New Mars Forums

Welcome Excalibur,
I have thought that the initial exploration does reguire a crew of a minimum of 6 but that we should send more than one mission at a time. This allows the possibility of rescue and of improved science.

The reason we have not colonised the oceans is that it is almost as hard as the colonisation of space and we have developed techniques that allow us to get at the resources of the ocean without the need for actual permanent manned prescence under the sea. Living underwater has many dangers that afflict aquanauts and they are prone to many illnesses.

Well that is the reasons that the politicians give for not spending on building underwater habitats, but Cousteau told my father once that the reason there is little attempt at making undersea colonisation possible is people look up at the stars they rarely look at there feet when the waves are lapping at them. In other words though people talk about colonising the sea it must be noted that there is hardly any advocacy groups etc as it really is beneath peoples notice and no one cares enough.

The people who live in habitats are in a unique situation they live in what we can make which is small cramped damp habitats. They run the risk of there habitats being corroded and broken by the pressure that it is under. The habitats are damp almost all the time and this leads to the commen occurence of ear infections. And as they cannot breathe the same gasses as they do on the surface it takes days to have this poisonous mixture depressurised from your body. And we have learnt the hard way that gas under pressure reacts differently than it does on the surface, and by hard way we have had people killed.

Saying that the sea has tremendous resources and as we use more and more of what is available on the land we will have to go and actually start the utilisation of these largely untapped resources. Untapped resources include the ability to garner energy from the sea both wave, current and geothermal from the black smokers. There is a lot of minerals and materials that could be mined from under the sea and simply picked up from the ocean bed. And there is also oil the worlds most important currency which can be found in the deeper parts of the worlds oceans but cannot be garnered in the way we do now using surface platforms.

Of course the downside is that treaties and agreements that bind what is done in the sea cannot be repealed and if you rise the ire of a group like greenpeace they will sail there boats after you. This is unlike space.

Our scientific value has to be what do we wish to do with space. If we go back using robots we will use them to develop and to create conditions to allow further detailed access to the Moon and to improve our space capability. If we send people at first it will cost more money to do what the robots have done and if we cancel we have an upgraded flags and footprints.

What can be done is to allow machines to prepare the way for people to go back to the Moon and to further our science. The Moon is a really good place to do science. Both planetary and physical science benefits from just being on the Moon and if we install an observatory our capacity for looking deeper into astronomy will be increased immensley. Only the Moon can allow us to listen without the interference of Earths increasing use of electronic communication to space. If we place our observatories at the east west and north south boundaries and the spaced evenly between of the lunar so called dark side we have using the laws of physics a telescope with the diameter of the Moon and with this we can see other planets around nearby stars. These observatories are easily automated as long as we have a constant prescence on the Moon.

This is just an idea of what can be done if we where to return to the Moon. But as to how long before we can do it. It depends on how we approach the planned return to the Moon. We can use satelites to find out as much as we can about the surface of the Moon. But we need to send a new breed of rovers to actually explore the surface and to return to the Earth the samples so gained. We could use astronauts but in the low gravity and high radiation exposure surface of the Moon a rover will likely be better to do this than people. Also people need consumables like air and food to operate and a rover does not, so rovers could work for much longer periods relying on solar power and batteries to tide them over the lunar night. People are needed on the Moon but it does not make sense for them to have to take everything with them to live. It does make sense to actually have a reasonable amount of infrastructure for them to walk into and to allow them to be able to function effectively on the Moon.

It seems there will be an X prize 2, this one will be for a total of 50 million $us. It will be for the first team to get a vessel that holds a crew of 7 to achieve LEO. The money will come mostly from Bigelow aerospace. Will it attract as much interest as the original X prize, probably.

But the technical challenge that comes from the ability to get into orbit rather than to achieve the limit imposed by the X prize are a whole lot more dificult. It should be mentioned that the X prize 2 gives a decade to get the job done and though harder it is certainly a doable enterprise

There is that risk but the potential weight saving benefits could make it very very palatable. Also there is a design for Plasma sailor that would act like a solar sailor using plasma to provide the sails. This idea could benefit from technology cross transfers. Even if it does not work it certainly is something that should be explored, even if to prove it wont, as the possible benefits are really astronomical.

Its the one called the electrostatic radiation shield that really interests me. Frankly though placed as a Moon mission that ability to have electric shields small Van Allens in other words could be really really useful. It just comes down to there power requirements. I once put on another forum that electromagnetic radiation shielding was something that should be invested in and was well thought of as a budding captain kirk. But electro magnetic protection for people working in space has been of consideration for some time. O'neill in his plans for space colonies even mentions how useful it would be. But for some unknown reason it never really attracted NASAs attention.

But these small type prizes are perfect for the smaller companies to get involved in space and hopefully attract more interest in the benefits of space research as a benefit to people on Earth.

Well one real bit of science that could mean that there was some form of world trade system that possibly meant that atlanteans where supposed to have was that certain of the earliest egyptian mummies have traces of cocaine in them. As cocaine was only found in the southern americas there must have been a form of contact.

But this does not give evidence to people saying atlantis exists only that there was contact between the Egyptians and the Indians of south America.

Is it not the lack of gravity that results in these issues being a threat. If we cannot cure them physically or medically can we treat them by removing them mechanically. In this create gravity and a means to reduce radiation exposure.

I may be slightly mad but I really look at all those dots and think "hmmmm lets mine them to death, starting with those possibly dangerous red ones"

We have always known that a lot more of the mass of the solar system was floating around free than we see in the planets. It kind of hints that the kuiper belt will really be something to explore when we have the capability to go there. I wonder what we will find?

If you create the right type of hydroponics you have a set up with 3 or 5 fields of plants growing in the same area leveled and rotating like a waterwheel and the water going through into a pool below that has fish in it. This is used to grow grass quickly but as it is power intensive is not in commen use as a means to provide food on Earth. The fish are from a study that I cant remember but that was there plan for providing fresh foodstuffs.

This makes for an interesting point what will happen if there is a fire where will the smoke go and how do we get rid of it?

Moon Missions and probably any future missions anywhere will always have problems with underfunding. We must find a way to ensure that future missions can be done in a reasonable time frame for development and that they have a degree of compatibility of equipment between missions so reducing costs allowing more missions.

Of course the other way is to send equipment that will make what is needed on the Moon or to send machines that can be reused again and again to reduce costs. But this can be very expensive to build and design. But it can also be the cheapest option. If we use a combination of all three which is a reusable, low development times that can create what is needed on the Moon etc.

We already have the ability to use ground penetrating radar from space it is in common use to find possible oil and mineral deposits. What we wish to know on the moon is a good place to be able to dig in. It has to be close to what minerals we need and to a source of almost constant solar power. The best area would be a pyroclastic glass area which is loose easy to dig and easy to convert into what we need and to be "stabilised" easily. It also has few boulders and is flatter allowing more missions to land.