[ 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: 27 KB, 450x266, manned-mission-mars-illustration.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4357691 No.4357691 [Reply] [Original]

I'm not a very sciencey guy, but I recently had an argument with my buddy. He said that it's way harder and more expensive to send a probe to mars than it is to send a manned vessel. His defence was that there are so much electronics and different circuits and gizmos in probes that can break easily upon landing. I thought it was retarded.

which one of us was right?

>> No.4357699

you were right in every way.

>> No.4357709

Your friend is a retard. His argument isn't even halfway thought through. A manned craft would also need shitloads of electronics, plus tons of life support crap. Also, where did he get the idea that people are hardier than machines?

>> No.4357711

>>4357699
this. your friend sounds like an idiot

>> No.4357715

Your friend is a retard. A manned craft would also need loads of electronics, plus tons upon tons of life support crap. Also, where did he get the idea that people are hardier than machines?

His argument is retarded beyond belief. Sever all contact immediately.

>> No.4357730

>>4357699
>>4357709
>>4357715
thanks for support, he may be quite stupid but I forgive him. it's not his fault he's born with lesser reasoning ability

>> No.4357733

They're just as hard as each other only a manned mission is a lot more expensive and psychologically draining.

>> No.4357754

You should kill your friend.

>> No.4357760

unmanned probe (that does not return):
communications
locomotion
sensors & sample takers
power supply
(and that's about ALL -- they have been as small as a kitchen appliance)

a manned visit adds:
breathing gases and related equipment
food and related equipment
space suits, air locks, maintenance of those
habitat & enclosures
several more power supplies and fuels
habitat space (onboard, for flight)
habitat space (for surface)
mechanism for safe landing
and, presumably, return capability: launch equipment, fuel, engines.

The complexity might be compared to making a really good RC airplane versus making a really good stunt aircraft/house/cargo vehicle

>> No.4357791

>>4357760
when you understand that humans are just very complex biological machines, that makes sense

>> No.4357795

OP, your friend might be right. Given the high cost of producing the software and intricate electronics for controlling all aspects of the probe, sending a person might be cheaper and more effective. The person would have to be a midget confined to a very small space with a minimal life support system. Some amenities need to be sacrificed but the rewards are great: software and mechanical issues could be fixed more easily; more experiments could be done; and it gives the nation more bragging rights.

>> No.4357796

Just out of curiosity, how long would it take to travel to Mars?

>> No.4357808

>>4357796

Like a year

>> No.4357823

>>4357796

40 days and 40 nights

>> No.4357851

>>4357795
Desperately wishing you'd included something to indicate sarcasm;
that post was stupid

>> No.4357856

>>4357796
The most optimistic plans are for 8 or 9 month transit.

>> No.4358031
File: 30 KB, 356x504, ack_ack_ack.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4358031

If your president kenedy had not been such a wussy ANTI NUCLEAR FAGGOT, the orion atomic rocket program would have been implemented in the mid sixties and MARS would be a week way.

Pres Kenedy WOULD NOT FUND THIS PROJECT.
I expect Vpon Braun had him shot, or dyson.

>> No.4358042

Kenedy was a faggit

http://www.amazon.ca/Project-Orion-Story-Atomic-Spaceship/dp/0805059857

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29

>> No.4358050

Kenedy backed the wrong horse. He went for chemical rockets. He should have gone nuclear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29

>> No.4358111

>>4358031
No, the von Braun nuclear rocket would have been sent to Mars. The Orion came a bit after.

>> No.4358135

Getting a man to Mars is doable with today's technology. Getting a man off Mars is a bit trickier. Getting two astronauts off the moon is no big deal because the moon doesn't have that much gravity. Mars is has a third of the gravity of Earth. You'd need a rocket and launch pad to get back into space.

>> No.4358163

>>4358031
Nixon would have killed it anyway.

>> No.4358172

>>4358135
So do you think that Mars Direct has some kind of flaw that makes it unworkable or are you just ignorant of it?

>> No.4358187

Is that a serious question?
Can't decide if failed trolling, failed humor or OP and his friend are 10.

>> No.4358221

>>4357691
>His defence was that there are so much tissues and different tissues and organs in humans that can break easily upon landing

>> No.4358246

Let's say the united states went ahead with its project orion.

Where would be the ideal location for the launch site?

>> No.4358325

>>4358246
This thread, because it needs to die in nuclear fire.

>> No.4358357

A manned mars mission would probably cost at least 10 times more than any reasonable lander we could send. Could range to >100x as much actually, depending on the crew, other vehicles they bring with them, life support, what kind of ship are they going to return in etc.

If your friend is at all serious I'd heavily warn him to not hedge his bets on shit he knows nothing about.

>> No.4358383

>>4358246
Mecca.

>> No.4358455

Well your friend is a complete idiot since we have already sent unmanned probes there and landed rovers on the surface but no man has set foot on the surface because of the cost and complexity of sending men there.

>> No.4358472

>>4358246

Antartica.

>> No.4358476

>>4358246
They would get it up to a pretty good altitude with SRB's before actually setting off the nuclear propulsion.