You are not logged in.
Lets face it, the real reason we are here on this forum and want to go to Mars is because It's cool!!
The facade of pseudo-intellectual justification for going there is just pure bullshit!
Don't get me wrong, I totally approve of space exploration, because it's cool! New places, possibilities, groovy technology, advancing scientific knowledge etc etc
The Human race have always been wanderers going from place to place just to see what is out there. A lot of this is down to our desire to go carve a piece out of somewhere and say that this is mine, I made this, is it not great.
We have done all we can on this planet and it really is time we used our greatest asset intelligence and moved to other worlds.
Social spending though tends to basic education, basic medical care and of course pensions/unemployment benefits. The majority of all money collected will go to these priorities which is needless to say right but it becomes a major burden on a state to pay these.
Obama’s modest proposal: no hue, no cry?
[url=http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1105/1]Obama’s modest proposal: no hue, no cry? (part 2)
[/url]
If elected President, Senator Barack Obama plans to delay Project Constellation for at least five years, putting the saved money into a new $10-billion-a-year education program that would, in essence, nationalize early-education for children under five years old to prepare them for the rigors of kindergarten and beyond.
Why single out the space budget to cut for this program? “NASA is no longer associated with inspiration,” Obama told a campaign rally audience in March.
I suspect since im not a USA citizen I can post this and let the debate rage without being thought of as involved clandestine politics.
America faces a serious cut in its ability in space and with the retirement of the baby boomers a sudden reduction in its ability to spend money. A 5 year delay may well turn out to be a lot longer when NASA has to deal with other more pressing demands.
That's right: by using pick and shovel equivalents to tunnel horizontally.
Dicktice it is unfortunately true that those two techniques rely so much on the Earths ambient gravity. Conditions on other planets dictate that we have to look at other approaches.
When we where on the Moon we found that the upper layer of Regolith was powdered and easily moved. It was roughly about a foot deep of this easy to move substance. Below that though was a compacted strata which when the Astronauts attempted to dig into literally had them flipping over there shovels or being bounced away. This shows the point that in reduced gravity the use of shovels which rely on weight being used against them are much less effective. Picks also rely on weight but much less so as there mass is still there even when swung and as long as the astronaut can balance himself properly it could well be an effective technique.
Mars may be a lot harder to dig into. We have an increased gravity true but if water is present, as we hope, then the likely state it will be found as will be permafrost. This literally means that we will have similar to the Moon a strata of loose regolith followed by a layer of compacted but in this case frozen solid material. Even on Earth this is very very hard to shift and we often use hosed water to try to get this to seperate.
There is another point to Lava tubes they tend to be under the surface and accessing them is often from rilles or holes in the ceilings. We will still need to have items built on the surface even if we find Lavatubes to put bases in and it is how do we operate and expand on the surface that require construction techniques. An example of heavy Earth moving is the building of any dome or greenhouse.
Of course that is if we send it from Earth and considering its made of mostly silicon.
Well its another use for the Moon
Why are you ignoring the option provided by the existence of the caverns to avoid brute force surface drilling into the regolith?
Im not. But as much as we can base ourselves in a cavern there will always still be a need to move earth.
Roads, Railtrack, Berms, Trenches all need regolith shifted. Even the use of caverns will mean clearing them out and building up the entrance for us.
I would say that it would be a very effective aid to Martian explorers as long as we could keep it fueled.
The basis of building has always been the movement of ground. And we will have to take a bulldozer or similar vehicle to Mars. It will have to be a dozer come trench digger and have the ability of a back hoe and all of this will take weight.
So all designes will be as light as they can be and I have yet to see a plan that does not involve adding regolith to the dozer to increase its mass and in that way its bite. But there is still the problem of powering it and we will have to have a need for a superpowerful engine without the ability to increase its mass. It will all be a matter of compromise.
Still the reduced gravity and lack of atmosphere do allow for some inventive solutions. If we drill into the ground with a wormlike robot trailing a hose with holes in it then pump in CO2 in a burst we could quickly create either a pipe track or create a a much easier trench layout. And of course creating deep foundation holes for support structures.
If the rocket is taking off from the sun lit side of the moon there will be no volitiles to collect as they will not remain from the heating that will happen from the sun.
Now on the dark side these will bew available to retrieve but unless you take off slow there will not be much build up at the launch site.
The idea is to capture these volatiles very quickly after launch and so stop the sun from having any effect at all. And diffusion is the real problem not the sun as they will be coming out very fast.
A rocket does not instantly take off we have quite a few seconds where the rocket is throttling up before it goes. The thrust will hit the pad and then be forced outwards to protect the rocket. The Berms at the side of the pad will stop any stour on the pad being blasted away and being a hazard. It will also by its nature focus the exhaust plume full of volatiles and it is this focusing that we hope to capture.
But as stated this is a longer term project and for a much mature base where we try to keep costs down as much as possible.
