Notices
Results 1 to 33 of 33
Like Tree5Likes
  • 2 Post By mat5592
  • 1 Post By Neverfly
  • 1 Post By mat5592
  • 1 Post By icewendigo

Thread: Mars Colony a bad Idea?

  1. #1 Mars Colony a bad Idea? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    6
    I have been planning out this for days and,the new Mars colony one is a bad idea.

    First,I can see if you make it a rock collecting system.You must have shuttles go up and down to collect rocks and maybe stay on Mars for a day or two.But to have a colony is possible,but think of the diseases it can bring to Earth.First off,Mars contains lots of dust,do not judge me but I am young.I am about to enter middle school and dust is obviously bad.But,Scientists are not sure of what can actually be on mars.What is the effect on humans?Refilling water,horrible disasters.

    AH YES!The Dust storms on Mars,if Mars did have a space colony what would help protect them from dangerous disasters.With extra dust!Not to mention the disasters may carry around particles of extra radiation.Now pretend you are a colonist,a dust storm carrying radiation is towards you.Then after a day or two everyone effected gets cancer or diseases.As they go back to Earth for a cure or treatment these particles are still unknown which is deadly towards Earth.All by one silly idea from NASA!

    Secondly,How are you going to provide food back and forth just to get to Mars.Supplies will run low from a long journey.If you send supplies by shuttles they wont make it for a while.Which can cause many to starve and possibly die.

    Sorry but this may sound crazy,but for you supporters.I know this idea is the silliest or the most fictional of all but what if,just what if countries start debating what land they own on mars?New countries?Wars could break out on this silly idea of who gets what.Sorry for my silliness but I think it can happen.


    What do you think.This is my opinion.Please do not think I am trying to say I am right.It is an opinion.I am in Middle School.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I think each of your concerns is valid.
    I just don't care.

    No one ever got anything done by avoiding risks. You either take the risks, or you don't. I think that the chances of some crazy outer space disease or cancer causing agent from Mars is plenty remote to consider it negligible.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,801
    Going to Mars demonstrates one way that life can move about the universe. Despite the fact that Earth's microbes could lay waste to Martian bacteria or vice versa, some life may survive to evolve and perhaps some day move on to some other world.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman Josey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Amerika
    Posts
    59
    Wel, need to think things through, avoid some of the pitfalls you mention. Need to trust methodologies which can minimize risk of failure. To have some success in this project can lead to new knowledge and sense of accomplishment. The space station is pretty slick and has to overcome some of the operational issues you have (supplies, dust, junk, international co-habitants) yet we have learned so much.... do you think this was worth doing?
    "the opera ain’t over until the fat lady sings." - Ralph Carpenter
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Humans have done riskier things throughout history. If we didn't take risks, we would never accomplish anything. I think the wind on Mars is a non-issue because of the very low atmospheric pressure, but the tiny dust particles could screw some things up.
    Josey and Cogito Ergo Sum like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    I also think the radiation exposure on a trip to Mars is often a little over-dramatized. Data collected my the Curiosity Rover showed a 6 month trip to Mars would expose someone to ~.33 sv, which is associated with ~1.7% increased risk of cancer. A trip back and/or staying there would obviously increase that amount, but still, people do a lot of stupid things that are known risk factors for cancer. I'd say going to Mars is a little more significant than smoking, tanning, drinking, etc., but maybe that's just me. And besides, that was with today's technology anyway, by the time we make a trip to Mars, we could very well have better methods to prevent the radiation. There's certainly a lot of risk in several different aspects, I just think sometimes it's a little overdone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    6
    Mat.That is a idea over.But the Rover radiation is not a human!Think if Humans stood on there for a period of time.What would happen then?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Miimaster4 View Post
    Mat.That is a idea over.But the Rover radiation is not a human!Think if Humans stood on there for a period of time.What would happen then?
    They'd get bored and lose body mass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    6
    NOTE!

    I HAVE DONE MORE REASEARCH AND FOUND OUT IT IS NOT A BAD IDEA.Along with the settler's way to Mars comes supply units with mini homes!The Shuttles and Units are heavy enough to withstand homes.But one small things.


    When women are pregnant?Will they're babies become deformed?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Miimaster4 View Post
    When women are pregnant?Will they're babies become deformed?
    Given what I saw in the old Total Recall, would that be a bad thing?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Hello Miimaster4,

    I agree going to mars for the sole purpose of collecting rock samples wouldnt be all that worth it. You might as well send robots with sensors that transport the data through communications.

    The odds that a rock (sterilized) poses a threat is small, unless theres DNA that happens to be compatible, etc. At this point we are leaving depleted Uranium in other countries, have tritium leaks in nuclear reactors, spew hormones and pharma drugs in water, fraking chemicals in water tables, juggle with GMO, maybe its just me, but Im more worried about the Human Industry Planetary free-for-all than a Martian Rock in lab conditions

    You would not send food to mars back and forth.
    imo
    1-You would first develop trial colonies on earth, designed to be self-sufficient, with hydroponics, recycling, 3D printers, water-air-jet-instead-of-paper toilets, solar panels etc, and test human social interaction protocols and participatory organization modes to help people be happy and prevent antagonism and isolationism that could plague isolated colonists. We would greatly benefit on earth from the developments made in such r&D and help safeguard our environment.
    2-Then send automated colony ships with robots(remote controled) and various equipment. The robots would build a basic infrastructure, could setup lifesupport and even start to grow hydroponics.
    3- Then you send additional supplies, followed by the first human colonists mission that set up the colonny from a functional node made in advance by the automated/remote systems.
    THeres almost nothing to fight about on mars or claim, because a colony would most likely be self sufficient and recycle what it needs. Its only from a waste and throw crap by the tons in landfills in our own inefficient monetary system that resources appear more scarce than they are if you recycle them and use substitutes and prevent problems/situations before they require stuff/actions to fix.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    The downside of being a colonist- very limited access to meat- Unless you wanna be a cannibubble.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    No meat: Yes till we get steak in a lab or beef muscle tissue GMO mushrooms.

    A colonist would sacrifice a great deal of things we take for granted
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    6
    Well Forum done.

    You convinced me to change my mind all of you except the Flaw of giving birth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Going to another planet to do what exactly? We can't even get our own planet in good working order and have screwed things up very bad here already. Why not try to fix our own problems here that we already have like pollution, diseases and other ecological destruction that has been done on Earth. I think robots would be the way to study other celestial things for the time being seeing that we do not yet know much about what is out there awaiting humans.

    Just to send humans to another planet to show they can "do it" will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and all we would do is send a crew there, land, then return to Earth. We have sent over 40 space craft to Mars and only one third of them made it there the rest were lost or destroyed on impact. I think those monies could be better spent with robot craft sent to various planets to seek out information as we are now doing on Mars.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Again... why not do both?

    I've never understood the 'one or the other' mentality...
    icewendigo likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Going to another planet to do what exactly? We can't even get our own planet in good working order and have screwed things up very bad here already. Why not try to fix our own problems here that we already have like pollution, diseases and other ecological destruction that has been done on Earth. I think robots would be the way to study other celestial things for the time being seeing that we do not yet know much about what is out there awaiting humans.

    Just to send humans to another planet to show they can "do it" will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and all we would do is send a crew there, land, then return to Earth. We have sent over 40 space craft to Mars and only one third of them made it there the rest were lost or destroyed on impact. I think those monies could be better spent with robot craft sent to various planets to seek out information as we are now doing on Mars.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Imo most of our problems are organizational because we replicate and cant help but live in outdated social relics (like money, hierarchy, control of information).
    Developing and testing new innovative modes of social organization would be easier within the context of a space colony project for several reasons.
    In addition, even if root causes of most our problems are not addressed from a human organization perspective, development to make a colony on Mars self-sufficient, would have many direct application on earth that would help use less resources/pollute less/recycle more/etc, and R&D there is a bit more tactical because its sneaky (both a Plan B and an alternate vector of advancement that can pass without being noticed by groups in conflicts of interests that might be opposed to preventing a problem they are profiting from).

    So, in addition to being able to do both (improve earth and colonize space) if we wanted to, imo, its actually easier to clean up our act on earth, if make technical progress to do so behind the scene with a Space Colony project,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    6
    Going to a other planet is not bad.Except trying to have land or just become more powerful countries there is crazy.Also,they wont have technology we have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Going to another planet to do what exactly? We can't even get our own planet in good working order and have screwed things up very bad here already. Why not try to fix our own problems here that we already have like pollution, diseases and other ecological destruction that has been done on Earth. I think robots would be the way to study other celestial things for the time being seeing that we do not yet know much about what is out there awaiting humans.

    Just to send humans to another planet to show they can "do it" will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and all we would do is send a crew there, land, then return to Earth. We have sent over 40 space craft to Mars and only one third of them made it there the rest were lost or destroyed on impact. I think those monies could be better spent with robot craft sent to various planets to seek out information as we are now doing on Mars.
    Hundreds of billions of dollars for a trip to Mars? There's that dramatizing I was talking about. We do, however, already spend hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars trying to "save" the Earth, and it's helping a little, sure. So how much would adding, let's say, another 50 billion to that help? Not much. It would get us to Mars though.

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    We have sent over 40 space craft to Mars and only one third of them made it there the rest were lost or destroyed on impact.
    Hmm, I wonder what the success rate of American missions is. Especially those in the past decade. Oh, that's right, a lot higher. Newsflash: technology improves.
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    another 50 billion to that help

    Back in 2009, nasa scrapped its plans for a manned Mars mission largely because the cost of sending a crew there and back, and sustaining them while there, was projected to be $100 billion. In an economic climate in which even key military operations are increasingly viewed as unsustainable luxuries, the expense made nasa’s plans impossible. So, how can Mars One boldly go where nasa couldn’t afford to?

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...QDFw8fXR-ycRGA
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    IF anything needs to be cut, its Imperial military spending, not only is it bad (euphemism), but they "lost" something like 9 billion in Iraq, and "lost" something like 2 Trillions like it was pocket change.
    Even if you were to favor killing women and children around the world and showering populations with depleted uranium, surely its possible to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity on a tighter budget.
    Last edited by icewendigo; June 7th, 2013 at 08:04 AM. Reason: (showing -> showering)
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post


    THeres almost nothing to fight about on mars or claim, because a colony would most likely be self sufficient and recycle what it needs. Its only from a waste and throw crap by the tons in landfills in our own inefficient monetary system that resources appear more scarce than they are if you recycle them and use substitutes and prevent problems/situations before they require stuff/actions to fix.
    Just wait until they discover diamonds, or platinum deposits, or gold, or oil (I guess they probably won't find oil....)

    Quote Originally Posted by Miimaster4 View Post
    Well Forum done.

    You convinced me to change my mind all of you except the Flaw of giving birth.
    If nothing else, probably the low gravity would complicate child birth. It would also cause the colonists to lose bone mass over time until their bones become fragile. Not a pretty outcome.

    However, once the gold/uranium/crystals or whatever gets discovered, I am quite sure each country will be trying to send pregnant women up there so they can give birth to the planet's first "native" human.

    It's a tactic that has been tried by Argentina in trying to stake a claim of sovereignty over part of Antarctica.

    Born Freezing: Meet Antarctica’s First Citizen | WebEcoist
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    another 50 billion to that help

    Back in 2009, nasa scrapped its plans for a manned Mars mission largely because the cost of sending a crew there and back, and sustaining them while there, was projected to be $100 billion. In an economic climate in which even key military operations are increasingly viewed as unsustainable luxuries, the expense made nasa’s plans impossible. So, how can Mars One boldly go where nasa couldn’t afford to?

