PDA

View Full Version : Mars?



Write_on
2003-Jul-26, 03:19 AM
I Question if it is more advisable to spend more time and energy in developing the Lunar resources as there is no realistic returns from Mars probes.

At least in the shorter term.

Lunar resources are a known entity, ... it there was past life on Mars is not worth the expenditures attached, ... not to mention developing our skills locally might be a lot more profitable, ... not to mention fruitful.

Thank you.

philip slater
2003-Jul-26, 10:50 AM
Hello, Write_on.

This question is one which it is intended that the UK-NISA web site will attack in some depth and sustained fury in the future. The site isn't really scheduled to become properly active until September but as soon as it does I'll let you know.

In the meantime let's hope it gets thoroughly kicked around in this corner of Fraser's Forums.

Post on.

Philip

philip slater
2003-Jul-26, 12:00 PM
Hello, Write_on.

This question is one which it is intended that the UK-NISA web site will attack in some depth and with sustained effort later in the year. The site isn't really scheduled to become properly active until September but as soon as it does I'll let you know.

In the meantime let's hope this issue gets thoroughly kicked around in this corner of Fraser's forums.

Post on.

Philip

philip slater
2003-Jul-26, 12:28 PM
Philip

Hi Fraser,
It seems that we now have proof of the existence of multiple universes in which things may be nearly the same but never quite the same. Either that or, after twenty-four hours of wrestling with my currently rather temperamental silicon- based occasionally co-operative symbiotic proto-intelligence here, an original and an improved version of a post have been sequentially posted. Which is which I can't really say, but as with problems in general, I'll leave it to you to sort out. The Editor's decision is, as they say, final.

Cheers

Philip

Fraser
2003-Jul-26, 04:05 PM
Wha?

quizzler2
2003-Jul-28, 08:12 PM
I say let's return to the Moon and work on a feasable plan to go to mars. That is the next step.

N3373H
2003-Jul-28, 09:29 PM
I agree with quizzler2. Any advancements to explore or colonize space is a positive one. We should never stop a Mars project but I think we'd get more out of a Moon base as a next logical step (scientifically and commercially). Then we can head for Mars from there.

Arramon
2003-Jul-28, 09:59 PM
I agree with the last post... moon first, anything else next...
there is too much fuel on the moon to do otherwise...
are we to continually destroy our atmosphere by launching rockets from Earth, or can we have a station on the moon to use as a launching pad of sorts?
Not to mention the whole slew of other programs that could be started if the moon were to be colonized....
telescopes placed within the darkside... the properties of organisms in a near-weightless environment... the use of hydrogen and other fuels already upon the moon... Maybe even seeing the first non-earthborn child...
Things that can be done that are so close to us is definitely more prioritis than missions set within a whole new region of space...

oh fortuna... velut luna...

. ..-={A}=-.. .

DantesFire
2003-Jul-28, 11:00 PM
I also agree that we should establish ourselves on lunar first. My reasons go from practical to the child in me.
It would be more practical to have a lunar base for like the other poster stated there are minerals and elements on the moon that can be used. Also because of Lunar's lighter gravity less effort would be need to build and launch a mars probe. No fussing with Earth's gravity or atleast directly. People would learn more about existing in non earthly enviroments by living there, more likely to learn about possible flaws and fix them while on the moon, because they would probably be using the same equipment that would be used for a mars probe and expedition. And hopefully since the moon would be a short distant from Earth, relatively speaking, help wouldn't take months to arrive. So by the time it came along to head for Mars we would have more practical experience and not have to relay on one shot all or nothing launches to Mars. And perhaps the cost by then would be offset by a growing Lunar tourism and tech, and have more investors ready to invest in a Mars expedition.
From the child in me, "I want my moonbase Alpha."

scott712
2003-Jul-29, 03:21 AM
Only Two Obstacles to Man on Mars

An economical ride home.

Gravity to keep our explorers bones and muscles healthy.

On Mars a Space cable from Mars-Synchronous orbit can be built out of kevlar. It would only have a taper of three or four to one. One might even drop a cable from the closer moon, which orbits inside of Mars-synchronous orbit.

Interplanetary ships would travel in pairs connected by several hundred feet of cable. Their common center of mass would be somewhere in the center of the cable. They will rotate around this center of mass in a large circle to
simulate gravity.

Space Cable Guy
Wm. Scott Smith

Write_on
2003-Jul-29, 03:30 AM
Well thank you.

I've tried speaking to lots of people regarding this but the Mars first seems to be extremely predominant, ... particularly at NASA.

From what I've researched so far the Lunar materials available are in fact quite extensive, ... as is cyclic high energy supplies.

One aspect of the Mars Projects is it seems like a final destination, ... and I agree that eventually it should become one of many destinations, ... not the destination at thousandfolds the costs of Earthlifted resources without the developed expertise that can be acquired during Lunar development.

Our understanding of gravity and long range controls over remote vessels has led to the development of landing craft that bounce rather than land, ... in my opinion, ... that is only because we are rushing past our developed expertise.

