4 ms·

I highly doubt that. we have zero experience with space travel so far. you can't estimate the costs here as there is some serious research necessary to build so

by verinus 11y ago

I highly doubt that. we have zero experience with space travel so far. you can't estimate the costs here as there is some serious research necessary to build something that justifies the investment with a high enough chance of success. 55billion for the ship alone might be feasible but you have to add the infrastructure and r&d costs too. and for what? to doom your children to a life indoors, a morale hazard nowhere discussed so far! edit: typo

angersock 11y ago
we have zero experience with space travel so far. This is patently false. You should probably stick with commenting about things you are qualified to do so on.
- verinus 11y ago
  educate me please. when did we do some serious space travel in the last decade(s)? and i don't think the hop to moon or living in a tiny space station comes anywhere near the experience we need for real missions.
  - angersock 11y ago
    "Real missions"? You shouldn't be so dismissive. We've solved the "can people live in tiny quarters for long periods of time...in spaaaace?" problem with the ISS and numerous earth-based missions. We've solved the "can we accurately and remotely steer a craft out to the edge of the solar system?" with numerous probes and robots, such as Voyager, the various Mars rovers, and others. We've solved the "can we land on another body and then come back with the crew and samples" problem. That's all the empirical proof that we need other than, you know, doing them all at the same time for like a Mars mission or something.
adrianN 11y ago
I think you imagine what Zubrin calls the "Battlestar Galactica" Mars mission, with a huge ship, assembled in orbit, that basically drops a whole base in one go. That kind of mission was also analyzed by NASA and found to be prohibitively expensive. If you read the wiki page about Mars Direct, you'll see that this is a much more modest proposal that doesn't require that kind of technology. With mostly proven technology and multiple launches over a number of years you can have a semi permanent Mars base with a few people on it.

by verinus 11y ago

angersock 11y ago

we have zero experience with space travel so far. This is patently false. You should probably stick with commenting about things you are qualified to do so on.

verinus 11y ago
educate me please. when did we do some serious space travel in the last decade(s)? and i don't think the hop to moon or living in a tiny space station comes anywhere near the experience we need for real missions.
- angersock 11y ago
  "Real missions"? You shouldn't be so dismissive. We've solved the "can people live in tiny quarters for long periods of time...in spaaaace?" problem with the ISS and numerous earth-based missions. We've solved the "can we accurately and remotely steer a craft out to the edge of the solar system?" with numerous probes and robots, such as Voyager, the various Mars rovers, and others. We've solved the "can we land on another body and then come back with the crew and samples" problem. That's all the empirical proof that we need other than, you know, doing them all at the same time for like a Mars mission or something.

adrianN 11y ago

I think you imagine what Zubrin calls the "Battlestar Galactica" Mars mission, with a huge ship, assembled in orbit, that basically drops a whole base in one go. That kind of mission was also analyzed by NASA and found to be prohibitively expensive. If you read the wiki page about Mars Direct, you'll see that this is a much more modest proposal that doesn't require that kind of technology. With mostly proven technology and multiple launches over a number of years you can have a semi permanent Mars base with a few people on it.