Do you think it's right for NASA to run the 'One-way trip to mars' misson?

[-Danube-]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VPpT3rs1J0

Many people would love the chance to go into space and even Mars, but do you think it's right that NASA should be able to cut costs by not allowing the people who go on this pioneering mission to return? One of the main reasons why it is so expensive is because we do not have the exact correct equipment and technology at this time, but still the USA and NASA want to be the first people to land people on Mars but do you think that this is fair to come at the cost of human lives, even if they are volunteers.

One of the main problems is the solar radiation that they will be exposed to on their way to Mars, there are ways to shield this but the equipment is too heavy at this time and would take far too much fuel to lift off. This means that the passengers aboard would be put at a very high risk of developing aggressive cancers which will kill them in a short space of time. To be an astronaut you have to be quite physically and mentally fit, so by NASA doing this program, just because they want to win the race to the red planet, they are going to let perfectly healthy people die.

Do you think it's the own fault of the volunteers if they die as they knew what they were signing up for? Or do you think it is unfair of NASA to tempt people onto this mission that will end in their deaths in the name of science? Should we just wait until we have the technologies to do a safe mission to Mars?


DEBATE!

[Conservative,]

They need to wait until the technology is ready.

Having said that im sure all people going on this trip would be told about the consequences and dangers and therefore will be doing it at their own risk.

So concluding...I think that they should do it when the technology to protect ect is ready.

[Gina]

I think it can be risky as for the moment we're still discovering new things and at the moment I dont think all the technology we need is here

I think they need to wait untill they've got the technology Its a bad danger risk

In the future they may do this again and find out they've got the tech now, so why did they do it before

If People do choose to do it, sure they may be told this will happen, this may happen, whats the point, if they wait a few years
We could have the same thing but they have the tech and money to send people back ad so they know what was going to happen

[Eoin247]

There are very few things a person can do in life to distinguish themselves out of over 5 billion people. The people who go on this trip will be made immortal. They may not live forever but they will be remembered forever as people who gave their own lives for the human race.

This is why i am for NASA doing this mission. I think you will find that there is a huge amount of people who would do anything to go on this mission even if it means they wont return. The people who are given the opportunity realise that if they ever want to get off the earth before they die, this is their sole chance.


I believe that this mission is not "inhumane" its in fact very humane as it gives a few people the chance to do something that nobody else their age will ever get to do.

[SirTezza]

Radiation from deep space is a very real and very dangerous factor when talking about a voyage to Mars. Without the protection of a planets atmosphere the astronauts and their vehicle will feel the direct impact of that radiation. I think they need to work on that more before they talk about sending people to Mars.

I do disagree with sending people on a one way ticket to the Martian surface purely to cut the cost by about 70%. In my opinion they should concentrate on building a space station to orbit the surface and work from there, however this also proves very costly.

Communication between here and Mars will be very crazy. If the sun is in between Mars and the earth, which it is every 768 days, then the radio communication signal would take 21 minutes to reach the other end, and this would happen for several weeks, until the sun was out of the way. If the sun is not in the way, it will take about 4 minutes for the signal to reach. Meaning that an astronaut could say something, and mission control will not hear it for either of those minutes, and vice versa.

So back to the main topic, I think at this time it is unfair to send people to Mars at all, let alone on a one way ticket. There is a lot to consider and they should take their time.

[Eoin247]

I do disagree with sending people on a one way ticket to the Martian surface purely to cut the cost by about 70%.
Well actualy it's not purely about the money, NASA do want to colonise mars. Also that 70% equates to many many billions . Spending that much money to bring back volunteers who are getting the chance of many lifetimes just doesn't seem right to me. I saw an add on the tv the other day that my one dollar per day will save an African child per day. I know it's a bit off the point but do the math XD.


Communication between here and Mars will be very crazy. If the sun is in between Mars and the earth, which it is every 768 days, then the radio communication signal would take 21 minutes to reach the other end, and this would happen for several weeks, until the sun was out of the way. If the sun is not in the way, it will take about 4 minutes for the signal to reach. Meaning that an astronaut could say something, and mission control will not hear it for either of those minutes, and vice versa.

200 years ago, even less , It took 21 minutes for a message to get from a little country cottage to a town. Nobody knew what was going on in the world (or even country!) around them. Im sure this "message lag", is one of their least problems considering that at its closest mars is 54.6 million km away from earth.

[HotelUser]

The astronauts know there's danger to it, and if they decide to take part in a trip with just one ticket that's their decision. As long as they make it without influence I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to.

[Moh]

It's not so much the technology, it's all the testing that's required (cost-prohibitive) for it to be used and the fact the whole computer system NASA use is designed to work as a closed system. Most of the technology NASA use is from the 1970s.

I think it's totally up the astronauts, they will know it's a one way ticket.. although will life insurance cover it?

[Conservative,]

although will life insurance cover it?

Good question lol.

[SirTezza]

200 years ago, even less , It took 21 minutes for a message to get from a little country cottage to a town. Nobody knew what was going on in the world (or even country!) around them. Im sure this "message lag", is one of their least problems considering that at its closest mars is 54.6 million km away from earth.

This is a null point. Mars being that far away is not a problem. The vehicle will have enough fuel to launch and then complete course correction burns on the way to keep them going to mars. When they are not doing that they will be coasting, without using fuel towards their target, because there will be no gravity pulling from any other planets as they progress, so I can assure you that the distance isn't the problem.

The means of communication is BIGGER than the distance of the planets. When they are at their closest points, they are in a straight line, so then it will take 4 minutes to receive a message. They will overcome this, of course they will - but it is bigger than the importance of distance.

If they wanted to send people to mars it would be easy. On a 3 stage rocket they would have more than enough stowage to keep their food in. After all the first probe that touched the surface of mars was in the 1970's, so it really is not the distance.

This is why they are saying they will use a 1 way ticket to mars. Because getting there, quite simple and a lot cheaper. Getting them back, that will require more invested money, more cargo to stow, more course correction burns on the way back, so all in all, even more fuel.

[Eoin247]

This is a null point.

You said this and didn't really back it up, you then went on to talk about something different so im guessing you misunderstood what i meant.

Of course they dont intend to have a conversation "Hi" {21 mins} "hi , how are you all?" {21 mins} "im good" etc

They will send all info as a "package" and get what they need back in another "package". When i talked about how life was 200 years ago i simply pointed out that people lived in that way before, it's only in very recent years tht we have instant communication across earth.

[GommeInc]

I can't see the title the US will hold will be all that appealing. "The USA, first country to land man on Mars WITHOUT them returning." It'd be more impressive if they could return as well, not just be left to die on some deserted rock. They should probably explore the technology and equipment needed to land man on Mars further. Volunteers would be doing it for all the wrong reasons with annoying self-less lust for their country, which we all know far too well is alive and well in the USA - not necessarily a bad thing, but not healthy given some circumstances.

[Tintinnabulate]

Given American culture, I am surprised they are willing to let people die.

[SirTezza]

You said this and didn't really back it up, you then went on to talk about something different so im guessing you misunderstood what i meant.

Of course they dont intend to have a conversation "Hi" {21 mins} "hi , how are you all?" {21 mins} "im good" etc

They will send all info as a "package" and get what they need back in another "package". When i talked about how life was 200 years ago i simply pointed out that people lived in that way before, it's only in very recent years tht we have instant communication across earth.

Okay I understand what you mean about the second point now, thanks for clearing it up. I agree people have lived in that way before, and we have got used to more instant communication.

Regarding the first point; when I mentioned communicating I didn't mean quick calls. But communicating from deep space is difficult even when the data is sent as a packet. The telemetry of the data packet will be created first, usually monitored by a committee that runs the deep space communication, especially the important data packets that is sending back information from a scientific stand point.

However, there are messages that may be of urgency, leading to the usage of a data packet just not enough. I have heard that they are considering putting satellites in orbit around the earth and around mars in a B orbit, allowing for a better flow and transfer of data packets and conversation. There is a lot to think about, and I am sure they will come up with the solution in due course.

[Eoin247]

"The USA, first country to land man on Mars WITHOUT them returning."

