3 ms·

Not sure what this really gets you, since you still need to change your velocity in the exact same amount on both ends of the trip. The Cycler can get you there

Not sure what this really gets you, since you still need to change your velocity in the exact same amount on both ends of the trip. The Cycler can get you there in four months vs a year... but you need to use just as much fuel on both ends of the trip as you would to make it in four months. It seems the idea is that you could pack people in for the few-hour journey to the Cycler, and the departing journey once you get to Mars, and give them more space and shielding during the voyage. But that all requires that a large, spacious, well-shielded Cycler is already in place. This is all covered in the article, but just as an interesting aside rather than a massive impediment to the utility of such a piece of infrastructure. All of this is such a distant problem, it seems way too soon to even speculate on. We're hundreds of years away from the logistics of transporting thousands of humans to Mars being a practical consideration. As such, the mere mention of Starship feels utterly anachronistic. Even if you think colonizing Mars is a good idea, wasting time thinking about problems for the year 2300 is not the best use of your time. (The article is from 2021 by the way.)

marcusverus 3y ago
> We're hundreds of years away from the logistics of transporting thousands of humans to Mars being a practical consideration. With decades of experience with the ISS and Starship's first orbital flight on the docket, why would this be hundreds of years away? Consider the technical progress we've made in launch vehicles in the last 15 years alone. Are there really any technical problems on the path to a mars cycler that could give us centuries worth of trouble? Or are you simply suggesting that the demand won't be there?
phkahler 3y ago
>> All of this is such a distant problem, it seems way too soon to even speculate on. We're hundreds of years away from the logistics of transporting thousands of humans to Mars being a practical consideration. As such, the mere mention of Starship feels utterly anachronistic. This is not hundreds of years away, it is the goal of SpaceX. They are not just building Starship, they are building a factory with a target production rate of one ship per day. The goal is not to send a few ships to Mars, but an armada. With so many ships around, and a window to Mars about every 2 years it makes sense to start building infrastructure like this with them while they're waiting. Yes, Elon is a bit... ambitious. And I question whether he is actually serious about it all. But if he is, this is happening over the next 50 years.
- giantrobot 3y ago
  > They are not just building Starship, they are building a factory with a target production rate of one ship per day. So SpaceX is going to build a Starship, which has to travel tens of millions of miles through the unforgiving frontier that is space, at one a day? Boeing manages to build a 737 in about nine days and those land on Earth every few hours of operation for maintenance and checkups.
  - bacheaul 3y ago
    Those two vehicles have very different flight profiles, so comparing them is of limited value, but yes, that is the plan.
schiffern 3y ago
>you still need to change your velocity in the exact same amount on both ends of the trip You usually need to change your velocity more than that. Cycler orbits are more constrained in their start/end dates, so there are fewer free parameters to "tune" for lower propellant consumption. Generally a cycler with a 4 month transit time will need slightly more delta-v vs. sending a ship on a regular old transfer orbit with an identical 4 month transit time. This is because when designing a cycler orbit it's usually necessary to shift a few days ahead/behind the optimum dates for a 4 month transfer, in order to efficiently "stitch together" with the previous/next orbit cycle.
m2f2 3y ago
Way more distant if you consider how poor would be life on Mars. Unless you think of it as a giant experiment to travel outside the Solar system, further down the road, when the Sun will eat up the entire solar system. In that case, though, you'll need a larger cycler with a much different shuttle for you to board/unboard it...

marcusverus 3y ago

> We're hundreds of years away from the logistics of transporting thousands of humans to Mars being a practical consideration. With decades of experience with the ISS and Starship's first orbital flight on the docket, why would this be hundreds of years away? Consider the technical progress we've made in launch vehicles in the last 15 years alone. Are there really any technical problems on the path to a mars cycler that could give us centuries worth of trouble? Or are you simply suggesting that the demand won't be there?

phkahler 3y ago

>> All of this is such a distant problem, it seems way too soon to even speculate on. We're hundreds of years away from the logistics of transporting thousands of humans to Mars being a practical consideration. As such, the mere mention of Starship feels utterly anachronistic. This is not hundreds of years away, it is the goal of SpaceX. They are not just building Starship, they are building a factory with a target production rate of one ship per day. The goal is not to send a few ships to Mars, but an armada. With so many ships around, and a window to Mars about every 2 years it makes sense to start building infrastructure like this with them while they're waiting. Yes, Elon is a bit... ambitious. And I question whether he is actually serious about it all. But if he is, this is happening over the next 50 years.

giantrobot 3y ago
> They are not just building Starship, they are building a factory with a target production rate of one ship per day. So SpaceX is going to build a Starship, which has to travel tens of millions of miles through the unforgiving frontier that is space, at one a day? Boeing manages to build a 737 in about nine days and those land on Earth every few hours of operation for maintenance and checkups.
- bacheaul 3y ago
  Those two vehicles have very different flight profiles, so comparing them is of limited value, but yes, that is the plan.

schiffern 3y ago

>you still need to change your velocity in the exact same amount on both ends of the trip You usually need to change your velocity more than that. Cycler orbits are more constrained in their start/end dates, so there are fewer free parameters to "tune" for lower propellant consumption. Generally a cycler with a 4 month transit time will need slightly more delta-v vs. sending a ship on a regular old transfer orbit with an identical 4 month transit time. This is because when designing a cycler orbit it's usually necessary to shift a few days ahead/behind the optimum dates for a 4 month transfer, in order to efficiently "stitch together" with the previous/next orbit cycle.

m2f2 3y ago

Way more distant if you consider how poor would be life on Mars. Unless you think of it as a giant experiment to travel outside the Solar system, further down the road, when the Sun will eat up the entire solar system. In that case, though, you'll need a larger cycler with a much different shuttle for you to board/unboard it...