New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#2526 Re: Not So Free Chat » A new bet? - When will shuttle fly? » 2004-07-09 07:10:26
ISS http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/09/natio … .html]safe haven is not so safe.
If orbiter return to flight depends on using the ISS as a safe haven and if using the ISS as a safe haven may well doom the ISS (if 6 or 8 astronauts suffocate on ISS, its doomed) then isn't using ISS as a shuttle safe haven itself fundamentally irresponsible?
If I were an ISS partner, shuttle return to flight becomes much less important if a rushed return to flight threatens the loss of ISS.
= = =
New York Times link - registration required.
#2527 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Asteroid Mining - profit from space » 2004-07-08 21:51:06
Actually I think space-ship-one design is based on something similair "feather design". But as with space-ship-one how will you enter Earths atmosphere with this design?
Wouldn't it start to auto-rotate as soon as it hit any atmosphere? Could you design the wing to provide lift to slow the acceleration from gravity?
#2528 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Asteroid Mining - profit from space » 2004-07-08 21:36:47
A local individual I talked to today suggested using a Maple seed as the model for atmospheric entry. Instead of trying to manufacture a parachute from space material, or letting an aeroshell burry itself into the ground, design the craft to have a single wing on just one side and autorotate. That will spin the craft while coming down, but that's Ok for a cargo craft. Maple seeds land quite softly. Metal will be heavier than cellulose but if it dents on impact with the ground at a desert or salt flat, so what?
Cool.
How hard would it be to build a 5 kg prototype and get some rocket hobbyists to send one up in a hobby grade sounding rocket? Add a $200 GPS and radio relay and track its landing.
Not atmospheric entry, but still its a start.
#2529 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Asteroid Mining - profit from space » 2004-07-08 17:25:50
Hmm the ice is not coming from Earth. Its mined water from the asteroid field. So there is not cost to launch it only to refine it.
If Bigelow builds a chain of space hotels, you can sell the ice for $1000 per pound. You can also sell the ice for $1000 per pound at L1 for rocket fuel.
Thus, ice is worth $1000 per pound. Drop box is cheaper. :;):
(Especially if drop bax has a microchip transponder and ballutes to slow final impact.)
Spray on ablative? Maybe. But its labor costs versus the cost of drop boxes.
= = =
Terrorists cutting the space elevator? Different in kind (IMHO) from dropping a few tons of rock on New York City at terminal velocity. (Or key buildings inside the Beltway)
#2530 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Asteroid Mining - profit from space » 2004-07-08 15:21:48
Which is why I don't care for the disposable drop pod idea... provided you could keep your material from vaporizing (difficult given the density of most precious metals), you'd still have to launch the pod to the asteroid. You are going to need to send up stuff to the asteroid anyway, use the vehicle to bring some of it back down.
Yes I mentioned that also in my post. The problem would be building those pods. Building them on Earth would be way to expensive and in space could be very complicated. Also you will lose a significant part of your resources in those disposable pods building materials.
However I also added that ideally if you could make the cargo it self work like the entry vehicle and cover it with an ablative heat shielding, the shield http://www.seps.org/oracle/oracle.archi … html]could even be made of ice. Make it the shape of a lifting body, then you can have controlled crash but as you have no guidance system the exact location of touchdown is not 100% sure and so you will need let it crash-land in some remote area.
The capital cost to use your RLV will be more than the cost on an inflatable drop box.
The value, at $1000 per pound, of the ice you throw away into Earth's atmosphere will be more than the cost to lift inflatable drop box. How many pounds of ice will you need?
Dropping asteroids on the Earth? Hmmm. . . if I worked for bin Laden I would get sleeper agents into your company ASAP.
#2531 Re: Planetary transportation » Plans for mobile base - on the moon... » 2004-07-08 14:55:42
The cost is R&D. Once you know how to build a shuttle B/C, which after all merely an Ares without the upper stage, incremental flight costs are relatively small.
If we budget $60 billion for MarsDirect, whats another $300 - $500 million for a shuttle B/C, to pre-position equipment?
