Joint Russian/Chinese manned flyby mission to Mars

I keep wondering whether this is a possibillity in the not so distant future
as the rewards for them would be great, whilst the cost and engineering
challenges are within their realm. There would be a certain risk in having
two astronauts living in a cramped spaceship for 9 months exposed to
radiation in outer space but they would probably survive the flight
(although I'd expect them to develop cancer later on in life).

They'd have to assemble a pretty big ship in orbit, off course, but that too
is doable.

I also keep wondering how the US would respond if such a mission were to be
announced. Would it team up with Europe? Or go it alone? Since surpassing
such a feat would mean having to land men on Mars, which would be one or two
orders of a magnitude more difficult I see a manned flyby mission as a
pretty sound economic deal.



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

"Jim Relsh" wrote:
:
:I also keep wondering how the US would respond if such a mission were to be
:announced. Would it team up with Europe? Or go it alone?
:

If we wanted to not actually go we'd team up with Europe. If we
wanted to get there we'd go it alone.

:
:Since surpassing
:such a feat would mean having to land men on Mars, which would be one or two
rders of a magnitude more difficult I see a manned flyby mission as a
retty sound economic deal.
:

A manned flyby mission is the ultimate in pointlessness. If you're
going to spend all that time on the trip, you might as well land and
learn a few things while you're there.


--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

"Fred J. McCall" schreef in bericht
...
"Jim Relsh" wrote:
:
:I also keep wondering how the US would respond if such a mission were to
be
:announced. Would it team up with Europe? Or go it alone?
:

If we wanted to not actually go we'd team up with Europe. If we
wanted to get there we'd go it alone.

Fair enough. The EU space budget is what, less than a billion dollars a
year? Most of which is spend on sending commerical Ariane rockets into
space.


:
:Since surpassing
:such a feat would mean having to land men on Mars, which would be one or
two
rders of a magnitude more difficult I see a manned flyby mission as a
retty sound economic deal.
:

A manned flyby mission is the ultimate in pointlessness. If you're
going to spend all that time on the trip, you might as well land and
learn a few things while you're there.

You're missing the point. Landing men and returning them safely is immensely
more difficult since it would require a long stay, up to a year, on the
surface, and pin-point precision landing. There are so many things that can
go wrong during their stay that the chances for failure are far from remote.
Worst case scenario would be all of us watching the astronauts perish on the
surface because they are unable to fly back home. That would be the ultimate
PR disaster.

Anyway, because of this, the US may well forfeit such an attempt leaving the
title for 'man's ultimate achievement' in Russian/Chinese hands.










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

"Jim Relsh" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" schreef in bericht
.. .
: "Jim Relsh" wrote:
: :
: :I also keep wondering how the US would respond if such a mission were to
: be
: :announced. Would it team up with Europe? Or go it alone?
: :
:
: If we wanted to not actually go we'd team up with Europe. If we
: wanted to get there we'd go it alone.
:
:Fair enough. The EU space budget is what, less than a billion dollars a
:year? Most of which is spend on sending commerical Ariane rockets into
:space.
:

Gee, I wouldn't have thought ANY government money was spent on
"sending commercial Ariane rockets into space." Isn't that what
'commercial' means - non-government funded?

No, I wouldn't team with Europe if I really wanted to go based on
watching other 'joint' space efforts, where more money is spent on
bureaucracy and 'intercooperation' than ever gets spent on operations
or bending metal. Scheduled tend to lengthen preposterously while
capability declines precipitously on any 'joint' venture.

See ISS for an example of this phenomenon.

:
:
: :
: :Since surpassing
: :such a feat would mean having to land men on Mars, which would be one or
: two
: rders of a magnitude more difficult I see a manned flyby mission as a
: retty sound economic deal.
: :
:
: A manned flyby mission is the ultimate in pointlessness. If you're
: going to spend all that time on the trip, you might as well land and
: learn a few things while you're there.
:
:
:You're missing the point.
:

No, YOU'RE missing the point.

:
:Landing men and returning them safely is immensely
:more difficult since it would require a long stay, up to a year, on the
:surface, and pin-point precision landing.
:

"Pin-point precision landing" is easy. The rest is true. However,
sending them all that way and NOT landing just makes you look like an
idiot. The expense and risk of the trip itself is quite high. To do
it as nothing other than a 'barnstorming' stunt makes it look like you
couldn't do it in a meaningful way. I'd hope that any nation doing
that would be laughed at.

