Slashdot Mirror
Trump Has Grand Plan For Mission To Mars But Nasa Advises: Cool Your Jets (theguardian.com)
Donald Trump would like to see Americans walk on Mars during his presidency. Nasa would love to get there that quickly, too. The reality of space travel is slightly more complicated, however. From a report: On Monday, during a call with astronaut Peggy Whitson, who was aboard the International Space Station, Trump pressed her for a timeline on a crewed mission to Mars, one of Nasa's longest standing and most daunting goals. "Tell me, Mars," he asked her from the Oval Office, "what do you see a timing for actually sending humans to Mars? Is there a schedule and when would you see that happening?" Whitson answered by pointing out that Trump, by signing a Nasa funding bill last month, had already approved a timeline for a mission in the 2030s. She added that Nasa was building a new heavy-launch rocket, which would need testing. "Unfortunately space flight takes a lot of time and money," she said. "But it is so worthwhile doing." Trump replied: "Well, we want to try and do it during my first term or, at worst, during my second term, so we'll have to speed that up a little bit, OK?" It was not clear whether the president meant the remark as a quip or something more serious.
Even if there is no suitable launch window in a decade, put him in the rocket and let him test it anyway. It could make America great again!
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Living on Mars is not the same as a discussion about visiting Mars.
But, "we can't do XX. Ever." has been said a million times about a million different things and every time, when there was the will and the money to do XX the person making the statement came down as a short-sighted idiot.
That Trump will finish a first term much less get reelected to a second term is as unlikely as NASA to send astronauts to Mars in the next eight years.
You know that it's a bad time when you can get more inspiring sounding space speeches from Rob Lowe dressed in a Colonel Sanders costume than you get from the president:
http://www.adweek.com/agencysp...
Sadly, we can be pretty sure that KFC is going to get that friggin sandwich into space on time. Trump's Mars rocket? Forget about it.
He's not interested in space travel, he's interested in himself.
I have a suspicion this is Ego vs Science.
He wants to cut all sorts of science and research budgets, so he's obviously not in favor of public money being spend on science. In Trump's eyes science is a private enterprise thing, not a government thing.
So why does he want to go to Mars, and specifically why does he want to go during his presidency?
The answer is Ego.
He wants to be known as the President who got man to another planet. He wants the capital city on some long-in-the-future Mars to be called Trump Town.
He doesn't want to go to look for signs of life, he doesn't want to go to advance science, he doesn't want to go to see if there is any long-term investment strategy.
He wants to go for the ego-boost.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
"Interplanetary travel is more complicated than I thought it would be."
You are welcome on my lawn.
Argument overheard several tens of thousands of years ago:
Enough with this migrating to Asia thing. We cannot live in Asia. Ever. The difference in temperature will guarantee that. You can't fix biology and evolution. And don't say "take the skins off animals" or "build fires". Give us all a break.
I just don't understand this. Every single time he says something idiotic, there are always people who try to claim that he isn't serious. "Oh, he's not serious about the wall" "Oh, he's not serious about his vendetta against immigrants." And then he will do, or at least try to do, exactly what he said. Anyone who, at this point, honestly believes that he doesn't mean what he says, is either stupid, deluded, or both.
So yes, I think he's entirely serious that he wants to have people walking on Mars within his term. The only question is, what will he do when he finds out that it's impossible? Will he throw craptons of money at NASA, thinking that he just throw money at the problem? Will he just get pissed off and "fire" NASA?
The man is so completely divorced from reality that there's really no way to anticipate what he will do.
Are you on a Harry Potter overdose? Will and money is not sufficient to make everything happen.
Achille Talon
Hop!
"I think the point is more "technical achievement" than it is "we need to live somewhere else"."
Then that achievement's been done. Many times. Now can you explain the quasi-religious fervor every time Mars is mentioned?
But will and money could get you to Mars.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Alive or dead?
Achille Talon
Hop!
There is a reason why Mars doesn't have much of an atmosphere and the bulk of the water is gone, until you can fix that issue, no possible amount of generating atmosphere gasses will fix this.
The issue is Mars has a very weak magnetic field to shield it from the solar wind which is stripping the atmosphere from the planet faster than it's generated. Now if you come up with a solution to that issue, you will go a long way to making the place habitable.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
One proposal is to deflect the solar wind with a magnetic shield.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
"or, at worst, during my second term" ... Please... No...
Right, Obama (or Clinton) makes the same pronouncement and you're all for it, Trump makes it and it is "EVIL!!!!!"
Keep it up, and the Democrats will never get back in power. Which is fine by me. The Republicans too are proving just as inept. Which is fine by me. Perhaps we'll actually get a viable third party that doesn't whine like a bitch when they aren't in power, and actually is constructive when they are.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."
Something tells me his time in office won't last long enough to even pick the mission logo.
If he does, how much do you want to bet the logo has a lot of gold and has his name on it?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Let's all remember that the President that put our nation on the path towards landing on the moon was JFK in the early 60s. We did not land on the moon during his presidency. Even if JFK were to not have been shot and been re-elected, he would have left office just shy of the first moon landing on July 20, 1969. If Trump actually thinks that we're going to go even further and solve even more scientific problems necessary to make a Mars mission successful within his presidency, he's even more delusional than we originally thought, and that's probably grounds for invoking the 25th amendment.
And the rockets will coal powered. Beautiful, clean coal. That's the secret to making America great again.
it would get eroded away just as quickly as it was generated.
Citation needed. Mars had liquid oceans at one point. Clearly it once had a much denser atmosphere that lasted for geological time spans.
It's not that he's evil (at least in this context), it's that he's making everything about himself.
#DeleteFacebook
What you are really saying is that we should colonize Venus first. I agree. Floating colonies on (above) Venus sounds so much better than living in tin cans on a cold dead rusty world.
This is my island in the Stratosphere.
I got a place for sunshine and my freeze dried beer.
No need to freeze as it's warm and clear.
Don't look down now, there is nothing to fear.
Just a Venetian sunset such a lovely view.
I can't believe we thought it was something new!
No one knew how hard getting to Mars ones! No one!
"Give someone a program, frustrate them for a day... Teach someone to program, frustrate them for a lifetime."
So, Venus's middle cloud layer, then?
"He's a liar whose lawyer is lying about his lying lawyer's lies."
A President finally challenges NASA like Kennedy and everyone jumps down his throat because of who is saying it. Trump comes from a world where the delays and cost over runs from NASA the last 20 years are not acceptable. NASA is so risk adverse they can't accomplish their goals. What Trump should do is mandate the test pilot approach again, admit that space exploration will cost lives, and tell them to start getting things done.
What, you want like a guarantee or something? I can't even give you that for the moon, and that is demonstrably possible. You are moving the bar.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Every single time he says something idiotic, there are always people who try to claim that he isn't serious. "Oh, he's not serious about the wall" "Oh, he's not serious about his vendetta against immigrants." And then he will do, or at least try to do, exactly what he said.
Except when he said he'd release his taxes. Or that he'd spearhead healthcare changes that would improve coverage and lower costs for the middle class. Or reduce taxes on the middle class. Or generate non-robotic jobs in the rustbelt. Or, or or ... The only thing Trump is serious about is self-aggrandizement and the seizing of unconstitutional powers. Which his base will figure out soon enough (and probably blame on the left).
Bump the Trump!
"We have this thing called "technology" that allows us to do pretty much anything we want once it's figured out. "
We don't even have the Concorde anymore. Explain to me again how we can do pretty much anything, even though this was figured out half a century ago.
"Mars will be a challenge, but one that humans can overcome."
We've sent many cameras on wheels and bathtubs with antennas to Mars. So what? We don't even have people living on the bottom of the ocean. That was also a thing we did decades ago, where's the follow-up now?
And what's with this "humans" thing? You talk for the entire species? What are you doing just for the people within 10 miles of you? Help the homeless? Feed the poor?
And now it doesn't. So it's a pretty safe bet that it won't maintain one now. Even at the wildest possibly of us being able to generate an atmosphere, we're not going to be able to do so instantaneously. So the likelihood of doing so faster than it being stripped away by solar winds is small. I'd like to see humans go there as much as anyone, but you need to be realistic too.
The bald monkeys on this planet are a long way from the planetary engineering needed to fix the magnetosphere on mars.
In a nutshell, you would need to take a moon and put it in a stable orbit of mars. There are a couple in the asteroid belt that are large enough. The tidal forces created by the moon will eventually melt the core of the planet. That molten core is what is needed to create the strong magnetosphere. Which in turn protects the planet's atmosphere.
What? The difference in temperature is minimal between the two areas. You fell into the common trap: since one thing is possible, all things must be possible. Mars is nothing like the Earth. Nothing. Imagine living in the bottom of the sea, or on the North Pole. That is paradise compared to Mars. Just because you can run to the end of your block doesn't mean you can run a marathon either.
I tell you what: build a floating colony in the sky on Earth FIRST to see if that idea works. It won't.
Tell you what: try that on Earth FIRST.
If that gets us a mission to Mars sooner, so what?
Wasn't everyone already aware he's a thing skinned narcissist? Everything has always been about him. Everything. Why do you think his wife doesn't want to live with him in DC?
I was a bit surprised by some of my fellow slashdotter's negative comments on this.
I've really hated the lack of focus on science and ignoring of scientific facts in the current administration. While I'd love to sell science funding for science's own sake, it is just not working well with a lot of our population and government representatives.
As the same time, we know putting a man on the moon generated a huge amount of scientific research and learning. So if the current administration wants to characterize funding as helping "go to Mars", I'm glad to live with it given the scientific work that will be generated because of it.
I'm not a big fan of Trump, but if it takes his ego and bully power to get us back into space exploration, then that's a good thing. The thing I know he doesn't understand is how much effort and resources it takes to untertake a mission like this. I'm sure SpaceX has also been whispering in a few well-placed ears about taking over NASA's role as well -- that would definitely appeal to the conservative, small government, privatization always works crowd.
The problem I see is that no one would ever be willing to just dump the amount of money required into this. I'm a firm believer of the idea that throwing enough money and resources at a problem will solve it, but no one's willing to do that. We were willing back in the 60s when the Soviet Union beat us into space -- and we also poured uncountable sums of money into nuclear weapons and espionage technology as well with virtually zero limits. No one complained one bit back then, but they sure do now. Or, go back a few years and look at the Manhattan Project -- again, bags of money were just lit on fire and forgotten about because the goal of winning a war that was consuming huge numbers of men was possible if you paid for it. If you read about it, it was a massive project -- not just the bomb design, but the mining and refining of radioactive material that consumed vast amounts of resources.
The only way we could ever do something like this again is to have China plant a flag on Mars first...then all bets would be off.
It's downright pathetic that NASA - formerly the epitome of America's can-do and forward-looking approach - is "oh wait, slow down, that's dangerous, that's expensive..."
Fuck you NASA, you hidebound, overbureaucratic, topheavy, ass-covering bunch of time-servers. (And by that I don't mean the people at the program levels - they're still rocket scientists: I mean the admins and the politicals at the top.)
Look, I get it: Trump's a boob. An ignoramus. If you're one of the literati, then you *have* to reflexively HATE him. If he said 2+2=4, we'd change basic math just to make sure he was wrong. So if he says we should go to Mars, well, we certainly need to get in the way of that, right?
But we went to the Moon in THIS is what we need. Oh, and we're going to decide what needs to get made and where it gets built, no more pork-barreling our budget into congressional districts for political points. That's stupid.
-Styopa
Nonsense. We need to increase the mass of Mars. That will make trapping an atmosphere there much easier.
It's all on you now, Peggy. Godspeed.
Already have those in the form of Blimps and hot air balloons. Also, air for humans is much less denser than Venetian air making breathable air for humans a lifting gas on Venus. No need for hydrogen or helium as a lifting gas just use a Nitrogen/Oxygen mixture that we breathe.
You don't need Will right now, you need Geordi.
Ezekiel 23:20
Actually, the current erosion rate is less than 100 grams per second.
Ezekiel 23:20
Well, Venus does have (a) magnetosphere(s). More importantly, Venus is as close (in terms to mass and orbit) to Earth's twin as we are going to get.
Granted the atmosphere, in terms of pressure alone, will kill you; however, if we can devise a runaway method for trapping some of those gases into a more solid form...we could have a new planet to play with in a relatively short period of time. So ask yourself, what reusable catalyst would we need to create to transform that atmosphere into something a little more human friendly?
It's actually very difficult to add mass to the Martian atmosphere at a rate *slower* than the current loss given how slow the current loss is.
Ezekiel 23:20
Because DC is such a crappy swamp of shit.
It's amazing that hating Trump and point out what a "dummy" he is, is more important than using this opportunity to convince him to give NASA more money and resources to implement his vision.
The deadline is irrelevant. If in 4 years NASA has made significant progress the funding increase will continue.
No wonder NASA has such a limited budget. They're too dumb to know when to shut up and take the money.
Work Safe Porn
Just wait for the downsizing...
Ezekiel 23:20
It's a hunch with scaffolding. :D
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
No one's saying it's a bad thing for NASA or science. Just pointing out the reasons for it.
I have a suspicion this is Ego vs Science.
Who cares? If that's what it takes, let's go to Mars!
He wants to cut all sorts of science and research budgets, so he's obviously not in favor of public money being spend on science. In Trump's eyes science is a private enterprise thing, not a government thing.
So why does he want to go to Mars, and specifically why does he want to go during his presidency?
The answer is Ego.
Who cares? If that's what it takes, let's go to Mars!
He wants to be known as the President who got man to another planet. He wants the capital city on some long-in-the-future Mars to be called Trump Town.
He doesn't want to go to look for signs of life, he doesn't want to go to advance science, he doesn't want to go to see if there is any long-term investment strategy.
Who cares? If that's what it takes, let's go to Mars!
He wants to go for the ego-boost.
Who cares? If that's what it takes, let's go to Mars!
Well, then get his ass to Mars. . . .
Fast, Cheap, Done Right - Pick Two
Fast + Cheap = Dead People
Fast + Done Right = Our budget deficit will be what?
It would be worth getting Space-X's estimate for the goal though. An internationally funded commercial project could be worth considering. A coalition of European, Middle Eastern, American and Asian countries could go a long way promoting world peace through cooperation towards achieving a truly inspirational goal.
Greed is the root of all evil.
"It was not clear whether the president meant the remark as a quip or something more serious." Everything he says is a quip - it should be quite clear.
I am not a number - I am a free man!
Even if you make it denser closer to Earth's level, it's still on the order of a ~300m block of ice per century. You can even mine that little on Mars itself.
Ezekiel 23:20
You fell into the common trap: since one thing is possible, all things must be possible.
And you fell into the common trap that because something is very, very hard it is impossible and should never be attempted. The very attempt of going into space and to the moon allowed us to produce many overwhelming technical advances that have affected day-to-day life.
Mars is nothing like the Earth. Nothing.
Oh, and here I was thinking Mars was a planet that orbits Sol, just like Earth. What is it then? A bowl of cherries?
Imagine living in the bottom of the sea, or on the North Pole.
Imagine living on Antarctica. Oh wait, people already are.
Just because you can run to the end of your block doesn't mean you can run a marathon either.
Well if you get off your ass, you can train to run a marathon in a few months. But that's just not fast enough for you, I guess, and thus it is impossible. Maybe just stand aside and let the grownups have a go.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Why do you think his wife doesn't want to live with him in DC?
Because she doesn't want to sleep in the same bed as Ivanka?
It only has an induced magnetosphere, like Mars (although about twice as powerful). But it's big defense against radiation is the thickness of its atmosphere; radiation has to pass through a lot of mass to get to habitable areas. The radiation levels within Venus's middle cloud layer are perfectly acceptable without extra shielding.
Not in the middle cloud layer. Actually it's just the opposite, the pressure / temperature relation in the middle cloud layer means somewhat low (but still acceptable) pressures at normal Earth temperatures. But it's still by far the most Earthlike place in the solar system outside of Earth.
The unfortunate thing for Venus is that people think only in terms of surfaces; if Venus's atmosphere had stopped at its middle cloud layer, nobody would be talking about Mars today. But because Venus's atmosphere is carbon dioxide, almost any common gas can be used as a lifting gas. Including nitrogen and oxygen - ordinary Earth air is a lifting gas, offering about half as much lift as helium does on Earth. Meaning you can actually live inside your lift envelope. And airship envelopes are not particularly heavy, despite their large sizes. Your entire habitat is this completely mobile, constantly exploring new ground, accessing the surface as needed with bellows and/or phase-change balloons.
Now you're talking about terraforming, which we're nowhere near doing for any planet (not Mars either - Mars's biggest problem is that isotopic ratios indicate that almost all of the planet's nitrogen has been lost to space). Carl Sagan famously, before Venus's conditions were known, proposed seeding Venus's clouds with phototrophs in order to sequester carbon and create an oxygenated atmosphere. He later changed his mind, saying that you'd end up with a huge deep layer of carbon and a dense, hot oxygen atmosphere, and the whole planetary surface would explode. Further dampers were put on the concept when it was pointed out that, depending on what assumptions you make, it'd take tens of thousands to millions of years to sequester regardless.
Many, many different proposals for terraforming Venus have been made over the years, but honestly I think Sagan had the right idea, for the wrong reason. Namely, because we've seen this situation before. Earth used to be a world with a CO2-rich atmosphere, no oxygen, ferric oxide on its surface (well, more accurately, Fe+2 ions in the oceans), etc. Did Earth explode once microbes developed photosynthesis? Of course not. As fast as they could produce oxygen, the iron oxidized to ferric oxyhydroxide to magnetite and hematite, laying down bands of iron oxides (interspersed with sequestered carbon), which we now know as the banded iron formations. There was no "thick layer of graphite" or "dense explosive oxygen atmosphere being made" on Earth, and there's all the less reason to expect it on Venus, because in Venus's hot, dense surface conditions the abundant ferric oxide (and other species) will be even more reactive. Oxygen will be consumed as fast as it's created, until you've exhausted all available surface ferric oxide, which will take quite a long time. Indeed, if you took some of the "atmospheric ejection" or "atmosphere freezing" terraforming proposals, you'd be faced with a problem when you actually started producing oxygen in Venus - you'd be fighting against the rusting of the planet.
The low levels of hydrogen are IMHO more challenging; I don't like most of the proposals for getting more
"He's a liar whose lawyer is lying about his lying lawyer's lies."
Right, Obama (or Clinton) makes the same pronouncement and you're all for it, Trump makes it and it is "EVIL!!!!!"
No, neither of them made it about themselves. At no point did you hear them say, "Well, we want to try and do it during my first term or, at worst, during my second term. Me! Me! Me!" [emphasis mine] Rather, they deferred to the experts to come up with a reasonable schedule to maximize success and safety.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Well, to make things as simplistic as possible, Mars at its closest is over at thousand times farther away.
Now I don't have much of a throwing arm -- you might say I'm starting with nothing -- but I'm pretty certain if you gave me a few years I could manage to throw a football twenty yards. It doesn't follow that given a few more years I could somehow throw a football twenty kilometers.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Shooting people to Mars in a tin can is a useless exercise.
It would not really advance space travel technology all that much, it's dangerous as hell, and we really wouldn't learn much more (if any more) than we know now.
In fact, I expect that the spectacle of people dying during the attempt would do more damage to the Space Program than you can imagine.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
No, neither of them made it about themselves.
Give me a break. You're just blind to the narcissism because it was hidden from you.
"this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." - Obama
counted Obama using the words "I," "me," and "my" a total of 199 times in a 2014 speech where he vowed to use executive orders to bypass Congress if they wouldn't acquiesce to his agenda.
So, I call bullshit. Obama was one self centered asswipe. It's just that the left liked what he was doing so it was ignored or excused.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
To be clear, the NASA and everyone are not saying it should not be done or that it cannot be done ever. What they are saying is that it won't be done in 4 years because that deadline is impractical. Unless NASA gets a large infusion of funding and political support, it's not likely to get done in 8 years either.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Well there are two problems. One would be sulfuric acid content of the stratosphere. Above the troposphere, the sulfuric acid content is believed to be high enough to present problems. The second would be the thick cloud cover even at the stratosphere would block out 75% of the light meaning powering any station difficult that uses solar cells.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Right, Obama (or Clinton) makes the same pronouncement and you're all for it, Trump makes it and it is "EVIL!!!!!"
No one is saying Trump is evil because he wants to land on Mars. What everyone is saying is Trump is an idiot because he wants it done in 4 years given the state of the project now. They are also pointing out the lack of critical thinking because he also advocates cuts to science and engineering funding (some of the science that will be needed for Mars).
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Trump is that boss that wants you to do more with less and will embarrass/sabotage your career if you can't overcome all the roadblocks he put in your way.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
No, no, no. How many times have we told you not to try out your code on the production server?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
So true! Assemble multiple rockets in orbit, lash 'em together, and go. That 10-rockets-to-accelerate-no-deceleration plan might just get someone onto the surface of Mars in jellied form by his impeachment trial end date, if we start now.
Give me a break. You're just blind to the narcissism because it was hidden from you.
Oh so that's why they both advocated cuts to the Mars programs in favor of more terrestrial and practical science like global warming research? Because "President who gave more money to monitor climate change" really shines like "President to put man on Mars" on a resume bullet point.
So, I call bullshit. Obama was one self centered asswipe. It's just that the left liked what he was doing so it was ignored or excused.
Did you actually do a count or are you merely disagreeing because it doesn't fit your world view?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
....we have a way to travel at least 10% the speed of light. Way too many dangers in Space for long term travel by any biological entity other than a few microbes or tardigrades. :)
You fell into the common trap: since one thing is possible, all things must be possible.
And you fell into the common trap thinking that moving into Eurasia was not certain death for technologically unprepared hominids. You underestimate the undertaking. Those humans without adequately advanced hunting technologies and techniques, or shelter building technology, or fire building knowledge, die. They die. The migration was not easier. It was harder than us going to Mars because they had no idea what they were getting into. In comparison, we know exactly what we're getting into when we go to Mars. We know exactly how to accomplish it too.
We need Will Wright and SimMars NOW!
There are lots of problems. One I am curious about would be resupply/docking of any floater (heh) in the atmosphere. But if you were to conceive of any off world human presence starting with the most earth-like conditions in the solar system seems like the best bet. Using Rei's graphic he linked below. https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/...
Urm right, and mess up the natural magnetic barrier that already shields us from solar winds?
The migration was definitely easier. They didn't have to worry about breathing, a pressurized way to move around outside, or a 300 degree temperature swing in the course of 12 hours. We will.
You might be the most powerful man on Earth, but your problems are proportionately bigger.
Any reasonably thoughtful person would look at the presidency, and conclude that being president means feeling frustrated by not having enough power most of the time. And it doesn't mean getting respect -- even respect people think is due to the office, not the occupant. Trump of all people should have realized that.
You can't bomb ISIS away, or shock-and-awe Syria into submission, or intimidate North Korea. Everything you might try to accomplish is accompanied by a perplexing calculus of risk/reward. Manned space exploration is no exception. If you want to do it, you need to make sacrifices.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Just send the 1/2 of the population that will be displaced by the AI revolution to Mars, we will all be fine then.
Well, we want to try and do it during my first term or, at worst, during my second term, so we'll have to speed that up a little bit, OK?
That's neither "grand" nor a "plan".
Nope, no sig
The sulfuric acid is more of a resource than a problem, and it'd be easier to colonize Venus if the sulfuric acid was denser. It's actually pretty sparse - a couple to a couple dozen milligrams per cubic meter. Standards for breathing sulfuric acid on Earth for an 8-hour shift are between one and a couple milligrams per cubic meter, if that puts it into perspective. It's like a bad smog (or more accurately, vog) than being like a bath in sulfuric acid. There are many polymers with excellent sulfuric acid compatibility.
The reason sulfuric acid is a resource is, first off, it's not 100% sulfuric acid, so there's the water content that can first be dehydrated. After further heating, you decompose H2SO4 to SO3 + H2O. Further heating, plus catalysts, can also decompose SO3 to SO2 + O2. Alternatively you can use the SO3 as a scrubber conditioning agent to help capture more moisture from the atmosphere. There's also the sulfur-iodine cycle for the generation of hydrogen.
Not so, the sunlight in the middle cloud layer is rather earthlike (depending on your latitude). The cloud decks have absorbed only about a third of the light by the time it reaches the middle cloud layer at the equator (more toward the poles), and Venus's solar constant is higher than Earth's, so it roughly equals out. Except that light comes from all sides.
Solar power has even been shown to be possible to use at the surface, albeit with extremely low power density. But enough to run, say, a seismic or weather station.
"He's a liar whose lawyer is lying about his lying lawyer's lies."
It's more likely to kill an astronaut in a terrible way and put the public off space travel for decades.
I don't get it. How is that different than Obama's motivation for his legacy then? Was there a point of bringing up his "legacy" for the asteroid redirect mission as opposed to now with Trump and a sooner mission to mars?
Seems to me that it is an easy jab to get quick mod points because it is trendy to hate Trump instead of measuring the claim/wants by their merits (or lack thereof). And again, if he is motivated by his own ego and we get a mission to mars within 8 years... So what? How is that not a good thing?
Sabotage aside, I would think any off world colony would want to do more with less. In any event, it sounds really dumb to sabotage NASA as that tends to be universally liked by the electorate for the most part. Then again, politicians aren't known for not being dumb.
Nope, it's completely correct and has been proven time and again over the course of human history.
Nonsense. While we have achieved many things that people at one time claimed were impossible, there are many things that they said were possible that we have not achieved. Where are our flying cars? We were expecting them last century, but they still haven't shown up. Our automatic doors are still pretty terrible. We still haven't even finished off the molten salt reactor, and that would be a relatively easy thing to do.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
O.o Did you have that kind of pessimism 8 months ago?
Residual propellant (+ stored gas) inflation of a (repackable) ballute or lifting body envelope, which doubles as both the entry system and as lift balloon when in the atmosphere. Ascent stages are very light on return, so it doesn't take a huge lift envelope to keep it buoyant in the atmosphere. Ballutes are already being well investigated as reentry systems alone for Venus, as it makes for a much lighter-weight entry system than an aeroshell. One of the considerations as a successor to the Saturn V was called ROOST; a "buoyant" version of it proposed just that, an inflatable aeroshell that transitioned to become a buoyant lift envelope in the atmosphere, to allow for a gentle landing. To dock on Venus, the reentry stage would maneuver into position below the habitat, connect via an arm or tethered drone, reduce lift to make the line go taut, and then be winched in.
An alternative possibility is NTR (nuclear thermal) - particularly variants like NTTR, which have a compressor and thus can hover. The predicted payload fractions on NTTR are huge (~50% on Earth), and using it on Venus, there would be a lot less NIMBY objection. Plus it'd help break a path for use of NTR on Earth if it can be demonstrated safe there. On Venus, NTTR would be disadvantaged by using the Bosch reaction rather than H2/O2 combustion, but the delta-V requirements and gravity losses are lower.
"He's a liar whose lawyer is lying about his lying lawyer's lies."
He was proven an imbecile when man-powered self-sustaining flight was proven possible. He was proven an imbecile by the first alchemist who turned lead into gold. He was proven wrong when we built colonies in the deep ocean trenches. Yes, everything -- everything -- is clearly possible.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
We've seen it and I'm sure he has seen it too. What I'm talking about is the one way trip to Mars taken last year by The Most Interesting Man in the World. He even took some beer.
So we have already gone to Mars and Trump is wondering why we haven't gone again and he wants to go too.
I say, let's send him too.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
you can train to run a marathon in a few months
No. I've tried running. I end up with injuries when my run goes over a couple of miles.
My contention isn't the fact that it's happening, but at the rate the poster claimed.
Can we have a little common sense on both sides? Putting a couple of humans on Mars for a few hours a couple of decades from now is going to be incredibly difficult, incredibly expensive (I'm thinking around $200,000,000,000US) and largely pointless. Alternatively we could launch a new Mars Rover every two years for decades and learn far more about Mars for far less money and without putting lives at risk.
OTOH rocketry costs are coming down and technology is improving. I'm thinking that within a century there probably will be one or more manned research stations on Mars. It isn't THAT much more uninhabitable than the South Pole where there's been a base for 60 years (why?). Yes the researchers will likely be underground, but presumably they can find some way to use their time there productively while glancing occasionally at the big screen TV image of the out of doors.. It's no dumber than the ISS really.
Is Mars terraformable? Probably. It's got some gravity and a near 24 hour day and probably useful differentiated mineral deposits. But we can't make it Earthlike with today's technologies. Moreover, folks who live there for many years probably aren't ever coming back to Earth. Earth gravity might not kill them, but they'd probably wish they were dead after a few days at 1G.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Thanks for the comment. Very interesting.
But he may force sloppy shortcuts that contaminate a planet or two and/or kill astronauts by skipping physical safety to try to get there during his term(s) in office.
Table-ized A.I.
"You can't fix biology and evolution"
The whole equation changes when you look at man plus machines as one system. Our robot emissaries are already exploring Mars and, by figuring out with increasing precision what is in store for us, enabling the first human visitors to go prepared.
Furthermore, the CRISPR breakthrough means that we will no longer have to sit around and wait for natural selection to improve human biology. The future of man as an organism is intelligent design.
300 degree temperature swing? No, you are misinformed. Maybe it's a 300 degree (F) temperature swing between equatorial day and polar night, but no one region experiences that kind of swing even in a year.
As for breathing and pressure, you are completely missing my point. Early hominids had to develop technology in order to make the migration possible. They couldn't do it without animal flesh, shelter, food, and the various technologies they created to facilitate that. They died without that technology. They didn't know how to survive in the north. They didn't even know what the conditions were like in the north.
Today, we know what conditions are like on Mars. We have the technology to breath on Mars. We have the technology to live there. It is simply costly to transport it there, but it can be done.
How many millennia were hominids walking North only to die off due to insufficient knowledge of the area, and the technological knowledge to live there.
In light of this, it appears to me that it's actually easier for us to go to Mars than it is for early hominids to migrate out of Africa. We already have everything we need to live there. Early hominids did not....it took hundreds of thousands of years....evolutionary time scales to move out of Africa. It was most definitely NOT just a matter of walking there.
"Atmosphere generation? How do you propose they keep an atmosphere on Mars in the first place? With its low gravity and no magnetosphere, it would get eroded away just as quickly as it was generated."
So how has Titan (5151 km diameter, vs 6,779 for Mars) managed to keep a thicker atmosphere than Earth for all these years?
Trump is an idiot because he wants it done in 4 years given the state of the project now.
4-8 years. Does that make Kennedy an idiot because "before this decade is out"?
It doesn't follow that given a few more years I could somehow throw a football twenty kilometers.
Unless in that time you developed a catapult to throw it for you. :)
Alternatively we could launch a new Mars Rover every two years for decades and learn far more about Mars for far less money and without putting lives at risk.
Please stop spreading the idea that a couple of robotic rovers can somehow collect more data than even one lightly trained human with a camera, a chemistry set, and vehicle. That's ridiculous.
I think what NASA is trying to tell Trump is that sure they can possibly get to Mars while you are President, however we'll need about the same amount of money spent on the F-35 Jets in order to do that (1.5 Trillion?). Give us those kinds of resources and we'll get you there in no time!
I did hear that AI is taking our jobs. I would assume that would include lightly trained humans with cameras and chemistry sets. They can already drive. I didn't think astronauts were going to be saved from the AI revolution. :)
*Astronaut on side of the road with sign*
Out of job because robot AI.
Will science for food!
If we judge the results of his campaign... successful?
I think too early to tell with administration. Still have a few years and maybe more!
Assuming your not kidding: AI is good at performing well known tasks, in very specific ways, with very specific tools. That's the complete opposite of planetary exploration.
A legacy sets up for a future.
A stupid egotistical idiot on the other hand says oooh a mission to mars in 30 years, best make it while I'm still president.
He deserves the jabs. Instead of being remembered as the president who funded it he'll now go down as the president who unrealistically insisted that it happen while he's still president.
His ego knows about as much bounds as his tiny hands.
So, what you are saying is that Humans will be taking the robot jobs because planetary exploration was largely relegated to robots?
Ha! Take that AI. We'll take your jobs now.
Until someone makes an AI that is as good as a human at being human, yeah, humans will take that job one day. Of course, AI might progress faster toward being human than humans progress toward landing on Mars.
So, a legacy is for the ego to live on in the future for the egotistical? Got it. Don't see much difference but okay. "I want something because me" v. "I want something because me to be remembered".
No. But there was the race with Russia to be won, and Kennedy rallied the entire nation behind 1 grand plan. Trump throws out half assed ideas on a daily basis without any sense of reality or rational thought behind it, and with zero interest in follow through. Today it is Mars, yesterday it was the wall, the day before it was destroying IS, even longer ago it was Trumpcare, and in two days time he may nuke North Korea and invade.
If he came up with one wild idea, and the will and skill to pursue that one idea, then I might take it serious. But the man's cranial capacity seems to be limited to what fits in a single twitter message, and as soon as the next idea comes up, the previous one is just pushed out the back door and abandoned.
Well, if one were to place an unprotected human on the surface, say right now; you would have a point. But in order for humanity to grow, it has to be done. And quickly. The paint ball and chief just needs to spend some money on the task. Using ISS as a space dock yard, one could build those items required to travel to mars, explore, and come back alive with. Conclusion? The dumb ass and chief has to put his money where his mouth is.
Due to the location of Mars relative to Earth, the prime planetary launch opportunity for the Red Planet occurs only once every 26 months
Do you expect Trump to do all those things without any input to anyone else besides himself? For example, the Trumpcare. Whatever failure you want to call it for not being voted on from what I understand they are negotiating with the ardent conservative Congresscritters to get more support. IOW compromising. Isn't that a good thing and how it is supposed to work between the Congress and POTUS?
With all of those things (save military) he can't do those things alone.... whats the problem? I don't understand what your issue is. How is that different than any other president saying any other opinion on any other topic? Sheesh. It's almost as if you don't care what it is if it comes from Trump == bad. Stop it. It's annoying.
the will and skill to pursue that one idea, then I might take it serious. But the man's cranial capacity seems to be limited to what fits in a single twitter message, and as soon as the next idea comes up, the previous one is just pushed out the back door and abandoned.
It's been 100 days... What do you expect to happen? You have at the very least 3 more years of the guy. Have some patience and then make your judgement... Jeeze. Did you wait 100 days and think: "oh Obamacare didn't pass yet, therefore OBAMA IS A FAILURE AND I HATE EVERYTHING HE DOES NOW".
Calm your tits cuz they are flappin' worse than a bird migration.
4-8 years. Does that make Kennedy an idiot because "before this decade is out"?
Did Kennedy advocate cutting the funding needed for moon project while demanding it get done?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Well, the Soviets had a huge space program and gave us the first satellite, first human in space, and first space station, among many other firsts. It came at a cost.
Before the decade was out Kennedy spent upwards of $246 Billion dollars (adjusted to 2014 dollars) on NASA. Spending got above 4% of the Federal budget.
Today Trump is asking them to do this on less than $20 billion a year. Less than half a percent. In 4 years, that'll be $80 Billion. And he probably expects them to continue the ISS. Also support for Juno, Cassini, New Horizons, and Dawn. As well as making and launching MAVEN. At least he better.
Thankfully, the James Webb telescope is going up next year. That fucker BETTER not disrupt it. It's way too important.
So? He wants to go to another planet in 4 years. Is he going to pay for it?
But regardless of how much money you throw at it, such a program would take more than 4 years.
But will ego-boost add enough delta-v for a trip?
If the ("Impossible" "reactionless") EM drive proves to provide real delta-v for making ongoing orbital mechanics alterations (rather than being a test methodology error), it has been estimated it could be used to make the Earth-to-Mars trip in 70 days. That could put Mars within reach within 8 years.
The tiny force involved (if it's real) would add up to a lot of motion over time - and you wouldn't have to haul along a lot of fuel to be expended - and thus mostly used for hauling fuel.
There was supposed to be a six-month "does it really do this?" orbital test in progress or Real Soon Now. So we should know soon.
So if this works and Trump's ego can get it deployed in time, then, yes, ego-boost WOULD add enough delta-v for a trip. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Do you expect Trump to do all those things without any input to anyone else besides himself?
That has pretty much described his whole presidency and campaign so far. For example, his unfounded claims that Obama "wiretapped" him. His desire to "break-up" the Ninth Circuit for ruling against him. His insistence that crime is "the highest it's been in decades". I could go on and on about factually untrue things he says all the time. His policies have been reflective of his desire to tilt against windmills of his own mind.
For example, the Trumpcare. Whatever failure you want to call it for not being voted on from what I understand they are negotiating with the ardent conservative Congresscritters to get more support. IOW compromising. Isn't that a good thing and how it is supposed to work between the Congress and POTUS?
Trumpcare is the perfect example. Trump doesn't care what's actually in it and this is evidenced by demanding things that must be in Trumpcare only to relent to get it passed. He just wants a bullet point that he "repealed and replaced" Obamacare. With something. It doesn't matter to him that it might be exactly the same thing.
With all of those things (save military) he can't do those things alone.... whats the problem? I don't understand what your issue is. How is that different than any other president saying any other opinion on any other topic? Sheesh. It's almost as if you don't care what it is if it comes from Trump == bad. Stop it. It's annoying.
I specifically said above that Trump advocating going to Mars isn't the problem. I said that Trump expecting it to happen in 4/8 years despite him being one of the people that is actively sabotaging that effort is the problem. Please read above:
"No one is saying Trump is evil because he wants to land on Mars. What everyone is saying is Trump is an idiot because he wants it done in 4 years given the state of the project now. They are also pointing out the lack of critical thinking because he also advocates cuts to science and engineering funding (some of the science that will be needed for Mars)."
It's been 100 days... What do you expect to happen? You have at the very least 3 more years of the guy. Have some patience and then make your judgement... Jeeze. Did you wait 100 days and think: "oh Obamacare didn't pass yet, therefore OBAMA IS A FAILURE AND I HATE EVERYTHING HE DOES NOW".
I am not the person who brings up the 100 days effort. That is you. That has been Trump who has been boasting on every single media outlet who would predicting what he would if he was elected. Once elected he again time and time again said that the country would be amazed about what he would accomplish. But now that milestone has been reached, I note a lack of actual accomplishments. For example, I do not believe ISIS was defeated in 30 days like he said he do.
And again, you are the one bringing up things I have not said but Trump has said.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Did Kennedy have the same size federal government and deficit/debt with overlap between different bureaucracies? I don't like Trumps cuts to science but I at least understand a few of them; NASA and NOAA potential overlap for climate science (not to mention the potential conflict of NASA goals if budget taken by such overlapping missions). As for the others, are those tax dollars being used to fund studies like this??? When "science" becomes as political as that paper, it is no longer science and I question the validity of those institutions that fund those papers under the guise of science.
Unless in that time you developed a catapult to throw it for you. :)
Do the math. To achieve a range of 20km, the catapult would have to launch the football at 990 miles per hour -- and that's in a vacuum.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
NASA != "terrestrial and practical science" (nor is it an outreach arm for Islamic science).
So you're disregarding the Soil Moisture survey that helps the world determine what is happening worldwide in terms of water and energy cycles? Also you have to discount the collaborations with NOAA in a large range of monitoring weather, sun activity, etc.
Just ignore all the things you don't want to exist.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Farnsworth: Well, as a man enters his 18th decade, he thinks back on the mistakes he's made in life.
Amy: Like the heaps of dead monkeys?
Farnsworth: Science cannot move forward without heaps!
Because it's bloody cold! Under a hundred kelvin average surface temp.
Mars is cold, but not *that* cold - around 200k. Cold is very helpful when keeping an atmosphere.
A magnetic field is also very helpful. Titan has none, but it's close enough to Saturn to benefit from that protection.
Perhaps it would be practical to send a balloon-probe of some sort? Or many tiny probes, all collecting weather data and transmitting it to an orbital relay, then back to earth.
4-8 years. Also, Kennedy started at square 1. We are further along by already having a heavy rocket and space industry and infrastructure. False equivalence.
Has he given any indication to disrupt James Webb or are you just projecting every possible worst case scenario to any and everything?
Did Kennedy have the same size federal government and deficit/debt with overlap between different bureaucracies?
1) Not the point. Did Kennedy do something as stupid as advocate for a program while cutting the funding at the same time? 2) Trump's proposed budget actually does nothing bout the overall deficit but massively increases military spending and cutting domestic programs.
I don't like Trumps cuts to science but I at least understand a few of them; NASA and NOAA potential overlap for climate science (not to mention the potential conflict of NASA goals if budget taken by such overlapping missions).
Then your understanding is poor. NASA and NOAA collaborate on some climate science missions for a very specific reason: NASA has the expertise when it comes to launch systems. NASA (and the JPL) are the ones that manage the rockets, design the satellites, and the planes instrumentation. NOAA and their scientists are the ones who benefit from the data coming from all the instrumentation that NASA has helped to design. There is no federal agency that can replace NASA in what it does in this regard. Please read more about NASA/NOAA missions.
As for the others, are those tax dollars being used to fund studies like this [sagepub.com]???
And what part of NASA funding was used for that journal? I see no mention or link to NASA itself. I see no personnell attached to NASA.
When "science" becomes as political as that paper, it is no longer science and I question the validity of those institutions that fund those papers under the guise of science.
So your sample size of one paper is being used to slander all of science even though you have yet to demonstrate how that 1 paper is related to anything that NASA does. Statistically you do know that a sample size of 1 does not represent much, do you?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
That has pretty much described his whole presidency and campaign so far. For example, his unfounded claims that Obama "wiretapped" him. His desire to "break-up" the Ninth Circuit for ruling against him. His insistence that crime is "the highest it's been in decades". I could go on and on about factually untrue things he says all the time. His policies have been reflective of his desire to tilt against windmills of his own mind.
Your conflating stating something (whether true, partially true, or not is irrelevant) and doing something. Stating something requires only him. Doing something does not.
He just wants a bullet point that he "repealed and replaced" Obamacare. With something. It doesn't matter to him that it might be exactly the same thing.
He did promise he would do that bullet point... The details are being worked out... What's the problem? You are saying that him trying to keep a promise and negotiating the details doesn't matter to him? How do you know? By his actions? Are you in his head? I don't think he personally cares but I also think that politicians that do care are few and far between. So what? Is he trying to fulfill is promise? It looks like it and he still has 3 years (or at least 1 til the midterms) to try.
him being one of the people that is actively sabotaging that effort is the problem.
I don't think bringing it up as an idea is sabotaging going to Mars. Calm your tits, their flappin' again.
As far as 100 days, i don't really care about it. I only mention it because that is the time frame that has passed. Again. I don't see the issue. You sound very partisan and very bitter. Give your tits a rest... They must be soar from flappin' so much.
See, you are well on your way to get that football twenty kilometers with your catap... contraption. ^_^
What exactly can a human do that a rover can't? More importantly, what can a human do that a THOUSAND rovers, each with uniquely specialized instrument packages, can't do? Because for the cost of sending one human, we can send a thousand rovers each reconfigured based on the information gathered from the previous rover.
Funny, these are the same people that creamed themselves when Obama mentioned anything about Mars. But hey, now it "cool your jets man!". Bunch of douche bags
It is the point because those are the times we live in. Different times for different challenges.
NASA has the expertise when it comes to launch systems
If that is outsourced to private industry then that point becomes moot. Again, all I said was potential overlap. You are projecting what I say.
And what part of NASA funding was used for that journal? I see no mention or link to NASA itself. I see no personnell attached to NASA.
Missing the point much?
So your sample size of one paper is being used to slander all of science even though you have yet to demonstrate how that 1 paper is related to anything that NASA does. Statistically you do know that a sample size of 1 does not represent much, do you?
I am not slandering science by calling out political crap masqueraded as science. That paper is harming science and there are more like it. Those papers cost millions in dollars. If you want science funded by tax money then you best be damn sure that those funds aren't being used for political crap that will piss off half the electorate because eventually someone will make it to power and use a blunt hammer to fix problem no matter how loud you bitch or how long you march.
Calm down and stop chasing the boogeyman you built up in your head. Two sides can be right and two sides are required to make a coin. If you think it is unfair to one side try being on the other and try to understand their perspective.
Your conflating stating something (whether true, partially true, or not is irrelevant) and doing something. Stating something requires only him. Doing something does not.
Trump: Obamacare is imploding and must be replaced. Trump: Illegals commit all sorts of crimes so a $25B+ wall must be built. Again, his delusions shape his policies. Are you so delusional that you do not see that?
He did promise he would do that bullet point... The details are being worked out... What's the problem?
I said it above. Please read. Trump doesn't care about actually doing anything that helps anyone.
You are saying that him trying to keep a promise and negotiating the details doesn't matter to him? How do you know? By his actions? Are you in his head? I don't think he personally cares but I also think that politicians that do care are few and far between. So what? Is he trying to fulfill is promise? It looks like it and he still has 3 years (or at least 1 til the midterms) to try.
You mean besides the flip-flopping he has shown in his promises so far? Keeping his promises has not been one of his traits in his entire life; I don't understand why anyone who has looked at Trump for decades does not understand this about him.
I don't think bringing it up as an idea is sabotaging going to Mars. Calm your tits, their flappin' again.
I specifically listed above what I meant. It seems you want to over-react to every statement.
As far as 100 days, i don't really care about it. I only mention it because that is the time frame that has passed. Again. I don't see the issue. You sound very partisan and very bitter. Give your tits a rest... They must be soar from flappin' so much.
No, please read what I wrote above. As for emotions, you sound like you are some sort of snowflake that can't take any criticism of Trump.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
It is the point because those are the times we live in. Different times for different challenges.
And yet you ignore every single aspect of the times that destroys you argument.
If that is outsourced to private industry then that point becomes moot. Again, all I said was potential overlap. You are projecting what I say.
So what you are saying you want to replace an agency that does something today with a private organization that does not exist today? And yet you want to get to Mars in 4 years time. Good luck with that. Privatization doesn't solve this problem; it just moves the problem somewhere else.
I am not slandering science by calling out political crap masqueraded as science
Which is irrelevant to this entire discussion.
Calm down and stop chasing the boogeyman you built up in your head. Two sides can be right and two sides are required to make a coin. If you think it is unfair to one side try being on the other and try to understand their perspective.
