What a joke. Our space program is shameful.

[LH]

No we do NOT have the technology to go to mars. We could create the technology, but we do not currently have it. Russia cant do it, they are piss poor, they cant even afford their half of the space station.

Mars has all sorts of tricky issues. The most important, is rapid bone loss in space. People in space 6 months have 50-55% bone loss, and they normally only recover 5-10% of what they lost. A Mars mission would take longer than six months. The people would come back with some much bone loss they probably couldnt move without breaking a bone.

Also Mars, isnt to hospitible, it would take all sorts of technology for a human to land on it, and live.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: LH
No we do NOT have the technology to go to mars. We could create the technology, but we do not currently have it. Russia cant do it, they are piss poor, they cant even afford their half of the space station. Mars has all sorts of tricky issues. The most important, is rapid bone loss in space. People in space 6 months have 50-55% bone loss, and they normally only recover 5-10% of what they lost. A Mars mission would take longer than six months. The people would come back with some much bone loss they probably couldnt move without breaking a bone. Also Mars, isnt to hospitible, it would take all sorts of technology for a human to land on it, and live.

While this is true, it is now much easier to go to Mars and get back. I assume you know they found HUGE amounts of water there. All you need are solar panels to generate electricity and break water down to hydrogen and oxygen. You now have unlimited breathable atmosphere and rocket fuel. Extended stays are now possible where they were not before.

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: LH
No we do NOT have the technology to go to mars. We could create the technology, but we do not currently have it. Russia cant do it, they are piss poor, they cant even afford their half of the space station.

Mars has all sorts of tricky issues. The most important, is rapid bone loss in space. People in space 6 months have 50-55% bone loss, and they normally only recover 5-10% of what they lost. A Mars mission would take longer than six months. The people would come back with some much bone loss they probably couldnt move without breaking a bone.

Also Mars, isnt to hospitible, it would take all sorts of technology for a human to land on it, and live.

I'm trying to learn more about this whole situation.
Is there somewhere I could read up on the different problems that you mentioned?

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: AaronP
we were supposed to have men on Mars 20 years ago
uh according to who, or what timeline? That was NEVER a realistic goal, and you know what, I think sending a manned mission to Mars in 1982 would have been a death sentence.
On the whole subject of space exploration and Mars, I've decided that anything that Dr. Robert Zubrin says is what I agree with. THat dude is the smartest f'er in the world.
Read his books, if you want to really learn some interesting things.

I actually went to the second annual Mars Society convention in Boulder in 1999 :Q
The original Wernher von Braun plan put manned Mars missions about 10 to 15 years after Apollo, i.e c. 1982.

 

[LH]

Long term space travel isnt feasible, till they solve all the health issues with being in space for more long periods of time. For one, the first mission is proposed to take 444 days. Roughly 15 months, more than double the amount of time as the current record for being in space. And that person came back with 55% bone loss, muscle atrophy, etc etc. People that have been in space that long, dont get to go again. I mean if someone lost 55% of their bone mass in 6 months, how much in 12, or 15? These people that have come back from 6 month stints basically have what amounts to late stage osteoporosis, not to mention muscle atrophy(including the heart). Will we be anywhere near Mars in 2015? Not likely, 2030? Maybe.

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: Cyberian

Originally posted by: LH
No we do NOT have the technology to go to mars. We could create the technology, but we do not currently have it. Russia cant do it, they are piss poor, they cant even afford their half of the space station.

Mars has all sorts of tricky issues. The most important, is rapid bone loss in space. People in space 6 months have 50-55% bone loss, and they normally only recover 5-10% of what they lost. A Mars mission would take longer than six months. The people would come back with some much bone loss they probably couldnt move without breaking a bone.

Also Mars, isnt to hospitible, it would take all sorts of technology for a human to land on it, and live.

I'm trying to learn more about this whole situation.
Is there somewhere I could read up on the different problems that you mentioned?

NASA has a mission profile that is updated periodically. I think it's around the JPL website somewhere. I'll poke around for it at some point. This is the newer, long-duration, live-off-the-land mission, not the insane $300 billion dollar proposal put out in the Bush Sr. administration that pretty much killed Mars exploration in the minds of Congressmen.

 

[CocaCola5]

What about waiting til technology expand to the point that the same Mars budget can get you a mission to say Jupiter or Pluto. I am assuming they'll be using pretty much the same propulsion techniques that was used originally to get to the Moon.

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: jjsoleWe don't need to waste money to 'prove scientific expertise' to anyone, and we already have plenty of national goals. We're still trying to put up the US flag in every region of this world, why worry about putting it up in places no one even exists. If we need something like this to gain pride, we're a pretty sorry nation, which isn't the case.

What a waste of money for resources that can be applied to a much more constructive goal. Sure technology often comes for NASA technology, but for the billions and billions of dollars that it uses it better. Money like that can be applied to the private sector in a much more applicable, if not competetive environment where the results can be used more immediately and benefitting more people. Hey, why don't we try to feed a few more starving mouths while were at it, or is that digressing from our 'national goals' too far.

Being stubbornly myopic never got anyone anywhere. Is it so wrong to have goals?

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: CocaCola5
What about waiting til technology expand to the point that the same Mars budget can get you a mission to say Jupiter or Pluto. I am assuming they'll be using pretty much the same propulsion techniques that was used originally to get to the Moon.

Pretty much. As I recall, the current plan calls for the use of Saturn V launch vehicles. Mars is possible with chemical rockets. Jupiter would require something more powerful, e.g. fission propulsion, which actually is well into the prototype testing phase and has been for a long time. You wouldn't want to send men to the Jupiter system though. They'd get fried by all the radiation there.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Scipionix

Originally posted by: CocaCola5 What about waiting til technology expand to the point that the same Mars budget can get you a mission to say Jupiter or Pluto. I am assuming they'll be using pretty much the same propulsion techniques that was used originally to get to the Moon.

Pretty much. As I recall, the current plan calls for the use of Saturn V launch vehicles. Mars is possible with chemical rockets. Jupiter would require something more powerful, e.g. fission propulsion, which actually is well into the prototype testing phase and has been for a long time. You wouldn't want to send men to the Jupiter system though. They'd get fried by all the radiation there.

Chemical rockets? Perhaps, but I would think ion propulsion might be used.

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Chemical rockets? Perhaps, but I would think ion propulsion might be used.

Ion propulsion is good for long, constant acceleration of small masses. Current designs just don't have the power to move a manned spacecraft. Fission rockets DO currently have the power to do that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Ion propulsion would be useless to lift a spacecraft from Earth into orbit. I assume that the craft would be built or at least assembled in orbit. There is reason to believe that the thrust of ion engines will go up significantly soon, perhaps by 2 orders of magnitude. Still low by conventional standards, but enough to accelerate from orbit to very high velocities. As I am sure you know, ion engines can run for long periods of time, and even at a fraction of a g, it does not take long to get going fast. If this doesnt pan out, there is always Project Orion

 

[littlelilith]

Right. And why do we need to go to Mars again? What (aside from Tang) did the "moon challenge" do for us? (serious question)

So far we have:

Nike air
Battery powered tools
Velcro

and one I'd like to add.. Ballpoint pens.

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: HayabusariderIf this doesnt pan out, there is always Project Orion

Ahh, Orion, the most elegant use of brute force I've ever seen Damn nonproliferation treaties.

 

[Angrymarshmello]

Wouldn't it take us 7 years to get to Mars with current technology? (Not including this ion propulsion stuff)

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
Wouldn't it take us 7 years to get to Mars with current technology? (Not including this ion propulsion stuff)

Naa.
Depends on relatives position of the two planets, total fuel, direct flight or one that uses gravity assist...
Could be done in 12 months I believe, although I do not have "official" numbers on me right now.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Scipionix

Originally posted by: flot Right. And why do we need to go to Mars again? What (aside from Tang) did the "moon challenge" do for us? (serious question)

What a waste of money for resources that can be applied to a much more constructive goal. Sure technology often comes for NASA technology, but for the billions and billions of dollars that it uses it better. Money like that can be applied to the private sector in a much more applicable

because none of the money nasa got ever ended up in the private sector. none. ever. and they never had competitions to decide what to get.

HEPA filters.

 

[tcsenter]

For starters, it advanced our technical skill, proved our scientific expertise to the world, provided a sense of purpose and a national goal, gave us new knowledge about our surroundings, and fulfilled the human need to explore, learn, and grow. Taken to the logical conclusion, you ask why we should do any basic scientific research, build any monumental structure, waste any time and money with art, etc.

So IOW, we should blow a trillion dollars so we can 'feel good' about ourselves as Americans? Nobody in the world has a space program except the US and the Russians, and the Russians are broke. If we closed NASA today it would still take the Russians 30 years to match our accomplishments.

For a couple trillion dollars, we got to pat ourselves on the back...and ball point pens. Oh yeah, some moon rocks. Well that's a most judicious use of public funds if I've ever heard one.

Let's do it again!

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
So IOW, we should blow a trillion dollars so we can 'feel good' about ourselves as Americans? Nobody in the world has a space program except the US and the Russians, and the Russians are broke. If we closed NASA today it would still take the Russians 30 years to match our accomplishments.
For a couple trillion dollars, we got to pat ourselves on the back...and ball point pens. Oh yeah, some moon rocks. Well that's a most judicious use of public funds if I've ever heard one.
Let's do it again!

Ever thought that maybe we could challenge ourselves, or are you so competitive with others that you can't see that? It is also not a trillion dollars. We're talking $20 billion, $40 billion tops over 10-20 years. That means that the annual cost would be the same as the cost of our current COTTON SUBSIDIES.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: tokamak

Originally posted by: AaronP
couldn't they use some kind of giant spinning ring like the space station in 2001 to simulate gravity?

i think i read somewhere that that doesnt actually work

They thought it would work, but the station would have to have exactly the same mass on all sides or it would wobble all over the place. If people are on the station, that would be impossible.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

For starters, it advanced our technical skill, proved our scientific expertise to the world, provided a sense of purpose and a national goal, gave us new knowledge about our surroundings, and fulfilled the human need to explore, learn, and grow. Taken to the logical conclusion, you ask why we should do any basic scientific research, build any monumental structure, waste any time and money with art, etc.

So IOW, we should blow a trillion dollars so we can 'feel good' about ourselves as Americans? Nobody in the world has a space program except the US and the Russians, and the Russians are broke. If we closed NASA today it would still take the Russians 30 years to match our accomplishments.

For a couple trillion dollars, we got to pat ourselves on the back...and ball point pens. Oh yeah, some moon rocks. Well that's a most judicious use of public funds if I've ever heard one.

Let's do it again!

and the japanese, and the french, and the chinese. i think the chinese shot a monkey into space not long ago. and who do you think built the canada arm?

 

[911paramedic]

We should go to the moon again, I like cheese.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: tcsenter

For starters, it advanced our technical skill, proved our scientific expertise to the world, provided a sense of purpose and a national goal, gave us new knowledge about our surroundings, and fulfilled the human need to explore, learn, and grow. Taken to the logical conclusion, you ask why we should do any basic scientific research, build any monumental structure, waste any time and money with art, etc.

So IOW, we should blow a trillion dollars so we can 'feel good' about ourselves as Americans? Nobody in the world has a space program except the US and the Russians, and the Russians are broke. If we closed NASA today it would still take the Russians 30 years to match our accomplishments.

For a couple trillion dollars, we got to pat ourselves on the back...and ball point pens. Oh yeah, some moon rocks. Well that's a most judicious use of public funds if I've ever heard one.

Let's do it again!

and the japanese, and the french, and the chinese. i think the chinese shot a monkey into space not long ago. and who do you think built the canada arm?

The Chinese have a manned program, and will be launching a man into orbit within a couple of years. They recently launched a Shenzhou rocket into orbit with the capsule, supposedly without a crew, for testing. The Chinese will probably be the next on the Moon, and at this rate may get to Mars before we do.

Personally, I think we should take all of the money currently being wasted on tobacco and farm subsidies, government cheese, and powdered milk buying programs, and put it into the space program. There would be far, far greater return in the long-term. Unfortunately, Congress is notoriously unable to think long-term.

 

[astriy]

Originally posted by: littlelilith

Right. And why do we need to go to Mars again? What (aside from Tang) did the "moon challenge" do for us? (serious question)

So far we have:

Nike air
Battery powered tools
Velcro

and one I'd like to add.. Ballpoint pens.

hehe I remember reading about this. How we were trying to design something to write with in space, spending a load of money on it. While the russians just used a pencil. I thought that was funny.

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Personally, I think we should take all of the money currently being wasted on tobacco and farm subsidies, government cheese, and powdered milk buying programs, and put it into the space program. There would be far, far greater return in the long-term. Unfortunately, Congress is notoriously unable to think long-term.

You're a genius. If only the rest of the country thought that way.