PDA

View Full Version : A manned mission to Mars may not be possible.


IrOnMaN
06-04-2011, 03:03 PM
Why? One obvious reason would be that a manned mission to Mars would be extremely expensive. Congress and other funding space agencies would most likely pull NASA's funding because of the amount of money that it would cost to construct the equipment, test it, train the astronauts, and launch the spacecraft to Mars.

When I was a teenager, one of my few acts of organization was a scrapbook containing every news clipping I could find on the space shuttle and NASA’s space program. To me, the development of the space shuttle was the next step toward a future in which I could purchase a ticket to the moon, Mars or the next galaxy; all places that while cold and desolate were much more interesting than my eighth-grade classroom.

During the early ’80s, many others were likewise enthused about a reusable space vehicle and continuing U.S. leadership in manned space travel. While early unmanned missions such as the Voyager and Pioneer space probes and the Viking probe to Mars were successful, they were limited in their abilities. It seemed clear any real space science would require lifting real scientists off the ground, and the space shuttle seemed to be the perfect machine for manned space travel.
http://thefreerangetechnologist.com/wp-includes/js/tinymce/plugins/wordpress/img/trans.gif



Now, 28 years after the first space shuttle took off, NASA officials are in the process of retiring the remaining shuttles and replacing them with two more conventionally designed rockets, the Ares I and Ares V. NASA has more ambitious plans for these rockets, however, than just replacing the shuttle’s orbital hauling capabilities. Namely, it plans to return humans to the surface of the moon, establish a base there and then use it to launch a manned mission to Mars — an extremely expensive, dangerous and misguided plan given the challenges currently facing our planet.


A manned mission to Mars will cost tens of billions of dollars. According to a recent report, NASA immediately needs an extra $3 billion per year to keep its plans on track. It is almost guaranteed the costs for this project will expand greatly. Costs cannot be correctly estimated for large projects so unique and untried. And a major risk associated with a manned Mars mission is that, after sinking billions into this project, Congress or a future administration will pull the plug because of cost overruns and delays.


This is exactly what happened to the superconducting super collider project in Texas, which Congress canceled after its estimated costs at completion ballooned from $4 billion to $12 billion. Political and public support of such large science projects wanes quickly as time and costs increase. By pouring the majority of their efforts into this one mission, NASA is betting on the success — and continued funding — of a manned mission to Mars.


The known risks for human space flight on this scale are huge and have to be mitigated with a variety of not-yet-invented technologies. And in any such complex project, all the risks can’t be known. The space shuttles have surely proved that — two of them were destroyed by an “O” ring and a piece of foam. Mars is not days away like the moon; it is months away, with lots of time for things to go horribly wrong.


A manned mission to Mars will tie up most of NASA’s intellectual resources for a decade or more as they toil on an incredibly expensive project whose success and scientific value is uncertain. The American public should have a better chance of receiving a decent return on its investment in NASA.
Perhaps the most compelling argument for not proceeding with a manned mission to Mars is NASA’s great success with unmanned missions to Mars and other planets. These “smaller, cheaper, faster” space probes have been extremely useful and cost-effective and have proved themselves capable of performing real science or, at the very least, capable of being the on-the-ground technicians for scientists safely located on Earth.


A better use of NASA’s budget for exploration and planetary science would be to fund several smaller unmanned missions to explore Mars and other planets, thus spreading out both the risks and the rewards. While some of these are bound to fail, most of these little probes would be successful, and several would be successful beyond their original design. The Spirit and Opportunity probes continue to operate on Mars some five years past their original mission of 90 days. Even Voyager 1, launched in 1977, is still operating some 30 years later. Investing in several smaller missions with clear scientific goals offers much more reward for the risk.


If NASA is to receive more appropriations, it should be for investigating problems here on Earth. Studying climate change is an unprecedented opportunity to learn about a sophisticated planetary processes happening right here, right now. Moreover, we need NASA to not just document the effects of global warming and other environmental problems but provide us with possible solutions and new technologies addressing these challenges.



Solving the problem of global warming would be a greater step for mankind than any trip to space and is much more deserving of public investments.
Landing humans on Mars and bringing them back safely would be a great technological feat and no doubt resplendent with numerous spinoff technologies, but it is not one of the major technical problems currently facing the human race. A manned mission to Mars will happen someday, but we should concentrate our scientific resources on figuring out how to leave future generations with a habitable Earth and leave it to them to discover how to make it to Mars.

http://thefreerangetechnologist.com/2011/03/manned-mission-to-mars/


Here are two recent videos that discuss the manned mission to Mars.

4hL5zTg_Jxs

CVD7eGuj7wg

A 30 month mission? Can humans withstand a duration of isolation from earth that long? What about communication? A radio signal would take about 4-20 minutes for the crew to receive a message from Houston, depending on how far Mars is from Earth and also where the crew lands on mars. Now, I assume that they would launch when Earth and Mars are at their closest. God forbid if an accident were to occur like with Apollo 13.


The rockets that they're currently testing for the Mars mission are Ares 1 and Ares V.

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/jalopnik/2009/10/397261main_image_1501_1600-1200.jpg
Ares 1

http://www.bisbos.com/rocketscience/spacecraft/cev/images/hllv_liftoff1l.jpg
Ares V

http://news.cnet.com/i/bto/20090716/Ares_rockets.jpg

http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceandsociety/images/ares_1.jpg



The Ares 1 and Ares V are great rockets that are in development, but nothing like the VASIMA (Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket). Is it a eletro-magnetic thruster for spacecraft propulsion. For more information about the engine, click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Specific_Impulse_Magnetoplasma_Rocket

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/VASIMIR_experiment.jpg

http://www.uh.edu/research/spg/activi1.jpg

"It is said that with a flexible mode of operation, the rocket can achieve very high exhaust speeds, and even has the theoretical capability to take a manned rocket to Mars in 39 days."

The technology isn't the main concern, it's if the astronauts can withstand isolation from earth that long without snapping or freaking out. We're talking about a 30 month mission here. The manned mission to Mars is for scientific exploration and also to reach a new milestone in human history. The Russians are currently developing a way to mars too. So, a new space race is taking place. My concern is that NASA won't be able to pull this project off mainly due to money.

What's wrong with NASA developing a highly advanced robotic system that can preform the same duties as a human? Wouldn't that be less expensive?

Uncle Steezo
06-04-2011, 03:34 PM
this is why we will or as some say have already been to mars...

here are true color photos of mars. nasa turns up the hue of their photos.
http://www.redicecreations.com/ul_img/262bluemars.jpg


smoking gun... this is what the sundial/colorchart on the mars rover looks like before and after the Nasa adjustment
before:
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47ted_twietmeyer/04images/rovers/Sol-1293-2P241153267ESFAUCMP2111L234567M1.JPG
after:
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/d225a7acb885adf0.jpg
http://www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki/mars-spirit-sundial.gif
http://www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki/011204-spirit-laney.jpg
http://www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki/mars-viking2-blue.jpg
http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/Spirit/SpiritColor_th.jpg
http://www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki/opp-lanely-030204-1.jpghttp://www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki/opp-lanely-030204-2.jpg
http://www.enterprisemission.com/_articles/04-13-2004_Methane_on_Mars/mars-bluesky.jpg

and oooh look TREES!
http://media.techeblog.com/images/mars_trees.jpg

CEITEDMOFO
06-04-2011, 03:58 PM
ACCORDING TO THE EARLIER HUNGERIER PLAEDIANs
WE ALREADY HAVE SATELLITES AROUND MARs
AK92DICAAV4
& THE GERMANs HAVE THE MOST ADVANCED ALIENSPACE TECHNOLOGY, IM GUESSING SINCE THE BLACK MAGIC ACLHEMIST HAND OF HITLER WAS HEAVY

Sky Blue Bally Kid
06-04-2011, 04:01 PM
I reckon Elon Musk will deliver with the tech, he got that ambition baby, look in his eyes, this week he's moppin' floors, next week it's the fries.

http://cm.evri-img.com/feeds/UL6UsSCmM_O0X7WPN9EPmhVWyBSwrA/xl.jpg

(^No homilz)

BASCO
06-04-2011, 04:02 PM
shit i woulda never figured that the sky was blue there

Uncle Steezo
06-04-2011, 04:14 PM
i have heard there is a breakaway human civilization currntly living underground on mars. pop. 1 Million.

here are some surface ruins.
http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/barsoom/Partially_Exhumed_Martian_City.jpg
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/phikent/search/smparex.jpg

and before the 1% comes in with fagknowlogy:
a comparison of a earth city and a mars city from orbit
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd116/STYLEMASTERR/marscity.jpg

IrOnMaN
06-04-2011, 04:38 PM
i have heard there is a breakaway human civilization currntly living underground on mars. pop. 1 Million.

here are some surface ruins.



and before the 1% comes in with fagknowlogy:
a comparison of a earth city and a mars city from orbit
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd116/STYLEMASTERR/marscity.jpg

I doubt that intelligent life ever existed on Mars. As for these photos, they could be anything. They could be mud cracks for all I know. No way is there a civilization living on Mars! There might've been life on Mars in the past but the planet is dead, inside and outside. Mars can't sustain life in its current condition.

Dokuro
06-04-2011, 05:22 PM
bull shit i would throw away my life and my money to be one of the people aboard the shuttle going to mars is possible just not now and not in 2015 maybe 2030

Uncle Steezo
06-04-2011, 06:24 PM
yeah they talkin bout doing one way trips to mars to start the colonies. i'd do it too.

@tectrus
please don't post that ignorant "i don't think..." BS .
your thread has been Yammed.
THERE IS LIFE and HAS BEEN LIFE ON MARS.

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd116/STYLEMASTERR/ALieandeal.gif

Dokuro
06-04-2011, 06:30 PM
actually i cant argue that with style now that we found traces of water its likely there is life on mars

but advanced life is highly improbable

Frank Sobotka
06-04-2011, 06:33 PM
Space travel will be useless until we find a way to beat light speed.

Uncle Steezo
06-04-2011, 06:35 PM
http://www.disclose.tv/files/videos/thumbnails/0427ab37dcc9343_1.jpg

Uncle Steezo
06-04-2011, 06:36 PM
Space travel will be useless until we find a way to beat light speed.
interstellar, yes. within our system, no.
remember it took months to sail from europe to america.

Frank Sobotka
06-04-2011, 06:43 PM
interstellar, yes. within our system, no.
remember it took months to sail from europe to america.
With the exception of maybe Europe nothing 'out of the ordinary' will be found within our solar system therefore we just need to make sure our most recent theories actually apply to reality to progress space travel.

IrOnMaN
06-04-2011, 07:00 PM
yeah they talkin bout doing one way trips to mars to start the colonies. i'd do it too.



NASA contemplates manned mission to Mars - one-way


The idea is still in the talking stage, but there's a chance that by the middle of this century, NASA will put humans on Mars - and leave them there.


The project for human colonization of the Red Planet is called the Hundred Year Starship, and the space agency has already received $1.6 million in seed funding to begin research into it, Britain's Daily Mail reports (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1324192/Nasa-plan-Hundred-Year-Starship--mission-astronauts-Mars-leave-forever.html).

The source of the $1.6 million has not been revealed. NASA itself is chipping in $100,000 to fund the Ames Research Center team's initial work, which is being co-sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

NASA Ames Research Center Director Pete Worden publicly disclosed the project's existence in a talk that was part of an event called "Long Conversation," a six-hour roundtable idea exchange that took place Oct. 16 at San Francisco's Contemporary Jewish Museum.

"The human space program is now really aimed at settling other worlds. Twenty years ago you had to whisper that in dark bars and get fired," Worden said. He also added that NASA hopes to "inveigle some billionaires into setting up a Hundred Year Starship fund."

Among those billionaires Worden is inveigling is Google co-founder Larry Page. The two talked recently about the mission's price tag, which Worden estimated at around $10 billion. According to Worden, "His response was, 'Can you get it down to $1 billion or $2 billion?' So now we're starting to get a little argument over price."

Environmental, political and ethical hurdles still stand in way of Mars mission
Depending on Mars' position in its orbit around the sun, the distance between it and Earth varies from 34 million to 250 million miles. NASA's last unmanned Mars mission, the Phoenix lander mission of 2007, took nine months to reach the planet; scientists say that nuclear-powered rockets could make the trip in four months.

Recent research has shown that a one-way mission to Mars is technologically feasible and would cost less than a round-trip voyage. The astronauts who would volunteer (http://www.huliq.com/8738/nasa-contemplates-manned-mission-mars-one-way#) to be left on the planet would receive supplies from Earth periodically but would be expected to become self-sufficient as soon as they could.

Of all the other planets in the solar system, only Mars is believed to have sufficient quantities of water (http://www.huliq.com/8738/nasa-contemplates-manned-mission-mars-one-way#) to sustain life. But even with the water, doing so would still be difficult. The planet is forbiddingly cold, with temperatures well below freezing in places, and its atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide, which would mean oxygen supplies would have to be furnished.

Worden suggested in his talk that things like synthetic biology (http://www.huliq.com/8738/nasa-contemplates-manned-mission-mars-one-way#) and alterations to the human genome could be explored ahead of the mission as ways to make the project humanly feasible. He also said he believed that the first stop for the manned mission should be one of Mars' moons, where scientists could conduct telerobotic explorations of possible landing sites. Worden said that NASA could put people on Mars' moons by 2030.

A project of this scope and ambition, however, would also likely require political cooperation and some changes in the way people think. Writing in the Journal of Cosmology, scientists Dirk Schulze-Makuch and Paul Davies argue that putting humans on Mars "would require not only major international cooperation, but a return to the exploration spirit and risk-taking ethos of the great period of Earth exploration, from Columbus to Amundsen, but which has nowadays been replaced with a culture of safety and political correctness."

Advocates would certainly have to address the ethical concerns of those who would claim that the mission is simply abandoning the astronauts to their fate, or worse still, sacrificing them. By the time Columbus began his voyage, enough was known about the Earth to have made rescue in case something went wrong possible, and our understanding of long distance space flight is not at that point yet. Still, Columbus set sail knowing that his voyage of exploration could cost the lives of himself and his crew. What he found on his voyage to the Americas enriched Western civilization, and a human mission to Mars as the first step towards permanent colonization could yield similar bounty.

http://www.huliq.com/8738/nasa-contemplates-manned-mission-mars-one-way

:no:

http://www.disclose.tv/files/videos/thumbnails/0427ab37dcc9343_1.jpg

It's just a rock.

Uncle Steezo
06-04-2011, 07:36 PM
It's just a rock.

and so is this
http://www.thetriangle.org/media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper689/stills/tsnk29j2.gif
i thought you were some kind of archelolgist or geologist? don't yall find like a 1/4 inch piece of a fossilized monkey dick and recreate a whole life story from it?

i just showed you a whole skull and you turned your nose up at it.

Dokuro
06-04-2011, 07:55 PM
um dudes lets worry about that skull/rock when the test the samples ok

Uncle Steezo
06-04-2011, 08:06 PM
if its a fossil then the sample will come back as rock. cause a fossil is a rock/mineral mold of bone.

Dokuro
06-04-2011, 08:25 PM
no you can find organic traces in fossils

Uncle Steezo
06-04-2011, 10:18 PM
are you sure? cause i know that only certain types of fossils created under specific and rare conditions can leave original biomaterial behind.

Dokuro
06-04-2011, 10:29 PM
positive all fossils except cast leave behind traces and we are getting better at finding them


unless your text book is from the 90s or below you should know this


your a starchild fan aren't you what kind of new methods do you think they were talking about

Uncle Steezo
06-04-2011, 10:45 PM
the starchild skull isn't a fossil.

but do you think that they DIDN'T test that mars skull already? after it was photgraphed for the world to see. you think that the public will get the results?

Dokuro
06-04-2011, 10:53 PM
no they need to have a sample in our labs fist then the'll test it

hashashin
06-05-2011, 05:55 AM
alleged space station on mars....real or fake?

sTJt0LJZG2k

Uncle Steezo
06-05-2011, 06:02 AM
nice find hash!
*gets in b-boy stance*

Sky Blue Bally Kid
06-05-2011, 06:31 AM
http://www.arcturi.com/sitebuilder/images/Mars_Building-330x240.jpg

IrOnMaN
06-05-2011, 09:12 AM
i just showed you a whole skull and you turned your nose up at it.

It look like a rock to me. There's no way to determine if that was a skull. In order to confirm something like that, you'll have to collect it and then analysis it. That picture doesn't say much.

alleged space station on mars....real or fake?

sTJt0LJZG2k


http://www.arcturi.com/sitebuilder/images/Mars_Building-330x240.jpg

Hmm.

beautifulrock
06-05-2011, 09:27 AM
Don't say something isn't possible if money is the only major obstacle. That only makes you look like a moron. Money isn't real.

beautifulrock
06-05-2011, 09:39 AM
Lorentz symmetry violation

The possibility that Lorentz symmetry may be violated has been seriously considered in the last two decades, and can be partially tested by ultra-high energy cosmic-ray experiments. In some models of broken Lorentz symmetry, it is postulated that the symmetry is still built into the most fundamental laws of physics, but that spontaneous symmetry breaking shortly after the Big Bang could have left a "relic field" throughout the universe which causes particles to behave differently depending on their velocity relative to the field; however there are also some models where Lorentz symmetry is broken in a more fundamental way. If Lorentz symmetry can cease to be a fundamental symmetry at Planck scale or at some other fundamental scale, it is conceivable that particles with a critical speed different from the speed of light be the ultimate constituents of matter.
In current models of Lorentz symmetry violation, the phenomenological parameters are expected to be energy-dependent. Therefore, as widely recognized, existing low-energy bounds cannot be applied to high-energy phenomena. Lorentz symmetry violation is expected to become stronger as one gets closer to the fundamental scale.


In special relativity, while it is impossible in an inertial frame to accelerate an object to the speed of light, or for a massive object to move at the speed of light, it is not impossible for an object to exist which always moves faster than light. The hypothetical elementary particles that have this property are called tachyons. Their existence has not been proven, but even so, attempts to quantise them show that they may not be used for faster-than-light communication. Physicists sometimes regard the existence of mathematical structures similar to tachyons arising from theoretical models and theories as signs of an inconsistency or that the theory needs further refining.




Clearly, there is much we still don't understand about special relativity. Relativity applies to known energy sources, known concepts. But what about unknown concepts? What about tachyons? Are you suggesting we have learned all there is to learn, and we're stuck? Because that would be exceedingly stupid.

IrOnMaN
06-05-2011, 02:55 PM
Money isn't real.

Is that so?}:|

Uncle Steezo
06-05-2011, 04:14 PM
Is that so?}:|

yup. money is an idea thaty we all agree to value. follow the trail, where does it lead? to a stack of gold? nope. it ends at a bunch of thin air and promises.

if we got rid of all money right now what would actually be lost?

POWER. nothing physical. just a system of power.

Frank Sobotka
06-05-2011, 05:47 PM
Money will lead us, or has already lead us, to a second dark age.

TheBoarzHeadBoy
06-05-2011, 06:01 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/upload/2009/11/why_look_for_life_on_mars/life_on_mars.jpg

Holy Shit intelligent Life!



I'm with T Starks on this one.

Have fun basing your claims off of photoshops.

http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gallery/video/flash/landingsite/mars2004.html

TheBoarzHeadBoy
06-05-2011, 06:07 PM
yup. money is an idea thaty we all agree to value. follow the trail, where does it lead? to a stack of gold? nope. it ends at a bunch of thin air and promises.

if we got rid of all money right now what would actually be lost?

POWER. nothing physical. just a system of power.

It costs more than a dollar to make a dollar, so therefore the money has actual worth...

Gold has worth because gold is a natural resource. It was used as money because it's easier to barter with. It's not easy to barter goods for each other. Physical money simply represents a given value. A twenty dollar gold piece is still only worth 20 dollars at face value even though it might be valued in hundreds of dollars for it's materials. Our money is not based off of Gold because Gold is too valuable to make dollars off it. It's much easier to control fiat currencies than Gold. Ask Nixon about his shocker.

EAGLE EYE
06-05-2011, 06:16 PM
[img]

Have fun basing your claims off of photoshops.



lol

Olive Oil Goombah
06-05-2011, 06:38 PM
i dont kno what the big deal is. my family vacations in mars from time to time. It gets prettty cold at night but the air is light and the sun pretty intense because it gets no cloud cover.

pretty good food tho....its alot like egypt and the mid east or the american southwest.

Uncle Steezo
06-05-2011, 06:55 PM
nice try boarz but i can provide nasa links and coordinates to all my mars and moon anomalies.

but funny you mention photoshops since nasa does the most out of anyone.
http://scotteallen.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/129048000768.gif
http://www.hallofthegods.org/uploaded_images/Smudged-out-moon-tower-725584-760444.jpg
http://www.ravenecho.com/static/25/e4374cf19fd44c655ea17cf2f1399560.jpg
http://ufoparts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/nasa-airbrush-4-068-blocky-object.jpg

Uncle Steezo
06-05-2011, 06:56 PM
it cost more to make a dollar? cost what? dollars? lol

EAGLE EYE
06-05-2011, 07:11 PM
Lol why'd they have to blur out all dem moon yams?

Dokuro
06-05-2011, 08:05 PM
nice try boarz but i can provide nasa links and coordinates to all my mars and moon anomalies.

but funny you mention photoshops since nasa does the most out of anyone.
http://scotteallen.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/129048000768.gif
http://www.hallofthegods.org/uploaded_images/Smudged-out-moon-tower-725584-760444.jpg
http://www.ravenecho.com/static/25/e4374cf19fd44c655ea17cf2f1399560.jpg
http://ufoparts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/nasa-airbrush-4-068-blocky-object.jpg

hahaahh those are photoshoped i mean the blurs there photoshoped into the background

EAGLE EYE
06-05-2011, 08:46 PM
hang on..


I think I found an anomaly on this yam..



http://i52.tinypic.com/eff6eo.png
































































































































































http://i55.tinypic.com/xgffr5.png




Yep, definitely a USDA cover up.

Dokuro
06-05-2011, 08:54 PM
hahaha