• 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

the question, as always is whether speed is worth the extra fuel: if you have to accelerate and decelerate for longer, that means you have less room for payload.
 
Crossbow said:
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.
Click to expand...
How difficult would it be to send a laser to mars orbit to power a return flight?

I also wonder whether the system could be bi-directional, does the heated fuel have to vent in the same direction as the laser is coming in? Could the fuel vent in the opposite direction so it can slow the craft and allow return flight? The idea of relying on atmospheric breaking seems unrealistic. I am not sure if they envisage a direct landing or whether they think atmospheric breaking would be sufficient to allow the craft to then enter Mars orbit.

My model has been to place the return vessel / engine, Mars orbiter and Mars lander in place before the manned mission, then launch a rapid transit vessel which only needs to carry people, because everything else is already in place. This system might help, because you would only need a 'conventional' rocket for breaking into Mars orbit with the propulsion away from earth being externally delivered.
 
arthwollipot said:
Consider it me agreeing with you. Or maybe I just skim-read the thread and commented where I felt like it.
Click to expand...
Problem with the internet, it always feels like folks are responding with "No but..." even when they are yes anding.

That being said, I think we should be working on moon and mars colonization because of the problem of giant meteors, super volcanoes and such. But its clearly a long term thing, we should be spending a small amount of resources and get there likely a few generations. I also think the engineering stuff is even now mostly a problem of spending enough money, the medical issues are currently a bigger stumbling block. Afterall, we have gotten physical objects to mars we really have no good way of getting people there that doesn't mean they will probably die there or even on the way.

Short version, if we throw enough money at the problem we could get people to mars in a decade with current tech. I don't think we can do so with out them getting cancer, radiation sickness, or all health problems of long periods of weightlessness.
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
That being said, I think we should be working on moon and mars colonization because of the problem of giant meteors, super volcanoes and such.
Click to expand...
Gonna evacuate 10 billions of people to the Moon and Mars then?
 
ahhell said:
Nope, enough to ensure life continues or yes over 100s of years.
Click to expand...
That can be achieved much more easily here on Earth. I know Dr Strangelove was comedy, but many deep mines could be constructed in a fraction of the time and at much less cost. Vast amounts of survival stuff would easily be placed down there, compared to the cost/time/difficulty of getting such to Mars.
'Lifeboat Mars' is an insane concept.
 
Like I said, we should low key work on it, I'm not saying to bankrupt society and get it done now or what not. It's like having a diversified investment portfolio. As far as we know, life has investment in single asset, the Earth. I think we should diversify in a responsible way.
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
But its clearly a long term thing, we should be spending a small amount of resources and get there likely a few generations. I also think the engineering stuff is even now mostly a problem of spending enough money, the medical issues are currently a bigger stumbling block. Afterall, we have gotten physical objects to mars we really have no good way of getting people there that doesn't mean they will probably die there or even on the way.
Click to expand...
Logically there's no reason to rush. But I agree with making it a long-term plan. Robots first is probably the way to go. There's no reason to send humans immediately. Instead, send robots to establish bases first and only later send people once there's already a place for them to live reasonable lives.
 
ahhell said:
Problem with the internet, it always feels like folks are responding with "No but..." even when they are yes anding.

That being said, I think we should be working on moon and mars colonization because of the problem of giant meteors, super volcanoes and such.
Click to expand...

As far as I can see, the colonies on the Moon and Mars will die very quickly after any major disaster on Earth.

Without Earth providing all the resources they need, they're done, it's only a matter of time.

Similarly, any time that Earth decides it can't afford the incredibly large amounts of money the colonies will cost to keep supplied, the colonies are done.
 
I've mentioned this before, but science fiction colonies always rely on some combination of magic technology to exist.

i.e.

Magic unlimited free fuel.
Magic unlimited free resources.
Magic faster than light travel.
Magic faster than light communications.

Fans will remember "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" about a lunar colony, but I can assure you that real logistics makes 'The Moon' look like a sweet summer child by comparison.

:)

Before anyone points to the asteroid belt as a source of resources, let me remind you, it is cheaper to get from the Earth to Mars and back, than it is to get between any two objects in the belt. Resources in the asteroid belt are EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE than resources from Earth.
 
Puppycow said:
Logically there's no reason to rush. But I agree with making it a long-term plan. Robots first is probably the way to go. There's no reason to send humans immediately. Instead, send robots to establish bases first and only later send people once there's already a place for them to live reasonable lives.
Click to expand...
The word 'robot' there is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

Robots to fix the robots that break down? Or just plenty of spare robots?

Interesting to note that in 14 years of operation Opportunity Rover travelled 28 miles and did only very light work. A Mars colony, even the bare bones of one, will require digging and transport of ice, construction of habs for later human use and other forms of heavy work.

What will power all this? Solar panels? Well, a dust storm did for Opportunity so we'll need robots to clean away dust from them too.
 
GlennB said:
The word 'robot' there is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

Robots to fix the robots that break down? Or just plenty of spare robots?

Interesting to note that in 14 years of operation Opportunity Rover travelled 28 miles and did only very light work. A Mars colony, even the bare bones of one, will require digging and transport of ice, construction of habs for later human use and other forms of heavy work.

What will power all this? Solar panels? Well, a dust storm did for Opportunity so we'll need robots to clean away dust from them too.
Click to expand...

Windscreen wipers? (technically a robot, maybe?)
 
GlennB said:
The word 'robot' there is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

Robots to fix the robots that break down? Or just plenty of spare robots?

Interesting to note that in 14 years of operation Opportunity Rover travelled 28 miles and did only very light work. A Mars colony, even the bare bones of one, will require digging and transport of ice, construction of habs for later human use and other forms of heavy work.

What will power all this? Solar panels? Well, a dust storm did for Opportunity so we'll need robots to clean away dust from them too.
Click to expand...
These are all fair points. I don't know if we have the robot tech up to the level to enable this yet. But that's why I'm saying that there really is no hurry to send humans to Mars on a permanent basis. If the point of going to Mars is to have some sort of backup plan for humanity in case life on earth becomes impossible for some reason in the very long term, it could be centuries in the future, maybe even millennia.

My reason for wanting to send robots first is so that there can be some sort of "there" there when we do finally send humans for any sort of permanent settlement. Solar panels could be part of it. Maybe some sort of nuclear power source too. If you build a solar array, where the robots can come to charge their batteries when needed, maybe that's part of the basic infrastructure. Charge up and then go back to work building habitats and other necessary infrastructure. Maybe farms (probably inside some kind of greenhouse building(s)). The point is to have everything necessary for permanent settlement without needing more supplies from earth already prepared when the first humans arrive. And it could take a long time to reach that point.
 
Puppycow said:
These are all fair points. I don't know if we have the robot tech up to the level to enable this yet. But that's why I'm saying that there really is no hurry to send humans to Mars on a permanent basis. If the point of going to Mars is to have some sort of backup plan for humanity in case life on earth becomes impossible for some reason in the very long term, it could be centuries in the future, maybe even millennia.

My reason for wanting to send robots first is so that there can be some sort of "there" there when we do finally send humans for any sort of
permanent settlement. Solar panels could be part of it. Maybe some sort of nuclear power source too. If you build a solar array, where the robots can come to charge their batteries when needed, maybe that's part of the basic infrastructure. Charge up and then go back to work building habitats and other necessary infrastructure. Maybe farms (probably inside some kind of greenhouse building(s)). The point is to have everything necessary for permanent settlement without needing more supplies from earth already prepared when the first humans arrive. And it could take a long time to reach that point.
Click to expand...
Of the highlighted - are you picturing a self-sufficient colony? If so, it will need to be able to manufacture each and every essential item. Batteries, microprocessors, metals, plastics, fabrics ... and all from local materials.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom