No human will ever return from Mars, or get there

[Robert W]

Technology is always improving. It will eventually happen.

Did you watch the video?

 

[Robert W]

AI Overview



View attachment 1220388
Physicists, including Dr. Harold "Sonny" White at the Limitless Space Institute, have reported the accidental creation of a microscopic, real-world warp bubble. Discovered during DARPA-funded research on Casimir cavities, the structure aligns with Alcubierre’s theoretical warp drive model, which proposes bending spacetime to enable faster-than-light travel.

While this is still not proven, this is not kidding, when I was in the 8th grade, 1952, I had the same idea and talked to my class about it.

 

[task0778]

No human will ever return from Mars, or get there​

I would say that this is true based on current or future technology, but I don't think we can rule out the possibility that eventually future energy systems could make trips and back to Mars feasible. Not in our lifetime, maybe at some point it could happen. That's assuming we don't screw everything up in the meantime.

 

[EMH]

most of the fuel in rockets is spent escaping Earth's gravity .. so having a fuel base on the moon may indeed allow people to go to Mars and return .. of course the first manned trip would probably be an orbit of Mars .. just like they did with the moon before Armstrong set foot on it ..

There is no point in putting a man on Mars other than for a stupid photo op.

Sending robots to Mars, that's a superior strategy.

 

[WorldWatcher]

most of the fuel in rockets is spent escaping Earth's gravity .. so having a fuel base on the moon may indeed allow people to go to Mars and return .. of course the first manned trip would probably be an orbit of Mars .. just like they did with the moon before Armstrong set foot on it ..

Orbital mechanics indicate that a manned orbit of Mars and return wouldn't likely be feasable.

Due to different orbits the Martian and/or return insertion trajectory only lines up ever 26 months. Given the optimal trajectory occurs once ever 26 months, then a 9 month journey (one way) and an additional 9 month return trip doesn't fit those launch windows. Outside the launch windows fuel expenditures and dramatically scale up.

That means the scale of there and back missions without waiting for convergence are prohibative.

WW

 

[martybegan]

I guess you could send a fuel/provisions bowser there ahead of time and put it in orbit.

Go after all is well with it then go to Mars, plant the flag, then link-up, refuel/reprovision, and return.

Someone has read "The Martian"

 

[Hafar1014]

Fuel is why. No returning from Mars fuel is there. Our best rockets take 9 months to get there. Those rockets never return. IT is a one way trip for anything we have. Who understands this? If you need more persuading, here it is.

Nothing is impossible only probability varies. This guy is an idiot

 

[toobfreak]

I would say that this is true based on current or future technology, but I don't think we can rule out the possibility that eventually future energy systems could make trips and back to Mars feasible. Not in our lifetime, maybe at some point it could happen. That's assuming we don't screw everything up in the meantime.

I'd agree. Going to Mars as a manned mission is not something that will happen in our lifetimes, not even likely in our children's. But it would not hurt to begin planning for it now. Establishing a Martian colony where people can both get to, live at, and yes, come home from even is likely centuries in our future and contingent upon a full lunar base first which given the cost and difficulty, are barely conceivable even on that time scale unless several technological hurdles are breached, including:

1. A much improved propulsion system over mere gas-propelled rocketry.
2. Possibly a hibernation system for the trip.
3. Effective solutions for both water storage and waste disposal.
4. Radiation protection.
5. People adapted to less gravity, long periods of isolation.

Most of the crew could hibernate while maybe 2 stay awake for about a month at a time and they take turns rotating. And if you really want to do it right, a mission to Mars would include sending 2 ships to the planet at a time, maybe 3, so that if one ship has a problem, illness, malfunction, breakdown, one of the sister ships can lend support, this way, a substantial crew, materials and resources can all be effected to Mars all in one big jaunt, each ship partially specialized.

This would greatly improve their chances for success.

It'll be rough going for the first 1-2 manned missions to Mars until they get something set up on the planet.

 

[Robert W]

Nothing is impossible only probability varies. This guy is an idiot

Did you watch the video by the English man?

I Understand that this is far beyond the scope of the majority of posters. So far have we heard from our own scientists/ Engineers?

 

[martybegan]

Did you watch the video by the English man?

I Understand that this is far beyond the scope of the majority of posters. So far have we heard from our own scientists/ Engineers?

Didn't the NY Times once declare we would never go to the moon?

 

[Robert W]

I'd agree. Going to Mars as a manned mission is not something that will happen in our lifetimes, not even likely in our children's. But it would not hurt to begin planning for it now. Establishing a Martian colony where people can both get to, live at, and yes, come home from even is likely centuries in our future and contingent upon a full lunar base first which given the cost and difficulty, are barely conceivable even on that time scale unless several technological hurdles are breached, including:

1. A much improved propulsion system over mere gas-propelled rocketry.
2. Possibly a hibernation system for the trip.
3. Effective solutions for both water storage and waste disposal.
4. Radiation protection.
5. People adapted to less gravity, long periods of isolation.

Most of the crew could hibernate while maybe 2 stay awake for about a month at a time and they take turns rotating. And if you really want to do it right, a mission to Mars would include sending 2 ships to the planet at a time, maybe 3, so that if one ship has a problem, illness, malfunction, breakdown, one of the sister ships can lend support, this way, a substantial crew, materials and resources can all be effected to Mars all in one big jaunt, each ship partially specialized.

This would greatly improve their chances for success.

It'll be rough going for the first 1-2 manned missions to Mars until they get something set up on the planet.

We are guilty of wanting what we see as best.

But Mars is a hostile planet. Men on Mars would be crippled not too long after being there. We have learned a lot by our own domestic rockets being in space for a lot of years.

 

[toobfreak]

But Mars is a hostile planet.

In time, maybe a century after landing there, it can be terraformed to be a more hospitable place.

Men on Mars would be crippled not too long after being there.

Well, radiation aside, people might be generationally conditioned to live normally under 50% gravity, or they can undergo constant exercise. The tough one is the cosmic rays. Maybe at some future date, we might learn how to generate an EM shield to keep most of them out.

 

[Hafar1014]

Did you watch the video by the English man?

I Understand that this is far beyond the scope of the majority of posters. So far have we heard from our own scientists/ Engineers?

Yes its all hypothetical based on no improvements in technology. If more thought like him we would still live in caves.

 

[1srelluc]

Someone has read "The Martian"

Kinda sorta.

 

[Robert W]

Yes its all hypothetical based on no improvements in technology. If more thought like him we would still live in caves.

Let's examine problems.
Distance to Mars
Enough fuel to get there and land
Living in extreme cold
Where will they get fuel to return?
While some think this problem will vanish in 300 years, and of course perhaps they are right, we can't see that far to be honest. So, we resort to guessing.

 

[1srelluc]

In time, maybe a century after landing there, it can be terraformed to be a more hospitable place.


Well, radiation aside, people might be generationally conditioned to live normally under 50% gravity, or they can undergo constant exercise. The tough one is the cosmic rays. Maybe at some future date, we might learn how to generate an EM shield to keep most of them out.

The smart thing to do would send humanoid robots. Human reaction to an emergency in a place 55 million miles away is way overrated....Hell who knows in what condition they would be in by the time they got there?

Maybe AMEE in a Charlize Theron skin.

 

[toobfreak]

The smart thing to do would send humanoid robots.

Advances in robotics and AI might just make that possible. They might make up the initial crew to get things set up and started or they might accompany the regular crew, but at some point, you have to start sending real people.

 

[WorldWatcher]

In time, maybe a century after landing there, it can be terraformed to be a more hospitable place.


Well, radiation aside, people might be generationally conditioned to live normally under 50% gravity, or they can undergo constant exercise. The tough one is the cosmic rays. Maybe at some future date, we might learn how to generate an EM shield to keep most of them out.

That assumes, IMHO, that the main living and work facilities will be above ground and require terraforming the Martian atmosphere.

It would be easier, for much of the fire infrastructure to build up Mars by v actually building down over time.

When faced with a no win equation, change the rules of the equation.

WW

 

[fncceo]

Technology is always improving

Actually, rocket technology hasn’t fundamentally changed in 80 years. It’s the same technology the Nazis used to kill Brits in World Wa 2.

We still burn chemicals to lift mass into space at tremendous cost and it is still very prone to failure.

A fundamentally different technology is needed if we are ever going to get serious in space.

 

[Robert W]

Actually, rocket technology hasn’t fundamentally changed in 80 years. It’s the same technology the Nazis used to kill Brits in World Wa 2.

We still burn chemicals to lift mass into space at tremendous cost and it is still very prone to failure.

A fundamentally different technology is needed if we are ever going to get serious in space.

Does nuclear have a role?