Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 1018192021 LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 208

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

  1. #191
    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 danarhea View Post
    You have to be kidding. The apollo project was responsible for accelerating the development of integrated circuits,
    Wrong

    kidney dialysis machines,
    Wrong

    water purification systems,
    Wrong

    and even athletic shoes.
    Wrong
    Globalist = Free Trade, Open Borders, Multiculturalist, Anti-White Racist, Hypocrite, Sophist, Deceiver, Manipulator, Warmonger, Vulgar Culture, Morally Depraved......Enemy

    Death to Globalists

  2. #192
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,301

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

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    You just aren't thinking big enough. For example Mars has way more than enough of all the elements required to make an atmosphere in it's soil. Nanomachines or even normal machines to extract it and convert it into atmosphere could certainly be done. Also, there are lots of plans out there for redirecting ice asteroids that contain useful elements into Mar's atmosphere where they would burn up in the atmosphere and help bolster it up. As the atmosphere thickens, the temperatures would go up. That process would be manageable with greenhouse gasses. With the right mix, you could make it earth temperature.

    There are two problems I am aware of with living in zero gravity. First, you lose bone density and muscle mass, so when you return to earth, that can be rough. Those problems can be remedied today to some extent with vigorous exercise and in the future with medications or nanomachines or who knows what else. Second, there are problems with people's eyes that they don't quite understand yet. People's vision gets worse the longer they stay on the space station. But, whatever that is, I'm sure it is solvable.

    The bigger problem is the solar radiation. Earth's magnetic field buffers us against it, but Mars' is much weaker. That one we don't know how to solve yet. Until we did, people would need to live primarily underground, or in shielded areas. Or at least be near enough to one at all times that they could get there during solar storms. But, like all engineering problems, I'm sure that is solvable eventually. We could genetically engineer ourselves to be more tolerant of the radiation, we could figure out how to spin up Mars' own magnetic sphere, we could build some kind of field of our own, we could come up with medical treatments that make it a non issue... Who knows.

    Anyways, what you're doing seems to me no different than somebody 1,000 years ago saying quite confidently that we could never fly because we're heavier than air. To somebody from just 1,000 years ago the people of today would appear to be gods with capabilities that simply defied any possible explanation. And science is not going at a constant pace, it is speeding up. It is inevitable that the people of 1,000 years from now will be able to do things far, far, beyond anything that seems possible today, and all the problems we've discussed so far already seem possible to solve in the foreseeable future. When you try to think about what we'll be capable of doing in 10,000 years, it is impossible to even imagine, but certainly simple hurdles like a thin atmosphere won't be an issue.

    But, even if you think science is basically just going to peter out in 20 years or so, by then we'll already have the scientific capability to live underground on Mars, and certainly people would eventually go ahead and do that. Why not?
    We need a completely new propulsion technology, and until that happens you can forget it.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  3. #193
    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
    Not with current propulsion technology, unless you plan on sending a dead human to Mars.



    The only ludicrous logic is coming from you wide eyed optimists that think it can be done.



    The price of curiousity, so far, is 2.5 billion dollars for 2,000 lbs on Mars. Not all of it is on the Rover.



    Nope



    They can "think" all they want



    Manned missions = more expensive than probes pound for pound.
    1. We could absolutely send a man to Mars with current propulsion technology. I have no idea what you're talking about. We could use two Falcon Heavy's to stage the mission, or we could use that piece of crap Senate Launch System and we could still probably pull it off. There is no technical impediment to reaching Mars on the propulsion side of things. Secondly if propulsion is the obstacle lets talk about other alternatives, like NPP, or in the more realistic term reuse-able SSO vehicles like Grasshopper and Skylon.

    2. You realize the primary cost was not in sending the Probe right?

    3. The project was budgeted at $1.4 billion including an estimated $206 million for an Atlas V http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY11/IG-11-012.pdf. Many of the cost overruns came from renewed testing, the development of the skycrane, and missing launch windows which left money used inefficiently. http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY11/IG-11-019.pdf

    4. We also have made some significant advances with retro-propulsion and in fact this is the heart of what the SpaceX Red Dragon concept is born out of.

    5. They are more expensive in different ways.

  4. #194
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

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

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    We need a completely new propulsion technology, and until that happens you can forget it.
    We do need a new propulsion technology, but we can get to Mars with current technology for sure. The current technology can get us there in a nine months.
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  5. #195
    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 teamosil View Post
    We do need a new propulsion technology, but we can get to Mars with current technology for sure.
    No "we" can't

    The current technology can get us there in a nine months.
    Nope.
    Globalist = Free Trade, Open Borders, Multiculturalist, Anti-White Racist, Hypocrite, Sophist, Deceiver, Manipulator, Warmonger, Vulgar Culture, Morally Depraved......Enemy

    Death to Globalists

  6. #196
    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
    1. We could absolutely send a man to Mars with current propulsion technology.
    No you can't

    I have no idea what you're talking about. We could use two Falcon Heavy's to stage the mission, or we could use that piece of crap Senate Launch System and we could still probably pull it off.
    Sure, if you want to send a corpse to Mars, go ahead. But if you want a living/breathing/eating/gravityinduced human you will need at least 1000 launches.


    There is no technical impediment to reaching Mars on the propulsion side of things.
    Except for the technical impediment to reach Mars on the propulsion side of things

    Secondly if propulsion is the obstacle lets talk about other alternatives, like NPP, or in the more realistic term reuse-able SSO vehicles like Grasshopper and Skylon.
    I have an idea, try talking about something that exists right here right now, not what you read in a Popular Science article.

    2. You realize the primary cost was not in sending the Probe right?
    The primary cost was propulsion, that is correct.

    3. The project was budgeted at $1.4 billion including an estimated $206 million for an Atlas V http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY11/IG-11-012.pdf. Many of the cost overruns came from renewed testing, the development of the skycrane, and missing launch windows which left money used inefficiently. http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY11/IG-11-019.pdf
    So how did it enter Martian orbit, enter the Martian atmosphere and land? Magic?

    4. We also have made some significant advances with retro-propulsion and in fact this is the heart of what the SpaceX Red Dragon concept is born out of.
    Wrong, improving efficiency by several percentage points isn't going to matter.
    Globalist = Free Trade, Open Borders, Multiculturalist, Anti-White Racist, Hypocrite, Sophist, Deceiver, Manipulator, Warmonger, Vulgar Culture, Morally Depraved......Enemy

    Death to Globalists

  7. #197
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Foley View Post
    No "we" can't

    Nope.
    What are you talking about? You can't just blurt out that NASA is wrong and leave it at that, you need to explain what makes you think that?
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  8. #198
    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 teamosil View Post
    What are you talking about? You can't just blurt out that NASA is wrong and leave it at that, you need to explain what makes you think that?
    What kind of Liberal appeals to authoritah.
    Globalist = Free Trade, Open Borders, Multiculturalist, Anti-White Racist, Hypocrite, Sophist, Deceiver, Manipulator, Warmonger, Vulgar Culture, Morally Depraved......Enemy

    Death to Globalists

  9. #199
    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
    No you can't



    Sure, if you want to send a corpse to Mars, go ahead. But if you want a living/breathing/eating/gravityinduced human you will need at least 1000 launches.




    Except for the technical impediment to reach Mars on the propulsion side of things



    I have an idea, try talking about something that exists right here right now, not what you read in a Popular Science article.



    The primary cost was propulsion, that is correct.



    So how did it enter Martian orbit, enter the Martian atmosphere and land? Magic?



    Wrong, improving efficiency by several percentage points isn't going to matter.
    1. Yes we can. We know exactly what systems we would need to use, and we have rough cost estimates. If we had to send a man to Mars we could start plotting a mission immediately. Here is one of the older mission architecture outlines from NASA in 2009" http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...2009010520.pdf and here is a more ambitious and unique proposal from the MIT Nuclear Engineering department that dealt with the use of nuclear-electrical propulsion and power systems in a proposed sustained mission http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/athena/cour.../www/22.33.pdf. It's simply untrue to say that we lack the propulsion systems to reach Mars.

    2. Again, nonsense backed up by nothing.

    3. We are talking about what exists here on earth. Space ships are built on earth. But making a snide remark doesn't obviate the fact there are other propulsion systems that have been proposed to assist in the development of our near earth infrastructure to help lay the groundwork for colonization.

    4. False.

    5. I already mentioned the development of the Skycrane which was a significant investment.

    6. Again, not true and backed up by nothing. This is actually a general review, but has a section on RedDragon: http://science.nasa.gov/media/medial...inalTAGGED.pdf.

    2.

  10. #200
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Foley View Post
    What kind of Liberal appeals to authoritah.
    LOL ok. So you think we should just take your word for it over NASAs? You figure you're better equipped to make that assessment? I think you're just making things up and blurting them out at random.
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 1018192021 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
  •