Xeric wrote: 
OK, but that's why we have guys like Richard Branson.  He can afford to spend extravagantly on manned spaceflight projects for romantic reasons!  We really can't.

 bokey wrote: 
Where do you see me advocating the above?  Wasting money comes in many forms, including fighting pointless wars.

The point is, sending human flesh into space is inefficient; we can employ contractors and generate economic growth by being smart about utilizing our space flight capability and produce much more meaningful "science" along the lines of projects like Pioneer, Voyager, Mariner, etc.  You get much more bang for your buck regarding advancing the frontiers of science and knowledge when you stop insisting on sending humans into space to evacuate their bowels and vomit in zero gravity.  Stagnating is what we basically have been doing with our inefficient approach to space exploration.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
The guy who's the head of the company is a former astronaut for NASA with a PHD in Science. Hope his technology works.

 GeneP59 wrote: 
Cool.
 
It says 2014 "or later" now...
 
I never looked up who Ad Astra was. I've seen the name and just skimmed over it. Things are still awesome up there. 

There was supposed to be a test fire of a new plasma engine on the Space Station next year and I never heard anything more about it. This new engine is suppose to knock 6 months off the trip to Mars down to  a 39-day mission to Mars. If this is feasible, the new technology will make going to Mars and further a return trip not a one way ride.

 Proclivities wrote:  Not to mention dust storms that blanket the planet and radiation due to lack of atmosphere. (got your continued reference though)

 Zep wrote:  
 "...in fact, it's cold as hell"  (That simile always bothered me - I thought hell is supposed to be hot.) 
I see your point about setting up an outpost or settlement; that'll probably happen someday.  I just figure picking the first guy could be a little troublesome.  You're probably right about a lot of the westward expansion people not expecting to come back - the same is probably true for many of the early trans-Atlantic sailors.

 Zep wrote: 
*pictures Kevin Costner making coffee for a little green man*

 Zep wrote: 
It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it. (Got your Rocket Man ref)

 Proclivities wrote: 
The mission would not be to strand the astronauts, but to give them enough resources to start a new outpost.  Humans have done this on faith for generations.  It's likely many who went west during the U.S. expansion thought very little about returning. 

Think too of the opportunity to start all over again, another common theme in history. 

Still, I get your point. 200 million miles is a lot of road.   And Mars ain't the kind of place to raise a kid. 

 GeneP59 wrote: 
Good point. Beer, Babes, Baseball ... no easy balancing act, that one. 
 

 justlistening wrote: 
Well, one might wonder as to the mental health of someone who is willing to travel 200 million miles to be stranded on some cold, little planet.  It's a little beyond what test pilots do.

 Zep wrote: 
Hell you'd never go. No baseball.

 mem_313 wrote: 
I remember that too. We all went to the school cafeteria and watched it. What I remember most was the stage separation and the ring falling away. That was so cool.

 justlistening wrote: 
It would certainly encourage settlement on Mars. 

Going back to the age of exploration... did many of those sailors harbor hopes of returning home?  Columbus' first adventure certainly was not a sure thing, what with sailing over the edge of the world.  Yet people did it. 

With the right incentives, I'd consider it.  

 Umberdog wrote: 

 Umberdog wrote: 

 No doubt

 mem_313 wrote: 

Yes!  Me too! I was 7.  Watched the landing on TV in my cub scout uniform with all the other guys in my cub scout den at the den mother's house.

 GeneP59 wrote: 
Kirk is probably laying the green chick in the cargo bay.

 justlistening wrote: 
Most of the lead cast is there. So were the hell is Kirk?

Any green chicks missing?