XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics   
   From: jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com   
      
   In article , invalid@invalid.com says...   
   >   
   > On 10/11/2016 6:10 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:   
   > > In article , invalid@invalid.com says...   
   > >>   
   > >> there is no reason for man to go to Mars.   
   > >   
   > > Opinion.   
   >   
   > Fact. Mars is Dead.   
      
   Good, then there are no locals to object when we start using its natural   
   resources.   
      
   > >> It is rocks and sand in a vaccum.   
   > >   
   > > False, Mars has a mostly CO2 atmosphere, albeit a very thin one.   
   >   
   > 1% of Earths, 96% CO2, nothing on earth that uses its atmosphere can be   
   > used on Mars, therefor Mars has no air.   
      
   Chemistry.  CO2 is one of the materials needed to make methane and   
   oxygen for the return trip back to earth.  Also, note people breathe   
   oxygen, so this chemical process also is useful for life support.   
      
   The chemistry needed to do this is quite well studied and has been done   
   in the lab many times.  We just need to send the necessary equipment to   
   Mars and "just do it" (to steal a marketing phrase).   
      
   > > If you   
   > > want rocks and sand in a vacuum, the moon is a better destination, but   
   > > even the moon looks to have water.   
   >   
   > "looks" => conjecture   
      
   Actually, there is a lot of scientific of evidence for water deposits on   
   the moon (I believe the location of interest is the south pole).  No   
   there are no flowing oceans, but if there is water and it can be   
   extracted and used.  It's a natural resource despite your whining to the   
   contrary.   
      
   > >> no food, no water, no air.   
   > >   
   > > There is a bit of water on Mars (e.g. polar regions)   
   >   
   > conjecture, not proven and so little, unusable.   
      
   Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence for water on the Mars too.   
      
   > > and again a CO2   
   > > atmosphere.  Food could be grown.   
   >   
   > all moisture would leave the plant.   
   > Not enough CO2 or atmosphereic pressure to support any plants.   
   > Radiation will kill it off in a few years.   
      
   Hydroponic greenhouses pressurized to 1 atmosphere of pressure (or   
   nearly so since plants grow at lesser pressures right here on earth).   
   Ever see how they grow tomatoes in Canada or the hydroponics garden at   
   Disney Epcot?  Pretty much just like that.   
      
   > >> send a robot.   
   > >   
   > > Been there, done that.  They're s-l-o-w and return very little science   
   > > compared to a manned mission.   
   >   
   > silly opinion.   
      
   Fact, not opinion.  Look at the science returns from Apollo (e.g. kg of   
   samples returned, experiments performed, and equipment set up).  Look at   
   how far the manned lunar rovers drove compared to the robotic rovers on   
   Mars.  Facts you are apparently either ignorant of, or are ignoring.   
      
   > >   
   > >> to hell with Musk and his gov funded R&D companies.   
   > >   
   > > Tell us how you really feel...   
   >   
   > I dont want Gov stealing my money for dead ideas.   
      
   Capitalistic competition between SpaceX, Blue Origin, ULA, Boeing, and   
   etc. is  *far* better than throwing money down the glorious socialist   
   SLS/Orion "rocket to nowhere" rat-hole.  That program has spent many   
   billions of dollars and flown zero times.  At least SpaceX is "pushing   
   the envelope" and lowering launch costs.  High launch costs are arguably   
   the biggest roadblock for any manned mission beyond LEO.   
      
   Jeff   
   --   
   All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.   
   These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,   
   employer, or any organization that I am a member of.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)