Lame attempts at propulsion. Go to Mars? Will it take 1000 years?

http://techxplore.com/news/2015-09-i...fficiency.html

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 5:12:25 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
http://techxplore.com/news/2015-09-i...fficiency.html

Not 1,000 years, but perhaps as many as ten years, or even a hundred, still far
too long for a *manned* mission.

And while automated missions might survive that long, the time value of money,
and the constant advances in electronics, both mean that taking even ten years
to get to Mars, if that is avoidable - deep space missions sometimes do
unavoidably take that long, even with the fastest rockets we can muster - isn't
acceptable.

John Savard

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 20:54:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:
On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 5:12:25 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
http://techxplore.com/news/2015-09-i...fficiency.html

Not 1,000 years, but perhaps as many as ten years, or even a
hundred, still far
too long for a *manned* mission.

And while automated missions might survive that long, the time
value of money,
and the constant advances in electronics, both mean that taking
even ten years
to get to Mars, if that is avoidable - deep space missions
sometimes do
unavoidably take that long, even with the fastest rockets we can
muster - isn't
acceptable.

Dawn needed 4 years to get to Vesta and another 2.5 years to get to
Ceres which it currently orbits. It is the first spacecraft to orbits
more that one target body.

Quadibloc:
Not 1,000 years, but perhaps as many as ten years, or even a hundred, still
far too long for a *manned* mission.

1000 years is about the amount of time we should spend pondering
whether it's worth squandering a $trillion or so on a foolish manned
mission to Mars.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Sunday, 27 September 2015 10:52:49 UTC-4, Davoud wrote:
Quadibloc:
Not 1,000 years, but perhaps as many as ten years, or even a hundred, still
far too long for a *manned* mission.

1000 years is about the amount of time we should spend pondering
whether it's worth squandering a $trillion or so on a foolish manned
mission to Mars.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

Better to go to Mars than spend it trying to solve a non-existent problem, man-made global warming. Only difference? If the devoted all the money the cabal wants to that, it would = $27 trillion.

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 8:33:49 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 27 September 2015 10:52:49 UTC-4, Davoud wrote:
Quadibloc:
Not 1,000 years, but perhaps as many as ten years, or even a hundred, still
far too long for a *manned* mission.

1000 years is about the amount of time we should spend pondering
whether it's worth squandering a $trillion or so on a foolish manned
mission to Mars.


Better to go to Mars than spend it trying to solve a non-existent problem, man-made global warming. Only difference? If the devoted all the money the cabal wants to that, it would = $27 trillion.

We should attempt manned flights now. It should give future generations something on which to build, and there is no doubt that (some) humans will need to live elsewhere eventually. Strike while the iron's hot.

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 07:04:36 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

It should give future generations something on which to build, and there is no doubt that (some) humans will need to live elsewhere eventually.

Actually, that's just an unfounded opinion. There is plenty of doubt
that humans will ever need to live elsewhere than Earth. And if we
choose to, those places will be in our own Solar System, and involve
far more than the simple task of merely getting there. It will involve
an understanding of climate and ecology that we still lack, as
evidenced by the rate at which we are making Earth suboptimal for our
own survival.

Far better to invest in understanding the Earth, fixing the damage
we're doing, and understanding how we could practically live elsewhere
than in sticking a few people in a can and shooting them someplace
where they can't survive long. Far better to send robotic probes
throughout the system to understand it better, and to increase the
number of Earth observation probes to understand it better.

On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 2:38:50 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 08:47:54 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Your phrase "far-better" is completely unfounded.

You make the unfounded assumption that we can't, won't or shouldn't do both.

And of course, there would be less need to study "climate change," if hypocrites such as you were to get rid of your cars and eliminate plane flights from your lifestyles.

If humans are making the Earth "sub-optimal" then it is quite clear that you are far more guilty than most, peterson.

Stupid.

If you think that driving and flying are destroying the Earth, then stop your driving and flying, peterson.

On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 8:12:40 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
There is plenty of doubt
that humans will ever need to live elsewhere than Earth.

Humans have needed to live somewhere else than on Earth since around 1948.

Because democracies are ruled by the people who live in them. And those people
aren't likely to agree that they're better off dead than surrendering to a
nuclear-armed dictatorship threatening them.

So while it may take a while, a nuclear stalemate favors the bad guys. For
freedom to really survive, we need to get far out of the reach of the ICBMs of
despotic regimes.

John Savard

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 3:55:48 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 8:12:40 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
There is plenty of doubt
that humans will ever need to live elsewhere than Earth.

Humans have needed to live somewhere else than on Earth since around 1948..

Because democracies are ruled by the people who live in them. And those people
aren't likely to agree that they're better off dead than surrendering to a
nuclear-armed dictatorship threatening them.

So while it may take a while, a nuclear stalemate favors the bad guys. For
freedom to really survive, we need to get far out of the reach of the ICBMs of
despotic regimes.

John Savard

It's only a matter of time. Eventually either a meteor or a natural disaster (Yosemite or one of the others) will wipe out our civilization. If we're lucky man will survive.

The only way to guarantee the continuation of the human race is to have a self sufficient extra terrestrial colony. The only debate (in my mind) is when we should push hard for this. Personally I think it's too soon. In about 100 years our technology should have improved enough to make extra terrestrial exploration feasible.

http://www.richardfisher.com