Angry Astronauts Write Letter

For a doable Mars mission you really need a dramatic cut in flight
time, ether a nuclear or ion propulsion for round trip.

Otherwise the consumables, radiation exposure etc becomes a deal
breaker.

But FIRST we need low cost to orbit, and sadly low cost isnt possible
in nasas culture

On Apr 16, 10:48�am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:

For a doable Mars mission you really need a dramatic cut in flight
time, ether a nuclear or ion propulsion for round trip.

Otherwise the consumables, radiation exposure etc becomes a deal
breaker.

All untrue.

--

While its true we COULD do a mars mission with chemical propulsion,
the risks costs and time involved just isnt practical.

like bicycling across the US sure it could be done but commion sense
indicates its not practical.

besides with such a long flight time a mechanical breakdown could see
the entire crew die a long slow death.

a bad day apollo 13......

On Apr 17, 5:55�am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:
On Apr 16, 10:48?am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:

For a doable Mars mission you really need a dramatic cut in flight
time, ether a nuclear or ion propulsion for round trip.

Otherwise the consumables, radiation exposure etc becomes a deal
breaker.

All untrue.

While its true we COULD do a mars mission with chemical propulsion,
the risks costs and time involved just isnt practical.

Bull****.



besides with such a long flight time a mechanical breakdown could see
the entire crew die a long slow death.

So it was impossible for Europe to discover and explore the New
World...

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
�territory."
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � --G. Behn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well at least the crew had air to breathe and could fish for food and
werent getting a possible killer radiation risk on the way.

beyond which we need low cost to orbit, once thats accomplished
everything else gets easier

On Apr 17, 6:15*am, " wrote:
On Apr 17, 5:55 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:



" wrote:
On Apr 16, 10:48?am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:

For a doable Mars mission you really need a dramatic cut in flight
time, ether a nuclear or ion propulsion for round trip.

Otherwise the consumables, radiation exposure etc becomes a deal
breaker.

All untrue.

While its true we COULD do a mars mission with chemical propulsion,
the risks costs and time involved just isnt practical.

Bull****.

A great rebuttal, there. I know, you've been over this many times
before, and I could track down the posts ....


besides with such a long flight time a mechanical breakdown could see
the entire crew die a long slow death.

So it was impossible for Europe to discover and explore the New
World...

How many of those wooden tubs had cameras on board?

(And the loss rate of wooden tubs was pretty high even just sticking
to ordinary fishing along the European coast -- so maybe people were
used to the idea of losign 50 or 100 guys every voyage.)

well at least the crew had air to breathe and could fish for food and
werent getting a possible killer radiation risk on the way.

beyond which we need low cost to orbit, once thats accomplished
everything else gets easier.

I'd say Bob came up with a good point on this one.

/dps

On Apr 17, 12:40*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Of course you would. *But you're just a nymskull, afraid to associate
your name with what you'd say, so what you would say carries very
little weight.

I'm pretty sure it's trivially easy for my name to be associated with
what I say, but then I knew replying to you was just a way to become
more irritated by your attitude. Sorry, carry on being a *******.

/dps