I truly believe that this will go down in history as " The USA, first country to colonise Mars"


Given American culture, I am surprised they are willing to let people die

Ever hear of the middle east?

I have a feeling that in years to come movies will be made about this whether it happens or not. :)

[karter]

The Mars missions according to me, are useless. We've spent like millions only to find that probably life existed on Mars once. What will this Mission result in? We'll get to know a few more facts about Mars , USA will be widely applauded for the mission. :rolleyes:

[Eoin247]

What will this Mission result in? We'll get to know a few more facts about Mars

This mission seems to be concerned with primarily to take our first steps in "colonising" other planets, rather than finding out more facts although that is probably something they will also do.

[karter]

What I am trying to say that a one way mission can do nothing helpful , we can only discover about the planet.

[Zak]

If people are willing to give their lives for this mission, I don't see why NASA are doing anything wrong.

[Richie]

Yes, they're not forcing people to go. Its optional.

[Trainway]

Woah this is crazy. But I think it's "right" - I mean they know what they are getting themselves into.

But, for me, I wouldn't go frankly because we don't really know what to expect when you finally arrive.

[miles.bullock]

Well it is all up to the astronorts if thay whant to do it why not ?
prove me wrong.

[Neversoft]

This is hardly a topic for debate. There is no right or wrong and the poster above me is spot on. If any astronauts want to do this then fair enough, NASA can make it happen. They're not forcing people into it.

[Nuxty]

I personally think this is a pathetic idea and I totally feel this a mission like this is inhumane in my opinion. How can you possibly even consider sending humans to live on a planet and expect them never to return, this is there intention is it not?

In a way they are trying to create life using artificial methods in order to create life on another planet... I just don't understand why. What is the reason for this? Why should astronauts give up the life they are living now in order to create a new form of life? I think this is just... weird.

[Conservative,]

I personally think this is a pathetic idea and I totally feel this a mission like this is inhumane in my opinion. How can you possibly even consider sending humans to live on a planet and expect them never to return, this is there intention is it not?

In a way they are trying to create life using artificial methods in order to create life on another planet... I just don't understand why. What is the reason for this? Why should astronauts give up the life they are living now in order to create a new form of life? I think this is just... weird.

They're not being forced, it will be their choice, they will know what they're letting themselves in for. And it's not just to go and live on another planet, it's to colonize that planet and explore it.

[Nuxty]

Yeah but its also a "one-way" trip. Trust me, NASA will put pressure on a team to go up there. Will whoever does go up there will practically be dead on earth as they won't really "exist" on earth anymore. I am against it as I feel its people throwing their lives away. Thats my opinion anyway.

[Conservative,]

Yeah but its also a "one-way" trip. Trust me, NASA will put pressure on a team to go up there. Will whoever does go up there will practically be dead on earth as they won't really "exist" on earth anymore. I am against it as I feel its people throwing their lives away. Thats my opinion anyway.

They're throwing away their lives by being the first people on another planet? Theyll be the most famous people on earth.

[Rixion]

There is a chance they won't be throwing lives away, if they don't waste their supplies, plus Earth apparently sending more food/water every so many months.. it could well work.

Although we don't have sufficient information to find out whether Mars is inhabitable or not so it could fail too, I'd say we need to find out more about the planet before rocketing a bunch of astronauts there for life.

[Eoin247]

They're throwing away their lives by being the first people on another planet? Theyll be the most famous people on earth.

Yes as i said in my previous posts, they will be imortilised by doing this, they will be remembered as the first colonisers of "the new world", just like columbus.

[Conservative,]

Yes as i said in my previous posts, they will be imortilised by doing this, they will be remembered as the first colonisers of "the new world", just like columbus.

Exactly. Although I'd never do it both because I can't (health reasons) and because I couldn't leave my family, I think it would be an amazing opportunity.

[Eoin247]

There is a chance they won't be throwing lives away, if they don't waste their supplies, plus Earth apparently sending more food/water every so many months.. it could well work.

Although we don't have sufficient information to find out whether Mars is inhabitable or not so it could fail too, I'd say we need to find out more about the planet before rocketing a bunch of astronauts there for life.

