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

Terraformer · 2008-01-07 05:21:36

Actually, for a world that is -179 deg., Titan is the most hospitable world apart from Earth. Plenty of building materials (ice and Carbon), water, a decent atmosphere, it's actually got Nitrogen, easiest to terraform, etc.

mjsimon · 2008-01-08 13:09:10

Terraformer,

First off either you or I am misunderstanding what you're saying about a Space Elevator. By my understanding, it wouldn't go all the way to the moon because a) that's a quantity of material a few miles past absurd and b) the Moon goes around the Earth (I've seen it myself ) you couldn't anchor a space elevator on any place on the Earth and have it attach to the moon. I may be misunderstanding your intent with this idea, however.

Anyway, I'm absolutely with you on the Space Elevator idea. If we had materials strong enough (last time I check, which was a while ago, we were still several orders of magnitude off) it would do more for space exploration than anything since the telescope. That being said, I'm not holding my breath.

Space elevator or not, I'm still with you that the Moon and/or NEAs are target number 1. A Nickel-Iron NEA with a smattering of heavy elements (gold! platinum!) would go a long way toward focusing commercial interest in getting to the Near Earth area of space. To quote Robert Heinlein (I think): "The Moon is halfway to anywhere in the Solar System." Once we drag ourselves out of the gravity well, there's not a lot holding us back.

cIclops · 2008-01-08 13:50:34

Hi mjsimon!

The space elevator is the dream machine for getting into space cheaply and reliably, but it is a long way from reality. Progress on the critical material is moving along ... there's a whole topic here about developments.

Terraformer · 2008-01-09 07:25:08

A Lunar space elevator would not attach to the Earth.

mjsimon · 2008-01-09 11:29:59

Okay, I misread your initial post, Terraformer.

dryson · 2008-01-10 18:44:46

Why should the cost of continuing humanities exploration into space be hindered by cost factors? Those cost's you speak of are figured into the formulae for exploration. It sounds to me like you are not a genuine explorer but one of those that just want to dream about it, hoping that it never comes true.

Why because then the world wouldn't revolve around you, which it doesn't by the way, the world revolves around the sun.

If exploration to the moon and onto Mars doesnt happen, then what is humanity going do? Sit around on Earth comptiplating the future hoping the future rides in a ray of light? Well that's not how it happens. Also the mentality of if we can't get there faster then we can now then there is no reason to even try is horse apples! Do you think all of the earlier explorers sat around and thought about what was over the horizon? No they went out built masted ships caught breeze in her sails and look danger straight in the eye and said "Bring me that Horizon" "....second star to the right..and straight on till the morning."

If humanity doesn't not push for more exploration then the cost of space exploration will never go down and from the sounds in your voice that's what you want. For the record you are not a singular controlling entity that determines the course of human evolvotion.

You can only see one small picture of the world the you are in, open the blinds and shutters and look at the bigger picture here. If not, I suggest you put on a dress and twirl around the room for the rest of your life.

mjsimon · 2008-01-11 08:10:24

dryson, this is how I see it. I won't be offended if you disagree.

This cost is important, because humans in large groups have to make decisions for everyday life before they make decisions for the future of humankind.

1.) Who's deciding to spend the money? If it's government, then the lawmakers have to decide if it's morally right to take the extra cash out of the hands of their people to fund an extremely expensive and risky action that might have no benefit. If you're telling a working class family that 400 of their $40,000 yearly income is going to send a handful of people to another planet, you should either be absolutely sure that there will be some benefit.
If not governments, that only leaves individuals. They can spend all their own money they want and not feel bad about it (and guess what, they are) but that money is limited compared to national governments. If they an others like them are able to sustain this investment, they must get money for doing what they're doing, because space travel is pretty much the most expensive activity available to mankind.

2.) It's nice to invoke the brave explorer archetype, and I hope that those people are revealed as humanity makes it's way from this planet, but those explorers are not and were not the individuals or groups paying for things to happen. That was done by governements. Not only that exploration was paid for by monarchies that really didn't have to answer to anyone, so it was easy to fund whatever struck your fancy.

3.) Explorers in the days of old were using technology not radically different from merchants and traders of those days, just using it a lot further away from home. This is why people advocate getting an infrastructure in orbit before looking to Mars and further.

John_Frazer · 2008-01-16 09:13:52

First off, it needs to be established for certainty by all that using the Moon as a "jumping off point" for Mars is nonsense. Forget about it; it makes no sense what-so-ever, not even in a tabloid article which is where the silly idea usually comes from.
Not for fueling, not for a launching point, not for comparative science and training for going to 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.

Completely ignoring space colonies.

How can Mars be a home -or how can we say that for sure, if we don't know a bit about low-G living, what sorts of harmful adaptations there may be? What about the near complete lack of radiation shielding on the surface? the uncertainty of it being able to hold onto any atmosphere we might be able to give it?
The space colony studies of the '70s established that easily foreseable technologies can build habitable volumes anywhere in the solar system given the resourcess which are available free anywhere there are asteroids, comets, small moons. No questions about varying G, because we can build them to Earth normal. No questions about radiation, because we can shield them.

We can also build them for habitation ASAP, with a fraction of the effort required for terraforming a planet (if such is even possible), or even establishing a large habitation on Mars in domes or underground. Comparatively sized habitation, in more favorable conditions can be made in space habitats of any varying size, easier than any inferior habitation can be had on a planet.
Of course this doesn't apply to anyone whose work in space is on Mars. Research bases on the surface, etc, yes, but the largest scale need for habitation will be in space, for the infrastructure that's in space, which enables everything else.

OTOH, I agree that Mars is the next biggest object of study, because of the question of whether it held or holds life. We need a permanent human presence there, with specialist scientists on their own two feet, supported by a robust in-space transportation and resources acquisition infrastructure.
It's also desirable to focus on Mars, because it's politically viable to do so. It's not at all right to say that we don't need to get back to the Moon to stay and permanently for study, but the short-attention-span public and politicians don't understand that. Mars is a big visible politically popular sexy target.
If we get a robust Mars exploration program, we certainly get the Moon too, while the reverse is not as certain.

The key is ices in asily accessible inner solar system space. This must mean either NEAs or Mars' moons, if they're assayed as holding as much water and other ices as they seem to. With Mars' moons, we get the whole inner solar system and a robust exploration effort on Mars, supported by a Mars orbiting long-term habitation base. Completely remove aany supply limitations around Mars, and remove any health reasons for cycling trained and experioenced Mars explorers back to Earth, because they have perfectly fine habitation in the Mars orbiting habitats.

(Not my own idea: plagiarized from Dr. Brian O'Leary who suggested early on, that before we even try to set foot on Mars, we need to establish water mining operations on its moons.
See also

[url=http://spacefuture.com/archive/the_deimos_water_company.shtml]D L Kuck, May 1997, "The Deimos Water Company", Presented at Space Manufacturing II, SSI, Princeton. 8 May 1997
http://spacefuture.com/archive/the_deim … pany.shtml
[/url]

Antius · 2008-01-16 09:36:13

I think a lot depends upon the technology that we have available. If we are forced to go to Mars/Moon using chemical rocket technology, then actual Mars colonisation becomes too expensive to carry out without some bootstrapping using lunar materials. For initial exploratory trips involving just a few people, it makes no sense going to the moon first, as the craft used to carry out exploration are relatively light and technologically complex.

If polywell fusion becomes available and lives up to expectations, the benefits of a moon base diminish, even if we are discussing large scale colonisation of Mars.

cIclops · 2008-01-16 14:34:19

If we are forced to go to Mars/Moon using chemical rocket technology, then actual Mars colonisation becomes too expensive to carry out without some bootstrapping using lunar materials. For initial exploratory trips involving just a few people, it makes no sense going to the moon first, as the craft used to carry out exploration are relatively light and technologically complex.

Yes. Colonization would be far too expensive using current chemical technology. Lunar resources won't make a big difference for a long time either as it will be extremely expensive to setup a fuel plant there with enough capacity to reduce the costs of human Mars missions.

No. Going to the Moon makes a lot of sense to learn how to live on another planetary body and how to engineer systems that are reliable enough for Mars expeditions.

A return voyage to the Moon takes about one week, a return voyage to Mars takes one year.

John_Frazer · 2008-01-17 10:33:03

Antius wrote:
If we are forced to go to Mars/Moon using chemical rocket technology, then actual Mars colonisation becomes too expensive to carry out without some bootstrapping using lunar materials.

I don't care to use the word "colonization" for a long time. We aren't "colonizing " Mars. We're trying to establish a foothold and a beachhead for explorers.
Furthermore, we aren't "colonizing" anything off-Earth unless and until we establish space resources use and space manufacturing. If nothing else, for the transportation infrastructure to get around the solar system.
We aren't "colonizing" anything using payloads lifted into space on top of disintigrating fireworks rockets which can trace their evolution back to WWII long range artillery.

cIclops:
Yes. Colonization would be far too expensive using current chemical technology. Lunar resources won't make a big difference for a long time either as it will be extremely expensive to setup a fuel plant there with enough capacity to reduce the costs of human Mars missions.

Lunar resources won't make any difference for a longer time than that. Really, it makes no sense to go down to our Moon for fuels to get to Mars: by the time you've used rockets to land on and take off from the Mooon, you've used far more than it would take to go right from LEO to Mars. Even if there were refined fuels sitting there, it makes no sense, in any realistic astronauatical sense.
Really... old news. Read Zubrin's book "The Case for Mars". The mission proposal is named "Mars Direct" for just that reason. Go directly to Mars, because there's no logic in going away to the Moon, supposedly "on the way to Mars".

No. Going to the Moon makes a lot of sense to learn how to live on another planetary body and how to engineer systems that are reliable enough for Mars expeditions.

That also makes no realistic sense. Mars and the Moon are more different in every particular, than Mars and Earth.
If you want to train or test for going to Mars, then do it on Earth.

A return voyage to the Moon takes about one week, a return voyage to Mars takes one year.

And a trip to Mars moons, if using Mars aerobraking to assist into Mars orbit, takes less fuel than going to our Moon. That means you carry more tools & equipment.
You also get fuels easily, right away on the first mission there, without building up a huge industrial infrastructure.
For going back to Earth orbit from Mars orbit and its moons, you use aerobraking at Earth, and again, it takes less fuel than going from our Moon back to Earth orbit.

Going to Mars' moons also gives us Mars into the bargain, even if you don't plan a manned landing there for a while. Added to this, in free space over Mars near its moons, you can make a habitat capable of supporting crews in Earth-like conditions, so they don't need to be rotated back to Earth at all. Put "tuna can" habs on the end of a truss, cover them in sandbags of regolith or concrete from regolith, and spin it for 1 G.

The Moon is useless, unless you want to explore it (not that I'm against it, but until we've got fuels in space). If there were concrete on the Moon, they'd mine it for water! On Mars moons, you dig down uder the regolith covering, and scoop up a bucket of stuff. Apply solar heat, and you get a bucket of water, that easy.
The say our Moon is the slagpile of the solar system, because its "resources" are so poor that an asteroid miner would toss them out as not economcal to process further.

I already linked to David L. Kuck's excellent article "the Diemos Water company".
From the archives here, here's another informative look.
These considerations for Mars' moons show another reason to fixate of Mars, and by-pass our Moon, at least until we've got a ready and large source of fuels in Earth orbit. AFAIC, find a NEA in a close solar orbit, and either process on-site, or drag the entire thing back to Earth orbit. Forget Mars until we've got fuels in orbit.
(For every payload we launch into LEO, which has an upper stage for kicking it out to GEO or beyond to interplanetary space, fully 45% of the mass we've put into LEO is the oxidiser in the upper stage.)

(Phobos and Diemos "Fear" and "Terror" (or Dread) were the two warhorses which pulled Mars' war chariot)

http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2542
New Mars Forum Index > Interplanetary transportation > Phobos and Deimos - The importance of Mars's moons to exploration
http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2542

See also neofuel.com

cIclops · 2008-01-18 04:26:56

Lunar resources won't make any difference for a longer time than that. Really, it makes no sense to go down to our Moon for fuels to get to Mars: by the time you've used rockets to land on and take off from the Mooon, you've used far more than it would take to go right from LEO to Mars.

Once volume production of lunar fuel is achieved, supply tankers will be able to refuel Mars ships in LEO via an onorbit depot. Then they will be able to reach EML1 where they will fill their tanks from the main depot. With plentiful lunar fuel all this becomes possible. Only empty tankers will go down to the Moon's surface.

If you want to train or test for going to Mars, then do it on Earth.

Earth based testing and training cannot duplicate the space environment, especially low and zero gravity. Real flight tests are needed for new launchers and components, engineering space systems for long duration, high reliability human spaceflight is no different. If sufficient testing and training can be done on Earth, why are there still so many failures? Going to Mars is at least an order of magnitude more difficult than going to the Moon. Going to the Moon in turn is another order of magnitude harder than living and working in LEO, and see how many serious problems ISS has had since it started flying.

Using the Moon to learn how to safely and efficiently survive on another planetary body will help enormously. In particular for low gravity research, exploration procedures, ISRU and habitat systems. Using NEOs for the next step will help even more for proving life support and other critical systems (including people!) for deep space missions lasting months. Using Phobos and Deimos maybe yet another important step if it's possible to produce fuel there. One step at a time. Losing a Mars crew because of the failure of unproven flight systems and crew would be a quick way to stop exploration funding. Lunar missions will substantially reduce the risk of Mars missions.

more discussion here about the Lunar Outpost

Terraformer · 2008-01-18 14:36:49

The idea is the Mars mission would not take off from Earth, refuel at the Moon, then go to Mars; it's that the Lunar colonists would be the ones who launch the mission.

cIclops · 2008-01-18 16:09:36

The idea is the Mars mission would not take off from Earth, refuel at the Moon, then go to Mars; it's that the Lunar colonists would be the ones who launch the mission.

Eventually, perhaps ... far in the future.

Antius · 2008-01-20 05:19:30

The idea is not to launch a mars mission from the surface of the moon. Nor is anyone seriously suggesting sending a mars craft to the moon to refuel.

The idea is to establish large scale Earth orbital manufacturing for things like Solar Power Satellites. Materials would be launched from the moon electro-mechanically using mass drivers. With a modest sized nuclear reactor as a power source, these devices could launch hundreds of thousands of tonnes of material into earth orbit each year. They do so at a price of a few dollars per pound, making bulk lunar materials very cheap compared to any similar payloads launched from Earth.

Lunar materials therefore allow the construction of large spacecraft in orbit, far more cheaply than attempting to build and launch the same thing from Earth. For a small-scale exploratory mission to Mars involving just a few people and craft weighing 20-50tonnes, it makes far more sense to build and launch the craft from Earth. In the longer term, if we are considering the actual settlemnet of mars as a large scale human colony, the use of lunar resources and on orbit manufacturing is probably neccesary, given that large spacecraft will be required for lengthy space voyages.

High orbital manufacturing offers immiediate economic value to people living on Earth, in terms of the production of solar power satellites. It also greatly magnifies our space faring capabilities. The benefits offered by in orbit manufacturing greatly transcend the need to send small human missions to Mars. The idea that we shouldn't bother developing space manufacturing and just launch everything from the Earth is a dead end, if we intend to launch anything larger than small scale science missions costing billions of dollars and involving just four astronauts.

Terraformer · 2008-01-20 08:11:46

I'd prefer a Lunar/Earth economy rather than, and before, a couple of missions to Mars.

NASAs Mars mission uses a 400 ton spacecraft assembled in orbit. So, according to NASA, Mars missions can't be launched from Earth below 400 tons. So no 20-50 ton Mars missions from Earth.

cIclops · 2008-01-21 05:25:51

NASAs Mars mission uses a 400 ton spacecraft assembled in orbit. So, according to NASA, Mars missions can't be launched from Earth below 400 tons. So no 20-50 ton Mars missions from Earth.

The current Design Reference Mission 5.0 calls for three separate spacecraft, altogether they mass 400 or more tons. Each spacecraft is assembled from two Ares V launches, the third one needs an extra Ares I for crew. Yes, launching in 20 to 50 ton pieces would be more risky and expensive.

Antius · 2008-01-21 07:45:52

NASAs Mars mission uses a 400 ton spacecraft assembled in orbit. So, according to NASA, Mars missions can't be launched from Earth below 400 tons. So no 20-50 ton Mars missions from Earth.
The current Design Reference Mission 5.0 calls for three separate spacecraft, altogether they mass 400 or more tons. Each spacecraft is assembled from two Ares V launches, the third one needs an extra Ares I for crew. Yes, launching in 20 to 50 ton pieces would be more risky and expensive.

Zubrins original Mars direct concept involved craft that were in the 20-30 tonne range. I don't know if that included things like the reactor and rover.

cIclops · 2008-01-21 08:32:08

NASAs Mars mission uses a 400 ton spacecraft assembled in orbit. So, according to NASA, Mars missions can't be launched from Earth below 400 tons. So no 20-50 ton Mars missions from Earth.
The current Design Reference Mission 5.0 calls for three separate spacecraft, altogether they mass 400 or more tons. Each spacecraft is assembled from two Ares V launches, the third one needs an extra Ares I for crew. Yes, launching in 20 to 50 ton pieces would be more risky and expensive.
Zubrins original Mars direct concept involved craft that were in the 20-30 tonne range. I don't know if that included things like the reactor and rover.

With current technology a 50 ton spacecraft can deliver about 20 tons to the surface of Mars, but it needs about 80 tons of booster to reach Earth escape velocity from LEO (approximate numbers)

John_Frazer · 2008-01-21 13:29:17

The idea is not to launch a mars mission from the surface of the moon. Nor is anyone seriously suggesting sending a mars craft to the moon to refuel.

Depends on who you ask. This is precisely the "conventional wisdom" we're up against. That's what this current VSE & ESAS talks about. Everything about going to the Moon to prepare the way to go to Mars is based on the same sort of false assumptions.

As for the rest of the recent comments, None of this is good argument for going to our Moon first, or any time soon, except for more of the current robotric exploration.

Carrying on my favorite digression (on three threads now?) of going to NEAs or Mars' moons instead of our Moon, it must be pointed out that for every ton of finished goods from Lunar resources, you need from 7 to 10 times the finished mass in water and process chemicals, only some of which is reclaimable. Plus the rocket fuel to get there & back -and no, EM catapults don't make a difference until we've got large-scale transportation infrastructure in place. You're not going to make good economic sense landing such a large infrastructure effort on the Moon using expendable rockets from the ground.
You can't get it from the Lunar poles without a large front effort to get there and get it up into space. For all such Lunar schemes to use space resources, the NEAs of Mars' moons offer better chances, and asteroids also offer far better resources than the Moon.

It seems to make sense to open space first using NEAs or Fear & Dread, while using robots to investigate Mars & the Moon, until we can afford to lift reasoable payloads to LEO for interplanetary exploration, by fueling the upper stages in LEO. You need this scale of resources to open up the Moon's surface to regular travel.

Sooner than SSPS, GEO antennae platforms offer near-term profitability. This is nothing but rolled & stamped metals, drawn metal wire & cable, and artificial rock (erzatz "concrete"), and metal foil mirror, all of which are easily done in a near-term space factory.
Next, before SSPS does more than proof-of-concepts, is asteroidal platinum group and precious & strategic metals.

[url=http://www.aviationweek.com]www.aviationweek.com
Space Leaders Work To Replace Lunar Base With Manned Asteroid Missions
Jan 18, 2008[/url]

cIclops · 2008-01-23 05:17:53

This is precisely the "conventional wisdom" we're up against. That's what this current VSE & ESAS talks about. Everything about going to the Moon to prepare the way to go to Mars is based on the same sort of false assumptions.

Please list these "false assumptions" and who made them.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2008-01-07 05:21:36

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

#27 2008-01-08 13:09:10

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

#28 2008-01-08 13:50:34

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

#29 2008-01-09 07:25:08

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

#30 2008-01-09 11:29:59

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

#31 2008-01-10 18:44:46

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

#32 2008-01-11 08:10:24

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

#33 2008-01-16 09:13:52

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

#34 2008-01-16 09:36:13

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

#35 2008-01-16 14:34:19

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

#36 2008-01-17 10:33:03

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

#37 2008-01-18 04:26:56

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

#38 2008-01-18 14:36:49

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

#39 2008-01-18 16:09:36

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

#40 2008-01-20 05:19:30

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

#41 2008-01-20 08:11:46

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

#42 2008-01-21 05:25:51

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

#43 2008-01-21 07:45:52

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

#44 2008-01-21 08:32:08

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

#45 2008-01-21 13:29:17

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

#46 2008-01-23 05:17:53

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

Board footer