In article , Sea Wasp says...

John Schilling wrote:
In article , Sea Wasp says...

They had to either solve the problems themselves, right there, or die.
You're not one of the people that thinks the Space Shuttle could have
gone to the Space Station and waited for rescue, are you?

You're not one of the people that thinks the Space Shuttle represents
a sensible way to engage in space exploration, are you?

Your argument assumes an incompetent approach to the Mars mission --
as only an idiot would go to Mars WITHOUT that emergency reserve. Sent
on ahead, I would recommend.

You still haven't answered the first question I asked: By "reserve", do
you mean tanks of oxygen, water, etc sufficient to complete the trip and/or
await rescue from Earth, if things go wrong?

If so, you need to do the math, because any "competent" approach to the
Mars mission suddenly got a *lot* harder. Harder than going to the Moon,
by far, and hard enough that it's probably not going to happen in your
lifetime.


Your argument might as well be that wintering over at the South Pole is
as easy a trip as a weekend in the local state park, for a Boy Scout
troop. Because, see, only incompetents would make the trip without
adequate training and equipment, therefore the Boy Scouts will have
right training and equipment whether they're going to the state park
or Antarctica, therefore it's just as safe and easy either way.

No, it isn't. Even if we handwave the transportation costs to be the
same, "training and equipment" or "adequate reserves" are so very much
harder in the one case than the other, that there's no comparison.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *