You are not logged in.
I think this should be the best system for Mars as it will allow communities to decide what the want them selfs withoiut some global or solar government.
Maple seed, lifting body, or aeroshell; each has different atmospheric dynamics but the purpose is to crash land. No need for a parachute. Is a lifting body stable without an active manoeuvring system? No manoeuvrers means no rocket engines, no valves, no tanks, no air control surfaces, no servos, no electronics. Just drop it from interplanetary space and pull the crumpled heap out of the desert floor with a truck crane.
I don't like the word "crash land". I prefer controlled crash. As crash land sounds like something that has gone wrong. I think controlled crash sounds better to the general public to understand what you are thinking off. A plane with one wing does in my book a crash land, a functioning plane but the engine cut off does a controlled crash.
Anyway, I would think that a controless lifting body would by like a mix of a glider and a kite, 90% glider and 10% kite.
3. Local machine shop for simple repairs: possible as long as repairs are kept very simple. Making new drill bits and grinder bits will be necessary, major repairs may have to depend on spare parts shipped from Earth. (Or a Mars colony.)
If you make everything modular there will be no such thing as major repairs. And every module will be made of other modules.
So if anything is broken remove the broken module and replace it with a working one. Analyse the broken module and remove and replace the broken submodule(s) and keep it as spare replacement module. Loop this cycle.
Basically: Think Lego blocks who make up any kind of submodules and different submodules put together make different modules and different modules make an unknown number of unique devices.
Or like electronics: You have transitors, diodes, resistors, capicitators, IC's and microchips. You can build anything using these components.
---
Sorry for all the editing
Space robots definatly are a ways from repair of componets, particularly electronic ones. This would require at the very least a major leap in robotics and a large supply of spare parts or stock to make them from, which gets heavy. It isn't practical to make spare parts in space yet except simple mechanical ones out of hard plastic.
Don't forget you had effective machines without electronics and plastics. For example use pressure valves instead of electronics for simple logic (like old pre-electronics machines).
And the parts that will break the most are the mechanical ones, electronic parts can last 20 years. So a huge supply of parts is not needed. And besides its possible with 1980ies technology to build simple electronics in space.
And LEO-to-surface vehicles will, for the forseeable future, have to built on Earth. A reuseable rocket like DC-X makes some sense here if your operation is large, or throw-away inflatable heat shields for small occasional loads (if the ESA can perfect them).
Personally I was thinking more in the lines of cargo shaped as a lifting body (controlled crashes) or even using something like a blimp.
100% automation isn't practical yet, computers are not smart enough or wise enough to do everything completly without human help. Though teleoperated-assistance/oversight is practical.
I agree with this point as if you just look at the results of the Grand Darpa Challenge, you will see that AI's are still pretty much bad.
I for one like the idea of asteroid mining but you (all) made good points about the cost and the need for such a thing.
I'm sure my opinion is biased towards to any thing to do with space exploration and colonization. So I think its a possibility.
Its just that after the initial base is setup you don't want to send up anything up to space only down to Earth. This is to keep the costs low. You will keep the operation costs low by using automation and telecontrol and so your space base can be small as needs not to support humans.
If you can make spare parts locally then I think you have a winner. As then it will cost you only the initial investment. But this will end up with a discussion about self replication machines which I should stop now. But no I'm not talking about nano machines.
So here is list of things that I think are needed to make this operation profitable.
1. Small local base no humans
2. Robots and 100% automation
3. Local machines shop that can make new miners and parts
4. Easy way to ship the resources to anywere in the solar system
5. Cargo that enters a planet with atomosphere (such as Earth) must not need expensive LEO to Earth handling.
Well of course, we've been paying to defend the rest of the world for a long long time.
Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada etc etc all have only a minimal military and essentially no strateigic capacity of their own to defend themselves from outside invasion since Stalin practicly... French and British capacity is fairly limited on the scheme of things.
However the European nations in the NATO, which is mostly paid for by the USA , are getting more pressure to manage their own defence forces. Which is good or the European nations and perhaps Taiwan and South Korea should pay for the cost of the American troops and hardware that are issued to defend their nations.
A House appropriations subcommittee voted to cut NASA's budget request by 7 percent on the 35th anniversary of Neil Armstrong's first steps on the Moon. The panel also cut environment and science programs, but increased funding for veterans' affairs. NASA would get $15.1 billion next year, $229 million below this year and $1.1 billion below the President's request. Most of the cuts are on new initiatives. The subcommittee is the first step of a long budget process and major changes to the bill are expected."
Read the article http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl? … d=160]here
An interesting fact that I got from a slashdot post:
When you include costs like veteran's benefits and the interest on the national debt (about 80% of which was caused by past military spending),the "defense" budget accounts for nearly 50% of the US federal budget each year!
Don't even get me started about how poorly Democrats handle economics... for that I have just two words: "Ronald Regan"
You know I still believe you thought Reagan was a democrat. If you just read the above quote it just seems like that. However maybe after my post you did a web search or something. Then followed it up by some bull to cover your tracks. As no sane person will call Reagan an economic wizzard, even Bush senior will not.
Ooh my mistake I thought you thought he was a democrat.
Never ever considered him as a economical wonder.
As I personally consider Reagan an economic and social failure.
1. Economic growth was due: He was just riding the new high tech waves that was set in the late 70ies. The PC revolution
2. Berlin Wall was not directly his doing.
3. His spending in new military technolgies didn't result into anything concrete except jobs paid by loans. And those were short term.
4. If you call any one that borrows unknown quantities of money to build an economy a wizzard then I say that the world full of them. Basically this is what Hitler did but also a reason why he started wars. The loot would pay the debts.
Mmmm my, you are easily talked into buying the anti-American propoganda aren't you?
-Lost two million jobs. Made 1.5 million.
-Very low unemployment, within 0.1% of what it was during the Clinton admin
-America's economy is also growing faster than it has in years. National projected budget deficit has shrunk substantially with increased tax incomes, even with lower taxes.
-America has about tripple the money of all the rest of the world's space agencies combined. Its so bad in Japan that they are considering eliminating their space agency other than a few probes now and then.
-NASA will have, if its current funding remains steady at $14.5Bn/yr, have about $350Bn between now and 2030, when PlanBush wants to talk about being on Mars. Not a single additional dime... $350Bn.
Don't even get me started about how poorly Democrats handle economics... for that I have just two words: "Ronald Regan"
Ok at first I wanted to submit a long point to point reply to your comment but then I read:
Don't even get me started about how poorly Democrats handle economics... for that I have just two words: "Ronald Regan"
Now I'm thinking "Is this guy serious at all?" I mean you don't even know what party Ronald Reagan belonged to. Well that proves all the other so called facts you seem to mention that have no base in reality and there is no need to discuss with you.
Do you know of the company called http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/program … html]space island group. They are working to do almost all the things you are thinking of. If your plans are detailed maybe you should contact them.
I think at this moment its not the ideas nor the technology stopping from businesses from starting a space orientated business but:
1. Are you shure of the number of customers?
2. Capital, no one wants to be be the first invester. Some venture capital group should break the ice and invest and if their project is sucessful all the other venture capital groups will follow.
I also read somewhere that the space initiative is important for the missle defense system that Bush and Co want to deploy or it the technology is interchangeable.
----
Although I'm wondering what Bush's plans is for the deficits, does he foresee economic growth that would eventually cover the budget problems? I don't here anyone else talking about it as I don't think that the military spending will have longterm positive economic effects.
Yes but 15 billion compared to 3 billion?
From http://www.esa.int/esaCP/GGG4SXG3AEC_index_0.html]here:
How big is ESA’s budget?
In 2003 the budget was €2700 million. ESA operates on the basis of geographical return, i.e. it invests in each Member State, through industrial contracts for space programmes, an amount more or less equivalent to each country’s contribution.
So thats almost 2.7 billion euros compared to NASA's budget its spare chance.
While I was browsing google groups about: Scalar Electromagnetics, Electrogravitation and http://www.americanantigravity.com/hutchison.html]The Hutchison Effect. I found http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&l … num=5]this post that may explain in another way what RobertDyck is talking about with quantum FTL* pipelines.
*Faster then light
A quantum wire uses a unique feature of quantum mechanics. Think of a cardboard tube that Christmas wrapping paper comes on. Fill that with ping pong balls. The tube represents a quantum wire, the ping pong balls represent the valence electron of each atom. Then push in another ping pong ball. As you do all the ping pong balls will move over, once you finish pushing in the extra ball, the ball at the other end will have fallen out. This happens in a quantum wire: all valence electrons move from one atom to the next atom in perfect sync and faster than 90% the speed of light. Total propagation delay is not related to wire length. This doesn't move any matter or energy faster than the speed of light, but it creates an effect that moves information faster than the speed of light. Think of it as a loop hole in the laws of physics.
Good explanation, it proofs what I think. Only someone who truly understands the subject is able to explain some difficult simply.
---
It took me some time to grasp this idea and I know I still don't understand it. But it sounds like voltages and quantum entanglement. I don't know how voltages are influenced by light speed but I know that entanglement is not.
---
Do you know if it’s possible for electrons to travel through space/time without a medium such as atoms? Like light (photons) does.
The first quantum circuit was demonstrated a long time ago, I read about it in the early 1980s in a back issue of Scientific American, I think it was a 1978 issue. A quantum wire can send a signal instantaneously; it isn't limited to the speed of light.
I don't get it.
How can it go faster then light?
Actually I think space-ship-one design is based on something similair "feather design". But as with space-ship-one how will you enter Earths atmosphere with this design?
Hmm the ice is not coming from Earth. Its mined water from the asteroid field. So there is not cost to launch it only to refine it.
If Bigelow builds a chain of space hotels, you can sell the ice for $1000 per pound. You can also sell the ice for $1000 per pound at L1 for rocket fuel.
Thus, ice is worth $1000 per pound. Drop box is cheaper. :;):
(Especially if drop bax has a microchip transponder and ballutes to slow final impact.)
Spray on ablative? Maybe. But its labor costs versus the cost of drop boxes.
= = =
Terrorists cutting the space elevator? Different in kind (IMHO) from dropping a few tons of rock on New York City at terminal velocity.
I'm sorry; I don't get your point.
The ice is worth $1000 per pound if shipped from Earth. Who says that a by-product of asteroid mining will be worth that per pound to the seller?
Hey if you need to pay $1000 per pound to get something to the space hotel then don’t expect many customers. As setting up a hotel requires a whole infrastructure, which will just add to that initial cost. I guess your hotel will be called the Bill Gates hotel as only people with his wealth will be able to go to it. And who says they would even want do?
Especially if drop bax has a microchip transponder and ballutes to slow final impact.
Sounds like another explanation of a controlled crash to me. A lifting body has the same effects as wings on a plane, so it would be like airplane with all its engines cut of (space shuttle) trying to land. And adding a microchip transponder is no big deal in any situation.
Spray on ablative? Maybe. But its labor costs versus the cost of drop boxes.
It will be as labor intensive as the actual mining, which is 100% automated and no Earth based anythings to support.
Terrorists cutting the space elevator? Different in kind (IMHO) from dropping a few tons of rock on New York City at terminal velocity.
There are a lot of ways to kill large populations. Using the space mining facility will be hardest. Even harder then destroying the space elevator and a lot harder then blowing up a nuclear plant.
http://www.cheniere.org/books/ferdelance/index.html]An interesting site / book relating to this topic.
I don't know to much about American local politics. Can someone please explain how much powers a governor has?
What is a governor able to do and what not? And then how much do counties (regional governments) have and what each do.
Also about taxes. Your state government taxes you and so does the federal but who manages what?
On international news they don't really seem to talk about this.
Do you want cargo sent from Earth inserted into the minimum orbit, just barely out of the atmosphere, which would require the 'truck' to enter LEO? Do we use ISS as the transfer station?
I would say that NASA's ion driven blimp that people have been talking about should be your truck.
I'm not talking about Reusable Launch Vehicles. Its just the cargo (refined ore) it self is shaped as a lifting body and covered by an ablative material for Earth entry. Instead of waisting money on a RLV or even pods (drop boxes). Which would requiere Earth facilities and that means more cost and that means your price goes up.
Hmm the ice is not coming from Earth. Its mined water from the asteroid field. So there is not cost to launch it only to refine it.
Its the cheapest way of getting those materials to Earth and its called controlled crashing. Like what the Apollo and Soyus capsules do and even the Mars Rovers.
Your remarks about terrorist will count for any big space project. What if they crash a plane into the space elevator? What if... endless list of possible terrorist possibilities. Bringing in the terrorist hype is a weak argument if used for just this project. Sounds more like a fall back routine for the lack of arguments.
Frankly, GCNRevenger, I have difficulties following you, one moment you say there's no market on Earth for asteroidmaterial, next time you say there is, one moment you say solar farms are too expensive, because you have to get too much stuff into orbit, next time you say stuff in orbit is silly. (OK, I know, processed metals do not a farm make, and you say it's too difficult to build/refine etc in orbit...)
But: given advances in telerobotics etc, how much of a profit would it give you to
1)develop a device that tools the 'ore' into rolls of metal,
2)refurb the beambuilder that was all but finished by NASA (wich made latticed beams out of rolls of Aluminium (iirc)
3)send these two items up, with a sprinkle of BigeHabs, instead of tons and tons of material...
Yes this may be true but we are a mining operation. If someone wants to build a spacestation we will forward our proposal on getting the materials at the wanted location and time and so could an Earth based company such as SpaceX. Its possible that SpaceX could get the building materials cheaper up "there" or at the needed time better then we can.
So basically this is a mining operation we just get the ore from asteroids, moon or where ever and refine (if wanted) it and ship it to the desired location. After that its your problem. Building a spacestation is another project which could be a spinoff but doesn't have to do with mining it self.