6 ms·

An Astronaut Who Might Get Us to Mars

61 points by johnny313 9y ago

rapnie 9y ago
get _Us_ to mars, or that astronaut? well, i'll stay at home and clean up the dust :)
- mikeash 9y ago
  He's 67 years old, so I doubt he'd be making the trip himself. Nor would you or I, of course. Other astronauts would, presumably.
  - rapnie 9y ago
    you'd probably be correct :) while i am hugely interested in space exploration and such, i find it a folly that we spend so much attention to going to Mars.. and going to spend billions (in the long term maybe even trillions) of dollars on it while our planet - a perfectly habitable home still - withers away by our doing. imho we should get our priorities straight.. listening mr. Musk?
    - valuearb 9y ago
      The amount we spend on space flight is trivial in the grand scheme, and it involves the creation of very useful technologies for this world too. The US government devotes 1/2 of 1% of its budget to NASA. And less than half of NASAs budget is for manned space exploration. Out of that tiny budget they are building the SLS, which is a huge pork turkey that’s sucked up close to $20B in funding (including capsule) and is years away from launching anything. Elon Musk is about to launch the first Falcon Heavy, which will cost less than $100M per flight, and carry basically the same amount of payload as the SLS ever will to orbit. He’s the good guy here, providing spaceflight with reusable launch vehicles that cost a fraction of any that came before. A Falcon Heavy can put 30,000 lbs into Mars orbit. If VASIMR ever works, they could put an 140,000 lb VASIMR space vehicle in orbit and let it do the 90 day trips. All at a tiny fraction the cost of tye moon program.
      - rapnie 9y ago
        nothing wrong with the falcon heavy, _nothing_!! its truly great.. just flying it to Mars so soon :)
    - happy-go-lucky 9y ago
      I never understand why some people are so gung ho about colonizing Mars while ours is still the most hospitable planet in the observable universe. It may be that their thoughts are driven by a survivalist instinct and they are using Mars as a crutch.
      - bmer 9y ago
        I am afraid it might be a bit more nefarious than that. Let Earth be for the rich, let the poor struggle in the wastes of space, as they mine resources for the elite on Earth. They think they're killing two birds with one stone: 1) "overpopulation" and 2) new resource pools to exploit.
        bryananderson 9y ago
        No one thinks this. Even if people were this nefarious, there’s no chance of moving more than a small portion of humankind to Mars.
        IntronExon 9y ago
        So he got it somewhat backwards. A more likely scenario is a grossly overpopulated, polluted Earth supplying a minute fraction of the population who live money off world. The major hole in either argument is that we’re about as close to thriving offworld as we are to flying by flapping our arms. The list of unsolved problems to make self-sustaining human presences offeorld are staggering and multigenerational. Barring some really impressive and rapid breakthroughs in materials science, energy production and storage, and so much more, it’s just sci-fi with a coat of paint. Of course those same breakthroughs which would make Mars colonies possible (aneutronic fusion, new battery tech, superior robotics, AI, real understanding of our immune systems and bioflora, lightweight radiation shielding, something more than chemical rockets, and more) would be cheaper to use and more effective on Earth. Mars isn’t going anywhere, but I tend to agree with GP that pretendimg our species is about to leave Earth in a real sense is dangerous fantasizing. It’s a worthy and necessary long term goal for the species, but we’re far from that accomplishment. I think it scares people that we have messes to solve here which we can’t run from, whether that’s overpopulation or an extinction event like an asteroid. Well have rockets to get us there, but why? We’re not backing up the species by going to another planet unless we can survive without Earth. We should try to make it offworld, but we need to keep this world from dying as the primary focus. There is as yet, no escape.
    - mulmen 9y ago
      This is simplistic and short-sighted. We have the resources to explore space and cure cancer and end global warming and do thousands of other things simultaneously. The human race is not a single organism capable of focusing on only one task. Exploration and pushing our limits has often led to breakthroughs that apply to unrelated fields.
      - rapnie 9y ago
        agree on all of that.. but space has so much more than Mars in it :) (also, see my more nuanced reply to teMPOral and others)
    - soperj 9y ago
      Guy has a solar energy company, a electric car company and a pie in the sky mass transit company. What exactly are you wanting him to prioritize on???
      - rapnie 9y ago
        i have nuanced my opinion in the comment to teMPOral. space exploration.. great mars traveling.. less so, imho and in no way attacking mr. Musk on his other achievements , vision and intellect :)
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      > imho we should get our priorities straight.. listening mr. Musk? It's you who should be listening, to be frank. Because Musk seems to be one of the few rich people on the planet (and few people in general) who actually have their priorities straight. That is - fixing our planet by forcing a faster transition away from fossil fuels and into renewable sources. Ensuring long-term survival of humanity (and in process bootstrapping a space economy, which would be great for the planet) through the Mars program, which is also guaranteed to fast-forward all kinds of technologies, literally drowning us in planet-side benefits. And all of that on the cheap. See, it doesn't take that much money to make a difference. But it takes some wealth and a strong focus on a single goal. So instead of moaning about a few billions spent on one of such goals because it's not in the top 3 most important, we should encourage more people and institutions capable of having such strong focus to work on the important problems.
      - rapnie 9y ago
        sure! don't get me wrong, i agree with you absolutely on most of those points, just not the Mars thing. what Musk is doing with solar, batteries and such is groundbreaking!! i really commend him for that and indeed he _gets things done_ so he is not getting all his priorities wrong, just the one, imho. also on space exploration SpaceX is a fantastic initiative.. bringing the costs down so much. but there is lots of space exploration to do that doesn't involve Mars and is more useful (again imho) in a 100 years will we knock ourselves proudly on the chest for going to Mars and recreating earth in her image :)
        TeMPOraL 9y ago
        Ok, fair enough :). I assumed you're dismissing Musk's efforts wholesale, on the basis of 'there being more important problems down here' - which is a position I frequently see people taking. I admit I'm not a strong believer in suitability of Mars per se right now either, but I appreciate how cool it sounds and how it drives the imagination. Personally, I believe the time is ripe for building an industry in near-Earth space (or cislunar space, as it seems to be fashionable to call it these days). Mining asteroids and orbital manufacturing - it fits well with all the dreams of Moon bases and Mars colonies, and right now we have companies pushing simultaneously on every area required to bootstrap it (including SpaceX which is doing a great job lowering launch costs). I think SpaceX gets it too, given the recent Shotwell's comments[0][1]. -- [0] - "Expect we’ll do BFR/BFS missions to the Moon before Mars, given administration’s interest. Hope it will be for a permanent settlement." - https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/931089584640884737 https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/931089584640884737 and also https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/7dbaqw/shotwell_expect_well_do_bfrbfs_missions_to_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/7dbaqw/shotwell_exp... for more context. [1] - "We've got our eyes on Mars. It's kind of a fixer upper planet. But we will participate in the lunar program." - https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/951539911966052353 https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/951539911966052353
sandworm101 9y ago
Article doesnt use correct words. Author isnt a space geek. Vasimir engines can indeed "escape earth orbit" ... they cannot get TO orbit, ie escape gravity. Lots of other odd phrases and mistakes (galactic rays?). I stopped after skimming a few paragraphs.
valuearb 9y ago
I’d love VASIMR to work, but the dev process has been horrifically long and I am not optimistic. Someday, someone will figure it out.
- grondilu 9y ago
  I may be throwing a pie in the sky here, but is there any reasonable hope that AI will be able to design rocket engines, including ones based on advanced concepts like VASIMR, in the coming decades?
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    To me it seems AI will be good at optimizing things but probably not good at coming up with breakthrough technology.
    - crooked-v 9y ago
      Viewed from far enough away, all of rocketry is an optimization problem.
      - maxxxxx 9y ago
        Very true at this time. Progress is very incremental until someone comes up with a fundamentally new method.
cratermoon 9y ago
The company has a lot of work and testing to do to get VASIMR to a point where it has better efficiency than existing operational electric thrusters. Also, even Ad Astra admits that solar electric power will never generate the thrust needed for some of their pie-in-the-sky goals, and that nuclear reactor technology that doesn't exist yet would be needed.
- killjoywashere 9y ago
  There was a project in parallel with nautilus to build a nuclear airplane. It can be done.
  - cratermoon 9y ago
    Oh yes, I've seen the nuclear reactors that were built to power aircraft, they are on display at the site of Experimental Breeder Reactor No. 1* in Idaho. *http://www4vip.inl.gov/ebr/ http://www4vip.inl.gov/ebr/

