Mars colony by 2012?

[nexium]

Let's assume there is great urgency to establish a Mars colony by 2012. Even a small, high risk, permanent colony by 2012 on Mars, means we need to start cutting metal soon. The craft needs to be bigger and more massive than the systems that took 12 men to the moon. We have few improvements that have proven reliability other than the solid booster rockets, and better computers. Unproven technology should be in two tugs that can shorten the trip but allow the main craft to land safely on Mars, even if the tugs fail. Final assembly and fueling likely needs to occur at the ISS = International Space Station even though this is high risk for the ISS and compromises most of it's functions. The ISS is not stressed to allow blast off of a large craft, so launch means drift slowly apart for hours, before lighting the main engines briefly. The first of two unmanned nuclear powered tugs can then attach by a long tether, and begin towing the manned craft toward Mars. The next day the second tug is attached by long tether. If this works well, they will 2/3 of the way to Mars in perhaps 100 days. The tugs will now begin decelerating the main craft until about one hour from touch down (we will not orbit Mars) One tug will be towed by the main craft to the surface of Mars to be used as an energy source for the colonists. The second tug will pull on the tether to keep it away from the flame of the main engines which are needed to further decelerate and facillitate a gentle landing. The 2nd tug will cut loose about 100 miles above the surface of Mars, do a sling shot manuver to allow it to reach escape velocity of Mars, so it can travel to it's next assignment. <br /> A nuclear reactor with no shielding on one side is an ion engine. It can produce considerable electricity which can run a second ion engine, and send a small amount of power over the long tether to the manned craft. Please comment, refute and/or embellish. Neil

 

[alkalin]

I would recommend we do this whole thing unmanned first at least two or three times to make sure it would all work.

 

[bobvanx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> A nuclear reactor with no shielding on one side is an ion engine<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>I would think it'd be a <i>nuetron</i> engine.<br /><br />There are lots of engineering studies on space nuclear propulsion, and it's been demonstrated a couple times, too.<br /><br />Anyway, my most serious comment is that only in the realm of science fiction (for example, if a rock the size of a small planet were aiming for us in 2013) could we possibly spend the money and resources to have humans on Mars by 2012.

 

[mcbethcg]

It would truly take something that was capable of destroy earth physically to make such an effort imperitive, since even an "uninhabitable" earth would be more habitable than mars anyway.<br /><br />I also think that the Moon is a better target for colonization than Mars anyway. It's close enough to allow much more people and stuff to get there, much less expensively, much quicker, much closer to the resouces of Earth.

 

[lowendfreq]

It could be done if the Russians said they were going by 2013 !<br /><br />Personally I don't think it could be done by then - you just have to look at how long it's taking for the Shuttle RTF............ enough said IMVHO.

 

[spayss]

Mars? We can't even keep 2 astronauts in LEO.<br /><br /> Try 2112 and that's a big 'Maybe'.<br /><br />

 

[kdavis007]

We can send robots to Mars... Now it is time to send humans..