Reddit reviews The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must
We found 18 Reddit comments about The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Paperback in colors of red and white with scene of Mars
Since I read this for physics coursework, I've been convinced that we should colonise Mars and as soon as possible.
you should read the book; http://www.amazon.com/Case-Mars-Plan-Settle-Planet/dp/0684835509/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1421005661&sr=8-2&keywords=the+case+for+mars
or at least watch the video; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm34Muv6Lsg
It wasn't well worded. His point is that a great argument can be made that we have had both the technological and financial capability to start sending humans to Mars on the regular since the 1980's. What we've lacked is only the political and social will to do so.
NASA often comes up with fantastic new excuses for this, some more valid than others. "We need to learn more about the long term physiological effects" is valid, but is mostly invalidated by the tremendous amount of research that has already been done. When do we have, "enough"?
Saying we need this hibernation technology to do it is a lot like saying we need a better propulsion system to do it. We don't. Would it be nice? Sure. Is it an excuse for not going? Hell no.
For a much more in-depth analysis of this, and for a look at what is in many opinions a vastly superior way to do approach this, check out that book.
Amazon link.
Edit: As an added note, Elon Musk has a similar outlook. The implementation he's seeking is significantly different, but it has the same attitude. But unlike Zubrin, Musk had the capital to say, "screw it, I'll do it myself".
You should read this book. It goes into every aspect of Mars settlement in detail.
The Case for Mars lays out a long term plan for terraforming Mars. Arguments can (and have) been made on if it will work, but someone has a plan.
And there has been a time in the past when argumentative, incorrectly informed, conservative douches were right although it doesn't mean that we aren't all screwed this time and it really is the doom of all life.
I did an ethics report on terraforming using this book:
The Case For Mars by Robert Zubrin
Some of the detail went a little over me, but his research makes it sound very possible.
> we're so far from an awesome Mars colony....
> I won't see it in my lifetime
You should read The Case For Mars next.
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Mars-Plan-Settle-Planet/dp/0684835509/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266988147&sr=8-1
A bit longer, but all are solid suggestions, and although I could add two dozen more, I'm sure others will take up the cause.
God is Not Great, by Christopher Hitchens
Mars One is a company that is dedicated to doing just that. Also be sure to check out The Case For Mars.
Read "The Case For Mars." We totally have the tech, just politically can't get the budget. And the most expensive part of the budget is bringing someone back, nearly as healthy as they left. If you don't need to bring someone back, or even live very long once they're there, it's a lot cheaper.
Also on the technical side, if you want some of the inspiration for the mission architecture, try The Case For Mars by Robert Zubrin. For an insightful critique of TCFM from 18 years later, try The International Mars Research Station by Shaun Moss.
'Distances' in space are odd, even though the distance between two points may be further than another trip, it may not take that much more effort to get there. The Moon is far closer than Mars, and takes a few days rather than a few months to arrive, but I hear you need about the same size of rocket. Distances can be measured in required Delta-V, or change in velocity. Heinlein, a mid 20th century science fiction author (Starship Troopers, Stranger in a Strange Land) said, “Reach low orbit and you’re halfway to anywhere in the Solar System.”
'The point of Heinlein’s maxim is that the same amount of energy it takes to go from Earth’s surface to Earth orbit is roughly equivalent to the energy required to travel from Earth orbit to the planets. The point is that if you can get to orbit, you have the capacity to also reach most of the solar system.' Source
So, the Moon isn't necessary any easier to get to than Mars is, barring problems with months of radiation exposure, low gravity exposure, and additional effort required to launch from a planet with a larger gravity well and atmosphere.
In The Case for Mars the author explains a few resources that Mars has which allow synthesis of fuel for both rockets and internal combustion engines, growth of food, and with a not-insignificant amount of planning/science/care, become self sustaining far easier than a moon colony could.
hijacking top comment to put in a shameless plug for Robert Zubrin's The Case for Mars, an awesome discussion of why we need to go to Mars.
as /u/deanoyj says, it has all the things we need for an industrial civilisation, and also, due to a quirk of interplanetary mechanics, it doesn't cost much more fuel to go to Mars compared to going to the moon, just more time.
Mars has everything we need, is (relatively) easy to get to, and can act as a halfway station to the asteroid belt, a vast untapped wealth of raw metals and resources. Bonus: colonising mars will force the settlers to recycle everything, which will give them a strong incentive to invent things that would be very useful down here on earth.
Seriously, go buy the book, Zubrin explains all the issues in detail and so much better than I ever could. I went in thinking we should go to the moon, and came out convinced we need to go to Mars, and we can do it fairly cheaply, if we accept some modest risks.
A little old, but this might be what you are looking for: The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Mars-Plan-Settle-Planet/dp/0684835509
I loved his book: The Case for Mars
I recommend you read this:
A case for mars
Basically, it will become feasible once the classic excuses are out of the way or overcome (money, risk/protection from radiation exposure, bone/muscle deterioration during the trip). Zubrin (the author) is THE dude.
> Meanwhile, we could be researching a technology right in front of us quickly that can benefit us now, help us better exploit resources we do have, help us get to that distant technology faster, and utilize that distant technology once it's time.
Arghh, this is indicitive of such a broken ideology. We can do both. America, alone, could do ALL OF IT if we cut the DoD budget by as little as 20%. And I'm not even suggesting that America does this alone.
I want those other things too, I want research on solutions to global warming and cancer and AIDS and dead puppies, but there's no reason we can't also colonize space.
Please, I'm begging you in solidarity as a fellow human being, do some reading.
Start here but keep following the references and allusions to other sources and, if you've got the fortitude for it, to hard research studies. I can point you in other directions if you like, but that's my personal favorite starting point when suggesting education.
And if you're too lazy to do that, at least look at the goddamn numbers.