Do you think it's right for NASA to run the 'One-way trip to mars' misson?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

1. It's an interesting feat., but not amazing. Amazing would be bringing them back and forth, not doing what some people do and that is lick or spit on food to claim it as their own.

2. I honestly don't know where you got that comparison, so I won't answer such a silly question as the two are completely different. International Space Station workers tend to come back.

3. Don't make up stories. He obviously stated "returning" as a new concept, referring to moon landings and any other space adventures or experiments. If he was stating the idea as developing, he would of done. And it's not been 100 years yet, century = 100 years. Look it up. Last time I checked, man didn't go into space until 1961 (Russian interstellar space mission). It's not 2061, so it hasn't been a century and the prior to this with testing and so forth, the first tests weren't done in the early 1900s.

---

Really? If you read over the last few posts you will see where i got that comparison.

He did state it as developing actualy.

He said it

Quote:

---

developed over the past few centuries

---

And to the rest of point three , you seem to be arguing with me over a point i didn't make? All i said is you quoted pink panther about something that hadn't any reason for you to say "it hasn't been 100 years yet".

The story about travelling to America is absolute rubbish in comparison. Water ships and "space" ships work completely differently to each other, one of which is probably alot safer and surviving journeys have changed considerably. And the concept of returning isn't new at all? History is littered with exploration, journeys and so forth. The journey to America was only problematic because peasants went there without the proper, tried and tested equipment - Christopher Columbus for example, he did well surviving. Unless you mean recently as in between now and 0 A.D? :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eoin247

Really? If you read over the last few posts you will see where i got that comparison.

He did state it as developing actualy.

He said it

And to the rest of point three , you seem to be arguing with me over a point i didn't make? All i said is you quoted pink panther about something that hadn't any reason for you to say "it hasn't been 100 years yet".

---

Look up the difference between "developed" and "developing".

Anyway, I seem to be attacked saying I don't think it should happen for some unknown reason, when all I stated was that it's not amazing as it just seems to be a game of "who can get there first".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

Look up the difference between "developed" and "developing".

---

Lol let me explain.

He said developed over the past few centuries which is another way of saying it was developing

It's like saying it cooked over the last three hours, another way of saying it was cooking.

Understand now? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eoin247

Lol let me explain.

He said developed over the past few centuries which is another way of saying it was developing

It's like saying it cooked over the last three hours, another way of saying it was cooking.

Understand now? :)

---

"Developed in the past few centures" is referring to the past development. He didn't suggest it was ongoing development ;)

Like saying it cooked within the past few hours, meaning it cooked with in the past few hours and is now cooked.

So we are in agreement he did say developing over the past few centuries, which was what i originaly said. :)

Back on topic however, this hasn't recieved as much media attention as i thought it would.

Looking at the major news sites recently i failed to see very much (if any) mention of this programme.

Kinda funny, if you said to people twenty years ago that we'd have people living on mars before we had them living on the moon they would laugh at you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eoin247

So we are in agreement he did say developing over the past few centuries, which was what i originaly said. :)

Back on topic however, this hasn't recieved as much media attention as i thought it would.

Looking at the major news sites recently i failed to see very much (if any) mention of this programme.

Kinda funny, if you said to people twenty years ago that we'd have people living on mars before we had them living on the moon they would laugh at you.

---

No... Because you said it was "developing", when he said it had already developed (with reference to the past few centuries), so they're not the same :P

Is it actually to colonise? Because at the moment it's being advertised as a race to Mars, rather than any sort of colonisation mission. The media might not be bothered as it's too far away to care, and has been on the cards for so long already :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

No... Because you said it was "developing", when he said it had already developed (with reference to the past few centuries), so they're not the same :P

Is it actually to colonise? Because at the moment it's being advertised as a race to Mars, rather than any sort of colonisation mission. The media might not be bothered as it's too far away to care, and has been on the cards for so long already :)

---

Well i suppose if they're going to live there and stay there it's the beginings of colonising mars. Nonetheless you are correct in saying it's also a race. Yeah the ideas been around for ages but i would have thought that the media would have weekly stories on this , maybe NASA aren't giving out anything anymore.

All i said in my first post about developing was "it was an idea developing over the past few centuries", so we're not in agreement then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eoin247

Well i suppose if they're going to live there and stay there it's the beginings of colonising mars. Nonetheless you are correct in saying it's also a race. Yeah the ideas been around for ages but i would have thought that the media would have weekly stories on this , maybe NASA aren't giving out anything anymore.

All i said in my first post about developing was "it was an idea developing over the past few centuries", so we're not in agreement then?

---

Bottom bit: It was PinkPanther who said it, not you, thus why I replied to his post and not yours :P

Are they actually going to stay and live there though? Launching a rocket into a rock and hoping the people survive for a few days isn't really colonising. It's only colonising if they start building things and securing a foundation, but so far all the information seem to point at just launching them there and waiting for them to die, all in the name of being able to beat Russia/China to the Mars landing race (even though the two other nations will no doubt have a return mission). It seems to be in the early stages of planning though, so there may just be nothing to report on.

People had love for space flight all those years ago. They mentioned a mission to mars 40 years ago. It so happens that they did have a plan to go to mars back in the 1970s to be setting off for mars by 1983 or round about that time.

This was because before the budget cuts of the Apollo era, NASA were doing very well and they had planned to build a space station to orbit earth. They planned to have a 12 man space station by 1973, a 24 man space station by '78 and then a mission to have a space station around the moon in early 80s and then mars around '83.

This had to be slashed because of Nixon deciding he wasn't avid on spaceflight, which left NASA wet behind the ears, because they were already planning and developing heavy lift rockets to start building and developing in space.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SirTezza

People had love for space flight all those years ago. They mentioned a mission to mars 40 years ago. It so happens that they did have a plan to go to mars back in the 1970s to be setting off for mars by 1983 or round about that time.

This was because before the budget cuts of the Apollo era, NASA were doing very well and they had planned to build a space station to orbit earth. They planned to have a 12 man space station by 1973, a 24 man space station by '78 and then a mission to have a space station around the moon in early 80s and then mars around '83.

This had to be slashed because of Nixon deciding he wasn't avid on spaceflight, which left NASA wet behind the ears, because they were already planning and developing heavy lift rockets to start building and developing in space.

---

Interesting, I heard before about how while all other technologies have advanced rapidly during the last 20 years space technology has actualy slowed.