XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics   
   From: alain245@videotron.ca   
      
   On Oct/15/2016 at 4:17 PM, JF Mezei wrote :   
   > On 2016-10-14 14:09, Fred J. McCall wrote:   
   >   
   >>> If we had dilithium reactors, warp drive, replicators, and transporters   
   >>> the problem would be trivial.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Do you insist the effort for anything you do must be 'trivial'?   
   >   
   >   
   > Actually yes. Current discussions are for projects that would be   
   > launched now (the project) with early actual launches to Mars in a few   
   > years. (aka: as agressive if not more than sending a man on the moon   
   > within 7 years of announcement).   
   >   
   > And this means using tech that is basically available today with only a   
   > need to fine tune and scale it up. (eg: very large composite tanks).   
   > We're not talking about di-lithium crystals, and matter/anti-matter   
   > engines which don't exist yet. So in many wys, what is being attempted   
   > now must be "trivial" in that sense: existing tech.   
      
   That is stretching the truth a little (only a little). There are several   
   things that need to be developed before going to Mars. There are no show   
   stoppers all the problems can be solved by throwing mass at them. But   
   you don't want to through that much mass, so you would want to think   
   about the best solutions. We don't need breakthroughs in physics but we   
   do need a lot of engineering.   
      
   No one has experienced gravity below 4 m/s^2 for long enough to do a   
   Mars mission. Those who have for more than 1 year have suffered severe   
   consequences.   
      
   There are other problems which need to be studied. The radiation   
   environment is one of them.   
      
   As I said, those aren't show stoppers, the problems can be solved and we   
   know how to solve them given enough mass but...   
      
      
   Alain Fournier   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)