Terra, Luna, and Ceres - Triangle Trade

Grypd · 2020-10-29 17:34:59

Somewhere in this forums history we discussed this before.
One option is that the Moon could become the "factory" of the solar system fed with asteroidal resources and Martian food.
Mars could be supplied with advance technology from the Moon and metals from the asteroid belt
and finally the belt miners can pay for there food with credits from experts to the moon.

And why will this happen easy orbital dynamics and energy

SpaceNut · 2020-10-29 20:17:55

I remember the same with some of the other topics in which due to the closeness of the moon that it should be leveraged but we need to be careful as to not destroy it.

Good to see you are safe Grypd….

tahanson43206 · 2020-11-14 16:12:15

This post is for Terraformer ... it is a summary of a recent set of papers about Ceries which (I gather) was published in a scientific journal.

The URL is long, but I was unable to find the article on the source web site.

https://zenherald.com/g/anthropology-an … =400913779

(th)

Terraformer · 2020-11-15 08:26:50

Water, carbon, ammonia... all stuff Luna needs.

It would take a very, very long time to use up a single kilometre of depth, if Ceres was strip mined. That would be 2.8 million cubic kilometres of material - maybe a quadrillion (10^15) tonnes of ice, and I don't know how much nitrogen and carbon. Plenty for lunar and cislunar habitats galore.

tahanson43206 · 2020-11-15 08:36:08

For Terraformer re #29

Thanks for taking a look at the article about the new Ceres report.

Your space elevator concept might be put to good use bringing useful materials from the surface for shipment to Luna and Mars, and eventually other locations where humans set up shop. In particular, I think that a research outpost in orbit around Venus would be a potential customer. While some materials can be extracted from the atmosphere of Venus (Carbon and Oxygen are two that come to mind) all the metals and simple water, and Nitrogen would be in short supply.

You've already got a triangle here, but if you can slide a payload to Venus from time to time, I'm betting you'd have grateful customers.

One thing they could trade is energy. They're close to the Sun, and Ceres is ** way ** short of energy. A nice tight laser beam might be a useful complement to whatever light gathering equipment a Ceres mining operation would set up.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2020-11-15 09:39:21

Which is why there have been several concepts on how to move the materials from there source while expending the least amount of them as possible so as to deliver the most to the using site.

Some would use a nuclear powered ION version of sorts rather than converting the ice to LH2 / Lox for a normal engine to power a pusher stage which would be attached to Ceres to move it.

If we are adding in Venus and Mars we are looking at a larger loop to get materials from the sources to where they are needed.
Since there is no need to rush the material from source to destination then a Nuclear powered ION engine would make sense.

Venus capture could be the normal aerocapture breaking maneuver with openings that are lined to take in the air as it penetrates towards slowing down with a super chiller such as the Sabre system to make it go into a storage tank for use later by others at the delivery location..

tahanson43206 · 2020-11-15 11:02:23

For SpaceNut re #31 and harvesting gases at Venus ....

Interesting idea ....

I asked Google for the gas mixture available at Venus, and the availability of Nitrogen jumped out ...

People also ask
What is Venus atmosphere made of in percent?
Chemical composition:
Carbon dioxide: 96 percent. Nitrogen: 3.5 percent. Carbon monoxide, argon, sulfur dioxide, and water vapor: less than 1 percent.Oct 18, 2018
Venus' Atmosphere: Composition, Climate and Weather | Space
www.space.com › 18527-venus-atmosphere

The Nitrogen would definitely fill an important niche in an off-Earth economy, both as a filler gas for habitats, and as an ingredient in agriculture.

Metals from Ceres to Venus

CO2 and Nitrogen from Venus (plus power by laser tight beam)

Luna ... ? manufacturing as a major trade offering?

Mars? Medical Facilities for Off-Earth consumers?

Major supplier of agricultural products for Asteroid miners, in addition to manufacture of equipment.

Phobos is a likely hub for transport. Stray vehicles cannot be allowed to land on Mars after a population reaches a size sufficient to impose order on the process.

Incoming vehicles ** must ** be quarantined at Phobos for biological and other risks.

(th)

Void · 2021-02-07 10:13:40

I had not noticed this article being discussed on this site, and so I thought this topic could be a acceptable home for it.

https://comicbook.com/irl/news/humans-c … d-by-2026/

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/hu … OORBTBL4M/

Humans could be living in a 'floating asteroid belt colony' in 15 years' time, scientist says

I am having trouble communicating with the web site just now, but I will say that I am interested in this, and yet it does seem too optimistic.

However, we do not know just how habitable Mars will be per gravitation. And if it turns out that synthetic gravity is needed to raise young for instance, then Ceres has an attraction for sure.

Done for now.

Just this about the Moon. I think that the Moon of all worlds will combine a large labor force with availability of mass in a smaller gravity well. Ceres, Deimos, Phobos, and Mars could provide more of things like Carbon, Nitrogen, and other, to the Moon.

The reason I think that the Moon will have a very large labor pool, of course is I am thinking of robot actuators on the Moon, with humans on Earth interacting with them. These could be good jobs for people who grew up with video games and programming.

Communications got better, but yes I am done for now.

Last edited by Void (2021-02-07 10:27:23)

tahanson43206 · 2021-02-07 11:25:17

For Void re #33

Terraformer would surely be pleased to see so many of his ideas developed in such detail by a scientist.

The paper is described as "not yet peer reviewed" but my impression is that everything cited is quite feasible, except for the time frame.

We humans will be doing well to have ** any ** person living on ** any ** location away from Earth 15 years from now, barring invention of a Star Trek space drive.

Thanks for providing this nice addition to Terraformer's topic!

(th)

Void · 2021-02-07 14:15:16

A very considerate reply (th). Would love to see taraformer back again.

Apparently this did not take in my last post.

I will try again:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Is … &FORM=VIRE

Have a good everything!

Done.

SpaceNut · 2021-02-12 20:50:35

This would open a corridor for trade Humans Could Soon Live in a Giant Space Station Orbiting Ceres

sounds like a large ship is needed due to low gravity

Sceintific paper

d430d7d790e4268152187717bc96e42d

Calliban · 2021-02-13 05:48:42

I agree with Void: much of the work carried out for construction of a lunar base can be done using teleoperated robots. The Earth-Moon distance is 1.28 seconds. Bulk materials can be launched from the moon using an electromagnetically accelerated sledge mounted on steel rails. In low lunar orbit, typical orbital speed is 1.5km/s. An ion propelled vehicle in a slightly higher orbit could capture an electromagnetically launched payload using a skyhook type cable.

Mars would be a useful source of all elements that the moon cannot provide: argon propellant, carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc.

SpaceNut · 2021-02-13 09:42:28

Bulk materials are free already in the universe and they rain down on all planetoids and planets alike as comets, asteroids, meteors and throwing's more stuff into the pathways become a risk and not even valid if it does not make it to the objective location that we launch it towards let alone evaporates in the ballistic incoming slide to burn up or implodes on impact with the surface...Short of the materials needing to be supplied are gasses to an atmosphere.

Besides we need processed goods that are refined to sheet stock, shapes and materials made into actual items to be the transport trade. The big ship that cycles from place to place will need those goods as much as the location that they are going to as well...

Void · 2021-02-14 10:53:37

I don't entirely agree Spacenut. Delivering refined substances in the form of scrap, in order to reduce delivery costs, is not necessarily the wrong method in all cases. It would be a case by case situation balancing costs against benefits, and also looking to see if more traditioinal methods are prefered. It cannot be a blanket yes or NO decision. I don't like binary arguments, it prevents the development------
of a web of options to keep in the tool box.
Dr. Robert Zubrin indicates that a Starship could be cut up and with 3D printing many things could be made from it. It is unlikly that accessable materials from a crash would not be re-used. And so then we can have planed crashes, if the material output is still useful but the cost of delivery is made lucritive.
Also, I do belive that the ability to use vacuum deposition on Mars should be possible to make real on the surface. All you would need to do is to make a chamber for it, and suck the Martian air out of it, which is going to be much more practicle on Mars than it is on Earth.
Yes Calliban, the unique asset the Moon will have is a very large potential labor, force where much of the life support needs for that labor pool, are satisfied on the Earth. And of the 4 primary worlds under consideration, the gravity wells are Earth, Mars, Luna, and Ceres, in that order of magnitude. Obviouisly Earth and Luna will have the greater labor pool for a very long time.
Yes, cyclers may be in use as things move along, but there is also reason to consider what I call "Anti-Vulcan" methods of development.
This is certainly not to say that I am Anti-Vulcan, (The rocket under development).
In that system, they have made the bet that if they discard the 1st stage propellant tanks to the atmosphere and oceans, they can have more propellants devoted to getting the upper stage materials to a location desired.
It remains to be seen how well their system will compete with other systems. My guess is that it will capture certain things, and that other space companies will capture others. In the Vulcan plan, they do want to re-use the 1st stage engines and avionics.
If Vulcan were to launch from Mars, it might be possible that the 1st stage materials impacthing the ground might be considered useful salvage.
Anti-Vulcan Methods
In this case for any system, it might be better to send materials not directly payload, to locations in space where they could be come "Salvage" after they have done a task. Re-Purposing is one sort of objective. However if you removed the engines and avionics from that Starship, and had it in orbit, it would then become a potential Kessler Syndrome contributor. But if you moved it to a higher orbit, it may either be re-purposed, or basically taken apart by electron beam, for vacuum deposition of new structure, or perhaps somehow put through 3D printing.
For this intentional case, you "May" choose not to have legs, a heat shield, header tanks, or flaps and the motors and such that are associated with them. So, if I am to believe Elon Musk, you could do an SSTO, to get these things to orbit, but you are not forbidden to use a Super Heavy.
To deliver this to CIS Lunar Space locations, whatever propulsion method needed. To deliver them to the Lunar Surface, then perhaps a Skycrane using Hydrolox???
To deliver them to Mars, I guess you have your choices. In that case, I guess you want a heat shield for one time use, probably ablative as GW says this could be cheep. You might crash it in the manner I described in "Voids Belly Flop", or you could then of course have as much engines and flaps as you wanted, but you may either recycle theim or Mars, or may even consider shipping the Engines, Flaps, and avionics back to the Earth/Moon. However, I expect you would keep the ships shell, and the electric motors on Mars.
-------
Eventually you might be able to manufacture some kind of propellant tanks on the Moon. This would then require a method of propulsion.
As for these Starship shells, you could assemble 2 or more of them and spin them and have an early synthetic gravity device in orbit. Such could be in proximity of any of the 4 primary worlds that I have metioned in this post.
But remember that since the Moon has a smallish gravity well, and likely a very vast labor force living on Earth, the Moon is likely to be where you eventually build all kinds of things to send to the worlds under development.
That's enough for now, Done.

SpaceNut · 2021-02-14 20:26:35

seems water is a key for all
lunar water https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/abd559

louis · 2021-02-14 20:33:32

There will be no serious space exploration programme, public or private, under the Biden administration. Beijing will tell them to close it down and they will.

SpaceNut · 2021-02-14 20:47:24

spreading lies that are not true....
Biden backs Artemis moon program; watchdog says it’ll cost $86 billion

we have said that since 2004

Biden administration gives support to NASA's push to the moon

Void · 2021-02-18 18:57:01

------
I have a large respect for the idea of "Mars Direct". I think that the Moon and Mars should be two sepearate efforts, with some crossover allowed.
Building on previous conversation in this topic, I have a wish list, and that includes developing real worlds, Earth, Luna, Mars, Ceres. And also some objects accessible from those four primaries.
I agree that Mars direct is likely the best way to start up Mars. However, I diverge after as I am really quite comfortable with the notion of building artificial worlds. In my wish full thinking, there would be at least one higher 'g' world built for each of the four. For Mars and Ceres, I would venture that 1 'g' would be worth trying for. But of course, if medical discovery indicates that that is not needed, then it could be less.
I see no reason to limit our vision, but of course humans will need to respond to what is discovered to be possible.
Looking at it, we have the potential for three worlds where SSTO is likely to be practicle, and one world, Ceres, where a space elevator may be a thing that would open much up.
We have Luna, where we would have a smaller gravity well, and a large telepresence labor pool. We also do not know for sure that the deeps of the Moon are absent volitile substances. It is natural that the surface of a world like the Moon would be freeze dried. It does not necessarily hold true that a collision sent all the water away, or maybe even the Carbon.
In my view, if the impact theory were true, much of the water in the splashed materials would expand to make geodes, and when condensing into the Moon, that would not necessarily float off into space.
The truth is we are very short of facts on Luna, Mars, and Ceres. We should want much more before we pour concrete for our planning.
Done.

No strong spell checking, having trouble with internet as I often do when I log onto this site.

Grypd · 2021-03-04 17:16:48

The Moon has power from solar etc to make it a major space factory for us. But food growth sorry a 28 day cycle seriously screws this.

Mars though a dark world has an atmosphere of CO2 that can be used to grow plants and with a low gravity can supply the whole solar system with less cost than any launch from earth.

Ceres is in the asteroid belt with almost no gravity but we can carve into it and we can utilise those meteor belt objects to provide very rich materials to anywhere we can make it and that also includes the Moon and Mars orbit.

It is called triangle trade but it really is not. It is orbital dynamics that moving materials using the least amount of energy wins every time. Powered cargoes will be by tugs using the most efficient engines and currently we are talking a variant of long use electric-Ion engines

Void · 2021-03-06 04:42:34

I think that Magnetic sails are the way to go.

On the Moons south pole light is almost continuous.

If you look into Isaac Arthur, videos about the Moon.

It is rather likely that mirrors can heat up a block of basalt, and a heat engine attached, that is a thing he mentions.

I would like to use a "Hot Window" for that so that you could put heat into a cavity. A lava tube section might do, or you would build one.

This section is hard to keep in view as there is activity which will always eclipse it.

If interested you might look into this:
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=9819

It's topic also includes Mars, and the #42, so basically it is really hard to be off topic.

louis · 2021-03-06 05:17:11

Mars a dark world? Try living under the tree canopy on Earth that still covers much of the planet! Hardly any cloud cover on Mars either.

As on Earth the energy budget is not necessarily the decisive cost - labour often is. If you've got to ship hundreds of people to the Moon and then look after them in order to set up say a methane-oxygen plant, you might well find it still makes sense to send the stuff from Earth.

For me, the Moon is clearly destined to be a major tourist destination but I think at the same time there will be a strong "lunar preservation" movement on Earth (especially as the Moon still has religious significance for hundreds of millions of people), so I think any tourist facilities will need to be "discreet" (probably covered in lunar dust in some way). I see no particular reason why the Moon should become an industrial centre, given the proximity of the Earth and competition from Mars. I think Mars, for instance will be a better location for methane manufacture for rockets, to be transferred to LEO and LMO.

Grypd wrote:

The Moon has power from solar etc to make it a major space factory for us. But food growth sorry a 28 day cycle seriously screws this.
Mars though a dark world has an atmosphere of CO2 that can be used to grow plants and with a low gravity can supply the whole solar system with less cost than any launch from earth.
Ceres is in the asteroid belt with almost no gravity but we can carve into it and we can utilise those meteor belt objects to provide very rich materials to anywhere we can make it and that also includes the Moon and Mars orbit.
It is called triangle trade but it really is not. It is orbital dynamics that moving materials using the least amount of energy wins every time. Powered cargoes will be by tugs using the most efficient engines and currently we are talking a variant of long use electric-Ion engines

SpaceNut · 2021-03-06 09:41:35

In that the atmosphere of mars is thin the amount of co2 that can be given in trade is minimal. What it can be used for is a variety of items to be made from it once you have enough of it to use for the moon or cere's destinations of trade.

Cere's the ice world has ice but in that is an asteriod its also got a limit to what it can trade as well since we are trying to make sustainable colonies there as well. It would be a welcome to add to the little that the moon has and be a bonus for mars as it would reduce energy costs to mine or process to make use of it.

The moon has the metals that cere's lack but mars has bound up as oxides for the most part and that mars does not need. The moon has an abundance of solar at the poles but there is no means to transport to Mars or cere's if there is no means to store it.

So far other than moving people from each to another the trade is lopsided for what they each need and of course food is a shared issue for each to sustain until fully automated and large enough to support operations that each trade location will have as a colony or settlement.

Yes all must be delivered under the least amount of energy required to mine and bring the cargo to its destination of which there is a loop of material movements to the 3 destinations of need to build up each location to make into settlements of the future but trade then must switch to other things besides those already identified.

The fourth trade route is the supply train from earths gravity well that each will need long term even when they each can make items on there own from insitu resources.

Void · 2021-03-06 10:35:56

------
About the Moon:
Perhaps you will watch this video?
Measure twice, then cut, Aim then shoot?
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=is … ORM=VRDGAR
I am currently working in another topic, on how to manufacture cheep farmland that is also potentially a massive power source.
In part per Isaac Arthurs assertions, we can build "Land", and "Farmland" to be orbital. We do not likely need a very large population of humans on the Moon to do that.
These farms/power plants could generate very significant magnetic fields or use plasma bubble methods of propulsion to go the Mars or Ceres or other locations.
Now as for Dr. Robert Zubrins concern that Mars Direct would be held back....No!
Starship can initiate that, and yet if there are 1000 starships for Mars, there can be 1000 starships, and perhaps Hydrolox Mini-Starships for the Moon. The Earth could use the orbital solar power from these farms. But Mars could also.
As I believe Dr. Zubrin would agree, at this time mostly we want to send stuff from the Earth/Moon subsystem, further out. Well the solar wind and Ballistic Capture methods can help with that.
------
I am afraid I am going to have to mention the "Mars Roach Motel" theory.
This is not my dominant analysis, but a lesser possibility.
We were told that the Moon was useless, after Apollo. The Russians with their probes detected significant water when they drilled Lunar rock. The deeper they drilled the more that their was.
There are many parties that do not want humans and particularly their servant classes to get out of their grasp. In the theory, the plan would be to keep us away from the Moon, and to encourage for Mars. Then they could sabatoge the effort at some point. They want us to generate wealth for them. They are the talkers and killers.
They actually probably did us a favor by stopping the Moon program. I don't think we were proficient enough in what we could do. We were just lucky.
I think the probability of their success is much lower now.
Among their kind are the hyper relegious. Although God created the universe, somehow, people being on Mars would mess up the rapture, and upset God.
And there are the anointed. They think that they have the right to decide for us if humans are allowed to go into space. In my country however it is supposed to be "We The People".
I am not very fond of those who think they are entitled to be our masters. Those who are part of my country are criminals for betraying our covenent. Those outside of my country are slavers. My opinion is that slavers shoud be considered as prime for entering a criminal corrections process.
So, no "Roach Motel". And it is very certain that some international elements, and perhaps some internal elements are interested in trying to promote it still. I think we are on to you.
Watch out!
------
And that is about it. I am fine with the SpaceX Mars plan. However if they have a Starship(s), I don't believe that they would pass up an opportunity to make the $$$ by working with the Moon. Same for other space providers.
I see no reason why we should shun the Moon.
We are not that stupid, although perhaps there are those who hope we are.
Done.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2020-10-29 17:34:59

Re: Terra, Luna, and Ceres - Triangle Trade

#27 2020-10-29 20:17:55

Re: Terra, Luna, and Ceres - Triangle Trade

#28 2020-11-14 16:12:15

Re: Terra, Luna, and Ceres - Triangle Trade

#29 2020-11-15 08:26:50

Re: Terra, Luna, and Ceres - Triangle Trade

#30 2020-11-15 08:36:08

Re: Terra, Luna, and Ceres - Triangle Trade

#31 2020-11-15 09:39:21

Re: Terra, Luna, and Ceres - Triangle Trade

#32 2020-11-15 11:02:23

Re: Terra, Luna, and Ceres - Triangle Trade

#33 2021-02-07 10:13:40

Re: Terra, Luna, and Ceres - Triangle Trade

#34 2021-02-07 11:25:17

Re: Terra, Luna, and Ceres - Triangle Trade

#35 2021-02-07 14:15:16

Re: Terra, Luna, and Ceres - Triangle Trade

#36 2021-02-12 20:50:35

Re: Terra, Luna, and Ceres - Triangle Trade

#37 2021-02-13 05:48:42

Re: Terra, Luna, and Ceres - Triangle Trade

#38 2021-02-13 09:42:28

Re: Terra, Luna, and Ceres - Triangle Trade

#39 2021-02-14 10:53:37

Re: Terra, Luna, and Ceres - Triangle Trade

#40 2021-02-14 20:26:35

Re: Terra, Luna, and Ceres - Triangle Trade

#41 2021-02-14 20:33:32

Re: Terra, Luna, and Ceres - Triangle Trade

#42 2021-02-14 20:47:24

Re: Terra, Luna, and Ceres - Triangle Trade

#43 2021-02-18 18:57:01

Re: Terra, Luna, and Ceres - Triangle Trade

#44 2021-03-04 17:16:48

Re: Terra, Luna, and Ceres - Triangle Trade

#45 2021-03-06 04:42:34

Re: Terra, Luna, and Ceres - Triangle Trade

#46 2021-03-06 05:17:11

Re: Terra, Luna, and Ceres - Triangle Trade

#47 2021-03-06 09:41:35

Re: Terra, Luna, and Ceres - Triangle Trade

#48 2021-03-06 10:35:56

Re: Terra, Luna, and Ceres - Triangle Trade

Board footer