Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: German_EE
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2018, 06:57:20 pm
content: The attitude of the company and the people who work there. I'm a space geek, I've always been a space geek and the thought of a man or woman walking on Mars is enough to make the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end. NASA are however too cautious, the two shuttle failures have beaten the spirit out of the organization and now they only want to take the tiniest of baby steps. They might, maybe, make it to Mars by 2030 but it's more likely that they will piss away their time in low Earth orbit.SpaceX are however different. Not only are they willing to make mistakes they treat those mistakes as part of the engineering process and then they try again, and again, and again until things start to work. This is what NASA did in the 1950's and 1960's until they ended up with Armstrong's 'one small step'. What's prompted this little piece? Someone sent me a link to the SpaceX Youtube channel where there are lots of cool rocket launches, and there's THIS!The day commercial space flight becomes a reality I want them to show this as part of the pre-flight videoIf you want the main Youtube channel it's herehttps://www.youtube.com/user/spacexchannel/videos?disable_polymer=1Now get your ass to Mars!!

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2018, 07:09:57 pm
content: Don't forget the enormous fallout from the Apollo 1 fire. The military (remember Vanguard?) and NASA aren't allowed to make mistakes as our media blame it on the government. Media don't understand risk. SpaceX has had plenty of failures, but none got the media and Congressional attention of any of the failures mentioned. When private enterprise has a failure, it is reported and forgotten.American exploration and innovation has generally been led by entrepreneurs. NASA is the exception. I am glad to see the private sector leading again.

author: chris_leyson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2018, 07:39:30 pm
content: I don't think NASA have a big enough budget, they have to rely on Soyuz to get astronauts to the space station. SpaceX have a manned test flight of the Dragon 2 capsule late 2018 or early 2019. Boeing Starliner was scheduled for a manned test flight later this year but that is on hold. SpaceX are improving their technology all the time, they'll get more satellite launches and they even have the European Space Agency looking into reusable hardware.

author: German_EE
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2018, 07:42:18 pm
content: Oh, I haven't forgotten Apollo 1, or the three men who died. However, after the fire there was a detailed investigation and then they carried on at full steam eager to beat the goal set by President Kennedy. It's a testiment to Grissom, White and Chaffee that they made it with five months to spare.Want to see another tribute? Watch CSI. William Petersen is also a space geek and he named his character, Gil Grissom, as a tribute to the Command Module pilot.

author: ttelectronic
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2018, 07:43:56 pm
content: Unless there is a significant leap in tech, I don't think either will get there any time soon with humans.

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2018, 12:12:05 am
content: Quote from: ttelectronic on July 14, 2018, 07:43:56 pmThe tech is there, or at least only a development budget away. It's been there for ages, and has been steadily improving. Just nobody has bothered to try to pay for it until now. Elon Musk has the will to do it and has figured out how to make launch vehicles massively cheaper so he can afford to do it with the profits from a satellite launch service. Yeah, there is a lot that still needs to be designed, but a lot of that is already being worked on. Musk isn't just building reusable rockets, electric cars, and tunnel building machines just because they are neat. They all fit into the picture and are needed for a Mars colony. Decades ago a fleet of Saturn Vs could have been built, the transport ships could have been designed, the mars landers could have been made, and habitats built, but the will of the people wasn't behind it. Musk doesn't have to listen to the will of the people, not even shareholders. Just his own will. Notice that SpaceX is controlled by him, not shareholders. The profits can remain dedicated to the task.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 15, 2018, 01:06:40 am
content: Quote from: ttelectronic on July 14, 2018, 07:43:56 pmDepends on what your goal is.Zubrin's Mars Direct style concept will get you to Mars in no time with minimal fuss.I'm guessing it wouldn't be hard to find someone willing to go on the trip knowing they will almost certainly die there if they make it. But that's not good PR.I'm sure SpaceX could send a human to Mars one-way within a few years if that was the only concern, but it's not, so it won't happen within the next decade, maybe two.Remember, for all of Space-X triumphs, they still haven't flown a single human to low earth orbit, this stuff takes time, and Space-X still want to do it "by the book" so to speak.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2018, 01:39:00 am
content: Quote from: jpanhalt on July 14, 2018, 07:09:57 pmIt's a kind of funny, almost machiavellian twist of words to call "private sector enterpreneur" a company that's designed solely to suck public money by the millions^W billions, to do for a profit the job the NASA ought to be doing instead, isn't it?

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 15, 2018, 01:48:00 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 15, 2018, 01:39:00 amCompany which is preventing ULA from uncontrollably sucking taxpayer money by being very competitive. FYI NASA never built it's own rockets. Not to say most Spacex launches are commercial/foreign government.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 15, 2018, 02:04:00 am
content: With such expenses you'll never send anything meaningful to Mars.Quote

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2018, 02:19:18 am
content: Imagine Von Braun, back in the day, calling on the phone like this: "Hi Musk, I have no clue man, how long will it take you to invent some moon rockets for me? I need them asap!" Imagine that? Of course NASA can subcontract subassemblies, bolts and nuts, but subcontract the whole damn thing that's their job to do? How come? Why?

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2018, 03:18:24 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 15, 2018, 02:19:18 amNASA's hands were tied by a bunch of special interest groups setting the parameters they could work by. Additionally part of the goal was to develop the technologies in a way that they could also be of greater use to the nation. Yes, it was a huge new technology development effort and technology transfer to industry. In some cases industry just needed deep pockets to pursue a project that they otherwise couldn't see the profit in doing. Take a look at the history of the IC. As a nation we gained a huge advantage from it. Also NASA needed to keep their best engineers working on the big design issues, not solving production headaches.

author: coldfiremc
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2018, 04:55:11 am
content: Soviets taken humans and dogs outside, with less budget, techology and time than spaceX. Some of their designs still are in use (Soyuz, Energia rockets).Nasa never developed nothing completely "inside", always was contract-driven. So State owned v/s private in United states, is quite nonsense. NASA served as a coordinator and financial support for many technological developments carried by universities, private companies, from US and another countries. Without it, probably some technologies never reached commercial/industrial grade.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2018, 05:03:50 am
content: One of my mentors was particularly strong on motivation/organization of teams. One of his catch phrases was that before you can do anything "yougottawanna". NASA used to "wanna". Now they don't know what they "wanna" and every four or eight years the politicians change their direction for them. Musk and SpaceX definately "wanna".

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2018, 06:53:08 am
content: Quote from: German_EE on July 14, 2018, 06:57:20 pmAny chance that the "make mistakes, then try again and again" paradigm would change once human pilots and passengers get involved?

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2018, 07:18:00 am
content: The goal of NASA's manned program was to beat the Soviets, and now to allocate pork. The whole thing about being pioneers in space was just propaganda to justify the expense. NASA's manned program is just a waste of time, compared to the robotic and other missions which are excellent. No US president will ever allocate NASA the funds required to put humans on Mars, nor to "go back" to the Moon. NASA have no interest or skill in reducing the cost of access to space, which is the only way it will get done.Since SpaceX was set up with the express purpose of putting humans on Mars, and doing it by reducing cost, they will likely achieve it. NASA aren't even in the race - they might end up buying rockets or seats from SpaceX. There might be a "NASA mission to mars", but it will be a NASA badge on a private ship.

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2018, 07:33:03 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on July 15, 2018, 06:53:08 amI seam to recall SpaceX already has a payload on the way to Mars. I expect many more before any human goes. They seam to be doing their testing before humans are part of the equation.

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2018, 07:44:04 am
content: US Presidents can propose budgets, make requests, and threaten vetos, but in the end it's still Congress that actually allocates funds to NASA.Which of course is hundreds of people with political agendas that have trouble getting on the same page even within the groups that are theoretically on the same side of issues.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 15, 2018, 09:52:31 am
content: Quote from: coldfiremc on July 15, 2018, 04:55:11 amEnergia is not in use for decades. It was used to launch Buran spacecraft. As making it with lower budget, it's certainly not true when compared with Spacex. Also currently Soyuz and Proton are more expensive than Falcon.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 15, 2018, 10:33:37 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on July 15, 2018, 06:53:08 amFWIW there was not a single human death and only 2 failures of Falcon 9 (the cause was found and fixed). You can't count landing attempt failures as launch failures. They were additional landing test missions after launch already happened. Since they got it right, every landing was successful except center booster of Falcon heavy (test mission and quiet different from F9 booster). Nobody else got the landing right, Blue Origin don't really count as it's not something that can place any payload into orbit. Spacex tests everything as much as possible, including firing engines on fully assembled rocket unlike anyone else. They try to not use anything non testable before use. For this reason they don't use pyro separation like others but hydraulic instead. Also unlike anyone else they take used rocket apart and inspect it, thus are able to find issues which others can't. Space shuttle was the most dangerous manned space vehicle. Both catastrophes were caused by already known problems which were not fixed and continued to use as is. Particularly solid booster seal issues and thermal tile issues.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 15, 2018, 11:20:05 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on July 15, 2018, 06:53:08 amYep, and this will be the huge test, when someone dies in a Space-X mission (it's probably inevitable).And let's hope that Space-X is profitable, because if it's run like Tesla, then the wheels might eventually fall off the billy cart just because of that. Although I suspect NASA and hence the government won't let that happen.Musk isn't that rich that he can fund Mars mission on his own, the company has to fund all this mars stuff through the profitable missions.No bucks, no buck rogers.So if/when a human accident happens, that will put a huge halt to things for a long time at the very least. There won't be any "beat the ruskies" 60's era go-fever to help it.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 15, 2018, 11:23:33 am
content: Quote from: Nusa on July 15, 2018, 07:44:04 amAnd the only way they all get on the "same page" is money in their pockets, from the campaign donors. It's the way the US system works.Musk might have to pony up huge $ to congressmen in order to grease the wheels.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 15, 2018, 11:26:16 am
content: Quote from: wraper on July 15, 2018, 10:33:37 amAnd if you think Space-X aren't eventually going to get over-confident and get complacent and/or get pressured to meet schedules, then I've got a moon rock to sell you. It'll happen, just wait...

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 15, 2018, 11:47:59 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 15, 2018, 11:26:16 amSRB O-ring failure was known for 9 years and still not fixed.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2018, 11:58:05 am
content: Quote from: Eka on July 15, 2018, 03:18:24 amWould you go as far as saying that we wouldn't have ICs if it were not for NASA?

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2018, 03:20:55 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 15, 2018, 11:58:05 amNo, but it is the feeling of many that they would have not come as early as they did.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2018, 05:47:27 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 15, 2018, 11:20:05 amNo, in a few years it will be " beat the Chinese to Mars" space race.Meanwhile in Europe, we spend 3.7 Billion Euro on ESA. This is 0.05% of the EU28 national budgets. Good job Europe, you will make some meaningful contribution to space flight in no time.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2018, 05:01:05 pm
content: I don't understand this geek fascination with space. It's a dead end, no one's going anywhere. Deal with it.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2018, 08:14:32 pm
content: That Canadian space guy who played and sang David Bowie major Tom in ISS said that few of them astronauts wouldon free will be passenger on Musks rocket to mars as it looks now and a part into future. I can assume he hadvery good reasons.Heey! yet another opportunity to hate Musk or arselick Musk, your choice!

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 17, 2018, 06:05:25 am
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 16, 2018, 05:01:05 pmIt's not just a geek thing, regular people are interested too. The fact that you don't understand is something that I feel lessens your experience in life. I'm not saying you need to share their fascination, but making a bit of an effort to understand it is, IMHO, invaluable. I don't understand people who collect string - but I accept they find interest in it.QuoteHardly - but I suppose it depends on what you see the objectives are.QuoteI find that rather mediaeval thinking.QuoteI could say the same.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 17, 2018, 08:16:29 am
content: And what is the point posting that? Nobody besides SpaceX made a real rocket that can place a payload into orbit and can vertically land. When you see F9 booster landing, it may not look so big but it's as high as 14 story building.Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 17, 2018, 07:34:44 am

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2018, 08:30:52 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 15, 2018, 11:20:05 amCompanies designed to suck public money need not be profitable to survive.https://ideapod.com/elon-musks-business-empire-fueled-4-9-billion-government-subsidies-businesses-self-sustainable/

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 17, 2018, 08:54:15 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 17, 2018, 08:30:52 amExcept this has nothing to do with SpaceX and Tesla did not receive any of that as money. Having reduced tax is not the same as sucking taxpayer money. Also a very large part of that figure is over next 10-20 years, thus not that significant if you look at it annually.

author: Koen
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2018, 09:55:27 am
content: I wonder which one of Musk or GeorgeOfTheJungle will run out of steam first.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 17, 2018, 10:29:36 am
content: Quote from: MT on July 16, 2018, 08:14:32 pmI recorded a video of Chris Hadfield singing that live

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2018, 11:10:48 am
content: Quote from: wraper on July 17, 2018, 08:54:15 amhttps://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/if-tesla-is-worth-more-than-gm-why-are-taxpayers-still-subsidizing-it/QuoteThat's for the US, but it's ~ the same all over the rest of the world.Meanwhile, he's also planning to offshore Model Y and Model 3 production out of the States, to China:https://www.teslarati.com/elon-musk-shanghai-tesla-gigafactory-china-500k-production/"Dear US taxpayers, thank you very much for your hard earned money, and fuck you. Signed Elon Musk."Sorry for the off topic.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2018, 11:13:45 am
content: Quote from: wraper on July 17, 2018, 08:16:29 amA bit of history of rocketry, just for your info.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 17, 2018, 11:21:32 am
content: None of that rebuffs what I said. Any other EV buyer also gets tax credit. Tesla actually is in disadvantage there because of the largest amount of electric cars produced. Tax credit for Tesla purchase gets reduced and soon will be gone.https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/12/tesla-ev-tax-credit/Of course they want factory in China which is the largest market for EVs and has 40% import duty on american cars (was 25% before trade war).Also please go away with your chronic EV butthurt, this thread is about space, not cars.Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 17, 2018, 11:10:48 am

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2018, 12:32:24 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 17, 2018, 11:21:32 amTo an extent it does!https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2018/02/02/is_spacex_wasting_taxpayer_dollars_110494.htmlQoute:It is dumbfounding that more questions aren’t being asked about SpaceX. Despite the government’s knowledge of systemic deficiencies with SpaceX rockets and systems, it continues to contract with them, putting billions of taxpayer dollars in the hands of an unreliable company. The government should release the details of SpaceX’s recent failed launch to the public. The taxpayers deserve greater transparency and reassurance that our money is not funding celebrity companies while compromising national security and fiscal responsibility.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2018, 01:08:21 pm
content: I think the UK will beat both NASA and SpaceX to Mars, just as soon as we've collected enough cardboard boxes and rubber bands to build our £2.5m 3 space ports.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 17, 2018, 01:13:13 pm
content: Quote from: MT on July 17, 2018, 12:32:24 pmThat's some BS reporting. Systemic deficiencies, do they dare to show them?ULA $400 million per single launch + $1 billion in subsidies annually for doing nothing is much better I guess.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 17, 2018, 01:39:03 pm
content: Quote from: MT on July 17, 2018, 12:32:24 pmYep, let's not differentiate between SpaceX and Tesla. Supposedly it does not matter they are 2 separate companies. What I said about Tesla is about Tesla. What I said about SpaceX is about SpaceX. Very nice to take a quote about Tesla and rebuff it with low quality reporting about SpaceX. I read more of it, they mentioned and linked NASA report about non-conformities. A little issue with that, they forgot to mention that ULA was not any better.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2018, 10:18:50 pm
content: None is rebuffing anything,,, well maybe you do, point are no matter Tesla,Musk, Spacex, ULA, Kaddafi, King Kong, NASA, they all para siting on taxpayers money one way or the other, you just dont what to see or hear that......as an Musk fan boi!

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2018, 12:08:48 am
content: Quote from: MT on July 17, 2018, 10:18:50 pmIn one sense you are right, but in that sense you left some off like ESA, Arianespace, BAE and others. Along with everyone using one of the satellite location services like GPS.In another sense you are wrong. People are making (and or saving) money with comsats, earth observation, satellite TV, and others. And those people are paying for launch services and space vehicles. Are those subsidized through launch facilities and other things. Sure. Just like the roads you drive your car on.If using roads, postal services, libraries and other similar public facilities makes you a parasite, call me a happy parasite.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2018, 12:14:14 am
content: NASA's budget is absolutely tiny in the grand scheme of things, it's no wonder they haven't undertaken anything really monumental in a long time.I think space is fascinating, but unlike many I'm not so enamored by the idea of sending people to Mars. Even under the best conditions, it's a less hospitable and far more isolated environment than the most climate-extreme, desolate "corners" of the Earth. What exactly is someone who goes there going to do? I suspect the novelty of being on another planet will wear off pretty quickly once they get there. If an emergency occurs, they are on their own, even if we were to send them needed supplies it would take months for them to get there.I would be more interested in sending unmanned robotic probes to more places. It's much cheaper and less risky, and we can send them to far more places, learning much more than we can by putting a human on Mars. Exploration can be mechanized and automated, the only reason to send a human there is because we can.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2018, 12:19:58 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on July 18, 2018, 12:08:48 amBottom line is perhaps from the very start it was tax money who enabled the whole hoopla! Saving money is a very relative issue. Your a happy parasite as long as tax money is used for postal services, libraries and other similar public facilities , here for example they are mismanaging the hospital system vaste'ing tax payers money, so im not even enable to parasite! No and i dont want the American system thankyvery much! I dont mind space but thinks the crap on earth should be fixed first!But im surprised an american actually talking about government payd public benefits, thats socialism!

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2018, 12:52:43 am
content: People love to argue about the little stuff, but if you look at where American taxpayer money ends up (I say American because that's where I live and what I'm familiar with, not because I'm not aware other countries exist) our military expenditures absolutely dwarf everything else. NASA, the cost of healthcare, the cost of college education, and even smaller, even more hot button issues like welfare, that's all peanuts compared to what we spend on military. That's not to say I don't support our soldiers but come on, if there's fat to trim that's the place to look! I'd like to stop blowing up other places for a bit and focus on home.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2018, 01:29:17 am
content: At the risk of repeating myself:Quote from: rdl on December 13, 2017, 09:28:28 am

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2018, 02:05:22 am
content: Quote from: German_EE on July 14, 2018, 06:57:20 pmSorry, but this has to be one of the most idiotic (or at minimum, profoundly uninformed) things I’ve read in a while.NASA is “cautious” because of a) past mistakes* and b) lack of funding. NASA’s budget is half of what it was back during the Space Race. They have neither the money nor staff to perform heroic acts of engineering like they could in the Space Race.And I’m not sure how you can see innovation and inspiration in a video showing failures as silly as “ran out of fuel”. That, to me, just plain shows poor design or planning.What I will agree with, though you didn’t exactly say it, is that the US as a whole (both as a government and as a society) has lost nearly all ambition. Whenever any diffucult, but worthwhile, effort is suggested, it gets knocked down as impossible or impractical. (Here’s a guaranteed-to-work example: propose adopting any public policy that works in a small country, like Switzerland, to a group of Americans. I guarantee you, at least half will dismiss it off the bat, saying “the USA is bigger, it could never work here”. And it’s said not as an invitation to flesh out a way to make it work, but rather as a resigned way to shut down the avenue of exploration. It’s massively frustrating to me.)*If you’re the space geek you claim to be, then you should know that the Challenger disaster was the direct result of management’slackof caution, despite expert warning.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 18, 2018, 07:47:30 am
content: Quote from: tooki on July 18, 2018, 02:05:22 amSo poor that nobody else besides them got landing working. All other space companies and most people overall were laughing about their "silly attempts" those days. Now nobody in those companies is laughing because SpaceX ate a lot of their market share. How to see inspiration? This video was created by SpaceX themselves and posted on their own channel. Those all were landing attempts before they got technology working. Once they got landing working, now it seems more like a routine operation.QuoteAbout this I certainly can repeat your "most idiotic (or at minimum, profoundly uninformed) things I’ve read in a while."You might not be aware, but it's extremely weight prohibitive to put any extra fuel on rocket. Especially if it's a launch to GTO. So you want to put just enough of it. And when you are still in stage when you are just trying to get very difficult technology working, it's no wonder that real world situation may require more fuel than it was simulated. Don't forget that early landings were additional test mission after rocket launch was already completed.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2018, 12:43:29 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on July 17, 2018, 06:05:25 amI prefer that to child-like magical thinking.www.distancetomars.comAntarctica during six months of dark winter is more hospitable to human life than Mars, where's your rush to colonize that?NASA sent asmall hatchbackto Mars almost 40 years ago. Who is SpaceX "beating" to Mars here?Are you software dreamers thinking of sending people???https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/why-not-space/Reality is not like software; you can't just download a new reality when the old one doesn't satisfy you. Reality doesn't care about your thinking, your dreams, or where you believe you'll retire.Grow up. We don't even have the Concorde anymore and you guys are picking out the counter finish on your Mars condos?

author: gore
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2018, 01:24:09 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 18, 2018, 12:43:29 pmThe idea is to spread humanity beyond the Earth in case of a cosmic catastrophe. No one is rushing to colonize Antarctica (located on the Earth) because it's irrelevant. It's a difficult problem to solve, but certainly not unattainable.The same 'software' dreamers, as you call them, managed to land a rocket vertically in the middle of an ocean. Not so long ago it was considered science fiction. Give it some time and it will happen. I don't understand your point of view. What exactly do you propose? To do nothing at all?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 18, 2018, 01:26:23 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 18, 2018, 12:43:29 pmIt has that small thing called oxygenQuoteLiving on Mars for say the first 50 years after first settlement will still be nothing like the movies. It'll be a pathetic, cramped, bleak existence. There won't even be Johnny Cab or three boob mutants.I didn't like Andy Weirs new book about the moon as much as The Martian, but his description of a practical colony on the moon sounds at least realistic compared to setting up a Mars colony.We can get a lot more tonnage to the moon much cheaper and quicker, and tourists could take realistic two week long vacations there.Mars is more hospitable to larger scale colonisation for sure, but several orders of magnitude more tricky.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2018, 01:33:55 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 18, 2018, 01:26:23 pmYou're an engineer who slams ridiculous concepts for a living, but lose your marbles over sci-fi daydreams. This space crap is a modern religion.Why would tourists go to the Moon for two weeks? Just drop them in the desert and kick them for two weeks. I'll do it cheap!!

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2018, 01:34:22 pm
content: Quote from: gore on July 18, 2018, 01:24:09 pmA "human-induced catastrophe" seems like a far more likely path to making Earth uninhabitable than a "cosmic catastrophe". Maybe our human efforts should rather be directed at avoiding to mess up Earth, than at establishing a rescue pod on Mars?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 18, 2018, 01:37:32 pm
content: Quote from: gore on July 18, 2018, 01:24:09 pmParaphrasing Neil Tyson:Whatever it takes to ship a million (insert your own number) people to Mars and make them permanently sustainable in a terraformed environment suitable for continuation of the species in the absence of Earth blowing up. It would beway easierto deflect the asteroid, control the virus, or reverse climate change, or fix whatever threatened earth.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 18, 2018, 01:45:59 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 18, 2018, 01:33:55 pmAre you serious?If going to the moon was safe enough and relatively cheap enough, you would have a line a mile long for people wanting to pay top dollar for the experience of a lifetime, the ultimate bucket list item.We already have rich people paying $20M a pop for the "trip of a lifetime" just a few hundred km above our heads.That's about to get ever cheaper and more consumer friendly with Space-X or others no doubt.You already have 1000+ people a year shelling out $50k+ for the miserable several month expedition to climb mount Everest with a 1% chance of dying. Have that same 1% chance of dying for a moon shot at a few hundred $k for a week and you'd have to beat them off with a stick.It's practicallyguaranteedthat individuals will continue to pay money for "space tourism".Heck, you wouldn't even need to land on the moon, people would be lining up to take a trip around the back side and seeing it up close and doing the thumb thing with the earth in the window. Or landing and having a day walk around could be a package option, no need for a colony.This is the complete opposite of a daydream, a space tourism lap around the moon is practically doable right now.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2018, 01:47:05 pm
content: Quote from: gore on July 18, 2018, 01:24:09 pmWho is "proposing" anything? You're the one with the quasi-religious space fever "idea is to spread humanity beyond the Earth in case of a cosmic catastrophe".This religious drivel comes up over and over with clueless children. Evolution is happening one way or the other. There wasn't a humanity a million years ago, and there won't be one in another million, no matter how much you cry every time Elon Musk tweets some bullshit.You have a religion complete with a doomsday scenario, the "chosen people" who have posters of rockets in their bedrooms, the mean "unbelievers" who just can't understand what you're raving about.Any "cosmic catastrophe" would still leave the Earth orders of magnitude more hospitable than Mars could ever be."The same 'software' dreamers, as you call them, managed to land a rocket vertically in the middle of an ocean"Oh well then we are protected against cosmic catastrophes for sure! Praise Elon! Hurrah! BTW, do you have titanium roof shingles over your house to protect from cosmic catastrophes? No? Why not? But you expect the rest of us to follow in your space delirium?Look, at the peak of America's industrial might, they were able to send three people to the Moon at a time, and two of them bounced around for a bit, picked up some dust, and came back within about a week.Right now, NO ONE has replicated this even with all your Holy Progress that you devoutly worship. We are adding 200000 more people EVERY DAY to the planet. It would take about 70000 Saturn V launches... A DAY. Just. To. Break. Even.So tell me, who are the chosen people to "protected humanity from a Cosmic Catastrophe (tm)?" You gonna go pick a representative sample of every ethnic group, or just your close circle of fart smellers that believe the same horsecrap you do?

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2018, 01:54:24 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 18, 2018, 01:45:59 pmBullshit. It's been possible for decades. It always dies on the vine.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTRAGhttp://www.cnn.com/TECH/9705/25/japan.space/"If going to the moon was safe enough and relatively cheap enough,"Yeah and if my grandma had wings she'd be an F-15. So what? It's all just bullshit dreams, Dave."a space tourism lap around the moon is practically doable right now."Going up in MiG-29 is not just "practically" doable, it is LITERALLY doable. How many do it? Did you?https://www.migflug.com/en/jet-fighter-flights/flying-with-a-jet/mig-29-edge-of-space.htmlWhy not? Because you are more attracted to the dream than the reality. If everyone COULD go to the Moon, you'd want something even more exotic because this isn't about space, it's about a dream. You'd want to visit the core of Jupiter instead because THAT's unattainable.That's fine, just don't confuse daydreams with the toxic space religiosity or sci-fi nonsense of children who grew up on TV and no critical thinking skills.

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2018, 02:01:42 pm
content: As someone who was born before Sputnik, and who both lived thru some of the coldest Cold War periods and the height of the Space Race, I can tell you that the Space Race wasa very essential componentof the Cold War.The Space Race objectives were not only showing the rest of the World whose system was better, but the science and technology development involved with it, had immediate and very real military applications.I don't see an existential threat like the Cold War today, and therefore neither the government nor the public is interested as much as it used to be.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2018, 02:32:43 pm
content: Quote from: schmitt trigger on July 18, 2018, 02:01:42 pmI always saw it as: the military applications came first, and the Space Race was just the sugar-coated PR face of it. I mean some of the NASA artwork of the era was amazing in its Norman Rockwell-esque depictions of the Moon.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 18, 2018, 02:41:06 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 18, 2018, 01:54:24 pmThat doesn't mean larger space tourism won't be viable in the near future, there have been a LOT of advances since then in cost reduction and specific private venture companies dedicated to it. Space tourism hasalready happened.QuoteExcept for the people who have already paid $20M a pop to go into space, it's already an industry that has had a half billion dollar customer turnover. Not to mention those who have already ponied up the money to go with Virgin Galactic.Bullshit dreams huh?QuoteThanks for bringing that up. I was actually very close to paying the $10,000 or so back in the 90's when this became a thing. I was seriously trying to decide between a Mig-29, SU-27, or even the Mig-25 "edge of space" experience. I'm not joking, I almost booked the ticket. Ultimately decided it was better to save that money at the time due to various circumstances. Sure I talked about this in a live show long ago.It's still on my bucket list. It's not like I can now say "see you honey, I'm taking a week off to go to Russia and fly in Mig, mind the kids for me".QuoteYou don't seem to be grounded in reality.Of course not everyone goes on these thing, majority of the population of the US for example have never even left their own country.I would not go for a shot into space or the moon right now because I have kids I want to see grow up, and the circa 1% chance I wouldn't come back is too high for me. But in my retirement I most certainly would take that risk.QuoteI'm basing this onactual data, and the blindingly obvious psychology of human adventure.Do you think those 1000+ people a year who pay $50k+ to be hauled up everest for bragging rights and spend a few months doing it in horrible conditions would rather do that, or take the same chance of death and fly to the moon instead that could be done in a week in far more comfort and also zero prep in comparison? FYI, there is already a zero death rate for space tourism, and it's an actual thing.And that's just for starters. Once people see it's a "tourist thing", albeit an extreme once-in-a-lifetime tourist thing, they will flock.And by flock I mean, a few thousand a year tops, just like other extreme things like Everest, or Mig flights, not hundreds of thousands.Heck, once-in-a-lifetime trips to the antarctic take longer than a moon flight would.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2018, 06:35:01 pm
content: Look at this. People want this. These are beautiful images, because it shows how tiny we are and then suddenly entire continents are lit up, or planets changed completely for better or worse.It doesnt matter how much it costs. Money is a made up thing.It is human nature, to go beyond where we were yesterday. I dont know why you want to deny this.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2018, 06:57:13 pm
content: I for one hate cruise tours because you end up jailed in a ship where the only thing you can do is look at the sea which, after more than a few hours, is quite boring really. Good for drinking and fishing at the disco at night, though, for those that like that.Now imagine being jailed in a tight capsule for days or weeks, breathing the same recirculated filtered air conditioned air all the time, jeez, no. I'd rather watch the nice scenery of somebody else's trips in 4K on youtube, with a nice background music, thanks.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2018, 07:44:24 pm
content: I tend to agree, however there are certainly people who would jump at the chance, who am I to judge?I've been tempted more than once to take a flight on a vintage airliner or WWII combat aircraft, a lot of people would consider that uncomfortable and boring but it sounds pretty exciting to me. If I had money to burn I'd be all over it, I'd rather take a cross country trip on a DC-3 or Lockheed Constellation than go to the moon on a rocket but that's just me.

author: Echo88
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2018, 08:05:19 pm
content: @ In Vacuo Veritas"Dreams are for pathetic losers! Losers i say! *spits from his porch while rocking his wheelchair**later that day* "I really dont know why my children never visit me"

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2018, 12:27:59 am
content: It is easy to logically demonstrate the stupidity of living on land. I mean there isn't any water to hold you up and keep your gills moist. Nothing to eat there either. And radiation from the sun will burn you. And ......Fortunately there weren't any thinking creatures making that decision. So their descendants eventually took over a new environment with possibilities that literally don't exist in the water. Fire. High speeds. And many others.If our descendants are to take advantage of these new environments it will have to start someday. Why not now? If we start now we may not even have to wait for evolution to create very different versions of us.For those who want to remain fish forever, that is fine - the oceans actually are quite nice. So nice that creatures like whales, dolphins and seals went back.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2018, 05:08:49 am
content: We will probably blow ourselves up here eventually anyway. If humans manage to spread to another planet it won't take long for fighting to break out there too, only if it's a completely lifeless planet that we colonize there won't be the huge diversity of other species around. I suspect at least the first several attempts at colonizing another planet will fairly quickly end in catastrophe of one sort or another. Eventually something might work out but I think we're a long way off.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2018, 05:51:20 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 18, 2018, 01:37:32 pmExactly. I’ve never understood what makes people think that if we can’t survive here, on a planet quite literally perfectly designed to promote our survival, we would be able to survive on another planet.Sure, small numbers, for short time periods, in a small, environmentally controlled space, maintained and stocked with supplies from earth - but the idea of “terraforming” another planet is science fiction in its most improbable form.Maybe we should put more effort into “terrapreserving” the one planet nearby that can support human life.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2018, 08:17:31 am
content: Colonization ends up at war with the colonizers, most often

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 19, 2018, 11:02:54 am
content: Quote from: james_s on July 18, 2018, 12:52:43 amOr just do better accounting. The Pentagon lost $2.3T (Trillion)And more has been "lost" since then.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 19, 2018, 11:07:54 am
content: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army/u-s-army-fudged-its-accounts-by-trillions-of-dollars-auditor-finds-idUSKCN10U1IGQuote

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2018, 11:48:54 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on July 19, 2018, 05:51:20 amObviously you don't understand evolution. The planet wasn't designed for us. We evolved to survive on it.We need our eggs in more than one basket. Another rift volcano will erupt, or large meteor will hit earth. If we haven't solved the issues of living elsewhere by then, we are done for as a species.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2018, 11:50:19 am
content: Quote from: james_s on July 18, 2018, 12:52:43 amOh please stop you stupidity! I have in several threads mentioned the mysteriously disappearance of 21 trillion USD getting ridiculed by your fellow citizens for it now you trying to make point of very same Pentagon spending and you didnt know it was 21 trillions, as if i dont know how the corrupt USA works. The soldiers is not yours but the oligarchs mercenaries im not baffled you support such pathetic criminal crap! There is a reason USA is the planet laughing stock so MAGA and Covfefe!Have you figured out why your so called fellow soldiers still invading and stationary in Afghanistan do you?

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2018, 12:17:05 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on July 19, 2018, 05:08:49 amWhy this constant negativism on homo sapiens sapiens? But to an extent i agree to your conclusion if Americans are let to spread to other planets there will be endless wars. But if peaceful Faroeans and Scandinavians in general there will be no blowups only flowers and soft pillow thumping then french sex.Americans are always afraid of something, if not the fellow John Doe on the street its his neighbor, if not its the people of another town, if not its the federal government and if not, its the Canadians and Mexicans, and if not its the Russians and if not they will invent something to be afraid of as a lame excuse for arming them selfs to the teeth even into space! What a sad story! I dont see the Greenlandics behave in this way.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 19, 2018, 02:24:13 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 19, 2018, 11:07:54 amHow is this not thesingle most important thingbeing investigated by Congress?

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2018, 04:44:46 pm
content: Quote from: MT on July 19, 2018, 11:50:19 amWhat are you even talking about? So I admire people who are willing to serve their country, so what? Nowhere did I mention that I approve of what our military gets used for or the people sending the orders. Calm down and take a deep breath, you're reading far more into what I said than I put there.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2018, 05:21:37 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 19, 2018, 02:24:13 pmIt’s all aboutwho owns CongessDave.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 19, 2018, 05:30:53 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on July 19, 2018, 05:21:37 pmBut it's Elon Musk gets called out by media as a top donor after donating $40k to GOP (DNC too but only few mentioned).

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2018, 11:53:43 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on July 19, 2018, 05:21:37 pmThe really sad thing is that our Congress critters have been so successfully bought (or so successfully sold themselves) that these numbers are hardly influential. While the numbers in the chart look huge, they are a tiny fraction of the net worth of all but the newest and least influential, even if focused on only a couple of people.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2018, 12:23:28 am
content: It should be a criminal offense to take contributions from any entity. Maybe have a general campaign fund that can be contributed to and then divided out evenly, or do something to even out that process. I'm ok with political positions paying a modest salary but for the most part it should be a public service one does to serve their country and not a path to great wealth.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2018, 01:30:30 am
content: The only answer IMO is full public financing of elections and once you leave congress, a lifetime ban on lobbying or working in any industry you were involved in regulating. I know, it will never happen, but I can dream...

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2018, 01:15:26 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on July 20, 2018, 01:30:30 amIn theory I agree, yet in practice, that’d be impossible in some industries. For example, if you’re a nuclear physicist, you’ve really only got 3 major types of employers: the government, nuclear power, or nuclear physics research. So if we instituted a “no revolving doors” law, anyone who worked for the government could never work for the others, and so if they left the government, they’d de facto have to choose a new, unrelated career. And to be sure, we need for regulators to be deeply knowledgeable about the fields they regulate. When they aren’t, we get shit like the horrible net neutrality laws, the attempted laws on encryption (Clipper Chip, remember that??), and the US government’s panel on vaccines. Did you hear about that last one? Because they don’t want it to be “biased” by vaccine researchers, they expressly avoid any members with any background in vaccine research...

author: Bassman59
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2018, 05:45:14 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on July 19, 2018, 11:53:43 pmWhile I completely agree with those who state that there is too much corporate money in politics, and that politicians are easily bought (on the state level, legislators are pretty cheap!), this chart is misleading.Under the "contributor" column is a list of corporations. But under US law, corporations cannot donate to political campaigns. (They can donate to allegedly-independent PACs, but that is not what this chart describes.) So how can this list be created?Easy. If you've ever donated to a political campaign, you are required to disclose the name of your employer. When the candidates report their contributions, that information is included, and the agency that tallies this all up reports the total amount donated by theemployeesof each company. Remember, for a federal campaign, a US citizen is allowed to contribute something like only $4600 to each candidate. Divide the $3,158,849 by $4600 and you get a whopping 686 individuals employed by Northrup Grumman donating to candidates ofbothparties.And since most people do not donate the maximum, not even close. I read somewhere that the average donation is $250 (take the CEOs who give the max and the line workers who give $20, and that sounds about right), so that's 12,635 individuals who work for Northrup Grumman who gave money to a candidate. How many employees does NG have? A lot more.So I'd like to think that the $250 I give to my various preferred candidates will influence their votes, but the reality is that they already vote the way I want them to vote. I give them money so the guy who votes the other way doesn't get into office.So the real money influence on campaigns comes not from individual donations, but from the super PACs legalized by the Citizens United decision, which basically allowed unlimited money contributed by anonymous people to run "issue ads" supporting preferred candidates and blasting opposition. The real money influence comes from lobbyists who can promise "jobs" in a district , and they can sweep that PAC money to a candidate.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2018, 06:06:52 pm
content: In two words: rotten politics.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2018, 06:18:21 pm
content: Before I retired I had direct personal contact with several pols in DC. It is difficult to overstate how driven by money they are, and how warped they and their staffs have become over years of exposure to the system. I think most do not enter politics with the intention to be corrupt, but the forces on them are huge and subtle.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2018, 07:04:09 pm
content: Quote from: Bassman59 on July 20, 2018, 05:45:14 pmThat is a distinction without meaning. Corporations cannot only donate to a PAC that is specifically dedicated to electing an individual, but they can also donate to local or national party "committees" whose sole focus may be electing one particular individual ("The committee to elect John Smith"). In the end the result is that individual corporations or industries can indeed donate very large amounts of money to particular candidates. Which is, for example, howKoch Industries alone has been able to donate $6.5 million just so far in the 2018 election cycle.QuoteNot really true - it's only true for donations > $200. I've donated to several candidates campaigns without disclosing my profession or employer.QuoteActually, individual can contribute up to $10k per year to a local party committees and up to $10K (or in some cases 100K) per year to national party committees. For exampleAs for where congressional donations come from, there is very little of that money that is coming from small individual donors. Most of it comes from big donors and PACs.The above info can be verified on theWikipedia article on US campaign financeQuoteI agree. The figures in the defense contribution chart does not even include the very large amounts spend by the defense industry on lobbying congress.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2018, 07:41:21 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on July 18, 2018, 12:14:14 amYes, exactly. There isn't even any scientific reason to send humans to Mars; it's extremely expensive, impractical and dangerous, and you have to go through the trouble of sending all the people back again. A robot can do any necessary job "cheaply", safely and it can be left at the destination when the mission is finished.As for setting up a permanent settlement on Mars. What would they do there? They would be completely isolated, living in little huts in a desert with no air outside. They would die from boredom. Sure there are people who voluntarily live in cloisters and stuff, so there are probably those who could and would do it, but why would anyone else pay for it.Colonising Mars? No atmosphere, no magnetic field, no water. Terra-forming isn't realistic. I guess you could have people living in pressurised underground structures. But how would the colonists construct them and set up the necessary manufacturing facilities and mining operations (for the raw materials) without massive support from Earth. It's not going to happen any time soon.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2018, 07:52:30 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 18, 2018, 01:26:23 pmHaven't read that book (yet) but I agree, a permanent settlement on the moon makes much more sense than a base on Mars, as well as a bigger space station in earth orbit. And there are actually both scientific and economic applications for a moon base.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2018, 08:00:57 pm
content: Quote from: apis on July 20, 2018, 07:41:21 pm

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2018, 08:21:08 pm
content: Quote from: apis on July 20, 2018, 07:41:21 pmThere are all sorts of scientific reasons to send humans to Mars. Nearly everything that happens to those humans in that environment, and much of what they see and do, would be scientific data that's unobtainable anywhere else. It doesn't stop being science just because it's expensive as hell and may not happen in our lifetimes.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2018, 08:26:38 pm
content: Quote from: Nusa on July 20, 2018, 08:21:08 pmBut the same data can be collected by robots for a fraction of the cost and risk, so there is no reason to sendhumans.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 20, 2018, 08:45:56 pm
content: Quote from: apis on July 20, 2018, 08:26:38 pmNope, it cannot. Unless artificial general intelligence is developed. And not such which runs remotely on earth but which can be shipped to Mars.

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2018, 08:49:24 pm
content: Quote from: apis on July 20, 2018, 08:26:38 pmDid you even read what I wrote? Let me know when a robot can collect data on how humans function in a Martian environment without having humans in a Martian environment.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2018, 09:19:07 pm
content: Quote from: Nusa on July 20, 2018, 08:49:24 pmAlright, sure, you need to send a human to see how a human function in a martian environment. I really doubt anyone is going to want to spend the money required just to get the answer to that question though.Quote from: wraper on July 20, 2018, 08:45:56 pmWhy not? What a human would be doing is collecting rock/soil samples and operating the measurement equipment that was prepared back on earth. A robot (remote controlled from earth) can do that as well (that's what the mars rovers have been doing). A human might be better at it but not enough that it motivates the extra cost/risk.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 20, 2018, 09:27:54 pm
content: Quote from: apis on July 20, 2018, 09:19:07 pmResults of what could be done with robots is pretty evident as they were already sent. The answer is - not that much. Something very simple for a human often is extremely difficult for a robot. Robots are good for doing tasks which are easily automated and need high volume of repeated operations. But general tasks are extremely difficult for them.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2018, 09:35:54 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 20, 2018, 09:27:54 pmWhat specifically is it you need a human for that you couldn't have a remote controlled robot do? (And something that couldn't just as well be done here on earth, the ISS or on the moon)Compare with what the astronauts on the moon did for example.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 20, 2018, 09:40:49 pm
content: Quote from: apis on July 20, 2018, 09:35:54 pmSay dig a few meter deep hole in fully automated way. It would be quiet a task to make one which can do this reliably by itself. Remote control from earth pretty much won't work because of communications delay.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 20, 2018, 09:46:01 pm
content: Even drilling a few inch deep hole is quiet a taskhttps://bgr.com/2017/10/24/nasa-curiosity-drill-bit-testing-mars/

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2018, 11:30:26 pm
content: Since 2012 the Curiosity Rover on Mars has traveled a little over 18 km. The Apollo 17 astronauts drove over 30 km in three days. As cool and impressive as our Martian robots have been, they don't really compare to what humans could do in the same situation. I think Mars is a great place for humans to explore. Colonizing can and should wait until it would be easy.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2018, 11:31:58 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 20, 2018, 09:40:49 pmIt would also be quite a task to send humans to mars and back again. We have machines that are good at digging here on earth. I don't see why adding an excavator to a mars mission wouldn't be possible. I disagree that remote control won't work, it just takes a lot longer time, but digging very slowly is still a lot easier and safer than sending humans all the way to mars.Today I would envision you would use a combination of autonomous digging and a human just guiding the work remotely so that the robot could dig without the operator having to control every single motion of the excavator. That way it would be able to dig fairly quickly. Although autonomous robot technology is something that is evolving very rapidly right now so it's hard to tell exactly what will be possible in the near future. In a few years it might even be possible to just tell a robot you want a hole over there that is x wide and y deep and it will go off and dig it for you.Quote from: wraper on July 20, 2018, 09:46:01 pmBecause the drill was broken. Hard for humans to drill with broken equipment as well...A human would be much better and adaptable but in 99.9% of the time a robot will be able to do itwell enoughto get the job done.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 20, 2018, 11:47:30 pm
content: Quote from: apis on July 20, 2018, 11:31:58 pmExactly, you'll have a tiny issue somewhere, and mission is doomed. Robots cannot fix themselves or face unexpected situations gracefully. Autonomous robot could simply drive into a pit and get stuck there or roll over.QuoteThat 0.1% likely will happen in just a few hours of operation if you try doing something beyond simplest tasks and doom the mission.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 21, 2018, 12:23:44 am
content: Quote from: wraper on July 20, 2018, 11:47:30 pmA human can fix a lot of things a robot couldn't, but there are a lot of things that can go wrong that a human wouldn't be able to fix either and then all the astronauts would be dead. Worst case when sending a robot is that you have to send another robot after you fix the problem.There have been four very successful rover missions to Mars so far, despite the difficulties. If you look at this list there are lots of failed missions as well:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_MarsNot because the rovers get stuck in a pit or roll over but because there was a problem getting to mars or landing.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 21, 2018, 12:40:26 am
content: Quote from: apis on July 21, 2018, 12:23:44 amAs I already said:QuoteThings those missions have accomplished are a joke compared to what humans on the site could explore.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 21, 2018, 12:55:32 am
content: Quote from: wraper on July 21, 2018, 12:40:26 amYou said that, but you haven't been able to provide any good examples of what humans on the site would explore that a modern custom robot couldn't. If those missions are a joke compared to a human mission surely you could provide a long list of things that only a human would be able to accomplish.If a robot could do it even if it would be doing it slowly and awkwardly it would almost certainly be more cost effective to use the robot, and definitely safer.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 21, 2018, 01:17:29 am
content: Quote from: apis on July 21, 2018, 12:55:32 amDo you realize how complicated should be mechanism to just take a ground sample prepare it and make a simple analysis? Rovers not only cannot drill any deep, they are not even able to pick up a rock lying somewhere nearby. My work involves analytic laboratories, so I have some clue that certain things involved in sample analysis are very hard to fully automate, especially in a compact way. Heck, human could pick up a pneumatic hammer and blow shit out of the rock. Curiosity could not drill a decent hole even when mechanism was not broken.QuoteIt's always safer to sit in mama's basement than go out and do something. Cost effective for what? If you don't achieve anything significant, it does not matter how low was the cost.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 21, 2018, 01:40:47 am
content: It is interesting that there seems to be a consensus on this forum that self driving cars that can perform as well as the average Joe Schmoe are very far from reality, while many also feel that self driving exploration machines can match or exceed carefully selected and trained astronauts.But that is just an observation. Those who are fervently for purely robotic exploration and those who argue for purely human exploration are both wrong. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. Robots have done particularly well to date in space because it is true that they are better suited to survive and operate in that environment, but also because when you are completely ignorant the low hanging fruit is easy to pick. Improving our knowledge and utilizing that knowledge is going to get harder as time goes along which will tend to tip the balance to on scene human level intelligence. Explorers that are not limited by huge communication delays and limited bandwidth between the sensors and the intelligence.Of course if Musk is right the machines will have superhuman intelligence soon and this whole conversation will be moot.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 21, 2018, 02:54:49 am
content: That's an apples to oranges comparison. All being equal, a trained astronaut is going to be vastly superior to an automated rover but when you look at the whole mission cycle things change dramatically. A human needs far greater consideration to safety and redundancy, life support, creature comforts and all the other challenges that come with keeping human occupants comfortable, healthy and safe. A manned mission is vastly more expensive and more complex, and in most cases that tradeoff is simply not worth the advantages.A remote rover on the other hand can "sleep" indefinitely on the voyage there, it needs no life support or food, it doesn't need to bathe, it's never going to argue with other rovers, it doesn't produce any waste to deal with, and the biggest of all advantage is it doesn't need a return trip. We can send a dozen rovers on one-way trips to different places and if half of them arrive safely at their intended destinations that could be considered a successful mission. Send out a dozen human crews and it's a whole different matter of half of them don't make it where they're going and none ever return home.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 21, 2018, 03:34:02 am
content: This not just a human vs machine discussion, but a society discussion. In the age of exploration huge numbers of explorers and later colonists didn't survive. And that was fine. In today's society when people react with horror to very low risk things even sending a machine is questionable. What if a launch failure makes it fall on our head.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 21, 2018, 06:35:05 am
content: Huge numbers of explorers died because there was no alternative, today we have alternatives. A launch failure that killed people could happen and it would be a disaster, but it's far less likely than a mission failure that kills the crew. The main thing is that unmanned missions are far cheaper and far simpler. You don't need human rated rockets, you don't need life support, you don't need to carry food, you don't need to dispose of bodily waste, you don't need to solve the huge problems of crew comfort and preventing muscle atrophy in zero G. There is a large array of problems and challenges you can simply bypass and not worry about. The end result is much like any other form of automation, automate the factory and you get people out of dangerous jobs, you greatly increase productivity and consistency while greatly reducing cost. At least in automating space missions you aren't putting millions of working class people out of a job. I don't have the numbers offhand but we can probably send out *at least* a dozen or more robotic explorer missions for the cost of one single manned mission and we can send them to places far too distant to send humans in a reasonable time scale. That's another big problem, Mars is the nearest planet, it takes months to get there and we've already sent rovers there. Where is the next closest planet that has conditions within the realm of human survival and how many centuries will it take to get there?

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 21, 2018, 07:32:49 am
content: Quote from: rdl on July 20, 2018, 11:30:26 pmHow much did the Apollo 17 mission cost vs Curiosity? Not that the two mission are in any way equivalent.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 21, 2018, 12:35:54 pm
content: I think if you compare only the mission cost they would probably not be too far apart, but if you factor in total development cost Apollo would be much more costly. The Curiosity mission was around $2.5 Billion whereas the entire Apollo Program cost is estimated at $20-25 Billion, which would be something like $120 Billion in 2012 Dollars. However, a lot of the Apollo cost was basic R&D, which Curiosity also eventually benefited from.Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on July 21, 2018, 07:32:49 am

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 21, 2018, 12:47:47 pm
content: Had to be many billions because at one point, during the space race, in the USA there were thirteen (IINM) totally different, independent, competing rocket designs.

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 21, 2018, 10:09:32 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on July 21, 2018, 06:35:05 amThere are many deaths of brothers and sisters of my own ancestors who also tried to colonize North America pre 1700. All told around 30% of those that tried died on the voyage, or within a year of reaching North America. Yet members of my ancestral families kept sending their own over knowing full well others in their own families who had gone before had died. Many of my relatives are also the survivors of those that initially settled the midwest. Quakers would initially set up a town, and move their families there. Then others would move in. Eventually the area would get filled in by farms, non Quakers, etc. A bunch of young men with new families would go and setup a new town further west, and send for their wives and children once the houses were up, and crops were soon to be harvested. Many would die from raids on the new frontier towns, yet they kept at it, generation after generation.Deaths trying to explore and colonize the moon or Mars are inevitable. The people who are willing to try, know they may die. That is life being an explorer or pioneer.As for water, their is plenty on Mars. New outflows are being seen all the time. Looks like some drilling and maybe heating is what is needed to get at it. Habitats, what do you think the tunnel boring company Musk owns is for? You can sleep quite a few people in nice accommodations in a kilometer length of tunnel 30 feet in diameter. Some researcher had written an AI based control system for earth movers so a bunch of them could make the initial hole for placing the boring machine in before humans arrived. A large landing site could also be graded flat right next to the pit for the excavator and boring machine flights to land at. The site can be fully prepared and all the tunnel boring machinery landed before the first humans arrive. If you send 6 boring machines distributed over 28 rocket loads, loss of a half won't stop the program. In the process you learn how to land large loads long before any human makes the trip. My expectation is they will use a minor modification of the booster landing systems to land most of the initial supply loads on Mars. To save fuel, a huge airbag system could be used for initial atmospheric slowing to get down near to orbital speeds, then jettisoned before final decent on the booster rockets. They have been experimenting with bringing large booster sized craft in sideways so the heat of reentry is spread over the whole carbon fiber side rather than just the small end. That may be all they need for braking at Mars. Landing on mars will be routine by the time humans go. I also bet they will eventually refuel them and fly them home for reuse. Water can be cracked into hydrogen and oxygen which are great rocket fuels. Just design an engine that can have it's core replaced with a H2 O2 fuel system. The rock and mineral samples sent home in one of them would be a gold mine for researchers back on earth. It would be nothing to send back a few thousand kg of samples gathered from all over on each return flight. Those samples then could be analysed back on earth and construction materials developed from them. Except now there will be thousands of kg to work with. Construction materials for the moon have already been proposed and some even developed based on the small samples returned.PS, I bet once large loads are successfully landed on Mars, world wide public interest will explode. Sometime go and read about the world wide interest in the US space program during the Apollo missions. I think Musk's biggest hurdle will be not having his effort nationalized.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2018, 12:09:26 am
content: I remain skeptical. I'm sure interest will explode, for a while. During the Apollo missions there was huge worldwide interest at first, but after just a few years this died down substantially to the point where a launch was only a small mention somewhere, not the front page news it had been previously. The first time humans go to Mars it will be big news, a while after that it will be routine missions. The same happened with the space shuttle, the launches were a big deal at first, but after they became somewhat routine it wasn't really news anymore unless there was a disaster.I also still think that a lot of the people who do take a one way trip to Mars will soon regret it when it sinks in that they are marooned in a small base on a desolate planet with the same small group of people for the rest of their lives. If a person wants to live in extreme isolation in a hostile environment there are still plenty of empty spaces right here on Earth that are more inviting than Mars. I suppose we could take the Australia approach and start shipping our criminals off to Mars and let them fend for themselves and maybe some day they will morph into a civilized society as happened to Australia. I think it's more likely they will all die though.

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2018, 05:17:38 am
content: Getting to Mars and surviving for a few weeks will be a major technical achievement, on a par with achieving sustainable nuclear fusion. It's also probably 30 years away for a while yet.Creating a "colony" on Mars is another order of magnitude (at least). It will be more like a research base for a century or two, solely dependent on supplies for Earth.As for being a destination for pioneers like the New World, that will probably never happen. Living on Mars will be like living in a spaceship, on Mars. The only thing Mars brings to the table is some gravity. There are no natural resources available that don't need mining/extraction. There is nothing of sufficient value on Mars that could be traded with Earth, apart from Mars rocks. The only viable businesses are tourism and souvenirs, which doesn't get very far.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2018, 07:12:34 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 21, 2018, 01:17:29 amI do. Doyourealise how complicated, expensive and risky it is to send people back and forth to Mars!? Making such a mechanism is trivial compared to the challenges involved in a manned mission to Mars. I'm sure it's doable though, but the money is better spent elsewhere, since rovers can do (almost) all of the things a human astronaut would for a fraction of the cost without any risk to human life.Quote from: wraper on July 21, 2018, 01:17:29 amTo say the mars rovers haven't achieved anything significant is just preposterous. NASA wouldn't keep sending these robots to Mars if they didn't achieve anything. It's fine to take a calculated risk if it is necessary to achieve something meaningful. It's not fine to gamble with people's lives just for a publicity stunt. I'm convinced that if it made scientific sense to send people to Mars NASA would have done so a long time ago.People have gotten too fixated on Mars. It makes much more sense to build a base on the moon (why not colonize the moon), and a bigger space station with spin gravity and facilities for long time stay in orbit.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 22, 2018, 07:27:28 pm
content: Quote from: apis on July 22, 2018, 07:12:34 pmNope people are too fixated on spending their money on time wasting things like iphone. If Apple revenue was spent on space exploration, we'd already have a base on Mars. Moon has fine dust that destroy everything it touches.https://www.spaceanswers.com/solar-system/five-things-you-didnt-know-about-moon-dust/

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2018, 07:38:14 pm
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on July 22, 2018, 05:17:38 amWell, for starters, Helium 3 would be worth shipping back to earth. It should be very abundant in Mar's regolith.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2018, 08:06:59 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 22, 2018, 07:27:28 pmSmartphones are pretty darn useful I'd say. But people spend a lot of money on junk, no argument there. The way the economy works all of the wealth accumulates in the pockets of a tiny minority. It's not that there isn't enough money in the world, it's just that it's in the pockets of a few people who doesn't care about scientific advances, space exploration or the common good. People like Elon Musk and Bill Gates are notable exceptions. Not that politicians are any better. If anything they are spending less and less on science like space exploration in favour of tax cuts and military.Quote from: wraper on July 22, 2018, 07:27:28 pmAnd Martian soil is full of toxic perchloate. If we can't build a base on the moon I don't think we would be able to build one on Mars either.https://www.space.com/21554-mars-toxic-perchlorate-chemicals.html

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2018, 08:09:24 pm
content: Quote from: Eka on July 22, 2018, 07:38:14 pmThere's plenty of Helium 3 on the moon, makes no economic sens to go all the way to Mars for that.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 22, 2018, 08:54:06 pm
content: Quote from: apis on July 22, 2018, 08:06:59 pmThey increase productivity for maybe 5% of users at best. Others just waste their time and decrease productivity by using them for useless things. Selfies, instagram, facebook, youtube, you name it.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2018, 09:38:58 pm
content: I find my smartphone to be an indispensable tool. It's my still camera, it's my video camera, it's my appointment book, my watch, my GPS navigator, map, bus schedule, universal communication device, music player, calculator, compass, and any number of other things. Sure a lot of people use them for pointless things but what else is new? It's not as if people didn't find ways to waste time back before smartphones. I lived a majority of my life without them and I've always known loads of lazy people who found pointless stuff to do.It's not that I absolutely need one, but it sure is a convenient tool and it beats carrying around a pile of gadgets and hoping I have the one I need when I need it.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 12:37:17 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 22, 2018, 07:27:28 pmQuote from: wraper on July 22, 2018, 08:54:06 pmOK. Given your clear value system, and assuming that you put your money where your mouth is -- may I assume that you do not own a smartphone, and are donating the savings to the good cause of Mars colonization instead?

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 12:54:39 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on July 23, 2018, 12:37:17 pmI have a smartphone, not the most expensive. I rarely waste the time with it, it more like for occasional use. And I don't replace it annually as some. I waste my time mostly on PC and eevblog is one of the worst time wasters of mine. At least I admit that I waste my time and money on nonproductive things. No way I pretend to be holier than thou.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 01:02:48 pm
content: Most businesses' applications have web front ends nowadays, that means you can use them at any time, while on the move, wherever you are, with your smartphones.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 01:09:51 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 23, 2018, 01:02:48 pmYou can does not mean that you will. Chatting, using social networks during work hours is certainly nonproductive. Heck, I cave a customer which is a small company consisting of a few people. Business owner once told me they had no internet for 2 days and they previously never were as productive as during those two days.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 01:25:20 pm
content: Tetris was the problem back in the early days of PCs.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 01:45:01 pm
content: Quote from: apis on July 22, 2018, 08:09:24 pmYou Space Nutters have odd definitions of "plenty". And just what do you think you need He3 for? Slightly lighter party balloons?

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 01:51:39 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 23, 2018, 01:25:20 pmTetris didn't show up until the mid 1980's. The early days of computing are generally regarded as those up to around 1960.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 01:53:44 pm
content: Quote from: Nusa on July 23, 2018, 01:51:39 pm[ x ] Fixed.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 02:03:29 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 23, 2018, 01:45:01 pmIt's potential fuel for the "soon" to be finished fusion reactors. It could potentially be valuable in the far future (potentially being the operative word here). But even if it does become valuable, there is enough on the moon to power fusion reactors on earth for quite a while, so shipping it all the way from Mars would probably not be competitive is my guess.You could also mine valuable metals on Mars of course, but you then have to launch them into orbit and send them to earth. It would probably be easier and cheaper to mine asteroids in that case since they are already "floating" in space, but who knows.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 02:30:13 pm
content: Quote from: apis on July 23, 2018, 02:03:29 pm"of course"!Oh, it's Comedy Monday on EEVblog, I didn't get the memo. How do otherwise rational engineers end up with so many bullshit ideas? It's like you mention "space" and 5 years of university education go in the trash, and the entire Star Trek box set gets uploaded into your brains. Space is bullshit. Get over it. It's pseudo-religious garbage that tickles your monkey brain and excites the same parts of the brain that religions have always tickled.("Of course", you could also extract platinum from seawater, why hasn't anyone done that? Oh wait, let's do it on Mars, now suddenly it makes sense!)We don't even have D-T fusion power reactors. And quite likely never will. You know, we just need to exceed the conditions at the center of the Sun by a few orders of magnitude to get it to work, but I suppose computers got better so we can assume that's a solved problem...Invoking even higher levels of He3 unreality won't make it happen. If you put a bunch of wind turbines around a H-bomb explosion you'll generate more power than any fusion projects have ever made, or ever will.The only fusion project I give a greater than zero chance of maybe lighting a LED in the next 20 years is General Fusion. And even that seems to be taking forever.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 03:18:03 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 23, 2018, 02:30:13 pmClearly you haven't bothered to read previous posts or it would be clear that I don't believe colonising Mars is practical. Also you seem to have missed the quotation marks around "soon" indicating a bit of irony in this case. Indeed, fusion seems to have been looming just beyond the horizon for several decades now.The answer about He3 is to thehypotheticalquestion:"if there was a colony on Mars, would they have some resource they could trade with earth?"My guess is that they probably do not. He3,ifit turned out to be valuable in the distant future would likely be cheaper to mine on the moon than on mars.I don't see why you think ahypotheticalmars colony wouldn't be able to mine for metals/ores on Mars? I can't think of any reason not. Wouldn't be that much different from mining on earth I imagine. (Aside from the normal challenges of living and operating on mars would impose, they are not trivial of course, but I assume a hypothetical mars colony will have found ways to deal with those.) Will it be cost efficient to mine metals on Mars and sell them to earth? Probably not, which was my point.What do you mean by "Space is bullshit"? Space is definitely a real thing and it's demonstrably possible to send people to the moon and back. Not sure why you would think otherwise unless you are one of those flat earthers who think the moon landing was a hoax?

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 03:19:52 pm
content: AhypotheticalMars colony could also have all-you-can-eat hot fudge sundaes every day, what does this have to do with engineering?Maybe this is a sci-fi writer's workshop on how to write the most impractical bullshit?

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 03:31:20 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 23, 2018, 02:30:13 pmThat's a great ideaImagine if you could contain the explosion in a big deep underground vessel, and let it out little by little through a bunch or turbines. That would even be "green" !

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 03:32:30 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 23, 2018, 03:19:52 pmOf course, that would require a hypothetical dairy animal herd on mars, plus some hypothetical cocoa trees planted in your hypothetical simulated tropical environment. Also some hypothetical plants suitable for sugar production.The primary export of an early colony would be knowledge. Observations, survival successes and failures, experimental data, and of course human interest stuff (blogs, videos, whatever).

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 03:36:52 pm
content: Quote from: Nusa on July 23, 2018, 03:32:30 pmOh brother... We had the same opportunity with the bottom the ocean. Quick, without Googling, who was the first person to reach the bottom of the Mariana Trench!?The answer is: No one gives a shit.You want knowledge about Mars? Here's some knowledge for you: it's the same periodic table of elements there as here. So what's the motivation? We'll blow trillions to send test pilots in diapers to see how rust behaves on Mars?Wow wee. I can't wait.www.distancetomars.com

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 03:37:15 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 23, 2018, 03:19:52 pmFew things are more engineering related than space exploration? If you don't wan't to talk about sending people to mars then go read/post in some other thread.There have been a lot of "serious" discussion about sending people to Mars and starting a colony there, notably by president Bush junior (iirc). Personally I think it makes more sense to send robotic rovers like NASA have been doing. Colonising mars seems very impractical indeed.(It's not that unlikely that China will try it as a publicity stunt either.)

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 03:39:12 pm
content: I could say more than I dare ... but I'm laughing too much.For those who understand why, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not, no explanation is safe.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 03:39:38 pm
content: Blogs about their depressing thoughts about their miserable lifes, I'd guess.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 03:51:28 pm
content: Quote from: apis on July 23, 2018, 03:37:15 pmMost of space (that's a BIG place) was explored... FROM THE GROUND. You've heard of observatories? You've heard of Galileo? He explored Jupiter and the Solar System, with hand ground glass.Please describe what a monkey in a space suit is accomplishing by getting 400 kilometers closer to stars light years away? Or are you claiming being personally close to a perfect vacuum is "exploring space". I didn't know I was exploring space when my Mum packed my lunch in a Thermos flask!I read this because it is instructive in people's capacity for self-delusion. "Oh I'm an engineer so therefore I don't need to check this engineery-looking stuff, it's all legit!" "Hey we don't need to worry about THIS planet, we'll just fuck off in a magical science spaceship when we're done! Because the universe OWES US!!"You don't realize how you've been manipulated by horseshit space religion and goofy-ass propaganda about weapons disguised as "exploration".

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 03:59:58 pm
content: Quote from: Nusa on July 23, 2018, 01:51:39 pmI don't think there is a generally accepted definition, and would argue that the personal interpretation of "early days" will very much depend on the age of the interpreter.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 04:10:44 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 23, 2018, 03:51:28 pmNow this is just uninformed and plain stupid. In the space station a huge number of scientific experiments are done which are possible only in microgravity conditions. Results of many of those experiments are then used on earth to make something useful in everyday life.https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/explorer/search.html?QuoteI'm certain you want to return to the state of science of those years. Just avoid inquisition frying your ass on a bonfire.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 04:14:22 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 23, 2018, 03:51:28 pmThose monkeys at the ISS do a ton of experiments that can only be done in micro gravity. Kind of hard to do down on Earth.Did you read any of what I wrote? I've repeatedly stated I don't think sending people to Mars makes sense (which is closer to 54.6 million kilometers away, minimum).Sending a robotic rover to Mars however lets you look for water, analyse the composition of the atmosphere and analyse the soil and the layer beneath the top soil, that is obviously valuable in order to understand the geology of other planets and the formation of the solar system, etc. They also look for signs of life (fossilised or living), and numerous other things.Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 23, 2018, 03:51:28 pmIndeed, I might not have realised as a kid but today it's feels like an open secret. If not for the military aspect of it, there would probably not be any satellites or satellite navigation, etc.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 04:19:41 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 23, 2018, 03:51:28 pmSo what, GPS was purely military system in the past. Pleas comment if navigation is not useful in everyday life?

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 04:22:48 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 23, 2018, 04:10:44 pmAh yes, that old chestnut.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 04:25:03 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 23, 2018, 04:19:41 pmPlease comment if that is exploration or colonization? No one is arguing against slapping radios in tin cans into orbit.Extrapolating that into Mars Cornucopia andThe Species Is Doomed(tm) horseshit is where I draw the line.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 04:27:17 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 23, 2018, 04:19:41 pmI think weather satellites, satellites monitoring global climate, communications satellites, etc, are pretty useful as well. And why not systems for deflecting asteroids that would otherwise hit earth?

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 04:28:12 pm
content: Quote from: apis on July 23, 2018, 04:14:22 pmThose monkeys at the ISS do a ton of experiments that can only be done in micro gravity. Kind of hard to do down on Earth.Yes! Vitally important .. stuff! Come on, at this point it's like historical re-enactment theater.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 04:34:24 pm
content: Quote from: apis on July 23, 2018, 04:27:17 pmAgain, none of these are manned, none of these are on Mars, none of these are exploring or colonizing anything. So what's the point in bringing that up?Deflecting asteroids? What??? How the hell do you even propose to begin to be able to think that we are able to do that?It would be like farting at a hurricane and expecting it to shift trajectory.You've been daydreaming you're Q from Star Trek again, haven't you? We can't even predict earthquakes or volcanoes right here on Earth and can barely manage to do anything about it except run as fast as possible.What exactly do you think we're capable of, exactly? We'll just thaw Bruce Willis out in 2050 and strap some dynamite to a Space Shuttle andSave The Species from SPAAAAACEDOOOOOOOOOOM!!!Mental onanism for nerds.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 04:39:04 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 23, 2018, 04:34:24 pmIf you fart on asteroid far away enough from the Earth, tiny change of it's trajectory would be enough for it to miss the Earth.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 04:39:37 pm
content: The issue with mining any kind of resources from another planet is the immense cost of returning them to Earth. There could be a literal mountain on mars made entirely of stacks of gold bars and I'm not sure it would ever be worth going to get any of them. The cost of retrieval would likely exceed the value of the gold, and that's ignoring the fact that adding a large amount of gold would likely cause the price to drop. Helium is far lighter than gold, but even so I don't see how a significant enough quantity could be shipped back to Earth. Even if you can reuse the rocket, it still requires a massive amount of fuel to escape gravity, that's just physics.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 04:48:40 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 23, 2018, 04:28:12 pmHere you go (not an exhaustive list):https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_research_on_the_International_Space_StationQuote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 23, 2018, 04:34:24 pmSo you are one of those"how dare we insignificant ants think we can change the course of mighty nature or avoid that asteroid that God sent here to punish us". Give me a break. Of course it would be possible to nudge a rock a bit if it looks like it will hit earth. And it would be worth all the money in the world if we can do it. Depends on the precise circumstances of course, we might not be able to prevent all possible asteroid impact scenarios, but we might just be able to divert the majority of dangerous asteroids...ifwe prepare for it.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 04:52:16 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on July 23, 2018, 04:39:37 pmYes, exactly. A hypothetical Mars colony would have very little to trade with earth in terms of resources.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 04:53:01 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 23, 2018, 04:39:04 pmYes, of course, it's a trivial effort, left as an exercise for the reader.Quote from: james_s on July 23, 2018, 04:39:37 pmYou'll find that 100% of Space Nutters will always look at you like a Special Ed student when you mention "returning to Earth". Obviously, Space Minerals are to be used by Space Humans. You know, those vital populations of humans in free fall exposed to healthy Space Radiation and osteoporosis, huge demand for Space Diamonds there.It's religious circular reasoning couched in pseudo-scientific language so that the engineer part of the brain doesn't notice right away.Quote from: apis on July 23, 2018, 04:48:40 pmNo, otherwise washing your hands before surgery would be changing the course of nature too, wouldn't it?You don't seem to understand that all the nonsense you're talking about is simply not possible, not now, not ever.It's space garbage for children. Sometimes I read the stuff I wrote 25 years ago and it's the same shit you're writing now, word for word. Like a religious homily, or sermon.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 04:53:56 pm
content: You could build some really amazing looking houses on Mars out of solid gold bricks though

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 04:56:10 pm
content: Quote from: apis on July 23, 2018, 04:52:16 pmThe amusingly desiccated corpses of Space Nutter suicides might fetch a good price for serious collectors.Quote from: james_s on July 23, 2018, 04:53:56 pmNaturally. I assume when Elon Musk retires with his Space Tesla in his 3D printed Space Condo, you'll toss some Space Meat on the Space Barbecue, and in the 15 seconds you'll have left to live, you'll laugh heartily at all those ridiculous flatfoots back on Earth with their breathable air and water....

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 04:59:24 pm
content: The best thing to mine, as has been pointed out many times before, is probably going to be an asteroid. As far as deflecting asteroids, there are several viable and practical methods to do so using existing technology. Doing so successfully depends a lot on the asteroid, not Bruce Willis.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 05:05:17 pm
content: It would certainly be an interesting experiment to mine an asteroids, however I remain highly skeptical that it will ever be cost effective. It's probably worth giving it a try for the novelty and to learn anything we don't already know about asteroids but just don't expect it to be a profitable endeavor.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 05:06:45 pm
content: Quote from: rdl on July 23, 2018, 04:59:24 pmBut of course! Just double the distance again, make everything work in free fall with fully automated space-rated machinery... Oh no wait, we'll send people with shovels, they can do so much more than machines, which is why we see so many mines with bare-handed people in them.Funny how the Great Space Vision of the future is ... people working with shovels.Viable! Practical! Deflecting asteroids!You can't even deflect incoming ICBMs with known trajectories with all the technology and resources of the entire planet. What do you hope to achieve against Space Doom?Maybe if you pile your comic books high enough, it'll make a shield?Quote from: james_s on July 23, 2018, 05:05:17 pmWhy hasn't anyone "mined" seawater? It's viable! It's practical!

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 05:49:40 pm
content: Here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millennial_ProjectThis book was my Holiest of Holy Writings when I was stupid and in my larval stage. Now I read it when I need to howl with laughter until the tears come.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 05:54:36 pm
content: It costs a huge amount of money to put a ton of anything into orbit. Asteroids are already there.Quote from: james_s on July 23, 2018, 05:05:17 pm

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 06:03:01 pm
content: Quote from: rdl on July 23, 2018, 05:54:36 pmSure, but it's not trivial to return something safely to earth either. All of the mining equipment as well as any cargo vessels for carrying the mined material will have to be launched into orbit. Maybe it would be worth it if we happen to find an asteroid made of solid gold, platinum or other extremely valuable and useful substance but I wouldn't bank on it.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 06:05:25 pm
content: Quote from: rdl on July 23, 2018, 05:54:36 pmOf course! They're already there! I suppose also they're already sorted by the periodic table of elements? They're THERE! Just go reach for the stars (well, dead rocks) and grab them! Or maybe you can just sit on one like the Little Prince and look at the stars?What exactly do you think mineral ore is worth, and what use is it in space, where (news flash) there's NOBODY?I think you fail to understand just how thinly spread things are out there. Do you think it's just like pure platinum and osmium boulders smashing into each other like in Star Wars, and you'll be Han Solo and fight the bad aliens and get the rocks to impress the Space Princess in your space mining ship?More circular hope.Quote from: james_s on July 23, 2018, 06:03:01 pmBut you don't get it. It's for building things IN space, for all those brave colonists tempted by hard vacuum and cosmic rays! Space is just a giant Wal Mart, after all.How valuable would gold be after you find an asteroid of it?

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 06:20:01 pm
content: The hope.The reality.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 06:25:29 pm
content: And the space is empty.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 06:38:19 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on July 23, 2018, 06:03:01 pmYeah, you couldn't exactly just trow it down to earth. I'm also sceptical but I haven't tried to make any calculations, too many unknowns.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 06:44:45 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 23, 2018, 06:25:29 pmUh, that could get you the Space Death Penalty in Space Court. Space is the Holy Manifest Destiny of Humanity, we'll just evolve to breathe solar wind and float among the neutrinos.That is, if the evil Earth Flatfoots stop flinging their poo at your anti-matter-powered warp spaceship that everyone is preventing you from building.You see, it's not physical limits or engineering problems holding us back from meeting voluptuous green-skinned temptresses on Mars, it's that part of humanity struggling to hold you back!

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 08:25:25 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 23, 2018, 06:44:45 pmIt seems like everything is very black or white to you, seems to be an emotionally loaded topic?I don't really understand why you think we couldn't have a research base on the moon or mine an asteroid for resources that are very limited on earth just because colonising mars (the galaxy) is a pipe dream?

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 08:57:33 pm
content: I think having a research base on the moon is a neat idea, Mars could be interesting too but the moon is a whole lot closer and seems like a more reasonable first step. Mining an asteroid could certainly be interesting too, I'm just not sold on the fantasy of it turning into some wonderful sci-fi scenario where hundreds or thousands of people are spread across the galaxy or building a bustling community on another planet.If we do find another habitable plane to spread the human race to then it will be a case of sending a few seeds (people) to grow a new batch somewhere else, it won't do anything to help the people on Earth. There is no practical way to rescue a significant number of people from some catastrophic event. My cynical side wonders if there is really a practical benefit to the universe from saving the human race by spreading our seeds to other worlds. In the grand scheme of things humans have existed for a miniscule period of time on a microscopic rock floating in space. What difference is it really going to make if the species survives once the earth is dead and gone?

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2018, 09:47:46 pm
content: I don't think the universe cares one way or another. But if a new habitable planet were found within reach from earth I suspect it is inevitable that some group of humans will try to go there eventually. I think the temptation is just too great to resist. People have settled in most of the remote areas of the world that can sustain human life, for all kinds of reasons.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 12:29:09 am
content: If we do find a habitable planet then sure, no reason not to send some people there, it would be interesting if nothing else. I don't consider Mars to be habitable though, it's the closest other than Earth in our own solar system but that's not saying much. The biggest problem with other possible candidates is that it will take multiple human lifespans to reach one even if it is found. Much of science fiction relies on the possibility of faster than light transport, but I just don't see that happening. It's roughly in the same realm as over-unity stuff.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 12:34:23 am
content: Quote from: james_s on July 24, 2018, 12:29:09 amIt is possible to make it habitable... by nuking the poles.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 03:30:58 am
content: Quote from: wraper on July 24, 2018, 12:34:23 amHow would nuking the poles help make Mars habitable?

author: bson
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 05:38:01 am
content: Mmm, well in his own mind Musk has already beaten NASA to Mars. All that remains is the practical detail of actually going there.

author: Tepe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 07:16:01 am
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 23, 2018, 04:22:48 pmSo Giordano Bruno wasn't burned at the stake after all?

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 09:18:02 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on July 24, 2018, 03:30:58 amIt would release frozen CO2trapped in the ice caps. That would start greenhouse effect. Due to temperature increasing the rest of frozen CO2would vaporize as well increasing the greenhouse effect. Then you could use plants to release oxygen from CO2. It's not like it can be terraformed in one human generation but in theory it's possible.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 09:39:19 am
content: The atmosphere of Mars is 96% CO2 already.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 09:48:11 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 24, 2018, 09:39:19 amBut density is only 0.6% of the earth atmosphere.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 10:29:29 am
content: Because its mass is 1/10 that of the earth?

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 11:26:46 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 24, 2018, 10:29:29 amNope, because it lost it's atmosphere at some point of time.EDIT: BTW while Venus has slightly lower mass and gravity compared to Earth, atmospheric pressure is 90 times higher than on Earth.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 01:01:04 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 24, 2018, 09:18:02 amSee how simple everything is? Why they don't hand over the Nuclear Football to someone clearly grounded in reality as you is a mystery.We could have a whole other planet if only people listened to you!PS: Maybe add some glitter to the bombs, it would make Martian sunsets so awesome!!

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 01:01:40 pm
content: Quote from: Tepe on July 24, 2018, 07:16:01 amSo you don't understand your logical fallacy after all?

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 01:06:41 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 24, 2018, 01:01:40 pmSays walking logical fallacy itself.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 01:13:20 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 24, 2018, 01:06:41 pmThere is no logical fallacy on my part, the burden of proof is entirely on the people making the extraordinary claims. You are nothing but cloud-shoveling daydreamers with an odd techno-religion.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 01:23:37 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 24, 2018, 01:13:20 pmWait a minute. Logical fallacy and burden of proof are two completely different things. You are just changing the topic. And burden of proof for what particularly? Most of extraordinary claims are coming from you.Quote

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 01:39:25 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 24, 2018, 01:23:37 pmThe typical logical fallacy from your camp is usually in the form of: "they laughed at (insert famous historical figure here) too!". Unfortunately, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Being laughed at is no guarantee that you're actually right.Burden of proof is on your side. You're the ones with the borderline maniacal claims of blowing up Mars's poles to get an atmosphere, or your "Preserve The Species" sermons, or "Asteroid of DOOM!!".Do you not see where maybe a little tiny little bit of ... um...skepticismis warranted?How did you even arrive at your hysterical world view anyways?

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 01:56:27 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 24, 2018, 09:18:02 amOh yeah -- let's mess up a planetbeforewe even live there!Progress!!

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 01:59:06 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 24, 2018, 01:39:25 pmPlease insert a quote to prove your claim (burden of proof).From my side I said:Quote from: wraper on July 18, 2018, 07:47:30 amWhich certainly is not what you suggested. That was rebuffing what was said about particular company, by stating their achievements. Not a joke about some historical figure.QuoteMaybe you have a problem understanding a context and satire like preschool kids do. That was first said more like a joke. Then I explained it ispossible in theory. Nobody said it is viable or should be actually done.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 02:02:15 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on July 24, 2018, 01:56:27 pmYou apparently fave the same problem as In Vacuo Veritas. Read my previous post.

author: Tepe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 02:16:35 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 24, 2018, 01:01:40 pmWhat fallacy? I haven't offered any opinion about the feasibility of space travel here.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 02:32:03 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 24, 2018, 01:39:25 pm

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 02:37:37 pm
content: This sure is very sound and strong argument.Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 24, 2018, 02:26:52 pmFrom someone just a while ago wrote VQuote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 24, 2018, 01:39:25 pm

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 02:47:50 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 24, 2018, 11:26:46 amI didn't know that. It's pretty cool. Well, no, cool, no:"The mass of its atmosphere is 93 times that of Earth's, whereas the pressure at its surface is about 92 times that at Earth's [..] The density at the surface is 65 kg/m3, 6.5% that of water or 50 times as dense as Earth's atmosphere [..] surface temperatures of at least 735 K (462 °C; 864 °F)"WTF!

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 03:19:58 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 24, 2018, 12:34:23 amI hadn't heard about that before, interesting.So you release a lot of CO2which provides a thicker atmosphere, rises the temperature and in turn melts water. Liquid water and CO2might be enough for micro organism and some plants which then could oxygenate the atmosphere over a time period of 100 000's of years. That could make the planet more friendly to biological life but not enough to make it habitable to humans. Earth's atmosphere has about 410 ppm CO2 (used to be 280 ppm before the industrial era). Even at concentrations as low as 0.1% CO2has negative health effects on humans and at 7% it's lethal.There's also the problem of toxic perchlorate in the soil mentioned earlier:https://www.space.com/21554-mars-toxic-perchlorate-chemicals.htmlQuote from: wraper on July 24, 2018, 11:26:46 amMars has no magnetic field like the earth, so Mars has no shield against charged particles from the sun which is what is believed to have stripped away its atmosphere in the past. If humans managed to create a new atmosphere on mars, why wouldn't the sun blow it away again?Living on Mars will be like living in a bunker in the middle of a toxic dessert in a vacuum (or at least a non breathable atmosphere). It would be quite a challenge.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 03:24:52 pm
content: Quote from: apis on July 24, 2018, 03:19:58 pmhttps://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere.html

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 03:32:54 pm
content: Considering Mars as somewhere to live is a big mistake. It would be far more trouble than it's worth, not to mention expensive and time consuming.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 03:33:47 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 24, 2018, 02:37:37 pmPsst: in this example, you are Bozo the Clown.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 03:35:25 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 24, 2018, 03:24:52 pmYes, linking to sci-fi is very much the same as proof. Thank you, my mind is changed now. Maybe we can be neighbors on Mars and chat over the fence when we are mowing our space lawns with our space lawnmowers...PS: No one is going anywhere. Not you, not me, not Elon Freaking Musk. Get over it.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 03:37:48 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 24, 2018, 11:26:46 amActually, colonising Venus would probably be easier, by living in floating cities in venus atmospere:QuoteSource:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_VenusAnd even if you find people who would like to live under such extreme condition (I'm sure there are some who would like the challenge), there is still the question of why go through the trouble (i.e. who would be willing to pay for it and why, same as with a colony on Mars). Naah, at most there will be small research bases, but to me it still makes much more sense to just send "disposable" robotic rovers.A moon base and larger space station with spin gravity seems a lot more realistic and potentially useful.

author: @rt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 03:38:35 pm
content: I had a video of mine get related by YouTube to the last SpaceX live feed, which one would think is a YouTuber’s dream,but who’s going to exit the live feed to go watch some other videoI got 1500 views out of it

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 03:42:54 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 24, 2018, 03:33:47 pmFYI this is a name-calling and in given context ad hominem fallacy.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 03:49:05 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 24, 2018, 03:35:25 pmSeems you have no real argument just as always. That is not sci-fi but theory.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 03:49:28 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 24, 2018, 03:42:54 pm... while "reponding to tone" is two levels better in Graham's Hierarchy!Come on, guys, can't we cool it a bit? Wraper loves space stuff (although he does not state that everything which can be contemplated should also be done), others are more skeptical. So what?

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 03:53:57 pm
content: So what is worse...Aiming low and hitting your targetorAiming high and possibly missing - but hitting a mark higher than where you currently are?

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 03:58:55 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 24, 2018, 03:49:05 pmIt's not even theory.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 03:59:33 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on July 24, 2018, 03:49:28 pmSorry but you need to read the definition of it again. Not to say, I'm not pointing out his logical fallacies just because. He claimed that others are full of logical fallacies but himself being holier than thou.VVVQuote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 24, 2018, 01:13:20 pm

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 04:03:05 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 24, 2018, 03:59:33 pmI was referring to the very post which I quoted, where you complained about the ad-hominem attack and name-calling. That is "responding to tone", right?

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 04:15:03 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on July 24, 2018, 04:03:05 pmI did not complain about the used language. Just pointed out logical fallacies which by then were already part of the discussion.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 07:30:19 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on July 24, 2018, 03:49:28 pmSo did I.I was 8.

author: Koen
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 10:23:14 pm
content: And going on 14 it seems.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2018, 10:53:49 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on July 24, 2018, 03:49:28 pmMost people loves space stuff, I certainly do too.Quotesource:http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/14/5-facts-about-americans-views-on-space-exploration/It's one of the few science and engineering related subjects that also interests non-technical people I know.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 12:39:43 am
content: Quote from: apis on July 24, 2018, 03:37:48 pmExactly. There is absolutely no point in a human habitat floating high in the venus atmosphere. You couldn't go outside, you probably couldn't see much if anything interesting in the surface, just stuck in a bubble with no goal.The problem with any human habitation of anything is either giving people a goal (e.g. spending 9 months in deep space to Mars), or keeping it interesting for them (e.g. doing science and exploring the martian surface, or on the moon being able to just constantly gaze at the earth.Humans get bored easily.QuoteLike I said, tourists would line up to go there, seriously.If anything could work financially, and in the hearts and minds of the people, it's a moon base. People can look up and see the moons surface and think about the people up there, and maybe dream of going in their retirement, or as a scientist etc. You don't get that same dream with mars, it's not visible enough.A Mars colony would be super cool, but I always doubt it's viability.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 01:32:05 am
content: Quote from: wraper on July 24, 2018, 09:18:02 amTo melt an appreciable amount, one would probably need a fairly large number of nukes. The dust resulted by the nuclear winter would probably exceed whatever greenhouse effect may gain. That green house v nuclear winter effect estimation is just a guess work, but even if that is wrong, any CO2 gained will be temporary.Many Mars scientist believes the evidence points to Mars once having an atmosphere and an ocean. It lost both because of a frozen core which doesn't support a protective magnetic field. If they are right, melting the CO2 (or water) on the pole is but a waste. That small amount of CO2/water vapor will be lost to space quickly as well for the same reason it lost its original atmosphere. Whatever CO2/ice it may have, it may be far better to use them in a "targeted" manner such as melting it directly into use as oppose to letting the CO2/vapor sit inside a temporary atmosphere.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 01:54:19 am
content: Artemis is being made into a movie, can't wait!It'll be really interesting to see a large colonised style moon tourist base on the big screen.https://www.popularmechanics.com/culture/movies/a22238110/artemis-andy-weir-movie-treatment/

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 03:38:10 am
content: All talk about modifying the climate of Mars is speculative, but it isn't as far fetched or futile as some are saying.All of the science says that any atmosphere created will be "quickly" blown away by the solar wind. But that is "quickly" on geologic scales. The time would be measured in tens or even hundreds of thousand years. Which might be long enough in its own right, and certainly long enough to allow additional technology to be applied. Like shifting Oort belt objects to replace existing atmosphere. That would be energetically difficult if attempted in years or decades, but given the rate of solar wind erosion transit times of millenia could be adequate. Requires thinking differently than we have as a race, but who knows, maybe we will grow up someday.

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 05:20:07 am
content: Quote from: wraper on July 24, 2018, 02:32:03 pmIf any one of the largest 5 chunks had hit earth, we would not be having this conversation. If it didn't kill you outright, you likely will have eventually starved. I say this as a farmer with a garden and the ability to can food. I'd be lucky to have food on the table a few years later. Those of you in cities would have most likely starved. Our infrastructure for producing and delivering food is to fragile, and stretched to the limit. The medium and smaller fragments likely would have caused famines, but would not have been civilization ending.The moon is to close. It would be peppered by huge numbers of meteors thrown up from the impact. Any colony there would be wiped out by them. Same goes for any space stations in earth orbit. That leaves the asteroid belt, moons around other planets, and other planets.Mars has the raw materials needed for building a colony all in one place. The asteroids may not. Once Mars is self sufficient, it doesn't need space capabilities. Any colonization of the asteroid belt will forever need space ships. At the minimum to divert asteroids on collision courses with the habitats. That means fuel to propel them. Where will you get it? Shipping fuel around requires lots of fuel.Yeah, any self sufficient colony is a multi generational project, but it must be started some time. We don't have a choice. That clip of Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 hitting Jupiter in 1994 is a warning. BTW, in 2009 another slightly smaller sized impact hit Jupiter. That time nobody knew it was going to happen. We only got to see the pacific ocean sized scar left behind.Quote from: Brumby on July 24, 2018, 03:53:57 pmAlways go for batting the ball out of the heliosphere.So far NASA is the only one to have done it. Voyager 1 left the heliosphere back in 2012.

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 05:29:40 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on July 25, 2018, 03:38:10 amYep, also let the sun do the work. Black carbon soot distributed all over the polar ice caps. It would take a lot, but it would be doable if you didn't expect it to all show up in a year. It's something that could easily be robotized. Nukes would be much quicker.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 08:26:57 am
content: Quote from: Eka on July 25, 2018, 05:20:07 amYet there are some who feel that looking to the skies is an exercise in futility and our efforts should be focussed on the ground in front of them.It seems a shame that such people could never dream of the benefits of air travel or consider quantum mechanics as being useful in any way -beforetheir success - when they were just ideas. The word 'visionary' would seem to not exist in their lexicon.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 09:16:12 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on July 25, 2018, 08:26:57 amI for one believe that the many billions $ spent in the space race have benefited much the elites not the rest of mere mortals that paid for it, as always. But that's what the powers that rule do all time, nothing new.https://youtu.be/fuWkcKbBQkg?t=2m25s

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 10:49:23 am
content: Some might say that your statement has a rather subjective bias.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 12:57:03 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on July 25, 2018, 10:49:23 amThat's becauseobjectivebias is so hard to come by.In fairness, George did preface his post with "I for one believe...". Why would you blame him for voicing a subjective view after that introduction? In contrast, your prior post seems to claim objective truth (and moral high ground), for views which some might find debatable too...

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 01:49:35 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on July 25, 2018, 12:57:03 pmYes. I should have presented my comment as one of disagreement.Apologies.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 01:52:03 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 25, 2018, 12:39:43 amThey also die easily, Dave.Quote from: Brumby on July 25, 2018, 08:26:57 amVisions are a dime a dozen.The problem with all you hubristic techno-extrapolators is that hindsight is 20/20, you think: someone had a vision, it became real! Ignoring entirely the millions of visions that were never viable and simply died. You think that picture is funny? Your 1960s space fantasies will look just as funny and dated to someone in 2060.Remember fusion power too cheap to meter? Oh my. Remember supersonic passenger transport? Oh my!Remember the leisure society? Uh oh.Looks like REALITY is the arbiter of "visions", not how emotionally invested you are in them. You're not going anywhere. I'm not going anywhere. There is no Human Migration To The Stars (tm) (Ad Astra!) in our future. As engineers, you have the knowledge of how seriously limited our technology is, and how seriously large and hostile space is.https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/why-not-space/https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2015/09/you-call-this-progress/One glaring flaw I see over and over with the Space Nutter crowd is the following argument they always trot out: "But computers got better!" As if going into space was aninformation processingproblem!"Hey I can't breathe but CHECK OUT MY TERABYTE USB KEY!! COUGH COUGH ACK!"The reason our computers got better is that the fundamental unit of information is such a small quantity of energy! It took decades for our manufacturing processes to make parts small enough to scale down to that level!In the meantime, you'll find no such orders of magnitude leaps in energy use, material strength, propulsion technologies (real ones, not imaginary 1970s LSD visions).You can't breathe bytes. You can't eat gigahertz.It's pretty much game over for all those grandiose 1960s space dreams. I know it looks cool, I had my walls plastered with NASA posters, I built the Saturn V kit, I had the Space Shuttle on my nightstand, I collected astronaut bios and stories... And one day, I just saw it for the useless theater it all is. No one gets excited by the 1960sSealab... Why not? The same ideas of "exploration" and tourism apply here too!Hell we know less about the structure of our own planet than we do about Jupiter's magnetic field. Why is that? There are bacteria deep underground! You wanted alien life, THERE IT IS! It's RIGHT HERE!!!!The fact that this DOESN'T excite you means you don't care about knowledge or exploration, you just care about the emotional symbolism of the whole space narrative. It's garbage.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 02:04:13 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 25, 2018, 01:52:03 pmThat is a rather ignorant perspective. Simply self-serving and laughably lacking logic.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 02:20:07 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on July 25, 2018, 02:04:13 pmAgain, reality is not motivated by your disbelief. Self-serving?? YOU're the ones who think the whole universe is just a giant Wal Mart that owes YOU space colonies and asteroid mines! You wantlaughable??And logic? How about this for logic: besides Apollo, no one has gone further than LEO for almost 50 years.How you like that? You can shove that into a Karnaugh map and permutate it as much as you want, but in any case, it spells GAME OVER.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 02:56:09 pm
content: Quote from: Eka on July 25, 2018, 05:20:07 amHere is another aspect I'm not buying.Define self-sufficient.To be a truly independent civilisation you need the ability to manufacture *everything* we take for granted now.Advanced electronics, advanced materials, even relatively simple materials like plastics, and that's just for starters.Were does all this magically come from?If you sit down and make a list of stuff you's have on a mars base, and thevastmining, transportation, and manufacturing infrastructure required here on earth to produce them, you'd be shocked.It's taken us hundreds of years here on earth to get the point we are at now.QuoteMy bet is 10 generationsminimum.QuoteAnd it would cost many orders of magnitude less than a Mars colony to get serious about mapping near-earth objects and devising ways to deflect them.If you goal is to protect us again getting hit, the solution is obvious.BTW, wehaveto protect earth first. What are we going to do, just ignore 5km asteroids and let them hit us and wipe us out? And don't worry, because we have some people on Mars as a backup.The argument of using Mars as a backup for humanity is an utterly flawed and silly concept.The argument "because we can" is all we humans need.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 03:03:25 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 25, 2018, 01:52:03 pmNope. A moon base for research and tourism is completely doable without reasonable engineering limitations.Mars is not.You simply can't beat being able to get there and back in a few days and have almost real-time communications with earth.QuoteFinding life off this planet would be a HUGE deal.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 03:50:40 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 25, 2018, 03:03:25 pmExcept for a reason to do it, I guess. And you have a funny notion of "completely doable". Making a SEALAB for research and tourism is "completely doable" as well, where is it?Here's a research station:http://www.southpolestation.com/Are you keeping up to date with the research done there? Why not? Planned any trips there? Why not?

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 04:28:31 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 25, 2018, 01:52:03 pmSo is your vision of it being impractical/impossible to colonize Mars and space.Those that do, try, try, and try again until they succeed. That video of all the landing failures is those tries before success. Now they routinely land them. The fact that you don't have the motivation anymore is an issue with you, not Elon Musk and crew.Quote from: EEVblog on July 25, 2018, 02:56:09 pmIf we can build a colony on Mars, finding and deflecting a killer asteroid is easy. We'd have to map the asteroid belt for reliable transport back and forth. No reason we can't have both programs and many others at the same time. We as a society just need to divert 1/4 the money spent on the military to space exploration, asteroid finding projects, etc. Where there is a will, there is a way. General society doesn't have the will. They are to focused on sports and entertainment. I applaud Musk and crew for having the will and putting their money and effort towards the cause. I wish I was healthy enough to join in. Instead I'm spending my time trying to get researchers to fill in the voids in the knowledge of cellular chemical processes so it is possible to figure out why my body isn't producing enough ATP, and whatever else is needed to keep me active and healthy.

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 04:36:19 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 25, 2018, 03:50:40 pmTour groups do travel to the south pole.It's not cheap, which limits the audience to the wealthy. It's also not luxurious, which eliminates all those who expect pampering. And it requires a certain level of physical fitness, including the ability to walk in heavy clothing and acclimate to high altitude, which eliminates many of the elderly, disabled, and those with health problems.Despite all the barriers, there are some tourists to the South Pole go every year. We've had tourism to the ISS, which proves that there are always some people willing to spend whatever it takes to get here. Once it's possible to visit the Moon, there WILL be some tourists wanting to go. Ditto for any other truly remote place that humans someday inhabit.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 04:47:48 pm
content: Quote from: Eka on July 25, 2018, 04:28:31 pmAt least I hope you understand you're paying for all those gigantic altruist (not) efforts, even though nobody asked if you wanted to pay them or not. That's what irritates me most.Your country's public debt is ~= $18036300000000 (not counting interests). You are the public.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 05:12:25 pm
content: As has been mentioned already, the amount each of us pays for the entire space program is miniscule, it's an insignificant drop in the bucket and not worth getting irritated over. Less than $40 a year for the average American anyway, not sure about other countries. People blow more than that on a single night at the bar.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 05:14:35 pm
content: Quote from: Eka on July 25, 2018, 04:28:31 pmUm, that's not how logic works. YOU have the burden of proof that your claim is practical. YOU make the claim, YOU back it up.Stating that your claim is not backed by evidence is not a "vision", it is SEEING. Reality, give it a try!Quote from: Nusa on July 25, 2018, 04:36:19 pmWhat barriers? It's the same planet, air is always there, gravity is correct, radiation is shielded, water and food are available, technology used to get there is commonly available, it's not far.

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 05:30:06 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 25, 2018, 05:14:35 pmActually the air is thin, the radiation is higher than elsewhere on the planet, most food is only available if imported, and its a lot farther than typical vacationers go.But since you say there are no barriers, when are you going? Oh wait, you found some barriers after all? Perhaps some of those I already mentioned but you clipped in your zeal to discredit? Never mind that you completely and deliberately ignored the overall point of what I said.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 05:48:40 pm
content: Even $1 is too much, if you don't ask first. In my humble opinion, ehhh.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 05:51:05 pm
content: Funny how despite all the doom and gloom, all the derision and ridicule, the business of doing stuff in space seems to be moving along pretty well.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 06:01:39 pm
content: Quote from: rdl on July 25, 2018, 05:51:05 pm"Stuff", sure. Metal boxes with radios in them. "Space", as in LEO or GEO. Sure.What does this have to do with sending people to the Moon or colonizing Mars? Funny how your Space Nutter Distortion Field skews your perception.Perhaps some reality is in order:www.distancetomars.com

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 06:02:10 pm
content: Quote from: rdl on July 25, 2018, 05:51:05 pmDeploying satellites seems to be an actual (profitable)business. What else?

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 06:09:21 pm
content: Quote from: Nusa on July 25, 2018, 05:30:06 pmThere is air. It's breathable. It doesn't rely on a technological system to be there. The radiation is still safer than anywhere in space. And what's your point about food? You think there's a Trader Joe's waiting for you on Mars fully stocked with Barsoom Granola Bars?What part of: hostile deadly empty barren lifeless radiation-blasted toxic hell are you not understanding?And what? Space isn't further than typical vacationers go? And what "vacation" can you have in "space"? You're stuck in a tin can! How long do you think you'll enjoy free fall staring out a window? You'll see the same exact space you can see at night!Quote from: Nusa on July 25, 2018, 05:30:06 pmYeah, imagine that. Barriers exist, and for space they are insurmountable except for nation states playing Historical Reenactment Theater.So what?

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 06:12:36 pm
content: Quote from: rdl on July 25, 2018, 05:51:05 pmWell, yeah, Space Sex, Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin. Are there any more?

author: Tepe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 06:15:19 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on July 25, 2018, 05:12:25 pmAnd - importantly - the money spent does not magically disappear. It moves, jobs are created, people are fed and ultimately some of it ends up in the public coffers again..

author: Tepe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 06:16:23 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 25, 2018, 06:12:36 pmArianespace?

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 06:19:54 pm
content: Quote from: Tepe on July 25, 2018, 06:15:19 pmThat argument would also serve nicely in a campaign to recommit the complete "space" budget to folk dance festivals.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 06:23:33 pm
content: Quote from: Tepe on July 25, 2018, 06:15:19 pmYes, that's very Keynesian.

author: Tepe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 06:25:13 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on July 25, 2018, 06:19:54 pmThat doesn't make it less true. When you make a purchase the money doesn't vanish into thin air.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 06:28:02 pm
content: Of course, it goes into somebody's pocket.

author: Tepe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 06:28:50 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 25, 2018, 06:28:02 pmExactly! Is that a problem? It won't stay there forever.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 06:34:39 pm
content: Yes, it's a problem. An 18 trillion $ problem in the USA.

author: ruffy91
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 06:50:03 pm
content: And were do the $$$ go? Fort knox?

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 06:56:27 pm
content: Interesting how much vitriol against space. It seems to be a pocketbook issue. Even if those who are against are correct and it is a complete waste of money, the money wasted is going more to engineers and technicians than most of the other complete wastes of money that can be identified. Eliminating space funding is likely to result in less money in technical folks pockets.So go ahead, rail against one of the few Dilbert benefiting boondoggles around. It won't make you richer.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 06:58:01 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 25, 2018, 06:34:39 pmAnd NASA does not affect even 1% of that problem.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 07:04:50 pm
content: Some of that great excess of spending (public debt) goes or has gone to your pocket as salary? Good for you. But now we have to pay it, not you (unless you believe in overunity). So that's not good for me/us. I hope you can understand that.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 08:04:02 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 25, 2018, 02:56:09 pmYes, as an absolute minimum you have to be able to recreate every essential piece of the base. If you need a replacement circuit board you can't just order new parts from digikey. You have to literally recreate every single part out of martian rock. Just imagine all the equipment needed just to get ore out of the ground. What would be needed in terms of factories and equipment and expertise to get a new colony started is absolutely mind boggling, and all of that would have to be shipped from earth.Quote from: EEVblog on July 25, 2018, 12:39:43 amWho wouldn't want to go to the moon for a few days at least once in their life! (Well, the same could be said about Mars but a mars trip would take years). A moon base would also be useful for astronomy and as a stepping stone for probes headed further into the solar system. It could also be useful as a base of operations for detecting and deflecting asteroids that might hit earth, as well as potential attempts at mining asteroids for valuable resources. (And for those who insist on going to Mars, a moon base would be a logical first step.)Quote from: EEVblog on July 25, 2018, 01:54:19 amyay, listening to Artemis now.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 08:25:51 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on July 25, 2018, 06:56:27 pmYes, you might call it a "pocketbook issue". I can think of many areas where (more) public money could be spent with the goal of making lifeon Earthbetter: health care and life science research, future energy supply, robust food supply for the whole world, ...Engineering and technology plays a big role in all of these fields, so I would not be concerned about the unemployment rate of this forum's membership if these areas were to get a bigger piece of the pie.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 10:06:54 pm
content: Health care, life science, robust food supply? All have dramatically improved over the last two centuries. With the result that we have bred more of us very successfully. And not necessarily made things better here on earth.While I have not personally made a dime working on space ventures, I would rather see money go that way than to make it possible for 16 or 25 billion of us to live on earth.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 11:06:12 pm
content: Paper Science report tax money founded European Space Agency’s Mars Express spacecraft found lake under ice sheeton Mars! If US of A and it's tax money founded fun house Pentagon hadent bombed away 21 trillion USD we had already been on Mars growing potatoes!

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 11:16:22 pm
content: Quote from: apis on July 25, 2018, 08:04:02 pmAnd that's the show shopper. Almost no one if going to willingly take several years of their life (most of it in complete boredom just getting there and back) to go to the Mars.Imagine if colonies existed right now on Mars and the Moon. One is a 21 months round trip minimum, the other is a week or two round trip and you could easily spend more time on surface than travelling.One has no view of earth, the other has an awesome view of the Earth so you can block it out with your thumb and take Earth selfies.Which one is a tourist going to pick? (assuming Mars does not have three boobed hookers)QuoteThe story and dialog is kinda cringe-worthy, but it creates an awesome mental image and sense of what a moon colony would be like.I think it's ideal to be made into a movie.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2018, 11:27:44 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on July 19, 2018, 04:44:46 pmBesides you not knowing where the 21 trillion went, you also deny you have no idea what US mercenaries doing in Afghanistan!QuoteDeliberately contradiction you make , mercenaries defending country=dont approve what mercenaries used for= scratches oligarch back! Your not a american patriot! Real patriots embrace the constitution and lives by it! Shame upon United Snakes of Americho who commit perjury to some of it's own 27 amendments!QuoteIm not calming down, im breathing up by inhaling hydrogen, like when US politicians do when the Iran issue is on the desk!Just look at the ancient Persians, they build superb rockets, soon they go to Mars in the name of Mohammed the greatand 13 virgins!Anyhow, i recall there was substance, helium 3 i think it was that didnt exist on earth but lots of it on the Moonand some investors wanted to mine that, people protest the Moon could vanish and so then tide and ebb on earth ,etc!

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2018, 12:02:46 am
content: It exists on earth, it's just not easy to get in quantity. Currently, our largest source of Helium-3 is from decaying Tritium (12.5 year half-life) in nuclear weapons stockpiles. Tritium itself is rare and expensive to make and we're not making it like we did during the cold war, so that source is getting smaller with time.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 26, 2018, 01:28:47 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 25, 2018, 07:04:50 pmYour mention of overunity is a rather interesting one, especially when it comes to the economics of the situation. While I'm not an economist, the concept of financial multipliers is one I've understood for many, many years. When someone is paid for something, they don't sit on all the money. They might save a bit, but most will get spent - and the recipients of that spending will do likewise - as will the recipients ofthatspending .... and so on and so forth.So, for every dollar spent up front, there will bemultiple usesof that money which increases the activity of the economy by more than that single dollar. That first spending of that dollar may well be a cause for discussion - but it is the subsequent spending that is crucial to the survival of an economy.Maybe someone with the knowledge can offer a number to the question: For every dollar spent on various Space programs, how many dollars of economic activity are generated?

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 26, 2018, 01:50:56 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 25, 2018, 07:04:50 pmOverunity is one of the main features of money. Why do you think inflation exists? Because new money is created out of thin air and dilutes existing money. Not to say, there is more money existing than all goods you could buy with it.

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2018, 04:22:32 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on July 26, 2018, 01:28:47 amI think for the Apollo programs it was calculated at $3-5 in economic turnover in the economy for every dollar spent on the program, which is similar to scientific research expenditures. Military back then was just $2-3 at best after Vietnam ended. In war time it is lower. SS retirement payment, and general gov expenditures were running $4-7. $6-7 for SS disability and food assistance payments. The poorer you are the higher percentage you spend locally, and the faster you spend it. With greater foreign trade in the picture, lower effective retail wages, and more non locally owned stores like WalMart, Target, Lowes, and Gap stores, the numbers are lower now because more ends up much faster in the pockets of rich people, or traveling abroad. These are at the latest '83 numbers from back when I studied economics last. I'm not sure if they are still calculated and published by the government. PS, a dollar earned by a multimillionaire has a return ratio of much less than $2. At a certain point the more you earn, the less spendable it becomes, and chasing stocks with those extra $ has near no incremental add to the economy. Neither does the purchase of luxury goods like yachts and very expensive cars.

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2018, 05:09:01 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 25, 2018, 04:47:48 pmPS, it would be much much more expensive if the government did the work it's self.https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170008895.pdfSpaceX is saving the government big dollars.

author: Echo88
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2018, 11:58:46 am
content: @ George: How do you pay for the space program in the US as a Pole?

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2018, 12:58:19 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on July 25, 2018, 06:19:54 pmYes, I'm sure we could invent an Asteroid Dance to keep the Death Asteroid away.Quote from: Eka on July 26, 2018, 05:09:01 am1) The word is "itself". Notit is self.2) SpaceX is standing on the shoulders of the DECADES OF WORK ALREADY DONE BY THE GOVERNMENT.Quote from: CatalinaWOW on July 25, 2018, 06:56:27 pmThere is no vitriol against space. Space is a vacuum, it is inert. I am upset at the cloud-shovelling nerds with their space pseudo-religion earnestly charting out the future of humanity in the galaxy. Guys, Star Trek was fiction. It's just you, me, the Periodic Table of the Elements and the four forces. There are no dilithium crystals, no duranium, no tungsten verteride carbon matrix, no structural integrity fields, no warp drive, no transporters, no replicators, no aliens that look like us, no artificial gravity, no Vulcans, no habitable planets just days away in a magical spaceship that doesn't exist.By all means, send all the A-type test pilots in diapers to play guitar badly in the ISS and grow tomato seeds in free fall and call it vitally important science. I chuckle.Keep sending up satellites that point back at Earth because that's were everyone lives.But when you start thinking that Mars is just a hop and a skip away and how simple it all could be if we just listened to you because you read sci-fi, that's where I draw the line.Space is huge. Space is dead. Space is hostile. We are here. We are not going anywhere with kerosene and carbon fiber no matter how good our computers get. Sure sure, some military test pilots bounced on the Moon for a few days after the most powerful nation in history worked at it for an entire decade. So what? They came back after a week.It's over. The future is here and it ain't in space. If it was as simple as the Space Nutters keep telling us then why didn't it happen when everyone and everything was working towards space 50 years ago? Human curiosity didn't change, did it? They had rich people back then too, right? So why didn't it happen? The same generation that built the Concorde, mind you.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 26, 2018, 01:03:43 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 26, 2018, 12:58:19 pmDare to elaborate on the source of this claim?

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2018, 01:22:38 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 26, 2018, 01:03:43 pm... I can never tell if you're joking, or what. Are you saying SpaceX started from absolute zero knowledge of the field of rocketry? They didn't look at what worked and what didn't before??? They didn't benefit from the mountains of knowledge of theory and materials and practical engineering amassed over the decades by NASA??In the same discussion where people talk about the amazing ROI of space???...really??So you're saying if Elon Musk started SpaceX in 1951 he'd have achieved the same things in the same amount of time?We are truly blessed to be alive at the same time as such an immeasurable genius. I'm picking out my counter finish for my Mars condo right now! Think I should get a space shower stall in the space bathroom? I can't wait to drive my space dune buggy over the Martian desert with my buxom space princess!

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2018, 01:36:37 pm
content: You speak as if there is only one government in the world, which since you wear a Canadian tag, is presumably the Canadian government.Most science is built on that which came before. Huge advances in rocketry came from war technology developed by Nazi Germany and the German scientists that continued their work in various countries after the war.Russia launched Sputnik, the first satellite in orbit.Numerous deep space probes have been launched, some of which are still active.The US put men on the moon, briefly.Russians and Chinese have put rovers on the moon.Rovers have been sent to Mars.We've got an international space station, supported by many governments.But long before all that, someone invented the wheel!Never mind all the other technology fields that had to be developed make what we use today.It's not just "THE GOVERNMENT". It's many many government and non-government organizations, some of which don't exist anymore, and some that haven't existed yet. In most cases, the results of that research were INTENDED for future generations to build upon.And yes, SpaceX is saving their customers (some of which are agencies of specific governments) money by putting payloads in orbit cheaper than anyone else seems to be able to. Including said governments themselves.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 26, 2018, 01:43:26 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 26, 2018, 01:22:38 pmHow dare you go to school and learn from the books, exploiting knowledge of poor scientists of the past! You should sit in a cave and achieve all on your own.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2018, 01:54:35 pm
content: Quote from: Nusa on July 26, 2018, 01:36:37 pmYup, we had Avro andCARDE, builder of theBlack Brant. After the Avro Arrow was canned some Avro engineers headed to NASA to work on Apollo.Here's one.Point is, if it wasn't for taxpayer-funded research, frat boys like Musk couldn't have invented much.Quote from: Nusa on July 26, 2018, 01:36:37 pmFine, no argument there.NASA is a monstrous, ossified, stratified bureaucracy now.You need to churn things to innovate once in a while.Point is though, these innovations don't change the basic reality of rockets. They burn chemicals at the edge of what is possible with real materials, and they go to the same place as before.You can't innovate away the vastness and hostility of space, no one is colonizing Mars or going on holidays on the Moon. Airbus innovated the A380, it still takes 6 hours to fly across the Atlantic.Same as in 1969.Quote from: wraper on July 26, 2018, 01:43:26 pmNot sure what that is supposed to mean. I made fun of your space hallucinations and now you're going to teach the mean old man a lesson? ROFL I saw your trap!The point, my fine fellow Terran, is that you are not going to retire on Mars. You can paint different stripes on the side of a rocket, it doesn't change the basic reality of the situation. It's game over for all the space dreams. Being able to toss unmanned radios into orbit for slightly less money changes nothing.Yes, the Space Shuttle was a disaster, a nightmare of impractical, over-engineered under-designed contradictory requirements. Probably sticking to "monkeys on top of tube" is the best approach if you want to study the effects of free-fall on the growth of English cucumbers. But it doesn't changeTHIS:www.distancetomars.comMaybe you're saving up your Euros for a space retirement, I'm telling you don't bother. It didn't happen then, it won't happen now.Look, cars are much better, safer and faster than in the 1960s, do you suddenly see millions of people becoming race car drivers???

author: Tepe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2018, 02:13:14 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 26, 2018, 01:54:35 pmForever? As in all eternity? Even the dreams?

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 26, 2018, 02:29:52 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 26, 2018, 12:58:19 pmYou funny man.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 26, 2018, 02:31:31 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 26, 2018, 12:58:19 pmI'd like to point out those test pilots were also engineers

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 26, 2018, 02:33:48 pm
content: Quote from: Nusa on July 26, 2018, 01:36:37 pm

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2018, 03:05:29 pm
content: Quote from: Echo88 on July 26, 2018, 11:58:46 amDo I? Am I paying Musk? I hope not! The public debt is just a(nother) tax in disguise, and a rather big one.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 26, 2018, 03:34:53 pm
content: https://youtu.be/mUQtqnmwDt4?t=1503Cued for the segment of interest, the focus of the point I wish to highlight begins at 27:18.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 26, 2018, 07:31:56 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 24, 2018, 01:39:25 pmBTW, I remembered that not so long time ago there was one that exploded in midair in Russia. Not that big to cause huge damage but there was some real damage indeed.Quotehttps://youtu.be/tq02C_3FvFo

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2018, 10:28:01 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on July 26, 2018, 03:34:53 pmBut debt != normal taxes. The debt is money you're being robbed silently. And the interest of the debt which is billions more to add to the debt, paid monthly/yearly, again and again, for no benefit, forever. Makes my blood boil. A big, permanent, parasitic loss.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 27, 2018, 12:00:18 pm
content: I think you are fixated on an incidental point and missing out on the bigger picture.

author: Echo88
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2018, 02:53:18 pm
content: @George: "Some of that great excess of spending (public debt) goes or has gone to your pocket as salary? Good for you. But now we have to pay it, not you (unless you believe in overunity). So that's not good for me/us. I hope you can understand that."Youre whining about the US space program, as a pole, who doesnt pay a penny to it.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2018, 03:27:42 pm
content: Quote from: Echo88 on July 27, 2018, 02:53:18 pmNope, in general, about 1) excessive spending= deficit and 2) tremendous public debts and 3) debt's interest payments forever, which happens ~ everywhere nowadays.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2018, 04:16:04 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 27, 2018, 03:27:42 pmWhich absolutely needs to be discussed in a thread about SpaceX, NASA, and going to Mars.

author: NottheDan
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2018, 04:38:24 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 26, 2018, 02:31:31 pmHarrison Schmitt was neither a test pilot nor an engineer.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2018, 04:42:24 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 26, 2018, 07:31:56 pmDefinitely the answer to that is to colonize Mars. Definitely. Meanwhile, let's continue maintaining a large collection of nuclear weapons, but let's focus on the Asteroid Of Death, because that's just so pressing.Quote from: Brumby on July 27, 2018, 12:00:18 pmYou want a bigger picture? OK, paint me this: a million years ago, there were no humans. Evolution is still happening. There won't be humans in another million years.So much for your precious "species". If dinosaurs had farted their asteroid of doom away, we wouldn't have evolved at all.So who are you to decide what may or may not evolve here?We simply do not have the technology or resources to enable any of the "Space Prepper" nonsense. It's all just so much gothic space opera.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2018, 04:44:05 pm
content: Quote from: rdl on July 27, 2018, 04:16:04 pmTaxpayers weren't very happy back in the day when the space race was taking place, with the exhorbitant amounts spent. I'd guess many US citizens would rather prefer not to add to the 18 trillions (+ interest) debt, just to please Musk's wet space dreams, so to speak.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2018, 05:05:15 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 27, 2018, 04:44:05 pmVery odd, since I was assured that space spinoffs enabled a 7$ return for every 1$ spent. Are you telling me the taxpayers weren't happy when they all got their checks for 6$?

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2018, 05:43:59 pm
content: So, I suck at English. My language centers in my brain were rather badly damaged in my early 20s.Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 26, 2018, 12:58:19 pmYou know, the only reason I watched any Star Trek at all is because my brother watched it. Instead I often curled up with a book. Meaty tomes like the "Aero-Hydrodynamics of Sailing" where the type of book I read. If anything infected me with the desire to go to space, it was the Apollo missions I saw on TV as a child. For extra credit for a community college astronomy course I took when I was 12, I learned to solve orbits to pilot a space ship. Why, because I wanted to do it some day. I taught myself Chaos Theory, String Theory, and many other things because I was interested in them. I also learned more down to earth things like photography, painting, and clothing design. Learning programming, and electronics were a means to an end. What did you fill your brain with? What inspires you?Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 26, 2018, 12:58:19 pm"Food, Glorious Food" you obviously don't care about it. I'd guess you've never had to go hungry, nor worked with those who did.Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 26, 2018, 12:58:19 pmYou make a lot of assumptions about others. That isn't wise to do.Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 26, 2018, 12:58:19 pmAs the saying goes "Can't never did anything." Are you afraid of failure? I've had my share. Some even nearly killed me. I hedge my bets, and then go for it. I much prefer being a can do person. Space is a challenge, a very big challenge. Especially to do it right and survive to tell the tale. Can you say you survived a tire blowout at over 350 kph? I can. I for one would be very willing to go put my footprint on Mars even if I was the 10,000th person to do so. Yeah, I'd make sure my space ship is as safe as reasonable, but I wouldn't let a small possibility of failure stop me. I think you seriously underestimate the capabilities of the designers and engineers. SpaceX is designing their systems to continue to work despite failures. Their own lives may be depending on their workmanship.As I've said before, the will of the average person wasn't behind space exploration, and the only players that had the money were governments. The tech was there to make a moon colony 50 years ago. There just wasn't the will of the people to pay for it. That's all. Musk is betting there will be an industrial and tourism desire to go to space, and he is paying for the development costs and initial overhead for the transportation service via satellite launches. He doesn't want to make the hotel, or build the town. He's there to provide transportation. His BFR is designed for launching satellites, lunar trips, and Mars trips. It can even do suborbital hops from place to place on earth and take a few hundred people along for the ride. It's pressurized cabin is bigger than the A380's pressurized cabin and 8 stories tall. How would you like to go from NYC to Sydney in less than an hour?The rich and those with lush expense accounts gladly paid for Concorde flights to get them across the pond faster. I took a few of them myself, but only if I had to get there now and their schedule fit mine. Like the day one of my partners was in an auto accident. I'm sorry to whomever that got bumped that day, but I did need to get to her side ASAP. Thing is the rich tend to be even more tight wads about their money and tax money than the poor or middle classes are. They want tax money spent in ways that will make them money now, or not collected at all. Many can't see spending now for much bigger profits ten or twenty years down the road. Me! Me! Me! Now! Now! Now! is their greedy cry. No planning for the long term future at all. Musk is playing the long game, but he's also being smart and financing it with current income.Noise canceling headphones made Concorde flights tolerable. I much preferred traveling in ocean crossing biz jets equipped with beds and baths. Sure, a sub 1 hour suborbital flight like Elan Musk's BFR would be able to do would have been nicer, but they weren't offered back then, and I can nearly guarantee they wouldn't have fit my schedule. The 4 hour Concorde flights rarely did, so I rarely used them even though I was traveling back and forth between NYC or Washington DC and France, and later London too every couple weeks. Instead I took 8 to 9 hour over night flights and slept nice and comfortably for most of them.Why did those jets I flew in have beds and baths? That's because a lady saw a need, and provided the flying hotel rooms to fill it. I'm glad she did. I was her first customer for the service. Within a year her regulars were keeping 3 planes busy. Yeah, a flight in one of them made a Concorde flight look cheap, but you got a nice bed to sleep in, a bath or shower in the morning, and excellent meals prepared from scratch right on the plane so you emerged from the plane nice and refreshed. Last I knew her fleet of charter jets had over thirty in it. All have 1 or 2 double or queen sized beds. When people want to get to and from Mars faster, faster engines will be developed. There are many very realistic designs already on the drawing board. They just lack the funds to create them. Musk's engines will do for now. Especially considering he has upped the efficiency a lot. That allows them to go faster, and or bring more payload. His fuel choice is excellent because the components are plentiful, and cheap and easy to make using a well researched process and can be made at both ends of the trip. Perfect for an automated facility to produce.

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2018, 05:46:20 pm
content: Quote from: NottheDan on July 27, 2018, 04:38:24 pmTrue. He was the first person with true scientific training prior to becoming an astronaut with a PhD in Geology. NASA then trained him to be a jet pilot and a lunar module pilot, along with all the other things every astronaut has to learn. He designed and trained people in collection techniques used on the moon. Obviously there was a lot of practical engineering acquired along the way. He became a professor of engineering physics after he was done with his astronaut and political careers, which should support that assertation.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2018, 05:47:47 pm
content: Quote from: Eka on July 27, 2018, 05:43:59 pmRest of your Russian novel edited. Look, it all sounds wonderful for you, but how does any of that enable the space opera?

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2018, 06:48:52 pm
content: The Russians started their "space race" because of peculiar Russian ideas about Futurism, in particular that once scientists cure all diseases and humans become effectively immortal, the Earth will rapidly fill with people and we will need to colonise space simply to get more room to live. However to get funds the idea was repackaged to the Generals as a weapons delivery platform, which the loved.It is quite clear, and well documented fact, that Kennedy started the US manned space program purely to beat the Russians.The Russians run out of money/skill/luck and gave up. The US beat the Russians, then gave up.Musk idea to colonise Mars to provide a backup for Earth, which is entirely logical, except for some obvious flaws. His lofty ambitions are not dissimilar to the Russian Futurists, and Musk is also forced to finance the program through pragmatic means. I've no idea if he will succeed, I think a Mars colony will never work, but will only highlight how precious and isolated the Earth is. Still I look forward to seeing some boot prints on Mars, and preferably a UN flag...

author: Echo88
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2018, 08:11:48 pm
content: USA, other Nations and corporations need to deploy satellites for profit reasons, Musk enables cheaper transportation for said satellites, makes money (a part of the amount the ULA would get as a monopoly) and establish firms and employs many people who pay taxes. Please tell me George: How is that bad? And tell me how many people you employ, since your economic wisdom is apparently vast.@Vacuo: Im an atheist and see religion as absolut bullshit, but you dont see me jumping up and down like a mindless muppet in every possible way and make fun of religion as you do in this and another thread. You talk about 50 years ago and reason "if not 50 years ago, then not today" and now you interpolate about a million years as if you had a effing clue about it. But good thing: if it all happens you already became the dust that lays on earth forever.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2018, 10:21:31 pm
content: Quote from: Echo88 on July 27, 2018, 08:11:48 pmYes, pays taxes with taxes, overunity FTW, that's how wealth is created (no).You're the typical public sector employee that can't grasp that there's a productive sector (not you) that mantains the non productive (you) public sector: you guys keep growing like a cancer and live in delusion, an eighteen trillion (*) delusion already, keep sucking our blood like leeches and you'll ruin us, we'll sack everybody, and then you'll fall too. BOUMM. Hecatombe.If you want to know what happens when the public sector grows too big, just look at the USSR: 100% public sector.(*) Swap in the figure for your country.

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2018, 10:30:39 pm
content: By the way, many of the English-only speakers here probably have no clue what URSS is. In English the R comes at the end, not the middle, so USSR. Or you could have said Soviet Union as a short version of the long name.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2018, 10:50:15 pm
content: At least some government jobs are overunity. The road builders. The GPS system inventors/deployers/maintainers. I am sure there are many other examples. And I agree that these could be done privately, but they rarely are.Whether the speed of money and other economic concepts are meaningful for any work, private or public, is beyond my understanding. Surprisingly my engineering degrees don't make me expert on everything.

author: Echo88
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2018, 11:08:56 pm
content: @George:You want to hate on the government and the EU and use the US as an example (because Poland is irrelevant compared to the US and the US is so much easier to bash). Nothing more. No boom, no bloodbath. Just an angry guy who isnt clever enough to set up his own firm and enjoy the capitalism that he praises.Anyway, enjoy your hate. I really should invest my time better elsewhere.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2018, 08:38:06 am
content: Quote from: Echo88 on July 27, 2018, 11:08:56 pmIn the capitalism I would praise,privatebussinesses can't pick peoples' money out of their pockets, forcefully and by decree, via taxes.

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2018, 11:45:49 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on July 28, 2018, 08:38:06 amSomebody has to pay for the roads, water systems, sewage systems, police, Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, courts, etc. I laugh at you if you think society could work if they were for profit businesses. There are very good reasons people banded together and formed governments to provide services like I listed, and other services too. If you think you can do without the EPA and it's regulations, feel free to move to any of China's industrial cities. We used to have some that bad here in the US, and people got pissed and demanded things be cleaned up. Sadly we didn't require it of our trading partners too.A very big mistake has been to not base tariffs on the difference in environmental regulation compliance costs, but business has gotten it's way. They would love to get rid of the EPA because then they could make things cheaper. Do you want safe food to eat, and know what ingredients went into it's making? Do you want your medicines to do what they say they do and not harm you with poisons? Better protect the Department of Agriculture, and Food and Drug Administration.I also laugh at the people who think if it has a Kosher symbol it is good wholesome food. It doesn't say one bit about it's nutritional value. I've seen sugar cookies with sawdust and clay fillers that had a Kosher mark. At least with the FDA rules you will know they are a high sugar, have little nutritional value and contain something else than sugar, butter, flour, egg, and baking powder.It'll be interesting to see what regulations the first colonies in space have and operate under.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2018, 02:09:06 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on July 27, 2018, 04:42:24 pmSo you are implying is that humans should not bother about becoming extinct as dinosaurs (= no passing our genes to future generations) to allow other species evolve. Dunno about you but I'm somewhat uncomfortable with this idea. The fact we don't have technology right now, does not mean we can't develop it in the future. Few hounded years ago the best available technology for transport was our own feet and horses.A decade ago it was still debatable if quantum computers would be possible to be ever made. Currently actual working prototypes already exist.Cruise missile with nuclear propulsion:

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2018, 03:16:54 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 25, 2018, 11:16:22 pmFinished it today and I see what you mean. I think a good script writer should be able to fix the problems though. Will be really cool to see a somewhat realistic imagining of a moon base on the big screen.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2018, 10:57:36 pm
content: Quote from: Eka on July 28, 2018, 11:45:49 amThe primary reason this sort of thing can't work as a private business is that people are notoriously short sighted. For the same reason someone will buy a new sofa on credit without considering the total cost with interest, or defer maintenance on their car until a relatively simple and inexpensive repair turns into a major problem. People keep using "cheap" incandescent lamps and balk at the cost of a $10 LED bulb despite the fact that over the long term the total cost of the LED is far lower. I've seen people ignore the need for a new roof on their house until leaks have ruined the sheetrock, carpet and caused mold and structural rot.If we all had to pay directly for specific roads and water pipes and infrastructure we'd be driving around on dirt paths and carrying water in buckets. We'd probably have to buy fire insurance coverage from a private entity or the for-profit fire department would stand by and let your house burn if you hadn't paid the fire bill. A few tightknit communities would figure out that if they all pool together funds they can get a far superior system that is cheaper in the long run but most people would balk at the upfront cost, especially if they didn't happen to need that particular infrastructure right now at this moment. Instead we have taxes where everyone pays a portion of their income into the system and the money is used to pay for infrastructure that we can all benefit from. I don't like paying taxes any more than the next guy and I certainly have some complaints about some of the things the money gets spent on (wars for example) but I recognize that taxes are a necessary evil, needed to pay for the public infrastructure that is part of any civilized society.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 29, 2018, 11:36:45 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 28, 2018, 02:09:06 pmThe problem with looking at it from a species saving point of view is that the money can be vastly better spent working on detecting, preventing, and fixing all the problems that can wipe us out on our own planet. The only planet that isalready compatiblewith sustaining us, not by a bit, but by vast orders of magnitude.When you actually analyse it, the species saving off-world "plan b" just falls flat on it's face.QuoteAnd a few hundred years later we are still mostly transporting ourselves along the ground in devices that are polluting our planet, and eating food grown in mostly the old fashioned way to sustain ourselves.Things actually haven't changed as much as you think.You are seriously trying to correlate this small incremental improvement in efficiency with terra-forming another planet (because that's what it will take) and moving millions of people there and starting civilisation, agriculture, mining and manufacturing from scratch?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 29, 2018, 11:39:17 pm
content: Quote from: apis on July 29, 2018, 03:16:54 pmYeah, I have no doubt any decent script writer could take the basic premise and turn it into a decent movie.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 30, 2018, 12:23:35 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 29, 2018, 11:36:45 pmThe way we grow and especially process food is vastly different when it's done on industrial scale. Also don't forget about genetically modified crops.QuoteWhen you compare people never having chance leaving their small village in the past and casual flight by airplane just for vacation, the scale of leap from what was then and is now is actually much greater compared to the required leap between to what we have right now and making a base on Mars. We more or less have the technology. It's just a question of funding and viability. Back then it did not matter how much money you had, you still could not drive by car or take a flight. And if you became ill by something not considered that serious today, you'll very likely just die. Simple surgery was a sure death because no antibiotics existed.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 30, 2018, 05:51:24 am
content: Quote from: wraper on July 30, 2018, 12:23:35 amYou are missing the point. They still grow in the ground, and they still need to be processed and transported, and the scale is stillmassive. Something that isn't going to happen on another planet. It's chalk and cheese.QuoteAbsolute rubbish.We do not have the technology, not even an order of magnitude close, to enable a Mars colony to self-sustain itself and grow in case the earth got wiped out. They would simply die out.If you think we do then you have no clue about the absolutely massive scale of manufacturing and process infrastructure required in the modern world to make everything you take for granted, and everything the Mars colonists would take for granted.Such a concept of saving the species by moving to Mars is absolutely laughable in any time frame we can reasonably imagine.Take the absolute simplest example (and there are literallyhundredslike this) of a controller and for the solar panels.What happens when it breaks?Use some spare parts? Ok.What happens when you run out of spare parts?Manufacture your own? Using what? A magic 3D printer machine that makes chips and parts?Do you know how many process steps go into making just one modern component?How on earth (pun realised) are you going to recreate that one Mars?The only reason we thrived (barely actually at one point) on earth is because it is entirely habitable. You just need air, food and water to survive, and you don't need technology to get those to survive. You can freely wander around for hundreds of generations and slowly built incremental technology as you scrape by in a hunter/gatherer existence. You can't do that on an unhabitable planet, if your technology fails or can't be sustained, you get wiped out, practically overnight.

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2018, 03:24:23 pm
content: Well, the hundreds of future generations part is in question, given the damage we keep doing to the planets environment. We already have a lot of people in the world who have damaged lungs from dirty air, diseases from dirty water, and/or are starving from inadequate food. And it's clearly going to get worse with time, not even counting whatever is going to happen from global warming.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2018, 04:24:03 pm
content: Evolution is still happening. It won't stop because you watched Star Trek as a child and think the Universe is just a giant McDonald's ball pit to jump around in. There won't be a human species in a million years no matter what we do.Who the hell seriously talks in the terms of "the species"? You guys have smelled your own farts so long you have methane poisoning.You probably don't even give a shit about the person living one street over yet here you are earnestly plotting the future of the entire species. The only people crazy enough to talk like this are religious cultists.Oh yes, you're here to save me, huh?

author: Bassman59
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2018, 04:40:28 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 29, 2018, 11:39:17 pmAlready done. See Duncan Jones' "Moon."

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 30, 2018, 11:23:50 pm
content: Quote from: Nusa on July 30, 2018, 03:24:23 pmYes, but our planet won't become uninhabitable. We could nuke this entire planet and it would still be orders of magnitude more habitable than Mars.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 30, 2018, 11:26:14 pm
content: Quote from: Bassman59 on July 30, 2018, 04:40:28 pmI enjoyed that, but it wasn't about a moon colony that tourists visit, it was about a dude alone in a moon mining outpost.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2018, 12:42:50 am
content: Even if we did find a nice habitable planet somewhere else, what makes anyone think we (humans) wouldn't immediately set about trashing it in search of resources and fighting over resources and belief systems just like we have here on Earth?Dave's right about the manufacturing chain, any given widget you can think of is likely made of parts that came from dozens of factories, each of those parts made of materials that came from numerous other factories. Each of these factories is made of materials from dozens of other suppliers, as are all the tools used to build the factories and machinery. Somewhere along that line there are probably people using 50+ year old machines in parts of the process to make other materials, components and machines and any materials have passed through countless processes from the time they were mined from the ground to the time they wind up in a finished product. I think people tend to vastly underestimate the amount of effort required to start manufacturing even mundane items from scratch. It's like trying to write a modern multitasking operating system from scratch doing all the coding in assembly language on a pad of paper and then assembling it by hand, then once the OS is working you have to write all the software and utilities you want to use on it, and that's assuming you already have the hardware. It's a monumental undertaking.Try making something simple like a sheetmetal screw or a galvanized nail from scratch. Even if you skip the mining and start with iron ore, think of all the steps that are involved, including building some kind of furnace or foundry and any other tools you'll need. Now consider something like a transistor or IC and that is many orders of magnitude more involved.

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2018, 03:40:15 pm
content: Our biggest issue with trying to live off earth is the huge variety of bacteria we, and our food supplies, need to survive, versus those that harm us and our food supplies. FYI: You have more bacteria cells in you than you have of your own cells. By weight the bacteria is much less because they are usually much smaller. Any colony, unless it maintains constant back and forth traffic, will diverge. Eventually it's favored bacteria will be harmful or even deadly to people form other colonies. Add on top of that colony specific viruses, etc.The SF ability to scan a body for harmful viruses, and bacteria then neutralize them when you go from one biosphere to another will be a necessity for anybody traveling between worlds, space stations, etc. It isn't the big things that will get you, but the little ones. Without the ability to find an neutralize harmful viruses and bacteria you couldn't travel. A colony on Mars wouldn't diverge to much to be an issue because of the high amount of travel back and forth, but one out at Pluto where travel takes much longer will diverge a lot more. Any humans that go to other stars will be effectively different species after a few thousand years. Our bacteria and viruses will be so drastically diverged we could only meet wearing space suits. Another thing is Mars is constantly being seeded with earth bacteria stripped off or upper atmosphere, along with some of our air too, and carried to mars on the solar wind. Yeah, bacteria get lofted up and carried about by the wind. When they get high enough, they get dragged off by the solar wind. The asteroid belt asteroids, Mars, and any planet or moon further out in the solar system without a magnetic shield will catch a few of them. Bacteria and fungus are remarkably durable. Spacelab, and the Russian space station both had bad fungal growth problems. They hadn't been designed to allow for cleaning up of all surfaces, inside and out. The Russian space station even had fungus growing on the outside. Read this and shudder:https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/11may_locad3With the right precautions space travel will be possible. We just have a lot to learn.When you think about this from a terraforming perspective, earth compatible bacteria will need to be seeded into the environment, and reinforced often to keep divergence down. Nanobots that destroy incompatible bacteria will be a necessity.When you think this through, you'll realize that even time travel on earth is fraught with the same bio incompatibility hazards. So, yeah, medicine and biology is something that will need to advance greatly.Quote from: EEVblog on July 30, 2018, 05:51:24 amYou'd be surprised at how much food is grown using hydroponics.Quote from: EEVblog on July 30, 2018, 05:51:24 amYa have to start sometime. Might as well be 2024. BTW, you should look up printing of resistors and diodes. Also look up resistor diode logic. GHz diodes can be printed. Something very famous used it.In the early years chips may have to be imported, but some day an entrepreneur will establish Mars' first semiconductor fab, or maybe Apple or Intel will. In the long run it is massively cheaper to ship the machinery to make chips, and the designs than the chips themselves. Sure, mining and raw materials infrastructure will need to have happened by then. I expect that will get set up quickly.I expect the mining and manufacturing that happens on Mars will be totally different than on Earth. This is because of lack of labor. It will be very highly automated and initially overseen by somebody who has the smarts and knowledge to fundamentally modify its processes if needed.I expect industry exports from mars to go from very valuable commodities to manufactured goods when there is a sufficient variety and supply of materials available to make stuff on Mars. Mars' main market will be it's self, and the asteroid belt second. It has a much lower cost to orbit than earth has. The commodities that are not cost effective to be shipped back to earth will be stored on mars until somebody wants to use them.For low cost from ground to orbit for durable goods and bulk commodities, I expect somebody will install a electromagnetic catapult type launch system. Olympus Mons is extremely high and would be out of most of a human breathable atmosphere should they create one on Mars. If they didn't, then it could be made almost anywhere. The atmosphere is so thin it doesn't even double the length needed. On Olympus Mons they could build a catapult that could put stuff into a trans Mars to Earth orbit. It then becomes a matter of catching it as it gets close to earth. An ion thruster package on the front end could slow it considerably and guide them into groups so they end up in earth orbit in close proximity to a bunch of other loads for easy pickup. So what it takes a few years to get there when you are talking metals and other long term durable commodities. Food stuffs is a different issue. Eventually earth's population will outgrow earth's capacity to produce food. At that point they will be importing it from space. A catapult could launch it so it could be grabbed by a continuously orbiting set of ships that always travels between Mars and Earth and never stop at either planet.As for 3D printing. 3D printing of some replacement parts for the space ships is viable. This includes metal parts as well as plastic ones. Carrying along spares for everything that may go wrong is costly, but sending a few 3D printers, some raw material, and generic controller boards can make replacements for used up spares, or for parts without spares. Also sending spare parts to Mars is expensive, so as soon as the raw materials are available, spare parts will be made on Mars. Before then bulk raw materials and 3D printers can be sent to mars during non ideal times so parts can be made on Mars. You won't be able to 100% predict what you will need. So to have the resources to make a new design right then and there is a good policy. They can also be used for making manufacturing plants for making the robots needed to do the work. For parts that can't be made on Mars, generic parts can be shipped. Stuff like universal logic controllers that can take the place of many different ones, or they could standardize on a set of them, and program for the target use. A batch of the main processor boards, cameras, and sensors used in Teslas would be great for controlling made on Mars automated rovers, and human carrying vehicles.

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2018, 03:43:53 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on July 30, 2018, 12:23:35 amThe off topic bit that lead to my previous post.As a farmer, I say stay away from any BT varieties. It produces an insecticide that is found throughout the whole plant, including the grain produced. I don't know about you, but I'm not fond of ingesting insecticides. Roundup ready plants are not additionally toxic to humans, or anything else. The gene just confers resistance to Roundup herbicide. Roundup is also one of your more benign herbicides as far as other organisms are concerned. You'd get a tummy ache, but it wouldn't kill you to drink Roundup. On the other hand the insecticide produced in BT crops will kill you if you ingest enough of it. At lower doses it will cause mental confusion, and other neurological issues. In the dose levels found in corn and soybean pollen it causes confusion in bees, and they can't find their way home, but shouldn't harm humans. Unless you have problems clearing out toxins from the body. The dose needed to cause confusion in humans is much higher than needed for insects. Our nerves are different then the nerves in insects, so it takes a lot higher dose to effect them. This is why you can wear a garment with the insecticide permethrin dried onto it, but you should never spray it directly on your skin or wear a garment sprayed with it that hasn't dried yet.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2018, 04:39:26 pm
content: Well, I'm convinced. Do you think I should buy a Mars condo, or a townhouse in the Mars suburbs? Decisions....Or maybe I should homestead it on Utopia Planitia for a while, grow some Space Corn and cook bannock with it? Maybe I should learn some old cowboy campfire songs to sign while I plow rust with my Space Oxen...

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2018, 09:52:10 pm
content: I'm gonna buy the western flank of Olympus Mons from the crater wall, to 50 km west of the crater wall, and a good 25 km wide at the crater wall, and 50 km wide at the western end. Should be a good place to install a catapult or two, and the solar arrays to power it.

author: Tepe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2018, 05:41:08 am
content: Quote from: Eka on August 01, 2018, 09:52:10 pmWho are you going to buy it from?

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2018, 12:55:01 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on July 31, 2018, 12:42:50 amYeah, you don't just need the machinery and tools to make the new spare parts, you need the machinery and tools to make the machinery and tools that makes the spare parts, (and so on). And I'm no expert in chemistry but I reckon you have less raw materials to work with on mars than you have here on earth as well. It's not like you can go outside and chop down a tree and make a fire. Maybe you can extract the elements and synthesise stuff you need but it would require whopping amounts of energy and effort.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2018, 01:55:24 pm
content: "I think people tend to vastly underestimate the amount of effort required to start manufacturing even mundane items from scratch."You're damn right. I've noticed that most Space Nutters are programmers; people that sit in their comfortable offices filled with manufactured items, and they think the world is as simple as "#include warp drive.h".They're completely clueless.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2018, 01:56:41 pm
content: Quote from: Eka on August 01, 2018, 09:52:10 pmPoint that thing away from me or expect a letter from my space lawyer!

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2018, 02:46:37 pm
content: Quote from: Tepe on July 26, 2018, 02:13:14 pmYes. Unless you can find new elements or new fundamental forces, engineering has strict limits. But dreams are free.Comparing the progress of computers which deal in massless information with progress in the material world is stupid.

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2018, 03:29:20 pm
content: Quote from: apis on August 02, 2018, 12:55:01 pmI've been thinking how 3D printing is changing the supply chain, and advances in 3D printing. Many parts of the past now get printed as one part. You need the designs, assembly instructions, and the printer-mills and you can make many parts from a few different relatively simple raw materials. A combination of 3D printer, and 5 axis mill could make a huge variety of parts. Then the assembly bots can take the parts right from the printer-mill and assemble whatever as they come off the printer-mills.I'm now toying with making a 3D printer-mill that can use powders of various types and fuse them together, and also mill the surfaces to shape as it makes the part. The goal is a couple micron resolution in glass, ceramics and metals being done on the same part. I wish I had the $$$$$ for the laser fusing heads. I figure I need 40 to 80 Watts minimum due to the fusing temperatures and the speed of fusing needed for some materials. Plus I may need a couple different wavelengths. There is a lot that needs to go into it, but that should all be able to be handled. Yes, I'm cognizant of the differing rates of expansion and contraction of various materials I'm considering using. Hence the need for handling many different materials. The atmosphere around the material being fused can also be very critical for success. At first I'll be trying hard vacuum to see if it works. If it does work for most materials, then great. Yes, I know I'll vaporize part of the materials I'm fusing. That's life when you make compromises. BTW, I want this for making art. Imagine embedding diodes, resistores, and transistors in the middle of a chunk of glass. How about in the middle of the frame of a robot?

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2018, 07:20:56 pm
content: I think he's just here to annoy people. The only arguments in support of his position seem to be "far" and "hard", neither of which are really valid. If there was an actual need for a colony on Mars, far and hard wouldn't stand a chance. Since a colony is not really needed right now, I wouldn't expect one for a hundred years or so. As far as technology and engineering capability goes, it could have been done years ago. Politics and economics are the main limiting factors.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2018, 08:19:35 pm
content: Quote from: rdl on August 02, 2018, 07:20:56 pm?The same politics that got you to the Moon in the first place???(PS: Socialism got you there too, BTW.)Quote from: a59d1 on August 02, 2018, 07:01:02 pmAbout as much as asinine, baseless posts about how easy Mars colonies will be, and that "far" really doesn't mean anything!!

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2018, 08:55:56 pm
content: I would say politics as demonstrated on this thread. There are four groups of people here. The two fringe groups are those that think it is trivially easy or impossibly hard. The other two groups agree that it is hard, but disagree on the on degree of difficulty and value. The politics is these two groups fully defining their values and science and jockeying for support.

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2018, 11:33:42 pm
content: Politics will only play a minor role. It's the money and initiative of private individuals and corporations that will get the ball rolling.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2018, 03:30:04 pm
content: Quote from: Eka on August 02, 2018, 11:33:42 pmOh for sure, just like it did in the heyday of the Space age, right? Remember all those brave entrepreneurs and private individuals preparing their trips to the Moon in 1961?Oh, yeah, right, never happened.http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9705/25/japan.space/Oops.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTRAGUmm...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_OneAhhh....The kind of personality that is attracted to these lunatic Russian Cosmism-based fantasies is not the kind of person that will become very rich, or have many practical skills.Yes, politics will only play a minor role. A minor role like WWII pushing along the V2, the Cold War pushing along ICBMs, , politics pushing along the Space Penis Size Contest.You know, minor stuff like that. The really big stuff will come from private people in their garages, preparing bigger posters of Mars colonies...Where does this blind enthusiasm for nonsense come from? What happened to living on the ocean floor? What happened to extracting minerals from sea water? Before proselytizing about egg baskets and galaxy-wide colonization, try impressing me with some smaller scale stuff. Show me you can walk before you claim to (easily) outrun Usain Bolt...OK, at best, maybe, perhaps, some very rich people will be able to go on suborbital flights and see a bit more than what people used to see in the Concorde (so why doesn't the Concorde fly anymore?). But then, going on a Vomit Comet is more easily done, why aren't there private Vomit Comet rides, and if there are, why haven't you been on one?

author: kizmit99
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2018, 04:00:07 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on August 03, 2018, 03:30:04 pmThere are:https://www.gozerog.com/Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on August 03, 2018, 03:30:04 pmBecause I get motion-sick on the ground (and water) and have thus-far been able to convince my wife there are better ways to spend the $5K/person fee...

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2018, 05:03:18 pm
content: Quote from: kizmit99 on August 03, 2018, 04:00:07 pmThanks! It looks like fun, but this was possible already 50 years ago and it doesn't indicate that we'll colonize the Galaxy in Holy Humanity Seed Ships...I'm just genuinely curious about this quasi-religious fervor I see over and over whenever space is mentioned around programmers and to a lesser extent engineers. I find it fascinating, it says a lot about us as creatures. The same people are also usually staunchly against life extension because it goes against nature, but at the same time they are drawing up antimatter powered warp drives to enable the Holy Expansion of the Human Species among the Universe.I suppose they'll paint SPQR on the side of their ships as they land on alien planets and crush alien resistance...

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2018, 08:16:19 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on August 03, 2018, 03:30:04 pmJust a view inside one of Elon Musk's "garages".https://twitter.com/AscentAerospace/status/983382489035980800/photo/1VIews of the outside here:https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-bfr-factory-rocket-tooling-site-activity/

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2018, 08:23:52 pm
content: Quote from: Eka on August 03, 2018, 08:16:19 pmNASA's VAB is so large it has its own weather system. It is over 50 years old. I note the absence of Mars colonies.Try again.

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2018, 02:59:31 am
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on August 03, 2018, 08:23:52 pmEven NASA considers vertical assembly to have been a mistake. The VAB limits how tall of a rocket they can make, assembly work platforms are costly and unique to the rocket, and the vehicle to move it to the launch pad is extremely expensive. For horizontal assembly guys can work from generic cherry pickers and lift platforms. Also moving the assembled rocket can be done with standard heavy load carriages.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 04, 2018, 03:29:38 am
content: Quote from: Eka on July 31, 2018, 03:40:15 pmBecause it's that easy, right?Sorry, but

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2018, 08:42:58 am
content: To be fair, when I read how people propose to create their colony Mars, the ideas are basically science fiction. E.g. a magic box (or a building) that converts raw materials into finished products, that's basically the Star Trek replicator. The thing is, if such a device could be created, it would also revolutionize manufacturing on Earth. And since making things on Earth is 10,000 cheaper than doing it on Mars, it would probably still be more economic to make it on Earth then ship it to Mars.Terraforming of Mars is simply not going to happen, so we can just forget that.However, you don't need to go to Mars to prove a replicator is possible, just build it on Earth. You can simulate the conditions somewhat by evacuating the building, and spraying it full of abrasive dust. You could probably also simulate the intense UV radiation, but not the lower gravity.Even the simplest object on Earth, e.g. a washer, has a remarkably complex chain of manufacturing from raw materials. And then add the fact you don't even get oxygen and water for free on Mars, you haveto make it, the scale of the problem becomes vast. Any technologies would need to be researched and prototyped on Earth. Sending up a bunch of engineers and a 3d printer and hoping they will kickstart the Martian economy will quickly result in a bunch of dead engineers.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2018, 05:13:02 pm
content: Quote from: Eka on August 02, 2018, 03:29:20 pmInteresting idea, by integrating a mill you could get much better surface finishes and dimensional accuracy. Some metal 3D printers use electron beams instead of lasers (in vacuum).3D printers are nice, but they are just one of many tools that would be needed. A 3D printer can't print a battery, but maybe it can make some subset of the parts of the machines that makes the batteries, etc.I Imagine that to get a self sustaining colony started you would have to first figure out which materials you have available on site, and what it would cost to mine and refine them. Then how to construct the necessary life support machinery/structures out of those materials. Then figure out a self replicating tool chain to be able to get from Mars rock to the minimum set of machinery you need (hydroponics units, air filtration, medical equipment etc) using only those materials in a economically realistic way.It's probably theoretically possible but it would be a massive undertaking just doing the all the research and development to figure out what you would need.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2018, 05:39:56 pm
content: Quote from: Eka on August 02, 2018, 11:33:42 pmIt was tax money that put people on the moon. A corporation is essentially a machine programmed to make profit, and if you can't make profit out of the Mars colony a corporation can't do it. I doubt there are any private individuals rich enough or interested enough to set up a colony on Mars (including Elon Musk), and as a potential Mars coloniser would you be willing to trust that a private individual would continue to support your colony for the centuries it would take just to get things started?Someone mentioned the Biosphere 2 experiment previously. That was trivial experiment in comparison but turned out to not work as intended at all. It's a shame that no one made a biosphere 3 and so on until they could get something that works though. But that also shows there isn't anyone willing to pay for even the most basic research needed to get started. How would you convince people they should care about about a colony on Mars if they are never going to see it or benefit from it. Heck, seven percent of the US population believes the earth is flat! If the majority of people here on earth can think of something else than eating, sleeping and reproducing for a while they spend the time figuring out how to steal each others resources and fighting over who's imaginary friend is better. We know how to make safe and super efficient nuclear reactors but for some reason everyone decided to develop and build the models that provide a-bomb material as a byproduct instead, and for the most part we still mainly (90%) use coal/oil/gas to power everything here on earth anyway. Good luck convincing people they should spend the necessary money and resources on colonising Mars just because nerds think it would be cool (and maybe even beneficial for humanity long term).

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2018, 12:13:37 am
content: Quote from: apis on August 04, 2018, 05:13:02 pmI wouldn't be so positive about that. Researchers are having a lot of success in that area.

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2018, 12:47:02 am
content: Some of us do understand the complexities of the supply chain. I've also redesigned products to simplify manufacturing steps, and also for automated manufacture.Lately I've been working on how to use simple commonly available bulk raw materials in 3D printing of precision parts. From NASA research reports, one of the printing methods I've been exploring should be able to use raw ground up Martian regolith to make strong 3D body structures out of. The minimum strength would be similar to low grade glass, with the likely strength being closer to volcanic glass. This is with only grinding the regolith into fine enough particles, then fusing them together with a laser. Yes, that simple. Additional steps can make it stronger, and smooth the surfaces a lot.If it is possible to find the components to make a binder, then fiberglass structures can be made.If components for a high temperature frothing agent can be found, then aerogels can be made from ground up and melted regolith. Aerogels are very good insulators, and likely are structurally strong when used as the core of a composite. A glass, aerogel, glass layered wall would be a good protection against Mar's cold temperatures and sand storms.People have been doing actual experiments on how to do the engineering to colonize both the Moon and Mars for decades. Now with the data coming back from the rovers, we can refine our methods for first trials. A lot of research has already been done. My 3D printer work is all based on materials research done by NASA on mars regolith simulant, and moon regolith simulant. I need a more powerful diode pumped laser capable of continuous operation, and controlled pulse output.Quote from: apis on August 04, 2018, 05:39:56 pmI expect SpaceX will be the only transportation supplier for at most two decades. Others will come in when there is money to be made.Quote from: apis on August 04, 2018, 05:39:56 pmBiosphere 3 still had some fundamental flaws the designers weren't addressing. Hence no more funding. Neither Biosphere 1, nor Biosphere 2 were properly controlled experiments.I expect biospheres in space will be built up from simple systems. They'll only grow plants that are known to grow under simple hydroponic situations, and they will grow all them from carefully washed and treated seeds. No introducing plants with unknown colonies of bacteria and fungus also growing on them and their roots like the Biosphere project did. Once they have robust well understood hydroponic biospheres operating, they will introduce food production fish that graze on aquatic plants, and algae. Their diets will be supplemented with the remains of the hydroponic plants that humans can't eat. Carnivorous fish will be fed the non human edible remains of the grazing fish. Don't expect to see land animals. Fish are much more efficient for pound of gain. They likely will keep the hydroponic and aquaculture biospheres separated, and all bio matter going from one to the other will be thoroughly cooked to kill any bacteria, fungus, mold, etc. Heck, they may UV irradiate the air going into and out of the biospheres to better control possible contamination. Tele-operated robots, and robots may be the only ones that tend them.Not everybody thought going to America was a good idea. It was all paid for out of investors and people's pockets. As for readiness, some will be, and some won't. That is life. Same thing happened with ships setting sail for the Americas, settlers settling North America, settlers setting the American west, and prospectors following the gold rushes. I expect once Musk has his Mars base set up, there will be a few research institutions that set up Mars research stations. I wish I had the money to setup the first general store on Mars.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2018, 02:55:46 pm
content: Quote from: Eka on August 05, 2018, 12:47:02 amThat's great, maybe they can print a nice vase. Still doesn't make the batteries or the CO2 scrubbers or the mining machinery, or the water harvesting, oxygen generators, hydroponics pumps, MRI and other medical equipment, electronics, clothing, etc, needed to live on mars. At best it can be used to print some parts. You just can't make heavy mining equipment out of low grade glass no matter how good your 3D printer is. How do you plan on printing the solar cells and/or nuclear reactors that will power your 3D printer? How will you construct the equipment needed to make IC's?A 3D printer can be useful but it is just another tool, just like a cnc mill or a lathe, it's not self replicating and it certainly isn't a star trek replicator.Quote from: Eka on August 05, 2018, 12:47:02 amif, if, if...Quote from: Eka on August 05, 2018, 12:47:02 amSpaceX is sending satellites into orbit because that is something people are willing to pay for, i.e. it is profitable. NASA will no doubt use SpaceX to send things into space, but it is still NASA who is paying for it (while SpaceX is making a profit).Who is going to pay for sending material to a mars colony? The only ones making any progress at all wrt Mars seems to be NASA, and that is all tax funded.Quote from: Eka on August 05, 2018, 12:47:02 amBiosphere 1 is earth, biosphere 2 failed (but still provided some interesting data on human psychology and failure modes I suppose), there were never a biosphere 3.Biosphere 2 was privately funded, cost about US$375 million (inflation adjusted). But they couldn't keep it running long enough to finish even a second experiment: "In June 1994, during the middle of the second experiment, the managing company, Space Biosphere Ventures, was dissolved, and the facility was left in limbo." (I just noticed that the "acting director" during the second experiment was Steve Bannon)So we haven't even built a working closed biosphere here on earth, maybe that would be a good place to start if you want to start a mars colony.Quote from: Eka on August 05, 2018, 12:47:02 amThe Americas was already populated when it was discovered by the Europeans. It was colonised by Spain, England and France, and other countries who literally went bankrupt when racing to grab as much land as possible for their colonies. It was finances by states, and it was believed by most in power that it would be very profitable long term. Completely different situation from colonising Mars though.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2018, 03:03:14 pm
content: Quote from: Nusa on August 05, 2018, 12:13:37 amReally? I'm thinking of a general purpose 3D printer, not a machine that only makes batteries out of expensive pre-processed materials. Otherwise what is the big benefit to use it at a mars colony? Do you have any reference?The problem is a battery is made of special materials, it's all chemistry, and a 3D printer can't produce the required chemicals. To 3D print a battery you would have to load the machines with the necessary materials and then it's suddenly more of a special purpose machine for making batteries, not something that can print a complete gadget.3d printers are great, but they are just one tool among others you'd need, like a lathe or a cnc mill.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2018, 05:05:16 pm
content: Reading more about this fascinating subject I found out that the Soviet Union had a more or less complete working biosphere back in the 70's, but it was in a secret base in Siberia so almost no one knew about it.It was called BIOS-3 (and in this case there really existed BIOS-1 and -2 predecessors). CO2--> O2was regenerated with algae and enough food (vegetarian) for one person could be grown on a 30 m2 area. The 3 person module used 400kW power though (and only generating about 50% of their food), but all the plants were artificially illuminated.Seems like a (short term) self sustaining space station using spin gravity (or on the moon) could be viable. Would still depend on supplies from earth though, but maybe they could generate enough money from tourism to keep things going.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2018, 05:43:14 pm
content: QuoteReading the history of the first American colonies it's not difficult to see similarities with the possible colonization of Mars. The fact that you can't live on Mars without life support and that there are (probably) no natives to help out will make it much more difficult. The travel time between home and the colonies will be a lot longer also. All in all, Mars just seems like more trouble than it's worth to me, but I'm sure there were those that thought the same about America 400 years ago.

author: Homer J Simpson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2018, 09:29:32 pm
content: https://www.space.com/41381-mars-colonization-elon-musk-bad-idea.html

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2018, 09:50:53 pm
content: Anyone who thinks traveling across the Atlantic in a sailing vessel and landing in a new wilderness on a planet tailor made to provide a human with everything they need to survive and thrive is somehow akin to humans colonizing Mars is demonstrating a severe lack of understanding of human physiology. Mars has nothing a human needs to survive. North America in 1600 had everything a human needs.

author: Tepe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2018, 09:54:57 pm
content: Quote from: Eka on August 05, 2018, 12:47:02 amThe jury is still out on this one

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2018, 10:22:52 pm
content: I'm not in favor of colonizing Mars any time soon. For the foreseeable future, basic exploration and scientific outposts are all that's needed. That said, if there were to be a Martian colony established during this century I'd be willing to bet the colonists are more successful at surviving than those that foundedEngland's first American colonies. Those people did not have an easy time of it.Quote

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2018, 10:28:57 pm
content: Quote from: rdl on August 05, 2018, 05:43:14 pmFor the individual colonists there will be hardships and isolation just as the first american colonies experienced, for sure. But colonising mars would still be very different. In the "new world" you had freedom of religion (which is what motivated many European emigrants), economical possibilities like owning your own plot of fertile land (with breathable atmosphere and non-toxic soil), and things like the gold rush (there isn't anything on Mars valuable enough that it would cover the shipping cost to earth). The Americas was a new world of possibilities. Mars wouldn't be anything like that, it would be a constant struggle. You can't even hope to set up your own little shop and do your thing. Everything would have to be managed in detail top down from the start if they are to have any chance what so ever. I'm sure there are plenty who would like to try given the opportunity, but who is going to provide that opportunity?That's not the aspect I was referring to though. Politically and economically it's definitely not the same. European governments were racing trying to grab as much land on the new continents as they could, it was clearly believed to be very beneficial (certainly had been for Spain). The governments that colonised America backed up and encouraged their settlers. Not so with Mars, it will just be a gigant expense for whoever funds it without any political or economical gain (except the publicity perhaps). Who is going to be willing/able to pay for it all?

author: ignator
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2018, 12:11:17 am
content: What is needed is a remote robotic program that will collect rocks and send them back all unmanned. There is no reason to risk any human life or the extra monies to keep them alive and return, with today's remote control capabilities.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2018, 12:52:19 am
content: The key thing to take from this is that the more Earth like Mars, or anyplace else was found to be, the more this group of thinkers would be against going there. Because contamination. In fact, many of this ilk would not allow robot probes, no matter how well sterilized, and no matter how hard the space environment between here and there is.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 06, 2018, 01:06:15 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on August 06, 2018, 12:52:19 amI've never understood this thinking.Wehaveto go there to find out if there ever was (or still is albeit unlikely) life, that's what advanced humans do. No scientific find would have a greater profound consequence to the human race.The planet is hardly conducive to life, so "contamination" isn't really a major problem. It's mostly just a problem of our germs being mistaken for martian germs.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 06, 2018, 01:15:02 am
content: Quote from: ignator on August 06, 2018, 12:11:17 amI like the idea (Buzz is a proponent of this) of setting up a small scientific base on Phobos and operating probes in real-time down on the surface, before we actually land on Mars.Not as exciting as putting boots on Mars to be sure, but scientifically a very good option.The problem at present with rovers is the lack of real-time control by humans.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2018, 04:13:11 am
content: Quote from: apis on August 05, 2018, 10:28:57 pmThe difference is going to be huge here. Early colonists moved to a perfectly habitable area that was in fact inhabited by native populations, it was not a foreign planet. Additionally they could choose to return to their homeland, perhaps not easily but it's likely colonists going to Mars would be on a one way trip with no chance of return. They'll be trapped inside a small pod or ship, for the rest of their lives. Any offspring they have will be there for the rest of their lives.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 06, 2018, 07:45:55 am
content: Quote from: james_s on August 06, 2018, 04:13:11 amYep, they had breathable air which is kinda important, water, potential food and soil to grow, resources they could use to construct easily (wood etc), and the freedom of movement without restriction. They weren't going to die if something small went wrong. The difference is staggering.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2018, 08:18:14 pm
content: Some of you have strange ideas about how wonderful the early American colonies were.Jamestown is considered the first permanent English colony in America. Of three previous attempts, two were abandoned and one just disappeared. There were about 500 Jamestown colonists at the beginning of winter 1609–1610. There were only 60 people still alive when the spring arrived.While Jamestown is possibly the worst example, many of the first colonies were simply abandoned. Disease, starvation, and massacre by Indians were common problems. Just getting there was a difficult journey taking many weeks and was generally a one way trip. If you changed your mind, the next resupply ship might not arrive for months.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2018, 08:25:44 pm
content: Quote from: a59d1 on August 06, 2018, 07:45:02 pmAs opposed to the Disney-esque fantasy of a very nearby planet just brimming over with resources that you've swallowed?? Or the quasi religious nonsense you Space Nutters repeat about space?Quote from: rdl on August 06, 2018, 08:18:14 pmAnd yet, they were able to breathe the air, the gravity kept their tools where they put them and didn't make their bones dissolve, they have food in the water, wind was free motive power, they could use the stuff there since it's the same planet.And do all that by essentially carving trees. Here we are with magical 3D printers and a very nearby planet and we've done what so far?Oh yeah. Bullshit, that's what. You have strange ideas about how wonderful a dead rock millions of miles away will be.You're not going anywhere. I'm not going anywhere. Elon Musk is going nowhere. Neither are your children. Evolution is still happening. In a million years there won't be a Humanity left to care about it either way.

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2018, 11:43:05 pm
content: Calling people names means they are not smart enough to stick with and improve on their logical arguments. It's a lazy emotional action, focused on taking a cheap shot while simultaneously demonstrating bad manners. The end result is that most readers will dismiss whatever else they have to say as a mere continuation of the name-calling (also known as shit-talking). The ones that don't dismiss you agreed with you in the first place.A great example of someone who communicates this way all the time has a name that rhymes with Ronald Dump.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 12:54:22 pm
content: Quote from: Nusa on August 06, 2018, 11:43:05 pmClass dismissed.

author: Tepe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 02:16:37 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo VeritasMaybe you should cut down a little on the above. You tend to end up throwing it even at people who, to some extent at least, actually agree with you. Slow down, man.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 02:28:35 pm
content: Quote from: Tepe on August 07, 2018, 02:16:37 pmWas it quoted from some deleted post? This vacuum guy forgot to mention:you contribute something meaningful instead of shitposting

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 02:30:57 pm
content: Quote from: Tepe on August 07, 2018, 02:16:37 pmI've been hearing variations of this space garbage for 30 years. The same tired tropes, the same recycled memes, the same pseudo-religious doomsday scenarios. It's enough.This is an engineering blog, not a daycamp for adult survivors of childhood sci-fi overload.There are no magical energy sources. There are no magical materials. Space is mostly empty, hostile, deadly, and barren. People used to think Venus was a tropical paradise. (cfGeorge Adamski.) Oops.Now the descendants of those dreamers focus entirely on Mars, but somehow their "snap of the finger" simple solutions for anything Mars-based wouldn't work on Venus... Oh no no, THAT's too difficult and far away! But MARS!?? Oh yeah, simple! Eggs in one basket! The species! Colonies! Asteroids!

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 08:00:03 pm
content: Is it also bitterness to realize you'll never be a fighter pilot? Or ... just growing up?

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 11:32:02 pm
content: I'd suggest that bitterness is going out of your way in an attempt to spoil other peoples dreams. Why else would you spend so much energy on this topic?

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2018, 02:07:07 am
content: Quote from: Nusa on August 07, 2018, 11:32:02 pmCan't, can't, can't, is all he knows now. He's closed his mind to changes, and is unwilling to accept he isn't right.I bet he doesn't even know that Musk isn't the only one with lots of money invested in SpaceX. Musk just accepted those investments on the condition Musk is in charge, and the goal is, and always will be, Mars.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2018, 07:53:01 am
content: First there was Steve and the Cult of Mac, now there's the Cult of Musk: in Musk we trust. Poor fanboys, what would they do without a leader?

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2018, 01:45:24 pm
content: Quote from: Nusa on August 07, 2018, 11:32:02 pmBecause there are thousands of dreams that are actually worth dreaming. Your time on the mortal plane is limited. How about working out how to make this planet work out for the species that's already here?Instead of pretending to care about some nebulous future? Is it because you know it will never happen therefore you don't have to work at it? You know, like praying?Quote from: Eka on August 08, 2018, 02:07:07 amStrange, I still don't see any Moon bases or Mars vacation colonies. Seems to me it's you who needs to accept you aren't right. And as for who has money in SpaceX or not, how does that change a single thing? You're shifting the goalposts faster than light, and that's not allowed.

author: a59d1
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2018, 04:24:58 pm
content: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/08/spacex-organizes-inaugural-conference-to-plan-landings-on-mars/

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2018, 04:50:14 pm
content: Quote from: a59d1 on August 10, 2018, 04:24:58 pmOh! Aconference!! That changes everything.

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2018, 05:01:49 pm
content: First of all, Elon has to fix all the issues troubling Tesla today.Although building a brand-new vehicle platform is very tough, its difficulty is insignificant compared to sending humans to Mars.For that reason, as the Shark Tank investors like to say, I am out.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2018, 05:42:28 pm
content: I'm going to announce a conference on how I plan to become a trillionaire with hot fitness chicks in every country waiting for me.Therefore, it will become true!

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2018, 10:18:34 pm
content: Personally, I think Elon Musk is just trying to sell his BFR to somebody, anybody. I'm pretty sure NASA realizes that Mars colonies are far in the future. It seems that, at least for now, they do intend to explore the place. For that, it looks like the SLS is still the current favored transport. Everything could easily change though. SpaceX has done some very impressive stuff. I hope they keep it up.

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2018, 03:04:17 pm
content: One thing NASA proved is you can't create a sustainable manned program if it costs $1 billion per launch, which is the cost of SLS.What SpaceX hasn't proved yet is that if you drive down the launch costs then new applications will arise to increase demand. But Musk is uniquely different in that he is obviously driven by ideas, not money.

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2018, 07:36:39 pm
content: Quote from: schmitt trigger on August 10, 2018, 05:01:49 pmWell, yeah the Shark Tank investors have to get out of their short positions. Did you get caught with shares shorted when Musk made a $420 a share buyback offer? That says mightily where he thinks the company will be going. Unfortunately I think it may be a mistake. Don't underestimate the loyalty ownership can create. On the other hand with complete ownership it may make getting loans for expansion plans easier.The design teams are totally separate.Have you read any of the recent engineering analysis of the Model 3? Many automotive techies are now figuring Tesla will soon be making money on them, if they aren't already. PS, remember the numbers released recently are months old and don't reflect the last few months of production, and production will be increasing by 2/5ths by year end with only parts and logistics as additional costs. No additional labor needed on the assembly line. Even the non performance sedans have impressive acceleration and handling. I say this as somebody who has driven a Group 3 prototype race car that had a 1200kW engine in it.Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on August 11, 2018, 03:04:17 pmHe's also driven by money. He knows he needs to make it affordable so the investors come and make the hotels, research institutes, mines, refineries, and factories.

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2018, 07:40:34 pm
content: Quote from: rdl on August 10, 2018, 10:18:34 pmNASA is already seriously considering it for larger loads. That's because it will more likely be ready on time than the SLS will be, and will be cheaper. I’ve run across literature from NASA showing an telescope in the cargobay of a BFR. NASA wants both available and working.

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2018, 07:44:31 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on August 08, 2018, 01:45:24 pmIt shows you that Musk isn't the only one with money that wants to get to Mars so it is very pertinent. You've tried to say there is no market. Mars bookings aren't open yet, but moon ones are. Looks like Musk has a private flight for two around the moon booked. I'd expect they are paying somewhere around the price of a large satellite launch on the Falcon Heavy considering that is the rocket SpaceX has that can launch a crewed lunar orbiter in a Dragon capsule. I wish I had that kind of money. I could do a lot with $90 million. I could hire minions to build the things my mind thinks up.PS: Think about the syndication rights for the "Life on Mars" reality TV show....

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2018, 08:12:39 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on August 08, 2018, 07:53:01 amSorry bud, but it's Kernighan & Ritchie, the Computer Systems Research Group of the University of California Berkeley (creators of BSD UNIX), Richard Stallman, and Linus Torvalds. Together they released us from proprietary operating systems. I never was a fan of any Apple product, unless you are talking Apple Records. Then I am a fan. When I rented a PDP in the later '70s it had BSD on it. I thought the PC was also a deliberately limited functionality hack job. Did you know that IBM had a PC prototype that used the 68000 with a 16 bit wide memory bus? They went with Intel because IBM owned some of it's stock, and it's maximum capabilities were less of a threat to IBM's traditional business computer division.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2018, 11:36:26 pm
content: Probably had to do with cost too. The 68000 was expensive, Intel also had the 8086 with a wider bus but IBM went with the lower cost 8088. I'm sure there was also some concern over cannibalizing sales of their mainfames and minis.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2018, 03:24:43 pm
content: Where is Musk's Sun probe? Surely colonizing the surface of the Sun would protect the species' egg basket far more than Mars, given the enormous surface area? Solar cells would work much better too. I guess in this case we'd install them on the bottom of our houses.Plus you have a fusion furnace nearby to synthesize all the elements. Maybe we could turn the Sun into a giant 3D printer? Let those aliens in Andromeda know we mean business!

author: a59d1
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2018, 03:27:16 am
content: Colonizing any planet in the solar system counts as colonizing the sun, my dear chap!

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2018, 04:28:00 pm
content: Quote from: a59d1 on August 14, 2018, 03:27:16 amCorrect. We are all, after all, in the Sun's atmosphere. But just think how cool Solar Roadways would be on the surface of the Sun? You could recharge your 3D printed Tesla in a microsecond!

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 14, 2018, 09:21:11 pm
content: ^ someone doesn't know what atmosphere is.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 15, 2018, 04:32:28 am
content: Perhaps they meantheliosphere.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2018, 07:53:26 am
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on August 11, 2018, 03:04:17 pmThat isn't an enormous sum when you consider that the Western Australian Government paid $A1.6 billion (approx US $ 1.18 billion) for a sports stadium.It's a very big, very modern, well appointed sports stadium, but ultimately, it's a place to play football, cricket, etc.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2018, 01:14:53 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on August 14, 2018, 09:21:11 pmYou? For a Space Nutter charting the future of humanity in the Universe, you have a (typical) shocking ignorance of basic space facts.https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/19aug_lws""It's true. We live inside the atmosphere of the sun," says Lika Guhathakurta, program manager of NASA's Living with a Star (LWS) program."Go argue with Lika.""We're not staying on Earth," says Guhathakurta. "Civilization is spreading into space.""She's crazier than you though. But even she knows some facts.Quote from: Brumby on August 15, 2018, 04:32:28 amYou mean the atmosphere of a star?

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2018, 01:32:40 pm
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on August 15, 2018, 07:53:26 amAnd once Humanity has colonized the Galaxy, what do you think they will do on these thousands, nay MILLIONS, of new planets?

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2018, 07:11:21 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on August 15, 2018, 01:32:40 pmThumb their noses at nay-sayers, of course!

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2018, 07:58:16 pm
content: Quote from: Nusa on August 15, 2018, 07:11:21 pmLOL you'readorable! It's like listening to kids fantasize about themselves as adults. Cute, until you realize you guys are in your forties.

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2018, 10:08:13 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on August 15, 2018, 07:58:16 pmI don't think you got a single thing right in that statement. Trying to fit us all into the same pigeonhole is just your way of insulting the world.

author: a59d1
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2018, 11:05:58 pm
content: As someone who actually works in space plasma physics, I can confirm that we live inside the sun's "atmosphere." It's not a very profound statement.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2018, 11:29:46 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on August 15, 2018, 01:32:40 pmProbably build thousands, nay, millions of football stadia!Don't lump me with the "colonise the galaxy" people, I was thinking more of just an extended version ofthe 1960s Apollo program.

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2018, 11:38:17 pm
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on August 15, 2018, 07:53:26 amIt's a place to watch others play... Meh, I'd rather do than watch, which makes having CFS really suck. Heck, I don't even have the energy to watch TV anymore.Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on August 15, 2018, 07:58:16 pmI'm older...It's no fantacy, no pipe dream, but instead a hope for the future.I guess I'll post this. I wrote it up earlier and didn't post it because the conversation had moved on..Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on August 08, 2018, 01:45:24 pmI don't think you can understand the level of frustration I have with current society. At a job I'd get a string of outstanding performance reviews from my directly above managers, then I'd get fired because the big boss didn't want a queer on staff. Again, and again, and again this happened. I'm well past the point where I can deal with that BS anymore. All of that and the other ill treatment that I've received over my life has left me disabled. For me the future will hopefully be much better if I survive that long. There has been a slow but steady increase in the acceptance of queers in society. It's finally starting for transgenders like myself, but it's likely to late for me. I'm physically and mentally broken and can't stand going out of the house anymore. My endocrine system is worn out and failing because I spent to much time in fight or flight mode* when I was young. Even if I psychologically could work, my failing endocrine system won't let me. I have so little available energy production capacity left that I can't even spend an afternoon thinking to my full potential. Just an hour of deep thought leaves me exhausted with a severe headache and nausea. Then I have to take a many hour break to rest my mind, and let it recharge. Watching TV or listening to the radio is out. They use energy. I often just close my eyes, meditate on calm images, and try not to slip into deep thought, or go and post on the net. It takes very little of my mental capacity to read and post on forums.* really Fight, Flight, Freeze, or Faun mode. Fight or flight is to simplistic and doesn't cover all the ways one can cope with potentially threatening situations.Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on August 08, 2018, 01:45:24 pmAt the end of the Apollo era space travel was only in the nation state affordability zone, despite that some mega millionaires and billionaires were still thinking about it and exploring ideas. They just didn't have the money to commit to as an expensive of project as going to the moon or Mars looked like it would have been. Musk is managing to greatly reduce the transportation cost bottleneck. Once Musk has fully reusable rockets, actual launch costs per ton will be less than 100th of what they were in the Apollo era. He's getting it down into the cost range expected for space elevators.* His per ton Mars transport costs will be well less than 5% of what NASA projected, but the cost of the habitats will be more because they are designed to be permanent. The last design I've seen looked to be a stackable dome type structures that can be covered with regolith for solar storm radiation protection. NASA wasn't giving the visiting astronauts much more than a lunar lander module and some tents to live in. Musk's stated goal is $200,000 per person for what I assume is a 1 way trip to Mars. Even at 10 times that rate, I could sell the farm, visit Mars, and still have a very nice nest egg to retire with. Corporations and governments will see that as a bargain.* Space elevators are a cable running from ground to way out past geo stationary orbit. They literally are in geo stationary orbit, but are so long one end touches earth, and the other is way out in space. You can balance the ground end with a weight at or out past geo stationary orbit. We can make the extremely strong carbon nanotube fibers needed to make them, but as of a decade ago there wasn't a glue strong enough to bind them together. Last I knew they needed a glue that was another 10x stronger. Don’t worry, that is being worked on. The BFR in one shot use mode would be powerful enough to loft a starter section of cable into geo stationary orbit. Once unreeled with it's earth end anchored on earth, they could thicken it to the strength needed for carrying loads up by sending cable layers that glue on additional strands starting in orbit, and going both down and up at the same time. This way the cable remains balanced in weight around it's geostationary orbit point. After it is heavy enough, then cable layers can start at ground level and go up. Eventually traffic up and down will need to be relatively balanced, or the counterbalance weight needs to be sized for the difference in traffic weight. Loads would climb the cable rather than being pulled up. The cable close to geostationary orbit will be thick and wide, but down at ground level a flat ribbon a meter wide and a few centimeters thick is all that is needed for starting 100 ton climbers going up. Multiple loads could be climbing or descending at once. There are some big technical issues needing to be addressed. Stuff like it maybe would ground out the Van Allen belts, and be a big lightning rod. Carbon nanotubes are an excellent conductor, but can also be made resistive. Yes, you can make integrated circuits with them. To have loads going both up and down at the same time would require some sort of tracks. Right now the plans call for the cable to be a flat ribbon and grip wheels will press on it from both sides. Power to the climber will needed to be provided somehow from the ground and geostationary orbit. The advantage of a tracked cable would be power from slowing descending loads can power ascending loads. On the other hand it is much more complex, and needs to be a lot bigger to support the track structures, and associated equipment. My expectation is ribbon cables first, and track ones later after mining the asteroids provides enough materials.Quote from: Nusa on August 15, 2018, 10:08:13 pmCould just be a lazy binary way of dealing with the world that many have. For me, I deal with all the hues, saturations, tones and shades out there. Binary thinking with old opinions not being reevaluated when new data comes to light does not compute for me. When new data is learned, my opinions will be reevaluated and may change.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2018, 01:31:50 pm
content: Quote from: a59d1 on August 15, 2018, 11:05:58 pmOf course not,Isaid it. If you had said it first, we'd be knee-deep in Space Nutter bodily fluids from the sheer awesomeness of the fact. These are people who look at pictures of nebulae light years away and start ordering trucks from the Caterpillar catalog for the mining operations.So, how's the space plasma physics world treating you?

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2018, 01:36:29 pm
content: Quote from: Eka on August 15, 2018, 11:38:17 pmOh god, don't change. You're hysterical! You're as funny as this book. It's just stunning to see people still believe in such mindless rot.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2018, 06:56:53 pm
content: Quote from: Eka on August 15, 2018, 11:38:17 pmOK Goethe, tell me, what hue of "empty deadly radiation-blasted vacuum with nothing in it" should I be looking at?www.distancetomars.comReality doesn't care what kind of magic mushrooms you put in your breakfast omelet. The only shade is : space is a dead end. There's nothing out there but cubic light years of sucking void. No combination of real materials and real engineering and real energy sources is going to change that.Perhaps you meant to post to:https://www.writingclasses.com/classes/description/science-fiction-fantasy-writing

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2018, 09:34:22 pm
content: I'm not sure what powers your vitriol but whatever it is you have spent a sizable fraction of your total post count in a partially accurate portrayal of space exploration. You clearly share much with the European stay at homes at the time of New World colonization. I totally agree that colonization of space is orders of magnitude more difficult than colonization of the New World, but your words (slightly modified) would fit perfectly in pubsman from the 16th century."The colonies are a dead end. There's nothing there league after league of wild land, untamed savages and a hostile climate. There are no canals, no markets, no mines, no universities, no libraries - nothing required to support a civilization. Those attempting this will inevitably decline into a life of savagery like the existing inhabitants."What you miss is that the vacuum isn't the interesting part. The interesting part is the tiny fraction that has been gathered together by gravity. Much of that is also inaccessible. We won't get to the interior of Jupiter any sooner than we can get to the interior of the Earth. But that tiny little bit that is accessible (with foreseeable extensions of today's technology) is far more than we can get too easily here at home. Yeah, with much effort we can get to more here on Earth, but it is easy to tell stories of the difficulty and cost and environmental impact of finding and reaching those harder to reach resources. Whether space is tougher than deep Earth is something that can't really be answered today.Beware of applying science to predicting failure. That path is littered with goofs. Profiles of the Future, Arthur Clarke's excellent book on the problems and pitfalls of predicting the future has two telling examples. Professors at the University of Cornell (a leading aeronautical research institute at the time) in the 1930s used detail calculations of power available, drag and weight to poo poo the idea of trans-atlantic passenger transport. They proved that at best a handful of passengers at a time could be carried and it could never reach economic break even. Their calculations were completely correct. I will leave as an exercise for the student how their calculations could be correct while today anyone can book a cross ocean airline flight carrying dozens or even hundreds of passengers. While many will argue that airlines still haven't reached economic break even, the profs clearly missed a couple of inventions. In the second example, in the late 1940s the British Interplanetary Society used information from material science, rocketry and the energy content and Isp potential of various fuels to prove that it was impossible to place a man made object on the moon. Again it is informative to understand why they were wrong, even though there were no errors in their calculations.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2018, 10:28:57 pm
content: Posts which do little but spew ridicule and derision toward others and repeat the same weak arguments over and over are less than useless. There are many things which make travel in our solar system difficult, but distance is pretty far down the list. So is dangerous.

author: Koen
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2018, 11:28:55 pm
content: It's weird how he keeps on inventing people to argue with ? "It's like people who say this", "it's like people who do that". As if he had ever met any outside his self-congratulatory made-up arguments.Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on August 16, 2018, 01:31:50 pmQuote from: In Vacuo Veritas on August 16, 2018, 01:31:50 pm

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 17, 2018, 03:47:12 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on August 16, 2018, 09:34:22 pmThis typifies a fundamental issue I have with those who want to predict the future - especially those at the pessimistic and of the scale: Predicting future capabilities from current technology is a guarantee that you will be wrong - the only variable will be the degree of wrong.

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2018, 04:19:21 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on August 17, 2018, 03:47:12 amIt works the other way as well. Human imagination is infinite, so we an imagine faster than light travel, time machines, AGI, fusion reactors, anti-matter reactors, Dyson spheres etc. Some of those are probably theoretically impossible, otherwise practically impossible. There are hundreds of inventions than have been imagined but never implemented. "Where's my flying car?"Additionally, some of the unpredicted stuff turns out to be on the bad side, e.g. DDT, CFSs, lead in petrol, fossil fuels, plastics.The assumption that just because we can think of it, one day technological advance will make it happen, is wrong and naive. Although our technology continues to advance, there is no reason to believe it will continue to advance forever. At some point, our technological capability will peak, and then the degree of wrong will trend to zero.We have seen some peaks already, e.g. supersonic passenger travel. It'll be interesting to see what happens when oil becomes too expensive to use as a fuel source as well.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2018, 04:53:00 am
content: Predictions fail in both directions, but the biggest failures have been those predicting the end of science, the point at which nothing more can be known. All indications are that we are very far indeed from that. Local peaks have been passed without loss to the world. The largest steam locomotive and largest battleship are under mourned prior peaks.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 17, 2018, 05:39:41 am
content: Certainly predictions fail in both directions - but inevitably, those that "fail" because of an achievement "never attained" are because of a date that was put on them. Many of those I will leave as "open", not as failures because of a date.Flying cars being one example. We may not be looking at a solution that looks like a BTTF hover converted DeLorean in the foreseeable future, but it would be asinine to state it an impossibility - unless you are limiting the technology to that which we comprehend here and now ... which would also be asinine. Even then, we may need to redefine what is meant by "car" and extend that definition to something less constraining. "Horseless carriage" is an example where this has already occurred. Technologically speaking, aerial taxis are a thing - and this is really nuzzling close to the "flying car" playground.The point I was making is more on the aspect of things that have been declared as "impossible". Some examples have already been given - and there are bound to be many more.In short, I make no pretence to have the knowledge necessary to be able to make ANY categorical statement about what cannoteverbe achieved. I envy those who do (if they were to exist), but I pity those whothinkthey do.

author: Eka
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2018, 07:26:34 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on August 16, 2018, 09:34:22 pmThey must have missed the 1903 report by Russian school teacher Konstantin Ysiolkovskii, and Hermann Oberth's 1923 book.Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on August 17, 2018, 04:19:21 amCaught in a legal quagmire. Many decently working ones have been invented already. No insurance company is willing to insure the makers. Plus in most countries you would need a pilots license to fly one. They usually have some strict requirements to get one. Thus the market for them is rather small. BTW, the flying car you see in one of the Bond movies is real, and actually worked. That gives you and idea how long they have been around.Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on August 17, 2018, 04:19:21 amYou'd be surprised at what you can make oil out of. When oil gets expensive, the greedy who don't care about the environment, will wreck the earth to make it to keep the gas guzzlers going. Yet another reason to let the meek inherit the earth. The rest of us will need to go to the stars to have clean air to breath, safe water to drink, and food for the table. Yes, food for the table. I've been wondering on the progress of Musk's super sonic electric jet. For those of you who scoff at it, run the fucking numbers. The latest batteries they are using in the Model 3 just make it that much easier to do. My main complaint about the Concorde was noise, but a good pair of noise canceling headphones solved that. Even at ticket prices that made profits, people still booked them. 4 hours from gate to gate for Washington DC to Paris was real nice, but a bit cramped compared to having a whole Gulfstream III to one's self.Quote from: Koen on August 16, 2018, 11:28:55 pmKinda like that idiot going senile in public housing next to The Mall in Washington DC.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2018, 11:46:09 am
content: Quote from: Eka on August 17, 2018, 07:26:34 amThey were quite aware of those papers. They went to another level of detail, showing to their satisfaction that real world limitations existed.Flying cars face a moving bar of regulatory requirements. To be operated as cars on the road they must also meet crash standards, have air bags, pass emissions tests, have high mounted central tail lights ......Which is why most current attempts at the market either do something to allow them to be classified as motorcycles (!) or just avoid driving (the multicopter approaches).

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2018, 12:33:00 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on August 17, 2018, 11:46:09 amSo do airliners. Yet they exist. You conveniently blame regulations when time has shown over and over that when there is an actual technology that exists, regulations will change.Your refusal to acknowledge real-world limits and incapacity to imagine constraints (for example, imagine the flying debris from millions of flying cars taking off and landing all the time), is indicative of a wide-eyed daydreamer. This is an engineering forum.Where's the engineering?You won't get flying cars. You won't get practical fusion power, or a shiny happy society of technological abundance. We could have done it by now, yet we didn't.That's all there is to it. It's called "reality". Give it a try sometime. Then you'll see it has nothing to do with vitriol, or any of the emotional outrage you guys spew.It's very, very simple: 92 stable elements, most of which are either useless or dangerous. Four fundamental forces, only one of which we can claim to control somewhat, and two others we can sometimes tickle.That's it. No Star Trek, no Space Elevators, no Moon colonies, no brave Martian homesteaders, no warp drive, no replicators, hell we couldn't even manage a leisure society with minimum guaranteed conditions for everyone because we're such stupid animals we can't tolerate someone doing nothing all day even though we're surrounded by so much technology we think we'll colonize the universe.I think you guys watched a bit too much of thisas kids.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2018, 12:43:34 pm
content: Quote from: Eka on August 17, 2018, 07:26:34 amYou'd be surprised at how much energy you need in the first place to do that. Do you seriously not understand EROEI? Do you really think when the oil runs out ... we'll just MAKE MORE?You're like a kid asking your parents to buy more money.You probably think Santa Claus brings coal, so make oil out of that! JustWISHharder, it'll happen!Thank you for your humorous insights, it's fascinating to watch someone who doesn't understand how the world works imagine how it works. People born and raised in a technological society without the understanding of how it got there, or how people lived just a century ago, have a hard time realizing that things are temporary. The Romans once marched over the planet. Now they can't build bridges.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2018, 01:20:07 pm
content: I read all 17 pages of this topic "Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars" , and the only thing i could not get out of it was Why SpaceX are going to beat NASA to Mars.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2018, 01:24:16 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on August 17, 2018, 01:20:07 pmSend what to Mars? I guess the usual fever-dream is to send brave test pilots in a tin can to go kick some rocks for SCIENCE or some such nonsense. NASA already sent probes and rovers. Big deal. Besides a few minutes of interest in looking at pictures of dead far away rocks, I lost interest decades ago. I can dig in my backyard and see rocks no one has ever seen before and we're in space too. So what?

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 17, 2018, 01:28:56 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on August 17, 2018, 12:43:34 pmWhy not? EROEI is more of an economic issue than a technological one. Convenience - especially for an established infrastructure - is worth a premium. That's not to say alternative mechanisms won't be pursued, but oilcanbe made. It won't be fossilised dinosaurs, but then it doesn't need to be.Your whole tone is nothing short of that I would expect from a troll - and one that would be better placed in the Middle Ages

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2018, 01:39:44 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on August 17, 2018, 01:28:56 pmWow. Full-on cornucopian mindlessness...If you have the energy in the first place, you don't have an energy problem. If you have an energy problem, you don't have an economy for much longer. Jesus Christ, does this really need explaining to functional adults?You can't "tech" your way out of fundamental limits. FFS.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 17, 2018, 01:47:45 pm
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on August 17, 2018, 01:39:44 pmYou can have all the energy under the sun and still have an energy problem.If you can't figure out why, then there's no point trying to explain it to you.Your facepalm is hilarious.Your myopia unfortunate.

author: In Vacuo Veritas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2018, 03:20:52 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on August 17, 2018, 01:47:45 pmYou just said "EROEI is more of an economic issue than a technological one. " Then you said "You can have all the energy under the sun and still have an energy problem."Uhhh....That's the point... Um... Think it through.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2018, 05:26:12 pm
content: I think the most likely way SpaceX might get to Mars before NASA, is with NASA's help.Quote from: Bud on August 17, 2018, 01:20:07 pm

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 18, 2018, 12:26:04 am
content: Quote from: In Vacuo Veritas on August 17, 2018, 03:20:52 pmOh, I certainly have - and it's very clear the point I was making has gone straight over your head. And to add to your confusion, it's not based on some esoteric principle or obscure concept, but some rather practical and tangible issues.The fact you cannot even argue to the point displays your tunnel vision and mediaeval mentality - especially when there are things being donenowat a commercial level that undermine your assertions.But enough. I have some more appealing things to do like clean up some "stuff" so I can mow the lawns.

author: a59d1
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2018, 03:04:02 am
content: Be nice, fellas.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 18, 2018, 03:35:58 am
content: Edited to be more nice.