Space stuff...

[noseall]

You're probably right, just saying that 200 years ago people wouldnt believe what we are doing today, would they?

(Not me personally I've done nowt today)

I know. You keep repeating the same irrelevant thing.

I think what you are not getting is, everything else we have done in the tech world has advanced 1 million fold. Space travel has gone backwards.

 

[IT Minion]

I know. You keep repeating the same irrelevant thing.

I think what you are not getting is, everything else we have done in the tech world has advanced 1 million fold. Space travel has gone backwards.

SpaceX, BO and the rest of the new space movement are changing that, but we're a long long way from a manned Mars mission.

 

[Highway Man]

I know. You keep repeating the same irrelevant thing.

I think what you are not getting is, everything else we have done in the tech world has advanced 1 million fold. Space travel has gone backwards.

Exactly

 

[pete01]

I know. You keep repeating the same irrelevant thing.

Oh ok, you seem agitated....its not a subject I want to argue about....just thought we were having a discussion, never mind.

 

[noseall]

SpaceX, BO and the rest of the new space movement are changing that, but we're a long long way from a manned Mars mission.

Agree. But all those mentioned are barely out of the Earth's orbit.

They'd need to build a launch pad from a zero gravity or low gravity location (the Moon), to be able to propel a bloke further into space. When I say further, I mean as far as the nearest planet.

Space is just too big. Humans need too much water. Humans don't live long enough. Some things are just insurmountable.

 

[Brigadier]

Of all the modern advances in the science and tech world, space travel has all but stalled.

We are no nearer to putting a man on Mars than we were 5 decades ago. It's just a pipe dream.

Getting a human onto the Martian surface is not beyond the realms of what's plausible within the next few years.

Not killing them within the first few hours or days though, is another thing altogether.

And getting them back - alive - no chance.

 

[MNW67]

I don't get the excitement about the moon pass. They did the same thing in 1968.

 

[noseall]

I don't get the excitement about the moon pass

Me neither. Just another distraction.

. They did the same thing in 1968

Now look where we are.

 

[pete01]

I don't get the excitement about the moon pass. They did the same thing in 1968.

On the far side?

 

[Brigadier]

SpaceX, BO and the rest of the new space movement are changing that, but we're a long long way from a manned Mars mission.

We're still lighting candles, with a maximum velocity of a couple of tens of thousands of miles per hour.

Until we can develop the tech to reach squillions of mph from earth's surface, it ain't happening.

I make the point of "from earth's surface", as ion drives and the like might have high potential velocity, but they also have virtually zero thrust.

 

[IT Minion]

We're still lighting candles, with a maximum velocity of a couple of tens of thousands of miles per hour.

Until we can develop the tech to reach squillions of mph from earth's surface, it ain't happening.

I make the point of "from earth's surface", as ion drives and the like might have high potential velocity, but they also have virtually zero thrust.

Nah, Mars is achievable with simple chemical reactions. Hoffman transfers are months not years and we can keep people alive in cans for that long. Its expensive but practical. Much further/faster than that starts to get a lot harder.

 

[IT Minion]

Agree. But all those mentioned are barely out of the Earth's orbit.

They'd need to build a launch pad from a zero gravity or low gravity location (the Moon), to be able to propel a bloke further into space. When I say further, I mean as far as the nearest planet.

Space is just too big. Humans need too much water. Humans don't live long enough. Some things are just insurmountable.

Not really, getting to the Moon needs up to 4km/s additional velocity. Mars takes about 7km/s.

Bolting together a slimmed down ISS with more storage and strapping some boosters to it in orbit is clearly technologically possible.

The biggest difference in terms of scale between doing a Mars return and a Lunar return that people don't see straight away is probably the Mars launch, you need a much bigger rocket than on the Apollo Landers to get back to Mars orbit. 1.7km/s > 3.5km/s doesn't double the size of your rocket, it's much much worse.

 

[pete01]

OMG

 

[noseall]

Not really, getting to the Moon needs up to 4km/s additional velocity. Mars takes about 7km/s.

Bolting together a slimmed down ISS with more storage and strapping some boosters to it in orbit is clearly technologically possible.

The biggest difference in terms of scale between doing a Mars return and a Lunar return that people don't see straight away is probably the Mars launch, you need a much bigger rocket than on the Apollo Landers to get back to Mars orbit. 1.7km/s > 3.5km/s doesn't double the size of your rocket, it's much much worse.

And the fact that they need to take enough water and food for a (additional weight) 9 month trip.

Pipe dream and logistically/practically impossible from the Earth.

 

[IT Minion]

And the fact that they need to take enough water and food for a (additional weight) 9 month trip.

Pipe dream and logistically/practically impossible from the Earth.

Water recycling is old tech and 98% efficient. Food for a 6 person crew for 3 years is only 10 tons. Ludicrously expensive but nothing particularly difficult to launch.