starting to have doubts about going to mars

[kimba1]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mars-one-mission-five-britons-going-into-training-for-oneway-trip-to-red-planet-10052876.html



lately I`ve been think about the mars mission and really got doubts it`ll take ten years to get there. wouldn`t it require at least a moonbase in the near future for this to happen? were nowhere near that goal.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I do not believe that there will be a manned Mars mission within the next ten years. I am not sure whether a Moon base would make it easier. It is far more difficult to put a man on Mars and bring him back than the Moon mission, and also vastly more expensive. It is true that we have better technology.

[Plane]

  I don't think a moon base is a requirement, it might help if there is on the moon a mine for Al and Fe that would allow the building of a very large ship more cheaply than using Earth based materials.

    But it might be even better to change the course of a comet or asteroid and get materials that are already in solar orbit and need very little pushing to get into Earth orbit.

    NASA is planning to capture a small asteroid soon , a large one might have a mountain of Iron in it.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Eventually we will have the technology to send men to Mars and back relatively cheaply. We may actually go, but I do not see this happening during any of our lifetimes.

[kimba1]

the moon base would be used for training purpose so that if you send the folks on space station for six months then the moon then station with no resupply the whole time then those people will be ready for the moon mission . don`t forget the moon is a much easier goal so if it failed at least we made it to the moon, a moon base may have more direct benefits for us. ex. a more reliable satellite system.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I am not againsT going to Mars, but thr big question is whether a manned mission is worth the expense and risk.

[kimba1]

Directly possibly not but space research  tend to benefit us greatly indirectly very much. The research alone will greatly advance our medical technology. Ex. Radiation exposure.

Remember the u.s. Shutdown the manned space program a few years ago and in a very short period of time found saw the error of doing that and very quickly reactivated it.

Note one of the factors that slowed and stopped the space program is cost. But what is never brought up was it was compared to most other expenses it was never that costly. 

[Plane]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/nasa-finds-evidence-of-a-vast-ancient-ocean-on-mars/ar-BBih9Y1

    If you were to go to Mars with fusion technology , you would find plenty of fuel.

[kimba1]

uhm  fusion technology?

would this mean the topic here would be did we achieve this technology because of space travel research or that we got it sooner because of the it.


remember the majority of our tech is made by people who want to study in school and a chunk of those guys are motivated by space. remember all those complaints about how undereducated the Chinese are in the united states . it`s all tied to all study no motiovation. thiers no greater motivation than space.

[Plane]

  Either way the fuel you would want most for fusion is deuterium.

   According to this link the water on Mars is greatly concentrated with Deuterium.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/nasa-finds-evidence-of-a-vast-ancient-ocean-on-mars/ar-BBih9Y1

   There used to be an ocean near a mile deep and covering 20% of Mars surface, most of this has evaporated into space, leaving heavy water more than light water.

   Fusion is not a practical source of power at this point, but it seems quite possible that the problems that keep it impractical can be ironed out in the near future.


   Having almost processed heavy water naturally, the Water of Mars might be a resource for power. Having plenty of power solves a lot of problems.