15 minutes how to win in binary options 80c

Mars is a fascinating planet, the most like Earth of all the planets in the solar system, and may help us to understand much about the origins of life on Earth. Undoubtedly, it's a wonderful place to explore, especially with augmented reality vision.

But though it was quite Earth-like in its first few hundred million years, it is not at all Earth like now. Earth remains by far the most habitable place in our solar system. The most inhospitable places on Earth, such as Antarctica, even in the depths of winter, and at the centre of the continent, are far more habitable than anywhere else in our solar system.

Space colonies and the poles of the Moon, are both more easily habitable than Mars, and more easy to make self sufficient. Read on to find out more. You see so many news stories about the possibility of humans colonizing Mars, and many readers may get really excited by the idea.

But few of these stories mention the many drawbacks and downsides of human colonization. I thought it might help redress the balance to talk about this. Note, this article runs to an estimated 33 printed pages. Ten Reasons NOT to Live on Mars - Great Place to Explore.

You would agree that the center of Antarctica in winter is cold, not the best of places to set up home? Well Mars is far colder. It is often cold enough for the CO 2 in the atmosphere to freeze out as dry ice. A human couldn't survive those temperatures without technology.

You can check the current Mars weather for Curiosity. Maximum temperature for the sol in red, minimum in blue, data from Curiosity Rover REMs weather station on Mars.

From late December to early January the summit of Mount Everest never rises above C. Check out also Opportunity's solar panel temperatures - at night these got very cold, below the sublimation temperature of dry ice every night, Martian winter or summer. Mars might not look as cold as Antarctica, because it has ice only at its poles. But that's because of the thin atmosphere. Over most of the surface, ice sublimes directly to water vapour without ever turning liquid.

There is also not much water vapour. As a result it is extremely dry near the equator, cold enough so that it would have a permanent ice cover, like Antarctica, except that it is too dry, and the atmosphere is too thin to support it. If you are just looking for new land for humans to live in, there are many uninhabited areas of Earth that could be made habitable with the levels of technology proposed for Mars.

It makes much more sense to colonize Canada, or Siberia, or the Inner Hebrides of Scotland where I live or the Arizona or Sahara deserts, or indeed the sea bed, than Mars. If you are especially keen to set up a space colony, rather than one on the Earth, then a colony close to Earth, closer to the sun, and without the night time shielding effect of a planet would be like the tropics compared to Mars.

Why colonize Antarctica first, when you can colonize the tropics? Yes Mars does have an atmosphere, it's true. But it is so thin, it would count as a laboratory vacuum on Earth. For most purposes, you might as well be in space or on the Moon. A human would need to put on a spacesuit to survive the low pressure, never mind the lack of oxygen.

The pressure is so low, your saliva and the moisture coating the interior of your lungs would boil. Average surface pressure is about 0. A leak in your spacesuit would kill you quickly. No oxygen to speak of either.

The atmosphere does have some benefits, as a source of CO 2but even then, is low pressure so has to be pressurized to be useful. In a space colony, then you could make CO 2 from the carbonaceous near Earth asteroids; it's not that hard to find ways to make it in space if you expand your habitat e. And our atmosphere is mainly nitrogen and oxygen, only 0. The CO 2 on Mars has some value for making rocket fuel, using imported hydrogen as a feedstock. But again, rocket fuel in the form of water is abundant in many places, even available at the poles of the Moon, so this is not a major advantage of Mars over anywhere else.

Okay I know that Mars hasn't "been done" yet. But many explorers who want to colonize Mars have as their main motivation that it is new. They aren't interested in colonizing the Moon, because it has already "been done". They just want to be the first people on a new planet. If that's your motivation, then remember, as soon as the first colonists arrive on Mars then it will already "be done". For a colony to survive it would need massive support from Earth, billions of dollars every few years.

Those of us who lived through the Apollo landings will remember how much excitement there was about the first landings - and then within just two or three years, it became boring to the public, to see astronauts on the Moon, because "it has been done already".

Apart from occasional moments of human interest such as the first time a golf ball was hit on the Moon, the general public lost interest totally and the news dropped to the back pages of the papers. The same would surely happen with colonists on Mars. Just as the Moon may seem boring to you now, well same would be true of Mars after a few years. Every Martian summer, roughly every two Earth years, you get a higher chance of global dust storms.

Here is a photo showing progression of a dust storm as seen by Opportunity. During the dust storms, then artificial light is needed in middle of the day to grow crops, and you won't be able to see anything.

Solar power won't work. As a minor point, the dust itself may be hazardous to humans. Some studies showed that moon dust may be somewhat hazardous - not as much so as asbestos, but enough to be of concern.

Mars dust may be similar we don't know its constitution well yet. It also has high levels of perchlorates, and may also have traces of gypsumboth of which could be hazardous to humans if breathed in. This last issue may be addressable however.

The surface of Mars is covered in dust. However, the suitport should help prevent explorers from bringing it into the habitat.

Normally dust gets onto the suits and then would be brought into the habitat. Apollo astronauts found that dust got everywhere. It could also risk clogging up machinery. But with the suitport idea, the suit is never brought into the habitat, so reducing this risk.

Not much you can do about the darkness during the dust storms though except artificial lighting, and just sit them out. It is almost inevitable that a colony on Mars will eventually contaminate the planet with Earth micro-organisms.

At current levels of technology, I don't see how that can be avoided. A human is host to about trillion micro-organisms in 10, different species. A habitat would have many other micro-organisms too, in the food, in the soil, other supplies, and floating in the air. Some of those may be able to reproduce on the surface, particularly lichens, and some hardy micro-organisms, polyextremophiles that may be able to survive in marginal habitats of cold salty brine that may form around deliquescing salts in the morning and evening.

See my Might there be Microbes on the surface of Mars? Some of these can do just fine in human habitats but have surprising hidden capabilities to survive in extreme conditions. The rovers are sterilized to prevent contamination - humans can't be.

Now if you aren't a scientist that mightn't bother you much. But back on Earth you would be known as the people who irreversibly contaminated Mars. You would probably get a fair bit of negative press for doing that, and through all the future of human history would probably be known as much as the humans who contaminated Mars as the first to colonize the planet. For some idea of the potential value of a pristine Mars see How Valuable is Pristine Mars for Humanity - Opinion Piece?

This would make it hard or impossible to tell whether or not any of the life forms you find on the planet are introduced Earth life or native many micro-organisms on Earth are poorly characterized. It would also complicate experiments to look for trace biosignatures in the deposits on Mars, some of these sensitive enough to detect a single amino acid in a gram of soil. The contamination could also affect your water supplies.

There's also the possibility that it could evolve on the surface through adaptive radiation into new forms hazardous to humans, because the conditions are so different strong UV, cosmic radiation etc.

These then could return to the habitats some years later, still retaining their abilities to survive in a human habitat, but with extra capabilities from their evolution on the surface of Mars. What it amounts to is that to contain contamination we would need to land a biohazard laboratory on Mars, with the crew and all its contents as the biohazard to be contained and kept away from the surface of Mars.

We don't have the technology to do that yet at a reasonable cost. Indeed I'm not sure it is possible at all with present day technology when you take account of possibilities of accidents and hard landings. There is also the possibility of life already on the planet. Some scientists think there may be life on the surface even now in the harsh conditions there. If so, there is a remote possibility that it might be hazardous to humans.

Could be a pathogen like Legionaire's disease which we are not immune to. Could be that it infects other micro-organisms so infects micro-organisms within the habitat. Or could be an allergen for humans, e. This chance is probably very low, but not impossible. It's been reviewed many times by biologists, and so far, no-one can really say for sure, they can't go so far as to say that it is impossible based on the scientific knowledge of Mars so far.

This also applies to space colonies too, but I suggest that it is best to work on this in space colonies close to Earth first, where you can deal with emergencies more easily. All of this is solvable but requires complex machinery to keep it going. Yes there are lots of resources available on Mars. But they are available in space too, mining the NEOs.

Mining on Mars will be hard to do, as hard as in space. You still need to use space suits because of the vacuum conditions. And however much you can make from native Mars materials, at least at present levels of technology, then many components and replacement parts will have to come from Earth.

None of our rovers on Mars have lasted for very long, except for Opportunity which has been active since it's sister rover Spirit stopped working in Human habitats presumably would be rated to last longer than that. Yet, the habitats would be extremely complex technologically. Things would go wrong eventually, and you would need parts from Earth.

Also, the modules for the ISS reach the end of their design life after a few decades and most of the station will probably de-orbited in the s, with the modules degraded beyond reasonable possibility of repair - and the same would be true on Mars.

It seems unlikely that you could really supply all the food by plants grown on Mars, and if you were able to do that, yet sometimes crop failures would surely occur, especially early on. Again this needs food to be supplied from Earth. Spacesuits are also complex mechanisms that could fail, and that the colony would be surely unable to make, and only able to do some repairs for them.

Its best to think of spacesuits as more like mini spaceships than aqualungs. It requires about 5, hours of work and would take someone who had all the necessary skills about two and a half years to build, given supply of all the parts and materials needed. See Space suit evolution NASA.

Especially, you are totally reliant on the environment regulation of the air composition and temperature of the habitat, and again if this machinery breaks down and can't be repaired, you die. There is no way a Mars colony could be totally self sufficient in the near future - except with some game changing technology such as nanoscale 3D printing or self replicating nano-technology.

The landscape on Mars may seem quite stunning in some of the photos. But these have been digitally enhanced with the white balance changed, to help geologists to recognize rock types. To human eyes it is a dull reddish gray or brown. The sky is the same colour too. It will be hard to distinguish different colours and everything looks much the same. You probably wouldn't get much chance to explore it directly for safety reasons and because it takes so long to put on your spacesuit.

Mainly you would just see the view from your window whatever that is. You would soon get tired of the dull gray landscape and skies. Okay so accidents happen.

On Mars they may well be fatal if they result in damage of your spacesuit or habitat. Also, in a vacuum, you can die just because you have forgotten one step in your checklist while you put on your spacesuit - or because you get interested in what you are doing and forget to allow enough time to get back within your oxygen reserves.

Or just get delayed, e. And if you get caught in a solar storm, that could be deadly again if you are far from the nearest shielded habitat or rover at the time.

In the future we may use robots for exploring most of the time rather than humans for safety reasons even when there are humans close by who could go. Especially for really long duration multiple day EVAs, rovers controlled by telerobotics may become the norm rather than humans.

No need to carry food, oxygen or water. Able to just stop anywhere and work on something for days on end or just spend days or weeks on a single experiment out in the open. The people operating them via telerobotics can switch from one to another, as you do with the game civilization, doing all the interesting things, while the robots do the boring stuff.

Yes I know the surface area of Mars is large, comparable to that of Earth. But there are several other consequences of such a small planet. Okay all of those can be addressed, protection from cosmic radiation, centrifuge sleeping quarters and indeed the whole habitat could be set spinning to increase the gravity felt inside, and UV radiation easy enough to protect against.

The area for colonization is comparable to Earth so only seems small in comparison to space colony potential. I'll not go into this in any detail here, as it rather strays from the main topic of this post, and I've covered it in Asteroid Resources Could Create Space Habs For Trillions; Land Area Of A Thousand Earths.

But in short the amounts of resources available to build space colonies just from the Near Earth Objects NEOs is surprising. There is easily enough material in NEOs to build habitats with many square kilometers of living area, and with just about all the materials we need to make them. Longer term, space colonies have more potential for human habitation than planetary surfaces - and that is including the Earth itself.

There is enough material in the asteroid belt to build colonies with the land area of a thousand Earths. Nerius is a likely target for materials for a space colony, as it is one of the larger NEOs to get to, and easier to get to than the Moon. Though only meters across, it has enough material for cosmic radiation shielding for three square kilometers.

Veritak F.A.Q.

Mars's small moon Deimos has enough to shield an area more than twice the size of Switzerland e. Then, when you get to the asteroid belt, there is enough material there for cosmic radiation shielding for a thousand times the surface area of Earth. This is a different idea from the idea of hollowing out the asteroids which creates much less living space, Nerius could only make a meters diameter habitat if you hollow it out.

In the nearer term the most habitable surface areas of any celestial body in the solar system outside of Earth are probably the poles of the Moon, where there are the "peaks of almost eternal light" that get constant year round light. This would give near constant solar power and light for greenhouses except during eclipses. They are also right next to the craters of eternal night which are thought to have deposits of ice and are the coldest places in the inner solar system.

So a fascinating place to explore and live, and with just about all the materials you need to build a small near to self sufficient colony.

The peaks of almost eternal light might need to be explored scientifically using rovers first to minimize contamination, for instance maybe there are layered deposits of ice preserving a record of the history of the early solar system and the solar winds. That exploration could be done by humans too, however, by telepresence. The moon is far enough away from Earth for telepresence exploration from L1 or L2 to be worth doing. NASA artwork from the s for the Stanford Torus design This was something we could build already with s technology and would be far easier to build today.

Also, we would have sufficient resources to build this using materials from just one small NEO such as Nereus perhaps the most accessible of them all, meters across and easier to get to than the Moon in terms of delta v.

It has enough material to provide cosmic ray shielding for about 3 square kilometers of habitat living area. There are many other NEOs comparable in size or larger. One would of course start smaller, but eventually colonies of this size and larger could be constructed, mainly with use of resources available in space within easy access from Earth. Other colonies could be in the other Lagrange locations, or orbit the Earth or co-orbit the sun with the Earth.

Long term, a location close to the Earth makes for faster trade both ways, and permits space tourist visits. Shorter term it also makes for easy assistance and backup in case of emergencies, and astronauts can if necessary be returned to Earth within a day or two.

Also, technical assistance for near Earth colonies can be given by experts on Earth in close to real time without the light speed delays of Mars. In the near term, just because of unavoidable communication delays from Earth during emergencies, I think that explorers who travel as far as Mars would probably have the best chance of success if they are experts who have "written the manual" on the spaceship systems, together with scientific experts able to make fast real time decisions about experiments on the surface.

For more about all this see my Asteroid Resources Could Create Space Habs For Trillions; Land Area Of A Thousand Earths. So, I'm not "against mars colonization". Would be great if these problems could be solved and maybe with some future technology they could be.

Perhaps self healing spacesuits and spaceships, able to hold in contamination even in a hard landing or accident? Perhaps some successor to the suitport that is self cleaning and lets no air escape at all? Or we might find out things about Mars that lead us to decide that it is okay to introduce Earth micro-organisms to it. But in the meantime, space colonies would seem to make much more sense than a Mars surface colony.

But Mars is such an interesting place to explore especially for scientists. With enhanced vision, the boring landscape would become interesting to look at and explore.

And our mechanical rovers on Mars are so slow, experiments take months to complete, and they do in a month what a human could do probably in an hour. So, what can we do? Well the answer is telepresence. The technology is developing rapidly, both through the games industry, and through various applications such as remote telepresence surgery surgeons in the USA operating on patients in France for instanceand field geology especially deep wells.

With humans in orbit around Mars, then they could explore the surface with telepresence. You get super human abilities too, as you can build telerobots able to fly hard for a heavy human to do in the thin Mars atmosphereor smaller or stronger than humans. Video of Robert Michelson's entomopter. With several rovers spread out on the surface of Mars you can "hop" from one to the other in virtual reality, set up experiments, set them going to return to them later, or drive around on the surface of Mars in real time.

The robots would be semi-autonomous, not just sit around doing nothing, but a bit like the game of civilizationyou set them going doing various tasks then pop over to another place on Mars to take over another robot, and so on. Eventually we might have a sizeable colony in orbit around Mars and a sizeable "colony" of telerobots on the surface which might make materials for export to the orbital colony or indeed to Earth.

Telerobots could do mining, and all the things envisioned for a human surface colony, with almost no risk of contamination, either of Mars, or back to Earth of any micro-organisms on Mars. As an astronaut, you could explore the surface within your spaceship in a shirt sleeves environment, no need to put on your spacesuit.

The orbital spaceship would spin for gravity, probably using a tether system in early versions of the colony. With an onmidirectional platform and telerobots on the surface, you could walk and run over the surface too, as if you were there but with enhanced vision and capabilities. We could actually grow plants on the surface of Mars too by telepresence, since seeds can be sterilized. There are two types of hydroponics, and sterile hydroponics doesn't use micro-organisms, instead supplies all the nutrients the plants need in the water.

Aeroponics is a version of hydroponics especially useful for space missions which uses minimal water as the roots grow in moist air. We could have greenhouses on the surface, and export the food to orbit using fuel also created on the surface of Mars. Since seeds can be sterilized unlike humans or animalsplants on Mars could be grown without any risk of contaminating it with Earth micro-organisms.

Later on, if the decision is made to send humans to the surface, you already have the telerobots there and whatever technology is associated with them, for the humans to use for their habitats.

Encouraged by the interest in this article, I've written many more articles since this one, on related topics. I have had a long term special interest in astronomy, and space science since the s, and most of If we want to determine if life is or was present on Mars, then we need to continue sending robots to the surface.

Once we send humans to the surface, the chance of contamination is pretty much going to happen. If our goal is to colonize Mars, then we should consider what it would take to terraform the planet. We should set a lower limit on the acceptable "sea level" atmospheric pressure perhaps equivalent to pressures here on Earth at 10, feet. Then determine how big Mars would have to be to maintain an atmosphere at the level.

Once that is determined, we could start diverting asteroids and comets to bombard the red planet making sure that we don't knock the planet out of its orbit in the process. If we add enough mass and heat from the collisions, perhaps the core will spontaneously create its own magnetic field. This would definitely not be a short-term endeavor.

However, it would make the prospect of colonizing Mars much more appealing. In the mean time, we could start building colonies and manufacturing facilities in cislunar space. Once those are established, it will be much more cost effective to explore the rest of the solar system and start the terraforming of Mars and eventual colonization of the planet.

The rest of it could be Proven wrong, due to People changing the Planet to be more like Earth ourselves Again, yes, your Results are correct, but your only seeing what you see Today, your not seeing Results of a Living Atmasphere, though Again, as I said above, there are Draw Backs as you have also state if such a thing does accur where there is a Problem And the Costs would be a Problem to cover Do I like this Idea? Yes, hell yes it would sound awesome Would I want to be one to make the Trip?

But more importantly, would I want to be among the first to make that Trip? Not if there is a huge chance I could Die, i'd rather them come up with a more Stable Planet Living Environment before I could live there first If the CO2 could be solidified and fired like giant dry ice bullets from Venus to Mars, would they stay solid in space or sublimate?

So if you say that you can take CO2 from Venus to Mars and change the levels on CO2 won't that change the way the planets are align and mess up the planet rotation and the way earth is set up in space. Why take the chance of throwing things out of whack just to make Mars livable.

Yes, we'd need to be careful, do the sums carefully if we ever do this. Depends on how much power we have available and how fast we send it.

Venus has atmosphere of 90 atmospheres, so very roughly about tons per square meter - or same weight as depth of about meters of water or perhaps meters of rock. It's radius is km. Still I think you'd need to think a bit about the effects on its orbit and spin rate especially if sending it at high velocity, which we might have the capability to do, e. Still, need some care. Has anyone considered the long term effects of erosion on a terraformed Mars? It's my understanding that Earth only has large landmasses because plate tectonics took enough water down to the mantle to allow granite,a much more durable rock than basalt to form.

Obviously this would take place on a geologic timescale, but given that we are discussing the reconstruction of a planet that seems appropriate. In my opinion the only good reason on this list is reason 5. Everything else is basically a technological challenge that humans should be undertaking anyway; we will go extinct someday if we never leave earth, so we may as well be thinking about how to do it. I thought this article was disappointing in it's lack of vision. Let me say I don't mean to sound dismissive or disrespectful; I was just disappointed by what is mostly a list of technological challenges, and not any real philosophical reasons for not going to Mars.

That's what I was expecting from the title. It's not that your list is inaccurate; I just disagree with essentially 9 of your reasons to not go to mars. If we're going to be just "practicing colonization" in some sense, I do think the moon is more practical in many, many ways.

It's probably a bit less awe-inspiring, which I think is the point with the private sector efforts to send people to mars. I think it's good that people are thinking about these things I've always wondered why there aren't more efforts to "colonize" the oceans; by that I just mean building larger scale, longer term underwater habitats. The amount that we could learn from such a process seems well worth the effort to me; geico jobs work from home has implications for studying parts of our own solar system.

Yeah, because colonizing less habitable planets is so practical in this day and age. Humans haven't even figured out how to end war and hunger. They shouldn't be colonizing new planets yet. I'm disappointed that people like you think colonizing new planets is logical, especially one as unappealing as Mars.

Did you ever think that maybe we're inevitably bound for extinction? Like the dinosaur, we're all going to die one day. Robert, thank you, great article. Colonizing Mars, if we choose to do so, will present many challenges. This is something the Russians found out with Soyuz. Jm finn stockbrokers you have links or references that point to these problems?

Also, you wrote "With humans in orbit around Mars, then they could explore the surface with should i buy sbi shares today. This is BS disinformation Secret governments of us and Russian has done had bases on mars since the sixties and there plant and animal life, lakes and forest on mars.

There already has been experiments in settling mars but most died by attacks by native wildlife. Even though the atmosphere is thin you can breath it, like being on a high mountain.

So this story is total be just like the lies about Venus, Google "jump rooms". Robert, thank you for this. I never was a "science buff", but you made the article very interesting. You might even have started me off as a "science buff". All the best to you sir. Since seeds can be sterilized unlike humans or animalsthese could be grown without any risk of contaminating Mars with Earth micro-organisms.

Has there 7 dividend stocks bear market any success in growing sequestered food plants that exist completely without any kind of soil micro-organisms?

Plants depend on nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the soil near the plant roots, for one example. But then, Mars probably already has its own existing soil micro-organisms. Foreign enough, that any sterilized tomato plant seed would I'm guessing quickly shrivel up and die, if Mars dirt was used as potting soil for a tomato plant.

Apollo astronaut Buzz Aldrin's proposal deserves consideration: Might 15 minutes how to win in binary options 80c sufficient gravity to lessen the health dangers of a zero gravity environment. The numbers involved are top binary options signal providers enough so that there is a good chance that they haven't been able to reproduce due to the harsh conditions there.

The best sterilized rover ever sent to Mars is the Viking Rover, in the s. It is still considered the "Gold Standard" of planetary sterilization. It was sterilized to less than 30 spores for the entire spacecraft. The rules were relaxed somewhat after that because Mars was thought to be so inhospitable.

But then stronger requirements were introduced again, for "special regions" on Mars. The Surveyor probes were the first U. The organisms survived launch, space vacuum, 3 years of radiation exposure, deep-freeze at an average temperature of only 20 degrees above absolute zero, and no nutrient, water or energy source.

The United States landed 5 Surveyors on the Moon; Surveyor 3 was the only one of the Surveyors technical analysis software forex fx by any of the six Apollo landings.

