Easier way to get to Mars and back to moon...

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by cosmictotem, Feb 3, 2016.

  1. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    748
    They won't require a genetically stable population in each because they will be close enough to travel between each other.

    So, if we postulate a biosphere size of the largest stadiums on Earth (100,000),

    Earth's distance around the sun (forgive me for using miles) is 584, 088, 920 divided by 40,000 = 14, 600 miles between biospheres. So about a long trip by plane on Earth. There are

    But the number of miles between biospheres can be raised and therefore the number of biospheres lowered depending on how fast the shuttle craft between biospheres can travel. I'm assuming they will travel faster than a jet.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2016
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    748
    I do admit, without a breakthrough technology, the cosmic rays do pose an obsticle to my proposal. That is unfortunate. To be relegated to only Mars. How limiting and boring.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2016
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    748
    i think the answer to cosmic rays might eventually come from gerontology and fighting aging. If Aubrey de Grey is correct and we will be able to repair cells, we will be able to do periodic maintenance on our cells after being exposed to cosmic rays and thus extend the exposure time we can tolerate. In effect, we would be able to repair the damage from cosmic rays faster than it could be inflicted.

    So basically, with accompanying advancements in cellular maintenance, that puts my proposal back on track.

    I would be interested in hearing your remaining objections.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2016
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,227
    Who would want to live packed side-by-side in these tin cans? Could you live in a stadium with 100,000 people for longer than a day?

    I think you're missing the bigger picture here. You're treating Mars like it's the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. How do we justify a feat that would be far far larger than the most ambitious project humanity has ever undertaken, just to get to Mars and back? Do you think this will promote colonization? Both Earth and Mars would be sunk in debt paying for it for the next century or more. Not enough people want to go there to pay for this colossal infrastructure. It would not pay for itself; it has no product, no jobs.
     
  8. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    748
    Mars would only be a secondary consequence of building the biospheres and, if you ask me, could even be dispensed with, as I don't think Mars is a particularly sensible goal myself, despite my subject line.

    The main point is the colonization of space with biospheres coupled with the projected advances in cellular maintenance to extend life spans under cosmic ray exposure.

    I think it would eventually offset its own expenses as, once living in space becomes more sustainable and safer, more people would pay to live in and visit space. Additionally, as the whole point of a colony is to be self-sustaining, manufacturing of goods would inevitably happen in space, whether that be food or goods produced with 3D printing, etc...the novelty of goods produced in space might produce a healthy export business...

    People living in space will require services and people to provide those services...thus bringing more people up to space ...

    Perhaps the first inhabitants would be wealthy people who make and manage their fortunes on Earth remotely in space. They will need hair cuts, eye care, cleaning services, repair techs, doctors, botanists, etc and thus will pay to have these services and people shipped up there to work.

    As for the stadium objection, obviously, there would be a slightly less population to allow for personal space, perhaps each person would have quarters the size of a studio apartment?
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2016
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,227
    Why?

    To wit:


    Maybe let's try one space hotel, and see how that goes.
     
  10. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    748
    I don't see how it would get built if not at one at a time.
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,227
    Yes but, in the length of time between that first hotel, and when we might have to look at your interplanetary conga line idea, I am fairly certain that improvements in life support and propulsion will get us to Mars fast and safe.
     
  12. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    748
    What improvements in life support and propulsion?
     
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,227
    In the next century?

    Well, protection from radiation - and faster, more fuel-efficient drives.
     
  14. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Premise rejected. There is no need to colonize space. It's just fanasy.
    Also nonsense. The cruise portion of the trip is by far the safest/easiest. What you are suggesting would make space exploration harder/more dangerous, not easier/safer.

    Not only is your idea fantasy, it is bad fantasy.
    Correct on both.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2016
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,798
    Absolutely. And if everyone has a 99% chance of surviving being in space for six months, you are FAR FAR better off with a crew of five than a crew of five plus a hundred people living in fragile ecosystems along the way. In the first case you have a 95% chance of everyone surviving; in the second case, you have a 34% chance of everyone surviving.
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,798
    We already do.
     
  17. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    748
    I can see protection from cosmic rays via regular cellular maintenance, (see Aubrey de Grey) but what faster, more fuel efficient drives? It seems you're positing a remote hypothetical.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,798
    You seem to have a misconception that if a ship was in trouble (a la Apollo 13) and was near a "waypoint" it could just hit the brakes and stop there for repair/resupply. Space travel doesn't work like that. Delta-V is much more important than location when it comes to being able to rendezvous with a ship in trouble.

    If you really want to have readily available rescue for a Mars mission, then launch all such missions with two similar spacecraft. Then if one has a catastrophic problem the other one (which matches its delta-V throughout the mission) serves as a rescue vehicle. And it's only double the cost rather than thousands of times the cost.
     
    Russ_Watters likes this.
  19. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    748
    Sorry, I'm not following you. Are you saying having no Eco-system line on the way to Mars is safer than having one?
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,798
    Nuclear-fusion pulse, VASIMR, and ion engines to name just a few.
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,798
    I am saying that if you put 5 people at risk you'll have a given fatality rate, and if you have 105 people at risk you will have a much higher fatality rate.
     
  22. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    748
    We sent about nine missions to the moon. One, Appollo 13, was almost lost. That's a one in nine failure rate. I guarantee you the astraunauts on Appollo 13 would have felt a lot better if there were many waypoints along the way.
     
  23. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    748
    It's not the same risk. One way has multiple backup redundancies, the other does not.

    Would your second ship be attached to the first? In other words, it could also be damaged or lost if the failure was large enough?
     

Share This Page