General

Why Mars? Why not the moon?

1356720

Comments

  • edited November -1
    Deep Space Exploration requires making your own food, defecating, converting C02 to 02, and making protein, nutrients and minerals. A 3 year round trip to Mars is one heck of a journey. Algae may be a solution. Maybe streaming Netflix also. How about ordering food and supplies from Amazon? I hope Bezos gets his deep space drones in action. 2 day free delivery?

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1091716/nasa-space-algae-manned-mars-mission-space-news
  • edited March 2019
    We'd likely equip our deep space exploration ships with their own greenhouses like they did in that early 70's sci-fi drama, "Silent Running" (with agricultural "pods"), a concept that was recently revisited in the limited Syfy series, "Nightflyers", so that the ship could both produce its own food (vegan, which could be supplemented with protein shakes or something along those lines) while the vegetation acted as a ship-wide oxygen scrubber to help keep the air fresh.

    We could also employ the use of ion drive assisted liquid propulsion to help speed our voyage wherein we'd accelerate with our rocket engines up to human tolerable g-forces in phases and then both augment sustain our speed with the ion thrusters (liken to the system used in that Syfy series 'Nightflyers").

    That would both enable us to perform the ship's acceleration in phases (instead of all at once as we currently do, which is actually incredibly stressful for our bodies, particularly our internal organs) and attain and sustain a greater impetus with marginal solid fuel use, allowing us to conserve more fuel that would be better used for whatever necessary maneuverings, landings, takeoffs and relaunch for the return trip.
  • edited March 2019
    For Reference...

    Silent Running:

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067756/

    Nightflyers:

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6903284/

    Ion propulsion/thruster (which, BTW, a number of satellites currently in orbit and traveling throughout and beyond our Solar system use):

    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs21grc.html

    https://www.space.com/38444-mars-thruster-design-breaks-records.html

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster
  • edited March 2019
    As long as we remain tethered to the Earth, we remain subject to its whims. Mars sets us free.
  • edited March 2019
    p.s.

    The science fiction movie "Silent Running" was also referenced in the recent "Ready Player One" gamer movie, FWIW.
  • edited March 2019
    If we could go at the speed of light; 186,000 miles/second travel to Mars so it would only take 3 minutes or so. Would the traveler be younger than Earthlings on return home?
  • edited March 2019
    @Mike. Yes they would be younger by 9 months plus each way. But it would be hard to prove unless you sent an infant to Mars and back. The prime issue is whether it is possible to travel at the speed of light and whether we could survive the journey.
  • edited March 2019
    Well done SCCRENDO. 8 Stars. You covered all bases. Relativity theory and Spacetime physics really blows my mind.
    I believe the fastest space vehicle traveled at 160,000 miles/hr. We have a long way to go but maximum acceleration over a period of time using the gravitational force of a planet could up the mph. Getting to c doesn't seem possible.
  • edited March 2019
    Going from 0-99.99999999999999999% C is likely easier than going from 99.99999999999999999% C to C
  • edited March 2019
    I just read that there is a Solar Probe Plus that will attain a speed of 450,000 mph which would get you to the moon in about 30 minutes; yet that is only about 0.0007 times the speed of light.
    Yes that last bit of speed is a transformer I'll bet.
  • edited March 2019
    On April 5, 2063 Dr Zefram Cochrane will invent the warp drive. Problem solved.
  • edited March 2019
    My gosh. jimglas has traveled here from the future; hopefully not the Terminator.
  • edited March 2019
    @Rumi11

    +1
  • edited March 2019
    @jimglas

    +1

    Nice Star Trek:The Original Series reference!
  • edited March 2019
    @Mike83

    We've routinely used the gravity assist technique (aka "slingshot effect") a number of times for fuel conservation and craft acceleration to aide in travel to the outer planets like Jupiter and Saturn, but we'd have to supplement on-board fuel stores with a refueling mission to compensate for the fuel spent during liftoff and orbit insertion, which means we'd have to have launched a "tanker" in advance of our actual interplanetary/deep space craft and have it sitting in orbit to await our craft's arrival, refuel en route, and then begin the burn for gravity assist.

    It's the initial expenditure of fuel for acceleration we need to compensate for, a reality that ion thrusters would greatly help to augment and compensate for.
  • edited March 2019
    FWIW, I'm currently retrofitting one of my S's with a flux capacitor, you know, to help with the whole acceleration, time saving thing. ;-)
  • edited November -1
    Found this as it adds pros and cons to why Mars and not the Moon.

    https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/why-dont-we-try-to-colonize-the-moon-instead-of-mars.html
  • edited March 2019
    The problem about c the speed of light is that as velocity increases, mass increases.
    So at c, mass is infinite, so no one is going anywhere.
    Also at velocity c, time becomes zero.
    These are found in a simple equation known as time dilation.

    It follows that the Genesis account of a 6-day creation becomes entirely feasible from the viewpoint of the narrator who told the account. What for him took 6 days appears to us who are not travelling at c, to have taken 13 or 14 billion years.
    If this is a faith breaker for you, I can explain in more detail how the fossil record and the Genesis account align.
    It is my specialty.
  • edited March 2019
    The Haughton-Mars Project is quite exciting. I don't know if many people have seen this international endeavor.


    https://www.marsinstitute.no/hmp
  • edited March 2019
    My specialty is to explain all scientific theories by Flying Spaghetti Monster. Try me!
  • edited March 2019
    @Ross1

    >>> "The problem about c the speed of light is that as velocity increases, mass increases.
    So at c, mass is infinite, so no one is going anywhere."

    Depends on your interpretation of "mass"....

    >>> "It follows that the Genesis account of a 6-day creation becomes entirely feasible from the viewpoint of the narrator who told the account. What for him took 6 days appears to us who are not travelling at c, to have taken 13 or 14 billion years."

    Alternatively, it could be merely that our perception of Time itself differs from that of the narrator's perception of Time in that, to the narrator, what might be perceived as merely "days" is to us &/or our perspective millions or billions of years.

    Just a thought.

    Granted, while a worthwhile thought experiment, this is not the forum for such discussions.
  • edited March 2019
    @Mike83

    If Orson Welles' 1938 broadcast of his adaptation of H.G. Wells' original 1898 novel is any indication, I would say that there is some merit to your linked Science ABC article.

    But then, that was 75 years ago and alot has changed between then and now, both with our understanding of ourselves, the world, the Universe around us, and our technology (which has helped expand our understanding of the Universe around us and our place in it).

    Unfortunately, I believe that much the same holds true today as it did in year's past.
  • edited March 2019
    @carlk

    Ha!
  • edited November -1
    @blue, “Depends on your interpretation of "mass"....”

    Does it? Not sure anyone has a better track record than Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity for that.

    But I haven’t been keeping up...
Sign In or Register to comment.