# NASA admits they can't send a human to Mars



## mamooth (Jul 14, 2017)

Basically, NASA finally admits it's all been wishful thinking. They're not even close to being able to do it, and they won't be close in the foreseeable future. While they say it's all about money, it's far more than money. They just don't have the tech.

NASA finally admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars

It doesn't help that they'll miss the best launch window. There are two 'launch window cycles' at play. There's the more important window, which comes every 2.2 years, when Earth is close to "catching up" with Mars. Every Mars launch happens in that window. And there's a less strong 16-year cycle, based on the eccentricity of each planet's orbit. That reaches a minimum in 2018. We'll miss that window, then it won't get that good again until the 2030's. It's maybe a 20% difference in flight time, but if you're trying to have your people not die from radiation, minimizing trip time is vital.

So, realistically, nothing until the 2030s, at the earliest. Maybe Chang-Díaz will have his VASIMR plasma drive working by then, which would help considerably. If it works, it would have much more power than the present Hall thruster plasma drives, and get twice the "gas mileage".

NASA’s longshot bet on a revolutionary rocket may be about to pay off

And another thing, it's been found the Martian soil is so toxic, it will kill all bacteria. Any bacterial life on Mars will have to be buried deep. The new European robot probe will bring a 2-meter drill.

Mars covered in toxic chemicals that can wipe out living organisms, tests reveal


----------



## BlackFlag (Jul 14, 2017)

That sucks.  I still hope to see it in my lifetime.  The world could use another space race.

I hear they're working on nuclear powered rockets again?  I don't know why the stopped.  Conventional energy is good for getting us to the moon, but no more I think.  Time for something new.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 14, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Basically, NASA finally admits it's all been wishful thinking. They're not even close to being able to do it, and they won't be close in the foreseeable future. While they say it's all about money, it's far more than money. They just don't have the tech.
> 
> NASA finally admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars
> 
> ...


Yup.....NASA has been taken over by Democrats.
They can't do anything productive.
All they can do is screw everything up.
8 years of Obama has turned NASA from a "Can Do Anything" organization to a "Can't Do Shit" club.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 14, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Basically, NASA finally admits it's all been wishful thinking. They're not even close to being able to do it, and they won't be close in the foreseeable future. While they say it's all about money, it's far more than money. They just don't have the tech.
> 
> NASA finally admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars



Hmmm NASA admitted they can't send a human to Mars with the current label of funding. Your article mentions technical challenges, but NASA isn't saying it can't be done- just that they don't have the funding.

_I can't put a date on humans on Mars, and the reason really is the other piece is, at the budget levels we described, this roughly 2 percent increase, we don’t have the surface systems available for Mars," said NASA's William H. Gerstenmaier, responding to a question about when NASA will send humans to the surface of Mars. "And that entry, descent and landing is a huge challenge for us for Mars."_

Of course Mars is a huge challenge- with lots of tech issues to still be resolved.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 14, 2017)

Not surprised that the usual partisan assholes don't care about the subject of the thread- just about attacking those they disagree with.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 14, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Basically, NASA finally admits it's all been wishful thinking. They're not even close to being able to do it, and they won't be close in the foreseeable future. While they say it's all about money, it's far more than money. They just don't have the tech.
> ...


Must be a political appointee.
They can't resist begging for more money.

Next they'll say that the GOP cut funding.


----------



## Manonthestreet (Jul 14, 2017)

Bezos will send first human sacrifices to Mars.


----------



## Mac1958 (Jul 14, 2017)

That's okay, I'm patient.

These people are amazing.  They'll get there.
.


----------



## miketx (Jul 14, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Not surprised that the usual partisan assholes don't care about the subject of the thread- just about attacking those they disagree with.


you should have seen all the democrats that worked at the prison. these losers could not even get to work on time! couldn't fill out paperwork, couldn't keep track of con movements, nothing.


----------



## miketx (Jul 14, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Basically, NASA finally admits it's all been wishful thinking. They're not even close to being able to do it, and they won't be close in the foreseeable future. While they say it's all about money, it's far more than money. They just don't have the tech.
> 
> NASA finally admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars
> 
> ...


Nasa already has ships that can get to mars in 3 days.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 14, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Basically, NASA finally admits it's all been wishful thinking. They're not even close to being able to do it, and they won't be close in the foreseeable future. While they say it's all about money, it's far more than money. They just don't have the tech.
> 
> NASA finally admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars
> 
> ...




*Basically, NASA finally admits it's all been wishful thinking. They're not even close to being able to do it, *

well that was to be expected 

when several years ago the democrats changed the aim of NASA 

from space to chasing man made global warming


----------



## Votto (Jul 14, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Basically, NASA finally admits it's all been wishful thinking. They're not even close to being able to do it, and they won't be close in the foreseeable future. While they say it's all about money, it's far more than money. They just don't have the tech.
> 
> NASA finally admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars
> 
> ...



If it meant beating the Russians to Mars back in the 1960's they could have done it.

Or if it meant bringing into existence a one world order for Progs today so long as they reach Mars first they would find a way to do it.

The problem is, there simply is not the will power to do it.


----------



## SavannahMann (Jul 14, 2017)

One of the private organizations I read from time to time is the Mars Society. 

The Mars Society

They have a lot of thinkers involved, and they've come up with solutions, but there is a glaring problem. First, most of their solutions are multiple missions to land supplies and materials on Mars before the Humans go. The risk of something being damaged this way is huge. But it answers one of the big questions, how the hell do we do it?

I saw a documentary on the NASA Mars program. That was just nuts. The idea that you could or would send four astronauts in a single capsule about twice as large as the Apollo capsule is just insane when the journey would take months for the round trip. I don't care how awesome the people were, four people living in a minivan and unable to leave would go insane before they got to Mars. Also the problem of physical fitness. Even with exercise on the ISS the Astroauts have difficulty moving for several days upon their return to earth. The same would be true for a two or three month journey to Mars. The Astronauts would get there, and be unable to move around enough for a couple weeks, to even try surface operations. 

This could be solved with a centripetal force form of gravity on the ship heading to Mars, but that means more money, design work, testing, and assembling in orbit a huge vessel. This was done in the book "The Martian" and one can only guess at the expense the real world effort would have. 

In other words, it just ain't gonna happen to make some Geologists giddy for the chance at some rocks from Mars.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 14, 2017)

miketx said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Not surprised that the usual partisan assholes don't care about the subject of the thread- just about attacking those they disagree with.
> ...


LOL- I am not surprised you have spent most of your life at the prison.


----------



## Montrovant (Jul 14, 2017)

miketx said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Basically, NASA finally admits it's all been wishful thinking. They're not even close to being able to do it, and they won't be close in the foreseeable future. While they say it's all about money, it's far more than money. They just don't have the tech.
> ...


 
3 days, huh?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 14, 2017)

miketx said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Basically, NASA finally admits it's all been wishful thinking. They're not even close to being able to do it, and they won't be close in the foreseeable future. While they say it's all about money, it's far more than money. They just don't have the tech.
> ...



lol


----------



## BlackFlag (Jul 14, 2017)

miketx said:


> I never saw any democrats that could do anything. So sad to see the regression.
> 
> View attachment 138828


Okay, that made me laugh


----------



## miketx (Jul 14, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Non-gravitational speeds.


----------



## miketx (Jul 14, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


I spent a little over six years working there and had my fill of the worthless lying incompetent democrats who worked there. And you are typical of the democrat liars. You say you are not surprised I have spent most of my life in prison, when you have no clue what I have done - making you just another typical lying thug.


----------



## Borillar (Jul 14, 2017)

miketx said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...


Did you get a 10 year sentence?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 14, 2017)

miketx said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...



Oh so it wasn't most of your life. Just 6 years working there.

I guess that does explain why you turned out to be such a miserable excuse for a human being.


----------



## Montrovant (Jul 14, 2017)

miketx said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...



And NASA is hiding the ships traveling at "non-gravitational speeds" how and why?


----------



## miketx (Jul 14, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


The public, particularly popcorn sucking loons such as you just cannot take it right now. You do not have the temerity of reason.Wait until they reveal the the extra-solar object coming this way....


----------



## Pete7469 (Jul 14, 2017)

Mac1958 said:


> That's okay, I'm patient.
> 
> These people are amazing.  They'll get there.
> .



I don't share your optimism to a degree. I'm sure a lot of them are amazing and can get it done. It's the  cost that concerns me. Gov't workers decades ago were budget conscious, at least according to the relics I ran into while in gov't service. They said we throw more money away deliberately in order to maintain the budget than we do on actually accomplishing shit these days. In some cases I saw a lot of waste and camouflaged well paid welfare recipients whose only function was to interfere with other people's efforts to complete their objectives.

Maybe NASA isn't full of petty, self righteous assholes who undermine the efforts of other people for various reasons.

I doubt it.


----------



## Mac1958 (Jul 14, 2017)

Pete7469 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > That's okay, I'm patient.
> ...


Once we lose our curiosity and our humility, we're done.

It's already happened with our politics, I'd sure hate to see it happen with our science.

I'll even pay extra for it.
.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 14, 2017)

We have better things to do with our money

We have a wall to build


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 14, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Basically, NASA finally admits it's all been wishful thinking. They're not even close to being able to do it, and they won't be close in the foreseeable future. While they say it's all about money, it's far more than money. They just don't have the tech.
> 
> NASA finally admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars
> 
> ...


Despite all the politicians trying to repeat JFK's moon speech,  you are correct: We don't have the tech....and we won't ever have the tech unless we keep working on it.  One way to do so is to look at an L-5 or Lunar colony.  It's also a step to launching manned interplanetary missions.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 14, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> We have better things to do with our money...


Which is exactly what the Democrats said in killing the Apollo program.


----------



## Pete7469 (Jul 14, 2017)

Mac1958 said:


> Once we lose our curiosity and our humility, we're done.
> 
> It's already happened with our politics, I'd sure hate to see it happen with our science.
> 
> ...



So will people with billions of dollars who feel the urge to get off this rock. If the right people are involved I have no doubt it can be done.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 14, 2017)

Manonthestreet said:


> Bezos will send first human sacrifices to Mars.


Science (and Freedom) isn't Free.

Lots of people have died seeking knowledge.  It's a good way to go.  Much better than sitting on a porch in a wheelchair sucking on an oxygen canister for 15 years then strapped to bed and filled with tubes for another 5.


----------



## fncceo (Jul 14, 2017)

As incredible a feat as was the Apollo Program and man's bold adventure to the moon, it was done for all the wrong reasons.

The main mission of the Apollo Program was to beat Russia to the moon in the name of national pride.  It was done in the cheapest, fastest and non-sustainable way.  Once the Russians had been beaten to the moon, there was no reason to return.

The once proud and dedicated NASA no longer had a meaningful mission.  This is why humans who were able to land on the moon haven't left low-earth orbit in over 40 years and have no plans to doing so for at least another 20.  America has no manned space vehicles either in service or under construction.  More money is being spent on 'Star Wars' movies than actually manned space flight.

NASA has declined into a useless appendage whose main mission in life is to fabricate global warming data.  A federally funded Sierra Club.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 14, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > We have better things to do with our money...
> ...


What is a man going to do on Mars that a thousand rovers cannot?


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 14, 2017)

fncceo said:


> As incredible a feat as was the Apollo Program and man's bold adventure to the moon, it was done for all the wrong reasons.
> 
> The main mission of the Apollo Program was to beat Russia to the moon in the name of national pride.  It was done in the cheapest, fastest and non-sustainable way.  Once the Russians had been beaten to the moon, there was no reason to return.
> 
> ...


NASA has done some neat stuff
Hubble Telescope viewing the far reaches of space
Probes on Mars 
Flying outside our solar system
Flying by every planet

The future of space travel is R2D2 not Han Solo and Chewey


----------



## miketx (Jul 14, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> We have better things to do with our money
> 
> We have a wall to build


Have you ever noticed how you blow hot and cold all the time?


----------



## fncceo (Jul 14, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > As incredible a feat as was the Apollo Program and man's bold adventure to the moon, it was done for all the wrong reasons.
> ...




What is the point of going into space if machines have all the fun ...?


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 14, 2017)

fncceo said:


> As incredible a feat as was the Apollo Program and man's bold adventure to the moon, it was done for all the wrong reasons.
> 
> The main mission of the Apollo Program was to beat Russia to the moon in the name of national pride.  It was done in the cheapest, fastest and non-sustainable way.  Once the Russians had been beaten to the moon, there was no reason to return.
> 
> ...


Disagreed that NASA doesn't have a meaningful mission but readily agreed that the primary purpose of the first Moon mission was to beat the Russian.  The secondary purposes are still highly relevant.  The problem is that it's expensive and Democrats want to spend the money on entitlements and freebies.  The latest one being "free college".


----------



## miketx (Jul 14, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > As incredible a feat as was the Apollo Program and man's bold adventure to the moon, it was done for all the wrong reasons.
> ...


Nothing flies in space junior. Gravity pulls it.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 14, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Save the human race when a big rock hits Earth, a nuclear war starts or a supervolcano erupts.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 14, 2017)

miketx said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...


Gravity sucks


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 14, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


We cannot logistically sustain a colony on a distant planet. The cost would be prohibitive for the value received
Might as well start a colony on the bottom of the ocean.....it is closer


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jul 14, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Not surprised that the usual partisan assholes don't care about the subject of the thread- just about attacking those they disagree with.





Same thing they contribute to everything else in the world. The next thing the RW nutters will come up with is that the Sandy Hill kids are alive and well and living in a Jade Helm/FEMA facility ... If not on Mars, surely on the moon. They are being bred to serve as Dem voters to take the place of all those illegals on the other side of the non-existent wall.

Dale Smith MindWars CrusaderFrank
Does that sound about right?

This is always an interesting subject but not likely to ever happen. Besides, it would be a lot cheaper and doable to fix the planet we already have.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jul 14, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > We have better things to do with our money...
> ...




@Divine Wind

Dems wanted to build a wall?

Oh wait, as usual, you cherry pick posts so you can sling insults.

Dems didn't "kill the Apollo program".


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 14, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Agreed, which is why it would have to be self-sustaining.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 14, 2017)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Yes, they did. Bitch all you want but truth is truth.  The fact remains more money is spent on entitlements than research that could produce technology to alleviate suffering; self-sustaining energy sources, food "replicators", etc. 

This speech before a Congressional committee is 25min long but, IMHO, it's very inspirational.


----------



## Manonthestreet (Jul 14, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> > Bezos will send first human sacrifices to Mars.
> ...


Maybe they should be perfecting stuff on the moon eh.....so it doesnt have to be sacrificial


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 14, 2017)

Manonthestreet said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > Manonthestreet said:
> ...


Agreed as stated above, either a lunar colony or an L-5 colony.  Robot mining of asteroids could bring materials to an L-5 colony.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 14, 2017)

We're NOT going to fucking mars within the next 30 years. Period.

Not unless we're willing to spend half a Trillions dollars real planetary like ship to get there. America is on its last day as a world power and I wouldn't expect during these fucked up times the will or the wanting to do anything great.

America is finished....


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 14, 2017)

miketx said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Not surprised that the usual partisan assholes don't care about the subject of the thread- just about attacking those they disagree with.
> ...


And so the inmates, like you, had to teach them how to do it, correct? LOL, and what does your post or mine have to do with going to Mars? Both should be deleted.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 14, 2017)

miketx said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...


Oh where is my little tin hat, little tin hat, little tin hat.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 14, 2017)

I hate to say this but America peaked in the 50's, 60s and 70's. Why? Think about it for a second...
During that time we had
1. The best educational system on the planet
2. We dreamed of greatness as a people
3. We wanted better for our children and provided it 
4. We had some of the best infrastructure on this planet
5. Our industry lead the world
6. Our healthcare wasn't 35th in the world but closer to the top!!!
7. Our middle class was stronger and our dollar could buy a lot more.

The time for us to have gone to mars was in the 1970's. We're finished and are likely going to be butt boys with russia.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Jul 14, 2017)

NASA can't send humans to mars. So what's the problem, Trump and his family can still go. And the human race will cheeeer.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 14, 2017)

SPACE
*How Elon Musk Plans to Create a ‘Self-Sustaining City’ on Mars*

"If we can get the cost of moving to Mars to be roughly equivalent to a median house price in the United States, which is around $200,000, then I think the probability of establishing a self-sustaining civilization is very high," Musk writes. "I think it would almost certainly occur."

In order to achieve that price point, Musk outlines several steps to improve the cost of Mars travel by "five million percent": Spaceships must be fully reusable, they should be able to refuel in orbit, and then once again on Mars with fuel that is yielded from production plants built on the planet. Musk states that methane is the ideal propellant because the technical challenges to harvest it on Mars are significantly easier than substances like hydrogen, which he says is too expensive.

Once the engineering demands are met, it would be time to take off — which Musk is hopeful could begin as soon as 2023, according to an illustration in the paper. At least one million people would be needed to establish a self-sustaining city, he writes, estimating that spacecraft would be able to accommodate 100 people every two years. At that rate, he says it'll take "40-100 years to achieve a fully self-sustaining civilization on Mars."

How Elon Musk Plans to Create a 'Self-Sustaining City' on Mars

*It can be done and it will be done. And the visionaries will do it, and the nay sayers will be left with egg on their face. *


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 14, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> I hate to say this but America peaked in the 50's, 60s and 70's. Why? Think about it for a second...
> During that time we had
> 1. The best educational system on the planet
> 2. We dreamed of greatness as a people
> ...


 You are far to pessimistic. There are a number of men of vision and means that are working to change this. The present resurgence of the 'knownothings' in this nation is temporary.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 15, 2017)

One man's plans.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 15, 2017)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Not surprised that the usual partisan assholes don't care about the subject of the thread- just about attacking those they disagree with.
> ...




Sandy Hill kids? BTW, I wouldn't even waste my time explaining to you that NASA is and has always been nothing but a front to cover up the real space program that has been in place since the late 40s and how the Nazis and Operation Paperclip fit into..... what Admiral Byrd found during Operation High Jump. You and those like you lack the intellect to grasp concepts that don't fit into that tiny mind of yours or fits the programming.  I know what I know and I don't need nor seek validation.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> We're NOT going to fucking mars within the next 30 years. Period.
> 
> Not unless we're willing to spend half a Trillions dollars real planetary like ship to get there. America is on its last day as a world power and I wouldn't expect during these fucked up times the will or the wanting to do anything great.
> 
> America is finished....


Probably correct about Mars. If and when the human race does go, it will probably be an international effort due to cost.

Anti-Americans often claim "America is finished".  Untrue, but they keep wishing it to be true.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> SPACE
> *How Elon Musk Plans to Create a ‘Self-Sustaining City’ on Mars*
> 
> "If we can get the cost of moving to Mars to be roughly equivalent to a median house price in the United States, which is around $200,000, then I think the probability of establishing a self-sustaining civilization is very high," Musk writes. "I think it would almost certainly occur."
> ...


Thanks, but that's a pretty big "if". 

The National Geographic Channel's "MARS" was both a drama, but interspaced with interviews of people, including Musk, on how to make a colony to Mars achievable.  There are a lot of hurdles. 

MARS


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 15, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Basically, NASA finally admits it's all been wishful thinking. They're not even close to being able to do it, and they won't be close in the foreseeable future. While they say it's all about money, it's far more than money. They just don't have the tech.
> 
> NASA finally admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars
> 
> ...



Apparently, evolution doesn't work on Mars or it would be teeming with microbes and life forms that thrive in perchlorate rich environment


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SPACE
> ...



Did the article mention where the colonists will draw potable water?


----------



## fncceo (Jul 15, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Ummm...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 15, 2017)

fncceo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...



So obvious!  Just bring a sink with them!


----------



## miketx (Jul 15, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> I hate to say this but America peaked in the 50's, 60s and 70's. Why? Think about it for a second...
> During that time we had
> 1. The best educational system on the planet
> 2. We dreamed of greatness as a people
> ...


And liberals like you have brought us to where we are today.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 15, 2017)

I think we should rename Mars "Progressive Utopia" and send Soros and his minions they

Win

Win


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 15, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> I hate to say this but America peaked in the 50's, 60s and 70's. Why? Think about it for a second...
> During that time we had
> 1. The best educational system on the planet
> 2. We dreamed of greatness as a people
> ...



that was before Progressives took over the schools and government took over healthcare


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 15, 2017)

I never really cared about Mars


But I always wanted to see Uranus


----------



## fncceo (Jul 15, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> But I always wanted to see Uranus



You wouldn't like it.  It's cold, irregular, and has a noxious atmosphere.


----------



## Lewdog (Jul 15, 2017)

Who's going to feed the sex slave children the government is hiding up there?


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


They'd have to make it.  One of the technological issues to be resolved....and one that has obvious applications on Earth.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Jul 15, 2017)

If it is the issue of money for research and development then the private sector along with the public sector should chip in and get this done by the 2030's.

Humans need to explore and Space is a wide open ocean that need exploring...


----------



## fncceo (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> They'd have to make it. One of the technological issues to be resolved....and one that has obvious applications on Earth.



There is abundant water ice in the north polar region of Mars.  There is evidence that there is at least some liquid water flowing on the surface and subsurface of Mars.

Water wouldn't be a problem for a small colony.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


Or the could just do it without having to colonize Mars


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

fncceo said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > They'd have to make it. One of the technological issues to be resolved....and one that has obvious applications on Earth.
> ...


True about the polar region, but not the best place for solar cells.  With an abundant renewable energy source, water can be made and/or recycled in a more (relatively) hospitable part of the planet.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


You don't have to go.  Why do you insist on others not going?


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


$$$$$


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> $$$$$


The technological benefits of NASA and the Apollo program are numerous and gave a return 700-1400% on the investment.  An international effort to colonize Mars has numerous advantages, one of which are the tech spinoffs for those living on Earth.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/80660main_ApolloFS.pdf

NASA -  Our First Lunar Program: What did we get from Apollo?

NASA Technologies Benefit Our Lives

The ROI Of Space Exploration

5 Popular Misconceptions About NASA | HuffPost
_The design, R&D, and manufacture of satellites, rockets, and other space-related technologies—and employing tens of thousands of people to do it—pump billions of dollars into the U.S. economy. _*Studies estimate a $7-$14 return on investment for every $1 of NASA expenditure*_, with all of it going directly back into the U.S. Treasury_.


----------



## fncceo (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> You don't have to go. Why do you insist on others not going?



I'd love to see humans in space ... but Elon Musk is a huckster.  He's riding a publicity wave and sucking up VC money but he's got no way of going to Mars.   Anyone who invests in his shill game won't see a dime of their investment returned.

He's claiming he can build 72 lifting bodies (the initial fleet expanding to 1,000 lifting bodies) with three times the capacity of a Saturn V using '60s technology (A Saturn V costs nearly 2 Billion dollars per launch in today's dollars).  He needs a Low-Earth Orbit fueling facility several times larger than the International Space Station (The cost of the ISS to date is 155 Billion dollars).  He needs all that before he can move 1 kilo of material to Mars.

Every kilo of water,  fuel, food, air, passengers, and toilet paper costs.  He claims he can get them into Low Earth Orbit for $2200 per kilo (that's 2/3 of a bottle of Evian without the bottle).  Elon himself would cost a quarter of million dollars to get into Low Earth Orbit.

The Market Cap of the Largest Company on Earth right now, Apple, is 700 Billion dollars.  Musk would have to raise twice again Apple's Market cap with no product, no ROI, and no business plan.

You have to admire his chutzpah.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > $$$$$
> ...


NASA has played that card for 50 years
Money invested in NASA has benefits in other areas

But we could also invest in R&D in Medicine, energy, agriculture, communications which would also benefit other areas


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Exactly. This is the Age of Robots!


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> I never really cared about Mars
> 
> 
> But I always wanted to see Uranus


There is no surface on the gas giant planets to land on


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > I never really cared about Mars
> ...


Gas is a problem


----------



## fncceo (Jul 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Exactly. This is the Age of Robots!



Never gonna excite the public ... You can't get bucks without Buck Rogers.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> If it is the issue of money for research and development then the private sector along with the public sector should chip in and get this done by the 2030's.
> 
> Humans need to explore and Space is a wide open ocean that need exploring...


Yes this is true.

Moon ~ Done!

Mars ~ Done!

Next?

OK, I'll help. Large moons of Jupiter & Saturn. Let rovers ruuule!


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...





rightwinger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


IIRC, we invest half a cent on NASA for every Federal dollar spent.  How much do we spend on Medicine, energy, etc?

BTW, solving the problems of a Mars mission would involve all of those areas.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 15, 2017)

fncceo said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. This is the Age of Robots!
> ...



The public quickly lost interest in the moon landings
Nobody has really cared that we don't go there for almost 50 years


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

We don't need expensive bases to explore. As a matter of fact, a base works against exploration. No bang for the buck. It is like a ball & chain around exploration.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


So would direct investment which is more efficient


----------



## percysunshine (Jul 15, 2017)

What is so effing special about Mars? It is cold and dry with no atmosphere. 

Venus could work. You would just need an air conditioner with a filter. Heck, cars in Los Angeles already have the technology.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

OK, I forgot we are not done with Mars yet. We still need a robot to bring back a bunch of Mars rocks & dirt. Several missions to different parts of the planet.

Study some, sell the rest on ebay


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

percysunshine said:


> What is so effing special about Mars? It is cold and dry with no atmosphere.
> 
> Venus could work. You would just need an air conditioner with a filter. Heck, cars in Los Angeles already have the technology.


Venus surface pressure is 90 atmospheres. It is not only hotter than Mercury, it would crush most landers (re russian attempts). More pressure protection = more mass = much more dollars to do it. 

Also it is impossible to even see your hand in front of your face. 

Definitely Venus is a planet for robots.


----------



## fncceo (Jul 15, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> The public quickly lost interest in the moon landings



Because, as I said before, the only reason we went their was to beat the Russians.  After that, we played frakking golf on the Moon.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

fncceo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The public quickly lost interest in the moon landings
> ...


Not true. We wanted rocks. Got a bunch on previous missions. Then we brought cars and turned the Moon into a racetrack. THEN we played golf.

The reason we planned so many missions was we expected more to fail or we might have got lucky and found something we didn't already know.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> We don't need expensive bases to explore. As a matter of fact, a base works against exploration. No bang for the buck. It is like a ball & chain around exploration.


Bu...bu....but what about how we're all gonna die from global warming?


----------



## fncceo (Jul 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Not true. We wanted rocks. Got a bunch on previous missions. Then we brought cars and turned the Moon into a racetrack. THEN we played golf.



I actually believe the folks running NASA never thought we'd really get there.  They had ZERO plans for any follow up after we got there.  I can't think a greater waste of an opportunity in History.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

percysunshine said:


> What is so effing special about Mars? It is cold and dry with no atmosphere.
> 
> Venus could work. You would just need an air conditioner with a filter. Heck, cars in Los Angeles already have the technology.


Mars presents the least hostile place to colonize.


----------



## percysunshine (Jul 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > What is so effing special about Mars? It is cold and dry with no atmosphere.
> ...




Ok, 90 atm is about 3000' water depth pressures. Not a problem for construction of a habitat. The engineering works at much greater water depths/pressures. A filter system which only allows oxygen in is possible. Landing something of that size would be an effort, but Venus is closer than Mars with a shorter travel time.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

fncceo said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Not true. We wanted rocks. Got a bunch on previous missions. Then we brought cars and turned the Moon into a racetrack. THEN we played golf.
> ...


Disagreed it was a waste.  The "folks running NASA" simply followed their directions from POTUS and Congress.

FWIW, NASA does a lot more than send rockets into space.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 15, 2017)

Yeah, let's put humans on another planet so they can fuck that one up as well. I am sure the banking oligarchs will get there first so they can set up their parasitic banks. Perhaps we should keep the virus that is humanity in one spot instead of spreading it. LOL!


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > We don't need expensive bases to explore. As a matter of fact, a base works against exploration. No bang for the buck. It is like a ball & chain around exploration.
> ...



Who told you that BS? rush?

What are you republicans doing in a thread about science, anyway?

republican method of getting to Mars. 

1) Put aspirin between your knees

2) Pray


----------



## percysunshine (Jul 15, 2017)

percysunshine said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...




Ok, on the surface of Venus, you would have to capture the oxygen from the upper atmosphere some how. Maybe an orbital colony or something.


----------



## fncceo (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> Disagreed it was a waste



Not a waste ... but a wasted opportunity.  NASA had a blank check for nearly a decade and left nothing in place but boot prints and tire track.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

percysunshine said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...


Did I forget to say that the atmosphere of Venus is also corrosive?

Land, do yer thing & get the hell outta Dodge FAST


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > Bu...bu....but what about how we're all gonna die from global warming?
> ...


A Left Wing Looney. 

I'm not a Republican.  Try again.


----------



## percysunshine (Jul 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



So is the atmosphere of Los Angeles. It is just a matter of degree.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

fncceo said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > Disagreed it was a waste
> ...


Not a blank check.  That check came with a directive.  If they didn't meet their annual goes, the Democratic Congress could cancel it.


----------



## fncceo (Jul 15, 2017)

percysunshine said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...



Venus is much more livable than people think ...


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> Yeah, let's put humans on another planet so they can fuck that one up as well. I am sure the banking oligarchs will get there first so they can set up their parasitic banks. Perhaps we should keep the virus that is humanity in one spot instead of spreading it. LOL!


Aliens are just as good & bad as we are.


----------



## percysunshine (Jul 15, 2017)

fncceo said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



I can't believe NASA is going to write off all interplanetary human colonization. They have to have a 'Plan B'....it is either Venus, or the moons of Jupiter...which are too far away to even contemplate.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

fncceo said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > Disagreed it was a waste
> ...


NASA did it exactly correct. We verified the Moon was exactly like Earth. Mars is turning out to be the same. 

No reason for a base on the moon. We get our long-term space science (as in effects on humans) from the space station.


----------



## fncceo (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> Not a blank check. That check came with a directive. If they didn't meet their annual goes, the Democratic Congress could cancel it.



I grew up during that time ... we all lived space.  Astronauts were rock stars and the world held it's breath for every launch.  Every school kid could name all the parts of the LEM and we drank Tang for breakfast.

The country will never be behind anything ever again the way it was behind the Space Program ... that's what I mean by a wasted opportunity.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 15, 2017)

fncceo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The public quickly lost interest in the moon landings
> ...


Trump could build a course there


----------



## fncceo (Jul 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> No reason for a base on the moon. We get our long-term space science (as in effects on humans) from the space station.



The International Space Station is closer to Earth than Las Vegas is to Los Angeles (and gambling is legal).


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



NASA has done some impressive shit well beyond the moon. We have sent space vehicles throughout the solar system. Have the pictures to show for it


----------



## percysunshine (Jul 15, 2017)

.
Just wait. If they find silver, tungsten, platinum or gold on the surface of Venus.....there will be an orbital mining colony in no time flat.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

fncceo said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > Disagreed it was a waste
> ...


Not true!

We made messes all over the place and left a lot of trash.

It's what we do!


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 15, 2017)

percysunshine said:


> .
> Just wait. If they find silver, tungsten, platinum or gold on the surface of Venus.....there will be an orbital mining colony in no time flat.


It would cost more than it's worth


----------



## percysunshine (Jul 15, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



Nasa is a government operation.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 15, 2017)

percysunshine said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...



AND it is incorporated.......


----------



## fncceo (Jul 15, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> It would cost more than it's worth



A little History.  In the 16th Century, Spain began bringing back gold from the New World and Portugal brought silver from Asia.  The new abundance of the precious metals led to huge devaluations and a European inflationary spiral that lasted a century.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

It didn't take long for space exploration to catch up with the current limits of chemistry & physics.

All kinds of fantasies came outta it like the suitcase flying cars of the Jetsons and 20 hour work week. Can you imagine nutcases in 3 dimensions?

It's back to the grunt work of basic science republicans hate & try to stop at every turn.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> It didn't take long for space exploration to catch up with the current limits of chemistry & physics.
> 
> All kinds of fantasies came outta it like the suitcase flying cars of the Jetsons and 20 hour work week. Can you imagine nutcases in 3 dimensions?
> 
> It's back to the grunt work of basic science republicans hate & try to stop at every turn.


It's not as sexy.....but investment in energy, healthcare, communications, transportation pays more dividends than getting a photo-op on Mars


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

fncceo said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > Not a blank check. That check came with a directive. If they didn't meet their annual goes, the Democratic Congress could cancel it.
> ...


So did I.  That doesn't change the fact NASA didn't have a choice in the nature of it's mission.  The funding was to go to the Moon within the decade.   

The USAF was working on a space plane of which the X-15 was one of many in a series designed to take us toward the Pan Am space plane seen in "2001".   That plan, like in the movie would have taken a few decades to get to the Moon, but allowed us to stay there with the infrastructure of Earth-to-Orbit space planes, a hub space station and Earth orbit-to-Moon transports.   All reusable .


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > It didn't take long for space exploration to catch up with the current limits of chemistry & physics.
> ...


True, but the goal isn't "a photo-op on Mars".


----------



## fncceo (Jul 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> It's back to the grunt work of basic science republicans hate & try to stop at every turn.



Change the record, it's getting old.  I have two science degrees and have voted Republican since the '70s.    When politics (anyone's politics) gets involved in science, it ceases to be science.


----------



## fncceo (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> The USAF was working on a space plane of which the X-15 was one of many in a series designed to take us toward the Pan Am space plane seen in "2001". That plan, like in the movie would have taken a few decades to get to the Moon, but allowed us to stay there with the infrastructure of Earth-to-Orbit space planes, a hub space station and Earth orbit-to-Moon transports. All reusable .



Yes, I remember.  As a young Boy Scout, my scoutmaster worked at Edwards AFB.  I met the X-15 / X-20 pilots and got to see all the space planes ... Congress killed that Air Force run space program and gave NASA the only ticket into space.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


Then what value do we get that can't be performed by a unmanned rovers?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


Fantasy


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 15, 2017)

fncceo said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > The USAF was working on a space plane of which the X-15 was one of many in a series designed to take us toward the Pan Am space plane seen in "2001". That plan, like in the movie would have taken a few decades to get to the Moon, but allowed us to stay there with the infrastructure of Earth-to-Orbit space planes, a hub space station and Earth orbit-to-Moon transports. All reusable .
> ...


X-15 was some cool stuff for the early 60s
They still have one in the Air and Space Museum


----------



## fncceo (Jul 15, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...



Imagine getting to shake hands with one of these guys when you're eight years old ...


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)




----------



## mamooth (Jul 15, 2017)

An interesting thing about Venus is that, given the density of the atmosphere, a hollow rigid habitation filled with air would float there, above the hot and corrosive zone.

That doesn't mean it's sensible to do so, of course. Humans do not build actual cities in places just because they're there. That explains the lack of self-sustaining large cities in Antarctica, which is an easily-accessible paradise compared to Mars. Launching mass out of big gravity well and then gently placing down into another big gravity well is not going to make economic sense in our lifetimes, and economics is what drives settlement.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 15, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Basically, NASA finally admits it's all been wishful thinking. They're not even close to being able to do it, and they won't be close in the foreseeable future. While they say it's all about money, it's far more than money. They just don't have the tech.
> 
> NASA finally admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars
> 
> ...


At the end of the Space Race?  A "mission to Mars instead of a War on Drugs", means we could have some sort of presence on Mars, by now.

We can never win a war on drugs.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

fncceo said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > The USAF was working on a space plane of which the X-15 was one of many in a series designed to take us toward the Pan Am space plane seen in "2001". That plan, like in the movie would have taken a few decades to get to the Moon, but allowed us to stay there with the infrastructure of Earth-to-Orbit space planes, a hub space station and Earth orbit-to-Moon transports. All reusable .
> ...


Correct.  Congress cancelled the USAF program, mandated NASA's Moon mission, then, once the JFK Moon goal was attained, cut NASA to the bone.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...


So was going to the Moon in the 1950s.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Smart people have the chance to leave the planet leaving all of the dumbasses behind.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


Why not just set up a colony on the bottom of the ocean. It is just as desolate and we cannot leave the security of our shelters and go for a walk


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Why not do both?  Again, why do you insist what others choose to do?  I can see why, as a taxpayer, you are against spending money on science, but why stop people like Musk or foreign governments from sending manned missions off-planet?

Stroll around on a planet devastated by an impact event or supervolcano?  What's to see?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

Three aircraft were built with two basic design goals. One goal was to achieve a speed of Mach 6, six times faster than the X-1 when it exceeded the speed of sound just a decade earlier. The other goal was to reach an altitude of 250,000 feet -- nearly 50 miles above the earth's surface, where there is no atmosphere to support wings and conventional control surfaces. The X-15 program reached those goals, and more.

By the time the nearly 10-year program ended at 199 flights in October 1968, an X-15 had been flown to a blistering speed of Mach 6.7 (4,520 mph), a record that still stands for winged aircraft. An X-15 also topped the altitude goal of 250,000 feet by nearly 19 miles. That record of 354,200 feet for a winged aircraft also remains intact.

But the X-15s produced more than speed and altitude records. Their accomplishments in several scientific disciplines can be traced to the development and growth of other aerospace programs and vehicles.

NASA -  NASA Dryden Technology Facts - X-15

The program was ended when its mission goals were complete. We moved onto bigger & better.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...



You just don't get it

Even in a nuclear holocaust......the surface of the earth will be more life sustaining than Mars


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


You don't get it, one big rock and we're done.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...



_Stroll around on a planet devastated by an impact event or supervolcano?  What's to see?_

Lions & Tigers and Bears, Oh MY!

Your Mars & Moon colony is more likely to to be wiped out.


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Basically, NASA finally admits it's all been wishful thinking. They're not even close to being able to do it, and they won't be close in the foreseeable future. While they say it's all about money, it's far more than money. They just don't have the tech.
> 
> NASA finally admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars
> 
> ...









Anybody who is capable of thinking for themselves kinda, sorta, knew this so it is not surprising, nor is it disappointing.  Instead of fanciful projects like that, NASA should be working on building a permanent base on the Moon from which it would be a lot easier to launch long distance missions to the rest of the Solar System.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


No one is forcing you to go.  You are free to stay on Earth, smoke pot and play your guitar, but why do you insist no one else be allowed to go?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

*Pow! Mars Hit By Space Rocks 200 Times a Year*






Pow! Mars Hit By Space Rocks 200 Times a Year


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Basically, NASA finally admits it's all been wishful thinking. They're not even close to being able to do it, and they won't be close in the foreseeable future. While they say it's all about money, it's far more than money. They just don't have the tech.
> ...


Ship the same weight to the moon. Have a moon base with it's own problems & expense. Not easier, harder. You have the problem of spare parts and huge time delays when problems arise. A logistics nightmare. Besides, we don't need the number of missions of exploration to make it necessary.

You only have to leave earth's orbit. The distance to outer worlds is a coast & gravitational assist.

If you want to assemble, do it in earth orbit. That's how we built the space station.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


The surface of Mars is a hostile environment.  One major storm or earthquake could wipe out our feeble colony


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...








Wrong.  What matters is what the weight you are shipping IS!  Sending manufacturing plants to the Moon, where they can then begin producing supplies from the Moons raw materials is the way to go.  You need a better imagination my friend.  Add to that the development of new technologies to loft payloads such as mass drivers etc, and a Lunar base becomes a much more likely possibility.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


If the Earth was destroyed which is a fantasy, his Mars colony would be dead soon after. W/o support from the Earth, it would quickly die.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 15, 2017)

Another attraction of Luna is that a space elevator for the moon would work using currently produced high-strength materials. A moonbase wouldn't need to "launch" at all. It could just slowly send things up and down the elevator.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

westwall said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


What moon raw materials? LOL

Now you are talking an entire country on the moon.


----------



## irosie91 (Jul 15, 2017)

westwall said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



the technology ALREADY exists--------THE TRANSPORTER!!!!      -----scottie BEAMS anything anywhere. 
         sheeeeeeesh      Wall------KEEP UP


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


I agree

Man cannot survive on a planet that cannot sustain him . We could build a small colony that could possibly support 50-100 people
What happens then?
They have no manufacturing, no ability to build a larger human population. They would eventually die out


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 15, 2017)

It's fairly easy to get up Mars, we just send an old Chevy there and leave the engine running. Within 20 minutes the CO2 output should start raising the temperature


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

We are done with the Moon until the Monolith wakes up






*Oh wait!





*


----------



## ding (Jul 15, 2017)

percysunshine said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...


You ever done work at 3000 ft below the ocean?  I have.  ROV's are pretty limited in what they can do plus everything they operate  (they don't do construction) was put there by surface vessels with compensated cranes and are controlled by surface vessels via an umbilical.


----------



## ding (Jul 15, 2017)

percysunshine said:


> .
> Just wait. If they find silver, tungsten, platinum or gold on the surface of Venus.....there will be an orbital mining colony in no time flat.


You've been watching too much tv.


----------



## Geaux4it (Jul 15, 2017)

Bummer. I might see the 2030's... but I'm doubtful 

-Geaux


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


It is not just manufacturing. It is mining, processing, blast-furnaces & refining to even begin to get to manufactoring. That means energy and not low-power solar cells to make computers work. Perhaps they have forgotten how difficult it is to make space-age technology, especially from scrap.

They think they will find all these raw materials in one spot?


----------



## petro (Jul 15, 2017)

I really see a lack of imagination and a defeatist attitude running through this thread. 
Humans will eventually spread throughout the solar system and beyond. 
Exploration is part of our DNA and survival instincts. When we deny that need to explore and spread our reach we will falter as a species.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

petro said:


> I really see a lack of imagination and a defeatist attitude running through this thread.
> Humans will eventually spread throughout the solar system and beyond.
> Exploration is part of our DNA and survival instincts. When we deny that need to explore and spread our reach we will falter as a species.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 15, 2017)

mars has the wrong kind of co2 

too bad it didnt get the kind that heats the planet 

--LOL


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

petro said:


> I really see a lack of imagination and a defeatist attitude running through this thread.
> Humans will eventually spread throughout the solar system and beyond.
> Exploration is part of our DNA and survival instincts. When we deny that need to explore and spread our reach we will falter as a species.


We are still exploring. As a matter of fact we have done more exploration now then we did during the heydays of the Mercury to Apollo days.

We are just doing it smarter now. The human factor has been removed until technology catches up.

We have found tons of planets around stars, photographed & done spectrographical analysis of our entire solar system. We have made lots of new cosmological discoveries and furthered fundamental physics.

Remember there was more computing power in an Atari game machine then there was in the lunar module.


----------



## petro (Jul 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> petro said:
> 
> 
> > I really see a lack of imagination and a defeatist attitude running through this thread.
> ...


Lol. Was thinking about that movie when I posted.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

jon_berzerk said:


> mars has the wrong kind of co2
> 
> too bad it didnt get the kind that heats the planet
> 
> --LOL


Mars does not have enough mass to hold an atmosphere


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 15, 2017)

petro said:


> I really see a lack of imagination and a defeatist attitude running through this thread.
> Humans will eventually spread throughout the solar system and beyond.
> Exploration is part of our DNA and survival instincts. When we deny that need to explore and spread our reach we will falter as a species.


You hit the nail on the head

Imagination


----------



## petro (Jul 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> petro said:
> 
> 
> > I really see a lack of imagination and a defeatist attitude running through this thread.
> ...





rightwinger said:


> petro said:
> 
> 
> > I really see a lack of imagination and a defeatist attitude running through this thread.
> ...


Imagination.
Without it we would not have the technological advances we take for granted.
Without it there would be no written word, no art, no concept of love or appreciation of life.
Sorry you lack it.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jul 15, 2017)

Sending surrogate sensory apparatus suffices. The expense and danger of including the physical human body lacks logic.


----------



## petro (Jul 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> petro said:
> 
> 
> > I really see a lack of imagination and a defeatist attitude running through this thread.
> ...


As far as I am concerned it is only the gaining of knowledge until that time we are ready to send humans out. I never expect to see it but will happen in a couple of centuries.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


You still don't have to go.  Why do you want to ban people from going?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

petro said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > petro said:
> ...



_Sorry you lack it_

LOL

Do you believe as I do that the universe is teeming with life?


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

ding said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


Robot asteroid mining is more achievable.  Returning the materials to space or lunar refineries and factories would reduce the costs since it would be easier to turn the mine ships around for a subsequent run.


----------



## petro (Jul 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> petro said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


What I believe is irrelevant. We will only find out if we get out there.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

there4eyeM said:


> Sending surrogate sensory apparatus suffices. The expense and danger of including the physical human body lacks logic.


The same can be said for all exploration.  We can just sit in our chairs like the humans in "Wall-E" and have the robots do it.  

OTOH, like mountain climbing, some people want to go.  We shouldn't stop them.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

petro said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > petro said:
> ...



You said I lack imagination, implying you had more. Prove it and answer my question.

My background is astrophysics and evolutionary biology

EDIT ~ Not true. We don't have to be personally there to discover and explore. We do chemistry but don't actually see individual atoms interacting.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


I get to comment on how my tax dollar is spent


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > Sending surrogate sensory apparatus suffices. The expense and danger of including the physical human body lacks logic.
> ...


Tell them to start flapping their wings


----------



## ding (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...


Sounds cost prohibitive.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Agreed...again.  Just as I did earlier.  Now, explain to me why are you against Musk and other nations from going?  You know, the question you dodged earlier with a "you don't get it"?


Divine.Wind said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


I never had anything about private investment in space travel
I have no issues with exploring the universe
I just think that manned space travel is not warranted


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


Private industry and foreign nations can do anything they want with their money & with my blessing & I am positive everyone else feels the same way.

Personally, I'm all for other nations getting out of the wagon and help pull & push.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Awesome.  So don't go.  Are you against corporations from doing it? 

Asteroid Mining | Deep Space Industries

Instead of a US flag on spacecraft and stations there will be company logos like Orbital Insight, Spire and SpaceX.  Of course, the Chinese company will probably still fly the PRC flag.

The 10 Most Innovative Companies In Space 2017


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Of course you are.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


or bankruptcy notices in newspapers


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Good to hear.  Okey-Dokey.  

Now you have a better understanding about why so many people are concerned when seeing their tax dollars blown on entitlements, "free college" and other giveaways.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


I have no problem using tax dollars on helping people who need help
I think it is a better expenditure than spending money to send a human to a distant planet


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Sorry, I forgot you were anti-capitalism. 

God Bless America!


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Me neither, but paying someone not to work is not helping them.  It hurts Middle Class Americans.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


It is helping people who need help...something great societies do


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

*Elon Musk's growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies*

Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support, according to data compiled by The Times. The figure underscores a common theme running through his emerging empire: a public-private financing model underpinning long-shot start-ups.

"He definitely goes where there is government money," said Dan Dolev, an analyst at Jefferies Equity Research. "That's a great strategy, but the government will cut you off one day."

Elon Musk's growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies


----------



## petro (Jul 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> petro said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


That comment was directed at rightwinger. Site froze and screwed up quote for some reason. Although those that don't see an eventual permanent human presence on Mars or any other body in a couple of hundred years do lack the imagination to see an inevitable. 
As far as robotics, machines are only as good as the humans that build and program them. The human presence adds an element that a computer will never have such as intuition and experience. Half of our probes have disappeared or crashed due to technical errors which maybe could have been fixed on the fly by a human operator.
Scratching at the first few feet of a planet in a very limited area with a rover really satisfy your biological or geological curiosity? Not mine, which is why I argue for human exploration.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

petro said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > petro said:
> ...


_*Half of our probes* have disappeared or crashed due to technical errors which maybe could have been fixed on the fly by a human operator._

Fantasy


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

Five reasons to go:
5 undeniable reasons humans need to colonize Mars — even though it's going to cost billions
_Establishing a permanent colony of humans on Mars is not an option. It's a necessity.

*At least, that's what some of the most innovative, intelligent minds of our age — Buzz Aldrin, Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, Bill Nye, and Neil deGrasse Tyson — are saying*.

Of course, it's extremely difficult to foresee how manned missions to Mars that would cost hundreds of billions of dollars each, could benefit mankind. It's easier to imagine how that kind of money could immediately help in the fight against cancer or world hunger. That's because humans tend to be short-sighted. We're focused on what's happening tomorrow instead of 100 years from now.

"If the human race is to continue for another million years, we will have to boldly go where no one has gone before," Hawking said in 2008 at a lecture series for NASA's 50th anniversary.

That brings us to the first reason humans must colonize Mars:

*1. Ensuring the survival of our species....

2. Discovering life on Mars....

3. Improving the quality of life on Earth....

4. Growing as a species....

5. Demonstrating political and economic leadership....


*_


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

Here's even one of your sites, deviant.breeze. Breitbart

*Elon Musk Wins By Gaming the Subsidy Game*

*Gotta admit it, Elon Musk can make me feel the Bern.*
I’m with Bernie on the billionaires. Some of them are ruining the country. It’s not those who use their own noggins to come up with ways to make money, whether by starting companies or investing wisely.

The ones who bug me are the ones who are rich off my tax dollars.

Elon Musk Wins By Gaming the Subsidy Game - Breitbart


----------



## ding (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


Because I think it sounds cost prohibitive?  I wasn't planning on going.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> petro said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



Even at that...if a probe crashes on Mars the story is buried on page 6. If a manned flight crashes......it is a catastrophe


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Even at that...if a probe crashes on Mars the story is buried on page 6. If a manned flight crashes......it is a catastrophe


Actually, it's front page news, but I get your drift.  Still, that's human nature.  Kill 30,000 people a day in car crashes spread across 50 states and 365 days, it's only local news.  Crash a bus killing 10-15 at once, it's national news.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Figured you weren't.   Also figured you'd never want to go.

Like the people who founded the United States, there are people who left the "Old World" for the "New World" and there are those who were content to stay at home.  Nothing wrong with either choice, but let's not deny people the choice.


----------



## ding (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


I think you are confusing conversations. Ours was on robotic mining.


----------



## ding (Jul 15, 2017)

There is no commercial application for space mining. People are watching too much tv.


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...








We KNOW that there are relatively rich deposits of magnesium, aluminium, silicon, iron and titanium.  We also KNOW that the Helium 3 concentration is fairly high compared to the Earth so if fusion power ever becomes a reality the fuel supply is already in place.  It seems you don't know much about what you are speaking.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

*Liftoff for Donald Trump's bold space plans may have to wait *

CAPE CANAVERAL: The White House has championed a new era of US leadership in space, but its aspirations are complicated by tight budgets, vacancies in top posts and the rising role of private industry in aerospace innovation, experts say. 

During a speech Thursday at NASA's Kennedy Space Center, Vice President Mike Pence delighted hundreds of space agency employees and contractors by pledging that "under President Trump, we will achieve more in space than we ever thought possible." 

Pence promised a "return to the Moon," as well as "American boots on the face of Mars" and a "constant presence in low-Earth orbit." 

Larson described a series of recent space-themed orations by Pence as "no cake, just icing." 

"I think (Thursday's) speech was, of course, short on substance because there is no substance," Logsdon said. 

Some are skeptical of the White House's soaring rhetoric because crucial leadership positions remain unfilled. 

His call for the US to exit the Paris climate accord angered the CEO of SpaceX, Elon Musk, who walked away from his advisory role to the president after the announcement earlier this year. 

For instance, the US space agency set a dubious record on the Fourth of July: the longest span of time that a newly elected president has gone without naming a new NASA chief. 

Trump's proposed budget for NASA -- which has yet to be hammered out by lawmakers -- called for $19.1 billion in spending, a 0.8 percent cut from the previous year. 

Liftoff for Donald Trump's bold space plans may have to wait

All hat & no cattle, aka more BS piled higher and deeper


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > mars has the wrong kind of co2
> ...







At one time it did have an atmosphere, one that allowed liquid water to flow for vast stretches of time based on the geologic evidence that has been gathered.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

westwall said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Aluminium, silicon, iron are worthless sand. 

Yes there is titanium, but it requires a lot to turn from ore to space-age metal. The magnesium is a political ploy since most of the Earth's is in China. 

The point is is it useful and cost effective. You are talking huge expensive lunar footprint or bringing ore back to earth.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

westwall said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...


True, but its lack of mass couldn't keep the atmosphere.

Revealed: How Mars Lost Its Atmosphere | TIME.com

and no magnetic field did not help either.

Is there a way to provide a magnetic field for Mars?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 15, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Basically, NASA finally admits it's all been wishful thinking. They're not even close to being able to do it, and they won't be close in the foreseeable future. While they say it's all about money, it's far more than money. They just don't have the tech.
> 
> NASA finally admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars
> 
> ...



Until China get involved and it becomes another space race, the US will probably be quite lethargic at the whole affair.


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...






The question is how did it even obtain one in the first place.  I agree it lacks enough mass to retain one today, but logically that would preclude it from gaining one in the first place.


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...






Not when you're building a base.  When you are building a permanent facility they are essential building materials.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

*Is Moon Mining Economically Feasible?*

Is Moon Mining Economically Feasible?


----------



## ding (Jul 15, 2017)

Here's how much money it actually costs to launch stuff into space


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

westwall said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


You need the base first. Then you could think about expanding to a mining operation. Then think about expanding to a refining operation. Then think about expanding to a manufacturing operation. You are talking about a city. You need lots of energy. So we are now talking nuke plants, cuz solar won't cut it.


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> *Is Moon Mining Economically Feasible?*
> 
> Is Moon Mining Economically Feasible?








Of course not if you plan on returning the product to Earth.  That's not what I am talking about now is it.  The way to actually get man out into space is to build a permanent base on the Moon.  The building materials are there.  There is a high likelihood of water as well.  Silica allows glass making so you can have a greenhouse to grow plants.  No, it's not a "quick" project.  It is a multigenerational project.  But once you have a permanent base, you can then launch other missions into the deep solar system and asteroids to start mining them, and that WOULD be economically feasible.

Here is ONE asteroid that people are already trying to grab..

Geee.  I wonder why?

*This $20 Trillion Rock Could Turn a Startup Into Earth's Richest Company*

A $20 Trillion Rock Could Turn a Startup Into Earth's Richest Company


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

westwall said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > *Is Moon Mining Economically Feasible?*
> ...


LOL, we are having fun now!


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Thanks for the clarification.  As my links about asteroid mining and private businesses pointed out, "there's gold in them thar hills!"  

Aside from the tech of living in space, the current biggest cost of spaceflight is _lift_.  The cost of lifting a pound of material off Earth.  Dropping it back in is very cheap.  Lifting it off the Moon is cheap.  Lifting it off Mars is 1/3 cheaper than on Earth, all other factors being equal, due to the difference in gravity.  An L-5 station involves relatively little gravity, just *orbital mechanics*.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

Something tells me that space will become the wild wild west


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

westwall said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > *Is Moon Mining Economically Feasible?*
> ...


Good example.  The same dreamers who made America want to make Moon colonies, space colonies and Mar colonies.  The same people who said going to America is too dangerous, too risky and not worth the price stayed in England, Germany and France.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Something tells me that space will become the wild wild west


What tells you this?  Fantasy?


----------



## Montrovant (Jul 15, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Something tells me that space will become the wild wild west
> ...



Joss Whedon tells us this!


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...









I'll take Inara for ten Alex!


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 16, 2017)

westwall said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Agreed.  Also, once the refining and manufacturing facilities are in place, it won't be ore loads being dropped back on Earth, it will be products, especially electronics.    This also serves to help clean the planet by removing both the manufacturing process and the resulting pollution off planet.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 16, 2017)

miketx said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Basically, NASA finally admits it's all been wishful thinking. They're not even close to being able to do it, and they won't be close in the foreseeable future. While they say it's all about money, it's far more than money. They just don't have the tech.
> ...


The USS Enterprise can get past Jupiter in 15 seconds without going to Warp.


----------



## miketx (Jul 16, 2017)

mudwhistle said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Like I didn't know that?


----------



## Montrovant (Jul 16, 2017)

mudwhistle said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Lies!  It took almost 2 hours to get from Earth to Jupiter under impulse power in The Motion Picture.    (Yes, I went and looked that up) Warp factor

Besides, it takes light 30+ minutes to travel the distance from Jupiter to Earth.  15 seconds would definitely require warp speed.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 16, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...



It takes even longer to get to Uranus


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 16, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...


Interesting question.  Given propellant isn't a problem, a constant 1G acceleration would go the distances over time in the charts below.  It would take 3 days to get halfway to Jupiter and a little longer than another 3 days to slow down at 1G.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 16, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...


Some people just love to argue.

It was a joke of course.

However the movie never seemed to show the actual time period it took in real time. I guess that would be too boring.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 16, 2017)

*48 YEARS AGO TODAY: Apollo 11 Crew of Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins Launched Toward the Moon*

*FROM KSC JULY 16, 1969 AT 9:32 A.M.
*






47 YEARS AGO: Apollo 11 Crew of Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins Launched Toward the Moon |


----------



## westwall (Jul 16, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> *48 YEARS AGO TODAY: Apollo 11 Crew of Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins Launched Toward the Moon*
> 
> *FROM KSC JULY 16, 1969 AT 9:32 A.M.*
> 
> ...








Just think where we would be had we not quit the space program, and instead of squandering all of that money and time on wars and global warming bullshit, invested it into the space program.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 16, 2017)

westwall said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > *48 YEARS AGO TODAY: Apollo 11 Crew of Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins Launched Toward the Moon*
> ...


The top tax rate when we went to the moon was 92%


----------



## westwall (Jul 16, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...








Not really.  The tax system was riddled with loop holes so the real tax rate was lower.  Much lower.  Typical progressive thinking there.  High taxes don't get the government more money.  It gets the government less money.  That's why Kennedy LOWERED the tax rate and would you look at that the government revenues skyrocketed.  But that's a fact and progressives don't do facts.


----------



## miketx (Jul 16, 2017)

westwall said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Lowered taxes? But but but that's what conservatives do!


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 16, 2017)

westwall said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


As trump has proven, those loops holes still exist and have gotten even larger.

Your team was more interested in God, gays, guns & racism; not science.


----------



## miketx (Jul 16, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


You're losing the argument so play the gay and race cards together. LOL!


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 16, 2017)

The History Place - Apollo 11





Apollo 11 (AS-506)  | National Air and Space Museum


----------



## westwall (Jul 16, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...










And you're no doubt a AGW "believer" which makes you an anti science, religious nutjob, as well.   The rich don't pay taxes.  They write the tax code to benefit themselves.  I would think that a supposed thinker as you no doubt think you are, could figure that out.  And, amazingly enough according to the tax returns that maddow got it appears that the trumpster pays MORE than he is required to and FAR MORE than your progressive hero's do.   So, I guess you're the dupe who believes what they claim but never actually looks at what they do.


----------



## Montrovant (Jul 16, 2017)

mudwhistle said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



I don't know where the site I linked got their number from.  I haven't seen the original movie in a long time, and I don't plan to watch it again in hopes of timing the trip from Earth to Jupiter.  

I know you were joking, I'm just trying to join in the fun.


----------

