Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The [url="https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/starship/"]
The project would cost a couple trillion dollars, maybe more. Is it worth it? That is for humanity to decide.
Right....The question is not "COULD be go to Mars, but SHOULD we go to Mars?
In regards one manned flight followed by more unmanned flights for more gear & supplies-- You can't "catch up" to the first flight until it gets to Mars, so that manned flight still needs supplies for almost two years, and you can't just launch a second or third mission anytime you want-- the relative positons of Earth & Mars are constantly changing and there is a relatively small window when you can launch and hit the target. It may take two yrs to get to Mars, but you may have to wait a year or two before you can launch a second flight.
Right....The question is not "COULD be go to Mars, but SHOULD we go to Mars?
In regards one manned flight followed by more unmanned flights for more gear & supplies-- You can't "catch up" to the first flight until it gets to Mars, so that manned flight still needs supplies for almost two years, and you can't just launch a second or third mission anytime you want-- the relative positons of Earth & Mars are constantly changing and there is a relatively small window when you can launch and hit the target. It may take two yrs to get to Mars, but you may have to wait a year or two before you can launch a second flight.
The "should" part is the real stickler, since that part will be addressed by politicians, who control the purse strings. And as we have seen going to mars takes a really, really big purse!
Our 25 word solutions to all problems will not be considered. What will be considered are the political pressures and actual needs of a declining and aging world population.
I will take a step back, though; I will say, "We will never go to mars as long as human population separates itself into competing countries. If people ever unite themselves under one government, all bets are off."
Send, say 6, supply ships on a one-way trip. They deliver the supplies needed and then with the Martians arrive, they can "just put it all together".
The SLS weighs 5.5 million pounds. Its payload is 210,000 pounds, so most of the cost and weight is in the vehicle, which, by your design, will not be coming back. The vehicle, BTW, costs 23 billion dollars today.
So you send supplies 6 times (for example) and finally send a lander with 6 people on a 6 month journey to mars.
That's 6 months (one way) in a vehicle small enough to sit on top of an rocket with enough fuel to (1) accelerate away from earth and (2) decelerate for a mars entry and then wait around to (3) accelerate away from mars and (3) decelerate for an earth entry.
It's just one of those things where it all sounds so simple at first. NASA and Elon Musk are both pullin' your leg.
Last edited by Mike from back east; 03-05-2023 at 11:42 AM..
Of course we COULD go to Mars.'' There's a sign in the shop of a famous racing engine builder-- "Speed costs money....How fast do you want to go?"
But why bother?...Even if we don't consider the expense-- there's nothing we could do there in person that we couldn't accomplish remotely.....I'm not sure humanity will be advance significantly if we finally answer the burning question- Can pinto beans be grown on Mars?
As we said earlier-- the environment there is so harsh (from temps -150*F to winds 200mph, radiation, etc) that you essentially are limited to living in an indoor shelter. You may as well be here on Earth in a shelter in the desert or ocean floor...and much easer to acces and supply here...if you feel some over-powering need to live in a shelter for some reason.
Last edited by Mike from back east; 03-05-2023 at 11:42 AM..
............
The SLS weighs 5.5 million pounds. Its payload is 210,000 pounds, so most of the cost and weight is in the vehicle..................
That figure is startling, so I double checked. Seems to be true, even though figures vary.
To put it in context, it's as if a Ford F150, weighing 5,500 pounds could only carry 210 pounds to its destination.
And you never get your F150 back!
Man, it takes a LOT of power to fully escape earth's pull!
A simple solve to fuel consumption and weight/carry problems would be to develop some space stations and send replacement fuel to them ahead of the mission for docking and re-fueling.
With the way A.I. is progressing, there is no doubt one day advance remote non-human teams could be sent for anything to building and placing orbital way-stations for stops along the way coming and going, to assembling all necessary infrastructure in advance of human arrival.
You just don't want the A.I. to form Unions and potentially go on strike. Or worse, become self aware, build an independent colony on Mars, develop a military and weapons, and attack/declare war on Earth.
A simple solve to fuel consumption and weight/carry problems would be to develop some space stations and send replacement fuel to them ahead of the mission for docking and re-fueling.
With the way A.I. is progressing, there is no doubt one day advance remote non-human teams could be sent for anything to building and placing orbital way-stations for stops along the way coming and going, to assembling all necessary infrastructure in advance of human arrival.
You just don't want the A.I. to form Unions and potentially go on strike. Or worse, become self aware, build an independent colony on Mars, develop a military and weapons, and attack/declare war on Earth.
Yah. Human conflict often enough leads to war. Would AI go that same route? Or would it/they try something more subtle? The death & destruction attendant on warfare would likely strike AI as wasteful, & defeating the purpose of waging war. I would think than an AI would opt for something more effective, & less wasteful of resources.
Yah. Human conflict often enough leads to war. Would AI go that same route? Or would it/they try something more subtle? The death & destruction attendant on warfare would likely strike AI as wasteful, & defeating the purpose of waging war. I would think than an AI would opt for something more effective, & less wasteful of resources.
Very True!
I can just see an advance team of humans arriving at the newly built Mars facility, breaking into the store room where the beer was being held for the "Grand Ribbon Cutting" when the VIP's and Delegates arrive, getting drunk, hot wiring a rover and driving it off a crater lip and crashing it into a rock.
Then Earth command center holds the A.I robots accountable and on disciplinary status for not completely securing the store room, and not installing a GPS tracker and fuel/power line cut off on the rover...
The A.I. bots may then turn to HAL 9000 for advice on what to do next....
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
And in other eras:
Man will never travel faster than 60mph.
Man will never fly.
Flying is a novelty, it will never have any commercial value.
Man will never escape earth's gravity.
Never is far too long a stretch of time to make predictions over.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would you like to play a game?
