We should go to Mars... but now, or later?

[publiusr]

I'd like to have something like this:
https://born4space.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/giant-wheel-spl-mit.jpg

Rotating this might be somethig for the nearer term
https://archive.org/details/NASA_NTRS_Archive_20140017461
https://marsbase.org/sites/default/media/images/DRA-NTR1-crew-large.png
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zHoZdlYvv_w/UDEUn5Q09aI/AAAAAAAAX5U/PVYMvD5HnUY/s1600/nucleartherm3.png

I mean "near" loosely of course.

 

[Nightowl1701]

'Spinning our wheels' in the sense of not really getting anywhere (though the centrifuge pun was intended). So our future Mars craft, if/when we get around to building one, will have centrifugal technology? I know Boeing had proposed such a vessel, but I haven't heard if it's been greenlit.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Nothing's been greenlit.

 

[Markonian]

There's a German Sci-Fi novel series (ongoing since 2000, one 64-page novel each fortnight) with a few spinoffs.

In it, Earth suffers a few cataclysms that Mars could survive:
1) A comet (actually a lifeform) hits Earth in 2012, and it's radiation causes Humans to degenerate and various species to mutate. The winter lasts 300 years. Fortunately, the Martian expedition, spearheaded by US President Schwarzenegger and privately funded, launches early. But crashes on Mars in 2010. The survivors impregnate themselves with the thousands of sperms and eggs aboard. Martian civilisation is born.
2) The Striker arrives and eats Neptune in the 2520s. It hungers for the comet-lifeform and almost eradicates all life on Earth. Martian civilisation survives, mostly.
3) The killed Striker corpse crashes on Luna. By the 2540s, Luna is about to crash into Earth. Again, Mars be spared.
4) In parallel universes, attempts to extinguish Humanity explicitly include efforts on Mars, otherwise Humans survive.

It's an entertainment series. But there are many scenarios were a second holdout is useful. Mars is ours. Let's fertilise it.

 

[Markonian]

Australia wasn't empty.....

Aye, that's why I stressed European colonisation. Any society settling another area, even a preoccupied one, conducts colonisation.

 

[johnar]

Until we can crack the problem of artificial gravity, for the physical and mental well-being of our astronauts (not to mention moving-around-the-spaceship/space station convenience), we're literally just spinning our wheels.

If correct, gravity is not a tug of war but rather a push of war.

Mass pushes against the spherical fabric of space-time which pushes back (like water does against that which displaces it). What is buoyancy to water is gravity to space-time.

When we see it for what it is, we can proceed to harnessing it (artificially) or bowing it (zero G).

 

[johnar]

1. A centrifuge is not a wheel, so, no, we're not literally doing that.

2. Your metaphor is muddled here. I can't really get a read on what your point is. Centrifuges/rotating spacecraft are a practical means of generating artificial gravity; in fact they are the preeminent such means of doing so. They're what we'll use for artificial gravity on interplanetary spaceflights. In other words, there's no need to wait for any other means of generating artificial gravity.

Does centrifugal force not require gravity to do what Science Fiction (like Interstellar) uses to create artificial gravity?

 

[scotpens]

I love space exploration, and I really do want us to voyage to Mars. When the time is right. As I see it, we've got too many problems on Earth that need solving first. Earth first, then Mars.

There were plenty of problems on Earth when we went to the Moon. There were plenty of problems on Earth when the Soviets launched Sputnik. There will always be problems on Earth. If we wait for all of them to be solved, we'll never go to Mars -- or anywhere else.

. . . I believe the risks are too great for insufficient pay-off at this time. I have no doubt that we could send a manned mission to Mars, if properly funded. The trouble is, the proposed timeline is very aggressive. What if something goes wrong? We have NO support system defined out there. Going to the moon was a different story. Much closer. If something went wrong, you could send another ship within a fairly short period of time.

No. When the Apollo 13 disaster happened, there was no way to send a rescue mission. There was no backup spacecraft waiting on the launch pad. If anything had gone wrong on the successful Apollo missions -- say, if the LM's ascent engine had failed to fire -- the astronauts would have been stranded on the moon and would have died there. Every human endeavor involves risk.

The idea of finding another planet to pollute and kill each other, sounds like a plan.

There's really not a whole lot on Mars to pollute. No native life, no forests, no rivers, no oceans, and an extremely thin atmosphere that's mostly carbon dioxide. It's basically a colorized version of the Moon.

Does centrifugal force not require gravity to do what Science Fiction (like Interstellar) uses to create artificial gravity?

I haven't seen Interstellar, but I don't quite understand your point. The centrifugal force generated by a spinning habitat creates the effect of gravity, completely irrespective of whether you're on a planet, orbiting a planet, or millions of miles out in space.

 

[Gary7]

There were plenty of problems on Earth when we went to the Moon. There were plenty of problems on Earth when the Soviets launched Sputnik. There will always be problems on Earth. If we wait for all of them to be solved, we'll never go to Mars -- or anywhere else.

That's the more predictable contrary approach. "We can't wait for all problems to be solved." I'm not suggesting that. In the 1960's we did have plenty of problems, but we had the budget fat to allocate enormous sums to the space program... AND it fueled tremendous technological innovation that was quickly realized for terrestrial use. We're in a different situation right now... our EARTH is at stake. We've not gotten a proper handle on pollution management. And we're not in a financial shape where a Mars mission should be the higher priority. A Mars mission will pioneer some new technologies, but nothing ground breaking.

No. When the Apollo 13 disaster happened, there was no way to send a rescue mission. There was no backup spacecraft waiting on the launch pad. If anything had gone wrong on the successful Apollo missions -- say, if the LM's ascent engine had failed to fire -- the astronauts would have been stranded on the moon and would have died there. Every human endeavor involves risk.

Yes, for Apollo 13 that is true. BUT... we COULD have had another spacecraft on the pad waiting. The time to reach a failing moon mission would be within reach. But Mars? Forget it!

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Does centrifugal force not require gravity to do what Science Fiction (like Interstellar) uses to create artificial gravity?

I've seen Interstellar, but, otherwise, what @scotpens said:

I haven't seen Interstellar, but I don't quite understand your point. The centrifugal force generated by a spinning habitat creates the effect of gravity, completely irrespective of whether you're on a planet, orbiting a planet, or millions of miles out in space.

This.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Yes, for Apollo 13 that is true. BUT... we COULD have had another spacecraft on the pad waiting.

It would have done very little good. The delta-v requirements for orbital rendezvous of an interplanetary mission would be so restrictive that NASA would have to get very, VERY lucky to be able to send a ship to pull that off. It's just not something they would realistically be able to do unless the rescue was happening in relatively low Earth orbit.

 

[BK613]

I think we should treat the Earth-Moon system like a space Mediterranean Sea. There was at least 3000 years of seafaring on the Med before Columbus sailed his three ships forth from Spain.

 

[timelord1010]

I think we should treat the Earth-Moon system like a space Mediterranean Sea. There was at least 3000 years of seafaring on the Med before Columbus sailed his three ships forth from Spain.

I agree, we need to work out our space faring technology and maybe practice on the Moon where if anything goes wrong you are not too far from Earth. Something major goes wrong on the way to Mars and you are SOL.

 

[Gary7]

I agree, we need to work out our space faring technology and maybe practice on the Moon where if anything goes wrong you are not too far from Earth. Something major goes wrong on the way to Mars and you are SOL.

Precisely. Even Elon Musk thinks we need to practice with the moon. But, why just "practice." There should be a productive mission there first. Once we streamline the processes and resources necessary, we'll then have a good foot hold to go to Mars. We've only "visited" the moon. Briefly. Several days at a time. SEVEN TIMES. That's not much at all. So we can't say "Well, been to the moon. Done that. Time for Mars!" Meanwhile, I think we need to further Mars robotic missions first. I truly think it should be possible to set up a remote mining operation. Also, there's the matter of "land grabs." The squatter mentality is allowed to run free in this world. Look at what happened in the early days of the USA. There are other countries and wealthy individuals who will want to get to Mars purely for the sake of "staking a claim" and then trying to get rich off of that. The ugly side of humanity.

 

[B.J.]

We've only "visited" the moon. Briefly. Several days at a time. SEVEN TIMES.

Six. Nine if you count Apollo 8, 10, and 13.

 

[Gary7]

Six. Nine if you count Apollo 8, 10, and 13.

You're right, I should have said six.... for physically visiting the lunar surface.

 

[scotthm]

There are other countries and wealthy individuals who will want to get to Mars purely for the sake of "staking a claim" and then trying to get rich off of that. The ugly side of humanity.

You have to spend a huge fortune to get to Mars. Why is it "ugly" to want a return on that investment?

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

 

[Gary7]

You have to spend a huge fortune to get to Mars. Why is it "ugly" to want a return on that investment?

Did the United States lay claim to the moon?

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Did the United States lay claim to the moon?

Well they did plant a flag or two there........ Does that count?

 

[scotthm]

Did the United States lay claim to the moon?

Why is it "ugly" to want to make a return on an investment? People need motivation to expend a huge amount of resources.

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