Why have we been unable to send humans to other planets? It seems like an easy job.
>Fill your spaceship with food and water.
>Get out of Earth
>Aim towards the planet you're targetting
>Wait for a few years
>Get ready to land
Apollo 11 had a speed of 40,233.6 kmph. Consider the farthest celestial body in our solar system, Pluto, which is about 5 billion kilometres away from us.
With that speed and distance, it would only take a crew 14 years to reach Pluto. That may seem a lot to you but explorers back in the day made similar long voyages to the New World from Europe.
Why aren't we colonising our solar system? If we had the same attitude in the 15th century USA wouldn't exist.
 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
|
because people are upset that we spent 10 billion on a telescope, nevertheless 50-100 billion on sending people to mars. It's so bad that NASA had to be secret about the costs of SLS for a long time because they were terrified of congress pulling the plug. tbf they should now that there's sub-billion dollar private alternatives being developed
>we
>we
>we
whats your role? where are you contributing?
nothing at all? why use "we"?
intellectual property theft is a crime, taking credit for other people's efforts is intellectual property theft.
I provide funding for these projects via taxation. If anything, I'm not given enough credit. Without me these eggheads would be banging sticks together.
>I provide funding for these projects via taxation
You are someone who does not understand risk. Essentially you're claiming the leverage of a nation's input while putting up the collateral of 2 grains of sand worth relatively speaking to a beach.
Soience tourists subconsciously collectivize achievements because they have none of their own. This coping mechanism leads them to live their lives through others, and daydreaming about experiences they've seen in movies or social media...
>Why have we been unable to send humans to other planets? It seems like an easy job.
Because once the capitalist vs communist dickwaving once completed ceased to have any political will behind it. Our guy von Braun was building saturn V rocket factory to make it the model T of spaceflight and planning variants to fufill various missions from moon and mars colonization flights and spacestation work.
>Why aren't we colonising our solar system? If we had the same attitude in the 15th century USA wouldn't exist.
Because normals have no grasp of long tetm investment and have open hostility to anything that might take away from their bread and games. They do not see beyond their lifetimes and 100 billion is a big number to them despite being chumpchange in government's budget compared to military spending in an era with no real military rivals. Normals back in 15th century only began to care about the new world once others had discovered stuff of incredible monetary value and pleniful land basically free.
Pioneers have to find something attractive enough to make normalgays want to sail over and settle it
>Captcha:s0jak
hopefully we can sell the space mining thing hard enough to get people on board
Nothing up there is worthwhile to bring down to earth.
The most valuable would be water ice to make fuel to use in space.
None of the planets in the solar system have useful (or better yet, rare) materials?
What if there is an entire layer of gold and diamond crust and pools of lithium 500 feet below mars surface?
price goes down
Price wont go down because the overhead to get space platinum is so expensive
>muh space mining economics
I'd consider the possibility of deep sea mining first. Not even current technology and logistics can do that in an efficient/profitable manner. But space mining creates more soi hype, so I understand why that is discussed far more often.
It's not about price it's about making cool shit, like a city made entirely of gold and shit.
there's asteroids sitting out there that are almost entirely made of precious metals worth $10 quintillion of currently priced metals. The gold and platinum alone in such high concentrations make it economically viable
And the cost of retrieving those resources would overshadow their worth by an order of 10 quintillion, by the time we make significant enough advances to get those resources they will be worth less than a bag of air
>And the cost of retrieving those resources would overshadow their worth by an order of 10 quintillion,
Source?
Where's your sense of adventure?
What has the total cost of all humans collective space programs since their beggingings? And what's the ultimate point of them?
1. It takes a very long time
2. Space radiation
>go to mars
>get bored
>back to the room to shitpost on the internet
>oh noes there's no internet
>kill himself
You need highly trained, highly specialized people to send into space. They need to be mentally sound, capable of doing tasks in extreme environments and being able to live with each other in complete isolation from the world for months or even years at a time. Combine that with the fact no gravity fricks with bone density and space radiation being a thing, going to another planet like Mars is effectively a suicide mission. So why the FRICK would you send these people out to die? We're not ready for that yet and we won't be for a long time. We'll get there, just not yet. Rushing it now would be stupid.
>gravity fricks with bone density
So start training people from birth in 0 gravity?
>would you send these people out to die?
Criminals on death row? Send them to mars strapped with go pros and drills and let's see what happens, heck forget criminals, I'm sure there are many people that would volunteer despite the risk
>So start training people from birth in 0 gravity?
How do you train a newly born infant to keep their bone density? Shit I'd hate to see what those kids are even gonna look like by the time they're three years old. Probably a bunch of freaky fricking ayys.
Why would you waste your time, money, resources and fuel on untrained and in some cases, dangerous individuals out on suicide missions? There's absolutely no reason at all to be sending people like that out into space.
>We'll get there, just not yet.
Not in our lifetimes, we won't.
The tech is there. Effects of radiation and low gravity can be mitigated to a good degree. Ftl travel is never going to be possible, this is the only way we could travel across space. There's no need to delay things any further.
How would making sure there is always an abundance of oxygen ensured?
>Apollo 11 had a speed of 40,233.6 kmph.
Short before earth reentry caused by gravitational forces. At the gravitational null point point between the Earth and the Moon it was im only 500.
space is horribly inhospitable to life and I don't believe anyone has figured out how to stop human bodies from falling apart during prolonged stays up there yet
really we should be trying to build robots that do all that shit for us, there's basically no reason a living human ever needs to touch shit anymore
just spin shit around to make gravity
>just spin shit around to make gravity
That just make dizziness
>Why aren't we colonising our solar system?
It's enormously expensive. Far, far more expensive than sending out a few caravels across the sea.
>it would only take a crew 14 years to reach Pluto.
So you're basically asking a bunch of 20-somethings to give up their life to go visit Pluto.
And in the end, what the frick is on Pluto? We colonized the Americas because we were chasing gold.
Once we find the cure for aging, these kind of long journeys will become much more common.
>it took 14 years for european settlers to reach america
anon...
Don't worry about it. Assuming there aren't already secret (underground) US/Chinese/Indian/Russian bases on Mars, the moon and Ganymede.
We'll definitely have atleast a mars colony with living humans, before year 2100.
People get sent to mars the moment you put out the dough to get there. It's not a technological challenge.