You are the some that seems so sensitive when anyone points out the flaws in your arguments.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I didn't say it was "simple", I simply meant that whoever said that "it would get eroded away just as quickly as it was generated" has no idea what he's talking about (out of his ass, apparently). No, it wouldn't. The stripping effect is still very, very slow. We can measure how slow it is. Granted, the artificial generation could be insufficiently faster for us, on a timescale of our recent civilization, but it would definitely be much faster than the loss rate.
Ezekiel 23:20
If you just landed on Mars, the nearest chemist could actually be on Earth!
Ezekiel 23:20
What exactly can a human do that a rover can't? More importantly, what can a human do that a THOUSAND rovers, each with uniquely specialized instrument packages, can't do?
Yep, You get it. I think we're just about at the end of the era where geology, mineral exploration, etc even on Earth can be done by a guy with a shovel, a pickaxe and a mule. If that's your thing better get out into the wilderness NOW because you'll be lucky to get 30 years in the field. And that's on Earth where you don't need breathing gear, a high tech suit, etc,etc,etc just to move around
There may be some cases where planetary exploration works best with a robot, human team. But the human probably is mostly going to be someplace safe (e.g. in orbit) not down in the adit sorting gravel.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
"this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." - Obama
counted Obama using the words "I," "me," and "my" a total of 199 times in a 2014 speech where he vowed to use executive orders to bypass Congress if they wouldn't acquiesce to his agenda.
Unless the context you cut off started out, "I decided to save humanity from itself and signed EOs to curb carbon emissions because I alone know the dangers climate change poses to our species," your quote has nothing to do with changing timelines simply to allow taking credit for the achievements.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
No. I've tried running. I end up with injuries when my run goes over a couple of miles.
Therefore, it is impossible for a human being to run a marathon. Q.E.D.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
What you are really saying is that we should colonize Venus first.
The current record for instrument package survival under Venerian conditions is what? Two hours and seven minutes I think. How about you go colonize Venus and I'll stay here make sure nobody steals your beer cap collection? Have a great trip and send lots of postcards.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
And yet you ignore every single aspect of the times that destroys you argument.
Yes, put it in a video about you DESTROYING penandpaper. So far it has been because War, budget (cuts to auxiliary programs), Trump is egotistical and it's only 4 years. Sorry if I don't find those convincing or truthful. Aside from the Space Race argument the others are weak to me but even that doesn't take into account that Kennedy didn't have the infrastructure or industry starting on that goal while Trump does have that behind him so it becomes an entirely budgetary decision.
So, the other argument about budgets and cuts when talking about a purely budgetary thing is dumb because it's possible to continue funding those auxiliary programs by that new directive to "get your ass to mars". Saying "but but Trump is cutting science funding for auxiliary programs that would make that mission possible" is a stupid argument because the budget of any mission might include that. Any other scientific program funding cut is what I was alluding to in my last point...
That doesn't even being to address: there is a difference between a POTUS saying something and doing something. Also it's 4-8 years not 4. There is a difference.
Pwn me more. I don't care but don't blame me for not being convinced of your "but Trump is bad"..."Did you guys know Trump sux!!!111!!".
So what you are saying you want to replace an agency that does something today with a private organization that does not exist today? And yet you want to get to Mars in 4 years time. Good luck with that. Privatization doesn't solve this problem; it just moves the problem somewhere else.
Did I miss the fact that NASA was trying to get out of LEO for the last few number of years? Or was Trump being dumb again and directing NASA before taking office and NASA listened? Where have you been? -.-
Which is irrelevant to this entire discussion.
You brought up funding to science and Trumps possible cuts to various science institutions including NASA. Either those budgetary concerns are relevant to the conversation or not. Pick one. This is getting tedious.
You are the some that seems so sensitive when anyone points out the flaws in your arguments.
You like projecting? I get annoyed with tedious arguments and you are being tedious.
The current record for instrument package survival under Venerian conditions is what? Two hours and seven minutes I think.
I guess not as bad as L.A. although vog instead of smog?
Seems the comments have de-evolved into its normal Trump bashing. I'm going to start a new thread to debate the actual scientific merits of going to Mars.
While I'm pro space I don't see much need at this point for us to be focusing on a maned mission to Mars. I think we will eventually go to Mars but I think we should focus our time and resources on near Earth activity right now.
By near Earth, I mean Earth and Moon. We have been tossing up crap in to near Earth orbit for decades. We should return to the moon first, build a base there, maybe a colony, and focus on getting our crap together first.
We should get more actual space experience and pull the theoretical technology off the shelf and put it to use. I don't believe we will be ready for a manned mission to Mars till we have perfect space based building, artificial gravity, close to 100% recyclable life-support systems as we can get, magnetic radiation shielding, and nuclear propulsion.
I don't believe we should aim for Mars till we can make flights to the moon as routine as jet travel across the world is today. Once we have mastered these technologies and routine travel to the moon then we should be ready for Mars. An as a bonus if we are ready for Mars then we should be ready to go any where in the solar system.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Improvise. Fix broken equipment. Locate places where interesting data might be acquired. Run thousands of different experiments.
Yes, you could send thousands of rovers and pretty much do all that. But one person can literally do the job of thousands of robots. And Each of those robots has to be designed and built and delivered by a small army of people. Yes, it takes a lot of money to put a person there compared to a robot. But the human is so much more versatile.
Already been done :)
(But it's long since time for a followup, that was just a very simple, short-term pair of probes)
"He's a liar whose lawyer is lying about his lying lawyer's lies."
You seem to be of the impression that people are talking about the surface of Venus.
"He's a liar whose lawyer is lying about his lying lawyer's lies."
The half-life of the Martian atmosphere is about 500 million years. We can create an artificial magnetosphere by reducing the iron oxide that makes Mars red to iron, making magnets out of it, and pointing them all in the same direction. We can also run superconducting cables along lines of latitude, or position such cables "upwind" of Mars to deflect the Solar wind.
But all this talk of terraforming is premature. Nobody needs to terraform Mars until there are millions of people living there. Until then, we only need to terraform the space under our habitat domes. By the time we get serious about the whole planet, there may be a better answer.
You don't need a magnetosphere if you build a dome around the whole planet.
Earth-normal pressure on Mars is sufficient to float 25 tons of stuff per square meter. For quartz-type glass, that's a ten meter thick layer. That's more than enough to keep the air from escaping.
Fortunately, we don't have to build it all at once. Build a habitat dome for your Mars colony. Extend it a little at a time as needed. Build more domes for other colonies. Eventually the domes merge and you have the whole planet covered. But you don't build more than you need at any point in time.
A dome will warm the space under it via the greenhouse effect, because it actually *is* a greenhouse, literally. The right type of glass, or a filter, will slow the infrared heat loss.
I think you're way too optimistic. 50 years, atmosphere generation, we COULD live there ???
Even the most subtle changes in our environment have huge impact on life on earth. It would take hundreds if not thousands of years for our bodies to evolve and handle life on mars. Unless we manage to force those changes into genetics, but ... well, in 50 years ?
8 years. Adorable.
NASA was established by President Dwight D. Eisenhower 1958 and built off the earlier efforts by the Air Force. Kenedy gave his speech in 1961, so hey, close enough.
NASA is certainly further along, but the trip to Mars is likewise a larger task to tackle by a factor or two. We DO have a space industry, and heavy rockets, and have placed a robotic workforce on Mars. Really, the only hard part is keeping people alive that long in space, like the ISS, and getting them back. Mostly a matter of money. So? Is he going to pay for it?
No, he hasn't said anything about the JWST. I'm not even sure he knows it exists. This far along in the project it's unlikely that he could disrupt it. But it's a worry. It's not so much "projecting" so far as spotting the trend. He's done his best to dismantel the EPA and the FCC. I imagine that he'll get frustrated that Peggy failed to speed it up, and he'll fire NASA. Yes, that sounds ridiculous and idiotic, but that's the president we've come to know.
8 years. Adorable.
He said it. Adorable or not that is what the timeline was. Were you saying adorable at the prospect of POTUS Trump? Is that still adorable?
Mostly a matter of money. So? Is he going to pay for it?
As with anything politics it is always about money. So, I think we both can agree that if somehow he pulled money from his ass (whether that was negotiation on budget increase for NASA either directly or by cutting elsewhere or through other means ) that we could get to Mars in 4-8. 4 being a stretch and not likely (though possible) but 8 at "the worst case" is definitely in the realm of possibility aside from the politics of funding.
As far as JWST, you do know the budget that was approved by Congress and signaled be singed by Trump gave NASA a funding boost? It seems, that aside from climate science, Trump likes NASA. I suspect that his dislike of climate science, aside from the ass-hattery denial, is also because of the regulation that comes with it that has a direct impact on people that may have voted for him. Just because he doesn't like some things doesn't mean he is going to kill everything science. He hasn't signaled any such motivations. From what I can tell, it seems that he is friendly to space operations and exploration.
As for emotions, you sound like you are some sort of snowflake that can't take any criticism of Trump.
So, when someone says: "Trump is an idiot because he wants it done in 4 years given the state of the project now" and I correct their timeline and wonder how that is different from another president that made a similar goal... That means I am a snowflake that can't take any criticism of Trump? top kek.
