Everybody was amateurs at one point.In my opinion, spaceflight by amateurs in search of publicity can only end with the bad publicity of several dead astronauts, that will delay true space science for decades.![]()
Everybody was amateurs at one point.In my opinion, spaceflight by amateurs in search of publicity can only end with the bad publicity of several dead astronauts, that will delay true space science for decades.![]()
Dynasoar was not viableI have always believed that Kennedy´s space program was a mistake and that the Dyna Soar was the right way to do things.
That won't stop people. Even if there are disasters people will still be willing to go.In my opinion, spaceflight by amateurs in search of publicity can only end with the bad publicity of several dead astronauts, that will delay true space science for decades.![]()
Not at all. too small, too dirty, too noisy . It used a H2/O2 APU for power that was constantly running. There would have been vibrations and water vapor. It would have be poor reconn platform.Dynasoar was not viableI have always believed that Kennedy´s space program was a mistake and that the Dyna Soar was the right way to do things.
Dyna-Soar was a very useful project, but unmanned systems were coming into use.
Not at all. too small, too dirty, too noisy . It used a H2/O2 APU for power that was constantly running. There would have been vibrations and water vapor. It would have be poor reconn platform.Dynasoar was not viableI have always believed that Kennedy´s space program was a mistake and that the Dyna Soar was the right way to do things.
Dyna-Soar was a very useful project, but unmanned systems were coming into use.
Mars is not suitable for human habitation. This basic fact did not become clear until probes explored the planet.
We have a habitable planet and it is the only one we know of at present.
If we were to discover a habitable planet reachable by feasible technology then I think the urge to send humans there would become irresistible .
Mars is not that planet unless we decide we want to redesign it to meet our needs.
FWIW, 'starchitect' is not a silly name for space architect, it's a silly name for a celebrity architect, the sort that give TED talks or have documentaries made about them - Norman Foster, Frank Gehry, Rem Koolhaas and Bjarke Ingels. Frank Lloyd Wright would have been called one in his day.Mars Dune Alpha:
![]()
Peek inside NASA’s starchitect-designed condo for Mars
Mars Dune Alpha is touted to be "the highest-fidelity simulated habitat ever constructed" for living in the red planet.qz.com
Movies are literally fiction and shouldn't inform reality. That being said, I do feel that with the advent of rapidly improving AI, increasingly the reasons why we need to send up squishy humans are for mere sentimental purposes. Eventually in several decades, close or past the singularity we would merge with AI anyways and the issue will be moot.That's what they do in all the Alien movies and all those guys end badly, it's preferable to send robots to dangerous places, heroes are no longer needed.But that won't satisfy the human need to be there in person.
I think you will be proven wrong there.The only thing that will get manned deep space exploration up and running is solid incontrovertible evidence of life. Look at all the excitement over evidence of possible liquid water in some Jovian or Saturnian moons. Once Musk or Bezos runs out of money or one of their thrill rides explodes that's the ball game.
Wrong. It wasn't useful and had no military utility. That is why it was canceled. It was too expensive. The mission "goals" were not to be a just a test vehicle and fly into space and return. It needed to do more than that and it couldn't.Not at all. too small, too dirty, too noisy . It used a H2/O2 APU for power that was constantly running. There would have been vibrations and water vapor. It would have be poor reconn platform.Dynasoar was not viableI have always believed that Kennedy´s space program was a mistake and that the Dyna Soar was the right way to do things.
Dyna-Soar was a very useful project, but unmanned systems were coming into use.
Astronauts had been selected. The mission goals were ambitious but doable.
Fixed for accuracy.China &the USSpaceX will engage in a Space Race to put the first human on Mars.
Go Nationalism!
I hope so, but manned deep space exploration will be so expensive. Maybe two orders of magnitude past Apollo.I think you will be proven wrong there.The only thing that will get manned deep space exploration up and running is solid incontrovertible evidence of life. Look at all the excitement over evidence of possible liquid water in some Jovian or Saturnian moons. Once Musk or Bezos runs out of money or one of their thrill rides explodes that's the ball game.
Who's flying people sub-orbital who is also trying to get to Mars?The amount of time it has taken certain persons to get to the sub-orbital joyride stage of their "programme", the idea they will progress sufficiently to land a marmoset safely on Mars in their lifetimes is dubious. A serious dose of realism is needed in some circles. Let's try for a manned lunar orbital return first perhaps? You know, crawl before you can jetski.
Musky Bezel? Do I care? My point is does anyone have the lift capacity to put, say a years worth of food, water (or a water-recyc-sys, nice!), oxygen (the containers weigh a lot you know), a sandstorm-proof shelter, a nice big selfie-stick and oh yes, a human on Mars? With the first human-rated lander that's had to work as advertized months after launch? Assuming enough supplies to get them there in the first place, of course. Let alone enough for multiple humans. Cos that's a biiig rocket. I must have missed the press release.Who's flying people sub-orbital who is also trying to get to Mars?The amount of time it has taken certain persons to get to the sub-orbital joyride stage of their "programme", the idea they will progress sufficiently to land a marmoset safely on Mars in their lifetimes is dubious. A serious dose of realism is needed in some circles. Let's try for a manned lunar orbital return first perhaps? You know, crawl before you can jetski.
A nice, sane, rationally thought out reply. Thank the Lords of Kobol for the ignore button.Musky Bezel? Do I care? My point is does anyone have the lift capacity to put, say a years worth of food, water (or a water-recyc-sys, nice!), oxygen (the containers weigh a lot you know), a sandstorm-proof shelter, a nice big selfie-stick and oh yes, a human on Mars? With the first human-rated lander that's had to work as advertized months after launch? Assuming enough supplies to get them there in the first place, of course. Let alone enough for multiple humans. Cos that's a biiig rocket. I must have missed the press release.Who's flying people sub-orbital who is also trying to get to Mars?The amount of time it has taken certain persons to get to the sub-orbital joyride stage of their "programme", the idea they will progress sufficiently to land a marmoset safely on Mars in their lifetimes is dubious. A serious dose of realism is needed in some circles. Let's try for a manned lunar orbital return first perhaps? You know, crawl before you can jetski.
There is a monumental hill to climb. The biggest in history in fact! Someone tweeting some intentions and doing some local featherweight lifting isn't going to cut it.
Every year for the last 30+ years: "China is going to collapse because of X, Y, & Z"There is not and will not be a race for Mars between the US and China, both countries have enormous economic, social and structural problems that do not allow them to start this type of adventure to obtain prestige or world leadership. Both will be fortunate if they manage to maintain stability over the next five years, for the good of the world.
So, seriously can anyone answer my question? Who has the heavylift launch capacity for even the most austere Mars mission? Is it not a monumental mass of equipment and materiel to heave out of our gravity well and safely deposit in another? Is it not an endeavour still decades away from fruition, if at all?
@sferrin @martinbayer any input?![]()
Taken from a SpaceX Mars article. Lolololol! That's what spaceflight's all about folks. Vague aspirations.Before any people are transported to Mars, some number of cargo missions would be undertaken first in order to transport the requisite equipment, habitats and supplies.
I share your opinion, but in future space travel there will be no room for chance, nor for adventure, nor for dangerous explorations. It is already too expensive to rescue all the idiots who take unnecessary risks without sufficient preparation, experience or equipment, in Tibet, in the Sahara or in the Amazon, but it is an acceptable expense to keep alive the interest in nature and the business of exotic travel.It seems many people think the only desire to go to Mars is for scientific reasons. I find this naive and ridiculous. Whether people want to admit it or not, the underlying reason for most is simple the human urge for adventure, a new frontier etc. Robots and AI can not satisfy this. Its the same reason people, myself included, have gone to places such as Antarctica, Machu Picchu and many other places. Its also why there is interest in space tourism. This sense of adventure is not put off because of the dangers - in fact, for many, that is part of the attraction. I guarantee you that if a crew of say 6 were killed in an accident involved with Mars there would be another 6000 willing to take their places without hesitation.
That won't stop people.but in future space travel there will be no room for chance, nor for adventure, nor for dangerous explorations.
That is true but (unfortunately for those who believe in adventure) they will not be selected to pilot spaceships, psychologists would consider their enthusiasm as a factor of instability. They don't want Yeagers, they want Amstrongs.That won't stop people.but in future space travel there will be no room for chance, nor for adventure, nor for dangerous explorations.