Mars

[gotigers44]

How big is mars compared to the earth?<br />

 

[tony873004]

It's about half as big<br /><br />6780 kilometers in diameter (Mars)<br />12,742 kilometers in diameter (Earth)<br /><br />but only about 1/10 as massive.

 

[nexium]

I don't know about tabulations, but the the arithmetic is wrong. Likely the diameter of Earth at the Equator is 14 kilometers greater than the average diameter. V = 4/3 times 3.1416 times radius cubed. Using 6371 kilometers radius( radius cubed = 259 billion) = 1083 billion cubic kilometers times 5.5 (average density of Earth) times a billion to convert cubic killometers to cubic meters = 5958 times a billion times a billion metric tons times 1000 to get kilograms = 5.958 X10exp24 kg. = close enough. If ten times is correct: Mars has a mass of 6X10exp23 kg. Likely stevehw ment to type 6.49x10exp23 which may be the correct mass for Mars. The Moon might be 0.735x10exp23 which is about 1/9th the mass of Mars (or reasonably close). Neil

 

[rickstine]

Can anyone else wait for Mars to be visable?Tell what you think. Best time to view Mars Aug.21

 

[sneezer1]

when will the rovers finish their work?

 

[telfrow]

When they stop functioning, or God forbid, a funding extension is denied. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[umpa_lumpa]

When do you think that we will go to mars? I remember that Pres. Bush said somthing about 2010, but can anyone confirm this for me?

 

[mooware]

Don't know where you got the 2010 figure, supposed to be back at the Moon by 2018. I would imagine, and if all goes well, we'll see Mars by 2050<br /><br />welcome to sdc by the way.

 

[lucas_900]

Yeah i'd agree with that, I think I read somewhere that the plan is when we get back to the moon we would gradually build up some kind of moon base as space missions from there would requre less fuel etc., as there is less gravity, and therefore less money. From here we would mount missions to Mars and eventually the rest of the solar system.

 

[jschaef5]

Bush outlined that the ISS would be done in 2010. The CEV would take flight shortly after in 2014. First Moon landing 2017 I think it is at now. And a Mars trip will be based on building off of the Moon trips. So its anyones guess as to how long it will take to make the jump from the Moon to Mars. <br />I wouldn't go to say as long as 2050, I would guess maybe 2030 or less, but I am fairly optimistic. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[lucas_900]

Of course that's assuming we make it back to the moon. Looking back at past records, we have a tendency to run into a myriad of problems, and, to be fair, there is little financial reason to do so - no minerals to mine etc., so i'm wondering a little at the financial side, still, being optimistic, I hope we do get back there. The original moon landing happened well before my time and I'd love to watch something similar.

 

[derekmcd]

Bush's speech<br /><br />This should answer your questions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<font color="orange">and, to be fair, there is little financial reason to do so - no minerals to mine etc.</font><br /><br />Not true. Read this link to learn what is available. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[BReif]

To dovetail your link, I would also recommend Harrision Schmidt's Book, "Return to the Moon" You can get it on Amazon.com, or any major bookstore. The whole book talks about the resources available on the Moon, and the costs of implementing a mining operation there. I good, but technical read.<br /><br />

 

[qso1]

At best, the Bush plan has nebulous references to going to Mars around 2025 or so. I suspect will be lucky to reach Mars at all without some spectacular reason to push the public into supporting it such as an unmanned probe discovering strong evidence for life. Especially once Bush leaves office.<br /><br />President Bush:<br />With the experience and knowledge gained on the moon, we will then be ready to take the next steps of space exploration: human missions to Mars and to worlds beyond. (Applause.) Robotic missions will serve as trailblazers...<br /><br />Me:<br />The example quote shows the Bush plan as a series of stepping stones towards getting to the Moon, then Mars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[brandbll]

Yuck, what a waste! Why burn all that money trying to send people there when we can just send robots? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

This may well be a possibility but the Government has been deficit spending on a regular basis since 1969 with the exception of a couple years of Clinton Administration surpluses. It used to be that there would be some years with surplus and others with deficits. That stopped after the 1969 budget year.<br /><br />And the reason I say a couple of years of Clinton surplusses...it took that long for the Clinton Administration to get the budget house in order after 2 decades of rampant deficits.<br /><br />Even when we had the Clinton surplus, I know of nobody who advocated increasing NASAs budget substantially from the static budgets it had from the early 1970s. Budgets that after inflation is accounted for, were actually reduced.<br /><br />I guess I won't be holding my breath anotherwords. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

So what will the saved money be spent on, lets see...bigger deficits, wasted spending on marginal projects such as rebuilding countries that don't even want us there? Being told our hard earned benefits are being eroded (Believe it or not, it costs money to tell us we don't have money).<br /><br />Oh yeh, we better not spend money on sending anyone to Mars.<br /><br />NASA approximate annual budget both manned and unmanned...$16 Billion.<br /><br />I did an estimate on NASA spending since its inception and came up with $125 billion...then I deliberately inflated it to a range of $150-200 billion and this still falls way short of just the 2005 deficit.<br /><br />2005 budget deficit...$400 plus Billion (Much bigger fire burnt here).<br /><br />Iraq spending...$80 plus billion annually.<br /><br />Now is it just me...or is anyone else seeing that claims of saving money by cutting human spaceflight are hollow. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[betafox]

brandbll: "Yuck, what a waste! Why burn all that money trying to send people there when we can just send robots?"<br /><br />I absolutely agree with you. It's not only waste of money but also very dangerous for travellers.

 

[JonClarke]

Why do you think it is a waste? What would you spend the money on?<br /><br />Why do you think it is dangerous? Compared to what?<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"Biologically, the trip would take quite some numbers of months. No one has yet designed a stable, self contained habitat, which can exist long term without substantial inputs of materials and energy sources."<br /><br />All environments need energy supply, and all small closed environments need periodic replenishment. Complete closure is a futile and unnecessary exercise. <br /><br />EVen the ISS must be frequently resupplied with same. WE have NO long term stable, self contained, sustainable habitats operating on this scale anywhere within human space.<br /><br />The ISS, as I recall, is supplied with energy (propellant, solar power), food, spares, and recycles ~90% of it's water. This is all that is needed for a Mars mission, you just need to ensure adequate supplies of the non recycled components. For food and oxygen that amounts to about 1 kg each per person per day. Water (with 90% recycling) 2.5 kg. A 900 day, 6 man Mars mission would need 5.4 tonnes of food, 5.4 tonnes of oxygen, and 13.5 tonnes of water. A large, but not impossible amount. These quantities can be reduced significantly by using ISRU.<br /><br />"People outside of gravitational fields lose muscle mass and bone calcium. If they do not return to normal gees within several months, the NASA limit is 4 mos., there is NO full return to normal earth gravity functioning. They suffer life long disabilities."<br /><br />The NASA limit is not 4 months, the standard stint of the space station is 6 months. The record is 14 months (not my NASA). There is rapid return to full 1G function (a few days to weeks), people have flown multiple long duration missions, and do not suffer life long disabilities.<br /><br />"Weightless re-hardwires the brain's balance system, which upon return to normal gravity interprets head movements as accelerations at a high rate, which are very disorienting. It takes weeks to months to re-hardwire the system on earth return and the longer one is is space, the less complete this re- <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[brandbll]

I don't want people to go because of the danger factor. I don't care about that. These people are modern day explorers, that's what they do. That's why astronaughts are looked up to the way they are. I just think it would be much smarter to spend our money on things like the rovers we have there now. Think about it, we spent about 1 billion and got two rovers there that lasted two years. The manned mission could afford us enough for over 100 rovers. Think about how much science that would provide us instead of a couple of manned missions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

First off, I doubt we will ever send anyone without some major reason such as strong evidence for life that would be provided by unmanned probes.<br /><br />If that should happen, humans would have to go IMO to confirm beyond the shadow of a doubt that the discovery is indeed indigeounous martian life. Rather than a flags and footprints type mission, a base should be set up to allow on site study of the organisms over long periods of time to evaluate their interaction with the martian environment.<br /><br />How do they live during the martian summer, winter, etc. They would probably dwell underground, how far under?<br /><br />The cost issue is one that I believe to be misguided for reasons specified in my previous post here. America can afford a reasonable effort at human mars exploration. We lack the will, not the cash. If we can afford to spend billions to rebuild Iraq, we can afford Mars.<br /><br />Money always being the issue...it would be smarter to spend the $400 billion deficit on a mars base, a base with human and robotic capabilities applied where best suited. Especially if we are there to study a second genesis. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

A manned misison might well cost 100 times what a single MER mission does. But we would learn at least 10,000 times as much.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[brandbll]

Well Jon Clarke, how do you figure? Explain to me what one manned mission might do in a very short time as opposed to tens if not hundreds of robots couldn't do in a very long period of time? Ship back Mars rocks? I think not. It would be just as simple to send a robot to pick up some rocks as it would humans. If there was some significant evidence of life, maybe it would be worth $ending human$, otherwise, i say we be creative and send some cool ass robots. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>