Human Exploration of Mars

"The Planetary Society is one of the most effective private
space operations around and has been a positive force
for years."

"If you want a reference to a scientest who has never changed his
mind about there being no need for any manned space flight I
will mention James Van Allen."


I actually couldn't agree more about using robotics, at not 1% the
cost of anything manned and not 0% the chance of any carnage, though I
don't consider the ESE fiasco as a worthy topic of robotics, at least
not for a few decades and then only if someone other is paying for it.

Why even bother going to a most likely inhabited planet like Venus if
we can otherwise establish a TRACE-II class instrument at VL2, then
using quantum laser packets in order to obtain/exchange all the
information necessary and then some.

Here's another topic or two pertaining to our frozen and irradiated to
death Mars:

I've looked again at some of the most interesting of Mars images; of
those frozen trees or bushes or whatever looks like trees and/or
bushes.

I tend to agree that the Mars-tree image is simply too *plan view* and
not of sufficient perspective to fully appreciate the vertical
attributes, though I do believe there is a sufficient amount of
vertical structure that's placing such patterns above the surface, of
which is still not excluding some hybrid crystal growth rather than of
frozen and irradiated to death trees or perhaps bushes.

The notion of there being "star dunes" was offered by Tom Newcomb, is
certainly just as worth another look-see as if those were once
organic. Though for some unexplained reason there's been insufficient
efforts at navigating the imaging probe into a better position for a
perspective view.

If we had applied the sort of SAR imaging technology as the Magellan
did of Venus, at the rather terrific perspective view of 43°, then lo
and behold we'd have far more usable as well as believable pixels to
boot.

From my observation of those same "Mars trees" images
(http://www.geocities.com/bradguth/mars-01.htm), I tend to feel the
shadows projected are more likely suggesting such are of sufficient
conical structure, though that doesn't rule out the notions of "star
dunes" nor of "mineral structures". As frozen trees or bushes tend to
go, they're obviously not representing sufficient solids as to create
a crisp shadow. There may likely be a good deal of crystal growth on
top of whatever died, creating even further opacity and/or diffusion
of light.

The pathetically thin (7 to 8 mb) and damn cold (except for a few
tropical zone hours above freezing), as well as for being situated
within a horrifically irradiated to death environment (being further
away from the sun may reduce the solar flak but it's certainly not
helping with fending off the cosmic flak), would have needed a
transition of perhaps at least thousands of years for DNA/RNA to have
adapted. So far, I don't believe the surface impacts as indicated on
half of Mars is offering much hope, but for a few years at best, since
all environmental hell must have broken lose once Mars was impacted to
such an extent.

BTW; I've updated one of my pages pertaining to obtaining and/or
extracting energy on location, of where others have been making a
tough go of it on Venus: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/fire-on-venus.htm

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA

In article ,
Michael Walsh wrote:
He is one of the most noted of what Henry refers to as a "sky scientist",
but I don't believe he put the Van Allen belt in orbit to deter
manned space flight. :)

It has been noted that he's an appropriate person to have his name attached
to a dangerous hazard to manned spaceflight. :-)
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |

In article ,
Derek Lyons wrote:
Translation: the scientific matters that James Van Allen cares about can
be addressed by automated missions.
Note that Van Allen is a "sky scientist", studying fields and particles in
space, with little interest in planetary surfaces. It shows.

Translation: I'll make an off-hand comment about the author rather
than adress the issues.

The issue under discussion is the views, and changes (or not) thereof, of
certain prominent space scientists. The fact that Van Allen's specialty
is easily (indeed, preferably) addressed with unmanned spacecraft is
*highly* relevant to the fact that his views have not changed.
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |

In article ,
Eric Chomko wrote:
: And what about all the lower ranking pen pushers and assorted
: bureaucrats involved with the space program?

What about them? Someone has to oversee contractor work. Do you propose they go
away?

Many of them can be eliminated if care is taken to preserve competition at
all levels, so that contractors have built-in incentives to do high-quality
work without kibitzers constantly looking over their shoulders. Monopoly
projects can easily spend more on overseers than it would cost to fund a
second supplier.
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

Dick Morris wrote:

Especially since he played a major role in making it turn out the way it
has.

That's sour grapes bull****, Dick. It turned out the way it did because
the idea of manned spaceflight has inherent flaws, not because Van Allen
had the audacity to point out this fact.

Paul

Maybe you weren't around at the time, but van Allen was one of the
loudest voices against putting humans into space at any time for any
reason back when we were trying to gather enough political support to
build a fully-reusable Shuttle. He is probably as responsible as any
other individual for the political compromises that ruined the Shuttle
program.

How is that sour grapes?

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

In article ,
Derek Lyons wrote:
Translation: the scientific matters that James Van Allen cares about can
be addressed by automated missions.
Note that Van Allen is a "sky scientist", studying fields and particles in
space, with little interest in planetary surfaces. It shows.

Translation: I'll make an off-hand comment about the author rather
than adress the issues.

The issue under discussion is the views, and changes (or not) thereof, of
certain prominent space scientists. The fact that Van Allen's specialty
is easily (indeed, preferably) addressed with unmanned spacecraft is
*highly* relevant to the fact that his views have not changed.

More noise and handwaving that does everything, anything, to avoid
adressing the issue. If Stuffie or scott or one of the Collective did
the same thing, there would be flames a mile high.

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.

Derek Lyons wrote:
(Henry Spencer) wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote:
Translation: the scientific matters that James Van Allen cares about can
be addressed by automated missions.
Note that Van Allen is a "sky scientist", studying fields and particles in
space, with little interest in planetary surfaces. It shows.

Translation: I'll make an off-hand comment about the author rather
than adress the issues.

The issue under discussion is the views, and changes (or not) thereof, of
certain prominent space scientists. The fact that Van Allen's specialty
is easily (indeed, preferably) addressed with unmanned spacecraft is
*highly* relevant to the fact that his views have not changed.

More noise and handwaving that does everything, anything, to avoid
adressing the issue. If Stuffie or scott or one of the Collective did
the same thing, there would be flames a mile high.

Regardless of what Henry's saying, you have not responded
or acknowledged my earlier response to this.

The current interest in manned Mars missions from a scientific
standpoint is relatively recent and exobiology focused.

The mission was not clearly understood or articulated in 1986
when Val Allen wrote that piece.

That mission is one which has constituent tasks which are not
currently feasible to do in any fashion using robots.
Drilling both for fossils and for possible remaining
subsurface life, and the more complex surfaces (cliffs,
holes, etc) geology, are missions which at our current
level of technical prowess require humans to do them.

One can completely forgive a 1986 statement which does
not forsee the future developments in science. But the
field has evolved. Regardless of what he said in
1986, the current state of the art is that to advance
the exobiology science mission very far, people will
be required on the surface. I am unaware of Van Allen's
current stance on the issue. That would be more useful.


-george william herbert

Dick Morris wrote:

Maybe you weren't around at the time, but van Allen was one of the
loudest voices against putting humans into space at any time for any
reason back when we were trying to gather enough political support to
build a fully-reusable Shuttle. He is probably as responsible as any
other individual for the political compromises that ruined the Shuttle
program.

How is that sour grapes?

It's pathetic blamemongering; an excuse for not facing your own
misconceptions.

The reason the space shuttle had so many compromises was that the shuttle
didn't make sense from a policy perspective. Van Allen's pointing this
out was an effect, not a cause. As it was, NASA sacrificed its integrity
to get the shuttle, and we've seen the consequences of that for the next
three decades.

Paul

Dick Morris wrote:

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

Michael Walsh wrote:

I note that James Van Allen has been a consistent and vocal opponent of
manned space flight for many years.

I imagine he is feeling rather vindicated by how it has all turned out.

Paul

Especially since he played a major role in making it turn out the way it
has.

I don't believe that at all. What is the basis for your claim?

While he has never been in favor of manned space flight he has
not been conducting any kind of high profile campaign to stop it.

Mike Walsh

Dick Morris wrote:

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

Michael Walsh wrote:

I note that James Van Allen has been a consistent and vocal opponent of
manned space flight for many years.

I imagine he is feeling rather vindicated by how it has all turned out.

Paul

Especially since he played a major role in making it turn out the way it
has.

I don't believe that at all. What is the basis for your claim?

While he has never been in favor of manned space flight he has
not been conducting any kind of high profile campaign to stop it.

Mike Walsh