NASA Rushing To Mars As Per Bush's Policy

In sci.space.policy Rand Simberg wrote:

When the US continually starts wars, and loses them, and refuses to
make peace, instead sending murderers abroad to deliberately blow up
crowded pizza or ice-cream parlors, or gun down kindergarten children
in their beds, then get back to me, because you might have an analogy
that almost starts to make sense.

Provided you don't require official declarations of war, officialy
recognized soldiers are not required to be present (something you have
in the past indicated are not in your opinion requirements in the past
when discussing acts against US and its allies) then US has been doing
just that since the half of 20th century in both Asia and Southern/
Central America.


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:47:15 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
Sander Vesik made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In sci.space.policy Rand Simberg wrote:

When the US continually starts wars, and loses them, and refuses to
make peace, instead sending murderers abroad to deliberately blow up
crowded pizza or ice-cream parlors, or gun down kindergarten children
in their beds, then get back to me, because you might have an analogy
that almost starts to make sense.

Provided you don't require official declarations of war, officialy
recognized soldiers are not required to be present (something you have
in the past indicated are not in your opinion requirements in the past
when discussing acts against US and its allies) then US has been doing
just that since the half of 20th century in both Asia and Southern/
Central America.

Really? We've lost territory there, and are deliberately murdering
schoolchildren to get it back?

Jeff George wrote:

:On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 19:16:40 GMT I used my godlike powers to observe
:the following from h (Rand Simberg):
:
:On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:01:33 -0400, in a place far, far away, Jeff
:George made the phosphor on my monitor
:glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:
:Palestinians get to vote, but they don't get to have their own
:government. The Palestinian National Authority is not a
:government, it doesn't have control over its territory.
:
:And it won't, until it has a government that can be trusted to stop
:supporting murderers.
:
:Using that logic, no American should be allowed to vote.
:
:What a strange non-sequitur.
:
:Not at all. The premise is that Palestinians can't create their own
:government by voting because that government supports murderers. The
:American government is a large supporter of murderers. Why are
:Americans allowed to create such a government through voting if the
:Palestinians aren't?

Well, it would certainly appear that YOU are too stupid to vote.

Or bother with.

plonk

On Thu, 22 Oct 2037 13:28:14 -0700, OrionCA wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:20:07 +0100, "Ool"
wrote:

A manned Mars lander won't bounce to a stop. I agree that aerobraking and
parachutes will help. However, you wrote - regarding a manned Mars mission -
"you don't have to **touch down** on Mars using powerful rockets the way you
did on the Moon. There's an atmosphere so a parachute **will do fine**."
[emphasis added] The point is, the atmosphere is very thin and parachutes
alone will in no way be sufficient. Relatively powerful landing rockets will
still be needed.


Okay, okay, I meant it the way you said it. The point is, you need a
lot of fuel for touching down softly on the Moon because of the total
absense of aerobraking potential. On Mars you can do orbital inser-
tion by way of atmospheric friction, meaning takeoffs will require
lots of fuel, landings a good heat shield and a reliable chute.

A very, very, VERY large chute I'm afraid. While Mars has an
atmosphere it's not significantly different from hard vacuum ~7mPa;
Earth's atmosphere at sea level is ~1050 mPa by comparison. Your
blood would boil if you stepped out onto the Martian surface w/o a
vacuum suit. That's why they're using the "beach ball" method to
deploy probes to the planet: thrusters cost too much and parachutes
would have to be enormous to slow the probe safely by themselves.

Manned missions are going to have to use braking rockets for final
entry. The landing vehicle would simply be too big for either
parachutes or parasails to slow it adequately.
--
"It's a cliche that happens to be true: To win support,
candidates and parties have to stand for something.
They cannot be strictly against the opposition. Even
worse, they cannot be for and against what the other
side believes in."

- Boston Globe, 1/13/05
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...ocrats?mode=PF

Well, you don't need a sea level pressure to aerobrake. It makes it more
difficult, really. You want to decellerate at some reasonable rate around
3 g, not hit a brick wall. The space shuttle does most of its aerobraking
at high altitude at similar pressures.

But landing larges masses on Mars will be new technology, I admit. But
rockets to land? Only the last few meters.


--
http://OnToMars.org For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization