who gets Mars?

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: LongCoolMother
is there any benefit though of exploring mars? maybe some special chemical or something never found? is there an atmosphere of air on mars? or is the atmosphere composed of some strange gases?

95.3% carbon dioxide, 2.7% nitrogen, and 1.6% argon, with traces of oxygen (0.15%) and water vapor (0.03%). Pressure almost 1% of earth's.

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: matt426malm
Great Mars-Mission site
this combats the idiocy of NASA's 400 billion 90-day plan, and presents some intelligent alternative proposals based on reality.
could be done for 30 billion - 55 billion

Some intelligent, less expensive alternatives like Beagle 2, right?

Let's just hope that the effort doesn't become an international debacle like the space station. Maybe we'll land Americans on Mars about the same time the ISS is usable and useful.

Okay, fail how? Have you found some conceptual flaw pehaps? Yes it could crash, but there are inherent risks with space exploration. It won't end up like the ISS as long as we lanuch from the ground, which we can do with apollo . It would end up like the ISS if it was built in orbit. The risk is lowered because you would send the return veichile first. The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is reacted with the stored hydrogen (H2) to produce methane (CH4) and water (H2O). We don't launch the rocket carrying the manned hab until the return veichile is filled and ready to launch.

another article on Mars missions

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Who would want Mars? How far away is it? What can you use it for? I say let Europe or Japan throw their resources down that black hole and lets watch it on TV.

Are you serious? It's an insurance policy. What if the Earth gets hit by a large comet or asteroid?

Yes, I am serious. Lets invest our resources in developing a comet defense system instead throwing away on going to Mars.

We should at least be looking for ateroids on collison with us. All the astronomers looking for asteroids are asking for is something like a few million to fund the search. Maybe have a rocket or two of the slow steady push variety, if we catch it long ahead of time. We've got plenty of h-bombs just detonate a few just above the asteroid's surface, the surface gets hot is blown of the surface, asteroid deflected. That couldn't cost that much. Especilaly if we just use the nukes. It's a risk to launch but if a 1 mile asteroid was coming it's a negligable one.

I'm for both, manned mission to look for life study the geology, be the first there. Then possibly begin a regular base. Which could then evolve into a sizeable population on another planet.

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: KraziKid

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: KraziKid

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Also, there's absolutely no need to send humans to Mars... there's no real scientific benefit. We could send a large fleet of robots to mars for the same cost. The only reason we would want to do it is to say "we were first". Even though I support the space program, given the cost of a human mission, I'd say the money could be spent in a lot of better ways...

A mars mission should IMO opinion bring 2 technician/astronauts and 2 scientists and stay for about 500 days. Two scientists, with a large rover would be able to cover a distance of up to hundrreds of miles from the landing. The scientists will never be able to make real time decisions. A geologist on Mars would not just be taking pictures, he would be taking samples from GOOD locations, and be able to make well informed judgements of what to explore next. A rover would take samples from arbitrary locations. A geologist in the field can do so much more than a rover.

Exactly, I pretty much agree with you. Except that most books I have read said something around a 6-8 person crew. But I do agree about the 500 day mission, and the fact that robots can't make real-time decisions (look at the rover stuck on the platform because of the airbag). If their were a person there, they could figure something out by having a the advantage of being able to think on the spot. While I do believe the rover will get off the platform (one way or another), if a human were there we would be exploring by now.

6-8 could do more but would cost more, I'm trying to present the cheapest solution. What books have you read? For me Case for Mars, Travler's guide to Mars, Entering Space, Mining the Sky. The rover did get off they were just playing it safe.

I have also read The Case for Mars, and Mission to Mars - An Astronaut's Vision of Our Future in Space. I read the second one the latest, so maybe that is where I remember the 6-8 person figure.

<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://

[L=http://www.marssociety.org/news/2003/1029.asp">Testimony before the US Senate Science Committee</a>]http://www.marssociety.org/news/2003/1029.asp[/L][/L] with Zubrin by invintation from John McCain. Nobody makes the case with more passion that's for sure.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Who would want Mars? How far away is it? What can you use it for? I say let Europe or Japan throw their resources down that black hole and lets watch it on TV.

Are you serious? It's an insurance policy. What if the Earth gets hit by a large comet or asteroid?

Yes, I am serious. Lets invest our resources in developing a comet defense system instead throwing away on going to Mars.

We should at least be looking for ateroids on collison with us. All the astronomers looking for asteroids are asking for is something like a few million to fund the search. Maybe have a rocket or two of the slow steady push variety, if we catch it long ahead of time. We've got plenty of h-bombs just detonate a few just above the asteroid's surface, the surface gets hot is blown of the surface, asteroid deflected. That couldn't cost that much. Especilaly if we just use the nukes. It's a risk to launch but if a 1 mile asteroid was coming it's a negligable one.

