|despite all our differences and downfalls||JS Haiku Shop|
Jun 2, 2003 8:19 AM
|it's heartening to be part of a society that places this kind of value on space exploration.
NASA (news - web sites) is sending its own twin Mars Exploration Rovers later this month in a $800 million mission to try to answer the same questions about water and life on the planet. A Japanese spacecraft launched in 1998 also continues its voyage toward Mars, despite some electronic troubles.
disclaimer: i know there are other ways--many more immediate needs on which--this money can be spent. perhaps we're looking at a bigger picture here.
|we need a manned mission||DougSloan|
Jun 2, 2003 9:07 AM
|Well, we can include women, too. ;-)
I think it would be fantastic to step foot on Mars. No one will ever remember the first or even subsequent unmanned missions. The human race will forever remember the first manned mission. Might help to unite the planet somewhat, which is worth something.
|we need a manned mission||ClydeTri|
Jun 2, 2003 9:43 AM
|sad thing is a large percent of the population will think its faked, just as they think the moonlandings were fake....|
|well, they already live on another planet... ;-) nm||DougSloan|
Jun 2, 2003 9:45 AM
|Well, they already made the Movie...||Alpedhuez55|
Jun 2, 2003 12:18 PM
|Did you ever see Capricorn One? It is about a faked Mars landing. The ship burns up on re-entry and NASA decides they need to kill the astronauts to keep the secret. This is one of O.J. Simpson's best movie roles.
|I thought OJ did his best acting...||ClydeTri|
Jun 2, 2003 12:34 PM
|I thought OJ did his best acting in that miniseries that played on tv in the mid 90s..where he played a former football player turned tv star who was guilty of a double murder but in the miniseries he got off even though the evidence was overwhelming.....|
|You call that a "mini" series?! (nm)||Matno|
Jun 3, 2003 11:04 AM
|who would go?||mohair_chair|
Jun 2, 2003 10:25 AM
|The speeds current spacecraft travel at, it would take a YEAR to get to Mars. And it would take a YEAR to get back. Anyone you know willing to spend two years of their life in a tin can? The moon only took three days.
We've got to develop some new technology for propulsion if we ever expect to get near Mars, much less return.
|heck, I'd go||DougSloan|
Jun 2, 2003 10:42 AM
|I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Besides, What was the "current technology" when a moonshot was proposed? We could barely get rockets off the ground 50% of the time. We suprise ourselves when we put our minds to it.
We could float some fuel containers in space around the earth and Mars, first. Then, we refuel with those and get the speeds up much higher than the 25,000 mph in the moon landings.
|I doubt it||mohair_chair|
Jun 2, 2003 11:22 AM
|You have a kid and wife at home. We're talking TWO YEARS. Would they still be there when you got back?
Okay, let's say you get enough fuel up into space, which is actually a very difficult thing because it's so heavy and volitale. What are the astronauts going to eat for the next two years? What if they run into health problems? A moon mission was maybe 10 days max, but a mission to Mars is 720 days, so there is 72 times more opportunity for something to go wrong.
By the way, the Saturn rocket (the important first stage) that launched man into space was already under development at the end of the 1950s, before the moon program was officially started.
|sure I would||DougSloan|
Jun 2, 2003 7:08 PM
|It would be very painful to leave the family, but something like this is so overwhelmingly inviting that I could not turn it down. The first humans to walk on Mars? Are you kidding? That's simply a no brainer. Billions of people seek out adventure, meaning, and something memorable in their lives -- this would be the ultimate for generations.
|NASA says 3 month trip (we need HH here)||DougSloan|
Jun 3, 2003 6:43 AM
Three month trip with new propulsion system. Not nearly as bad.
|agree nm||JS Haiku Shop|
Jun 2, 2003 10:36 AM
Jun 2, 2003 11:08 AM
|Certainly with regards to the possibility of uniting the planet. Call me a cynic, but I see a far greater potential of such an event exacerbating current conflicts over environmental policy, corporate influence and good old fashioned turf envy.
I say, we go to Mars when we figure out how to manage our own planet. Until then, any hint of an outlet for the human race (no matter how much a pipe-dream) will serve as an excuse to further neglect the viability of our current habitat. Why worry about global warming when we can go to Mars? Heck, on Mars the greenhouse effect will be beneficial to life!
If you haven't, you might want to check out Kim Stanley Robinson's Red/Green/Blue Mars series.
|BTW, I'd go too. (nm)||czardonic|
Jun 2, 2003 11:09 AM
Jun 2, 2003 11:58 AM
|Thanks for your support : Þ (nm)||czardonic|
Jun 2, 2003 12:01 PM
|But it might have the opposite effect||torquer|
Jun 2, 2003 12:48 PM
|Whatever water or evidence of bacterial life forms are encountered on Mars, the environment will be extremely hostile to human life.
This may remind us of the fragility of our own planet's ability to sustain life; a little statistical projection will demonstrate the vanishingly small possibility of our ever finding another viable habitat, so maybe we'll pay a little attention to our current crib.
|Which might be even worse, conflict wise.||czardonic|
Jun 2, 2003 1:03 PM
|Maybe Mars is the better bet, after all.|
|We need to end the Space Shuttle program||Continental|
Jun 2, 2003 1:14 PM
|The Space Shuttle has been a collossal failure and has taken resources and attention from NASA's successes. It has proven to be an expensive, undependable, and dangerous vehicle. The space program should focus on developing a new simplified, safer, cheaper system for delivering large payloads into space, including humans on the way to Mars. In 1970 (I was 11) I expected that manned space exploration would include interplanetary travel, a moon base, and permanently manned space stations by 2010. I don't think that agressively exploring space with manned spacecraft over the last 40 years would have made life on earth worse. My disappointment is tempered by the great successes of unmanned exploration.|
|Don't believe what the press says about this mission...||eschelon|
Jun 2, 2003 12:37 PM
|I've read other sources that says this mission to Mars that is looking for signs of life is a bunch of bull because this spacecraft doesn't even have any of the necessary tests or equipment to search for signs of life or other experiments to determine variables of life or the conditions thereof. The whole search for life angle is purely misleading publicity stunt...meant to generate interest in the program.|
|maybe they are really looking for WMD's ;-) nm||DougSloan|
Jun 2, 2003 7:05 PM
|please post references, thanks nm||JS Haiku Shop|
Jun 3, 2003 5:55 AM
|Can't find it...saw it on Google a couple of days ago. nm||eschelon|
Jun 3, 2003 8:35 AM
|Yeah, what gives?||Spoiler|
Jun 2, 2003 8:07 PM
|Back since the days of black and white Flash Gorden movies, all the way to that perfect ten "Seven" on Star Trek, we've been promised a future where all the women would be built like Jane Russell and be wearing tight, bodysuit uniforms. I demand my money back!|| |