New Mars Forums

Laserlight/Microwave-craft are not a new idea, but it seems that they have fallen out of the spot light.  They are a enviromentally friendly, energy efficient, and cheap means of boosting mass to orbit.

The primary cost would involve setting up an infrastructure, but afterwards the only cost is maintaining the infrastructure, the craft itself, and a small amount of propellant. 

The basic idea for the Lightcraft is that a high power laser superheats the air beneath the craft causing it to combust thus propelling the craft at an increasing velocity.  The laser could be powered by ground based sources, or more cheaply by space based solar power.  Using a space based solar station would provide free (neglecting the construction cost of course) electricity, that when not being used/stored for a launch can be diverted the the local power grid.

Microwave powered lightcraft work in a somewhat similar manner except they heat the air from above and also provide electrical power for ion propulsion.

Research at Rennsayler Polytechnical Institute has found that a 1km diameter solar station that could produce up to 20 gigawatts of power.  Approximately 4.3 gigawatts (Two orbits worth of stored power) would be able to lift a 12 person crew to orbit.  Excess power would be used to accelerate the slipstream along the edge of the craft to cancel the sonic shock, thus making it silent at supersonic speeds.

The spacecraft could be propelled from the earth's surface to the moon in about 5.5 hours! Using free electricity and minimal propellant. Of course one would need a way to slow down upon lunar injection, solutions include electromagnetic rings that would convert the crafts velocity back into power for another launch.  But a mission to Mars could rely on aerobraking, or even chemical/nuclear propulsion to slow its approach and enter orbit.

A dissadvantage (well sort of) of the microwave craft is its high accelerations, but those problems are being worked on as we speak by the military.  Neverless, we can use the craft for unmanned payload at the onset.  Thus being able to lift massive amounts of payload (in small chuncks) for 1/1000 of the cost of current techniques.  That is equivalent to a person spending the same on a ticket from the US to Australia as they would on a ticket to orbit!

In terms of a Mars mission, one could lauch a Zubrin type mission at an even lower cost.  Microwave-light propulsion could lift equipment for a LEO staging area (i.e. add to the ISS and lift the Mars transit vehicle to wait) for the human team to meet up with, until the acceleration problems are solved.  The initial unmanned equipment could be lifted with microwaves, using stored propellant for transit and Mars generated return propellant.  Thus limiting the use of chemical rockets to lifting personnel. Later when clonization begins, modules (unmanned) could be lifted every two days to be sent to Mars in sections.

I do not have the time or inclination at this time to figure the exact numbers for savings that this system would provide, but I think it is fairly evident that they would be drastic.

Laser/Microwave lightcraft are not in the realm of science fiction, prototypes have flown sucessfully in the last couple years.  The technology could easily be put into action before 2015, perfect for a Mars mission time frame.  I feel that the cost and efficientcy benefits of a similar type plan could drastically change our ideas on wheter or not we go to Mars, and how much it will cost.

I await your ideas and criticisms on this subject, and I shall try to do some calculations in some of my free time in the near future (when I'm not doing work for the Evil Classes of Engineering    ).

A Mars mission is only an example.  I mean we should be pushing for NASA to develop a plan, and apply it, for manned exploration beyond LEO.  I.E. Lagrangian space stations, Lunar Exploration, Mars, etc.  I think we need to work as a whole to get America (and the world) a space program.

Sorry for any confusion

Just a quick one, as I must return to class soon.

Okay Clark, let us for a moment (and only a moment, for that is all I feel such an opinion merits ) assume that we were to take the money elsewhere, where it is needed to support the masses.

I suggest to you that a similar case has already transpired and failed over the last 30 years.  The only difference is the money has been taken from manned space flight instead of the hypothetical colonization budget.  But I feel that these are close enough in definition that the difference can be neglected.

NASA's budget peaked in 1965, since then nay-sayers (like Clark is pretending to be) have had their way and for almost 40+ years the budget has fallen.  So for almost 40 years their dreams have been coming to fruitition at a steadily rising quantitity.  For nearly forty years all of this money "better spent elsewher" has been put back into the availiable government budget.

Yet what good has come out of this money spent elsewhere?  Other than a $50,000/year pension for congressmen (no that is not a made up number), to what common good has this extra money been spent? 

Now Clark will probably respond something akin to "The future society will not piss this extra money away, they will you it only for the betterment of mankind".  Thinking such as this has rarely (I can't think of any time) been true.  It is, for lack of a better phrase at the current time, bullshit (pardon my freedom-ese  ).   

What has happened is the loss of our space infrastructure, thereby raising the costs of launches, let alone manned missions, for even those missions that directly benefit all of humanity.  We have lost uncountable amounts of resources, raw and capital, for 40 years of retreating from space instead of progressing (even slowly).  We where at the very threshold for serving all of mankind (for example orbiting powerstations to provide cheap power to the masses, thus helping to improve their status of life.  Another example, utilizing the mineral rich regolith of the Moon to grow crops to subsidize starving nations.  The list goes on and on.), but we have been scared by the possibility of change, for better or worse, and have come home to our mommy crying afraid to again leave her safety net.

There is only one way to prove the point without a doubt, we must colonize or we will never know.  Even if humanity decided to stay in the cradle and somehow things were to improve, we would never know if mankind would have prospered (as a whole) even more on its own in the galaxy. To say otherwise would be a classic example of  Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

What have we got to lose?  If humanity finds the "space kings" so untolerable, we can stop the further expansion.  But if we don't go we may lose a bright future for all mankind.

I realize that there isn't much "hard data" in what I have said, but I seen none in Clarks as well.  The best anyone can do on this topic, save an empirical evaluation (please, do try that), is to look at what the past has to say on similar subjects and draw what educated conclusions you can from it.  I for one see a long history that supports expansion (read colonization for our purposes) over the stagnation of a society.  I hope you may also see the error in Clark's view :laugh: . 

Well off to class, I hope to see your responses soon (and from more people than Bill, Clark, and myself).

Why should colonization be a means to support Earth?  Nothing we can do will be anything more than a short term (in species-time not lifetime) solution.  We could kill off half the world's population and impose population limits, but what good would that do?  Without severely limiting the rights of the individual (limiting progeny) we would eventually end up in the same situation.  If somehow we were able to limit the population, society would merely stagnate the condition.  Where do we set the limit to population?  Too high and we must limit the amount of resources each person can use also.  Eventually we would reach an inescapable plateau of standard of living (it may be better than it is now, but it cannot progress any further). 

I agree that colonization cannot dent the population woes of Earth, but I propose that that is not, and should not be, the purpose of humanity's venture into space.

What we need to think about is colonies to support themselves and new colonies.  We cannot simply make them resource depots to constantly feed Earth (I think that the last 200 years have shown the error in that type of colonialism).  We must do what is good for humanity as a whole, even if it means letting Earth suffer for its mistakes.  What you suggest is that if some of humanity must suffer, then all must suffer the same.  Should a coal miner deny his child an education so he cannot leave the mines and find a better life, even if it means leaving the family behind? I find your idea to be absolutely abhorrent and against all that humanity should stand for. 

I encourage you to provide a way through which humanity continues to improve itself without leaving the cradle.  I think you will find it mathematically impossible without severe barriers to human progress and freedom.

I say it is time to ween the child or it will never be able to feed itself.

Latin or Ancient Greek.  They are much more structured and elaborate (especially Greek) than most, if not all, modern languages.  The more elaborate the inflections, the more delicate the syntax.  It is much more difficult to be vague in these languages than in say English, which seems to pride itself on its vagueness.  This allows these languages to be more accurate in the relation between ideas and in the shades of meaning and emotion.  It is in their nature to be exact, subtle andd clear.

"The mind of a people is expressed perhaps more immediately in the structure of its language than in anything else it makes..."  -- H.D.F. Kitto

I just finished Gods and Legions (not to be confused with Gods and Generals, the new movie coming out) by Michael Curtis Ford.   It's a historical fiction about the rise to power of Julian Augustus, emperor of Rome in the 4th century.  It's very well written and stays close to historical fact.  If any of you have read The Ten Thousand by Ford, then you will love this new novel.

For more info (I'm not really in the mood to write a book report now) see here: http://www.amazon.com/exec....=507846

Sorry if you missunderstood me on this point.  I believe that space is a "lifeboat" for humanity, but I said nothing about it being a lifeboat for Earth.  These are two entirely different entities.  Civilization on earth doesn't need to survive in order for humanity to survie.  Granted those who leave will be much better off (in the scenario I have posed), than those who stay, but humanity will be better off when it moves into space. 

In fact, humanity's expansion into space may be the very downfall of Earth civilization.  Obviously there will be limits to who gets to go, and who will remain behind.  Those who go will likely be the cream of the crop, the apex of humanity if you will.  Every time you remove people from above the average, the average of the system gradually lowers.  Thus humanity in space will begin in a far better position than earth will exist, and the divide will grow deeper the longer it goes on.

Slowly we will suck the planet dry of its best and brightest, while the rest of humanity continues to improve upon itself.  Just like our ancestors in the homonid branch of life; the better survivors become better, while the others stagnate and die.

Sounds kind of harsh, but humanity will survive (hopefully) even if the Terrans don't.  It won't happen overnight, but it will become more apparent as time goes on (if we make it that far).

I think that there is one factor you all are failing to consider, the human one.  No I don't mean is it to risky, or is it morally right, etc.  I mean that if we keep pushing it off will we be able to ever get to Mars?

As we begin this new century, we race at an ever increasing rate toward a bottleneck of sorts.  In the past century we rapidly passed the point of sustainibility for humanity.  Population increases at an exponential rate stretching our resources, both physical and economical, to the breaking point.  In the final days of 1999 our species surpassed the 6 billion mark. At about the same time the United Nations Population Division released a study showing that the earth is only capable of sufficiently supporting around 3.5 billion people on an 1800-calorie per day diet.  The U.N. reports that currently 3.6 billion people are barely getting enough to eat with more than 1 billion of them in total abject poverty.  The original projections for world population reaching 11 billion in 2025 were pushed back to 2050, because the fact that most of our new population would starve to death before reproducing wasn?t accounted for in the original estimates.  This also explains why our current population growth is beginning to level off. 

With resources for their overcrowded countries dwindling, many countries may resort to more aggressive means to ensure their survival.  A prime example of this scenario is World War Two.  The Axis countries sought by means of military conquest to expand their resources and living space.  The only difference with the coming threat is that this time it won?t be a few countries trying to survive; it will be the entire world.  There is no longer anywhere for the victims to be displaced.

A few statistics on our diminishing resources:

--Production of grains per capita has been declining since 1983, due to a 20% decline in per capita cropland, a 15% decrease in irrigation water, and a 23% drop in the use of fertilizers. (Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1999)

--Only 11% of the world's soils can be farmed without being irrigated, drained, or otherwise improved. (UN Food and Agriculture Organization)

--Worsening water scarcity stems in large part from increases in human demand. Water tables are dropping world wide.

--By 2040, we would need to triple the global food supply in order to meet the basic food needs of the eleven billion people who are expected to be alive. But doing so would require a 1,000 percent increase in the total energy expended in food production. (Beyond Oil, 1991)

These are merely a couple of the effects of overpopulation.  On the surface they may not appear to endanger the space program, but observation of the whole system shows otherwise.

As governments struggle to support their growing populations by both producing new and defending existing resources, their economies will be taxed to the limit leaving no spare change for "non-critical endeavors".  We see it happening already, droughts across the western US, pollution problems in our cities (leading to health problems, mainly respiratory), rising costs in the basic nesecities, unchecked urban sprawl, and the increase in those living in abject poverty.  Many politicians already (especially after the Columbia incident) are beginnig to attempt to pull us out of space, or at least severely limit our access to it.

The question arises "Why should we spend money on going to Mars when we have so many problems here?" resounds across the world.  But these problems are exactly (if one takes the time to have the foresight beyond the next election) why we need to push harder into space than we have ever done before.  And we must do it now.  We cannot solve any of our long term problems by drawing back our borders and staying Earthbound.  To do so will sign the death warrant for our species.  Granted, it will most likely be many decades or even centuries before humanity would die off. But the conditions of life will be like those suffered during the dark ages, mass poverty, scientific illiteracy, tecnological stagnation and collapse, and pandemic diseases.

