New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#251 Re: Human missions » A Shuttle Designed And Built Today » 2006-12-23 06:19:39
Spiral was designed for a combat spaceplane. Its capacity for cargo was at best minimal and it had little if any worthwhile ability to put paasengers into orbit.
MAKS requires the craft to be three stage as the Antanov will not have the speed or height to allow any other option. The advantage is that the Antanov can fly from any airport, the disadvantage is that to deploy the actual MAKS second and third stage onto the top is a complicated and time consuming procedure.
Other costs involved is that the second stage is designed to not be reusable and since the Antanov is not designed for the seperation the actual operation of the second and third stage could pose risk as the air density at seperation would be high.
Still we already have engines powerful enough and with a little modification that on a craft specifically designed and built could easily provide quick and easy access to space.
The only problem is that for this to happen there has to be a reason for such a development of cheap access and currently with the launch industry as it is there is not this reason.
#252 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Optimists Live Longer » 2006-12-22 16:29:22
I dont believe it
#253 Re: Human missions » A Shuttle Designed And Built Today » 2006-12-22 16:25:49
The problem is that if we deliberatly limit the payload capacity of the upper stage to reduce the lower stage aircraft it limits the potential expansion of the system. Unlike a rocket the lower stage is an aircraft and increasing its size to deliver more cargo is not a practical proposition. And no SRBs will help.
The lower stage will have to be larger than a 747. But the actual size is not really too much a problem considering that it is mostly engine and fuel tanks. There is also advantages for the lower stage to use kerosene fuel and as the lower stage aircraft is to be large it can fit a rocket engine in to get acceleration. The higher the seperation the better the whole operation and especially if the pair are traveling in the high mach numbers. Less wind resistance increases safety especially for the upper rocket powered stage.
#254 Re: Human missions » A Shuttle Designed And Built Today » 2006-12-21 16:08:18
It would need a gigantic carrier aircraft to lift a RLV with that capacity. The development cost for the carrier alone would be billions and billions and billions
Not really. The lower stage of the TSTO spaceplane will be just that aeroplane based. It will benefit from all the advantages that an aeroplane has and though yes it would cost billions to develop. That is standard for any project in development. It would though make this cost back in total reusability and rapid turnaround.
The engine needed for such a craft would be jet based to get height and it is then that either we will have that engine have the capacity to throttle up and if we then also add water or O2 to the airflow to compress the air get the craft up to mach 4 to 6 before seperation. Another possibility is to use standard jet engines to gain height but to have a rocket to accelerate the craft to seperation speed and height. Again we could develop even more powerful ramjet/scramjet hybrid engines but they are not really needed though if we want an SSTO spaceplane for the future these will have to be developed.
The size of the lower stage aircraft will depend on which of the engine options are used and also what else we will use the plane for. The Sanger the German advanced TSTO spaceplane design had a proposed wingspan of 46 metres and its design would make the total wing area of about 880 m2. The orbiter would have a wingspan of 18 metres.
#255 Re: Human missions » Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc » 2006-12-20 15:20:46
Remember those coal mine accidents in Pennsyvania? They send humans into those mines, not telerobots, there must be a reason for this.
Interestingly, robots are only as good as there programing. If a robot is programed to move items from A to B that is not a problem as long as C does not happen. Australia now has most robots that work in mines but as long as they do there specific function there is no problem. The robots that where used in pensylvania where telerobotic controlled as well as the Carnegie mellon Groundhog map robot.
Mine Robots to Make Mines Safer
This is the link to Carnegie Mellons site on all the robots they have pioneered
Carnegie Mellon Field Robots Center
We also can't learn how to run a space base by sending telerobots only, they can't work on Mars after all. What we need to do is set up a community of humans on the moon, and the only way to find out how to do this is by setting up a community of humans on the Moon.
Never said that they should replace a Human crew. I know what robots are capable of and also there weakness and a proper mission is to be able to functionally use both to compliment each other. Hopefully when we get to Mars we will have more advanced robot brains to work with. At the moment they are too limited to provide much help.
#256 Re: Human missions » Crew size for Mars missions » 2006-12-20 08:43:23
There are real engineering reasons apart from safety that ensure that the crew will not be sent up in the Hab. The basics are if we send crew then we have to take mass from space that should really be used for stores or other essentals. This is further reduced if we then have to man rate the actual launch.
We also, apart from the prime safety reason of having the crew launch in a vehicle that they can escape in. Get the advantage of the potential use of it as a lifeboat and of course as a means to increase the supply delivery.
#257 Re: Human missions » Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars » 2006-12-20 05:32:51
When I look at the cartoon it brings to mind the growing belief that space has little or no actual effect on people. This is wrong but it is what the common person thinks that we appear to be spending a lot of money for little or no "real" benefit
#258 Re: Human missions » Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now? » 2006-12-19 18:46:21
I didn't bring up submarine crews.
GCN did trying to "prove" what he thought (incorrectly) was a valid point.
And sure there will be stresses among a crew of four, five, or six sent on a 26 month mission.
There will be disagreements and arguments probably.
But its foolish to argue that we MUST provide a large enough space and/or a large enough crew to PREVENT ANY disagreement or argument.
Once again, GCN tried the argument with crew physical health and could not win it.
Now its the mental health of the crew argument.
We will never eliminate every danger factor in a mission to Mars.
Go with what we've got, what we can afford, the earliest we can.
The best research into any of these issues will be in the doing.
The simple fact is that all the research comes out with the same methods to reduce these issues.
1), the best crew evaluation that is possible must be done at the beginning but you will have to accept that it cannot and will not catch everything.
2), The more space preferably personal available the better the mental health of the crew.
3), Exercise helps and being active in the Mission helps just as much.
4), Larger crews help to reduce tensions especially if the crew mix is of the same nationality and ethnic group
5), Crew confidence and willingness to work as a team is the most essential element. Good morale and family contact make up an essential part of this.
6), The longer the mission the more trouble flairs up, especially if the crew feel that they have little or no control over mission direction. MIR crew had little or no faith in there technology and felt like orbital repairmen at ground controls beck and whim.
Disagreements happen, yes but in close quarters these tend to fester and there is no way for it all to be cleared out. There is no way that enough space to solve all the issues can be provided but the more the space the better for the mental health of the crew.
So this we know and this is why when you look at mass margins we have to design a mission where crew have personel space not find themselves floating in the little spaces between the stores and that it has as little time in space as possible. Crew on the surface will have to have a lot of individual control over there actions obviously with an Earth oversight but day to day running not be dominated by Earth mission control.
Stress will happen its expected its natural. Too much stress over time though is a breaker and crews in this position break up.
#259 Re: Human missions » Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now? » 2006-12-19 18:09:20
U.S. submarines NOW only are on patrol for three months or so, and only completely isolated for a month or so (depending on the status of their SLBMs and what targeting package they are covering).
But during the 1980s well before the end of the Cold War, five or six month patrols were not unknown. During which up to three months might be spent cut off from the outside world.
And though Submarine crews for the U.S. are about 100-133, the fact that aboard a submarine "there is space to get away from people" would be news to anyone who has served on one. Submarines are cramped enough (even modern ones) that crew members often develope acute near sightedness because their eyes never have anything to focus on more than a few dozen feet away.
And regarding submarines, though it is not done this way since the end of the Cold War, at one time submarine crews were told that if they developed a severe illness aboard during a key part of the patrol that was incurable by the medic aboard.................they might simply die rather than pull the sub off of a vital mission, even in peacetime.
But as the Russian space agency and both NASA and ESA have discovered experiments with crews on submarines have nothing to do with space research. The conditions are just that disimilar. Conditioned crew for submarines and there enviroment do NOT give any information or access to the health issues that space crews face.
The best analysis is for antartic explorers as long as they are in small numbers and overwintering or specially designed test beds like ESA Norways and Russias Mars Flyer. Both have shown that even with crews well trained and evaluated the constant in your face personel as well as "ground crew" observation is a breaker and with the "right stuff" attitude being displayed it causes problems. Test subjects tend to attempt to display what they believe the researcher thinks best and this causes disfunctionality.
Other issues are cultural problems, language and the most dreaded male/female issues.
Both NASA and ESA have looked at having all female crew as they tend to react more positively with these issues of culture and language and also are less dominated by the "right stuff" falsehood and are more willing to discuss issues with ground crew rather than to create them and us issues.
#260 Re: Human missions » Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now? » 2006-12-19 16:58:12
I don’t know where GCNRevenger gets his information about the mental health of the Salyut cosmonauts
He can have an interesting POV but often I just wonder about his mental health.
Submariners can go for a good year as a minimum in their crampt conditions.
No they dont and submariners are not a good example. On average a submarine patrol is about one to two months long. Boredom is common but the crews are large and well trained individuals and there is space to get away from someone. But there have been incidents and very drastic ones at that.
The incidents of mental health deterioration that have occured in the space industry have been incredibly worse.
In june 1997 the commander of the MIR was showing the symptoms of lack of sleep, Neuroticism and depression he also was guiding in the supply ship. His concentration as well as the other two crew one being the astronaut M Foale was poor they where just unfit. The unmanned supply ship slammed into the MIR nearly destroying both.
In december 31st 1999 a test chamber in Moscow the six person crew of the Mars flyer celebrated new years. One cosmonaut got too amorous towards a female canadian member and though he brushed it off as a harmless moment the female crew member believed it to be attempted rape.
There have been numerous other incidents with crews in space rebelling against ground control and of actual incidents between the crews.
ESA did a survey where they discovered that even with the most carefully prepared psychological background on a crew add stress and uncertainty removes all such controls. In one of there tests a six person crew spent 26 days in an underwater habitat. The crew broke down and divided into rival camps and even with one person totally ostracised.
The simple thing is that more space reduces these tensions, too little space add stress and unfitness we get nasty side effects and mental health is affected.
#261 Re: Human missions » Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc » 2006-12-19 16:09:30
A robot digger would be so specialized that it can hardly do anything else other than dig, such a robot could not repair itself for example and another digger robot could not repair it. You would probably need to send a specialized robot for each task you wish to perform on the Moon. Robots do have life support requirements, they need a power supply for one, they need lubricants to move their parts and they need maintenence. Once solution is just to send another robot whenever one breaks down, or you can send a bunch of robots designed to do the same thing, holding some in reserve in the antidipation of breakdowns. Human require a certain amount of infrastructure in order to live on the Moon. The amount of infrastructure requires is substantial, but the more people you send, the less the infrastructure requirements are per person. Larger life support machines work more efficiently. If one has enough plants in an enclosed atmosphere, then they can remove carbon dioxide and add oxygen to the atmosphere, plants can also recycle human waste and produce food. Humans are retrainable, can perform a variety of tasks if given the right tools, robots have to be reprogrammed, debugged, and retooled if they are to perform a different task from which they were designed. A human can learn faster than a robot can be reprogrammed, debugged and retooled, unless you already have the software ready to load, and even then with the specialized equipment NASA has things aren't so simple. Getting robots to do the simplest things can be frusterating at times due to bugs in the software.
A robot digger is a specialised piece of equipment and actually a particularily heavy one. There will be a need for such a device but the Moon and Mars are problem cases. Bulldozers are devices that require weight to be able to function and on the Moon and Mars the gravity reduces a bulldozers bite. We can get around this if we use the old fashioned method of drag lines or to use innovative technologies like wire brushing to pick up regolith. There is also trench digging and the ability to drill small holes for foundations. Sending a robot able to do all these is a specialised robot yes but one extremely useful piece of equipment. Other telerobotots will be able to not only do tasks that Humans can do but also use human tools.
Robonaut
This robot is able to not only use every tool that we have spent billions in designing for years but it is a robot series with a lot of potential and experience.
Another point is Robots can be repaired and in the Meteor crater this year they where able to repair each other. Parts can be replaced. One problem with Robots is that though we have developed good power sources, locomotion systems and sensors as well as ability to manipulate the world, we have not got the ability to get them to control themselves.
