[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 114 KB, 1047x1176, Mars_atmosphere.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2167524 No.2167524 [Reply] [Original]

How about a manned mission to Mars discussion thread?

Can it be done in our lifetime and do you think it will be done?

>> No.2167530

i don't think we have the technology yet to make it worthwhile, it would most likely be a bunch of government dickwaving.

i say back to the moon.

>> No.2167532

After we establish a permanent science colony on the moon.

>> No.2167535

> Can it be done in our lifetime
Yes because Singularity
> do you think it will be done?
Depends on what you would consider a "manned mission."

>> No.2167543

>Can it be done in our lifetime
yes
>do you think it will be done?
no (sadly)

>> No.2167546

I would love to see this done but I cant see it happening with out the goverment dickwaving as >>2167530 said that the cold war produced

>> No.2167548
File: 138 KB, 415x318, actnatural.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2167548

Would you take a one way ticket to mars? I would.

>> No.2167553

Some scientists proposed to make the trip one-way to jump-start colonization. If that gets off the ground, where do I sign up to get off this rock?

Joke aside, I believe we do have the tech to go to Mars, even if it takes nine months to get there (about as fast as to the New World, no?), and to stay there.

Some years back (nine? ten? more? I can't remember) I did some write-ups on how a permanent Mars base could be constructed inside Olympus Mons, powered by a nuclear reactor, gas exchange handled by a dedicated greenhouse, water supplied by robotic rovers from a polar automated factory, and recycled to the best of the base's abilities. If anyone wants to see it, I can dredge it up from the depths of my HDD.

>> No.2167559

>Can it be done in our lifetime
yes, if you're less than 80 years old
no, if you're older

A better question is, when we lose more than a quarter of the personnel on two our three first missions, will NASA chicken out again and end up having abandoned, not one, but TWO useful bodies?

>> No.2167567

>>2167553
Please do, Im intruiged.
Its so frustrating knowing that it could be done but probably wont because goverments are to busy spending on means to kill eachother

>> No.2167605

>>2167553
>(about as fast as to the New World, no?)
That was one month IIRC.

>> No.2167613

>>2167567
Here you go, though some of it may seem a bit childish, since I was some 11-12 at the time...
http://pastebin.com/AKBk2y6Y

>>2167559
Why would the exploration have such high losses? There isn't really anything that can kill us out there, short of malfunctions, and that's not something to chicken out over, but to fix or prevent in the first place.

>>2167532
Yes, a permanently manned lunar base would be a good thing before the Mars-base, if for nothing else, then as a comm relay and a pit stop before the Hohhmann-orbit injection. Also, it could be used as a place to send supplies to Mars, whether by tether propulsion or a mass driver, but the orbital mechanics involved might make it a hit or miss, at which point I can only quote the Gunner Chief from Mass Effect 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p77XnhzJz7g - makes me laugh every time): "Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space!"

>> No.2167629

Yes and Yes.

Assuming that the average age is around 20 here, its perfectly reasonable that we could see someone go to mars in 40-60 years

>> No.2167670

>>2167629
I certainly hope so

You think it will be just NASA or will there be any co-operation?

>> No.2167683
File: 16 KB, 300x336, space storm 2012 catastrophe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2167683

>>2167613
>Why would the exploration have such high losses?
Why would two orbiters blow up?
Why would countless rockets blow up on the pads?
Why would some astronauts burn up in their capsules?

Also, if the trip is made with existing crap-technology, it will take a long time and I doubt they will put enough rad shielding on the craft to stop any kind of serious CME.

The thing is, for any current-level equipment, safety and cost will have to be balanced and it's almost certain that at some point the margin of error will not be enough.

>> No.2167699

>>2167670
Probably cooperation. That's the norm for important spatial activities now.

>> No.2167720

>>2167683
Those are what I'm lumping under malfunctions, which are, IMHO, not an excuse for chickening out. That's why NASA has all those engineers, goddammit!
An acceptable excuse would be little green men walking up to the first landing party with rifles, then I'd say "Okay, maybe we should think this over..."

As for rad-shielding, the water tank should serve nicely with some solid-state shielding lumped on top, and maybe a conductive mesh to generate a mini-magnetosphere for the ship to deflect the ions.

>> No.2167774

>>2167720
Unfortunately the US public is squeamish about famous people dying.

Also, I agree that radiation shielding is easy in principle. The hard part is when some papershuffler decides that instead of ten tonnes of lead, they should use 200 kilograms instead. And without the metal, the water isn't enough alone to stop everything.

And the magshield is another thing. The craft will need a power supply that can produce a lot of power for extended periods of time, so it'll probably be either immense wings of solar cells or nuclear. One is ungainly and complex, the other is massive and will require some shielding from.

I'm not saying it's not going to happen. I'm just saying that either the effort will have to be a serious one or if it's going to be done with aluminum toys like the Apollo missions, there's gonna be corpses.

And if we want to NOT suck and stay on Earth, we need to be adult about it and accept the risks and sacrifices.

>> No.2167780

>>2167774
>addendum.

Sorry I'm rambling again. To clarify, I agree that Blowups Happen and they're no excuse for backing out.

>> No.2167816

>>2167774
Probably both solar and nuclear would be the best bet, and if we launched during the solar minimum, we would be seeing fewer CMEs/flares, so the mag-shield might not even see any use during the voyage.

But yeah, the "aluminium toys" will probably leave some nasty experiences, even if scaled up.

And even if the public is squeamish about deaths, astronauts aren't, it's always breathing down their necks when they strap themselves in for a launch, suit up for an EVA, or even just stay in orbit. That's what the public should accept, because that's how the guys became famous in the first place, by taking the chance that they might die any minute out there. GAH, too much public voice and paper-pushers...

>> No.2167819

>can it be done?
Yes, we have the technology. Especially with our ISS experience, space-capable nuclear reactors and the VASIMR drive.

>will it be done?
no. 1) bad economy 2) no more cold war political pressure to do it 3) we're spending all the monies on stupid wars 4) we don't need to go; just send rovers!

>> No.2167875

>just send rovers!
The meek robots shall inherit the space.

>> No.2167905

>>2167819
Rovers alone aren't enough for everything. Coupled with relativistic lag, you just need human presence. Also, it's a good way to gather experience in living on other worlds for the inevitable space colonization boom.

>> No.2167920

>just send rovers!
This. Humans suck at space traveling.

>> No.2167923
File: 20 KB, 520x325, cybrid.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2167923

>>2167905
also, if we program them to be too smart, to cover for the lag, the little shits will just end up taking over the planet and besieging the Earth

>> No.2167924

>>2167905
>relativistic lag
This is something I've thought about for quite some time.
What sort of lag did they experience with the rover? 1 second? 1 minute? 1 hour?
I really have no idea.

>> No.2167939

>>2167905
>you just need human presence
For what exactly? Waving flags/dicks?

>> No.2167951

>>2167924
I think something on the order of eight minutes. When the Earth had LOS to Mars, AND the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter(?) to relay the signal to the rover on the ground.

Thus, uplink was a quick burst of images and data, downlink was the set of goals for the day, and let the rover work out how to get there. Simply no possibility of an "on-foot mode".

>> No.2167956

>>2167924
something like from 3 to 20 minutes

>>2167939
if they're engineers, then both at the same time

>> No.2167964

>>2167939
Nope, to make decisions on the spot, and because humans won't hang like a computer which had just the right bit flipped by a stray cosmic ray/electron.

And simply put, humans, squishy and not exactly space-worthy, are just better at research than robots.

>> No.2167975

>>2167924
Depends how far Mars is at the moment. 14 minutes on average.

>> No.2168002

>>2167975
Hmm, not far off with my original estimate.

>> No.2168023

>>2167964
How is decision made by one man on the spot better than decision made half on hour ago by a team of men? We have plenty of time to explore.
>humans won't hang
Rovers never hanged and it's easier to shield a CPU than a cranium.
>better at research than robots
What research? Drill hole, shoot laser in hole, sniff. The same experiment, over an over again. Robots love repeatable tasks. Humans not so much.

>> No.2168038
File: 52 KB, 1024x768, hal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2168038

I love this thread.

Please Continue.

>> No.2168046

>>2168023
They may not have hung per se, but Spirit IIRC did have several problems caused by flipped bits which required reboots to clear, and one instance tripped the watchdog too.

Aside from that, if computers and robots are better at researching stuff, why are there archeologists and other scientists? A robot's programmed 'mind' is often not enough, true innovation requires human intuition.

And research aside, a new colony is always good, for both survival and advancement.

>> No.2168074
File: 378 KB, 1000x498, 1290932745809.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2168074

>>2168023
>Drill hole, shoot laser in hole, sniff.
Like I said, the little bastards will grow bored with that and start tinkering with their programming. Then *BOOM*!!! We've got one red planet full of pissed-off SI-1 robots that start spamming every conceivable wavelength with goatse and tubgirl.

Sooner than later, every human that's still alive and not blind has turned into a /b/tar.

Instead we should send fundies there and tell them that drilling the ground and doing all those mysterious things with the samples appeases God and ensures them a place at the big table.

>> No.2168094

>>2168074
>Instead we should send fundies there
and get them to experiment if prayer is a viable substitute for oxygenated air

>> No.2168103

>How about a manned discussion to Mars mission thread?
This is how I read OP the first time. Derp.

>> No.2168105

How about some of us /sci/entist just get together and play Mars in a desolate rock-place somewhere? :3

>> No.2168115

>>2168094
All right, people, back on track with serious discussion!

Reasons for and against a manned base on Mars?

>> No.2168121

>>2168103
>How about a manned discussion to Mars mission thread?
we don't need to; just send rovers!

>> No.2168123

>>2168046
>They may not have hung per se, but Spirit IIRC did have several problems caused by flipped bits which required reboots to clear, and one instance tripped the watchdog too.
Ok, so putting few kilograms of lead around the computer, sensors and shit should fix the problem. That's still far less than few tons reguired for shielding a crew compartment.
>Aside from that, if computers and robots are better at researching stuff, why are there archeologists and other scientists?
They're not, but they're great at drilling holes, measuring temperature and doing whatever we need to do to extend our knowledge about Mars. Look at it this way, robots don't design cars but are great at assembling them.
>A robot's programmed 'mind' is often not enough, true innovation requires human intuition.
We still have the intuition, creativity, intelligence etc. It's just a bit farther away. It's not like rovers are sent away with instructions to do some sciencing and report back five years later when they're done.

>> No.2168142

>>2168115
>Reasons for
Because it's a frigging Base! On Mars!!
Which itself happens to be in SPACE!!!!
And we could have it in our lifetime!!!!!!!!
Exponential!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>> No.2168166

>>2168105
There was an experiment like that some time ago, wasn't there? Maybe in northern Canada?

>>2168142
Do you know what Sir Edmund Hillary said when asked why he climbed Mt. Everest? "Because it was there." THAT is why we need that manned base on Mars!

>> No.2168168

>>2168046
>And research aside, a new colony is always good, for both survival and advancement.
Survival is important, I can agree on that. But six guys in a tin can won't make a difference when the Earth is fucked. Anything below completely self sufficient is useless for survival.
So it doesn't matter if we send six guys now and supply them for hundred years or six hundred people with reactors hundred years from now.

>> No.2168184

>>2168166
>Because it was there.
Though it may seem so, I wasn't being sarcastic.

>> No.2168191

>>2168168

>>Survival is important, I can agree on that. But six guys in a tin can won't make a difference when the Earth is fucked. Anything below completely self sufficient is useless for survival.
So it doesn't matter if we send six guys now and supply them for hundred years or six hundred people with reactors hundred years from now.

Although I am a huge seafag, this really isn't a barrier to space colonization; Did you know Martian soil contains 40% oxygen? Right there in the fucking dirt. We could sift it out with rovers, and there's enough for a total repeat of recorded human history on the Martian surface before it runs out.

It also contains elements (in smaller quantities) that you can make rocket fuel with, though the reactions are higher energy and would require a nuclear reactor for the refinement process.

Still, easy air. That means potentially easy farming. Not in expensive surface enclosures, but in sealed lava tubes.

>> No.2168194

>>2168166
>Do you know what Sir Edmund Hillary said when asked why he climbed Mt. Everest? "Because it was there." THAT is why we need that manned base on Mars!
+1 bro, +1

>> No.2168200

>>2168166
Do you know what all these guys who died climbing Everest said when asked why they tried to climb it? To impress chicks. Seriously, "just because" is a silly reason for spending a literal truckload of money.

>> No.2168220

>>2168184
Actually, me neither. Sorry if it came across as sarcastic.

And let me just correct myself, it was George Leigh Mallory who said that. Putting it into context here, why do we need a manned base on Mars? Because it's there to have a manned base on, and we can have it in two decades, four if we dick about.

>> No.2168230

>>2168200
And all those who climbed it and survived?

Didnt answer the question since they were too busy getting MAD pussaaayyy

>> No.2168233

>>2168200
"just because" might be a shit reason to do something. "just because it's never been done before" is an AWESOME reason to try something.

>> No.2168236

>>2168200
...haven't you ever felt the feeling of accomplishment?

I'm no climber, hell, I'm a bloated couch potato, but the first time I trekked 100 kilometers on a bicycle in one day and camped out for the nightless night in northern finland... well, there's no really explaining how it feels. To accomplish something that you were almost sure to fail at.

>> No.2168247

OP here, using my trip now
Thanks for keeping this relitivly on track guys!

Ive been thinking about this for ages now, and im pretty sure Obama suggested a mission in the mid 30's but I dont think any developments have been made wih that.

But I think until we return to the moon it wont happen

>> No.2168260

>>2168247

The Moon is a cratered shithole with zero radioactives, hard to reach water, and no Carbon.

Fuck, Mars at least has Carbon in its atmosphere, around the dirt, and some ice. Fuck at least it has a fucking atmosphere.

>> No.2168291

>>2168260
But at least it's right here in the neighborhood, even in Solar System terms, and has low gravity so we need less power assist. And it's a good stepping stone for Mars and beyond.

I could just as easily agree to a plan that builds and mans a lunar base first to provide said stepping stone, to one that says "Screw the Moon, set course for MARS!". Just please, some country start it up, already!

>> No.2168293

>>2168260
All true but it would be a logical step to go to the moon first, even if just for practice runs.

>> No.2168311

>>2168260

>>The Moon is a cratered shithole with zero radioactives, hard to reach water, and no Carbon.

Sup spacebro. The moon also has 40% oxygen content in the soil. It's not our ultimate destination but it provides someplace close by to test the same habitats and oxygen-sifting rovers that we'll one day use on Mars.

I support an impermanent moonbase; that is to say one capable of sitting, inert, for decades or centuries with a stockpile of automatically gathered oxygen and other goods. If ever we need to visit the moon, it'll be waiting for us. But our longterm goal must be Mars.

>> No.2168328

>>2168311
Well fuck, that's a good idea. I could get behind that plan too, just make sure you power everything up a few days ahead of time. :)

What other resources does the Moon have, apart from water, silicon, and some iron and titanium in the regolith?

>> No.2168343

>>2168328

>>What other resources does the Moon have, apart from water, silicon, and some iron and titanium in the regolith?

Not much. The high oxygen content is really the only valuable element locked up in lunar soil. You could make a very small quantity of decent low grav rocket fuel by sifting a whole lot of regolith but it wouldn't be worth the energy you put into it. There's only just enough oxygen in there to make it worth the energy as it is.

Create one base to do everything we can concievably do on the moon that will benefit us. A massive telescope observatory is one example. But honestly the primary value is as a testbed for technologies we'll use later on Mars.

Keep in mind I also advocate new, deep-sea science bases as a stepping stone to the moon colony. The technologies involved are very similar, especially life support innovations and sand/soil sifting for locked-in elements. Except there's a shitload of really valuable science left to be done in the sea that we've largely neglected, and it's a very rich environment to live in (as you can simply pull oxygen out of the surrounding water and easily feed your crew by trapping crustaceans).

>> No.2168363 [DELETED] 

>>2168343
Start a thread on the deep-sea bases too! Last time I heard, plans for prospecting mineral nodules were underway in India and Japan.

>> No.2168387

>>2168230
That why we went to the moon the first time

to prove we get WAAYYY more pussy than the russians!
Engineers got laid more than the astronauts

>> No.2168388
File: 78 KB, 800x533, southpolestation2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2168388

>>2168363

>>Last time I heard, plans for prospecting mineral nodules were underway in India and Japan.

And China, in the Yellow Sea. Deep sea volcanos are very rich in very pure valuable metals, the problem is just a handful of sites on Earth are spectacularly rich and easily accessible; the rest require us to blast away volcanic crust to get at buried deposits, and carve them out. We don't yet have robots sophisticated enough for that, and it's awfully dangerous work for humans. As we Know, China and India have sterling worker safety records.

I'm kinda burned out on the deep sea stuff for the time being. I go through phases where I'm super interested in one topic and explore the fuck out of it, but then I move onto another. It'c cyclical, and interests include robotics (especially as applied to warfare) electric vehicles, nuclear power, deep sea colonization, moon and mars colonization, etc.

Lately I'm starting to get interested in South Pole science colonies, namely the Amundsen Scott South Pole Station. Pic related. Contains essentially an entire self contained town, with hydroponic greenhouse.

>> No.2168394
File: 572 KB, 1934x1088, 1291246966971.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2168394

>>2168311

I'd rather have the Moon strip-mined by robots with molecular assemblers mounted on top. Think about it: We would trade acid rain, climate change, Sagan knows how many endangered species... All for a scar of silicon on the Moon's surface. The Asimov Array would solve our energy needs for the next 500 years and then some, it's enough power to give everyone free energy and extra, enough power, even, to launch starships.

Also, I'm going to need YOU sir to help load the 40-ton water bags on the ion-drive and nuclear-drive spacecraft. Water is the ultimate propellant, microwave-heated water or nuclear salt-water rockets, whatever works.

>> No.2168405

>>2168394

.... Pic tangentially related.

>> No.2168412

>>2168388
Hmm, pretty much the way my interests go.

Robotic warfare might be an interesting topic to start a discussion in.

Also, how would you design a manned Mars base? I've posted a writeup on pastebin with the link somewhere back. Sometimes a bit childish, since I was about 11-12 when I wrote it, but the core idea hasn't changed since then.

>> No.2168423

>>2168394
As for propellants, nothing beats a Bussard Ramjet, but for a seat on that ship of yours, count me in!

Also, what's an Asimov Array? Some sort of lunar PV-panel array that beams power back to Earth?

>> No.2168440

>>2168423

Asimov Array: Carpet of solar collectors along lunar equator. Built by self-replicating robots, either macroscale and with assemblers mounted on top or lolnanoscalegreygoo lol xDxD nonsense. Watch out and make sure you don't consume the Apollo landing sites while strip-mining. Power is sent to Earth by microwave lasers and caught by "rectennas", basically mile-wide mesh-wire antennae. The microwaves are harmless.

http://www.charlespellegrino.com/propulsion.htm

As for the Ramjet: With known fusion engines, drag exceeds thrust -- By nine orders of magnitude.

http://projectrho.com/rocket/slowerlight.php#Bussard_Ramjet

>> No.2168518

>>2168440
Isn't microwave power beaming terribly inefficient? Although if you have the whole lunar equator covered by solar panels, I think you can be big about it and waste some power. Apart from that, it sounds interesting.

As for the Bussard Ramjet, damn. I didn't think it would generate that much drag. My fusion drive design uses prepared fuel pellets of lithium deuterid, though, so I never considered the drag.

>> No.2168583

ITT: Idiots who know nothing about space colonization.


We could have put a colony on mars twenty years ago.

>> No.2168599

>>2168583
Yeah, it's not a question of "can it be done?" or even "will it be done?". Then only question is WHEN.

It's inevitable. If we don't colonize Mars, humanity is ultimately doomed (and probably is even if we do, but it'd be a HUGE step forward nonetheless), and I believe that people are smart enough to realize that.

I'll be on Mars before I die.

>> No.2168609

>>2168583
Um, I don't really think so. We might have had the tech to go there, since it's really just a long coast if following Hohhmann orbit, but we couldn't have stayed for any significant time: insufficient energy densities in batteries and power generation capacity, at least what could be achieved in a space-worthy format. Also, consumables are still a problem, but that's why you pack a greenhouse for the trip.

Also, it's not a good idea to call the Colonel or the Mad Scientist idiots. Or me neither. Either of us is probably more knowledgeable than you.

>> No.2168664

>>2168609
I was referring more to the people at the top of the thread, who made statements like
>Yes because Singularity
and
>yes, if you're less than 80 years old
Those are pretty stupid things to say.

What do you mean by...
Wait. I was going to ask you to clarify what you meant by claiming that we don't have "power generation capacity" to maintain a colony on mars...
But then I reread this sentence:
>Also, it's not a good idea to call the Colonel or the Mad Scientist idiots. Or me neither. Either of us is probably more knowledgeable than you.
I can ignore the tripfagging. But that grammar is painful.
You're an idiot.

>> No.2168706

Im loving the Ideas here guys

This is my first thread on /sci/ and if this is the usual content im coming here a lot more often
Please, continue

Also >>2168440
Is that sort of like a dyson sphere/ring or am I way off?

>> No.2168715

>>2168609
>>2168664
Let it slide bros, this is good stuff

>> No.2168719
File: 119 KB, 1000x697, lunar.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2168719

>>2168706

A Dyson would involve ripping apart the whole thing and jetting it to space, an Asimov Array would simply be a surface-level stuff, no clouds of solar collectors or anything, just a tiny scar on the Moon.

If Charles Pellegrino was an actually popular guy, then I would actually have an image to show you. But he is not. He designed the ISV Venturestar from Avatar, though.

>> No.2168727

>>2168719
ahh right, thanks

>> No.2168736

>>2168719
A Dyson sphere is on a whole different scale.
Barely comparable.

>> No.2168751

>>2168664
Sorry for the grammar, it's getting kinda late over where I live, and I haven't had enough sleep over the last two days because of fucked up university systems and exams registration.

What I meant by that is that the major power generation systems in space are solar panels and RTGs. Let's ignore fuel cells for now, those take oxygen, and for a voyage like this, every little bit of weight counts, so I wouldn't want to take along extra oxygen to feed the fuel cells.
Solar panels decline in yield as we get farther from the sun, and the efficiency isn't that great in the first place, so I wouldn't trust them with my life when flying to Mars.
RTGs will provide constant power for the duration of the trip (no appreciable drop in output over nine months), and will provide the current needed at low voltages and then some, but at higher voltages required for example by VASMIR it might have trouble keeping up with the demand.

The best bet for a manned base would be a nuclear reactor, but that's costly to deploy in such a remote area and requires refueling. However, unless someone wants a bank of RTGs powering the base, it's still the way to go.

>> No.2168766

>>2168394
>enough power to give everyone free energy
jees don't let anyone hear you say that

energy surplus = end of capitalism

>> No.2168774

>>2168751
Let me introduce you to Robert Zubrin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct

I wish I had time to debate directly, but instead I'll just point you to his works.
The pertinent point relating to energy production is the Sabatier reaction.

>> No.2168777

>>2168766
I, for one, welcome our energy-accounting overlords.

>> No.2168797

>>2168766
It makes me so fucking sad to think how much progress has been held back by financial interests.

Hell, if it weren't for the fact that the oil industry runs the world, we'd have been using nuclear power decades ago and would be incredibly better off. Don't even need to bring scifi-esque concepts into consideration.

If capitalism works, shouldn't progress be the most profitable thing? What the fuck is going wrong here?

>>2168774
His book is essential reading for anyone interested in Mars. I had a chance to see the Mars Hab in Southern Utah; incredible shit.

>> No.2168800

Why should we go to Mars despite it's high cost (then again, compare that to military spending...)

Here's why
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPM-vKpiKR0

>> No.2168810
File: 5 KB, 350x346, 1273987902508.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2168810

>>2168774

>Sabatier reaction
>CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 + 2H2O
>my face when

>> No.2168818

>>2168797

>He thinks economic systems are designed for the benefit of humanity and not for the continued exploitation of lower classes by the upper class

laughinggirls.img

(IDK if you do, i just needed a humorous way to introduce that point)

>> No.2168820
File: 20 KB, 468x313, ceiling_zubrin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2168820

Also,

>> No.2168826

>>2168820

He can watch me wank all he wants if I get a one-way flight to the next frontier.

>> No.2168828

>>2168818
>he thinks economic systems SHOULDN'T mimic our universe in that strong>weak

>> No.2168831

>>2168820
wtf is up with that.

>> No.2168832

>>2168828

Sure is Social Darwinism in here

>> No.2168841

>>2168828
Damn, man.
Poor IS NOT to Rich what Strong is to Weak.

>> No.2168847

>>2168832
sigh... one day people will learn that you need to create a success-oriented environment to breed better humans

>> No.2168850

>>2168841
believing this will get you nowhere

>> No.2168851

>If capitalism works, shouldn't progress be the most profitable thing? What the fuck is going wrong here?

capitalism works for the owners, and the fewer the better. "progress" (ie being more excellent to one another) is about devolving wealth to the many which immediately undermines the few's ownership and control ideals. what's sad is that the few could still be wealthier than the rest of us, just not so obscene-shit-stabbingly wealthier.

Nothing to do with Mars though.

BACK TO MARS

>> No.2168856

>>2168847
one day people will learn that success does not mean shitting on the everyone else

>> No.2168857

>>2168847

How is it possible to create a success-oriented society without infringing upon human rights?
If you know please tell the international community, I'm sure they'd love to hear about this ground-breaking discovery.

>> No.2168861

>>2168851
That totally relates to Mars.
>Let us escape the Corruption of the Currenty System by taking refuge on the FRONTIER!

>> No.2168874

>>2168800
That movie says
>Not the richest amongst us can afford the passage to.. pick up and leave for mars on a whim.
Wrong.
Most of the estimates I've heard for colonizing costs are WELL within the budgets of the world's richest men.

I quite enjoyed that video though.

>> No.2168880

>>2168857
actually, for a capitalist society to truly work, everyone would have to be intelligent and independent, and not sheeple

>> No.2168882

>>2168874
Hell, I'd take out a loan to pay to get off this rock and on the first ship to Mars!

>> No.2168892

>>2168847
>sigh... one day people will learn that you need to create a success-oriented environment to breed better humans
And then it will become true ?

>> No.2168886 [DELETED] 

>>2168847
>sigh... one day people will learn that you need to create a success-oriented environment to breed better humans
And then it will became true ?

>> No.2168887

>>2168874
it was made in 1990 fuck off.

>> No.2168899

>>2168880
On the contrary, in a situation like that, capitalism would be impossible.

>> No.2168902

>>2168899
you don't believe that in a capitalistic society where everyone is quite intelligent, that the richer would simply be much closer to the poor?

>> No.2168908

>>2168887
Hey, chill, I said I liked it.

And I doubt it was made in 1990... it says it's a tribute to Carl Sagan. He was still alive in 90.
>btw, I didn't know he was dead until three years ago.
>Can you imagine mfw?

>> No.2168911

I think the problem with trying to make a colony on Mars is that right now, we just don't have the resources to make routine trips there and back to actually build the base. Unless we build a Lunar Base first then it could be viable.

I think the next step NASA and all of these other space companies need to take is a new viable method of propulsion, because launching spacecraft on huge booster rockets is a lot of money. With a new propulsion method, it'll be a lot easier to make those trips to Mars and back.

>> No.2168921

>>2168911
>there and back
>and back?

send robots to do the building, then you only need to top up their resopurces. Then when it's ready we fly out (and by we I mean I get a seat for the idea which I DIBS RIGHT NOW)

>> No.2168927

>>2168902
I don't believe that a capitalist society can exist regardless of its content.
Capitalism, as the doctrin and ideology of the accumulation of capital, requires a large, subservient workforce.

>> No.2168947

>>2168921
>I DIBS RIGHT NOW
And accept a 15minutes lag on your 4chan ? Hell no.

>> No.2168959

>>2168911
I think that's hugely fallacious.
For one thing... Why come back? But it's VERY possible anyways.

For another, more major thing: It will take far, far more resources to build a moon base and THEN go to Mars, and this depends upon the invention of a speculative "new propulsion system" anyways.

Someone already brought up Zubrin: His book was written exactly to change the minds of people like you.

tl;dr Skip the moon! It's pointless in a discussion about Martian colonization.

>> No.2168971

>>2168927
Having absolutely no knowledge of economics and putting no thought into this idea: I think think we should completely automate industry and see what happens.

>> No.2168985

>>2168927
not necessarily, the workforce can be passive drivers of automated - or otherwise efficient - production which is then seized by the few

the majority in "developed" societies are not employed in useful production, they are consumers brainwashed to work in "service" industries

>> No.2168993

>>2168959
Straight from his book:
"The delta v necessary to go from low earth orbit to the lunar surface is 6 km/s. The delta v required to go from LEO to the martian surface is only about 4.5 km/s.
...from a propulsion point of vie, IT IS MUCH EASIER TO GO FROM LEO DIRECTLY TO MARS THAN IT IS TO GO FROM LEO TO THE MOON AND THEN TO MARS

>> No.2169004

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JDHv3o7YNQ

I want this to happen so bad

>> No.2169008

I saw a lecture in October by Dr. Alexander Martynov, head of some Roscosmos dept. in the space city Korolev, Russia. He boiled down the challenge to the biggest problems:

Engine design: Will the craft be powered by the russian design of ~ 400 electrorockets, powered by a ~ 15 MW solar array? Or will the american design win out, consisting of a nuclear generator and possibly a VASIMR/ion drive? The problem with the american design is that if it does not achieve the 40 days to mars that the VASIMR is capable of, there is more opportunity for error or breakdowns of a booster or nuke reactor, which there is no way in hell you are going to fix in space. The russian design however, allows you to simply replace a dead cell or a malfunctioning electrorocket, since you have 400.

Waste recycling/clothes washing - Dont quote me but I believe he said that you are not allowed to just shoot waste into space, so there must be some way to recycle waste or set up some way to wash clothes efficiently. Technologies of this nature are very underdeveloped currently.

Psychological problems
The longest someone has been in space is like 6 months or some shit, so the issues of being inside the same room/space suit for about 3 years is a very daunting challenge. Current research may yield good results, as the russians locked some crazy bastard inside a room for a year for scientific reasons, of course.

also, the rocket could easily be assembled in LEO by using heavy boosters to drive the shit up. This is why I am so excited by SpaceX possibly having an IPO, because their stock price would go through the roof if they got a contract to ship shit, along with the russian soyuz.

>> No.2169027

>>2168971
>>2168985
Automatization have limits. Service sector is useful.
When robots will be advanced enough to replace most human workers, then they'll be a subservient workforce, and the majority of humans will become a subservient consumption force.

>> No.2169043

>>2169008
>the issues of being inside the same room/space suit for about 3 years is a very daunting challenge

i've done this already with no ill effects, at least none that anyone's mentioned. do i get a ticket?

>> No.2169060

>>2169027
service sector might be useful as you say but it is NOT productive. It is one of the main drivers of consumerism, which I think's badly named because it implies we consume things when we don't really. What gets consumed is a tiny fraction of what gets produced.

>> No.2169084

I am definitely for MANNED missions to Mars. Here's why: in order to become good at anything (in science) you need to do it the hard way - with plenty of practice solving very challenging problems.

Basically, we need to "play with" the technology required to send humans on long space journeys if we're ever going to get proficient at it. I have the same stance with spending tons of money on experimental fusion reactors - we need to "play" with fusion for a very long time before we'll ever be able to harness its potential efficiently.

Is big science a waste of money? Well that just depends on how short-sighted you are.

>> No.2169088

>>2169060
Just because the production is not mostly material doesn't make it less of a production. Anyway, so what ?

>> No.2169106

>>2169088
yes it does - i can't be arsed arguing semantics over which technical definition of production i'm using. it was my post, so my "production" does not include service industries.

>> No.2169130

>>2169106
Ok, ok. What does that change ?

>> No.2169154

>>2169130
your life, drone

>> No.2169158

>>2169084
>>hurr
Look dumbass, you have a point, but its hardly the whole story here, more often than not, its the exact opposite, discoveries are often made in lower funded smaller teamed less important fields of study.

>> No.2169186

>>2169158

Source for this "more often than not" statistic? In basic research - yes, I'll partially concede to you. In applied science, however, funding wins. We're not going to become better at space travel by running simulations in the basement of your university's engineering building.

>> No.2169197

>>2169008 here,

one of the most compelling reasons that is given to send humans to mars is that given our current robotics technology, only HUMANS are capable of searching for life properly and in a timely manner. The search is largely going to be consisting of a drill mission, down to depths of a few hundred meters at a carefully selected drilling site, which robots would not be able to do. This is not my opinion, it is my summary of what a guy from NASA said at a space conference I went to. His name escapes me.

But if we found life on mars, everything would change. Not overnight, but everything would definitely change. Especially the STOCK MARKET just think of those juicy space startups having a bubble like the dotcom bubble.

>> No.2169564

>>2169197

>STOCK MARKET just think of those juicy space startups having a bubble like the dotcom bubble.

DELICIOUS

>> No.2169574

Here's something I've thought about for a while, and I believe I've come to a (sad and disheartening) conclusion.

Unless we find living, breathing PROOF of alien life elsewhere in the universe, I do not think we will go to mars in our lifetime. Why? Because besides the prospect of aliens, the public doesn't care. This generation doesn't care. It is a cesspool of coddled, ignorant little shits who's biggest worry is if they'll be getting the new iPod g4 or whatever the fuck. Everyone is focused on their own selfish desires that they don't care about others, about humanity itself. So what if we find a way to get to mars? What will that do for us? Will it give us all new iPads? No? Well then, fuck that, let's go buy those tickets to the new Ke$ha concert. We are selfish, and until we find something that rocks the foundations of life as we know it, we will always remain more interested in our stupid little lives instead of the greater cause, the continuation of our species. Who cares if we're going to all die out in a few billion years if we don't go to space? It's THEIR problem, not ours! They can figure it out, it'll be the future and, like, they'll be super smart and stuff.

This saddens me to the point where I can't even express my frustration and anger. But until we find something that changes EVERYTHING we know about life, then we might as well just cancel the space program all together.