You are not logged in.
So base commander consults. So tunnel director consults.now what? That was rhetorical.
Ost is meaningless. It is feel good for the sake of feeling good.
Face it, ownership will be established on some level and state sponsorship will be used to enforce some form of property rights of those making a claim.thats how it works.thats how it always work.
Offline
Like button can go here
So base commander consults. So tunnel director consults.now what? That was rhetorical.
Ost is meaningless. It is feel good for the sake of feeling good.
Face it, ownership will be established on some level and state sponsorship will be used to enforce some form of property rights of those making a claim.thats how it works.thats how it always work.
Well in case you haven't been following the debate, it depends what you mean by property. If you mean freehold guaranteed by a state on Earth, no I don't think anyone is going to grant that on Mars or the Moon. De facto ownership will exist. But I think we are much more likely to see long term licensing - maybe 50 or a 100 years.
The OST is most definitely not meaningless, which is why the USA has never made a legal claim to the Moon, despite have managed to get humans there and plant its flag on the surface.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
Squatters? I prefer the term homesteaders; that is, people applying the homestead principle to property.
louis, my point is that no-one is allowed to actually claim the land they're using, and as such, no government can lease them the land. I can't lease to you a house that doesn't belong to me...
No I would agree - a lease implies a freehold and that is not allowed. However, I think that land licences are acceptable to regulate the peaceful uses of the celestial body and ensure different agents don't interfere with each others' activities.
In practical terms there is no difference between a lease of land for 100 years and a licence of land for 100 years.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
The USA has never made a claim because there is no point, not because of the OST having some magical precedence. The OST's primary purpose was to help reduce the spread of nuclear weapons and avoid turning space into a war zone.
If you still don't believe me how absolutely meaningless the OST is, go look up article 16. Any state can opt out at any time without any consequence. But I digress.
On topic... SpaceX can't effectively lead any kind of consortuim without modification to the IST regulation. And the business case for a private venture to Mars still doesn't exist.
Offline
Like button can go here
The USA has never made a claim because there is no point, not because of the OST having some magical precedence. The OST's primary purpose was to help reduce the spread of nuclear weapons and avoid turning space into a war zone.
If you still don't believe me how absolutely meaningless the OST is, go look up article 16. Any state can opt out at any time without any consequence. But I digress.
On topic... SpaceX can't effectively lead any kind of consortuim without modification to the IST regulation. And the business case for a private venture to Mars still doesn't exist.
That just shows how little you know of international law, Clark, since that is true of all international law, although as others have mentioned here, sometimes states are held to be subject to treaties (e.g. the Geneva conventions) even though they have not ratified them (or might abrogate them).
I always like it when you come across someone with whom you can pleasantly disagree with EVERYTHING they say.
The business case for a venture to Mars is strong. Elon Musk, the world's foremost advocate of colonising Mars at the earliest opportunity, has built a fantastic business out of his desire to get to Mars.
Big businesses are always ready to take on new challenges.
My own analysis suggests that a profit can be turned from Mars, after you have sunk the development costs. Sinking the development costs only means NASA switching a bit of investment from Mars robot projects to Mars human exploration and some similar devices, plus some balancing investment from philanthropists.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
I apologize louis, let me find a better way to express myself.
I fully recognize my own lack of knowledge and experience in matters of international law. I am neither trained, nor can I call myself an expert. If I have appeared to present myself as such an expert, then please accept my sincerest apology for a misunderstanding entirely of my own making. The last thing in the world I want anyone here to think is that I know anything about international law in general, or about the legitimacy of any particular treaty, space or otherwise.
I must say louis, you bring up an excellent point regarding how states can be held subject and accountable to treaties they have not ratified- you cite the Geneva conventions as one such example. Very true! I cannot deny that, and gladly agree with your point. I would ask though, do you think the same applies to the OST? If you do, why do you believe so? I'm not a scholar here, but my own interpretation (as misguided and wrong as it might be) would indicate that this is not the case.
Also, while I applaud Musk and his efforts towards lowering the cost to LEO, I am still struggling to marry his words of a Martian destination with the limitations of economic reality. The numbers never add up- but then I am not an economic guru, nor do I have any claim to special insight in such matters. I would love to hear a real economic case for humans to mars.
Cheers.
Last edited by clark (2012-05-17 19:23:49)
Offline
Like button can go here
Sending unmanned stuff one-way to Mars is no longer particularly expensive. For one thing, it is far smaller than any two-way manned vehicle would have to be. I say the cost is down, because we are no longer using the shuttle at $1.5B to send max 25 metric tons to LEO. At max payload, I calculate about $27,000/pound for shuttle. (Much higher at part load, of course.)
The Atlas-5 -551/-552 configurations send 25 metric tons max at near $130M per launch. That's about $2400/pound. Delta -4 is comparable payload but about twice as expensive per launch. Falcon-9 is 10.1 metric tons at about $56M per launch. That's about $2500/pound at max payload. Falcon-Heavy is projected to be 53 metric tons max at near $100M per launch. That's around $900/pound. These launchers, used at or near their max payloads, work out an order of magnitude cheaper, or more, compared to shuttle. These per-pound figures are also much higher, if the rocket is flown at part load, too. So it pays off to fly near max load.
This is 20-20 hindsight to be sure, but, the ISS could have been about 10 times cheaper if we had had these rockets back then!!! It was built out of 25-ton modules ferried up by shuttle. Today, Atlas-5 and Delta-4 could do that, and Falcon-Heavy could soon do it 3 times cheaper still, and with bigger modules.
The necessarily-bigger two-way manned Mars missions could built by docking assembly in LEO the same way ISS was. But with these newer rockets, this could be a whole lot cheaper than anyone has ever dared to think in previous years. By perhaps that same order of magnitude, or more. I don't think very many folks realize this yet.
And, any such Mars transit-capable vehicle is capable of transits to Venus, Mercury, and the NEO's. You need landers for Mars and Mercury, but that's a separate problem. Reusability becomes very practical and financially inviting, if one starts thinking about orbit-to-orbit transit vehicles (with separate landers as completely-separate transit vehicles), instead of the more "traditional" Apollo-like approaches.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2012-05-17 20:45:16)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
GW: Your certainly on the right track when it comes to 'Marshaling' together modest sized modules on modest sized launch vehicles, 70 mt is the Biggest Launch system the US should even considering developing now. So much of NASA budget trouble would disappear if they used a <= instead of or in addition too a >= when writing the lift specs for a Rocket so they don't have built in orientation to bloat, unfortunately the culture just wouldn't allow it, we must have our giant Phallic rocket to proclaim our superiority over the Russians with.
But with regard to Marshaling we should really be developing the next generation of technologies that both make Marshaling more flexible such as long-term Cryogenic storage, Cryo-propellent transfer, autonomous rendezvous and docking. But also a mass-multiplier in it's self so we can get more of our Initial mass in LEO delivered as Payload to the Mars surface. A propellent Depot at L1 refueling a single booster to ~100 mt of propellent is more efficient then using a long series of small booster stages because were using fewer heavy engines which get thrown away one by one as the stack burns down. If we can create parasitic Solar electric propulsion based 'tugs' that take their fuel from the tanks and move them up to L1 then you can get it their with very little loss and reuse the tugs over and over again. I would aim for small tugs that push loads <20 mt so the tugs can be as small and efficient as possible and easily replaceable.
This kind of infrastructure will be of use in any Mars mission as well as helping to facilitate the Moon and/or NEA missions that will be critical to validating technologies (Gemini) because L1 is the next logical place to Marshal anything after LEO, it is in one regard even better because differences in LEO inclination are lost as you go to L1 and their isn't the Baikonur/Kennedy inclination mismatch.
Last edited by Impaler (2012-05-18 02:51:13)
Offline
Like button can go here
Mark Friedenbach wrote:Impaler, you appear to have a good understanding of legal principles, but not this particular law and the later ratified treaties which clarified or expanded it (such as the Space Liability Convention) or the many existing legal briefs about them. There is, for example, a huge distinction between claims of sovereignty and property. For example, under the U.S. government's current interpretation of the OST, if a U.S. company launches a mining operation on the moon, Mars or asteroid, that facility of sovereign U.S. territory, and the resources which pass through that facility become the legal property of the individual or organization which owns the facility. The U.S. government reserves the right at its option (if it had the capability) to send a hypothetical "Space Coast Guard" to protect the private activities of its citizens in space, and enforce rights of ownership and contract. This is unambiguously true in the current interpretation of the law.
The U.S. government also reserves the right to recognize private land claims, and to similarly enforce them. Note that this is demonstrably different from claiming sovereignty, which is what is prohibited by the OST! This would require an act of congress, but would not require renegotiation of any international treaties.
Mark claims of sovreignty are not allowed we all apart from louis understand this. But the problem in your scenario is that International law differs on just what you use those resources that are mined for. If it is to help fuel a vehicle to further a mission then it comes down to the benefit of Mankinds knowledge. If though it is to garner resources for making profits then there will be court cases and since they will use existing similar law (The law of the sea as an example) to inform the case. The likehood is that the US would lose.
I don't know why you keep saying that. I never said claims of sovereignty (except a claim of sovereignty by a self-governing entity) are allowed. They aren't. Please don't misrepresent what I am saying. What I am saying is there is nothing to stop countries or consortia (with the implicit approval of their relevant responsible signatory) setting up bases, mining for minerals and settling people - all peaceful purposes.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
Sorry Louis the problems with the OST is that peaceful scientific purposes and that of Mining and settling are quite different things. Scientific exploration getting samples for knowledge is one thing. But sending people permanently to stay and to start mining is quite another.
And that just to throw in more uncertainty we have to consider the Moon treaty. Most consider it a failed treaty but is it. Not many countries have signed it even less ratified it but there are a few (Turkey signed and ratified it this year).
The way to look at this is not how can we get round the OST but if I do this where is someone going to come at me with a court case. And just where am I going to have to defend this case.
Just remember that it might not be in the ICJ that your case is heard. And if you lose just what will happen.
It is much better if we clear this legal issues first and it is time that we get the OST revised especially if we use the problem of space junk and dealing with this as a means to get the OST revision on the table.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Like button can go here
Looks like the ESA is promoting a 'Space Code of Conduct' to mitigate collision probabilities
http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Space_Debris/S … VQF_0.html
And The US is getting on the bandwagon
Offline
Like button can go here
Sorry Louis the problems with the OST is that peaceful scientific purposes and that of Mining and settling are quite different things. Scientific exploration getting samples for knowledge is one thing. But sending people permanently to stay and to start mining is quite another.
And that just to throw in more uncertainty we have to consider the Moon treaty. Most consider it a failed treaty but is it. Not many countries have signed it even less ratified it but there are a few (Turkey signed and ratified it this year).
The way to look at this is not how can we get round the OST but if I do this where is someone going to come at me with a court case. And just where am I going to have to defend this case.
Just remember that it might not be in the ICJ that your case is heard. And if you lose just what will happen.
It is much better if we clear this legal issues first and it is time that we get the OST revised especially if we use the problem of space junk and dealing with this as a means to get the OST revision on the table.
You have no basis as far as I can see for saying that mining is not an activity in pursuit of a peaceful purpose. If you do, perhaps you can give a citation.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
Impaler said somewhere above:
"But with regard to Marshaling we should really be developing the next generation of technologies that both make Marshaling more flexible such as long-term Cryogenic storage, Cryo-propellent transfer, autonomous rendezvous and docking."
I quite agree. The next upgrade to NERVA ought to be a version that uses water, contaminated with variable amounts of methane, ammonia, and perhaps other volatiles. I know the Isp is reduced (square root of molecular weight effect), but propellant availability expands to every object in the solar system with frozen volatiles, not a small advantage! Frozen "dirty" water keeps "forever" as long as it is contained and pressurized with 6+ mbar worth of water vapor pressure. Ice (and liquid water) is very compact and easy to store.
Perhaps the really high specific heat of liquid water, and the really high latent heat-of-evaporation of water, can be used to offset substantially-higher reactor powers, in order to maintain Isp in the 700-1000 sec range. I dunno. Project Rover never really explored that option.
I'd consider that a follow-on. The old LH2 NERVA could be quickly resurrected and used "right now". And should be.
Anything that might work solid core would be easier to do in gas core. This is true whether open-cycle or "nuclear light bulb". There's an even better follow-on for you, although it would take a tad longer to do than a water NERVA.
GW
PS - don't forget about nuclear explosion propulsion. Works better the larger the ship. 10^4 -- 10^5 tons, that's the proper class for pulsed propulsion.
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
Agreed that we should invest in these "long-term Cryogenic storage, Cryo-propellent transfer, autonomous rendezvous and docking" but that will not happen until we stop changing launch platforms....
We have talked about the fuel depots that we do need for future long term space missions and with that we would want the power to be able to keep any cryo-propellants via active cooling with much heavier insulated tanks....
Offline
Like button can go here
Weird/wild idea: ship and store it in orbit "wherever" as water. You have to have a tank cluster to do depot storage anyway. So, add an electrolysis module and just make the hydrogen "at need", and only the amount needed. Solar-power electrolysis. Don't store LH2 long term, keep that short-term.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
GW can you give us some BOE calculations on how much power/time that would require? Say I give you 100 hours to fill a vehicle docked to the depot and 1 MW power how much water can you split?
Offline
Like button can go here
Pure water electrolysis without an Electrolyte selection will take a longtime or lots more power....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=134170
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb … ctrol.html
http://forum.onlineconversion.com/showthread.php?t=7218
One important use of electrolysis of water is to produce hydrogen.
2 H2O(l) ? 2 H2(g) + O2(g); E0 = +1.229 V
Some of the electrical energy is converted to heat, a useless byproduct. Some reports quote efficiencies between 50% and 70%.
This also does not take into account the cell count, plate materials means to seperate the gases to make them pure ect....
Offline
Like button can go here
I don't have any data regarding electrolysis, except the knowledge that overall energy efficiencies tend to be low, even with electrolytes and catalysts. It really doesn't take very much electrolyte, that's just a trace. Many species will do, even table salt. Everything but distilled water will conduct electricity at one usable level or another. The "standard" is platinum catalysts, but I know lots of scientists are investigating other materials. For now, it's platinum, though.
If I had to guess, I'd guess that, in a well-designed system, the ratio of water electrolyzed x theoretical enthalpy of product O2 and H2 = around 25-30% of the electric energy required to break the water. Not-so-well-designed system, this could easily be under 10%, maybe way under. Just a guess. I could be wrong.
Given the limitations of solar PV, it just means your rig is smaller, lower-powered, and smaller output rate. That just means you start earlier to meet a given demand. And that's just a matter of planning ahead, once your system size is feasible at all for the demand.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
I wish that the topic that Impaler has presented could be put to gether from the threads with the post related to electrolysis as here is a key element to Mars being colonized....
As both GW and mself have put forth information that sets to answer the posed question but to make it so you much make the customized machine to make it possible.
The page 12 of this document will give some idea of the rate and voltages... http://info.lu.farmingdale.edu/~irtt/Th … tation.pdf
With higher voltages the cells have more plates thus more surface area to make the bond breaking happen....
This one sets out the number of cells to create a home steady supply for use....
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic … ogen-house
Offline
Like button can go here
GW you have a point, it would be logical to continuously run Electrolysis and store LH2 and LOX in modest sized tanks ware all of the refrigeration effort is focused. The boil-off/leakage rate would be miniscule and manageable. But this also raises the point that liquification will be necessary too, yet another energy expenditure and piece of mission critical equipment.
Basically were looking at a trade off between the energy/complexity cost of keeping the LOX and LH2 cold vs the cost of keeping only a mission sized 'sip' cold and liquid but ignoring boil-off loss while continuously Electrolyzing and liquifying from a Big dumb easy to make water Tank. I suspect simple refrigeration methods will be able to prevent boil off for less cost/difficulty then the Electrolysis solution. I've read estimates of boil-off down in the range of .004% a day which is at the level ware you would use that much daily for station-keeping purposes (VASIMIR will use waste ISS hydrogen as propellent in just this manor) so it's not really wasted.
Offline
Like button can go here
PS - don't forget about nuclear explosion propulsion. Works better the larger the ship. 10^4 -- 10^5 tons, that's the proper class for pulsed propulsion.
Never do. I have the numbers run (very approximately, of course), for a beautiful, 50 million mT starship that can get >1000 people inside a rotating O'Neill cylinder-style colony, to a whooping 2% of c and back in about 230 days each (before you ask, LOTS of hydrogen nukes). And with style, I budgeted 80,000 square meters of 1G surface living area, and more than that as reduced G agricultural areas. Trip times would be a few generations to any interesting star, but boy, that is a true starship.
Rune. Off-topic as hell, but you'll forgive me.
Last edited by Rune (2012-05-24 05:48:00)
In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a "bad move"
Offline
Like button can go here
Rune - that's amazing. I've never run numbers for a thing that large. But I suspect the need for a shock absorber system "goes away" if the ship mass is large enough. That actually helps. Same ship would make a good colony-planting ship right here in the solar system, too. One whopping big transport. Fast, too. That's cool.
Everybody:
Isn't there some kind of "cryocooler" design floating around somewhere? I keep hearing that word now and then. Seems like a module with a solar electrolysis rig could be docked with another module (or modules) with solar powered cryocoolers. Dock these with a bunch of water tanks, and a couple of hydrogen and oxygen tanks. Make water into LH2 and LOX slowly over time, planning ahead to have the product tanks full at the time of need.
I think this kind of thing would work for a fuel depot anywhere in the inner solar system where the sun is bright enough for solar power to work, and also for a ship plying those same regions. As long as your ship is modular, that is. You just need standardized modules for holding water, LH2, and LOX, and for the two conversion equipment sets. Standardize the design and hookup, the same way we standardized shipping containers.
Combine that with standardized engine and hab modules, and a standardized docking interface for landers and crew return capsules, and you have the "tinkertoys" to quickly and inexpensively go anywhere in the inner solar system with men. Reuse the stuff, re-tailor the stack-up for each mission. Etc.
As better engines become available, you just fit them into that standard module envelope. Chemical, nuke, doesn't matter.
The only trick is sizing the standardized modules. Do that to support ships anywhere in the inner solar system, not just Mars or an NEO. Do it as reusable hardware, so you launch the modules once, then just resupply the water. As money and interest becomes available, use the same tinkertoys to go and do whatever is at hand.
This is planning on 50 to 100 year timescales, not just one-mission-at-a-time, something the navies of the world have done (more or less) for multiple millenniums now. Some do it better than others. Technologies change, but the approach is what matters.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
The boiloff problem has been worked on vai Active hydrogen cooler
Abstract: http://www.freshpatents.com/Reduced-boi … 218940.php
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT/RT1998/5 … achta.html
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT/2007/PS- … achta.html
Offline
Like button can go here
The course is steady for Space x, just going it on its own path to anywhere.
No sight of cooperation at the present...
Offline
Like button can go here
Yes looks that way. As long as the cash flow is there through Starlink, satellite launches, ISS resupply and so on I don't suppose there is any need for Musk to develop a broader consortium.
The course is steady for Space x, just going it on its own path to anywhere.
No sight of cooperation at the present...
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here