5 ms·

The common sense part of me says this is far too optimistic. After all, we haven't put people on the moon in nearly 40 years. However, the hopeful part of me t

The common sense part of me says this is far too optimistic. After all, we haven't put people on the moon in nearly 40 years. However, the hopeful part of me thinks it's possible. In 10 years SpaceX has gone from nothing to launching capsules into space and docking them with a space station. Even it it takes 40 years, it's good to have someone pushing things forward. I really hope I live to see the first human walk on Mars.

danielweber 14y ago
In 1961 we hadn't been to the Moon in forever. There are a lot of risks. NASA's attitude to human spaceflight has been to move into a state of permanently studying the risks. If Musk is going to face the risks, he may be able to pull it off. SpaceX really needs to start launching some rotating craft.
colmvp 14y ago
“Most people overestimate what they can do in one year and underestimate what they can do in ten years.” - attributed to Bill Gates.
InclinedPlane 14y ago
2025 is 13 years from now. With any luck SpaceX will have proven its heavy lift launcher within the next year and its manned capsule within the next few years. More so, they are poised to rake in billions of dollars in profits from commercial satellite launches and NASA contracts in the next decade alone. Combine that capability plus R&D money and you have a potent mix. Getting to Mars isn't actually that difficult, we already have a lot of the technical details worked out. The biggest element that adds cost and complexity is launch, which is precisely where SpaceX excels.
- Pfhreak 14y ago
  I would imagine the most complex element is landing on Mars safely at low Gs, or even travelling for years in a spaceship moving through a hostile environment. Getting stuff into orbit seems easier to me.
  - Kilimanjaro 14y ago
    How about coming back? Not in a hundred years. Sorry to be realistic.
    - StavrosK 14y ago
      There are plenty of people, including Elon, who don't mind not coming back.
    - Pfhreak 14y ago
      Musk isn't interested in bringing people back. (And honestly, neither am I.) People didn't care too much about coming back from the 'New World' back in the day, and we need more of that attitude today.
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    Landing on Mars is a more or less solved problem, if you can throw enough mass at the problem. Launching stuff from Earth is also a solved problem, but it's hugely expensive. Landing humans on Mars is well within our technological capability, but because of the cost of launch it would be hugely expensive and nobody's put up the cash yet. The reason SpaceX is in a perfect position here is because they've dropped the cost of space launch dramatically. So if it takes SpaceX fewer billions to get to Mars than it would anyone else then they are poised to get there sooner.
- todayiamme 14y ago
  >>> Getting to Mars isn't actually that difficult, we already have a lot of the technical details worked out <<< What I'm worried about aren't the mechanics of going there. It is the radiation. The Constellation program apparently planned to use high-density polyethylene to act as a shield in the case of a solar flare or any anomalous activity, but the trip would still expose any human being to large doses of radiation and the best methods for shielding are too heavy and hence cost too much right now. Even if we set up a colony on mars that problem will be ever-present for anyone living there and constructing any long term colony would probably require large amounts of regolith, or maybe a tank of water repurposed as a shield (which might cause processing issues) Hopefully solving for cost should make a lot of schemes possible, but I'm not so sure about that because there is an implicit requirement of other infrastructure that needs to be solved which no one seems to be tackling. (I might be wrong over here)
  - Florin_Andrei 14y ago
    Living in low gravity for a long time may also be problematic. I'm curious what is their answer to that issue.
    - todayiamme 14y ago
      There have been a lot of studies on this in the international space station and there is essentially a good enough answer for this which involves exercise and physiotherapy once the person is back on Earth.
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    Radiation is by far the biggest concern. To some degree there's a bit of a guinea pig aspect for any early Mars astronauts. We do have the ability to at least ensure that the astronauts will survive the trip there and back. The best way to do that is with a combination of shielding around the outer hull as well as a "storm shelter" in the interior of the spacecraft surrounded by lots of water (such as the crew's water and food supply as well as their waste) for sitting out solar flare events. We can monitor solar flares quite well these days so we can keep overall radiation doses in check. Beyond that we could look at other technologies such as artificial magnetospheres. That sort of thing would probably come into use by the time there are dedicated flights between Earth orbit and Mars orbit.

danielweber 14y ago

In 1961 we hadn't been to the Moon in forever. There are a lot of risks. NASA's attitude to human spaceflight has been to move into a state of permanently studying the risks. If Musk is going to face the risks, he may be able to pull it off. SpaceX really needs to start launching some rotating craft.

colmvp 14y ago

“Most people overestimate what they can do in one year and underestimate what they can do in ten years.” - attributed to Bill Gates.

InclinedPlane 14y ago

2025 is 13 years from now. With any luck SpaceX will have proven its heavy lift launcher within the next year and its manned capsule within the next few years. More so, they are poised to rake in billions of dollars in profits from commercial satellite launches and NASA contracts in the next decade alone. Combine that capability plus R&D money and you have a potent mix. Getting to Mars isn't actually that difficult, we already have a lot of the technical details worked out. The biggest element that adds cost and complexity is launch, which is precisely where SpaceX excels.

Pfhreak 14y ago
I would imagine the most complex element is landing on Mars safely at low Gs, or even travelling for years in a spaceship moving through a hostile environment. Getting stuff into orbit seems easier to me.
- Kilimanjaro 14y ago
  How about coming back? Not in a hundred years. Sorry to be realistic.
  - StavrosK 14y ago
    There are plenty of people, including Elon, who don't mind not coming back.
  - Pfhreak 14y ago
    Musk isn't interested in bringing people back. (And honestly, neither am I.) People didn't care too much about coming back from the 'New World' back in the day, and we need more of that attitude today.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  Landing on Mars is a more or less solved problem, if you can throw enough mass at the problem. Launching stuff from Earth is also a solved problem, but it's hugely expensive. Landing humans on Mars is well within our technological capability, but because of the cost of launch it would be hugely expensive and nobody's put up the cash yet. The reason SpaceX is in a perfect position here is because they've dropped the cost of space launch dramatically. So if it takes SpaceX fewer billions to get to Mars than it would anyone else then they are poised to get there sooner.
todayiamme 14y ago
>>> Getting to Mars isn't actually that difficult, we already have a lot of the technical details worked out <<< What I'm worried about aren't the mechanics of going there. It is the radiation. The Constellation program apparently planned to use high-density polyethylene to act as a shield in the case of a solar flare or any anomalous activity, but the trip would still expose any human being to large doses of radiation and the best methods for shielding are too heavy and hence cost too much right now. Even if we set up a colony on mars that problem will be ever-present for anyone living there and constructing any long term colony would probably require large amounts of regolith, or maybe a tank of water repurposed as a shield (which might cause processing issues) Hopefully solving for cost should make a lot of schemes possible, but I'm not so sure about that because there is an implicit requirement of other infrastructure that needs to be solved which no one seems to be tackling. (I might be wrong over here)
- Florin_Andrei 14y ago
  Living in low gravity for a long time may also be problematic. I'm curious what is their answer to that issue.
  - todayiamme 14y ago
    There have been a lot of studies on this in the international space station and there is essentially a good enough answer for this which involves exercise and physiotherapy once the person is back on Earth.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  Radiation is by far the biggest concern. To some degree there's a bit of a guinea pig aspect for any early Mars astronauts. We do have the ability to at least ensure that the astronauts will survive the trip there and back. The best way to do that is with a combination of shielding around the outer hull as well as a "storm shelter" in the interior of the spacecraft surrounded by lots of water (such as the crew's water and food supply as well as their waste) for sitting out solar flare events. We can monitor solar flares quite well these days so we can keep overall radiation doses in check. Beyond that we could look at other technologies such as artificial magnetospheres. That sort of thing would probably come into use by the time there are dedicated flights between Earth orbit and Mars orbit.