DailyDirt: How Will Anyone Get To Mars?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Traveling to mars is going to be a really, really long term project. We had some fun on the moon and drove around up there in a nifty moon buggy, but we didn't have a commitment to stay there for very long -- or even plans to keep going there once we knew it could be done. Getting astronauts to mars requires a completely different level of planning than going to the moon. Current technology won't get us there (well, at least not alive and healthy), but maybe we're still making some progress with a few untested propulsion systems. After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: astronauts, fission, laser propulsion, lightsail, manned missions, mars, nuclear energy, propulsion, rockets, space, space exploration, spacecraft
Companies: nasa, rosatom


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2016 @ 5:15pm

    Once upon a time

    we could go to the moon.......

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2016 @ 5:53pm

    Re: Once upon a time

    We still can.. if we really wanted to.

    Could we do it in less than 7yrs? Uncertain.
    1962 to 1969 - http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/ricetalk.htm

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2016 @ 6:18pm

    Ball Bearing propulsion

    I read years ago about the possibility of using ball bearings to move kinetic energy around in satellites to adjust orbits and prevent orbital decay. If we add in the ability to zap them with lasers to increase their speed, this should allow us to launch craft out of the solar system without killing any crew on board.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    Pixelation, 15 Mar 2016 @ 6:41pm

    Size matters not!

    "It's not beyond the imagination to think that people might someday be able to move asteroids around at will. "

    "I can't, it's too big"


    "Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is."

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. icon
    Dave (profile), 15 Mar 2016 @ 9:29pm

    Moon?

    We landed on the moon?!?!?!
    YES!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2016 @ 11:03pm

    Umm... no, the partial test ban treaty of 1963 prohibits nuclear weapon tests in outer space, otherwise Project Orion could have happened decades ago.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. icon
    Bergman (profile), 15 Mar 2016 @ 11:57pm

    Do a little research

    > but no one has really continued to work on various kinds of
    > nuclear-powered propulsion for manned spacecraft (hmm,
    > wonder why..?)

    Because it's prohibited by a treaty that Russia is not signatory to (but the Soviet Union was). The technology is not only safer in every way than liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen rockets, it emits less radiation than the background radiation count on a sunny day.

    Do a little research before posting. Please.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2016 @ 4:43am

    Re: Ball Bearing propulsion

    Where did you read this?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2016 @ 4:46am

    What's the point of putting people on Mars?
    What critical bit of science can only be done via human presence?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. identicon
    Jim, 16 Mar 2016 @ 6:47am

    Re:

    There is no critical importance. There is no research necessary. I heard that all science is settled. All the research done. So why aren't we there?
    A machine controlled by afew, isn't science. It cannot answer a question that has not been programed into it. It cannot adjust to a condition outside its ability. There is one thing that we know of that has that ability. Why not use it. Learn now, or forever be stuck in the dogma of man is a useless addition to animals.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11. icon
    Roger Strong (profile), 16 Mar 2016 @ 7:20am

    Re:

    The ban doesn't apply to nuclear thermal rockets or nuclear electric rockets.

    The ban *would* apply to nuclear pulse rockets, that is, powered by explosions, but that's not what the Russians are talking about.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12. icon
    Roger Strong (profile), 16 Mar 2016 @ 7:33am

    Re: Do a little research

    The ban doesn't apply to nuclear thermal rockets or nuclear electric rockets. The ban *would* apply to nuclear pulse rockets, that is, powered by explosions, but that's not what the Russians are talking about.

    Russia is considered the successor to the Soviet Union, and inherited its treaties. (The Soviet Union after all was simply the name of the Russian Empire.) Russia still has the power to veto amendments to the treaty.

    Good advice, though.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13. icon
    Roger Strong (profile), 16 Mar 2016 @ 7:53am

    Re:

    Quite a lot, actually. Robots are good for taking photographs and measurements of the nearest surface and perhaps the couple inches underneath. But once you start wanting to do things like drilling for core samples or digging a few trenches - and taking a close look at what's inside - humans start to win out. (Yes, current and planned robots can drill core samples and dig trenches, but they're limited to a depth of a few inches.)

    Even Mars Exploration Rover Principal Investigator Steve Squyres says this. He talks about the subject here (PDF). Ending with "But I love those machines. I miss them. I do. But they will never, ever have the capabilities that humans will have and I sure hope you send people soon."

    And frankly, science isn't the only reason to have humans on Mars. As just one example there's also insurance: A self-sustaining colony on another planet is a dirt-cheap investment for the security of the human race.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories
.

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.