Should we colonize Venus or Mars? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Should we colonize Venus or Mars?

Debate Information

Should we colonize Venus or Mars?
Venus- 
Pros: 
An Earth-like pressure in the upper atmosphere.
Higher solar panel energy production from above the clouds.
Thick atmosphere to aerobrake.
Venus is actually an easier and less costly colonization proposition than Mars is.
For one, the round trip from Earth to Venus would be 30 to 50 percent shorter than it would be to Mars. Just think about how much food, fuel, and time this would save - particularly when we're considering carrying enough supplies over there to set up a habitable environment.
Gravity on Venus is very close to Earth's.

Cons:
We have to change the atmospheric composition to make it more habitable. 
To live on the surface, we have to cool the planet down this is much harder than heating it up. Venus is too hot for us to live on the surface, so we have to live (proposed) above the clouds (because it is close to the Earth's temperature). Here's how a team of dreamers from NASA envisioned Venus colonization a couple of years ago. Basically, forget surfaces, let's all just live in huge, blimp-like airships high up in the clouds:

1 Venus day is 116 Earth days and 18 hours.
No way to harvest water, or any other resource from Venus, Except for rocket fuel.
The very corrosive atmosphere.
No feasible of returning home*.
If a blimp fails then the crew doomed.
An extremely high pressure at the surface.
*Launching rockets from a blimp is not proven to work, let alone feasible.


https://www.sciencealert.com/should-we-be-trying-to-colonise-venus-instead-of-mars
 
Mars- 
Pros: 
Can actually land.
Actual ground science possible.
Has a light atmosphere to aerobrake.
24.3 hour day
Resources harvest from ground and atmosphere.
Can actually return to Earth from the surface.
If a hab fails then the crew could potentially fix it.

Cons:
Really cold. 
Hard to land without propulsion.
Lower solar panel energy production.
No magnetic field.
With no magnetic field, the atmosphere is very weak and so we have to develop an atmosphere after the magnetic field. 

https://www.universetoday.com/14883/mars-colonizing/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy
joecavalryErfisflatSweaterrificJaguar
  1. Live Poll

    Should we colonize Venus or Mars?

    22 votes
    1. Venus
        4.55%
    2. Mars
      40.91%
    3. Colonization is a silly idea. Build a small research outpost or just manned exploration.
      45.45%
    4. We cannot do it, Venus and Mars are fake or something.
        9.09%
I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

I friended myself! 



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • FredsnephewFredsnephew 330 Pts   -  
    Based upon your lists of pros and cons Mars seems to be the better proposition.

    Ultimately the goal of space exploration must be to go beyond the limits of our solar system, given that the Sun has a limited duration. 

    Perhaps it would be preferable to use Mars as a staging post for future outward space exploration.

    Whereas the Venus proposition seems to be more of an exercise in relatively short term possibilities, rather than a sensible stage in what should be our long term objectives.


  • joecavalryjoecavalry 430 Pts   -  
    The US and other countries should colonize other planets which as Mars and Venus.
    Jaguar
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • AmpersandAmpersand 820 Pts   -  
    The no magnetosphere flaw applies to Venus as well, although it's thick atmosphere compensates for this somewhat (although Mars is also further form the sun and thus is less at risk from solar radiation, although no real difference in cosmic rays).

    I'd also mention that because the planets orbit on different schedules, Mars is sometimes closer and easier to get to than Venus and it will vary depending on the orbits. I believe currently Mars is actually a little closer.
  • WokeWhaleWokeWhale 41 Pts   -  
    Mars seems a much more concrete option, as opposed to Venus. The issue with Venus is the huge margin for error, whereas Mars has a significantly larger margin for error. There is the alluring prospect of Venus being closer, but the toxicity and lack of usable solid ground, as well as the lack of ways to return to Earth far outweigh the benefits. I supposed a permanent colony could work, but a civilization would be extremely difficult due to lack of access to materials. So all in all, Mars seems like the better choice
    Jaguar
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    Elon Musk, the poor soul... Wasting millions, failed rockets the first three goes... Oh he will send them in the capsule... Nasa will kill all of them and say 'it's been sent'. Poor Elon Musk, killing people by trying to save us all.

    NASA IS NOT THE GOOD GUY HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    PogueErfisflatZombieguy1987DavidKashlinskyJaguar
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    Elon Musk, the poor soul... Wasting millions, failed rockets the first three goes... Oh he will send them in the capsule... Nasa will kill all of them and say 'it's been sent'. Poor Elon Musk, killing people by trying to save us all.

    NASA IS NOT THE GOOD GUY HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Can you please stop with these irrelevant comments? How is he killing people? No one was on those rockets.  
    ErfisflatZombieguy1987DavidKashlinskyJaguar
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @Pogue When he sends people to mars, NASA will physically kill everyone in the ship and fake the sending of it into space and make us truly believe they are there on Mars.
    ErfisflatZombieguy1987DavidKashlinskyJaguar
  • AmericanFurryBoyAmericanFurryBoy 528 Pts   -  
    Venus Penus
    Zombieguy1987Jaguar
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • PoguePogue 584 Pts   -  
    @Pogue When he sends people to mars, NASA will physically kill everyone in the ship and fake the sending of it into space and make us truly believe they are there on Mars.
    Um, ok. How do you know this?

    Venus Penus
    What?
    Zombieguy1987DavidKashlinskyJaguar
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • EmeryPearsonEmeryPearson 136 Pts   -  
    I believe both to be a poor option, the Moon should be colonized first as a stepping stone outside Earth's gravity well. While you can't terraform the moon as suggested with Mars and Venus, it's simply more practical to colonize first.
    ErfisflatDavidKashlinskyJaguar
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4589 Pts   -  
    Both Mars and Venus appear very difficult to colonize, for a multitude of reasons. Now, Venus is a much harder nut to crack out of the two, with its volcanic activity, extreme temperatures and atmospheric density, so it is completely out of question for now. But even with Mars there are serious problems. To name a few:
    1. Mars has a very low atmospheric density (below 1% that of Earth) and a gravity too low to keep even an induced atmosphere for a long period of time. So terraforming of Mars into a planet with a climate similar to that of Earth may not be possible.
    2. Similarly, extremely low temperatures on Mars due to a very low solar energy flux make it very hard to induce an atmosphere similar to that of Earth. Even if we were to increase the surface temperature to the Earth-like ones by introducing heavy concentrations of greenhouse gases trapping the solar energy in the atmosphere, those concentrations would make the atmosphere absolutely unbreathable.
    3. Mars has a nearly zero magnetic shield, so everyone on its surface is going to be exposed to heavy cosmic radiation. While not a significant problem short-term, it is unknown what long-term effects on colonists permanently living and reproducing on Mars it may have.
    Points 1 and 2 also apply to Venus, only in reverse.

    However, the colonization model that is viable on Mars is building the domes insulating the internal environment, similar to how the ISS insulates its insides from the outer space, making the conditions inside habitable. Another model is an orbital colonization, where space stations are built to rotate around Mars - however this model would not be self-sufficient and would require a regular resource supply from Earth, which would be extremely expensive.

    For any meaningful colonization to be even remotely possible, we must find a way to reduce the expenses on the inter-planetary travel by a few orders of magnitude, at least. And even then, a full-scale colonization of any planet to the level that people can live there naturally, without any special equipment, is likely to require extensive cybernetic or genetic enhancements. Humans are not made to survive outside the Earth's atmosphere, unfortunately, and there are not many ways for us to replicate that atmosphere anywhere else without involving very complicated technologies requiring constant difficult and expensive maintenance. 
    Jaguar
  • calebsicacalebsica 95 Pts   -  
    I think we should not colonize any other planets. Why would we need to?
    Jaguar
  • searsear 109 Pts   -  

    Should we colonize Venus or Mars?

    Venus is not suitable for human colonization with current technology. It would have to be terraformed first, also far out of reach of current technology.

    The U.S. should suspend these silly human-aboard space adventures until the U.S. federal government is $100% out of debt, a $debt which now exceeds $20 $Trillion.
    If the U.S. sends humans to Mars it would be a two year mission, preposterously expensive, and pointless, and if we did it now, we'd be spending the grand-kids' $money.

    If the grand-kids want to pay for that, then let them. It's not our choice to make.

    NASA's Apollo program made some sense, as it was during the Cold War, and the U.S. had incentive to demonstrate our superiority with missiles, and technology.

    The Cold War is over. And al Qaida doesn't care whether we send some kids to Mars or not.
  • searsear 109 Pts   -  
    PS
    "I think we should not colonize any other planets. Why would we need to?" C
    Because we're trashing this one.
    Jaguar
  • K_MichaelK_Michael 114 Pts   -  
    I think we should colonize the oceans, if anywhere.

    Pros:
    No exorbitant rocket prices
    No months-long journey
    Already sustains life

    Cons:
    Storms would be a problem at the surface
    Pressure would be a problem below the surface
    Would possibly add to marine pollution and overfishing.
    "We're all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." 
  • K_MichaelK_Michael 114 Pts   -  
    sear said:
    PS
    "I think we should not colonize any other planets. Why would we need to?" C
    Because we're trashing this one.
    It would be more practical to just save the planet.
    Jaguar
    "We're all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." 
  • searsear 109 Pts   -  
    "It would be more practical to just save the planet." KM
    And some freshman Democrats in congress have a specific plan (AOC Green New Deal) to do that, a plan with both a process, and a deadline.
    I gather Republicans will choose (or already have chosen) partisan opposition above survival of the human race.
  • Even with the best conservation plan for earth any and all efforts will become short lived as the solar systems natural life cycle will bring about the Earths doom. By not doing something when the margins are in the favor of humanity would irresponsible. We can dictate the demand with greater caution. Taking into account the number of factures which accrue over time Mars is the only choice as our sun will grow, needing and taking more room, changing its effect on all planets in the solar system. Mars is the cushion as it has the longer window of operation in relationship to all cost factures.

    Ideally a solar system space station would be built placed in an orbit between Earth’s orientation and the orbit of Mars in our solar system. This station could be an ongoing labor of love, while and on, after, and with the expedition to Mars taking place, think smart, be smart, with a doable pace, not about the quick achievement as the better goal for travel into the international universe.

    @Emery Pearson mentioned efforts on the moon for colonization, this is a realistic testing ground for efforts which would be part of Mars. The idea is to set a list of hard by achievable goals to be reached in a sequence of events leading humanity up to living on Mars.

    @Sear one of my shorter term goals is to create a debt clock that is actually associated to finance as the clock that is displayed publicly now, is not, It does not even reflect time let alone is it reflective of money, spending, or debt. A device of measurement of national debt as a time clock needs to be all four. Here again developing a Time for use in the universe can start with a much easier reachable goal on earth as far as testing mathematic calculation goes.

  • searsear 109 Pts   -  
    J8,
    The inevitable cosmic heat death would surely doom the human race, IF IT SURVIVED THAT LONG.
    I seriously doubt it will.

    But cosmic heat death is over a billion years in the future, tens of millions of human generations.
    On the matter of global warming humanity may not survive one dozen generations.

    True;
    If anthropogenic climate change precipitated a mass human die-off, killing 99.99% of Earth's human population that might seem to lighten the atmospheric carbon issue a bit.

    BUT !!

    The problem according to the experts is, it may take centuries for Earth's climate to "return to normal", and by then the remaining 0.01% will have died off too.

    " space station would be built placed in an orbit between Earth’s orientation and the orbit of Mars in our solar system. This station could be an ongoing labor of love" J8

    Yes.
    That is technologically possible.

    BUT !!

    Only at $SPECTACULAR $Cost !!

    Consider for example the radiation issue. Such station would be well outside Earth's magnetosphere, so solar radiation would bombard the station.
    We can shield against that with Lead or Gold, but only at GARGANTUAN cost.

    And to what purpose?

    "Every gun that is made, every warship that is launched, every rocket that is fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children ..." President Dwight D. Eisenhower

    " space station would be built placed in an orbit between Earth’s orientation and the orbit of Mars in our solar system. This station could be an ongoing labor of love" J8

    It would probably be the single worst mis-expenditure of scarce social resources in all human history, all other human blunders would pale in comparison.

      
      
  • calebsicacalebsica 95 Pts   -  
    Global warming is not a deadly affect yet
  • searsear 109 Pts   -  
    ... and neither is a bullet careening toward a human skull at 1,200+' per second, until it blasts the skull open.

