PROS Vs CONS. Can Humans goto mars now?

NO I mean 30,000 isp!
http://www.islandone.org/APC/Electric/18.html
It can range its self between 3,000-30,000 by pumping hydrogen as "after burner" so as to create higher thrust.

Of course nuclear fusion would be between 1,000,000-2,000,000 isp pure!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ok we can go to mars but can we breath the air?:bugeye: :bugeye: :bugeye:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

with a little H2 as a catalyses and some electricity we can make all the O2 we need from mars's thin CO2 atmosphere. Don't even get me started about teraforming!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If we are willing to spend $60 billion to struggle in the midst of red sandstorms in iraq, why no go the extra mile and spend another $60 billion to do the same on mars???

 

Good point: I always use mars as a point of reference when referring to bad budget plans...

"That enough money to go to mars and back X* times!!!"
*base off input price divided by 50,000,000,000

or this one I have been using more recently:

"This war going to cost us enough to go to mars and back 3 times!!!"

 

Why Mars? Why not planning a generational travel plan to a more hostiple place?

 

Welcome to sciforum garymanz,

aah, ya where?

 

Sorry just thinking out loud.

 

I think that we should spend the money to return to the moon instead and see if we can turn it into a prosperous moneygenerating colony, before we drop a few humans on mars, just to say we got there. Also establishing a fullblown mooncolony first will allow for large space produced structures/vehicles, so going to Mars after that might become much cheaper...

Sure with a big effort you could send 2 astronauts to mars and back within the next decade, but you could use this decade to build the mooncolony instead. While you might tranport people from the moon to marsd 10-15 years later than in the first case, you make more than up for that by the capacity of the mooncolony allowing multiple cheap marsflights a year to allow real colonisation of mars.

So at the end, the largest human expansion in space might actually be to take the scenic route instead of the highway.

 

Heck I would settle for investing in a way for us to get into space cheaply and safely.

 

Technically if we were ready to spend the money and rescources we could have gone to Mars instead of the moon back in the Neil Armstrong days. It just would have cost us a trillion dollars. The technology was there.

The only things we have to worry about is: Can we do it cheaply and can we get the astronauts back? I think we can do the second one but Im not so sure about the first.

I say make a permanent human habitation in space and first and then just launch it to wherever. Mars, Jupiter, Pluto. Wouldn't matter. After the initial construction cost the only real cost would be fuel and the occasional supply load sent for the populus. Be cheaper in the long run.

 

I'd like the money put into energy research on the earth for us normal people first.

We could probably build enough windmills to power most of world instead of making a few mars trips.

I'm big on sorting out the energy issue.


Has anyone got any concrete answers for and against the radiation problem. I've heard everything from "The moon landings were impossible because the radiation is actually FAR too high outside the earths immediate vicinity" to "Radiation - what radiation?!?"

All kinds of fusion projects have got a lot further than people think in the UK (probably the rest of the world too).

Harwell.

I dont work there, but I have friends that do, did and even one that ran most of the research projects.

It's not a secret that they've got a LOT of things working, but as I cant remember exactly what they are, and it's too late to call (and I'm not sure what I can or cant discuss) I cant go into any details.

I'd quite like to see some aliens erect a massive dysons sphere around our solar system made out of nuclear missle proof "stuff". I wonder if we'd spend our time trying to blow holes in it, or whether we'd spend our time storing the energy in ways we could use.

 

I would like to see more money spent on nuclear fusion research that way we can have cheap, clean, virtually infinite power here on earth and a means of fast, cheap interplanetary and interstellar travel… to kill two birds with one stone.

 

just to throw my two cents into here, according to the forums at marsnews.com and a few astronauts we have been there and are there now on mars and many other places.

andy

 

I'd love to see a mission to, and eventual colonization of Mars. But I just don't think Humanity is sufficiently evolved enough yet to be roaming around the Solar System (of course, I can't see us ever being so - I'm pretty sure we'll be bringing our racism and cults and jingoism with us when we finally do “go”).

I do think that the major PRO for a manned mission to Mars is that we will simply learn more about the planet by sending humans, rather than probes.

 

They should just take the super duper UFO that the government is hiding that can fly at 22000000000mph yet the people inside still live LOL

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anyways I agree with Cthulhu on this.

PLus we barely landed a Freaken probe there dont bother with human life yet. I dont think money would matter.

 

Lets get a small orbiting space colony first. Think of it like Ostia was for Rome. A drydock, shipyard, and port.

 

We could get to Mars if we wanted. We could probably do so safely, and it probably wouldn't take too much time. It would however, take a lot of money.

Nasa shouldn't be spending money on getting Humans to Mars. It is a waste of their budget.

Nasa shouldn't be spending money on windmills either. Their budget would be better spent on hardcore research that could help space-related activities. (besides, many of Nasa's inventions help our society anyway... windmills are somebody elses duty)

I think Nasa should be spending money on probes and telescopes. Since we probably don't really need many telescopes: probes are the way to go [and spend money on] IMO.

palosheights, we've been to mars and beyond - with probes, not people. I'm not entirely sure what you were getting at, but that might clear things up.

We will only be going beyond mars if we aren't planning on coming back. So why jump into space travel when we should develop huge self-sustainable spacecraft for many, many people. Since lots of research would help that eventual goal, I'd say don't waste money on simple technical challenges like mars, build some badass fusion engines instead! (probes are for finding out where not to fly - blackholes, oh no - and figuring out how certain things work - but i guess I didn't mention research up there..oops)

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but we are spending about $600 billion dollars on this Mars mission, not $60 billion... And I think that we should budget our money in some different ways, like the problems we got ourselves into in the first place.. (Or maybe it was all Bush's fault) Such as the ECONOMY... The healthcare... The education.... Etcetera, Etcetera... Yes, I think that we should eventually complete our task, but why don't we wait until our technology is more advanced, and when we can more EFFICIENTLY launch this program. I agree that we do need this knowledge, but Mars will still be there when technology is ready... (unless we also attempt to blow it up just like the moon...)

 

Thread necromancy to the n[sup]th[/sup] degree! SciStudent, do you realize that the post to which you responded is six and a half years old, and that the person who made that post hasn't been to this site for over four years?