Mars colony - within 20 years?
Discussion
I've just spent an immensely enjoyable morning reading http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-w...
For anyone who isn't familiar with the site - sit down, grab a coffee, and read part one first: http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/05/elon-musk-the-worlds...
They're quite long-winded but provide a very interesting (obviously biased) insight into Elon Musk. Most Pistonheads will know him through his company Tesla - and their leaps and bounds in creating a real alternative to petrol powered cars. However this is the science forum, so this post relates to Space-X.
In the articles above, if you can't be bothered to read them (and you really should), it discusses Musk's plans to create a colony on Mars. Not just a colony - a sustainable colony that would serve as our species' backup plan should an asteroid hit, or some disaster of our making come to pass.
Having read the article and looking at the impressive record thus far of Space-X, I don't see it as ramblings of a dreamer - I see it as the (possibly quite optimistic) calculations of an intelligent man. I am not, however, a rocket scientist. What are your thoughts?
Do you think the timescale is realistic - or insane?
Are there loads of holes in the theories presented that I haven't seen?
For anyone who isn't familiar with the site - sit down, grab a coffee, and read part one first: http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/05/elon-musk-the-worlds...
They're quite long-winded but provide a very interesting (obviously biased) insight into Elon Musk. Most Pistonheads will know him through his company Tesla - and their leaps and bounds in creating a real alternative to petrol powered cars. However this is the science forum, so this post relates to Space-X.
In the articles above, if you can't be bothered to read them (and you really should), it discusses Musk's plans to create a colony on Mars. Not just a colony - a sustainable colony that would serve as our species' backup plan should an asteroid hit, or some disaster of our making come to pass.
Having read the article and looking at the impressive record thus far of Space-X, I don't see it as ramblings of a dreamer - I see it as the (possibly quite optimistic) calculations of an intelligent man. I am not, however, a rocket scientist. What are your thoughts?
Do you think the timescale is realistic - or insane?
Are there loads of holes in the theories presented that I haven't seen?
The site has quite a conversational style with a smattering of cartoons but it serves to inform people about things they'd not be able to get their heads around otherwise. It doesn't simplify - it explains, which is much better in my opinion.
Agree on the setback - although impressive how open they were to scrutiny and in keeping the public informed. Seems they've got a hold on exactly what was the issue and how to avoid a repeat occurrence. As you say, though, this rocket science stuff isn't easy - and no matter how much thought & engineering goes in to 99.999% of the components, the smallest thing can mean disaster.
Agree on the setback - although impressive how open they were to scrutiny and in keeping the public informed. Seems they've got a hold on exactly what was the issue and how to avoid a repeat occurrence. As you say, though, this rocket science stuff isn't easy - and no matter how much thought & engineering goes in to 99.999% of the components, the smallest thing can mean disaster.
0000 said:
If the Falcon explosion was a big set back I think it bodes well - it seems they likely know the cause and the fix already. They'll move past it in a better place for it.
It was a big set back and no doubt things will change as a result. The problem is knowing in advance where the problems are and trying to pre-empt them. It seems on this occasion they were caught out by a contractor who made a sub standard component. SpaceX relied on the contractor to supply the part to spec - and they didn't. SpaceX will now probably have to add extra tests to their own procedures - which will bump up the costs and no doubt slow things down.
They won't want too many incidences like this but with rockets they are almost always inevitable.
If they're keeping costs down they'll be travelling when Earth and Mars are closest to each other, which occurs about once every two years (or 26 months, I think). The shuttle carried payloads of up to about 22 tonnes, the Space X Falcon Heavy is claiming about 53 tonnes.
If they launched one mission during every close approach for the next 20 years, at best they could have 530 tonnes of structures and equipment there (given they're not going to launch one this year).
That doesn't account for further progress in rocket tech to take larger payloads, but I think the fuel to get the stuff to Mars will reduce the total payload anyway (I would guess the 53 tonnes figure is the maximum it can get into Earth's orbit). There's also the possibility of using Mars resources, minerals etc over that time, of course. Either way, I don't think there's going to be much of a colony in that time. A research station, sure.
If they launched one mission during every close approach for the next 20 years, at best they could have 530 tonnes of structures and equipment there (given they're not going to launch one this year).
