Elon Musk spaceship ready for Mars in 2019

[jonovid]

The billionaire said SpaceX is on track to send his Mars-intended rocket on short trips by 2019,
but joked about potentially missing the timeline.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/11/elon-musk-says-mars-spaceship-will-be-ready-for-short-trips-by-first-half-of-2019.html
are we getting a hand of ourselves here? like pay more attention to a return to the moon.

[EEVblog]

are we getting a hand of ourselves here? like pay more attention to a return to the moon.

Yes.
I'm a huge advocate of human Mars missions, but we haven't even flown a human out of low earth orbit, let lone gone to or landed on the moon for 46 years.
Build a permanent moon base first and learn how to live there to iron out major bugs.
Sure, continue to do Mars mission and land and put hardware etc there, that's cool.

Who was it who said recently (Neil Tyson maybe?), send humans to Mars is cool, but what do you do when you get there?
At least with the moon people go, spend a few weeks or months and come back in a few days. Fun stuff, gets people excited about space travel again, and proves some valuable technology. And you can do good science on the moon too.

[donotdespisethesnake]

There are no baby steps in space. Living on the Moon is probably a lot harder than on Mars, despite the fact it's a lot closer. The environment is quite a lot different, I'm not sure that it will be a good analog for Mars. A self-supporting colony will need to be highly tuned to local materials. The main purpose of a base for several decades will be in situ research of how/where to live on that body. For that time the base will need to be supplied from Earth.

I have the feeling that the Moon has "been done", the public quickly bored of the Apollo program and it ended prematurely. Mars can get people interested again I think. But hey, if you are not spending my money, put bases wherever you like 

It will be interesting to see what happens when it proves impossible to create a self sustaining colony, the bases run out of money/interest and they are closed down, and we realise we are stuck on this rock.

[nctnico]

There are no baby steps in space. Living on the Moon is probably a lot harder than on Mars, despite the fact it's a lot closer. The environment is quite a lot different, I'm not sure that it will be a good analog for Mars. A self-supporting colony will need to be highly tuned to local materials.

That is my understandig as well. At least Mars has some kind of atmosphere and more gravity.

The main purpose of a base for several decades will be in situ research of how/where to live on that body. For that time the base will need to be supplied from Earth.

I have the feeling that the Moon has "been done", the public quickly bored of the Apollo program and it ended prematurely. Mars can get people interested again I think. But hey, if you are not spending my money, put bases wherever you like 

It could at least be a good reality TV show. Big-brother is still on in some countries after nearly 2 decades.

[filssavi]

First of all talking about colonization at this point in time is just stupid, there are way too many unsolved problems

For example, how are you going to power the thing, realistically you have to launch a nuclear reactor. It’s not a new concept, but no one apart the soviets in the good old days ever tried it because of concerns in case of a failed launch (highly enriched uranium shower)

Than again how are people going to fare in complete isolation and knowing they are stuck on mars forseably forever with no comforts, no outdoors, almost no personal space, almost no free time etc.

A moon base is probably vastly easier to handle than a mars one, for the simple fact that a moon base is easily reachable in few days if a medical emergency happens, mars is not...

For example one of the colonists develops somehow contagious disease which needs hospitalisation what do you do? You euthanise him? You put him in quarantine?, ok but where? Space is at a premium, you cannot cut of a room from the colony...

Also you try a rescue mission knowing he will be dead before you can arrive there, you don’t?

Also there are no studies on the physiological impact of sustained low gravity when just have 2 data points 1g is fine 0g is very bad for long term (bone density loss etc), 0.38g (mars) is more towards the 0 side or the 1 side...

[filssavi]

Also I forgot the worst problem of them all...

Mars is outside the earths magnetosphere, so a colony there is not shielded from cosmic and sun’s radiations, so how do you cope with it long term? Lead shielding on a spacecraft?? Do the whole base underground? You just deal with the cancers?

[MT]

One idea was to live in underground volcanic pipes. I suggest engineers do something about the engine problem first
then go to Mars and poke around.

[Neganur]

I believe the intention is to use localised electromagnetic magnetic fields.

https://physicsworld.com/a/magnetic-shield-could-protect-spacecraft/

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-are-developing-a-magnetic-shield-to-protect-astronauts-from-cosmic-radiation

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110049303

[filssavi]

I believe the intention is to use localised electromagnetic magnetic fields.

https://physicsworld.com/a/magnetic-shield-could-protect-spacecraft/

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-are-developing-a-magnetic-shield-to-protect-astronauts-from-cosmic-radiation

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110049303

I heard from an astrophysics researcher (soon to be professor) which I know, working in the field of space wheather forecasting (radiation storm forecasting) that those magnetica fields are neither strong enough neither stable enough (apparently they shift and vanish) to be useful...

I mean being that they are there you could as well take advantage of them but you can’t rely on it as shielding

[Bassman59]

are we getting a hand of ourselves here? like pay more attention to a return to the moon.

Everyone should read (or re-read) Heinleon’s “The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress” to get an overview of the practical implications of a long-term moon base.

Basically, those who settle there can’t come back.

[tpowell1830]

are we getting a hand of ourselves here? like pay more attention to a return to the moon.

Yes.
I'm a huge advocate of human Mars missions, but we haven't even flown a human out of low earth orbit, let lone gone to or landed on the moon for 46 years.
Build a permanent moon base first and learn how to live there to iron out major bugs.
Sure, continue to do Mars mission and land and put hardware etc there, that's cool.

Who was it who said recently (Neil Tyson maybe?), send humans to Mars is cool, but what do you do when you get there?
At least with the moon people go, spend a few weeks or months and come back in a few days. Fun stuff, gets people excited about space travel again, and proves some valuable technology. And you can do good science on the moon too.

I agree with this point of view 100%, however, this needs to be done by private companies. Elon Musk is taking on Mars, which I think is as risky as it gets. NASA, however, I would only want them to continue the small missions that is already slated and to keep tax money out of the mix because when you get the US government involved, it gets to be a political football and nothing good will come of it. I was around in the '60s during the push to go to the moon and even I understood at the time, being a young child, that this was a political race with the USSR to gain dominance in space. The public did not lose interest in the moon missions, politics killed the space program for reasons that I don't have the time or space to talk about.

With that said, Elon Musk is determined to go to Mars for reasons of his own, and I can't argue with that. I look forward to seeing Mars get explored with manned missions and, yes, eventually a small scientific colony/base where this could be a jump off point for further, deeper space exploration can occur. As far as the comment that man can't live for extended periods in space due to zero gravity, people have been living at the International Space Station for extended periods of over 6 months for decades in zero G.

The moon is an ideal base BECAUSE of its' low gravity which means that the amount of fuel to leave the moon is much less than on Earth, and Mars. This could be a jump off point to go to Mars. Also, I believe there are more things to possible discover on the moon that may have benefits to us on earth; i.e. labs can grow things in low gravity that are not possible on earth. The other possibility is to find some material or mineral that does not exist on earth that could be beneficial, who knows since we have not really explored the moon much other than the few short missions in the early '70s.

The moon is ~ 245,000 miles from earth and a ship traveling at 25-30,000 mph, which is doable with our current technology, could get there in less than a day if there is a ship ready to go on earth in the instance that a pickup is needed for medical emergencies. Having medical personelle on the moon would be wise as well, if we are to establish a base with people living there for extended times.

If private individuals or companies are going to take on the role of space exploration, it won't be any different from the reasons that have been done on earth since man has been alive. There will be some reward for doing so other than simple scientific knowledge such as a new yet undiscovered mineral/substance that has a value to man (unobtainium). The initial trips will be more of this type of 'treasure hunting' than exploring, the exploration is a side effect of the latter.

Ok, apologize for the rant, just my 2 cents...

[CatalinaWOW]

First there is a lot of hyperventilation on this thread.  The implications from Elon Musk's news conference following the Falcon Heavy launch was that those first short trips would be measured in kilometers.  Short hops up to 300 or 1000 meter altitude and back.  So it may be three or four years before it leaves the atmosphere, and who knows how much longer before orbit or moon trips.  It is quite consistent with Musk's approach to plan to use the same basic vehicle for a long time and many purposes.

And sure there are many more problems to solve before Mars colonies are going items.  But the fastest way to solve them (or to find that they aren't such big issues) is to go do it.  There is a phenomenon called paralysis by analysis.  Where you can always find one more thing to study, or one more verification of a previously studied thing.

[raptor1956]

This is who Musk is and going to Mars is priority number one.  But, I agree that going back to the Moon is an unavoidable first step towards a MANNED mission to Mars.  I think the 2019 time frame is not going to happen but whatever the date is that first mission to Mars will not have people on it -- more likely an orbiter and lander/rover. 

Looking down the road to when we do put boots on the ground on Mars I still think the majority of the exploration will have to be done by rovers so having a robust rover system capable of carrying people would be near the top of the critical hardware needed for such a mission.  One of the interesting factors that make sending people to Mars a good idea is that it pretty much eliminates the signal delay that current rover missions face and that signal delay means the current rovers are limited to a few hundred meters per day and usually much less.  If a person was on Mars and able to be in the control loop for the rover the distance covered per day could be 100X as far.

I think the "system" needed for Mars, beyond the launch rockets needed to get there is:

1.  A small constellation of orbiting sats to provide photo imaging, radar imaging, and weather and data, video and voice relay

2.  A solar farm for power

3.  Plant to generate oxygen, water and methane

4.  Numerous rovers that can carry people and can operate autonomously with scientific instrumentation -- for robotic missions a single rover can be used whereas I'd dedicate two rovers for each manned mission so that if one dies there's a backup to get home

5.  An underground shelter when the Sun is acting up and spewing nasties

6.  A home base with housing for all the people -- can be just the landed rockets or it could include prefab structures assembled near the landers

And, just as the Apollo missions depended on the 'lunar orbit rendezvous  ' and 'earth orbit rendezvous ' the missions to Mars will require a comparable sequence to be viable.  I'd send a couple rockets without people ahead of the manned missions and if successful they would provide much of the materials needed to get started AND provide a redundant return system in case the manned landers fail.

Bottom line -- Elon is going to need to save his pennies...


Brian

[Bud]

This moron bragged last year he will send space tourists to the moon in 2018. Guess what, it is 2018 now. Is he any close to this before making his next insane Mars claim ? Who takes this idiot seriously?

[raptor1956]

This moron bragged last year he will send space tourists to the moon in 2018. Guess what, it is 2018 now. Is he any close to this before making his next insane Mars claim ? Who takes this idiot seriously?

Are you serious -- he built a car company that's revolutionizing the auto industry and a rocket company that ... wait for it ... is revolutionizing the space launch industry with two and soon to be three rocket families and all the while he was told you're nuts! 

He is a dreamer and his dreams may not all come true, but to suggest he's an idiot that should be lead away in a jacket that ties at the back is, well, ridiculous!


Brian

[TerraHertz]

Is he... oh he is talking about the BFR. Cool. I want to see that thing fly. Don't care if it's just short hops, 2019 is a great number. The BFR is soooo very Sci-fi. We get to see the sci-fi rocket ships of childhood dreams, in our life time. Thanks Elon.

[IanMacdonald]

One of the problems faced by a Moon base is very low night temperatures, which last for two weeks at a stretch.  Getting equipment to stay working through the lunar night has been a serious challenge for Apollo, Lunokhod, etc. At least, Mars has a more normal rate of rotation so doesn't suffer this problem.

[BrianHG]

One of the problems faced by a Moon base is very low night temperatures, which last for two weeks at a stretch.  Getting equipment to stay working through the lunar night has been a serious challenge for Apollo, Lunokhod, etc. At least, Mars has a more normal rate of rotation so doesn't suffer this problem.

Yes, but Mars has those complete sun-blocking dust-storms which can cover half the planet lasting months making solar power useless.  An it still wont bet that warm...

[EEVblog]

There are no baby steps in space. Living on the Moon is probably a lot harder than on Mars, despite the fact it's a lot closer. The environment is quite a lot different, I'm not sure that it will be a good analog for Mars.

But the life support requirements are the same
- Run out of oxygen, you die
- Run out of food, you die
- Run out of water, you die
- Run out of power, you die
- Airlock or something else fails on the hab, you die.

A self-supporting colony will need to be highly tuned to local materials. The main purpose of a base for several decades will be in situ research of how/where to live on that body. For that time the base will need to be supplied from Earth.

Which makes the moon vastly more affordable and achievable.

I have the feeling that the Moon has "been done", the public quickly bored of the Apollo program and it ended prematurely. Mars can get people interested again I think. But hey, if you are not spending my money, put bases wherever you like 

And then when people realise they:
- Can't see mars but for a dot in the sky
- Can't get that reality TV show delivered in HD
- Can't communicate in near real time with them
- Can't really dream of going there for a science or tourism trip because the journey time sucks arse.
They'll soon realise how boring Mars actually is to people on earth after the initial hoopla dies down. They might as well be in another galaxy.
The moon all of a sudden starts to look much more attractive from a long term PR point of view.

[EEVblog]

Looking down the road to when we do put boots on the ground on Mars I still think the majority of the exploration will have to be done by rovers so having a robust rover system capable of carrying people would be near the top of the critical hardware needed for such a mission.  One of the interesting factors that make sending people to Mars a good idea is that it pretty much eliminates the signal delay that current rover missions face and that signal delay means the current rovers are limited to a few hundred meters per day and usually much less.  If a person was on Mars and able to be in the control loop for the rover the distance covered per day could be 100X as far.

Buzz Aldrin's solution is to put people on Phobos first from which they control the rovers.
Not a bad plan, control would be real time, and you don't have the issues of entering and landing huge heavy loads on Mars.

[raptor1956]

One of the problems faced by a Moon base is very low night temperatures, which last for two weeks at a stretch.  Getting equipment to stay working through the lunar night has been a serious challenge for Apollo, Lunokhod, etc. At least, Mars has a more normal rate of rotation so doesn't suffer this problem.

Yes, but Mars has those complete sun-blocking dust-storms which can cover half the planet lasting months making solar power useless.  An it still wont bet that warm...

Do you have a pointer to data suggesting the dust storms last months?  Also, since the atmosphere is very thin the dust storms tend to be very faint resembling mesospheric clouds so even when they happen the Sun isn't completely blocked.  The dust would tend to collect on the solar panels so they would need to be cleaned.  The JPL rovers are solar powered and when dust collects they lose power but with people there the dust can be removed. 

So, since the dust will only diminish the solar irradiance and apparently by a relatively small amount the main thing is keeping the panels clean.


Brian

[Yellofriend]

Basically, those who settle there can’t come back.

I would love to chose the people!

[hendorog]

There are no baby steps in space. Living on the Moon is probably a lot harder than on Mars, despite the fact it's a lot closer. The environment is quite a lot different, I'm not sure that it will be a good analog for Mars.

But the life support requirements are the same
- Run out of oxygen, you die
- Run out of food, you die
- Run out of water, you die
- Run out of power, you die
- Airlock or something else fails on the hab, you die.

Could a modern day space program 'survive' the loss of life if things went bad? Back in the 60's/70's the answer was yes. I highly doubt if that is the case now.

Therefore the level of risk that can be taken is much lower now. Based on the ^^^, and other risks, it is hard to see how Mars could be made super safe.

[raptor1956]

Looking down the road to when we do put boots on the ground on Mars I still think the majority of the exploration will have to be done by rovers so having a robust rover system capable of carrying people would be near the top of the critical hardware needed for such a mission.  One of the interesting factors that make sending people to Mars a good idea is that it pretty much eliminates the signal delay that current rover missions face and that signal delay means the current rovers are limited to a few hundred meters per day and usually much less.  If a person was on Mars and able to be in the control loop for the rover the distance covered per day could be 100X as far.

Buzz Aldrin's solution is to put people on Phobos first from which they control the rovers.
Not a bad plan, control would be real time, and you don't have the issues of entering and landing huge heavy loads on Mars.

I think the biggest fuel issue is the orbit entry burn (delta V) and landing on Mars not so much given the lower gravity and aero drag that reduces fuel usage.  Getting back off would be harder, but once again the gravity is less than half of Earth.  One of Elon's stated reasons for going with Methane for the BFR is the ability to synthesize on Mars.  Also, I think the ability to get funding for a manned mission to Mars will require boots on Mars.  Lastly, I'm not sure we have as clear an idea on resources on Phobos as we do for Mars.  Interesting idea though and if we go to Mars we probably need to pay a visit to Phobos as well.  Hey, so long as Elon's got the money, and that point is by no means certain, then lets do both.


Brian

[raptor1956]

There are no baby steps in space. Living on the Moon is probably a lot harder than on Mars, despite the fact it's a lot closer. The environment is quite a lot different, I'm not sure that it will be a good analog for Mars.

But the life support requirements are the same
- Run out of oxygen, you die
- Run out of food, you die
- Run out of water, you die
- Run out of power, you die
- Airlock or something else fails on the hab, you die.

Could a modern day space program 'survive' the loss of life if things went bad? Back in the 60's/70's the answer was yes. I highly doubt if that is the case now.

Therefore the level of risk that can be taken is much lower now. Based on the ^^^, and other risks, it is hard to see how Mars could be made super safe.

It is for this reason that I think we need to send a couple vanguard rockets with supplies first so that if something goes wrong there is redundancy.  OTH, if you asked people to volunteer for this mission and explained the risks I'm convinced there would be 100X as many people with the requisite skills than needed so finding people willing and capable is not likely to be a problem.

Is the chance that someone/everyone that goes dies higher than Apollo -- why yes it is!


Brian