Why no stationary base on the moon?
Would you rather have a moon base or 10 probes exploring the rest of the solar system?
Probes.
Target Venus not Mars for first crewed mission to another planet, experts say
41–50 of 65 posts
Re: Target Venus not Mars for first crewed mission to another planet, experts say
#42Clickbait headline -- the proposal is for a flyby, not a landing.
Which is why > performed a flyby of the article and came directly to the comments.
Re: Target Venus not Mars for first crewed mission to another planet, experts say
#43Why no stationary base on the moon?
Would you rather have a moon base or 10 probes exploring the rest of the solar system?
If I get any input, I would shave some part of the nearly trillion dollar US military budget and use some of that windfall to allow for both of the above options.
Re: Target Venus not Mars for first crewed mission to another planet, experts say
#44“You’d be learning about how people work in deep space, without committing yourself to a full Mars mission,” he said. All of these "Not Mars" people always seem to fall into the same boat where they know there's zero point to sticking human beings and life support systems into an observation probe so they trot out this "it's good practice, guys!" horseshit. Scientific progress is not the point of putting the first se…
Going to Mars will be among humanity's least revered achievements. There is nothing there. The only plausibly valuable exports from Mars might be the engines that got your supplies there. With their bells cut off.
Among the least revered? You mean, below peanut butter and jelly in the same jar? If humanity is going to emerge out of the cradle, Mars will have to be the 2nd step. Right after Luna.
As we are out there exploring & homesteading, maybe we will realize what a gem the Earth truly is.
Re: Target Venus not Mars for first crewed mission to another planet, experts say
#45A crewed flyby? What is the point of that? Colonizing the clouds of venus is a good idea eventually, but it's certainly not a viable first target.
> Colonizing the clouds of venus is a good idea eventually, but it's certainly not a viable first target.
Sure seems a _lot_ more interesting than Mars at least.
Re: Target Venus not Mars for first crewed mission to another planet, experts say
#46I don't get what the point is of a crewed flyby. The crew would just be cooped up in the craft the whole time with nothing to do except take measurements with instruments that could just as easily be done by a machine. This isn't the Apollo era, we're pretty confident we can send spacecraft all over the solar system and keep humans alive in space for years.
> we're pretty confident we can […] keep humans alive in space for years Are we? In outer space? Radiation, psychology/isolation, months away from any support in case of an emergency? My understanding is that there are a lot of open questions, and that even a mere fly-by mission would constitute a major new step in manned space flight.
I'm not a super expect in space, but I'd argue yes. There is more radiation there, but we know how much and how to shield from it. The ISS does have an "escape module" descent craft allowing the crew to evacuate in a few minutes any time needed, but they've never had to use it yet. IMO that's a good argument that it isn't that big of a deal. Yes, it'll be a bit riskier for the crew in that there's no security blanket of a quick easy escape to Earth in the event of a real emergency, but well shit happens. I don't think there's anything going on as far as isolation that's really more severe than tons of other things that have already been done.
Re: Target Venus not Mars for first crewed mission to another planet, experts say
#47Re: Target Venus not Mars for first crewed mission to another planet, experts say
#48Re: Target Venus not Mars for first crewed mission to another planet, experts say
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just like the moon, we did not attempt to land there on the first go-around. Neil Armstrong was on Apollo 11. Apollo 4-6 were unmanned launches, 7-9 were testing the hardware with humans, mostly with "free return" orbits where even if the engines didn't start again, they would land back on earth in about a week. Apollo 10 was a wet rehersal that did everything except land on the moon#, including "parking" in lunar or…
The whole point of Apollo 10 was to be the dry run for Apollo 11. Doing all of that with no actual plans to land seems silly.
This guy has clearly never worked on the operations side of a business