Maybe I should just repeat this bit of the quote from my last post.

Space agency officials unveiled seven instruments they plan to put on a Martian rover that would launch in 2020, including two devices aimed at bigger Mars missions in the future.

The $1.9 billion rover will include an experiment that will turn carbon dioxide in the Martian atmosphere into oxygen. It could then be used to make rocket fuel and for future astronauts to breathe, said NASA associate administrator for exploration Bill Gerstenmaier.

Taking fuel to Mars for return flights is heavy and expensive.

There's obviously much better choices to be had on Mars over the moon and if this could be done on the moon don't you think that they would've tried it there 1st?

Cheers.

The biggest problem with Mars is not Living there as such Wiggo ! Yes i understand most of the problems with living there can and have already been fixed.

The problem is getting there !

2 years round trip 1 year min in space exposed to cosmic radiation !!

Then plans so far that i have seen for the space craft to take them there will not be able to stop this major problem

The moon is no more than 5 days max so exposure to cosmic rays is minimal and for part of the way it's not a problem

The inflatable habitat i have seen is to me a joke

COSMIC RADIATION EXPOSURE OVER A LONG TIME BIG PROBLEM

so to me Mars is a publicity stunt and it been over run by private interests

---

Carl Sagan was not of your opinion. Read "Cosmos", which I translated in Italian for Mondadori.
Tullio

---

Exactly Chris .

There is also micro metorites

Comet fragment and things we can detect . solar flares . I do not believe it can be done on $20 bill more like 200-1000 billion

The recent things i've seen i don't like

Say offering someone $10 mill to volunteer !! nice work but i smell a rat.

---

What kind of shielding would be necessary to lower the risk to very acceptable levels ?
I suspect that if there were a solution it would result in a very heavy ship. This would favor the idea of having it assembled in orbit --possibly at a re-vamped Space Station.

Perhaps an extreme Magnetic field could be generated.

I would like to be alive to see this adventure --possibly inside of 20 years --if so we need to start at once.

I would like to be alive to see this adventure --possibly inside of 20 years --if so we need to start at once.

I too would like this so i hope NASA stays in control and others outside don't and the ship will have to have a lot of shielding and be heavy this is no picnic ! and i hope there is enough oversight ....not confident of that

---

i will be mischivous and this is a joke so no kicker in a knot please .

The Americans mite not wish to go back to the moon

Why ?

Has anybody seen Apollo 18 the movie ?

I watched about 10 minutes of it, pulled the DVD out and sent it back to NetFlix

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

On theregister.co.uk I read a news about someone inventing a ion thruster using virtual particles, which pop out of empty space by the laws of quantum field theory. Then the news disappeared but I found an article on it in La Repubblica paper, which is not a reliable science source. It says that the idea is due to an engineer of Italian origin,Guido Fetta, who called it Cannae Drive. It should have been tested by NASA which announced the results in conference in Cleveland, Ohio, on July 30. Has anybody heard of it?
Tullio

---

Here theregister.co.uk:
CANNAE
Tullio

---

Interesting Tullio thank's

Even if the expaination sounds like "Star Trek " technogaggle be interesting and cool if it works

---

I think that going beyond the Moon ("Al di la' della Luna" by astronomer Paolo Maffei was, incidentally, a book I edited at Mondadori and has been translated in English) requires new propulsion methods.
A hilarious incident: the book was translated by Father O"Connell, a Jesuit priest and astronomer and then published in USA. When Father O'Connell saw the draft proofs he wanted not to sign to translation, because the American editors had translated his English English into American English. But we succeeded in convincing him and the book was published with his name on it. "Beyond the Moon", MIT Press",1978.
Tullio

---

Yes, they relate to the same subject.
Tullio

---

Here I post the news that comet Siding Spring is heading for Mars which it shall reach on October 19, maybe putting in danger the spacecrafts orbiting Mars since it will pass within 80000 miles from Mars (don't know which kind of miles, so I cannot 'translate this datum in km).
Tullio
I read this on the NYTimes, not on theregister.

---

mmm Tullio Wiki says

This effect is achieved with a circular orbit 35,786 kilometres (22,236 mi) above the Earth's

Mars is smaller so i'm think the geosynchronous equatorial obit is lower ?

80,000 miles is approx 130,000 + klm :)

---

A comet has a tail or two tails which extend for a large amount of space. One is made up of dust, the other of gases. So they may impact the satellites orbiting Mars.
Tullio

---

The only thing that will get the American manned space program out of the dumps is when the Chinese put a man on the Moon.

---

The only thing that will get the American manned space program out of the dumps is when the Chinese put a man on the Moon.

+10 The military would totally freak out at the thought that the Chinese would have a base on the moon. Sitting on the moon you don't need nukes you just need big rocks to throw.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Your both right that why we need to go there before them (us= American we help will a little cash i'm shore)

It will be just like that movie IRON SKY but instead of NAZI it will be Chinese Commy's all in RED

---

The Moon is a potential well. You must spend energy to get out of it. Then you have to spend more energy to transfer to an Earth orbit. But first you have to bring your equipment to the Moon. A rocket fired from the Earth costs much less energy.
Tullio

---

The Moon is a potential well. You must spend energy to get out of it. Then you have to spend more energy to transfer to an Earth orbit. But first you have to bring your equipment to the Moon. A rocket fired from the Earth costs much less energy.
Tullio

I would like to see validated proof of that. The earth is many times more massive than the moon and it's gravity well is much deeper. It defies common sense to say that it is easier to launch from the earth than from the moon.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.