Posted on 06/20/2018 12:51:12 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Chris Hadfield, who flew to the International Space Station as part of the Canadian Space Agency, told Business Insider that making it to Mars is going to take technology that has yet to be conceived. Put simply, he doesn’t believe the new rockets being worked on by NASA, SpaceX, or Blue Origin have much chance of fulfilling their stated goals.
“Personally, I don’t think any of those three rockets is taking people to Mars,” Hadfield said regarding the SpaceX Big Falcon Rocket, Blue Origin’s New Glenn, and NASA’s Space Launch System being constructed by Boeing. “I don’t think those are a practical way to send people to Mars because they’re dangerous and it takes too long.”
“My guess is we will never go to Mars with the engines that exist on any of those three rockets unless we truly have to,” Hadfield added.
None of this is any surprise to the scientists and engineers working on the rockets, of course. Traveling in space is incredibly dangerous, as it always has been, and venturing to a new world for the very first time will carry monumental risks. SpaceX boss Elon Musk has been very public about the dangers that go along with planning a Mars mission, even going so far as to say that the first travelers to Mars have a “good chance” of dying before ever returning to Earth
(Excerpt) Read more at bgr.com ...
Because Canada is such an authority at inventing technologies that contributed to space travel? The Canadian was just along for the ride!
No, no, now. Be fair. They invented that arm thingy.
The first several manned spaceflight are likely to be one way trips. Too many things to go wrong plus months of exposure to cosmic rays will kill you. Not to mention the logistics of shipping enough food and water and other supplies to last close to two years.
Rocket fuel is nothing but dead weight until it is burned. You have to accelerate and decelerate all that dead weight.
Come on, they are going to use the new force called climate change engine power. It never stops, its result is always rising, and it meets the criteria of drawing huge sums of money to support it.
The two major problems with extended space travel are the effects of radiation and low gravity on the human body. This is what a current NASA employee, former air force colonel told me. That is also why astronauts do not stay on the International Space station for more than a year. They all come back shorter and near sited among other problems.
Isn’t it great that today’s astronuts are content to just fly in an orbit and aren’t that interested in pushing the envelope? Guess that’s what happens when you stop recruiting exclusively from combat fighter pilots and test pilots.
Shoulda been on Mars by the late 70s or early 80s. Instead, NASA dicked off.
...
Nixon cut the funding. From what I’ve read he didn’t like the space program. But in the end I think any president would have had to cut the funding.
Once we landed on the Moon, the Law of Diminishing Returns set in.
If the SpaceX BFR makes it to market, it will be a huge money making machine even without a Mars mission.
The SpaceX plan is to refuel the second stage in LEO for the trip to Mars. On Mars the fuel will be manufactured for the return trip.
A Moon base greatly increases costs and the time to attempt a Mars mission, which is why the government likes that plan.
We don’t need to go to Mars. We do need to keep the moon from being taken over by a hostile nation.
I don’t understand the idiocy of the Mars question, other than this is a big money grab. You know why there’s no Moon base? It would put an end to space travel budgets, that’s why.
Insofar as humans making - let alone surviving - the trip, I have 2 words:
“Cosmic rays”
Getting to Mars is 6 times easier from the Moon, not counting any of the other economies of scale that comes from launching from the Moon.
mars by 1965, saturn by 1970
Motto of Project Orion, killed due to lack of political will, 1964
I didn't say a Moon base, I said Lunar orbit. Starting a trans-Martian trip from Lunar orbit is less energy intensive than starting from LEO. The trade-off of course is the higher cost in getting construction materials, fuel, and equipment to Lunar Orbit in order to assemble the trans-Martian space craft.
One compromise solution is to assemble the trans-Martian craft in LEO, only give it enough fuel to establish Lunar orbit, refuel from Moon-manufactured fuel, then the make the push to Mars.
Project Orion was magnificent!
Where’s the Canadian entry? I know they ran into a setback when none of their people could make maple syrup a viable fuel.
They all come back shorter and near sited among other problems.
Don’t know about the near-sightedness, but they come back taller, not shorter. The lower, or lack of, gravity causes the spinal column to decompress, making them taller, at least temporary.
Even Howard was taller when he came back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.