XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics   
   From: fjmccall@gmail.com   
      
   Serigo  wrote:   
      
   >On 10/11/2016 11:01 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:   
   >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> In sci.physics Jeff Findley  wrote:   
   >>>> In article , invalid@invalid.com says...   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> there is no reason for man to go to Mars.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Opinion.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> It is rocks and sand in a vaccum.   
   >>>>   
   >   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> no food, no water, no air.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions) and again a CO2   
   >>>> atmosphere.  Food could be grown.   
   >   
   >>> Not without horrendous effort.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> For some small value of 'horrendous'.   
   >>   
   >>>>> send a robot.   
   >   
   >>>> Been there, done that.  They're s-l-o-w and return very little science   
   >>>> compared to a manned mission.   
   >>>   
   >>> Wrong.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> No, he's right and we know that for a fact.   
   >>   
   >   
   >>> Robots return whatever science they are built to explore and work 24/7   
   >>> without need for food, air, water, potty breaks, or sleep.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> And humans working ordinary shifts can cover more ground and   
   >> accomplish more in a few weeks than your toaster can do in years.   
   >> Humans can also deal with things 'outside' the program by reacting to   
   >> the data as they collect it.   
   >   
   >silly.   
   >  remember that any human on Mars must stay below surface 95% of the   
   >time to avoid radiation.   
   >   
      
   Bullshit, troll.  Shielding vehicles is easy.   
      
      
   --   
   "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to   
       live in the real world."   
                         -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)