[space] Is Mars-one a scam?

[J.Random]

Not antimatter.

I was hoping for a starship to have a photon sail, and to be assisted by fusion/VASMIR.

(also, to this your post):

You were speaking about "colonization". THIS is your idea of colonization? Spend gazillions of $$ to go to Mars once and get back? It's also funny how you try to incorporate two different (also, conflicting) approaches: (not exactly tested) VASIMR (do you know that guys who advertise this thing want to get to Mars in 3 months - meaning no free-return trajectory?) and the idea of one of its critics, "let's use old chemical rockets and spin hab and booster around their common CoM". I won't even comment on "using photon sails for heavy vehicles" BS.

[Seret]

Hmmm, NASAFanboy, fraid the burden of proof is on you, as you are the one making the assertation.

Indeed. Besides, it's somewhat difficult to prove a negative. Whereas NASAfanboy could prove his point easily.

Seret: having the technology and having it tested, available and rated for manned flight are two completely different things.

Kind of my point. Just because something has been tested in a lab, or it's been in the media doesn't mean it can be used for manned flight any time soon. The way a lot of people on this forum, you'd think Sabre engines, generation ships, and Alcubiere drives were current technology.

[TheBeardyMan]

And when the crew has arrived they sell the rights to a production company to prduce a big brother kinda show.

Getting "voted out" on that big brother show is really going to suck...

[NASAFanboy]

(also, to this your post):

You were speaking about "colonization". THIS is your idea of colonization? Spend gazillions of $$ to go to Mars once and get back? It's also funny how you try to incorporate two different (also, conflicting) approaches: (not exactly tested) VASIMR (do you know that guys who advertise this thing want to get to Mars in 3 months - meaning no free-return trajectory?) and the idea of one of its critics, "let's use old chemical rockets and spin hab and booster around their common CoM". I won't even comment on "using photon sails for heavy vehicles" BS.

Huh?

I was talking about interstellar probes, not Mars colonization.

Someone replied to my post on interstellar travel, so I replied back.

Actually look into the post next time, instead of replying all "smart", because apparently, I've lost all respect for you with that one. Chemical can get us to Mars one-way (Requiring two vessels). NERVA can get us there and back. VASMIR is overkill-if it works in space.

Did you even read my other posts?

They had NOTABLE points-which supported chemical engines to Mars.

So shut up and read, before replying like a true know-it-all.

[Kryten]

Have you considered that it might be considered necessary for the astronauts to arrive alive for a Mars mission to be successful? You still haven't provided any evidence for your assertion that the level of regenerative life-support technology exists to make such a mission actually possible.

[J.Random]

I was talking about interstellar probes, not Mars colonization.

Seriously? If I may quote you:

The issue is not radiation, nor technological limits, but the willpower.

We have the technology to colonize Mars. Don't listen to those who say we "don't". We do, and we've had such capability since the late 1990's. All we need is the infrastructure (Such as the SLS), and the political support.

Saying that we "don't"....it's just NASA's way of delaying something, because it's much better then coming out and saying "No Mars mission because Obama cut our spending, and so, we cannot afford it".

So, "we need the infrastructure."

I guarantee you, we have the technology. We have the infrastructure.

Oh, wait, we already have it! Right? Now all we need is money - simple!

And you, my dear sir, show me that the technology is not ready for use.

Again, seriously? What kind of an argument is this? Can you prove that there is no such thing as a ghost? Please do.

May I suggest that you start reading your own posts before hitting "Submit"?

[NASAFanboy]

Seriously? If I may quote you:

So, "we need the infrastructure."

Oh, wait, we already have it! Right? Now all we need is money - simple!

Again, seriously? What kind of an argument is this? Can you prove that there is no such thing as a ghost? Please do.

May I suggest that you start reading your own posts before hitting "Submit"?

May I suggest, sir, that you learn about changing views/editing/taking in input?

By infrastructure in the first post, I mean the heavy-lift rockets such as the SLS which are under development, and the political support infrastructure-both of which are nonexistent, except for maybe some parts of the SLS and some random Republic challenging Obama's ARM for the fifth time in a row.

By infrastructure on the second, the theme of the conversation ha changed, and I was talking about the facilities on Earth. Read the surronding posts, Mr. Smart Guy.

May I suggest you read surronding posts and actually stay with the conversation before quoting some post three pages away. If your really going to sound tht smart, atleast use your noggin.

Now, what do I mean by technology?

By technology, I mean the stuff tested on Earth. Not in space.

We do have a closed life-support system (Forgot the name) that eventually was abandoned after funding went out.

Now, as for the rest of the life-support and such.

We could utilize the SLS to launch a 130ton Hab Module to Mars.

In that hab module, we can place carbon dioxide scurbbers to remove CO2. We could have a small greenhouse, to produce food. And we could either rely on this new "3d food printer", or by subsiding the crews on MRE's. I'm unsure. Why not look it up a little yourselves, while I go back to reading the "Case for Mars"?

Edited October 29, 2013 by NASAFanboy

[Kryten]

CO2 scrubbers are simply containers of chemicals that react with carbon dioxide. They won't last forever, and they won't compensate for the oxygen actually lost.

[NASAFanboy]

CO2 scrubbers are simply containers of chemicals that react with carbon dioxide. They won't last forever, and they won't compensate for the oxygen actually lost.

Yes, I know.

Which is exactly why the faster to Mars-the better.

[SuperWeegee4000]

We need the fire department. A flame war is brewing.

[Kryten]

Yes, I know.

Which is exactly why the faster to Mars-the better.

So, getting to Mars with current technology isn't actually an option then, is it? Either they have to use future life support technology or future engine technology.

[Nephf]

both of which do not exist yet. And the Falcon heavy is capable of sending a payload of 13tonnes to Mars. Which is about half the weight of the Apollo spacecraft...

This dragon would NOT have a Service Module

And even if you can get the Dragon to Mars.. doesn't mean anyone can sit in there that whole trip.

Would you like to spend 6 months in your car?

Ever heard of a wet workshop? If not, please google it. There were serious thinkings of a manned Venus flyby with a 25t-Apollo Spaceship, using a Saturn 5. It would be the same: The uppere stage is changed into a space station.

The ISS needs constant shipments of supplies-including oxygen (in the form of water that's split through electrolysis). If we had the technology to recycle oxygen with the efficiency necessary for a Mars voyage, we'd use it on the ISS and not need to send up the extra mass of water, or deal with the rather unreliable electrolysis equipment. Same reasoning applies to food and drinking water.

exactly, in the form of water. don't tell me that curiosity never found a water molecule on mars.

Errr wrong.

We (probably) have the knowledge to send humans to Mars. We know the problems and know how to tackle them. What we don't have is the technology. Currently the only human rated spacecraft is the Soyuz TMA.

Wait 2-3 years. That's really not long in the history of spaceflight. And the we will see what the SpaceX Dragon Looks like.

Please check this out: http://www.spacex.com/press/2012/12/19/nasa-selects-spacex-return-americans-space

See, now this is what's called an assertion. To make it qualify as a little more plausible you'd need to provide some evidence to back it up with. Can you do that? Convince us that the technology is tested, available, and rated for manned flight.

The Falcon Heavy is nearly the same as the Falcon 9. The Falcon 9 works, it's reliable and the Merlin 1-D engine can be ignited up to 2 times, that's what you need for a manned flight. The Dragon is also ready, they only have to make seats in it. Overall, the Dragon has been part of the ISS for 54 days for now, that shows that it is capable for humans.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Nephf

[Anton P. Nym]

Ever heard of a wet workshop? If not, please google it. There were serious thinkings of a manned Venus flyby with a 25t-Apollo Spaceship, using a Saturn 5. It would be the same: The uppere stage is changed into a space station.

Yes, I've heard of it. I've also heard why the concept of "wet workshop" was abandoned by NASA; the persistant fume problem. Bad enough with RP-1; LH2'd be worse.

-- Steve

[Nephf]

Yes, I've heard of it. I've also heard why the concept of "wet workshop" was abandoned by NASA; the persistant fume problem. Bad enough with RP-1; LH2'd be worse.

-- Steve

The Falcon upper stage IS powered with RP-1. And do you really think that it's impossiple only because the Skylab's Saturn 5 was cheaper than the development of a wet workshop and Saturn 1-B flight?

Edited October 30, 2013 by Nephf

[Kryten]

I think he simply phrased that incorrectly, given the stage intended for the 'wet workshop' concept used LH2. But if the upper stage has been used as a workshop, how exactly are they supposed to slow down at Mars? You've even said upthread that'd include no service module-do you seriously think something can enter an atmosphere straight from a transfer orbit? Admittedly some of the Venera missions used that strategy successfully, but astronauts tend to prefer deceleration in the the single digit gee range, rather than triple digit.

[Nephf]

I think he simply phrased that incorrectly, given the stage intended for the 'wet workshop' concept used LH2. But if the upper stage has been used as a workshop, how exactly are they supposed to slow down at Mars? You've even said upthread that'd include no service module-do you seriously think something can enter an atmosphere straight from a transfer orbit? Admittedly some of the Venera missions used that strategy successfully, but astronauts tend to prefer deceleration in the the single digit gee range, rather than triple digit.

do you seriously think Curiosity did slowdown at mars? they come and land.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Nephf

[Kryten]

In Curiosity's case it involved sustained loads of 10-15 gees, which would have a good chance of killing the astronauts-particularly if they've spent the previous 18 months in microgravity with little room to exercise. That was with multiple correction burns to produce an optimal trajectory-something we've already established dragon wouldn't be able to do.

[JebIsMyHero]

Hmm, I'm really not sure what I think of MarsOne. Interesting? Sure. Serious? Probably not. But who knows? These days, crowdsourcing seems to be accomplishing all sorts of interesting things...

I like to think I'd take a shot at going to Mars if offered the option, but I wouldn't want to go until they'd already established a Martain Vegas.

[Nephf]

In Curiosity's case it involved sustained loads of 10-15 gees, which would have a good chance of killing the astronauts-particularly if they've spent the previous 18 months in microgravity with little room to exercise. That was with multiple correction burns to produce an optimal trajectory-something we've already established dragon wouldn't be able to do.

10-15 gees?! Errr... no. When the Apollo's returned to earth with 40.000 km/h, they had about 6 gees. The earth atmosphere is about 10 times thicker than the Mars'. So that would have 800.000 km/h!? That's nearly 1% speed of light!? Never! They actually come with about 50.000 km/h.

[Nibb31]

Wet workshop is another one of those hypothetical concepts that people read about and then run with it as if it was proven and practical. It is neither.

To refit a fuel tank into a viable hab module would require a lot of engineering, extra hardware, and intensive work on orbit. There is the fume problem, but also the issue of where you put all the stuff that you are going to move into the tank, and how you put it in. There isn't much point in having a large living space with nothing inside it.

Most tanks are not empty, they have anti-slosh baffles inside to prevent fluid from sloshing and disbalancing the vehicle. You would need to remove the baffles and convert them into furniture or structural panels inside the hab module. You need to seal off the propellant pump intakes and add some sort of airlock or hatch as well as a docking module, which requires a structural redesign of the tank. You need to add wiring, fluid pipes, lights, air recirculation, life support, lockers, padding, furniture, tools, equipment, supplies... That's tons of stuff that has to be stowed away inside the capsule or in some sort of locker inside the tank, which would take up a lot of propellant volume and reduce payload.

That's a lot of work to do on orbit, and a lot that can go wrong. There is also so much redesign work that it is easier to simply design and build a purpose-built hab module. Wet workshop is simply a bad idea, which is why it was scrapped decades ago.

[Kryten]

10-15 gees?! Errr... no. When the Apollo's returned to earth with 40.000 km/h, they had about 6 gees. The earth atmosphere is about 10 times thicker than the Mars'. So that would have 800.000 km/h!? That's nearly 1% speed of light!? Never! They actually come with about 50.000 km/h.

Aerodynamics does not work remotely like that.

Even if it did, there are other factors to consider. If they entered the martian atmosphere and received, as you apparently think they would, less deceleration than they would on earth, they'd actually get tens of thousands of gees shortly afterwards-as they slammed into the ground.

[Nephf]

Aerodynamics does not work remotely like that.

Even if it did, there are other factors to consider. If they entered the martian atmosphere and received, as you apparently think they would, less deceleration than they would on earth, they'd actually get tens of thousands of gees shortly afterwards-as they slammed into the ground.

This Picture says more than 1000 words. Also, Curiosity would have land as a pile of scrap if there were 10-15 gees. And as you said they are 18 month in microgravity: It's 8.5 month. That's not long. Waleri Poljakow was on board of the MIR for 437 days and survived the reentry.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Nephf

[Kryten]

Machines aren't people. It's trivial to design mechanical components to survive pretty much any level of acceleration, if you're prepared for the trade-offs; Venera 4 hit 300 gees at re-entry and was tested to over four hundred.

What you're proposing (arbitrarily long re-entry paths to limit deceleration)would simply kill your would-be colonists in a different way-their craft would burn up.

[NASAFanboy]

Machines aren't people. It's trivial to design mechanical components to survive pretty much any level of acceleration, if you're prepared for the trade-offs; Venera 4 hit 300 gees at re-entry and was tested to over four hundred.

What you're proposing (arbitrarily long re-entry paths to limit deceleration)would simply kill your would-be colonists in a different way-their craft would burn up.

So, what about orbital construction, as with an "mixed" approach as with the NASA Design Reference Mission 5.0, which would combine parts of the SEI with the Mars Direct proposal.

[Seret]

Also, Curiosity would have land as a pile of scrap if there were 10-15 gees.

Designing a machine to endure a sustained g load of that magnitude isn't a difficult challenge. It seems a bit strange that you are arguing against the idea that probes can cope with a flight regime that's more hostile than humans can. After all, the fact that they can endure more adverse conditions is half the reason it's so much cheaper and easier to send probes than humans.