On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 21:48:00 -0500, Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 01:30:33 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:
Then Get your ass to Mars!

http://OnToMar.org/forum/


(1) Mars is beyond current technology. Only machines can live in
there.
Any human expedition to Mars is just science fiction.

Actually, NASA was planning on going to Mars right after Apollo, back
in the early 1970s. This technology is almost 40 years old.

And it's a good thing they didn't; they *thought* they had the
technology but they didn't. There is no ****ing way that Apollo-era life
support systems would have sustained a crew to Mars and back,

Yet, you can't say how they would have failed. Heck, since we didn't have
any life support systems designed for Mars, this claim is utterly empty.

Further more, it is implicit in the "Mars program" that we develop the
technology. There wasn't any problem that couldn't be solved in the 1970s
for a Mars mission. We're not talking about The Confederate States of
America building a nuclear powered aircraft carrier in the 1860s.

plus they
grossly underestimated the total radiation dose (Apollo got lucky with
the timing of solar flares, pure and simple.)

(4) The technology for living in an independent vessel for more than
3-4 months is just not there

The Soviets had cosmonauts in LEO for over 6 months. Not to put too
fine a point on it, but you seem to be making stuff up.

The Soviets had Progress spacecraft sending up supplies and replacement
parts every couple of months. Such would not be possible for
transmars/transearth coast. Not to put too fine a point on it, but
you're either ignorant of the true logistics situation or you're lying
your ass off.

So? What you're saying is that we know what to bring, and what we need to
make on the way. The argument about long duration flight is mostly about
the effects of living in cramped quarters with other people, sort of like
how the colonist coming to America endured, only better than how they had
it.

That your argument is weak is highlighted by the irrelevant argumentum ad
hominem.

(6) The technology for living in Mars is not the
o -50 C in the day, -100 in the night
Heating energy would need a nuclear reactor to keep humans from
freezing
o No oxygen. All oxygen has to be brought from earth. o No food.
All food must be brought from earth. o No air pressure. You must
live in pressure suits all
the time you are outside
o Etc

We have had people on the moon, where the temperature variations are
even greater.

Incorrect. The temperature variations *would* have been greater if we'd
kept the Apollo crews there longer. But as it was, Apollo always landed
within two days of lunar sunrise and never stayed more than three days.
The temperature variations were therefore far more constrained and
predictable. No Apollo equipment was designed for lunar night since it
was never going to experience it.

So, by the "logic" shown here, we shouldn't even go to the moon since it
requires technology that doesn't exist yet; we don't know how to stay
there more than a few days in a limited area.




--
http://OnToMars.org For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization