Slashdot Mirror


NASA Releases 'Journey To Mars' Plan -- But Not a Budget (nasa.gov)

MarkWhittington writes: NASA released a document describing the steps involved in its Journey to Mars program (PDF). But, as the Wall Street Journal suggests, the "plan" has a conspicuous lack of specifics. It doesn't go into how much the program will cost or what intermediate steps have to be taken before human beings set foot on Mars in the 2030s. This is likely because of the upcoming and subsequent changes of governing administrations — the space agency's deep space exploration goals are likely to get a reevaluation. The plan serves as a public relations document more than anything else.

170 comments

  1. just like a movie by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    concept only

    1. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They raped my daughter and got away with it. Those Republicans suck.

    2. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They raped my daughter. Those Reoublicans suck.

    3. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the way if the Republicans. That us who they be.

    4. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did mine too, boy I realized it wasn't their fault. That was the fault of their maleness rather tha republicanism.

    5. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I.e. here the Republicans anally rape you.

    6. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should never cote for a RepublicNa.

    7. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They want us to die.

    8. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They, the Repiblicans, also rpaed my son, analysts. That si the wh of their kind.

    9. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed o lug people that hate children should vote for them.

    10. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idea that is the way of thaw it kind.

    11. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. They hate us and want us to die.

    12. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean vote?

    13. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except how the Republicabs a ally rape us.

    14. Re:just like a movie by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1

      Movies go through various phases. This seems more like a pitch than a story treatment, let alone a script. The concept part of going to Mars has been done to the death. So if we're ever going to go to Mars we need to go beyond colorful Adobe InDesign'ed brochures.

    15. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They k picked the ball out of my dUfhyer's hands then made her starve to deaths.

    16. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They anally raped my daughter intil she passed out fro
        Blood loss.

    17. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rape is the way of the Republicams.

    18. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They anally raped me and my so which is the way of their kind.

    19. Re: just like a movie by Rei · · Score: 1

      They'll rape you to death, eat your flesh, and sew your skin into their clothing, and if you're very very lucky, they'll do it in that order.

      --
      The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
    20. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rape is the way of their kind b

    21. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Repyblicana want us to die.

    22. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Republicans want children to die.

    23. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calf is overrated.

    24. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Miamua is ageD. Q

    25. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They rape constantly. Constantly.

    26. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans constantly roe. Constantly rape.

    27. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. If the this the state of debate on slashdot I'm out. Morons

    28. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hyes the way if the Republican's canes.

    29. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This us just Demicrats taking advantage of their kiedsnn

    30. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the way of the Reoukians.

    31. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shenwasnannaccepro lenlossnn. Heart death was the responsibility lilitybof the Republicans

    32. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the racist decision to limit Wilsonb means they ate your daughter.

    33. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grape is the way of their kind.

    34. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USF would rule of the refs would believe this
      Instead Miami needs to make the same.

    35. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that d tr way of Miamu.

    36. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But thay hate us and and want us to die.

    37. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 5epublicans hate us.

    38. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They want us to die

    39. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have a baby blue car?

    40. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the Repukians wNt unto fur.

    41. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Repuvlucans want us to die.

    42. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Death is the eat if they're ji dd.

    43. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except how the Republicabs a ally rape us.

      m
      Shows how the moderates that support going to Mars support being anally raped.

    44. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They want us to die. They would rather screw us über that help us v

    45. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They hate kraken girls and want them sold into slavery as their xians religion requires.

    46. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those 4epiblicans constantly rape children.

    47. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush raped more than five thousand children. That is the way if their kind.

    48. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bushie crim it family wiz all bout he rapie. All bout the rapie.

    49. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This movie wants us to die. To die.

    50. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They raped my daughter and got away with it. Those Republicans suck.

      Liberalism is a mental disorder.

    51. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they rapped mind.

    52. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently.

    53. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rape is the way of their kind.

    54. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rape is the what my fluoride

    55. Re:just like a movie by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Well, Slashdot had a story not too long ago, that a lot of folks believe that "The Martian" is based on a true story. I'm guessing that some of them are sitting in Congress. So when a funding bill for a NASA trip to Mars comes up, some Congress folks will chime in with:

      "Why do we need to fund this again! We already went to Mars! I saw the movie about it!"

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    56. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republican cows say MOOOOOOOOOO and then rape you.

    57. Re: just like a movie by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      funny, the democrats for past 8 years are the ones who advocate taking money from me by threat of force for things I don't need or want

    58. Re:just like a movie by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Well, Republican voters are morons, and they elect moronic Tea Party representatives to Congress, so that is to be expected.

      Barry Goldwater is probably turning in his grave now.

    59. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congress has the power of the purse. Republicans have had control of the House since after the 2010 elections. As such Republicans in the House have signed off on every dime spent by our government since they retook the House. Nice try though.

    60. Re: just like a movie by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      how ignorant, your Democrat president starts the process with budget submision, and democratic senate and democratic president signed off on budget

      here, hope this helps

      http://budget.house.gov/budget...

    61. Re: just like a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because you are meant to be a part of society, and society is greater than the sum of its individuals.

      You don't want space travel. Fine, someone else does. That person doesn't want medicare, but you do. It all evens out, mostly.

      Those who are more able to contribute, contribute more, as is right.

      Those who are unable to contribute, are helped. Or ignored until they commit suicide (the British Solution).

  2. interesting cost comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How much does it cost to pretend that we're going to send people to Mars, compared to how much it would cost to actually send a few rovers to Europa?

    1. Re: interesting cost comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They want us to die. That is the way of their kind.

    2. Re: interesting cost comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want you to die, it's got nothing to do with Republicans, and everything to do with you

  3. wat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    indesign on macintosh FFS NASA! Use some open source softwares! Pretend at least you want to save money.

    1. Re: wat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Those who're people hate us.

  4. Would anyone actually believe a NASA budget ? by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

    Shuttle project cost/pound to leo $118 actual $8000/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    SLS/ORION is now looking at 14 billion +/ launch

    http://www.thespacereview.com/...

    If NASA has a hundred billion for the mission expect to cost several trillion.

    1. Re: Would anyone actually believe a NASA budget ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Repyblicans gay tha since it doe my contai. Et soft rape.

    2. Re: Would anyone actually believe a NASA budget ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is fair pay for fair worn but tbspr taps publish a. So can't do Guam.

    3. Re: Would anyone actually believe a NASA budget ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's ahayr is.

    4. Re:Would anyone actually believe a NASA budget ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want ALL of my tax money to go towards that several trillion.

    5. Re: Would anyone actually believe a NASA budget ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tjeh That is why they d thi s to us gbecausse they hate us and want us to die. The reupidans killwd my son. Killed my son, thy choked him with a gay dick.

    6. Re:Would anyone actually believe a NASA budget ? by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Good I want none of mine there.

    7. Re:Would anyone actually believe a NASA budget ? by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      And if the government is going to burn money on that or completely pointless green energy, I'll take the green energy over this.

  5. Re: The Repyblicms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. The Tepubalicans want us to die.

  6. Re: The Repyblicms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They did murder my two daughters.

  7. Re: The Repyblicms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Death is the question of their kind

  8. Re: The Rmepyblicms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were so happy when my so. Died. Wayne my so. Does.

  9. Re: The Rmepyblicms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Republicans pissed in my wife"s face after my son died. Pissed in her face.

  10. Re: just like a knee-grow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They raped my daughter and got away with it. Those Republicans suck.

    It's the blacks. It's their fault.

  11. Re: The Repyblicms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They want us to die. That is why they broke into my gome and raped my son.

  12. Re: The Repyblicms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Deaths is the way of the Republivansd.

  13. Re: The Republians... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Repukians want us to die.

  14. Re: The Republians... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because they rape little girls in tailored.

  15. Re: The Republians... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Miami dies not unlike the flag state child tapers

  16. Re: The Republians... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Therapists rape children. Rape children.

  17. Yeah, let's be monkeys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let's ignore how cool it is to go into space. Let's ignore the benefits of aerospace technology on our daily lives. Let's teach our kids to uphold the status quo and be good little slaves to their corporate overlords. Let's let the MBAs and their accountant lackeys use their spreadsheets and declare this a waste of money.

    I hope an asteroid GUTS this worthless planet. We as a species deserve to die if we're too stupid to see the value of getting off this damnable rock.

    1. Re: Yeah, let's be monkeys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Repukians hate I and want us to die.

    2. Re: Yeah, let's be monkeys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they dint know football

    3. Re:Yeah, let's be monkeys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why isn't there a "stupid" mod?

    4. Re:Yeah, let's be monkeys by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Yes, try to guilt us because we're not agreeing with your cold war nostalgia.
      By secretly hoping to become a billionaire and fly into space before you die, you're helping your corporate overlords just fine.

    5. Re:Yeah, let's be monkeys by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Oh please. There's a lot more to the planet and the human race than the USA and its imbecilic inhabitants who utterly suck at electing decent leaders.

      And this "rock" is really a lush paradise; what's really stupid is how much we're trashing it. We should be doing much of our resource extraction in space and moving heavy industry there so we can preserve this place.

  18. "..or what intermediate steps have to be taken.." by tlambert · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "..or what intermediate steps have to be taken.."

    This is always a problem: incrementalist thinking, the idea that one can achieve the revolutionary through small intermediate steps with an evolutionary process. This is very limited (and limiting) thinking, and people who think that way will never achieve anything truly revolutionary. If you think like this, you should probably get the hell out of the way of those of us who don't. We'll come back for you. Some day. Maybe.

  19. Let's just not do it. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    Let's just not do it. There is no real reason to send humans to Mars.

    Now, establishing a real and long term presence on the Moon has real actual benefits.

    I always think of Space 1999...

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Let's just not do it. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Imagine Space 1999 on Mars! (Even if it was just a movie)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:Let's just not do it. by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If we wanted to send humans anywhere that would pay the most benefit, I really think Venus (cloudtops) would be best. Venus is so under-studied that any mission (manned or otherwise) has the potential to yield huge scientific benefits, and the ability to real-time control probes exploring the surface (aka, where their time that they can spend near the surface is limited before they have to head up to re-chill their cooling reservoir and recharge their batteries, and you don't want the lag time of commands sent all the way from Earth) would be of significant benefit. And in terms of future mining potential, Venus probably has the most useful geology - the types of lava flows found by the Soviets, and the additional potential of carbonatites, combined with the "high radar reflective" precipitated minerals, all are very promising signs for enrichment of rare and economically valuable minerals. Phase-change balloons can descend to the surface and bring minerals up to the cloudtops, and are eminently achievable with current technology - hardly more complicated than the old Soviet Vega probes. Since you're floating, you can move anywhere on the planet in a relatively short period of time (due to superrotation, you really have no choice in the matter ;) ), so you're not limited to whatever resources happen to be close to your base. And the cloudtops are a very hospitable environment to humans - at 52-56km a person may even be able to step outside with nothing more than a mask on (oxygen provision and eye protection are a must, but the CO and SOx levels may be low enough to not be problematic to bare skin - the pressure and temperature are fine). The significant atmosphere overhead provides a good deal of radiation protection, even though there is no dynamo-driven magnetic field.

