Humans will never set foot on Mars

[peter2002]

Another huge blow to the space program, humans will never set foot on Mars.

According to new data released today from NASA produced from the $300,000,000 Odyssey spacecraft currently orbiting Mars, a manned mission to Mars will be impossible, due to the immense radiation there that would kill astronauts.

The future of spaceflight is unmanned robotic missions. Manned spacelfight is pretty much over unless some big technological breakthrough like you see on StarTrek happens.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/03/14/mars.odyssey.ap/index.html

In a related story, the Chinese plan to create a Chinese colony on Mars.

"Space technology does not belong to the rich countries alone," said Zhang Houying, a scientific director of the Shenzhou program. "In science there is only a No. 1, no No. 2. We'd like to lead in contributing to mankind." China's space program, controlled by the reflexively suspicious military, has long been shielded in secrecy. The program's managers do not disclose their budget, launch details or even the names of the 14 astronauts in training at a guarded complex outside Beijing.

But the country's top officials make clear that they intend to challenge the United States in space.

Chinese officials also argue that the United States has wasted wealth and energy on the complex and inherently risky shuttle. That gives China, though still at least a generation behind in space technology, a chance to catch up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/14/s...00&en=dcb9c78db743e69e&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

I doubt it. They will just end up as stir fry on Mars.

Pete

 

[wdlove]

I would like to see the US setup a base station on the moon, since there is a H20 supply available. With the absence of gravity, space exploration would be easier.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Never is a long time....

Pure crap if you ask me. Its not radioactive elements on Mars its radiation from the sun and space. Since the atmosphere is so thin, there really isn't any protection from space weather.

There are so many ways to protect the astronauts, that its amazing that such a statement was ever issued. And like the article said, they'll need extra shielding just taking the trip to Mars.

Sad, sad, sad.

D

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by wdlove
I would like to see the US setup a base station on the moon, since there is a H20 supply available. With the absence of gravity, space exploration would be easier.

Ah, well, the moon is the obvious jump off point - and guess what? There is significant radiation on the moon as well!!! That's why this is so silly.

Anyway, there is still gravity on the moon, around 1/6 g, so its still significant, but the overall deltaV required to get to space is so much less in terms of fuel. If production of space craft/fuel from raw materials on the moon becomes possible, then it will be cheaper than from the earth.

However, when it comes time to go to Mars the first time, the most probable solution would be to assemble the space craft in oribit of the earth. Most of the technology will have been built on earth and shipped up to orbit in pieces. For fuel, the same things goes, unless a comet is mined for the water (02 and H).

D

 

[cubist]

Yes, as the article pointed out if you read the whole thing, the radiation danger on Mars is no different than anywhere else in planetary space. You'll have to wear a suit anyway due to the low atmospheric pressure.

At least, until we terraform it sufficiently to have a reasonable atmosphere.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by cubist

At least, until we terraform it sufficiently to have a reasonable atmosphere.

Yes, and if we do terraform Mars, melt the core to induce a uniform magnetic field, get greenhouse gasses to increase the atmospheric pressure, induce ozone and get oxygen at 18% or so, then we can walk on the surface with out space suits.....

That won't be happening any time soon. I say stick with the spacesuits and radiation shielding and go to Mars!

D

 

[beatle888]

Originally posted by dukestreet
Never is a long time....

Pure crap if you ask me.

exactly.

 

[MacBandit]

Basically as said many times already there is no difference in going to Mars or the Moon in terms of the radiation or risk of being there. We went to the moon in '69. I think we can handle going to Mars 40 years later.

 

[peter2002]

Send death-row prisoners to Mars

I know. Send death-row prisoners to Mars. Charles Manson would be a good one. We can train them for 50 cents. Nobody will care if they die.

Pete

 

[zoetropeuk]

Anybody that thinks the US landed men on the moon in '69 really needs to look at the facts. One of the main scientific reasons that it was not possible at the time was due to the intense radiation levels.

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by zoetropeuk
Anybody that thinks the US landed men on the moon in '69 really needs to look at the facts. One of the main scientific reasons that it was not possible at the time was due to the intense radiation levels.

There's always one of you in every crowd. Sorry but we DID land men on the moon.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Re: Send death-row prisoners to Mars

Originally posted by peter2002
I know. Send death-row prisoners to Mars. Charles Manson would be a good one. We can train them for 50 cents. Nobody will care if they die.

Pete

Nice, but I don't think we'd want to send convicts on the first manned mission to Mars. You've been reading/watching too much SciFi lately

Going to Mars is going to be a huge event, more so than the Moon landing. Whether it will actually do anything positive for humanity is something altogether different.

Just going becuase we can is not reason enough in my books. Sure, there's adventure, wonder and prestige associated with it. But foremost, if anything, it should be for scientific exploration.

We don't need to go there.....yet

D

 

[000111one111000]

Flowing Water Found On Mars


I think this whole thing with not going to Mars is just NASA's way of saying "we don't have the cash." It would seem to me that the radiation on Mars would be the same, if not less, than the radiation in orbit or on the moon. Of course, it could be the magnetic field that bounces some of the radiation away or something, but still, I would assume it's possible to shield against that much radiation. Especially when the trip would have been at least 10 years away. Just look at the stuff we've done in only the last few years. They crossed a goat with a spider and made a goat that can produce milk which can then be turned into "silk" that's 10 times as strong as steel, because of the spider genes.

And about the flowing water thing. I would assume that this would make terraforming a whole lot easier, since we wouldn't have to melt as much ice, etc. etc. etc.

And how is it that we can shield the probes we've sent out there, and the men on the moon, and now we say we can't even shield the men on Mars? Hell, make a frickin suit like in that one cartoon, i forget the name of it. The one wear the dude's wore those robotic suits in space. I'm sure something like that would be possible. We just made the first humanoid robot, so I'm sure we could make a larger one and throw a dude inside there.

I just see that as the government's fault. Taking away more and more of NASA's funding. Most people don't realize all the things we get from the space program, and if it weren't for the space program, we wouldn't have nearly half the stuff we have today.

Mars is what NASA NEEDS! They need something to get the public excited again. If you saw on the news tomorrow "Man lands on Mars, finds [insert discovery here]," can you imagine how many kids would again be wanting to go into space and become scientists, etc.?

This whole thing just pisses me off. It's in man's nature to explore, and to shut off one of the biggest explorations of all time, is just idiotic. Yeah, we might not find anything hugely exciting there. But, we might. And the job of finding out HOW to get there, and HOW to protect the people on the surface, and HOW to get them back safely, would reap huge amounts of new technology for things back on Earth.

Sorry, I ramble when I start talking about stuff about space and the like.

And if there are any mistakes in what I said, fact or grammatical, please forgive me. I was typing about a billion words a minute there.

enoch

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by 000111one111000 And about the flowing water thing. I would assume that this would make terraforming a whole lot easier, since we wouldn't have to melt as much ice, etc. etc. etc.
[/B]

Very cool about the flowing water, hadn't seen that yet myself.

But as for terraforming, were talking megascience here. There is no way we could conceivably do it right now with the tech we have. And in the end, it will take 1000s of years to actually get a breathable atmosphere there, because the scale of the project we're dealing with here is planetary.

So, given that, it only puts more emphasis on developing radiation proof suits, living quarters, vehicles, landers, and spaceships. That would be a lot less difficult and we can do it now. And believe me, there is no way we're going to send robots to terraform Mars without going there ourselves first.

D

 

[000111one111000]

Actually, I saw a documentary a while ago on The Science Channel that said with some new tech, they could get Mars to be semi-habitable in 50 years. 150 years for the complete terraforming to finish. I don't remember the name of the show, nor when I saw it (approximately 6 months ago, I'd say) but I DO remember them saying that. It got me rather excited, hehe.

And as for the living quarters, etc. There's a group of scientists, not affiliated with NASA, that are at the North Pole I believe, or very close to it, that are doing experiments as to what would be needed on Mars and how to build it. I guess the conditions at the North Pole are somewhat similar to daytime conditions on Mars, not counting the radiation. Night time, obviously, is a different story. But they've actually gone so far as to build prototype living quarters. This was also on The Science Channel. I love that channel.

Personally, I think things will change. I think a few years will pass by, and NASA will announce, "we found a way! we're going to Mars!" Either that, or I wouldn't be surprised that some private orginization would be trying it. If you think about it, in just a few years, with all the different forms of fuel tech being talked about, a private group could feasibly get there, with the right tech. Last I heard, a prototype engine that NASA was working on to take us to Mars, would get us there in 2 months. Some sort of hybrid electric/nuclear engine. I'll see if I can find the article about it later, I think it was in Scientific American.

enoch

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Peter 2002 needs to read the whole article first before making such a misleading and wrong statement. Man will step foot on mars, radiation in space is not new. And the scientist is trying to get his name out more then likely. Probably writing a book! Also a 3 year space mission is out of the question if you ask me. Get rid of the chemical rockets and bring on the ion drive. Now we are looking at a 6 month mission and that can be done. Also there is many ways to shield against different types of radiation. I should know i was stationed on a nuclear submarine. So this post that a man mission to mars is impossible? More like this post is impossible and by saying you cant do something is the same as saying i failed before trying. We had the same type of crybabies during and before Apollo! We just have to get mission time down and that will happen with newer propulsion technologies.

 

[Taft]

Originally posted by zoetropeuk
Anybody that thinks the US landed men on the moon in '69 really needs to look at the facts. One of the main scientific reasons that it was not possible at the time was due to the intense radiation levels.

So where did this radiation come from?? Inside the moon?? Is the moon radioactive??

If not, you are most likely talking about the radiation of the sun and coming from space. So tell me, do you think there are astronauts working in space today. After all, they are outside of the atmosphere and so are not protected (external from the vessel) from the intense radiation of outer space.

So is the whole space program a sham?? Or is it possible you aren't looking at the facts?

Taft

 

[Taft]

Re: Humans will never set foot on Mars

Originally posted by peter2002
Another huge blow to the space program, humans will never set foot on Mars.

According to new data released today from NASA produced from the $300,000,000 Odyssey spacecraft currently orbiting Mars, a manned mission to Mars will be impossible, due to the immense radiation there that would kill astronauts.

The future of spaceflight is unmanned robotic missions. Manned spacelfight is pretty much over unless some big technological breakthrough like you see on StarTrek happens.

BTW, the article doesn't mention ANY of this even once. You do quite a good job of smoking something VERY strong before posting these ridiculous headlines on MacRumors.

As the article CLEARLY states, we simply need protection from the radiation, it DOES NOT MAKE A MANNED TRIP TO MARS IMPOSSIBLE!!! How did you come up with that? Did you make it up? Did you see it somewhere else and simply not post a link?

As a favor to the users of MacRumors, could you please stop bending the facts of an article to produce tabloid worthy headlines? This alteration of the truth is truely sickening.

Taft

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by Taft
So where did this radiation come from?? Inside the moon?? Is the moon radioactive??

The radiation is coming in from space and the sun. What's protecting us in the Magnetosphere - which is basically the magnetic field surrounding the Earth, generated by the liquid iron core of the planet.

Here's a good link for some more info: http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/sppb/edu/magnetosphere/mag4.html

Dont Hurt Me: Peter2002 has a pretty good track record of sensationalizing articles. This is mild compared to some.

D

 

[Taft]

From the article:

High radiation levels measured by the space agency's unmanned Mars Odyssey spacecraft suggest that any extraterrestrial life would have little chance of surviving unless it were shielded beneath the planet's dusty, cold surface, Cary Zeitlin of the National Space Biomedical Research Institute in Houston said Thursday.

This comment is referring to ALIEN extreterrestrial life. How do I know that? Because...

"The idea (radiation) represents this incredible, forbidding obstacle to Mars exploration just isn't so," Zubrin said.

The article says so!!!!

This is really irritating me. Time to start a new thread...

Taft

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by Taft
This is really irritating me. Time to start a new thread...

Taft

You shouldn't let it get to you - like I said before, there have been many worse submissions from peter2002.

It was still a worth while news story to post, though.

D

 

[jethroted]

Just look at the stuff we've done in only the last few years. They crossed a goat with a spider and made a goat that can produce milk which can then be turned into "silk" that's 10 times as strong as steel, because of the spider genes.

Sorry to go off topic, but why haven't there been any updates on this goat/spider thing? You can't find any new news on the subject. Has this come to an end?

 

[mymemory]

Originally posted by zoetropeuk
Anybody that thinks the US landed men on the moon in '69 really needs to look at the facts. One of the main scientific reasons that it was not possible at the time was due to the intense radiation levels.

The same radiation that you got fixing the Hubble telescope or in any space walk.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by zoetropeuk
Anybody that thinks the US landed men on the moon in '69 really needs to look at the facts. One of the main scientific reasons that it was not possible at the time was due to the intense radiation levels.

I don't even want to go here, its not worth the effort. I saw the Apollo moon landings - they were real.

Go to www.badastronomy.com if you want to learn about all the hoax myths and realize that yes we actually did get to the moon.

D

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by zoetropeuk
Anybody that thinks the US landed men on the moon in '69 really needs to look at the facts. One of the main scientific reasons that it was not possible at the time was due to the intense radiation levels.

They say a idiot is born everyday! I wonder if this guy knows the world is no longer flat?