You're all to Mars-centered!!!!!!

Terraformer · 2007-12-30 12:08:02

You are all too centered on getting to Mars to the detriment of actually getting an Earth-Lunar economy going. Once that's done Mars would come cheaply. This is a something I posted on RedColony: Toehold Approach.

What would be the fuel requirements if instead of launching the Mars mission from Earth, we got an Earth-Lunar economy going, with habitats and shipyards in Earth or Lunar orbit (with maybe a cycler between the two bodies to ride to and from the Moon), and a space elevator on the Moon (we're already at that level) to export the fuel and hardware almost entirely off the Moon for cheap (we're using the space elevator remember)?

I favour that sort of approach. The thing is most of you people seem preoccupied with getting a mission to Mars and then getting habitats on the Moon. That is going to waste time and cash in the short run and the long run. Colonization would be helped much more by my method than yours.

1.) Cut off all funding for Mars. Channel all of NASAs funding into developing a manned Moon craft built in LEO at the ISS (set off for when Earths magnetic field is shielding the astronauts from radiation). Turn the ISS into a shipyard

2.) Have the craft carry a space elevator ribbon. When it gets to the Moon, stop in GeoSync orbit, and drop the bottom half of the space elevator down. Land and anchor it to the Moon.

3.) Launch habitats to Luna and start getting colonists to sign up. This will finally get the people involved. Funding will increase allowing for more habs to be sent and a mining operation to be set up.

4.) Set up and Earth-Lunar economy. Get refinary stations set up and start building craft from Lunar materials.

5.) Build a Mars craft at one of the shipyards. Enjoy your trip!

This entire plan could be done with the tech we have today relatively cheaply compared to Mars.

The GeoSync space elevator might not be feasible, but what about the rest?

JoshNH4H · 2007-12-30 19:00:09

ace it- the applications of suborbit are 1/100 the applications of LEO (which, in turn, is 1/10 that of the moon, which is 1/10 that of mars)

Mars is The Object. Other than Mars, the rest of the solar system is just one big mine. Only Earth and Mars, Terraformed or not, can be a Home. The moon will, in all probability, end up a no-man's land of mining towns and a few (seperate) tourist locations, which are generally circumvented because of the eventually created tourist resorts in closer GEO. The current plan sees flags and footsteps around 2040. With your plan, the first person there will be some greedy capitalist, somewhere in the neighborhood of 2150, there to bring the kind of chaos that the 'metanats' in RGB mars heft upon the martians.

Do you really want that?

_____

Commodore · 2007-12-30 22:33:51

I do think that Mars gets a degree of attention that doesn't give proper credit to the rest of the system. Mars, with out a doubt is the near term habitable destination. And given the political climate of the day, everyone sees one good shot of at least getting there. Unfortunately, the thought is that we'll find something so profound there that we'll stay. I have no such illusion of our legislators under the current system. It didn't work before. The plans currently being thrown around for Mars, or even the Moon will go the way of Apollo if we don't change the equation.

Having said that, I do think that the Moon is the great toe hold. A fairly simple mining operation will work great wonders for space exploration, and solve our energy problems on Earth. But by the time we get there, we'll be able to do the same on Mars, Ceres, the skys of Venus, and probably a few other places with the same technology at minimal cost. We'll need resources from all of them to create self contain ecosystems off the Earth. We need nothing on the Moon to get there, but we do need it to make it worth while.

It comes down to a question of political will. If given a decade of funding into the proper technologies we could embark on an extensive manned surface and subsurface of the Moon. Another decade, and we can establish self-sufficient resource bases and protocolonies capable of supporting their own growth. Yet another decade, and those bases can produce the vessels required to repeat the process on Mars, or Ceres, and set the same process going there. From here, it can snowball into major expeditions to Mercury, and moons of the other solar system, reaching Pluto by the end of the century.

We've just got to push hard enough to not settle for just getting there.

cIclops · 2007-12-31 04:08:48

You are all too centered on getting to Mars to the detriment of actually getting an Earth-Lunar economy going. Once that's done Mars would come cheaply.

A robust Earth-Lunar economy would certainly help reduce the costs of spaceflight and Mars missions, but why will this happen anytime soon? It will happen when the Moon offers something so special that its value is greater than the enormous cost of acquiring it. There's only one thing in the near future that will work, and that's the Moon itself. It has value for exploration, science and as a base for preparing for missions to Mars. Those things have very little commercial value, that's why only governments do them. NASA estimates it will cost over $100 billion to return to the Moon, each extra mission will probably cost a few billion. There's no product or service that will pay for that cost. Even ISRU LOX/LH2 won't pay for the cost of exporting it from the lunar service until the demand is huge. It's just economics.

LEO shipyards and habitats don't make any sense either until the demand is there. How much demand is there for private A380 jets? Only one has been sold to a billionaire, they are just too expensive. The cost of an A380 is tiny compared with cost of a reusable LEO vehicle and that will be cheap compared with a Lunar one.

Space products and services will take time to become more efficient and cheaper, eventually they should become cheap enough so that an Earth-Lunar economy will start, probably with fuel, then maybe tourism. Eventually colonies. How many submarine shipyards are there under the sea or snow vehicle factories in Antartica? None. It's still cheaper in 2007 and will be for the foreseeable future to make these vehicles elsewhere. Cost drives production location.

Fuel will soon cost about $2000 per kg to lift to LEO where its needed for Mars missions. Lunar produced LOX will only be competitive for surface missions and ascent vehicles. Going to Mars from lunar orbit won't make any sense either until fuel in LEO is cheaper than the cost of lifting it from Earth. The fuel needed to get into Lunar orbit is about the same as to go to Mars.

Your plan depends on the space elevator, a technology that doesn't exist and won't exist for twenty years or more, maybe never. In the meantime let's go to back to the Moon, onto NEOs and then Mars!

ps. Almost no money has been spent on human Mars missions, in the 2008 budget no money at all is allowed for human Mars missions; there's no money to pour into a non existent Earth-lunar economy.

Terraformer · 2007-12-31 06:50:52

I was refering to probes.

We already have materials that are sronger than nessercary for a lunar space elevator. If, instead of running a few missions to the moon, we launched a mining op straight off (after sending a few probes to scout out lnd, of course) we would be able to drive the cost down. Have the fuel for Earth return Lunar produced, rendevous in LEO (or other orbit) with the Earth lander, then land back on Earth/. Really, humanity's pretty lousy. Thousands of years and we still haven't colomnized our own Moon. The first Mars mission as a greater chance of happening from a Lunar colony than a Terran one.

cIclops · 2007-12-31 06:56:19

I was refering to probes.
We already have materials that are sronger than nessercary for a lunar space elevator. If, instead of running a few missions to the moon, we launched a mining op straight off (after sending a few probes to scout out lnd, of course) we would be able to drive the cost down. Have the fuel for Earth return Lunar produced, rendevous in LEO (or other orbit) with the Earth lander, then land back on Earth/. Really, humanity's pretty lousy. Thousands of years and we still haven't colomnized our own Moon. The first Mars mission as a greater chance of happening from a Lunar colony than a Terran one.

How much will it cost to build a lunar space elevator and how long will it take?

BTW humanity hasn't colonized 80% or more of the Earth's surface. It will be a long long wait for the first Mars mission if it has to wait for a Lunar colony to be established.

Terraformer · 2007-12-31 07:46:09

It seems most of you just want an Apollo ere thee-and-back-again mission. Flags and footprints would make you happy. Not actually colonizing anywhere. I would prefer a Lunar colony to a Mars Mission. I don't care if Mars is colonized in gradual steps from the Moon to NEOs to Mars. Or even the Moon to Venus to Mercury then Mars.

cIclops · 2007-12-31 09:01:38

It's possible to have both. Before a Lunar colony can be started the basic transport system to get there has to be built. The Ares launch system is being developed right now, it's very flexible so it can also be used for NEOs and Mars. The Altair lander will only work on the Moon, but some of its technology would also be useful for Mars.

Before a colony can be started it makes a lot of sense to build an Outpost to learn what type of infrastructure works and then to optimize it. Reaching the lunar surface and returning is going to be very expensive for a long time, so an ENORMOUS amount of money will be needed to build and service a Colony. NASA barely has enough money to replace the Shuttle, the Lunar program will only be studies until about 2012 so the next Moon landing won't happen until 2019. The Outpost will take about 5 years to setup, maybe after that a Colony could begin, but why would anyone want to live there at such enormous cost? Who would pay for it when it has no economic value? There's no need for a Colony to explore the Moon or do science there. A base is sufficient. A Colony will only make sense when the cost is much lower. There are no colonies at the South Pole, on Everest or under the Sea and they would be cheap compared with a Lunar one.

Terraformer · 2007-12-31 11:11:04

Space companies? Tourists would love to go to the Moon.You seem to be ignoring the private sector, even though that would shoulder most of the cost. Mining? If we are ever going to have a future in space as a species we need a mining infrastructure before we can progress. Mars would be cheaper, a lot cheaper, with a colony on the Moon and using Moon mined materials.

Here's an interesting article.

(I don't know why I listen to jumpboy11j rubbish my ideas. You've got even lousier ones. I think you are all jealous because you didn't think of my ideas first.)

noosfractal · 2007-12-31 13:03:15

I think you are all jealous because you didn't think of my ideas first.

Hilarious. Have you ever even had an original idea?

JoshNH4H · 2007-12-31 13:40:04

I think you are all jealous because you didn't think of my ideas first.
Hilarious. Have you ever even had an original idea?

well, he did have that one...once...about ummm...

Nevermind.

Terraformer · 2007-12-31 15:16:06

It's not just original ideas. Non-original ideas that combine ideas alrady aroung are good as well.

Tell you what, I'll bye you a suborbital space flight when I'm on then Moon. None of you will have got to the level of suborbit on your own.

Terraformer · 2008-01-01 13:05:40

Read this article. If only there was a way to tap that 50 billion.

Dragoneye · 2008-01-03 10:54:19

I also think we should establish a little test station on the moon before we do anything on mars... it would prepare us for anything we have ready to go out there. and its less than 1/16 the distance away. in all honesty its about time to step this up and have private companys start helping out in funding stuff for this. if they do they can get their foot in the door and get ready for the explosion about to happen in the space industry.

as soon as we start tapping into the vast rescources of space, then the human race will be going nuts with exploration, development, breakthroughs in sience, ect.

heck the astroids out there have enough material to produce LARGE quantities of metals for us to build bigger and better ships for cheaper and faster. not to mention its WAY safer and faster to mine an individual astroid than it is to mine underground somewhere...

cIclops · 2008-01-04 05:41:07

I also think we should establish a little test station on the moon before we do anything on mars... it would prepare us for anything we have ready to go out there. and its less than 1/16 the distance away. in all honesty its about time to step this up and have private companys start helping out in funding stuff for this. if they do they can get their foot in the door and get ready for the explosion about to happen in the space industry.

That's the plan Dragoneye. Work on the Lunar Outpost has started, with more funding people could be living there in ten years from now.

The nearest Mars gets to Earth is about 55 million kilometers; the Moon is 0.38 million kms away. So the Moon is 1/145 of the shortest distance to Mars. Because of the orbit geometry Mars is sometimes 400 million kilometers away from Earth!

Dragoneye · 2008-01-04 09:07:16

I also think we should establish a little test station on the moon before we do anything on mars... it would prepare us for anything we have ready to go out there. and its less than 1/16 the distance away. in all honesty its about time to step this up and have private companys start helping out in funding stuff for this. if they do they can get their foot in the door and get ready for the explosion about to happen in the space industry.
That's the plan Dragoneye. Work on the Lunar Outpost has started, with more funding people could be living there in ten years from now.
The nearest Mars gets to Earth is about 55 million kilometers; the Moon is 0.38 million kms away. So the Moon is 1/145 of the shortest distance to Mars. Because of the orbit geometry Mars is sometimes 400 million kilometers away from Earth!

if i had 1/8 the budget and team size nasa had i could get a place on the moon in 5 years from now easily... drives me nuts how much they think it costs to do something...

JoshNH4H · 2008-01-04 14:46:17

And would the astronauts be alive when they got there 9 times in 10?
Nothing worse for NASA than their first mission past leo in 40 years arriving...with nobody on it alive

Dragoneye · 2008-01-04 14:56:22

And would the astronauts be alive when they got there 9 times in 10?
Nothing worse for NASA than their first mission past leo in 40 years arriving...with nobody on it alive

if they can do it multiple times before on old technology with what i'm positive was a LOT less of a budget... why cant they send an automated ship to go there and land and be a "base camp" then send the guys there when things are ready for them? all for the same or less money...

dryson · 2008-01-04 21:43:08

Mars is The Object. Other than Mars, the rest of the solar system is just one big mine. Only Earth and Mars, Terraformed or not, can be a Home. The moon will, in all probability, end up a no-man's land of mining towns and a few (seperate) tourist locations, which are generally circumvented because of the eventually created tourist resorts in closer GEO. The current plan sees flags and footsteps around 2040. With your plan, the first person there will be some greedy capitalist, somewhere in the neighborhood of 2150, there to bring the kind of chaos that the 'metanats' in RGB mars heft upon the martians.
Do you really want that?

The only real plausible approach to using the Moon would be that of a re-fueling and re-stocking way point for the mission to mars. Now I have designed a vehicle that will work for mass transport of cargo and equipment to the moon to speed the building of support facilities to Mars.

This vehicle can be modified by enlarging the fuel tank to allow for a two way trip to Mars while carrying enough cargo to make the trip there worthwhile and cost effecient.

The main reason why Mars is important is because Mars has polar ice caps that can be used to produced drinking water to sustain the naughts while they are there. The moon doesnt, meaning more would have to be spent on taking this basic neccesity of life to the moon.

The Moon has basic minerals and is of least importance when it comes to this method of profiting.Mars however has not been explored under the surface and all we know they may be new forms of mineral structures that will lead to new metals, new metals lead to new building designs ect.

This is not the most important reason for going to Mars, but is among the top ten reasons. The main reason is continuing the exploration of mankinds surroundings and not taking a back seat to those who would rather sit at home watch soaps and eat bon bon's all day long.

cIclops · 2008-01-05 03:09:23

The only real plausible approach to using the Moon would be that of a re-fueling and re-stocking way point for the mission to mars.

Maybe this will happen a long way into the future when there's very cheap fuel available or a new type of propulsion system. Until then it makes no sense to go to the Moon on the way to Mars. It takes too much fuel to brake into Lunar orbit, even more to land on the surface, and more again to escape from Lunar gravity.

Terraformer · 2008-01-05 05:06:20

Mars is The Object. Other than Mars, the rest of the solar system is just one big mine. Only Earth and Mars, Terraformed or not, can be a Home. The moon will, in all probability, end up a no-man's land of mining towns and a few (seperate) tourist locations, which are generally circumvented because of the eventually created tourist resorts in closer GEO. The current plan sees flags and footsteps around 2040. With your plan, the first person there will be some greedy capitalist, somewhere in the neighborhood of 2150, there to bring the kind of chaos that the 'metanats' in RGB mars heft upon the martians.
Do you really want that?

If thats what has to be done to have humans living there permenently, then thats a nessercery sacrifice. (Please, I keep forgetting how to spell Nessarcery. How is it spelt? :oops: :oops: )

A Mars is not the only other place that can be colonized, terraformed or not. I can think of much more attractive places. The asteroids, the outer gas giants moons, our own moon, etc. Once we become fully fledged terraformers, Venus becomes a more attactive place to visit. The stars are The Object. The solar system is just a means of fueling upand honing our skills. You've lost sight of humanitys goal.

If we havw tourist resorts on the moon, there will already be resorts in GEO. But people will still want to have holidays on the moon, something I intend to cash in on, (No I haven't bought land on the moon, I was refering to getting people there.)

JoshNH4H · 2008-01-06 13:13:41

I do not want to sikp the moon. However, I dn't think we should ignore mars either. They should both be colonized in stages, having mars a step or two behind the moon all of the time. But mars features the lowest healthy gravity (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) for humans. Yes, I agree, the stars are the final goal, but for the next few hundred years at least, mars is the closest thing to a home we will find.

BTW- 'Necessary' I think

Terraformer · 2008-01-06 15:46:31

I learnt to spelt it right today. Yes, finally!

Venus can be a hospitable place for mankind once we improve in terraforming knowledge. And spinning space habitats can provide the same G as Earth. And medical research will demolish those obstacles anyway. Mercury has the same G as Mars and more energy.

JoshNH4H · 2008-01-06 16:23:31

However, of all of the worlds, mars is the most appreciated. It is also the easiest to live in.

Commodore · 2008-01-06 17:55:12

I don't think any of the plans currently being floated put enough of a priority on utilizing local materials to build a base that would reduce the cost of transit and habitation.

The Moon is the only place to test the methods without putting dozens of lives and billions of dollars, and public and congressional support, at risk.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2007-12-30 12:08:02

Re: You're all to Mars-centered!!!!!!

#2 2007-12-30 19:00:09

Re: You're all to Mars-centered!!!!!!

#3 2007-12-30 22:33:51

Re: You're all to Mars-centered!!!!!!

#4 2007-12-31 04:08:48

Re: You're all to Mars-centered!!!!!!

#5 2007-12-31 06:50:52

Re: You're all to Mars-centered!!!!!!

#6 2007-12-31 06:56:19

Re: You're all to Mars-centered!!!!!!

#7 2007-12-31 07:46:09

Re: You're all to Mars-centered!!!!!!

#8 2007-12-31 09:01:38

Re: You're all to Mars-centered!!!!!!

#9 2007-12-31 11:11:04

Re: You're all to Mars-centered!!!!!!

#10 2007-12-31 13:03:15

Re: You're all to Mars-centered!!!!!!

#11 2007-12-31 13:40:04

Re: You're all to Mars-centered!!!!!!

#12 2007-12-31 15:16:06

Re: You're all to Mars-centered!!!!!!

#13 2008-01-01 13:05:40

Re: You're all to Mars-centered!!!!!!

#14 2008-01-03 10:54:19

Re: You're all to Mars-centered!!!!!!

#15 2008-01-04 05:41:07

Re: You're all to Mars-centered!!!!!!

#16 2008-01-04 09:07:16

Re: You're all to Mars-centered!!!!!!

#17 2008-01-04 14:46:17

Re: You're all to Mars-centered!!!!!!

#18 2008-01-04 14:56:22

Re: You're all to Mars-centered!!!!!!

#19 2008-01-04 21:43:08

Re: You're all to Mars-centered!!!!!!

#20 2008-01-05 03:09:23

Re: You're all to Mars-centered!!!!!!

#21 2008-01-05 05:06:20

Re: You're all to Mars-centered!!!!!!

#22 2008-01-06 13:13:41

Re: You're all to Mars-centered!!!!!!

#23 2008-01-06 15:46:31

Re: You're all to Mars-centered!!!!!!

#24 2008-01-06 16:23:31

Re: You're all to Mars-centered!!!!!!

#25 2008-01-06 17:55:12

Re: You're all to Mars-centered!!!!!!

Board footer