With Mars mission and rover Curiosity, NASA hunts building blocks of life

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Lzen

I don't see that happening. Not unless we get another leader like Kennedy who is committed to it.

Yeah, considering that we can't even fly to the ISS right now, I don't see it happening either.

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by Donger

Yeah, considering that we can't even fly to the ISS right now, I don't see it happening either.

Depends. The first step was to test a landing scenario like this. The next step would to see if they can send something that can actually get back into the atmosphere and return.

Here's my take.

To reach Mars, it would require a voyage of months. Thus, the humans onboard would need living quarters capable of sustaining life (oxygen, water, food, waste disposal, exercise, communication, health care). Since you'd want a minimum of two travelers for redundancy and support, you'd need double the stuff. Now, most spacecraft are only designed for temporary living, but as technology increases and we turn "storage" into "sustainability", it's feasible. The spacecraft would have to have a seperate landing/return vehicle much like the moon trips did. And this ship would be so large and complex that it probably couldn't be built and launched in one piece from Earth; they'd probably have to launch it in stages and assemble it in space, like the ISS, and then when ready give it a "push" out of orbit either by external rockets brought into orbit or by the ship's engines which would be fueled by a transport rocket.

This all sounds very complex, but we've already done a lot of the footwork for this, not only in our space missions but in our undersea missions. What's a nuclear submarine, really, except the difference is that it functions in water and not in zero-gravity? The propulsion system would be a bit different but we're still talking about encapsulated and sustained life (and you hopefully wouldn't need the torpedoes and missiles in space... yet).

[Fish]

Originally Posted by JD10367

Depends. The first step was to test a landing scenario like this. The next step would to see if they can send something that can actually get back into the atmosphere and return.

Here's my take.

To reach Mars, it would require a voyage of months. Thus, the humans onboard would need living quarters capable of sustaining life (oxygen, water, food, waste disposal, exercise, communication, health care). Since you'd want a minimum of two travelers for redundancy and support, you'd need double the stuff. Now, most spacecraft are only designed for temporary living, but as technology increases and we turn "storage" into "sustainability", it's feasible. The spacecraft would have to have a seperate landing/return vehicle much like the moon trips did. And this ship would be so large and complex that it probably couldn't be built and launched in one piece from Earth; they'd probably have to launch it in stages and assemble it in space, like the ISS, and then when ready give it a "push" out of orbit either by external rockets brought into orbit or by the ship's engines which would be fueled by a transport rocket.

This all sounds very complex, but we've already done a lot of the footwork for this, not only in our space missions but in our undersea missions. What's a nuclear submarine, really, except the difference is that it functions in water and not in zero-gravity? The propulsion system would be a bit different but we're still talking about encapsulated and sustained life (and you hopefully wouldn't need the torpedoes and missiles in space... yet).

The **** we don't. At minimum, a couple arrays of phasers and at least a couple dozen photon torpedo tubes....

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

The **** we don't. At minimum, a couple arrays of phasers and at least a couple dozen photon torpedo tubes....

Well, I did say "yet". Step One for any phase of humanity has been, "How do we survive?" Step Two is, "How do we kill anyone we don't like?"

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by JD10367

Step One for any phase of humanity has been, "How do we survive?" Step Two is, "How do we kill anyone we don't like?"

Well that explains why we had the Lounge before we had DC.

[KC_Lee]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

The **** we don't. At minimum, a couple arrays of phasers and at least a couple dozen photon torpedo tubes....

Not to mention a couple of Type 66 Maser Cannons in case of a King Ghidorah encounter.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by JD10367

The spacecraft would have to have a seperate landing/return vehicle much like the moon trips did.

Not necessarily. One of the plans over the years had no intention of returning to Earth. It was always envisioned as a one-way trip.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by Donger

Not necessarily. One of the plans over the years had no intention of returning to Earth. It was always envisioned as a one-way trip.

I think this would be the best idea, especially since you might ****ing die out there anyway.

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by Donger

Not necessarily. One of the plans over the years had no intention of returning to Earth. It was always envisioned as a one-way trip.

Well, I meant landing on the surface and returning to the orbiting craft, but I did consider the one-way option. Problem is, to sustain life in space for months to get there, you already have to build a self sustaining ecosystem so you might as well come back... Unless they can manage to land it on the surface and turn it into stage one of a base.

[Lzen]

Originally Posted by JD10367

Depends. The first step was to test a landing scenario like this. The next step would to see if they can send something that can actually get back into the atmosphere and return.

Here's my take.

To reach Mars, it would require a voyage of months. Thus, the humans onboard would need living quarters capable of sustaining life (oxygen, water, food, waste disposal, exercise, communication, health care). Since you'd want a minimum of two travelers for redundancy and support, you'd need double the stuff. Now, most spacecraft are only designed for temporary living, but as technology increases and we turn "storage" into "sustainability", it's feasible. The spacecraft would have to have a seperate landing/return vehicle much like the moon trips did. And this ship would be so large and complex that it probably couldn't be built and launched in one piece from Earth; they'd probably have to launch it in stages and assemble it in space, like the ISS, and then when ready give it a "push" out of orbit either by external rockets brought into orbit or by the ship's engines which would be fueled by a transport rocket.

This all sounds very complex, but we've already done a lot of the footwork for this, not only in our space missions but in our undersea missions. What's a nuclear submarine, really, except the difference is that it functions in water and not in zero-gravity? The propulsion system would be a bit different but we're still talking about encapsulated and sustained life (and you hopefully wouldn't need the torpedoes and missiles in space... yet).

I've watched programs on Discovery/Science channels recently that have done in depth scenarios on this. Fascinating stuff.

BTW, I believe they're thinking a crew of 5-6 would be about right.