New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#726 Re: Not So Free Chat » Alien footage? » 2005-10-24 23:51:21
If it is supposed to be scary, why did you make it look exactly like a human being? Why not make it look alien? Octopoid with hooks and tentacles. Gigeresque insectoids. Anything but exactly like a human being. Also the lighting is way too X-Files. No-one who has seen an episode can take it seriously. Try for grainy black & white fisheye focus like a real spycam would be. This piece just shows a lack of imagination. You can do better than this.
.
#727 Re: Human missions » Lunar Carbon? » 2005-10-24 17:15:35
There is only one extranational entity that is the United Nations there is no other existing extranational organisations and to create one for space would in all likehood be physically impossible.
I hereby incorporate Biospheres Extranational for the benefit of all humankind.
Another extranational entity comes into being. Their number and wealth grows hourly. Their only limitations: the ones they place on themselves.
So until the treaty is changed or until one of the space powers decides to legally walk away from the treaty, private enterprise is constrained and uncertain. It cannot raise the capital to pay for the Billions.
Private enterprise already has billions. Once the decision is made, it will chose a friendly (and hopefully equatorial) nonsignatory to make into a space power. What developing nation would turn down the wealth of a half dozen worlds? They will fight to be chosen. The various treaties will be amended to support commercialization soon thereafter.
.
#728 Re: Human missions » Lunar Carbon? » 2005-10-24 13:54:05
... any launch must be informed in good time to the UN and also that it will be the country of origins duty to ensure it does not fall on anyone and that it does not interfere in any other countries missions and reasonable liability to damage done ... allows enough material mined or used to allow exploration or for scientific study ... cannot hide the fact as they are duty bound to inform the UN cannot build bases that block other countries from areas of the Moon nor stop observers from entering your base and check to see what you are up to ...
I'm sure extranational entities would be highly motivated to maintain good relationships with national and international entities - particularly those nations that haven't signed the treaty. The information requirements are not overly burdensome. I agree that there should be no non-scientific research. Again, I don't see the problem.
However, as you say, it is probably just as easy to lobby the appropriate politicians and have the law changed. It is widely recognized that multiple biospheres are required to ensure long term human survival, so it is just common sense.
.
#729 Re: Human missions » Lunar Carbon? » 2005-10-24 12:50:39
Extranational entity meaning ?
Entities operating in extranational realms, the rights to which have been so generously surrendered by national and international entities.
.
#730 Re: Human missions » Lunar Carbon? » 2005-10-24 12:27:29
[ISRU solar cell manufacture] is quite interesting. Will it work?
These guys think so ...
http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/library/ … natiev.pdf
How long will it take.
It says 50-500 kW worth per year per rovot.
What is the expected lifespan of the rover.
Good question 
The Mars rovers are coming up on two years now.
I would of thought that nuclear power would be vastly superior. I am sure we can do better and make it outperform solar but it will require a fair bit of research dollars. The big advantage of nuclear power though is there is very little to set up. And I think it can be built with less moving parts to which should make it more reliable.
The other nice thing about nuclear, is that it doesn't care how far from the Sun it is. Closer to the Sun, I'm not sure you're going to be able to outperform thin-film solar in terms of kW/kg - fuel, containment, turbine - nuclear power is heavy.
.
#731 Re: Human missions » Lunar Carbon? » 2005-10-24 11:50:22
The 1967 outer space treaty is an issue that will need resolving.
...
Is it time to have a meeting to void this law so as to allow for ownership or are there other ways to resolve this...
As far as I can see it just says ...
Moon Treaty[/url]"]
2. The moon is not subject to national appropriation by any claim of
sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.
So any claim to ownership must be by an extranational entity.
Moon Treaty[/url]"]
3. Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the moon, nor any part
thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any
State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization,
national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural
person.
Ownership by extranational entities is not forbidden and so is permitted.
I don't see the problem.
.
#732 Re: Human missions » Lunar Carbon? » 2005-10-24 11:41:42
Now that you have the regolith in a pile where is the chamber to allow for the gas capture? This just added to the cost for the parabolic mirrors.
I think you could have a secondary mirror to direct the beam to a mobile capture unit. You would have to be careful not to melt the capture unit though
.
#733 Re: Terraformation » How far? » 2005-10-24 04:12:36
Absolutely in favor of the complete or most complete terraforming of mars. And everything within the solar system. We can adapt what we want, and ourselves to fit the rest. Full breathable atmosphere at low points, flowing water where possible, self-sustaining ecosystems that provide a solid influx of resources (organic or otherwise). What possible arguement against any of this holds ground?
There is an ethical question as to whether we should terraform if life is discovered. Otherwise, I think people just differ over whether we should do it fast (nuke the poles, bombard the planet with ammonia comets) or slow (warm the poles with space mirrors, manufacture super greenhouse gases). If slow, then we can live there while it is happening, but it will take 1000 years to complete.
.
#734 Re: Human missions » Lunar Carbon? » 2005-10-24 03:11:15
If you do it with sunlight the exact amounts needed are not relevant because the equipment is very cheap and the heating occurs essentially for free.
Parabolic mirrors are a great idea, but they are not exactly free beer. It all comes down to kW/kg. How much processing capacity can I get for a given mass? It better be good because I'm paying $65000/kg to deliver it to the luna surface. Say I decide to spend $130m to deliver 2 tons of self-deploying parabolic mirrors and volatile capture and storage facilities to the luna equator. How many kilograms of luna regolith can I process per hour? 10? 100? 1000? It depends how big my mirrors are, how thin my mirrors are, how little deployment and supporting structure I can get away with.
An interesting part of the do-it-all-with-solar-cells approach is that instead of sending 2 tons of solar cells, it seems possible to send a 2 ton rovot with a vapor deposition chamber that can pave a square kilometer of the luna surface with solar cells instead. That's a nice power return on mass investment. It's less clear how you could do that for parabolic mirrors. The same rovot could definitely be modified make, say, a million foot-square mylar mirrors, but you've still got to arrange sets of them into a parabola and point them at the sun as well as a volatile capture unit. Robotically possible, but it seems to be a couple of orders of magnitude more complicated.
Ignoring the possibility of ISRU power bootstrap, I bet parabolic mirrors can be really competitive for thermal kW/kg - I'm not so sure about electric kW/kg, because of the added complexty of sterling engines and generators. Solar cells installed on the ISS deliver about 0.1 kW/kg. Lightweight thin-film solar cell tech is promising 1.0 kW/kg, but no-one knows how they'll stand up to the extraterrestrial environment. The nuclear tech I've seen, such as ...
http://www.sop.usra.edu/rasc-al/2004_pa … seidon.pdf
is looking at electric 0.2 kW/kg - not actually all that impressive for the political grief that you'll have to wear.
So say we've got a dozen gossamer thin parabolic mirrors delivering thermal 10 kW/kg. Now what? Does a rovot bulldoze regolith to a fixed target area? Is the mirror and capture unit mounted on a long rovot? Are there secondary mirrors that direct the energy to a moving capture device? Some sort of conveyor belt through a fixed target area?
.
#735 Re: Life on Mars » Extraterrestrial Life on Mars and beyond - a hypothesis » 2005-10-22 19:47:08
So the hypothesis that I propose is that when we finally learn to cohabit in harmony on earth, we will be contacted by SOME SMART extraterrestrial life form in SOME WAY, friendly or hostile, probably the latter.
Any comments on this anyone ?
So we should encourage disharmony to avoid the risk of being "contacted" by smart hostile aliens?
.
#736 Re: Human missions » Lunar Space Elevator » 2005-10-20 15:24:59
Another problem to overcome is powering the climber.
The climbers for Earth's space elevator probably need laser beamed power (although there may be some other clever way to power them), but it seems that the lunar climbers can achieve 100 km/hr just with solar panels because of the reduced gravitational field.
I wonder if the Terran climbers can be powered just with solar after a certain point? Gravity drops to below 1% of the surface value at about the 14000 km mark.
.
#737 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Propitiation to the God of War » 2005-10-20 14:24:28
*Science and reason.
Hear, hear.
.
#738 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Propitiation to the God of War » 2005-10-20 05:23:38
Just hoping a bunch of people don't take us into a self-fulfilling prophecy of their own making. I don't want the world to end; they do.
Can't deal with a disease if you don't first make a diagnosis and then prescribe a cure.
What shall be our cure? A tax on apocalypse worship? Mandatory re-education seminars? Neuropharmaceuticals? Stern frowns? Perhaps brightly colored advertisements featuring impossibly white teeth and the slogan: "Immanentization of the eschaton makes you smell bad." We could set up a registry so that neighbors could be notified of the offender's beliefs. Maybe we could get a clock like the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists?
.
#739 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Propitiation to the God of War » 2005-10-20 03:14:39
*I don't consider this as part of "another subculture."
I probably would have argued this point before the recent resurgence. I'll still say that the hardcore hysterics are a minority.
Not sure about Judaism's stance on "End Times" scenarios.
Judaism and Christianity share the Old Testament - much of the apocalyptic flavor of Christianity comes from there (not to mention the patriarchalism). Of course, Judaism is still waiting for the Messiah to appear for the first time. I actually saw a Jewish bumper sticker the other day saying that the Messiah would appear soon (I know I'm not helping my case here).
The problem is pervasive and extensive.
There will always be hysterics and there will always be those who take advantage of them. Parts of the memetic ecosystem - at worst a disease to be fought - not a defining characteristic of humanity.
As for your last question, I think of some people during the testing of the first A-bomb at Trinity: "It's beautiful."
I think they meant awe-full. But were they seeing Dionysius or Apollo?
Not everyone is this way, of course ... But too many people are, for my comfort.
There I'll join you, but in truth, comfort is ever-fleeting.
I don't think Mr. Benjamin's comments were reaching nor alarmist.
Sounds like you're predicting the end of the world 
.
#740 Re: Not So Free Chat » Alternative Space ventures - are we on the road to cheaper access » 2005-10-20 01:39:58
They have a year to do it. Can they? It's bloody unlikely. There probably aren't a billion people in the world who care about space, much less have $100 to drop on a pipe dream.
Those "collectables" look like they are worth about 49 cents each, so if they can get 1.1 million people to buy them, they can fund the ticket and still make out like bandits. I'd love to know how many takers they've had.
#741 Re: Life support systems » Spacesuits - Its about time we came back to them » 2005-10-20 01:27:48
Actually, the Mars Society is hosting a Spacesuit Symposium as part of this year's Mars Society convention. The symposium will be one whole track on Friday, August 12.
What was the outcome? How much for a Mars suit that'll last years?
.
#742 Re: Human missions » One man one way suicide mission... » 2005-10-20 01:20:54
I did some rough math using stats from here: http://www.astronautix.com/props/loxlh2.htm and here: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/energia.html (and a bit of metric conversion and math using google) and came up with about $1.5 million ($1,446,051 to be exact, using a baseline of $3 per kg)to pay for the liquid hydrogen and $24 thousand to pay for the liquid oxygen. Which brings us around to about 1.6 million to fuel Energia second stage.
Josh I think fuel costs are the least of your worries. Check out the figures Robert gave for Soyuz. Of the $7.5m total, only $0.3m are fuel costs - not even half of 1%. And that is for a product with near zero R&D costs.
Robert might be able to get you there for $500m, but Dook has a point about staying alive once you get there - let's say two years to begin with - until the next retiree arrives
.
#743 Re: Human missions » One man one way suicide mission... » 2005-10-20 00:58:02
Soyuz price: Yea. ... Total is $7.54 million.
That's $270/lb pressurized to LEO, probably sub-$200 unpressurized. I didn't know we were already there.
So the bottom line is you want $100 million for the first human vehicle to Mars? Ok. That's a lot better than $100 billion.
Well, that was for the EDL system. You still need a launch vehicle - I'll give you the $310m figure, cause I'm still in shock from the Soyuz pricing. Next is the habitat. I assume that the same bathroom sized interplanetary accomodations would provide for the first weeks (months?) on the surface until an independent habitat could be constructed - from bricks made from Martian soil, right? Our retiree can't live in the greenhouses. What were we going to use for power again? Maybe the Russians have a surplus reactor from a rusting submarine that they'd be willing to part with (maybe they'd even pay you to take it - decommissioning is expensive).
.
#744 Re: Planetary transportation » Quadracycles » 2005-10-20 00:02:57
Actually, there's a good thread on this started by Rxke ...
I think the consensus was that the suit would be a problem for bike riding.
.
#745 Re: Human missions » ISRU Fiberglass? » 2005-10-19 23:56:09
But, it will still be easier to mine on the Moon because of the 1/6 gravity. It also would probably be a better place to refine those metals too and those other manufacturing process too.
Oh yeah, for most stuff. But we need a way to get volatiles there as well. Theoretically asteroid mining would be cheaper than shipping from Earth, but, like everything else, only once the R&D is done and the infrastructure established. I guess once lunar mining is profitable enough, it'll happen of its own accord.
#746 Re: Human missions » ISRU Fiberglass? » 2005-10-19 23:47:09
When this had been accomplished the mining robot would move a band of solar cells to circumgate the asteroid to ensure reasonable constant power.
One thing I worry about with solar is that if you kick up a significant amount of asteroid dust you are going to cause yourself problems. Maybe some sort of melting at the surface is the way to go.
#747 Re: Human missions » ISRU Fiberglass? » 2005-10-19 23:39:20
My argument for imported methane / H2 works only if every drop of exhaust (H2O & CO2) is captured and recycled.
What's reasonable recapture for a methane powered fuel cell? 90%, 99%, higher?
.
#748 Re: Human missions » ISRU Fiberglass? » 2005-10-19 18:10:51
I think that this is a show-stopper, that harpoons and other gizmos won't work.
It'll be quite a bit of work to find out how to mine asteriods in the most efficient manner, but the C-type asteroids are supposed to have the density of styrofoam, so we might just be able to scoop up strips of the surface - even letting the asteroid's own rotation do most of the work.
.
#749 Re: Human missions » NASA's Moon Mission » 2005-10-19 17:07:25
I was thinking of adding a third rocket to the Moon Mission with Bigalow habitat for twenty people on it and drop that on the Moon and turn our seven day mission into two or three month mission to the Moon. The Bigalow that I saw was about three stories high and between fifty to hundred feet in diameter. One the next Moon Mission take a nuclear power on the third rocket. One the third mission to the Moon, take hydroponics garden on that third rocket.
Sounds like a pretty good idea - you might get resistance to the nuclear power unit though - maybe some sort of solar unit would be okay. It'll be interesting to see how those Bigelow habitats test out next year.
.
#750 Re: Human missions » One man one way suicide mission... » 2005-10-19 15:32:01
A one-way mission to Mars will use direct-entry like Mars Pathfinder and the Mars Exploration Rovers, Spirit and Opportunity.
The quote six minutes of terror unquote. But let's do a little compare and contrast.
Pathfinder: delivered 360 kg, EDL system 210 kg, Δv = 7.5 km/s, deceleration 20g (ouch)
Rover: delivered 350 kg, EDL system 300 kg, Δv = 5.3 km/s, deceleration 6g (survivable, but 4g max would be better)
Now for the Dyck Express. You enter the Martian atmosphere with 15000 kg. You've got to get rid of 30 times the kinetic energy. The Martain EDL systems use ablative heatshields, so the mass goes up proportional to energy. I could justify claiming 40% of your payload for the EDL system, especially since you don't get to bounce off the surface with airbags (you're not thinking airbags, right?), but I'll be generous and say that you can get away with a 3000 kg EDL system for $100m. Every kg you want back after that costs you an extra $1m.
Phoenix has a total budget o $385 million including all instruments, launch vehicle, in-space guidance, landing systems, mission control, data analysis, and data archiving.
But isn't Phoenix basically a revived Mars Surveyor Program? It was basically ready to go when the program was canceled. Still, that is a pretty good price for, what, 385 kg delivered? Call it $1m/kg. What's your estimate for 12000 kg?
Beagle 2 was the little lander carried by Mars Express. It had a budget of $54-89 million including instruments, mission control, landing systems, data analysis and archiving.
Do you really want to use Beagle 2 as a data point?
All these vehicles required unique landing systems; there wasn't a secret budget somewhere for development.
They're heavily based on the Viking landing systems (except the Beagle 2 - hmmm, could be a lesson there somewhere). I'm sure there is stuff we can leverage for a human payload. Given that you don't care about making it safer, you can probably get away with a close copy.
Soyuz is a well established design, but in 2000 Soyuz-TM-31 cost $3.69 million to manufacture. Soyuz is a 7.25 tonne vehicle with in-space manoeuvring, life support, and landing systems for a 3 tonne capsule in Earth gravity.
Wow. That really is a good price. I think I know who is going to be mining the asteroids. However, you can only use tech like this if you first establish low Martian orbit. Otherwise we're talking Viking style EDL systems.
Do you still think in-space guidance and landing systems will cost more than a few million of dollars?
$100m minimum for the first one, and that's only with significant delivered payload sacrifice. Probably more. I don't think you want to skimp in this area.
.