I'm for both, manned mission to look for life study the geology, be the first there. Then possibly begin a regular base. Which could then evolve into a sizeable population on another planet.

The problem with shifting human population to Mars is that it will shift people from the first world, while the 3rd world continues growing exponentially. So we will end up with Americans on Mars, Indians overrunning the Earth. What would be the point?

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Who would want Mars? How far away is it? What can you use it for? I say let Europe or Japan throw their resources down that black hole and lets watch it on TV.

Are you serious? It's an insurance policy. What if the Earth gets hit by a large comet or asteroid?

Yes, I am serious. Lets invest our resources in developing a comet defense system instead throwing away on going to Mars.

We should at least be looking for ateroids on collison with us. All the astronomers looking for asteroids are asking for is something like a few million to fund the search. Maybe have a rocket or two of the slow steady push variety, if we catch it long ahead of time. We've got plenty of h-bombs just detonate a few just above the asteroid's surface, the surface gets hot is blown of the surface, asteroid deflected. That couldn't cost that much. Especilaly if we just use the nukes. It's a risk to launch but if a 1 mile asteroid was coming it's a negligable one.

I'm for both, manned mission to look for life study the geology, be the first there. Then possibly begin a regular base. Which could then evolve into a sizeable population on another planet.

The problem with shifting human population to Mars is that it will shift people from the first world, while the 3rd world continues growing exponentially. So we will end up with Americans on Mars, Indians overrunning the Earth. What would be the point?

I got ahead of myself, probabably is a LONG way of before there would be more than say a few dozen people there. Proably research initiall, possibly followed by tourism. Also, people needed for the production of simple goods and services there. Shipping would likely be prohibitivly expensive. Possibly mining asteroids but that would be VERY FAR off, but that's just speculation Are you suggesting that there is a real risk for all of America leaving for Mars? Maybe population would eventually reach the thousands, at which point it would be more of a territory of the US like a cold Guam.

 

[MailBoxHead]

Duck Dodgers.

 

[stormbv]

Space travel...just yet another folly of human knowledge.

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42Mars has a thin atmosphere mostly composed of Carbon Dioxide. Similar to Earth's before plants came about an started producing oxygen. It is much, much thinner than Earth's though. Something like 5-10 millibars.

The common knowledge/myth that our oxygen supply comes from plants is false. Well most of it anyways, contrary to what the tree-hugging whackos would like you to believe. Plants only produce oxygen when they have all the ingredients for photsynthesis readily available. At other times they take in oxygen and produce CO2 just like animals. Sadly this is the majority of the time, as 50% of the time it is night, and sometimes during the day maybe it's dark because there is a storm, or maybe the plant is in a dense forest and there are bigger trees above it blocking out the light, or maybe it is indoors.

I've seen at least 2 studies which say that the amazonian tropical rainforest absorbs more oxygen than it produces.

The actual primary source of Earth's oxygen supply is electrolysis of water (lightning hitting the oceans). The reason the oceans don't eventually dry up from this process is that water molecules in space are slingshotted into Earth's orbit when they get caught in Jupiter's gravitational field.

Since Mars' atmosphere is too thin to hold water in it's liquid state, this doesn't happen there.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: glugglug

Originally posted by: Chaotic42Mars has a thin atmosphere mostly composed of Carbon Dioxide. Similar to Earth's before plants came about an started producing oxygen. It is much, much thinner than Earth's though. Something like 5-10 millibars.

The common knowledge/myth that our oxygen supply comes from plants is false. Well most of it anyways, contrary to what the tree-hugging whackos would like you to believe. Plants only produce oxygen when they have all the ingredients for photsynthesis readily available. At other times they take in oxygen and produce CO2 just like animals. Sadly this is the majority of the time, as 50% of the time it is night, and sometimes during the day maybe it's dark because there is a storm, or maybe the plant is in a dense forest and there are bigger trees above it blocking out the light, or maybe it is indoors.

I've seen at least 2 studies which say that the amazonian tropical rainforest absorbs more oxygen than it produces.

The actual primary source of Earth's oxygen supply is electrolysis of water (lightning hitting the oceans). The reason the oceans don't eventually dry up from this process is that water molecules in space are slingshotted into Earth's orbit when they get caught in Jupiter's gravitational field.

Since Mars' atmosphere is too thin to hold water in it's liquid state, this doesn't happen there.

I don't mean trees, I mean small plants in the water billions of years ago. It's "common knowledge", but here is a paper suggesting that the oxygen came from geologic events. Here is a site that says that the oxygen came from algae.