After the Moon, people on Mars by 2033... or 2060

This handout picture released on October 16, 2016 by the European Space Agency (ESA) shows planet Mars as seen by the webcam on
This handout picture released on October 16, 2016 by the European Space Agency (ESA) shows planet Mars as seen by the webcam on ESA's Mars Express orbiter

On December 11, 2017, US President Donald Trump signed a directive ordering NASA to prepare to return astronauts to the Moon "followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations."

The dates fixed by the are 2024 for the Moon and Mars in 2033, but according to experts and industry insiders, reaching the Red Planet by then is highly improbable barring a Herculean effort on the scale of the Apollo program in the 1960s.

"The Moon is the proving ground for our eventual mission to Mars," NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine said at a conference this week.

"The Moon is our path to get to Mars in the fastest, safest way possible. That's why we go to the Moon."

According to Robert Howard, who heads up the lab developing future space habitats at the legendary Johnson Space Center in Houston, the hurdles aren't so much technical or scientific as much as a question of budget and political will.

"A lot of people want us to have an Apollo moment, and have a president stand up like Kennedy and say, we've got to do it and the entire country comes together," he said.

"If that happened, I would actually say 2027. But I don't think that's going to happen. I think in our current approach, we are going to be lucky to do it by the 2037 date."

An attendee looks at a poster during the Humans to Mars Summit, which aims to advance humanity to the Martian surface by the 203
An attendee looks at a poster during the Humans to Mars Summit, which aims to advance humanity to the Martian surface by the 2030s, at the National Academy of Sciences

But Howard said if he were to be pessimistic, and assume political dithering lay ahead, "it could be the 2060s."

Psychological challenges

From the design, manufacture, and testing of the rockets and spaceships required to learning the best way to grow lettuce: all the groundwork remains to be done.

Just getting there will take six months at least, as opposed to three days to the Moon.

The whole mission could take two years, since Mars and the Earth are closet to each other every 26 months, a window that must be taken.

Key tasks include finding a way to shield astronauts from prolonged exposure to solar and cosmic radiation, said Julie Robinson, NASA's chief scientist for the International Space Station.

"A second is our food system," she added. The current plant system ideas "are not packageable, portable or small enough to take to Mars."

This artist's illustration courtesy of SpaceX shows the SpaceX BFR (Big Falcon Rocket) rocket passenger spacecraft which the com
This artist's illustration courtesy of SpaceX shows the SpaceX BFR (Big Falcon Rocket) rocket passenger spacecraft which the company hopes will someday reach Mars

And then there's the question of dealing with : astronauts will need to be able to treat themselves in case of any accidents.

"I actually think a big deal is the suits," added Jennifer Heldman, a NASA planetary scientist.

One of the major gripes of the Apollo astronauts was their gloves, which were too inflated and prevented them from doing dexterous work.

NASA is developing a new suit, the first in forty years, called xEMU, but it won't be ready for its first outing in the International Space Station for a few more years.

On Mars, dust will be even more of a problem than on the Moon. The Apollo astronauts returned with huge amounts of lunar dust in their modules. Keeping it out of habitats will be critical for a mission that involves spending months on the Red Planet.

Techniques to exploit Martian resources to extract water, oxygen and fuel necessary for humans to live there don't yet exist—and must be tested on the Moon by the end of this decade.

Finally there's the most fundamental question: how will a group of people cope with the psychological stress of being totally isolated for two years?

An image from NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter shows snow and ice accumulated during winter covering dunes in the planet's nor
An image from NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter shows snow and ice accumulated during winter covering dunes in the planet's northern hemisphere; unlike on Earth, this snow and ice is carbon dioxide, better known to us as dry ice

It won't be possible to communicate in real time with Houston mission control: will take between four and 24 minutes between the planets, one-way. NASA plans to test out delayed-communication exercises on board the ISS in the coming years.

Artificial intelligence must also be developed to assist and guide the astronauts.

A researcher commissioned by NASA to study the likelihood of getting to Mars by 2033 concluded the objective was "infeasible."

"It isn't just budget," said Bhavya Lal of the Science and Technology Policy Institute. "It's also organization bandwidth, how many things can NASA do at the same time?"

For Lal, the more realistic timeframe was 2039.


Explore further

After the Moon in 2024, NASA wants to reach Mars by 2033

© 2019 AFP

Citation: After the Moon, people on Mars by 2033... or 2060 (2019, May 18) retrieved 21 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-05-moon-people-mars.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1339 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

May 18, 2019
Mars? For what? The enjoyment of an atmosphere that is 95% pristine CO2?

Oh, that's right, the atmosphere is pristine as compared to manmade, it will kill you only slightly faster than the 0.02% content of carbon dioxide on Earth which includes the manmade variety.

May 18, 2019
America wont exist in 5 years.

May 18, 2019
To infinity and beyond.

May 18, 2019
Benni, you made me laugh. On the one hand we have politicians that say the world is going to end in 12 years unless we immediately start reducing CO2. Then we have other dreamers saying that we must go inhabit other [uninhabitable] worlds because this world is getting overpopulated and too hard to live in. Too many screamers in society today, and not enough people really trying to achieve peace with their fellow man.

May 18, 2019
Eh, I still wish Nasa would switch gears and strive for void borne missions instead of multi-planet. There's plenty of material with asteroids to start making the centrifuges. 25 meter from floor to pinion shaft, can make them concentric a la Russian doll style. Who knows, if we get out in the Kuiper belt we can make island chains and pit stops to the next stars.

May 18, 2019
NASA will keep taking the tax payers money and assuring us that we will go back to the Moon then on to Mars but it will never happen. There are things they do not want us civilians to ever know about the true conditions out there, civilians outside of LEO will not be allowed.

May 18, 2019
Ren. I agree with most of your opinion, if for different reasons.
Without any evidence of Earth biology long-term multi-generational survival?
All the effort to colonize other world's is a waste of time & funds.

The best way to prove that?
Will be the Fat Tire rotating space station.
"I'm not a Frenchie!
I am a Belgie!"

There is Real Gravity.
Always Pulling.
Remorseless, like Time.

There is Artificial Gravity.
Pseudo-scientific fairytales of mediocre SciFi.

There is Imaginary Gravity.
Carnival rides using
centrifugal / centripetal pushing
& energetic acceleration.
Stop shoving?
Turn off the motor?
Exhaust the delta/v?
The illusion of gravity vanishes.

The reality is public opinion drives funding for Space projects based on their belief in comicbooks.

So we're going to have to prove it the hard way.
Orbiting a Fat Tire in LEO.

Nothing less than money-burning, life killing experience will teach us how easy it is to chose to send others to die for our gratification.

May 18, 2019
When it comes to Von Braun Torus stations versus O'neill cylinders, I like the small compact and structurally rigid O'neills. Meaning they have a pinion shaft with support struts going through the middle of them. I also like spherical armor shields wrapped around the entire installation, possibly made from asteroid regolith. The good thing about a sphere is anywhere on it, if you hit it dead on, you're hitting it at its strongest point. And in terms of angular deflection, anywhere you hit it, you're also getting a high deflection angle.

But as a proof of concept I have no problem with a mini "fat tire" Von Braun for starters as a cheap way to assess mechanical and human related effects. It could easily be inflated and modularly attached to the ISS for a 100 mil or so.

And the reason why I say 25 meters from floor to pinion shaft for the compact O'neills is because of this video which lays out a lot of interesting facts towards the end.
https://www.youtu...7QlMVa5s

May 18, 2019
This is Rich
Mars? For what? The enjoyment of an atmosphere that is 95% pristine CO2?

Oh, that's right, the atmosphere is pristine as compared to manmade, it will kill you only slightly faster than the 0.02% content of carbon dioxide on Earth which includes the manmade variety

We have not mastered 3.7V rechargeable batteries
are rechargeable batteries charge with fossil fuels
the very fuel we pretend there replacing
we even pretend we have electric flying cars
we send rockets to mars as fire breathing sticks whose eventual capacity is diminutive
a 1000 year old Chinese amusement
so with all this archaic technology we pretend is advanced as fusion reactors
the reality is there inadequate
we take these inadequate fire breathing rockets
with astronauts squashed elbow to elbow
with pity full resources
all the way to a failed planet
containing 95% pristine CO2
with no way to charge our batteries
because
combustion engines cannot burn 95% pristine CO2
On Mars

May 18, 2019
NASA has been promising to send people to Mars Real Soon Now for 50 years. I'm not holding my breath on this one.

May 18, 2019
Humanity needs to learn how to live on the Earth before spreading their garbage all over other planets. We aren't even providing enough food and clean water for everyone on this planet.

May 18, 2019
I believe that the better course of action to take in the best interest of the astronauts/future colonists is for NASA/SpaceX to launch rockets to Mars carrying AI machinery or Earth-controlled machinery to lay the groundwork for the vegetation/trees to be planted, grown and maintained by robotics. The regions within the mid-latitudes should be warm and sunny enough to grow such plants that will eventually give off Oxygen while absorbing CO2. It will take several years before enough Oxygen is emitted and CO2 removed from the Martian atmosphere but the air will then be more breathable by humans and animals without the use of portable O2 tanks.

Mars loses water vapour through its outer atmosphere, so that they will need to find a way to plug the escape route somehow. President Trump's Directive for NASA to prepare for the future return to the Moon and then to Mars is laudable and timely. But the complications must be met and resolved before such events can happen.

May 18, 2019
What's the rush? If we truly aspire to become an interplanetary civilization, we need a logical, step-by-step, steady and long-term multi-national, cooperative space program that of course starts with the moon. The moon is our stepping stone.

We should aim to make our moon bases eventually mostly self-sufficient, and mine Helium 3 from the Lunar regolith, using it to make rocket fuel. Then we put a gas station in lunar orbit that we stock with the H3. This way, ships from Earth can carry a minimal amount of fuel, just enough to get to the lunar orbiting gas station, while carrying more life support supplies and other equipment.

Then the ships can maximally refuel in lunar orbit for deeper space missions to Mars and elsewhere. And as everyone knows, it wouldn't take much fuel to accelerate out of a lunar orbit on the way to wherever. Nor would it take much fuel for the "tankers" to launch from the moon to supply the orbital refueling station.


May 18, 2019
Humanity needs to learn how to live on the Earth before spreading their garbage all over other planets. We aren't even providing enough food and clean water for everyone on this planet.


And whenever we do provide enough food and water for everyone, we add billions of more mouths to feed to our already 7.7 Billion mouths to feed. I agree that we need to learn to live in harmony with this, our only living planet and the only living planet we're ever likely to have, Earth, before we go gallivanting off to other worlds.

May 18, 2019
The regions within the mid-latitudes should be warm and sunny enough to grow such plants that will eventually give off Oxygen while absorbing CO2. It will take several years before enough Oxygen is emitted and CO2 removed from the Martian atmosphere but the air will then be more breathable by humans and animals without the use of portable O2 tanks.
The limiting factor in such teraforming is the extremely low pressure of said CO2. If there were 10 times the CO₂, it still wouldn't be enough for even the hardiest vegetation. And if all the CO2 frozen at the poles were sublimated, it would only double the current pressure.

May 18, 2019
When these machines run out of fuel they will sit like the rock of ages on this Martian regolith!
I believe that the better course of action to take in the best interest of the astronauts/future colonists is for NASA/SpaceX to launch rockets to Mars carrying AI machinery or Earth-controlled machinery to lay the groundwork for the vegetation/trees to be planted, grown and maintained by robotics

SEU
As machines do not tire or get bored, can live on a failed planet containing 95% pristine CO2
and can take as long as they like to sail to mars
As we have to take machines any way
Every person weighs with their suit, 250lbs plus another 250lbs of food plus endless more 100lbs of essential nick-nacks for human emotional needs
By not taking people, releases 1000lbs in weight that NASA can replace with much needed machinery
As machinery does not die
If these machines run out of fuel they will sit like the rock of ages on this Martian regolith for resupply

May 18, 2019
Wouldn't be surprised if we are already on the Moon. Remember the first 2 years of shuttle launches in the 80's? Payload after payload was 'Top Secret'. This went on for almost 2 years. What were they lifting...

May 18, 2019
To all those pundits who wish for perfection on Earth before we venture into space, men never, ever finish what they are doing if something more interesting catches their attention. Early humans walked into unknown places when they could have stayed and improved upon their existing lot. When suitable craft became available, explorers set out on oceans to see if "dragons be there". Pioneers of every sort could have endured their lot rather than risk fortunes and lives following a dream; thank heavens they dared - we are the beneficiaries.
Now it is our turn. We must go a-spacefaring because space is there and we can.

May 18, 2019
And the reason why I say 25 meters from floor to pinion shaft for the compact O'neills is because of this video which lays out a lot of interesting facts towards the end.
https://www.youtu...7QlMVa5s
says Renfield

Thank you for that marvelous video. I prefer the Stanford Torus as it seems to allow more stability for human action within its spaces. I will watch the video again to examine the Coriolis Effect on the human ear.

May 18, 2019
Humanity needs to learn how to live on the Earth before spreading their garbage all over other planets. We aren't even providing enough food and clean water for everyone on this planet.

says snerdguy

Garbage gets recycled if disposed of properly. The problem most often is that many humans have an 'I-don't-care' attitude and the majority of the Earth's population are not educated enough as to their personal IMPACT on the planet that they are supposed to help keep as pristine like it was before humans came on the scene. You can't fix stupid. You can only try to educate. IF they continue in their stupidity, then it is proper to put a TAX on their stupidity.

Space stations will have full recycling so that the molecules of food, water and other items will be broken down into their smallest parts, and then reconstituted into newer items. Nothing will be wasted.

May 18, 2019
Atmosphere containing 95% pristine CO2
danR> The limiting factor in such teraforming is the extremely low pressure of said CO2. If there were 10 times the CO₂, it still wouldn't be enough for even the hardiest vegetation. And if all the CO2 frozen at the poles were sublimated, it would only double the current pressure.

For 4 billion years this 95% pristine CO2 has been leaking out into space
doubling the pressure will more than double the pristine CO2 leaking out into space
like pumping an innertube up with a hole in it, increasing the pressure reduces the time the innertube goes flat
Warming the poles will only increase the loss rate

As this CO2 is continually leaking out the soil
The question to ask
Why is not the atmospheric pressure rising?

May 18, 2019
Atmosphere containing 95% pristine CO2
danR> The limiting factor in such teraforming is the extremely low pressure of said CO2. If there were 10 times the CO₂, it still wouldn't be enough for even the hardiest vegetation. And if all the CO2 frozen at the poles were sublimated, it would only double the current pressure.

For 4 billion years this 95% pristine CO2 has been leaking out into space
doubling the pressure will more than double the pristine CO2 leaking out into space
like pumping an innertube up with a hole in it, increasing the pressure reduces the time the innertube goes flat
Warming the poles will only increase the loss rate

As this CO2 is continually leaking out the soil
The question to ask
Why is not the atmospheric pressure rising?
Why is that the question to ask? CO2 is a heavy molecule. It's not going to appreciably 'leak' from the upper atmosphere. The poles are cold-trap enough for atmospheric levels to have basically reached equilibrium.

May 18, 2019
America wont exist in 5 years.


I knew this guy V4V was literally an insane alarmist.

May 18, 2019
Moonchinery on this Darkside

Just what we need, another conspiracy theory!
szore88> Wouldn't be surprised if we are already on the Moon. Remember the first 2 years of shuttle launches in the 80's? Payload after payload was 'Top Secret'. This went on for almost 2 years. What were they lifting...

So now after all these conspirators in denial
We have yet another conspiracy
We have built a secret moon colony without telling any one
We hid it on this darkside so no one could see
As now these Moonchines, under the pretext of these Moon sprouts
These Moonchines are resupplying our Moon colony
Our Moon colony, codenamed Darkside

May 18, 2019
Where's the budget for this?

This is vaporware, kind of like the flying cars or fusion power they promise every few years. It's scientific development propaganda that says in effect: "don't worry about the future because there will be flying cars and fusion power and a colony on Mars; when the real questions come up, then we'll decide and tell you."

May 18, 2019
This Martian CO2
danR> Why is that the question to ask? CO2 is a heavy molecule. It's not going to appreciably 'leak' from the upper atmosphere. The poles are cold-trap enough for atmospheric levels to have basically reached equilibrium

if this molecule by its density is trapped on this planet
This CO2 constitute 95% of this atmosphere because CO2 is the only atmospheric molecule
But
If this total mass of CO2 on mars
Is compared as the percentages of atmospheres as on earth
Would, without changing this currant mass of CO2
Does it equal 0.03% of mars atmosphere with the remaining 20% Oxygen and 79% Nitrogen

In other words danR
Do we simply add Oxygen and Nitrogen to this mix as we already contain this correct mass of CO2?

May 18, 2019
This Martian CO2
if this molecule by its density is trapped on this planet
This CO2 constitute 95% of this atmosphere because CO2 is the only atmospheric molecule
But
If this total mass of CO2 on mars
Is compared as the percentages of atmospheres as on earth
Would, without changing this currant mass of CO2
Does it equal 0.03% of mars atmosphere with the remaining 20% Oxygen and 79% Nitrogen

In other words danR
Do we simply add Oxygen and Nitrogen to this mix as we already contain this correct mass of CO2?
There's no 'simply' about adding N. It's in rather short supply on Mars. Look, terraforming Mars is a pipe-dream. It's   n e v e r   going to have an atmospheric pressure even close to that at the top of Mount Everest.

