Search results

These conspiracy nuts will believe anything. Why bother faking six separate lunar landings? And then apparently they lost all the telemetry from every one of those missions, plus Apollo 13.

No they didn't.

Vance was over there promoting Orbam and Trump offered to support Hungary financially if Orban won His poll numbers immediately dropped by 3%.

Most people don't realise how many things have been launched to the moon in the last 20 years. Hell Israel, a country of 10 million managed to drop a probe there.

In technical terms we don't know. We just get very confident that the way we're describing the universe is accurate. Gravity, just a theory. Quantum Physics, just a load of theories, the big bang just a theory. Laws of physics, just theories. All supported by huge amounts of experimental and...

Interstellar travel for humanity is in theory possible, eg. Generation ships. But it's so far off being practical it's science fiction more than reality. Mars landings are just engineering and money.

Don't be ridiculous, demand is so high we'd be waiting until the 2040s to launch anything.

If you read some of the books about how the Apollo hardware was developed there are so many major difficulties they had to struggle with that could be done with almost off the shelf hardware now.

Looking at the trend line Reform has been dropping for a year and the greens climbing. At this second it looks more like Reform have peaked.

See #50

Where do you get that from?

What's a little cancer in exchange for landing on Mars? People can survive a lot of radiation when given over a long period. We don't have good data on it because it's unethical to just inject plutonium into random people without their consent.

Keeping someone alive on mars isn't that much harder than doing it in space or the moon and we've been doing that for decades. It's mostly a matter of scale and lack of any purpose.

Yeah but no one actually believes the current missions will happen as written. NASA plans missions knowing they'll get canned 9 times out of 10. They're just trying to build a justification to advance the technology in more or less the right direction so when the current plans are dropped the...

The ISS one weighs in around 2.5 tons, no idea if it can be done better this century. There is very little that hasn't already been demonstrated that is needed for a Mars mission. And for fuel you're missing the worst part, you need more fuel to launch everything back again. It's technically...

It's a pipe dream and theoretically possible, but given that yes. In the event we ever find a reason to stay on the moon then it'll probably be tried but I doubt it's ever be cost effective to build a station on the moon for that purpose.

Water recycling is old tech and 98% efficient. Food for a 6 person crew for 3 years is only 10 tons. Ludicrously expensive but nothing particularly difficult to launch.

Not really, getting to the Moon needs up to 4km/s additional velocity. Mars takes about 7km/s. Bolting together a slimmed down ISS with more storage and strapping some boosters to it in orbit is clearly technologically possible. The biggest difference in terms of scale between doing a Mars...

Nah, Mars is achievable with simple chemical reactions. Hoffman transfers are months not years and we can keep people alive in cans for that long. Its expensive but practical. Much further/faster than that starts to get a lot harder.

SpaceX, BO and the rest of the new space movement are changing that, but we're a long long way from a manned Mars mission.