[Rugoz]

Going to the moon seemed like an impossible thing, too.

Tell me, where's that thriving lunar colony?

[Rich]

Mars Colony

Its pathetic, truly pathetic. But also amazing that intelligent people can believe in something so utterly stupid. Jesus if people think global warming's a problem, the environmental problems on Mars are a million times worse than the worst case scenario for global warming, and I mean literally a million times worse, there's no hyperbole in that statement.

The Earth is the only habitable body in the Solar system. Get over it!

[One Degree]

Mars Colony

Its pathetic, truly pathetic. But also amazing that intelligent people can believe in something so utterly stupid. Jesus if people think global warming's a problem, the environmental problems on Mars are a million times worse than the worst case scenario for global warming, and I mean literally a million times worse, there's no hyperbole in that statement.

The Earth is the only habitable body in the Solar system. Get over it!

If it is not possible today then it is not possible?
Human evolution has ended and no further changes are possible?
What is must always be?
There is no such thing as current projects developing self sustaining habitats?

[Rich]

Going to Mars over going to the Moon is like going to the Americas over crossing the English Channel. We'd been crossing the English channel since the English channel reappeared at the end of the last ice age. Colonisation of Britain from France was child's play. Not only have we failed to colonise the moon in the last forty plus years, we have failed to even return to the moon. And now you want to talk about going to Mars that is a hundred times further than a place the journey to which is so daunting that we have not gone back in forty years. Good grief we haven't even left low earth orbit.

Who knows where technology will lead if we don't destroy ourselves, but such idle speculation is no justification for wasting a single penny on Mars colonisation.

[Rugoz]

Good grief we haven't even left low earth orbit.

We haven't colonized LEO either.

I can personally understand why people are fascinated with spaceflight / space colonization, after all it's a hobby of mine . But I think people have been spoiled by sci-fi movies like the one posted before. They think space is beautiful but in reality it looks rather bland. With the exception of Earth itself from orbit of course.

For example, a true color picture of the Martian surface (how it would look like to colonists):



NASA usually shows a white-balanced version:

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Nice video, it gets some things wrong though:

Accuracy and realism is not the point of the video and it's clearly not about the present. I don't know why I have to tell you this.

Note Kaiserschmarrn is the guy who thinks it's too late to do something against global warming, while at the same time he believes in all this space colonization nonsense.

What a strange thing to say. This is not my idea and hence its credibility doesn't depend on my credentials.

Regarding the "it is too late" take it up with the scientists who have said so.

-----------------------------------------------

Transformation of Mars:

[Godstud]

I can definitely see the Conservatives here, who say it simply cannot be, and change shouldn't happen because it's impossible.

Yeah, sure. We don't have a lunar colony because of Apollo 13. The whole Space Race sort of got stalled there, and we went with an Orbiter(Shuttles), instead. Now, however, there is actually private organizations who see a future in space exploration, despite what the traditionalists think.

Yes, the video gets things wrong, but these are things we can work around, and not necessarily conquer straight on.

[Decky]

The moon landings were obviously faked. The Americans were annoyed the Soviets had beat them in everything else (first satellite, first man in space, first woman in space etc) they needed to manufacture something to save their national pride.

[Rugoz]

What a strange thing to say. This is not my idea and hence its credibility doesn't depend on my credentials.

Regarding the "it is too late" take it up with the scientists who have said so.

From what I remember you failed to make the case for more CO2 NOT leading to a warmer Earth beyond the 2° limit. You should be able to credibly defend others' ideas.

Transformation of Mars:

Oh dear. Don't get me started.

Yeah, sure. We don't have a lunar colony because of Apollo 13. The whole Space Race sort of got stalled there, and we went with an Orbiter(Shuttles), instead.

The Apollo program was canceled before Apollo 13. It fulfilled its purpose, namely to beat the Soviets to the Moon. As a result the NASA budget was cut substantially.

NASA went with the Shuttle because it was relatively affordable and promised to reduce to cost of access to space.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

From what I remember you failed to make the case for more CO2 NOT leading to a warmer Earth beyond the 2° limit.

I think you remember that wrong.

You should be able to credibly defend others' ideas.

I can let their statements stand on their own too if I choose, together with all the catastrophes that could have already happened.

Oh dear. Don't get me started.

Just remember it's not necessarily supposed to happen with today's technology and knowledge.

[Rugoz]

I think you remember that wrong.

Nah I remember that correctly. There's no reason why a higher CO2 concentration should not lead to higher global temperature.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Whatever you and I remember, remind me what it has to do with the viability of space exploration and colonisation in the future. It's the plans of NASA and Musk/Spacex and their credentials that are relevant here. You and everybody else are of course welcome to question the feasibility, especially considering the short time frames we are talking about, but whether I endorse it or not should hopefully be irrelevant to anybody reading this thread.

In other news, NASA is looking into "hibernation" during space travel (in the future, just in case anybody is confused about that):

'Passengers' and the real-life science of deep space travel

From "Aliens" to "Interstellar," Hollywood has long used suspended animation to overcome the difficulties of deep space travel, but the once-fanciful sci-fi staple is becoming scientific fact. The theory is that a hibernating crew could stay alive over vast cosmic distances, requiring little food, hydration or living space, potentially slashing the costs of interstellar missions and eradicating the boredom of space travel. But the technology has always been unattainable outside the fertile imaginations of filmmakers from Woody Allen and Ridley Scott to James Cameron and Christopher Nolan—until now. Atlanta-based Spaceworks Enterprises is using a $500,000 grant from NASA to leverage techniques used on brain trauma and heart attack patients to develop "low metabolic stasis" for missions to Mars and the asteroid belt. "It takes about six months to get out to Mars... There are a lot of demands, a lot of support equipment required to keep people alive even during that period," said SpaceWorks CEO John Bradford. The aerospace engineer told a panel in Los Angeles marking the release Wednesday of "Passengers," the latest movie to explore suspended animation, that his company was adapting the medical technique of induced hypothermia to astronautics. Hospitals lower the core temperature of trauma patients by around 10 degrees Farenheit (12C) to achieve a 70 percent reduction in metabolism, although they are "shut down" for a couple of days rather than the months astronauts would need. "We're evaluating it. We think it's medically possible," Bradford told journalists.

Hard science

Morten Tyldum's "Passengers" stars Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence as strangers on a 120-year journey to the distant colony of Homestead II when their hibernation pods wake them 90 years too early. While the research being done by SpaceWorks could make 180-day journeys to Mars much more affordable, the technology is not capable—not yet—of extending human life to allow for the thousands of years required to reach our next nearest star. Even at the relatively small Mars-like distances, "induced torpor" is not without its challenges, says Bradford, especially on short missions where astronauts have little time to recover after being woken from stasis. "You're going to be tired. In this process, you're not really sleeping, your body doesn't enter a (rapid eye movement) state," said Bradford. "If we look at animal hibernators, they will actually come out of hibernation to sleep and then go back into hibernation." "Passengers" screenwriter Jon Spaihts says he found himself running into tensions between the dramatic requirements of the movie and "hard science" when it came to designing his hibernation pods. Neither induced torpor nor any of its most realistic alternatives are "states in which Sleeping Beauty in her bed would look particularly gorgeous," he said.

