First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
NASA just announced it cant afford to go to Mars.
18866 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / outer wall, level...
Offline
Posted 7/16/17 , edited 7/16/17
meh, the whole space shuttle program was a failure. should have just kept with the saturn V and Ib rocket. would have saved money.
16533 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / Arizona, US
Offline
Posted 7/16/17 , edited 7/16/17
I kinda think the whole "humans living on Mars" thing is a dumb idea and is a waste of money. I rather stay and take care of what's left of the Earth thanks.
Posted 7/16/17 , edited 7/16/17

nemoskull wrote:

meh, the whole space shuttle program was a failure. should have just kept with the saturn V and Ib rocket. would have saved money.


If you listen to Dr Greer, he asserts that we reverse engineered sufficient tech by '56 or so - so what this would mean is that the entire space age is powered on 1920s rocket technology (and that would also mean that the moon missions were both faked and real, funny enough,) we never had to have the big oilgas wars, we never would have based the US currency value on the flow of it...

Smedley Butler was more right than most people know.
9535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / The Void
Offline
Posted 7/16/17 , edited 7/16/17
The idiots running the world can only see "now" and not "what comes next." Mars is an entire planet of untouched resources. Setting up a mining colony there would be exactly what we need. Not a "dumb idea and is a waste of money"

Provided war doesn't kill us off first, we may even find a way to create a Magnetosphere for Mars. (if you've ever wondered about Terraforming Mars, the reason Mars can't be terraformed is because it lacks a magnetic field)

Posted 7/16/17 , edited 7/16/17
And how are you going to spin that one up? Build a few CERNs on Mars?

(I just hope what's been built already does not have the ability to affect the tilt of the ever migrating core we've got here, because that would too easily explain why the globalists have these sideways globes like the one we saw trump at not too long ago. Such a situation puts where I live a thousand feet underwater if it happens.)
18866 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / outer wall, level...
Offline
Posted 7/16/17 , edited 7/16/17

jolietjoe wrote:


nemoskull wrote:

meh, the whole space shuttle program was a failure. should have just kept with the saturn V and Ib rocket. would have saved money.


If you listen to Dr Greer, he asserts that we reverse engineered sufficient tech by '56 or so - so what this would mean is that the entire space age is powered on 1920s rocket technology (and that would also mean that the moon missions were both faked and real, funny enough,) we never had to have the big oilgas wars, we never would have based the US currency value on the flow of it...

Smedley Butler was more right than most people know.


i actually have no idea what you just said. but then again, ive been up for waay too long and just finished a 6 hour drive.

if you look at the cost per ton, the Saturn V was about the same as the space shuttle. and thats not taking into account the Ib booster as a LEO launcher. there is also the fact that cost go down the more you make, and the R and D was a huge part of the shuttle program, where as the saturn was already up and running.
17285 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 7/16/17 , edited 7/16/17
Posted 7/16/17 , edited 7/16/17


Is there something wrong with asking for disclosure of rogue government projects that have no accountability to any elected representative? That's by definition a rogue project, when the information is compartmentalized and "classified" beyond anyone's access.

Its not about the fact that aliens exist - its all about the technology that makes oilgasnukewind all entirely obsolete - but there's that whole profit problem to deal with that ties into the global counterfeiting ring known as the BIS

Sorry I mention too many things that people wont ever go investigate, but that sort of thing happens.
Posted 7/16/17 , edited 7/16/17

nemoskull wrote:


jolietjoe wrote:


nemoskull wrote:

meh, the whole space shuttle program was a failure. should have just kept with the saturn V and Ib rocket. would have saved money.


If you listen to Dr Greer, he asserts that we reverse engineered sufficient tech by '56 or so - so what this would mean is that the entire space age is powered on 1920s rocket technology (and that would also mean that the moon missions were both faked and real, funny enough,) we never had to have the big oilgas wars, we never would have based the US currency value on the flow of it...

Smedley Butler was more right than most people know.


i actually have no idea what you just said. but then again, ive been up for waay too long and just finished a 6 hour drive.

if you look at the cost per ton, the Saturn V was about the same as the space shuttle. and thats not taking into account the Ib booster as a LEO launcher. there is also the fact that cost go down the more you make, and the R and D was a huge part of the shuttle program, where as the saturn was already up and running.


my point was that the space shuttle should never have existed
Banned
316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 7/16/17 , edited 7/16/17
Let's just ship all the conservatives to Mars.
Posted 7/16/17 , edited 7/16/17

IntenseAutism wrote:


quirky_neku wrote:

I guess they're pretty much saying what everyone knew already anyway, especially considering how much the JWST actually cost them.

I don't think there's much merit sending people to Mars, at least scientifically anyway. They certainly could do more experiments with a single manned mission compared to what a single rover mission could do (and bring back stuff like rocks and sand too), but I think it would be cheaper just to send a bunch of rovers over many years in the end anyway.


The amount you would learn just sending a human that far into space is plenty scientific. We don't really even know if we would survive the trip, at least sanity wise. There's plenty to be learned from sending some crazy people to mars, not to mention the great postcards!



I guess I was talking more from the point of view of astrophysics, which is of the most immediate interest to me and I would think NASA. While we certainly can and would learn a lot from a manned mission to Mars, I think most of the scientific benefit would be in other fields rather than astrophysics. The research needed to build a spacecraft capable of carrying people to Mars and to make sure they get there and back alive would definitely advance our knowledge in the fields of aerospace and maybe biology.

However, I don't feel that we would learn a lot more about Mars itself from such a mission. They could run many more experiments than any rover mission could, but I don't know if the cost to do the huge amount of research and technological advancement required to send people to Mars would justify whatever extra we could learn about Mars, which we might still learn with rovers even if it takes another decade or so.

With that said, there's nothing wrong with contributing to other fields than just astrophysics and sending people to Mars would be an exciting moment for everyone.
Banned
316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 7/16/17 , edited 7/16/17

jolietjoe wrote:

And how are you going to spin that one up? Build a few CERNs on Mars?

(I just hope what's been built already does not have the ability to affect the tilt of the ever migrating core we've got here, because that would too easily explain why the globalists have these sideways globes like the one we saw trump at not too long ago. Such a situation puts where I live a thousand feet underwater if it happens.)


what the fuck
1664 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / Ireland
Offline
Posted 7/16/17 , edited 7/17/17

keeton52 wrote:

The idiots running the world can only see "now" and not "what comes next." Mars is an entire planet of untouched resources. Setting up a mining colony there would be exactly what we need. Not a "dumb idea and is a waste of money"

Provided war doesn't kill us off first, we may even find a way to create a Magnetosphere for Mars. (if you've ever wondered about Terraforming Mars, the reason Mars can't be terraformed is because it lacks a magnetic field)



I'm not an expert by any means but just an autist very interested in space and not much time on there hands but apparently there are two ways of solving the magnetosphere problem that we could already do with existing technology.

That being said people have told me that we could create a thick atmosphere on mars without a magnetosphere, the only issue is it would begin getting thinner and thinner (I don't know how long it would take however). Also an atmosphere should protect against all but the strongest radiation (cosmic rays afaik are weak so they wouldn't get through). The real issue would be radiation from the sun which would periodically kill anything living on the surface that's not protected.

The two solutions I've heard about are a large magnetic field being produced at the lagrange point facing the sun, which would effectively protect mars from solar rays (that doesn't really help against cosmic rays afaik but a thick atmosphere should work where they are concerned I think).

The other solution that I think will proceed the lagrange magnetic field is large electrified rings in the hemispheres that would create an artificial magnetosphere and help create a mars wide energy grid.

The one thing people might object to is probably needing to use nuclear reactors to power both solutions.
Posted 7/17/17 , edited 7/17/17

MossRantz wrote:


jolietjoe wrote:

And how are you going to spin that one up? Build a few CERNs on Mars?

(I just hope what's been built already does not have the ability to affect the tilt of the ever migrating core we've got here, because that would too easily explain why the globalists have these sideways globes like the one we saw trump at not too long ago. Such a situation puts where I live a thousand feet underwater if it happens.)


what the fuck
I dunno Flounder, you tell me




IntenseAutism wrote:


keeton52 wrote:

The idiots running the world can only see "now" and not "what comes next." Mars is an entire planet of untouched resources. Setting up a mining colony there would be exactly what we need. Not a "dumb idea and is a waste of money"

Provided war doesn't kill us off first, we may even find a way to create a Magnetosphere for Mars. (if you've ever wondered about Terraforming Mars, the reason Mars can't be terraformed is because it lacks a magnetic field)



I'm not an expert by any means but just an autist very interested in space and not much time on there hands but apparently there are two ways of solving the magnetosphere problem that we could already do with existing technology.

That being said people have told me that we could create a thick atmosphere on mars without a magnetosphere, the only issue is it would begin getting thinner and thinner (I don't know how long it would take however). Also an atmosphere should protect against all but the strongest radiation (cosmic rays afaik are weak so they wouldn't get through). The real issue would be radiation from the sun which would periodically kill anything living on the surface that's not protected.

The two solutions I've heard about are a large magnetic field being produced at the lagrange point facing the sun, which would effectively protect mars from solar rays (that doesn't really help against cosmic rays afaik but a thick atmosphere should work where they are concerned I think).

The other solution that I think will proceed the lagrange magnetic field is large electrified rings in the hemispheres that would create an artificial magnetosphere and help create a mars wide energy grid.

The one thing people might object to is probably needing to use nuclear reactors to power both solutions.


The lack of magnetosphere is the reason that the atmosphere on mars was blown away by the solar wind.

The solar wind would wrap around any sort of magnetic shield situated at a lagrangian point...it might dminish it a bit but I wouldnt expect it to be appreciable...significant electric phenomena e.g. those rings would have too much detriment to the weather on mars.

That all was the essence of my 'CERNs on Mars' comment...without being able to start up the planetary dynamo, Mars wont be all that viable.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.