New Mars Forums

We need President Bush to open is damned mouth and support the policy he proposed nearly 8 months ago. THAT'S what we need.

Well, it looks like it's going to be tough for NASA to get going, since it's budget has just been cut.

"NASA is funded at $15.1 billion, $229 million below last year and $1.1 billion below the request. The bulk of these savings come from the elimination of funding for new initiatives. The reductions include $30 million for technology maturation efforts; $230 million from Project Prometheus related to Jupiter Icy Moon Orbital; $438 million resulting from delaying the Crew Exploration Vehicle; and $100 million from Space Launch Initiatives by accelerating the termination of activities. The bill fully funds shuttle operations at the requested level of $4.3 billion. The committee fully funds Mars programs at the requested level of $691 million. "
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.htm … ?pid=14633

Personally, I found it quite amusing how they emphasized communist before China.

... In Communist China, inflatable space station buys you ... 

But in all seriousness, you do make an excellent point. Recycling systems will obviously play a very important role in early missions, and moreso later when a base is established. There is no point to bring fertilizer for the greenhouse when your crew can just produce it on spot.

Houston: Guys, you need to fertilize the plants.
Mars Crew: Right now?
Houston: Yes. This very moment. You've been eating a lot of fiber, right?

Sorry. I couldn't stay serious for long.

Just imagine the day when you can hop on a Scaled Composites orbital craft and head up for a week vacation inside an orbiting Bigelow hotel...all without ever touching a piece of government hardware. I don't think this scenario is too far off.   

Who knows, at this rate, private companies might beat NASA back to the moon. That is of course assuming that the jump from sub-orbital to orbital happens very soon. You know, Heinlein said, "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere in the solar system."

These are definitely exciting times we live in.

Can you imagine it? "Daddy, are we there yet?" for six months. The horror!

Clark, I think you make an interesting point regarding medical pre-screenings and preventative surgeries. Having an entire crew with the same blood type may seem like a good idea, but the question that arises is "where do we stop?" How stringent should the criteria be for a human crew to Mars? Given the state of medical technology and knowledge today, versus earlier periods of exploration in history, would it be unethical to not put in place some basic medial requirements?

You've definitely given us something to think about and although this is hardly the same thing as genetic modification, I can't help but be reminded of the movie Gattaca, in which a certain genetic profile was required for people who wished to travel in space.

The only problem, Cobra, is that these people seem to get the most attention by the media. Editorials which praise the new plan and pledge their full support are never printed. They don't generate  enough 'interest.'

It seems like it is going to be an uphill battle to get the initiative underway - starting with the members of Congress, who, oddly enough, call for a new vision for NASA and then once one exists, drag their feet and say 'well, this is nice. But, when I said 'vision' I didn't actually want something that would require money.' God forbid they take some money from our half trillion dollar defense budget. They need to understand that settling space is our best defense against annihilation.  If America has assets off-world, then we're effectively invincible.

Okay. Enough of my pedantic diatribe.

(requires registration)
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opin … space.html

Text:

Since when had the moon become a "normal boundary" in human spacee exploration? If I'm not mistaken, I don't believe any human has been beyond LEO for the past 30 years. And better yet, we don't even have the technical capability to do it again at the moment.

Is the author aware of the $3 Billion pricetag of Cassini? (I'm not attacking Cassini at all, in fact, it's should yield amazing scientifc return). Granted, $3 billion is less than the new program would cost, but it's still a sizable chunk of funding that should be used elsewhere, according to the following statement.

The same tired, old arguement, eh? [sarcasm]Because of course, funds can just be arbitrarily transferred between government programs on the fly...[/sarcasm]

Lather, rinse, repeat.

He means the space station that currently is in shambles, houses two people who must work full-time to maintain it (forget about scientific research), and that is currently inaccessible by any American spacecraft...

When are these carbon copy editorials going to stop appearing? It's as if someone reads one, then decides to make the same arguement elsewhere just to see how similar they can make it.

I knew I had seen the legged-rover concept before! It is depicted by Pat Rawlings in Ben Bova's Welcome to Moonbase. Here are some images:

http://www.lehigh.edu/~cdf4/images/legg … jpg]Legged Rover

And here are some alternate designs.

http://www.lehigh.edu/~cdf4/images/sixw … ix-Wheeled Rover

http://www.lehigh.edu/~cdf4/images/thre … ee-Wheeled Rover

This next one I particularly like.
http://www.lehigh.edu/~cdf4/images/trea … pg]Treaded Rover

It may be comfortable, but comfort is not the only issue here. As previous posters have said, this thing would be incredibly complex to build. It looks like the legs are hydraulic. If it were on wheels, maybe, given enough time and money (neither of which are in abundance), but it has six legs! Imagine the "walking" pattern this thing would go through. It would take a lot of energy to power this and it probably wouldn't be very fast either.

Somehow I doubt this is actually under serious consideration. More than likely, a NASA employee stumbled upon some old 'wish list' plans and decided to post them for kicks. No engineer would seriously consider this at the present time.

Those would be the Rods and the Cones of the eye. The cones are responsible for seeing color and the rods for black and white, and the rods are also more sensitive to light than the cones. This is the reason that less advanced/evolved animals only see black and white. Besides, the more rods that are packed into your eye the higher resolution image you see.

I knew high school biology would serve a purpose.
Thank you Mr. Flynn  :;):