Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
tomhagen | Mar 2018 | OP |
longship | Mar 2018 | #1 | |
PoliticAverse | Mar 2018 | #2 | |
FiveGoodMen | Mar 2018 | #3 | |
tomhagen | Mar 2018 | #4 |
Response to tomhagen (Original post)
Fri Mar 2, 2018, 12:00 PM
longship (40,416 posts)
1. This is a bunch of rubbish.
The path to Mars is via the Moon.
Who can credibly claim that a human occupied mission to Mars will land with anybody alive with today's tech? One damned solar flare will outright kill the astronauts. That is ignoring cosmic rays. Plus, transit to and from Mars only occurs every so many months. So, once you've landed there, unless you are solely there to leave mere flag and footprints, you are going to be there for a rather long time. Even flag and footprints will likely strand one there for months, as the transit orbit will likely pass you by. The same kind of issues would happen going to the Moon, only that the Moon is a mere three days away, while Mars is months away. The bottom line is that, if one wants to test out long term deep space habitats, it's better to do so closer to Earth where rescue is possible. Moon Base Alpha first. Then Mars. |
Response to tomhagen (Original post)
Fri Mar 2, 2018, 01:01 PM
PoliticAverse (22,510 posts)
2. Because NASA has scientists that know what that would actually involve? n/t
Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #2)
Fri Mar 2, 2018, 01:54 PM
FiveGoodMen (20,018 posts)
3. +1 (or two billion)
Very dangerous.
Very expensive. Little to be gained. |
Response to tomhagen (Original post)
Fri Mar 2, 2018, 02:43 PM
tomhagen (3,604 posts)
4. Robert Zubrin weighs in with a new Article