=IF= we had a LEO to L1 tug, $75 million for Proton could deliver a moderately sized rover. Build 6 or 8 rovers at once and send them as needed on Proton. One of the supposed advantages of MER project was that buildoing Spirit and Opportunity was only marginally more expensive than building just one.
= = =
If the crewed mission cannot hit the target, we don't go.
If the crewed vehicle lands close enough to drive a flimsy rover to the ERV, why couldn't a pre-positioned robust rover drive robotically to the crew? The rover is ON Mars, driving around before the crew leaves Earth.
#2532 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Asteroid Mining - profit from space » 2004-07-08 14:40:24
Which is why I don't care for the disposable drop pod idea... provided you could keep your material from vaporizing (difficult given the density of most precious metals), you'd still have to launch the pod to the asteroid. You are going to need to send up stuff to the asteroid anyway, use the vehicle to bring some of it back down.
You fill the drop box at an LEO station.
I may start a new thread to discuss the capital cost of shipping containers. Why use a fancy RLV to ship rock from a Near Earth asteroid to LEO? You want that shipping container to be as cheap as possible.
Use the RLV to drop off crew at the asteroid mining site and then send it elsewhere so it never sits idle.
Sending supplies to Mars by nuclear transport is cost-foolish. use a nuclear tug and accelerate for a lunar/Earth fly-by and let the cargo coast.
The tug cycles. LEO - - > L1 - - > Luna - - > LEO
Cut the cargo loose at some point for Mars injection, flip your tug around and SLOW down for LEO capture. Pick up another cargo module and its back to L1. (Edit: Martin Lo could probably calculate some famncy trajectory math to save fuel - - accelerate full throttle towards Luna or Earth, cut the cargo loose and the tug then tracks a less efficient fly-by trajectory to start the slowing process, for example.)
Heck, sending crew by nuclear propulsion and having your nifty nuke powered ship floating idle in Mars orbit while the folks go rock hunting is foolish.
= = =
An airliner that is not flying is bleeding money. An RLV or nuclear tug that is not pushing something useful is bleeding money.
#2533 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Asteroid Mining - profit from space » 2004-07-08 14:29:39
http://www.weblab.dlr.de/rbrt/GpsNav/IR … _paper.pdf
"Dump boxes" - - a few hundred (or thousand?) of these would be far cheaper than one RLV. Put your platinum or rare earth metals in one of these and drop it in the atmosphere.
Still, the more you import, the lower the price you can command.
#2534 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Asteroid Mining - profit from space » 2004-07-08 14:22:07
The market is on Earth for anything except water which will be worth (in LEO) the going rate for lift to LEO or at L1 the going rate from lift to L1.
This whole asteroid mining for water (or mining lunar water) only makes sense if Earth to LEO is expensive. With Zenit able to lift at $1100 per pound, nothing in space is worth more than $1100 per pound since it can be shipped from Earth configured how ever you want.
Invent $100 per pound Earth to LEO lift and lunar mining is a quick trip to bankruptcy except maybe for stuff like He3 (if you buy the He3 fusion hype).
Rocket fuel from the Moon? Stick a bucket in Lake Michigan and send it up. Way cheaper.
As far as PlanBush, and building a lunar base to mine O2 and H2, unless that base can deliver fuel to LEO for less than $1100 per pound, it isn't worth it.
L1? Wouldn't a single nuclear thermal tug be way cheaper than a lunar base for moving rocket fuel to L1? Cycle between LEO and L1.
= = =
We are living under the illusion that Earth to LEO is expensive. American lift to LEO is expensive, today.
And a launch company managed Bigelow style might well beat that $1000 per pound figure without fancy new inventions.
= = =
Show me you can mine lunar water (and deliver to LEO) at a cost below $1000 per pound and we can talk. But until then. . .
#2535 Re: Planetary transportation » Plans for mobile base - on the moon... » 2004-07-08 13:30:43
That would be one gargantuan rover to carry along the fuel factory and the multiple tons of liquid hydrogen and the nuclear reactor and so on...
And it sorrta defeats the purpose of having the rover with you on the manned section of the vehicle to drive to the acent/ERV stage in the event that the HAB lands too far away, especially since you don't know for sure where the HAB will land exactly before the fact.
