News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Confronting the Credibility Gap for Crewed Exploration of... by Jarwain on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @09:19AM (#13229235)
I feel like a good first step would be setting up an orbital base/space station that orbits mars. It might be be a little easier than habitation On the planet itself, and more risk for the astronauts involved. However, if we set that up using knowledge gleaned from the ISS, I think its a viable path to take.
Re:Confronting the Credibility Gap for Crewed Exploration of... by chandmer on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @11:23AM (#13230276)
The attractive thing about landing on dirt is that the raw materials mean that a closed life support system isn't needed. There are relatively accessible supplies. Space stations anywhere, be that LEO, lunar orbit, Mars orbit, deep space, or floating in Venus' atmosphere, lack that option.
Re:Confronting the Credibility Gap for Crewed Exploration of... by Animats on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @02:44PM (#13232025)
That means building a mining operation and industrial plant on Mars. Big job just for a few explorers.
Re:Confronting the Credibility Gap for Crewed Exploration of... by ColanR on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @04:19PM (#13232714)
With robotics, it's no harder than any other pioneering expeditions humans have conducted.
Re:Confronting the Credibility Gap for Crewed Exploration of... by Animats on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @04:38PM (#13232845)
As I told the robotics people at Stanford who were talking about something similar on the moon in the 1980s, "how soon can you do it in Arizona?" The machines sent to Mars so far are very small and wimpy. Because they're semi-teleoperated, and have very limited solar power, they're really slow. If you want to do any high-power activity on Mars, you'll probably have to send a nuclear reactor.