May 18, 2019
Wouldn't be surprised if we are already on the Moon. Remember the first 2 years of shuttle launches in the 80's? Payload after payload was 'Top Secret'. This went on for almost 2 years. What were they lifting...
They were secret, but the class of operations was hardly a secret: mostly NRO missions, they were deploying spysats.

airspacemag.com/space/secret-space-shuttles-35318554/

May 18, 2019
This Martian CO2
if this molecule by its density is trapped on this planet
This CO2 constitute 95% of this atmosphere because CO2 is the only atmospheric molecule
But
If this total mass of CO2 on mars
Is compared as the percentages of atmospheres as on earth
Would, without changing this currant mass of CO2
Does it equal 0.03% of mars atmosphere with the remaining 20% Oxygen and 79% Nitrogen

In other words danR
Do we simply add Oxygen and Nitrogen to this mix as we already contain this correct mass of CO2?
There's no 'simply' about adding N. It's in rather short supply on Mars. Look, terraforming Mars is a pipe-dream. It's   n e v e r   going to have an atmospheric pressure even close to that at the top of Mount Everest.
says danR

Perhaps the scientists of tomorrow will find a way to hasten Human Evolution to the point that humans will be able to breathe the air on Mars with a minimum of added O2 and N.
Another pipe-dream, you say? Welllll it could happen

May 18, 2019
Waste of time. Chemical rockets capable of reaching Mars with a crew would be so expensive, one country couldn't fund it. Until they rethink doing Project Orion propulsion, manned trips beyond the moon are a pipe-dream.

May 19, 2019
Apart from the other hazards, science hasn't come even close to preventing the known dia long term health effects on human health of exposure to low gravity (just google it if you don't believe me such effects exist) and that problem may not be solved for 100 years. And, in the mean time, wasting BILLIONS of $ on sending some people to Mars that would do NOTHING to help anyone here on Earth and can be much better spent on other things, such as reducing world poverty etc, is an act of completely irresponsible immoral lunacy. Perhaps one day after the technology massively improves and after we solve such problems as the long term health effects on human health of exposure to low gravity and after we have solved all the main problems HERE ON EARTH, such as would poverty etc, then, fine, why not send someone to Mars? But, UNTIL THEN, NO!
In the mean time we can do perfectly good science by sending unmanned probes and robots to Mars. What is wrong with just continuing to do that?

May 19, 2019
The same argument above applies to sending people to the Moon, especially for long term human colonies. Do these loons think the problem of the known dia long term health effects on human health of exposure to low gravity would just magically just go away if they just ignored it?

HTK
May 19, 2019
China will get to the Moon and Mars first. They make it faster, cheaper, make more and taking risks for national pride than human life is more important to them.

May 19, 2019
The same argument above applies to sending people to the Moon, especially for long term human colonies. Do these loons think the problem of the known dia long term health effects on human health of exposure to low gravity would just magically just go away if they just ignored it?


No, those problems will get solved either by technology and medication, or by crude evolutionary adaptation. But in order to do that, we need to get out there.

May 19, 2019
Where's the budget for this?


The budget is theoretically already there, $22.6 billion per year is enough for a nice base on the Moon and Mars. This funding just needs to be redirected from inefficient programs to the likes of SpaceX and Blue Origin, who favor cheap reusable rockets with high launch rate.

May 19, 2019
Mars contains these vital ingredients, Carbon and Oxygen

It is just a question of splitting this CO2
As to complete Terraforming can come at some later date
for all we need is carbon and oxygen with a little nitrogen
all that is required are greenhouses
or more correctly, domes
where we pump this atmosphere
This 95% pristine CO2, into our domes, add a little nitrogen and split this CO2
For we pump this CO2 under pressure into our domes
inside our domes we terraform this Martian regolith
as we fragile humans build protective houses in our domes
as these domes are linked to one another with tunnels
like Eskimos in their igloos but on Martian regolith
then in our confined igloo world we incrementally numerically increase our domes
as more and more earthly migrants come from planet earth
and take up residence in these terraformed domes
for inside these glassy domes
These Shire's
These tree lined thatched cottages abound these county lanes with playful little Martian children
Our Mars

May 19, 2019
America wont exist in 5 years.


I knew this guy V4V was literally an insane alarmist.


I thought the name was familiar. Thanks for exposing that idiot.
He thinks 5 years, LOL. I think America wont exist in 3 years.

May 19, 2019
No, those problems will get solved either by technology and medication,
WHEN? Any time soon enough to save the first people we send there if within the next 3 decades? No, this is nonsense. We won't have that technology that soon. We need to wait until we actually HAVE that technology, which we are still a long way from having.

or by crude evolutionary adaptation.
Oh you mean send thousands of people their to their deaths until after they adapt via brutal natural selected over many generations until some slowly evolve some resistance to those conditions? I have a much better plan; just wait until we actually HAVE technology to prevent those cruel deaths and only THEN send people there; the BIG advantage of this plan is that nobody has to die first.

May 19, 2019
The surest and fastest way to develop the technology is to go out there and try. There is no point in waiting, as plenty of people want to go already.

May 19, 2019
This 95% pristine CO2, into our domes, add a little nitrogen and split this CO2
For we pump this CO2 under pressure into our domes
inside our domes we terraform this Martian regolith
as we fragile humans build protective houses in our domes
as these domes are linked to one another with tunnels
.........might you have any suggestions at what level of CO2 we should begin doing this on Planet Earth? You see granDy, if we do this on Earth, then it won'r be necessary to make the trek to Mars to do the same thing, right?

Let's see here, at 0.02% Earthly levels we are doing quite well, it has been 10x that in the past & dinosaurs survived it. So even if levels went to 0.2% we won't need domes. Maybe 2%? 20%? We need suggestions here from one of our esteemed chatroom Pop-Cosmologists? I know, Ghosty1923, he always has a name calling rant that just may be of help here, or maybe Schneibo can come up with a name calling rant that answers the question?

May 19, 2019
The surest and fastest way to develop the technology is to go out there and try.
No, it isn't. We can develop the technology to prevent the diar long term effects on human health from low gravity just as fast before going there. Sending some people up there first to slowly die before we know how to prevent that won't help. In fact, wasting BILLIONS of $ sending some people up there to their deaths might even slow down the development of a solution since wasting all those BILLIONS of $ may, if anything, require divert money away from research here on Earth to find a solution.

May 19, 2019
My above misedits;
"diar"
should be
"dire"

and that
"require"
should be
"requires"

May 19, 2019
woops; "require" shouldn't be "requires".
I was right the first time.

May 19, 2019
This was tried, mars on earth inside a dome
.....might you have any suggestions at what level of CO2 we should begin doing this on Planet Earth? You see granDy, if we do this on Earth, then it won'r be necessary to make the trek to Mars to do the same thing, right?

People living in domes that is
in this dome
sealed from this earthly external atmosphere lost its oxygen
the plants (Terraforming) did not keep up with oxygen used by earthlings
as the earthling were suffering oxygen shortage
if it was not for a constant oxygen supply from planet earth
these earthling living in this dome would not have completed their allotted time in this dome
because without earthly input of earthly ingredients
this dome was gradually turning into this airless regolith
these earthlings were proving a dome could survive
suffice to say Benni,
if this dome was placed on mars, the object of the exercise
these earthly Martians in this dome on mars
Would be shuffling of their mortal coils come tea time

May 19, 2019
No, it isn't. We can develop the technology to prevent the diar long term effects on human health from low gravity just as fast before going there.


Wrong, it is not possible to develop such technology without a significant population living in space. You need people in lower gravity even to find out what the exact issue is in the first place and test any solutions. We still have no idea whether Martian gravity is harmful and to what degree.

I will grant you that you do not need to go all the way to Mars, since a large rotating space station is another possibility for low gravity research. However, current plans are for going straight to Mars, which is cheaper and faster, and there is nothing wrong with that.

May 19, 2019
and after we have solved all the main problems HERE ON EARTH, such as would poverty etc, then, fine, why not send someone to Mars? But, UNTIL THEN, NO!
In the mean time we can do perfectly good science by sending unmanned probes and robots to Mars. What is wrong with just continuing to do that?


If we wait until we have solved all the problems on Earth, we may very well never go. Wise people realize that spending taxpayer funding on high technology and space is much better use of it than even spending it on poverty or other Earthly problems. Poverty is not an existential threat for our species, having all our eggs in one basket is. Long term return on investment in high technology is by far the best of all possible uses of funding. Science is not the only, or even most important, goal of spaceflight. Colonization is.

May 19, 2019
My goodness, how brave to send other people to horrible deaths for our entertainment,

Oh? You meant you were volunteering to go? Yourself?

All the training & educational courses you are working at , to earn the certification to qualify for off-Earth exploring?

Wgy are you wasting your valuable time here? You got studying to do. Homework to edit & turn in. Projects to finish.
Wouldn't hurt to take the Maritime Ship Artificers Courses.

No,. sorry. Video-games do not qualify you for Space occupations.
No, comicbooks are not literature.
No, smoking dope & guzzling lite-beers is not physical training for Space occupations.

Of any of you wanna-be-a-spacenaut were truly sirius? You'd be cracking those engineering texts & technical manuals.

& no, once again, being barely competent to follow the simpleton's instruction sheet that came with your video-game controller?
Does not qualify you to pilot a multi-billion dollars of spacecraft.

May 19, 2019
These experimental domes failed because they were small
Little more than head height

For if you read this Shirely addition
where it is pointed out

for inside these glassy domes
These Shire's
These tree lined thatched cottages abound these county lanes with playful little Martian children
Our Mars

This reference to Shirely height is mentioned
these Shirely domes are tree height
as in these Suffolk towns, Bury St Edmunds where these trees are Giant Sequoia trees of ancient pedigree
these Shirely domes
are enormous
as in these Shirely domes
Giant Sequa trees roam free
red squirrels roam free
and among these forests
migrant earthlings roam free
These Shire's
These tree lined thatched cottages abound these county lanes with playful little Martian children
Our Mars

p.s. If we truly, truly really want to live this Martian dream
amongst these Giant Sequoia trees; think enormous, of Giant Sequoia forests inside our domes producing earthly oxygen

May 19, 2019
No, it isn't. We can develop the technology to prevent the diar long term effects on human health from low gravity just as fast before going there.


Wrong, it is not possible to develop such technology without a significant population living in space.
Wrong. We can simulate for relatively short periods low gravity, by for example a volunteer not standing up right but laying down for long periods, here on Earth and study the resulting biological effects but for periods too short to put the person at serious risk and then do research into countering those effects. No need to first spend billions of $ first to but thousands of human lives at risk with likely cruel deaths to moronically learn the hard way.

If we wait until we have solved all the problems on Earth, we may very well never go.

Only if we haven't the intelligence or determination to solve all the problems on Earth in which case we should never go.

May 19, 2019
I believe it IS possible to solve all our significant problems here on Earth, such as poverty etc. Why not?
First we must spend billions on solving our significant problems here on Earth and only then spend billions sending people into space. If we are so STUPID that we cannot first solve our significant problems here on Earth, how would going to space help? Do you expect those problems to magically get solved just by going up into space? If so, exactly HOW so? Explain your reasoning...

May 19, 2019
My goodness, how brave to send other people to horrible deaths for our entertainment,

Well, I guess horrible deaths for our entertainment is what this is REALLY about! As I don't see any other likely significant outcome other than horrible deaths, I cannot think what else this is really about. But is it worth spending BILLIONS for this entertainment so to make ourselves poorer?

May 19, 2019
Mars contains these vital ingredients, Carbon and Oxygen

It is just a question of splitting this CO2
As to complete Terraforming can come at some later date
for all we need is carbon and oxygen with a little nitrogen
all that is required are greenhouses
or more correctly, domes
where we pump this atmosphere
This 95% pristine CO2, into our domes, add a little nitrogen and split this CO2
For we pump this CO2 under pressure into our domes
inside our domes we terraform this Martian regolith
as we fragile humans build protective houses in our domes
as these domes are linked to one another with tunnels
like Eskimos in their igloos but on Martian regolith

These Shire's
These tree lined thatched cottages abound these county lanes with playful little Martian children
Our Mars
says granville

Well said, granville. A truly beautiful scenario that could happen in some far-off future. But humans can dream and prepare for that day by doing the right thing(s) to help it.

May 19, 2019
China will get to the Moon and Mars first. They make it faster, cheaper, make more and taking risks for national pride than human life is more important to them.
says HTK

That's correct. With over 1 billion of their own people, the Chinese gov't couldn't care less about human life. China has robotics on the "Darkside of the Moon" already. That could have been done by NASA in the 1980s - 1990s if they continued to use the same type of rockets that sent Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to walk on the Moon in 1969. But instead, they rested on their laurels after 1972 and concentrated on building the ISS and launching satellites into LEO.
Now China's hard and software is on the Moon and American/European robotics are still on Earth.
And one of the greatest achievements of the future to be considered now is to launch rich people up to orbit the Moon and safely bring them back. What has happened? Is it that the grand plans of Space Travel to Mars is just talk and very little action?

May 19, 2019
I believe it IS possible to solve all our significant problems here on Earth, such as poverty etc. Why not?
First we must spend billions on solving our significant problems here on Earth and only then spend billions sending people into space. If we are so STUPID that we cannot first solve our significant problems here on Earth, how would going to space help? Do you expect those problems to magically get solved just by going up into space? If so, exactly HOW so? Explain your reasoning...
says humy the Luddite

Your resistance to Progress with the excuse of significant problems such as 'poverty' on Earth seems to give the notion that 'if only all of that money could be spent on removing poverty', then the world would be better off.
But guess what. There is NO WAY to be rid of poverty. The situation of Poverty is endemic to certain types of humans who cannot seem to rise above that situation, whether willingly or not. They are MEANT TO BE POOR and in dire straits. They WANT it.

May 19, 2019
the sillywgghead IS MEANT TO BE AN IGNORANT CRETIN.
A diaper stink
IT WANTS it.

Finally. a descriptive for
the pathetic creature seu,
that we can all agree too!

May 19, 2019
Wrong. We can simulate for relatively short periods low gravity, by for example a volunteer not standing up right but laying down for long periods, here on Earth and study the resulting biological effects but for periods too short to put the person at serious risk and then do research into countering those effects. No need to first spend billions of $ first to but thousands of human lives at risk with likely cruel deaths to moronically learn the hard way.


More blatant bullshit, lying down is not the same as living in microgravity/Mars gravity. You need people living up there to solve this issue, period. You do not necessarily need thousands of them, nor will they necessarily die.

May 19, 2019
I believe it IS possible to solve all our significant problems here on Earth, such as poverty etc. Why not?


Problems on Earth are mostly due to politics and human stupidity, hence they may not be solved at all, even when we colonize space. Problems up there are much more of a technical nature, and thus more easily solvable. This is not a hard concept to grasp, come on. These are two different things and humanity is capable of working on more than one problem at a time.

May 19, 2019
I believe it IS possible to solve all our significant problems here on Earth, such as poverty etc. Why not?


Problems on Earth are mostly due to politics and human stupidity, hence they may not be solved at all, even when we colonize space.
ShotmanMaslo

So we shouldn't try and fight stupidity and solve Earthly problems first but instead waste billions of $ pointlessly putting some people in space and **** all the billions of people left behind on Earth?

May 19, 2019
Your resistance to Progress with ...
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

I am against Wasting billions of $, NOT against progress. Wasting billions of $ isn't "Progress". Solving problems here on Earth for the benefit of people here on Earth, whether via research and development and employment of science and new technologies and/or via political action, is progress. Waste billions of $ pointlessly putting some people in space is a step backwards for humanity and isn't 'progress' no matter how you look at it.

May 19, 2019
these earthlings were proving a dome could survive
suffice to say Benni,
if this dome was placed on mars, the object of the exercise
these earthly Martians in this dome on mars
Would be shuffling of their mortal coils come tea time
.......well then, you have the answer.

When CO2 levels on Earth reach the critical level of whatever that percent is of the atmosphere, why go all the way to Mars & live inside domes there? Just stay here & live inside of the PROVEN domes that are already here, just build more of them & Elon can have Mars all to himself?

Here's the way this can be implemented: Revise the building codes ahead of the critical year & require only house sized domes can be constructed after the year 2100, or whatever the new target year for apocalyptic CO2 will be at that time, or maybe even next year if a Democrat is in the white House.


May 19, 2019
When this gas reaches critical levels
When CO2 levels on Earth reach the critical level of whatever that percent is of the atmosphere, why go all the way to Mars & live inside domes there? Just stay here & live inside of the PROVEN domes that are already here, just build more of them & Elon can have Mars all to himself?

For when we separate ourselves from the ravages of this gas, CO2
when it inexorably reaches critical levels
resorting to live in our personals domes
get copyright on this unique use of this dome, Benni
As a personal protectorate of external CO2 gaseous rates

May 19, 2019
When this gas reaches critical levels

When CO2 levels on Earth reach the critical level of whatever that percent is of the atmosphere, why go all the way to Mars & live inside domes there? Just stay here & live inside of the PROVEN domes that are already here, just build more of them & Elon can have Mars all to himself?


For when we separate ourselves from the ravages of this gas, CO2
when it inexorably reaches critical levels
resorting to live in our personals domes
get copyright on this unique use of this dome, Benni
As a personal protectorate of external CO2 gaseous rates
.....if I did the "copyright" thing I would be accused of being selfish with my brilliant idea for solving the future rise in CO2 levels. You think the name calling rants are bad now, just wait for this bunch to finally learn who Benni really is, and WOW the vitriol from the Pop-Cosmology crowd would be deafening.

May 19, 2019
long-term presence academics send in moon , no atmos, observe high definition universe . can be finding planet_9,anti_earth. exceed Mars .

May 20, 2019
I think America wont exist in 3 years.


Mr Kool, I'll add another word to your description then...

You're an insane alarmist loser. Wishing the world loses too, just like you.

May 20, 2019
Your resistance to Progress with ...
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

I am against Wasting billions of $, NOT against progress. Wasting billions of $ isn't "Progress". Solving problems here on Earth for the benefit of people here on Earth, whether via research and development and employment of science and new technologies and/or via political action, is progress. Waste billions of $ pointlessly putting some people in space is a step backwards for humanity and isn't 'progress' no matter how you look at it.
says humy

That money isn't being wasted. It is being spent on SCIENCE. Did you think that going back to the Moon and then to Mars is some kind of a Boy Scout field trip? These plans aren't only to colonise the Moon and Mars. There will be scientific experiments to perform, similar to what astronauts are now doing on the ISS. There is a lot of space debris on both Mars and the Moon from incoming asteroids, comets, meteorites, etc. and these will be examined.

May 20, 2019
So we shouldn't try and fight stupidity and solve Earthly problems first but instead waste billions of $ pointlessly putting some people in space and **** all the billions of people left behind on Earth?


Again, we should do both. Not sure how else to explain this to you.

Also, spaceflight funding is just a very small fraction of money spent on Earthly problems.

May 20, 2019
-contd-
@humy

As I said before, there will ALWAYS be poverty. You can see the poor and homeless in many cities. These humans, many of them, take pride in being poor and have no intention of finding a job or becoming educated enough to work for a decent salary. Many of them are homelsss by their own volition and have found their place under bridges and homeless communities. They litter the streets with their own feces, and they enjoy seeing normal people go about trying to avoid stepping into it.
These are the ones that you're concerned about? They WANT you to be concerned, but they don't want you to help them change their lives. IF they wanted a better life, they would do it on their own. But they don't, and they laugh at your big concerns about them.
So, instead of spending that money on SCIENCE, you would rather it be spent on the willfully homeless, drug addicts, and other human flotsam and jetsam? The human wreckage will always be here. Try living with them and give them cash

May 20, 2019
-contd-
@humy

So, you think that "political action" is progress? Get a few hundred humans carrying signs saying to end poverty, and what do you have? All you have is a few hundred humans carrying signs that say, 'end poverty', and nothing ever really gets done to end poverty. Even politicians are aware that the Law says that the freedom of individuals cannot be abridged, no matter what their status is. This is why, during the Reagan presidency, IIRC, all of the mental institutions in the US were forced to let their patients leave if they so desired. They could no longer keep them locked up, by LAW, no matter how mentally unfit they were to be free on the streets. And the Law still is in effect even now.
So when is the last time that you welcomed poverty-stricken folks and the mentally ill into your home to live with you. humy. How many times this year have you placed a $10 or $20 bill into the hand of someone in a poverty situation?
We give $20 out as a kind gesture.

May 20, 2019
Your resistance to Progress with ...
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

I am against Wasting billions of $, NOT against progress. Wasting billions of $ isn't "Progress". Solving problems here on Earth for the benefit of people here on Earth, whether via research and development and employment of science and new technologies and/or via political action, is progress. Waste billions of $ pointlessly putting some people in space is a step backwards for humanity and isn't 'progress' no matter how you look at it.
says humy

That money isn't being wasted. It is being spent on SCIENCE.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

No, it isn't. What would sending people to live (be trapped) on the Moon or Mars do for 'science' that couldn't be done MUCH more cheaply by sending unmanned probes and/or robots there?
What great 'scientific' discovery was made by sending a man to the Moon that would have justified the millions spent on doing that? -it was done for POLITICS, not science.

May 20, 2019
-contd-
@humy

Get a few hundred humans carrying signs saying to end poverty, and what do you have?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

HOPE

Just some people showing they cure a damn shows at least SOME people have the required compassion to do something about it. In contrast, if like you nobody cares and everyone just gives up then NO hope for humanity and we wouldn't even DESERVE to survive.

May 20, 2019
So we shouldn't try and fight stupidity and solve Earthly problems first but instead waste billions of $ pointlessly putting some people in space and **** all the billions of people left behind on Earth?


Again, we should do both. Not sure how else to explain this to you.

Also, spaceflight funding is just a very small fraction of money spent on Earthly problems.
ShotmanMaslo

I have got news for you; If you just do the maths and work out the kind of costs needed to put permanent human colonies of, say, a million people, on the Moon and then Mars, the costs would not be a very small fraction of money spent on Earthly problems; the costs would be so huge that it would likely SOLVE all our Earthly problems. It would mean diverting BILLIONS of $ away from such things as feeding some starving children in the third world etc just to satisfy some loons on Earth that think this is a good thing; how brave and noble of us!

May 20, 2019
I have got news for you; If you just do the maths and work out the kind of costs needed to put permanent human colonies of, say, a million people, on the Moon and then Mars, the costs would not be a very small fraction of money spent on Earthly problems; the costs would be so huge


That is not what I want at all. You see, in order for a space colony to be sustainable, it needs to be affordable and practical, ultimately self-sustaining. A colony is not a colony if it needs a sizable fraction of global GDP to continue existing, it is just a stunt.

You are fighting strawmen here. If we cannot colonize Mars for several tens of billions of dollars per year, as we spend on all things space currently, then there is no point indeed.

That is why I emphasize things like cheap reusable rockets with high flight rate and using commercial space companies. Costs must decrease significantly or we may as well stay on Earth and dont bother.

May 20, 2019
SEU, Spending Dollars on Science or Poverty

As you know this town of sport of kings, SEU
you might be miffed to know the most profitable M&S in between Bury and Kings College closed
then Asda closed Santander's closed so have various department store closed, as Greggs the baker had to plant trees in raised beds in the main St as the homeless descended, M&S is now thriftier than a thrift store, consequently SEU, all these prosperous customers have fled to Bury
as you know this town of sport of kings SEU is still the richest town for its size in the world as these sheiks are still descending in their hoards building thatched stables for their million dollar pets
This town of sport of kings SEU, is proof you cannot spend money to prevent a towns decline
These sheiks go to Cambridge and London to spend their millions
As their favourite shops cannot survive
In their fourlegged town
Becase there's no Selfridges in this high St

SEU, a perfect example of thrift and million dollar pets!

May 20, 2019
Just curious; "SEU" is an abbreviation for what in the above context?
Amongst my many university computer courses I did, I learned to use "SEU" to mean what is called a "Single Event Upset"

https://en.wikipe...nt_upset

May 20, 2019
This pointless rush to space with this inadequate rocket propellant wasting billions in this process

There is no rush to colonize this moon or mars
this actual rush
is manufacturing a propulsion engine
that does not use rocket propellant
because
all those millions of tons of rocket propellant
that are chucked back onto planet earth
that
by not using rocket propellant
these millions of tons
will instead be cargo
these millions of tons
will be much needed machinery, living accommodation, food
for
equipment to carry out experiments, also weighs millions of tons
Rid these space ferries from rocket propellant
Then this rush to colonise this moon and mars truly begins
and
Not Before!

May 20, 2019
Cost of propellant is less than one percent of a rocket launch cost.

May 20, 2019
It would mean diverting BILLIONS of $ away from such things as feeding some starving children in the third world etc just to satisfy some loons on Earth that think this is a good thing; how brave and noble of us
......you sound opposed to teaching these people how to do agriculture within their own borders, how long does that take?

For example I can go out & buy seeds to grow tomato plants in my own vegetable garden. I learned as a little kid how to do this & it required only a few minutes of my time & my grandparents who taught me. If a little 5 yo kid can learn this why can't all these starving masses you want to GIVE money to also learn it?

Why is it that generation after generation countries like Haiti continue having the same food supply problems while sharing a common border with a prosperous country like the Dominican Republic? You don't know why do you? But you somehow think it's the fault lies beyond the borders of Haiti that the whole country is in squalor.


May 20, 2019
It would mean diverting BILLIONS of $ away from such things as feeding some starving children in the third world etc just to satisfy some loons on Earth that think this is a good thing; how brave and noble of us
......you sound opposed to teaching these people how to do agriculture within their own borders, ...
No, I am NOT "opposed to teaching these people how to do agriculture within their own borders".
Don't know where the hell you got that from.

May 20, 2019
Cost of propellant is less than one percent of a rocket launch cost.
ShotmanMaslo

You miss the point; Most of that propellant in rocket power is needed just to provide enough energy and power to lift the propellant itself!
This is why it would be insanely expensive to use JUST rocket power to, for example, send people to Mars. To make it MUCH cheaper (although STILL insanely expensive), we will need to make most of the journey to, say Mars, done by some other form of propulsion other than rocket power, such as, for example, what is called "ion drive".
See;

https://en.wikipe...thruster

May 20, 2019
The absolute worse day, in the most inhospitable spot on Earth, is immeasurably better than the corresponding best on Mars. Unlike the machines and equipment to get there, the humans that must endure such a venture haven't been engineered, yet.
But alas - "Only who dare to fail greatly, can ever achieve greatly."

