How is the heat converted? Boiling water? or some vampire heat absorbing pad that produce electric? If so i would like two pads. Hmm maybe its heating up some chemicals some where to vibrate enough to generate its power.
|
|
|
How is the heat converted? Boiling water? or some vampire heat absorbing pad that produce electric? If so i would like two pads. Hmm maybe its heating up some chemicals some where to vibrate enough to generate its power.
No qaurter back men, only forward or we will hold this line forever!!!
[IMG][/IMG]
Row Row Row Fight the Powha
Of course, but the post was about excessive public sensitivity to risk. If you can reasonably expect to get people there, have them survive there with an eye to sending more, but you can't get them back, then the public's opinion is irrelevant and damaging if the people going volunteered and knew what they were getting into. There's a balance to be struck between recklessness and caution for optimum results in dangerous new frontiers, currently in my opinion we're far too deep into caution.You should mitigate that, not ignore it and go hogwild.
Lets not forget joe-public wants results in their wallet, on their drive or tables the moment they launch or it's "wasted money that could be used on healthcare/politics/military/roads/etc"
At least, that's what A lot of people over here seem to agree on
well health care and roads are very important, the other two not so much. If you can't drive on the roads to get the parts to nasa to make the rover and drive the rover to the launch pad, well ;P minds well quit. Same thing goes for people health,if john sick and can't get better how is he going to fly the ship. So yes the public want and really need those 2 things. No one need to pay people for politics you can do that for free.
#55
Just watching a horizon program and the parachute alone has to deploy at MACH 2. Fucking incredible
Is 20 pound for the weight like 30 pounds if a guy lifts?
REKISo either your little non-english speaking weightlifting neighbour has broken in to your house to borrow your computer & Relic forums login, or you're spinning us a line.. :p
This is howHow is the heat converted? Boiling water? or some vampire heat absorbing pad that produce electric? If so i would like two pads. Hmm maybe its heating up some chemicals some where to vibrate enough to generate its power.
So what would happen if both couples are the same temperature, would it shut down?
Starblade: I don't see anyone here saying that we should just slingshot people into Mars without a reasonable chance they will survive.
What people are talking about is a one-way trip where the volunteers get to the other side and start building up habitation and such from supplies we constantly send them. Not a one way trip were we send them to dig their own graves.
I'm fairly sure NASA and other space agencies have already done the math for manned trips and how to keep people alive once they get there. Basically they would need radiation shielding, sealed chambers, food and air. If they can safely land a rover, it shouldn't be that much harder to safely land a human. Send a few space suits and a few building materials and tell them the drop-off points for the new supplies you'll be sending in a few weeks/months.
Granted, it wouldn't be as easy as all that, but you would end up, in a year or so, getting a lot more science done. Once they build more habitation, you send in some more people and speed things up even more. Then you send more and more and more. Eventually they get to the point where they will be able to launch something back at Earth and you either get the beginnings of interplanetary war or you get people that can now rotate between Earth and Mars. Send the first people back. Done. Manned Mission with Return of the Humans all in 5-10 years! And if you order now, you can get a free SCIENCE! That's right! If you order your MM along with a RotH, the complete set, we'll throw in a free SCIENCE!
And with all the research and tech developed doing all that, we can likewise start building underwater cities at a fraction of the price it would cost us now. Then we can explore two frontiers at once and developments in each could help the other.
But I'm not really expecting the US to do any of that. It's much more likely that Russia or China will do it, though other countries are trying to, slowly, get to the moon these days and so are businesses. The first people to send successful manned Mars missions will get a shit ton of funding even if they don't plan on getting the people back right away.
To delay a manned mission until we can create a ship that can lift off Earth, land on Mars, lift off Mars and land back on Earth... who knows how long that would take? And who is to say that we wouldn't find better stuff to do it with on Mars itself?
Or for that matter, who is to say that that's the right way to do it? Perhaps the best way to do it is with a space elevator here on Earth and another on Mars and then just have ships for flying between the two. So if we waited for that... we'd be waiting a very, very long time because without people ON Mars that would take a lot longer to build.
If we can build space stations, which we can, then we can build Mars habitats.
Stop wrapping humans in baby-proofing or we'll suffocate before we get to do anything.
It takes a lot of argument
to convince most people
that they are lying.
#59
Just how much do you think this will cost? It will require a fleet of ships/rockets in constant rotation/production, with backups for when one inevitably breaks down. Not to mention a significant number of workers, which will also require training and funding (and a lack of a home or social life).What people are talking about is a one-way trip where the volunteers get to the other side and start building up habitation and such from supplies we constantly send them. Not a one way trip were we send them to dig their own graves.
Survival isn't the only problem. NASA and others are still working out all the psychological problems and the problems of health on the way down, that's not nearly as settled as you think it is. Though, we do have a few good ideas in development. Also a human being and a robot aren't the same thing. They have different tolerances and needs. What works for the rover won't necessarily work for us.I'm fairly sure NASA and other space agencies have already done the math for manned trips and how to keep people alive once they get there. Basically they would need radiation shielding, sealed chambers, food and air. If they can safely land a rover, it shouldn't be that much harder to safely land a human.
What do you think we'll find on Mars that we need to colonize it (keeping in mind it's general lack of resources that anyone cares about)? Be specific, you appear to have something in mind. And what is the going price for Rapture these days?And who is to say that we wouldn't find better stuff to do it with on Mars itself?
...
And with all the research and tech developed doing all that, we can likewise start building underwater cities at a fraction of the price it would cost us now.
Oh is that all? It's that simple to create and maintain a colony on a planet that cannot currently support human life? If you want that civilization you're going to have to bring along more than some dried food and tang. You'll need to start producing food there, which means the right amount of light, and the right temperatures, and minerals, which means more space, more equipment, which means more construction teams which means more materials and people willing to or completely without families to probably never see again and training which means more rockets which means more funding. And since these are all one-way trips you get to keep building more and more and more and pumping in more and more resources and people you're not seeing again into it. Building a station to live on for a few months to a year is not the same as building permanent housing on another world that is inhospitable in every way. And it won't be sustainable. There's nothing on Mars. It will depend entirely on Earth. God forbid an employee get disgruntled.Granted, it wouldn't be as easy as all that, but you would end up, in a year or so, getting a lot more science done. Once they build more habitation, you send in some more people and speed things up even more. Then you send more and more and more. Eventually they get to the point where they will be able to launch something back at Earth and you either get the beginnings of interplanetary war or you get people that can now rotate between Earth and Mars.
Putting a baby behind the wheel on the interstate is a good way to kill it too. Space exploration and eventual habitation is a good thing. Don't fuck it up by being reckless or going unprepared. Don't disregard safety (especially safety, unless what you really want is a bunch of maimed or dead astronauts) and reason just because you want New Atlantis and Marsbase Alpha. Don't just throw caution to the wind.Stop wrapping humans in baby-proofing or we'll suffocate before we get to do anything.
Last edited by Starblade; 7th Aug 12 at 3:04 PM.
My Interceptor is better than your Interceptor.
#60
Recycling capabilities for all organics, medical care, redundancy/spares for everything, reliable power, enough space to be psychologically comfortable, manufacturing capabilities to produce solutions to unanticipated problems, and I'm certain I've forgotten other requirements.Basically they would need radiation shielding, sealed chambers, food and air.
There's no "basically" on a minimum 100-day space-based manned mission unless the man and the mission are both throwaway.
Who the hell thought "erectus" was a good species name for our ancestors?
#61
We explored Earth by just doing it, why not space?
#62
Earth had resources and a breathable atmosphere. Also, what do you think we're doing?We explored Earth by just doing it, why not space?
#63
Mars has resources, it's not a giant dust bowl. Sure it doesn't have wood; but future colonists will also have the equipment to find, mine and process the ores located around the various craters and other below surface deposits.
Mars also only has 38% of Earths gravity, who knows how that will affect a human after long term trip; the people we send to Mars might not even be able to walk on Earth again, even if we managed to get them off of the surface again. Then you have the risk of Martin contamination with anything the crew bring back. It's far cheaper and easier to send them there with the intention to stay, because if the West doesn't do it; China certainly will.
Starblade: Yeah, because space is much more habitable than a planet. Either way you are going to be living in a tin can with trips outside requiring a suit.
It's a fairly simple matter to grow your own food. Add in all the funding and it's a simple matter for 12 people who are well funded to grow food in a greenroom. Self sustaining lifestyles are easier and easier to do these days. Completely sealed and self sustaining on another planet... sure, it will cost a bundle. A large bundle. And sure transportation is a little tricky (Largely because we've been ignoring it for so long). But it's all doable with the tech we have. More than doable if we were actually to put our minds to it.
But instead we sit on our asses and dictate caution because we are lazy. It can't be that we're scared. There are people who are willing and able to do the dangerous stuff for us. Qualified people. Smart people. But heaven forbid we let them do it, because then we'd actually have to try and make it work! It's much easier to just sit back and say "wait a while. It's dangerous, all I'm saying is that a little caution is good". As if people are just going to recklessly throw their lives away.
Do you take me for a three year old? Just because I don't mention each and every single risk, you assume I don't know about them? Just because I, personally, don't have all the answers, you assume nobody does?
There are ways of reducing the labor on the other side. Have pre built cubes/parts that you can slot together and then seal. Psychological issues can be mitigated by sending larger groups. More people. We aren't talking flying solo here. Bigger space (every 3-6 months you can send them extra cubes/buildings).
But you know what? Treat me like I just want to do this because of a game that I never played nor care about. Pretend I'm living in a fantasy world because it all seems too sci-fi for you. Talk down to me all you want. It doesn't change the fact that if we wanted to, with the current tech we have (even the tech of 10 years ago), we could do it.
Not for some imagined childish need to have mutants or aliens or magic powers or what-have-you. But to discover. To explore. To further knowledge. To move faster than the practical stop we are at now. When did humans lose the drive to do all that? Was it the internet? Did that fill in the drive to explore and discover? Did the ability to be condescending to people anywhere in the world remove the drive to better ourselves? Was it WW2? The Cold War? Did the collapse of the final empires cut that drive out of us?
Retroboy: Yes. All those things are things we can already do. People smarter than me can make sure people like me don't forget anything along the way. But nothing on your list is something we can't do relatively easily. So I'm going to stick with "basically".
Normal, every day, people are running around creating fully self-contained homes. It costs them, sure. But they can do it. Are you saying that it's not doable for the worlds top minds to be able to send people to Mars and let them live there?
I'm not talking about colonies. I'm talking about a research base. Maybe some day in the future we can have colonies. But that's a long, long way off. But sending over small groups at a time, capping the base at 100 or so people? Some of them engineers, some medical staff, some scientists, botanists, hell, throw in some adventurous chefs. Give them self contained housing/work/recreation/exercise areas. Send them supplies. They send back data. After a while they may even be able to send back samples. Then humans.
We are able to do all that now. And you don't want to because putting a baby behind the wheel of a car is dangerous? Because I'm talking about sending babies to Mars. Right.
#65
Oh, we found life on Mars? I didn't know that! I mean I know that there was liquid water at one point and it was hypothesized there might have been but I didn't know we found living organisms. Have a link to that press release? I'd love to read it. You'd think we'd be a lot more excited about going to Mars then if we know there's life, even just bacteria.Then you have the risk of Martin contamination with anything the crew bring back.
Ah yes, Mars, with its bountiful oceans, clean, breathable air, boundless fields and forests and meadows and pastures! Seriously though, what resources does it have in such quantities as to be profitable to space mine with the current cost of, well, everything?Mars has resources, it's not a giant dust bowl.
With regards to gravity, low gravity fucks up humans pretty bad if they don't constantly work out and maintain bone density.
Didn't you just say there were resources worth mining and processing? Are you intending not to exploit them? Or just not send them back? If not, you still get to deal with the entirety of building a colony. That's going to cost a lot more than a two-way ship or two (or three, or four. Redundancy is important.).It's far cheaper and easier to send them there with the intention to stay, because if the West doesn't do it; China certainly will.
e: Oh hi LoCo. I count Mars as a part of space, sorry for the confusion. I'm pretty sure colonization is inevitable at some point in time. Also I think the thing that bugs me about your posts is what a fuck you to humanity it is. Oh, we got a nuclear powered rover on to fucking Mars? How quaint! Yes, of course, we're just too lazy to get our asses to Mars, we'll just sit down and let our rovers do it, we can't be fucked to go ourselves. That's the sole reason. Nothing else. This shit's hard LoCo, and costly.
This is what you want us to do. This is what happens when we don't research or plan or strategize or safetyproof or prepare or recon. People die. Yes, LoCo, I think ignoring these things and just hoping for the best and maybe not everyone will die is extremely childish. What do you think will happen when you send people willing to take the risk and have everyone ignore it just because they're totally willing to do it just let me at it put me in coach I'm ready?As if people are just going to recklessly throw their lives away.
And are we not doing that now? Does it not count? Why not? What else doesn't count? When did it stop counting? Why then?Not for some imagined childish need to have mutants or aliens or magic powers or what-have-you. But to discover. To explore. To further knowledge.
Last edited by Starblade; 7th Aug 12 at 4:22 PM.
#66
Mars is a big planet, we've explored about 2% of all areas on Mars and only a few centimeters beneath the surface, so who knows what could be lurking there and what people will find once we can get heavier exploration machinery onto the surface. There is also the risk of Terrestrial micro-organisms landing on Mars along with our explorers, who knows what the martian environment will do to those organisms or how they will adapt to the new environment and who knows what they'll do if they make it back to Earth.Oh, we found life on Mars? I didn't know that! I mean I know that there was liquid water at one point and it was hypothesized there might have been but I didn't know we found living organisms. Have a link to that press release? I'd love to read it. You'd think we'd be a lot more excited about going to Mars then if we know there's life, even just bacteria.
It's not about profit, it's about adventure and exploration; Mars is too far away to be a profitable mining venture for a long long time, the Moon or Near Earth Objects are far more viable in that regards. Mars however is the New World, the Wild West or Antarctica; a new land for us to explore and for new heroes to rise from the every day man. We wouldn't be sending people there to scope out if its got oil or other minerals, we would be sending them there because we can. To show that humanity is larger than our planet and start making our way through our solar system; its all about the adventure.Ah yes, Mars, with its bountiful oceans, clean, breathable air, boundless fields and forests and meadows and pastures! A veritable Eden. Seriously though, what resources does it have in such quantities as to be profitable to space mine with the current cost of, well, everything?
The resources worth mining are for the pioneers to fashion into useable materials for their habitation, not to send back to Earth (which would cost more money and resources to do). Establishing a colony is cheaper than a two-way trip because for the simple fact, you don't have to land fuel onto Mars to get the crew back off the planet and escape Mars gravity, you then have to make sure they get back to earth (so that's more supplies during the trip), then you need to rehabilitate those crew members (if possible) to allow them to walk on Earth again.Didn't you just say there were resources worth mining and processing? Are you intending not to exploit them? Or just not send them back? If not, you still get to deal with the entirety of building a colony. Also why don't you think Russia can hack it? Please explain how establishing a colony is cheaper than a two-way trip, too.
#67
You got me excited for nothing.Mars is a big planet, we've explored about 2% of all areas on Mars and only a few centimeters beneath the surface, so who knows what could be lurking there and what people will find once we can get heavier exploration machinery onto the surface. There is also the risk of Terrestrial micro-organisms landing on Mars along with our explorers, who knows what the martian environment will do to those organisms or how they will adapt to the new environment and who knows what they'll do if they make it back to Earth.
The second point is a good reason to not rush blindly into it then, isn't it? Though I'd bet most would probably just die. Actually, I recall reading we already introduced some little dudes into Mars, when they hitched a ride on Spirit and Opportunity.
I'll admit, this is a very romantic notion.Mars however is the New World, the Wild West or Antarctica; a new land for us to explore and for new heroes to rise from the every day man.
Why would you not have your two-way ship have spacefuel? I mean the notion itself is already silly (what is it going to take off from), but if we're going with space colonies and two-way vessels I don't see why we have to cripple it like that. The colony won't be cheaper because you have to constantly launch rockets in its direction to keep resupplying the colony, and not just with food and water.The resources worth mining are for the pioneers to fashion into useable materials for their habitation, not to send back to Earth (which would cost more money and resources to do). Establishing a colony is cheaper than a two-way trip because for the simple fact, you don't have to land fuel onto Mars to get the crew back off the planet and escape Mars gravity, you then have to make sure they get back to earth (so that's more supplies during the trip), then you need to rehabilitate those crew members (if possible) to allow them to walk on Earth again.
#68
The problem with the two-way option is space fuel costs weight, and you have to get that weight off of Earth first and carry it to Mars. Which means a much larger rocket (and fuel) to get it off of Earth either into Space for assembly or in the one ship. You then have to setup the ship in order to have it be able to launch off of Mars, where as if it was a one way trip the crew going their could use the materials that would be for the return rocket for other equipment, or design a better lander that doesn't need to take off again.
#69
You realize that the sole reason anyone went to the new world or the wild west was to make money. Antarctica is inconceivably easier to deal with than Mars, and you can't just go there for fun and survive, so it's a perfect example of why colonizing Mars is not equivalent to the age of exploration.
We haven't even recreated a self-sustaining environment here on Earth. We've tried various times and either flat out failed or ended the experiments well short of the duration necessary to prove out the concept. It's not easy or trivial to grow food in the total absence of a billion years worth of effort on the part of previous lifeforms. Martian soil is sterile - you'd need to bring a chunk of Earth with you, and replace losses due to inefficiency or human growth. We're still working this out.
We're not on Mars because it's an incredibly difficult undertaking for which we haven't even completed basic pre-requisite science. There's a wild difference between asking someone to risk their life on an adventure and sending them to die in a poorly planned, inadequately researched mission that cannot succeed given present technology. We simply don't know how to do it yet.
#70
http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=81016
it's all fake
I gotta think that landing on Mars and taking off again is orders of magnitude easier than landing a crew with sufficient tools, supplies, knowledge, etc etc etc to establish a self sustaining colony on Mars.
Also, you're putting billions of dollars of training and equipment into the hands of these pioneers and assigning them on a 'succeed or die' mission. The psychological pressure, in addition to the isolation, claustrophobic conditions, hostile environment, constant close proximity to the same people, would take a huge toll on a person.
Add me on Steam - ArbitUH. Don't EVEN bother adding me on GFWL
Where's me squig ointment reference in my sig... oh
#72
I bet we'll discover element zero.Mars is a big planet, we've explored about 2% of all areas on Mars and only a few centimeters beneath the surface, so who knows what could be lurking there and what people will find once we can get heavier exploration machinery onto the surface.
Originally Posted by Starblade
#73
You're under estimating how much fuel will be needed to get the amount of fuel off of Earth and into space, land on Mars, then use that Fuel to blast off of it.
#74
Multiply by the number of rockets sending supplies, equipment, materials, additional people, etc. to Mars, including the cost of all of that and more, I'm sure I'm forgetting a few things. Include the cost of training the workers building the colonybase, medics, and assorted crewmen. Keep in mind several will be in space at once in transit to Mars for several years or however long this colony is supposed to last, and you won't get any of them back. Is it more or less expensive than one ship going up and back with large amounts of fuel and supplies for, I don't know, a month on Mars or whatever it's going to do also it can take off again? I'm going to bet more. That's a lot of rockets, which also need fuel. A lot more fuel, because you have a lot more rockets.You're under estimating how much fuel will be needed to get the amount of fuel off of Earth and into space, land on Mars, then use that Fuel to blast off of it.
Most plans for a return mission involve making fuel for the return trip at the destination. This is most relevant for the Moon, where the soil itself can be converted straight to rocket fuel. Research into the idea hasn't been extensive for Mars, but considering we know where to find water on Mars, that can be used to make new fuel. And indeed, it would be prohibitively expensive to have the fuel for the return trip on board from the beginning (for Mars, obviously we can do it for the Moon).
Manned missions to Mars have already been planned, including ones that are possible with currently available technology. NASA engineers developed on called Mars Direct, which is appropriate (if not necessary) reading for this trip.
I just want to use mag rail plat forms on mars and take advantage of its thinner atmosphere and lower gravity and shoot things up using high powered magnetic rails back into space. Powering the rails would be a reactor of some sort. Have it be a few miles long and the track arc up into the sky for a mile or so.
The Martian atmosphere, while thin, is thick enough to make Mass Drivers implausible. You do not want to travel at hypersonic speeds low in the atmoshpere, and even if the vehicle survives, it will lose too much energy to get to orbit.
#78
Is this actually a thing and not just the plot to Moon? That's pretty cool, I didn't know that.This is most relevant for the Moon, where the soil itself can be converted straight to rocket fuel.
This is cool, but not a planned mission, only a proposal. It's undergone several revisions and forks.Manned missions to Mars have already been planned, including ones that are possible with currently available technology. NASA engineers developed on called Mars Direct, which is appropriate (if not necessary) reading for this trip.
Starblade: Ummm...
I never once stated we should ignore anything. There are many plans which take into account all of that stuff and they have been planning the stuff since before you and I were born. These scientists believed then that we had the tech. They believe it more today, and they will believe it more tomorrow. Don't sell humanity short just because you lack vision and knowledge.Yes, LoCo, I think ignoring these things and just hoping for the best and maybe not everyone will die is extremely childish
But yeah. You just keep telling yourself that we can't do it. You just keep telling yourself that nobody else thinks we can do it. You just keep calling me childish despite the fact I'm not doing what you are saying I'm doing, and that these are plans made by scientists and not just my own wish fulfillment.
I also find it strange that you will try to take your place in humanity when it comes to things we have already done. But when it comes to doing more suddenly wanting to do more is "a big fuck you to humanity". So you're happy to take association credit when the job is done, but want nothing to do with it when it's time to start a new job? As I said... lazy.
Yes. Yes it is. Is that going to be your excuse for everything?This shit's hard LoCo, and costly
So your final remark to me is what? That yay we put another rover on Mars and because I didn't praise Jeebus and say how wonderful it is I think it's worth nothing? It never occurred to you that I may be glad NASA did something cool, but that I can still want more? Because I want more I can't appreciate what's been done? Perhaps you aren't able to do those things, but I am.
Starfisher: To say that we only explore new places so that we can exploit natural resources is completely incorrect.
It may be one of the factors behind exploration, but it is not the only and, depending on the person, not the most important. "sole reason"? Hardly.
May not be the sole, but its a major reason, bringing back resources and funding the exploration. Most(not all) people don't want to fund go out and see and come back type of missions with high risk of failing, don't get your money back even if they come back..It may be one of the factors behind exploration, but it is not the only and, depending on the person, not the most important. "sole reason"? Hardly.
Maybe.
What happens when a critical tool breaks and you can't be resupplied for years? Maybe you bring spares? More weight. Raw materials to fabricate it? More weight, plus now you need the infrastructure to fabricate it. What are people going to live in until they've constructed a new habitat? What are they going to construct the habitat out of? If it's stuff on mars, you need tool to extract it, fashion it and refine it into usable material. More tools, more expertise, more weight, more duplication needed in case critical parts fail and you can't fabricate replacements. Not having the correct part at the right time, even something as simple as a screw or piece of sheet metal, could mean lethal exposure to the atmosphere. You're going to have to bring along large amounts of food and water before self sustaining farms can be set up... if self sustaining farms are even feasible in the first place. There are just so many things that could go wrong with lethal consequences and you have no support, at all.
Granted, I haven't done a bunch of reading on how these sorts of problems would be tackled, but my gut tells me it's easier to figure out how to ship a shit-ton of fuel to Mars. I totally could be wrong though, I acknowledge that. My guts really aren't very smart.
#82
Well, I'm not sure who "we" is, but in the time period leading up to oh say 1900, just about the only reason anyone got funding to go anywhere new was because someone was speculating that they'd make money on the expedition, or create national advantage. Hell, even America's Pilgrims, enshrined in myth as fleeing religious persecution, only got the money to head West by working with a wealthy merchant to create a joint-stock company.Starfisher: To say that we only explore new places so that we can exploit natural resources is completely incorrect.
It may be one of the factors behind exploration, but it is not the only and, depending on the person, not the most important. "sole reason"? Hardly.
I actually can't think of an example of an exploratory effort not funded on the basis of possible profit, at least not up until more modern times when science started to be self-justifying. I guess maybe you could count various missionary efforts, though the people running those had a suspicious tendency to make off with the wealth of the natives.
#83
How about Deep-sea exploration? The last frontier on Earth not truly explored and as alien to us as space. Hell, James Cameron has been doing it for a while for the simple thrill of exploration, his most recent dive was with his Deepsea Challenger. He had no profitable reason to go down there (oil, minerals ect) beyond simply doing it and being the first go down that far.I actually can't think of an example of an exploratory effort not funded on the basis of possible profit, at least not up until more modern times when science started to be self-justifying. I guess maybe you could count various missionary efforts, though the people running those had a suspicious tendency to make off with the wealth of the natives.
He also had money to do that stuff no? Should i say his own money to do that.
#85
Stop being childish. I didn't say we can't (though, apparently, we really can't at the moment, look below), or shouldn't ever. Going off and doing things because that guy really wants to do it and damn it safety just isn't a concern why can't we just accommodate him, fuck that it will cost several billion dollars and probably fail because it was done on a whim and no concern for human safety but that man has a vision! is fucking stupid. You know why those guys were planning it since "before we were born" but never did it? Because they aren't you.But yeah. You just keep telling yourself that we can't do it.
We can't actually do it yet. We don't have anything capable of it. We only ever had plans. We also had plans for a laser missile defense shield around the country which didn't pan out. Sometimes we plan things before the technology is ready. Sometimes it never is. But see that line about the VASIMR? We can't do it yet, but maybe soon we can, with faster times than we thought, and more chance of success. Or should we just slap the ready-for-the-risk, fuck safety astronauts on any old rocket and shoot them in that direction, hope they don't all die, and hope they don't run out of supplies and we don't run out of rockets before they set up their self-sustaining colony/base/whatever? What's the worst that could happen, besides them all dying and us wasting billions of dollars?
e: Oh, and you didn't answer my questions. When did we stop exploring, and why do the rovers and probes and all the rest not count?
Last edited by Starblade; 7th Aug 12 at 10:45 PM.
#86
Starblade, Humans have died for far stupider things.
If we do a massive joint program with everyone including china , it may be possible. Where china supply large amount of metal and slave labor i mean skilled workers, other people do the design and such, and we all make a giant space craft with huge bio domes engines that are big as a foot ball field and and reactor to fairy it to mars. Sigh i can only dream.
#88
A pointless death is a pointless death. Don't make more of them where it can easily be avoided just because space is cool and we really want that space colony.Starblade, Humans have died for far stupider things.
Actually each death would be a learning scenario, with humans you won't ever have a perfect 1st time voyage. Someone going to die even with everything planed out to the T and you have super amazing tech. Someone going to die in a way that not even conceived. Plus what will go wrong will go wrong. Hell mid flight somethign crazy could happen could have a giant mega solar flare eruption collide with the ship. So everyone dies, was their death point less no not by a long shot. You learn from it.
#90
Not when it can be easily avoided and we know the cause, no. Death as a learning experience only works for the survivors. That's why you limit risk wherever possible. Yeah, there are going to be mistakes. Some of them don't need to happen. The Challenger didn't need to happen.
#91
I wouldn't say trying to get to Mars and dying was a pointless death. Space travel is already dangerous enough but every time we've lost a life during our quest to get into space or learning about it, we've improved upon it. Only 18 astronauts have died so far in both the Soviet/Russian and US space programs, more people die in car accidents every year; should we stop driving cars now? There is no point being scared of failing and losing lives, if that were the case the United States wouldn't exist today.
There is no way you can be 100% fool proof in any adventure put forth, even ones that seem to succeed like the Apollo program can have their dangers; but you keep going anyway because; its an adventure and pushes mankind further.
#92
I didn't say that either, don't get me wrong. I'm saying dying because of recklessness or preventable causes or whatever else trying to do that (or even on Mars), when it was completely avoidable and we knew about the cause, was pointless. Like you said, space is dangerous. That's why we mitigate risk, instead of ignore it. That's why we don't do what LoCo wants to do (besides the fact we literally can't since we don't have a launcher that can, it seems).I wouldn't say trying to get to Mars and dying was a pointless death.
Consider why only 18 have died. What does that say to you about our practices?Only 18 astronauts have died so far in both the Soviet/Russian and US space programs, more people die in car accidents every year; should we stop driving cars now?
I'm not saying wait until we're 100% foolproof. I'm saying wait until we've minimized risk as much as reasonably possible. Challenger exploded because we didn't do that. Untested parts in untested environments went up even though we knew it was probably going to fail and surprise! it did and it blew up and everyone died.
If people was driving the same amount cars and space ships their numbers would be equal? Not sure you can properly compare the two.. more people die in plane crashes than space deaths? At any case they most likely put all that 100 percent effort into figure out as much as possible to prevent any more. Yes with challenger, they should had scrub the launch, they knew what was going on.Consider why only 18 have died. What does that say to you?
#94
I'm sorry but I fail to identity your stance on this topic now. LoCo and I aren't suggesting we stuff a bunch of volunteers into a shuttle and just blast them off to Mars with a few prefab shelters and freeze dried food just to see how they go. What I'm suggesting is diverting research and R&D from a return home orientated mission to one where the only option is to become a permanent resident of Mars. That would include all the normal research require for any new type of space mission, with all the things that go with it; the shuttle to carry the volunteers to Mars, the research on growing food in an hostile environment without the normal resources, designing modular prefab shelters that can be expanded as more volunteers are sent, researching the health affects of the Mars environment on the human body and having the possibility of emergency launchers.
What you would ultimately want to do is in preparations for humans to colonise Mars is to send more rovers and other machines to construct the human settlement (we can do this with todays tech), for them to prepare the colony with supplies required for a long stay; once the colony is in satisfactory condition then you send the people into it with the rest of the equipment. The intention is to not send them their with pop up tents, if your going for a colony type situation you want them to actually survive so you research it.
Mars is actually one of the safer planets to visit in our solar system, it has atmosphere (Unlike the moon or NEO), its temperature is manageable (unlike Mercury), its not full of sulfuric acid (unlike Venus), it's located at a manageable distance (Unlike Jupiter and its moons) and its we know the most about it of all the planets.
Last edited by Akranadas; 7th Aug 12 at 11:14 PM.
#95
Unless there's a sea change in thinking, killing the first set of marsnauts would likely kill any Mars-centric program for many years. Honestly, the public reaction would be twisted by those seeking political advantage. The casualties wouldn't be martyrs, they'd be made out to be victims, and that's very easy to do if a lot of mistakes weren't caught that should have been.
==================
Once the challenge of getting enough stuff to orbit is out of the way, what would be greatly helpful to any manned Mars mission would be really good near-autonomous robotics. Send a foundrybot to harvest a lot of those hematite "blueberries" lying around, and fabricate a lot of the heavy simpler structural stuff such as iron girders and sheet-metal in advance. For a return mission, if the complexity wasn't too much, use this process to create giant storage tanks and pump them full of H2 and O2 that was cracked from polar ice using solar or nuclear power.
Spirit and Opportunity showed that complex machines survive quite well on the surface, and a few good 'bots sent in advance would drastically reduce the payload cost for any mission.
It sounds all so simple!
Im kind of in the middle on this one. On the one hand i do think caution has wholly overtaken our spirit for adventure. Our society refuses to stomach known risks while thousands die in car accidents, domestic disputes and other accidents and these events hardly get noticed.
Yet anytime where individuals volunteer themselves for dangerous tasks with full knowledge of the risks suddenly people cant take it. That mindset baffles me.
Any semi permanent settlement on mars must be prefaced IMO with no less than a decade of dedicated preparation. Sending rovers to scout potential base sites, scouting for raw materials for the colonists to exploit so that they are less reliant on earth based supply runs, and possibly even automated systems in place to harvest and fabricate certain things before our intrepid explorers even arrive. creating a rudimentary Global positioning system with a satellite communications network would be invaluable for continued exploration of the surface as well.
I imagine that a requirement for extremely reliable power generation systems would be top of the list, enough living space to support a fair sized population so that social isolation does not become a problem. also having several methods of food production would be ideal so that the failure of a "crop" or batch of whatever everyone is eating doesn't instantly doom the explorers to starvation. reliable sources of water, fuel, and basic fabrication abilities so that the colonists can replace basic materials and or mission critical items without total reliance on the homeworld.
By no means do i think this kind of thing will be cheap or easy...but worth it? GOD YES
Starblade: We haven't built it so that means we can't build it? That seems to be exactly what you are saying.
I haven't hopped out of my room before. I guess that means I can't do it now. Despite the fact that I have fully functioning legs and an average degree of balance. But hey, I should not try it because I haven't done it.
Also, I'm not the one being childish. You are the one who keeps insisting that I'm advocating throwing a bunch of people in a barrel and flinging them at Mars.
Yes, take safety measures. Yes, plan the venture fully. But stop using the excuse that it's dangerous so that you can keep from doing it. We have the tech. We have the knowledge. We have the time. We have the chance. We know when it's the best time. We know how. We have the ability. We have people willing. Hell, we even have the funds if the US were to just take 2% from the defense budget.
That's... what? 14billion? I'm rather confident we could send a really well geared, very safe, very well stocked, well researched manned mission to Mars with a very high success rate with 14billion dollars.
Also, I did answer your question. With questions of my own. When did I say that rovers and probes were useless?
#99
This frames my half-baked thoughts on the issue nicely.
In the age of discovery countless people were shipped off to far flung lands with no guarantee of getting home, colonization was about building a new home somewhere else.
Unfortunately this to. We talk about the risks of space travel, but when it comes to it when an accident in the space programme happens and people die, the world seems to recoil from it.
Our squeamish society is framed in the way we feel about our soldiers, who by their job are traditionally throwing themselves into risk, yet images of body bags is usually the best way to erode domestic support for our wars and ensure we 'lose' (which can be expanded on in another thread if needed).
It's sad but once people accepted risk as a reality of advancing the human frontier.
Indeed, though I think we should work on a moon base. Mediocre 70's sci-fi aside, it's close to home and much more practical and we know we can (relatively) easily get the people there and back again.
Edit: Fisher, I get what you're saying but a volunteer is different from disposable.
If it is accepted that a soldier can risk death to 'build a country' then I reckon a volunteer 'Martian colonist' can be respected to, I doubt anyone would realistically be able to argue it's a life wasted if it's spent doing something important expanding the human frontier.
Plus the universe doesn't really care for our specific morality in this space and time, and while I would never condone a careless reckless attitude to human life, I'm not blind to the fact that sacrifice is what sometimes the human race has needed to undertake to achieve something. We didn't get to landing rovers on Mars by not hunting a deer or whatever because the hunters might get injured or killed.
Last edited by Nurizeko; 8th Aug 12 at 2:08 AM.
I am pretty sure that the acceptance of risk to expand humanities interests amongst the stars will see a resurgence when we can reliably traverse interstellar distances. Its may be a lot more appealing when you can potentially travel to an Earth like world to create human settlements.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
