Discussion:
OT? - humans could've been on Mars in the 1960s
(too old to reply)
a425couple
2018-07-09 19:16:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
from
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/07/09/nasa-shocker-astronaut-reveals-humans-couldve-been-on-mars-in-1960s.html
or similar from:
http://www.businessinsider.com/astronaut-chris-hadfield-on-mars-mission-safety-2018-6

NASA shocker: Astronaut reveals humans could've been on Mars in the 1960s
By Sean Keach, Digital Technology and Science Editor | The Sun
Facebook

NASA's Curiosity rover takes selfie during dust storm (Credit: NASA)
NASA's Curiosity rover takes selfie during dust storm (Credit: NASA)

Hero astronaut Chris Hadfield says we could've sent humans to Mars in
the 1960s – but there's a very good reason we didn't.

The former International Space Station commander said the risk of death
was simply too high.

"We could send people to Mars decades ago," Hadfield told Business Insider.

"The technology that took us to the moon and back when I was just a kid
– that technology can take us to Mars."

Hadfield was referring to the famous Apollo 11 mission: it was the
spaceflight that landed the first two people on the moon.

Americans Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin touched down on the moon on
July 20, 1969 – and Hadfield is convinced that same spaceship technology
could put us on Mars.

The problem, according to Hadfield, is that those classic space shuttles
would simply take too long to get to Mars.

This poses loads of risks, particularly illnesses caused by the tough
environments in space.

"The majority of the astronauts that we send on those missions wouldn't
make it," he explained.

"They'd die."

The astronaut added: "Mars is further away than most people think."

Hadfield isn't wrong: there's an immense distance between Earth and
Mars, with the red planet being roughly 600 times further away from us
than the moon.

The situation is made more complicated by the fact that the distance is
constantly changing as the two planets rotate around the sun.

The closest that Earth and Mars can ever be is a distance of 33.9million
miles – or 9,800 times longer than the trip from London and New York.

A more useful distance is the average gap, which is even bigger at 140
million miles.

Launching shuttles to Mars so far has taken huge lengths of time –
anywhere from 128 to 333 days.

That's an incredible length of time to be aboard a cramped shuttle,
particularly one so far from Earth – where the opportunity to launch
rescue missions is near-impossible.

Astronauts who spend a long time in space face significant risks.

One is the threat from deep-space radiation, which can cause cancer due
to prolonged exposure.

And a 2016 study published in the Nature journal found that astronauts
who spend a long time in space have a much greater risk of deadly heart
disease.

Hadfield compared the feat of putting humans on Mars to Portuguese
explorer Ferdinand Magellan, who famously circumnvagiated the world
between 1519 and 1522.

"Magellan, when he launched in 1519, they launched with five ships and
250 people to try and just go around the world once, and almost
everybody died," Hadfield explained.

"They only came back with like 15 or 18 people and one out of the give
ships."

He said current space travel mechanisms of "burning chemical rockets" is
the "equivalent of using a sailboat or a pedal boat to try and travel
around the world."

There are lots of space-faring firms claiming to offer Mars travel in
the near future, but Hadfield is sceptical that using them to put people
in Mars is a good idea.

They include Nasa's Space Launch System, SpaceX's Big Falcon
Rocket(masterminded by tech billionaire Elon Musk), and Blue Origin's
New Glenn rocket(funded by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos).

"My guess is we will never go to Mars with the engines that exist on any
of those three rockets unless we truly have to," he explained.

"I don't think those are a practical way to send people to Mars because
they're dangerous and it takes too long, and it therefore exposes us to
a risk for a long time."

"Someone has to invent something we haven't thought of yet," Hadfield said.

This story originally appeared in The Sun.
J. Clarke
2018-07-10 00:09:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 12:16:30 -0700, a425couple <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>from
>http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/07/09/nasa-shocker-astronaut-reveals-humans-couldve-been-on-mars-in-1960s.html
>or similar from:
>http://www.businessinsider.com/astronaut-chris-hadfield-on-mars-mission-safety-2018-6
>
>NASA shocker: Astronaut reveals humans could've been on Mars in the 1960s
>By Sean Keach, Digital Technology and Science Editor | The Sun
>Facebook
>
> NASA's Curiosity rover takes selfie during dust storm (Credit: NASA)
>NASA's Curiosity rover takes selfie during dust storm (Credit: NASA)
>
>Hero astronaut Chris Hadfield says we could've sent humans to Mars in
>the 1960s – but there's a very good reason we didn't.
>
>The former International Space Station commander said the risk of death
>was simply too high.
>
>"We could send people to Mars decades ago," Hadfield told Business Insider.
>
>"The technology that took us to the moon and back when I was just a kid
>– that technology can take us to Mars."
>
>Hadfield was referring to the famous Apollo 11 mission: it was the
>spaceflight that landed the first two people on the moon.
>
>Americans Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin touched down on the moon on
>July 20, 1969 – and Hadfield is convinced that same spaceship technology
>could put us on Mars.
>
>The problem, according to Hadfield, is that those classic space shuttles
>would simply take too long to get to Mars.
>
>This poses loads of risks, particularly illnesses caused by the tough
>environments in space.
>
>"The majority of the astronauts that we send on those missions wouldn't
>make it," he explained.
>
>"They'd die."
>
>The astronaut added: "Mars is further away than most people think."
>
>Hadfield isn't wrong: there's an immense distance between Earth and
>Mars, with the red planet being roughly 600 times further away from us
>than the moon.
>
>The situation is made more complicated by the fact that the distance is
>constantly changing as the two planets rotate around the sun.
>
>The closest that Earth and Mars can ever be is a distance of 33.9million
>miles – or 9,800 times longer than the trip from London and New York.
>
>A more useful distance is the average gap, which is even bigger at 140
>million miles.
>
>Launching shuttles to Mars so far has taken huge lengths of time –
>anywhere from 128 to 333 days.
>
>That's an incredible length of time to be aboard a cramped shuttle,
>particularly one so far from Earth – where the opportunity to launch
>rescue missions is near-impossible.
>
>Astronauts who spend a long time in space face significant risks.
>
>One is the threat from deep-space radiation, which can cause cancer due
>to prolonged exposure.
>
>And a 2016 study published in the Nature journal found that astronauts
>who spend a long time in space have a much greater risk of deadly heart
>disease.
>
>Hadfield compared the feat of putting humans on Mars to Portuguese
>explorer Ferdinand Magellan, who famously circumnvagiated the world
>between 1519 and 1522.
>
>"Magellan, when he launched in 1519, they launched with five ships and
>250 people to try and just go around the world once, and almost
>everybody died," Hadfield explained.
>
>"They only came back with like 15 or 18 people and one out of the give
>ships."
>
>He said current space travel mechanisms of "burning chemical rockets" is
>the "equivalent of using a sailboat or a pedal boat to try and travel
>around the world."
>
>There are lots of space-faring firms claiming to offer Mars travel in
>the near future, but Hadfield is sceptical that using them to put people
>in Mars is a good idea.
>
>They include Nasa's Space Launch System, SpaceX's Big Falcon
>Rocket(masterminded by tech billionaire Elon Musk), and Blue Origin's
>New Glenn rocket(funded by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos).
>
>"My guess is we will never go to Mars with the engines that exist on any
>of those three rockets unless we truly have to," he explained.
>
>"I don't think those are a practical way to send people to Mars because
>they're dangerous and it takes too long, and it therefore exposes us to
>a risk for a long time."
>
>"Someone has to invent something we haven't thought of yet," Hadfield said.
>
>This story originally appeared in The Sun.

He seems to be unaware that Magellan was not the only person to
circumnavigate in a sailboat, or that it has become considerably safer
as technology has improved. A few years ago a 16 year old girl did
it, all by herself (of course she was born on a boat and had spent
most of her life on them).

The first rocket flight to Mars will likely be dangerous. The 10
millionth, not so much. But the ten millionth won't happen without
the first one.
h***@gmail.com
2018-07-10 00:58:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 10:09:46 AM UTC+10, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 12:16:30 -0700, a425couple <***@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>

> >Hero astronaut Chris Hadfield says we could've sent humans to Mars in
> >the 1960s – but there's a very good reason we didn't.
> >
> >The former International Space Station commander said the risk of death
> >was simply too high.
> >
> >"We could send people to Mars decades ago," Hadfield told Business Insider.
> >
> >"The technology that took us to the moon and back when I was just a kid
> >– that technology can take us to Mars."
> >The problem, according to Hadfield, is that those classic space shuttles
> >would simply take too long to get to Mars.
> >
> >This poses loads of risks, particularly illnesses caused by the tough
> >environments in space.
> >
> >"The majority of the astronauts that we send on those missions wouldn't
> >make it," he explained.
> >
> >"They'd die."
> >
> >Hadfield compared the feat of putting humans on Mars to Portuguese
> >explorer Ferdinand Magellan, who famously circumnvagiated the world
> >between 1519 and 1522.
> >
> >"Magellan, when he launched in 1519, they launched with five ships and
> >250 people to try and just go around the world once, and almost
> >everybody died," Hadfield explained.
> >
> >"They only came back with like 15 or 18 people and one out of the give
> >ships."
> >
> >He said current space travel mechanisms of "burning chemical rockets" is
> >the "equivalent of using a sailboat or a pedal boat to try and travel
> >around the world."
> >
> >There are lots of space-faring firms claiming to offer Mars travel in
> >the near future, but Hadfield is sceptical that using them to put people
> >in Mars is a good idea.
> >
> >They include Nasa's Space Launch System, SpaceX's Big Falcon
> >Rocket(masterminded by tech billionaire Elon Musk), and Blue Origin's
> >New Glenn rocket(funded by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos).
> >
> >"My guess is we will never go to Mars with the engines that exist on any
> >of those three rockets unless we truly have to," he explained.
> >
> >"I don't think those are a practical way to send people to Mars because
> >they're dangerous and it takes too long, and it therefore exposes us to
> >a risk for a long time."
> >
> >"Someone has to invent something we haven't thought of yet," Hadfield said.
> >
>
> He seems to be unaware that Magellan was not the only person to
> circumnavigate in a sailboat, or that it has become considerably safer
> as technology has improved. A few years ago a 16 year old girl did
> it, all by herself (of course she was born on a boat and had spent
> most of her life on them).

Or maybe he's aware of the actual state of current rockets and is making an assessment?
As an Engineer with a Masters in Aviation Systems who's been involved in a lot of work in the field just maybe he knows a bit about it?
>
> The first rocket flight to Mars will likely be dangerous. The 10
> millionth, not so much. But the ten millionth won't happen without
> the first one.

Which doesn't negate his assessment of current risks.
Cryptoengineer
2018-07-10 02:27:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
***@gmail.com wrote in
news:6f2ae238-3ce9-44f3-89ed-***@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 10:09:46 AM UTC+10, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 12:16:30 -0700, a425couple
>> <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> >Hero astronaut Chris Hadfield says we could've sent humans to Mars
>> >in the 1960s – but there's a very good reason we didn't.
>> >
>> >The former International Space Station commander said the risk of
>> >death
>
>> >was simply too high.
>> >
>> >"We could send people to Mars decades ago," Hadfield told Business
>> >Insid er.
>> >
>> >"The technology that took us to the moon and back when I was just a
>> >kid
>
>> >– that technology can take us to Mars."
>> >The problem, according to Hadfield, is that those classic space
>> >shuttles
>
>> >would simply take too long to get to Mars.
>> >
>> >This poses loads of risks, particularly illnesses caused by the
>> >tough environments in space.
>> >
>> >"The majority of the astronauts that we send on those missions
>> >wouldn't
>
>> >make it," he explained.
>> >
>> >"They'd die."
>> >
>> >Hadfield compared the feat of putting humans on Mars to Portuguese
>> >explorer Ferdinand Magellan, who famously circumnvagiated the world
>> >between 1519 and 1522.
>> >
>> >"Magellan, when he launched in 1519, they launched with five ships
>> >and
>
>> >250 people to try and just go around the world once, and almost
>> >everybody died," Hadfield explained.
>> >
>> >"They only came back with like 15 or 18 people and one out of the
>> >give
>
>> >ships."
>> >
>> >He said current space travel mechanisms of "burning chemical
>> >rockets" is
>
>> >the "equivalent of using a sailboat or a pedal boat to try and
>> >travel around the world."
>> >
>> >There are lots of space-faring firms claiming to offer Mars travel
>> >in the near future, but Hadfield is sceptical that using them to put
>> >people
>
>> >in Mars is a good idea.
>> >
>> >They include Nasa's Space Launch System, SpaceX's Big Falcon
>> >Rocket(masterminded by tech billionaire Elon Musk), and Blue
>> >Origin's New Glenn rocket(funded by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos).
>> >
>> >"My guess is we will never go to Mars with the engines that exist on
>> >any
>
>> >of those three rockets unless we truly have to," he explained.
>> >
>> >"I don't think those are a practical way to send people to Mars
>> >because
>
>> >they're dangerous and it takes too long, and it therefore exposes us
>> >to
>
>> >a risk for a long time."
>> >
>> >"Someone has to invent something we haven't thought of yet,"
>> >Hadfield sa id.
>> >
>>
>> He seems to be unaware that Magellan was not the only person to
>> circumnavigate in a sailboat, or that it has become considerably
>> safer as technology has improved. A few years ago a 16 year old
>> girl did it, all by herself (of course she was born on a boat and had
>> spent most of her life on them).

Magellan did not himself circumnavigate the globe - he died during the
trip in the Phillipines. The first person we know of to make
all the way around was his successor in command, Sebastian Elcano, who'd
already visted the Phillipines going the other way.

pt
J. Clarke
2018-07-10 02:57:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 09 Jul 2018 21:27:28 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>***@gmail.com wrote in
>news:6f2ae238-3ce9-44f3-89ed-***@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 10:09:46 AM UTC+10, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 12:16:30 -0700, a425couple
>>> <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> >Hero astronaut Chris Hadfield says we could've sent humans to Mars
>>> >in the 1960s – but there's a very good reason we didn't.
>>> >
>>> >The former International Space Station commander said the risk of
>>> >death
>>
>>> >was simply too high.
>>> >
>>> >"We could send people to Mars decades ago," Hadfield told Business
>>> >Insid er.
>>> >
>>> >"The technology that took us to the moon and back when I was just a
>>> >kid
>>
>>> >– that technology can take us to Mars."
>>> >The problem, according to Hadfield, is that those classic space
>>> >shuttles
>>
>>> >would simply take too long to get to Mars.
>>> >
>>> >This poses loads of risks, particularly illnesses caused by the
>>> >tough environments in space.
>>> >
>>> >"The majority of the astronauts that we send on those missions
>>> >wouldn't
>>
>>> >make it," he explained.
>>> >
>>> >"They'd die."
>>> >
>>> >Hadfield compared the feat of putting humans on Mars to Portuguese
>>> >explorer Ferdinand Magellan, who famously circumnvagiated the world
>>> >between 1519 and 1522.
>>> >
>>> >"Magellan, when he launched in 1519, they launched with five ships
>>> >and
>>
>>> >250 people to try and just go around the world once, and almost
>>> >everybody died," Hadfield explained.
>>> >
>>> >"They only came back with like 15 or 18 people and one out of the
>>> >give
>>
>>> >ships."
>>> >
>>> >He said current space travel mechanisms of "burning chemical
>>> >rockets" is
>>
>>> >the "equivalent of using a sailboat or a pedal boat to try and
>>> >travel around the world."
>>> >
>>> >There are lots of space-faring firms claiming to offer Mars travel
>>> >in the near future, but Hadfield is sceptical that using them to put
>>> >people
>>
>>> >in Mars is a good idea.
>>> >
>>> >They include Nasa's Space Launch System, SpaceX's Big Falcon
>>> >Rocket(masterminded by tech billionaire Elon Musk), and Blue
>>> >Origin's New Glenn rocket(funded by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos).
>>> >
>>> >"My guess is we will never go to Mars with the engines that exist on
>>> >any
>>
>>> >of those three rockets unless we truly have to," he explained.
>>> >
>>> >"I don't think those are a practical way to send people to Mars
>>> >because
>>
>>> >they're dangerous and it takes too long, and it therefore exposes us
>>> >to
>>
>>> >a risk for a long time."
>>> >
>>> >"Someone has to invent something we haven't thought of yet,"
>>> >Hadfield sa id.
>>> >
>>>
>>> He seems to be unaware that Magellan was not the only person to
>>> circumnavigate in a sailboat, or that it has become considerably
>>> safer as technology has improved. A few years ago a 16 year old
>>> girl did it, all by herself (of course she was born on a boat and had
>>> spent most of her life on them).
>
>Magellan did not himself circumnavigate the globe - he died during the
>trip in the Phillipines. The first person we know of to make
>all the way around was his successor in command, Sebastian Elcano, who'd
>already visted the Phillipines going the other way.

Which alters the point in what manner?
Peter Trei
2018-07-10 12:26:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 10:57:06 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2018 21:27:28 -0500, Cryptoengineer
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >***@gmail.com wrote in
> >news:6f2ae238-3ce9-44f3-89ed-***@googlegroups.com:
> >
> >> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 10:09:46 AM UTC+10, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 12:16:30 -0700, a425couple
> >>> <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >>> >Hero astronaut Chris Hadfield says we could've sent humans to Mars
> >>> >in the 1960s – but there's a very good reason we didn't.
> >>> >
> >>> >The former International Space Station commander said the risk of
> >>> >death
> >>
> >>> >was simply too high.
> >>> >
> >>> >"We could send people to Mars decades ago," Hadfield told Business
> >>> >Insid er.
> >>> >
> >>> >"The technology that took us to the moon and back when I was just a
> >>> >kid
> >>
> >>> >– that technology can take us to Mars."
> >>> >The problem, according to Hadfield, is that those classic space
> >>> >shuttles
> >>
> >>> >would simply take too long to get to Mars.
> >>> >
> >>> >This poses loads of risks, particularly illnesses caused by the
> >>> >tough environments in space.
> >>> >
> >>> >"The majority of the astronauts that we send on those missions
> >>> >wouldn't
> >>
> >>> >make it," he explained.
> >>> >
> >>> >"They'd die."
> >>> >
> >>> >Hadfield compared the feat of putting humans on Mars to Portuguese
> >>> >explorer Ferdinand Magellan, who famously circumnvagiated the world
> >>> >between 1519 and 1522.
> >>> >
> >>> >"Magellan, when he launched in 1519, they launched with five ships
> >>> >and
> >>
> >>> >250 people to try and just go around the world once, and almost
> >>> >everybody died," Hadfield explained.
> >>> >
> >>> >"They only came back with like 15 or 18 people and one out of the
> >>> >give
> >>
> >>> >ships."
> >>> >
> >>> >He said current space travel mechanisms of "burning chemical
> >>> >rockets" is
> >>
> >>> >the "equivalent of using a sailboat or a pedal boat to try and
> >>> >travel around the world."
> >>> >
> >>> >There are lots of space-faring firms claiming to offer Mars travel
> >>> >in the near future, but Hadfield is sceptical that using them to put
> >>> >people
> >>
> >>> >in Mars is a good idea.
> >>> >
> >>> >They include Nasa's Space Launch System, SpaceX's Big Falcon
> >>> >Rocket(masterminded by tech billionaire Elon Musk), and Blue
> >>> >Origin's New Glenn rocket(funded by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos).
> >>> >
> >>> >"My guess is we will never go to Mars with the engines that exist on
> >>> >any
> >>
> >>> >of those three rockets unless we truly have to," he explained.
> >>> >
> >>> >"I don't think those are a practical way to send people to Mars
> >>> >because
> >>
> >>> >they're dangerous and it takes too long, and it therefore exposes us
> >>> >to
> >>
> >>> >a risk for a long time."
> >>> >
> >>> >"Someone has to invent something we haven't thought of yet,"
> >>> >Hadfield sa id.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> He seems to be unaware that Magellan was not the only person to
> >>> circumnavigate in a sailboat, or that it has become considerably
> >>> safer as technology has improved. A few years ago a 16 year old
> >>> girl did it, all by herself (of course she was born on a boat and had
> >>> spent most of her life on them).
> >
> >Magellan did not himself circumnavigate the globe - he died during the
> >trip in the Phillipines. The first person we know of to make
> >all the way around was his successor in command, Sebastian Elcano, who'd
> >already visted the Phillipines going the other way.
>
> Which alters the point in what manner?

It doesn't. It was just an interesting factoid.

...and it was wrong.

Here's what Wikipedia claims:

"Apart from some scholars, it is not generally accepted that Magellan and
some crew members (possibly some other Portuguese and the Malay-Sumatrese
Enrique of Malacca, who survived to the Philippines and Borneo) previously
completed a full circumnavigation on several voyages, since Sumatra and
Malacca (where Magellan had been twice before, in 1509 and in 1511-1512)
lie southwest of Cebu (Philippines). If he had also been in the Moluccas
islands (located southeast of Cebu) in early 1512 (dubious and
controversial), he completed and clearly exceeded an entire circumnavigation
of Earth in longitude—though one circumnavigation in the strict sense implies
a return to the same exact point. However, traveling west from Europe, in
1521, Magellan reached a region of Southeast Asia (in the Malay Archipelago),
which he had reached on previous voyages traveling east. Magellan thereby
achieved a nearly complete personal circumnavigation of the globe for the
first time in history."

PT
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2018-07-10 03:01:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@216.166.97.131>,
Cryptoengineer <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>***@gmail.com wrote in
>news:6f2ae238-3ce9-44f3-89ed-***@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 10:09:46 AM UTC+10, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 12:16:30 -0700, a425couple
>>> <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> >Hero astronaut Chris Hadfield says we could've sent humans to Mars
>>> >in the 1960s – but there's a very good reason we didn't.
>>> >
>>> >The former International Space Station commander said the risk of
>>> >death
>>
>>> >was simply too high.
>>> >
>>> >"We could send people to Mars decades ago," Hadfield told Business
>>> >Insid er.
>>> >
>>> >"The technology that took us to the moon and back when I was just a
>>> >kid
>>
>>> >– that technology can take us to Mars."
>>> >The problem, according to Hadfield, is that those classic space
>>> >shuttles
>>
>>> >would simply take too long to get to Mars.
>>> >
>>> >This poses loads of risks, particularly illnesses caused by the
>>> >tough environments in space.
>>> >
>>> >"The majority of the astronauts that we send on those missions
>>> >wouldn't
>>
>>> >make it," he explained.
>>> >
>>> >"They'd die."
>>> >
>>> >Hadfield compared the feat of putting humans on Mars to Portuguese
>>> >explorer Ferdinand Magellan, who famously circumnvagiated the world
>>> >between 1519 and 1522.
>>> >
>>> >"Magellan, when he launched in 1519, they launched with five ships
>>> >and
>>
>>> >250 people to try and just go around the world once, and almost
>>> >everybody died," Hadfield explained.
>>> >
>>> >"They only came back with like 15 or 18 people and one out of the
>>> >give
>>
>>> >ships."
>>> >
>>> >He said current space travel mechanisms of "burning chemical
>>> >rockets" is
>>
>>> >the "equivalent of using a sailboat or a pedal boat to try and
>>> >travel around the world."
>>> >
>>> >There are lots of space-faring firms claiming to offer Mars travel
>>> >in the near future, but Hadfield is sceptical that using them to put
>>> >people
>>
>>> >in Mars is a good idea.
>>> >
>>> >They include Nasa's Space Launch System, SpaceX's Big Falcon
>>> >Rocket(masterminded by tech billionaire Elon Musk), and Blue
>>> >Origin's New Glenn rocket(funded by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos).
>>> >
>>> >"My guess is we will never go to Mars with the engines that exist on
>>> >any
>>
>>> >of those three rockets unless we truly have to," he explained.
>>> >
>>> >"I don't think those are a practical way to send people to Mars
>>> >because
>>
>>> >they're dangerous and it takes too long, and it therefore exposes us
>>> >to
>>
>>> >a risk for a long time."
>>> >
>>> >"Someone has to invent something we haven't thought of yet,"
>>> >Hadfield sa id.
>>> >
>>>
>>> He seems to be unaware that Magellan was not the only person to
>>> circumnavigate in a sailboat, or that it has become considerably
>>> safer as technology has improved. A few years ago a 16 year old
>>> girl did it, all by herself (of course she was born on a boat and had
>>> spent most of her life on them).
>
>Magellan did not himself circumnavigate the globe - he died during the
>trip in the Phillipines. The first person we know of to make
>all the way around was his successor in command, Sebastian Elcano, who'd
>already visted the Phillipines going the other way.
>
>pt

It's vague, but I seem to remember there was a crewman who was actually
from some place past the Phillipines and so was the first. And I think
Magellan didn't just "die" due to the natural hazards of the trip, but
unwisely involved himself in local Phillipine politics and got killed.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Lee Gleason
2018-07-10 03:16:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Ted Nolan " wrote in message news:***@mid.individual.net...


>It's vague, but I seem to remember there was a crewman who was actually
>from some place past the Phillipines and so was the first. And I think
>Magellan didn't just "die" due to the natural hazards of the trip, but
>unwisely involved himself in local Phillipine politics and got killed.

--
A coworker form the Philippines once showed me a coin from there, that
featured the likeness of a fellow named "Lapu Lapu". I asked her, why did he
rate getting put on a coin? She relied, he was a national hero in the
Philippines for killing Magellan.

--
Lee K. Gleason N5ZMR
Control-G Consultants
***@comcast .net
J. Clarke
2018-07-10 04:08:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 22:16:41 -0500, "Lee Gleason"
<***@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>
>"Ted Nolan " wrote in message news:***@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>>It's vague, but I seem to remember there was a crewman who was actually
>>from some place past the Phillipines and so was the first. And I think
>>Magellan didn't just "die" due to the natural hazards of the trip, but
>>unwisely involved himself in local Phillipine politics and got killed.
>
>--
> A coworker form the Philippines once showed me a coin from there, that
>featured the likeness of a fellow named "Lapu Lapu". I asked her, why did he
>rate getting put on a coin? She relied, he was a national hero in the
>Philippines for killing Magellan.

The amazing thing is the arrogance of the Spaniards, who thought that
they could take over a whole country with 60 people.

Magellan deserves a Darwin award.
Greg Goss
2018-07-10 04:28:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
J. Clarke <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>The amazing thing is the arrogance of the Spaniards, who thought that
>they could take over a whole country with 60 people.

Well, it had worked once.

ObSF: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/24091/24091-h/24091-h.htm
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Quadibloc
2018-07-10 06:50:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I don't know about the 1960s, but certainly if the momentum created by Apollo was
sustained, sending a man to Mars before 1989, say, was generally believed to be
possible back during that time.

The expense would have been great - and the effects of radiation considerable.

At present, though, the current approach to going to Mars seems to involve making
the same mistakes that would have been unavoidable if we *had* tried to send
someone to Mars in the 1980s. Now that we know the hazard from radiation is
greater than anticipated, the approach should be re-thought.

John Savard
h***@gmail.com
2018-07-10 07:07:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 4:50:31 PM UTC+10, Quadibloc wrote:
> I don't know about the 1960s,

So it joins a long list of things...

>but certainly if the momentum created by Apollo was
> sustained, sending a man to Mars before 1989, say, was generally believed to be
> possible back during that time.

By whom?
e***@gmail.com
2018-07-10 20:27:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 2:17:26 PM UTC-5, a425couple wrote:
> from
> http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/07/09/nasa-shocker-astronaut-reveals-humans-couldve-been-on-mars-in-1960s.html
> or similar from:
> http://www.businessinsider.com/astronaut-chris-hadfield-on-mars-mission-safety-2018-6
>
> NASA shocker: Astronaut reveals humans could've been on Mars in the 1960s
> By Sean Keach, Digital Technology and Science Editor | The Sun
> Facebook
>
> NASA's Curiosity rover takes selfie during dust storm (Credit: NASA)
> NASA's Curiosity rover takes selfie during dust storm (Credit: NASA)
>
> Hero astronaut Chris Hadfield says we could've sent humans to Mars in
> the 1960s – but there's a very good reason we didn't.
>
> The former International Space Station commander said the risk of death
> was simply too high.
>
> "We could send people to Mars decades ago," Hadfield told Business Insider.
>
> "The technology that took us to the moon and back when I was just a kid
> – that technology can take us to Mars."
>
> Hadfield was referring to the famous Apollo 11 mission: it was the
> spaceflight that landed the first two people on the moon.
>
> Americans Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin touched down on the moon on
> July 20, 1969 – and Hadfield is convinced that same spaceship technology
> could put us on Mars.
>
> The problem, according to Hadfield, is that those classic space shuttles
> would simply take too long to get to Mars.
>
> This poses loads of risks, particularly illnesses caused by the tough
> environments in space.
>
> "The majority of the astronauts that we send on those missions wouldn't
> make it," he explained.
>
> "They'd die."
>
> The astronaut added: "Mars is further away than most people think."
>
> Hadfield isn't wrong: there's an immense distance between Earth and
> Mars, with the red planet being roughly 600 times further away from us
> than the moon.
>
> The situation is made more complicated by the fact that the distance is
> constantly changing as the two planets rotate around the sun.
>
> The closest that Earth and Mars can ever be is a distance of 33.9million
> miles – or 9,800 times longer than the trip from London and New York.
>
> A more useful distance is the average gap, which is even bigger at 140
> million miles.
>
> Launching shuttles to Mars so far has taken huge lengths of time –
> anywhere from 128 to 333 days.
>
> That's an incredible length of time to be aboard a cramped shuttle,
> particularly one so far from Earth – where the opportunity to launch
> rescue missions is near-impossible.
>
> Astronauts who spend a long time in space face significant risks.
>
> One is the threat from deep-space radiation, which can cause cancer due
> to prolonged exposure.
>
> And a 2016 study published in the Nature journal found that astronauts
> who spend a long time in space have a much greater risk of deadly heart
> disease.
>
> Hadfield compared the feat of putting humans on Mars to Portuguese
> explorer Ferdinand Magellan, who famously circumnvagiated the world
> between 1519 and 1522.
>
> "Magellan, when he launched in 1519, they launched with five ships and
> 250 people to try and just go around the world once, and almost
> everybody died," Hadfield explained.
>
> "They only came back with like 15 or 18 people and one out of the give
> ships."
>
> He said current space travel mechanisms of "burning chemical rockets" is
> the "equivalent of using a sailboat or a pedal boat to try and travel
> around the world."
>
> There are lots of space-faring firms claiming to offer Mars travel in
> the near future, but Hadfield is sceptical that using them to put people
> in Mars is a good idea.
>
> They include Nasa's Space Launch System, SpaceX's Big Falcon
> Rocket(masterminded by tech billionaire Elon Musk), and Blue Origin's
> New Glenn rocket(funded by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos).
>
> "My guess is we will never go to Mars with the engines that exist on any
> of those three rockets unless we truly have to," he explained.
>
> "I don't think those are a practical way to send people to Mars because
> they're dangerous and it takes too long, and it therefore exposes us to
> a risk for a long time."
>
> "Someone has to invent something we haven't thought of yet," Hadfield said.
>
> This story originally appeared in The Sun.

All of the problems that he mentions have a simple solution: build a bigger, nuclear powered spacecraft. Nuclear power gives you a higher exhaust velocity, smaller trip times, and smaller required mass ratio. Volume goes up faster than surface area, so a bigger craft has more mass per unit of area than a smaller craft. Hence, as you increase the mass of the craft, then the required mass of radiation shielding as a percent of spacecraft mass goes down. A bigger craft also allows more allowances for: "in case bad stuff happens" in order to mitigate risks. The real problem with sending people to Mars or other planets is that people want to try to do it on the cheap, with craft that the physics tells us are too small. To borrow an ocean analogy, sea state 8 is a death sentence if you are in a canoe, but if you are in a Nimitz class aircraft carrier then you have nothing to worry about. Similarly, space radiation is a problem if you are in a thin aluminum can powered by chemical rockets with all of the required mass savings needed to have enough fuel to make a round trip; but if you are in a big nuclear powered craft with sufficient mass to laugh off the best galactic cosmic rays and solar storms can throw at you, you have nothing to worry about.

There is a minimum practical size for everything. We don't try to build hand held nuclear reactors. And we know that cars have to be a certain size if you want 4 adults to fit into one. The gas tank needs to be a certain size if you want it to have enough fuel to travel 300 miles on a single tank. Everything has its appropriate minimal size. A spacecraft will also need to be a certain minimal size if you want it to take a crew of 12 people to another planet tens of millions of miles away. Now you can try to buck physics and insist on doing it in a much smaller craft that you think the powers that be will give you the budget for, but don't be surprised when you look up 60 years later and you still haven't left yet. Physics equations don't give a you know what about your budget. The amount of mass that you need to block space radiation is not going to change even if you take another 100 years of research and development. You are either going to spend the money to do it right, or you are going to get a bunch of people that die early because you wanted to save some money.
James Nicoll
2018-07-10 20:53:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <516890e3-0eec-4cf8-8202-***@googlegroups.com>,
<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You are either going to spend the money to do it right,
>or you are going to get a bunch of people that die early because you
>wanted to save some money.

Send unpaid interns promised life experience, then?
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Greg Goss
2018-07-11 05:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
***@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:

>In article <516890e3-0eec-4cf8-8202-***@googlegroups.com>,
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> You are either going to spend the money to do it right,
>>or you are going to get a bunch of people that die early because you
>>wanted to save some money.
>
>Send unpaid interns promised life experience, then?

I suspect it would be surprisingly easy to find "unpaid interns" for a
one-way trip to Mars. But for the money spent, the wages of people
who already have skills is a trivial portion.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-07-10 22:56:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
***@gmail.com wrote in
news:516890e3-0eec-4cf8-8202-***@googlegroups.com:

> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 2:17:26 PM UTC-5, a425couple wrote:
>> from
>> http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/07/09/nasa-shocker-astronaut
>> -reveals-
> humans-couldve-been-on-mars-in-1960s.html
>> or similar from:
>> http://www.businessinsider.com/astronaut-chris-hadfield-on-mars-
>> mission-s
> afety-2018-6
>>
>> NASA shocker: Astronaut reveals humans could've been on Mars in
>> the 1960s By Sean Keach, Digital Technology and Science Editor
>> | The Sun Facebook
>>
>> NASA's Curiosity rover takes selfie during dust storm
>> (Credit: NASA)
>> NASA's Curiosity rover takes selfie during dust storm (Credit:
>> NASA)
>>
>> Hero astronaut Chris Hadfield says we could've sent humans to
>> Mars in the 1960s – but there's a very good reason we didn't.
>>
>> The former International Space Station commander said the risk
>> of death
>
>> was simply too high.
>>
>> "We could send people to Mars decades ago," Hadfield told
>> Business Inside
> r.
>>
>> "The technology that took us to the moon and back when I was
>> just a kid
>
>> – that technology can take us to Mars."
>>
>> Hadfield was referring to the famous Apollo 11 mission: it was
>> the spaceflight that landed the first two people on the moon.
>>
>> Americans Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin touched down on the
>> moon on July 20, 1969 – and Hadfield is convinced that same
>> spaceship tec
> hnology
>> could put us on Mars.
>>
>> The problem, according to Hadfield, is that those classic space
>> shuttles
>
>> would simply take too long to get to Mars.
>>
>> This poses loads of risks, particularly illnesses caused by the
>> tough environments in space.
>>
>> "The majority of the astronauts that we send on those missions
>> wouldn't
>
>> make it," he explained.
>>
>> "They'd die."
>>
>> The astronaut added: "Mars is further away than most people
>> think."
>>
>> Hadfield isn't wrong: there's an immense distance between Earth
>> and Mars, with the red planet being roughly 600 times further
>> away from us than the moon.
>>
>> The situation is made more complicated by the fact that the
>> distance is
>
>> constantly changing as the two planets rotate around the sun.
>>
>> The closest that Earth and Mars can ever be is a distance of
>> 33.9million
>
>> miles – or 9,800 times longer than the trip from London and
>> New Y
> ork.
>>
>> A more useful distance is the average gap, which is even bigger
>> at 140 million miles.
>>
>> Launching shuttles to Mars so far has taken huge lengths of
>> time â€
> “
>> anywhere from 128 to 333 days.
>>
>> That's an incredible length of time to be aboard a cramped
>> shuttle, particularly one so far from Earth – where the
>> opportunity to lau
> nch
>> rescue missions is near-impossible.
>>
>> Astronauts who spend a long time in space face significant
>> risks.
>>
>> One is the threat from deep-space radiation, which can cause
>> cancer due
>
>> to prolonged exposure.
>>
>> And a 2016 study published in the Nature journal found that
>> astronauts who spend a long time in space have a much greater
>> risk of deadly heart
>
>> disease.
>>
>> Hadfield compared the feat of putting humans on Mars to
>> Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan, who famously
>> circumnvagiated the world between 1519 and 1522.
>>
>> "Magellan, when he launched in 1519, they launched with five
>> ships and 250 people to try and just go around the world once,
>> and almost everybody died," Hadfield explained.
>>
>> "They only came back with like 15 or 18 people and one out of
>> the give ships."
>>
>> He said current space travel mechanisms of "burning chemical
>> rockets" is
>
>> the "equivalent of using a sailboat or a pedal boat to try and
>> travel around the world."
>>
>> There are lots of space-faring firms claiming to offer Mars
>> travel in the near future, but Hadfield is sceptical that using
>> them to put people
>
>> in Mars is a good idea.
>>
>> They include Nasa's Space Launch System, SpaceX's Big Falcon
>> Rocket(masterminded by tech billionaire Elon Musk), and Blue
>> Origin's New Glenn rocket(funded by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos).
>>
>> "My guess is we will never go to Mars with the engines that
>> exist on any
>
>> of those three rockets unless we truly have to," he explained.
>>
>> "I don't think those are a practical way to send people to Mars
>> because
>
>> they're dangerous and it takes too long, and it therefore
>> exposes us to
>
>> a risk for a long time."
>>
>> "Someone has to invent something we haven't thought of yet,"
>> Hadfield sai
> d.
>>
>> This story originally appeared in The Sun.
>
> All of the problems that he mentions have a simple solution:
> build a bigger, nuclear powered spacecraft.

Yeah, that was such a mature technology in the 60s, can't imagine
why we didn't have dozens.

Moron.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Robert Carnegie
2018-07-10 20:51:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
When did they actually have a working restroom in space?

Something that you don't like to consider.

As with the kids trapped underground in Thailand;
at least, BBC radio news and the web site graphics
didn't address this. Maybe a factor in deciding
that making them wait till after the rain season
was not the way to go.
J. Clarke
2018-07-11 01:25:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:51:39 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<***@excite.com> wrote:

>When did they actually have a working restroom in space?

Since 1973.

>Something that you don't like to consider.
>
>As with the kids trapped underground in Thailand;
>at least, BBC radio news and the web site graphics
>didn't address this. Maybe a factor in deciding
>that making them wait till after the rain season
>was not the way to go.
Joe Pfeiffer
2018-07-11 02:55:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Robert Carnegie <***@excite.com> writes:

> When did they actually have a working restroom in space?
>
> Something that you don't like to consider.
>
> As with the kids trapped underground in Thailand;
> at least, BBC radio news and the web site graphics
> didn't address this. Maybe a factor in deciding
> that making them wait till after the rain season
> was not the way to go.

That strikes me as just about the *least* important reason not to leave
them in a cave underground until after the rainy season. Did anyone
seriously propose doing that?
Dimensional Traveler
2018-07-11 05:13:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/10/2018 7:55 PM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> Robert Carnegie <***@excite.com> writes:
>
>> When did they actually have a working restroom in space?
>>
>> Something that you don't like to consider.
>>
>> As with the kids trapped underground in Thailand;
>> at least, BBC radio news and the web site graphics
>> didn't address this. Maybe a factor in deciding
>> that making them wait till after the rain season
>> was not the way to go.
>
> That strikes me as just about the *least* important reason not to leave
> them in a cave underground until after the rainy season. Did anyone
> seriously propose doing that?
>
It was considered.

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Joe Pfeiffer
2018-07-11 17:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> writes:

> On 7/10/2018 7:55 PM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>> Robert Carnegie <***@excite.com> writes:
>>
>>> When did they actually have a working restroom in space?
>>>
>>> Something that you don't like to consider.
>>>
>>> As with the kids trapped underground in Thailand;
>>> at least, BBC radio news and the web site graphics
>>> didn't address this. Maybe a factor in deciding
>>> that making them wait till after the rain season
>>> was not the way to go.
>>
>> That strikes me as just about the *least* important reason not to leave
>> them in a cave underground until after the rainy season. Did anyone
>> seriously propose doing that?
>>
> It was considered.

For longer than five seconds? Were they planning regular air tank drops
or an air hose running in? Regular food drops? Do you have a pointer
to an actual quote?
Dimensional Traveler
2018-07-11 19:49:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/11/2018 10:57 AM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> writes:
>
>> On 7/10/2018 7:55 PM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>>> Robert Carnegie <***@excite.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> When did they actually have a working restroom in space?
>>>>
>>>> Something that you don't like to consider.
>>>>
>>>> As with the kids trapped underground in Thailand;
>>>> at least, BBC radio news and the web site graphics
>>>> didn't address this. Maybe a factor in deciding
>>>> that making them wait till after the rain season
>>>> was not the way to go.
>>>
>>> That strikes me as just about the *least* important reason not to leave
>>> them in a cave underground until after the rainy season. Did anyone
>>> seriously propose doing that?
>>>
>> It was considered.
>
> For longer than five seconds? Were they planning regular air tank drops
> or an air hose running in? Regular food drops? Do you have a pointer
> to an actual quote?
>
I don't have quotes, just reporting by the BBC at the time. It was
considered because the team were weak from lack of food and some
sections of the route out required dangerous diving work (one expert
diver died in one of those sections) so they wanted to try to pump
more/enough water out but an imminent storm front changed their mind.
And yes the plan would have involved the logistics of food and air.

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Robert Carnegie
2018-07-11 20:42:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 18:57:06 UTC+1, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> writes:
>
> > On 7/10/2018 7:55 PM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> >> Robert Carnegie <***@excite.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> When did they actually have a working restroom in space?
> >>>
> >>> Something that you don't like to consider.
> >>>
> >>> As with the kids trapped underground in Thailand;
> >>> at least, BBC radio news and the web site graphics
> >>> didn't address this. Maybe a factor in deciding
> >>> that making them wait till after the rain season
> >>> was not the way to go.
> >>
> >> That strikes me as just about the *least* important reason not to leave
> >> them in a cave underground until after the rainy season. Did anyone
> >> seriously propose doing that?
> >>
> > It was considered.
>
> For longer than five seconds? Were they planning regular air tank drops
> or an air hose running in? Regular food drops? Do you have a pointer
> to an actual quote?

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-44695232>
mentions it.

Some details are still confused, perhaps by mistranslation.
That page refers to "about 100 oxygen tanks" sent in,
but I think we were previously told that an air hose
had been laid in. Perhaps not practical... and apparently,
the diver who died was, ironically, just done shifting
air tanks.

Also, the people rescued were drugged and basically
unconscious in transit, although the BBC-news-for-children
web page about it refers to them "swimming" out.
Greg Goss
2018-07-13 13:19:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Joe Pfeiffer <***@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:

>Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> writes:
>
>> On 7/10/2018 7:55 PM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>>> Robert Carnegie <***@excite.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> When did they actually have a working restroom in space?
>>>>
>>>> Something that you don't like to consider.
>>>>
>>>> As with the kids trapped underground in Thailand;
>>>> at least, BBC radio news and the web site graphics
>>>> didn't address this. Maybe a factor in deciding
>>>> that making them wait till after the rain season
>>>> was not the way to go.
>>>
>>> That strikes me as just about the *least* important reason not to leave
>>> them in a cave underground until after the rainy season. Did anyone
>>> seriously propose doing that?
>>>
>> It was considered.
>
>For longer than five seconds? Were they planning regular air tank drops
>or an air hose running in? Regular food drops? Do you have a pointer
>to an actual quote?

Air tank drops. One of the delivery dudes ran out of air on the
return trip from one of those.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Quadibloc
2018-07-11 06:17:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 8:55:58 PM UTC-6, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:

> That strikes me as just about the *least* important reason not to leave
> them in a cave underground until after the rainy season. Did anyone
> seriously propose doing that?

Quite right. Going to the restroom was not the issue. Breathing was.

John Savard
Greg Goss
2018-07-11 05:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Robert Carnegie <***@excite.com> wrote:

>When did they actually have a working restroom in space?

Various people have pointed out that "when the shit hits the fan" is
pretty much every time you need to go on Space Shuttles or ISS.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Loading...