We're going back - to Mars too

I said that the technology might be devleoped if there was a push for it and that would be nice. This I said. You might have missed it.

I also said that there's no really good reason besides reinvigorating the space program. There's not much humans can do in space that robots cannot more cheaply and infinitly more safely. It's too costly to run some moon base because there simply is no water there - and if it is, it's hidden in a dark southron polar region where sunlight won't directly hit. On Mars.. no technology we have now or that will be ready soon can carry the amount of supplies needed (as well as the people) to Mars any quicker than 2 years (and another 2 to get back). How much supplies are you going to have? How long will the astronauts be there? A day? This is not sounding practical and untill I see a technology that works, I do not think that Mars is a theseable goal for humans right now or in the forseeable future. Besides: what will astronauts do there that robots are not already doing or that robots could be made to do (not to mention the cost and the risk and the maintnence is all less for robots)? It sounds like a blast man, but it's just not very pragmatic or particularly conservitive minded =/ Then again, Bush perplexes me.

Ya you're right, I did miss that. Either way, I wasn't tryin to be a prick when I said it, sorry if I came off as one. Late night postings...

They'd probably use multiple rockets. Like one burns out 1/4 of the way to Mars and the other one kicks in.

Fuel to weight ratio man. Conventional chemical rockets, no matter the amount will not do. Not for Mars.

They need to build a mothafuckin Club Med up there or something.

Tangent - What's better: China, Russia, Europe, US (Brazil, Canada, heh) competing against each other with moderate cooperation to advance their space agendas, or a united space federation which each country contributes to? Competition begat technological advances, historically, but would it not be prudent to partake in a joint venture considering the potential costs for such a grand venture?

*edit* whoops. I meant Russia.

Why not have one big group with the internal divisions representing the countries to spark the competitive spirit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

Fuel to weight ratio man. Conventional chemical rockets, no matter the amount will not do. Not for Mars.

---

Not if they use warp 9.

Engage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

Fuel to weight ratio man. Conventional chemical rockets, no matter the amount will not do. Not for Mars.

---

Don't you really only need the fuel to get the rocket out of the Earths' atmosphere and primary gravitational field. Because in space their is no air resistance or friction to slow it down, only the relatively weak gravitational pull of the planets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brisco Bold

Tangent - What's better: China, USSR, Europe, US (Brazil, Canada, heh) competing against each other with moderate cooperation to advance their space agendas, or a united space federation which each country contributes to? Competition begat technological advances, historically, but would it not be prudent to partake in a joint venture considering the potential costs for such a grand venture?

---

They've been trying that with the ISS (International Space Station). But, Russia (which hasn't been the USSR since the early 90s, it's a Federation now) never has the money to pull its own weight. So, they spend a couple of months whining to NASA and the ESA for more scratch. Then, when they finally get it, they just piss it all away and finish the rest of their project on the shoe-string budget they started out with.

You can never divorce a country's self-interest from something like this. It would take a one-world government to effectively run a harmonious space initiative.