No free speech in Russia?
Just look at what people write here in Russian-language section.
The same zoological russophobia (spread by Russians who often don't speak any other language!) you can find in any social media, and nobody bans them, like in some other countries.

There are more than enough dissenting voices which RT is positioned to offset internationally.
And the main motiff of the dissent boils down to: Mr Putin owes us money - on the scale Mr Qaddafi used to pay everyone in Lybia, until Mr Qaddafi was killed by the beneficiaries, who used those money to buy up armaments.
Why don't we get oil revenues like in Saudi Arabia? Why do we have to work? and so on.

In Russia you can talk complete and utter bullshit in public, without any Political Correctness, or even basic decency limiting you - and a lot of people do talk. Admittedly some miniscule percent get jailed for that (unfortunately usually not the worst offenders, just some random small guys), but any freedom comes with a small chance of responsibility.

My dream was to buy my own house and financialy stable. As i try to adopt bitcoin in my life he help me a lot specialy in financial. I starter to buy some things that i want and now i was dreaming that i can buy my own house from bitcoin. How about you what is you dream from bitcoin?

The unreasonable part is the expense involved to make the trip safely. And with war always looming, why waste time and money going to Mars?

Because the orbits of the two planets have to line up in a way that makes it a short trip. A short trip "coming AND going" isn't going to happen.

Face it, round trip to Mars is four years or longer.

Now, think about what you just said.

Those "spacecraft" were unmanned. They cost $millions or $billions. They often barely made it. They never came back, and couldn't if we wanted them to.

Even if a manned vehicle made it in a year, there's a $ton $more $expense to going there manned, and if we try to do it too fast, there would have to be even $more $expense to set things up onboard so that people could withstand the rigors of acceleration/deceleration to do it in a year safely.

With war looming, there's no way to focus on a manned Mars mission with any idea of practicality, safety, and success.

Doesn't look like we will ever be going. Looks more like a drive to get people to give more money to Congress for something that will never happen. I mean, what did we spend on going to the moon? And what did it get us? $Lots and virtually nothing. And the guys that went, barely came back. If there had been great success in all areas of manned moon missions, we would have had bases on the moon long ago, with daily flights for the public a reality.

Mars shots are just a publicity campaign... to sucker more money out of the people.

Come on and think a little.

Going to Mars might take 2 or 3 years. A teenager might be older than 22 when he gets to Mars. This is because he is in training now, as a teenager, but won't lift off for as many as 5 years or more.

Once he gets to Mars, he won't simply jump out of the lander and build a house and plant a garden. He might remain in the lander as long as a year, familiarizing himself with the terrain and climate, and sending out robot vehicles to get a clearer picture of what Mars really is.

Once the semi-robotic habitats are set up, and reasonable certainty has been made that they will support human life, then the teenager(s) might finally transfer to the habitats.

Then there's the setting up of the greenhouses, and finding out what kind of food will truly grow on Mars.

And on and on. It will be surprising if the kids haven't reached 50 years by the time that they are settled into "colony" life on Mars. But if things don't go smoothly, they might be 70... or they might be dead.

And what if there is war on Earth, and they have to reproduce on Mars, so that their kids and grandkids can possibly come back... after mining Mars for supplies to refuel the lander and orbiter. Will they be ready to avoid the radiation hot spots on earth from the home planet nuclear wars?

Sounds like science fiction, right? Well, it is. That's why teenagers... so they can live a long life out there if necessary.

That's why they are training teenagers for Mars... and also, because the kids look at the glory, not having had experience of life enough to understand the stupidity.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/991538/space-news-mars-manned-mission-alyssa-carson-nasa-astronaut

Probably so. But in space, everything is moving, so "further" means "longer." For example, the relatively huge ship displayed in "The Martian" is not unrealistic for a 2-3 year voyage for a half dozen people.

Well, how different is air travel 1968 - 2018?

The moon has some very interesting aspects but it is depleted in certain key elements of the periodic table such as H, C, N. That being the case means the Moon cannot support life by itself, and also means many things cannot be natively manufactured there. (plastics, carbon steel, ...)

Mars does have a full set of elements. It is farther away, but the rocket energy required for Mars is a bit less than the Moon.

I'm okay with that wording. By the way, this has been gone through pretty exhaustively with respect to He3 on the surface of the Moon. There, it's well known that it's worth shipping it back to Earth. It's a fusion fuel which pretty much does not exist here. And because the Moon has no atmosphere and a low gravity, means of practical return-tank-to-earth exist.

Because of the heat/cold cycles of Lunar day, and the complete vacuum, there may well come to be various scientific experiments on the Moon for which it is desirable to return samples to earth.

There could also be scientific experiments on Mars for which sample return to Earth was plausible. Not that it would be economically efficient, just that some guys here wanted those samples at any cost.

But in terms of traditional materials production, metals, plastics, for example, there is nothing so rare or valuable that it could be returned to Earth for profit. I can envision some electronics being left out in the open on Mars, and then a solar storm occurring, and it being desirable to return the circuitry to Earth for detailed examination (learn how to make it better, right?)

Those are confused ideas and trains of thought.

Every robot probe sent to Mars (or anywhere) is a complex exercise in economics.  

An assumption was made earlier by someone that a functioning economy on Mars that would require goods shipped back to Each. That is a false premise. Jus think about it. Consider a small machine that made a wheel from local materials. Future missions could buy wheels from that operation. Send two rovers instead of one because the payload is lighter since you don't need to take wheels.

That's a local economy on a small scale. And on the other side, a decision to build and send totally self contained rovers maximizes income and work for Earth bound aerospace companies. That's nothing BUT a decision based on economics.

Having said that, it's worth noting that colonization of Mars does not start when people are sent there. It starts with simple attempts to isolate raw materials with robotic operations, materials of which the extraction of is essential to human life.  In the chemical industry these would be called "pilot plants." The likes of NASA and Musk is not competent to send and operate these types of facilities.

"How can something be cheap or expensive on Mars?"

Try jumping to Mars. Get the latest position of Mars from some star chart, go out into the parking lot at just the right time, and jump real hard. Did you make it to Mars? No? Well how about this?

Buy an airplane and fly to Mars. I mean, all it will cost you is the price of the airplane and fuel. Did that work? No? Well, how about this.

Crawl on top of a NASA Saturn rocket, and have NASA fly you to Mars. Did it work? Was it cheap? No? Well, you could always go back to a bottle rocket idea. It's cheaper that way.

What is there on Mars that is going to justify the expense of going there? So far we haven't found any justification for the expense of sending our robot vehicles there. So far it has all been a waste of society time and money. So far it has done more to increase poverty on earth than we could ever imagine.

That will never be the case.

There are no materials which are cheap enough on Mars and expensive enough on Earth to every make freight plausible.

There might be a huge problem with big oil companies that will do anything to boycott the electric cars industry.

Show me scientific proof outer space is real, you're being sold a lie by SpaceX! Ask a scientist how much Mars weighs and they'll tell about how they use the gravitational constant "G" to calculate its weight. "G" is derived from an experiment that observed two heavy balls through a small hole in a 17th century shed.

They weigh Mars with heavy balls in a shed, this is their scientific proof that Mars is a giant heavy ball in the sky. You want to call me fucking mad for believing Mars is just a small light? This space shit is a total fucking scam.

I took a mountain bike and added an electric power to it. It works very well, has about 40 km range and will go 35 kph (faster than would be wise)

It is certainly practical for in town trips like going to work, weather and traffic permitting.

It was also not that expensive, something like $800 US for 1000 watt motor and 14Ah battery (If I recall correctly). There are many cheaper ones such as 250 watt motor but these are considered "pedal assist." Also in many places law limits bikes to 250 watts, to go higher you need a different registration.

Very interesting project. It led me to be less enthusiastic about the cars, though. It takes quite a bit of expensive batteries to move people around!