EdgarJPublius wrote:Lots of things are possible with current technology that aren't really practical or affordable with current technology.
Sure, Mars direct could get a human crew to mars with current technology, but the cost is an open question, as are the effects of such a long mission through inter-planetary space, where stellar radiation and other phenomena may jeopardize the crew. More research and study is required to answer these questions.
You don't say. This is why I'm saying Mars Direct would be a pointless waste of money currently. We could spend more years making Martian travel cheaper, and not have to spend billions on a trip. But the principle of "let's land someone on Mars because [achievement unlocked!] and shit" would dictate sending someone as soon as it was verified as safe to do. A landing on Mars would be a completely unworthwhile goal in that respect, and a poor use of taxpayer money. But if Martian landing were part of a worthwhile goal that would lead to benefits that colonisation would, that would be justifiable to spend taxpayer money. And please no one give me the "how do you expect to colonise Mars without landing someone there" spiel. It's stupid. Of course we have to send people there, but prioritising that part is wrong. And making a big deal of whether we or the Russians or the Chinese land on Mars first is even more wrong.
nitePhyyre wrote:Everything Arariel has said has been self-contradictory, dismissive, vitriolic nonsense. There comes a point where you have to realize that the person you are arguing with isn't discussing anything in good faith.Ghostbear wrote:The British have enough money to build two aircraft carriers of ~64,000 tons each; so what? Random anecdotes of spending proves nothing. I provided actual data, your anecdote is effectively useless as a rebuttal.Arariel wrote:I've been in China. They have enough money to build a one-time-use palace the size of a medium-sized university for a visit by Hu Jintao, don't you know? It was in the middle of nowhere, too. I visited it. Only a few guards there. No one was using it. I'm just saying, it's completely wrong to think of this as "poor little China, only now have they been able to scrape the money to send a woman to space".
With all their talk of measuring penis size, I think we can all put 2 and 2 together and come up with a reason they are so bitter...
Oooh, and I'm the one with the vitriol? You have yet to tell me how I've been saying self-contradictory things. Rather, you've been proceeding to make rather snide remarks that only don't qualify as ad hominems because ad hominems are at least a more honest kind of attack.
Current technology in this context means we don't need to develop any new physics or chemistry. We have materials that can handle the stress. We have the computing power to handle the mission. Etc. Still, putting all those technologies together is a non-trivial task. It would require the development of new tools and the development of new knowledge to actually use the current technology to accomplish the mission. So, yes we could do it with current tech. But this:Arariel wrote:Mars Direct is a proposal for a manned mission to Mars that is both cost-effective and possible with current technology.
Oh hey. Look at that. Cost-effective is debatable. Maybe that $55 billion (what Soralin said it would cost; not mentioned in the article) could instead go toward, I dunno fixing ageing satellites.No, not even close. And this:Arariel wrote:Except I do recall we already have the technology for landing on Mars, right?It depends on what you meant by 'tools'.Arariel wrote:Please clarify. I do remember a few people mentioning ways to get to Mars with tools we already have, no?
 or are you just talking out of your ass here?