/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7708554]

Mars.

Crazy scientist man rants about why we should go there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plTRdGF-ycs

Full video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKQSijn9FBs

Have some pics.

[Anonymous No.7708555]

>>7708554

[Anonymous No.7708557]

[Anonymous No.7708559]

[Anonymous No.7708561]

>not posting the best picture

[Anonymous No.7708562]

>>7708554
>"Mars"
>"Crazy scientist man"
>assume the video is about Zubrin
>the video is about Zubrin
Congress is going to give Zubrin a stroke.

[Anonymous No.7708568]

[Anonymous No.7708581]

>>7708561
I don't share your obsession with dick pics.
Also atleast post a high res version so we can admire the landscape.

[Anonymous No.7708585]

>>7708562
Based crazy mars man is based.

[Anonymous No.7708587]

>>7708561
wtf made those tracks, why is nasa hiding the truth?

[Anonymous No.7708593]

>>7708585
>>7708581
>tfw we cant explore any of the more volatile, interesting geography on mars because its hard to land there
Pictures of flat plains with some rocks and hills in the distance are cool, but they get samey fast.

[Anonymous No.7708657]

>>7708593
I beg to differ.
You just have to drive to the cool stuff.
Also fucking 4chins claiming image resolution is too large what is this Stalinist Russia?
Had to resize, original pic is twice the resolution.

[Anonymous No.7708679]

>>7708657
The same thing from orbit.
Again had to crop and resize.
Nippon moot pls.

[Anonymous No.7708730]

Again resized to 50%.

[Anonymous No.7708748]

[Anonymous No.7708752]

One of my favs.

[Anonymous No.7708760]

I don't understand what humans are needed for. They seem downright detrimental for the search for life since they contaminate everything.
Human civilization has to be detached from human bodies.

[Anonymous No.7710114]

>>7708760
>Human civilization has to be detached from human bodies.
Good luck with that.
Watch the video, we could go there with technology we have now, we don't need some Scifi pipedreams.

[Anonymous No.7710118]

>>7710114
We've already gone there, with robots. We don't need to spend billions on life support and a return ticket. Billions that would be better spend on improving robots.
It's not even like humans could actually walk around on the surface by themselves, everything would still be done by machines.

[Anonymous No.7710142]

>>7710118
You still havent watched the video, have you.
Because he adresses the issues you raised.

You could argue the Moon Landings were unneeded and were better done with robots, and actually the scientific goals were done by robots by both NASA and the Soviets long before Armstrong set his foot on it, but Apollo is what we remember today.

>life support
Again he explained that.
The only technology we would need to improve, notice IMPROVE, not invent, is water recycling.
As we speak there is an ISS experiment exactly doing that.

And no matter how sohpisticated your robot is, it will not reach the ability and on-the-spot skills like repairs, adapting to unforseen situations, changing mission parameters etc in the near future.
There is a reason robots haven't taken over manual labour on earth yet, it still requires a lot of progress, not to mention the kind of trivial code bugs that still plague missions today.

You are doing exactly what he is critizing, you demand a technology to be progressed in order to achieve something that could be done with technology we have today, furthere pushing the date of any meaningful mission, manned or unmanned, into the future so bureaucats can continuie to claim "oh well why spend billions on the future of humanity in 100 years when we could spend billions now on more important things like buying 2-3 new stealth bombers".

[Anonymous No.7710151]

>>7710118
>It's not even like humans could actually walk around on the surface by themselves

>he still believes in the deadly radiation myth
you also still believe in santa not brining you presents if you don't behave, right

[Anonymous No.7710153]

>>7710151
Actuallly the radiation argument is ALSO explained in the video.
Just watch it already.

[Anonymous No.7710154]

>>7710153
>expecting anybody to listen to anything people say before stating their own opinion
welcome to earth, population 7 billion smartasses who already know it all

[Anonymous No.7710251]

http://www.ijdb.ehu.es/web/descarga/paper/052077sc

How do you make a sustainable colony on Mars when it's highly likely that the low-gravity of Mars would be detrimental to embryonic development?

>Build centrifuges or other gravity simulators.
Even if that worked the growth of the colony would be directly tied to how many of these machines could be kept operational at any given time. What if they all broke, and what if they couldn't be repaired with supplies from Mars alone? And how would they even work, are you just going keep women strapped into them for the duration of their pregnancies?

[Anonymous No.7710284]

>>7710151
You don't need deadly radiation, the light atmosphere should be enough to stop humans from walking around outside.
And even if you created an Earth-like atmosphere what are humans supposed to do without machines? Build a sand castle on Mars?

>>7710142
The problem with life support isn't inventing it, it's the whole complex mechanism of supplying nutrition and shit for the entire duration of the trip. Humans are notoriously inefficient to operate and die easily.
The moon landings were 50 years ago. Robots have advanced a lot since then, humans haven't.
Though the main achievement from the landings came from the sample returns.
>There is a reason robots haven't taken over manual labour on earth yet,
They pretty much have.

[Anonymous No.7710287]

>>7710251
>How do you make a sustainable colony on Mars when it's highly likely that the low-gravity of Mars would be detrimental to embryonic development?
Who said anything about getting preggers on Mars in the near future?
Why would you ever want to make babies there during the exploration phase?

[Anonymous No.7710296]

>>7710284
>the light atmosphere should be enough to stop humans from walking around outside.
Oh well too bad we don't have access to spacesuit technology since well over 50 years, oh well.

>what are humans supposed to do without machines?
We will also not send some rovers and light contruction vehicles with subsequent missions should we ever decide to make a permament science station there.

>supplying nutrition and shit for the entire duration of the trip
Yeah it is impossible to send dry astronaut food for 2 years with current technology, you could not possibly fit a lot of dried food on the unmanned ERV that lands a year before the manned mission, right.

>Though the main achievement from the landings came from the sample returns.
Sarcasm off because that is just sad.
The sample returns were only a main during Apollo 11 and 12, further samples were just bonus.

>They pretty much have.
As much as I wish for the robot uprising to happen, the most sophisticated robots we have have less agility than an a person.

But lets take a step back here.
Why is sending robots excluding sending humans in your book.
We could and should do both anyway.

[Anonymous No.7710298]

>>7710287
Are you saying a colony is not what most humans on Mars people want.

[Anonymous No.7710314]

>>7710296
>Yeah it is impossible to send dry astronaut food for 2 years with current technology, you could not possibly fit a lot of dried food on the unmanned ERV that lands a year before the manned mission, right.
How much mass does that require? Remember you have to lug that shit around the entire time.
It's not impossible, it's just unnecessarily expensive.

>the most sophisticated robots we have have less agility than an a person.
A person in a bulky spacesuit ends up a different matter.

>The sample returns were only a main during Apollo 11 and 12, further samples were just bonus.
You could say the entire landings after 11 were mostly bonus.

>Why is sending robots excluding sending humans in your book.
Because humans are a waste of resources that are better spend on robots.
Instead of using resources to get humans back from Mars we could be getting robots to Jupiter and beyond.

[Anonymous No.7710316]

>>7710298
One step at a time.
First you do exploration missions, Apollo style.
You gain a ton of knowledge about the enviroment and requirements there for all kinds of spacefaring applications.
Then when those new challenges are solved you do permanent settlements, which will be muuuuuuch later.
But even those station are ISS style, you rotate professional crew in and out, why would you want them to be born there?
Do we send babies to the ISS to do research we want now?

An exploration mission is possible today.
A permanent colony where people actually are born and raised is SciFi for now and not required for short and medium term scientific gain.

[Anonymous No.7710329]

>>7710314
>How much mass does that require?
Why don't you actually read the Mars Direct plan and answer that question yourself?
This is a solved issue.
Do you go to a climate change conference and ask how they would even measure temperatures because nobody thought about thermometers?

>A person in a bulky spacesuit ends up a different matter.
Still more agile and flexible in what range of operations are possible.

>You could say the entire landings after 11 were mostly bonus.
The early ones were not because they had additional experiment packages with them.
There were more missions after 18 scheduled which were cancelled exactly because there would be no more gain.

>Instead of using resources to get humans back from Mars we could be getting robots to Jupiter and beyond.
Or we could do both at the same time.
Why do you assume NASA can only do one thing at a time?

[Anonymous No.7710332]

>>7710329
>Why do you assume NASA can only do one thing at a time?
Because NASA has a finite budget.

[Anonymous No.7710350]

>>7710332
Compare the budget of NASA to what a single B2 bomber costs which were used exactly twice in their combat history and are being decomissioned soon.
NASA receives a laughable fraction % of the GDP.

[Anonymous No.7710355]

>>7710332
>NASA pushes some other programs back a few years
>Uses the freed budget for a manned mars mission that will last 6 years
>After other programs are continued
>National balls size and scientific gain grew by 9000%
Ever considered that?

[Anonymous No.7710357]

>>7710350
That doesn't address the issue at all.
The Manhattan project also resulted in only two uses in its combat history and had a ridiculous budget when adjusted for inflation.

Even if NASA has 100% of the US GDP it would still be finite and should be used carefully.

[Anonymous No.7710361]

>>7710355
You just pushed useful projects back for a publicity stunt.

[Anonymous No.7710384]

>>7710357
The Manhattan project also birthed MAD which basically prevented WW3 and secured the US dominance we have now.
B2 bombers were obsolete even before they were build thanks to ICBMs doing nuke work and regular bombers doing conventional work.
Don't compare apples and oranges.

>>7710361
>Publicity stunt
>The fuckton of scientific data we gain about life in the universe, earth's origins in the solar system, implications in biochemistry and other fields which are explained in the OP video, not to mention the stimulus to the national economy are a publicity stunt.

[Anonymous No.7710420]

So here's the scenario:
>It's 2020, and the launch window is fast approaching.
>Falcon Heavy and Dragon V2 work beautifully.
>The 2018 preparatory launches went off without a hitch.
>A dozen Dragon V2s and unpressurized variants are sitting on Mars.
>Robots have unpacked the hab, nuclear power generator, water collector/purifier, and fuel/food/air production system. It all works flawlessly.
>One of the Dragon V2s was a crew simulator carrying livestock, and it worked fine. There are pigs and chickens living on Mars, alive and well after a couple of years. There's bacon and eggs waiting on Mars.
>A Mars ascent vehicle has been tested and works fine.
>They've already assembled a Mars transit craft at L2, with adequate shielding to make the radiation exposure negligible.
>All set for a two-man, there-and-back mission of about 3 years.
>The space suits are comfortable and look cool.

>The other man is Zubrin.
>You will not be able to avoid him. Most of the time, you will be living in a Dragon V2-size space together.
>For safety, you will be required to remain in constant contact with each other.
>You won't have the authority to tell him to shut up.

Do you go?

[Anonymous No.7710433]

>>7708554
ITT
>within 2 minutes of using my trivial wikipedia and popscience sources I will find a flaw in Dr. Zubrin's plan which took a few dozend astroengineers experts 20 years to hatch.
>I will not look at the source you have provided which would answer my questions and doubts, because my opinions are fact and I do not require further insight.
>when all else fails, I will keep making up excuses why it is not possible even after I was shown it is 100% possible right now

in other news, why do we fund science in general?
what has science ever done for us?
GPS and knowledge about our place in the universe are not something I want.

[Anonymous No.7710446]

>>7710420
>L2 assembly
>more radiation shielding beyond what we have right now
Not needed.
For the sake of argument lets assume we do it that way.
>being able to talk to one of the smartest people ever to walk the Earth without interuption from nitpicking and ignorant fools
>get to walk on motherfucking Mars
>will be remembered forever in the history of mankind as the guys who did it despite all the pushback on some obscure mongolian fingerpainting trolling website
>Do you go?
The answer to this question is yes.

[Anonymous No.7710452]

>>7710433
i would sign up even if it were an one way trip.

[Anonymous No.7710467]

>>7710433
The space cadet faction is full of crazy optimism and groupthink. People aren't always willing to look critically at their own

Zubrin's notorious for half-assed work. In his book, "The Case For Mars", he assumes that it would be no problem to rearrange space shuttle parts to make a Saturn-V-like expendable superheavy-lift rocket. This was a major influence in the miserable Constellation and SLS programs: jackasses like Zubrin talking straight to Congress, trying to get them to meddle in technical decisions.

Another point he fell flat on was assuming that it would be no problem to throw a huge tank of liquid hydrogen to Mars, prevent it from boiling off during transit, and land it on the surface.

He's ridiculously optimistic in his assumptions. It's like he thinks development doesn't cost anything and everything works the first time.

[Anonymous No.7710527]

>>7710467
>development doesn't cost anything
What about
>the technology required exists today
was hard for you to grasp?

>and everything works the first time.
Since when is that a requirement for bleeding edge exploration ever in the history of mankind?

Do you know how many people died trying to reach any point on Earth as the first?
Astronauts know the risk, nobody forces them into the capsule.

>Zubrin's notorious for half-assed work.
So you speak for the entire scientific community?
Mars Direct is thousand times more detailed than the plans NASA had before Kennedy promised we go to the Moon, and they pulled it off.

And while we are at ad hominem bullshit, your eternal cynical attitiude is poison in any field and probably stems from your personal shortcomings projected onto anything others are excited about.
With the difference that he is a veteran expert on not only Mars related topics but spaceflight in general, while you are just another bitter anon in this hole we chose.

[Anonymous No.7710537]

>>7710467
>People aren't always willing to look critically at their own
>trust me when I say he is a quack
in /sci/ we try to be a bit less stupid than on /b/, m8

[Anonymous No.7710548]

Missions to study life on Mars require the highest level of sterilization to prevent contamination from Earth.
How is that going to be achieved for a manned landing?

[Anonymous No.7710554]

>>7710548
The same way we sterilized the myriads of probes and robots we send up already.
And by having closed water and waste management.
Or do you think the astronauts will take their dumps into the ditches of designated shitting valleys.

[Anonymous No.7710558]

>>7710554
>designated shitting valleys
kek, maybe if the ISRO did the mission

[Anonymous No.7710562]

>>7708554

[Anonymous No.7710565]

>>7710527
>>development doesn't cost anything
>What about
>>the technology required exists today
>was hard for you to grasp?
It's not "hard for me to grasp", it's bullshit.

The technology required "exists today", in the same sense that in 1996, America just had to play lego rockets with shuttle parts to have something better than Saturn V. Two decades and billions of dollars later, the technology that Zubrin said "exists today" is now predicted to arrive sometime around 2030.

Zubrin routinely confuses knowing how to make something, in principle, with having a mature product on hand.

[Anonymous No.7710566]

>>7710554
We haven't actually sterilized anything to that degree so far.
There's a reason why Curiosity isn't allowed to get near liquid water.
and I don't think humans can take getting heated to 50°C very well.

[Anonymous No.7710567]

>>7710548
amazing how >>7710433
called your post

[Anonymous No.7710570]

>>7708554
>That first comment
Holy shit I laughed my ass off

[Anonymous No.7710571]

>>7710566
>the astronauts will be directly exposed to the marsian surface ever
Is your train of thought steered by Michal Bay?

Also taking core samples and analysing them without contamination is being done for decades in Antarctica.

[Anonymous No.7710578]

>>7710567
How? It's an honest question.

[Anonymous No.7710612]

>>7710578
because it is already taken into account, you can go read the details by googling Mars Direct, but instead of informing yourself on the topic before posting you just ask it here.

[Anonymous No.7710621]

>>7710612
This?
http://www.marspapers.org/papers/Zubrin_1991.pdf
I can't find any references in there.

[Anonymous No.7710991]

>you will never leave everyone on Earth behind to start a new life on Mars

[Anonymous No.7711038]

>>7710329
>Why don't you actually read the Mars Direct plan and answer that question yourself?
"Mars Direct" doesn't have the answers. Zubrin's a hack.

SpaceX has the right idea: the first thing to do is get really, really good at orbital launch. The approach to Mars shouldn't be another Apollo Program. We don't want to send a couple of guys and a picnic basket, we want to send a big, well-staffed lab and a bunch of workers skilled in keeping the lab staff alive.

[Anonymous No.7711071]

>>7708561
How long will the tracks be visible? I don't believe there is wind on Mars correct?

[Anonymous No.7711193]

>>7711071
>I don't believe there is wind on Mars correct?

Is this a joke?

[Anonymous No.7711197]

>>7711071
Of course there is wind.

[Anonymous No.7711246]

>>7708554
>and why we should go there
But anon, we already go there. We like, have been going to Mars since the 70s, and we are still going to Mars. 6 more missions are planned in the next 4 years, with 5 of those missions involving landings. So we not only do go to Mars, but we are still going to Mars. So I don't understand what this crazy scientist man is ranting about

[Anonymous No.7711306]

>>7708554
Lad. Buddy. There's a /space/ general right here:
>>7703234

[Anonymous No.7711829]

>>7711246
Do you remember Luna 9?
No?
It was the first probe ever to do a soft landing on another body, and it sent the first images from the surface of another body.

Surveyor 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 were successful landers.
Luna 13 was a successful lander.
Luna 16 did the first robotic sample return from another body ever.
Luna 17 was a successful lander.
Luna 20, 24 were robotic sample returns.
Lunokhod 1 was the first rover ever driving on another body.
Luna 21 deployed a rover too.

There were tons of other unmanned missions to the Moon.

Most of these accomplished immense scientific and technological goals years before Apollo.

But what do you remember today?

[Anonymous No.7712000]

>>7708554
wasn't sure first, but >>7711829 makes a good point.

[Anonymous No.7712014]

>>7708554
Regardless of the feasibility of getting humans to Mars and colonizing it, at least the guy has passion

[Anonymous No.7712039]

>>7711829
Luna 16 onward came after Apollo 11.
What people remember is a matter of PR. Russians are going to care more about the Luna program than Americans.
Sputnik got famous without a man.

[Anonymous No.7712115]

>>7712039
>Luna 16 onward came after Apollo 11.
he said
>Most of these accomplished immense scientific and technological goals years before Apollo.
not to mention it is not about being the first to do something, it is about how much new knowledge and data can be gathered.

>What people remember is a matter of PR
PR helps but it is not everything.
sputnik was the first thing ever to orbit the earth that is an extreme feat by itself.
so was the first lunar lander but nobody cares about it now even though it was a huge PR spectacle back in the day.
even less is cared about other probes that were hugely important to lunar exploration.

a manned Apollo style mission to mars will dwarf anything accomplished by probes and rovers we have and will send, both from a scientific and prestige pov.

[Anonymous No.7712131]

>>7712115
Have of his list came after Apollo, not years before.

A manned mission to Mars would accomplish more because it would get a much larger budget.
Cut the humans and invest the money they'd cost on robotics instead and you get even more gains.
Robots are already taking the front seats on Earth. It makes no sense to put them in the back seat on distant worlds.

[Anonymous No.7712151]

>>7712131
>Have of his list came after Apollo, not years before.
why are you still obsessing over which mission was before/after Apollo, neither him nor me said that played a role in anything.

>Cut the humans and invest the money they'd cost on robotics
you are the 9000th person to not watch the video or just ignore one of the most important points Zubrin makes:
we can do the manned mars mission with today's technology, we do not need to invent new ones.
current robots can not do as much in 1 mission as humans.
you are spending the same budget no matter what, but we could have results now instead of in an uncertain future when robots are on the same level as men.

[Anonymous No.7712166]

>>7712151
We practically have the technology to build robots on Mars, the Moon or wherever we can get the necessary building blocks.
Zubrin acknowledged that it's easier to build stuff on Mars than transport it there, using it for his chemical fuel plans. Breeding humans on Mars is a huge undertaking, building robots is not.

[Anonymous No.7712181]

>>7712166
>Breeding humans on Mars
>Breeding
>Apollo style mission
>Breeding humans
why do you post in a thread if you don't bother to read what it is about.

[Anonymous No.7712186]

>>7712181
Is your point that breeding humans is easy or that it's far beyond the current technology?
How do you get a new human on Mars if one needs replacing or additional expertise is required? Either you breed one or you send one from another source. Neither is particularly practical.

[Anonymous No.7712192]

>>7712186
you are just trolling at this point or really dense.
if you had spend 1 minute looking at the Mars Direct plans or the OP video you would know they would send a first crew from earth and rotate them in and out a few times until the scientific goals are achieved.
nowhere in the plans is it stated to create a permanent colony where people would be born.
and sending 3 crews in 2 year intervals is less than what we did in Apollo.
but please continue to conjure more rediculous requirements.

[Anonymous No.7712197]

>>7712192
>>7712186
>>7712181

>>7710433 Called it.
No wonder Zubrin is on the verge to an heart attack.
People don't look at the details or even the big picture and just fling their opinions around.

[Anonymous No.7712201]

>>7712192
So all the supposed versatility of humans over robots is just for the sake or argument and without practical value.
And the video takes a whole hour, unless you're talking about the excerpt from the end which has very little to do with the issue at hand.
You fleshfags are like a religion. Everything is explained in your holy book and if it wasn't you have to rewatch it until your stop asking uncomfortable questions.

[Anonymous No.7712203]

>>7712201
>And the video takes a whole hour

"I cannot be possibly be bothered to learn about the topic before shitposting."
- Anon, 2015

[Anonymous No.7712204]

>>7712203
I watched the video a year ago and even rewatched it yesterday.
How often do I have to rewatch it until you're happy?

[Anonymous No.7712207]

>>7712201
>asking uncomfortable questions
you have not asked a single related question or raised an issue that would contradict anything in this thread.
you admitted to actively ignore the mission details.
your assumptions about what the mission is are totally wrong, and based on those wrong assumptions and your lazyness you think you can condemn anything.
good job being an ignorant fool, you should run for congress.

[Anonymous No.7712212]

>>7712204
>watched it twice
>somehow still thinks Mars Direct involves breeding humans or creating a permanent colony
Maybe you are just bad at grasping the English language?

[Anonymous No.7712226]

>>7712207
What mission details? The launch schedule or the fancy ship with radiation shelter?
My point isn't to say that Mars missions are unfeasible, it's that it's better not to use humans. Not because it's impossible to send humans but because the effort is better used elsewhere.
Sending humans to Mars is trying to spin the wheel of history backward by half a century. Where do they want to go after Mars? Zubrin dreams of Mars as a springboard for future missions but you've practically exhausted your options at that point. Putting humans on Mercury or Venus isn't even realistic to do from Mars. He's downright obsessed with discrediting other missions like the asteroid redirect stuff.

[Anonymous No.7712238]

>>7712212
>500 years from now there will be new branches of human civilization on Mars

[Anonymous No.7712247]

>>7712226
>Mars Direct is about creating a springboard for missions to other targets
no it is not, and nowhere is that stated.

>>7712238
nice try misquoting.
an actual colony might be done by far future missions.
Mars Direct is an Apollo style mission.

[Anonymous No.7712250]

>>7708562
same here

anyone read his book?

[Anonymous No.7712251]

>>7712247
So what do you supposed happens after Mars Direct? Sit back and relax on your comfortable home planet like after Apollo?

[Anonymous No.7712254]

>>7712247
>Every single internet argument ever:
>Person A: X should be done
>Person B: Y should not be done.
>Person A: X, not Y, is the topic here.
>Person B: Y is bad, we should do Z.

I am 99% sure you are being baited.
1% says he is an actual retard.
In both cases you should stop responding to him.

[Anonymous No.7712263]

>>7708554
Honestly at this point in our space capabilities our efforts are much better spent either working toward a long term moon settlement or missions to capture passing asteroids. Probably both should be explored as the technologies and methods of doing either would both be needed for a mars trip. Besides the moon is probably the best "launching point" for deep space missions, not mars

[Anonymous No.7712266]

>>7712251
>why bother to accomplish anything when you are not doing it all the time?
>why get out of bed in the morning when you will just go to sleep at night?
>why not just kill everybody now since we will all die anyway one day?
this is you.

>>7712254
yes i am done with him.

[Anonymous No.7712270]

>>7712263
>the mission is about creating a "launching point" for deep space missions
post number 903202104345793 not bothering with the Mars Direct mission details.
also the lunar base issue is answered too.
next.

[Anonymous No.7712284]

>>7712270
The only answer is that Zubrin doesn't like it because it removes resources from his dream.
There's nothing wrong with establishing bases on the moon. Both for stationary exploration via telescopes and for launching future missions, not necessarily to Mars but to space and beyond.
Ceres would probably be the best alternative for a mid term base or maybe Vesta. Phobos and Deimos and the other asteroids are too small.
What was so bad about Phobos being circular and equatorial again? Even if you can't reach the entire surface the equatorial region is the most interesting anyway since it's easier to launch from there than from polar regions.

[Anonymous No.7712295]

>>7712270
The only answer is that Zubrin doesn't like it because it removes resources from his dream.
There's nothing wrong with establishing bases on the moon. Both for stationary exploration via telescopes and for launching future missions, not necessarily to Mars but to space and beyond.
Ceres would probably be the best alternative for a mid term base or maybe Vesta. Phobos and Deimos and the other asteroids are too small.
What was so bad about Phobos being equatorial again? Even if you can't reach the entire surface the equatorial region is the most interesting anyway since it's easier to launch from there than from polar regions.

[Anonymous No.7712319]

>>7711071
Mars has an atmosphere

[Anonymous No.7712336]

>>7712319
>>7711197
>>7711193
as an interesting aside though: because the atmosphere on Mars is just ~1% as dense as the Earth's, a 100m/h wind on Mars would have the same resultant force as a 10m/h wind on Earth.

[Anonymous No.7712337]

>>7712319
Everything has an atmosphere to some degree.
Mars has an average surface pressure of 600 Pa, which is significantly less than Venus, Earth or Titan yet significantly more than other solid objects in the solar system.

[Anonymous No.7712394]

>>7712295
>There's nothing wrong with establishing bases on the moon
Except you have to defeat the gravity well if it were a refuel and staging location.
Which makes any non-Lagrangian refuel station unfeasable.
On the moon there is nothing to be done anymore, water was never there so you can't do the biochemistry testing.
Telescopes don't need to be on other bodies, you can easily place them in Lagrange points or in Earth orbit.

[Anonymous No.7712432]

>>7712394
Radio telescopes benefit from EM shielding and as they can be massive building them in place instead of shipping everything into orbit.
There is no material on the Lagrange points beyond some minor Trojans.
The gravity well on the moon is less than on Mars and an orbital elevator (which is feasible with current technology unlike on Earth) could make things even easier.
>Which makes any non-Lagrangian refuel station unfeasible.
Is there any particular reason to restrict yourself to stable or quasi-stable positions? You could be on any orbit.

There's (non-liquid) water on the moon and the most obvious place that hasn't received much attention there is the far side.

[Anonymous No.7712444]

>>7708554
2001: A combover odyssey

In space, nobody can see your bad hairstyle.
No, I'm not bald. I just shaved it for the spacesuit helmet.

[Anonymous No.7712447]

>>7712251
>So what do you supposed happens after Mars Direct? Sit back and relax on your comfortable home planet like after Apollo?
So your argument in favor of Mars Direct is, "Sure, it's just a crazy-expensive stunt like Apollo, but THIS time it'll be different afterward!"

Mars Direct is a rush to put a man on Mars before Zubrin dies, so he can see it and die still imagining that it mattered.

If we want to go beyond the Apollo model, we have to focus on cost-effectiveness from the beginning, not throw money at things to get fast results with bullshit arguments that this is useful experience.

We need to follow the Wright Brothers model, not the Langley Aerodrome model. We have to start with affordable rocketry and life support first, and evolve it to be more capable, not start with capability at all costs and evolve it to be more affordable.

You want to send people off on a three-year deep space mission when we can't keep a guinea pig alive in LEO for three years without resupply? ...when we can't keep people alive for three years in a hermetically-sealed chamber on Earth? You want people to spend two years on Mars when nobody has spent a week on the moon? You want to build an independent base on Mars for a few billion dollars when our resupply-dependent base in LEO cost half a trillion dollars?

Practice yourself, for heaven's sake, in small things, and thence proceed to greater.

Apollo was not a success story. It established the character of NASA's manned program as impractical, symbolic, uneconomical, and silly. NASA needs to abandon all aspiration to silly stunts and symbolic gestures.

[Anonymous No.7712451]

>>7712447
Zubrin sounded like he wanted to scrap the ISS.

[Anonymous No.7712464]

>>7712394
>>There's nothing wrong with establishing bases on the moon
>Except you have to defeat the gravity well if it were a refuel and staging location.
That is no particular challenge. The thrust-to-mass ratio needed is small, the vacuum environment is ideal for rockets, and the delta-V cost is modest. It's also possible, thanks to the low gravity and lack of atmosphere, to build catapults. You only need to accelerate to what would be about mach 8 in Earth's atmosphere, so there are various ways to achieve that with a kind of train or gun.

The point of a moon base is not to assemble missions there. You don't send stuff from Earth to the moon, then from the moon to wherever you want to go. That would be stupid.

A moon base would be:
a) a proving ground for the technology to live beyond LEO, and
b) a source of raw materials, particularly propellant and mass for shielding.

If we can't survive and usefully extract raw materials on the moon, we're certainly not ready to go to Mars. Building a catapult on the moon to throw lunar material to orbit would hugely expand our capabilities in space.

In some ways, the moon is a harsher place to survive than Mars, but there are no special launch windows and the travel time is short. This makes emergency resupply and emergency return both possible.

The moon is the right place to aim next.

[Anonymous No.7712466]

>>7712336
then how did he get stabbed with that flagpole?

[Anonymous No.7712472]

>>7712466
NASA faked the Mars landing in a soundstage in Hungary.

[Anonymous No.7712671]

>>7708554
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDaOgu2CQtI&spfreload=10

[Anonymous No.7712950]

The extra hardware needed for humans can’t be justified by “inspiration” and so forth. We need scientific gains, not notoriety 500 years from now.

Apollo lost support within one landing. Many Americans still think NASA has been dead since 2011. They might not even notice if it actually died.

Robotics is an amazing field, and the people who develop and operate our probes are explorers in their own right. We need to play them up instead of glorifying an absurdly unsustainable, unfocused manned program.

It truly doesn’t matter if we know how to send people to Mars. The realpolitik is that SLS has a negligible flight rate, most of the elements needed for a Mars mission aren’t even contracted yet, and NASA’s budget doesn’t appear to be skyrocketing anytime soon. Space flight needs margins for failure and experimentation, and the current direction doesn’t even provide margins for complete, unbroken success. Our current direction is a practical fantasy, and Zubrin's concepts are a fantasy within it. We have a bird in hand, and that’s our robotic expertise.

Not that human spaceflight should die. Commercial has the power, with extremely critical government subsidy, to expand our frontiers sustainably without stunts we mourn 45 years later or congressionally designed deathtraps. Even more, commercially led human spaceflight will make space far, far more accessible than a government-dominated program ever will.

At most, the government should maintain US astronauts on commercial partners' stations and bases.

[Anonymous No.7713727]

>>7712950
>commercially led human spaceflight will make space far, far more accessible than a government-dominated program ever will
Only if there are profits to be made.
What profit is there to be made by gathering knowledge about the origins of terrestial and biological evolution in general on Mars?
No doubt once there is a reason to do so, like mining, the private sector will rush for the resources, but the first exploration has to be government initiated.
Wether it be manned or robotic exploration does not matter.

[Anonymous No.7713764]

>>7712950
Spaceflight is dead because the average citizen is way too comfy on Earth. They have thier job their wife their kids, netflix, no Cold War doom looming over them, fuck space right? Arguably nerds care so much about space because their lives on Earth are shit

[Anonymous No.7714144]

>>7713727
Well, yes, a government-led robotic program makes great sense. My argument is against a government-led manned program. We doubtlessly need reconnaissance missions to see what these places have to offer, but we can get those answers much more quickly, cheaply and safely with unmanned. If there really are any worthy resources those probes find, then commercial will chase them. If not, then we didn't waste 20 years, billions of dollars and, potentially, human lives just to pluck some dead rocks off of bigger dead rocks.

Civilization expands to profit, and expecting any other motivation as Zubrin and others do is simply unrealistic.

There are some big problems with the commercial mining aspirations, though. The infrastructure required to mine will probably far outweigh the returns until we get much better propulsion tech developed. The overhead will be manageable one day, but we're probably looking at another century.

Ridiculous as it sounds, I suspect the real ticket is tourism. It's a very pedestrian reason for something as traditionally serious and scientific as space flight, but the experience and perspective of space are literally the only thing space offers that we can't get anywhere else and for less.

Another possibility is that robotic missions discover life somewhere else and reveal some sort of genetic engineering or medical applications from it. That might be another of those "only in space" things.

Precious metals, though? Maybe not worth it this century.

Of course, space flight timetables are notoriously unreliable. The current state of the industry is almost like a new beginning. It's much tougher now to say just how quickly we'll see some truly mind-blowing developments.

[Anonymous No.7714503]

>>7714144
Importing space materials to Earth sounds expensive but using space materials in space instead of material exported from Earth seems like a useful endeavor.

[Anonymous No.7714506]

Why are we trying to go to shithole Mars when Titan is superior in every way?

Sure it's far as fugg but there's no reason we couldn't have an outpost there by 2100.

[Anonymous No.7714508]

>>7712337
if its below a threshold, no, it doesn't have an atmosphere

the moon has an exosphere, for example (definitely not comparable to an atmosphere)

[Anonymous No.7714585]

>>7714506
>Titan
Because life as we know it could not form on cold Titan, but could have when Mars still had water.

[Anonymous No.7714610]

>>7714506
Mars is closer and more hospitable.

[Anonymous No.7714620]

>>7708554
We need moon bases first

[Anonymous No.7714622]

>>7714503
That depends on the materials. Some carefully repositioned asteroids could act as natural fueling stations due to their water content.

Space-based precious metals, however, will probably remain uneconomical even for space-based applications. I can't imagine constructing anything in space out of anything other than preassembled modular elements sent from Earth. For now, the amount of labor, facilities and time needed are just too prohibitive to build anything in space starting from nothing but raw materials.

The real key to space-based manufacturing is asking what end it serves. If it’s just one-time manned exploration, then it’s probably not worth it. If it’s creating refueling stations for regular trips between colonies, then it starts to make sense. However, the size of colonies will probably remain very limited for a long time. There’d likely be lots of visitors, but very few permanent residents. A few select outposts here and there, essentially. That alone limits the amount of space-based infrastructure companies will need.

[Anonymous No.7714725]

>>7714620
wrong.

[Anonymous No.7714735]

>>7714725
There's no way we could launch a colony straight from the earth to mars, the size of the ship would need to be massive, it would have to be build in the low gravity setting of the moon

[Anonymous No.7714760]

>>7714735
>the size of the ship would need to be massive
wrong.
multiple smaller launches, assembly in LEO, etc.
lots of solutions better than a lunar assembly.
>it would have to be build in the low gravity setting of the moon
wrong.
defeating the gravity well of the moon eliminates any benefits while having the trouble to maintain a lunar base.

a lunar base has no scientific gain either.
regardless of your stance on human mars missions a lunar station is always pointless.

[Anonymous No.7714769]

>>7714760
The lunar station would be the testing ground for mars to see how long people can live in colonies, plus we'd have a group of humans that are unaffected by what happens on earth be it wide spread disease or so on.


also once we get parts up to the moon we have some sort of platform to work on and escaping that gravity is going to be much easier.

There's a ton less debris near the moon compared to the space junk floating near the earth isn't there?

[Anonymous No.7714787]

>>7714769
>testing ground for mars to see how long people can live in colonies
you could do that on earth in isolation chambers.
there are already a dozend experiments done like this.

>a group of humans that are unaffected by what happens on earth be it wide spread disease or so on.
any colony in the near future is dependent on earth for supplies.

>There's a ton less debris near the moon compared to the space junk floating near the earth isn't there?
LEO orbits decay into the Earth atmosphere due to residue air particles slowing any object down.
this is why the ISS needs a reboost every few months.
LEO is cleaner than any moon orbit which has dozends of dead old probes still flying about without any atmosphere to slow them down or burn up.

[Anonymous No.7714793]

>>7714787
>you could do that on earth in isolation chambers.
But you wouldn't have the low gravity and mental state of being thousands of miles from the earth


>>7714787
>LEO is cleaner than any moon orbit which has dozends of dead old probes still flying about without any atmosphere to slow them down or burn up.

So we need a big space magnet?

[Anonymous No.7714812]

>>7714793
>you wouldn't have the low gravity
mars and lunar gravity are not similar.
the effects on the body by low gravity are studied on the ISS since its beginning, and were even in Mir times.

>mental state of being thousands of miles from the earth
the ISS is 400 km away from the surface of the Earth.
the moon is 300000km away.
mars is between 50000000 and 100000000 away depending on date.
all 3 locations are unsurvivable in the event of catastrophic failure, the distances do not matter.
astronauts know the risks, they are carefully evaluated and selected before.

[Anonymous No.7715119]

>>7712250
I haven't heard about this book before. I'm not much of a nonfiction reader but I might actually pick this up. Misanthropes really piss me off.

[Anonymous No.7715154]

>>7708554
First mosque on mars when?

[Anonymous No.7715156]

>>7714812
>all 3 locations are unsurvivable in the event of catastrophic failure, the distances do not matter.
This is such complete bullshit. In LEO, you are never more than an hour from being back on Earth. On the moon, you're never more than a couple of days from being back on Earth. On Mars, you are always months to years from being back on Earth.

Furthermore, if you're staying on the moon or Mars, you can get a resupply almost as quickly as they can have a rocket ready to launch. Today, that can be pretty slow, but even now, if you're lucky enough to discover a need for something just a few days before a routine resupply launches, you can get what you need in a few days. There's a crew or cargo trip to the ISS most months.

For the moon, the only difference is the cost of the launch and a couple days' travel time. The Apollo missions were pretty risky, lacking in backup options, but they were also short. A moon base with a routine resupply schedule would be much safer.

There is no bail-out or rapid resupply option from a Mars mission. If you start on a there-and-back mission, you either do or you die. As soon as you've boosted on the outbound leg, you have lost the ability to turn around and come back. You're not coming home for three years, and you're not getting resupplied for two years.

[Anonymous No.7715201]

>>7715154
leaving Earth is haram

[Anonymous No.7715425]

>>7715156
>This is such complete bullshit.
a micrometeorite or two perforating the station beg to differ.
not to mention even if the lunar base was build in a bunker with years of rations, it still makes no sense compared to a LEO or GSO orbital station due to the losses of defeating the gravity well everytime something wants to land or start from there.

[Anonymous No.7715429]

>>7715425
If one compartment gets pierced then there's plenty of time to evacuate to a safe one. There is no rapid decompression like in the movies.

[Anonymous No.7715433]

>>7715429
assuming it gets pierced laterally by a small one.