Don't worry i don't think NASA are just sending them there to abandon them. The main focus of this mission seems to be to colonise Mars, won't do this much good if the astronauts are corpses. :)

[Conservative,]

Don't worry i don't think NASA are just sending them there to abandon them. The main focus of this mission seems to be to colonise Mars, won't do this much good if the astronauts are corpses. :)

Exactly haha. They'll do everything they can to make the mission successful.

[Eoin247]

Exactly haha. They'll do everything they can to make the mission successful.

Yeah, i suppose as long as it's not too expensive. Remember that's the main or else the second main reason the astronauts won't return.

I think that possible the money side of it might be just a bit of a cover up on NASAs part. Maybe to make it seem as theres no choice but to send them there on a one way ticket. Maybe NASA just want this colonisation of mars ASAP and so they do this.

Food for though. :)

[GommeInc]

I truly believe that this will go down in history as " The USA, first country to colonise Mars"
Eh? How? I very much doubt it would be a single nation effort to colonise Mars, it would probably be a joint effort with countries like China and/or Russia being the first to actually land on Mars and then bring those people back. The USA just want to chuck a man at Mars and have them claim a stake in the planet, rather than anything truely worth while (other than bury the first human being on Mars, assuming they have a robot up there controlled from Earth to bury the dead).

[MrPinkPanther]

What many of you are failing to realise is that "returning" is actually a fairly new concept that has developed over the past few centuries. Prior to that exploration often did mean visiting a place and not returning, unless of course you were particularly wealthy. For example look at the colonisation of America, the people left knowing that they would never return. I don't think the fact that they aren't coming back is a major problem because it's the nature of a mission like this and it will be completely infeasible to offer a return journey any time soon and the potential rewards of it are actually much smaller, the point is to colonise Mars.

That said there are considerations that have to be taken into account such as, as people have mentioned, cancer in deep space and long term care. It's fine when someone is young and healthy but what about when the team grows old and is less physically and physiologically able? In terms of Space exploration 20 years is not a large amount of time and yet in terms of Human ageing it's a huge amount of time. It's certainly a tricky subject and one that I fear none of us will be able to think through and answer properly.

[Eoin247]

Eh? How? I very much doubt it would be a single nation effort to colonise Mars, it would probably be a joint effort with countries like China and/or Russia being the first to actually land on Mars and then bring those people back. The USA just want to chuck a man at Mars and have them claim a stake in the planet, rather than anything truely worth while (other than bury the first human being on Mars, assuming they have a robot up there controlled from Earth to bury the dead).

MrPinkpanther already wrote much of what i wanted to say to this, people back pre 1700s( even sooner for many) had to leave their homes and never return. But, if the USA are going there first then of course it's their name that's going down, just like the first man on the moon.

"Chuck a man at mars"you say, if they sent the men/women up there with no protection,food,water and without a plan to keep them alive then they'd be "chucking" them up there. What they going to be doing is trying to keep them alive to the best of their resources.

What they are doing is begining human history on Mars.

[GommeInc]

They're not being forced, it will be their choice, they will know what they're letting themselves in for. And it's not just to go and live on another planet, it's to colonize that planet and explore it.
Where's the news about colonising it? Last time I checked, we lacked the technology to colonise anything in space. This mission is obviously an example of America trying to beat other countries to Mars, no matter what. As far as I see it, it's only a great mission if they can bring back the people they're shooting off to Mars. Until then, it's not an amazing feat.


MrPinkpanther already wrote much of what i wanted to say to this, people back pre 1700s( even sooner for many) had to leave their homes and never return. But, if the USA are going there first then of course it's their name that's going down, just like the first man on the moon.

"Chuck a man at mars"you say, if they sent the men/women up there with no protection,food,water and without a plan to keep them alive then they'd be "chucking" them up there. What they going to be doing is trying to keep them alive to the best of their resources.

What they are doing is begining human history on Mars.
Ah, so like leaving a hamster at home all on it's own with a full bowl of food to keep it alive for a couple of days. Perfect, that makes it all the more better :P


What many of you are failing to realise is that "returning" is actually a fairly new concept that has developed over the past few centuries.
You mean this century? It's not been 100 years yet :P

[Eoin247]

Where's the news about colonising it? Last time I checked, we lacked the technology to colonise anything in space. This mission is obviously an example of America trying to beat other countries to Mars, no matter what. As far as I see it, it's only a great mission if they can bring back the people they're shooting off to Mars. Until then, it's not an amazing feat.


Ah, so like leaving a hamster at home all on it's own with a full bowl of food to keep it alive for a couple of days. Perfect, that makes it all the more better :P


You mean this century? It's not been 100 years yet :P

1. As you see from my previous posts i disagree with this, How can an operation of this magnitude and expense not be an amazing feat?

2.Humans aren't hamsters, if you disagree with NASA doing this do you also disagree with the international space station?

3. All he was saying is that it was an idea developing over the past few centuries, i don't know why you are talking about it not being 100 years yet.

[GommeInc]

1. As you see from my previous posts i disagree with this, How can an operation of this magnitude and expense not be an amazing feat?

2.Humans aren't hamsters, if you disagree with NASA doing this do you also disagree with the international space station?

3. All he was saying is that it was an idea developing over the past few centuries, i don't know why you are talking about it not being 100 years yet.
1. It's an interesting feat., but not amazing. Amazing would be bringing them back and forth, not doing what some people do and that is lick or spit on food to claim it as their own.

2. I honestly don't know where you got that comparison, so I won't answer such a silly question as the two are completely different. International Space Station workers tend to come back.

3. Don't make up stories. He obviously stated "returning" as a new concept, referring to moon landings and any other space adventures or experiments. If he was stating the idea as developing, he would of done. And it's not been 100 years yet, century = 100 years. Look it up. Last time I checked, man didn't go into space until 1961 (Russian interstellar space mission). It's not 2061, so it hasn't been a century and the prior to this with testing and so forth, the first tests weren't done in the early 1900s.

[Conservative,]

1. It's an interesting feat., but not amazing. Amazing would be bringing them back and forth, not doing what some people do and that is lick or spit on food to claim it as their own.

2. I honestly don't know where you got that comparison, so I won't answer such a silly question as the two are completely different. International Space Station workers tend to come back.

3. Don't make up stories. He obviously stated "returning" as a new concept, referring to moon landings and any other space adventures or experiments. If he was stating the idea as developing, he would of done. And it's not been 100 years yet, century = 100 years. Look it up. Last time I checked, man didn't go into space until 1961 (Russian interstellar space mission). It's not 2061, so it hasn't been a century and the prior to this with testing and so forth, the first tests weren't done in the early 1900s.

Actually he meant the concept of returning from anywhere in general. Was it not just a few centuries ago that America was founded? And the people left knowing full well that they were never going to come back, and there was a possible chance of dying on the journey. This is not THAT different, except it will be written in the books of history - therefore, I have no problem with it. The will know the consequences, they will know what they're getting themselves into, it's their choice and thus no one should say they can't if they want to.

[Eoin247]

1. It's an interesting feat., but not amazing. Amazing would be bringing them back and forth, not doing what some people do and that is lick or spit on food to claim it as their own.

2. I honestly don't know where you got that comparison, so I won't answer such a silly question as the two are completely different. International Space Station workers tend to come back.

3. Don't make up stories. He obviously stated "returning" as a new concept, referring to moon landings and any other space adventures or experiments. If he was stating the idea as developing, he would of done. And it's not been 100 years yet, century = 100 years. Look it up. Last time I checked, man didn't go into space until 1961 (Russian interstellar space mission). It's not 2061, so it hasn't been a century and the prior to this with testing and so forth, the first tests weren't done in the early 1900s.

Really? If you read over the last few posts you will see where i got that comparison.

He did state it as developing actualy.

He said it
developed over the past few centuries

And to the rest of point three , you seem to be arguing with me over a point i didn't make? All i said is you quoted pink panther about something that hadn't any reason for you to say "it hasn't been 100 years yet".

[GommeInc]

The story about travelling to America is absolute rubbish in comparison. Water ships and "space" ships work completely differently to each other, one of which is probably alot safer and surviving journeys have changed considerably. And the concept of returning isn't new at all? History is littered with exploration, journeys and so forth. The journey to America was only problematic because peasants went there without the proper, tried and tested equipment - Christopher Columbus for example, he did well surviving. Unless you mean recently as in between now and 0 A.D? :P

Really? If you read over the last few posts you will see where i got that comparison.

He did state it as developing actualy.

He said it

And to the rest of point three , you seem to be arguing with me over a point i didn't make? All i said is you quoted pink panther about something that hadn't any reason for you to say "it hasn't been 100 years yet".
Look up the difference between "developed" and "developing".

Anyway, I seem to be attacked saying I don't think it should happen for some unknown reason, when all I stated was that it's not amazing as it just seems to be a game of "who can get there first".

[Eoin247]

Look up the difference between "developed" and "developing".

Lol let me explain.

He said developed over the past few centuries which is another way of saying it was developing

It's like saying it cooked over the last three hours, another way of saying it was cooking.

Understand now? :)

[GommeInc]

Lol let me explain.

He said developed over the past few centuries which is another way of saying it was developing

It's like saying it cooked over the last three hours, another way of saying it was cooking.

Understand now? :)
"Developed in the past few centures" is referring to the past development. He didn't suggest it was ongoing development ;)

Like saying it cooked within the past few hours, meaning it cooked with in the past few hours and is now cooked.

[Eoin247]

So we are in agreement he did say developing over the past few centuries, which was what i originaly said. :)

Back on topic however, this hasn't recieved as much media attention as i thought it would.

Looking at the major news sites recently i failed to see very much (if any) mention of this programme.

Kinda funny, if you said to people twenty years ago that we'd have people living on mars before we had them living on the moon they would laugh at you.

[GommeInc]

So we are in agreement he did say developing over the past few centuries, which was what i originaly said. :)

Back on topic however, this hasn't recieved as much media attention as i thought it would.

Looking at the major news sites recently i failed to see very much (if any) mention of this programme.

Kinda funny, if you said to people twenty years ago that we'd have people living on mars before we had them living on the moon they would laugh at you.
No... Because you said it was "developing", when he said it had already developed (with reference to the past few centuries), so they're not the same :P

Is it actually to colonise? Because at the moment it's being advertised as a race to Mars, rather than any sort of colonisation mission. The media might not be bothered as it's too far away to care, and has been on the cards for so long already :)

[Eoin247]

No... Because you said it was "developing", when he said it had already developed (with reference to the past few centuries), so they're not the same :P

Is it actually to colonise? Because at the moment it's being advertised as a race to Mars, rather than any sort of colonisation mission. The media might not be bothered as it's too far away to care, and has been on the cards for so long already :)

Well i suppose if they're going to live there and stay there it's the beginings of colonising mars. Nonetheless you are correct in saying it's also a race. Yeah the ideas been around for ages but i would have thought that the media would have weekly stories on this , maybe NASA aren't giving out anything anymore.

All i said in my first post about developing was "it was an idea developing over the past few centuries", so we're not in agreement then?

[GommeInc]

Well i suppose if they're going to live there and stay there it's the beginings of colonising mars. Nonetheless you are correct in saying it's also a race. Yeah the ideas been around for ages but i would have thought that the media would have weekly stories on this , maybe NASA aren't giving out anything anymore.

All i said in my first post about developing was "it was an idea developing over the past few centuries", so we're not in agreement then?
Bottom bit: It was PinkPanther who said it, not you, thus why I replied to his post and not yours :P

Are they actually going to stay and live there though? Launching a rocket into a rock and hoping the people survive for a few days isn't really colonising. It's only colonising if they start building things and securing a foundation, but so far all the information seem to point at just launching them there and waiting for them to die, all in the name of being able to beat Russia/China to the Mars landing race (even though the two other nations will no doubt have a return mission). It seems to be in the early stages of planning though, so there may just be nothing to report on.

[SirTezza]

People had love for space flight all those years ago. They mentioned a mission to mars 40 years ago. It so happens that they did have a plan to go to mars back in the 1970s to be setting off for mars by 1983 or round about that time.

This was because before the budget cuts of the Apollo era, NASA were doing very well and they had planned to build a space station to orbit earth. They planned to have a 12 man space station by 1973, a 24 man space station by '78 and then a mission to have a space station around the moon in early 80s and then mars around '83.

This had to be slashed because of Nixon deciding he wasn't avid on spaceflight, which left NASA wet behind the ears, because they were already planning and developing heavy lift rockets to start building and developing in space.

[Eoin247]

People had love for space flight all those years ago. They mentioned a mission to mars 40 years ago. It so happens that they did have a plan to go to mars back in the 1970s to be setting off for mars by 1983 or round about that time.

This was because before the budget cuts of the Apollo era, NASA were doing very well and they had planned to build a space station to orbit earth. They planned to have a 12 man space station by 1973, a 24 man space station by '78 and then a mission to have a space station around the moon in early 80s and then mars around '83.

This had to be slashed because of Nixon deciding he wasn't avid on spaceflight, which left NASA wet behind the ears, because they were already planning and developing heavy lift rockets to start building and developing in space.

Interesting, I heard before about how while all other technologies have advanced rapidly during the last 20 years space technology has actualy slowed.

[SirTezza]

Oh yeh, it has slowed way, way down. It was thanks to Nixon that the budgets were cut, cancelling the last 3 Apollo Missions, the building of the 12 man space station and onto the other things. He wasn't interested in space flight so he was selfish and cancelled a lot of things.

During the 60's and 70's NASA had a budget of about 60 BILLION dollars, and considering this is the 70's that was massive. But after Nixon got his grubby hands on the paperwork he slashed the budget to about 5 billion. This is when they realised they needed a re-usable vehicle, that could also make money by taking military payloads, and could do 100 flights per year.

Born the Space Shuttle.

Although some things didn't go to plan, for example we didn't get that many flights per year, they didn't know how much the RDT and E and refurbishments would cost, and after the Challenger incident in the 80's, the military dropped them for some time from carrying their payloads, which lost them money.

[Eoin247]

Oh yeh, it has slowed way, way down. It was thanks to Nixon that the budgets were cut, cancelling the last 3 Apollo Missions, the building of the 12 man space station and onto the other things. He wasn't interested in space flight so he was selfish and cancelled a lot of things.

During the 60's and 70's NASA had a budget of about 60 BILLION dollars, and considering this is the 70's that was massive. But after Nixon got his grubby hands on the paperwork he slashed the budget to about 5 billion. This is when they realised they needed a re-usable vehicle, that could also make money by taking military payloads, and could do 100 flights per year.

Born the Space Shuttle.

Although some things didn't go to plan, for example we didn't get that many flights per year, they didn't know how much the RDT and E and refurbishments would cost, and after the Challenger incident in the 80's, the military dropped them for some time from carrying their payloads, which lost them money.

Well i wouldn't call it selfish since the money was badly needed elsewhere i think.

However, just imagine, where we could be today if the budget wasn't cut.

[SirTezza]

Lol yup. We would be on mars by now if we didn't have to re-design a completely new and re-usable ship to cut costs.

After cutting the last 3 Apollo missions it would have been good if Nixon had agreed to deep space exploration. We had Apollo 18 19 and 20 cut so we could have used those vehicles that would have been in the operations, building and designing phases respectively at that point, to use at a later date for transporting space station modules and nodes to the moon.

The fact that since the Apollo program nobody has ventured further than LEO is a big reason why people have lost interest in space flight and are less supportive nowadays. I think the apoapsis of the ISS is only about 370km, so nobody has been further than that since '72.

Depressing statistics!

I still remain a dominant supporter of the space program though, as my life is dedicated to aerospace engineering I have a real love for it. I am still in high hopes for the shuttle launch on November 30th. I was disappointed that it was postponed.

[scottish]

if the person wants to do it why the **** not

its their decision they're not being forced to do it..

[pebba]

The astronauts are not that good anyway because they dont even fly the shuttle manual in launch and re entry so to mars is crazy

[-:Undertaker:-]

A better question would be, is it right that the United States spends money on this whilst it racks up crippling debts?

[SirTezza]

The astronauts are not that good anyway because they dont even fly the shuttle manual in launch and re entry so to mars is crazy

This really has nothing to do with the ability of the astronauts. It is down to the aerodynamic control laws.

During ascent, trying to do the roll manoeuvre and then the pitch manoeuvre while under G stress is very, very difficult.

Even more so on the descent during re-entry. No pilot, not even the most experienced test pilots could bring down a space shuttle manually.
The reason for this is as I said before, the aerodynamic control laws.. for example:

When you hit the top of the atmosphere at mach 25, you have to use the RCS to control your attitude. Once the dynamic pressure increases as you descend, at about 10psi your ailerons become active, so you then have use those to control the vehicle roll, while still using the RCS for the other control surfaces.

Then as pressure increases further, at about 20psi you are able to use the elevators, which control the pitch. So now you must control the roll and pitch manually, and using the RCS to control the other surfaces. Your vertical stabiliser and the rudder, cannot be used at this point because as the shuttle descends it is at a 40 degree angle, this is why you must use the RCS for that control surface, the yaw, until about mach 1 when the space shuttle pitches down, and then the vertical stabiliser can be used.

So from mach 25 to mach 1, the flight control laws change so drastically, that no pilot could bring in a shuttle manually during re-entry. It has nothing to do with skill.

Typically the only manual flight that can easily be done by the pilot is when they glide cross range before landing. Even that is fixed by the computer however.

[pebba]

what is mach

[SirTezza]

Basically the mach number is a ratio between the aircrafts speed moving through a fluid and the speed of sound.

Speed of sound changes due to atmosphere and other pressure changes, including temperature. So the actual mach number changes.

But at sea level it is approx 761mph. As you raise altitude the sound ratio decreases. Until the vehicle is past the stratosphere there is no change in temperature at any altitude. But once passed this atmospheric level, the temperature also begins to change.

However if you wanted to know the different mach speeds at sea level just times 761.2mph by 2 to find mach 2 and by 3 to find mach 3 and so on. Of course this isn't accurate if we are talking about space flight.

All you have to do to work out the mach number at a certain ratio is to find the product.

So at sea level the speed is 761 approximately where of course the speed of sound ratio is 1.00. In order to find the speed and thus the mach number at different altitudes you multiply 761.2 by the ratio at that altitude.

At 5,000ft the speed of sound ratio is about 0.9827. So 761 x 0.9827 = 747 approx.
At 10,000ft the speed of sound ratio is about 0.9650. So 761 x 0.9650 = 734 approx.
At 15,000ft the speed of sound ratio is about 0.9470. So 761 x 0.9470 = 720 approx.

You get the idea.

So the speed of sound decreases as your altitude rises. Which is why it is easier to break the barrier in the air, than on the ground.

[Eoin247]

The astronauts are not that good anyway because they dont even fly the shuttle manual in launch and re entry so to mars is crazy

The astronauts are trained adequetly for what they need to be able to do. I'm sure that what, with NASA spending so much money on this they wouldn't leave out such a detail as having them definetely and properly trained.

As to what undertaker said about the USA and NASA. I believe NASA has had their budget reduced recently, however this is a very long term project. I think that the USA would hope to be in good finances by the time this mission goes ahead.

I understand that the americans want this to be their success (we are the first to get to mars and colonise it).Though this time i believe that the americans should swallow up their pride and there should be a coalition of the europeans,americans,russians, chinese etc, to get to mars. It would allow for a better financed mission and it would strenghten ties between the countries of the world.

From what i've read and heard the vast majority of americans are very proud of NASA and are very happy to have their money being spent on it.
Who can blame them? Breakthroughs in space (going to the moon etc) are the things every american is proud of, it's what the world really knows them for.

[Intoxicated]

A better question would be, is it right that the United States spends money on this whilst it racks up crippling debts?

That is more of a problem rather than the ethics behind this situation.

It's simple. If the person is of stable health and is healthy and able to make accurate and conscious decisions for themselves and they choose freely to take part in this, then why should they not be allowed?

[-Danube-]

Debate Over, Top contributor will be contacted soon!