|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Mars mission options
Is a manned conventional rocket trip to mars even practical? I mean
long transit time far from earth, lots of time for something to go wrong Food essentials HEAVY ands space consuming making things even worse Whats the round trip time to mrs by conventional propulsion? Kinda sad to travel a year or more for a one week stay flag and footprints What about that NOVA nuclear rocket? Travel time for that? Common sense would indiocate nuclear would be better and useful for other trips too.... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Mars mission options
In article . com,
" wrote: Is a manned conventional rocket trip to mars even practical? Some say so. I say no, not for a long time anyway. Once we have a thriving cislunar economy, then manned trips to Mars will be practical (though they may not be using conventional rockets by that point; a nuclear rocket would be preferable). I mean long transit time far from earth, lots of time for something to go wrong Food essentials HEAVY ands space consuming making things even worse All true. However, there are some recent results inducing a torpor-like state (think hibernation) in a wide range of mammals that don't normally hibernate. Sending astronauts on long trips in "cold sleep" may soon move out of the realm of science fiction. That reduces the consumables quite a bit... but may or may not be practical itself. Whats the round trip time to mrs by conventional propulsion? Google is your friend. Kinda sad to travel a year or more for a one week stay flag and footprints True, though nobody's proposing that. It's more like a 6-month stay flag and footprints. Common sense would indiocate nuclear would be better and useful for other trips too.... True. Common sense would indicate that we shouldn't be worrying too much about Mars until we've developed the resources right outside our door. But then, for some reason, common sense is often in short supply when the subject of Mars comes up. Best, - Joe |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Mars mission options
" wrote in message
ups.com Best option: don't go there, unless it's 100% on your taxable nickel, and at the demise of your DNA. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Mars mission options
schreef in bericht ups.com... Is a manned conventional rocket trip to mars even practical? I mean long transit time far from earth, lots of time for something to go wrong Food essentials HEAVY ands space consuming making things even worse Whats the round trip time to mrs by conventional propulsion? Kinda sad to travel a year or more for a one week stay flag and footprints What about that NOVA nuclear rocket? Travel time for that? Common sense would indiocate nuclear would be better and useful for other trips too.... I think it's perfectly doable, with hardly any new technology being required. But it should be a fly-by only or orbiting only. Landing would be suicidal since it will be very difficult to land safely and very tricky to get back into orbit. Zubrin's Mars Direct is out of the question, as far as I'm concerned. This implies it will be a flag-waving exercise mostly, not having any practical scientific value except to show that it can be done. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Mars mission options
This is a little irrelevant, but I've been researching extra-
terrestrial coverups. I had no doubt governments were keeping their little secrets, but not to this extent. Of course it's almost impossible to tell if this is real stuff, but with combined ex- government official documentaries and footage it seems very probable this could have happened, but by no means with terrestrial technology or craft. http://youtube.com/watch?v=ORGezFZ7S2o If you pay close attention to the video you can clearly see the extraordinary acrobatics the craft is undertaking between the film blackouts. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Mars mission options
Z 1 Y 0 N 3 X wrote: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ORGezFZ7S2o If you pay close attention to the video you can clearly see the extraordinary acrobatics the craft is undertaking between the film blackouts. Well, let's see... the style of lettering used on the image isn't vaguely like the style in use in 1962, the announcer says the landing is unmanned, yet the audio is obviously supposed to be from astronauts, who would be able to zoom in the camera on the Mars critter* the quality of color video is far beyond what would be capable of being transmitted over interplanetary distances in 1962 (or even today, for that matter) The sky is blue and as brightly lit as on Earth, and there is no time lag in the communications between Earth and Mars. But other than that, it's pretty convincing. :-D :-D :-D * If it was being controlled from Earth the camera signal would take around eight minutes to get from the lander to Earth, followed be sending the signal to zoom in on the critter taking another eight minutes to get to Mars, followed by another eight minutes for the zoomed-in view to get back to Earth. In short over 20 minutes end to end. Pat |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Mars mission options
In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ORGezFZ7S2o Well, let's see... the style of lettering used on the image isn't vaguely like the style in use in 1962, the announcer says the landing is unmanned, yet the audio is obviously supposed to be from astronauts, who would be able to zoom in the camera on the Mars critter* the quality of color video is far beyond what would be capable of being transmitted over interplanetary distances in 1962 (or even today, for that matter) The sky is blue and as brightly lit as on Earth, and there is no time lag in the communications between Earth and Mars. But other than that, it's pretty convincing. :-D :-D :-D What's really sad is all the comments attached to it. They're almost all either "this is totally real, d00d" to "that's a fake just like the Apollo videos." Then of course are the people who think that this video is real, but (astonishingly) the Moon landings were faked. Shakes my faith in humanity, though it does help to understand how people like GWB can (almost) get a majority vote. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Mars mission options
"Joe Strout" wrote in message
What's really sad is all the comments attached to it. They're almost all either "this is totally real, d00d" to "that's a fake just like the Apollo videos." Then of course are the people who think that this video is real, but (astonishingly) the Moon landings were faked. Shakes my faith in humanity, though it does help to understand how people like GWB can (almost) get a majority vote. Good for you, for helping whomever wasn't quite 100% certain, to appreciate that we've all been badly snookered by those having "the right stuff". That's just the dirty tip of their badly melting icebergs, that are about to sink their good ship LOLLIPOP, as there's loads more of such truths to behold, that is if you're interested. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Inspection options | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 1 | September 20th 06 04:07 AM |
Mars Society to Launch 4-Month Mars Mission to the High Arctic | [email protected] | Policy | 8 | June 28th 06 10:40 PM |
Collimation options | Zarkovic | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | September 18th 05 06:02 AM |
Aurora: Mars mission options. Press briefing in London. | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | March 22nd 05 10:54 PM |
Canada Joins NASA 2007 Mission to Mars/York U. celebrates "Phoenix"Mars Mission Win (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 7th 03 05:57 AM |