Manned craft to Mars?

Question

Is it true that a manned mission to the planet Mars is being planned in/around the year 2016? If so, what about our moon? I mean I remember hearing scuttlebutt about a "moon base" but that seems to have fizzled. If mankind can't even build a base on the moon, who in their right mind would take the time out of their lives to travel to the planet Mars, & for what reason? We've already photo mapped the planet & it's appearent that there is nothing of intrest let alone value on Mars for mankind. Sound like another government scheme for $$$$ in some peoples pockets to me. Whats your take on this as this would have to be a SPENDY project?

Answer 1

LOL
Another contraversial question from the great BOBO.
LOL

You will get a lot of responses form this one buddy, Not many you will like since people will read into what you are asking. There will be people that say you are wrong and we benefit from the exploration, there will be people that say you are right and we should solve our own problems at home firts, there will be people that say we should do both....all or most missing the point that its their taxes which are paying for it all rather then something they could use it on in their own home.

It should not amaze you when you here about the benefits - this is typical of people who are taught that theirs is a benevolent government and that their government cares about them. They are not taught the truth about how everything the government touches it destroys...and...even if you point it out - they are not yet ready to listen because the truth hurst and they dont want to believe that they were being lied to all these years.

It shoudl not surprise you that people will say you are right and we should solve our own problems here first....this of course....misses the mark. They say this because they believe that their benevolent government is simply making the wrong choice about what to spend the money on - not realizing that the money is being forced from their pockets with the threat of a gun point in the forms of taxes. People just dont see it. Like the ones in the first category, these people are still dumbed into the belief that their government is good and looking out for them....what a crock...sorry they dont see the truth for whta it is.

The ones who say we aught to do both fall into the same dumbfounded category as the rest - thye believe that the government knows best what to spend their money on - again - all the while - not realizing that its money government steals right out of their pockets.

Now, you want to know who will have the right ideas - those people who say private institutions shoudl be the ones to pay for this - those are the smart people - those are the ones who realize that it shoudl not be government theft that profits but private indiviuals or companies that see a profit making opportunity at hand. The market should drive it all - if there is a need the market will find it and without the governments interference....the government should be out of the whole business all together.

I defy ANYONE to find in the constitution the section of that says the government should steal your money to explore space......if any of your readers can find this for me I will listen to their arguements that the government has a right - but till then - forget it - taxes, ie armed robbery, is still wrong in my book - regardless how the government spinsters present it.

Answer 2

Although it is NASA or other nation space agency's job to be the pioneer for exploring a celestial body, I think it is better if it is the private space companies which use and develop the celestial body.
I just wonder why there are still no private company which plan to build a hotel or restaurant in our moon yet. May be our economy is not ready for that yet.
The condition is different for Mars. Mars have atmosphere which contain CO2, so someone in NASA could devise something to turn the CO2 to become methane, water and oxygen. This will help a lot when we consider developing bases in the red world.
There are no atmosphere at all in the moon, proven by the existence of Neil's shoe mark, which havent yet eroded since then, which make base development a bit unfeasible.
But I heard our moon is rich in silicone which is an important ingridient for our computers, but there is still no need to worry about our terran silicone supply.

Answer 3

My take on your question is 'wouldn't it be an idea to wait until you get an answer to the first question before ranting about it?'

The current plans are for manned missions to the Moon, scheduled for around 2018, hopefully with manned Mars flights following.

And if it costs billions, so be it. Look at NASA's funding level as a percentage of the US Federal Budget and then tell me that that money would make a blind bit of difference to the departments that deal with health, who are already getting nearly 50 times NASA's budget. What about the money wasted on Iraq?

If you want to complain about spending, at least pick on a group that is really getting the vast dollars. In any case, why does it have to be an 'either/or' situation? Where does the 'either we cure cancer or go to space' mindset come from? Why can't we do both? The space program has benefitted humanity in huge ways, if you just go and do the research to find out about it rather than deriding it all as wasted money.

Answer 4

Mars is the most earth-like planet in the solar system. The moon is closer, but also barren of water (except for its theoretical existance in a crater at the north pole). Mars has (frozen) water, an atmosphere (if only 1% of the earth's), and a 24 hour day (the moon has a 30 day "day"). There are of course vast differences between Earth and Mars, making Antarctica look like a paradise by comparison, but it's still much more earth-like than the moon.

Answer 5

It's an expensive gravity well. I'd prefer the money go into mass production of probes to do a survey of the solar system's resources. My bet is the asteroid belt or smaller moons are the more practical for human exploitation.

Plus, because of the current global warming on Mars, it's possible that any humans there would have to worry about an increase in wild fires, droughts, floods, hurricanes and incessant attacks from ManBearPig.

Answer 6

The ESA hasn't landed a manned craft on the moon for some motives. First, the technical project of landing guy on the moon a techniques supass the demanding circumstances of landing a rover on Mars. The components - money, human beings, and so forth are orders of significance larger then landing a rover. 2nd, there is not that large of a reason to do it. the percentages of a extensive scientific bounce forward from landing guy on the moon is somewhat slender. different than choosing up moonrocks and hopping around, there is not lots in basic terms landing human beings there cna do. whether, there's a genuine looking hazard that a rover on Mars will make an extremely substantial locate. 0.33, the ESA would not have the components to objective a moon landing. the everyday public of their artwork is complete on the side of Russia or united statesa. on leased or shared kit.

Answer 7

Please take your political agenda up the street, fellah.

My take is, we do it to learn about the possibilities of life and living throughout the galaxy.

We've already learned to send robots as exploratory precursors. And, maybe Spirit, Opportunity and Sojourner will teach us that it is fruitless to go there. But, while the jury is still out, we make plans. We do it to test out new technologies that have applications there on Mars, and here on Earth.

You already enjoy a higher standard of living than the Roman emperors did --and it is because people dared to push the envelope of technology while nay-sayers just like you said the ventures were a waste of money.

Go live in a mud-hut without electricity, without heat, without refrigeration or cooling. Go farm for yourself if you can. Pretty crass of you to say what you do, and live so well because others before you dared.

Answer 8

Yeah and which commercial business is going to pay for it? Why is it that America would rather spend its money on a space travel mission to Mars than to help the people that are in need in our own country? I do believe we have a mission to accomplish right in our own backyard!

Answer 9

There are no plans I am aware of for that soon a date and it would nearly impossible to do. Here's the break down it takes 1,000 pounds of expendables just to do a 100 day round trip per person to Mars, 4 people is 2 tons of consumables. We're talking a lot of cubic feet.

It would cost, at todays rates, about $80 million just to get that stuff to Mars and back, not including the special vehicle you need to send it there. We have no ship big enough for 4 people and two tons of food and water.

And taht's just to spend two weeks AROUND Mars. We have no lander yet. That would be a RECON mission.

Here's the scoup on Mars. You can only get there economically in a series of launch windows over a two month period of time every two and a half years.

You're travel time one way varies from 45 days minimum to 75 days maximum, depending on when the window is and how close Mars is (at oppositin is varies from 33 million to 42 millioin miles)

There is a TOTAL round trip window of 4-5 months maximum, after that the distance between Earth and Mars grows to 80 million miles, which takes 6 months or more to do at 30,000 MPH

Now, how would you feel being in a ship the size of the average front room with 4-6 people for a total of 6 months. The only other room you got is a small bathroom.

How would you like to STAY in a LEAR JET for 6 months solid with 4 other people.

You see the problems inherent to going to Mars.

To build a base YOU must ASSUME none of the Martian raw materials are usable, hence you must bring stuff from Earth.

DUE to obvious carter impact the safest place to base is INSIDE a mountain or under ground.

The First thing you have to do is clear a landing pad that is about the size of a football stadium and cement it in.

You know how much cement and water to make it we are talkinga bout JUST to make a landing and take off pad (you aren't expect your supply ship to land on the GROUND are you!)

You need to build a nuclear reactor to supply power.

You need to drill into a mountain and hallow it our or dig up the ground, lay a foundation with rebar.

You're talking about building a small Medical Office type building you see at the corner.

Someting 3-5 floors, that can house 50-200 or more people.

Do you know how many workers it takes to build that. You will need at least 20 per shift and to build it fast you work 24/7/365

You have to bring out Earth moving equipment.

There is NO way to get around any of this.

It takes at least 10 people 24/7/365 per shift to SAFELY run a SMALL nuclear power plant.

All of them have to be Engineers and Techs

That means you need close to 50 people just to man the power plant that geneartes enough power to run the place. Remember EACH of your AMERICAN WALL SOCKETS is 15 amps. Your house probably handles 30-50 amps and that is just to power 3-6 members of a family.

You need to have a SURGICAL and DENTAL team on staff as the NEAREST HOSPITAL is 45 days away at closest approach and 300 days away at worst approach

How much power does it take to run an X-Ray machine

You need two types of X-RAY, maybe three

You need at least two nurses each shift and at least one doctor and one general surgeon and one dentist

I'm talking the tip of the iceberg as to PROBLEMS for a MARS colony.

Now, the MOON is another story. Just has hostile. Same requirements a mountain or dig a hole

BUT the MOON is 2-3 days away in an EMERGENCY via a small ship from the space station.

YOu still NEED everything else, but you can send it up a week at a time over four years

For MARS it must go up EN MASS in one or two or three ships and then MArs is out of range for 2 1/2 years

You got a four month SENDING window and a 4 month RETURN window and they overlap.

The MOON is NEVER more than 3 days away, 4 tops

Now, this makes it possible to ACCUMULATE stuff on the moon for a MArs flight over a period of 10 years. You jsut bring up extra supplies and store it on the Moon.

Then you put it on a ship big enough to land on Mars and launch it from the moon.

It makes supplying a Mars colony easier.

Remember a stick of dynamite under a trash can can launch you into orbit on the moon.

You don't need a Jupiter VI Rocket with a zillon pounds of thurst to get off the moon.

Now, there are ALL sorts of factors you have to consider on a colony.

Closed quarters leads to self-spawing infections and secondary infections. Flu epidemics, which lead to Menengitis.

Hence you need to have segregated areas with autonomus incomign air and water supplies.

Other wise ONE SNEEZE could cause a three to four week epidemic on the Moon or Mars in which EVERYONE is out of commsisioin.

And you have to worry about some getting pnumonia, some getting secondary mengentis infections.

Now you have a serious problem in which EVERYONE on the Moon or MArs colony could die.

It's happened on Army bases and what is t he cure to pevent this:

OPEN THE WINDOWS 5" AT ALL TIMES to bring in fresh air.

What can't you do on MARS and the MOON, OPEN A WINDOW!

These are Just SOME of the problems associated with starting a serious venture on the Moon and Mars.