Mars in 2018?

Page 2 of 3 [ 34 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

24 Feb 2013, 2:48 pm

Feralucce wrote:

Ummm... by what definition of feasible?

That it can be done at one point in the future. Just like the Intel i7 CPU with 3.8 GHz could be done at one point in the future when the extremely expensive Zuze Z3 was towering with pride over all technology with it's 5.3 Hz.

Quote:

we've managed to contain 300 anti-matter atoms for just over 16 minutes... Couple that with the fact that every year they create about a billionth of a gram of antimatter and only capture 10 percent of that... add to that it has cost several hundred million swiss francs to make this antimatter...

I'm well aware of the costs (which I specified in my post), but the technology is improving (before 1995, not a single anti-hydrogen atom had ever been produced by humans). Nobody said that it was going to be easy, but it's an interesting concept because very little of it is required to reach other planets at far higher speeds than any conventional rocket.

These 17 minutes and these 309 atoms in 2011 are a major step given that previously, the record (which was set in 2010) was less than 40 atoms for 1/6th of a second.

If we in a century or two can produce ten grams per year, at the cost of 10 million dollars (in todays currency) per gram, it's entirely possible to put it to use.

Quote:

At this point, antimatter is a completely UNFEASIBLE technologically as a fuel source.

It doesn't matter if it's unfeasible today. Visiting Mars today with current technology is out of the question as well.

Quote:

The redbull parachute jump provides us with a far more economic possibility... edge of atmospher via lighter than air source (balloon, dirigible, or the like and orbital insertion via chemical rocket. From there, a more efficient engine such as a vasimir or ion engine coupled with gravitational slingshotting.

This is another concept which is harder than it looks if you were to scale it up to a manned spacecraft. Allthough ion thrusters are very energy efficient, they're far from powerful enough to take a team of astronauts to Mars and back. They are already being put in use for unmanned missions, though.

Feralucce
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,143
Location: New Orleans, LA

24 Feb 2013, 5:36 pm

In the future... doesn't indicate a feasible technology. In the future indicates a POSSIBLE technology.

I know there are problems with the balloon idea... but it is closer to a feasible technology...

As for ion... please note, in the same sentence, I mentioned vasimir.

Our technology is sufficient to get us there. if we can get a probe there, we can get people there... as for safety... if we can get someone to the depths of the ocean and back safely on a private citizen's dime... we can do it.

Either way... stating that antimatter is a feasible technology for space travel is akin to stating that the Alcubierre drive is a feasible technology.

My point is... for something to be feasible, it has to be affordable.

_________________
Yeah. I'm done. Don't bother messaging and expecting a response - i've left WP permanently.

Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

24 Feb 2013, 5:59 pm

Feralucce wrote:

An unmanned probe won't die because the trip takes almost a year. Technically, you could gather several hundred suicidal people today, have the Vatican and all billionaires donate a lot of money and build a lot of space ships in a year. Some of these space ships are bound to reach Mars with what's mostly irradiated dead bodies + a few survivors who'll die on Mars in a matter of time.

To make a two-way trip to Mars realistic, the travel time needs to be shortened drastically. No major improvement is going to happen to conventional rockets in 35 years that will decrease the travel time by 90%.

NowhereMan1966
Snowy Owl

Joined: 15 Oct 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 142
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

24 Feb 2013, 8:59 pm

I'd like to see a trip to Mars. In theory, I'd say it has been possible since the late 1960's but we need the will to do it. The original plan was to send a manned mission to Mars by the early 1980's. I think we can all agree on that we need a faster way to get there and back, IIRC, I think the fastest unmanned space vehicle went like 110,000 MPH and it took a little over two hours to reach the orbit of the Moon. I think for now anti-matter is out although maybe we can use an engine based on atomic power once we leave the atmosphere. We need to be up there and explore plus if we send people, we can clear up the mysteries we see on Mars like The Face and so on. That alone is worth the price of admission.

Feralucce
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,143
Location: New Orleans, LA

25 Feb 2013, 12:52 am

Kurgan wrote:

I, and many experts in the field, disagree with you. We have the tech now to do it.

_________________
Yeah. I'm done. Don't bother messaging and expecting a response - i've left WP permanently.

Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

25 Feb 2013, 6:33 am

Feralucce wrote:

Kurgan wrote:

I, and many experts in the field, disagree with you. We have the tech now to do it.

Yes, theoretically, that is. It's been proven to be much more difficult that previously imagined, given that space missions have a very high failure rate and that a one-way trip to mars with a manned spacecraft will take almost a whole year. Travelling to Mars is not like travelling to the moon, but with a longer distance. The failure rate today is 52,4%; given that a manned spacecraft is heavier, needs more fuel, is going to do a two way trip and is bottlenecked by human physiology, I'd say it would be a lot higher in a manned mission. Is it really worth it to send humans to Mars if there's a very high likelyhood of killing them in the process?

The fact that it's always 20-30 years into the future, is comparable to when parents tell their kids "we'll see in a couple of years" when the kids beg for a puppy. It's a nice way to say 'no'.

CornerPuzzlePieces
Deinonychus

Joined: 27 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 308
Location: B.C Canada

25 Feb 2013, 6:41 am

Humans are hard to keep alive in space.. they need a lot of complex systems like heat, oxygen, food, and these all take up valuable weight.

As an added concern there's no protection from radiation once you leave earth!

http://www.space.com/2642-radiation-bon ... cerns.html

Sounds unpleasant.

Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

25 Feb 2013, 7:33 am

CornerPuzzlePieces wrote:

I'll take back what I said about flybys; they're further into the future than we think as well.

Feralucce
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,143
Location: New Orleans, LA

25 Feb 2013, 11:24 am

Kurgan wrote:

Feralucce wrote:

Kurgan wrote:

I, and many experts in the field, disagree with you. We have the tech now to do it.

That's a good point... but it's not. Nasa says 5 years if given funding for it... And the billionaire thinks the same thing.

_________________
Yeah. I'm done. Don't bother messaging and expecting a response - i've left WP permanently.

MDD123
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

01 Mar 2013, 5:46 pm

It's a total waste IMO, but it's his money. We, on the other hand, send out probes to look for life on mars.

We would get our money's worth if we established some kind of infrastructure, 3-d printing could be used to make bigger, better designed structures outside of orbit and helps to reduce launch payload to human weight.

_________________
I'm a math evangelist, I believe in theorems and ignore the proofs.

CornerPuzzlePieces
Deinonychus

Joined: 27 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 308
Location: B.C Canada

01 Mar 2013, 9:00 pm

I don't think we've reached our jumping point yet.

There's a very delicate relationship between the time humans can leave earth and the time it will be successful. Mostly having to do with technology but also our cultural mindset. (Which is doomed btw but lets not go there.)

If we leave too soon, the effort required will be too much for what we get out of it.

We will be dumping loads of money and resources into it and it has a high chance to fail, leaving us vunerable to war, natural disasters, etc.

There is something to be said for progress, but I think investing the loads of money into new research would pay off more in the end.. at least right now.

It's the classic problem of humans leaving earth in a rocket in cryo sleep, only to be passed by a light-speed capable ship long before they arrive at the destination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_ship

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Mar 2013, 9:10 pm

CornerPuzzlePieces wrote:

Given the problem with cosmic radiation and solar radiation and coronal mass ejections, this 500 + day mission is a suicide mission with the current technology. If a married couple past the age of child making wants to try it, that is their decision. I think it is foolish and a waste of resources.

ruveyn

glow
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Feb 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,484
Location: England

02 Mar 2013, 7:02 pm

getting stranded in a boiler room or left freezing in sub-zero climate conditions? hm, itd be a meltdown guess to that id be left on top of a precipice with no one to call home and then by chance im scaling down a precipice looking for a clue as to who switched off the lightning bolt. mars the red planet has fooled me once too often and wont be fooling me with those tiny dots again.

MotoScooby
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 19 Nov 2012
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 44

15 May 2013, 11:02 am

I was reading a timeline for the future (may not be true) and it said that plans to build a hotel on Mars will begin in 2050.

Jono
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,668
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

15 May 2013, 1:35 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Kurgan wrote:

Mars is very far away, and if you look at all that's gone wrong on other manned missions, then you don't need to be a genious to see that you'll probably get some kind of mechanical or electrical error with disasterous consequences if you were to send a spaceship to Mars in 2018. Almost every advanced digital technological invention today, had a primitive ancestor in 1969 as well; "rocket science" hasn't changed that much in the last 40 years.

Furthermore, we do not know the effects of long-term deprivation of gravity yet, let alone if someone can survive it for the one and a half years a two-way trip to Mars would require.

Lastly, NASA has an extremely tight budget. If they have to choose between something of great scientific value (eg. unmanned probes on Europa or the search for more exoplanets) or something that's merely cool, but of no great scientific value (building a hotel on the moon, a manned mission to mars, etc.), they'll chose the former. In the 1960's, they were under great pressure to land on the moon as quickly as possible because of a promise John F. Kennedy made to the American people, and because the USSR was also aiming for the moon.

The "deadline" for when man will walk on Mars has been pushed back several times; in 1969, they said the year 2000; in 2000, they said 2020; now they're saying 2050. Don't be dissapointed if it never happens in our lifetime.

A manned mission to Mars is like controlled nuclear fusion. Always 20-30 years in the future.

ruveyn

So is returning to the Moon. At least landing a man on the Moon was done once though.

Spiderpig
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,893

15 May 2013, 3:01 pm

… the logical conclusion being it may be done whenever there’s a new USSR.

Page 2 of 3 [ 34 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Jump to:

Mars in 2018? Post Reply New Topic

Mars in 2018?