How quickly could we get to Mars if we really wanted to?

[linuxgurugamer]

Well if oil was found on Mars we'd be there by the end of the year...

Not worth it. Even if gold were found on Mars, it wouldn't be worth it. From a purely financial point of view

[m4rt14n]

Yeah thats what I meant by assembly: some docking and struts in space. Not a full blown construction in space or anything like that.

[DAL59]

On 12/6/2014 at 11:27 PM, NERVAfan said:

Dragonv2

has sadly been canceled now.  But it looks like Musk is on track for 2024!

[PB666]

This thread has been dead for 3 years and we get a reply to a single word out of context. Necro . . . .

[DAL59]

its still relevant

[PB666]

Is it? only on a tangent and a whim. The topic was how quickly _we_ could get to Mars if _we_ wanted to; not how quickly Elon dreams he could get to Mars is he still wants to, Space X is not backrupted, either by his business or his desire . . . . . . . . . .
Don't forget the falcon heavy was supposed to be a thing in 2013 (About the time this thread was started).

As I understand it if we poured all resources into send one very poor individual to Mars how soon could we get there thats 2020. That assumes we could put a credible crew compartment on a FH and send it to Mars and that somehow it could get landed, it would not probably take off an the individual would die on Mars, probably within a few months if all worked well.  That would come against a public outcry of potential xenobiotic contamination given the improperly resourced vehicle.
We have six years to 2024 to develop a Manned Mars lander, it took more than six years for Musk to create a much simpler FH. So that 2024 is a very very naive time estimate.  I recommend that this thread be closed.

[DAL59]

2 hours ago, PB666 said:

on't forget the falcon heavy was supposed to be a thing in 2013 (About the time this thread was started).

The falcon heavy was not delayed 4 years.  The current falcon heavy is quite different than the original one.    For example, the original wouldn't have been reusable.  They're completely different things.  

[KSPFanatic102]

On 06/12/2014 at 12:56 AM, Frozen_Heart said:

Well if oil was found on Mars we'd be there by the end of the year...

"oil is formed from the remains of small animals and plants that died and fell to the bottom of the sea. Their remains were covered by mud. As the sediment was buried by more sediment, it started to change into rock as the temperature and pressure increased.

The mud eventually turned to rock. This rock put a lot of pressure on the dead animals and plants. Rocks around them also heated them up. Together the heat and the pressure turned the remains into crude oil."

 

a 5th grader knows that oil forms from dead organisms, There hasn't been any evidence of past life found on Mars, Neither the conditions suitable for animal-like creatures and plants, Even if life existed on Mars, It's most likely that it was microbial cellular life instead of complex multicellular organisms.

And if somehow there was complex multicellular life, and oil has formed, it would have been located deep into the Martian crust, it would vary between hundreds of feet to even several thousand or more, and the Curiosity rover, Currently on mars can only dig  2 centimeters deep or Two-thirds of an inch  , And Nasa's upcoming insight lander will only be able to drill 3 meters , So this doesn't make any sense and is too far fetched

[kerbiloid]

37 minutes ago, Space_taco said:

Currently on mars can only dig  2 centimeters deep or Two-thirds of an inch  , And Nasa's upcoming insight lander will only be able to drill 3 meters

This.

That's what must be sent to Mars before curiosities.

Spoiler

Then curiosities will get opportunities to research the craters.

[KSPFanatic102]

44 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

This.

That's what must be sent to Mars before curiosities.

  Reveal hidden contents

Then curiosities will get opportunities to research the craters.

Well, it depends on where the missile like object is shot at, Because if it's not near curiosity, then it won't be able to drive there, Because the rover is slow, in its entire lifetime on Mars. It has only traveled 17.90 Kilometers ( 11.13 Miles )   on mars as of Sol 1905. so for the rover to travel anywhere on the surface considering mars circumference is 21,344 km and that the rover maintains it's same speed of 17.90 Kilometers every 1905 Martian day, which I will transfer to Earth years , I divided the circumference by the amount of time it took for curiosity to travel 17.90 Kilometers which is, 5.36265981706621 Years . Considering every day is a constant equal, and we get  3980.11448201 Years, So the rover would take anywhere less than 3980 Years to just circumnavigate the planet, with a return. straight in a line, not taking any turns or curves in its path to analyze the so-called missile-like object's crater

However, if it doesn't intend to return to Gale crater it would take much less, if we say the supposed crater formed is located away 1/4 of the planet's circumference then it would take  995.028620502 Years, 995 Years for just quarter of the planet, with no return.

 

Edited December 26, 2017 by Space_taco

[kerbiloid]

27 minutes ago, Space_taco said:

Because if it's not near curiosity, then it won't be able to drive ther

First impactors, then rovers.

Also, a rover doesn't need to move very far. One simple rover per crater. Several ones per launch.

Also a crater should be previously researched from the orbiter.

Edited December 26, 2017 by kerbiloid

[NSEP]

Considering we put a man on the Moon 8 years after the Apollo program began. And if we REALLY needed to, i'd say 5-6 years.

We have alot already ready for Mars but also alot of things that are totally new to us (landing, low gravity, radiation, et cetera)

[KSPFanatic102]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

First impactors, then rovers.

Also, a rover doesn't need to move very far. One simple rover per crater. Several ones per launch.

btw impactors won't drill and extract the oil, plus launching a curiosity for every crater would cost a lot, there are 635,000 craters on Mars, Curiosity cost 2.5 Billion USD to make 2.5 Billion x 635,000 gives us 1,587,500,000,000,000, or 1.5875 Quadrillion USD, For comparison.

The entire world's GDP is US$78.28 trillion, The US GDP is US$18.57 trillion, NASA's budget is 18.4 billion USD$

plus , launching several rovers in a rocket is simply too heavy putting away the costs , To just launch 4 of the rovers plus the Descent stage , Centaur stage would weigh 98.676 tons , no current rocket is able to carry that much weight to LEO so the centaur stage burns to TMI , SLS Will be able to carry 70,000 - 130,000 tons , But it won't fit , neither will Falcon heavy be able to carry it , as it can only send 63.8 tons to LEO

even if the costs were covered and weight was not a problem and somehow mars had the same amount of earth oil's reserve it would only be 87.70500 Trillion USD$ Worth, Much less than the Cost of the entire fleet of rovers . nevertheless, the point is, There is no evidence for complex multicellular ancient life on Mars, and there is no oil on the planet either. because it is not possible 

Edited December 26, 2017 by Space_taco

[kerbiloid]

35 minutes ago, Space_taco said:

impactors won't drill and extract the oil

There is no oil on Mars. But the impactors can make a several meters deep crater, which would allow the rover even don't have a drill.
It would just make a spiral from the edge to the bottom.
So, a rover could be very small. It needs neither a drill, nor a long distance lifespan.

Edited December 26, 2017 by kerbiloid

[PB666]

2 hours ago, Space_taco said:

Well, it depends on where the missile like object is shot at, Because if it's not near curiosity, then it won't be able to drive there, Because the rover is slow, in its entire lifetime on Mars. It has only traveled 17.90 Kilometers ( 11.13 Miles )   on mars as of Sol 1905. so for the rover to travel anywhere on the surface considering mars circumference is 21,344 km and that the rover maintains it's same speed of 17.90 Kilometers every 1905 Martian day, which I will transfer to Earth years , I divided the circumference by the amount of time it took for curiosity to travel 17.90 Kilometers which is, 5.36265981706621 Years . Considering every day is a constant equal, and we get  3980.11448201 Years, So the rover would take anywhere less than 3980 Years to just circumnavigate the planet, with a return. straight in a line, not taking any turns or curves in its path to analyze the so-called missile-like object's crater

However, if it doesn't intend to return to Gale crater it would take much less, if we say the supposed crater formed is located away 1/4 of the planet's circumference then it would take  995.028620502 Years, 995 Years for just quarter of the planet, with no return.

 

It could travel alot faster. The reason it slowed down was to do sampling and science along the way AND. . . . because they were favoring the wheels.

[KSPFanatic102]

Just now, kerbiloid said:

There is no oil on Mars.

 

That's what i pointed out in my first post , and oil exists pretty deep on earth , so if we assumed it did on mars , we would need pretty powerful impactors that can penetrate thousands of feet , not several meters

Spoiler

"oil is formed from the remains of small animals and plants that died and fell to the bottom of the sea. Their remains were covered by mud. As the sediment was buried by more sediment, it started to change into rock as the temperature and pressure increased.

The mud eventually turned to rock. This rock put a lot of pressure on the dead animals and plants. Rocks around them also heated them up. Together the heat and the pressure turned the remains into crude oil."

 

a 5th grader knows that oil forms from dead organisms, There hasn't been any evidence of past life found on Mars, Neither the conditions suitable for animal-like creatures and plants, Even if life existed on Mars, It's most likely that it was microbial cellular life instead of complex multicellular organisms.

And if somehow there was complex multicellular life, and oil has formed, it would have been located deep into the Martian crust, it would vary between hundreds of feet to even several thousand or more, and the Curiosity rover, Currently on mars can only dig  2 centimeters deep or Two-thirds of an inch  , And Nasa's upcoming insight lander will only be able to drill 3 meters , So this doesn't make any sense and is too far fetched"

2

 

[PB666]

5 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

There is no oil on Mars. But the impactors can make a several meters deep crater, which would allow the rover even don't have a drill.
It would just make a spiral from the edge to the bottom.
So, a rover could be very small. It needs neither a drill, nor a long distance lifespan.

Impactors produce unpredictable results and contamination. They could sheer the face off of an escarpment, such that the rover could access the escarpment and drill into the rock.
Its smarter to have a rover with an electric jackhammer built into its design, reach a rock face, jack into a half a meter, go back and photographically catalog the debris, chisel a little bit more, pick up the chert liberated and sample it.
For the cost of one missile you could have a dozen electric jackhammers.

[Frozen_Heart]

3 hours ago, Space_taco said:

"oil is formed from the remains of small animals and plants that died and fell to the bottom of the sea. Their remains were covered by mud. As the sediment was buried by more sediment, it started to change into rock as the temperature and pressure increased.

The mud eventually turned to rock. This rock put a lot of pressure on the dead animals and plants. Rocks around them also heated them up. Together the heat and the pressure turned the remains into crude oil."

 

a 5th grader knows that oil forms from dead organisms, There hasn't been any evidence of past life found on Mars, Neither the conditions suitable for animal-like creatures and plants, Even if life existed on Mars, It's most likely that it was microbial cellular life instead of complex multicellular organisms.

And if somehow there was complex multicellular life, and oil has formed, it would have been located deep into the Martian crust, it would vary between hundreds of feet to even several thousand or more, and the Curiosity rover, Currently on mars can only dig  2 centimeters deep or Two-thirds of an inch  , And Nasa's upcoming insight lander will only be able to drill 3 meters , So this doesn't make any sense and is too far fetched

'Whoosh'

[KSPFanatic102]

Oh well , turns out , that math was majorly flawed , I found out Curiosity top speed , did the math with it instead and we have 17.403783431164385 years , Still a long time , Considering that it's driving nonstop and directly to circumnavigate the planet , but considering that signals take around 30 minutes on average to communicate with curiosity and give orders , suppose, every day for 30 minutes that will cost an additional 132.341269840972 Days PLUS the time it takes for it to return to earth which makes it  264.682539682 extra days plus that amount of years and we get 18.12894107413699 years

@PB666

Edited December 27, 2017 by Space_taco

[PB666]

3 minutes ago, Space_taco said:

Oh well , turns out , that math was majorly flawed , I found out Curiosity top speed did the math with it instead and we have 17.403783431164385 years , Still a long time , Considering that it's driving nonstop and directly to circumnavigate the planet

@PB666

Remember that it has to slow down to recharge, it solar panels probably do not allow it to run 24/7

In anycase the wheels would not survive another 20 km.

Edited December 26, 2017 by PB666

[KSPFanatic102]

22 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Remember that it has to slow down to recharge, it solar panels probably do not allow it to run 24/7

In anycase the wheels would not survive another 20 km.

Lol, Curiosity runs on RTGs, not Solar panels @PB666

The wheels though , i agree. , Those VV

Edited December 26, 2017 by Space_taco

[PB666]

Excellent, then the only thing slowing it down is its low power output

 

[KSPFanatic102]

9 hours ago, PB666 said:

Excellent, then the only thing slowing it down is its low power output

 

Nope, there's still a problem. @PB666

Correction, it works on MMRTGs, The MMRTG's heat source is plutonium-238 dioxide. instead of Plutonium 238 on normal RTGs which decays much slower than  MMRTGs, The MMRTG is designed to produce 125 W electrical power at the start of the mission, falling to about 100 W after 14 years. Which means it loses 1.78571428571 Watts per year due to decay, With a mass of 45 kg, the MMRTG provides about 2.8 W/kg of electrical power at beginning of life.

So, yes it has a low power output, and it's getting even lower, Which would slow down the efficiency of the rover, Then science instruments will be turned off one by one, Just like on voyager to preserve power, Until it cannot be controlled due to having not enough power.

Edited December 27, 2017 by Space_taco

[kerbiloid]

17 hours ago, PB666 said:

Impactors produce unpredictable results and contamination

Contamination with tungsten? I suppose, this is not a major component of the Martian regolith. Even more, the traces of tungsten will give a nice picture of the ejecta distribution.

 

[KSPFanatic102]

19 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Contamination with tungsten? I suppose, this is not a major component of the Martian regolith. Even more, the traces of tungsten will give a nice picture of the ejecta distribution.

 

Umm , why did you post that 5 times?