President Trump signs bill for NASA to go to Mars

[Lewdog]

Why? What's on the Moon?

Materials, and a much shallower gravity well.

Materials..... like what?

Yeah, it has lots of oxygen in the soil, and silicon, and some iron and aluminum. How much would it cost to get these things? Probably a lot more than recycling the stuff we already use but don't need, that's for sure.

And what about lower gravity? You still need to get people from Earth to the Moon in order to then send them to Mars.

Is it easier to send people to the Moon then to Mars, or just send them to Mars in the first place?

If you are going for a single shot bragging mission, cheaper to go directly to Mars. If you are going for long term exploration, go to the moon first, and mine much of the necessary material there. And who knows what wonderous things we would find in the exploration of the moon as we went to Mars?

The moon seems a no-brainer to me.
It's closer to test out all the systems necessary for getting to and settling on Mars.

We've landed humans on the Moon, and yet when we send things to Mars they break before landing in almost all cases. Mars isn't the Moon. Testing things on the Moon doesn't mean they'll work on Mars.

I gave you the article to read about why we should go to the moon first.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Materials, and a much shallower gravity well.

Materials..... like what?

Yeah, it has lots of oxygen in the soil, and silicon, and some iron and aluminum. How much would it cost to get these things? Probably a lot more than recycling the stuff we already use but don't need, that's for sure.

And what about lower gravity? You still need to get people from Earth to the Moon in order to then send them to Mars.

Is it easier to send people to the Moon then to Mars, or just send them to Mars in the first place?

If you are going for a single shot bragging mission, cheaper to go directly to Mars. If you are going for long term exploration, go to the moon first, and mine much of the necessary material there. And who knows what wonderous things we would find in the exploration of the moon as we went to Mars?

The moon seems a no-brainer to me.
It's closer to test out all the systems necessary for getting to and settling on Mars.

We've landed humans on the Moon, and yet when we send things to Mars they break before landing in almost all cases. Mars isn't the Moon. Testing things on the Moon doesn't mean they'll work on Mars.

I gave you the article to read about why we should go to the moon first.

Good for you.

 

[Lewdog]

Materials..... like what?

Yeah, it has lots of oxygen in the soil, and silicon, and some iron and aluminum. How much would it cost to get these things? Probably a lot more than recycling the stuff we already use but don't need, that's for sure.

And what about lower gravity? You still need to get people from Earth to the Moon in order to then send them to Mars.

Is it easier to send people to the Moon then to Mars, or just send them to Mars in the first place?

If you are going for a single shot bragging mission, cheaper to go directly to Mars. If you are going for long term exploration, go to the moon first, and mine much of the necessary material there. And who knows what wonderous things we would find in the exploration of the moon as we went to Mars?

The moon seems a no-brainer to me.
It's closer to test out all the systems necessary for getting to and settling on Mars.

We've landed humans on the Moon, and yet when we send things to Mars they break before landing in almost all cases. Mars isn't the Moon. Testing things on the Moon doesn't mean they'll work on Mars.

I gave you the article to read about why we should go to the moon first.

Good for you.

What a smart ass response...coming from someone that literally keeps asking the same question over and over when the answer was provided for them. Maybe you're just to lazy to read it so let me give you a cliff notes version...

A mission to Mars will need A LOT of supplies and equipment, not to mention a lot of fuel. So much weight could make it difficult and wasteful for fuel to take off and leave Earth's gravity. So they want to cut a bunch of the fuel by putting a station on the moon that would allow them to make their own oxygen based fuel there, so that they can take off from Earth with less fuel and more supplies. So not only can they maximize capacity, but save on fuel costs for repeated missions once the fuel station on the moon has been paid for, but also allow the team to use a sling shot of the moon to regain speed towards Mars.

 

[ScienceRocks]

For the time being sending a manned mission to Mars is a worthless endeavor. We need to go back to the Moon first.

Why? What's on the Moon?

Materials, and a much shallower gravity well.

The resources of space is the only way humanity will ever pull up the entire 7.4 billion people that are members of it to American levels...If America can develop the tech to do it = no more debt. We'll be the most powerful nation on earth for another 100 years at least.

Great risk but even greater reward!

 

[frigidweirdo]

If you are going for a single shot bragging mission, cheaper to go directly to Mars. If you are going for long term exploration, go to the moon first, and mine much of the necessary material there. And who knows what wonderous things we would find in the exploration of the moon as we went to Mars?

The moon seems a no-brainer to me.
It's closer to test out all the systems necessary for getting to and settling on Mars.

We've landed humans on the Moon, and yet when we send things to Mars they break before landing in almost all cases. Mars isn't the Moon. Testing things on the Moon doesn't mean they'll work on Mars.

I gave you the article to read about why we should go to the moon first.

Good for you.

What a smart ass response...coming from someone that literally keeps asking the same question over and over when the answer was provided for them. Maybe you're just to lazy to read it so let me give you a cliff notes version...

A mission to Mars will need A LOT of supplies and equipment, not to mention a lot of fuel. So much weight could make it difficult and wasteful for fuel to take off and leave Earth's gravity. So they want to cut a bunch of the fuel by putting a station on the moon that would allow them to make their own oxygen based fuel there, so that they can take off from Earth with less fuel and more supplies. So not only can they maximize capacity, but save on fuel costs for repeated missions once the fuel station on the moon has been paid for, but also allow the team to use a sling shot of the moon to regain speed towards Mars.

Maybe I come on here to debate with people, and not to have sources thrown in my face as if I were debating with the person who wrote the source. You use sources, you don't throw them at people.

I know a mission to Mars will require a lot of supplies and equipment. So will mining missions to the Moon.

If there is a viable plan to use the Moon, then fine, but is there? I ask the same questions because the answers given haven't been good answers. Sorry.

 

[ScienceRocks]

If you are going for a single shot bragging mission, cheaper to go directly to Mars. If you are going for long term exploration, go to the moon first, and mine much of the necessary material there. And who knows what wonderous things we would find in the exploration of the moon as we went to Mars?

The moon seems a no-brainer to me.
It's closer to test out all the systems necessary for getting to and settling on Mars.

We've landed humans on the Moon, and yet when we send things to Mars they break before landing in almost all cases. Mars isn't the Moon. Testing things on the Moon doesn't mean they'll work on Mars.

I gave you the article to read about why we should go to the moon first.

Good for you.

What a smart ass response...coming from someone that literally keeps asking the same question over and over when the answer was provided for them. Maybe you're just to lazy to read it so let me give you a cliff notes version...

A mission to Mars will need A LOT of supplies and equipment, not to mention a lot of fuel. So much weight could make it difficult and wasteful for fuel to take off and leave Earth's gravity. So they want to cut a bunch of the fuel by putting a station on the moon that would allow them to make their own oxygen based fuel there, so that they can take off from Earth with less fuel and more supplies. So not only can they maximize capacity, but save on fuel costs for repeated missions once the fuel station on the moon has been paid for, but also allow the team to use a sling shot of the moon to regain speed towards Mars.

I'd use the air craft carrier model for such a ship. Sure, it would cost a ton up front but it would last a lot longer and make back what a throw away would cost dozens of times over its time period. It would be the first planetary ship!
1. Build to be usable hundreds of times.
2. Nuclear type drive Zoom to Mars in 6 weeks with new Russian nuclear-fission engine
"Another advantage of a nuclear engine is that it enables a spacecraft to maneuver throughout the flight, whereas existing technology only makes a defined trajectory flight possible."
Nuclear thermal rocket - Wikipedia
Nuclear propulsion - Wikipedia

Nuclear would also help take out the fuel weight need.

 

[Lewdog]

The moon seems a no-brainer to me.
It's closer to test out all the systems necessary for getting to and settling on Mars.

We've landed humans on the Moon, and yet when we send things to Mars they break before landing in almost all cases. Mars isn't the Moon. Testing things on the Moon doesn't mean they'll work on Mars.

I gave you the article to read about why we should go to the moon first.

Good for you.

What a smart ass response...coming from someone that literally keeps asking the same question over and over when the answer was provided for them. Maybe you're just to lazy to read it so let me give you a cliff notes version...

A mission to Mars will need A LOT of supplies and equipment, not to mention a lot of fuel. So much weight could make it difficult and wasteful for fuel to take off and leave Earth's gravity. So they want to cut a bunch of the fuel by putting a station on the moon that would allow them to make their own oxygen based fuel there, so that they can take off from Earth with less fuel and more supplies. So not only can they maximize capacity, but save on fuel costs for repeated missions once the fuel station on the moon has been paid for, but also allow the team to use a sling shot of the moon to regain speed towards Mars.

Maybe I come on here to debate with people, and not to have sources thrown in my face as if I were debating with the person who wrote the source. You use sources, you don't throw them at people.

I know a mission to Mars will require a lot of supplies and equipment. So will mining missions to the Moon.

If there is a viable plan to use the Moon, then fine, but is there? I ask the same questions because the answers given haven't been good answers. Sorry.

Personally I just think they should work on building a base on the moon first where they can not only set up a fuel station but also a place to store extra supplies.

I'm actually taking an Astronomy course this semester and will get to work with some of the equipment at the main campus this Saturday. It's pretty crazy how we can know so much about places so far away, all the way down to what type of material a planet is just by the way light from a star is absorbed by it. And we can tell if a Star has planets by a wobble it may have or through dimming.

 

[frigidweirdo]

We've landed humans on the Moon, and yet when we send things to Mars they break before landing in almost all cases. Mars isn't the Moon. Testing things on the Moon doesn't mean they'll work on Mars.

I gave you the article to read about why we should go to the moon first.

Good for you.

What a smart ass response...coming from someone that literally keeps asking the same question over and over when the answer was provided for them. Maybe you're just to lazy to read it so let me give you a cliff notes version...

A mission to Mars will need A LOT of supplies and equipment, not to mention a lot of fuel. So much weight could make it difficult and wasteful for fuel to take off and leave Earth's gravity. So they want to cut a bunch of the fuel by putting a station on the moon that would allow them to make their own oxygen based fuel there, so that they can take off from Earth with less fuel and more supplies. So not only can they maximize capacity, but save on fuel costs for repeated missions once the fuel station on the moon has been paid for, but also allow the team to use a sling shot of the moon to regain speed towards Mars.

Maybe I come on here to debate with people, and not to have sources thrown in my face as if I were debating with the person who wrote the source. You use sources, you don't throw them at people.

I know a mission to Mars will require a lot of supplies and equipment. So will mining missions to the Moon.

If there is a viable plan to use the Moon, then fine, but is there? I ask the same questions because the answers given haven't been good answers. Sorry.

Personally I just think they should work on building a base on the moon first where they can not only set up a fuel station but also a place to store extra supplies.

I'm actually taking an Astronomy course this semester and will get to work with some of the equipment at the main campus this Saturday. It's pretty crazy how we can know so much about places so far away, all the way down to what type of material a planet is just by the way light from a star is absorbed by it. And we can tell if a Star has planets by a wobble it may have or through dimming.

But again, is it viable?

 

[Lewdog]

I gave you the article to read about why we should go to the moon first.

Good for you.

What a smart ass response...coming from someone that literally keeps asking the same question over and over when the answer was provided for them. Maybe you're just to lazy to read it so let me give you a cliff notes version...

A mission to Mars will need A LOT of supplies and equipment, not to mention a lot of fuel. So much weight could make it difficult and wasteful for fuel to take off and leave Earth's gravity. So they want to cut a bunch of the fuel by putting a station on the moon that would allow them to make their own oxygen based fuel there, so that they can take off from Earth with less fuel and more supplies. So not only can they maximize capacity, but save on fuel costs for repeated missions once the fuel station on the moon has been paid for, but also allow the team to use a sling shot of the moon to regain speed towards Mars.

Maybe I come on here to debate with people, and not to have sources thrown in my face as if I were debating with the person who wrote the source. You use sources, you don't throw them at people.

I know a mission to Mars will require a lot of supplies and equipment. So will mining missions to the Moon.

If there is a viable plan to use the Moon, then fine, but is there? I ask the same questions because the answers given haven't been good answers. Sorry.

Personally I just think they should work on building a base on the moon first where they can not only set up a fuel station but also a place to store extra supplies.

I'm actually taking an Astronomy course this semester and will get to work with some of the equipment at the main campus this Saturday. It's pretty crazy how we can know so much about places so far away, all the way down to what type of material a planet is just by the way light from a star is absorbed by it. And we can tell if a Star has planets by a wobble it may have or through dimming.

But again, is it viable?

Well to find out if a base on the moon is viable, more research needs to be done... like more testing for water. Then to find out if we can figure out a way to create soil to grow plant life using the soil on the moon combined with minerals we take there. One major component lacking lunar soil is nitrogen. Then we would have to test the plants to see if they would be harmful for people to consume. And most importantly, once we get the basics down... we need to try and get things to be as self sustaining as possible.

I do think it is viable, and at the very least, could be run just like the ISS with supply missions.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Good for you.

What a smart ass response...coming from someone that literally keeps asking the same question over and over when the answer was provided for them. Maybe you're just to lazy to read it so let me give you a cliff notes version...

A mission to Mars will need A LOT of supplies and equipment, not to mention a lot of fuel. So much weight could make it difficult and wasteful for fuel to take off and leave Earth's gravity. So they want to cut a bunch of the fuel by putting a station on the moon that would allow them to make their own oxygen based fuel there, so that they can take off from Earth with less fuel and more supplies. So not only can they maximize capacity, but save on fuel costs for repeated missions once the fuel station on the moon has been paid for, but also allow the team to use a sling shot of the moon to regain speed towards Mars.

Maybe I come on here to debate with people, and not to have sources thrown in my face as if I were debating with the person who wrote the source. You use sources, you don't throw them at people.

I know a mission to Mars will require a lot of supplies and equipment. So will mining missions to the Moon.

If there is a viable plan to use the Moon, then fine, but is there? I ask the same questions because the answers given haven't been good answers. Sorry.

Personally I just think they should work on building a base on the moon first where they can not only set up a fuel station but also a place to store extra supplies.

I'm actually taking an Astronomy course this semester and will get to work with some of the equipment at the main campus this Saturday. It's pretty crazy how we can know so much about places so far away, all the way down to what type of material a planet is just by the way light from a star is absorbed by it. And we can tell if a Star has planets by a wobble it may have or through dimming.

But again, is it viable?

Well to find out if a base on the moon is viable, more research needs to be done... like more testing for water. Then to find out if we can figure out a way to create soil to grow plant life using the soil on the moon combined with minerals we take there. One major component lacking lunar soil is nitrogen. Then we would have to test the plants to see if they would be harmful for people to consume. And most importantly, once we get the basics down... we need to try and get things to be as self sustaining as possible.

I do think it is viable, and at the very least, could be run just like the ISS with supply missions.

But that is massively expensive. The question is, again, is anyone going to think that that much expense is going to get them anywhere? Now, private companies wouldn't do it, too much expense for too little probably profit. Would the US govt do it? Right now, no.

 

[Old Rocks]

Right now the US Government has little interest in anything but shutting down scientific research.

 

[Eloy]

A great man with the pen is Donald Trump. Not so good with the mouth.

 

[idb]

A great man with the pen is Donald Trump. Not so good with the mouth.

His whole agenda revolves around destroying Obama's legacy, collecting fawning headlines and holding ego-boosting rallies of adoring fans...and enriching himself...that's it...not hard to figure out.

 

[frigidweirdo]

A great man with the pen is Donald Trump. Not so good with the mouth.

His whole agenda revolves around destroying Obama's legacy, collecting fawning headlines and holding ego-boosting rallies of adoring fans...and enriching himself...that's it...not hard to figure out.

It's ridiculous, there's no other way around it. He say he's going to do something, has 4 years to do it, after 2 months he's said he's finished and done with it, a failure, but blaming others.

 

[Old Rocks]

That is why I take his Mars promises with considerable salt. He failed to add the funding necessary for that venture. That means he is not at all serious, just throwing out bait for those foolish enough to believe anything that he says.

 

[idb]

That is why I take his Mars promises with considerable salt. He failed to add the funding necessary for that venture. That means he is not at all serious, just throwing out bait for those foolish enough to believe anything that he says.

It depends whether he says it in quotation marks or not.

 

[Eloy]

That is why I take his Mars promises with considerable salt. He failed to add the funding necessary for that venture. That means he is not at all serious, just throwing out bait for those foolish enough to believe anything that he says.

It depends whether he says it in quotation marks or not.

Divining what Trump means at any given moment in time would be a chore even for himself. Fundamentally, Donald Trump means nothing.

 

[Harry Dresden]

He has my support on this and the trade issues. The guy does have a few good points.

oh oh....the wind must be blowing the other way ......

 

[Harry Dresden]

What a smart ass response...coming from someone that literally keeps asking the same question over and over when the answer was provided for them. Maybe you're just to lazy to read it so let me give you a cliff notes version...

A mission to Mars will need A LOT of supplies and equipment, not to mention a lot of fuel. So much weight could make it difficult and wasteful for fuel to take off and leave Earth's gravity. So they want to cut a bunch of the fuel by putting a station on the moon that would allow them to make their own oxygen based fuel there, so that they can take off from Earth with less fuel and more supplies. So not only can they maximize capacity, but save on fuel costs for repeated missions once the fuel station on the moon has been paid for, but also allow the team to use a sling shot of the moon to regain speed towards Mars.

Maybe I come on here to debate with people, and not to have sources thrown in my face as if I were debating with the person who wrote the source. You use sources, you don't throw them at people.

I know a mission to Mars will require a lot of supplies and equipment. So will mining missions to the Moon.

If there is a viable plan to use the Moon, then fine, but is there? I ask the same questions because the answers given haven't been good answers. Sorry.

Personally I just think they should work on building a base on the moon first where they can not only set up a fuel station but also a place to store extra supplies.

I'm actually taking an Astronomy course this semester and will get to work with some of the equipment at the main campus this Saturday. It's pretty crazy how we can know so much about places so far away, all the way down to what type of material a planet is just by the way light from a star is absorbed by it. And we can tell if a Star has planets by a wobble it may have or through dimming.

But again, is it viable?

Well to find out if a base on the moon is viable, more research needs to be done... like more testing for water. Then to find out if we can figure out a way to create soil to grow plant life using the soil on the moon combined with minerals we take there. One major component lacking lunar soil is nitrogen. Then we would have to test the plants to see if they would be harmful for people to consume. And most importantly, once we get the basics down... we need to try and get things to be as self sustaining as possible.

I do think it is viable, and at the very least, could be run just like the ISS with supply missions.

But that is massively expensive. The question is, again, is anyone going to think that that much expense is going to get them anywhere? Now, private companies wouldn't do it, too much expense for too little probably profit. Would the US govt do it? Right now, no.

so you invite the other space faring nations to join us.....

 

[Unkotare]

make Mars great again!

Trump Signs Bill Securing NASA Funding, Plans to Reach Mars

Can't afford healthcare, can't afford food, can't afford so many things, but can afford to go to Mars, build a wall and beef up the military.

Priorities, ie, fuck you, you're poor.

Your understanding of budgets seems thin.