Subject: Re: Richard Feynman explains why Mars a one way trip
If you misread what other people are saying, then you won't be able to have a productive discussion with anyone.

Who is misunderstanding who? You’re the one making definitive statements about what technology exists or does not exist. Or can not exist.

No offense, but you’re in no position to judge. Or make sweeping generalized conclusions of that nature especially in regards to current or future research.

I posted the aerogel paper to see if anyone would try to engage in a thought experiment. That would require someone to question what an aerogel is, what it’s used for and think about why having something with the density of air, near zero thermal conductivity and oh-by-the-way-can-be-custom-configured-to-block-different-types-of-radiation would have an incredible potential for space travel.

And then juxtapose that with the Mars space travel problem to see if there might be ways to leverage what we already know about aerogels to make them better.

Alas.

Pretending that's not true because you think it's inconsistent with a "can-do" spirit would be foolhardy.

Who did that? Nobody. In fact, which one of us gave a narrative about how NASA worked out a very cool solution to a challenging problem back in the 1960s? I could have chosen Tang or a dozen other examples.

Again, there were voices in the 1960s who said Apollo was a waste of money. Ironically if they’re still around those same people probably use the tech developed for the space program every day and don’t realize it.