61 points by johnny313 9y ago

rapnie 9y ago

get _Us_ to mars, or that astronaut? well, i'll stay at home and clean up the dust :)

mikeash 9y ago
He's 67 years old, so I doubt he'd be making the trip himself. Nor would you or I, of course. Other astronauts would, presumably.
- rapnie 9y ago
  you'd probably be correct :) while i am hugely interested in space exploration and such, i find it a folly that we spend so much attention to going to Mars.. and going to spend billions (in the long term maybe even trillions) of dollars on it while our planet - a perfectly habitable home still - withers away by our doing. imho we should get our priorities straight.. listening mr. Musk?
  - valuearb 9y ago
    The amount we spend on space flight is trivial in the grand scheme, and it involves the creation of very useful technologies for this world too. The US government devotes 1/2 of 1% of its budget to NASA. And less than half of NASAs budget is for manned space exploration. Out of that tiny budget they are building the SLS, which is a huge pork turkey that’s sucked up close to $20B in funding (including capsule) and is years away from launching anything. Elon Musk is about to launch the first Falcon Heavy, which will cost less than $100M per flight, and carry basically the same amount of payload as the SLS ever will to orbit. He’s the good guy here, providing spaceflight with reusable launch vehicles that cost a fraction of any that came before. A Falcon Heavy can put 30,000 lbs into Mars orbit. If VASIMR ever works, they could put an 140,000 lb VASIMR space vehicle in orbit and let it do the 90 day trips. All at a tiny fraction the cost of tye moon program.
    - rapnie 9y ago
      nothing wrong with the falcon heavy, _nothing_!! its truly great.. just flying it to Mars so soon :)
  - happy-go-lucky 9y ago
    I never understand why some people are so gung ho about colonizing Mars while ours is still the most hospitable planet in the observable universe. It may be that their thoughts are driven by a survivalist instinct and they are using Mars as a crutch.
    - bmer 9y ago
      I am afraid it might be a bit more nefarious than that. Let Earth be for the rich, let the poor struggle in the wastes of space, as they mine resources for the elite on Earth. They think they're killing two birds with one stone: 1) "overpopulation" and 2) new resource pools to exploit.
      - bryananderson 9y ago
        No one thinks this. Even if people were this nefarious, there’s no chance of moving more than a small portion of humankind to Mars.
        IntronExon 9y ago
        So he got it somewhat backwards. A more likely scenario is a grossly overpopulated, polluted Earth supplying a minute fraction of the population who live money off world. The major hole in either argument is that we’re about as close to thriving offworld as we are to flying by flapping our arms. The list of unsolved problems to make self-sustaining human presences offeorld are staggering and multigenerational. Barring some really impressive and rapid breakthroughs in materials science, energy production and storage, and so much more, it’s just sci-fi with a coat of paint. Of course those same breakthroughs which would make Mars colonies possible (aneutronic fusion, new battery tech, superior robotics, AI, real understanding of our immune systems and bioflora, lightweight radiation shielding, something more than chemical rockets, and more) would be cheaper to use and more effective on Earth. Mars isn’t going anywhere, but I tend to agree with GP that pretendimg our species is about to leave Earth in a real sense is dangerous fantasizing. It’s a worthy and necessary long term goal for the species, but we’re far from that accomplishment. I think it scares people that we have messes to solve here which we can’t run from, whether that’s overpopulation or an extinction event like an asteroid. Well have rockets to get us there, but why? We’re not backing up the species by going to another planet unless we can survive without Earth. We should try to make it offworld, but we need to keep this world from dying as the primary focus. There is as yet, no escape.
  - mulmen 9y ago
    This is simplistic and short-sighted. We have the resources to explore space and cure cancer and end global warming and do thousands of other things simultaneously. The human race is not a single organism capable of focusing on only one task. Exploration and pushing our limits has often led to breakthroughs that apply to unrelated fields.
    - rapnie 9y ago
      agree on all of that.. but space has so much more than Mars in it :) (also, see my more nuanced reply to teMPOral and others)
  - soperj 9y ago
    Guy has a solar energy company, a electric car company and a pie in the sky mass transit company. What exactly are you wanting him to prioritize on???
    - rapnie 9y ago
      i have nuanced my opinion in the comment to teMPOral. space exploration.. great mars traveling.. less so, imho and in no way attacking mr. Musk on his other achievements , vision and intellect :)
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    > imho we should get our priorities straight.. listening mr. Musk? It's you who should be listening, to be frank. Because Musk seems to be one of the few rich people on the planet (and few people in general) who actually have their priorities straight. That is - fixing our planet by forcing a faster transition away from fossil fuels and into renewable sources. Ensuring long-term survival of humanity (and in process bootstrapping a space economy, which would be great for the planet) through the Mars program, which is also guaranteed to fast-forward all kinds of technologies, literally drowning us in planet-side benefits. And all of that on the cheap. See, it doesn't take that much money to make a difference. But it takes some wealth and a strong focus on a single goal. So instead of moaning about a few billions spent on one of such goals because it's not in the top 3 most important, we should encourage more people and institutions capable of having such strong focus to work on the important problems.
    - rapnie 9y ago
      sure! don't get me wrong, i agree with you absolutely on most of those points, just not the Mars thing. what Musk is doing with solar, batteries and such is groundbreaking!! i really commend him for that and indeed he _gets things done_ so he is not getting all his priorities wrong, just the one, imho. also on space exploration SpaceX is a fantastic initiative.. bringing the costs down so much. but there is lots of space exploration to do that doesn't involve Mars and is more useful (again imho) in a 100 years will we knock ourselves proudly on the chest for going to Mars and recreating earth in her image :)
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        Ok, fair enough :). I assumed you're dismissing Musk's efforts wholesale, on the basis of 'there being more important problems down here' - which is a position I frequently see people taking. I admit I'm not a strong believer in suitability of Mars per se right now either, but I appreciate how cool it sounds and how it drives the imagination. Personally, I believe the time is ripe for building an industry in near-Earth space (or cislunar space, as it seems to be fashionable to call it these days). Mining asteroids and orbital manufacturing - it fits well with all the dreams of Moon bases and Mars colonies, and right now we have companies pushing simultaneously on every area required to bootstrap it (including SpaceX which is doing a great job lowering launch costs). I think SpaceX gets it too, given the recent Shotwell's comments[0][1]. -- [0] - "Expect we’ll do BFR/BFS missions to the Moon before Mars, given administration’s interest. Hope it will be for a permanent settlement." - https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/931089584640884737 https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/931089584640884737 and also https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/7dbaqw/shotwell_expect_well_do_bfrbfs_missions_to_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/7dbaqw/shotwell_exp... for more context. [1] - "We've got our eyes on Mars. It's kind of a fixer upper planet. But we will participate in the lunar program." - https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/951539911966052353 https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/951539911966052353

sandworm101 9y ago

Article doesnt use correct words. Author isnt a space geek. Vasimir engines can indeed "escape earth orbit" ... they cannot get TO orbit, ie escape gravity. Lots of other odd phrases and mistakes (galactic rays?). I stopped after skimming a few paragraphs.

valuearb 9y ago

I’d love VASIMR to work, but the dev process has been horrifically long and I am not optimistic. Someday, someone will figure it out.

grondilu 9y ago
I may be throwing a pie in the sky here, but is there any reasonable hope that AI will be able to design rocket engines, including ones based on advanced concepts like VASIMR, in the coming decades?
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  To me it seems AI will be good at optimizing things but probably not good at coming up with breakthrough technology.
  - crooked-v 9y ago
    Viewed from far enough away, all of rocketry is an optimization problem.
    - maxxxxx 9y ago
      Very true at this time. Progress is very incremental until someone comes up with a fundamentally new method.

cratermoon 9y ago

The company has a lot of work and testing to do to get VASIMR to a point where it has better efficiency than existing operational electric thrusters. Also, even Ad Astra admits that solar electric power will never generate the thrust needed for some of their pie-in-the-sky goals, and that nuclear reactor technology that doesn't exist yet would be needed.

killjoywashere 9y ago
There was a project in parallel with nautilus to build a nuclear airplane. It can be done.
- cratermoon 9y ago
  Oh yes, I've seen the nuclear reactors that were built to power aircraft, they are on display at the site of Experimental Breeder Reactor No. 1* in Idaho. *http://www4vip.inl.gov/ebr/ http://www4vip.inl.gov/ebr/