You are not logged in.
Marsman -
I agree entirely with your analysis:
"Lack of political will is the problem. "
This has always been the issue with exploration and colonisation going back centuries. It's why China, despiting having far greater technical and economic resources in 1400 AD to explore the world than did puny Europe chose instead to look inward and concentrate on its problems at home.
I actually think a Mars mission based fundamentally on existing technology and focussed on ISRU rather than science and "roving", would be relatively cheap - say $40 billion over 10 years - about $13 per person per annum in the USA.
Even if I'm wrong by a factor of 2 or 3 I still think it is eminently affordable and will repay huge dividends in terms of technological development and prestige.
It could be afforded. Its probably even possible in less than 10 yrs. The trouble is that it could easily end up like Apollo and stop once all the prestige and political goals have been acheived and it become too expensive,
For the moment, a Mars mission thats not based on science would just be retarded. Its the biggest "look how I've marked my territory and shown the size of my weiner" contest. We neeed to know a lot more about mars before we decide to vanadalise it.
One of the great things of the post-apollo era was the intense focus on meaningful science and exploration.
I'm actually much more down with what this guys is saying.
We've learned far more about space with robotic probes than anything we learned from manned missions.
Before we send humans to Mars, I think we should have extensively explored the planet first, probably with lots of sophiscitated robotic probes and maybe even VR. We know relatively little about this planet and the possible dangers humans face on it. It still a young field of research. They find something new and completely unexpected about this planet every couple of months!
If even one death occurred on a Mars mission, that could end up stopping the whole program - we'd be back where we started.
Mars isn't going anywhere, so patience won't do us any harm.
The pace at which this technology is developing is going to lap aerospace technology - several times over.
The next piece of infrastructure we put over Mars should be a satelite that vastly increases the amount of Data that can be transmitted from probes on the red planet. I believe there was a Mars 'Internet' Satelite that was being planned but got scrapped.
Manned missions and human colonization of space won't become cheap until we've developed a ground breaking propulsion technology like Fusion Power or a durable SSTO. It just far too fucking expensive.
I know we all want to go to Mars (and I'm a firm advocate of manned space exploration) but a bit of rationality and realism is needed.
I was thinking splitting the CO2 in the venusian atmosphere to C & O2, then sending the C dust to a MVO
What's cintering?
Its when you melt compacted dust to form a solid object.
If we are doing anything with the Venusian atmosphere, make sure its going down towards the gravity field. It always much easier to go down. Only useful exports should go against gravity field.
We need to secure the Carbon into a stable form that won't just become CO2 again. Diamond or Carbon Nanotubes might be a good material to make on Venus.
Nano sensors. It wouldn't be necessary to make nano bots. The smaller the rover/lander is the more of them can be landed for the same cost. Nano sensors would give each platform far more sensors in more wavelengths, using less power.
mkay, wasn't paying too much attention
Didn't know about the hexavalent chromium either.
good find.
Can they even do nano bots though?
A space shield infront of the planet still seems the best bet to decrease the venusian temperature.
could we later use said space shield to create a 24hr day on Venus?
It would be later put into an orbit of venus every 24 hrs etc.
A faster spin rate. An atmosphere. The other benefits you'd get from comets.
That would be a really stupid waste of good comets, endangering the lives of people on Earth etc etc
I say we mine the material on the comets to provide basic supplies for colonies, like on the moon.
Humans don't actually need an entire atmosphere to survive, just enough air to breathe, produce fuel and food etc etc
Same thing with water, we don't need oceans of water - just enough to drink, for food and for industry.
could adding water vapor to the lower atmosphere on venus cool it by reflecting away some light?
doubtful
the H2SO4 clouds already reflect most of the light coming to the planet
water vapor is actually a really awesome greenhouse gas and could increase the greenhouse effect of the planet
Total automatisation? Then that just means more spare parts and more scope for things to go wrong.
Tunnel boring may be appropriate at some stage but not, I would suggest, as part of the initial colonisation effort. Why wait all that time to bore your tunnel, check it out for safety and line it (you can't have an unlined tunnel)? In a couple of days you can put up your inflatable/expandable structure and stack sandbags to provide radiation and micrometeorite protection.
Tunnel Boring Machines can cut through rock pretty quickly. The time it takes to move enough Regolith to cover an inflatable with sandbags/regolith is not much different from the time it would take to drill a simple tunnel and seal it.
