It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by HIFIGUY
If budgets like this are the obstacle towards putting men on planets, were never going to hit mars, because our own commercialization will be the limiting factor.
Originally posted by Frosty
The problem with all this manned space exploration to other celetial bodies is that we are still using liquid fuel rockets with solid rocket boosters to do so. This is not the way to travel back to the moon if there were anything of value there. The best way to hit it would be in style with either laser, microwave, plasma or nuclear propulsion systems. Not this dinky and massive liquid fuel.
hopefully in the next few years we will learn it it has any water/ice,
On 5 March 1998 it was announced that data returned by the Lunar Prospector spacecraft indicated that water ice is present at both the north and south lunar poles, in agreement with Clementine results for the south pole reported in November 1996. The ice originally appeared to be mixed in with the lunar regolith (surface rocks, soil, and dust) at low concentrations conservatively estimated at 0.3 to 1 percent. Subsequent data from Lunar Prospector taken over a longer period has indicated the possible presence of discrete, confined, near-pure water ice deposits buried beneath as much as 18 inches (40 centimeters) of dry regolith, with the water signature being stronger at the Moon's north pole than at the south (1). The ice was thought to be spread over 10,000 to 50,000 square km (3,600 to 18,000 square miles) of area near the north pole and 5,000 to 20,000 square km (1,800 to 7,200 square miles) around the south pole, but the latest results show the water may be more concentrated in localized areas (roughly 1850 square km, or 650 square miles, at each pole) rather than being spread out over these large regions. The estimated total mass of ice is 6 trillion kg (6.6 billion tons). Uncertainties in the models mean this estimate could be off considerably.
3. We need to go to the Moon and try living there for a few months at a time. To see if it can even be done on Mars.
Originally posted by sardion2000
3. We need to go to the Moon and try living there for a few months at a time. To see if it can even be done on Mars.
Ultralight and superstrong Nanocomposites will make living on the Moon relatively easy compared to Mars. In order to really get a Marsian Colony up and running we will need a Space Tether up and running on both Earth and Mars to make the transfer of supplies as painless, cheap and safe as possible. I see trade routs being set up, say He-3 and Titanium going to earth and other supplies go to the moon and mars. It could become self-sufficient by 2050 if everything goes according to plan and the technology develops as I expect(that another topic all together though)
Originally posted by Frosty
The cost of going to Mars would be in the trillions.
Originally posted by HIFIGUY
As for retiring in space, I think it has already been concluded that extended waitlessness is not good for the human form. Issues with circulation, and muscle atrophy set in. Althouth , I do think having a space station that allows us to see space and earth from a different perspective is a great idea.
Originally posted by Murcielago
Yeah, with no weather the moon is much easier to live on...but the basics can be learned there.
Even if the space elevator is built on earth and on Mars...that wont make shipping much easier...considering its still a long ways away. Thats why I like the Mag-beam, is promises to get you to & from Mars in a total of 90 days...thats damn fast.
Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Originally posted by Frosty
The cost of going to Mars would be in the trillions.
Every estimate for a Mars mission I have seen have ranged from a conservatie $80 if you produced return fuel on mars to $500 billion for bringing everything you need with you.
Its highly likely that a manned mars mission would make return fuel on mars since its got all the need supplies. That would vastly decrease the price of the mission.
I have never seen a estimate for a mars mission in the Trillions. Would you care to share some information on how you came up with your estimates on the price tag of a mars mission?
Originally posted by Frosty
Mars is 55 million miles away, the moon is 1/220 that distance. 1 billion x 220 would be 220 trillion, in dollars. I know that it is rather absurd but so is planning manned missions to celestial bodies with nothing to give back mankind. We went to the moon: nothing there. Went to mars with rovers: so far nothing there.
Originally posted by Frosty
Mars is 55 million miles away, the moon is 1/220 that distance. 1 billion x 220 would be 220 trillion, in dollars. I know that it is rather absurd but so is planning manned missions to celestial bodies with nothing to give back mankind. We went to the moon: nothing there. Went to mars with rovers: so far nothing there.