Can we please discuss why the Soviets (at the time) have pictures

>>8104704
Because the soviets made an effort to land probes on venus after accidentally doing it once, while NASA made an effort to land literally everywhere else

File: venera13.jpg (90KB, 576x392px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 576x392px

>>8104704
the most reasonable answer would be costs: the Venera landers only survived a very brief time on the surface to send back a few pictures. The hazardous pressure down there is probably going to brake today's equipment as well. So the costs do not justify the means. Also, Mars is much more interesting from a long-term perspective. What are we going to do with Venus? Attempt to land Mark Whatey there?

But I agree that this one pic we have from Venus is making me quite emotional. In my view, having been to Venus and having actual surface footage tops anything on Mars today. But perhaps that's just my feelings for Venus.

>>8104704
Weak Western robots are too homosexual to land on Venus

File: Screen Shot 2016-05-28 at 04.51.01.jpg (413KB, 981x989px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 981x989px

If you think about it, it's really fucking impressive to have pictures from the surface of Venus in 1975. I think the Soviets don't get enough recognition for this achievement.

>>8104907
/thread

>>8104907
>>8105233
you're faggots (in a bad sense)
i lived there and i don't recomment that shit to anyone

>>8105226
to be fair, the soviet space program doesn't get enough credit for most of their (absolutely mindblowing) accomplishments. At least in the US. We put a man on the moon, but we wouldn't have if the USSR hadn't already beat us to the punch on so many other milestones.

>>8105258
>i lived there
you can't handle the real world, got it chief

>>8104704

Simply put: Venus is hell. Namely, the high pressure and temperature on the surface means a shorter life for landers and rovers. This means less science value per dollar. Also, looking broadly Mars is a much more accessible destination for potential manned missions since the surface is more forgiving.

Same applies to Mercury, the main issue is that at high temperature materials loose a lot of their strength. In order to get around this you'd have to use more heat-resistant materials (such as steel, ceramics, or concrete) but this also makes the vehicle heavier and more fragile, a problem given that it has to be launched into LEO then landed on Venus.

>>8104907
>Liberalism
>Implying that America isn't communism under the guise of liberalism

It's like you've not heard of the Federal Reserve or John Maynard Keynes

>>8105995
Yes they using planned economy because classic free market is dead long ago. But all wealth is shared unequally between the small group of jews who own everything. Research and science not proper funded necause it's not profitable

>>8106019
>not profitable
Nothing under government control is profitable. Just look at Amtrak vs. Conrail. Both nationalized in the '70s and started sucking down money. During the '87 crisis the government miraculously sold off Conrail to private sectors. Now? Conrail is successful and pulling a profit. Amtrak? Well that is still nationalized and as we know, is still sucking down money.


If space were truly privatized and not just run into the ground by government, we would be mining everything in sight for resources.

You honestly believe we wouldn't just start hauling in iron asteroids, refining and building shit? It'd be cheap as fuck once established, seeing as there is no longer a need to get resources off Earth.

The potential is boundless, but so is competition. And why have that when everyone can just be your slaves.

File: 80924hjt809h340t2.png (70KB, 244x200px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 244x200px

>>8105563
This

>4th grade american history book
>has a section talking about the space race
>mentions the soviets beat us at first object in space, first man in space, and first lunar pass
>chapter ends talking about the first man on the moon
>"thus, the U.S. won the space race"

>>8105984
>>8105199
>manned missions

This is what's wrong with NASA's planetary science program. Instead of pursuing the best science cases money is funneled into Mars because to the dream that one day idea of sending astronauts. It's apparently important to look like you're working towards that despite the fact that many of these missions add nothing to a manned spaceflight attempt.

>>8106081

>the best science

Science is expensive, and regardless of manned flights there's more data value in Mars since Martian landers/rovers/etc last longer. The value per dollar is greater so that is NASA's aim. Also if we're talking about pure science value, Venus is #3 to Titan and Europa.

Though, even then manned missions would remain the goal since they have the maximum science value. Being able to have a staffed laboratory on another planet is a big deal.

>>8106094
>Science is expensive, and regardless of manned flights there's more data value in Mars since Martian landers/rovers/etc last longer.

No. Data does not equal science. There is demising return. If science was purely a function of data missions would never be switched off, but they are because eventually they aren't telling you anything that's worth the cost.

Secondly planetary science is not just about landers, it's mostly orbiters. Venus isn't particularly hostile to orbiters.

>if we're talking about pure science value

That depends on the scope of the opportunity and the proposals. You cannot plan an outer solar system mission and a midex budget.

>Though, even then manned missions would remain the goal since they have the maximum science value.

But at what cost? It's fine to claim that astronauts can do more but if it costs 100 times more and produces quite little where does that leave you?

>>8106099
>>8105784

>>>/x/

>>8105784
Have the Apollo astronauts experienced any long term effects from the radiation when they went through the Van Allen belts?

>>8105224
this

File: C_Zond07_9.jpg (166KB, 937x883px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 937x883px

>tfw you realize that moon natural color is brown

>>8105226
>>8105563
>Visit mum
>Discover 1980's encyclopaedias in the cupboard
>Read the section on space travel
>It's all about the Americans.
I know World Book is an American company but damn, how do you justify not even one picture of a Soviet rocket or probe?

>>8106057
Americans just suck at government control. Everybody here loved our equivalent of Amtrak, British Rail.

>>8106081
NASA rovers have found water on Mars. this alone shows that they have been invaluable to future manned mission plans.

>>8106099
NASA BTFO

>>8104704
800 fucking degrees

>>8106146
>NASA rovers have found water on Mars.

No they haven't. RSL came from MRO which is an orbiter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5N2eLICRdk

File: Huygens_Titan_surface_color_sr.jpg (60KB, 252x504px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 252x504px

Technically, ESA holds the trophy for extraterrestrial landings with Huygens and Philae.

>>8106208
god, why didn't they put a camera on philae

File: Welcome_to_a_comet.jpg (1MB, 2730x1596px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2730x1596px

>>8106222
but they did, anon

>>8106229
oh. too bad they landed in a virtual cave.

File: rosetta.webm (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>8106229
The shots from Rosetta were fantastic too

File: venera7.jpg (57KB, 525x392px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 525x392px

>>8105226
>>8105563
>>8106059
Also first soft landing on another planet, first atmospheric entry on another planet, and that was just Venera 7!

>>8105995
it's like you understand nothing about corporate rights, structures, or the stock market

in no way does america resemble communism...

File: PCAML-C-005_SCI_N_20140113190450_0008_A_2C.png (2MB, 1200x882px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1200x882px

>>8106137
China moon-landing photos

File: AS11-40-5886HR-1100.jpg (872KB, 1100x1111px) Image search: [Google]

872KB, 1100x1111px

>>8106291
And the Apollo film stage. Wow, i like that dramatic light filtering. What planet is this? Krypton or Nibiru maybe?

>>8105563
To be fair, the moon landing was faked. Stanley Kubrick filmed and directed it. Unfortunately the production exceeded its allotted budget. Due to Kubrick's notorius perfectionism forcing them to film on location.

>>8106299
>>8106291
there is like 4 decades or camera development between those pictures.

also china's first space station was a big failure.

>>8106144
I'm sure you can't wait to get into the EU

File: Chang'e-3_lunar_landing_site.jpg (568KB, 1536x1245px) Image search: [Google]

568KB, 1536x1245px

>>8106291
Colors look different on different cameras/film.

Also Chang'e 3 landed at a higher latitude than any of the Apollo missions. Surrounded by lunar mare.

>>8104704
Because only Russian scenographers can survive being drunk enough to produce a realistic photography of the surface of Venus.

File: Screen Shot 2016-05-28 at 20.14.23.jpg (296KB, 591x1619px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 591x1619px

It always makes me angry when people refer to the space race and its winner and put all their nationalism into their one-sided argument. I don't think anyone won the space race. Both achieved miracles but were also dependent on things learned from explorations in the past, both US and Soviet.

We should be thankful to both, for the cold war led the development of many of the current technologies we value today. In many respects, I wish there would be a new cold war (regardless between what nations) because this type of competition is what truly drives technological progress. JFK didn't initiate the Apollo program because its cool, he did it out of pure pressure by the Soviets, who were by far outperforming at that time. Politicians and the public is lazy without the right incentives.

As for the space race: it boils down to whether one prefers quantity before quality or vice versa. Many of the big miracles of being "first" were achieved by the Soviets, they made countless achievements for humanity while the US was jerking off to spy satellites. In the end of course they masterfully won the "moon race" which should be considered a sub-category of the space-race, but not the finish line of the whole space quest. It is highly debatable to say whether this major achievement outperforms so many others on the Soviet side. I prefer to think of both having contributed their fair share to humanity.

Of course since then, NASA has leaped forwards and that is good. I wish NASA and SpaceX all the best. I am a true fan of them.

>>8104704
> usa goes to mars to eat candy bars
> russia goes to Venus to show off big penis

>>8106375
>space race
What race. USSR simply do science and didn't a fuck. It's USA who acts like "CHALLENGE ACCEPTED" and constantly being assholes.

>>8106440
Do you seriously not recognize that this dick waving on both sides was about projecting military might?

File: venus rover2.jpg (45KB, 601x401px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 601x401px

>>8104704
it is difficult to do much more than what the Venera probes did without really pushing things.

>>8105984
>>8105199
pressure is no problem, heck even the sulfuric acid clouds aren't much of a problem. Venus surface pressure is 92.10 bar, we have been making pressure vessels that can contain this for years, a standard scuba tank contains 207 bar. At the surface the concentration of sulfuric acid is basically nil.

The real issue is temperature, it is so hot that conventional silicon based electronics break. For this we need special electronics that use silicon carbide as a semiconductor and cooling if we want something that's not dumber than eniac. Silicon carbide should work just fine at Venusian temperatures, but it is challenging to make silicon carbide ICs. Even then you are pretty limited, you gotta use big transistors(microns!) so you don't get low operating frequencies and can't use much. Not to mention that the TRL of silicon carbide electronics is still pretty low.

So if you want something that can actually computer, you need to cool it. Cooling requires power and the only way we could get enough power to practically power it is with plutonium, which NASA doesn't have much of. Oh and to get enough cooling you need a special stirling cooling system based off of NASA's advanced stirling radisotope generator(ASRG), which is not expected to be flight ready until 2028 due to funding issues. Pic related, a plutonium powered rover, which we probably won't be able to build until >2028.

This brings us to the next issue of power. Because Venus is covered in clouds, solar cells are shit on the surface, because venus is hot RTGs generate a lot less power, because NASA doesn't have that much money we can't use better tech to generate more power from radioisotopes.

>>8106450

i thought they found recently the poles are way colder than they expected, 140k

File: 20160407181610-elon-musk-tesla-spacex[1].jpg (543KB, 1300x867px) Image search: [Google]

543KB, 1300x867px

Private industry will be the first to bring back Mars rocks.

>>8106440
well it was a race for being "first", ideologically driven by both US and USSR.

What I will agree on however, is that after the USSR fell apart, western media repeatedly shaped and continues to shape biased information about that time. There should definitely be more appreciation for the Soviet programs. I guess its part of western propaganda, much like Soviet propaganda would have downplayed any US achievements.

In my mind this type of winner-takes-it-all mentality and the overall bias is pretty disgusting, but as we all know - the winner writes history. I bet most americans have never in their life seen a decent documentary about Yuri Gagarin's flight to space despite it being such a significant event in history - yet, they have seen far more than enough about the moon landing. It is just the way things are, unfortunately.

>>8106458
Considering that material from Mars will be far more valuable than diamonds here on earth, I can imagine that rich people will pay horrendous amounts of money for a little rock. Who knows, perhaps this really is Musk's secret plan, if you drive down the cost for bringing back Mars rocks then your profit could be huge.

File: soviet pennat sphere.jpg (409KB, 2736x2614px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 2736x2614px

>>8106440
Nah man, the USSR did a bunch of dick-waving too. Take Luna 1-2, the whole purpose of the mission was pretty much just to hit the Moon. They did carry some science instruments along, but also a sphere of soviet pennants with an explosive in the middle designed to scatter said pennants on the surface of the moon. This was mainly to be the first object on the moon and had little science value.

>>8106472
I think Musk should mail a Martian rock to Branson(Virgin Galactic) and Bezo(Blue Origin).

>>8106488
didn't know about that. Thank you for the info.

>>8105199
>. So the costs do not justify the means.
This has never been the reason we landed on mars.

>>8106455
hahahaha no, because the atmosphere mixes so much that pretty much can't happen. But hey in some places it might be cold enough for lead 'snow'

The correct answer is "because most people realized there's not really a point". You are not going to Venus, in any more likely fashion you are going to Jupiter. It's fucking retarded to spend resources investigating more of something of which you're already well aware and have no propensity of colonizing or otherwise exploiting.

The pressure on the surface of Venus is so immense compared to earth, were a rover to be moving 4kph (presuming you could power it to do so), a collision would be as a mack truck moving well over 70kph.

>>8106169
Ok but it still debunks your claim that NASA's focus on Mars has been unhelpful to a manned mission there.

>>8106208
Venus has a hellish atmosphere, what's ESA's excuse for returning only one grainy UFO-tier photograph?

>>8106532
I believe the actual craft that landed on the comet malfunctioned. I don't recall what it was but either it didn't had a stable grip after landing or solar panels didn't deploy.

>>8106527
How does this math work?

>>8106530
NASA has made an official declaration their primary focus now is specifically and definitely toward the purpose of a manned mission to Mars in the mid 2030s. Provided relatively few setbacks, it's a very real plan.

>>8106535
>in the mid 2030s.
I hope the Chinese apply some serious space-race pressure so that NASA gets more funding like in the good old days.

>>8106534
It's still sending back data. It did bounce because the surface was nowhere near as substantive as they'd hoped and it landed partially in the shadow of a small cliff, so the solar panels are not completely exposed toward the sun. It's still a great accomplishment, something of which to be proud. This, from a USA person.

>>8106541
thank you for the info, I forgot what it was. It is indeed a great accomplishment

>>8106535
The amount of force required just to move is exponential, so the inertia is mind blowing.

>>8106099
so let me get this straight

they faked the mars landings, they made a fake mars rover, and they stuck it...outside? Where there are, you know, birds and wandering bands of hikers?

They set up a multi-billion dollar hoax and left it being revealed up to the whims of local fauna?

Am I missing something here?

>>8106491
Oh my god, yes. He should have them carved into images of his laughing face.

>>8106547
There are pics like that all the time. It's natural for people to top-down make images in their minds of things, like faces or animals in clouds. They're just rocks.

>>8106553
The point I was making is how mind-bogglingly stupid this idea is,and yeah,it's a fucking rock.

WHY would we even bother faking shit? Do these people not understand how utterly humiliating it would be if it was ever revealed? Literally one person with a shitty pen camera could bring hundreds of high end NASA people into national disgrace if they were faking this shit.

We JUST BARELY kept the Manhattan Project a secret, and that had everyone united in their resolve to beat the Axis powers to the bomb, a very serious problem. What's the compulsion here? How would you keep TENS OF THOUSANDS of people in the dark and never fuck up?

>>8106057
>If space were truly privatized and not just run into the ground by government, we would be mining everything in sight for resources.

>You honestly believe we wouldn't just start hauling in iron asteroids, refining and building shit? It'd be cheap as fuck once established, seeing as there is no longer a need to get resources off Earth.

>The potential is boundless, but so is competition. And why have that when everyone can just be your slaves.

I want pop/sci/ to go. Space can't just become magically accessible because of capitalism and privatization. Stop drinking the kool aid that the rich are pouring down your throat.

>>8106450
>Heat
Why don't we just put the electronics in a Thermos flask?

>>8106532
That's not Venus, it's Titan.

>>8106556
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

>>8106472
moon rock is considered priceless. Mars rock would be the same.

>>8106450
>The real issue is temperature

Temperature is an issue, but the real issue is pressure. There's more pressure on the surface of Venus than the bottom of the Marianas Trench and micro-fractures in the material of the electronics would cause the device to fail.

>>8106591
you're very wrong about pressure, pressure at venus srfc is 90 atm vs ~1000 atm at challenger deep

>>8106593
it's 93mpa on venus surface, according to sources we can cite, which is about 13,500psi.

I just read up on the Marianas Trench and it says 15.7k psi, so I guess my information was old, my bad.

They're comparable.

>>8106556
I take i you've never talked to someone from /x/? The amount of stupid shit they'll believe is mindblowing.

>>8106573
Exactly, so what's their excuse for only returning one shit photo?

>>8106610
What a massive disappointment /x/ turned out to be. I remember first visiting it, expecting down to Earth conspiracy theories and research into police/government files to form plausible answers. What I got instead was reptilians and devil/angel worshipping. Just fuck my shit up.

>>8106272
>in no way does america resemble communism...

It's almost to the point where it resembles communism more than free-enterprise capitalism, kid.

>>8106604
>psi

>>8106455
You might be thinking of Mercury.

>>8106616
That's why I've been trying to move my UFO discussions to /sci/ to no avail. Aliens visiting earth at least once is plausible, fucking reptilians are not.

>>8106620
No he means Venus. An orbiter found the upper atmosphere of Venus at the poles was cold. Newspapers took it and hyped it into "the Venusian surface is habitable"

>>8106619
well, he cited 90 to 1000, it's 930bar to around 1000bar. is that better.

>>8106618
I guess if it's the kind of communism where large corporations basically run everything, buy all politicians, and make all the laws to benefit themselves..

Then yeah, I guess I could see how america is totally communistic these days.

File: hqdefault.jpg (23KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 480x360px

So is there any way that Elon Musk will open up a branch in SpaceX concerned with Lunar Mining? I mean their know-how and rocket technology gets more and more sophisticated and costs are reducing. If you can eventually sell Lunar rock for more money than the cost of obtaining it, it is a viable business decision. With all the reusability of rockets and advanced in rocketry perhaps that viable soon?

File: Venera_9_-_Venera_10_-_venera9-10.jpg (108KB, 980x486px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 980x486px

>>8106615
Titan is a lot further away and parachutes aren't as effective there.

The Venera probes were much larger, there were several of them, and their photos weren't much better than Huygens'.

>>8106626
>"the Venusian surface is habitable"
conclusion, dinosaurs
"I can't see a thing on the surface of Venus. Why not? Because it's covered with a dense layer of clouds. Well, what are clouds made of? Water, of course. Therefore, Venus must have an awful lot of water on it. Therefore, the surface must be wet. Well, if the surface is wet, it's probably a swamp. If there's a swamp, there's ferns. If there's ferns, maybe there's even dinosaurs."

>>8106635
That means nothing good for you, anon

File: Zephyr-1.png (465KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

465KB, 720x540px

>>8106591
>>micro-fractures in the material of the electronics would cause the device to fail.
the fuck is pressure supposed to cause microfractures in electronics? Solid fucking silicon does not spontaneously fracture under uniform compressive loading.

Here's a fun fact for you, the Trieste, a submarine which visited challenger deep, used regular quartz arc lamps for illumination. They were capable of withstanding the pressure without any modifications. A glass tube withstood pressure at the bottom of the ocean.

>>8106559
That will only prolong the inevitable. For the venus rover above, electronics have to be put in a thermos


As it turns out, wind power is actually an option on venus. You can't generate enough to keep stuff cool with out a really big turbine, but you can generate decent enough amounts for science. It is not that windy on venus, but because the atmosphere is so dense you can get reasonable amounts of power.

NASA is currently investigating pic related. You build a landsail. It uses some big high temperature gallium nitride solar cells for power and a big sail to move.

The design calls for all silicon carbide electronics. The thing is basically a glorified RC car and relies on a satellite for control.

will post more on venus later.

>>8106641
Mainstream science actually believed this a hundred years ago.

>>8106635
who the fuck will buy lunar rock?

>>8106652
are you joking? Rich people will pay millions for rocks from the moon or mars to have them as status symbols. I certainly would if I would have the money

>>8106635
I think Musk is more focused on Mars. SpaceX is already planning on sending an Red Dragon to Mars in 2018.

It's actually easier to land a Dragon v2 on Mars than the Moon, because of the atmosphere.

>>8106659
but I would do it out of fascination, to touch it and carry it around like the ring in Lord of the Rings. Will remind me that this little thing has been out there in the vastness of space.

>>8106659
That's only because they're rare. Every rock you bring back diminishes their value.

>>8106660
really? Does the atmosphere serve as an airbreak?

>>8106659
There's a name for this sort of market, bitcoin was similar, bubble maybe? Anyway it's not something that has inherent value like the utility of oil or the attractiveness of gold, moon rocks are valuable purely because of their scarcity. More moon rocks will drop the price drastically because there is no other reason to have a moon rock beyond "tim doesn't have one"

File: Command_Module_Aerodynamics.png (51KB, 455x309px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 455x309px

>>8106668
Yes, and the capsule actually produces lift, so by offsetting the center-of-mass and rolling the capsule, you can steer it through the atmosphere.

Apollo used the same method to steer to it's landing site.

>>8106670
yes of course there is diminishing profit, but perhaps the initial markup prices are huge that you can charge before the price drops to the market equilibrium, which would be equal to the marginal costs of obtaining another rock. So perhaps do it for 5 years until all the rich people have one - no need to make a retail business out of it.

>>8106668
The atmosphere is far less dense and it's quite the opposite of an airbreak. I have no clue why that person typed it would be "easier to land on Mars". It would actually require substantially more force for deceleration per mass.

>>8106684
Mars' atmosphere is thin, but it's still more useful than none.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dragon_(spacecraft)#Landing_system

>>8106691
To simplify it, thrust isn't "pushing against" 1/10 of atmosphere as you approach the surface...

>>8104704
Didn't one of the Venera landers camera lens caps land exactly where the soil sample probe was to take readings?
What a kick in the teeth.

>>8106680
It's a rip-off though. You spend a million pounds on moon rocks and after 10 years it's worth pennies a kilogram. Exactly what Bitcoin did. If Musk pulled that he could end up going the way of Bernie Madoff.

>>8106700
It's not that Mars is always easier to land on than the Moon. It's that the specific design of the Dragon V2 capsule makes a Mars landing easier than a moon landing.

>>8106709
it's solely based on supply and demand. it's the price of exclusivity, not a rip-off. Everyone knows it will decrease in value if supply increases.

>>8106716
never thought about that. But it does all make sense now. Musk was planning ahead all this time.

>>8106670
So put De Beers in charge of marketing them and controlling the supply. Shape and polish the moon rocks into a gemstone, then turn them into a status symbol. Make a shitton of money, it's not like diamonds are actually rare.

>>8106716
It's actually easier to land on Earth's moon because of negligible atmospheric drag.

>>8106684
>The atmosphere is far less dense
At the surface, yes. But the majority of an Earth reentry occurs in the thin upper atmosphere, not at the surface. Mars' atmosphere is plenty thick enough to be useful.

>>8106718
And in this case supply is sure to increase. Buying moon rocks is a total waste of money.

>>8106719
>"Not only should we create a speculative bubble we should put the Jews in charge of it"

>>8106732
Landing on the moon isn't so hard because you have "all day" to putz around with your trajectory and position yourself in a relative fashion to the moon surface.

For Mars, it's not so simple. If your trajectory is so broad, you'll skip right off, like a spun flat stone over a pond. The appropriate trajectory for re-entry is direct, and then, unlike earth, the force of your vehicle's thrust is pushing upon far less atmosphere, requiring a multiplicative amount of thrust to slow down a given amount of mass, or you'll just plummet.

>>8106262
>first soft landing on another planet

To be fair they cheated a bit by using Venus. It's practically impossible to do a hard landing there.

>>8106738
>all day
>what is fuel?

>>8106511
?
easier to go to venus than to mars

>>8106743
You don't just sit there with your finger on the trigger. You make small corrections after calibrations and this happens over a period of hours. When I say "all day" I mean plenty of time.

>>8106733
really depends on how fast supply increases. Everyone has a different willingness to pay. If your moon rock will lose half its value in about 10 years, then there would likely still be people buying it now because its worth it for them. Also, many would do it out of fascination, to have something from "up there", not everyone will treat it as an investment. I continue to think there will be a huge market for moon rocks.

>>8106744
It's not easier to go to Venus, you'd need a craft that didn't compress under pressure close to that of the Marianas trench (see discussion above), and that requires more fuel that it's worth to just get there and sit. Then you're never getting off the stupid planet with any amount of fuel that you were capable of bringing, unless you have some new quantum drive.

>>8106716

The dragon capsule is designed to land on any body(also anybody) in the solar system apparently. But one has to carry more propellant for landing in a vacuum.

Landing on Mars also generates more hype.
>>8106720
And how does no atmospheric drag make it easier to land? No drag means no parachutes.

The delta V cost to land can be lower. The MERs were set on a mars intercept course and braked using just the atmosphere and bouncing around. Although a small amount of delta V was used to make sure the parachute and what not landed away from the rover

>>8106272
America completely resembles communism:

>Leftists stuffing ballot boxes with illegal immigrant votes.

>Letting illegal immigrants give birth to automatic-american-citizen babies and therefore future democrats

>Gay marriage being decided by a federal court even though marriage licenses are and always have been issued at the state level

>A common core paradigm where math homework is no longer graded on "correctness" but rather "if it looks like you tried".

Yeah you can buy a chocolate bar and watch your leftist-approved propaganda box funded by corporate ads, but its barely a mask over the Marxist brain rot in every position of influence.


Don't believe me and you're a science geek? Note how NASA's stated mission now is no longer space exploration but to encourage "diversity in science" where diversity means "no white-straight-males". http://odeo.hq.nasa.gov/documents/Diversity_Inclusion_Policy_Statement.pdf

>>8106754
Because as I said above, you can modify your trajectory in gradual corrections to match the moon's rotation, presuming you accounted for it ahead of time and set your craft in motion to an appropriate relative velocity.

File: Venera-lander.jpg (45KB, 432x432px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 432x432px

>>8106704

It did, and the OP's image is of that very situation. The penetrator there is resting on the cap.

>>8106559
Because the would heat up the inside of the flask until they melted

File: mars_pew_pew.jpg (77KB, 1024x781px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 1024x781px

I would really like a serious attempt at a Venus surface lander. It's difficult, but not impossible, and I would expect all kinds of interesting inventions to come from trying to design something to cope with those conditions.

To be fair, I'll be happy with anything that's not another Mars lander. We've put enough stuff down there already.

>>8106754
Also, I guess I neglected to mention, parachutes are going to do approximately jack dick for a manned vehicle to land on Mars. You couldn't possibly account for the mass of a large enough parachute, as cargo, to make enough difference for a multiple ton craft in such a lean atmosphere. The "bigger" the chute, the "heavier" the payload and you're making a worse problem. Eventually you'd need a parachute miles across.

>>8106747
Neil Armstrong himself said that he had 7 seconds of fuel left when he landed.
>>8106748
Well there is because nobody knows economics but that still doesn't stop it from being a scam. The only person to profit in the long run would be Musk.
>>8106753
Why don't we build a prison on Venus using pressure vessels or something? The problem with Mars is that someone can sneak them a rocket, with Venus there is no way a rocket is getting through that atmosphere and even if it could it would need to be Saturn V tier due to the 90% Earth gravity. I honestly think prison planets are the future. No guards needed, just drop food every so often.

>>8106760
So basically if the American government does anything that you disagree with it's "communism"?

