The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

deagleninja · 2004-09-11 12:43:28

Wow, that's a rather nasty post ya got there.

Please forgive me O Wellspring of Truth!!

Seriously though, I have studied history a great deal. In fact, I have studied it enough to know you can't get the 'truth' from one or two websites. Ever hear they saying 'history is written by the winners?'. My point is that several different professionals have several different versions of the 'truth'. For instance, many claim that the Civil War was fought over slavery, while others argue that it was started due to unfair taxation of the South.

Now I don't want to retort nastiness with more nastiness so I will try and reason with you. What I propose is that we send a single colony to Mars with all the tools they need to make basic materials and structures. With a few tons, a colony on Mars can start building gardens, return fuel, underground homes, oxygen factories, and everything else a basic colony needs. The beauty of Mars is that everything humans need to survive is already there. There is no need to bring everything with us.

I am not the only one that feels this way MR. If I am wrong then you need to tell the Mars Society that they are just wasting their time.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-11 13:27:40

Wow, that's a rather nasty post ya got there.
Please forgive me O Wellspring of Truth!!
Seriously though, I have studied history a great deal. In fact, I have studied it enough to know you can't get the 'truth' from one or two websites. Ever hear they saying 'history is written by the winners?'. My point is that several different professionals have several different versions of the 'truth'. For instance, many claim that the Civil War was fought over slavery, while others argue that it was started due to unfair taxation of the South.
Now I don't want to retort nastiness with more nastiness so I will try and reason with you. What I propose is that we send a single colony to Mars with all the tools they need to make basic materials and structures. With a few tons, a colony on Mars can start building gardens, return fuel, underground homes, oxygen factories, and everything else a basic colony needs. The beauty of Mars is that everything humans need to survive is already there. There is no need to bring everything with us.
I am not the only one that feels this way MR. If I am wrong then you need to tell the Mars Society that they are just wasting their time.

Actually the American Civil War was fought over two opposing side of a economic, banking system of an Empire and the economic, banking system of the American Republic. The American Civil War was started by the British and there cronies in the South that owed there allegance to Great Britain. Then there were the British cronies in the North behind Wall Street and other that were also working for desolving of the American Republic. So Abraham Lincoln had his hand full with fight the American Civil War while holding the treasonous trader in the North in check and staying out of a war with Great Britain while the Civil War going on.

In addition to that, Abraham Lincoln signed the transcontinetal rail road act in 1862 to build that rail road too. It was that rail road and the other policies from people around Lincoln that transformed the United States into an industrial power. It was not a piece meal thing. It was a concious descission to do that.

To really understand what I am saying, you really have to watch that second web cast link to understand real economics is all about.

I have no problem with what the Martian Society is doing. Although I may disagree with some of there ideas, I don't disagree with there over all plan to colonize mars. Beside, we are still going to have to work out the details to colonize Mars and so they serve a usefull purpose to achive that goal.

Larry,

John Creighton · 2004-09-11 14:09:48

In my opinion give a small set of tools a whole society could be built from the ground up. It is just a matter of how long it takes. The first Martians will have the advantage of being much more knowledgeable then early cave people. However they will have the challenge of a harsher environment. Thus the key issue with building a society with local resources as opposed to importing resources should be addressed by a simple cost benefit analysis. One thing that should be kept in mind is even if it is cheaper and faster to import certain goods from earth, giving the Martians the ability to produce these goods locally has the advantage of not depending on an uncertain supply line.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-11 16:37:50

In my opinion give a small set of tools a whole society could be built from the ground up. It is just a matter of how long it takes. The first Martians will have the advantage of being much more knowledgeable then early cave people. However they will have the challenge of a harsher environment. Thus the key issue with building a society with local resources as opposed to importing resources should be addressed by a simple cost benefit analysis. One thing that should be kept in mind is even if it is cheaper and faster to import certain goods from earth, giving the Martians the ability to produce these goods locally has the advantage of not depending on an uncertain supply line.

The issue here is not whether the Martian society should be seeking self sufficiency, we both agree on that point. We both agree that down here on earth which has a viable ecological system which does not need mans intervention to function so you could give a few people with hatchet’s and they could servive in the wilderness indefinitely. It also a fact that modern society could not function without government built infrastructure like dams, power plants, roads, rail roads, public water and sewer system, etc. To make this planet capable of supporting 6 billion people, governments the world over have had to built infrastructure to tweak and already function ecological system to make it possible to support more people. Let me give you an example, I like in North Texas in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. Now there are about six million people here, but if the government would not have dammed up the rivers, this area could only support maybe one million or possibly two million people. This is an example of enhancing an already functioning ecological system by man to make it more productive so more people can live hear.

But, to start off with a non functioning ecological system or at least a non functional ecological system as far as man is concerned. John, Your not going to hand some one a hatchet have him or them build a habitats that will be self-sufficient. There are no trees on Mars, water, food supply or air supply in an available state to go to Mars without the intent on building infrastructure first to augment these deficiency of the Martian landscape of these things. Dallas/Fort Worth didn't go from two million people to six million people without building some infrastructure and your not going to a planet that can support Zero human population in it present state to who ever you want to send to Mars without building some serious infrastructure. A government financed and engineered infrastructural project is the only way that you can deal with those deficiency on planet Mars. Once you have a government that is committed to doing that, then private enterprise get involved. Because the government has buy there space ship, power plant, water & sewer plants, subway system, food, and other manufactured good and services. We also don't want the government in the tourist, hotel, restraints, manufacturing, farming, mining business either. So here where the private sector come in and does there part to building that Martian Colony.

John, I don’t care whether your down here on Earth or on Mars, you have to be able to build the infrastructure to support what ever population you have or it not going to work and nor do you have a workable plan. To hit anything close to being self-sufficient, it going to take thousand or ten thousands or possibly even in the hundreds of thousand range and your going to have to build a hole lot of infrastructure to do that. I talking about everything like having the people diversified into farming, manufacturing, mining, doctors, dentist, etc. That just for making the necessity too and nothing fancy either. Example, toilet paper, washing machines or some equivalent of, the ability to make spare parts for when things break and they do break. The ability to expand the facilities or do repairs on it without having an emergency or wait six month to a year for the part to come from earth. And the list goes on and on and on.

Larry,

Grypd · 2004-09-11 16:59:40

To be able to fully colonize mars we need to really go for it and this needs infrastructure.

The vikings colonized America but there colonisation effort relied on longboats and Knars which though for there age where the greatest sailing vessels in existence they where too small. As such we now need archeologists to find out where the Vikings had been. This is the stage we are with our space program our craft are too small and though we can send our people to Mars we will ultimatly fail with the small craft we have.

The next colonisation that came though used much bigger ships these could carry a decent amount of people and the colonies where able to get more and more people to replace the ones who died due to the hard life they faced. These lead to the cruise liners who took colonists and tourists in bulk to America so doubling its population again and again and providing the workforce and impetus to go west. This is what the Moon can do it can allow us to build the large ships which means when we go to Mars to colonise we go in force and we succeed.

Another point is the Moon will give us the skills we need to be able to go further than Mars and for that it is worth doing all on its own.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-11 17:27:08

To be able to fully colonize mars we need to really go for it and this needs infrastructure.
The vikings colonized America but there colonisation effort relied on longboats and Knars which though for there age where the greatest sailing vessels in existence they where too small. As such we now need archeologists to find out where the Vikings had been. This is the stage we are with our space program our craft are too small and though we can send our people to Mars we will ultimatly fail with the small craft we have.
The next colonisation that came though used much bigger ships these could carry a decent amount of people and the colonies where able to get more and more people to replace the ones who died due to the hard life they faced. These lead to the cruise liners who took colonists and tourists in bulk to America so doubling its population again and again and providing the workforce and impetus to go west. This is what the Moon can do it can allow us to build the large ships which means when we go to Mars to colonise we go in force and we succeed.
Another point is the Moon will give us the skills we need to be able to go further than Mars and for that it is worth doing all on its own.

I Agree!

It generally takes one generation to build the infrastructure that your taking about with regards to building those bigger ships.

It will take a second generation to build the infrastructure on Mars that you talk about.

And it might take a third generation to hit something close to being self-sufficient.

If you build enough infrastructure on the moon, you can more or less make the moon self-sufficient too. That one of the reason for building infrastructure, it give you the power to do things that you could not do otherwise. But, a generation is about twenty to twenty five years. Anything with just four to six people or even twelve people would not be anything more than just an glorified Apollo mission and over time will just leave it camp site to future explores to find some time in the future somewhere.

Larry,

Dook · 2004-09-11 19:13:48

The second web link is a two to two and have hour web cast on the subject of the American government building up infrastructure inside the United States and then turning around and letting that infrastructure collapse. They show from a period of 1926 to about 1965 where the U.S. Government was deliberately building up the infrastructure of America to be an industrial power with dams and locks on the major rivers to make them navigational for commerce, power station, rail roads, healthcare, etc. Then from about 1965 to today with the dismantling of the American system and reducing it into a piece crap. Like with the shutting down of factories or exporting them overseas, the destruction of the family farmer, the destruction of healthcare, our dams are in disrepair and those locks are old and need to be replace to keep our rivers navigable and our rail roads are in a final stag of collapse, etc. These things that you keep defending and say will work in space, don’t work down here and never did work down here and never could work down here. So stop using mis understanding of what really happen down here to defend your view of what we should do in space.

The US economy of the early 1900's has evolved from one that primarily supported itself with goods and cheap labor to one that is dependant on cheap external labor. This not only created many rich (millionaires) American's but a very large middle class that is considered 'rich' by most of the world's population. This is evolution and would hardly be considered a change toward a 'piece of crap' by economists. What American is willing to sew clothes for only $2 a day? None! The exportation of labor provides work to developing countries and cheap goods for the world. This is not something to complain about even though John Kerry thinks it is. If you really want a low paying labor intensive job I know a strawberry field that you can go to and pick your heart out for minimum wage but for some reason I doubt you will show up at 5:30 am to get in line for a box.

The destruction of the family farmer? Farming has evolved as well. Farming corporations now produce crops more efficiently than ever before. There is a side note to this, small farmers markets are growing rapidly. An increasing number of home growers are producing their own fruit and vegetables and selling them directly to the public. They are beating out the farming corporations because the markets provide convenient fresh organic produce. At the moment their effect on the market is negligible but if it continues it will certainly affect the future produce market.

The destruction of health care? Uh, how so? Our doctors are better now than ever before and we have better medicines. Yes it is more expensive but that is due to the insurance that doctors must have now because of all the ridiculous lawsuits.

Railroads and their cars simply cannot compete with trucks and air shipment. They haven't been competitive in a very long time and soon they will all be sent to museums.

If you think the 1950's were so great then maybe you should get rid of your computer, stereo, television, forget about space travel forever, and go live with the Amish.

Martian Republic, I would recommend that you take some college classes and stop getting all of your information from late night radio.

comstar03 · 2004-09-11 19:52:57

Martian Republic,

I agree it will take some logistics of moving vast quantities of people and supplying the resource needs for the trip and plant are complex. Also remembering that you have time differences between earth and mars and distance to bring additional supplies and resources.

That is the main reaon for massive infrastructure. We need to manage space based infrastructure for a time and be able to grow the infrastructure from earth to mars and beyond.

An Apollo style landing and a small outpost with the simple small team infrastructure will not help the colonizing of space. If you think that, then you need a dose of reality, because to move 100+ humans per mission will take large scale ships, and also the personal resources for settlement need to brought along as well. This will take time and effort.

At the end it will be worth it.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-11 22:13:45

Martian Republic,
I agree it will take some logistics of moving vast quantities of people and supplying the resource needs for the trip and plant are complex. Also remembering that you have time differences between earth and mars and distance to bring additional supplies and resources.
That is the main reaon for massive infrastructure. We need to manage space based infrastructure for a time and be able to grow the infrastructure from earth to mars and beyond.
An Apollo style landing and a small outpost with the simple small team infrastructure will not help the colonizing of space. If you think that, then you need a dose of reality, because to move 100+ humans per mission will take large scale ships, and also the personal resources for settlement need to brought along as well. This will take time and effort.
At the end it will be worth it.

This time I agree with most of what your saying in this post.

I also agree with you that colonizing Mars is a worthwhile goal and mission we want to accomplish. I have said that in other post on other threads in this forum and even listed why it a worthwhile goal and mission to accomplish.

The reason for colonizing Mars are:

1. It part of the human character to explore other world and even colonize planets like Mars.
2. It a job creation program that will create millions of jobs both inside the United States and worldwide.
3. You will develop new technologies and infuse those new technologies into the business environment which increase the productive of the work force and decrease the prices of products produce.
4. You will develop a whole new classes of industries that will become part of the physical economy that we would not have if we did not go into space.
5. We will get access to resources that we never would of had before like iron, nickel, carbon, rock asteroids, comets, etc.
6. A Mars colonization project if it done right, will unite the American people in an excitingly new mission or national goal and if we extend the offer to the rest of the world too, would also be a uniting factor for the rest of the world too.
7. I also believe that man is part of the creative process of this universe and not just a creature of this universe and he should be a good steward of both this world and the solar system too. You can’t be a good steward of the solar system sitting on the earth, but going out there and developing it and improving the solar system and we need to learn to be a good steward hear on earth too.

So I am not saying that we shouldn’t go Mars. What I am saying is, understand what it going to take if and when we do go to Mars, so it doesn’t turn into another Apollo type mission where we have not been back to the moon in 35 years. What I am saying is, if the opportunity comes along to do it, we need to know how to make it happen and not look back.

Larry,

comstar03 · 2004-09-11 22:33:04

Martian Republic,

It would also get the world focusing on the future and growth not, wondering what could humanity do !!!! It will benefit the whole world and bring focus to all people's across each country.

comstar03 · 2004-09-11 22:35:38

Martian Republic,

I know you are patriotic to America, but if we can't find the people to go to Mars here then, we find them across the world.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-11 23:55:48

Martian Republic,
I know you are patriotic to America, but if we can't find the people to go to Mars here then, we find them across the world.

We don't have a problem finding people to go to mars either here in America or from overseas countries. Besides that not the main problem, it not having neither the infrastructure nor the technology in hand so that we can send the people that need to be sent to Mars so that we can colonize it. I figure it will take about twenty years to develop the technology and build the infrastructure to do that.

