You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Not the bar, the planet.
Why the interest in going such a long way, rather than at least start with setting some sort of living modules on the Moon.
I would think anyone going to Mars wouldn't be coming back.
So why the rush or need to go there.
Because we can('t, yet.)
Why the interest in going such a long way, rather than at least start with setting some sort of living modules on the Moon.
I thought the idea was get to the Moon again, as it maybe possible to get to Mars from there, rather than Earth?
Or have I just been reading crappy SciFi?
Why the interest in going such a long way, rather than at least start with setting some sort of living modules on the Moon.
Because despite his valiant attempts to fix it, Elon Musk still has much more money than sense.
Because Mars is the planet most like Earth. And the only one there’s even a small chance of establishing a base on. The Moon is a staging post to get there.
The pyramid mines.
Because despite his valiant attempts to fix it, Elon Musk still has much more money than sense.
And he's a massive egotist who just wants the bragging rights of being first to Mars.
We're going back to the moon, so it's not an "either" situation.
Why Mars? It's (relatively) close.
Peanut allergy?
Sorry 😉
Why not concentrate on fixing up earth. That’s my main issue with it. If these super rich fools insist on rockets then they can clean up all the shit floating around just outside of our atmosphere.
@funkmasterp totally agree, they seem to forget that they are already on the best place for human life and need us to consume crap to enable them to live out their childish fantasies.
Space travel is fascinating, but at what cost?
I love the stories around the space race in the 50s and 60s, but Gil Scott Heron nailed it with Whitey On The Moon, and unfortunately it still holds today.
We’re going back to the moon, so it’s not an “either” situation.
But Artemis 2 isn’t going for another 18 months, and even then that’s orbiting the moon rather than landing. Furthest Canadian from earth though.
As an aside we’re at the National Space Centre in Leicester today - it’s really good.
Why not concentrate on fixing up earth.
This is a constant argument against funding long-term science research. I don't know if a Mars mission is the best use of money, but spending money on understanding other planets will have benefits to how we understand the world we live in.
There are also spin-off technological benefits. This is a mountain bike forum. The technologies used to produce mountain bikes are mostly derived from aerospace research done in the Cold War. Research on aluminium alloys, welding, heat treating, carbon fibre, etc. Same with laptop computers, tablets, smartphones, etc. Pushing the boundaries of technology with aerospace projects has spin offs for consumer technology too.
The most important thing is that it's not really a choice between doing one or the other. It's possible to do both. We can work on sustainable environmental technology on Earth and also work on space research at the same time.
Edit: And I don't interpret Whitey on the Moon as an anti-space program poem. To me the point is that a country that can afford a space program can also afford to fund social programmes. They aren't exclusive.
This is a mountain bike forum.
Is it? 😮
Is it?
It's a forum for people who own mountain bikes, I guess.
Okay, one last try.
Its a forum pretending to be, at least in some small part, for people with an occasional passing interest in some form of cycling.
Why not concentrate on fixing up earth.
We "should" already be doing that. I dont see Space Exploration really making much of a difference tbh, not compared to all the other shit we should be doing at both governmental and individual levels.
Just out of idle curiosity, some lazily Googled figures suggest the Artemis Lunar programme is forecast to cost less than HS2.
If these super rich fools insist on rockets then they can clean up all the shit floating around just outside of our atmosphere.
It's far harder to fix Earth's problems than send a few people to Mars.
This is a constant argument against funding long-term science research.
It's a constant argument against everything and it's bogus. It's what speeding drivers say to the police, "why aren't you out catching real criminals?" See also, racists and foreign aid. Should I stop raising money for a local charity because cancer still exists?
Sometimes the small stuff is more worthwhile. As hols says, the space race massively drove forward innovation. Space exploration still does. Framing going to the Moon / Mars in isolation as "well, we went there, so what?" is tremendously myopic.
Just out of idle curiosity, some lazily Googled figures suggest the Artemis Lunar programme is forecast to cost less than HS2.
It's also more likely to be completed. 😁
If you want to do research, send more unmanned probes.
Sending humans is a vanity project.
Sending humans to start a "colony" is total bullshit that only someone like Musk would think was a good use of resources.
It’s a constant argument against everything and it’s bogus.
it isn’t what I’m arguing at all. These people have enough money and resources to genuinely make a huge difference to the planet. Instead they’re doing the opposite. The Carbon and Carbon equivalents associated with their space based endeavours are massive. Doing nothing would be less harmful than what Musk and his ilk are doing.
We had the spectacle of Musk putting on his solemn face a while back and opining about the future of mankind in the event of some civilization-ending event, and how only his incredible genius and vision could save humanity from this disaster by setting up a colony on Mars.
I would like to know exactly how many people who are not billionaire chums of Musk or their trophy wives (because they are all male and white of course) would be on that space ship in the event of an incoming comet.
I am confident I would not get a place.
So for the vast majority of mankind, you can look forward to a fiery death.
Thanks, but no thanks. Let's just increase taxes for people with too much money by far.
It is a bit of "because it's there" really. There is not practical purpose for sending people to Mars with current technology. It would be a one way trip and would be a shit life and death for the people who went.
Much better to send unmanned probes as things stand.
The technology that would make it feasible:
(1) Space elevators - to transport materials to space to allow a big enough space station to assemble, fuel and act as launch for mars craft
(2) New form of propulsion that isn't burning huge amounts of chemicals
Pretty pointless without those in place.
I guess you can build a big enough rocket to get people there and land a lander - but it would require huge amounts of fuel for anything on human scale and to get that off the surface of the earth is unlikely to be viable in one go. So ferry the fuel and Mars craft into orbit in lots of bits - assemble in space - massively challenging. Travel to Mars - leave a huge orbiter and land a lander with capability of sustaining human life. Then is it even vaguely plausible that the Mars lander could have enough fuel to land enough and take off again - and the orbiter would need huge amounts of fuel for the return journey. Can't see it with current technology
If you did expend the money and build the craft capable of this - to what end? There is no commercial value. Nobody would really want to live on Mars it would be grim - hunkered down in some tiny biosphere.
I really wish space travel was possible - if paddling in the pool of our nearest solar system neighbours can be called space travel - but there are really some big basic steps that need to be put in place before even that is feasible on any sort of scale
Just out of idle curiosity, some lazily Googled figures suggest the Artemis Lunar programme is forecast to cost less than HS2.
NASA v Tories?
Sending humans to start a “colony” is total bullshit that only someone like Musk would think was a good use of resources.
I think it's a great use of resources if one of the colonists is Musk himself.
it isn’t what I’m arguing at all. These people have enough money and resources to genuinely make a huge difference to the planet. Instead they’re doing the opposite.
Sure. But (again, as hols said) they could do both, one does not preclude the other.
We need to increase our presence on other planets in the solar system to ensure humanity’s survival. Having all your eggs in one basket is a bad survival strategy. Plus all the other benefits mentioned above.
It would be a one way trip and would be a shit life and death for the people who went.
Are you in possession of evidence that the agencies involved are knowingly planning to send Astronauts on a suicide mission to Mars?
Are you in possession of evidence that the agencies involved are knowingly planning to send Astronauts on a suicide mission to Mars
Isn't that the premise of the original post
(2) New form of propulsion that isn’t burning huge amounts of chemicals
To me, this is the biggest thing that's got to be overcome. It takes about 9 months to get to Mars and when you think Voyager 2 was launched in 1977 and only entered into interstellar space in 2018 traveling at around 35,000mph we ain't going very far soon.
We need to increase our presence on other planets in the solar system to ensure humanity’s survival. Having all your eggs in one basket is a bad survival strategy. Plus all the other benefits mentioned above.
But there are not the basic conditions for living on other planets. I don't really understand this argument. If we can develop the technology to actually create a tolerable life on other planets (or moons) then anything we are likely to do to earth will be still make earth the much more attractive option.
