New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#1 Re: Not So Free Chat » I'll take malaprops for *5* Bob - Apropos of Nothing continues. . . » 2005-11-07 23:50:02
I just watched some newswoman go on about "pirates" in the Gulf of Aden. Pirates! Good Lord, how the mighty have fallen: some "pirates" -- HARUMPH! -- they got their tails whipped by the Love Boat!
Pretty weenie . . .
Did you know that a shortage of pirates causes global warming? Scroll down about 4 or 5 paragraphs.
You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.
#2 Re: Not So Free Chat » Mars Society Convention - New Mars dinner? » 2004-06-29 18:20:56
The Chicago convention starts Thursday August 18th.
Will any NewMarsians be in Chicago Wednesday evening?
Maybe we can arrange a NewMars dinner party.
#3 Re: Human missions » Cloth Diapers - Yes...you heard me right -- Diapers. » 2004-06-29 17:55:44
Soap. Any suggestions on making soap?
Toothpaste. What is baking soda, exactly? NaCl works also.
= = =
Edit: google "supercritical carbon dioxide & dry cleaning"
It appears to work wonderfully for clothes.
Unrelated:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n … eaning]CO2 "snow" cleaning
= = =
Carbon dioxide is a nontoxic, nonhazardous, nonflammable material, with no ozone depleting potential. CO2 cleaning methods are commonly applied to those contaminants that dissolve in CO2, which include most organic soils. This method of cleaning is generally not applicable to rust, scale, and most inorganic compounds.
#4 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Space elevator in the media - déjà vu? » 2004-06-29 10:37:27
A while back, we had an extended space elevator thread.
IIRC, I went nuts trying to figure out how much payload you need to lift every day just to pay the capital costs alone, ignoring operating costs.
IIRC, bringing cars back down never paid off. Adding heat shields and dumping them in the atmosphere was very much cheaper, and the thing needed to be run like O'Hare airport to have any hope of financial viability.
The elevator would be worthless without a giant freight forwarding terminal (plus hotels and restaurants for passengers) being built at the same time yet none of the elevator advocates ever seem to factor that cost into their projections.
= = =
Edit: Let us assume the technology arrives. IMHO even with the tech being available, an elevator is a financial disaster unless emigration and permanent colonization occurs simultaneously.
Nothing else will create sufficient demand for its use.
#5 Re: Not So Free Chat » Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this! » 2004-06-28 16:06:06
The temple is built to offer hope that Earth's various civilizations can vent their competitive drive without resorting to warfare.
Okay. But why Mars? Or, why Mars instead of curing Cancer? AIDS? Poverty? Ignorance? Improving the environment? Hunger? Why not the Moon? Europa? Orbital colonies?
I said competitive drive, not cooperative drive. Sports is one way we do that now. We cannot wring out our competitive natures merely by wishing it so. Space conquest as "Alternative to War"
Or that a civilization at risk of getting swamped by Terran demographics can preserve its memes at least somewhere.
Undo Mcdonalds and Hollywood. Offering the equivilent of a cultural retreat/nature preserve seems silly. Worthwhile memes survive, those less than worthwhile die off- usually for good reason. Or should we strive to save all meme's? Give jews another piece of land on Mars to protect them from the Arab demographic shift? Will the WASP's find refuge from the browning of America on Mars? I don't like this because it makes it about race, at least on some level.
Racist?
IMHO Kristi Yamaguchi and Michael Jordan are 100% all-American. Jesse Jackson and Martin Luther King Jr are 100% American originals. Memes are about ideas not genetics.
What's wrong with memetic diversity? Squeeze 10, 12 or 15 billion people onto one planet and the pressure to conform only grows.
And remember, I am talking safety valve. Even the illusion of hope can keep desperate people from taking desperate actions.
The temple is built as a pressure release safety valve to channel and deflect the hopes and aspirations and fears of billions of people who otherwise might not learn to live together in peace.
A bunch of rich educated westerners building a shining city on the hill teaches the unwashed masses what, precisely? How?
India's President seems gung-ho to join in. He wants to start extracting resources within 50 years.
And if India and China produce new software engineers, nano-tech engineers and other engineers at 4 times the rate we US-ians do, it very well may not be westerners who build that first city.
#6 Re: Not So Free Chat » Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this! » 2004-06-28 15:37:36
Mars has no gods. Why build them a temple?
The temple is built to offer hope that Earth's various civilizations can vent their competitive drive without resorting to warfare.
Or that a civilization at risk of getting swamped by Terran demographics can preserve its memes at least somewhere.
The temple is built as a pressure release safety valve to channel and deflect the hopes and aspirations and fears of billions of people who otherwise might not learn to live together in peace.
#7 Re: Not So Free Chat » Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this! » 2004-06-28 15:16:17
In this meme-infested world of ours, a powerful http://www.adage.com/news.cms?newsId=40762]myth can have tangible consequences for current politicians.
A politician who rallies a people with the promise of building a new shining city on a hill might well gain current support even if the city cannot be finished for generations.
How long did the Pyramids take? Or those cathedrals in Europe?
Yet those undertaking provided social "glue" that gave perfectly real if intangible benefits long before completion.
= = =
We can't ground the Shuttle right away (even though we will end up doing preceisely that come 2010 and an incomplete ISS) because we cannot burden the costs associated with that choice. We cannot give up or ceceed control of ISS for exactly the same reasons.
clark, have you followed the Thiokol SRB discussion?
The Delta IV has a payload bay that closely mimics the orbiter payload bay. Funny, that.
A single 5 segment Thiokol SRB together with an upper stage having equal perfomance as the shuttle SSME seems to have the ooomph to put ISS modules up at 51 degrees. With enough extra mass margin to include an Orbital Recoveries style station-keeping module.
Then collect it with Progress and drag to ISS for installation.
We reprise our early discussions (from February/March) just mix and match Delta IV upper stage and Thiokol SRBs.
Thinking about it, the quote from the Boeing guy in the spaceflightnow post seems to imply exactly this.
#8 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Calling our rocket scientists! - Another dumb question » 2004-06-28 14:47:48
A Centaur stage could reach orbit without a lower stage, but couldn't carry much except itself - not enough payload to make the launch worthwhile. Some other workhorse rocket stages are like that, just not the old shuttle SRB's.
Are you sure? The Centaur has a T/W ratio of less than .5, so it would have to burn more than half it's fuel before it even got off the ground.
Isn't this exactly why you put it on top of an SRB or some other first stage?
The magic = if = of Thiokol's claim (it seems to me) is whether an SRB can lift a Centaur to an altitude and velocity sufficient to place a reasonable amount of payload in orbit. And can another booster do that more cheaply.
Thiokol SRBs do lift the orbiter.
The press kit claims that 2 SRBs provide 71% of the lift for the first 2 minutes.
Is it wrong to work linearly and believe that a single SRB with an upper stage of equal performance to the SSMEs could place in LEO 35% of the orbiter launch mass? (71% divided by 2)
Okay 25% of the LH2/LOX fuel gets burned during those first 2 minutes (and none of our hypothetical 2nd stage fuel gets burned while the SRB is running) so this 35% figure needs to be reduced, but by how much?
= = =
How much R&D would be needed for a 6 segment SRB?
#9 Re: Not So Free Chat » Three cheers for Sam Dinkin! - Read this! » 2004-06-28 14:08:13
But here's the thing, no one is going to go to war over celestial resources. It just dosen't work out the same way it once did. Any other meaningful nation can deny any other nation by virtue of economics or a emp burst in the upper atmosphere. We have more in common because it's the G8 that can realistically access space (not the rest of the sodden poor world) and make a dollar (if it can be done) so they have a common interest to divy up the sky together.
Frankly, where I disagree with Dinkin is with the idea that nation-states will be the principal actors for going out into space.
As we have discussed before, I believe the "civilizational lines" described by Samuel Huntington will play a greater role than national identity as the lines which define competing interest groups, although national identities will certainly play a large supporting role.
Conventional nationalism runs into a dead end out in space because it will be pragmatically impossible to maintain political control over a self sustaining colony.
= = =
So I agree, Terran nation-states may very well not go to war with each other (unless maybe the United States is too blatant about space hegemony) over space resources but that doesn't mean people won't go to war in some other manner.
#10 Re: Human missions » The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush » 2004-06-28 12:17:21
Kerry says he favors space prizes. http://www.spacepolitics.com/]Look here.
Its a blog so the link will move. If I remember I will try to perma-link.
#11 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Calling our rocket scientists! - Another dumb question » 2004-06-27 20:13:01
The RL-10 I think goes for around $3M a pop, so I would imagine the heavy Centaur upper stage would cost in the neighborhood of $10M-12M.
So that means that using the current 4 segment SRB + upper stage, the final vehicle should easily cost less than $60 million per copy after R&D is finished. Still, the SRB & RL-10 are well proven systems, right?
Now = IF = Mike Kahn is telling the truth about this configuration giving 35K - 40K to LEO (Ding that "if" bell)
THEN, we are looking at about $1500 per pound or less with a made in USA vehicle.
Pure cargo only. That 8 gee escape mode? Nah, no thanks.
Musk's Falcon V was advertised at $1,000 per pound.
#12 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Calling our rocket scientists! - Another dumb question » 2004-06-27 19:41:33
Okay, no CEV on the Thiokol SRB. 
Still, might a 5 segment SRB + liquid upper stage carry 40,000 or 50,000 pounds of uncrewed payload?
That Thiokol guy thought the 4 segment SRB + upper stage could carry 35,000 to 40,000 pounds and that should be at 1/2 the price per pound of Delta IV.
$40-$45 million for a 5 segment SRB and ?? for 2 RL-10s right?
#13 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Calling our rocket scientists! - Another dumb question » 2004-06-27 13:07:25
Why couldn't you put an escape rocket on top of the capsule like with Apollo? http://www.nasaexplores.com/show2_5_8a. … gl=58]Link
Wouldn't a CEV be on top of a 2nd stage on top of the SRB?
SRB malfunction? The escape rocket fires, pulling the CEV capsule up and away.
Add a few degrees directional control to the escape rocket and add small attitude thrusters at the top of the SRB to induce diverging trajectories for the SRB and the CEV capsule after the CEV aborts.
= = =
Compare to Atlas V - - that uses an SRB also so it beceoms bean counting.
Is the Atlas SRB segmented?
My reading suggests 6 segment Thiokol SRBs are not feasible for use on the shuttle because of stresses on the shuttle stack being beyond design limits.
Is that true for an SRB plus upper stage? How much could a six segment SRB plus RL-60 lift to LEO?
= = =
The price level for Thiokol SRBs is well established. After selling NASA 200 + of the things, knowing exactly how much they cost is not a gray area.
My reading says about $35 million each.
Besides, what else is there?
???
#14 Re: Life support systems » Constructing a larger settlement - One idea » 2004-06-26 15:36:03
I am thinking of a tube with an internal 8 meter radius (25 feet for us US-ians).
How big around does that made the entire thing? (I guess that depends on how big or small you make the donut hole.)
With 25 feet of interior space, you have three levels or floors. Storage on the top level to aid radiation protection.
It cannot be sent fully assembled, obviously. Send it vacuum packed and compressed as much as is feasible.
Interior fitings are added after inflation. Interior doors, alloy (or plastic) stairs and ladders; furniture, etc. . .
I have long visualized water and air filled plastic furniture. Easy to ship, all rolled up, and then just fill with a few inches of water for weight and stability and air to finish the job.
