And America yawns in apathy http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140305-mars-asteroid-nasa-congress-space/
That's not a mission, it's just a funding excuse. The mission is supposed to fly several years before the SLS block II with the enhanced upper stage could launch it, and they don't have a separate crew module that such a mission would require (unless a year and a half in a phone booth is the plan). They also don't have an ECLSS (life support) system that's rated for 17 months, and they don't have any radiation shielding. The only way it could possibly work is if they restricted the astronaut selection pool to people about the size of "Mini-Me."
Anyone who knows anything about NASA knows that. I wish someone would state that NASA is full of !@#$ every time that they state a new goal.
Well, with the ongoing situation in Crimea, NASA and Congress had better put a much higher priority on getting Dragonrider and other nearly-ready US orbital vehicles into operation. Obama is threatening to do economic damage to Russia, while they control all manned access to our $100 billion dollar space station.
Actually it's mine. I let PurpleBuddha think it's his. --- But seriously, if we can't do a manned flyby we can't do a manned mission to Mars, so I don't get why it's a bad first step. Not even trips to the Moon went without hitches, so any experience we get doing this kind of mission is constructive towards the goal of manned landings.
The problem is that the parts they need to carry out the mission won't be ready until several years after the mission is supposed to be completed.
It won't take 19 months because NASA will use their Alcubierre warp drive. A manned flyby would serve no purpose at all. The "hail Mary pass" of Apollo 8 was done for political reasons—just like the entire Apollo program. At a more technical level, Apollo 8 and the other gradual steps in the Gemini and Apollo programs were made to test each component of a complex mission. Apollo 8 and 9 were switched anyway because the LM wasn't ready. Above all, the Moon is close enough for a ground control crew to be significant. Actual Mars landings will be too far away for mission controllers to make any difference. All a manned flyby will accomplish are some nice high altitude photos of the bases already set up by private enterprises.
Two astronauts in a small capsule for two years? Nevermind the food/water requirements; do they expect them to still be alive/sane after returning?
What's to gain from spending millions (if not billions) to send two people to view Mars. I'd rather see Nasa use that money on more practical ideas like thermosphere or exosphere commercial flights.
That didn't answer my question. My question was, should we be trying to land people on Mars, yes or no? If my question was somehow not originally clear, please accept that as my clarification of it.
My answer is a resounding "yes," we should be trying to land people on Mars. The risk and travel time involved are too great to have it any other way. NASA has extensive knowledge and experience on how to land men on the Moon. From an engineering point of view, it's old hat to land men on Mars. All a drive-by does is serve as a publicity stunt to say, "we did it first." There's no glory on the back of that type of "prestige." There's no actual "lead" involved in doing that, only a "technical" one. Considering how useless, corrupt and incompetent our politicians are, it is not at all surprising that NASA's lost its potency and vision, as well.
So, you understand that doing a flyby first increases the chances of success of a landing mission, right? Plus, since it's cheaper, it's a more cost-effective way of shaking out problems than going whole hog on the first go. The sense I'm getting from people in this thread, starting with the OP, is that Americans aren't interested in a space program with long-term manned projects. That's really too bad. The "instant results" mentality and long-term projects don't mix.