Why we should go to Mars...

[Bikerdude]

One of the best for arguments I've heard so far...

 

[jaxa]

Have not watched the video yet, but I will leave this here:

 

Manned Mars Plan: Phobos by 2033, Martian Surface by 2039?

 

Why We Should Land on Mars' Moon Before We Land on Mars

 

Wikipedia also says "the delta-v to land on Phobos and return is only 80% of that for a trip to and from the surface of the Moon" but there is no citation.

[demagogue]

I think we should target Venus.

 

Advantages: Earth-like temperatures, our atmospheric pressure (so no need for a whole space suit to go outside, just a breather), water everywhere (so unlimited food, water, & rocket fuel) ... about a mile up in the atmosphere in a giant weather balloon.

[Obsttorte]

@demagogue: I guess this is some sort of sarcasm?!

[demagogue]

Huh? No.

 

A high altitude mission to Venus is significantly more friendly to living things than a Mars surface mission, as long as you don't fall, but you know on Earth high altitude balloons stay up for years. It'd be one person/pod per balloon, so like 10 rope-linked balloons and a crew of 5 could do a lot. Think of a catostrophic breach situation. On Venus you have several minutes to get a breather on your face. On Mars you'd instantly black out by the pressure, your blood would literally boil, and you'd be dead in seconds. Also the presence of thick constantly rainy clouds on Venus is no small thing. Just send down buckets on a rope & pull up water everyday. There's eternal food, water, and power source. How could Mars compete?

 

The only major problem is how to get the ballooniers back in to orbit to return, unless sufficient rockets can be made light enough & still do the job, or there's another solution.

[Destined]

I am not sure, what your source of information is, but my own memory told me, that Venus is one of the most inhospitable planets in our solar system. So I checked Wikipedia and there it says the following:

 

It has the densest atmosphere of the four terrestrial planets, consisting of more than 96% carbon dioxide. The atmospheric pressure at the planet's surface is 92 times that of Earth. Venus is by far the hottest planet in the Solar System, with a mean surface temperature of 735 K (462 °C; 863 °F), even though Mercury is closer to the Sun. Venus is shrouded by an opaque layer of highly reflective clouds of sulfuric acid, preventing its surface from being seen from space in visible light. It may have had water oceans in the past,^[16][17] but these would have vaporized as the temperature rose due to a runaway greenhouse effect.^[18] The water has probably photodissociated, and the free hydrogen has been swept into interplanetary space by the solar wind because of the lack of a planetary magnetic field.^[19] Venus's surface is a dry desertscape interspersed with slab-like rocks and is periodically resurfaced by volcanism.

So, apart from being crushed to death by the immense atmospheric pressure, you would be burned in seconds in addition to be corroded by sulfuric acid. Venus is basically the planet earth could become, if global warming continues to a very extreme extent. No mission I would sign up for...

[ERH+]

But it is like you would describe Earth 1km below sea level - and Demagogue is talking about a floating raft. There are still a lot of atmosphere above and "sea level" will be indistinguishable above and below, but probably winds will be so strong that raft could keep tumbling for long periods of time. Also by "balloons" you may consider just living quarters with human friendly pressure - you can make a tank from thick and heavy steel and it will still float if the empty space inside is big. Another downfall could be weak magnetosphere of Venus, and its a common knowledge that radiation is most harmful thing that humans encounter up there. Also I see lack of any hydrogen compounds in atmosphere so synthesising water will be a big problem.

Edited August 22, 2016 by ERH+

[Destined]

My biggest issue would be sulfuric acid combined with high temperature. This would corrode most metals currently used in spacecrafts. But this information just seems wrong:

 

On Venus you have several minutes to get a breather on your face. On Mars you'd instantly black out by the pressure, your blood would literally boil, and you'd be dead in seconds. Also the presence of thick constantly rainy clouds on Venus is no small thing. Just send down buckets on a rope & pull up water everyday. There's eternal food, water, and power source.

 

According to Wikipedia pressure would most likely kill you just as fast as on Mars and the 460°C would also burn you within seconds. Also, there are clouds, but they are not made of water. This is why I would be interested, if he is misinformed or if the Wikipedia article is wrong. And where his infromation comes from.

[demagogue]

No no no. I'm talking about waaaaay high in the upper atmosphere, well above the clouds and jet streams, like 10s of kms up. What I & wiki said are both true.

 

As you know climbing any mountain, as you raise elevation the pressure and temperature drop. On Earth that means 10km up there's snow and the pressure starts getting dangerously low, and it's not really habitable above that (think of commercial jets breaching). But on Venus at 50km up, there's a point where the pressure and temperature become equal to earth. Since you like wiki, here's the cite. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus

 

Despite the harsh conditions on the surface, the atmospheric pressure and temperature at about 50 km to 65 km above the surface of the planet is nearly the same as that of the Earth, making its upper atmosphere the most Earth-like area in the Solar System, even more so than the surface of Mars. Due to the similarity in pressure and temperature and the fact that breathable air (21% oxygen, 78% nitrogen) is a lifting gas on Venus in the same way that helium is a lifting gas on Earth, the upper atmosphere has been proposed as a location for both exploration and colonization.[10]

 

So that's the target zone. They wouldn't be in hot air balloons, they'd be in high altitude balloons. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_balloon. Just instead of helium, like the wiki says, they'd be using breathable air, which is a lifting gas there. Perhaps a massive live-inside blimp would be better now that I think about it. While balloons can't go 50km high on earth, a 1atm balloon or blimp would naturally go that high on Venus because of the much greater volume of gas.

 

Edit. ERH, there's still 1atm of gas above them to shield radiation. And I thought the Venovian atm had a high amount of water vapor. That's what the thick clouds are.

 

But anyway the pods or blimps could have protections for these things. The argument isn't that it'd be entirely safe for humans there. The argument is it's still much safer than the surface of Mars, the 2nd most habitable after high altitude Venus.

 

Edit2. Long term thinking, Venus is also the closest to terraforming it to habitability. On Mars you can't make a new atmosphere from nothing, but on Venus you can shield the sun enough for the clouds to start raining into oceans for some years. That reverses the greenhouse effect and you stop when temperatures are at earth levels. Then you plant forests and plants to convert the CO2 to O2 and sequester a lot of the CO2 to bring the pressure down. It's not a quick fix, but it's in the realm of physically conceivable.

[stumpy]

We need to go back to the moon first, and use that as a launch pad for any other space mission. The moon is one sided, so you would only have to build a launch pad for each of of the destinations, as its one sided, cover a lot of the light side in solar panels and is free electricity for everyone, plus there's a lot of o3 in the moon rocks that can be turned into rocket fuel.

 

if the rich countries on earth build towers tall enough to get into space then you would take a elevator to space and skip the need for rockets, you could do the same on mars and ditch the same need for rockets there, you couldn't do it on venus cause the acid atmosphere would dissolve the lower end of the tower.

[Destined]

Very interesting! I have missed this part (i.e. have not read the link to the atmosphere on Venus), but am still not convinced, that Venus (or the outer atmosphere) is preferable to Mars. It is true that this part of the atmosphere is safe, but still the sulfuric acid clouds(and HF and HCl even more so for that matter) would be a huge problem. Also, if I have understood the article correctly, there is no water left on Venus, because the oceans have evporated (460°C will do that) and the water dissociated. There seem to be residual water vapour left (although I could not find the exact amount), but this would not be sufficient for supplies of any sort. As the Wiki states "Hydrogen is in relatively short supply in the Venusian atmosphere." and that includes water. Still, it is a nice picture, reminicent to Cloud City from Star Wars and could be a viable outpost.

 

The moon is one sided, so you would only have to build a launch pad for each of of the destinations, as its one sided, cover a lot of the light side in solar panels and is free electricity for everyone, plus there's a lot of o3 in the moon rocks that can be turned into rocket fuel.

 

You are mistaken here: It is true that the the moon constantly shows the same side to earth, but it there is no "dark side" of the moon. Just hink about moon phases: You see the same part of the moon but e.g. at half-moon only half of it is lit.

[pariah]

I was thinking this the other day. Mars has no magnetosphere. Therefore, hard to hold atmosphere.

Carbon spear slingshot, pool-shot asteroids into mars (like iron into earth) and maybe it has magnetosphere.

 

Pls terraform mars. Earth is now not big enough to contain full idiocy of humans.

 

Downside will be the lag on Mars-Earth Internetl.

[jaxa]

I was thinking this the other day. Mars has no magnetosphere. Therefore, hard to hold atmosphere.

Carbon spear slingshot, pool-shot asteroids into mars (like iron into earth) and maybe it has magnetosphere.

 

I think the collision needed to get Mars to have a spinning iron core (#MakeMarsGreatAgain) would be truly catastrophic. Like the planetary-scale collision that created Earth and the Moon.

 

On the other hand, if you slingshot Venus into Mars, it could create a planet with a mass around that of the Earth.....

[stumpy]

the thing about the moon being one sided I got from an astrophysicist off the 'sky at night' program on tv.

[Destined]

Well, maybe with "one sided" he meant that it always shows the same side to earth, which is true. Still, it does not mean, that one side is always lit. Can you find the video on Youtube? I am curious as to what exactly he said.

[demagogue]

Have y'all heard the news about the terrestrial planet found in the habitable zone of Proxima B, our closest planet 4ly out? They say a laser driven nano craft might get there in 20 years, and the signal takes 4 years to get back, so we might see 2nd Earth within our lifetimes. I thought that was cool news.

[Destined]

Yeah, I have heard about it. This could really be interesting. Sadly, it is very unlikely that we will be able to travel there in our lifetime...

[ERH+]

And I'm still waiting for EmDrive to be confirmed as scam or being fully tested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-finnish-physicist-says-controversial-space-propulsion-device-does-have-exhaust-1565673

[NeonsStyle]

Have not watched the video yet, but I will leave this here:

 

Manned Mars Plan: Phobos by 2033, Martian Surface by 2039?

 

Why We Should Land on Mars' Moon Before We Land on Mars

 

Wikipedia also says "the delta-v to land on Phobos and return is only 80% of that for a trip to and from the surface of the Moon" but there is no citation.

 

The problem Jaxa is not getting there, but stopping. Mars is the hardest planet to go to simply because of the braking. There's no chance to aerobrake as the atmosphere is so thin, so you have to use an unusual method to get there than you would for say Jupiter (which is the easiest to get to).

[NeonsStyle]

Yeah, I have heard about it. This could really be interesting. Sadly, it is very unlikely that we will be able to travel there in our lifetime...

 

Elon Musk CEO of Space X plans to send cargo flights to Mars at every orbital opportunity from 2018 onwards. Here's the interview.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tE_ysBKIK0

Edited August 26, 2016 by NeonsStyle

[stumpy]

to land something big on mars you would have to use a mixture of very big parachutes, and very big landing rockets, like used on those rockets that take off and re-land..

[jaxa]

 

The problem Jaxa is not getting there, but stopping. Mars is the hardest planet to go to simply because of the braking. There's no chance to aerobrake as the atmosphere is so thin, so you have to use an unusual method to get there than you would for say Jupiter (which is the easiest to get to).

 

I know. That's why the last rover was landed using a "rocket crane". But it doesn't change the fact that a Phobos mission could solve some of the problems of a Mars mission and allow astronauts to set up a future Mars base using teleoperation. The only real problem I see is that going to Phobos would still take up to 3-6 months, but that could be shaved down to 30 days with the right propulsion technologies.