New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#5851 Re: Space Policy » US public opposed to spending money on human Mars missions » 2015-07-17 06:37:01
The problem with all space ventures to date has been the failure to establish permanent colonies. In fact, if you look at the ISS as a kind of "special" permanent colony, the ISS I think gets a lot of public support (as well as doing a lot of good science).
If there were a permanent colony on Mars, attitudes to funding would change - not that you would actually need NASA funding beyond the initial development phase in my view.
#5852 Re: Unmanned probes » New Horizons - mission to Pluto and the Kupier belt » 2015-07-16 06:27:07
It has "more" water...yes - it's just in the wrong place (i.e. another 8.5 years away).
Mars is clearly the place to go. I've nothing against Pluto exploration and its eventual colonisation but we have to learn to walk before we run.
VMCF - Viable Mars colony first.
Some advantages Pluto has over Mars, is it has more water, it has more nitrogen, more oxygen, more methane, in fact it woud probably be hard to get to material that wasn't frozen ices, unless one looks for meteors. Gravity on Pluto is 0.06 G, a person standing on Pluto would weigh a little over one twentieth what he weighs on Earth, this is about one third of what an astronaut would weigh on the Moon. Probably centrifuges would be employed. Pluto would make a great stabilizer for an O'Neil Colony. A 1,000,000 ton structure would weigh 60,000 tons on pluto.
This would probably be what the interior of a Pluto colony would look like:
http://i.imgur.com/zeJCDzG.jpg
Notice the artificial sky above with fake clouds, illumination would also be artificial either powered by nuclear fission or fusion.
On the outside, it would look like this:
http://orig07.deviantart.net/3a5a/f/201 … 6knii8.jpg
this one doesn't rely on mirrors for illumination, instead a power plant provides the energy. Perhaps the gravity would be low enough to mount one of these on the planet's surface, perhaps on a mountain top. otherwise it could just orbit the planet and send down shuttles to acquire construction material and fuel for a fusion reactor.For a surface habitat, you can probably dispense with the radiator panel, as the planet Pluto itself would make a great heat sink!
#5853 Re: Unmanned probes » New Horizons - mission to Pluto and the Kupier belt » 2015-07-15 04:49:36
We have been teasted by the early images and such but in the coming days we will be in awe.....as even more details are made public.
Your comment prompts a reflection:
I am struck by just how much, as with Mars, so with their presentation of their Pluto data, so NASA are completely lacking in focus.
They built up the media ballyhoo over several days for what? well, for a single, solitary photo.
You go to their website, encouraged by news reports, and instead of any live coverage or discussion, you get old background stuff.
For all its technological prowess, NASA seem incapable of communicating well with the public or maintaining focus on what they are doing.
The truth is, if you really want to explore the solar system, then get off this planet and get to Mars. Establish a viable colony on another planet. Everything else will flow from that.
#5854 Re: Human missions » JPL Mars mission proposal » 2015-07-02 04:06:04
We also have all the analog stations that Nasa and Mars Society run that could be gear a little better for answering the very question that we need hardware for when we do go to Mars....
Personally, I've always felt if you were doing a - let's say - $20 billion mission it would be worth creating a Mars Analog Base which would have a pressurised "atmosphere" (Mars "air" at low Mars pressure) large warehouse with Mars analog regolith, Mars sol cycle for night and day, PV cells, Mars-style wind effects, and a separate section for an analog exploration (like a flight simulator with the Mars Rover on rollers). It might cost $100 million but it would be worth it in terms of training. It could take a couple of years to build, but you would then have a fantastic training facility. That could be followed up by analog missions to the Moon testing the crew ability to set up base after a long 6-8 months flight. A 10 year mission programme would allow for this.
#5855 Human missions » JPL Mars mission proposal » 2015-06-30 17:03:37
- louis
- Replies: 36
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … lanet.html
Any thoughts on this?
#5856 Re: Human missions » Sponsorship for a Mars mission » 2015-06-23 14:26:06
Just about everything in the UK is sponsored - from arts, to science, to charities, to sport. I think the same applies in the USA.
The closest thing that I can think of what you are thinking of is with Race cars, which are put forth by the auto manufacturers with the cars drivers getting the sponsors to pay for the vehicle used on the track that is developed by the auto manufacturer.
#5857 Re: Human missions » Mars Missions comparison » 2015-06-22 18:24:58
If anyone would like to suggest a mission plan for analysis, please let me know...
#5858 Re: Human missions » Sponsorship for a Mars mission » 2015-06-21 16:03:07
Doesn't sound like the prohibition on NASA receiving advertising funding wouldn't apply to an international Space X led mission, to which NASA contributed financially or in kind.
SpaceNut wrote:Nasa and others already have the internet ect and there is hardly a peep; with the only reason that missions to the moon was part of the cold war propoganda and national pride being televised ....
What does this mean? Yes, in the late 1950s and throughout the 1960s, it was about winning allies. The Soviet Union started their space program in 1946. Soviet officials told their scientists they could launch a satellite if they build an ICBM. Everyone knows about Sputnik, launched in 1957 on a Soviet ICBM. The message to the world was they could drop a nuclear bomb anywhere on the planet. But they started much earlier. The first dog in space was a suborbital hop, launched in 1951. The Soviets designed Sputnik to transmit a signal that amateur ham radio could receive so American authorities couldn't hide it from the public. The American public was under the delusion that America has technological superiority, so was shocked when Sputnik started beeping. But reality is America didn't do anything with rockets other than intermediate range ballistic missiles, so the Soviets were ahead from 1951. The America public demanded that their government regain superiority, and they had great difficulty considering the Soviets had superiority throughout the 1950s. In fact, every time America tried to do something first in space, the Soviets beat them to it. Apollo 8 was the first time America pulled ahead. So yea, the space race was about propaganda. And once Apollo 11 was achieved, American politicians were no longer interested.
Today there's another problem: American law prohibits NASA from gaining any funding from advertising. At the 2005 Mars Society convention, there were employees from NASA. I mentioned to a few of them my idea of a reality show to replace the space toilet. They said NASA is prohibited form receiving funding from advertising, so Congress would have to give them a special exception to do that. NASA today does have a lot of media coverage: TV news, internet, everything. But they can't use commercial advertising to pay for anything.
#5859 Re: Human missions » Sponsorship for a Mars mission » 2015-06-21 05:32:25
The advetising budgets are there to encourage increased product sales and are not a funding for the sport or other activity that they show up on as the main thing at all of the events is there products that are on sale for the patron that has gone to see the event.
So how do we get the same effect when these sponsors have no venue location or event for them to get these increased sales from...
It's not really about the venue location - it's all about being seen on TV, on the internet and in printed media. They are looking for the saturation effect. That's what you would get with a Mars Mission, because such a mission would be news at regular intervals and could also be used in spin-off advertsiting.
However, they aren't going to back anything other than a very credible mission e.g. one driven by Space X.
Mind you, I am not sure if Space X are in the driving seat that commercial sponsorshop will be necessary. Space X could maybe fund a - let's say $20billion mission over 10 years - through its own profits and by getting space agencies on board (beginning of course with NASA).
My point really is that although a figure like $20 billion sounds huge, when you spread that over 10 years, it becomes imaginable and manageable.
#5860 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Airbus ADELINE vs. SpaceX Falcon R » 2015-06-13 16:20:17
Hi Quaoar:
That's an interesting concept Airbus came up with. It addresses the severe technical difficulties of doing full stage recovery by just recovering the most expensive part. You give up some on your financial return to solve the easier technical problem.
Airbus is at the model stage, while Spacex is now making full scale flight attempts. The jury is out who might succeed first. I rather suspect we'll see various concepts from multiple companies, now that Spacex has gotten as far as it has. Launch prices are only as low as they, because of Spacex.
So far their lower prices have derived from solving the issue of simpler, cheaper logistics in manufacture, preparation, and launch. They will be hard to beat if they succeed at reusing stages.
GW
My money's on Space X. Sounds like Airbus are just playing in the sandpit.
#5861 Re: Terraformation » Terraforming Generalized » 2015-06-11 19:54:40
I certainly agree that Mars is by far the best candidate to hand!
I think that Terraforming is to build a environment that when completely built is stable or near stable without extra efforts (for example, enough to exists by thousand of years without new human intervention) that allow a human and/or other Earth macroscopical life forms to live and thrive without need of assisted technologies (so, they can breath, radiation is below danger levels and solar light and day is tolerable).
If the enviroment is not stable and technology is always required to exists we are on the paraterraforming domain. For example, if Venus require and permanent soleta to be "terraformed", then Venus is partially paraterraformed and fully terraforming is never achieved.
Perhaps neither Mars and Venus couldn't be completely terraformed in the sense of be completely selfsustained without further human intervention. Mars is the most promising because with the correct changes, atmosphere could be stable by thousand of years. Solar is enough, and with enough thick atmosphere, temperature and radiation shielding should be ok.Venus has a bad day duration and change rotation of Venus requires an enormous energy far beyond current technology.
So Venus would require some tricks like mirrors that move Venus outside full terraforming.
#5862 Re: Human missions » Mars Missions comparison » 2015-06-11 17:35:41
Reposting this as I have updated the link.
The comparison document now includes Space X's proposals.
If you wish to add in details of other mission proposals, follow the format set out in the post above.
#5863 Re: Terraformation » Terraforming Generalized » 2015-06-11 10:30:02
It's true that much of Earth is not really human-habitable. But I think terraforming as generally understood does mean creating human-friendly earth-like planets (or minor planets if you prefer). No doubt the term could be extended to clusters of asteroids.
I accept surface water is not an essential but it is a by-product of creating a human-friendly temperature zone over much of the target-planet, since ice melts or steam condenses in that range. Also, terraforming is not just about creating a functional habitat - it is also about creating a beautiful home, or if you prefer one that works well with our individual and mass psyhcology. Surface water also has great utility in allowing heavy goods, particular raw materials to be moved long distances around a planet and kind provide hydro-energy, otherwise not available.
Transhumanising of people may make the habitable range greater e.g. giving people artificial gills would make huge parts of our planet - in seas, lakes and rivers habitable.
However, we start where we are. Mars is "doable" - it can be made a lot more Earth-like with existing technologies e.g. nuclear reactors to heat the regolith and increase the gases, particular oxygen, in the environment or by spreading black ash over the poles to increase infrared absorption.
louis wrote:karov wrote:"terraforming", "to terraform" - production of (about) 1G surface flooded under (about) 1 Bar (breathable) atmosphere
---
is that OK?I wouldn't say so. I think it would be to produce, through human action, an earth-like planet (not a facsimile). So - a planet in an earth like temperature age, with substantial surface water and with sufficient oxygen/density in the atmosphere to allow humans to breathe without artificial equipment.
I think the assumption is that 1/3 gravity will be sufficient for the colonists (maybe with weighted suits).
Okay.
<< Through a human action >> what about fully automated SRS ( self-replicating system ) (or replicator-constructor) ?
<< earth-like planet >> Planet? Or environment in general? "Terraforming" a meteoroid swarm, host of small bodies ( under planemo threshold of rounding itself under self-gravity) or even pre-stellar nebulae or proplyds ... into artificial planets OR rotating habitats is more like terraforming "empty space". Orrrr ... using fusors ( active stars or stellar remnants ) as supra-mundane habitats underbody is NOT planetary terraforming per se, if we stick to "planetary chauvinism". Imagine the Sun with several million layers with Earth-optimal or supra-optimal trillion Earth-surfaces equivalent of walkable area -- is then the Sun terraformed or not, simply because it is not a "planet"? Or smaller planemos with natural surface gravity of several %s gees - with stuck in them conical habitats ... are they terraformed, or terraform is the inner surface of the embedded rotating habitat?
<< temperature >> - temperature ranges are (baseline) human-centric. Many non-Earth-like environments are livable by humans for different (sufficient) periods.
<< substantial surface water >> -- not necessary AT ALL!
<< athmosphere >> -- OK, human breathable but this gives us a myriad / zillion of gaseous and LIQUID coctails combinations!
<< surface gravity >> -- depends on what is the (long term) healthy (unaided by prosthetics) gees are. "(about) 1G" - I meant the (long term) liveable by unchanged and unaided humans min. and max. - 0.3 to 3G ??
Also:: with all factors combined - atmosphere, gravity, temperature, etc. etc. in fact most if not all of EARTH itself is not human's habitable. We are aided by tech to survive even in our urbanized / homes space - clothes, glasses, shoes, heating, aircons, walking sticks ...
So human-habitable would have ( similar to the philosophy of http://www.plantlab.nl/ for plants - modify the environment to fit best the specific species, but not the vice versa - modify the organism to be tailored to the environment - which is the easier and most robust approach ) the outlook of REALLY VAST combinatorial space of all possible combinations of environment factors / specs /, like a mountain which slopes provide for nearly infinite number of human-habitable environments and a single peak of optimality amidst an infinite flat fields of deadliness. Perhaps slightly individual.
This will give us an "one look up table" tool to review, weight, assess environs vs optimality and modication-ness and aided-ness of humans.:
0.2 Gees, -100 Celsius, 90 mB partial oxygen, 5 Bars OR 2.1 gees, +50 Celsius, 250mB O2, 0.5 Bars ... medium is deadly for naked human in minutes, but slightly aided with 1 000 000 BC level of technology is OK.
Each environment thus will have ADDRESS in the massive multi-dimensional manifold of all possible spaces.
Address for naked, unmodified, un-aided human or for ... other variations. ...
#5864 Re: Terraformation » Terraforming Generalized » 2015-06-10 14:45:41
"terraforming", "to terraform" - production of (about) 1G surface flooded under (about) 1 Bar (breathable) atmosphere
---
is that OK?
I wouldn't say so. I think it would be to produce, through human action, an earth-like planet (not a facsimile). So - a planet in an earth like temperature range, with substantial surface water and with sufficient oxygen/density in the atmosphere to allow humans to breathe without artificial equipment.
I think the assumption is that 1/3 gravity will be sufficient for the colonists (maybe with weighted suits).
#5865 Re: Not So Free Chat » [Movie] The Martian » 2015-06-10 14:41:35
I saw the trailers, and was really excited! An astronaut on Mars, has to learn to survive living by his wits. Using what he has to live off the land on Mars. We have had long discussions on this forum, how to do that. It sounds great! Exciting! Then louis had to poke holes in it.
Ok, the trailer has some issues. The trailer says the astronaut has to survive 4 years in a hab designed for 31 days. How could any Mars mission last only 31 days? Orbits of planets Earth and Mars around the Sun are what they are. You can't change planetary orbits. How would any mission plan work with only 31 day surface stay? Then there's a Hollywood excuse for an early evacuation. How do you depart early? Again planetary orbits are what they are, you can't leave until the launch window. Then there's the hab itself. The trailer shows a cylindrical space with a dome ceiling about the size of the upper floor of Mars Direct, but with no walls or partitions. And that's just one room, there are at least two tunnels shown to even more space. How big is the Mars surface thing? Then there's the interplanetary transit vehicle (ITV). Can you say "Battlestar Galactica"?
http://chapters.marssociety.org/winnipeg/MartianITV.jpg
The storyline didn't sound too inspiring to me.
I think if I was looking at a similar script I'd go for a small starter colony - based loosely on Musk's ideas - with some rogue member who is out to sabotage things...maybe a religious nutjob with an ideological objection, or maybe working for a rival outfit. Anyway...I think that would be more interesting than just watching one guy try to survive. The truth about Mars is that without technology you can't survive. So it would just be a question of much technology he has access to. It's not really the stuff of drama.
#5866 Human missions » Sponsorship for a Mars mission » 2015-06-10 06:13:45
- louis
- Replies: 9
I was just doing some reading up on advertising budgets.
Coca Cola's advertising budget in 2013 was over $3 billion per annum!
I really think we are underestimating the potential for harnessing such budgets to fund a Mars Mission.
It's really a chicken and egg problem. All that is required is a credible mission strategy - something Space X could provide.
If we were looking for say $5billion of commercial sponsorship over ten years to help fund a mission, I think we could be looking at the following sort of break down PER ANNUM over the ten years:
1. Top soft drinks sponsor (e.g. Coca Cola) - $150 million
2. Top IT sponsor (e.g. Apple) - $75 million
3. Sports goods (e.g. Nike) - $50million
4. Top private vehicle sponsor (e.g. Toyota) - $50 million
6. Top haulage vehicle - $ 25 million
7. Power tools - $25 million
8. Top beer sponsor - $25 million
9. Other product categories - $100 million
In return sponsors would get their labels on all aspects of the mission (including the rockets), livery colours and badging for things like the Rover, and the crews' shoes...product placement in the habitat environment...labels featuring at news conferences etc and the right to use the Mars Mission logo etc in their advertising.
