Mars in the next 50 years

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by SnowsportsSid, Feb 26, 2011.

  1. SnowsportsSid Registered Member

    Messages:
    29
    How likely are we to see a manned voyage to Mars in the next 50 years? If it's game on, which country is most likely to get there first? The USA springs to mind for obvious reasons. Uncle Sam and the Russians have led the way in space exploration over the past 50 years.

    However, with the appalling American budget deficit and national debt a millstone around the neck of the American people, is it game over for NASA in this race before it has really even begun? Are the Chinese, as the world's foremost emerging superpower, running large surpluses, infact now more likely to suceed? Would a public Chinese indication that they had their sights set on Mars create a "sputnik moment" in the United States and trigger the beginning of the second space race? Could other less likely candidates play a role, such as the Russians, Indians or even the European Space Agency? Is a bi-lateral or multi-lateral collaboration between, for example, NASA and the ESA a possibility to reduce the financial burden on the USA?

    What type of spacecraft would be the most likely candidate for a manned jaunt to Mars? Existing spacecraft do not presumably meet the criteria for this type of voyage. The spacecraft would have to provide adequate shielding from cosmic radiation and possibly also have a system to alleviate the effects of long-term weightlessness. Would a Mars bound manned spacecraft be likely to be powered by a traditional conventional rocket, or would a nuclear fission / fusion solution be more likely?

    Finally, are we wasting our time trying to get to Mars? Afterall, prestige aside, what are we actually going to do once we get there? Would it actually be more prudent to try and establish a permenant moon base, a little bit closer to home. We could learn a lot from setting up such a base and this would obviously be a lot safer than trying to set up a base on the much more distant Mars.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2011
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    I'd think that a joint venture to Mars by a group of nations in the name of humanity would be a good plan to get to Mars. Working with other nations not to be the first always but to show we can all learn a great deal by working together as humans to accomplish this goal. The flag of the earth would be a flag to plant there showing that much of humanity can work together to get things done without trying to beat others every time.

    The type of craft will be rather large when humans are aboard it for there's going to be a need for food, water, oxygen, fuel, and many other materials to help in case of anything going wrong. That's why I keep trying to show that robots are the best thing for doing such things until the speed , safety and costs can be at a reasonable level to insure that humans will have the proper living arrangements to get there and back as fast as possible to decrease any problems from happening to them.

    We have been to the moon, found out not much is there and can build a craft in low earth orbit to get to mars. Why return to the moon when the money going there can be used to fund more exploration craft and build better robots? If robotic craft can do most of the things humans can do, albeit at a slower pace, then why not let them go ahead and do so? I believe that it is better to lose a robotic space craft than to endanger human lives. Robotics are advancing very fast and I will see the day when one will look like a human and be able to do many of the things a human can do but won't be as costly to operate in space.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. SnowsportsSid Registered Member

    Messages:
    29
    The point I was making re the moon was that although we've already visited the moon, we haven't yet attempted to establish a base on another planet. There will undoubtedly be lessons learnt when we finally do attempt to establish a colony somewhere; my thinking was why not learn those lessons a little bit closer to home than Mars, as this would obviously be a lot safer (assuming we do attempt to colonise Mars in the future). I also thought the moon might make a good launch site for future missions, given it has a much weaker gravitational field than Earth. I take your point re constructing spacecraft in lower earth orbit though.

    When I posed the question re what type of spacecraft, I didn't mention anti-matter fueled. My understanding of anti-matter was that it is extremely expensive to produce at the moment. However, afterwards, I stumbled across an article on NASA's website, which I am currently unable to link to due to my lowly status. Here's a quote:

    "A rough estimate to produce the 10 milligrams of positrons needed for a human Mars mission is about 250 million dollars using technology that is currently under development."

    "This cost might seem high, but it has to be considered against the extra cost to launch a heavier chemical rocket (current launch costs are about $10,000 per pound) or the cost to fuel and make safe a nuclear reactor. Based on the experience with nuclear technology, it seems reasonable to expect positron production cost to go down with more research"

    So, although anti-matter production is very expensive at the moment, when you take into account that only 10 mg of anti-matter fuel would get you to Mars, in stark contrast to the tons of conventional rocket fuel required with launch costs @ $10,000 per pound, anti-matter is actually a serious consideration. This is of course if a working anti-matter engine can be produced.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Not only is it expensive it hasn't been able to be used as a fuel nor are there any rockets being developed to use that fuel as yet. From what I've read it will take decades to even get the anti matter to be a SAFE fuel due to the fact it will be hard to control when it hits any regular matter.

    "When antimatter comes into contact with normal matter, these equal but opposite particles collide to produce an explosion emitting pure radiation, which travels out of the point of the explosion at the speed of light. Both particles that created the explosion are completely annihilated, leaving behind other subatomic particles. The explosion that occurs when antimatter and matter interact transfers the entire mass of both objects into energy. Scientists believe that this energy is more powerful than any that can be generated by other propulsion methods.

