SpaceX changed the launch game. Trump wants U.S. infrastructure to catch up.
Posted by Leslie Eastman
The Trump administration has set an intriguing new agenda for American space transportation: Build the capacity to handle more than 1,000 launches and reentries each year by 2030.
This updated National Space Transportation Policy reflects the new normal set by our innovative commercial firms, led by SpaceX, which have turned access to orbit from a rare national spectacle into a rapidly expanding industrial capability.
President Donald Trump just signed a new National Space Transportation Policy that lays out priorities for commercial, civil and national security missions to orbit. The memorandum, published Thursday (Aug. 20), introduces the first update to the policy since 2013, and comes as commercial operators such as SpaceX have driven U.S. launch cadences up more than 800% since 2015.
The policy centers on expanding the infrastructure and procedures needed to support a much busier space industry. It directs federal agencies to identify and broaden commercial access to additional launch and reentry sites, and to incorporate spaceflight operations and critical launch corridors into air traffic control management and modernization efforts. The document gives agencies a deadline to get the work started.
Within 180 days of the memo’s publication, NASA, the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Department of Defense (DOD) are directed to begin identifying potential locations for future launch activities, as well as existing facilities that could be upgraded to further increase capacity.
Agencies were also directed to establish leases and commercial investment opportunities to incentivize the co-development of new launch sites. The new properties can be funded, in part, by the same private entities that are lined up to use them.
A major focus of this new policy is on launch infrastructure, rather than launch vehicles. Lack of reentry sites has been a real challenge for the commercial space industry.
It calls upon the Defense Department and NASA, which operate federal launch ranges, to “regularly consider and evaluate opportunities to improve launch and reentry infrastructure” and access to it, including co-development of launch infrastructure with the private sector.
The policy also opens the door for additional launch sites. It directs the Pentagon, NASA and Department of Transportation to work with state and local officials to identify “potential locations for additional launch facilities and targeted development or improvement of launch infrastructure.” The policy does not state whether these new facilities would be federal ranges or spaceports operated by others.
It also instructs the Pentagon and NASA, along with other agencies, to develop scheduling criteria for federal launch facilities in the next 180 days to maximize their use for both commercial and federal operations. That includes improving integration of launches into the National Airspace System and designating “priority airspace for critical space launch corridors.”
The policy also pushes for the development of reentry locations. It directs the Department of the Interior, working with other agencies, to identify federal lands in the next 90 days that could be used as an additional federal reentry site. Later milestones include development of reentry safety criteria for use of that new site and a development plan for the site that would allow commercial access to it.
Our current sites are running out of capacity and will not be able to provide launch sites at the rate needed for the anticipated cadence over the next 10 years.
Today, the Space Force manages two major spaceports at Vandenberg Space Force Base, Calif., and Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Fla. Activity at the two ranges accounts for the bulk of U.S. commercial and military launches, and together they supported 175 launches in 2025.
The Space Force has acknowledged those sites are running out of room to handle the demand that’s forecasted over the next five to 10 years. In congressional testimony in May, Air Force Secretary Troy Meink said the service needs a third launch facility that can handle the larger heavy and super heavy-class rockets. And outgoing Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman said in July the Space Force may need to put a cap on the number of missions it can support each year without additional funding.
Another provision to this space policy calls on the Pentagon and other departments to identify what “regulatory, programmatic, operational, and technological barriers” hinder efforts to provide more responsive and resilient access to space.
If our country is serious about returning to the Moon, reaching Mars, and maintaining its leadership in the new space race, it cannot allow launch pads, range scheduling, and reentry capacity to become the bottlenecks.
SpaceX’s recent successes, which include Starship’s deployment of next-generation Starlink satellites, an in-space engine relight, and controlled ocean splashdowns, show that the commercial sector is already building the operational muscle for a far more ambitious launch cadence.
The administration’s task now is to ensure the supporting infrastructure, permitting, airspace integration, and regulatory framework finally catch up to the remarkable hardware being developed, constructed, and launched. Whether federal regulators, range infrastructure, and airspace-management systems can keep pace will determine whether this vision becomes a new era of American space leadership or another promising plan grounded by bureaucracy.
One last note: Goldman Sachs projects the global space economy will reach $1.8 trillion by 2035.
The Democrats will piss and moan about polluting space.
No – they’ll simply shut it down in time.
No – it will never happen but somehow trump and his cronies will make millions
Better than Biden/Harris and their Ilk soaking the government for $$$ Billions through fake USAID grants and their subsequent “Campaign Donations”!
You are a typical climate alarmist, negative on every sign of human progress in every field. A Luddite. If it was up to you, we would all be living in caves.
He’s already stuck in a 15 minute city.
This + 1,000
That’s what I was saying, so your negating response does not make sense.
And I don’t think that your claim is correct in this case and a bit contradicting as this is a long term thing at its very beginning, very specialised hi-tec(almost only existing companies – and they’ll have to invest first in production increase) and it’ll be hard to make money – as you and I said: it won’t happen.
Way easier to make money via Ukraine,where Obama opened up 30+ Biolabs
since 2014 right after pompously ending GOF in the USA,
where the Firepoint scam already absorbed so many billions this year that they are already asking for 23 more billions,
where even demented fossils like Keith Kellog and their families make such a killing with killing that they advocate for the recruitment of women to prolong the war and protect their business.
And compared to the volume of the green energy scam Ukraine and Rockets are actually peanuts – just look the number of companies that came into existence and went Belly Up during the reign of the black Messiah despite of all subsidies.
“Joseph Keith Kellogg Jr. (born May 12, 1944) is an American diplomat and retired lieutenant general in the United States Army. He previously served as the national security advisor to Vice President Mike Pence, and as the executive secretary and chief of staff of the United States National Security Council in the first Trump administration. He held the position of national security advisor on an acting basis following the resignation of Michael Flynn. Kellogg served as the United States Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia and later as the United States Special Envoy for Ukraine during the Second Presidency of Donald Trump”
I’ve no point to make – just copied a summary here for others unfamiliar with the name mentioned.
“Is that the Corn Flakes guy?”. Nope. Just another 80ish year-old white male with political connections that still plans to influence earth while age turns his thinking parts into oatmeal. Good for him, I hope I can stay in the game that long.
It’s terrible that anyone gets rich building new, large, modern industries. Better that we all remain peasants, not counting of course the elite wokesters. /s
” anyone gets rich building new, large, modern industries”
What bothers me is that I never figured out how to become one of those getting rich. Can I start anew?
[I recently visited the “Campbell House”, Spokane WA. and couldn’t help comparing it to the house I was raised in — several rungs above the home of the recently deceased Dolly Parton.]
Intuition says you’d be a less daring version of your current self. More in the IRA, less inexplicable aches in the morning.
Mr. whatever: You are such a chump! Why should Trump and his cronies take such a drastic cut in pay??!! You can’t help but display your mental limitations in your comments here, eh?
They have already held back SpaceX launches in California.
Yuh, they’ll say rocket exhaust contributes to climate emergency.
I was thinking space junk
You’re right but a drop in the ocean and the activists will make it sound like a flood. Without something to complain about their very existence is threatened.
Especially those that boost by burning hydrogen.
Reminded me of that:
story tip:
Core Power teams up with US Administration on maritime nuclear
https://world-nuclear-news.org/articles/core-power-teams-up-with-us-administration-on-maritime-nuclear
Not sure why the negatives for the link posted:
“Nuclear propulsion “changes the basic operating model” for commercial shipping, according to Core Power, which is developing an industrial platform for fleet-scale maritime nuclear infrastructure”
Seems logical that ocean ships for meeting zero emissions targets would choose a zero emmision source the US Navy has used (safely? seems lke it) for my entire lifetime.
If only we could use this technology for reliable electricity across the UK
From the article: “Air Force Secretary Troy Meink said the service needs a third launch facility that can handle the larger heavy and super heavy-class rockets.”
I see where Elon Musk has signed a $100 billion deal with the State of Louisiana to build a spaceport there capable of 1,000 launches per year.
1000 launches a year is 2.7 launches per day … 19 launches per week. Not so sure there would be sufficient available launch windows to allow for that much space traffic.
I don’t think they will be launching 1,000 rockets per year right away. There is no need for that many at the present time.
I imagine that most of Musk’s launches will be used to deliver propellants to a storage facility in orbit, which will serve to refuel spacecraft that are on their way to the Moon and Mars.
I think they are going to test transferring propellants from one craft to another in orbit soon. Its success is the key to everything that follows.
Gets at the obvious question – for what?
“The average cost of a Space Shuttle launch was about $1.5 billion per flight when dividing the total program cost by the number of launches.”
It’s silly to ask “what if we’d spent the money on ____?” because we wouldn’t have.
If you’re thinking big—and SpaceX does—loft three rockets in the same window, Just maintain separation, like conventional air traffic.
. . . and heck, if they had 10 launch windows open each day, then it could take only about 34 days to launch 1,000 rockets. Simple.
A little info on Launch Windows…
Launch windows occur anywhere from multiple times per day to just once every 26 months, depending entirely on the destination and orbital mechanics
Frequency by Destination
Duration of a Single Window
I am wondering how much physical space that endeavor would require, if the launch pads were land based. Right now launch pads are 4-5 miles away from anything else, and it takes many hours if not days for rockets to move from the vehicle assembly buildings to the launch pads, and then days for fueling. This is the very large rockets of course.
This reminds me of Tom Swift–the teenage wonder boy had ocean based launch pads and could launch dozens of rockets close in time to carry the components of his space station into orbit. Even in the ’60s that seemed farfetched.
Tom Swift-oh, my….serious memory blast…dates us both, tho.
There won’t be this many as
a) heavy class rockets should reduce the number of launches
b) the rare earth scarcity may affect this kind of rockets too
c) The max number of annual US launches is 181.
Where should a sudden demand increase of 400%+ come from?
That’s usually complex stuff that needs quite some time to be built that is being shot into space.
Except for weapons and other military stuff there isn’t much that can justify&finance such a massive increase.
And where is the need? Are there customers to support that launch tempo?
Salute!
The number comes from Elon’s goal of establishing a self-sufficient colony on Mars, plus a permanent site on Luna. Much of the funding will be from SpaceX and likely Amazon, as cooperation is already being felt amongs the new space giants.
Gums sends..
Seems like a waste to me, but he made the money so its his to play with. Go Elon!
I remember lasers having no commercial use at all when they started out, now look at them, they are everywhere.
Sure . . . gonna invest $100 billion (would that be SpaceX, or Louisiana?) in a massive facility that can only launch in southward directions, NOT eastward directions, when the predominate launch direction for most commercial satellites is eastward!
From Google’s AI bot:
“The percentage gain in payload capacity to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) when launching due east compared to launching due south ranges between 15% and 25%.”
I’m sure that paying customers will “appreciate” that fact sooner or later.
The applicable phrase as used in the South, if the claim about such a deal is factual, is “buying a pig-in-a-poke”.
The deal is factual. The governor of Louisiana was grinning from Ear to ear while explaining the deal on tv the other day.
I believe Musk is putting up the $100 billion.
Musk seemed very happy with the deal.
Why does that not surprise me in the least?
Current Louisiana Governor Jeffry Landry attended the University of Southwestern Louisiana (which later became the University of Louisiana at Lafayette), graduating in 1999 with an environmental science degree. While in college, Landry worked as a police officer and sheriff’s deputy. In 2001, he enrolled in Southern University Law School as a part-time student. He then transferred to Loyola University New Orleans College of Law in 2003 as a full-time student, and received his J.D. in December 2004. His subsequent career prior to becoming Governor was as an attorney and “businessman”.
Elon Musk was also very happy to have SpaceX sell some 4% to 5% of its total stock—issuing in its recent IPO some 555,555,555 new shares, valued at US$1.77 trillion—while Musk kept his 82% of so of controlling shares, heading toward Musk’s potential incentive package compensation at SpaceX of over $1 trillion, tied to extreme corporate valuation and futuristic operational milestones.
SpaceX currently has some 13.1 billion shares outstanding . . . just think about that number for a second!
These facts—together with a pending, unavoidable NASA/SpaceX announcement that there is no way a Starship HLS will be available to support the announced Artemis IV mission for landing of humans on the Moon in “early 2008″—are among the many reason why I won’t ever considering purchasing SpaceX stock.
You’ve written here a great argument in favor of capitalism. I’m not interested in another moon mission either (probably for different reasons). Neither of us will be forced to invest in it (unless you pay taxes in Louisiana? Then it becomes a great argument for states rights) .
Well, thank you the feedback, but I have to take exception to your claim that “Neither of us will be forced to invest in it”.
You see, both of us (assuming you are a US federal taxpayer) have been forced to “invest” in the SpaceX Starship HLS program since NASA has committed some $4+ billion of taxpayer funding to Starship HLS under the Artemis program since 2021, now more than five years ago.
https://gcaptain.com/spacex-to-build-100-billion-spaceport-on-louisiana-gulf-coast/
Some blame goes to professionals calling marsh “land” as in loss. Part of the confusion is legal and the marsh was often necessary to live in. I was very familiar with this area which is called the Chenier Plain. The name comes from the oak (French chêne) trees on the fossil strips along which the main one with the coastal road runs through the only town of Pecan Island. The road is in only about half of the ~15 mile distance between the Rockefeller and Rainey Audubon Wildlife Refuges. Most of the area is marsh and water with significant mosquito, hurricane, subsidence, erosion and other problems. All you have to do is look on Google Earth.
I’m not up to date but there are numerous studies on the area. A few examples–
Bolduc, F. and A. D. Afton. 2004. Hydrologic aspects of marsh ponds during winter on the Gulf Coast Chenier Plain, USA: Effects of structural marsh management. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 266:35– 42.
Bolduc, G. And A. D. Afton. 2005. Sediments in marsh ponds of the Gulf coast Chenier Plain: Effects of structural marsh management and sediments. Wetlands Ecology Management. 13:395-404.
Byrne, J. V., D. O. Leroy and C. M. Riley. 1959. The Chenier Plain and its stratigraphy, southwestern Louisiana. Transactions Gulf Coast Association Geological Societies. 9:237-259.
Gosselink, J. G., C. L. Cordes and J. W. Parsons. 1979. An ecological characterization study of the Chenier Plain coastal ecosystem of Louisiana and Texas. I. Narrative Report. U. S. Fish Wildlife Service. Office Biological Service. FWS/OBS-78/9:1-302.
Kaczorowski, R. T. 1980. The Louisiana chenier system — some preliminary reinterpretations and refinements. Transactions Gulf Coast Association Geological Societies. 30:427-430.
Moore, F. R. 1999. Neotropical migrants in the Gulf of Mexico: The Chenier of Louisiana and stopover ecology. pp. 51-62, In, K. P. Able (Ed.). Gatherings of Angels. Cornell Univ. Press.
Penland, S. and J. R. Suter. 1989. The geomorphology of the Mississippi River Chenier Plain. Marine Geology. 90:231-258.
In the classic marsh book the area was mapped as (1) Sea Rim, sand and shell on the cheniers like the road and ocean strip; (2) in between below White Lake the lower half described as 3 cornered grass marsh and (3) upper sawgrass marsh with a history of being destroyed by salt water from hurricanes. O’Neil, T. 1949. The Muskrat in the Louisiana Coastal Marshes. Louisiana Department Wild Life Fisheries. New Orleans, 152p.
I haven’t seen the plans but this appears to be a lot larger than the worst effects claimed for the oil industry which has lots of experience in the area. Since this habitat is not like the existing launch sites this is going to be interesting.
Elon Musk seems to like building/proposing to build large “spaceports” adjacent to ecologically sensitive lands . . . just look at Starbase, located at Boca Chica Beach near Brownsville, TX and immediately adjacent to the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge.
And now he wants to locate a new $100+ billion spaceport near the Rockefeller Audubon Wildlife Refuge as well as the White Lake Wetlands Conservation Area and Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge* in Louisiana mashlands.
Just more evidence of how “money talks” and how politicians are so easily bought off.
*N.B. The Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge encompasses over 30,000 acres of freshwater marsh optimized as a sanctuary for wintering waterfowl. Think those birds will stay around with the sound of SpaceX rockets launching and boosters landing, oh, every other day?
Net 1,000 has a ring to it.
It does, doesn’t it!
That will be our next goal (1,000). Plants will love us! 🙂
Projected 1,000 Launches per annum, Year 2,030.
That’s nearly 3 per diem.
Or one launch every ~ 8 hours.
Or one flight of three. Like the best firework display evah.
What is your reason for evenly spacing the launches 8 hrs apart every day all year?
My company, on more than one occasion, launched 3 rockets simultaneously from the same range.
There’s an extraordinary amount of BS in the above article. Outside of the domain of SpaceX and its need to maintain/grow its commercial Starlink LEO satellites, there is no such thing as the real, or even forecast, need for increased launch rates at the “military” launch complexes at Vandenberg and Cape Canaveral . . . these two facilities sit idle for days/weeks at a time!
Just look at at this quote in the above article (my bold emphasis added):
“Today, the Space Force manages two major spaceports at Vandenberg Space Force Base, Calif., and Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Fla. Activity at the two ranges accounts for the bulk of U.S. commercial and military launches, and together they supported 175 launches in 2025.“
So that’s an average launch rate of about 88 launches per site per year, equivalent to an average launch rate for each site of one launch every four days, and that for all launches from both coasts including commercial launches! (BTW, the bulk of commercial launches are the SpaceX Falcon 9 launches from SpaceX-maintained launch sites . . . Falcon 9 rockets accounted for 101 of the 109 total orbital launches from Florida’s Space Coast).
As for this, also from the above article:
“The Space Force has acknowledged those sites are running out of room to handle the demand that’s forecasted over the next five to 10 years. In congressional testimony in May, Air Force Secretary Troy Meink said the service needs a third launch facility that can handle the larger heavy and super heavy-class rockets.”
I haven’t heard of any substantiated plans for the US military needing to launch a large number of space mission/satellites over the next 10 years . . . but I can appreciate the—ahem!—”advantages” of worst-case forecasting. Similarly, I haven’t heard of any substantiated plans for the US military to develop new heavy, let alone super heavy, rocket launch vehicles. It is beyond curious that they would need a launch vehicle larger than the SpaceX Starship Super Heavy, which they could purchase commercially for less than 10% the amortized per-launch cost it would take the military to develop and operate such a rocket on their own.
As for the Air & Space Forces Magazine headlining “White House Policy Sets Goal of Supporting 1,000 Rocket Launches a Year by 2030” . . . sure, sure, why they hell not?
epic misunderstanding
That’s a clear statement . . . got any clear facts to support it?
Golden Dome Missile Defense could possibly be part of this.
Ummmm . . . would that be Donald Trump’s redo (v2.0?) of President Reagan’s mid-1980s proposed Strategic Defense Initiative (aka “Star Wars”) defensive shield using interceptor rockets and laser beams?
That planned program died its rightful death simply because the technology required for a near-total shield did not exist and faced massive scientific and engineering barriers in addition to multiple-$trillions of unavailable taxpayer funding . . . a situation that exists even today.
I take particular note of Trump’s naming this proposed update as “Golden Dome”, since it is quite obviously he want to gild everything he sees or imagines.
By coincidence, Net One Thousand also works as a goal for the ideal level for CO2. Not that it will ever reach that, of course.
I think the current estimate is if we burned all available fossil fuels tomorrow CO2 levels would reach somewhere between 800ppm and 900ppm. I don’t think we can get to 1,000. But we can try!
“If our country is serious about returning to the Moon, reaching Mars…”
Never say never. But. We’ve “reached” Mars. If by that “they” mean send humans to Mars, well, not going to happen unless it’s a one-way trip, or is effectually a “dead astronaut soaring” return with a sign on the outside of the ship reading, “Earth or bust”, contents effectively dead on arrival. It’s interesting that the same hi-tech people that tout the bennys of AI and robotics want to send people to their certain deaths on trips to Mars. And with AI and our now sophisticated robotics, there is no need to send humans to their deaths on Mars trips, unless the intent is the forever honorable claim of having been the first country to have a human set foot on Mars. Even a robot can nail the respective country’s flag in the ground.
Bonus for the first astronaut(s) to land on Mars, they will name schools after them, as has been done for Sam Houston, George Washington, and other dead heroes.
Not trying to be a space travel critic, but, physics, sorry; trying to save an astronaut or two.
Never say never. But when mankind is able to wish itself to distance places…then we can have a colony on Mars, etc. Maybe.
Excellent comments . . . I agree.
Beyond just getting a human (or humans) to the surface of Mars, there is the really-really-difficult problem of keeping such alive for some time period once he/she/they get there, let alone getting any safely back to Earth.
If the “surface stay” is only going to be for a week or so, OK, just transport the needed life-support supplies there in the transportation and landing ships (even at the extreme additional cost of such extra mass).
But if you’re talking about about a stay of about two years (mindful that lowest energy Hohmann orbital transfer opportunities are spaced about 26 months apart), that just won’t be possible without pre-established, functioning life support infrastructure and/or stockpiled supplies existing on Mars before arrival of any humans. So, in this case, robots will step on Mars before humans.
