UAE to build a city on Mars

Ping Chow Chi

The UAE have said that they are planning on building a city on the red planet in the next 100 years.  That's quite a statement and I'm not sure how I would feel about the first city on Mars being set up by such a strict theocracy.

http://gulfnews.com/news/uae/general/uae-to-build-first-city-on-mars-by-2117-1.1978549

kneemos

Can't even land a rover on the place half the time. The theocracy is possibly a minor issue for the time being.

AreWeAlone

Better a theocracy than a backward-looking country like England.

ScrubsfanChris

Would be a hell of a job getting all those underpaid Pakistani workers out there. Atleast they wouldn't need to take their passports to stop them going home

tac foley

AreWeAlone wrote: »

Better a theocracy than a backward-looking country like England.

Nice one there, Sir. Nothing like getting an early kick in to bolster the Ireland v UK crew.

tac

hytrogen

Whatever about their theocracy, even though Pearce in his hidden memoirs wanted a monarchy lest we forget.. if they can build immaculate palaces, eye watering sky scrapers, palm islands and extensive wide gauge road network out of a sandy desert anything is possible with the right leadership I say! Pity about their public transport though, makes ours look good

ScumLord

hytrogen wrote: »

Whatever about their theocracy, even though Pearce in his hidden memoirs wanted a monarchy lest we forget.. if they can build immaculate palaces, eye watering sky scrapers, palm islands and extensive wide gauge road network out of a sandy desert anything is possible with the right leadership I say! Pity about their public transport though, makes ours look good

I don't think they're building anything all that unique, or that it's them designing and building these buildings. I would say the vast majority of the buildings in Abu Dhabi were designed by foreigners. They only difference in Adu Dhabi is that their clients had the money to let them do whatever they liked. I'd even say the vast majority of top level on site workers are foreigners too.

Maybe it's changing by now with locals having learned enough to take the reins themselves but advanced buildings like these can't be made by just anybody, you need decades of experience.

I'd say it would be the same situation if they wanted to build on mars, they don't really have much space experience from what I can see, they'd need to hire foreigners that do.

hytrogen

ScumLord wrote:

I don't think they're building anything all that unique, or that it's them designing and building these buildings. I would say the vast majority of the buildings in Abu Dhabi were designed by foreigners. They only difference in Adu Dhabi is that their clients had the money to let them do whatever they liked. I'd even say the vast majority of top level on site workers are foreigners too.

Ah totally, they're the laziest bunch. If they can pay someone else to wipe their derriere they will, because they can.

JJJJNR

Anyone know what the daily contract rate is for this one.

Wanderer78

hytrogen wrote:

Ah totally, they're the laziest bunch. If they can pay someone else to wipe their derriere they will, because they can.

Cousins have been working out there a few years as teachers, said the kids are also very lazy, no real interest in learning, also well behind Irish kids

tac foley

What the OP meant was, the Yabba-dabbians are going to pay somebody to build them a city on Mars.

If I thought they were going to do it soon, I'd chip in a few bob to help them move there with all their like-minded pals.

Left to their own devices, based on their history of pre-oil discovery activities, they'd still be building sandcastles and slaughtering each other in blood-soaked family feuds.

tac

hytrogen

ScumLord wrote:

I'd say it would be the same situation if they wanted to build on mars, they don't really have much space experience from what I can see, they'd need to hire foreigners that do.

No but like wallstreet they know where to invest and when to jump on the bandwagon especially when it's shiny with pretty things inside..

tac foley wrote:

Left to their own devices, based on their history of pre-oil discovery activities, they'd still be building sandcastles and slaughtering each other in blood-soaked family feuds.

Just back from Crusading the West Bank or finished Horrible Histories??

milehip

hytrogen wrote: »

Whatever about their theocracy, even though Pearce in his hidden memoirs wanted a monarchy lest we forget.. if they can build immaculate palaces, eye watering sky scrapers, palm islands and extensive wide gauge road network out of a sandy desert anything is possible with the right leadership I say! Pity about their public transport though, makes ours look good

The Palm seriously messed up the eco system in the gulf:

http://www.nature.com/news/gulf-ecology-hit-by-coastal-development-1.9374.

plus all that you mentioned was built with slave labour.

But as long as it looks nice and shiny

hytrogen

milehip wrote:

The Palm seriously messed up the eco system in the gulf:

Nature.com wrote:

Sale says that such projects are “so substantial that they have changed the ecology in ways that are only going to become clear in decadesâ€

yeah because it's never been done before on such a grand scale and therefore have no scientific basis to compare the impact on.. same said for each oil spill, natural disaster, etc.
Much like this in terms of the Mars mission, the only comparative we have at present is that of the successes of the ISS and moon landings. So therefore it's the unknown. Spin it however anyone wants to put it. Whether the Emirati's, the Chinese or the Westerners will succeed or not will only be based on the success rate to limit the loss of life, overall costs and include the self sufficiency and sustainability of such a colony. We need this competition to make it happen, nobody does anything for the sake of doing it unless there's a reward at the end to achieve over their adversaries. It's Human nature.

NIMAN

Serious question, why would man want to set up bases on Mars before the Moon?

Surely its a lot harder to organise getting to Mars, plus its not like its a hospitable place or anything, better suited to humans?

milehip

hytrogen wrote: »

yeah because it's never been done before on such a grand scale and therefore have no scientific basis to compare the impact on.. same said for each oil spill, natural disaster, etc.
Much like this in terms of the Mars mission, the only comparative we have at present is that of the successes of the ISS and moon landings. So therefore it's the unknown. Spin it however anyone wants to put it. Whether the Emirati's, the Chinese or the Westerners will succeed or not will only be based on the success rate to limit the loss of life, overall costs and include the self sufficiency and sustainability of such a colony. We need this competition to make it happen, nobody does anything for the sake of doing it unless there's a reward at the end to achieve over their adversaries. It's Human nature.

