"China-Russia plan joint mission to Mars"

I think that Langolier may have just confused the date for shuttle retirement (which is 2010, and always has been, as Murcielago says) with the delivery date for the "production version" (for want of a better word) of the CEV, which is 2014. Unfortunately, this leaves an embarrasing (IMHO) gap in NASA's manned spaceflight capability, but I guess them's the breaks....

Regarding Radiation in space and it's potential consequences for a Manned Mars Mission, Space.com has some interesting articles investigating this question. Astronauts on the ISS receive about 27 times as much radiation exposure in a year as we Earth-bound schmucks do. Radiation exposure on Mars and in Mars Orbit is 2 to 3 times greater than in LEO, depending on where Mars is in its orbit, what part of the 11-year sun-cycle the measurements are taken in, etc. Those numbers translate to a radiation does for Mars explorers that is anywhere from 54 to 81 times greater in a given year than people on Earth receive. That's mostly due to the fact that Mars doesn't have a magnetic field to shield them from such radiation. The article even includes this nifty graph:

external image

So, as Murcielago says, we'll need to either take some Radiation shielding along with us to Mars - which would be heavy, ergo fuel-intensive, ergo expensive - or create it there, either by digging into the soil or covering our facilities with the same.

While I agree, it's still better than the near-decade that was between Skylab 4 and the first Shuttle Launch.



The problem with the Martian soil is that it's less than one micron in size for each particle, meaning that to make concrete out of it is going to be very difficult. Not to mention that the potential for crw members to inhale this dust is very high, which would in turn lead to fatalities.

Ok. LINK (courtesy of the Mars Society)











Water Frozen on Mars

Lots of water

(courtesy of the BBC)

Lookit that, I didn't even link to Wikipedia.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please use 'ex' tags for external quoting

[edit on 11-9-2006 by masqua]

Not necessarily.
Thats the reason why Nasa is looking at the private sector for an answer. With there Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program. Which they have just given 500 million to Rocketplane & SpaceX build a new commercial delivery services for the ISS.


[edit on 28-8-2006 by Murcielago]

Respectfully, Murcielago, I've got to say that I very much doubt we'll see the CEV much before 2014. I know there's been talk of pushing first flight up to perhaps 2012, but nothing official has been said in that regard, and considering that most complex engineering programs - both civilian and military - usually suffer some sort of delay, we probably won't see the CEV before 2014. Just my opinion, of course.

As for COTS, I really don't see either Kistler Rocketplane or SpaceX flying much before the CEV - at least not in manned versions. An unmanned payload transfer vehicle akin to Russia's Progress craft is far more likely to fly before a manned CEV. Even then the COTS craft will have to prove itself in 3 areas before it is allowed to undertake a manned flight. those areas are:
1) External unpressurized cargo delivery and disposal,
2) Internal pressurized cargo delivery and disposal,
3) Internal pressurized cargo delivery, return and recovery.

I suppose that items 1 and 2 could, depending on the configuration of the vehicle, be accomplished on the same flight. But it seems to me that item 3 would require a second flight. I also think that it is unlikely that either SpaceX or Kistler will proceede from cargo flights directly to a manned flight - from a safety and engineering standpoint, it would be logical for them to refine their design based on what they learned from the cargo flights.

Even assuming that either company can pull off 3 back-to-back-to-back successful flights of a brand-new space vehicle, neither company has done so much as successfully launch a single rocket. SpaceX came close with their Falcon 1, and they're going to try again this fall (I think), but it will require a much bigger rocket, their Falcon IX, to loft their
Dragon capsule. The design shows promise, but needless to say it will have to be refined. SpaceX probably stands to win COTS contracts from NASA eventually, but it would be pushing it to bet that the Dragon will beat the CEV into orbit, at least in a manned version.

As for Kistler, they haven't so much as flown an UNsuccessful flight test, and it doesn't look like they're going to anytime soon.

Never stopped.



Talk about ignorance.



The US senate will sell it's pants to China had the Chinese required them to do so.



No need as both or either one could do it had they wanted same as the US. Do you really believe that technology ( even back in 1970 ) is what is keeping us from going to Mars with manned craft?



Because they will rather eat their hats than have to stage a even bigger cover up than the one currently going on.

Stellar

And if it depends on NASA we will wait till 2050.



I would not waste time believing what Mr Oberg has to say on most topics.



What is so ground breaking about this supposed wonderfully new technology? They could have done this in 1975 ( on a slow schedule) had they wanted to. Don't pretend this is some kind of miracle happening 'so very soon'.



Nothing new about this under the sun.



I would be surprised if they did but to argue that they do not have the technological capacity to do so is just plain WRONG. What is the massive handicap you see with all of this?



The technological issues were all solved in the 60's and 70's and it really is vapid to argue that this is not happening because it's 'too complex' . I would LOVE to see the list of things that makes this supposedly 'impossible'.



Actually NASA and the ESA pretty much hates each others guts and NASA does it's best to invalidate and pour scorn on ESA's achievements as they KNOW that their cover up is being exposed very fast now.



Does it matter all that much?



To suppose that they can not is plain lying.



I did and it's easy to propose problems when your dealing with a generally ignorant crowd.



It actually tells me that your easily fooled by official lies which you did not bother investigating.



I would say there are no problems worth talking about as hundreds of men will volunteer even if it's very close to a suicide mission. If we wanted to go we would have back in 1970 and it would be far less dangerous today than it was then.

Stellar

What collapsing under their own weight? Why all the shielding? Have you checked out the these claims or just assume them to be true?



We do not have to go there to be sure of that as the orbiters have proven beyond a doubt that there surely was and is life.

No need to send people for that reason.

Stellar

They could get there in 3 or 4 years ( or 30 years ago ) if the funds and ALL the technology at their disposal were used. Even with conventional technology and a much slower pace they could probably still do it before 2015.



The world could be as peaceful as it's rulers wanted it to be but apparently war and general destruction suits their aims best. Don't just take what you see as 'the way it's got to be'.



The shuttle should have been retired in 1982 ( or before the first mission even ) and keeping it flying till 2010 just drains the NASA budget for no useful reason under the sun. There is no better way to discourage going to Mars/Moon than having a wasteful system like the space shuttle endlessly draining your limited allocated funds.



Creating the infrastructure on the moon would only be required when we decide to keep working with rockets and to colonize the solar system or galaxy with them. If we use the working anti grav technology we already have there is no reason to build a way station on the moon.

Stellar

Even no capacity is better for NASA than the shuttle has been imo.



That is really assuming that the figures for earth is somehow meaningful.













It's a bogus arguments meant to keep the uninformed from asking why NASA is REALLY wasting our time the way they are. NASA ( well their over sears anyways) has been pulling the wool over our eyes for 3 decades now and they have wasted all that time achieving basically nothing which could not have been for a tenth of the cost.

Stellar

StellarX - I relize that this is a conspiracy site and all, and every now & again I try and set people straight...But your just to far gone for me to even deal with.

good luck with life.....

Things to remember:
In the short term, sharing a lot of information with such governemtns is often detrimental to us. In the long run, you've got to remember, information is freedom, and as information slugs it's way into China, their government will either change or collapse. That's why many Americans are so eager to sell their soul to China. They go too far in and try to pull out, the country will have a depression, like many open countries that turned communist did.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mod Edit - fixed quote

[edit on 11-9-2006 by masqua]

Capricorn Two?

So no one can be informed enough to come to a conclusion that would not imediately be acceptable to you and if they they do their crazy? A very interesting way of approaching discussion on a a conspiracy board! For interest sake have you ever considered the possibility that others might by shear luck ( they could clearly not be any smarter or well informed than you are) have arrived at different more comprehensive explanations for observed reality?

Thanks for wishing me well as it's clearly going to be so very difficult for me to fit into the world as 'far gone' as i am.

Anyways, i guess, uh ... Good luck?

Stellar

[edit on 10-9-2006 by StellarX]

So why share it then?



If information really had much to do with freedom ( you do not mention what types of information) we would all be far more free than we are so clearly information devoid of context and coherence ( if it's even the truth) does not contribute much.



China can very well look after itself and if America does not follow their example SOON ( it's unlikely to happen) there wont be much left to save. Countries who turned fascist/communist( Stalin style) almost always did so with help from the outside ( the US and allies) so it's not some kind of logical progression that depression, which is in itself a engineered event, results in fascism/corporatism.

Stellar

from what I gathered from your posts, it sounds like you think the moon landing was a hoax...correct?

And if thats the case then theres no point in responding. Because there are TONS of moon hoax threads out there, and most do a good job of explaining your doubts (IE: waving flag, shadows pointing different direction,etc.)

Have not really spent time investigating it but everything i have read suggest that they not only landed in 1969 but got there substansially faster.



Hey i can defend what i believe to be true in rather scientific terms so the only thing i am worried about is that those who know better than me will fail to do their points of view justice if i had made a mistake of sorts. I am confident that my current method is exposing reality for all to see and i have had no reason to change it yet.

Stellar

Then what were you refering to with this one liner?

StellarX,

Apollogies in advance - I'm not going to be able to take on all your objections to my posts, be it here or anywhere else. I'll be concise and say that I find it pretty hard to take you seriously; I don't in any way take your comments that I am "plain lying" and "easily fooled by lies" personally. Frankly, your posts suggest that you're essentially scientifically illiterate.

Specifically regarding your problems with my radiation data, I won't presume to argue the basic premise that the public in general - and especially the American public - have conditioned themselves to freak out every time they hear the word "radiation". While interesting, nowhere does your data discuss prolonged exposure to abnormally high radiation - e.g. 2-3 years at more than 50 times the average annual dose on Earth, which approximates the minimum dose which astronauts could expect to recieve on a Mars mission. Anticipating a potential future argument from you, I also don't dispute that astronauts could/would survive a mission at such radiation levels, but without adequate radiation shielding they'd be toast in the event of a solar flare, etc.

Show some links to relevant data supporting your claims, and respond with something other than one-liner personal attacks, and I might take you more seriously. But when you post material like the following:



it causes me to question your rationality. Again, show me one iota of actual evidence to support this claim of "working anti grav technology" and we'll talk like adults.

We dont all have the time ( i'll be generous and assume it's not the lack of knowledge) to prove and defend what we would like...



I do not really care if you take them seriously or not as most scientist have a real issue with taking opposing views seriously when they seriously contest prior held beliefs. I would say most humans do but scientist demand a special mention for their massive indulgence in self deception and general hypocrisy. And since when does a person have to be 'scientifically literate' ( i generally take that to mean stupid enough to disagree with the self styled best minds on the planet) to observe&study reality and weight evidence by various agents? All you need is reason, memory and knowledge and degrees are for people who want to earn money and stature thus destroying their credibility right from the get go. You would probably be surprised to find that those who change the world in scientific terms are so rarely formally schooled scientist.



They have been very well conditioned yes.



Then you clearly did not READ as it is mentioned more than once that many people on Earth live in regions where the background/environmental radiation is hundreds and even thousands times 'normal' or even what is normally assumed 'safe' levels for working in nuclear plants. How many people actually died at Chernobyl?



A small module could be designed where they could ride out severe events which might ( according to our best understanding) have serious medical risks. I will be able to find hundreds of people willing to go on a 90% certain suicide mission ( one way trip and we can automate so there is no total mission kill) and the ludicrous idea that it's the 'health risk' that is preventing this from happening is a very irritating notion indeed.



I honestly do not care if you take me seriously or not as my aim here is to offer the alternative view that people so rarely get to hear about. If you do not want to argue to facts feel free to just insult me as that will certainly not prevent me from sharing what i know.



Well if you were a 'adult' you would not need to assume ignorance on my side as the crux of your argument. Anti gravity technology and implementation is reality but it changes nothing as all this can be done with good old rocket tech circa 1970. If you do understand or know about anti gravity that is entirely YOUR problem and i am quite sick of assuming the burden of proof when it's you attacking and denying reality.

Stellar