Cyclers

Gregori · 2013-08-22 14:51:54

I've heard these mentioned before but I don't get what the advantage of them is? Can anyone help me out here?

RobS · 2013-08-22 15:00:46

Advantages of cyclers: They can be big and provide lots of space and radiation shielding. They don't have to stop at either planet, so they don't need to use much fuel to keep going.

Disadvantages of cyclers: You have to go to Mars when the cycler comes by. If you have a problem and miss the cycler, you can't go at all. If you go and can't rendezvous with the cycler, everyone might die. Cyclers can't stay aligned with Earth and Mars well enough to be available every single opposition, without using lots of fuel, so you may need two or three of them to have one available at every opposition.

I think the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, myself.

GW Johnson · 2013-09-06 08:51:38

This is actually a very old idea. Originally, the idea was to locate an asteroid passing by close to both Earth and your destination (usually Mars). You land your crew with a base hab, the destination delta-vee rockets, and your landers, on that asteroid, and let it take you to your destination, where you get off and do your thing. Same process to come home.

There are two difficulties. One is a lack of suitable asteroids in exactly the right orbits (something that a man-made cycler ship eliminates). The other difficulty is that by the time you have done all the delta-vee work to get on and off, you might as well have flown straight there. That would be true whether it was an asteroid or man-made.

GW

Terraformer · 2013-09-06 11:11:18

Of course, a cycler can mass in at several thousand tonnes, so there's a lot more shielding available...

Void · 2013-09-24 10:11:34

I see a changing of objective to be essential to the purpose of humans accessing space. Having the focus solely on Mars fatally damages that objective, for a variety of reasons.
Among those are that there are others who are interested in Non-Mars space objectives. Even though Non-Mars, the tools needed to achieve those Non-Mars goals in many cases would be useful also for Mars objectives.
Another human problem is the contrast between Ear-Mouth people and Eye-Hand people.
There are two basic human functions. One is used primarily to manipulate people. One is used primarily to manipulate physical objects. Each has it’s value, and cannot be dispensed of entirely. In my opinion the sad course of human civilization is that the Ear-Mouth heritage eventually subjugates and displaces the Eye-Hand heritage, at which point a civilization becomes degenerate and impoverished, and vulnerable to exterior conquest. That (Exterior conquest by Eye-Hand People), I suppose is a potential last resort to reset the situation, but in our present situation, the weapons which could be employed for such a reset are potentially very dangerous, to the point of ending the potential for human ascendancy, and perhaps even an end to humans entirely.
This site is at a logical impasse, since the sponsors are more interested in the potential for life on Mars (Which I also think also is important).
They come in two polar variations in my opinion, some are interested in life on Mars from a scientific objective to understand the history and current reality of life in the universe, and some have a political desire to dispute the existence of the spiritual. That later item is political in nature, and tied to the Ear-Mouth people trying to get a free lunch, and to subjugate and replace the Eye-Hand people. They instinctively wish for freedom from moral behavior, which translates into the genetic and cultural subjugation and elimination of Eye-Hand people.
I mentioned the potential of a violent reset, but there also exists the potential for a frontier expansion. The Ear-Mouth people have provided two impediments to this that I can think of that are obvious. The first was the outer space treaty.
How can the Ear-Mouth’s extract material benefit from the Eye-Hands, if they cannot hold them at a location where a vertical hierarchy can be imposed? While that treaty’s sponsors would not all have had bad intentions, the effect was to deliver ownership of places beyond the Earth to the international Ear-Mouth process.
The other method brought forward has been the protection of alien life potentials off Earth. This originally applied to Mars, but could very likely be extended in a tenuous fashion to many other places. Europa for instance or other places with potential environments which may be presumed to support life.
This could even be extended to the Moon, for the reason that rocks ejected by impacts of the Earth might hold fossil records of life from era’s billions of years ago.
Similarly, some asteroids and the Dwarf planet Ceres could be declared off limits.
So, it may be necessary to invoke a horizontal Frontier Eye-Hand process to counter the Ear-Mouth process. This should take the path of least resistance from the Ear-Mouths.
Overcoming the desire of the Ear-Mouths to exploit a controlled population is one objective, (Bypassing dark ages I would hope).
The other is to identify what objectives can be practical to manipulate physically by the Eye-Hand process. That is in flux, as there are many new proposed machines, and machines which are under development. We cannot define with any certainty what future of propulsion systems will dominate the process. We cannot either understand with certainty what methods of manipulation of physical objects will be the most effective.
Therefore specialization should be avoided, and a generalist posture should be taken to evolve the Eye-Hand culture.
For this reason I support the continued consideration of cycling spaceships along with other processes under consideration.
I have been considering rings of cycling space habitats in relatively circular solar orbits in concert with cycling space habitats in elliptical orbits.
If the Earths orbital period (Year) were considered as represented by the number ‘1’, then I propose rings with the periods of;
.24 (Near Mercury);
.62 (Near Venus);
.94 (Near Earth);
1.88 (Near Mars, and not too far away from the relatively circular orbits of the objects in the asteroid belt).
The above are rough numbers, (Don’t do the finishing work, and then build the house, that’s how the Ear-Mouths do things/Never get things done/Trash the object manipulation process/Take the goods).
Materials for such habitats could come from the Moon, or elliptical asteroids, Phobos, Demos, and perhaps the circular asteroids of the belt, and perhaps even Mercury.
I would see habitats as not needing to be huge in the circular rings, perhaps 1000 persons per habitat, more or less. They could function in a manner where 2 or more would be joined periodically. The force to manipulate their relative orbits (Locations) would be from the sun, either photon sailing, or sailing on the solar wind itself. This would insure that the rings would each function as a society with material and population interchanges. The habitats of the rings would also be able to synchronize with the elliptical orbiting habitats, insuring that at both the high and low end of each elliptical orbit, some habitat would be located to do an interchange with.
In addition to such abrupt interchanges there could be space ships which could ride below each ring, in a mostly circular orbit, to provide transportation, also using solar force as propulsion.
Beyond that would be spiral orbit ships which could use solar or ion or any other efficient and effective method to transfer goods between circular habitats, elliptical habitats, and planets, dwarf planet (Ceres), and asteroids. These most likely would be robotic.
I have written this to leave open for thought the potential of cycling devices, but not to disrupt any other considered process, such as an expedition to Mars (If you really think you won’t be stopped).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general I am not sure that an elliptical cycling spaceship would have strong value for an early expedition to Mars, but I will make a trial proposal anyway.
Suppose you did create such a device, and it had only the functions of radiation shielding and centrifugal gravitation substitution, and perhaps some other assets for survival such as communication gear, and some solar power. Obviously, it might have more pressurized volume than the expedition ship, so as to psychologically provide some relief to the space travelers.
I can speculate on a mission where that being robotically placed in an orbit, would provide a temporary location for a space expedition to ride, a camping place more or less. The actual expedition ship would have minimal mass, and the people riding on it would then get out of shape over a period of weeks or months, and would arrive to it, and would be reconditioned and protected during a segment of travel. Then they would launch from it with their minimal ship, if safety conditions were good, and go to Mars. Although this could be in a circular solar orbit, it seems more practical that it would be in an elliptical orbit phased so as to be most convenient to the process of moving people from Earth to Mars. A return process would be needed as well, if they did not intend to stay on Mars permanently. They might arrive on Mars in relatively better physical condition, then if they tried to go all the way without reconditioning. This notion of course would not be the most energy and mass efficient method, but, delivering weak and sick people to Mars would not be of much value, a wasted effort in fact, no matter how Buck Rogers your expedition was.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another variation would be where the cycler robotically was poised in an elliptical orbit where orbital energy was provided by some relatively efficient means not usually considered for human missions, and where that orbit intersected Mars at a future point, and as a one time event, the human piloted craft intersected it after a few months, and joined with it. Then that joined expedition would enter Mars orbit on a permanent basis, providing a space station with centrifuge and shielding in orbit. In that case, the cycler would have a Periapsis much higher than Earth orbit and a Apoapsis which intersects with Mars.
The human carrier could intersect with the cycler at Periapsis or some time after, or even nearer to Apoapsis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsis
If you paste a non-response, non-reply jump over on top of this post I will consider that you may be a Ear-Mouth person 

Last edited by Void (2013-09-25 07:59:02)

Void · 2013-10-11 10:47:15

I am thinking that adding fusion propulsion to the mix might change the game with cycling spaceships.

http://www.space.com/23084-mars-explora … ocket.html

"We're in the lab, we're building the coils, we're showing the scaling and we'll be producing the neutrons within the next year to show that fusion is occurring, and it's occurring at the scales required to build a fusion-driven rocket," Pancotti said.

So, if they actually show progress as claimed, I am excited about the claims for a Mars expidition, probabbly not involving any type of cycling spaceship/cycling hardware, but I am also thinking that this could change the game for cycling spaceships.

I think the since using such a rocket to transfer to an from cyclers involves much shorter trip times that an expidition to Mars, and since technically at least to a degree your rocket can be resupplied and serviced at each end of the trip, the weight constraints would be much relaxed, and such a transfer ship could have a great deal of redundancy in it's systems, which would help aleviate the issue where if you had a propulsion failure, the crew might be in great danger.

Further, I think that in a well devoloped system of habitats, it might be possible to have rescue ships to help in such a situation, similar to the coast gaurd.

So freight could travel in spiral orbits using Ion, or solar propulsions. And populations could be transfered in relative comfort using cyclers, and fusion rockets.

I believe that Mr. Aldrin had also suggested an actual cycler that could go into parking orbit around Mars at times. With fusion power perhaps that might make sense, where with chemical propulsion it is much more diffacult to support.

Fusion propulsion on the cyclers, might also make it easier to line up for a gravity assist from a flyby of a planet.

JoshNH4H · 2013-10-11 11:58:57

To be clear: Fusion is not really very close right now. Recent NIF results to the contrary, breakeven has never been accomplished in any non-fission based test of nuclear explosive capacity. Even if fusion facilities did reach conditions of breakeven, their masses and low specific powers make them prohibitively large for use in any space application.

With regards to your classification of people into two different groups, I contend that your theory has no predictive power; that it has no evidence in reality; and finally that it is simply incorrect.

Void · 2013-10-11 14:45:43

quote:

To be clear: Fusion is not really very close right now. Recent NIF results to the contrary, breakeven has never been accomplished in any non-fission based test of nuclear explosive capacity. Even if fusion facilities did reach conditions of breakeven, their masses and low specific powers make them prohibitively large for use in any space application.

Well hello Josh. Thanks for responding.

Before I continue, I will have to whine just a bit. I placed a similar post on the topic of Fusion, at the same time I did this one (Very close in time).
I will observe the Rusakov, GW Johnson, Terraformer, Louis and myself have made posts there. I am wondering why you do not also pour cold water on their posts. Cold water is not all bad though. A little slap up to reality is valuable from time to time. You were perhaps merely stating observed facts.

That article was rather positive, the one with the metal rings. I rather like the concept. Rather than worrying about burning the containment vessel, they simply make the lining replacable, burn it and the burned material would propell the rocket. How real are they? They say it is in reach. Break even, or break over? How should I know. Are you a nuclear expert? I am not being rude, I really am wondering if you work in the field.

On this I will make another point, that the point of my post was to see if someone could have thinking on what fusion propulsion (If it ever exists), would do for the notion of cyclers. As cyclers are way in the future, and fusion may also be way in the future, I felt it was a reasonable question.

