• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Overnight to Mars

Gord_in_Toronto

Penultimate Amazing
Gord_in_Toronto
Joined
Jul 22, 2006
Messages
26,457
Boney M sang about a Night Flight to Venus.

But how about 45 days to Mars?

Lasers Could Send Missions to Mars in Only 45 Days

https://www.universetoday.com/154487/lasers-could-send-missions-to-mars-in-only-45-days/

. . . a team of researchers from Montreal's McGill University assessed the potential of a laser-thermal propulsion system. According to their study, a spacecraft that relies on a novel propulsion system – where lasers are used to heat hydrogen fuel – could reduce transit times to Mars to just 45 days!
Click to expand...

The research was led by Emmanuel Duplay, a McGill graduate and current MSc Aerospace Engineering student at TU Delft. He was joined by Associate Professor Andrew Higgins and multiple researchers with the Department of Mechanical Engineering at McGill University.

Their study, titled "Design of a rapid transit to Mars mission using laser-thermal propulsion", was recently submitted to the journal Astronomy & Astronomy.

In recent years, directed-energy (DE) propulsion has been the subject of considerable research and interest. Examples include the Starlight program – also known as the Directed Energy Propulsion for Interstellar Exploration (DEEP-IN) and Directed Energy Interstellar Studies (DEIS) programs – developed by Prof. Phillip Lubin and the UCSB Experimental Cosmology Group (ECG).
Click to expand...

All that's left is engineering folks. Is this actually more feasible than having astronauts spend months in low gravity?
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
Boney M sang about a Night Flight to Venus.

But how about 45 days to Mars?

Lasers Could Send Missions to Mars in Only 45 Days

https://www.universetoday.com/154487/lasers-could-send-missions-to-mars-in-only-45-days/





All that's left is engineering folks. Is this actually more feasible than having astronauts spend months in low gravity?
Click to expand...

Well I am not sure that such a system is well suited for humans travelling to Mars since conventional rockets will still be needed for the return trip back to Earth.

However, perhaps this new propulsion system could work quite well for sending robotic explorers to Mars and/or sending supplies to humans who may be on Mars.
 
theprestige said:
We already have astronauts spending months in low gravity. This hasn't even been engineered yet. I'd call that less feasible pretty much by definition.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of reports that spending an extended length of time in zero gravity has all sorts of deleterious physical effects. See: https://www.space.com/spaceflight-destroys-red-blood-cells for one recent example.

A laser pointer powered spaceship is just a question of engineering and not medical science (hibernation anyone?).

Engineers have taken man to the Moon. Doctors can't even cure the common cold. :teacher:
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
There are plenty of reports that spending an extended length of time in zero gravity has all sorts of deleterious physical effects. See: https://www.space.com/spaceflight-destroys-red-blood-cells for one recent example.

A laser pointer powered spaceship is just a question of engineering and not medical science (hibernation anyone?).

Engineers have taken man to the Moon. Doctors can't even cure the common cold. : teacher :
Click to expand...

Doctors have eradicated polio and smallpox. They've pushed back the limits on premature birth and the death rate of most cancers. They've cured blindness, deafness, and even missing limbs. Engineers can't even figure out fusion reactors. Or bridges that don't fall down.

Anyway, my point is that the thing that has already been achieved is by definition more feasible than the thing that has not yet been achieved.

I dunno, maybe you meant more practical? Or medically more desirable? Or that it would be more feasible to make the trip faster than to solve the problems of long-term weightlessness? It's not my fault you communicated the idea poorly.
 
Last edited:
Gord_in_Toronto said:
All that's left is engineering folks. Is this actually more feasible than having astronauts spend months in low gravity?
Click to expand...

While it's a nice use case, I think getting a demonstration device going would be warranted before worrying about how it would affect any existing plans.

This is just a paper. We haven't built the lasers, we haven't built the focusing devices, we haven't built the receiver. The lasers seem conceptually the most straightforward part but even they need to be worked on.
 
Given that laser powered probes have been talked about in terms of interstellar missions quite a bit, I'm suprised I've not read about laser powered interplanetary missions before now.
 
"NASA and China plan to mount crewed missions to Mars in the next decade"

I thought Musk was going first? ;)
 
3point14 said:
Given that laser powered probes have been talked about in terms of interstellar missions quite a bit, I'm suprised I've not read about laser powered interplanetary missions before now.
Click to expand...

Interplanetary has real solutions, so the more speculative stuff doesn't get as much discussion. Interstellar is out of reach for anything we have, so speculation is where you start.
 
The Skeptics Guide to the Universe has spoken to a number of actual NASA astronauts and scientists, and had a couple of them speak at the most recent NECSS conference. When it comes to radiation in space, the only solution - the only possible solution - is to minimise your exposure. In other words, get there as fast as possible, spend as little time there as you can, and get back as fast as possible. Laser thermal propulsion is the fastest we've got, and the only thing standing in its way is engineering.
 
theprestige said:
Engineers can't even figure out fusion reactors. Or bridges that don't fall down.
Click to expand...
A few engineers figured out how to build a few bridges that haven't fallen down yet.
Building a bridge to Mars is more difficult, I think, but it might not need to hold up for quite so many centuries.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
Is this actually more feasible than having astronauts spend months in low gravity?
Click to expand...

If it actually works, absolutely.

Anything that could reduce the amount of time it takes to make the trip would be a huge boon.

I think a manned trip to Mars would face a lot of problems that say, astronauts on the International Space Station don't face. It's isn't only the time.

Unless somehow the inside of the spaceship is as large as the ISS, you are in a more claustrophobic space for one thing. You don't even have that friendly blue globe to look at when you look out the window. You don't have any protection from earth's magnetic field either (against radiation), once you get out into deep space beyond the moon.

The longest so far that any human has spent in space is 437 days. Last time I looked, I seem to recall that a round trip to Mars would take about 2 years at least. If you could somehow get it down to just 1 year, that would be easier on the people. Remember that it takes 26 months for Earth and Mars orbits to align. This is already longer than any person has spent in space on a single mission.

I haven't looked at the engineering problems with this sort of propulsion system, but I have thought about all sorts of problems with sending people to Mars. There was a Nova Horizon special from a few years ago that got me thinking about it. I thought at the time after watching that that we probably aren't going there anytime soon. There's still a lot more problems to be worked out before we can seriously plan an actual mission that isn't more than a pipe dream. In my opinion.

But, definitely if they can come up with a technology that could somehow make it there in 45 days, it would make the challenges for the human beings much easier to handle. Less food and water is also needed.
 
Interesting analysis, to me. But way above my head:

Space radiation is one of the main concerns in planning long-term human space missions. There are two main types of hazardous radiation: solar energetic particles (SEP) and galactic cosmic rays (GCR). The intensity and evolution of both depends on solar activity. GCR activity is most enhanced during solar minimum and lowest during solar maximum. The reduction of GCRs is alagging behind solar activity only by 6–12 month. SEP probability and intensity are maximized during solar maximum and are minimized during solar minimum. In this study, we combine models of the particle environment arising due to SEP and GCR with Monte Carlo simulations of radiation propagation inside a spacecraft and phantom. We include 28 fully ionized GCR elements from hydrogen to nickel and consider protons and nine ion species to model the SEP irradiation. Our calculations demonstrate that the optimal time for a flight to Mars would be launching the mission at solar maximum, and that the flight duration should not exceed approximately 4 years.
Click to expand...


Beating 1 Sievert: Optimal Radiation Shielding of Astronauts on a Mission to Mars
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021SW002749
 
That would be great. Then all the scientists would have to do is to heat up Mars and get rid of the oxalates in the soil and in the water. It can be done.

Could humans thrive there? Only time will tell.
 
GlennB said:
"NASA and China plan to mount crewed missions to Mars in the next decade"

I thought Musk was going first? ;)
Click to expand...

If NASA sends a manned mission to Mars, it will probably be on a SpaceX rocket. Is that what you meant?

It's very unlikely that any commercial mission to Mars would happen before NASA landed people there.

I doubt China gets there first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom