Mars Landing

Hello folks.
I would be interested to know the views of this group regarding a manned
mission to Mars.
Any views on when mankind may embark on this quest?
Lack of a cheap means of propulsion is one factor which is obviously
delaying any plans for such a journey. Plus, of course, justifying expense
to the public at large.
Recent reports on CNN website state that Boeing and the U.S. Government were
working towards 'anti-gravity' propulsion.
Got any news on this any one?
For my part I can't imagine that the first human being to set foot on Mars
has even yet been born and I do not expect to see such an event in my
lifetime (I am not yet 50 years of age).
Just when do you guys envisage such a trip, and how should it be organised.
Surely a joint venture with NASA, ESA, the Chinese, Russians and Japan could
sort something out within the next 15 to 20 years.
We need a NEW challenge but when?

--
Regards
Dave

"Dave M" wrote in message ...
Hello folks.
I would be interested to know the views of this group regarding a manned
mission to Mars.

Group? No clue. Me? I'm a dues-paying Mars Society member, so I'm
both pushy and optimistic about it.


Any views on when mankind may embark on this quest?

Ten years after we decide to.


Lack of a cheap means of propulsion is one factor which is obviously
delaying any plans for such a journey. Plus, of course, justifying expense
to the public at large.

Our largest boosters -- Shuttle solid rockets plus shuttle main
engines, for example, or a retooled Saturn V -- can put 120 tonnes in
Earth orbit, which translates (using Martian atmospheric braking) into
a 35 tonne lander onto the surface of Mars.

With a small nuclear reactor to provide electricity, an unmanned
lander of that size, with 6 tonnes of H2 seed fuel, could convert the
CO2 of the atmosphere into 120 tonnes of CH4 and O2 (methane and
oxygen), to use as return fuel. The lander then performs a complete
selfcheck and pronounces itself ready for launch to come home.

Follow this, two years later, with the first manned mission -- four
people -- again with a 35-tonne lander. The astronauts walk or drive
from the lander to the return vehicle, waiting on the surface -- and
after about a Martian year, when Earth+Mars are in the right position,
they come back. (In the intervening 600 days or so, they explore Mars
extensively, of course.)

This can be done for less than the current Shuttle program cost, with
existing technology. We don't need a new propulsion system, nor a
space shuttle or space station, nor multiple launches, nor space
assembly, nor a moonbase(though all of these may be fine on their own
merits -- we just don't need them *to put humans on Mars*).


Recent reports on CNN website state that Boeing and the U.S. Government were
working towards 'anti-gravity' propulsion.
Got any news on this any one?

Ion propulsion, light sails, nuclear propulsion, mass drivers -- these
are all reasonable and all places where we should be putting research
money. Antigravity is nonsense (unless we turn out to be seriously
wrong about a whole lot of physics).


For my part I can't imagine that the first human being to set foot on Mars
has even yet been born and I do not expect to see such an event in my
lifetime (I am not yet 50 years of age).

I very much fear you're right and hope you're wrong.


Just when do you guys envisage such a trip, and how should it be organised.
Surely a joint venture with NASA, ESA, the Chinese, Russians and Japan could
sort something out within the next 15 to 20 years.

Multinational ventures are not the way to go, IMHO -- though I really
don't care whether it's a multinational, a single nation, or a
corporation -- I just want to see humans walk on Mars.


We need a NEW challenge but when?

As soon as a president stands up and announces it, and puts political
muscle behind it to make it happen.

eyelessgame
"I can't believe that in all of human history we'll never ever be able
to go beyond the speed of light... I happen to believe that mankind
can do it. I've argued with physicists about it. I've argued with best
friends about it. I just, I just have to believe it. It's my only
faith-based initiative." -- Gen. Wesley Clark

"Dave M" wrote in message ...
Hello folks.
I would be interested to know the views of this group regarding a manned
mission to Mars.

Group? No clue. Me? I'm a dues-paying Mars Society member, so I'm
both pushy and optimistic about it.


Any views on when mankind may embark on this quest?

Ten years after we decide to.


Lack of a cheap means of propulsion is one factor which is obviously
delaying any plans for such a journey. Plus, of course, justifying expense
to the public at large.

Our largest boosters -- Shuttle solid rockets plus shuttle main
engines, for example, or a retooled Saturn V -- can put 120 tonnes in
Earth orbit, which translates (using Martian atmospheric braking) into
a 35 tonne lander onto the surface of Mars.

With a small nuclear reactor to provide electricity, an unmanned
lander of that size, with 6 tonnes of H2 seed fuel, could convert the
CO2 of the atmosphere into 120 tonnes of CH4 and O2 (methane and
oxygen), to use as return fuel. The lander then performs a complete
selfcheck and pronounces itself ready for launch to come home.

Follow this, two years later, with the first manned mission -- four
people -- again with a 35-tonne lander. The astronauts walk or drive
from the lander to the return vehicle, waiting on the surface -- and
after about a Martian year, when Earth+Mars are in the right position,
they come back. (In the intervening 600 days or so, they explore Mars
extensively, of course.)

This can be done for less than the current Shuttle program cost, with
existing technology. We don't need a new propulsion system, nor a
space shuttle or space station, nor multiple launches, nor space
assembly, nor a moonbase(though all of these may be fine on their own
merits -- we just don't need them *to put humans on Mars*).


Recent reports on CNN website state that Boeing and the U.S. Government were
working towards 'anti-gravity' propulsion.
Got any news on this any one?

Ion propulsion, light sails, nuclear propulsion, mass drivers -- these
are all reasonable and all places where we should be putting research
money. Antigravity is nonsense (unless we turn out to be seriously
wrong about a whole lot of physics).


For my part I can't imagine that the first human being to set foot on Mars
has even yet been born and I do not expect to see such an event in my
lifetime (I am not yet 50 years of age).

I very much fear you're right and hope you're wrong.


Just when do you guys envisage such a trip, and how should it be organised.
Surely a joint venture with NASA, ESA, the Chinese, Russians and Japan could
sort something out within the next 15 to 20 years.

Multinational ventures are not the way to go, IMHO -- though I really
don't care whether it's a multinational, a single nation, or a
corporation -- I just want to see humans walk on Mars.


We need a NEW challenge but when?

As soon as a president stands up and announces it, and puts political
muscle behind it to make it happen.

eyelessgame
"I can't believe that in all of human history we'll never ever be able
to go beyond the speed of light... I happen to believe that mankind
can do it. I've argued with physicists about it. I've argued with best
friends about it. I just, I just have to believe it. It's my only
faith-based initiative." -- Gen. Wesley Clark