Even if a fusion rocket could exist and get people to Mars in 3 Months, if a advance space civilization formed, it might still be prefferable to transport, or house permanently people in such habitats, in a manner where the majority were inhabitants, but a few transfered to other places. They would not be cooped up in a tin can, and could work a job or recreate during much of the journey.

But it may be that other surprises would render this as not preferable. It is entertaining to think about it.

"

Void · 2013-10-11 15:02:07

quote:

With regards to your classification of people into two different groups, I contend that your theory has no predictive power; that it has no evidence in reality; and finally that it is simply incorrect.

We havn't tested it, and you have not provided contrary evidence, so your contention is equivalent to my opinion. I might argue with you on it, but it was simply injected as opinion by me and you are welcome to reject or criticize it. I do have propposed evidence, but this thread is about cyclers. That section on human nature (As I see it), and the politcal aspects that it drives, was connected to my opinion that other options should be considered to get around it.

Void · 2013-10-13 07:53:05

With good intentions I will veer from hostile thinking, but continue.

In the regard to "Break Even" for a fusion rocket, where the propulsion is only from fusion, and it is presumed that that process must also provide the electrical needs, I can see that the criticisms are true, and may remain true for some time, or maybe even forever for the correct statement about weight.

But this conversation has made me see that the device which my conversation is connected to is actually a:

"Solar + Fusion Plasma Mass Driver", or so it appears to me.

First the solar portion is used to heat a plasma, and to constrict that plasma, apparently by using a magnetic field and I presume and induced magnetic force on "Metal Rings". Then it is intended that a fusion reaction will occur involving various Hydrogen Isotopes and Lithium Metal having fusion potential (I think).

The vented result provides that action of the engine. There is very little waste energy, and the mass of the device is reduced I think by the fact that they do not have to protect from the reactor walls (Rings) from contacting the plasma. Further, they do not have to generate electricity with the Fusion portion of the process.

That makes it more possible to construct a useful tool.

I have no diagrams of the machine, and can only work with the limited verbal descriptions which were provided.

JoshNH4H · 2013-10-13 16:53:17

Seeing as it was posted in the thread I felt it was fair game for argument

With regards to cyclers, my question will always be if the benefits outweigh the costs. Cyclers are useful because they eliminate the need to launch or produce the transfer ship over and over again. However, as a consequence of this, you're adding two failure points to the transfer operations, which are docking and undocking. With regards to docking, failure will result in death to the crew (because if your craft can support people for the entire journey to Mars, why are you using a cycler?)

The other thing about cyclers is that you need to have a good number of them to make having them at all worthwhile, because their mechanics mean that they're typically not useful for every single transfer window, but rather one every so often. It seems to me that you would save money by having fewer transfer vehicles and set up refueling stations at LEO and LMO (Low Earth/Mars Orbit) to refuel them for each trip. These could be supplied via Earth's Moon (For LEO) and Phobos/Deimos (if water is found there) or perhaps the Mars Trojans/Mars Crossing Asteroids. The planetary surface is also worth looking at, if those options fail.

Terraformer · 2013-10-14 06:29:23

You're using cyclers because people don't like being cooped up in a tin can for 3 months.

Void · 2013-10-14 08:12:14

I am very short on time, have perhaps 10 minutes to think and answer, so I will not attempt full argument at this time.

Technically a fuel depot is a cycling spaceship. But I know, I am playing games here.

But I see a polar range, where perhaps a fuel depot is at one pole, and a fully developed cycler network is at the other. I have no objections to fuel and materials depots. But I might argue that you must also rendezvous and dock, or connect to a fuel depots. Perhaps you could avoid air locks with sophistocated automation, but many of the same concerns exist.

I do not currently have the mental awareness, and may never on my own have it, to porperly assess the faults of the following, but I would suggest that in a continuum between the two polar opposites defined above, I might ask Santa Claus if:

May I have a unpersoned cycler/depot that could be positioned using solar/nuclear energy & planetary inertia, and having an ion propulsion system such as the dawn spacecraft, to get it alligned for gravity assists.

Could I position that depot so that it has a eccentric orbit that will converge with Mars.

Could I have a effective propulsion system to carry people into space, and have a free return orbit to Mars and back to Earth.

Could I make the two systems converge, where upon the person ship rendezvousing with the "Excetric Depot" would be abel to take on materials to allow it to convert to a mission that could actually enter the Martian relm.

During transit could the people on that merged ship have synthetic gravity and radiation protection and expanded living space?

It is something to want perhaps, maybe not what we can achieve.

Don't know, beyond my level.

JoshNH4H · 2013-10-14 22:36:14

Terraformer and Void-

Why should a cycler have any more roomy accomodations than a reusable transfer vehicle? Even if stationed on an asteroid, the habitation modules are going to be imported. Unless they can be manufactured in-space, but if that kind of manufacturing already exists I think it's very reasonable to ask why a cycler saves much of anything, when fuel costs will be extremely low relative to launch costs from Earth/Mars, and continuous Earth-Mars and back service will require a smaller capital investment without cyclers.

I would also like to point out that a cycler need not be placed on an asteroid, and in fact likely wouldn't be: It would just be a spacecraft placed on a trajectory that minimized repeated fuel expenditures. Whether placed on an asteroid or not is actually mostly irrelevant, but it probably wouldn't be because there don't seem to be many (any?) asteroids in the correct orbit.

Void · 2013-10-15 08:03:23

Josh,

As assistive to travel Earth <> Mars, if conditions are to be as you have stated, where fuel is plentiful and cheep might be hard to argue. If you have megga crusers, and plentiful and cheep fuel, indeed, cyclers might be a distraction from purpose.

The Santa Clause plan would not operate under those conditions most likely I think because at that point fuel would be at a premium. The cycler I proposed there was not a true cycler either, but has aspects of it. I have made attempts to show where such techniques might be helpful, but with changing technology, it could go either way.

As for a futuristic network of cyclers, they would be a purpose in themselves, habitation networked with others, and Mars might benefit from such a network, and vice versa.

What cheep and abundant fuels are you thinkiing of?

JoshNH4H · 2013-10-15 11:40:19

I'm thinking of fuel production from the reserves of water that have been found on the Moon (these could be sent to LEO and even Mars during the launch window by cannon) and presumptive fuel reserves of some nature existing on Phobos/Deimos or somewhere in Martian space.

Void · 2013-10-15 13:01:08

Well I hope that works out, or something like it.

But having solved technology, then you have to play economics. I am not arguing true cyclers here, but rather, that method you propose would also need to be the best economy vs Ion engines and Gravity assists for instance for cargo. But maybe it will be.

Last edited by Void (2013-10-15 13:06:12)

JoshNH4H · 2013-10-15 14:42:13

I think even 6-9 months is an excessive delay in shipment time for cargo/crew. Any longer than that, as would be required for ion engines, seems unnecessary. Do you even know what your economy will need three years in advance?

Terraformer · 2013-10-16 02:37:41

Yes. Computer components and... what else would we actually need to ship? If we're at this stage, Mars should be pretty much self-sufficient in nearly everything, with only a few high-value, high-tech, low-mass goods being imported. Quite possibly only chips would be imported in the case of computers, with everything else being made on-world. Now, going the other way, I'm not sure what the Martians would be exporting...

Void · 2013-10-16 08:26:21

Get the ice water ready, and have a sense of humor if you can.
“In my opinion”: Outer space, which means anything not Earth, offers the following things I will mention, and of course other things I do not mention or am not aware of.
1) Bulk raw materials/Energy.
2) Potential habitats for humans.
3) Space time induced communication lags (Extremely significant).
In it’s infancy a Mars community will want from the “Developed World” (Earth), whatever it can get at a good price.
Unless you choose to intentionally go the Greenland route, which is a bit of a warning. A small group of highly specialized Vikings of a small subset of the whole Nordic population, finds a few locations in Greenland where they can do marginal farming, due to a temporary favorable shift in the planets climate. They are specialized, under the thumb of a ear-mouth entity .
Although the sea offers very significant resources for food, and the Inuit have a significant other technology, these people are farmers, and as the Inuit have strange ways, the ear-mouth entity inhibits any inclination that the local population has to adopt a different survival method. In other words they remain specialized, and do not generalize, and are non adaptive.
The climate deteriorates, travel to Europe becomes non-profitable due to sea ice conditions. They consume their stock of wood, which was poor in the first place. It appears that they did make attempts at some point to travel to mainland North America at some point, perhaps for wood.
A few very bad years for farming, and they all starved to death (Apparently).
Had they adopted Inuit technology, and also maintained a sea faring technology, and also had a greater genetic and cultural diversity, they might have had better odds to leave more than a memory of their existence . But they specialized, and that branch passed into history, with the possibility that a few of them might have gotten back to Iceland.
Mars would ship bulk raw materials to Earth most likely if it shipped any material goods.

Actually, I think the real deal would be the Asteroids next door selling raw materials to Mars and Earth, and Mars and Earth selling manufactured goods to them.

Mars would likely for some time like to participate in created goods from other locations in the solar system, of a better quality, because with variances in population and local materials and energy conditions, some items could be better produced at certain locations. Much as exists in our current world economy.

Mars offers a chance for a habitat. It also offers space time induced communication lags, perhaps allowing for greater individuality.
Maintaining our balance between being a top predator or prey is very important to me.
In my opinion: With the birth of civilizations, it was possible to generate human sub-populations which specialize in directing the activities of masses of humans. This is valuable for focus and efficiency, but also due to specialization, such a population eventually looses generalist insight, and sinks to the base motivations of a top predator. The efficiency by direction is valuable as long as the general population is allowed greater right of individual action, but the top predator population loosing awareness capability eventually resorts to competition with other powerful entities for control of all things, the results being unfavorable to the continuation of adaptability. That culture becomes more vulnerable to bad outcome from a new challenge to it.
The forms of human intelligence are manifested in individual realms supported by individual brains.
Verbalization and other forms of communication allow Hierarchy and Networks, and produce hive minds. The only reason that we don’t do everything with crowds of people verbalizing is that it is slow, much slower than the pudding in my head can think. But it has broader resources, as in library. But a hive network is open to an infection from top predators, with limited awareness and base desires.
The good news is that with the time lags that space time provides, communities in space at a distance from each other can be insulated from such predation, because verbal and other hive communications will be slowed down even further, and the pudding in our individual heads can be used for better purposes then to satisfy silly agenda’s which result from the situation which I have described above.

Therefore I am pleased with your notion of an implied population on the Moon, and a settlement of Mars. Some populations insulated from Earth Hive activities will result. A network of populations with time lags in their communications with each other will help to balance the situation so that creativity (Child thoughts) may be birthed, (Creativity, Invention), and the whole structure will not be co-opted to provide satisfaction of base desires for a subset that specializes in communication and the manipulation of populations.

Your Earth/Moon/Mars plan is an excellent one, but Cycling spaceships with time lags added to that could be even better.
I do not require you to agree that any of this is true, but rather simply wanted to express how I see things, my opinion.

Last edited by Void (2013-10-16 13:29:22)

louis · 2013-10-16 15:57:05

Lots of interesting thoughts. However, I think Mars development may be a bit more prosaic and Earth-connected. Mining and transport of bulk materials would be highly expensive and not likely to happen for several decades in my view. Habitats - yes. We will be established on Moon and Mars very soon I think - within the next couple of decades (mostly thanks to Elon Musk).

I think one of the major sources of income for the nascent Mars community will be research and university establishments. They have the money to invest. They are highly competitive. Yale, Harvard, Paris, Oxford, Cambridge, Bologna and other leading universities on Earth are all in competition with each other. There will be billions of dollars available for establishing research and post grad facilities on Mars, with the universities and research establishments paying the colony for life support services.

Void wrote:

Get the ice water ready, and have a sense of humor if you can.
“In my opinion”: Outer space, which means anything not Earth, offers the following things I will mention, and of course other things I do not mention or am not aware of.
1) Bulk raw materials/Energy.
2) Potential habitats for humans.
3) Space time induced communication lags (Extremely significant).
In it’s infancy a Mars community will want from the “Developed World” (Earth), whatever it can get at a good price.
Unless you choose to intentionally go the Greenland route, which is a bit of a warning. A small group of highly specialized Vikings of a small subset of the whole Nordic population, finds a few locations in Greenland where they can do marginal farming, due to a temporary favorable shift in the planets climate. They are specialized, under the thumb of a ear-mouth entity .
Although the sea offers very significant resources for food, and the Inuit have a significant other technology, these people are farmers, and as the Inuit have strange ways, the ear-mouth entity inhibits any inclination that the local population has to adopt a different survival method. In other words they remain specialized, and do not generalize, and are non adaptive.
The climate deteriorates, travel to Europe becomes non-profitable due to sea ice conditions. They consume their stock of wood, which was poor in the first place. It appears that they did make attempts at some point to travel to mainland North America at some point, perhaps for wood.
A few very bad years for farming, and they all starved to death (Apparently).
Had they adopted Inuit technology, and also maintained a sea faring technology, and also had a greater genetic and cultural diversity, they might have had better odds to leave more than a memory of their existence . But they specialized, and that branch passed into history, with the possibility that a few of them might have gotten back to Iceland.
Mars would ship bulk raw materials to Earth most likely if it shipped any material goods.
Actually, I think the real deal would be the Asteroids next door selling raw materials to Mars and Earth, and Mars and Earth selling manufactured goods to them.
Mars would likely for some time like to participate in created goods from other locations in the solar system, of a better quality, because with variances in population and local materials and energy conditions, some items could be better produced at certain locations. Much as exists in our current world economy.
Mars offers a chance for a habitat. It also offers space time induced communication lags, perhaps allowing for greater individuality.
Maintaining our balance between being a top predator or prey is very important to me.
In my opinion: With the birth of civilizations, it was possible to generate human sub-populations which specialize in directing the activities of masses of humans. This is valuable for focus and efficiency, but also due to specialization, such a population eventually looses generalist insight, and sinks to the base motivations of a top predator. The efficiency by direction is valuable as long as the general population is allowed greater right of individual action, but the top predator population loosing awareness capability eventually resorts to competition with other powerful entities for control of all things, the results being unfavorable to the continuation of adaptability. That culture becomes more vulnerable to bad outcome from a new challenge to it.
The forms of human intelligence are manifested in individual realms supported by individual brains.
Verbalization and other forms of communication allow Hierarchy and Networks, and produce hive minds. The only reason that we don’t do everything with crowds of people verbalizing is that it is slow, much slower than the pudding in my head can think. But it has broader resources, as in library. But a hive network is open to an infection from top predators, with limited awareness and base desires.
The good news is that with the time lags that space time provides, communities in space at a distance from each other can be insulated from such predation, because verbal and other hive communications will be slowed down even further, and the pudding in our individual heads can be used for better purposes then to satisfy silly agenda’s which result from the situation which I have described above.
Therefore I am pleased with your notion of an implied population on the Moon, and a settlement of Mars. Some populations insulated from Earth Hive activities will result. A network of populations with time lags in their communications with each other will help to balance the situation so that creativity (Child thoughts) may be birthed, (Creativity, Invention), and the whole structure will not be co-opted to provide satisfaction of base desires for a subset that specializes in communication and the manipulation of populations.
Your Earth/Moon/Mars plan is an excellent one, but Cycling spaceships with time lags added to that could be even better.
I do not require you to agree that any of this is true, but rather simply wanted to express how I see things, my opinion.

Void · 2013-10-16 16:50:23

Louis,

OK, I'll buy that. It seems reasonable.

louis · 2013-10-16 18:33:00

Void wrote:

Louis,
OK, I'll buy that. It seems reasonable.

...another big source of revenue would be hosting TV and film companies and space agencies from Earth wishing to establishing national prestige. Wouldn't the Pakistan Space Agency want to have an astronaut on Mars before India. Wouldn't Nigeria want to beat South Africa to Mars. Wouldn't Argentina want to beat Brazil to Mars?

Various religious groups will also feel a strong imperative to get there and make some sort of statement.

Big commercial companies like Coca Cola and Toyota will pay hundreds of millions of dollars in sponsorship for voyages of exploration to places like the Valles Mariensis.

Anyone going there will need life support - and that will be what will be the major source of revenue for the Mars colony: providing the habitat, the water, the oxygen, the power, the food and all the other resources for the more transient visitors.

Void · 2013-10-17 08:11:54

Louis two recent posts, suggesting Research, Entertainment, Advertising, and National Interests as sources of money, and it all makes sense to me.

I also see that he mentions timing being favorable to this.

I would add that this plan also has the following favorable aspect:
-Some scientists and others have a phobia about contaminating Mars with Earth organisms.
-Louis said that he thought that in a few decades human presence is a likely possibility.

-But if robotic probes do not confirm the existance of life on Mars (But still do not rule it out), it will be likely that the temptation for doing science on the ground will be so much greater than the impulse to prevent the spread of Earth organisms, that the scientific community will tilt towards favoring people on Mars for research.

Void · 2013-10-17 10:23:34

The following post is in reference to information in the book "The Fouth Turning", the references may be accepted or rejected by you. It's a personal choice.

The book suggests that American and historically Anglo and other cultures have had cultural cycle repeats.

For American it is supposed to be 80-100 years. The cycles are split into 4 Seculums. The 4th one is crisis.

Our current crisis is estimated to be from 2005 to 2025. Upon a favorable completion of that (Not Gauranteed), a new cycle begins where good things can happen.

The point is that the space abilities that appear to be comming into greater maturity may converge with such a favorable era.

The character of that period should be very materialist in orientation (The anti-60's), and as space has many chunks of materials, satisfying such desires may also favor expansion into space.

Contingent on this being actually valid (Culture Repetition).

Last edited by Void (2013-10-17 10:24:46)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2013-08-22 14:51:54

Cyclers

#2 2013-08-22 15:00:46

Re: Cyclers

#3 2013-09-06 08:51:38

Re: Cyclers

#4 2013-09-06 11:11:18

Re: Cyclers

#5 2013-09-24 10:11:34

Re: Cyclers

#6 2013-10-11 10:47:15

Re: Cyclers

#7 2013-10-11 11:58:57

Re: Cyclers

#8 2013-10-11 14:45:43

Re: Cyclers

#9 2013-10-11 15:02:07

Re: Cyclers

#10 2013-10-13 07:53:05

Re: Cyclers

#11 2013-10-13 16:53:17

Re: Cyclers

#12 2013-10-14 06:29:23

Re: Cyclers

#13 2013-10-14 08:12:14

Re: Cyclers

#14 2013-10-14 22:36:14

Re: Cyclers

#15 2013-10-15 08:03:23

Re: Cyclers

#16 2013-10-15 11:40:19

Re: Cyclers

#17 2013-10-15 13:01:08

Re: Cyclers

#18 2013-10-15 14:42:13

Re: Cyclers

#19 2013-10-16 02:37:41

Re: Cyclers

#20 2013-10-16 08:26:21

Re: Cyclers

#21 2013-10-16 15:57:05

Re: Cyclers

#22 2013-10-16 16:50:23

Re: Cyclers

#23 2013-10-16 18:33:00

Re: Cyclers

#24 2013-10-17 08:11:54

Re: Cyclers

#25 2013-10-17 10:23:34

Re: Cyclers

Board footer