|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
A human Mars mission?
"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. Now, if you have any evidence that NASA or the US government is officially opposed to a private Mars mission, please point it out. Jason |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
A human Mars mission?
"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. Fortunately, I know several English people who don't suffer from the same lack of knowledge, so I won't use your ignorance as an indictment of the entire English educational system. Jason |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
A human Mars mission?
"Joe Strout" wrote in message ... 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. What is the requisite measure of success that could justify it? Jason |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
A human Mars mission?
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:04:45 GMT, (Christopher)
wrote: The English were the first to stay and establish colonys, so my 'argument' dosn't fail. No, that would be the *Spanish*, by a significant margin. What year, and do you mean North America, or South America, or the bit in the middle? St. Augustine, Florida (Spain). Founded August 28, 1565. http://www.oldcity.com/history-information.cfm Roanoke Island, North Carolina (England). Founded 1587 (found abandoned 1590, colonists never seen again.) http://www.nps.gov/fora/search.htm Santa Fe, New Mexico (Spain). Founded 1607. http://sfweb.ci.santa-fe.nm.us/ Jamestown, Virginia (England). Founded May 13, 1607. http://www.historian.org/local/jamstwnva.htm Pilgrims land at Plymouth Rock, Massachusetts. 1610. Brian |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
A human Mars mission?
In article , Sander Vesik
writes: Patrick wrote: In article , (Christopher) writes: But even if someone started NOW on it, I'd be surprised if it could happen in the next 50 years. How are they going to get there? 50 years is a long time - in that time we (as a species) will have doubled the time we have been exposed to spaceflight. We might, unless a few more shuttles disintegrate and the desire to go up evaporates. The moon landings began in 1969. 34 years later (a long time), not only do we not have a permanent moon base, we couldn't even get to the moon right now if we wanted to. A Hohman-transfer orbit would require keeping astronauts alive for about 2 years, 14 months in space and the rest on the surface of Mars. What's the longest anyone has lived in space? A year? Is it possible to counteract the effects of no gravity on the human body? Nobody knows yet. Is it possible to make a system that can provide food/air continuously for long periods away from earth? you don't need that if you can send out 6 supply sattelites - 3 for the way there and 3 for getting back to rendezvous. Plan to miss one on both trips, so a refueler will need to carry about 8 months worth. Ah, just so. What rocket are you going to use to put your supply satellites in place? Take the time required to develop the rocket, the supply systems and the mission, then the time to test the system (by say, practice missions between the moon and earth), and then actually launch them and put them in place. How many years does that come out to be? That's not even including failures. How long was it supposed to take to get the ISS put together? A mars-direct launch might cut the time but then you need a BFR (big f****** rocket), which we don't have now. You'd probably in either case have to build a ship in orbit, not launch it from the earth, and you'd probably need at least two, one to go ahead of time You can send a lot of small(er) ships to carry suplies, you can start sending them well in advance, they can continue to leave Earth when the main mission is in progress and a large portion of them can definately use fuel efficent ion propulsion. I don't think you want to use ion propulsion to go anywhere fast. The latest ion powered probe is going to the moon (Smart-1) and it's going to take 17 months to get there. The trip to mars is a lot more difficult than people seem to think it is. It took a huge Saturn-5 rocket just to put a tiny capsule with 3 men in it into earth orbit. The longest Apollo mission lasted 12 and a half DAYS. The moon is only, 250,000 miles away, even a direct shot to mars is a minimum 45 million miles, and a Hohman type orbit is 300 million miles. It ain't so easy folks. Patrick |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
A human Mars mission?
Michael Gallagher writes:
That was the same argument used against Apollo, IIRC. If we wait for all the "important" things to be done with that money, we'd never use it to go to Mars. Or anywhere else, for that matter. As another poster pointed out, if the English had waited for everything to be perfect back home before colonizing North America, the map would look very different today. Apollo is a bad example. By all accounts it was a politically motivated stunt to show the world that the US was economically and technologically superior to the Soviet Union. We've not been to the moon in over 30 years. By all accounts, Apollo was a dead-end program. It was an aberration that would not have happened in another socio-economic climate. Jeff -- Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
A human Mars mission?
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
A human Mars mission?
(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, extensively supported by documentary and archeological evidence. 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. 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. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
A human Mars mission?
(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. I find it even less likely that Britain would be able to organize such a mission than NASA. 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? Even worse, what little you do manage, you promptly stop doing. 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. 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Space Shuttle | 3 | May 22nd 04 09:07 AM |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Space Station | 0 | May 21st 04 08:02 AM |
NASA Extends Mars Rovers' Mission | Ron | Science | 0 | April 8th 04 07:04 PM |
International Student Team Selected to Work in Mars Rover Mission Operations | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | November 7th 03 05:55 PM |
NASA Selects UA 'Phoenix' Mission To Mars | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | August 4th 03 10:48 PM |