NASA admits they can't send a human to Mars

[westwall]

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.

 

[Divine Wind]

True, but the goal isn't "a photo-op on Mars".

Then what value do we get that can't be performed by a unmanned rovers?

Smart people have the chance to leave the planet leaving all of the dumbasses behind.

Why not just set up a colony on the bottom of the ocean. It is just as desolate and we cannot leave the security of our shelters and go for a walk

Why not do both? Again, why do you insist what others choose to do? I can see why, as a taxpayer, you are against spending money on science, but why stop people like Musk or foreign governments from sending manned missions off-planet?

Stroll around on a planet devastated by an impact event or supervolcano? What's to see?

Stroll around on a planet devastated by an impact event or supervolcano? What's to see?

Lions & Tigers and Bears, Oh MY!

Your Mars & Moon colony is more likely to to be wiped out.

No one is forcing you to go. You are free to stay on Earth, smoke pot and play your guitar, but why do you insist no one else be allowed to go?

 

[MarkDuffy]

Pow! Mars Hit By Space Rocks 200 Times a Year

Pow! Mars Hit By Space Rocks 200 Times a Year

 

[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. That's how we built the space station.

 

[rightwinger]

Then what value do we get that can't be performed by a unmanned rovers?

Smart people have the chance to leave the planet leaving all of the dumbasses behind.

Why not just set up a colony on the bottom of the ocean. It is just as desolate and we cannot leave the security of our shelters and go for a walk

Why not do both? Again, why do you insist what others choose to do? I can see why, as a taxpayer, you are against spending money on science, but why stop people like Musk or foreign governments from sending manned missions off-planet?

Stroll around on a planet devastated by an impact event or supervolcano? What's to see?

You just don't get it

Even in a nuclear holocaust......the surface of the earth will be more life sustaining than Mars

You don't get it, one big rock and we're done.

The surface of Mars is a hostile environment. One major storm or earthquake could wipe out our feeble colony

 

[westwall]

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.

 

[MarkDuffy]

True, but the goal isn't "a photo-op on Mars".

Then what value do we get that can't be performed by a unmanned rovers?

Smart people have the chance to leave the planet leaving all of the dumbasses behind.

Why not just set up a colony on the bottom of the ocean. It is just as desolate and we cannot leave the security of our shelters and go for a walk

Why not do both? Again, why do you insist what others choose to do? I can see why, as a taxpayer, you are against spending money on science, but why stop people like Musk or foreign governments from sending manned missions off-planet?

Stroll around on a planet devastated by an impact event or supervolcano? What's to see?

You just don't get it

Even in a nuclear holocaust......the surface of the earth will be more life sustaining than Mars

If the Earth was destroyed which is a fantasy, his Mars colony would be dead soon after. W/o support from the Earth, it would quickly die.

 

[mamooth]

Another attraction of Luna is that a space elevator for the moon would work using currently produced high-strength materials. A moonbase wouldn't need to "launch" at all. It could just slowly send things up and down the elevator.

 

[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.

 

[irosie91]

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.

the technology ALREADY exists--------THE TRANSPORTER!!!! -----scottie BEAMS anything anywhere.
sheeeeeeesh Wall------KEEP UP

 

[rightwinger]

Then what value do we get that can't be performed by a unmanned rovers?

Smart people have the chance to leave the planet leaving all of the dumbasses behind.

Why not just set up a colony on the bottom of the ocean. It is just as desolate and we cannot leave the security of our shelters and go for a walk

Why not do both? Again, why do you insist what others choose to do? I can see why, as a taxpayer, you are against spending money on science, but why stop people like Musk or foreign governments from sending manned missions off-planet?

Stroll around on a planet devastated by an impact event or supervolcano? What's to see?

You just don't get it

Even in a nuclear holocaust......the surface of the earth will be more life sustaining than Mars

If the Earth was destroyed which is a fantasy, his Mars colony would be dead soon after. W/o support from the Earth, it would quickly die.

I agree

Man cannot survive on a planet that cannot sustain him . We could build a small colony that could possibly support 50-100 people
What happens then?
They have no manufacturing, no ability to build a larger human population. They would eventually die out

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's fairly easy to get up Mars, we just send an old Chevy there and leave the engine running. Within 20 minutes the CO2 output should start raising the temperature

 

[MarkDuffy]

We are done with the Moon until the Monolith wakes up

Oh wait!

 

[ding]

What is so effing special about Mars? It is cold and dry with no atmosphere.

Venus could work. You would just need an air conditioner with a filter. Heck, cars in Los Angeles already have the technology.

Venus surface pressure is 90 atmospheres. It is not only hotter than Mercury, it would crush most landers (re russian attempts). More pressure protection = more mass = much more dollars to do it.

Also it is impossible to even see your hand in front of your face.

Definitely Venus is a planet for robots.

Ok, 90 atm is about 3000' water depth pressures. Not a problem for construction of a habitat. The engineering works at much greater water depths/pressures. A filter system which only allows oxygen in is possible. Landing something of that size would be an effort, but Venus is closer than Mars with a shorter travel time.

You ever done work at 3000 ft below the ocean? I have. ROV's are pretty limited in what they can do plus everything they operate (they don't do construction) was put there by surface vessels with compensated cranes and are controlled by surface vessels via an umbilical.

 

[ding]

.
Just wait. If they find silver, tungsten, platinum or gold on the surface of Venus.....there will be an orbital mining colony in no time flat.

You've been watching too much tv.

 

[Geaux4it]

Bummer. I might see the 2030's... but I'm doubtful

-Geaux

 

[MarkDuffy]

Smart people have the chance to leave the planet leaving all of the dumbasses behind.

Why not just set up a colony on the bottom of the ocean. It is just as desolate and we cannot leave the security of our shelters and go for a walk

Why not do both? Again, why do you insist what others choose to do? I can see why, as a taxpayer, you are against spending money on science, but why stop people like Musk or foreign governments from sending manned missions off-planet?

Stroll around on a planet devastated by an impact event or supervolcano? What's to see?

You just don't get it

Even in a nuclear holocaust......the surface of the earth will be more life sustaining than Mars

If the Earth was destroyed which is a fantasy, his Mars colony would be dead soon after. W/o support from the Earth, it would quickly die.

I agree

Man cannot survive on a planet that cannot sustain him . We could build a small colony that could possibly support 50-100 people
What happens then?
They have no manufacturing, no ability to build a larger human population. They would eventually die out

It is not just manufacturing. It is mining, processing, blast-furnaces & refining to even begin to get to manufactoring. That means energy and not low-power solar cells to make computers work. Perhaps they have forgotten how difficult it is to make space-age technology, especially from scrap.

They think they will find all these raw materials in one spot?

 

[petro]

I really see a lack of imagination and a defeatist attitude running through this thread.
Humans will eventually spread throughout the solar system and beyond.
Exploration is part of our DNA and survival instincts. When we deny that need to explore and spread our reach we will falter as a species.

 

[MarkDuffy]

I really see a lack of imagination and a defeatist attitude running through this thread.
Humans will eventually spread throughout the solar system and beyond.
Exploration is part of our DNA and survival instincts. When we deny that need to explore and spread our reach we will falter as a species.

 

[jon_berzerk]

mars has the wrong kind of co2

too bad it didnt get the kind that heats the planet

--LOL