• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Sherman123 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Oh so in YOUR WORLD a pound of human, oxygen, water, food is totally different than a pound of robotics. Gotcha.
 
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.
 
Oh so in YOUR WORLD a pound of human, oxygen, water, food is totally different than a pound of robotics. Gotcha.
Click to expand...

Going into space is very extensive - with today's chemical technology. But the are plenty of alternatives. Space elevator, anyone?
 
Londoner said:
Going into space is very extensive - with today's chemical technology. But the are plenty of alternatives. Space elevator, anyone?
Click to expand...

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.
 
311952_10150998302398947_729900321_n.jpg
 
Matt Foley said:
Oh so in YOUR WORLD a pound of human, oxygen, water, food is totally different than a pound of robotics. Gotcha.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow. We have fairly fixed rates for how much it costs to lift a certain amount of weight into orbit which I'd be happy to cite for you. The cost of the mission did not come from the weight of the object being lifted into orbit, not in this case. The Atlas V rocket that carried Curiosity can lift roughly 25,000-32,000 pounds to GEO for a cost of about $150-$200 million dollars. The lifting of that weight is a fairly fixed cost. Furthermore you cite the Apollo mission so I don't really follow your point. We spent roughly $10 billion a year to construct a space program from scratch and build all of our antecedent technologies required to move forward, and within a decade we had as you mention landed on the Moon. Somehow something about weight precludes our ability to send someone to Mars? I don't follow.
 
Sherman123 said:
I'm not sure I follow. We have fairly fixed rates for how much it costs to lift a certain amount of weight into orbit which I'd be happy to cite for you. The cost of the mission did not come from the weight of the object being lifted into orbit, not in this case. The Atlas V rocket that carried Curiosity can lift roughly 25,000-32,000 pounds to GEO for a cost of about $150-$200 million dollars. The lifting of that weight is a fairly fixed cost. Furthermore you cite the Apollo mission so I don't really follow your point. We spent roughly $10 billion a year to construct a space program from scratch and build all of our antecedent technologies required to move forward, and within a decade we had as you mention landed on the Moon. Somehow something about weight precludes our ability to send someone to Mars? I don't follow.
Click to expand...

You can't just pretend the "vehicle price" is the only thing involved in the cost of launching.

Due to the fact that it costs around a billion dollars to get 2,000 lbs to Mars, than the rover itself has to be miniaturized and perfected which is also costly too. The rover engineers look at the launch vehicle and go, "Holy **** this is expensive, we need to save weight." Cost of rover goes up.

And then the Atlas V engineers are looking at their payload going, "holy **** this rover costs a billion dollars we don't want anything bad happening to the Atlas V" so it's costs go up even more on the Atlas V.

feedback
 
Londoner said:
Going into space is very extensive - with today's chemical technology. But the are plenty of alternatives. Space elevator, anyone?
Click to expand...

By the time a non-governmental entity invents a material capable of withstanding that type of stress, a non-governmental entity would have already invented better propulsion. Heck even Star Trek gets this right.
 
Rising Sun said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The Apollo project didn't R&D anything.
 
Matt Foley said:
Wrong. The Apollo project didn't R&D anything.
Click to expand...

You have to be kidding. The apollo project was responsible for accelerating the development of integrated circuits, kidney dialysis machines, water purification systems, and even athletic shoes. Without the technology that came from Apollo, you would not be sitting at your computer, typing crap about Apollo not R&Ding anything.

From Computer World Magazine:
Without the NASA funding, the technology landscape would probably be far different than it is now, Olds noted. "There would [still] be computers, but they'd be so large and expensive that they would only be used for a handful of specialized applications," he added.
Click to expand...

Sheesh!!
 
Last edited:
Matt Foley said:
You can't just pretend the "vehicle price" is the only thing involved in the cost of launching.

Due to the fact that it costs around a billion dollars to get 2,000 lbs to Mars, than the rover itself has to be miniaturized and perfected which is also costly too. The rover engineers look at the launch vehicle and go, "Holy **** this is expensive, we need to save weight." Cost of rover goes up.

And then the Atlas V engineers are looking at their payload going, "holy **** this rover costs a billion dollars we don't want anything bad happening to the Atlas V" so it's costs go up even more on the Atlas V.

feedback
Click to expand...

I'm not pretending that, I'm countering your initial comparison which was to point out the weight of our loads that we sent to the Moon and then what we sent to Mars in the form of this rover, and then concluding that we will never send a human to Mars. It is ludicrous logic. As for the cost of launching? The cost of launching is not a huge amount more than the vehicle price for conducting that launch. The price for this mission was primarily spent in the preparation of this incredibly complex probe, as well as personal costs. There is also increased murmuring of cost-overrun on these sorts of projects from the private sector like Lunar Express and Planetary Resources which believe we are massively overpaying for our probes. But still at the end of the day it was not in the scheme of our entire budget that expensive a program, and it was decisively different from the kinds of projects and programs people have been proposing for manned missions, preparations for those missions, and colonization efforts.
 
What if...? said:
Sure am glad Queen Isabella of Spain didnt think like you do.

Columbus would have been BUMMED.
Click to expand...
A better comparison would be the Vikings' wasted discovery of America before they had the technology to get any practical advantage out of it. Columbus was funded only because the Portuguese and Turks cut off the other trade routes to India. What can Mars give us besides self-indulgent fantasies for useless Trekkies?

Why not develop Antarctica instead? If funded, the payoff of that huge area will quickly solve our debts, droughts, and material deficiencies. Vast wealth is down there waiting for us, available through a normal progression in technology if focused on what is here on Earth instead of way off in the glittering void.
 
Sherman123 said:
I'm not pretending that, I'm countering your initial comparison which was to point out the weight of our loads that we sent to the Moon and then what we sent to Mars in the form of this rover, and then concluding that we will never send a human to Mars.
Click to expand...

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

It is ludicrous logic.
Click to expand...

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

As for the cost of launching? The cost of launching is not a huge amount more than the vehicle price for conducting that launch.
Click to expand...

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.

The price for this mission was primarily spent in the preparation of this incredibly complex probe, as well as personal costs.
Click to expand...

Nope

There is also increased murmuring of cost-overrun on these sorts of projects from the private sector like Lunar Express and Planetary Resources which believe we are massively overpaying for our probes.
Click to expand...

They can "think" all they want

But still at the end of the day it was not in the scheme of our entire budget that expensive a program, and it was decisively different from the kinds of projects and programs people have been proposing for manned missions, preparations for those missions, and colonization efforts.
Click to expand...

Manned missions = more expensive than probes pound for pound.
 
teamosil said:
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?
Click to expand...

We need a completely new propulsion technology, and until that happens you can forget it.
 
Matt Foley said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
American said:
We need a completely new propulsion technology, and until that happens you can forget it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Sherman123 said:
1. We could absolutely send a man to Mars with current propulsion technology.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Wrong, improving efficiency by several percentage points isn't going to matter.
 
Matt Foley said:
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.
Click to expand...

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/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090012109_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/course/22/22.33/OldFiles/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/media...ortOctober_31-November_1_2011-finalTAGGED.pdf.

2.
 
Matt Foley said:
What kind of Liberal appeals to authoritah.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom