Re: Just Give Me 8 Seconds of Your Time.

In article <h3ajnu$t06$1@xxxxxxxx>, Paul Carr <paulpcarr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
jl wrote:
In article <h3aaf2$jg7$1@xxxxxxxx>, Paul Carr <paulpcarr@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Thomas wrote:
LASCO3 movie of solar activity from July 3 to July 8. Shows large
solar flare and CME on July 6 in upper right portion of the sun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHbxzq6cZcI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2F


Kinda puts it all into perspective doesn't it.

Heck, us, human beings should be going to Mars and Venus by now. We
should be developing rockets to take us to Mars and Venus in a matter
of days.

That would be a technological miracle. T go in a few days to Mars
would use immense amounts of energy for very little benefit. After
all, there is not much there once you get there.

Jochen

What about the moon? There wasn't much there either. But, we went.

But we didn't do very much did we? Play a bit of golf, drive around a bit,
wave a flag and return some rocks. For a cost of billions of dollars.

The problem with sending people is the huge expense of keeping them alive
and getting them back again. I have convinced myself that the future of
spaceflight is unmanned, not manned.

Sure, we'll get through lots of rockets. Many will explode. Just like
the Saturn 5 rockets in the early stages. Clearly, we're going to have
to look into another kind of propulsion. Chemical propulsion isn't
going to get us to these planets in days.. On the other hand, we're
talking about the vacuum of space. Surely, that will lend an advantage
when it comes to finding another means of propulsion.

The only thing packing enough punch for your kind of fast travel would
have to be nuclear - which automatically means that your fuel can also be
used as a bomb, because basically you would explode small nuclear devices
for propulsion. Research was done in the past, but the test ban treaties
put an end to it.


Benefit? Here's one. Distract human beings from pointing rockets at
each other and threatening to fire them at each other and hoping that
they don't.

Any rocket pointed at Mars can and will also be pointed at other humans.
This is the way people operate and is not likely to change.


I'm all for space exploration, but sending people rather than probes will
make it so expensive that any program will almost certainly be cut any
time a government nneeds extra cash.

Jochen

--

------------------------------------
Limavady and the Roe Valley
Roe Valley News Browser
http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Nuclear rockets.
    ... The only sensible way to travel to Mars seems to be with Nuclear ... propulsion, at least until funding is in place for a manned Mars ... Presumably by 'nuclear rockets' you are referring to nuclear thermal ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Just Give Me 8 Seconds of Your Time.
    ... >> Heck, us, human beings should be going to Mars and Venus by now. ... to look into another kind of propulsion. ... because basically you would explode small nuclear devices ... I'm all for space exploration, but sending people rather than probes will ...
    (soc.culture.irish)
  • Re: Just Give Me 8 Seconds of Your Time.
    ... we'll get through lots of rockets. ... Chemical propulsion isn't going to get us ... there could be running water to be found on the Martian ... bigger and more powerful rockets with existing technology. ...
    (soc.culture.irish)
  • Re: Mars In 39 Days via ...The Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket.
    ... find out they are nuclear and we need to risk flying nuclear fuel rods ... We can get to Mars using chemical rockets easier than we can get to the ... Mars can support a space elevator, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: thermonuclear propulsion, Electrokinetics etc
    ... "to mars, baldly beyond and where no civilian funding ... should use thermonuclear propulsion for the mars rover mission. ... The cloaking isn't very good other humans make photographic ...
    (sci.physics)