Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: trax1 on July 31, 2008, 09:42:22 PM
-
The Phoenix lander found water in the Mars north pole, it was found just below the permafrost. You can read more here:
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-science/20080731/Phoenix.Mars/ (http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-science/20080731/Phoenix.Mars/)
-
Well.. We all but knew it was there :) Now we need to go make something of it.
-
Quaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiii iiid
-
(http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff169/banshee7_2007/WaterOnMars2_gcc.jpg)
-
Well.. We all but knew it was there :) Now we need to go make something of it.
agreed.
-
Yeah no real surprise that water was there. The real story though is that they found that the soil is full of nutrients and could actually support plant life. Now just get the atmosphere in check and start planting.
-
The shame is that NASA will continue to spend every resource (men & money) on Mars instead of what it should be doing. I cant wait until private industries begin to do profit driven missions to space and we reap many many more benefits than NASA will ever give us. Making Mars suitable for humans will take 10,000 years.
-
:rock
-
Please do tell challenge. What should NASA be doing if not space exploration?
-
Please do tell challenge. What should NASA be doing if not space exploration?
Chalenge is in favor of more drilling. He doesn't know where and he doesn't know when... And he obviously doesn't know what NASA's charter is if he makes stupid statements like he did.
-
Please do tell challenge. What should NASA be doing if not space exploration?
You know, space... profits... science... benefits... etc. I'm not sure why you don't get it, it's pretty clear.
-
Helium-3 (He3) is worth $5.7 million/kilo
http://www.direct.ca/trinity/helium3.htm
Artemis project: http://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.html
From Space.com: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html
Even ABC has reported on this Im surprised you missed it: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200411/s1252715.htm
True we arent ready yet and it could take a few years but why waste money on a project that requires technology that we know will take one hundered centuries to accomplish when we already have an energy crisis today?
I also believe we should be sending probes to map out minerals and resources of the asteroid belt. Theres enough material there to produce ten earths or more worth of raw material.
-
Chalenge is in favor of more drilling. He doesn't know where and he doesn't know when... And he obviously doesn't know what NASA's charter is if he makes stupid statements like he did.
NASA is controlled primarily by the purse strings of our government. Name one such entity that is both profitable and efficient.
-
The shame is that NASA will continue to spend every resource (men & money) on Mars instead of what it should be doing. I cant wait until private industries begin to do profit driven missions to space and we reap many many more benefits than NASA will ever give us. Making Mars suitable for humans will take 10,000 years.
Feed the babies
Who dont have enough to eat
Shoe the children
With no shoes on their feet
House the people
Livin in the street
Oh, oh, theres a solution
-
The mars-jupiter belt is less than the moon in mass, I think (yep 4-5% of the Moon).. Not to say there isn't a huge amount of resources within jupiter's orbit..
-
Quaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiii iiid
YOU BLABBED QUAAAAAID !!!! WHY'D YA HAVE TO TALK ABOUT MARS ???!?!?!!?
-
The mars-jupiter belt is less than the moon in mass, I think (yep 4-5% of the Moon).. Not to say there isn't a huge amount of resources within jupiter's orbit..
Sorry I wrote that wrong. There is more material there then we will ever mine here on earth by a factor of ten. I think I wrote it right that time! Could be good stuff could be worthless rock and ice.
-
He3 is also on the moon, or am I mixing it up with something else?
-
Feed the babies
Who dont have enough to eat
Shoe the children
With no shoes on their feet
House the people
Livin in the street
Oh, oh, theres a solution
Do you think that stuff about geesus feeding 10,ooo people at the sermon with a loaf of bred and a dead fish was true?
-
He3 is also on the moon, or am I mixing it up with something else?
It's supposed to be.. A guy called Bill Stone is set to lead the way to Shackleton crater on the moon, plans to go there without the return fuel to save weight/trade it for more eqpt., and mine it himself for the return trip and to jumpstart the industry.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,242780.msg2958786.html#msg2958786
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bill_stone_explores_the_earth_and_space.html
etc
Sorry I wrote that wrong. There is more material there then we will ever mine here on earth by a factor of ten. I think I wrote it right that time! Could be good stuff could be worthless rock and ice.
IIRC even an average rock would provide really big amounts of resources.
-
Keep Mars red!!!!!!!!!! Say no to terraforming.
Anyone read the Kim Stanley Robinson novels? Really enjoyed them - had a sense of reality about them unlike most sci-fi. No doubt we would screw up Mars if we ever got there just like in his vision.
-
Deuterium is what im interested in. If its on mars I say we farm it.
-
Water is not the only thing on mars i tell ya.Don't mess with mars
(http://vwt.d2g.com:8081/mars_attacks.jpg)
-
The shame is that NASA will continue to spend every resource (men & money) on Mars instead of what it should be doing. I cant wait until private industries begin to do profit driven missions to space and we reap many many more benefits than NASA will ever give us. Making Mars suitable for humans will take 10,000 years.
what should nasa be doing?
-
Seriously though, who in their right mind would WANT to live on Mars?
That's almost insane as wanting to live in Nevada!
(http://www.marsdaily.com/images/mars-mera-sol-1000-panorama-release-mcmurdo-desk-1024.jpg)
-
I have had a question ever since I heard about this terra-forming idea. Isn't there more problems with getting life to thrive on Mars than just the atmosphere?
From what I have heard the core is solid, no molten material or solid iron core to produce the protective magnetic field that the Earth has. Without that wouldn't the radiation from the Sun fry anything that even attempted to grow?
I also have heard that with the lower gravity there maintaining keeping a decent atmosphere there would not be likely and the planet would loose alot of it into space.
I know there are alot of very highly educated people who have put thought into these ideas and they must have considered these problems. I just wondered what their answers were to the above problems.
I am not real sure about the atmosphere question but the absence of the magnetic field is a major problem.
-
Well wtg Mr. Wizard....ruin the fantasy for me. :)
-
Well wtg Mr. Wizard....ruin the fantasy for me. :)
if you were referring to me, I am sorry but I have seen a alot of programs on television and articles written where scientist have stated that there are possibilities for terra-forming. None of them ever discuss these things though. I actually were wondering if anybody had any answers to those questions.
-
So, a small piece of water now allows NASA to drain another few trillion tax dollars just to lose three machines in the process due to, "mechanical failures."
Way to go! Keep looking for nothing.
-
Terraforming mars would cost alot. I belive the pricetag for level one terraforming is 50.000 metal and 100.000 deuteriuim units. But thats not all. You must have 1000 units of energy from either solar sats, fusion reactors or solar plants. To get those you need robotic factories, shipyards and mines.
Its a massive project :(
-
Yeah it's centuries' work for any terraforming, and if atmosphere comparable to earth were added to mars, it'd last under a thousand years or so for the reasons Dkf mentionned. For now it's way more interesting to use sheltered spaces. Those huge pits would probably be convenient to start with.
So, a small piece of water now allows NASA to drain another few trillion tax dollars just to lose three machines in the process due to, "mechanical failures."
Way to go! Keep looking for nothing.
You're welcome to do better than them given the difficulties and available resources.. If there's nothing in space according to you, you're better off minding your navel down here on earth. There's 10x times the amount of cash wasted on social programs and general politician mismanagement right here for you to wring your wrists at. You could probably wring em against a calculator and see how accurate "another few trillions" of dollars is, to start with.
-
thets move to mars and get away from these punk kids! :rock
-
So, a small piece of water now allows NASA to drain another few trillion tax dollars just to lose three machines in the process due to, "mechanical failures."
Way to go! Keep looking for nothing.
Few trillion dollars?? :rofl :rofl NASA's budget is a joke compared to practically every other govenrment agency. And the trickle down of applied technology to the economy has more than paid for itself.
You're welcome to do better than them given the difficulties and available resources.. If there's nothing in space according to you, you're better off minding your navel down here on earth. There's 10x times the amount of cash wasted on social programs and general politician mismanagement right here for you to wring your wrists at. You could probably wring em against a calculator and see how accurate "another few trillions" of dollars is, to start with.
News Flash!! Moot battles Luddites on planet Earth. You can't miss it. It's at the center of the "admitted" Universe.
-
lol! What we need is a lex luthor at the head of nasa.
-
lol! What we need is a lex luthor at the head of nasa.
Funny thing is, I've dealt with the guys at NASA. You won't find a cheaper, more anal-retentive, penny-pinching bunch.:lol
-
Yeah no real surprise that water was there. The real story though is that they found that the soil is full of nutrients and could actually support plant life. Now just get the atmosphere in check and start planting.
Now we know what to do with our extra c02. If we can get some new coal electricty plants going we should have plenty to export to Mars. :aok
-
Funny thing is, I've dealt with the guys at NASA. You won't find a cheaper, more anal-retentive, penny-pinching bunch.:lol
I dont see much going to NASA if Emperor Hope Daddy gets in the white house. I'll bet 1/2 his supporters dont even know we landed men on the moon. "Huh""Huh""Huh""Huh"?
Then by the time we finish off paying the reparating there aint going to be much left.
-
...
I am not real sure about the atmosphere question but the absence of the magnetic field is a major problem.
I saw that too and its part of my thoughts regarding what I already said. We could heat the core but not sure what that would do to the planet. Without a molten core and magnetic field (electromagnetisphere) the solar winds will continue to rip away at Mars and any dense atmosphere we could recreate.
So, a small piece of water now allows NASA to drain another few trillion tax dollars just to lose three machines in the process due to, "mechanical failures."
Way to go! Keep looking for nothing.
NASAs budget for 2009 is just under eighteen billion. I think they could trim the Constellation sciences budget from three billion to a couple hundred million but for some reason they think thats important.
At some point I think NASA has to start experimenting with landings on other planets. As our technology improves it will be safer. I dont believe we are ready to do this with a large safety margin. One of the robotic explorer missions we sent to Mars was assembled as a joint effort of American and European agencies. Somewhere between all the various units and conversions someone misplaced a decimal point so that during the atmospheric entry point the vehicle slowed too much and fell like a stone instead of skipping across the atmosphere to slow down properly and then descend as planned. I dont want to see that happen to people and if there are mistakes like that how can they take on landing people there?
-
I dont see much going to NASA if Emperor Hope Daddy gets in the white house. I'll bet 1/2 his supporters dont even know we landed men on the moon. "Huh""Huh""Huh""Huh"?
Then by the time we finish off paying the reparating there aint going to be much left.
We landed on the moon? You buy that? Capricorn 1 man, Capricorn 1. Just ask OJ, he knows about the whole scam. :D
-
Somewhere between all the various units and conversions someone misplaced a decimal point so that during the atmospheric entry point the vehicle slowed too much and fell like a stone instead of skipping across the atmosphere to slow down properly and then descend as planned. I dont want to see that happen to people and if there are mistakes like that how can they take on landing people there?
By learning from each mistake and not repeating it, the same way that that conversion snafu won't happen again. Space is just another trip thru and to terra incognita. Gotta get your toes wet at some point.
-
Seriously though, who in their right mind would WANT to live on Mars?
That's almost insane as wanting to live in Nevada!
(http://www.marsdaily.com/images/mars-mera-sol-1000-panorama-release-mcmurdo-desk-1024.jpg)
Is this really Mars or Iran/Iraq??
-
If we can't manage to land on and live on the nearest planet that has water and other resources given the current technology, just how are we going to mine the asteroids? There is the whole no habitat in space, no way to maintain bone density in long term space missions, no way to land then actually mine the asteroids at the present time. No way to return the materials, just what are you going to do for fuel once you get there? If we can't manage to land on an entire planet how are we going to land on an asteroid that has a non stable orbit not to mention things like tumble?
The asteroid mining is a great concept but it's beyond the steps we would need to do to simply land and survive on Mars. Hell if the Mars atmosphere is not sufficient to shield the astronauts from solar wind, radiation and other "bad" things, how will an airless rock do so?
-
Speaking of NASA's budget it is a joke now, back during the Apollo program NASA's budget was 4% of the National budget, now it's somewhere around 1/6 of a %, it's a total joke.
-
The entire problem of getting recruits to live on Mars would be simple. Just make sure a lot of really good looking woman are recruited to go there. That will cost you some money but not as much as paying both men and woman.
If enough good looking woman are on-planet, and if maybe theres a good dance club built, then guys will flock to Mars. And they will probably go for free.
Added incentives would be free beer, pizza joints, free cable, and on-line gameing. Really thats all guys do anyway so why not do it on Mars?
Make it at least a 3 to 1 ratio of girls to boys. Problem solved.
-
OH great ! Water on Mars.
I am just thrilled beyond belief. No wait...that was just boredom.
-
The asteroid mining is a great concept but it's beyond the steps we would need to do to simply land and survive on Mars. Hell if the Mars atmosphere is not sufficient to shield the astronauts from solar wind, radiation and other "bad" things, how will an airless rock do so?
We have already landed probes on comets and we wont even need to man operations to asteroids. Fuel can be collected on the way and we already have robotic collectors that we use here on earth (robotic salt mining robots for instance). NASA already agrees that these are the 'better return on investment' missions but they are not high profile enough for the public and have been pushed back off the budget. Mars is a much loftier goal.
-
Well.. We all but knew it was there :) Now we need to go make something of it.
If they find hops, barley, and malt on Mars as well...THEN we've made all those tax dollars worth while!
ROX
-
Mav it's not that we can't manage your first point with the technology, it's that there's far too little political backing. There's also way too much red tape inertia in Nasa. Not enough tolerance for risk in Nasa, the govt, and from the public. It's unrealistic to assume we can do so much new development in space without breaking some eggs along the way.
We could be on Mars right now, if the Apollo momentum had continued.
Regarding the rest, I know I've seen detailed studies of all of that, but didn't read them. I'm pretty sure it's workable. e.g. Astronauts were on the moon for 6 hours at a time. Water layers in spacecraft hull will stop most radiation. And going to near earth objects is actualy a pretty good intermediate step to Mars; lots to learn at shorter distances.
Rip - Look at this..
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/03/04/a-one-way-one-person-mission-to-mars/
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/05/26/one-way-mission-to-mars-us-soldiers-will-go/
-
Mav it's not that we can't manage your first point with the technology, it's that there's far too little political backing. There's also way too much red tape inertia in Nasa. Not enough tolerance for risk in Nasa, the govt, and from the public. It's unrealistic to assume we can do so much new development in space without breaking some eggs along the way.
We could be on Mars right now, if the Apollo momentum had continued.
Mainly due to the fact that just like the American initail stabs at the Gemini & Mercury projects there were costly problems. Some test rockets blew up on the pad. America sadly lost 3 brave sons on Apollo 1 that died in a fire on the gantry during a practice session.
I remember reading books as a kid saying "we" (America) would not only land a man on Mars before 2000, but we would have a permant colony there.
Things don't always work as planned.
America has also had costly mishaps in our Mars program. One probe got all the way to Mars, then crashed into it. Flush all that time, effort, and tax money down the drain. That's why they have been so careful with this present one. Yes we've "broken eggs" along the way and they haven't been cheap.
Please don't make this a personal Moot vs ROX issue, because it's not intended to be, but the "we" you speak of is the American Taxpayer.
The Apollo series went back with a few later lunar landings. At the time, the scientists here figured they had enough moon rocks and moon dust to keep them busy for awhile and they were right. And then...there were NASA budget cuts by congress.
The joint US/Soyuz mission was a huge initiation to international cooperation in space. Skylab was a decent effort, and now the ISS is the best example so far. It's GREAT to see other countries join in the effort...but by far the biggest chunk of the price tag is paid by the American taxpayer, and since it is, there are politics to deal with.
The US might enjoy those in the international community to help throw in a bigger slice of the funding to get the benifits of whatever scientific knowledge there is to be had...not to mention the national pride of having one of their own be part of the ISS missions.
I believe we will go to Mars in the next 20 years, but the technology to get a big enough solid rocket booster there on the short haul, and get the crew home on either the long or short hauls just isn't there yet. Maybe the ISS and new fuel possibilities will get there.
ROX
ROX
-
Helium-3 (He3) is worth $5.7 million/kilo
http://www.direct.ca/trinity/helium3.htm
Artemis project: http://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.html
From Space.com: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html
Even ABC has reported on this Im surprised you missed it: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200411/s1252715.htm
True we arent ready yet and it could take a few years but why waste money on a project that requires technology that we know will take one hundered centuries to accomplish when we already have an energy crisis today?
I also believe we should be sending probes to map out minerals and resources of the asteroid belt. Theres enough material there to produce ten earths or more worth of raw material.
Why not go after the billions of Manganese Nodules at the bottom of our Oceans first?
-
Why not go after the billions of Manganese Nodules at the bottom of our Oceans first?
Would you believe taxes?
-
Would you believe taxes?
I mean, instead of worrying about going out into the Asteroid belts, etc.
-
Rox,
I highly doubt they'll use a solid-fuel rocket for something like that. Something along the line of a plasma/ion engine is more likely.
-
I believe we have the technology to build orbital platforms in space from materials in the asteroid belt. We could save a lot of money in fuel costs and expendable parts. We could use robots that would therefore save on risks to man. We could pick up fuel as the mission goes forward and we would learn a great deal too.
Nothing wrong with Mars as a project but I do believe its more of a political project then one of science or engineering.
-
You keep saying we could do all of this stuff yet you don't indicate where the breakthrough in cybernetics, fuel capture in space, lifting of the materials as well as the maintenance of the station and it's personnel are coming from. You mention that we couldn't get a high ratio of robots to mars yet we can use robots to build something in space from materials we haven't been able to confirm much less mine in a commercial manner. If we can't hit a planet with working robots to do very limited exploration how do you propose to mine and refine then actually ship materials to another spot in space all without people to oversee / do it with robots we don't yet have?
Don't get me wrong I am all for space exploration / exploitation but have a differing opinion of where to go first. My option would be moon then Mars while working the asteriods once the technology is there.
-
I believe we will go to Mars in the next 20 years, but the technology to get a big enough solid rocket booster there on the short haul, and get the crew home on either the long or short hauls just isn't there yet. Maybe the ISS and new fuel possibilities will get there.
NASA has said that they plan on going to Mars around 2030, & they are going back to the Moon in 2020, they want to go to the Moon first in order to test out the things needed to go to Mars and live there for extended periods of time.
-
Why not go after the billions of Manganese Nodules at the bottom of our Oceans first?
Sadly, we know more about the make up and natural composition of the surface of the moon than we know of the depths of the Earth's oceans.
ROX
-
Rox you have to use specifics, not just "the technology to get a big enough solid rocket booster there on the short haul, and get the crew home on either the long or short hauls just isn't there yet." What's "big enough" and "short"?
The DeltaIV-H can put 17,600 lbs into Trans Mars Injection, or 10,000 to the surface, time of flight 6 months. That's one DIVH. Shoot a few payloads into LEO and you can assemble a pretty good payload to Mars. You can just as well send a few cargo loads on their own the slowpoke way, ahead of time. Zubrin probably covered these possibilities in depth.
The AresV (or VI or whatever they end up settling on) will be even bigger.
The ISS to Mars? You've been drinking the bad reporting koolaid..
Mav,
I'm not sure what you're pointing out. First you say all of that is unfeasible, then you say we should do it (moon>mars, rocks asap).. Well yeah, we should do it and if the tech isn't there, we'll make it. I doubt it's as revolutionary as you make it sound. I haven't read about those specificaly, but I'm pretty sure it's simpler to get to freespace rocks than mars. I'm pretty sure the developments needed for mining are sluggish so far, only because of a lack of funding. I doubt it's anywhere as opaque as getting fusion to work profitably.
I mean, instead of worrying about going out into the Asteroid belts, etc.
I don't think there's any reason to pit the two against each other.
-
You keep saying we could do all of this stuff yet you don't indicate where the breakthrough in cybernetics, fuel capture in space, lifting of the materials as well as the maintenance of the station and it's personnel are coming from. You mention that we couldn't get a high ratio of robots to mars yet we can use robots to build something in space from materials we haven't been able to confirm much less mine in a commercial manner. If we can't hit a planet with working robots to do very limited exploration how do you propose to mine and refine then actually ship materials to another spot in space all without people to oversee / do it with robots we don't yet have?
Don't get me wrong I am all for space exploration / exploitation but have a differing opinion of where to go first. My option would be moon then Mars while working the asteriods once the technology is there.
The technology is already here. Fuel in space can come from two sources and it doesnt run out. Hydrogen is everywhere and unless you are behind a planet or moon you can use solar wind (like wind surfing or sailing). Pojects like we are discussing dont have to go fast as human flight does because we dont have to feed robots.
Reentering a planet is very dangerous stuff the way NASA goes about it but putting robots in space is easy.
We would have to design a refinery for near orbit use and then send mining robots (we already have them here on earth) to the asteroids. They dont have to come back so they can spend their time exploring and testing and using solar energy to recharge for some duration. Between here and there we would have automated cargo ships that make the trip to and fro and also carry repair/recharge items for the miners. Humans would spend time in orbit here doing the assembly and refining.
The asteroid belt actually helps to protect Earth from large body collissions somewhat and it could be dangerous for humans to go about mining rocks in space. Ignoring for the moment the long term exposure risks to gamma rays on long missions it is also much more lkely that near the asteroid belt there would be high energy masses moving about. Its much safer to use robots.
I definately think the moon comes first (mining He3) but I think we should use this approach to a permanent presence/port in orbit and then move on to Mars exploration by humans. Im not concerned that NASA is inept and will get people killed because everyone involved in exploration knows the risks. My concern is that things will go terribly wrong often enough that politicians put the axe to it and you know they would.
-
Moot I was replying specifically to Challenges posts. He says we can't get to mars but all these other things are somehow possible through robotics that we can't seem to get right on mars missions.
-
Oops, sorry.
-
Moot I was replying specifically to Challenges posts. He says we can't get to mars but all these other things are somehow possible through robotics that we can't seem to get right on mars missions.
What I said was I disagree on the priority of missions. I never said we cant get to Mars.
-
Chalenge,
The concentration of free hydrogen in space is so minuscule that "scooping up" fuel as you go is beyond impractical. You couldn't pick up enough to power a light bulb for any appreciable length of time.
-
Rox you have to use specifics, not just "the technology to get a big enough solid rocket booster there on the short haul, and get the crew home on either the long or short hauls just isn't there yet." What's "big enough" and "short"?
The DeltaIV-H can put 17,600 lbs into Trans Mars Injection, or 10,000 to the surface, time of flight 6 months. That's one DIVH. Shoot a few payloads into LEO and you can assemble a pretty good payload to Mars. You can just as well send a few cargo loads on their own the slowpoke way, ahead of time. Zubrin probably covered these possibilities in depth.
The AresV (or VI or whatever they end up settling on) will be even bigger.
The ISS to Mars? You've been drinking the bad reporting koolaid..
Mav,
I'm not sure what you're pointing out. First you say all of that is unfeasible, then you say we should do it (moon>mars, rocks asap).. Well yeah, we should do it and if the tech isn't there, we'll make it. I doubt it's as revolutionary as you make it sound. I haven't read about those specificaly, but I'm pretty sure it's simpler to get to freespace rocks than mars. I'm pretty sure the developments needed for mining are sluggish so far, only because of a lack of funding. I doubt it's anywhere as opaque as getting fusion to work profitably.
I don't think there's any reason to pit the two against each other.
Moot: (and it sure is nice to have a civil, reasonable exchange with you, and I appreciate it, I'm not joking, thank you).
Maybe it's the mother-language difference...please let me explain. Please bear with me.
The United States does not currently have a rocket system that is big enough to carry a crew of 2 or 3 to Mars via the "short route" and come back via the "long route" if necessary. There are only certain times of the year where a take off time scheduled to arrive at the shortest possible route. It still takes a good 6 months to get there on the shortest route possible and 9 to 10 months on the longer route. The Ares V/VI series wouldn't be adequite either. The technology I refer to does not exist yet or we'd be there already.
By the time it takes a spacecraft (by current our current technology standpoint = liquid fueled) to get to Mars via the shortest possible route (distance) due to the different orbits that the Earth and Mars have, coming home by the exact same short route may not be possible. Earth and Mars have orbits that are more egg shaped at times than perfect circles around the Sun. You also need to time your take off and return to avoid getting anywhere near the Sun.
