|
|
|
I've always been fond of the idea of turning the entire moon into a research facility/colony. Should definitely do that. You can use the moon as a launch facility for Mars too. You launch stuff to the moon from earth, and then you refuel/reship on the moon which makes your entire payload lighter to get to Mars.
#102
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills" - JFK
Hopefully we won't require another cold war to push America into action again.
I don't mind the Chinese taking over the responsibility for our future but a part of me would prefer liberal democracy holds onto that honour.
Plus it's gotta be better than the west wallowing in its own self pity without any direction or real goal beyond complaining about our bloated corrupt financial sectors.
I don't remember the Wall Street movies firing the imagination for a future.
Guilliman: Yeah the moon seems a good bet for near future space exploitation.
The moon would probably be a far better initial test of the technology, one of the few sensible things that George W. Bush supported iirc. It's both far closer and far more harsh than Mars is, lower gravity, no atmosphere at all, solar radiation and the lunar regolith is apparently one of the most abrasive and intrusive substances we've ever encountered. If it can be done on the Moon it can probably be done on Mars, with the added benefit that it'd be far easier to set up rescue systems in the case of new technologies not working as intended.
#104
Guys, if you're going to spend lives going somewhere new, you want to learn something from the spending. If we're making war analogies, it's acceptable for a commander to sacrifice some troops to learn about enemy strength in an area - some guys get killed on patrol so that the rest of them know what to expect. It's not acceptable to sacrifice people in a stupid attack on a prepared position without adequate support.
We can't support a Mars mission right now. We know we can't. Sending people to Mars in the near future makes as much sense as mid-WWI trench warfare tactics, when it should have been really obvious that the old frontal infantry shock attack wasn't working. Over the top men! For god and country and glory and that cool feeling you get when you contemplate man striving to accomplish the impossible! All of you will die horribly but it's fucking awesome!
If you want to make a Mars mission an acceptable-risk recon instead of a asinine charge into machine guns, it's going to take decades to work through basic science surrounding logistics, psychology and physiology. One way trips and "just do it" colonies are simply not going to happen any time soon, not because everyone's a bunch of pansies but because this is orders of magnitude harder than any previous human endeavor and we still haven't gotten it all figured out.
#105
We went to the Moon, that was to quote your post "orders of magnitude harder than any previous human endeavor and we still haven't gotten it all figured out."
We still sent people into space not knowing what could really happen, likewise when we went to the moon.
#106
The second part of my post is about us building it some time in the future with better technology since we currently don't have anything capable of it according to your link I guess you didn't bother to read. You should probably not post without reading the thread.We haven't built it so that means we can't build it? That seems to be exactly what you are saying.
As of the year of our lord two thousand and twelve anno domini, no government or organization has a rocket capable of sending a human being to Mars. You are wrong. Deal with it.We have the tech.
When you more than implied we were no longer exploring or discovering because we're not that in person. I'm sorry you don't like that we're sending machines because that's all we can manage LoCo, but that's the reality of it. We currently do not possess the ability to send a human to Mars. Maybe some day soon, with that rocket I mentioned in the half of my post you forgot to read, with travel times that may even render things like "might go insane halfway there" a non-issue.When did I say that rovers and probes were useless?
Last edited by Starblade; 8th Aug 12 at 6:30 AM.
My Interceptor is better than your Interceptor.
Did we have the technology to go to the moon when JFK decided we should go there? If we didn't, we made it.
Likewise, if we don't have the technology to go to Mars, we'll make it.
#108
Yes, we'll make it eventually and we'll get there eventually. I said that. I want that to happen. I'm also saying we can't currently do it.
#109
No Starblade. LoCo wants us to make plans to go now. He's not talking about us building something tomorrow and going next week, he's said this over 3 times already.
#110
Good news, we have those. A lot of them! Unfortunately without the technology he claims we have (we don't, still no launcher capable of it) that doesn't matter. We don't have the ability to fulfill those plans yet.LoCo wants us to make plans to go now.
Last edited by Starblade; 8th Aug 12 at 6:45 AM.
#111
We have the technology to go to Mars, just take a while to get all the bits and pieces up the gravity well into orbit before lighting the candle and sending folks there.
The orbital mechanics are easy, they've got a couple of different ways to land (powered lander to the surface probably best), and if they pre-stage a return rocket on the surface, they could even get back.
But the problem is, the STAY wouldn't be long enough. I think if we go to mars, we're going to want to stay a while.
Here's a video on Mars Directs plan. I won't claim to know how viable it actually is, but it sounds like it should be to me.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.
Most likely they pre launch lots of supply crates before hand, then send the people. Once the people there, they play legos and put their base up. After that earth sends a box of tools/supplies every so often. Then we build a mass driver half way into the atmosphere then then go back into space. However we do have the tech to send people, just not built the tech.
No qaurter back men, only forward or we will hold this line forever!!!
[IMG][/IMG]
Row Row Row Fight the Powha
I also feel like this is somewhat applicable here.
Lets forget about the what we may find on Mars for a second, just the prospect of getting to Mars could be enough to help society out a bit. We think so much about "today" and how everything will benefit us now, yet getting to Mars could help provoke a sense of reaching for tomorrow and looking ahead instead which could help inspire others to dream big as well.
Also i think this is the first high-res. image to come from Curiosity?
#115
I'd say we definitely have the technology to go to Mars - it's just a matter of engineering now, not basic science. We'd need to create a new rocket and everything, yeah, but that doesn't require any truly new inventions - just scaling things up, making sure everything works, etc.
Mind you, that's still going to cost a lot of money and time, but we could get started on that stuff right now if we truly wished. We don't need to wait for any new basic science or discoveries or anything.
#116
I would consider building a new type of rocket we currently don't have to involve new technologies and designs (especially in shielding, from what I understand), but maybe that's just how I consider it. Either way, we currently cannot get our asses to Mars.
When we do go, I wonder how long the astronauts will be expected to stay at Mars.But the problem is, the STAY wouldn't be long enough. I think if we go to mars, we're going to want to stay a while.
#117
Starblade, we've thrown a lot of shit at mars over the years. We know the math for how to get mass there and back. We don't need to invent new technology, but we may need to invent new hardware.
Like commisar indicated, we've got the technology, but we just haven't BUILT (which need design/funding) the specific hardware we'd need.
#118
I'm going off definition 2 there, if it helps. We have the tech to build rockets, but not to get humans to Mars safely. Radiation levels at Mars and in space aren't the same as in Earth orbit on or the Moon (I love the idea of a metal and water shield, by the way). We're working on it but we're really not there yet. Not to keep bringing it up since I know little about it, but VASIMR would help with this as it would cut the travel time drastically. A human being is not a machine. It has different stresses and tolerances. New hardware will require new technologies and new designs.tech·nol·o·gy/tek?näl?j?/
Noun:
The application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, esp. in industry: "computer technology"; "recycling technologies".
Machinery and equipment developed from such scientific knowledge.
Last edited by Starblade; 8th Aug 12 at 10:58 AM.
Do plasma shield block radiation?
#120
excuse my one line post but, dafuq is a plasma shield? i made plasma once by putting fire in a microwave...
#121
Do plasma shields exist?Do plasma shield block radiation?
A quick Google search says they're working on it. Kind of. I've also heard of a Plasma window, which is compared to force-fields.
Anyway, I heard about Curiosity late last year so its amazing to hear it succeeded. Unfortunately I think most believe its just another rover and don't see how its any different or important, so I doubt it'll spark much more interest in space exploration. Hopefully I'm wrong or it finds something incredible.
What I'm really wondering is, why should Mars be the next step in human space exploration? Why not focus on doing more on the moon, since we've already been there several times. We can test out some of the basic ideas for making a long-term base there, it would be easier to get people back if things go wrong, and we could develop/test the tech to get to Mars and back on a smaller scale. Sure it wouldn't be a huge step like landing explorers on Mars, but setting up Moon base would be a big deal and and it would be a safer operation. That and whenever someone looks up at the moon they can realize, oh hey, someone's probably looking back. if that doesn't boost interest in space exploration, I don't know what would.
Another idea bouncing around my head; is anyone trying to figure out how to build ships in space, so they don't have to worry about getting out of the atmosphere? Or maybe that isn't a good idea.
Mars is the next stepping stone over the moon because we have already been to the moon. We known we can place a human being there, where as we haven't accomplished that with Mars yet. Also i'd say it has to do with Mars being another planet and the moon, being well just that, a satellite orbiting around earth. But yes, it would be easier for us to try living on the moon before going off to mars, and i could see that happening before anyone tries to get another planet.What I'm really wondering is, why should Mars be the next step in human space exploration? Why not focus on doing more on the moon, since we've already been there several times. We can test out some of the basic ideas for making a long-term base there, it would be easier to get people back if things go wrong, and we could develop/test the tech to get to Mars and back on a smaller scale. Sure it wouldn't be a huge step like landing explorers on Mars, but setting up Moon base would be a big deal and and it would be a safer operation. That and whenever someone looks up at the moon they can realize, oh hey, someone's probably looking back. if that doesn't boost interest in space exploration, I don't know what would.
To add to Inquisitor Lok's post, was watching the Olympics and Brian Williams capped of a segment on the Curiosity rover with "Good to hear people cheering for NASA again." Made me smile.
-Stefan-
#126
Ok this is getting idiotic. This all started because a couple people were posting about how we could get to Mars if we just applied ourselves, since all the problems were basically easy. Starblade and I have responded by pointing out that getting humans to Mars and leaving them there is so far out of our league right now that such sentiment is loony. Getting to the moon is absolutely trivial compared to setting up any sort of permanent presence on Mars. We haven't even set up a permanent presence on the Moon yet FFS.We went to the Moon, that was to quote your post "orders of magnitude harder than any previous human endeavor and we still haven't gotten it all figured out."
We still sent people into space not knowing what could really happen, likewise when we went to the moon.
Everyone here thinks going to Mars is cool.
Everyone here thinks going to Mars is possible and could happen after some period of human effort, though it appears we disagree on the length of that period or the difficulties we'd face during it.
What I strongly disagree with is the apparent belief that we can "just do it", or that it's somehow analogous to the Moon shot or the age of exploration or McMurdo Station. There is so much basic science to be done before we start sending people to Mars to set up shop that it's absurd to claim the limiting factor at the moment is dreams or everyone being pussies or whatever it is you guys think is holding us back. No, what's holding us back is that we can't do it yet, not in any sane manner or with any hope of success or any hope of getting anything out of it except warm fuzzy feelings and hopefully some spinoffs.
And who's going to pay for this, and why? As I said earlier, the only reason anyone got anywhere during the age of exploration on Earth was because rich people saw profit in it or some king or another thought he could buy prestige by funding you.. If they were just going for the dream of finding somewhere new, they'd have died in the gutter or debtor's prison. Nothing has changed about the world. If your plan involves saying "fuck it, we'll figure it out and spend money till it works", you're going to have some 'splaining to do to every other worthwhile cause and there's no way in hell you'll actually get anything done.
#127
Maybe NASA should start a kickstarter project for a Man-to-Mars mission for funds?
You and Starblade are continually throwing up these road blocks that we don't know the science about Mars, when in reality we know as much as we can without sending people. Rovers can only teach us so much from the surface but having a human walking around there will teach us more in the first few months than all the rover missions combined. Countless high profile scientists are saying we are ready, hell even ]Buzz Aldrin says we can do it; and he walked on the moon, Carl Sagan says we should do it too.
The science is ready we change build the technology, we just lack the drive to do it.
#128
this is how america got men to the moon."fuck it, we'll figure it out and spend money till it works", you're going to have some 'splaining to do to every other worthwhile cause and there's no way in hell you'll actually get anything done.
There's no reason for anyone to do so there's nothing on the moon other than rock, then again there isn't much on Mars either. I think the only thing stopping us from having a manned mission to Mars is money not technology. They already did an experiment when they locked up a bunch of scientists and engineers in a mock spacecraft for 500 odd days.We haven't even set up a permanent presence on the Moon yet FFS.
Plasma window does.. not quiet a shield yet.Do plasma shields exist?
Opps i'm so late just read up...
#131
"Carl Sagan autotunes in a video about going to Mars" != "this is easy and we're just weak willed"
Mars to Stay requires constant supplies from Earth, which is an enormous expense to be undertaken for *insert reason that actually motivates people here*, and seems to be an exercise in optimism.
Indeed. National prestige and a limitless budget do wonders. Please explain how you're going to get those factors lined up for a Mars shot, then explain how they're going to solve the whole "but they need to bring food and water with them" problem.this is how america got men to the moon.
Mars doesn't have its own water? Nor they can't grow their own soy bean farm? I believe they can produce water on mars and food. I don't see why not.
#133
Use some imagination; don't just throw up "nope, it can be done" because that's what people said before we invented the airplane, or even went to the moon.
Mars has frozen water, its been established that it does, so we land the colony close enough to the poles to allow the settlers to establish water harvesting equipment; so Water is covered, plus we've pretty much perfected water recycling techniques onboard the international space station so water loss in minimal. Food can already been grown in artificial environment and we're already beginning to grow meat in lab environments.
Of course we will continue to send supplies of new food, oxygen and water when we send more settlers to Mars to keep the stock levels maintained (currently like what we do for Arctic and Antarctic research stations) so that Mars doesn't feel completely cut off; we could scheduled resupplies every 6 months or so by maintaining a schedule of launches.
I wonder can you eat things grown from martian soil with out dieing?
#135
It's unknown if Earth bound plant life could grow on Mars. The soil (its dust actually) does have the right chemicals but again that would be an experiment that would need to happen in the future.
#136
The SDI didn't pan out, not the concept of shooting down a missile with a laser.Maybe, maybe not.
I'm the literal personification of the radiation that will kill the astronauts if we don't get proper radiation shielding on that spacecraft.You and Starblade are continually throwing up these road blocks that we don't know the science about Mars, when in reality we know as much as we can without sending people.
Plants requires the proper atmosphere, temperature, humidity, amount of light and water, soil and nutrient contents in the right amounts. It's not as easy as just dumping some seeds in the dirt and throwing water on it, even on Earth. Just plopping some seeds down in the martian dust and sprinkling it with water probably wouldn't cut it. I don't see why whatever is grown there, however you end up doing it, would kill you; a tomato is a tomato.Nor they can't grow their own soy bean farm? I believe they can produce water on mars and food. I don't see why not.
Last edited by Starblade; 8th Aug 12 at 5:42 PM.
I imagine that manned missions would conduct experiments attempting to use Martian soil for planting, but I don't believe raw soil would work. Most likely, crops would be grown with hydroponics.I wonder can you eat things grown from martian soil with out dieing?
The conversation in this thread is getting kind of ridiculous. I don't believe anyone is saying we should do a Mars Shot recklessly, and I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't do it because it cannot be done. The real deal is this. The technology to send men to Mars DOES exist. It has existed for decades. The only real question is how humans would fair on such a long trip outside Earth's gravity, away from society, and with the same small company in a small place. It is a psychological question that likely can't be answered without actually doing the mission.
No, the US doesn't currently have the means of sending humans into space, but that is not a question of technology, just hardware. Nothing is stopping the US from building a heavy lifting, human rated rocket except for funding and motivation. With those two provided, everything needed for the mission could be built. With the correct funding, NASA could put humans on Mars within a decade, and I am not exaggerating. There is no issue about the mission that is insurmountable, it's just a matter of doing the work.
So where does the motivation come from? Frankly, most the public asks "What is in it for me? How does this help us?". The answer is "Currently, nothing". Yes, there are technology spin-offs, we know they happen, but it is impossible to say what those will be before it happens. Financially, there would be absolutely no gain in the near future. Eventually industry could benefit, when space travel is made cheaper, and valuable resources can be mined (but those most likely will come from asteroids, it would be inefficient and too expensive to send resources to Earth from Mars), but there is no short term financial benefit. Every tangible benefit comes in the long term.
In the short term, we would go to Mars on principle and for philosophical reasons. "We go to the Moon, and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." A successful mission to Mars would strength humankind, it would expand our minds, lead to new knowledge about the universe, and even perhaps about our origins, in the event that life is discovered. It could possibly brings humans closer together. When men are living on Mars, suddenly Earth seems much smaller. When(if) we find life, suddenly we feel much less special, but at the same time the universe itself is much more special, more wondrous. And when we are successful, when we overcome obstacles and begin a new phase in our history, we can be proud of ourselves.
The mission would be expensive. Not so expensive it is out of our reach, not even so expensive that it requires a multinational effort, but it would be significant. It is not an easy task, it may even take multiple tries (we did not land on the Moon on Apollo's first flight). What can be said, is that traveling to Mars (and the Moon) is the next and only step in human exploration and expansion. If we don't do it, it will never be done, and those problems will never be overcome, and we will never enlighten ourselves. We will never reap the possible benefits or discover the possible rewards unless we just do it. Never will all of Earth's problems will be solved, so there will never be a truly better time to go to Mars. We just have to do it.
#138
It's weird people keep saying this when nobody has said otherwise.There is no issue about the mission that is insurmountable, it's just a matter of doing the work.
e: I'm tired of repeating this, actually.
AJ: You're kind of missing the point of what I was saying there.
SpitfireMK461: Yes, exactly. I agree completely.
Starblade:
Perhaps, butThe SDI didn't pan out, not the concept of shooting down a missile with a laser.At least we have the technology and know how to do it, whether or not we are still using or employing said technology.the Missile Defense Agency's Airborne Laser program uses a chemical laser which has successfully intercepted a missile taking off,[ref] so an offshoot of SDI could be said to have successfully implemented one of the key goals of the program. (source)
--EDIT--
You have said it, or at least that is what everyone else seems to think you're saying.It's weird people keep saying this when nobody has said otherwise.
#140
No, I didn't. I said I don't think it's impossible to do ever or insurmountable or that it can't be done. I said we can't right now.
I know some larger aircraft have nose-mounted lasers to shoot down missiles with. We have no missile defense screen like SDI, however.At least we have the technology and know how to do it, whether or not we are still using or employing said technology.
Starblade, I was merely trying to address everything from each side for one clear and concise evaluation, and emphasizing that the technology is there, it just has to be built.
Alrighty then. I will not respond to anymore of your comments if you're just going to have a combative attitude towards anyone who disagrees even remotely with your thoughts and opinions.
#143
Huh? You said I was saying X. I stated that I did not say X, you misunderstood me. I then gave an example of how the technology you brought up is being used, though not in the manner of the original idea of the Strategic Defense Initiative (though I thought you linked to another form of missile defense, sorry). How is any of that combative, even if you don't compare it to any other post in the thread?Alrighty then. I will not respond to anymore of your comments if you're just going to have a combative attitude towards anyone who disagrees even remotely with your thoughts and opinions.
Last edited by Starblade; 8th Aug 12 at 6:16 PM.
#144
The problem is Starblade is your posting style in this thread comes across as quite aggressive when you are replying to someones post, mostly due to the short quips and your non-budging stance on the matter at hand. Members here have posted rather detailed posts and replies to your questions on why we can go to Mars now (with modern tech) but you seem to think that when everyone says we should go, you seem to believe (from reading your posts) that we do it half-haphazardly just to see what happens.
When in fact, most people in support going starting our journey to Mars now know that we have the technology and scientific understanding to do it. We've read the research from some of the top minds in the field who say we can do it with today's level of technology, all we need is the drive and money to do so.
#145
Yeah Starblade, quit being such a meanie. None of US are saying "DO IT TOMORROW NASA" we're saying "GET RAMPED UP TO DO IT SOONER RATHER THAN LATER".
It's impossible to go to the moon right now too.
LAND ON ALL THE SOLAR SYSTEM'S PLANETARY BODIES!
I wonder how will the rover handle martian tornadoes, and why haven't they land directly on the ice cap?
#147
Starfisher: I think people have basically been saying 'no, you're wrong' because you keep saying it's impossible to go to Mars with current tech, but we could totally go to Mars with an unlimited budget. Political and economic factors are what's keeping us away, not raw tech factors.
The Martian winter is too harsh. The Phoenix lander set down near the northern pole and it wasn't able to survive the winter despite NASA hopes. I'm also guessing exploring the actual pole isn't an interest since you can't get down to the geology there. You'd just be seeing ice.I wonder how will the rover handle martian tornadoes, and why haven't they land directly on the ice cap?
#149
You forgot the launcher again, but I guess I'm in the minority with the "wait until we learn more about how it'll affect humans and until we get superior tech to do things faster/better" opinion, and there's not much more to say on it. We already know there are plans, LoCo showed us that. They still don't matter until we can actually get there. Right now, humans can't.When in fact, most people in support going starting our journey to Mars now know that we have the technology and scientific understanding to do it.
Except Europa. Attempt no landing there.LAND ON ALL THE SOLAR SYSTEM'S PLANETARY BODIES!
e: wait fuck. oh well close enough
All these worlds are yours.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
