It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


'Get to Mars during my first term': Donald Trump talks to Nasa astronauts in livestream

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 12:20 PM

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dragonridr

As far as mars NASA wa planning on 2025 that would be within his second term if he gets one.

I haven't seen that plan.
But ok, he would have a month (part of January) in 2025 if reelected.

Or he could go route that Grover Cleveland took for his 2nd term.

edit on 25/4/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 12:26 PM
We don't even have a moon base. The obvious jumping off point for a mission to Mars. We put all our space exploration money into a BS space shuttle and a space station built mainly to keep NASA people employed.

imo....we are more interested in "space weapons" than going to Mars.

posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 02:13 PM
a reply to: olaru12

That is the whole point of space exploration and maybe to exploit asteroids for metals.

posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:05 PM

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: SolAquarius

With a project of this size, what does it mean to rush it? What does it mean to not rush it?

Nothing will be done, or get done without many cords of flaming wood being placed directly under the correct asses. NASA is a huge bureaucracy and they saw what happened to Apollo when they reached their supposed goal of man on the moon.

I would say the first step would be returning to the moon setting up the infrastructure there and using that as a jumping point to other planets.

It's not a problem sending a probe or rover to mars because it does not need to eat, it does not get sick from radiation exposure , and it does need to carry fuel with it to get off of mars and travel back to earth.

First there is a factor of 6 to 8 months to get there depending on the window of when the craft travels from earth.

If you sent just one person that is at least a years worth of food for that one person not including the time spent on mars for every additional person you would need to include a years worth of food.

It would also have to carry with it the fuel necessary to take off from mars and return the 8 to 6 ...months it would take to get back to earth..........everything we have sent to mars so far has been a one way trip .....If this was a suicide mission and there was no plan for return then this might not be a problem but some how I think that would be a bummer and would not be the sort of inspirational victory Trump would be looking for.

Not to mention a year plus exposure to space radiation which there does not seem to be any current shielding for.

Don't get me wrong Mars can be done but it needs a ton of infrastructure behind it to get people there and back and that can not be done in one presidential term on a sudden wim of the commander in chief.

But hey you never know maybe skunk works and the Shadow government has one of these babies tucked away and they will reveal it to the public just in time to Make Trumps dreams of a trip to Mars in one term a reality.

posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 08:53 PM
a reply to: seasonal

We will not be alive to see humans set foot on any planet.

posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 09:28 PM
a reply to: seasonal

He hasn't even built the friggen wall yet!

You know, the one that he promised to build.

posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 09:38 PM
a reply to: ExPatRat

You are correct, 100 days in and no wall. What a lazy so and so.

posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 09:52 PM
Suicide mission.

Humans can't travel in deep space yet.
It's not like going to the moon.

Not to mention it is a suicide mission, literally anymore that 6months living in a space suit and they will top themselves.

Send robots.

Learn how to send "forward" stations completely automated so when we find a livable planet and work out how to put a human into deep space without killing them, then there is a forward infrastructure ready to go.

Shut up Trump, you silly creature.
edit on 25-4-2017 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 10:31 PM

originally posted by: zazzafrazz

Shut up Trump, you silly creature.

Watch the video conference thing they did. He wasn't even remotely serious at all.
edit on 25-4-2017 by wickd_waze because: ASU

posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 10:58 PM
You know, NASA seriously considered sending astronauts on a Venus Flyby mission:

NASA considered a manned fly-by of Venus in the mid-1960s as part of the Apollo Applications Program, using hardware derived from the Apollo program. Launch would have taken place on October 31, 1973, with a Venus flyby on March 3, 1974 and return to Earth on December 1, 1974.

Manned Venus Flyby

Pretty bold planning using the Apollo era equipment.

Never happened though because it was decided that it was cheaper and easier to send probes, as the time spent at Venus would have been incredibly short compared to how long they would have spent in space for just a fly by. That, and the Apollo program was shut down.

posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 11:19 PM
a reply to: eriktheawful

There seems to be a renewed interest in going to Venus. I feel that that a blimp probe should at least be sent there. Up above the clouds of carbon dioxide and sulferic acid things actually seem pretty nice. Though I would hate to walk the plank on some Venusian cloud ship. The idea of falling into clouds of sulferic acid and the scorching planet bellow does not sound fun. never mind mars what about venus
edit on 25-4-2017 by SolAquarius because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 11:23 PM
a reply to: SolAquarius

I've always looked at it like this:

Mars: most likely fossilized life.

Venus, Europa and Enceladus: possible bacterial / micro organism life.

I'd love for us to explore both.

Subs on Europa and Enceladus.....and a blimp on Venus.....I mean, how cool is that, right?

posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 11:29 PM
a reply to: Phage

As long as they leave room for me, I don't care who builds it.

Get your (our) ass to Mars. 2022 works for me.

posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 11:34 PM
a reply to: SolAquarius

I think it's easier to get to Venus than Mars because you spend less energy getting out away from the Sun.
You aren't moving away from the the Suns gravity as you would with Mars.
Because they are going inward instead of away, its less speed and less fuel. (for a flyby not land)

posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 01:03 AM
a reply to: zazzafrazz

Delta V is delta V.

In order to achieve a lower orbit you must burn fuel to decrease your orbital velocity (V). This is fun. When you attain a lower orbit (at, say 0.72 AU) your orbital speed will be greater than that of your original (at say, 1.0 AU) orbit.

In order to go faster you must go slower. Orbital mechanics, according to Newton.

The same applies to achieving a higher orbit. Except backwards. But delta V is delta V. It's not really much easier to go sunward as opposed into the black.


posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 01:08 AM
a reply to: zazzafrazz

I don't know the specifics but I know that it takes less time to get to Venus.
I think there was hope at one point of going to Venus and landing until it was discovered what a hell scape the surface is. Maybe it once had life before some hyper green house effect happened although it also lacks a magnetic field like Mars ..a magnetic field seems to be pretty important for the type of life we have here on ole' mother earth
edit on 26-4-2017 by SolAquarius because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 01:42 AM
a reply to: Phage

Sure, I was thinking that moving towards the sun the craft can use the suns gravity, Mars you are going against it. Is that incorrect? I was thinking of Messenger using the Earth to decelerate to assist in insertion to Mercury's Orbit. The suns gravity is going to accelerate it. Going away from the sun decelerates and you need propellant to speed it up.
Maybe I'm thinking it through wrong?

You are talking about Delta V at Venus/Mars arrival. I think that depends in what orbit you want.
Regarding a craft to Venus orbit requiring less propellant than to Mars, a higher orbit is slightly easier for Venus.
Lower capture would be Mars because Venus has higher gravity.

edit on 26-4-2017 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 01:58 AM
a reply to: zazzafrazz
Think of it this way; put yourself in orbit around the Earth, then leave that orbit. Shut off your engine and you're in freefall. Weightless. You won't "fall" toward the Sun because you are orbiting it, along with Earth. Your angular momentum balances the Sun's gravity. It cancels out of the equation. If you want to "fall" toward the Sun you have to fire retros, thrust against the direction of your orbit and slow your orbital velocity. A given change (delta V) will set you in a given lower orbit. The same delta V will put you into a correspondingly higher orbit. It's not up/down, it's orbitward or otherwise.

You can use planetary whips to reduce the amount of fuel required, but you spend much more time doing so.

Landing on Venus would be much easier than Mars, what with all that air. But building a machine that can deal with Venus is proving to be a challenge.


We rot in the mold of Venus,
Retch at her tainted breath.
Foul are her flooded jungles,
Crawling with unclean death.

Sounds like Oz?

posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 02:13 AM
a reply to: Phage

Thanks for the info I have been trying to learn about how the orbits work and how spacecraft use them to get to a destination. How you explained it is slightly different then the way I thought it would work. Like using retro rockets to slow the orbit of the craft.

posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 11:39 AM
The moon is the first step, not Mars. And we must be very carefull.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in