>people honestly think we'll send humans to mars before

>>8007577
>returning

Manned mars missions are a meme

You've got a point, but the reason we want to go to Mars in the first place is because it's more easily inhabitable than the moon in the long-term.

>>8007586
>Mars iw more easily inhabitable than the moon in the long-term.
Do you mind elaborating your views on that?

In my mind, any of the extra challenges in operating a Moon base would be significantly outweighed by the cheaper, quick and windowless transport.

over a year in a space ship will cause everyone to go crazy & kill themselves + the ship

mars is a fantasy

>>8007936
>over a year in a space ship will cause everyone to go crazy & kill themselves + the ship
First: People have already done >1yr stays on the ISS. The health effects are worth discussing, but they definitely didn't "go crazy & kill themselves + the ship".
Second: Both Earth->Mars and Mars->Earth would take significantly less than a year.

>>8007586
but all of the mission procedures necessary for landing on mars (orbital insertion, unloading, descent, landing, deployment) will most likely be test run first on the moon so it just seems like a necessary step

>>8007577
Well, depending on your definition of "returning" and who "we" is referring to, NASA is actually legally obligated to send man to Mars, and with no manned missions to Moon planned, and no excess funding available, it's extremely doubtful, at least for NASA. For other space agencies, Russia will probably be landing man on Moon in the late 20's. Same with ESA.

I don't understand why you think Moon is a priority in anyway. It's a big, cold, boring rock.

>>8008017
Why even post?
You contributed absolutely nothing of any value to this discussion.

File: image.jpg (37KB, 586x576px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 586x576px

>>8008019
>OT: criticism of the thought of sending man to Mars before moon
>my comment: explaining why this is actually a reality, not some sensationalized idea
>additional comment: criticizing the initial criticism, reasoning said criticism with the fact that Moon provides us with nothing interesting
>mfw didn't add anything to discussion

>>8008017
>NASA is actually legally obligated to send man to Mars,
"Legally obligated to" and "actually will" are entirely different things.
NASA has neither the funding nor the autonomy needed for a realistic Mars program.

>Russia will probably be landing man on Moon in the late 20's. Same with ESA.
I'm sceptical, It's been a very long time since Russia has tried anything ambitious in space, and ESA has very little experience with manned spaceflight.

>I don't understand why you think Moon is a priority in anyway. It's a big, cold, boring rock.
There's a shitload we still don't know about it, and human exploration opens up a bunch of options that are a long way off being possible with just robots.

>>8007823
No matter what we do, life on the moon will always, always have to be under a dome because its mass is too low to hold onto an atmosphere.

On Mars, given enough time the atmosphere can be made breathable and thick enough to hold water vapor and develop weather patterns. It won't happen within our lifetimes, but people in the year 2250 might be walking around on Mars without a suit. Of course, a planet with a thick atmosphere (or an atmosphere at all) is going to shield colonists from space debris far, far better. On the moon you'd better pray the dome you're in is strong enough to withstand whatever comes hurdling in.

The challenge of Mars' distance is really only temporary too. Much like traversing the Atlantic and Pacific oceans safely was once a great feat, interplanetary travel will eventually become relatively trivial. Using distance as an excuse to not build martian colonies is rather myopic.

>>8008045 (cont)
But don't misunderstand me - I support the creation of lunar colonies! I do, however, think that lunar colonies should be built in parallel, perhaps even by different groups. We shouldn't be choosing between between one or the other, even for funding reasons. It is entirely feasible to support both at the same time.

>>8008047
>lunar colonies
*lunar and martian colonies

>>8008017
You and your ilk are the cancer of this board

>>8008045
I like you

>>8007936
No they won't. Selecting individuals for long-term space missions is much like selecting individuals for long-term submarine missions. You take only the most rational, levelheaded, disciplined people on the planet, not just any random chad.

>>8007586
>>8007823
>Moon
+(Solar) energy is a shitload easier to come by
+Continuous launch and return windows with minimal dV variation
+In the event of emergency evacuation, Earth is always only 3 days away
+Similarly, you can get 3-day shipping on any special-order items from Earth
+Communications with Earth are simple and prompt
-Very low gravity may be detrimental to health
-Many resources - especially volatiles - are extremely hard to come by
-In turn, you'll likely need a steady supply of consumables from Earth
-With no atmosphere to use for aerobraking, more dV is required to reach the surface

>Mars
+Big planet with lots of gravity
+More known resources to exploit, including ices and the atmosphere itself
+Atmosphere permits aerobraking, largely eliminating dV requirements for descent
-It's dark
-It's really far away (>1 yr trip)
-communications take up to half an hour round-trip
+/b/ threads 404 before you can get in a single shitpost

>>8008045
Mars doesn't have the mass required to hold an atmosphere for the long term.

I'd prefer lunar for the cost savings and travel time. we just need robots to dig for us, then we'll be set.

>>8008043
The funding they are allotted is legally binded to missions of highest priority. This priority is decided by scientists in the field, and while the idea of exploration is a joyful one, this priority is mainly focused around the search for extraterrestrial life. Top priorities: Mars and Europa. NASA literally can't choose to go to Moon if they wanted too, because their funding is tied to specific projects.

As for Russia and ESA, I'm just speaking on their projected plans. The difference between them and NASA, is that NASA doesnt even have a manned moon mission planned, they do. NASA arguably won't have a manned moon (surface) mission in planning or put on the priority list for a very long time. (Due to Mars and Europa being at the top, and as your skepticism would follow, probably staying at the top for a while)

And the "exploration" logic is analogous to saying we shouldn't conduct space travel because we still haven't seen 95% of the ocean floor. This is silly because which way are we going to find extraterrestrial life? Looking in a place where we know it's not going to be, or looking in a place where theres a good chance to find it?

>>8008007
but why? the moon is so different from Mars that you might just as well test it here on earth.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have a moonbase(i mean, that would be awesome).

>>8008078
>Mars doesn't have the mass required to hold an atmosphere for the long term.
It's high enough that replacement rate is within human reach and could probably even be covered by industrial output. Mars loses its gasses very slowly; the only reason its atmosphere is so thin now is because it's been leeching off for billions of years. It's not really a problem.

>>8008045
>No matter what we do, life on the moon will always, always have to be under a dome because its mass is too low to hold onto an atmosphere.
>On Mars, given enough time the atmosphere can be made breathable and thick enough to hold water vapour and develop weather patterns.
None of that is happening any time soon.
It would make far more sense to plan around what's technically possible now.

>>8008084
>The funding they are allotted is legally binded to missions of highest priority.
That still doesn't mean they actually CAN do the things they're legally obligated to do.

>And the "exploration" logic is analogous to saying we shouldn't conduct space travel because we still haven't seen 95% of the ocean floor.
I don't follow that analogy at all. How is saying that there are benefits to doing a thing is the same as saying we shouldn't do a thing?

>This is silly because which way are we going to find extraterrestrial life?
Why is that the only priority? There's very little chance of there being extraterrestrial life anywhere in our solar system.

>>8008144
>None of that is happening any time soon.
>It would make far more sense to plan around what's technically possible now.

First off, I don't think your second sentence serves as a good reason. But really, a moon base and a mars base should happen at the same time. The technological advances from each would feed into each other and a moon base would make for a great staging ground for further mars missions.

>>8008157
>First off, I don't think your second sentence serves as a good reason.
I guess it's fairly personal; The distant future is vaguely interesting, but I find discussions about what we could do with the tech and infrastructure now to be far more exiting.
We can talk about exact details involved in constructing (say) a 20-person Moon outpost. What is it made of? How large/many launches would it require? How would it be powered? But outside of pure science fiction, we have no idea what terraforming gear would even LOOK like.

>But really, a moon base and a mars base should happen at the same time.
That's an unusual claim. There's barely enough money around to do either properly, and a Mars base would be a much harder target.

>>8008144
>None of that is happening any time soon.
>It would make far more sense to plan around what's technically possible now.

I agree. Worry about the terraforming shit once we actually get to Mars....it's a cute dream for the great great grandchildren of the first Mars colony to begin working on for their distant descendants.

File: 1448477645120.jpg (11KB, 258x314px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 258x314px

>>8008187
>terraforming mars

>>8007582
/thread

alien base(s) on the far side of the moon. That's why we don't go back.

Talking about planets is madness when the optimal strategy now is going to near earth asteroids, using votalies/water on them to propel them back to earth orbit, and producing large habitats in LEO/GTO

also the no moon allowed for NASA is an obongo thing, and will probably disappear as soon as he's gone

>>8008093
The point is not having a moon or mars base, but about building cheap rockets, and building the necessary infrastructure for space development

Perhaps they just need to wait for Blue origin and space X to produce cheap reusable rockets, then buy hundreds of launches of them.

We need the moon to get helium 3.

>2016
>there are still people who believe a significant large group of people will live outside of the earth

After launching from earth you are mpving 8km per second.To go to mars tou need a small amount ,500m per second, more.Why decelerate at the mooon then?

>>8008371
Because there is nothing of worth on the Mars. Also it's way easier to get back from the Moon than the Mars.

>>8008390
Life is on mars probably.Earth and mars have exchanged landmass through astroids.Its possible some bacteria have gone to mars .
Its day night cycle is almost the same, has 35 percent of earths gravity.There is water enough to cover the whole planet.Radiation is lover than moon etc.
Moon is a dead scorched and frozen astroid.

>>8008017
>ESA landing a man on the moon
What are you smoking? They don't even have a moon rocket. Russia maybe because they have Energia but even that is doubtful as to whether they can make it flight worthy again.But ESA? Top lel, you think you can get to the moon on a fucking Ariane-5?

>>8008045
>50 million miles
>trivial

>>8008007
How would you simulate a mars landing on the moon?

What's the point of going to either the Moon or Mars? The costs would hugely outweigh any benefit which could be gained within a human lifetime. The point of diminishing returns as far as space exploration is concerned has been passed many years ago. The costs of manned expeditions (let alone if return is intended) further away than the Earth's orbit are (no pun intended) extraorbitant. Who is going to finance that if they can never make gains off of it in their lifetime? As for pulling a show for the masses, with photorealistic CGI and whatnot it would be pretty obvious that such a thing would simply be faked. There's still controversy if we even really went to the Moon at all, with technology allowing to fake it being relatively primitive half a century ago.

>>8008490
Because western civilization produces an ungodly amount of wealth and doing unnecessary but awesome things is literally the only thing worth struggling for. Also muh long-term benefit

>>8008400
I guess that the prime issue is the widespread availability (or rather a lack thereof) of water. Once irrigation is facilitated, some primitive plants might be deployed to convert more of the atmosphere's carbon dioxide into oxygen to make it suitable for animals.

>>8008497
I'm afraid that romantic approach is a thing of a bygone era. Not to mention, if Islam wins over the West, they will prohibit most of the knowledge gained over the last centuries and rewrite everything along the lines of "it's all made by Allah and that's all there's to it, end of story, because f*ck you that's why" etc.

>>8008426
>Top lel, you think you can get to the moon on a fucking Ariane-5?
Actually you probably could. You'd be doing a lunar free return in a tin can strapped to the front of an Orion service module, but it would probably work.

>>8008144
It is irregardless if they CAN, that's where their money HAS to go. There is a concensus that Moon can wait, this consensus made by a committee of scientists, and said consensus is given to congress, who decides how NASA's funds are allocated. I'm not giving an opinion, I'm saying that we're not going to have a manned moon mission before Mars, because NASA does not have the resources by which to do one, and will not have them for a long time. Mars and Europa will happen before then. Congress is paying NASA to land a drill on Europa by 2022. Obviously they won't be able to do this by 2022, but they don't get to say "no, we'll actually just use this money for something else." Thus, this conversation is superfluous to have.

Please, comprise a list of the benefits of a manned Moon mission. Then, comprise a list of the benefits of a manned Mars mission. One CLEARLY outweighs the other. We understand how to build a moon base, we can do that now with modern technology, but it's a waste of an inextricably huge amount of money for no real reason. Just like spending money on ocean floor exploration versus space exploration. One probably isn't going to provide much new data for space, and one is. We've been to Moon, we've brought back rocks, it's an extremely boring place. You can see this by just looking at it, it's very cratered, which means the surface is very old. Very old surface = less probable chance of ET life.

I will eat a hearty bowl of my own shit if we put man on Mars and don't find ET life. Not intelligent life, microbes and bacteria, still life though. Does it have water? Yes. Does it have anino acids? Yes. Did once have a thicker atmosphere? Yes. Did it once have active volcanism? Yes. Any reason why life couldn't have popped up there? No. Life on Earth sprouted in the Hadean era, and considering the extremophiles we know of today, I am highly doubtful of life being solely confined to Earth in this solar system.

>>8008599
but thats desperate man, best to build a proper moon rocket

>>8008490
>What's the point of going to either the Moon or Mars? The costs would hugely outweigh any benefit which could be gained within a human lifetime.
What makes you think that?
The scientific benefits are huge, and the costs aren't THAT large on the scale of things. And that's without talking about the technological and economic sick-benefits.
Space exploration is only unaffordable if you consider anything above 4 years "too distant to worry about".

>>8008505
>Not to mention, if Islam wins over the West,
Hahaha what the fuck.
I think you need to reconsider your new sources.

>>8008637
>Hahaha what the fuck.
>I think you need to reconsider your new sources.
Would not be the first time.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam#Phase_V:_Post-Ottoman_Empire_to_the_present

>>8008602
>It is irregardless if they CAN, that's where their money HAS to go.
I know.

>There is a concensus that Moon can wait, this consensus made by a committee of scientists, and said consensus is given to congress, who decides how NASA's funds are allocated.
I think you've got that pretty much backwards.
Congress is in charge of picking NASA's goals, not NASA.

>Congress is paying NASA to land a drill on Europa by 2022. Obviously they won't be able to do this by 2022,
I've not actually read the requirements myself, but that doesn't sound THAT absurd.

>Please, comprise a list of the benefits of a manned Moon mission
We get to figure out what the hell is going on with the Moon's surface chemistry.
Dig deep holes and study the Moon's deeper geology.
Study metallurgy in low-g
Develop and test long-endurence life support systems.
Health effects of low-g
Construct and service (radio)telescopes further away from the Earth's noise.
Study the interaction of the solar wind with the lunar surface.
Go look at the stuff the ISS does. It's not a few great experiments (those can be strapped to saterlites / probes). It's shitloads of small neat things.
All kinds of shit.

>Then, comprise a list of the benefits of a manned Mars mission.
It's an entirely different list.

>One CLEARLY outweighs the other.
Not really. It depends on what you're curious about; they're pretty much incomparable.

>We understand how to build a moon base
We've literally never tried.

>it's a waste of an inextricably huge amount of money for no real reason.
>Just like spending money on ocean floor exploration versus space exploration.
How are either of those enormous wastes of money? Neither have even seen large amounts of money.

>We've been to Moon, we've brought back rocks, it's an extremely boring place.
You mustn't have looked hard enough.

>Very old surface = less probable chance of ET life.
Why do you keep obsessing over ET life? That's not the only reason to go into space.

>>8008650
>Would not be the first time.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam#Phase_V:_Post-Ottoman_Empire_to_the_present
Okaaaaay.
None of that implies that "Islam is going to take over the West".

>>8008667
>humans can't look into the future
gee what a surprise

>>8008650
Everytime Islam had threatened Europe substantially in the past, it was met with adequate opposition and was fought back. This time though, there is no opposition - quite to the contrary, the western leaders more or less actively support the proliferation and expansion of Islam in Europe, while any actions (or even statements) which could realistically revert, stop or even slow down this trend have effectively been criminalized in one way or another.

/OT

>>8008602
The Moon is artificial anyway. There's no way it has (for all intents and purposes) exactly the same angular size as the Sun just by accident.

>>8008619
I'm kind of sad that Ariane 6 isn't more ambitious. The A64 is only very slightly more powerful than the current Ariane 5 ECA.

>>8008680
Stranger things have happened.

>>8008679
Btw I'm not even muslim, it's just a realistic assessment of the current situation. If it is anywhere comparable to anything in recorded history, then probably to the fall and collapse of the Roman Empire. I guess we all know how it played out for Western civilization, and to scientific and technological progress in particular. At least the Germanic tribes that conquered and succeeded Rome kept a large part of their civizational legacy intact. I don't see the same happening should the West effectively become islamized, as the muslims are maniacs who most likely would just rewrite "history" according to the Q'uran. For instance, I met with claims such as "the Norse gods were of Turkic origin" being made entirely unironically, and that's just a very mild foretaste of what they would do with Western heritage should it be at their mercy.

>>8008712
This talk about "islamic conquest of europe" is largely controlled opposition shit
If europe became muslim while remaining white, it would be fine.

The issue is the mass influx of non-european peoples into europe, not their religion or culture or any such thing, but their RACE.

>>8008426
Maybe they intend to contract a falcon heavy

>>8008732
Yea, probably. Even more specifically, their low IQ and their barbaric (or downright criminal from the point of view of western law and tradition) customs and maniacal brainwashing they routinely inject their offspring with. But hey, that's also precisely what contemporary "European authorities" are barring us from saying loudly.

>If europe became muslim while remaining white, it would be fine.
White people have never accepting Islam en masse, because Islam was created as a system to control large masses of inhabitants of the areas where it originated. These inhabitants were and are quite different from the inhabitants of Europe, as discussed above.

BTW, trying to rationalize Islam in any way, sometimes I think its broader purpose (if there is indeed any) is to either lead to another world war and resulting massive casualties which will deal with the overpopulation problem (which was further increased by giving primitive peoples access to western medical technology which vastly improved survivability and life expectancy, while doing nothing to control their raw birth rates), or even prevent western technological progress from reaching what is being heralded as "technological singularity".

>>8007936
yeah, all those men who where on sea for years with only other men in a small space full of shit food must all have gone crazy too.

>>8008299
how big a rock are we talking here?
Getting a rocket up there that can atach and gave enough thrust and fuel will probably be a big fucking rocket.

>>8008390
the point is that humans needs to find ways of living in space because mass extinction events can happen at any moment and living in space is the only way of securing our survival.

>>8008651
Congress hires a comitee of scientists, not NASA, to prioritize mission objectives with regards to Congress' goals for space exploration. This happens once every decade, and is why the next decade is going to be pretty boring for NASA besides Juno, the rest of the New Horizon's Pluto data, and progress on Mars and Europa.

Europa mission so far:
>Send orbiter to Jupiter
>find landing spot on Europa
>That same orbiter sends a drill to that landing spot
>has to drill through unknown depth of ice
>once at subsurface ocean deploy a submarine probe that had to come with the drill

In 6 years from now? Lol, probably not going to happen.

>rest of the comment
ET life is the main focus of the person who's paying for all of this. Terraforming is entirely out of our reach, so colonization cannot occur until we know how to live in space. As amazing as sitting and waiting in a tin can is for the study of astrobiology, finding ET life would propel the field fathoms more than digging up rocks on a perpetually dead rock would.

>>8008732
>If europe became muslim while remaining white, it would be fine.
you clearly dont know how much the arabs gave gone to shit since the koran came along.
The "Islamic" Golden Age for starters is a giant lie, it should be called the "arabian golden age", folowed by "the destruction of middle east science by muslim hordes"
Just look at the scientific achievements of the islam world today, or in the past hundered years, there are literally non existent outside of some muslim scientists who lived in the west.
we like to talk about the dark ages in europe and how the christians persecute science but the muslims where just as bad, even more so because they are getting dumber if you look at the current literacy rate in the middle east.

>>8008749
>>8008797
Okay, that's enough of that shit.
Fuck off.

>>8008794
space mining and terraforming will be done by corporations anyway.

>space x makes space flight cheaper
>bigelow makes space stations cheaper with the BEAM module.
>ION thrusters getting better every day

country's will be buying a cheap space stations for their own scientific research while spaceX puts them in space.
Bigelow will build a spacehotel in the next decade, they are already bussy with the second module for ISS, in this module will be huge, it will increas space for ISS with 1/3.
These modules can be used for moon and mars bases too.
And mining will be small in the begining, first they will try to make stuff up in space to keep the cost down, but when the population grows, so will the need for new materials.

let the NASA&ESA&slavs do the exploration, corps will do the rest.

we already have a Weyland-Yutani company in form of spaceX...

>>8008813
what? does the truth hurt?
or is your PC friendly personal space starting to crack?

>>8008772
It's the fuel thats the big weight, not the rocket

Provided you could produce fuel at the asteroid itself, you could move an extremely large one given time.

>>8008886
and how big should it be, big enough to make it so we can spin it and create some gravity outwards, creating a station like in "the expanse".

>>8008891
Maybe start with something thats a few hundred thousand tons

>>8008797
>>8008749
Sure sure but you see a push among the establishment nowadays to define an opposition to islam based on values or ideals, rather than them being a foreign race.

But yea, islam is shit

>>8008898
and mine it or start sticking modules on it?
the later would be better i think.

>>8008909
Go there, bring a nice big rocket engine, produce fuel from volatiles on the asteroid, and redirect it into low earth orbit

>>8008637
>What makes you think that?
>The scientific benefits are huge, and the costs aren't THAT large on the scale of things. And that's without talking about the technological and economic sick-benefits.
>Space exploration is only unaffordable if you consider anything above 4 years "too distant to worry about".
Yes this. /sci/ loves to overexaggerate the expensiveness of projects because it somehow forgets entirely that the US routinely spends amounts tens and hundreds of times larger than what they spend on space, even though these things have extremely arguable returns. The costs are not insurmountable.

>>8008816
I agree. At this point NASA is practically dead in terms of doing groundbreaking things, and I don't see that changing unless we get a couple terms of a science-loving president (highly unlikely). Private industry is going to be the primary driver of space progress going forward.

>>8008816
>search google for "relevancy of this post"
>No results found

If you think the private sector is going to get a manned mission to any celestial body before a governmental space agencies will in the coming future, you're sorely mistaken.

>>8008977
It's entirely possible if costs can be dropped enough, and that happens to be the focus of private space industry now. So far, they're succeeding, and if the trend continues in a decade a manned mission will cost less than launching the shuttle to resupply the ISS used to.

>>8008977
doesnt need to be manned, space mining will be done by robots for the most part anyway.

Here's how I'd do it.

>Get whole world to sign a peace treaty
>Build a huge scientific center
>Allow the smartest minds from around the world to make their own teams of engineers and scientists
>Offer them a 1 billion dollars to the first team what comes up with a fast, cheap and efficient way to get us off this planet.

Closet way to a space race without WW3

>>8008977
When NASA starts throwing price tags around like 200 billion to do it
And the private sector intends to do it for under 1 billion

I think its easily possible

Obviously only the government will do something pointless like sending a couple people to mars to dick around then come back home

>>8008999
>relavancy to discussion topic

>>8009033
are you trying to troll me or are you retarded?

>>8008056
>>Mars
>+Big planet with lots of gravity
Half the size of Earth, 38% the gravity

>+More known resources to exploit, including ices and the atmosphere itself
Atmosphere to exploit, 95% Carbon Dioxide, 2.5% Nitrogen, 0.13% Oxygen, 0.03% Water Vapor,

>+Atmosphere permits aerobraking, largely eliminating dV requirements for descent
Areobraking, not with 0.6% the surface pressure of Earth, this is a major problem, NASA has coincided they have reached the limits of payload size for a single decent

>-It's dark
44% of the sunlight of Earth

>-It's really far away (>1 yr trip)
Depends the method used:
Hohmann Transfer Orbit, 9 months
Crocco Method, 113 days
Ballistic Capture, 245 days (round trip)

>-communications take up to half an hour round-trip
Depends where Mars is in relation to Earth roundtrip signals take from 3 to 22 minutes

Remember that Mars average surface temperature is a pleasant -81 degrees Fahrenheit, Mars has virtually no magnetic shield

>>8009038
>no magnetic shield
this, if humanity ever wants to take a real shot at teraforming mars then they will first have to find a way to give mars a stronger magnetic field.
Because we already know how to give mars a atmosphere, but that wont do any good when solar winds just blow it away.
and its probably easier to make a O'Neill cylinder colony then to fuck with the magnetic field of a planet.

>>8007577
>an anime girl lives on the moon

o_o

>>8009336
It would take millions of years through natural processes for the atmosphere to strip away though

>>8009341
wont the solar flares pretty much kill all life on the planet without a magnetic field?

>>8008765

>shit food
>implying submarine food isn't the best in the fleet because of this precise reason

https://www.qsrmagazine.com/store/how-you-feed-navy

http://www.americanhistory.si.edu/subs/operating/aboard/leisure/

https://video.foxnews.com/v/4170479/submarine-cuisine/?#sp=show-clips

>>8009348
a was talking about sailors on sailships and so on.

the voyage where you are on a ship with a hundered other men, and you get beaten by officers for looking at them wrong and having to work your ass of every day for a little bit of crap food and little to no money.

>>8009356

still, food can also be used as a great way to keep morale up. even in space. and packing enough food into a crewed mission is just engineering in the end.

>>8007936
You might, but thousands of people have endured worse conditions on Earth for longer time periods and done just fine. You're just a retard assuming that everyone is an unstable pussy like you.

>>8009360
everything has to be microwaveable, no cooking with fire alowed in space.
With fire i mean a electric stove
Maybe a rice cooker too, but it would have a good seal when its working.

Is cooking with fire allowed on subs?

>>8009371
They don't even use microwave ovens on the ISS, just packets they shoot hot water into.

>>8009374
cant be very good for the taste.

File: 1459230335444.jpg (205KB, 1125x1125px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1125x1125px

>>8009371

the bongs allow it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/5165449/Chef-on-Royal-Navy-submarine-HMS-Tireless-on-secrets-of-feeding-130-under-the-sea.html (2:40 in the vid, gas stove)

>>8009369
>projecting this hard

>>8009378
You'd think so, but I've heard their food is pretty damn good.

The Chinese being typically Chinese bragged about how much better their space food was, but it was probably just dried fish with bones and frezze-dried cat pieces.

>>8009384
the chinks probably had to hold their piss in because they didnt even have toilet up there.

>>8009034
Discussion: Whether the next manned mission will be to Mars or Moon first
Your comment: Private sector possibly mining with robots
>????

If we rewind, I was said things like terraforming and colonization were out of our reach as an explanation for why ET life is our priority, as the latter would improve our grasp on astrobiology greatly, and we can't do the former without that knowledge.

>>8009371
>everything has to be microwaveable, no cooking with fire alowed in space.
>With fire i mean a electric stove
>>8009374
The ISS has been such a ridiculous waste of money. It would be so much more valuable to be experimenting with centrifugal gravity and other ways to make living in space comfortable, than to conduct more Mir-alike studies of how long humans can tolerate awful zero-g conditions.

>>8009626
>experimenting with centrifugal gravity
Why isn't this happening anyway? If done right a small spinning station is well within our technological capabilities and couldn't cost THAT much. If centrifugal gravity isn't enough on its own to justify such a project, put it in an orbit further out from Earth (Lagrange point perhaps?) so it better simulates deep space and can be used for studies on dealing with higher levels of radiation.

>>8009642
I'm sure people with actual qualifications (read: not you) worked out that it's not economical at this present time.
I'm sick and tired of all this whining, "waah whay aren't we doing this? why aren't we doing that?" Space is expensive and hard and in the grand scheme of things only a few people really care about space exploration.

>>8009665
That may be reality but nobody said anybody had to be happy about it. With the state of things it shouldn't be a wonder why people frequently vent their frustrations with the subject.

>>8009642
a spinning station, or at least some part of it would still be a lot larger then ISS.
and people are already mad about the cost of the ISS.
Yes, we can build a spinning station with maybe +0,1 G
and its the next step, but the casuals wont like the price.

>>8009867
>and people are already mad about the cost of the ISS.
Rightfully so. Something similar could've been achieved for much lower costs if low cost were the aim, but it wasn't.

>>8009665
>I'm sure people with actual qualifications (read: not you) worked out that it's not economical at this present time.
>hurr durr derpity doo
The most unreasonable assumption is that the people running manned space programs have sensible values or goals and know what they're doing in pursuit of them.

Have you paid any attention to the space shuttle program, for instance? Or the ISS? Or SLS, FFS?

Adjusting for inflation, Project Gemini cost about $8 billion. This five-year program included development of a crew vehicle and space suit, man-rating a launch vehicle, and a dozen flights. They developed and demonstrated docking, spacewalks, and extended stays in space.

Important new technology. Major progress. A few years. A few billion dollars.

This is how NASA used to do shit, when it was new and had an actual purpose. NASA's manned program hasn't done anything worthwhile since Skylab.

There's no scenario in which the ISS and SLS are economical and worth doing, but a small station to experiment with centrifugal gravity isn't. A centrifugal station can be as simple as a capsule and a counterweight on a tether.

To provide lunar gravity (at 2 rpm), they need about an 80 meter tether, and around 10 m/s delta-V each time they start or stop it. Mars gravity requires about 200 meters and around 25 m/s delta-V. These are not great challenges.

>>8009867
>a spinning station, or at least some part of it would still be a lot larger then ISS.
That part is called a "tether". Also known as a rope or cable.

>people are already mad about the cost of the ISS.
The cost of ISS is almost pure waste. It's primitive, mass-inefficient, and oversized, and they sent most of it up on the shuttle.

>casuals wont like the price.
Could probably do a sufficiently roomy module, counterweight, tether, and supplies on one Falcon Heavy. With the new stuff coming out in the next few years, I bet you could do a whole multi-year program for $1 billion.

>>8009931
anon, i get what you are saying, but with the current setup of nasa,etc.. you will never get what you are asking for.
there are just too many party's involved that want a piece of the cake.
corps will probably have the biggest change of making a "cheap" spinning station.

File: centrifugal craft.png (119KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1920x1080px

>>8009931
The proportions are probably fucked, but is a design like this what you had in mind? Obviously the larger end is the module and the smaller one the counterweight.

>>8007577
this is nice moon

>>8010024
>>8010036
>>8010038

looks like the autobot shitposters are here...

>>8010039
rude

>>8009939
Well, that's the thing. "The current setup of NASA" has somehow been putting over $5 billion into SpaceX, mostly to do a task which Congress insisted Orion should be used for.

The way NASA does everything is to contract the work out. SpaceX is a NASA contractor no less than Boeing and LM, who are building SLS and Orion. What's different about SpaceX is a firm fixed price contract and relative autonomy, as opposed to cost-plus and NASA micromanagement.

It's becoming increasingly obvious that firm fixed price contracts are a viable option to get pretty much anything done, including ambitious new stuff, and that the cost-plus, NASA-managed way has become too corrupt and ineffectual.

>>8009371
>>8009374
The ISS actually does have an electric oven. It's just kinda underpowered so they don't use it much anymore.

>>8009626
>The ISS has been such a ridiculous waste of money
The ISS has taught us shitloads about engineering in space, and more about micro gravity than everything we've previous done put together. And it didn't cost THAT much.

>>8009642
>Why isn't experimenting with centrifugal gravity happening anyway?
If I recall correctly, the ISS was supposed to have a centrifugal experiment onboard. Unfortunately, it wasn't going to be cheap and budget cuts killed it off.
The ISS is getting old now, but I wouldn't be surprised to see this kind of thing proposed for the next major station that gets built.

>>8009877
>Rightfully so. Something similar could've been achieved for much lower costs if low cost were the aim, but it wasn't.
What makes you believe that?

>>8009889
>The most unreasonable assumption is that the people running manned space programs have sensible values or goals and know what they're doing in pursuit of them.
>Have you paid any attention to the space shuttle program, for instance? Or the ISS? Or SLS, FFS?
These two points aren't actually mutually exclusive. Designing spacecraft is HARD and like it or not, but managing the political winds is a part of that design process.

>There's no scenario in which the ISS and SLS are economical and worth doing, but a small station to experiment with centrifugal gravity isn't.
You seem awfully convinced that a centrifugal station wouldn't suffer from the exact same issues, despite being bulit by the same people with the same political context using the same technology. That seems unreasonable.
You're looking at the real world and announcing that it's too messy compared to the ideals in your head, without discussing how messy your ideas would become in the process of realization.

In order to do anything worthwhile, a centrifugal station would cost bucketloads of money. In order to get that money, NASA would need to do so much political dick-sucking it's not even funny. That's going to impact the design significantly. Why assume reality will budge once it's YOUR ideas being tested?

>>8010059
>What makes you believe that?
The ISS was built after the point when NASA and associated contractors had lost any efficiency they once had and shifted into money-milking "keep everyone employed" mode. Cost efficiency wasn't even a shadow of a concern for the project.

>>8010062
These days I don't think anybody seriously expects NASA to be the facilitator of anything but sending functionally bankrupt RC cars to other planets in the most extravagant ways possible.

>>8010010
It doesn't have to be shaped like a section of a ring. It can be cylindrical (on end or on its side), spherical, or shaped like an atmospheric entry capsule.

As pointed out here: >>8009889
>To provide lunar gravity (at 2 rpm), they need about an 80 meter tether, and around 10 m/s delta-V each time they start or stop it. Mars gravity requires about 200 meters and around 25 m/s delta-V.
...lunar gravity at a rate of rotation considered comfortable for humans requires a minimum 40 meter radius, implying a circumference of around 250 meters. I think you could have a pretty comfortable room without the difference of gravity from one side to the other being too weird.

If there is a long axis, you'd probably want to put it perpendicular to the direction of rotation, unless it was modular and you wanted to build a complete ring.

I just want to point out that a centrifugal station would necessarily be orders of magnitude larger in size and cost. Not that we shouldn't be building one, just saying it's darned expensive.

>>8010059
>The ISS has taught us shitloads about engineering in space, and more about micro gravity than everything we've previous done put together.
Bullshit. ISS is Mir 2. It's lousy for microgravity research because there are humans on it. If you mean it's good for researching the effects of microgravity on humans, we already had the Mir data, and we already knew from that that microgravity is very bad for humans, so what we need is to be researching the effects of light centrifugal gravity. Anyway, it's way oversized for long-stay research.

As for "engineering in space", ISS has been unambitious and conservative because it's a megaproject that would be too humiliating if anything major went wrong.

>And it didn't cost THAT much.
It's getting close to costing as much as the Apollo Program, which included the development of Saturn I, Saturn V, and the construction of major NASA facilities which are still in use.

>>8010164
>It's lousy for microgravity research because there are humans on it.
Having humans around allows you to perform far more experiments than can be automated.

> If you mean it's good for researching the effects of microgravity on humans, we already had the Mir data
The ISS gives us much better data than Mir ever did.

>so what we need is to be researching the effects of light centrifugal gravity
That was part of the plan for the ISS - they would have installed a small experimental centrifuge, but the funding for it got pulled.

>As for "engineering in space", ISS has been unambitious and conservative because it's a megaproject that would be too humiliating if anything major went wrong.
It's conservative because there are people on board.
And I'm not really sure why you think it's unambitious

>It's getting close to costing as much as the Apollo Program,
The majority of costs for space are paying people's salaries. The ISS involves a bunch of people and has been running for decades. Of course that adds up to a large amount of money if you put it all in one pile.

>>8010062
>You seem awfully convinced that a centrifugal station wouldn't suffer from the exact same issues, despite being bulit by the same people with the same political context using the same technology. That seems unreasonable.
Well, this is the stupidest possible interpretation of what I was saying. The "same people with the same political context using the same technology" wouldn't build a centrifugal station. Because they're the same inept people. In the same corrupt political context.

Half the reason NASA's so fucked up is that people who are enthusiastic about spaceflight won't come out and say how fucked up it is. Because they're afraid that instead of getting it fixed, they'll just get it cut down to nothing.

The people who should know better have been cheerleading NASA: prominent scientists, educators, technology business leaders. There have been dozens of movies and educational shows glorifying NASA, and none showing them as bumbling idiots wasting billions of dollars every year.

Where's the Pentagon Wars for the space shuttle program? For Constellation/SLS?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

>You're looking at the real world and announcing that it's too messy compared to the ideals in your head
I'm looking at a corrupt, ineffectual organization and talking about what an honest, competent one could do. I'm talking about what we could be getting for that money if we stopped giving it to the wrong people, and started giving it to the right people.

>>8010185
>And I'm not really sure why you think it's unambitious
Very little *truly* new ground covered given the exorbitant expense, that's why. It's mostly refinements on things we already knew.

If that sort of pace is acceptable we'll be extremely lucky if the first manned moon or mars base takes place 100 years from now. It's positively glacial.

>>8010185
>>It's lousy for microgravity research because there are humans on it.
>Having humans around allows you to perform far more experiments than can be automated.
Nope. NASA's been trying to sell this "microgravity research" angle since the napkin sketch days, and researchers don't want it. Most microgravity research falls into two categories:
1) very short-term experiments, which can go on vomit comets or suborbital rockets, and
2) experiments which are exquisitely sensitive to accelerations such as bumps and vibrations, and therefore just can't be done on a big, complicated station with people on it.

>The ISS gives us much better data than Mir ever did.
Mir: 3 crew, unlimited-length stays, 10 years, <$5 billion
ISS: 6 crew, unlimited-length stays, 18 years so far, >$150 billion

Incidentally, Mir was intentionally deorbited (still in good working order) a few months after the first crew arrived on ISS. Its funding was cut because of ISS.

>It's conservative because there are people on board.
There are astronauts on board. Billions of dollars, hundreds of man-lives of productivity, are being spent putting each of them there, and their lives were put at considerable jeopardy travelling there and back. They're supposed to be up there pushing the boundaries of what's possible for the greater good of mankind.

>I'm not really sure why you think it's unambitious
Bigger Mir, hanging around in LEO, reproducing previous results at much higher cost.

>>8010127
?
in what way?
all it has to do is spin
It doesn't need to be bigger
You could keep the stage 2's as the counter weight

>>8010582
Spinning makes almost everything on the station more complex.

>>8010263
Well the space shuttle is gone now, so anything NASA does next will likely be cheaper
Even the SLS costing 2 billion or more a launch will be cheaper

>>8010585
wel yeah, its the next step.
If humanity ever wants to survive in space they will gave to know how to make spining space colony's.

>>8010056
Wait, 5 billion? Source?

>>8010298
>Incidentally, Mir was intentionally deorbited (still in good working order) a few months after the first crew arrived on ISS. Its funding was cut because of ISS

There were pretty good reasons to stop work on Mir and transfer funds to the ISS.
>Designed for a 5 year life, pushed to 15.
> in the 1990s was showing its age, with constant computer crashes, loss of power, uncontrolled tumbles through space and leaking pipes.
>Various breakdowns of the Elektron oxygen-generating system were a concern; they led crews to become increasingly reliant on the backup Vika solid-fuel oxygen generator (SFOG) systems, which led to a fire during the handover between EO-22 and EO-23
>due to the age of the space station, the cooling system had developed tiny leaks too small and numerous to be repaired, that permitted the constant release of coolant, making it unpleasant to breathe the air.

And thats before you talk about 2 collisions, several fires and that whole "oh shit, we have a big hole in the module"-episode.

Sure, it could have been kept longer in orbit/usage, but at some point you need to stop throwing money at something, and use what you've learned to build something bigger and better.
I'm just impressed they managed to keep it flying 10 years over designed time and on what amounted to penny's and dimes during the 90's.

>>8010056
More like closer to 3,5 billion in totalt from 2010-2017, but what are a few billion between friends?

>>8010673
They should have kept MIR up in space but unmaned, and look how fast it would decay without regular maintenance

>>8008778
There is no way to find a planet where humantiy can live.
Humanity will end with the earth together.

What could happen that technolgy advances that much that we would create human like life which can live on other planets through genetical engineering and stuff.

But our fate is bound to earth.

>>8010797
Screw you defeatist scum

>>8010716
>>8010634
>More like closer to 3,5 billion in totalt from 2010-2017
Their relationship started earlier than 2010, and it's not going to end in 2017. There was money before that, and there are contracts for after that.

The big items were the initial F9/Dragon dev money ($0.4 billion), resupply contract ($1.6 billion), and Dragon 2 contract ($2.6 billion). But there have been other development funds and additional launch contracts (including more ISS cargo resupply).

>>8010970
Getting contracts to deliver a product isn't subsidies idiot

>>8009003
>1 billion

Is that for the project or the people personally. Is that even enough money for such a project?

>>8008187
>cute dream for the great great grandchildren

Really. Terraforming is going to take a LOT longer than that. Likely tens of thousands of years at absolute minimum. You have no idea of the magnitude of such a project.

>>8009889
So a more reasonable assumption is that a bunch of procrastinating college kids on /sci/ will know better how to run a space programme?

>>8008222
We have awoken the hive!

>>8011047
not fucking close
That sort of growth is exponential, not linear
Sure its not something we're going to do in the next 200 years, but huge machinery producing new atmosphere on the mars/luna/etc is within possibilities

Along with fusion reactors heating up outer worlds

>>8011052
This.

>>8010988
I never said anything about subsidies. I was talking about the billions of dollars NASA has been putting into SpaceX.

Anyway, a lot of that money *has* been subsidies, obviously. And the service contracts have all been on a pork project, so...

Hell, NASA has even insisted on paying for each reusable vehicle as a new one, and letting SpaceX keep them afterward. Not just for the cargo Dragons, but the crew Dragons. They're paying for the development, then they're paying to give them a fleet. The same is going for the Falcon 9. NASA's contracts have no provision for price reduction as SpaceX's launch vehicle reusability gets better.

SpaceX has done a grand total of 10 launches for private customers. Some were contracted for Falcon 1, and SpaceX agreed to deliver them at Falcon 1 prices. The total revenue would have been about $500 million. After paying for building the vehicles, they'd have about $200 million left to put toward salaries, development costs, facilities, etc.

They have 32 private launches on their manifest. That's about $2 billion in contracts.

Compare that to >$5 billion in NASA money, much of it already received, a billion dollars of it straight-up hand-outs to develop their vehicles.

I like SpaceX, but let's not kid ourselves that it's the product of the free market.

>>8011131
It may be a pork project, but its still NASA's pork project, SpaceX got the contracts because they are quite a bit cheaper than NASA's old contractors.

This sort of payments to assist developing companies for future capabilities is exactly what NASA is for

>>8011128
>>8011052
>So a more reasonable assumption is that a bunch of procrastinating college kids on /sci/ will know better how to run a space programme?
Really? This is your take? "Ignore all all of the evidence. Ignore all of the logical arguments. Important people in important positions have made these decisions, therefore they are good decisions, or at least necessarily better than anything suggested anonymously." ? Just going to fully retreat from reality like that?

From 1958 (the establishment of NASA) to 1974 (the last Skylab mission), NASA made amazing progress. It wasn't all unsustainably expensive, like the rushed Apollo Program, either. Project Mercury -- $2 billion. Project Gemini -- $8 billion. Skylab -- $10 billion. They made rapid progress.

Where it all went wrong is the space shuttle. For whatever reason, the space shuttle failed early, in the planning process, and they would not acknowledge the failure. At which point NASA became fundamentally fraudulent. This is still fucking NASA up: their worst, most wasteful programs are ISS and SLS/Orion, each closely related to the shuttle.

>>8011172
>It may be a pork project, but its still NASA's pork project
How do you think pork works? All just work for direct government employees? Mostly pork distributes tax money to workers through contractors, like SpaceX.

>>8011285
They made rapid progress because they were short projects focusing on doing individual things.
You keep talking about the ISS and stations in general like they perform a single experiment. They don't. Each supply ship going to the ISS caries up a bunch of small experiments. The ISS is so expensive because it's a longterm project with a broad scope, not because it's somehow thousands of times more wasteful.

The ISS is still pretty cheap for the large amount pure research it provides.

>Where it all went wrong is the space shuttle. For whatever reason, the space shuttle failed early, in the planning process, and they would not acknowledge the failure.
This is a bizzare representation of what happened. NASA isn't at liberty to just turn around and tell the US Gov to fuck off if the things they asked for aren't working, so the project died of scope creep.
Calling NASA "fundamentally fraudulent" is... kinda daft.

>>8011593
>The ISS is so expensive because it's a longterm project with a broad scope, not because it's somehow thousands of times more wasteful.
You're straight-up denying reality here. The ISS is a resurrection of the Space Station Freedom concept. The main point was to have a reason for lots of shuttle flights, which was a way of funneling money to major defense contractors. It was "international" as a way of sending money to the ex-Soviet rocket companies, after the breakup of the Soviet Union, so their engineers and technicians wouldn't scatter to third-world and Chinese arms programs.

The reason ISS cost > $150 billion and Mir cost < $5 billion is not that ISS just has that much more "scope", but that ISS was a front for large transfers of cash.

>>8011593
>NASA isn't at liberty to just turn around and tell the US Gov to fuck off if the things they asked for aren't working, so the project died of scope creep.
First of all, top people at NASA went around selling the shuttle with lies. Nobody asked NASA to make a shuttle. NASA was asked to put a man in space, then to put a man on the moon. When that was done, they were just asked to find something to do that wasn't so expensive. NASA said they wanted to do a shuttle.

So: what would the use of this shuttle be? This is the point where NASA went off the rails. Its leaders/salesmen did not say: "Well, it will be our first try at a reusable launch vehicle, we'll keep it a relatively small and simple experimental vehicle, like X-15. People will look back at it like the flight at Kitty Hawk." That would have been the work of billion-dollar-NASA. They were looking for a flagship project to keep $100-billion-NASA in business.

NASA promised anything anyone wanted. Fuck Kitty Hawk, they were going to build the space equivalent of a 747 right out the gate. In fact, it would SAVE money! America wouldn't need any other launch options at all!

Nobody imposed bullshit on NASA, unless you mean by assigning its leaders.

More importantly, there's no sense in talking as if "NASA" is something separate from the "US Gov". NASA's part of the government. If NASA's doing stupid shit, the important thing is that it's doing stupid shit. Whatever needs to be changed to stop NASA doing stupid shit, needs to be changed regardless of whether it's on NASA's org chart.

>>8007581
epic meme, man :)

>>8007577
>returning to the moon

>>8012021
Well said. The bottom line is that "NASA", whatever that incorporates, is broken and needs to be fixed. It doesn't make any difference which part of the system is at fault.

A manned Mars mission is a huge waste with our nonexistent level of space infrastructure. Let's get some industrial productive power in space first, and then it becomes trivial, especially if you're willing to run nuclear reactors in space.
The moon and near-earth asteroids are a big part of that. Launch costs from the moon are trivial once you've built a mass driver.
As for terraforming mars, that's retarded. It would take hundreds of thousands of years to house a billion people. With that same cash you could house literally trillions of humans in orbital colonies by the end of next century.

Someone itt brought up how Bigelow will have a hotel in space next decade. I laughed, even though I first heard that joke in the mid 90s.
Another anon asked if fire is allowed on submarines. It's not allowed by proxy of subs being kept at such low oxygen that a fire can't start.

>>8009038
>Half the size of Earth, 38% the gravity
Which is a big increase over the 16% of the Moon.
>Atmosphere to exploit, 95% Carbon Dioxide, 2.5% Nitrogen, 0.13% Oxygen, 0.03% Water Vapor
Yep, the CO2 is the main compound of interest since it can be used as a feedstock for the synthesis for various organic compounds and oxygen.
>Areobraking, not with 0.6% the surface pressure of Earth
Are you seriously implying that aerobraking only happens near the surface of the Earth?
Aerocapture and aerobraking have been repeatedly demonstrated in the Martian atmosphere. So what if it's not dense enough at the surface for a parachute-only landing? It still saves you massive amounts of propellant.

>>8012119
>A manned Mars mission is a huge waste with our nonexistent level of space infrastructure.
The idea is to use the idea of martian colonization as a carrot to develop the needed infrastructure. It's a big, challenging goal that quite frankly is more appealing and imagination-capturing to the world's population than a moon base. The general population's opinion on a moon base is going to be an underwhelming, "Well shit it's about time, we're finally doing what we should have in the 70s. Big whoop."

>>8012153 (cont)
>>8012119
>As for terraforming mars, that's retarded. It would take hundreds of thousands of years to house a billion people. With that same cash you could house literally trillions of humans in orbital colonies by the end of next century.
Generally mass colonization and terraforming are thought of as happening in parallel, with colonies starting under domes and then after hundreds of years, removing said domes.

This works nicely because naturally the more people you have on mars the easier it's going to be to terraform mars. With enough industry you'd also have industrial exhaust helping the process along a little.

>>8012154
But it's still peanuts compared to space habitats or even finding ways to increase population density on Earth.

>>8011285
The Space Shuttle actually wasn't a failure, it served it's purpose of bringing down satellites for repair. No other craft could do this. It was just not as efficient as hoped and you're right they did have their heads in the sand over it but what choice did they have? If they couldn't do the military's bidding that would be the end of their funding. SLS/Orion I say give it a chance, It's the only proper super heavy in existence (FH can only lift half).

Okay, can none of you actually address the issue of "creating" a martian atmosphere. People talk about this, but nobody is seeming to think about how impossible it actually is. The scale of such a project is unimaginable. It will never be done. Mars is a waste of time.

>>8012154
What about the lack of a magnetic field?

name one single use for manned space missions

>>8012420
The main challenge is producing enough CO2 (or other more effective gasses) to raise the planet's temperature by 4°K. If this can be achieved, there will be a runaway effect where the vast amounts of CO2 locked up in the crust and ice caps will be released, rapidly heating the planet up and raising atmospheric pressure levels.

>>8012430
Less of a problem than people think it is. The atmosphere will need to much thicker than Earth's in order to produce Earth-like atmosphere pressure, which will also serve as effective shielding. Blowoff by solar winds is incredibly slow - on a timescale of billions of years - that if humanity is capable of terraforming, replacing what's blown off will be no issue and in fact will probably be taken care of by industrial emissions.

>>8012454
>The main challenge is producing enough CO2 (or other more effective gasses) to raise the planet's temperature by 4°K. If this can be achieved, there will be a runaway effect where the vast amounts of CO2 locked up in the crust and ice caps will be released, rapidly heating the planet up and raising atmospheric pressure levels.
Forgot the other component of this: Over the following several hundred years, huge numbers of trees and other oxygen-producing plants will take up the role of converting enough of the newly-warmed atmosphere to oxygen to be breathable to us. Of course, if we've found more productive ways to produce oxygen by that point, we'll be doing that too.

>>8012420
Obviously just open a wormhole from Venus. Q.E.D.

>>8012479
>wormhole from Venus

lmao can you imagine how fucking hilarious that would be?

>be crazy Doc Brown type of guy
>win lottery, build your wormhole device
>blow all the money on just getting it as secondary payload on a SpaceX rocket
>your little probe makes a beeline for Venus, Hohmann transfer without fucks to give

>government asks wtf you're doing
>"IT'S SCIENCE MARTY!!!"
>mynameisagentjohnson.wav
>could not care less, call him Marty
>call up "Marty" every day the probe is on it's way to Venus, tell him he will see something amazing
>government gets nervous, tries to discredit you as you shitpost on twitter
>Obama wonders in a press conference how you could "fall so far"
>oh Obama... if only you knew

>probe dives into Venusian atmosphere
>suddenly a bright flash, the event horizon is briefly seen before disappearing in the clouds
>scientists around the world wonder what the fuck you've done
>suddenly somebody notices a big fucking cloud on Mars
>you decide to visit Marty this time, show up at his door
>"I told you it was some neat stuff, science fiction made real!"
>Marty doesn't care though
>suddenly you remember you're a bear and you tear off your skin and maul Marty, devouring him in a ritual to satisfy your strange gods

Would be a pretty neat day.

>>8012707
I was with you right to the end there, buddy

>>8012288
?
The military had no part in the shuttle
And you don't need a fucking spaceplane to capture a satellite
SLS does not exist yet and will lift 70 tons to falcon heavies 50 tons.
SLS will launch once every 2-3 years, Falcon Heavy will eventually launch 12+ times a year, and be fully reusable before the SLS launches twice

>>8012438
Actually doing shit in space?

>>8013027
He wants mo money foh dem programs. Not the space program though

>>8012438
Robots are terrible at doing scientific work, and slow as hell at everything. Humans have great dexterity, barely suffer from communication latency or blackouts, and can pick themselves up if they fall over.

>>8013210
that petty much doesnt matter when your in zero g in a big hard to move space suit.
And robots are getting better every day.
i want humans in space, but we have to be realistic, most of the work in space will be done by robots.
scientific,mining,building,etc..;

>>8013258
Are there any new spacesuits in the pipeline these days anyway? I've seen a few examples, but they all look pretty half-assed

>>8013258
Hard to remote control machinery if you are operating with 100000 ping & low bandwidth

>>8008106
>replacement rate is within human reach
This meme must die

Mars atmosphere needs to increase 100 x to reach 0.6 Earth atmosphere.

We will NOT be able to send all that gas up there. Nor will we be able to make the stuff on site fast enough.

>thinks we're ever going to space again

Were you born this stupid, or did it take time to develop it?

>>8013587
you do know we have a space station, right?

>>8013657
>416 km
>space

Holy shit did you pass 1st grade?

>>8014227
I don't even know what to say to this...

>>8014236
Oh my god you actually think that.....

I bet 400,000$ that your mom tried to abort you at least 3 times

>>8014227
>"what is above the Karman Line?" for 100$, Alex

>>8014445
>arbitrary line drawn at the start of the thermosphere

God damn you people are retarded.

File: 1459571165660.png (172KB, 331x384px)

172KB, 331x384px

>>8007581
there's always one.

File: hq-dar-311.jpg (66KB, 920x516px)

66KB, 920x516px

>>8007582
Why? Because you can't imagine it?

Newcomer to this discussion but this caught my eye:
>>8013587
>>8014227
>>8014242
>I bet 400,000$
For one, the dollar sign? That goes in front you dumb son of a bitch. Had you passed the 1st grade you would have known this.
For two, literally everyone in the scientific and engineering communities who aren't fucking retards would disagree with you.
For three, you don't have that amount of money. I'm not even convinced you've ever held four hundred dollars in your hand, dropouts and dumbasses don't make much money. (why four hundred thousand anyway? Since you're clearly on the spectrum I'm sure there's a specific reason for that amount)

>>8014470
>>arbitrary line drawn at the start of the thermosphere
Oh and the Karman Line is recognized by everyone who matters as "the edge" of "space." Those same people know that any true boundary is really difficult to define anyway, otherwise everyone would be making up some retarded declaration of where our atmosphere ends; hence the fucking reason why the FAI even decided to go with it.

You're that one kid sitting in the corner claiming everyone else is stupid when they ostracize you for saying dumb things. It's not them, it's you. You're the one with the problem.

File: marz flyer 3d prototype.png (98KB, 717x317px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 717x317px

My friends and I are actually trying to further the study on Mars by making testing a Mars flyer. We hope these change help ease the burden of space exploration so that distant planets may become more accessible to study.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1924455647/ub-marz-flyer

>>8014651
I think he might be pretending to be retarded though.
However, I used to think that the people on Jersey Shore pretended, so my judgement might not be 10/10 on those cases

>>8015193
Are you the grill?