I'm talking scientific logistics here:
1) Fuel to get to Mars via the shortest possible route
2) Enough area onboard to carry enough water or a water/urine filtration system to get them there & back
3) Enough area onboard to carry enough food or food producing systems to get them there and back
4) Enough fuel and a big enough spacecraft to carry it to take them home via the shortest route possible.
What you mention above, shooting off "slow poke" supplies in advance in Low Earth Orbit might be a good idea. Why not just use the ISS? It's not colmpleted yet but that is one of the ISS objectives. The ISS is a good start as a relay station for a Mars expedition.
Saturn V technology depended on the fact that the mother-vehicle is able to maintain it's E while orbiting the planet while the men and exploration vehicle are on the planet's surface. Once the men and exploration craft have rendezvoused with the mother-vessel, they would have to do a controlled burn for the return at precise time to return to Earth. For Mars you's have to do that and then return to earth. With solid/liquid fuel technology we're talinking one HUGE honkin' arsed sized mother-vehicle.
I never said ISS to Mars...and no one but a moron would. The ISS is currently being built in stages to provide a long-term Earth orbiting space station that would essentially be a gigantic scientific SkyLab. It was/is never intended to be a transplanetary space vehicle, it was originally intended to be a very large modular space science laboratory and have docking facilities for both manned and (future) drone spacecraft. It has been, however, considered a possible future relay station for space exploration vehicles, i.e.: blast off from Earth---go to the ISS--get into pre-assembled craft from there and then depart there for other planets.
The problem still exists for the big four: Oxygen, water, food, and fuel.
It has been often debated by scientists if a solid/liquid fueled rocket/space shuttle could dock with thei ISS, deliver it's crew and supplies, and then depart for mars in a pre-assembled--pre-supplied space vehicle that was NUCLEAR powered...eliminating the need for liquid fueled engines and speeding up the travel time over liquid fueled rockets. Also cutting down substancially on the amount of water, oxygen and fuel a common liquid fueled rocket would require.
Their working on the problem now. A nuclear powered spacecraft is, so far, a "pipe dream". America's best scientific minds are on the soloution...and yes, we are being very conservative about it.
Anyone who says that space aliens came to earth and spilled their guts on all their technological secrets to "secret US services" is more than a tad goofy. If they had, we'd already have a base on Mars.
Thank you for your time.
ROX
-
Hey rox I agree with you 100% here I will just add something before someone brings up some of the past satellite missions to the outer planets including the one going to Pluto (still a planet in my book different subject though).
1 yes there are nuclear powered spacecraft out there. the nuclear power is for electrical power only not for propelling the space vehicle. those reactors are only for producing the electrical power necessary to run the electronics on-board and mostly are only on the satellites going beyond the asteroid belt due to solar power is very weak beyond that point.
I would also like to add one more problem with manned spaceflight to Mars. The physical toll on the human body is extreme after just a few months in space. This is in part due to the fact that there is no gravity and our bodies are designed for life in a higher gravity enviroment. The physical toll would be so bad that it has been predicted by many that it would take up to a few months on Mars before the astronauts would be strong enough to venture outside the lading vehicle.
Just a few additions to what Rox stated.
:salute
edit: forgot to mention that they are still working technologies to avoid the physical draining of the astronauts and are still having trouble answering finding an answer. It seems that exercise programs do seem to help but do not buy enough time for the trip to Mars. I remember seeing reports of a certain Russian you spent record setting time in space and excerised most of the time he spent awake and it still was not enough for him to walk away from the return craft on his own power. It seems that we work our bodies harder than we think here on Earth.
-
I would also like to add one more problem with manned spaceflight to Mars. The physical toll on the human body is extreme after just a few months in space. This is in part due to the fact that there is no gravity and our bodies are designed for life in a higher gravity enviroment. The physical toll would be so bad that it has been predicted by many that it would take up to a few months on Mars before the astronauts would be strong enough to venture outside the lading vehicle.
Just a few additions to what Rox stated.
:salute
edit: forgot to mention that they are still working technologies to avoid the physical draining of the astronauts and are still having trouble answering finding an answer. It seems that exercise programs do seem to help but do not buy enough time for the trip to Mars. I remember seeing reports of a certain Russian you spent record setting time in space and excerised most of the time he spent awake and it still was not enough for him to walk away from the return craft on his own power. It seems that we work our bodies harder than we think here on Earth.
Your right on the physical toll it takes on the human body, and they are developing things to counter act these effects, I was watching a show about this device NASA has come up with, it's a table that you lay down on and it rotates at a speed that will simulate the Earths gravity on the body, they said that an astronaut would need only use it 1 hour a day.
Another option to counter act these effects is to rotate the spacecraft, this rotation of the spacecraft simulates gravity, this would seem like the best solution to the problem.
-
Your right on the physical toll it takes on the human body, and they are developing things to counter act these effects, I was watching a show about this device NASA has come up with, it's a table that you lay down on and it rotates at a speed that will simulate the Earths gravity on the body, they said that an astronaut would need only use it 1 hour a day.