Why just the transportation problem is enough to squash any serious colonization of Mars. The closest thing we have to a mass people mover into space is the NASA Shuttle and it very limited in what it can do. Even space ship one is horribly limited and would need major upgrades and redesign to make the grade for what we would want to do. One time use rockets like what the Russian and Chinese won't do it either. That means that we are going to have to develop a whole new generation of shuttles to replace the present generation of shuttles and we will need ten to twenty of these new shuttle. We may also have to open up contracts to private contractors who built space ship one and see if his space ship can be upgrade to into a full orbit and supply government loans and tax breaks and other possible private groups. We will also be looking at private business to launch freight too to augment NASA effort. It will take five to ten year to build this infrastructure up to accomplish the mission that we want to accomplish.

We will probably need two or three space station as a staging area for shuttle up from the service and for deep space space ships to meet at and exchange passengers service and repair our space ships.

For a deep space space ship for the purpose of colonizing Mars a chemical rocket is useless to us, because there too inefficient and you could only take a small number of people to Mars. Like three C shuttle launches for every four to six people going to Mars. Those are "HORRIBLE" number for trying to transport large numbers of people to Mars. It might be OK for a Mars Direct Plan, but it will never do for a full scale colonization program of Mars. Then you can only launch people to Mars every 26 month or so because of the launch window.

Now we either have to go to Ions and/or Fission drive to get to Mars. With these types of engine you might be able to take fifty to hundred people at one time. If you use fission, you could probably make the trip in four month instead of seven months with chemical rockets. This would probably work, but it still has short falls that we don't like. We have to stay in space too long and we will get more radiation exposure and suffer from bone loss do to weightlessness. I realize that we can do some tricks like flip the space ship end over end to generate a partial g load on people inside the space ship, but that not what we want.

We want to build a space ship that can excelarate at one g load from earth until it get half way to Mars and then turn around and decelerate at one g load until it get to Mars and then orbit Mars. That way we are not worried about a launch window when it comes to going to Mars. It won't make a difference if Mars is ahead of us or behind us or on the far side of the sun, they will only be maybe one week travel time from earth. To be able to build a space ship that can do that, we going to have to have something that has a little more kick to it that Ion or Fission drive. We going to have to develop Fusion drive to do something like that. So we are going to have to go into a crash development mode to develop Fusion Power and Fusion Drive for our deep space space ship. Now this will probably take twenty years to pull this trick off and to build sever Fusion powered Deep space Space Ships.

Now once we get to Mars, we need to be able to get to the surface of Mars, so we need a few Mars Shuttle to land on Mars. To complete the transportation from Earth to Mars. We will probably have a few lunar shuttle too.

And that just for the transportation infrastructure to just be able to get Mars in sufficient number of people to colonize Mars. Now I have no problem with it, but that what it going to take to do the mission.

Larry,

comstar03 · 2004-09-12 01:29:06

Yes,

To build the earth based infrastructure, then build the earth orbit infrastructure, then build moon infrastructure and then mars infrastructure, including navigation , communication, habitation systems, as well have the academy for training personnel for space and colonization of mars including but not limited to admin staff, pilots, doctors, builders, scientists, agriculturists, and more and more.

First target for a society like this would be plans for a complete space specific college or university and training academy. Design the college on a space base concept with all the facilities, technology and other activity that would be found in outer space, including a command structure and cadet code structure based on courses and fields of study.

comstar03 · 2004-09-12 03:15:54

We need the moon , for testing human technics in a non-earth type environments for general population, taking the trademen, and women, doctors and other skill based people into space and increase their knowledge and skills and certifiy them for space colonization, alot of this will be hands-on, and if they can not do something they do on earth for their trade and is need in space then we innovate and solve that issue.

This will bring a new generation of human space explorers and colonists.

Grypd · 2004-09-12 04:07:40

The one advantage we have yet to mention is that if we start a telerobotic base on the Moon to use Lunar materials this will need us to actually have centers on Earth to control them. One of these centers should be in India as it has the location, education standard and desire to be in the space race.

Why should we do this well in the case of politics it will give another country and its friends who will support a change in the outer space treaty if it sees direct benefit to itself.

This would also see a groundswell of public support form these countries to push for space and this will hopefully lead to more support in the space tired west. And if the outer space treaty can be modified to allow at the least licensing of mining and use of space materials then we get private enterprise willing to push money into space investment.

Grypd · 2004-09-12 04:18:33

When we do actually start exporting substantial Lunar materials and have decided the need to colonise Mars should be done then we will build colonisation ships. These would be cyclers but unlike the Battlestar Galaticas of the 90 day plan these would be similar to the O'Neill spinning colonies. Why well what is the use of sending colonists who would be too weak to be able to exert themselves on mars, and since we will probably be sending 100 at a time then it should be under a form of gravity and this is best useing O'Neill type wheels.

Of course we would have practiced in the making of such designs by making a station in LEO that would provide us as a spaceport for earth that could be reached by the new advanced shuttles that carry large numbers of passengers and tourists to the LEO station. There a Lunar form of a nuclear craft could boost them to the Moon or a colony pod for mars to the Cycler.

Of course im dreaming but that is the way we need to go and until its in place we will find it dificult to do anything on a large scale in space. And colonisation is a large scale operation.

RobS · 2004-09-12 08:59:22

I'm not sure I agree with a lot of what has been suggested. In The Case for Mars, Zubrin proposed a very simple Mars colonization spacecraft. It would use the Ares booster, which can put 140 tonnes in low Earth orbit; solid-core nuclear engines, which can be developed for a few billion if the political will can be found; and a 70-tonne "habcraft," five stories high, four for 24 crew and 1 for cargo, which would be the housing for 24 colonists in space and on the surface. The solid core nukes could be reusable and return to Earth orbit; direct aerobraking to the surface would be used for landing. This technology could be developed from Mars Direct. You could send 24 people to Mars for 1 billion dollars, Zubrin says. If you launched 4 such vehicles every 26 months, you'd put 96 people on Mars for the cost of 4 billion, or 2 billion per year; half the cost of the Space Shuttle now. I suspect the real cost would be two or three times as much (Zubrin was using early 1990s dollars). In ten oppositions you'd have 1,500 people on Mars (including children). Then you could decide whether you need a bigger system, but you wouldn't start with a bigger system; you'd work your way up to it.

As for cyclers, I am increasingly sceptical about their utility. They will be occupied 6 months out of 26, which means during the other 20 months, either a small skeleton crew is stuck on a long boring voyage getting fried by radiation, or you worry something breaks. Not only is that a big risk to the equipment, but the equipment is degrading without producing any economic return. I doubt a cycler will be economic. Then there's the problem that if the ferry spacecraft is unable to depart on time, the cycler flies for 26 months with no one on board at all and the passengers have to waith 26 months for another chance. You can't delay the arrival of a cycler; celestial mechanics tells you when it arrives to the second, and that's it. Finally, any error during trans-Mars injection strands a small ferry craft between planets stuffed with too many passengers, who will probably all suffocate in a week or so.

It makes a lot more sense to use a semicycler, a spacecraft based at an Earth-moon or an Earth-sun lagrange point at this end and a very high elliptical orbit or a Mars-sun lagrange point at the other end. Such a cycler will require a very low delta vee to fly between the planets, so it can be larger and more spacious than a ferry craft. The ferry craft can delay its departure if there are mechanical problems because the semicycler isn't going anywhere. If the semicycler has a mechanical problem, a crew can be sent up to fix it any time. Semicyclers could also fly between the planets faster or slower, depending on fuel, ferry schedules, or the sunspot cycle.

-- RobS

Dook · 2004-09-12 09:08:44

What is this urgent need to send a mass of people to the moon or even mars?

We don't have to sail the seas in wooden ships during hurricane season anymore. This is not a smart way to explore the universe. Such an incredible risk to human life is not necessary and if something were to happen your effort would doom human exploration of the universe for a very long time.

Grypd · 2004-09-12 10:32:32

I'm not sure I agree with a lot of what has been suggested. In The Case for Mars, Zubrin proposed a very simple Mars colonization spacecraft. It would use the Ares booster, which can put 140 tonnes in low Earth orbit; solid-core nuclear engines, which can be developed for a few billion if the political will can be found; and a 70-tonne "habcraft," five stories high, four for 24 crew and 1 for cargo, which would be the housing for 24 colonists in space and on the surface. The solid core nukes could be reusable and return to Earth orbit; direct aerobraking to the surface would be used for landing. This technology could be developed from Mars Direct. You could send 24 people to Mars for 1 billion dollars, Zubrin says. If you launched 4 such vehicles every 26 months, you'd put 96 people on Mars for the cost of 4 billion, or 2 billion per year; half the cost of the Space Shuttle now. I suspect the real cost would be two or three times as much (Zubrin was using early 1990s dollars). In ten oppositions you'd have 1,500 people on Mars (including children). Then you could decide whether you need a bigger system, but you wouldn't start with a bigger system; you'd work your way up to it.
As for cyclers, I am increasingly sceptical about their utility. They will be occupied 6 months out of 26, which means during the other 20 months, either a small skeleton crew is stuck on a long boring voyage getting fried by radiation, or you worry something breaks. Not only is that a big risk to the equipment, but the equipment is degrading without producing any economic return. I doubt a cycler will be economic. Then there's the problem that if the ferry spacecraft is unable to depart on time, the cycler flies for 26 months with no one on board at all and the passengers have to waith 26 months for another chance. You can't delay the arrival of a cycler; celestial mechanics tells you when it arrives to the second, and that's it. Finally, any error during trans-Mars injection strands a small ferry craft between planets stuffed with too many passengers, who will probably all suffocate in a week or so.
It makes a lot more sense to use a semicycler, a spacecraft based at an Earth-moon or an Earth-sun lagrange point at this end and a very high elliptical orbit or a Mars-sun lagrange point at the other end. Such a cycler will require a very low delta vee to fly between the planets, so it can be larger and more spacious than a ferry craft. The ferry craft can delay its departure if there are mechanical problems because the semicycler isn't going anywhere. If the semicycler has a mechanical problem, a crew can be sent up to fix it any time. Semicyclers could also fly between the planets faster or slower, depending on fuel, ferry schedules, or the sunspot cycle.
-- RobS

You are assuming we will only have one cycler that does not make sense we will want to have four as a minimum. This allows the gaps between arrivals and departures to be kept to the minimum and should there be a problem with a colony craft it aborts and the colonists can get the next cycler to come to get there transport. And another advantage to cyclers is the capacity they have to be expanded so allowing for larger amounts of people/cargo transported.

The biggest cost in space operations is that first step from Earth to Orbit, we are hoping that new style shuttles will hopefully reduce this cost. If we can reuse the colony craft again and again this will help in keeping the costs down. I want to ensure that all people have the chance to go to Mars and not who the goverment picks. And if the cost of sending a colonist is 150 million $us then forget any colonisation no country can afford that. But the possibility of fully reusable shuttles and Infrastructure can get the cost of the colonist down to 500,000 $us for one then that means it is a possibility though still expensive.

The colonists colonisation craft will be nuclear and it will be as reusable as we can make it. The cycler in its nature is reusable with it recieving resupply from Moon launched mass driven materials like oxygen etc.

Grypd · 2004-09-12 10:45:36

What is this urgent need to send a mass of people to the moon or even mars?
We don't have to sail the seas in wooden ships during hurricane season anymore. This is not a smart way to explore the universe. Such an incredible risk to human life is not necessary and if something were to happen your effort would doom human exploration of the universe for a very long time.

Dook it is in Human nature to explore and to settle new lands it is called the continuation of the species. If we did not think like this we would have remained in Africa leaving the very inhospitable ice covered North to the Neanderthals.

And it is not an urgent need as it will take some technological improvements and some already possible techniques to be used before we can start to colonise Mars. But im from the Moon landing generation that watched us land on the Moon then stop. Next time we go we should go with the intent to Stay and prosper. We will take steps to ensure that we can get it done right this time. But until then we should be doing the steps that we can do now and when the required technologies and will come along then we can go for the full colonisation

Martian Republic · 2004-09-12 11:59:16

I'm not sure I agree with a lot of what has been suggested. In The Case for Mars, Zubrin proposed a very simple Mars colonization spacecraft. It would use the Ares booster, which can put 140 tonnes in low Earth orbit; solid-core nuclear engines, which can be developed for a few billion if the political will can be found; and a 70-tonne "habcraft," five stories high, four for 24 crew and 1 for cargo, which would be the housing for 24 colonists in space and on the surface. The solid core nukes could be reusable and return to Earth orbit; direct aerobraking to the surface would be used for landing. This technology could be developed from Mars Direct. You could send 24 people to Mars for 1 billion dollars, Zubrin says. If you launched 4 such vehicles every 26 months, you'd put 96 people on Mars for the cost of 4 billion, or 2 billion per year; half the cost of the Space Shuttle now. I suspect the real cost would be two or three times as much (Zubrin was using early 1990s dollars). In ten oppositions you'd have 1,500 people on Mars (including children). Then you could decide whether you need a bigger system, but you wouldn't start with a bigger system; you'd work your way up to it.
-- RobS

We are not against Zubrin plan as such and if it the only thing we can get. We will run with it and on that level I support him all the way. Like any thing that a low budget operation, you make compromises like NASA shuttle. You whined up building something that won't serve purposes that you want to use it for. Like you not going to show up at Mars with a few mobile homes, nuclear power plant, hydroponics gardens, assorted space suits, rovers and setup much more than just having a research station on Mars few people in it that can perform a limited number of things. To go from having research station to having a thriving colony on Mars or possibly having a full blown City on Mars will take more than just plugging modules together. I mean that the nature of the beast that we are dealing with when it comes to developing Mars. I am talking about building the infrastructure down so we can have a healthy functioning economy. We are not going to Mars without that kind of infrastructure and have some thing much more than just having a research station for a few scientist like what we have in Antarctica, but it will probably be a much smaller research station than what we have in Antarctica.

Most people on this board don't know what it takes to manufacture some thing and when someone says we will just use the resources on Mars, they chime in and say that sound good. But, how do we do it down here? We have to mine ore, but before we do that, we have to build some infrastructure like build Monster dump trucks, overhead cranes and digging equipment, cutting tool too, etc. Well, where does this infrastructure come from? From other factories that produce Monster dump truck, overhead cranes and digging equipment. Now where did those machines that produced Monster dump trucks, overhead cranes and cutting tools? From other factories that produce machines for other factories that produce the good and services you need for your Mars mining mission.

Well, you say we will just buy the equipment down here on Earth and send it to Mars and that will solve that problem.

Isn't that right?

Now we have part II of this problem:

Now that we got the Martian Iron ore out of the ground.

How do you intend to refine it?

Ok, we will dispense with how we either got a blast furnace or plasma steel foundry to melt the iron and refine it. It came from Earth.

Now you have to make that refined iron into some thing that is usual or serve a need. Some of that iron will be re-melted other metal added to make alloy's, which demand specialized equipment, which has to come from earth also. Other specialized equipment for making iron bar and/or rolling iron into sheet metal, etc. and that equipment is also coming from earth. You have to have a whole series of molds so you can make different casting so you make different parts.

Ok, now we need a machine shop, tool and Die, tool making to continue the process of making a part. To refine our casting into a finished product that we can use we are going to have to buy all kinds of machine of various types to do different machining process to do job. This is called a machine shop. But, we have two sub-unites like tool and die so we can make a fixture so we can hold our part so we can machine it and tool making so we can make the cutting tools so we can cut the part so that we can get a finished product. All this is labor intensive even if we add robotics into this mix, which we should, because it will help us along the process colonizing either the moon or mars, but it won't solve all of our problem by itself. But, that will open up other areas of maintaince and area's that we need to work on with robotics.

On Earth if we have ore Minnesota after it been refined at the foundries and sold to am machine shops Cleveland Ohio as bar stock or as a casting. We have to be able to get that bar stock or casting to that machine shop in Cleveland Ohio from this foundry in Minnesota and on earth we use rail roads or a road system to get it there. Now these rail road and road system of the United States took over one hundred years to build an put in to place to be able to do that and that too, was also very labor intensive too.

I could continue, but I think you get the idea where I'm going with my argument about infrastructure down here and how we produce things.

But, now let go to Mars that has non of this infrastructure that we been building up over the last hundred years or so and that took hundreds of thousands to millions of people to build. OK, we put down our Martian colony and it doesn't matter where you put it down, your going to have to start rounding up resources. You could choose to build your colony where the water is or where the iron is or where the aluminum is, but you don't have them all at the same place like on earth.

Like on Earth your going to have to go after those resources and they may be hundreds of miles apart, but you don't have the rail road system to haul those resources to your colony.

So what do you do?

But, even if they did send train system and rail from earth so they can build there rail system to build there transportation system, they don't have the labor force on Mars even if everybody on Mars was committed to building that rail road, which obviously that can't do. Even using robotics, they would still come up short when it comes to building there rail road and even then it would probably take five years or more.

Now remember that it took hundreds of thousand and even millions of people to build the infrastructure of various types, some of it is government owned and operated, some of it is privately owned and operated, some of it is corporately owned and operated.

Now I ask you:

Do you really think that 20 people or even 100 people could perform that magic trick and create the foundation for a Martian colony or build a city on Mars?

Now keep in mind that what we do down here what we do, because of the infrastructure we building up in the United States over the last hundred years or so and without this infrastructure we would be neither discussing going Mars or be doing anything else in space either.

So anybody talking about going Mars without any major infrastructure and develop a Martian Colony and also having it be self-sustaining and thinking they can slip through the back door of colonizing Mars, is only fooling themself.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we can’t do that trick on Earth. So how do you intend to do that trick on Mars?

Larry,

Rxke · 2004-09-12 12:41:27

I guess *if* there is ever a drive towards something bigger than a scientific outpost, it will be largely thanks to Zubrin's "Living off the land" soundbite...

But it won't be easy. To convince the organizing parties to 'sacrifice' payload and workhours, not for science, but for building stuff etc.

And a lot of the stuff will still have to come from Earth.

But Zubrin opened a new avenue in thinkinng: 'what can we do to reduce those supplies from Earth?'

And i think quite a lot, if you have some basic equipment on Mars: You'll start with fairly crude stuff: simple bricks, concrete flooring, primitive tubing, (which can also be made out of pottery) can all be made quite easy (will never be really easy on Mars, initially, but...)

And sure, it will be labour intensive. But if you can build one pressurized bunker, fit it with airlocks from Earth, you're halfway there.

If you can build (or import) a simple kiln, you can make things in it that are better building blocks fo a bigger kiln, same with small blast furnaces etc...
Initially you won't need monster dump trucks, you're not building in a monster-scale, just rake the blueberries and put them in your furnace, they're almost pure Fe...

Building primitive stuff in the beginning, crude, inefficient contraptions, but all these crude contraptions are capable to build better stuff, given time. 19th century technology. But you know in which direction you want to go, it's all been invented already, so you don't waste time figuring out how to build a better system.

Of coure, with four people on the surface, you won't get much work done... But the first missions will be purely scientific, and testing of systems blablablah...

RobS · 2004-09-12 16:43:38

Grypd, I don't think I was asuming one cycler at a time. Indeed, for safety it would be best to run two on the same orbit, no more than a day or two apart. But I'm not sure what you are saying when you say you are assuming four cyclers and they will be staggered to arrive at different times. How will this work? Every twenty-six months there is a time period of maybe three or four months when you can send spacecraft to Mars, when the flight is nine months maximum. Otherwise, the flight takes a very long time, especially for a cycler in a regular orbit around the sun. You can always fire engines on the cycler and make it arrive much sooner, but if you are doing that, why not use a semicycler anyway?

And yes, if you have four or five cyclers, if a ferry can't make it to cycler 1, it can catch cycler #2; but that means the people planning to take cycler #2 have to take #3, etc. So you still have someone waiting most of 26 months, because cyclers can't depart for Mars any time during the 26-month cycle, unless the one-way trip climbs to 15 or even 20 months.

Yes, you can expand cyclers. That's true of semicyclers as well.

And I still don't know why you think cyclers are cheaper than semicyclers. The cost of the extra fuel to send a semicycler from L1 may be less than repairing or replacing a cycler that broke three months after leaving Mars and seventeen months before whizzing by Earth again (the first time it can be fixed). A cycler sitting at L1 needs about 1/4 its mass equivalent in fuel (25 tonnes for a 100 tonne vehicle for about thirty to fifty people) to fly to Mars. If the fuel is transported there from Earth via solar sail or ion tug or from the lunar surface it might not be a significant expense, not compared to making the cycler and lifting it in the first place. If the passenger ferry is lighter and more robust--because it needs to be used for six days max, rather than a month in an emergency between planets--the twenty-five tonnes of fuel may be as much as is saved by launching a lighter ferry craft.

Dook asks why send people at all. Good question. I am assuming exploration makes it worth while. This is a question settled politically; it is not a scientific question.

MarsRepublic, I may agree with you, but I am not sure what you are saying. I agree that a big colony is not going to happen any time soon. It will require a big infrastructure. It will have to be placed somewhere most of the resources are available locally: ground ice is plentiful, copper deposits are nearby, a large nickel-iron meteorite has been exposed by weathering nearby, there are evaporite deposits, perhaps nitrate deposits, etc. It will develop gradually from a scientific outpost, I think, when a few people stay long term, fall in love with Mars, start families, commit to stay two decades, and the cost of transportation steadily drops.

-- RobS

Gennaro · 2004-09-12 17:21:56

RobS, it could be I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

First, I was under the impression a VTOVL couldn't make it much further than LEO, in which case the cycler also needs to launch from there.

Secondly, if you have a high ISP and relatively high thrust vehicle, like for instance a GCNR cycler, wouldn't there be several more launch windows open than pure Hohman transfers, because of the ability to "bend" trajectories that otherwise would be prohibitable because of high delta V requirements?

Gennaro · 2004-09-12 17:31:55

comstar wrote:

I must be in a rare bred of private enterprise, because I know that development of space isn't a national goal for a country unless it is made into a national goal. But a private enterprise comprising of talented and committed individual that want to develop space will succeed.

I think Martian Republic answered this question quite well in his latest reply above even though it might not have been his intention.
It's all about the greens. Free enterprise won't invest the amounts of capital needed for an exceedingly long perspective of uncertain returns, but a government, not relying on profit, can.

Private enterprise typically uses infrastructure and institutions already in place, it does not fund them.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#201 2004-09-11 12:43:28

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#202 2004-09-11 13:27:40

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#203 2004-09-11 14:09:48

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#204 2004-09-11 16:37:50

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#205 2004-09-11 16:59:40

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#206 2004-09-11 17:27:08

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#207 2004-09-11 19:13:48

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#208 2004-09-11 19:52:57

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#209 2004-09-11 22:13:45

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#210 2004-09-11 22:33:04

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#211 2004-09-11 22:35:38

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#212 2004-09-11 23:55:48

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#213 2004-09-12 01:29:06

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#214 2004-09-12 03:15:54

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#215 2004-09-12 04:07:40

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#216 2004-09-12 04:18:33

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#217 2004-09-12 08:59:22

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#218 2004-09-12 09:08:44

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#219 2004-09-12 10:32:32

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#220 2004-09-12 10:45:36

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#221 2004-09-12 11:59:16

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#222 2004-09-12 12:41:27

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#223 2004-09-12 16:43:38

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#224 2004-09-12 17:21:56

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#225 2004-09-12 17:31:55

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

Board footer