Manned Spaceflight - the Next 30 Years
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
I'm sure something along those lines will get built - and possibly within the next twenty years. The Orion module is designed to be used with an attached "habitation section" - a bit like the Laboratory section of the US Air Forces cancelled MOL project. Not quite as grandiose as "Hermes" in "The Martian"b but I'm sure it could be enlarged and added to as the ISS was.
Yes, it certainly won't be like Hermes, or perhaps Pegasus (From the BBC/Discover Space Odyssey series) with its own magnetic field generator :-) but if we invest in a proper "ship" perhaps look at it as the replacement for the ISS (so that sort of budget/complexity) which despite protestations will eventually have to be retired. It should be something multi-mission capable and able to come home and be parked in orbit so the Mars crew can swap with a Comet crew (for example.) Some kind of lattice spine with modules all along it and big engines at the end and some sort of shielding, its not sci-fi but its what's needed to do anything more than jaunts to the Moon.
ash73 said:
The first of those, ensuring the survival of our species, is not achievable by going to Mars because a colony there will never be sufficiently scaleable.
Why do you say that? Mars can be terraformed in time and most probably in a shorter period of time than it would take to travel to an "Earth 2.0" which could be any number of light years away.Even without terraforming, a sufficient population on Mars with multiple habitats and resources could become self sustaining.
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-w...
This seems to be the most workable plan for getting people to Mars this century.
This seems to be the most workable plan for getting people to Mars this century.
456GT said:
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-w...
This seems to be the most workable plan for getting people to Mars this century.
Agreed. Musk has the vision and up until now has managed not to go bankrupt (or get killed by Russians). This seems to be the most workable plan for getting people to Mars this century.
menguin said:
Why do you say that? Mars can be terraformed in time and most probably in a shorter period of time than it would take to travel to an "Earth 2.0" which could be any number of light years away.
Even without terraforming, a sufficient population on Mars with multiple habitats and resources could become self sustaining.
'after the old Martian atmosphere left, scientists now understand it was carried away by the solar wind, gone forever. Additionally, absent a strong magnetic field, it would be difficult to consolidate gains made by thickening the Martian atmosphere by other means'. http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2015/11/how-mars-...Even without terraforming, a sufficient population on Mars with multiple habitats and resources could become self sustaining.
Simpo Two said:
I don't think that's grounds for not having a go. After all, they said that heavier than air flight was impossible and that man would suffocate if he went faster than 40mph...
So who was 'they' and did 'they' actually say 40mph? are you sure this wasn't the quote you were thinking about"Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia." -- Dr. Dionysus Lardner, 1793-1859
Of course man can potentially go to Mars in the 30 Years but will he? given that a moon landing has been made where is the colonisation? just think how much more costly it will be to colonise Mars
Toaster said:
So who was 'they' and did 'they' actually say 40mph? are you sure this wasn't the quote you were thinking about
"Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia." -- Dr. Dionysus Lardner, 1793-1859
It did concern rail travel though I recall a speed quoted. Point is, just because some bloke/website says it can't be done doesn't mean it can't be done."Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia." -- Dr. Dionysus Lardner, 1793-1859
Toaster said:
Of course man can potentially go to Mars in the 30 Years but will he? given that a moon landing has been made where is the colonisation? just think how much more costly it will be to colonise Mars
There is a vast disconnect between what is technically possible and what will happen, yes. If you bring money into the equation, then only projects that involve (a) national interest/pride or (b) profit will be pursued to any depth.menguin said:
456GT said:
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-w...
This seems to be the most workable plan for getting people to Mars this century.
Agreed. Musk has the vision and up until now has managed not to go bankrupt (or get killed by Russians). This seems to be the most workable plan for getting people to Mars this century.
It's really good for society that people like Musk exist. He's prepared to put so much effort into something so difficult that it's hard not to get caught up in his vision.
It's amazing how important charismatic people with vision are to history - both for good or ill.
It's doubtful if America could have made it to the moon without Von Braun - not just because of his technical input in the design of the Saturn family of rockets, but because of the propaganda campaign for spaceflight he conducted in US magazines, TV, radio and the lecture circuit during the 1950s.
Because he made these efforts, the American public were "prepped" to accept mentally that spaceflight was not something of the distant future, but something that was feasible with the technology being developed at the time.
We need people like Von Braun (without the Nazi/SS background - preferably, of course).
It's doubtful if America could have made it to the moon without Von Braun - not just because of his technical input in the design of the Saturn family of rockets, but because of the propaganda campaign for spaceflight he conducted in US magazines, TV, radio and the lecture circuit during the 1950s.
Because he made these efforts, the American public were "prepped" to accept mentally that spaceflight was not something of the distant future, but something that was feasible with the technology being developed at the time.
We need people like Von Braun (without the Nazi/SS background - preferably, of course).
Toaster said:
menguin said:
Why do you say that? Mars can be terraformed in time and most probably in a shorter period of time than it would take to travel to an "Earth 2.0" which could be any number of light years away.
Even without terraforming, a sufficient population on Mars with multiple habitats and resources could become self sustaining.
'after the old Martian atmosphere left, scientists now understand it was carried away by the solar wind, gone forever. Additionally, absent a strong magnetic field, it would be difficult to consolidate gains made by thickening the Martian atmosphere by other means'. http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2015/11/how-mars-...Even without terraforming, a sufficient population on Mars with multiple habitats and resources could become self sustaining.
Eric Mc said:
Especially when you consider how tenuous our own atmosphere is.
My solution - two massive sod off magnets at each Martian pole
Nah - what is needed is a few Einstein-Rosen bridges ( aka wormholes ) - one to transport a CO2 atmosphere from Venus ( just open the wormhole between Venus and Mars surfaces, and let Venus' atmospheric pressure do the rest - close it when Mars pressure is high enough ), one to transport water from Europa, and one to transport thermal energy from the Sun into Mars' core to remelt it My solution - two massive sod off magnets at each Martian pole
MartG said:
Nah - what is needed is a few Einstein-Rosen bridges ( aka wormholes ) - one to transport a CO2 atmosphere from Venus ( just open the wormhole between Venus and Mars surfaces, and let Venus' atmospheric pressure do the rest - close it when Mars pressure is high enough ), one to transport water from Europa, and one to transport thermal energy from the Sun into Mars' core to remelt it
With that level of technology you could skip the CO2 stage, make oxygen and nitrogen from helium and go straight for a breathable atmosphere...No - immortality means nothing can kill you (a la Superman - Kryptonite excepted, of course) - so living in the vacuum of space with no food or water would be perfectly feasible. Although the quality of life might be a bit rubbish.
I was being mildly facetious in the sense that a civilisation that possessed massive engineering skills on a solar system or even galactic scale might very well also have developed technology and medical science to the point where they could live forever.
I was being mildly facetious in the sense that a civilisation that possessed massive engineering skills on a solar system or even galactic scale might very well also have developed technology and medical science to the point where they could live forever.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff