New Mars Forums

It's amazing that we can look at the physicists from a long time ago who said the Earth was flat and you'd fall off the edge if you sailed too far and laugh at them. The funny thing is that they KNEW they were right.

I would think we would be more objective today but that doesn't seem to be the case. Why are far-fetched ideas always greeted with skepticism? I could definitly see anti-gravity vehicles and spacecraft within my lifetime. Heck, in 1900 the airplane was not invented and in 1969 we walked on the moon. I frown upon any scientist who says something cannot be done no matter how far fetched. I sense that same sort of skepticism in this very thread.

The spinning disk seems interesting but I was refering to a 100% reduction in weight ? la Star Trek. I have no doubt this will be developed at some point in time.

A vehicle that can "turn off" gravitational influence would be the most efficient spacecraft we could build. There would be no need for any propulsion mechanisms other than playing with the gravity settings. The size of the spacecraft would make no difference which means we could concievably build a ship to bring 1000 poeple to Mars and little extra cost compared to a small crew. The ship could travel close to the speed of light then decelerate without worrying about g-forces.

So how close are we to this? The first step would be to develop the unified field theory whihc scientists are continually working on. Gravity waves probably exist and once their existence is proven, methods could be developed to counter them. Perhaps any Mars mission money could be spent towards this goal instead. In the long run it would be much more valuable to humanity to conquer gravity (assuming it could be done).

[http://www.light-science.com/gen2.html]http://www.light-science.com/gen2.html

What money? And what plan?? Bush has essentially said: "I'm directing NASA to do new things like go to the moon in the next decade and mars in the next lifetime. Here is my lunch money for the job. Have a nice day".

Face it: Bush's "space plan" is empty and it's an insult to all of us. There is no money for anything. There is no direction or plan whatsoever. The plan was dead after he finished his press conference and was just something to talk about during an election year. I'm so angry with him it's incredible.

No, BGD, it is you who are strange. To the average reader, your post indicated everything I mentioned. Include a legend if you want people to decipher your mindless babble.

I see all these abbreviations like CEV, SEI, OSP, EDL, VAB, HLLV and I was wondering if you guys can make a list of them for me.

Your idea is innovative but the way you are approching could be taken as actually offensive. Let me explain.

You say 1/3 people who smoke die yet they willingly do it. Most people are unaware of the danger or believe that bad things usually happen to other people. Given the fact that the process can take many decades of smoking to happen most of them probably believe they will stop. Furthermore, if someone dies of lung cancer and they are older than their natural life expectency then I question them being counted in the 1/3. Technically cigarettes killed them but they should have died earlier anyways regardless. The point is, your statement of people smoke knowing that 1/3 will die is erroneous in my opinion.

Astronauts are highly trained, highly educated people. There are not billions of them to spare. It takes time and money to train them. While I believe all human lives are of equal value, purposely sending the best and brightest to die is not very intelilgent.

Just because soldiers may die for what you think is a useless cause and other people may die unnecessarily, you cannot use this as logic to expend more lives. Nobody wants people to die but sometimes accidents happen. I would go so far as to say that no death is for nothing since we always learn from the mistakes. The 50,000 deaths in Vietnam taught us a very important lesson in warfare and politics. The goal wasn't achieved but the deaths weren't for nothing and to suggest otherwise is disrespectful.

I just wanted to clear up those points before continuing to address the mission. For starters any attempt to label it a suicide mission would fail since it sounds like the scum that are suicide bombers. The mission would be called simply a one-way mission to mars with the possibility to return in 10-20 years. The plan would be to have the astronauts set up a habitat and permenant base of some sort. Eventually we could be able to bring them home safely at low cost with another mission. They could even have children during their stay if the conditions were proper. Think of it as an extended Mars stay. I don't see the need for them to stay the rest of their lives.

You see how much of a different tone my description gives it? I actually think it's a good idea now. It would definitely advance things at a much much faster pace and at lesser cost.

Here are some pics I took through my telescope this past summer.