You are not logged in.
that way it won`t take so long for communications.
can u get an unmanned probe or crewed ship to the halfway point between our civilizations?
we have some examples of how astronauts could become somewhat lawless. i seem to recall skylab inhabitants becoming bitter w/ mission control @ some points. & on the ISS there have been "incidents". the level of "warfare" probably wouldn`t get very "high" @ least during our lifetimes. but there will be attempts @ fiefdom/serfdom. debates will flare over independence. taxes will be levied. ownership of property will eventually be necessary. i think a space military will eventually take the form of texas rangers or canadian mounties. colonists will grumble over this as it will be necessary to pay for it. & consider that several earth nations will be involved & not all of them would be friends. there will be bitternes toward newcomers/tenderfoots as well & these may not always be survivable i.e. college hazing, lest we 4get some don`t even survive college. the Masons, Hell`s Angels, La Cosa Nostra, to name a few, all have initiation rites. in order for us to acquire funding for this venture we may need help of otherwise unsavory/scrupulous organizations. there will be terrorists/m as well. acquiring hard capital isn`t always done thru peaceful means.
in the past i would`ve been the last person to stress the need for militarization of space. but, starting about 15 yrs ago, having actually been a flower child, i noticed other flower children evolved into several categories. survivalists, addicts, yuppies, for starters. now, taking these three; which do y`all think would survive on Mars, L1, The Moon, Cruithne, Phobos, Mars Cycler? any notion of Mars or other being a utopia should be squashed right here & now. it`s human nature for the strong to subjugate the weak. the strong must be constantly kept in check through morals, laws, etc..
excellent, i`ve heard of folks wishing for a skirtless hovercraft. perhaps that line of work would evolve into a smaller field usage. about other types of suits; i`d always simply leave a suit "outside", as a way of keeping dust down.
http://www.sea-bow.ca]www.sea-bow.ca bear in mind i`m not suggesting an exact duplicate of this vehicle. but the angle of the wheels interest me.
i had to bump this thread. we should have another look @ salvaging materials in space &/or planetary surfaces.
[http://www.personal.engin.umich]www.personal.engin.umich./~jlinnell/publications/AIAA_2002_3788.pdf
i`ve heard it may be possible to use regolith as a proulsion source. if i heard correctly it can actually be burned.
the same arguments i`ve had concerning The Moon apply as well to Mars. anything going to mars should land not only close to it`s related artifacts but also close to previously landed ones. that way the materials from them can be salvaged. this concept was used in the film "Red Planet", & in orbit in the film "mission to Mars". as a matter of fact this should become a standard in space travel. whatever govts control whatever artifacts should follow this mandate. & yes it`s a good idea not to get too close as we don`t want collisions encouraged.
http://www.asi.org/adb/06/09/03/02/091/moon-rover.html or google human powered lunar rover. yeah yeah i know we don`t like the moon here.
i`m glad this has been mentioned. i`ve pondered over this as well. why not combhine the wheels & the landing jets?
there are many bikes w/ sealed components available. there should be a material marsbikes could use which would magnetically or something repel dust on exposed components.
this will be the most important issue in any mars colony;law.
[=http://www.aquacycle.com]www.aquacycle.com
i think the next time a space vehicle is in need of deleting, like the russian MIR station. instead of letting it burnup in earth`s atmosphere, send it to the Moon. & especially we should if such an artifact has a camera. this would be a cheap hard-landed lunarprobe.
there`s an excellent article on just this subect on the artemis project site. yeh i know don`t mention the moon around here. the place ya wanna check out for all ya wanna know about bikes is: [http://www.ihpva.org][http://www.ihpva.org]www.ihpva.org . there are many humanpowered vehicles which would work in this situation. the 3 wheel vehicle mentioned is called btw; Aquabike. & it`s belt-driven rather than chain. mention in the artemis is treadle drives or linear, rather than cyclic which is commonly used. i`ll see if can digup the url for it. btw spacecamp in huntsville ala has a "moonbuggy" race every year. i`d imagine as in scubadiving, marscrew would be on a "buddy" system constantly. so 3 wheel bikes would probably be 2 or more seats which makes an Aquabike even more appealing. btw i do seem 2 recall a wheelchair design which had "mushy" wheels.
howdy folks, i haven`t been here in awhile. i was hoping someone would bringup the moon. there are many ways in which marscrew would interact w/ the Moon. i doubt in the near future mission controllers (from whatever nation) would allow permanent residency of Mars. that is unless there`s mutiny or exile. so i really think returning marscrew to earth is cruel & unusual punishment as the gravity would be too high, & there would be cultureshock. this is one of the biggest reasons i believe we should do MoonBase.
yet another reason for moon return. they keep adding up.
in all actuality what is so bad about a manned mars flyby?or a phobos mission? this could be launched from just about anywhere. much could be accomplished w/ such & it would be safer. it`s what would`ve been done had we kept orbit breakouts going, but now we`re in so much of a hurry we`re forgetting many details.
at this point we have suits for neither moon or mars. really what we need is an inventory of all known equipment on the lunar surface, that wouldn`t be very expensive. the lunar rovers are obsolete, they may still be good as trailers for another rover or a tractor. yes, taking them to mars would be silly. most everything that could be used on the lunar surface should obviously stay there. anything that could be used on the martian surface would hafta be recycled.many speak of moonmining, there is already excellent materials in the form of equipment wouldn`t that be easier than mining? the fact that there is no stable lunar orbit makes an excellent excuse to explore possible L point stations. obviously this would be more expensive than MD. since there is really no clearcut plan for moonreturn much of the expense is based on an apollo approach. MR wouldn`t necessarily go straight to the South Pole region though i`m sure that would be desired. i would prefer one of the previous sites. i`d explore all of them as a ground expedition to the S. Pole, taking every available bit of equipment there. i understand there are at least two mountain peaks in S. Polar region where a melting apparatus could be installed. these peaks apparently constantly recieve sunlight. one is called malapert mountain & the other is the peak of eternal light. so much for the idea of the moon having no solar advantage.
in the past when we may have been a bit more serious about a moonreturn, people would`ve been more receptive about salvaging the equipment. now since it`s been 30yrs it`s become somewhat of a legend so many have come into this put in a museum idea. the truth is anyone who would finally setdown on the lunar surface after all this time would look around at all that equipment just sitting there. regardless of sentimentality, if it could be used in the capacity of a: moonbase, launchvehicle, pressurized rover, etc., let`s proceed. it may be meteordamaged or obsolete, so let`s meltreform it. since it would take awhile to make moontourism cheap, i don`t think there will be tourists there for awhile. the people moonreturning will be in a survival situation oweing to the fact of less g, no atmosphere or resources, etc., so any resources would be helpful & is not the real goal mars anyway. being sentimental at this point about moonjunk doen`t get us very far in the real world.
how do we know so much about the moon all of a sudden? 12 men were there, that`s not much. we may yet make discoveries there. why can`t we salvage the equipment left there? i realize it`s quite obsolete & probably meteor damaged & there are those who wanna make a museum there. what good would a museum do if no1 really is interested in the moon? i think we all know it would be expensive to go there. so what? what if a human mars mssion turns into another apollo? what if it fails? that would setback human space exploration a ways. moon return is quicker, whch is probably the most important factor involved. you can see the earth from the moon which is not only good psychologically, but the added benefit of earth observaton, as good as "satellites". moon return may not be necessary step to mars, but it admittedly can be a step. who knows, the equipment left there could be used to build a marscraft. i`d guarantee if i was on a moon mission, i`d make every effort to continue to mars. actually to some people who are a bit older that`s been the plan all along if moonreturn happened. since the moon is as you people say boring, few resources, etc., what better lunar industry could there possibly be than planning for mars?
please explain disadvantages of a lunar base.