• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

who gets Mars?

A

adelphi

Banned
if the US probe/walker thing actually finds water there, i wonder will there be a dash for land grab
as any capable nation will try to colonize/stake their claim there ASAP

a sign planted into the martian soiled
"To contact owner of this planet, please visit US.Earth.this sector of the solarsys.this solar system,
this galaxy, this universe, this dimension, this reality..."

after that, competition for the control of spice, mineral patches and enerjon cubes will begin
 
WTF - am I the only one missing the real point or idea of this thread? Why would people buy land on mars if there was water?
 
I believe by international treaty, no country gets to "own" a part of any of the planets (or the moon, etc.)

That didn't stop some douchebag from thinking that he could legally sell plots of land on the moon and mars, etc. Sort of like one of those "name a star after yourself" things..
 
Mars Odyssey already found high concentrations of water ice (20-50% by mass) in the upper lattitudes, first meter of soil. You have to go deeper for ice the closer to the equator you get, probably 750 feet down at the equator based on studies of craters. It's not going to find water sitting on the surface becasue water can't exist in an atmosphere with that low of a pressure, it boils.
 
I'm proud to be an American. I don't think anyone will take "claim", but we will have the honor and dignity of being the first to find it, and send people there first (and yes I am very sure on this). Considering Bush is finally pushing a proposal to plan for a manned mission to Mars, and everything I have seen so far from NASA has said around 2018, I would say we should be the first to go, and get humans back alive. Sooner than later we will start sending larger ships to mars with a HAB, and fuel production stations. You will see. Instead of how we went to the moon (one flight brings everything, return vehicle, return fuel, and HAB), we will send it in components. First we will send two rockets up to Mars with identical payloads. They will have a HAB, a return vehicle, and a fuel production plant for the return vehicle. Why two you ask? redundancy. If one goes South, the other will be able to take it's place. This also prepares for future missions after the initial one. Each mission will include this prep vehicle, and the manned vehicle.
 
Originally posted by: KraziKid
I'm proud to be an American. We will take claim and send people there first (and yes I am very sure on this). Considering Bush is finally pushing a proposal to plan for a manned mission to Mars, and everything I have seen so far from NASA has said around 2018, I would say we should be the first to go, and get humans back alive. Sooner than later we will start sending larger ships to mars with a HAB, and fuel production stations. You will see. Instead of how we went to the moon (one flight brings everything, return vehicle, return fuel, and HAB), we will send it in components. First we will send two rockets up to Mars with identical payloads. They will have a HAB, a return vehicle, and a fuel production plant for the return vehicle. Why two you ask? redundancy. If one goes South, the other will be able to take it's place. This also prepares for future missions after the initial one. Each mission will include this prep vehicle, and the manned vehicle.
Click to expand...

Case for Mars? I hope Zubrin can throw a little common sense into whatever NASA comes up with. Or we will have another 400 billion dollar proposal that gets shot down.

The country that gets their first and enforces that claim gets Mars.
 
Originally posted by: KraziKid
I'm proud to be an American. I don't think anyone will take "claim", but we will have the honor and dignity of being the first to find it, and send people there first (and yes I am very sure on this). Considering Bush is finally pushing a proposal to plan for a manned mission to Mars, and everything I have seen so far from NASA has said around 2018, I would say we should be the first to go, and get humans back alive. Sooner than later we will start sending larger ships to mars with a HAB, and fuel production stations. You will see. Instead of how we went to the moon (one flight brings everything, return vehicle, return fuel, and HAB), we will send it in components. First we will send two rockets up to Mars with identical payloads. They will have a HAB, a return vehicle, and a fuel production plant for the return vehicle. Why two you ask? redundancy. If one goes South, the other will be able to take it's place. This also prepares for future missions after the initial one. Each mission will include this prep vehicle, and the manned vehicle.
Click to expand...

Wow way to go Bill Nye
 
Originally posted by: Magnum375
Originally posted by: KraziKid
I'm proud to be an American. I don't think anyone will take "claim", but we will have the honor and dignity of being the first to find it, and send people there first (and yes I am very sure on this). Considering Bush is finally pushing a proposal to plan for a manned mission to Mars, and everything I have seen so far from NASA has said around 2018, I would say we should be the first to go, and get humans back alive. Sooner than later we will start sending larger ships to mars with a HAB, and fuel production stations. You will see. Instead of how we went to the moon (one flight brings everything, return vehicle, return fuel, and HAB), we will send it in components. First we will send two rockets up to Mars with identical payloads. They will have a HAB, a return vehicle, and a fuel production plant for the return vehicle. Why two you ask? redundancy. If one goes South, the other will be able to take it's place. This also prepares for future missions after the initial one. Each mission will include this prep vehicle, and the manned vehicle.
Click to expand...

Wow way to go Bill Nye
Click to expand...
What do you mean way to go? This plan has been documented in several book's I have read, and even on TV shows of late. It is the safest method to go there, and most cost effective. Pretty much the only debate left is whether to send the astronauts on a direct route to Mars (around 6-7 Month journey), or a slingshot route around Venus (around 1.2-1.5 year journey). Those time's depend when during the launch window you leave.
 
Man will not step foot on Mars in the near future. Perhaps in a couple of hundred years, by not now. We can develop the technology but there is no need. Robots can do everything that needs to be done for a far lower cost. We need to take care of the problem we have created here at home before taking our hate into the cosmos.
 
Mars Odyssey already found high concentrations of water ice (20-50% by mass) in the upper lattitudes, first meter of soil.
Click to expand...
Can you provide a link to prove this statement?

Bleep
 
Originally posted by: KraziKid
Originally posted by: Magnum375
Originally posted by: KraziKid
I'm proud to be an American. I don't think anyone will take "claim", but we will have the honor and dignity of being the first to find it, and send people there first (and yes I am very sure on this). Considering Bush is finally pushing a proposal to plan for a manned mission to Mars, and everything I have seen so far from NASA has said around 2018, I would say we should be the first to go, and get humans back alive. Sooner than later we will start sending larger ships to mars with a HAB, and fuel production stations. You will see. Instead of how we went to the moon (one flight brings everything, return vehicle, return fuel, and HAB), we will send it in components. First we will send two rockets up to Mars with identical payloads. They will have a HAB, a return vehicle, and a fuel production plant for the return vehicle. Why two you ask? redundancy. If one goes South, the other will be able to take it's place. This also prepares for future missions after the initial one. Each mission will include this prep vehicle, and the manned vehicle.
Click to expand...

Wow way to go Bill Nye
Click to expand...
What do you mean way to go? This plan has been documented in several book's I have read, and even on TV shows of late. It is the safest method to go there, and most cost effective. Pretty much the only debate left is whether to send the astronauts on a direct route to Mars (around 6-7 Month journey), or a slingshot route around Venus (around 1.2-1.5 year journey). Those time's depend when during the launch window you leave.
Click to expand...

Hoffman Transfer is way better than the Venus sling shot. Accelerated Hoffman transfer for the trip there. No rush with the unmanned rocket, that could be straight Hoffman Transfer, bigger payload because speed isn't an issue with the unmanned rocket.
 
Originally posted by: KraziKid
Originally posted by: Magnum375
Originally posted by: KraziKid
I'm proud to be an American. I don't think anyone will take "claim", but we will have the honor and dignity of being the first to find it, and send people there first (and yes I am very sure on this). Considering Bush is finally pushing a proposal to plan for a manned mission to Mars, and everything I have seen so far from NASA has said around 2018, I would say we should be the first to go, and get humans back alive. Sooner than later we will start sending larger ships to mars with a HAB, and fuel production stations. You will see. Instead of how we went to the moon (one flight brings everything, return vehicle, return fuel, and HAB), we will send it in components. First we will send two rockets up to Mars with identical payloads. They will have a HAB, a return vehicle, and a fuel production plant for the return vehicle. Why two you ask? redundancy. If one goes South, the other will be able to take it's place. This also prepares for future missions after the initial one. Each mission will include this prep vehicle, and the manned vehicle.
Click to expand...

Wow way to go Bill Nye
Click to expand...
What do you mean way to go? This plan has been documented in several book's I have read, and even on TV shows of late. It is the safest method to go there, and most cost effective. Pretty much the only debate left is whether to send the astronauts on a direct route to Mars (around 6-7 Month journey), or a slingshot route around Venus (around 1.2-1.5 year journey). Those time's depend when during the launch window you leave.
Click to expand...

What would be the theoretical benefit of going the long way? (serious question here, just wondering)
 
Originally posted by: CubicZirconia
Originally posted by: KraziKid
Originally posted by: Magnum375
Originally posted by: KraziKid
I'm proud to be an American. I don't think anyone will take "claim", but we will have the honor and dignity of being the first to find it, and send people there first (and yes I am very sure on this). Considering Bush is finally pushing a proposal to plan for a manned mission to Mars, and everything I have seen so far from NASA has said around 2018, I would say we should be the first to go, and get humans back alive. Sooner than later we will start sending larger ships to mars with a HAB, and fuel production stations. You will see. Instead of how we went to the moon (one flight brings everything, return vehicle, return fuel, and HAB), we will send it in components. First we will send two rockets up to Mars with identical payloads. They will have a HAB, a return vehicle, and a fuel production plant for the return vehicle. Why two you ask? redundancy. If one goes South, the other will be able to take it's place. This also prepares for future missions after the initial one. Each mission will include this prep vehicle, and the manned vehicle.
Click to expand...

Wow way to go Bill Nye
Click to expand...
What do you mean way to go? This plan has been documented in several book's I have read, and even on TV shows of late. It is the safest method to go there, and most cost effective. Pretty much the only debate left is whether to send the astronauts on a direct route to Mars (around 6-7 Month journey), or a slingshot route around Venus (around 1.2-1.5 year journey). Those time's depend when during the launch window you leave.
Click to expand...

What would be the theoretical benefit of going the long way? (serious question here, just wondering)
Click to expand...
Look at what matt426malm said. The unmanned stuff will take the slingshot route around Venus (costs less money), while the manned mission will go direct (more expensive, but quicker).
 
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Man will not step foot on Mars in the near future. Perhaps in a couple of hundred years, by not now. We can develop the technology but there is no need. Robots can do everything that needs to be done for a far lower cost. We need to take care of the problem we have created here at home before taking our hate into the cosmos.
Click to expand...
How can you actually believe that? The first country to step foot on Mars will get the pride of being the first country to have a manned inter-planetary mission. Granted, we went to the moon so quickly because of the Cold War, and most likely would have already been to Mars if the Cold War was still here (Granted it would have cost a few hundred billion dollars, I believe around 500 billion), but now it is for scientific reasons. The rocks and soil of Mars contain many elements that are hard to find on Earth, and the mining of these elements and minerals could help us hear on Mars. Then comes the issue of life on Mars. If we find life, either alive or fossilized, it will be a huge breakthrough. It will mean that we are not alone, and will also mean that the probability of life being elsewhere in the Universe will skyrocket.
 
Originally posted by: KraziKid
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Man will not step foot on Mars in the near future. Perhaps in a couple of hundred years, by not now. We can develop the technology but there is no need. Robots can do everything that needs to be done for a far lower cost. We need to take care of the problem we have created here at home before taking our hate into the cosmos.
Click to expand...
How can you actually believe that? The first country to step foot on Mars will get the pride of being the first country to have a manned inter-planetary mission. Granted, we went to the moon so quickly because of the Cold War, and most likely would have already been to Mars if the Cold War was still here (Granted it would have cost a few hundred billion dollars, I believe around 500 billion), but now it is for scientific reasons. The rocks and soil of Mars contain many elements that are hard to find on Earth, and the mining of these elements and minerals could help us hear on Mars. Then comes the issue of life on Mars. If we find life, either alive or fossilized, it will be a huge breakthrough. It will mean that we are not alone, and will also mean that the probability of life being elsewhere in the Universe will skyrocket.
Click to expand...



Evidently you don't understand, LIttle Grasshopper. If we find life on another world then we would have to take either an offensive or defensive posture. We are not a peaceful peole. Any contact we make with "others" will be violent. What makes you believe otherwise?
 
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Originally posted by: KraziKid
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Man will not step foot on Mars in the near future. Perhaps in a couple of hundred years, by not now. We can develop the technology but there is no need. Robots can do everything that needs to be done for a far lower cost. We need to take care of the problem we have created here at home before taking our hate into the cosmos.
Click to expand...
How can you actually believe that? The first country to step foot on Mars will get the pride of being the first country to have a manned inter-planetary mission. Granted, we went to the moon so quickly because of the Cold War, and most likely would have already been to Mars if the Cold War was still here (Granted it would have cost a few hundred billion dollars, I believe around 500 billion), but now it is for scientific reasons. The rocks and soil of Mars contain many elements that are hard to find on Earth, and the mining of these elements and minerals could help us hear on Mars. Then comes the issue of life on Mars. If we find life, either alive or fossilized, it will be a huge breakthrough. It will mean that we are not alone, and will also mean that the probability of life being elsewhere in the Universe will skyrocket.
Click to expand...



Evidently you don't understand, LIttle Grasshopper. If we find life on another world then we would have to take either an offensive or defensive posture. We are not a peaceful peole. Any contact we make with "others" will be violent. What makes you believe otherwise?
Click to expand...
Do you honestly believe we are going to find creatures on Mars capable of fighting? If we find anything it will be micro-organisms, and I don't think we are going to war with the micro-organisms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top