So that is why telerobotics is the best choice, These robots will be manipulated from Earth by people in the comfort of offices. These robots will be working refueling then working 24/7. The weak link is the human operators but have them set on shift work so the robots can keep running. Fuel for these robots can be anything from electric batteries or fuel cells to internal combustion systems to Nuclear particle fueled. Fuel cell being the most likely with solar cell backup. You state that Humans can learn fast correct but there are Humans in the loop so this advantage is negated in comparison to telerobotics.
We will not send a whole spare robot to the Moon if we do it will be working not wasteing space on a flight.
The site has to be thoughly prepared for robots to work in it in complete safety.
Not really it needs to be surveyed but only on a basic level something a basic survey robot can do. It can also plant markers for the incoming safety of the Human crews so they land on flat stable ground. This need for flat stable ground for takeoff is not an essential for the first ground survey robot.
#262 Re: Human missions » Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc » 2006-12-19 04:34:38
There are somethings a robot cannot do for itself. Most robots built are specialized for one task or another. A remote control robot would have a 2 second time delay, that would tend to make such robots somewhat clumsy when operated from Earth, their reflexes would be slow. If such a robot were to trip over a rock, the operator would know about it about one and a quarter seconds later, and would send the commands to catch itself to the robot and those commands would reach the robot after it is already lying on the ground. A teleoperated robot would have to move slowly and deliberately to avoid damaging itself. Another hazard of of working at the poles is losing direct line of site with Earth. If an operated decides to take a walk around the back side of a hill and loses direct line of site contact with Earth, the robot is lost, and another one has to be sent from Earth to continue the work. Probably a number of teleoperated robots would end up piled in shadowy craters and behind hill sides after awhile.
Correct robots are a lot more specialised than a human is, but they are also able to deal with terrain better and without life support requirements are able to function for a lot longer periods. The problem you describe of 4 second delays is not really that bad it is perfectly feasible to design in safety mechanisms and of course taking your time getting the job done deliberatly will work. We have experimented with robots with this delay programmed in and have even done Surgery on humans with telerobotic controled arms. What we have seen that though yes tele-controlled robots have to work at slower rates than humans there capacity to work 24/7 all the time gives them the advantage. If you have a telerobotic controlled regolith mover speed is not necassary just constant work. And 24/7 work is possible just by changing shifts at the Earth control stations and the cost of a robotic digger drivers wages are in space industry terms negligible.
The problem you describe with the lack of direct site Earth control is reasonably easy to fix. Repeater stations can be deployed which will allow broad coverage of any area and that includes in the blind spots around hills. These supported by polar satelites we will have to install anyway will help. These repeater stations have another function. Our knowledge of the Moon especially in the form of maps is very bad there is no GPS system available to help guide Human explorers. Ground stations could be used to give direction points so that we have a form of giudance on the Moon.
#263 Re: Human missions » Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now? » 2006-12-18 17:38:23
Are you seriously suggesting that a geologist and biochemist spending 500 days on Mars assisted by two engineers and advised by the best scientists on Earth can't do one heck of alot of exploration and good science?!?!?! For that matter they could also explore thousands of square miles.
The FIRST mission isn't supposed to explore EVERYTHING.
Sure, we could always send more scientists. More equipment. Explore a larger area.
Yes they could do a lot but it only depends if they are able to function and that number of crew is at risk of having the mission scrubbed due to crew loss and incapacitation. A very fundamental risk.
But part of any initial mission is just to prove we can get there and back safetly. That the basic equipment works.
Yes the basic equipment in that we will use the same equipment again. This is where your arquement falls Dayton. If we use a technique and decide to use it the first time we will have to use that same technique for follow up missions. Politically you would have to go to congress to ask not only for money for a new vehicle but also you could well need a new launch vehicle.
We would be stuck using the same material the same mass limits the same lack of expansion we would in effect be in apollo country again. Apollo was limited by its capability and so is Mars direct. If we want to go to Mars and to develop Mars and hope to colonise then we will have to use another mission design.
Shannon Lucid walked off the shuttle after six months in the cramped confines of Mir. She did that coming into a ONE G gravity field.
Yes and one major difference is the space that Shannon had available to her for those simple things like exercise. The space on the outward trip would be a lot lot less and there just is no way to change that in Mars direst those are basic supplies and loss of any of them dooms the Mission and incidentally the crew.
Not enough mass fraction and certainly too little space is the best way to describe Mars Direct.
#264 Re: Human missions » Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc » 2006-12-18 17:11:28
One major advantage the Moon has over Mars is it is within the range of useful telerobotic control. This could easily lead to construction projects being controled by the Earth and a major increase in the actual capacity to develop the Moon and near Earth space. Telerobotic's would reduce support costs while increasing development speed.
That and simple fact the Earth itself offers a safe haven. Whatever we send to Mars won't have such a safety net, hence why I keep pointing out that while Mars will be the interesting place the Moon will have priority in the short-term. Its an interesting trade-off.
I agree the Moon will have priority it has to. But as noted we do not necassarily have to have people in permanent occupation to fundamentally create a significant prescence on the Moon and from there in Near Earth space as well.
Creating lunar mass drivers is an example of something that reguires little actual human prescence in person. We significantly know how to make lunar concrete and using simple techniques we can develop the actual rail system with supports and foundations just by lunar teleprescence robotics and time. Materials as well as the control systems will have to be sent to the Moon by the Earth but as we are able to extract resources this total becomes less and less.
Permanent Human prescence on the Moon gives incredible advantages and many things can only be done when this happens but making the infrastructure for this to happen does not necassarily need people present to do it actually it can be done more effectively by robots which are more robust and tolerant of the terrain.
#265 Re: Human missions » Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now? » 2006-12-18 17:02:19
What GCN is advocating is a very "Von Brauning" idea of space exploration.
That we build all the hardware to do it "right" and that the act of building the hardware will show just how committed we are.
Thats backwards.
Its like building a military force and then deciding what kind of war we want to fight.
Makes alot more sense to decide what war you plan on fighting and THEN build the military thats capable of it.
We want to get to Mars. Lets build what we can ASAP and just go. If the long term political will dies after two or three missions............then at least we've gotten two or three of the most productive manned space missions in human history.
My short term goal is to see that first manned mission to Mars and back.
My long term goal is to string a bunch of short term goals together in sequence.
What GCN is advocating and I agree with him is that Mars direct is not capable of doing the job it is too light. GCN is perfectly correct when you come down to the bare bones of it how much space and manpower is needed to run a proper Mars mission. Nasa agree's with him that is why they came out with the DRM III in the first place.
Mars direct is chancy at best and worse it is a people breaker. It is perfectly possible yes to get to Mars with it but they truly would not have the capability to actually do anything. Worse the experience would be the equivalent of a modern day slave ship on the way out with the lack of space per passenger and how on Earth or Mars was a crew member supposed to be fit enough to function on Mars.
Apollo showed us that space agencies are perfectly willing to go with bare bone mission plans just to get the "Job" done.
We are not going to suddenly abandon the Moon just to get to Mars and so we can factor in what we can get from there even if it is an oxygen source. We will have experience in multiple launches meeting to go to a destination so then we can certainly do the same for a Mars mission. Likely the case will be that Mars DRM III will get cahnged and may well get bigger as the mass requirements to get the job done are reviewed from our knowledge and experience of Moon operations or we find that we can increase the capability of the Mission without too much cost elsewhere.
#266 Re: Life support systems » Lets brainstorm on suit design - We will need suits after all » 2006-12-18 13:09:37
Space Suits: The Next Generation
Hundreds of people have already signed up for suborbital flights into space through Virgin Galactic, one of several firms that plan to offer such trips by 2010. But what are all those space tourists going to wear?
A new company called Orbital Outfitters is already at work on a space suit specifically designed for suborbital tourism. Last week, Orbital announced that it had signed a contract with XCor Aerospace, of Mojave, CA; the companies will work together on finalizing a space-suit design and other safety equipment. Orbital Outfitters will manufacture and own the suits, which will be leased to XCor.
Interesting point is that any development of Mars or the Moon will need an increase in available spacesuits and this is a problem with suits tending to be individualised pieces of high tech engineering.
#267 Re: Human missions » Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc » 2006-12-17 13:58:22
We only get one shot at studying a pristine planet; whereas probes are kept clean humans carry a veritable garbage bag of life-forms with us.
