Page 18 of 21 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 208

Thread: NASA's rover Curiosity lands on Mars [W:206]

  1. #171
    versus the world
    Surtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The greatest planet in the world.
    Last Seen
    06-10-14 @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,017

    re: NASA's rover Curiosity lands on Mars [W:206]

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    These frontiers are not uninhabitable, they have great probability of generating revenue, and $2.6 billion over 8-10 years is not a lot of money given the federal budget.
    Mars is only habitable if you build an artificial habitat on it, if they can generate revenue, they better start doing it, and the total cost of the space program is outlandish.
    I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.

  2. #172
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    re: NASA's rover Curiosity lands on Mars [W:206]

    Quote Originally Posted by Surtr View Post
    Mars is only habitable if you build an artificial habitat on it, if they can generate revenue, they better start doing it, and the total cost of the space program is outlandish.
    For the third time I do not wish to colonize Mars. I do however see great value in missions to Mars.

  3. #173
    Death2Globalists Matt Foley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ExecuteTheTraitors
    Last Seen
    11-24-12 @ 12:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,574

    re: NASA's rover Curiosity lands on Mars [W:206]

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    The ISS was a stupid program and most proponents of space colonization and many within NASA vigorously fought for better options. The only way we will reduce the cost of space exploration aside from the development of new launch vehicles is the creation of orbital, lunar, and lagrangian infrastructure that will facilitate the on site development of critical materials like fuel. Hence Planetary Resources focus on creating a refueling and water electrolysis facility to sell fuel and massively reduce launch costs and allowing the continual refueling of ships that are stationed in orbit. We also do not need to build a new shuttle from scratch, and we will not be building a shuttle. Man rating a dragon capsule can likely be done relatively cheaply, and if we reduced our strictures and concerns could probably do a manned mission within this year. SLS is stupid, so I'll preempt you there.

    These frontiers are not uninhabitable, they have great probability of generating revenue, and $2.6 billion over 8-10 years is not a lot of money given the federal budget.
    $2.6 billion is how much it costs to put 2,000 lbs on Mars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory

    The Apollo Lunar Lander weighed 32,399 lb, Apollo command module weighed 67,000 lbs, both combined will get humans about 1/100th of the way to mars there before running out of water/food/oxygen in zero-G while their bones waste away.

    You can spend the entire US Gross Domestic Product and you still won't get a human to Mars. Come back from NeverNever land.
    Last edited by Matt Foley; 08-11-12 at 11:48 PM.
    Globalist = Free Trade, Open Borders, Multiculturalist, Anti-White Racist, Hypocrite, Sophist, Deceiver, Manipulator, Warmonger, Vulgar Culture, Morally Depraved......Enemy

    Death to Globalists

  4. #174
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    re: NASA's rover Curiosity lands on Mars [W:206]

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Foley View Post
    $2.6 billion is how much it costs to put 2,000 lbs on Mars. Mars Science Laboratory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Apollo Lunar Lander weighed 32,399 lb, Apollo command module weighed 67,000 lbs, both combined will get humans about 1/100th of the way to mars there before running out of water/food/oxygen in zero-G while their bones waste away.

    You can spend the entire US Gross Domestic Product and you still won't get a human to Mars. Come back from NeverNever land.
    You do understand how a weight to cost ratio from different programs and time periods makes zero sense in this conversation, let alone talking about sending a human to Mars. Right?

  5. #175
    Verifier
    Gladiator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Your Back Yard
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,878

    re: NASA's rover Curiosity lands on Mars [W:206]

    Quote Originally Posted by Surtr View Post
    Mars is only habitable if you build an artificial habitat on it, if they can generate revenue, they better start doing it, and the total cost of the space program is outlandish.
    The main value of space programs, in the past, has been in spin-off technologies that have found commercial application on Earth. The money spent on the space program should be commensurate with affordability. The next projects for expentures for space can be selected from the various options for orbiting, lunar or planetary stations, etc. and can be assessed with the technology available at the time of the next budgeting decision process.

    It is a political decision as to how much governments spend for space exploration, compared to how much governments spend taking care of people on Earth. Ideally, eventually space will become profitable, and investment capital will be available for commercial ventures in space.

    How many tourists will buy tickets to the Moon or Mars?


    //
    Last edited by Gladiator; 08-12-12 at 06:04 AM.
    _______________________________
    How did Our Oil get under Their Sand?

  6. #176
    Death2Globalists Matt Foley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ExecuteTheTraitors
    Last Seen
    11-24-12 @ 12:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,574

    re: NASA's rover Curiosity lands on Mars [W:206]

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    You do understand how a weight to cost ratio from different programs and time periods makes zero sense in this conversation, let alone talking about sending a human to Mars. Right?
    Oh so in YOUR WORLD a pound of human, oxygen, water, food is totally different than a pound of robotics. Gotcha.
    Globalist = Free Trade, Open Borders, Multiculturalist, Anti-White Racist, Hypocrite, Sophist, Deceiver, Manipulator, Warmonger, Vulgar Culture, Morally Depraved......Enemy

    Death to Globalists

  7. #177
    Advisor Rising Sun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    United States of America
    Last Seen
    12-10-14 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    331

    re: NASA's rover Curiosity lands on Mars [W:206]

    It's an awesome accomplishment. Like the Apollo space project, just the act of getting there generates vast amounts of R&D which can be translated into public use. The scientific knowledge gained adds to our ability to not only explore our Solar System but to begin making use of that technology through mining resources be it on the Moon, asteroids or Mars itself.

  8. #178
    Student
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    02-22-13 @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    203

    re: NASA's rover Curiosity lands on Mars [W:206]

    Oh so in YOUR WORLD a pound of human, oxygen, water, food is totally different than a pound of robotics. Gotcha.
    Going into space is very extensive - with today's chemical technology. But the are plenty of alternatives. Space elevator, anyone?

  9. #179
    Advisor Rising Sun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    United States of America
    Last Seen
    12-10-14 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    331

    re: NASA's rover Curiosity lands on Mars [W:206]

    Quote Originally Posted by Londoner View Post
    Going into space is very extensive - with today's chemical technology. But the are plenty of alternatives. Space elevator, anyone?
    A space elevator is a good idea, but developing the materials necessary to make it work are still beyond our technical know-how. Imagine the damage done to those below if a 22,236 mile cable snapped and fell back?

    Another alternative is to simply drop things down instead of shooting things up. Robotic mining machines can find, mine and process precious materials along with dividing water into oxygen and hydrogen for fuel then put those materials on a return orbit to Earth, space stations or any place else we desire.

  10. #180
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,755

    re: NASA's rover Curiosity lands on Mars [W:206]

    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

Page 18 of 21 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •