New Mars Forums

I think a Russian-European mission. (voted 'ínternational')

That's that typical American way of putting things forward. The Shuttle is grounded, only the Soyuz can fly 'thanks to us', NASA says. America had no long duration in space program. They put some astronauts in Mir. 'Thanks to our fee Mir is more succesfull'.

Do not understand me wrong: ESA and Russia are sleeping.They hold their hand to America by asking guidance, technology and other kinds of support. America is fond of this and sets it's points. Europe will launch a Spacelab? OK. The shuttle that takes it up will contain 5 NASA-astronauts and just one ESA. Agree or not.

You can state there are some records broken, some not, but this exactly is the point. America has not broken all records, so they're not solely on top. Energia, duration record, that are no futilities. Even the ISS is yet crewed by Russian Soyuzes, NASA-funded, maybe, but still reliable Russian technology. Russia talking about a new Soyuz? So what does NASA do for years and years? About new crewed space vehicles, not? Is this really the time a change will happen? We'll watch.

About ESA's technology: Europe has technically the same potentials as America, no doubt. But ESA's program is very slight in comparison with NASA, something I consider as a pity. But this is a matter of choice, yet the wrong choice is still made by ESA, IMO. The positions can change within 10 years, if ESA goes for it.

I calculate the parabolic transfer time, just to get the bottom-line transfer-time for an elliptical orbit. Then I check my determined transfer-time, by guessed date's, and solve Lambert's Theorem iteratively backward. Then I get the two angles, that characterize an Lambertian transfer, and can also calculate the velocity-vectors of departure and arrival. Simply subtracting the vectors from the velocity-vectors of the planets give the delta-v.

But your suggestion to put some things in graphics, I think that will be the best solution. But I'm really surprised that I can't find more information about that cheaper Hohmann-II orbits. I should think even NASA uses this orbits frequently.

BTW the web-site you mentioned contains really much interesting orbital mechanics information. Maybe when I surf through it I'll find the clue. :laugh:

I just think my point is rather clear. I'm rather glad you show more interest in biblical issues then much people I encounter.

But that's the point: You can not simply state that some yellow light is '' added'. The psysical properties of light are more complicated to just correct in this way.

Take the example of a thermometer: When calibrated at some point as zero, this will not garantee that the point 100 (or whatever) is also calibrated. When you calibrate two points, in case of a thermometer, it works well, because the shrinking of the mercury is linear with decreasing temperature. But with thermocouples this is also not the case, so you have to correct over a wide range of values.
Even then we are talking about a 1-dimensional property, not a 3-dimensional like color.

The color-calibration with Venera and Viking was less accurate then was the case with the recently landed Rovers. It doesn't really change the point. Principally it's impossible to reproduce the 'right' color, practically the Rovers do it quite accurate (I think), even more than the Vikings or Veneras.

This sounds interesting. I looked for explanation about Kalman-filters, but so soon I could not understand. Is it possible to tell it in short?
Do you have in mind low-thrust or high-thrust-propulsion by electric engines, eg solar-electric or nuclear-electric? That interests me.

Let's discuss about the technical issue, not (only) the commercial one.

It seems NASA can set the goals and make the timeframe for space-exploration.

IMO ESA and RSA should more work together independent of NASA. The potentials of this kind of working together are big. NASA is not the type of institution to listen to others, especially not to listen to non-americans, to develop their plans. More than once they cancelled late in projects with ESA parts of their contribution (eg Ulysses). When I look at the very limited possibilities of Europeans to fly with the NASA and I compare it with what was possible with Russia, then I sometimes don't understand ESA's NASA-mindednes.
Western-Europe was first brought in space by the Sowjet-Union (France).

Russia's costs are lower, so one more reason for ESA to cooperate more with Russia.

NASA should keep this in mind! :laugh:

What has happened in the past (evolution, creation, whatever) makes no sense to the science and technology as it is yet. I've mentioned the example of orbital mechanics: If Mars began existing hundred or trillions of years ago, that doesn't make any difference for the orbit it goes, taken the perceptions of it's velocity and radius this is determined.
Eg when life is found on Mars, it doesn't say anything about it's origin, it could be created or evoluated. Nobody can build an experimental universe to test the cosmological and evolutional hypotheses that are worked with today.

That's my point, and beside that there are much problems with the theories developed, there exist different variants, and so on. This are reasons that I feel free to hold an other belief about the origin of the universe.

For calculating on orbital mechanics, experimental design for detecting life, and so on, it doesn't make any difference.

I don't want to be pedantic to Newton or anybody. I don't understand your point in this case.

Cryogenity in  space?

There has been experience with that IR-telescope (don´t know it´s name yet).

IMO when ESA and  RSA work toggether, theree is really no problem. ESA has it´s own DSN and experience with inteerplanetary probes. OK,  the Beagle hasn´t landed, but keep in mind  succesful projects like Ulysses and Giotto. Also Russia has beautiful succeses by projects like  Vega and  Luna sample return missions.

Combining ESA and RSA will really make good possibilities. Kourou is the best launch site for low-inclination-orbits. By launching an Energia in LEO, I think you can put nearly  250  tons in  orbit. Yet, unfortunately, the Ariane 5 is expensive and  somewhat untrustable, but the Ariane-4 was a big commercial succes!!  This shows the potentials are big.

The only question is: Will the ESA-country´s stimulate more their spaceflight than it is yet  the case? It´s a matter of choice, not of technical possibilities or economic situation.
:laugh:

No.

However, Galileo did this in Jupiter nearly ten years ago.

The point I'd like to make is that it doesn't bother what kind of vision is kept about the origin of Mars, the Earth, whatever. You are interested in Mars or not. It's true, I know creationists that are opponents of human spaceflights, but there are also non-believers who are. I myself consider Mars as made by God about 6000 years ago. Sounds really not very scientific, but keep in mind even people like Newton, whose laws are the basic of orbital mechanics, held this position, and he was surely not the only one. I just feel free to believe it and these days theories about evolution or cosmology are not as stable as is many times suggested.

A creationist view is not autimatically against space-flight. Especially not in my case.