Posted on 06/20/2018 12:51:12 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Because Canada is such an authority at inventing technologies that contributed to space travel? The Canadian was just along for the ride!
No, no, now. Be fair. They invented that arm thingy.
The first several manned spaceflight are likely to be one way trips. Too many things to go wrong plus months of exposure to cosmic rays will kill you. Not to mention the logistics of shipping enough food and water and other supplies to last close to two years.
Rocket fuel is nothing but dead weight until it is burned. You have to accelerate and decelerate all that dead weight.
Come on, they are going to use the new force called climate change engine power. It never stops, its result is always rising, and it meets the criteria of drawing huge sums of money to support it.
The two major problems with extended space travel are the effects of radiation and low gravity on the human body. This is what a current NASA employee, former air force colonel told me. That is also why astronauts do not stay on the International Space station for more than a year. They all come back shorter and near sited among other problems.
Isn’t it great that today’s astronuts are content to just fly in an orbit and aren’t that interested in pushing the envelope? Guess that’s what happens when you stop recruiting exclusively from combat fighter pilots and test pilots.
Shoulda been on Mars by the late 70s or early 80s. Instead, NASA dicked off.
...
Nixon cut the funding. From what I’ve read he didn’t like the space program. But in the end I think any president would have had to cut the funding.
Once we landed on the Moon, the Law of Diminishing Returns set in.
If the SpaceX BFR makes it to market, it will be a huge money making machine even without a Mars mission.
The SpaceX plan is to refuel the second stage in LEO for the trip to Mars. On Mars the fuel will be manufactured for the return trip.
A Moon base greatly increases costs and the time to attempt a Mars mission, which is why the government likes that plan.
We don’t need to go to Mars. We do need to keep the moon from being taken over by a hostile nation.
I don’t understand the idiocy of the Mars question, other than this is a big money grab. You know why there’s no Moon base? It would put an end to space travel budgets, that’s why.
Insofar as humans making - let alone surviving - the trip, I have 2 words:
“Cosmic rays”
Getting to Mars is 6 times easier from the Moon, not counting any of the other economies of scale that comes from launching from the Moon.
mars by 1965, saturn by 1970
Motto of Project Orion, killed due to lack of political will, 1964
I didn't say a Moon base, I said Lunar orbit. Starting a trans-Martian trip from Lunar orbit is less energy intensive than starting from LEO. The trade-off of course is the higher cost in getting construction materials, fuel, and equipment to Lunar Orbit in order to assemble the trans-Martian space craft.
One compromise solution is to assemble the trans-Martian craft in LEO, only give it enough fuel to establish Lunar orbit, refuel from Moon-manufactured fuel, then the make the push to Mars.
Project Orion was magnificent!
Where’s the Canadian entry? I know they ran into a setback when none of their people could make maple syrup a viable fuel.
They all come back shorter and near sited among other problems.
Don’t know about the near-sightedness, but they come back taller, not shorter. The lower, or lack of, gravity causes the spinal column to decompress, making them taller, at least temporary.
Even Howard was taller when he came 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.