Great argument- comparing oil spills and natural disasters with a planned building project against the back drop of-
" yeah it ****ed up the marine ecosystem but its the first time anything like it's been done, so that's OK"
Did you even read the link?

hytrogen

milehip wrote:

Great argument- comparing oil spills and natural disasters with a planned building project against the back drop of it " yeah it ****ed up the marine ecosystem but its the first time anything like it's been done, so that's OK" Did you even read the link?

Well I wouldn't have cited a key statement in the researchers opening argument now would I?
When you break them down oil spills, natural disasters, and man's influence on aquacultures and diversity of ecosystems into key elements of why they happened they are comparable like in any other scientific study or report. I'm being factual, you're being argumentative and dismissive.

milehip

NIMAN wrote: »

Serious question, why would man want to set up bases on Mars before the Moon?

Surely its a lot harder to organise getting to Mars, plus its not like its a hospitable place or anything, better suited to humans?

Because they're idiots and they're talking **** outta their holes, Its all pipe dream, I read an article in the 1990s that stated emphatically that there was gonna be a hotel on the moon by 2010. that and the moon belong to America and their Moon men.

milehip

hytrogen wrote: »

Well I wouldn't have cited a key statement in the researchers opening argument now would I?
When you break them down oil spills, natural disasters, and man's influence on aquacultures and diversity of ecosystems into key elements of why they happened they are comparable like in any other scientific study or report. I'm being factual, you're being argumentative and dismissive.

Ah that quote doesn't really advance your point at all,quite the contrary in fact.
How about the part about coral reef destruction and alage growth because of stagnent waters.
You're not being factual you're cherry picking and trying to twist an ecologist's concerned statement about the adverse affects of the palm not being fully know for years to come to your own end.

ScrubsfanChris

NIMAN wrote: »

Serious question, why would man want to set up bases on Mars before the Moon?

Surely its a lot harder to organise getting to Mars, plus its not like its a hospitable place or anything, better suited to humans?

Great video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFqpgmZAZgo

He explains how harsh the lunar surface is and that the Moon might be a more difficult place to live then Mars.

ScumLord

NIMAN wrote: »

Serious question, why would man want to set up bases on Mars before the Moon?

Surely its a lot harder to organise getting to Mars, plus its not like its a hospitable place or anything, better suited to humans?

The other benefit of mars is it comes with natural radiation protection. The sun is a serious health hazard without an atmosphere.

Jan_de_Bakker

ScumLord wrote: »

The other benefit of mars is it comes with natural radiation protection. The sun is a serious health hazard without an atmosphere.

Does it tho ?
Doesn't Mars not have the same type of magnetic field protecting it as the Earth has ?

Or you mean the fact that as it's further away it will be weaker than the moons solar radiation.

About the project itself, it is worrying that Mars could potentially be the 1st Islamic planet ...

ScumLord

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

Does it tho ?
Doesn't Mars not have the same type of magnetic field protecting it as the Earth has ?

Or you mean the fact that as it's further away it will be weaker than the moons solar radiation.

About the project itself, it is worrying that Mars could potentially be the 1st Islamic planet ...

It has a thin atmosphere which will provide some protection. It's not comparable to earth, but it's more than you'd have on the moon.

Capt'n Midnight

ScumLord wrote: »

It has a thin atmosphere which will provide some protection. It's not comparable to earth, but it's more than you'd have on the moon.

Yes you'd still need to shelter underground when the space weather forecast is bad,

NIMAN wrote: »

Serious question, why would man want to set up bases on Mars before the Moon?

Surely its a lot harder to organise getting to Mars, plus its not like its a hospitable place or anything, better suited to humans?

Mars is at the bottom of gravity well so if you are planning a return trip then most of what you bring is mass dedicated to bringing you back. That's why there's so much talk about making fuel there , to cut down on the mass you need to bring. One advantage though is you can aero-brake on the atmosphere on the way there.

Anyway asteroids are perhaps the answer. Delta-V isn't that much more than the moon or Mars. Solar power 24x7. Mars is very dim, even without those pesky dust storms that can last for weeks and get dust everywhere.

Wibbs

ScumLord wrote: »

It has a thin atmosphere which will provide some protection. It's not comparable to earth, but it's more than you'd have on the moon.

Not by much. Add in the much greater distance and exposure in open space travel time. Mars may look psychologically more "earth like", but to all intents and purposes both bodies are about the same as far as risk to human life.

ScumLord

Yeah, I think NASA have latched onto mars because they think the public will support the mission, which they will. I suppose as far as NASA are concerned it's a mission, they will learn about long term space travel, get more in depth geology from another planet. The big advantage will be learning about the long term effects of being beyond earth's influence.


It always a bit surprising when I see a side by side size comparison of earth and mars. Mars is small. But I suppose a successful mars mission could be followed quite quickly by an easier venus mission which would give NASA some momentum to go even further.

Capt'n Midnight

ScumLord wrote: »

It always a bit surprising when I see a side by side size comparison of earth and mars. Mars is small. But I suppose a successful mars mission could be followed quite quickly by an easier venus mission which would give NASA some momentum to go even further.

Mars is small. And far from the sun so not energy rich.

Lots of sand , someone should tell the UAE that the hydrocarbons are on Titan, and then the tell them they are no use unless you bring your own oxygen.


Venus is a different kettle of fish. Very hot and pressure unless you live in a balloon above 99% of the atmosphere. And if anything happens the balloon you'll be fried, boiled , poisoned, partially dissolved , suffocated and crushed. Getting back into orbit is about as difficult as it would be from here except you've to do it from a balloon.