A human Mars mission?

(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.

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.

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

Most anyone with a bit of common sense.

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.

Sander Vesik wrote:

Brian Thorn wrote:
I bet if
our European Space Agency announced a human mission to Mars, and
started major work and had a date for the landing Congress would have
a rapid change of mind, as Americans don't like coming in second
place.

Possible. Unfortunately, I strongly advise you to *not* hold your
breath waiting for the Europeans to initiate such a program.

Any reason Aurora (see http://www.esa.int/export/SPECIALS/A...NVZKQAD_0.html)
doesn't count?

Note that the criteria is for a *manned* missions. Which Aurora is
not.

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.

(Patrick) writes:

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.

Actually, it only took a Saturn-1B launch vehicle to put an Apollo CSM
into earth orbit (done many times for Apollo, Skylab, and ASTP).
Saturn V was primarily used for lunar missions, being capable of
putting a fully fueled LEM and Apollo CSM (nearly) into lunar orbit
(the CSM's main engine was used for lunar orbit insertion). And, of
course, a two stage Saturn V was used to launch Skylab.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:53:30 -0000, in a place far, far away, Earl
Colby Pottinger made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

A important thing to remember is he is in Europe, but is demanding that the
USA spend to money for the mission. Since it is not his taxes he in affect
is asking for a free ride.

Not surprising, since we've been providing Europeans with a free ride
for several decades now...

--
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:

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.

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.

Brian

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.
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.

Brian

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:06:05 +0000 (UTC), Sander Vesik
wrote:

I bet if
our European Space Agency announced a human mission to Mars,

Possible. Unfortunately, I strongly advise you to *not* hold your
breath waiting for the Europeans to initiate such a program.

Any reason Aurora (see http://www.esa.int/export/SPECIALS/A...NVZKQAD_0.html)
doesn't count?

Aurora does not involve manned spaceflight, it is only a precursor to
such a mission, some ill-defined day in the future. So are the NASA
Mars probes.

Brian

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 11:30:04 -0400, Michael Gallagher
wrote:

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.

On the other hand, the English were *not* the first to the New World.
They were third or fourth. It doesn't matter who gets there first, it
matters who gets there with the biggest long-term committment. So I
fail to see why it is important that the United States be first to
Mars.

The British did not wait until things were pefect back home, but they
did wait until there was sufficient proof that colonizing the New
World was economically promising. And even then, there first colony
failed and the second one survived only by near-miraculous last-second
reinforcements and resupply arriving from England.

Brian

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:22:17 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 11:30:04 -0400, Michael Gallagher
wrote:

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.

On the other hand, the English were *not* the first to the New World.
They were third or fourth. It doesn't matter who gets there first, it
matters who gets there with the biggest long-term committment.

Or who gets there with the best strategy.

--
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:

In article , jeff findley
writes:

(Patrick) writes:

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.

Actually, it only took a Saturn-1B launch vehicle to put an Apollo CSM
into earth orbit (done many times for Apollo, Skylab, and ASTP).
Saturn V was primarily used for lunar missions, being capable of
putting a fully fueled LEM and Apollo CSM (nearly) into lunar orbit
(the CSM's main engine was used for lunar orbit insertion). And, of
course, a two stage Saturn V was used to launch Skylab.


Meant to say "moon orbit", but I'm close enough. I realize the Apollo
missions carried the lander as well, but the point was "3 men, 12.5 days",
because you'd need a lander for Mars too. Skylab just sat in low
earth orbit, didn't need the extra weight of a rocket engine, or the
fuel to push it. I'd forgotten how big Skylab was though:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...ms/skylab.html


Patrick