To those who say "Mars will always be there", yes it will but soon we will no longer be able to reach it.  In five years a significant event will begin, te baby boomers will be beginning to retire.  Many of these will take their technical skills with them as the current generation of youths have a quickly fading interest in persuing technical careers.  Along with the decline of technical know-how is the economic impact.  Most economic analysts predict a serious economic collapse as the baby boomers begin to cash in on over extended retirement benefits.(Boomernomics, 1998) The government (even if reforms are made) simply cannot support this population of retirees.  Taxes will most likely be levied on the younger generations, but how far they will allow that to go waits to be seen. By 2025 the GNP of the US will no longer be able to support the costs of supporting the country, meaning that space will most likely become a very low priority endeavor, if it stays a priority at all.

We may or may not be able to help Earth, but should humanity simply fade away because we didn't have the intelligence to see what was coming.  Time is running out and something needs to be done.  There is no hope for humanity if we do not persue colinization now, but there will be hope for humanity (hopefully Earth as well) if we begin to expand our resources and territory.  I know I probably don't need to explain to those of you who will read this the near infinite possibilities for survivial that await us beyond.  But I do want you to consider the effects of our complacency.

--There of couse is much more I could say, but I have to get back to my homework.  On a side note, I know many of you will see me and this view as being radical or extremist as many of my peers think.  But I ask you to look at what the evidence shows in plain sight.  I encourage you to check it out for yourself.  Look at the total picture of the future that is and has been evolving before our very eyes.

Ad Astra o Ad Necis
(To the Stars or To Death)

Sorry for the confusion.  China will probably launch their first
Taikonaut sometime befor the end of the year if not early next year.  I was implying that if they had done it on their own without the "donations" of our polititians and the excellence of their intelligence service, it would not be completed in this decade.

Even our space program wouldn't have been as successful as it was if it weren't for the German scientists we captured or defected to us.

And on the American militirization of space, our goals aren't quite as extreme as the Chinese ones.  Manned military bases on the Moon, microvave weapons in Low Earth orbit, etc. All of which they hope to be in place by 2020, which coincidentally, is almost the same time frame that the military chiefs are calling for the "re-appropiation" of Taiwan.  Such advances might allow China to defeat America (who has promised to protect Taiwan in such an event), or at least draw us into a war of attrition, in a war that if started now would more than likely lead to theatre nuclear warfare.

The American military goals in space worry me far less than those of a China who has repeatedly called the conquest of Asia their destiny and birthright.

So I guess it all boils down to who you think is the lesser evil...

Looking at the Chinese capabilities, there is little chance that they could place a "taikonaut" into space in this decade on their own.  Yet the Chinese space program has been making tremendous leaps in the past years.  Is China smarter than we thought or are they getting outside help?

The answer is outside help, and guess where its coming from... The good old U.S. of A.  Many of the latest breakthroughs in Chinese space technology have been due stolen technology from our own space program, and even worse some of it was sold to them by our own leaders  for campaign money.

Much of the technology for developing space systems (for intance som of our most advanced supercomputers and CAD/CAM programs) were outright sold to the Chinese by a former President and his Vice for money to use on their reelection bid.  If you don't know who I mean, then you must not have paid very good attention to the news in the last few years.

Even worse was the sale of classified satellites and launch systems from Motorola, Hughes, amd Loral.  Also sold was missile technology from the forementioned administration including satellite control facilities, satellite image processing facilities, missile nose cone design, multiple warhead delivery systems, guidance systems, kick-motor designs and computer systems for ground and space control.

Have no illusions about the benevolence of the Chinese space program.  While the Chinese space program is run by civilians, the Army-run Commission of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense (COSTIND) is in charge of the researh and development of their space program.

From an article by Charles Smith:

"The Chinese army runs all space activities from its brand new mission control facility located 30 miles northwest of Beijing. The control center is packed with U.S.-made computers supplied during the Clinton administration.

The Chinese army multibillion-dollar Shenzhou manned mission scheduled for 2002 or 2003 illustrates the new aggressive space effort by China. China is currently training a dozen astronauts for the first flight.

The 17,000-lb. Shenzhou vehicle resembles a Russian Soyuz spacecraft but is larger and equipped with two sets of solar panels. China has tested unmanned versions of the Shenzhou twice, the first in November 1999 and the second in January 2001.

"My sense is that the manned launch will be a surprise," stated Jamestown Foundation's Richard Fisher. "I expect a few more unmanned Shenzhou launches before the manned launch."

China also recently signed a deal with Alcatel of France for a new 5-ton DFH-4 communications satellite. In addition, China is developing 15 new space satellites and has started two new joint space ventures with Iran and Pakistan.

The massive civil space buildup in China is mirrored by the Chinese army, which is currently upgrading its space-based assets as well. The new military space program includes reconnaissance, navigation, and weather and communications satellites designed specifically to support PLA combat operations.

In 2002, the Chinese military is scheduled to launch a new series of Global Positioning navigation satellites designed to help accurately guide its JL-2 submarine launched nuclear tipped missiles. Both the GPS satellites and the JL-2 SLBM missiles are slated to become operational by 2004."

For the full article Chinese Developing U.S.-Powered Missile, Space Programs

Another intresting one China's Space Program Driven by Military Ambitions

Don't even think for a moment that the Chinese presence in space will be peaceful, history has shown that the opposite is most certainly the case.  The strength and the very freedom of the Free World is theatened by any superiority of the Chinese in space. But who will stop them when the time comes?  If things continue as they have been, no one.

Better start learning Chinese...

Ni hao ma?

YES!  When companies are forced to compete, costs must go down for them to survive.
   Look at the rocket manufacturers of the world.  Here in America we follow the Cost+ rule for gov't contracts.  That is, Uncle Sam pays the company the total cost (even if they don't meet the deadline and the cost raises) plus an extra 10% profit.  The government has also banned the usage of forign rockets for government launches.  Simply put, American companies have a government enforced monopoly on rockets bought by the U.S.  But do you ever see American rockets launching foreign payloads?  Of course not, or prices are astronomical.
   It costs more now to launch a payload into orbit than it did in the 70s (taking into account for inflation of course).  It seems to me to be bass-ackwards considering the technological leaps that have been made in rocket technology since then.  Launch costs should be cheaper now than they ever have been. 
   If the American companies had to compete with companies like Arianne and the like, they'd be out of business in a short time.  Or they'd be forced to change their ways.  Companies like Arianne have to keep their cost low because the competition is tough and not restricted like it is here.
   The best thing we could do to help the American space program in the immediate future is to get rid of these self-imposed regulations.  Once the companies are forced to compete, they'll have no choice but to lower their prices.  Another side benefit is that research will advance faster as the companies cmpete against eachother to stay alive (unlike our current rocket fleet which is mostly based on rockets designed before the 70s i.e. Titan and Atlas).
   Maybe instead of petitioning Congress to make resolutions (laws with no real effect) about possibly investing more time in space exploration, when they have time, and if they feel like it, we should petition the to make space a free market.  Isn't that what we struggled against the Soviets for? The ideals of a free market...

   It sounds to me like some of the people up top are forgetting the intents and purposes of our forefathers.  How dare they betray the ideals of the great men and women who started this country because of things like government controlled markets.

   Free market.  Free will.

BUZZ!  Actually a nanometer is equal to 3.94 * 10^-4 mils. 

1 mil = .0001 inch = 25.4*10^-6 meter = diameter of a human hair

Technically a nanometer isn't a unit at all.  A nanometer is a billionth of a meter.  The word nano is added as a descriptor denoting 10^-9.  Mils and the like are seperate units from the inch, althought one could also use a descriptor and say a milli-inch which would be equivilant.

I have yet to see anyone discuss the reasons behind some of the odd units in the Natural System (English Syestem, Imperial System, etc).  The Natural system gets its name from real world situations.  Here is were some come from.

Most are based on the capability and dimensions of the human body. 

Mil = diameter of a hair
finger = 3/4 in
thumb= 1 in
hand = 4 fingers + 1 thumb = 4in
span = 2 hands = 8 in
foot = 3 hands = 12 thumbs =  12 in
cubit = 24 fingers = 18 inches
yard = 2 cubits = 3 feet = 1 pace
fathom = 2 yards = 6 feet=arms extended fingertip to fingertip
mile = 1760 paces
league = 3 miles = dist. a man can walk in an hour
acre = area a man and mule plow in a day
farm = 160 acres = area man and mule can plow in a year
township = 144 (a gross) farms
pound = the average amount of food a person could eat in a sitting (maybe not here in america   )
talent = 66 pounds = amount average man can carry continosly

As you can see the British System is based on the natural world.  The SI (created by the French because they refused to accept a British system of units) units were based on... does anyone really know?

I do, but I'm not telling.  That would take all of the fun out of it for me.