>>8106799
>Why don't we build a prison on Venus using pressure vessels or something?

Why don't we just put them at the bottom of the sea? We didn't spend all the fuel to get them there.

>Neil Armstrong himself said that he had 7 seconds of fuel left when he landed.

And there were lunar missions that were scrubbed sans landing because someone had the math bad. It happens. People make mistakes.

>>8106306
top kek

>>8106059
The US won the space race because the Soviet Union collapsed without topping the cultural impact of a manned lunar mission.

>>8106817
you have to differentiate between the race to space and the moon race. Last was won by the US while the first was won by USSR. It is not clearly defined what the "space race" exactly is, when it started and when it ended. Any definition is imposed by the west and naturally "biased" in that it sets the moon as the finish line. Also see: >>8106375

>>8106817
I think the US "won" because USSR didn't have the resources for a functional, reusable maintenance platform that was the shuttle program. Landing on the moon was nifty and showy, but there were comparable, or better, USSR accomplishments (firsts) in orbit.

>>8106736
>Jews aren't in charge of everything already

>>8106803
Someone can just break them out with a bathyscape
>>8106826
ahahah fucking americans
>"we didn't lose vietnam, define war"
>"we didn't lose the space race, define race"

>>8106530
No, read what I said. " many of these missions add nothing to a manned spaceflight attempt". Which still stands. MRO does have utility for a manned landing for high resolution imaging to select landing sites. That doesn't mean all of them do.

>>8106796
That's why Red Dragon isn't using parachutes. It's still going to rely on aerobraking to slow it down enough for the SuperDracos to finish the job though.

>>8106923
And it is going to crash. What is your point?

>>8106113

in case it isn't obvious a huge amount of data can be found by landers that can't be found by orbiters (namely, precise soil and atmospheric data)

>>8106660
I expect him to be forced into lunar/asteroid mining before going to mars
Whats the point of mars after all? Its not like its actually suitable for colonization without importing literally everything you need to live

>>8106950
It is obvious, you've missed the point completely however. These missions aren't being selected because the data has the greatest scientific merit, they're being selected because of the push to Mars.

>>8106800
When it does shit based on marxist agendas, like disolving borders/nations/countries through mass immigration
yea its communism

>>8105199
>What are we going to do with Venus?
Take the carbon dioxide from it's atmosphere and put it on mars to make both planets habitable.

>>8106983
Yeah if there's one thing communist countries are known for it's freedom of movement across borders.

>>8106988
Western communism is not russian/chinese communism
The west won't willingly go communist, so they need to import foreigners to "achieve" it

>>8107000
Good thing this is all a fantasy that exists only in your mind and that of your fellow degenerate /pol/tards, rather than something that's actually being furthered by any politician.

>>8107006
Yea because America isn't a 60% white country today, and Bernie Sanders isn't going to be the democrat nominee, right?

>>8106983
There's no marxist agenda, USA is actually quite tough on immigration it's just hard for even the world's most powerful country to stem the sheer tide of people pouring in from an entire continent (South America). Merica is really tough on the poor with less welfare and sky-high university fees. Come to the UK and you will stop bitching about how "liberal" your country is. Here our borders are virtually controlled by Germany and anyone who shows up here from Syria gets instant welfare and a house. Does that happen in America? No hence why the Mexicans are all working illegaly.

There is no "marxist plot" it is simply a case of extremely rich countries being near extremely poor countries. What you think immigration is a new thing? 1960s Cuban refugees, 1990s Bosnian refugees. Same old problem, same old complaints. So stop your /pol/ bullshit about "everything was rosy until Jews took over the government 10 years ago and now everything is awful"

>>8107061
>USA is actually quite tough on immigration
Unless it's the illegal variety, that is.

>>8106987
underrated. If only it could be done.

How the hell is this communism discussion still going on in this thread about space and venus? Literally wtf?

>>8107142
Communism was literally the only reason why we have that picture of Venus

>>8107061
>USA is actually quite tough on immigration
Doesn't matter how tough or easy it is, millions arrive every year, and hundreds of thousands of children are born to illegals/foreigners every year

>it's just hard for even the world's most powerful country to stem the sheer tide of people pouring in from an entire continent
What the fuck is this supposed to mean? Every legal immigrant is individually approved
And the border control is not allowed to do their job to keep illegals out

Nothing forces your leftist government to give free shit to migrants, don't blame Germany for that, Cameron is a progressive who thinks whites need to be genocided & England must become "diverse"

Where do you believe these anti-white agendas come from, except marxism? Marxism was invented in the west, and the ideology is still going strong.

File: wall_coronado_by_matt_clark.jpg (93KB, 450x600px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 450x600px

>>8107175
>And the border control is not allowed to do their job to keep illegals out
Go home Donald, yer drunk.

Most illegals enter legally, and overstay their work visa.
And we already have a wall, thanks, but it's completely ineffective.
AND we've seriously upgraded the border patrol under Obama.
Nobody's tying their hands.
If you want to blame somebody, blame the people who hire illegals.
The "investment class" hire domestic servants, construction contractors hire laborers.
Oh, wait, most of those people vote Republican, it can't be their fault.
Blame the evil leftists that won't turn the U.S. into a Nazi police state.

>Where do you believe these anti-white agendas come from, except marxism?
>all the thing's I'm politically opposed to must be related.

>>8107175
>Cameron is a progressive
>marxism
>anti-white agenda
>this whole post

I swear I'll keep an open mind from now on when it comes to /pol/ posts. I thought I had seen everything with Bernie and the US being "communist", but apparently I was wrong.

>>8107183
Legislation has been proposed to stop people from hiring illegals and Obama has said he would veto it.

File: 7iIlEt5.jpg (26KB, 720x463px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 720x463px

>>8107196
Oh, then you must be completely right on all counts, and I'm sure there wasn't anything else that relates to this issue.

Wait a minute... it's already illegal to hire illegals.
Nice try Donald!

>>8104704
It is because of inherent weakness of your decadent western democracies, comrade. You lack the will and conviction necessary.

>>8107207
Employers are not required to check to see if the person they are hiring is legal or not, and if they hire someone that is illegal they get off without any problems if they say they didn't know they were illegal. The specific legislation I'm talking about would require employers to check to see if who they are is legal or not.

>>8106156
Fahrenheit, its no big deal at all. Materials that can last 1000 hours at 1500 F are common.

>>8106626

https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/venus-express-unveils-surprising-polar-atmosphere

Well is it even worth entertaining the idea that if the Venusian pole's lower thermosphere is 70k lower than expected, perhaps the polar surface isn't as inhospitably hot as we thought?

>>8107211
>Employers are not required to check to see if the person they are hiring is legal or not,
You can't hire someone without paying their Social Security matching.
So hiring illegals more or less requires you to commit tax fraud.

>>8107211
>Employers are not required to check to see if the person they are hiring is legal or not,

https://www.google.com/#q=i9

Why are so many illegals employed if it's illegal to hire them?

>>8107239
OH WOW, 392 C, that makes a difference of fuck all. It's still hot enough to boil your blood and cause computer chips not to function.

You might be slightly better off on Venus' tallest mountain which might reach a frigid 385 C.

>>8107267
The pressure is 1300 psi too.

>>8107211

So another cost to the employer, and another industry created by regulation all to pretend to solve a problem that will entrench another lobbyist that will fight when there is no net effect on employment because there never was a problem to begin with and we try to get the law reversed.

This is what happened with drug testing and background checks for a whole host of jobs and now they find there is no change in either the safety or the criminal activity in any of the industries that demand these checks.

'Shit! AAA just came out with a study showing drug testing for THC levels have no effect on accidents whatsoever. Just try to get the $200B drug testing industry to eat that and change!

>>8107211

Push the minimum wage to $20 per hour and there will be no reason to hire anyone over anyone else for anything but their skill. Take the money out of the manager's pocket and your managers will find a way to boost productivity by hiring qualified hard working people, or they won't get any money themselves.
The problem with capitalism is it doesn't work. It sacrifices the physical benefit of collective action for winning the zero-sum game of dividing up the profit. Seeking profit means managers make profit decisions, not productivity decisions.
A high minimum wage discourages the theft and the organizing to exploit, and encourages the hiring of long standing employees, not transient illegals.

>>8106488
>This was mainly to be the first object on the moon and had little science value.

Surely landing on a foreign body for the first time has some value?

>>8107278
There isn't a problem with illegals?
>>8107292
If there were a bunch of highly skilled people around worth $20 an hour they would already be employed. Push the minimum wage up, people who aren't worth it get cut, and magic super productive employees don't appear out of thin air, and all the parts of the economy that depend on low wage workers collapse.

>>8106776
>Neptune
>being depressed
Well it should be. Being a gas giant will make sure, that it'll neve have the little vroom-vrooms to play with.

Also what is that moon next to Europa? Titan?

File: f7004a1aadbc38473f6534ae711.jpg (789KB, 1067x942px) Image search: [Google]

789KB, 1067x942px

>>8104704
>>8105563
obligatory

File: Stare.gif (33KB, 300x226px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 300x226px

>>8106764

That's an alien bro.

File: AREE.png (357KB, 744x540px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 744x540px

>>8107602
The USA contributed to the development of integrated circuits and software engineering with the Moon landings. Things that are still in use today.

But who the fuck cares? The cold war is over. Both the USSR and USA did some pretty cool shit.

>>8106647
now getting back to Venus. One way to make a rover that can survive Venus is to not use any electronics, that is you have a rover full of clockwork and mechanical parts. NASA Insitute for Advanced Concepts has a study on exactly this investigating whether mechanical automata are viable for missions to extreme environments. pic related is the proposed Automaton Rover for Extreme Environments. The cool thing about being completely mechanical is that stuff can operate at very high temperatures and pressures. As long as it doesn't melt or soften it will still work.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/automaton-rover-for-extreme-environments-aree

>>8107595
Which brings us to Neptune. One of the proposed applications of automata is exploring the hot, high temperature interiors of gas giants like Neptune. With refractory metals and ceramics we might be able to make stuff that can reach neptune's surface and survive. If we make the probe out of solid diamond, we can send stuff very deep into neptune.

Neptune might not get vroom-vrooms, but it might get tick-tocks

File: 1457116822044.jpg (36KB, 540x549px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 540x549px

>>8107476
"I don't understand economics", the post.

This is almost the same as last election year, when fiscals conservatives insisted that raising taxes would result in business downsizing to compensate.

>If there were a bunch of highly skilled people around worth $20 an hour they would already be employed.
In a sense, people are worth what you pay them.
In fact, since the supply of labor always exceeds demand, market forces will always undervalue labor.
That's why we have a minimum wage in the first place.

"But, if I have to pay someone $xx an hour, I won't be able to complete!"
All your competitors will also be paying $xx.

"But the value just isn't there! Their labor can't produce that much value!"
https://www.google.com/#q=gini+index
Nigger, when my parents were kids (1940's-1950's), the average family of 5 (6 in both my parent's cases) had one breadwinner, with on college degree.
The value is there, if you can pry it out of management's hands.

>>8107800
>with *NO* college degree.

>>8107175
lmao cameron is an eton-educated toff. he doesnt give a shit about minorities. weve had a welfare system long before him, in fact he has cut welfare

>>8107595
Triton

File: hqdefault.jpg (9KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 480x360px

>>8107800
>implying that he understand economics

>>8107655
That's cool as shit

>>8107800
Thanks, I haven't seen this argument put forth so concisely before.

>>8106776
I personally think a simple analog lander with a digital processing, control and communication section floating 44 km higher up away from all the shitty conditions which in turn relays to a satellite.

>>8108069
would be the most durable without the need for anything too fancy.

>>8107800
>people are worth what you pay them.
So why not pay everyone 2 billion dollars an hour and everyone can be billionaires?
>market forces will always undervalue labor.
This is just incorrect. Because of the minimum wage labor is overvalued and jobs aren't created, which leads to oversupply of labor, and wages being pushed down to minimum wage. Take for example picking up trash on the side of the road. It's a job that's worth doing, but it's not worth 41k a year, and 41k a year is what we would have to pay someone to pick up trash under your 20$ minimum wage. So because of that high wage that job wouldn't exist, and because of the high minimum wage now, that job doesn't exist in many places. But of course, according to you it's worth it if we pay them, so if we made the job it would be worth it. When really, it's the other way around. If it's worth it the job is made. And it's not worth it. So the job isn't made. The person isn't employed. And there's more people competing for other minimum wage jobs, which leads to the over saturated labor market, and prevents the market value of a wage from rising. If we let people work for less, many minimum wage jobs that already exist would be worth more.
>But, if I have to pay someone $xx an hour, I won't be able to complete!
It's not about competition, it's about income. "If I have to pay someone $xx an hour, I will have to charge $x for my product at the current sales rate in order to stay in business. Will people pay $x for my product and still buy just as much of it? Probably not, so I had better get out of business before I start losing money.

My parents were born too nigger. That doesn't mean people will magically start producing more once wages go up.

>send rover to venus
>send home a fucking 500x500 picture

why.jpg

>>8108132
It would've used a literal camera anon. Like a CRT.

>>8108083
>If we let people work for less, many minimum wage jobs that already exist would be worth more.
I don't have a reaction image retarded enough for this "logic".

>>8108175
Care to point out where the flaw in logic is exactly? It's basic supply and demand. Labor supply is high and demand for it is low. Create more demand for it, and labor will be worth more. There's an over saturated labor market, there's high amounts of competition for minimum wage jobs that unskilled workers need. If unskilled workers have other options that competition lessons, and the people currently hiring minimum wage people have to raise wages to attract more employees.

Calling people retarded niggers doesn't really educate them or prove your points well.

File: bW6ur5w.jpg (36KB, 1193x715px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 1193x715px

>>8108187
>1776 + 240
>supply and demand

>>8108083

You're right about saturation but lowering the minimum wage will only further reduce the standard of living.

The fact is there are too many people for a capitalist economy, something capitalists fail to understand is there exists upper limits of human ability.

>>8108284
I don't really see how it would lower the standard of living. More available jobs means greater opportunity for people who are currently unemployed. Even a job at the current minimum wage is a privilege a lot of unemployed people don't have. Raising the minimum wage hurts the people who have living standards even lower than the people working for minimum wage.

>>8108284
?
Liberals have deliberately imported millions of foreigners to lower wages and create the conditions for communism

All raising minimum wage will do is encourage mass automation

>>8108187
>create more demand and labor will be worth more
This is the literal retardation in your mind. You're literally paying the people less. It is not worth more if you are paying them less. Jesus. The unemployed literally do not have jobs. Even if you assume the magic that owners are not sociopathic greedy fucks, the people that enter the workforce will inherently be working for less than the job is presently valued, and any people previously working at minimum wage will have their pay lowered. If the labor pool was fully occupied, filling a new job would require that new job being payed more. When the wages are the same, you can't fill that job (as there would be no need for any employee to switch) and worse, if you create a job that is payed LESS, the only reason an employee would take that job is if they were forced from a higher-paying position. You are too dumb to grasp all the logic involved; I can't tell if you are pretending to be retarded or if you actually are.

>>8108292
A million people working minimum wage can afford $400 rent.

Two million people working half minimum wage cannot afford rent. That's how standard of living works, how much one can expect to afford.

>>8108313
>You're literally paying the people less.
Paying the unemployed people less than zero?
>less than the job is presently valued
The jobs I'm talking right now are currently valued less than minimum wage, so they can't exist because of the minimum wage. Take for example a job valued at $5 an hour. You can't hire someone for $5 an hour, so that job just doesn't exist. The work the job requires doesn't get done, and people who are willing to do it for $5 can't, because the government wont let the job exist.
>any people previously working at minimum wage will have their pay lowered
Actually the opposite will happen. With more jobs opening up, there's a higher demand for labor, less competition for the minimum wage jobs, and the value of their labor goes up.
>If the labor pool was fully occupied...
In this example you stated the exact point of eliminating the minimum wage. Wages for jobs have to go up or the jobs wont get employees unless people were forced to do the job. People aren't forced to do the job, so either wages go up, or the job doesn't get done. That's how supply and demand for labor works. If the demand for a job isn't great enough for a higher wage, the job wont get done until that supply of labor is there, or the demand is great enough to raise the wage.
>A million people working minimum wage can afford $400 rent.
In this example, a million people aren't working at all, who obviously can't afford rent on their own.

ok seriously

why not just make a small lander out of concrete or cast iron pipes (ie one insulated inside another) and land that using parachutes? It can easily survive beyond 1000 degrees and 90 bar.

File: p3_peltier_element_insideview.gif (23KB, 400x270px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 400x270px

>>8106450

why not use a peltier element outside the craft to generate power? 1000 degrees is quite hot and would be enough to work. Kind of like a solar panel, but with heat instead of photons

>>8108338
>concrete
>parachutes
because it's too cheap.
It is always better to make a sci-fi bullshit project, steal astronomical amount of money and make a scam.
Like these guys do https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLx4St7y1_0

>>8108336
>paying unemployed people less than zero
Paying the people who already work, less.

>job can't exist because it's less than minimum wage
It keeps people out of poverty and perpetual enslavement. The problem is welfare keeping poor people who won't work afloat. They should die off.

>wages go up because competition
That would only make sense if EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE EMPLOYEE was hired. As long as there is one more person than those employed, the person is replaceable, and will have to suffer low wages or be replaced. This applies to a group level, 10 people working for $5.01 know that each of them could be replaced by one person will to work for $5.00, so they have to accept wages suppressed to their value. As people are willing to take risks, you will inherently have a race to the bottom because someone will burn any available resource to survive (including those of their neighbors, look at niggers).

>fully employed labor market
Literally impossibly and completely psychotic to consider. Even if there was no minimum wage, there are not enough jobs for people. Find me a place without minimum wage that doesn't have at least 10% of it's population living in abject poverty or constant warfare.

>rent
In your example, two million people can't afford rent. In mine, one million can't. Get the picture?

Here's a thing with minimum wage: if it was bad to raise, you could show plenty of situations where raising it was detrimental. If it was beneficial to lower, you could show plenty of situations where everything improved as a result of lowered wages. This has literally never been the case, as wages have always been suppressed. There are clearly conditions where raising the minimum wage is bad, and we have yet to reach them. Even with threats of robots replacing fast food workers, we all know corporations are slow as shit to do anything, and worse, terrible at doing anything right.

>>8108344
Peltier coolers work over Heat gradients. Good luck insulating for 1000 c

File: fire_entry_suits_1.gif (70KB, 350x233px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 350x233px

>>8108371

>Good luck insulating for 1000 c

we have the technology

>>8108338
Because concrete and cast iron are extremely heavy compared to aluminum.

>>8108381
These were feature on musical kid shows right like with the green long armed ogre thing

>>8108347
>and make a scam
are you insinuating that the sky-crane is a scam?

>>8108535
>implying that the whole modern science is not a scam

File: Untitled.jpg (102KB, 1100x500px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1100x500px

>>8108535

I'm wondering if you could could have some kind of self inflating airship to take on Venus. The probe would deflate it's balloon to sink down to the surface, where it would perform observations for a hour or two. It then re-inflates the balloon, ascending back up to high altitude, where it can cool of, recharge it's batteries and prepare for the next decent.

This has the added bonus of letting you cover a wide range of locations.

>>8108347
jesus christ lol
all these women and old fucks

No wonder these sorts of programs add up to billions

>>8104704
It's simple.

The USA won the culture war. When you think "space" you think USA.

Even Europe, while it has the financial, intellectual and human ability, does nothing.

File: Venus-mobile-explorer-probe-timeline.png (274KB, 1908x668px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1908x668px

>>8108344
That's Seebeck generator to you mister. The Peltier effect is the creation of a temperature difference by an applied voltage, the Seebeck effect is the creation of a voltage by a temeprature difference.

Seebeck generators do not work without a temperature difference. One could use the temperature difference between the inside and the outside of the craft, but that would just make a really shitty battery that stores energy in the craft's specific heat.

If you mean radioisotopic thermoelectric generator those suck at venusian temperatures.

>>8108371
You don't need to insulate to for 1000 ° C, venus is expected to be 500 ° C max.

>>8108338
and what is your concrete and cast iron lander gonna do on venus? Just sit there?

>>8108590
Someone came up with a proposal to do exactly that! Pic related is the mission plan for the Venus Mobile Explorer. It drops down to the surface, does some geology inflates it's balloon, a metal bellows, drops a helium tank and flies away. Then it does it again for however many helium tanks it has

>>8106306
I was triggered but then I giggled

>>8107655
how would you get data back from this?

>>8108900

missing the last graphic where it melts into a pile of slag

it really needs that last pic

>>8110388
?
500 degrees isn't THAT hot

>>8110351
space-pigeon

>>8106291
Is the ground so hard that no tracks are left on the ground? After all the lander is depicted by the rover, right? Or did it hop?

>>8110725
you can see the tracks over the left solar panels shadow, dude

>>8107655
>clockwork and mechanical parts
A mechanical radio would impress me no end.

>neptune's surface
Reaching this surface, assuming it even exists, would impress me even more.

>>8105199
Venus would be easier to colonise than Mars using airships.

>>8110734
>you can see the tracks
In that case, did the river take a round trip towards the left outside the frame?

For what it's worth: I am not suggesting landing by photoshop.

>>8110763
I think it drove around the back of the lander, a bit furter out and then turned back. Dunno why though.
I think the dept/composition on the dust is different from where you are on the moon actually, the Apollo lander didn't sink too far in( by the looks of the legs), yet a few times they managed to crumple the rocket engine bell underneath the module when landing on hard surfaces.

Also, not suggesting that you are suggesting :p

>>8108371
What if the lander would dig its way under the surface? How is it in 1-3meters?

>>8110802
The best would be to take a core sample through a few metres down into the soil. Seeing the track imprints would have indicates soil properties.

>>8110791
>Dunno why though.
Indeedily. Perhaps for a photo op fo rthe virgin scenic picture?

>Also, not suggesting that you are suggesting :p
Very good. Add Mwahaha.at will.

>>8110815
>Indeedily. Perhaps for a photo op fo rthe virgin scenic picture?
That does strike me as the most logical, yes.

>>8106718
>never thought about that. But it does all make sense now. Musk was planning ahead all this time.
The extent to which SpaceX is thinking ahead is insane. All of those boosters they've been landing? Yeah, those were carried out in a way so that the most critical portions of the operation occur in the section of Earth's upper atmosphere that most closely resembles Mars' atmosphere. They've been testing Martian landing the entire time they've been experimenting with propulsive landing.

By the time Red Dragon reaches Mars, SpaceX will already have the data from several dozen similar landings under their belt.

>>8106978
>I expect him to be forced into lunar/asteroid mining before going to mars
>Whats the point of mars after all? Its not like its actually suitable for colonization without importing literally everything you need to live

Colonizing *any* body in our solar system outside of Earth is going to require imports, at least initially, so that's no real excuse. Eventual autonomy is possible given enough manpower and industrial momentum.

Mars is easily the most feasible target for long-term colonization, at least for next 2-3 decades. It's by far the most earthlike body within our reach, isn't all that far away, and poses less challenges than other bodies (the moon's veil of electrically charged, unoxidized and ultracorrosive dust for instance is a huge problem that Mars doesn't have).

It won't take long before you see the end of most manned missions. A lot of the difficulty of space travel is to haul humans and cargo associated with keeping them alive.

>>8110889
I disagree heartily. There's not but so much an RC robot built with rad-hardened Gamecube technology can do. A human, while expensive to send out, can do anything imaginable.

It will take several decades before rad-hardened robots with capabilities approaching even a tenth of a single human of capable of is available, so unless we're content with moving at the pace of a frozen snail, money would be far better spent on making human spaceflight cheap and safe. The cool thing about that is that robotic spaceflight will also become exponentially cheaper, making launches of probes, landers, and rovers as commonplace as football games.

File: 422829main_r2_2059.jpg (2MB, 4543x3744px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4543x3744px

>>8110351
>>8110749
You get data back with a vibrating radio retroreflector or balloons.

>>8110882
>> lunar dust unoxidized and ultracorrosive
The moon is mostly oxygen, while it does contain pure iron that is not corrosive.

>> electrically charged
Martian dust devils are electrically charged too

>>8110906
it's a lot easier to improve rad hardened electronics and robots than it is to keep humans alive in space. Pic related Robonaut 2 getting swole.

>>8110931
>it's a lot easier to improve rad hardened electronics and robots than it is to keep humans alive in space. Pic related Robonaut 2 getting swole.
I don't know about that. Even normal earth robots are just now just BARELY starting to not suck at being bipedal, and even then there are still huge battery issues to deal with not mention all of the situations AI software cannot handle yet (still more than it *can* handle). Pile that on top of issues of keeping mechanical joints cool in a vacuum and the fact that radhardened electronics lag ~15-20 years behind consumer tech and you've got a laundry list of impediments to deal with before you've got something usable. As a whole, it's just as hard if not worse than keeping humans alive in space - the difficulty is just distributed differently.

>>8106019
my hero

>>8110979
>As a whole, it's just as hard if not worse than keeping humans alive in space - the difficulty is just distributed differently.

No it isn't. The longer you keep a human crew in space the more of the precious weight capacity has to be dedicated to things to keep them alive, which is very prohibitive for something like exploration. It's why the only feasible way to get people to Mars is to make the trip one way, at least for now.

Robots being limited by "technology" is a far better problem to deal with than the insurmountable problem of months or years worth of food or water for a human crew.

I guarantee the missions to Mars over the next few decades will all be unmanned. And that these will continue for decades until a large settlement mission is undertaken. The reasoning they will give, and it is the correct one, is that removing the human crew dramatically simplifies the design specifications and risk associated with the missions so they can focus on tasks that aren't retreads of the moon missions mainly landing and deployment of payloads to the surface.

>>8111007
If Musk has his way, the first human will step on the surface of Mars some time in the mid 2020s. His timelines are always incredibly optimistic (to say the least), but even with delays I don't see that happening any later than 2030-2035. Certainly not "decades".

Mission risk is 80% tied up in taking off and landing. If that can be smoothed out (as nuspace companies are achieving quite rapidly now), all that remains for risk reduction is getting from point A to point B and surviving after landing, The rest really boils down to the reliability of onboard systems and sending a rocket adequately large for needed supplies, or even sending said supplies to Mars years ahead of time so they'll be there waiting once people arrive.

>>8110979
We don't need bipedal robots for space exploration

>> keeping mechanical joints cool in space
Ummm... ok. Candarm has no problem with that.

>> rad hardened electronics 15-20 years behind
You can get better perfomance if you use ASICs/FPGAs. Rad hard memory has been advancing. Sure a 2 TB solid state drive may be bigger than the one in your PC, but it still works

>>8110412
holy shit i spit my water out

>>8111025
>Man on Mars in ten years
What are you smoking?

>>8111058
Nothing. It's Elon's timeline, not mine.

I'm not convinced that it'll happen but I'll entertain the possibility because I'm not a pessimistic asshole. It's also more interesting to imagine what would happen as a result of that... the first Martian colonies aligning with my 66th birthday are comparatively incredibly dull, as in watching grass grow dull.

>>8111058
Crack cocaine, methamphetamine, and bath salts

>>8105563
We (US) wouldn't have gotten very far without help from some old Nazis, or so I've read.

>>8111058
What do you think takes long?
If NASA was directed to cancel the SLS and assist SpaceX/Blue Origin with producing the launch sites for their new big rockets, I could see them being done for 2024
Then we could see a manned mars mission for 2026


Personally I think this will be delayed by the simple fact that theres no money in a mars mission, whereas asteroid mining and lunar mining will be hugely profitable

>>8110882
> It's by far the most earthlike body within our reach

Venus is more so

>and poses less challenges than other bodies
Which entirely depends on the availibility of necessary resources, if water is not readily availible, then mars colonization will have to wait.

>>8111130
Yeah, if there's anything slowing the process down it's congress being a bunch of idiots, not anything technological.

Here's to hoping that spaceflight becomes affordable enough for non-governmental organizations to feasibly fund.

>>8111136
>Venus is more so
In size and gravity, yes. By every other measure, it's about as earthlike as Jupiter or Saturn. And airships are a horrible idea because we'd have no way to get back - at least on Mars we're on solid ground so producing fuel and launching a propulsively landed rocket is feasible. You can't launch a rocket from an airship.

>Which entirely depends on the availibility of necessary resources, if water is not readily availible, then mars colonization will have to wait.
There's plenty of water on Mars. We can either land around the polar regions and mine ice (probably easiest) or process the regolith which in some areas is something like ~40% water by volume (harder but opens up landing site options).

>>8111149
>There's plenty of water on Mars. We can either land around the polar regions and mine ice (probably easiest) or process the regolith which in some areas is something like ~40% water by volume (harder but opens up landing site options).
To continue on this, Mars as a whole has enough water that if just the caps alone were melted, the entire surface could be covered with 2" of water. That doesn't even count what's locked up in the soil or underground glaciers and aquifers. Water on Mars really isn't that much of an issue.

>>8111149
>> assuming you need solid ground to make fuel
There is water and CO2 in venus' atmosphere from which you can use to make fuel.

>>8111156
Ugh. You don't need solid ground to make fuel, you need solid ground to launch from.

>>8106450
>At the surface the concentration of sulfuric acid is basically nil.
What's the composition like at the surface?

File: Lockheed_TriStar_launches_Pegasus_with_Space_Technology_5.jpg (249KB, 1111x667px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1111x667px

>>8111159
Why?

>>8111166
Of the atmosphere? 96.5% CO2 the rest is almost all nitrogen.

>>8111176
dont talk to me or my son again

File: xpspaces.jpg (14KB, 419x259px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 419x259px

>>8111221
No, you shouldn't talk to me or my son ever again

>>8111149
>You can't launch a rocket from an airship.
I don't see why not
People launch orbital rockets from the atmosphere on earth

Yes it would require a different mission architecture, and probably a 2 stage rocket to get back to earth, but its nothing technically impossible.

>>8111265
It's considerably more involved than landing a rocket on Mars, flipping on a fuel collector, and taking back off, though, and that's my point. It takes zero additional infrastructure - all you need is the rocket that brought you there and your fuel collector. That's the sort of efficiency we're going to need in our first attempts at colonizing other planets. Venusian airships can come when it's not such a big deal to undertake manned missions.

File: 377160_screenshots_2015-11-16_00063.jpg (106KB, 1360x768px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1360x768px

>>8106764

I think I've been there.

>>8107061
>There's no marxist agenda, USA is actually quite tough on immigration

Yep. We're so tough we hand out free K-12 education, medical, and EBT cards.

>There is no "marxist plot" it is simply a case of extremely rich countries being near extremely poor countries.

Have you ever read any Marxist literature? You can check off their to-do list with changes in America since the 1960's.

>>8106987
>the terraforming mars meme

Any atmosphere you create around Mars will just be stripped away by the sun over time. Mars doesn't have the magnetosphere necessary to protect it.

>>8111320
That's why I would like to terraform Venus.

>>8111320
over millions/billions of years retard
If you started nuking the poles and smashing comets into mars, that atmosphere would stay for a long time

>>8107203
>there's already a wall!
>it's already illegal to hire illegals!
>america is sooo tough on immigration!

Nice try Hillary!

* Only very short sections of the border have a wall.

* Employers are not held liable in any way for hiring illegals. In fact, they can get in trouble for digging too deeply. If an illegal can produce a stolen SS number he's good. Doesn't matter if the number changes regularly. In fact, an employer can get in trouble for questioning a SS number that changes every year!

* I can take you to neighborhoods where everyone will scatter if you yell "INS!" Follow these people to grocery stores and they are using EBT cards. Their kids flood the local schools where they get breakfast/lunch every day and often after-school care. It's a fucking joke.

File: e182b2d99c4dd8ae1ef20ebe6da82ec0.jpg (32KB, 528x540px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 528x540px

>>8111320
>the atmosphere will blow away meme
This is a common mistake. Martian atmospheric decay occurs on timescales well beyond relevance to humans. It would take several million years before decay would cause a noticeable effect, assuming that colonists made no attempt to restore losses, which is highly unlikely.

>>8106987
Jesus christ the delta-v numbers for that would be insane. It would be better to just use method locally or, at the most, hurl space rocks at the fucker.

>>8111291
Eh
All it really means is we would need to send 1 or 2 first stages to venus, and constantly reuse them putting the venus colonial transfer back into orbit

Not much payload will be going back to earth to begin with

>>8107602

Aren't most races won at the end?

>>8111340

For some reason I thought the timescale was much shorter. Thank you for the correction.

>>8111337

Fuck you for being an ass.

>>8111363
I'd blame pop science. That's precisely the sort of thing it tends to blow grossly out of proportion.

>>8111130
>Throw away a rocket that already exists and spend the money on the napkin sketches of some guy who has never even built a super-heavy before

Great logic

>>8111384
Throw away a useless rocket that has no purpose to exist other than be a jobs program*

They still have no practical mission for the SLS, nor any funding for a mission

>>8111342
Any such operation would definitely have to be done gradually by large, fully automated fleets of carbon dioxide tankers. The more tankers you have the less time it'd take. Seems pretty unreasonable from our current standpoint but hey, such things may be cheap if space mining becomes a thing.

>>8111384
It's less insane when you remember that SLS is shuttle parts held together by duct tape and bubble gum.

>>8111346
Due to the Venusian gravity you would need to launch the equivalent of a Saturn V in mid-air to get back to Earth. Just because something is "doable" doesn't mean it should be done. Launches from Mars are infinitly easier.

>>8111396
Your whole colony is in mid air

Is the engineering of an atmospheric launch site for Super heavies on venus tricky? Perhaps
Is it technically impossible? No
Does it require any new technologies beyond fully reusable rockets? No

Question for the more mathematically inclined: how much mass would an atmosphere thick enough to produce earthlike pressures add to Mars?

Google tells me the mass of Earth's atmosphere is 5.1 x 1018 kg, but unless I'm mistaken I'd guess that due to reduced gravity on Mars, a great deal more gas is required to produce the same kind of pressure seen on earth. Is this correct?

>>8111385
That's like saying there was no mission for the Atlas rocket because Project Gemini was just a bunch of guys floating in orbit. Like how Project Gemini was a test bed for the Moon landings the SLS Block I is a test bed for deep space missions i.e Mars. They are booked to orbit the Moon and land on an asteroid. Your brains may be too addled with pop-sci to see it but deep space missions, however inane they may seem to you are vital for a Mars mission.
>>8111392
Falcon Heavy is half the power and has 500 engines because that worked so well for the Russian N-1. SLS is a much better rocket.

>>8111410
I repeat, Just because something is doable doesn't mean it should be done.

>>8111432
>Falcon Heavy is half the power and has 500 engines because that worked so well for the Russian N-1. SLS is a much better rocket.
That's rendered moot by cost. As long as rockets like the SLS dominate the space industry, exploration is going to go nowhere fast.

Anybody not cranking as hard as they can on dropping costs while increasing safety is doing it wrong. Funding the design and manufacture to old-style rockets is a huge mistake. Tell me, what benefit will the SLS produce? How is it advancing rocketry and spaceflight? How does it play into the coming decades? Those are the questions that matter. If it's doing nothing but retreading formerly covered ground and isn't pushing any frontier it may as well not exist.

File: venus-ship-comparison.jpg (72KB, 854x589px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 854x589px

>>8111396
Nope, rocket to get to orbit could be the size of the space shuttle:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160006329.pdf

File: 562.jpg (67KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 600x600px

>>8111497
>Orbital spaceflight = interplanetary spaceflight

>>8111432
?
Atlas had a mission to start with
Being an ICBM, and then launching satellites
The SLS has no mission, its too expensive for satellites, has too slow of a launch rate for any manned beyond earth missions, and will be inexcusably expensive after the falcon heavy flies.

>for the Moon landings the SLS Block I is a test bed for deep space missions
Except it isn't and will test nothing of the sort, the current missions are essentially placeholders since they have no funding for real missions

>Falcon Heavy is half the power
And a 10th of the cost(or less)
Number of engines is meaningless as they can survive failure of an engine, not to mention they have never had an engine problem yet

Where do you think the SLS is going to go when SpaceX is launching 10 falcon heavies a year, landing all the cores, and testing a reusable second stage, all before the SLS flies once?

