To Boldly Go: What Made 400 People Volunteer for a One-Way Mission to Mars?

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/...-mission-mars/

On Jan 13, 4:24*pm, giveitawhirl2008
wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/...er-way-mission...

many volunteers will be too old to go. people like a 49 year old they
would be near 70 if lanch time were 20 years.

besides in 20 years its likely a faster way will be developed.

like a nuke engine

In article 05513fbc-2869-41e6-82a3-782e11e09491
@k13g2000vbq.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jan 13, 4:24*pm, giveitawhirl2008
wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/...er-way-mission...

many volunteers will be too old to go. people like a 49 year old they
would be near 70 if lanch time were 20 years.

There would never be a shortage of young, qualified, volunteers for such
a mission. Just look at the number of test pilots in the 50's and 60's,
many of whom have streets named after them because they died doing their
job.

besides in 20 years its likely a faster way will be developed.

like a nuke engine

Doubtful. Such a beast surely won't come out of today's NASA, who
continues to cling to five segment SRB's and the J2-X as the way
forward.

Jeff
--
"Had Constellation actually been focused on building an Earth-Moon
transportation system, it might have survived. The decision to have it
first build a costly and superfluous Earth-to-orbit transportation
system (Ares I) was a fatal mistake.", Henry Spencer 1/2/2011

On Jan 14, 8:08*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 05513fbc-2869-41e6-82a3-782e11e09491
@k13g2000vbq.googlegroups.com, says...



On Jan 13, 4:24*pm, giveitawhirl2008
wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/...er-way-mission....

many volunteers will be too old to go. people like a 49 year old they
would be near 70 if lanch time were 20 years.

There would never be a shortage of young, qualified, volunteers for such
a mission. *Just look at the number of test pilots in the 50's and 60's,
many of whom have streets named after them because they died doing their
job.

besides in 20 years its likely a faster way will be developed.

like a nuke engine

Doubtful. *Such a beast surely won't come out of today's NASA, who
continues to cling to five segment SRB's and the J2-X as the way
forward. *

Jeff
--
"Had Constellation actually been focused on building an Earth-Moon
transportation system, it might have survived. *The decision to have it
first build a costly and superfluous Earth-to-orbit transportation
system (Ares I) was a fatal mistake.", Henry Spencer 1/2/2011

agreed nasa is dead so far as exploration is concerned, it has ONE
PRIORITY SPENDING MONEY

as a example spirit and opportunity were fantastic designs. nasa
should of sent more to mars, and perhaps a improved version too.

incremental improvements in base design are far better than tossing
out a entire design

we might as well face facts, china will be going to mars, maybe we can
buy a seat

on the mars plan many volunteers

In article 16eab6fa-c5e3-4db4-95f6-ea31705ebd31
@k30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com, says...

agreed nasa is dead so far as exploration is concerned, it has ONE
PRIORITY SPENDING MONEY

I don't think NASA is entirely dead (yet), but this latest round of,
"We'd like to build an HLV, but it's got to have 5 seg SRB's (instead of
the existing 4 seg SRB's) and J2-X (instead of existing upper stage
engines like RL-10's) and because of this, it will cost more than what
you (Congress) wants to give us".

Failing to realize today's economic realities might mean Congress will
throw in the towel and tell NASA it simply can't develop any new HLV.
Without its own HLV, NASA will have to rethink everything it plans to
do. Not that I want a shuttle derived HLV (I'm opposed to any new NASA
specific launch vehicle), but the way NASA is going about SDHLV is going
to get the program killed entirely. Of course, that may not be a bad
thing, long term, but in the short term it means more management chaos
at NASA as they attempt to find another way forward.

as a example spirit and opportunity were fantastic designs. nasa
should of sent more to mars, and perhaps a improved version too.

Arguably true, but such unmanned missions won't directly lead to the
technologies needed for much larger manned missions.

incremental improvements in base design are far better than tossing
out a entire design

Possibly. But sometimes doing the above means throwing good money after
bad, which isn't a good thing. From an economics point of view, STS
wasn't a good thing. A shuttle derived HLV is just throwing good money
after bad, IMHO.

we might as well face facts, china will be going to mars, maybe we can
buy a seat

on the mars plan many volunteers

Based on what evidence? China's slow and deliberate manned space
program is nowhere near ready to go to Mars. China is currently
focusing on incremental improvements in the launch vehicles they have
via "new to them" technologies like staged combustion liquid fueled
rocket engines. For the Russians and the US, staged combustion
technology is "old hat".

Even if they're successful, this will not result in launch vehicles
large enough to mount a Mars mission. At best, we'll see small
Salyut/Mir type stations coming out of China in the next 20 years. I
doubt that they'll even send men to the moon in that time.

Jeff
--
"Had Constellation actually been focused on building an Earth-Moon
transportation system, it might have survived. The decision to have it
first build a costly and superfluous Earth-to-orbit transportation
system (Ares I) was a fatal mistake.", Henry Spencer 1/2/2011

On Jan 14, 9:32*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 16eab6fa-c5e3-4db4-95f6-ea31705ebd31
@k30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com, says...



agreed nasa is dead so far as exploration is concerned, it has ONE
PRIORITY SPENDING MONEY

I don't think NASA is entirely dead (yet), but this latest round of,
"We'd like to build an HLV, but it's got to have 5 seg SRB's (instead of
the existing 4 seg SRB's) and J2-X (instead of existing upper stage
engines like RL-10's) and because of this, it will cost more than what
you (Congress) wants to give us". *

Failing to realize today's economic realities might mean Congress will
throw in the towel and tell NASA it simply can't develop any new HLV. *
Without its own HLV, NASA will have to rethink everything it plans to
do. *Not that I want a shuttle derived HLV (I'm opposed to any new NASA
specific launch vehicle), but the way NASA is going about SDHLV is going
to get the program killed entirely. *Of course, that may not be a bad
thing, long term, but in the short term it means more management chaos
at NASA as they attempt to find another way forward.

as a example spirit and opportunity were fantastic designs. nasa
should of sent more to mars, and perhaps a improved version too.

Arguably true, but such unmanned missions won't directly lead to the
technologies needed for much larger manned missions.

incremental improvements in base design are far better than tossing
out a entire design

Possibly. *But sometimes doing the above means throwing good money after
bad, which isn't a good thing. *From an economics point of view, STS
wasn't a good thing. *A shuttle derived HLV is just throwing good money
after bad, IMHO.

we might as well face facts, china will be going to mars, maybe we can
buy a seat

on the mars plan many volunteers

Based on what evidence? *China's slow and deliberate manned space
program is nowhere near ready to go to Mars. *China is currently
focusing on incremental improvements in the launch vehicles they have
via "new to them" technologies like staged combustion liquid fueled
rocket engines. *For the Russians and the US, staged combustion
technology is "old hat". *

Even if they're successful, this will not result in launch vehicles
large enough to mount a Mars mission. *At best, we'll see small
Salyut/Mir type stations coming out of China in the next 20 years. *I
doubt that they'll even send men to the moon in that time.

Jeff
--
"Had Constellation actually been focused on building an Earth-Moon
transportation system, it might have survived. *The decision to have it
first build a costly and superfluous Earth-to-orbit transportation
system (Ares I) was a fatal mistake.", Henry Spencer 1/2/2011

CHINA HAS THE MONEY!

For space money is gold...

the NERVA design was looked at years ago, and given chinas
dictatorship chinese people wouldnt be able to complain of nuke in
space.

china has the best chance of going to mars.

In article fe1878d8-b17e-433b-93c3-
, says...

CHINA HAS THE MONEY!
For space money is gold...

China is too busy spending their money on other things which directly
grow their economy.

the NERVA design was looked at years ago, and given chinas
dictatorship chinese people wouldnt be able to complain of nuke in
space.

That doesn't mean that China has the technology to build and fly a NERVA
type engine. They're just now starting development on staged combustion
liquid fueled rocket engines. NERVA technology is currently FAR beyond
the Chinese state of the art in rocket engines.

china has the best chance of going to mars.

Not in the next decade, that's for sure. They simply aren't spending
enough money on manned space travel to do more than Salyut/Mir type
stations in LEO over the next 10 years.

Jeff
--
"Had Constellation actually been focused on building an Earth-Moon
transportation system, it might have survived. The decision to have it
first build a costly and superfluous Earth-to-orbit transportation
system (Ares I) was a fatal mistake.", Henry Spencer 1/2/2011

On Jan 13, 3:24*pm, giveitawhirl2008
wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/...er-way-mission...

Lots of people have volunteered for a one-way trip from the top to the
bottom floor of the Empire State building (in a few seconds), or from
the Golden Gate bridge, Grand Canyon, etc. Then there is the Knievels,
the Wallendas, an so on...

I am quite unimpressed by that figure.

-Ramon

On Jan 13, 1:24*pm, giveitawhirl2008
wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/...er-way-mission...

Just like a two-way mission to our physically dark moon is still not
viable, but perhaps within a few years it well be accomplished by
China or possibly India.

At least our moon could have daily deliveries of beer, pizza and O2
from Earth, whereas the same deliveries to Mars not so much.

~ BG

On 1/14/2011 8:32 AM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
Lots of people have volunteered for a one-way trip from the top to the
bottom floor of the Empire State building

And just like in Project Mercury, first a test using a monkey was performed:
http://www.logoi.com/pastimages/img/king_kong_2.jpg

Pat