You are not logged in.
the payload to geo-sync will increase from 1.5 tonnes at 51 degrees to 4.0 tonnes at the equator.
Amazing!
Thanks Bill....
We spend more on space than all the space faring countries combined.
Then we're not getting our money's worth, as far as manned space flight goes....
I think it is safe to assume the US and Europe won't be racing to the Moon and Mars.
-- RobS
No "racing", that's for sure. Limping is more like it.
20 years....
Sheesh.
And essentially no funding....
Double sheesh.
http://space.com/news/europe_moon_040203.html
Europe Plans Human Missions to Moon and Mars
By Jane Wardell
Associated Press
posted: 05:10 pm ET
03 February 2004
LONDON (AP) _ European scientists set out a route map Tuesday for manned missions to Mars that aims to land astronauts on the Red Planet in less than 30 years.
Like U.S. President George W. Bush's proposed mission to Mars, the plan put forward by the European Space Agency involves a "stepping stone'' approach, which includes robotic missions and a manned trip to the Moon first.
"We *** What's this "we" stuff?! *** need to go back to the Moon before we go to Mars. We need to walk before we run,'' said Dr. Franco Ongaro, who heads the ESA's Aurora program for long-term exploration of the solar system, at a meeting of Aurora scientists in London. "These are our stones. They will pave the way for our human explorers.''
The ESA has planned two flagship missions to Mars _ ExoMars would land a rover on the planet in 2009, and Mars Sample Return would bring back a sample of the Martian surface in 2011-14.
Other test missions will include a non-manned version of the flight that would eventually carry astronauts to Mars to demonstrate aerobraking, solar electric propulsion and soft landing technologies.
A human mission to the Moon, proposed for 2024, *** 20 years just to get to the moon! What's the rush??? *** would demonstrate key life-support and habitation technologies, as well as aspects of crew performance and adaptation to long-distance space flight.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/pollInsights/
Gallup Poll apparently says 51% of men but only 34% of women support an effort (consider it worthwhile) to find life on Mars. No wonder President Bush's plan has gained so little public support.
What are your comments on this?
Alll I can think of right now is: WOW!!!
Thanks for posting that....
More power to them. I hope that I live to see the PRC launch a few big nuclear reactors to a Martian settlement, as helpless Western environmentalists have conniption fits.
Ouch!
Hopefully China will motivate the US into once again having a real manned space program.
I do have to wonder one thing though: What if our black budget boys have already been to Mars?
It will increase/change the nature of missions in general, but not necessarily crewed missions.
I'm afraid you are correct.
So what would actually inspire Americans to fund a manned mission to Mars?
Let's say we discover life on Mars. Do you think that would speed up the process of getting a few humans to Mars?
Or are Americans too broke and too jaded to ever get excited about exploration again?
I'm very frustratred with our "manned" space program over the past 30+ years. I'm not happy that we cannot afford to go to Mars now.
The lack of public support for this very important exploration shows how far the United States has fallen, imo.
So....
Who was # 666?
Just curious.
:laugh:
but hacking in this case would mean you have to use the *big* antennae to send a 'virus' ...sounds rather implausible.
and it ain't windowsXP we're talking about, either...
so i say 'no'
Not necessarily....
The hacking could have been done before the launch.
.02
I see you guys haven't had the opportunity to meet Leo, who easily explains mysterious things like this:
* * * * *
Leo
Member # 81
posted 01-03-2004 12:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We interrupt this program for breaking news... The Martian Defense Force Supreme Commander, Froge Rongelfrazzen, has just raised the Martian Defense Advisory Level to code RED. We break to Froge now in a live news conference, just underway...
"Good evening my fellow Martians. Increased chatter on the Earthling communications networks along with human intelligence sources indicate a new spy-craft landing will be attempted in the next 24 hours. DO NOT PANIC. Go about your lives as usual, but be alert. We ask cooperation from the public on sighting of anything strange. Earthlings may have deployed small, six wheeled spy vehicles. If you see one, DO NOT APPROACH IT! Report it immediately to MDF command so that it can be properly destroyed. We thank you for your help."
"This is a picture of one of the Earthling spy vehicles. It may look harmless. I personally don't see how such tiny wheels could be expected to get past the first chuck hole. Despite appearances, keep your distance! We believe cameras are mounted at the top of the pole. Stay opposite the lenses so the Earthlings will not see you!"
(As Spirit takes it's first tenative roll, a crowd of curious Martians follows behind, being careful to keep behind the lenses. "Ooh, look at that". "Mommy, why is it looking at that rock?". "I don't know, Kermie, let's just watch". "I have a better rock, should I put it in front of it?". "Shhh....". Meanwhile, back at the JPL... "Any sign of life yet?". "Nah, nothin". "Maybe we should try that big rock, over there...")
[http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?u … 6;t=000807]http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?u … 6;t=000807
that's right there is no dark side per se on the moon, but a side that never see the earth and is free of earth radio and light interferences. I think it's called, maybe improperly, the "dark side of the moon".
Sorry. That term is one of my few pet peeves....
Call it the far side, as opposed to the near side. Call it the away side. Call it the back side. But don't call it the dark side.
Please.
Thank you.
OK, i give you an interferometer on the dark side of the moon, that's real science, really useful, and could be automatically controlled without human presence.
Um....
Just a quick heads up. There is no dark side of the moon.
1. Have you ever tried to track the exact chemical reactions that go on in a chloroplast? That is where photosynthesis happens.
2. Have you ever tried to trace the exact chemical reactions that build a chloroplast from a strand of DNA? I have, and I think a nuclear reactor is simpler.
1. No, but you might enjoy this thread:
http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?u … 3;t=000952
In fact, you might enjoy that whole board. It has some very interesting threads about the highly intelligent design of life. Here's another link about the machines of life:
http://www.doegenomestolife.org/program/goal1.html
And one on IBM's attempt to reverse engineer life:
http://www.research.ibm.com/FunGen/
2. Okay. You're most likely correct in your comparison. God's incredible design, assembly and programming of life is far beyond human capability. However I only mentioned nuclear power as an example of human technology.
The idea of trying to terraform Mercury is so fraught with difficulties it's hard to know where to start.
Exactly. It does, however, make a very interesting idea for a good sci-fi author.
Tourists and explorers could provide another avenue of income. It's probably safe to assume there will be plenty of people who will want to visit Mars or test their mettle out in the Martian badlands.
I like this idea very much, but we need to develop faster transportation to Mars and back before this is feasible.
And, of course, the cost really needs to come down.
Then you have the health risks, although faster trips to Mars and back would reduce that problem somewhat. We need to start moving on getting some artificial gravity on a trip of that distance.
A fission reactor seams pretty simple to me.
hmmm
Okay. Do you also claim space travel is easy?
And nuclear power plants aren't 'easy' because the nuclear concept isn't 'easy.' Fission doesn't exist naturally (ie, in animals) with large scale energy production, and fusion has only been observed naturally in stars (and in fact, we have yet to be able to accomplish fusion in the lab). Nuclear power is a concept born in the intelligence of humans. It's going to be complex. But this point is moot, I think.
Perhaps I failed to make the connection for you. A nuclear power plant is not "easy" due to high technolody in a similar way as space travel will never be "easy" just because we happen to have high technology.
Getting off Earth is much too expensive right now. Sending a team of humans to Mars is out of the question based on cost, not to mention the health concerns.
How about BBC-style exploration series and Mars real-life setting adventure sitcoms, etc. beamed back to Earth for commercial entertainment?
Great idea!
I doubt it will ever happen though....
Anyway, I quite agree with you on this particular argument; technology will make colonizing space possible, and easy.
I don't think so. It's not helpful to be overly simplistic. Space is a hostile environment.
Has high technology made nuclear power plants easy?
"The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me."
In a universe with finite resources, there will always be poor, I agree.
But that doesn't mean there will be poverty. :;):
I fail to see the distinction you seem to be trying to make....
What % of the world do you think is in poverty right now?
Communists had a vision of eliminating poverty by making everyone in their society "equal". We can see how well that worked in the USSR.
1. I feel insulted by GOMs inapproprate introduction of religion into an otherwise scientific discussion.
2. If you really want to be fundamentalist, there is no martian future, just the apocalypse. Such superstitious hogwash.
3. I remain firm. Advances in technology will make the future far richer than it has already! Compare today to the year 1900. We are fabulously wealthy by comparison, thanks to technology.
4. As for God, He has no place on this thread.
1. No need to leap into feeling insulted. After all, it was you who introduced "voodoo economics.
2. I'm a Christian who would like to see us have an actual manned space program, instead of the joke we have now. I've even volunteered to go to Mars myself, if NASA could get me there safely. That's how curious I am to explore Mars.
3. That depends, my young friend. Have you taken a look at the national debt lately?! Wealth is not measured by how many electronic toys you have. We are so broke we cannot afford to send a manned exploration to Mars.
4. Sadly, many in America don't want to give God a place in our country or in their own lives. Since God created the whole universe I see no reason to leave Him out of a Mars discussion. However, since you claim to be offended I will drop it in this thread.
Peace.
But as many of you know, I do not accept the economic forecasts of the space elevator people. We just cannot run enough elevator cars fast enough to get the economies of scale needed to get the costs as low as is being hyped. Besides, elevators will cost more than is being hyped.
Not that we shouldn't start building one, ASAP!
Then why build one???
Won't we just end up with another ISS style of black hole for money?
And do we even have the technology to build such a thing?
Or am I missing a joke here?