the asinine cretin

That may be so. Mars sample return is the major goal of the current planetary decadal survey doc and formulating a plan for the 2018 launch opportunity is what this meeting is all about. I think there is a chance. The sample return space shuttle that lands like a harrier jet isn't going to be chosen, that's for sure. It'll be one of the small-scale, low cost missions. And some participation in ExoMars is not completely ruled out. Fingers crossed

Damn. You know, that's what really sucks about these talks so far; a deluge of awesome concepts and partially developed systems, and no certainty that any of them will actually be fulfilled. I'm fairly confident that there will be a Mars sample return mission of some kind in this decade though.

The presentation was made yesterday and it's about a 2018 MER MSR mission, not MSL. Verbatim from the slide: Updated EDL System Enables Precision Landing - Reduces MER landing ellipse from 100 km x 20 km -> 12 km x 10 km. (Within one CRISM image.) - New, larger heat shield fitted with thrusters for guided entry... Basically, this is achieved by the incorporation of four RCS thrusters from MSL heritage. Heat shield redesign similar to Viking in that the heat shield is the component that carries those thrusters. Now I have to say that this is not what the presentation was about. The next few hours of talks are about entry, descent, and landing; the set of talks to which this one belonged were about mission architectures and strategies. I'm sure there will be more detail to come. Here are the session abstracts for the "entry, descent, and landing" presentations which I'll be watching either this evening or tomorrow. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsconcepts2012/pdf/sess502.pdf All the abstracts for the meeting can be found here. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsconcepts2012/pdf/program.pdf The abstract for the talk that included the provocative slide is here (although I think you'll have to watch the lectures to see the slide, and it doesn't say much more than what I copied above and the talk itself had more to do with the caching machinery than with the details of the descent and landing).) http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsconcepts2012/pdf/4228.pdf P.S. And yes, I did think the numbers were remarkable. That's why I thought to come here and post in the first place. I am suspending judgement for now as it may be nothing more than a lofty design goal, but it seemed to be a given for this mission since the CRISM footprint seems to establish a requirement. Viking was able to touch down within 30 km of their targets without active guidance and I think a mission that required (or at least very much desired) high precision could be designed to employ beacons. I wouldn't put it past NASA's engineers. Apollo landers were able to come within 200 meters of their target. But I am curious to know the source of the 100 meter CEP. I think Zubrin and many others would not agree. I personally do not know very much about it and remain only curious.

I'm watching the Mars Concepts 2012 presentations and 2.5 hours into session 1 of day 3 there is a slide which says that the current MER landing ellipse is 12 km x 10 km. Apparently the "modern" MER hardware has a much improved heat shield and thrusters for guided entry. Kind of cool. I'm pretty much willing to bet that the MER legacy will be utilized in meeting the MSR goal of the decadal survey. As far as Mars One (a project I can't stand, incidentally), I'm guessing they're assuming SpaceX will meet their goals, including the "Red Dragon" project, and have a craft even more capable of precision landing. Yeah, no thanks. Screw reality shows. That's a show stopper in my opinion - pun intended. I recently read the 2011 update of The Case For Mars and it mentions recent end-to-end testing of a scalable reactor for Martian ISRU. The impression I have is that the TRL is perhaps 6. He says that Pioneer Astronautics has a serious demonstration system, fully automated and able to produce methane and oxygen in any ratio desired, that can run nonstop for days in simulated Martian conditions. I wish I knew more about it. I'll have to take a look at the references. edit:typo

apurvmj, The Solar sail wiki article is pretty good. Edit to add:

Interstellar solar sail/light sail concepts typically involve immense lasers that are basically sci-fi for now. There are currently active projects studying the feasibility of interplanetary solar sails. I assume the solar sail concept is what you're referring to.

You can do that with url mapping. The specifics depend on your web server or application framework.

Sounds awesome.

Thanks D H. This is a tangent, but I think things like FMARS sound like a lot of fun. Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station I suspect that the Desert Rats have even more fun. Look at some of those toys. Desert Research and Technology Studies NASA D-RATS Website

When reading the alleged words of Christ in the NT it seems his worldview had a lot to do with demonic forces, the divine will, prophetic texts and visions, and the centrality of faith. Nothing suggestive of a scientific curiosity or thought process comes to mind. But I'll be the first to say that I'm no scripture scholar.

I actually do agree. There are far more questions than answers. And just asserting that there are no new technology requirements won't make everything fall into place. From the superficial stuff I've read on their website thus far, I'm thinking that even if they managed to launch all of these things to Mars and send four pioneers to Mars, it might end up being a highly publicized disaster for the entire world to watch that would set back human space exploration. I think of the heroic age of antarctic exploration and imagine that someone had the idea to send four people on an expedition deep in the antarctic where they would live out the rest of their lives somehow. It's inhumane. And yet I am encouraged and excited about private space exploration ventures. Perhaps something legitimate will come of this in the end. I think it quite possible that my fears are at least somewhat misplaced. Edit: There's always a f*ckin typo. Maybe I'll learn to proofread someday.

Yipes!

"We do not require development and launch of a nuclear reactor." - Mars One "The Mars One base will be powered by solar panels. This is possible because we do not require the production of fuel for a return journey. Many of the other plans propose the use of a nuclear reactor, which would have to be small enough to be launched all the way to Mars. Such a nuclear reactor does not exist yet and a great deal of time and money will have to be poured into the idea before it will. Moreover, seeking permission to launch a nuclear reactor – even with a great track record for the launcher – can set off political alarm bells. The chances of it being granted are diminutive due to fears of what would happen to those nearby if something were to go wrong." http://mars-one.com/...really-possible "No new developments – Our entire plan revolves around using existing, validated technology." - Mars One I haven't seen anything suggesting that in situ fuel production is part of Mars One. This is a baseless assertion. You don't know what kind of screening they will do and what kind of people they will select. There is nothing about mining in Mars One, and I've not seen anything about refining that we don't know how to do. If SpaceX manages something like their Red Dragon Martian sample return mission in the next few years, and if it is as cheap as they say it will be, I'll consider this wacky Mars One thing to be a real possibility. Sort of a scary thought as I'm very uncomfortable with the finality of it. Even if they ask for it, sending people to live in tiny habitats on Mars with no hope of escape? Not cool. I think the in situ fuel production and a return vehicle are not merely nice-to-haves, but that's just me. Based on the Mars Design Reference 5.0 document we do know how to perform Martian aerocapture. It's been studied extensively via simulations and systems analysis and MDRM5 recommends it for cargo missions ("aerocapture for the crew transfer vehicle was eliminated from consideration due to the physical size of that element"). It's a viable option, not a fantasy, and it's not considered to be particularly risky. Basis: MDRM5 6.4 "Decision 3: Aerocapture vs. Propulsive Mars Orbit Capture of Cargo" I get the feeling that you're overstating the difficulty. I want to come back to this thread in a few years (I'll say less than seven) after SpaceX aerocaptures a Dragon and possibly lands it on Mars with nothing but drag and retro-propulsion thrusters. Mark my words.

Plenty of live webcasts going on for those who can't observe. http://www.ustream.tv/nasaedge I've been experiencing lag on NASA Edge, but not with the following. http://www.exploratorium.edu/venus/

A 2003 Decadal Survey document classified the MSL as a "medium cost mission" and estimated it would require a budget in the $325 - 650 million range. I can't help but chuckle. Edit: And based on the wiki page the official MSL budget was still under 1 billion in 2008. And I think this is why those Mars One people are trying to do everything by partnering directly with private entities like SpaceX, presumably avoiding the vampirish onion skin of middle men and bureaucracy. Yeah, and I don't mean that as a practical suggestion, just a bleak social/cultural commentary. There are so many things that we apparently care a lot about as a species and global civilization. The noblest and most valuable things may be quite low on the list. Perhaps after considerable social evolution our world will be more dominated by the better parts of our humanity.