Ridley Scotts new movie The Martian

Discussion in 'OFF-Topic / Misc.' started by parsifal, Oct 1, 2015.

  1. parsifal

    parsifal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    10,679
    Likes Received:
    676
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Urban Design/Strategic Studies Tutor
    Location:
    Orange NSW
    Ive always had an interest in space exploration and manned missions to Mars. Ever since the Apollo missions Ive watched with interest developments in Space technology. I always assumed that in 20-30 years after the last Apollo Mission we would just go to Mars, but now,, it might be 2050 before we get there, if at all.

    Im interested to hear peoples opinions about this. Should we go, and if so, how do we go, and where should we go to the red planet.

    This thread is motivated by me going to see the new Ridley Scott movie this weekend and of course the strong evidence of flowing water on our neighbour. I am curious to hear other peoples opinions.

    My opinion, we should go, as early as is possible, with the ultimate goal of having a permanent presence on the red planet.

    So what is the consensus?
     
  2. vikingBerserker

    vikingBerserker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    24,093
    Likes Received:
    656
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Korporate Kontrolleur
    Location:
    South Carolina
    I think it would be great to colonize another planet. It would be interesting to see mankind's evolution on it.

    On a side note and a 3am random thought, I always wonder if Noah's ark was based on a space ship leaving a dying planet.
     
  3. Airframes

    Airframes Benevolens Magister

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    47,723
    Likes Received:
    1,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Cheshire, UK
    Maybe colonise it with all the blood-thirsty, crazed loonies from some of the Middle Eastern counties, so they can truly have an I.S. !
     
  4. parsifal

    parsifal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    10,679
    Likes Received:
    676
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Urban Design/Strategic Studies Tutor
    Location:
    Orange NSW
    There is one glaring error that ive noticed just from the trailers. The mission is forced to abort because of a thundering storm......but Mars has virtually no atmosphere. oops.

    The things that will be challenging to any mission will be radiation sickness for one thing. Also of course the costs. There have also been some concerns about the contents of the soil itself being toxic.....I forget the term.

    Zubrin thinks all of these issues are essentially red herrings. I tend to agree.

    In a different vein, what might be the benefits of a permanent presence on Mars, say in 100 years.
     
  5. GrauGeist

    GrauGeist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,217
    Likes Received:
    2,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Public Safety Automotive Technician
    Location:
    Redding, California
    Home Page:
    #5 GrauGeist, Oct 2, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2015
    Mars has enough of an atmosphere that during the "summer" months, violent dust storms rage across the equatorial regions.

    When I was a kid, I read (ok, perhaps "consumed" is a better word) the works of Ray Bradbury, Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlin and the rest...Mars was a fascinating frontier (as was Venus - but little did we know) and with the success of the Apollo missions, Mars seemed just a few years away.

    The apathy of the 70's robbed us all of what "may have been" and it's taken quite a long time to play catch-up.

    I was also going to mention that without an active iron core, Mars lacks the protective magnetic field that's needed to ward off the Sun's solar radiation...so how would any bio-organic organism survive in that wicked environment...including human visitors?
     
Loading...

Share This Page