4 ms·

The Chinese is planning a space habitat - the US is aiming for the same - it is rather different from the Apollo objectives. Mars is out of reach and not feasi

The Chinese is planning a space habitat - the US is aiming for the same - it is rather different from the Apollo objectives. Mars is out of reach and not feasible.

thinkingtoilet 1y ago
Mars is entirely within reach if we wanted to dedicate the resources to it. If we can get to the moon over 50 years ago, Mars is nothing today. I don't necessarily think it would be worth it given the cost, but it is totally possible if it was a priority.
- imoverclocked 1y ago
  This is a vastly oversimplified take; Mars will be a monumental effort, far beyond what it takes to get to/from the moon.
  - postingawayonhn 1y ago
    You'll need to launch more mass to get there but the technology isn't really any more complicated. It's also a more hospitable environment (reasonable gravity, day/night cycle, some atmosphere, water, etc.)
    - wkat4242 1y ago
      You'll need to sustain the astronauts for much longer and they'll be subject to a lot more radiation. That's not exactly easy.
    - ramblenode 1y ago
      It's a significant feat to even get a robot safely to Mars. We've never gotten one back to earth. I think you are underestimating the complexity.
- tibbydudeza 1y ago
  To what end ?. Mars is a total boondoggle - a colony would require constant supply runs from Earth to support a double-digit population - who is going to field the cost and what are they going to do there ?. "The Martian" was work of fiction. A lunar colony is cheaper and way more feasible.
  - thinkingtoilet 1y ago
    I don't understand your response. I clearly said it's not worth it right now.
    - Forgeties79 1y ago
      Their point (I believe) is “why do we want to go there over the moon?” What is there that makes the effort worth it at all now or later (until we can truly move a large population there permanently/for very long stretches)? If the point is a colony, then we should just do it on the moon. If the point is for the advances in technology it will bring, we don’t have to go to Mars to explore those things. We could just keep practicing on the moon. Obviously it’s not exactly the same but idk, most of why I’d be interested in our going to mars can be answered with “it’s easier, more feasible, and generally just as useful to do it on the moon instead.” It’s still low gravity, no oxygen/breathable atmosphere, a hostile desert essentially, etc. but far closer. We can respond to emergencies more easily. We know for a fact we are currently capable of getting there and back safely. TL;DR: we will likely get a lot more out of dumping our resources into trips to and from the moon and building something there than trying to go to mars for a very long time.
  - overfeed 1y ago
    > To what end ? Funnelling a lot of government money into the pockets of the best candidate for the world's first trillionare.
  - Xss3 1y ago
    Even a Venusian colony would be significantly more viable than mars. Mars sucks. The moon sucks too. We need rotating space habitats. With gravity and hookers.
- numpad0 1y ago
  Mars is out of the gravity well only to fall into another, albert slightly shallower. It's just dumb.
- underlipton 1y ago
  Space and the moon were so important that we famously put black female mathematicians on the job in the waning years of Jim Crow. The current admin is dismantling not just so-called DEI, but decades of civil rights protections that ultimately allowed things like SGI's 3D rendering pipeline to exist. This is just one of the myriad ways that America is not in any way serious about a task as monumental as reaching Mars with actual, human astronauts. It would require an intense and extreme dedication to facing factual reality, which we do not seem currently capable of. Rockets do not run on truthiness, they explode on it.
  - nxor 1y ago
    Because the protections get abused. See college admissions.
    - underlipton 1y ago
      Legacy admissions.
      - nxor 1y ago
        Racial quotas pertain to all people of a group. Legacies pertain to a select amount of people of a group. If a black kid in the heart of Chicago attends a bad elementary school, bad middle school, and bad high school, then the system that failed them is that one, not universities that ideally should measure people by their abilities. Disclaimer: I also dislike legacies.
        underlipton 1y ago
        Legacy admissions policies account for a larger number of admissions and a greater boost than affirmative action policies (which are not racial quotas, which have been illegal since 1978) did. You're clearing space on your hard drive by going after midi files instead of mp4s. AA policies (again, not racial quotas, which haven't existed for half-a-century) had little effect on the admissions of straight white and Asian men (essentially the only demographics not covered under them). They're also currently illegal in college admissions themselves, so there seems to be no good-faith point in harping on them as something that gets "abused" (because they don't, because they literally can't be employed in any sense). Use your non-sockpuppet, please.

The Chinese is planning a space habitat - the US is aiming for the same - it is rather different from the Apollo objectives. Mars is out of reach and not feasible.

thinkingtoilet 1y ago

Mars is entirely within reach if we wanted to dedicate the resources to it. If we can get to the moon over 50 years ago, Mars is nothing today. I don't necessarily think it would be worth it given the cost, but it is totally possible if it was a priority.

imoverclocked 1y ago
This is a vastly oversimplified take; Mars will be a monumental effort, far beyond what it takes to get to/from the moon.
- postingawayonhn 1y ago
  You'll need to launch more mass to get there but the technology isn't really any more complicated. It's also a more hospitable environment (reasonable gravity, day/night cycle, some atmosphere, water, etc.)
  - wkat4242 1y ago
    You'll need to sustain the astronauts for much longer and they'll be subject to a lot more radiation. That's not exactly easy.
  - ramblenode 1y ago
    It's a significant feat to even get a robot safely to Mars. We've never gotten one back to earth. I think you are underestimating the complexity.
tibbydudeza 1y ago
To what end ?. Mars is a total boondoggle - a colony would require constant supply runs from Earth to support a double-digit population - who is going to field the cost and what are they going to do there ?. "The Martian" was work of fiction. A lunar colony is cheaper and way more feasible.
- thinkingtoilet 1y ago
  I don't understand your response. I clearly said it's not worth it right now.
  - Forgeties79 1y ago
    Their point (I believe) is “why do we want to go there over the moon?” What is there that makes the effort worth it at all now or later (until we can truly move a large population there permanently/for very long stretches)? If the point is a colony, then we should just do it on the moon. If the point is for the advances in technology it will bring, we don’t have to go to Mars to explore those things. We could just keep practicing on the moon. Obviously it’s not exactly the same but idk, most of why I’d be interested in our going to mars can be answered with “it’s easier, more feasible, and generally just as useful to do it on the moon instead.” It’s still low gravity, no oxygen/breathable atmosphere, a hostile desert essentially, etc. but far closer. We can respond to emergencies more easily. We know for a fact we are currently capable of getting there and back safely. TL;DR: we will likely get a lot more out of dumping our resources into trips to and from the moon and building something there than trying to go to mars for a very long time.
- overfeed 1y ago
  > To what end ? Funnelling a lot of government money into the pockets of the best candidate for the world's first trillionare.
- Xss3 1y ago
  Even a Venusian colony would be significantly more viable than mars. Mars sucks. The moon sucks too. We need rotating space habitats. With gravity and hookers.
numpad0 1y ago
Mars is out of the gravity well only to fall into another, albert slightly shallower. It's just dumb.
underlipton 1y ago
Space and the moon were so important that we famously put black female mathematicians on the job in the waning years of Jim Crow. The current admin is dismantling not just so-called DEI, but decades of civil rights protections that ultimately allowed things like SGI's 3D rendering pipeline to exist. This is just one of the myriad ways that America is not in any way serious about a task as monumental as reaching Mars with actual, human astronauts. It would require an intense and extreme dedication to facing factual reality, which we do not seem currently capable of. Rockets do not run on truthiness, they explode on it.
- nxor 1y ago
  Because the protections get abused. See college admissions.
  - underlipton 1y ago
    Legacy admissions.
    - nxor 1y ago
      Racial quotas pertain to all people of a group. Legacies pertain to a select amount of people of a group. If a black kid in the heart of Chicago attends a bad elementary school, bad middle school, and bad high school, then the system that failed them is that one, not universities that ideally should measure people by their abilities. Disclaimer: I also dislike legacies.
      - underlipton 1y ago
        Legacy admissions policies account for a larger number of admissions and a greater boost than affirmative action policies (which are not racial quotas, which have been illegal since 1978) did. You're clearing space on your hard drive by going after midi files instead of mp4s. AA policies (again, not racial quotas, which haven't existed for half-a-century) had little effect on the admissions of straight white and Asian men (essentially the only demographics not covered under them). They're also currently illegal in college admissions themselves, so there seems to be no good-faith point in harping on them as something that gets "abused" (because they don't, because they literally can't be employed in any sense). Use your non-sockpuppet, please.