'Sending Astronauts To Mars Would be Stupid' (bbc.com) 473
One of the first men to orbit the Moon has told BBC Radio 5 Live that it's "stupid" to plan human missions to Mars. Bill Anders, lunar module pilot of Apollo 8, the first human spaceflight to leave Earth's orbit, said sending crews to Mars was "almost ridiculous". From a report: NASA is currently planning new human missions to the Moon. It wants to learn the skills and develop the technology to enable a future human landing on Mars. NASA was approached for a response to Anders' comments, but hasn't responded.
Anders, 85, said he's a "big supporter" of the "remarkable" unmanned programmes, "mainly because they're much cheaper". But he says the public support simply isn't there to fund vastly more expensive human missions. "What's the imperative? What's pushing us to go to Mars?" he said, adding "I don't think the public is that interested". Meanwhile, robotic probes are still exploring Mars. Last month, the InSight lander, which will sample the planet's interior, successfully touched down at Elysium Planitia. Further reading: Bill Nye: We Are Not Going To Live on Mars, Let Alone Turn It Into Earth.
Anders, 85, said he's a "big supporter" of the "remarkable" unmanned programmes, "mainly because they're much cheaper". But he says the public support simply isn't there to fund vastly more expensive human missions. "What's the imperative? What's pushing us to go to Mars?" he said, adding "I don't think the public is that interested". Meanwhile, robotic probes are still exploring Mars. Last month, the InSight lander, which will sample the planet's interior, successfully touched down at Elysium Planitia. Further reading: Bill Nye: We Are Not Going To Live on Mars, Let Alone Turn It Into Earth.
Latency (Score:5, Insightful)
Communications to Mars have stupid high latency. 4 to 24 minutes depending on where Mars happens to be.
As a result, the robots have to be incredibly paranoid and drive at a snail's pace. Put some people there and with good equipment they could get stuff done 20 times faster, not to mention doing things the robots aren't equipped for.
Put a small fabrication shop on Mars, and they'll be able to craft whatever tool's needed for the job on the spot if anything unexpected comes up.
Re:Latency (Score:5, Funny)
Umm....a small fabrication shop you say? So what, a 3-D printer + raw materials, a drill press and associated gadgets, etc. That's just for starters. We'll be needing some spare parts as well, hard to send home and wait 6 months for them to show up. You'll also be wanting to power these fancy tools. Some solar panels will be needed...errrm...lots of them.
Our toolsmiths will need a place to live, shouldn't be hard, we'll just send along Mr. InflateO, instant Quonset Hut. Umm...heat....we'll need to heat that as well. More solar panels for everyone, gas cylinders are big, heavy (expensive to lift out of the Earth's gravity well), and dangerous. So you'll be needing some fire fighting equipment as well if you want them, also big and heavy.
Food might be problem, there being a dearth of botanical gardens on Mars from what we hear. Water Mars has, as long as the Marstronauts stay close to the poles. Better allot time for collecting water...and defreezing it...more solar panels.
Transportation could also be a problem since Mars has not invested in public transport...taking after the Earthlings is not a recipe for success in the solar system. And that transportation will need to powered since the Flintstone's Family Human Conveyance won't be available. More solar panels, big ones too, Marstronauts are heavy in their Mars suits.
Radiation shielding might be helpful since Mars has no atmosphere. Okay, re-plan, we find a cave to situate our intrepid explorers who get all week-kneed at a bit of radiation, wussies. Of course this will limit their time working 20 times faster than machines, presuming they arrived without getting irradiated on the way there. An unfortunate feature of the solar system is people-hating radiation. We should talk to the Solar System Administrators about fixing this.
Air. Gotta have air for our meat-sacks to breathe. Okay, we'll extract that from the thin Martian atmosphere...More Power, argh, argh, argh. Another layer of solar panels for everyone.
Let's not forget the most important need for human life: waste removal. Polluting the rest of Mars with our exquisitely scented waste is probably going to screwup those biological experiments we like to run looking for Martian life..."Hey, I found it...look, bacteria...oh, never mind, just some eColi, how'd they get here?" That stuff tends to build up over time so we'll need a biological containment unit...a big one, our Marstronauts like to eat well...."Oh the intergalactic laxative will get you from here to there, if shitting is your problem, without a worry or care..." (Donovan).
There you have it, a piece of cake. And they'll get the work done 20 times faster...when they aren't repairing their equipment.
Re:Latency (Score:4, Interesting)
The March of Science and Technology (Score:2)
Mars is a lot less hospitable than North America was back then but our science and technology is much better. As it improves it will get easier and easier to get to Mars, the Moon and elsewhere. Having humans on other planets living in self-sustaining colonies will massively improve the
Re: (Score:3)
the survival odds of our species
The chances of survival of the human species are almost 100% outside of a two sided nuclear war or a extinction level asteroid impact.
Something that few in the climate change crowd ever say is "...at current population levels." There will always be habitable land on Earth even if temperatures rise. The difference is that world may only support a few million people instead of billions.
even if it may be another 500 years before travel to Mars becomes routine like air travel today.
Unless some completely currently unknown means of getting out of the earth's atmosphere is found this will not happen. The
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably a waste of time to send people to Mars for purposes other than scientific exploration and research at this time. If you want to build stuff on Mars, it would be smarter to figure out how to get robots to do it. Humans are going to need some substantial infrastructure when they get to Mars, and the more can be there when they get there, the better.
Re: (Score:3)
Radiation shielding might be helpful since Mars has no atmosphere.
You think it's atmosphere that shields us from radiation? The only radiation atmosphere shields us from, is UV, of which there is very little on Mars. What shields us from radiation on Earth are the Van Halen belts, i.e. Earth's magnetic field. While you make a good point in principle, you make it starting from flawed science. Very flawed, as this is known even to schoolchildren.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Latency (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't think of any definition of "Space Nutter" that doesn't include you. You are nuts on the topic.
Really, do you think landing men on Mars is any less useful and productive than the Superbowl? I'd certainly find it more entertaining to watch. I bet it'd be cheaper then the next Avatar movie, as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So send reddit?
Re: Latency (Score:3)
600 years ago you were saying Columbus would never be able to fight off the dragons before falling off the edge.
Re: Latency (Score:4, Insightful)
No, people were saying that the Earth was around 25.000 miles around rather then Columbus's claim of 18.000 miles and he'd run out of food and water before arriving in China.
He did luck out in finding a continent before starving, perhaps we'll luck out on an inhabitable planet on the way to Mars.
Re:Latency (Score:4, Insightful)
You could put 200 robots on Mars and still not add up to the cost of a single manned mission, and do far, far more science. Humans on Mars will struggle just to stay alive (and probably won't). Just send more robots.
Re:Latency (Score:5, Insightful)
I would contend that a single astronaut on Mars can do far more science than even 1000 robots. The OP has actually underestimated the problem with using RC robots on Mars: it's not just the time it takes for the signal to reach Mars, but it's the roundtrip - when an operator gives a minimal instruction to the robot, he/she will wait in trepidation for 8 to 48 minutes to find out WTF happened. As a result, as OP says, the robots have to be operated with extreme paranoia - which is the enemy of research and discovery.
But eve MORE importantly, there are things that no amount of robots can accomplish, compared to a single human who can arrange an impromptu test or experiment, or repair,
Re: (Score:3)
There are robots now that have their own little electronic brains.
Re: (Score:2)
Shhhhh...that's supposed to be secret. Suppose he tells Fox News and we are inundated by robots with tiny electronic brains running amok on the streets in preparation for our Mars invasion.
Re: (Score:2)
Why yes, Curiosity has a bunch of fancy stuff onboard.
And it still drives at an amazing 0.08 mph. I think even turtles go faster than that. A human walking is 3.1 mph. So we've got an almost 40X improvement before we even add a rover.
Re: (Score:3)
You could put 200 robots on Mars and still not add up to the cost of a single manned mission, and do far, far more science. Humans on Mars will struggle just to stay alive (and probably won't). Just send more robots.
But what's the point of going to Mars if you don't plan to send humans? You could buy your wife 200 robotic vibrators, but what's the point if you don't get to "go there yourself"?
And whereas robots can do some science, a lot of the more meaningful things, the questions we can't already answer- requires a human.
Re: (Score:2)
And whereas robots can do some science, a lot of the more meaningful things, the questions we can't already answer- requires a human.
Could you name a couple? Because they aren't evident to me, at least. Unless by "more meaningful things" you mean "feelings and experiences", at which point you're advocating for tourism and not anything really informative.
Re: (Score:2)
And whereas robots can do some science, a lot of the more meaningful things, the questions we can't already answer- requires a human.
Could you name a couple? Because they aren't evident to me, at least. Unless by "more meaningful things" you mean "feelings and experiences", at which point you're advocating for tourism and not anything really informative.
Accurately dig, and deeper. Access more terrain. Explore lava tubes. Perform growth tests for plants. Set up tents and ecospheres to run experiments. Get access to more specific rocks, see what's under the surface. Look for biological life that isn't just on the surface or barely under the surface.
More than anything else- react intelligent and observe things that humans looking through cameras on a big delay cannot. ... The list is nearly endless.
Re: (Score:2)
Putting a human on mars is as much an achievement as putting one in an active volcano. Yes it would be impressive, be extremely expensive, require new technology, and be completely useless.
Re: (Score:2)
As time goes on, robots get smarter and smarter, and capable of more and more autonomy. The latency exists, but becomes less and less relevant.
Age of the Pussies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did somebody put something in the entire western world's drinking water, or why is everyone so ridiculously overly cautious and scared of literally everything nowadays?
Seriously, not trolling or anything... Hasn't anybody else noticed this trend?
Where's the spirit of "Worth it!"? ;)
I won't impose my maybe crass view on anyone, but IMHO a bit of pain or even dying isn't *that* bad, compared to never having actually lived at all. It's not like we are bad at making even more humans until we die in our own waste.
I'd rather live suicidal 40 years, than boring 120.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, get with the program: Everyone now has to be coddled from cradle to grave, not try anything that could fail, and if it after all does fail, pretend that it didn't in order to prevent any learning from taking place.
If something is hard, don't even try it, then you won't fail! That's the spirit. Under no circumstances human life can be at risk - like going out of the house or the like.
And I agree with the astronaut in that public support isn't there, but hopefully SpaceX pans out - then it won't matter wh
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Age of the Pussies? (Score:5, Interesting)
Did somebody put something in the entire western world's drinking water
Actually...yes, they did. Estrogens, phytoestrogens, and progesterones from food, plastics, and birth control.
Re: (Score:2)
Did somebody put something in the entire western world's drinking water
Actually...yes, they did. Estrogens, phytoestrogens, and progesterones from food, plastics, and birth control.
You are exactly correct. The science is out there, but it's like a liberal's version of climate change denialism with many people
Meanwhile, those yummy endocrine disruptors are wreaking havoc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] .
Masculine women, feminized males, learning disabilities to include ADHD, dropping sperm count. Inherent obesity. Sounds like a paranoid's list. But then there is the science to back it up. Oh - and then there is autism. But we'll just blame the tiny amount of thiomersal in vaccin
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, you go first. Write and tell us all about it.
Nope, cold war ended (Score:2)
History is basically the working class trying, and usually failing, to pry some money out of the hands out of the ruling class. For a brief period of time post-WWII they did that very well. Factories stayed in America because the rulers feared they'd be seized by the commie, resulting in Unions that got better pay and wages. Massive public works projects and good government pay for them furt
Re: (Score:2)
and our wealthy and ruling class are no longer terrified of the Russians.
I don't think you've been paying attention to the corporate media recently. At least not for the last two years.
Massive public works projects and good government pay for them further increased wages. And a massive tech boom driven largely by discoveries made at Public Universities helped too (Internet anyone?).
Yeah that's not how it's seen by the proletariat.
https://genius.com/Gil-scott-h... [genius.com]
Re: (Score:3)
We are too comfortable...
- We have the 1% - the wealthy and powerful, who only send other people into danger, and then only if it enhances their own wealth and power. You sure won't see them doing any sort of real military service, for example. And they surely won't risk themselves or their money on "adventures".
- We have the middle class. In today's world, they enjoy a living standard that can only be compared to royalty of earlier times. Huges houses, plenty of food, cheap entertainment, right down to the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with "scared", it has to do with people understanding basic science and physics. Space Nutters never learned it, so they think everything is possible. They are a lot like little children.
It is possible... it's just ridiculously expensive and mistakes will be made the first few attempts no matter how hard we try. We could probably start launching rockets for Mars in 2019 that could sustain a temporary colony, but the costs would be ludicrous and the risks high. We do have the technology today... IF we're willing to take a few risks and willing to spend an insane amount of money and other resources.
Re: (Score:3)
It has nothing to do with "scared", it has to do with people understanding basic science and physics. Space Nutters never learned it, so they think everything is possible. They are a lot like little children.
It is possible... it's just ridiculously expensive and mistakes will be made the first few attempts no matter how hard we try. We could probably start launching rockets for Mars in 2019 that could sustain a temporary colony, but the costs would be ludicrous and the risks high. We do have the technology today... IF we're willing to take a few risks and willing to spend an insane amount of money and other resources.
I wonder if they had these sort of arguments back in the day for things like wagon trains or sailing the oceans? People embarking westward in wagon trains had no assurance of success, indeed some met their ends going west. One of the more egregious failures was the Donner Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] . Even without bizzare cannibalistic endings, weather could be a big issue, and Death Valley wasn't named because of it's hospitality. There were other groups of humans that sometimes attacked these
Re: Age of the Pussies? (Score:2)
Haha no, the amount of gear and supplies would require heavy lifting rockets and propulsion a couple orders of magnitude bigger than what we have now, and yes that's doing a dozen or more missions. Plus several other problems needing a solution that doesn't yet exist. The rough estimate for a small Mars colony is 50 years to more than a century away, deal with it
Re: Age of the Pussies? (Score:2)
As long as you have enough supplies and doesnâ(TM)t mind spending 99% of your time inside the surface stay is the least problematic part. Even a shelter under sand bags is a good start, a proper cave and you could stay practically forever. Itâ(TM)s the trip thatâ(TM)s the hard part.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No. It isn't possible. You could go to Mars, but you could never live there for any significant period of time.
Of course it is possible. It's just not financially appetizing. We've landed multiple things on Mars now without having humans at the controls as they descend. Options are so much more when you don't have to deal with latency- humans controlling descent could mean larger payloads per rocket- safer landings, etc.
Even if they had to do frequent resupply missions- it is possible on the right budget. We've had people living in the space station for a long time which has less gravity, less resources
Cost (Score:3, Insightful)
Because it's there (Score:5, Insightful)
was the reason for climbing Everest [wikiquote.org] and is a good enough reason for going to Mars.
We also need to get off this planet before we are wiped out by an asteroid or something. Doing that in large numbers and creating a self sufficient colony on some other rock (preferably circling another star) will be very hard, a toe hold on Mars would be a great start.
Re:Because it's there (Score:5, Insightful)
No appreciable fraction of a percent of humanity living on the Earth now, nor of their decedents for several generations, has any genuine hope of making a home on Mars even if their is a concerted effort to get there.
Mars or no Mars, if an asteroid hits Earth, the vast, vast majority of humanity dies out. Don't even start with the outpost crap, spend the money on environmental care or even asteroid diversion missions for a much higher cost-payoff ratio. Heck, even if an asteroid did hit we'd have a vastly easier time "terraforming" the resulting Earth.
Basket = planet (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree on this part, but have you ever heard the good bit of advice about not putting all your eggs in one basket?
Re:Basket = planet (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No appreciable fraction of a percent of humanity living on the Earth now, nor of their decedents for several generations, has any genuine hope of making a home on Mars even if their is a concerted effort to get there.
So? Much better to stay in that safe room, finger ready to dial 911 in case someone makes it past the guard at the gate, your ADT alarm system and Xfinity security cameras.
The age of exploration is over for many people, they are comfortable and happy with elimination of as many scary things as possible.
Some of us would call that terminal stagnation.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure Venus or Mars which one is easier for human long term living. But your "It's there" point is the best point of any deep space human mission.
But I am not in high hope of government money succeeding that. Private money is better suited for Everest-type journey.
Re: (Score:3)
Venus is only 800 degrees. We've invented air conditioning, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Venus is only 800 degrees. We've invented air conditioning, right?
It's much cooler in the upper atmosphere where dreamers envision floating cities in the dense atmosphere. Nonetheless... we're much closer to manned exploration of Mars- we don't even have a "rover" floating on Venus, so that's off the table
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Because it's there (Score:4, Interesting)
"Because it's there"? Uh, poverty is "there". Cancer is "there". Ageing is "there". Pollution (including perchlorates in the environment) is "there". Hunger is "there". Oppression, dishonesty, murder, lying, cheating, is all "there".
Exporting all this to an already-poisoned planet fixes nothing. We need to start here.
Re: (Score:2)
"Because it's there"? Uh, poverty is "there". Cancer is "there". Ageing is "there". Pollution (including perchlorates in the environment) is "there". Hunger is "there". Oppression, dishonesty, murder, lying, cheating, is all "there".
Yeah, but we have to wait until 2020 election to get rid of Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
We haven't gone out of Earth orbit since the early 1970s, why haven't we made massive progress toward solving these other problems if talkin
Re: Because it's there (Score:2)
It didn't cost billions of tax payer dollars (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We also need to get off this planet before we are wiped out by an asteroid or something.
I dunno -- somehow it seems a bit less comprehensively daunting to come up with a way to divert/destroy such an asteroid from our nice habitable planet than to solve the plethora of nearly intractable problems standing in our way of settling on a generally uninhabitable one.
Re:Because it's there (Score:5, Funny)
"Mars has no atmosphere, radiation, toxic dust and has a different gravity"
Sounds like LA to me.
Jaded Old Guy (Score:2)
Sounds like a jaded old guy repeating all the excuses given to him throughout his life for why he couldn't go back to space.
We're doing it because it's there and because we want to!
Re: (Score:2)
Well golly, going to Mars is just like going to the Moon, except farther.
Stepping stones. (Score:5, Insightful)
All our missions to space aren't really the mission. The mission is really just an extension of what humans have always done, explored new places, learn stuff and then settle them. Going to mars doesn't have lots of value but developing all the technology to keep humans alive far from Earth for an extended period is part of our great mission. Humanity is pushing the limits of what is humanly possible so that we can later push even further. We're colonizing the solar system, the galaxy and then the universe while learning about it every step of the way. FTL travel seems unlikely and our bodies are weak but it's still not going to stop us for we will adapt to overcome these obstacles.
Besides, if we don't go to space, how are we ever going to find out what happens when we throw Alice into a black hole? ;)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stepping stones. (Score:4, Insightful)
How perfectly myopic. It will take millennia but we'll manage it. You seem to be stuck in the thoughts of eons long past because to exploration and colonization are a core component of success of humanity. Then again, maybe you just like being a monkey in a tree.
Re: (Score:2)
Going to Mars is like pissing. (Score:3)
It's not stupid when you just HAVE to go.
"Fuck you, I got mine." (Score:2)
So... (Score:2)
Just like every endeavour... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is no different from any endeavor that is on the edge of what our abilities and technology allow. It can seem silly and fraught with far more risk than benefit. This is because the end benefit lies beyond our vision. Just like it did for the Wright brothers and those (and this wasn't a fringe minority) that felt, even after their success, that manned flight was dumb and too risky and provided little benefit.
One of human's worst traits is that we head in a direction before we're smart and/or wise enough to know the end result.
One of human's best traits is that we head in a direction before we're smart and/or wise enough to know the end result.
For better or worse, it's going to happen. It's going to happen because technology will make it possible. Right now technology is only in reach of governments and billionaires. And they are already talking about it and making not unserious plans. Once the technology threshold lowers, it's inevitable.
I suspect neither Bill (Anders or Nye) can understand that end point for the same reason that baby boomers have a hard time understanding millennials. Who in their right mind will live with their nose in their phone their entire life? Bill Bye thinks that living in domes and spacesuits makes living on Mars not worth it. For a lot of millenials today, that would hardly require a change in behaviour. There are a lot of people who would unquestionably go today. No, the end result is inevitable. Manned exploration will happen. Colonization will happen.
Re: (Score:2)
At least on Earth, you just need to find a relatively private copse to go Number 1 or Number 2. On Mars, it's harder, no copses or other plant life for privacy, and then there's somehow hanging your private parts outside the space suit because going inside would really suck. And the first instance means you've polluted the Mars environment thus making your search for extra-terrestrial life bunk.
Don't worry (Score:3)
Other countries that don't feel the need to waste insane amounts on blowing up the Middle East will travel to Mars.
It's life Bill, but not as we know it (Score:2)
Bill Anders ..."What's the imperative? What's pushing us to go to Mars?" he said, adding "I don't think the public is that interested".
I have to agree that right now, Mars seems like a desolate hole with little attraction apart from overcoming the difficulty in getting there and the intellectual challenge of exploring and "solving" the remote environment.
And as such, there are plenty of desolate holes on Earth that are nearly as difficult to get to and survive in. Whether Antarctica or ocean depths. Or the inner recesses of the human mind.
However if one of our probes was to discover life on Mars, then there could be a good case to sen
Re: (Score:2)
Total BS. There is no thing I have noticed about Space Nutters: they don't know what Mars is really like. There is no place on Earth that is even close to what Mars is like, including Antarctica and the depths of the ocean. Those are PARADISE compared to Mars.
We need to get behind more important things (Score:2)
Like complaining about what scientists wear when guiding interplanetary missions. Thats where real human achievement will occur.
Mars is an inhospitable place (Score:3)
"Mars must be one of the most inhospitable places on Earth." BBC Radio Leeds Presenter
The Apollo astronaut not know what Apollo was for? (Score:4, Insightful)
Aside from the main reason of allowing the US to show of it's rocket and missile tech to the Russians without directly and obviously pushing the arms race, it got the entire country behind NASA. At it's peak in the 60's, NASA was drawing about 10% of the country's entire GDP and the public was still happy with it. Now with unmanned probes, the public for the most part doesn't know or care what NASA is up do. The budget is a tiny shadow of what it used to be and still draws public outrage.
A manned Mars mission is something that might once again unite people behind space exploration. It's worth it for the societal reasons alone if not for any scientific or technical ones. The 60's and 70's were a generation of hope and wonder partly fueled by "space age" excitement. We now live in tired and cynical times where society is falling apart.
It's sad that an Apollo astronaut doesn't get all that, but it's a sign of the times we live in today.
Send stupid astronauts (Score:2)
Send stupid astronauts. That would be sensible, because the two stupids cancel each other out. Or something like that.
We can always not do something.. Until we can. (Score:2)
Victorians used to believe that you couldn't travel faster than about 30-40 mph without suffocating. And we could.
Man would never fly, until we did.
If you don't try something, you'll never work out how to achieve it. Is it going to be tough, sure. Will people literally die for it? Most likely. Exploration isn't safe, especially at the cutting edge.
The first people to get to Mars are quite likely to die for it. Then it'll be easier for the ones who come afterwards. And easier again for the next.. Unt
Re: (Score:2)
I profoundly disagree. (Score:2)
The gravity on the moon is way too low. The low gravity on Mars will weaken the human body but not nearly as much as the moon. Mars does have an atmosphere. So a rip in a suit isn't nearly as critical. Same goes for habitats.. they don't quite need the same structural requirements as one would in a vacuum.
Mars is dangerous and isolated. It should be seen as a one way mission. But necessity and autonomy will breed success. What mars has going for it is being a platform for mining. When mining is done one can
Re: (Score:2)
Confirmed. Practical examples are: Minecraft and Fortnite.
Re: (Score:2)
Mars does have an atmosphere. So a rip in a suit isn't nearly as critical.
Perhaps you like to check how thin the atmosphere is, so yes, at most places it is deadly, and a avery quick death.
There is sunlight and lots of area so solar farms could be constructed though I much rather see nuclear.
Rofl. And for what absurd purpose/reason would you rather see nuclear?
A solar panel is literally a plate of sand with two wires getting out ... a nuclear power plant, even the simplest one, is significantly more compl
Sending humans to Antarctica would be stupid (Score:2)
Then that raises 2 questiona (Score:2)
1 Who do we send to Mars?
2) Where do we send our astronauts?
Trip Yes, Stay to Live No (Score:2)
Sending people to Mars would be a technological challenge and a worthwhile feat to attempt. We'd likely learn something as well which would be our first step of Mankind actually exploring our solar system. I can't really agree with anyone living there thou. There's almost nothing on Mars that can be used as a resource which means it'd be too expensive to keep a colony there.
We do these things (Score:3)
“We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things (accomplishments and aspirations), 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, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.”
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Television personalities are useful to shape kids. He used to shape them into liking exploration and scientific progress. Now he shapes them into people who see science only as a tool for social "progress".
Re: (Score:2)
A rotating habitat connected with a tether to a counterweight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, just common sense. This isn't a space elevator. Spin it and it will create centripetal force, at levels well below what can be handled with a low weight tether.
It's less space, weight and cost efficient than just letting their muscles and bones atrophy for the moment ... so we don't do it. If we had to do it, there's nothing really stopping us. Just throw engineers and money at it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And this too is something a robotic ship could do without the need for life support systems. One could have a mission that does high-resolution mapping of the surface, for example.
Re: (Score:2)