>>8111513
Did you even read the link? You get into orbit to rendezvous with the command module to return to earth

>>8111522
>And a 10th of the cost(or less)
>Number of engines is meaningless as they can survive failure of an engine, not to mention they have never had an engine problem yet
>
>Where do you think the SLS is going to go when SpaceX is launching 10 falcon heavies a year, landing all the cores, and testing a reusable second stage, all before the SLS flies once?
Don't forget that by then, SpaceX will have the development of a rocket larger than the Falcon Heavy well underway.

>>8111451
Reuseability is a literal meme because it does have benefits but this has been blown way out of proportion by fanboys. You don't get something for nothing in engineering, reuseable rockets cost payload. The cost benefits only come into play with frequent launches. Therefore for the first Mars mission there is no point in using a reuseable rocket. How it will happen is SLS gets NASA astronauts and equipment to Mars in the 2030s and once the base has been set up then they can hire Musk to ferry people on his reuseable Falcon Heavy.

>>8105224
Why did I read this in the heavys voice

>>8111524
The command module will still need escape velocity therefore a super-heavy will have been needed to park it in orbit at that velocity. So you still need a fuck huge rocket to get off even if it wasn't launched from Venus. A shuttle launch from a balloon is still a tall order and as I have shown it uses even more fuel now because instead of just going straight to Earth on one rocket from Mars you need to do two-rocket fuckery to escape Venus.

>>8111534
So the SLS is a "use it once and throw it away" design? What a colossal waste.

And yes, you don't need reusability for a one-way trip to Mars, but you *can* use used boosters on said one-way trip to minimize costs. In fact, that seems like it'd be the preferred option for a one way trip if it's available. No sense sending out a brand new rocket if you don't have to.

>>8111522
It can carry a much larger single payload which is more important for a first mission than cost. Also rovers on Europa. I'd like to see Falcon heavy send a rover and an orbiter there. This is a planned mission.
> when SpaceX is launching 10 falcon heavies a year,
That's GTO market, for deep space the FH payload quickly falls off while the SLS payload remains strong.

Anyway i see that SpaceX shills have taken over the tread so I'm out.

>>8111550
>one-way trip
Yep definitely leaving this thread

>>8111558
>It can carry a much larger single payload which is more important for a first mission than cost.
Completely incorrect
You can combine payloads in LEO to produce a far larger mission payload than whatever the SLS will ever manage
Thats the whole point of reusability

> for deep space the FH payload quickly falls off while the SLS payload remains strong.
A raptor upper stage would change that
A third stage would change that
A liquid hydrogen upper stage would change that
etc

>>8111534
>The cost benefits only come into play with frequent launches.
And doing anything in space will have frequent launches

What will happen is that the SLS will be cancelled after the Falcon Heavy starts flying and getting upgraded, because congress will go "Why are we paying 5 billion dollars a launch for the SLS, when SpaceX charges us 200 million for the same payload"

>>8111548
Did you even read the link? Why didn't you read the link? The link is a manned concept mission to venus

>>8111575
>rocket engine that does not exist is the basis of your argument
How am I supposed to argue with shadows? Anything I say you can just say "oh but Musk will add a flux capacitor to the Raptor nuclear variant"
>>8111594
If what you say was true then we could get to Venus from Earth with a Shuttle just by pre-launching an orbital rendezvous vehicle on another Shuttle. The Delta V requirements don't disappear.

>>8111605
The SLS doesn't exist today either
The raptor engine IS under development
The Falcon Heavy WILL launch this year
A Red Dragon WILL be launched towards mars

Will the SLS launch in 2018? Who knows
You think President Trump will be happy with the SLS shitshow?

>>8111619
Trump will do what he is told which is pay the annual tax to his Lord NASA

>>8111624
Trump won't hesitate to use vetos and to name & shame
And to change their primary mission back to space development rather than outreach to muslims

>>8111619
The future of SLS has more to do with congress than the president.

Also Trump will probably like having the most powerful rocket in the world.

>>8111619
What's more is that SpaceX is accumulating assloads of launch data and is actively applying their findings to current and future designs. I'd be shocked if the bureaucracy-mired ULA has the speed or flexibility to do something similar with SLS.

Yes, ULA has plenty of experience from past decades as Lockheed-Martin and Boeing, but they're also standing still outside of SLS development.

>>8111643
How do you even turn the SLS into a reusable launch vehicle?
It's got solid rocket boosters and 4 liquid hydrogen rockets

If it takes them a decade to build the thing, it'll take them a century to produce a reusable version

>>8111638
Thats what I mean by naming and shaming
He could target the particular congressmen or senate that are screwing around with NASA, effectively ending them.

Supposedly SpaceX will be giving more details on the BFR later this year

>>8111634
>>8111650
He will never break the NASA monopoly, too many jobs depend on it.
>>8111638
Also this, the most powerful rocket in the world is a great status symbol for a fascist leader. Under Trump NASA will get even more funding. And Musk girlfriends will cry even more tears.

>>8111650
>Supposedly SpaceX will be giving more details on the BFR later this year
Not just that. Musk is dropping details about his long-term Mars colonization plans as a whole at the conference in Guadalajara, MX this year. Can't wait.

>literally jacking off to pictures of rocks
I'm actually glad I feel for the math meme

File: NASA-fuel-depot-concepts.jpg (64KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 800x600px

>>8111605
Did you read the fucking study or not? It covers how we could send a manned mission to Venus and return from venus.

There is no reason we can't do what you said, see propellant depots

File: 1464654176820.jpg (89KB, 720x680px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 720x680px

can anyone explain why every astronaut they sent up there turned into a crackpot lunatic?

>>8111825
They saw the face of God...and it was weeping...

>>8111825
>be hotshot pilot and/or scientist who is treated like a celebrity and constantly told he is "the right stuff"
>have to work for a decaying agency that can't pay any money and is more concerned with its bureaucratic processes than real exploration
>current state of space exploration boils down to sitting in a cancer-causing vehicle that smells like a public restroom and is located in LEO

Anyone would go crazy.

>>8111901
>the foreseeable future of space stations is soup cans duct taped together
>the most advanced science conducted on them is growing cabbage
>centrifigul gravity test stations aren't even a remote possibility
I'm not sure it could get any worse

>>8111952
The whole point of the ISS is to study stuff in microgravity, a rotating station would defeat that purpose

>>8111963
That's fine but there aren't even hints of plans for more adventurous stations. What about putting one at a lagrange point for learning how to deal with radiation? What about centrifugal artificial gravity? What about some large enough to not be miserable to work and live in?

As far as we know when the ISS is decommissioned that's it, which is totally nuts. There's still so much to be learned in Earth's orbit, and larger stations might finally become viable with dropping launch prices (no longer prohibitive to do multiple launches and assemble in orbit).

File: robonaut.jpg (70KB, 300x534px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 300x534px

>>8111974
Artificial centrifugal gravity is only useful as an engineering demonstration. Putting up a manned station at a lagrange point to study how to deal with radiation would be unethical.

The station is pretty damn big. What could we learn in Earth's orbit?

For studies in Earth orbit, we are nearing the point where we won't need people to do such things

>>8106641
>>8106649

It's amusing reading old scifi stories that ran off the premise that venus was a jungle/rainforest planet.

>>8111901
Or
>Dream of being an astronaut
>Go to space
>realize space is empty and sucks

>>8106291
>>8106299
Why can you not see stars/planets on the horizon and instead just empty blackness? There's no atmosphere and the sun shouldn't be blotting everything out, right?

>>8111984
>Artificial centrifugal gravity is only useful as an engineering demonstration.
It'd be a proof of concept for traveling spacecraft to follow that'd allow us to work out the kinks near earth where problems can be dealt with. It'd help a great deal in making long-term space travel practical.

>>8112049
Aka an engineering demonstration

>>8112064
Basically, yes, but you use the term in a dismissive manner, suggesting that it'd have little value beyond proving we can do it, when in reality finding out the limits and quirks of the system and refining it would prove to be a game changing development for human spaceflight.

>>8112135
So just an engineering demonstration then.

>> reality finding out the limits and quirks of the system and refining it would prove to be a game changing development for human spaceflight.
not really, especially compared to the bigger issues of doing closed loop life support and dealing with the radiation.

>>8106472

>I bet most americans have never in their life seen a decent documentary about Yuri Gagarin's flight to space

Any recommendations?

>>8111130
>mining
What are YOU smoking?

Asteroids being? Rouges or Belt asteroids, which would not be profitable in any way shape or form with current fuels.

>>8111337
>Smashing comets into Mars

If we had this tech why the fuck would we bother with Mars

>>8112043
Try standing under a streetlight downtown at night, and take a picture of the sky with a camera, same thing. Any light from the stars is washed out by light from the sun, earth, reflections and so on.

>>8106615
Memory bank on the probe fucked up IIRC, cost them a bunch of pictures.

>>8112206
>Land rocket on comet
>Steer towards Mars

pretty sure we are already capable of this.

>>8113294
not really, you would have to fly a rocket with an extreme amount of excess fuel to the comet, land it there, and then have enough fuel left to move the comet towards mars.

>>8113696
Which should be doable with current technology.

>>8106591
No. Pressure on Venus is 90 bar. That's about the same pressure experienced by a craft under 900 m of water. Tons of ROVs today can withstand such pressure. Hell, I can link you to a catalog selling the things if you'd like.
http://www.deepseasystems.com/
http://www.deepocean.com/products.php