How to optimize your headspace for it.
This is why I think that the notion of missions to Mars under the Apollo paradigm are fanciful. There’s a reason (well, OK, more than one) that Elon is building Starship so large. He wants to make it like a cruise, not solitary confinement.
[Update a while later]
Speaking of which, SN1 is entering final assembly for its 20-kilometer flight.
He wants to make it like a cruise, not solitary confinement.
Or more cynically, like a cell block, not a cell.
But I’m impressed with the way Musk is attacking the transportation issues. I’m less impressed with the way he’s dealing with what happens after the ship lands on Mars.
Musk will have to make Starship bigger or (more likely) cut passenger numbers to much less than the oft mentioned 100 to avoid cell block accomodations.
The first several dozen (at least) Starships will have to carry tons of cargo just to set up the base (Zubrin quoted the power needs for the Sabatier reactor alone as 5-6 football fields’ worth of solar panels). That’ll seriously cut down on the number of people on each flight.
As far as psychological issues go, we have absurd amounts of historical experience, from hundreds of years of long-duration sea voyages up to the folks who over-winter at the South Pole each year. I think there should be plenty of data to drive crew screening. And the trip should be a lot easier on the crew’s bodies now that we seem to have licked the zero-g exercise problem. I don’t think Elon’s said a single word about trying to generate gravity on the way out.
One concern that I have is that Elon has said practically nothing about designing the base, much less building base hardware or figuring out how to unload and assemble it upon arrival. Is basing the first crew out of the Starship (that’s a loooong ladder or elevator to commute up and down each time) considered an option?
The Sabatier reaction is exothermic – it produces energy. I think you are talking about the power needs for the electrolysis machine.
Don’t you also need energy to liquify the O2 and CH4 produced by the Sabatier reaction?
I don’t think “cell block” is an especially apt analogy. Think more like Navy bunkroom, college dorm or music act tour bus. There are plenty of close-quarters living arrangements much less grim than prisons.
From the article:
“But social isolation, limited privacy, interpersonal issues, along with vast separation from loved ones, remain relatively unexplored.”
It seems strange that the author could say this. I agree that long term zero gravity is not all that well explored, but for the rest, we have centuries (maybe millenia) of experience. Think 18th century whalers, nuclear submarines, and for the ultimate example, early 20th century Antarctic exploration. Just read about the voyage of the Endurance and Mars would seem, comparatively, to be a piece of cake.
Now most of the experience is with all male crews. However, Amundsen-Scott is isolated over winter with a mixed complement, so there’s some data there. And Polynesia was populated by families traveling for thousands of miles on ocean-going canoes.
A slightly off topic aside: I’ve been banned over at nasawatch. I’m not sure why, but I suspect it was because I thought women weren’t so fragile that they would be offended by the term “manned spaceflight”. Maybe Keith is right and I am wrong, but if they are that fragile, maybe women should think twice about going to Mars.
Welcome to the banned-at-nasawatch.com club. I’ve been a member for a couple years now. In my case – also explanation-free – I suspect it was my persistent blasphemy anent the Global Warming/Climate Change religion. Keith, he does love him his leftist orthodoxies and seems increasingly tetchy about contrariness from we heathens.
A lot of the same people who comment there also do so on other sites I frequent, including this one, so I can’t say that I really miss nasawatch.com. I suspect you will find that to be the case as well.
In any event, o wretched exile, welcome to the Outer Darkness. Quite the little crowd we’re getting out here.
I’ve never managed to register at nasawatch, though I’ve tried at times. I’m probably pre-banned by being on some PC environmental pro-NASA blacklist. I used to get routinely banned at Arstechnica because their climate alarmists react to actual science like vampires react to holy water.
“While a jaunt to the Moon takes just a few days, it’s a slow, eight-month journey or longer to Mars.”
I think the 7 to 8 month trip to Mars is the problem.
And don’t think years on Mars is the problem.
But I think if crew on Mars surface, are running robotic missions on the Mars surface, is helpful for the long stays on Mars surface.
Whereas driving in vehicle on Mars surface for long periods of time, seem to something which is stressful/problematic {even if a super-doper RV type vehicle}.
“There’s a reason (well, OK, more than one) that Elon is building Starship so large. He wants to make it like a cruise, not solitary confinement.”
I don’t think having a large craft helps- though something Mercury capsule would obviously be a problem. Or even a Dragon capsule is too small.
It seems starship has a big thing to worry about, sort of like a big house {separated from rest of existence}. Though if big reduces GRC and big give redundancy {safe space to retreat to} that’s good.
What I think is important is getting to Mars as quickly as one can.
I think getting as quickly to Mars as possible, “shows” that NASA cares for the crew. And it’s actually giving the crew a high priority.
And the question is can you get crew to Mars much faster than 7 months?
Hohmann to Mars is 8.4 month., and Hohmann + patch conic is about 7 months.
And anything going faster than about 7 month is not a Hohmann transfer or hohmann + patched conic.
Or it has to be non hohmann transfer to Mars to get to Mars significantly faster than 7 month. And it has to a more inefficient way getting there in terms energy use.
An example would be using Ion engines. Any use of Ion engines to get to Mars faster, would non hohmann transfer to Mars.
Also any use of Ion engines for any purpose is not using a hohmann transfer.
Or we have and will use non hohmann transfer trajectories for space exploration,.
And roughly same applies to any use of nuclear engines for going to Mars.
And spacecraft using gravity assists are non hohmann transfers [because they involve changes in vector, or hohmann is added to or subtracted from a vector- rather than changing the vector}.
Low thrust and continuous thrust is changing the vector, “spiraling out” is constantly changing vector and is inefficient in terms of energy used- though it’s “made up” by having a higher velocity of propellant, in regards to ion or nuclear. rockets {or “the free energy” from solar sails or whatever].
Now, it’s typical to think of using a hohmann “like” transfer where one simply add more delta-v than is needed to get to Mars. Or do a something like an Earth to Jupiter hohmann in which it crosses Mars orbit distance and one “brakes” a mars distance {instead of going out to Jupiter distance].
And I don’t think that is a good idea- though one choose to call that sort of thing a hohmann or Non hohmann transfer.
In terms of definition, it’s like hohmann + patch conic, or one can do more “hohmann” and more “patched conic”. Or more hohmann and a lot more “patched conic”.
Anyhow that not what I have in mind, but what that sort of thing does is mostly, shorten the distance traveled to Mars, and minor part of shortening time of travel is going faster.
What I mean is shortening distance and going slower, or at least slower than hohmann and patched conic.
And using chemical rocket rather than ion/nuclear {or whatever}.
And not constantly changing the vector, but changing the vector “one time”. Or like hohmann in sense, of having only about 10 to 15 min of burn, and “coast” the rest of the way.
And it is sort of hohmann, but it “getting to” a Venus to Mars hohmann, not starting from Venus, but starting from Earth.
And it’s a Venus to Mars hohmann trajectory + patch conic- starting from Earth.
Maybe one can think it’s similar to Venus to Mars hohmann which using a gravity assist at Earth and does patched conic at Mars distance.
Or if leaving from Venus and going to Mars, would there ever be situation in which you would use Earth for a gravity assist for any useful purpose?
I don’t know the math, but it seems it would be something like doing Venus to Jupiter hohmann and slowing down with gravity assist at Earth {AND it’s shorter distance than compared to Venus to Mars + patched conic}.
If I remember correctly, Musk was talking more like four months to Mars with the original BFR. It’s not intended to be a slow, ‘efficient’ transfer.
I don’t know whether that’s the same for Starship, but the crew are probably safer on Mars than traveling there and back (e.g. because they can pile up dirt for radiation protection), so there’s a strong incentive to go faster when you’re on a private mission where the cost doesn’t go up by $400,000,000,000 as a result.
–Edward M. Grant
February 20, 2020 At 6:32 PM
If I remember correctly, Musk was talking more like four months to Mars with the original BFR. It’s not intended to be a slow, ‘efficient’ transfer.–
Musk said it’s got 6.9 km/sec delta-v from LEO with 100 ton payload;
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/cfamix/elonmusk_fully_fueled_starship_in_orbit_carrying/
With 100 tons and from LEO, I don’t think you can get it to Mars in 4 months.
If starting from highly elliptical high earth orbit, maybe.
Or with less payload.
Also. I think NASA should do it, in 3 months or less.
But mainly for the first crew.
If have medical team or people already on Mars, going there so quickly is not as much, needed.
And if at Solar Max and getting less GCR in trip, getting there fast is less needed.
Don’t worry what NASA says about astronauts feelings on a trip to Mars, they are not going. Don’t recruit psychotic sexual deviants and most of these issues will solve themselves. Submarine veterans would be a good start for compatible people for a long space journey. You will have conflicts of personality on these trips. Get over it. Most of the first travelers to Mars or the moon will die there. Accept these facts and go. Worry about your feelings if you survive the trip. Any real problems can be solved with an airlock.
Don’t recruit psychotic sexual deviants and most of these issues will solve themselves.
Unfortunately, psychotic sexual deviants and other undesirables rarely self identify up front. Who knew about Peter Madsen’s issues before he killed someone?
Jim Davis; That is who the airlock is for…
That is who the airlock is for…
Art, this is the kind of sentiment that places space advocates on the same level as UFO enthusiasts.
No one is going to toss people out of airlocks unless they want to face murder charges. Much as you might regret it, the days when vigilance committees could string people up or tar and feather people or make sailors walk the plank or mete out their own brand of justice are behind us. They’re not going to make a comeback on Mars or anywhere else in space.
Jim Davis; You are the only one suggesting anything about vigilantes. Settlers will have to administer justice as they see fit, as each offense occurs. My suggestion is merely the simplest method to carry out an execution in space, should it be called for.
That seems a little naive to me, Jim. I don’t think the days of anything are behind us. There are currently open-air slave markets in Tripoli, thanks to Obama and Hillary. As Hannah Arendt noted, every generation is invaded by barbarians: They’re called “children.” Do you think that living off planet will have some magical beneficent affect on human nature?
Do you think that living off planet will have some magical beneficent affect on human nature?
The discussion was about months long trips to Mars, not some hypothetical future off-world society.
I may be naive, as you suggest, but I doubt Musk intends to maintain discipline on his ships by threats to use or actual use of the airlock. Musk will have to have procedures and policies in place, consistent with US law, for dealing with breakdowns in discipline and/or mental health. I predict they won’t involve tossing people out of the airlock but perhaps I’m being naive.
You are the only one suggesting anything about vigilantes. Settlers will have to administer justice as they see fit…
You’re changing the subject, Art. We’re not speaking of societies decades or centuries from now we’re talking about months long trips to Mars within the next 10 years. I don’t know how Musk intends to deal with breakdowns of discipline and/or mental health but it is not going to involve tossing people out of airlocks if he wants to stay out of jail.
I agree that, absent some mental breakdown beyond any he’s exhibited to date, Elon is not going to be spacing people. I took your comment to be a more general one about what will be happening off planet and the arrow of human progress.
Why do you think government is anything other than a somewhat larger and more remote (until it shows up in person) vigilance committee?
Why do you think government is anything other than a somewhat larger and more remote (until it shows up in person) vigilance committee?
For the same reasons you do. We both recognize that the state has powers that individuals or groups of individuals (like vigilance committees) don’t. Neither of us are anarchists.
The term is ‘Spacing’ Beltalodah!
@Jim Davis
A government is just a group of individuals, very much like a larger vigilance committee.
Are you even paying attention to current politics right now?
A government is just a group of individuals, very much like a larger vigilance committee.
Sure, and $20 bills are just toilet paper with fancier designs. I’m sure you treat them both with equal respect.
Are you even paying attention to current politics right now?
Are you one of those people who thinks their political views are so much better informed than the next guy?
@Jim Davis
If a vigilance committee commands enough men with guns, it might as well be a government!
If a little slip of paper is believed to have enough value as money, it might as well be money.
Cocoa beans were once used as money.
The University System is really churning out mediocrities these days…
It is such a short period of time, no need to worry about airlocks or psycho breakdowns.
“Even massive Star Trek spaceships – with plenty of space per person – come with counsellors on board”
Star Trek isn’t real. The reason a counsellor exists is to drive the plot. A plot is the figment of imagination from a writer or team of writers. An attractive woman, in tight clothes that shows some cleavage will drive a lot of plots, especially if she kind of but not quite reads minds. She didn’t exist in order to prevent interpersonal drama but to give rise to interpersonal drama. Looking at the purpose for why she existed should lead you to not want one in real life.
The article doesn’t have anything new to add but it drops its own Deanna Troi into the plot in the form of horrible problems, which are set up by the author to drive the story. These problems don’t really exist. Maybe a better way to put it is that they don’t have to exist, certainly not in the forms of worst case sensational fiction. Fatalism is very human but it is also magical thinking.
Galaxy Quest is an excellent documentary to watch on this subject.
Science fiction is great but it would be nice if people could separate fiction from reality.
Two points:
1. Starfleet ships came with councilors aboard for the same reason Soviet subs came with political officers aboard.
2. Your typical SF writer is a fat person who doesn’t know anything about anything other than how to type sentences and paragraphs. Even the ones with advanced STEM degrees are mainly caught up in the Narrative requirements of their academic or government jobs.
PS: Notice there is a connection between 1 & 2?
The thing that puzzles me is how almost everyone seems to think that Musk is lying about everything. He’s repeatedly stated Starship will transit to Mars in 2 – 4 months, depending on alignments. Then we hear about Hohmann transfers and multi-year round trips to Mars, like it was NASA using 1960 technology. This has happened since the dawn of SpaceX. I like to recall Tory Bruno confidently stating reusability could not be made to work, because it would require “new physics.” Yeah? Now, of course, we hear how reusability can’t be made economical because refurbishment costs 50 – 70% of a new rocket! Yeah? E pur si muove.
I wouldn’t say it’s exactly everyone, but the noisier scoffers, like Capt. Bob Oler, certainly punch well above their weight in the various space fora. Only the continuing accretion of more and more facts to the existing body of same ever serves to quiet these types. Fortunately, said accretion seems to be proceeding exponentially.
Almost everyone is less than exactly everyone, but I get your point. I don’t have a lot of faith in the process, though.
The Universe’s true propose of Elon Musk is to confound Bob Oler’s pronouncements.
I kind of like Oler in spite of himself but I like Elon rubbing his nose in his own folly too.
“The thing that puzzles me is how almost everyone seems to think that Musk is lying about everything. He’s repeatedly stated Starship will transit to Mars in 2 – 4 months, depending on alignments. ”
Oh, I did not know that Musk said this, once or repeatedly.
Do you have a link or links which gives information about this?
It’s pretty easy to find. Go to shitelonsays.com, kept by QuantumG (but not updated lately). Click on Transcripts, then go down to the last two links and read those transcripts. In one, Elon says 80 days minimum, and then later a max of 120 days, depending. In the other one, he states 3 months under ideal conditions, and suggests a 6 month maximum. The fact is (as Musk also noted), Starship will be operating in a fuel-rich environment, and you can trade payload for transit time. Slow for cargo, fast for crew, for example. The videos of all four of Musk’s Starship presentations, including slide content, are available on YouTube.
A lot of stuff that gets said as if fact is simply drawn from the opinions of self-proclaimed experts on various fora. That’s the source of the idea that a round trip to the moon will require 24 refueling tankers, which is based on someone’s suppositions, based on nothing. It takes 5 or 6 tanker flights to completely refuel a Starship. It’s not going to take four to five complete refuelings to make a round trip to the moon. The reason we can’t say with precision is because Musk hasn’t told us.
–It’s pretty easy to find. …. —
I googled:
“The powerful Raptors will allow the ship to make the trip in as little as 80 days initially, depending on exactly where Earth and Mars are at the time, Musk said. That’s a pretty quick trip; it takes six to nine months for spacecraft to reach the Red Planet using currently available technology. And Musk said he eventually thinks the ITS ship will be able to cut the travel time to just 30 days or so.”
So, here Musk says can get to Mars in 1 month. But also says as little as 80 days “initially” {2 1/2 months}.
I don’t think Musk is lying about whether chemical rockets can reach Mars in 80 days or 30 days.
But I don’t think one needs the Starship {or anything like it} to do this. Unless “anything like it” includes the plan/design to re-fuel spacecraft in space.
I accept that it is plausible that if Starship is re-fueled in LEO, then perhaps the Starship can get to Mars orbit {or possibly to Mars surface} with about 100 ton payload within 6-7 months. And of course I am accepting idea that the first Starship made could be improved in a similar fashion that Falcon 9 was improved{developed so as to lift more payload and evolved into having re-useble first stage]. Or what is plausible would resembles what could be a future Starship.
And a Starship which carries less the 100 tons could get to Mars a lot quicker.
But I think a spacecraft launched by any heavy rocket, could get to Mars in 30 days using only chemical fuel rockets- if it can be refueled in space.
[And why I believe that NASA {or anyone else} should explore the Moon to determine whether there is mineable lunar water].
So, what is needed is cheap rocket fuel in space, and will happily concede that the Starship is a plan to do this.
And I would happy if US government would offer prizes that would enable exploration of Moon and Mars.
But even if US government offer whole lot great prizes related to exploration of Space, we still have NASA.
Or seems to me, if offered bunch of prizes and got a lot happening, it would not indicate that we should abolish NASA, rather I think NASA yearly budget should increased. One reason for NASA is to advise Congress regarding space, and Congress will have an even greater need of a space agency.
But we don’t need NASA in the rocket business nor in the space mining business or Martian farming business, etc.
But Congress has some interest of any and all business in the US, though many might want Congress to interfere, less. But not having Congress not involved to some degree, is a bit idealistic- or crazy.
NASA is apparently going to explore the lunar polar regions and then explore Mars.
And I think NASA needs a way to get crew to Mars in less than 3 month.
And perhaps Starship can provide this way.
Perhaps NASA could start program that develops a way to get crew to Mars in 3 month- pays Musk or anyone else,
But probably better for US government {Commerce dept?} or say Space Force to do this. Land 2 tons of more on Mars surface {at lower speed than 100 mph} or put 5 tons or more in Mars orbit which gets from Earth surface to Mars in less than 3 month- 500 million dollar prize if done.
I think that worth it, in terms NASA doing it’s Lunar and Mars program.
What payload is, will be up to the company that does it. Musk might want a greenhouse on Mars. And whoever does it first, wins prize.
And as I said, you don’t need a Starship to do it, but since Musk already going in this general direction, it does seem to favor SpaceX.
re:
-A lot of stuff that gets said as if fact is simply drawn from the opinions of self-proclaimed experts on various fora. That’s the source of the idea that a round trip to the moon will require 24 refueling tankers, which is based on someone’s suppositions, based on nothing. It takes 5 or 6 tanker flights to completely refuel a Starship. It’s not going to take four to five complete refuelings to make a round trip to the moon. The reason we can’t say with precision is because Musk hasn’t told us.-
Oh, I thought it required one Starship tanker to re-fuel the Starship which has the 100 ton of payload in LEO which can then can then land the 100 tons payload on lunar surface.
But that wasn’t a round trip, but if less than 100 ton payload, it seemed it could be round trip.
But in any case, it doesn’t seem like good idea to land the Starship on lunar surface. Better to have something designed to land payload on Moon from Low lunar orbit, and return to low lunar and be refueled, so it take more payload back lunar surface {and then return to Low orbit].
But I guess one use Starship as lunar base, but still use a lunar lander to supply the Starship lunar base. And it be mobile Starship lunar base and eventually use it as Mars Starship base {which also is mobile}.
🙂
The problem with all of that is, in order to say Musk is wrong, you have to be of Musk’s stature, so unless you own a secret mulit-billion dollar rocket company secretly making orbital launches with secret reusable LVs, have a secret manned spacecraft in the offing, and are building a secret reusable Mars vehicle, you’re not. And one of the few people in the same ballpark as Musk, Tory Bruno, posted confident statements of imminent SpaceX failure that proved to be hogwash. So basically what Musk says is ground truth, until proven otherwise by observable real world events.
What happens in fora is, people say, “Musk is wrong” and then “prove” it by moving the goalposts. That’s where 24-tanker Moon flights and years-long orbits to Mars come from. And even if those arguments were somehow true, they don’t obviate the missions described. If you need to use 24 tankers for a Moon flight, you just need more tankers and more pads. If it takes a year to get to Mars, at worst you need two Starships and a tether. Etc. Etc.
Part of what people are claiming Musk is lying about is costs. That’s why we see people claiming high refurb costs for Falcon 9. It’s the only way the past 50 years can’t be attributed to government and contractor corruption. Moving the goalposts to place impediments to what Musk says he can do is one way of turning a blind eye to that ground truth.
“And one of the few people in the same ballpark as Musk, Tory Bruno, posted confident statements of imminent SpaceX failure that proved to be hogwash. So basically what Musk says is ground truth, until proven otherwise by observable real world events.”
I don’t know who Tony is. And I am not NASA administer, and I criticize NASA. But I criticize NASA, mainly to see if I am wrong about something and/or to be helpful in terms of getting better NASA policy. I also respect the people who work at NASA { and would like them to be getting what they want- or enabled to get to goals of related why they work at NASA]. Same goes goes for Musk. I don’t know him, but he done some pretty things for the World and America.
But I tend to think he is “wrong” about Mars settlements. Or I think we need a market for rocket fuel in space, in order to have Mars settlements- so why NASA should focus on Lunar exploration. Maybe lunar water is mineable. And Moon needs some exploration before that can be determined.
Also not sure that Mars would be a good place for human settlements, and need Mars exploration to help know if such things can happen.
Of course Musk is doing what he can do and making cheap access to space, is certainly a good direction to take, but he sort of skipping over the exploration of Mars which is a critical part which will lead to Mars settlements.
And NASA should have explored the Moon and Mars, decades ago, and there not much hope that NASA will do this as quickly as they should.
–Tory Bruno (born November 3, 1961 as Salvatore Thomas Bruno) is an American aerospace engineer, rocket scientist and executive. He has been the CEO of United Launch Alliance since August 2014. Before ULA, he worked at Lockheed Martin, where he made the transition from engineer to executive.– wiki
Tony could have bias.
Another of Clarke’s Laws.
Every new technology goes through three phases:
1) It’s impossible.
2) It’s possible, but it’s not worth doing.
3) I said it was a good idea all along.