My attitudes toward going to Mars is get it right the first time. Either there is, never was, or was life on Mars - those are the 3 possibilities.
There is a problem with this in that some of the earliest probes did not have anything like the biological cleanliness that we would wish. Also there is the problem of life having been seeded by the Earth via ejected matter.
Still plenty to keep the scientists busy
Now this is what I'm talking about! No colonies, no interplanetary migration, but a slow but steady progress out of Earth orbit. THIS is the most likely real-life senerio we can expect from a robust space program, national or global.
A 300-personel-base would be a good sized outpost, and perhaps the direct precursor to an actual lunar colony. It would probably be at the government's limit of support and commercial industry would be making headway in supportng it. If the logisitics of supporting this site prove feasible and local resources are utilized it would awaken the public to the possibility of making a living on the Moon. If this would be the end result of 50 years of a Lunar Program, then within the next 40 years we'd see the first Lunar Cities take shape and all making a space-based industry on the Moon. Then the dreams of space enthusiasts would start happening...
One major advantage the Moon has over Mars is it is within the range of useful telerobotic control. This could easily lead to construction projects being controled by the Earth and a major increase in the actual capacity to develop the Moon and near Earth space. Telerobotic's would reduce support costs while increasing development speed.
#268 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Fishsticks: RIP 2048? » 2006-12-17 06:02:45
Lots of links sorry
Biodiversity and Conservation: A Hypertext Book by Peter J. Bryant
This indicates how the state of global fishing stocks has reduced and even in stocks which are not actively fished but there numbers still drops indicating a loss of biodiversity reduces stocks even in non fished species.
Accelerating Loss of Ocean Species Threatens Human Well-Being
More info on loss of species and decrease in bio diversity this from the National science foundation.
Is the Bering sea warming and affecting the ecosystem: pdf
This is an important piece of goverment research. In the case of Krill the usual blooms of photoplankton did not arrive that year and so the Krill did not develop into there large swarms. It was one of the warmest bering sea years recorded and also the year the salmon did not run no salmon went up the Alaskan rivers to spawn. Other effects was the crab fishing industry that year suffered its worse year ever fishing in the bering sea.
There is a lot more research proving that seas are warming up and we have less captures of fish each year as stocks reduce.
Another point to add is that unlike the artic sea, ice in the antartic is the result of glaciers and we already know that glaciers are like rivers they flow. As the world warms they flow a lot faster and so more ice is flung out to sea. What we also see especially in the Antartic is large ice sheets breaking off from the mainland and the actual ice depth decreasing rapidly.
#269 Re: Human missions » Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc » 2006-12-17 05:28:40
Firstly, even a few centuries from now, I doubt moving people between planets will be cheap...and I'm talking far more expensive than suborbital jumps being advertised for celebrity gimmicks. You'll be lucky to get a hundred people ala Red Mars in an Underhill-style colony.
We can only look into our past to see what can happen and why people will move to colonise new lands. Like the first colonies of America. People will move to these new colonies for various reasons but it comes down to cost and it is just how much of a percentage of there wealth it costs. In the first colonies the trip used to cost about 80% of a persons available wealth. There where also state sponsored colonists in this indentured criminals who made a work force for the original colonists. If we can reduce the cost to deliver a person and his family to about this percentage of cost the various reasons will ensure that people will be willing to go.
If you haven't noticed...we don't live in the colonial era anymore. People don't move for religion or politics, they do it for financial reasons. If anyone sponsors colonists it'll be a corporation pouring money into a Lunar (or Martian) inustry, much like the MetaNational Corps in the Red, Green, and Blue Mars trilogy. If there's risk involved the majority won't buy into it...but still since there ARE people that have an interest in space travel a few will try if they can, but it won't be easy.
People still move for all the reasons that they did in the time of colonisation. In fact the modern world is the time where so much of the worlds population have moved for all the three main reasons. If and when Mars opens up a cheaper acces then people will move there. There are many religious subcultures which have the money and willingness to go. There are many people willing to go to Mars to develop a new political culture. People will go for the adventure and of course there will be economic reasons too.
