Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b83b14cd4142fe10848741bb2a14c66b.jpg

Mars or Bust... But would you be tempted?

Macavity

By Macavity
in The Astro Lounge

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply
JB80

JB80

Posted
Posted

In a different time and a different place maybe but the wife and family have put an end to that however when my wife first saw the proposal she said "Yes please, where do I sign up"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
E621Keith

E621Keith

Posted
Posted

Yea, it sounds interesting, but I'm too fat. :)

It's true private enterprise can take much higher risk than states. Not even the Chinese or Russian will be willing to send cosmonauts on a mission with 1 in 50 chance of catastrophic failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shibby

Shibby

Posted
Posted

It's true private enterprise can take much higher risk than states. Not even the Chinese or Russian will be willing to send cosmonauts on a mission with 1 in 50 chance of catastrophic failure.

Those odds are for the Space Shuttle, so state astronauts regularly risk these odds! The article suggest the odds would be even worse for the Tito mission....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mattscar

Mattscar

Posted
Posted

Even with awful odds and no nasa backing, Id still put myself up for it. The chance to see another planet in a way no other human has would be just too good to pass up. Yeah there are alot of risks, and believe me I'd need an extra large colostomy bag during take off, but for those moments you swing round the back of mars and the earth disappears from view would make it all worthwhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesF

JamesF

Posted
Posted

Even when I was very healthy and fit I weighed considerably more than 70kgs. To make the weight limit I'd have to be too ill to go. I think I'm probably totally psychologically unsuited to spending that amount of time permanently in the company of one other person, too.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
E621Keith

E621Keith

Posted
Posted

Those odds are for the Space Shuttle, so state astronauts regularly risk these odds! The article suggest the odds would be even worse for the Tito mission....

You are right, that's the chances for states astronauts. I should have read more carefully.

I guess it's a return to the type of exploration in the age of sail, when explorers were expected to loose more than half the crew every voyage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nameunknown

nameunknown

Posted
Posted

Interested to know how they estimate the risks - previous fatal accidents with space travel seem to have always happened either on launch or re-entry, and "space tourists" are prepared to accept those. However, its not for me as there's always a risk that the other passenger would be Sarah Brightman and while she's probably pleasant company, there's a significant risk her singing would drive me nuts after a year and a half of "phantom of the opera".....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naemeth

Naemeth

Posted
Posted

I know its probably more obvious within a spacecraft but at least you know where it's been. You should look where the water that comes out of your kitchen tap has come from :)

http://usatoday30.us...ater03_CV_N.htm

I've never known anyone to die of ingesting tap water in normal quantities, I think we're fine :).

Urine is safe to drink if it's been filtered enough, not pleasant though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesF

JamesF

Posted
Posted

Why cant they land on mars?

In theory, probably no reason. In practice, because it makes the entire project very much more difficult. Not only is landing safely and taking off again fraught with problems and potential for error, but you need to take a whole pile of stuff with you to achieve it that you wouldn't need if you didn't land which all adds to the cost of the operation.

I think merely demonstrating that two human beings can get to Mars and back without one pushing the other out of the airlock would be quite an achievement.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nameunknown

nameunknown

Posted
Posted

Why cant they land on mars?

Landing (in a survivable way) would need a lot of extra hardware

  • extra heat-shield,
  • parachute,
  • some fuel to slow you down when you get there - they could slam into the planet at no extra cost and have a crater named after them - as well as contaminating the planet with Earth bacteria
  • EVA suits - not much cop going to Mars if you can't go out

Coming back is then an even bigger problem, you need to get off Mars (needs rocket, fuel etc).

However, I suppose they could land and hope the publicity would be enough to have people pay for a "rescue" mission. Perhaps we should send 10 Z-list "celebrities" and ask people to dial a phone number to say which one should be brought back...

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MadAlbert

MadAlbert

Posted
Posted

Think more 'bust' than 'Mars' - if it was feasible Richard Branson would be first in line.

I doubt landing on could be factored in owing to complexity and additional fuel (read mass) required. Plus there's the extra risk. More 'bust'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.