NASA Manned mission to Mars!

NASA Manned mission to Mars!

www.flightglobal.com

NASA anounce plans, but sadly quite a bit in the future, but it is a big ask to be fair.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 27-11-2007 by Randomdam]

the personal irony is, i found this headline online, only to find the story posted on a site I work on!! what are the odds

www.flightglobal.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 27-11-2007 by Randomdam]

[edit on 27-11-2007 by Randomdam]

This Mars mission stuff is quite a joke. At the speed technology is advancing, this is like Lincoln picking out what model car he wants.

Statistically, we seem to crash more Mars hardware than we land there safely. I'm fairly confident that we'll have better techniques, equipment, and propulsion by the time we hit the time frame they have in mind.

OK don't shoot me down in flames as i am not playing the UFO question.

They say that the military are 40 years ahead of what we see (stealth, etc.) so if a mission is planned 20 years in the future in public, does that mean that in fact it happened 20 years ago (using the 40 year ahead technology argument). Well you get the idea even if it is put across rather simply.

Could it be possible?

A manned mission to Mars? Couldn't they perhaps spend their money on....oh I dunno, maybe trying to solve their sinking economy?

Waste of money in my view.

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
OK don't shoot me down in flames as i am not playing the UFO question.

They say that the military are 40 years ahead of what we see (stealth, etc.) so if a mission is planned 20 years in the future in public, does that mean that in fact it happened 20 years ago (using the 40 year ahead technology argument). Well you get the idea even if it is put across rather simply.

Could it be possible?

You've got a valid point. I'd love to know the answer to your question!

Originally posted by MacDonagh
A manned mission to Mars? Couldn't they perhaps spend their money on....oh I dunno, maybe trying to solve their sinking economy?

Waste of money in my view.

While I'd like to see what's out there, you're absolutely right. The US must prioritize. Unfortunately, that means the space program should be near the bottom of the list.

reply to post by MacDonagh


Where's your sense of adventure.

Don't worry the American economy will survive. Besides someone's gotta go there, right? And last I checked Scotland does not have much of a space program, eh mate?

Sense of adventure? I'm sorry, but I don't see the point. I'm not going to Mars am I? That money could be put to better use like funding a free medical service in the U.S. Just a thought.

P.S. Scotland don't have a space programme because we don't have money to burn, nor do we see the point in spending it.

Originally posted by defuntion
And last I checked Scotland does not have much of a space program, eh mate?

I'm old enough to remember when NASA flew the space shuttle, strapped on the back of a 747, over a Motorola factory in the Scottish town of East Kilbride in appreciation for the hard work they were doing with the shuttle's electronics. Probably mid 1980's. Everyone turned out to see it ... but it was half a mile off course and labouring in heavy weather ... most folk missed it. Bit of a disappointment.

Perhaps they would have been better getting Scots to design the 747 avionics.

Anyway, if the US wants to go to Mars then let them. Their money after all. Oh hold on. they borrow it from everyone else. Mm. Que sera sera.

reply to post by MacDonagh


MacDonagh,
I'm just having a little fun with you.

You're right in a sense about potential better uses of the money, but when I say "sense of adventure" I mean looking toward the future, over the horizon...
We gotta take risks in order to make new discoveries.
If we do nothing but re-focus all our money back into these silly support programs then where will that get us? Well, for starts, it will ensure that we entitle more people to depend on them...
Did you know that of all the US govt. programs that have been started virtually none of them have ever been retired?
At least a trip to Mars provides the possibility of learning something new.
Another govt program? well, we know what that will get us...
Cheers, Mate

it would cost around $250 billion for a manned mission to mars,which is about what it costs per year for the US iraqi occupation.

$250billion it peanuts for the big boys,check it out
chang.newsvine.com...
www.guardian.co.uk...

we could have done it long ago,but they havnt as theyve been militarising space in secret for a long time.

reply to post by Niall197


You have a beutiful country and fascinating people!
I'd love to visit someday.

No offense, friend, I was just being trite, to make a quick point.

Wouldn't the world like to see a manned Mars expedition?
Besides, I'm sure that not all the scientists that would be going would all be Americans. It will likely be a team, maybe even a proud Scot?

Yes we do have a space program my friend...................


Have you never watched star trek

The scots have always been great engineers.

And not just on the silver screen, Watt, Young, Kelvin, Bell, Baird, Bennie, Watson-watt to name just a few did I miss out scotty?

reply to post by defuntion


Ach we're only jesting too

All Scots are proud. You've probably noticed. And come on over for a visit ... what's stopping you ?

But back to the issue. Is there really any possibility in the immediate future that Congress would authorise the expenditure required for such an enterprise ? As PrplHrt says, the unmanned missions have not all gone to plan. The cost, the risks ... it's out of kilter, no ?

Originally posted by MacDonagh
That money could be put to better use like funding a free medical service in the U.S. Just a thought.

NASA only gets $16 billion per year, that's only a very small fraction of the entire federal budget. They spend a lot more then that on medical related stuff already, so adding NASA's budget to that wouldn't make a difference. I also fail to see how creating a high tech job industry that also helps to improve ones science and education isn't a good use of money.

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod

They say that the military are 40 years ahead of what we see (stealth, etc.) so if a mission is planned 20 years in the future in public, does that mean that in fact it happened 20 years ago (using the 40 year ahead technology argument). Well you get the idea even if it is put across rather simply.

Could it be possible?

Thanks for the post MDG. No, it didn't happen 20 years ago. It happened in 1966, 41 years ago.

Thanks for the post.

Personally I'd prefer to see a manned journey to an asteroid first - before a manned trip to Mars or a manned return to the Moon there's no money to be had on Mars (yet), OTOH a good sized nickel-iron asteroid would be worth several trillion bucks - yes that's trillion with a t

It might go quite a ways towards correcting some of our budget problems.

Originally posted by PrplHrt
Statistically, we seem to crash more Mars hardware than we land there safely.

Yeah! I mean what the Hell! Having a computer manage orbital acquisition isn't exactly rocket science!

Oh... crap... nevermind.

18 months on the surface. Alone. I can't decide if I would hate to be the first crew, or love it.

Originally posted by Niall197
Ach we're only jesting too

Glad to see some of us still have a sense of humor!

I've actually got a plan in the mix to visit your proud land.

Originally posted by PrplHrt
Statistically, we seem to crash more Mars hardware than we land there safely.

To make an omlet you must break a few eggs.
Not sure who said it, but thats the way it is.

I don't see the down-side to it. Just my opinion...

I hate how NASA plans (or, at least, announces) future missions many, many years in advance .