Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Spot On --> It’s ridiculous to think that humans could live on Mars

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    nokia69
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭nokia69


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    We've been waiting for cheaper rockets for ages now. Soyuz from the 1950's and Proton from the 1960's are still commercial launch systems.

    I know its easy to say but I think at last we really are very close to cheaper rockets

    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    All it takes is LOTS of energy. Both Nuclear and Solar would be very heavy and you'd have to wait ages to fill the tanks.


    Compare them to this The Mars Project is a technical specification for a manned mission to Mars that von Braun wrote in 1948, with a provisional launch date of 1965

    once you have a Solar or Nuclear system set up it should have a long working life, its far harder to refuel a hypergolic system on Mars


  • Options
    #33
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,782 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    nokia69 wrote: »
    I know its easy to say but I think at last we really are very close to cheaper rockets
    Most of the basic propellant problems were solved 60 years ago. Big development since then was the Russians being able to harness the exhaust from the turbopump. Yes there are lots of ideas floating around to get to orbit but not flight proven yet. It's simply a function of the energy density of chemical propellants.

    OK once you are in orbit there's ion drives flight tested in 1964 . With the sub-type Hall Effect Thrusters in 1971. And Japan got a Solar Sail to Venus.



    once you have a Solar or Nuclear system set up it should have a long working life, its far harder to refuel a hypergolic system on Mars
    The trick is getting the power plant to the surface of Mars. If there were volatiles on the moons you could use solar power 24/7 365. On the surface during a dust storm you are down to 10% of what isn't already filtered by the atmosphere and then only during the day.


    There are other ways of reducing the mass you need to bring back to orbit from Mars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Escape_Systems

    And it might be possible to build an elevator on Mars, but it would be very long and humans would take bleedin' ages to get to orbit so you'd need lots of food and radiation shielding.


    AFAIK we are close enough to have the technology to build a Mars elevator.


  • Options
    #34
    nokia69
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭nokia69


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    The trick is getting the power plant to the surface of Mars. If there were volatiles on the moons you could use solar power 24/7 365. On the surface during a dust storm you are down to 10% of what isn't already filtered by the atmosphere and then only during the day.

    Musk has said he wants his MCT to be able to land 100 tons of payload on the surface, thats a lot of solar panels, and should be enough to have a Nuclear back up


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    AFAIK we are close enough to have the technology to build a Mars elevator.

    We do, but whats the point if we have a reusable rocket system that works, also the Moons make it a little harder, an elevator on our Moon is even easier, but again I don't see the point if we have reliable reusable rockets


  • Options
    #35
    _Tombstone_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,006 ✭✭✭_Tombstone_


    nokia69 wrote: »
    Musk has said he wants his MCT to be able to land 100 tons of payload on the surface, thats a lot of solar panels, and should be enough to have a Nuclear back up





    We do, but whats the point if we have a reusable rocket system that works, also the Moons make it a little harder, an elevator on our Moon is even easier, but again I don't see the point if we have reliable reusable rockets

    deGrasse Tyson doesn't have much faith in SpaceX


  • Options
    #36
    nokia69
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,050 ✭✭✭nokia69


    Tyson is no where near as smart as he likes to think he is

    there is a video on youtube of him talking with Richard Dawkins about what aliens or life from another planet might look like, and its pretty clear that Tyson has no clue what he is talking about, its the same when he talks about spaceX


  • Advertisement
Advertisement