Can it be realistic that there are cities on the planet mars in 2200 ?! waht ure thinkin ....?

Of course.First they will be in domes.And if we start a terraforming process they will evetually look like modern versions of the cities we have today.

A great series of books to read on this subject is the Mars Trilogy:-

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0553560735/026-6053614-8710019


http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0553560735.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

I would be really nice as long as it has Venusville :D

I would be really nice as long as it has Venusville :D
:naughty:

Go to this webpage... http://www.redcolony.com/features.php?name=intro


http://www.redcolony.com/pics/content/colonists.jpg

http://www.redcolony.com/pics/content/marsshuttleservice.jpg

only if we're allowed to have blue planet cities as well.

only if we're allowed to have blue planet cities as well.

LOL - So true! :D

Why are we still waiting for the super-cities of Greenland or Antactica?
These places have wonderful oxygen rich atmosphehres and are full of life forms in a amazing variety of forms.
Who is going to explore and set up the city?????

http://www.redcolony.com/pics/content/marsshuttleservice.jpg

They look like ships from Babylon 5.

They're going to be inside hige domes until the whole planet is terraformed, a few thousand years later.

I don't know, but "Total Recall" would be cool.

I don't think it would be possible to build cities on Mars. If anything happens on Mars, then I'd assume they'd more like research centres like there are in Antarctica if anything, especially given the tough climate for humans on Mars. Plus, I don't think anyone would want to live on Mars. It's too isolated, not to mention how MUCH it will actually cost to build there! This idea is just too ambitious and practically impossible imo.

Of course.First they will be in domes.And if we start a terraforming process they will evetually look like modern versions of the cities we have today.


errrr..............that would take tens of thousands of years at the very least. mars is far too inhospitable at the moment, and we don't even have the technology to get there safely yet. there are far too many finance-draining "issues" here on earth right now for this to be possible any time soon, unless we really pull our fingers out.

i think it must be done for the future of our species, however. but if we really want to expand and survive, we can't fuck mars up by attempting something like terraforming and getting it wrong. then we'd be really fucked.

Wonder what they'd be called? "Craterville"? "Dustytown"?

errrr..............that would take tens of thousands of years at the very least.
Not necessarily. There are various methods that have been discussed about speeding the process up.

A system of giant orbital mirrors, for example, could be used to reflect massive amounts of heat and light onto the surface. Thousands of mobile "radiators" could also be deployed on the surface which would pump out a constant stream of heat and gas. Massive clouds of specially tailored bacteria could also be seeded to produce more oxygen. In a relatively short time (say, a couple of hundred years) there would be enough pressure for liquid water to form on the surface. Then simple plant life could be introduced, followed by insects and then eventually larger animals and even humans.

(these things are described in much greater detail in the Mars Trilogy (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0553560735/026-6053614-8710019) I mentioned earlier - I'd strongly recommend these books :) )


http://i1.tinypic.com/okvsxd.jpg

why? Shouldnt we be talking about cities on the moon before this? And whats the benefit of moving people to Mars anyway?

A system of giant orbital mirrors, for example, could be used to reflect massive amounts of heat and light onto the surface. Thousands of mobile "radiators" could also be deployed on the surface which would pump out a constant stream of heat and gas. Massive clouds of specially tailored bacteria could also be seeded to produce more oxygen. In a relatively short time (say, a couple of hundred years) there would be enough pressure for liquid water to form on the surface. Then simple plant life could be introduced, followed by insects and then eventually larger animals and even humans.

I can hardly imagine anything more expensive, dangerous and utterly foolish than attempting to "fertilize" another planet in order to create a functioning biosphere.

Here on little old earth, we have already been exploring and studying our own surroundings for thousands of years; and we haven't yet even been able to fully grasp even the tiniest nuances of ecological balance. We know almost nothing of the mechanisms that lie behind our genetics, our evolutionary interconnectedness... hell, even our weather. For the foreseeable future, we are more likely to stumble across the secret to perpetual motion, time travel or nuclear fission than we are to be able to successfully "transplant" even a small amount of our biological spectrum onto a new planet with any lasting effectiveness.

The overwhelming likelihood is that we'd botch the whole thing and end up with a bunch of corpses floating around a permanently altered wasteland. We'd be much better off leaving Mars alone and attempting to fix even one of the major ecological problems -- extinction, pollution, warming -- that afflicts our own planet.

I can hardly imagine anything more expensive, dangerous and utterly foolish than attempting to "fertilize" another planet in order to create a functioning biosphere.

Here on little old earth, we have already been exploring and studying our own surroundings for thousands of years; and we haven't yet even been able to fully grasp even the tiniest nuances of ecological balance. We know almost nothing of the mechanisms that lie behind our genetics, our evolutionary interconnectedness... hell, even our weather. For the foreseeable future, we are more likely to stumble across the secret to perpetual motion, time travel or nuclear fission than we are to be able to successfully "transplant" even a small amount of our biological spectrum onto a new planet with any lasting effectiveness.

The overwhelming likelihood is that we'd botch the whole thing and end up with a bunch of corpses floating around a permanently altered wasteland. We'd be much better off leaving Mars alone and attempting to fix even one of the major ecological problems -- extinction, pollution, warming -- that afflicts our own planet.

Heh, I guess that makes you a "Red", then. :)

In the Mars Trilogy, there are basically two groups of people - the Greens, who are in favour of transforming Mars into a habitable Earthlike planet, and the Reds who want to preserve Mars in its natural untouched state and believe we should leave it well alone. This conflict is the central theme driving the story.

Anyway, it happens or not, none of us will see it. :sleepy:

why? Shouldnt we be talking about cities on the moon before this? And whats the benefit of moving people to Mars anyway?
There is more evidence of water on Mars than there is on the Moon.

Martian cities won't have domes. For the most part, they won't even be underground. They don't have to be. Mars has an atmosphere. It's not one that humans can walk outside and breathe, but it's good enough to handle most of the meteorites that come crashing by. People will occasionally get killed when meteorites crash into buildings, but it won't happen very often, and people living on Mars will view meteorites as natural disasters, just like tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes on Earth.

Martian buildings don't have to be airtight, either. A good, highly-insulated ICF house with double-glazed impact-resistant windows capable of standing up to a hurricane in Florida would do just fine on the vast Martian plains. Remember, Mars DOES have oxygen. It just doesn't have enough to walk outside and breathe. Neither does the Earth, up where jets fly. Martians will get air the same way those jets do... taking normal outside air, heating it up, and pressurizing it. A Martian building's air-tightness will be more a matter of energy efficiency than survival. Windows won't open, of course... the effect would be almost the same as a broken window in a jet 5 miles high. Building codes will probably require that all doors in a building close automatically if depressurization is detected... but they don't need to be bulkheads, nor would being on the wrong side of one spell certain death. It would be more like trying to walk down the street during a hurricane in antarctica. You'd die if you stayed on the depressurized side (passing out in 20-30 seconds, freezing to death a few minutes later), but chances are you'd make it just fine, with maybe a bad case of frostbite if you took too long.

So... what will Martian cities look like? Probably like cities in Antarctica do today. Not very dense, some multistory buildings, all connected by indoor passages (mostly aboveground, but some belowground). Some wealthy people will own vehicles capable of outdoor travel between cities, or to outlying buildings (some people just don't want to live around other people), but the majority will probably get by with electric cars... probably powered directly by the roadway, with a meter that reports electricity usage to the billing authority. Think "PRT" (Personal Rapid Transit). I doubt many Martian cities will actually be SO big that walking will be a big deal (remember, Mars also has less gravity than Earth.). Air travel isn't likely to be a major mode of transportation -- the economics aren't there. Keeping jets aloft with ramjet-type engines isn't the problem... taking off and landing is (they'd have to carry their own oxygen supply to use for both fuel and respiration during takeoffs and landings).

People laughed when "The Martian Chronicles" were published decades ago, but in all likelihood, Mars probably WILL have a lot in common with the American West (which was actually a pretty hostile and dangerous place a hundred years ago, especially outside of cities). Going outside in pressure suits won't be something most people really do more than a few times in their lives (mainly, as an adventure-type event, like skydiving) unless they're construction workers, but intercity travel will probably be much like intercity travel a hundred years ago on earth... rail (possibly maglev, probably not) or bus, most likely. Mars' biggest problem for years will be lack of population, so rail is likely to be the main mode of transportation (trains can be easily automated and run without drivers).

As for demographics, I think it's safe to say that Martians will overwhelmingly be of Chinese descent for years. It's almost guaranteed that China will get to Mars years, if not decades, before the US and Europe. America and Europe simply don't have the risk-tolerance needed to get there first. Dozens, probably hundreds, of Chinese astronauts will die before the first American sets foot on Mars... but hundreds, probably thousands, will make it there just fine. Plus, China needs a frontier to act as a social safety valve. With emigration to Mars as a viable option, people who might cause trouble "at home" might decide instead to just say "f**k it" (in Chinese, of course) and go to Mars, where they might get rich and will largely be left alone by the gov't.

I won't write America out of the equation, though. China will definitely get there first, but I still believe it will be America and Europe who make getting there cheap (think: space elevator). Once the first space elevator is operational, China's initial advantage will quickly be subdued. China might dig in and assert ownership of Mars... but quickly end up selling off big chunks of it anyway so they can take advantage of cheap freight and travel via the space elevator.

Ultimately, national issues will become largely moot... Martians, regardless of whether their grandparents came from China, the US, Europe, or elsewhere, will likely hold Earth in a certain degree of contempt, and infuriate multiple governments on Earth by being passive-agressive -- saying, "Yes, master!" while laughing and just ignoring Terran demands, which they'll increasingly view as out-of-touch and irrelevant to their daily lives.

Language will be interesting. Obviously, Chinese will enjoy an early lead. But English will likely become pervasive quickly. It wouldn't surprise me if English became the de-facto spoken language, but writing it as Chinese Hanzi became the local norm (or at least Martians seeing nothing strange about picking up a book written in Chinese and reading it as English).

As long as you don't have to pay for the air. I'm fine with the idea.

wrong thread

Martian cities won't have domes. For the most part, they won't even be underground. They don't have to be. Mars has an atmosphere. It's not one that humans can walk outside and breathe, but it's good enough to handle most of the meteorites that come crashing by. People will occasionally get killed when meteorites crash into buildings, but it won't happen very often, and people living on Mars will view meteorites as natural disasters, just like tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes on Earth.

Martian buildings don't have to be airtight, either. A good, highly-insulated ICF house with double-glazed impact-resistant windows capable of standing up to a hurricane in Florida would do just fine on the vast Martian plains. Remember, Mars DOES have oxygen. It just doesn't have enough to walk outside and breathe. Neither does the Earth, up where jets fly. Martians will get air the same way those jets do... taking normal outside air, heating it up, and pressurizing it. A Martian building's air-tightness will be more a matter of energy efficiency than survival. Windows won't open, of course... the effect would be almost the same as a broken window in a jet 5 miles high. Building codes will probably require that all doors in a building close automatically if depressurization is detected... but they don't need to be bulkheads, nor would being on the wrong side of one spell certain death. It would be more like trying to walk down the street during a hurricane in antarctica. You'd die if you stayed on the depressurized side (passing out in 20-30 seconds, freezing to death a few minutes later), but chances are you'd make it just fine, with maybe a bad case of frostbite if you took too long.

So... what will Martian cities look like? Probably like cities in Antarctica do today. Not very dense, some multistory buildings, all connected by indoor passages (mostly aboveground, but some belowground). Some wealthy people will own vehicles capable of outdoor travel between cities, or to outlying buildings (some people just don't want to live around other people), but the majority will probably get by with electric cars... probably powered directly by the roadway, with a meter that reports electricity usage to the billing authority. Think "PRT" (Personal Rapid Transit). I doubt many Martian cities will actually be SO big that walking will be a big deal (remember, Mars also has less gravity than Earth.). Air travel isn't likely to be a major mode of transportation -- the economics aren't there. Keeping jets aloft with ramjet-type engines isn't the problem... taking off and landing is (they'd have to carry their own oxygen supply to use for both fuel and respiration during takeoffs and landings).

People laughed when "The Martian Chronicles" were published decades ago, but in all likelihood, Mars probably WILL have a lot in common with the American West (which was actually a pretty hostile and dangerous place a hundred years ago, especially outside of cities). Going outside in pressure suits won't be something most people really do more than a few times in their lives (mainly, as an adventure-type event, like skydiving) unless they're construction workers, but intercity travel will probably be much like intercity travel a hundred years ago on earth... rail (possibly maglev, probably not) or bus, most likely. Mars' biggest problem for years will be lack of population, so rail is likely to be the main mode of transportation (trains can be easily automated and run without drivers).

As for demographics, I think it's safe to say that Martians will overwhelmingly be of Chinese descent for years. It's almost guaranteed that China will get to Mars years, if not decades, before the US and Europe. America and Europe simply don't have the risk-tolerance needed to get there first. Dozens, probably hundreds, of Chinese astronauts will die before the first American sets foot on Mars... but hundreds, probably thousands, will make it there just fine. Plus, China needs a frontier to act as a social safety valve. With emigration to Mars as a viable option, people who might cause trouble "at home" might decide instead to just say "f**k it" (in Chinese, of course) and go to Mars, where they might get rich and will largely be left alone by the gov't.

I won't write America out of the equation, though. China will definitely get there first, but I still believe it will be America and Europe who make getting there cheap (think: space elevator). Once the first space elevator is operational, China's initial advantage will quickly be subdued. China might dig in and assert ownership of Mars... but quickly end up selling off big chunks of it anyway so they can take advantage of cheap freight and travel via the space elevator.

Ultimately, national issues will become largely moot... Martians, regardless of whether their grandparents came from China, the US, Europe, or elsewhere, will likely hold Earth in a certain degree of contempt, and infuriate multiple governments on Earth by being passive-agressive -- saying, "Yes, master!" while laughing and just ignoring Terran demands, which they'll increasingly view as out-of-touch and irrelevant to their daily lives.

Language will be interesting. Obviously, Chinese will enjoy an early lead. But English will likely become pervasive quickly. It wouldn't surprise me if English became the de-facto spoken language, but writing it as Chinese Hanzi became the local norm (or at least Martians seeing nothing strange about picking up a book written in Chinese and reading it as English).

i generally would agree with your sentiment dude, i'm sure we WILL get there before TOO long. it is however, far, far more dangerous and difficult than most people would realise or even imagine. i'm no expert on space travel btw!

the idea that china will get there first is interesting and well thought out. yeah, i can see that maybe. what i would hope for tho, is that instead of competing against one another we can all agree that something needs to be done and chip in according to our means. that would be nice (but unrealistic).

the effort and materials needed just to set up an initial settlement would be so huge that people will constantly question it's worth. it IS worth the effort, because we can't sustain ourselves on earth for much longer. we would need to prove to ourselves that we can do it first, and that would take an incredible amount of commitment and bravery (and unfortunately, money) .

To be honest, I think a little bit of nationalistic sabre-rattling might be a good thing in the long run. I mean, what have the US and Russia really done since the end of the Cold War space-wise? Sure, the ISS is a nicer and more pleasant facility than Mir was... but I just can't help wondering whether we might have done much, MUCH more had the Soviet Union lasted another decade or two and kept stoking the fires of the space race.

In all honesty, I think we'd be MUCH farther along today had America declared the annexation of "Lunar Territory" back in 1969. The Soviets would have been furious, of course, and angry diplomats at the UN would have generated gigabytes of angry anti-american speeches... but the REAL outcome would have likely been that within a decade, the Soviet Union would have been there, too... with the British and French in hot pursuit, and China & India not far behind. There would have been more sabre-rattling (awkwardly subdued with respect to the British and French, since the US wouldn't really want to alienate either outright, and getting weirder with the arrival of Chinese and Indian astronauts since the Soviets wouldn't have really wanted them there either, but would have grudgingly tolerated them the same way the US would have tolerated/accepted British and French settlements), but eventually a grudging understanding would have emerged that countries with permanent Lunar settlements "owned" about a thousand miles around them... with both the US and Soviet Union likely testing each other's patience for the next decade building closer and closer. The net result is that today, there'd probably be at least 10,000 people living full-time on the moon.

War is bad, but sometimes a little bit of mutual non-cooperation can be a GOOD thing, too. Thank GOD Chinese companies routinely give Hollywood the finger and make DVD players that can be trivially hacked with a remote control to act the way consumers REALLY want them to work... and the way p2p file trading servers can sit in CoLo racks in suburban Moscow, where the RIAA's attorneys can't touch them.

Or, for that matter, just ask anyone from Europe why they cringe every time they hear someone say the word "harmonisation"....

A lot of the above speculation rests upon the assumption that we'll be relying on established technologies. On January 5th, New Scientist published a story about the theoretical development of a hyperdrive engine. It takes advantage of obscure priciples of quantum mechanics and is based on mathematics developed by German physicist Burkhard Heim. The online version of the story is here. (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/quantum-world/mg18925331.200) The article mentions a round-trip to Mars taking as little as 5 hours.

(New Scientist is a weekly magazine that covers some of the most cutting edge developments in science.)

Other recent stories cover such things as the development of a hyper-telescope capable of resolving forests and deserts of an earth-like planet up to 10 light years away, and the ongoing development of quantum computers.

I have still yet to see anyone identify a realistic reason (other than pure adventurousness) to risk hundreds of lives setting up a city on Mars. There is nothing there we couldn't get cheaper and safer with use of remotes.

^it will have to happen eventually tho. i think, deep down, people really ARE that naturally adventurous - it's one of our biological instincts.

Heh, I guess that makes you a "Red", then. :)

In the Mars Trilogy, there are basically two groups of people - the Greens, who are in favour of transforming Mars into a habitable Earthlike planet, and the Reds who want to preserve Mars in its natural untouched state and believe we should leave it well alone. This conflict is the central theme driving the story.

Yeah.He should go and join Ann and the rest of them in the heigher altitudes

;)

I was always in favour of Sax.We need to green that planet and green it fast

I have still yet to see anyone identify a realistic reason (other than pure adventurousness) to risk hundreds of lives setting up a city on Mars. There is nothing there we couldn't get cheaper and safer with use of remotes.


Well, pure adventurousness has driven many of humanity's discoveries.

What remotes don't do is convey the poetry and passion of what it is like to be on an alien world. And that passion is what will drive humanity to continue exploration.

Not to mention, good long-term investments overall. Is there anyone who'll seriously dispute that Britain, Spain, Portugal, and France all enjoy ongoing economic benefits, tourism, investment, and international power & influence that they'd NEVER have today if they were just individual countries in the EU? Other countries have managed to attract some of that business away by working hard, but for the most part the former colonial powers get billions of dollars worth of new business and investments every year just by virtue of existing, speaking the right language, and being culturally familiar enough to still kind of "feel like home".