Where's the vision?

louis · 2019-05-06 18:55:32

It's dispiriting how little new there is about Mars colonisation out there...This is yet another example of just a rehashed article making used of graphics that in some places must be 25 years old now:

https://interestingengineering.com/what … t-martians

Time and again we get the repetition of the same old "barriers to colonisation" - temperature, pressure, radiation and so on. We never seem to get any recital of the good points about Mars: the absence of violent weather, the absence of oceans where you can drown or be deluged by waves, or the fact that a wide range of minerals are readily available at the surface.

Few writers seem to understand what the real challenges and opportunities are and neither do they have any vision of the possible future of humanity on Mars.

No one seems to acknowledge that Space X's plans - delivering 500 tonnes to the surface for Mission One - create huge opportunities for establishing a viable base.

The key challenges are propellant production and rocket refurbishment (or rather the question of how much maintenance or repair might be necessary). Propellant production is much more demanding than many writers actually acknowledge, because a relatively large quantity is required (maybe 1100 tonnes), necessitating a pretty demanding schedule of water and atmospheric processing.

I think Space X have missed a trick by failing to engage the public on planning for colonisation. They should have set up international fora for consideration of all aspects of colonisation...not a free for all. Perhaps a person would have to demonstrate relevant knowledge before being invited onto a forum. They also should be produced more graphics of plans and circulating these on the internet.

I know they are busy folk but all this is important and relatively cheap stuff - you could do all this v. effectively for under a million dollars per annum. You could create an internet Mars TV channel and invite talented people - many young people - no doubt to create computer graphic video and so on.

It's sad how Space X haven't yet reached out to the public.

SpaceNut · 2019-05-06 21:30:19

Dreams happen when you have gobs of money and even when you thinlk that you have enough you end up going broke. This is the case for the japanese billionaire that wants to go to the moon and with the delay of the crewed capsule its going to get even harder to pull that trick off.

If it were easy to hurl 100's of tonnes to orbit in a single shot then everyone would be capable and doing it but thats still the issue as it takes newer materials and fuels to break the cycle.

There is no reason that small on orbit construction can not be done to give it all the protection and features that we want for the trip out.

The key to insitu propellant is not to come back if its going to push mass limits of power and equipment such that it drives up cost.

The same issue for launch pervails in the landing as well.

louis · 2019-05-07 03:02:06

Yes, I wasn't so much focussing on the actual technical difficulties as highlighting how poor the journalism and even popular science on the internet is regarding Mars colonisation.

There certainly are technical challenges. I have never believed they can be resolved by making it a "one way ticket" mission.

The first major step is to build the Starship and put it through its paces which must mean at the least doing a double ascent and descent through the Earth's atmosphere, with the first landing being on rocky ground and with there being minimal maintenance following that first landing. If that can be done, it will show a Space X style Mars mission is feasible.

The other major hurdles are:

1. Building the propellant production facility that will go to Mars.

2. Water location and extraction.

3. Habs and failsafe life support.

4. Unloading cargo from the Starships.

I think the space medicine challenge (muscle and bone loss) has essentially been overcome, certainly to the extent that they threatened the success of the mission.

SpaceNut wrote:

Dreams happen when you have gobs of money and even when you thinlk that you have enough you end up going broke. This is the case for the japanese billionaire that wants to go to the moon and with the delay of the crewed capsule its going to get even harder to pull that trick off.
If it were easy to hurl 100's of tonnes to orbit in a single shot then everyone would be capable and doing it but thats still the issue as it takes newer materials and fuels to break the cycle.
There is no reason that small on orbit construction can not be done to give it all the protection and features that we want for the trip out.
The key to insitu propellant is not to come back if its going to push mass limits of power and equipment such that it drives up cost.
The same issue for launch pervails in the landing as well.

louis · 2019-05-07 04:02:11

This video is better setting out how Musk might bring together all his Earth projects (rocektry, solar power, EVs, Starlink Internet and GPS, tunnel boring and Hyperloop) to facilitate Mars colonisation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW8VKGMxiIg

Void · 2019-05-07 08:11:48

Very interesting stuff Louis.

I mostly agree with the ideas put fourth in the video. A few modifications however. I don't think that SpaceX will operate in a vacuum, in a cultural/technological sense.

For Mars, it would be silly to go completely solar, when Kilo-power exists, or is emerging. I do think that nuclear energy will be in general prohibitive in cost, to export to Mars. However, as an insurance policy, more or less, just enough Kilo-power for humans to survive a global dust storm could be merited. That would be in the early days. Probably just enough for the planted settlements to hibernate. Not enough to fill a propellant depot. And Nasa may also offer assistance on life support methods, and space suits I am thinking.

As for Hyperloop on Mars, Elon Musk has speculated that it can operate on Mars on an open track. Not needing a closed tube. Perhaps it will have to go at a slower speed, but still rather fast I am guessing.

I do like the fact that he understands that space art depicting people living under glass domes, is inspiring, but not perhaps the best way to play things, at least at first. Such domes will always offer considerable risk of failure. At the very least, your main home would be below ground, and perhaps there can be an evolution from tiny domes such as the ISS cupola, to larger sizes for small parks. But perhaps more sensible for parks indeed would be your canyon type parks. Glass domes are aspirational, and on a small scale might be affordable, in order to provide for aesthetic beauty, but after all a luxury, as you could create vastly more safe and larger volume enclosures underground.

And then there is "Blue Origin's" the evil arch frenemy. One thing you might want to watch for is 5-9-19, Shackleton.
This occurred a few days ago, and there is speculation on it.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/26/jeff-be … tpost.html

The speculation includes "Shackleton Crater" included as part of the concept of the south pole of the Moon. Even SpaceX has by now re-aligned it's objectives to have some inclusion of Lunar activity potentials.

And I am rather excited about the potential of a "Halo" of habitation around the south pole of the Moon.

While I expect a skeleton crew, (Not a crew of skeletons), could like on that area, and aside from exploring and developing that area, just the medical data will be extremely important for the Mars effort.

Another jerk event, not able to save materials.

Have to remember to use copy.

Anyway, just making Hydrogen and Oxygen from water will be a major advance. And then I would expect to leverage part of the Hydrogen, to extract Oxygen from rocks. Oxygen for Starship to Mars for instance. Maybe Oxygen for other needs.

And the Halo, would allow short distances to the far side of the Moon perhaps, I think perhaps just over the terminator as defined by what parts of the Moon we can see from Earth. Good places for telescopes eventually. So, a broad spectrum of activities which can perhaps capture the interest and support of more than just would be rocket riders.

And then there will be others as well. It seems very far fetched that the USA and so called "West" would be happy to see only non-western activity on the Moon. So, we are almost guaranteed support for Lunar activities, and if we are clever, we can try to graft that together with other targets such as Mars/Phobos/Demos, and NEO's.

It is actually a pretty good card hand I would say.

……

Oh, I left out Neuralink, and Starship.

I think the Moon would be an excellent place to try to use Neuralink, a cyborg activity I suppose in reality. I would think that in some cases part of the computer would be on the Moon, part on Earth, and the Humans on Earth. But a handful of people on the south pole could also use Neuralink. The primary use would be to use telepresence to manipulate objects in the Lunar environment. Lessons learned could be applied to Mars. But in the case of Mars, I suppose the Humans have to be proximate to the Martian objects to be manipulated.

I do agree, that Starship could make a hopper for Mars. Perhaps a variation. It could be a full fledged one and probably will be in some cases. It also could be scaled down to be sub orbital, and maybe not need all of the mass of an interplanetary version.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-05-07 08:47:05)

louis · 2019-05-07 15:53:25

As I understand it, a Starship can get to the lunar surface and back to Earth on one tank.

If so, I can't really see what need there is to locate at the lunar poles. Water can be transported to the Moon and, with efficient recycling, not much resupply will be required.

I see the Moon being developed for tourism. The Apollo 11 site will be a tremendous draw I think, so I would locate a base maybe 10 miles away from that so lunar tourists get a nice rover rider to the site. Throw in some lunar golf...it's a great package.

Void wrote:

