NASA admits they can't send a human to Mars

[fncceo]

Exactly. This is the Age of Robots!

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

 

[MarkDuffy]

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]

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

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

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

Or the could just do it without having to colonize Mars

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

$$$$$

$$$$$

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.

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

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]

Exactly. This is the Age of Robots!

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

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

 

[MarkDuffy]

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]

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

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

Or the could just do it without having to colonize Mars

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

$$$$$

$$$$$

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.

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

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.

So would direct investment which is more efficient

 

[percysunshine]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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?

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.