General Discussion

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)

3. We can't even get a single person to Mars yet, much less build a colony

Sun Jan 29, 2012, 10:05 PM

Jan 2012

The amount of resources it take to build a colony is enormous, to transport all the people and resources that it would take would not be feasible. And even if we could do that, I don't agree that the basic pieces are already on Mars to be self sufficient. Where do you get food or water? The climate there does not exactly lend itself well to farming. Scientists have found some evidence that there might be small pockets of water under the surface of Mars, but nothing to suggest there is enough water to sustain a colony.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Newt and Moon Colonies: Wouldn't a Colony on Mars make a heck a lot more sense? [View all] BrentWil Jan 2012 OP

You know, I hope I never see the moon as a "state". Not in my lifetime. Saving Hawaii Jan 2012 #1

It's a subliminal message, to the Moon Pie Masses.... nt Xipe Totec Jan 2012 #2

Moon, Colon-y, it all sounds so heterosexual... napoleon_in_rags Jan 2012 #6

Mitt?... nt Xipe Totec Jan 2012 #9

We can't even get a single person to Mars yet, much less build a colony Bjorn Against Jan 2012 #3

Water is there.... BrentWil Jan 2012 #5

neither make much sense gristy Jan 2012 #8

No, it would take effort... BrentWil Jan 2012 #25

I am very skeptical Bjorn Against Jan 2012 #12

Of course there wouldn't be food. BrentWil Jan 2012 #15

Do you realize the amount of resources it would take to ship materials to Mars? Bjorn Against Jan 2012 #16

Not as bad as you think... BrentWil Jan 2012 #18

I have a hard time believing that Bjorn Against Jan 2012 #20

The robots actually do cost a lot.. BrentWil Jan 2012 #23

I never said they did not, but they certainly cost a lot less than a colony on Mars Bjorn Against Jan 2012 #26

Certainly... but if the choose is to spend billions/trillions.. BrentWil Jan 2012 #28

I think it would make a great prison. NBachers Jan 2012 #4

That works fine for a while Paulie Jan 2012 #11

Newt is a pseudointellectual, so he doesn't do this "sense" business. eppur_se_muova Jan 2012 #7

Thats the point.. BrentWil Jan 2012 #13

Gingrich also said a continuous propulsion system for getting to Mars quickly nt bananas Jan 2012 #32

Make sense for what? muriel_volestrangler Jan 2012 #10

Which one would cost more? Which one would squander more public funds? AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #14

Well, I think it would be startup versus long term costs. NT BrentWil Jan 2012 #17

Both startup and long term costs would be very high. Bjorn Against Jan 2012 #19

Unless we went to Mars to terraform the place XemaSab Jan 2012 #21

The base parts would be there to do just that BrentWil Jan 2012 #22

It would be such a long-term goal that I dunno XemaSab Jan 2012 #27

If you're going to get minerals, energy, whatever customerserviceguy Jan 2012 #24

The biggest cost on distance is getting out of the earths orbit... BrentWil Jan 2012 #30

Gingrinch's proposal is illegal pokerfan Jan 2012 #29

I assume if it happened, we would vacate that treaty.. BrentWil Jan 2012 #31

We always have pokerfan Jan 2012 #35

I wonder why noone points this out Johonny Jan 2012 #33

Probably becuase he was just pandering to voters on the space coast RZM Jan 2012 #34

Newt? He's much more suited to Uranus. xfundy Jan 2012 #36

The moon has Helium 3 mojowork_n Jan 2012 #37