Mars in the next 50 years

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

  1. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Because the more water you can get from the moon the less you have take there in the first place.
    Recycling systems are not 100% efficient.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    I'm inclined to agree that keeping workers up there would be very expensive...but so is sending stuff up there...

    The thing to do is to have just enough workers on the moon to supervise the robots who do the real work...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    It's not likly we'll be doing Mars in 50 years. I give it a 38% chance.
    The moon is far more likely in the next 50.

    Society has to ...change first.
    Commerce has a strong hold on the planets resouces unless it's a commerical effort I don't see any goverenement funded Manned missions to mars.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    38%??
    Based on?
     
  8. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,488
    That is a weird number

    but on a somewhat creepy note I once calculated the change that neil armstrong would life to see the launch of the next mannend craft.

    Neil armstrong is 81 years old and the next mannend craft orion won't be finished until 2016 (5 years and neil will be 86)

    If you look at the period life tables for the US you see that out of a 100 000 people only 43954 should be alive and at 86 only 27456 will be alive
    Can I assume that the chanches he will live to see this are: 62.47%

    You can supervise them from earth like the russians did with the lunokhod missions. So real time controls are possible and then comes the quistion what is most efficient a pilot in a bulky suit doing engineering work for 8 hours a day or a team of engineers and masters in the developing of the machinery and the tasks that have to be performed working in shifts to cover a 24 hour a day service. Not to mention the human will have to get there and back the robots never have to come back.

    Not really no, water consist out of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. So ones in orbit it can be used for multiple applications.

    1. Water H2O: People simply need water, why exactly cooling replacing of solvents we yust need it.
    Radiation shielding water surprisingly is also a good radiation shield

    2. H2 and O: with enough power most likely a nuclear reactor is should be possible to split water up in it's basic components. Hydrogen and oxygen.
    Free oxygen yust like water has some biological uses again we need it to live but as 2 sepperates they make exelent rocket fuel. Liquid oxygen (LOX) and hydrogen are preferred rocket fuels and would be really handy.
    As a example i like to give the VASIMR engine of the ISS that will reduce the annual costs of maintaining the ISS orbit 20 times freeing 199.5 m$ annualy
    Further we see more and more sattelites that are moving to the high geostationairy orbit or even move to one of earths Lagrangian points not to mention a probes and mannend crafts that go to other planets. Each carrys more weight in fuel then actually science instruments and if they where launched with empty fuel tanks in fueled up in low earth orbit it would usually mean they can be launched by smaller rockets at a fraction of the original price
     
  9. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    A little of this a little of that...
     
  10. Acitnoids Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    704
    Before voyage to Mars can take place some country will have to send a craft to the Martian suface and then safely return it to Earth. This isn't as easy as falling back to Earth from the Moon.
    Who knows. I'll say ... Qatar

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I agree, this journey will require a completely different spacecraft and, may I add, mission plan.
    No. Exploration is a driver of innovation. What helps us survive out there can bring forth technological advancements right here (like velcro

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ).
    I don't know, maybe hoist a few flags, get in a hole or two of golf, look under a few rocks for Martians :shrug: Seriously though, whoever goes there will have a lot of time on their hands. I hope most of that time is spent establishing an outpost.
    I say, why don't we already have a permanent moon base? Neil Armstrong was the first man to step onto the surface of the moon (July 20, 1969). Human spaceflight began eight years earlier when Yuri Gagarin became the first man in space (April 12, 1961). Twelve years after that Apollo 17 left the lunar suface and we've never returned (Dec 14, 1972). By that time there was actually an automobile up there that two separate missions road around in. Think about it, this hole epic took place over a Twelve year span of time. A lot of thing can happen in fifty years. Sometimes I think we've lost the will to do such great thing again. I mean, we certainly possess the capacity to do such great thing again.
     
  11. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,488
    Well they are planning yust that. To bad in neither of the 3 cases they decide to make the return fuel on situ. The idea would be to take some Hydrogen with you and exposie it to the Co2 atmosphere to make CH4 and O2 in short it produces 18 times as much fuel as you import. It could be interesting to try this before you do a actual mannend mission.

    Hoist a few flags, place a plaque,release a canister of SF6 into the atmosphere (it's a super greenhouse gas and it has a lifetime between 800 and 3200 years so it will still be there when we terraform it), give a speach... Then hopefully look for water (ice) and make some fuel out of a hydrogen stock and try making some bricks. Try finding some interesting rocks and doming in a trench or lavatube and pressurise it
     
  12. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    So you mean you just plucked a number out of the air and gave it a spurious sense of accuracy by addition of unwarranted significant figures!
     
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Priceless.
    :roflmao:
     
  14. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    I give it the chances of us landing on mars...hmmm... 24%, the chances of a martian colony... 3%.

    Why the hell would a company want to land on mars? Name for me one good reason.
     
  15. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Until further investigation is done, there's no reason for a private company to want to go the Mars. However IF they find an abundance of minerals there which are valuable now or in the future it may be possible it could be worth their while to go there to mine for those minerals to return them to Earth for sale.
     
  16. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Name for me one mineral that is that valuable that wouldn't be readily accessable on the moon?

    That is my grudge against the private industry. NASA will land on mars just for the sake of pushing the boundries of science.

    Private corporations are only interested in pushing the boundries of their wallets. You can be as pro private industry as you want, but the private industry is only interested in one thing, making money.

    I feel like trying to push scientific boundries through the support of inherently greedy people (not saying they are bad people, just people with interest in money) is hypocritical.

