Elon Musk spaceship ready for Mars in 2019 - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 12, 2018, 04:00:06 am
content: The billionaire said SpaceX is on track to send his Mars-intended rocket on short trips by 2019,but joked about potentially missing the timeline.https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/11/elon-musk-says-mars-spaceship-will-be-ready-for-short-trips-by-first-half-of-2019.htmlare we getting a hand of ourselves here? like pay more attention to a return to the moon.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 12, 2018, 04:57:43 am
content: Quote from: jonovid on March 12, 2018, 04:00:06 amYes.I'm a huge advocate of human Mars missions, but we haven't even flown a human out of low earth orbit, let lone gone to or landed on the moon for 46 years.Build a permanent moon base first and learn how to live there to iron out major bugs.Sure, continue to do Mars mission and land and put hardware etc there, that's cool.Who was it who said recently (Neil Tyson maybe?), send humans to Mars is cool, but what do you do when you get there?At least with the moon people go, spend a few weeks or months and come back in a few days. Fun stuff, gets people excited about space travel again, and proves some valuable technology. And you can do good science on the moon too.

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 12, 2018, 10:36:34 pm
content: There are no baby steps in space. Living on the Moon is probably a lot harder than on Mars, despite the fact it's a lot closer. The environment is quite a lot different, I'm not sure that it will be a good analog for Mars. A self-supporting colony will need to be highly tuned to local materials. The main purpose of a base for several decades will be in situ research of how/where to live on that body. For that time the base will need to be supplied from Earth.I have the feeling that the Moon has "been done", the public quickly bored of the Apollo program and it ended prematurely. Mars can get people interested again I think. But hey, if you are not spending my money, put bases wherever you likeIt will be interesting to see what happens when it proves impossible to create a self sustaining colony, the bases run out of money/interest and they are closed down, and we realise we are stuck on this rock.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 12, 2018, 10:46:10 pm
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on March 12, 2018, 10:36:34 pmThat is my understandig as well. At least Mars has some kind of atmosphere and more gravity.QuoteIt could at least be a good reality TV show. Big-brother is still on in some countries after nearly 2 decades.

author: filssavi
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 12:04:37 am
content: First of all talking about colonization at this point in time is just stupid, there are way too many unsolved problemsFor example, how are you going to power the thing, realistically you have to launch a nuclear reactor. It’s not a new concept, but no one apart the soviets in the good old days ever tried it because of concerns in case of a failed launch (highly enriched uranium shower)Than again how are people going to fare in complete isolation and knowing they are stuck on mars forseably forever with no comforts, no outdoors, almost no personal space, almost no free time etc.A moon base is probably vastly easier to handle than a mars one, for the simple fact that a moon base is easily reachable in few days if a medical emergency happens, mars is not...For example one of the colonists develops somehow contagious disease which needs hospitalisation what do you do? You euthanise him? You put him in quarantine?, ok but where? Space is at a premium, you cannot cut of a room from the colony...Also you try a rescue mission knowing he will be dead before you can arrive there, you don’t?Also there are no studies on the physiological impact of sustained low gravity when just have 2 data points 1g is fine 0g is very bad for long term (bone density loss etc), 0.38g (mars) is more towards the 0 side or the 1 side...

author: filssavi
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 12:15:43 am
content: Also I forgot the worst problem of them all...Mars is outside the earths magnetosphere, so a colony there is not shielded from cosmic and sun’s radiations, so how do you cope with it long term? Lead shielding on a spacecraft?? Do the whole base underground? You just deal with the cancers?

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 12:26:48 am
content: One idea was to live in underground volcanic pipes. I suggest engineers do something about the engine problem firstthen go to Mars and poke around.

author: Neganur
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 12:45:07 am
content: I believe the intention is to use localised electromagnetic magnetic fields.https://physicsworld.com/a/magnetic-shield-could-protect-spacecraft/https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-are-developing-a-magnetic-shield-to-protect-astronauts-from-cosmic-radiationhttps://patents.google.com/patent/US20110049303

author: filssavi
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 01:42:15 am
content: Quote from: Neganur on March 13, 2018, 12:45:07 amI heard from an astrophysics researcher (soon to be professor) which I know, working in the field of space wheather forecasting (radiation storm forecasting) that those magnetica fields are neither strong enough neither stable enough (apparently they shift and vanish) to be useful...I mean being that they are there you could as well take advantage of them but you can’t rely on it as shielding

author: Bassman59
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 01:56:13 am
content: Quote from: jonovid on March 12, 2018, 04:00:06 amEveryone should read (or re-read) Heinleon’s “The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress” to get an overview of the practical implications of a long-term moon base.Basically, those who settle there can’t come back.

author: tpowell1830
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 02:38:52 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 12, 2018, 04:57:43 amI agree with this point of view 100%, however, this needs to be done by private companies. Elon Musk is taking on Mars, which I think is as risky as it gets. NASA, however, I would only want them to continue the small missions that is already slated and to keep tax money out of the mix because when you get the US government involved, it gets to be a political football and nothing good will come of it. I was around in the '60s during the push to go to the moon and even I understood at the time, being a young child, that this was a political race with the USSR to gain dominance in space. The public did not lose interest in the moon missions, politics killed the space program for reasons that I don't have the time or space to talk about.With that said, Elon Musk is determined to go to Mars for reasons of his own, and I can't argue with that. I look forward to seeing Mars get explored with manned missions and, yes, eventually a small scientific colony/base where this could be a jump off point for further, deeper space exploration can occur. As far as the comment that man can't live for extended periods in space due to zero gravity, people have been living at the International Space Station for extended periods of over 6 months for decades in zero G.The moon is an ideal base BECAUSE of its' low gravity which means that the amount of fuel to leave the moon is much less than on Earth, and Mars. This could be a jump off point to go to Mars. Also, I believe there are more things to possible discover on the moon that may have benefits to us on earth; i.e. labs can grow things in low gravity that are not possible on earth. The other possibility is to find some material or mineral that does not exist on earth that could be beneficial, who knows since we have not really explored the moon much other than the few short missions in the early '70s.The moon is ~ 245,000 miles from earth and a ship traveling at 25-30,000 mph, which is doable with our current technology, could get there in less than a day if there is a ship ready to go on earth in the instance that a pickup is needed for medical emergencies. Having medical personelle on the moon would be wise as well, if we are to establish a base with people living there for extended times.If private individuals or companies are going to take on the role of space exploration, it won't be any different from the reasons that have been done on earth since man has been alive. There will be some reward for doing so other than simple scientific knowledge such as a new yet undiscovered mineral/substance that has a value to man (unobtainium). The initial trips will be more of this type of 'treasure hunting' than exploring, the exploration is a side effect of the latter.Ok, apologize for the rant, just my 2 cents...

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 03:09:39 am
content: First there is a lot of hyperventilation on this thread. The implications from Elon Musk's news conference following the Falcon Heavy launch was that those first short trips would be measured in kilometers. Short hops up to 300 or 1000 meter altitude and back. So it may be three or four years before it leaves the atmosphere, and who knows how much longer before orbit or moon trips. It is quite consistent with Musk's approach to plan to use the same basic vehicle for a long time and many purposes.And sure there are many more problems to solve before Mars colonies are going items. But the fastest way to solve them (or to find that they aren't such big issues) is to go do it. There is a phenomenon called paralysis by analysis. Where you can always find one more thing to study, or one more verification of a previously studied thing.

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 05:05:54 am
content: This is who Musk is and going to Mars is priority number one. But, I agree that going back to the Moon is an unavoidable first step towards a MANNED mission to Mars. I think the 2019 time frame is not going to happen but whatever the date is that first mission to Mars will not have people on it -- more likely an orbiter and lander/rover.Looking down the road to when we do put boots on the ground on Mars I still think the majority of the exploration will have to be done by rovers so having a robust rover system capable of carrying people would be near the top of the critical hardware needed for such a mission. One of the interesting factors that make sending people to Mars a good idea is that it pretty much eliminates the signal delay that current rover missions face and that signal delay means the current rovers are limited to a few hundred meters per day and usually much less. If a person was on Mars and able to be in the control loop for the rover the distance covered per day could be 100X as far.I think the "system" needed for Mars, beyond the launch rockets needed to get there is:1. A small constellation of orbiting sats to provide photo imaging, radar imaging, and weather and data, video and voice relay2. A solar farm for power3. Plant to generate oxygen, water and methane4. Numerous rovers that can carry people and can operate autonomously with scientific instrumentation -- for robotic missions a single rover can be used whereas I'd dedicate two rovers for each manned mission so that if one dies there's a backup to get home5. An underground shelter when the Sun is acting up and spewing nasties6. A home base with housing for all the people -- can be just the landed rockets or it could include prefab structures assembled near the landersAnd, just as the Apollo missions depended on the 'lunar orbit rendezvous ' and 'earth orbit rendezvous ' the missions to Mars will require a comparable sequence to be viable. I'd send a couple rockets without people ahead of the manned missions and if successful they would provide much of the materials needed to get started AND provide a redundant return system in case the manned landers fail.Bottom line -- Elon is going to need to save his pennies...Brian

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 05:28:52 am
content: This moron bragged last year he will send space tourists to the moon in 2018. Guess what, it is 2018 now. Is he any close to this before making his next insane Mars claim ? Who takes this idiot seriously?

