Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

People On Mars in 2023?

Options
1235»

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    conor.hogan.2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,246 ✭✭✭conor.hogan.2


    I hope they do it, but considering SpaceX is the only one with tangible results I see them or planetary resources doing it before them.

    Well it looks like they are looking to farm out the stuff to SpaceX, but they still need funding.

    The more the merrier, competition is good.


  • Options
    #123
    mutley18
    Registered Users Posts: 1,231 ✭✭✭mutley18


    A quote from that video: "This is going to be a media spectacle, Big Brother will pale in comparison"


    Surely he can't be serious? This is going to top that time Nasty Nick was found out and Craig confronted him? Strap your seatbelts tight folks, we are in for one hell of a ride.


  • Options
    #124
    stylie
    Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭stylie


    Has anyone talked about what effects the solar radiation will have on the astronauts junk by the time they get to Mars ?? I don't think overcrowding will be a problem


  • Options
    #125
    shizz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    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

    You have to land a factory? For the 4 person crew were taking here all that needs to be created propellant wise is 24 tons of Methane and 48 tons of Oxygen by using only 6 tons of Hydrogen, initially over a time of a year or so I can't remember.

    Yes the fact that we have to bring hydrogen has it's problems, but because it isn't being used as a fuel, it can be gelled with another gas to prevent boil off. Also, any boil off from it while on mars goes straight into the propellant production.

    I grant you that landing this large payload is with it's problems, but they are problems that can be solved with today's technology. The fact that it doesn't require much new technology, like what you are suggesting, brings down the mission risk and cost.
    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    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.


    On the first part, the lack of any sort of gravity during propellant production would be a huge problem on the mechanisms involved. You would need pumps everywhere, which again brings up points of failure.

    Secondly, you talk about it as if the only problem was building from the ground up? We are no where near the ability of construction in space.

    All of this is irrelevant anyway as I suspect I am arguing on how it can be done soon where as you are talking about the optimal situation, which lets face it is nowhere near our capabilities now. You are talking about implementing many technologies that haven't been created or demonstrated to work on that level.


  • Options
    #126
    Plazaman
    Registered Users Posts: 3,012 ✭✭✭Plazaman


    Hey, I've bought a couple of acres of Land on Mars.

    They better not put their fancy what-cha-ma-call-its and thing-a-ma-jiggys on my Land.

    Ma, fetch me my lasergun !!!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    shizz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    stylie wrote: »
    Has anyone talked about what effects the solar radiation will have on the astronauts junk by the time they get to Mars ?? I don't think overcrowding will be a problem

    Solar radiation isn't the problem. Cosmic rays are. Solar rays can be predicted and shielded for where as cosmic are constant. Also, it is fine. A crew on a round trip will get an increase of less than 1% to the chance of getting cancer.


  • Options
    #128
    Breasts
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1 ✭Breasts


    Not sure if I would go to Mars.

    Anyone ever see Total Recall.

    I wouldn't want to piss off Quato either.


  • Options
    #129
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,055 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Plazaman wrote: »
    Hey, I've bought a couple of acres of Land on Mars.

    They better not put their fancy what-cha-ma-call-its and thing-a-ma-jiggys on my Land.

    Ma, fetch me my lasergun !!!!!
    If you want some land on earth I can meet you on Dollymount strand at low tide.

    Just remember it's going to be difficult to serve notice on squatters.


  • Options
    #130
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,055 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    mutley18 wrote: »
    A quote from that video: "This is going to be a media spectacle, Big Brother will pale in comparison"
    "Nick you have been eliminated, please make your way to the airlock"


  • Options
    #131
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,055 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    shizz wrote: »
    You have to land a factory? For the 4 person crew were taking here all that needs to be created propellant wise is 24 tons of Methane and 48 tons of Oxygen by using only 6 tons of Hydrogen, initially over a time of a year or so I can't remember.
    http://www.astronautix.com/craft/marirect.htm

    The point is that using materials that exist a tether could be build for a similar mass to several nuclear powered Mars based fuel factories.
    On the first part, the lack of any sort of gravity during propellant production would be a huge problem on the mechanisms involved. You would need pumps everywhere, which again brings up points of failure.
    even a tiny bit of gravity is enough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ullage_motor
    Secondly, you talk about it as if the only problem was building from the ground up? We are no where near the ability of construction in space.
    production of super tough fibres is more a chemistry problem than a construction problem, but low gravity will help.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Hunchback
    Registered Users Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭Hunchback


    they'll make rakes o' cash as the new owners of mars. i wonder how much rent for a 3- bed semi-D with unobstructed panoramic views of the olympus mons?

    i've long wondered about ownership of space colonies :o


  • Options
    #133
    shizz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    http://www.astronautix.com/craft/marirect.htm

    The point is that using materials that exist a tether could be build for a similar mass to several nuclear powered Mars based fuel factories.

    Sorry I don't really understand this sentence. What I have been referring to all this time is Mars Direct.
    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    even a tiny bit of gravity is enough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ullage_motor

    Not for the currently developed propellant production plants.
    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    production of super tough fibres is more a chemistry problem than a construction problem, but low gravity will help.

    It is still a problem. Construction in space itself is a problem which hasn't been even attempted yet on a low level. Integrating sections yes, construction no.


Advertisement