Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Beowulf on December 30, 2003, 07:18:25 pm

Title: Space.
Post by: Beowulf on December 30, 2003, 07:18:25 pm: Space. What is awaiting us? Why won't we leave Earth? Why won't we reach out and grasp what is waiting for us? Garr! We had the technology in 1969 to go to Mars! Why haven't we left yet?

Triton
(http://www.nasm.edu/ceps/etp/neptune/neptimg/NEPT_P34764triton.jpg)

Mars
(http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/may_2000/n_pole/npole_i1.jpg)

Mars
(http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/e7_e12_captioned_rel/42S_158W_i1.jpg)

Mars
(http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/e7_e12_captioned_rel/39S_166W_i1.jpg)

Mars
(http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/8_2002_releases/incacity/E09-00186.gif)

Mars
(http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/spolar_9_01/E08_574_575.jpg)

Mars
(http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/dec02/npstorm/5_24_02_npolar_storms_i.jpg)

Mars
(http://www.msss.com/education/happy_face/happy_logo.gif)

Europa
(http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/browse/PIA00325.jpg)

Io
(http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA02584_modest.jpg)

And yes, that's a real crater. And yes, thats a volcanic eruption on Jupiter's moon Io.

EDIT: Don't miss the last Mars picture.
Title: Space.
Post by: aldo_14 on December 30, 2003, 07:22:06 pm: Becauuse we'd end up landing in a crater and getting lost

:)

Seriously, we're still a bit off of being ready to go to Mars, IMO. I think the amount of supllies required for a trip - with current propulsion tech - would cause major difficulties in building a suitable spacecraft.

Truth is, we should have been planning to go to Mars 20 years ago. Now it might never happen in my lifetime.....
Title: Space.
Post by: Beowulf on December 30, 2003, 07:24:26 pm: Read Mars Direct by Robert Zubrin.

All the questions you will ever have are answered.
All the reasons for going are given.
One of my favorite books, a must read.

Here's a little intro: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00087E38-5B46-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21
Title: Space.
Post by: aldo_14 on December 30, 2003, 07:27:35 pm: Only need one reason -

We've never been before

Simple as that.
Title: Space.
Post by: Odyssey on December 30, 2003, 07:32:12 pm: [color=cc9900]There is no point in sending humans to Mars, as it would just be another country trying to prove itself - the political climate isn't like what it was during the Cold War any more. Unless you're China.[/color]
Title: Space.
Post by: vyper on December 30, 2003, 07:34:02 pm: What about human achievement?
Title: Space.
Post by: Odyssey on December 30, 2003, 07:48:18 pm: [color=cc9900]What, proving we've finally got around to doing something we had the ability to do for ages, and then only doing it for the hell of it? Fair representation of humans, I suppose.[/color]
Title: Space.
Post by: Beowulf on December 30, 2003, 08:15:33 pm: Read Mars Direct. Mars is an economic stimulus package if I've ever seen one.

And if all else fails... what about for fun?
Title: Space.
Post by: Flaser on December 30, 2003, 08:20:58 pm: no commenr on my part
<------
Title: Space.
Post by: Odyssey on December 30, 2003, 08:24:58 pm: [color=cc9900]There are practical reasons why it isn't exactly safe to send even a small nuclear reactor into space...[/color]
Title: Space.
Post by: jdjtcagle on December 30, 2003, 08:31:15 pm: Go to the NASA website and ask them yourself. I asked them these very same questions and they told me it was extremely expensive for this kind of things. We are in dept and NASA gets very little money from the government anymore.:)

Somewhere along those lines and yes that is the anwer to your questions. let me find a link.
Title: Space.
Post by: Bobboau on December 30, 2003, 09:37:52 pm: are we there yet?

I heard Bush is trying to do something with finaly getting us that moon base we've been eyeing for the last 30 years. and I think there is a mars trip involved somehow.. it was in a law passed not to long ago
Title: Space.
Post by: Thorn on December 30, 2003, 09:58:16 pm: He was talking about using the moon as a launchpad to mars or somesuch thing...
Title: Space.
Post by: jdjtcagle on December 30, 2003, 10:04:33 pm: They want to use the moon for a launch pad because it would be a lot less expensive for the fuel. I mean
Title: Space.
Post by: Odyssey on December 30, 2003, 10:12:03 pm: [color=cc9900]They'd have to persuade the moon-dwellers to buy Shell franchises.[/color]
Title: Space.
Post by: aldo_14 on December 31, 2003, 05:25:08 am: Someone at Nasa told Bush he could mine the moon for cheese.
Title: Space.
Post by: Singh on December 31, 2003, 06:21:08 am: I would say first send more Robots to mars and experiment with different, faster ways to send things there.

Nuclear reactors ought to be used in spaced- maybe if they were taken up in small components and built over the VERY long term, it may be a bit safer? The only dangerous component might be taking up the Uranium I think, although correct me if I am wrong about this.
Title: Space.
Post by: Carl on December 31, 2003, 06:45:12 am: the main problem as far as i know is that a ship wouldn't have enough fuel to escape both earth's and mars' gravity in one trip. there's a proposed plan where they can make the fuel on mars, butg it's complicated, and if one thing goes wrong, that's 3 or so astronauts and several billion dollars down the drain.
Title: Space.
Post by: Flaser on December 31, 2003, 07:10:42 am: That's why the plan involved 3 separate ERV spaceships - 1 sent ahead, 1 travelling with the astronauts, and 1 that can be sent after them if all fails - and the astronauts would have enough supplies to last even until a 4th ERV is sent to them.
Title: Space.
Post by: jdjtcagle on December 31, 2003, 11:01:27 am: Quote
Originally posted by Singh
I would say first send more Robots to mars and experiment with different, faster ways to send things there.

Over the next fourteen years we will have a few satelites and around seven robots.:)
Title: Space.
Post by: diamondgeezer on December 31, 2003, 12:30:04 pm: I saw some film of one guy who'd built a gizmo for making fuel out of atmospheric CO2. And any armchair astronomer could tell you why that's significant for a Martian landing.
Title: Space.
Post by: Flaser on December 31, 2003, 12:35:18 pm: You know the "off-the-land" aprroach that was mentioned a dozen times already uses the method.
Title: Space.
Post by: diamondgeezer on December 31, 2003, 12:53:28 pm: The what?
Title: Space.
Post by: Odyssey on December 31, 2003, 01:23:03 pm: [color=cc9900]It's something to do with that 'Mars Direct' thing, I think. Making most stuff while you're there instead of taking it with you. Helluva risky, if you ask me.[/color]
Title: Space.
Post by: Stryke 9 on December 31, 2003, 04:41:58 pm: Why bother with this Mars Direct thing? Hell, we were planning to send a US-Russian ship a decade or two back, was a given thing. Not sure why it didn't, actually, except that I'd imagine shortly after the USSR went to ****.