While each inflatable structure would required to be launched from Earth and would require repairs, A TBM could be constantly reused to dig more and more tunnels.
Inflatables maybe fine for initial landings, but if we want a larger, durable and more permanent structure suitable for a colony and industrial activity, a TBM would be the way to go.
Ok, this is descending dangerously close to a political thread, so I expect some of this to be split off there. Never the less, I'm not going give this a free pass...
Oh yeah, cause those people are just working to hand over everything to the state, right? Cause they'll just stay rich forever, no matter how much you tax them. And everyone will still aspire to the high office of goverment cash cow.
Actually, no, history has proven this to be wrong.
Just show me the millionaires that are begging on the street from government taxes, and I'll believe you.
As for the value of space tourism, it has a lot to do with how we structure the program. Economy of scale is the key to everything, as it will make the dollars go farther, and increase the prospect of truly private space travel. The day Bill Gates decides he can afford his own space yacht is the day he decides he can put his servants into space.
A few Bill Gates types in space in a feudal system won't be a very promising model for space tourism. We need to develop a form of mass passenger transport. I reckon we need proper colonies before thats a real prospect. Thats how tourism works in the modern era, a lot of people can afford to go and in bulk.
True business as we know it on Earth is far on the other side of colonization threshold. Beyond some of the more exotic stuff, we have our physical needs covered on Earth. And its incredibly expensive and/or dangerous to bring stuff to the surface. The real advantage of those resources is to mitigate the cost by building everything we need off world.
Yeah, It will help building off world. I've said that loads of times. But thats not all it can do. Unless there are kickbacks for Earth in space colonization, people won't support funding it. Not everybody has there material needs looked after on Earth and some would like more. If its expensive and dangerous, well we need to invest and do the R&D to make it cheap and safe.
To what end exactly? Do you really think you can solve everyones problems?
If you really want tax revenue, teach people how to take care of themselves so that they are not pinching every penny to survive under oppressive taxes.
Oh please... Modern history has shown this to be untrue.
It won't solve all problems, but it will deal with several serious ones.
Space exploration is not a pot luck supper. The more systems the more everything costs. The ISS should have proved that beyond a doubt.
Its doesn't prove jack about co-operation. Simply the ISS was a badly executed project. There lots of better examples of space co-operation. We're people with imagination ,we can work something out that would help slash costs. It can be done, ISS is just not a good example.
That worked so well before.
They haven't tried it before. For the price of the Iraq war, we could have done a Mars Direct Mission several times over. Actually we probably could have went to Mars by the End of the decade instead of 2034. That has to make you just sick. Going to Iraq achieved little but the destruction of the country and pushing up the price of oil.
Washington doesn't want anymore oil, its apparently bad for the environment, and the anti-war party likes the tax revenue the high prices bring. So much so they are trying desperately to make it worse.
The incumbent government are not enviromentalists - I heard they wanted to drill Alaska, the anti-war party aren't in power (If there were such a thing). Rightly so, Washington doesn't want more oil, but it wants to control world energy reserves. Cheney and Bush are making their friends in the oil buisness pretty wealthy.
Early base landers probably should have a containment wall even if nothing else but to set out in not allowing for areas to be contaminated before we can get to gathering samples from those sites.
Perhaps sandbags might do the trick?
I doubt this will be so much of a priority for the first landings anyhow.
I agree Gregori. I think we should aim to create a Mars culture with its own reference points, using local materials.
I was just trying to get some thought processes going here.
Whenever you see illustrations of Mars or Moon bases, you have the habitat but the surrounding area is left in a natural state. This despite the fact that everyone acknowledges dust is a major problem in both environments.
I was looking at creative ways of delivering good dust control and also creating a humanised environment.
We at least need to have a debate about whether one tries to create an artificial dust-controlled artificial surface environment.
I'd look at how they handle dust in the Middle East/Saharan Africa for a solution. If the base is a tunnel bored underground into the side of a mountain/crater. This way, dust can only get in one way and can be removed the same way too.
Another solution could be to elevate the settlements on 'stilts', so that dust blows under it.
I'd like to pay homage to past perceptions of Mars through sculptures and architecture on Mars. (The Face on Mars, the 'Canals', The Gods and Mythology associated with Mars)
Actually, I think you could build one heck of a pyramid on Mars. The Gravity is weaker, So it could be a lot bigger. Cut the stones for it out of local rocks, or make bricks through sintering, either way. It would look soo cool!
And why shouldn't tourism for people with more money than sense be apart of that?
The trouble is you can't get blood from a stone. The US afford this, the rest of the world, by and large, can not. If Europe got rid of socialism, they could match NASAs current budget. Various other democracies like Australia, Brazil, or SKorea combined could probably do the same. Russia's priorities are a bit of an enigma. The US, if it got it's act together could do five times what its doing now. Thats whats going to get the job done.
So thats maybe a third of the worlds population represented. You can't colonize space with a third of the world represented without them becoming colonies of those countries, and repeating the mistakes of the past. Furthermore, theres a big difference exploration and colonization. While the former answers the technical questions, the latter has vast social, economic and political implications that have nothing to with the former.
I've a slightly better idea for those with more money than sense! Tax the bejeezuz out of them. They can afford it, they won't end up begging on the street. Honestly, I don't see a couple of rich space tourists paying that much of a meaningful role in a space economy or colonization.
I think there will be buisnesses in space, but the way to make that happen is to invest in targeted R&D and Infrastructure programs. Kinda like 5 year plans, that move everything up a level, get it up to standard. The wealth in space will come from its enormous mineral reserves.
Europe get rid of socialism? I think not. I don't think we're socialist enough. Actually thats such a stupid thing to say since Europe consists of many countries with different social policies, a lot of them very very right wing. Wrecking social programs will not be a boon for space.
Socialism is not an obstacle to developing space and tech as we've done excellent work with CERN, ITER, Ariane 5, Venus Express, Mars Express, Jules Verne ATV.. etc etc
I think that there should be more co-operation in space rather than individual nations competing.NASA's budget is being ripped to pieces, so even the US space prospects aren't looking too good. If that tab could be shared by several nations, that would be awesome. If the US cut down its military spending (like in Iraq), it could afford to do a lot more than its currently doing.
Someone should tell Washington there is oil on Mars, so they can bring "democracy" to it.
The greatest challenge in asteroid mining is simply handling the material in zero g.
Probably. plus they have never done it before.
We need to develop the types of vehicles and facilities that would make it possible. Hopefully a lot of it can be automated.
A manned mission to an asteroid as well as the moon may prove useful.
Before choosing a mix of alloy in such a manner there needs to be rigorous material testing and differences as little as 0.1% could mean the difference between a flexible or brittle material.
And ties is something that would need to be tested out in a lab, plus from the blend characteristics this sounds more like a ceramic than metal, in other words a dopped glass from the high silicon and oxygen ratio.
The manganese and silicon content does make it sound similar to the Spiegel iron athough theres way to much oxygen and the ratios are too diferent to suggest similar properties.
Absolutely. And we should get cracking on the R&D needed to achieve this. We know a lot of alloys that we can make on Earth, If we can locate and process the necessary materials to create them we will be doing well.
We can have a real economy on the moon/asteroids/mars and colonies without resorting to that bullshit.
Really?
Who's going to pay for it?
Everybody. Thats how NASA has worked and its doing pretty fine so far. I think on a global scale, there will come a point where humanity as a whole should invest in settling the solar system. The actual spending on space is miniscule compared everything else. I heard Stephen Hawking bitching about this recently. http://space.newscientist.com/article/d … onies.html
Something along the lines of a system of five year plans that puts the basic infrastructure in place for living, transporting and trading in space. This R&D and infrastructure will make it much easier and more profitable for companies to trade in space. The government(s) can then establish a licensing system to recoup the money through taxing space companies.
A form of asteroid mining is where we should be going with space. There is an incredible amount of useful minerals in the NEO's and asteroid belt.
I've been thinking about a number of related issues to do with dust and the appearance of the base.
I'm wondering whether around the base we shouldn't be looking to create an artificial surface environment.
It will help dust control if the surface in the base area is covered. Possibilities could include the sort of green baize used in green grocer shops in the UK or something like astroturf. Essentially it would help if we could have a surface which can then be vacuumed - possibly robotically on a permanent basis.
Other possibilities - bamboo and other crops grown hydroponically could be used outside to provide a humanised environment that people will find attractive - essentially we are talking landscaping here. Think Japanese garden perhaps - with ice sculptures.
Makes yah question why we should even land on Mars..
If we do anything creative on Mars, I think we need a crack team of artists, architects and designers to look at the landscape and make something that is artistically inspired and informed from the local martian enviroment, not just imposing some part of Earth on the planet.
Paraterraforming the Moon would be so much easier than nuclear alchemy. Its weak gravity would allow for structures much bigger than Earth. A pressurized atmosphere could be held inside geodesic domes. A lot of imports would be required for water, volatiles etc
The great thing about this approach is that it can be gradual and modular, which is much cheaper to do.
This won't happen for a very long time, so for the time being I reckon we should bore some holes using a TBM and use huge underground installations. That should protect us from most things the solar system can throw at us up there.
Gregori -
That's a bit like saying rich kids shouldn't be allowed to go to South America or Africa and help dig wells.
Depends if you want a real economy on the moon or not. Only an economy is going to defray the cost of colonisation and exploration.
Well, being rich really shouldn't be the entrance exam. I prefer things done on merit.
I'd rather shove the moon up their asses than hand it to a bunch of tyrannical landlords and aristocrats.. we have enough of those problems on Earth for centuries, we don't have to export it to the rest of the universe.
We can have a real economy on the moon/asteroids/mars and colonies without resorting to that bullshit.
Spaniard -
You've got money to blow on subterranean artificial gravity machines? Lucky man!
We know people have lived in zero G without compromising their health in any serious way. I think in terms of getting started on the moon , we can live with 1/6th G. It would make sense to develop a permanently inhabited colony, but with temporary residents. It will be the ultimate gap year experience. Rich kids will be lining up to pay to go there and help out with exploration and running the lunar hotel.
good god, I hope they never let something so tacky happen.
I don't want people on the moon just because they are rich. At least when NASA sent people up, it was because they had some merit.
A machine capable of boring multiple explosive holes would speed things up a bit without requiring the complexity of a full TBM.
I cannot remember the name of the thing or find any references, but I will keep looking.
thats interesting
There will be plenty of useful metals available in space if we develop the infrastructure to systematically exploit them. We know lots and lots and lots about making things from metals since we use them for everything on Earth.
I'm thinking that asteroid mining will be invaluable to settling outerspace an enriching Earth if we develop the tech to do it.
We really want to get to the stage where its possible to build large spacecraft off Earth using the solar system resources
gregori -
Obviously a shard is not going to wear down hard plastic. That's one option for space suits.
no, billions of shards will though. Everything breaks down over time, esp elastic materials. Its not just the shards that are going to cause wear and tear. Just operating in the base is going to cause it, esp if you are working with industrial materials and machines.
Terraforming is an unpractical waste of resources. All humans have to is subsist from the resources that are available in the solar system in sustainable and rational way. All we need is enough water to drink, enough air to breate, enough food to sustain
Well that may work for you but I want some cable TV, Internet without a 6 minute click delay and beer. And girls, lots of girls.
Vincent
lol! We all want that.
but seriously, astro-engineering is not needed to sustain life on another planet, just clever and efficient use of the resources available in the solar system. Its far more economical and wise for us to adapt technology to a sustain us on another world than to adapt an entire planet into an 'Earth'.
Thats pretty much what humans have done to survive on the various regions of Earth through history, we adapted technology to suit an enviroment.
The fact that we trade useful goods across the planet is also an important example.
We will have travel between planets in our solar system within a human lifetime. That means effective use of this solar system must be by one single species. Humans already live here, so "bio-forming" as they called in on Star Trek Voyager, or "paraterraforming" is not practical. It is practical to terraform Mars, Venus, Ganymede, and Callisto. I wouldn't terraform Luna because it's useful to have an airless body that close to the major industrial planet. Mercury has a lot of metals, and the slow rotation rate together with intense solar heat will have concentrated metals into veins. That solar heat can be used to refine ore. Io has active sulphur volcanoes, powered by heat caused by friction in the core from gravitational tides; it's that close to Jupiter. You can't terraform a calm environment with that much energy pumped into the celestial body. Europa may have liquid water oceans under that crust of water ice, which may have indigenous life. With a total of 5 habitable bodies in the solar system, no need to mess with another one. At least not until we're sure there's no life. Titan is the largest moon of Saturn, just too far from the sun. Asteroids don't have enough gravity.
Ok, that leaves us with Earth, 4 terraformed bodies, 2 that are deliberately left airless for industrial use, 1 is a preserve, and everything else can't be terraformed. Sounds like a great solar system to me.
Whatever you're taking, I want some of it.
Terraforming is an unpractical waste of resources. All humans have to is subsist from the resources that are available in the solar system in sustainable and rational way. All we need is enough water to drink, enough air to breate, enough food to sustain.