3 ms·
I feel like this should be titled “why NASA should not go to Mars.” I would be astounded if SpaceX makes it there within 5 years of their original timeline, but
by taneq 4y ago
I feel like this should be titled “why NASA should not go to Mars.” I would be astounded if SpaceX makes it there within 5 years of their original timeline, but even more astounded if they don’t have a crew within 10 years. I don’t see procrastinating with bone density studies etc. either - they treat it as a commercial venture, not an exercise in basic research.
- idlewords 4y agoYou need to go do the bone density (and radiation) studies to know if your passengers are going to die on Mars. This stuff isn't optional.
- whatshisface 4y agoThere are already a lot of those studies, and they all say that radiation is very bad for you and that you need gravity to maintain a healthy bone density.
- idlewords 4y agoThis is true. But there are no studies about the effect of partial gravity, and how much is enough to maintain bone and eye health.
- dudeinjapan 4y agoMaybe the people going there aren't overly concerned with bone and eye health. Perhaps the goal in life isn't to do everything in one's power to stave off death.
- whatshisface 4y agoThe government's $80 billion dollar extreme sports program.