It's not a risk we're talking about here. If you send someone to Mars now, with no intention of bringing them back, they will die a horrible death from cancer, lack of medical care, etc, etc. I don't understand how anyone could argue otherwise.
We're not talking about whether or not it is moral for individuals to engage in risky activities of their own free will.. we're talking about sending people to Mars. When individuals can pay for it out of their own pocket and go for their own reasons, then they are in control of the circumstances under which they engage in the activity.
When individuals can pay for it out of their own pocket and go for their own reasons, then they are in control of the circumstances under which they engage in the activity.
Just be aware that many people agree with both of us.
Quote from: QuantumG on 06/07/2012 03:26 amJust be aware that many people agree with both of us.That's a point we can heartily agree on!
Since Zubrin did not propose a detailed EDL approach you can't say it won't work.
First astronaut training 10 years before first flight and before any technology testing?
Vee only missed out Mars landing site by 10-meters!
Go read about the proposal! They plan to set most of the infrastructure on the planet unmanned and years ahead of first human landing. They also plan to produce lots of water through unmanned landers and rovers of the same type that the humans will use when they arrive.
Watch the video and you'll get a distinct sense of the earnest amateur. For all its letters of intent from component suppliers and support from Nobel prize-winners, there doesn't seem to be a lot of money behind this venture ...
Yes we do not know the long term effects of the reduced gravity on Mars, but discussing this with a number of people seem to give wildely diverse answers. I personally think this issue is not severe for Mars itself and during the flight people really need to train sufficiently.
If I understand this correctly, you're saying that Zubrin didn't specify a detailed EDL approach, therefore it cannot be deemed a failure. In a way, it's like dividing by zero, an undefined operation. I suppose an undefined approach can't be said to either work or not work. Maybe that's true semantically, but it doesn't offer the reader any solutions.Point is, neither can you say that Zubrin's EDL approach will workThe reader is left to the mass estimates that Mike later pointed out..
There is currently no proof that 1/3 of a g is similar to zero g.
We are in contact with reduced gravity researchers here in Europe and will find out more what the effects of 1/3 g are.
Secondly, nuclear reactors on Mars are 50 years away in the future, making any exploration of Mars in our life times by humans impossible if you really need one, which we don't believe. Solar cells and batteries are sufficient.
Let me clear about a second point, we are not sending the people, we give them the opportunity to go to Mars and live there. We will not force people and as we believe strongly in the fact that people should be allowed to do whatever they want without harassing other people.
]Prove it. Go build a base in the desert using just solar cells and batteries.. we'll wait. When you figure out that you need a lot more energy than those technologies can provide, I'll send you a nice fruit basket to welcome you back to the industrialized world.
Stand alone solar power stations for remote facilities in the Australian outback are not uncommon. They range from the small scale (house supply to the ranger station at Dalhousie springs) to 100 kw (Wilpena) with 225 kw the current largest (Kings Canyon). Sometimes they are pure solar, others hybrid solar-wind, some are hybrid diesel-solar (diersel being for night time use).
What part of the word "build" did you miss?
What's your point? That it is impossible to build such a solar power supply?Solar stations have already been built in terrestrail deserts which produce more than 1 mwh per day.