@kayaking4autism Also, as Dr. Zubrin had stated before, to go to the moon you have to carry extra weight in fuel to slow down to speeds less than the moon's escape velocity. Due to this, it actually costs less to go to Mars. It takes more time, yes, but it costs less money in fuel. Not only do you have the interplanetary elliptical orbit of the sun in which KE is interchanged to PE, but also Mars has an atmosphere, allowing the use of air resistance, not fuel, for deceleration.
@kayaking4autism The overall reaction of combustion of methane is this: CH4 + 2*O2 -> CO2 + 2*H2O + energy. Reversing the equilibria: CO2 + 2H2O + energy -> CH4 + 2*O2. You'll want octane and not methane though, but it's essentially the same type of reaction. I do not know how to make the equipment necessary to do this though.
I think the guy is right about a lot of things, but remember Apollo took 118 tonnes to LEO just to get to the moon. How can you expect 53 tonnes to LEO with Falcon Heavy to get to Mars? I believe the orbital railroad is the right answer in terms of reducing the cost per launch, however I firmly believe that stacking chemically propelled rocket modules in LEO at the ISS is the right way to do a Mars Expedition. I think you need a cannot fail Mars to LMO ascent stage as a backup.
@Viper77Wolverine I agree with everything you are saying, but its all about the weight and the amount of fuel in LEO to get that weight there in the first place and I think it has to be done all in one go, or in unmanned one way trips stockpiling equipment in one place on Mars' surface.
@Viper77Wolverine Here's what I think should be done: send the first hab module without crew as a robotic test flight to ensure everything works (this is after the first stage of sending a return vehicle with fuel processing). Have it tethered and rotate for the most of the way their, detach from last stage and halt angular momentum remotely, then perform EDL. Make sure it works, and then send the passengers on the next trip if it does. Then they also have a second habitat.
@Viper77Wolverine I disagree, I think you would need to dock about 20 Falcon Heavy upper payloads in orbit to do this. You would need 2 of those modules just to get you back off the surface of Mars. SSTO on Mars I don't think can be done. You would need 3 more stages to descend the "get off mars ticket" with the equipment and food to live there for up to 2 years. You would need about 2 or 3 stages in orbit as command and service modules and you would need about 12 or 13 rocket
@Viper77Wolverine I saw that in the Mars Underground film, but I have no idea how to build that equipment. One thought I considered just now was, what if you use electrolysis to decompose water in component hydrogen and oxygen and then react the hydrogen with elemental carbon? That would remove oxygen from the reaction mechanism at least, it then being C + 4*H2 + energy -> CH4. It's been a few years since I've studied chemistry though, but having less steps the better.
@kayaking4autism build up amperage capacity by increasing surface area of photovoltaic arrays or the light intensity by having a large surface area worth of mirrors automatically align with a target like they do in the Mojave desert. There's 2.5 less light, so you need that much more surface area for anything that you'd build on Earth.
@Iamnotaparakeet I think at this point we're going off the topic of an expedition and we're now on the concept of Panspermia. I mean if you sent about 4 or 5 single launches to land all the equipment at one site then landed 2 people there, those people would have to know there was no return ticket EVER. They would DIE there, how soon depends on how sustainable a life they can make for themselves with the equipment you have sent. In which case you need to send toolshop/3dprinter
@kayaking4autism Increasing the thickness of the chamber's walls will increase its capacity for withstanding pressure, and you'd probably let it cool and then collect the gas by venting it into another chamber (or compress it further and let it escape via a valve system) and then remove the solid after the other process is done.
@Viper77Wolverine What does "EDL" stand for? As for carrying loads of weight across interplanetary space, it can be carried piecemeal, which is wiser anyway since it doesn't run the folly of "putting all of one's eggs in one basket" so to speak, so even if one batch fails to arrive on Mars, it's not a complete loss of supplies. SpaceX seems to be doing really well with its program, so if they can become the first interplanetary "railroad" that will be cool.
@Iamnotaparakeet Even if you could reach temperatures of about 2400 degrees on Mars with renewable systems (unlikely) You won't just produce methane, you'll also produce sugar 6CO2 +6H2O is C6H12O6 as a biproduct, which I suppose you could eat! But then how do you make a chamber that can withstand the heat and remain pressurized yet can automatically extract both gas and solid from the chamber after the process is done?
@Viper77Wolverine Well, one of the ideas I read about was entering orbit first, observing weather conditions (such as to avoid attempting entry during a dust storm), and refining the calculations when proximate so as to have greater precision and accuracy. I don't know about the current set of trained astronauts, but the type of people who would whine about risks and cabin fever are not the right ones to go. The settlers would need to be people willing to do what it takes.
@Iamnotaparakeet So basically you're telling me if I have a black ceramic, airtight chamber with carbon dioxide and water in there when superheated by enough sunlight it will turn into methane gas?
@Iamnotaparakeet You could obtain the energy for the reaction through solar panels, turbines, geothermal wells, etc, rather than through your electric company, but its a trade off of the opportunity cost of time versus the cost of energy from a utility company. Count the cost and decide if it's worth it. That's one thing that's rather cool with Zubrin is that he does count the cost and it's less than even what we have been doing just by fiddling around in low earth orbit.
@kayaking4autism Actually, if the numbers from the video are correct, it would cost 1/4th the budget of the previous Shuttle program to send 15 launches to Mars per year. $1.25 billion per year, not a trillion. At the rate of 1.25 billion per year, there would have been 12,000 launches to Mars. Also, to spend a trillion dollars at the rate of 1.25 billion per year, it would take 800 years to spend that much.
@kayaking4autism modules to fire off in sequence allowing for the possibility that one of those modular rocket modules or more does not work and cannot give you enough delta v to get out of LEO and or get out of LMO. I think it would have to be an International modular Manned Mars expedition that would take 10 years to build if all the world's Protons, LM3s, Arianes, H2Bs, Atlas's, Delta4s and Falcons worked together. Get 5 astronauts there and back 1 Chinese, 1 American, Russ
@Iamnotaparakeet Just watched Mars Underground, great documentary about how Zubrin has been bashing his head against a brick wall with his ideas. The biggest two for me are: cabin fever, hence the need for a larger interplanetary modular ship to give the crew more space than on a 3 day moon trip.and the documentary showed the fuel producing system, I think we here on Earth need loads of them in our back yards instead of shooting Arabs for it! Why isn't this being done?
If the issue with sending 4 people is supplies and comsumables...could you sent a fourth falcon heavy with a Dragon capsule straight to mars at some point (like the hypotheical 'Red Dragon' Mission) as a resuply craft?....have it land, say half way through the mission, or send a MAV, and ERV and a Supply craft in the first shot? According to SpaceX, the Falcon heavy could lob 11 tonnes to the surface of Mars
@Viper77Wolverine Yes, the parameters would need to be sufficiently adjusted to work with what is available and reliably cost effective, but even so it could still be done. Heck, even NASA's sending a robotic rover the size of a car to Mars and they have it so that it aerobrakes and then does rocket powered active descent automatically. If they can land that monster, the fitting of an ablative shield shouldn't be took much more difficult a challenge to surpass.
@kayaking4autism Somehow, I don't remember ever saying that. The equilibria shift from combustion to its reverse requires an energy input. If you want to think of absurd methods of doing things and then saying that they can't be done, then I'd like to know why firstly (is that your intent or just how you are coming across?) and if you are intentionally seeking to say everything is impossible then why? What would be your motivation in doing so?
That's why I see it as a good thing that space seems to be transitioning to the private industry. Did you know that if Virgin Galactic is successful next year, the cost of putting a man into orbit will be reduced from 50 million dollars to only $150 000? And when you take into account the exponential nature of technological progress, the average person will be able to afford space travel within the decade. I wonder what Zubrin's views are on Ray Kurzweil?
@EmGooser And what if you can't? What if the fuel production system you send to Mars gets damaged by 150mph martian winds, you're sending astronauts to their deaths. I think you need to build a colossal modular starship with PLENTY of backup systems, a 2nd lander/ascent stage. I think the lander needs 3 stages, a BIG descent stage, and two stages to reach LMO because Mars gravity is stronger than the moon and Mars has an atmosphere which causes drag. THIS could be done at much less risk.
The weakest link in this chain is orbital ascent/descent vehicle (shuttle) . If they had a NERVA type engine using CO2 instead of H2O , it could " refuel " quickly , instead of monthly . They could go up and down to the mothership frequently and easily . This architecture would be far safer , and more practical than the methane - burning one . ........P.
@Viper77Wolverine I kinda have my doubts that we really need a new understanding of physics, but only new vehicles engineered so that they are designed properly for Mars EDL.
Great idea but Id probably suggest that the government subserdises the launch cost so that customers pay like 1% or 0.5% the actual launch cost..why? It will still allow competition and an incentive for the improvement of the launch systems. If the mathmatically 'best' rocket is bought, then just one kind of rocket would be launched and no-one could break into the market. As demand goes up, real costs stay relatively stagnant, and no innovation is made, and thus the cost of the program goes up.
One problem I can see with this system is the danger any government run program has, stagnation and corruption. Once the systems inplace, there may not be any incentive to improve, meaning there will be a stagnation bottle-neck. And with the rampant 'lobbying' in the US government, it would be easy for a few people to be bought off, and an inefficent option chosen over a better one. In a way thats already happening, just look how hard SpaceX has to fight inorder to compete on USAF contracts
OK I actually do research and have built automatic solar tracking solar concentrators (see my channel) The temperatures required to get CO2 to separate non biochemically are in excess of 2000ºc! This would require quite a large dish here on Earth, as Mars is farther away from SOL the dish would need to be massive to attain the same levels of light concentration. There are storms on mars, a foldable dish is out of the question, it MUST be a fixed parabola, the motors, gearing would weigh a ton!
@Iamnotaparakeet Also, I have no qualms with the transorbital railroad subsidy idea.Brilliant if anything. 6 months ago I started work on an auto tracking sky dish because I was fascinated with the idea of a Von-neumann probe. I had the idea of sending a solar 3d printer to Shackleton crater on the moon! But until someone can go to the desert or the beach and produce material and fuel in realistic quantities I don't think Zubrin's idea is yet realistic.
29:54 "Food [...] 3/4 kg/day of dry mass [high-calorie] food [...] That's for 2,100 Calories a day [...] with food with an average caloric density of 2,800 Cal/kg. [...] Peanut butter is 5,000 Cal/kg. Pasta is 3,700 Cal/kg. Pork chops are 2,200" Coconut oil has 8,840 Calories per kilogram. Butter has 7,170 Calories per kilogram. . It looks like LCHF (Low-Carb/High-Fat) is the breakfast (and lunch, and dinner) of trans-Martian champions.
@Viper77Wolverine OK as the dude says a couple of 10kw Soviet Topaz or equivalent Betavoltaic battaries would be great for a 14 month Mars Colony. Probably an advanced 3d printer would work well there to make stuff. You'd need kit and backup kit if and when that kit fails in 14 months time to be able to produce oxygen, water, food, You aer going to need spare bulbs for the hydroponics to ensure you are producing more than enough food. A mars mission must have plenty of backup!
@Iamnotaparakeet Funnily enough I'm already building a solar tracking mirrored sky dish as a concentrator.. /watch?v=BAWLjqMiulo Throughout the day the focal point gets hot enough to set fire to wood in under a minute in Scotland. What do I need to put at the end that can make me car fuel?
@kayaking4autism You'll probably want to have the energy more controllable than that, so you could use the concentrated light to melt salt and with that boil water and use the steam to run a turbine driven Faraday generator. Then you'll have electricity that you can store in batteries and use as a power supply. If you have an electric vehicle, then you could stop there.
@Viper77Wolverine I mean even if you only got the chimp there and he's still breathing in Martian orbit its a start... If you could do a Earth orbit to mars orbit back to Earth proving the chimp survived 2 years in outer space it would definitely prove a manned mission is more than possible.
@Viper77Wolverine When you get to Mars, if you get to Mars: its like the stone age all over again. No shops, no lockheed martin, no oil refineries. If what you are suggesting is possible why are people on Earth not already doing this to make fuel for their cars? I do however feel that something like Markus Kayser's solar sinter may be useful on a lunar mission /watch?v=ptUj8JRAYu8 Mars has less solar energy/sqm than Earth-moon I vote chemical all the way and PLENTY of stocks
@Viper77Wolverine If it were up to Von Braun and not Nixon and Congress, it would have probably already have been done. As for the whole chimp discussion, it's a matter of making sure the critter is fed, watered, and all that stuff. Humans can ration, put away food, use the restroom in the restroom, etc. Also, for as well trained a chimp can be, I doubt they could be taught electrical or mechanical engineering should anything need to be fixed on the way to Mars.
"No Earth-Orbit rendezvous" That's always been major unsafe spot for Mars Direct -given that it emphasizes robust survival capabilities on Mars. Absolutely no escape provisions for the crew on launch. The Shuttle required several minutes to evacuate everybody via zip line to a bunker in the swamp, and there are reports from astronauts sitting strapped in trying to get ready to Go, waiting to see if ground crews can put out a H2 fire below... Treat the empty hab as cargo. Send crew up safely.
The moon is a lot closer. We could burrow down below the surface to have a livable environment and see what is there. If we go deep enough there will be plenty of protection from meteorites. Solar panels on the surface could power it all, including food growing.
@Viper77Wolverine Has getting off Mars surface EVER been achieved? No, has a Mars back to Earth slingshot EVER been achieved? No. Has a human being remained unsupplied and off world for a period of 2 years or thereabouts? No. If you doubt what I'm saying about 20 modules for this to be a reality and making the world work together on grand project. How much does 2 years of food, water fuel there, land up and back weigh? Maybe 15 modules minimum, but 3 NO WAY.
@kayaking4autism Or there's the one man and one woman, married couple, option. Why not send people used to being around each other and helping each other? As long as they're trained and have relevant knowledge in such fields as mechanical and electrical engineering, orbital mechanics, botany, geology, etc, why not? It would be better than sending random strangers in my opinion.
@Viper77Wolverine Yeah, really the whole psychological aspect of everything is way too played up and it ends up preventing so much from being done. Not only in space, with so many speculative worries about people not being able to go to sleep in zero gravity or that cramped living quarters are "unbearable". Perhaps for the spoiled super rich, but so what? They don't really know what it means to work anyway. The initial colonists need a good work ethic, not just money.
@kayaking4autism 1 European and 1 Japanese there and back again safely. It would likely cost a similar amount to the ISS but I think we can do it we should do it and we should commit now to the world building the International Modular Interplanetary Ship. 3 modules is hopelessly optimistic IMO you would be sending the astronauts to their deaths.
@kayaking4autism Well then, don't just send two people total. I was talking about a single mission, not the entire program. And so what if people die on Mars? There's millions of people dying on Earth and if the people who would go to Mars one-way are stuck here on Earth they'll also die here on Earth.
@kayaking4autism As for cabin fever, have them at a computer playing video games and they'll forget their surroundings anyway. Otherwise, get people who served in the Navy aboard submarines since they're already able to get over themselves and do what's necessary. As for your comment about oil, I'll address the science side rather than the political nonsense: the oil that already exists already has energy stored within it rather than having it placed by reversing combustion.
