Ron Howards new miniseries for National Geographic - MARS

[Thebobo]

Very much looking forward to this especially after hearing Elons latest plans. In this series the missions take place in 2033, Musk wants us to get there by 2025.

Ron Howard and Brian Grazer are producing an exciting new miniseries for National Geographic. Simply titled Mars, this film is an eclectic mix of documentary, scripted drama, and exciting interviews with Andy Weir, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Peter Diamandis, according to Mashable. The production will combine science fiction and science fact and tell a true story about something that hasn’t happened yet.
Read more here

 

[Number1]

Looks exciting! Can't wait to see it, can't wait to see people on Mars for real.

 

[cbrunny]

Sounds like something I will watch, will be mediocre, and then I'll wonder why I'm watching it, then promptly stop watching. My guess: 6 minutes.

 

[JTsyo]

combine science fiction and science fact

Hopefully it's easy to tell the difference. Not so useful to have facts if it's mixed with SciFi.

 

[clamum]

Sounds cool, thanks for posting about it. I'll have to remember to check it out.

It's too bad they didn't interview Robert Zubrin too.

EDIT: Nevermind, I just watched the trailer on Nat Geo's site and did see his name. Yay

 

[Shawn]

Hopefully it's easy to tell the difference. Not so useful to have facts if it's mixed with SciFi.

There were people who thought The Martian was based on a true story so....

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Looks exciting! Can't wait to see it, can't wait to see people on Mars for real.

Why? What's the point of sending anyone to a lifeless planet? Other than the "Wow, look what we can do!!" factor, there's no benefit to sending any people or any more probes to Mars. It's a dead end. It's the same reason we stopped sending people to the moon.

 

[Thebobo]

Why? What's the point of sending anyone to a lifeless planet? Other than the "Wow, look what we can do!!" factor, there's no benefit to sending any people or any more probes to Mars. It's a dead end. It's the same reason we stopped sending people to the moon.

We stopped sending people to the moon because of people like you.

GagHalfrunt 1 - Future of the Human race 0

Space and other worlds is our frontier, its in our nature to seek out and explore strange new worlds to boldly go where no GagHalfrunt would want to go.

 

[cbrunny]

Why? What's the point of sending anyone to a lifeless planet? Other than the "Wow, look what we can do!!" factor, there's no benefit to sending any people or any more probes to Mars. It's a dead end. It's the same reason we stopped sending people to the moon.

c'mon man. everyone knows we have only until 2063 to invent FTL space travel. Gotta keep the tech moving, iterating, progressing.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

We stopped sending people to the moon because of people like you.

GagHalfrunt 1 - Future of the Human race 0

Space and other worlds is our frontier, its in our nature to seek out and explore strange new worlds to boldly go where no GagHalfrunt would want to go.

Newsflash Zippy: I didn't decide that mankind would stop going to the moon. The idea that going back would accomplish nothing is shared by pretty much everyone with a brain, which clearly is why it's such a surprise to you.

The only way to seek out and explore strange new worlds is to not waste time, money and energy chasing dead ends. All the resources that would have gone to sending more men back to the moon were used for Hubble, the Mars probe, the ISS, etc. And now that we've been to Mars and learned what little it had to teach us anyone with common sense can easily understand some simple truths. If we're going to seek out and explore strange new worlds we need to use our limited resources on other projects that might accomplish something useful rather than pissing those resources away putting a human on Mars to no benefit whatsoever.

And it's utterly astounding that you need that explained to you.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

c'mon man. everyone knows we have only until 2063 to invent FTL space travel. Gotta keep the tech moving, iterating, progressing.

Are you pushing for FTL travel just because you're so afraid of hot air balloons?

 

[lxskllr]

Why? What's the point of sending anyone to a lifeless planet? Other than the "Wow, look what we can do!!" factor, there's no benefit to sending any people or any more probes to Mars. It's a dead end. It's the same reason we stopped sending people to the moon.

Really? There's all kinds of people I'd like to send to Mars. It would benefit us all, with scientific achievement being only icing on the cake.

 

[MongGrel]

Very much looking forward to this especially after hearing Elons latest plans. In this series the missions take place in 2033, Musk wants us to get there by 2025.

Ron Howard and Brian Grazer are producing an exciting new miniseries for National Geographic. Simply titled Mars, this film is an eclectic mix of documentary, scripted drama, and exciting interviews with Andy Weir, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Peter Diamandis, according to Mashable. The production will combine science fiction and science fact and tell a true story about something that hasn’t happened yet.
Read more here

c'mon man. everyone knows we have only until 2063 to invent FTL space travel. Gotta keep the tech moving, iterating, progressing.

Iterate, iterate, iterate.

 

[OutHouse]

The idea that going back would accomplish nothing

you mean other than fostering science and innovation? ok.

 

[DrPizza]

GagHalfrunt is partially right, but wrong. At a point in the past, I'd have agreed with him, but have changed my mind. I think that one of the most common reasons people seem to have in their mind is in case something were to happen to the Earth, we would have some place to go. That's a ridiculous proposition. Look at the size of the rockets being built just to send a very few people out of Earth's gravity well, and how many years it takes to build just one; how much fuel it takes to launch one; how many thousands of people are involved in the manufacture of just one rocket. Half a billion dollars per launch (estimated). To try to put this into perspective, the rocket is bigger than a house. FAR bigger. The volume of the core stage alone is about that of a 12,500 square foot home. So, replace every house, every apartment with a 12,500 square foot home, completely filled with fuel. And, that doesn't even consider all the extra necessary infrastructure. We're also not likely to colonize Mars - at least not for a long, long, long time. We may have a couple bases there with perhaps a couple dozen astronaut/scientists, but let's look over at Antarctica. Is there much colonization going on there? No? Is it because it's a ridiculously hostile environment where people wouldn't want to live? Yeah? Mars is far, far more hostile.

But, an accomplishment such as landing man on Mars would be a huge human achievement, one that brings together people all over the world, and one that helps inspire another generation of students to become great scientists, engineers, etc.

 

[Aharami]

Why? What's the point of sending anyone to a lifeless planet? Other than the "Wow, look what we can do!!" factor, there's no benefit to sending any people or any more probes to Mars. It's a dead end. It's the same reason we stopped sending people to the moon.

you're right, there's probably nothing tangible to be gained from going to Mars. But the numbers of intangible benefits far outweigh the cost involved.

And it's utterly astounding that you need that explained to you.