New Mars Forums

I'm a little disapointed with Huygens. I guess I was waiting for an Earth shattering discovery and so far I just saw a few photos. Don't get me wrong the photos are unbelievable but I thought there would be more discoveries for some reason.

Excellent. Now we just have to wait til Jan 14th. I'll make sure to clear my schedule that day.

Was this article discussed on this forum before? I would love to see what people thought of it.

Unfortunately, another shuttle disaster might harm not only the shuttle program but NASA altogether and even worse: Mars Direct. The shuttle program should absolutely be ditched (except for a Hubble servicing mission) and resources dedicated somewhere else.

I mean the privately funded part. I can't find anything on a private Pluto mission.

Why in the heck did they cancel the europa orbiter? I thought it was supposed to launch this year!!! Thumbs down to NASA. They are saying JIMO would launch between 2015-2020. That is just plain unacceptable. It should launch within 2 years.

I just started reading The Case for Mars and it's gotten me very excited. The question is where exactly is NASA on adopting this plan? Is this going to be a congresional decision only or what? In the book it says Zubrin met with top level NASA people about the plan and they liked it. If it's just a question of re-schuffling current NASA money could't Sean O'Keefe make this decision himself?

I don't think it would be that hard to defend. Located in the Pacific Ocean, a terrorist organization would have either fly a plane into it or plant a bomb at the base. Jet routes can be modified so that any plane heading for the elevator would be noticed way in advance and Navy ships could guard the base with little difficulty.

Once people start being transported it becomes a little more difficult but not so bad that it shouldn't be built. Once additional ones are built using the first one the loss of one cable in a terror attack becomes less (in terms of cost).

I was just reading an article on the space elevator:

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology … ...-1.html

They say it's only going to cost $5 billion to get it started and in 12 years it could be done.

A space elevator would drastically change everything. All space missions would be using the elvator and launch costs would be a fraction of what they are now. New spacecraft could be built in space for missions to Mars and the Moon.

With all the talk about Mars Direct, I was just wondering if anyone had considered building the elevator first as an option? Why use our dated technology of huge and un-safe rockets when something like the elevator might be a possibility. Assuming the elevator was built, are there any cost models for missions to the moon or Mars?

To me, finding a profitable way to build a moon base would be extremely beneficial to society. The lessons learned and new technology would be invaluable to any Mars mission. Most importantly, we would get our money back so we are not bankrupting ourselves. I believe one step at a time should be taken.

Mabye Uranus and Saturn have greater H3 deposits but they are 15 year round trips. That's impratical to say the least.

Actually my post wasn't specifically making the case for H3 mining but rather making the case for a moon base which yields return on investment. Once a permanent human presence is established on the moon we have a new gateway to outer space. Things can be harvested and built directly on the moon and not have the constraints of being on Earth. Until there is an efficient way of getting into eath orbit this remains a huge advantage in my opinion. Putting all our eggs in a Mars direct basket is irresponsible in my opinion. It would be like sprinting ahead in the first few seconds of a marathon. The sprinter will more than likely loose the race.

We seriously need the space elevator. I think the shuttle sould be decommisioned and the ISS put on hold but not abandoned. I'm not sure if most politicians realize the benefits of such a device. The access to space would be like nothing we've ever seen and so would the economic benefits. The elevator would be a money making machine since all other countries would want in. Homefully with the 5 tonnes/day capacity (hope I got that right) we'd be able to meet demand.

My question is why hasn't this become the central part of NASA's new space policy? With the proper funding we could be building it by 2010 probably. All spaceships build to be launched from the elevator would be cheap and efficient and we could finish ISS, keep hubble, build a moon colony AND send humans to mars for a fraction of what is would cost today. Why aren't we jumping on this?

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/ … index.html