so this mission to mars then

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

But it's BUSH who's made the proposals...

Yes, I know.But I don't think Bush much cares if we go to Mars.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Yes, I know.But I don't think Bush much cares if we go to Mars.

Not for what it is, but he'd probably cares about what it stands for.

[MrL_JaKiri]

What about the MYSTERONS?

[W]

I was gonna read this thread, then I saw the last post was by MrL_Jakiri, posted this, closed the window, and headed back to SA.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by W

I was gonna read this thread, then I saw the last post was by MrL_Jakiri, posted this, closed the window, and headed back to SA.

Pity, you missed me talking about the pro's, con's and reasons for going to mars.

LOL I MAKE SENSIBLE POSTS TOO LOL

[Belgarath The Sorcerer]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Is there any medium term (say, benefits in the next 50 years) point to any of this collosal waste of government money?

Yes of course there is. Like it or not, we are a space faring species now, and colonizing the moon and then a planet, i.e. Mars, is the next logical step after building a permenant space station. We are going to have to have somewhere to expand within the next two centuries, because there's only so much space and resources available on the earth to sustain the worlds population in good health, provided we don't have a third world war.
This is the basic premise behind works of Science Fiction such as The Mars Trilogy, by Kim Stanely Robinson; The Nights Dawn Trilogy, by Peter F. Hamilton, yes it Science Fiction, yes it is made up....but I'm writing this on a machine that 50 years ago was Science Fiction, on the internet that 30 years ago was Science Fiction. The list could go on and on and on. What people take for granted today, was only sicence fiction yesterday. That's how it's always been, and that's how it always will be. Science Fiction has ways of turning into Science Fact.

Originally Posted by A2

I've read all three of the series and agree that it's a good read if a trifle* long. Some of the stuff in them is a bit far fetched, like the method of getting longer life, but the overall story is quite engaging.

It is Science Fiction after all.... Even though it was myticulously researched, and have you seen the latest research on longevity...?

[Scoot951]

Originally Posted by Aryn

your post made me giggle

but i agree.. send probes to europa.. cause why the hell not.

although with the moon colonization thing.. didn't they want to colonize it in case the earth blows up?

Even if we had a self-supporting moon base, it would only delay extinction by a few years, since they wouldn't be able to build new space ships, and it would only be a matter of time until the life support failed.


And I don't know why Bush is saying this stuff, if he was seriously a pro-science guy I'd think it was great, but I honestly don't believe he's going to back this up. Not to mention that he doesn't have any money left to give to NASA for this shit.

[JamMak]

Originally Posted by Scoot951

they wouldn't be able to build new space ships

Build them on the moon dude!

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Belgarath The Sorcerer

Yes of course there is. Like it or not, we are a space faring species now, and colonizing the moon and then a planet

You didn't give a single benefit that we could reap within the next 50 years which is what I asked. You mentioned something about in the next two centureis. And saying "We are a space faring species now" isn't an argument I'm afraid.

"Is there any benefit to spending money building more nukes Mr President?"
"Well, like it or not, we're a power we're a nuclear weapons posessing country, and the logical step is to have bigger and more powerful nukes."

Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-space, I've always been excited by the prospect, and nothing would give me greater pleasure than the thought my grandchildren being able to visit and stay on the Moon and Mars. But right now, either the government could be spending their money on something better, or more hopefully some of the money could be returned to the millions of relatively poor Americans who are forced to contribute to this madness. As I say, space tourism or something similar could reap a much larger investement, without everyone being obliged to contribute.

As for impending resource and population problems, we'd be better dealing to an extent with our resource usage now, rather than "Don't worry, we'll **** up the moon and mars once we're done here" type plans.

[Nusselt]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Didn't see this before, but I have to say you're incorrect. Ditto the 'research can be done much better by probes' statement.

