Mars in 4K

I wish I was optimistic that a manned mission to Mars will be worthwhile, or that a biodome could actually allow explorers to live there for any amount of time.
 
Chaz said:
I wish I was optimistic that a manned mission to Mars will be worthwhile, or that a biodome could actually allow explorers to live there for any amount of time.
Click to expand...

Yeh I can't really see the point of a manned mission to be honest, incredibly costly and almost guaranteed to end in failure.
 
Jack said:
Scurvy. Can you say 'scurvy'?
Click to expand...

Have you any idea how hard it is to land a spacecraft weighing 10-15 tonnes on Mars? Landing on the Moon and the Earth is a piece of piss, comparatively speaking.

For the last few years, we’ve been able to frame NASA’s research and exploration with the goal of reaching Mars. The agency has been saying it wanted to land a human on the red planet in the 2030s, but now that’s looking less likely. William Gerstenmaier, NASA’s associate administrator for human exploration, has noted that NASA simply doesn’t have the money to make a Mars landing happen. The technology to reach Mars isn’t cheap, and no one seems willing to pay for it.

NASA’s budget has been essentially flat for the last decade. Gerstenmaier’s statements came at a meeting of the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics, where he explained the problem with Mars missions. Landing on Mars is extremely challenging, and it will cost a lot of money to create systems reliable enough to send humans there. Well, if you want them to come home, that is. Even the expensive robotic missions have been hit or miss. Of the 16 attempted landings on Mars since 1970, only seven of them have been successful. The most recent failure was the ExoMars lander, which crashed because atmospheric turbulence caused it to tumble much faster than expected.


Mars has basically the worst possible set of traits for successful landings. Sending people to the moon was no easy feat, but the moon had very little gravity and no atmosphere. Thus, propulsive landing was feasible and the craft didn’t need heatshields. Mars has more gravity, but the atmosphere is too thin for parachutes to do all the work. At the same time, the atmosphere is just thick enough to make landings unpredictable and require the use of heatshields. That’s why Curiosity used a wacky skycrane contraption to land on the surface.

NASA has looked into a skycrane system to land larger craft, but the numbers are tough. Curiosity had a total mass of two tons, but a manned lander would probably clock in at 10 or 15 tons. It’s unclear if it would be possible to land something like that on Mars with our current technology.
Click to expand...

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/252461-nasa-now-says-manned-mars-mission-2030s-unlikely
 
Last edited:
Grajonca said:
Holy shit, how hard is it to take multivitamins? Have you any idea how hard it is to land a spacecraft weighing several tonnes on Mars? Landing on the Moon and the Earth is a piece of piss, comparatively speaking.
Click to expand...

Yes. No one expects the English to be doing much in the future. Guarding their fishing boats, promoting the sale of wool, maybe increasing the Tax for their national religion (Church of England).
The Americans got this. Just sit back, stay out of the way, and STFU.


:tardthoughts:
 
Jack said:
Yes. No one expects the English to be doing much in the future. Guarding their fishing boats, promoting the sale of wool, maybe increasing the Tax for their national religion (Church of England).
The Americans got this. Just sit back, stay out of the way, and STFU.
Click to expand...

It won't happen in your lifetime or maybe even your progeny's lifetimes. However you're way too naive and technophobic to know that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top