• 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 Has A New Rocket For Mars

winston53660 said:
Well that is not what happened. So what do we do from here?
Click to expand...

Spam....that's all your post have been.

The poster that measures reliability based solely off the amount of shuttles that were built should be embarrassed, but coming in behind him and spamming the thread isn't much better.
 
Fenton said:
Spam....that's all your post have been.

The poster that measures reliability based solely off the amount of shuttles that were built should be embarrassed, but coming in behind him and spamming the thread isn't much better.
Click to expand...

Fenton, you are the poster that can't tell the difference between the words "fleet" and "missions"

And you don't know anything about Skylab, and you don't know that the shuttle wasn't launching every month...etc...etc....etc.

Only 5 shuttles were made, 40% were destroyed, thus stopping the program for over a year each time, and drastically slowing the number of launches....hardly reliable eh?
 
beefheart said:
Fenton, you are the poster that can't tell the difference between the words "fleet" and "missions"

And you don't know anything about Skylab, and you don't know that the shuttle wasn't launching every month...etc...etc....etc.

Only 5 shuttles were made, 40% were destroyed, thus stopping the program for over a year each time, and drastically slowing the number of launches....hardly reliable eh?
Click to expand...

:lamo

Hey, if we built 20 shuttles, only used 5, let the others sit and gather dust, and lost two then according to you the program would have been " reliable " !
 
Fenton said:
:lamo

Hey, if we built 20 shuttles, only used 5, let the others sit and gather dust, and lost two then according to you the program would have been " reliable " !
Click to expand...

We were never going to build more than 5. Why would they spend tens of billions of dollars to build 15 extra that couldn't be used? Huge waste of money.

Face it, you got owned, your knowledge of the space program is laughably small.
 
Last edited:
beefheart said:
We were never going to build more than 5. Why would they spend tens of billions of dollars to build 15 extra that couldn't be used? Huge wast of money.

Face it, you got owned, your knowledge of the space program is laughably small.
Click to expand...


Why would they build more than 5 ?? Took make the program more reliable of-course. Hey, it's your metric for measuring reliability, not mine.
 
Fenton said:
Why would they build more than 5 ?? Took make the program more reliable of-course. Hey, it's your metric for measuring reliability, not mine.
Click to expand...

Now you are just being obtuse.

You know very little about the space program, and it shows.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
What is your definition of "air?"
Click to expand...

Atoms of a gas like nitrogen. O2 or CO2. They are scarce as most of whatever atmosphere Mars had has been lost into space. It's dead cold planet now, billions of years ago not so much.
 
iguanaman said:
Atoms of a gas like nitrogen. O2 or CO2. They are scarce as most of whatever atmosphere Mars had has been lost into space. It's dead cold planet now, billions of years ago not so much.
Click to expand...

Why not colonize both?

But if I had to choose only one- it would be Mars. The red planet has got more minerals to mine, better gravity (a key component for long term survival), similar day and night cycles to earth and best of all: ice- which means that there will be plenty of water (another key component of survival) for human and plant consumption- the moon is dry as a desert. The only advantage the moon has is its closer to earth but Mars has a much better chance of being self sustaining in the future than the moon does.
 
neat, hopefully we can avoid exporting our violent tendencies into space, but i'm not very hopeful on that one. on a side note isn't making mars habitable climate change?
 
PoS said:
Why not colonize both?

But if I had to choose only one- it would be Mars. The red planet has got more minerals to mine, better gravity (a key component for long term survival), similar day and night cycles to earth and best of all: ice- which means that there will be plenty of water (another key component of survival) for human and plant consumption- the moon is dry as a desert. The only advantage the moon has is its closer to earth but Mars has a much better chance of being self sustaining in the future than the moon does.
Click to expand...

There's tons of water on the moon and Mars is so far from the sun that growing food will be very difficult if not impossible.

Tons of Water Ice Found on the Moon's North Pole
 
iguanaman said:
There's tons of water on the moon and Mars is so far from the sun that growing food will be very difficult if not impossible.

Tons of Water Ice Found on the Moon's North Pole
Click to expand...
Ah my mistake. So there is water, good.

But then again, the moon has a 14-day night cycle so even though its closer than Mars is to the sun, there wont be a lot of return from solar power. Anyway I think the way forward for an initial colony will have to be nuclear. Mars also has geothermal opportunities so I think that will also be good long term. And of course the day/night cycles and the better gravity so I still think Mars is better.
 
PoS said:
Ah my mistake. So there is water, good.

But then again, the moon has a 14-day night cycle so even though its closer than Mars is to the sun, there wont be a lot of return from solar power. Anyway I think the way forward for an initial colony will have to be nuclear. Mars also has geothermal opportunities so I think that will also be good long term. And of course the day/night cycles and the better gravity so I still think Mars is better.
Click to expand...

Mars probably has no geothermal energy left. It's core is solid. I think there is little chance for successful colonization there. It is just too hostile. Maybe if we found a way to produce an atmosphere.

Mars probably has a core composed of iron, nickel, and sulfur. Unlike the core of the Earth, which is partially molten (melted), the core of Mars probably is solid. Scientists suspect that the core is solid because Mars does not have a significant magnetic field
Click to expand...
Question 'Does Mars have a molten core?' - NASA Be A Martian
 
iguanaman said:
Mars probably has no geothermal energy left. It's core is solid. I think there is little chance for successful colonization there. It is just too hostile. Maybe if we found a way to produce an atmosphere.

Question 'Does Mars have a molten core?' - NASA Be A Martian
Click to expand...

No one ever said it would be a walk in the park. People will die and accidents will happen but we need to move forward. A small colony would be possible for sure, we can erect domed green houses on Mars and there's plenty of ice with which to make water and oxygen with. Mars has got plenty of minerals to mine and we can start up factories to produce solar grids. A couple of nuke plants to provide power and we should be all set. Elon Musk's plan to colonize Mars is privately funded so it's all good.
 
PoS said:
Why not colonize both?

But if I had to choose only one- it would be Mars. The red planet has got more minerals to mine, better gravity (a key component for long term survival), similar day and night cycles to earth and best of all: ice- which means that there will be plenty of water (another key component of survival) for human and plant consumption- the moon is dry as a desert. The only advantage the moon has is its closer to earth but Mars has a much better chance of being self sustaining in the future than the moon does.
Click to expand...

Colonizing either is not really an effective idea, at least not for living there permanently. A mining outpost for either definitely, as we have the materials technology to build space elevators for their gravity wells which would make getting to and fro from the surface of either relatively inexpensive and hence mining good option. The reason for not colonizing either is that neither the moon or the red planet have any radiation belts of any kind which means the surface of both are subject to the full solar outputs and flares at their respective distances. Terraforming mars would be pointless unless a some sort of radiation protection could be provided planet wide.
 
Some things to think about. If we could get a space station on mars or orbiting mars we could mine the asteroid belt for unlimited resources. Partial gravity is better than no gravity. We would almost certainly move under ground for safety. An orbital space station would have to be armored and have artificial gravity. The problem with the moon is metals. One thing about mars is it puts us close to unlimited sources of energy such as methane, oxygen, hydrogen and other chemicals already in liquid or solid form. We have to start building in space to truly take advantage of almost unlimited resources.

I am all for moving forward. I would much rather put people to work in middle class jobs developing our space program rather than chasing terrorist like **** roaches around the deserts of the Middle East. I say we move on and leave the losers behind.
 
The major problem of terraforming Mars is lack of gravity to keep an atmosphere. For that to happen Mars' core should hot and liquid and should turn. It does not, and I do not know any solution to this problem.

Without atmosphere we would basically be wasting required gasses to space. Alternatively, Marsians would be depended on locally generated air, but then that would be considered a valuable (i.e., a product) rather than a granted necessity.

How much does a gallon o air cost these days anyone?
 
PoS said:
Why not colonize both?

But if I had to choose only one- it would be Mars. The red planet has got more minerals to mine, better gravity (a key component for long term survival), similar day and night cycles to earth and best of all: ice- which means that there will be plenty of water (another key component of survival) for human and plant consumption- the moon is dry as a desert. The only advantage the moon has is its closer to earth but Mars has a much better chance of being self sustaining in the future than the moon does.
Click to expand...

For that ice to become water you need heat. Being that far from the Sun you need (ironically this time you need) a green house effect. For a green house effect you need an atmosphere that only gravity can sustain. You do not have that kind of a gravity in Mars.

Melting ice in Mars thereby can be done with man made local zones that have warmth and air. But rather than be considered a given, life there then would depend on man made managed habitual zones that may be threatened from dust storms.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Colonizing either is not really an effective idea, at least not for living there permanently. A mining outpost for either definitely, as we have the materials technology to build space elevators for their gravity wells which would make getting to and fro from the surface of either relatively inexpensive and hence mining good option. The reason for not colonizing either is that neither the moon or the red planet have any radiation belts of any kind which means the surface of both are subject to the full solar outputs and flares at their respective distances. Terraforming mars would be pointless unless a some sort of radiation protection could be provided planet wide.
Click to expand...
Terraforming will take decades. We can live on Mars with the technology we have now using underground habitats to shield us from the radiation or using hydrogenized plastics on buildings to absorb the radiation. Then again, the radiation exposure isnt that much, there's maybe a 5% chance of cancer increase with for every year one spends on Mars.

DDD said:
For that ice to become water you need heat. Being that far from the Sun you need (ironically this time you need) a green house effect. For a green house effect you need an atmosphere that only gravity can sustain. You do not have that kind of a gravity in Mars.
Click to expand...
Wrong. There is gravity on Mars, its not outer space. It's about 38% equal to earth's. You can use solar or nuclear power for greenhouses that you can build in domes or underground. There's plenty of ice so water and oxygen won't be a problem.

NASA May Put Tiny Greenhouse on Mars in 2021
NASA May Put a Greenhouse on the Red Planet - Scientific American
 
PoS said:
Terraforming will take decades. We can live on Mars with the technology we have now using underground habitats to shield us from the radiation or using hydrogenized plastics on buildings to absorb the radiation. Then again, the radiation exposure isnt that much, there's maybe a 5% chance of cancer increase with for every year one spends on Mars.


Wrong. There is gravity on Mars, its not outer space. It's about 38% equal to earth's. You can use solar or nuclear power for greenhouses that you can build in domes or underground. There's plenty of ice so water and oxygen won't be a problem.

NASA May Put Tiny Greenhouse on Mars in 2021
NASA May Put a Greenhouse on the Red Planet - Scientific American
Click to expand...

With that 38% of Marsian gravity, it is not enough to sustain a natural atmospheric greenhouse effect that we are seeking to avoid here on Earth. All the green house gases would eventually be lost to space because the gravity is not enough to keep it in Mars.

The rest of the positions regarding local, man made, living habitats is shared or close.
 
DDD said:
With that 38% of Marsian gravity, it is not enough to sustain a natural atmospheric greenhouse effect that we are seeking to avoid here on Earth. All the green house gases would eventually be lost to space because the gravity is not enough to keep it in Mars.

The rest of the positions regarding local, man made, living habitats is shared or close.
Click to expand...

Terraforming the planet will take a long time so Im not advocating for that but it is feasible.

Mars has got a thin atmosphere but there are ways to thicken it like dumping methane into the air to produce a greenhouse effect. One can also heat the poles to release the frozen CO2 that will create another greenhouse effect. Elon Musk said a quick and dirty way to do it is use fusion bombs to melt the poles. A bunch of other guys suggested orbital mirrors to heat the surface.
 
let's try to put a self sustaining habitat on the moon before even thinking of mars. if the moon colonists need help, we can get there in 2 days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom