Maybe next time you could do some research before making a bunch of claims.
> The one way trip to mars is orders of magnitude more complicated than moon.
From an energy perspective its not that much more complex.
And from a living perspective, yes it is an order of magnitude, but guess what, the ship is also an order of magnitude bigger. Meaning that for a small crew you have enough space for training rooms, labs, living quarters and medical facilities and so on.
> Keeping people from being riddled with cancer in 6months trip is not trivial.
That's mostly wrong. The cosmic radiation isn't much of a problem.
The only issue is the solar radiation. And solar radiation is very low most of the time. That can be measured and if its detected, the crew can go into a radiation shelter for a while.
But its not like if they are exposed to solar radiation for a few minutes, they will grow cancers instantly.
> Landing and then what you plan a flag and die?
No. the plan is to send robotic ships first to deploy infrastructure. The atmosphere has useful stuff in it. And then you need to get water from the ice. With water and the atmosphere you can make rocket fuel and other useful materials, such as drinking water, plastics and so on.
Of course that requires development of methods to gather water and of course development of chemical or biological reactors to transform the material. We are pretty sure we can build that stuff technically speaking.
The other big issue is energy to run these processes. We either need a shit ton of solar or a deploy-able nuclear reactors.
Then you wait until the earth comes back around and fly back. And hopefully other people are arriving again. So you can continuously have an occupied base that you are building up over time.
The whole point of what SpaceX is trying to build is a railroad to Mars. The opposite of flags and footprints.
I am reading this and I can't believe it. Was this written by chatgtp?
> From an energy perspective its not that much more complex.
As in what exactly? Its not much more complex because you have to 'burn to moon' and 'burn to mars' which is pretty much the same because you need energy to do both??
how is this 'From an energy perspective its not that much more complex.'?
>And from a living perspective, yes it is an order of magnitude, but guess what, the ship is also an order of magnitude bigger. Meaning that for a small crew you have enough space for training rooms, labs, living quarters and medical facilities and so on.
What ship?!? Labs, medical facilities wtf r u smoking.
here is spaceX graphics? Are you talking about facilities for an ant farm?
And why dont you mention how many fueling launches you need to go to the moon in an essentially 'space liferaft' vs an actual spaceship needed to get to mars?? hm?
> No. the plan is to send robotic ships first to deploy infrastructure. The atmosphere has useful stuff in it. And then you need to get water from the ice. With water and the atmosphere you can make rocket fuel and other useful materials, such as drinking water, plastics and so on.
How? Just how is that infrastructure going to get there deploy itself and... it boggles my mind how you handwave the solutions to colonising a fucking planet.
Sure mate, you played minecraft and all you need is a crafting table on mars and whabang infrastructure poof icewater mining and puryfing faclities "shazam* and your farm is ready! So easy, who thought.
> The whole point of what SpaceX is trying to build is a railroad to Mars. The opposite of flags and footprints.
Who is going to pay for all of it, and why would you do it in a first place? Cuz you are not setting up a colony, you are setting up the most expensive treehouse.
Just because you listened to podcast doesn't mean you know what you are talking about. Cuz your arguments are clearly all hype a surface knowledge.
The biggest chunk of deltaV there is the LEO
Removing it makes trip to mars 160% more expensive. And "Areobreaking" is already counted in the trip to mars.
You also conveniently forget about the fact that mars spaceship will be much heavier. And while deltaV doesn't change the amount of fuel to achieve it does. Significantly.
Not to mention the 8.5 months transfer will have damaging effect on the body. We already did a study on impact of prolonged space stay. Whats the impact on humans living in 3.7m/s2 ?? How would fetus develop in such environment.
But lets sweep this under the rag, it will be solved soon (tm)
Its very convenient to overlook actual small details that dont fit a narrative. But in space Yes-man run out of air really quickly.
I am done with this thread as you are just stubborn kid parroting same old bs hype people produce to justify their existence.
My statement was "From an energy perspective its not that much more complex"
Factually speaking my argument is correct by how most humans view this answer. But you have to poke holes in it because you knew it was correct. Its fucking ridiculous to say 'excluding LEO' then its incorrect. That might be relevant if we started from LEO but we don't. Self owned.
Lets remember what you said:
> The one way trip to mars is orders of magnitude more complicated than moon.
So my response correcting that is simply appropriate and correct, its certainty not 'multitude' orders of magnitude more complex. Specifically when talking about a one way trip.
Its easy to see how people who haven't study the subject wouldn't think how small the difference is energy wise is reading your statement. And the longer habitation is well within what we have been able to do for decades. So neither qualifies with 'orders of magnitude'. And that includes the Starship would be heavier argument.
So the simply reality is your statement was flat out wrong.
Then your other statement about radiation was fucking ridiculously wrong but you somehow refuse to acknowledge that.
Since you have no fucking leg to stand on regarding nuclear, you decided to move the goal post and find a new topic.
The actual studies you quote go against your argument, significant space time can be massively mitigated by training. As the Russian astronaut who is the world leading expert on the topic has demonstrated. One of the problem on ISS is that astronauts on ISS are incredibly busy and can't do that as much training as a Mars crew would have time for. For a Mars mission, where they don't get new instruments and experiments sent all the time, physical preparation for Mars, would be one of their primary activities.
We can't know for certain, but from everything we know, training at 3.7m/s2 should be more then sufficient with dedicated training. I always believed NASA should have invest in a rotation station so these effects can be studied better. But in the absence of that, we have to draw conclusion from micrografity research and that seems to indicate it will be fine.
> How would fetus develop in such environment.
Wow, just picking up the goal post and running down field. If we are at the point where we have to seriously think about this point I have already won the argument anyway.
> Its very convenient to overlook actual small details that dont fit a narrative.
I'm simply addressing your points, not laying out a comprehensive plan. I am refuting your points, not making points of my own. So claiming I'm ignoring points you haven't even brought up is dumb.
Are you seriously acting like those points you brought up somehow aren't thought about by SpaceX, NASA and co?
> I am done with this thread as you are just stubborn kid parroting same old bs hype people produce to justify their existence.
Funny how how the people at SpaceX, NASA, ESA and friends, who want to make this happen are 'bs hype people'. How NASA papers and simply math on the subject is 'bs hype'. Sorry for repeating that nonsense.
I didn't know you personally are an old veteran who did all the research on the objections yourself, right? You made your own orbital dynamics calculation. You calculated the mass difference and have clear assumption about the weight of different Starship version. You have detailed calculation on aerobraking efficiency of different vehicle and how that effects delta/V. You have personally looked at the data from decades of human health studies in microg.
Sorry I just didn't know that you were such a genius who hovers above us 'kids'. I humbly apologize and bow to you enlightened wisdom.
If you don't understand my comment on the energy perspective you shouldn't comment on the topic.
> What ship?!? Labs, medical facilities wtf r u smoking.
The Starship. SpaceX is currently building an interior for the Moon Lander together with NASA that will have those things.
For a small crew its totally possible to have this. Not sure what to tell you.
> And why dont you mention how many fueling launches you need to go to the moon in an essentially 'space liferaft' vs an actual spaceship needed to get to mars?? hm?
I don't even know what the fuck you are trying to say ...
Yes, it needs to be refuelled a number of time. So what?? hm?
Falcon 9 is literally launching every 5 days right now and it wasn't even designed with rapid reuse in mind.
> How? Just how is that infrastructure going to get there deploy itself and... it boggles my mind how you handwave the solutions to colonising a fucking planet.
I don't know why haters like you are so hung up with colonising. Colonising starts small. The solutions in the beginning wont be the solutions 50-100 years later. So criticising the current architecture with 'it can't do colonisation' is fucking stupid. Thanks captain obvious.
In the beginning its about establishing a research base that can be continously inhabited. If that can be achieved its fucking fantastic. And from there it grows or it doesn't.
And in terms of how. There are these things called wheels....
There are plenty of designs around for different aspects of the architecture. You haven't addressed any of them.
> Sure mate, you played minecraft and all you need is a crafting table on mars and whabang infrastructure poof icewater mining and puryfing faclities "shazam* and your farm is ready! So easy, who thought.
Those things would be built on earth. So your comment doesn't even fucking make sense.
Its not easy to do these things but you have not made any actual argument that its not possible or harder then other parts. Building the Raptor engine is hard, a lot harder then a device that takes oxygen out of the atmosphere. Building a device to collect water is hard, but a hell of a lot easier then building Starship.
You argument is basically just asserting things you don't know much about and then making childish insults.
Its funny how there are 10000s of really smart scientist and engineers that are working on different aspects of these problems and they all believe they can be overcome. But I am sure you are just so much smarter and more enlightened then all those people. Go stand in front off a mirror and pat yourself on the back buddy.
> Who is going to pay for all of it, and why would you do it in a first place? Cuz you are not setting up a colony, you are setting up the most expensive treehouse.
That's fantastic. I didn't know you were that optimistic. A continuously inhabited house on Mars would be absolutely fucking amazing. One might even say its a colony. Because, guess what, that's how colonies started.
wow. ok keep on reading marketing pamphlets. I am done with you. Now you are either outright lying or are ignorant to the point where you actually believe any bs musk says.
I mean, I ask you a question and you straight up talk about something else... what else is there to say... you are like a politician on tv. Talks, talks, talks but doesn't say anything.
> The one way trip to mars is orders of magnitude more complicated than moon.
From an energy perspective its not that much more complex.
And from a living perspective, yes it is an order of magnitude, but guess what, the ship is also an order of magnitude bigger. Meaning that for a small crew you have enough space for training rooms, labs, living quarters and medical facilities and so on.
> Keeping people from being riddled with cancer in 6months trip is not trivial.
That's mostly wrong. The cosmic radiation isn't much of a problem.
The only issue is the solar radiation. And solar radiation is very low most of the time. That can be measured and if its detected, the crew can go into a radiation shelter for a while.
But its not like if they are exposed to solar radiation for a few minutes, they will grow cancers instantly.
> Landing and then what you plan a flag and die?
No. the plan is to send robotic ships first to deploy infrastructure. The atmosphere has useful stuff in it. And then you need to get water from the ice. With water and the atmosphere you can make rocket fuel and other useful materials, such as drinking water, plastics and so on.
Of course that requires development of methods to gather water and of course development of chemical or biological reactors to transform the material. We are pretty sure we can build that stuff technically speaking.
The other big issue is energy to run these processes. We either need a shit ton of solar or a deploy-able nuclear reactors.
Then you wait until the earth comes back around and fly back. And hopefully other people are arriving again. So you can continuously have an occupied base that you are building up over time.
The whole point of what SpaceX is trying to build is a railroad to Mars. The opposite of flags and footprints.