Posted on 01/05/2005 7:08:41 PM PST by KevinDavis
Ahmedabad, Jan 5 (IANS) American scientists are preparing to return to the moon and send a man to Mars as part of a new project by space agency NASA, a US official said here Wednesday.
Scientists are designing a new crew exploration vehicle spacecraft as part of a venture called Project Constellation, said Lee Morin, deputy assistant secretary for science at the US Department of State.
The return to moon would take place between 2015 and 2020, after which the Mars exploration would be carried out, Morin told IANS on the sidelines of the 92nd Indian Science Congress here.
(Excerpt) Read more at eians.net ...
And the point of going to Mars is ,what?
There's nothing there, and it's a two year trip one way. What's the point?
Let's colonize the Moon first and have an orbiting Hilton with a swimming pool and glass dome.
Going to Mars is for robots.
You have to wonder that when they do, in each place where they land, there might be a Chinese resturant already there.
Don't worry. With NASA in charge, won't happen. The mission of NASA is to employ NASA personnel. Any other "benefit" is incidental.
Well, look on the bright side--there won't be any rodents, dogs, or cats around.
they could stay in Rutan's Hotel
Six months. And with some of the newer propulsion systems, perhaps half that.
As far as there being nothing there . . . There is a lot there! But as always with the wilderness, we have to go there and build, build, build to make it comfortable.
This is true.
Been doing this aerospace stuff since 1971.
Worked with scientists and engineers who worked in the general field since prior to WWII.
I'm the peon w the M.S. surrounded by PHD's, on a variety of advanced programs.
Manned mission to Mars ain't happening.
No purpose, no constituency.
Wanna guess the cost?
No, not the sticker in the marketing window, the real cost.
Somebody has to go and fix the robots.
What a friggin waste.
Whatever.. We are going to Mars and it is not going to cost a trillion..
No it isn't..
Wonder where it'll be filmed....Hey maybe this is something Stone could handle.
What, you've been there? :D
"No no, Chris ol boy, there's nothing on the other side of that ocean but the edge of the world. EVERYONE knows THAT."
Johnny scratches his head and says,"That's awesome, but why are all of the astronauts Marines?"
It would cost more than $100 Billion in 2005 dollars, which won't find a constituency to support it.
Additionally, with the declining skill base and competing priorities in aerospace programs, it couldn't be staffed.
The real cost? The real cost? The real cost is if we dont go. Its what our species does. We explore, we break through barriers sometimes at great cost, THAT is why any of us are even here at all. It is our nature. And it will happen, the sooner the better. We gain, all of the human race gains in these endeavours in ways we cannot always understand right away, and ways that touch generations to come. You want to put a value on it in dollars? in profit? Its not measured that way sir. Its way bigger then that.
That is correct.. We have to think about the future..
Six months? Have we invented warp drive yet?
Six months? Have we invented warp drive yet?
We just send them to areas of space where there is no intelligent life so they feel at home.
Humans explore. Deal with it. Its what we do. We look to the horizon everytime, and we do not care what the cost is because it is what we are to do these things, we have dreams and imaginations for a reason, it is key to our success as a species on this Earth. Respectfully, that is not a friggin waste. To not explore and go places unknown is simply not possible for us. We will move beyond this planet and into the solar system and beyond permanatley one day. Its the nature of life to expand, you expand or you face extinction. Its no different for us. And we are expert explorers.
At least ole Chris sold the trip on economic benefits, like a new route to the Indies.
Mars has nada.
What will you find in the canals? A titanium hulled gondola?
At least robots don't run out of food and oxygen, like the present inhabitants of the Orbiting Space Station are.
The astronauts won't run out of food and oxygen... Once a robots break down it is money gone. Humans in space provide more bang for the buck.
A place for humans to live in the future...
Ain't happening!
See post 24.
Keep dreaming, but this ain't 1960.
No political base.
Purpose and benefits aren't marketable to sufficient numbers.
Necessary funding won't be available in the next 20-30 years.
Have you noticed the integrity of the Int'l Space Station lately?
If you were a Mars astronaut what kind of test program would you insist upon?
What is the difference in the percentage of aerospace parts made in the U.S. today vs. the Apollo era?
You let another country land on the moon and you might just get a little interest.
Anything we can do with manned flight we can do with robots. Just send the machines and we'll spend the savings on medical, energy, basic science research and get something useful out of it.
Maybe like China as an example..
Humans have more bang for the buck?
As I recall, there was a question whether some humans were banging in the space station already.
Robots are expendable. Perhaps you think humans in space are also.
There is no rationale for going to Mars, on any logical level.There is nothing to prove, other than we have the technology to do something.
Much cheaper to watch Star Trek reruns.
China could, if it focussed long enough.
But, I can't imagine them making the investment necessary to turn that into a threat.
Too many less costly avenues available to them.
Very few people are aware of how ineffectual and lazy NASA has become. Anyone who believes that NASA could actually carry out a manned mission to Mars, regardless of available funding, has never had a glimpse of what really goes on there. I've spent some time working in Mars research at a NASA center and, believe me, they will never get anywhere close to a manned Mars mission.
NASA exists to project an image and, like you said, to employ NASA personnel.
Again people who prefer robots in space over humans are a bunch of Girly man.. You just made my point...
They have to be ready sooner, the comet or meteor that is scheduled to hit us is in 2018 according to some.
A first step for humanity to another world. Does that world need be paradise? The first sailors no doubt found desert islands. Did they stop? go back? give up? We must learn to live beyond this planet, that feat alone helps us here at home too. Our Earth is itself a spacecraft, one with 6 billions astronauts traveling around the sun. Dont you think learning how to function in space and other worlds will help us at home too? Space is our home, just as much as the roof on over your head. The solar system is merely our backyard. The are other worlds out there. Our generation will not see them. But somebodys will. And we must always be moving forward just as those before us did. Mars may someday be terraformed. Another home for humanity. But it will not happen if we do nothing. Besides it is inevitable. I for one refuse to pass the buck to the next generation and say, uh sorry, too hard, You do it.
Lol, no. I think we can easily do it with existing rocket technology. The two year figure comes from using planets to "slingshot" spacecraft toward their final destination in order to save fuel. But when we send men to Mars we won't have that luxury . . . Can't have a crew floating around weightless in space for two years before they even get to Mars. Six months today, probably two or three by 2020.
So it would seem, to me, too.
Could you share the source(s) of your convictions on that issue hereon or privately?
I had the audio(delayed)for my answering machine. All the telemarketers would go..."what?"
LOL!
Can we take care of terrorism first?
Seriously, I was in love with space program in the 1960s.We went from Vanguard to the Moon in eleven years. We haven't been back there in over 32 years.
Wonder why.
I agree. We are not going to Mars anytime near 2020.
Not until the flight time is down to a couple of weeks, the cost drops below today's equivalent of $25 per tax payer, and there is a reason to go there.
We stopped going to the moon 30 years ago. There hasn't been a reason to go back.
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.