Mars????

[Born Hunter 17,910]

6 minutes ago, mushroom said:

Agreed for the most part 

But....

Radiation and charged particles are a massive hurdle. We can barely protect from radiation on earth aside thick concrete and lead. How do you think they will insulate an interplanatery ship, sufficient enough to have usable protection and be safe for 18-20months of space travel? How will they move the mass of lead up to the heavens and then propel it to Mars? (Newtons law and yes I know there is no friction lol) 

I don't think it's a massive hurdle really. The various heavy lift rocket platforms in various stages of development have in excess of 100 ton payloads to LEO with R&D bringing OpEx costs down considerably and consistently. Dedicated deep space vehicles with sufficient shielding and designs that provide artificial gravity etc could be built out of Earth's gravity well, or at least off the ground, in orbit or similar. Heavy lift rockets or a breakthrough technology like the SABRE engine would be used as shuttles to transport materials, fuel, people and cargo to the 'off world docks'.

Even without a specially dedicated deep space vehicle, the exposure from a Mars round trip would be within the lifetime exposure limits NASA sets for an astronaut. It doesn't really matter if you get that all at once or over 85 years.

In terms of exposure at a colony the simple solution is to use regolith as shielding. The real key to sustained deep space operations will be our ability to provide as much 'stuff' as we can from what is already there, not bring it from earth.

All this might seem a bit speculative but for the first time really space is now a highly competitive strategic domain. The private sector has a firm grip and competition is rife which is driving technological progress. I genuinely believe the ball is rolling now and the only question is timescale...

[mushroom 14,103]

45 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

I don't think it's a massive hurdle really. The various heavy lift rocket platforms in various stages of development have in excess of 100 ton payloads to LEO with R&D bringing OpEx costs down considerably and consistently. Dedicated deep space vehicles with sufficient shielding and designs that provide artificial gravity etc could be built out of Earth's gravity well, or at least off the ground, in orbit or similar. Heavy lift rockets or a breakthrough technology like the SABRE engine would be used as shuttles to transport materials, fuel, people and cargo to the 'off world docks'.

Even without a specially dedicated deep space vehicle, the exposure from a Mars round trip would be within the lifetime exposure limits NASA sets for an astronaut. It doesn't really matter if you get that all at once or over 85 years.

In terms of exposure at a colony the simple solution is to use regolith as shielding. The real key to sustained deep space operations will be our ability to provide as much 'stuff' as we can from what is already there, not bring it from earth.

All this might seem a bit speculative but for the first time really space is now a highly competitive strategic domain. The private sector has a firm grip and competition is rife which is driving technological progress. I genuinely believe the ball is rolling now and the only question is timescale...

All understood and I agree with most. Except.... the rad levels! We know that certain types of radiation are harmful at any level. NASA and all historical space agencies have agreed, the radiation levels astronauts are exposed to, are way too high and have to be dealt with by limited exposure and iodine (type) drugs.

Hoisting up 4000kg of lead for rad protection, is not economically viable (at this time). There are great commercial projects happening and fueling the future rise of new tech and more powerful and economical engines, granted.... but still, it is a non starter, unless we can get to, process and use the material that is already up there.

Next you have the thrust issue (equal and opposite). Even without friction (as such) you still have to move the mass and reach a realistic speed for space travel. Obviously this can be done long term, with a small continuous force (which will take a calculable time to reach its max velocity) or a huge initial force that will have its opposite and desired reaction (just forget the red stains on the back wall for now lol)

To those that don't understand.... think if you played pool with a cats eye marble as your white ball. You're gonna have to seriously hit that marble just to even move a red or yellow an inch and even then, the marble will bounce off. You need the initial force that exceeds what it is you're trying to move or it's a non starter.

Edited February 17, 2021 by mushroom

[Born Hunter 17,910]

41 minutes ago, mushroom said:

All understood and I agree with most. Except.... the rad levels! We know that certain types of radiation are harmful at any level.

Do we? In the field of radiation safety it is somewhat erroneously assumed that any radiation at any level is bad, full stop. And yet we have acceptable limits for pragmatism. For NASA the exposure from a Mars mission would be within that limit based on measurements taken by probes that have done the journey already.

So you'll have to be more specific. What type of radiation is it that is of particular concern with a Mars mission that is expected to exceed current acceptable limits?

41 minutes ago, mushroom said:

NASA and all historical space agencies have agreed, the radiation levels astronauts are exposed to, are way too high and have to be dealt with by limited exposure and iodine (type) drugs.

I'm taking your word on all of that but it's really irrelevant because a Mars mission would be within acceptable limits.

41 minutes ago, mushroom said:

Hoisting up 4000kg of lead for rad protection, is not economically viable (at this time). There are great commercial projects happening and fueling the future rise of new tech and more powerful and economical engines, granted.... but still, it is a non starter, unless we can get to, process and use the material that is already up there.

Why is it not financial or economically viable? You realise SpaceX are estimating 100ton payload launch costs at a few million dollars a launch? I mean, it's not necessary to 'fully' shield a ship as I've explained but it's not particularly expensive to put 4 tons of lead in orbit even today... I'd ask why lead and why four tons specifically but I feel this is tangential. I was simply offering long term solutions to deep space exploration.

41 minutes ago, mushroom said:

Next you have the thrust issue (equal and opposite). Even without friction (as such) you still have to move the mass and reach a realistic speed for space travel. Obviously this can be done long term, with a small continuous force (which will take a calculable time to reach its max velocity) or a huge initial force that will have its opposite and desired reaction (just forget the red stains on the back wall for now lol)

To those that don't understand.... think if you played pool with a cats eye marble as your white ball. You're gonna have to seriously hit that marble just to even move a red or yellow an inch and even then, the marble will bounce off. You need the initial force that exceeds what it is you're trying to move or it's a non starter.

Mate, it can be done now, LOL, never mind long term. I don't know what the problem is here? It's literally how they come up with the travel time number. Based on realistic thrust achievable with current/near technology then it takes like six months or something to get to Mars from Earth at optimal orbital launch time.

If we had better technology that would be shortened. If we had sufficiently better technology we could burn at 1G till midway then flip and burn at -1G generating artificial Earth gravity the whole way. But none of that is needed to just get there and back without dying initially.

Edited February 17, 2021 by Born Hunter

[kanny 21,694]

Remember seeing an idea about putting several ships in a elliptical orbit  between earth and  Mars ,you would have one coming round every few weeks like a bus, blast off from earth and Dock with the  bus and off you go 

[mushroom 14,103]

4 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

Do we? In the field of radiation safety it is somewhat erroneously assumed that any radiation at any level is bad, full stop. And yet we have acceptable limits for pragmatism. For NASA the exposure from a Mars mission would be within that limit based on measurements taken by probes that have done the journey already.

So you'll have to be more specific. What type of radiation is it that is of particular concern with a Mars mission that is expected to exceed current acceptable limits?

I'm taking your word on all of that but it's really irrelevant because a Mars mission would be within acceptable limits.

Why is it not financial or economically viable? You realise SpaceX are estimating 100ton payload launch costs at a few million dollars a launch? I mean, it's not necessary as I've explained but it's not particularly expensive to put 4 tons of lead in orbit even today... I'd ask why lead and why four tons specifically but I feel this is tangential. I was simply offering long term solutions to deep space exploration.

Mate, it can be done now, LOL, never mind long term. I don't know what the problem is here? It's literally how they come up with the travel time number. Based on realistic thrust achievable with current/near technology then it takes like six months or something to get to Mars from Earth at optimal orbital launch time.

If we had better technology that would be shortened. If we had sufficiently better technology we could burn at 1G till midway then flip and burn at -1G generating artificial Earth gravity the whole way. But none of that is needed to just get there and back without dying initially.

First part: X through to Gamma, plus charged particles and God only knows what else. I've already posted an article from NASA regarding their worries and increase levels of cancer types amongst astronauts etc. I take it they've done their long term research. 

Second part: thrust has to be equal to mass to get any decent momentum, in a short space of time. Moving astronauts through open space, in a vehicle that is shielded by tonnes of lead.... the propulsion doesn't exist. As you know we only have chemical propulsion and gasses for inertia and course correction. So it'll have to be a truckload of trips up, to provide the necessities for the journey (not economically viable). So a slow, continuous thrust is all we have and is already used on probes... probes are nowhere near the mass of an imagined interplanetary ship, carrying everything from food for the journey to homes to live in. The time spent in space will have adverse effects and that's aside from the physical problems the crew would face.

Now, the burning at 1g and flipping for art' grav... I have to read up on. Kinda makes sense but I'm not fully grasping it. Have you any articles I can read?

[mushroom 14,103]

24 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

Do we? In the field of radiation safety it is somewhat erroneously assumed that any radiation at any level is bad, full stop. And yet we have acceptable limits for pragmatism. For NASA the exposure from a Mars mission would be within that limit based on measurements taken by probes that have done the journey already.

So you'll have to be more specific. What type of radiation is it that is of particular concern with a Mars mission that is expected to exceed current acceptable limits?

I'm taking your word on all of that but it's really irrelevant because a Mars mission would be within acceptable limits.

Why is it not financial or economically viable? You realise SpaceX are estimating 100ton payload launch costs at a few million dollars a launch? I mean, it's not necessary as I've explained but it's not particularly expensive to put 4 tons of lead in orbit even today... I'd ask why lead and why four tons specifically but I feel this is tangential. I was simply offering long term solutions to deep space exploration.

