DailyDirt: Making It To Mars

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Traveling to Mars is no simple feat, and it's much more difficult than a relatively short trip to the moon. The atmosphere on Mars is thinner than the Earth's, so it poses a significant threat to any vehicle that attempts to land on the planet. Plus, a trip to Mars could take months depending on how much fuel is used (or what kind of propulsion is used). Still, several projects are making the ambitious journey, and here are just a few examples of Martian missions. If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.
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: cubesat, india, mangalyaan, manned missions, mars, mars one, orbit, satellites, space, space exploration, spacecraft, time capsule


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), 24 Sep 2014 @ 5:06pm

    2023? Wow. That's less than 10 years away! That seems like an incredibly optimistic timeframe for a colonization attempt, since the best of Martian surface conditions are similar to living in Antarctica and (as far as I know at least) we've done no terraforming to prepare the way for cultivation of food, and without that, how can any colony ever hope to survive?

    link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2014 @ 5:12pm

    Re:

    It's not a colonization mission. It's a suicide mission aimed at gathering information for future manned mars missions.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  3. icon
    Paraquat (profile), 24 Sep 2014 @ 5:24pm

    nuclear rockets

    Nuclear rockets - I mentioned this before in a discussion we had about Mars. In a nutshell, my argument is that we need to have them or else it's unlikely that any astronauts will survive even a one-way journey to Mars.

    NASA actually developed a nuclear powered rocket (named Nerva) in the 1960s, and ground testing proved that it worked. But it's funds were axed by the Nixon administration, which was not particularly friendly to the space program. So Nerva never flew:

    http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/NERVA.html

    A nuclear-powered rocket would allow astronauts to reach Mars months earlier. Less time spent in space means less exposure to radiation. Surviving on the surface of Mars would also be challenging, but it may be possible. Burying a house in the Martian soil will give the residents good protection from radiation. It's possible to grow crops on Mars, but only indoors with heating. There is water on Mars, but it has to be made by melting ice. That all takes energy.

    It will require a nuclear reactor to keep astronauts alive on Mars. Without it, they would freeze to death. Wind power is a non-starter, as the atmosphere is too thin. Solar power is feasible during the day, but could not produce sufficient heat to survive the night. Fossil fuels are unlikely to exist on Mars, and even if they did you could not burn them in the CO2 atmosphere.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  4. icon
    TJGeezer (profile), 25 Sep 2014 @ 5:17am

    Solar is only good during the day?

    @Paraquat said
    "Solar power is feasible during the day, but could not produce sufficient heat to survive the night."

    Energy storage technology has had so many breakthroughs it's hard to keep up. If solar can support a colony during the day, it can support a colony during the night. Just get a bigger battery/capacitor/whatever.

    Humans are pouring radioactive waste into the Pacific at a prodigious rate. Some Asian countries no longer consider shellfish safe to eat because, as filter feeders, they're turning into nasty little tumor bombs by concentrating toxic reactor wastes. As for other effects of the Japanese reactor containment failure, it's still early days. We don't know but those who follow such matters closely are not optimistic about long-term effects.

    Having poisoned Earth, do we really want to risk doing the same to Mars? There have got to be better approaches. Let's learn from our mistakes.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  5. identicon
    abraham linchpin, 25 Sep 2014 @ 6:49am

    what number 2 said

    we dont have the tech to keep you alive

    if you want to die , we can arrange to off your heads and make room for employment for 200,000 people

    link to this | view in thread ]

  6. identicon
    Benjamin Wade, 25 Sep 2014 @ 8:58am

    Gotta love, "We've poisoned the Earth!" people.

    The earth is just fine, and will be just fine. Humanity is NOT as powerful as you think. A single mega-volcano would probably do more damage in a week than humanity has done in its history. Get over it.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  7. icon
    John Fenderson (profile), 25 Sep 2014 @ 10:00am

    Re: Solar is only good during the day?

    "Some Asian countries no longer consider shellfish safe to eat"

    Not just Asian countries. Along the northwest coastline of the US at least, you don't assume the shellfish are safe to eat since because quite often they aren't. You have to check the current status of the shellfish before harvesting them.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  8. identicon
    Rekrul, 25 Sep 2014 @ 11:47am

    Re: nuclear rockets

    Nuclear rockets - I mentioned this before in a discussion we had about Mars. In a nutshell, my argument is that we need to have them or else it's unlikely that any astronauts will survive even a one-way journey to Mars.

    There's one big problem with nuclear powered rockets: Accidents.

    How large an area would have been contaminated if the Challenger mission had been nuclear powered? Or the Columbia?

    link to this | view in thread ]

  9. identicon
    Rekrul, 25 Sep 2014 @ 11:48am

    India's Mars mission only cost $74 million? That's less than NASA spends on coffee while planning mars missions!

    link to this | view in thread ]

  10. icon
    John Fenderson (profile), 25 Sep 2014 @ 1:27pm

    Re: Re: nuclear rockets

    "There's one big problem with nuclear powered rockets: Accidents."

    I don't think that's the big problem. Modern nuclear engine designs are made so that if a catastrophic accident occurred there would not be a wide dispersal of nuclear material into the environment.

    link to this | view in thread ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
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.