That doesn't account for further progress in rocket tech to take larger payloads, but I think the fuel to get the stuff to Mars will reduce the total payload anyway (I would guess the 53 tonnes figure is the maximum it can get into Earth's orbit). There's also the possibility of using Mars resources, minerals etc over that time, of course. Either way, I don't think there's going to be much of a colony in that time. A research station, sure.
The beauty of a heavy lift expendable booster is that the payload it takes into orbit it leaves in orbit - or is usable to send a smaller amount of weight to other parts of the solar system.
The Shuttle system actually COULD launch a very large amount into low earth orbit. Unfortunately, a huge part of the weight it lifted into orbit it brought all the way back to earth again - so it was using a huge amount of fuel and energy just lifting itself rather than useful payload.
This was the fundamentally uneconomic aspect of attempted reusability.
The Shuttle system actually COULD launch a very large amount into low earth orbit. Unfortunately, a huge part of the weight it lifted into orbit it brought all the way back to earth again - so it was using a huge amount of fuel and energy just lifting itself rather than useful payload.
This was the fundamentally uneconomic aspect of attempted reusability.
Indeed - working on current payload abilities the idea seems far fetched. However their ideas for Mars involve a new vehicle entirely which would be able to take 100 tonnes plus. The way they intend to get it to work is to firstly build a reusable rocket (all stages). They're already attempting to land stage 1 rockets after some launches.
Once the rocket is reusable they will send the payload into orbit above Earth, come back down, send more - until you have X payloads (with stage 2 & final stage rockets attached) ready above earth. These will be waiting for the convergence of Earth and Mars, and all set off together - so for each convergence you get multiple launches without them all having to wait to launch from Earth directly. This is oversimplifying it - but the link I posted goes into this in more detail. It makes sense, since even when they're close they're about 60 million miles apart. This will allow for quicker colonisation and more backups should one launch fail. Rockets being reusable will of course massively lower the overall cost. Of course, reusable rockets have many other things to take into account: metal fatigue, etc.
Once the rocket is reusable they will send the payload into orbit above Earth, come back down, send more - until you have X payloads (with stage 2 & final stage rockets attached) ready above earth. These will be waiting for the convergence of Earth and Mars, and all set off together - so for each convergence you get multiple launches without them all having to wait to launch from Earth directly. This is oversimplifying it - but the link I posted goes into this in more detail. It makes sense, since even when they're close they're about 60 million miles apart. This will allow for quicker colonisation and more backups should one launch fail. Rockets being reusable will of course massively lower the overall cost. Of course, reusable rockets have many other things to take into account: metal fatigue, etc.
Of course, the Saturn V could launch 100 tons into earth orbit - and it did - 13 times.
The SLS will have a similar capacity.
Making a 1st stage recoverable and ruesable is a laudable aim. If the Saturn V line had continued, I am sure by now NASA would have been recovering the S1C stage. Unfortunately, they went down the Shuttle route instead.
The SLS will have a similar capacity.
Making a 1st stage recoverable and ruesable is a laudable aim. If the Saturn V line had continued, I am sure by now NASA would have been recovering the S1C stage. Unfortunately, they went down the Shuttle route instead.
Such old fashioned views come on guys, this is supposed to be a Science thread
Yuri Artsutanov came up with the Space elevator which is now technically feasible each one could lift 1500 tonnes per annum
http://spaceref.com/space-elevator/yuri-artsutanov...
Also you will find him here https://youtu.be/UK-q6f8SUCE
Couple of nice videos here showing how this would work http://www.spaceward.org/elevator
Yuri Artsutanov came up with the Space elevator which is now technically feasible each one could lift 1500 tonnes per annum
http://spaceref.com/space-elevator/yuri-artsutanov...
Also you will find him here https://youtu.be/UK-q6f8SUCE
Couple of nice videos here showing how this would work http://www.spaceward.org/elevator
Just finished reading the article about SpaceX and find it fascinating, I hope they succeed, I would love to see a story in my lifetime about the first humans travelling to Mars, and the about a whoe bunch of others going every two years to turn it into a real colony.
I wonder if the timeframe they talk about (20 years) is actually realistic, I hope so.
I wonder if the timeframe they talk about (20 years) is actually realistic, I hope so.
ing
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff