Re: Space travel by humans is not possible now

Fred J. McCall wrote:
jacob navia <jacob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> :> Or you can send men and travel more than "dozens of kilometers per
:> day" and not be just flying over stuff at random and ignoring
:> everything between touchdowns.
:> :
:Men CAN'T TRAVEL IN MARS.
:

Well, not without digging, at any rate.

:
:As I have explained to you over and over again, they need a VERY heavy :life support system, that maintains a temperature differential of more :than 100 Centigrade between the Mars surface and the insides of their
:home.
:

And as has been explained to you over and over and over again, this is
*NOT*, repeat ****NOT****, the insurmountable barrier your lunacy
keeps putting it forward as.


Absolutely no arguments or facts or whatever. This is not a barrier.
No explanation where the power for maintaining such a huge temperature
difference will come.

:
:The HUGE energy requirements needs an isolated "home" for them, that can
:be heated to the right temperature without too much loss. This implies
:absence of windows since they would lose too much heat when outside is
:-100 Centigrade.
:

Poppy***! I guess Gemini and Apollo and the Shuttle couldn't have
windows, then. And yet they do.


All those weren't parked in the night side of a planet. They receive
regularly sun light to warm them. The shuttle rotates to shed heat and
warm the parts in the shade. Mr McCall just doesn't understand the
difference.

:
:The equivalent in earth would be to maintain a temperature as in the :hottest Sahara desert in a house in the south pole.
:
:Warming is (of course) only ONE of the requirements of the life
:support system. THEN there is breathing, i.e. humans need oxygen
:that doesn't exist in the marsian atmosphere. So they have to carry
:an oxygen producing and maintaining circuit. The CO2 must be
:eliminated too. Add that to the "vehicle".
:

Go look up the numbers. This is pretty much nothing, given a vehicle
to carry it around for you.


"This is pretty much nothing". Such a vehicle has never been designed,
built or tested. The rover of Apollo in the moon required space-suited
astronauts and did not have any life support. It was conceived as a
very short range vehicle.

:
:Then, humans need food, and waste disposal. If they are going
:in a field trip they would need a VERY heavy vehicle, that would
:take a LOT of energy just to move around. They can't go just
:in spacesuits since at night they would FREEZE OVER in a few hours.
:

And they can't dance in their underwear, either. So far there is
nothing convincing at all about your 'argument' (and I use the term as
loosely as possible, since you've done nothing to support your claims
other than to use uppercase words).


Again Mr McCall says NOTHING. He can't even deny the fact that
such a heavy vehicle would need a lot of fuel/energy to move
around, to maintain the temperature delta, and the life support!


:
:All this makes completely IMPOSSIBLE to use a balloon. You would
:need an enormous and heavy vehicle in MARS.
:

Who the hell would want to use a balloon?

:
:Another problem is fuel. Since there is no oxygen, they would need to
:carry the oxidant AND the fuel.
:

Again, not a big deal. Hell, you don't even need 'fuel'. Ever heard
of nuclear power?

This is a typical "McCall argument". Just throw some keyword without
even bothering to think about the consequences!

A nuclear reactor is of course a very lightweight technology, you put
one in your spacesuit and there you go...

The problems associated with building a nuclear reactor in Mars,
maintaining it there etc, are just "engineering problems"
as he would say.

It is almost comic.


I guess a rover can't work, either, given all that
fuel they must carry. And yet they rove.


Using solar energy. This will not work (as I stated in a previous
message) for such huge requirements like life+support. The sun
doesn't give enough energy for powering all that.


And he continues, without ever advancing any argument.

Horse manure! Cite?


Preposterous claim!


Ridiculous assertion!


Stupid remark!


I repeat:

You're an IGNORANT GIT who LIES at the drop of a manned space idea.


All he has to sy:

Nothing. Besides just throwing "nuclear power" around, he doesn't show
any feasible technology that could support humans in Mars.

I repeat:

All mankind has been able to land in Mars are just a few KILOGRAMS worth
of payload.


--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
.