It will come down to how expensive the actual cost of the trip will be and this will be dependant on how many people can actualy be transported. To increase the transport rates you need the ability to use materials already present and this is where the Moon comes in.
The difference is we're talking about establishing life on a whole new world, and one where not even the air itself is for free. Tell the public that and you guarantee a no-go in NASA terminology
There are technologies in the pipeline like the 3D printer which will revolutionize the small industrial capacity. The only constant is how much energy it takes to operate and like today it will be energy that dominates the industrial and financial markets of the future. If you have enough energy then the costs to operate become irelevant and so air becomes as cheap as you want. It will be high tech colonisation yes but if you have the capacity to make what you need where you need it then its not a problem.
Technologically the means to get to Mars will be in government-only-hands for a long while yet - commercial means won't exist for a long while and won't be accessible to the common person either. And if the corporation sponsering the colony goes bankrupt, what becomes of the colonists en route? No spare parts, no food unless chairty steps in (which is unlikely since it'll cost a million to loft a single pound of beans to Mars).
Will it. Technically the launch industry is not in goverments hands except for countries like China. It is private companies that are making those rockets and they are making them for the only people buying that of the goverment. There are certainly enough companies out there developing private space flight and technologies that would step in if there was cheaper materials to make craft available. It is in there commercial interests to increase, mans spaceflight capacity.
Mars has many things against it but food production is the one thing it really does not struggle with. Mars with its much reduced gravity, could easily become the bread basket of the whole solar system and with all the needs for plants available, food production is not my worry. Cheap to make plastic greenhouses that operate using increased concentrated Mars atmosphere and indigenous water would do the job. And if we follow the technology wave then the 3d printers will provide the means to make the parts you need at the point you need them.
#270 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Fishsticks: RIP 2048? » 2006-12-16 07:58:09
Krill the wikipedia
As noted krill are a species that relies on phytoplancton. Which explodes in the aerly summer months in both the north and south feeding on the very nutrient rich seas. They also feed on zooplankton which also relies on cold nutrient rich seas.
Another major problem facing krill is that they are crustaceans so if water has increased CO2 absorbed in it as warmer water does they struggle to form there exoskeletons.
This is, at best, a gross oversimplification, but I think in fact that it is false in general, because I recall recentish articles blaming a particular krill decline on colder water from increased polar melt. There are 80+ known (so probably 800+ total) species of krill, each with its likes and dislikes. Modeling the populations of even the most common types is in its infancy. Mostly, krill populations are limited by food supply - so to model accurately, you would have to model ice-algae and phytoplankton populations, but modeling of these populations is also in its infancy, etc, etc.
I understand hyping for grant proposals, press releases, etc. This is fascinating and important science. I feel privileged to watch it happening. But we are no where near modeling responses to climate change in this area.
It is of course a gross oversimplication but as a general trend it is very true. Phytoplankton has been disturbed before and the Krill has disapeared and we discovered that many other fish stocks disapeared as well. The phytoplankton explodes in the coldest waters and that is why Whales go there to live on the Krill that explodes on the Phytoplankton. There is very little of this in the warmer seas and in some ways these seas are actually for plankton and krill sterile.
When the northern and southern oceans heat up the enviroment that the phytoplankton and Krill desire to swarm will go and so will there capacity to support higher forms of life.
Gross oversimplication, yes but true none the less and it will drastically reduce the seas carrying capacity and our capacity to get fish from the sea.
#271 Re: Human missions » Moonbase and Mass drivers etc etc » 2006-12-15 18:02:51
Doesn't that depend on economies of scale? For ten people it might not make any sense to have a cycler, but what if you plan to send hundreds or thousands of people to Mars in a single launch window? We'll assume also that a Mars colony has already been established and that housing is constructed with native materials, the biggest tast becomes just bringing the people with their luggage to Mars.
You're thinking well past terms of horse-and-carriage and thinking freight train there Tom.
Firstly, even a few centuries from now, I doubt moving people between planets will be cheap...and I'm talking far more expensive than suborbital jumps being advertised for celebrity gimmicks. You'll be lucky to get a hundred people ala Red Mars in an Underhill-style colony.
We can only look into our past to see what can happen and why people will move to colonise new lands. Like the first colonies of America. People will move to these new colonies for various reasons but it comes down to cost and it is just how much of a percentage of there wealth it costs. In the first colonies the trip used to cost about 80% of a persons available wealth. There where also state sponsored colonists in this indentured criminals who made a work force for the original colonists. If we can reduce the cost to deliver a person and his family to about this percentage of cost the various reasons will ensure that people will be willing to go.
We cannot do this method of mass personel transport by sending so much from the Earth. So we have to develop the technologies and infrastructure using cheaper places to deliver the majority of what is needed.
Second, Mars won't be an open settlement to anyone. The Moon more likely will before Mars namely b/c we're STILL trying to seek out life on Mars, and opening the planet to settlements on the scales you're talking would massively contaminate that effort. For the first 50 years of exploration Mars will be wilderness with at absolute most 24 people spelunkering around.
If you believe that the Humans races destiny will be held back for microbes im sorry to say you are mistaken. China or Russia will not care and frankly neither does Nasa or Europe. Finding extraterrestial life will be incredible but we will still go to Mars to stay and live and the future is to spread the Human race not to keep it as a pristine science experiment.
#272 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Fishsticks: RIP 2048? » 2006-12-15 10:52:22
Krill live at the south pole, Antarctic sea ice extent is increasing (hmm, don't see that fact often in the press, do you?).
Population modeling is an order of magnitude harder than climate modeling - which is exactly why environmental alarmists are moving on to that area, because we are finally learning enough in the climate field to quash alarmism there.
Lose the poles? They respond to temperature signals on _millennial_ timescales. It really worries me that people with scientific training, who would be ruthlessly skeptical in other areas, swallow whole whatever the news service headline writer throws up if it relates to climate.
Krill do not just live at the south pole they are present all across all oceans but in the north and south latitudes they are much more abundant. This is due to the conditions found there and as these conditions change they struggle. Krill are one of the lowest and common foods on the food chain. Cold seas are the most productive seas and as the seas warm they become less productive.
#273 Re: Human missions » Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now? » 2006-12-14 17:03:36
The NIMF technology fueled by methane fuels maybe.
#274 Re: Human missions » Whats does NASAs Manned Mars Architecture Look Like Now? » 2006-12-14 16:35:58
There is justification for staying at the Moon and it is not just for scientific reasons. It is reasons that the public and politicians alike can understand and in that understanding we have not only there acceptance but there support. The ISS is an incredibly expensive white elephant and can only be improved by expensive deliveries from Earth. This is not the case with the Moon and unless we find the means to decrease costs while increasing our capacity for action in space then we will not get to go to Mars anywhere in the near term like the 21st century.
So what exactly are these reasons? The Lunar Outpost will cost MUCH more than ISS to operate, the cost per kg on the Moon is 5 times that for LEO. ISRU may work eventually and be able to provide oxygen, everything else will have to be brought from Earth at about $50,000 kg. Sure one day, far in the future, the base will be as accessible and extensive as the South Pole base is now .... one day.
One day, yes but the idea is that we develop technologies to ensure that access and return from the Moon not only improves but gets cheaper. And though access costs will be more expensive the actual running costs will be a lot less. And there is the fact that we can actually make things from the enviroment not just rocket fuel. The principle is that we develop the Moon using what we find and take as little from Earth as possible. The currency of space is energy and it is something the Moon has in abundance. We have developed an automated process to garner solar cells purely from lunar materials and each cell increases our capacity.
Do we need people to do it NO. But for the science part we do. The Moon is close enough that we can use telerobotics to keep increasing our capacity for action on the Moon. Each time we are able to build, gather a resource or just plain mineral search we increase our future in space and probabily improve life here on Earth. Another advantage is that we can for the first time return resources which can pay there way even with the high costs of rockets.
This will drive the research and development of reusable lunar landers and also reusable to LEO vehicles. This will reduce costs to operate in space and will spur space development. Further pushing the frontier and reducing costs.
#275 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Fishsticks: RIP 2048? » 2006-12-14 12:57:34
Warmer water less plancton so less fish.
lose the poles less Krill less big fish and whales so less food elsewhere in the system.