    OK
    Now it's your turn to state the perfectly obvious and irrelevant again.
    Jaguar
  • @sear ;

    But cosmic heat death is over a billion years in the future, tens of millions of human generations.On the matter of global warming humanity may not survive one dozen generations.

    I guess under ideal conditions billions of years off. So? I don't like to rush.

    The problem according to the experts is, it may take centuries for Earth's climate to "return to normal", and by then the remaining 0.01% will have died off too

    A problem according to honesty, the earth's climate will never return to normal, it is an unrealistic goal. The manipulation of climate is the least of all worries, of problems in need of clear resolution.

    A second problem is the addressing of money as if it was gold, or lead it’s not.

    To cut to the chase just asking me to put together a report on the viability, along with the procedures necessary to make the situation more realistic in understanding to you.

    And to what purpose?

    A United State of Constitutional Separation. We do not need one planets resources to leave the boundaries of our solar system, we need them all. All planet resources. America was called a new world, as our knowledge grew we lost focus on the expansion of open frontier. The environment is just more hostile deal with it.

    It would probably be the single worst mis-expenditure of scarce social resources in all human history, all other human blunders would pale in comparison

    Taxation is the world’s greatest blunder of human resources as it presents an idea that money can be spent more wisely by the group, then by the person. Politically it should also be known that a state of the union can be made up of inhabitants of space colonies. To increase the size of the Republic of United State's on a time table, we allow the procrastination of country to limit our understanding of  responsible growth.

     An assurance against the idea things are not always predictable is an asset, basic truth Mars is in the opposite direction of the sun, the sun is getting closer. this is a united state shared and presented by all science. We should act like it is true and start to move. looking dazed at the light will not help.



  • BryceSloanBryceSloan 33 Pts   -  
    Venus would be more dangerous and more expensive, so out of the two, Mars would be the better option.  But these are not the only celestial bodies able to be colonized.  Jupiter moon Io and Europa and Saturn's moons of Titan and Enceladus could possibly, in theory, be colonized.  But out of the two inner planets, Mars would be our best bet.
    Jaguar
    Bryce M. Sloan,
    "Streite nicht mit einem Idioten, sie werden dich auf ihr Niveau herunterziehen und dich mit Erfahrung schlagen."  -Mark Twain 
  • searsear 109 Pts   -  
    "I guess under ideal conditions billions of years off. So? I don't like to rush." J8

    But you're OK with the apocalyptic extinction of the human race before the 23rd century?

    "The manipulation of climate is the least of all worries, of problems" J8

    Pure ignorant buffonery.

    " Io and Europa" B

    Yes, BUT !!
    Refusing to trash Earth is both the low cost, and the vastly superior option. Life-boats are fine. But candidly, I prefer the ocean liners they're mounted on.

  • @ sear

     

    "The manipulation of climate is the least of all worries, of problems" J8

    Pure ignorant buffonery.

    What is funny is you are making a personal judgment from a list of priority, never pointing out earth can do both. The truth, the whole truth is no matter what is done about the trashing of this planet, or outer-space for that matter. It will not save the earth from the path of its destruction. There are a number of ways the end will come to this planet, it will however come to this planet, and keep coming until it arrives.

    Any how the question is which planet should be screw up next after Earth, Venus or Mars?

    I say Mars it will last longer, give more time to screw things up, and the colonies would make great additions to the United States of America. I think we need to do away with this whole democratic idea of bribery to convince countries to join in a Constitutional Union on Earth. Do like any other business with limited space and a need to expand, become creative on solutions.

  • @BryceSloan ;

    But these are not the only celestial bodies able to be colonized.
     
    We are following a path to a start of colonizing. Where to land first? Where will be the colony?
  • @calebsica ;

    Warmth has always been deadly, and climate manipulation is very deadly. Global Warming is not the basic Principle of the grievance made.
  • searsear 109 Pts   -  
    "you are making a personal judgment" J8

    Not in the comment you quoted, which is: "Pure ignorant buffonery."
    If I had called you a buffoon, it could be deemed a personal judgment. My comment addressed your position, not the person that offered it.

