XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics   
   From: fjmccall@gmail.com   
      
   jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:   
      
   >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.   
   >   
      
   Nope.  It only needs a "big industrial plant" if you need to produce   
   millions of tons of the stuff quickly.  Otherwise a small industrial   
   plant works quite well.  After all, 21st century Earth society didn't   
   just spring full grown from the forehead of Zeus...   
      
   >>> > 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.   
   >   
      
   Yes.  Ice on Mars is a natural resource.   
      
   >   
   >The Earth's oceans are full of gold but no one is recovering it.   
   >   
      
   We didn't used to try to recover fresh water from it, either.  Times   
   change.   
      
   >>> >> 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.   
   >   
      
   Jesus, Chimp, will you go learn something that was printed in the last   
   couple of centuries.  How many trillion acre-feet of water do you need   
   for you to consider it a 'useful amount'?   
      
   >>> > 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.   
   >   
      
   And 'explored' in all those years an area that humans could do in a   
   week or so and do better than the toaster.   
      
   >   
   >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.   
   >   
      
   But not very well.   
      
   >>> >> 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.   
   >   
      
   Only if you're stupid (so I see why you would worry about it).   
      
      
   --   
   "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the   
    truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."   
                                  -- Thomas Jefferson   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)