      The moon is nearby and a conveniently low gravity well, but as far as minerals go, it's pretty boring - to the point that the best people have come up with is "helium 3 fuel" to power reactors which don't exist and which probably will never be an idea fusion fuel (if you can fuse it and can make an economic case for it, you can probably also fuse P-B which is much better and cheaper). And it will always suffer from "been there, done that" syndrome.

      --
      The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
    3. Re:Let's just not do it. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      If we wanted to send humans anywhere that would pay the most benefit,

      I think a trip to Vegas would be beneficial.

      In case anyone's asking.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Let's just not do it. by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      Sounds like it might a gamble to me.

    5. Re:Let's just not do it. by hambone142 · · Score: 2

      I don't believe NASA could send another capsule to the moon, let alone Mars. The organization seems to be a big P.R. "money hole".

      If we need to rely on the Russians to hitch a ride to ISS, that tells much about our decline in ability for space exploration.

      I don't believe NASA could manage a reasonable budget for manned Mars exploration as well as likely inability to manage the spacecraft development required to accomplish the task.

      It's a tired, bureaucratic albatross. "Lost In Space".

    6. Re:Let's just not do it. by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Actually, this would be an important topic of research: Lap and Pole Dancing in the Gravity of Mars. If NASA wants to get the general public interested in visiting Mars, the first thing Joe Sixpack will ask is if Mars has blackjack, gambling and lap & pole dancing.

      Definitely worth an Ig Nobel, at least.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    7. Re:Let's just not do it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you fly in 200 mph winds with heavy lightning?
      Mars is easier and potentially a doubling of raw materials to work with for humanity.
      A surface lift from Venus would be nigh-impossible, earthlike gravity, hellish temperatures, too much atmosphere, and acidic precipitation.

    8. Re:Let's just not do it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe NASA could send another capsule to the moon, let alone Mars.

      Agreed, buy a ticket ($1.5B/trip).

    9. Re:Let's just not do it. by Rei · · Score: 1

      Windspeed is irrelevant turbulence is what matters; it does not seem to be significant at 52-56km altitude. While we know that lightning exists on Venus, it's only at about the rate that it exists on Earth, and seems to be biased toward particular locations and altitudes. Of course, we've studied the planet so little, who knows - it obviously takes prep work. A prep mission would basically be a long-term version of Vega, with solar panels for recharging rather than just running on battery power.

      --
      The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
    10. Re:Let's just not do it. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      There might be benefits to sending humans to Mars, but I agree, the Moon should be the first big step. It's very close, and likely has significant mineral resources. It also has less gravity, and would be a good base for doing asteroid-capture missions and low-g refinement and manufacturing close to the Earth for easy material return. It'd be a great place for tourism too: you could build a luxury resort there and people could take 2-3 week vacations there, since each trip is only 3 days, unlike Mars where you're exposed to hard cosmic radiation for 6-9 months in each direction, making a short vacation there impossible until someone figures out a much, much faster propulsion method.

      Perhaps later, after that's all in place, they can scout out Mars more and find more valuable resources that aren't present on nearby asteroids or the Moon, and maybe some people will want to start colonies there since the gravity is a more human-friendly 1/3g (instead of the Moon's 1/6g which might not be so great healthwise for long-term stays).

    11. Re:Let's just not do it. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The moon is nearby and a conveniently low gravity well, but as far as minerals go, it's pretty boring

      Huh? How exactly do we know this? Because of some rocks the Apollo astronauts brought back? I admit, I'm not a geologist, but don't you need to do a lot more exploration to determine if a body the size of the Moon (which is one of the larger bodies in the solar system actually, at #14, with only 4 moons larger; it's even #11 by gravity) has useful minerals? Such as exploring the "dark side", doing some digging, etc.? The Apollo missions only explored a few sites; they didn't get to the back side which looks entirely different, they didn't get to the poles, etc. The Moon has obviously been bombarded with many asteroids; there's no telling what deposits those impacts left behind. Almost all the useful minerals in our own crust was left there by asteroid impacts; it didn't occur naturally (as part of the planet's formation).

      I think we're seriously discounting the Moon here. Heck, the Apollo missions didn't even figure out that the Moon has significant water deposits; that was only found recently by some other country's probe.

    12. Re:Let's just not do it. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      If we need to rely on the Russians to hitch a ride to ISS, that tells much about our decline in ability for space exploration.

      It's not just space exploration. America, in general, is in decline. Our time is over, it's just like the later days of the Roman Empire.

    13. Re:Let's just not do it. by Rei · · Score: 1

      First off, our knowledge of the moon is not "some rocks the Apollo astronauts brought back". The Moon is one of the most studied bodies in the solar system, perhaps the second most studied. We have a pretty good idea of what makes it tick. There have been 70 successful or partially successful (overwhelmingly completely successful) missions to the moon, plus some considered "spacecraft failure" that still returned data. 6 of the successful missions are operational right now. There have been 16 missions to land softly on the moon, one of which then re-launched and landed again. There were also two impactor missions to kick up plumes for study. There have been 8 sample return missions, another of which is scheduled for 2017. Modern advanced orbiters have conducted detailed spectral scans of the whole moon and mapped details down to 50 centimeters. We know the thing pretty damned well. It wasn't until the second half of the 20th century that we even knew the Earth that well.

      The moon is fundamentally disadvantaged when it comes to valuable mineral resources. Most valuable, rare mineral resources are heavy, as these tend to sink deep into planets during formation, leaving them depleted from the surface. The moon was formed in a collision whose dynamics left most of its heavier materials on earth and left it with lighter materials from itself and Earth. That's not to say that all light minerals are worthless - far from it. Beryllium is worth over $1k per kilogram, and it's quite a light element. But things like that are the exception, not the rule. The moon was then doubly disadvantaged in that the collision left it with a global magma ocean (with no tectonics to recirculate deep crust back to the surface). This led to crystals of lower-melting point and denser minerals to almost universally sink to the bottom, leaving the top layers rather monotonous in composition (a universal plagioclase crust). While various geological activities subsequently modified it (primarily impacts and, long ago, the mare basaltic flows), it was disadvantaged from the beginning.

      Then there's the fact that minerals don't just pop up randomly - they need geological phenomena to concentrate them to economic levels, and they're found associated with various geological features and/or tracer minerals. For example, the aforementioned beryllium is found in granitic pegmatites associated with tin and tungsten. The moon has no granite - thus no granitic pegmatites. There are a few other types of minerals beryllium concentrates in, but they don't exist on the moon either. This doesn't mean that there's no beryllium on the moon - there is, it's been studied. But there's nothing to concentrate it to interesting quantities.

      The biggest modification to the original lunar rocks has been the formation of the mare. These are ancient mass flows of tholeiitic basalt - not much diversity, except in the concentration of titanium. Lunar titanium concentrations are much higher than on Earth. However, titanium oxides are very cheap, common minerals. Melt pools from impacts also have the potential to be mineral concentrators (on Earth, the Sudbury impactor created some highly valuable mineral deposits in Canada). But there are two problems. One, these tend to solidify deep underground, meaning your mining becomes far more difficult and hardware/labour intensive (on a body that costs many tens of thousands of dollars per kilogram to land hardware on - even with a 10fold price reduction, you're looking at big problems). And two, all its modifying is plagioclase and ti-rich theolitic basalt. And of course, tectonic modification can concentrate minerals. While there have been tectonics on the moon, they're very limited compared to those on Earth.

      Now, this isn't to say that there's *nothing* interesting on the moon. The moon is rich in what's called "KREEP" - Potassium Rare-Earth Phosphorus. It can be found from space because it's also associated with higher concentrations of alpha emitters like uranium and thorium (although not anything one wou

      --
      The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
    14. Re:Let's just not do it. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      This is extremely informative, and if Slashdot's moderation system weren't such a broken mess, I'd mod you up.

      However, I do have some questions and concerns, but realize I'm not a geologist as I stated before. Do you work for NASA or something?

      The main problem I see is that it seems like you're making a lot of assumptions based on geology here on Earth, such as which minerals are likely to be present at sites with particular geologies. Doesn't that depend a lot on the early planetary formation?

      Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I had read that, just like you say with the Moon and heavy elements sinking to the core, the exact same thing happened to the Earth, and as a result, we have no heavy metals, including iron(!), accessible here on the crust left over from the formation of this planet, and that all our valuable ores (iron, gold, silver, even tin and lead) came from asteroid impacts over the eons, which is why they're concentrated in particular places.

      And while it sounds like we understand a good deal about geological processes, I'm not so sure it's that complete: didn't we only figure out the southern part of Mexico was formed by a giant asteroid impact within the last few decades, and that that was the cause of all the caves and such along what's left of the rim of the crater?

      Anyway, with asteroid impacts, the moon is full of them, as we can see easily with a small telescope, and unlike the Earth, there's been little tectonic activity and no atmospheric or water-based erosion. So wouldn't that mean that each impact site could potentially have a lot of valuable ores? I see what you said about them being concentrated too deep though, but is that necessarily the case? Here on earth, erosion would wipe away most traces of any low-velocity impacts, leaving only the deeply-buried stuff. On the Moon, there's no real erosion, so maybe there's more stuff close to the surface. And as for cost, sure it costs a lot to get equipment up there, but once there's infrastructure in place, shouldn't digging be fairly cheap at that point? It's not like you have to worry about paying for environmental impact studies and the like.

      For Rubidium, Wikipedia does list a fair number of applications. With lower cost, I believe there might be more. You also mentioned titanium being plentiful there. Wouldn't that be a good enough reason? Titanium isn't exactly cheap here. It's not expensive like gold by any means, but it's a lot more than steel, and having cheap titanium would be great for the auto industry. How much fuel are we wasting because we still build cars out of steel instead of titanium? Yes, there are a lot of titanium deposits here on Earth too, but last I heard most of them were in Russia, which is probably restricting the supply for economic and military reasons (they built the only titanium-hulled submarines). Of course, with the high cost of building infrastructure on the Moon and getting refined Ti back here, it might not be so cheap, but has anyone really crunched the numbers to see?

      As for Venus, that sounds interesting, but unlike the Moon where it's 3 days away and wouldn't be *that* hard to just go there and do some deeper digging and exploration, Venus is completely inhospitable at the surface for both humans and machinery, so I have no idea how we'd exploit mineral resources there. If you can't even get a lander to last more than an hour or two before succumbing to heat failure (plus failure from the atmosphere), I can't imagine how you'd get heavy equipment to stay down there and dig up stuff.

      How about Mercury? Any chance of that being commercially valuable? Though that place is inhospitably hot too; you could stay on the back side, but the planet rotates, so your mining station would have to slowly move, or at least be able to handle the heat on the sunny side while your crew travels across the planet in the opposite direction to stay in the shade.

    15. Re:Let's just not do it. by Rei · · Score: 1

      The main problem I see is that it seems like you're making a lot of assumptions based on geology here on Earth, such as which minerals are likely to be present at sites with particular geologies. Doesn't that depend a lot on the early planetary formation?

      Chemistry works the same everywhere. What elements readily form compounds with other elements is the same everywhere. At what temperatures minerals begin to crystalize out of magma is the same everywhere. Etc. Economically valuable deposits of resources are locations in which chemistry tended to concentrate that mineral and leave it at an accessible location. The same parameters must apply to the moon just like on earth.

      Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I had read that, just like you say with the Moon and heavy elements sinking to the core, the exact same thing happened to the Earth, and as a result, we have no heavy metals, including iron(!), accessible here on the crust left over from the formation of this planet.

      90% of the mass of the Earth is oxygen, iron, silicon, and magnesium. And these chemicals tend to form compounds with each other. Consequently it's impossible for "all of the Earth's iron", for example, to have sunk to the core. More to the point, these oxides aren't as dense as the pure metals. For example, in the crust a lot of iron is found as limonite (that yellowish-orange color you often see in clays), which can be nearly as light as quartz. The largest single mineral component of the mantle (and thus the Earth) is olivine (commonly known as peridot when sold as gemstones), a magnesium iron silicon oxide.

      Unlike the outer layers, earth's core is predominantly metallic iron, not oxides, and thus far denser. It's also highly enriched in many heavier elements which either don't readily oxidize or form heavy oxides. For example, platinium is found at about 5ppb concentrations in the crust, but is believed to be about 6ppm in the inner core, over a thousand times greater concentration. Uranium, thorium, gold, and countless other elements are vastly more common in the core than the crust. That doesn't mean that they're absent elsewhere. Even ignoring deposits from bombardment, you will often find small amounts of rarer elements in minerals with elements that they're chemically similar to.

      You can see the nature of mixtures in what erupts to the surface as lava - an igneous flow will ultimately crystalize out into a wide range of tiny mineral grains - various feldspars, quartz, various iron oxides, etc. These crystals have different densities, and they're made from elements with different densities - but the forces keeping them in solution are greater than the forces working to fractionalize them. Differentiation inside magma takes a long time - for example, to get basalt rich in large olivine crystals, like picrite, the magma has to sit and slowly cool over many thousands of years, allowing the olivine time to crystalize out and the crystals time to settle to the bottom without the bulk of the magma hardening and trapping it - then the upper olivine-poor magma erupting, then the olivine-rich magma erupting (again, all without hardening to the point of becoming trapped in the magma chamber).

      Or, to put it another way: salt is heavier than water, but the bottom of the oceans is only slowly increases with depth (and is highest near the surface where water evaporates, but that's a side point). It's a lower energy state for the salt to dilute than to all collect at the bottom.

      nd that all our valuable ores (iron, gold, silver, even tin and lead) came from asteroid impacts over the eons, which is why they're concentrated in particular places.

      That's not why elements are concentrated, as a

      --
      The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
    16. Re:Let's just not do it. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      This all sounds interesting, but I don't really agree about the cost of mining bit. Yes, launch costs are high, but once you have all the stuff you need on-site on the Moon (or wherever, but obviously the Moon is cheaper than Mars or Venus), the only costs are getting workers to the Moon (and tired ones back home), and whatever it costs to send (hopefully refined) material back to Earth. Basically, it's a one-time cost to get the infrastructure up there. If you're doing enough mining up there (between the Moon, and maybe capturing asteroids and then refining them on the Moon, or in orbital or Lagrangian stations), then it would be profitable, of course assuming there's enough valuable ore there to begin with.

      So it really comes down to a question of: what's the total cost of establishing all that infrastructure up there, plus the ongoing cost of actually operating up there, compared to how much you'll be able to sell the material for down here (taking into account time value of money of course)? With the huge up-front costs, it probably doesn't seem like it'd be worth it, but there's a lot of material up there between the Moon and the asteroids, and over a long enough time span it might make sense. Throw in space tourism (who wouldn't want to spend a week on the Moon?) and that should sweeten things. On top of that, launch costs are coming down thanks to the efforts of SpaceX and others. Ongoing costs can be minimized with heavy usage of either automated robotic systems, or with remote-control (or a combination of the two): with the Moon only a few light-seconds away, two-way radio control isn't such a problem as it would be for Venus or Mars. The fewer humans you need to regularly cycle there, the less things will cost to operate.

      Now obviously, if the break-even time is 4 centuries, then you're not going to get many investors for that. But what if it's less, maybe only 30 or 50 years? It does seem like several billionaires are very interested in asteroid mining, among other space ventures. All it took for Columbus (today's namesake, even if he was a murderous bastard) to help start colonization of the Americas was an investment by the Spanish crown. What if some silicon valley billionaires pump a bunch of money into this, not really caring if they see a return on their investment in their lifetimes? (Plus, these same billionaires are also pumping money into longevity research, so if that works out and they live to 250, they might very well see a return.)

  20. Re: The Repyblicms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Republicans want children to die.

  21. Re: The Republians... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes. They make we want to die.

  22. Re: The Republians... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The rPiststs.

  23. Re: The Republians... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The NCAA says they will reward the whitest team.

  24. Re: The Republians... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Republiccns want us to sdie.

  25. Re: The Republians... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The rapists." That is. The way of t heir kind b

  26. Re:"..or what intermediate steps have to be taken. by Rei · · Score: 2

    Indeed :) Don't get me wrong, one can achieve great things through small steps but only if those steps are part of a long-term process planned out in advance with the ultimate goal in mind, and full committal from all interested parties (particularly those funding your endeavor) to follow it through to the end. Otherwise, you're just building castles in the sand to be washed away when the tide comes in.

    Is the goal to go to Mars just to check off an entry on our species' bucket list, or is to move toward the the eventual colonization of the planet? Then we better have the whole colonization process down, down to what will lubricate the drive axles on the truck that hauls the fluorite ore from the mine on Arsinoes Chaos to the ball mill at Terra Meridiani, or how to make the replacement bolts for the elevation mounts for a sulfuric acid pipeline at the Becquerel chemical plant. That means in no way, shape, or form that nobody should do anything with Mars until you can launch a whole self-sustaining colony. But it's important to have planned out the whole programme in advance - knowing precisely what materials we're going to need, what parts, how quickly they'll be consumed, how much labor every component's operation and maintenance will take, what raw inputs you're going to need, where you can get them, etc, and ensuring that at no point are you consuming more of something than you can produce.

    If you send things to Mars without doing this, you're just going to spend your billions of dollars launching dead-ends - made out of materials that it turns out that there's no practical way to make on the planet, or with processes under which particular steps work out to be impractical or impossible on Mars. Due to the tremendous expense to engineer and launch each piece of hardware to Mars, you want each piece to serve a critical role in your long-term goals. Sent a device to freeze carbon dioxide out of Mars's atmosphere to feed a greenhouse or bioreactor? That may sound great... up until the point that you discover that you also need nitrogen or argon collected from the atmosphere for other processes, and that your whole chiller system needs to be replaced with one that can handle lower temperatures. Sent a pipeline made out of polypropylene to carry some sort of fluid? Great, until you discover that you need to multi-use that pipeline and some of the chemicals you need to send aren't compatible with polypropylene, so you're just going to have to build a new one parallel to it. Etc.

    NASA of course has no interest in actually planning things out all the way in advance. And never has.

    --
    The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
  27. Re: Just like Oshitstain Onigger Obama Maobama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is theeaulfgbdjtki d

  28. Re: The Repyblicms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They hate us and want us to die.

  29. Re: The Republians... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Little girls us the wY if get ji c.

  30. Re: The Republians... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AT&T requires me to lie fla as
    Rare is a I bg.

  31. Re: The Republians... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Repukians hate children

  32. Footprint photo by joe_frisch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The footprint photo at the end of the brochure is 50 years old and we haven't been back. NASA has been talking about a manned mars mission 20 years in the future for the last 50 years. OK to be honest it was 10 years in the future 50 years ago.

    The space age is over.

    Eventually some civilization, mayl find the Apollo landers and and wonder why we gave up with the stars withing our grasp. We won't be around for them to ask.

    1. Re:Footprint photo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The space age is over.

      Not if SpaceX or any of the other private-sector for-profit space hauling companies have anything to say about it.

      Did you you know that SpaceX can get things to the ISS for _1/3rd_ the cost of anyone else?

      Did you know that they designed and built their rockets from *scratch*, *entirely* in the US?

      Are you aware that SpaceX plans to blanket the Earth in Internet-delivering satellites, with service available to anyone on the face of the planet?

      Are you aware that Musk's *ultimate* goal is a one-way trip to Mars (with one *optional* return trip to Earth, should you decide -as many will- that a colonist's life is not for you) for 500,000 USD?

  33. Agreed: NASA should be mothballed altogether. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vegas Baby! The land of imported milk and honey, charlatans and hype, flashing lights and cute distractions. Its a desert within a desert, a dreamland, like Mars.

    I don't understand the fascination with the fantasy of putting little pink earthmen on another planet when it's obvious that the opportunity costs are significant.

    Our global regulatory regimen is inadequate to protect us from ourselves, here, today. The response to climate change is half-assed and NASA's budget and personnel should be repurposed to address Spaceship Earth.

    But the space race isn't really all about going to Mars as much as it's about militarism and fantasy. Humanity is distracted from it's needs. Air, water, food and shelter at the macro level all require stewardship in Broder and more critical terms that ever before. We don't need no colonies on the Red Planet, we need a global Teran Renewal project.

    Allowing state governments to redirect tax revenues from earthbound terran priorities to high tech condos on Mars where the rent for the couple dozen tenants is hundreds of thousands if times higher than it is here, requires billions in capital expenses and dedicates some of the most capable engineering minds to the problems associated with living without earth is like readying for the death of our only functional ecosystem while wagering that funny money can buy a replacement ecosphere.

    Why do people believe this fantasy is valuable?

  34. Re: Just like Oshitstain Onigger Obama Maobama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Republicans the us. C

  35. Re: just like a knee-grow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much did they vale?

  36. Re: Just like Oshitstain Onigger Obama Maobama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Republicans hate us evades why I preppie do this.

  37. Re: Just like Oshitstain Onigger Obama Maobama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exact club the Demicrats Nader us give you in smoking.

  38. Re: The Repyblicms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You want is to die, but why do you do this.

  39. Re: The Repyblicms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They made my six day old so. Choke on cum. Choke on cum. That is the way of the Demands crafts. The way of the DemicrTs.

  40. Re:And once again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For Science!

  41. Summary of article by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    1. Go to Mars
    2. Come back
    3. ???
    4. Profit!

  42. Details details by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Sounds wonderful! Now if they could just stop exploding.

    1. Re:Details details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've clearly not been paying attention, friend. :)

      SpaceX's successful launch percentage is higher than any other program that gets things to orbit, save the Space Shuttle.

      Falcon 9 has had *one* vehicle loss out of nineteen flights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches (The crashes that you might be thinking of are attempts to get the launch vehicle *back*. *Noone* else is doing this.)

      They have an novel and promising crew capsule escape system whose effectiveness is being tested in a *wide* variety of scenarios. Their crewed flights *will* be substantially safer than the Space Shuttle.

  43. Re:"..or what intermediate steps have to be taken. by KeensMustard · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is always a problem: incrementalist thinking, the idea that one can achieve the revolutionary through small intermediate steps with an evolutionary process.

    There's nothing particularly revolutionary or even evolutionary about sending humans to Mars: there's robots already there, and robots can cater for any foreseeable need for a presence on the surface of Mars. If anything, humans are an evolutionary step backward: humans are ill adapted to Mars and our time and effort on the surface of Mars will be spent catering to our own survival rather than doing anything useful.

    If you think like this, you should probably get the hell out of the way of those of us who don't. We'll come back for you. Some day. Maybe.

    You do realised you aren't going to Mars? and that no amount of 'thinking big' will change that?

    You aren't going to Mars.

    It's conceivable that we might suppress our better judgement and send some humans one day, but the chances of it being you are about 1 in a billion.

  44. Geostationary control of androids is smarter. by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 2

    Why send humans down to the surface when you can just send expendable android avatars which can be operated from geostationary orbit by teams working in shifts to maximise the work done for the mass transported down to the surface? When you leave you don't have to retrieve anything but samples and that takes a much smaller rocket, or allows more samples than if you need to also retrieve humans off the surface. Make the androids smart enough and they will learn enough before you go to continue a lot of the work with minimal instructions from Earth. It makes no sense at all to send people until you have built a truly sustainable habitat for them to live in on the surface as colonists. Why will this not be doable by the 2030s?

    1. Re:Geostationary control of androids is smarter. by Yosho · · Score: 1

      Why will this not be doable by the 2030s?

      Because making the androids "smart enough" to replace a human is insanely hard and nobody thinks we'll have that by the 2030s, and repeatedly bringing samples up into orbit will be more expensive than just putting a lab (and people) on the surface.

      Currently, having a human do collection and analysis directly is orders of magnitude faster and more effective than a remotely-controlled robot, and there's no reason to think that will change by then.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    2. Re:Geostationary control of androids is smarter. by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      One word: conquest.

      If it weren't for that drive, we wouldn't bother to go at all. At this point, and for the next hundred years or more, we're going to do nothing more than a brief visit. But putting people on the surface - that's a Fuck Yeah! moment. People won't pay for robots, but they'd all chip in if some dude went and wrote his name in Martian sand in pee. *shrug*

      BTW - I agree that robotic missions make much more sense.The manned program has always sucked NASA dry on a year to year basis, but if you ask the average person to name an astronaut and a robot mission to a planet, you'd better believe you'll get Neil Armstrong and a blank stare. (There's an outside chance you'll get Voyager, but my money is that half of them will call it Vygr)

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  45. Re:"..or what intermediate steps have to be taken. by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yet, it's by slow steady intermediate steps and evolutionary processes that practically every one of mankind's major breakthroughs, advances, and achievements have been accomplished. They're not visible to the narrow minded or the the clueless - but they're there none the less.

    The problem isn't with "limited (and limiting) thinking", it's with idiots who have no patience and no grasp of how the world works... who think things just happen magically.

  46. Re:"..or what intermediate steps have to be taken. by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "..or what intermediate steps have to be taken.."

    This is always a problem: incrementalist thinking, the idea that one can achieve the revolutionary through small intermediate steps with an evolutionary process.

    But that's where revolutionary ideas come from. Progress is a long series of small intermediate steps and some of those steps turn out to be the revolutionary ones. That's why you get things like Alexander Graham Bell's "race" to the patent office, or Darwin finding out that Wallace had also discovered natural selection. Revolutionary ideas need a solid foundation of incremental discoveries.

    But that's actually kind of off-topic for this story, we have all the revolutionary technology already, it's simply a matter of cost and will, and "incrementalist thinking" is a great way to make each of these easier.

    This is very limited (and limiting) thinking, and people who think that way will never achieve anything truly revolutionary. If you think like this, you should probably get the hell out of the way of those of us who don't. We'll come back for you. Some day. Maybe.

    I suspect you have it backwards. If you're only interested in the revolutionary you'll never get anywhere because you'll be missing all the intermediate steps. If you want to move forward start by doing all the incremental things, eventually you'll have done enough that the revolutionary is in sight.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  47. Re:"..or what intermediate steps have to be taken. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Liberals want peace on Earth, but seem unwilling to kill for it, let alone die for it.

  48. Re:And once again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no "unknown". We know space is empty, deadly, hostile, radiation-blasted, and utterly useless. If you are not frightened by that, you're too mentally ill to walk by yourself, let alone speak for the human race.

  49. Re:"..or what intermediate steps have to be taken. by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

    "..or what intermediate steps have to be taken.."

    This is always a problem: incrementalist thinking, the idea that one can achieve the revolutionary through small intermediate steps with an evolutionary process. This is very limited (and limiting) thinking, and people who think that way will never achieve anything truly revolutionary. If you think like this, you should probably get the hell out of the way of those of us who don't. We'll come back for you. Some day. Maybe.

    Revolutionary v.s. evolutionary is a false dichotomy. Some of the most revolutionary developments have been incremental by nature, but each increment could also be seen as a minor revolution.

    Think of the miniaturization of electronics, or Moores law. Each year businesses that make CPU:s, GPU:s and other chips make incremental progress, but most of those increments required some (relatively minor) revolution in the way that one thinks about chip-making.

    Rockets went from tiny fireworks in the late 1800:s to the Saturn V in the 1960:s through incremental progress. Then the US tried and failed at switching to space shuttles. Now it's back to rockets again, and incremental work towards better rockets. Some of those increments could have a huge impact, like being able to re-light the first stage and land it for later re-use.

    Maybe one day it'll be space elevators instead of rockets. Maybe. Keep in mind that there is no guarantee that a space elevator will be better or cheaper than rockets. That largely depends on how expensive it will be to build the elevator, how often it will need maintenance and how long it will ultimately last until you need to scrap it and build a new one.

  50. Stars within our grasp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stars within our grasp? So poetic, but completely untrue, we could never have reached other stars due to the insane distances.

    Also it confuses stars and moon. We didn't go back to the moon because it was pointless, and no amount of moon or mars visits by men will make star travel more possible because they don't tackle any of the actual problems we face in star travel.

  51. Re:"..or what intermediate steps have to be taken. by MyAlternateID · · Score: 0

    Maybe one day it'll be space elevators instead of rockets. Maybe. Keep in mind that there is no guarantee that a space elevator will be better or cheaper than rockets. That largely depends on how expensive it will be to build the elevator, how often it will need maintenance and how long it will ultimately last until you need to scrap it and build a new one.

    Or what happens when you use a conductive material like carbon nanotubes to connect the huge positive charge of the ground to the huge negative charge of the ionosphere and many millions of amps flow through it, vaporizing your nanotube, making a pretty plasma, and causing something much worse than ordinary lightning at that site on the ground.

    The earth is built like a giant capacitor. Air is a pretty good insulator. Ordinary lightning is what would be called leakage current in any other capacitor. Why this isn't better understood when people bring up space elevators is a fault of the educational system, but it's definitely a major problem that would have to be accounted for in any such plans.

  52. Re:"..or what intermediate steps have to be taken. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 0

    If anything, humans are an evolutionary step backward: humans are ill adapted to Mars and our time and effort on the surface of Mars will be spent catering to our own survival rather than doing anything useful.

    Right. So what you're saying is you want a whole bunch of autonomous robots, capable of doing pretty much anythings humans can do. Unsupervised on another planet. Full of resources and energy. With a lower gravity well.

    I for one, would welcome our new Martian overlords.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  53. Re:And once again by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    /. proves with these comments how backwards and luddite the thinking has become. Gone are the days of science and the hope of something more. Here are the times of cowardice and fear. This whole website has become a bastion of cowards who are too frightened of the unknown. I am sure most of the /. crowd would be perfectly fine cowering away with their vacuum tubes and the threat of V2 rockets to be of any use. This whole site is a sick joke. How can news for nerds be something that mocks space travel? The majority seems to have forgotten that nerds want to progress, not regress, and are just too scared and pussy to move beyond the familiar.

    No, it shows that people are finally growing up. Making rational attempts at complex problems. Attempting to balance multiple priorities.

    Oh, and we're broke. There's always that.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  54. economic benefit of Mars mission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This mission will certainly be a great boon to the doggle manufacturers.

  55. Re:And once again by Grishnakh · · Score: 0

    No, it's really just another symptom of America's overall decline, as most of Slashdot's readership is American. Now we just need to sit back and see which nation becomes the next superpower; it'll probably be China.

  56. The journey of a thousand miles by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Now, to be fair, a step/1000mi:Mars/Stars is about an order of magnitude short. But there are several key hurdles to be overcome which will be much more appropriate to work out on the lunar surface or on the trip to and from Mars.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  57. Bloated and insane plan in all likelihood by Dereck1701 · · Score: 1

    Last time NASA came up with a human mission to Mars Congress got a sticker shock at I believe $450 Billion (a bargain compared to many defense programs). Then a group of Mars enthusiasts came up with a far cheaper and easier program that some in NASA immediately set out to sabotage because it involved a simple three launch system instead of a logistical nightmare involving stations, fuel depots and dozens of craft.

  58. Re: And once again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hush, child. The grown-ups are talking.

  59. Re:"..or what intermediate steps have to be taken. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Yeah, obviously humans didn't come about that way. They must have been created whole. Despite all the physical evidence which says otherwise, because you can't get something revolutionary like a human through small intermediate steps with an evolutionary process.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  60. Re:"..or what intermediate steps have to be taken. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's nothing particularly revolutionary or even evolutionary about sending humans to Mars: there's robots already there, and robots can cater for any foreseeable need for a presence on the surface of Mars.

    Really? How about reproduce, can robots do that for us yet?

  61. Re:"..or what intermediate steps have to be taken. by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

    We don't need a presence on Mars to reproduce. You might not have been able to reproduce but that is not the reason.