XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics
In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote:
> 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).
Which would be a big industrial plant, a nuclear reactor to power it,
and a shitload of support equipment.
>> > 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.
Generally something is called a natural resource when it is concentrated
and easy to extract.
The Earth's oceans are full of gold but no one is recovering it.
>> >> 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.
But not in usefull amounts or convienient places.
>> > 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.
The Mars rovers ran for years 24/7.
How long was the longest stay for humans on the Moon?
How far away from the landing site did the lunar rovers go compared to
the Martian rovers?
The Martian rovers don't need to return rocks to Earth, they can analyze
them on the spot.
>> >> 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
Well that and basic survival.
--
Jim Pennino
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
