A human Mars mission?

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:27:31 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Christopher) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Who complained about NASA,

You did. In the post that started off this stupid thread.

That you keep replying to. And its not a 'stupid thread' it was a
perfectly rational question.

The thread is replete with stupidity.

Mars is now closer to Earth then its been decades.

That is completely irrelevant. It's nice for earth-based astronomers,
but has nothing to do with sending a mission.

It is not the finishing point, but the act of travelling which is
important.

Do you ever actually read before replying, or do you just type out
whatever random thoughts cross your mind?

--
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 Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:40:07 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:27:31 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Christopher) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Who complained about NASA,

You did. In the post that started off this stupid thread.

That you keep replying to. And its not a 'stupid thread' it was a
perfectly rational question.

The thread is replete with stupidity.

Yes your replys have lent that way.

Mars is now closer to Earth then its been decades.

That is completely irrelevant. It's nice for earth-based astronomers,
but has nothing to do with sending a mission.

It is not the finishing point, but the act of travelling which is
important.

Do you ever actually read before replying, or do you just type out
whatever random thoughts cross your mind?

The former, I leave the latter to you.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

JRS: In article , seen in
news:sci.space.policy, Christopher posted at Tue,
12 Aug 2003 10:29:32 :-

Elizabeth 1 reigned from 1533 to 1603,

Use I, not 1 - and Henry VIII (-1547), Edward VI (-1553), Jane (1553)
and Mary I (-1558) would be surprised at the start date that you give.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
some Astro stuff via astro.htm, gravity0.htm; quotes.htm; pascal.htm; &c, &c.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

Derek Lyons wrote:

I find it even less likely that Britain would be able to organize such
a mission than NASA.

Actually, British aerospace is probably better than NASA at quite a few
things. We just don't have the same pork barrel politics- or not to the
same degree. Britain HAS launched a satellite into space with our own
launcher, and it cost a tiny, tiny fraction of the American efforts;
more than an order of magnitude less. And yes, there was American
assistance, but also the British assisted America with test data.

Or hadn't you noticed that your country hasn't managed much on the
technical side in nearly 50 years that didn't involve American or
French help? Even worse, what little you do manage, you promptly stop
doing.

Yeah, well, after WWII we were pretty much no longer a first world
country; we've done pretty well, bearing in mind how poor we really were
at that point. Making strategic alliances of varying degrees of coercion
is what has put the Great in Britain. I wouldn't describe things like
Concorde as 'French help' in the sense you imply. Collaboration is the
word you're searching for.

And I think it is possible to reasonably argue that American things like
the Shuttle aren't worth keeping up. I very much respect what the
Russians did with Buran, killed it dead after one flight.

One advantage of living in a free country is that we have multiple
news sources, so there is no 'main American evening news'. A further
advantage is they rarely miss an opportunity to cover something that
embarrasses the government.

Yes, but we have the BBC; and it is world class. I don't think you have
anything quite that good on average; CNN has been better, but it has
gone down hill some in recent years due to advertising pressures. The
BBC is not entirely unbiased, but it's probably the least biased anywhere.

D.

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 21:46:11 +0100, in a place far, far away, Ian
Woollard made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


Yes, but we have the BBC; and it is world class.

"World class"?

World class liars, perhaps.

Their anti-western agenda, and willingness to "sex up their stories,"
was made very clear in their general war reporting, and specifically
in the Kelly/Gilligan affair. Fortunately, I suspect that, as a
result, their charter won't be renewed, and they'll be privatized (and
have to compete against reality). The British public will no longer
have to pay for the privilege of being propagandized by them.

--
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:

(Christopher) wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:08:39 GMT, Brian Thorn
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:05:53 GMT, (Christopher)
wrote:
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.

Mars is a planet, the asteroids are bits of rock, Mars is a major
staging post to the asteroids.

Mars it utterly useless as a staging post to the asteroids. On an
EarthMarsBelt journey, or it's reverse, you have to change
velocities twice, and navigate a gravity well twice, as well as wait
for both the planets *and* the asteroid in question to move into the
appropriate positions.

Much easier and simpler (and cheaper) to go direct.

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.

Maybe, but more expensive to life the water from Earths surface.

Only if you first accept the idiotic premise that it's easier to get
to the asteroids via Mars.

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.

(Christopher) wrote:

On 12 Aug 2003 02:35:48 GMT, (G EddieA95) wrote:

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,

Then let's go to the asteriods first. No sense in hauling water, etc. up a
gravity well if these can be had floating in space.

A half way house is better then going all the way first.

Except that from a navigational and energy sense (and these matter
most in planning a space mission), Mars isn't halfway, it's a detour.

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.

(Christopher) wrote:

No, you as America per say force your 'culture' for what it is down
the throats of other countrys and act surprised when they cough it
back up and then spit into your face.

Um no. It's a matter of record that we have sent no soldiers to force
people to eat at McDonalds, nor police to round up people and confine
them in theaters to watch Disney movies, nor postal inspectors to
ensure that each household recieves its alloted consigment of magazine
each month.

go to the asteriods first. No sense in hauling water, etc. up a
gravity well if these can be had floating in space.

A half way house is better then going all the way first.

Nope. were that the case, Azores and Gander would still be major stops in
Atlantic commerce.

Think Hawaii in a Pacific crossing..

More like going via the Antilles to fly from LA to Shanghai.

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.

Brian Thorn wrote:
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.

But the point of Aurora is to explore a variety of Mars missions, including
manned flight to Mars, while the US Mars landers AFAIK don't have such targets


Brian

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

(Christopher) wrote:

On 12 Aug 2003 16:01:30 GMT, (G EddieA95) wrote:

Going to Mars is the kind of
big project that only a country, and probably more than one, can do.

Bit like crossing the big pond on your own, with no government help
then.

Your chances of crossing the 'pond' alive without any gov't services (in the
form of navigational stations, weather bulletins, etc) are minimal. Think
sailing ship circa 1500, not British Airways.

Think Charles Lindberg.

A very good model... He used no 'goverment services' , not directly
anyway, though he did profit from goverment sponsored research. He
required sponsors to pay for the costs of the trip. He required the
high tech assistance of a good sized corporation to build his special
vehicle.

And he nearly died dozens of times on his famous trip.

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.