SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
"NASA is developing the capabilities needed to send humans to an asteroid by 2025 and Mars in the 2030s," reads the official NASA web site. But National Geographic points out that "the details haven't been announced, in large part because such a massive, long-term spending project would require the unlikely support of several successive U.S. presidents." And yet on November 4th, NASA put out a call for astronaut applications "in anticipation of returning human spaceflight launches to American soil, and in preparation for the agency's journey to Mars," and they're currently experimenting with growing food in space. And this week they not only ordered the first commercial mission to the International Space Station, but also quietly announced that they've now partnered with 22 private space companies.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday November 23 2015, @08:49PM
Of course keep in mind that a 40% escape velocity translates to only 16% of the kinetic energy, which translates to far less than that in required fuel for launch thanks to the non-linearities of chemical rocketry.
I'd say that if we can manage a direct surface-to-Mars launch as envisioned by Musk, then the return flight should not be an issue. The only real challenge will be producing the fuel for the return flight, since carrying it with would indeed make things a lot more challenging. But there's no shortage of water or CO2 on Mars from which to produce fuel. It will just take time and energy.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday November 23 2015, @10:19PM
Taking 10% of a Soyuz (you need to go higher), you still need to make at least 4 tons of fuel. 5% would be a couple tons. Just to escape, not to get home at a decent clip.
If we are anywhere near the tech to send pieces of a production plant to Mars which, after surviving the trip and the environment, can safely pump out 4 tons of pure propellant out of not much energy and resources in a short period of time, I demand to know why we're still waging wars to pump dead dinosaurs.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday November 23 2015, @10:39PM
I agree "in a short period of time" is a problem. Bust most all of such plans I've seen involve the travelers spending several years on Mars before the return trip, which makes it much more feasible to produce the fuel. Obviously the flip side is that it's much more likely something will go wrong before then, but exploring new frontiers has never had a terribly good survival rate.
And we're still fighting wars over oil because it's the most cost-effective way to power the existing infrastructure, and some very powerful people have invested a lot of resources over a a long period to try to make sure their cash cow can be milked for everything it's worth. The per-kWh cost of solar is already at or below coal ($0.03/kWh, about 1/3 the cost of gas), but the complementary energy storage systems still have issues. Even if everybody agreed it was the right thing to do, we're not going to switch to electric cars, etc. overnight.