| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| You're not going to live on Mars and neither are your children |
| 2016-09-30 |
| Somehow, we all sort of suspected this now didn't we ? |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #15 The Deplorables can shut off the infrastructure of a snowflake city and walk away. Just sayin'. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2016-09-30 20:18 |
| #14 Well, the 'Red' planet should be an ideal safe place for our Millennial snowflakes. They can avoid all that pre-established infrastructure, physical and social, created by the deplorables. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2016-09-30 19:52 |
| #13 And Don Cheadle. But not Hank Johnson; Mars may tip over. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2016-09-30 19:46 |
| #12 Do y'all realize how much money we could have saved by leaving Matt Damon there? |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2016-09-30 19:05 |
| #11 We've already been to Everest and yet people still go. In fact they've built up base camps and infrastructure to make things a bit safer and easier for folks since Hilary went up. I wish Sheila Jackson Lee and her weave could return to Mars. We'd all be happier. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2016-09-30 13:15 |
| #10 Goofy. Take a Nile farmer from back in the day, and show him what a wheat farmer out here in the Great American Desert can do. We were watching a movie the other day, daughter asks, "What's that thing the guy is holding to his ear which is plugged into the wall?" "A phone." "???" |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2016-09-30 12:05 |
| #9 But we've already been there /Sheila Jackson Lee's Weave |
| Posted by: Frank G 2016-09-30 11:44 |
| #8 I do think we should be colonizing the Moon first, and building up the space infrastructure that would open up options. The moon is much easier because of the distance. The low gravity is a challenge but you might find a ton of elderly volunteers willing to take the risk in order to spend their final years in the increased mobility the low gravity offers them. But it's less glamorous so I can see why Musk is shooting for Mars. Unfortunately NASA got caught up in that mindset for awhile as well. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2016-09-30 11:41 |
| #7 Most of us will never drive a battery powered car either, or if we do, it won't be a tesla. All the same, musk's cult is well on its way to being as vicious and unscientific as scientology. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2016-09-30 10:41 |
| #6 |
| Posted by: Blossom Unains5562 2016-09-30 10:02 |
| #5 I'm not a cold weather person but there those who thrive up north, plus not a hot and humid fan neither, so his arguments are fallacious because I say so. Oh, don't forget there are people who love to do things that "experts" like this guy say are impossible. |
| Posted by: Unoger Flineng4239 2016-09-30 09:00 |
| #4 No, but they might visit. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2016-09-30 08:22 |
| #3 Actually making giant hollow living shells out of asteroid ring material and the Ort cloud's is quite doable. Maybe nuke or fusion required but it will take big rockets like Musk's to start it out. Seriously. Think about it. Iridium went bankrupt 2 time before it became a going operation. The Chunnel once. .... |
| Posted by: 3dc 2016-09-30 08:13 |
| #2 I think I agree, but only because by the time we've developed the technologies required to do so, we'll realise that hunkering down on the thin skin of planets makes a lot less sense than mining the moon and disassembling asteroids in order to build O'Neill cylinders with thousands of times their surface area. With one exception - we do want to put lots of matter between at least one human colony and any possible ultralong gamma ray burst, which means at minimum 3 colonies equally spaced around Mercury. |
| Posted by: Bugs Poodle8604 2016-09-30 05:19 |
| #1 Mars is not a “natural environment” for humans And, whenever the author lives is? Whether Mars colony happens or not depends on a lot of factors - but "naturalness" is not one of them. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2016-09-30 02:41 |