A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Mars mission options



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 15th 07, 03:22 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,516
Default 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  
Old February 15th 07, 06:01 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Joe Strout
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 972
Default 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  
Old February 15th 07, 09:06 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,941
Default 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  
Old February 15th 07, 09:37 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Guy Fawkes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default 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  
Old February 16th 07, 12:26 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Z 1 Y 0 N 3 X
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 83
Default 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  
Old February 16th 07, 02:12 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default 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  
Old February 16th 07, 04:31 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Joe Strout
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 972
Default 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  
Old February 19th 07, 03:06 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,941
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.