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

[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.