2 ms·

It would probably be smarter to launch multiple payloads than have everything in one big payload, a fire can take out the primary and redundant supplies for exa

It would probably be smarter to launch multiple payloads than have everything in one big payload, a fire can take out the primary and redundant supplies for example. That said, throwing more money and gear against the problem will likely be the way to go. Besides, it doesn't actually have to be done all in one go, if the vision of SpaceX is that of mass production, they can launch a whole chain of Spaceship sized payloads towards Mars years before a human crew is sent that way, giving them supplies and whatnot on the way, in orbit, and on the surface. That'll require a lot of planning and automation though.

Robotbeat 2y ago
SpaceX has always mentioned sending multiple ships at once for redundancy, starting with uncrewed precursors sending supplies ahead of time.
- kibwen 2y ago
  This is irrelevant and completely ignores the OP. We've had rockets capable of going to Mars since the 60s. More rockets do not solve the problem. Cheaper rockets do not solve the problem. Please read the article.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    The article doesn't really lay out any particularly difficult, let alone insurmountable, problems. In fact we even had plans to make it Mars before 1980 in the 60s drawn up by the exact same man who got us to the Moon. The reason we're not a massively multiplanetary species already is simply because of politics. Nixon defacto cancelled the human space program in 1972. After that we had to wait for the economy to develop to the point that private entrepreneurs could viably send us back to the stars, and that's where we are today. Had we maintained the political will though there's no real reason we wouldn't have had a colony on Mars decades ago.
  - Robotbeat 2y ago
    Please read my comment. More mass makes solving virtually every challenge of Mars missions far, far easier.
  - avmich 2y ago
    Biggest problems are microgravity, radiation and lack of redundancies of various kinds. All are solvable by adding payloads.
jamleha 2y ago
[dead]

Robotbeat 2y ago

SpaceX has always mentioned sending multiple ships at once for redundancy, starting with uncrewed precursors sending supplies ahead of time.

kibwen 2y ago
This is irrelevant and completely ignores the OP. We've had rockets capable of going to Mars since the 60s. More rockets do not solve the problem. Cheaper rockets do not solve the problem. Please read the article.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  The article doesn't really lay out any particularly difficult, let alone insurmountable, problems. In fact we even had plans to make it Mars before 1980 in the 60s drawn up by the exact same man who got us to the Moon. The reason we're not a massively multiplanetary species already is simply because of politics. Nixon defacto cancelled the human space program in 1972. After that we had to wait for the economy to develop to the point that private entrepreneurs could viably send us back to the stars, and that's where we are today. Had we maintained the political will though there's no real reason we wouldn't have had a colony on Mars decades ago.
- Robotbeat 2y ago
  Please read my comment. More mass makes solving virtually every challenge of Mars missions far, far easier.
- avmich 2y ago
  Biggest problems are microgravity, radiation and lack of redundancies of various kinds. All are solvable by adding payloads.

jamleha 2y ago

[dead]