| |
Main
Date: 27 Sep 2006 19:58:51
From: RichA
Subject: By the time ISS is done, they'll have blown enough money for a manned Mars mission.
|
Very, very sad.
|
|
| |
Date: 28 Sep 2006 00:13:37
From: Alan French
Subject: Re: By the time ISS is done, they'll have blown enough money for a manned Mars mission.
|
"RichA" <me@me.com > wrote in message
news:p04mh21j7l1m22ervmf96r0ja5afkchnpg@4ax.com...
> Very, very sad.
It may well be that the health issues involved in a lengthy trip to Mars
make it an even poorer choice for our money.
Clear skies, Alan
|
| |
Date: 28 Sep 2006 18:07:30
From: Rich
Subject: Re: By the time ISS is done, they'll have blown enough money for a manned Mars mission.
|
Alan French wrote:
> "RichA" <me@me.com> wrote in message
> news:p04mh21j7l1m22ervmf96r0ja5afkchnpg@4ax.com...
> > Very, very sad.
>
> It may well be that the health issues involved in a lengthy trip to Mars
> make it an even poorer choice for our money.
>
> Clear skies, Alan
As opposed to Russians who spent hundreds of days in orbit?
The time length has been done.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Sep 2006 13:37:57
From: Alan French
Subject: Re: By the time ISS is done, they'll have blown enough money for a manned Mars mission.
|
"Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1159492050.825094.278350@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Alan French wrote:
> > "RichA" <me@me.com> wrote in message
> > news:p04mh21j7l1m22ervmf96r0ja5afkchnpg@4ax.com...
> > > Very, very sad.
> >
> > It may well be that the health issues involved in a lengthy trip to Mars
> > make it an even poorer choice for our money.
> >
> > Clear skies, Alan
>
> As opposed to Russians who spent hundreds of days in orbit?
> The time length has been done.
Yes, we have some good information thanks to the lengthy Russian flights,
but I think we've got a ways to go. While 366 days in orbit is comparable
to the combined trip time to and from Mars, the astronauts are also expected
to spend 500 to 600 days on Mars. They'll be under reduced gravity for more
than two years. I don't think we have much data on the psychological
effects of such a long trip either.
At any rate, the question is likely moot. We're not even providing near
enough funds if we're serious about a return to the Moon, and I suspect a
U.S. manned Mars mission will not happen in my lifetime. Part of me hopes I
am wrong, and part believes manned missions are far too scientifically
inefficient to be worth the cost. Robot spacecraft are a far better way to
explore space and do science.
Clear skies, Alan
|
| |
Date: 28 Sep 2006 14:27:36
From: RichIsaTroll
Subject: Re: By the time ISS is done, they'll have blown enough money for a manned Mars mission.
|
That you are TROLL.
AstroHoney
RichA wrote:
> Very, very sad.
|
| |
Date: 29 Sep 2006 15:11:08
From: Rich
Subject: Re: By the time ISS is done, they'll have blown enough money for a manned Mars mission.
|
Alan French wrote:
> "Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1159492050.825094.278350@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Alan French wrote:
> > > "RichA" <me@me.com> wrote in message
> > > news:p04mh21j7l1m22ervmf96r0ja5afkchnpg@4ax.com...
> > > > Very, very sad.
> > >
> > > It may well be that the health issues involved in a lengthy trip to Mars
> > > make it an even poorer choice for our money.
> > >
> > > Clear skies, Alan
> >
> > As opposed to Russians who spent hundreds of days in orbit?
> > The time length has been done.
>
> Yes, we have some good information thanks to the lengthy Russian flights,
> but I think we've got a ways to go. While 366 days in orbit is comparable
> to the combined trip time to and from Mars, the astronauts are also expected
> to spend 500 to 600 days on Mars. They'll be under reduced gravity for more
> than two years. I don't think we have much data on the psychological
> effects of such a long trip either.
>
> At any rate, the question is likely moot. We're not even providing near
> enough funds if we're serious about a return to the Moon, and I suspect a
> U.S. manned Mars mission will not happen in my lifetime. Part of me hopes I
> am wrong, and part believes manned missions are far too scientifically
> inefficient to be worth the cost. Robot spacecraft are a far better way to
> explore space and do science.
>
> Clear skies, Alan
You'd be right on all counts. Thanks to NASA's insistence on sticking
with near-ancient rocket techonology, the pouring of funds into the
orbiting white elephant and the continued problems with the costly
Shuttle, we are unlikely to go to Mars (or even the Moon) anytime in
the next 20 years, and it IS too costly to put people on spaceflights.
They had the solution in the late 1950s and they didn't use it. Now
were stuck with chemical powered rockets and toy-like "ion" engines,
another hold-over from the 1960s.
|
|
