NASA admits they can't send a human to Mars

[westwall]

mars has the wrong kind of co2

too bad it didnt get the kind that heats the planet

--LOL

Mars does not have enough mass to hold an atmosphere

At one time it did have an atmosphere, one that allowed liquid water to flow for vast stretches of time based on the geologic evidence that has been gathered.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Basically, NASA finally admits it's all been wishful thinking. They're not even close to being able to do it, and they won't be close in the foreseeable future. While they say it's all about money, it's far more than money. They just don't have the tech.

NASA finally admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars

It doesn't help that they'll miss the best launch window. There are two 'launch window cycles' at play. There's the more important window, which comes every 2.2 years, when Earth is close to "catching up" with Mars. Every Mars launch happens in that window. And there's a less strong 16-year cycle, based on the eccentricity of each planet's orbit. That reaches a minimum in 2018. We'll miss that window, then it won't get that good again until the 2030's. It's maybe a 20% difference in flight time, but if you're trying to have your people not die from radiation, minimizing trip time is vital.

So, realistically, nothing until the 2030s, at the earliest. Maybe Chang-Díaz will have his VASIMR plasma drive working by then, which would help considerably. If it works, it would have much more power than the present Hall thruster plasma drives, and get twice the "gas mileage".

NASA’s longshot bet on a revolutionary rocket may be about to pay off

And another thing, it's been found the Martian soil is so toxic, it will kill all bacteria. Any bacterial life on Mars will have to be buried deep. The new European robot probe will bring a 2-meter drill.

Mars covered in toxic chemicals that can wipe out living organisms, tests reveal

Anybody who is capable of thinking for themselves kinda, sorta, knew this so it is not surprising, nor is it disappointing. Instead of fanciful projects like that, NASA should be working on building a permanent base on the Moon from which it would be a lot easier to launch long distance missions to the rest of the Solar System.

Ship the same weight to the moon. Have a moon base with it's own problems & expense. Not easier, harder. You have the problem of spare parts and huge time delays when problems arise. A logistics nightmare. Besides, we don't need the number of missions of exploration to make it necessary.

You only have to leave earth's orbit. The distance to outer worlds is a coast & gravitational assist.

If you want to assemble, do it in earth orbit.

Wrong. What matters is what the weight you are shipping IS! Sending manufacturing plants to the Moon, where they can then begin producing supplies from the Moons raw materials is the way to go. You need a better imagination my friend. Add to that the development of new technologies to loft payloads such as mass drivers etc, and a Lunar base becomes a much more likely possibility.

What moon raw materials? LOL

Now you are talking an entire country on the moon.

We KNOW that there are relatively rich deposits of magnesium, aluminium, silicon, iron and titanium. We also KNOW that the Helium 3 concentration is fairly high compared to the Earth so if fusion power ever becomes a reality the fuel supply is already in place. It seems you don't know much about what you are speaking.

Aluminium, silicon, iron are worthless sand.

Yes there is titanium, but it requires a lot to turn from ore to space-age metal. The magnesium is a political ploy since most of the Earth's is in China.

The point is is it useful and cost effective. You are talking huge expensive lunar footprint or bringing ore back to earth.

 

[MarkDuffy]

mars has the wrong kind of co2

too bad it didnt get the kind that heats the planet

--LOL

Mars does not have enough mass to hold an atmosphere

At one time it did have an atmosphere, one that allowed liquid water to flow for vast stretches of time based on the geologic evidence that has been gathered.

True, but its lack of mass couldn't keep the atmosphere.

Revealed: How Mars Lost Its Atmosphere | TIME.com

and no magnetic field did not help either.

Is there a way to provide a magnetic field for Mars?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Basically, NASA finally admits it's all been wishful thinking. They're not even close to being able to do it, and they won't be close in the foreseeable future. While they say it's all about money, it's far more than money. They just don't have the tech.

NASA finally admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars

It doesn't help that they'll miss the best launch window. There are two 'launch window cycles' at play. There's the more important window, which comes every 2.2 years, when Earth is close to "catching up" with Mars. Every Mars launch happens in that window. And there's a less strong 16-year cycle, based on the eccentricity of each planet's orbit. That reaches a minimum in 2018. We'll miss that window, then it won't get that good again until the 2030's. It's maybe a 20% difference in flight time, but if you're trying to have your people not die from radiation, minimizing trip time is vital.

So, realistically, nothing until the 2030s, at the earliest. Maybe Chang-Díaz will have his VASIMR plasma drive working by then, which would help considerably. If it works, it would have much more power than the present Hall thruster plasma drives, and get twice the "gas mileage".

NASA’s longshot bet on a revolutionary rocket may be about to pay off

And another thing, it's been found the Martian soil is so toxic, it will kill all bacteria. Any bacterial life on Mars will have to be buried deep. The new European robot probe will bring a 2-meter drill.

Mars covered in toxic chemicals that can wipe out living organisms, tests reveal

Until China get involved and it becomes another space race, the US will probably be quite lethargic at the whole affair.

 

[westwall]

mars has the wrong kind of co2

too bad it didnt get the kind that heats the planet

--LOL

Mars does not have enough mass to hold an atmosphere

At one time it did have an atmosphere, one that allowed liquid water to flow for vast stretches of time based on the geologic evidence that has been gathered.

True, but its lack of mass couldn't keep the atmosphere.

Revealed: How Mars Lost Its Atmosphere | TIME.com

and no magnetic field did not help either.

Is there a way to provide a magnetic field for Mars?

The question is how did it even obtain one in the first place. I agree it lacks enough mass to retain one today, but logically that would preclude it from gaining one in the first place.

 

[westwall]

Anybody who is capable of thinking for themselves kinda, sorta, knew this so it is not surprising, nor is it disappointing. Instead of fanciful projects like that, NASA should be working on building a permanent base on the Moon from which it would be a lot easier to launch long distance missions to the rest of the Solar System.

Ship the same weight to the moon. Have a moon base with it's own problems & expense. Not easier, harder. You have the problem of spare parts and huge time delays when problems arise. A logistics nightmare. Besides, we don't need the number of missions of exploration to make it necessary.

You only have to leave earth's orbit. The distance to outer worlds is a coast & gravitational assist.

If you want to assemble, do it in earth orbit.

Wrong. What matters is what the weight you are shipping IS! Sending manufacturing plants to the Moon, where they can then begin producing supplies from the Moons raw materials is the way to go. You need a better imagination my friend. Add to that the development of new technologies to loft payloads such as mass drivers etc, and a Lunar base becomes a much more likely possibility.

What moon raw materials? LOL

Now you are talking an entire country on the moon.

We KNOW that there are relatively rich deposits of magnesium, aluminium, silicon, iron and titanium. We also KNOW that the Helium 3 concentration is fairly high compared to the Earth so if fusion power ever becomes a reality the fuel supply is already in place. It seems you don't know much about what you are speaking.

Aluminium, silicon, iron are worthless sand.

Yes there is titanium, but it requires a lot to turn from ore to space-age metal. The magnesium is a political ploy since most of the Earth's is in China.

The point is is it useful and cost effective. You are talking huge expensive lunar footprint or bringing ore back to earth.

Not when you're building a base. When you are building a permanent facility they are essential building materials.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Is Moon Mining Economically Feasible?

Is Moon Mining Economically Feasible?

 

[ding]

Here's how much money it actually costs to launch stuff into space

 

[MarkDuffy]

Ship the same weight to the moon. Have a moon base with it's own problems & expense. Not easier, harder. You have the problem of spare parts and huge time delays when problems arise. A logistics nightmare. Besides, we don't need the number of missions of exploration to make it necessary.

You only have to leave earth's orbit. The distance to outer worlds is a coast & gravitational assist.

If you want to assemble, do it in earth orbit.

Wrong. What matters is what the weight you are shipping IS! Sending manufacturing plants to the Moon, where they can then begin producing supplies from the Moons raw materials is the way to go. You need a better imagination my friend. Add to that the development of new technologies to loft payloads such as mass drivers etc, and a Lunar base becomes a much more likely possibility.

What moon raw materials? LOL

Now you are talking an entire country on the moon.

We KNOW that there are relatively rich deposits of magnesium, aluminium, silicon, iron and titanium. We also KNOW that the Helium 3 concentration is fairly high compared to the Earth so if fusion power ever becomes a reality the fuel supply is already in place. It seems you don't know much about what you are speaking.

Aluminium, silicon, iron are worthless sand.

Yes there is titanium, but it requires a lot to turn from ore to space-age metal. The magnesium is a political ploy since most of the Earth's is in China.

The point is is it useful and cost effective. You are talking huge expensive lunar footprint or bringing ore back to earth.

Not when you're building a base. When you are building a permanent facility they are essential building materials.

You need the base first. Then you could think about expanding to a mining operation. Then think about expanding to a refining operation. Then think about expanding to a manufacturing operation. You are talking about a city. You need lots of energy. So we are now talking nuke plants, cuz solar won't cut it.

 

[westwall]

Is Moon Mining Economically Feasible?

Is Moon Mining Economically Feasible?

Of course not if you plan on returning the product to Earth. That's not what I am talking about now is it. The way to actually get man out into space is to build a permanent base on the Moon. The building materials are there. There is a high likelihood of water as well. Silica allows glass making so you can have a greenhouse to grow plants. No, it's not a "quick" project. It is a multigenerational project. But once you have a permanent base, you can then launch other missions into the deep solar system and asteroids to start mining them, and that WOULD be economically feasible.

Here is ONE asteroid that people are already trying to grab..

Geee. I wonder why?

This $20 Trillion Rock Could Turn a Startup Into Earth's Richest Company

A $20 Trillion Rock Could Turn a Startup Into Earth's Richest Company

 

[MarkDuffy]

Is Moon Mining Economically Feasible?

Is Moon Mining Economically Feasible?

Of course not if you plan on returning the product to Earth. That's not what I am talking about now is it. The way to actually get man out into space is to build a permanent base on the Moon. The building materials are there. There is a high likelihood of water as well. Silica allows glass making so you can have a greenhouse to grow plants. No, it's not a "quick" project. it is a multigenrational project. But once you have a permanent base, you can then launch other missions into the deep solar system and asteroids to start mining them, and that WOULD be economically feasible.

Here is ONE asteroid that people are already trying to grab..

Geee. I wonder why?

This $20 Trillion Rock Could Turn a Startup Into Earth's Richest Company

A $20 Trillion Rock Could Turn a Startup Into Earth's Richest Company

LOL, we are having fun now!

 

[Divine Wind]

Robot asteroid mining is more achievable. Returning the materials to space or lunar refineries and factories would reduce the costs since it would be easier to turn the mine ships around for a subsequent run.

Sounds cost prohibitive.

Awesome. So don't go. Are you against corporations from doing it?

Asteroid Mining | Deep Space Industries

Instead of a US flag on spacecraft and stations there will be company logos like Orbital Insight, Spire and SpaceX. Of course, the Chinese company will probably still fly the PRC flag.

The 10 Most Innovative Companies In Space 2017

Because I think it sounds cost prohibitive? I wasn't planning on going.

Figured you weren't. Also figured you'd never want to go.

Like the people who founded the United States, there are people who left the "Old World" for the "New World" and there are those who were content to stay at home. Nothing wrong with either choice, but let's not deny people the choice.

I think you are confusing conversations. Ours was on robotic mining.

Thanks for the clarification. As my links about asteroid mining and private businesses pointed out, "there's gold in them thar hills!"

Aside from the tech of living in space, the current biggest cost of spaceflight is lift. The cost of lifting a pound of material off Earth. Dropping it back in is very cheap. Lifting it off the Moon is cheap. Lifting it off Mars is 1/3 cheaper than on Earth, all other factors being equal, due to the difference in gravity. An L-5 station involves relatively little gravity, just orbital mechanics.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Something tells me that space will become the wild wild west

 

[Divine Wind]

Is Moon Mining Economically Feasible?

Is Moon Mining Economically Feasible?

Of course not if you plan on returning the product to Earth. That's not what I am talking about now is it. The way to actually get man out into space is to build a permanent base on the Moon. The building materials are there. There is a high likelihood of water as well. Silica allows glass making so you can have a greenhouse to grow plants. No, it's not a "quick" project. it is a multigenrational project. But once you have a permanent base, you can then launch other missions into the deep solar system and asteroids to start mining them, and that WOULD be economically feasible.

Here is ONE asteroid that people are already trying to grab..

Geee. I wonder why?

This $20 Trillion Rock Could Turn a Startup Into Earth's Richest Company

A $20 Trillion Rock Could Turn a Startup Into Earth's Richest Company

Good example. The same dreamers who made America want to make Moon colonies, space colonies and Mar colonies. The same people who said going to America is too dangerous, too risky and not worth the price stayed in England, Germany and France.

 

[Divine Wind]

Something tells me that space will become the wild wild west

What tells you this? Fantasy?

 

[Montrovant]

Something tells me that space will become the wild wild west

What tells you this? Fantasy?

Joss Whedon tells us this!

 

[westwall]

Something tells me that space will become the wild wild west

What tells you this? Fantasy?

Joss Whedon tells us this!

I'll take Inara for ten Alex!

 

[Divine Wind]

Ship the same weight to the moon. Have a moon base with it's own problems & expense. Not easier, harder. You have the problem of spare parts and huge time delays when problems arise. A logistics nightmare. Besides, we don't need the number of missions of exploration to make it necessary.

You only have to leave earth's orbit. The distance to outer worlds is a coast & gravitational assist.

If you want to assemble, do it in earth orbit.

Wrong. What matters is what the weight you are shipping IS! Sending manufacturing plants to the Moon, where they can then begin producing supplies from the Moons raw materials is the way to go. You need a better imagination my friend. Add to that the development of new technologies to loft payloads such as mass drivers etc, and a Lunar base becomes a much more likely possibility.

What moon raw materials? LOL

Now you are talking an entire country on the moon.

We KNOW that there are relatively rich deposits of magnesium, aluminium, silicon, iron and titanium. We also KNOW that the Helium 3 concentration is fairly high compared to the Earth so if fusion power ever becomes a reality the fuel supply is already in place. It seems you don't know much about what you are speaking.

Aluminium, silicon, iron are worthless sand.

Yes there is titanium, but it requires a lot to turn from ore to space-age metal. The magnesium is a political ploy since most of the Earth's is in China.

The point is is it useful and cost effective. You are talking huge expensive lunar footprint or bringing ore back to earth.

Not when you're building a base. When you are building a permanent facility they are essential building materials.

Agreed. Also, once the refining and manufacturing facilities are in place, it won't be ore loads being dropped back on Earth, it will be products, especially electronics. This also serves to help clean the planet by removing both the manufacturing process and the resulting pollution off planet.

 

[mudwhistle]

Basically, NASA finally admits it's all been wishful thinking. They're not even close to being able to do it, and they won't be close in the foreseeable future. While they say it's all about money, it's far more than money. They just don't have the tech.

NASA finally admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars

It doesn't help that they'll miss the best launch window. There a two 'launch window cycles' at play. There's the more important window, which comes every 2.2 years, when Earth is close to "catching up" with Mars. Every Mars launch happens in that window. And there's a less strong 16-year cycle, based on the eccentricity of each planet's orbit. That reaches a minimum in 2018. We'll miss that window, then it won't get that good again until the 2030's. It's maybe a 20% difference in flight time, but if you're trying to have your people not die from radiation, minimizing trip time is vital.

So, realistically, nothing until the 2030s, at the earliest. Maybe Chang-Díaz will have his VASIMR plasma drive working by then, which would help considerably. If it works, it would have much more power than the present Hall thruster plasma drives, and get twice the "gas mileage".

NASA’s longshot bet on a revolutionary rocket may be about to pay off

And another thing, it's been found the Martian soil is so toxic, it will kill all bacteria. Any bacterial life on Mars will have to be buried deep. The new European robot probe will bring a 2-meter drill.

Mars covered in toxic chemicals that can wipe out living organisms, tests reveal

Nasa already has ships that can get to mars in 3 days.

The USS Enterprise can get past Jupiter in 15 seconds without going to Warp.

 

[miketx]

Basically, NASA finally admits it's all been wishful thinking. They're not even close to being able to do it, and they won't be close in the foreseeable future. While they say it's all about money, it's far more than money. They just don't have the tech.

NASA finally admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars

It doesn't help that they'll miss the best launch window. There a two 'launch window cycles' at play. There's the more important window, which comes every 2.2 years, when Earth is close to "catching up" with Mars. Every Mars launch happens in that window. And there's a less strong 16-year cycle, based on the eccentricity of each planet's orbit. That reaches a minimum in 2018. We'll miss that window, then it won't get that good again until the 2030's. It's maybe a 20% difference in flight time, but if you're trying to have your people not die from radiation, minimizing trip time is vital.

So, realistically, nothing until the 2030s, at the earliest. Maybe Chang-Díaz will have his VASIMR plasma drive working by then, which would help considerably. If it works, it would have much more power than the present Hall thruster plasma drives, and get twice the "gas mileage".

NASA’s longshot bet on a revolutionary rocket may be about to pay off

And another thing, it's been found the Martian soil is so toxic, it will kill all bacteria. Any bacterial life on Mars will have to be buried deep. The new European robot probe will bring a 2-meter drill.

Mars covered in toxic chemicals that can wipe out living organisms, tests reveal

Nasa already has ships that can get to mars in 3 days.

The USS Enterprise can get past Jupiter in 15 seconds without going to Warp.

Like I didn't know that?