New Mars Forums

Since the new HLV is based heavily on Shuttle components, I believe the most logical approach to building a small colony (~100 people) on the surface of Mars is this: modify the Shuttle's external tank--basically, gut it. Replace the interior with living quarters and other necessary facilities. The tank is about 8 meters wide, not dissimilar from the 10-meter hab used at FMARS and MDRS, not to mention the proposed hab for the first manned mission. Its 47-meter height more than compensates for this, as multiple floors could be built into the habitat. A crew of 25 could ride this colony ship to the Red Planet atop the proposed HLV for the Moon-Mars initiative, then unravel a tether between itself and the spent fuel tank to provide artificial gravity. Four such launches and we'd have a real "First Hundred" without the wasted billions on a multi-torused floating megalith.

Yes, it is a big deal. What's wrong with a proven design? If it's proven, then it's proven to work...safely. Besides, it's a lot more than anything any of the other NASA contractees are doing.

There is an enormous amount of evidence for liquid water.  You don't need a geology degree to be able to look at a few pictures of Mars and see fluvial erosion. It's there and it's obvious.

If the only way to get a space station is the clunky, expensive, slow, complicated, dangerous, all-consuming nature of the ISS or Mir, I'd rather spend the money and effort on something else. After all, no matter what political label, bell or whistle you slap on it, it's always a space station; by its very definition stationary.

However, if we can maintain a rotating space station along with a manned Lunar/Mars exploration program, why not?

I think NASA was onto something with the one-launch shot of Skylab. Modify the Shuttle's main tank so that it is more of a cylinder than a cone shape, perhaps utilize composites in the construction to lower weight (and therefore cost) of the station, and mass produce the whole package. Launch the first one with crew; they can spin the thing end-over-end with thrusters just to feel out the artificial gravity until more cylinders arrive. The whole ring could be assembled with six of these modules.

As for the spokes, why not modify the SRBs in a similar fashion? They're more than large enough for people and cargo to pass from point to point, and the whole station could be assembled with stuff we already have laying around. Also, just using the Shuttle stack, all the spokes could probably be launched in one go. A total of seven launches and there's a fully operational, spacious, artificial-gravity space station.

Ask Cuba how that whole "socialist utopia" thing is working out.

Those evil corporations that are running around? Nine times out of ten, they're the poor's only chance of employment. I admit that capitalism isn't perfect and that people get trampled unfairly; but it's the best system we have. Capitalism fosters creativity, economic growth, and individual liberty. Compare that to any communist system that has ever existed.

And why is SS1-derived technology incapable of releasing that amount of energy? I never said SS1 was going to orbit; SS1 was developed for suborbital flight. Its successes have laid the foundation for SpaceShipTwo, which will be designed for suborbital flights at slightly higher altitudes than the X-Prize flights. Building on these successes, a future vessel will be built for orbital flight.

How about the Japanese who told the citizens of Okinawa that the Americans would slaughter them and eat their children? Whole families commited suicide as a result. Yes, America has used propaganda. It's a part of war. When you fight a war, especially one of national survival as was the case for America in World War II, you fight to win. If that means bending the truth a little so the people will maintain their support of the war effort, so be it.

NASA's rocket program originated with captured German scientists. And yes, some were former Nazis. However, they were passive members--none had committed or were involved in Nazi war crimes. As high-level employees of the Nazi regime, they basically had no choice but to do, say, and be what Hitler's government said. If they hadn't, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because they would have been killed. As for their personal political beliefs, no one can say--they may have been virulent Nazis. But in all likelihood they, along with something like 90% of the German population, did not agree with the regime in power at that time; they went along with Hitler's madness because they were terrified of what would happen if they didn't.

Hmm. Teaching the history of one of the greatest accomplishments of life on this planet through a political lens...sounds an awful lot like propaganda to me.

But testing it on Devon Island, a plane ride away, is apparently out of the question.

I saw a documentary on the Science Channel recently about Mars missions. They focused entirely on the problems of weightlessness for an hour. They spent about five minutes in the middle talking about the very simple, logical solution (spinning the ship for artificial gravity through centrifugal force) and then dismissed it because the astronauts "might get disoriented." They proceeded to continue with why weightlessness is bad, and finally finished up with how a solar flare is going to hit the astronauts and cause their T-cells to die off, releasing latent viruses. Apparently radiation shielding is now also beyond our technology.

All the documentary's dismal assertions were backed by alleged experts on spaceflight. It truly spoke volumes about the thinking at NASA.

Hi TbOne!

