A Mars Colony in Our Lifetimes?

[Blind groper]

Tyrannical

I agree that a Mars colony will be feasible eventually. My point is simply that it will be difficult, and those involved will be subject to great hardship, and enormous risk.

On the nuke spaceship.
The irony is that the place it is needed is exactly the place we dare not use it. In the atmosphere. Once we get into orbit, propulsion is much easier, since we can accelerate slowly and need not use most of our propulsion just to fight gravity. Researchers are working now on ion drive engines that will do the job very nicely.

The big problem is fighting gravity wells. That is, getting from earth into Earth orbit, and the return, getting from Mars into Mars orbit. It is this battle against gravity where a nuclear bomb drive would work very well. Sadly, we cannot use it due to the contamination of the atmosphere that would inevitably come from the detonation of so many nukes close to the Earth.

[Azathoth]

The main problem is still the physiological effects of long term weightlessness. We could get people there but they would be incapable of functioning in gravity after a couple of years without it

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The main problem is still the physiological effects of long term weightlessness. We could get people there but they would be incapable of functioning in gravity after a couple of years without it

I saw a show where they put two guys on a long "board" with a center pintle. One guy used a bicycle-like apparatus to rotate the rig while the other guy was counter weight. The guy who wasn't peddling actually got more benefit than the other guy from this in tests on the ISS. Simple rig, one half hour a day, and they both kept their bone density and musculature.

[Tyrannical]

Tyrannical

I agree that a Mars colony will be feasible eventually. My point is simply that it will be difficult, and those involved will be subject to great hardship, and enormous risk.

On the nuke spaceship.
The irony is that the place it is needed is exactly the place we dare not use it. In the atmosphere. Once we get into orbit, propulsion is much easier, since we can accelerate slowly and need not use most of our propulsion just to fight gravity. Researchers are working now on ion drive engines that will do the job very nicely.

The big problem is fighting gravity wells. That is, getting from earth into Earth orbit, and the return, getting from Mars into Mars orbit. It is this battle against gravity where a nuclear bomb drive would work very well. Sadly, we cannot use it due to the contamination of the atmosphere that would inevitably come from the detonation of so many nukes close to the Earth.

Nuclear Ion drives use a tiny amount of thrust over a long period of time, not enough to escape a planet's gravity so they are of no use in moving large amounts of mass into Earth orbit. Nuclear blasts are the only way to get a truly large ship into orbit. With one launch of a Saturn V sized Orion, you could be in Mar's orbit a ship carrying something twice as massive as the International Space Station in four months.

Radiation risks could be mitigated, and there was talk of using laser ignited deuterium fusion bombs which wouldn't produce long lasting effects. I think about thirty explosions would get it into Earth orbit.

Anyways the new science is pointing towards low levels of radiation as not harmful. Radiation cancer risks may not be simply linearly related, but there is a thresh hold level below which radiation is safe. There is even some evidence that low levels of radiation reduces the risk of cancer, possibly by stimulating the immune system against mutations sort of how a vaccine works.

[Blind groper]

Tyrannical

The deuterium fusion might work, but we are still a long way off being able to create such a drive. Fission bombs are not feasible. Even if you could make a case for the radiation release being within tolerable limits, the politics of the situation would prevent it ever happening.

[Coito ergo sum]

"They" have had the technology for over 100 years now. It's being suppressed by the military and industrial complex to line the pockets of greedy scientists. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjjTAuh2 ... re=related[/youtube]

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

First we need a Moonbase, so stuff can be ferried to the moon piecemeal and can then be assembled / loaded onto the larger Mars Space Ship.

Either that or build a tunnel

[Gawdzilla Sama]

First we need a Moonbase, so stuff can be ferried to the moon piecemeal and can then be assembled / loaded onto the larger Mars Space Ship.

Either that or build a tunnel

Mars One.

[Blind groper]

Actually, it would be much more logical to build a Phobos base than a moon base. This moon of Mars has such small gravity that landing is more like a docking maneuver. In terms of energy (fuel carried), it would be easier to send astronauts to Phobos and back than to the moon and back.

[Coito ergo sum]

The advantage of a Moon base over a Phobos base is that the Moon is generally in the hundreds of thousands of miles away, and Mars/Phobos is many millions of miles away. We've never even sent a human to visit any farther than the Moon, and we only did that a few times 40 years ago. The people who were involved 40 years ago are aging, or dead already. The cancellation of Constellation cost us a lot in terms of standing on their shoulders.

The Moon base must be first because we're learning as we go. We don't know how to build a base on another world yet. It makes sense to build one on the Moon before we go for one that takes a minimum of 6 months to get to.

That is why it was obvious that Obama was not just canceling Constellation and the Moon Base -- he canceled American manned space flight altogether. We're just not going to build a base on Mars before we build a base on the Moon. It makes no sense to do so. Just on the political spectrum -- one accident on Mars that causes a death, and what's the first finger-pointing question that will be asked? Easy: wasn't it really stupid to go straight to Mars instead of trying our hand at the nearest extraterrestrial world at hand?

[Tyrannical]

We can barely keep a functional space station with half a dozen people on board, let alone a colony. Zero-G Earth orbit at least has some manufacturing uses, and would be the logical stepping stone before anything on the Moon or Mars.
What we really need is a cheap way to get inanimate cargo into orbit cheaply. People and delicate cargo are another story, but the 99% of what we need in orbit can survive extreme acceleration. Rockets are a poor choice, all of the energy to make it into orbit is carried as fuel. What we need is something that can impart a large force that does not add mass to the space vehicle. Maybe a giant cannon that shoots a rocket as high as it can until the rocket engines takeover.

The real world has some research going on,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quicklaunch

Ambitious.

The fourth phase is a three-year 500 million dollar project to launch to orbit a 450 kilograms (990 lb) payload each time, capable to supply 4 million lbs (2,000 tons) yearly and launching 5 times a day.

[Blind groper]

Tyrannical has a point.

My own view is that the next logical step in space exploration is a mobile space station. That is : a habitat that can keep people alive and well for months or years, but with ion drive engines strapped on so that it can travel anywhere inside the solar system.

For proper good health, it would need to spin for gravity, and it would need a magnetic field generator to direct charged particles away from the living habitat. Neither would appear to me to be a major obstacle.

In the mean time, there is a desperate need for a cheap way of getting into orbit. The ultimate ideal way would be a space elevator, but that is probably at least 100 years off. In the mean time, we need an alternative. A cheap space plane would seem to be the best option, based on what I have read. Something that is single stage, takes off from, and lands at an airfield, and can achieve low orbit with a reasonable payload, at a cost not too much exceeding the cost of flying a jumbo jet. It may not be too far in the future.

[Cormac]

Tyrannical

I agree that a Mars colony will be feasible eventually. My point is simply that it will be difficult, and those involved will be subject to great hardship, and enormous risk.

On the nuke spaceship.
The irony is that the place it is needed is exactly the place we dare not use it. In the atmosphere. Once we get into orbit, propulsion is much easier, since we can accelerate slowly and need not use most of our propulsion just to fight gravity. Researchers are working now on ion drive engines that will do the job very nicely.

The big problem is fighting gravity wells. That is, getting from earth into Earth orbit, and the return, getting from Mars into Mars orbit. It is this battle against gravity where a nuclear bomb drive would work very well. Sadly, we cannot use it due to the contamination of the atmosphere that would inevitably come from the detonation of so many nukes close to the Earth.

Nuclear Ion drives use a tiny amount of thrust over a long period of time, not enough to escape a planet's gravity so they are of no use in moving large amounts of mass into Earth orbit. Nuclear blasts are the only way to get a truly large ship into orbit. With one launch of a Saturn V sized Orion, you could be in Mar's orbit a ship carrying something twice as massive as the International Space Station in four months.

Radiation risks could be mitigated, and there was talk of using laser ignited deuterium fusion bombs which wouldn't produce long lasting effects. I think about thirty explosions would get it into Earth orbit.

Anyways the new science is pointing towards low levels of radiation as not harmful. Radiation cancer risks may not be simply linearly related, but there is a thresh hold level below which radiation is safe. There is even some evidence that low levels of radiation reduces the risk of cancer, possibly by stimulating the immune system against mutations sort of how a vaccine works.

Mind you, we don't need to get ships into orbit. We could use a meteoroid or asteroid as a "vehicle", strap the bits and pieces we need to it, and fling it off to Mars by adjusting its direction.

Alternatively, we could crash it into the moon, and manufacture a basic structure out of it. This could be easily launched off the moon, and flown to Mars. Then all we'd need to get into orbit would be supplies and materials. This could be done in multiple launches of existing rockets.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

The cheap option would be for NASA to put up a prize of 10 Billion for folks who could replace the space shuttle capabilities. and another 10 Billion for a resusable Moon Shuttle. and maybe even have the prize for the first 3!......and then let the market decide which is "best".

For the moon it should not too hard to deliver the equipment to build a moonbase by unmanned vehicles (for later construction IKEA style!). Most of the work could be done by robots - even if humans needed to do the finishing off. Obviously lots of trial and error but lessons learnt would be of use to do the same later on Mars (and elsewhere).

Me would also build a base on Uranus - just because it would be funny..........

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Space has to go commercial before we can exploit it fully. Unfortunately for most of us, it looks like China will be in the best position to do that. I can imagine a day when there are dozens of large facilities in space, owned by the Chinese, which are revealed to be armed with WMDs and over all our heads all the time.