Author Topic: Four-man mission to Mars? No.  (Read 35716 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29971
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Four-man mission to Mars? No.
« Reply #25 on: June 05, 2014, 03:20:12 am »
"'A civilization grows great when men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit."

That's lovely.
So what has our generation done for future manned space exploration again?
 

Offline retrolefty

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1605
  • Country: us
  • measurement changes behavior
Re: Four-man mission to Mars? No.
« Reply #26 on: June 05, 2014, 03:37:42 am »
"'A civilization grows great when men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit."

That's lovely.
So what has our generation done for future manned space exploration again?

 Plenty, they have sent probes to all the major planets and their moons, mapping, gaining much knowlege along the way. Your fixation to have 4 people stand on Mars, pick up a few rocks and rocket back is just  crazy.

 Again what would you define as the specific mission goals be for those 4 people that can't better be done with probes and robots much cheaper and much sooner?

 

Offline stitch

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 88
Re: Four-man mission to Mars? No.
« Reply #27 on: June 05, 2014, 04:10:22 am »
Take a look at the Fram.  It is the ship that transported Roald Amundsen to his "final descent" to the South Pole.  Not a tin can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fram

So what's your point? They had a big ship and could take a doctor? well, great for them.


My point is contingency planning.  It's something that humans do.  A mission to Mars is a massive and respectable goal for humanity.  I'm just saying that, out of respect for the challenges, contingency planning should not be left out of such a massive plan. It seems to me that if the mission is to include only a crew of four, then the only way to do that is to strip away all of the contingency plans and close our minds to anything that might go wrong - hence all of the objections to people like me who try to raise the issue of contingencies. Do you see?
 

Offline SeanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15127
  • Country: za
Re: Four-man mission to Mars? No.
« Reply #28 on: June 05, 2014, 04:32:25 am »
So train all members to be fair frontline medics. Not an impossible task, pretty much any military has done so, and they are both the first line of care and often the only way to save lives. You can train half to be better than that, or even to be able to do basic surgery, like broken limbs, dental work, appendectomy ( though probably better to whip those out before), and basic nursing and infection control. That, in a population that has been selected for good basic health will cover pretty much every thing aside from stroke and heart attack, and that can also be handled to some extent.

Nothing complex there, it has been done often enough. Those going are well aware that they will die, and they make the choice that they will make a contribution that will be remembered, and then they will have a burial place where no other has ever in human history been buried. You wake up each day on another planet, where no other has ever seen it before. What is bad about that?
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29971
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Four-man mission to Mars? No.
« Reply #29 on: June 05, 2014, 04:56:08 am »
Plenty, they have sent probes to all the major planets and their moons, mapping, gaining much knowledge along the way.

Stuff we could have and should have done in the 1970's after Apollo ended.
But no, the human race has just farted around the edges and lost interest in space.
Those thing only happened by scrapping he bottom of the financial barrel. There has been practically zero leadership or interest in maned space exploration since Apollo.

Quote
Your fixation to have 4 people stand on Mars, pick up a few rocks and rocket back is just  crazy.

I said no such thing. I want a permanent colony on mars, nothing less.
You don't get it. This is not about one trip, get there , get back alive, boast we've done it and then forget about it, like we did with Apollo.
You are fixated on small scale scientific goals. This is MUCH bigger than that.

Quote
Again what would you define as the specific mission goals be for those 4 people that can't better be done with probes and robots much cheaper and much sooner?

They can start building a colony!
You know, stuff you can do once you actually get humans there who can build things.
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29971
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Four-man mission to Mars? No.
« Reply #30 on: June 05, 2014, 05:08:31 am »
My point is contingency planning.  It's something that humans do. 

Yes, and that is something that is done in spades in human space missions.

Quote
A mission to Mars is a massive and respectable goal for humanity.  I'm just saying that, out of respect for the challenges, contingency planning should not be left out of such a massive plan.

It's not. Just your fantasy of having a fully trained doctor along for the ride. That will come in time, but it won't be part of any early missions. Countless people have already looked at this infinitely more than you have and they have arrived at the conclusion that a doctor does not need to be part of any initial exploratory/setup/early trips.

[/quote]
It seems to me that if the mission is to include only a crew of four, then the only way to do that is to strip away all of the contingency plans and close our minds to anything that might go wrong - hence all of the objections to people like me who try to raise the issue of contingencies. Do you see?
[/quote]

Nope.
The 4 number has been carefully arrived at for many reasons, including as a huge part of the contingency planing.
It allows for no more than needed in order to have two teams of two. e.g. No one ever goes alone, only in teams of two, and then you have a backup team.
Two scientists and two engineers makes sense. You have one in each team to meet the scientific goals, and you have one in each team who can fix stuff and solve problems.
A doctor doesn't go along for the ride for the same reason a pilot does not go along for the ride. They are essentially dead weight unless something goes drastically wrong. In which case it's more probably they are all screwed anyway.
Test pilots made sense for the early Apollo missions, because, well, they were test flights in unproven hardware, unproven terrain, unproven flight dynamics, unproven systems etc.
A mars trip is a completely different ballgame.
Perhaps one of the engineers could have test flight experience though, that wouldn't hurt.

 

Offline Bored@Work

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3932
  • Country: 00
Re: Four-man mission to Mars? No.
« Reply #31 on: June 05, 2014, 05:58:18 am »
My point is contingency planning.  It's something that humans do.
Yes, and the Mission to Mars contingency planning will also happen. It will include answers to such questions as

Who is allowed to pronounce someone dead on board the spacecraft and on Mars? And when?

What to do with a dead body in the tin can?

What to do with someone getting terminal or seriously ill? a) When he/she has massive pain? b) When not? c) Independent of a) and b), when he/she is a massive strain on the performance of the rest of the crew?

Why three, not four, or no body bags are enough to carry to space. Or why some food containers happen to have the proper size, are painted with the national flags of the astronauts and maybe even already have nameplates, and fit through a particular airlock.

Quote
contingency planning should not be left out of such a massive plan.

Who says it will be left out? It will just happen on another level. It will include treating of dead bodies. It will include suicide pills, who is allowed to administer them, and when. It will include plans of what parts of the mission can still be performed with three, two, one person only. The answer to many issues and the default answers to the issues not mentioned in the manual will be "then you are dead, bad luck". They will probably also use some plans from the Apollo days. E.g. if something goes seriously wrong ground control will stop all communication.

Every astronaut will know the rules and procedures by heart. They will know their chance to arrive alive on Mars are x% << 100%. The public will probably just know half of the plans or just doesn't want to know.
I delete PMs unread. If you have something to say, say it in public.
For all else: Profile->[Modify Profile]Buddies/Ignore List->Edit Ignore List
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3581
  • Country: us
Re: Four-man mission to Mars? No.
« Reply #32 on: June 05, 2014, 06:45:31 pm »
I'm not sure  why there seems to be this obsession about dead bodies, etc.  Excluding the obvious risks of catastrophic mission related failures (ala the Challenger disaster, etc) the probability that young, healthy astronauts are going to become seriously ill or injured and die during a Mars mission is not high. Not zero of course - but not high.

There seems to be an over estimation what a "fully trained doctor" could do on a Mars mission - even if they were there.  Most life threatening illnesses or injuries could not be adequately treated due to lack of needed equipment, support staff, etc.  Doctor aboard or not - a serious head injury, ruptured appendix, etc is likely to result in a dead astronaut.

There are some things of course were an experienced physician with the right medications available could make a big difference - but those kind of life threatening illnesses are less likely in  young healthy astronauts. And sorry Dave - Watson or any similar artificial intelligence is not going to substitute in those situations.  They can be helpful when no doctor is aboard ( I believe the Navy uses such a system on nuclear subs) but they are no more a substitute for an experienced physician than an autorouter is for an experienced PCB designer. ;) .

No need for a doctor to pronounce someone dead. I can teach anyone in about 5 minutes how to do that.

What to do with a dead body - Eject it into space - what else.  No different than a burial at sea...

« Last Edit: June 05, 2014, 06:47:04 pm by mtdoc »
 

Offline Lightages

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 4295
  • Country: ca
  • Canadian po
Re: Four-man mission to Mars? No.
« Reply #33 on: June 05, 2014, 09:39:44 pm »
Jumping into the conversation very late......

A mission to Mars will likely be a suicide mission. Just out of pure luck, when "we" went to the moon there were no strong solar flares. We do not have a good technology to protect humans from this kind of radiation yet. We are not even sure what the long term effects would be just from the normal radiation and solar wind on a 2 year journey. The only long term experience we have off the Earth has ben inside the protection of the Earth's magnetic field.

IMHO, the best strategy to get to Mars, and maybe return, is to send automated factories to Mars first and wait till they have produced all the oxygen, water, and rocket fuel needed for a return to the Earth. Then send the first craft to Mars with only that needed to get to Mars. What is needed to survive should already be there.

If anyone actually makes it to Mars instead of dying from radiation exposure on the way there then they will need to get digging down 20 or 30 meters to get below the surface to protect them from meteorites and radiation. Maybe the automated factories could also include digging robots to get this done ahead of time.

In the end I believe none of this will happen. The amount of money and time needed is beyond the scope of what any politician can do or would want to commit to. The next politician in line will just cut the project. This kind of thing has happened over and over again to scientific funding. Unless someone like Bill Gates decides to dump his whole fortune into this kind of project, private funding will always fall short.

Is a doctor needed on a trip? No. Everyone on the mission should have first responder and wilderness first aid training and anything beyond that will have to be done by instruction from the Earth. If you can find a medical doctor who also happens to be a mechanical engineer, electrical engineer and a chemist then all the better!

Who should go? People who are 40- 50 in age, who have had their children and who have had the time to learn the things needed to survive away from any help at all.

I agree that without all the steps in place that I have mentioned, a trip to Mars will just be a stunt. Would I go? YES!
 

Offline stitch

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 88
Re: Four-man mission to Mars? No.
« Reply #34 on: June 05, 2014, 11:17:16 pm »

It's not. Just your fantasy of having a fully trained doctor along for the ride.

If you re-read my original post, you will be reminded that I don't advocate adding "a doctor".  In keeping with my belief that this need be a massive and respectable mission, I advocate much more than that.  Here's what I said:

"You will not only need a doctor, but a complete medical staff and all the necessary equipment to deal with disease and traumatic injuries."
"You will need a flotilla with hundreds of support personnel and lots of infrastructure before the first manned landing vehicle descends toward the surface of Mars."
 

Offline stitch

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 88
Re: Four-man mission to Mars? No.
« Reply #35 on: June 05, 2014, 11:23:53 pm »


IMHO, the best strategy to get to Mars, and maybe return, is to send automated factories to Mars first and wait till they have produced all the oxygen, water, and rocket fuel needed for a return to the Earth. Then send the first craft to Mars with only that needed to get to Mars. What is needed to survive should already be there.

I agree that without all the steps in place that I have mentioned, a trip to Mars will just be a stunt. Would I go? YES!

Yes. An patient long-term approach like that is sound and respectable.  That is the kind of approach that will attract investors, public officials, and the greater scientific community.  People who hold executive positions won't want to sign their name to a one-chance stunt.
 

Offline stitch

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 88
Re: Four-man mission to Mars? No.
« Reply #36 on: June 05, 2014, 11:32:25 pm »

What to do with a dead body in the tin can?


O.K. so we've acknowledged that someone might die.  But if you took only the number of crew that you needed (no contingency after that), and you just lost one, isn't the mission due to fail by definition?
 

Offline Br0ski

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 27
  • Country: us
  • Comms Tech
    • Worldwide Social Gamers Network
Re: Four-man mission to Mars? No.
« Reply #37 on: June 05, 2014, 11:34:23 pm »
1 man and 3 women (all McGuyver types) all 6 months pregnant = 7 people.
The start of the population.
1 woman dies, not a bad loss taken.
You really should factor this into the equation.
Especially if it's a 1-way mission.

and I would suggest launching from the ISS.

Br0ski
@Br0ski47
5 yrs Electronics Technician in Military Satellite Communications: EHF/SHF/UHF/VHF/HF/VLF/ELF
I am no expert (still learning).
Worldwide Social Gamers Network - If you like to game come join us.
 

Offline Legit-Design

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 562
Re: Four-man mission to Mars? No.
« Reply #38 on: June 06, 2014, 12:15:56 am »
1 man and 3 women (all McGuyver types) all 6 months pregnant = 7 people.
The start of the population.
1 woman dies, not a bad loss taken.
You really should factor this into the equation.
Especially if it's a 1-way mission.

Get women that are deemed to be fertile, OCTOMOM, just pump the mothers full of medicine to increase chance of multiples. So two moms 8 babies each or maybe more? And for enough variance use two couples. In many countries it was illegal for cousins to get married and then the law changed, but parents still take increased risk of children getting hereditary disease. Only one baby from one mother is so old fashioned.
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29971
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Four-man mission to Mars? No.
« Reply #39 on: June 06, 2014, 12:41:05 am »
There are some things of course were an experienced physician with the right medications available could make a big difference - but those kind of life threatening illnesses are less likely in  young healthy astronauts. And sorry Dave - Watson or any similar artificial intelligence is not going to substitute in those situations.  They can be helpful when no doctor is aboard ( I believe the Navy uses such a system on nuclear subs) but they are no more a substitute for an experienced physician than an autorouter is for an experienced PCB designer. ;) .

Of course. I never meant to imply otherwise. But on such a mission like this, you do have a (delayed) contact with earth which would be sufficient, and as a backup in case comms is lost, the (somewhat) trained and designated medic on board would have some sort of medical checklist/database system as a backup that would likely cover most things with a cupboard full of drugs. And the combination of those three things is enough for the early mars missions.
Without proper ground based facilities, the realistic window of where a real doctor on board would be life saving over a non-doctor would be quite small I suspect.
And you'd also have to somewhat morbidly (but realistically) ask if they are worth saving in some cases.
e.g. if a doctor could save someones life, but then they'd be a burden for the whole trip, that could endanger the mission and the lives of the others.
But the point is moot, because a doctor isn't going, unless they happen to also match all the other requirements and then that's a bonus.

Quote
What to do with a dead body - Eject it into space - what else.  No different than a burial at sea...

Yep. You wouldn't store it.
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29971
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Four-man mission to Mars? No.
« Reply #40 on: June 06, 2014, 12:54:23 am »
A mission to Mars will likely be a suicide mission.

So is life.

Quote
Just out of pure luck, when "we" went to the moon there were no strong solar flares. We do not have a good technology to protect humans from this kind of radiation yet. We are not even sure what the long term effects would be just from the normal radiation and solar wind on a 2 year journey.

In the two years, and the shorter term, basically nothing.
They would have warning of solar flares, and can shelter in a small shielded room till it's over.

Quote
IMHO, the best strategy to get to Mars, and maybe return, is to send automated factories to Mars first and wait till they have produced all the oxygen, water, and rocket fuel needed for a return to the Earth. Then send the first craft to Mars with only that needed to get to Mars. What is needed to survive should already be there.

That is precisely what Zubrin's Mars Direct program proposes. I recommend the book, it's a good read.

Quote
If anyone actually makes it to Mars instead of dying from radiation exposure on the way there then they will need to get digging down 20 or 30 meters to get below the surface to protect them from meteorites and radiation. Maybe the automated factories could also include digging robots to get this done ahead of time.

Not that deep actually.
The radiation thing is also somewhat overrated. It's based on the whole percentage of getting cancer later in life thing, and this is generally based on very conservative figures. Yes, gross solar fares could give quite bad (perhaps deadly) radiation poising, but like I said they can detect and shelter from these.

Aldrin's Mars Cycler system involves ships that can have very thick radiation shielding, rendering the travel radiation question moot.

Quote
In the end I believe none of this will happen. The amount of money and time needed is beyond the scope of what any politician can do or would want to commit to.

Rubbish. They just have to triple the NASA budget. Chump change. Just build a few less bombers and subs.

Quote
Who should go? People who are 40- 50 in age, who have had their children and who have had the time to learn the things needed to survive away from any help at all.

Also, IME (and almost certainly very controversially), if we are going there start a new colony, then we should leave as much silly ancient human baggage behind as possible.
If I was in charge, I'd only let atheists/non-religious go. - Flame away!  :scared:
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29971
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Four-man mission to Mars? No.
« Reply #41 on: June 06, 2014, 12:56:28 am »
If you re-read my original post, you will be reminded that I don't advocate adding "a doctor".  In keeping with my belief that this need be a massive and respectable mission, I advocate much more than that.  Here's what I said:
"You will not only need a doctor, but a complete medical staff and all the necessary equipment to deal with disease and traumatic injuries."
"You will need a flotilla with hundreds of support personnel and lots of infrastructure before the first manned landing vehicle descends toward the surface of Mars."

That's not helping your case!
What you are proposing is completely impractical and is not even considered an option in the least by any expert seriously studying and planning mars missions.
Personally I think there should be starships the size of cruise liners with fully equipped gyms on board, doctors, dentists, physio's, and maids for the turn-down service. But it ain't going to happen.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2014, 12:59:59 am by EEVblog »
 

Offline stitch

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 88
Re: Four-man mission to Mars? No.
« Reply #42 on: June 06, 2014, 12:57:02 am »
You'll find no shortage of people willing to die on Mars. Thousands have signed up already:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_One
http://www.mars-one.com

But where did they go to sign up?  Did they do it online?  I can't find a street address for them.
 

Offline retrolefty

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1605
  • Country: us
  • measurement changes behavior
Re: Four-man mission to Mars? No.
« Reply #43 on: June 06, 2014, 01:05:06 am »
Quote
Rubbish. They just have to triple the NASA budget. Chump change. Just build a few less bombers and subs.

Your sure generous with my taxes, where is you share?
 

Offline stitch

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 88
Re: Four-man mission to Mars? No.
« Reply #44 on: June 06, 2014, 01:07:08 am »
If you re-read my original post, you will be reminded that I don't advocate adding "a doctor".  In keeping with my belief that this need be a massive and respectable mission, I advocate much more than that.  Here's what I said:
"You will not only need a doctor, but a complete medical staff and all the necessary equipment to deal with disease and traumatic injuries."
"You will need a flotilla with hundreds of support personnel and lots of infrastructure before the first manned landing vehicle descends toward the surface of Mars."

That's not helping your case!
What you are proposing is completely impractical and is not even considered an option in the least by any expert seriously studying and planning mars missions.
Personally I think there should be starships the size of cruise liners with fully equipped gyms on board, doctors, dentists, physio's, and maids for the turn-down service. But it ain't going to happen.

Yes, you are exactly correct.  That's what I've been trying to say from the very beginning.  Sending humans to Mars with existing propulsion methods will take too long.  It is just too far.  The right answer for our generation is more like retrolefty and Carl Sagan have been advocating ... robots.
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29971
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Four-man mission to Mars? No.
« Reply #45 on: June 06, 2014, 01:07:24 am »
O.K. so we've acknowledged that someone might die.  But if you took only the number of crew that you needed (no contingency after that), and you just lost one, isn't the mission due to fail by definition?

Of course not. As I said, they don't take just the minimum crew, the minimum includes a contingency backup pair.
In theory two people are required to complete any mission goals.
A scientist to do science stuff, and an engineer to fix stuff and solve problems and help out.
The 2nd pair is a backup so they always stay behind in the station when the others go out.
If you lose one, you have just lost your scientist or engineer backup. That's not a show stopper.

And it's not just people backup. Read Zubrin's Mars Direct plan, it also includes backups in ground hubs, ships mid flight etc. Everything is backed up, not just the crew.
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29971
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Four-man mission to Mars? No.
« Reply #46 on: June 06, 2014, 01:10:42 am »
Yes, you are exactly correct.  That's what I've been trying to say from the very beginning.  Sending humans to Mars with existing propulsion methods will take too long.  It is just too far.

No.
And every expert on the subject thinks you are wrong too.
Like I've said, long term habs are pretty well proven. Long term space flight (and psychology) is fairly well proven.
All you need is the money and the people willing to do it. Neither is hard to get if you try.
 

Offline retrolefty

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1605
  • Country: us
  • measurement changes behavior
Re: Four-man mission to Mars? No.
« Reply #47 on: June 06, 2014, 01:12:19 am »
O.K. so we've acknowledged that someone might die.  But if you took only the number of crew that you needed (no contingency after that), and you just lost one, isn't the mission due to fail by definition?

Of course not. As I said, they don't take just the minimum crew, the minimum includes a contingency backup pair.
In theory two people are required to complete any mission goals.
A scientist to do science stuff, and an engineer to fix stuff and solve problems and help out.
The 2nd pair is a backup so they always stay behind in the station when the others go out.
If you lose one, you have just lost your scientist or engineer backup. That's not a show stopper.

And it's not just people backup. Read Zubrin's Mars Direct plan, it also includes backups in ground hubs, ships mid flight etc. Everything is backed up, not just the crew.

 I still want to know what the mission objectives for these 4 people to accomplish? What are the mission goals, payload, objectives?
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29971
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Four-man mission to Mars? No.
« Reply #48 on: June 06, 2014, 02:01:28 am »
I still want to know what the mission objectives for these 4 people to accomplish? What are the mission goals, payload, objectives?

To boldly go where no man has gone before.
Depends on who you ask and who's be in charge of it. But the main goal would be to get real eyeballs there so that we can search, dig, explore, and you know, expand the human race beyond earth. Small stuff like that. That's why you send a scientist, once they get there they will no doubt find interesting stuff to explore. There would be a key basic goal like searching for previous life, but beyond that, it's the stuff you don't know about yet that is the most interesting.
The unique part about sending humans is the ability to explore instantly and in real time.
The plan would include rovers too, so that they can explore the surface far from base camp.
Humans can literally do more exploring in a few days than any rover could in it's entire mission. You vastly overrate the ability of robots on another planet. They are extremely limited.

And quite frankly, I think one of the main goals would be not the trip itself, but the public's reaction to it. It would get people interested in and talking about science and exploration again. Finally something bigger than our same old piss-ant petty problems back home. That alone is priceless.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2014, 02:13:27 am by EEVblog »
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3581
  • Country: us
Re: Four-man mission to Mars? No.
« Reply #49 on: June 06, 2014, 02:38:28 am »

And quite frankly, I think one of the main goals would be not the trip itself, but the public's reaction to it. It would get people interested in and talking about science and exploration again. Finally something bigger than our same old piss-ant petty problems back home. That alone is priceless.

Dave,

I admire your enthusiasm and idealism. I agree with you about the feasibility and approach to a Mars mission.

But...  I'm afraid the era of such high minded goals for human society has passed.   We could do it but we won't.

The money and resources needed to accomplish this task will not be made available.  We have no leaders who are willing or able to take us there. If one arose and dare try - they would not last long. Too many of us have been indoctrinated with the post Reagan/Thatcher short term greed and me first ideology sung to the tune of "not with my tax dollars..."

We're in a different world than the 1960s. The corporations (and their sock puppet politicians and military muscle) will not allow us to go there unless short term profits are to be had.  A space shuttle and space station to further ability to place and maintain satellites - sure - but a trip to Mars - I'm afraid not.

Sorry for the downer perspective... :'(
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf