Talk:Colonization of Mars/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Confusing?

from the intro: "Shorter trips are possible, but require more fuel. Trips requiring less fuel are possible, but are more complicated and take significantly longer."

Does anyone else find this a bit confusing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.2.198 (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think by shorter it means faster. A fast rocket accelerates for longer and burns more fuel 89.31.50.92 (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the writer is trying to say too much in too few words. This section is just poorly written. What is the writer trying to say? It's a guess. I think I understand but I shouldn't have to work at comprehension. 75.48.38.184 (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• The text no longer says this, and hasn't done so for a very long time! andy (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Proper categorization

The "Colonization of Mars" article has been put into a new category, the "Nanotech Age" category which was created only about a month ago. It seems to me there should be some indication in the text of the article that Nanotechnology would be used in Colonizing Mars before the article is put into this category. Since there is a lack of any verifiable indication that the article belongs in the category "Nanotech Age," I intend to remove this category.--Fartherred (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Claim of vandalism

Andyjsmith, please be careful in using the term vandalism. You and I know that talk about the lack of petroleum on Mars is irrelevant because the point is that there is no oxygen atmosphere to use liquid hydrocarbons as a fuel without carying an oxydiser as well, and it is unlikely that human activity will increase the proportion of CO2 in Mars' atmosphere. Some people are not so knowledgeable. If 189.111.33.211 did intend vandalism, what is the harm in correcting it without comment? If it was an ignorant mistake, why chase the poor user away?--Fartherred (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please chill! This was a single edit by an anon IP, who added "Mars has no crude oil reservoirs to allow humans to change its climate as we did to Earth". It's vandalism for the following reasons:
  • Irrelevant
  • Misleading
  • POV
  • Intentional
  • One-off edit from an anonymous user

I could have flagged this edit as "stupid" or "ignorant" but I think that anyone who is stupid and/or ignorant and yet insists on forcing their views into a complex and somewhat technical article is not acting in good faith and is therefore pretty much of a vandal.

andy (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words

There are 3 weasel sentences in the "Concerns" section. Latitude0116 05:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I know for a fact that colonizing a planet is a problem. First fact, you need oxygen that doesnt escape into the atmosphere, second fact, you need a thick atmosphere with the seven layers not one. Second fact, you need a way of sustaining an environment suitable for environmental change. Carbon Dioxide is waste its not oxygen. Mars is a dead planet, always was. Once there was life, about a phase of a billion years before earth, sure. Thats believable. This idea is about as stupid as making the earth's ocean into fresh water, it can be done for drinking water not environments.--129.174.54.24 20:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

External links edits 18 September 2007

Working on the external links just now I realized someone else is hitting the same section. We've done and undone a few of each other's edits a couple of times, I think. To prevent a further mess, I'm stepping back from the page for a few hours. Mdbrownmsw 16:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Kesha Rogers

Politition from Texas is claimed to of been for the promotion of colonizing mars. http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/07/texas-congress-kesha-rogers-larouche --24.94.251.190 (talk) 05:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This section heading could be archived to remove material not about improving the article from prominent view. This follows:WP:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments, Refactoring for relevance. That is what I intend if there is no objection. --Fartherred (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for advertising a politician's candidacy nor for advocating the colonization of Mars. Even if I did want to advocate colonization using Wikipedia's resources against policy, I would not favor publicizing this candidates campaign. I will archive this thread without prejudice to deleting it later. --Fartherred (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Relative similarity to Earth and its Improper Synthesis tags

Why is the relative similarity section littered with improper synthesis tags? They don't make any sense. Nothing in there even remotely appears to be synthesis from multiple sources. They all look like facts that you could get from a single source about Mars. Matt O'Connor 23:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

We need a reliable source relating these data while directly connecting them to possible colonization of Mars. As it now stands, the inclusion of these data assumes that these are relevant facts in relation to the topic of the article. Otherwise, we could include comparisons of whatever factors we want, so as to paint a picture of colonization being reletively simple or nearly impossible. This is the very heart of POV and OR.

Mdbrownmsw 12:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I added refs to NASA pages that discuss the similarities.--agr 00:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"Citation needed" tags

"The round trip communication delay due to the speed of light ranges from about 6.5 minutes at closest approach to 44 minutes at superior conjunction.[citation needed] Real-time conversation with Earth, such as telephone or instant messaging, is not possible, but other means of communication, such as e-mail and voice mail pose no difficulty.[citation needed]"

Earth and Mars are farthest away from each other when they're both at aphelion. According to Wikipedia's Earth and Mars articles:

Aphelion of Earth: 152 097 701 km Aphelion of Mars: 249 228 730 km Distance between the two planets: 401 326 431 km

The speed of light is 299 792.458 km/s, so it takes light 1339 seconds==22.3 minutes to make a one-way trip. 22.3 times 2 is 44.6, so the round-trip light time is 44.6 minutes. However, communication is impossible at superior conjunction because the Sun will block the radio waves, so 44 minutes is about right.

As for the second "citation needed" tag, why would email or voice mail pose a difficulty? You can simply send the data to Earth via an antenna. --Bowlhover 01:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

But the sources still need to be citated, even if they came from a different article. For example, if facts in this article came from the Earth article, the sources that verified the credibility of those facts should be transfered to this article. Also, for example, which source states that data can be sent via an antenna? Latitude0116 05:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you'd need to site the fact that data can be sent via an antenna; that's what it does. There are far more useful things that need to be cited. Matt O'Connor 23:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of link to Mars Society website

The link to marssociety.org was removed on the basis of "no reliable content - it's artistic expression, not facts", soon after NASA JPL Imagine Mars Project was removed for the same rationale. The rationale does apply to the latter of the two links, but obviously not to the former - I will assume the removal was based on confusion between the two.

marssociety.org was also removed earlier based on the guidelines against "promoting links", links to social networking sites, or links to sites where you have to register to access the content.

As for "promoting links", I don't know how that would be applicable in this case beyond the fact that inclusion of any link at all in any site in some sense "promotes" that link - but when the link is to a non-profit site that clearly is very relevant, that doesn't make any sense.

As for "social networking", that is simply contrary to the facts. If there is some kind of a forum on the site, which I haven't seen, it is incidental at best to the content of the site. This guideline was never intended to overrule the utility of including a site if it happens to add some kind of capacity for user feedback somewhere on it.

As for needing to register to access content, that applies only to some content such as articles otherwise available in books and journals. A wealth of relevant content is available without registering, and the site was clearly relevant before it added the additional content available with registration. It should not be held less link-worthy because of having added additional material that happens to be behind a registration screen. It does not require registration to access any relevant content, which is what the guideline is concerned with. It also does make the abstracts of all the articles available without registration, which itself provides a tremendous amount of relevant content without registration.

The link is compellingly justified, and the article would be less informative and poorer without it. It doesn't make sense not to keep it. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 16:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The Mars Society is incredibly relevant to the topic at hand. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple quotes too (both from the cover of TCFM) on the relevance of Mars Society founder Robert Zubrin to the topic at hand, keeping in mind this website is the most relevant Web resource for Zubrin's work:

"Bob Zubrin really, nearly alone, changed our thinking on this issue." - Carl Sagan

"This book shows how a flight to Mars has progressed from fantasy to... a reality that can be achieved by us. Zubrin is showing us the way" - Buzz Aldrin

Given that kind of authoritative recognition, it would not be reasonable for "Colonization of Mars" not to link to marssociety.org .

- Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 16:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Kim Stanely Robinson

Reaverdrop added Kim Stanely Robinson's Mars series to the list of 'see also's, saying that it reflects the literature on the subject. The technology in that series is approximately as far removed from reality as Star Trek, and it has no place in serious discussion of Mars colonization. However, given the prevalence of Mars colonies in science fiction, we might consider an article giving notable incidences and linking that here. I'm surprised there isn't one already. Michaelbusch 19:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've linked Mars in fiction. Michaelbusch 19:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, it was SarekOfVulcan who added the trilogy originally, and I who did an undo to re-add it, both additions having been undone by Michaelbusch.

As for the science, I can't understand the comparison to "Star Trek" - Robinson did in fact heavily research the technical literature on Mars colonization for the trilogy (though he didn't cite his sources, which always irked me) - but one example I can give you is Bruce McKenzie, an MIT-trained architect who came up with the idea of shredding the landing parachutes and mixing the nylon shreds with in situ regolith to make usable bricks for structures, from whom Robinson incorporated the same idea into the books. McKenzie has mentioned this incorporation of his research by Robinson to me in person, and also does so here.

But, I also think the "Mars in fiction" flag at the top of the page works pretty well, and is a somewhat good substitute - though it has its own problems, since it refers to a whole lot of stuff that is not scientific, unlike fiction with valuable realistic content on the specific topic of this article, like Robinson's trilogy or Zubrin's First Landing. Maybe a section within "Mars in fiction" can be created for that purpose, or something. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 21:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, reviewing Mars in fiction, the problem is significant - almost all the works there have no value for realistic technical information, and even of the few that do, a significant fraction deal only with exploration of Mars or other activities that don't have to do specifically with colonization of Mars. Instead, I think the best idea would be a little section at the bottom of this article titled "Colonization of Mars in fiction", with references to the few works that would realistically apply. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 21:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Followup - I went ahead and created Colonization_of_Mars#Colonization_of_Mars_in_fiction, and got rid of the references to "Mars in fiction", the content of which is almost entirely irrelevant to this article. It seems like the best solution. How is that? - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 22:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I included hidden text for a few references for which I'm not sure if they qualify - can anyone verify whether they fit in? See the code for Colonization_of_Mars#Colonization_of_Mars_in_fiction for details. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 22:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Having a section here on fictional depictions of colonization is a good idea. Re. the scientific plausibility of Red/Green/Blue Mars: Robinson does include some good ideas, but there many outright impossibilities, most of which are critical to the plot. This is much like Star Trek. Examples from Red Mars:

• Aerobraking/aerocapture something with a mass measured in tens of thousands of tonnes off the martian atmosphere. That doesn't work: you either hit the ground or don't slow down at all
• The landing vehicles described are physically incapable of landing on the planet.
• Biology: don't even start on the life-extension. Ecosystem analysis for life-support also suspect.
• Bringing down Phobos. Asteroid deflection and impact physics apply here.
• Orbital elevator fall: doesn't work that way.

I could continue, but the point is that Red/Green/Blue Mars are not, and were never intended to be, completely plausible science fiction. With that in mind, it is still one of the most popular depictions of Mars colonization, so it should be included. In light of that, I've modified the section requirements. Michaelbusch 22:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Re. cleanup by Michaelbusch (here): I like it. Nice work. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 22:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dead Reference

the reference number 16, about the claim of a space elevator being possible for mars seems a dead link. Using an internet archive service, http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.isr.us/Downloads/niac_pdf/chapter7.html you get to see their backups of the original page. I looked through it and does talk about how to deploy a space elevator on Mars after it has been built on Earth, after Earth has already a space elevator. Imho it does not support the claim "Space elevators to land men and materials on Mars are possible with current materials.". But you choose. -Albert 79.34.30.33 (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Albert, for pointing this out. I intend to make the article conform to the reference. It is customary to put new threads of discussion at the bottom of the page. --Fartherred (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hydrated Minerals

In the Possible locations for colonies, Equatorial regions, there is a reference to suspected water ice. Sorry, it's not there but there should be some consideration of hydrated minerals. There is more work involved in mining hydrated minerals and extracting the water than in just melting ice. A sufficient investment in equipment may be up to the task. FARTHERRED--71.193.74.173 (talk) 05:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)The equatorial ice claim was removed by Andyjsmith at 10:07 hours 16 June 2009.--Fartherred (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• No, I removed the following sentence: "Scientists suspect water ice on the ground of the caves" because it was already tagged as unreferenced and I was unable to find any reference. andy (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Thank you.--Fartherred (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

network of spacecraft

The sentence "This would imply that a network of spacecraft in orbit around the Sun might be needed to ensure all SPEs threatening Mars were detected." seems to be original research. Can anyone name the source? Otherwise this sentence should be removed. -- The Cascade (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. It's probably true but I don't know of a source. andy (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so lets wait for two more days before remove the sentence to give others the chance for objection. -- The Cascade (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Landing on Mars

The claim that "the atmosphere is also too thin to get very much use out of aerodynamic effects for braking and landing" is not based upon experimental evidence. If some reliable source made such a statement, I would like to know who it is. Mars' atmosphere has in fact been used for aerobraking as an orbital maneuver reducing apapsis. The atmosphere is thick enough for level supersonic flight. Whether or not the atmosphere whould be suitable for landing a aircraft with reasonable sized wings depends upon the stability of an aircraft while supersonic in ground effect, an untested area.--Fartherred (talk) 07:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• It's actually a rather clumsy paraphrase of the discussion given in the accompanying reference, which says that the Martian atmosphere is OK for landing little robots but not for landing big things. I've rewritten it slightly. Seems OK to me. andy (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry. I should have looked further for the reference.--Fartherred (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The great comma controversy

User 166.137.10.58, please do not get user Andyjsmith upset about a minor thing like a comma. We do not want him to get into trouble. --Fartherred (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That goes for user ppeemm too. What are you trying to do, p him off? --Fartherred (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope I got the right comma in my last edit. Knocking off the wrong comma surely would not help. --Fartherred (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Even though the meaning of commas is not always precisely defined, I will concede that there is a difference in meaning with the second comma added to the sentence in question. With the second comma a reader could conceivably get the idea that "the Moon" is a different entity from "Earth's moon" and that not being proposed as the first location for colonization is a difference between the two. We have to keep in mind the interest of simple minded readers who need all of the commas in the right places to decide what a sentence means. So I will vote for deleting the second comma and no more comments about users, sorry. --Fartherred (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support, but please don't feed the trolls! I've used this as an opportunity to do some tidying up of ugly grammar at various places in the article - any reversion will quite clearly be vandalism. andy (talk) 07:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. I hope this post ends this thread. --Fartherred (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Mars

Removed unnecessary plant info box and replaced it with a pic of Mars. This page is about the colinization of Mars and doesn't require any unnesesary info (would you put the country info on a page about American colinization?)

If you were writing for a 15th century audience and had a summary of the physical characteristics of the New World, I think you might include it. There is a lot of data in the planet information box that is directly relevant to the habitability of Mars: Eccentricity, Perehilion/Aphelion, Revolution period, Synodic period, Number of satellites, Equatorial gravity, Escape velocity, Rotation velocity, Surface temperature and Atmospheric composition. Having the data conveniently organized on the side eliminates a lot of dull recitation and lets the article use approximate values (1/3 g vs 0.367 g). I think it also makes the page more visually interesting. I was planning to add the Moon info box to the Colonization of the Moon article (its a bit trickier to do). I'd be interested in hearing other opinions. You can see what the article looked like with the info box by going to Colonization of Mars, clicking on the history tab and then clicking on the 10:11, 30 Apr 2005 edit. --agr 13:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

When Discussing the concept of Terraforming Mars, it seems that a character in the Science Fiction Trilogy, "Red Mars; Green Mars; and Blue Mars" by Kim Stanley Robinson has the right concept - don't just raise the levels of carbon dioxide in a two-step process but rather have the transformation from uninhabited planet to diverse biosphere in a one-step direct process that allows animals and humans to breathe directly from its atmosphere.

we must determine whether we want to adjust Mars to a state where direct surface habitation is possible or whether we live forever under domed craters. Remember: having a fully working biosphere is the most uncomplicated method of human surface habitation that is self-maintaining, opposed to frail structural solutions.

10:44 UTC/GMT Mon 13 Feb 2006

I just dropped by to say that Mars colonization is a technical and scientific topic and that is in the interest of Wikipedians and readers alike to maintain and expand this article. Pabloalbv Wed 16 Aug 2006

Featured Article Nomination

I really like this article. It's very well done. Well writen. Lots of great photos. And, even though it has nothing to do with Leichtenstein, it sounds like a winner to me! Wilybadger 02:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Delta v

What's the delta v to Mars compared to Venus? Are we certain that Mars is easier to reach than Venus? Mithridates 16:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Delta-v's for Mars and Venus are roughly similar I believe. The hard bit is getting out of Earth's gravity well, once you've done that Mars and Venus are much of a muchness. Venus might even be slightly easier to get to; the atmosphere is much thicker and it's easier to use for aerobraking.WolfKeeper 22:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

See: [1] (See the I1 column). Mars is a few hundred meter/s closer. Not really significant, but technically true. What is significant is that the trip is almost twice as long to get to Mars.WolfKeeper 22:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If the trip takes "almost twice as long", it is certainly not indicated by that table. In all cases, it shows the Mars trip taking <= 50% longer than the Venus trip. siafu 23:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope. The round trips are 17 months versus 9.6 months. That means Mars takes 177% of the time it takes to get to Venus. So it's rather nearer twice as long than the "<= 50%" you are claiming; I have absolutely no idea where you got that from.WolfKeeper 01:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you guys talking about delta V or travel time. The two are not the same. Dalf | Talk 01:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we know.WolfKeeper 01:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the use of delta V is incorrect in this context. Delta V is used to denote change in Velocity. The statement "Mars requires less energy per unit mass (delta V) to reach from Earth than any planet except Venus" is misleading. To clarify, one should say that a spacecraft traveling from Mars would require less energy per unit mass. Specifically, we are referring to escape velocity; so if the intent of the statement is that travel from Mars would require a lower escape velocity we should state that without the reference to "energy per unit mass" which pertains to the requirements of a vehicle and not the planet itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkrup4 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Escape velocity and delta-v are two different things. Escape velocity is the velocity required to get off Earth. It is one term in computing delta-v and is a constant. The other terms in the delta-v computation are the velocity change necessary to move from Earth's orbit to an orbit that will intersect Mars' trajectory and that necessary to stop once you get there. delta-v is equivalent to energy per unit mass in this context: energy/mass = 1/2*delta-v^2. Michaelbusch 21:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that escape velocity and delta-v are two different things The escape velocity is the minimun speed that a spacecraft requires to move away from a source of any gravitational field, not just to get off Earth. In saying “Mars requires less energy per unit mass (delta V) to reach from Earth than any planet except Venus.”, you are referring to the energy required of propellants for a spacecraft. In only the third sentence on the page, it is a bit out of context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkrup4 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The article does need work. At some point, I'll try to overhaul it. Michaelbusch 05:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Midlands pic

I was wondering why the pic of the rover has areas removed, can someone clarify why that is? Theblitz1 03:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the pic is a composite of many images returned by the rover, the 'areas removed' are just areas that were not photographed so weren't included in the composite. (Either that or NASA doesn't want you to see the little green men - joke.) AJWM

DELETED COMMENTS ON COLONIES IN HELLAS BASIN. Why were my comments on a colony location at Hellas Basin deleted? I gave references & facts. True the point of dropping asteroids to dig the hole deeper is speculative, but the whole concept of colonizing Mars is speculative in any case. Furthermore, if the Valles Marineris is worthy of consideration because of its air pressure, Hellas Basis is even more so. As for a colony for Valles Marineris, the comment that the valley runs east west so there won't be shade is pretty meaningless. The canyon is so wide that both edges are over the horizon from most of the center of the rift valley, so it could run NE - SW or even N-S and most spots in the valley still get plenty of sun.

Finally, I was hoping to find some references that would suggest that Hellas Basis is likely to have a huge amount of asteroid metals under it, (like Sudsbury basin in Ontario) and post more today. This is another reason why this may be a superior location for a colony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.28.47 (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• I removed this paragraph because it was purely speculative. The only "reference" you gave was to a sci-fi novel (which is by definition speculative) and that definitely doesn't count as a reliable source. andy (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine, remove the reference to Martian Rainbow if we don't want any 'speculation' about Martian colonization. Or you could write, "Noted Scientist Robert Forward, has suggested that impacting 3 asteroids in Hellas Basin... ", etc.

But the facts I referenced about Hellas Basin having higher air pressure than Valles Marineris stand. Further the comment I made about the disadvantage of Hellas Basin (and all other southern hemisphere locations) is completely factual and worthy of discussion.

Further, when I get time (and find some references), I intend to discuss the possibility of Hellas Basin having very rich ores under it. IF the entry is still there.

65.110.28.47 (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Rick

Martian caves

It would seem to me that someone (of note) should be talking about how the recently discovered Martian caves could be quite useful for colonization. Does anyone have any source material for this? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid there isn't much serious consideration of the caves for colonization. They're at high altitude, meaning it is even harder to land there than at low altitude, and are embedded in the middle of basaltic lava flows a long way from most of the important resources. Michaelbusch 16:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

animal feces

I doubt the usefulness of "animal feces" for the colonization of Mars. The energy balance to produce the same amount of compost (which is also a very good fertilizer) is far better. The authors of "The Greening of Mars" have definitely not considered the shortage in energy in this environment. This statement should be removed from the article. Any objections? -- The Cascade (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Animal feces includes human feces, which would be produced regularly. It could even presumably be taken from the ships after a 9 month flight. The book does recognize that there would be no animals (besides humans) on Mars, so they specifically say human. Maybe modify the paragraph?--MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Launch it out into space. Little meteor turds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.15.38 (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Colonizing Venus

Colonizing the cloud-tops of venus is a fringe suggestion. The scientific consensus on that is that it's not likely. To include it on a page about the colonization of mars is like putting Peter Pan on a page about flying.--MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I too find it unlikely, but it is used here to put the habitability of Mars into a context. On the other hand the habitability of a place does not cover only the temperature and pressure of the atmosphere. How about reducing the statement to just that? -- The Cascade (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If you take a close look at the sentence, MaizeAndBlue86, you'll see that it takes care to note that we're talking about the surface of Mars being habitable, as well as the cloudtops of Venus. There is actually a possibility of life in the cloudtops of Venus already: [2] and [3]. It's also good to remember that 'one of the most hospitable' is a very relative term - one is a near vacuum, the other has sulphuric acid and lightning. Both would require hundreds of billions of dollars and better technology (not to mention sheer will), but are similar in the sense that they at least have the basic ingredients needed to survive. Mithridates (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Do not use terms such as "scientific consensus" as we already know that lighter than air craft would function well on Venus and even support outposts the size of the ISS Jenga3 (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)