Re: Just Give Me 8 Seconds of Your Time.


"jl" <jl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:507958369ejl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.

Much has been made of a future need to colonise other planets, but if we can't make a go of Antarctica with free oxygen we will hardly make any decent go of Mars, nevermind the moon.

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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)
  • Re: On Hydrogen Fuel
    ... The idea of manned travel to Mars using chemical propulsion is quaint:) ... Face facts the travel time is just too long. ... We cant for safety reasons use nuclear for launching from earth to ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Just Give Me 8 Seconds of Your Time.
    ... T go in a few days to Mars ... the Saturn 5 rockets in the early stages. ... to look into another kind of propulsion. ... Limavady and the Roe Valley ...
    (soc.culture.irish)
  • ISS as Mars vehicle
    ... propulsion drives, humor me anyway. ... new Mars mission from scratch, ... planet "wanderer". ... could just be a staging and fuel / propulsive mass ...
    (sci.space.tech)
  • Re: "The Future of Human Spaceflight"
    ... ONLY WAY to space exploration, though, is where you go off the rails. ... need to build a home on Mars. ... "Both O'Neill and Zubrin, although having contributed a great deal to ... advocacy, as loud as possible. ...
    (sci.space.policy)