A human Mars mission?

On 12 Aug 2003 02:29:42 GMT, (G EddieA95) wrote:

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.

Plus a healthy dose of national paranoia helped.

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.

Bit like crossing the big pond on your own, with no government help
then.

I'd say
you won't see private citizens going to the *moon* in less than twenty years.

Humans have already been there and done that.



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

On 10 Aug 2003 22:57:31 GMT, (G EddieA95) wrote:

private none
American individual going to Mars? :-

Not really.

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


But why do you want them to *pay* for some other nation's prestige? Ultimately
that is what a Mars project is about.

That depends on who is the first person who is destined to step on the
Martian surface is or what nationality they are. i.e. I'm sure Mr &
Mrs Armstrong seeing little Neil in his cot didn't know what fate had
in store for him.



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

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:05:59 GMT, Brian Thorn
wrote:

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

Recent investigations show they were arsenic poisoned, possibly by a
Spanish agent.

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.

Elizabeth 1 reigned from 1533 to 1603, and a colony was established in
the New World during that time.

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

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:35:17 GMT, (Derek Lyons)
wrote:

(Christopher) wrote:

On 10 Aug 2003 22:50:50 GMT, (G EddieA95) wrote:

don't want to spend $100 billion to
raise our flag on Mars?

Your DoD has been given that amount extra to raise your flag all over
the middle east.

That has to do with *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.

Glad to see that the general public is as ignorant over there as over
here.

No, were just better informed, and more cynical.

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

Does that also go for Apollo 11?

Apollo 11 was a politically inspired stunt. A lot of folks don't like
that, but facts are facts.

more important things to do with that
kind of money right now.

If we had thought that way we'd have never built the British Empire,
starting with a collection of colonys in a place called the New World.

There was *money* to be made in that, for the generation that did it. There
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,

Which means jack point zip. The market is on Earth, not Mars.

New markets more opportunities.

and who's to say there is no money to be made on Mars,

Most anyone with a bit of common sense.

That counts you out then.



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

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:08:39 GMT, Brian Thorn
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:05:53 GMT, (Christopher)
wrote:

On 10 Aug 2003 22:50:50 GMT, (G EddieA95) wrote:

don't want to spend $100 billion to
raise our flag on Mars?

Your DoD has been given that amount extra to raise your flag all over
the middle east.

That has to do with *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.

The cheap gasoline issue, I'll grant you, was at least a moderate
influence, although I doubt it was ever more than a peripheral bonus.

Would you pay $7.50 a gallon and 80% of it is tax?

But the re-election issue is not supported by the facts. Bush 41 went
to war against the same adversary and it had no effect on his
re-election. He still lost. Ergo, Bush 43 has no particular reason to
believe this war will improve his chances of re-election.

No, but $200 million might, as thats the sum he's getting from [oil]
corporate America for the next one.

By the way, *your* people are in Iraq, too. Lots of other countries
told the US "no" when asked to help, the UK did not.

Bliar did not.

So either the UK
is a bunch of spineless bureaucrats who no longer can do anything at
all without the approval of the US, or they (gasp!) agree with the
United States. I doubt you like either option.

Me and most of the population.

Mars is closer to the mineral and metal rich asteroid belt, and who's
to say there is no money to be made on Mars, if Mars has water, it'll
open up a whole new set of opportunities for the human race.

Mars is at the bottom of a deep gravity well. The asteroids are not.

Mars is a planet, the asteroids are bits of rock, Mars is a major
staging post to the asteroids.

The potential water is dirty and frozen in the soil, where it will
take great effort (heavy, electrically expensive equipment) to get to.
That equipment will have to be landed on Mars. It could easily be
cheaper in mass, propulsion, and electrical requirements to just carry
your own water to an asteroid.


Maybe, but more expensive to life the water from Earths surface.





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

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:30:07 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Christopher) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


Who complained about NASA,

You did. In the post that started off this stupid thread.

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.

Sure looks like a whinge to me.

Mars is now closer to Earth then its been decades.

That is completely irrelevant. It's nice for earth-based astronomers,
but has nothing to do with sending a mission.

--
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:

Going to Mars is the kind of
big project that only a country, and probably more than one, can do.

Bit like crossing the big pond on your own, with no government help
then.

Your chances of crossing the 'pond' alive without any gov't services (in the
form of navigational stations, weather bulletins, etc) are minimal. Think
sailing ship circa 1500, not British Airways.

you won't see private citizens going to the *moon* in less than twenty years.

Humans have already been there and done that.


You said "private individual" (which means sans government spending or
equipment) not "humans" (who can fly as part of a gov't project) going to
Mars. I hate to say this but right now, a "private individual" has NO means of
getting into space at all, except in a gov't capsule, on a gov't rocket, to a
bi-gov't station. That shows no signs of changing.

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:39:47 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:30:07 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Christopher) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


Who complained about NASA,

You did. In the post that started off this stupid thread.

That you keep replying to. And its not a 'stupid thread' it was a
perfectly rational question.

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.

Sure looks like a whinge to me.

Learn from the politician. When you throw dirt at those you oppose
all you do is loose ground.

Mars is now closer to Earth then its been decades.

That is completely irrelevant. It's nice for earth-based astronomers,
but has nothing to do with sending a mission.

It is not the finishing point, but the act of travelling which is
important.



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

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:34:38 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:31:14 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Christopher) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Glad to see that the general public is as ignorant over there as over
here.

No, were just better informed, and more cynical.

Cynical I'll buy, but if you get your news from the lefty loons at the
Beeb, you're massively ill informed.

Belive it or not, for I really don't care either way, we British have
access to nearly as many sources of news information as you Americans
do, and ours tend to be more diverse.



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

On 12 Aug 2003 15:54:00 GMT, (G EddieA95) wrote:

assessment. It realizes that your
European location is no guarantee against world terrorism.

Antagonised by the actions of your government.

OK, so now *we* are to blame for our citizens' deaths because we do not
withdraw our culture from the world, adopt Islam as a nation, and revert to
local subsistence? that's what Islamists want. Would *your* leadership accede
to it?

No, you as America per say force your 'culture' for what it is down
the throats of other countrys and act surprised when they cough it
back up and then spit into your face.

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

A half way house is better then going all the way first.

Nope. were that the case, Azores and Gander would still be major stops in
Atlantic commerce.

Think Hawaii in a Pacific crossing..



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