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...QDFw8fXR-ycRGA
    It becomes a lot more difficult and much more expensive when you want to make a trip back to Earth. That's what makes Mars one different, they're only going one way. How they plan to do it for only ~6 billion though, I don't know lol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    3
    =
    Last edited by star gazer girl; June 12th, 2013 at 10:01 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by star gazer girl View Post
    i belive that people on mars is a bad idea because when the time comes for our sun to explode mars would be one of the first ones to go and that would just destroy alot of earths population and i am fully aware that everyday a bunch of kids are born but that still doesint make up for the fact that that would kill countless lives and even if we do create a civilizeation before we could adapt we would die of heat because mars is very close to the sun and i know that people are very comited to there jobs and are wanting to find new life out there and what not but there are consiquences to our actions say if someone goes to the sun thell die of over heat and if someone were to stay in space without any oxigen they would sufficate and die. people risk there lives for science and the'll do anything but think of your future and think of other peoples futures but if you wont listen to the other 5 million out there than im not stopping you if it turns out great i say well done if it ends in death and fire everywere im gonna say i told you so-star gazer girl
    You do realize that earth is closer to the sun than Mars, right? So Earth will go before Mars does. Probably only a few minutes sooner but sooner still. Also, if our sun explodes, it really won't matter which planet of this solar system we are on, we will ALL die.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by star gazer girl View Post
    when the time comes for our sun to explode
    Our sun will not explode. It will expand into a Red Giant for a period - but that is several billion years from now.
    It will then shed it's outer layers for a few million years, settling down into a White Dwarf.
    Eventually, that will cool into a dark lump trillions of years from now.

    Quote Originally Posted by star gazer girl View Post
    mars would be one of the first ones to go
    After Mercury, Venus and Earth...
    Mars will become hotter and will be blasted with intense solar wind and radiation.
    Quote Originally Posted by star gazer girl View Post
    and that would just destroy alot of earths population
    Whatever of that is here in 4.5 billion years...

    In the end, yes,it has an element of risk. But living here has an element of risk.

    In fact, living here, the mortality rate is 100%.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Just out of curiosity, the sun's expansion, is this something that is super fast like minutes or hours, or something that is fast in geological and continent drifting type of time frame? (like 'oh the sun is expanding right now, within 300 years it will engulf mercury')

    In any case the main danger for human-derived sentience is not even getting to that time and not being a solar system faring civilization before an extinction event occurs on earth itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    Just out of curiosity, the sun's expansion, is this something that is super fast like minutes or hours, or something that is fast in geological and continent drifting type of time frame? (like 'oh the sun is expanding right now, within 300 years it will engulf mercury') In any case the main danger for human-derived sentience is not even getting to that time and not being a solar system faring civilization before an extinction event occurs on earth itself.
    I've been meaning to figure this out too. Wasn't sure if it was a sudden process or a gradual expansion. Someone answer please
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    Just out of curiosity, the sun's expansion, is this something that is super fast like minutes or hours, or something that is fast in geological and continent drifting type of time frame? (like 'oh the sun is expanding right now, within 300 years it will engulf mercury')

    In any case the main danger for human-derived sentience is not even getting to that time and not being a solar system faring civilization before an extinction event occurs on earth itself.
    It's pretty quick if I remember correctly. Geologically speaking.
    It's been heavily modeled by astronomers to see whether or not the Earth would be engulfed or not.
    The order is a couple billion years- but if you're referring to the part where the Sun starts expanding into a red giant ending in the star star starting to shed its outer layers- it's in the range of a couple hundred thousand years.

    I tried googling it to find references but the internet is inundated with the question about whether the Earth will be swallowed by the Sun or not- it drowns out everything else. I must admit I find it amusing that people seem so concerned with that because that's billions of years from now...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by mat5592 View Post
    I also think the radiation exposure on a trip to Mars is often a little over-dramatized. Data collected my the Curiosity Rover showed a 6 month trip to Mars would expose someone to ~.33 sv, which is associated with ~1.7% increased risk of cancer. A trip back and/or staying there would obviously increase that amount, but still, people do a lot of stupid things that are known risk factors for cancer. I'd say going to Mars is a little more significant than smoking, tanning, drinking, etc., but maybe that's just me. And besides, that was with today's technology anyway, by the time we make a trip to Mars, we could very well have better methods to prevent the radiation. There's certainly a lot of risk in several different aspects, I just think sometimes it's a little overdone.
    It should be noted that Curiosity was not comprehensively shielded from radiation to any great extent. A layer of just plain water would have cut that radiation absorbed by Curiosity to a level below a 'significant' cancer risk. Even if you could guarantee zero cancer risk from radiation, people still develop cancers without doing evil things like smoking, etc. That is not a reason for staying home. . .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    Just out of curiosity, the sun's expansion, is this something that is super fast like minutes or hours, or something that is fast in geological and continent drifting type of time frame? (like 'oh the sun is expanding right now, within 300 years it will engulf mercury')
    It depends on where in the lifecycle you are discussing. The sun is already expanding as it continues to burn hydrogen, so far both larger and about 30% brighter than it was during Earth's earliest days. In billions of years, once the hydrogen runs out, the inner core will contract but trigger helium fusion, more heat and the relatively fast expansion into a red giant others are referring to. We most certainly won't be humans by then.

    --
    We should all see the direct measurements from Curiosity rover in a few months, but the science team hinted that surface levels are relatively safe for humans a few months back when they were presenting the far more dangerous in-transit numbers.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Miimaster4 View Post
    I have been planning out this for days and,the new Mars colony one is a bad idea.

    First,I can see if you make it a rock collecting system.You must have shuttles go up and down to collect rocks and maybe stay on Mars for a day or two.But to have a colony is possible,but think of the diseases it can bring to Earth.First off,Mars contains lots of dust,do not judge me but I am young.I am about to enter middle school and dust is obviously bad.But,Scientists are not sure of what can actually be on mars.What is the effect on humans?Refilling water,horrible disasters.

    AH YES!The Dust storms on Mars,if Mars did have a space colony what would help protect them from dangerous disasters.With extra dust!Not to mention the disasters may carry around particles of extra radiation.Now pretend you are a colonist,a dust storm carrying radiation is towards you.Then after a day or two everyone effected gets cancer or diseases.As they go back to Earth for a cure or treatment these particles are still unknown which is deadly towards Earth.All by one silly idea from NASA!

    Secondly,How are you going to provide food back and forth just to get to Mars.Supplies will run low from a long journey.If you send supplies by shuttles they wont make it for a while.Which can cause many to starve and possibly die.

    Sorry but this may sound crazy,but for you supporters.I know this idea is the silliest or the most fictional of all but what if,just what if countries start debating what land they own on mars?New countries?Wars could break out on this silly idea of who gets what.Sorry for my silliness but I think it can happen.


    What do you think.This is my opinion.Please do not think I am trying to say I am right.It is an opinion.I am in Middle School.
    This idea is about making money. The people who are promoting this are merely manipulating the misguided souls who believe they would be better off on Mars. They will be prisoners. The modules they plan to use are limited in what they can carry and there was no discussion in their plan of how they would mine and process minerals. They will need to do that before they can consider themselves permanent settlers. The promoters are doing this to attract media attention, which is the quickest way around to attract money. Just ask any of the Kardashian family. . .
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Space Colony organization?
    By icewendigo in forum Politics
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2012, 02:06 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 26th, 2012, 01:09 PM
  3. Humans on mars (Mars Undergound , Robert Zubrin)
    By shawngoldw in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: August 1st, 2007, 05:31 AM
  4. Mac did a bad, bad thing...hard drive problems
    By MacGyver1968 in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 13th, 2006, 04:54 PM
  5. Help: Search for a colony of bacteria
    By coolgirl_j5 in forum Biology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 10th, 2006, 07:47 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •