Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Bush is going to Mars

  1. Mar 30, 2005 #1
    bush said we gonna go to the mars, was that just pre election gimmick ? so far they are fixing that flying piece of **** (shuttle) but nothing else is going on.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 30, 2005 #2

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If Bush truly is going to Mars, it's still not soon enough or far enough... :grumpy:
     
  4. Mar 30, 2005 #3

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I believe Martians have been added to the ever-growing "Axis of Evil" list. However, they will have to take a number and wait in line...

    And don't forget, in his State of the Union Speech, Bush also mentioned:
    1) Respect for Women - Authorizing insurance coverage for Viagra, but not for birth control pills
    2) Gang Violence - By promoting "guest worker" amnesty for illegal immigrants
    3) Ethanol – As a solution to our energy crisis (Lieberman suggested this to him--very clever).

    You may not want to get your hopes up... :eek:
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2005
  5. Mar 30, 2005 #4
    Bush first announced his whole "go to the moon then Mars" dealie in December 2003, then did not even mention it in his 2004 State of the Union address one month later. Really worried me because I think if he was serious then he'd've said something...
    Though I still cross my fingers hoping it will happen because I'd like to go. Heck I'll settle for the moon even. :smile:
     
  6. Mar 30, 2005 #5

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Sounds like a strange announcement for someone who believes that the Earth is flat, that people weren't meant to fly because they don't have wings, and that the sun shines out of his ass. :grumpy:
     
  7. Mar 30, 2005 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Bush was drinking his bathwater, as usual.

    The only hope that I see is that of radically new propulsion techniques. I don't see a rocket powered trip ever happening for humans. It would be too slow, too expensive, and too dangerous. Without meaning to insult anyone here as I too would have loved to gone to Mars in my life - in principle - the reality is I think is that only a fool would make such a trip using current technologies. There is risk, and then there is risk beyond reason. IIRC, approx 2/3 of all martian probles have been lost.
     
  8. Mar 30, 2005 #7

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    What scares me about that is, if ancient well-understood technology has bought the biscuit that many times, who the hell would risk a new untried one?
    I didn't realize that Martians have probles. Is it contageous?
     
  9. Mar 31, 2005 #8
    it is too bad that cold war has ended, rivalry between usa and ussr would produce mars mission or at least permanent moon base.
     
  10. Mar 31, 2005 #9

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm not so sure about that. Satellites and space habitats have far better strategic value, and that's what the cold war was all about. The moon is a great source of materials, but that's about all from a military standpoint.
     
  11. Mar 31, 2005 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Good point. Still, there are inherently faster and safer techniques explored. Once these are developed and tested on robotic missions, a manned mission may then be more practical. Ion propulsion doesn't seem likely for such a short trip, but solar sails, high energy, earth based LASER propulsion, and even LASER induced evaporation of films coated on large sails or chutes for propulsion, is now discussed.
     
  12. Mar 31, 2005 #11
    Two years ago, I attended an ESA conference, held in Strasbourg. It was quite a big business, with all the aerodynamics mafia (not just the european one). I mean it was serious. There was a russian guy presenting a project to go to Mars. I went to him during a pause, he was displaying a poster, and asked him questions. At the beginning, he looked quite confident in himself (but I think he was repeating many learnt sentences. Oh, just like george !). Then, I must have managed to make him imagine I was part of this mafia (which I am not !) because he really took my comments seriously. I was both friendly and at the same time, I was addressing very specific technical questions, exactly on Ivan's point : the propulsion. This poor russian (whith whom I was actually playing) started to sweat and fear for his scientific credibility. After ten minutes or so, he admitted that there was a serious issue here, and that they were still working on this problem.

    Generally speaking, my opinion is that nobody came up with a brillant idea to replace the old designs of propulsion. When one think about it seriously, it is very complicated. One must find a way to greatly improve the acceleration produced, and free the ship for the need of carrying combustible (which is way too stupid to allow for long distance travels)

    So, I would say this is all commercials.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2005
  13. Mar 31, 2005 #12

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Am I getting you mixed up with someone else, or did you work on this stuff? Personally, I would think that an orbital launch laser would be more efficient than a ground-based unit. Feed it with solar satellites, and not worry about atmospheric interference. Plus, you could set your orbit so that it's in constant line of sight with the ship. (I'd still just love to see a bloody fusion torch out there, though. :biggrin: )
     
  14. Mar 31, 2005 #13
    Well... that is what i have in mind.competition between two superpowers and wars almost allways were about resourcess. moon is not only earth naturall satelite ideally suited for earth espionage but as you said there are materials on the moon.whoever first have any permanent human presence there could be ahead,and as an offshot of this space race science i'm sure will gain a lot .
     
  15. Mar 31, 2005 #14

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The sad thing is the discoveries made in these projects always have so many applications--perhaps even addressing energy problems on Earth, etc.? Americans have never been long-term thinkers, but if there is any truth that many American leaders are based in the Bible and believe it is the End of Days, I don't see them diverting funds to advancement and a future...

    All I can say is if anyone can figure out how to get off this planet in time...can I please go too?
     
  16. Mar 31, 2005 #15

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I say there, SOS, nice ass! Now that I've seen it, you can go anywhere with me. :biggrin:
     
  17. Mar 31, 2005 #16
    300 bilion $ went for Iraqi war, imagine what we could do with that kind of cash. we could not only have advanced propulsion and mission to mars but also we could rebuild whole of third world.
     
  18. Mar 31, 2005 #17

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No, this is just from the Sci/Tech news stuff. BTW, check our Robonaut in the engineering forum- a very cool DARPA/NASA effort.
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=69184

    Oh yes, by earth based I only meant that the primary energy source is local to earth, and transmitted to the craft via LASER, X-Ray LASER etc; or more specifically, that the fuel is not carried on the space craft. But speaking of nuclear, I guess nuclear power and some exotic propulsion may be a self-contained option. Unfortunately, when they tested nuclear powered rocket engines in the 60's, they pretty much self destructed. I don't know what nuclear options may exist here other than in conjunction with ion propulsion, or some other type plasma discharge.

    Edit: Nuclear and steam thrust is practical in many ways but is too slow, I would think.

    probles :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2005
  19. Mar 31, 2005 #18

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    ...but we expect to have a solution soon. :rolleyes:
     
  20. Mar 31, 2005 #19

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I should have known that, but I'm still getting used to being back in an intellectual environment. Most of the time in my normal life I have to tweak the conversation like that once in a while because most people don't realize how much they don't know.

    I studied as much as I could about the NERVA series for a book I was writing back in the early 70's. Seemed that the main problem was that they were restricted to 2727 degrees C. or the pile would melt. I'd suspect that new ceramics, nanotube technology, etc. might increase the operating temperature, and therefore specific impulse, significantly. The fusion torch that I was referring to would be basically a Bussard ramjet, but with self-contained hydrogen stores instead of the scoop.
     
  21. Mar 31, 2005 #20

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Was it The Orion deep space project that suggested that we explode nuclear bombs against a blasting plate, on the back of the ship?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Bush is going to Mars
  1. Bush drunk? (Replies: 2)

  2. Bush is evolutionist (Replies: 49)

Loading...