New Mars Forums

I never mentioned anything that involved a cable going from earth to the moon. You are right, that idea is pretty stupid. Maybe Phobos got abit confused with what I said, but i'm pretty sure the neither of us were talking about a cable from earth to the moon. (the whole solar electric propulsion thing is the means of getting to the top of the elevator on the moon).

The more I think about it, the more I like the concept. (provided people manage to make suitable cables).

thanks,
Rob

Everything that seems to have been mentioned here for lunar/mars missions seems VERY expensive.

Wouldn't it be better if no chemical propulsion was needed beyond LEO?

I'm sure this would be possible (for the moon at least).

I think the best option that is achievable in the near future would involve solar electric propulsion and a space elevator on the moon.

A conventional 2nd gen RLV could be used to transport the modules of the spacecraft into orbit, which would then travel from earth orbit to lunar orbit as much as required. (stopping at ISS for refueling)

The vehicle would only need to consist of a propulsion module (very scaleable as more propulsion modules could be added), and a human hab module that could be left at the ISS if not required in that particular mission. The mission payloads could simply be docked to the side of the propulsion module.

This craft would enter lunar orbit, move its payloads to the elevator, then the elevator would move the payload to the surface.

NO CHEMICAL PROPULSION NEEDED! (beyond LEO at least)

Once this basic infrastructure is in place, a moon base would be cheaper to maintain than the ISS currently is. (assuming shuttle for ISS, 2nd gen RLV for moon).

A space elevator on the moon would probably be quite cheap. People are considering using these on earth! (moon would be much easier/cheaper)
see:
http://www.space.com/busines....-1.html

thanks,
Rob

Shaun,
you mentioned this in your post:

"I should, in fairness, point out that many Australians support
the notion of a republic, though they are in the minority at present."

Actually, 90% of Australians support the notion of a republic.
We don't hate the queen, and we are all sad to see the queen's mum die. The british monarchy is just left over from the past, and has no relevance to any everyday australian.

Recently there was a referendum asking australians whether we should become a republic or not. Basically, the federal government worded the questions in such a way that would encourage people to say no. The no case won, but only because people wanted to adopt a republic in a different manner than was being offered.

The Australian PM spends too much time thinking about the past. He never looks toward the future, except in the short timeframe of 3 years.

He is encouraging racism, and is basically trying to get into bed with America. Its not like alot of americans even know where australia is!

'nuff said.
-Rob

I know my moon non-idea is very ambitious. It would probably be reasonable only if silicon is not readily available on mars. Even then it would require a large population to support it.

I think the way in which electrical generation is going to be cheapest is by means of utilising what is available on mars. NOT what is cheap to bring from earth.

I think we pretty much all aggree that initially a nuclear reactor will be needed. In other threads i've stated that i'm concerned about nuclear fission for power generation. But that only applies to earth. Initially fission is probably the only sensible option.
My hope is that H-H fusion will become available. D-T fusion may be inconveniant due to not being able to get the hydrogen isotope easily on mars.

H-H Fusion really is the answer, however for obvious reasons we must look at other approaches, and the cheapest approach will probably involve utilising what is easily available there.

That limits us to:
-sunlight to split water into H2 and O2, then using fuel cell
-possibly solar
-wind (doesn't seem to attractive to me though)
-nuclear fusion (doesn't seem too likely in short term)
-nuclear fission (requires materials being sent from earth.. may be expensive)

What have I missed here?

I wouldn't be concerned about dust storms and no power at night (in case of solar); fuel cells are excellent batteries.

Any other ideas?

Would I be correct in saying that geo-thermal energy is not available, or extremly limited on mars?

-Rob

I like Lil_vader's concept (using existing rock and just digging into it)

The ideas that have been suggested thus far sound VERY expensive to me. Just simple things like making bricks and laying them is a very slow, time consuming process.

Whoever works on this may be outside the hab for so long that they receive lethal ammount of radiation. Remember its the same radiation level as working outside the space station, and I know NASA wouldn't like to have its astronauts working long shifts outside the station for weeks on end. Why would mars be any different?

I feel that the moving "bubble" concept just sounds too bulky, thus expensive. Remember the materials required for this are going to have to be moved into orbit at a cost of around US$1000/pound (whatever a pound is.. i'm used to kilo's)

Look at how tunnels are created on earth (water, transport, etc). They consist of a huge drilling worm type device, which is probably quite feasible to have on mars. Only one, about the size of the hab would be required.
They drill through the rock, leaving a rough tunnel. Dangerous rocks are then removed, and where necessary, cemented.
Inside the tunnel, the rubbel from creating the tunnel (decent sized rocks) could be rearranged to create a living environment (ie stone age huts).

This would provide a crude living environment for the first permanent mars bases. The intention is that the whole tunnel could be pressureised, and slowly fabricated using techniques that would have to be developed on mars by method of trial and error.

Would pressurising the whole tunnel would create a problem with loss of oxygen due to escaping through cracks or getting absorbed by rocks.

Its crude, but I haven't heard another way to create sizeable living/working space for a reasonable cost.

-Rob

Is it possible to make solar panels on mars?

It you could make them, surely they would be the best option as it wouldn't require being sent from earth.

Doesn't the silicon in solar panels require being treated in a nuclear reactor? if so, that means that we would need need a reactor anyway. But it would only need to be small. Perhaps the reactor could be recycled from electricity generation when the outpost gets established properly.

Perhaps have a manned station on the moon creating solar arrays? I can't imagine it being too expensive. A 2nd gen RLV could get a crew into space, then they could transfer to another craft for transit to the moon. I can't imagine it being too expensive to maintain either once they are established. (crews rotation every 12 months or so)

I don't know about my non-original moon suggestion, but I think we should just look at what is available on mars for electrical generation.

-Rob

There is alot of GM emotion going around it at the moment. If someone presented me with a cupboard full of GM products, I wouldn't hestitate to eat it. (provided it is considered suitable for human consumption)

Going back to my previous comment, your way of getting rid of the waste sounds rather expensive to me.

What about Chernobyl? (I know that also creates alot of emotion. But that emotion is created with good cause)

Sure, a properly run nuclear industry IS safe. But what about the other factors that should be taken into account. I don't like the idea of private industry controlling nuclear plants. They would take shortcuts. Even a government run plant would take shortcuts. Anyone living in a country with a conservative government would not be able to deny this.

Forgetting everything except price, Wind still comes out on top.

*end of nuclear discussion*

-Rob

I know this is still off the topic, but the argument that was made about the cost of nuclear power generation being cheaper is false.

"This makes nuclear power very expensive. It is estimated that it will cost 3.0 to 4.5 pence per kilowatt-hour by 2020, compared with 1.5 to 2.4 p/kWh for onshore wind power. Combined heat and power comes in at 1.6 to 2.4 p/kWh and gas-fired generation at 1.8 to 2.1 p/kWh. "Nowhere in the world have new nuclear stations yet been financed within a liberalised electricity market," the report points out.
"
-New Scientist 15 Dec 01

It was an article discusussing a leaked british government review. I have not taken the quote out of context, either. The costs include insurance and disposal of radioactive waste.

thanks,
Rob

I am completely in favour of Nuclear Propulsion, and think it should be invested in heavily by NASA and ESA. In the long term, they would get a large return from their investment.

What sort of force can these things produce? (N/kg) where the mass takes into account propellant (& storage) and engine.

Also, how would the fissionable materials be transported into orbit? The thought of transporting enough fissionable material to orbit in order to get a manned spacecraft to mars in 1 month makes me kinda nurvous.

I'm okay with fission power for small probes where an exploding rocket would produce little consequences, but a worldwide contamination of this stuff doesn't sound too fun to me.

By the way, I am a "greeny" (member of the Australian Greens political party). I am also pro nuclear fission for science. NOT for everyday power generation. The costs and risks are too high.

thankyou,
Rob