Still don't see the point of a manned Mars base. What could they do that rovers can't for a fraction of the cost?
Still don't see the point of a manned Mars base. What could they do that rovers can't for a fraction of the cost?
- sincerely, the Sign Painter
STOP BEING A KILLJOY. We know we can't do it "right this instant" It takes time to build the infrastructure to go to planetary bodies, but we CAN get there if we spent the time and money on it.
I guess Neil deGrasse Tyson summed it up perfectly...
"Enough about Mars. Must get back to making Earth hotter, cutting science budgets, and killing each other over religious differences."
We launch shit into space every other week; we have these things called rockets and we've been using them since the Mid 40's we've got the system down pretty easy.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.
We strapped the crew into the purpose built, thoroughly research interplanetary transport (maybe modify the Dream Chaser) onto a Atlas V Rocket where it rendezvous with components already being assembled at the international space station (crew and main living quarters were only sent up after everything else was ready). We assemble the final craft in space like a giant lego set using the resources already available on the international space station like the giant robot arm. Once that's complete and all tests prove safe we use Reaction engines (same as those used to get the rover to Mars) or Ion Drives (Invented in the 70s) to send the crew to Mars on the 9 months trip.
To Land on Mars (because I know you'll ask this next) we have the crew enter orbit around the planet, from there the system releases the various pre-fab components for the settlement, those land through upscaled Sky Crane or Parachutes using computer programs to land them as close to the landing sight as possible. After those have mad ground fall, they unpack themselves (using robotics) and begin to setup. Once the all clear has been given, the crew detaches from the orbiter (which will now act as high speed communication satellite) and the purpose built craft goes into a massive gliding pattern, making drastic S turns to reduce its speed; once speed is slow enough for landing, the crew glides into the landing zone (or as close to it as possible) with assistance from computers (current drones can land with precision). The craft is then converted into shelter for the crew during their mission as its not designed to escape Mars.
Last edited by Akranadas; 8th Aug 12 at 11:51 PM.
Couple points. And everyone stop yelling at Starblade - he makes good points and you're just pissed because he's pointing out there's still some tarnish on the shiny penny that is everyone's dreamed-for Mars run.
We don't quite have that assembly capability in space yet and it would require some development. It's one thing to bolt together and deploy completely prefabricated modules to a fixed orbital structure that will undergo very little acceleration. It's another to build and properly test a vehicle with an active high-use propulsion system that cannot fail for months.We assemble the final craft in space like a giant lego set using the resources already available on the international space station like the giant robot arm.
This situation does not compare to resupplying Antarctic bases. Once the voyage starts you can't simply air-drop new stuff so unexpected situations can be handled.
I'm all for it, and I think if they throw enough money at it they could do it within 10 years. I'd suggest having a solid Mars orbital presence that can be rendezvoused with would make the most sense. Heck, an unmanned earlier flight could send the return-from-ground vehicle well in advance.
For the interplanetary transport vehicle, a Moon run would make a lot of sense to test many of the mission components. Airbraking on arrival, the psychology impacts of a long-mission, and flight-based transportation after landing wouldn't be parts of this run and would have to be tested through other means. But if the unmanned transportation vehicle can be sent to the Moon's orbit, the manned one flies out and successfully hooks up, and then the manned one returns to Earth while the unmanned flies either back to Earth or directly on to Mars after any necessary refuelling, you'd get an awful lot of bugs out of the system and tremendously raise confidence that the Mars trip is workable.
The beauty of propulsion systems like the ion engines is that they require very little fuel provided you can get them past the edge of the local gravity well.
Who the hell thought "erectus" was a good species name for our ancestors?
This is one issue constantly raised but which also consistently ignores the countless examples of people (and groups) surviving in isolation and in restrictive circumstances.Originally Posted by Spitfire
I think a lot of people forget or just ignorant of the fact the ideal human social unit is around 30 people tops.
We've evolved most of our species existence in relatively small social groups, with rare to no contact with outsiders.
I think it's safe to say with the above taken into account a reasonable sized group of colonists/explorers could cope quite well.
The idea that people just magically psychologically implode with detachment from everyday modern society is laughably naive and ignorant. Our species niche is coping with changing circumstances where others just die off, we're psychologically built to handle environmental stress. We're a social species but we're not a hive mind, we don't need access to hundreds of different people all the time to cope.
We probably know as much as we're going to know without actually doing it, I suppose we could send some astronauts to live on the space station for a year or so. Fact is we're talking about the element of risk here that we must accept. Which revolves around back to volunteers quite nicely.Originally Posted by Starblade
And as waiting for 'superior tech' that's silly, this isn't Homeworld or whatever, we don't need to wait for some research to pop so we can roll out hyper drives, we have the technology to go to Mars now.
Any further improvements/advancements will require us to actually be doing what we intend it for, necessity is after all the provable mother of invention.
This again takes us back to the early space programme. We began without space flight, we ended with man on the moon and robotic vehicles to the furthest stretches of the solar system.
Robots are cool but until we invent self-aware AI and have to deal with that moral debate, they are not people.
Ugh this is what I'm talking about. "I don't see why not" != "actually possible". Martin soil is entirely sterile and nitrogen deficient, and may or may not be toxic (last soil test found salt percholate which would require cleanup on Earth; inconclusive as to whether they were contamination or naturally occurring). And as I pointed out earlier, we do NOT know how to make a perfect recycling system - we can't even make it happen on earth, see every attempt at a biodome - this colony would be entirely dependent on constant influxes of everything from Earth for a very, very long time.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.
Could we eventually farm on Mars? Of course. I have no idea how long it would take before we get there, but step one is creating a successful self-sustaining sealed farm here on Earth, not lighting off the engines and seeing how much percholate our thyroids can handle.
This is because people keep intermixing the case where you send a guy to Mars for one day and bring him back (which we can't do because of fuel issues at the moment) and the case where we just send people to Mars to sit there until we maybe figure out how to bring them back in 30 years (which would require constant logistical support from Earth for 30 years). The first one we actually CAN'T DO, the second one is just massively impractical and very likely to fail with 100% casualties given current technology.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.
What makes you certain it'd be out-and-out impossible, Starfisher? Hideously expensive, yes. Definitely. But we could do it; it'd just require multiple stages.
For a fun change of pace we could always try making things suck a little less. Wouldn't that be fun, guys? Guys?I guess Neil deGrasse Tyson summed it up perfectly...
"Enough about Mars. Must get back to making Earth hotter, cutting science budgets, and killing each other over religious differences."
We launch shit into space every other week; we have these things called rockets and we've been using them since the Mid 40's we've got the system down pretty easy.And as waiting for 'superior tech' that's silly, this isn't Homeworld or whatever, we don't need to wait for some research to pop so we can roll out hyper drives, we have the technology to go to Mars now.A launcher to the ISS or the moon is not the same as Mars. We currently have no launcher that can get a human there. No one does. Sorry. It's not as simple as digging up an apollo, pointing it in the right direction, and waiting a few months. We need to develop and build the technology (or redesign an existing technology) to get us there first.Originally Posted by Originally Posted by Wikipedia's Manned Mission to Mars: Preparedness
Actually, Nurizeko, psychological trauma from having a handful of people isolated and constrained to an extremely small living space for a few years is a major concern with going to Mars. To the point that we have done and are doing multiple experiments to make sure someone won't snap halfway there. As it turns out, human beings don't like isolation very much. While the Mars 500 succeeded, a couple failed, and we are still doing follow-up experiments on the topic. Mental health is nothing to dismiss, on Earth or in space. Also we wouldn't send 30 people. Far too heavy to carry that and their supplies. Five to eight at most, I would imagine.The idea that people just magically psychologically implode with detachment from everyday modern society is laughably naive and ignorant.
Last edited by Starblade; 9th Aug 12 at 5:46 AM.
My Interceptor is better than your Interceptor.
So we build it.
Of course the US doesn't have launcher sitting in their backyard because they don't have a mission to Mars, they also didn't have one capable of sending humans to the Moon either but they built that one, it the 60's no less, our fridges have more computer power than that craft these days.
Again, NO ONE IN THIS THREAD IS SAYING GO THIS YEAR. We have plenty of time to build the stuff we need to get to Mars.
...Yes. We need to research, design and build it first. We haven't done that yet. We have plans and proposals. Now we (continue to) work on the technology so we can fulfill those plans.
THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING TO DO THE WHOLE TIME!
Shall I go back and quote the numerous times I've been told the technology is there, it's been done? You've all been saying to go, we have the ability and rovers can tell us nothing more (how do you know this by the way). And do you really think nobody is working on any of this?
e: How are you guys not getting this?
Last edited by Starblade; 9th Aug 12 at 6:36 AM.
They could capture the public interest and provide the incentive for the space program to get higher funding than happens now.The main reason the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo program was so successful was that NASA got bucketloads of money from the US government because everybody was watching and reading about the astronauts... not the "space program", the "astronauts". Manned space missions really did inspire the whole world during the latter part of the 1960s leading up to Apollo 11.Still don't see the point of a manned Mars base. What could they do that rovers can't for a fraction of the cost?
I'm old enough that I was able to watch Neil Armstrong walk on the moon live and I can tell you that it was the biggest story in the world at the time, people even wrote songs about it. There was basically nobody asking "Still don't see the point of a manned
MarsMoon base. What could they do that rovers can't for a fraction of the cost?", everybody was too busy watching grainy TV images of humans playing golf, dropping feathers, and throwing hammers on the freaking moon!
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that
heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
We have the technology to get stuff off the surface of earth and into orbit right? We have the technology to build things in orbit (Salyut, Mir, IIS).
We'd not launch a mission to mars in one shot from a ground base launched. That'd be silly. You can't pack enough mass to supply a manned mission in a ground based launch.
So you haul it up the well and build the ship in orbit, stock it, man it and send it to Mars.
Yes we'd need to design and build crew capsules, the cruise stage, and lander, but we have the ability to do that.
Rovers can tell us a lot, but there's something very very inspiring about exploring.
We do have the technology to do it; we've got the engines, we've got the materials down pat, we know how to keep humans alive in space for long periods of time, we know how to grow food without soil, we can grow meat in a test tube and what we don't know about getting to Mars, we research towards the fact of getting there. If the United States wanted to go to Mars by the end of the decade, they would it isn't technology that is preventing us from going its need, funds and willpower.Shall I go back and quote the numerous times I've been told the technology is there, it's been done? You've all been saying to go, we have the ability and rovers can tell us nothing more (how do you know this by the way). And do you really think nobody is working on any of this?
Expansion and exploration help make the world suck less. From new resources to new derived technologies through to just inspiring and uniting people trying to do more out there (not necessarily Mars) could go a long way towards helping down here. You can't just make things suck less, but you can provide the world cheap clean resources, cheap clean energy and cheap communications that will start the process of suckage reduction, all of which are possible or even likely benefits of significantly increased space exploration/industry.For a fun change of pace we could always try making things suck a little less. Wouldn't that be fun, guys? Guys?
This discussion seems to be locked in a circle anyway, with one side going "Fuck yeah, we should work on the technology to go to Mars!" and the other saying "Fuck no, we shouldn't go to Mars until we have the technology!" We may not have the technology right now this very instant to send manned missions to the Moon or Mars, but we've definitely got enough of a foundation and theoretical knowledge that we could start the project with a reasonable expectation of success within a decade for the Moon and a few decades for Mars. All that's lacking is money and the will to do it, a shortsighted viewpoint which ignores the considerable possible benefit in derived technologies and public inspiration from such a project.
There are several technologies and lots more information we need before we send people to Mars. It took 8-9 months to get the MSL to Mars. Can humans survive such a trip? If we have ion or plasma drives and accelerate/decelerate the entire way there it could possibly cut down the duration of the voyage. We need to research and build a spaceship capable of sustaining a crew for the duration of the trip to Mars. Powered orbital trajectory or not shields of some sort will be necessary for the trip. A spaceship with its own plasma or magnetic shield to deflect/absorb most radiation would be needed. Again it is all up to the budget we can throw at it. A powered shielded ship would be expensive but it will get Mars bound astronauts there in the shortest time and least risk of them dying before reaching Mars.
Once we get to Mars we have other issues, is it a return flight? Do we land a bunch of Robots there first to build a base to build and fuel a return ascent stage? If it is a one way trip how long do we keep the Mars colonists alive before we pull the plug? Building green houses and finding a site with water is great. There are a few more requirements for a Mars colony. What about Nitrogen? Mar's atmosphere is mostly CO2 and we need Nitrogen for colony survival/growth. Is there enough Sodium or Potassium at the site of the potential colony, or will that have to be sent too?
Right now the goal of the Mars Landers is to figure out if life existed at one point in Mar's history. For the goal of figuring out a site for a Mars colony, we need find out a lot more about Mars.
So does feeding the poor. If we want to make the world better, I'd rather we start at home. Exploration and travel and the things we get from that our great, but it doesn't really help our widespread systemic issues, especially the ones I'm thinking of. Cleaner energy sources already exist, but we won't adopt them largescale, for a variety of reasons. But that's for whining about in another thread.Expansion and exploration help make the world suck less.
The one side is also "we have the tech we're just too lazy to do anything with it", an interesting position considering we just fired a nuclear-powered SUV sized robot at Mars and lowered it down with a rocket crane. That sounds like effort.This discussion seems to be locked in a circle anyway, with one side going "Fuck yeah, we should work on the technology to go to Mars!" and the other saying "Fuck no, we shouldn't go to Mars until we have the technology!"
e: \/\/\/ You don't start a roadtrip before you have a car.
The launcher and the understanding human in space, is part of starting the journey..... First step research second step build third step good luck everybody. Final step varies.
No qaurter back men, only forward or we will hold this line forever!!!
Row Row Row Fight the Powha
Okay, so feed the poor. Come back in a century and tell me how that's gone. I'm guessing that a century of feeding the poor will have left "the poor" still poor, right up to the point where the numbers of the poor totally overwhelms even the capacity of industrial farming to feed them. Then they'll die en masse in the biggest catastrophe in history, but we "fed the poor" right?So does feeding the poor. If we want to make the world better, I'd rather we start at home. Exploration and travel and the things we get from that our great, but it doesn't really help our widespread systemic issues, especially the ones I'm thinking of.
Rich, developed nations have less children. Rich, developed nations can feed themselves. The more a populace becomes wealthy, gets access to education and communication the more able they are to resist dictatorship and abuse. However, there aren't enough resources on Earth for everyone on the planet to live in what we would term a rich, developed nation, so without a realistic chance of everyone in the developed world giving up two thirds of what they take for granted so everyone can partake alternatives must be sought.
I'm not saying in any way that space is a global panacea, but space exploration/industry has great potential to help solve that problem and with it so many others, it just needs money and the willingness to take a long term gamble that might only pay off for your children.
Yeah, it's almost as if we have massive problems endemic to our political and economic system rockets won't fix! Well, maybe if we launch enough of them at certain things they will, but that's not really a good way to solve them.Okay, so feed the poor. Come back in a century and tell me how that's gone. I'm guessing that a century of feeding the poor will have left "the poor" still poor, right up to the point where the numbers of the poor totally overwhelms even the capacity of industrial farming to feed them. Then they'll die en masse in the biggest catastrophe in history, but we "fed the poor" right?
Got a better idea? You think the average American or European is going to give up what they're used to to meet a Somali half way? How are you going to generate enough power in this utopian introspective world, fusion? Where are you going to get the raw resources to boost 80% of the population up to western living standards? People won't willingly see their standard of living drop, so how are you going to manage when they want more, we say no and there's not even a credible chance for alternatives because we were "fixing" things down here first?
You're right, it's totally impossible to solve any social or economic issues with our society or the world at large without going to space. It has never been done before, nothing has ever improved without the use of a rocket, and nothing ever will. Racism? Space travel can fix that. The Israeli/Palestine conflict? Oh yeah, landing on Mars will solve it. The United States' healthcare issues? You know a rocket will fix that shit! What's that, other nations with alternate solutions to healthcare that could work? Fuck you! That's not a rocket! Climate change? Use a rocket to push the Earth out a little! There is literally no way we could possibly use alternative energy or better standards or practices or anything else to solve or reduce the impact of it.
We can do a lot more than just launch rockets at things, Jonny. There are other solutions and ideas that don't involve Mars. Rockets aren't the only thing humanity can do. You're not going to solve social or political issues like racism or homophobia or healthcare or anything else by going to space.
e: And before you say it, no, I'm not saying don't go to space. I'm saying that won't solve our problems.
Last edited by Starblade; 9th Aug 12 at 8:11 AM.
Tbh i rather go send things to the asteroid belt to farm for gold and rare metals. Not only it makes a profit we have more resources to do stuff with like build bigger ships and factors etc.
We have 7 billion people on Earth, soon to be 8 Billion. Most of the population growth is in under developed nations. Lets say Climate change disrupts food production shortly and the issue solves itself. So we eliminate 1-2 billion people through starvation and war. Once food production is stabilized the exact same problem in the exact same places will show up again. Where are we then? Forced sterilization for food and medical coverage? Not going to happen.
On the other hand, we can be on Mars or on the Moon, or in space orbital colonies!
For those of you saying it's better to spend that money on other things, I'll just leave this here...
Long story short, money put towards NASA and space exploration has a LOT of positive benefits. It's not pissing money down the drain as you may make it out to be.
Do you not thing that developing hydroponic crops that can grow outside of soil is helpful when it comes to stabilizing food production?
How have we moved onto racism and homophobia? You used feeding the poor as an example, a resource based as opposed to societal based problem, so that is what I answered. I hadn't even considered that you were thinking about strictly societal issues, because they're totally irrelevant to this discussion on any level.
In regards to constantly yelling Rockets! at everything, you know full well that when people are talking about investing in space exploration they aren't just talking about firing rockets at shit. The benefits to society would come from building ground to orbit and orbital infrastructure foundations for the future, from technologies developed during the venture that could have real applications in other areas. Saying that the argument was "lets fire rockets at things" and then tearing that down as not going to solve anything is being willfully obtuse.
As I said before, I'm not lauding space as some wonderful panacea for all the world's ills, just as a largely untapped possibility that could *help* solve those ills alongside other endeavours and that by not exploiting it fully those other endeavours could well fail to solve or be far less effective. We are, in effect, handicapping attempts to solve problems down here through a lack of foresight up there.
I'm still not sure how spending or otherwise on space exploration has anything to do with racism or homophobia though, other than the more comfortable and well off people are the more time they have to spend worrying about them and trying to "solve" them.
Producing more food does not solve the issue. It just postpones it and makes it a bigger problem later. The problem is unrestrained population growth. You either let them die now or let more die later with even bigger environmental and social impact. You send food there and most of the food gets taken by those in power to feed those that support them or even resold elsewhere so they can buy luxuries or more likely weapons so they can stay in power. It is like North Korea, willing to let their population starve so they can turn their entire economy towards arming themselves and then the world steps in to feed their populace. So in an indirect way the world is arming them.
How have we moved onto racism and homophobia?Yeah, it's almost as if we have massive problems endemic to our political and economic system rockets won't fix!I'm talking about economic, social, and political issues (institutional racism and bigotry, for example). Or do you think racism would still exist in utopia (still not sure where this is coming from)?it doesn't really help our widespread systemic issues
Typing out the full extent of our capabilities in space seemed like a lot of words to repeat, I figured it would get the point across but apparently not. This is again my fault, though.In regards to constantly yelling Rockets! at everything, you know full well that when people are talking about investing in space exploration they aren't just talking about firing rockets at shit.
I've completely lost the thread of what we're going on about to be honest. By widespread systemic issues I assumed you were talking about actual physical problems, energy or resource concerns, things that could conceivably be solved through technological advancement or opening new resource and energy possibilites in space. It never crossed my mind that you were talking about societal problems divorced from technology or resources, because nobody to my knowledge has ever suggested that investing in space would ever or could ever fix social, political or structural economic problems. So we agree on that at least 100%.
Okay, so we're agreeing on that as well and we're agreeing that no amount of space investment will stop people being racist, homophobic or otherwise dickish. What are we arguing about again?Typing out the full extent of our capabilities in space seemed like a lot of words to repeat, I figured it would get the point across but apparently not. This is again my fault, though.
That's why nations have to develop over the next century or so. Developed nations have much lower childbirth than developing nations, because they're generally free of the need to have large families to offset infant mortality so society adapts to average smaller families. Currently we're at the worst place possible, because many areas of developing nations are still having large families and we're coming in, saving the children whose deaths the large families are meant to offset and then feeding everyone, generation after generation without lifting them out of poverty.The problem is unrestrained population growth.
Last edited by Jonny; 9th Aug 12 at 8:54 AM.
If the rover found a cave, could there be water in the cave? and oxygen, if it was deep enough?
Technically there is lots of Oxygen, the atmosphere is mostly CO2. Water is either bound or frozen under the dirt. Might be ice in caves.
It is possible that far enough beneath the surface, there is liquid water, but it depends on if Mars still has a warm core or not. As to there being oxygen, really anything can happen I guess. The Earth has some crazy places on it. But at the moment, there is no reason to expect to find an oxygen atmosphere in a cave on Mars.If the rover found a cave, could there be water in the cave? and oxygen, if it was deep enough?
Darn, i was kinda hoping it be like this movie i saw, where the space travelers found a cave that was pretty deep in the ground and it had oxygen and water down there. Well they found the water first, then went swimming in the water the pop up on the other side in a oxygen filled environment.
o.OTechnically there is lots of Oxygen, the atmosphere is mostly CO2. Water is either bound or frozen under the dirt. Might be ice in caves.
That's like saying, technically there's lots of Oxygen, H2O is found everywhere.
If CO2 qualifies as oxygen, the universe is chock full of it. There's no need for oxygenation of an atmosphere before we get there.
Originally Posted by Starblade
Who knows anymore. This is really besides the point of the thread though, so let's agree to drop it?Okay, so we're agreeing on that as well and we're agreeing that no amount of space investment will stop people being racist, homophobic or otherwise dickish. What are we arguing about again?
My point is, water is one of the most pervasive compounds in the universe, and by extension oxygen atoms are pervasive too. If we include compounds, then we can include the Iron (III) Oxide that gives Mars its red colour, and I don't think he was interested in ferrous oxide. Also, I'm sure we can find some oxygen compound somewhere, no matter the planet. Technically (I mean, those planets are pretty huge!)
Oxygen is an immensely common atom in our universe.
Source for Iron oxide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrafo...rting_hydrogen
That suggests a lot of logistical issues like fuel, oxygen and water could be mitigated by cracking CO2, H20 or other molecules. You'd need a lot of energy to do it though, which would tie back into lugging fuel and equipment for extra energy generation out there. Unless solar power could be harnessed, automatically deployed solar arrays, solar satellites or something?
That argument is kind of void when you look at how much money we spend on NASA compared to everything else. I think my favorite number is the amount of money spent on pets annually - $50 billion! - and nobody seems to be having problems doing that rather than feeding the poor. We could also take all the money we invest in video games and world of warcraft and use that to feed quite a few people.So does feeding the poor. If we want to make the world better, I'd rather we start at home
Bottom line is, upping the budget for NASA and other space agencies as well as science funding isn't going to make a huge dent in our budget. It's not going to leave us hungrier, or poorer, or less clothed, and it certainly isn't going to leave us dumber than before. And since there are tangible benefits ranging from cultural and socioeconomic impacts to spinoffs to creating jobs at home that can't be shipped overseas, I don't think these expenses would qualify as boondoggles.
Until we find a way to properly shield a spacecraft from radiation, there will be no going to mars, period. The money is there, the hardware is there, but there's no point if the astronauts never make it.
And, experiments HAVE been done with regards to the psychological consequences of 8 months isolation in small cabins with only a few other people - they failed (that is, failed to get along, most notably one experiment ended with a female engineer being sexually accosted by the mission commander, and another resulted in a fistfight breaking out only a couple months in). Unacceptable for professional scientists IMO, but, it goes to show how little we understand of said psychological pressures.
But yeah. Radiation is the big one, everything else is more-or-less doable yes - but that is irrelevant so long as we have no way to effectively shield the astronauts. And, as starfisher mentioned, what do we do when they get there? start sending supplies monthly? the costs would be astronomical (no pun intended) No one will pay for that. I mean, come on.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
Something different now :P
Heres a small portion of their first colour panorama
And heres the link to the full 360degree one (as its quite the large photo)
The black areas either havent been rendered by people yet or they never took photos of those areas.
And a black and white one of the rover itself
And the heat shield falling away.
Anyone else reduced to a childlike sense of wonder by looking out at another goddamn world as if you're there?
http://engineering.dartmouth.edu/~d7.../Parker_05.pdfUntil we find a way to properly shield a spacecraft from radiation, there will be no going to mars, period. The money is there, the hardware is there, but there's no point if the astronauts never make it.
I found this interesting article on the problem. It does look like the best contenders for dealing with cosmic radiation on long voyages would either be to mine and build the shielding entirely in orbit (400t for a compartment) and deal with the vastly increased engine and fuel requirements, or focus on medical technologies to repair the damage done to the astronauts body so they can ignore the problem entirely.
Last edited by Jonny; 9th Aug 12 at 1:53 PM.
That is awesome. And having built a robotic submersible myself (with all its personal investment), the sheer joy of being the engineer/builder of that rover and seeing its self-portrait on Mars must put them in tears.
Sierra/VG's Homeworld, Cataclysm, and HW 2 Moderator (Closed)
Amazing pictures, even if it is just dust and what not
While it's cool that in time, we might be able to put people on Mars, one has to ask what the purpose of it all is. You only need to look at what we have done to Earth to understand the worry of humans getting their hands on another planet. Somebody earlier in this thread compared it to finding the 'new world' which as we're all aware resulted in genocide and the development of one of the least 'green' nations on the planet. Of course, right now there doesn't appear to be much to ruin on Mars but still, our scientific and technological progression is a long way ahead of our maturity in actually using it.
I'm curious if any of these psychological tests have taken into account that when you send guys into space, they get stupid giddy. Like space-drunk?
Sticking a bunch of guys in a isolated facility can't really recreate the "Holy shit! I'm in space!" effect.
"You can't have sex with abstract concepts!"
"Friedrich Nietzsche could. Some say it was his mustache. Some say it was the source of his powers."
- concerning the possibility of sexual relations with the Abyss, from Interpreting His Will by, um, somebody.
Agreed!Anyone else reduced to a childlike sense of wonder by looking out at another goddamn world as if you're there?
I don't think manned space exploration is going to go much further than our own orbit until there's economic incentive to do so.
Once the US planted the flag on the moon there didn't seem to be much enthusiasm for putting up permanent moon bases (at least none that I've heard of). Focus shifted back to the orbital sphere to get a re-useable space plane for lifting payloads (sekret or no) into orbit. It was another front of the cold war.
So without national pride being at stake why should we send a manned mission to the moon or mars when probes do it cheaper and don't have the baggage of supporting human life to go with it?
Sadly, "Because we can do it" isn't good enough to those on Earth who see more value (and more votes in the case of the US) in putting money towards domestic issues. Even commercial ventures are doing what they're doing (space tours, orbital inflatable habitats) because there is money to be made from those who want to 'tour' space or colleges who want special labs to be put up there now that the shuttle is gone. Unless there's some macguffinite out there for us to chase it we're not sending men anywhere for a while.
But I believe that if there was a compelling reason to go to a place and set up a manmade base there, with government assistance and drive, it will happen. The moonshot is proof that a need will spur development. We just need to find that need, and it needs to be more compelling and realistic than "because we can."
Author: Children of Kadesh, Children of Kadesh (book 2), The Taiidan Civil War, The Fire ,Tradition, Outcry (oneshot), Chronicles of the Nadiim-Basad,
and maker of the Map of the Homeworld universe, and the Homeworld 2 Grand Strategy Game. Responsible for Cataclysm 2nd. Also has a running short story collection.
If money is an issue, just ban American's from buying pizza for a year, you'll save $27 billion right there.
You know when I saw this topic I thought it would be a nice thread discussing stuff about the new mission and about Mars in general. What do I find instead? 3 pages of a pointless pissing contest. Any chance we can stop the 'conversation' and go back to what the thread was originally intended for?
I have a blog, check it out :P - http://forthegloryofgorkandmork.blog...commander.html - brand new post 11/04/13
'Cause the pictures are coming out slowly and we have to do something in the meantime
They put together a small movie of the descent post-heat shield drop using a camera pointed at the ground. Right now they only have low-res thumbnails, but apparently there will be an attempt to send the full resolution video back eventually. That would be awesome to see. All these panoramas are cool and all, but actually getting a sense of movement, a real video, would be awesome.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)