Should NASA go to Mars or back to the Moon?

@Setanta,

The relative gravity of Mars is 38% of one G (the force of "gravity" on our planet at sea level). My plan to use snowballs from Saturn would have the one drawback that you'd need to keep cartin' the **** in. It's not the gravity well which is responsible for the thin atmosphere on Mars, it's the lack of a magnetic field. The solar wind is a serious bitch if you don't have some really mega-sun block . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In term of human life times or even 10s of thousands of years off hand I do not think that any large part of the atmosphere would leak away solar wind or no solar wind or a lower g field then earth.

Hit Mars with some big water full comets and I do not think you would need to repeat it for perhaps a few 100s thousands years even.

If some one could loan me access to a super computer for a few months I might be able to give you a better idea then that however.

0 Replies

Mars AND Moon out of reach

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

"We think to go direct to Mars with today's technology and money is riskier than we would want to be associated with," Augustine said. "It would likely not succeed."

Of the 237 men who set out on five ships to circumnavigate the earth in 1519, only 18 completed the circumnavigation of the globe and managed to return to Spain in 1522. They were led by the Basque navigator Juan Sebastián Elcano, who took over command of the expedition after Magellan's death. (wiki)

That fool shoulda stayed home too, obviously.

We'll get there soon I think, but I doubt it'll be America.

2 Replies

@Eorl,

The motivation to circle the globe and find new land was obviously greater than the motivation to go to Mars. At least when you discover new land on Earth it's already terraformed and ready for exploitation Wink

It's like free money.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Don't forget spreading the word of god . . . that's was a big deal to them boys . . .

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

It's good to see reason returning to NASA.

0 Replies

You mean NASA's gonna spread the word of god on Mars?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Bill -- I somehow missed your explanation when you posted it. It makes sense now, thank you very much.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Don't forget spreading the word of god . . . that's was a big deal to them boys . . .

Maybe the church should fund the trip to Mars. If they find microbes up there then they can actually guide their evolution into God-Fearing future Martians who will be genetically compelled to give their money to the church.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

No. Obama won't extend NASA's budget, so they won't be able to do that now. Further proof he's a Muslim.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

No. Obama won't extend NASA's budget, so they won't be able to do that now. Further proof he's a Muslim.

I knew it.

0 Replies

@Eorl,

Eorl wrote:

"We think to go direct to Mars with today's technology and money is riskier than we would want to be associated with," Augustine said. "It would likely not succeed."

Of the 237 men who set out on five ships to circumnavigate the earth in 1519, only 18 completed the circumnavigation of the globe and managed to return to Spain in 1522. They were led by the Basque navigator Juan Sebastián Elcano, who took over command of the expedition after Magellan's death. (wiki)

That fool shoulda stayed home too, obviously.

We'll get there soon I think, but I doubt it'll be America.

Not with that kind of attitude - who the hell is Augustine anyway? - but I have hopes we'll find better NASA managers than this particular clown soon. Btw, if you see the plan (by Buzz Aldrin) I linked to earlier on this thread, it doesn't allow for return to Earth: rather, the astronauts are expected to be colonizers in Mars.

Most of the risk and expense is in coming back, not getting there.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

LOL Thomas - was quickly scanning old posts and misread your comment as "...he (Obama) is a Martian".

Good article in new Economist:

http://media.economist.com/images/na/2009w34/Space2.jpg

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14256807

0 Replies

Ugh -- Obama does the Kennedy thing again.

Today's New York Times wrote:

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) -- President Barack Obama predicted Thursday his new space exploration plans would lead American astronauts to Mars and back in his lifetime, a bold forecast relying on rockets and propulsion still to be imagined and built.

Full Article

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Ugh -- Obama does the Kennedy thing again.

I have yet to see any serious commentator on the space program cheering the Obama plan. The consensus is that it is the end of manned flight for a LONG time. I was also noticing that the space corporations with the money are not interested in putting their own money into research, as the last time around they got burned bad (Sea Launch et all). Given that no one is willing to take over the investment roll from the government on the scale needed the Obama plan is DOA, it is a plan to bury manned space exploration.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

The consensus is that it is the end of manned flight for a LONG time

.

The end of US manned flights not the rest of the world.

Please take note of the China current man space program and announced plans for the future as one example of this.

Hell a man space program does not even need high tech as we went to the moon mainly on late 1950s technology.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

The end of US manned flights not the rest of the world

Right.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

What is very annoying is now that we know that there is useful amounts of water on the moon it is the key to man flight to the rest of the solar system.

A key that we are going to now allow others to used after having a lead of a half century or more!

1 Reply

@BillRM,

what is very annoying is that we have already spent something like $5billion on the moon rocket, have let another $10 billion in contracts which will cost anywhere from $2.5-$10 billion to get out of (since an out clause was never written into the contracts it all needs to be negotiated now). ALL of this money, and 5+ years, was wasted because we can't make up our minds what we want to do.

0 Replies

I'm starting to feel like the next thing they really need to do is build a replacement to the shuttle. With the shuttles at the end of their run, I'm feeling very grounded.

1 Reply

Should NASA go to Mars or back to the Moon?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know