Distant worlds

"The hibernation in this movie is a little more magical just because we need people to look cute in those pods. People floating in a sea of sludge or frozen like popsicles are a little less romantic." The idea of finding a sufficiently Earthlike planet or moon in the sterile vastness of space is another problem on which science has made giant progress in recent years. Before 1989 humanity was aware of just nine planets in the universe—those orbiting our own sun—but scientists have since identified some 3,545 "exoplanets" in 2,660 solar systems. "To have kids wake up these days and think there are thousands and thousands of planets out there, that's a crazy thing to grow up with—knowing there's probably life on these distant worlds," said Tiffany Kataria, a weather specialist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. NASA says the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite, launching in 12 months, will seek out yet more new worlds among the galaxy's brightest stars, where the discovery of Earthling-friendly planets is deemed more likely. A year later, the James Webb Space Telescope will launch on a mission to provide the clearest picture yet of the chemical composition of interesting exoplanets. So what are the odds of finding a planet with the right atmosphere, roughly the same gravity and protection from radiation—a real-life version of the Homestead II depicted in "Passengers?" "We simply don't know. It must be out there," says Kataria.

Reminds me of the Qeng Ho.

[Godstud]

The moon landings were obviously faked.

It's too bad you can see the equpiment they left on the moon, with a decent telescope, or that might be a possibility. It's not.

http://www.space.com/12835-nasa-apollo- ... s-lro.html

[Rugoz]

I suggest keeping the crew in hibernation for the entire mission and let Earth-controlled rovers do the work. That would maximize the science return per dollar spent.

It's the plans of NASA and Musk/Spacex and their credentials that are relevant here.

NASA doesn't have plans for space colonization. When it comes to flags & footprints missions to Mars NASA always had some plans starting with the Von Braun Mars Expedition back in 1969. None of NASA's plans were ever realized due to the lack of funding.

As for SpaceX, well, I wish them luck.

[Decky]

NASA are the people with the most to gain from propping that myth up Godstud, you think I trust them?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I suggest keeping the crew in hibernation for the entire mission and let Earth-controlled rovers do the work. That would maximize the science return per dollar spent.

if we have both robots and humans on site we get the best of both worlds.

NASA doesn't have plans for space colonization. When it comes to flags & footprints missions to Mars NASA always had some plans starting with the Von Braun Mars Expedition back in 1969. None of NASA's plans were ever realized due to the lack of funding.

Then we should all hope that there will be more funding in the future! As far as I know even the public supports it.

[foxdemon]

I can definitely see the Conservatives here, who say it simply cannot be, and change shouldn't happen because it's impossible.

Yeah, sure. We don't have a lunar colony because of Apollo 13. The whole Space Race sort of got stalled there, and we went with an Orbiter(Shuttles), instead. Now, however, there is actually private organizations who see a future in space exploration, despite what the traditionalists think.

Yes, the video gets things wrong, but these are things we can work around, and not necessarily conquer straight on.

Well, if you have a close look some of the conservatives and some of the progressives are saying it can't be done. And some conservatives and progressives are saying it can be done.

Whatever you and I remember, remind me what it has to do with the viability of space exploration and colonisation in the future. It's the plans of NASA and Musk/Spacex and their credentials that are relevant here. You and everybody else are of course welcome to question the feasibility, especially considering the short time frames we are talking about, but whether I endorse it or not should hopefully be irrelevant to anybody reading this thread.

In other news, NASA is looking into "hibernation" during space travel (in the future, just in case anybody is confused about that):

Reminds me of the Qeng Ho.

Hibernation would make a big difference in bringing down ship size. Mass means more thrust. More thrust means more fuel. I don't think people have a realistic idea of just how big a ship would need to be to sustain even a small team for 200 days in space and back again. But low metabolism would save a lot of life support resources.

Back to the gravity and cosmic radiation issues. The ship, even with hibernating crew, would still need artifical gravity. Sci fi often has a section of the ship rotating on the axis to create gravity through centrifugal force. I have never understood why they don't just spin the whole ship. Spaceship design doesn't have to follow Earth bound preconceptions. However, maybe there would be some utility in having a central core in weightlessness.

This spin could be used to create the magnetic field to provide shielding from cosmic radiation by designing the ship as a big electric motor. Cosmic radiation is charged, which is why magnetic fields can deflect those particles.

None the less, such a vessel would be testing our engineering skills and our technology. It would be no small project. It would have to be government supported. Umm, and assembled in orbit. Too big by far to launch, even with hibernation to reduce overall ship size.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Hibernation would make a big difference in bringing down ship size. Mass means more thrust. More thrust means more fuel. I don't think people have a realistic idea of just how big a ship would need to be to sustain even a small team for 200 days in space and back again. But low metabolism would save a lot of life support resources.

You are right, it would save a lot of resources and space. As for the size, Spacex's plan looks like this. The spaceship is roughly the top third.

Back to the gravity and cosmic radiation issues. The ship, even with hibernating crew, would still need artifical gravity. Sci fi often has a section of the ship rotating on the axis to create gravity through centrifugal force. I have never understood why they don't just spin the whole ship. Spaceship design doesn't have to follow Earth bound preconceptions. However, maybe there would be some utility in having a central core in weightlessness.

This spin could be used to create the magnetic field to provide shielding from cosmic radiation by designing the ship as a big electric motor. Cosmic radiation is charged, which is why magnetic fields can deflect those particles.

None the less, such a vessel would be testing our engineering skills and our technology. It would be no small project. It would have to be government supported. Umm, and assembled in orbit. Too big by far to launch, even with hibernation to reduce overall ship size.

As far as I know, no artificial gravity is planned and I haven't come across any details re radiation. They want to get the travel time down to at most 3 months.

It's going to be launched from Cape Canaveral. The spaceship will separate from the booster and wait for refueling in Earth's orbit. The booster will return to Earth a few times, where it's fitted with a "tanker" which contains the fuel, and the tanker and the spaceship meet up for refueling. The spaceship is also supposed to be able to launch from Mars, so there will be a return trip.

[Rugoz]

You are right, it would save a lot of resources and space. As for the size, Spacex's plan looks like this. The spaceship is roughly the top third.

It's going to be launched from Cape Canaveral. The spaceship will separate from the booster and wait for refueling in Earth's orbit. The booster will return to Earth a few times, where it's fitted with a "tanker" which contains the fuel, and the tanker and the spaceship meet up for refueling. The spaceship is also supposed to be able to launch from Mars, so there will be a return trip.

- ITS is a hyper ambitious design at this point. Ridiculously low dry mass and highest performing rocket engine ever. NASA-designed Mars landers perform FAR worse, even though they're actually simpler (expendable, no propulsion/tanks for ascent). SpaceX' success so far is based on using proven and reliable technology, where they have not followed that principle (i.e. COPVs in LOX tank, subcooled propellant) they're having problems (2 explosions already). I honestly feel they're going into the wrong direction.
- The rocket is so big that it's questionable whether it can launch from the Cape.
- Multiple tanker flights are required to refuel ITS in orbit.
- Chemical propulsion is not the right in-space propulsion technology for Mars colonization, at least not in the long term. It's not efficient enough. MW-class electric propulsion is certainly technically feasible and would drastically reduce IMLEO.

[foxdemon]

The SpaceX plan isn't realistic. It does serve the purpose of firing the public's imagination.

Rugoz is right bout electric propulsion. Chemical fuel is too bulky. But we are back to the problem of a power source. With current technology the best option would be multiple fission reactors.

To illustrate a mission profile, first there would be a number of automated missions to deliver and assemble orbital station and surface facilities. The humans would come later in a sizeable vessel which would be assembled in orbit. It might be an idea to have two such vessels for safety.

They would use transfer orbits, the best time to launch is when Mars and Earth get to their closest points in their own orbits.

Later, further automated missions would deliver supplies and equipment.

So sending people to Mars, even temporarily, would be an enormous project involving many unmanned spacecraft as well as one or two manned spacecraft. The mission would be spread over years, maybe decades.

Still, I think it would be worth it due to the drive on technical progress and the inspiration it would give to future generations. However, such an enormous project would be government funded, posssibly international. If the US, Russia, Europe and various Asian countries got together, it might be doable.