New Mars Forums

I think there was a thread about this already...

The long and short of it is that these people are full of crap, that their beam would require far too much electricity and fuel to produce on either end, and the beam may be deflected/dissapated by natural magnetic fields, if it could be focused over such a long distance at all. Oh, and if the beam pushes on way, the space station will be moved the other, and the beam will knock the firing station right out of orbit.

Sure they can do it for less money absolutely, but can they do it for a smaller portion of GDP? I doubt it. So "cheaper" is a relative term.

If they can do it for less money absolutely then they can defiantly do it for a smaller portion of the EU's GDP.

*shrugs* The EU would have to send an awful lot of money Russia's way without getting any of it back... I don't know if they will be that generous.

Perhaps. But Putin and Chirac would be foolish to let NASA return to the Moon first if a French-Russian mission can gte there sooner and cheaper.

Absolutely, and what kind of response can best be whipped up to such a development? An "O'Neillian" space-colony vision... or a "von Braunian" national pride response to beat them? "The French are going to beat us?" That alone has some usefulness. While I'm a firm believer that we must go into space to stay and live, I don't think we can realistically sell that vision without some intermediate steps. "O'Neillian" can evolve from "von Braunian" with a little prodding. A good space-race, if played well, can lay the groundwork for exactly the sort of vision we want. It takes time and pressure, but the indirect route is the most viable at this point.

Technology is only getting better. There are always solutions to problems and I think we need to shift the focus away from concentrating on the problems and toward concentrating on the solutions.

    GCNR is telling us to work up to a standard, not down to a price, which is highly commendable... GCNR seems to be telling us... that human space exploration is just not going to happen, it's all too hard or too expensive, so forget it!

...pin-point landings are perfectly possible and doable, and I agree with them. Radiation shielding technology, e.g. Demron, is advancing, and using the mission's water supplies and a radiation storm shelter have all been worked out... We're supposed to be full of optimism and enthusiasm and a can-do attitude.

I certainly don't think that manned flight is too expensive or impractical, it can be done and should be done in order to preclude the possibility that the Earth cannot sustain a developed humanity on its own, to enrich our lives through fulfillment of the psychological need for exploration, and perhaps to fulfill the material and psychological desire to expand.

What I see going on around here is that people are getting too excited, particularly about MarsDirect and Doc Zubrin, and not looking at the mission like it should be looked at and how it will be looked at by congressmen, scientists, and engineers. In the excitement and zeal, this fallacy that going to Mars is no big deal... that its easy and not as hard as the naysayers make it out to be... is a serious threat to the credibility of Marsies'. That and its side-effects is what I am trying to address.

MarsDirect is one such side effect, that the desire and beliefe that "doing Mars" is easy has produced a mission arcitecture that is unworkable and unsafe without sacrificing all the scientific payload and then some or even perhaps with a politically touchie and expensive revival of NTR propulsion. The fact that it is too optimistic seems to be glossed over by proponets who are desperate to prove the "no big deal" fallacy.

Another issue is the idea that technology improvements will somehow ride to the rescue. The problem is still inherintly a fundimental one, that because of the limited energy density of chemical or solid-core NTR engines plus the high minimum degree of complexity and robustness. These facts quite simply demand a mission that is bigger and more expensive then at least Doc Zubrin is willing to accept, and this is an almost fatal blow to taking a smart man like him seriously. The same goes for talk of the AltSpace folks magically overcoming the energy density problem with capitalist innovation magic, and that Boeing/LockMart/etc are greedy liars that make space travel (some perhaps) far far more expensive then it "could be" or somthing.

If the ERV/MAV is a seperate vehicle from the HAB module/lander, then carrying the long range rover in the initial vehicle is non-negotiable, the risk of landing error with today's technology is too great.

Apollo 12 landed within walking distance of Surveyor 3. If we could do it in 1969, why can't we do it now? Airbag landing systems are low accuracy, and Mars Pathfinder didn't have any means of recognizing topography for last-minute manoeuvres. Modern lidar combined with landing rockets/legs have pin-point accuracy; especially with a beacon to target. A long-range rover is a good emergency backup, but you only need an open rover with extra supplies for suit life support, and a pressure tent to sleep in.

Lander? How do you get the thing down? Developing, building, and operating a Martian RLV or building a fleet of throw-away landers isn't going to be cheap either.

Question: Is human space exploration a niche market?

Pi day? You are such a geek.  :laugh: 

One reporter offer this

"widespread attitude among Shiites:"

' "This election, for me, will be the happiest moment in my life, because it means we will end the occupation," said Ahmad al-Asadi, who sells mobile phones from a little store alongside the Kadhimiya mosque, a Shiite shrine. That's how Shiite leaders are pitching the vote: as a chance to end America's military presence in Iraq peacefully, through the ballot box. It also is a chance for Iraq's long-downtrodden Shiites, who account for 60 percent of the population, to throw off centuries of oppression by the Sunni minority and take a commanding role in the country's government. '

Iraq's Shia parties have built a powerful political alliance uniting moderates with extremists and seem likely to dominate next month's general election. The coalition, formed in weeks of private negotiations, will put forward a joint list of candidates. The process has been overseen by Iraq's most revered Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has designated aides to unite the diverse Shia parties and to vet the many independent candidates standing with them.

Although he seeks no political role for himself, the influence of the Iranian-born ayatollah will ensure that the government has a deeply religious character and that Islam is a central tenet of the constitution that must be written next year.

The sooner we accept that Sistani is the BEST we can hope for, the sooner this all ends.

I can accept that, though my preference (from a purely strategic standpoint) is to turn the country over to Sistani with the exception of an independent (probably nominal rather than formal) Kurdistan. They're settled, they don't have a big beef with us. Let a moderate Shia cleric run the rest of the place for awhile, stir up the terrorists and non-jihadist Sunnis just by being there with the authority. Nothing like thousand-year-old religious BS to distract people and keep them focused on things other than fighting us.

I think the article missed the mark on one count- the terroists will not strike church land americana. It will strike our economic centers.

Does Iraq weaken our position? Yes and no. We have fewer troops to commit to other operations and less political capital to do so. Yet we have an opportunity to kill terrorists, stir them up (just as useful to us as the converse is to them if played right) and practice fighting them in urban areas under live-fire conditions. Harsh, but there it is. We are bleeding resources on a lesser level than they are, but still taking damage though in the short term we have a base of operations in the region and long-term a potential democratic ally to show off to the neighboring states. Ooh, prosperity. Shiny...