Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Swartz
I honestly don't understand the fascination with Mars colonization. 50 years ago it made sense, maybe even 20 years ago, although that's pushing it. But everything I've found indicates the gravity is too low and will cause major long-term consequences. That's one thing for the ISS or for spaceships which can generate artificial gravity via centripetal force, where you have a regimen of eating/exercise to combat it for astronauts, continuing research, etc. It's quite another for a scenario in which you are considering a 'second home' for humanity. For any sizable colonization it's got to be user-friendly, and the gravity issue makes that a non-starter from everything I've been able to discern.
|
Wait, isnīt the ISS essentially zero-G (without alternative due to the way it is designed to orbit around the earth) ?
38% gravity on Mars seems kinda more doable in comparison from a layman perspective, especially since the main issue of gravity loss is returning to 100% gravity on earth (yes, yes, the "dream" would be to travel back and forth at will, but not really a necessity).
Not saying there arenīt issues in and off itself beyond a certain point of degradation, but then again who is to say there wonīt be a way to counter this by the time the first mission starts to some (better than now) degree ? Or at some point after the first "trailblazers" ? Colonization historically was never "user friendly" for the first couple generations i would argue 
__________________
The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn, like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes "Awww!
|