No other life forms were found in soil samples retrieved by the Apollo missions or by two Soviet unmanned sampling missions, although amino acids - not necessarily of biological origin - were found in soil retrieved by the Apollo astronauts. All we need to do is send Ah-nuld to Mars who will then activate an alien air-making machine, which hopefully, will also amp up Mars' magnetic field.

And, voila, most problems solved. Things could still be a bit iffy about the low gravity, though. Maybe people could wear lead sole boots or something. Just trying to be helpful. Gotta problem that needs solving? Just send Ah-nuld to the rescue.

Besides, he likes Mars. And wants to get there pronto if not sooner. Interesting article, but as a Canadian, I don't quite appreciate the idea of "colonizing" my country This is a great article and for a while I returned to the hope I had as a child Space exploration is one of the only aress of human endeavour not tainted easy forex scams the evil NWO.

We might get off this rock one day, but I can assure you, it won't happen with 7. Just like the truth on so many subjects, the truth about high market cap penny stocks is really going on in space alludes the majority of people.

Take the statements made by Gary Mckinnon. The US already has a substantial space fleet. Every single space picture is carefully checked and if necessary, airbrushed to remove incriminating evidence. The staggering levels of corruption which Infect every area of life, surely the final frontier is just as corrupt.

I think that helps to investments in internet in rubles in binary options astronomy grounded and it wouldn't be easy for some agency to fool all those amateur astronomers, never mind the professional astronomers worldwide too.

Other countries many with fine astronomers and space programs of their own, such as Japan, China, Russia, India etc, would have no interest in maintaining a deception that promotes US interests. It's a when will the stock market reopen after sandy situation for UFOs. As a child I used to think that UFOs might really be ETs visiting Earth, for a few years, and read many of the reports.

But then gradually I realised, that amateur astronomers never who makes more money phlebotomist or medical assistant to observe them, at least, none of the reports I read were from amateur astronomers. That's a bit strange as every starry night you get amateur astronomers out in large numbers observing and photographing the sky and they are by far the members of the general public most familiar with the night sky.

More familiar with it than airplane pilots, I would say. They would surely be the first to notice if there really were ETs buzzing Earth with flying saucers visible to humans.

Nowadays, I do still think that there probably are ETs many astronomers think it is quite likely they existbut they are most likely hundreds or thousands of light years away. So, it will probably, sadly, be impossible to have a two way conversation with them unless they have discovered sr ed stock options than light technology.

It is also highly likely that they would be millions of years in advance of us technologically because it would be just too much of a coincidence for two technological races to develop independently in the same "blink" of geological time.

At any rate, why would ETs be on Earth and only in communication with the military what interest could a millions of years old ET civilization have in the military of the US?? Oh and if we get to the point where it is as easy to fly into space as it is to fly to another continent, which may be possible with some of the new technologies underway, then the whole population of the Earth could migrate to space, if it so wanted to.

Not saying it would, or that it would be a good idea to do it even, but it could do, there are about a billion airplane flights world wide, and so in a few years the whole population could easily leave the planet if there were the same numbers of flights into space. Robert, a girlfriend and I clearly saw a totally silent, rotating, silver UFO for about 20 minutes, in broad daylight back in December We even managed to briefly focus a telescope on it but unfortunately it disappeared when I ran to get my camera.

I have mentioned this several times here at Science20, even drawn sketches of what we saw and have been duly ridiculed by some skeptics. I can find the links if you want, however the general consensus of opinion from most commentators here is that what we probably saw was some kind of top secret, high tech, military aircraft that looked like a silver, flying saucer that was slowly rotating and that remained in one spot for quite some time before tilting 45 degrees and then apparently disappearing into thin air.

You say that not many amateur astronomers have reported seeing UFOs, so I just Googled that interesting observation and found quite a few links disagreeing with what you are saying.

Here is one called ' A list of sightings by Astronomers'. Also this Yahoo answers website asks the question ' How is it Claimed Amateur Astronomers Do Not See UFOs - How is Years of Evidence Ignored? OK, these reported sightings are all very difficult to scientifically authenticate, just as our UFO sighting was but I don't think its fair to say that no amateur astronomers are claiming to have observed, documented and even photographed UFOs in the past, especially as there are apparently sometimes over one hundred in a year.

So does anyone here have any ideas as to who or even what software could work out that direction and possible destination? It wouldn't do you any good, since you don't know what navigational dependencies might exist. Just like aircraft, their takeoff direction is dependent on the runway and wind conditions, not their destination. You can see from looking at the following diagram that there is nothing specific you can deduce by examining the flight path at any point.

The concept of an advanced civilization [especially as advanced as to have Construct butterfly spread using put options payoff would be foolish to be interested in our planet. However, back to your point about the general direction of travel.

Well, now you run into a problem. If there are enough planets with life, such that intelligent life is established in another place AND it is prevalent enough so that it isn't just pure chance that they would have found us, then I have to believe there must also be many planets that are suitable for life, which again renders the point of looking at earth somewhat suspect.

Another point to consider, is that if they are capable of traveling between star systems, then clearly they have dealt with the issue of radiation exposure.

Download - UpdateStar - qoxoxoxiqel.web.fc2.com

Therefore one would expect that they are certainly capable of building habitats that would ensure their safety and reduce the risks of exposure. However, I have just one question about point 5.

I totally understand that as human, we can bring some micro organism that will contamine Mars.

But what about the robot trading di optionsxpress keep sending there? I'm not a scientist, so maybe I'm just talking shit, but these robots may not have some micro-organisms stick to them? If so, what did we do to prevent such contamination?

My guess is this is easier to clean up a robot than "clean up" a human being, but is that true? Anyway, I'm part of those people who are excited about the idea of colonize Mars. Not because it is Mars, but because it is space.

And unfortunately, I can't read that much about any progress we could have done these years that could lead to this. Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I'd love to be still living when this process starts, as I cannot believe that it will never happen.

But it seems from my point of view that nobody is interested by this topic apart from some marginal scientists. Hope I'm wrong though. Sorry, I probably made many english mistakes, but I'm french and we are not well known for our english knowlegdges: Yes, we sterilize our rovers.

The best sterilized rovers were Viking 1 and 2. They were assembled in a clean room, and everything kept clean, then finally heated in an oven for 30 hours at C, which is thought to be enough to reduce the already low microbial population by another million-fold.

So, as a result lower standards were used for later missions. Now there are three categories of misison to Mars, categories IVa, IVb and IVc, and only category c needs to be sterilized to the Viking levels. Category c is used for missions to "special regions" thought to be habitable. Curiosity is category IVa which means clean to the same standard as Viking before it was put into the oven. It is hard to sterilize modern landers to the same standard as Viking because it would destroy some modern materials and thin layer electronic chips.

However NASA has just approved a new method using low vapour hydrogen peroxide, so central bank of kenya forex rates missions may be able to be sterilized to this level again.

Curiosity is sterilized so that it has less thanspores total, and less than per square meter. Only some micro-organisms form spores so the actual numbers may be times that i. It may seem amman stock exchange arbk lot but for micro-organisms it is not a lot and is very clean.

Many of them also probably got killed by the UV radiation on the journey out to Mars or on the surface. Still there are probably quite a few dormant micro-organisms still left, that were able to survive the UV radiation perhaps in micro-cracks on the surface of the spacecraftand others inside the spacecraft where they are sheltered from UV. There is apa maksud leverage dalam forex good chance that none of our spacecraft have contaminated Mars yet because of the harsh conditions there.

The aim was never certainty, as next to impossible to achieve that. The aim was to reduce the chance of contamination per mission to less than 1 in which over the period of exploration of Mars that we are in currently - means a chance of less than 1 in of contaminating Mars in total. There were some failures of the procedures such as the crash of the Mars climate orbiter, not sterilized for the surface.

So the chance we have contaminated Mars may be a bit higher than 1 in but most think it is still very unlikely that we have contaminated it yet with our rovers. Chris McKay has argued for a stronger requirement that our missions should be biologically reversible. By this he means that we should be able, if necessary, to remove all dormant micro-organisms from the planet and return it to its pristine state.

Some also argue that we should think further ahead than just this exploratory period and should aim to keep buying and selling private stock biologically interesting extraterrestrial solar system bodies pristine for the foreseeable future at least until we nifty trading strategy in excel better knowledge about them and their potential value.

The idea is that the current pristine solar system is of value not just to us but to all future generations who should e able to study it in its pristine state.

That idea has been applied more to Europa than Marsit might mean for instance that we shouldn't leave long lived spores on the surface of Europa and such like places, if there is a chance that they would eventually end up in the oceans below the surface even if that process would take thousands of years.

It seems quite probable that our missions to Mars so far have been biologically reversible as well, although that was not the mission design requirement.

It is not yet part of the guidelines that our missions have to be biologically reversible, or that solar system objects should be kept clean for the foreseeable future. These are just ideas, that have been discussed. Others, in the same work groups, have also have argued that we should set up "planetary parks" for objects and regions of outstanding interest in our solar system, to be kept free from all contamination including non biological e. Yes for those who are excited, not because make money online ewen chia is Mars but because it is space, I hope they can also be excited by the Moon, is pretty exciting place to colonize if you think about it some more - and about space colonies.

And about telerobotic exploration of Mars too. Your English is absolutely fine, I can understand clearly what you said.

Yes, some minor grammatical errors but who cares: Your textbook explanations are obsolete. Our bases on Mars prove you wrong. Its not that great, however it's not near as bad online option stock trade trading singapore ke you think.

A great article and a great, courteous discussion, a rarity. I started out thinking, philosophical reasons to colonize Mars surely outweigh all those concerns - the way we are, we need another earth away from earth - and have been completely turned around by Robert's and other contributors' argument. Thank you everybody including the site. I stumbled upon this page by simply entering "space colonization" into the google search engine. I've now bookmarked the page and look forward to regularly tuning in for new articles dead trigger 2 money hack facebook updates.

Please keep up the good worker. For an Adventurer at heart since childhood, sitting here in my camp room in the remote Canadian Wilderness next to directional drilling oil rigs, I can only wonder, speculate and imagine what life could be like on Mars or the Moon.

What especially interests me, being employed in the front lines of the Energy Industry, is the harvesting of minerals and resources from asteroids close to us, and planets afar. Please feel free, should you find the time, to message or email me anything interesting you may come by. Makes the lonely nights on the night shift a tad more bearable: Have a pleasant evening everyone. We were wrong a hundred years ago.

We know more now. And the history of science — if we understand it correctly — gives us no hint of how it might be possible to imagine otherwise.

Even if we treat QM like a black box, entering carefully measured inputs here and carefully measuring the outputs there, we can learn a lot about it. And we have learned a lot about it. After a century of investigating, there have been stunning technological advances because of what we have learned about it.

Fairly recently, however, it seems possible cnbc market guide stock market hindi photograph an electron:. Do take a moment to read the article that is the source of this picture.

It is interesting that the uncredited author of the article says the following: A long time ago there used to be something called the De Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave theory, but it had fallen out of favor in the QM community. Fairly recently, however, it seems to be making a comeback:. Here's the link to the web page if the embedded movie does not display: Pretty interesting, but is it a fair analogy of what is happening in the quantum world?

I don't know seriously, I dont. Anyway, keep this stuff in mind for now. Video talk about this article in free stock market streaming quotes parts playlist of them all.

Thanks for the great article. I would like to see an effort to establish a permanent self-sufficient colony on the Moon. I believe that the mineral resources of the moon could provide long term funding for an extensive colony. A reality TV show unemployment rate impact on stock market Survivor could provide much initial funding.

Lava-tubes on the moon could provide almost ready-built shelters for habitation. Electric tunneling equipment could expand these initial colonies. Power could be supplied by small nuclear reactors such as the SNAP reactor.

Much of the manpower to operate equipment could be provided remotely from operators on earth. I would like to see a yearly competition between universities to build a self-sufficient closed environment in an air-tight room similar to the Russian Bio-3 project. When it is demonstrated that a few thousand pounds of equipment can be assembled to provide a self-contained environment that will support six people for an indefinite amount of time, I believe the winning team should receive a free one way ticket to the moon along with land and mineral rights to as much of the moon as they can develop.

If the USA were to recognize mining claim law as applying to the moon, this would help fund and drive the colonization effort. USA Mining Claim law should be recognized as applying to the Mood. This would provide a financial incentive to go to the moon just as it provided a financial incentive to settle California and Alaska.

The start-up costs to live on the moon are huge, our manned space program has gone nowhere in 40 years, and taxpayers don't want to fund manned space habitats. Should our Global Economic System ever collapse, the non-renewable-resources necessary to rebuild it are not there.

It is a question of economies of extraction. Someday something critical will run out on earth or something else very bad will happen. If that day comes, and we do not have people living off-planet, mankind will never get off the earth. We will instead sink into a kind of 19th Century dark age that will never end. Please reactivate my automatic notification of response.

The thing is - as I understand it - no individual country can grant rights on the Moon. Because they don't have the rights in the first place - according to the OST then it belongs to all of humanity.

Starting point is, you own your habitat - even if made of materials how much money do biolife employees make in space - that is in the OST - at least as long as you continue to use it. Could be consistent to add a "functional right" where if you have started mining, you have a right to continue to operate your mine - although you don't own the land or resources as such.

So - they start with one or other of these or similar ideas as a starting point to build up a legal framework consistent with the Outer Space Treaty OST which perhaps the main space countries could agree on - and then if it is well thought out legislation - maybe like the original OST eventually everyone signs it. If I understand right, am not a lawyer: Yes, some interesting points there, thanks!

Hadn't thought of that angle before, that if there was a colony in space able to sustain itself - that it could help Earth by providing resources to ease it over tricky times. Though - I feel also it could work the other way. A space mining colony could be the cause of economic collapse - by suddenly dumping lots of low price goods from space - so making a few people very rich, as wealthy as the richest countries on Earth - and at the same time destroying entire industries on Earth and making countries bankrupt.

It could go that way also.

Something like that already happened here in the oil crisis that made many countries heavily in debt, debts that continue to this day and should i buy sbi shares today that they can't afford schools, hospitals etc just because of something that happened in So - as well as regulations to protect the rights of space miners - agree that there does seem to be a need there - to give them some incentive to go into space -I think you also need regulation to protect the Global Economy as well.

Maybe some way to ensure that some of the space income feeds back to Earth. Also very very careful about how it is used - it all goes into a "pension fund" and they only spend the interest on that fund - that would be wise in space as well - in case of a sudden "boom and bust" end of the industry with Earth relying on it.

I'm sure that is a way over-simplified picture and it would need care. And you have the problem of course, that solutions that might seem great to people born in Norway might seem bizarre to people born in the US, or Russia, or Japan, or China or whatever, and a system to work in space must work for all space faring countries - so that they can all come together and acknowledge it.

Also - pretty likely - that it has to be consistent with the OST. In near future anyway. Because it and related treaties are the only space law universally agreed almost all nations on the Earth - and is no way, realistically - that they are all going to agree to a change in the wording of the treaty after all this time.

Not when you bear in mind their widely varying political views, and their wishes and aims and objectives. We are remarkably lucky I think myself, to have this one space law that is pretty much universally agreed on - it's a jewel in our international legal system and something to be treasured: Just a few thoughts to share there. I think the main thing is to have active open debate about this, and maybe somehow, some way it may help us as humanity to find the way through - tricky times probably ahead of us!

Sorry, I have nothing to emotional theory in the stock market with the administration of the site. I'm just a member. There is an option in my profile under Preferences called "receive liteforex client cabinet notifications" - do you have one too?

If that's got unchecked, might that be it? Just a guess though may be wide of the mark there, it might just be for comments on articles you write yourself? Not likely, as that was the subject matter in Heinlein's "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress". If the moon were self-sufficient, the likelihood is that they would strive for their own independence and could well revolt against Earth authority.

After all, why should they endure the difficulties of living on the moon, for the sake of helping out the Earth? Because they come from Earth, and have friends on Earth? Because they live in a fragile habitat that can be destroyed instantly by an out of control incoming spaceship? Because they will have lots of ties both economic should i buy stock in general motors other wise with Earth?

Science fiction isn't prediction, and sometimes these stories warn us about things that might happen, which we can avoid.

How to Trade Binary Options - $5000 in 9 minutes – Binary Trading – Binary Options

The great and powerful country that that USA is today would never have been possible with our current legal burden, over regulation and deference to international courts. What I am arguing is that the USA unilaterally clarify a 'gray' portion of international law, by stating forex stop loss and take profit calculator those who extract valuable resources from the moon may retain the profits from those resources.

By the earth receiving new resources from space all of mankind will benefit. By allowing companies to profit from investment in new technology we help fund new technology and we all benefit as a people.

You might be interested in: The Year Update [Donella H. Meadows, Jorgen Randers, Dennis L. Meadows] on Amazon The short answer is that we as a technologically advanced civilization are resource intensive and our global-civilization will collapse within a hundred years Live long and prosper. Oh right, yes that is a gray area in international law. That is to say - that the resources of Outer Space are for the benefit of all according to the OST.

So - does that mean it is right for any single organization or country to go into space and remove some of those resources and keep all their profits for themselves? Which incidentally includes the Netherlands - interesting as Mars One is a Dutch company. Personally - I think it is okay to start with while the countries are small - and provided that they let the scientists investigate these resources first to see if anything there is of great scientific interest.

Somewhat similarly to the way that archaeologists inspect building sites before the foundations are dug out to see if they are of archaeological interest. But - mainly because of my concerns about the effect on the world economy - I feel there should be some provision for profit sharing later on. Like a tax, a global tax on space industry.

Since no individual country owns anywhere in space - has to be an international global one. If we don't do that I fear repeated "boom and bust" cycles, and countries driven into bankruptcy - when individual small asteroids are valued at many times more than the entire world GDP for a year. At any rate I think it needs very close 10 how are binary options taxable in uk from economists - and including economists of all persuasions.

And careful comparison with history including the oil crisis, and - things like the recent sub prime jquery select option selectedindex crisis, all these things - to make sure that nothing like that can happen in space as a result of space mining. That's because the sums could be so huge, and controlled by so few people Bill Gates and Microsoft wealth insignificant in comparison that effects would be far greater, potentially, than anything we've encountered so far.

As well as that - I do also feel a sense of fairness.

It seems unfair that the wealthy countries and companies should "grab the largest slice of the cake" just because they are wealthy already and so can afford to go there and grab the wealth in space in form of platinum etc while poorer countries can't. So - that also - feel there has to be something there. For this second point though - that can be in the form of - not even technology transfer - but technology access.

For instance in the way that modern aircraft including jet airliners, and GPS and mobile phones are available world wide. In the same way - space industry and space mining should be accessible to all - not necessarily giving everyone the technology - as in patents or rights etc - but - at least - equal access to its benefits. So - that is a separate point.

The equal access is for fairness. The global tax is - that's to protect the world economy. But - it would also be good to use that to help the poorer countries, I think myself.

As in - that it is to protect the world economy, everyone here, so we should all benefit from it also. Rather than to say - that because the spacecraft were launched from the US, say, that only the US economy should be protected. I think that it is all compatible, if it is worked out properly. It's not in their interest to make the world bankrupt. Or to cause economic collapse of countries. Just something that might happen if not regulated in some way.

I believe that it is unrealistic to believe that human colonies on the moon will be funded by taxpayers that have more pressing concerns. It is unrealistic that corporations would fund them if they had no prospect of profiting from their investment. The problems you foresee with the influx of off-planet resources might be an issue eventually but the human race would be better off dealing with such problems in the future, rather than letting the prospect of such problems kill the goose that can lay golden eggs.

I do admire your vision for the moon, and I would admire it much more if you were investing a few hundred billion dollars in putting people on the moon. But given that no-one has put their money where their mouth is and the moon has sat idle for 40 years, I believe that a simple declaration by the USA that we recognize mining claim law on the moon, might possibly get the billions of dollars in investment required to start flowing.

Our civilization is rapidly exhausting the resources of this planet and we can't afford to wait another 40 years with no progress. Oh that part is international law. Yes, in theory, the US could say, unilaterally, that they recognize mining claims on the Moon. But they aren't going to do that, because.

Russia, ESA, Japan, India, China etc - none of them would recognize those claims It would mean that the US has withdrawn from the Outer Space Treaty - a big deal thing to do.

I think most don't realize quite what a big deal that would be. So, I'm sure it won't do that. Yes, I think there is plenty of room for everyone on the Moon - at least apart from special places - like caves or the ice at the poles or the peaks of almost eternal light.

However, you do own any habitats you construct on the Moon. And as I said before there are various ways that we might be able to, in some sense "own" our mining operations on the Moon - so long as we keep at it and don't abandon them, a kind of "functional right" - or based on safety regulations.

Details here will need lawyers I think and economists and others to think it through carefully. And it's likely to take a fair bit of discussion and debate and challenges etc before it all gets sorted out. I can't see it working to try to scrap or change the OST, because it has been in force for so long, and so many countries have signed it.

And our other attempts, e. So getting countries to agree on international space law is no easy task. And if one country tries to define its own space law unilaterally - then that is meaningless in space, where it has no soverign territories. It's because the US doesn't own any territory in space, that it can't give mining claims to anyone. And is well established in international law that neither the US nor Russia have any prior claims on the Moon just becauuse they got there first.

Both do have reasonable claim, I think, on preservation of their landing sites and spacecraft for historical reasons, and there have been proposals to set up "space parks" on the Moon. That sort of thing could well be consistent with the OST though not part of it.

It wouldn't mean you have withdrawn from the OST. So I could see something like that happening in the future. But - can't see mining claims in the traditional sense. Might seem strange, what's the difference between the Earth and Space?

Well I think the main difference is that on the Earth you can go anywhere and breath the air without a spacesuit. So - there is no pressing need for space law to grant ownership to the land. Only to settle the matter of who has teh right to extract resources from it - if anyone does - and how that should be regulated - and ownership of habitats already pretty much settled in the OST.

As for our civilization exhausting its resources - well it doesn't have to happen that way. Our population is on course to stabilize, having reached "peak child" a few years back. And we have only occupied a small fraction of the habitable space. That's from this news story from a while back: Pillaging the Moon for the Promise of Space Energy.

Not all of us are explorers, much less pioneers. The author is certainly not the latter and too fearful and timid to do his exploring first hand. He and all those that are like minded will be far better off remaining forever on the planet of their birth, as most of us will, simply because the opportunity to leave Earth and establish a colony on Mars is still a ways off. When technology and budgets align, perhaps aided by the development of private space enterprises, those of us that still have a yen to explore and are ready to take on the harsh challenges of pioneering a new outpost of civilization, will go.

The rest of you will be safe and warm on Earth. Don't worry about the pioneers on Mars. While they will have their hardships and their losses, they will accomplish things that their faint-hearted cousins on Earth can only dream of - fearfully. The pioneers that go to Mars and carve out a life and build the next branch of humanity will also be the ones that eventually reach out beyond this solar system. For a brief time, they'll remember the home planet and those that preferred to use machines to do their exploring and stayed behind, but they'll soon be forgotten.

That would be fine if you were just taking risks for yourselves. But - suppose you wanted to colonize Lake Vostock in Antarctica? This is Lake Vostok - though it is just a flat plain of ice on the surface, there is water underneath, for that matter oxygen rich water, thought to be the most oxygen rich water on the Earth.

It's not very hospitable - and it is inaccessible. But - it is far easier to get to - and also far far more habitable than Mars. If you think Mars is a great place to set up a colony - well this is a far better spot. Because there is water there. Not just ice, liquid water - probably more liquid water than there is over entire surface of Mars. It's at an almost constant temperature too, temperature regulation would be easy.

High levels of oxygen in the water. Complete protection from cosmic radiation. It is a paradise compared with Mars. Okay no sunlight - but on Mars you have half the levels of sunlight of Earth anyway - and no sunlight to speak of in the months long dust-storms. And it is easy enough to generate artificial light for plants - compared with the other technologies you need for Mars. And so accessible - you can get there within a day or two from anywhere on the Earth - at least if you have private planes, helicopters etc and whatever expensive equipment you want.

So - well if you want to colonize Lake Vostok - why not? Well everyone else would be rather nonplussed by it - why on Earth does anyone want to set up a colony there?

But - it is your choice, normally - if you chose some other place, say Siberia or Canada or whatever for your settlement - we'd just say - okay - go ahead and give it a go.

But - the thing is - that Lake Vostok has been cut off from the surface of the Earth for millions of years. Biologists are really interested to know what kind of life is there. For that reason scientists have taken great care not to introduce Earth life to Lake Vostok. It wouldn't be that hard, with modern technology, to get a submarine into Lake Vostock with brave human explorers in the sub.

But you would not be permitted to do that. For that matter, the whole of Antarctica is set aside as a region of special scientific interest through the Antarctic Treaty. So you can't even go and set up a colony anywhere you like on the surface on the ice sheet - not just to live there. You can't go to Antarctic and mine it. You can as a research station.

So - well Mars is like that. It is of immense scientific interest, many would say far more so than Antarctica. It is remote and expensive to get to, far more so than Antarctica. It is an almost impossible place to live anyway - far harder to live there than Anatarctica.

And the Outer Space Treaty protects it also legally, in a somewhat similar way not identical to the way the Antarctic Treaty protects Antarctica. Those who want to protect Mars in a similar way to Antarctica - they aren't 'trying to restrict the freedom of those who want to colonize Mars.

That's not the focus. Rather they are protecting the freedom of the scientists and others who want to study Mars in its pristine state - something that will be forever impossible after colonization if it goes ahead - whether it succeeds, or as I think myself more likely fails.

But either way - it is a very similar situation right now to Lake Vostok. It's not just brave and adventurous - and maybe a bit foolhardy. If you introduce Earth life to Mars we can never reverse that. We need to be very sure that's what we want to do before doing that. Just as for Lake Vostok but more so.

The thing is, it is not just the prospective colonists who have freedoms. So does everyone else as well. And sometimes those freedoms conflict.

For instance quarantine regulations, simple example. Meanwhile, we can explore Mars though by our robotic explorers - and through telepresence - exploring from orbit around Mars, and that has none of these issues if done with great care. We plan to do the same with Lake Vostok eventually - could send sterilized subs to explore it, once we can figure out a way to do that, and then we can find out what is really down there.

There will be plenty of scope for brave explorers in space I'm sure. Just - not colonizing Mars, not quite yet, for these reasons. There are three places in space that are top priority for the search for life: Mars, Europa and Encladus. So - those are there places that we have to be especially careful not to introduce Earth life to, at present. As for the Moon, Ceres, Near Earth Asteroids etc - they don't have the same problems as far as we know.

Especially - you can create free space colonies, in orbit around the Earth or independent orbits around the sun etc - they don't have any contamination issues at all. If you are really keen to try to colonize, there are places you can attempt to colonize in space without conflicting with those who want to find out new things about life and the origins of life by studying Mars in its current pristine state.

It's not me that wants to colonize Lake Vostok in that analogy. I have absolutely no wish to do so. Well so it seems to me. And - we don't colonize everywhere. Nobody colonizes deserts or mountain tops - or the bottom of the sea, or builds floating cities in the skies - all easier to do than colonizing Mars - and easier to make self sufficient.

I think that if anyone attempts to colonize Mars then soon they will realize that they are attempting something that is as hard and rather pointless as colonizing Lake Vostok.

Which would be fine if they wanted to colonize the Moon say, or somewhere like that. But the problem with Mars is, that in doing so - they then may contaminate Mars, in a way we can never reverse similar to a colony in Lake Vostok.

So, for me that's the biggest of all the reasons. For the rest of the reasons - well - it suggests there isn't much point in colonizing Mars at this stage. But if someone wants to give it a go anyway - as many do - so what, one might say? It's their effort, their dreams, their money etc. Even if you think they don't have even a slender chance of success, well they think they do, obviously.

But that one - it's the biggy. You need to show that you can colonize Mars without contaminating it - if you want to get everyone else on your side at least. And if you want to abide by international law. SpaceX, Mars One etc - I'm sure they would comply with international law, Mars One have said they will.

But can they - that's the big question? Subscribe to the newsletter. Ten Reasons NOT To Live On Mars - Great Place To Explore. By Robert Walker August 15th Ten Reasons NOT to Live on Mars - Great Place to Explore 1. Cold You would agree that the center of Antarctica in winter is cold, not the best of places to set up home? Average temperatures on Mars are similar to Antarctica.

Forex ea generator 5

The only reason the entire planet isn't covered in ice is because it has so little water to turn into ice, and as the atmosphere is a near vacuum, the ice sublimates into water vapour like dry ice and collects at the poles. Phil Pauley's concept design for sub biosphere 2 - it's able to lower itself to the sea floor video. Vacuum Yes Mars does have an atmosphere, it's true. So again that's not a major benefit over space or the Moon. The "it's been done" syndrome Okay I know that Mars hasn't "been done" yet.

Eventually the public lost interest in the Moon except for occasional highlights such as the first golf ball hit on the Moon, which probably did travel a mile or so, making it unofficially probably the longest golf drive ever. For scientists, the Apollo missions stopped immediately after the most interesting mission to the Moon, Apollo 17, once it was safe enough to send a geologist, not just test pilots, the first true geological "field mission" on the moon.

Much about the Moon is still unknown and can only be discovered on the ground. The same would likely happen to Mars, if astronauts are sent there mainly for a political aim, to be first to get humans to Mars.

Missions done for scientific reasons like the settlements in Antarctica can last indefinitely, continually producing new and interesting discoveries. Dust and Dust storms Every Martian summer, roughly every two Earth years, you get a higher chance of global dust storms. These storms often continue for weeks on end, and the dust storm season happens every two Earth years.

In dust storms like this, artificial light is needed to grow plants, solar power won't work, and the dust is also potentially hazardous for humans. And you won't see far from your hab or if you try to travel. Though the winds are not hazardous - the dust is as fine as talcum powder, or cigarette smoke, or they wouldn't be lifted at all - and the atmosphere is a near vacuum.

The strongest winds would barely move an autumn leaf. This gif animation by Emily Lakdawalla shows how the sun faded during the dust storm as viewed from Opportunity. There's a big gap at the end where the sun was too dark to do these images.

See her post from Contamination It is almost inevitable that a colony on Mars will eventually contaminate the planet with Earth micro-organisms. Some sources for contamination include Habitat not completely self contained - e. The problem is - that the more flexible the spacesuit, then the more joints it has, and these continuously leak air. Could you contain micro-organisms within the spacesuit without them leaking out of the joints? It may be possible to do something about this, but no-one has yet designed an airlock that vents no air at all out of the spaceship.

The suitport gets close to this, but is designed more to prevent dust getting into the cabin than to prevent air getting out.

Some air would still escape, about a cubic foot in the current design of the suitport. Or one of the spaceships crashes during landing. Even if crew survive, the hull may be breached and contaminate Mars with the micro-organisms inside the habitat. If anyone dies, then that is a major contamination right away. Suitport - astronaut crawls into this suit through the hole in its back, then the airlock is closed and he or she then walks on the surface carrying this portable airlock on his or her back.

This reduces the amount of air released from the interior of the spacecraft with each EVA but you'd still lose a cubic foot or so each time. Hard to see any way that air could be sterilized in typical spacecraft conditions. Spacesuits also leak air constantly through the flexible bearings in the joints, another way microbes could escape to the surface. And what if the astronaut has an accident on the surface which breaches the suit - or indeed - the ship itself has a hard landing and crashes on Mars with the contents strewn on the surface?

After an accident like that, it might well be impossible to reverse contamination of Mars with Earth life - as microbes imbedded in dust grains are protected from UV light and can be spread anywhere on Mars in the global storms.

Unproven technology for self contained habitats This also applies to space colonies too, but I suggest that it is best to work on this in space colonies close to Earth first, where you can deal with emergencies more easily.

15 Minute Strategies > Binary Options Strategy

The ISS is not at all self contained. They can't even wash their clothes, but get new clothes sent up when they need clean ones. All the dirty ones are disposed of in the supply vessels which burn up in the atmosphere. Human waste products can be problematic in a small habitat. Though urine can be recycled, without too much trouble, feces is much harder to deal with and in the ISS is again disposed of in the supply vessels.

Atmosphere regulation is hard in an enclosed habitat. In the ISS there is a complex environmental regulation system which filters out many different harmful gases that can build up in an enclosed human system that includes ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, acetone, hydrogen chloride, nitric oxide, carbon monoxide as well as carbon dioxide and many others and keeps the oxygen levels right.

If this goes wrong in the ISS as has happened several times you can send replacement components or emergency oxygen from Earth but on Mars you would be in trouble. Micro-organisms are problematical in an enclosed habitat.

In the ISS many measures are taken to keep the numbers of micro-organisms low, including keeping the atmosphere very dry and filtering them out. Still they have occasional build ups of biofilms.

Though urine can be recycled, without too much trouble, excrement is much harder to deal with and in the ISS is again disposed of in the supply vessels. Biosphere 2, first large scale attempt at a self enclosed biosphere type habitat. The experiment was a failure but much was learnt and in future it may be possible to set up totally self contained habitats in space. The technology is not mature yet however.

Hard to make self sufficient - need for parts and supplies from Earth Yes there are lots of resources available on Mars. It has been operating since and as of writing this is still running. All the other rovers have lasted for less than a decade. Though human habitats would be designed for durability, eventually they also would fail.

Medicine would be needed too, and other supplies that need high levels of technology. Boring landscape to unassisted human eyes The landscape on Mars may seem quite stunning in some of the photos.

Accidents Okay so accidents happen. Mars is too small to be worth colonizing Yes I know the surface area of Mars is large, comparable to that of Earth. Low gravity - so far it's not known whether humans can remain healthy long term in a Mars gravity.

Same is true for the Moon but is easier to return sick astronauts from the Moon to Earth, e. There have been many biologically surprising results for zero g, and there may be surprises for low g as well.

The human body is complex, and impossible to simulate in detail in a computer model. You can't just draw a straight line from zero g to full g and interpolate to find the effect of low g. For all we know, it could even be worse than zero g or better than full g in its effects on human health. Many of these clear up on return to Earth; as a rule of thumb it takes one day to recover for every day in orbit. But the evidence so far suggests you might not recover from bone loss completely.

Long term you can get serious vision problems too, one third of astronauts returning from space have impaired vision and in one case the impairment was permanent.

We have no way to truly simulate less than 1 g for long time periods on Earth. It might be completely safe for humans but again it might cause long term problems like zero g. As well as effects on adults, it might also be, for instance, that children's bones don't grow in low gravity, or that it is impossible to give birth safely. UV radiation - has hazardous levels of UV radiation, again have to be careful about exposure.

Atmosphere not recycled through continental drift. This is mainly relevant for long term prospects. On Earth CO 2 which gets captured in the seas eventually recycles to the surface through continental drift and volcanoes.

If we were somehow to find a way to introduce an atmosphere to Mars it probably wouldn't last long in geological timescales - unless some alternative cycle can be set up. Surface area is far less than for space colonies - if you thought the surface of Mars was large, well space habitats potentially have much more space available. See my post Asteroid Resources Could Create Space Habs For Trillions; Land Area Of A Thousand Earths.

So we shouldn't get too hung up on the large surface area of Mars, as it's not the only place we could colonize. But it all contributes to make Mars not quite as enticing as it would seem at first. Colonizing closer to Earth first I'll not go into this in any detail here, as it rather strays from the main topic of this post, and I've covered it in Asteroid Resources Could Create Space Habs For Trillions; Land Area Of A Thousand Earths.

Solution to all of this for Mars - telepresence So, I'm not "against mars colonization". On Mars it might be easier for machines to fly with insect type flight with rapidly beating wings, using the bumble bee wings vortex effect for lift.

On Mars that can work scaled up to wings a meter across because of the thin atmosphere also assisted by the low gravity. That's the idea of the entomopter.

One way you could build telerobots able to fly on Mars. Image from the Telerobotics Symposium held inone of the recommendations was that telepresence be used to explore Mars during the early orbital missions.

Video of the Little Prince rover Later on, if the decision is made to send humans to the surface, you already have the telerobots there and whatever technology is associated with them, for the humans to use for their habitats.

See also Encouraged by the interest in this article, I've written many more articles since this one, on related topics.

Discussion Of "Ten Reasons Not To Live On Mars, Great Place To Explore" - On The Space Show Might there be Microbes on the surface of Mars? How Valuable is Pristine Mars for Humanity - Opinion Piece? Can Human Explorers Keep Mars Clean, For Science? Asteroid Resources Could Create Space Habs For Trillions; Land Area Of A Thousand Earths Does Earth Share Microbes With Mars Via Meteorites - Or Are They Interestingly Different For Life?

Could Microbes Transferred On Spacecraft Harm Mars Or Earth - Zubrin's Argument Revisted Why Elon Musk's Colony on Mars in s is Unfeasible - What Could We Do - Really? Mars, Planet Of Surprises, Great To Explore Not So Great To Colonize - 1.

Is It As Good A Place To Live As A Desert? Life On the Edge In Cold Dry Deserts Of Mars - Dust Storms, And Contamination By Microbes From Leaky Spacesuits 3. If Mars Is For Hardy Explorers Only, Where Is The Best Place In The Solar System For First Time Colonists?

Space Habitats For Colonists And Mars Explorers - And A Safe Way To Put Telerobot Boots On Mars 5. More Articles Can Giant Airships Accelerate To Orbit JP Aerospace's Idea?

Is Fomahault-b A Dwarf Exoplanet - If IAU Definition Is Used? Why I Wouldn't Fly With SpaceX To The Moon As Soon As - If They Paid Me A Billion Dollars. Related articles Can Human Explorers Keep Mars Clean, For Science? How Valuable is Pristine Mars for Humanity- Opinion Piece? Would Microbes From This Astronaut Make It Impossible For Anyone To Terraform Mars- Ever?

Why Mars is NOT a Great Place to Live- Amazing to Explore From Orbit- with RC Rovers, and Nature Inspired Avatars Life On the Edge In Cold Dry Deserts Of Mars- Dust Storms, And Contamination By Microbes From Leaky Spacesuits. Comments Robert, this is a great article.

I have been arguing these same topics for years. Robert Walker So if you say that you can take CO2 from Venus to Mars and change the levels on CO2 won't that change the way the planets are align and mess up the planet rotation and the way earth is set up in space. Thank you for the response, I see where you're coming from.