Quote from: Luis_Gray on August 11, 2018, 08:14:38 PM

Quote from: BADecker on August 10, 2018, 09:48:30 PM

Come on and think a little.

Going to Mars might take 2 or 3 years. A teenager might be older than 22 when he gets to Mars. This is because he is in training now, as a teenager, but won't lift off for as many as 5 years or more.

Once he gets to Mars, he won't simply jump out of the lander and build a house and plant a garden. He might remain in the lander as long as a year, familiarizing himself with the terrain and climate, and sending out robot vehicles to get a clearer picture of what Mars really is.

Once the semi-robotic habitats are set up, and reasonable certainty has been made that they will support human life, then the teenager(s) might finally transfer to the habitats.

Then there's the setting up of the greenhouses, and finding out what kind of food will truly grow on Mars.

And on and on. It will be surprising if the kids haven't reached 50 years by the time that they are settled into "colony" life on Mars. But if things don't go smoothly, they might be 70... or they might be dead.

And what if there is war on Earth, and they have to reproduce on Mars, so that their kids and grandkids can possibly come back... after mining Mars for supplies to refuel the lander and orbiter. Will they be ready to avoid the radiation hot spots on earth from the home planet nuclear wars?

Sounds like science fiction, right? Well, it is. That's why teenagers... so they can live a long life out there if necessary.

Cool

Why ever would they stay there for 20-40 years? Are they seriously planning to make ships that would only go one way? If I were going to Mars, I'd want a round-trip ticket. I don't think anybody's talking about leaving people up there for that long. I don't remember who threw out the numbers of it taking 2-3 years to get to Mars, but that's not what Google is telling me. Here is how long it took for historic missions to reach Mars:
   Mariner 4, the first spacecraft to go to Mars (1965 flyby): 228 days
   Mariner 6 (1969 flyby): 155 days
   Mariner 7 (1969 flyby): 128 days
   Mariner 9, the first spacecraft to orbit Mars (1971): 168 days
   Viking 1, the first U.S. craft to land on Mars (1975): 304 days
   Viking 2 Orbiter/Lander (1975): 333 days
   Mars Global Surveyor (1996): 308 days
   Mars Pathfinder (1996): 212 days
   Mars Odyssey (2001): 200 days
   Mars Express Orbiter (2003): 201 days
   Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (2005): 210 days
   Mars Science Laboratory (2011): 254 days

Source: https://www.space.com/24701-how-long-does-it-take-to-get-to-mars.html

It doesn't look like it's even going to take a year. That seems much more bearable. So, you could actually go to Mars, do some work there and come back within a few years.

Now, think about what you just said.

Those "spacecraft" were unmanned. They cost $millions or $billions. They often barely made it. They never came back, and couldn't if we wanted them to.

Even if a manned vehicle made it in a year, there's a $ton $more $expense to going there manned, and if we try to do it too fast, there would have to be even $more $expense to set things up onboard so that people could withstand the rigors of acceleration/deceleration to do it in a year safely.

With war looming, there's no way to focus on a manned Mars mission with any idea of practicality, safety, and success.

Doesn't look like we will ever be going. Looks more like a drive to get people to give more money to Congress for something that will never happen. I mean, what did we spend on going to the moon? And what did it get us? $Lots and virtually nothing. And the guys that went, barely came back. If there had been great success in all areas of manned moon missions, we would have had bases on the moon long ago, with daily flights for the public a reality.

Mars shots are just a publicity campaign... to sucker more money out of the people.

Cool