    So, why haven't we built a matter-antimatter reaction engine? The problem with developing antimatter propulsion is that there is a lack of antimatter existing in the universe. If there were equal amounts of matter and antimatter, we would likely see these reactions around us. Since antimatter doesn't exist around us, we don't see the light that would result from it colliding with matter.

    It is possible that particles outnumbered anti-particles at the time of the Big Bang. As stated above, the collision of particles and anti-particles destroys both. And because there may have been more particles in the universe to start with, those are all that's left. There may be no naturally-existing anti-particles in our universe today. However, scientists discovered a possible deposit of antimatter near the center of the galaxy in 1977. If that does exist, it would mean that antimatter exists naturally, and the need to make our own antimatter would be eliminated."

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/antimatter1.htm
     
  8. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Not only is it expensive it hasn't been able to be used as a fuel nor are there any rockets being developed to use that fuel as yet. From what I've read it will take decades to even get the anti matter to be a SAFE fuel due to the fact it will be hard to control when it hits any regular matter.

    "When antimatter comes into contact with normal matter, these equal but opposite particles collide to produce an explosion emitting pure radiation, which travels out of the point of the explosion at the speed of light. Both particles that created the explosion are completely annihilated, leaving behind other subatomic particles. The explosion that occurs when antimatter and matter interact transfers the entire mass of both objects into energy. Scientists believe that this energy is more powerful than any that can be generated by other propulsion methods.

    So, why haven't we built a matter-antimatter reaction engine? The problem with developing antimatter propulsion is that there is a lack of antimatter existing in the universe. If there were equal amounts of matter and antimatter, we would likely see these reactions around us. Since antimatter doesn't exist around us, we don't see the light that would result from it colliding with matter.

    It is possible that particles outnumbered anti-particles at the time of the Big Bang. As stated above, the collision of particles and anti-particles destroys both. And because there may have been more particles in the universe to start with, those are all that's left. There may be no naturally-existing anti-particles in our universe today. However, scientists discovered a possible deposit of antimatter near the center of the galaxy in 1977. If that does exist, it would mean that antimatter exists naturally, and the need to make our own antimatter would be eliminated.

    For now, we will have to create our own antimatter. Luckily, there is technology available to create antimatter through the use of high-energy particle colliders, also called "atom smashers." Atom smashers, like CERN, are large tunnels lined with powerful supermagnets that circle around to propel atoms at near-light speeds. When an atom is sent through this accelerator, it slams into a target, creating particles. Some of these particles are antiparticles that are separated out by the magnetic field. These high-energy particle accelerators only produce one or two picograms of antiprotons each year. A picogram is a trillionth of a gram. All of the antiprotons produced at CERN in one year would be enough to light a 100-watt electric light bulb for three seconds. It will take tons of antiprotons to travel to interstellar destinations."

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/antimatter1.htm
     
  9. SnowsportsSid Registered Member

    Messages:
    29
    Yes, there are definitely big hurdles to overcome in terms of reducing the cost of producing anti-matter and also learning how to contain it in some kind of storage tank prior to use.

    I believe there is also an issue of how to contain or sufficiently weaken the high energy gamma rays which will inevitably be unleashed during the particle anihillation process. On a spacecraft, this could obviously be leathal for the crew.

    "A problem for antimatter is that much of the energy is lost, some in very penetrating high-energy gamma radiation, but especially in neutrinos, so that substantially less than mc2 would actually be available. Even so, the energy available for propulsion would probably be substantially higher than the ~1% of mc2 yield of nuclear fusion, the next-best rival candidate." [Interstellar travel, wikipedia.org]

    Although there are clearly big engineering obstacles to tackle, I do think antimatter power must be the future for spacetravel. It's potentially so much more powerful than nuclear fission or fusion and it could conceivably allow you to make interstellar trips in a sane amount of time. Putting to one side the very slim possibility of a break through with something more on the sci-fi side of the spectrum, like wormholes, it has to be the best bet.
     
  10. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    I'd rather try to open a wormhole, which exist, with a device that could be transported to "there' so that anyone traveling through it can get back. Wormholes are a strange thing and if we could ever achieve that type of travel we won't ever need to build anything to move with again through space. But like antimatter engines, it is also something of a distant future but something that should be looked into as well. There's gamma radiation everywhere in space and that's a very hard type of radiation to keep from harming humans no matter what type of shielding they make.
     
  11. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    I still think we should build the Mars colony ships on the moon from scratch.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    That way we can afford to make the colony vessels nice and heavy-if there's lead up there? why, little reason not to add lead shielding. Or just chrome-nickel plating, or whatever's available-we can use a lot without having to get it out of the gravity well of Earth, which is the main problem, isn't it?

