Mars by 2010?

[ed84c]

Can somebody explain to me the point of sending humans to marz? Surely investment in the new hubble type telescope, what ever its called, or CERN would be more useful? What do you think? A new telescope would certainly make some nicer desktop backgrounds! lol

[Ophiolite]

We could possibly do a SFN based project on creating an idea of how we could get so mars, come up with a big proposal of the sorts and submit them to all known Space associations. Just a thought too get these ideas off the ground.

Read: 'The Case for Mars', by Robert Zubrin ISBN: 0684827573

Visit: http://www.nw.net/mars/ where the Mars Direct plan is discussed.

Join: http://www.marssociety.org/ the Mars Society and help make it happen.

[Ophiolite]

Can somebody explain to me the point of sending humans to marz? Surely investment in the new hubble type telescope, what ever its called, or CERN would be more useful? What do you think? A new telescope would certainly make some nicer desktop backgrounds! lol

ed, Zubrin answers that with greater passion and eloquence than I ever could in the book referenced in my previous post.

[Nalos Surith]

we do not have the technology to keep astonaunts alive for the journey to Mars. First, the trip would take too long of a time with the fuels we have today. Second, it would be difficult to keep the crew from killing each other before the trip was finished (people can be that close for that long of a time before they start fighting) and we cannot properly shield astronauts from cosmic radiation. Furthermore, we have not figured out a way to successfully keep Astronauts' bone masses up. If we made a trip now.. the ship would come back with dead folks on board.

 

First of all, we may not have the technology now but in pushing this mission we will definetly beable to develop new technologies to do it. We have more than enough fuel haha, the minute you start moving in space you don't slow down, there is not any type of atmosphere in space so nothing to hold you back the only thing we would need fuel for is powering the Ship, Evading objects, fuel to get on mars, fuel to get off mars, the plan that I know Nasa has is to send what we need for the mars trip into space, making them interconnectable, the once in space you connect them, connect it with the international space station, send your guys up, and boom your off. Sounds simple don't it. Not really knowing all the parts going into the project.

[ed84c]

is there not a system of lazer propulsion and reflection that has acceleration of about 0-60 in about a month but can reach 25% the speed of light?

[Sayonara]

Theoretically, yes.

[CPL.Luke]

somebody can stay in space for the time required for the mars trip

 

a russian cosmonaut stayed in space for more than 1000 days aboard mir

[pi_of_9]

The Ansari Group could create a new X Prize for 2010. But it will take more than $10,000,000 in prize money. Then there maybe a possibility that it might happen by then, otherwise I think it'll be another 10 years or so.

[SubJunk]

Mad Mardigan: "Dont forget, when nasa put up Hubble, they forgot to put in the lens. Ooops, and calculated in feet and programmed in meters for the last attempt to put something on Mars."

 

Can i see some sources for this please?

 

pi_of_9: The Ansari Group could create a new X Prize for 2010. But it will take more than $10,000,000 in prize money. Then there maybe a possibility that it might happen by then, otherwise I think it'll be another 10 years or so.

 

This has nothing to do with anything as far as I can tell, please explain your thoughts more clearly.

 

Also, before considering how long it would take to get to mars, look here for information on new propulsion technology, including a project NASA is working on now, magnetized beamed plasma propulsion.

And contrary to what some people say, NASA is well funded and it doesn't matter too much what the government pays them because most of their popular projects are supported with private funds.

[Ophiolite]

And contrary to what some people say, NASA is well funded and it doesn't matter too much what the government pays them because most of their popular projects are supported with private funds.

Now that is interesting. To quote a well known poster 'could I see some sources please'.

(P.S. I think Mad Mardigan was using hyperbole as far as Hubble is concerned. It was just a slight error in the grinding of the mirror.)

[CPL.Luke]

the feet and meters thing was about the mars lander a while bck that slammed into the ground

[Ophiolite]

Mad Mardigan: "Dont forget' date=' when nasa put up Hubble, they forgot to put in the lens. Ooops, and calculated in feet and programmed in meters for the last attempt to put something on Mars."[/i']

 

Can i see some sources for this please?

 

Here you go, straight from those nice guys at command central:

http://mars4.jpl.nasa.gov/msp98/news/mco990930.html

 

Rather looks like Lockheed Martin need a QA team rather badly:

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1217572004

 

 

 

And here, re-Hubble, an interesting perspective from a psychologist. "the Hubble hypothesis and the developmentalist's dilemma', published in Development and Psychopathology, 9 (1997)

http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00001009/00/s_Dilemma.pdf

[SubJunk]

You flatter me too much Ophiolite, well known poster and all.

I've been looking for sources to tell me that NASA has some privately funded projects, but the information just isn't there. I'm always one to admit right away when I'm wrong, so I was wrong about that, and I don't quite remember who told me that lie but once I do I'll make sure to double-check everything they tell me before blurting it out again

Also, thanks for posting those source links on the mars polar lander, I didn't know that.

[Ophiolite]

I've been looking for sources to tell me that NASA has some privately funded projects' date=' but the information just isn't there. [/quote']I think one of the points that 'pi of 9' was getting at with his reference to a new X-prize was that we might get to Mars through private rather than governent money. That seems impractical to me at this stage. The difference between a sub-orbital shot and a trip to Mars are a couple of orders of magnitude at least, even given the likely more efficient use of funds by a private venture.

 

What intrigued me about your comments was that if there was already a mechanism in place within NASA that welcomed private funding this could make some sort of combined approach more viable.

 

And to some extent there is some two way traffic, in that Zubrin's Mars mission plan has been adopted and adapted as at least a serious contender by NASA.

[Ophiolite]

I've been looking for sources to tell me that NASA has some privately funded projects, but the information just isn't there. .

I wonder if it was something like this that you ran across. The main thrust of the story is that SETI, the Institute for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, basically picked up the reins when NASA lost governent funding for such work, and has done most of this with private funding.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astrobiology_report_020719.html

 

Also there have been a lot of proposals that NASA should make more use of private funding, and in fact should transform itself into a management entity with projects carried out by private comapnies. Not exactly the same thing, but the same ball park. This article gives a nice perspective on that side of things.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/7-16-97.html

[SubJunk]

No it wasn't those, but I am well aware of Seti. It was someone I know in person who told me NASA had a lot of private funding... probably someone talking bollocks, I just never thought to question it as this was many years ago, before I was even interested in science.

[Ophiolite]

Will we make it to mars by the year 2010, as president Bush has suggested?

This has been nagging me ever since I first read this thread. Where and when did Bush ever say men on Mars by 2010?

The provisional goals are to return to the moon by 2015 at the earliest. The manned Mars visit would take place after 2030. And all that before Congress get their hands on funding allocations.

Those who voted 'yes', we will reach Mars by 2010, might benefit from distinguishing between desire and reality.

[Nalos Surith]

I remembering watching the NASA Channel on TV they had this big plan that they computerize into a graphical layout of what they were going to do. So im prety sure there are already is a team in the works of it all to go to mars.

[Nalos Surith]

Unmanned, but flight exploration of mars:

http://marsairplane.larc.nasa.gov/science.html

http://marsairplane.larc.nasa.gov/platform.html

 

I believe the move that I saw was here labeled Towards Mars

http://cmex.arc.nasa.gov/movies/index.html

http://cmex.arc.nasa.gov/movies/TowardsMars.html

http://cmex.arc.nasa.gov/movies/MarsDirect.html

[Ophiolite]

I remembering watching the NASA Channel on TV they had this big plan that they computerize into a graphical layout of what they were going to do. So im prety sure there are already is a team in the works of it all to go to mars.

Quite correct, but regretably the timing is not before 2030.

[CPL.Luke]

you know youd think with all the probes they send up to mars they could pay for a substantial amount of a manned mars mission.

[Sayonara]

you know youd think with all the probes they send up to mars they could pay for a substantial amount of a manned mars mission.

The cost of a manned Mars mission will be a couple of orders of magnitude larger than the cost of sending any of those probes, so not really.

[2004einstein]

This is a joke thread right?. Man to mars by 2010?. Theres more chance of martians coming to us by "2010". ;)Daddaddaddaddaddaddaddaddaddaddadaddaddaddaddaddaaaaaaaa the chances of anything comming from mars are a million-1 they said. duddudduudddududuuddududuuuuuThe chances of anything comming from mars are a million-1 but still they cooooooooome. :laugh:

[nameta9]

From around 1930 to 1970 there was an enormous amount of technical and economic progress in the west that then slowly diffused through the world. Bear in mind this all occurred with only about 300 million relatively wealthy people between US and Europe. I mean in a few decade (after the war) entire nations were rebuilt homes were built by the millions all over the place the progress was truly enormous. The last 30 years seems as if we have all gotten so much poorer. Housing is harder and harder to get, jobs are harder to get and this is in a more advanced world with maybe 700 million wealthy people. We went to the moon in that historical, cultural time when everything seemed possible and I guess we were all really much richer at least pyschologically. This historical period is getting gloomier, there is low growth economically, alot of progress we thought would be never occurred because the technical problems were underestimated. Then we have alot of crappy politicians burning billions for crappy wars, we have environmental damage etc. We won't be on mars in this century NO WAY.

[2004einstein]

From around 1930 to 1970 there was an enormous amount of technical and economic progress in the west that then slowly diffused through the world. Bear in mind this all occurred with only about 300 million relatively wealthy people between US and Europe. I mean in a few decade (after the war) entire nations were rebuilt homes were built by the millions all over the place the progress was truly enormous. The last 30 years seems as if we have all gotten so much poorer. Housing is harder and harder to get, jobs are harder to get and this is in a more advanced world with maybe 700 million wealthy people. We went to the moon in that historical, cultural time when everything seemed possible and I guess we were all really much richer at least pyschologically. This historical period is getting gloomier, there is low growth economically, alot of progress we thought would be never occurred because the technical problems were underestimated. Then we have alot of crappy politicians burning billions for crappy wars, we have environmental damage etc..

Well said!.

We won't be on mars in this century NO WAY.

I would like to believe this wasn't true, but if the rate of progress in the 35 years post apollo 11 is anything to go by I can well believe it IS.