People On Mars in 2023?

shizz · 20-06-2012 5:27pm

Pushtrak wrote: »

As for a space vessel that could break orbit from Mars, well, that would be for a ways down the road. And I imagine such a vessel would be constructed on Earth, sent to Mars, and would return.

No it wouldn't. We have the technology capable of producing the propellant in the right ratio needed to fuel an earth return vehicle to launch from Mars onto a course to Earth.

That technology, however, lacks the proper demonstration. It has only been demonstrated on Earth in laboratories.

Capt'n Midnight · 20-06-2012 6:43pm

Pity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fobos-Grunt failed.

It might have detected volatiles or precursors for fuel which would have simplified a future return missions.

Where it gets really interesting is that Deimos is very near the stationary orbit above mars, it's at 23,460Km and a stationary orbit is about 3,000 km lower. There is enough mass to make an elevator and if you extend the elevator outwards you get a bit of a kick.

But if Deimos or Phobos have ice then it should be possible to setup a colony/refuelling station there.

Of course you have to figure out a way to wiggle the elevator so it don't bump into Phobos.

if you put an elevator from Phobos then at the top of the atmosphere it covers ~10700Km in 11.1 hours = 960Kmph, so it should be easy to catch a lift at the top of a parabolic flight

The height would be determined by the materials used, but since Concorde can travel faster than this aluminium alloys might do instead of titanium if you wanted the tip to enter the atmosphere from Phobos.

Also if aerodynamic tip which can be lowered into the atmosphere was winged and like a water skier could rush ahead and then slow down , it might even be possible to create a hooking system that picked up stuff from the ground at low relative velocity.

or you could use electric motors to pull the tip along, power from microwaves or what not. Tu-95 can get up to 920Km using propellers, though the speed of sound is lower on mars , so maybe not such a good idea, ducted fans with a subsonic inlet might work.

shizz · 20-06-2012 6:50pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Pity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fobos-Grunt failed.

It might have detected volatiles or precursors for fuel which would have simplified a future return missions.

Where it gets really interesting is that Deimos is very near the stationary orbit above mars, it's at 23,460Km and a stationary orbit is about 3,000 km lower. There is enough mass to make an elevator and if you extend the elevator outwards you get a bit of a kick.

But if Deimos or Phobos have ice then it should be possible to setup a colony/refuelling station there.

Of course you have to figure out a way to wiggle the elevator so it don't bump into Phobos.

if you put an elevator from Phobos then at the top of the atmosphere it covers ~10700Km in 11.1 hours = 960Kmph, so it should be easy to catch a lift at the top of a parabolic flight

The height would be determined by the materials used, but since Concorde can travel faster than this aluminium alloys might do instead of titanium if you wanted the tip to enter the atmosphere from Phobos.

Also if aerodynamic tip which can be lowered into the atmosphere was winged and like a water skier could rush ahead and then slow down , it might even be possible to create a hooking system that picked up stuff from the ground at low relative velocity.

or you could use electric motors to pull the tip along, power from microwaves or what not. Tu-95 can get up to 920Km using propellers, though the speed of sound is lower on mars , so maybe not such a good idea, ducted fans with a subsonic inlet might work.

The resources found on Mars and in its atmosphere are far easier to utilise than what you are describing here. Specially in initial missions.

Capt'n Midnight · 20-06-2012 6:56pm

shizz wrote: »

The resources found on Mars and in its atmosphere are far easier to utilise than what you are describing here. Specially in initial missions.

yes , if heading on a one way trip

for a return trip ice in orbit means you can just add electricity and fill your tanks for the return trip. Or you could use that fuel to land , and take off again

in orbit solar panels will give several times the power at the surface,
Not having to land the fuel factory on the surface saves a lot of weight and in space flight every trip of every Kg adds up exponentially

shizz · 20-06-2012 7:14pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

yes , if heading on a one way trip

I'm not talking about a one way trip.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

for a return trip ice in orbit means you can just add electricity and fill your tanks for the return trip. Or you could use that fuel to land , and take off again

Yeah Ice in orbit would be ideal, but the cost, risk and infrastructure you would have to place there to make it more viable than having the same on Mars is too large for initial missions or indeed many years into a colonisation there.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

in orbit solar panels will give several times the power at the surface,

Without a doubt.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Not having to land the fuel factory on the surface saves a lot of weight and in space flight every trip of every Kg adds up exponentially

But the point is it is far easier and less risky to make the fuel on Mars. There is ample resources to provide the propellant needed to escape Mars and put on to a earth return trajectory.

There is no doubt that there is advantages in what you are proposing, but it is way down the line on any potential Mars mission.

bee_keeper · 20-06-2012 8:07pm

nyarlothothep wrote: »

This is a terrible idea, what is the point in going to mars if you can't come back. Space colonisation is quite worthless and overly cumbersome if you can't go to and leave colonies at will for the transportation of goods, technologies, people etc. This plan seems like just wanting to get there without doing the requisite research in how to leave aswell and it will exploit willing volunteers who will basically sacrifice their lives as they know it for a chance at fame, scientific endevour or a new life entirely. But it will suck because they'll be stuck in a pod. It just seems like a fundamentally flawed idea, I hope it never gets off the ground.

what do you mean cant come back , their going to mars , not the andromeda galaxy , its eight months each way , add in a year on mars and its not much longer than the average paddy is away from his mammy in australia :pac:

Doc Ruby · 20-06-2012 8:08pm

Fair play to them, assuming they aren't out to scam money on the back of the private space exploration boom, and how cool is it that people can say "private space exploration boom" with a straight face. However.

General Relativity wrote: »

It forces us to devolop new technology to get their in the first place. This snowballs and allows us to go further and further.

They claim they will be using off the shelf technology, so no new technology is needed. This is complete nonsense. Even here on earth attempts to create a sort of self-perpetuating ecosystem in a dome have failed. Speaking of domes, what inspired their upside down bucket design? Geodesic makes a lot more sense. That looks a random inspiration pulled out of a hat.

Pushtrak wrote: »

This planet only has so many resources. With the population rising as it is, there will come a time when we will need to have another planet to go to. And seeing as these things take time, it would probably be good for us to be ready before we absolutely need it to be ready.

Any place on earth is more hospitable than Mars. We could build cities in Antarctic with a better chance of survival. Let me introduce you to The Red Planet.

Mars is a hard place to live without major technological support. The atmosphere is as near to vacuum as makes no odds for life, its exposed to lethal bursts of solar radiation, and the extremes of cold are beyond the ability of anything we know of to thrive in. Then we have dryness, where it's warm enough for life there is no water, where there is water its -150 degrees celcius on a good day. The boiling temperature of water at Martian air pressures is -40 degrees celcius.

Whatever about the rest, gravity is something that can't be ignored no matter how much technology you throw at it. At one third earth's gravity we (and they) have exactly no idea about the long term effect on human bones and decalcification.

In english, that translates to your bones will break if you sit down too hard. We know this effect becomes chronic after about a year in zero gravity, how many years will it take to happen on Mars? Maybe none. Maybe three. This is one of those very basic research questions that needs to be answered loooong before anyone thinks about setting up a Mars colony.

The idea of sending people there in ten years with off the shelf technology is completely impossible. They mean to fund it with a media spectacle, 99.99% of the time spent in these research efforts are mind numbingly boring, trust me on this, and by any reasonable measure of cost they would need to raise millions or tens of millions per day over the next ten years in advertising revenue.

And once they are there you can't just plant crops, the colony would need constant resupply, seven months worth at a time, large amounts of infrastructure to harvest things like usable water, INSANE amounts of backups (if something breaks you're seven months at minimum away from a replacement, lets hope it wasn't essential, oops, with the cost to lift things to orbit everything is essential), its a long, long list.

I don't know, the urge to say things like "either fools or con artists" is tempered by my passionate desire to make it happen, but as it stands, its not worth supporting.

nyarlothothep · 20-06-2012 8:35pm

Pushtrak wrote: »

Suppose you have people who are willing to make a life long committment to try to make colonizing another planet a success. This is what we have here, it seems. You are discounting people who are willing. It isn't like some dictator is throwing people to something they don't want to do.

So, the situation is having people go over and try to make this work. With more people added over time. My issue is how are they going to keep up the money? What is this talk of a reality tv show or something? If that doesn't build up money then I don't see how in the short term the funding will be self sustaining. That is the big issue as I see it.

As for a space vessel that could break orbit from Mars, well, that would be for a ways down the road. And I imagine such a vessel would be constructed on Earth, sent to Mars, and would return.

What are the odds most of them are going to think "wow a place in the history books/scientific endevour (insert whatever reason you can come up with here)" vs the actual experience a year or two in of living in a confined space with a few other people for the rest of their lives on a world long dead? That is one of the problems.

nyarlothothep · 20-06-2012 8:40pm

ScumLord wrote: »

But the ends do justify the means here because we're talking about survival, not just the survival of humans, not just the survival of life on earth, for all we know life on earth could be it, we're could be talking about the survival of all life. We're just assuming life has happened elsewhere but we've little proof outside of maybe a few microbes.

resources don't require life, like I already said all the resources we could ever need are just floating around in space. Mars could have been very similar to earth at one point which means it probably has very similar resources outside of the organic and o-zone.

We've sent the robot's made the models and it really is time to start putting some practical applications in.

Except building space ships and launch pads and research facilities is harder to do with a dozen or so people in a hostile environment. I agree the ends do justify the means in terms of ensuring the survival of life on earth through space colonisation, but this scenario of just sending people to live on Mars ne'er to return is not one of them. We need better ships, better propulsion to make it easier to hop around the solar system, and at the moment the lack of initiative is as always to do with the fcked up preoccupations of politicians and corporatists .What happens if one of the colonists gets sick, to extent that sending over a payload of medical supplies isn't enough? Or one of them goes crazy? Or something happens where all their lives are in danger and they need immediate help?

Pushtrak · 20-06-2012 8:56pm

bee_keeper wrote: »

what do you mean cant come back , their going to mars , not the andromeda galaxy , its eight months each way , add in a year on mars and its not much longer than the average paddy is away from his mammy in australia :pac:

This is planned in the short term as a one way trip. There would be a group of 4 sent up, with another 4 being sent up periodically. There are no plans that have been revealed about any return plans for any of them. Of course, there would have to be a system in place to bring people there and back at some point, but that isn't even under discussion... At least publically that I've seen.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Fair play to them, assuming they aren't out to scam money on the back of the private space exploration boom, and how cool is it that people can say "private space exploration boom" with a straight face. However.

Not going to copy all the post, just will say thanks, it was informative.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

What are the odds most of them are going to think "wow a place in the history books/scientific endevour (insert whatever reason you can come up with here)" vs the actual experience a year or two in of living in a confined space with a few other people for the rest of their lives on a world long dead? That is one of the problems.

The enterprise has problems, obviously. I really don't see this as one of them. The personal motivations of people isn't a problem. At least, certainly not in a situation like this. A discussion on the feasibility is worth having. The people who would be undertaking this mission would be highly trained and have likely dedicated their lives to becoming an astronaut.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Except building space ships and launch pads and research facilities is harder to do with a dozen or so people in a hostile environment. I agree the ends do justify the means in terms of ensuring the survival of life on earth through space colonisation, but this scenario of just sending people to live on Mars ne'er to return is not one of them. We need better ships, better propulsion to make it easier to hop around the solar system, and at the moment the lack of initiative is as always to do with the fcked up preoccupations of politicians and corporatists .What happens if one of the colonists gets sick, to extent that sending over a payload of medical supplies isn't enough? Or one of them goes crazy? Or something happens where all their lives are in danger and they need immediate help?

See? Worthy questions, all.

Doc Ruby · 20-06-2012 9:03pm

Pushtrak wrote: »

Not going to copy all the post, just will say thanks, it was informative.

Its doable, just not by these guys.

shizz · 20-06-2012 9:05pm

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Its doable, just not by these guys.

Definitely not by these. The mention of reality tv just sounds like a gimmick.

Pushtrak · 20-06-2012 9:07pm

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Its doable, just not by these guys.

Honestly, yeah, I've been thinking something similar for a while. I'm thinking about the subject in a more general sense of human colonization of other planets, and feasibility of that. Course, I don't have much basis for assumptions on that one so, yeah... Not that this gives me pause. I really don't expect human colonization on other planets in the 20XX time frame. Based on quantum superentanglement fields of computational absolutely nothing.

squod · 20-06-2012 9:14pm

The Shenzhou missions are paving the way for a manned flight to the moon after 2020. The Chinese plan to build a lunar base that may serve as a jump-off point for the most ambitious of their plans, sending men - and women - to Mars.

Chinese are gonna use wimmin drivers lol. Also, all the popular spots for moon landings are now no-fly zones.

nyarlothothep · 20-06-2012 9:17pm

Pushtrak wrote: »

This is planned in the short term as a one way trip. There would be a group of 4 sent up, with another 4 being sent up periodically. There are no plans that have been revealed about any return plans for any of them. Of course, there would have to be a system in place to bring people there and back at some point, but that isn't even under discussion... At least publically that I've seen.

Not going to copy all the post, just will say thanks, it was informative.

The enterprise has problems, obviously. I really don't see this as one of them. The personal motivations of people isn't a problem. At least, certainly not in a situation like this. A discussion on the feasibility is worth having. The people who would be undertaking this mission would be highly trained and have likely dedicated their lives to becoming an astronaut.

See? Worthy questions, all.

Well if they want to sacrifice their lives willingly and are super human enought to do it then meh, who am I to stop them, but I still demand that humanity get its ass in gear in terms of building real spaceships that can at least get to mars in 3 months back and forth, otherwise it's all pointless. We're just a pseudo space faring culture until then.

admiralofthefleet · 20-06-2012 9:22pm

when are they planning on going to the moon for the first time?

shizz · 20-06-2012 9:26pm

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

when are they planning on going to the moon for the first time?

AWWWWWWWWWHHHHH HERE IT GOES!!!!

Doc Ruby · 20-06-2012 9:36pm

Pushtrak wrote: »

I really don't expect human colonization on other planets in the 20XX time frame. Based on quantum superentanglement fields of computational absolutely nothing.

The thing is, other planets really don't offer a whole lot to human colonisers. Ironically these Mars project guys go out of their way to talk down Venus, but according to the papers I have available here, Venus actually presents a better prospect for colonisation. At cloud top level, gravity, pressure, and radiation are earth-normal. Its not that hard to build flying colonies if you really wanted to.

The asteroids are the real jewel in the crown however. These can be used to construct viable stations in space, very very large ones, capable of supporting tens of millions, with useful gravity and atmospheres as well as being self sustaining. Using developed asteroid resources, themselves easy to collect due to the abundant nature of solar energy in space, these will be the real stepping stones for humanity to reach the stars.

Don't give up hope just yet is all I'm saying. :cool:

nyarlothothep wrote: »

but I still demand that humanity get its ass in gear in terms of building real spaceships that can at least get to mars in 3 months back and forth, otherwise it's all pointless. We're just a pseudo space faring culture until then.

Antimatter is the only way forward there, Mars and back in few days, and interestingly NASA has laid out plans for the mass production of this substance. Not in quantities worth much to spaceships, but its a big step forward, an engineering problem rather than a physical problem.

Then all we have to do is deal with the issue of megatons of spaceship howling around the solar system at perceptible percentages of the speed of light accidentally sideswiping the earth.

Tigger · 20-06-2012 10:02pm

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Let's be honest - we're not ever going to colonize Mars. It's completely uninhabitable. And where else are we supposed to colonise? We're not going to get to the nearest galaxy even with the best technology. Plus, I'm ignoring all that hocus pocus of wormholes, sounds like bull to me when I read it.

this

Capt'n Midnight · 20-06-2012 10:34pm

shizz wrote: »

But the point is it is far easier and less risky to make the fuel on Mars. There is ample resources to provide the propellant needed to escape Mars and put on to a earth return trajectory.

There is no doubt that there is advantages in what you are proposing, but it is way down the line on any potential Mars mission.

To make fuel on Mars you have to land a factory
For most fuels considered you have to land an insulated tank full of hydrogen unless you land near the polar ice caps, you know the ones that expand and contract.
You need a nuclear reactor or acres of solar cells, or maybe even wind power

Lots of points of failure.
Stuff like wind borne dust

Space is a harsh but predictable environment.
The surface of Mars is easier on people but harsher to mechanisms.

A space elevator is much easier to build from the top down. The L1 point is only 2.5Km above the surface of Phobos. The gravity there is less than 1/1000th that on earth so it's like building a tower 2.5m hight and then downhill the rest of the way.

stylie · 20-06-2012 10:37pm

Pushtrak wrote: »

Do you not think there is any knowledge to be gained from in depth analysis of Mars? I'd have thought that it would be obvious that we'd want to know as much about other planets as possible. Also, would be great to establish telescope arrays on Mars given time. Again, something that seems obvious to me.

Why put telescope arrays on a dusty planet ? Dark side of the moon or in the gravitational sweet spot between planets is the place to put them

goose2005 · 20-06-2012 10:56pm

hardCopy wrote: »

I'm a bit confused as to why people would go. People usually explore for some sort of gain, e.g. Columbus seeking new spice routes, pilgrims seeking new lands free from persecution in America, prospectors seeking gold in the American West.

If there is no way to live outside a bubble then the first residents will have a worse quality of life than at home, and if they can't return then they can't export, and even if they could export they'd have nothing to spend their money on.

I don't see land being scarce enough for people to want to move there rather than try to reclaim desert or sea here on Earth.

I wonder if Steorn will be involved in fuelling the ships.

I could see the case for it if we found unobtanium there and had a way to retrieve it or if Earth was completely overcrowded.

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

It's possible that, in maybe 100 years, it'll be cheaper to send a mining rig to mars for certain elements than to mine them on earth.

goose2005 · 20-06-2012 11:00pm

Pushtrak wrote: »

Do you not think there is any knowledge to be gained from in depth analysis of Mars? I'd have thought that it would be obvious that we'd want to know as much about other planets as possible. Also, would be great to establish telescope arrays on Mars given time. Again, something that seems obvious to me.

It is true, though, that you could probably send unmanned probes to every planet, minor planet, moon and major asteroid in the solar system for the price of one manned Mars mission.

Capt'n Midnight · 20-06-2012 11:18pm

hmm Phobos mass is 1.072×10^16 kg

mass of Martian atmosphere is ~2.5 x 10^16 kg

Nevermind... not enough volatiles there

http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/2003-SpaceColonizationUsingSpaceElevatorsFromPhobos.pdf
Figure 3 shows the cable mass for a 3500Kg load
Carbon nanotubes have a GPa of 50, and if you reduce the safety factor below 3 you could easily get a mass of just 100 tonnes.

If you drop the mass weight you are talking about a space elevator that could be launched to Mars on a single Saturn V

It would be able to transfer 4 modules at a time on a two day trip - so two modules per day, every day without using propellant

No we don't have the nanotubes in quantity yet, but the point is that a full cable with a decent payload is feasible

Eggy Baby! · 21-06-2012 12:13am

Wow the Dutch will do it first? I always thought it would be the Russians/Chinese but hey...

cloptrop · 21-06-2012 1:02am

This would be awesome if it happened . To think a few hundred years ago austrailia was the same , why dont they send a few crims there first and see how they get on .
Id say itd be really stuffy to live in a space suit .
In all fairness though Id say itd take hundreds of years to make mars hospitable to the general public but I hope Im alive to see the start of that .
We shall become the space invaders.

nokia69 · 21-06-2012 1:28am

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Wow the Dutch will do it first? I always thought it would be the Russians/Chinese but hey...

no, if anyone does it, it will be the US

read up about SpaceX and elon musk, they have the lowest launch costs and in a year or 2 they will have the largest rocket

if they can make their falcon 9 reuseable then they will send people to mars

people think the US are falling behind in the space race because they ended the shuttle program, but in fact they are now leading it

in 3 or 4 years thing will be very interesting

Pj! · 21-06-2012 1:32am

Definitely wouldn't be for me. I like my freedom. I'd presume we'd be able to watch via cameras how they adapt with living together in the new surroundings.

Wait a minute. Is this just another go at Big Brother??

saladin · 21-06-2012 1:39am

Pushtrak wrote: »

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/mars-one-plans-human-colonization-of-mars-by-april-2023/

While we dream about living or visiting a Martian planet, Mars One is executing the most ambitious privately funded space mission yet. The company has set a deadline for April 2023, the month that a human being will first set foot onto Mars.

With NASA’s budget cut, privatized space travel has become the next frontier for wealthy businessmen with dreams of becoming the real-life Tony Stark. Among the dreamers, there are some that are acting out on loftier ambitions. Forget the moon; the team from the Mars One project is setting out to make the colonization of Mars a reality.

The private Dutch company Mars One has set an ambitious deadline for the first permanent Mars colony: April 2023. For those who opt to settle on Mars, there will be no turning back. Their residence on the dusty planet would be permanent, although every two years, the established colony would welcome new residents, thereby slowly growing the Mars-based community.

Mars One initially plans to send over four astronauts in a journey that will take a mind-numbing seven months. Come 2033, the program hopes to have over 20 astronauts living on Mars.

If you’re skeptical about Mars One’s plans, you should be, but the project has the backing of the 1999 Physics Nobel Prize winner, Professor Dr. Gerard T Hooft, and the interest of several major privately operated commercial space corporations and suppliers that are capable of building the equipment and gear necessary to make the mission a success.

“This is going to be private enterprise, only private firms are going to contribute. No political mumbo-jumbo, no tax-payer’s money will be involved,” Dr. Hooft said in a statement.

The plan will begin only four years from now in 2016, when a communications satellite and a supply mission will be sent to Mars. Come 2018, a rover will be transported to Mars with the purpose of seeking an ideal location and best living condition to prepare for the permanent human settlement on the red planet. On 2020, the living capsules, supplies, life support unit and a rover tasked with reassembling the settlement components will be sent to Mars, preparing the colony for habitation. The first four astronauts will begin their journey on September 2022, landing on the planet on April of 2023.

Mars One plans on funding the continuous mission through a media spectacle that will allow anyone to stream and monitor the progress. In other words, such a widely publicized event would be prime real estate for advertisers and sponsors.

The aspiration is lofty, but private exploration is taking off — literally. Just last month, the privately built and launched Space X Dragon capsule was able to link with the International Space Station. Private corporations like Virgin Galactic, Space X and even Red Bull are racing to become the next household name that children will be talking about for generations to come.

Check out Mars One’s video below and let us know in the comments below if you’d be willing to leave the comforts of Earth to spend the rest of your life on a Martian planet.

More @ http://mars-one.com/

So, they're planning on 4 in 2023, and to have 20 up there in 2033. I'm not going to speak on the likelihood of them making the 2023 date, but the point I will make is it seems 10 years on, maybe they ought to be hoping for more than that to be up on Mars?

Being on another planet would be quite an experience, but being one of the early adopters, so to speak, one of those astronauts.. It'd be quite something to adapt to. Going on a one way journey somewhere, well, the precise 4 that would go up would have to be chosen. They will only have each other to "entertain" each other.[/Quote

Sounds a bit like Steorn the Irish free energy company. Ask for money and investment in something u pretend to build or know that will never work and get lots of gullible investors. Maybe they sell plots of moon and mars land too.
Anybody wiitg half a bits decent knowledge of rocket and planetary science knows this is bull.

Capt'n Midnight · 21-06-2012 1:56am

goose2005 wrote: »

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

It's possible that, in maybe 100 years, it'll be cheaper to send a mining rig to mars for certain elements than to mine them on earth.

The limiting factor for most minerals is the cost of the energy required to extract them from low quality ores.

in 100 years we'll probably be recycling more, and mining todays land fill and new materials like graphene and carbon nanotubes and biologicals will replace metals in the same way that plastics have replaced non structural metals like gunmetal and zinc and animal products like ivory and cow horn and bone

if you have enough energy you can extract Gold and uranium from seawater, though no point in extracting uranium if you have enough energy to do it.

People On Mars in 2023?

Comments