Why not any Mars Landings planned?

After watching "Failure is not a option" on the history channel, I wonder to myself with all of our advanced technology why have we not visited and landed on Mars? I know since the cold war ended that the space program received less funding but shouldn't this be put as a priority. It seems to me that the space program in the US and in other countries is taking a back seat?

Im curious to hear others opinions on this?

All talk for years and years. That all it is. Talk. I can talk too.

Have you considered the ENORMOUS cost required to put a single pound in space? Let alone humans with a vehicle and instruments that have to travel in a vessel for 14 months before even arriving.

The priority now is to miliitarize space. Conquer then explore.

I know since the cold war ended that the space program received less funding but shouldn't this be put as a priority. It seems to me that the space program in the US and in other countries is taking a back seat?

Civilian space programs. As Kukla mentioned, the military is working on space. I have personally heard of a "galactic fighting force" that is in orbit around the Earth. They can allegedly respond to any location within 15 minutes. I am unable to supply a link as it was the content of a personal conversation. I'm not sure how much credibility I put into the report.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few umbra secret military take-offs with destination: mars in the past couple months.... or decades.....

[Edited on 27-8-2003 by MKULTRA]

Considering we have now bounced 2 un-manned spacecraft off the Martian surface, it appears like a rather good call that we didn't include living things yet.

Part of the research involved with the ISS is to establish effects and preventions for space environment living for a long-term. The trip to and from Mars will be an entirely new ballgame as far as time in space.

I do not believe it is "all talk". The Ride document laid out the path to take to men on Mars, and I believe that document is being followed as best as can be achieved.

A trip to mars is possible, there are plans for missions, all ready to go.

However, it's too darned expensive. A major problem is the solar radiation. The plans I've seen involve building the ship in space. To build a shielded ship for mars would take many, many shuttle flights to deliver the parts at a huge expense.

It's going to take a long time to get there. It's a whole heck of a lot more complex than the moon shots. They will have to be self sufficient during the lenghty journey.

Basically, humankind is not going to go to mars, it costs too much and the worlds enonomies are in colapse.

I'd be more than surprised to see even another human on the moon in my lifetime.

This might be of interest.

news.bbc.co.uk...

If Russia really becomes serious about reaching Mars you can bet there willb e a renewed space race, unlike we've ever seen before with both sides taking huge financial and human risks to get there and claim Mars first.

I would love to see it happen.

They have to rebuild the movie set from the moon landings. Then they have to die it red.


Nightwalker

perfect, a russian nuclear base just what we need.

I have heard on various shows on the "Science Channel" that NASA 'hoped' to send a manned mission to Mars by 2020. However with the Columbia and all......that could be delayed for decades. I think we will do it eventually. It depends on two things; radiation, and launch cost. If we can solve those....there is lots of money to make out there....lots of resources...

The price tag! I've seen estimates of $30 - 50 Billion. My guess is that these estimates are low. However, currently quite a lot of basic research is being done to figure out how to keep astronauts healthy and happy for an extremely long mission. I really hope that we will see a manned planetary mission in my lifetime.

But, will it be mars? It's the easiest to get to, but maybe not the most interesting.

The reason we haven't landed on mars, to be honset, is because we made a mistake 30 years ago.

At the end of the Apollo program, the political leadership was given two choices:

1:send a nuclear powered craft to Mars, or
2:build a space transit system that involved a shuttle and station component.

The second option was judged easier and less expensive, however..

..the problem was that it, essentially, could not develop core political support, due to its lack of vision. It wasn't until the late 90s that construction on the station was started... nearly 20 years after the original plan intended. So... in theory, developing a STS+station system was cheaper than a mars mission... But the fact that it lacked any real inspiration meant that it was never funded enough to really get going... so, in the long run, the entire system we have now was probably more expensive tha what could have been built to go to mars in the apollo aftermath..

Now, as for the nuclear option:
This would have resulted in a mars mission in the early 80s. It would have used NERVA developed engines and as many components from Apollo as possible. So, it must be stressed, that THE GROUNDWORK for a nuclear mars project was already done --- the NERVA engines had been DEVELOPED AND TESTED. This was not pie in the sky scifi... but a working reality.

This is a good, easy to understand, site on NERVA:
www.aemann.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk...

pay attention to the engine test and design page. Also, note that in 1972, NERVA COMPONENTS WERE BETTER TESTED AND MORE DEVELOPED THAN ANYTHING WHICH WOULD GO INTO THE SHUTTLE at that time.
Issues about human survivabilty would be meaningless with NERVA because the flight time would be sliced into fractions of that of a traditional rocket powered craft. Essentially, by the early 80s, soviet astronauts in Salyut stations had stayed in space long enough to understand the long term effects that Mars bound astronauts would experience...

..So, the bottom line is that the anti-nuclear, less adventurous side of NASA one... and we got a coastal barge instead of a long-range explorer. had there been a Admiral Rickover type figure in NASA, we might be quite accustomed to mars flights today...

[Edited on 29-8-2003 by onlyinmydreams]

[Edited on 29-8-2003 by onlyinmydreams]

Actually,
the NERVA design was well-tested before Apollo even ended:
www.nirgal.net...

It even performed better than required/projected:
www.aemann.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk...

The ship was to be built in sets of two, for safety reasons. From the start, NERVA powered designs were to be able to be carried into orbit by rockets from the Saturn series:
www.aemann.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk...

That is, no space shuttle was necessarily needed for construction... and the main components could be launched from earth in the same way Skylab was.

After expending their strap-on boosters, the core of the craft would keep going to mars:
www.aemann.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk...

www.aemann.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk...

Once in mars orbit, a conical lander (carrying a landing party), shielded in the cylinder up front, would separate fro the craft. A month or so later, it would ascend and re-dock with the main ship. The remaining core of the NERVA powered craft would then be fired, sending the crew home. All in all, the crew would be exposed to less radiation, though in a nuclear powered ship, than a traditionally powered one because they would have spent less overall time in space. The effects of zero g would also be reduced for the same reason.

Again,take note of the fact that NERVA:
1)Was based on proven technology
2)made use of proven and already produced components
3)Sidestepped much research into long-term human survivability studies because it drastically reduced 'trip' time.

It should also be noted that, by the mid-80s, Soviet Cosmonauts were spending as much time in space aboard Salyut stations as a crew aboard a NERVA powered rocket would have to spend on a mars mission.

Shoot,
I placed my photo links up there instead of my data ones... anyways, the pictures were intended to illustrate each stage of what I was discussing. later, on, i'll repost with all the data links.

I seem to recal this being mentioned very breifly on a show. Its a real shame. We could have there already! I wonder if the loss of Columbia will help to fuel new research. I've heard some speculation about the idea but nothing official. I really hope we do it in my life time.

Saw yesterday on National Geographic Channel a docu about mars and going there. They were talking about sending a first unmanned station, that will make fuel with the stuff on mars, then a couple of months later when they think everything is okay, they send a manned station, do the things they want to do, and then go back to earth with the first station that made fuel..they were talking about 40 billion $

Don't know when it would be ready..

This was idd the time to go

Just like area 51 and all those others secret military establishments ,I would not be surprise if there was a mission already underway to put a base on mars,they would have launched the mission last year for arrival at this time.

I do not believe that the government is planning a secret base on Mars. A project of this magnitude would be very difficult to cover up. There would be some leaks by now similar to what happened at Rowel. I do think they know more then they are letting on. Either the moon landing was a fake and we do not have the technology to make a trip to Mars (this would explain why no other country has made the trip). Or they know something that is preventing us from landing on the red planet. Only time will tell.

Actually, I had heard that they were planning a manned mission to mars 5 or 6 years after they send this Mars Probe they're working on.