Will we ever have outposts on other planets? Finnley is from the city ofSheffield.
New questions can be sent to nq@theguardian.
Is it not okay to ruin one planet?
This is quite tricky. There is always a chance that we will find that the planet has already been colonised by a starship-load of telephone sanitisers, hairdressers, public relations executives and management consultants.
I think the safest course would be to first send to Mars an advance exploratory party consisting of people who think they are destined to rule whatever planet they're on. Let's say for the sake of argument, they could include Boris Johnson, Jair Bolsonaro, Piers Morgan, Donald Trump, and more. They would definitely jump at the chance. After the inevitable heated debate about who should be emperor, we could easily neglect to provide any return transport for either of them. It's unfortunate, but we are. There isOwlno.
An outpost is what it is. The various robot landers on Mars fit the bill for us already having done that, according to some. We would need to find another planet before we could trade and interact with the local population. There is a randomusername222.
It will be difficult and probably won't last. There aren't any local supplies of what you need to exist so they need constant support and constant delivery. Mars is the only shot we have. Almost everything will need to be delivered at a great cost and with a huge time lag. We could terraform it to be able to grow food. It's very unlikely. It would take about a year to organize and get there. There is a high chance that the individual will never make it back. The film The Martian shows the difficulties in a realistic way.
The moon is not protected from solar radiation and has a toxic atmosphere. It's too small to retain an atmosphere. Jupiter has little or no oxygen and is too high.Saturn is too cold and Neptune is too cold. It's too far the rest of the universe.
A warp drive that brings the universe into realistic travel distance is one of the most exciting ideas in science fiction. It's all made up for TV and film. Not quite, isn't it? There are some intriguing theories about how we could travel faster than light.
It feels like it could possibly be possible in the future, even though we are still in the realm of theory. I think we will all be gone before science gets to that point. The scientists should think this stuff up. We would find another planet and colonise it if we get it working. Will dance for Chocolat.
We should probably get cracking on the warp drive and the nuclear war that preceded it after 40 years. Oh I am such a sad person.
We wouldn't have a sensible planet. The man is called sarumbrother61
If the post is a colony with permanent residents or if it is a research station with temporary residents, it's a decision for you.
People can come and go at the research station like they do at theAntarctic research station. Plans for a research station on the surface of Mars will be part of a future staffed mission. Most of the required technology is currently being developed. One day, if the post is a research station with temporary residents, the answer is yes.
The colony needs to breed on the planet. The female members of the species Homo sapiens can only have a successful and healthy baby on a planet with a close to Earth gravity. Venus, with 91% Earth gravity, is the only planet in the solar system with a gravity that is close to Earth. Babies will not be healthy and successful if they are born on Mars, which has only 32% Earth gravity. The answer is no if the post is a colony with permanent residents.
Men are the ones who make the most noise about colonising other planets. McBampot is named Bammy.
Why does Earth gravity matter to a pregnant woman? Animal experiments have been done in space. The mother doesn't cope with a high g pregnancy but a low g one. Isn't it the same as resting all day in terms of a pregnant woman? I think of a mother who was told to lie down all day because of her pregnancies. Is it possible that the offspring would be less able to cope with a return to Earth from Mars?
If it does happen, my money is onAirbnb. There is a mobilepope.
Unless we go extinct in the next few years, the answer has to be yes. It could happen in the next 50 years if the will is there. The technology could be developed in a decade or so. Roy Jersey.
The only chance of setting up a colony on Mars in the next 50 years is if someone is willing to fund it.
We will. A lot of the technical problems have been solved.
The hopes of lunar crops are raised by the growing of cis seeds.
The problems that were once considered impossible to solve are now commonplace. It used to be said that brain surgery and chest surgery wouldn't be possible. Humans can't travel faster than 30 mph, but the train was invented. The Wright brothers showed that heavier-than-air machines were capable of flying. Science fiction used to include videophones. There are other "impossible" things that have been accomplished.
There are problems with shielding from the sun, having to transport what you need to the planet until it can be made locally, and the lower gravity. Long term residence will follow. Mark is the name of the person.
If The Martian has any relation to truth, send some potatoes and a botanist. LmCollis.
Absolutely, we will. Humans can't predict the future. The existence of New York City could have been predicted by a Spanish sailor.
We need people willing to go, advanced technology and enough spare resources to fund a colony in the solar system. Finding people who want to live on another planet will be easy. A lot of people are gathered together. We are nearly there with spaceship technology, and after a few decades of practice it seems likely that we will be able to develop the technology needed to allow a colony to survive and grow on the moon, Mars or one of the satellites of Jupiter. The question is when will we be able to pay for it.
The cost of the Apollo program is equivalent to $260 billion today. The US GDP in 1969 was about $1tn. It is around $23tn today. The Apollo program cost 2% of US GDP in the 60's, but 50 years later it would cost 1% of US GDP. It wouldn't cost $260 billion to do what Apollo did. The new SLS rocket, which is currently on its way to the moon, costs about $4 billion to launch, so you could go six times for about $25 billion, which is less than the cost of an Apollo mission.
At some point, founding a permanent settlement on another world becomes something that governments and companies can just plan, finance and do, because they want to, or because they see a financial return in doing so.
In 100 years, on a planet with a shrinking population, where energy is cheap thanks to renewables and fusion reactor, and where carbon is being pulled out of the atmosphere faster than it is emissions, there would be no reason for humans not to. It is semi functional.
Oxygen can be made on Mars.
Do you have a plan to get the mix of microbes right? The girl is named Dargyva.
Water is the key to a lunar colony, as it is the basis for fuel for a Mars mission. The moon has 1/6 of the earth's gravity. It is much easier to get materials, water, fuel and oxygen from the moon to space than it is to haul them out of the earth. Air resistance on the moon was not present.
It would be much cheaper to make rocket fuel on the moon than send it from Earth. So when future lunar explorers want to return to Earth, or travel on to other destinations, they could turn the water into the hydrogen and oxygen commonly used to power space vehicles.
Refuelling at the moon could therefore bring down the cost of space travel and make a lunar base more affordable.
When all this was done, would you send people to Mars? Some systems would look for water. Fuel and water would be on Mars before you even leave Earth. Everything was ready for them when you sent them.
Sending a human colony continuously from Earth would not work. Water/ice is the first requirement for a colony. The name of the man is MartinSilenus.
Maybe we need to solve our problems on planet Earth first.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