At least someone else mentioned the space race as to why Kennedy wasn't stupid for doing but even then that doesn't excuse the claim that trump is an idiot for making nearly the same kind of goal. It wasn't even a goal just a quib a question to an astronaut in a publicity stunt for nerds like you and me to discuss and to get excited about (How is the possibility of getting to Mars sooner not exciting!!!!! WTF is wrong with you). Probably to get a feel for what would excite the electorate on a project like that because everything is money in politics. Yet somehow, he is an idiot for talking about something that should get us nerds excited because... Trump. I don't understand. I really don't.
The only limit to getting to Mars in 4-8 years is money (in politics that is everything) which a lot of people in NASA and the industry have been saying for some time. Yet, now it's different because Trump brought it up. WHY? Hell, the reason the Mars missions were pushed to the 2030's was because of funding!
What I get from you is this: "No.. No.. It's totally different this time! You see Trump is stupid and ur stupid cuz u defend Trump! LOL u mad bro".... Quite the uh... "argument" you have.
Everything old is new and everything new is old.
Yes, put it in a video about you DESTROYING penandpaper. So far it has been because War, budget (cuts to auxiliary programs), Trump is egotistical and it's only 4 years. Sorry if I don't find those convincing or truthful.
Is stating a fact that Trump's proposed budget does nothing about the deficit but rather shifts the spending from domestic programs to military increases going to always trigger you?
Aside from the Space Race argument the others are weak to me but even that doesn't take into account that Kennedy didn't have the infrastructure or industry starting on that goal while Trump does have that behind him so it becomes an entirely budgetary decision.
Your sentence makes no sense with reality. Currently there exists no rockets for Mars. The modules do not exist. As part of previous administrations, there has been some money spent towards the Mars mission so plans and designs are in the works. If Trump wants to go to Mars in 4 or 8 years, he's going to have to direct lots of money towards that endeavor including funding scientific research.
So, the other argument about budgets and cuts when talking about a purely budgetary thing is dumb because it's possible to continue funding those auxiliary programs by that new directive to "get your ass to mars".
The flaw with this argument is that the lack of forethought. If you want to get to Mars, it has to be funded. Period. Currently NASA has many other programs that have nothing to do with Mars, but NASA has always had programs that had nothing to with their main mission in the past: The Space Shuttle, the Moon, etc. In fact when the main focus was the Space Shuttle, NASA was conducting missions to Mars to lay the groundwork for future missions. When the main focus will be Mars, NASA will probably be conducting exploratory missions to other planets. But according to you they should not plan for the future and only focus on the one thing that you want them to focus on. That is a lack of forethought.
Saying "but but Trump is cutting science funding for auxiliary programs that would make that mission possible" is a stupid argument because the budget of any mission might include that. Any other scientific program funding cut is what I was alluding to in my last point...
No I did not say that. Again, read above. I said Trump has proposed cutting science programs some of which will hurt the Mars mission. More critically the Trump administration has not proposed an actual budget for Mars but rather simply directs cuts to other programs. There has not been any detailed study of what it will take to get to Mars in 4 or 8 years. Merely the directive has been to do so and fund it by cutting other things.
That doesn't even being to address: there is a difference between a POTUS saying something and doing something. Also it's 4-8 years not 4. There is a difference.
So a proposed budget sent to Congress is not "something"? How about all the signed executive orders? Are they "something" to you? I said 4 or 8 years in the above statements. Please read.
Did I miss the fact that NASA was trying to get out of LEO for the last few number of years?
Yes, this is my point: You need to research more. While NASA is not currently deploying the retired space shuttle to ISS, they have not stopped designing future launch systems like the SLS which would be used for any Mars missions. NASA also has not stopped satellites as part of other missions. NASA might use other rockets for certain missions like Atlas and Space X instead of using 100% their own rockets.
Or was Trump being dumb again and directing NASA before taking office and NASA listened? Where have you been? -.-
I would ask you the
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
So, when someone says: "Trump is an idiot because he wants it done in 4 years given the state of the project now" and I correct their timeline and wonder how that is different from another president that made a similar goal... That means I am a snowflake that can't take any criticism of Trump? top kek.
When someone does thing idiotic, what you call it? This was from the article: " Trump replied: "Well, we want to try and do it during my first term or, at worst, during my second term." First term would be idiotic. Second term would require lots of work.
At least someone else mentioned the space race as to why Kennedy wasn't stupid for doing but even then that doesn't excuse the claim that trump is an idiot for making nearly the same kind of goal.
And why am I answerable to what someone else said? And again, my opinion isn't that Trump is an idiot for wanting it. I said Trump was an idiot for not understanding why it can't be done in 4 years. It might be done in 8 years if he doesn't do things to sabotage the program.
It wasn't even a goal just a quib a question to an astronaut in a publicity stunt for nerds like you and me to discuss and to get excited about
Trump says a lot of things. I personally don't believe he wants to do it for another other reason than publicity.
When did I ever say that I was not in favor of a Mars missions? Please point that out. You are using a strawman argument. Pointing out that getting it done in 4 years given the state of things today is not practical. If Trump wants to do it in 8 years, he has to stop opposing science and properly fund the project.
Probably to get a feel for what would excite the electorate on a project like that because everything is money in politics. Yet somehow, he is an idiot for talking about something that should get us nerds excited because... Trump. I don't understand. I really don't.
Again the problem is that you don't understand that nerds are not opposed to the project. I'm not opposed to Trump being the first President to do it. I am asserting out that he doesn't understand what it takes. He doesn't understand why it might take 8 years. He doesn't understand there is a great deal of work to be done. He can't simply sign an executive order and it will happen. Someone has to do the real work, and Trump has never been the type of person to do that.
The only limit to getting to Mars in 4-8 years is money (in politics that is everything) which a lot of people in NASA and the industry have been saying for some time. Yet, now it's different because Trump brought it up. WHY? Hell, the reason the Mars missions were pushed to the 2030's was because of funding!
Do you really know the limits are because I don't think you do understand the scope of the mission? There are lots of problems to be solved. It's not just a matter of money. Money is merely the start. The Mars program has not received the funding it should and money would help. Even if all the problems were solved, the systems have to be built. That will take some time. 4-8 years is ambitious at best, foolhardy at worst. This is why 2030s is the current projected date.
What I get from you is this: "No.. No.. It's totally different this time! You see Trump is stupid and ur stupid cuz u defend Trump! LOL u mad bro".... Quite the uh... "argument" you have.
It would help if you weren't so sensitive about Trump. So far I have pointed about real, practical issues about the Mars mission.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Yes. Yes it is. It's as adorable as his jerky handshake. As adorable as his proposed fix to immigration of "building a wall". And that Mexico will pay for it. As adorable as his one-page budget plan. As his prospect of reforming obamacare. As his prospect of making a trade deal with Germany and only after 13 tries accepting that he has to make a trade deal with the EU. And it's adorable that the fucking German chancellor had to explain that to him.
And in case English isn't your first language or you're really tone deaf, "Adorable" in this case is being used sarcastically to imply his plans are small, childish, and hopeless. As if made by a child.
And yes, it's adorable that he thinks he'll get a second term.
As with anything politics it is always about money. So, I think we both can agree that if somehow he pulled money from his ass (whether that was negotiation on budget increase for NASA either directly or by cutting elsewhere or through other means ) that we could get to Mars in 4-8. 4 being a stretch and not likely (though possible) but 8 at "the worst case" is definitely in the realm of possibility aside from the politics of funding.
Yes I agree. Hurzzah for common ground.
So do you think he's going to pay for it? Because at this point it'll have to start with the 2019 budget, because it's not in his 2018 budget request. Do you really think NASA can get a human on Mars in one year?
His proposed budget for NASA has it escaping cuts, which is nice, but the 0.4% increase it's NOWHERE NEAR the boost needed to get our ass to Mars. Woo, keeping up with inflation.
So far Trump isn't hostile to space. That's good. I like that. But from everything else I've seen of the man, I imagine it's simply because he hasn't thought too much about it. It's definitely a line-item in the budget, so it's certainly nice to see he hasn't axed it flat-out. Once he realizes that it won't get him a hotel on Mars during his term, I worry that he'll just fire everyone.
Just like healthcare reform, the middle-east, and getting better trade deals, what do you think he's going to do once he finds out it's a lot harder than he imagined? (But hey, props to him for getting China to take action against N. Korea, let's hope it turns out alright).
We can send lots and lots of rovers for the cost of one geologist.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The atmosphere will be gone again very fast in astronomical terms. If we can spend a century and get it to a usable state that would last a tiny fraction of a cosmic eyeblink, like a thousand years, that would work.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You aren't going to get a third party. One of the current parties might self-destruct (my money is currently on the Republicans) and be replaced, but the political dynamics mean two large parties, one of which will be whining, and one of which will be doing all sorts of unproductive things.
The problem with Trump's announcement is that nobody has any faith that he's going to follow through. If he increased NASA funding for this, and kept it up even when it became clear that he wasn't going to be President when it happens, that would be good. It would also be astonishing, as Trump has a short attention span and says a whole lot of things he doesn't mean a month later.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The first moon landing took place after the end of what could have been Kennedy's second term. The Mars mission may take longer. We know much more and have much better technology, but it's a vastly more difficult mission. Putting an aggressive deadline on a mission like this is just inviting disaster.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Yes. Very adorable like Clinton 90% chance of winning.
Anyway, I think that if Congress were to agree on funding in 4-8 years a manned mission to Mars is possible.
Agreed on the difficulty but we also know a lot more and as you say better technology. Honestly, i think its just a funding issue to achieve that kind of aggressive deadline. I don't think that it will be funded but that aside. It is very much possible to make it a reality without taking on much increased risk.
Descriptors aside, he said try for first and for sure achieve in second. That is very possible.
Trump was an idiot for not understanding why it can't be done in 4 years...It's not just a matter of money.
Even as far back as 2009 it was just a matter of money. Yes, it is one of those problems you can solve by throwing lots of money at it. Even SpaceX's timeline is within the possibility of Trumps albeit a little late. Yes, there are challenges but you haven't really said anything that could stop NASA from achieving that goal if money was supplied and direction given by their boss (Trump). Whether you would want to spend that money is the question.
Why is it that SpaceX can do it and not NASA? Why is it that for nearly a decade the only constraint to getting to Mars was money but now it's different? Why is it that Trump parading what Musk is basically trying to do is Trump being an idiot and not understanding the challenges? Does that mean Musk doesn't understand the challenges for such an aggressive timeline?
https://www.newscientist.com/a...
https://www.extremetech.com/ex...
Have you only recently followed news about space and Mars because your obsessed hatred of Trump?
Yep, that's right. Kennedy had NOTHING to do with funding NASA. It was all congress. Distance yourself and your boy from this issue. Run for the hills. Point blame elsewhere. Deflect! Spin! If only CONGRESS would do something about it.
Oh wait, congress is controlled by Republicans too. Remember when it was so easy for them to say "no" in harmony?
Alright. After avoiding the question so many times, I'm calling it. You DON'T think Trump is going to pay for a Mars mission. So what's the point of telling an astronaut to "hurry it up"?
What are you on about? Are you really this bitter over the election?
You DON'T think Trump is going to pay for a Mars mission.
He started a conversation about it. I have no idea what Trump will do. Even if he did support it I don't think Congress will go for it. There is no spin. Congress controls the purse. Trump wanting a budget doesn't mean he gets it. He has to convince people. How do you convince people? One way is to get people excited and to show lawmakers that excitement. You know... POLITICS.
So what's the point of telling an astronaut to "hurry it up"?
To get people talking about Mars. To get an idea of what would excite the electorate. To play with peoples minds. To keep opponents on their toes. To show support for NASA. Good god are you really this inept on publicity? Whatever you think of Trump he knows the media and he knows how to play the media. He has been in the media for some time with various successes and ran a successful presidential campaign against a better funded and more qualified opponent. Obviously he is doing something right with the media. Just because you are too bitter to see any silver lining doesn't mean the world is as shitty as your outlook and attitude.
And if he follows up, and pushes for a NASA budget, and makes NOT going to Mars political suicide, then he'll get congress to pass a proposed budget with the funds to pay for it. It'd be great if that happened. So if he's not going to pay for it... now... but he's buttering up congress to get ready to pay for it. That would require him to actually continue pushing for it, right? Do you think he's going to do that? Or was this just a flippant remark on TV? Was he just fucking with people's minds? He could do ANYTHING and his supporters like you will claim either it's part of some grand scheme he now unveiling or it's just political machinations to "keep his opponents on their toes".
No, of course you have no idea what Trump is going to do. You have no idea what you elected to office and no one is sure what's sarcasm and what's policy.
Oh, and demagogues have been long-studied and are well known. Get the workers to vote for you by blaming a minority and promising prosperity. We've been here before.
Consider for a moment that you're blindly trusting a politician. Good luck with that.
I have no idea what your point is or why you are rambling. It is obvious you are very bitter over the election.
Get over it.
Descriptors aside, he said try for first and for sure achieve in second. That is very possible.
And I have said to you repeatedly, Trump should stop opposing the science needed for this if he wants to accomplish his goal.
Even as far back as 2009 it was just a matter of money. Yes, it is one of those problems you can solve by throwing lots of money at it.
No it's not. There's a lot science and engineering to overcome. Money is just the start. Some things may not have solutions and no amount of money
Even SpaceX's timeline is within the possibility of Trumps albeit a little late.
If and only if the launch system was the only problem to be solved. Please tell me how NASA is going to overcome the issue of life support.
Yes, there are challenges but you haven't really said anything that could stop NASA from achieving that goal if money was supplied and direction given by their boss (Trump). Whether you would want to spend that money is the question.
well if did any research, you'd know that life support is a major obstacle to overcome. There are some ideas to help but it's a major problem.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Oh... look. It's you with making tedious points and going in circles. Aren't you dizzy yet? At least you mentioned one obstacle, which does not necessarily stop nasa from being able to do it if you are willing to accept increased risks or costs. By sending up more radiation shielding (water) or by packing more fuel to shorten the trip which reduces exposure. Yes, you potentially increase danger but there are cost considerations to limit those dangers. Again, the reason the 2030's were set was because of funding and because NASA was left basically directionless for quite some time. That isn't a limit for a manned mission to mars within a decade. That is a cost benefit analysis of what is acceptable risks and costs we are willing to bear.
If and only if the launch system was the only problem to be solved.
This tells me you haven't followed space news about this. A launch system was a major consideration and always has been. That was one of the goals of Project Constellation but there were other systems on the horizon from SpaceX, and SLS. When project Constellation was canceled and subsequently the heavy lift rocket it funded nasa was left without a heavy rocket or shuttle. When Obama gave the goal of 2030's for NASA it was around the same time that NASA was directed to get out of LEO and privatize those launch capabilities giving SpaceX a market to service. The idea being, Nasa didn't need to develop a heavly lift rocket because someone else will. We have it now. It isn't 2009.
Currently, we're working on heavy lift rockets, which we're going to need. The US currently doesn't have an acceptable method of launching people into space. We'll have those things working well in a few years, but that's not going to give us a Mars landing by 2021, and if there's significant unexpected delays likely not by 2025.
We also can't just land people on Mars and let them die quickly. We either need to bring them back, which means sending enough stuff to Mars to support a large space mission, or keep sending supplies (and we need to decide on the tradeoff: how much stuff do we send to get partial self-sufficiency?).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Oh... look. It's you with making tedious points and going in circles. Aren't you dizzy yet? At least you mentioned one obstacle, which does not necessarily stop nasa from being able to do it if you are willing to accept increased risks or costs
I don't know about you but keeping astronauts alive during their Mars mission seems to be a rather large obstacle. If NASA can't do that then the other risks and costs are moot.
By sending up more radiation shielding (water) or by packing more fuel to shorten the trip which reduces exposure.
As for shortening the trip, what technology do you propose to do that? Without advances in propulsion (which don't exist), it will be about a 9 month journey. Certainly NASA is going to look into shortening the trip as much as possible; however, the best estimates are 9 months one way. That does not include a round trip nor time on Mars. At best a trip to Mars is multi-year endeavor for astronauts. It would be less if NASA does not plant the astronauts to return or live.
Here is the problem: An average Mars mission will take 9 months one way to Mars. Even on the ISS with all the latest in life support technology, ISS has to be re-supplied every 3 months. What we are talking about basics like air, water, and food. We haven't even gotten to things like parts and mission supplies.
However you seemed focused on exposure which isn't really the main problem.
Yes, you potentially increase danger but there are cost considerations to limit those dangers. Again, the reason the 2030's were set was because of funding and because NASA was left basically directionless for quite some time.
I'm still talking about the practical nature of getting a crew to Mars alive long enough to complete a mission. There are dangers but I'm still talking about practicality.
That isn't a limit for a manned mission to mars within a decade. That is a cost benefit analysis of what is acceptable risks and costs we are willing to bear.
I don't know why this is even important. There are always risks and rewards which is part of space exploration. As I've stated previously this is about the practicality and the work that will be needed to make Mars happen which you nor Trump seem to understand.
This tells me you haven't followed space news about this. A launch system was a major consideration and always has been. That was one of the goals of Project Constellation but there were other systems on the horizon from SpaceX, and SLS. When project Constellation was canceled and subsequently the heavy lift rocket it funded nasa was left without a heavy rocket or shuttle. When Obama gave the goal of 2030's for NASA it was around the same time that NASA was directed to get out of LEO and privatize those launch capabilities giving SpaceX a market to service. The idea being, Nasa didn't need to develop a heavly lift rocket because someone else will. We have it now. It isn't 2009.
You just demonstrated my point. I said the launch system isn't the only obstacle to Mars which you then talked about the history of the launch system and ignored all the other problems.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
k.
Using mass from where?
I suppose you would be able to use the entire Asteroid Belt. That would get you around a 0.5% increase in Mars' mass. Or the Galilean satellites of Jupiter for about a 60% mass increase, though you'd have to move them around twice as far and would run a high chance of actually completely disrupting Mars in the process of delivery.
I agree that Mars is a snare and a delusion. Just live inside asteroids and put up with the fact that you have no option but to maintain your environment.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
What makes you think that you know that?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Wow, you have no dreams, curiosity or sense of adventure. It can't be done. Don't leave your basement, you might achieve something.
Since I left my comfortable job and started following my dreams, I have worked in 3 different countries overseas (and just recently accepted a job in a 4th), I've cycled the length of a country or two, I've fallen in love with women I probably shouldn't have (but enjoyed it nonetheless), and gained more qualifications than I could get in a lifetime. Even as I study and work, I'm still beavering away at home on a computer project that could change the world and how we think about language teaching.
I have dreams, I have curiosity, and I have a great sense of adventure. But that doesn't stop me being realistic. Mars is an attainable goal, but there's a lot of work still to do before we get there. To return to the marathon analogy of a previous poster: anyone can do it, but it takes a lot of work to get ready to do it.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'