:
:There are so many things that can
:go wrong during their stay that the chances for failure are far from remote.
:

There are so many things that can go wrong just during their trip that
the chances of failure are far from remote. A properly designed
mission wouldn't take on any more risk to actually land than those
that already exist just from the trip.

:
:Worst case scenario would be all of us watching the astronauts perish on the
:surface because they are unable to fly back home. That would be the ultimate
:PR disaster.
:

And that can happen whether you land or not. In fact, it's probably
more likely to happen during the trip than once they're on the ground
(where there are resources they could use to save themselves).

:
:Anyway, because of this, the US may well forfeit such an attempt leaving the
:title for 'man's ultimate achievement' in Russian/Chinese hands.
:

I'd hate to think that 'barnstorming' Mars would go down as "man's
ultimate achievement". I'd hope we'd accomplish MUCH more important
and difficult things than that.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

On Sep 29, 9:01 am, "Jim Relsh" wrote:
You're missing the point. Landing men and returning them safely is immensely
more difficult since it would require a long stay, up to a year, on the
surface, and pin-point precision landing. There are so many things that can
go wrong during their stay that the chances for failure are far from remote.

Landing has difficulties, it's true, but the major difficulty in going
to Mars is still the very large mass requirements for such long-term
life support. Without a landing, though, there are no immense
scientific rewards - nothing is done that unmanned probes couldn't do
vastly cheaper.

John Savard

A manned flyby? As other have said its is pointless.
This is even worse than the flags and foot prints of the
Apollo program. They at least got rocks.

If people are to go they need to do more than operate
a camera shutter. A robotic mission makes more sense
doing that.

If Mars is important, then a vessel that gets people there
and back safely, economically, and without being irradiated
is a core vital issue. As the robotics advance even the surface
exploration and exploitation may not and perhaps should
not involve humans.

wrote:
:
:As the robotics advance even the surface
:exploration and exploitation may not and perhaps should
:not involve humans.
:

Then why bother to go at all?


--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

On Sep 30, 1:10 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

:
:As the robotics advance even the surface
:exploration and exploitation may not and perhaps should
:not involve humans.
:

Then why bother to go at all?

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

For the fun of strip mining Mars for uranium. Plus a little science.
Or build to a leaders refuge for after the water table is poisoned,
the air
depleted, soil washed to the sea, the coal and oil burned and gone,
after
a dozen 10 megaton class nukes hit a dozen nuclear reactors late in
their fuel cycle.
Or alternatively to use Mars as a dump site for all humans who don't
conform
to the Great Fearless Leader's dictates while proving he is merciful
and magnanimious.
Or to distract the masses while you steal the last of their freedoms
and
launch the march to victory for the glory and honor by the Great
Fearless Leader
against who ever is currently enemy.

Or we could let the robots do it. Or we could stay home and drink beer
and keep entering our words on the Usenet.

schreef in bericht
ups.com...
On Sep 30, 1:10 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

:
:As the robotics advance even the surface
:exploration and exploitation may not and perhaps should
:not involve humans.
:

Then why bother to go at all?

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

For the fun of strip mining Mars for uranium. Plus a little science.
Or build to a leaders refuge for after the water table is poisoned,
the air
depleted, soil washed to the sea, the coal and oil burned and gone,
after
a dozen 10 megaton class nukes hit a dozen nuclear reactors late in
their fuel cycle.
Or alternatively to use Mars as a dump site for all humans who don't
conform
to the Great Fearless Leader's dictates while proving he is merciful
and magnanimious.
Or to distract the masses while you steal the last of their freedoms
and
launch the march to victory for the glory and honor by the Great
Fearless Leader
against who ever is currently enemy.

Or we could let the robots do it. Or we could stay home and drink beer
and keep entering our words on the Usenet.


No. Robots are irrelevant. There's very little prestige involved in hurtling
an unmanned probe into outer space.







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

wrote:
:
:Or we could let the robots do it. Or we could stay home and drink beer
:and keep entering our words on the Usenet.
:

In other words, if people aren't going there's no reason to spend the
money just to send a toaster.


--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney