Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 19:47:32 UTC No. 16431627

Technical questions are all about money and will, and the money needed to keep astronauts safe and healthy over the five-month (Aldrin) or six-month (Hohmann) journey is a lot.
It gets better if there's more infrastructure, but - our first priority is building infrastructure, like long-term zero-G laboratories and factories in Earth orbit and our Moon.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 19:50:43 UTC No. 16431631

>>16431578
>Let's say money and will is not an issue only the technical question.
Money and will is the only issue though, we could land humans on mars now if those two things were solved and you had some particularly mentally strong crew that could handle the oppressive isolation in small quarters.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 19:53:46 UTC No. 16431636

>>16431631
>mentally strong crew that could handle the oppressive isolation in small quarters.

You have to be a retard to go. You won't even get in the history book if you survive. It would trend on twitter for a few days before everyone forgets about it.
A year of hell and bone density loss to end on a sterile red desert.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 19:54:20 UTC No. 16431637

We can send probes *there* sure, but we can't do a sample return. Or we could but we don't have the political will. Maybe the Chinese do.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:13:43 UTC No. 16431840

>>16431578
humans are squishy and form emotional connections to one another
nobody cares if a rover dies. You don't need to recover it. It's also really fucking hard to make it die.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:21:39 UTC No. 16431858

We still haven't fully solved the radiation problem.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:43:19 UTC No. 16431894

>>16431858
>>16431636
No question that there would be health consequences, some of them permanent. There wouldn't be a problem finding people willing to live with those consequences. People work in dangerous jobs like coal mining for far less benefit.
The biggest issue would be filtering out those who are not psychologically compatible with the realities of a trip to Mars. NASA has shown they cannot be trusted to find astronauts that aren't mentally unstable. NASA has too many conflicting priorities. SpaceX would need to be free to pick their own crew with zero pressure for criteria beyond ability.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:52:20 UTC No. 16431905

>>16431578
All of pictured was needed to send man to the Moon (with ability of coming back).
Only this tiny conical gray bit at the top came back.
With Mars it's much worse.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:35 UTC No. 16431915

>>16431578
We've never had a rocket that can take enough mass to Mars. Sure we could use Falcon 9/Heavy to send tiny probes, but those dont matter much. We've already done that in the past.

With a new rocket like Starship, it can take 150 tons to mars with a bit of refuel. 150 ton is a fuck ton. And its cheap too. In the past, the rockets costs billions per launch. Starship is to cost couple hundred millions max with all the refueling/etc.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:29:33 UTC No. 16431953

>>16431578
I think we shouldnt send a small ship. Thats too much risk and health hazard. We should send a big self sustaining station with thick walls and gravity. We should plan for a 5-6 years long trip.

Artemis3 at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:47:42 UTC No. 16431995

>>16431578
Explain to me why we can't go to Mars?
>>16431915
>it can take 150 tons to mars with a bit of refuel.
I created this image a few months back to illustrate all the minimum requirements SpaceX needs just to fulfill their $3 billion Artemis 3 contract they accepted from NASA in 2020.

It's four years later, and as you can plainly see, there's only three checkmarks complete. I'm not trying to be a hater, I'm a realist. And this is just to return humans to the Moon. All of the remaining steps will be necessary (and more) to take humans to Mars, because it's a 21 month journey, total (nine months out, plus a three month wait for the return window, then nine months back). Compare this to eight days for Apollo 11.

Far and away the largest obstacle is the refueling system. No one has ever done this before and estimates of how many flights it will take just to fuel up the HLS to the Moon range from eight (Musk himself) to over twenty. The mean is high teens.

Now consider that all five Starship launches have taken place over 18 months. The shortest turnaround to date was 2 1/2 months between flights three and four, when they had minimal FAA interference. Now that parts of the launch system are returning in one piece, that interference will drop but they're still going to need to build up a fleet to drop the turnaround to only weeks or days, complete with multiple launch towers in both Texas and Florida.

All of these things will happen, but saying "a bit of refuel" is a colossal understatement comparable to "just build a Starbucks on the summit of K2".

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:51:55 UTC No. 16432003

>>16431636
>You won't even get in the history book
Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are household names

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:58:11 UTC No. 16432012

>>16431995
>No one has ever done this before
Your checklist is bit irrelevant.

Stable orbit is just arbitrary. Yesterday's launch could have been in stable orbit if they wanted to, there's zero reason they couldn't have. Only reason it wasnt in "stable" orbit is because it was to be de-orbited as part of their testing campaign. All "stable orbit" means is that it just stays there, without coming back, its not a technical feat. And refueling in orbit is on the next chopping block and might possibly be done as part of "stable orbit". Tanker version is just a slighter elongated larger. And HLS part is mainly irrelevant to Mars. Atleast not for the cargo missions.

There's 2 tower already built in Starbase. 1 tower built in Florida and another 1-3+ more in plans. They will have 4-6 launch pads by next year or the year after in operations.

Artemis3 at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 23:33:30 UTC No. 16432058

>>16432012
>Stable orbit is just arbitrary.
The first three are entirely arbitrary to HLS, but I wanted to put "points on the board". The only relevant step so far (to make a colossal achievement sound tiny) is the Super Heavy catch. Refueling can't happen without a "stable orbit", so that's compulsory with both HLS and the tanker.

>HLS part is mainly irrelevant to Mars
You're not going to need a landing system for Mars? Kewl. Love to see how that goes.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 23:40:02 UTC No. 16432065

>>16432058
Landings already proven. Maybe you've forgotten it.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 23:48:21 UTC No. 16432075

>>16431578
We can't go to a light in the sky, retard. Wait, you think those red tinted photos of Devon Island are actually from another planet? Hahahaha, everyone laugh at this gullible moron

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 01:16:46 UTC No. 16432164

>>16431627
>zero-G laboratories and factories in Earth orbit
It's you again. Take your meda

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 01:18:42 UTC No. 16432166

>>16432075
BASED FLATEARTHER

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 01:42:57 UTC No. 16432183

>>16431995
>Explain to me why we can't go to Mars?
Expensive, potentially dangerous, mun is much closer.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 01:43:57 UTC No. 16432184

>>16432183
Not potentially dangerous sorry, verifiably dangerous to the health of any astronaut. Also it'd be a long ass mission.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 01:55:05 UTC No. 16432192

>>16432065
in martian atmosphere?

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 01:56:55 UTC No. 16432196

>>16431578
There is no demand

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 01:57:39 UTC No. 16432198

>>16432192
What next? Physics is different on mars? Are you retarded?

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 04:59:56 UTC No. 16432386

>>16431578
we need to just actually build the hardware at this point is all really and to start the process we need to solve a few little technical details first (see attached)

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 05:06:04 UTC No. 16432388

kek

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 05:14:38 UTC No. 16432395

>>16431578
Literally no one is stopping you

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:09:52 UTC No. 16432503

Present a working design for humans and orbit then.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:56:52 UTC No. 16432539

>>16431578
>We have rockets
are these rockets in the room with us right now?

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:02:18 UTC No. 16432589

>>16431578
On Mars are enough resources and energies to build a self sustaining economy. The radiation is blocked off mostly by the atmosphere and the rest of it is handlable by just having thick enough layers in the habitats. The biggest issue I can think of is the lower gravity, it might be not bad enough to stop Humans to live there but it could potentially make pregnancies which spawn healthy Humans impossible. Maybe you could make spin gravity habitats for pregnant females on mars but I have doubts that this is feasible enough to maintain a birth rate of over 2.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:22:40 UTC No. 16432616

>>16431578
Mars is an uninhabitable, unarable, cold desert planet with no breathable air that's 140 million miles away from Earth. You can go there, but there's not any real point to it

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 18:55:11 UTC No. 16433319

>>16431905
its a bad comparison for lots of reasons.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 19:32:07 UTC No. 16433364

>>16431578
Because Mars is hellish wasteland and you get nothing by living there.

Entire space exploration by humans (not robots) is naive attempt to reply glory of the Age of Discovery. Make White man oppressive to Indianans and Great again. Of course it wouldn't work because conditions are vastly different. Mars is Hell not a paradise like America was and costs millions times more to transport people to Mars

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:17:40 UTC No. 16433513

First, we should go to the Moon.

>inb4 reflectors
The whole thing is reflective, you can shine a laser anywhere and get a return on it. Strange how NASA said they just fuckin lost all the data and the science on how to get there.

Artemis3 at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:23:55 UTC No. 16433525

>>16432065
>Landings already proven. Maybe you've forgotten it.
Naw, buddy, I didn't forget that the one time Starship landed anything like correctly, it was on fire and crooked. In this most recent flight, it landed partly melted again and the buoy set up to capture images showed a nightmarish image of it slowly sinking in the sea on fire and surrounded by smoke and steam.

Unfortunately, as the recent Boeing debacle demonstrates, NASA doesn't just "wave people through" when it comes to the safety and well-being of their astronauts. Musk might have some ketamine-induced fantasy about suicidal kamikazes colonizing the solar system, but then again, he thinks it's okay to tell zoomers their cars are "full self driving" when the small print plainly says "keep your hands on the wheel".

The reason Musk fans are so universally despised is because of their fanboy tendency to declare "close enough" as a fait accompli, which doesn't work for the rest of 21st century humanity. Giddily declaring that SpaceX can "easily" create an HLS for the Moon or Mars doesn't account for all the man-hours of engineering and testing that will go into that feat. The development cycle for the Dragon capsule from conception to actual manned flight was actually longer than the time it took for NASA to go from the Kennedy announcement to the first manned landing...look it up.

>>16433364
>Because Mars is hellish wasteland and you get nothing by living there.
I keep telling the colonization adherents to watch picrel, because that's close to the best case scenario for living on a world without breathable air...spending the remainder of your life in a glorified missile silo. The Moon has more proven resources and less gravity to bog down spacecraft and is practically next door.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 13:12:11 UTC No. 16434322

>>16433525
the problem with those suffering from EDS is that they confuse developmental test flights with actual missions, and will never allow themselves to admit that spacex ever does anything of note.

>dragon took longer
With a drastically smaller budget and general pool of resources, and no prior experience with manned space flight, unlike NASA. But what does it even matter anyway? im not sure.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 13:16:34 UTC No. 16434325

>>16433525
>remainder of your life
why so long? who says that they have to commit to such a thing? plenty of people have done just fine with >1yr deployments on the ISS, and especially such stays within the kinds of larger spaces which will be used for a mars flight and ground station. 2-3 year missions including transit time will require good people but are entirely possible.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 13:57:09 UTC No. 16434382

>>16431636
>bone density loss
Will this meme die already?
1/3 of the problem can be solved by wearing weights, another third with oral medication and the remainder with Mars' 1/3 gravity. It's not some insurmountable problem.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:01:11 UTC No. 16434389

>>16434382
from personal accounts ive read by those staying on the ISS for a year or so, its really not a big deal. they are out going for a jog within a week of arriving back. stuff like that.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 16:04:00 UTC No. 16434572

The question why we can't. Its why we should. Its makes much more sense to just send scientific robots. And the development of the robots has broader applications on earth.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 16:06:01 UTC No. 16434573

>>16431637
Why do a sample return? Take the infrastructure to Mars, not bring Mars to the infrastructure.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 16:06:45 UTC No. 16434576

>>16431905
You don't need to launch direct to Mars. You can refuel in orbit.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 16:11:58 UTC No. 16434584

>>16431578
Mars colonization is a soiboi popsci-fi fantasy

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 16:29:28 UTC No. 16434618

>>16434584
>a permanently manned base at the south pole is a literary fiction

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 16:34:07 UTC No. 16434623

>>16434584
Did it make any economic sense for Europe to colonize the new world? No, not for decades. It took months to get there and back. Many people died.
Am I glad it happened? Yes.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 17:54:00 UTC No. 16434809

>>16434623
buy an ad

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 18:34:39 UTC No. 16434884

>>16434809
I don't understand this meme in this context