    We should be in space, why? Because its f*cking space, its the next boundry of human existance. That's all the reason in the world we need to continue. That's why someday I will graduate from Purdue, join NASA, and push the boundry as far as I can during my lifetime. Because in my view, if your not doing something challenging then its not worth the time, and nothing is as challenging nor rewarding as figuring out a challenge before anyone else does.

    I feel like if I were to work for these private industries I will only be pushing the boundries because someone wants money. They are taking my hard work and using it to better themselves. I want to better everyone, I feel it is hypocritical for someone to tell me what I can and cannot work on solely on the basis that it won't make their bank accounts any larger.
     
  17. SnowsportsSid Registered Member

    Messages:
    29
    Sounds good to me. Do you think we could fit in a game of football too?

    How long do you expect the explorers to have to stay there? Long enough for the distance between Earth and Mars to reduce to a figure suitable for a return journey?

    Sounds like you're a bit disillusioned with capitalism, fedr808. Don't think you're the only one. Good luck with NASA.
     
  18. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    I've only answered the OP question as to why private companies would go there and , as I said, there are certain minerals that could be found there that would make it profitable for them to go. The moon has some minerals as well but as yet I do not see any private companies rushing to go there so not many minerals are they that they need.

    NASA needs money just as much as the private companies do and in a way that's why exploration is done, to help businesses in the long run have new ways of doing things in space they can't here and finding things in space that private companies will take advantage of if they can. NASA begs for more money to do their work and get it from the government but private companies can't rely on the government for their monies so must depend upon profits to have to do things with.
     
  19. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,488
    Then you should go to phobos.

    We will probably be more sure afther the phobos grunt mission But Phobos probably has a large reservoir of ice and is relativly easy to reach.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    in fact it takes a delta v of 18.7 km/s to go from earth to the surface of the moon and back (16.4 ti get there and 2.3for a return flight) to earth whilst it only takes a delta v of 16.2 km/s to reach phobos and back (14.3 to get there abd 1.9km/s for a return flight)(mainly because you can aerobrake on the martian atmosphere).
    Phobos is also a relativly fast rotater with a orbit ones every 7hours 39 minutes it's Geoscychanous point is only 10.49km above it surface meaning it would only take a very short elevator and it doesn't have to be made out of nanotobes (that we still can't make by the way)
    So on the surface of Phobos we could send of blocks of ice and send them to earth orbit where they can be processed as rocket fuel for and if the elevator cable is long enough then you wouldn't even have to launch your cargo as the centripetal force could launch it towards earth needing only a small thruster for course corrections
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Operationally it's just about as easy; just takes a lot longer. Indeed, in some ways it is _easier_ - you can't use aerobraking or parachutes on the moon.

    Not all that useful. It would be like living in a cave in Antarctica, minus the air, water and easy re-supply-ability. Plus the radiation and micrometeors. Why would we want to stay there? Mars is a little more habitable, and is more amenable to human life. Think Antarctica, just minus the oxygen. Still not a garden spot, but potentially more livable.
     
  21. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Yah, if we want to land on mars, we need to figure out how to land on it without crashing and dying.
     
  22. Acitnoids Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    704
    The most cost effective trajectory for interplanetary space travel is called the Hohman Transfer Orbit. This means that a new launch window from Earth to Mars opens up once every 26 months (790 days). According to the link below, with our current rocket technology, it will take a minimum of nine months to reach Mars an anyone who goes there will have to spend a minimum of three months there before a return window opens. If that opportunity is missed then they'll have to wait about two Earth years before the next window opens. For comparison, Apollow 17 holds the record for the longest mannef lunar landing flight at 3 days 2 hours and 59 minutes, Cosmonant Dr. Valeri Vladimirovich Polyakov spent the longest time in space on a single flight at 437.7 continuous days aboard Suyuz TM-18 (1994-1995) and he was barely able to walk under his own strength after returning. Thanks to the International Space Station there's been a continuously rotating human presence in space for over ten years now. That being said, we still have a lot of work cut out for us. As impressive as Dr. Polyakov's record is it doesn't add up for a round trip to Mars.
    .
    http://astronomycafe.net/qadir/q2811.html
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2011
  23. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    Like Visa Card Commerical

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I mean I plucked a number out of the air.
    You gave it a spurious sense of accuracy (as is your usual)

    @ fedr808

    In a word? Resources.
    But first we have to have evidence that there is something valuable on Mars and that takes exploration which is why I set the chances low on going to Mars. Currently there is no reason to go there and we see how stagnated the space programs have been without Cold War enthusiasm and commercial enterprise. We're content with High to Low Earth Orbit space ventures. Something has to be worthy of the massive expense and time and the truth is economic pressures are not likely to be in favor globally for a Mars venture in the next 25 years. This could have been easily determine on the date of 9/11/01. America has pursued a War in the middle east which has had fascinating effects of destabilizing the region further, unrest in North Africa and I doubt we've heard the last of Kim Jong.

    It seems even the Global Warming issue will also take a huge bite out of those possibilities. The world isn't prosperous for these endeavors. China is producing Stealth Plains and Air Craft Carriers and attempting to emerge as a World power and that implies and eventual clash with the current world powers whether ideologically or offensively. It takes time for economic engines to be set for space endeavors unless they are forced and as we all know commerce drives the world at peace. As long as these "police actions" and national unrest continue it will be difficult to look up into the Stars unless some engine innovation (which we've been waiting for more than 30 years) comes and makes it exceedly less expensive.

    That's why I think 38% is extremely liberal. I actually think the chance of Mars in 50 years is perilously close to zero...say 5-10%
     

Share This Page