Pluto

Discussion in 'Non Surf Related' started by Towelie, Jul 14, 2015.

  1. Tlokein

    Tlokein Well-Known Member

    Oct 12, 2012
    Check out the documentary Mars Underground. Some viable reasons for sending people to Mars. Doable with existing tech and not too expensive compared to the overall budget.

    Personally I think we should be doing both manned and unmanned.
     
  2. aka pumpmaster

    aka pumpmaster Well-Known Member

    Apr 30, 2008
    any mars mission will have to be. automated supply ships to precede the manned landing.
     

  3. Barry Cuda

    Barry Cuda Guest

    It cannot be just "manned"!! There would HAVE TO BE females AND manned!! I have my priorities straight; I cannot say the same for youz guys!!! Freaking rainbowers you all are!!!
     
  4. Banned for being awesome

    Banned for being awesome Well-Known Member

    Feb 17, 2012
    From a Hollywood studio. You are welcome chicaronne
     
  5. Towelie

    Towelie Well-Known Member

    Nov 27, 2014

    To quote a certain movie character in a certain movie talking to a certain teacher of a certain daughter : " are you saying we didn't land on the moon? "
     
  6. Towelie

    Towelie Well-Known Member

    Nov 27, 2014
  7. aka pumpmaster

    aka pumpmaster Well-Known Member

    Apr 30, 2008
    [​IMG]
     
  8. Tlokein

    Tlokein Well-Known Member

    Oct 12, 2012
    Pretty much what they proposed, and for 1/10th of the cost that NASA said. Send a return vehicle and habitat ahead of time. Have bots start making water, O2, and fuel. Once they confirm that's working, send the manned flight with a second return vehicle. That way they have a spare if the first ERV fails. If not then they leave it there for the next mission. Could start a chain of ERV's and habitats. The path they plotted takes only 6 mos, the astronauts stay for a year and half, then 6 mos trip home. Could keep expanding and building. If successful and robust could start a flow of humans to Mars.

    NASA killed it since it didn't require using the ISS or building the ships in space. I.e. their pet projects.

    Anyone know of the feasibility of tunnelling underground and building there? One of the biggest problems is lack of a magnetic field, so radiation is a big killer. Mars isn't geologically active, no tectonic plates moving. Why not just tunnel into the bedrock and build there? You've got a stable, protected, and easily sealed habitat. Start growing plants hydroponically and you could have a more sustainable, permanent settlement. Obviously I have no expertise in this area, just a thought. Maybe someone out there can shed some light on whether this would be a good idea or not.

    Build up enough of a settlement then start mining the asteroids. IIRC I read an article a couple years ago saying there are asteroids chock full of rare and heavy metals. A gold mine, literally and figuratively. Mars could be a processing center for mining the asteroids.

    Just some random thoughts...
     
  9. Towelie

    Towelie Well-Known Member

    Nov 27, 2014
    So... how close, do you think, are we to three-titted martian hookers?

    This is obviously the real question here.
     
  10. aka pumpmaster

    aka pumpmaster Well-Known Member

    Apr 30, 2008
    go grab a book called Red Mars. It outlines pretty much what you are talking about but they propose using basically sandbags filled with martian soil for the first construction.
     
  11. Tlokein

    Tlokein Well-Known Member

    Oct 12, 2012
    Great! Thanks pumpmaster.