You are not logged in.
Tom: It all depends upon what you call "winning."
Right on, GCN! I agree with you completely. Science, tourism, and PGMs: lunar bases will be built on those three, I suspect in that order. The last one could eventually require a staff of a thousand or so, probably on 1-2 year contracts, with big signing bonuses for those willing to stay on for an additional term (depending on how easily the human body can manage in lunar gravity; we don't know). They'll mostly be young and single and the weekends could be pretty wild. If PGM mining expands considerably (to hundreds of tonnes per year), it will drive down the round trip transportation cost, and that will drive up the scientific presence and the tourist flow.
I am not sure lunar agriculture will even be enough to cover most food needs. Greenhouses will have to be shielded from micrometeoroids and other than at the poles will need artificial lighting. These requirements will be very expensive.
-- RobS
For what it's worth, regarding the above, here are my reactions:
Sucking up to GCNR will get you nowhere, RobS. I've tried, to no avail.
Science, tourism, and PGMs--what's that last mean? Acronyms bug me when I can't locate when they occur the first time, dammit. Something relating to a Lunar colony presumably. If so, any Earth organizm is bound to survive, if not thrive, Lunar gravity conditions. Imagine the human-flight recreational sports possibilities. Suitable centrifuge excercise facitlities, made sufficitly entertaining, will keep those capable of using them in shape to return to useful lives on Earth.
Older folks may survive and be usefully active longer under 1/6th gee conditions, and thus prefer not to return to Earth.
Whatever PGM means: mining shafts deep down into the Lunar mascons may uncover untold mineral resources, as well as the Lunar equivalent of geothermal sources of heat energy. Scientists from the word "go" undoubtedly. Think of the far side telescope sites, giant vacuum (tubeless) electronics experimental facilities, microbe/plant/animal genetic experimentation without risk to Earth organisms. Tourists, to liven things up. Medical, farming, food processing, maintaining, storekeeping, managing, as well as criminal and policing personnel. Just like on the home planet. And all of it underground.
Dynamic soaring may suit Mars missions
Dynamic soaring differs from the traditional static soaring techniques normally used by glider pilots. Unlike static soaring, which uses vertical motion such as riding thermals, dynamic soaring involves extracting energy from horizontal windshears.
This may give the edge to projects like ARES that suffer from limited range and duration.
My understanding of dynamic soaring relates to the far-ranging sea birds which rely upon moving waves to cover distances over the oceans. Slope soaring parallel to moving slopes, in other words. The dust devils of Mars appear to be so numerous that thermal soaring must be possible using ultralight, instrument carrying sailplanes, with solar powered and charged propeller propulsion assist.
Really deep drilling vertically from the surface by conventional methods, for whatever purpose, would seem virtually impossible with any tooling capable of being transported from Earth. Landing on the floors of the deep canyons might be motivated by the prospect of drilling horizontal or slanted holes, a kilometre or more below the rim but only a relatively short distance into the sides of the canyons. Not having to support its own weight, the shafting could be lighter and capable of assembly without derricks. The method of drilling might even be hydraulic, by push-pull instead of turning, once beyond the frozen regolith, the effuent analyzed for mineral content, and the water purified for living purposes.
No big problem. Googling "new mars forums," and then clicking on same, works a treat. But I bet you're losing a lot of trade by those who aren't as motivated as I was to ferrit out the method. How about publicizing it? Thanks for your efforts, anyway. dicktice
Isn't there ANYTHING that global warming is good for?
Yes. In spite of economically destructive climate shifts and net land loss, growing seasons are likely to be extended and the percentage of the Earth's surface where conditions are suitable for year round agriculture is likely to increase.
Global warming is likely to bring about something that no one has seen since the time of Leif Erickson: There will be wild grapes in Newfoundland again.
Gosh, and the coveted ice wine that we now make hereabouts, in Nova Scotia, might have to produced in giant ice houses to compete with Greenland!
Tom: A few of your consecutive posts back, I quit reading when I came to: "... I'd rather have more US soldiers die slowly in a war of attrition ..." Very generous of you, I must say, and I realize you didn't mean "die slowly," but the way you put things sometimes makes you seem like an unfeeling blabbermouth. Sorry, but if you were over there to see the carnage I bet you'd write more sympathetically. Robert's replies, on the other hand, seem more reasoned and intelligently thought out. If I really thought you're relying on Bush and Cheney to "win your war" for you, I wouldn't have bothered to react to your diatribes--but you were kidding, right?
No big problem. Your stuff is original, informative, and useful, in my opinion, but if you write BIG too often ... when something BIGGER comes along, who's to notice?
The unique conditions on Mars could be better utilized per mission perhaps by adopting various hopper schemes to get around. Initially, for example, if a lander arrives by parachute to slow it down in the atmosphere, with a controlled rocket-burn for a precision touchdown--wouldn't it be feasible to reuse the same lander to take-off on a ballistic trajectory and then parachute to a controlled touch down again somewhere else? Thus, having repacked the parachutes and refueled the rocket from available subsurface water resources, more than one site could be visited on the same mission. Variations of this scheme should immediately come to mind, depending on whether the mission is exploratory, supply, rescue, sample and return, limited only by one's imagination.
I've worried about this for some time, and I think by "sample return" we should mean return to LEO. Remember how the Apollo astronauts had to be quarantined with medical staff before being allowed to mingle with us again within the confines of Earth's ecosphere...? Whether this was a viable quarantine is questionable, but it conveyed the concern for the unknown that was prevelent at the time regarding possible dangerous contaminents from the Moon. Why should we be less concerned today, regarding the possibility of much more dangerous contaminents from Mars, especially now that we know the conditions for microbial lifeforms and their spore equivalents exist there. A special receiving dock and lab module should be at least considered for the ISS, as part of a Mars Sample & Return mission, and argued publically, rather than blindly assume the reentry sample vessel could be retrieved intact, transported, and confined to a lab on Earth.
Thanks, over and clear.
Without a doubt, Google for it, Wikipedia source it, Space blog for it, etc. Also, consider using solar furnace techniques, adapted for LEO weightlessness as well as the other processes suggested by CM Edwards (as well as the plant processes) designed and budgeted for development oboard the ISS. Much of the criticism of the space station has been lack of usefulness. Well, I think you've hit on just the thing!
With respect: I find if I copy and past your stuff in black & white, and get rid of the bold-face and uppercase type, it permits me to read it straight and interpret your content better. A hint only, from one who learned long ago not to over emphasize points just thought-of but which may already be obvious to the reader.
Dayton Kitchens wrote: "For a start, the Political and Education Outreach forums should be overflowing with people starting threads and bouncing ideas around rather than in this forum, debating launch vehicles, tethers, crew size...ad nauseum..."
I'm at a loss. What your "rather" refers to are ideas, surely, and we're constantly "starting threads and bouncing [such] around." What's your point, man?
Anyone who's a big supporter of the space programme can't be all that bad, so given the opportunity: yes, I'd vote for him or her.
I can't thank you enough for those marvelous pictures. Mind telling me/us exactly how you go about acquiring and presenting them?
Isn't this the point where you should perhaps begin to think laterally and consider organic CO2--O2 plant conversion? Go for it!
Am I the only one who can't access the the mars society via Google and the bulletin board any more? I've learned since to key-in "new mars forums" instead, and the New Mars forum Index appears enabling me to log in as before. Any explaination--not that I mind since it's easier this way--because some may not have stumbled on this alternative method of loging in....
My goodness, Cindy, where have you been? Hope nothing serious. The forums have become positively uncivil without your presence, my girl!
Yeah, Flash, since I just stumbled upon this site which seems to have my name attached to it: What's it all mean, eh?
The obvious answer is, don't come back.
This is very interesting, in that there are real trade-offs to debate.
I've fastened upon the idea that initially anything launched from Earth that can end up on the Moon, should be allowed to do so. But in order to become purpose-made community junk piles, from which to cobble together things not capable of being planned for ahead of time, the dump-sites-of-choice should be capable of controlled, repeatable bulk cargo deliveries of water-ice, for example.
The remainder of the derelict 2nd stage comprising metal sheets, angles, rods, tubes, pulleys, cables, fittings, springs, wire, you-name-it, could be immediately reworked on site into mining props, scaffolding, hoists, solar smelters, forming jigs, fuel cracking and storage facilities ... as well as the aforementioned temporary shelter habitats.
No, I've learned my lesson and realize that two stages minimum are necessary, loitering in LEO after discarding the 1st and then going on towards the Moon with the 2nd containing whatever payload, again loitering at L1, the staging point from which it would be directed anywhere on the Moon's surface--accomplished over and over until temporary outposts can be established by synchronized Apollo-type crewed missions. The 2nd stage might be splittable longwise after being toppled under thruster control, to form Quonset-type gradually covered over habitats, the regolith moving assisted by Moon buggies with blades as well as manual shoveling by the crews. Think: next generation spacesuits designed for physical work, with saunalike cleanup and waste handling facilities possible aboard the larger LEMs and then transferred to the Quonsets. The engines, having been designed to land cargo stages on the Moon, will be just right for launching skeletal booster stages from the Moon to L1 and attached to other Mars-bound hardware assemblies from other Lunar sites as well as from Earth.
Ever since moving out to Nova Scotia from Ontario, the only thing I really missed was TVO. If it's available via the Internet, I'd appreciate knowing how to receive it if only to keep me up to date re. currently utilized and maintained nuclear power resources.
I had a colleague who once put whole eggs in a microwave since he was told it heated them internally. It took him at least 30 minutes to clean the oven after the explosions.
Microwaves are very effective things if treated right but plastics can melt and microwaves treat substances differently depending on the nature of the material. We actualy once considered using them to set concrete for buildings. But found that they caused catastrophic damage and actually threatened health.
That's nothing compared to unpierced chestnuts. Yep, but only once....