A human Mars mission?

Care to provide a reference for NASA and or the US government objecting to a
non-American private individual going to Mars?

In 1957 the American government and people got quite upset when the
Russians sent up Sputnik,

Kindly recall that there *was* a military threat from the USSR at that time, a
threat that heavy rockets added to (and a threat that your nation also believed
in, BTW). The US reaction to Sputnik was as much a response to a national
danger as a chasing after prestige.

That aside, a "private" individual of any nation landing on Mars has about the
same probablity as a huge snowfall on the Sahara. Going to Mars is the kind of
big project that only a country, and probably more than one, can do. I'd say
you won't see private citizens going to the *moon* in less than twenty years.

*protecting* our people, and yes our interests, from
*attack.*

On this side of the big pond the view is its to do with securing oil
supplies so American motorists can continue to have cheap gasoline, to
ensure cowboy george wins a second term.

Your own government disagrees with that assessment. It realizes that your
European location is no guarantee against world terrorism.

That takes precedence over a prestige stunt that few in the world
really care about.

Does that also go for Apollo 11?


That takes precedence over a prestige stunt that few in the world
really care about.

Does that also go for Apollo 11?


Different generation, different issues. We were in a contest with an enemy,
whose technology was a potential threat.We had to beat them. Had there been no
cold war, the moon might still be untrodden by human foot.

will come no money from Mars, even for the *nation* that sends the ships
there.

Mars is closer to the mineral and metal rich asteroid belt,

Then let's go to the asteriods first. No sense in hauling water, etc. up a
gravity well if these can be had floating in space.

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:27:02 GMT, (Derek Lyons)
wrote:

(Christopher) wrote:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 16:40:26 GMT, Brian Thorn
wrote:

The
British were the third or fourth world power (depending on if you
count the Vikings) to reach the New World but were ultimately the most
influential power in the New World, until they arrogantly overtaxed
their colonies to the point of revolution.

That what they taught you in American high school.

That's the facts of history,

More like the myth is still being taught to Americans in American
schools.

extensively supported by documentary and
archeological evidence.

Better not tell Professor Holmes that

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/program..._and_redcoats/



Note that the oldest continuously occupied cities in the United States
are St. Augustine, Florida and Santa Fe, New Mexico... both former
Spanish outposts. Note also that the first British outpost in the New
World, at Roanoke Island, failed and its colonists were never seen
again.

The Spanish had something to do with that.

Um, no. The latest findings seem to show that the Roanoke colonists
pretty much did themselves in.


Not according to investigations of the site, more like arsenic
poisoning by a Spanish agent.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 21:57:41 GMT, Brian Thorn
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 17:40:13 GMT, (Christopher)
wrote:

The
British were the third or fourth world power (depending on if you
count the Vikings) to reach the New World but were ultimately the most
influential power in the New World, until they arrogantly overtaxed
their colonies to the point of revolution.

That what they taught you in American high school.

History is often told from the perspective of the victors. Still, I'm
unaware of any major controversy over the issues which led to the
American Revolution.

Here's something

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/program..._and_redcoats/

Note that the oldest continuously occupied cities in the United States
are St. Augustine, Florida and Santa Fe, New Mexico... both former
Spanish outposts. Note also that the first British outpost in the New
World, at Roanoke Island, failed and its colonists were never seen
again.

The Spanish had something to do with that.

No, almost certainly the local native population, combined with poor
planning and dought conditions were responsible, as they were for the
near-collapse of Jamestown 30 years later.

If were thinking of the same colony it more like arsenic poisoning
introduced by a Spanish agent wiped out the colonists over a period of
a few weeks/months.


Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:47:19 GMT, Joe Strout wrote:

In article ,
(Christopher) wrote:

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

That depends...

i.e. a rough design on the type of spacecraft that will be used

Yes.

or some small amount of metal being bent

No.

or at the very least a rough selection of who will be in the crew

It'd have to be very rough, picking out children now who you hope won't
be too old to go when the capability is actually developed

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

NASA wants to go to Mars so bad, they're neglecting a large number of
much more sensible options. But there is no sign that they'll get to go
any time in the foreseeable future. It's too expensive, and frankly
NASA's success record isn't good enough to justify it.

Cheers,
- Joe

Thank you Joe, thats all I wanted to know, a pity some of the other
[American] posters simply resorted to the usual American tactic of
getting stroppy and then throwing brick bats across the big pond in
there replys.


Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 15:17:52 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:44:15 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Christopher) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

So his point was that by virtue of his being British,

English.

he has a better grasp
of the intricacies of empire building, trade, and exploration (and how these
are related) than anyone of any other nationality?

Something like that. Rule Britannia.

You object to being called British, but use the phrase "Rule
Britannia"? Why not "Rule Englandia"?

How about "Land of Hope and Glory"


Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:35:06 -0700, "Jason Rhodes"
wrote:


"Christopher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:49:17 -0700, "Jason Rhodes"
wrote:


"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
.. .

"Jason Rhodes" wrote in message
...


To maybe, but then your country never had an empire like mine.

Can you rephrase this sentence to make your point clear? The first
clause
is total nonsense and it is hard to understand what you are implying.


Insert the word you in the first part.

Jason

So his point was that by virtue of his being British,

English.

he has a better grasp
of the intricacies of empire building, trade, and exploration (and how
these
are related) than anyone of any other nationality?

Something like that. Rule Britannia.

The lack of knowledge you have demonstrated in historical facts and the
causes of historical trends tends to indicate otherwise.

Another gem of Americanism.

Fortunately, I
know several English people who don't suffer from the same lack of
knowledge,

And Ive met lots of Americans in which the same can be applied.

so I won't use your ignorance as an indictment of the entire
English educational system.

Reverse ditto.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:29:51 -0700, "Jason Rhodes"
wrote:


"Christopher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 14:27:26 -0700, "Jason Rhodes"
wrote:


"Christopher" wrote in message
...

Sad but true, you as an American have any objection to a private
none[sic]
American individual going to Mars? :-

Not really.

Cool. Be nice if NASA and your government had the same attitude.

Care to provide a reference for NASA and or the US government objecting
to a
non-American private individual going to Mars?

In 1957 the American government and people got quite upset when the
Russians sent up Sputnik, and NASA and the American government got
even more upset when just 4 years later the Russians in 1961 launched
the Russian called Yuri Gargarin, so IF a 'non-American private
individual' got to Mars first thus beating NASA and its multi billion
dollar technology, and armies of bright sparks with Phd's, NASA, the
American government, and people would probably be morose, at the
thought that the Cross of Saint George was flying on the Martian
surface with English footprints around it, and not the Stars and
Stripes and American footprints. In fact I dout the American TV news
would even mention it on the main American evening news. :-)

I'll ask the question again, because in all your incoherent rambling, you
made no attempt to answer it. Care to provide a reference for NASA and or
the US government objecting to a
non-American private individual going to Mars?

I would guess that nobody at NASA has even given a second though to "The
Cross of St. George.. flying on the Martian surface." The though of that is
so ludicrous that it doesn't merit any attention at NASA.

Greater would be the surprise then at NASA if it happened.

Now, if you have any evidence that NASA or the US government is officially
opposed to a private Mars mission, please point it out.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:14:44 GMT, Brian Thorn
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:04:28 GMT, (Christopher)
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 14:27:26 -0700, "Jason Rhodes"
wrote:


"Christopher" wrote in message
...

Sad but true, you as an American have any objection to a private
none[sic]
American individual going to Mars? :-

Not really.

Cool. Be nice if NASA and your government had the same attitude.

Care to provide a reference for NASA and or the US government objecting to a
non-American private individual going to Mars?

In 1957 the American government and people got quite upset when the
Russians sent up Sputnik, and NASA and the American government got
even more upset when just 4 years later the Russians in 1961 launched
the Russian called Yuri Gargarin, so IF a 'non-American private
individual' got to Mars first thus beating NASA and its multi billion
dollar technology, and armies of bright sparks with Phd's, NASA, the
American government, and people would probably be morose, at the
thought that the Cross of Saint George was flying on the Martian
surface with English footprints around it, and not the Stars and
Stripes and American footprints. In fact I dout the American TV news
would even mention it on the main American evening news. :-)

You may not have noticed two things...

1. An American has already travelled into space without NASA's help.
He was Dennis Tito, and he paid the Russians to take him. NASA was not
pleased, to say the least, but that was mostly because Tito flew to a
Space Station that was still under construction and NASA considered
him a distraction.

2. What may be the world's first private spacecraft made its maiden
glide flight over the weekend. Suborbital, but its a start. NASA and
the US government have not made any effort to stop it.

Well a sub orbital hop isn't quite the same thing as going to Mars.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:31:48 GMT, (Derek Lyons)
wrote:

(Christopher) wrote:

In 1957 the American government and people got quite upset when the
Russians sent up Sputnik, and NASA and the American government got
even more upset when just 4 years later the Russians in 1961 launched
the Russian called Yuri Gargarin, so IF a 'non-American private
individual' got to Mars first thus beating NASA and its multi billion
dollar technology, and armies of bright sparks with Phd's, NASA, the
American government, and people would probably be morose, at the
thought that the Cross of Saint George was flying on the Martian
surface with English footprints around it, and not the Stars and
Stripes and American footprints.

ROTFL.

Nice to see someone here appreciates a sense of humour.

I find it even less likely that Britain would be able to organize such
a mission than NASA.

England.

Or hadn't you noticed that your country hasn't managed much on the
technical side in nearly 50 years that didn't involve American or
French help?

No we did all the things that provided the foundations to all that.


Even worse, what little you do manage, you promptly stop
doing.

Well America does have a habit of grabbing the ideas and calling it
its own.

In fact I dout the American TV news would even mention it on the main American
evening news. :-)

One advantage of living in a free country is that we have multiple
news sources, so there is no 'main American evening news'. A further
advantage is they rarely miss an opportunity to cover something that
embarrasses the government.

Cool.


Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill