Moon and Mars missions, a big waste of taxpayer money.

[52ndStreet]

The Moon mission, and any attempt to go to Mars will all be one big waste of taxpayer money. NASA, has already put men on the Moon. Any attempt to venture to Mars, will be a suicide mission. Just to many things that could go wrong for a Mars mission. Once on the surface of Mars, there won't be enough fuel to lift off to escape the Martian gravity, and to reach Mars escape velocity.! These two missions are one big waste of taxpayer funds.!!?

 

[White 6]

The Moon mission, and any attempt to go to Mars will all be one big waste of taxpayer money. NASA, has already put men on the Moon. Any attempt to venture to Mars, will be a suicide mission. Just to many things that could go wrong for a Mars mission. Once on the surface of Mars, there won't be enough fuel to lift off to escape the Martian gravity, and to reach Mars escape velocity.! These two missions are one big waste of taxpayer funds.!!?

If you don't want to go, don't go. Let science people worry about the science.

 

[JLW]

We are in the process of fucking up this planet beyond repair, so we better have an escape plan.

 

[ReinyDays]

Sending unmanned probes to these places is ...

... fun ...

Who says the tax-payers can't have a little entertainment to break up the monotonous dreary lives they must live ...? ...

 

[fncceo]

We are in the process of fucking up this planet beyond repair, so we better have an escape plan.

It's amusing to me that people who think a couple of degrees increase in average temperature would make the Earth uninhabitable... think that a freezing planet with almost no water and no breathable atmosphere is our only hope for survival.

While sending a few humans to Mars is a very achievable (albeit insanely expensive) goal ... there is no practical benefit for doing so.

 

[ReinyDays]

It's amusing to me that people who think a couple of degrees increase in average temperature would make the Earth uninhabitable... think that a freezing planet with almost no water and no breathable atmosphere is our only hope for survival.

We've already dumped a bunch of garbage on the poor Moon ... scarred her surface with them damn dune-buggy-wuggy things ... thta's our next landfill !!! ...

While sending a few humans to Mars is a very achievable (albeit insanely expensive) goal ... there is no practical benefit for doing so.

The benefit is better AI software for cinema ... we get private enterprise to do it with non-union labor ... the return back here on Earth is more accurate betting lines from on-line sports books ...

 

[JLW]

It's amusing to me that people who think a couple of degrees increase in average temperature would make the Earth uninhabitable... think that a freezing planet with almost no water and no breathable atmosphere is our only hope for survival.

While sending a few humans to Mars is a very achievable (albeit insanely expensive) goal ... there is no practical benefit for doing so.

Well, it is more than climate change, but in addition, microplastics, pfas, ozone depletion, habitat loss, deforestation, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, over fishing, toxic and chemical waste, over development, every type of air and water pollution, resource depletion, and over population for starters and I have not even touched on the real possibility of chemical, biological and nuclear war.

Yeah, we need an escape plan.

 

[fncceo]

Well, it is more than climate change, but in addition, microplastics, pfas, ozone depletion, habitat loss, deforestation, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, over fishing, toxic waste, over development, every type of air and water pollution, resource depletion, and over population for starters and I have not even touched on the real possibility of chemical, biological and nuclear war.

Yeah, we need an escape plan.

Even if all of the worst case scenario came true all at once ... the Earth would be vastly more habitable than Mars on its best day.

Given the available land and farming technology, Earth can comfortably support double or even triple our current population...

... how many people do you think Mars could support?

100? 200?

 

[fncceo]

The benefit is better AI software for cinema

The closest all but a very tiny number of people will get to space for the next couple of centuries is in a cinema watching the next installment of "Star Wars".

The least we can do is make the effects more realistic.

 

[JLW]

Even if all of the worst case scenario came true all at once ... the Earth would be vastly more habitable than Mars on its best day.

Given the available land and farming technology, Earth can comfortably support double or even triple our current population...

... how many people do you think Mars could support?

100? 200?

Not many now. I look at space exploration as a hedge against future catastrophe. Realistically, Earth is our only home and there is no other place to go.

I do agree with all you write. The planet can support a greater population provided we use her resources responsibly. The dilemma is can we be responsible and can we can keep ourselves from using our technology to harm each other. I hope so.

I used to be an optimist. Not so much anymore.

 

[fncceo]

I used to be an optimist. Not so much anymore.

If you think Mars can provide life long habitation to more than a few humans anytime in the next few centuries then your optimism puts Annie to shame and makes Heidi look like Eeyore the Donkey.

 

[ReinyDays]

I do agree with all you write. The planet can support a greater population provided we use her resources responsibly. The dilemma is can we be responsible and can we can keep ourselves from using our technology to harm each other. I hope so.

I think we're heading that direction ... close to half of us have our fertility rates below replacement ... where economical, we're finding some alternates for energy production ... never before has Europe enjoyed twenty consecutive years without a major war ...

If the French can go twenty years without a murderous killing spree across the continent, then things just got to be better ... certainly better than living on Mars ... ewwwwwwww ... drinking recycled pee, eating recycle poop ... breathing someone else's farts ...

Escape from what? ...

 

[22lcidw]

The closest all but a very tiny number of people will get to space for the next couple of centuries is in a cinema watching the next installment of "Star Wars".

The least we can do is make the effects more realistic.

We talk about Mars. Musk does also. I think the Moon is doable. His Starship if he gets it to work is a gamechanger. 3 days away. A plan to put a small station in an elliptical orbit. Eventually a huge one can orbit the moon using Starship stages. And finally large lunar human related installations. All much cheaper than going to Mars at this point for long time living.

 

[Zebra]

The Moon mission, and any attempt to go to Mars will all be one big waste of taxpayer money. NASA, has already put men on the Moon. Any attempt to venture to Mars, will be a suicide mission. Just to many things that could go wrong for a Mars mission. Once on the surface of Mars, there won't be enough fuel to lift off to escape the Martian gravity, and to reach Mars escape velocity.! These two missions are one big waste of taxpayer funds.!!?

what alternative do you suggest?

 

[fncceo]

His Starship if he gets it to work is a gamechanger.

It really isn't.

While fuels and materials has changed in the last 80 years, Musk's Starship is the very same technology that the Nazis used against the British ... and the very same Nazis sent to The Moon.

Massive costs, high risk, for relatively small payloads.

Mass drivers, centrifugal launch rockets, anti-gravity, or a space elevator would change "the game" ... not yet another V2 rocket with a different paint job.

 

[22lcidw]

It really isn't.

While fuels and materials has changed in the last 80 years, Musk's Starship is the very same technology that the Nazis used against the British ... and the very same Nazis sent to The Moon.

Massive costs, high risk, for relatively small payloads.

Mass drivers, centrifugal launch rockets, anti-gravity, or a space elevator would change "the game" ... not yet another V2 rocket with a different paint job.

The starship has 5 decks or more. It can hold 20 people at a minimum from my understanding. The liquid fuel is the same type. The costs for launch is important. The moon is closer than Mars. The NASA Space Launch System is expensive. Right now, they will not launch more than one a year due to that. I understand your view on new propulsion systems. Supposedly NASA has restarted research on nuclear propulsion again.

 

[Blackrook]

I'm sure there were many little men who tried to talk Columbus out of sailing west.

 

[Blackrook]

We go into space because we're human and that's reason enough.

 

[52ndStreet]

It's amusing to me that people who think a couple of degrees increase in average temperature would make the Earth uninhabitable... think that a freezing planet with almost no water and no breathable atmosphere is our only hope for survival.

While sending a few humans to Mars is a very achievable (albeit insanely expensive) goal ... there is no practical benefit for doing so.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

It's amusing to me that people who think a couple of degrees increase in average temperature would make the Earth uninhabitable... think that a freezing planet with almost no water and no breathable atmosphere is our only hope for survival.

While sending a few humans to Mars is a very achievable (albeit insanely expensive) goal ... there is no practical benefit for doing so.

You repeatedly demonstrate are simply stupid about climate change.

I agree with you about manned space flight, so there might be hope for you.