Europe's bold 'Explore 2040' campaign aims to get astronauts to the moon and Mars

[Admin]

ESA's 'Explore 2040' strategy sets its sights on low Earth orbit, the moon and Mars, demanding greater innovation and increased European presence in space.

Europe's bold 'Explore 2040' campaign aims to get astronauts to the moon and Mars : Read more

 

[billslugg]

Europe intends to use non-reusable Ariane 6 to support the Gateway plus their Moon and Mars aspirations. At the same time, we have reusable rockets they could be taking advantage of. I don't think this plan is going to work.

 

[George²]

The EU definitely needs a modern and large heavy-duty rocket-space system for taking out big spaceships, it will be a plus if it is reusable. I don't think the EU is capable of creating one by 2040. Maybe by 2050?

 

[Questioner]

I will suggest an alternative methodology.

They launch to Vesta [thx billslugg] pick up water ice for rocket fuel.

They could even package & slow launch a load of ice back to Earth.

They take their water ice back to Mars and are solar processing it to H & O on the way.

They leave their rocket fuel in equitorial orbit around Mars with their return lift-off skyhook assembly,
& explore pretty much anywhere they want on equitorial Mars. They could explore one place then lift-off and drop and lower down to the next place as long as their fuel holds out.

They could leave the skyhook assembly in stable equitorial orbit around Mars for the next astronaut crew to use.

Earth will now have an orbiting fuel for its own beefier skyhook assembly for cheaper easier safer lift-off tech here.

Let's do this people.

The only real technical hurdle is a 70 mile cable hanging from the fueled rocket frame assembly.

 

[Questioner]

On Mars a much shorter cable will work.

 

[newtons_laws]

Quite ambitious plans from ESA, however the final sentence in the report is the crucial bit "ESA's vision for 2040 hinges not only on innovative projects but on the unwavering support of its 22 member states to transform plans into reality". As was said in the early days of manned spaceflight "No bucks, no Buck Rogers"

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Has anybody worked out how much payload would need to be sent to Mars to make a "skyhook" that would work, there? Has anybody worked out how much fuel would be needed to keep the skyhook in orbit when it is being used to take craft off the Martian surface?

 

[Questioner]

[Correcting my own previously erroneous idea]

A skyhook has to orbit way too fast to achieve geosynchronity.
Only a super massive body [with tremendous vector inertia] can go low & slow enough to get a reasonable geosynch.

It's back to a space elevator but with freefall fuel sources to repair any orbit decay.

Freefall fuel will be needed in abundance to shepherd a massive body into a circular geosynchronous orbit.

It will put a slight wobble into the rotation of the planet/moon in question.

 

[ChrisA]

Has anybody worked out how much payload would need to be sent to Mars to make a "skyhook" that would work, there? Has anybody worked out how much fuel would be needed to keep the skyhook in orbit when it is being used to take craft off the Martian surface?

This is clearly not a 21st-century project. And if it is ever needed depends on if there is ever a need to launch thousands of tons of materials from Mars.

What's going to happen is that AI and robots will improve to the point where there is no need to send people to space except as tourists. Robots are happy with a one-way trip.

there unmanned spacecraft will be made smaller and smaller reducing mass to orbit requirements.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

What's going to happen is that AI and robots will improve to the point where there is no need to send people to space except as tourists. Robots are happy with a one-way trip. [emphasis added]

Well, maybe not, if the AI becomes "self-aware". Perhaps you should restream the "Blade Runner" movie?

Predicting the future has not been a very successful process, especially when it assumes future inventions, or even the successful implementation of already known physical principles.

Nuclear fission power did not turn out to be "too cheap to meter", as some predicted in the 1950s, and nuclear fusion power did not materialize "within 50 years" of its conception in the 1950s. Not to mention all of the Hollywood fantasies involving future technologies that everybody understands are fantasy.

Yes, we have done some "fantastic" things in the period since the end of World War II. But, we have not been so good at predicting those things, or what effects they will have on human societies, very far in advance.

And, along with the hopeful predictions, we also have fearful predictions to consider.