Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok, firstly let me point out that the following was taken from The Sun, so it is in a simplified format and maybe stretching things abit, but would be cool if true.

SPACE boffins are ready to build a super-fast rocket that could get astronauts to Mars in just 30 days.
Missions to the Red Planet currently involve a FOUR YEAR round trip, but experts say it can be massively slashed.

A research team at the University of Washington has received funding from NASA to undertake the ambitious project.

Scientists and engineers will use fusion technology to power the rocket up to speeds of 200,000mph.

Fusion will be created by 150-ton system which uses magnesium to compress metal bands around a pellet of hydrogen isotopes.

And experts say the method will create fuel 7million times denser than conventional rocket fuel making it much more powerful.

The team say the vessel could be ready to fly by 2020.

I have a book titled the science in Science Fiction. Published late 70's early eighties.

This could be lifted straight of its pages. except the eta is 2000 or so.

Maybe it will be assembled in a LEO using materials mined from snagged asteroids or launched form newly established lunar colonies.

I

It'd definitely be cool, just make sure that the computer to control it all is not named HAL

How are you feeling Dave?

 Frazzled wrote:
How are you feeling Dave?

Go row your boat you!

If this is true, I could take my summer holiday on Mars and be back in time for the next semester. Nice!

Pretty fantastic, certainly makes the Mars One concept a little safer sounding.

Being from Liverpool, I am honour bound to say that the Sun prints nothing but lies.

 Sir Samuel Buca wrote:

Being from Liverpool, I am honour bound to say that the Sun prints nothing but lies.

And premium rate phone numbers to dirty chat lines... And hagar the horrible.

I am very dubious of this as a new technology. 30 days to Mars sounds preposterous.

Although on an interesting note, I have heard once that there could be a weird loophole to enable a different way to study Mars up close. Evidently, if you instead just plan on landing a craft on one of the planet's moons, something about their orbits and our current level of space technology would allow a trip to that moon to only take half the time as it would to the actual planet (so six months each way), because of the ability to slingshot our way to a faster velocity. Plus, the moons take less fuel to land on, when using our current level of tech.

So as a first step, you could do a landing on the planet-side of one of the moons (they are stuck facing always Mars like Earth is) and "explore" the surface of Mars using high-resolution photographs Because they orbit with one side always facing the planet like our moon, you would always be looking at Mars through 100% of the day, so would have the maximum amount of time to take pictures.

I thought it involved something like using our moon as a slingshot on the way out, and Mars as a slingshot on the way back.

Landing on a moon shouldn't take any less fuel than landing on Mars, Mars does have an atmosphere to give some way of using friction to slow descent. So it should actually take more fuel to land unless there's something I'm missing.


And space exploration would be best served by building a moon base first, along with a larger space station. Then build a space ship that is reusable, IE: doesn't land on a planet itself but rather carries a shuttle that can land on a planet and take off again.

Just from casual observation, it seems like incorperating all the necessary componants for interplanetary travel, landing, and take-off on a single vehicle is wasteful and limiting instead of having a dedicated vehicle for both.

A ship that doesn't need to land on a planet can use the saved space to put other things on board, likewise with a dedicated shuttle craft that is only meant to transport between a planet's surface and an orbiting ship. Without needing to dedicate tons of space to storage and other systems a long term ship would need we could probably get a more feasible shuttle craft operational sooner.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Landing on a moon shouldn't take any less fuel than landing on Mars, Mars does have an atmosphere to give some way of using friction to slow descent. So it should actually take more fuel to land unless there's something I'm missing.

It might have to do with relative velocity, the geometry of the situation (complete with gravity "slingshots") is such that you're arriving at Mars with a much higher relative velocity than you'd be arriving at one of the moons with, so you'd have to burn a lot more fuel slowing down to safe landing speed. For example, the least-time path to Mars might involve hitting it head-on, while the least-time path to one of its moons might involve catching it from behind.

I see, that could account for it I suppose.

Getting back would be the hard part. Landing on a planet is easy, the getting orbital again nearly impossible.

But who says a trip to Mars really has to include a landing, just an orbit or two and back home would be good enough at this point.

And space exploration would be best served by building a moon base first, along with a larger space station. Then build a space ship that is reusable, IE: doesn't land on a planet itself but rather carries a shuttle that can land on a planet and take off again.

That I totally agree with. A Moon base involves nearly all the research possibilities that a Mars trip can provide, coupled with a shorter (and downright possible at all) rescue trip if something happens.

Landing on a moon shouldn't take any less fuel than landing on Mars, Mars does have an atmosphere to give some way of using friction to slow descent. So it should actually take more fuel to land unless there's something I'm missing.

Landing on our moon takes much less energy than landing on Earth. So does taking off. The Apollo lander would never be able to attain a planetary escape velocity. Mars' moons are the same situation. As far as I know, what Peregrine says is correct- it would be "cheaper" to gain a moon orbit and send down a lander than with mars.

I would say that space travel is much more logistically feasible if the line went: Moon base>Mars moon base> Mars planetary landing.

It might have to do with relative velocity, the geometry of the situation (complete with gravity "slingshots") is such that you're arriving at Mars with a much higher relative velocity than you'd be arriving at one of the moons with, so you'd have to burn a lot more fuel slowing down to safe landing speed. For example, the least-time path to Mars might involve hitting it head-on, while the least-time path to one of its moons might involve catching it from behind.

I think that's what it involved. Something about the orbits of the moons versus the planet itself, in relation to the flight path. You still unfortunately are stuck on Mars/cannot leave for Mars through the time of the year that it's orbit doesn't sync with ours, though.

30 days to Mars will never be as good as 30 seconds to Mars.

xraytango wrote:
Getting back would be the hard part. Landing on a planet is easy, the getting orbital again nearly impossible.

But who says a trip to Mars really has to include a landing, just an orbit or two and back home would be good enough at this point.

You send the lander and ground module in advance separately by a slower cheaper rocket. Only the crew need a fast ticket.

xraytango wrote:
Getting back would be the hard part. Landing on a planet is easy, the getting orbital again nearly impossible.

But who says a trip to Mars really has to include a landing, just an orbit or two and back home would be good enough at this point.

Thats why we need a shuttle that can achieve escape velocity without a one-use rocket.

A ship that can go back and forth between Mars and Earth isn't hard, its something to get us into space reliably and efficiently thats difficult.