Astronomy, Interplanetary Travel and Mars Colonization

Beasty

Beasty

Well-Known Member
This thread is for information, thoughts, imagination and real science.



Are you prepared to DIE to get to Mars?': Elon Musk unveils radical 'megashuttle' that will take man to Red Planet in 80 days to set up a million person city - but warns the first trips will be 'really very dangerous'

Spoke at the International Astronautical Congress in Mexico today to reveal the plan
Pledged to make the price of a trip to Mars the same price as a house - $200,000
Shuttle would launch with empty fuel tanks and refuel in orbit, and propellant would be made on Mars
Will launch from Earth on a reusable booster and carry 100 passengers at a time
Shuttle could eventually carry 200 people and reach Mars in just 80 days
Hoped craft could first fly in just four years, with first Mars trip in a decade



38D995EF00000578-3810357-image-a-66_1475008107224.jpg






http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...sport-make-humans-multiplanetary-species.html
 
I like what I'm hearing. Haven't looked at the validity of the science, yet. But, on the surface of it, it sounds feasible.

I just wish it was our government doing this instead of a private company. There's going to be some life changing technology stemming from this mission. Hopefully, Musk allows his patents to be open source.
 
samson1701 said:
I like what I'm hearing. Haven't looked at the validity of the science, yet. But, on the surface of it, it sounds feasible.

I just wish it was our government doing this instead of a private company. There's going to be some life changing technology stemming from this mission. Hopefully, Musk allows his patents to be open source.
Click to expand...
I want to know what he means by compressing the atmosphere on mars. I know how it could be done on a small scale, but can't help but wonder if he means compressing the entire atmosphere, which would be awesome.
Wearing an oxygen mask is one thing, but wearing a space suit all the time would suck. So either they are going to need buildings with compressed gases or they are going to have to figure out how to compress the entire atmosphere of mars.
 
Now that I think about it, he mentioned having liquid oceans which would require compressing the entire atmosphere. I wonder how that can be done.
 
The Dark King said:
So Earth is a wash? We've given up?
Click to expand...

Nope. I don't think that's what this is about. It would be a lot easier to stop destroying earth than it would be to make mars inhabitable, scientifically speaking. Politically it is a mess here but I don't think that is what this is about. This is about the love and advancement of science and the human race as well as adventure.
 
What sucks is that Mars is the only planet in our solar system worth traveling to. Jupiter doesn't even have a solid surface to stand on. After Mars is colonized, we are going to need to be advanced enough for interstellar travel which would require travel at the speed of light. With the closest stellar system being a little over 4 light years away, if someone made it there and found a planet with liquid water, It would still take over 4 years for them to communicate their findings back to us. That is the closest system, the other feasible ones that we know of are up to 25 light years away. There has to be something else out there somewhere.
 
This is going in Tam's zodiac thread, but it bears Astrological highlighting here..:p

Your Zodiac Sign May Have Changed — But Don't Panic
SARA COUGHLIN
SEPTEMBER 16, 2016, 5:50 PM
Here at Refinery29, we invest a lot of meaning in the astrological sign we were born into — like, a lot a lot. Imagine our surprise (and okay, slight panic), when we got the bone-chilling news that NASA may have declared the date ranges by which we define the signs to be all wrong. Once we got over the initial shock, being the voracious stargazers that we are, we knew we needed to take a closer look.

In a blog post published back in January of this year, NASA reminded us that there are, in fact, 13 constellations in the original zodiac. It's just that 3,000 years ago, when they were drawing up a plan for the signs of the zodiac that would correspond with the months of year, the Babylonians already had a 12-month calendar — so they left poor Ophiuchus out. With that and the fact that the earth's axis no longer points in the same direction in mind, NASA explained that the signs as we know them have completely different date ranges now.

Here the "new" dates for all 13 signs:

Capricorn: January 20 - February 16

Aquarius: February 16 – March 11

Pisces: March 11 – April 18

Aries: April 18 – May 13

Taurus: May 13 – June 21

Gemini: June 21 – July 20

Cancer: July 20 – August 10

Leo: August 10 – September 16

Virgo: September 16 – October 30

Libra: October 30 – November 23

Scorpio: November 23 – November 29

Ophiuchus: November 29 – December 17

Sagittarius: December 17 – January 20

Now that you've caught your breath, here's a hard truth: From the get-go, astrology was not intended as an exact science. And as NASA has shown, some of its most foundational values, like these very signs, can be challenged by astrology's hard-science counterpart, astronomy.

For those of you scrambling to know what to believe in anymore, it's completely up to you. Some astrologers add that the seasons play a role in determining the signs' dates, but it's really just a matter of whether you subscribe to the zodiac signs or their corresponding constellations.

Each person has a different relationship with their sign and horoscope — if they have one at all — so if you'd like this news from NASA to shatter your worldview, by all means, let it. But if you've already invested a fair share of personal meaning into the sign you've believed you were born under all along, that's fine, too.

Finally, it's important to keep in mind that this isn't the first time this has happened and it won't be the last — after all, in the next couple thousand years, the earth's axis will probably point in a slightly different direction all over again.
Click to expand...
 
Beasty said:
This thread is for information, thoughts, imagination and real science.

Are you prepared to DIE to get to Mars?':
Shuttle could eventually carry 200 people and reach Mars in just 80 days
Hoped craft could first fly in just four years, with first Mars trip in a decade
Click to expand...


My thoughts: These guys are full of shit.

No one is going to mars in our lifetime and probably not our grandkids' either.

They're talking about mars, yet no one has set foot on the moon in decades... something we supposedly did with 1960s and 70s technology.

If they were serious about space travel, the moon is just hours away. A perfect place to test and develop much of the same tech you'd need for a mars trips... and nobody has to die there either.

The fact that they're talking nonsense about mars, yet not a peep about the moon says something.

What they're really doing is focusing minds on a "glorious future" if you just stay in line and know your place... much like we all were promised robot butlers in the '50s.

It's bullshit. Get to the moon first.
 
medullaslashin said:
My thoughts: These guys are full of shit.

No one is going to mars in our lifetime and probably not our grandkids' either.

They're talking about mars, yet no one has set foot on the moon in decades... something we supposedly did with 1960s and 70s technology.

If they were serious about space travel, the moon is just hours away. A perfect place to test and develop much of the same tech you'd need for a mars trips... and nobody has to die there either.

The fact that they're talking nonsense about mars, yet not a peep about the moon says something.

What they're really doing is focusing minds on a "glorious future" if you just stay in line and know your place... much like we all were promised robot butlers in the '50s.

It's bullshit. Get to the moon first.
Click to expand...

Mars is more hospitable than the moon. The only edge the moon has is its proximity to earth.

Calm down ......lol
 
Bliss said:
This is going in Tam's zodiac thread, but it bears Astrological highlighting here..:p

Your Zodiac Sign May Have Changed — But Don't Panic
SARA COUGHLIN
SEPTEMBER 16, 2016, 5:50 PM
Click to expand...
Lol. What are you smoking??
 
Beasty said:
Mars is more hospitable than the moon. The only edge the moon has is its proximity to earth.

Calm down ......lol
Click to expand...

No, Mars is not more hospitable than the moon.

First, there's the distance. You're in danger all the way from the start of the year-long trip, dodging radiation and depending on experimental new tech & no-room-for-error planning.

Then, once you get there, you'll need protection from radiation & extreme temps, & you'll need oxygen just like on the moon. Both the moon and mars have water ice, though I'm not sure which ice is more accessible. (I think the moon's is...)

...So it's virtually the same challenges, except the moon is hours instead of years away, and you can get back, so it's not a suicide mission.

Score 1 for the moon.

Plus the payoff for a moon mission is bigger:

It's more valuable (& of course viable) as a base from which to launch more distant missions, with its low gravity and water for rocket fuel. A moon mission base would be the perfect "stepping stone" for a mars mission.

It's a good test of the tech for a future mars mission, because nobody dies if the "unknown unknowns" bite you in the butt.

It's valuable real estate -- imagine how great it would be to get a telescope up there, or mine some that valuable helium-3, or put missiles or laser weapons up there, or tourists, or whatever. With the tourist angle, the mission could probably pay for itself.

It's a more prestigious prize for the U.S., rather than having china or russia get there & set up first.

...Plus we've been there before (presumably), with 1960s technology yet. The computers we used back then don't hold a candle to what's in your cell phone right now. ... So a moon mission should be fairly smooth and easy.

The reason Musk et al aren't saying "we're goin to the moon" and instead are targeting mars is because with mars, they have an excuse for it not happening yesterday.

They're bullshitting you. For whatever reason, they want people dreaming. Fact is, there'll be no one on mars in our lifetime, or even our grandkids' lifetimes.

If they were serious, they'd target the moon.
 
I find space and other planets fascinating, and I dont think exploration should be stopped on them, they may be able to help understand earth better, but I cant help but say, that earth should get our attention first, try to deal with our own home first.

Before having expensive and risky trips to far away planets as a form of recreation like some say, that energy and funding would be better spent trying to fix some of earth's problems.
 
medullaslashin said:
No, Mars is not more hospitable than the moon.

First, there's the distance. You're in danger all the way from the start of the year-long trip, dodging radiation and depending on experimental new tech & no-room-for-error planning.

Then, once you get there, you'll need protection from radiation & extreme temps, & you'll need oxygen just like on the moon. Both the moon and mars have water ice, though I'm not sure which ice is more accessible. (I think the moon's is...)

...So it's virtually the same challenges, except the moon is hours instead of years away, and you can get back, so it's not a suicide mission.

Score 1 for the moon.

Plus the payoff for a moon mission is bigger:

It's more valuable (& of course viable) as a base from which to launch more distant missions, with its low gravity and water for rocket fuel. A moon mission base would be the perfect "stepping stone" for a mars mission.

It's a good test of the tech for a future mars mission, because nobody dies if the "unknown unknowns" bite you in the butt.

It's valuable real estate -- imagine how great it would be to get a telescope up there, or mine some that valuable helium-3, or put missiles or laser weapons up there, or tourists, or whatever. With the tourist angle, the mission could probably pay for itself.

It's a more prestigious prize for the U.S., rather than having china or russia get there & set up first.

...Plus we've been there before (presumably), with 1960s technology yet. The computers we used back then don't hold a candle to what's in your cell phone right now. ... So a moon mission should be fairly smooth and easy.

The reason Musk et al aren't saying "we're goin to the moon" and instead are targeting mars is because with mars, they have an excuse for it not happening yesterday.

They're bullshitting you. For whatever reason, they want people dreaming. Fact is, there'll be no one on mars in our lifetime, or even our grandkids' lifetimes.

If they were serious, they'd target the moon.
Click to expand...

I believe I read somewhere, around the time the movie The Martian came out, that the reason we haven't gone to Mars yet is because of the radiation exposure humans will get. They have to solve the problem of radiation exposure before they can even consider going to Mars.
 
Bliss said:
Lol, well the thousands year-old zodiacs are based on the Constellation and earth's axis 'n shit. Now NASA threw a wrench. That is all.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it, though.

I know astrology is mostly crap, but there IS some truth to the signs and supposedly I'm going from a Gemini to a Taurus. I display zero signs for Taurus.

If they want to change the zodiac dates, then they need to also shift the signs' meanings, etc.

#GeminiNoMatterWhat
 
Bookworm616 said:
I don't believe it, though.

I know astrology is mostly crap, but there IS some truth to the signs and supposedly I'm going from a Gemini to a Taurus. I display zero signs for Taurus.

If they want to change the zodiac dates, then they need to also shift the signs' meanings, etc.

#GeminiNoMatterWhat
Click to expand...
#Totally with you! I'm everything my original sign says l am. I'm zero what its changed to.

Hey, l'll give them 'the earth is round', but the Zodiacs are off limits! ?:smt061
 
medullaslashin said:
No, Mars is not more hospitable than the moon.

First, there's the distance. You're in danger all the way from the start of the year-long trip, dodging radiation and depending on experimental new tech & no-room-for-error planning.

Then, once you get there, you'll need protection from radiation & extreme temps, & you'll need oxygen just like on the moon. Both the moon and mars have water ice, though I'm not sure which ice is more accessible. (I think the moon's is...)

...So it's virtually the same challenges, except the moon is hours instead of years away, and you can get back, so it's not a suicide mission.

Score 1 for the moon.

Plus the payoff for a moon mission is bigger:

It's more valuable (& of course viable) as a base from which to launch more distant missions, with its low gravity and water for rocket fuel. A moon mission base would be the perfect "stepping stone" for a mars mission.

It's a good test of the tech for a future mars mission, because nobody dies if the "unknown unknowns" bite you in the butt.

It's valuable real estate -- imagine how great it would be to get a telescope up there, or mine some that valuable helium-3, or put missiles or laser weapons up there, or tourists, or whatever. With the tourist angle, the mission could probably pay for itself.

It's a more prestigious prize for the U.S., rather than having china or russia get there & set up first.

...Plus we've been there before (presumably), with 1960s technology yet. The computers we used back then don't hold a candle to what's in your cell phone right now. ... So a moon mission should be fairly smooth and easy.

The reason Musk et al aren't saying "we're goin to the moon" and instead are targeting mars is because with mars, they have an excuse for it not happening yesterday.

They're bullshitting you. For whatever reason, they want people dreaming. Fact is, there'll be no one on mars in our lifetime, or even our grandkids' lifetimes.

If they were serious, they'd target the moon.
Click to expand...
I'm going to start by questioning your first point.

The moon has a negligible atmosphere. I wouldn't expect it to provide a lot of protection from radiation. In fact the atmosphere on the moon is so insignificant, that it was thought not to have an atmosphere at all until recently. So are you saying that the risk of radiation on a trip to mars is more risky than being on the moon??

I hope you don't equate being on the moon to being on mars when mars has much more of an atmosphere to protect from radiation.

Btw the trip will not be a year long trip. Musk is talking 80 days.
Bliss said:
Lol, well the thousands year-old zodiacs are based on the Constellation and earth's axis 'n shit. Now NASA threw a wrench. That is all.
Click to expand...

@Right wing mafia. No wonder your elk doesn't believe in global warming. When you conflate astrology with science, shit happens. :smt042
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom