Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
In a message dated 3/30/2007 11:53:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rtarara@saintmarys.edu writes:
No boos from me. The faster we develop the technology and then actually deploy it to have a colony of humans housed elsewhere than this planet, the better--IMO. With all the eggs in one basket we are a prime setup for an extinction event--be it asteroid, super-bug, or self-inflicted. A self-sustaining colony on Mars is the only (near term) insurance against such. A moon colony is probably a necessary step towards the Mars one. Too bad we don't have money to do every last thing everyone wants, but I'm in NASA's corner on this.
Rick
I think the hope that the Human race can survive the self inflicted destruction of our environment by immigrating to other planets is a bit unrealistic. Most likely it will just be billions and billions of dollars to get a few photo opps for our astronauts while real science using much more cost effective unmanned probes will be starved for funds.
The " new world" analogy you often see on this point overlooks the fact that the western hemisphere had air, water and sources of food.
Bob Zannelli
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l