Human mission to Mars by 2024 ?

One good thing that came out of the budget cuts in England was tbe Stone Henge. Did anyone tell the fools who proposed it once it's gone, it's gone forever?

I'd rather see a bypass through the Houses of Parliament.
 
India is attempting to launch a crewed mission into low Earth orbit in 2026, using its own Gaganyaan crew vehicle and rocket. It is supposed to have 1 or 2 crew members. The space capsule apparently features solar panels and can carry a crew of 3. They are going to do extensive uncrewed tests, the first in December 2024. There will be more tests in 2025 using robots instead of humans. The proposed date for a crewed test will be sometime in 2026. This is 4 years behind schedule but they want to make sure they don't run into problems while in flight as experienced by the Boeing Skyliner.

ISRO intends to incorporate International Docking System Standard (IDSS) compatibility on its capsule so it can eventually dock with the space station. India has been unable to get other countries with space experience to partner in its space capsule development so it has been developing everything itself needed to make the space capsule work. If successful, this would make India the 4th country to put people in space, following the US, Russia, and China.
 
This is why "hard" SF and "soft" SF need to work together. What use is a trip to Mars if you just end up in a forced labour camp once you get there? Metaphorically, I think that's what the future holds: gee-whiz super-science technology put to evil ends.
 
I don't want to slide in to politics, but if Musk convinces Trump that he could be the first President to send a manned mission to Mars...
 
Mars will never be successful long term colonization by Mars, too many hurdles .
 
You say that but once they said the world would never have need of more than one computer. Very unwise to predict what future technology might achieve.
 
Vertigo said:
You say that but once they said the world would never have need of more than one computer. Very unwise to predict what future technology might achieve.
Click to expand...

To start with , Mar's gravity is 38 percent that of Earth . A lower gravity would lead to various problems for human body chief among them, the thinning bones and weaking of muscles and , any children born on that planet wouldn't be able to go to Earth. There is also the problem too Mar's last of dense atmosphere ,and thepeolbmt of even of we could put an atmosphere lack of a magnetic field to hold such an atmosphere and the lighter gravity is not ideal for hold onto an atmosphere either. And office a lack of dense atmosphere also mean the planet is bombarded by lethal levels of radiation which would make living on the surface very problematic.
 
There are parts of our own planet which we strughle to make hospitable, so doing on another planet several years distant makes it almost impossible.

As I've said before, we need to build a basecon the Moon before we doing anything else. That is what we should have done in the 70s and early 80s. Of we had, we would be in a far stronger position to take on life on another planet.
 
It's mostly the gravity not the magnetic field that holds the atmosphere though both contribute and it's the lack of magnetic field that exposes the surface to radiation. But you are just posing problems that we can't easily fix with current tech. Maybe in the future Earth will be so wasted that people on Mars wouldn't want to come back here. Maybe genetics or nano tech will find ways around the radiation and the bone/muscle issues.

The point is never say never when it comes to technology.
 
Last edited:
paranoid marvin said:
As I've said before, we need to build a basecon the Moon before we doing anything else. That is what we should have done in the 70s and early 80s. Of we had, we would be in a far stronger position to take on life on another planet.
Click to expand...
I agree and I believe that is exactly what is being proposed now; the Moon then Mars. I think that is what Musk has been contracted for.
 
mosaix said:
Isn't the Moon a harsher environment than Mars? Easier to get to (relatively speaking) but if we can establish a base on the Moon why not, environmentally speaking, Mars?
Click to expand...
Exactly so, but to be fair the main difference is that the Moon is so much easier to resupply. And I guess the argument about long term colonisation of Mars would require unfettered access to the outside. But who knows what directions future science and tech might take us.
 
Vertigo said:
I agree and I believe that is exactly what is being proposed now; the Moon then Mars. I think that is what Musk has been contracted for.
Click to expand...
You are correct. Musk was already given $3 billion to develop the platform for Moon and Mars. He has almost exhausted these funds and the result is abject failure. This is certainly part of the reason he was so keen to place himself at the heart of government; to keep the billions flowing. Meanwhile, his Department of Government Efficiency (childishly named 'Doge' - you know (giggles) like the scam crypto coin - will attempt to starve deserving departments of funds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
A Sci Fi novel with telepathic sex, furry humans, cats, space dragons, and the birth of a new universe Book Search 3
Ursa major Cave discovered on Moon "could be home for humans" Science & Nature 8
Brian G Turner 5 Human Species Who Lived Alongside Us Science & Nature 1
T Boston Dynamics' New Humanoid Robot Science & Nature 0
Jubal_Harshaw (Found) Humans Fighting Wars for Aliens Book Search 8

Similar threads


Back
Top