    Your anti-scientific position is not merely an affront to one, or a few radical pseudo-scientists. You ignorantly contradict a global scientific consensus which transcends languages, religions, and national borders, developed over decades.
    What your position ignores is that science as a discipline thrives on peer review. The language of science is mathematics, and the quanta of this language are units, including the Meter, the Newton, and the Ångström.

    It is not that your groundless position hasn't been tested. To the contrary, it's under constant and current review. Your own is merely a shallow, rhetorical attempt. There are more credentialed critics of anthropogenic climate change. Their best efforts have only confirmed the scientific consensus you presume to dispute.

    "from a list of priority" J8

    Is this your attempt to dismiss the scientific consensus as a trivial, inconsequential matter of subjective preference? That sir would be "Pure ignorant buffonery."

    "never pointing out earth can do both" J8

    For extremely good reason. It can not.
    It can do one.
    Or it can do the other.
    It cannot do both.

  • Is this your attempt to dismiss the scientific consensus as a trivial, inconsequential matter of subjective preference? That sir would be "Pure ignorant buffonery."  Nope.

    The Scientific consensus is excluding general HVAK knowledge in temperature manipulation. The general HVAC knowledge is the practical experience and use of scientific understanding and data.  In any real study of truth, no matter if science basic application it would be the first link between ignorance and impartial observation. Unless there was a pre-existing reason to avoid the comparison.

    As for buffoonery it is the monkey who beat man into space but only displayed abilities to perform simple tasks of repetitive conditioning as Artificial intelligence. Basic principle being the best at being openly conditioned makes the subject the most intelligent of its kind? There is a question of honor which can be called into question with the applied application of science, at the least on occasion.

    To change and unite our direction of discussion, as direction is without limit at this stage, drone application of construction might prove more valuable, more practical, with even greater responsibilities as calculation of time can expand by dimension to be translated in a universal way.

  • calebsicacalebsica 95 Pts   -  
    Global warming can also help us
  • AmericanFurryBoyAmericanFurryBoy 528 Pts   -  
    Unpopular opinion:
    we move all of our trash to these two planets and start cleaning up our own world so we don’t have to move
    Zombieguy1987calebsica대왕광개토xlJ_dolphin_473
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • calebsicacalebsica 95 Pts   -  
    Our planet is not in any danger.
  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  
    Venus might be problematic . its hot
    calebsica
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • 대왕광개토대왕광개토 234 Pts   -  
    Based on the information about both Mars and Venus, I would say that the latter is a better planet. The safety and resources we can expect to have while colonizing Mars far outweighs its costs. As for the  colonization of  Venus, even though the cost is less than that of colonizing Mars, we will face more difficulty on Venus than on Mars due to lack of useful resources. 
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1690 Pts   -  
    Mars seems like a much more viable option. For one thing, no toxic gases, and for another, we can modify the planet's temperature through terraforming. Having no viable way to collect water is a problem though.
    AmericanFurryBoy
  • RS_masterRS_master 400 Pts   -  
    Mars seems like a much more viable option. For one thing, no toxic gases, and for another, we can modify the planet's temperature through terraforming. Having no viable way to collect water is a problem though.
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 ; The average distance from Earth to Mars is about 12.5 light minutes (1.5 times as far as the sun).
    https://www.space.com/24701-how-long-does-it-take-to-get-to-mars.html
    The average time a current rocket will take is 162 days. Isn`t that a waste of resources? I agree the astronauts can sleep for a fortnight and take turns to be on watch but what about spacesuits? There will not be enough and if one person is awake at a time the rocket is not prepared enough. I agree Mars is easier than Venus but Mars is dangerous too hence we should not colonise any planet. About the water you can reuse it but food: there is not enough.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1690 Pts   -  
    RS_master said:
    Mars seems like a much more viable option. For one thing, no toxic gases, and for another, we can modify the planet's temperature through terraforming. Having no viable way to collect water is a problem though.
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 ; The average distance from Earth to Mars is about 12.5 light minutes (1.5 times as far as the sun).
    https://www.space.com/24701-how-long-does-it-take-to-get-to-mars.html
    The average time a current rocket will take is 162 days. Isn`t that a waste of resources? I agree the astronauts can sleep for a fortnight and take turns to be on watch but what about spacesuits? There will not be enough and if one person is awake at a time the rocket is not prepared enough. I agree Mars is easier than Venus but Mars is dangerous too hence we should not colonise any planet. About the water you can reuse it but food: there is not enough.
    I agree we should not colonise any planet but if we have to colonise one I would choose Mars. Replying to your point about wasting resources: we would need to design a new type of rocket anyway to reach Mars. On the point of food, astronauts would have to grow their own food through hydroponics. It is possible to do this, but it would require a major advancement in technology. My conclusion is that we should not colonise any planet, but if we had to colonise one, Mars would be the best.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1690 Pts   -  
    Unpopular opinion:
    we move all of our trash to these two planets and start cleaning up our own world so we don’t have to move
    That probably wouldn't be possible. How do we move the trash?

    NewtonX
  • RS_masterRS_master 400 Pts   -  
    Based on the information about both Mars and Venus, I would say that the latter is a better planet. The safety and resources we can expect to have while colonizing Mars far outweighs its costs. As for the  colonization of  Venus, even though the cost is less than that of colonizing Mars, we will face more difficulty on Venus than on Mars due to lack of useful resources. 
    @대왕광개토 You said latter which is Venus and then you disagreed with your own opinion. Neither is safe and end in bad situations hence we should colonise none of the planets.
  • RS_masterRS_master 400 Pts   -  
    Based on the information about both Mars and Venus, I would say that the latter is a better planet. The safety and resources we can expect to have while colonizing Mars far outweighs its costs. As for the  colonization of  Venus, even though the cost is less than that of colonizing Mars, we will face more difficulty on Venus than on Mars due to lack of useful resources. 
    @대왕광개토 You said latter which is Venus and then you disagreed with your own opinion. Neither is safe and end in bad situations hence we should colonise none of the planets.
  • SweaterrificSweaterrific 17 Pts   -  
    If we stick with the resolution at hand -- colonizing Mars or Venus -- and don't get sidetracked into issues like general space exploration, fake vs. real, and motivations, I think you've made a good case for Venus here. If we have to colonize one of these planets, the proximity, atmospheric exceptions, and temperature all seem to show a better feasibility for our sister planet. @Pogue
  • NewtonXNewtonX 8 Pts   -  
    I think we should try all terrestrial planets but try Mars first since we know more about mars than Venus and the other planetary bodies. Although I think we have to work in this order
    1. Moon
    2. Mars
    3. Mercury
    4. Venus
     Why? because first Mars is energy poor so the moon. Has the resource for both nuclear fission and probably fusion. Along with the moon has less gravitational force so it's easier to launch from the moon to Mars. The for me to say no to Venus is a combination of audacity and pressure. so going to Mercury is a better idea
    1. First Mercury isn't as hot as Venus
    2. Secondly Mercury is rich in minerals and if we want a semi-infinite power source we need iron and silicon to build a Dsyon Bubble
    3. Finally their is an power source for use and no pressure in are way
    Jaguar
  • NewtonXNewtonX 8 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473
    It would cost us more to do your idea and Contributed Global warming exceedingly 
  • NewtonXNewtonX 8 Pts   -  
    @calebsica
    How? Do you what do to heat up Mars the CO2 world be strip from the planet. Because it doesn't have a magnetosphere
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1690 Pts   -  
    NewtonX said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473
    It would cost us more to do your idea and Contributed Global warming exceedingly 
    @AmericanFurryBoy made a joke. I am creating an image of his joke. I do not think this would actually be a good idea. I actually think that we should colonise none of the planets, like @RS_master.
  • JaguarJaguar 111 Pts   -  
    @EmeryPearson how will we conquer the low gravity on the moon. Just think about people that want to die , how will they die by falling from a high building's rooftop on moon. Just think about it
    Whatever happens , happens . Just go with the flow.
  • JaguarJaguar 111 Pts   -  
    "But you're OK with the apocalyptic extinction of the human race before the 23rd century?"said @sear

    Well I am ok with it as  I will die  before 23rd century so whatever happens then will not affect my life, so why should I care. But I will like to explore the unknown universe so colonisation is not a bad choice either
    Whatever happens , happens . Just go with the flow.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch