Re: Space travel by humans is not possible now

jacob navia <jacob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

: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.
:

Because it's not a bloody problem. Insulation plus nuclear or stored
solar or fuel cells or...

Again, 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.

:
:>
:> :
:> :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.
:

You ranted about heat loss through windows. The simple fact is that
it isn't even an issue.

:
:>
:> :
:> :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.
:

Lots of things have "never been designed, built or tested". The next
every space problem starts with "never been designed, built or tested"
up until it IS designed, built, and tested.

These are just engineering problems. We deal with them every day.

:
:>
:> :
:> :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!
:

Because you said nothing to respond to. You could just as easily
claim the vehicle had to be made out of broccoli and cream cheese,
since you offer neither support nor reasoning to support your
preposterous contentions.

One more time. 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).

:
:> :
:> :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...
:

Strawman. Who said anything about a spacesuit? We were talking about
a VEHICLE.

:
: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.
:

It sure is. Did 'build it on Earth and take it with you' not occur to
you?

:
:> 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.
:

Who said anything about that? I merely pointed out the obvious (to
everyone but you): that 'moving' doesn't required a million pounds of
fuel.

:
:>
:> 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:
:

I note you offer no cite, no support, and engage in artful editing
into the bargain. You make claims with no support that make no sense
and then demand people act as if you've put forward serious arguments.

Face it. You're a loon. People are going to treat you like a loon
just as long as you continue to be one.

:
: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.
:

As of today. You'd have been saying the Moon landings were
impossible, too, and for all the same reasons. Until we did them.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
.