Mars, no really; again

It ain't gonna happen tomorrow.
The day after looks pretty dubious as well.
Brief sketch: establishment of a "spaceport" orbiting the moon; a space station orbiting Mars.
Little things like a reusable lander at the Mars station would need to be developed as well.
As usual, the big hurdle is getting everything out of Earth gravity

Its big, its ambitious; just what Lockheed Martin likes I would think.
Upside, most seems to be stuff we have done, or already have a good idea how to do
The talk of 1000 day missions, likely makes a small pool of candidates even smaller:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...umans-to-mars/

1k days given current propulsion is not unreasonable. Can easily spend 200 on each leg of the trip in 'spam in a can' mode. Plus, the return leg is governed as much by orbital positioning as well as anything else. Leaving 200 days earlier than planned doesn't help much if the trip is 170 days longer because of the departure date chosen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

1k days given current propulsion is not unreasonable. Can easily spend 200 on each leg of the trip in 'spam in a can' mode. Plus, the return leg is governed as much by orbital positioning as well as anything else. Leaving 200 days earlier than planned doesn't help much if the trip is 170 days longer because of the departure date chosen.

---

The 1k days will zoom by if we provide them with internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The 1k days will zoom by if we provide them with internet.

---

If they are less selective on who can apply, there would not be a candidate shortage too. But yes, give them a boat load of games, movies, nations favourite.. and it would be a NEET paradise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The 1k days will zoom by if we provide them with internet.

---

I cannot imagine the ping scores for that distance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I cannot imagine the ping scores for that distance

---

Has to be better than my current... I used to think my internet was bad, and that was over 10 times faster than now. Used to pay for 200Mb and used to get (if lucky) 56Mb. Now I pay for 20Mb and receive like 3.2Mb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Has to be better than my current... I used to think my internet was bad, and that was over 10 times faster than now. Used to pay for 200Mb and used to get (if lucky) 56Mb. Now I pay for 20Mb and receive like 3.2Mb.

---

I remember the days of dial up. Heck, my computing lessons used to talk about bawd rates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I remember the days of dial up. Heck, my computing lessons used to talk about bawd rates.

---

Try university internet rates, at least their wifi.:thumbsdown: You would think the Engineering and Industries building, where the College of Engineering is located, would have good wireless. Nope.

As far as the Mars trip, radiation is also a major concern. I don't really see the point in a Mars trip myself, though I guess the scientific advances that would help get there would probably be a major boon here, and the trip would be the cause of that research.

I admit, the idea of a manned mission seems a little odd.
The value of having a human travel to Mars is difficult to justify. Face it, data and images can just be piped here.
It might have the cache of "...going boldly...etc" but there isn't much added by sending a person there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

I admit, the idea of a manned mission seems a little odd.
The value of having a human travel to Mars is difficult to justify. Face it, data and images can just be piped here.
It might have the cache of "...going boldly...etc" but there isn't much added by sending a person there.

---

But that cachet is everything in this.

In a literal value of science performed and knowledge/resources gained from the direct returns on the space effort the ENTIRETY of manned space flight has been a waste of time. But as Vincent correctly notes, it is the spinoffs/other uses of those ideas -- needed to put people safely into an environment which is totally anathema to terrestrial life and to cross the distances etc involved -- which have more than paid for the investment in the program. NASA and the manned space program may be THE definitive example of the long term value of basic (as opposed to applied) scientific research.

The infrastructure put in place to support future manned missions to the Moon and Mars are what will be the stepping stones for private industry to step up exploration. The upfront costs are tremendous for what appears to be purely prestige milestones. If further exploration manned or otherwise will be done in the future it will require that infrastructure in the form of essentially orbital spaceports. If large vessels for mining or exploration or colonization are to ever be built in the future they'd have to be built in near Earth or Moon orbit using materials gathered from outside our planet as well.
If we ever have an orbital station that's available for 'public/commercial' use that will be the thing that actually leads to future colonization via larger space stations and even more distance in the future moon/mars bases.
For ventures this large and expensive however its unrealistic to expect private industry to be the leader, it's always required government assistance for grandiose ideas such as this. The Space X rockets doing resupply missions for the ISS as just a tiny example of it.

In the words of President Kennedy "We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."

I've always thought that the post-Vietnam lack of pride in the Space program that led to the cancellation of the Apollo missions, allowed Skylab to fall into the atmosphere and pinned all our hopes on the Space Shuttle was a setback that's almost unforgivable. The retirement of the space shuttle with no replacement is the epitome of our short sighted thinking. If it takes 'prestige' missions of such a massive scale to get the public behind NASA then so be it.
At the very least it'll encourage more kids to pursue science or engineer which has an incalculable payoff for our future only if we have a government and industries supporting and fostering that drive.

I think both Seamus and spmetla raise valid points.
In a sense, manned missions are the advertisements that help pay for the program.
The science can be done by robots, mining (likely the biggest commercial use of space) is also better handled by robots; nothing galvanizes the public the way manned missions do.
I suppose we have science fiction to thank for that; the narrative is human travel, exploration and heroism; robots are bit players.

554 persons have been in space, with another 200 odd trained to do so but never getting the chance, dying in an accident, or not yet having launched. So roughly 800 persons. 25 of whom died in action or in directly related training.

That's one out of every 32 participants or more than 3%. By way of comparison, the US military experiences a lower percentage death rate from combat operations (0.028%) and that includes all of the really dangerous jobs like special forces, pararescue, and combat air crew. Space is two ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more dangerous than combat.

It is no wonder it is fixating to the public attention.

It was a friend of mine who is an astrophysicist who pointed out to me the advances that came about as a result of the space race. But I am not convinced it will occur anytime soon. Gregg Easterbrook, who is a sports writer but also comments on other things, has some sound scientific points about the problems with it in some of his TMQ (Tuesday Morning Quarterback) articles, propulsion and weight being of major concern.

Now, I have an electrical engineering degree (and therefore by association enjoy sci-fi), so it goes that I love the idea of space stations and such. I guess we will never get to that point if we don't work on our exploration. It is not leaps and bounds, but rather steps that move progress forward. Can't get out of the solar system if we don't get to the closest planets first, I guess. We will always need pioneers. I for one prefer to stay on planet Earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

554 persons have been in space, with another 200 odd trained to do so but never getting the chance, dying in an accident, or not yet having launched. So roughly 800 persons. 25 of whom died in action or in directly related training.

That's one out of every 32 participants or more than 3%. By way of comparison, the US military experiences a lower percentage death rate from combat operations (0.028%) and that includes all of the really dangerous jobs like special forces, pararescue, and combat air crew. Space is two ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more dangerous than combat.

It is no wonder it is fixating to the public attention.

---

Does that list include Sullivan Carew?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Does that list include Sullivan Carew?

---

No it did not but THANK YOU, lmfao

We will have to see if this proposal goes the way of most recent ideas from the Executive.
Short answer, without a clear plan and goals, in addition to the funding for them, this is just another moon age daydream:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017...e-exploration/

This might be something that really doesn't count now, but if we get serious about space exploration it has to be addressed.
What exactly is the legal framework?
I could see much of the outline being hammered out at the UN but enforcement and jurisdiction might get tricky.
The Wild West with an unlimited expanding frontier?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...r-martian-law/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

This might be something that really doesn't count now, but if we get serious about space exploration it has to be addressed.
What exactly is the legal framework?
I could see much of the outline being hammered out at the UN but enforcement and jurisdiction might get tricky.
The Wild West with an unlimited expanding frontier?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...r-martian-law/

---

When there is an accessible frontier again, you will see pioneers and pirates, people who cast of their old persona for a new dream, and people who seek an empire in the power vacuum.

It will be a lively time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

When there is an accessible frontier again, you will see pioneers and pirates, people who cast of their old persona for a new dream, and people who seek an empire in the power vacuum.

It will be a lively time.

---

Fan of Firefly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Fan of Firefly?

---

Never read that one. Any good?


Heinlein, Asimov, Weber and other space operas, Omega Force series....

Always fascinated by it.


And my response was mostly prompted by my own musings about the American Western Frontier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Never read that one. Any good?

---

Cult classic tv series.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefly_(TV_series)

Every journey begins with the first step

https://www.space.com/39594-spacex-f...h-preview.html

The Falcon Heavy is probably the result of countless little steps but hey I was stuck for an appropriate cliche :p

https://youtu.be/B1KHv3-dHDM?t=2230
Replay of the launch at one minute out.

Wow! it went beautifully :yes:
Have to admit, watching an experimental rocket on it first flight is a bit like watching NASCAR
"Gorgeous machine ya got there! Shame if it blowed up *droool*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

Wow! it went beautifully :yes:
Have to admit, watching an experimental rocket on it first flight is a bit like watching NASCAR
"Gorgeous machine ya got there! Shame if it blowed up *droool*

---

Nice part about NASA (and other Space launchers) over NASCAR is that there pretty much HAS to be a huge flipping explosion and fire (with most of us hoping it happens in a controlled manner).

I'm not gonna lie, watching that rocket launch was the best part of my day.

https://thediplomat.com/2018/02/chin...heavy-success/
China Has Mixed Feelings About Elon Musk’s Falcon Heavy Success

Quote:

---

On Tuesday, in its first test flight, Elon Musk’s SpaceX successfully launched Falcon Heavy — one of the world’s most powerful rockets — from the Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral in Florida.

Along with millions around the world, Chinese people were deeply impressed by SpaceX’s victorious launch, particularly the company’s breathtaking reusable launch system.

Soon after two of Falcon Heavy’s booster rockets landed safely on the launch pad, news reports with photos and video footage swept Tencent Wechat and Sina Weibo — two of China’s most important social media platforms. Thousands of Chinese netizens reposted the information on their own social media accounts and applauded Musk’s great achievement.
However, China’s national media expressed mixed feelings about Musk’s Falcon Heavy rocket.

For example, Global Times, one of China’s most nationalistic state-run newspapers, issued a series of articles on both its website and its social media account, introducing the launch in detail.

On the one hand, Global Times highly complimented SpaceX’s advanced technology, used in the latest launch, saying that the Falcon Heavy rocket has “totally crushed all other current rockets in the world.”

On the other hand, Global Times couldn’t help but attribute Musk’s feat to the United States as a whole and compare China’s space technology with that of the United States.

One of many Global Times’ articles on SpaceX wrote emotionally:

What really shocks us Chinese is not only that our country currently doesn’t have rockets of such magnitude, but the fact that we are almost 10 years behind; more importantly, what our country has to desperately catch up with is actually a private U.S. enterprise…

To put it more bluntly, this time the Americans showed us Chinese with pure power that why they are still the strongest country in the world and how wide the gap really is between us and them …

On February 7, Global Times even published an editorial in Chinese under the title of “The road for China to catch up with the United States on science and technology is still very very long.” Taking a rare tone, the editorial admitted China’s backwardness on technology and, at the same time, directly criticized some rising perceptions that “China has generally surpassed the United States as a whole.” However, the editorial didn’t forget to vow that China will take steps to improve its space technology.

Interestingly, the newspaper hasn’t translated this fairly balanced editorial (compared to its many other strongly worded editorials) into English so far.

China’s national TV station, CCTV, showed another interesting tendency in reporting the launch. CCTV focused most of its attention on the fact that the third booster of Falcon Heavy rocket failed to land on its launching pad on the sea, not the overall success of the launch.

While nationalism is deeply embedded in China’s national media reports, many Chinese citizens, impressed by Musk’s feat, reflected upon China’s problems from a totally different angle.

For example, one comment by an unknown Chinese netizen has been widely reposted. It reads:

The real difference [between China and the United States] is that Americans put this line “Made on Earth by humans” on Tesla’s engine … rather than “made in America.” The Tesla plays on loop “Space Oddity,” created by great British artist David Bowie in the 1970s, rather than the American national anthem. Inside the car lay a copy of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, known as the science fiction bible written by British writer Douglas Adams… What truly makes miracles come true is mankind’s spirit of exploration and adventure… rather than so-called national pride.

---

Interesting to see some of their perspective on it. I just hope the private enterprise space industry picks up speed. Also seen some folks on the facebook talking about how this shows the government should stay out of space travel, to that I keep having to point out that the infrastructure of the Kennedy Space Center allowed him to launch when his facility at Vandenberg had delays. Also helps to have existing facilities and standards and procedures to conform to instead of having to start from scratch.

They will figure everything out, some people just happen to be rediculously intelligent. I'm not one of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

https://thediplomat.com/2018/02/chin...heavy-success/
China Has Mixed Feelings About Elon Musk’s Falcon Heavy Success


Interesting to see some of their perspective on it. I just hope the private enterprise space industry picks up speed. Also seen some folks on the facebook talking about how this shows the government should stay out of space travel, to that I keep having to point out that the infrastructure of the Kennedy Space Center allowed him to launch when his facility at Vandenberg had delays. Also helps to have existing facilities and standards and procedures to conform to instead of having to start from scratch.

---

The government seems to have enabled Musk to afford this passion project. :shrug:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...531-story.html