's just not as marketed since so much focus has been on Mars for over a decade now. Honestly building LEO spacefaring infrastructure (which is super sexy if you think about it but isn't marketed or done much right now) is the way to go, and lunar colonies/bases can easily be a part of that. |
| PapaSync | 11 Dec 2014 1:00 p.m. PST |
Excuse me! But what to do about all the Nazi on the Moon? 8) |
touches up a toy car.