@kayaking4autism It's possible to produce fuel here on Earth for our cars, but it's a matter of putting the energy into producing the fuel that will cost. In your car, you're combusting carbon-hydrogen strings with oxygen and producing water, carbon dioxide, and releasing energy. To produce fuel, you need to add the energy to run the reaction in reverse. It's not impossible though. You might want to study organic chemistry first though.
@Viper77Wolverine I think I've got to get all the kit needed to survive on Mars myself and make survival here on Earth without money and supermarkets viable and when its second nature to a lot of people here on Earth, humanity will be so uses to using and fixing this tech they will be ready to colonize the rest of the solar system.
@Iamnotaparakeet Then it just becomes a trillion dollar execution, what's the point? If you can form a permanent colony it may be feasible. I personally advocate lunar colonization first and building another NASA there then the energy costs of getting stuff to Earth and Mars are a lot less. I mean doing Mars is like Britain deciding in the 16th century to colonize Australia before they've even set up Jamestown in America,
Whatever apparatus you may have to produce methane, I doubt that the yield/weight ratio would be better than sending a load of poopy rabbits with grass in pressurized, inflatable greenhouses.
@Viper77Wolverine This dude's proposing inflatable habs, that might work well in the vaccum of space but I've been camping on a beach in only 35 mile and hour winds and my tarpaulin ripped to shreds! You're going to need to send tools for them to dig a bunker whilst they are there, or just get off mars and linger in orbit for many months waiting for mars and Earth to realign again.
Haw did You came with 50$a pound? the standard now is over 1000$ per pound.That is to sent,now whom willl be the receptor off the goods on the other end.??haw much for that.?.Haw much for storage?security?possible assembly let say partial.?haw much for that.?.And haw come the government have to do this.??Haw about privet party, why NOT. It looks simple,yes, but is not,it is a very complicated process and that is all OK if it all works , one hick-up and is gone,so there is alot to loose. TH
+Jonathan Grunwald Jesus Christ that was hard to read! 50 dollars for kilogram is a made up cost to keep people from sending useless crap to space just for lulz. It wouldn't stop me though. Cheap space launch capability would get things running like highways and railroads do.
Space elevators aren't feasible yet. We lack materials necessary and having 36 000 kilometers of rope whipping around is kind of hazard. Meanwhile we can launch loads of stuff on orbit with conventional rockets and as launch and hardware prices come down we can require de-orbiting plan and capability from all satellites.
TheLittlestMig It is not that we can not, is that we do not want too at the moment,- the space elevator is the only way. If we as a human race focus our attention on what is important but not play war for boys, if we put money in to it,- but not in to military spending ,-than we could have the tham elevator by now. TH
Space elevator is not possible. Necessary materials haven't been invented yet. It may become a possibility in future but meanwhile we must do with what we have.
The Math is against You Robert, the crew will go through the sup, and run out before getting to Mars.UPS. LOL or what ever. The sup need to be send first,must be p/u on the way,like 1to 10 ,and on the Mars there should be a train load for add sup. And lets not sent midgets to Mars,but is funny.Getting pumped with excessive lux on this missions is out,and so is the return trip to Earth. Space, the living space,bare minimum. Full spectrum off RAD,only 3% off all sun and space RAD hits the surface off Earth that is 28 micro CES so its 890 micro CES in space- the crew need to go through the belts which is a sup of high RAD,OK lets say is 1CES RAD /Hour, that is high, this would be constant.Im not sure haw much the newest shields can deflect/absorb. And You use alot off that " probably " ward, that is not good/convincing here.Lets say we use Russian space suits for 300 000$,but not the USA 1 M$ suits and so on,well do not cut all the corners,-which may bite us back, but just look for the best for good price.If we could take the money from military sink hole and put in to planetary travel/expo we would be on Mars right NOW. TH
This is a very bad analogy. The railroad had to be built into the ground and through forests and over rivers...their literally is no "railroad" in space...they just have to build rockets and fuel station s...there's no "tracks" to be made in space.
It’s so surreal that I’m watching this the day after the falcon heavy’s successful test flight!
This guy SERIOUSLY cracks me up... what a wit! So funny... and rational.
ZUBRIN
Great man. Working hard to get us off the Ground to Mars...Great historian and scientist.Read his book. Merchants of despair... !
He makes a very logical point about the 100 lbs person vs 200 lbs person consuming less/ using less.
@kayaking4autism Also, as Dr. Zubrin had stated before, to go to the moon you have to carry extra weight in fuel to slow down to speeds less than the moon's escape velocity. Due to this, it actually costs less to go to Mars. It takes more time, yes, but it costs less money in fuel. Not only do you have the interplanetary elliptical orbit of the sun in which KE is interchanged to PE, but also Mars has an atmosphere, allowing the use of air resistance, not fuel, for deceleration.
@kayaking4autism The overall reaction of combustion of methane is this: CH4 + 2*O2 -> CO2 + 2*H2O + energy. Reversing the equilibria: CO2 + 2H2O + energy -> CH4 + 2*O2. You'll want octane and not methane though, but it's essentially the same type of reaction. I do not know how to make the equipment necessary to do this though.
