Yes? And may we know how many underaged kids died out of slavery work for that to succeed?
From India, Proof That a Trip to Mars Doesn’t Have to Break the Bank
51–60 of 116 posts
Re: From India, Proof That a Trip to Mars Doesn’t Have to Break the Bank
#52What the NYT article didn't mention was the lack of sterilization of the ISRO spacecraft. A huge portion of the budget for a probe like MAVEN [1] or JUNO [2] is spent reducing the chance of Earth microbes colonizing Mars or a moon of Jupiter. It would be a huge shame for us to have doubt whether the first extra terrestial microbes we find in the solar system were really alien or simply Space Age Earth based life [1]…
Its Mars orbiter, not lander.
Re: From India, Proof That a Trip to Mars Doesn’t Have to Break the Bank
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't downvote, but I felt a mood-affiliation reason to downvote in that trying our darnedest to never contaminate Mars will stop us from colonizing Mars. Separately: Over the course of billions of years, rocks have moved from Earth to Mars and back. If colonization were a matter of just moving from one to the other, it would have happened already. In fact, answering that question seems very scientifically useful,…
Those rocks suffered a gigantic impact, a long period in the vacuum of space being bombarded by radiation, then a fiery re-entry. I don't know for sure, but wouldn't that be a pretty effective way of sterilising rock?
If we don't sterilize our craft, how do we then verify either that life arose independently on a non-terrestrial surface or that ejecta carried it? Hopefully the value of sterilizing our craft becomes apparent as one considers the scientific value.
Re: From India, Proof That a Trip to Mars Doesn’t Have to Break the Bank
#54Protip: Disable JavaScript to see the article if it gives you a paywall.
Re: From India, Proof That a Trip to Mars Doesn’t Have to Break the Bank
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Money alone wont get you far in this area. It's talented engineers and the right strategy that is important. Otherwise you couldn't explain why the Soviets/Russians had such a remarkably reliable space program, even though they always had less resources than the US. From what I understand, NASA tends to overload projects with thousands of requirements and features, which introduce additional points of failure, wherea…
Actually NASA tends to build to 535 requirements, give or take a few. The is similar to the problem the military faces.
The F-35 has the same problem. It is built to perform in so many roles, that it is bad in every single one of it. (price, weight, maneuverability, payload, range)
Re: From India, Proof That a Trip to Mars Doesn’t Have to Break the Bank
#56What the NYT article didn't mention was the lack of sterilization of the ISRO spacecraft. A huge portion of the budget for a probe like MAVEN [1] or JUNO [2] is spent reducing the chance of Earth microbes colonizing Mars or a moon of Jupiter. It would be a huge shame for us to have doubt whether the first extra terrestial microbes we find in the solar system were really alien or simply Space Age Earth based life [1]…
I didn't downvote, but I felt a mood-affiliation reason to downvote in that trying our darnedest to never contaminate Mars will stop us from colonizing Mars. Separately: Over the course of billions of years, rocks have moved from Earth to Mars and back. If colonization were a matter of just moving from one to the other, it would have happened already. In fact, answering that question seems very scientifically useful,…
I don't understand why colonizing Mars seems so important and urgent to you (and many other people around these parts, you're not the first one I see taking that approach) that you're willing to risk ruining evidence that could lead us to a better understanding of life itself.
I mean, I'm all for space exploration and everything, don't misinterpret what I'm saying, but let's say we manage to get on Mars, establish a colony. In the long run we manage to terraform the planet, maybe. Now what? We get a new retirement centre on Mars?
I mean, at this point it's just about planting a flag and "go team humans!"
I mean, we're currently in the process of ruining our perfectly fine planet, I'm not so sure I'm willing to believe we would be "improving" Mars in the long run.
As long as we don't have any reasonable solution for leaving the solar system we're basically stuck with a bunch of rock within reach, let's not ruin everything just so that we can build Disneyland Universe on Mars. That would seem a very selfish thing to do. Think of the Dodos.
Re: From India, Proof That a Trip to Mars Doesn’t Have to Break the Bank
#57i see little overlap with sending humans to mars. i dont think its a great way to send people such a distance (and expect to get them back) by cutting corners in planning, redundancy, etc. And its my understanding that the bulk of the costs of going there is getting all the fuel and supplies from earth to there, which is not solved by paying rocket scientists 1000$ a month.
NASA already operates on a shoestring budget. the article makes it sound like NASA has lavish funds. And they do so with a really good track record.
Re: From India, Proof That a Trip to Mars Doesn’t Have to Break the Bank
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMHO I view it differently. It would be a huge tragedy if we are the only life that has ever evolved in the universe and it all quietly ends on the same planet it started it. If there's a chance we can get even single celled life established on a another planet we should go for it. The loss of a bit of science is small potatoes compared to the fate of life in the universe.
In my not so humble opinion I think that's a really naive and ignorant way of looking at it. What if there is life on Mars that's unique to that planet? Introducing our microbes and germs to that planet could potentially wipe out the native fauna.
Survival of the fittest.
Re: From India, Proof That a Trip to Mars Doesn’t Have to Break the Bank
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually NASA tends to build to 535 requirements, give or take a few. The is similar to the problem the military faces.
The F-35 has the same problem. It is built to perform in so many roles, that it is bad in every single one of it. (price, weight, maneuverability, payload, range)
yeah the military seems to always be obsessed with 1 aircraft that can do everything. that just means you get something that can do everything poorly.
Re: From India, Proof That a Trip to Mars Doesn’t Have to Break the Bank
#60It was only a matter of time when space travel would be outsourced as well.
I don't get the downvotes, I thought this was pretty witty.