Plus driving it by teleoperation 1000km to the HAB will take how long?
Sorry, my language was unclear. :;):
The Sabatier flies on Ares from Pad 39A. The rover flies on shuttle B/C from Pad 39B all within a few weeks of each other 26 months before the crewed launch. (Or launch a smaller rover on Proton from Baikanur)
Fill the rover with supplies and clean underwear. 
= = =
A 2nd rover is launched with the crew of MarsOne and stays in Mars orbit until rover #1 hooks up with the crew.Then rover #2 lands near ERV #2.
Otherwise, rover #2 is instructed to land close to the Mars One crew. THe Mars One crew can track the re-entry and perhaps assist with navigation.
Most of the cost of MarsDirect is R&D. What was the incremental cost of Opportunity in addition to Spirit? Building a 2nd MER was fairly cheap IIRC with the 2nd launch cost being the big budget item.
If its a once only mission, I am opposed, period.
#2536 Re: Planetary transportation » Plans for mobile base - on the moon... » 2004-07-08 11:20:22
Send the rover with the in situ Sabatier (26 months in advance); if it lands too far away, drive it robotically to the Sabatier.
#2537 Re: Interplanetary transportation » The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine » 2004-07-08 10:38:52
Regulatory relief?
A weasel-word (or lawyer-like term) for
(a) federally subsidized insurance; or
(b) cooperation with not fully and fairly disclosing the risks to paying passengers.
"Cigarettes don't cause cancer, cigarettes don't cause cancer, cigarettes don't cause cancer. Then, my God! How can you expect to sue? Everyone knows cigarettes cause cancer and you took the risk freely. . ."
#2538 Re: Interplanetary transportation » The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine » 2004-07-08 10:19:26
What that needs is not the knowledge of a lawyer or legal precidents to call down by the score, but common-sense knowledge about how insurers assess risk and what they are likely to set premiums at.
Exactly. If no reputable insurer will sell a policy, few people will take the risk.
If insurance is available, strong contracts and waivers in exhange for insurance coverage should be easy enough to draft and thereby circumvent the liability issue entirely.
So its a red herring issue, both for detractors from space tourism and those who argue for special legislative protections. As much as I favor sub-orbital tourism, I am not a big fan of federal tax subsidies for that industry.
Persuade Lloyds of London and I am happy. 
#2539 Re: Planetary transportation » Plans for mobile base - on the moon... » 2004-07-08 10:07:07
You're right, dumping human waste on Mars will only work if you are sure the surface is sterile. I think we're reasonably sure of that already. If one worries too much, you can't send people at all; germ-filled air will leak out of habitats and escape whenever the airlocks cycle.
Mars will be nitrogen poor.
Incineration of human waste at very high heat turns it to a powder that is a sterile but useful fertilizer if applied properly.
Nothing can go to waste.
#2540 Re: Not So Free Chat » Settle Tau Ceti? - 12 light years isn't that far folks. » 2004-07-08 08:16:49
Please, surely Sol had more asteroids during its first billion years.
A new "Prime Directive"
We cannot alter solar systems that might evolve life in the future.
#2541 Re: Interplanetary transportation » The Case against Space Tourism - It's not the 'killer app' we imagine » 2004-07-08 08:13:09
Here is another question. . .
Would flying sub-orbital violate the conditions of your normal life policy? Imagine your typical millionaire willing to spend $100,000 on a thrill, but he dies and the life insurance company refuses to pay out the $2,000,000 policy to the widow and the guy's kids need to drop out of college (or transfer from Yale to mid State Tech for lack of tuition money).
The widow sues the carrier for failing to disclose that flying suborbital invalidates standard whole life policies.
Unless the passengers can be insured for a reasonable price, no one will fly. (Or very very few and foolish.)
= IF = solid companies will write life insurance for suborbital passengers then there is no issue to discuss. A $1,000,000 life policy is part of the ticket price. If you die your widow gets $1,000,000 and all other claims are released.
Easy enough to do, today.
= = =
Insurance companies are the ultimate experts on safety. If they will sell you insurance at a reasonable price, its probably safe.
If not, the negative publicity will kill off your market of tourists.
#2542 Re: Human missions » Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft » 2004-07-07 22:10:00
Yeah, baby. Go Bigelow.
Data-mine my earlier posts about how to build a space hotel. It ain't all there but I'd say clark isn't the only one knowing some hobos.
But flying the hotel on Long March - - I didn't see that one.
#2543 Re: Not So Free Chat » Settle Tau Ceti? - 12 light years isn't that far folks. » 2004-07-07 21:06:49
http://www.pparc.ac.uk/Nw/Ateroid_alley.asp]Tau Ceti is 12 light years away and has an Earth-system like Sun (more or less) yet is filled with asteroids and comets.
But, if we humans have learned to mine asteroids and live in free floating plastic bubbles, Tau Ceti might be a perfect happy hunting ground for Main Belters looking for a new challenge.
Not now (obviously!!) 
But in a few centuries? Why not?
#2544 Re: Planetary transportation » Plans for mobile base - on the moon... » 2004-07-07 18:46:08
This mass budget stuff annoys me.
Everyone agrees that the MarsDirect mass budget is razor thin. Also MarsDirect will cost between $20 billion and $60 billion.
Add $300 million and buy 6 Proton shots or $600 million and add 2 shuttle C cargo shots and pre-position a big, capable, TV-sexy rover. And a mini-supply depot awaiting the astronauts.
Zubrin's Ares is shuttle B/C plus cryogenic upper. Add a shuttle C shot to each mission. ERV + supply shot + Ares crewed launch and greatly increase your mass budget with pre-positioned supplies and equipment.
If we cannot afford to pre-position a big capable rover, we cannot afford the mission.
#2545 Re: Human missions » Cloth Diapers - Yes...you heard me right -- Diapers. » 2004-07-07 18:20:02
Corn is a no brainer, it grows fast and has a much higher yeild than grass does,
-AND-
I have research notes on a gene-modified variant of corn that can be harvested for plastic.
Con-Agra was part of that IIRC.
#2546 Re: Human missions » Cloth Diapers - Yes...you heard me right -- Diapers. » 2004-07-07 18:12:47
Thank you. Yes, the middle link mentions a company that uses liquid CO2 for dry cleaning right now! This seems like the way to go on Mars.
-- RobS
http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0603/et06 … ml]Hangers dry cleaners.
http://www.hangersdrycleaners.com]http://www.hangersdrycleaners.com
These people even offer to sell you a CO2 dry cleaning franchise!
= = =
Imagine the trivia that has been assembled by members of this board!
#2547 Re: Terraformation » Low gravities and colonization. A show stopper? - Any suggestions apart from exercising? » 2004-07-07 13:19:09
Fetal development is the mission critical issue.
#2548 Re: Human missions » Cloth Diapers - Yes...you heard me right -- Diapers. » 2004-07-07 12:58:05
Rob, here are a few links:
http://www.news-medical.net/print_artic … yes&id=110
This says scCO2 sterilizes surfaces.
= = =
http://eartheasy.com/wear_tips.htm]http … r_tips.htm
Mentions an scCO2 clothes washer machine altough google suggests this was deemed very promising in the late 1990s but then disappeared.
= = =
One more link
#2549 Re: Human missions » Yet another editorial against humans.. » 2004-07-07 09:56:34
Unless permanent settlement is the goal, I agree with the editorial. It is only the prospect of growing the human race that makes crewed spaceflight worth the risk and expense, IMHO.
Let's all cross our fingers and hope that it doesn't turn out to be "Apollo Part 2."
Frankly, I believe a call to settle will resonate with the public far more than "do it for the science" or for "adventure" yet I believe George Whitesides of the National Space Society was maybe the only Aldridge Commission witness who called for settlement being the goal of the space vision.
So I ask again, how do we define "exploration" - - has Sean O'Keefe or the Aldridge Commission or anyone given us a concise unambiguous definition?
#2550 Re: Human missions » Yet another editorial against humans.. » 2004-07-07 09:22:49
Unless permanent settlement is the goal, I agree with the editorial. It is only the prospect of growing the human race that makes crewed spaceflight worth the risk and expense, IMHO.