Why is NASA scared of Mars?

[classic33]

The camera was on a boom, and the rover was a folder, albeit not a Brompton. Interestingly, all the photo such as the one you posted, are of Aldrin, who got so excited he forgot to take any of Armstrong.

Even the biggest conspiracy theorists have trouble explaining the abandoned descent sections of the Apollo craft and the trails of footprints still on the surface, which have been photographed from orbit by both the Russians and Japanese in recent years.

Were they left by Russians though!

 

[jonny jeez]

They should launch a mission now, after all according to the film 'The Martian'
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej3ioOneTy8
You can grow spuds in your own poo....i mean if they send enough people up, build a few bogs, they may even be able to grow a few turnips and if they munch on some vindaloo they may be able to grow the odd cabbage as well. How about they take some grass seed along with a petrol mower fitted with an oxygen bottle they'll even be able to sunbath on a lawn.......Ok i'll get my coat

I cant tell if you are being ironic...but this is pretty close to the Tera-forming concepts that have already been put forward for Mars.

Granted they will all take around 100 years to create any form of atmosphere capable of warming the planet...let alone oxygenating it...but poo and plants seems to be the way forward!

Oh and the petrol mower; a few scientists suggest huge CO2 emitting generators, to create greenhouse gasses. Like a really big lawnmoer

 

[jonny jeez]

I have a method for search the cosmos, which is not quite si-fi
Basically you take your own planet with you.

Send a satellite to survey the Asteroid belt which is just beyond Mars
Find a suitable mostly solid iron asteroid, something 5-10 miles across
With a bit of nudging, move it into an earth orbit (only needs a slight thrust, and who case if it take 10 years to arrive)
Mine the asteroid from the inside to create a vast void for the iron ore which can be dropped down on earth as targeted meteorites
Terraform the interior of the asteroid, move a small population up there who then can live for a generation or two in Earth's orbit learning how to live off planet.
Move the asteroid out of earths orbit, a couple of slingshots around say Jupiter and then the sun should give you a decent speed and then head for the nearest star
A few generations later you arrive, check it out and move on until you find a planet you can populate. then keep on moving

Sorry but I cant resist....

Problem 1-
5-10 miles is not sufficient to generate enough gravity to be of any benefit to the astronauts (the mars Direct, Spinning doo-dad is a better plan), They would all become weak and after a couple of generations (assuming they could survive in that state) would have produced offspring with no muscular strength at all.
Problem 2-
How would you terraform the inside of an asteroid. you need sun to grow stuff to create atmosphere, warmth and oxygen
Problem 3-
Why mine the inside of the asteroid?, why not just ride it, it is weightless after all
Problem D-
How do you propel a rock through space.

it would be easier to build a vast station in space, just within earth orbit. from there you could do your tests for a generation or two learning how to live off planet and then either move the station, or build a transit vehicle up there, from smaller parts shipped up in other, smaller shuttle craft.

you could build it by getting all of the nations on earth to contribute and could call it something suitable, like the global space station, or the international space station, that has a good ring to it.

Now, if only NASA hadn't cancelled those shuttle projects.

 

[classic33]

Sorry but I cant resist....

Problem 1-
5-10 miles is not sufficient to generate enough gravity to be of any benefit to the astronauts (the mars Direct, Spinning doo-dad is a better plan), They would all become weak and after a couple of generations (assuming they could survive in that state) would have produced offspring with no muscular strength at all.
Problem 2-
How would you terraform the inside of an asteroid. you need sun to grow stuff to create atmosphere, warmth and oxygen
Problem 3-
Why mine the inside of the asteroid?, why not just ride it, it is weightless after all
Problem D-
How do you propel a rock through space.

it would be easier to build a vast station in space, just within earth orbit. fro there you could do your tests for a generation or two learning how to live off planet and then either move the station, or build a transit vehicle up their from smaller parts shipped up in small shuttle craft.

you could build it by getting all of the nations on earth to contribute and could call it something suitable, like the global space station, or the international space station, that has a good ring to it.

Now, if only NASA hadn't cancelled those shuttle projects.

They've also ruled out any "return to the moon", to use as a base for launching missions further afield.

 

[slowmotion]

It's daft. You send a few intrepid souls to "boldly go" and spend a year being heavily irradiated while their muscles atrophy and their bones weaken. What's the point?

 

[jonny jeez]

It's daft. You send a few intrepid souls to "boldly go" and spend a year being heavily irradiated while their muscles atrophy and their bones weaken. What's the point?

Same point as Viking, Rosetta, Hubble, Apollo.

Because its there.

 

[jonny jeez]

As said above both but I suspect its more about funding. They have had robots on the surface for years so I suspect they know enough about conditions on the surface to have that sussed out, the big unknown is the journey.

I think its a little more. About 10 years ago the mars direct team generated huge buzz (see what I did there) with their cheap, simple mission concept.

Nasa eventually responded by cancelling mars research, almost out of spite or acceptance that they were being trumped with Independant ideas. They had a wake up call and despite doing some amazing work, started to feel threatened for funding..

Every time an independent firm comes up with a better idea, it weakens NASA.
So NASA now seems to deploy research in smaller side projects, that maintain just enough interest to keep the money flowing but not so much as to attract competition.

They need to be brave, stick it all on red and shoot for the stars.

 

[Drago]

It's daft. You send a few intrepid souls to "boldly go" and spend a year being heavily irradiated while their muscles atrophy and their bones weaken. What's the point?

Yep, a year in space to end up with the upper body of a professional road racing cyclist. Could do that for pennies on Earth.

 

[classic33]

I think its a little more. About 10 years ago the mars direct team generated huge buzz (see what I did there) with their cheap, simple mission concept.

Nasa eventually responded by cancelling mars research, almost out of spite or acceptance that they were being trumped with Independant ideas. They had a wake up call and despite doing some amazing work, started to feel threatened for funding..

Every time an independent firm comes up with a better idea, it weakens NASA.
So NASA now seems to deploy research in smaller side projects, that maintain just enough interest to keep the money flowing but not so much as to attract competition.

They need to be brave, stick it all on red and shoot for the stars.

You'll not be signing up then?

 

[ufkacbln]

Look what happened last time!

 

[marinyork]

The faster, better, cheaper philosophy of NASA since when I was small has always been taken to be the end of missions with people.

 

[Profpointy]

Look what happened last time!

To be fair the trip itself was OK, but starting shooting at them was the problem.

Oh dear is that a bit sad my knowing that.

EDIT
Maybe another purchase for when I finish Thunderbirds

 

[burndust]

NASA now suggests a manned trip to mars in 2030...or there abouts, yet the technology and resources are available to send man to the red planet within the next 10 years. In fact it seems we could go within the next 3 but would need to delay untill the budgets catch up with us over the following 7 years.

NASA states concerns, like back contamination, planetary protection and radiation ...and then sets out to spend billions of bucks and years of time researching every last detail.

A single objective mission (like going to the moon in the 60s) stands the risk of putting all of NASAs financial eggs in a one basket and ultimately could lead to cancellation of funding. Without a few side projects on the go, this would leave NASA in a financially vulnerable position.

Is NASA scared of loosing astronauts, or scared of loosing funding?

I guess the yanks don't see any political gain in space at the moment, the main reason they went to the moon was to beat the russians

 

[jonny jeez]

The faster, better, cheaper philosophy of NASA since when I was small has always been taken to be the end of missions with people.

I recall a quote from (I think) Aldrin along the lines of..."it was only when I was sat on top of a vast hydrogen bomb, that I considered how it had been put together by the lowest competitive bid"

Its a great sales quote!

 

[ufkacbln]

To be fair the trip itself was OK, but starting shooting at them was the problem.

Oh dear is that a bit sad my knowing that

NASA is US based - what did you expect?