The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-20 18:18:19

This is the sort of thing that the original, real space shuttle was going to be, not a conventional rocket with a glide-back upper stage.

The best option that i've heard is to use a two-stage vehicle, the first stage is pretty large and would use the dual-mode engine to reach high-supersonic speeds and high altitude, then the spaceplane would seperate and continue on to orbit with LOX/hydrogen rockets. Both stages would be reuseable and able to land a runway... the upper stage could have a metal heat shield to do away with this glass tile nonsense.

smurf975 · 2004-06-21 17:17:22

the upper stage could have a metal heat shield to do away with this glass tile nonsense.

What is this metal heat shield? Is it reusable like the tiles or like the early space capsules?

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-21 19:39:43

No no, not at all... there are two options really... if the vehicle has a wide enough body (like a lifting body) then it might be possible to get away with a sheet steel heat shield like was going to be on the VentureStar, because most of the underside wouldn't exceed ~2000C. Titanium might be an option to save weight.

Option B is a little more exotic but a little less heavy, and probably able to handle higher temperatures, but might only be semi-reuseable and only be able to go a dozen flights between replacement. Option B comes in big foot-square or even pizza-box tiles, the outter layer is an alloy containing tungsten, nickel, and I think titanium, the middle with foamed aluminum (a new invention), and a backing of titanium or aluminum alloy I believe.

It is possible that option-B could become sturdy enough to be fully reuseable, but it depends on the heating experienced by the spaceship. If it does come in the form of tiles, they are sturdy metal and bolt on, none of this glue and felt nonsense, and would take hours or days, not weeks or months to prepare.

BWhite · 2004-06-21 21:40:12

Off the rant for a bit
What the resources of space do allow is for us to grow. Civilisations that remain static things die. We need to keep expanding, We need to have new ideas, New frontiers. Lets hope we get the chance.
We are at a crossroads we can stay on Earth and remain as we are
Or we can grow.
In the end it is up to us the enthusiast to decide.

This also is. . . exactly right.

At least IMHO.

Going into space will not necessarily help the billions who stay behind but it will help the trillions who will be born, out there.

What will be lost - - if we do not go - - are our souls.

Timeslicer · 2004-06-21 22:38:39

A http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5123481/]space tug will do more to get us permanently into space than GWB's "vision".

The GWB moon base proposal, without the benefits the space tug and successive developments will bring, would probably run like Zeno's paradox - the further it progressed, the more it'd cost to keep it operating - until eventually it'd stall, doing little but eating money, like the ISS before it.

The more advanced space tugs and related hardware gets, they more value they'll produce, and they more they'll justify launching more advanced hardware.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-22 08:11:04

I've got reservations about that kind of logic... a space tug really wouldn't have a whole lot of uses, other than to change the orbit of communications satellites or for a long-term/large-scale Lunar program, which will probably not happen if we want to beat China/Russia/ESA to Mars in the 2030's, and because the Moon is by and large worthless.

Sounds alot like Says' Law of Economics, which is proven myth.

dicktice · 2004-06-22 09:10:32

BWhite: [re What will be lost - - if we do not go - - are our souls.] I was with you, until that last, loaded word. Sorry, but I have to ask--how do you define "souls"?

Grypd · 2004-06-22 10:27:56

GCNRevenger your right the moon is worthless, but this is where we disagree too.

The moon is worthless, Why, we are doing nothing with it, It will only have value when it means something rather than that large white thing that dominates our sky at night.

It will take going there and working on it to make it worth something. It can be whatever we want it to be, It has that much potential.

So lets go realise that potential, It will take work, it will take a change in our laws, it will take us willing to risk. But it can be done.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-22 10:42:12

GCNRevenger your right the moon is worthless, but this is where we disagree too.
The moon is worthless, Why, we are doing nothing with it, It will only have value when it means something rather than that large white thing that dominates our sky at night.
It will take going there and working on it to make it worth something. It can be whatever we want it to be, It has that much potential.
So lets go realise that potential, It will take work, it will take a change in our laws, it will take us willing to risk. But it can be done.

No no, this is talk of Says Law of Economics now, which in the case of the Moon is false, because the Moon has no material worth to us even if we did develop it.

There is no potential to be had in the first place to realize... so no it cannot be done.

smurf975 · 2004-06-22 10:46:38

Well its a good buffer zone for asteroids that may hit us.

I'm sorry but someone had to take it up for the moon. Planets have feelings you know.

BWhite · 2004-06-22 11:10:11

BWhite: [re What will be lost - - if we do not go - - are our souls.] I was with you, until that last, loaded word. Sorry, but I have to ask--how do you define "souls"?

As much or as little as you wish. :;):

We (as a species) have a choice about whether to become a multi-planet species. We can expand into the solar system, which will obviously take centuries or millenia to complete, or not.

"We" - - as a species - - will be different in the centuries to come depending on our decision.

= = =

As Aristotle wrote, we are what we repeatedly do, and I submit we also ARE what we commit or undertake to do.

= = =

Edit: Both a religionist and a non-religionist can agree that a good jazz or blues musician has "soul" or "soulfulness" without necessarily finding agreement on the metaphysics involved.

:band:

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-22 11:23:18

From a purely economic point of view, it really is a "moral" question, since we as a species really don't need space travel for much of anything if we're content with the lad of the Earth... we could probably even get away without satellites with the use of fiber optics.

smurf975 · 2004-06-22 12:25:22

From a purely economic point of view, it really is a "moral" question, since we as a species really don't need space travel for much of anything if we're content with the lad of the Earth... we could probably even get away without satellites with the use of fiber optics.

I agree as most communication is done now over cables (internet + telecommunications) as its much cheaper.

However farmers like the weather forecasts but that can be solved by better radar bases. But the military still needs the spying eye. But as I gather the U2 spy plane is much better then any spy sattelite.

And about the Earth getting crowded and food, well thats mostly a problem for third world countries that have no money anyway for space. Pollution can be solved by other means (electric machines).

Space nowadays is more nationalistic then anything else. If not you would have seen more of it.

MarsDog · 2004-06-22 12:38:14

Ignoring the opportunity to extend would be long term collective suicide. Survival is the prime motivator and trumps all other "moral" issues.
-
People continually are aware who is looking, (what alien wants to make a meal of them ?). What cosmic event needs to be defended against ?
-
If the Communist Chinese settle Moon or Mars first, will they start a war and conquer USA from the military high ground ?

clark · 2004-06-22 12:50:48

"We" - - as a species - - will be different in the centuries to come depending on our decision.

Will we be less if we stay? Will we be more if we go?

The jury is still out on the result.

If we go, there will be more of us. But so. How is a trillion better than 10 billion? Or put another way, 10 billion living a qualitiy life, or 10 trillion as just mere quantity of life.

Does a species have a soul? Or is it the individuals within the species? It's an important distinction, because it once mroe returns to the idea of quality versus the end all be all of quantity.

We can make this argument that the human species will end if we don't go, but as far as I can tell, we're screwed even if we do. We can't escape the big crunch, the solar end, or evolutions endless bag of surprises that mutates us into the thing from Alien.

Is it worth it then? Or are we really taking about continuing the vestiges of whatever it is we think is worthwhile in humans as long as possible? Do we need to go to the stars to do that?

MarsDog · 2004-06-22 13:33:54

That is what we are - the jury has ruled - survivors.
Happily, the dark energy will save us (not just USA) from the big cruch.
We are because there was a way and who knows the rest ?

Bill White · 2004-06-22 13:34:46

"We" - - as a species - - will be different in the centuries to come depending on our decision.
Will we be less if we stay? Will we be more if we go?
The jury is still out on the result.
If we go, there will be more of us. But so. How is a trillion better than 10 billion? Or put another way, 10 billion living a qualitiy life, or 10 trillion as just mere quantity of life.

Each of us gets a vote. And if some want to go, and others stay, well its a free planet.

Its like the decision to have children. Legitimate voices may differ. Who am I to say my choice is better than anyone else's choice?

Steven Sondhiem wrote, IIRC, that there are only two things worth leaving behind when you die - - art and children.

Either way, these are both vehicles for shaping the future.

And if shaping the future doesn't matter, then it doesn't really matter, does it? :;):

smurf975 · 2004-06-22 13:40:11

Ignoring the opportunity to extend would be long term collective suicide. Survival is the prime motivator and trumps all other "moral" issues.

Yes and let’s survive on Earth before we export our culture to other worlds and start killing each other there. And no survival is not a matter at this moment, what is threatening your survival in the next 100 years? I think for the USA its more its debts before anything else.

People continually are aware who is looking, (what alien wants to make a meal of them ?). What cosmic event needs to be defended against ?

Not saying that Earth shouldn't have some defense strategy against meteors and other things. I don’t believe in faster then light traveling aliens so it’s hard for me to be afraid of them.

If the Communist Chinese settle Moon or Mars first, will they start a war and conquer USA from the military high ground ?

Here you are just spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Deception). If the Chinese really wanted to destroy the USA they could do it now with nukes not fancy space thingies needed. If they do it anyway well the USA still has nukes. They want to start a war as much as the soviets wanted to.

But I think you are using FUD for what in the back of your mind and that’s: “Whose culture will dominate space.” If the Chinese settle Mars first the Chinese culture will probably dominate and if the USA has a settlement first then American culture will dominate. This is just about nationalism not science, exploration or economic value. If you still want to do it fine but you will run huge debts, which are not worth it. And the Chinese also don’t have the money to sustain a Mars colony.

And being the first to land and the first to settle doesn’t mean whose culture will dominate eventually. It’s more whose culture gets the most out of it and can afford it. The soviets were pretty much first in anything in space but who is dead and who is still alive?

Americans were the first on the Moon but what if the Chinese would setup a science outpost there? But now the USA instead of developing heavy rockets develops cheap access to space but it takes longer. Then eventually American will profit more as they are able to get more out of it.

There are easier ways to destroy the USA and that is without spilling a drop of blood. For example don’t accept Dollars anymore and only use Euros.

clark · 2004-06-22 13:48:12

Each of us gets a vote. And if some want to go, and others stay, well its a free planet.

Don't try your moderate fancy talk with me!

The problem here is that your vote requires the collective help of those who vote against the idea in the first place. I'm all for choice, which is why I generally conceed to this view, but being realistic, I don't see a reason why anyone who thinks contrary to you would want to help. They think it's daft to begin with, but you need them to help so you can pursue the daft choice...

Steven Sondhiem wrote, IIRC, that there are only two things worth leaving behind when you die - - art and children.

Monuments to your ego. Yeah, I get it. So you want to leave a meta monument to the collective ego. Yet children die, and art is lost. Where does that lead the collective?

And if shaping the future doesn't matter, then it doesn't really matter, does it?

Sure it does, I guess. Abyss and all that mumbo jumbo aside, is this future you wish to shape neccessarily any better?

MarsDog · 2004-06-22 14:04:29

I think for the USA its more its debts before anything else.

The pudding is in the proof.
US, the borrower, runs the planet and is enjoying a high living standard.
The lender, looses control, looses out.
Effectively the world has lent its resources to the US.
-
Because the opportunity is there, space will be done.
Just look at the flowers after a forest fire.

BWhite · 2004-06-22 14:41:19

And if shaping the future doesn't matter, then it doesn't really matter, does it?
Sure it does, I guess. Abyss and all that mumbo jumbo aside, is this future you wish to shape neccessarily any better?

How many people have lived in the last 3000 years? On one level its a rhetorical question, on another it can be answered by statistical analysis.

In that time we have had ONE Shakespeare, ONE da Vinci, many but finite numbers of lesser artists.

Simple bell curve analysis suggests that if as many people were born in 2150 as lived during the last 3000 years that generation will have one Shakespeare all by itself. Another Jane Austen, or John Keats, who might not die young and thus give us wonders we cannot imagine.

= IF = I limit myself to Western artists that is a sign of my own limitations, not any deliberate attempt to exclude others.

= = =

The skills that will be needed to survive OUT THERE will require an awareness of ecology and interconnectedness that those of us who blithely rely on our Terran Gaia for our sustenance often fail to appreciate or even recognize.

BWhite · 2004-06-22 14:44:48

The problem here is that your vote requires the collective help of those who vote against the idea in the first place. I'm all for choice, which is why I generally conceed to this view, but being realistic, I don't see a reason why anyone who thinks contrary to you would want to help. They think it's daft to begin with, but you need them to help so you can pursue the daft choice...

This why why paying for Mars with marketing revenue is the epitome of democracy.

Don't like Mars, don't buy the shoes.

smurf975 · 2004-06-22 14:51:10

And if shaping the future doesn't matter, then it doesn't really matter, does it?
Sure it does, I guess. Abyss and all that mumbo jumbo aside, is this future you wish to shape neccessarily any better?
How many people have lived in the last 3000 years? On one level its a rhetorical question, on another it can be answered by statistical analysis.
In that time we have had ONE Shakespeare, ONE da Vinci, many but finite numbers of lesser artists.
Simple bell curve analysis suggests that if as many people were born in 2150 as lived during the last 3000 years that generation will have one Shakespeare all by itself. Another Jane Austen, or John Keats, who might not die young and thus give us wonders we cannot imagine.
= IF = I limit myself to Western artists that is a sign of my own limitations, not any deliberate attempt to exclude others.
= = =
The skills that will be needed to survive OUT THERE will require an awareness of ecology and interconnectedness that those of us who blithely rely on our Terran Gaia for our sustenance often fail to appreciate or even recognize.

I don't think you will get far with the argument of you people are to stupid to realize how smart my ideas may be.

Just because you are interested in Mars doesn't make the other stupid.

You know what take that mentality and try to start a company. You will get laughed at.

:edited

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-22 14:52:59

???

clark · 2004-06-22 14:54:15

In that time we have had ONE Shakespeare, ONE da Vinci, many but finite numbers of lesser artists.

That we remember. In the same time we have had in each age the equiovilent of what was thought to be a dozen Shakespeare, a dozen da Vinci's, and an infinite number of lesser artists. We just tend to remember certain ones longer, which is also a function of how long their art survives time and relvancy.

As our population increases, as our base of art and knowledge increase, it becomes harder to identify and remember the new great artists. Come on, you read Galataia.

The skills that will be needed to survive OUT THERE will require an awareness of ecology and interconnectedness that those of us who blithely rely on our Terran Gaia for our sustenance often fail to appreciate or even recognize.

True, but we could just focus on that directly instead of hoping we learn these new skills by going to the stars. How is the indirect path better than the direct one?

This why why paying for Mars with marketing revenue is the epitome of democracy.
Don't like Mars, don't buy the shoes.

Fair enough, but it's going to take a bit more than sweat shops in China to get us there...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2004-06-20 18:18:19

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#127 2004-06-21 17:17:22

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#128 2004-06-21 19:39:43

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#129 2004-06-21 21:40:12

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#130 2004-06-21 22:38:39

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#131 2004-06-22 08:11:04

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#132 2004-06-22 09:10:32

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#133 2004-06-22 10:27:56

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#134 2004-06-22 10:42:12

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#135 2004-06-22 10:46:38

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#136 2004-06-22 11:10:11

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#137 2004-06-22 11:23:18

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#138 2004-06-22 12:25:22

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#139 2004-06-22 12:38:14

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#140 2004-06-22 12:50:48

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#141 2004-06-22 13:33:54

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#142 2004-06-22 13:34:46

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#143 2004-06-22 13:40:11

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#144 2004-06-22 13:48:12

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#145 2004-06-22 14:04:29

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#146 2004-06-22 14:41:19

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#147 2004-06-22 14:44:48

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#148 2004-06-22 14:51:10

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#149 2004-06-22 14:52:59

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#150 2004-06-22 14:54:15

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

Board footer