NASA Waiting for A Mandate: Manned Mission to Mars

[SKiller]

Reguarding the moon vs mars vs space choices. We have to consider the greater objective. Let's assume that it's to create a colony outside of Earth. This leaves two general options: a self-sustaining colony in space or one on a planetary surface. A space station would obviously be much more difficult to implement, without natural outside resources it would have to be quite large, and without the benefit of gravity it would be quite slow.
Now if we're talking a planetaly colony, then Mars has much more abundant resources then the moon and has a mass much closer to the of Earth. This would seem to outweigh the greater distance involved. It's even plausable that with enough terraforming Mars' atmosphere may become close to breathable (but this would be waaay in the future).

 

[Ben]

I think the only way that we will see an accelerated timeline for manned Mars exploration, if if NASA is NOT heading the project.

As everyone knows, if NASA had competition, the space race would be a whole differenct ball game.

And JPL is practically in bed with NASA, so they don't count.

 

[Swag1138]

If this kind of stuff interests you, then may I suggest a trilogy of books by Kim Stanely Robinson. Its called the Mars Trilogy, starting with Red Mars, Blue Mars, and ending with Green Mars. Its about the colinization of mars. Its an excellent set of books. Kin Stanely really thought everything out extremely well, and the thing is, it not only seems possible, but somewhat probable. That is, the story behind the story, the background for the peoples interaction. I cant talk worth crap tonight, so just go read it, and save me some typing, k?

 

[Tominator]

UG
Water on Mars is a theory last I read. Please provide me with a link to Scientific Evidence. Not a Scientist wanting funding.

A Reactor in space? Send water into space? Get REAL! Possibly with an unlimited budget, but that will NEVER happen!

 

[UG]

Tominator;

RE: your request for scientific evidence for the presence of water on Mars

Scientific References to Water on Mars

This random selection as confirmation water exists in the Martain atmosphere, sourced from the surface since, other than from comets, the planet doesn't gain water from space.

This random selection on Polar Cap Water Ice.

If water is known not to exisit on Mars, all those many people are wasting their finite professional career time and research funding fussing over the non-existant.

RE: "reactor in space"

To what are you refering?

If you are refering to "An abundance of He3 is known to exist in the lunar regolith: it's very useful for powering clean, electricity-generating fusion reactors here on Earth" then you misunderstood. He3 is a gas that can he extracted from certain lunar surface material, contained, and shipped to Earth as fuel for Terrestrial reactors; but, of course, for space reactors, too, if and where necessary.

Lunar He3 for Terrestrial Fusion Reactors

RE: "Send water into space?"

Again, to what are you refering?

 

[The Wildcard]

I thought they also discovered frozen water on the moon as well?

 

[UG]

Lunar H2O

 

[Tominator]

Sorry. But notice the wording? This is all theory. Learned theory, but until they actually analyze what they THINK is H2O I'll remain unconvinced. NASA's latest 'Scientific Method' seems to be crashing multi-million dollar hunks of junk into Mar's surface...in desparation maybe?

Someone suggested 'supply ships.'

As far as the type of reactor you suggest...more theory?

We do not risk mens lives on theory. Above all, space travel needs to be practical to ever be anything but a pipedream.....too many trekies around here...

 

[The Wildcard]

yeah crashed that mars probe because the engineers are lockeed and NASA were using two different units for measurement. I believe one was using the English Miles units while the other was using the metric Kilometer units. I am sorry but that is sorta sad.

 

[UG]

Tominator;

<...Sorry. But notice the wording?..>

Sorry. But notice the wording. You said EVIDENCE, not proof.

As for remaining unconvinced until proof of actuallity is evident; aren't you a Christian?

[edit]<...We do not risk mens lives on theory...>

Tell that to the first person to wear a pre-tested Kevlar vest in a live-fire situatuion, as one example; or the recipient of the first heart transplant, for another.[/edit]

 

[OS]

Tominator,

Perhaps a quick history lesson is in order. Ten years prior to Apollo 11, manned space flight was nonexistent. At that time, a mission to the moon was just a &quot;theory&quot;, an idea. Nay sayers said at the time, a manned landing on the moon is impossible, that the navigation was impossible, that rocket technology was pitifully insufficient and that the landing modules would get swallowed up by moon dust. But what actually happened? Apollo 11 landed gracefully on the moon. The Apollo project never lost a single astronaunt in space, we brought home every single one of them even in the darkest hour. We risked human lives on a theory, an idea. And we beat the odds and proved all the critics to be flat out wrong.

What am I getting at? The future isn't built by critics. It's built by visionaries, people who say &quot;we can&quot;, not by people who say &quot;we can't.&quot; So which side do you want to be on?

 

[Tominator]

UG I see Science rewritten almost everyday. It seems to change almost too fast to keep up. Very few theories are ever proven without major revision and most just never get past the theory part....I see the Bible reafirmed everywhere I look! Evidence builds to support the Bible via sound science almost every day.

BTW, Scientific Evidence does not equal Scientific Theory imho.

 

[UG]

the_wildcard;

What you spesk of has everything to do with human intercommunication, and nothing to do with the practical application of the technologies involved.

Human error killed the two mars missions, yes. But, it wasn't inadequate technology, or insurmountable circumstances that kiiled them, it was inadequate communication on the part of the project personnel, and unreasonable expectations on the part of the fund-granting bureaucrats: things we've been trying to perfect for 10 thousand years.

Doesn't seem we should run home crying to mama when we once again err for those same old reasons, no?

 

[UG]

Tominator;

<... I see Science rewritten almost everyday...>

Good, that means it's working.

<...Very few theories are ever proven without major revision and most just never get past the theory part...>

Yep. Science at work.

<...Scientific Evidence does not equal Scientific Theory...>

No, it either only lends credence to the assumptions under-pinning a theory, or it negates them. Absolute proof is impossibly difficult to come by, anywhere, in any human endeavor: Einstein and Heisenberg amply demonstrated that.

<...Evidence builds to support the Bible via sound science almost every day...>

Pray tell.

 

[OS]

The reason science changes every day is because we learn something new everyday. Science is not about always being right. Science is about becoming more and more accurate in describing why things in the natural world are the way they are. Fear the day that science never changes, because then it will no longer be science, but it will be dogma.

 

[Recneps]

The reason a manned mission to mars is going to happen very soon is thier is no way to get the people back. Mars has about the same gravity as we have here on earth. Look at what it takes to send a spaceship from earth that isn't land any were back on earth now guess what it would take to send up that whole rocket luaching system. If you think gas price are bad now you wouldn't even be able to get gas if we were sending people back from mars. A much better use of our money would to find a much better way of luaching space ships that doesn't need a big ass tower and a even bigger rocket just to get off the ground.

 

[UG]

Permit me to re-iterate, and expand upon, my previous explicative comment about the insights on Nature so amply described by the work and brain power of both Einstein and Heisenberg.

Heisenberg's work showed that, on the sub-atomic scale, the closer you look the less you see.

Einstein's work showed us that, on the supra-atomic scale of length, width, height and time, there is no thing absolute beyond that which is locally defined: in other words, there is no universal truth.

Together, they say that the harder you look for universal truth, the less likely you are to find it.

That's why I subscribe to Science's adaptation to changing familiarity with Nature's essence and not to Religion's absolutist, unchanging conclusions about the essence of Nature.

Religion searches for confirmation of its pre-conceived notions of Nature's essence, while Science searches for which of all possible notions is most likely to be correct.

Einstein's and Heisenberg's work shows us we can't know anything with absolute certainty, we can only know with high confidence.

Your decision is: to which version of high confidence will you subscribe? Science's: re-defined according to the latest information, or Religion's: defined by original assumptions still in search of scientific validation?

It's funny that Religion discounts Science's insights but then resorts to Science as a means of validation.

Funny.

 

[The Wildcard]

UG,

That doesn't change the fact that the mistake that lockeed and Nasa made was pathetic considering what both have accomplished and the technology that we have. I didn't even say anything about inadequate technology. All i am saying is that the mistake that was made, was pathetic and it was.

BTW, this is in response to your eariler post, and not the one you just made above mine.

 

[A5]

Find the word that doesn't belong:

Faster, Better, Cheaper

A)Faster B)Better C)Cheaper D)They all belong

This was NASA's problem. They could only have 2 of the 3, and one of them(Cheaper) was already picked for them. As we all know, when you have Cheaper, that almost always eliminates Better. So NASA was really down to Faster and Cheaper, which left no room for Better, therefore we had the 2 probes crash. Very simple really.

 

[Tominator]

UG


<< It's funny that Religion discounts Science's insights but then resorts to Science as a means of validation. >>


Only in your mind. I guess you've mistaken 'Religion' with the Word of God.

OuterSquare..and where were you when the Apollo 11 mission was going on. I remember where I was and also remember that there was nothing 'graceful' about the landing. The Lunar Lander was butt ugly!

Visionaries had little to do with it. It was the people that had realistic expectations that found a way....it happened step by step. Redundant proven systems were used after hundreds of hours of testing.

You people seem to think a manned Mars landing is just around the corner! First must come a permanent space station possibly on the moon. And I'm not talking about that rube goldberg contraption they are building now. It must be self sufficient without dependency on Earth. That is not going to happen anytime soon.

We cannot even figure out how to keep a person reasonably healthy for any extended time, let alone the several months to a year even a brief visit to Mars would entail.

Someday it will happen, but I'll really be surprised to see it in the next 20 years. And then it will be done with proven scientific principles and years of testing systems that we have yet to even think about.

 

[UG]

Tominator;

I guess you've mistaken the Word for non-fiction.

 

[OS]

I wasn't around. Actually, yeah there were some problems with the landing site that NASA initially picked, like being covered with giant rocks. No doubt the lander isn't really beautiful, but esthetics were sacrificed in favor of weight saving.



<< Visionaries had little to do with it. It was the people that had realistic expectations that found a way....it happened step by step. Redundant proven systems were used after hundreds of hours of testing. >>



That's easy to say while we are here in the 21st century, over 30 years after the landing. Hindsight is 20/20 as the cliche says. Like I said previously, ten years before Apollo 11, manned space flight did not exist. Nobody had flown in space at that time. And in fact, when JFK announced that the US would land on the moon, a lot of people didn't take him seriously. They dismissed it as rhetoric and mere big talking. It certainly wasn't considered realistic at the time. At that point in time, if our leaders, engineers and pilots had said, &quot;it looks impossible to do, just forget about it&quot;, human footsteps wouldn't be on the moon today.

In fact, there were many times when the project was declared a failure and a disaster, like the fire on Apollo 1. But our people perservered through the times when the project was declared a failure and in a way that makes everyone who worked on Apollo a visionary. They came through even when others said they couldn't. Even today, 30 years later, the feat remains unmatched. If that was not the work of visionaries, then I don't know what is.

A trip to Mars isn't just around the corner. But one has to start somewhere. I believe that the technology for such a trip is within reach. While the technical issues you bring up are certainly valid, by no measure are they insurmountable. New technology can always be developed and created. A trip to Mars isn't a question of having the technology. It's a question of having the inspiration.

 

[Unsickle]

What we need is the Saturn V rocket. Too bad NASA lost the plans for it. We'd be able to launch the whole tuna can and get it to mars with one launch