I wouldn't agree that NASA had "many failures" like the article is claiming. They had setbacks, sure. Apollo 1 is the most well known but Gemini 8 also counts.
But those were in a time when NASA was doing completely unprecedented things and setting spaceflight records left and right. Of course things are going to go wrong occasionally. It's a far cry from today when NASA hasn't put a human into space in over a decade.
it's easier when you have someone present to make quick adjustments on the fly
Even in Apollo the humans were pretty far out of the loop. They had landing site selection and some variable thrust control. Their option was to trip an abort switch which would then automate the abort procedure.
The Russian probe that got pancaked last year might have been saved if someone had been on board to realize the automatic system was not functioning.
It might have not crashed into the moon. The ultimate result would have been the same. They wouldn't have had fuel for a second chance, the abort procedure prevents you from slamming into the moon, but it doesn't care about your ultimate orbit, so tons of station keeping would be required just to try a second time, and there's no recovery mission that's going to go get the thing.
It slammed into the moon because there was no point in adding an abort system and it was the most cost effective solution given the above.
That's why I said putting a craft on Mars is relatively easier. I was referring to a side by side comparison, not the trips required to get there.
To put something somewhere you have to get it there. You can ignore that as an engineering challenge if you like, but then your analysis will be wrong.
Even more retarded than that. Even if you completely set aside distance, Mats is a pipe dream to sell to idiots.
Why?
Because Mars has no magnetic dynamo. Molten core in layman's terms. The metal core of the planet is cold. What holds our atmosphere in place? Our magnetic dynamo.
The new atmosphere would not decay for a long time. If you had some way to generate atmosphere at all, at any rate (let's call this "magic") you would be able to maintain it indefinitely with the same "magic". Probably not even running continuously, you'd just give it periodic refills like you charge your car AC.
I wouldn't agree that NASA had "many failures" like the article is claiming. They had setbacks, sure. Apollo 1 is the most well known but Gemini 8 also counts.
But those were in a time when NASA was doing completely unprecedented things and setting spaceflight records left and right. Of course things are going to go wrong occasionally. It's a far cry from today when NASA hasn't put a human into space in over a decade.
No they don't. You just need retro rockets.
No they don't. You just need a descent engine.
Yea, so you just use rockets.
Round trip light time to the moon: 2 seconds. Round trip light time to mars: 18 minutes.
One way journey time to the moon: 3 days. One way journey time to mars: 2 years.
Solar power per m^2 available at the moon: 100% of earth. Solar power per m^2 available on mars: 68% of earth.
Going to mars is retarded.
Even in Apollo the humans were pretty far out of the loop. They had landing site selection and some variable thrust control. Their option was to trip an abort switch which would then automate the abort procedure.
It might have not crashed into the moon. The ultimate result would have been the same. They wouldn't have had fuel for a second chance, the abort procedure prevents you from slamming into the moon, but it doesn't care about your ultimate orbit, so tons of station keeping would be required just to try a second time, and there's no recovery mission that's going to go get the thing.
It slammed into the moon because there was no point in adding an abort system and it was the most cost effective solution given the above.
To put something somewhere you have to get it there. You can ignore that as an engineering challenge if you like, but then your analysis will be wrong.
Even more retarded than that. Even if you completely set aside distance, Mats is a pipe dream to sell to idiots.
Why?
Because Mars has no magnetic dynamo. Molten core in layman's terms. The metal core of the planet is cold. What holds our atmosphere in place? Our magnetic dynamo.
Mars is unlivable unless you invent magic.
The new atmosphere would not decay for a long time. If you had some way to generate atmosphere at all, at any rate (let's call this "magic") you would be able to maintain it indefinitely with the same "magic". Probably not even running continuously, you'd just give it periodic refills like you charge your car AC.
It's not about how fast it decays, it's that it does so st all. Unfixable radiation hazard right there.