New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: This forum is accepting new registrations by emailing newmarsmember * gmail.com become a registered member. Read the Recruiting expertise for NewMars Forum topic in Meta New Mars for other information for this process.

#1 Re: Human missions » Shuttle External Tank as Colonist Transport » 2006-01-21 15:09:53

Then, after you have your refurbishable tank in its proper orbit, you have to shuttle up all the furnishings for it. Sensors, Electronics, Life Support, and so on and so on. These furnishings probably consist of upwards of 50-75%% of your mass anyways, so the savings in launch cost are not that great. Then you have to actualy refurbish and install all this equipment, which is going to both compiclated and time consuming. I question the safety of it all, since the furnishings cannot be tested to the same extent the could be on Earth.

Precisely. Perhaps I was not clear enough in my earlier post; I was not referring to transforming a spent fuel tank while in orbit, but to taking the basic design of the fuel tank and transforming it on the ground, then launching it atop the new HLV stack. Refurbishing a tank in orbit certainly would be a terrible idea, so apologies if it seemed that's what I was advocating.

Yeah, the Shuttle external tank doesn't make much of a spacecraft on its own. Its really thinner then I'm comfortable with considering the space debries environment, and a few inches of insulating foam isn't going to stop micrometeoroids nor insulate very well in space. Plus, the foam will probobly break down from the UV/Proton/Cosmis Ray radiation combined with wildly uneven heating, and might break off. The aluminum tank itself offers inferior radiation protection too.

Again, perhaps I should've been more clear; If we've only learned one thing from the last two shuttle launches, it's that foam insulation is a bad idea. The modified (i.e. totally refurbished/ready to live in even before launch) tank would forego any use of foam insulation. As for radiation/spacejunk protection, the sheer inner volume of the tank allows for ample space in which to increase protection from such hazards, while still allowing for a spacious interior living environment.

Though I must admit the transhab idea has always intrigued me. wink

#2 Re: Human missions » Shuttle External Tank as Colonist Transport » 2006-01-20 15:27:28

Since the new HLV is based heavily on Shuttle components, I believe the most logical, cost-effective approach to sending a small colony (~100 people) to Mars is this: modify the Shuttle's external tank--basically, gut it, replacing the interior with living quarters and other necessary facilities. The bottom of the ship could house engines and power supplies, providing a few meters of radproofing for the bottom floors; its 47-meter height assures that such protection would increase toward the middle of the ship, which could serve as an emergency radiation shelter in the event of solar flares. Furthermore, the tank's 8-meter diameter assures comfortable, even spacious (when compared with past exploration vehicles) living--it sure beats my dorm room. lol
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.

#3 Re: Human missions » My Shuttle-derived Colonization Plan » 2006-01-20 12:16:36

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.

#4 Re: Human missions » "Lily-Livered Pansies," huh? » 2005-08-10 17:00:30

STS-114 was a success in terms of the fact that it didn't blow up. That's about it. This flight was as exciting as a dump truck getting a flat tire and fixing it on the way to the landfill, because that's essentially what they did.

I can understand -- to a point -- folks of the younger generation being excited about the Shuttle. Sure, they either were born after the Apollo era or were too young to remember it (I remember Apollo, even though I was a little kid at the time).

I am a member of the younger generation of which you speak (I was born about 6 months after the Challenger accident). Even at the age of 6, I can't remember any of my classmates being excited about the shuttle. We talked about the Moon and wondered why people weren't living and working there. We wanted to know when we were going to Mars.

So even in my elementary years during the 90-Day Report era, kids were not impressed by the shuttle. It just seemed stupid to us that NASA could send people to the moon 25 years before we were born, but could not during the 90s.

#5 Re: Human missions » t/Space & the media - Marketing in part of the deal » 2005-08-05 16:47:34

So they threw a big scale model of their glossie, itself just a copy of a proven design, full of sand bags into the ocean. Big deal.

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.

#6 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » July 16, 1945 » 2005-07-17 16:01:12

I'm not greatly versed in fine specifics regarding WWII, but does anyone think the U.S. would have dropped a nuclear bomb on Germany ala Hiroshima/Nagasaki, if by late 1945 the war in Europe wasn't where it was?  I'm GLAD it didn't go to that point of course...I'm just wondering.

I don't know for a fact, but I don't think there's any doubt the U.S. would have dropped hell on Germany if the need had arisen. For that matter, whoever had it first would have used it simply because of the stakes of that war.

As an interesting sidenote, my grandfather was slated to be in the first wave of the invasion of Japan. Had we not used the A-Bomb, I probably would never have been born. Not saying that justifies it, of course. :laugh:

#7 Re: New Mars Articles » NASA Horse Pucky - NASA avoiding ant-water evidence » 2005-07-13 13:39:25

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.

#8 Re: Intelligent Alien Life » The Extraterrestrial Pope - Religion and aliens, how will they mix? » 2005-07-10 00:09:41

Any religion of either human or extraterrestrial origin that has an analogue in the opposite civilization will use the existence of its counterpart as "proof" of its own legitimacy. Say 50 light-years away, there are those who believe that an all-powerful being created the universe and then sent a messiah to die for everyone's sins; Christians, as well as their alien counterparts, will come out saying "See? We were right all along!" But inevitably, there would be dissenters who think that no, the real messiah hasn't come yet, and then it's the Jews' turn; and on and on and on.

So essentially, nothing would really change except that the next Jerry Falwell might have tentacles and eight eyes :laugh: .

#9 Re: Human missions » Spinning Space Station » 2005-07-09 22:50:14

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.

#10 Re: Not So Free Chat » Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" » 2005-06-29 21:47:10

I just got back from seeing it. I liked it a lot--very edge-of-your-seat and tense; and the characters were very believable and well-acted. They did play with the original story to fit the modern setting, but other than replacing H.G. Wells with Tom Cruise as protagonist, they stayed pretty close to the book.

Of course, I might be a tad biased since I spent two days working as an extra in Lexington, Virginia back in December :laugh: . They used my scene quite a bit, but unfortunately I didn't see myself. Somebody I was with said they saw me though, so look for a large-headed, bearded white male in the part after the ferry scene big_smile .

In all seriousness though, I really enjoyed the film and would recommend it to anyone at New Mars.

#11 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Communism - Just like Star Trek » 2005-06-25 21:28:14

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.

#12 Re: Civilization and Culture » Music on Mars - To what will the Martians jam? » 2005-06-25 01:01:40

After they've spent a hard sol's night mining the land, pumping CFC's into the atmosphere and throwing people out of airlocks,  :laugh: what will the colonists listen to in order to unwind once they get back to their tuna-can hab? Will there be frivolous future pop hits beamed in from Earth, or will they go for Beethoven? What about jazz? '60s rock? Furthermore, will they have room for, as well as capability to obtain, musical instruments?

Personally I would love to see the first crew to Mars blasting Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song" on the way. big_smile  Then of course there's my old favorite: John, Paul, George, and Ringo.


*As a side note, has anyone heard of Robert Randolph and the Family Band? I highly reccommend checking out some of their stuff; they are absolutely phenomenal musicians. Kind of a funk overtone with hints of gospel and rock. Think Allman Brothers meets Earth Wind & Fire.

#13 Re: Human missions » Rutan:  NASA is Dull » 2005-05-23 19:38:48

Posted on May 23 2005, 00:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote (el scorcho @ May 22 2005, 16:30)
Suborbital space tourism on a large scale will lead to breakthroughs in propulsion and vehicle design--and I disagree with the statement that an orbital vehicle will not even resemble SpaceShipOne. Orbit, I believe, is generally agreed to be a height of 400 km--SS1 got to 100 km with N2O and tire rubber. Orbit with SS1-derived technology is probably a lot closer than we think.

Wrong. Getting into orbit has almost nothing to do with your altitude, getting up that high isn't too hard, the problem is staying up there: in order to enter a stable low-Earth orbit, you have to be moving fast... very fast. Eighteen thousand miles an hour fast, if memory serves. You have to moving perpandicular to the surface so quickly, that you "fall" around the curvature of the Earth, basically flying thousands of kilometers to "get out of the way" of the Earth before you fall and hit the atmosphere. SSO just barely reached that high altitude even with a Mach-3 dash, and had almost zero tangent velocity... Thats why it needs three hundred times the energy.

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.

#14 Re: Human missions » Rutan:  NASA is Dull » 2005-05-22 19:30:52

I'd say everyone here has a healthy respect for the robotic probes and what NASA is doing with them--I spent a Friday night date watching live coverage of the Huygens probe's descent to Titan with my girlfriend. Thankfully, she's very tolerant of my obsession with space. :laugh:

But let's face it: most people outside the space community would much rather watch Desperate Housewives than hear about the sandpit trials of a little rover that could. NASA has basically defined itself by the robotic probes and to most people, that is very dull. John Q. Public could care less about the chemical composition of this or that rock.

Suborbital space tourism on a large scale will lead to breakthroughs in propulsion and vehicle design--and I disagree with the statement that an orbital vehicle will not even resemble SpaceShipOne. Orbit, I believe, is generally agreed to be a height of 400 km--SS1 got to 100 km with N2O and tire rubber. Orbit with SS1-derived technology is probably a lot closer than we think.

#15 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government? » 2005-04-13 20:20:43

Would that Be the USA that told it's own people that It dropped nukes on a couple of Japanese Naval Bases. Nagasaki was a Naval Base like New York is a Naval Base.

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.

Frankly they need to embrace the truth and teach it in schools. So all the little kids know exactly what it took to get to the Moon.

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.

#16 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government? » 2005-04-13 13:53:49

I have ony one thing to Say. If you are a UN nation and the Americans step up and claim Dominion of the World, Say yes under the singular policy: Not without Democracy. That way the Majority of the World can elect a president who will never again be American.

The Americans (along with Britain and a few others) are doing more to save the U.N. than anyone else has had the guts to do over the last fifty years. We Americans pay the most into the U.N., we host the U.N. in our country, and we have usually been the ones to put some force behind the otherwise-meaningless slips of paper they agree upon. After seventeen resolutions against Saddam Hussein over a twelve-year period, who actually put some clout behind the warnings? The U.S.-led coalition.

And as for democratic principles, the budding mideast democracies (as well as the rest of the world) have Americans to thank, not Kofi Annan.

As noted above, the U.N. "subverts and destroys" itself. This is an organization in which Libya and Cuba hold chairs on the human rights panel. This is an organization whose peacekeepers rape the people they claim to protect. And need I mention Oil-for-Food?

Okay, feel free to tear me apart.

#17 Re: Human missions » The Lunar Folly - NASA Scientists give their reasons. » 2005-03-21 20:02:26

Quote 
Testing all this technology on the Moon, which is only 2 or 3 days away from Earth, is going to be much easier than testing it on Mars, six months away.

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

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.

#19 Re: Civilization and Culture » Protien Sources for First Colonies - An idea » 2005-03-20 01:02:33

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. smile

#20 Re: Other space advocacy organizations » Dispersion and Consortium - Should we unite? » 2005-03-19 00:55:47

Absolutely.

There definitely needs to be at least some sort of alliance, if not outright unification. I was thinking about it and came up with this model. I admit it may be far-fetched and it is very hopeful, but here goes:

Representatives from each space advocacy organization meet, decide upon a name (preferably something catchy and marketable), agree on a general framework of purpose (getting humans into space as quickly as possible), and write up a charter. Whatever organization emerges from this needs to operate half like a business and half like a political campaign. We should have a central website with a central store in which bumper stickers, t-shirts, hats--even mission patches bearing the logo can be sold.

Space exploration is a thing of child's fantasy. It is hopeful, it is fascinating, it is imaginative, it is futuristic, and it is human. Anyone who has visited Disney World will notice the futuristic, hopeful atmosphere and the celebration of past space exploration endeavors. Therefore, I propose this new organization try to team up with Disney. I know it's terribly optimistic to believe that such an organization could even exist, let alone flourish for long enough to team up with Disney, but hey...it's worth trying. The funds from such an endeavor would be enormous and countless doors would open.

In our current state, we are weak. But as a unified space organization, combining our talents and wallets, we could become a veritable juggernaut. By offering prizes for development of mission architecture or backing participants of other prizes, a private space agency could arise.

Flame away. cool

#21 Re: Not So Free Chat » Name That American War! - Give me a year, I'll give you a war. » 2005-03-07 23:10:17

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. big_smile

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.

#22 Re: Space Policy » A Mass Mailing of "The Case For Mars" - Mass Mailing to Congressman » 2005-03-05 12:26:07

Posted on Mar. 05 2005, 03:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about that film/documentary that's being finished right now? It looked very promising to me, I'm talking about the one discussed here

That looks like a very interesting film to me. I watched the trailer two or three times the other day. Does anyone know anything about the scale of release? Will it be a nationwide theatrical release or something more along the lines of an online dvd purchase?

Whether it's done nationally/internationally or just sent to the Discovery Channel and played on various associated networks like TLC, it will bring new people to the Mars movement. People will want to hear about humans on another planet after all these years of rovers going less than one kilometer from their landing site and humans stuck in orbiting tin cans with supply shortages. ???

#23 Re: Space Policy » A Mass Mailing of "The Case For Mars" - Mass Mailing to Congressman » 2005-03-05 00:47:27

*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.

#24 Re: Terraformation » Mars Needs Nitrogen » 2005-02-26 00:40:20

I've been thinking about this for quite a while, and a thought occurred to me that I haven't heard anyone mention before. I don't know if it has been mentioned here, but if so, bear with me; I shan't be long. tongue

We extract nitrogen in the form of NH3 from the digestion of proteins, and if it is not used to build tissue, it is expelled from the body in the form of urine. Since there will probably be a good deal of water recycling going on in the first colonies anyway, why not harvest the colonists' urine in refinement facilities--no different than your local water treatment plant--and extract the NH3? The nitrogen could be used to create a nitrogen-rich internal atmosphere within the pressurized domes and, once the atmosphere has been thickened, colonies all across the planet could actually release quantities of N2 into the atmosphere--perhaps at the same facilities where CFCs are released.

It's quite late and I'm tired, so my chemistry may be a little off, but if you factor in the atmospheric CO2 (in the earlier stages of settlement), it should look something like this:

                2NH3 + 2CO2 --> N2 + CH4 + H2O + O3 + C2

with the N2 being pumped into the colony's internal environment or stored in tanks for later release into the atmosphere. The CH4 is stored as propellant for rockets while the H2O is put to its obvious uses and the O3 is either broken back down into O2 for breathing oxygen or as bipropellant with the CH4, or it is kept in the form of O3 and used to thicken the Martian ozone layer.  The C2 can be used to construct high-strength nanotubes for construction projects--maybe even those as grandiose as a space elevator.

But it is late and I am tired, so I'm going to bed and yall can have all night to tear my post apart. :laugh:

#25 Re: Human missions » Mars On Earthpolitician  Against SpaceExploration - Mars On Earth » 2005-02-16 14:26:31

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.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB