Submitted by marketrent t3_z49c7z in space
Comments
Nemo_Shadows t1_ixq0egc wrote
Better to do the SCIENCE from a space based Science platform than to bring it down to earth first, especially IF it contains any life signatures.
N. Shadows
myflippinggoodness t1_ixqz5kn wrote
Um.. E-lawn says so.. but honestly if they tried that at any point in like the next 50 years, the whole crew is like definitely gonna die
Fck we're barely moon capable, let alone something literally 1000 times further away
gummiworms9005 t1_ixrada4 wrote
Provide sources for claims please.
wgp3 t1_ixrwzuu wrote
You dont need people to do a sample return. Hence nasa has a plan to do sample return with robots. Starship will very likely be second or even third to return samples from Mars, but will also be very likely to return exponentially more mass when it does. The distance isn't even the big problem when it comes to robotic missions. When it comes to a lunar rover or a Mars rover the ability to travel beyond earth orbit is the easy part. It's the keeping the rover working on the surface part that is hard.
If you can land on the moon, you can land on Mars. It may not be immediately but it can be done. Especially with our vast experience landing payloads on Mars already. Since spacex is contracted to land people on the moon, and that requires being able to land on earth, when that is done it is almost guaranteed to leave us with the capability to land large payloads on Mars shortly after.
If you think taking humans to mars is more than 50 years away then I feel like you haven't been actively looking at all the pieces that are falling into place. We're much closer than 50 years. Probably closer to 20.
myflippinggoodness t1_ixsivyh wrote
For which claims? Do you mean presumed risk of solar radiation just killing everybody by the time they get there? Or are you talking about the transition from zero gravity to 0.3 gravity to zero gravity to 1G not absolutely disabling everybody? How about the whole crew staying completely saying for the entire duration of the trip (which I believe is AT BEST like 19 months--you google it)?
Plus the (roughly; orbits do get fucky like that) 1000x distance? Once again, Google it
Edit: E-lawn's pr crew seems to be working overtime lol
myflippinggoodness t1_ixsw4db wrote
ROBOTS!
.. Ok, I will cede on that point there. I'm still extremely skeptical of our ability to get MANNED crews over there, but ok, robots. Shoot mang, you may have just sold me on a feasible next step after lunar colonization (by which I mean just a cheap moon base lol)! I actually tip my hat to you sir 👍👍
OOH K AFTER THOSE.. small asteroid retrieval, and landing that on the moon (SAFELY) for deployment to Earth. One day, I'm thinkin bigass lunar shipping yard 😗💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰
gummiworms9005 t1_ixszj1f wrote
Anyone ever accuse you of over-embellishing things a bit? : )-
AgentParkman t1_ixy16o7 wrote
Unrelated but Hardline with big hospitals, surgerybot, and HoloLens.
[deleted] t1_iy86ris wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iy86t1v wrote
[removed]
godbot693258 t1_iy86tpf wrote
“ “...Astronauts could endure a long-term, roundtrip Mars mission without receiving a worryingly high radiation dose, new results from NASA's Mars rover Curiosity suggest. A mission consisting of a 180-day outbound cruise, a 600-day stay on Mars and another 180-day flight back to Earth would expose an astronaut to a total radiation dose of about 1.1 sieverts (units of radiation) if it launched now, according to measurements by Curiosity's Radiation Assessment Detector instrument, or RAD. RAD has found radiation levels on the Martian surface to be comparable to those experienced by astronauts in low-Earth orbit. A person ambling around the Red Planet would receive an average dose of about 0.7 millisieverts per day, while astronauts aboard the International Space Station experience an average daily dose between 0.4 and 1.0 millisieverts, “ well takes the possibility of astronauts dying from radiation out of the picture. As for dealing with the difference in gravity it’s a 6 month trip to mars so they would probably be able to acclimate to the 0.3 gs on Mars after a short amount of time, honestly we really have no knowledge on whether or not your body would atrify in lower gravity. We do know the change would not disable any of the astronauts it usually only takes a few days to acclimate to the shift in gravity. Where do you get this over exaggerated information that is designed to do nothing except fear monger.
myflippinggoodness t1_iy8cqur wrote
>Where do you get this over exaggerated information that is designed to do nothing except fear monger
Fear mongering?? That's a pretty damning accusation. Why don't you tell me why the f*** I shouldn't be worried about that at all. Link all the evidence now. Don't just stand on some f****** pedestal you just pulled out of your ass
marketrent OP t1_ixprrd1 wrote
Updated November 23, 2022.
>NASA is seeking public comments on a draft environmental impact statement for the agency’s Mars Sample Return (MSR) campaign. Comments are due by Monday, Dec. 19.
>NASA and ESA (European Space Agency) are planning to use robotic Mars orbiter and lander missions launched in 2027 and 2028 to retrieve samples of rocks and atmosphere being gathered by NASA’s Perseverance rover and return them to Earth.
>Comments can be submitted online, through the mail, or through participation in a series of virtual and in-person meetings. Advanced registration for meeting options, including in-person meetings in Utah, is not required.
>
>Two virtual meetings to discuss the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the campaign will take place on Wednesday, Nov. 30.
>The in-person meetings will be held at 6 p.m. MST on Tuesday, Dec. 6, at the Wendover Community Center, 112 E Moriah Avenue, Wendover, Utah, and on Wednesday, Dec. 7, at the Clark Planetarium, 110 S 400 W, Salt Lake City, Utah.
>
>In addition to receiving comments during the public meetings, comments may be sent to NASA in the following ways:
>Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Follow the online instructions for submitting comments and include Docket No. NASA-2022-0002. Please note that NASA will post all comments online without changes, including any personal information provided.
>By mail to Steve Slaten, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S: 180-801, Pasadena, CA 91109–8099
>Additional information on the agency’s National Environmental Policy Act process [https://www.nasa.gov/agency/nepa/] and the proposed campaign [https://mars.nasa.gov/msr/] is available online.
RELEASE 22-121