I'm not an engineer (yet), but there doesn't seem to be any problem with building something along those lines. Finding the protein, however, may be another story. Part of the "triangle trade" between Earth, Mars, and perhaps the Belt will be of viable protein and nitrate sources to the red planet. Earthly "protein farmers" may breed large numbers of fish or cattle and export either the animals themselves, their embryos, or gametes from animal "donors" for breeding on Mars.

The problem with sending embryos is that they need protein to build new tissue, and since there is no protein on Mars, it has to come from somewhere. If you already know this next part, then I apologize, but protein is made up of amino acids, which are made up partially of ammonia. So...

An ammonia-rich asteroid could be mined for its ammonia, which could be shipped to labs on Mars. There, it could be made into amino acids, which could be used to manufacture synthetic protein.

So the short answer is that such an aquarium-like structure would be buildable, but finding the fish might be an issue.

I'm just going by what i know, so if I'm just way off, someone please let me know.

Cindy, as a southerner, allow me to apologize on behalf of the idiots who represent the worst section of society below the Mason-Dixon line. We're not all part of the "yankee go home" mentality; they're a small element. We don't mind yankees at all as long as "y'all" pump money into our tourist traps...er...economy.

Gah--the Civil War. The secession of one or more states was going to happen sooner or later because of the nature of our country at that time and the way our government was set up. The South had threatened secession twice before, the New England states had once or twice, and there were several more that escape me right now. It was just a matter of who worked up the nerve to go through with it and convinced themselves they could repulse an armed repression.

But as for America provoking most of our wars, think about that for a minute. Think of all the places and times we've supposedly provoked a conflict. Now think of the land we hold. The continental U.S. (granted, largely by force, particularly in the West), Alaska (purchased from Russia), Hawaii, and a few more islands. We very easily could have taken Mexico in the 1840s; we didn't. Cuba in 1900; we didn't. Canada on several occasions if I remember correctly; we didn't. All of Europe and Japan post-World War II and if we had played our cards right, the USSR; we didn't and we won't.

The U.S. is not perfect and we have made mistakes--but we are the most generous power to ever exist on this planet. We don't conquer; we liberate. We stay for long enough to clean up the mess, we democratize a formerly-authoritarian state, we make sure it's stable, and we leave. The only land we request is to bury our dead.

*Peter Griffin laugh*

You know congressmen can't read! They've only recently been conditioned to drool at the sound of an entitlement (although beltway psychologists have made great strides in teaching a few of them simple sign language). :laugh:

In all seriousness, though, I do think there needs to be some sort of mailing to Congress, although the whole Case for Mars book would be likely to fall on deaf ears. These guys are constantly being bombarded by lobbyists and special interest groups, and they probably get very bored very quickly. If they see a big thick book sitting on their desk full of technical mathematical and engineering jargon, they won't give it a second thought and they sure won't invest any time in sitting down and reading it.

What we need to send is a bright, colorful pamphlet they can stuff in their jacket pocket and glance over on their way between sessions. It should display CG renderings of Mars Direct and/or Mars Semi-Direct, FMARS and MDRS photos, as well as quotes from NASA officials as to its feasibility and a very prominent, very optimistic cost estimate--$20 billion over ten years or something on that order.

But they can't do anything if there's nothing for them to act upon. Therefore, we find several prominent members of both parties in both houses who have expressed some support for space exploration. We then convince those individuals why they should introduce an exploration bill, which can be supported in the pamphlets.

Hey, it's worth a shot.

The prevailing attitude seems to have been pretty well summed up in Apollo 13 when Tom Hanks' character is talking to a generic government official whose constituents want to know "why we keep funding this program now that we've beaten the Russians to the Moon" and who seems to have a very...umm..."endorectal" perspective of manned space exploration. I have very little faith in NASA to deliver the goods when it comes to putting boots on the ground of other worlds. That's not to say the pilots, astronauts, and engineers aren't fully capable; they're all very smart people. But they work for an extremely short-sighted governmental agency. I was excited last year when I heard about Bush's exploration vision, but I was disappointed when the details came out: 15 to 20 years for a Lunar mission? It only took us ten in the 1960s, and our technology is supposedly 40 years more advanced now! :bars2:

However, I do take heart in the fact that http://www.transformspace.com/index.html]the t/Space corporation is being contracted to develop the Lunar mission architecture along with the Boeings of the world. Burt Rutan and a whole host of other space exploration renegades are involved with t/Space, so they should have a much better handle on how to get things done rapidly and at a low cost--they hope to send their design to the Moon by 2012 or 2014. I know our ultimate goal is Mars and that there's no real reason to go to the Moon in order to get there, but I'd rather see one man on the Moon than twenty probes on Mars any day.