What a great introduction! I hope that lady introduces me one day.
I think the guy is right about a lot of things, but remember Apollo took 118 tonnes to LEO just to get to the moon. How can you expect 53 tonnes to LEO with Falcon Heavy to get to Mars?
I believe the orbital railroad is the right answer in terms of reducing the cost per launch, however I firmly believe that stacking chemically propelled rocket modules in LEO at the ISS is the right way to do a Mars Expedition. I think you need a cannot fail Mars to LMO ascent stage as a backup.
Where can I find the slide decks from this conference?
@Viper77Wolverine I agree with everything you are saying, but its all about the weight and the amount of fuel in LEO to get that weight there in the first place and I think it has to be done all in one go, or in unmanned one way trips stockpiling equipment in one place on Mars' surface.
@Viper77Wolverine Here's what I think should be done: send the first hab module without crew as a robotic test flight to ensure everything works (this is after the first stage of sending a return vehicle with fuel processing). Have it tethered and rotate for the most of the way their, detach from last stage and halt angular momentum remotely, then perform EDL. Make sure it works, and then send the passengers on the next trip if it does. Then they also have a second habitat.
@Viper77Wolverine I disagree, I think you would need to dock about 20 Falcon Heavy upper payloads in orbit to do this. You would need 2 of those modules just to get you back off the surface of Mars. SSTO on Mars I don't think can be done. You would need 3 more stages to descend the "get off mars ticket" with the equipment and food to live there for up to 2 years. You would need about 2 or 3 stages in orbit as command and service modules and you would need about 12 or 13 rocket
@Viper77Wolverine I saw that in the Mars Underground film, but I have no idea how to build that equipment. One thought I considered just now was, what if you use electrolysis to decompose water in component hydrogen and oxygen and then react the hydrogen with elemental carbon? That would remove oxygen from the reaction mechanism at least, it then being C + 4*H2 + energy -> CH4. It's been a few years since I've studied chemistry though, but having less steps the better.
@kayaking4autism build up amperage capacity by increasing surface area of photovoltaic arrays or the light intensity by having a large surface area worth of mirrors automatically align with a target like they do in the Mojave desert. There's 2.5 less light, so you need that much more surface area for anything that you'd build on Earth.
1 10 × 10 solar panel, 4 10x10 plastic film mirrors placed on 45 degree angles. Setup charge to repel dust. Plus other power improvements
@Iamnotaparakeet I think at this point we're going off the topic of an expedition and we're now on the concept of Panspermia. I mean if you sent about 4 or 5 single launches to land all the equipment at one site then landed 2 people there, those people would have to know there was no return ticket EVER. They would DIE there, how soon depends on how sustainable a life they can make for themselves with the equipment you have sent. In which case you need to send toolshop/3dprinter
@kayaking4autism Increasing the thickness of the chamber's walls will increase its capacity for withstanding pressure, and you'd probably let it cool and then collect the gas by venting it into another chamber (or compress it further and let it escape via a valve system) and then remove the solid after the other process is done.
@Viper77Wolverine What does "EDL" stand for? As for carrying loads of weight across interplanetary space, it can be carried piecemeal, which is wiser anyway since it doesn't run the folly of "putting all of one's eggs in one basket" so to speak, so even if one batch fails to arrive on Mars, it's not a complete loss of supplies. SpaceX seems to be doing really well with its program, so if they can become the first interplanetary "railroad" that will be cool.
@Iamnotaparakeet Even if you could reach temperatures of about 2400 degrees on Mars with renewable systems (unlikely) You won't just produce methane, you'll also produce sugar 6CO2 +6H2O is C6H12O6 as a biproduct, which I suppose you could eat! But then how do you make a chamber that can withstand the heat and remain pressurized yet can automatically extract both gas and solid from the chamber after the process is done?
@Viper77Wolverine Well, one of the ideas I read about was entering orbit first, observing weather conditions (such as to avoid attempting entry during a dust storm), and refining the calculations when proximate so as to have greater precision and accuracy.
I don't know about the current set of trained astronauts, but the type of people who would whine about risks and cabin fever are not the right ones to go. The settlers would need to be people willing to do what it takes.
@Iamnotaparakeet So basically you're telling me if I have a black ceramic, airtight chamber with carbon dioxide and water in there when superheated by enough sunlight it will turn into methane gas?
@Iamnotaparakeet You could obtain the energy for the reaction through solar panels, turbines, geothermal wells, etc, rather than through your electric company, but its a trade off of the opportunity cost of time versus the cost of energy from a utility company. Count the cost and decide if it's worth it. That's one thing that's rather cool with Zubrin is that he does count the cost and it's less than even what we have been doing just by fiddling around in low earth orbit.
@kayaking4autism Actually, if the numbers from the video are correct, it would cost 1/4th the budget of the previous Shuttle program to send 15 launches to Mars per year. $1.25 billion per year, not a trillion. At the rate of 1.25 billion per year, there would have been 12,000 launches to Mars. Also, to spend a trillion dollars at the rate of 1.25 billion per year, it would take 800 years to spend that much.
@Iamnotaparakeet *there, not their in "most of the way there".