That also allows storage of reserve water, you sleep on it every night.
And the exact same inflatable furniture can be sold on Earth with profits going to help fund the setlement.
Edit: If we can accept various diameters for the internal tube, you can collapse the thing for shipping, like a telescope.
8 meters for X distance, then 7 meters, then 6 meters. Before launch the 6 meter section slides into the 7 meter section, then they both slide into the 8 meter section.
Any origami experts?
#15 Re: Human missions » Can we finish the ISS - using Delta IV Heavy? » 2004-06-26 15:14:57
Can we finish ISS with a 5 segment (6 segment?) Thiokol SRB mated to a cryogenic 2nd stage and a Delta IV payload fairing?
We would need a payload stabilization module to make sure the payload can station keep and maintain attitude control while in LEO.
An attachment device like Orbital Recoveries intends might work. Attach it to a truss, for example, in Florida and send the truss up with the attachment in place.
Then put an orbiter up and have it use the robotic arm to collect the ISS components.
Install 3 or 4 ISS components per flight and bring back the stabilization modules for re-use.
#16 Re: Life support systems » Constructing a larger settlement - One idea » 2004-06-26 10:18:46
Ian, I see no reason why TransHab fabric could not be sewn into whatever shape you wanted.
A torus sounds excellent except for the need to sew all the parts together unless it could be shipped in one piece. (I am looking at my kid's swimming pool inner tube right now and it does seem an ideal shape!)
IIRC TransHab fabric can be 12 inches thick, or more, when expanded. Perhaps it can be compressed (and de-compressed) and vacuum packed for shipment to Mars.
Then unroll and inflate.
Include aerogel layers and boronated plastics along with layers of kevlar and include air pockets or water bladders as part of the 12 inch thick fabric.
Rather like a hi-tech fabric "Dagwood" sandwich.
= = =
For torus #1 I might suggest hydroponics because Marsian regolith very likely has nasty stuff in it, perhaps including heavy metals.
IMHAO (humble amateur opinion) seeds stuck in regolith and then watered will merely die, or worse, incorporate heavy metals into the plant matter.
Set up a regolith processing plant to screen out heavy metals and balance the pH and then mix it into plant waste and processed human waste and then we can start formulating Marsian soil.
Regolith ain't soil. Soil requires a staggeringly complex suite of Terran micro-organisms.
= = =
Water storage might well be in tubes sewn into the ceiling run around the entire torus. A nice added radiation shielding.
= = =
Why dig? Just plop it into a crater and inflate. (Okay, smooth the surface first) :;):
I guess digging some tunnels first makes sense, then deploy the de-flated torus in the crater on top of the tunnels.
= = =
Inflate the torus to 50% of Terran sea level pressure maybe with very slightly elevated oxygen partial pressures to best tune the gas mixtures for optimal human respiration.
Inflate the outer dome to 25% of Terran sea level pressures and mix gases that are best suited for plant respiration.
= = =
Ian, find some investors, hire Constance Adams (a TransHab architect) and start sewing TransHab fabric into whatever shapes you want.
The big torus will cost you $XYZ but I have the intermediate model at 25% off list price. . .
If you need added radiation protection, hang plastic/boron radshield tapesties inside the torus, and if your torus is big enough to allow two or more levels, people sleep on the ground floor with storage on the top floor.
#17 Re: Interplanetary transportation » The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...) » 2004-06-26 08:42:38
You say none of this ESA vehicle is reusable but imply some of Shuttle C is.
Maybe, but it costs more to reuse the reusable bits than throwing them away would.
We need to follow this logic more. Is re-useable really cheaper?
And yes, there is lots of shady political history behind the segmented SRBs, but after 200+ flights (2 per orbiter) the simple truth is that Thiokol has made them perhaps the most reliable booster America has.
Any disagreement that a lone SRB plus RL-10s or equal could put 35,000 - 40,000 pounds into LEO for less than $2,000 per pound?
A start up American company could buy an SRB off the shelf, buy RL-10s off the shelf, construct a bare bones launch pad in the Carribean and then compete with Zenit on cost for sending bulk supplies into LEO.
= = =
It seems to me that this is very much the Russian approach.
Take tried and true technology and use it, over and over.
How "old" is the Soyuz R-7 booster anyways?
#18 Re: Space Policy » President of India calls for joint - US/Indian habitat on Mars by 2050 » 2004-06-25 20:38:33
http://www.indiaexpress.com/news/techno … .html]Link here - - he also wants mining to commence as well.
Intensive partnership between the two countries using space exploration, particularly mining of minerals by space industries from moon, asteroids and establishment of first habitats in Mars was another point he suggested.
He said he visualised in 2050 an Indo-US team establishing a habitat on Mars, setting up mining industrial units in space and working on a joint programme to destroy or deviate asteriods when the earth is endangered.
#19 Re: Human missions » Euro version of Mars Direct - Thoughts? » 2004-06-25 17:20:11
Found this http://www.marssociety.de/emc/proceedin … a.pdf]link and posted it in "The Myth of Heavy Lift" but then decided it deserves its own thread.
Check out the cost estimates for the 1st mission and follow on missions.
#20 Re: Interplanetary transportation » The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...) » 2004-06-25 17:16:22
You do know that when the shuttle srb's where first proposed there where cheaper safer options on the table.
But the then president (Nixon) went with thiokol as it was based in Utah and the then senator........
Yes, I have read that. . . ???
But, the SRB has flown over 200 times and only one failed.
And after the Challenger upgrades its surely safer than before. And, do we really want to start from scratch?
= = =
Different direction.
Super-heavy Ariane, http://www.marssociety.de/emc/proceedin … a.pdf]here. 
#21 Re: Interplanetary transportation » The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...) » 2004-06-25 17:01:14
The shuttle srbs are not a cheap option i really wish they where.
SRBs run $30 to $35 million each. ( According to this source: http://www.orbit6.com/crisf/text/shc_to … hc_tom.htm ) It may be out of date.
It appears to me that 40,000 lbs to LEO would require 2 RL-10s on top of an SRB. How much would 2 RL-10s cost?
With astronautix down I cannot verify.
Musk intends to use 1 RL-10 in his Falcon V and to charge $20 million for the entire flight and deliver 20,000 lbs to LEO.
If 2 RL-10s cost $20 million and the combo could put 40,000 pounds in LEO, that would mean less than $2,000 per pound for an all-American medium lift launch vehicle.
40,000 lbs x $1,500 = $60,000,000 right?
A single SRB plus a cryogenic upper stage could be as inexpensive as Zenit-2 for cargo.
= = =
As cheap as alt-space promises to be? Well, maybe not.
Falcon V promises 20,000 lbs for $20,000,000 which is $1,000 per pound. $1,500 per pound to lift a 40,000 lb facility and avoid on-orbit assembly seems like a good deal.
= = =
http://www.spacequest.com/Articles/The% … .doc]Great essay on Elon Musk and Falcon 1 and V.
Falcon V is his new booster plus one RL-10 yet is small medium, lifting at most 20,000 lbs.
One SRB plus 2 RL-10s (or RL-60?) allegedly could lift 40,000 lbs at Zenit prices.
$1500 per pound versus $1000 per pound to send your stuff up in 40K chunks rather than 20K chunks? What is the cost of on-orbit assembly?
Falcon V for crew taxi. $1000 per pound.
SRB + RL-60s for medium lift up to 40,000 pounds.
Shuttle C with RS-68s up to what, 150,000 pounds?
Stretched ET, 5 segment SRBs and a big upper stage for 200,000 pounds plus.
A nice menu of launch options.
#22 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Calling our rocket scientists! - Another dumb question » 2004-06-25 14:16:06
This question is about rocketry basics. Please help!! :-)
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/tec … .html]This site reports that the Thiokol shuttle SRB weights about 1,300,000 pounds at launch with about 192,000 pounds of structural weight and 1,100,000 pounds of fuel.
This gives a mass fraction of 14.7% correct? (192/1300)
Is that enough to attain LEO if there were no payload whatsoever? Could any payload attain LEO on a lone SRB?
If yes, then $40 million divided by payload equals price per pound, correct?
What about mating a Delta or Atlas upper stage to a lone SRB and how much can be lifted to LEO?
= = =
Now is a carbon fiber SRB or a glass fiber SRB feasible?
http://www.optipoint.com/far/farbdb.htm]This site says "yes" and carbon fiber would cut structural weight by 80% while fiberglass would cut structural weight by maybe half to two-thirds.
Could such a vehicle attain LEO by itself? How much payload?
All of the structural weight savings translates directly to payload, correct?
= = =
The current steel SRB has a known and well established price. $30 - $40 million each and a 99.5+ reliability track record.
Challenger was too cold and only one failed and the post-Challenger modifications mean the current SRB is very reliable, correct? After all, how many SRBs have launched with crew at risk and not failed?
= = =
Thiokol testified to Congress as follows:
On a smaller scale – the crew exploration vehicle program plan shows demonstrator flights as early as 2008, and unmanned vehicle flights by 2011. Since this vehicle will probably only weigh 35-40K lbs, the heavy lift configuration may not be required. In keeping with the approach of maximizing use of common hardware and proven infrastructure so costs and risks can be minimized, and safety and reliability maximized, a Shuttle-derived solution should also be considered.
A human rated and flight proven CEV launch system can be available by simply utilizing a single booster combined with a liquid engine second stage. This configuration would use the same infrastructure, launch pad and people as the heavy lift transportation system. Additionally, if there is a 35-40K lb payload/cargo requirement instead of the CEV, the same system could be used – further improving overall cost effectiveness.
Does this mean a liquid stage on top of an SRB?
http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/tes … =3362]Link
If the SRB is $40 million and the payload is 35,000 - 40,000 pounds, how much is the upper stage and final cost per pound to LEO?
#23 Re: Not So Free Chat » US Election chat? - Irrelevant! » 2004-06-25 13:29:17
20% is a pretty big margin, and you never know who's standing on shaky ground.
If Josh's link is right, the shaky ground is all in Ohio, Iowa, Michigan and Arkansas along with Florida, Missouri, Nevada and Arizona.
Okay, Cobra, you are on shaky ground. Here in Illinois I could vote for Bugs Bunny and it wouldn't matter.
#24 Re: Not So Free Chat » US Election chat? - Irrelevant! » 2004-06-25 09:51:46
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicsel … ]Allegedly, 80% of Americans say there is no way they will change from Bush to Kerry or Kerry to Bush.
So I guess there is nothing to discuss, right?
:;): ??? 
#25 Re: Interplanetary transportation » The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...) » 2004-06-25 08:46:51
Now why do you suppose the Shuttle has SRBs?
Yet SRBs are 99.5%+ reliable. After Challenger modifications, none have failed.
How much do SRBs cost? The one link suggests $30M each. How much additional mass can we get into LEO for that $30M?
= = =
Edit: http://www.optipoint.com/far/farbdb.htm]This site proposes making SRBs out of fiberglass or carbon fiber.
If SRBs were deemed 100% expendable would that lower the cost per pound for cargo to LEO via shuttle B/C?
How about a re-useable carbon fiber SRB?
As a rule of thumb, 1 kg of carbon fiber will replace 5 kg of steel. Thus, if the SRB caseing were made of carbon fiber (why not ? - they are being refilled), our percentage would theoretically not be 13 but 2.5! Fiber glass is heavier, but still the gain is substantial. A percentage of 5 seems possible. Immagine a BDB with a 5% structural weight
Okay, what am I missing here?