Mars by 2020?

Don't forget the golden rule.
Do not develop a new launch system.

Use an existing reliable one. Otherwise you now have two project, a high risk one to develop a better launch system and your other project which is now totally dependent on the high risk project.


SLS is still in development.
Most of the components were flight tested back in the 1980's.



If you want to go to Mars then you have two options.
Option 1 - high risk , dig out the old Saturn V drawings , the only things you change are the alloys and joining processes, and off the shelf electronics. So replace the aluminium with modern aluminium alloys with more lithium or whatnot, carbon fibre is good too. The trick is to make 110% sure you don't reduce stiffness , ie. you are ONLY reducing weight. Joining means no-brainers like stir welding instead of rivets. Use modern flight prove avionics and let LOTS of new graduates go over all the gotcha's.

Option 2 - low risk assemble the Mars craft in orbit from 20 tonne sections. The 20 tonne sections can be launched by Russia, SpaceX, ULA, ESA, Japan , Ukraine, and China. India's launcher has only been tested with two boosters instead of the four needed , so low risk as no new hardware needed. Most of those have also demonstrate docking in space too.

Option 3 - Develop new launch hardware. Don't call us. We'll call you when you get it working.


Note: Use electric propulsion to boost fuel and modules from LEO to GEO /Legrange . This saves a lot of delta V , possibly as much as 50% of the mass you need to get to LEO , so you only need a quick transit to GEO / Legrange for humans to a tested, fuelled spacecraft.


And Mars is just a place to visit and low level colonise, it should not be the main focus for our species. Let's go to the asteroids

ScumLord wrote: »

One thing I wonder about a moon around jupiter. If the moon was tidally locked would there be any gravity bleed from jupiter on the surface of the moon? If I was standing on the far side of the moon would the gravity of the moon be combined with the gravity of jupiter so that you'd feel more gravity on the side of the moon facing away from jupiter?

Yes, happens here too. You weigh less when the moon is overhead. And when the moon is under you too.

ScumLord wrote: »

Would it be noticeable?

The problem with most other planets/moons in this solar system is that they're too small. I'm just wondering is there any other rock in the solar system that would give us close to 1g?

not really. it's only a millionth

even with 3Km deep oceans we only get 3m deflection in the tides because we are at the edge of a 3,000Km ocean


The problem with Venus and Mars is a lack of hydrogen. Like earth they used to have Km deep oceans, it would take a lot of comets to offset that.

Thanks to corporate welfare NASA have officially given up on Mars anytime soon. But that's good because some senators will get re-elected. And the money could have been wasted on healthcare or education instead of completely wasted on re-inventing off the shelf 1960's hardware, badly. :mad:

https://futurism.com/nasa-just-announced-they-cant-afford-to-get-humans-to-mars/

Essentially, the SLS rocket and Orion craft have cost the agency a lot. As a result, NASA hasn’t even been able to begin designing vehicles to land on Mars or ascend from the surface.

Fathom wrote: »

Discouraging report. Surprised that NASA still exists.

no surprise. It's there for pork barrelling and PR , they do some science too but that's a bonus.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-space-idUSKCN0WJ1YJ

Approving a plan submitted by Russian space agency Roscosmos in January, Medvedev ordered Russia's space program budget for 2016-2025 to be cut from 2 trillion rubles ($29.24 billion) to 1.4 trillion rubles.

This works out at $2.05 Bn a year.



http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html

Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support, according to data compiled by The Times.

This pork barrel just soaked up some military funds.

Total acquisition costs for Lockheed Martin Corp.’s next-generation fighter may rise about 7 percent to $406.5 billion,

Speaking of military funds ULA still has it's snout deep in the trough.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/air-force-budget-reveals-how-much-spacex-undercuts-launch-prices/

According to the Air Force estimate, the "unit cost" of a single rocket launch in fiscal year 2020 is $422 million, and $424 million for a year later.
...
That is a tad more expensive than the amount ULA would ever tell taxpayers they are paying for one of its launches, and it illustrates the extent to which those taxpayers are forced to subsidize ULA in order to maintain the fiction that it is a competitive private sector company.