Another option to counter act these effects is to rotate the spacecraft, this rotation of the spacecraft simulates gravity, this would seem like the best solution to the problem.
you are right about some of the things they are developing however I saw that program as well it is about a year old I think. I watch that stuff alot due to the fact that I have alot of downtime at work and watch way too much tv.
If I remember correctly though they were hoping for an hour a day to slow it enough to make the astronauts strong enough to be able to do some work but would still take time to get up to 100%. But I find it unlikely that a person would only need an hour a day to maintain the same amount of muscle and bone mass that an entire day on Earth does. I know what they claimed that they were hopeful for and I know they are well educated more so than myself but they also are aware that things don't normally work out the way they would like and no way to say it is going to work until they get that contraption into space and use it long term. I will believe that it works at that point.
The spinning spaceship is also an idea but in order to get the momentum up enough and keep it remotely comfortable for the astronauts without causing motion sickness or movement problems the craft would most likely need to be extremely large. Creating yet another problem. none of the solutions are easy or simple if it wasa we would have already been there and probably have a permanent colony.
Just saying that sometime when they mean they are hopeful that something will work it sounds like it already does, especially when on TV. By the way I believe they also mentioned in that program that they were messing around with drugs to assist with the problem. That reminds me I saw on Yahoo news someone has developed an excercise pill that would help couch potatoes to to be less obese and help give more muscle mass. Iit has worked on mice so far, of course how did they get the mice to sit still long enough to watch TV. Maybe there is some hope there as well.
Trax1 I was thinking of that program as I typed the post that you quoted from me. I can't wait to see what solutions they come up with. Probably will be a combination of things they are working on now and some ideas not yet thought of. Hope we get to see it and it does not take longer than the expect.
edit: her is a link to the article about the exercise pill.
http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AojDB1mo5Nbk2V_k1Q9sdJQazJV4/SIG=11rjequlo/**http%3A//health.yahoo.com/news/ap/sci_exercise_pill.html (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AojDB1mo5Nbk2V_k1Q9sdJQazJV4/SIG=11rjequlo/**http%3A//health.yahoo.com/news/ap/sci_exercise_pill.html)
-
Chalenge,
The concentration of free hydrogen in space is so minuscule that "scooping up" fuel as you go is beyond impractical. You couldn't pick up enough to power a light bulb for any appreciable length of time.
In interstellar space that is correct. The density of hydrogen particles is higher within a solar system but the problem in using the bussard engine approach ( http://www.bisbos.com/rocketscience/spacecraft/bussardramjet/bussard.html )
is the extreme velocity required to make it work. I think this is what you are picturing.
The same approach the guys at MIT are using to make storing energy from solar power possible will also help in harnessing the solar wind and allow a mix of ion drive and solar sailing. Currently we use solar sails to adjust for angular momentum only. Ion engines work by emitting particles at speeds of 68,000 mph. A hybrid version would use both for acceleration and deceleration and onboard fuel (stored hydrogen) for major course adjustments and approaches refilling its tanks while in transit.
ion drive: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/deepspace_propulsion_000816.html
-
Anyone who watched the last Phoenix briefing probably noticed how much more fidgety and nervous at least two of the crew were, even by professional nerd standards. Apparently they found something very interesting and will be waiting at least two weeks to assess the data before releasing their interpretation. The team in charge of the instrument that made the discovery were kept out of the press briefing to avoid their saying anything they might regret..
They went straight to calling the white house advisor about it.
So much for "finding nothing".
-
The shame is that NASA will continue to spend every resource (men & money) on Mars instead of what it should be doing. I cant wait until private industries begin to do profit driven missions to space and we reap many many more benefits than NASA will ever give us. Making Mars suitable for humans will take 10,000 years.
agreed.
why not spend that money on alternative energy, or oil shale processing or trying to make our planet more livable for us or birth control education for the masses so we dont use up our remaining natural resources because we're to stupid to realize that our ever increasing population is the cause to all of our current major global problems.
We need global leaders tough enough to put global population growth in a reversing trend.
I cant think of a single global issue that would not benefit from that in the long term,
other than lining the pockets of wealthy businessmen profiting at the expense of our planet.
-
Terraforming mars would cost alot. I belive the pricetag for level one terraforming is 50.000 metal and 100.000 deuteriuim units. But thats not all. You must have 1000 units of energy from either solar sats, fusion reactors or solar plants. To get those you need robotic factories, shipyards and mines.
Its a massive project :(
LOL, and then some a-hole is bound to come and blast your satellites to smithereens :D
-
Anyone who watched the last Phoenix briefing probably noticed how much more fidgety and nervous at least two of the crew were, even by professional nerd standards. Apparently they found something very interesting and will be waiting at least two weeks to assess the data before releasing their interpretation. The team in charge of the instrument that made the discovery were kept out of the press briefing to avoid their saying anything they might regret..
They went straight to calling the white house advisor about it.
So much for "finding nothing".
So are you thinking that Phoenix found the evidence of organic compounds in the samples it's taken? That would be the biggest discovery in human history if that is the case, that life happened twice in 1 solar system, then life is common place in the Universe. If you have a link to the video of this briefing I'd like to see it.
-
The briefing said 'No Organics' but they did mention salts. It could be nothing or they may have found some interesting acids in the clay samples. I didnt see the breifing live. Maybe they were just nervous about talking to the White House or maybe they are not 100% sure their sample wasnt tainted by hitchhiker particles.
-
"No organics yet" was what they said IIRC. There is an insider rumor that it's definitely not bacteria, and that it's relative to mars' suitability for life... It could be any number of things, hopefully something the public can apreciate. Not another Mira or G1.9+0.3 overhype.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1297
Briefing's here .. http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/video/press_briefing_7_31.mp4 Something's definitely up with the nerds, they're all fidgety.
-
What is also cool is that scientists are using shuttle to ISS and ISS missions to see how very long missions in space effect the human body, and how prolonged exposure to weightlessness can effect the human body (i.e. how it would effect humans on a trip to Mars).
I like the resistance bicycles on the space shuttles. There has to be something else for upper body too.
Radio communications between Earth and Mars would be strange as well. Radio waves travel at the speed of light. On a moon mission there's not a lot to notice. On a Mars mission there would definitely be some delay.
I hope man makes it there someday.
ROX
-
Currently we use solar sails to adjust for angular momentum only.
This is interesting. What spacecraft are currently using solar sails?
-
What is also cool is that scientists are using shuttle to ISS and ISS missions to see how very long missions in space effect the human body, and how prolonged exposure to weightlessness can effect the human body (i.e. how it would effect humans on a trip to Mars).
I like the resistance bicycles on the space shuttles. There has to be something else for upper body too.
Radio communications between Earth and Mars would be strange as well. Radio waves travel at the speed of light. On a moon mission there's not a lot to notice. On a Mars mission there would definitely be some delay.
I hope man makes it there someday.
ROX
I believe the time delay from the Earth to Mars is around 20mins, so to ask a question & get a response is 40mins, make for some interesting driving skills for the guys who control the 2 rovers on Mars.
As it stands right now, NASA has plans to send a manned mission to Mars in 2030, but first in 2020 they are going back to the Moon to test out alot of the systems and gear they'll need to make a trip to Mars, which makes alot of sense because if we try something out on the Moon and it doesn't work, or goes wrong it's a short trip to send for help, when going to Mars there will be no sending for help.
-
This is interesting. What spacecraft are currently using solar sails?
Mariner 10 and some communications satellites (geostationary) for starters. Cosmos 1 will be the first to use it as a primary steering mechanism.
-
Are you confusing solar panels for sails?
-
No read it more closely. The solar panels have additional features allowing them to be used to catch the solar wind and make adjustments in position.
-
The undisclosed discovery I mentionned is getting blown out of proportion. Some senior editor (Craig Covault) at AWST mag got the hype going. Apparently he was wrong in reporting that the nasa team had contacted/briefed a white house science advisor.
http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2008/08/02/phoenix-on-mars-life-message-from-meca/
Another good discovery that'll probably bite the dust thanks to misreporting.
-
No read it more closely. The solar panels have additional features allowing them to be used to catch the solar wind and make adjustments in position.
Link?
I was under the impression that the geosats maintained orientation by use of gyroscopes once properly placed into orbit by rocket burn and maneuvering rockets. This is the first I have heard of solar sails for satellites.
-
As far as I can find, no solar sails have been used in space, coincidently NASA was testing solar sails out today, but the Falcon 1 rocket carrying the project known as NanoSail-D suffered a launch failure, it was to test the technology, so far all 3 Falcon 1 rockets have been unsuccessful.
-
Anyone notice how we haven't been to The Moon, lately?
-
Sorry Maverick when I went looking I cant find much more than Wiki supporting it. The ariticle I read the other day was on the Eurostar E3000 and it mentioned the solar panel modifications were copied from Mariner 10 and would be used (has been used now) to help hold geostationary position. Wiki supports that but in looking just now I havent found evidence of it.
This is sometimes called 'plasma propulsion' or 'wave induced steering' also so you have to be vigilante in the material presented. Its not precisely the same thing as presented in theory as a large sail deployed to pull or push the vehicle but works under a similar principle. The principle in practice in this way has been proven sound and the full sail approach will be used soon (already should have been in orbit).
Cosmos 1 (a private project) was to be the first full solar sail but failed to reach orbit yet the primary entity behind it (Cosmos Studios) is doing all it can to fund another attempt ( http://www.space-travel.com/reports/New_Developments_On_The_Road_To_Cosmos_2_999.html ). With the failure of the NanoSail to make orbit it could be two years before a full sail is in space.
-
I was just reading more about the rocket carrying Nanosail-D, the Falcon 1, apparently it's partially reusable launch vehicle and today was it's first operational launch, but there 2 previous test launches also failed. The company that built it is called SpaceX and is trying to reduce the cost of space flights by a factor of 10, obviously it's not working to well.
Also the rocket today was carrying the remains of 208 people, 1 of which was Star Treks James Doohan.