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

BWhite · 2004-06-23 09:06:20

And Stephen Hawking said in the next 1000 years, a 1000 years is a long time.
So basically I'm putting all me money on robotics and nothing else.
The problem is that no one is going to jump in and develop all the wonderful technology we need to fulfill a plan such as you mentioned. It's gradual, evolutionary. We almost have to go in little rockets with dry food in boxes and live in metal cans before we can go in fusion liners and live in cities built for us by self-replicating robots. Kind of a paradox, we don't have the tech to properly settle the planet, and we won't until we get there and try.
If we wait, we may lose the chance.

Exactly.

We are at one of those "hinge points" in Drake's Equation.

Z stars have planets in the "Goldilocks zone" - - -which collapses numerous variables in Drake's equation

Y% of these planets develop any life at all;

X% of those biospheres develop what we would call sentient life;

W% develop the technology to leave their home world.

V% of the W group decide -- hey guys it just ain't worth it.

= = =

Along with avoiding extinction through environmental disaster, or the thermo-nuclear equivalent of kids playing with matches, finding a reason to become a multi-planet species is one of the variable that determines which species win and lose at Drake's Lottery.

= = =

Lovers of sausage, law and Mars colonies should never look behind the curtain as the object of their adoration is being made.

smurf975 · 2004-06-23 09:09:47

We almost have to go in little rockets with dry food in boxes and live in metal cans before we can go in fusion liners and live in cities built for us by self-replicating robots. Kind of a paradox, we don't have the tech to properly settle the planet, and we won't until we get there and try.

No, self-replication robots were a theoretically possible in 1980. As a NASA study proved.

Look at this http://sources.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advan … tents]nasa study or look at this http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic … 804]thread on this forum and look for my post, which is the 7th.

clark · 2004-06-23 09:10:03

What do you win if you win at Drake's lottery?

Grypd · 2004-06-23 09:14:41

it will be a long time before any settlement will be independent. They will be dependent on the home planet if not for material needs, definitly for biological.

It will be a long time for any settlement to develop enough of a population to be able to have a wide enough gene pool.

Certainly in this HiTech age they will find it a lot harder than the americans did to succeed in declaring independence. And any country that created that settlement will certainly have a vested interest in ensuring that they did not succeed.

That is something that an organisation could do if they did have the funds is to create an independent settlement. This has been touched on in other threads and certainly a rich religous group or similar could do it.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-23 09:15:56

No, self-replication robots were a theoretically possible in 1980. As a NASA study proved.

Theoretically being the key word. I'm not arguing that they wouldn't be nice to have, only that waiting for them is neither necessary nor desireable.

Our present technology, actual iron on the pad is better than any theoretical wonder-tech for practical purposes.

BWhite · 2004-06-23 09:16:58

What do you win if you win at Drake's lottery?

A trip to Disney World.

smurf975 · 2004-06-23 09:17:47

Well you will need automated machines one whay or the other. As with this rocket technology you can't expect to send a few thousand of people into space and make them build the shelters and do every day tasks.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-23 09:21:41

Well you will need automated machines one whay or the other. As with this rocket technology you can't expect to send a few thousand of people into space and make them build the shelters and do every day tasks.

But it's a necessary start. It creates the impetus to develop the technology you describe.

Otherwise we're sitting on Earth waiting for some rich nut to wake up one morning and say "hot damn, I need to build me some self-replicating robots and uber-rockets to build cities on Mars!"

Unlikely.

clark · 2004-06-23 09:21:52

A trip to Disney World.

I smell a rat.

smurf975 · 2004-06-23 09:21:57

Our present technology, actual iron on the pad is better than any theoretical wonder-tech for practical purposes.

And no it isn't a wonder tech. Its possible to do it in labs right here right now and in 1980 labs..

Why I added “theoretically” is because it hasn't been done anywhere except for the labs and pieces of the self-replicating machines have only been used here and there (car factory, refineries) but never together.

Grypd · 2004-06-23 09:31:47

Self replicating robots would be a benefit to any space civilisation.
But we cant do that yet.

BUT, we can do sort of. We can make machines that can adapt. If we send robots that are under control from earth we dont need the hardest bit, a high intelligence.

So we send these drones to the moon control them from earth they do the work creating shelters and the basis for industry and resource harvesting. We send to them more machinery etc that allows construction of increased industry etc. And we now have a foothold for mans first base.

It will be possible soon after to create more drones at the base this will rapidly allow expansion. And we can experiment to find drones that work better in the hard terrain of the moon. Eventually we will completely automate the drones but we dont need to at the start.

smurf975 · 2004-06-23 09:32:45

Otherwise we're sitting on Earth waiting for some rich nut to wake up one morning and say "hot damn, I need to build me some self-replicating robots and uber-rockets to build cities on Mars!"

The NASA study said that the whole self replicating plant would weigh about 100 tons. So no need for uber-rockets.

So that would be 1 and a half of the shuttle c launches. (60 tons)
5 Ariane V launches. (20 tons)
And four shuttle missions. (25 tons)

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-23 09:36:28

The NASA study said that the whole self replicating plant would weigh about 100 tons. So no need for uber-rockets.
So that would be 1 and a half of the shuttle c launches. (60 tons)
5 Ariane V launches. (20 tons)
And four shuttle missions. (25 tons)

yes, yes, wonderful. Give me the part numbers and specs of the operational unit.

Oh, there aren't any. And that's my point. by all means let's develop this technology, but forcing ourselves to rely on equipment we don't have when it isn't vitally needed at this stage makes no sense.

smurf975 · 2004-06-23 09:39:43

It will be possible soon after to create more drones at the base this will rapidly allow expansion. And we can experiment to find drones that work better in the hard terrain of the moon. Eventually we will completely automate the drones but we dont need to at the start.

I agree with what you say and it was not my plan to do so.

I envision something like a power/nuclear plant. Were almost everything works by it self and you have guys in a control room checking the data and making corrections. If something goes wrong a guy will suit up walk to the machine and give it a kick to get it working agian.

smurf975 · 2004-06-23 09:46:31

yes, yes, wonderful. Give me the part numbers and specs of the operational unit.

You are right there isn't any operational unit. It's just that this is the way I would do it if I had NASA's budget.

Oh, there aren't any. And that's my point. by all means let's develop this technology, but forcing ourselves to rely on equipment we don't have when it isn't vitally needed at this stage makes no sense.

At what stage are you then?

Grypd · 2004-06-23 10:01:36

The paper you are looking for is
Advanced Automation for Space Missions
N83-15348 Nasa conference publication Pub 1982

also try
nano.xerox.com/nanotech/selfRep.html]Self replicating

Self replicating and robot started bases has been a major study by Professor E Koelle of Berlin University.

The NASA report stated that the 100 ton seed would be all that was needed to create a fully functional base. Also it allowed an Extraordinary large amounts of mass in space and to set up and perform various ambitious future missions can be greatly shortened.
The advantage is that if the system so planned would be very flexible and if something had to be changed it could be downloaded from earth.
A cheap option or as close to as you get.

smurf975 · 2004-06-23 10:05:25

The paper you are looking for is
Advanced Automation for Space Missions
N83-15348 Nasa conference publication Pub 1982

You can find the paper for free http://sources.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advan … tents]here hosted on wikipedia and added to it by one of the authors.

Grypd · 2004-06-23 10:23:22

For those who are interested professor koelles website is here it is slow to download but rather full of information

http://vulcain.FB12.tu.berlin.de/ILR/pe … ]Professor Koelle

Bill White · 2004-06-23 10:23:57

Our present technology, actual iron on the pad is better than any theoretical wonder-tech for practical purposes.
And no it isn't a wonder tech. Its possible to do it in labs right here right now and in 1980 labs..
Why I added “theoretically” is because it hasn't been done anywhere except for the labs and pieces of the self-replicating machines have only been used here and there (car factory, refineries) but never together.

Of course there is a political dimension. Who will own and control these self-replicating machines?

smurf975 · 2004-06-23 10:25:30

Our present technology, actual iron on the pad is better than any theoretical wonder-tech for practical purposes.
And no it isn't a wonder tech. Its possible to do it in labs right here right now and in 1980 labs..
Why I added “theoretically” is because it hasn't been done anywhere except for the labs and pieces of the self-replicating machines have only been used here and there (car factory, refineries) but never together.
Of course there is a political dimension. Who will own and control these self-replicating machines?

I don't understand why this is a question.

smurf975 · 2004-06-23 10:32:20

For those who are interested professor koelles website is here it is slow to download but rather full of information
http://vulcain.FB12.tu.berlin.de/ILR/pe … ]Professor Koelle

Its dead Jim

You made a typo in the link. You placed a . instead of - (tu.berlin and its tu-berlin)

The correct link is: http://vulcain.fb12.tu-berlin.de/ILR/pe … oelle.html

Funny thing is that it loads fast in Mozilla Firefox but slow in IE6

Grypd · 2004-06-23 10:35:56

thanks for the correction

quilty as charged but in my defence my 3 year old was not allowing me my usual methodical pace.

Grypd · 2004-06-23 14:03:54

QUOTE(Smurf975 June 23 2004, 13:31

I agree with what you say and it was not my plan to do so.
I envision something like a power/nuclear plant, were almost everything works by itself and you have guys in a control roomchecking the data and making corrections. If something goes wrong a guy will suit up walk to the machine and give it a kick to get it working again.

Yeah that will happen but to save costs i think the flights up will be pure cargo's of robots and machines to make more facilities. The actual control center is more likely to be one or more Call center type offices on Earth. Well if we design these drones right if they break down send out another drone to kick it or get it working.

So now we have a begining, A footstep on the moon, Initial costs are expensive but running costs are comparitively small. But we have now a fully functional facility for visitors too as it will have made reasonably spacious facilities suitable for humans.

With the fully functional Lunar base other operations can be supported like the Orbital tug or extremely dangerous Bio Experiments. These resources can be charged for and some profit brought in.

More money will be brought in by supplying vehicles in earth orbit with pre-made parts and oxygen at much reduced prices compared to earth launches. Will orbital industries start i dont know but only a lunar base will give it a chance.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-09-20 12:56:43

That works out to about 100 flights a year, which means two flights a week. With one vehichle? That might be optimistic.
Yeah, I think I am being very optimistic. If such a vehicle could be developed for 10 billion it probably would already be developed. But then again technology is always progressing, and as time passes it should become easier to develop such a vehicle and hopefully the market for deuterium will grow. Maybe we should require the vehicle be able to haul at least 5 tones of deuterium to LEO. I know it will be easier to get to Low Martian orbit, but I want to leave some margins.

we have to learn how to make our stuff built in space long lasting, make them profitbale and self sustaining otherwise people will say we shouldn't be spending money on going to Mars

SpaceNut · 2004-09-20 13:14:16

The vision as put forth by the president though started with the moon, ending with mars and beyound.
Why is mars not possible first should be the question, It can not be for it requires the financial stability for long term goals on a near term scale of thought. But much of going to the moon is of little value as well other than to practice closer at home.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2004-06-23 09:06:20

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

#177 2004-06-23 09:09:47

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

#178 2004-06-23 09:10:03

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

#179 2004-06-23 09:14:41

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

#180 2004-06-23 09:15:56

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

#181 2004-06-23 09:16:58

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

#182 2004-06-23 09:17:47

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

#183 2004-06-23 09:21:41

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

#184 2004-06-23 09:21:52

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

#185 2004-06-23 09:21:57

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

#186 2004-06-23 09:31:47

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

#187 2004-06-23 09:32:45

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

#188 2004-06-23 09:36:28

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

#189 2004-06-23 09:39:43

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

#190 2004-06-23 09:46:31

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

#191 2004-06-23 10:01:36

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

#192 2004-06-23 10:05:25

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

#193 2004-06-23 10:23:22

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

#194 2004-06-23 10:23:57

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

#195 2004-06-23 10:25:30

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

#196 2004-06-23 10:32:20

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

#197 2004-06-23 10:35:56

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

#198 2004-06-23 14:03:54

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

#199 2004-09-20 12:56:43

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

#200 2004-09-20 13:14:16

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

Board footer