Manned Mars mission in 2019?


by Urvabara
Tags: 2019, manned, mars, mission
Danger
Danger is offline
#19
Aug11-07, 04:24 PM
PF Gold
Danger's Avatar
P: 8,961
I can only assume that you've never been in love. Believe me... when it happens, all reason flies out the nearest window.
ank_gl
ank_gl is offline
#20
Aug12-07, 01:12 AM
P: 733
Quote Quote by Urvabara View Post
--> Me. <--
dont worry man, u ll find out soon
Urvabara
Urvabara is offline
#21
Aug12-07, 01:22 AM
P: 100
LOL. Thanks, guys. :->
yujean
yujean is offline
#22
Aug20-07, 02:54 PM
P: 10
we're more likely to develop a space station on the moon by 2020, than to go to mars by 2020... The moon is rich with Helium-3, which can be used as a valuable energy source. Google / Wikipedia: Helium-3
russ_watters
russ_watters is offline
#23
Aug20-07, 03:00 PM
Mentor
P: 22,008
Assuming we can figure out how to use it...
Integral
Integral is offline
#24
Aug20-07, 03:41 PM
Mentor
Integral's Avatar
P: 7,292
Quote Quote by yujean View Post
we're more likely to develop a space station on the moon by 2020, than to go to mars by 2020... The moon is rich with Helium-3, which can be used as a valuable energy source. Google / Wikipedia: Helium-3
I hope you guys are doing all of this on your dime and not mine. Can anyone come up with a single REAL reason to send a human to Mars or the Moon?

I am sorry, there is so much difficult work to be done here on earth NOW that man in space is a wast time and money. Do you as a physics student want to help get man is space? Then put all of your efforts into finding the energy source to get us there, the best way to do that is to find the energy source to free us from fossil fuels. We need to ensure the survival of our civilizations in the next 50yrs. Not create an expensive graveyard on Mars.
turbo
turbo is offline
#25
Aug20-07, 03:53 PM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,367
We have some pretty capable little explorers on Mars right now, and should we see some opportunities that are so compelling that we are willing to sacrifice one if necessary, that decision can be made with plenty of time to contemplate and weigh the benefits and costs. If we sent humans to Mars with current or near-future technology, we would gain flexibility and autonomy, but lose the advantages of robotic exploration, including lighter payloads (fuel is expensive, but lofting that fuel to orbit is WAY expensive), modest shielding requirements, and the ability to use fuel-saving gravity-assist trajectories to get the probes there without a lot of reaction mass to throw. Getting to the Moon was a walk across the street compared to getting humans to Mars, and the Apollo astronauts did not stay there long enough to stress their life-support and power systems.

I love the thought of space-flight, but at our level of technology, I would prefer that we fund numerous robotic explorations instead of gutting science for the sake of the "gee whiz" accomplishment of getting humans to another planet. Just my take on it. BTW, I grew up with the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions in full swing and have an "autographed" picture of Buzz Aldrin that was certainly auto-penned. He was flying combat missions in Korea when I was born.
mgb_phys
mgb_phys is offline
#26
Aug20-07, 04:12 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 8,961
Quote Quote by turbo-1 View Post
We have some pretty capable little explorers on Mars right now
But we aren't going to bring them back to stand along side the politician in charge of funding them, and if we did no glamour is going to rub off on the politician.
Also with the current state of AI none of these rovers is likely to run for the senate and be in a position to help with funding.

It's the same problem with using predator drones instead of fighters.
In your campaing literature you can't use photos of yourself sitting in front of a keyboard as evidence of your topgun / war hero status.
turbo
turbo is offline
#27
Aug20-07, 04:27 PM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,367
Knowing what we know now about these little rovers, their capabilities, and the puzzles they face, the next generation of rovers could be designed to be WAY more capable, but not cost a whole lot more. Our technology is advancing apace, and the next generation of rovers could be lighter, faster, more agile, and more durable.
yujean
yujean is offline
#28
Aug21-07, 08:33 AM
P: 10
RKK Energiya is likely to mine the moon in 2020.
Urvabara
Urvabara is offline
#29
Dec16-07, 09:21 AM
P: 100
I made a web site: http://mars2019.org.
Old Pokey
Old Pokey is offline
#30
Dec16-07, 08:32 PM
P: 3
I wonder what if anything "nanotechnology" could bring to the table on a trip like this. ??
Astronuc
Astronuc is offline
#31
Dec16-07, 09:10 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,637
There are already Mars exploration advocacy groups, e.g. The Mars Society - http://www.marssociety.org/portal.

As much as members of the public push, it's not a priority for NASA or the general public.

D-He3 is attractive for fusion reactor, but the conditions are more challenging than for DT or DD fusion.
DaleSpam
DaleSpam is offline
#32
Dec16-07, 09:21 PM
Mentor
P: 16,485
Quote Quote by yujean View Post
we're more likely to develop a space station on the moon by 2020, than to go to mars by 2020... The moon is rich with Helium-3, which can be used as a valuable energy source. Google / Wikipedia: Helium-3
I like this idea. I think the technology developed in establishing a permanent and self-sustaining moon base would be much more valuable than the technology developed for a visit to Mars.
ThienAn
ThienAn is offline
#33
Dec20-07, 02:06 PM
P: 14
There are many things to consider to even begin to build a mission to Mars. First, energy, engine exaust, fluid, oxygen, screws, hovercraft, etc. This is the history repeats itself as the reflection of the Cold War. But, one of the safest way to reduce risks is not to do the rendezvous, and not using the Space Shuttle (I think) to provide mor eenergy for both engine and the astronauts. Plus, as you say before, fund, war, political parties, and we never know if something is going to happen, so croos our fingers and wish the program good luck.
ThienAn
ThienAn is offline
#34
Dec20-07, 02:22 PM
P: 14
Hey, an idea: a delayed-trip to Mars. A joint programm between U.S and other countries would sastify this idea.
Astronuc
Astronuc is offline
#35
Dec20-07, 02:29 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,637
NASA is investing in the Crew Exploration Vehicle, Cargo Vehicle and Shuttle-derived booster technology. First the moon, and perhaps then Mars.

The booster for a mission to Mars has yet to be determined, but I expect when time comes, there will be something like a larger version of Sklyab sent ahead. Possibly modules of ISS if the they hold up or if the could (if necessary) be retrofitted or upgraded.
Danger
Danger is offline
#36
Dec20-07, 04:06 PM
PF Gold
Danger's Avatar
P: 8,961
Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
A Skylab type orbital support station would be needed in orbit around Mars. That would have to be sent in advance.
Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
I expect when time comes, there will be something like a larger version of Sklyab sent ahead.
I'm wondering about the necessity of that. Wouldn't it be more efficient to send the crew in the station?


Register to reply

Related Discussions
New Ideas for shelding:manned deep space Missions Aerospace Engineering 15
Mars mission a sham General Astronomy 12
safety of manned missions General Astronomy 2
Feasability of an Ion Engine For Manned Missions? Aerospace Engineering 5
First victim of moon base/Mars mission? General Astronomy 24