????? ???? ?????????? ???????. ??? ????????.

We have great machines called computers that are already doing a brilliant job of Martian exploration. Let's stick with what works and leave the childish fantasies of 'Wagon Train to the Stars' to Hollywood.

2. Radiation would kill the crew – if not during the mission anyone going would know that they would probably die prematurely afterwards.

3. The crew would be multinational and politics would play a large part in selection. Would such a crew really be able to remain sane, healthy and effective – or would cabin fever set in ?"

A perfect sample of the kind of misconceptions found among armchair novices.

1.) No mechanical devices made that reliable? How about the Voyager spacecraft? Made decades ago, and it has lasted decades. Any mission would have triple redundancy anyway.

2.) Radiation would not kill the crew. You are simply wrong here. But even if we want to reduce radiation, we could simply provide an inner room surrounded by the several tons of water needed for the mission.

3.) The crew would probably be all American. Or all Russian, or all Chinese. No nation is going to pay for this project then not send their own people. And the ISS demonstrated that cooperation is more expensive than taking a project on your own.

We have had people stay in space for over a year, working well with others. Sure it isnt the most fun thing ever. But getting to go to mars is a good incentive.

I agree with you on one point: we are unlikely to go to mars any time soon. But not because the challenges are all too great, rather it is because even people with a basic understanding of space exploration, have huge misconceptions. Read a book some time. I suggest "The Case for Mars."

The greatest barrier to manned exploration to mars is the lack of effort, lack of motivation, and the misconceptions. Lousy articles like this one certainly dont help.

×òî òàêîå öèô?îâîå òåëåâèäåíèå? ?òî ïå?åäà÷à ñèãíàëà íåïîñ?åäñòâåííî îò òåëåâèçèîííîé àíòåííû â òåëåöåíò?å ê òåëåâèçî?ó ïîñ?åäñòâîì ñïóòíèêà. Óñòàíîâêà ñïóòíèêîâîãî òåëåâèäåíèÿ ïîëüçóåòñÿ ñåãîäíÿ áîëüøîé ïîïóëÿ?íîñòü?, â ñèëó ñâîåé àêòóàëüíîñòè. Óñòàíîâêà ñïóòíèêîâûõ àíòåíí îò íàøåé êîìïàíèè äàåò Âàì âîçìîæíîñòü ï?îñìîò?à áîëüøîãî êîëè÷åñòâà êàíàëîâ, à òàêæå ÍÒ ïë?ñ è Ò?èêîëî? ÒÂ.

Ï?è çàêàçå óñòàíîâêè êîìïëåêòà Ò?èêîëî? ÒÂ – êà?òà èç ïàêåòà Ò?èêîëî? "Îïòèìóì" â ïîäà?îê!
äî 31 äåêàá?ÿ 2008 ãîäà

âñå íà ñàéòå [b]http://www.tsc-i.ru[/b]

great article once again and keep up the good work

matt

So it sounds like the problem is really just to avoid "hitting Mars" (falling too fast) during that critical minute or so of aerobraking.

Instead of using thrusters to brake "horizontal" velocity, why not use them only to slow the rate of descent? I.e. thrust vertically during aerobraking to maintain altitude and limit vertical velocity – then land with a combination of rocket and parachute for a fast but controlled descent that minimizes rocket fuel.

1. A 3 year round trip – no mechanical system ever designed is this reliable. The ISS crew couldn't fix the toilet without a repair kit from earth.

2. Radiation would kill the crew – if not during the mission anyone going would know that they would probably die prematurely afterwards.

3. The crew would be multinational and politics would play a large part in selection. Would such a crew really be able to remain sane, healthy and effective – or would cabin fever set in ?

4. As the article mentions there are serious issues with actually landing on Mars. Neil Armstrong turned off the autopilot and nearly ran out of fuel landing on manual. He was very skilled in bringing Eagle down safely – and lucky. But can we afford to depend on luck ?

People will go to Mars – but probably not for another 50 years. Of I was a politician I would only fund a manned Mars mission (beginning with orbital flight with no landing) if we had the technology to :

(a) Get there in a month, not a year. Advanced nuclear propulsion systems are a necessity, nuclear thermal isn't good enough. Need exhaust velocities 10 times higher than current chemical rockets.

(b) Have more than enough ship shielding to protect the crew.

(c) Transport all hardware and living quarters to the surface before the crew get there – minimises the landing weight problem.

(d) have completed an unmanned test flight schedule that demonstrates all this.

Since exploratory craft would be based in orbit for the tether
why not tack on a photovoltaic solar array and add a few super-conduction conduits.. to beam down gigawatts of power to the surface which might be used fir chemical conversions.
Another obvious candidate for funding.. since obviously this has great spin-off potential..

example: using lightweight formwork and CO2 activated foams to build structures and seals by using the locally available materials to build airtight structures.

Another weight saving measure: locate some basecamp near ot at high concentrations of dry ice to facilitate chemical production of rocket fuel.

As previously said any infrastructure work can/will be done in layers
robotics first since the technicalities needed to land small robotics is well developed..

Funding might be easier if key technologies such as inflatable structures for extreme environments would be obvious candidates for spin-offs applicable for widespread use here on Earth and elsewhere. High speed Construction technologies would valuable in may places.

I agree with many of the comments stating that next generation fuels is the way to go.

The most substantial problem to over come in a Mars landing is deceleration, which requires extra fuel, which means extra weight on launch and thus tending towards prohibitive costs.

However clean nuclear fuels such as the proton/boron11 or even possibly Helium3/Helium3 (If we can ever refine enough) would provide substantially more power/weight ratio.

Focus fusion is a very promissing step towards using these future fuels.

It is a great shame that £4 billion has been cut from the UK physics budget this year and the USA is suffering just as badly from funding cuts.

There is also a novel comment by rarchimedes, good stuff.

Keep up the fab work!