Very interesting stuff Louis.
I mostly agree with the ideas put fourth in the video. A few modifications however. I don't think that SpaceX will operate in a vacuum, in a cultural/technological sense.
For Mars, it would be silly to go completely solar, when Kilo-power exists, or is emerging. I do think that nuclear energy will be in general prohibitive in cost, to export to Mars. However, as an insurance policy, more or less, just enough Kilo-power for humans to survive a global dust storm could be merited. That would be in the early days. Probably just enough for the planted settlements to hibernate. Not enough to fill a propellant depot. And Nasa may also offer assistance on life support methods, and space suits I am thinking.
As for Hyperloop on Mars, Elon Musk has speculated that it can operate on Mars on an open track. Not needing a closed tube. Perhaps it will have to go at a slower speed, but still rather fast I am guessing.
I do like the fact that he understands that space art depicting people living under glass domes, is inspiring, but not perhaps the best way to play things, at least at first. Such domes will always offer considerable risk of failure. At the very least, your main home would be below ground, and perhaps there can be an evolution from tiny domes such as the ISS cupola, to larger sizes for small parks. But perhaps more sensible for parks indeed would be your canyon type parks. Glass domes are aspirational, and on a small scale might be affordable, in order to provide for aesthetic beauty, but after all a luxury, as you could create vastly more safe and larger volume enclosures underground.
And then there is "Blue Origin's" the evil arch frenemy. One thing you might want to watch for is 5-9-19, Shackleton.
This occurred a few days ago, and there is speculation on it.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/26/jeff-be … tpost.html
The speculation includes "Shackleton Crater" included as part of the concept of the south pole of the Moon. Even SpaceX has by now re-aligned it's objectives to have some inclusion of Lunar activity potentials.
And I am rather excited about the potential of a "Halo" of habitation around the south pole of the Moon.
While I expect a skeleton crew, (Not a crew of skeletons), could like on that area, and aside from exploring and developing that area, just the medical data will be extremely important for the Mars effort.
Another jerk event, not able to save materials.
Have to remember to use copy.
Anyway, just making Hydrogen and Oxygen from water will be a major advance. And then I would expect to leverage part of the Hydrogen, to extract Oxygen from rocks. Oxygen for Starship to Mars for instance. Maybe Oxygen for other needs.
And the Halo, would allow short distances to the far side of the Moon perhaps, I think perhaps just over the terminator as defined by what parts of the Moon we can see from Earth. Good places for telescopes eventually. So, a broad spectrum of activities which can perhaps capture the interest and support of more than just would be rocket riders.
And then there will be others as well. It seems very far fetched that the USA and so called "West" would be happy to see only non-western activity on the Moon. So, we are almost guaranteed support for Lunar activities, and if we are clever, we can try to graft that together with other targets such as Mars/Phobos/Demos, and NEO's.
It is actually a pretty good card hand I would say.
……
Oh, I left out Neuralink, and Starship.
I think the Moon would be an excellent place to try to use Neuralink, a cyborg activity I suppose in reality. I would think that in some cases part of the computer would be on the Moon, part on Earth, and the Humans on Earth. But a handful of people on the south pole could also use Neuralink. The primary use would be to use telepresence to manipulate objects in the Lunar environment. Lessons learned could be applied to Mars. But in the case of Mars, I suppose the Humans have to be proximate to the Martian objects to be manipulated.

I do agree, that Starship could make a hopper for Mars. Perhaps a variation. It could be a full fledged one and probably will be in some cases. It also could be scaled down to be sub orbital, and maybe not need all of the mass of an interplanetary version.

Done.

Void · 2019-05-07 19:27:46

Well, that is certainly a business opportunity to consider for Starship. Your arguments could hold water. Although it is apparent that there is water everywhere on the Moon. Hydroxyl is perhaps harder to recover. But for missions as you have suggested, on board water might be just fine.

But I don't think your model excludes Moon base options, possibly near the South pole of the Moon.

Here is a video to watch. Elon Musk and the head of NASA have some interesting things to say. INSITU resources are mentioned as well as a Moon base.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=El … &FORM=VIRE

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-05-07 19:31:05)

SpaceNut · 2019-05-07 20:44:03

The issue for a single bfr to go to the moon and back is the upload of 4 or 5 bfr units setup to refuel on orbit the one going to the moon..
This is not only a crunch on the source of fuel to load onto the bfr refuelers but on a schedule of closely launched groupings of the fuel for use as the supplies for the crew that went up on unit number 1 crewed will be a problem for all consumables that they will have until they can go to the moon.

louis · 2019-05-08 04:20:09

Good point SpaceNut! That part of the transport I had forgotten about, rather stupidly. Lunar tourism probably wouldn't work as a sustainable programme until you got the cost per Kg under $1000. But a few billionaires might help kick start the programme.

SpaceNut wrote:

The issue for a single bfr to go to the moon and back is the upload of 4 or 5 bfr units setup to refuel on orbit the one going to the moon..
This is not only a crunch on the source of fuel to load onto the bfr refuelers but on a schedule of closely launched groupings of the fuel for use as the supplies for the crew that went up on unit number 1 crewed will be a problem for all consumables that they will have until they can go to the moon.

SpaceNut · 2019-05-08 16:49:04

The only billionaire a Japanese man that has offered up money for the moon flight on a Falcon 9 heavy is become basically broke.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2019-05-06 18:55:32

Where's the vision?

#2 2019-05-06 21:30:19

Re: Where's the vision?

#3 2019-05-07 03:02:06

Re: Where's the vision?

#4 2019-05-07 04:02:11

Re: Where's the vision?

#5 2019-05-07 08:11:48

Re: Where's the vision?

#6 2019-05-07 15:53:25

Re: Where's the vision?

#7 2019-05-07 19:27:46

Re: Where's the vision?

#8 2019-05-07 20:44:03

Re: Where's the vision?

#9 2019-05-08 04:20:09

Re: Where's the vision?

#10 2019-05-08 16:49:04

Re: Where's the vision?

Board footer