The NASA Curiosity Rover on Mars

I thought one of the ideas for how to get to Mars quickly involved fusion technology. If we advanced enough to make it into an engine we might be able to use it to make some kind of...I guess shield is the proper term.

I just want to say that I have no education in these fields so if I say something that's just ridiculous feel free to correct me.

edited 3rd Jun '13 4:16:48 PM by Kostya

Despite various ambitious claims, I have not heard any substantive evidence in the last few years that we're close to any kind of real breakthrough on workable fusion power.

That said, there are various designs for atomic rockets, including using a fission reactor as a source of thrust and "pulse" propulsion, which is, roughly, exploding bombs behind the spacecraft and riding the shockwave.

Those are a far cry from having an efficient, sustained fusion power source. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that we haven't figured it out yet even in a theoretical sense, never mind a practical one. All the attempts so far have failed.

Wasn't there a European experimental fusion rector that actually managed to produce more energy during an experiment than was needed to get the reaction started in the first place? I seem to recall that the energy-producing reaction was maintained for something like a couple of seconds. That's a pretty good start, but clearly not a close approximation of a finished product.

I've heard of that too. It's a pretty significant thing.

And that is enough to power a geoengineering project aimed at recreating a planet's magentic field? Sure?

They're probably talking about it in relation to my idea to just shield the area around the colony.

Wouldnt it be easier to just build the colony underground?

Easier in the long run maybe but that would require sophisticated mining equipment. They'd also have to survive on the surface for a time while they construct this colony.

Have robots do the mining. At the scale we're talking about here, you might as well go all out on the project. You aren't just dropping off a few people in space suits on the surface and telling them, "Have a nice couple of years!"

edited 4th Jun '13 6:42:08 PM by Fighteer

Do we have robots that are that sophisticated? It's not like we can send in human operators to repair them if things go wrong. They'll likely also be cut off from communication with Earth while underground so we won't know if something goes wrong.

Do we have fusion reactors to power radiation shields? You're talking technological advances no matter what, in this situation. And we're probably closer to industrial mining robots than we are to the other thing.

edited 4th Jun '13 7:16:33 PM by Fighteer

True.

Well I guess we probably can't expect a Martian colony within our lifetimes.

A colony? Probably not. A manned landing? Maybe. If we put in the kind of effort that got people to the Moon, we could achieve it.

I hope we at least see a Lunar Colony.

If we get to the point that we're sending robots to mine Mars I think we're going to send out at least a few people while that stuff is going on to maintain the robots/explore the planet, since at that point it's serious investment in the planet time. And multitasking is a thing.

Supervising the mining robots while trying not to die from the radiation that the mining robots are there to protect you from. Sounds very Catch-22.

Well, supposedly at that point we'd also have better shielding on the ships and in the spacesuits. It is possible to build temporary shelters.

So like a shielded bunker/outpost/control center where they can monitor the robot activities while not being exposed to radiation 24/7?

And then they find a crashed alien spaceship with weird eggs inside...

<slaps> You don't sneer at a gift of an engineered death-dealing super-weapon! It is a painstakingly crafted thing, and you will like it, my boy, as they do not grow on trees!

edited 5th Jun '13 5:56:45 AM by Euodiachloris

Well, if they find life on Mars, I expect the resources we are willing to expend to get there will exponentially increase. A permanently manned research station wouldn't be out of the question.

It also strongly depends on what you're willing to accept. NASA's current upper limit on radiation exposure for astronauts is the level associated with a 3% increase in (eventual) cancer risk over the average population. The level of radiation that actually kills you is quite a lot higher. I know at least one person has suggested the idea of a one-way manned research expedition to Mars, obviously using volunteer(s). If you're willing to do that, you could probably get away with just ignoring the radiation; they aren't going to live long enough to get cancer anyway (exactly how long that might be depends on how much supplies they can get to Mars).

Granted, I'm not a doctor or anything, but a three percent increase in risk doesn't sound all that huge. Unless your family has a habit of getting cancer.

While I'm sure you'd find volunteers for a one-way trip to Mars, I can't imagine that many of our current crop of politicians would be willing to take the heat for such a decision.

I think it's somewhere in the NASA bylaws: "Never send humans to space if you can't bring them back to Earth."

edited 6th Jun '13 5:38:19 AM by Fighteer

A one way trip only makes sense if they have a reasonable shot at a self-sustaining colony. Otherwise It's an expense form of suicide. At tax-payers expense.

Anyway- if we really want to get someone there (and back), overlooking a modest increase in the radiation exposure (to, say, a 5% standard) combined with a faster propulsion system will likely solve this problem.