EPTtrump seal of approval.
NASA and the Private Sector - Page 120
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Keep debates civil. | ||
|
pmh
1352 Posts
trump seal of approval. | ||
|
pmh
1352 Posts
elon musk is aiming for 2022, that feels a bit to optimistic. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I'd say 2050 is more likely. The issues related to Mars are solvable, but very far from solved. And it probably won't be Musk doing it. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11514 Posts
You have the worst of both worlds. The risks and the costs of a manned mars mission, but none of the bragging rights of actually putting humans on other planets. Yeah, it is cheaper than actually landing there because you have to bring less fuel, but space next to mars isn't significantly different from space next to earth. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42695 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21689 Posts
If you want to go there your best chance is probably just a one way trip. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11514 Posts
On April 22 2017 20:05 Gorsameth wrote: Considering current technology I wonder why we would want to leave Mars. If you want to go there your best chance is probably just a one way trip. You don't really have a nice retirement on Mars. If you want good people for your mission, they probably want to get back. And if you take the people who are fine with staying there, they are probably not the best people for the job. Also, it makes people think you are an asshole when you send people to mars and leave them there to die. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
No one plans to send people to Mars with no means to sustain themselves, but there are plans that involve most of the people travelling there staying. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42695 Posts
On April 23 2017 01:02 LegalLord wrote: It's an implicit requirement of all missions involving astronauts that it will be a round trip. You could always work out how to get them back later. Young astronauts, plenty of time to work it out. Refusing to do anything until you can do everything in a single expedition will inevitably mean you have no progress for a long time. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Send a doge or a mankey or something if you want a one-way trip. If one of those die then they will get over it in the long run. Dead astronauts are remembered forever. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42695 Posts
On April 23 2017 09:10 LegalLord wrote: You have to sell the mission to the general public though. And "we'll get them back eventually, I hope" is really fucking depressing. Send a doge or a mankey or something if you want a one-way trip. If one of those die then they will get over it in the long run. Dead astronauts are remembered forever. Without looking it up, what is the number of astronauts and cosmonauts killed by failed operations to date? | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents | ||
|
KwarK
United States42695 Posts
On April 23 2017 11:13 LegalLord wrote: My guess was 20, looked it up and the answer was in the range of 18 to more depending on how you count. Close enough. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents The point being that leaving one on Mars wouldn't materially impact the accuracy of your estimate. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24682 Posts
Personally, I think the idea of sending people to Mars to their death is disgusting and I'm glad all previous missions including moon missions were performed with the stated goal of not leaving people in space. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On April 23 2017 08:54 KwarK wrote: You could always work out how to get them back later. Young astronauts, plenty of time to work it out. Refusing to do anything until you can do everything in a single expedition will inevitably mean you have no progress for a long time. It's not technological problem that needs some surprising insight or advancement in general technology. You need a spacecraft that is capable of landing on and launching from Mars and get to Earth orbit. You probably need infrastructure to create fuel on Mars and a heavy launcher to launch the whole thing from Earth. The point is that probably any technological hurdles could be overcome by more investment, right now. When the astronauts are on the surface you will still need the same kind of investment to develop the technology. So the question becomes, why not develop it first and then do the landing? Realistically, the return part might not be the biggest problem anyway. It's probably radiation shielding during the trip and just having a large enough launcher. You are saving a small chunk of your whole budget. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On April 23 2017 11:45 micronesia wrote: I think we've argued about this topic a few times in the past. There are some users here who think a 'one way trip' for space exploration is acceptable, . When you say one way, do you mean one way to die, or one way to stay? Even Mars One meant one way to stay, although being a clickbaity media company they rarely clarify it. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24682 Posts
| ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On April 23 2017 12:02 micronesia wrote: I don't see 'one way to stay' as more feasible than 'round trip' right now, so I mean 'one way to die.' Well, technically neither is one way to die, unless dying before getting to the Mars surface is fine too. The only difference between one way to stay and one way to die is that you need to get more payload to the surface, which means more launches and higher cost, or a more capable and cheaper launch vehicle. | ||
| ||
