So, Mars has oxygen, right? So, all we'd have to do is bring hydrogen and if so, could we make water on Mars?

---

Is like 90+ percent of Mars atmosphere Carbon Dioxide?

Not sure.. but I think there is very little oxygen on Mars. But how about a dome filled with oxygen.. mutant breasted women added bonus.

---

Theoretically, yes. Although if you're thinking about potential colonization on any scale, you also have to consider that oxygen is also needed to breathe. So in reality, you need to compare the costs and risks of...

1. Transporting LOTS of oxygen from earth, hydrogen from earth. Use hydrogen and oxygen to form water, related costs.
2. Transporting less oxygen from earth, water from earth.

I'm no scientist but I'd think option #2 would be cheaper. Sure, you wouldn't be able to bring that much water since it's so heavy but some water can be recouped from human waste and I'd think the costs of fusing O2 with H (energy, equipment, maintenance) and transporting flammable hydrogen in addition to more oxygen than you'd normally be supplying.

I just read an article that said it's -58 F degrees on Mars and first thing is they'd have to raise the temperature above 32 F and then something about a magnetic field. They laid out the process, however, it'd take nearly 1,000 years. I'm now unpacking as I can't wait that long.

---

Something about the surface being drowned in radiation as well due to no ozone layer or something

Does the exploration of space get chalked up to foreign or domestic spending?

---

I don't know. Where do you put Hillary's salary? That's where I'd put it.

There's foreign spending, domestic spending, and the biggest category, wasted spending. That's where I'd put 90% of it.

I used to be a big fan of government spending on space ("basic research," "where no man has gone before", "spinoffs," "because it is there", etc.)

I've always been a big space exploration/development guy: do you realize how little energy would be a problem if we didn't have to lift materials for solar power satellites into earth orbit, but could process and construct all of them using lunar/asteroidal materials?

But I'm convinced that government has screwed up space like it screws up anything else. What do we have to show for space spending since the early seventies? Some litter on the Moon for alien archaeologists to puzzle over in 10,000 years. Some pictures of Mars. A half-assed space station. And some international treaties that make it highly problematic that any serious private development will occur in the foreseeable future, Steven Bezos dreaming notwithstanding.

I'm still a space guy. But I'd give a big severance package to maybe 1/2 the Nasa tech types (since they have valuable skills; but none who have moved into "management" positions qualify), fund some space astronomy geeks to man telescopes and computers around the world, dissolve NASA as a lost cause, and eliminate everything else.

Dreams are important. Dream killers, and that's what NASA effectively has been despite its abysmal PR efforts to claim otherwise, pretty much since the Apollo program ended, deserve no funding.

---

Couldn't agree with you more Wade. Parts of America are like a third world country, and we're throwing money away like we have on space exploration? Unless they are interested in mining asteroids, count me out on supporting space exploration.

---

Great......now all the Martians will be crossing our border to add to the "illeagal alien" problem we already have.

[grin1]

---