Flexible Path is a Dead End
Nomen Nescio
attractive.html
"That�s what makes it attractive to everybody,� he said. �That�s the
one good thing about it. It is not a lunar program, and it�s not a Mars
program. It allows you to go to different destinations as you see the
capabilities arise.�
It's also attractive because there are NO CLEARLY STATED GOALS. There's
no destination, no nothing. It just says: we MAY go somewhere (be it
robotic or humans) as the capability arises (both financially as well
as technically) and as opportunities arise. That's utter bullshit off
course, since it will lead to more stupid robots being sent (to save
costs) where humans should have gone to expand Man's boundaries. I feel
this Flexible Path is simply a Dead End since it doesn't lead us
anywhere except oblivion. And because of this we will eventually be
overtaken by the Chinese and the Indians or the Russians.
Why not make a Martian flyby a stated goal? Or a manned mission to
Phobos or Deimos (Mars). Or if that's too much of a gamble just
continue with Constellation, maybe paring down the length of the
missions or the number of crewmembers involved.
SET A GOAL FOR THE SPACE PROGRAM, A DESTINATION IF YOU WILL.
David Spain
> SET A GOAL FOR THE SPACE PROGRAM, A DESTINATION IF YOU WILL.
Proposal: Destination Planet Earth!
A robust program of robotic US space probes to LEO supplemented with
Russian sponsored missions to the ISS to unequivocably reveal
that we are all killing our planet.
/irony off
Dave
Pat Flannery
> Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :Why not make a Martian flyby a stated goal? Or a manned mission to
> :Phobos or Deimos (Mars).
> :
>
> Why go all the way there and then not land?'
Because God or the Aliens left the monolith on Deimos, of course:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread484835/pg1
Pat
George Orwell
news:tlo6h59s6letium9l...@4ax.com...
> Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :Why not make a Martian flyby a stated goal? Or a manned mission to
> :Phobos or Deimos (Mars).
> :
>
> Why go all the way there and then not land?'
>
Because that would inflate the costs 50 times if not more.
A landing would mean that the crew would have to stay on the Martian
surface for more than a year. This would mean they'd need to bring a
large amount of supplies which would mean multiple landing craft, which
would mean we'd need precision landings (CEP of no more a few hundred
meters) on a another planet with no GPS navigation. Because of the thin
atmosphere the weather on Mars has a potentially big influence on the
accuracy of such a landing, which would make it very risky indeed
(irresponsiblly so).
Ergo: al of this will be extremely challenging to put it mildly. Unless
you want to take a big risk losing the crew (and nation states don't
want to lose crew since that would look badly on them) the safest way
for a manned landing would be by way of a nuclear powered ship
(VASIMIR) which could make a round-trip relatively quickly (90 days
including stay on the surface) and no more than a week on the surface
with a single lander.
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
Alain Fournier
> "Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tlo6h59s6letium9l...@4ax.com...
>
>>Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>>
>>:
>>:Why not make a Martian flyby a stated goal? Or a manned mission to
>>:Phobos or Deimos (Mars).
>>:
>>
>>Why go all the way there and then not land?'
>>
>
>
> Because that would inflate the costs 50 times if not more.
>
> A landing would mean that the crew would have to stay on the Martian
> surface for more than a year. This would mean they'd need to bring a
> large amount of supplies which would mean multiple landing craft, which
> would mean we'd need precision landings (CEP of no more a few hundred
> meters) on a another planet with no GPS navigation. Because of the thin
> atmosphere the weather on Mars has a potentially big influence on the
> accuracy of such a landing, which would make it very risky indeed
> (irresponsiblly so).
You don't have to stay on the Martian surface for more than a year any more
than you would have to stay in orbit for more than a year. Most Martian
mission architecture plan for over a year on the surface because orbital
mechanics say that it is either less than two weeks, more than a year or
very energy inefficient. And if you are going to be travelling months
on the way out and more months on the way back in, then that's a lot of
trip time for only a week at Mars. But that is true whether you go to
the surface or not.
Alain Fournier
Michael Gallagher
<nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>A landing would mean that the crew would have to stay on the Martian
>surface for more than a year. This would mean they'd need to bring a
>large amount of supplies which would mean multiple landing craft, which
>would mean we'd need precision landings (CEP of no more a few hundred
>meters) on a another planet with no GPS navigation. Because of the thin
>atmosphere the weather on Mars has a potentially big influence on the
>accuracy of such a landing, which would make it very risky indeed
>(irresponsiblly so).
>
How long the crew stays at Mars is a function of the type of course
used to get there, not whether you land or not. You are still at the
mercy of the launch windows opened by the movement of the planets in
the solar system.
So if a crew going to Mars takes the most fuel efficient course, a
long duration or "conjunction class" mission, you have to stay at Mars
for up to 455 days until the planets align again for the return trip.
A "short duration" mission can shorten the stay to 60 or 100 days, but
you need to make a huge course correciton going out or coming back; a
gravity assist at Venus on the way home would do nicely. It doesn't
matter if you are on Mars or orbitting it, that doesn't change. Even
if you use a more advanced engine than NERVA that really shortens the
travel time, you are still at the mercy of orbital mechanics unless
you spend the whole trip accelerating and decelerating. Personally, I
don't think we'll have that tech anytime soon, so we have to think
about mission architectures with prolonged stays. We might as well
land and spend the time doing research.
There does seem a phobia about going to another planet or the Moon and
Landing; they talk about asteroids or LaGrange points like those will
grab the headlines if China lands on the Moon. But how long a crew
has to stay at Mars would be detemined by orbital mechanics, not
whether or not they land.
Pat Flannery
> :Because God or the Aliens left the monolith on Deimos, of course:
> :http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread484835/pg1
> :
> :Pat
>
> Uh, Pat?
>
> <thwap>!
I'm not kidding!
That monolith is up there and there's a drawing of a "Kilroy" face on it
with a halo over it and it says "God was here" under it.
The Nazis were out to get it in WWII using a flying disc flown by the
Vril Thrill Girls*, but Scully and Mulder** went through a time rift***
caused by The Bell**** and joined up with Indiana Jones ***** to thwart
that plan and put itching powder in Hitler's underwear****** to boot.
Hitler blamed the prank on Rudolph Hess, and that's why he fled to
England. *******
It's all pretty obvious when you think about it. :-D
* http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/The%20Vril%20Discs.htm
** http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3266/2701405363_0f2851a3f9_o.jpg
*** http://heatherdill.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/tom-baker1.jpg
**** http://www.ravenoir.com/R249.htm
***** http://www.myps3.com.au/img/game/LEGO-Indiana-Jones-2-1.jpg
****** http://aryanwear.com/images/party-member-shorts.jpg
******* http://stommel.tamu.edu/~baum/ethel/england-map.gif
Pat
John Park
extraterrestrial?
--John Park
Pat Flannery
> Is this somehow connected to your thread about fitting the X-37B with an
> extraterrestrial?
You suspect too much already!
Klytus! Put the bore worms on him! ;-)
Pat
David Spain
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> :Because God or the Aliens left the monolith on Deimos, of course:
>> :http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread484835/pg1
>> :
>> :Pat
>>
>> Uh, Pat?
>>
>> <thwap>!
>
> I'm not kidding!
> That monolith is up there and there's a drawing of a "Kilroy" face on it with
> a halo over it and it says "God was here" under it.
> The Nazis were out to get it in WWII using a flying disc flown by the Vril
> Thrill Girls*, but Scully and Mulder** went through a time rift*** caused by
...
Pat,
You probably want to leave that out of the autobiographical cover notice
on your space history book....
:-D
Dave
Pat Flannery
> You probably want to leave that out of the autobiographical cover notice
> on your space history book....
The book must be different from all other space history books done
before - that is why it will be a history of the space age from the
viewpoint of the test animals that were fired into space.
This guy is not happy:
http://www.spacetoday.org/images/Astronauts/SpaceDogs/RhesusMonkeySpacesuitNASA.jpg
He is not happy at all, and it's about time his story was heard.
Pat
David Spain
I would recommend we replace all space animal testing with PETA volunteers....
Dave