You are not logged in.
Another more prosaic approach to dust control and space suits: ultrathin disposable plastic overalls. In fact I think this might be the most practical way forward.
Jumpboy - Yes I've wondered about that. There is a lot of stuff floating around in space. There's plenty of energy in space. Couldn't a solar power station orbiting Venus suck in matter, concentrate it and then cinter it?
Sorry - one other point I meant to mention...
I think there could be a role for an LEO artificial gravity station. On return from a Mars mission the crew would enter this station and gradually be returned to one G before re-entry to earth.
Yes I'm glad to see the positive response here.
Couple of points. Re dust control I've already suggested we "carpet" the base area. The "carpeted" surface can then be vacuumed on a 24 hour basis by robots (technology already exists - will need to be cold-proofed like Mars robots). We could also build windbreaks around the base area.
But of course the main dust control will be simply avoiding going outside. There won't be a great need to be outside on the surface apart from raw materials gathering (but that need only take a few days at the start of the mission.
The main reason to venture outside will be psychological I feel. People will want to go outside and it will help them remain balanced psychologically.
What's this guys problem?
Let's take each of those in turn.
- Micro gravity
I'm not sure I would describe 38% gravity as microgravity. People have survived well on the ISS for more than a year in zero G.
- Galactic space radiation
Come on! This has been discussed ad nauseam here. There is no major problem with this on Mars. People aren't going to be running around in their underwear on the surface. Entrenched inflatables coveredin regolith will provide near-complete protection and the radiation on the surface is often overestimated.
- Systems reliability
Well yes, but that's what NASA is there for.
Think of all those successful Apollo missions. THAT is systems reliability.
- Toxicity of Martian dust (hexavalent chromium)
This is pathetic. Human beings operate in all sorts of toxic environments on earth. Why do we lose the ability to do so when we reach Mars? from Wikipedia: "Workers in many different occupations are exposed to hexavalent chromium."
Hi - I've got a question which I hope you more scientifically literate types can answer.
Can a laser beam deflect gas molecules?
If so, would it be possible to secure atmospheric retention in a crater on Mars by creating a network of laser beams overhead - reflecting backwards and forwards and at the crater rim?
I certainly agree terraforming requires a long view. It's a bit like planting a line of trees, knowing you will never see the fine view of mature trees.
I think the problem I have with starting now is that we can see that advances in technology over the next 100 years could radically improve our capacity to
terraform. It's seems a bit daft to start on a 500 year process now if in one hundred years time we will be able to terraform in one hundred years.
I think it makes more sense to start with habitats and then move to paraterraforming where we create earth-like environments in large craters or canyons. This will of course require some means of atmospheric retention not yet devised.
Total automatisation? Then that just means more spare parts and more scope for things to go wrong.
Tunnel boring may be appropriate at some stage but not, I would suggest, as part of the initial colonisation effort. Why wait all that time to bore your tunnel, check it out for safety and line it (you can't have an unlined tunnel)? In a couple of days you can put up your inflatable/expandable structure and stack sandbags to provide radiation and micrometeorite protection.
Grypd -
Yes, that could be a good solution. Quick, easy and effective. So, we take special plastic bags with us ready for use.
Yes, I'm prepared to give up the entrenchment idea on the Moon at least, given the regolith appears far more powdery.
So presumably the Ecodome concept could be adapted to this (see link):
http://www.calearth.org/EcoDome.htm
Either we could have more rounded inflatables or we could adapt the ecodome approach so that there was an arched cover or we add a roof support. I'd like to avoid a roof support. So I think we would go for an arched cover.
If I was an American I wouldn't offer ESA a free ride. The Europeans do nothing but badmouth the Americans, just like the Russians and China. Why do them any favours?
Do the Americans need the others? No. Do the others need the Americans? yes.
Latest press release from Space X detailing latest NASA approvals for Space X technology confirms Space X's interest in Mars. The company's founder is quoted as saying:-
"Receiving the NASA Launch Services contract for the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 is a significant endorsement of SpaceX's products and of our plans for the future. In addition to the fourteen missions we've sold thus far, gaining NLS approval constitutes further validation of SpaceX's technology, and opens the doors for the wide variety of NASA spacecraft to fly aboard our launch vehicles. We look forward to working with NASA to send their payloads to Earth orbit, Geostationary orbit, the Moon, Mars and beyond.
--Elon--"
"NASA say they need £50 billion to rebuild the lunar transportation infrastructure. The UK would have to invest far more than that to create the technical and engineering base as well as the infrastructure. Cooperation with the US makes the most sense. NASA aim to be back on the moon by 2020, that's 12 years from now."
I think this is on a par with NASA's estimate of $400 billion for a Mars mission ,which most commentators now accept was complete rubbish.
NASA are on the slow boat.
If we devoted the Olympics £10 billion to a lunar base mission, the UK could be on the speed boat to the Moon.
To put the UK space effort in perspective - we are spending about £10 billion on hosting the Olympics. Nothing against them, but we have hosted them twice before and it isn't the most exciting venture to embark on. We know what's involved. It will be much like the last Olympics.
Annual value of the UK's space related industry is a paltry £5 billion which is mainly support stuff.
I reckon we could establish a permanent base on the Moon for less than £10billion, not necessarily using all our own products.
But think of the boost to the UK's image if it were to do that.
It has the scientific know how, the industries and the potential crew personnel.
Sadly, it lacks the will, so it's not even worth dreaming about.
To put Commodore's point another way, if I read him right, ISRU on earth is for the foreseeable future going to be a whole lot cheaper than importation of resources from other planetary bodies.
What is required to kickstart space colonisation is an economic incentive that could operate now. This is how colonisation has proceeded throughout the ages.
I wasn't arguing for a rich kids' colony. But I was being realistic. It's only really an extension of the observable fact we can see today that the space tourists so far have of course been mega-rich.
The thing is, if NASA remain purist and don't think in terms of lunar economic development, the private sector will move in - as soon as it becomes economically feasible (and I don't think that it as far away as some people think).
I agree Gregori. I think we should aim to create a Mars culture with its own reference points, using local materials.
I was just trying to get some thought processes going here.
Whenever you see illustrations of Mars or Moon bases, you have the habitat but the surrounding area is left in a natural state. This despite the fact that everyone acknowledges dust is a major problem in both environments.
I was looking at creative ways of delivering good dust control and also creating a humanised environment.
We at least need to have a debate about whether one tries to create an artificial dust-controlled artificial surface environment.
I've been thinking about a number of related issues to do with dust and the appearance of the base.
I'm wondering whether around the base we shouldn't be looking to create an artificial surface environment.
It will help dust control if the surface in the base area is covered. Possibilities could include the sort of green baize used in green grocer shops in the UK or something like astroturf. Essentially it would help if we could have a surface which can then be vacuumed - possibly robotically on a permanent basis.
Other possibilities - bamboo and other crops grown hydroponically could be used outside to provide a humanised environment that people will find attractive - essentially we are talking landscaping here. Think Japanese garden perhaps - with ice sculptures.
Gregori -
That's a bit like saying rich kids shouldn't be allowed to go to South America or Africa and help dig wells.
Depends if you want a real economy on the moon or not. Only an economy is going to defray the cost of colonisation and exploration.
Since we are talking about politics and all, I think it is vital that society provides work for all people capable of work.
I don't think this means creating useless jobs. In the UK for instance many beautiful old churches are closed for 90% of daylight hours because the church cannot afford to provide security and they would otherwise be vandalised. Now if unemployed people were given a phone and required to provide security in Churches these wonderful buildings would be open to the public - providing a fantastic new cultural resource and probably stimulating tourism in many areas.
That's just one example. There are plenty of other ways we could employ people productively. This is much better than just paying them benefit or letting them starve. They can be paid pro rata for their benefit. If the minimum wage is £5 per hour and the person is receiving £100 a week in benefits they could be required to work for 20 hours.
It would not be a very expensive scheme (although there would be some administrative costs) and would have many benefits. Not least unemployed people would feel useful and would have something for their CV. There would be promotion opportunities within the scheme.
Spaniard -
You've got money to blow on subterranean artificial gravity machines? Lucky man!
We know people have lived in zero G without compromising their health in any serious way. I think in terms of getting started on the moon , we can live with 1/6th G. It would make sense to develop a permanently inhabited colony, but with temporary residents. It will be the ultimate gap year experience. Rich kids will be lining up to pay to go there and help out with exploration and running the lunar hotel.
"British National Space Centre"
That'll be Bert Jones's garden shed (available for use on Tuesdays and Fridays).
I agree Jumpboy. The appeal of Mars is that we can see from the robot missions, that it is a world comprehensible to us. Terribly cold, where we won't feel so heavy and where we can't breathe, but nevertheless a world that makes sense. Crucially it is a world with accessible water as well.
We can see what it might once have been and what it could be again.
But the real point is, if we can get there we can start living there on a permanent basis without too much trouble.
Floating cities over Venus, though good sci-fi, are not to my mind a practical proposition in the next few decades. Asteroid mining might well be and a lunar base definitely is. For me the sequence is Moon, Mars, Asteroids, Venus.
This is an interesting link on surface inflatables:
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ … 65477.aspx
I think it shows Bigelow are well on top of the problem. They are fully aware of the dust issues and have strategies for coping with that.
They are also using regolith protection for the inflatable. They're not saying how they are going about that. On the Moon, my trench solution, may well not be practical, given the powdery nature of the regolith.
They are a bit coy about how they are going to get it around the inflatable.
It sounds innovative - so I am guessing some sort of compartmentalised shell . They then blow the regolith powder up in to the compartments with a sort of reverse vacuum cleaner, filling them up and closing them off until they have a complete shell. Sound feasible?
gregori -
Obviously a shard is not going to wear down hard plastic. That's one option for space suits.
Bit of a false analogy by Fogg I'd say.
My general view is:
1. We can't do everything at once. NASA tries to and you can see why, but that does mean something like colonisation of Mars is given a fairly low priority. In fact it would be better really if NASA was split. There should be a Space Colonisation Agency and a separate Space Exploration and Science Agency. I think we should focus on Mars colonisation because it is doable with current technology.
2. Mars colonisation can begin with entrenched habitats and then proceed to more complex paraterraforming. Terraforming should not be a first stage goal.
3. Paraterraforming could be quite sophisticated. It might involve creating a huge inhabitable area by sealing off a gorge or large crater.
No I don't accept that. Obviously designers will plan for that. One of the key factors in operating on the moon or Mars will be the need for dust control. There are ways of dealing with that. But the fact that a particle is abrasive does not of itself means that tears will result. There are ways round this which we will be able to investigate. We might oil the fabric for instance. But I 'd prefer to leave it to the experts in companies like Bigelow.