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: Interplanetary transportation » Lets walk before we run - Moon first » 2005-03-19 21:17:17

Space advocates and enthusiasts need to come together if we are to make the kind of case to the public required for our lofty goals.   I won't go into the Mars direct VS moon debate (though feel free to discuss it) but instead my intent is to point out how much more powerful our argument and cause would be were we unified under one flag.  Just look at the environmentalists!  This debate should be front and center until we can generally come to general agreement.  From my studies,  I believe that Mars is a natural destination and should be the primary goal for medium term space endevours but first we MUST establish a permanent lunar presence.  We must consider the economic, scientific, phsycological, political, etc.  impacts of either decision.

Anyways, If anyone can list, preferably in point form, the generally accepted pluses and minuses to the mars direct VS moon first debate.  Maybe we can unearth some more.

Justin

#2 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Light and propulsion - Using light to lift vehicles into orbit » 2004-12-17 14:56:47

OK - so assuming the laser is 100% efficient what would be the necessary output to lift say a penny.

I think one nice thing about the light propulsion idea is you could say send up small payloads and potentially construct stuff while in orbit.  Anyways, I'd like to see some numbers crunched(I suppose I should start the crunching).  I'll post what I get soon...

So what I picture is sending up small pieces of your solar sail at a time, put together the solar sail in orbit and then use a conventional rocket to get your crew into orbit and finally head for Alpha Centauri using the solar wind?

Hehe - yes the complications are giving me a headache too...  Anyways, just venting the imagination for what its worth.

Justin in Calgary

#3 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Light and propulsion - Using light to lift vehicles into orbit » 2004-12-16 23:55:30

I imagine it has been thought of - using light to push vehicles into orbit.

Set up say three high intensity beam projectors on earth to keep the thing on course (as long as it stays in the triangle while it goes up) and beat light against a very reflective spaceship.

Momentum of light is what?  2*I / c for the ideal reflective case where I= W/m^2 and c = speed of light?  So you might need several thousand megawatts (A nuclear plant to run the thing?  OK - so you build a Nuclear plant... no big deal right?) to do it and you would have issues with how to not vaporize your craft (OK - so this is where you guys come in).  Anyways, theoretically it sounds possible if you could punch that much light into a beam.  Once you get high enough you get let it go and it could enter an orbit.  (assuming it had enough potential energy to do so).

Interested in what you folks think.

Justin in Calgary

#4 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Catapults. - Ancient technology for new purposes. » 2004-03-27 22:04:33

David vs Goliath

If getting to space, at low cost, is as difficult as it is for a young small boy to defeat a battlehardened giant warrior why don't we glimpse into history/legend (depends who you ask) and learn a thing or two from a boy called David.

I have been reading threads on a catapult idea for launching into space.  I like the idea though I believe that the paradox lies in the beam of the catapult - the only material that displays qualities which come close to having the strength per m^3 to withstand the insane initial acceleration of taking a sizable payload from 0 to 12 km/s in a rotation is the budding carbon-fiber technology.

Instead of a one time "catapult" into space why not "sling" into space.  Build a massive, vertical spinning, sling.  You could mount it in a large pit in the ground for better stability and instead of subjecting your "beam" to that crazy initial stress of the catapult, just gradually increase the rotational speed up to the point required to reach the necessesary departure velocity's and then like David let it go!  and whola - A giant is slain.

I want to hear from you more educated folks now... :-)  (I am only a humble student of engineering)

Justin

#5 Re: Human missions » Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight.... » 2004-03-12 17:11:01

John you hit the nail on the head.  Perhaps that is a clearer way of saying what I have been trying to convey.  The bottom line is for many reasons (political, military, ecomonical, etc) the moon base will be built.  If we conclude that such a base will exist why not use it to its fullest with making the trip to Mars easier and training people to be ready for the great risk of living on / exploring Mars.

Lets make the wisest escape.

#7 Re: Space Policy » Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go » 2004-03-11 18:18:08

Unfortunatley I believe Glenn is a little out of touch with the necessity of flagging the moon before skipping on towards our far off cousin Mars.  Let the moon teach us about life in space.  It is phsycolgically and physically safer than mars due to its comfortable distance to Earth.  Isn't it not the perfect cosmic training ground?

#8 Re: Human missions » Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight.... » 2004-03-11 17:39:09

Ian, you unfortunatly belittle yourself with your arrogant comments. 

"Since we're talking about the distant future, isn't it interesting that basic supplies will be easier to send to the Moon than from Mars?"

Forgive me, this sentence doesn't make any sense.  please explain

"Oh, since you're an engineer, maybe you could answer this question for me.  Which has more of an effect on the mass of a rocket?  Earth's atmosphere or gravity."

Depends what you mean by 'effect'.  Atmosphere impedes velocity since the relative air density is much thicker than that in space where as in a gravitational field with no atmosphere huge velocities are attainable.

I think you mean that because the Moon also has gravity it will still require alot of energy.  Well compared to blasting off from earth, the answer is a fraction the energy (no atmosphere and much less gravity) though if you compare the energy to that required to throw up a basketball than yes it is significant.

Bottom line is I agree with you that it takes more energy to stop first at the moon.  We need to be careful that a single ambitious goal doesnt blind our vision to the whole picture.  Getting to Mars will not make your life complete.  Lets enjoy the ride...

#9 Re: Human missions » Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight.... » 2004-03-11 16:07:47

Ian - I think you are missing my point completley - perhaps I conveyed it poorly.  I am in 100% aggreement that if our only goal in life was to put a human presence on mars going directly from Earth to Mars would make worlds more sense than stopping at the moon.  Point is that mars is a more lofty goal than the moon (even though the surface itself is safer than the moon's) and I know that I learnt how to walk before I learnt how to run.  It makes sense that we use the moon, because of its close proximity, to learn scads about out of earth living.  Once a tried and tested moon base already exists with a specialized short range vehicle for transportation to the Moon Base - it would make worlds of sense to launch then from that base to Mars.  Just think of the little ship that remained on the Spirit / Opportunity that took the rovers the rest of the way to mars after escaping the atmosphere.  The thing was tiny!  IF we were launching from the moon we could specialize the craft.  That is really the key of my argument - the idea of a specialized craft which is not just a flying gas can. (which the rockets initially are)

By the way I am an Engineer - so easy on your presumptions.

#10 Re: Human missions » Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight.... » 2004-03-11 11:10:04

Just because Mr. Zubrin so said his feelings doesn't make it true.  I am not saying it is the best idea to launch from the moon but it is something that should be considered and investigated.  His comparison to the small difference of cost of launching to the moon with launching to mars is a perfect example - that shows that the majority of the energy (and therefore fuel) is expended on the journey through our atmosphere - only to travel the huge distance to mars on near empty(or a flying box that detaches from a rocket).  Also you should account for the time factor.  It takes a fraction of the time to get to the moon then to mars so you could amass equipment there and then make low-energy blasts to mars rather than trying to make hole in ones from earth.  Remember that once a moon base is setup, a pitstop to mars would be only one of its few possibilities.  It would open up a new tourist industry and also the capability to launch spacecraft in a whole new way to other planets besides mars.  What would a spacecraft look like that didn't have to break the atmosphere?  How much freedom or possibilities would that add?  Just some ideas to consider.

#11 Re: Meta New Mars » Mars - LETS DO IT without NASA » 2004-03-10 23:34:39

The goal is glamorous and many of the ideas put forth are backed by wisdom and logic.  I think there needs to be mixed in with the spirited drive of ambition/motivation that you are arousing (I also believe that our potential as humans is near limitless when we work together) a large dose of reality.  Such an idea is one that won't develop overnight (I like the lets sit on it for a year approach) and also there has likely been many who have thought of / tried similar such ventures ending in failure.  Those instances should be studied in completeness to see where the integerity of the plan failed as to not trip in the same place again.  Credibility will be, in my opinion, a huge obstacle and therefore to gather support using MS as a base, as someone advised, is a wise thing to do, if not the ONLY thing to do.  Is this not the ultimate goal of MS?  I spoke above about our abilites IF we work together.  I think MS people have the talent (not the money) requried for such a task.

Our goal this year should be to think of a truly VIABLE way to fund a program of this magnitude.  That is the true hurdle for which I currently do not see answer.  Answer that and you have Mars.

cmon MS show your stuff.

-Justin of Calgary, Canada

#12 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.) » 2004-03-10 22:05:30

True - the idea of 'owning property' is as ancient as when bears first started pissing on trees.  Sure its the governments, or in an anarchy, who's ever got the biggest guns.

it's always whoever has the bigger guns. governments have alot of guns. in some places, all the guns.

Fact is that in this country we enjoy a near correct balance of personal ownership with some government still in the doorway (Else you would have people bunkering off their homes and refusing to pay taxes in Montana   )

Well, I'd dispute that correct balance statement, but I suppose it depends largely on your frame of reference. Personally, I don't have a problem with people bunkering in their homes. As long as they're not bothering anyone else, bunker off.

I fully agree with the whole lets get our butts in gear thing.  It is our time to sieze the moment or are we stupid enough to think a country like America will stand forever?

If we get moving on this, among other things, a country like America can stand far into the future. But I'm a proud cultural imperialist. Particularly of late.

well the problem with bunkering in is the threat that such places have on the rest of the country.  Where do you draw the line - I mean isolationism is fine, (I think of Ukrainians, omish etc) but if one is participating in society (using roads, infrastructure, getting pay checks) they also need to pay taxes and be responsible citizens (not commit horrendus crimes on their bunkered off territory).  I still think a balance is key.

I'm interested in your phrase 'cultural imperialist' - that has much connotation with it.  I would be interested to hear what caused this recent change.

#13 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.) » 2004-03-10 19:08:47

True - the idea of 'owning property' is as ancient as when bears first started pissing on trees.  Sure its the governments, or in an anarchy, who's ever got the biggest guns.  Fact is that in this country we enjoy a near correct balance of personal ownership with some government still in the doorway (Else you would have people bunkering off their homes and refusing to pay taxes in Montana  tongue )

I fully agree with the whole lets get our butts in gear thing.  It is our time to sieze the moment or are we stupid enough to think a country like America will stand forever?

#14 Re: Human missions » Europe goes to the moon and Mars! - Human space flight.... » 2004-03-10 18:20:32

Using the moon as a launch base is definetley not an idea to scrap as being suggested by some.  Launching from the moon would mean a completley different kind of spacecraft - one which needs a fraction of the fuel and therefore payload of those required to bust earths atmosphere.  What would happen is a specialization process:  A ship designed for a short journey to the moon from Earth (the heavy lifter) and then a much light craft to go moon to mars.  Hauling a cumbersome heavy lifter all the way to mars does not make alot of sense.

And besides how romantic is the idea of a moon base?

#15 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.) » 2004-03-10 18:08:01

side note to the communist:  In Russia, where I lived for several years, noone owned any land - everything was state owned or the 'peoples' land.  In capitalism, full of its own weaknesses, an unprecedented amount of people do own their own land.

That aside, I believe that Martian Government will primarily depend upon the country (or countries) which colonize it.  The same ideology will be passed along.  Furthermore, planet Earth will have an enormous influence and will even likely lead the planet for hundreds of years before it truly becomes independent.  With the kind of advantage that Earth has, mars would never attempt to defy its commands.  At least not for a very long time.

It will in no wise be communism just because people are working together for the greater good.  By the way, people work together for the greater good in Democracy too.  I think the greatest problem with this discussion is the ambiguous definition of communism - first define what you mean by communism and then discuss.

I just hope they don't build a statue of Lenin...

#16 Re: Human missions » Hubble mistake - Action needed » 2004-03-10 17:53:32

It is disheartening when we live in a time of so much potential and still linger onto past weaknesses which we cannot shake.  Hubble has made innumerable discoveries both with scientific implications and art extrordinare.  The last thing that was being considered in deciding to service the telescope is risk to human life.  If government is ready to sacrifice thousands of lives in meddling in other countries (be it war, special ops you name it) and then to pretend that the risk of several lives is too great simply disgraces logic.  Science is fundamentally what separates us from the animal world - shall we stop 'monkeying' around and finally step up to the task?

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB