Elon Musk: ticket to Mars for $500,000.

In article dd072365-421b-497f-a6bf-
, says...

On Mar 28, 3:39*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

need a nuke booster to cut travel time to a minimum.......

power to 1/2 point, then *declerate the other 1/2 with a heavy heat
shield for fast entry, perhaps a transhab like landing ballon

Utter stupidity.



no doubt it would be better to invest in robotiic exploration with
artificial intelligence......

this technology can be useful back here on earth.

eventually most jobs will be done by robots

Too bad we can't replace you with artificial intelligence. *It would
be refreshing for you to exhibit SOME kind of intelligence....

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

cutting travel time dramatically cuts the need for consumables and
spare parts too, which decreases the costs and risks.

Baseless assertion, especially when the faster trajectory requires more
fuel and possibly exotic engines.

multi year missions culd be lost for just the lack of spare
parts............

More of your gloom and doom based on bad sci-fi movies no doubt.

besides we cant afford much of anything in space let alone a multi
year trip

And yet you're advocating mission architectures which would be more
expensive just to "get there faster" when there is no *real* requirement
to do so.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On Apr 3, 8:50*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article dd072365-421b-497f-a6bf-
, says...







On Mar 28, 3:39*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

need a nuke booster to cut travel time to a minimum.......

power to 1/2 point, then *declerate the other 1/2 with a heavy heat
shield for fast entry, perhaps a transhab like landing ballon

Utter stupidity.

no doubt it would be better to invest in robotiic exploration with
artificial intelligence......

this technology can be useful back here on earth.

eventually most jobs will be done by robots

Too bad we can't replace you with artificial intelligence. *It would
be refreshing for you to exhibit SOME kind of intelligence....

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

cutting travel time dramatically cuts the need for consumables and
spare parts too, which decreases the costs and risks.

Baseless assertion, especially when the faster trajectory requires more
fuel and possibly exotic engines.

multi year missions culd be lost for just the lack of spare
parts............

More of your gloom and doom based on bad sci-fi movies no doubt.

besides we cant afford much of anything in space let alone a multi
year trip

And yet you're advocating mission architectures which would be more
expensive just to "get there faster" when there is no *real* requirement
to do so.

Jeff
--


getting there faster reduces rdiation exposure in dep space and
dramatically cuts the quantity of spare parts and consumables needed.

just like low cost to orbit is necessary, so is fast transit....

a 6 month each way for a couple weeks on mars, or a 6 month each way
for a multi year mission is far less workable than a 3 month each way
and a few months on mars mission.

cuts risks consumables etc.

although with the coming necessary cuts in entitlements nasa will be
lucky for a few low cost unmanned missions....

Imagine cutting SS while spending trillions or more to go to mars..
NEVER HAPPEN

In article 6e3576cf-fdb1-4bbb-a4c3-ff3209d56281
@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com, says...

On Apr 3, 8:50*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article dd072365-421b-497f-a6bf-
, says...

cutting travel time dramatically cuts the need for consumables and
spare parts too, which decreases the costs and risks.

Baseless assertion, especially when the faster trajectory requires more
fuel and possibly exotic engines.

multi year missions culd be lost for just the lack of spare
parts............

More of your gloom and doom based on bad sci-fi movies no doubt.

besides we cant afford much of anything in space let alone a multi
year trip

And yet you're advocating mission architectures which would be more
expensive just to "get there faster" when there is no *real* requirement
to do so.

getting there faster reduces rdiation exposure in dep space and
dramatically cuts the quantity of spare parts and consumables needed.

Radiation exposure can be mitigated with adequate shielding.

Consumables will be a small part of the overall mission mass budget,
even if you assume zero recycling.

In fact, those consumables you're trying to minimize actually make for
quite good radiation shielding. Why minimize consumables if your mass
budget for radiation shielding is going to go up by about the same
amount? It makes no sense to me at all.

And finally, your assertion that reducing transit time "dramatically
cuts the quantity of spare parts" is putting the cart before the horse.
Where is your analysis which shows just how many spare parts you would
need for the short mission versus the long? Such an analysis would need
to be done in order to turn your baseless assertion into a proper
argument.

just like low cost to orbit is necessary, so is fast transit....

This fast transit "requirement" has no basis in reality. It's a figment
of your imagination. Perhaps it's just a bit of undigested meat stuck
in your gut...

a 6 month each way for a couple weeks on mars, or a 6 month each way
for a multi year mission is far less workable than a 3 month each way
and a few months on mars mission.

Except your "few months on mars mission" is extremely stupid when
orbital mechanics is taken into account. There have been numerous
studies done on Mars mission transit times and surface stay times.
Perhaps you should read a few of them. You might learn something.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker