Bush to Mars: Promises or Gimmick?

[stoned]

bush said we going to go to the mars, was that just pre election gimmick ? so far they are fixing that flying piece of **** (shuttle) but nothing else is going on.

 

[Danger]

If Bush truly is going to Mars, it's still not soon enough or far enough...

 

[SOS2008]

I believe Martians have been added to the ever-growing "Axis of Evil" list. However, they will have to take a number and wait in line...

And don't forget, in his State of the Union Speech, Bush also mentioned:
1) Respect for Women - Authorizing insurance coverage for Viagra, but not for birth control pills
2) Gang Violence - By promoting "guest worker" amnesty for illegal immigrants
3) Ethanol – As a solution to our energy crisis (Lieberman suggested this to him--very clever).

You may not want to get your hopes up...

 

[Andromeda321]

Bush first announced his whole "go to the moon then Mars" dealie in December 2003, then did not even mention it in his 2004 State of the Union address one month later. Really worried me because I think if he was serious then he'd've said something...
Though I still cross my fingers hoping it will happen because I'd like to go. Heck I'll settle for the moon even.

 

[Danger]

Bush first announced his whole "go to the moon then Mars" dealie in December 2003

Sounds like a strange announcement for someone who believes that the Earth is flat, that people weren't meant to fly because they don't have wings, and that the sun shines out of his ass.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Bush was drinking his bathwater, as usual.

The only hope that I see is that of radically new propulsion techniques. I don't see a rocket powered trip ever happening for humans. It would be too slow, too expensive, and too dangerous. Without meaning to insult anyone here as I too would have loved to gone to Mars in my life - in principle - the reality is I think is that only a fool would make such a trip using current technologies. There is risk, and then there is risk beyond reason. IIRC, approx 2/3 of all martian probles have been lost.

 

[Danger]

the reality is I think is that only a fool would make such a trip using current technologies. There is risk, and then there is risk beyond reason.

What scares me about that is, if ancient well-understood technology has bought the biscuit that many times, who the hell would risk a new untried one?

IIRC, approx 2/3 of all martian probles have been lost.

I didn't realize that Martians have probles. Is it contageous?

 

[stoned]

it is too bad that cold war has ended, rivalry between usa and ussr would produce Mars mission or at least permanent moon base.

 

[Danger]

it is too bad that cold war has ended, rivalry between usa and ussr would produce Mars mission or at least permanent moon base.

I'm not so sure about that. Satellites and space habitats have far better strategic value, and that's what the cold war was all about. The moon is a great source of materials, but that's about all from a military standpoint.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What scares me about that is, if ancient well-understood technology has bought the biscuit that many times, who the hell would risk a new untried one?

Good point. Still, there are inherently faster and safer techniques explored. Once these are developed and tested on robotic missions, a manned mission may then be more practical. Ion propulsion doesn't seem likely for such a short trip, but solar sails, high energy, Earth based LASER propulsion, and even LASER induced evaporation of films coated on large sails or chutes for propulsion, is now discussed.

 

[humanino]

Two years ago, I attended an ESA conference, held in Strasbourg. It was quite a big business, with all the aerodynamics mafia (not just the european one). I mean it was serious. There was a russian guy presenting a project to go to Mars. I went to him during a pause, he was displaying a poster, and asked him questions. At the beginning, he looked quite confident in himself (but I think he was repeating many learned sentences. Oh, just like george !). Then, I must have managed to make him imagine I was part of this mafia (which I am not !) because he really took my comments seriously. I was both friendly and at the same time, I was addressing very specific technical questions, exactly on Ivan's point : the propulsion. This poor russian (whith whom I was actually playing) started to sweat and fear for his scientific credibility. After ten minutes or so, he admitted that there was a serious issue here, and that they were still working on this problem.

Generally speaking, my opinion is that nobody came up with a brillant idea to replace the old designs of propulsion. When one think about it seriously, it is very complicated. One must find a way to greatly improve the acceleration produced, and free the ship for the need of carrying combustible (which is way too stupid to allow for long distance travels)

So, I would say this is all commercials.

 

[Danger]

high energy, Earth based LASER propulsion, and even LASER induced evaporation of films coated on large sails or chutes for propulsion, is now discussed.

Am I getting you mixed up with someone else, or did you work on this stuff? Personally, I would think that an orbital launch laser would be more efficient than a ground-based unit. Feed it with solar satellites, and not worry about atmospheric interference. Plus, you could set your orbit so that it's in constant line of sight with the ship. (I'd still just love to see a bloody fusion torch out there, though. )

 

[stoned]

The moon is a great source of materials, but that's about all from a military standpoint.

Well... that is what i have in mind.competition between two superpowers and wars almost allways were about resourcess. moon is not only Earth naturall satelite ideally suited for Earth espionage but as you said there are materials on the moon.whoever first have any permanent human presence there could be ahead,and as an offshot of this space race science I'm sure will gain a lot .

 

[SOS2008]

The sad thing is the discoveries made in these projects always have so many applications--perhaps even addressing energy problems on Earth, etc.? Americans have never been long-term thinkers, but if there is any truth that many American leaders are based in the Bible and believe it is the End of Days, I don't see them diverting funds to advancement and a future...

All I can say is if anyone can figure out how to get off this planet in time...can I please go too?

 

[Danger]

All I can say is if anyone can figure out how to get off this planet in time...can I please go too?

I say there, SOS, nice ass! Now that I've seen it, you can go anywhere with me.

 

[stoned]

300 bilion $ went for Iraqi war, imagine what we could do with that kind of cash. we could not only have advanced propulsion and mission to Mars but also we could rebuild whole of third world.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Am I getting you mixed up with someone else, or did you work on this stuff?

No, this is just from the Sci/Tech news stuff. BTW, check our Robonaut in the engineering forum- a very cool DARPA/NASA effort.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=69184

Personally, I would think that an orbital launch laser would be more efficient than a ground-based unit. Feed it with solar satellites, and not worry about atmospheric interference. Plus, you could set your orbit so that it's in constant line of sight with the ship. (I'd still just love to see a bloody fusion torch out there, though. )

Oh yes, by Earth based I only meant that the primary energy source is local to earth, and transmitted to the craft via LASER, X-Ray LASER etc; or more specifically, that the fuel is not carried on the space craft. But speaking of nuclear, I guess nuclear power and some exotic propulsion may be a self-contained option. Unfortunately, when they tested nuclear powered rocket engines in the 60's, they pretty much self destructed. I don't know what nuclear options may exist here other than in conjunction with ion propulsion, or some other type plasma discharge.

Edit: Nuclear and steam thrust is practical in many ways but is too slow, I would think.

probles

 

[Ivan Seeking]

After ten minutes or so, he admitted that there was a serious issue here, and that they were still working on this problem.

...but we expect to have a solution soon.

 

[Danger]

Oh yes, by Earth based I only meant that the primary energy source is local to earth, and transmitted to the craft via LASER, X-Ray LASER etc; or more specifically, that the fuel is not carried on the space craft.:

I should have known that, but I'm still getting used to being back in an intellectual environment. Most of the time in my normal life I have to tweak the conversation like that once in a while because most people don't realize how much they don't know.

when they tested nuclear powered rocket engines in the 60's, they pretty much self destructed. I don't know what nuclear options may exist here other than in conjunction with ion propulsion, or some other type plasma discharge.

I studied as much as I could about the NERVA series for a book I was writing back in the early 70's. Seemed that the main problem was that they were restricted to 2727 degrees C. or the pile would melt. I'd suspect that new ceramics, nanotube technology, etc. might increase the operating temperature, and therefore specific impulse, significantly. The fusion torch that I was referring to would be basically a Bussard ramjet, but with self-contained hydrogen stores instead of the scoop.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Was it The Orion deep space project that suggested that we explode nuclear bombs against a blasting plate, on the back of the ship?

 

[Danger]

Was it The Orion deep space project that suggested that we explode nuclear bombs against a blasting plate, on the back of the ship?

Yup, and a damned fine idea it was. SALT II (I think that was the one) killed it. No nuclear weapons allowed in space, even if they're for peaceful purposes.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yup, and a damned fine idea it was.

I agree, I think... , sledge hammer elegance.

 

[Danger]

I agree, I think... , sledge hammer elegance.

Subtlety is for cowards. Slow and steady doesn't win the race if the other guy is fast and steady.

edit: There's a saying my old group used: The meek shall inherit the Earth; the rest of us are going to the stars!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I always used to think that nuclear bombs strapped to my butt was a bad thing. Who knew?

 

[Danger]

I always used to think that nuclear bombs strapped to my butt was a bad thing. Who knew?

I'm loathe to bring her into the conversation yet again, but you could borrow J.Lo's...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Seemed that the main problem was that they were restricted to 2727 degrees C. or the pile would melt. I'd suspect that new ceramics, nanotube technology, etc. might increase the operating temperature, and therefore specific impulse, significantly.

True. Modern materials are yet another wonder of science to behold.

I have also seen footage from a camera mounted inside of the engine. It showed the thing pretty much shaking to pieces. I don't rememeber why but they fought tremendous vibration problems.

 

[Danger]

I don't rememeber why but they fought tremendous vibration problems.

I never read about that, but my sources were severely restricted. We didn't have a lot of technical info repositories where I was. I wonder though... they ran the liquid hydrogen in a coil around the nozzle to preheat it and cool the engine. Uneven thermal distortion, maybe...? Or maybe fluid turbulence as the turbopump output had to straighten out before going through the core...?
Man, I'm enjoying the hell out of this... but I really have to bag some ZZZZ's. I'm going to log off now and see if I can snag some time in byebye land. I've been down to 3-5 hours the past few nights (mostly because of this forum), and I'm just gettin' too damned old for that. If I hurry, I can get 5 1/2! tonight. See ya.

 

[gschjetne]

Hmm...guess they could use bush as a test dummy. Surely, that shouldn't pose any major ethical issues, as with poor Laica...

Attaching a poor dog to a new year's eve rocket makes me sad. At least they regret doing it.

 

[Integral]

Bush first announced his whole "go to the moon then Mars" dealie in December 2003, then did not even mention it in his 2004 State of the Union address one month later. Really worried me because I think if he was serious then he'd've said something...
Though I still cross my fingers hoping it will happen because I'd like to go. Heck I'll settle for the moon even.

While I am sure that your hopes and dreams of manned space flight are well intentioned they are, in fact completely misplaced.

One of the WORST things that could happen to a scientific exploration of the solar system would be for NASA to start concentrating on sending a man to Mars, or even the moon. It is sad but the truth of the matter is that there does not exist a SINGLE scientific reason for ever putting another man into space. Virtually anything a man could do in space can be done robotically at a fraction of the cost. A man requires expensive and massive life support systems. At the current state of rocketry technology the cost of putting a man into space is high, but the price is much higher then that. Because a man goes scientific instrumentation must be left behind so less science can be done due to the presence of a man, who can add NOTHING of value to a mission.

NO, an astronaut will not be able to do ANY meaningful repairs. They will not have either the equipment or the know how for any other then completely insignificant failures. The need of any significant repairs will mean a dead crew.

If man is go into space it should be done by the private sector. A low gravity lunar resort would be a real kick. Can you imagine huge air filled structures inside of which you could have man powered flight (Quidich anyone?) The possibilities of a low gravity honeymoon boggle the mind.

If there is any work to be done on the lunar or Martian surface it would be much more productive and safer to employ remote control or robotics with AI. I simply do not understand why we should waste money, time and resources putting men into space when there is no real reason to do it. I am sorry but I do not believe that there is room or resources for glory seeking and that is all a manned mission to the solar system would be.

 

[Astronuc]

. . . an ESA conference, held in Strasbourg. It was quite a big business, with all the aerodynamics mafia (not just the european one). I mean it was serious. . . . he admitted that there was a serious issue here, and that they were still working on this problem.

Yeah, some things never change. It's been that way for 20+ years.

Generally speaking, my opinion is that nobody came up with a brillant idea to replace the old designs of propulsion. When one think about it seriously, it is very complicated. One must find a way to greatly improve the acceleration produced, and free the ship for the need of carrying combustible (which is way too stupid to allow for long distance travels)

There are some good ideas. But there a many more ideas (competing) than opportunities or money.

Lasers are an example of where the energy source (usually a significant mass fraction) is external to the spacecraft . It would be appropriate for short distances (e.g. surface to LEO), but due to dispersion, it becomes much less efficient at long distances. Dispersion was a big issue for 'Star Wars' systems.

Needless to say - propulsion simply involves changes in momentum - and that requires energy. The faster the change of momentum, the greater the energy. The question then becomes how much energy can be available - and this translates to specific energy (specific impulse). Man-made systems face real technical (physical) limits - melting temperatures, strength, creep of solid (structural) materials, erosion, etc. That is the challenge.

There are credible ideas and technology available. It's just a matter of getting through the BS (political and institutional).

I should also point out that there are dual use issues involved - the most efficient propulsion technologies (i.e. maximal power densities) can be adapted to weapons systems.

 

[Andromeda321]

Integral- I know it, and I am eyeing the private sector carefully, but I've wanted to go to the moon since I was a little kid. Mars I'm willing to let slip past, but old dreams die hard. After all, the moon's right there, covered with tritium, and when fusion gets online...
I also have a VERY hard time believing that the private sector would just stop at low Earth orbit because I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who wants to go to the moon. Simple as that. Plus if NASA remains structured the way it currently is (weather it should be is a different topic) they are going to keep sending up astronauts, even though right now they don't really do much of anything a machine can't do. People have a huge emotional component to space and journeying among the stars even if there's no "real" purpose for it. As long as there is interest in space and astronomy people will want to go as far as they can in it.

 

[Danger]

If there is any work to be done on the lunar or Martian surface it would be much more productive and safer to employ remote control or robotics with AI... I simply do not understand why we should waste money, time and resources putting men into space when there is no real reason to do it.

Too much lag time for remote control/telepresence; AI with the option of going dormant and requesting instructions seems the best way. (I'm thinking some nice new Macs...)
You're right that humans aren't need for exploration or construction in space, but eventually we have to go. It's either that or world-wide enforced birth control.

 

[stoned]

We USA have to send humans to Mars simply for prestige reasons,after that automated misions will do fine.
As for Bush being test dummy, Bingo !

 

[Moonbear]

...they are going to keep sending up astronauts, even though right now they don't really do much of anything a machine can't do. People have a huge emotional component to space and journeying among the stars even if there's no "real" purpose for it. As long as there is interest in space and astronomy people will want to go as far as they can in it.

The only real purpose to it is PR. The idea that they may some day get to vacation in space keeps the average citizen from grumbling too much about funding NASA because all the real science is too far over their heads (no pun intended <<groan>>) for them to care about it.

 

[franznietzsche]

Integral- I know it, and I am eyeing the private sector carefully, but I've wanted to go to the moon since I was a little kid. Mars I'm willing to let slip past, but old dreams die hard. After all, the moon's right there, covered with tritium, and when fusion gets online...
I also have a VERY hard time believing that the private sector would just stop at low Earth orbit because I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who wants to go to the moon. Simple as that. Plus if NASA remains structured the way it currently is (weather it should be is a different topic) they are going to keep sending up astronauts, even though right now they don't really do much of anything a machine can't do. People have a huge emotional component to space and journeying among the stars even if there's no "real" purpose for it. As long as there is interest in space and astronomy people will want to go as far as they can in it.

Ditto.

Where's your sense of adventure man?

I've always wanted to go into space. When DeepSpaceOne was successful i was jumping up and down cheering. I was damn excited. I can't wait for the inevitable possibility of commercial spaceflight.

And as for you people saying there is no reason to send people into space, that's ridiculous. That's like saying there is no reason to research the conducting properties of liquid helium because we currently have no need for it. It is shortsighted and you know it.