beecee

No, you supported some facts as they stand at this time. Science and technology are disciplines in eternal progress. The rest was as I said, unsupported emotional rhetoric. I see that as selfish stupid emotional claptrap. But I'll leave you to your own devices and living style. I prefer foresight and hoping things will be better for my kids, his kids and there kids, kids. The Sun doesn't shine out of my arse and I'm pretty sure going on your rhetorical nonsense, it doesn't shine out of yours either. You need to get out of that bubble. It's nonsense and unsupported. Please show me a reputable link that says we cannot ever get to Mars.

No rhetorical, just as your "Mars may as well be a galaxy away" is.... History and science. As I have demonstarted many times, economy is a variant. More unsupported agenda based rhetoric. You certainly have a problem with Musk don't you. Did he sack you for something? laziness? insubordination? Ignorance?

May even be another 60 years, or are you claiming it is not ever going to happen. Personal fabricated nonsense. Economies change all the time...they are variable qualities. Like I said many times, perhaps an international effort is required...you know, like that achieved with the ISS, which has been occupied every day for 21 years.

No, the only fallacy appears to be you claiming we will never get to Mars. Whether Musk does or not is debatable, in the 2024 time frame, but I'm sure he'll have something to do with it. rhetorical rant. That's what I am telling you will happen. Or are you claiming we have reached the end of scientific knowledge and will never overcome? Let me reiterate again...science and tecnology will in time overcome the known difficulties of putting men on Mars and returning them safely....and in that same course of time, we will undertake even more trips into the unknown and further afield. You chose the time frame.

Like I said, while problems and current limitations may exist, these problems are being worked on as we speak, by scientists, engineers, cosmologists etc. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.A34262 Entry Trajectory Options for High Ballistic Coefficient Vehicles at Mars Abstract: Future large-scale Mars surface exploration missions require landed masses beyond the capability of current entry, descent, and landing technology. Hypersonic trajectory options for large ballistic coefficient vehicles are explored to assess the potential for improved landed mass capability in the absence of landed accuracy requirements. Hypersonic trajectories appropriate for use with supersonic parachute and supersonic retropropulsion descent systems are studied. Optimal control techniques are used to determine hypersonic bank-angle control profiles that achieve favorable conditions at terminal descent initiation. Terminal descent initiation altitude-maximizing bank strategies for parachute descent systems are explored across vehicle and mission design parameters of interest. A tradeoff between altitude and flight-path angle at terminal descent initiation is identified. Hypersonic trajectories that minimize required propellant for propulsive descent are identified and studied parametrically. A hypersonic ballistic coefficient and lift-to-drag ratio are shown to have the largest effects on required propellant mass fraction; changes to the vehicle state at entry interface have a smaller effect. The space of reachable supersonic retropropulsion ignition states is presented over a range of vehicle and trajectory parameters. Overall, results indicate execution of an appropriate hypersonic bank profile can significantly increase the parachute deploy altitude for parachute descent systems or reduce the amount of propellant required when compared to full lift-up entry for supersonic retropropulsion descent systems operating at Mars. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-way-to-reach-mars-safely-anytime-and-on-the-cheap/ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Please stop trying to force down my throat and other reasonable people that a Mars manned landing will never happen. Again for the umpteenth time, with a certain need for science, scientific exploration, and the simple reason of "because its there", in time, 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years we will have mastered a manned Mars landing, we will have a colony by necessity, on both the Moon and Mars. The world is full and has always been full of people who have sniggered and claimed this will not ever be achieved, that will never come about etc. Man achieved the first powered flight in 1909, now just a little bit over a 100 years later, we have landed on the Moon six times and are preparing to return and go further afield. Reminds me of another wise great scientist, Lord Kelvin and a now infamous [and silly] comment he made that went like this.....https://www.xaprb.com/blog/flight-is-impossible/ I can state flatly that heavier than air flying machines are impossible. — Lord Kelvin, 1895 I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning, or of the expectation of good results from any of the trials we heard of. So you will understand that I would not care to be a member of the Aeronautical Society. — Lord Kelvin, 1896

What do you call a person that keeps posting emotional unsupported crap? Not what I would call a reputable site...Curiosity weighed 2200 lbs, and I'm sure with scientific advancements and technology, we'll achieve much more including a manned landing. No it hasn't, not permanently. You keep making these unsupported claims, when all they really are, are personal emotionaly driven opinions.

I'll leave that to the scientists and cosmologists as you should. Nonsense. Or do you have any reputable scientific citation to support that? So what? Are you saying you want a medal? budgets, costs will not nor will ever stop mankind's quest for scientific advancement and exploration. Just as I said...there are far more knowledgable people that disagree with you and see your claims as absurd [and probably driven by an agenda] and without any reasonable foward thinking. Or are you claiming to know more then anyone else? Yes I do, and I also recognise you own lack of foresight and knowledge. Yeah of course, 🤣 and he also will never create a reusable rocket!!😁 All unsupported, obviously agenda laden rhetoric.

As there appears to be an agenda afoot, particularly with the rather silly claims that Space-X and Musk have achiebed nothing, here are some real facts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX SpaceX's achievements include the first privately funded liquid-propellant rocket to reach orbit (Falcon 1 in 2008), the first private company to successfully launch, orbit, and recover a spacecraft (Dragon in 2010), the first private company to send a spacecraft to the International Space Station (Dragon in 2012), the first vertical take-off and vertical propulsive landing for an orbital rocket (Falcon 9 in 2015), the first reuse of an orbital rocket (Falcon 9 in 2017), and the first private company to send astronauts to orbit and to the International Space Station (SpaceX Crew Dragon Demo-2 and SpaceX Crew-1 missions in 2020). SpaceX has flown and reflown the Falcon 9 series of rockets over one hundred times. SpaceX is developing a large internet satellite constellation named Starlink. In January 2020 the Starlink constellation became the largest satellite constellation in the world. SpaceX is also developing Starship, a privately funded super heavy-lift launch system for interplanetary spaceflight. Starship is intended to become the primary SpaceX orbital vehicle once operational, supplanting the existing Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy and Dragon fleet. Starship will be fully reusable and will have the highest payload capacity of any orbital rocket ever on its debut, scheduled for the early 2020s. https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/spacexs-greatest-achievements

Again, please keep your mythical nonsense out of this. You keep ignoring the fact that there is tomorrow, next year, next decade, next century etc etc. You seem stuck in some mythical stone age of your own chosing. Read my previous comment. So you have changed your mind? Good, we are getting somewhere at last. Correct, I am a lay person, but to my credit I am able to read, and comprehend reputable scientific accounts, by others far, far more reputable and obviously knowledgable then yourself. You just said costs does not matter or more correctly, it isn't about money. You seem confused? No it doesn't. Science, technology are advancing all the time. Any person of reasonable knowledge and not weighed down by an agenda knows that. We do not as yet have the means/technology to land a man on Mars and return him safely, or to create a colony where a crew maybe reasonably safe and sheltered from obvious dangers, at this time. There was also a time when our science and technology was not sufficient to create a space station or a scientific apparatus like the LHC. We have them now. With the ISS, as so often you have ignored, it is an international effort, and even more astonishingly, has been under permanent occupation every day of every year for 21 years or there abouts now. And just as obviously again, you keep ignoring the fact that I, personally am not putting any time frame on either returning to the Moon, creating a permanent colony, attempting a manned mars landing and colony, but am simply saying it will happen as we, as science, as technology progresses and allows us to achieve these goals safely. And also of course the final aspect with regards to costs of achieving these worthwhile dreams, [an aspect you seemed confused about ] I believe they should be done with an International effort.

But you do? 😅 I smell an agenda of sorts. God? Hey matey, this is a science forum, and not the place to discuss mythical nonsense. The rest of your stuff seems like an inspired rant.

What point is that? The only point is that despite the obvious difficulties that will be encountered, despite the incredible costs that are going to be involved, Moon landings, and colonies, Mars landing and colonies, will in time be achieved...10, 100, 1000 years from now...you chose the time frame, but it will happen. Understand? But again [a point you obviously keep ignoring, which tells me you have an agenda] all this should be an International effort, just as the ISS was.

Are you serious? So what? Anything worthwhile is difficult and expensive, but they still happen, eg: the ISS, the LHC, all worthehile scientific achievements that all benefit mankind. Except its bigger and better. I'll reiterate for your education...despite difficulties, despite expnses, colonies on the Moon and Mars will eventuate, in time. But again, I agree and international efort should be established to achieve these goals.

To quote a great Predsident of the USA, "We don't chose to do these things because they are easy, we chose to do them because they are hard"

😆 Rubbish. He has been shown to be worthy of the challenge and already has achieved much and I see no reason why his achievements should not continue. The only thing I will add as I have said many times, the challenge to get to Mars, and/or establish a colony on the Moon and Mars, should be an International effort.

Of course not! 😆 but it still will happen. Exploration, adventure, the need to establish ourselves further afield will always happen. In 10 years, in a 100 years, in a 1000 years...I'm not too concerned with any time frame, but space exploration, return to the Moon, a Martian manned landing, and a colony will take place...in time, and in time even further afield. You seem rather emotional in your fabricated replies as to why we will not/can not/should not, whatever your personal cause/case maybe.

😉 Try NASA for starters. And no I'm not going to go through the whole argument anymore then what I have said in this thread so far. Perhaps you need to get out of your own bubble and prosthelytizing, and do some reputable researching.

Facts speak louder then online rants.

Thankfully, many more in the know, then yourself, disagree with you. It is going to be difficult and dangerous, but it will happen, in time. We are not going to stagnate on this fart arse little blue orb.

Whether it is China or Musk/NASA we will return to the Moon like I said. In saying that it most liklely won't be China but Musk, like I said and that's why NASA has given that job to Musk. Musk has already shown what he can do.

While the timeframe maybe a bit ambitious, the point is we will return to the Moon, and that return will probably be a stepping stone towards an eventual manned Mars landing, and a safe return.

We are all varieties of animal life that arose through evolution on Planet Earth. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

I'm especially interested in the pre-Cambrian. Obviously the key to life is there. I'm not sure, as you, because of the word "unnecessary", that another nail in the coffin will do much to convince creationists. As someone very far from an expert, I would very much like to have a map of the territory, so to speak, of those Archaean seas, lakes, and puddles, and the events that took place. Re-enforcing the already accepted knowledge that the obvious process of abiogenesis, is the only scientific methodology explaining the origin and arising of life. It would certainly be a feather in the cap of science [and a big fat nail in the creationists coffin] if and when the exact methodology of that abiogenesis is known.

A number of interesting facts/data came to mind when I saw this question. [1] Scientific theories are models we use based on known data...[2] The dual nature of light/photons...[3] the fact that light/photons have no rest mass...a photon is a quanta of light or a bundle of the smallest amount of energy we can measure. Considering all that data, I came to the average sensible lay person's conclusion that a photon would have no shape. But like any good sensible lay person, I did some checking...https://physicsworld.com/a/how-to-shape-photons-using-a-trapped-atom/#:~:text=A photon is a quantum,photon's temporal shape or mode. "A photon is a quantum of light that can be described as a packet of waves that travel through space. A photon’s wavefunction is spread out over time and the specific nature of that distribution is the photon’s temporal shape or mode". :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: then this.....https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/what-shape-is-a-photon/ What shape are photons? Holography sheds light: Hologram of a single photon reconstructed from raw measurements (left) and theoretically predicted (right). Credit: FUW :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: https://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physfaq/topics/shape.html The shape of photons and electrons: extract: "A free photon can have the shape of an arbitrary solution of Maxwell's equation in vacuum. But only very special solutions are controllable and hence useful for experiments or applications. Upon production in a laser, photons are more or less localized (not precisely, this is impossible, as photons cannot have an exact position, due to the lack of a unique position operator with commuting coordinates); often only in the transversal direction of the beam - then you don't know where it is in the beam, except probabilistically. For photons on demand (that you can program to transmit information) you need to know when and where you transmit the photon, so it must be well-localized. Of course, a slit or a half-silvered mirror delocalizes a photon, and only a measurement (or decoherence along the way) relocalizes it. This enables interference effects. In these cases, the photon stops being particle-like and behaves just like an arbitrary excitation of the e/m field, i.e., like a wave. The particle picture of light is good only in the approximation where geometric optics is applicable. This has been known for almost 200 years now. The paradoxes and the alleged queerness of quantum theory both have their origin in misguided attempts to insist on a particle picture where it cannot be justified" ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Hope that helps............

On checking back, I decided to check out the Bergson character and find out who he is/was or thought he was....... https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bergson/ Ahhh, a philosopher I see. I prefer the science [and philosophy] of a scientist/physicist.....