Why SpaceX Are Going to Beat NASA to Mars

[james_s]

If we do find a habitable planet then sure, no reason not to send some people there, it would be interesting if nothing else. I don't consider Mars to be habitable though, it's the closest other than Earth in our own solar system but that's not saying much. The biggest problem with other possible candidates is that it will take multiple human lifespans to reach one even if it is found. Much of science fiction relies on the possibility of faster than light transport, but I just don't see that happening. It's roughly in the same realm as over-unity stuff.

[wraper]

Mars to be habitable though, it's the closest other than Earth in our own solar system but that's not saying much.

It is possible to make it habitable... by nuking the poles.

[Rick Law]

Mars to be habitable though, it's the closest other than Earth in our own solar system but that's not saying much.

It is possible to make it habitable... by nuking the poles.

How would nuking the poles help make Mars habitable?

[bson]

Mmm, well in his own mind Musk has already beaten NASA to Mars.  All that remains is the practical detail of actually going there.

[Tepe]

I'm certain you want to return to the state of science of those years. Just avoid inquisition frying your ass on a bonfire.

Ah yes, that old chestnut.

So Giordano Bruno wasn't burned at the stake after all?

[wraper]

Mars to be habitable though, it's the closest other than Earth in our own solar system but that's not saying much.

It is possible to make it habitable... by nuking the poles.

How would nuking the poles help make Mars habitable?

It would release frozen CO₂ trapped in the ice caps. That would start greenhouse effect. Due to temperature increasing the rest of frozen CO₂ would vaporize as well increasing the greenhouse effect. Then you could use plants to release oxygen from CO₂. It's not like it can be terraformed in one human generation but in theory it's possible.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

The atmosphere of Mars is 96% CO2 already.

[wraper]

The atmosphere of Mars is 96% CO2 already.

But density is only 0.6% of the earth atmosphere.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Because its mass is 1/10 that of the earth?

[wraper]

Because its mass is 1/10 that of the earth?

Nope, because it lost it's atmosphere at some point of time.
EDIT: BTW while Venus has slightly lower mass and gravity compared to Earth, atmospheric pressure is 90 times higher than on Earth.

[In Vacuo Veritas]

Mars to be habitable though, it's the closest other than Earth in our own solar system but that's not saying much.

It is possible to make it habitable... by nuking the poles.

How would nuking the poles help make Mars habitable?

It would release frozen CO₂ trapped in the ice caps. That would start greenhouse effect. Due to temperature increasing the rest of frozen CO₂ would vaporize as well increasing the greenhouse effect. Then you could use plants to release oxygen from CO₂. It's not like it can be terraformed in one human generation but in theory it's possible.

See how simple everything is? Why they don't hand over the Nuclear Football to someone clearly grounded in reality as you is a mystery.

We could have a whole other planet if only people listened to you! 

PS: Maybe add some glitter to the bombs, it would make Martian sunsets so awesome!!

[In Vacuo Veritas]

I'm certain you want to return to the state of science of those years. Just avoid inquisition frying your ass on a bonfire.

Ah yes, that old chestnut.

So Giordano Bruno wasn't burned at the stake after all?

So you don't understand your logical fallacy after all?

[wraper]

I'm certain you want to return to the state of science of those years. Just avoid inquisition frying your ass on a bonfire.

Ah yes, that old chestnut.

So Giordano Bruno wasn't burned at the stake after all?

So you don't understand your logical fallacy after all?

Says walking logical fallacy itself.

[In Vacuo Veritas]

I'm certain you want to return to the state of science of those years. Just avoid inquisition frying your ass on a bonfire.

Ah yes, that old chestnut.

So Giordano Bruno wasn't burned at the stake after all?

So you don't understand your logical fallacy after all?

Says walking logical fallacy itself.

There is no logical fallacy on my part, the burden of proof is entirely on the people making the extraordinary claims. You are nothing but cloud-shoveling daydreamers with an odd techno-religion.

[wraper]

There is no logical fallacy on my part, the burden of proof is entirely on the people making the extraordinary claims. You are nothing but cloud-shoveling daydreamers with an odd techno-religion.

Wait a minute. Logical fallacy and burden of proof are two completely different things. You are just changing the topic. And burden of proof for what particularly? Most of extraordinary claims are coming from you.

Logical fallacy changing subject
A related concept is that of the red herring, which is a deliberate attempt to divert a process of enquiry by changing the subject. Ignoratio elenchi is sometimes confused with straw man argument.

[In Vacuo Veritas]

There is no logical fallacy on my part, the burden of proof is entirely on the people making the extraordinary claims. You are nothing but cloud-shoveling daydreamers with an odd techno-religion.

Wait a minute. Logical fallacy and burden of proof are two completely different things. You are just changing the topic. And burden of proof for what particularly? Most of extraordinary claims are coming from you.

Logical fallacy changing subject
A related concept is that of the red herring, which is a deliberate attempt to divert a process of enquiry by changing the subject. Ignoratio elenchi is sometimes confused with straw man argument.

The typical logical fallacy from your camp is usually in the form of: "they laughed at (insert famous historical figure here) too!". Unfortunately, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Being laughed at is no guarantee that you're actually right.

Burden of proof is on your side. You're the ones with the borderline maniacal claims of blowing up Mars's poles to get an atmosphere, or your "Preserve The Species" sermons, or "Asteroid of DOOM!!".

Do you not see where maybe a little tiny little bit of ... um... skepticism is warranted?

How did you even arrive at your hysterical world view anyways?

[ebastler]

How would nuking the poles help make Mars habitable?

It would release frozen CO₂ trapped in the ice caps. That would start greenhouse effect. Due to temperature increasing the rest of frozen CO₂ would vaporize as well increasing the greenhouse effect. Then you could use plants to release oxygen from CO₂. It's not like it can be terraformed in one human generation but in theory it's possible.

Oh yeah -- let's mess up a planet before we even live there!
Progress!! 

[wraper]

The typical logical fallacy from your camp is usually in the form of: "they laughed at (insert famous historical figure here) too!". Unfortunately, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Being laughed at is no guarantee that you're actually right.

Please insert a quote to prove your claim (burden of proof).
From my side I said:

And I’m not sure how you can see innovation and inspiration in a video showing failures as silly as “ran out of fuel”. That, to me, just plain shows poor design or planning.

So poor that nobody else besides them got landing working. All other space companies and most people overall were laughing about their "silly attempts" those days. Now nobody in those companies is laughing because SpaceX ate a lot of their market share. How to see inspiration? This video was created by SpaceX themselves and posted on their own channel. Those all were landing attempts before they got technology working. Once they got landing working, now it seems more like a routine operation.

Which certainly is not what you suggested. That was rebuffing what was said about particular company, by stating their achievements. Not a joke about some historical figure.

Burden of proof is on your side. You're the ones with the borderline maniacal claims of blowing up Mars's poles to get an atmosphere, or your "Preserve The Species" sermons, or "Asteroid of DOOM!!".

Maybe you have a problem understanding a context and satire like preschool kids do. That was first said more like a joke. Then I explained it is possible in theory. Nobody said it is viable or should be actually done.

[wraper]

How would nuking the poles help make Mars habitable?

It would release frozen CO₂ trapped in the ice caps. That would start greenhouse effect. Due to temperature increasing the rest of frozen CO₂ would vaporize as well increasing the greenhouse effect. Then you could use plants to release oxygen from CO₂. It's not like it can be terraformed in one human generation but in theory it's possible.

Oh yeah -- let's mess up a planet before we even live there!
Progress!! 

You apparently fave the same problem as In Vacuo Veritas. Read my previous post.

[Tepe]

I'm certain you want to return to the state of science of those years. Just avoid inquisition frying your ass on a bonfire.

Ah yes, that old chestnut.

So Giordano Bruno wasn't burned at the stake after all?

So you don't understand your logical fallacy after all?

What fallacy? I haven't offered any opinion about the feasibility of space travel here.

[In Vacuo Veritas]

[wraper]

or "Asteroid of DOOM!!".

[wraper]

This sure is very sound and strong argument.

stupid sci-fi picture

From someone just a while ago wrote V 

The typical logical fallacy from your camp is usually in the form of: "they laughed at (insert famous historical figure here) too!". Unfortunately, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Being laughed at is no guarantee that you're actually right.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

EDIT: BTW while Venus has slightly lower mass and gravity compared to Earth, atmospheric pressure is 90 times higher than on Earth.

I didn't know that. It's pretty cool. Well, no, cool, no:

"The mass of its atmosphere is 93 times that of Earth's, whereas the pressure at its surface is about 92 times that at Earth's [..] The density at the surface is 65 kg/m3, 6.5% that of water or 50 times as dense as Earth's atmosphere [..] surface temperatures of at least 735 K (462 °C; 864 °F)"

WTF!