Matthew on 5/10/2007 at 17:27
Stitch, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
catbarf on 5/10/2007 at 19:25
Quote Posted by Dia
NASA & Russia are both planning manned flights to Mars by 2020.
We'll probably all be dead by then.
The problem is that since so much money has gone into the war in Iraq (coupled with setbacks from safety problems), it seems unlikely to me at least that NASA will have the time or the funding to stick with that schedule.
Rogue Keeper on 8/10/2007 at 07:00
The freshest promise is "by 2037". *chuckles*
(
http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/NASA_aims_to_put_man_on_Mars_by_2037_999.html)
In 1989 Bush Sr. wanted to send a manned mission to Mars by 2010-15, IIRC. He was scorned by the Congress.
Big promises, so little funds.
First they should invest into a new space shuttle or two as I wouldn't like to watch another explode during start or slowly fall apart during landing.
Mingan on 8/10/2007 at 15:58
They're planning to ditch the shuttle in 2010, aren't they?
Brian T on 8/10/2007 at 16:40
As exciting and adventurous a prospect as a manned mission to Mars, or even beyond sounds, I doubt that it would ever happen, unless some much faster method of transport is found. At current space ship speeds it would take roughly a year to get to Mars. I can't anyone too many people willing to spend a full year in such cramped conditions as a spaceship, with limited entertainment facilities, and stuck with the same crew fro nearly 400 days.
But beyond the psychological problems there's physiological problems. In zero gravity, bones deterioate. They deterioate constantly on Earth too, but they get replenished. They don't get replenished in zeo gravity. And there's stuff like muscle loss, and cardiovascular deteriation. An astronaut may be able to get to Mars eventually, but there's the year long return trip, and by the time he/ she returns to Earth, the 2+ years stint in space will have made their body very weak and unable to adapt to gravity again.
I'm sure that there will continue to be space exploratation to a degree, but with current technology I don't think we'll see anything quite as exciting as the 1960s Space Race- which was largely political anyway :grr:
The idea of a moonbase sounds cool (very sci fi!) but I can't help but wonder "what's the point?" We know a lot about the moon already, and it seems hard to justify the huge cost of a potential moonbase.
I personally would like to see more detailed explorations of some of the moons of the outer planets, with "rovers" sent to explore surfaces of the moons. One moon (I think it's Titan) supposedly has a sea of water (H20 variety) under ice, so exploring that would be interesting. I think trying to find out more about what's actually beyond Pluto should be a high priority for future space exploration. What actually is the end of the solar system, No-one can agree on that so far.
jimjack on 8/10/2007 at 18:54
For all the space geeks with nothing better to do ...I like to hang out (
http://www.racetomars.ca) here They might even acknowledge your birthday too if you sign up real fast like.
catbarf on 8/10/2007 at 20:26
Gravity could be achieved. The ship just needs to spin, and centrifugal (or centripetal...?) force would create gravity.
A space elevator would make getting stuff into orbit easy.
Rogue Keeper on 9/10/2007 at 07:04
Quote Posted by Brian T
One moon (I think it's Titan) supposedly has a sea of water (H20 variety) under ice
Europa. Jupiter.
Angel Dust on 9/10/2007 at 11:52
Quote Posted by Brian T
As exciting and adventurous a prospect as a manned mission to Mars, or even beyond sounds, I doubt that it would ever happen, unless some much faster method of transport is found. At current space ship speeds it would take roughly a year to get to Mars. I can't anyone too many people willing to spend a full year in such cramped conditions as a spaceship, with limited entertainment facilities, and stuck with the same crew fro nearly 400 days.
But beyond the psychological problems there's physiological problems. In zero gravity, bones deterioate. They deterioate constantly on Earth too, but they get replenished. They don't get replenished in zeo gravity. And there's stuff like muscle loss, and cardiovascular deteriation. An astronaut may be able to get to Mars eventually, but there's the year long return trip, and by the time he/ she returns to Earth, the 2+ years stint in space will have made their body very weak and unable to adapt to gravity again.
Isn't another problem the fact that the ship would have to be quite big to store all the water/food/oxygen/needed facilities etc and that launching it would require a ridiculous amount of power? There are theories to get around this though such as launching and building some of it on the moon or from orbit. I'm no expert though just read several articles on the topic that popped up after Bush made that 'promise'.
The_Raven on 9/10/2007 at 14:32
Quote Posted by BR796164
Europa. Jupiter
I was going to post that exact same thing; however, I checked Titan on Wikipedia beforehand, and it looks like it fits the bill, too.