May 20, 2019
Money Does Not Give Happiness

ShotmanMaslo
When cost is no obstacle
Cost of propellant is less than one percent of a rocket launch cost.

This has absolutely got nothing what so ever to do with the COST of rocket propellant
ShotmanMaslo, this has everything to do with the WIEGHT of this rocket propellant
A large proportion of this rocket propellant is not to lift this rocket
because
A large proportion of this rocket propellant is to lift this rocket propellant
which, ShotmanMaslo consequently is chucked back on planet earth
which has not lifted any of the actual rocket which finally makes its way to mars
The saying money does not give you happiness
well, in this race to space, money does not reduce this million tons of rocket propellant
money in all reality actually increase this mass of rocket propellant to this dismay of the pitiful final grams we can send to mars
ShotmanMaslo, if the amount of cargo transportable is happiness
Money Does Not Give Happiness

May 20, 2019
NASA has been promising to send people to Mars Real Soon Now for 50 years. I'm not holding my breath on this one.


President 3 inch is a congenital liar, and has the equivalent of a grade 4 science education.

May 20, 2019
The absolute worse day, in the most inhospitable spot on Earth, is immeasurably better than the corresponding best on Mars.
antigoracle

Excellent point and an point which begs the question; What is the credible practical purpose, if any, of sending people to Mars? I see none. The only rational motive, if any (and I cannot think of any), could have absolutely nothing to do with any credible practical considerations.
And, using the same twisted 'logic' some used to justify going to Mars, we should also be planning to send people to live on the hellish surface of Venus! So why are they not also demanding we do that?

May 20, 2019
Fame humy, !F!A!M!E!
Accolades! Parades! Medals!
Appearances on Late-Night Shows. Autographs to sign.
Gaining the status to party with Kardashians & bother useless "celebrities".

They can't admit this truth outloud. How badly they crave public adulation.

Oh wait....
Uhn. Wouldn't they have to return to Earth to receive their celebrity fix?
Abandoning the colonists they left behind?

Gosh, where have we heard this before? Oh yeah, Raleigh & the Pizarro Brothers. Columbus & Cortez. Hudson & Cook & Magellan.

Turned out that treasure they sought? Turned to bitter ashes in their ravenous maws.

May 20, 2019
-continued-

And, before I hear the usual flawed 'counterargument' to that that we can simply use technology to create artificial environment indoor (with life support, obviously) so we can live in such a hostile environment; That's a VERY bad reason to go there!
It would cost a lot less and make a hell a lot more sense to stick to living in the relatively more hospitable environments on Earth where we wouldn't NEED to create at great cost and then imprison ourselves in such costly artificial indoor environments! Why choose to move house from paradise to hell? I would say, if you have any choice on that (and in this case you do), that's a completely STUPID choice!

May 20, 2019
Fame humy, !F!A!M!E!
Accolades! Parades! Medals!
rrwillsj

Arr, you got me there! Missed that one! Didn't think about that one!
So that's a reason to go to Mars.

May 20, 2019
You miss the point; Most of that propellant in rocket power is needed just to provide enough energy and power to lift the propellant itself!


Irrelevant. What is important is that the cost of the propellant itself is very low, no matter what it is lifting. Hence if we can master rapidly reusable rockets, then the cost of launching useful payload into orbit can realistically drop somewhere below 100 dollars per kilogram.

May 20, 2019
And, using the same twisted 'logic' some used to justify going to Mars, we should also be planning to send people to live on the hellish surface of Venus! So why are they not also demanding we do that?


Most certainly we should do that.

However, Venus is so inhospitable that in order to live there, we would need to no longer be humans, but some kind of transhuman robots. This is still quite sci-fi, contrary to mere Mars colonies, where there is no such technological showstopper. So it may be too early yet to colonize Venus.

But a time will come when it will not be.

May 20, 2019
You miss the point; Most of that propellant in rocket power is needed just to provide enough energy and power to lift the propellant itself!


Irrelevant. What is important is that the cost of the propellant itself is very low, no matter what it is lifting. Hence if we can master rapidly reusable rockets, then the cost of launching useful payload into orbit can realistically drop somewhere below 100 dollars per kilogram.
ShotmanMaslo

Rubbish;
More like the cost will never drop below $10,000/kg no matter how reusable.
where did you get that 100$/kg figure from?

see

https://www.quora...to-space

May 20, 2019
And, using the same twisted 'logic' some used to justify going to Mars, we should also be planning to send people to live on the hellish surface of Venus! So why are they not also demanding we do that?


Most certainly we should do that.

However, Venus is so inhospitable that in order to live there, we would need to no longer be humans, but some kind of transhuman robots. This is still quite sci-fi, contrary to mere Mars colonies, where there is no such technological showstopper. So it may be too early yet to colonize Venus.

But a time will come when it will not be.
ShotmanMaslo

I don't believe it; You actually think some of us should eventually go to Venus to live there? Why? What's the point? Why would any SANE person choose to such a terrible place when he can stay on the MUCH nicer more pleasant Earth?

May 20, 2019
My misedit
"...choose to such a terrible ..."
should be
"...choose to go to such a terrible ..."

+ I would say it is far too early to colonize Mars.

May 20, 2019
Rubbish;
More like the cost will never drop below $10,000/kg no matter how reusable.
where did you get that 100$/kg figure from?


Your own source says that Falcon 9 costs $2,500 per kg to orbit, so you already proved yourself wrong.

Less than $100 per kg to orbit is what you get when the cost of a rocket flight approaches the cost of propellant. This will be the result of an aircraft-like operation of a rapidly reusable rocket.

https://www.nextb...nch.html

May 20, 2019
Would you for One Billion Dollars

This challenge - This reward
Travel as one of the crew
Travel on this ship to mars
If you were promised
That on your return
That if you have arrived home in good health and of sound mind
You Would Receive One Billion Dollars

No one will call you chicken for chickening out of this challenge
For who so ever pledges this one billion dollars per member of crew
Is on a sure Bet
As no one is buying this return ticket

May 20, 2019
Rubbish;
More like the cost will never drop below $10,000/kg no matter how reusable.
where did you get that 100$/kg figure from?


Your own source says that Falcon 9 costs $2,500 per kg to orbit, so you already proved yourself wrong.

Less than $100 per kg to orbit is what you get when the cost of a rocket flight approaches the cost of propellant. This will be the result of an aircraft-like operation of a rapidly reusable rocket.

https://www.nextb...nch.html
ShotmanMaslo

OK, I made an error with that figure and your were correct on that point albeit not correct on any other point.
Makes no difference; It would still cost BILLIONS to send some people to Mars and note that particular rocket cannot get a load of people all the way to Mars.

May 20, 2019
Who will rid us of this rocket propellant?

Kinetic energy of this Martian ship
To find how much energy is required to send this Martian ship into earth's orbit
Is to multiply this ships mass by this earth's orbital speed,
You will find it is drastically a lot less than the total energy this rocket propellant expended
We have to rid this rocket propellant from these space ferries

May 20, 2019
Humy
humy> My misedit
"...choose to such a terrible ..."
should be
"...choose to go to such a terrible ..."

+ I would say it is far too early to colonize Mars.

Humy, when you do calculations on phys.org
you have to work really, really hard at them
you have to check and check again
But still, when you click comment humy, if you make the mistake of going for a cup tea
When you come back
There is this glaring mistake that somehow materialised
and
To top it all, your time has runeth out

May 20, 2019
This pointless rush to space with this inadequate rocket propellant wasting billions in this process

There is no rush to colonize this moon or mars
this actual rush
is manufacturing a propulsion engine
that does not use rocket propellant
because
all those millions of tons of rocket propellant
that are chucked back onto planet earth
that
by not using rocket propellant
these millions of tons
will instead be cargo
these millions of tons
will be much needed machinery, living accommodation, food
for
equipment to carry out experiments, also weighs millions of tons
Rid these space ferries from rocket propellant
Then this rush to colonise this moon and mars truly begins
and
Not Before!
says granville

I've been reading about "Photon Rockets" in Wiki. Tis a very interesting concept of rocket propulsion that employs photons to do the heavy pushing. Though not as fast as chemical rockets, it seems to be a wise choice for a vehicle already in space.

May 20, 2019
"A photon rocket has been a leading rocket scheme that inspired generations of rocket enthusiasts. By definition, the photon rocket is a rocket that uses thrust from the momentum of emitted photons (radiation pressure by emission) for its propulsion.[1] Photon rocket has been widely discussed for decades as a next generation propulsion that can make interstellar flight possible, which requires the ability to propel spacecraft to speeds at least 10% of the light speed, v~0.1c = 30,000 km/sec (Tsander, 1967). Photon propulsion has been considered to be one of the best available interstellar propulsion concepts, because it is founded on established physics and technologies (Forward, 1984). Traditional photon rockets are proposed to be powered by onboard generators, as in the traditional nuclear photonic rocket. The standard textbook case of such a rocket is the ideal case where all of the fuel is converted to photons which are radiated in the same direction.
-contd-

May 20, 2019
"In more realistic treatments, one takes into account that the beam of photons is not perfectly collimated, that not all of the fuel is converted to photons, and so on. A large amount of fuel would be required and the rocket would be a huge vessel.[2][3] Bae recently proved that the maximum spacecraft speed achieved by onboard photon rockets even with fusion is limited by the nuclear fuel mass as described below.[4]

The limitations posed by the rocket equation can be overcome, as long as the reaction mass is not carried by the spacecraft. In the Beamed Laser Propulsion (BLP), the photon generators and the spacecraft are physically separated and the photons are beamed from the photon source to the spacecraft using lasers. However, BLP is limited because of the extremely low thrust generation efficiency of photon reflection. One of the best ways to overcome the inherent inefficiency in producing thrust of the photon thruster by amplifying the momentum transfer of photons by recycling

May 21, 2019
The article is lengthy and the 1000 character limit cut it off. Sorry
Not sure if this propulsion system is experimental at this time, but the usage of rocket fuel to produce photons for propulsion seems a good thing. An orbiting station built into LEO with stalls/cages to hold rocket fuel would eliminate the drudgery of continually hauling up into LEO without pause. I think that 'photon propulsion' is the best proposal for round trips to Mars and the Moon.

May 21, 2019
OK, I made an error with that figure and your were correct on that point albeit not correct on any other point.
Makes no difference; It would still cost BILLIONS to send some people to Mars and note that particular rocket cannot get a load of people all the way to Mars.


It would cost less than $1000 per kg to send cargo to Mars, when you take into account costs of orbital refueling flights.

We do have billions, in fact we spend tens of billions every year on spaceflight already. The funding is there, the technology is either there or quite straightforward to engineer. Most important obstacle for Mars missions is politics, in essence those billions are going to the wrong people.

May 21, 2019
OK, I made an error with that figure and your were correct on that point albeit not correct on any other point.
Makes no difference; It would still cost BILLIONS to send some people to Mars and note that particular rocket cannot get a load of people all the way to Mars.


It would cost less than $1000 per kg to send cargo to Mars, when you take into account costs of orbital refueling flights.

We do have billions, in fact we spend tens of billions every year on spaceflight already. The funding is there, the technology is either there or quite straightforward to engineer. Most important obstacle for Mars missions is politics, in essence those billions are going to the wrong people.


https://spacenews...rillion/

May 21, 2019
Another sticky problem to consider is that China already has robotics on the far side of the Moon. As they don't already have any on Mars (that we are aware of) that MIGHT be their next agenda. But they will most likely feed off the West's knowledge of Mars and use that as their standard to go ahead and send their own astronauts to Mars to be first and establish military outposts. I think that Communist China will use the Moon as a military outpost also and send nuclear missiles up to the Moon and aim them at the US and Europe.
As they accomplish these things, the Communist Chinese government will become more belligerent and threatening. If the next US president is a Liberal Democrat, China will most certainly invade the US. They know what they can get away with when it comes to Liberals in the USA. They have heard of the 'snowflakes'. In hardly any time at all, they will consider Mars as the property of China.

May 21, 2019
... As they don't already have any on Mars (that we are aware of) that MIGHT be their next agenda. But they will most likely feed off the West's knowledge of Mars and use that as their standard to go ahead and send their own astronauts to Mars to be first and establish military outposts. I think that Communist China will use the Moon as a military outpost also and send nuclear missiles up to the Moon and aim them at the US and Europe..
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

Grant you I certainly think the Chinese government in general are VERY far from being angels, this above is just absurd paranoia.
In the hypothetical and absurd scenario that they are so delusional that they think they can turn Mars into a military base any time soon and they then waste BILLIONS on trying, all that would mean is that they will weaken their military strength by diverting BILLIONS away from FAR more effective military strategies and that they are JUST as completely STUPID as the loons here.

May 21, 2019
Just like for any country, if China sends people to mars any time soon, that wouldn't be progress for them but a step BACKWARDS! Perhaps in 100 years time when the technology has vastly improved and we have solved the worst of our Earthy problems, that would change. But, in the mean time, spending billions on sending people to their great risk and possible doom to Mars because China might do this act of total stupidity and self-harm first is a very stupid reason for doing it!

May 21, 2019
-continued-

Would you jump off a cliff because you fear a Chinese person might beat you to it?
That bastard China man beat us to jumping of the cliff!

May 21, 2019
Ah, humy, i see you have done an accurate analysis of what motivates the trunpsterfires supporters.

"spending billions on sending people to their great risk and possible doom to Mars because China might do this act of total stupidity and self-harm first is a very stupid reason for doing it!"

HERE'S THEIR SIGN!"

May 21, 2019
Who will rid us of this rocket propellant?

Photon Rocketry
A large amount of fuel would be required and the rocket would be a huge vessel
and best results are obtained by reflecting these photons by a laser fixed on earth
as innovative as reflecting photons appears to be
we come back to this conundrum, SEU
Who will rid us of this rocket propellant?

As now this mass of rocket propellant has increased
all be it on planet earth producing these inertial photons

A more immediate problem ermegeths

SEU, as this increased propellant is now not on this space ferry
when this inevitable happens, this laser loses track of its target
this space ferry, SEU
is then stranded millions of miles in this infinite vacuous vacuum
Drifting helplessly to God Knows Where

May 21, 2019
SEU
We now have this little problem of this return ticket
As weight saving as this earthly laser inertial photon propulsion is
When it comes to honouring these passengers return tickets

A laser has to be placed on this Martian regolith
With a gigantic enormous quantity of fuel
To propel this space ferry home

May 21, 2019
Who will rid us of this rocket propellant?

Photon Rocketry
A large amount of fuel would be required and the rocket would be a huge vessel
and best results are obtained by reflecting these photons by a laser fixed on earth
as innovative as reflecting photons appears to be
we come back to this conundrum, SEU
Who will rid us of this rocket propellant?

SEU, as this increased propellant is now not on this space ferry
when this inevitable happens, this laser loses track of its target
this space ferry, SEU
is then stranded millions of miles in this infinite vacuous vacuum
Drifting helplessly to God Knows Where
says granville

The ISS itself is not drifting helplessly, so why would a photon rocket do that?
I am not aware that this Photon Rocket system has been perfected yet. It largely depends on how feasible it would be to launch enough fuel from Earth's surface to store it in LEO, as well as the best design for a working spacecraft. This is a future program.

May 21, 2019
-contd-
@granville

I foresee that the rocket fuel from which photons will be used as propulsion will have to be stored in LEO to avoid launching a supply of fuel every time that the fuel needs to be replaced in LEO. By the time the photon rockets have been perfected and operational, there may have been another source of fuel found, so that Earth won't be its only source.
The point for all this, is that travel to the moon and to Mars is inevitable. And with enough colonising of either one or both, it will help to alleviate the population explosion on Earth.
The low gravity of Mars might even prove difficult for procreation, and more human colonists will be needed to settle there. Conditions on Earth are almost perfect for procreation, which is why there are now 7.7Billion souls living today. But Mars might be different in that respect, and birth rates there might be low, if happening at all, even under the best of conditions.

May 21, 2019
In the hypothetical and absurd scenario that they are so delusional that they think they can turn Mars into a military base any time soon and they then waste BILLIONS on trying, all that would mean is that they will weaken their military strength by diverting BILLIONS away from FAR more effective military strategies and that they are JUST as completely STUPID as the loons here.

says humy

Well, of course you would consider the scenario I mentioned as "absurd paranoia". Former British PM Neville Chamberlain thought the same of warnings against Adolph Hitler.
Do you SERIOUSLY BELIEVE that the Communist Chinese gov't would allow any weakness in their military? Really? Do you KNOW how the Chinese treat their OWN people? Did you know that the US OWES billions to China through previous trade agreements that were beneficial to them economically? They don't lack for money.
The US and China are competitors, not only economically and politically, but also in a new "Space Race"

May 21, 2019
"But, in the mean time, spending billions on sending people to their great risk and possible doom to Mars because China might do this act of total stupidity and self-harm first is a very stupid reason for doing it!"
says humy

These men and women who are training to go to the moon and then to Mars are ALL VOLUNTEERS, humy. There are NONE OF THEM being forced to go - no arm twisting - no threats of bodily harm - no sense of shame to it even if they wash out of the program. They WANT to go, humy. Maybe YOU don't want to go, or have anyone else go to Mars, but THEY DO. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO STOP THEM, humy?
Will you go to NASA and shame them by talking about getting rid of poverty first before spending billions on human travel to the moon and Mars? I would love to be there to hear them laugh in your face.
LOL

May 21, 2019
-continued-

Would you jump off a cliff because you fear a Chinese person might beat you to it?
That bastard China man beat us to jumping of the cliff!
says humy

Perhaps you aren't aware of it, but the term" China man or Chinaman has been considered to be bigoted and racist against Asians since the 1950s or 1960s in the US. It is a derogatory term that is meant to belittle and demean Asians, and in particular those humans from China.
I suggest that you revise your vocabulary with regard to such an infamous and shameful manner of describing a person or persons of Chinese descent.

May 21, 2019
SEU
We now have this little problem of this return ticket
As weight saving as this earthly laser inertial photon propulsion is
When it comes to honouring these passengers return tickets

A laser has to be placed on this Martian regolith
With a gigantic enormous quantity of fuel
To propel this space ferry home
says granville

The spacecraft itself, with living quarters, etc. should remain in low Mars orbit (LMO) so that it will avoid the horrid Martian dust storms that envelop the whole planet - filling every crack and crevice with dust. The fact that on Mars there are 'dust devils' that are suspected of wiping the dust off the surfaces of Curiosity, Opportunity and Spirit is amazing. But a spacecraft ferry is much more complex and should remain in orbit.
But yes, I agree that a Laser and rocket fuel will need to be available on the Martian surface for the sake of the humans who may want to visit home.
Some type of Rocket fuel might even be found on Mars.

May 21, 2019
The Space Station is Orbit

SEU, The ISS itself is not drifting helplessly, so why would a photon rocket do that?

The intention is to propel this space ferry with reflected earth based photons instead of rocket propellant
All the way to mars

May 21, 2019
Martian Dust Devils

When NASA arrives in mars orbit with this motley crew
Where the dust devils are on the rampage
Preventing our first human mars landing

SEU, in this scenario what is NASAs plan B

May 21, 2019
Perhaps you aren't aware of it, but the term" China man or Chinaman has been considered to be bigoted and racist against Asians since the 1950s or 1960s in the US
And we know seu knows what she is talking about because she used to be racistblackguy the black psychiatrist. And also obama_socks and pussycat_eyes and pirouette. Plus many others.

May 21, 2019
This rocket propellant is this circular argument

Trying to wangle rocket propellant
due to its mass and cubic capacity
its storage is problematic
it quickly dissipates when lit
it means were always travelling in ever decreasing circles
as its ultimate Achilles heel
it is always quickly running out
whereas nuclear batteries
nuclear waste stored in glass
last for hundreds of years
We are then recycling radioactive waste by making nuclear batteries

May 21, 2019
Martian Dust Devils

When NASA arrives in mars orbit with this motley crew
Where the dust devils are on the rampage
Preventing our first human mars landing

SEU, in this scenario what is NASAs plan B
says granville

Only NASA knows if there is a plan B, but they should have one or two. I don't think that the 'dust devils' will affect a landing on Mars, granville. 3 rovers are already there and, so far, nothing seems to have affected them from dust devils. In fact, there was an article that alluded to dust devils being responsible for cleaning the surfaces of the rover of dust from the previous dust storms.

May 21, 2019
The Space Station is Orbit

SEU, The ISS itself is not drifting helplessly, so why would a photon rocket do that?

The intention is to propel this space ferry with reflected earth based photons instead of rocket propellant
All the way to mars
says granville

I believe the rocket fuel is to be converted to photonic propulsion by laser beams. The production of photons can't be done without that fuel. I have to search for more information on it. It does seem to be the best type of propulsion if NASA engineers/techs can have it ready ASAP.

As far as humy's poverty concerns, there are many orgs all over the world, both political and religious, that deal with trying to alleviate hunger and homelessness. But it is still up to each individual to go to these orgs and ask for help, and to help themselves. There are some humans who prefer to remain like children all their lives and never grow up. Some of them CHOOSE POVERTY, and some choose to live off the taxpayers.

May 21, 2019
well sillyegghead as long as you keep collecting that 24 pieces of silver to continue your trolling as a deniertbot quisling for the russian/saudi axis dark web?

You won't return to your useless, shiftless past as a welfare cheat & bindlestiff.

May 22, 2019
https://spacenews.com/op-ed-mars-for-only-1-5-trillion/


From your own source

Efficiencies brought about by NASA purchasing hardware and services from commercial suppliers could also make a large difference.


An order of magnitude difference is very much possible when using commercial reusable rockets, distributed lift, and no SLS or Orion.

May 22, 2019
When it comes to Von Braun Torus stations versus O'neill cylinders, I like the small compact and structurally rigid O'neills.


Disadvantage of long stations that spin around their long axis is that they are inherently unstable and have a tendency to flip over. That is why I think we will be using either ring stations or short cylinders, not much longer than wide.

May 22, 2019
When it comes to Von Braun Torus stations versus O'neill cylinders, I like the small compact and structurally rigid O'neills.


Disadvantage of long stations that spin around their long axis is that they are inherently unstable and have a tendency to flip over. That is why I think we will be using either ring stations or short cylinders, not much longer than wide.
says shotman

The military is said to be looking into UFOs that many have seen up close and reported, but aren't believed (for the most part) because of the alleged "Illusory factor" that is claimed for all UFO sightings -- even those that remain unexplainable.
But, I believe that the military (and NASA) is in the market for a means of anti-gravity in the lift and possible propulsion of saucer-like spacecraft - such as what is seen in the skies by airline and military pilots. The saucer-disc shaped spacecraft seems to be superiour to the bullet-shaped rocket and capsule types that exist now.
-contd-

May 22, 2019
The intention, ShotmanMaslo
When it comes to Von Braun Torus stations versus O'neill cylinders, I like the small compact and structurally rigid O'neills.


Disadvantage of long stations that spin around their long axis is that they are inherently unstable and have a tendency to flip over. That is why I think we will be using either ring stations or short cylinders, not much longer than wide.

ShotmanMaslo
The intention is to use these giant tanks that lift the shuttle
Send 100s of them up into orbit
Weld them into a giant ring with spokes to their central hub
Set into spinning motion equalling 1g
With docking ports for our space ferries

OUR ROTATING SPACE PORT

May 22, 2019
-contd-
@shotman maslo

IMO, the saucer/disc shape (imitating the UFOs) would be best at accelerated speeds, where any friction encountered from Space would be equalised in the circular walls of the craft. Whereas, a bullet-style rocket/spacecraft would have the nose cone taking the heat of that friction and dispersing it outwards from the walls/outer skin of the rocket/capsule.

Whereas, an equalised dispersion of friction/heat from a saucer/disc would tend to keep the spacecraft cool and its velocity unimpeded.
But it remains to be seen if NASA will ever be able to copy such a propulsion system and its antigravity, providing that they could capture one and reverse-engineer its propulsion/antigrav.

The bullet-style rocket/capsule combination is sooo 20th century and humans could do so much better with a bit of imagination.
:)

May 22, 2019
-contd-
A strange turn of events awhile ago. I had just finished talking about how a possibly captured saucer/disc shaped UFO could be reverse-engineered to discover its antigravity and propulsion systems - which would be far superiour to the present 20th century rocket propulsion systems now being used - even on the SpaceX rockets.

My newer comment has disappeared with most of my information on it. Apologies to granville and shotman maslo. Perhaps it has been lost in the ether of physorg comments

OK I see it now. Just missed it.

May 22, 2019
The intention, ShotmanMaslo
When it comes to Von Braun Torus stations versus O'neill cylinders, I like the small compact and structurally rigid O'neills.


Disadvantage of long stations that spin around their long axis is that they are inherently unstable and have a tendency to flip over. That is why I think we will be using either ring stations or short cylinders, not much longer than wide.

ShotmanMaslo
The intention is to use these giant tanks that lift the shuttle
Send 100s of them up into orbit
Weld them into a giant ring with spokes to their central hub
Set into spinning motion equalling 1g
With docking ports for our space ferries

OUR ROTATING SPACE PORT
says granville
In the days to come, if and when NASA sends up those 100s of empty tanks into LEO to be welded into one gigantic Ring, it will be a glorious sunny day in May here on Earth, as we watch the countdown and the rockets rise, bringing their metallic cargoes into our future.

May 22, 2019
That glorious day

SEU, In the days to come, if and when NASA sends up those 100s of empty tanks into LEO to be welded into one gigantic Ring, it will be a glorious sunny day in May here on Earth, as we watch the countdown and the rockets rise, bringing their metallic cargoes into our future

SEU, when our rotating space port sounds so simple why did not NASA think of it
This is the age old question the patent office hears constantly
As it is so simple why has not everyone thought of it?
Well it is simple, and we have not got our rotating space port

So NASA must not have thought of it!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more