I just don't get it - the idea of any vaguely viable and self sustaining colony outside earth ,- let alone one you would want to live on is just not really feasible at the moment.
funkmasterp
Full MemberWhy not concentrate on fixing up earth.
They're 100% compatible. The only reason we're not fixing up earth is choice, space travel makes absolutely no difference to it whatsoever. It's the same as "why don't we help our own homeless veterans before we help refugees", te answer is "because we don't want to". The amount of resources used for space travel don't even register.
But there's some really strong synergies to be had. Basically, humans tend to do our best work in an absolute crisis, and our worst when the crisis is still 5 minutes away. And the thing about Mars and the Moon and space in general is, it's kinda always a crisis. So the things we learn about living in and changing unsuitable environments there, will sometimes be really useful when we have to live in unsuitable environments here.
And the other thing is, it's one of the best places for emerging/disruptive technologies, just because so much on earth is really mature and well developed and kind of tapped out. Whereas the arguments for space travel have gone from "uh, really cool pens? Because it's there?" to "I have GPS in my pocket all the time" and just absolutely tons of material science improvements, and loads of unpredictable things. Like, the eye-tracking tech developed for weightlessness research underpins the laser surgery kit they used when my eye popped, it likely wouldn't have been developed for that reason but it made it possible. See also biosignature sensors and artificial pancreases, better solar, cat scans and mris... Nothing absolutely had to have been developed for space use, it could all theoretically have been developed here, but space gave it a reason to be developed
The reason for Mars is that it has water, a bit of atmosphere, suitable gravity, and lots of the various elements and materials we'd want to work with, in fairly accessible forms. (we can't breathe the atmosphere, but we can use it- not being in vacuum makes everything easier)
The reason for te Moon is that it's close and easy, has rubbish gravity but enough to stop you just falling off, and while it's not great for resources, they're out of the gravity well. So moon-based propellant doesn't have to be hauled up in a massive rocket using 100 kg of mass to deliver 1kg of mass to moon injection, it can probably be fired into a useful orbit with a gun.
The reason for orbit is that it's waaaay easier to get to, and close enough to touch. But it's ridiculously unsafe so it's only really useful as a means to an end.
And the reason for earth is that we're already there and it has all we need to live. But they all have strengths and weaknesses and ultimately we're going to want to be in all 4 and more.
They’re completely compatible.
no they aren’t. CO2 is a huge issue and pissing about with space rockets causes a lot of it. It’s adding to an already existing issue. That’s all it is doing. Pissing money and resource up against the proverbial wall whilst causing further harm. That’s not compatible with reducing harm at all.
That’s all it is doing.
No, it's not.
Care to extrapolate Cougar? What tangible benefits are we seeing that outweigh the environmental damage caused here and now? None that I can see.
I just don’t get it – the idea of any vaguely viable and self sustaining colony outside earth ,- let alone one you would want to live on is just not really feasible at the moment.
Yep, all we're doing is wasting our current resources, i cannot see a viable reason to be sending anything other than exploratory satellites to Mars or the Moon, we cannot colonise them, forget the gravity issue, or getting the resources to them, Mars has a gravity that's about a third of that of Earth, anything you send there requires a lot of thrusters, parachute, etc to even hope of landing safely, especially large heavy loads, once you're there, well the lack of an ozone layer means your not going to be doing much cultivating, or world building either with natural resources.
Personally, i just see it as a waste of resource, go and investigate our oceans, lands and depths, we're just not technically advanced enough to do much outside of our planet, i doubt we ever will be.
Care to extrapolate Cougar? What tangible benefits are we seeing that outweigh the environmental damage caused here and now? None that I can see.
On this specific venture, I don't know. But the scientific advances born from Mercury / Gemini / Apollo are very well documented.
It’s human nature to explore. It’s why we spread across the globe.
While I don’t like the ego-boosting projects of stupid little trips to sub-orbit by billionaires; I also don’t think you can tax the desire to explore out of everyone.
It’s exciting and childish and against lots of logical reasons but it’s going to happen because it’s the next place to go.
And I can’t wait to see it happen, if it does in my lifetime, because it’ll be amazing. And that doesn’t mean I don’t despair and care and want stuff done about the environment, or poor people, or endangered species or shit in our rivers.
I just don’t get it
Well, if you take it that this planet is ****ed. Then it's just a matter of the rich looking to bail out of a sinking ship, or at the very least monetise the eventual bail-out. Or, stay here and sort it, but not whilst there's loads of poor people everywhere nausing up the aesthetics. Send them all to Mars! And still charge them rent cos, well, you colonised it. Win/win.
Why not concentrate on fixing up earth.
...because constant economic growth isn't possible in a closed system with finite resources.
Well, if you take it that this planet is ****. Then it’s just a matter of the rich looking to bail out of a sinking ship, or at the very least monetise the eventual bail-out. Or, stay here and sort it, but not whilst there’s loads of poor people everywhere nausing up the aesthetics. Send them all to Mars! And still charge them rent cos, well, you colonised it. Win/win.
But my point is no matter how shit it gets on earth everywhere else will be worse because they are completely uninhabitable. Using your metaphor, there is nowhere to bail out too. You would live the rest of your life in the lifeboat anchored to a barren rock Island
It will always (in any reasonably foreseeable future) be better on earth. If you are rich enough you will be insulated from the impact of climate change. Whereas what would be the point of being a billionaire in some sort of subsistence existence trapped in a small biosphere
because constant economic growth isn’t possible in a closed system with finite resources.
Different thread but, just change the model then. Constant economic growth is not a necessity
On this specific venture, I don’t know. But the scientific advances born from Mercury / Gemini / Apollo are very well documented.
I’m aware of the historic stuff but asking about the here and now. I don’t think there is anything going on that outweighs the damage being done. We have no viable way of dealing with carbon emissions. Adding to them in unnecessary ways is just a dick move.
Whereas what would be the point of being a billionaire in some sort of subsistence existence trapped in a small biosphere
Good point. Depends on how much coke and hookers you had with you. Probably a lot if you were a billionaire. Would also need an awesome stereo. Again, not a problem if you're a billionaire. No neighbours too to complain. Sounds alright to be honest...
.... just change the model then. Constant economic growth is not a necessity
Yeah, I know, that was my point. Shame we're not in charge, eh?
Sorry andeh, missed that and wholeheartedly agree. We’re a bit ****ed in the not too distant future aren’t we.
We need to increase our presence on other planets in the solar system to ensure humanity’s survival. Having all your eggs in one basket is a bad survival strategy.
WTAF...
Sorry andeh, missed that and wholeheartedly agree. We’re a bit **** in the not too distant future aren’t we.
As you say a whole 'nother thread but yes - we need to go to zero growth. In fact negative growth to reach a sustainable lifestyle for humans on this planet. without that the environmental collapse will happen in our ( or your childrens lifetimes). the harbingers of the collapse are already here
We have plenty of "stuff" for everyone on the planet if its shared out a bit better. We don't need more "stuff"
...We’re a bit **** in the not too distant future aren’t we.
Yeah, without a doubt. Thinking about having a kid, and this is genuinely a major factor in my decision making.
I've been doing some energy modelling on buildings lately for uni, using predicted weather files for 2050 and 2080. It's not looking good, lads.
...anyway, Mars!
andeh - as above - the environmental collapse is happening in your childrens lifetimes
we’re just not technically advanced enough to do much outside of our planet, i doubt we ever will be
200 years ago we were travelling round in horses and carts and marrying people from the next village. We're now seriously discussing the potential to colonise the moon and planets.
Absolutely I recognise the balls up we've made of it, and the implications that need fixing asap. But given the demonstrated capability to progress, it's not a matter of if, just when.
I'm not convinced its "when" Too many huge issues to be solved. The amount of stuff that would need to be boosted into orbit is a huge amount more than humans have ever done and the logistics of the many months of travel are huge.
robot exploration yes but humans? I doubt it
we’re just not technically advanced enough to do much outside of our planet, i doubt we ever will be
That's the whole point of programmes like these.
But some of the issues are virtually unsolvable - like getting the amount of stuff needed for a human expedition to Mars into orbit - the amount of energy needed is huge. Hundreds of times the moon landings plus the issues of the actual travel to Mars, the fuel needed for that, the sheilding needed to protect the people, the physiological damage to the people from being under microgravity that long.
I'd love to see it but the scale of the problems I think is simply too big without a whole new source of energy so we could get mass into orbit easier and also use a powered flight to Mars not a cometary orbit
You're not necessarily wrong. Personally I'm on the fence about all this. It's a great way of getting governments to stimulate the high tech economy, or to get billionaires to do it themselves, but on the other hand you could still do that and end up with something more worthy.
I think the aim is to try and work out how to make stuff on the moon or get it from asteroids. All you need is solar panels and water, which is around here and there in the solar system.
It would be interesting to work out how much fuel is required to get a spaceship back off Mars and back to earth. It would be a lot smaller than the rocket needed to get the same craft up into orbit from Earth. I'm not sure how many dead drops of fuel onto a Mars site it would need, but perhaps not that many. If no-one else works it out I'll have a stab later 🙂
Having a viable re-usable rocket to take stuff into Earth orbit cheaply would be a massive help.
We’re now seriously discussing the potential to colonise the moon and planets.
No, we're really not. Do you have any idea what the narrow margins are for human life on earth ( and any other planet)?
Alas I only tuned into what the lecturer was saying very late on, but just the percentage Oxygen range alone was a complete eye opener.
Any idea that we will colonise other planets is just bollocks.
It would be interesting to work out how much fuel is required to get a spaceship back off Mars and back to earth. It would be a lot smaller than the rocket needed to get the same craft up into orbit from Earth.
Depends if its a cometary orbit or a powered orbit - cometary is a lot slower but a lot less fuel but yes the biggest fuel use is getting out of earth orbit
don't forget the parasitic weight thing either - to get a tonne of fuel into orbit you need hundreds of tonnes of fuel burnt to get it there
The slower cometary route means many tonnes of food are needed for the people plus oxygen and water. Powered orbit needs many tonnes of fuel
You hit the law of diminishing returns very quickly so rather than a few big launches you will need hundreds of launches into orbit using the rockets we have now.
then there is still the physiological effects on the people.
It’s far harder to fix Earth’s problems than send a few people to Mars.
As an engineer and scientist who’s involved with these efforts, I can’t begin to tell you how wrong you are. Almost no problems are as constrained as those involving flight with humans aboard. It’s almost absurdly difficult and yet it’s made to look routine.
no they aren’t. CO2 is a huge issue and pissing about with space rockets causes a lot of it. It’s adding to an already existing issue. That’s all it is doing. Pissing money and resource up against the proverbial wall whilst causing further harm. That’s not compatible with reducing harm at all.
A cruise liner emits more CO2 in 100 miles than a rocket launch does in its entirety.
Starlink may end up saving resources rather than using them.
Spaceship and it’s equivalents may be the key to space based solar power transmission, asteroid mining and Lagrange energy harvesting.
I’d rather have Musk and Bezos funding their own private space race and taking the world with it, than playing politics and buying social media.
The total payload of apollo was around a tonne. A manned mission with 3 people on a cometary orbit to mars will need several times that just in food. so thats the equivalent of several moon missions just to get the food needed into orbit let alone the oxygen, water etc plus the many tonnes of fuel needed plus of course the craft - and with the craft you have the problem that all that mass either has to be landed on mars and then take off again or be left in orbit and have a lander - more parasitic weight
Basically I think yo are talking the equivalent of a few hundred apollo missions in energy usage
As an engineer and scientist who’s involved with these efforts, I can’t begin to tell you how wrong you are
The problems aren't science and engineering related, that's the point I'm making. They are economic and social.
It would be interesting to work out how much fuel is required to get a spaceship back off Mars and back to earth.
Have you seen that big-ol' vacuum centrifuge they're testing for lobbing unmanned stuff into space? Would be relatively easy to build up on Mars....compared to shipping millions of tons of fuel, that is.
The problems aren’t science and engineering related, that’s the point I’m making.
Errmmm - yes they are. The engineering involved is hugely ahead of what we have now due to the length of the mission.
tjagain
Full Member
The total payload of apollo was around a tonne.
LOL! The payload of Apollo was over 43 tonnes. The CSM was over 28t and the LM was over 15t.
For context - that’s the weight of 4x 56 seat busses into lunar orbit on every launch.
A SVB can put the equivalent of a 787 into LEO.
Is that not the total weight? I am talking about payload.
Unless i read this wrong its a tonne
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_command_and_service_module
Spacecraft type Capsule
Launch mass 32,390 lb (14,690 kg) Earth orbit
63,500 lb (28,800 kg) Lunar
Dry mass 26,300 lb (11,900 kg)
Payload capacity 2,320 lb (1,050 kg)
Total weight of Apollo on a Saturn V was ~3000t. The payload was the CSM, the LM and the crew. That weight was ~44t.
If the moon weren’t the target the SVB had a payload to LEO of ~120t.
Block 3 SLS will be 150t to LEO.
Starship is unclear. 120 to LEO for sure.
Edit, re-reads source
This is one area in which NASA's SLS rocket will up the ante on the Saturn V. In its initial configuration the SLS will launch with 8.8 million pounds of thrust, 15 percent more than the Saturn V.This will allow the SLS to send 27 tons of payload to the moon's surface. And the following configurations will be even more powerful, capable of carrying even greater payloads to the moon which will be needed for longer more sustainable space missions.
https://www.space.com/saturn-v-rocket-guide-apollo
Yes
We are just a bit at cross purposes. How much cargo along side the CSM and lander could be carried? a tonne? ie the weight of the people their equipment and stuff they used on the moon
3000 tonnes of saturn to put 44 tonnes of CSM and lander into moon orbit to carry a tonne of people and stuff
Errmmm – yes they are. The engineering involved is hugely ahead of what we have now due to the length of the mission.
I meant the problems with the environment on Earth.
Is LEO enough tho? Build the mars ship in LEO then it still needs a lot of fuel to get it into a cometary orbit
As I understand it, the problem isn't with it being 3,000 tonnes, its with it being 3,000 tonnes of manufactured equipment that got destroyed each time. If they can build reusable rockets and boosters, they'll just need to fill it up and send it back again which will be pretty cheap by comparison.
This will allow the SLS to send 27 tons of payload to the moon’s surface.
Which has to include the capsule it is in and all the motors and fuel for landing? so how much of that 27 tonnes is parasitic weight and how much is actually "stuff? half and half? less? More ?
then if you are using the moon as a staging post its all got to be boosted back into moon orbit - more fuel needed ( I know its a lot less than from earth)
No TJ - you said we’d need hundreds of launches, but that’s based on your misunderstanding of payload. The spacecraft weight is the critical aspect, not the crew weight . Ground to lEO capacity is the metric you need. A ROM figure for a reusable (several times) spacecraft to Mars would be 1500-2200t that could be accomplished with 10-15 launches, less if fuel is sourced on both the moon and Martian surface and even less if in-orbit manufacturing is used.
Daffy - you obviously know more than this SF reader 🙂
How many tonnes need to be put into orbit for a 3 person 2 year mars lander mission? How much fuel to boost the mars ship from LEO to a cometary orbit to mars, land and return?
edit - crossed posts 🙂 clearly not the hundreds of launches I guess ed then - dozens?