Proposed sample return mission to Phobos

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6324923.stm

I suppose this will worry the case for Mars activists. If this goes
ahead, people might think Phobos is a more useful piece of real estate
than Mars.

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Alex Terrell wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6324923.stm

I suppose this will worry the case for Mars activists. If this goes
ahead, people might think Phobos is a more useful piece of real estate
than Mars.

It should worry Martians. How much longer until it falls?

On 10 Feb, 13:08, William Elliot wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Alex Terrell wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6324923.stm

I suppose this will worry the case for Mars activists. If this goes
ahead, people might think Phobos is a more useful piece of real estate
than Mars.

It should worry Martians. How much longer until it falls?

A few million years. Plenty of time to turn it into orbiting colonies.

Alex Terrell wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6324923.stm

I suppose this will worry the case for Mars activists. If this goes
ahead, people might think Phobos is a more useful piece of real estate
than Mars.


James Oberg has an article in this month's issue of Astronomy Magazine
on the Russian Fobos Grunt mission.

I would be very pleased to see both Phobos missions come to pass.

Hop

On Feb 10, 3:22 am, "Alex Terrell" wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6324923.stm

I suppose this will worry the case for Mars activists. If this goes
ahead, people might think Phobos is a more useful piece of real estate
than Mars.

Ah, Dr Andrew Ball of the Open University. Their sole previous
accomplishment was Beagle 2, the Mars lander that vanished without a
trace after being dropped off. Now they are talking about sample
return from Phobos. Good luck!

[Disclosu I'm currently an MSc student at OU.]

"Hop David" schreef in bericht
...
Alex Terrell wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6324923.stm

I suppose this will worry the case for Mars activists. If this goes
ahead, people might think Phobos is a more useful piece of real estate
than Mars.


James Oberg has an article in this month's issue of Astronomy Magazine on
the Russian Fobos Grunt mission.

I would be very pleased to see both Phobos missions come to pass.


I, for one, wouldn't. It distracts from the real goal: landing a craft on
Mars and getting (part of) it back into orbit again, which would be a
prerequisite for landing humans on Mars. There's very little usefull science
to be gotten from Phobos (and Deimos) as they're merely two big captured
astroids.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Neil Fraser wrote:

On Feb 10, 3:22 am, "Alex Terrell" wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6324923.stm

I suppose this will worry the case for Mars activists. If this goes
ahead, people might think Phobos is a more useful piece of real estate
than Mars.

Ah, Dr Andrew Ball of the Open University. Their sole previous
accomplishment was Beagle 2, the Mars lander that vanished without a
trace after being dropped off. Now they are talking about sample
return from Phobos. Good luck!

Sample and return is too big of a bite?



--
Thus, if the problem of technological hopelessness is caused by absence
of care, both by technologists and anti-technologists; and if care and
Quality are external and internal aspects of the same thing, then it
follows that what really causes technological hopelessness is absence of
the perception of Quality in technologists and anti-technologists.
Robert Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"

On 10 Feb, 18:42, "Guy Fawkes"
wrote:
"Hop David" schreef in ...

Alex Terrell wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6324923.stm

I suppose this will worry the case for Mars activists. If this goes
ahead, people might think Phobos is a more useful piece of real estate
than Mars.

James Oberg has an article in this month's issue of Astronomy Magazine on
the Russian Fobos Grunt mission.

I would be very pleased to see both Phobos missions come to pass.

I, for one, wouldn't. It distracts from the real goal: landing a craft on
Mars and getting (part of) it back into orbit again, which would be a
prerequisite for landing humans on Mars. There's very little usefull science
to be gotten from Phobos (and Deimos) as they're merely two big captured
astroids.

Though since asteroids are far more useful long term than just another
planet, perhaps Phobos is more interesting than Mars.

Besides which, for any serious settlement of Mars, Phobos will be
essential. Also, learning how to land on Phobos and extracting water
would be much more valuable than learning how to suck up Martian CO2.

In article ,
Guy Fawkes wrote:
I would be very pleased to see both Phobos missions come to pass.

I, for one, wouldn't. It distracts from the real goal: landing a craft on
Mars and getting (part of) it back into orbit again, which would be a
prerequisite for landing humans on Mars.

So why is that "the real goal"? Please explain. No, it's not self-evident
that flags and footprints on Mars trump all other goals in space.

There's very little usefull science
to be gotten from Phobos (and Deimos) as they're merely two big captured
astroids.

Actually, nobody knows that for sure -- their origin is a bit of a
mystery, and that's only the leading theory. (The main difficulty with
that one is that it's not clear how a pair of captured asteroids end up in
low orbits that are almost perfectly circular and equatorial.)

There is also some possibility that there are ancient Mars rocks -- older
than anything now easily findable on Mars -- on their surfaces.

And there is a strong possibility that they have significant water
content, in which case their resources might be quite important to future
transportation to and from Mars. (And elsewhere -- in energy terms, they
are closer to Earth orbit than the surface of the Moon is.) Of course,
that's not relevant to a flags-and-footprints Mars mission... if that's
all you care about.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Alex Terrell wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6324923.stm

I suppose this will worry the case for Mars activists. If this goes
ahead, people might think Phobos is a more useful piece of real estate
than Mars.

I'm hoping that they'll notice that it's about 6x cheaper to send an ion
drive over to get stuff from Phobos than from Earth if you want to mount
an expedition to Mars.

A chip off the old Phobos block would make a *great* rad-shield for
handling solar flares for a manned martian trip! Just maneuver it to
high earth orbit, turn it into sand bags and lag the outside of your
craft with it. Doesn't cost much delta-v, since most of the delta-v to
get to Mars is spent getting up from LEO.

Or if you don't want to do that, collecting Phobos rock on the way back
for the same purpose would work great too.

(And it would be even better if it turned out Phobos really does have
accessible ice...)