You are not logged in.
Would it be worthwhile to point out that the first mission or two to Mars need not be "sustainable" in the sense that y'all are discussing here? The ones following, yes, because those will be more-or-less permanent bases of some sort. And we will know a whole lot more about ISRU after that first mission or two. If (AND ONLY IF) we are very smart about what we do on those first one or two missions!
No more Apollo-style "flag-and-footprints" nonsense, please!
Don't forget about light gas gun technology for launching water (as ice) into orbit for processing into propellants. It's just about ready for that job on Earth right now. It's more than powerful enough for the moon and Mars. Right now! And processing water into hydrogen and oxygen can be done (slowly, yes, at low power levels) by solar PV. Right now!!!
Just an odd thought or two to consider, from an old guy.
GW
Yes, I think you are probably right GW about it not needing to be sustainable - but on the other hand, I think we effectively have the tonnage available to begin ISRU. Clearly we will be doing that with energy - taking PV panels (to some degree I expect, even if you favour a nuclear reactor). We need to gain experience of what works with agriculture so at the least I think we would want from Mission 1 onwards a modest salad farm facility growing lettuces and tomatoes and so on (of the type that exist already in the Antarctic).
The light gas gun sounds good.
Interesting proposal and would seem to be location dependant to space related business to aid with driving some of its functions. It would have big benefit to the industry with a stream of engineering types.
I think with a proposal like this you are always looking for the synergy - here everyone taking part benefits:
1. The Consortium develops an income stream.
2. The University raises its profile and enjoys high prestige.
3. The post graduate students and professors enjoy a unique experience and unique research opportunities.
4. Science advances in terms of knowledge.
5. Commercial sponsors enjoy highly valuable publicity.
6. Non-Consortium Space Agencies can get access to Mars.
Louis:
No, the real problem is one of making heat transfer occur as fast as the other propulsion processes, when it truly and fundamentally does not want to be that fast. Skylon's engine is basically a liquid air cycle engine. No one else has ever made liquid air that fast, ever. But, Reaction Engines just might. I'm rootin' for 'em.
GW
Me too!
edit content added
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 23#p111423
Skylon's SABRE is a liquid-air cycle engine. They think they can solve the heat transfer problem to liquify the air as it comes in, with the cold hydrogen. Heat transfer is the slowest of the physical processes, which is why liquid air cycle engines were never attempted before. But, I hope they can do it.
Gas turbine engines can be built that have pretty good T/W. Isp looks good on subsonic fanjets, not so good on supersonic-capable low-bypass ratio turbojets, and really bad when you light the afterburner. The combustor can has to run very lean on fuel to hold turbine inlet temperatures under about 1800 F nor normal flights, under 2000 F for temporary high-power operation. Really exotic materials can add about 200 F more to those figures. But you hit those conditions with turbine somewhere between about M 3.2 to 3.6, almost no matter what design you use.
Most of the combined cycle proposals I have seen compromise performance of each component just to build one device instead of two. (Maybe SABRE can get around that, we'll see.) Most of these combined-cycle things end up pretty complex and heavy, as a geometry change is almost invariably involved. The best of these is the ejector ramjet my old friend Joe Bendot did at Marquardt. It adds a big rocket inside the duct of the ramjet.
On takeoff, the rocket thrust induces some airflow through the ramjet to generate static thrust. Isp is closer to rocket than ramjet. Once you've reached the speed at which the inlet functions properly (usually M1.5+), you can fly on ramjet alone at high speed. This will work as an accelerator up to around 60,000 feet altitude, where frontal thrust density drops too low due to low air density.
At that point you have to turn the rocket back on, and use both together at blended Isp, which floats down toward rocket levels as you climb higher into unusably-thin air. Run the rocket alone, on into space, at rocket Isp. SSTO.
But rocket Isp won't be as high as you are used to, because being inside the duct interferes with free plume expansion, especially in near-vacuum. Typically, lowered Isp raises GLOW of an SSTO no matter what kind of propulsion or airframe design you choose.
I actually like the parallel-burn approach better, because neither device is compromised, and you can run any blend of the two without variable geometry. It actually works out no heavier, and averages higher performance than the combined cycle designs. Rocket-ramjet (maybe to M6, and rocket-turbojet (M3.4+/- on turbo) would be two good candidates.
The air turboramjet could beat the M3.4+/- limit in turbine, if 100% air bypass from ahead of the compressor face was used. No one has ever built one, but I think it could be done without too much fuss and bother. If you can shut down the turbine and cut off all its airflow, bypassing straight to the afterburner, you can run the afterburner as a true ramjet. Capability could be as high as M6. M5 anyway. Hard, but do-able.
As for the book, I have several topics roughed out now, but only about 30% or so of them. None are in final form. The science is not too hard to write down, it's the art that's hard. I did some of that the other day, on really how to size ramjet system geometries for several different ramjet systems and weapon/launch applications. Still sweating. Or swearing. (Both, maybe.) I never wrote that stuff down before, I just did it, and noticed I was one of very few around the country able to do it that fast and well. Neither has anyone else ever written sizing procedures down, as near as I can tell.
GW
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 20#p116820
All the numbers I have run point to two stages with all known non-nuclear rocket and ramjet technologies and materials that we have. The numbers just aren't there for SSTO, not at practical structural fractions, and payloads big enough to be worthwhile.
Fundamentally, there's no reason why both stages of a TSTO cannot be reusable, and this is true whether you design for HTO or VTO. A practical SSTO will require some sort of propulsion breakthrough (yes, I know it can technically be done right now, just with impractically-small payload fractions). I have a lot of hopes pinned on Skylon with its Sabre engine for such a breakthrough, but I'm not betting the farm on it.
GW
Louis:
They're a long way from flying yet, but I really do hope it works. I know how to do the same job with a parallel-burn combination of rockets and ramjets in a two-stage airplane, but this would be loads better. Single stage at realistic mass fractions (and that is one big hell of an if!!!!!) would always be better.
Skylon's biggest problem has always been lack of funding. Fix that, and one only must contend with technical results. Technical results is always a faster path than funding, for everything I can remember. And, I'm an old guy.
GW
Well it would be nice if the UK could finally make a contribution to us getting off the planet. The UK had quite a nice space effort going in the 50s and early 60s but what with our military commitments and slow growth it was abandoned.
Do you think it's down to a question of using advanced lighter materials as components? They must be carrying a lot of mass with that cooling equipment forming part of the craft.
edit to add in content
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 20#p110420
Hmmm... so a ramjet-turbojet integrated engine is feasible? I presume it could be used to fly the carrier plane back after it's launched it's payload? Of course, if you can build it into an SSTO spaceplane...
It certainly begs the question of why Reaction Engines are working on the SABRE engine - surely the mass benefit of cutting out a few tonnes of engine mass don't warrant the extra complexity?
I imagine such an Spaceplane would fly up on jet power to about 20km, before shutting down the jet and lighting the rockets. Total required delta-V could come to say 9km/s, with the first 2km/s being jet power. Perhaps a mass ratio of 10 could be achieved. If the craft is 20 tonnes and delivers a 10 tonne payload, a payload fraction of around 3 percent could be achieved, though you're talking about a GLOW of 300 tonnes... assuming a runway could be found for it, and the average cost of the fuel comes to 250 dollars a tonne, we're talking about 7.5 dollars per kilogram in orbit in fuel costs. If the price is double this, it's still ridiculously cheap.
Have these guys been discussed before?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17874276
They seem pretty confident about their abilities, and I guess if they have the engine, the rest might follow.
It would be a first for the UK to have any really strong contribution to the space effort, so that would be nice.
edit copied posts on topic:
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 17#p100817
FWIW, check out Alan Bond's SABRE engine...
http://www.aau.ac.uk/rel.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABREhttp://www.reactionengines.co.uk/index.html
Look under current projects...
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 10#p105510
Another trick is combining jet and rocket engines into a single unit, like Reaction Engines' concept http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/sabre.html . While I doubt their SSTO plane would be practical, it might make a great first stage engine.
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=8190
Reaction Engines secure funding.
You're not going to get the annual cost down to $20-30 million unless we're already at the point where widespread colonisation is economical. At Musk's stated $1 million price tag, you're going to be spending most of that money rotating the people at the university...
Well I was thinking in terms of an average stay of perhaps 3 years, giving you a renewal rate of about 8 transits a year.
It might be too low, but on the other hand, the Universities will be able to get sponsorship for the individuals e.g. perhaps BP or Apple will want to sponsor a post-grad student who they can then feature in their advertising. They might well be prepared to cover the transit costs. It's no extra cost for them - they will simply be shuffling their advertising/charity/R&D budgets which are already committed. All you are really talking about with a project like this is diverting resources that would have been used on Earth to Mars.
There been a lot of discussion recently about the material wealth out in space.
But I wouldn't want us to underestimate the economic potential of cultural institutions.
I have long felt that a University of Mars would be an early contender for investment and development and would provide a good income stream for a Mars Consortium.
The Consortium could pitch this idea to the major prestigious universities on Earth and I think there would be a lot of interest. Who can doubt that one of the prestigious universities would not want to be the first to establish an academic presence on the planet, or that some lesser ones, might want to steal a march on the more prestigious institutions. They would be buying publicity, prestige, and the opportunity to undertake research that won't be available to their competitors. Moreover, in due course they might be able to turn a profit from the venture.
I would envisage the following set up:
1. The consortium would seek offers to establish the first university on Mars. The university would pay the Consortium to build the campus and an annual life support and transit fee.
2. This would be subject to a bidding process with the consortium setting minimum bid prices.
3. An earth based university e.g. let's say Cambridge would then win the bid and the university facility would be built. One can imagine that philanthropic sponsorship for the project might be sought...We might end up with the "University of Cambridge on Mars" and within that say the "Bill Gates Research Centre" or the "Sony Observatory".
4. Initially this would be a post graduate and research facility.
5. We might be looking at a small facility consisting of refectory, dormitory, observatory, lecture hall, and laboratories suitable for perhaps 20-25 people
6. Initially there might be two departments: Department of Geology and Department of Astronomy. But these might be augmented in due course by other departments e.g. physics, chemistry, sociology, business and so on.
7. Post grads would come to pursue specific areas of research and research teams would undertake specific research.
8. The universities would obtain revenue through for instance: continued sponsorship; companies paying for post grad fees as a form of publicity for themselves; Space Agencies and other earth research institutes paying for research projects.
9. The cost? I would estimate something $200-$400 million for the capital investment and perhaps $20-$30 million per annum in fees for transits, life support and building maintenance.
That's true, but the dynamics of manipulating price in that way are somewhat interesting. Bringing back platinum in abundance would destroy the investor/speculator market--they'll simply move to other commodities that remain scares, or to something like Bitcoin. About $4 billion per year is spent on platinum for industrial uses. So if you're sitting on a mountain of platinum the most revenue you can hope for $4bn/yr for a larger amount of platinum at lower cost (given that's how much they are willing to spend on the metal), or conservatively a value much less than that if demand is based on the amount of metal required and not price. Platinum is primarily used in the auto industry and for jewelry: general motors is not going to sell more cars because catalytic converters cost a few hundred dollars less, and outside of the most prestigious luxury brands the price of jewelry is tied to the price of the material so the price/demand dynamics there are more complex. They seem to be considering that cheaper platinum would jumpstart a new industry as new uses are made economical, but that is a long-term gamble outside of an investor's horizon of interest.
$4bn/yr is nothing to sneer at, but it is not that impressive even outside the space industry (I'll avoid the overused comparisons with NASA's budget). Apple's annual revenue is two orders of magnitude larger than that, and you'd have a hard time trying to convince me that prospecting, extracting, refining, and transporting metals safely from asteroids to the Earth's surface would take less resources than what Apple spends in consumer electronics.
Now I'm playing devil's advocate here because I'm involved in my own startup related to extra-terrestrial mining. I obviously think that Planetary Resources is on the right path and wish them the best. But overeager zealousness can lead to bad PR. It's better to look conservative and like we know what we're doing in the eyes of the economists.
Global production of platinum is something like 500 tonnes per annum, so global worth is about $2.5billion. There's no reason PRI would have to get too greedy - they could take say 20% of the revenue and still gross $500 million per annum, $5 billion over a decade. As part of a portfolio of materials that would be a tidy sum.
I still hold to the view though that you can make a lot more money from lunar tourism.
louis wrote:PLatinum is about $50 per gram = about $50,000 per (kilo)gram.
It won't remain $50/g for more than a few minutes once you start bringing back any significant quantity.
Thanks for correctly reading the typo - it should have been $50,000 per kg.
You are obviously unfamiliar with the principles of control of supply. As long as you have the monopoly on the cheap source (as PRI would at least for several years) you can manipulate the price.
Space X aim to get launch costs down to $500 per kg. Even if the price dropped to $10,000 per kg there could still be a huge profit involved.
There is some significant truth in that. Platinum-group metals have fundamental value for their chemical properties as catalysts, and I know that there has been research into their electrical properties as well (doping, etc.). Existing uses are depleting accessible reserves quickly, and industry demand would be even larger if the price weren't so high. They are also examples of resources which are extremely scarce on Earth, but relatively not so in the solar system as a whole. It's just the geochemistry of platinum-group metals that makes them so rare in the Earth's crust.
When Planetary Resources talks about bringing back platinum-group metals, it's not to flood the commodity, jewelry, or collector market. It's because it will open up new industries (catalysts, medical devices, semiconductors, etc.) to make use of the once-depleted resource.
PLatinum is about $50 per gram = about $50,000 per gram. Space X could probably provide the cheap rocketry to make this a going concern. You have to remember that asteroid miners will pay no rent, no tax, no licensing fee, no environmental clean up costs...etc etc. The surface mining costs will be far cheaper on the asteroids.
Sea launch is a consortium that has Norwegian, Russian and of course US companies that make up its shareholders.
It launches Zenit 3SL rockets manufactured in the Ukraine.
But for international law it is an agency of the United states and completely under its laws. That is the law and it does not matter that it is a private buisness concern where that company is registered makes part of that goverment.
In space it is considered to be acting as an agency of the US goverment.
I think it is too strong to say it is acting as an agent of the US government. The treaty makes the treaty state the guarantor for the company's actions would be a better way of putting it I think.
Louis, practicality and legality are two different things. It could be profitable - but only if the government lets it, which may not be the case...
The trouble is, countries are liable for any mission launched from their territory - if a dodgy rocket from Australia hits New Zealand, Australia get's sued, rather than the company involved. This also would imply that resources appropriated by a company would be considered to have been appropriated by the country it is registered in, which isn't allowed. Possibly. I'll have to look into this.
I think we've been through that before - satellites are insurable. I think that there are ways of providing bonds and so on to satisfy a treaty state.
RGClark wrote:...
Again because the delta-V requirements to a NEO are less than those to the Moon, this lander/rover could also serve as a prospector for asteroid missions. There was a recent article discussing the idea that a loophole in the Outer Space Treaty might allow private land claims on outer space bodies:Loophole Could Allow Private Land Claims on Other Worlds.
By Adam Mann | April 5, 2012 | 6:30 am | Categories: Space
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/ … -property/Then the intriguing question arises: could landing of such a low cost rover on a NEO allow the Astrobotic backers to claim full mineral exploitation rights on potentially a $20 trillion asteroid?
There is debate among legal scholars about the Outer Space Treaty. While it does ban national ownership, there is debate on whether it bans private ownership. This article on The Space Review site discusses the issue in more detail:
Staking a claim on the Moon.
by Jeff Foust
Monday, April 9, 2012
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2058/1The opposing view to Simberg's is expressed here:
How the U.S. Can Lead the Way to Extraterrestrial Land Deals.
By Berin Szoka and James Dunstan April 9, 2012 | 1:58 pm | Categories: Space, Wired Opinion
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/ … ty-rights/I don't agree with the argument that Szoka and Dunstan give that Article VI of the treaty bans private use of outer space bodies. This article in the treaty states:
Article VI
States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty. When activities are carried on in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, by an international organization, responsibility for compliance with this Treaty shall be borne both by the international organization and by the States Parties to the Treaty participating in such organization.This article only seems to be talking about that the uses shall only be for peaceful purposes and that rescue operations need to be undertaken for other nations manned missions if needed, etc.
However, another part of the Szoka/Dunstan argument I do find compelling: that different countries would grant overlapping land claims. Then it would appear such claims would have to be granted by an international organization.
It is important to note the treaty most certainly does not ban private, financial use of space resources. The big debate has been about ownership, but you don't even need ownership for private, financial use! The situation would be quite analogous to mining rights granted on public lands. The mining companies have the right to extract even valuable minerals from the ground but they still do not own the land.
Bob Clark
This is an interesting area - my view has always been that the OST does not prevent private enterprise activity, but it has to have some sort of treaty party approval. Clearly as none of the planet can be alienated by a treaty party, there is no provision for freehold ownership by a company. Leasehold I think is more arguable and licensing even more so. I think one might say that an area of land could be licensed to a private company by a treaty party for a limited period. Otherwise you would have the absurd situation where one treaty party could build a base "on top of" another treaty party's base. So a system of licensing might substitute for a freehold system of land ownership.
Of course, remember, there are small treaty parties - tiny countries - who may be happy to rubber stamp activities of companies like Space X. And remember, also that there are countries that have not ratified the OST - implicitly, a company registered in one of those countries might argue they are not covered by the OST.
Another key point: nothing in the OST prevents a self-governing community of humans being established on Mars. Musk could simply declare a Mars Republic. Nothing in the OST prevents the estbalishment of such a state.
SpaceNut wrote:For mars construction from insitu materials go to http://marshome.org/ look to he document library for what you are in search of for works that have been done already.
The Mars Homestead™ Project, the main project of the Mars Foundation™, is developing a unified plan for building the first habitat on Mars by exploiting local materials.
The ultimate goal of the project is to build a growing, permanent settlement beyond the Earth, thus allowing civilization to spread beyond the limits of our small planet.
I'm very skeptical of all this. I've read all their docs, & it's full of optimistic simplifications. I've got an engineering diplom in plastics manufacturing, & I think it's enough to allow me to dismiss most of their plans for polymers(where are the additives? How do you maintain the extrudor screw?.....). A little knowledge is often worse than no knowledge at all, & at least on the plastics part, they are exactly in that position.
Are polymers necessary? What are they being used for?
Effective sealing can be obtained using ice and regolith cover I think. Maybe internal walls could be double lined with basalt tiles.
The older threads can be searched for by using the advance search http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en on google for the website that you would like the string ends up looking something like this... greenhouse site:http://www.newmars.com/forums
Lious the hamster ball sounds interesting but I think that finding a perfect spot to select to dam and cover would be hard to find....
Yes, I think the "dam and cover" gorge project would be a few years or maybe decades down the line.
I saw a TV prog which mentioned the material Starlite which I had never heard about before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlite
The demonstrations did seem to indicate a remarkable (and lightweight) material that could be used as a heat shield.
Just wondered if people were aware of this.
I didn't say it in my long post just above, but yeah, by all means take some experimental ISRU gear on the first mission and try it out. It's just not smart to count on it for crew survival on that first mission, because the probability is, it won't quite work right. Maybe not at all. That's just the nature of engineering development.
If the first mission really does get done right (and I think that is a low probability, given NASA's track record since 1972), then the second mission really could be based on the surface at one, at most two, sites, instead of LMO. Some better ISRU machinery prototypes could really get "wrung out" on a mission like that, but it's still just plain stupid to count on them for crew survival. My experience with engineering development (19 straight years) is that "second time up" still does not work well enough to serve. Doesn't matter what you are attempting, that's just pretty much a "given" in the real world.
That's why I'd like to see two properly-sequenced government missions before a corporate visionary takes over, like Musk. (Boeing and Lockheed-Martin = ULA sure as hell won't.) By that time, he will have both the lander and the ISRU technology, to really succeed at planting a proper base, one that might actually become a nascent colony.
Do it wrong or out of sequence, that colony just plain will not happen in the next century, at least. It'll take that base/colony a significant while (measured in years) to become self-supporting. That's been the history of things. That's also why ULA won't plant it: no short/near-term profit in doing it, unless the government pays them to do it. And I can pretty much guarantee you that it won't.
GW
I think it depends who's doing it. NASA will be subject to all sorts of political and media pressures. A billionaires' club ultimately could probably mount the launch facilities outside the USA if necessary and go it alone.
However, I don't think it will come to that and I think that once the American public see they have a winner here they will back it because the American people love a winner. We may see a Space X-PRI mission with a NASA badge on it.
I think NASA communications remain a serious requirement for the mission and one it would be difficult if not impossible for a private mission to replicate.
Tented fresh water pond.
Related to a degree to the "Antarctic Dry Valley Lake", which in other places I have proposed, is a much more humble proposal.
Dig a ditch, and put in it some means to keep the water from draining. If it is in ground with ice as places on Mars might provide, then the permafrost might do this.
Put a tent with UV protection over that. It should also help to keep liquid water or ice from evaporating out of the enclosure.
On Earth, fresh water with ice over it can have water temperatures as high as 39 degrees Fahrenheight. Higher than that and the water starts turning over.
For this "Ditch-Pond" I might prefer a layer of ice. That ice can be very clear. Perhaps 1 inch, 3 inches, 6 inches, a few feet.
I a water source were available, then this mode of aquaculture is possible.
I could be wrong but I think that on Mars a layer of ice 1.2 feet thick should add a pressure of 10 millibars, so the pressure at the bottom of such an ice layer would be in the bottom of Hellas somewhat above 20 millibars. So the amount of disolved gases could be less than or equivalant to that before it would come out of solution. Nitrogen content could be elivated, if that would favor an organism. A certain amount of Oxygen could be kept in those waters, for organisms which require Oxygen for their motabilism when the sun is not shining.
Fertilizer could be added of course.
I am sure simple micro-organisms could grow in that, and perhaps some scheme could be cooked up to use them for food, or some other resource.
However, I would much prefer that a complex green plant be found which would be able to live at the bottom of such a "Trench-Pond". I don't think that humans are very fond of ice water, and of course on most places on Earth most fresh water ponds are covered with snow if it is winter, so the solar flux is very reduced.
However, I am guessing that somewhere on the planet might be found such a plant.
Further, if this aparatus were to overheat, it could be cooled with an Ammonia/water coolant, and that boiled to generate electricity. Of course to make that pay, the installation would have to be very large.
If not the cooling system, then shades might be used in the summer.
I was looking at rice - some wild rice varieties are almost completely submerged.
http://natures-water.com/education_info … index.html
Not sure how we deal with the sublimation problem, but maybe just laying anchored plastic sheeting over water would be enough? Perhaps we could slowly accummulate CO2 at higher pressure under the plastic sheeting. Weighing it down at the edges underwater creates an effective seal (I think).
Huge reflectors on the edge of the basin could reflect solar radiation down on to the rice paddy.
Louis said:
It got me thinking of "hamster balls", computer controlled agri-balls that might follow the light and return to base...they would be pressurised.
There must surely be somewhere on Mars some narrow gorges - let's set 20-30 metres across, 50 metres high and 100-200 metres long. We might be able to build concrete walls, like dams, at each end, construct a flat floor, place on top of that a top soil (mostly manufactured on Mars) and then install a glass roof. After that, pressurise and humidify the atmosphere. This might be a relatively quick way of creating mini-worlds.
"Hamster balls". That would be a possible expansion of the jars, more mobile, able to cover more surface, more automated.
I have also thought about a robot gardener inside of the containers, lets say for duckweed, if you had a subchamber which was on the dark side, and cool or cold, refrigeration or a freezer, and so the robot takes duckweed and refirigerates it or puts it in the freezer and lets more duckweed grow. Something like that. That concept could also be upgraded to other vegtibles as well. Perticularlly if the bottles had an influx of nutrients.
However, it is perhaps best to start small with hand carry bottles, (Maybe a two wheel cart or a wheelbarrow), and then as the population rises move towards larger devices, and permanent installations such as your canyon with walls, floor and roof.
Perhaps for some produce the small bottles would be kept, but not so much for plants that require polinators. Those would be best grown in the device you have mentioned.
So I can think of four lines of logic for growing plants:
1) Inside the habitation, most likely with artificial lights, but perhaps a few plants in the shelter windows, this being done for pyscological reasons as well as for the food.
2) A batch process with "Bottle Terrariums", because this could be a practicle way to expand agriculture in the beginning and their may be a few plants that would do well with this.
3) Your covered canyon, since, there are some plants that would be best grown in Earth simulated normalicy, with polinating ornisms.
4) Tented experimental ice water irrigation, most likely at the bottom of Hellas, to begin to develop an organism which can be of economic value, and might be more and more adapted to such an environment.
5) Covered water enclosures, such as an artificial Antarctic Dry Valley lake, but I will do a post on a fresh water pond, which would be in the same family.As for 1 or 3, I have read that the "Bananna" has everything a human needs to survive. I cannot confirm that but it is an interesting notion.
I will talk further in another post about tented ice water irrigation.
I think I was brain storming on the hamster balls, but I guess if you had some central heated pen, near the base habitat, where they could return at night, it might make sense, at least in the six months of summer.
I don't think anyone here wants "Flags and Footprints" - and the good thing is that Musk most certainly does not. He wants to extend human civilisation on a permanent basis - he's quite clear about that.
I agree we want a belt and braces approach and for mission 1 it may be better to take the return propellant with us. However, on the other hand, we could still begin experimentation with robot production of rocket fuel on the surface (which the first arrivals could check for quality and operational use after landing). They might bring a weather rocket with them to test the rocket fuel...
Agreed about the double use of water...only thing, I have never heard anyone say whether the water is still potable after absorbing all that radiation...is it? Of course, if it's just waste water, that's OK.
Well to be honest, I am not a big fan of big domes. Not at this time.
I think that quarters should be safe, and that adding too much window space for plant life endangers the lives of people and would require constant vigilance and testing and repairing to maintain air pressure. I also think that the construction costs of effort would be prohibitive until later in the estabilishment of the culture. I also think that high structures invite slip and fall injuries.
Yes, such "Greenhouse" kits could be delivered at great expense from Earth, no, they would not maintain very safely or in a cost effective way.
Yes they could eventually be constructed from materials native to Mars, but still the amount of effort for the payoff does not seem to me to make them a prudent investment.
I believe that quarters could have small specialty gardens, with windows, but preferably with indoor lighting. This would be done in part for maintaining phychological heath for the settlers.
Otherwise, I am inclined to consider a batch process for gardening, for a number of reasons.
1) With plastics and 3D printers, mass production of large bottles could occur. Repitition in the making of the same bottle.
2) The bottles could also be converted into terrariums.
3) The bottles can be loaded up as terrariums.
4) The bottles can be sprayed with liquid glass for protection.
5) The bottles can be put outside.
6) The bottles can have a protective tent outside that they are put in, the protective tent would have also been sprayed with liquid glass.Each container would have it's own pressurization and stock of chemicals. Perhap part of the bottle would be occupied by decaying organic matter and Mushrooms, and the other part by green plants.
I think that this would be a good first expansion of gardening abilities.
Other needed parts are:
Plastic poles for tent poles.
A reflective plastic sheet on the bottom of the tent, where more sunlight is reflected to the bottles to make up for attenuation and also that sunlight is dimmer on Mars.
Water pillows. Pillows of sterile water, put also into the tent to help keep off freezing temperatures at night.Crazy?
Get a pepsi bottle, a clear one, empty it, take the label off. Now think about sizing it up.
Beyond that my next expectation would be to have a 6 foot nominal "Mold" and to have a plastic printer print sections that can be socketed into each other, so as to make a very long tube, one that even humans could walk into. Each section glued to the other, and then perhaps that attached to an airlock. A person entering such a structure might still consider a counterpressure suit.
Anyway here are some connected websites that might help make it seem possible.
http://www.mobot.org/jwcross/duckweed/n … sition.htm
http://tealco.net/window_edible_herb_garden.html
http://herbcompanion.com/Gardening/HERB … GLASS.aspx
Now before you go off into giggle fits, remember that the bottles are also bottles, and there will be a need for bottles to store chemicals. If more than is needed are created, and they can be used to grow some food, then it is worth considering.
And I also favor a plastics intensive industrial base because I anticipate that such a process will naturally leak greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere as a by product.
http://www.pallensmith.com/articles/terrarium
Finally I anticipate a large "Humididore", in the bottom of Hellas, mostly unpressurized, and yet capable of allowing a "Crop" to be wattered with ice water. Most likely a tundra grass or something like that. Failing that then moss or linchens. Any boil off would have to be recaptured and condensed. Anyway, that "Tent" would most likely be a plastic tent with spray on glass. It would be a step in the right direction, towards a someday outdoors farming effort when the bottom of Hellas had a pressure of 20 Millibars or more.
Other pressurized structures that humans can be in? Large cornfields for instance? I am not thinking that that is a great notion untill the "Martians" get their "Sea Legs" and invent new technologies, neccessity being what it is.
Some great ideas there.
It got me thinking of "hamster balls", computer controlled agri-balls that might follow the light and return to base...they would be pressurised.
There must surely be somewhere on Mars some narrow gorges - let's set 20-30 metres across, 50 metres high and 100-200 metres long. We might be able to build concrete walls, like dams, at each end, construct a flat floor, place on top of that a top soil (mostly manufactured on Mars) and then install a glass roof. After that, pressurise and humidify the atmosphere. This might be a relatively quick way of creating mini-worlds.
I will take a look at your links.
louis wrote:It came up on another thread but deserves its own as this is potentially a v. important development. It's potentially an alternative source of funding for Space X for one thing.
This looks like a v. virtuous circle to me: funding from NASA to Space X, funding from PRI to Space X, missions to exploit tourism and other potential business opportunities.
Hi Louis!
It's still unclear exactly what Planetary Resources intend to do, but given their resources and skills this group could do impressive things in space.
Finance is coming from Larry Page and Eric Schmidt - note that Page has a net worth larger than NASA's budget!
Henry Perot Jr is a comfortable billionaire too and likes to fly helicopters around the world, maybe he wants to go faster with space adventurer and billionaire Charles Simonyi
James Cameron is the poor boy, but he's rich in marketing and movie skills.
Although I would have preferred the first mission to Mars to be a tax-funded communal effort, a billionaires' pact could definitely see us there. And I'd prefer that to the mafia gangs ruling Russia and China getting there first.
It seems to me that PRI have the right skills set/interests as well as the right funds. They include some background in space tourism as well which I think will be key.
I still think we need to develop technology more so than plan missions. Lots of basic research and testing.. And there's got to be unmanned test flights..
Late 20s I think.
We may see a return to the pace of development of the 50s and 60s because Musk has fundamentally changed the economics of space with low launch costs. If he gets it down to $1000 per kg to LEO, or below, and if he has cracked the EDL issue with cantered rocket jets then the whole scene is altered fundamentally.
Remember we went from a satellite launch in 1957 to landing people on the Moon in 12 years. The lunar landing R&D took about 5 years and included a couple of major rethinks along the way.
With the involvement of PRI and their billionnaire backers is there really anything stopping us now?
We won't just throw people at the surface of Mars any more than NASA threw people at the surface of the Moon. But as part of the mission programme there will be several years of testing. We'll probably have test flights doing figures of 8 around the moon and earth, gradually going further away from the protective magnetic field. We'll test people's capabilities to function after the long flight - perhaps by landing on the Moon and also on Earth where they will immediately have to function.
If it took 12 months from the first orbital craft to lunar landing I think we can get to Mars in 12 years now all the pieces are in place.
Anyone care to predict when the first human will land on Mars ?
I've been getting increasingly optimistic over the last 12months or so as it seems a lot of barriers are falling away. It looks like Space X will have the rocket/capsule capability within a few years.
My prediction: 2023.
This is my first ontopic post for some time and hopefully an interesting one ...
April 18, 2012
*** Media Alert *** Media Alert *** Media Alert ***
Space Exploration Company to Expand Earth's Resource Base
WHAT: Join visionary Peter H. Diamandis, M.D.; leading commercial space entrepreneur Eric Anderson; former NASA Mars mission manager Chris Lewicki; and planetary scientist & veteran NASA astronaut Tom Jones, Ph.D. on Tuesday, April 24 at 10:30 a.m. PDT in Seattle, or via webcast, as they unveil a new space venture with a mission to help ensure humanity's prosperity.
Supported by an impressive investor and advisor group, including Google’s Larry Page & Eric Schmidt, Ph.D.; film maker & explorer James Cameron; Chairman of Intentional Software Corporation and Microsoft’s former Chief Software Architect Charles Simonyi, Ph.D.; Founder of Sherpalo and Google Board of Directors founding member K. Ram Shriram; and Chairman of Hillwood and The Perot Group Ross Perot, Jr., the company will overlay two critical sectors – space exploration and natural resources – to add trillions of dollars to the global GDP. This innovative start-up will create a new industry and a new definition of ‘natural resources’.
This new venture is called Planetary Resources, Inc.
It came up on another thread but deserves its own as this is potentially a v. important development. It's potentially an alternative source of funding for Space X for one thing.
This looks like a v. virtuous circle to me: funding from NASA to Space X, funding from PRI to Space X, missions to exploit tourism and other potential business opportunities.
I really think a Mars Mission is going to come much more quickly than people think. If Musk can crack the EDL problem then all systems are go.