Mars One - Scam? Pipe Dream? Madness? Or.....

[Clinton Huxley]

Mars One - the scheme to send volunteers to Mars in 2023. Privately funded, organised as a reality tv show. One way trip. If you are lucky, you die on the way. If you are unlucky, you survive and get to colonise Mars.

http://mars-one.com/en/

If it was legit, would you go?

[borealis]

Are you allowed to enroll other people?

[Clinton Huxley]

Are you allowed to enroll other people?

They would need a bigger rocket.

[Tyrannical]

We could easily drop a self sufficient colony on Mars with today's tech, by launching a giant ship that rides the blast waves of small nuclear bombs. Low levels of radiation that would spread some isn't as dangerous as thought. Hell, there was even that Jap that survived both WWII atomic blasts, lived long and had normal children.
Without sci-fi TV technology, there is no other way to move a large amount of mass into Earth orbit and beyond. You could send and land on Mars something the size of an aircraft carrier.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Or ... pulsion%29

[Rum]

It is an amazing and absolutely loony idea.

I hope it works but I can't see it remotely doing so.

[Blind groper]

A small improvement in current technology could do it without exploding nukes. We can already get into orbit, with sizable payloads. An interplanetary vessel is not far off. Current research in ion drive propulsion will permit that with relatively efficient reaction mass to payload ratios.

The first manned expedition should be to the moon Phobos. It would be technically easier to put a human onto Phobos than to do the same on the moon, since there is so little gravity that it would be more a docking maneuver. Several such expeditions could establish a base on Phobos, from which a lander could be dispatched.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What's wrong with nukes in space?

[Blind groper]

Gawdzilla

Nukes in space is not the issue. In fact, nukes in space actually confer very little advantage. If you replace the nukes with an ion drive engine, you get the same speed, though with a lot less acceleration, but also with less fuel weight. Ion drive engines can be relatively small - even just clipped onto the side of a space vehicle.

Nukes confer the major advantage in escaping a gravity well. In other words, you use the nukes to get into space, meaning you are carrying out dozens of nuclear explosions inside the Earth's atmosphere each time you go into orbit.

[cogwheel]

What's wrong with nukes in space?

Getting them into space safely.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Gawdzilla

Nukes in space is not the issue. In fact, nukes in space actually confer very little advantage. If you replace the nukes with an ion drive engine, you get the same speed, though with a lot less acceleration, but also with less fuel weight. Ion drive engines can be relatively small - even just clipped onto the side of a space vehicle.

Nukes confer the major advantage in escaping a gravity well. In other words, you use the nukes to get into space, meaning you are carrying out dozens of nuclear explosions inside the Earth's atmosphere each time you go into orbit.

The weight goes down quickly with the nukes. Each one gives, IIRC, 1200% more acceleration than the previous one. (Very old figures, left over from a project at Purdue.)

What's wrong with nukes in space?

Getting them into space safely.

We've crashed bombers with nukes on board and not had a major incident, and that was '60s technology.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The weight goes down quickly with the nukes. Each one gives, IIRC, 1200% more acceleration than the previous one. (Very old figures, left over from a project at Purdue.)

I think you have those figures wrong, Zilla.

1200% = 12x

Let's assume that we have reached an accelaration of 1g (9.81ms-2) - one bomb would accelarate to 12g - the next to 144g! Nobody could survive g-forces like that!

I think you might mean that it gives 1200% greater velocity - that would be feasible, provided that the accelaration is kept within human tolerances.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The weight goes down quickly with the nukes. Each one gives, IIRC, 1200% more acceleration than the previous one. (Very old figures, left over from a project at Purdue.)

I think you have those figures wrong, Zilla.

1200% = 12x

Let's assume that we have reached an accelaration of 1g (9.81ms-2) - one bomb would accelarate to 12g - the next to 144g! Nobody could survive g-forces like that!

I think you might mean that it gives 1200% greater velocity - that would be feasible, provided that the accelaration is kept within human tolerances.

Working with 20 year old memories.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The weight goes down quickly with the nukes. Each one gives, IIRC, 1200% more acceleration than the previous one. (Very old figures, left over from a project at Purdue.)

I think you have those figures wrong, Zilla.

1200% = 12x

Let's assume that we have reached an accelaration of 1g (9.81ms-2) - one bomb would accelarate to 12g - the next to 144g! Nobody could survive g-forces like that!

I think you might mean that it gives 1200% greater velocity - that would be feasible, provided that the accelaration is kept within human tolerances.

Working with 20 year old memories.

Not recommended. However, 20 year old mammaries...