/sci/ - Science & Math

sooner than you think if the warp drive rumors are true

Didn't it blow up just yesterday? lol

>>11742221
no

>Boca Chica Nueva
Too politically dangerous to put in the hands of private industry

>>11742149
not before 2k50
ill be a 60yo virgin by then

its over
literally one generation off

>>11742361
Die on mars and be memorialized as a founder

>>11742361
We will be setting up the first stages of the mars colony by 2035

>>11742173
the what now?

>>11742444
Lol keep dreaming retard

>>11742707
t. not white

>>11742221
>Rocket in testing blew up.
Wow that's never happened before, you think they'd test it to make sure that didn't happen.

>>11742149

Imagine being excited by archaic technology...

>>11742444
ah, so I'll only be 40? great
speed the fuck up guys, I get you can't rush progress but fuck
does anyone have predictions for when we will be able to prolong life cause I don't really wanna die one day

>>11742444
Right after the James Webb telescope is launched in 2009.

>>11742149
How are you meant to get down? Rope ladder or zip line?

>>11742149
Honestly With how fast starship is going i hope they try to send one uncrewed in 2024.

>>11743364
Well what exactly is new then?

Starship will be America's N1.

>>11743407
>but fuck
>buttfuck
lol

>>11743547
the difference is that the JWST is a money laundering scheme

>>11743940
And Felon Musks SpaceX isn't.

>>11742444
have you the slightest clue about the logistical hurdle of getting to Mars?

>>11743942
t. Boing employee

>>11743966
The hurdle that NASA seemed to accomplish just fine

never*

>>11743966
NASA has been able to launch 1 tonne payloads to Mars, they just need to scale it up.

>>11744189
okay, so you havent. got it.

>>11744197
neither have you. got it

>>11742149
Damn I want this

WHERE ARE MY DELEGATES?!

>>11742707
elon said this actually

>>11748631
Same, id probably go

>>11742149
NOT SOON ENOUGH

Is it be possible that human astronauts on Mars will be taking a selfie with the Curiosity rover within this decade?

>Damn, I really want to go.

>>11742149
Is an unmanned starship to mars by 2022 still possible?

>>11743966
>have you the slightest clue about the logistical hurdle of getting to Mars?

Just put some food and water in a spaceship and go lol

>>11751903
50%
>>11751924
More like 2024 but it's doable.

To get in stellar travel soon we NEED warp drives

>>11743966
Wasn't the hurdle mainly porkbelly boomers at NASA and Boeing?
Now that Boeing has been forced to SUBMIT and NASA is clawing back some credibility by working "with" X, I can't see them being too much of a problem.

>>11743364
>heh imagine caring about things

>>11743966
It has been historically overestimated though.
In terms of dv Mars when it's close to Earth is only slightly worse than the moon.
The main problem for manned missions is just the voyage takes months.

>>11742173
Stop doing drugs anon.

>>11751988
>dv
?

I'm a neophyte when it comes to spacerino, but isn't part of the deal that if you accelerate in a direction there's absolutely no friction to push you back other than perhaps the near negligible effect of photons pushing the craft off-course?
And if that's enough of a deal to be a thing, presumably the various accelerations could take that into account.
So you don't need any significant amount more fuel to get from Earth to the Mars than from Earth to the Moon.

>virgin sOOner

>>11742149
A screaming comes across the sky. it has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now....
looks kinda like a V2 and I just finished GR makin me feel funny

>>11742149
soon Elon will release another meme drawing of his mars fantasy and blow up another starship, should rename it to blowship

>>11752010
What counts is the delta v, here is the map.
There are other factors at play but even so the map is already telling you most of the deal.

>>11742699
https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2001057881A1/en

>>11752451
>9400 dv from Earth
huh
I didn't realize just how easy KSP was

>>11751988
a voyage with chemical propellants going in the best windows doesnt take months, it takes closer to 2 years. consider:
- the food which needs to last the entire round trip
- the space. on the ISS the astronauts spend 5-6 months, and even that is a little cramped.
- the resources for the ECLSS, which runs at nowhere close to 90% efficient in a zero g environment
- the bone mass loss and muscle atrophy of a crew spending all that time in a zero g environment
- or, if you have a rotating spacecraft, the mass for that system. even something as simple as a long tube rotating still has mass.
- the mass of the radiation shielding needed to protect the astronauts outside the earth's magnetosphere (an inch of lead, if I recall)
- the mass of the experiments and the entertainent equipment needed for the crew to not kill each other out of boredom
- etc etc

lowest estimate, using aerocapture/-braking all over (unrealistic but whatever), you're still looking at 5 km/s dv roundtrip. of course, you'll also want the vessel to be 100% reusable, or you'll have to manufacture and launch this hardware (or stages) every single time you want to go to mars.
lets say 70 tons of sheer payload to serve the crew? the iss is 420 tons, so i doubt that we'd make 70 tons for this considering the duration of the trip and the lagt of magnetosphere, but whatever. plug that into the rocket equation and you'll probably get a completely ridiculous fuel mass. now you gotta factor in the tank mass too, which becomes especially demanding when the vessel needs to be reusable (unless you're using balloon tanks, which have issues of their own).
i don't know what fuel we intend to run with, but all of them have their issuess, mostly regarding the tradeoff between ISP and the boiloff of cryogenic fuels.
Chris Hadfield agrees with the following conclusion: we are not going to Mars with chemical engines.

>>11752010
yes and no. You need a certain amount of velocity to be able to exit the gravity well, in other words go so fast that the planet's gravity can't slow you down. But that applies to both the moon and mars; the difference is to go to mars you need a little extra delta v to be able to go from earth's orbit, to mars orbit as you need to gain "altitude" relative to the sun. But that difference is small enough to not be significant, compared with the mass necessary to sustain the austronauts going in a 4 year journey to mars and back, compared to the week it takes to reach the moon and back.

>>11752567
You should look at SpaceX Mars plans as some of your info is either obsolete or wrong.

>the food which needs to last the entire round trip

~300 kilograms per person per year. Add some reserves and as a rule of thumb, you need ton of food per crewmember on a Mars mission. This is very much plausible. Tons of food (along with other supplies) will be prepositioned by multiple unmanned launches on Mars surface before manned flight even takes off.

>the space. on the ISS the astronauts spend 5-6 months, and even that is a little cramped.

Starship will have 1000 cubic meters of volume, a bit bigger than the ISS.

>the bone mass loss and muscle atrophy of a crew spending all that time in a zero g environment

https://spacenews.com/resistive-targeted-exercise-reversed-astronauts-bone-loss-study-finds/

>or, if you have a rotating spacecraft, the mass for that system. even something as simple as a long tube rotating still has mass.

Tethers? Should be very light but also dynamically unstable.

>the mass of the radiation shielding needed to protect the astronauts outside the earth's magnetosphere (an inch of lead, if I recall)

You recall wrong, you need light elements in order to reduce secondary radiation, not lead. There will be a solar storm shelter onboard with ~1 ton per square meter of plastic/water shielding. And manned launches will use faster trajectory of 3-5 months one way. This will be enough to reduce total radiation dose below 1 sievert, which is the career limit for NASA astronaut. Radiation will not stop a Mars mission.

>>11742149
Never. Humanity will go extinct in 50 years

>>11752567

>Chris Hadfield agrees with the following conclusion: we are not going to Mars with chemical engines.

Astronauts are stupid.