    Lots of metal ores lying around on the moon, we just have to figure out how to manufacture in the lunar environment.
     
  12. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,634
    I will vote for this . Yeah Group hug . Earth Flag and all
     
  13. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Think about the cost to build a base, take workers there, extract what little minerals that are on the moon to build a craft there. That would far exceed that what it would cost if done on the earth by ten fold or more. Is that money worth it, no, to me. When you can buils a craft in low earth orbit for one tenth the cost , or less, then it would be more prudent to go that way then taking all the time and money to develop a moon base and sustain those that are living there with everything they need from earth.
     
  14. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    As Heinlein said "Once you get to earth orbit, you're halfway to anywhere in the solar system."
    This in itself is an argument for not building on Earth (lower launch velocity required because you're already off the bottom of the gravity well).
    And putting the construction base on the Moon will, at the very least, provide some gravity for workers (health considerations), be easier to establish living quarters and have a ready supply of certain raw materials to hand.
     
  15. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    However one must look at the cost involved with moving all materials and workers to the moon, sustaing them and maintaining their base for years. I'd think that in itself would be reason to think about assembly of anything in low earth orbit rather than doing things on the moon. Any problems on the moon would create more money needed to fix them than that on the earth.
     
  16. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,488
    Everything falls or stands with the ability to leave earth cheaply
     
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    If you're in LEO the extra cost and effort to get to the Moon is outweighed, IMO, by the advantages of having solid ground and the attendant advantages thereof.
    A facility in LEO is vulnerable to to many things, not least Solar flares and radiation. On the Moon you can put everything under several metres of dirt.

    Granted.
    I'm not sure if you posted that as refutation or confirmation.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,488

    The problem is while I do believe that suborbital flights are going to get commercial real soon meaning their is actually a change that in 15 to 20 years prices willl drop enough so that even I could afford one (before 2036 for less then 5000€ suborbital realistic?). Real space launches are going to stay extremly expensive.


    So actual orbit will remain really expensive. Leaving orbit even more so, landing on a other body and returning from their makes it a financial nightmare.

    But our moon is relativly close by so close it would only take 1.25 seconds for a signal to reach the moon and that makes it great for a direct human controlled teleoperating mission.
    A (humanoid)robotic crew operated by actually engineers should be far better at operating on the moon then pilots in bulky suits.

    And from the lunar surface they could send up resources to support a relativly large space station (like a mining station that mines some of that 600 million tons of relativly pure ice on the lunar northpole.
    That could be used in orbit to make cheap rocket fuel and for life support allowing longer missions.

    The actual human crew would still be in orbit inside earth magnetic field in a rotating spacecraft perhaps made from lunar steel.
     
  19. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,488
    hmm can't seem to delete the prevoius post.

    So while I do agree with the idea of returning to the moon I don't think it should be a mannend mission as everything on the moon can be teleoperated from earth.

    Meaning i would like to see a mining station with at least some mobility that has a way of launching cargo to space.
    As the main export product would be water and hydrogen oxygen launching things shouldn't be impossible.
    I we could also use the method to ship back some of that precious helium 3 and some lunar samples for study.

    All the rest would depend on how mobile the infrastructure is and how much could be launched the moon has plenty of minerals that could be of direct use.

    And some might be quit indirect like refinend fluorine that has been found in the form of apatite could also be a future export product

    A article from wikipedia claims that it would only take 39 million tons of fluorine based gasses to melt the CO2 poles of mars. Apparently that is enough to give the planet a 300millibar (poisonous) atmosphere thick enough to shield against radiation and eliminate the need for a pressure suit. And if you think that is special it is still less hospitable then having a zepplin on venus wear at a altitude of 50 km the pressure is 1 bar (of pousenous co2) and the temprature is between 0-50°C.

    Still we won't be terraforming for a little while but it would be fun/symbolic if ad the end of a first mission to mars they apart from leaving a golden plaque and a flag that they also open a bottle with some of the strongest greenhouse gasses known to man (probably SF6). it would be a nice wink for the future of the planet
     
  20. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    When that happens just go into your post and erase everything then reprint Post deleted.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Its happened to me a few times as well.
     
  21. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    But to resupply the workers there, maintain their buildings and doctors care in case of an emercency, watching out for meteors that will inpact the moon from time to time and provide the materials to build a processing plant and manufacturing plant to use all the resources needed that are located there, would cost a trillion dollars or more over a long period of time.

    Workers in LEO could safely return to earth in minutes if they need to in case of any emergency even a solar flare.
     
  22. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,488
    Anything done on the moon could be done by teleoperting right here on the surface of earth. And only a easly reacheable source of water ice a easy way of refining it and sending it to earth orbit would justify the costs
     
  23. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    But we can and do recycle water on earth so why do we need moon water? :shrug:
     

Share This Page