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 05:46:58 am
content: Quote from: Bud on March 13, 2018, 05:28:52 amAre you serious -- he built a car company that's revolutionizing the auto industry and a rocket company that ... wait for it ... is revolutionizing the space launch industry with two and soon to be three rocket families and all the while he was told you're nuts!He is a dreamer and his dreams may not all come true, but to suggest he's an idiot that should be lead away in a jacket that ties at the back is, well, ridiculous!Brian

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 06:50:57 am
content: Is he... oh heistalking about the BFR. Cool. I want to see that thing fly. Don't care if it's just short hops, 2019 is a great number. The BFR is soooo very Sci-fi. We get to see the sci-fi rocket ships of childhood dreams, in our life time. Thanks Elon.

author: IanMacdonald
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 06:56:58 am
content: One of the problems faced by a Moon base is very low night temperatures, which last for two weeks at a stretch. Getting equipment to stay working through the lunar night has been a serious challenge for Apollo, Lunokhod, etc. At least, Mars has a more normal rate of rotation so doesn't suffer this problem.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 07:08:44 am
content: Quote from: IanMacdonald on March 13, 2018, 06:56:58 amYes, but Mars has those complete sun-blocking dust-storms which can cover half the planet lasting months making solar power useless. An it still wont bet that warm...

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 07:25:24 am
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on March 12, 2018, 10:36:34 pmBut the life support requirements are the same- Run out of oxygen, you die- Run out of food, you die- Run out of water, you die- Run out of power, you die- Airlock or something else fails on the hab, you die.QuoteWhich makes the moon vastly more affordable and achievable.QuoteAnd then when people realise they:- Can'tseemars but for a dot in the sky- Can't get that reality TV show delivered in HD- Can't communicate in near real time with them- Can't really dream of going there for a science or tourism trip because the journey time sucks arse.They'll soon realise how boring Mars actually is to people on earth after the initial hoopla dies down. They might as well be in another galaxy.The moon all of a sudden starts to look much more attractive from a long term PR point of view.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 07:30:10 am
content: Quote from: raptor1956 on March 13, 2018, 05:05:54 amBuzz Aldrin's solution is to put people on Phobos first from which they control the rovers.Not a bad plan, control would be real time, and you don't have the issues of entering and landing huge heavy loads on Mars.

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 07:30:19 am
content: Quote from: BrianHG on March 13, 2018, 07:08:44 amDo you have a pointer to data suggesting the dust storms last months? Also, since the atmosphere is very thin the dust storms tend to be very faint resembling mesospheric clouds so even when they happen the Sun isn't completely blocked. The dust would tend to collect on the solar panels so they would need to be cleaned. The JPL rovers are solar powered and when dust collects they lose power but with people there the dust can be removed.So, since the dust will only diminish the solar irradiance and apparently by a relatively small amount the main thing is keeping the panels clean.Brian

author: Yellofriend
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 07:31:02 am
content: Quote from: Bassman59 on March 13, 2018, 01:56:13 amI would love to chose the people!

author: hendorog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 07:37:35 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 13, 2018, 07:25:24 amCould a modern day space program 'survive' the loss of life if things went bad? Back in the 60's/70's the answer was yes. I highly doubt if that is the case now.Therefore the level of risk that can be taken is much lower now. Based on the ^^^, and other risks, it is hard to see how Mars could be made super safe.

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 07:39:59 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 13, 2018, 07:30:10 amI think the biggest fuel issue is the orbit entry burn (delta V) and landing on Mars not so much given the lower gravity and aero drag that reduces fuel usage. Getting back off would be harder, but once again the gravity is less than half of Earth. One of Elon's stated reasons for going with Methane for the BFR is the ability to synthesize on Mars. Also, I think the ability to get funding for a manned mission to Mars will require boots on Mars. Lastly, I'm not sure we have as clear an idea on resources on Phobos as we do for Mars. Interesting idea though and if we go to Mars we probably need to pay a visit to Phobos as well. Hey, so long as Elon's got the money, and that point is by no means certain, then lets do both.Brian

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 07:44:27 am
content: Quote from: hendorog on March 13, 2018, 07:37:35 amIt is for this reason that I think we need to send a couple vanguard rockets with supplies first so that if something goes wrong there is redundancy. OTH, if you asked people to volunteer for this mission and explained the risks I'm convinced there would be 100X as many people with the requisite skills than needed so finding people willing and capable is not likely to be a problem.Is the chance that someone/everyone that goes dies higher than Apollo -- why yes it is!Brian

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 07:51:34 am
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on March 12, 2018, 10:36:34 pmPeople consistently misunderstand how harsh the environment of the Moon is, though I suspect Dave is very much aware of it. It's easier to go to the Moon, but much harder to live there. No atmosphere and razor sharp dust is murder for all the equipment and humans to boot.

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 07:55:27 am
content: Quote from: Yellofriend on March 13, 2018, 07:31:02 amI can't see a one-way trip as viable at this stage -- perhaps decades later when/if permanent settlements are operating, but for the near term no way. If someone gets injured beyond a certain level or develops a disease that can't be dealt with on Mars they will need to be able to come home. This isn't like explorers of old setting sail for the new world and being able to, relatively easily, set up farms and hunt food with air and water readily available. Populating Mars will take a long time and it will happen, if it happens at all, in phases. Short term exploration first, small permanent settlements later, then, decades later, larger settlements with families.But, orbiting Mars would be preferable to circling Uranus!Brian

author: hendorog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 07:55:45 am
content: Quote from: raptor1956 on March 13, 2018, 07:44:27 amYep, finding people who would go is not the issue - the issue is: could the company who does it survive the fallout of a disaster early in the program, or would they be crucified for sending people to a slow and painful death?

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 08:12:49 am
content: Quote from: raptor1956 on March 13, 2018, 07:55:27 amI don't think the smaller settlements are very viable on Mars. Go big or (don't) go home seems the way to go.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 09:46:06 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on March 13, 2018, 07:51:34 amAnd Mars isn't?When you are arguing over bad conditions and badder conditions, it's kinda moot.Try and survive in a 6 month mars dust storm and the moon might start to look like paradise.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 09:50:46 am
content: Quote from: raptor1956 on March 13, 2018, 07:30:19 amhttps://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/the-fact-and-fiction-of-martian-dust-stormsElectrostatic cling would suck.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 09:59:31 am
content: Quote from: tpowell1830 on March 13, 2018, 02:38:52 amThis is akillerbenefit of the moon over mars.Let's get real, no one but crazy people will want to go to mars, it'll ultimately be an impossible sell for tourism which is what will ultimately pay the bills.The moon is completely doable for tourism.You could go for a one or two week trip if you had the money, with very good odds of survival compared to an agonizingly boring mars trip and it's hazardous re-entry. The day or two's travel would fly by as you watched the Earth recede and the moon come up. The stay on the moon would be a dream come true for almost any human, looking up and seeing the earth and putting your thumb over it.Those who went to the moon would rave about it, people would be spending their life's saving to go and lining up in droves.But what average Joe is going to rave about a batshit boring 3 year round trip to Mars and staring at red dust for 6 months and your nothing but your crewmates for 18 months?

author: modrobert
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 10:50:04 am
content: Mars gravity is roughly 1/3rd compared to Earth, and the moon 1/6th. In a spacecraft you could have fake gravity through rotation (centrifugal force), not an easy problem to solve on the surface however.If you believe in Darwin it would take at least 50k years for humanity to adapt physically to cope with changes to gravity, and that entails people actually dying for the sake of evolution (as opposed to artificial support scenario).In the meantime you would have to train like astronauts do on the international space station to keep the back and bones in shape, which seems to be hard, and still only good for a year or so before permanent damage sets in.I guess for short trips this wouldn't be an issue, as Dave suggested about tourist trips to the moon, but for long or permanent stay.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 11:23:37 am
content: Quote from: modrobert on March 13, 2018, 10:50:04 amAnd BTW, don't get me wrong. I'm a huge advocate for becoming a multi-planet species.I'm just commenting on the practical viability on getting people to leave the earth in the near future, and paying for it. The only place people are going towantto go in the numbers needed to make money and keep the whole dog and pony show going, is the moon.Musk and Space-X can be filthy rich and get some people to mars, but sooner or later the company will go public and then the bean counters will take over.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 01:36:49 pm
content: Cue: "The Adventures of Pluto Nash"There's still 69 years for that to make it on time.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 02:30:15 pm
content: Since it seems wearegoing to Mars fairly soon, and it's good to consider impossible things, here's a speculative piece I originally wrote back in 2001. Hopefully you'll enjoy it.Where the Martian Water Went TerraHertz Originally written 20011211An article in the Sydney Morning Herald, 11/12/01, page 3, titled: 'Hope for the world-weary: Mars travel by 2016'. (sic)One quote from the article:"We know  had a body of water that basically covered the whole northern hemisphere of the planet." Mr Lavery said."We want to know where that water went, to understand if there are any parallels between that and the ancient history of Mars."This prompted me to give the matter some thought, and resulted in this little essay. My appologies to geologists, and especially to those who study the geology of Mars. I expect this is a stupid idea, just the sort of dumb-arsed thing a retired electronics engineer (me) would be expected to say about rocks. Only an idle moment's speculation, not meant to be a serious suggestion.I wondered:Does Mars still have a liquid magma core, or has it cooled enough for all (or significant portions) of its interior to solidify?I seem to recall reading somewhere that Mars is thought to be a tectonicly dead planet, ie there is no longer any plate movement going on. Presumably, this means the crust is at least much thicker than Earths, or there is no active molten core left at all. Something about Mars lacking sufficient radioactives to maintain core heating?This is significant to the 'whither the water' question, because if the planet has predominantly solidified, rather than remaining a thin solid crust on a liquid core like Earth, then it is obvious where the water has gone.Consider what happens when glass is 'tempered', ie cooled rapidly from a near molten state. The outside goes solid, then the zone of solidification progresses inward. As each volume of glass solidifies, it contracts. The surfae has no problem contracting - it has space on oneside and can pull away from that. But the inside volumes are now surrounded by a rigid glass shell. They cannot contract - without creating cavities that is. And in glass tempering there are insufficient cavitation nucleation sites, and the process is too fast for cavities to form in the highly viscous glass.So in hardened glass, the inside volume is in 'material tension' (of quite large magnitude) and the glass surface is under a resulting longitudinal compression, also of very great magnitude. Strong enough to resist considerable point impact loading. But if the surface compression does give way, and a crack is produced in the surface, the instant it propogates through to the interior zone of tension, the whole body of tempered glass is doomed. The crack branches and propogates through all of the glass, supplying the 'cavities' the glass needs to relieve its internal stress. The glass explodes into a shower of small pieces, each one with insufficient remaining internal stress to produce further internal fracturing. You see this as Safety Glass shatters into small pieces, and even more dramatically in a 'Prince Rupert's Drop.'Now, a planet in its 'Earthlike' ie mostly molten state, is like a body of glass. If cooling and solidification progresses inwards from the surface, especially with smaller, low gravity planets, at some point the solid crustal layer may become sufficiently thick to resist all further 'wrinkling' effects that allow the crust to contract to match the shrinking volume of the internal mass as it cools.Anyone who has poured molten metal into molds will be familiar with this effect. The metal shrinks as it cools, and so the still molten central volume of metal pulls an open cavity down at the center of the pouring inlet channel. You have to keep pouring in more molten metal to fill this, or you will have a casting with an internal void. The amount you have to add can be surprising.With a cooling and solidifying planet there will be plenty of opportunities for internal cavities to open, to relieve the accumulating stresses. No shortage of either time, or sources of cavitation. There will be gasses, able to form 'bubbles' within the volume tension areas below the rigid crust. There will be local stress zones and fractures in the crust, able to propogate down into the more-tensioned deeper areas.Keeping in mind, that at the depths below the surface that these effects will be occuring 'tension' is a relative term, and more likely to mean 'locally reduced pressure'. Areas into which mobile substances, such as gasses and liquids from nearby regions still under greater compressive forces, could migrate.Now, supposing that a pathway developed between some body of surface water, and a deep zone of relative 'tension'. In this case, 'tension' would mean any pressure less than the natural pressure of water at that depth, given a head of water reaching to the surface. Inevitably, the surface water would infiltrate the deep zone, expanding it until the residual tension in surrounding rocks equalled the available head of water.Also note that the temperature to which the deep zone of rock would have to 'cool' before water could infiltrate, would still be quite high, given that the boiling point of water rises with the pressure. And here we are talking about hundreds, even thousands of kilometers of depth, not just hundreds of meters.How much volume would be required, to make up for the thermal shrinkage of the core of a planet the size of Mars, assuming some depth of hardened crust that might be structurally stable against further contraction under its own weight? (Remember gravity is only 1/3 of Earth's, but the rocks will be of similar strength to Earth rocks.)We should allow for some 'mobile' fluid that could infiltrate at least some of the cavities forming below the rigid crust, at least in early stages of the 'separation' of the rigid crust from the still shrinking core. This fluid would provide some support for the overhead 'arch' of stony crust, and reduce the mechanical strength that would be required of the crust, to resist simple collapse into a rubble pile.That thought suggests yet another possibility - that the solid crust has at least partially converted into a 'rubble pile', and in that form is able to shrink to match the contraction of the core. But this implies that there would still be vast volumes of space beneath the surface, just distributed as a massive network of small cavities and fractures between the 'rubble'.Again, this might well have more than enough volume to have swallowed the Martian oceans.Possibly a great deal of the atmosphere also, depending on the ability of the subsurface materials to sustain cavities filled only with gas, not liquid, against the weak compressive forces of Martian gravity.In any case, the water had to get from the surface, down to the deep cavities. Perhaps it merely seeped down over millenia, vanishing with barely a whimper. Or perhaps, rather more dramaticly, there was at least some sizable body of surface water left, at a point when some channeldeveloped to an internal area of stress sufficiently extensive to drain the lot. That would lead to an event rather more spectacular than the shattering of hardened glass, the removal of a bath plug, or that amusing case in the USA where a drilling rig accidentally connected a lake with a very extensive saltmine beneath it. The entire lake (and the drill rig) vanished.The Martian gurgler(s) would have been on a rather larger scale.Possibly, such an event might have left some evidence on the surface of its occurence. Something like a rather deep, eroded looking hole or pit. Not necessarily round - it might have eroded along some preexisting faultline perhaps.You don't suppose... that bloody great canyon, Valles Marineris?Maybe, if there were other bodies of open water on the surface, separated from the 'sinkhole', then the planet's surface water might have taken some time to all drain away. Only that which fell in the catchment area of the sinkhole as rain would be permanently lost to the surface. If rain was infrequent, this could take quite a while. Also, with the loss of surface water, and maybe atmosphere, the temperature would fall and remaining surface water would freeze. From then on, water loss to the sinkhole (or holes) would occur only during rare thaws, or via sublimation and frosts.There's another rather spectacular possibility too. During the process of Mars cooling, internal contraction and infiltration of the Martian oceans into subteranean voids, the planet's core heat and thermal outflow would have been enough to heat deep water volumes enough to overcome the pressure at great depth, and flash boil the water. The standard process by which geysers on Earth operate. Cyclic inflow of water into deep, hot chambers, water heating to the temperature at which it will flash boil and explode upward to the surface in a spectacular steam geyser.Except on Mars, we're talking about whole oceans running down to vast spaces, potentially hundreds of miles below the surface. Geysers on a planetary scale. Possibly erupting with cycle times of hundreds or thousands of years. Entire oceans being boiled and blown out into the atmosphere, falling to form new oceans, then perhaps taking very long intervals to once again find a drainage path to deep cavities in the planet.What would the surface signs of such events look like? Apart from 'river erosion channels' that seem to lead nowhere, and giant sink holes, what about the vast but very odd looking 'volcanoes' Olympus Mons and it's nearby sisters? The ones that look more like enormous symmetrical mud ejections, than lava flows. With the fringing cliffs that look like an ocean erosion coastline. (Because they probably are.)One other interesting consequence of this scenario, is that there might remain cavities around the deep 'water table', where temperatures and pressures suitable to maintain liquid water, and a gaseous atmosphere supportive of life could exist. Though such a zone could have little in the way of thermodynamic gradients vital for the operation of higher chemical metabolisms. The only heat flow would be the slow leakage of remaining core heat upwards to the surface. There might be concentrations though, in forms similar to Earth's deep ocean 'smokers'.Perhaps deep within the Red Planet, we may one day find the Martians: clams, worms, crustaceans, and Martian muscles?I suspect when we get to Mars and start exploring, there will be a lot of real surprises. More than just 'some unusual rocks.'

author: JulietMikeBravo
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 04:23:25 pm
content: Quote from: filssavi on March 13, 2018, 12:04:37 amApart from the proliferation risks of (intact) chunks of highly enriched U, an idle nuclear reactor falling back to earth isn't that big of a problem. Fresh fuel is mostly a long half life alpha emitter. A reactor that has been running for a while is a far greater radiological danger, due to the short half life fission products that have built up, making the fuel way more radioactive. The Soviets had a nuclear satellite that fell back to earth over Canada, prompting a major joint USA/Canadasearch and cleanup operation. BTW, both Russia and the USA have launched nuclear powered satellites in the past.When it comes to long range missions, nuclear tech is unavoidable. Deep space probes requireRTGsto keep them powered up in the absence of sufficient sunlight for solar panels.Future Moon and Mars bases are way more easy to implement with a nuclear reactor as an energy source. No need to setup large solar arrays with fluctuating outputs and requiring battery backup at night.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 05:36:49 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 13, 2018, 09:46:06 amI wasn't really aware of this difference until I spoke to someone designing the ExoMars rover. Mars is apparently much more benign. The main problem with Mars is that it's quite a long way away in human terms, but it's actually a lot more like Earth than the surface of the Moon is. Not having razor sharp dust agressively grinding all your equipment to shreds helps, as the Moon has no winds to round off the dust particles. Having some atmosphere helps too. It's no paradise like Earth is, but long term settlement should be a fair bit easier on Mars. Or less hard, if you like.

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 06:30:01 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on March 13, 2018, 08:12:49 amI don't see how anyone is going to come up with the hundreds of billions to commit to a massive settlement program requiring hundreds of rockets at hundreds of millions each not counting the gear they would need to take. This has to be done in a phased approach so we can learn what works and what doesn't. Spending billions on something that doesn't work and then going with it anyway because you spent billions on it is folly. This is a crawl before you run kind of thing...Brian

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 06:40:25 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 13, 2018, 09:50:46 amOK the NASA article say weeks not months. Also, the major impact to solar panels is NOT the dust blocking out the Sun in the sky but covering the panels -- I've already stated that this is an area that's pretty easy to deal with when you have people there to clean the panels. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a challenge rather that it is manageable. The tenuous clouds of dust don't significantly impact solar irradiance but cleaning the dust off the panels will be important. Interestingly, the fact that the dust tends to develop a static charge could be exploited and automated cleaning system are possible though not necessary given the presence of people to clean them.But, lets be clear here, a lot of the tech that needs to be developed will need to be tested -- on the Moon! Working out as many of the bugs and issues on our nearby world will be cheaper and quicker than attempting to do so on Mars. Working out the bugs on the Moon will make our first efforts at Mars more productive, less expensive, and safer!Brian

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2018, 06:46:36 pm
content: Quote from: raptor1956 on March 13, 2018, 06:30:01 pmThat maybe going too big too quickly.Camping out on Mars isn't much easier than staying there for longer, so I suspect that any visit will be fairly permanent. You also have to have a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't, or people are simply going to die. Robotic missions are likely to do a lot of the preparatory work. I suspect the first human visitors will land in a well prepared place, with a ready built base and other infrastructure that will ensure their longer term survical.Then again, I might be off.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 14, 2018, 06:27:15 am
content: this is another "i'm clever than them" thread. people dont go to somewhere just to die, no matter how close there are. people dont invest just because they can and have more money to burn. people can climb hundreds of meters top barge pole here on earth and take selfie, post in fartbook and a stunt publicity it will become (look how much more people following those idiots) its just a matter of putting it in mainstream channel hosted by some clever shake spears. if there is hope, they will struggle for it, no matter how far or close... its their money anyway, imho...

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 14, 2018, 08:03:15 am
content: The entire basis of this Mars mission is to establish a backup for earth. The reason for all the fluff around this is purely for the sake of funding it. And this is because we’ll piss away trillions of dollars on short sighted ventures like resource wars but stick our fingers in our ears when it comes to a single event that could finish us all. Best to try and steal a bit of that and make a good effort than just join in everyone else. There are plenty of people with the same ideology willing to take the risk on.One thing Musk realises is that we have very little data on Mars and unless you send adaptive intelligence there to do more than robotic recon then you can’t make any assumptions. Mission one would bring more data back than all other missions together and that’s worth a risk even if the data says forget it.

author: modrobert
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 14, 2018, 08:05:01 am
content: Quote from: Mechatrommer on March 14, 2018, 06:27:15 amI think there are many valid arguments in this thread, perhaps a bit negative but closer to reality than the pseudoscience driving the "optimists with a vision" who thinks they can colonize Mars in 2019.

author: CM800
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 14, 2018, 08:23:57 am
content: Quote from: JulietMikeBravo on March 13, 2018, 04:23:25 pmI think launching a nuclear reactor should be low risk, especially if you launch it on the BFR...Considering the size of the max payload, I would imagine launching the reactor in parts and assemble in orbit / on Mars, unless of course, you can fit the whole reactor inside a serious bomb-proof container.I believe it could be viable to put the reactor inside a 'strong enough container' so that it will survive any mission failure intact.

author: modrobert
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 14, 2018, 08:34:28 am
content: Micrometeoroid; another one for the "you die" list:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrometeoroid#Effect_on_spacecraft_operations

author: ggchab
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 14, 2018, 12:56:32 pm
content: The human spirit is strange: we could spend billions of dollars to go to the Moon or Mars but there is no money to feed or cure millions of people ...

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 14, 2018, 01:43:08 pm
content: Quote from: ggchab on March 14, 2018, 12:56:32 pmThere is and it is being spent on that as well.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 14, 2018, 02:23:57 pm
content: Read my lips: narcissist and liar Musk will not deliver on his claim.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 14, 2018, 02:44:03 pm
content: I'd rather someone made a wild claim and headed in that direction than be tied to political whim or Roscosmos and burned up cash while they did it. At least in the UK we gave up

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 14, 2018, 10:40:59 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on March 14, 2018, 02:23:57 pmBoy, you have a hair up your ass about Musk -- he pass you over for a job or something?I've seen many narcissists and many more liars and am pretty good at recognizing them, perhaps you can illuminate us on your reasons to conclude that Musk is both.Lastly, as to his statement (not claim) that they will go to Mars in 2019 -- I've already said that 2019 is unlikely but it is also possible. They will not be putting PEOPLE on Mars then, he never CLAIMED to be doing so and it's my guess that the mission will include an orbiter and a lander, very likely with a rover. This is not beyond there capability as should be evident by the fact that SpaceX has a mission, currently in space, that will travel BEYOND Mars. They don't need BFR to get to Mars as the FH is enough for the mission I outlined.Brian

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 14, 2018, 10:43:45 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 13, 2018, 11:23:37 amOther extraterrestrial species may see us homo sapiens as an invasive bacteria/vermin and decides terminateour existence with the same arguments as we do on planet earth. They might not fancy yet another homosapiens intervention.Besides its not written into rune stones homo sapiens have any right to go to other planets.Besides Musk is a PAYPAL fraud and "autopilot" fraud look how his cars rear ends things, first firetrucksnow he tried the sun but failed so now he will rear-end planet earth. It will take some time but eventually.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 14, 2018, 10:45:44 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on March 14, 2018, 02:23:57 pmDo you even know what he said about 2019?FWIW Musk already delivered way more than 99.999% of people on the Earth.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 14, 2018, 10:51:33 pm
content: Quote from: ggchab on March 14, 2018, 12:56:32 pmThen WTF you bought your smartphone and TV. Even 5% of the money spent on those time waster things is way more than a whole planet spends on the rocket technology. And what a result from it? Time wasted on social networks and other useless things plus ridiculous amounts of e-waste.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 14, 2018, 10:54:49 pm
content: Quote from: modrobert on March 14, 2018, 08:05:01 amAnd I think there are many in this tread who don't get their facts right. All musk said is they will be doing firstsuborbitaltests in 2019.

author: modrobert
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2018, 05:39:07 am
content: http://ktla.com/2018/03/14/astronauts-dna-no-longer-matches-his-identical-twins-after-year-spent-in-space-nasa-finds/

author: ggchab
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2018, 06:55:48 am
content: Quote from: wraper on March 14, 2018, 10:51:33 pmIsn't this confirming the rule ? (I have an "old" Galaxy S6 and will keep it as long as the battery lasts). But industries must make (a lot of) profit to maintain the level of employment and, the most important, give money to shareholders who already have a lot of money. The more more you have money, the more you can make money: positive feedbackCan this lead to an equilibrium ? We already had economic crises and there will be more until we learn from our mistakes.Most people are selfish and this was probably required to survive the evolution. But today, we have sciences, technologies, education (sadly, this is not true everywhere) that should take over this "basic instinct" (there are others). But this is going to be very difficult ...

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2018, 11:24:33 pm
content: Quote from: MT on March 14, 2018, 10:43:45 pmWTF are you talking about? In what way is/was Musk a PAYPAL froud -- what is/was fraudulent about it?In what way is a couple autopilot issues proof of fraud, and whatever does fraud mean in this context?You and Bud need to get a room!Brian