Posted on 11/24/2013 5:00:35 AM PST by lbryce
"We propose to send a spacecraft bearing two astronauts, a man and woman, to the far side of Mars and return them to Earth, a voyage of 314 million miles in 501 days, in collaboration with NASA, in the name of America, and for the good of humanity,"stated the "Architecture Report Study" released by the Inspiration Mars team."
Can anyone really take this at all seriously? I can't see how any of this is realistic. So, who is actually financing this thing? The impression is that he's going to be financing this himself yet somehow talks about a Mission for America, for Humanity".
Inspiration Mars:A Mission For America
Wikipdia:Inspiration Mars Foundation
-——to the far side of Mars and return them to Earth,-——
Hmmmmm does Mars have a farside?
Why one billionaire? Why not Elon Musk, and all the other billionaire babies who count this obsession with space as part of their pathological grandiosity?
They all want to claim space glories, but their all work on their own projects, dividing up the resources they have between them. If they combined them, it might actually work, but the poor dears have that ego to contend with.
In the Kennedy 60's, space exploration for the hell of it was more than acceptable.
We had yet to reach the electronic pinnacle the 40's, 50's and 60's scientists KNEW was just around the corner.
So ...
Here we are in the 2000's and our planet (NOT the climate ! ) needs attention to it's psychological health and well being.
In such a modern and .. hmmmm ... advanced? ... stage, we should, as a race, have reached some higher level or plane of consciousness by now.
Instead, we're digressing back into the mentality that God destroyed nations for.
Maybe that's it ...
Come quickly .. Lord.
Without landing? What’s the point?
Financing aside, this is the way to do it first just like we did with the moon.
After reading this thing through, it seems the only thing that’s driving the Russian billionaire to proposing this improbable fantasy of his is the impending close proximity of Earth and Mars. He keeps on talking about this small window of opportunity that would make the trip to Mars viable because of the relatively lesser resources a trip at this junction would require, mostly in the inability of the human condition to tolerate extended periods in space. At any other time, the Earth-Mars positioning would not be conducive to such an undertaking.
That window comes every year.
Take DC with you
Going to mars and back cheaply would involve about 5 or more launches. With each launch using a gravitational sling shot manuever between the earth and moon.
The first launch would put the return vehicle in mars orbit with food and fuel for the return.
The second would be fuel tanks, also in mars orbit.
Then you need a bigger, LEM like vehicle on the ground.
then you put the food and fuel for the outgoing mission into earth orbit.
The last thing you do is to put the astronauts on the way to mars.
You do this to use a smaller launch rocket which is cheaper.
Plus with a bigger payload you need more fuel, and then you need some more fuel to lift the fuel and even more fuel that lifts the fuel that lifts the fuel.
Many launches with small payloads and using a slingshot is the way to go.
But that means a very complicated and drawn out process with more things that can go wrong.
That was my favorite show as a kid
So basically you’re talking about catching both planets when their orbital velocities are at their optimum for speedy transit. I was looking at proximity alone.
I guess if I were a billionaire with an interest in space I would either get on board with asteroid mining or look into building a base on the moon. Faster more efficient propulsion systems are also a good thing to put money into.
I’m all for going to mars but believe that if you can live on the moon, you will prove the ability to live on mars. The moon is a far harsher environment to live in than Mars. Mars isn’t a hard vacuum, the temperature variations aren’t as extreme, and the planet does offer at least some radiation protection. On the downside, Mars is a long way away and its a lot harder to get off the surface once you’re there. I actually think the Russians are on the right track in concentrating on the Martian moons.
I would like to see them go to the moon and back, prove they are capable, maybe land there and drive a dune buggy around, smack a few golf balls around.
It would be good practice for a Mars mission even if they don’t land on Mars or the moon
In Kim Stanley Robinson's novel Red Mars, the first eight human settlers agreed to make a one way trip - to pave the way for future expansion missions. The future missions came - but there was always a chance that due to wars or budget cuts they might not have.
By the same token, one could ask why NASA sent Apollo VIII and Apollo X to orbit the Moon - without landing.
I guess you just know more about space travel than NASA.
Regards,
If they can’t land, then they are nothing but just another orbiter.
Those early missions to the Moon were in the early days of space exploration when capabilities were being tested. These are now known.
A manned mission to Mars is a huge investment in time and money.
But post-soetoro or bust, what is really needed on Mars are geologists with rock hammers.
To land on Mars requires sending an unmanned fuel depot and/or launch vehicle first. The gravity of the moon is low enough that we could take our own fuel when we did land.
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.