How to get to Mars

[Quetzal]

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?

Let's get there first before we try to doomsday it with the prediction of an armed take over of another planet.

Plus just the obvious things of SpaceX is doing it all wrong and needs to be criticized for that.

I disagree, but please list any and all sources of personal credibility that would lead you to such conclusions.

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.

Right but you have no idea what it would take it make it happen. The government agencies have had YEARS since Apollo to find research to get to Mars and they haven't done it.

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.

This entire paragraph is a big problem with public perception of space exploration. They are arm chair, keyboard warriors who could never pull anything like this off by their own design and yet seek to criticize those who do. Tell you what. invest billions, create a multi-launch manifest, do some R&D, build your own frameworks to get the Mars and then I will maybe take this post seriously.

 

[Quetzal]

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

Some advanced math over my head. Again, this is orbital speed which was all I could accurately find for a comparison. Here is where I found it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed

 

[Yerda]

Some advanced math over my head. Again, this is orbital speed which was all I could accurately find for a comparison. Here is where I found it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed

I see it. That's the speed an object would have to move to stay in orbit at the surface of the Earth (at the equator).

The maths isn't as hard to understand as you might think. If you scroll down the page to where it says

[Well, I don't know how to get the image to display but the equation I mean is the one that says: Orbital speed, v, is roughly equal to the square root of (GM/r)]

That's a shorthand formula for the orbital speed when the mass of the orbiting object is negligible (compared to the object being orbited).

G is the gravitational constant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant),

M will be the mass of the Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_mass),

and r is the distance from the focus of the orbit which is the centre of the Earth in this case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius#Equatorial_radius).

If you stick the numbers on those wiki pages into a calculator you get back roughly 7905 m/s as per the listing in the table. Nifty, eh?

Anyway, beyond the basic principles I know nothing of space flight but I reckon with a small constant acceleration you could get a manned probe to go much faster than that. It would still take ages to get to the nearest star but maybe not so long as you calculated earlier. I'm not trying to be nitpicky, I find this stuff fascinating.

 

[Quetzal]

Anyway, beyond the basic principles I know nothing of space flight but I reckon with a small constant acceleration you could get a manned probe to go much faster than that. It would still take ages to get to the nearest star but maybe not so long as you calculated earlier. I'm not trying to be nitpicky, I find this stuff fascinating.

You are probably right. I love this stuff and I do need to look a bit deeper into our current limitations for speed in space.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The technology exists to have humans on Mars today. We aren't there because NASA is way too cautious in it's approach to human spaceflight. Their current plan is an astronomical waste of resources and time. SpaceX will probably beat them there - or some other private company.

We won't be establishing colonies on Mars because the infrastructure needed to relaunch anything more than a feeble payload is nonexistent.

We do need to go, however, because the answers that geologists and biologists can ascertain in just a few minutes on the surface have the potential to forever change human history. All it takes is one trip, and we will know.

 

[Quetzal]

We won't be establishing colonies on Mars because the infrastructure needed to relaunch anything more than a feeble payload is nonexistent.

This is a fair criticism and from what I could tell that is going to take up a lot of the R&D funding. But you are right, as of today the best we can do is recover a stage one after a small payload (relative to proposed Mars payloads, anyway). That isn't good enough.

 

[jonathan180iq]

This is a fair criticism and from what I could tell that is going to take up a lot of the R&D funding. But you are right, as of today the best we can do is recover a stage one after a small payload (relative to proposed Mars payloads, anyway). That isn't good enough.

Not just that, but three guys on Mars with only a handful of tools will never be able to solve problems that would arise...

For colonization to be a worthwhile thought experiment, you're going to need hundreds of people landing at the same time, with manufacturing and processing plants sent with them... It will be achievement unlike anything mankind has ever done - and it will require a level of unification and organization that I think, sadly, just don't think we are capable of.

Are you familiar with the Mars Direct plan?

 

[Quetzal]

Not just that, but three guys on Mars with only a handful of tools will never be able to solve problems that would arise...

That's true, I think the SpaceX model has ~100 folks heading out on their first proposed mission.

For colonization to be a worthwhile thought experiment, you're going to need hundreds of people landing at the same time, with manufacturing and processing plants sent with them... It will be achievement unlike anything mankind has ever done - and it will require a level of unification and organization that I think, sadly, just don't think we are capable of.

Exactly, I think for that to be possible we would have to send supplies ahead of time. (See: Red Dragon Spacecraft) At any rate, I envision it being similar to the movie "The Martian" (Great movie and book, I recommend them both). In the movie, they send entire payloads to Mars months/years ahead of the astronauts. As far as organization, a huge undertaking for sure. I think if we can get enough people excited about and come together under the same flag, maybe. We will see. I do think this is a less talked about problem that does need to be addressed.

Are you familiar with the Mars Direct plan?

I wasn't aware of the name, but does my previous paragraph speak to that model? It seems similar. That is, sending what is needed over multiple launches over a longer timeline.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I wasn't aware of the name, but does my previous paragraph speak to that model? It seems similar. That is, sending what is needed over multiple launches over a longer timeline.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/376589main_04 - Mars Direct Power Point-7-30-09.pdf

This was a rejected model for reaching Mars within a reasonable timeline and on a budget. The technology already exists. They created a fuel processing unit using scrap material in the back of a warehouse. It all works.

EDIT: And yes. Andy Weir said he used Mars Direct as his model for his novel.

 

[Quetzal]

This was a rejected model for reaching Mars within a reasonable timeline and on a budget.

Why was it rejected?

 

[Acim]

Let's get there first before we try to doomsday it with the prediction of an armed take over of another planet.


I disagree, but please list any and all sources of personal credibility that would lead you to such conclusions.


Right but you have no idea what it would take it make it happen. The government agencies have had YEARS since Apollo to find research to get to Mars and they haven't done it.


This entire paragraph is a big problem with public perception of space exploration. They are arm chair, keyboard warriors who could never pull anything like this off by their own design and yet seek to criticize those who do. Tell you what. invest billions, create a multi-launch manifest, do some R&D, build your own frameworks to get the Mars and then I will maybe take this post seriously.

All fair responses. I accept the idea of us trying to get there successfully and do not see it as a waste. I'm thinking just a bit down the road. Like flying on an airplane from one continent to the next is for many still a work of engineering genius and for others (seemingly a majority) taken for granted, worthy of complaints on several levels and/or in general, under appreciated for what that entails. Right now, getting to Mars is a wonder of science, and fascinating for I think overwhelming majority. If/when it becomes a commercial venture or governmental competition to set up camp there, I think the attitude will shift, which is what I was trying to convey. Really most things science related after awhile (say 100 years) are taken for granted or are in (ambiguous) category of shadowy conspiracy type domain, where government(s) are pulling strings to keep the masses in the dark.