How to get to Mars

[Revoltingest]

Next, we have a very scientifically literate populace in comparison to previous generations.

You are one of my favorite humorists!

 

[Revoltingest]

Not if there's gold and diamonds in them thar planets and roids......

You do know that the value of diamonds is only high because of a cartel fixed market?
They're really quite plentiful already.
What they really need to mine is material they can use for survival in space.

 

[Quetzal]

You are one of my favorite humorists!

I don't think I am wrong, but I could be. Then again, I have nothing to back it up.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Elon Musk explains how Space X plans to establish a permanent human presence on Mars. The video below is interesting as an attempt to turn Interplanetary travel into an economic question of "can we afford it?"

(Insert @Queztal tag here )

Any thoughts fellow Earthlings?

Do you know what he is proposing to screen against harmful radiation beyond the Van Allen belt?

I think he is jumping the gun, and that it would be better to send unmanned probes to other stars
in search of alien intelligent life. Finding another intelligent life-form would kick-start the space exploration
process far more effectively than watching people dying in space.

Also, THEY may be able to give us tech that would speed up the process enormously.

Recently it was theorized that by aiming lasers at a spaceship, one could propel such a craft most effectively
as it would not need to carry its own fuel. I suggest simply reflecting the light of the sun using mirrors and
orbiting magnifying glasses, as this would be a very cost-effective process. The magnifying glasses could be
just plastic filled with water. If an acceleration of 1g could be maintained for just a year, then we could
approach the velocity of light. This could yield results within a couple of decades.

Also, the mirrors can be used to power-up existing spacecraft like Voyager 1, who are beyond
normal solar power.

 

[Laika]

Do you know what he is proposing to screen against harmful radiation beyond the Van Allen belt?

I think he is jumping the gun, and that it would be better to send unmanned probes to other stars
in search of alien intelligent life. Finding another intelligent life-form would kick-start the space exploration
process far more effectively than watching people dying in space.

Also, THEY may be able to give us tech that would speed up the process enormously.

Recently it was theorized that by aiming lasers at a spaceship, one could propel such a craft most effectively
as it would not need to carry its own fuel. I suggest simply reflecting the light of the sun using mirrors and
orbiting magnifying glasses, as this would be a very cost-effective process. The magnifying glasses could be
just plastic filled with water. If an acceleration of 1g could be maintained for just a year, then we could
approach the velocity of light. This could yield results within a couple of decades.

Also, the mirrors can be used to power-up existing spacecraft like Voyager 1, who are beyond
normal solar power.

In response to your question, I'm not sure if SpaceX has made any specific proposals as to how to deal with radioation outside of the Van Allen belt. The Astronauts of the Apollo missions went beyond the Van Allen belt and, due to the short duration of space flight, did not absorb much radiation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt

 

[Quetzal]

Do you know what he is proposing to screen against harmful radiation beyond the Van Allen belt?

This is one of the many valid criticisms of the presentation in regards to him downplaying the dangers of the radiation we would be exposed to. To answer your question, I haven't heard much from the Musk camp related to this. I assume they have some ideas but just didn't have enough allotted time.

I think he is jumping the gun, and that it would be better to send unmanned probes to other stars
in search of alien intelligent life. Finding another intelligent life-form would kick-start the space exploration
process far more effectively than watching people dying in space.

Also, THEY may be able to give us tech that would speed up the process enormously.

You are operating under a few faulty assumptions:

1. That we could get an unmanned probe to stars that are not our own. The fastest we can get a satellite to go is ~17,000 miles per hour when it is in orbit. Not bad! Well until you remember the closest star to us that isn't our sun is Centauri B 4.3 light years away. Reminder, the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. If we crunch the numbers, my surface estimation is it would take that probe...2684303824.2009 Earth years to get there. Whew! Simply put, it isn't a feasible option unless we figure out how to travel at the speed of light (working on it) or figure out a way to communicate using light (also working on it).

For those curious, my math:
4 light years = 23514501500000 (2.35145015 x 10^13) miles
17,000 miles per hour would = 23514501500000 hours of travel
/24 = 97977089583.33 days
/365 = 2684303824.2009 years

2. Assuming we bumped into Marvin the Martian and Company on our way to Planet X, we are also assuming they have this technology themselves. Which is unlikely.

Recently it was theorized that by aiming lasers at a spaceship, one could propel such a craft most effectively
as it would not need to carry its own fuel. I suggest simply reflecting the light of the sun using mirrors and
orbiting magnifying glasses, as this would be a very cost-effective process. The magnifying glasses could be
just plastic filled with water. If an acceleration of 1g could be maintained for just a year, then we could
approach the velocity of light. This could yield results within a couple of decades.

Also, the mirrors can be used to power-up existing spacecraft like Voyager 1, who are beyond
normal solar power.

You aren't far off! In fact, they are theorizing and toying with the idea of putting high powered lasers on the moon (no atmosphere and all) and using that to power crafts in the way you are describing. Of course, this is all still theory. What isn't theory, however, is the Solar Sail! Using similar technologies that I think you might be referring to.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

In response to your question, I'm not sure if SpaceX has made any specific proposals as to how to deal with radioation outside of the Van Allen belt. The Astronauts of the Apollo missions went beyond the Van Allen belt and, due to the short duration of space flight, did not absorb much radiation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt

The Apollo mission also had the amazing rocket technology which did not leave a blast crater behind.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

This is one of the many valid criticisms of the presentation in regards to him downplaying the dangers of the radiation we would be exposed to. To answer your question, I haven't heard much from the Musk camp related to this. I assume they have some ideas but just didn't have enough allotted time.


You are operating under a few faulty assumptions:

1. That we could get an unmanned probe to stars that are not our own. The fastest we can get a satellite to go is ~17,000 miles per hour when it is in orbit. Not bad! Well until you remember the closest star to us that isn't our sun is Centauri B 4.3 light years away. Reminder, the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. If we crunch the numbers, my surface estimation is it would take that probe...2684303824.2009 Earth years to get there. Whew! Simply put, it isn't a feasible option unless we figure out how to travel at the speed of light (working on it) or figure out a way to communicate using light (also working on it).

For those curious, my math:
4 light years = 23514501500000 (2.35145015 x 10^13) miles
17,000 miles per hour would = 23514501500000 hours of travel
/24 = 97977089583.33 days
/365 = 2684303824.2009 years

2. Assuming we bumped into Marvin the Martian and Company on our way to Planet X, we are also assuming they have this technology themselves. Which is unlikely.


You aren't far off! In fact, they are theorizing and toying with the idea of putting high powered lasers on the moon (no atmosphere and all) and using that to power crafts in the way you are describing. Of course, this is all still theory. What isn't theory, however, is the Solar Sail! Using similar technologies that I think you might be referring to.

Yes, the solar sail uses the momentum of light much like a sailing boat uses the wind.
It is vastly superior than rockets which carry their own fuel; because, to move that fuel with
the rocket uses up the majority of the fuel~!

Lasers are a very expensive way of propelling the spacecraft, whereas using mirrors and
magnifying lenses to focus sunlight onto the craft would be massively cost effective.

Now putting lenses and mirrors in space is also quite expensive.
Building massive mirrors on Earth would reduce the costs by a far greater degree,
even if they are 50% as effective as a space mirror, their cost would easily be 5% or less.
So it is more than 10 times more efficient to simply focus sunlight from the Earth.

The spacecraft itself would be very small and cheap, so many could be sent.
Even if it weighed less than a kilogram, and was only the size of a parachute,
when one considers how much capacity a simple cell phone has, it will do the trick.

Unfortunately, the one big drawback is that its not as impressive and glamorous as other ideas.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Assuming we bumped into Marvin the Martian and Company on our way to Planet X, we are also assuming they have this technology themselves. Which is unlikely.

Every time someone suggests this, I go and look at the night sky and see how many stars I can count.
As far as likelihoods go, I am certain they're out there.
They're waiting for us to get mature enough.

 

[Quetzal]

Yes, the solar sail uses the momentum of light much like a sailing boat uses the wind.
It is vastly superior than rockets which carry their own fuel; because, to move that fuel with
the rocket uses up the majority of the fuel~!

Isn't that sweet! I love it!

Lasers are a very expensive way of propelling the spacecraft, whereas using mirrors and
magnifying lenses to focus sunlight onto the craft would be massively cost effective.

Hmm. You would have to keep them at optimum angles and on proper trajectories. A challenge for sure.

Now putting lenses and mirrors in space is also quite expensive.
Building massive mirrors on Earth would reduce the costs by a far greater degree,
even if they are 50% as effective as a space mirror, their cost would easily be 5% or less.
So it is more than 10 times more efficient to simply focus sunlight from the Earth.

My challenge for this idea is how do you deal with the mass amounts of space debris? The ISS has to make semi-regular adjustments to dodge objects as small as a fist. If you have something that large and it is a solid, it could be easily damaged. What do you think?

Unfortunately, the one big drawback is that its not as impressive and glamorous as other ideas.

In my opinion is has more to do with feasibility than cost. That is, I foresee more challenges than positive outcomes. But I could be wrong.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

SUPER DUPER WASTE OF MONEY AND RESOURCES.​

Not at all.

Currently, most people in the world have nothing better to do than to over-breed
which is why there is so much civil strife and warfare.

By focusing our attention on space-travel, we give people something better to do
than narcissistic-ally over-populating the planet.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Hmm. You would have to keep them at optimum angles and on proper trajectories. A challenge for sure.

The same technology that focuses a telescope already exists.
Just copy-paste.

My challenge for this idea is how do you deal with the mass amounts of space debris? The ISS has to make semi-regular adjustments to dodge objects as small as a fist. If you have something that large and it is a solid, it could be easily damaged. What do you think?

Using mirrors on the Earth to focus towards a craft well beyond the Earth would not be affected by space debris.

In my opinion is has more to do with feasibility than cost. That is, I foresee more challenges than positive outcomes. But I could be wrong.

The only major challenge is with selling the idea.
Nobody wanted to pay for communication satellites back in the 60's,
that is why they had to 'send a man to the moon'.
(nudge-nudge, wink-wink)

So I suppose if Mr musk 'sent a woman to Mars'
that could pay the bill.

;-j

 

[Quetzal]

Using mirrors on the Earth to focus towards a craft well beyond the Earth would not be affected by space debris.

OH I see, so the mirrors would be on the Earths surface?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

OH I see, so the mirrors would be on the Earths surface?

With current technology this would be the most cost-effective way.
They could be massive. There could be huge numbers of them.
There could be a whole fleet of spacecraft, as they are small, much like a cell-phone,
but with a large light-weight 'parachute' to sail them along.

The other added advantage, is that the mirrors and lenses,
can become a pretty effective 'death-ray', just in case
our spacecraft discovers a stray Vogon.

 

[Skwim]

Yes, the solar sail uses the momentum of light much like a sailing boat uses the wind.
It is vastly superior than rockets which carry their own fuel; because, to move that fuel with
the rocket uses up the majority of the fuel~!

Lasers are a very expensive way of propelling the spacecraft, whereas using mirrors and
magnifying lenses to focus sunlight onto the craft would be massively cost effective.

Now putting lenses and mirrors in space is also quite expensive.
Building massive mirrors on Earth would reduce the costs by a far greater degree,
even if they are 50% as effective as a space mirror, their cost would easily be 5% or less.
So it is more than 10 times more efficient to simply focus sunlight from the Earth.

The spacecraft itself would be very small and cheap, so many could be sent.
Even if it weighed less than a kilogram, and was only the size of a parachute,
when one considers how much capacity a simple cell phone has, it will do the trick.

Unfortunately, the one big drawback is that its not as impressive and glamorous as other ideas.

.​

 

[Smart_Guy]

Is it even confirmed yet we went to the moon, let alone going to Mars?

 

[Yerda]

The fastest we can get a satellite to go is ~17,000 miles per hour when it is in orbit.

That's interesting. Where does this number come from?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I sincerely hope as we move forward over the next few years that popular support continues to grow. Our current situation is very unique and I would like to tell you why. We have a company that has financial backing that is outside of public opinion. In other words, the majority of the country could be against SpaceX and they would still continue regardless. In comparison to NASA, when public support and interest started to drop, so did the funding. We have desperately needed space exploration to be outside of the reach of the government and for the first time we have it.

Another is that we have multiple companies who are competing to do the same thing. The Apollo missions are a testament as to why competition is a welcome thing. We were competing against the Soviets and we accomplished a great deal of advances and ultimately got to the Moon in a relatively short period of time.

Next, we have a very scientifically literate populace in comparison to previous generations. The ease of transferring information and learning has allowed anyone who is even remotely curious to learn about space travel. If we continue to support these fields of education, this will place more pressure on politicians to take more liberal action in the way of NASA budgets. I have always argued that if NASA had 1% of the military spending budget we would be on Mars already.

International agencies are also in the hunt in regards to space exploration. Namely the Chinese, Russians and Indian agencies. Each of these are making generous strides forward. China, for example, is in the progress of deploying a second space station for their astronauts. If they are successful, it will solidify their place in the top space agencies on Earth.

Do you work for SpaceX or are employed by the industry or some such? Because this sounds like an advertisement. Actually, most of your posts in this thread and elsewhere sound like advertisements.

 

[Acim]

I currently don't see a way around the idea (fact) that humans would likely exploit a planet in ways that would be damaging to the planet. I could see around 150 years from now science then showing how badly we impacted Mars by our earlier exploitations of the planet, seemingly zealous in our need to settle humanity there, when demonstrably at the time we hadn't bothered to clean up our mess on our home world.

Then there's the idea of us having warring nations and how that would likely carry over to whatever planet we go to next. So, say SpaceX goes there, then China follows suit. Are the inhabitants on that planet all living in harmony and singing kumbaya, or are there territorial and ideological battles occurring there?

Plus just the obvious things of SpaceX is doing it all wrong and needs to be criticized for that. And while that is me make specific accusation, I'm saying that whoever it is (could be all of us on the forum here) would be met with scrutiny by people who think they could do it so much better, to which I imagine they'd face equal amount of scrutiny from others. And on top of this is idea that if you are private group spending billions of dollars, then whatever you wish to do ought to be entirely up to you, rather than say a panel of governmental scientists. But this just goes back to the first point I brought up.

Honestly, the middle point is the one that I think is most concerning, but that I think is treated with kid gloves currently. I think it is assumed we would live in harmony and peace if it were another location besides earth. It humors me to consider this beyond 10 minutes of thought. Also is what good science fiction deals with, at least some of the time.

 

[Quetzal]

Do you work for SpaceX or are employed by the industry or some such? Because this sounds like an advertisement. Actually, most of your posts in this thread and elsewhere sound like advertisements.

Nope, sorry they come across as ads. Just something I am passionate about.