A human Mars mission?

Has there been any proper work done for a human mission to Mars yet?

i.e. a rough design on the type of spacecraft that will be used, or
some small amount of metal being bent, or at the very least a rough
selection of who will be in the crew, or at least ANYTHING specfic
that will give some indication that NASA is serious about going to
Mars.


Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"There's a light at the end
of the tunnel" says the optimist.
"It's probably a train coming
stright at us" responds the pessimist.

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 15:33:52 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Christopher) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Has there been any proper work done for a human mission to Mars yet?

i.e. a rough design on the type of spacecraft that will be used, or
some small amount of metal being bent, or at the very least a rough
selection of who will be in the crew, or at least ANYTHING specfic
that will give some indication that NASA is serious about going to
Mars.

Why should NASA be "serious about going to Mars"? They've got no
Congressional authorization to do so, other than unmanned probes.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 15:33:52 GMT, (Christopher)
wrote:

Has there been any proper work done for a human mission to Mars yet?

NASA has done innumerable studies on the subject, going back at least
to the Apollo era. The chances of Congress agreeing to fund any of
them are somewhere down near zero. In 1989, President Bush 41 proposed
a massive human exploration program for the solar system. It was dead
on arrival on Capitol Hill, mostly because NASA's suggestions were
outrageously expensive, even for NASA ($500 billion was the oft-cited
cost.)

i.e. a rough design on the type of spacecraft that will be used, or
some small amount of metal being bent, or at the very least a rough
selection of who will be in the crew,

NASA would be slapped down by Congress in an instant if it tried to
spend any significant funds on human exploration of Mars. Even things
that weren't really Mars-related, but would have been useful for a
Mars mission, get killed pretty quickly by Congress. See Transhab, for
example.

Ergo, no bent metal, no crew selection, etc.

or at least ANYTHING specfic
that will give some indication that NASA is serious about going to
Mars.

See the Mars Reference Mission:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/mars/ref.../hem/hem1.html

Brian

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 16:23:36 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 15:33:52 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Christopher) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Has there been any proper work done for a human mission to Mars yet?

i.e. a rough design on the type of spacecraft that will be used, or
some small amount of metal being bent, or at the very least a rough
selection of who will be in the crew, or at least ANYTHING specfic
that will give some indication that NASA is serious about going to
Mars.

Why should NASA be "serious about going to Mars"?

Because its there, and no human foot has yet set foot on the surface.

They've got no
Congressional authorization to do so, other than unmanned probes.

And even with those they are going to be coming second next year.


Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"There's a light at the end
of the tunnel" says the optimist.
"It's probably a train coming
stright at us" responds the pessimist.

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 19:03:23 GMT, Brian Thorn
wrote:

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 15:33:52 GMT, (Christopher)
wrote:

Has there been any proper work done for a human mission to Mars yet?

NASA has done innumerable studies on the subject, going back at least
to the Apollo era. The chances of Congress agreeing to fund any of
them are somewhere down near zero. In 1989, President Bush 41 proposed
a massive human exploration program for the solar system. It was dead
on arrival on Capitol Hill, mostly because NASA's suggestions were
outrageously expensive, even for NASA ($500 billion was the oft-cited
cost.)

i.e. a rough design on the type of spacecraft that will be used, or
some small amount of metal being bent, or at the very least a rough
selection of who will be in the crew,

NASA would be slapped down by Congress in an instant if it tried to
spend any significant funds on human exploration of Mars. Even things
that weren't really Mars-related, but would have been useful for a
Mars mission, get killed pretty quickly by Congress. See Transhab, for
example.

Ergo, no bent metal, no crew selection, etc.

Thats a sad indictment of America and it's 'frontier sprit' I bet if
our European Space Agency announced a human mission to Mars, and
started major work and had a date for the landing Congress would have
a rapid change of mind, as Americans don't like coming in second
place.

or at least ANYTHING specfic
that will give some indication that NASA is serious about going to
Mars.

See the Mars Reference Mission:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/mars/ref.../hem/hem1.html

Thanks for the url.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"There's a light at the end
of the tunnel" says the optimist.
"It's probably a train coming
stright at us" responds the pessimist.

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 21:02:27 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Christopher) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Why should NASA be "serious about going to Mars"?

Because its there, and no human foot has yet set foot on the surface.

Then go tell your Congressman, and quite whining about NASA.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

(Christopher) wrote:
Thats a sad indictment of America and it's 'frontier sprit'

The 'frontier spirit' is mostly a myth anyhow. What truth there was
to it was mostly about economics and exploitation, not about going
someplace for the sake of going there.

I bet if our European Space Agency announced a human mission to Mars
and started major work and had a date for the landing Congress would have
a rapid change of mind, as Americans don't like coming in second place.

Not only is the Cold War over, the odds of the EU/ESA doing such a
thing are slightly less than that of my neighborhood Little League
team winning the world series.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 21:06:32 GMT, (Christopher)
wrote:

Thats a sad indictment of America and it's 'frontier sprit'

You're indicting us because we don't want to spend $100 billion to
raise our flag on Mars? I'd like to see a manned expedition to Mars in
my lifetime, but there are many more important things to do with that
kind of money right now.

I bet if
our European Space Agency announced a human mission to Mars, and
started major work and had a date for the landing Congress would have
a rapid change of mind, as Americans don't like coming in second
place.

Possible. Unfortunately, I strongly advise you to *not* hold your
breath waiting for the Europeans to initiate such a program.

Brian

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 21:09:26 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 21:02:27 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Christopher) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Why should NASA be "serious about going to Mars"?

Because its there, and no human foot has yet set foot on the surface.

Then go tell your Congressman, and quite whining about NASA.

Im not an American, so you do it for me.


Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"There's a light at the end
of the tunnel" says the optimist.
"It's probably a train coming
stright at us" responds the pessimist.

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 22:57:02 GMT, Brian Thorn
wrote:

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 21:02:27 GMT, (Christopher)
wrote:

They've got no
Congressional authorization to do so, other than unmanned probes.

And even with those they are going to be coming second next year.

Huh? Beagle 2 will be the *fourth* successful Mars lander, assuming it
is successful (which is far from certain.) Beagle follows...

Viking 1 (USA) 1976
Viking 2 (USA) 1976
Pathfinder / Sojourner (USA) 1997

True, but in the current crop the US probes will be arriving later
then our Beagle 2.

And Mars Express's arrival in Mars orbit will be greeted by two
operational US spacecraft (Mars Global Surveyor and Mars Odyssey)
already there.

They are not landers though.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"There's a light at the end
of the tunnel" says the optimist.
"It's probably a train coming
stright at us" responds the pessimist.