The White House Plans to Privatize the International Space Station

[SilverSliver]

Did you actually read them? You do realize that Havoc was a concept and NASA decided not to even fund the concept? The other is a paper...a paper....a paper. That is not even a project. Come on man.

Again, show me the articles that says NASA is actively promoting Venus colonization over Mars. That was your point. You have provided nothing to support it yet.

rofl, you asked for evidence that NASA scientists were working on Venus colony/exploration projects and I provided them.

By the way, what are the multiple solutions for long term microgravity exposure?

Gravity is pretty much the #1 consideration for long term, large scale colonies in our solar system. Everything else can be engineered around, to an extent, with the proper technological progress.

I'll check back from time to time, but until you can provide that, I'm not going to teach you how to Google. I know it's hard, maybe you could ask your NASA buddies how.

 

[NoOther]

rofl, you asked for evidence that NASA scientists were working on Venus colony/exploration projects and I provided them.

No, that wasn't what I asked. I like how you keep shifting it though and deflecting. Here I will help jog your memory from only a few posts ago:

Where are your sources that NASA has or is actively promoting Venus as a colonization target. Those were your words.

You are the one making specific claims. You answer those claims. I answered the claims I made already, which were in actuality not claims from myself but information taken from the sources I already provided.

 

[SilverSliver]

No, that wasn't what I asked. I like how you keep shifting it though and deflecting. Here I will help jog your memory from only a few posts ago:



You are the one making specific claims. You answer those claims. I answered the claims I made already, which were in actuality not claims from myself but information taken from the sources I already provided.

They already have various answers for the conditions on Mars

Except the most important condition that cannot be changed by man in the foreseeable future. Got it.

Mars is a billboard. It's a giant GoFundMe page to get Joe Average excited about space again. That's its purpose. Will it have a small research outpost at some point? I'm sure. But in regards to long term, large scale colonization - it's garbage.

 

[NoOther]

Except the most important condition that cannot be changed by man in the foreseeable future. Got it.

Mars is a billboard. It's a giant GoFundMe page to get Joe Average excited about space again. That's its purpose. Will it have a small research outpost at some point? I'm sure. But in regards to long term, large scale colonization - it's garbage.

You meant he most important condition that they have studied for years on the ISS? Or the one they have been testing in habitats? Or the one they have presented various possibilities over the years for? Like things already stated in this very thread? You mean other than all of that they have no answers right?

The truth is there is no concrete answer on something that isn't tested live. You are merely throwing stuff out to deflect from your comments about Venus that were proven false.

EDIT: But just to help answer your question which is really a side stab. NASA bodies in space. Current research projects. And other research.

 

[SilverSliver]

You meant he most important condition that they have studied for years on the ISS? Or the one they have been testing in habitats? Or the one they have presented various possibilities over the years for? Like things already stated in this very thread? You mean other than all of that they have no answers right?

The truth is there is no concrete answer on something that isn't tested live. You are merely throwing stuff out to deflect from your comments about Venus that were proven false.

EDIT: But just to help answer your question which is really a side stab. NASA bodies in space. Current research projects. And other research.

The long term detriment of microgravity is well understood at this point. There is no argument that it is not a detriment. We've observed it in various animals, on astronauts, just about anything you can put onto the ISS at this point.

You are citing the effect microgravity has on astronauts over long trips. I'm talking about microgravity over decades.

Artificial gravity spin? "anti-gravity' machines? You are simply throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks. Are you going to spin an entire city on a planet? That's the goal? Think about what you cite before you do it.

Gravity is the most important long term component of large scale, long term colonization. Period. Technology, in the near term, can solve for many of the other issues. We can not solve for gravity of a planet wide scale, and if we could, we would likely be at the point of leaving our solar system for more suitable planets. A floating cloud habitat on Venus is literally simple compared to altering the gravity of a planet.

 

[NoOther]

The long term detriment of microgravity is well understood at this point. There is no argument that it is not a detriment. We've observed it in various animals, on astronauts, just about anything you can put onto the ISS at this point.

You are citing the effect microgravity has on astronauts over long trips. I'm talking about microgravity over decades.

Artificial gravity spin? "anti-gravity' machines? You are simply throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks. Are you going to spin an entire city on a planet? That's the goal? Think about what you cite before you do it.

Gravity is the most important long term component of large scale, long term colonization. Period. Technology, in the near term, can solve for many of the other issues. We can not solve for gravity of a planet wide scale, and if we could, we would likely be at the point of leaving our solar system for more suitable planets. A floating cloud habitat on Venus is literally simple compared to altering the gravity of a planet.

No one stated gravity is not a problem. And as for microgravity being well understood, that is not true. They know it can be harmful, they have seen some effects from it, they can theorize about long term exposure, but no one knows everything about it. That is the point of science, we are always learning. To say something that we don't regularly experience is well understood is just not very credible.

Also the articles I posted talked about mircrogravity over the missions that will be faced on Mars. That is what we are discussing here, why do you keep shifting and deflecting? We are not really close to long-term colonization of any planet. We are only at the beginning stages of figuring out short term colonies. Perhaps you should think about that before continue to shift goals and posting. Especially when you still can provide no proof of your claims.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

Did you actually read them? You do realize that Havoc was a concept and NASA decided not to even fund the concept? The other is a paper...a paper....a paper. That is not even a project. Come on man.

Again, show me the articles that says NASA is actively promoting Venus colonization over Mars. That was your point. You have provided nothing to support it yet.

EDIT: Just for reference on the HAVOC, here is an article from 2015. You will note at the bottom where it says NASA has no plans to fund it.

You're being dishonest or just trolling. HAVOC has not been cancelled and small models of the design have actually been constructed. Did you download any of the documentation?

Try being honest: How much funding is a theoretical Mars Excursion Module getting at the moment? Name a single hardware element of an actual Mars program being funded. Even NASA's SLS isn't intended for Mars, the block 1 rockets are smaller than the proposed block 2 model for the 2030s Mars missions.

Whether we're talking about manned Mars or Venus expeditions all NASA has are design studies. The most we can be confident we're actually capable of right now is a manned flyby of either planet, maybe a mission to Phobos or Deimos. We have no hardware at all in the pipeline for Mars surface missions yet. It's entirely possible that people could go to the Venusian atmosphere first, who knows what might happen with these commercial ventures taking off.

 

[NoOther]

You're being dishonest or just trolling. HAVOC has not been cancelled and small models of the design have actually been constructed. Did you download any of the documentation?

Try being honest: How much funding is a theoretical Mars Excursion Module getting at the moment? Name a single hardware element of an actual Mars program being funded. Even NASA's SLS isn't intended for Mars, the block 1 rockets are smaller than the proposed block 2 model for the 2030s Mars missions.

Whether we're talking about manned Mars or Venus expeditions all NASA has are design studies. The most we can be confident we're actually capable of right now is a manned flyby of either planet, maybe a mission to Phobos or Deimos. We have no hardware at all in the pipeline for Mars surface missions yet. It's entirely possible that people could go to the Venusian atmosphere first, who knows what might happen with these commercial ventures taking off.

How am I being dishonest, I posted the information I had on it. Where does it say it is being funded? As of 2015, NASA had said they had no plans to fund it. NASA has been very open and forthright about a Mars mission in 2030, it is all over the news, all over NASA's site. So I don't understand where you are getting any of the information you are talking about. You have zero links, zero supporting information. How dare you tell me I am being dishonest and then say a bunch of unsubstantiated information.

As for NASA going to Mars:

Long list of missions towards Mars by NASA
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here

Compare that to plans for Venus:
Total missions to Venus
NASA talks for Venus
Actual NASA Missions

Clearly, I am the dishonest one here...

 

[SilverSliver]

No one stated gravity is not a problem. And as for microgravity being well understood, that is not true. They know it can be harmful, they have seen some effects from it, they can theorize about long term exposure, but no one knows everything about it. That is the point of science, we are always learning. To say something that we don't regularly experience is well understood is just not very credible.

Also the articles I posted talked about mircrogravity over the missions that will be faced on Mars. That is what we are discussing here, why do you keep shifting and deflecting? We are not really close to long-term colonization of any planet. We are only at the beginning stages of figuring out short term colonies. Perhaps you should think about that before continue to shift goals and posting. Especially when you still can provide no proof of your claims.

I have not 'shifted the goal post.' I said, in my first post on the thread, that making our species interplanetary was our #1 goal and Venus was the best target for a few reasons. You responded by saying it was science fiction, that floating habitats on Venus was stupid. You asked for proof NASA and other scientists have considered it. I provided the proof. You said the proof was not NASA enough. You said that all your janitor friends at NASA indicated all the problems on Mars had multiple solutions. The biggest problem on Mars, for long term colonies, is micro-gravity. I asked for your solution. You had none.

Mars is a funding magnet. People understand Mars. It's a planet, you put things on the surface, easy to understand. Trying to sell politicians on buoyant habitats on Venus? Harder sell. It's pure marketing.

 

[NoOther]

I have not 'shifted the goal post.' I said, in my first post on the thread, that making our species interplanetary was our #1 goal and Venus was the best target for a few reasons. You responded by saying it was science fiction, that floating habitats on Venus was stupid. You asked for proof NASA and other scientists have considered it. I provided the proof. You said the proof was not NASA enough. You said that all your janitor friends at NASA indicated all the problems on Mars had multiple solutions. The biggest problem on Mars, for long term colonies, is micro-gravity. I asked for your solution. You had none.v

You also stated that NASA was promoting it over Mars and that Venus was the better option. I provided a number of rebuttals with links countering that. I also showed where NASA policy clearly shows a bent toward Mars.

I also never stated to have a solution specifically for micro-gravity. I said NASA had some solutions for Mars conditions. I even linked some of those solutions. So you are being repetitively dishonest.

Mars is a funding magnet. People understand Mars. It's a planet, you put things on the surface, easy to understand. Trying to sell politicians on buoyant habitats on Venus? Harder sell. It's pure marketing.

And yet the US is not the only nation considering it. Also private companies and corporations with no politicians involved are also planning missions. No one seems to be seriously considering Venus yet. So how is that all pure marketing?

 

[SilverSliver]

You also stated that NASA was promoting it over Mars and that Venus was the better option. I provided a number of rebuttals with links countering that. I also showed where NASA policy clearly shows a bent toward Mars.

Nope. Never said they were promoting it over Mars and that NASA considered it a better option. My exact quote below, I've bolded it because you are, obviously, having trouble reading.

NASA has actively promoted Venus as a colonization target using the exact methodologies I have cited.

Which, they have. Where in my post did I say NASA thought it was better? I said they had actively promoted it. I linked the paper promoting it, and discussed the reasons from that paper why that NASA scientist thought it was viable. Based on that paper, I believed it was a better option - or at least as good as Mars given near term technology.

I also never stated to have a solution specifically for micro-gravity. I said NASA had some solutions for Mars conditions. I even linked some of those solutions.

Yes, you did. I repeatedly discussed the gravity issue. You responded by saying the following, without conditionals. No 'they have some answers' or 'they are working on what they don't know' - You said, unequivocally, NASA had various answers for the conditions on Mars. End. Stop.

They already have various answers for the conditions on Mars

I even linked some of those solutions.

Your supporting evidence was habitat spin and anti grav vacuum cleaners. Really? I hate to state the obvious, but you might need some help. Neither of these work on a city located on a planet.

 

[NoOther]

Which, they have. Where in my post did I say NASA thought it was better? I said they had actively promoted it. I linked the paper promoting it, and discussed the reasons from that paper why that NASA scientist thought it was viable. Based on that paper, I believed it was a better option - or at least as good as Mars given near term technology.

Please show me where they have actively promoted it?

Yes, you did. I repeatedly discussed the gravity issue. You responded by saying the following, without conditionals. No 'they have some answers' or 'they are working on what they don't know' - You said, unequivocally, NASA had various answers for the conditions on Mars. End. Stop.

Dishonesty right here. Show me first where I said specifically for microgravity. You mentioning microgravity doesn't mean me saying microgravity. I said conditions of which there are many. Also, I provided links specifically for things being done to try and counteract the effects of microgravity. End. Stop.

Your supporting evidence was habitat spin and anti grav vacuum cleaners. Really? I hate to state the obvious, but you might need some help. Neither of these work on a city located on a planet.

Those were only a few, they mentioned other methods as well. Perhaps you need some help in reading comprehension. They mentioned exercise, and machines that added some weight and force to help promote more muscle and bone stability. The fact is they are still exploring solutions. You not accepting the ones they are currently trying does not equate to them being bad solutions. It may take multiple solutions. They need these solutions for all planned missions that are going to take longer periods of time. As microgravity is a problem on Venus as well. So why are you only pinpointing Mars? It affects all exploration trips outside of our planet's sphere. Again, you are being dishonest.

Anyway, I am done with this conversation now. You cannot have an honest conversation or discourse or accept the truth of the situation. I am sorry for you there.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

How am I being dishonest, I posted the information I had on it. Where does it say it is being funded? As of 2015, NASA had said they had no plans to fund it. NASA has been very open and forthright about a Mars mission in 2030, it is all over the news, all over NASA's site.

You're avoiding the question. Name a single piece of manned Mars mission hardware that is currently being funded. All there are are mission design studies. Now we have a design study for Venus. Last year NASA met with and offered to collaborate with Russia on their Venera-D probe mission, providing electronics, the balloons, and a long-lived surface probe. There was also some talk of putting one of the two hubble-class telescopes NASA has in storage in orbit around Venus where it could search for Earth-crossing asteroids. All of this is doable now with the Falcon Heavy.

Please show me where they have actively promoted it?

Yes, there has been a vague 'lets go to asteroids and then Mars in 2030 plan' since Bush Jr (and before then Bush/Clinton said it was going to be in the 2020s). We'll see what happens.

 

[NoOther]

You're avoiding the question. Name a single piece of manned Mars mission hardware that is currently being funded. All there are are mission design studies. Now we have a design study for Venus. Last year NASA met with and offered to collaborate with Russia on their Venera-D probe mission, providing electronics, the balloons, and a long-lived surface probe. There was also some talk of putting one of the two hubble-class telescopes NASA has in storage in orbit around Venus where it could search for Earth-crossing asteroids. All of this is doable now with the Falcon Heavy.

That is not active promotion. That is a video from a concept for a project that is not funded. As shown by NASA's own site and agenda. NASA talked about working with Russia so Russia would launch a probe to Venus for exploration. And that is it. Nothing more. It isn't being funded either. Again, from NASA's own site and agenda. On the other hand, NASA has built rovers for Mars, they are building another, they have an agenda, plans, goals for going to Mars. They are even working with private companies on collaborations to go to Mars. All of this again, in NASA's own site and their agenda. Also, they have funding directly from Congress specifically for Mars missions with the intent to put people on Mars. It is pretty cut and dry. I provided the information. End. Of. Story.

No go on with your tinfoil hats, rainbows and unicorns.

 

[SilverSliver]

That is not active promotion. That is a video from a concept for a project that is not funded. As shown by NASA's own site and agenda. NASA talked about working with Russia so Russia would launch a probe to Venus for exploration. And that is it. Nothing more. It isn't being funded either. Again, from NASA's own site and agenda. On the other hand, NASA has built rovers for Mars, they are building another, they have an agenda, plans, goals for going to Mars. They are even working with private companies on collaborations to go to Mars. All of this again, in NASA's own site and their agenda. Also, they have funding directly from Congress specifically for Mars missions with the intent to put people on Mars. It is pretty cut and dry. I provided the information. End. Of. Story.

No go on with your tinfoil hats, rainbows and unicorns.

But but but. Rofl