In overall planning I can even see where commercial development can subsidize scientific exploration, ... up to and including an extensive Moonbase which does not have the higher negative effects of the complete loss of gravity associated with the Space Station, ... which could develop further into an zero gravity assembly and training facility.

In example, ... they crashed MIR. How much of that material was recoverable that cost how much to get there in the first place? How much "Space Junk" could be recovered and put to good uses?

Many thanks for your responses.

On a lighter note, ... if you look at the Big Bang theory Philip, ... it has many holes that remain unexplained. The definition of "Universe" has a double meaning that would have to be explored.

Such as, ... is there only one Big Bang or in the all of everything has there been multitudes of Big Bangs so far apart that we will never see them, ... at least within our currently developed limitations.

The next logical question would be, ... are we seeing the original Big Bang results or are we seeing the results of "Tinier" Bangs of accumulated masses that have been torn apart by external gravitational forces that did not apply to the first "Big Bang" in this particular region of the "Universe".

Josh
2003-Jul-29, 04:31 AM
I know there have been a lot of very logical reasons put forward here as to whyt we shoud go to the moon first (again) and then shoot for Mars. I agree with all of them ... I have one other that whenever i think of it i get that warm wonderful butterfly feeling ...

Just imagine sitting out one night and looking up at a big Earth above you ... clouds, continents and oceans all readily visible. The sooner a permanent base is set up on the moon the closer we all are to seeing that.

jameskrehan
2003-Jul-29, 01:56 PM
Why not do both? Why not return to the Moon and go to Mars? We are going to go to Mars one day anyway, so let's get on with it! Sponsors can always be found!

yop
2003-Jul-29, 02:40 PM
I vote for the moon, too.

One of the problems with the space program is that ordinary people don't feel connected to it anymore. I think a moon base would do much more to overcome this than a Mars mission.

If people could see evidence of human activity on the moon with their own eyes, I think that would make a huge difference.

So, what could you see if you were to drive an hour or two to a nearby observatory? Could you make out a lunar strip mine?

How big would a lunar structure need to be to be visible from the earth using a backyard telescope?

philip slater
2003-Jul-30, 01:14 AM
Thanks for this, Write_on:


On a lighter note, ... if you look at the Big Bang theory Philip, ... it has many holes that remain unexplained. The definition of "Universe" has a double meaning that would have to be explored.

Such as, ... is there only one Big Bang or in the all of everything has there been multitudes of Big Bangs so far apart that we will never see them, ... at least within our currently developed limitations.

The next logical question would be, ... are we seeing the original Big Bang results or are we seeing the results of "Tinier" Bangs of accumulated masses that have been torn apart by external gravitational forces that did not apply to the first "Big Bang" in this particular region of the "Universe".

To stay light, or lighten up some more even I had better answer Fraser's question Wha? which I guess is short for 'What in tarnation is this about?'

The observed event was that two almost identical posts appeared, whilst I was in the middle of a 24 hour wrestle with technoglitches. I immediately assumed either finger trouble or brainfade. But I could not responsibly dismiss the possibility that two of an infinite number of universes, which were not quite parallel, had banged the branes together and this was the only detectable effect of them passing through each other, rather like diffuse colliding galaxies getting away with near misses for almost all their bits of our sort of ordinary, or light, matter and for that matter no interaction between dark and light or at least non-dark energy.

I just felt I had to report it even at the risk of losing credibility or boardcred whatever. It also looked a bit dodgy having two posts trailing the nascent and impending activities of the hopefully soon to be emerging independent space agencies movement. But it could just be that in some other corner of the multiverse long ago and far away the UK gets or got to survive, and to boldly one day have a space agency or two of its own.

Philip

Write_on
2003-Jul-30, 11:11 PM
Okay, ... so then to me comes the next question which follows the original premise of Robotic Space Exploration.

With the known feasibility of Lunar Space Development with foreseeable returns should we pursue Lunar development with the intent of further acquiring the robotic skills necessary with some possibility of interventions of remotely controlled objects, ... or continue to send them beyond points of intervention with blind hopes that the parameters are within our best guesses.

That future probes, ... especially deep space probes, ... being unmanned have the capability of adapting to the environments encountered and or/report.

It would help significantly especially if landfall is part of the equation that failures can be physically identified, ... which is an actual option in Lunar applications.

When future missions are manned, ... the need for robotic probes to more accurately appraise the environmental factors that the larger vessels will encounter will be of very significant value.

Which is part of why I think Lunar first, ... we need to develop the skills at the lesser cost rather than sending significantly more expensive Earth launched probes
to destinations beyond our proper observation range.

Lunar first will allow us to develop and expand our controllable observation range to include all parts of the Solar System that are within our physical gravitational and heat tolerance thresholds.

megaquark
2003-Aug-23, 01:17 AM
Neither, I say we should go to a Near Earth Object such as an asteroid or comet and figure out how to change it's course should it become necessary....
It would allow for the development of the spacecraft we need for the other planets and it may enjoy more general public support.