/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3726425]

It shouldn't be Humans to Mars in 50 years, It should be Humans to Mars in 10 - Zubrin

With the proper funding could we really do this?

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.3726431]

Probably. Zubrin isn't a nutjob or anything. He's entirely sound but as usual nobody worth anything gets funded.

[Mike No.3726452]

I reckon we could, we got to the moon in less than ten years, just takes determination and inspiration.

[Anonymous No.3726453]

because he's asking for 10's of billions of dollars, some of his plans are just infeasible (10m diameter heat shields) and his cost estimates are very suspect as are his development timelines. i've spoken to the president of the mars society and the reasons for this massive rush to mars did not fit the manic time frame.

[Anonymous No.3726475]

western civilization decided welfare and pensions were more important than science and exploration. it will most likely be china to mars first.

[Anonymous No.3726480]

>>3726453

China? You mean the country with the Space Program that killed >500 innocent people when their rocket landed on their village? China might have been able to send people into Space. But how many other major accidents do you think they have had that went undocumented. I bet they've probably killed several astronauts

[Anonymous No.3726482]

>>3726480
And? Are you trying to imply that disregard for human lives is somehow bad?

Cutting corners is great for fast progress.

[Anonymous No.3726485]

3 years till the x prize to land on the moon.

How long till mars maybe another then years?

[Anonymous No.3726533]

>>3726480
the real death toll was between 6 and 100 casualties not >500. and yes sometimes there are horrible accidents. but that was 15 years ago.

[Anonymous No.3726539]

>>3726533

>Believing the Communists
ISHYDDT

[Anonymous No.3726554]

>>3726485
the google lunar x-prize is for rovers and for a series of reasons the preparation (sterilisation) of a rover for mars will likely be to much for a company/ unless your talking about a manned one in which case it can not be done in 3 years the company nearest to manned space flight (spacex) would be disqualified as it has been extensively government funded through cots and ccdev.

[Anonymous No.3726566]

>>3726539
actually the 100 figure is the china haters figure so even that is likely an gross exaggeration.

[Anonymous No.3726565]

>>3726554

Is anyone actually going to attempt the Google Lunar X Prize?

[Anonymous No.3726569]

>>3726533

>believing the reds
>mfw

[GayEmoBetch !.pCLIFaWNg No.3726570]

We shouldn't go to Mars until our rovers give use evidence that there is/is not microbial life on Mars.

Opening a door on a landing module and all that dead skin and bacteria on a suit will fuck up results. It's hard enough nuking a probe and making sure it's completely clean.

Yes yes, I want to see Muslims baw, but I want it to be legit Martian life.

[Anonymous No.3726579]

>>3726570

>Muslims

Err wat...

[Anonymous No.3727383]

>>3726565
Yes there are several teams.

[Anonymous No.3727394]

Yes, but is there any point in rushing it? Look at what happened with the Moon.

[Anonymous No.3727396]

I think people overestimate the cost of making a rocket, it is a lot but the government uses the space program as a stimulus project purposefully trying to employ as many people as possible and paying them as much as possible this makes costs much higher than they should be.

[Anonymous No.3727406]

From a colony-starting pov getting there is the easiest part.

[Anonymous No.3727431]

Is it really possible to terraform Mars, presumably they have no oil reserves, so how do we up the CO2 content in the atmosphere?

[Anonymous No.3727438]

All launch vehicles are currently launch-starved, which keeps costs per kg high. Increasing the number of launches is pretty straightforward way to lower launch costs per kg to orbit.

[Anonymous No.3727495]

>>3727438
launch starved?