True, but then again it is really for the long term when we have permanent bases and all that we can keep matters. Just like we will design packing cases so that they can be at the least composted to provide more resources to an expanding base.
Assuming a permenant base THEN it become a maybe since more local sources/manufacturing could be utilized. However my guess is in the 'interm' stages between tiny outpost and pseudo-colony we'd be talking about vapor being sucked into vents or ice being scrapped off the launch pad.
I still think it would be tricky but if you're going to attempt it I suggest, one way or another, employing a simple, cost-effective method. Just don't expect it to yield as much as ice mining.
Of course not, there is no chance that any reclaiming of vapour will bare any relation to the amount that mining would garner. But with volatiles being so scarce on the Moon it becomes economic necessity to capture and retain as much as you can.
If SpaceX got there first it would be excellent publicity for the small South Pacific nation it operates from. A tiny nation would be the first to get to Mars.
Im sorry but SpaceX is USA registered and all residents of Kwajalein require US army permission to live there. So it is a US company in everything it does and as such under space law it is US.
True, but then again it is really for the long term when we have permanent bases and all that we can keep matters. Just like we will design packing cases so that they can be at the least composted to provide more resources to an expanding base.
You really think non-democracies like China, Iran and Russia can be trusted to play a constructive role in colony development? I don't. I think they will be pursuing a very narrow interest.
That's why I would much prefer nation states to be kept out of Mars if possible. It's probably not possible, but we shall have to wait and see. There is in my view a reasonable chance that an enterprise like Space X might get there first.
Then if Space X gets there that means the USA is present as under international law though its a private company it is considered to be acting as part of the USA. It would be the same for any other company it will be considered acting on the behalf of the country its from.
Still even Narrow self interest means that you have to co-operate often otherwise you cannot get anything done. No nation can operate completely seperated from the rest of the world. When it comes down to Mars co-operation is simply the most effective way to stay alive and to thrive.
Im reasonably sure that when we start to get Mars Colonised then those countries involved will form at least a committee to talk over disputes and of course to make decisions to benefit all. There is plenty of things to discuss from placing of emergency shelters to what quage should we use in the development of rail across the planet.
It will simply be a matter of commen sense to have it exist and it will as everything start small and get bigger as time develops.
It is true that a lot of the thrust of any launches or landings will not be catchable but if we are using H2/O2 rockets or similar for landing we should try to catch the exhaust on the pads. We already focus a lot of exhausts from Earth based rockets to stop them damaging the pads on launching.
Certainly we will have berms etc around any landing pad to stop dust and exhaust damaging the base etc. Economics indicates we should try to capture and recycle as much as we can of everything we send to the Moon.
Just a proposal to have a curved lip over the edges of the landing pad berms so that some of the rapidly traveling gases can be caught. These gases can go through a simple non return device and out of the Suns rays the natural cold would quickly liquify these gases.
If we capture a few gallons each time its all benefit as the system will be designed to have no need for human supervision
No Terraformer it is not clear cut. What you are doing is actively changing a whole planet. Every country that is operation on that planet from simple probes to large manned bases will be affected and therefore has a say in what happens. You will be affecting the property of those countries.
Imagine this as an example. China which has a large base starts to terraform Mars but there is a small USA base located near the North pole. The poles start to melt and water starts to flood the USA's base.
Who is responsible China of course and it is China that would have to pay compensation to the USA for its actions. But as noted Terraforming is a global development that affects everyone present on Mars and whoever does it is liable for all future effects due to the terraforming.
So vote away but remember in this vote one nay stops the whole project.
It may be possible to design a launch and landing pad where the exhaust can be captured and some of the volatiles captured. One simple method would be to design a lip around the blast walls of the landing pad to capture this. It may well prove valuable to do this.
And there will be blast walls around any Lunar landing base just to stop any dust on the pad being blasted away and threatening base operations.
Shouldn't this be in Space Politics. not Martian Politics?
Probably but it is about our hopes to colonise Mars and how this is affected by the current treaties which apply to all missions in space from Voyager to manned missions.
Any private company acting in space will be the subject of the outer space treaty and will have to be linked to a home base country. In space that countries laws will apply to the vehicle and its contents and it will be the country that is liable if that vehicle damages other countries property. This still may create the flag of opportunity scenario where private companies are technically operating from countries that did not launch the mission as a tax saving method or that the laws of that country allow for easier working conditions.
When we come to Mars and other large bodies it makes sense that there is legislation in place to actually deal with conflict scenarios and to allow utilisation of resources. This may come down to creating for Mars a Martian authority where disagreements and problems can be ironed out before they become too serious and to deal with legal situations as they happen. But this authority will also be a means to increase use of Mars and to promote cooperation and increase infrastructure to make viable colonies.
If we dont have something in place Before we land then you can almost guarantee that chaos will happen and that the countries that send missions and build bases on the Mars will have to go to the UN and the world court to sort out these issues and have to wait a long time for resolution.
And dont even get me on the trouble that terraforming would be without the authority there to ok it. Terraforming would affect all bases and all probes so everything on the planet would be affected and whichever country attempted it unless it had backing of a Martian authority would find itself in a legal quaqmire of epic proportions to just operate.
Not a chance these are the same characters who got some of the UKs amateur rocketeers to put some serious solid rockets on a Mini then they launched that car down a ski ramp in Norway.
So no British space shuttle there.
Ah, finally read through the entire thread. For some reason, whenever I see launch cost per kilo, I always work out how much it would cost to launch the weight of me into space.
How about using a Hydrogen filled Airship to get to a decent altitude? Then we can start burning the Hydrogen to get to Orbit?
Terraformer though Height has some advantages what we are really looking for is speed and a Hydrogen balloon is very very slow. Basically the idea is that you are travelling fast enough that as you fall due to gravity you stay at the same distance from the ground.
A TSTO spaceplane launcher would give the advantages of height ie atmosphere density decreasing and speed. This would then give the upper stage a lot more of a starting shunt.
Or maybe use H2O2 as the Oxidiser? In the prescence of Silver or Plantinum it decomposes into high-pressure steam and O2. Maybe use a Hydrogen afterburner?
Hydrogen Peroxide or high test peroxide has been a rocket fuel for years and has been used from Rocket fighters to jetpacks. Its specific impulse is only 161 so not that effective. and each extra system you add to get it to be more effective adds weight and of course it gets to the point it is not worth it. H2O2 is very easy to hand but hydrogen is not and having the super cooled hydrogen on a plane needs insulation and difficulty in fueling.
Plates may be more efficient, I don't know, but they certainly cannot be launched from a mass driver on the moon.
The only thing you would need to launch is "material" (dirt). After it is in orbit, the smelter would reprocess it and make it into something usefull (=plates).
What we have found is that if we design a station that requires lots of launches to construct then we will pay a lot of money for a station that will take a lot of time to be ready for our purposes (ISS white elephant). The single biggest expense is to launch the item in the first place and for a next space station launching materials to have smelted to then construct the station in space does not make sense.
My plan would be to launch the central part of the planned rotating space station in a single piece. Using the beam maker technology that we have already used in space we can then extend outwards to a point where we will place a series of inflatable habs. A couple more launches and the station will be core complete and ready for use it will not be a circle just a large T. It will have artificial gravity but to save mass it will be only about 0.5g. Astronauts will be able to move along the beams from the various Habs to the center and since the center would be clear it would be perfect for future space craft construction and docking.
The future could allow easy expansion just increase the beams at first to form a cross. Shirt sleeve enviroment could be achieved by the equivalent of a poly tunnel covered lift to allow acces to the branches and to the center hab and then later to have a circle formed around the center hab.
The plan for this sort of spacestation is to go further than LEO and in that case some of the benefits we get for being in LEO disapear. Future space stations must have storm shelters as part of there makeup to protect from the infrequent solar storms and they must also have a lot of backups in case of accident. Having what is in effect two stations in one allows these backups in the case of puncture or damage.
Isn't good for whose health? All that water above you would filter out the remaining radiation. People wouldn't age as quick. Cancer would be reduced.
People will not be able to use vitamin D as well as surface dwellers due to no sunlight. Another problem is that cancer will be increased due to the difficulty in getting rid of all the chemicals in the air. There really is not a chance to open windows is there.
Still and this I believe is important find an economic reason to build underwater habitats then they will get built
No light? And land reclamation must have its limits. You also lose that river or lake.
Build upwards then
What about the gain in land?
Cheaper just to use land reclamation techniques, safer too.
I wish there was just one reason for the price of Oil to be rising but there just is not. Like all economic factors there are things that are playing off with each other to end up with the rise in prices.
Some examples. Oil production is rising but very very slowly as improved production methods are pushed out further afield but the rise is no where near as much as the rise in demand. China and India are examples of where this new demand is going. But there is also us in the west with the removing of old nuclear power plants having replaced them for what where cheaper then hydrocarbon burning plants.
Oil prices are rising in dollars simply down to the fact the US economy is weak at the moment and the actual purchasing power of a dollar is not so good.
Speculators have bought a lot of Oil futures and people wanting to get Oil have to pay the increased fees that these speculators want.
And of course there is all the political trouble in the middle east as well as in Nigeria and with some recent nasty accidents and the need of the big Oil companies to switch off refineries just so they can be refitted (After Katrina the oil refineries of the world have been going at 97 to 99% peak capacity and have not had a break. Now wear and tear is showing and shear necessity is having major refineries to switch off and get refitted).
A lot of these issues are long term issues and we will have to just accept that Oil will become increasingly more expensive and since we use it for everything from Plastics to medicine to fertiliser to insect spray we are just going to have to keep paying. Time to find something else to burn in the tank the Oil is just to important for the rest of what we need it for.