Posted on 02/03/2004 10:43:22 AM PST by ambrose
|
By JANE WARDELL
Associated Press Writer
LONDON --
European scientists set out a route map Tuesday for manned missions to Mars that aims to land astronauts on the Red Planet in less than 30 years.
Like U.S. President George W. Bush's proposed mission to Mars, the plan put forward by the European Space Agency involves a "stepping stone" approach, which includes robotic missions and a manned trip to the Moon first.
"We need to go back to the Moon before we go to Mars. We need to walk before we run," said Dr. Franco Ongaro, who heads the ESA's Aurora program for long-term exploration of the solar system, at a meeting of Aurora scientists in London. "These are our stones. They will pave the way for our human explorers."
The ESA has planned two flagship missions to Mars - ExoMars would land a rover on the planet in 2009, and Mars Sample Return would bring back a sample of the Martian surface in 2011-14.
Other test missions will include a non-manned version of the flight that would eventually carry astronauts to Mars to demonstrate aerobraking, solar electric propulsion and soft landing technologies.
A human mission to the Moon, proposed for 2024, would demonstrate key life-support and habitation technologies, as well as aspects of crew performance and adaptation to long-distance space flight.
The program is expected to cost about 900 million euros (US$1.13 billion) over the next five years.
Professor Colin Pillinger, the British scientist behind the recent ill-fated Beagle 2 expedition, said it was important to determine whether life existed on Mars before pressing ahead with a manned mission.
"Would it be right for us to tamper with the ecology on another body?" he asked. "My opinion is that it probably wouldn't."
The ExoMars rover would use solar arrays to generate electricity and travel several kilometers (miles) across the surface of Mars.
It would have on-board software enabling it to operate autonomously, and, like Beagle 2, a set of scientific instruments designed to search for signs of past or present life.
Mars Sample Return would be a more complex mission requiring five spacecraft - an interplanetary transfer stage, a Mars orbiter, a descent module, an ascent module and an Earth re-entry vehicle.
The module would contain a drill to collect soil samples and was expected to send back around half a kilogram (one pound) of Martian soil.
Scientists hope the expedition has a better outcome than the Beagle 2 trip. The British built lander, which was due to land on Mars on Christmas Day, has not been heard from since it separated from the ESA's mother ship, Mars Express, in mid-December, despite several efforts to contact it.
Mars Express itself has functioned as intended, orbiting the planet. ESA scientists said last month that it had found the most direct evidence yet of water in the form of ice on Mars, detecting molecules vaporizing from the Red Planet's south pole.
By contrast, NASA's twin rovers are reaching out to scoop and analyze the Martian surface some 6,600 miles (10,560 kilometers) apart, both machines using their robotic arms as intended following a software glitch.
President Bush last month sought to chart a new course for NASA, focusing on a return to the Moon by 2020 in preparation for manned missions to Mars and beyond.
(jw/twx)
"Would it be right for us to tamper with the ecology on another body?" he asked. "My opinion is that it probably wouldn't."
I smell Snail Darters
It may simply be the time for it. Societies hit a point where they seem to suddenly all send out explorations.
Yeah, well, I think they're planning on something like that...:
Scientists hope the expedition [Mars Sample Return]has a better outcome than the Beagle 2 trip.
Sounds like the commies already control it.
Well, since you set the tone here, you apparently know nothing about economics, politics, the meaning of the word sinecure, the military and everything else that you write about. Engineering isn't all that difficult when you have no consequences if you fail and an unlimited budget. Try real hard and think of any negative consequences to the engineers at NASA and its subcontrators if any of their robot probes fail. BZZZZZZT time is up. There aren't any.
Now try and think about the consequences if the engineers in a private company fail to produce a functional product. Company doesn't make money and engineers are out looking for another job. Not a sinecure.
Just as the Apollo program provided the impetus for an explosion of inventions (microchips, computers, LCD displays, satellites, plastics, Tang!
Total utter and absolute bull sh!t. Saying all of these are the result of the space program is like trying to make us believe that without the National Endowmwent for the Arts there wouldn't be any art.
bs bs bs bs Imagine a permanent nuclear launch site that cannot be taken out in 15 minutes. bs bs
Try a little critical thinking here. If the moon is "high ground", then Mars should be even higher ground right? And Jupiter even higher still. Which is of course nonsense. What you're forgetting is that it's too far away for military use.
I have a question for you. Since you are aware that we landed people on the moon and the Chinese didn't, what negative impact did this have on the Chinese?
Actually you set the tone when you suggested that NASA engineers are primarily concerned with getting 'big fat sinecures'. And yes I do know that 'sinecures' is a fancy college-boy word for 'cushy job'. In layman's terms, you've accused NASA engineers of wanting to get paid for doing little or no work. So don't get high an mighty about 'tone'.
Since you again have indicated that you know very little about engineers, let me elucidate (wow, big words are fun!) the subject for you.
Typically when an engineer has been working on a single project for several years, his personal pride in seeing the success of that project means more to him than his salary. Thats simply the way they are wired. If these engineers, as you simplemindedly suggested, were truly there only for the 'big fat sinecures', do you really think that they would have successfully landed two rovers on Mars???
You obviously have no concept of the amazing challenges involved with designing, building, testing and implementing a device as technically complex as the Martian rover. Your ignorance and lack of appreciation of the magnitude of this achievement serves to illustrates one reason why this country is going to hell in a hand basket!!
Total utter and absolute bull sh!t. Saying all of these are the result of the space program is like trying to make us believe that without the National Endowmwent for the Arts there wouldn't be any art.
Pardon me, but your lack of insight is really showing here. Technology is driven by necessity. Capitalism is a motivation, yes, but capitalism is by its very nature risk adverse. Capitalism will nurture innovations but rarely new technologies. The largest jumps in technology have usually come during times of war when the risk of national loss offsets the concerns of risk from financial loss. Nations are willing to commit large resources to insure their war technology keeps pace with the enemy.
The great thing about the Apollo program is that it was done in a competitive war like atmosphere that generated new technologies. And nobody had to die!! Here is a good article on NASA technological achievements. I encourage you to educate yourself on this subject so that you will be a better citizen.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-01-21-eicher_x.htm
Try a little critical thinking here. If the moon is "high ground", then Mars should be even higher ground right? And Jupiter even higher still.
I am embarrassed for you. This statement is akin to saying that having a heavy winter coat is not better than having a light winter coat because if you had a super huge 2000 lb winter coat it would suffocate you. Nice deductive reasoning!
I have a question for you. Since you are aware that we landed people on the moon and the Chinese didn't, what negative impact did this have on the Chinese?
We landed a man on the moon in 1969 and the Chinese didn't. Negative impact? The Chinese have continued to live as a third world country for the last 35 years while Americans have enjoyed the highest quality of life in the history of mankind!
It is probably too much to expect that you could understand the connection between China's ever growing economic wealth and their continued success at developing their own space program.
It is probably too much to expect that you could understand the connection between China's ever growing economic wealth and their continued success at developing their own space program.
Like their space program is driving their economy. Whatever.
LOL!! Wrong again. Thanks for trying.
I have never held a government job in my life. I work in an extremely competitive commercial high-tech field. My advantage over you is in knowing what it takes to create a technically advanced product, regardless of whether that product is funded by capitalism or government.
Like their (China) space program is driving their economy. Whatever.
You lived down to my low expectations.
Do you think China's space program has enhanced their ability to launch satellites? Do you think their ability to launch satellites has enhanced their telecommunications industry? Do you think their growing telecommunications capacity has fueled the globalization of their business economy?
No, you probably don't. You probably cannot comprehend how owning satellites can help an economy.
Let me put it in simpler terms. If you had a large, heavy cart being pulled by two horses, would that cart move easier if you added a third horse? Of course it would. Undoubtedly, you would protest about purchasing that third horse because to you it is NOT pulling the cart. And that is why you will get to town long after I do.
China's economy is the cart. Their space program is the 'third horse'.
It does not matter why they want to go. What matters is that, the more the list of those who are going grows, the harder it becomes for any given Congress to decide we shouldn't bother.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