@kayaking4autism modules to fire off in sequence allowing for the possibility that one of those modular rocket modules or more does not work and cannot give you enough delta v to get out of LEO and or get out of LMO. I think it would have to be an International modular Manned Mars expedition that would take 10 years to build if all the world's Protons, LM3s, Arianes, H2Bs, Atlas's, Delta4s and Falcons worked together. Get 5 astronauts there and back 1 Chinese, 1 American, Russ
Transorbital Railroad ,what is he talking about ?
@Iamnotaparakeet Just watched Mars Underground, great documentary about how Zubrin has been bashing his head against a brick wall with his ideas. The biggest two for me are: cabin fever, hence the need for a larger interplanetary modular ship to give the crew more space than on a 3 day moon trip.and the documentary showed the fuel producing system, I think we here on Earth need loads of them in our back yards instead of shooting Arabs for it! Why isn't this being done?
If the issue with sending 4 people is supplies and comsumables...could you sent a fourth falcon heavy with a Dragon capsule straight to mars at some point (like the hypotheical 'Red Dragon' Mission) as a resuply craft?....have it land, say half way through the mission, or send a MAV, and ERV and a Supply craft in the first shot?
According to SpaceX, the Falcon heavy could lob 11 tonnes to the surface of Mars
@Viper77Wolverine Yes, the parameters would need to be sufficiently adjusted to work with what is available and reliably cost effective, but even so it could still be done. Heck, even NASA's sending a robotic rover the size of a car to Mars and they have it so that it aerobrakes and then does rocket powered active descent automatically. If they can land that monster, the fitting of an ablative shield shouldn't be took much more difficult a challenge to surpass.
Care to explain why they think it is infeasible to accomplish? Would love to hear it, inbox me.
@Iamnotaparakeet Sorry, 2*H2, not 4.
@kayaking4autism Somehow, I don't remember ever saying that. The equilibria shift from combustion to its reverse requires an energy input. If you want to think of absurd methods of doing things and then saying that they can't be done, then I'd like to know why firstly (is that your intent or just how you are coming across?) and if you are intentionally seeking to say everything is impossible then why? What would be your motivation in doing so?
That's why I see it as a good thing that space seems to be transitioning to the private industry. Did you know that if Virgin Galactic is successful next year, the cost of putting a man into orbit will be reduced from 50 million dollars to only $150 000? And when you take into account the exponential nature of technological progress, the average person will be able to afford space travel within the decade. I wonder what Zubrin's views are on Ray Kurzweil?
@Viper77Wolverine A 94% percent yield is extremely good.
@EmGooser And what if you can't? What if the fuel production system you send to Mars gets damaged by 150mph martian winds, you're sending astronauts to their deaths. I think you need to build a colossal modular starship with PLENTY of backup systems, a 2nd lander/ascent stage. I think the lander needs 3 stages, a BIG descent stage, and two stages to reach LMO because Mars gravity is stronger than the moon and Mars has an atmosphere which causes drag. THIS could be done at much less risk.
The weakest link in this chain is orbital ascent/descent vehicle (shuttle) . If they had a NERVA type engine using CO2 instead of H2O , it could " refuel " quickly , instead of monthly . They could go up and down to the mothership frequently and easily . This architecture would be far safer , and more practical than the methane - burning one .
........P.
People like him should rule the world and not CEO's
@Viper77Wolverine I kinda have my doubts that we really need a new understanding of physics, but only new vehicles engineered so that they are designed properly for Mars EDL.
@Viper77Wolverine A lot of chemists I've spoken to reckon solar methane synthesis out of CO2 is actually quite unfeasible.
Great idea but Id probably suggest that the government subserdises the launch cost so that customers pay like 1% or 0.5% the actual launch cost..why? It will still allow competition and an incentive for the improvement of the launch systems. If the mathmatically 'best' rocket is bought, then just one kind of rocket would be launched and no-one could break into the market. As demand goes up, real costs stay relatively stagnant, and no innovation is made, and thus the cost of the program goes up.
Awesome!
One problem I can see with this system is the danger any government run program has, stagnation and corruption. Once the systems inplace, there may not be any incentive to improve, meaning there will be a stagnation bottle-neck. And with the rampant 'lobbying' in the US government, it would be easy for a few people to be bought off, and an inefficent option chosen over a better one. In a way thats already happening, just look how hard SpaceX has to fight inorder to compete on USAF contracts
OK I actually do research and have built automatic solar tracking solar concentrators (see my channel) The temperatures required to get CO2 to separate non biochemically are in excess of 2000ºc! This would require quite a large dish here on Earth, as Mars is farther away from SOL the dish would need to be massive to attain the same levels of light concentration. There are storms on mars, a foldable dish is out of the question, it MUST be a fixed parabola, the motors, gearing would weigh a ton!
How are they getting O2 and C out of the CO2? Whats the name of the process?
sabatier reaction
@Iamnotaparakeet Also, I have no qualms with the transorbital railroad subsidy idea.Brilliant if anything. 6 months ago I started work on an auto tracking sky dish because I was fascinated with the idea of a Von-neumann probe. I had the idea of sending a solar 3d printer to Shackleton crater on the moon! But until someone can go to the desert or the beach and produce material and fuel in realistic quantities I don't think Zubrin's idea is yet realistic.
29:54 "Food [...] 3/4 kg/day of dry mass [high-calorie] food [...] That's for 2,100 Calories a day [...] with food with an average caloric density of 2,800 Cal/kg. [...] Peanut butter is 5,000 Cal/kg. Pasta is 3,700 Cal/kg. Pork chops are 2,200"
Coconut oil has 8,840 Calories per kilogram.
Butter has 7,170 Calories per kilogram.
.
It looks like LCHF (Low-Carb/High-Fat) is the breakfast (and lunch, and dinner) of trans-Martian champions.
@Viper77Wolverine OK as the dude says a couple of 10kw Soviet Topaz or equivalent Betavoltaic battaries would be great for a 14 month Mars Colony. Probably an advanced 3d printer would work well there to make stuff. You'd need kit and backup kit if and when that kit fails in 14 months time to be able to produce oxygen, water, food, You aer going to need spare bulbs for the hydroponics to ensure you are producing more than enough food. A mars mission must have plenty of backup!
@Iamnotaparakeet Funnily enough I'm already building a solar tracking mirrored sky dish as a concentrator.. /watch?v=BAWLjqMiulo
Throughout the day the focal point gets hot enough to set fire to wood in under a minute in Scotland. What do I need to put at the end that can make me car fuel?
@kayaking4autism You'll probably want to have the energy more controllable than that, so you could use the concentrated light to melt salt and with that boil water and use the steam to run a turbine driven Faraday generator. Then you'll have electricity that you can store in batteries and use as a power supply. If you have an electric vehicle, then you could stop there.
@Viper77Wolverine I mean even if you only got the chimp there and he's still breathing in Martian orbit its a start... If you could do a Earth orbit to mars orbit back to Earth proving the chimp survived 2 years in outer space it would definitely prove a manned mission is more than possible.
@Viper77Wolverine Because I would love to find a way so that I don't have to be ripped off at the pumps anymore!
so basically this transorbital railroad will fill orbit with junk?. sounds like a problem.
@Viper77Wolverine When you get to Mars, if you get to Mars: its like the stone age all over again. No shops, no lockheed martin, no oil refineries. If what you are suggesting is possible why are people on Earth not already doing this to make fuel for their cars? I do however feel that something like Markus Kayser's solar sinter may be useful on a lunar mission /watch?v=ptUj8JRAYu8 Mars has less solar energy/sqm than Earth-moon I vote chemical all the way and PLENTY of stocks
Only 1/4 kg/day of cononut oil would supply 2,255 Calories per day. That's 1/3rd the food mass proposed by Zubrin.
Yeah. You'd lower your crew's lifespan to three months while the journey takes six.
@Viper77Wolverine There is always teh one man one way option.... That could be done in a single launch!
@Viper77Wolverine If it were up to Von Braun and not Nixon and Congress, it would have probably already have been done. As for the whole chimp discussion, it's a matter of making sure the critter is fed, watered, and all that stuff. Humans can ration, put away food, use the restroom in the restroom, etc. Also, for as well trained a chimp can be, I doubt they could be taught electrical or mechanical engineering should anything need to be fixed on the way to Mars.
@Iamnotaparakeet *strike the word "took". I must be too tired right now.
"No Earth-Orbit rendezvous"
That's always been major unsafe spot for Mars Direct -given that it emphasizes robust survival capabilities on Mars. Absolutely no escape provisions for the crew on launch.
The Shuttle required several minutes to evacuate everybody via zip line to a bunker in the swamp, and there are reports from astronauts sitting strapped in trying to get ready to Go, waiting to see if ground crews can put out a H2 fire below...
Treat the empty hab as cargo. Send crew up safely.
The moon is a lot closer. We could burrow down below the surface to have a livable environment and see what is there. If we go deep enough there will be plenty of protection from meteorites. Solar panels on the surface could power it all, including food growing.
@Viper77Wolverine Has getting off Mars surface EVER been achieved? No, has a Mars back to Earth slingshot EVER been achieved? No. Has a human being remained unsupplied and off world for a period of 2 years or thereabouts? No. If you doubt what I'm saying about 20 modules for this to be a reality and making the world work together on grand project. How much does 2 years of food, water fuel there, land up and back weigh? Maybe 15 modules minimum, but 3 NO WAY.
@kayaking4autism Or there's the one man and one woman, married couple, option. Why not send people used to being around each other and helping each other? As long as they're trained and have relevant knowledge in such fields as mechanical and electrical engineering, orbital mechanics, botany, geology, etc, why not? It would be better than sending random strangers in my opinion.
23:40 Small people! SIZISM!!! Mars midgets ftw! (btw, great vision from 2011) - thumbs up for "sense of humor" as a requirement for Mars crew
@Viper77Wolverine Yeah, really the whole psychological aspect of everything is way too played up and it ends up preventing so much from being done. Not only in space, with so many speculative worries about people not being able to go to sleep in zero gravity or that cramped living quarters are "unbearable". Perhaps for the spoiled super rich, but so what? They don't really know what it means to work anyway. The initial colonists need a good work ethic, not just money.
@kayaking4autism 1 European and 1 Japanese there and back again safely. It would likely cost a similar amount to the ISS but I think we can do it we should do it and we should commit now to the world building the International Modular Interplanetary Ship. 3 modules is hopelessly optimistic IMO you would be sending the astronauts to their deaths.
@kayaking4autism Well then, don't just send two people total. I was talking about a single mission, not the entire program. And so what if people die on Mars? There's millions of people dying on Earth and if the people who would go to Mars one-way are stuck here on Earth they'll also die here on Earth.
..Not if given adequate time to adapt to a diet of coconut oil. Sensibly, this would be done before embarkation.
@kayaking4autism As for cabin fever, have them at a computer playing video games and they'll forget their surroundings anyway. Otherwise, get people who served in the Navy aboard submarines since they're already able to get over themselves and do what's necessary. As for your comment about oil, I'll address the science side rather than the political nonsense: the oil that already exists already has energy stored within it rather than having it placed by reversing combustion.
@kayaking4autism It's possible to produce fuel here on Earth for our cars, but it's a matter of putting the energy into producing the fuel that will cost. In your car, you're combusting carbon-hydrogen strings with oxygen and producing water, carbon dioxide, and releasing energy. To produce fuel, you need to add the energy to run the reaction in reverse. It's not impossible though. You might want to study organic chemistry first though.
@Viper77Wolverine I think I've got to get all the kit needed to survive on Mars myself and make survival here on Earth without money and supermarkets viable and when its second nature to a lot of people here on Earth, humanity will be so uses to using and fixing this tech they will be ready to colonize the rest of the solar system.
@Iamnotaparakeet Then it just becomes a trillion dollar execution, what's the point? If you can form a permanent colony it may be feasible. I personally advocate lunar colonization first and building another NASA there then the energy costs of getting stuff to Earth and Mars are a lot less. I mean doing Mars is like Britain deciding in the 16th century to colonize Australia before they've even set up Jamestown in America,
Whatever apparatus you may have to produce methane, I doubt that the yield/weight ratio would be better than sending a load of poopy rabbits with grass in pressurized, inflatable greenhouses.
@Viper77Wolverine This dude's proposing inflatable habs, that might work well in the vaccum of space but I've been camping on a beach in only 35 mile and hour winds and my tarpaulin ripped to shreds! You're going to need to send tools for them to dig a bunker whilst they are there, or just get off mars and linger in orbit for many months waiting for mars and Earth to realign again.
Haw did You came with 50$a pound? the standard now is over 1000$ per pound.That is to sent,now whom willl be the receptor off the goods on the other end.??haw much for that.?.Haw much for storage?security?possible assembly let say partial.?haw much for that.?.And haw come the government have to do this.??Haw about privet party, why NOT. It looks simple,yes, but is not,it is a very complicated process and that is all OK if it all works , one hick-up and is gone,so there is alot to loose. TH
+Jonathan Grunwald Jesus Christ that was hard to read!
50 dollars for kilogram is a made up cost to keep people from sending useless crap to space just for lulz. It wouldn't stop me though. Cheap space launch capability would get things running like highways and railroads do.
TheLittlestMig
They need to come back on working to built the space elevator, any other way it just do not make sense for long run.TH
Space elevators aren't feasible yet. We lack materials necessary and having 36 000 kilometers of rope whipping around is kind of hazard.
Meanwhile we can launch loads of stuff on orbit with conventional rockets and as launch and hardware prices come down we can require de-orbiting plan and capability from all satellites.
TheLittlestMig
It is not that we can not, is that we do not want too at the moment,- the space elevator is the only way. If we as a human race focus our attention on what is important but not play war for boys, if we put money in to it,- but not in to military spending ,-than we could have the tham elevator by now. TH
Space elevator is not possible. Necessary materials haven't been invented yet. It may become a possibility in future but meanwhile we must do with what we have.
Lol he is a CEO
Inuits people will be fine,they are small and digest better the fats
The Math is against You Robert, the crew will go through the sup, and run out before getting to Mars.UPS. LOL or what ever. The sup need to be send first,must be p/u on the way,like 1to 10 ,and on the Mars there should be a train load for add sup. And lets not sent midgets to Mars,but is funny.Getting pumped with excessive lux on this missions is out,and so is the return trip to Earth. Space, the living space,bare minimum. Full spectrum off RAD,only 3% off all sun and space RAD hits the surface off Earth that is 28 micro CES so its 890 micro CES in space- the crew need to go through the belts which is a sup of high RAD,OK lets say is 1CES RAD /Hour, that is high, this would be constant.Im not sure haw much the newest shields can deflect/absorb. And You use alot off that " probably " ward, that is not good/convincing here.Lets say we use Russian space suits for 300 000$,but not the USA 1 M$ suits and so on,well do not cut all the corners,-which may bite us back, but just look for the best for good price.If we could take the money from military sink hole and put in to planetary travel/expo we would be on Mars right NOW. TH
Robert and elon ...make it happen humanity prays for our release from the elites .
Beat em with a resource based economy
This is a very bad analogy. The railroad had to be built into the ground and through forests and over rivers...their literally is no "railroad" in space...they just have to build rockets and fuel station s...there's no "tracks" to be made in space.