ZR440 Posted July 29, 2002 Posted July 29, 2002 I'd like to ship all the crybaby complainers in this country to Mars on a one way ticket. It's happy hour somewhere in the world.
shotochem Posted July 29, 2002 Posted July 29, 2002 Travel to mars is scientifically exiting. The logistics and practicality even in 20yrs is a stretch. I would say the unmanned robot missions are more practical at this time. We should work on improving this planet be it terra forming deserts, cleaning our rivers& oceans, or most importantly, uniting as a world. If we cant work things out here how can we do it out there.........???? Pain is only temporary, the memory of that pain lasts a lifetime.
Taikudo-ka Posted July 29, 2002 Posted July 29, 2002 See, the other thing is cost. Consider the fact that all the moon missions were "one-shots" that did little more than act as tourist trips to a far away place. Once Apollo was over it became obvious that no permanent progress had been made. Each rocket worked once, was discarded, and each trip brought back a few souvenirs but didn't make space any more "accessable" for the future. The shuttle signified a turning point, as it was obvious more permanent, reusable efforts had to be made. The establishment of the international space station is the next step in making space more accessable. With the space station acting as a "stopping off point" and regular shuttle flights eventually becoming a reality, even for rich tourists, space becomes more accessable. Missions to other planets like Mars, and also further moon exploration, become easier too. With interplanetary spacecraft able to be built for permanent use in space, docking in orbit with space stations, it is a much cheaper option, and also allows more future exploration. I think the right way to approach Mars is to develop and perfect the international space station first, and also develop a newer and cheaper shuttle option compared to the current aging design. Perhaps different designs for hauling people vs. larger cargoes. Then, an interplanetary ship for the journey to Mars should be assembled in orbit, never again to touch ground. It can be purely pragmatic in design, no concerns about aerodynamics, landing gear, tiled heat shields, etc. It would be designed to cope with several interplanetary missions, not just one. It could also be much larger and more spacious than the old Apollo. Much larger. This ship would carry a smaller landing craft for ferrying people down to Mars. To increase the sustainability of space exploration, each mission should seek to build infrastructure to enhance future exploration. (Something sadly neglected in the Apollo missions). I don't think there is a need to drop people off for a permanent settlement on day 1, like someone suggested. However, perhaps they could start dropping off modules in orbit to later build a permanent Mars space station/docking port. They could even start taking equipment for settlement in stages. I mean, you could leave it up there in orbit for years - who's going to steal it? KarateForums.com - Sempai
rabid hamster Posted July 29, 2002 Posted July 29, 2002 aliens of course. you didn't think we were the only ones in the whole universe did you? As for the asteroid things, I read it won't hit us, but just pass us by in 16 years. But then again, you never know what might happen in 16 years. I also remember watching a show about how in the future Mars can be turned into a place almost exactly like Earth(with air, oxygen, trees, etc, oceans).. i don't remmeber much about it though. It is only with the heart that one can see clearly, for the most essential things are invisible to the eye.
Taikudo-ka Posted July 30, 2002 Posted July 30, 2002 Now if we actually catch aliens coming in and making off with parts of space stations, it might make it all worthwhile. Meanwhile, the problem with terraforming Mars is gravity. Its small size allows gasses to vaporize into space. I don't think you'd be able to build up a decent atmosphere. That's why Mars has an atmospheric density only about 1% of Earth... I don't see how this could be overcome. Only Earth sized planets or larger have the "thick" atmosphere required for life. (And here, only Earth has the right composition of gasses.) Venus is a good size, but has the opposite problem - too dense an atmosphere, basically like the whole planet is subject to a severe "greenhouse effect". KarateForums.com - Sempai
ckdstudent Posted July 30, 2002 Posted July 30, 2002 That's what the biosphere projects are for, and the Eden project. ---------Pil SungJimmy B
ZeRo Posted July 30, 2002 Posted July 30, 2002 the edan project was quite interesting. i went this year the domes are amazingly big and spectaculer if any of you get a chance go see it.
Recommended Posts