Mate, it can be done now, LOL, never mind long term. I don't know what the problem is here? It's literally how they come up with the travel time number. Based on realistic thrust achievable with current/near technology then it takes like six months or something to get to Mars from Earth at optimal orbital launch time.

If we had better technology that would be shortened. If we had sufficiently better technology we could burn at 1G till midway then flip and burn at -1G generating artificial Earth gravity the whole way. But none of that is needed to just get there and back without dying initially.

The 4 tons was for example. Tbh it could be a 100 or a thousand, I don't know, what would be the correct amount. The main issue isn't just getting it up there and getting it built and underway. You have to move the beast, with reasonable momentum to get it to Mars and back.

[mushroom 14,103]

Just realised I contradicted myself lol The propulsion does exist, it's just not viable for manned planetary missions due to cost of getting the propellant up there.

 

[Born Hunter 17,910]

1 minute ago, mushroom said:

First part: X through to Gamma, plus charged particles and God only knows what else. I've already posted an article from NASA regarding their worries and increase levels of cancer types amongst astronauts etc. I take it they've done their long term research. 

Okay, so as I thought. Radiation workers all over the world have safe limits to work within. NASA do too and a Mars mission is within these. It's really a non issue for a one time trip. I've seen the increased risk estimated at like 5% .... so less than a lifetime of eating bacon! For a much grander space travel network yes it becomes a serious factor which is why I mention dedicated deep space ships with sufficient shielding. Which is obviously challenging but far far from impossible.

5 minutes ago, mushroom said:

Second part: thrust has to be equal to mass to get any decent momentum, in a short space of time. Moving astronauts through open space, in a vehicle that is shielded by tonnes of lead.... the propulsion doesn't exist. As you know we only have chemical propulsion and gasses for inertia and course correction. So it'll have to be a truckload of trips up, to provide the necessities for the journey (not economically viable). So a slow, continuous thrust is all we have and is already used on probes... probes are nowhere near the mass of an imagined interplanetary ship, carrying everything from food for the journey to homes to live in. The time spent in space will have adverse effects and that's aside from the physical problems the crew would face.

Why is it not viable? Do you know what the costs are? What's the economical viability threshold in your mind? Do you know how much cargo would need to be launched for a Mars mission?

14 minutes ago, mushroom said:

Now, the burning at 1g and flipping for art' grav... I have to read up on. Kinda makes sense but I'm not fully grasping it. Have you any articles I can read?

It's a very simple concept, the ships thrust creates an accelerative force which can be a substitute for gravity. So by accelerating at 9.81m/s/s you simulate Earth gravity. At half way you flip the ship to decelerate back to zero once at your destination. The fuel/propellant costs with rocket engines would make it extremely prohibitive over long distances like to Mars.

[mushroom 14,103]

12 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

Okay, so as I thought. Radiation workers all over the world have safe limits to work within. NASA do too and a Mars mission is within these. It's really a non issue for a one time trip. I've seen the increased risk estimated at like 5% .... so less than a lifetime of eating bacon! For a much grander space travel network yes it becomes a serious factor which is why I mention dedicated deep space ships with sufficient shielding. Which is obviously challenging but far far from impossible.

Why is it not viable? Do you know what the costs are? What's the economical viability threshold in your mind? Do you know how much cargo would need to be launched for a Mars mission?

It's a very simple concept, the ships thrust creates an accelerative force which can be a substitute for gravity. So by accelerating at 9.81m/s/s you simulate Earth gravity. At half way you flip the ship to decelerate back to zero once at your destination. The fuel/propellant costs with rocket engines would make it extremely prohibitive over long distances like to Mars.

Last bit is how I imagined it

Edited to add: you're looking at the ship as, the front is the roof. So a building on its side and thrust from the basement?

Second is based on payload and ability to get it into orbit under current economic models. I'll have to find the article but it estimated the needed "weight" (I know lol) would be in the hundreds of tonnes for supplies. Not including the craft or crew. 

Agreed with the deep space radiation bit, impossible right now. Even so, going to Mars is gonna increase time spent in a radiation nd charged particle filled environment. As I've already mentioned. NASA has published articles relating to cancer instances in astronauts. Name one astronaut that has spent more than 2 years in space None have and yet they are getting cancers more so than the general population. A mission to Mars is going to be longer than 2 years

The other one that I think you've may have missed () is a probe has nobody in it, so no need to worry about G forces and red stains on the back wall.... acceleration has to be in keeping with the capabilities of the human body.

I'm gonna look up probe speeds and acceleration for Mars missions and come back on this one though lol 

Edited February 17, 2021 by mushroom

[Born Hunter 17,910]

15 minutes ago, mushroom said:

The 4 tons was for example. Tbh it could be a 100 or a thousand, I don't know, what would be the correct amount. The main issue isn't just getting it up there and getting it built and underway. You have to move the beast, with reasonable momentum to get it to Mars and back.

But if you don't know how much material is needed to shield the ship how the hell can you say it makes it economically unviable?

I get what you're saying and I haven't done all the research personally, I just trust the word of people who have. And I'm amazed at the advancements we're seeing in the past decade. Shits happening now in the space sector after decades of uninspiring stagnation. Unlike the race to the moon, it won't be the first person to step foot on Mars who's name is immortalised in history, it'll be the billionaire's that put them there! The already profitable space sector is driving the tech and allowing funding for blue sky stuff like Mars which a handful of players want to achieve.

[mushroom 14,103]

2 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

But if you don't know how much material is needed to shield the ship how the hell can you say it makes it economically unviable?

I get what you're saying and I haven't done all the research personally, I just trust the word of people who have. And I'm amazed at the advancements we're seeing in the past decade. Shits happening now in the space sector after decades of uninspiring stagnation. Unlike the race to the moon, it won't be the first person to step foot on Mars who's name is immortalised in history, it'll be the billionaire's that put them there! The already profitable space sector is driving the tech and allowing funding for blue sky stuff like Mars which a handful of players want to achieve.

Unless we have final design specs, it is impossible to say how much shielding would be needed

Unfortunately, I agree with the last bit.... the pioneer will be forgotten and the king will get the glory..... no more Columbus or Armstrong days

[Born Hunter 17,910]

3 minutes ago, mushroom said:

Last bit is how I imagined it

Edited to add: you're looking at the ship as, the front is the roof. So a building on its side and thrust from the basement?

Yes exactly.

3 minutes ago, mushroom said:

Second is based on payload and ability to get it into orbit under current economic models. I'll have to find the article but it estimated the needed "weight" (I know lol) would be in the hundreds of tonnes for supplies. Not including the craft or crew. 

I get that but I don't see it as unacceptably prohibitive. SpaceX is targeting a launch cost for their experimental Starship with a hundred ton cargo payload to LEO at a few million! That's LEO, not Mars but that's f***ing incredible!

Bare in mind they are not the only player either. Competition is driving innovation and innovation is driving extreme cost saving.

8 minutes ago, mushroom said:

Agreed with the deep space radiation bit, impossible right now. Even so, going to Mars is gonna increase time spent in a radiation nd charged particle filled environment. As I've already mentioned. NASA has published articles relating to cancer instances in astronauts. Name one astronaut that has spent more than 2 years in space None have and yet they are getting cancers more so than the general population. A mission to Mars is going to be longer than 2 years

Yes of course there's increased cancer risk. But it's would be acceptable to a long list of people who would love to go. Like I said, I've read it to be estimated to be 5% right. Processed meat is associated with 18% increased cancer risk last I looked, probably more. These things need to be quantified, we don't quit anything just because there is 'risk'.

11 minutes ago, mushroom said:

The other one that I think you've may have missed () is a probe has nobody in it, so no need to worry about G forces and red stains on the back wall.... acceleration has to be in keeping with the capabilities of the human body.

I'm gonna look up probe speeds and acceleration for Mars missions and come back on this one though lol 

You misunderstand my point about probes. The probes took direct radiation measurements to allow estimates on human exposure. That's as far as my referencing probes goes. I'm not referencing probes for anything other than the measurements of radiation levels to be expected.

[Greb147 6,810]

We are talking decades away here, by then they will have solved all radiation problems. 

[mushroom 14,103]

1 minute ago, Born Hunter said:

Yes exactly.

I get that but I don't see it as unacceptably prohibitive. SpaceX is targeting a launch cost for their experimental Starship with a hundred ton cargo payload to LEO at a few million! That's LEO, not Mars but that's f***ing incredible!

Bare in mind they are not the only player either. Competition is driving innovation and innovation is driving extreme cost saving.

Yes of course there's increased cancer risk. But it's would be acceptable to a long list of people who would love to go. Like I said, I've read it to be estimated to be 5% right. Processed meat is associated with 18% increased cancer risk last I looked, probably more. These things need to be quantified, we don't quit anything just because there is 'risk'.

You misunderstand my point about probes. The probes took direct radiation measurements to allow estimates on human exposure. That's as far as my referencing probes goes. I'm not referencing probes for anything other than the measurements of radiation levels to be expected.

So we agree and disagree but we get each other and technically we're on the same page

One question...... How the fuucking hell did you seperate my reply for your responses like you did?

[mushroom 14,103]

1 minute ago, Greb147 said:

We are talking decades away here, by then they will have solved all radiation problems. 

With what? Chicken wire and duck tape?

Radiation (type depending) has the twatting ability to pass through pretty much anything. Lead, gold and a only a couple of other very heavy (dense) elements/alloys are the only thing we have and understanding physics as we do only thing able to withstand and absorb.