Project to colonize Mars in 11 years?

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

I dont want to waste some more time on this. HNM, if you want to go there, fine. Maybe then I dont have to "debate" you anymore which is pointless as hell.

Fine, I feel likewise. Again, I've gone past that point by simple inertia

Mostly because you feel offended by something not working as you thought and someone pointing that out and then you take that personal and construct a virtual reality in which others only argue to oppose you and because they are trolls or just want you to "loose".

Citation needed.
I point out inaccuracies, inconsistencies, fallacies and bad assumptions. I didn't ever say this was some kind of actual viable plan that will have things done by its deadlines; it's as much a thought experiment to get people actually considering it seriously rather than some of the stupid return mission ideas that sometimes get floated, or looking to new solutions rather than things that could already be repurposed for it. What I objected most to is going "it should be a return mission".

For you this quickly becomes personal, especially if some of your SciFi dreams are threatened by reality.

Ah, WTF?
Scifi has nothing to do with it. Mars is a worthless dead planet, with maybe slight historical value. If it was something like that project to build an actual ship modelled on the original Enterprise, I could understand what you meant there, but it isn't. Try harder.

Then you sift through your dictionary of fallacies and pull out some that you think do fit the argument, thus avoiding answers, while using the same or other fallacies yourself.

I'd be interested in the context for that. Generally, when I point it out, that IS an answer in and of itself; adding "Oh noes, one attempt failed so something is impossible, right? Wrong!" to that is redundant. Again, if an attempt to stop a particular mine or whatever failed, would you give up on all future attempts? I'd bet not, making a double standard.

I am not argueing against this project because I dont like Mars missions, dont like space travel or dont like manned no-return Mars missions and thus grapple for arguments to support that opinion. I am a scientist and I look for flaws in plans on a rational basis. And fact is that nothing about the technology they are proposing to use is "proven" for the purpose they intend to use it - some of it is not proven on that scale at all. As a result, to make this kind of mission work, a lot of research, testing, building, rebuilding and retesting is needed and this cannot be done within a couple of years with a low budget as they propose. I dont say that it is impossible to make a manned Mars mission - return or one-way. I just think that either of them is something that is not going to happen in the next decade and I am pointing out that there are problems lurking for both ideas that are yet unsolved and will eventually come up.

See earlier.

"I point out inaccuracies, inconsistencies, fallacies and bad assumptions. I didn't ever say this was some kind of actual viable plan that will have things done by its deadlines; it's as much a thought experiment to get people actually considering it seriously rather than some of the stupid return mission ideas that sometimes get floated, or looking to new solutions rather than things that could already be repurposed for it."
It's to encourage serious thought about how one might actually be done before the next 50 years. Don't shoot the messenger.

And using misleading links to technology does not help your case either. What's the point in saying "there already exists a nuclear reactor like it would be needed to power the colony and it is already on the way to Mars" [paraphrased] and then giving a link to a 125W plutonium battery. I actually do look up those links and dont just accept the "facts" because there is a Wikipedia link behind them.

You've done that all the time, because having blue text is something that many people will just skip over while making a point seem stronger. You've outright contradicted the text of links you've posted before. As it was, I thought your objection was to launching anything radioactive into space, when, as I CORRECTLY pointed out, the USSR did it decades ago, and even with their abysmal safety record, nothing went wrong. I wasn't claiming a direct physical equivalence anywhere.

And also when I argue that something has not worked, like Biosphere2, that does not mean that I dont think it can work, but it means that it is not "proven technology" and that it better be tested and developed before it is deployed as a cornerstone of survival on Mars

Isn't that the point of this?

Again - I dont think this is impossible, but to promise people a 5-10 year timeframe for it to get them excited is very much unscientific and unfounded and frankly I think it exactly targets techno-enthusiasts like you, HNM, who just tend to believe everything that sounds fantastic because you "want to believe".

I haven't paid a ****ing penny. I haven't joined anything. I have zero investment, interest or stake in this. I never said it would deliver objectives on time; I am almost certain it won't as things stand. Chances are, it won't happen just because governments won't spend the money anyway, but this is a demonstration if what COULD be done if people got out of their complacency and stopped letting China take the lead in anything new.