The above wouldn't include TV rights (for news and documentaries which could be negotiated separately).
#5867 Re: Not So Free Chat » [Movie] The Martian » 2015-06-09 19:14:04
Looks like a load of old hokum, but anything that might raise public interest in Mars is good.
This one totally slipped under my radar. Looks like we're going to have a Martian blockbuster this November:
#5868 Re: Not So Free Chat » Dinosaurs » 2015-06-08 04:52:24
This is "Free Chat". Just saw a documentary about dinosaurs, and re-run of "Jurassic Park". Build up to "Jurassic World" opening this Friday. The documentary said Jurassic Park got a lot right, but some things wrong. For one, the movie depiction of velociraptor was a combination of two real dinosaurs. The real velociraptor was smaller, about the size of a dog. Steven Spielberg liked the name, but wanted something the size of a person. The real dinosaur that size was Deinonychus. The other issue was raptors had feathers. Tyrannosaurus Rex had skin, paleontologists found a skin impression. So that one was correct. But the documentary said the movie even got one detail of Tyrannosaurus wrong: it ran about 16 miles per hour, not as fast as a cheetah. Still, a 10 ton roadrunner from hell. Wikipedia says 18 mph, and 6.8 metric tonnes (7.5 short tons). Meh! Close enough. They found fossils of velociraptor with impressions of feathers. All raptors had feathers. Modern recreation of velociraptor:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … noguy2.jpgThis got me thinking. South America had a terror bird before Central America joined north to south. Then animals could migrate between the two continents. Mammal predators migrated south, out competed terror bird. Paleontologists claim that dinosaurs were dangerous, but if birds evolved from raptors, and terror birds of South America survived until wolves and jaguars arrived, then how bad were they? Scientific name for terror birds is Phorusrhacidae:
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/4715 … acidae.png
I remember David Attenborough saying that had things played out a little differently Big Birds (which in case are evolved from dinosaurs) could have ruled the world.
In terms of who is more "dangerous" things are not always they seem. The water buffalo in Africa can kill lions - although lions often predate young or weak buffalo.
#5869 Re: Human missions » Yet another Mars architecture » 2015-06-07 14:23:45
Presumably manned landings will be occurring at sites that have been selected because of extensive study. Even now we have the ability to spot the wheel tracks of the Mars rovers and the vehicles themselves, so we have a pretty good idea about surface roughness. If each landing site already has a lander with supplies, it would be worth it to send along a small rover--perhaps the size of Spirit and Opportunity--to explore the site. There are also ideas about "tumbleweed" rovers that let the wind roll them around, and balloon rovers that can acquire low-level aerial views. So there are a lot of ways to select virtually boulder-free landing sites. Software that already exists can determine where the vehicle is relative to all local obstacles; it can even recognize uncharted obstacles. This is especially true if a Martian GPS system is set up.
I agree entirely RobS. The difference from the lunar programme will be the extend of pre-knowledge about the landing site.
I would think we would be looking at a identifying a landing zone of 10 sq. miles (for the landing of supplies etc) and within that - following, as you say, robot rover mapping - a landing area (maybe 100mx100m) for the landing craft. The robot rover should also have the ability to clear large rocks from that landing area.
With transponders placed in the landing area an accurate landing should be 100% assured.
#5870 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Mars Economic Activity » 2015-06-07 04:58:16
There is some work on selective laser 3D printing
Lots of Mars analog site stuff in this report
http://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/annuals/2 … pisces.pdf
That's an interesting doc I must read in more detail. I have always been interested in use of basalt to make useful objects on Mars e.g. kitchen vessels and utensils, some farm tools etc. Using basalt dust in 3D printers could be a good way forward.
#5871 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Mars Economic Activity » 2015-06-05 18:27:00
For construction materials, iron is available by simply reducing the iron oxides found on surface. How about Graphene? Using solar energy to make graphene and graphene oxides from the CO2 atmospheres and ice cap. Is the Martian low gravity an advantage for their manufacture. Also these allotropes and compounds will be used and manufactured in bulk amount anyway for construction on Mars so a surplus would be sold to earth industries.
A larger perspective is taking advantage of the lower gravity and thinner atmosphere on Mars for new and exotic manufacturing by robots. Then you have carbon steel, graphene, chlorine oxides and percarbonate as bleaches, silicones, silicon-based semiconductor for CPU etc.
An important perspective on all this is that the Mars colony will be tiny to begin with so Earth can afford to lavish resources on the human population. Processes that on Earth might be considered ruinously expensive will be perfectly economical in terms of developing a Mars colony.
#5872 Human missions » Mars Missions comparison » 2015-06-01 18:09:02
- louis
- Replies: 3
NOTE: Edited to update document (now includes Space X).
As promised some time ago (!) I've begun a Mars Mission comparison document which people might find useful -
http://www.docdroid.net/137mm/mars-miss … f.pdf.html
[NOTE: You have to click "view PDF" in the top right hand of the page to view it properly]
So far it's only got Mars One, Boeing and (my own) Fast Track to Mars.
If anyone wants to post analyses here of any other proposals, I will be happy to include them in the document and I intend to do some more myself (beginning with Space X). All you have to do is summarise the mission under the following headings in a post here and I will add it into the document:
1. Mission Size (Number of people to be landed)
2. Pre-Mission content (e.g. demonstrations, communications satellites, and pre-landing of equipment etc).
3. Launch details (how many launches, when, how much tonnage etc)
4. Transit to Mars (details of transit arrangements)
5. EDL/ascent and return
6. Energy and life support (what will be the energy source and how will life be maintained)
7. Mission Content (what will the people do on Mars)
8. Cost and income analysis (what would be the cost and who would fund it)
9. Other aspects (any other aspects of interest).
#5873 Re: Human missions » Yet another Mars architecture » 2015-06-01 17:37:17
kbd512 wrote:Well, we still don't have ISPP, CL-ECLSS, and active radiation shielding in mid 2015.
Robert Zubrin argued to go to Mars with life support available at that time. NASA wanted 95% closed oxygen and water recycling, but Robert Zubrin argued if we wait for that then it'll be the 21st century before we're ready to go! Well, it is the 21st century now. And I've argued that the system on ISS, with addition of just a few components, is enough.
Specific additions:
- zero-G shower and "sink" to wash hands. Skylab had a shower, and a "sink" that looks like a glove box. The water processing assembly on ISS is able to process wash water. All we need is something to collect wash water.
- toilet to recover moisture from solid human waste. I've already posted about this several times.
- direct CO2 electrolysis, to recover O2 from CO2 that can't be processed by Sabatier. Currently that CO2 is dumped in space. The ISPP Precursor on the Mars 2001 lander did that. That lander was rebuilt to become Phoenix. The ISPP Precursor was removed.
- methane pyrolysis to recover hydrogen from methane produced from the Sabatier. That hydrogen can be recycled into the Sabatier.
- laundry
I thought hygiene is dealt mostly by moist wipes these days in space? A shower would be nice but that can wait till they get to Mars. We can ensure a tonne or more of water is pre-landed on Mars. With waste water processing, the amount of water needing to be carried could be pretty minimal for the transit flight - maybe less than a tonne on a 3 person flight. However we may need more water for use as a radiation barrier.
#5874 Re: Space Policy » The Outer Space Treaty » 2015-05-25 08:19:32
No, it really doesn't. "Supervise" means making sure rockets don't fall on peoples heads.
Again, a state can't license tracts of land *unless it possesses sovereignty*. If America were to license out parcels of Antarctica, they wouldn't be able to say, "oh, but we're not really claiming sovereignty, only exercising it".
Coming back to this thread, I don't see state responsibilities are limited to rocket launches. This provision would include things like maybe a private company building nuclear bombs in space. The signatories would be expected to supervise such activities (i.e. in that case, not allow them to take place).
Implicit in the idea of exploration and use is the idea of bases, landing sites and resource utilisation. Signatories have an implicit responsibility to ensure all private enterprises coming under their aegis operate these in a responsible, (as far as possible) non-hazardous manner (so as to fulfil the "supervision" requirement).
It is perfectly reasonable for signatory states to institute licensing system in colonies where not to do so would result in potential threat to life and property.
#5875 Re: Human missions » Mars Mission. Step 1 » 2015-05-19 09:48:21
Aldrin is a great guy - always sends the right message out. 
Personally, though, I think it can be done in 10 years from a standing start, if we were to allocate 20% of NASA/ESA/JSA budgets.