31
   

Should NASA go to Mars or back to the Moon?

Forums: Science, Space Exploration, Nasa, Fantasy, Space
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2010 08:06 am
@farmerman,
By the way, Mars' lack of a magnetic field to protect it from cosmic radiation is a function of the composition of the planetary core, no?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2010 08:26 am
I've been drifting towards Velikovskyian views lately . . . i think god and satan were playing snooker in the early solar system, and our planet got hit by a giganto planetisimal, giving us a hot nickel-iron core, and thereby incidentally providing us with our planetary cosmic sun screen . . .
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 08:58 pm
We have just passed the 53rd anniversary of Sputnik. Ironically now, everyone at the time of the moon landing thought that by 2010, humans would be thriving in space. Unfortunately for us, to succeed, one first has to try. How pathetic. I wonder how this process has gone for some of the other species out there. Since the universe is 13 billion years old, I would be extremely surprised if there weren't numerous spacefaring species.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 03:26 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Why didn't he fix it, then, so it would work? Obama cancelled it and didn't substitute any other manned program. That is a matter of public record.


I did not state that I agree with Obama in not funding a man space program however the last president who did so in any real sense was Kennedy.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 03:43 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Ironically now, everyone at the time of the moon landing thought that by 2010, humans would be thriving in space. Unfortunately for us, to succeed, one first has to try.


This is hardly the first time in human history where the capability to explore was not used after some brief first efforts.

In the lifetime of the human race or even in time frame of human technology culture to date, this is not an excesses delay.

For an analogy, the spacefaring Apollo 1950s technology that got us to the moon was similar to the Viking seafaring technology of the 13 century.

As technology advance even without heavy investment in space flight the solar system and it resources will become open to us.

0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 05:17 am
Yeah, probably someday in theory, but this is the first time in decades when we didn't have some manned space program either in progress or on the drawing board being funded. Now it's just pipe dreams and wishes.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 06:50 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
first time in decades when we didn't have some manned space program either in progress or on the drawing board being funded. Now it's just pipe dreams and wishes.


The space shuttle system only gave us very low orbit manned access to space and we had no deep space access since the Apollo program ending.

The Russian and very soon commerce businesses still allow low earth orbit access and the Chinese now also have low manned low earth orbit access.

I would also not be surprise if we also now have access to low orbit in a black program
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 08:19 pm
Here a link to a low orbit military black program that likely exist now.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/030606p1.xml
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 08:27 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
first time in decades when we didn't have some manned space program either in progress or on the drawing board being funded. Now it's just pipe dreams and wishes.


The space shuttle system only gave us very low orbit manned access to space and we had no deep space access since the Apollo program ending.

The Russian and very soon commerce businesses still allow low earth orbit access and the Chinese now also have low manned low earth orbit access.

I would also not be surprise if we also now have access to low orbit in a black program


Now we have neither an orbital nor a deep space manned program. Post Obama, we will have to depend on the Russians and the Chinese.
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2010 07:39 pm
The big question in my mind is WHY have we never gone back to the moon? Certainly technology has advanced enough in 40 years to make a moon visit far less expensive. And with international cooperation it could be downright cheap!
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2010 07:55 pm
@NickFun,
Quote:
The big question in my mind is WHY have we never gone back to the moon? Certainly technology has advanced enough in 40 years to make a moon visit far less expensive. And with international cooperation it could be downright cheap!


The technology now would made it a lot safer and we could do a lot more but it not going to be cheaper.

It still take very large amounts of energy similar to a small nuclear weapon to reach the moon just to start with.

The rocket technology of 2010 to handle that amount of power is not a lot better then the rocket technology of the 1960s and is not likely to become better.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2010 06:02 pm
It's not likely to become much better with chemical propulsion, which isn't the only choice.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2010 06:36 pm
@Brandon9000,
Chemical fuels is likely to remain the heavy lifter in getting off the surface for very long time.

Yes there are other way such as push plate nuclear systems but they will not be allow inside the atmosphere .

A space elevator is not in the cards either for the next hundred years or more.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2010 09:38 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Chemical fuels is likely to remain the heavy lifter in getting off the surface for very long time.

Yes there are other way such as push plate nuclear systems but they will not be allow inside the atmosphere .

A space elevator is not in the cards either for the next hundred years or more.


They tested a nuclear heat exchange rocket engine in the 1950s and it worked before funding was cut off. It was called Project Nerva.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2010 06:52 am
@Brandon9000,
Sorry there are a lot of ways to tap nuclear power to be able to place thousands of tons anywhere in the solar system from the earth surface and had been since the 60s however there is no way that any of them will be allow to be used in the atmosphere where the shear power is most needed.

Hell every time a small probe is launch with a small nuclear "battery" on board to provide electric power it draw protests.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2010 07:16 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Sorry there are a lot of ways to tap nuclear power to be able to place thousands of tons anywhere in the solar system from the earth surface and had been since the 60s however there is no way that any of them will be allow to be used in the atmosphere where the shear power is most needed.

Hell every time a small probe is launch with a small nuclear "battery" on board to provide electric power it draw protests.

Time to ignore protesters who are wrong. However, in addition to nuclear propulsion, ionic is easy to do, and will conserve fuel. You just can't use it for takeoff and landing.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2010 07:55 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Time to ignore protesters who are wrong. However, in addition to nuclear propulsion, ionic is easy to do, and will conserve fuel. You just can't use it for takeoff and landing.


The delta V and the energy needed to get through the atmosphere and into orbit is a very large part of the total energy budget for trips to anywhere in the solar system.

You are not providing a lot of aid by adding nuclear power for short trips such as to the moon for example or likely to Mars after reaching earth orbit.

Side note you are not likely to be allow nuclear rockets in landing or taking off from Mars either.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2010 08:25 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Time to ignore protesters who are wrong. However, in addition to nuclear propulsion, ionic is easy to do, and will conserve fuel. You just can't use it for takeoff and landing.


The delta V and the energy needed to get through the atmosphere and into orbit is a very large part of the total energy budget for trips to anywhere in the solar system.

You are not providing a lot of aid by adding nuclear power for short trips such as to the moon for example or likely to Mars after reaching earth orbit.

Side note you are not likely to be allow nuclear rockets in landing or taking off from Mars either.

Ionic could be used for everything except near planets.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2010 08:31 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Ionic could be used for everything except near planets.
e

Yes and the technology is useful however it is not going to effect the cost of man missions.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2010 12:42 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Ionic could be used for everything except near planets.
e

Yes and the technology is useful however it is not going to effect the cost of man missions.

But it would allow longer ranges with the same amount of fuel.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion? - Discussion by wandeljw
New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
New species of hominid discovered - Question by FBM
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
More (much more) dinosaur soft tissue turning up - Discussion by gungasnake
Must Scientific Knowledge Be Considered Relative? - Discussion by wandeljw
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Should NASA go to Mars or back to the Moon?
  3. » Page 23
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 12:50:14
▲ ▼