New Mars Forums

Yeah like it said in the article the people for Mars should draw up a good business plan. However you'd need to know more about Mars before you can really do that.

I found http://nanodot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/02/1651257]this post on http://nanodot.org/]nanodot.org which points to an article by K. Eric Drexler that appeared in the October 1984 issue of the L5 News. You can http://www.foresight.org/NanoRev/Mars.html]read the article here.

The author has some really good points (IMO). For instance:

If you take this context of the article in which they state that Mars has no economical value. This can be correct because what happens after Mars Direct? Maybe it will be like the Moon project.

I don't think its funny. But I do understand that you may think so.

Its just that Mars and Moon and humans on them are age old stories. Getting people on Mars is such an old story and nothing has happened since the 50 years that people said its possible.

Its like when I see a brochure or on TV something about a holiday on a exoctic island with scuba diving and stuff. But now imagine there are no commercial airlines and only sailing ships. Do you really think people would be that interested in going to some far region? Or would think of it as something realistic?

You can argue to people that's technically possible but most humans are pretty down to earth and will then say: "Well then do it." Or "I will believe it when I see it"

Yeah but people don't want to see realistic movies. They want star trek, star wars with sounds in space, they want gravity, aliens like humans etc.

If you look at the http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegr … non-us]top twenty of best all time selling movies you will see only two movies (Titanic and Forrest Gumb) that are some what realistic the rest are all fantasy based.

However you had movies like http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0199753/]Red Planet and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0183523/]Mission to Mars I have seen both but its a long time ago. One of them was kinda of like the book Red Mars. But anyway I guess they didn't sell to well. BTW they are not bad movies but just not Star Trek, Star Wars with huge empires and wars.

Is it possible that if a photon hits this field that it could generate an electron? If so then I propose that this idea could also be used for energy production. Just have side of the field act as an anode and the other as a kathode. Then the electrons would flow to one side and the could be stored in a battery or consumed directly.

Also it could work as extreme lightweight solar shade.

After getting a link from someone’s post to the site http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/home.html]Space Island Group and browsing through the site. It made me think about commercial spaceflight. As I think that the true space age starts with regular commercial spaceflight.

What I’m proposing is that groups of Mars Direct and the Mars Society start lobbying companies for support and not the government like now. As the Mars Direct cost estimates are about $30 billion* which is a lot of money but not if you lobby business for it. For example the introduction and development of the gaming device X-Box was also in the billions so it seems that companies have means to finance billion dollar projects. However they are not crazy and you need to make a really solid business plan.

They may be not inclined to invest, as you are not sure of the return in investment. This is why you should divide the costs over hundreds of companies some big and small ones and not only American but also any company from any country should be able to participate.

Of course you would lobby companies that may get something out of it rather then Nintendo, the Music industry etc. But companies that build machines like Caterpillar, GE, Honda, Renault, Volvo, Daimler are good targets. As they will then get the orders to build and design the machines when a permanent Martian base is established. As for the smaller companies think of for example parts makers. Also you could lobby the hotel industry, as they will benefit from developed technologies and new markets for tourists. But don’t forget the lobby banks for money they have a lot of money.

After you got enough money guarantees you can set up a company that encapsulates the Mars Direct plan and issue stocks to get more money. Every investor will get a share of the profits and or the developed technology that the Mars Direct company makes which is by selling developed technologies (to non investors), exporting Mars produced products and science.

Being an international and private endeavor you can launch from pretty much anywhere and use any technology without being burdened by such things as pride and country prestige. Just science and economics. So you could use for instance Russian technology or American or European or even a hybrid of those with self developed enhancements. Which ever is the most economic and has the best quality.

The first people on Mars goals would be to explore and see what the mineral composition is of Mars (are there any valuable materials? Is there enough material for a permanent base?) From there on there would be a new plan and is a permanent base.

A way to sell this plan would be to make a hybrid of the Mars Direct plan and what Space Island Group tries to do. That is getting a real space station in orbit of Earth and add to the Mars mission plan: Study the economic worth and possibilities of Mars.

I think the Mars Direct and Space Island Group plans compliment each other. As they will be basically using the same technology with some modifications, so there shouldn’t be a problem. The Space station costs about 3 billion dollars. And returns on investment are faster. But as I said they are almost the same technology. So you could use the same parts for the Mars project and share the development costs of the projects.

The Mars project would need a longer time before you get a return on investment but they will be much greater. And if you have a cheap Earth to LEO space plane you can send cargo and people to the space station all the time and from there on to Mars on a bigger ship.

*The $30 billion is divided over twenty years. So if you could like   a hundred multinationals (companies with a lot of resources), 300 middle sized companies and some 100 smaller ones. You would have about 500 companies. The biggest have the most money so will invest more. Lets say 60%. So you could say that maybe the money of all the companies together would be like about 350 multinational investors. Divide 30 billion dollars by 350 and then by 20 years.

30000000000 / (350x20) = ~42 million dollars per company per year. Of course the big companies pay more and the smaller ones less.

Well if you have a television or computer monitor. You might be already using such a device. However not as advanced as what a phantom particle would need (not arguing that its possible or not possible)

Your TV, Monitor has a electron canon. The cathode ray tube generates electrons and they are bombarded to the phosfor layer on your screen. However your TV, monitor uses a magnetic force to control the direction of the electron beam. So it sends the beam from left to right and from top to bottom to create an image.

Read more herehttp://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/tv3.htm]Read more here

Why not send inmates to Mars to pull the habitats by physical human force to the right place, like mentioned http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2086]in these posts.? So instead of chaingangs we could have habitat-gangs.

No I'm just kidding   

However I did a google for your idea and the
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=U … ch]results are not to promissing basically like MarsDog said. The pressure on Mars is like in the stratosphere of the Earth and the only things going there are weather balloons.

Hi Shaun,

I was talking about intermolecular and in the point that you got this from I was thinking of not a shield like in ST but the ships hull.

As I got from http://www.visionlearning.com/library/m … id=55]this site you got a lot of forms of chemical bonding.

But again I don't know much about chemistry nor physics. So my question is if I would base my idea on "Polar and Non-Polar Covalent Bonding" (on which H2O is based) as according to the above-mentioned site. An example on http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/7_12/el … s.htm]this site

Instead of making the oxygen molecule steal the electron and weaken the bond make the bond stronger. With a reverse electrolyses process.

For instance if the (space) ships hull is made of a metal alloy it should have some unique electromagnetic properties. So instead of using amps to destroy a molecule use a field to enhance them.

But he said the idea was to make tritium by

which produces tritium.

Now don't ask me about how much lithium costs as I have no idea nor how the process works. As IANNS (I Am No Nuclear Scienctist)

What are the chances for something even remotely similair to ST shields?

What are your ideas on implementing these?

I'm thinking stuff like:

1. Creating a cushion of plasma (like the space shuttle uses now)

2. For aircraft, ionizing air and then repel it to lower sub-sonic drag. Problem is then how those the aircraft gets its air to make the turbines turn and lift?

3. My limited knowledge of Quantum Physics tells me that all elements have some kind of magnetic properties at the right temperature, pressure and magnetic force. Hence the metallic properties of the inner core of Jupiter’s hydrogen core. Take advantage of this to create some kind of magnetic based shield. For example something that can repel hydrogen atoms.

4. Structural integrity enforcer. Something like how a microwave works except of heating hydrogen atoms it will enforce the molecular bonds. Like how each molecule has a sweet spot in the way it reacts to light absorption and rejection (giving it its unique color).

There must be a way to enforce the bonds of molecules using electromagnetism. Maybe by absorbing an EM field that changes at a certain frequency (of the molecule) and makes the electrons more determent to stay in the molecular bond as long as the EM field relatively is stronger then the external energy force. (But this is almost like the microwave theory)

5. <Insert you ideas here>

Yeah you are correct but wish I knew how you are going to pay for it.