Exploration, maybe. Research, no.

well ok i agree on the research point, i take it you mean that experiments that need to be carried out in micro gravity can more realistically be done from manned space stations? but what dont you agree with on the search for earth like planets? surely its better to spend money on eddington type satellites then moon or mars bases?

and i admit i have a bias towards space exploration (probes probes probes) then space based research, as ive never heard of any real benefits of the latter to date apart from styrofoam balls that are perfectly round.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nusselt

well ok i agree on the research point, i take it you mean that experiments that need to be carried out in micro gravity can more realistically be done from manned space stations? but what dont you agree with on the search for earth like planets? surely its better to spend money on eddington type satellites then moon or mars bases?

Aieeeeee

Originally Posted by Nusselt

and i admit i have a bias towards space exploration (probes probes probes) then space based research, as ive never heard of any real benefits of the latter to date apart from styrofoam balls that are perfectly round.

There's various things that can be done. Google has the answers!

(Remember, they were trying to build an x billion dollar space station to do this kind of thing on)

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Phil^

in terms of launching it does. no need to have motors running in an frictionless environment just drift the way there. ofc energy in terms of keeping the crew alive is more for getting to mars due to it being further away

wrong. all you need to do to get to the moon is get as high as the lagrangian point between the earth and the moon, and then fall the rest of the way. to get to mars, you actually have to escape the earth's gravitational pull, and overcome a good lump of the sun's gravitational pull too in order to get yourself into a higher solar orbit. It is a tad harder than getting to the moon, and that completely disregards the time, and all the equipment you need (which would also have to be lifted off the earth)

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

As for impending resource and population problems, we'd be better dealing to an extent with our resource usage now, rather than "Don't worry, we'll **** up the moon and mars once we're done here" type plans.

If the US and USSR had followed this policy in the 60's, we'd have never been in space to begin with.

[W]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

wrong. all you need to do to get to the moon is get as high as the lagrangian point between the earth and the moon, and then fall the rest of the way. to get to mars, you actually have to escape the earth's gravitational pull, and overcome a good lump of the sun's gravitational pull too in order to get yourself into a higher solar orbit. It is a tad harder than getting to the moon, and that completely disregards the time, and all the equipment you need (which would also have to be lifted off the earth)

How "high" you need to get is irrelevant. Once you have escape velocity, you can get to the moon or mars or outer space just as easy, it will just take different time. The earth is already in solar orbit, so any speed we get away from the earth, even if it is just from the earths rotation, will send us away from the sun.

It's not like climbing a ladder, where you have to spend X energy to get to point Y on the ladder.

[W]

Originally Posted by Leshy

If the US and USSR had followed this policy in the 60's, we'd have never been in space to begin with.

And we'd probably be better off from it. We could have spendt a fraction of that money on inventing cell phones and astronaut pens and whatever other advance is usually claimed to come from the space race

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by W

And we'd probably be better off from it. We could have spendt a fraction of that money on inventing cell phones and astronaut pens and whatever other advance is usually claimed to come from the space race

We wouldn't even have satellites, as the technology of shooting stuff into space wouldn't have been developed.

[W]

Originally Posted by Leshy

We wouldn't even have satellites, as the technology of shooting stuff into space wouldn't have been developed.

We don't need to go to space to put our equipment there.

What I'm saying is that sending people to the moon or mars or even high earth orbit doesn't pay off, and isn't a wise use of our resources. I'm quite sure communications sattelites pay themself off.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by W

We don't need to go to space to put our equipment there.

So what you are saying is that a lot of money should have been invested into the space program in order to receive all the benefits we got from it, but we just shouldn't have gone there ourselves?

(Well, that edit promptly answered my question.)

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by W

How "high" you need to get is irrelevant. Once you have escape velocity, you can get to the moon or mars or outer space just as easy, it will just take different time. The earth is already in solar orbit, so any speed we get away from the earth, even if it is just from the earths rotation, will send us away from the sun.

It's not like climbing a ladder, where you have to spend X energy to get to point Y on the ladder.

You're wrong. RadicalEdward is right.

Do the mathematics.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by W

And we'd probably be better off from it. We could have spendt a fraction of that money on inventing cell phones and astronaut pens and whatever other advance is usually claimed to come from the space race

Some things wouldn't have come about, because the pressure to create wouldn't have been there. Teflon, for example.

[W]

Originally Posted by Leshy

So what you are saying is that a lot of money should have been invested into the space program in order to receive all the benefits we got from it, but we just shouldn't have gone there ourselves?

You talk like "the space program" is a binary thing. It cost quite a shitload more to send people to the moon than it would have to just put sattelites into orbit. Or is that what you are disagreeing with? Saying it was cheaper to put people on the moon than just having unmanned lauchers?

Seriously, we need to spend our resources wiser instead of thinking space is just another fronteer where there is tons of easilly available resources.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by W

You talk like "the space program" is a binary thing.

In order to launch a satellite into orbit and in order to put people on the moon, you're going to have to use same techniques to get there. Obviously a moon landing will require more equipment, but then so will sending an unmanned vehicle there. Don't compare a manned moonlanding with sending an unmanned satellite into space.

I seriously doubt sending people into space is much more expensive than sending unmanned vehicles, although I have little knowledge in this field and as such will accept evidence to the contrary.

Seriously, we need to spend our resources wiser instead of thinking space is just another fronteer where there is tons of easilly available resources.

So you'd rather wait until Earth is low on/out of natural resources, before you start looking for new ones. Not exactly the approach I would take. And the notion that space offers a good amount of available resources isn't a mere thought, it's a fact.

[W]

Originally Posted by Leshy

So you'd rather wait until Earth is low on/out of natural resources, before you start looking for new ones. Not exactly the approach I would take. And the notion that space offers a good amount of available resources isn't a mere thought, it's a fact.

No that is not what I said. Until you figure out what I meant I guess I'll ignore you like I do MrK_Jakiri.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by W

No that is not what I said.

You're advocating a wiser use of resources.

You can only use resources wisely as long as they're there. And key resources such as oil are will be running out fairly soon. Having a basic idea of what is out there is very handy for when other natural resources are becoming scarce as well. Having to start space exploration because you can is in my opinion wiser than having to start it because you're forced to.

Edit: And what if a major satellite gets hit by a meteorite, receiving significant damage? Will you let it burn up and send a new one? Will you devise a repair robot you can send into space? As obviously it's no use sending people there and the first two options are much wiser use of resources.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by W

No that is not what I said. Until you figure out what I meant I guess I'll ignore you like I do MrK_Jakiri.

Oh no, someone disagrees with W!

[Jammers]

Originally Posted by W

We don't need to go to space to put our equipment there.

We do if the equipment breaks down and needs fixing, like Hubble for instance. If NASA hadn't been able to send a repair man up to fix it they would have probably had to build a new one.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Leshy

In order to launch a satellite into orbit and in order to put people on the moon, you're going to have to use same techniques to get there. Obviously a moon landing will require more equipment, but then so will sending an unmanned vehicle there. Don't compare a manned moonlanding with sending an unmanned satellite into space.

It is MUCH more expensive to send people into space, especially if the developement wasn't there beforehand. Remember, you've got to not only compensate for the additional mass of the astronauts, the systems that let them fly the ship, the additional space they take up, the systems that allow them to live, and the like (by building a bigger ship, and a much more complicated engine to allow it to get off the ground (the space shuttle engine is the most complicated, and has the most thrust:weight ratio of any engine ever built)), you've also got to develope the above systems, and train the astronauts in question.

Admittedly, you've got to build remote probes (something that's been much more simple since the microchip revolution), which must be a vote in favour of manned missions, given that noone at the time would have been able to forsee it.

[edit]

The bottom line is that you get what you pay for. Man has a much better series of problem solving skills (and adaptability) than any automated device currently forseeable.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

You're wrong. RadicalEdward is right.

Do the mathematics.

Because noone else is posting, I guess I'll do it!

If you integrate the gravitational force of the earth between the earth and the the moon, and subtract the integral of the gravitation force from the moon to the earth, and then do the same with the earth to mars (wrt the earth's gravitation), the earth to mars (wrt the sun's gravitation), and then mars to the earth (wrt mars's gravitation), I think it's pretty clear which is greater; that's pretty obvious when you consider that the lagrange point between mars and the earth (at any given point in time) is much further away from earth than the one between the earth and the moon.

It doesn't matter what path you take (assuming circular orbits; I know that's a fallacy, but it simplifies things immensely and doesn't make a difference in the end), you'll always have the same overall change in GPE.

You can also ignore the sun's effect when travelling to the moon, because the distance is so small, and you can also wangle it so for both legs you're travelling TOWARDS the sun, reducing the energy required still further.

That doesn't even take into account such things as the increased amount of mass carried.

[Baron Morte]

You are absolutely right. I can't come up with any flaw in this argument.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

You are absolutely right. I can't come up with any flaw in this argument.

Thanks dude!

[Nusselt]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Some things wouldn't have come about, because the pressure to create wouldn't have been there. Teflon, for example.

sorry to be a pedant but from oh so many years ago in alevel chemistry i remember chemical ideas (or was it storylines?) telling me that teflon was first used in the manhattan project as a sealent when refining the uranium down, it was invented before the war iirc, all the manhattan project did was allow dupont to develop it under the umbrella of a (virtually) limitless military budget

Originally Posted by Leshy

So you'd rather wait until Earth is low on/out of natural resources, before you start looking for new ones. Not exactly the approach I would take. And the notion that space offers a good amount of available resources isn't a mere thought, it's a fact.

ive never got this resource argument, fossil fuels may be running out but how will going to the moon/mars/lolerz mining asteroids solve this problem? Unless there were dinosaours and forrests and other prehistoric life on the moon that died out rotted and left us oil there isnt a single drop of texas tea out there. Fossil fuels are the biggest natural resource that we consume, not only for energy but also for all the lovely plastic benefits. I doubt very much that there is any up there, and even if the moon was covered in the stuff i think it would be far more prudent to think of alternatives, dont want too sound patronising but this isnt a computer game. Take mother earth to your bosom, she'll give you all you want.

oh and this made me laugh

even if we do completely run out we'll go to antartica before we go to the moon

there be oil

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Nusselt

I doubt very much that there is any up there

Don't be stupid. I'm not suggesting Jupiter is secretly a big blob of oil.

But there is very much untapped potential for resources/energy in space. The Sun alone emits a rather hefty amount of light and warmth, of which Earth receives and uses only a tiny fraction. In the future we could be able to utilize a lot more. Hell, maybe someday we'll turn Mercury into a giant power plant by filling it with huge fields of solar panels*. The point is, we won't be able to do any of that unless we familiarize ourselves with space and our solar system, and to do that, we will have to go there. Pictures and lists of data can only do so much.

With an increasing need to put stuff into space, development of things such as the Space Lift continues. Take away that need, the project becomes useless and little progress is booked. Yes, earth is a mess and needs to be sorted out, and yes, the money could be spent on other things. But what if Columbus had stayed at home because "there wasn't really a need to go"? What of Thor Heyerdahl, what of Amundsen, what of Amelia Earhardt? Do you honestly believe that if NASA disbanded and space funding went into other areas, the world would suddenly become a fairytale paradise? Do you think it ever will be to begin with?

We can't let internal issues stand in the way of exploration and the future of mankind as a whole.

* I'm sure someone (lo MrL_JaKiri) will make a reply stating how this is scientifically impossible and/or economically impractical

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Leshy

* I'm sure someone (lo MrL_JaKiri) will make a reply stating how this is scientifically impossible and/or economically impractical

Personally, I'd prefer a dyson sphere.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nusselt

sorry to be a pedant but from oh so many years ago in alevel chemistry i remember chemical ideas (or was it storylines?) telling me that teflon was first used in the manhattan project as a sealent when refining the uranium down, it was invented before the war iirc, all the manhattan project did was allow dupont to develop it under the umbrella of a (virtually) limitless military budget

The individual example may be wrong, but the point still stands.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nusselt

ive never got this resource argument, fossil fuels may be running out but how will going to the moon/mars/lolerz mining asteroids solve this problem?

Fossil fuels aren't the only resource duder.

What about Iron, or Aluminium, or Tungsten, or any of the other metals that we like so much? There's only so much of them, and getting it from other sources is vital for continued expansion, especially given that we like to bury the stuff we've got in a massive impure heap.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Personally, I'd prefer a dyson sphere.

If you can build a Dyson Sphere, you don't need it

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Leshy

If the US and USSR had followed this policy in the 60's, we'd have never been in space to begin with.

Aside from Satellite technology, I can't really think why this would have been that bad a thing. What tangible benefits did we get from Armstrong landing on the moon (aside from the knowledge it could be done)? Everyone always bloody says Teflon (which apparently is wrong anyway) and if that's the sum achievement for most of it, I want a god damn refund for the peoples of Russia and America.

I'm sure there's an element of the law of diminishing returns in all of this. Let's say we'll spend $1 trillion dollars over a 150 year period (figure adjusted for inflation to keep things comparable) on space stuff. Maybe the first $100bn was really great, I'm not sure. But the remaning $900bn isn't necessarily going to net results at the same rate. Why would (in the mid-term, as I say, I'm aware of the ultra-long term benefits) having a base on Mars help anyone aside from being another pissing ground for military nonsense?

Plus, I'm presuming other groups would fill the gap if publically funded space exploration declined.

As I say, I'm not arguing against space travel or investment. I'm arguing using tax dollars to do it, when apparently the US "can't afford" to provide comprehensive health cover for children in low income families (for example).

[djbass]

Originally Posted by W

What I'm saying is that sending people to the moon or mars or even high earth orbit doesn't pay off, and isn't a wise use of our resources. I'm quite sure communications sattelites pay themself off.

I would consider it important at least initially to study the effects of those environments on the astronaughts. However I can not argue that sending successive manned missions was a good use of resources or not.

That aside the amount of feedback you can get from a person is immense in comparison to instrument data which although accurate can only decsribe to you certain aspects about the environment it is in. Replacing machine error with human error is not an entirely bad thing either IMO.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by W

How "high" you need to get is irrelevant. Once you have escape velocity, you can get to the moon or mars or outer space just as easy, it will just take different time. The earth is already in solar orbit, so any speed we get away from the earth, even if it is just from the earths rotation, will send us away from the sun.

umm. wrong. well, one bit is right, that you could get to the moon if you achieved the earth's escape velocity, although you don't actually need to get that fast to get to the moon though, only fast enough so that you can get to the lagrange point. To get to mars though you would then have to accelerate some more, though admittedly you could do this by playing clever tricks such as gravitational slingshotting, but even this is just a "clever" way of accelerating some more without using as much fuel. If you took the really brute force approach and just headed straight from the earth to mars, or alpha centauri, I think you would find that it would take a heck of a lot more effort than just getting to the moon.

[Vermillion]

I dont understand the whole "resources from space" argument.

The obvious lack of oil or any kind of hydrocarbon based resources out there has already been addressed. As for minerals wealth, there is more here on earth then we can EVER use. The crust of the earth is made up of 8% Aluminum and 5% Iron. The deepest mine we have ever built so far is only 3,581 meters deep. It is literally unimaginable that we would ever use up even a significant percentage of these minerals available on earth.

So that leaves energy as the only remaining valuable space resource. Solar panels are great, but assuming we get panels in the future that are 5 times as efficient as what we have now, it would take a VAST number of them, at vast expense, to equal to power generated by one nuclear power station. If we manage to develop sustainable fusion reactors, or safer and more efficient fission reactors, we will produce energy in amounts that cannot be equalled by any space-based means.

I am all in favour of exploration for the sake of exploration, there is always the chance we will discover the unknown and unpreduictable. But the 'resources from space' argument is silly and unrealistic.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

The obvious lack of oil or any kind of hydrocarbon based resources out there has already been addressed. As for minerals wealth, there is more here on earth then we can EVER use. The crust of the earth is made up of 8% Aluminum and 5% Iron. The deepest mine we have ever built so far is only 3,581 meters deep. It is literally unimaginable that we would ever use up even a significant percentage of these minerals available on earth.

The trouble with most of the earth's crust (extracting the metals, etc) is that it's

a. immensely difficult to mine

and

b. costly to extract the metals.

And if going into space is more efficient, then so be it.

[W]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

umm. wrong. well, one bit is right, that you could get to the moon if you achieved the earth's escape velocity, although you don't actually need to get that fast to get to the moon though, only fast enough so that you can get to the lagrange point. To get to mars though you would then have to accelerate some more, though admittedly you could do this by playing clever tricks such as gravitational slingshotting, but even this is just a "clever" way of accelerating some more without using as much fuel. If you took the really brute force approach and just headed straight from the earth to mars, or alpha centauri, I think you would find that it would take a heck of a lot more effort than just getting to the moon.

You can use one more gram of fuel to get a net velocity of +0.0001 m/s, and you'd still get there, only real real slow. No. No more fuel is needed. Gravitational slingshot or not.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by W

You can use one more gram of fuel to get a net velocity of +0.0001 m/s, and you'd still get there, only real real slow. No. No more fuel is needed. Gravitational slingshot or not.

You're wrong. You're wrong, and I demonstrated that MANY MANY HOURS AGO.

[edit]

Your rather idiotic mistake is that you're assuming the earth to be the only source of gravity.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

The trouble with most of the earth's crust (extracting the metals, etc) is that it's

a. immensely difficult to mine

and

b. costly to extract the metals.

You are correct on both counts, however where I have a problem is the thesis that somehow it is less expensive to mine the same minerals from the crust of ANOTHER planet, which is lacking things like, you know, air. Considering there appear to be no deposits on the sand and rock surface of mars, we would have to mine there as well. How would it be cheaper to ship all that mining equipment over there, mine it in hellish conditions, and then do what with it? process it there? Ship it back?

A South African Company is planning on digging the deepest mine in the world, down to 5km. The estimated cost of this venture, start to finish, is $1.2 billion dollars. That is the construction, maintenance and full development of the mine, which is for gold.

On the other hand, a SINGLE launch of the Space shuttle into ORBIT (not mars) for a week (not forever) with seven people and a ton or two of equipment (not a mine crew and complete mining operation) is estimated at about $500 million dollars.

Iron Ore prices are currently at about $19 dollars US a ton. The Shuttle can carry about 29 tons of cargo, so each load would earn about $551 dollars. No matter what happens in the future, and considering the vast amount of untapped mineral resources in our planet, it will essentially never be even close to cost-feasable to mine on other planets until we reach the stage that mining, refining, smelting and construction of advanced finished goods are ALL happening on another planet.


So you can see why I am incredibly skeptical about the remote practicality of mining minerals in outer space.

[MrL_JaKiri]

We need a space elevator.

[Leshy]

It worries me that I was just about to post what MrL_JaKiri just said

[MrL_JaKiri]

My statement does fall on the 'Don't forget to breathe!' scale of obviousness though.

[Leshy]

Considering more people in history are currently dead than there are people currently alive, I'd say it's not all that obvious!

[MrL_JaKiri]

If only they read GD, they would still be alive.

[Leshy]

**** that fountain of eternal youth, all you need is GD