Of course, so many people believe that Elon Musk and NASA have “all this” already worked out: Elon Musk estimates that humans will land on Mars in roughly 5 to 7 years (around 2031 to 2033) and NASA aims to land the first humans on Mars in the 2030s or early 2040s.
Shucks, I can’t pass up this opportunity to say “Not a Martian snowball’s chance in hell of either happening!”
Salute!
Never say never, sir!
I am the among the life long space enthusiasts, and even we scoffed at Elon’s plan to land the boosters on a barge! Now, after 600+ recoveries on land and sea, our plate of crow sure tastes good.
No company or agency ever launched 100 times a year…..well, Elon’s outfit is doing it almost like an airline schedule.
So start looking for a nice, fat crow. I’ll supply some Cajun seasoning and the BBQ gear.
Gums sends…
Get back to me in 2033 (with the report on humans—humans from any nation on Earth) successfully landing on Mars.
TYS receives…
Every colony has to have a “first”. There are people chomping at the bit to dedicate their life to going to Mars to colonize it. And you are assuming there’s no return planned for them. It’s about 8 months away and most of the energy expended to get there is breaking free of our atmosphere. Not so much on return.
That’s only true if it’s a one way trip.
If the outbound journey to Mars is to include the propellant to:
— accommodate in-space and on-surface boil-off of propellants over the entire mission timeline,
— the propellant for braking entry into orbit around Mars,
— the propellant for setting a lander on the Martian surface,
— the propellant for returning the lander from the Martian surface to Mars orbit,
— the propellant for returning the transportation ship (with required life support for about 9 months needed for minimum energy transit) back to Earth,
— the propellant for braking entry into orbit around Earth
— the propellant for return of a human-occupied capsule (a small portion of the Mars-Earth transportation ship) to Earth’s surface,
then most of the energy is needed for transportation of the rocket propellant mass needed for the return journey.
This is the fundamental reason for there being extensive mission engineering studies on the feasibility of in-situ propellant production on Mars!
“If.” Maybe they’ll ferry all the components for the return trip over time.
You might take note of this fact: the SpaceX Starship launch system and space vehicle planned by Elon Musk to be the means to go to/from Mars uses liquid oxygen and liquid methane propellant, both of which tend to boil off over time from ambient heat leaks into their (only low pressure-rated) storage containers, assuming no active cryogenic refrigeration.
So, maybe yes, somebody will pay the huge $ required to send all the propellants needed for the return journey from Mars to Mars well ahead (likely 2 to 5 years before) humans get there . . . and that will have to include the high-reliability, automated propellant refrigeration equipment, integrated with propellant storage tanks and the power system (PV? nuclear?) for the continuous refrigeration, and the high reliability electronics for monitoring and control of all this. Of course the Martian surface environment, and/or its low altitude orbital environment, are not very hospitable for such equipment and its necessary survival life.
Yeah, maybe.
Mr. So: The fuel problem has been solved by CliSci, the space guys need to team up with Climate Scientists, borrow their unicorns, and calculate propellant to get them and lotsa beans to Mars. The unicorn farts that keep renewables running 24/7 will power the Mars colony. Simples.
“but, physics, sorry” — epic fail misunderstanding, so sorry
Yes to claysanborn’s analysis of manned space exploration. Scifi readers born after WW2 understand why our books are usually located next to the ones with elves and wizards.
People, people, anyone still reading this thread…… Technology – 2026, onward and upward, rocketry, etc., for the most part is not the limiting factor of manned missions to Mars, it’s human physiology itself. It cannot handle a trip and months-long stay on Mars. Please research this. For example, for one, as I understand it, if humans are still alive upon landing on Mars, the subsequent year+ stay on Mars will in fact have physically turned them into “Martians”, conditioned to the low gravity; they thus can’t both survive the long gravity-free return trip that further decays their bodies, and survive back on Earth. Earth’s 3X Mars’ gravity alone will kill what’s left of their atrophied bodies. Their muscular framework isn’t the only muscle that would atrophy, the heart muscle would too. Bones lose density, eyeballs change shape, head expands, too many sieverts of radiation, psychological breaks, unexpected crises – take your pick of what.
BTW – the opening scene in “The Martian” was utterly impossible. It would take winds of several thousand MPH to lift the big rocks, etc. blow them around. The entire premise of the movie – an astronaut being stranded as he was by strong winds is ridiculous. But it was an entertaining movie, which means it met its intended objective. You see, Mars’ atmospheric density is 1/100 that of earth. You say, “But gravity is 38% that of Earth’s”. Still not going to happen. Several thousand MPH winds to get that stuff to fly around like in the movie.
Space is no place for humans. It is 24/7/365 trying to kill. Mars is a distant dead rock
with no magnetosphere and essentially no atmosphere; it too will kill. People like ocean/forest/mountain vistas, and other people.
Well, the minimum-energy, Hohmann orbit time-of-travel between Earth and Mars (outgoing or returning) is approximately 256 to 260 days (about 8.5 to 9 months).
Compare that to the longest continuous time a human has spent in zero-g: 438 days, set by Russian cosmonaut Valeri Polyakov aboard the Mir space station from 1994 to 1995 . . . and he returned safely to Earth, with normal one-g functioning returning after a short recovery time and he lived to the ripe old age of 80, dying some 27 years later in 2022.
Thus, the current evidence is that human physiology is indeed compatible with trips to/from Mars, albeit there will be the temporary, reversible body changes that you mentioned. Scientists and physicians are working on the means to minimize the atrophies during space travel, and engineers have plans for shielding against interplanetary radiation accumulated by the human body during transits to/from Mars.
This interesting fact: shortening the Earth-Mars transit time by 10% (i.e., about 26 days) by using higher-than-minimum-delta-V trajectory requires the use of about 100% more propellant! (see https://marspedia.org/Hohmann_transfer ). Therefore, talk of travelling to Mars in 3-4 months is just dreaming, without revolutionary new means of propulsion.
ToldYouSo, I enjoyed your comments. Somewhere between our two understandings is what will actually go down. I am rather extreme in my above given beliefs on mankind’s fragility, you not so much. That’s good. I say God did not intend for us to substantially leave Earth. We’ll just have to learn the hard way.
But ToldYouSo, I caught you in a very technical misconception. You said: “Compare that to the longest continuous time a human has spent in zero-g: 438 days, set by Russian cosmonaut Valeri Polyakov“. I know what you mean, but you didn’t say what you meant. It’s an easy mistake. Anything and everything orbiting Earth is very much in the grasp of Earth’s gravity; not gravity free in the technical sense. In fact anything orbiting something REQUIRES the gravity capture of that which it is orbiting. The ISS, at about 400 km altitude above Earth, is fully captured by about 90% of Earth’s gravity as what we experience here on Earth. What you mean to say is 438 days of weightlessness. There is a difference; and I’ve made that mistake too. This distinction in understanding of our human “space” travel to date is illustrative of we lay people’s concepts of space and space travel. All too often, things are not what we mere grounded people think about space travel. For example, the ISS astronauts are barely more exposed to solar and cosmic radiation than are commercial airline pilots. How can that be? Ans: The ISS is orbiting INSIDE of Earth’s magnetosphere. Astronauts going to the moon, and on the moon, and going to Mars are not protected, and they are thus fully screwed – no protection beyond what they take with them at huge $$$$$ costs. One roughly Carrington-level CME, and they are royally screwed, but then so may all of us here on Earth be, if not for different reasons, i.e. 6-month+ long power outage and the certain social-order breakdown. 🙂
And psychologically, ISS astronauts know that in a real emergency, they can bail. Even moon installed astronauts know that can bail, or rescue may be possible. Not Mars bound astronauts. Panic attack? Major/minor health issue? Forgot something really important? Better have lots of drugs and powered alcohol with.
Yes, but . . . “zero-g” is often correctly used to mean zero net acceleration in the reference frame of an observer travelling in a “free” trajectory without appreciable external drag forces.
At the same time, it is truly incorrect to say, for example, that astronauts aboard the ISS are not being subjected to Earth’s gravitational field . . . that “zero-g” literally means the absence of any gravity, which technically extends to infinity from each bit of mass in the universe. Heck, even astronauts walking on the Moon were always experiencing Earth’s gravity, not just that of the Moon.
So here’s a mind game back at ya:
Einstein said there’s no such thing as a gravitational field at all, instead mass just bends spacetime which we all are unavoidably “travelling through”, so perhaps IT ACTUALLY IS CORRECT to state that all people at all times, independent of their relative motions, are in a “zero gravity” environment. Hah!
BTW, your statement “For example, the ISS astronauts are barely more exposed to solar and cosmic radiation than are commercial airline pilots” demands clarification for accumulated exposure. The radiation exposure for ISS astronauts is calculated on the basis of continuous exposure whereas commercial airline pilots are generally limited to 8 to 10 hours of actual flight time, and not all that at high altitude, in a single day for a standard, unaugmented crew.
ToldYouSo, I concede to your point regarding accumulated exposure to radiation. Good point! Salute and cheers.
When my late brother became a rocket scientist he wasn’t allowed to talk about it. Now it seems all Toms & Janes are rocket scientists and they all want to talk about it.
Well, space exploration will require a lot of fuel/propellant.
The current plan is to do refueling in orbit from propellant launched from Earth and stored in orbit and this will require a lot of launches supporting an active Moon program and even more when a Mars program is added.
There is a lot of water ice on the Moon. We should plan on using water to power our space exploration. Supplying the ingredients from the Moon would eliminate the need for a lot of launches from Earth.
‘Water can be turned into hydrogen and oxygen propellants, or water can be used in its native form and can be superheated by various means, to high exhaust velocities which can power the vehicle which is fondly referred to as a “ Flying Tea Kettle”.
My suggestion would be to eventually establish several Solar Power Satellites (SPS) in the Earth/Moon system, one off the Moon and one near Earth and use their solar power to heat the water in the Flying Tea Kettels and propell them all over the Earth/Moon system and to Mars, too. An SPS at Mars could be used to decelerate incoming Flying Tea Kettles, and power them back to Earth when the time comes.
There’s more than one way to get something done.
So, you’re saying there’s no free launch?
Ouch.
“My suggestion would be to eventually establish . . .”
Ok, go for it . . . AFAIK, no competent engineering studies have asserted that SPS-heated water rockets are feasible for Earth-Moon-interplanetary propulsion . . . it is all wrapped up in the comparatively low deliverable Isp of heated water/steam rockets and difficulty of maintaining SPS pointing accuracy required for the concept, to say nothing of the inefficiency of converting solar power to RF power beamed to a remote, moving object.
And supplying the “ingredients” from the Moon will require a lot of machines and material processing equipment on the Moon, as well as large amounts of energy to run such . . . you know, things like:
— lunar mining and regolith moving equipment that has good traction at 1/6 g,
— lunar refining equipment that can separate water ice from the lunar regolith that it is mixed in, without putting into the ice the amount of energy (“heat”) that would cause it to sublimate directly to the Moon’s vacuum environment (including the need to keep such shaded from the direct Sun at all times),
— supplying the energy that is needed to first melt the ice (in a pressure vessel) to obtain liquid water that can be conveniently pumped around as needed,
— since liquid water is a very stable compound, next supplying all the electrical energy and equipment needed to disassociate liquid water into hydrogen and oxygen gases and safely keep both gases from accidentally intermixing and catching fire/exploding,
— the difficulty of making hydrogen piping and storage equipment leak-free in practice “is legend”,
— the SpaceX Starship HLS vehicle uses methane (CH4) as the fuel for their rockets—you know, “powering space exploration”—but one cannot manufacturer methane from just Moon “ingredients” since there is no significant carbon anywhere on or in the Moon. Methane can only be manufactured by combining the hydrogen from disassociated water with a supply of clean carbon delivered to the Moon’s surface. And while it is true that the Blue Origin lunar lander is planning to use hydrogen/oxygen propulsion for Moon transit transportation, landings and ascents, there are HUGE problems with storing liquid hydrogen, not to mention the huge energy demands and complex refrigeration plant technology required to condense quantities of it in the first place. Not the least of these problems is there is no atmosphere or liquid water on the Moon to which the heat energy extracted from the hydrogen during its gas-to-liquid cooling and phase change can be dumped . . . ooops! Of course, the same issue arises with liquifying oxygen and methane.
I dare say that trying to get all that mining, moving, separating, cooling, heating, chemical reaction, cryogenic liquifying, and cryogenic storage equipment onto the Moon will be several orders of magnitude more complex and more expensive than just directly transporting LOX, LCH4 and LH2 there as cryogenic fluids in well-insulated tanks.
Are there polls indicating how under 30’s feel about space missions? It feels a tad bit 1980’s to me.