BB: Scientist eyes 39-day voyage to Mars

[Renegade7]

Not as quick as you think. This type of rocket is has very slow acceleration, but super duper top end. Plus you have to turn around a decelerate at the half way point. So the farther you go, the bigger the gains.

Got you, thanks. And here I was hoping I could fly up to do something silly and take a picture for my lady friend and be back in time for Robot Chicken. Damn. Dreams crushed.

[DjTj]

I'm wondering if they are going to use the set of Total Recall to film the first man to Mars mission?

They already have the stage set up for the rovers. They'll have to use the same one for consistency.

http://xkcd.com/695/

[Chicken Fried]

Baby steps, Larry, baby steps. I don't believe we're ready to be "building bridges" on Mars just yet, and I understand your point. But from a National Pride standpoint, why not? If it has half the effect landing on the moon did back in the day, a quick mission to Mars would be worth every penny. This time, maybe we'll keep going...

Why couldn't we use that money to make our military even sicker than it already is? Wouldn't that be national pride? It would also be practical and useful. I don't think traveling to Mars is going to get us anywhere (no pun intended).

[sacase]

I am all for space technologies. Much of or technological growth has come out of researching new technologies for space so we would benifit in so many ways! Look at all the technologies that we can attribute to Apollo. Now think of what would happen now if we did the same thing. This is one area I do not mind spending a ton of money in because the benifits will be to numerous to count and would be much greater than the obvious.

[Renegade7]

Why couldn't we use that money to make our military even sicker than it already is? Wouldn't that be national pride? It would also be practical and useful. I don't think traveling to Mars is going to get us anywhere (no pun intended).

If they really want to make us more proud of our military, the government needs to figure out how to stop paying a million dollars per toilet seat with these contractors, if you know what I mean.

At some point, and I hate to say this, someone is going to take a gun into space. If you want to make the military sicker, be the first country to put an aircraft carrier in space. It really doesn't matter if we own the skies if somebody can bomb us from a satallite.

I don't know if you read the rest of the thread, because I did go over my feelings of going to Mars and partially why. In short, it would be the start of what we should of be doing as a species given that we'll soon have the technology to actually make it make sense: spreading out.

As someone pointed out, a lot of the technologies we have today didn't come from us poking at existing technology on Earth. It came from making space exploration feasible.

[GibbsFactor]

not just you mjah.

I'd like to see a telescope constructed the size of rhode island, personally.

.....

On the moon!

[Ghost of]

On the moon!

That's no moon. It's a space station.

(or a trap!)

[Renegade7]

On the moon!

How bout Pluto? :cool:

For real, who doesn't want to go to Europa and see if there's really an ocean down there? Possibly, (*gasp) life? That's a lot of ice to ask a rover to drill through.

[PCS]

How bout Pluto? :cool:

For real, who doesn't want to go to Europa and see if there's really an ocean down there? Possibly, (*gasp) life? That's a lot of ice to ask a rover to drill through.

"All these worlds are yours - except Europa. Attempt no landings there." :paranoid:

Sorry. Little :geek: humor there.

[Renegade7]

"All these worlds are yours - except Europa. Attempt no landings there." :paranoid:

Sorry. Little :geek: humor there.

Found the reference, you're good.

Exploration is in our blood. I say it's time for a new manifest destiny; This solar system and everything in it is ours. I want to see Neptune before I die, for real.

Edit- I'm serious

[GibbsFactor]

How bout Pluto? :cool:

For real, who doesn't want to go to Europa and see if there's really an ocean down there? Possibly, (*gasp) life? That's a lot of ice to ask a rover to drill through.

The moon for similar reasons as why we have Hubble orbiting above our atmosphere Obviously Pluto would net further results!

I think it's wise to know where you are going before you go. However, I also want to evolve the transport. One day we won't rely on combustion but that day is not here. Should we just sit idly by until that day arrives? Not if we expect progress towards that day.

[mjah]

One of the biggest problems with going to Mars is the last .01% of the trip: going from Mars orbit to the surface, and then launching back to Mars orbit again.

In theory, there's at least a known means to launch from Mars: have a bunch of infrastructure sent ahead of time, pre-assembled and tested for the return trip, including fuel. It's massive and expensive, yet you could do it.

But entering the Mars atmosphere and safely landing? Nobody seems to know how it would be done. Landing very heavy things on Mars is a complete question mark because Mars represents the perfect combination of entry/landing difficulty: strong enough gravity to make a simple rocket-assisted landing a la Apollo impossible, but a sufficiently wispy atmosphere to make parachutes, gliders, paragliders, etc. impractical for very large entering payloads like heavy equipment, infrastructure, or encapsulated (i.e., living) humans.

And the giant inflatable airbag method used for the rovers won't work for larger payloads. Even Curiosity, a one ton nuclear powered super-rover that will be launched in fall 2011, is too big to use airbags.

(super awesome in 720p -- check it out!).

And that complicated system is just for one (Earth) ton to the surface. For comparison, the Apollo lander weighed over 16 (Earth) tons -- and that was just 2 guys and a week's worth of equipment landing on a low-gravity rock with no atmosphere. So this problem ruins the plan for launching from Mars, too -- how do you get the launch systems to the surface? A ton at a time? Forget it!

If we're going to develop advanced rocket technologies to get us as far as Mars, I think we ought to aim for a landing on its moon Phobos instead. Phobos orbits faster than Mars rotates, which is necessity given that it's literally 50 times closer to Mars than the Moon is to Earth. So you could station a bunch of easily-landed systems there and take a full visual tour of Mars's middle latitudes to your heart's content from only 5,000 miles away -- the distance from Boston to Hawaii.

So we would have a place to go, and land, and hang out for a while, and maybe even explore, without the present-day-impossible task of actually landing on Mars itself.

[Chopper Dave]

One of the biggest problems with going to Mars is the last .01% of the trip: going from Mars orbit to the surface, and then launching back to Mars orbit again.

In theory, there's at least a known means to launch from Mars: have a bunch of infrastructure sent ahead of time, pre-assembled and tested for the return trip, including fuel. It's massive and expensive, yet you could do it.

But entering the Mars atmosphere and safely landing? Nobody seems to know how it would be done. Landing very heavy things on Mars is a complete question mark because Mars represents the perfect combination of entry/landing difficulty: strong enough gravity to make a simple rocket-assisted landing a la Apollo impossible, but a sufficiently wispy atmosphere to make parachutes, gliders, paragliders, etc. impractical for very large entering payloads like heavy equipment, infrastructure, or encapsulated (i.e., living) humans.

And the giant inflatable airbag method used for the rovers won't work for larger payloads. Even Curiosity, a one ton nuclear powered super-rover that will be launched in fall 2011, is too big to use airbags.

(super awesome in 720p -- check it out!).

And that complicated system is just for one (Earth) ton to the surface. For comparison, the Apollo lander weighed over 16 (Earth) tons -- and that was just 2 guys and a week's worth of equipment landing on a low-gravity rock with no atmosphere. So this problem ruins the plan for launching from Mars, too -- how do you get the launch systems to the surface? A ton at a time? Forget it!

If we're going to develop advanced rocket technologies to get us as far as Mars, I think we ought to aim for a landing on its moon Phobos instead. Phobos orbits faster than Mars rotates, which is necessity given that it's literally 50 times closer to Mars than the Moon is to Earth. So you could station a bunch of easily-landed systems there and take a full visual tour of Mars's middle latitudes to your heart's content from only 5,000 miles away -- the distance from Boston to Hawaii.

So we would have a place to go, and land, and hang out for a while, and maybe even explore, without the present-day-impossible task of actually landing on Mars itself.

Thing is, though, by the time there's a means of getting there safely, relatively cheaply, and with relative purpose, we'll probably have the means of landing stuff on it. Focusing on Phobos or anywhere that isn't a potential permanent, high-capacity colony (or stepping stone to a permanent, high-capacity colony) for that matter is short-sighted. We shouldn't be looking for the next big vacation spot, we should be looking for the next Levittown, which, at the very least, means somewhere with an atmosphere. So we're going to run into the problem you've outlined, but as you've stated, it's specific to Mars. Let's develop the rockets; we can go anywhere with those. Let the scientists figure out how to land them when the time comes.

[Renegade7]

Mjah, you bring up some good points.

It won't be realistic to build a permanent anything on Mars if we can't figure out how to use the resources that are already there, same with the moon base. The planet's surface is covered in rust, which tells me there should be some iron there somewhere that we can turn into steel. I like the idea of going to one of the moons first to scope out what we want to do and how, but no matter what we do with Mars, it has to involve at some point in the plan making a profit.

We either have to bring money back, or bring people there to make that colony money (which is what I was talking about with the vacation spot = gambling, weed, something to do that costs money). If everybody that wants to visit Mars has to go through the US government to do it = $$$$. But if we aren't first, it'll be a whole new can of worms. If China or Russia picks the sweet spot, we may be in for a rude awakening.

[GibbsFactor]

I'm not good with math, but if we're talking 40 days to get to Mars, how long would it take to get to the moon? I know one of ya'll payed attention during college math.

6 hours?

[Chopper Dave]

Mjah, you bring up some good points.

It won't be realistic to build a permanent anything on Mars if we can't figure out how to use the resources that are already there, same with the moon base. The planet's surface is covered in rust, which tells me there should be some iron there somewhere that we can turn into steel. I like the idea of going to one of the moons first to scope out what we want to do and how, but no matter what we do with Mars, it has to involve at some point in the plan making a profit.

We either have to bring money back, or bring people there to make that colony money (which is what I was talking about with the vacation spot = gambling, weed, something to do that costs money). If everybody that wants to visit Mars has to go through the US government to do it = $$$$. But if we aren't first, it'll be a whole new can of worms. If China or Russia picks the sweet spot, we may be in for a rude awakening.

You have a point about China or Russia getting there first, at least in the short run until the world unites in a Star Warsian globogovernment. However, I believe the money will ultimately be a non-issue, because we'll probably be rapidly approaching, if not surpassing, the point where we NEED the space on Mars or the Moon or wherever by the time we have the technology to put people there for any serious amount of time.

[mjah]

Thing is, though, by the time there's a means of getting there safely, relatively cheaply, and with relative purpose, we'll probably have the means of landing stuff on it.

Maybe. Maybe not. In the mean time, if we need a place to go (beyond the Moon) with scientific merit, Phobos is a great destination that will totally revolutionize what we know about Mars. In the event that we have the Mars landing/reorbiting technology by the time the transit to Mars orbit is a reality, then we can land on Mars. Otherwise, it's Phobos. Either way we'll develop incredible rocket technology and demonstrate it for tremendous scientific and long-term economic gain.

And speaking of the rocket technology:

Let's develop the rockets; we can go anywhere with those. Let the scientists figure out how to land them when the time comes.

Yes, exactly. Large-distance propulsion is the key piece of technology we get either way. We'll either get to Mars or accomplish the far easier goal of getting within 5,000 miles of Mars, both of which will be unbelievable. But IMO none of this new technology development incentive is going to be politically sustainable without a destination to rally around and something scientific to do when we get there.

[Larry]

Thing is, though, by the time there's a means of getting there safely, relatively cheaply, and with relative purpose, we'll probably have the means of landing stuff on it. Focusing on Phobos or anywhere that isn't a potential permanent, high-capacity colony (or stepping stone to a permanent, high-capacity colony) for that matter is short-sighted. We shouldn't be looking for the next big vacation spot, we should be looking for the next Levittown, which, at the very least, means somewhere with an atmosphere. So we're going to run into the problem you've outlined, but as you've stated, it's specific to Mars. Let's develop the rockets; we can go anywhere with those. Let the scientists figure out how to land them when the time comes.

Can you name something that a hypothetical "permanent, high-capacity colony" on Mars can do, that a "permanent, high-capacity colony" in Space can't do?

I can tell you what the disadvantages of building on Mars are: Vastly higher costs of getting anything there, and/or back to Earth.

What are Mars' advantages, that offset that disadvantage?

Edit:

I'll also point out, if we're considering alternate destinations, that, I think, the asteroids are actually closer (in terms of the amount of fuel required to get there and back. Not in terms of miles or travel time.) than Mars. (Although the Moon is closer than either of them.)

When you consider the costs (the energy costs) of getting raw materials to a permanent colony, by far the cheapest solution is a colony in Earth orbit, being supplied by materials launched from the Moon.

[zoony]

I thought the biggest problem with going to Mars was solar radiation?

[Chopper Dave]

Can you name something that a hypothetical "permanent, high-capacity colony" on Mars can do, that a "permanent, high-capacity colony" in Space can't do?

I can tell you what the disadvantages of building on Mars are: Vastly higher costs of getting anything there, and/or back to Earth.

What are Mars' advantages, that offset that disadvantage?

Edit:

I'll also point out, if we're considering alternate destinations, that, I think, the asteroids are actually closer (in terms of the amount of fuel required to get there and back. Not in terms of miles or travel time.) than Mars. (Although the Moon is closer than either of them.)

When you consider the costs (the energy costs) of getting raw materials to a permanent colony, by far the cheapest solution is a colony in Earth orbit, being supplied by materials launched from the Moon.

It'd have to be one hell of a space station, man. We're talking about large amounts of people. The ISS has what, like half a dozen guys on there for a few months at a time. I mean, yeah, we're talking in paradigms that are completely non-existent at this point anyway, so who knows, but a terrestrial colony just seems like a more natural fit. You might be right, though.

[mjah]

I thought the biggest problem with going to Mars was solar radiation?

I think a relatively short trip to Mars in any craft we can build today would expose an astronaut to enough solar radiation and cosmic rays to double his/her lifetime risk of cancer death.

And I doubt that any astronaut would say no based on that risk, but with so many Apollo astronauts developing cataracts we got a bit of a warning shot: watching a large number of Mars astronauts die of cancer might call future spacefaring goals into political question. We don't have the cultural risk tolerance of previous civilizations, after all.

A 15 foot thick wall of water would cut the increased risk down to the equivalent of standing on a tall terrestrial mountaintop for months. Maybe for this reason we'll eventually send robotic missions to the icy portions of the Moon's poles. Alternately, maybe someday we'll know how to generate a micro-magnetosphere around a spacecraft.

Or maybe we should just go ahead and cure cancer, and forget the shielding. Then Mars travelers will have to get a few extra cancer surgeries, or take some extra medications, as they get older. Not a big deal -- once we know how to cure the damned thing.

[Mickalino]

So, is this because they just found out there is water on Mars.

Are they going to charge up to $2 a bottle up there, like they do here ?

[Burgundy Burner]

35 miles a second - it boggles the mind. That technology would be refined and a future version of the craft could hit 100 miles a second - or more.

Annapolis husband: Honey, I'll be back in about ten minutes. I need to pick up some stuff in Los Angeles.

Annapolis wife: Ok honey. Hey, can you pick up some shrimp in New Orleans?

Annapolis husband: Sure. Be back in about fifteen minutes.

[Renegade7]

Can you name something that a hypothetical "permanent, high-capacity colony" on Mars can do, that a "permanent, high-capacity colony" in Space can't do?

I can tell you what the disadvantages of building on Mars are: Vastly higher costs of getting anything there, and/or back to Earth.

What are Mars' advantages, that offset that disadvantage?

Edit:

I'll also point out, if we're considering alternate destinations, that, I think, the asteroids are actually closer (in terms of the amount of fuel required to get there and back. Not in terms of miles or travel time.) than Mars. (Although the Moon is closer than either of them.)

When you consider the costs (the energy costs) of getting raw materials to a permanent colony, by far the cheapest solution is a colony in Earth orbit, being supplied by materials launched from the Moon.

I see what you're saying, Larry and I understand your points. But the asteroid belt (location of the majority of these rare-earth metals) is between Mars and Jupiter, not between Mars and Earth. Where or how it's processed will be based on these metals final destination; it shouldn't have to go through Mars before they get to earth, that's unneccessary.

I don't understand why you'd want to build a giant space station for this around the earth when we already have a huge natural satellite orbiting us in the moon. A lot of the processing and factory work could be done there before ever being sent to Earth for final use. With such low gravity, it won't be easy to do, but at least realistic when that time comes.

At the end of the day, this is absolutely insane we're even having this conversation in our lifetime. Look at the thread title; 39 f'n days? Who's to say what else we'll figure out in the three years until we're actually using these rockets? 5 years from now? 10 years? 20? 100?

I know a lot of people are wondering, why even bother going to Mars? I could give a million and one reasons, but the potential of one day having a second earth-like planet right here in our solar system should be enough. Not just for the United States, but for the future of our species. There are close to 6.8 billion people on the planet right now, and we can expect at least another 2 billion by the middle of the 21st century. We can't all just stay on this one rock and expect everything to be kosher.

It's already not kosher.

Edit - out there idea, what if we all just stay right here on earth and a comet comes to kill us all and there's nothing we can do about it, too short a warning or something. If we spread out, the odds of such a singular event causing our species' total extinction minimizes greatly. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

[Pedro]

We'd be there this summer if the recession hadn't of happened and the world's governments spent the same amount of money to make it happen.

As a species we have to get of this rock. We know it's not 100% safe and we've not evolved to be good at living within a confined space with finite resources.

In order to do what people are talking of we would have to effectively cure cancer, develop massively more efficient power generation and many other obvious and as yet unknown scientific advances.

We are the most advanced and powerful the human race has ever been. If not us then who and when? Plus that we know we can if we really want to is a big factor.....