Re: Space Policy: Why Mars should be our top priority.

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:54:10 +0000, Derek Lyons wrote:

Marvin the Martian <marvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 03:28:49 +0000, Derek Lyons wrote:

Marvin the Martian <marvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Actually, NASA was planning on going to Mars right after Apollo, back
in the early 1970s. This technology is almost 40 years old.

Planning on doing something is not even remotely connected to the
ability to do it. Folks were planning to go to the moon in the 40's,
and 50's - despite the lack of technology to do so. It is very
instructive to look back and see how very wrong they were about so
many things.

There wasn't much more that they had in the 1950s that they didn't have
on May 25th, 1961 when Kennedy gave his moon speech.

Yeah, they had a lot of things. Like the F-1 for starters. Or blunt
body re-entry vehicles.* Or actual working inertial guidance systems.
(And the transistor based computers needed to make them work.)

Etc... Etc...

A *lot* of technologies matured in the latter half of the fifties.

*Werner Von Braun, that pinnacle of engineers, designed a moon ship that
would have flat out melted on re-entry!

There wasn't much that was discovered between May 1961 and December 1959.

The point is, all the technology that didn't exist on May 1961 was
developed during the 1960s space programs, all within 8 years. You
entirely missed that point.

It is irrational to expect that every single technology be in place
before we start going to Mars. We would, of course, develop the missing
technologies.

Your defeatism and can't do attitude is noted. You're off the team.

I see you can't handle facts. Hell, you aren't even aware of their
existence.

Oh, great. The usual childish personal attack.

The problem I have is not that my arguments are not well developed, but
that I cast pearls before swine.

What I need to do is first get people to the point where they can
understand a rational argument before presenting them with a rational
argument. One of my first axioms is that "you cannot reason with the
unreasonable".


--
http://OnToMars.org For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Obamas Space Policy
    ... The loonie here focuses on delta V and using that single basis advocates an empty space at L1, which does no good at all. ... However, as you can see from the opposition to Mars and the pro-lunar loonies, we a majority rational and logical species, and are more closely akin to animals. ... We do not have even remotely the technology to go to Mars. ... That is why people propose the moon, even if we do not need anything ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Obamas Space Policy
    ... I'm just pointing out that this is not a technology we have in hand. ... Note that this isn't something NASA is currently interested in solving. ... shield for a Mars mission without tackling this institutional problem at ... moon base goal. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Space Policy: Why Mars should be our top priority.
    ... This technology is almost 40 years old. ... Planning on doing something is not even remotely connected to the ... 1961 when Kennedy gave his moon speech. ... body re-entry vehicles.* Or actual working inertial guidance systems. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Space Policy: Why Mars should be our top priority.
    ... Mars is beyond current technology. ... Any human expedition to Mars is just science fiction. ... This technology is almost 40 years old. ... Planning on doing something is not even remotely connected to the ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Space Travel by Humans is Possible
    ... :>:However, like Mr. navia pointed out, at the moment the technology to ... If Mars ... would be like the Moon, i.e. airless, that solution would work. ... Moon wont work. ...
    (sci.space.policy)