Human Mars Mission Impossible?

Hello Bill

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:27:37 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" wrote:

Jim wrote:

I couldn't believe my ears as I listened to Andy Rooney on CBS' news
program "60 Minutes" last night so I checked on the official program
transcript and there it was in black and white.

In a segment titled "Ground Control To Mr. Bush", Andy Rooney revealed
that

" Space exploration hasn't produced much for us except some good
pictures."

and

"The moon is like a trip to the mall compared with going to Mars. The
moon is 250,000 miles away. Mars is 35 million miles. Scientists have
said that it would probably be a one-way trip for whoever made it,
because gravity on Mars is so strong that it would be impossible to
bring along enough fuel for them to take off and return to Earth.
Anyone going there might never come back. This makes the trip to Mars
by President Bush especially attractive to Democrats."

Andy Rooney doesn't seem to care that the Moon is spartan compared to
Mars in things like actually having an atmosphere with water and CO2.


Sorry Bill but you are wrong about Mars having water and an
atmosphere. Would you like a source? Okay. I cite as my authoritative
source on the matter Anne Applebaum of the New York Times. In her
column of January 7, 2004, page a21, she writes:

"Not only does the planet have no life, it has no air, no water, no
warmth."

See, the NYTimes says so.

Now I wonder just what it was that Mars Express actually discovered???




Best Regards, Jim Plaxco
National Space Society http://www.nss.org
Astrodigital http://www.astrodigital.org

Hi all,

Correction to my previous post. I incorrectly stated that Applebaum's
column appeared in the NY Times when in fact it was in the Washington
Post.

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:28:23 -0600, Jim wrote:

Hello Bill

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:27:37 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" wrote:

Jim wrote:

I couldn't believe my ears as I listened to Andy Rooney on CBS' news
program "60 Minutes" last night so I checked on the official program
transcript and there it was in black and white.

In a segment titled "Ground Control To Mr. Bush", Andy Rooney revealed
that

" Space exploration hasn't produced much for us except some good
pictures."

and

"The moon is like a trip to the mall compared with going to Mars. The
moon is 250,000 miles away. Mars is 35 million miles. Scientists have
said that it would probably be a one-way trip for whoever made it,
because gravity on Mars is so strong that it would be impossible to
bring along enough fuel for them to take off and return to Earth.
Anyone going there might never come back. This makes the trip to Mars
by President Bush especially attractive to Democrats."

Andy Rooney doesn't seem to care that the Moon is spartan compared to
Mars in things like actually having an atmosphere with water and CO2.


Sorry Bill but you are wrong about Mars having water and an
atmosphere. Would you like a source? Okay. I cite as my authoritative
source on the matter Anne Applebaum of the New York Times. In her
column of January 7, 2004, page a21, she writes:

"Not only does the planet have no life, it has no air, no water, no
warmth."

See, the NYTimes says so.

Now I wonder just what it was that Mars Express actually discovered???




Best Regards, Jim Plaxco
National Space Society http://www.nss.org
Astrodigital http://www.astrodigital.org

Best Regards, Jim Plaxco
National Space Society http://www.nss.org
Astrodigital http://www.astrodigital.org

On 27 Jan 2004 09:49:38 -0800, (Michael Ejercito)
wrote, in part:
Jim wrote in message . ..

I couldn't believe my ears as I listened to Andy Rooney on CBS' news
program "60 Minutes" last night so I checked on the official program
transcript and there it was in black and white.

"The moon is like a trip to the mall compared with going to Mars. The
moon is 250,000 miles away. Mars is 35 million miles. Scientists have
said that it would probably be a one-way trip for whoever made it,
because gravity on Mars is so strong that it would be impossible to
bring along enough fuel for them to take off and return to Earth.
Anyone going there might never come back. This makes the trip to Mars
by President Bush especially attractive to Democrats."

Actually, an Atlas rocket should have enough fuel to escape Mars's
gravitational pull and dock with the space shuttle orbiter.

Of course, since Mars has less gravity than Earth, since it is
possible to escape from Earth's gravity, it is possible to escape from
Mars' gravity.

But Mr. Rooney's point was more valid than that. An Atlas rocket is
rather bigger than anything we have previously sent to Mars. There are
no aerospace contractors on Mars. Not even ones who can turn out a
humble V-2.

This does not mean that he is *right*, but the fact that an existing
Earth rocket can escape Mars' gravity is not in itself a disproof of
his points.

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html

Jim wrote:

Hello Bill

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:27:37 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" wrote:

Jim wrote:

I couldn't believe my ears as I listened to Andy Rooney on CBS' news
program "60 Minutes" last night so I checked on the official program
transcript and there it was in black and white.

In a segment titled "Ground Control To Mr. Bush", Andy Rooney revealed
that

" Space exploration hasn't produced much for us except some good
pictures."

and

"The moon is like a trip to the mall compared with going to Mars. The
moon is 250,000 miles away. Mars is 35 million miles. Scientists have
said that it would probably be a one-way trip for whoever made it,
because gravity on Mars is so strong that it would be impossible to
bring along enough fuel for them to take off and return to Earth.
Anyone going there might never come back. This makes the trip to Mars
by President Bush especially attractive to Democrats."

Andy Rooney doesn't seem to care that the Moon is spartan compared to
Mars in things like actually having an atmosphere with water and CO2.

Sorry Bill but you are wrong about Mars having water and an
atmosphere. Would you like a source? Okay. I cite as my authoritative
source on the matter Anne Applebaum of the New York Times. In her
column of January 7, 2004, page a21, she writes:

"Not only does the planet have no life, it has no air, no water, no
warmth."

Maybe she should visit Venus.

John Savard wrote:

On 27 Jan 2004 09:49:38 -0800, (Michael Ejercito)
wrote, in part:
Jim wrote in message . ..

I couldn't believe my ears as I listened to Andy Rooney on CBS' news
program "60 Minutes" last night so I checked on the official program
transcript and there it was in black and white.

"The moon is like a trip to the mall compared with going to Mars. The
moon is 250,000 miles away. Mars is 35 million miles. Scientists have
said that it would probably be a one-way trip for whoever made it,
because gravity on Mars is so strong that it would be impossible to
bring along enough fuel for them to take off and return to Earth.
Anyone going there might never come back. This makes the trip to Mars
by President Bush especially attractive to Democrats."

Actually, an Atlas rocket should have enough fuel to escape Mars's
gravitational pull and dock with the space shuttle orbiter.

Of course, since Mars has less gravity than Earth, since it is
possible to escape from Earth's gravity, it is possible to escape from
Mars' gravity.

I've always wondered how much earlier humans would've managed space
travel had we started out on Mars (all other things being equal).



But Mr. Rooney's point was more valid than that. An Atlas rocket is
rather bigger than anything we have previously sent to Mars. There are
no aerospace contractors on Mars. Not even ones who can turn out a
humble V-2.

Nazis on Mars? So zey didn't all go zu Argentina, eh?



This does not mean that he is *right*, but the fact that an existing
Earth rocket can escape Mars' gravity is not in itself a disproof of
his points.

Shuttle to Mars is not a proof of anything but clearly Rooney could've
looked into this a bit more.

Bill Bonde wrote:

Brett Buck wrote:

He's not deciding anything, he's not influencing anyone who matters
one way or the other, I see no reason to spend any further time worrying
about it.


He's only speaking to millions of people every time he talks on 60
Minutes.



A fact over which none of us have any practical control. Besides,
those few people who genuinely believe him and consider him qualified to
speak on the topic are not likely swayed. Most, given numerous NASA and
other engineering and scientific experts making a contrary point, simply
chalk this up as another random comedy utterance from a known
professional, pain-in-the-ass.

Well, I was suprised that it's still on - or in fact that CBS hasn't yet
folded! I guess the only time I watched anything on CBS in the past 10
years is when Raider's games were on, and not blacked out.

Of course, if you want to send him rebuttal, don't let me stop you!
I just don't see why anybody would spend any time worrying about it. I
feel the same about Maxson, Hoagland, etc., and on and on - they'll
always be with us, and acknowledging them provides the very thing they
seek - an arguing point.

Brett

In a segment titled "Ground Control To Mr. Bush", Andy Rooney revealed
that

" Space exploration hasn't produced much for us except some good
pictures."


As a reporter, he should be all in favor of this, it certainly is safer to
cover this story than a war someplace.

I get tired of stories about terrorists and fanatical crazies blowing
themselves up. It would be nice to get a break from stories of deranged
individuals, a nice space adventure would be a good relief. But I guess Andy
Rooney is an old Fart who'd rather be living in a continuation of the 20th
century, it is a century that liberals so love and hate to see depart. You have
the socialist, the communists revolutionaries, Chairman Mao and all these other
proto-Lenins, Gun toting Marxist cookie cutter revolutionaries, and the
"misunderstood" terrorists with a "good cause". They like their world to be
fixed so they can redistribute the pie without concern for change. Don't forget
the quagmires and the no-win, complicated problems with no solution that
liberals want to spend money on or avoid.

Tom

Tom

lid (John Savard) wrote in message ...
On 27 Jan 2004 09:49:38 -0800, (Michael Ejercito)
wrote, in part:
Jim wrote in message . ..

I couldn't believe my ears as I listened to Andy Rooney on CBS' news
program "60 Minutes" last night so I checked on the official program
transcript and there it was in black and white.

"The moon is like a trip to the mall compared with going to Mars. The
moon is 250,000 miles away. Mars is 35 million miles. Scientists have
said that it would probably be a one-way trip for whoever made it,
because gravity on Mars is so strong that it would be impossible to
bring along enough fuel for them to take off and return to Earth.
Anyone going there might never come back. This makes the trip to Mars
by President Bush especially attractive to Democrats."

Actually, an Atlas rocket should have enough fuel to escape Mars's
gravitational pull and dock with the space shuttle orbiter.

Of course, since Mars has less gravity than Earth, since it is
possible to escape from Earth's gravity, it is possible to escape from
Mars' gravity.

But Mr. Rooney's point was more valid than that. An Atlas rocket is
rather bigger than anything we have previously sent to Mars. There are
no aerospace contractors on Mars. Not even ones who can turn out a
humble V-2.

Well, the spaceship has to bring the Atlas rocket to Mars. Duh!


Michael

"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )" wrote in message ...
Michael Ejercito wrote:

Jim wrote in message . ..
I couldn't believe my ears as I listened to Andy Rooney on CBS' news
program "60 Minutes" last night so I checked on the official program
transcript and there it was in black and white.

In a segment titled "Ground Control To Mr. Bush", Andy Rooney revealed
that

" Space exploration hasn't produced much for us except some good
pictures."

and

"The moon is like a trip to the mall compared with going to Mars. The
moon is 250,000 miles away. Mars is 35 million miles. Scientists have
said that it would probably be a one-way trip for whoever made it,
because gravity on Mars is so strong that it would be impossible to
bring along enough fuel for them to take off and return to Earth.
Anyone going there might never come back. This makes the trip to Mars
by President Bush especially attractive to Democrats."

Actually, an Atlas rocket should have enough fuel to escape Mars's
gravitational pull and dock with the space shuttle orbiter.

That leaves moving the construction and assembly of Atlas rockets to
Mars.
Or a spaceship could bring the Atlas rockets to Mars. Of course, a
very huge rocket will have to be designed to be able to boost the
spaceship and lander to Mars.



The space shuttle orbiters are sufficient for a trip to Mars and
back, including the Atlas rocket needed to land and take off from the
surface of Mars. the only thing needed is a booster system which could
take the space shuttle orbiter and its contents on a trajectory to
Mars.

Don't you know about "Shuttle to the Moon" or worse, "Shuttle to Mars"
and these newsgroups? It's a troll akin to trying to sell Esperanto to
the world in sci.lang.
No, I do not.


Michael

"TKalbfus" wrote in message ...

I get tired of stories about terrorists and fanatical crazies blowing
themselves up. It would be nice to get a break from stories of deranged
individuals, a nice space adventure would be a good relief. But I guess Andy
Rooney is an old Fart who'd rather be living in a continuation of the 20th
century, it is a century that liberals so love and hate to see depart. You have
the socialist, the communists revolutionaries, Chairman Mao and all these other
proto-Lenins, Gun toting Marxist cookie cutter revolutionaries, and the
"misunderstood" terrorists with a "good cause". They like their world to be
fixed so they can redistribute the pie without concern for change. Don't forget
the quagmires and the no-win, complicated problems with no solution that
liberals want to spend money on or avoid.


A little too emotional for me to have said it, but I agree that when
you hear the news it's always about defending one's way of life
against the enemy without. But what about the things that "superior"
lifestyle is capable of achieving that the bad guys can't? What are
the *positive* things that make it worth defending? Can you make it
*better* rather than concentrating on not making it worse?

Is the only endeavour worth expending any energy on about making sure
the savages who sit on top of the oil that keeps it all going remain
peaceful? Or can a country that is so technologically advanced and
superior really *do* anything with the know-how it has to broaden our
horizons and find new sources of power that don't rely on building up
walls against fanatics, who happen to live in the places you need?

My view of America has changed a lot this month, and of its Commander
in Chief. For the first time in a long time I get the feeling that
they intend to actually change something rather than just hold their
position, down in the trenches, down in this gravity well. I hope it
stays that way for a while.


--
__ “A good leader knows when it’s best to ignore the __
('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture.� '__`)
//6(6; ©OOL mmiv :^)^\\
`\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/'