|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
Going to mars without landing means the ship won't be able to manufacture fuel
on Mars for the return journey. (although this would not prevent the lander from relying on Mars-manufactured fuel). The journey to the Moon's surface is totally pointless in my opinion. The ISS is a far better platform to test a year long mission, hardware performance, reliability and servicability in space. If they build a ship capable of sustaining X crewmembers for one year and send it off just for an orbit around mars, bring it back and then send another mission to mars, one would hope that such a ship (which would have to be even bigger than the current space station) would be reused and as a result, remain in earth orbit upon return so it can be refurbished for the next mission. It is doubtful that a mars vehicle could be launched as a single piece. Some assembly in LEO will be required, and so will a lot of missions that will bring the fuel to the vehicle. Manned mission to mars, yes. But I am not sure that this can or should be achieved with the priorities outlined in the document. Can humans really spend 6 months in 0g and then land on a planet and function productively ? If not, they will require some sort of centrigugal accomodation module wherte they can spend a few hours per day. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why We Shouldn't Go To Mars | Jon Berndt | Space Shuttle | 11 | February 18th 04 03:07 AM |
NEWS: The allure of an outpost on the Moon | Kent Betts | Space Shuttle | 2 | January 15th 04 12:56 AM |
We choose to go to the Moon? | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 49 | December 10th 03 10:14 AM |