The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

comstar03 · 2004-09-12 18:18:20

Gennaro,

I think you have a different understand to wealth that we have. The principle we work off - is that wealth and income are based on the resources, opportunities and control in a given marketplace and the evolution of that marketplace.

In simple terms for you, gennaro - Space is a vast store of resources, opportunities and control of that marketplace - thus who can control through building the infrastructure, coonies and administration framework in turn can then determine the cost recovery of the investment and profit margin.

Because the world nations can not enter the marketplace as controllers as they are on earth , the dynamics of this economic marketplace have changed. The governments think that they are the only one's capable of getting to the planets, So the other legal issues, moral, and cutlural issues that will not occur because they will be extensions of their nations.

But, " murphy's law " or "chaos principle" comes into it and can put a spanner into the designers of the outer space treaty. This means that a a group of individuals do what a nation can't take control over a section or planetary body, and you then going to that body you will need to follow the rules (constitution) of that body or you can be casted out.

So, gennaro, you keep thinking that way and be like the physics professor that couldn't understand steve hawkins information about the origin of the universe,( that professor died still not belieing in facts that supported hawkins document, ou will be the same ) because you don't think that a private corporation / enterprise would build the infrastructure necessary for space exploration then you don't know everything.

Another way to put this for you, is that think of space development and the ultimate objective or goal , then place it on a large board line up all the obstacles in front of that goal and your objective is to get through ( similar in chess game ) the obstacles and get to the goal. It can be done, just do it.

Once you obtain critical mass for the space economy you will see the cost recovery kick in, thus the you can they recover the costs and make a profit. Chinese culture is based on family dynasties even in today's terms the same can apply to space where you need to build infrastructure that will take decades to create and will become assets into a space corporation.

Mining on earth is build up the same way , prospecting, the samples, then esting drilling then finally full operations, it might take five - 10 years before the mine is delivering a return, just multiple the largest mining operation by 50-100x then you will get the space infrastructure, So determine ways to fund that infrastructure.

Gennaro, just think a bit more below coming to the conclusions things can't happen because they can - I will give you this clue - think of a method from earth a private corporation could mass a continuous income stream of 120-150 US$B per annum then you will know how it can fund space infrastructure !!!. ( because I have, and working on the implementation !!!! )

SpaceNut · 2004-09-12 20:23:08

I keep thinking about the term infrastucture but all I come up with are water, food, air, power, and materials to construct with. Each we can calculate based on currrent uses from the ISS for the given crew size. Scale to size that to which would be sent to Mars for more exact numbers for each.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-12 20:28:24

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

I doubt that there a place on Mars where you could get all your resources that you need within a ten mile radius of your scientific outpost. But, even if you could, it would still be too labor intensive for the four or ten or even thirty people that would be manning the scientific outpost to get the resources and process it for use. Beside extracting those resources, they have to be growing there own food & cook there food, washing there own close, doing maintain on the scientific outpost to keep it running, etc. All these things are competing for our Martian Astronaut time and need be done. Let take the ISS as an example: It was designed or at least six people or lease stated that the ISS is going to have six people on board. The reason for that is, three people are needed to do maintain on the ISS and the other three people could be doing primarily scientific work on the ISS. Now they don't have to hunt for resources or engage in mining operations or even have to prepare there food even, because it prepackaged or even wash there close. Now our Martian Astronaut don't have this luxury and have to do it all themselves. If they don't have the basic infrastructure in hand along with the mechanization with computer controlled mining equipment, then it going to be too labor intensive for them to be able to get those resources even if there practically sitting right on top of those resources. Because they have other thing that require attention too and they can't spend most of there time mining those resources.

Our scientific outpost is not going to grow into Martian civilization on it own, because it doesn't have resource, the manpower, industrial capacity, the farming capacity or even the mining capacity and nor can it even maintain even there scientific outpost without resources from earth. Also the bigger the scientific outpost is, the more expensive it is to maintain and the more likely the people or government will drop it, because they can't afford it. The only way that I can see that we can go up over the top of this problem and come down on the other side with a functional and self-sustaining colony on Mars is:
1. Re-arrange the banking, tax system and investment house of the United States, because the current economic system will not support the investment that need to be made to build a Martian Civilization.
2. Have a President like John F. Kennedy that will commit the United State to a two or three generation commitment to build a civilization on Mars or if you will a city as a national mission or national goal.
3. Then start the systematic build up of the American Physical Economy which creates jobs that will employ Americans that are currently out work to building the infrastructure in both the private and public sectors. NASA being given a new mission to build city on Mars which includes all the infrastructure like subway, super trains, farming community, mining, manufacturing, power plants, water desalting plants, plasma steel, etc. I mean if we are going to have a Martian Civilization, we are going to have to plan to build at least one major city that is relatively self-sufficient and you can't do that with something small research outpost and nor can you grow small research outpost into a large major city, because they don't have the ability within them self to accomplish that mission.
4. Now that you know what mission is, now we have to figure out how to accomplish it. Like what kind of technologies do we have to be developed and what kind of infrastructure has to be to build that city on Mars. So we make our list of technologies that we have to invent to accomplish our mission to our city on Mars.

Example:
A. Welders, there gas and electric welders. A gas welder is useless to us in space and well an electric welder doesn't work very well in a vacuum of space either.
So we need to develop a laser welder so we can weld in vacuum of space or on the moon.
B. We need remote robots to do specialized work for us where is hazardous for humans to go.
C. we need to develop new mining technics for a new environment that we are working in.
D. We need a brand new type of space suits, because the fashioned type of the shuttle, Apollo don't serve our needs.

And the list goes on.

What kind of infrastructure do we have to build so we can build our city on Mars or even get there at all. I have already gone over that infrastructure in a previous post so I won't go over it again, but it goes here.

5. Now that we know what we need to do, now we have to be able to finance this beast. So how do we do that? The same way that John F. Kennedy was going to do it before he was assinated and the FDR did it during the great depression and the pre-war build up for World War II. Kennedy through executive order 11110 gave the Treasury Department the power to generate credit and that was after FDR example of giving the Treasury Department the power to generate credit. It was what FDR used to finance the building of dams, power plants, roads, etc. When we got closer to the time of World War II, FDR had the building factory and handing them over to private enterprise to manage those factories. With this type of physical build up of the American economy before the war when the war come, the United States just materially overwhelmed the enemy with what we could produce through our factories as compared to what they could produce through there factories.

As to the importance of the U.S. Government needing to have control over it own money supply as laid down by the U.S. Constitution and it importance in our desire to build a city on Mars, go to this web site below. By the way this is the only source on earth where you could get enough money or credit on the right turns that you could round up a sufficient financial resources to build a city on Mars.

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefedera … eserve.htm

But, we go back you our President with the consent of congress and he commits the United State to generate between one hundred billion to two billion dollars of credit per year for fifty to seventy five years of a note of intent and hand it over to NASA so they can finance the operation. Then NASA turns to private enterprise to find out who can do what and start lining up the contracts as to who get what and who developing the different technologies that need to be developed. But, NASA has been talking to the private business and individual who have the specialty they need to accomplish this mission from 2. through 4. when the President ask NASA to look into the problem of what it would take to build that city on Mars. When we get deep enough into this project, some of the shuttle will be owned and operated by NASA and some will be owned and operated by private business. The same thing for lunar shuttle, deep space ships and Martian shuttle. We don't want NASA acting like it in the tourist business, but NASA needs to have there own space ship and tourist business would be left the those private carriers to deal with that problem.

The United States making this kind of discussion to commit to a National Goal by an American President like Kennedy or the way that FDR dealt with the depression and marshaled American people to fight a war on two fronts and win both wars, But this time we are attacking the problem of how we are going to build a city on another planet and do it with the fervorence of fighting a war, but everybody on earth is invited to participate in the campaign with us.

I don't know any other way to build a Martian Civilization and the small numbers that everybody is trying to get to Mars will ultimately fail and I can see no other way to do it.

Larry,

Martian Republic · 2004-09-12 21:22:01

I keep thinking about the term infrastucture but all I come up with are water, food, air, power, and materials to construct with. Each we can calculate based on currrent uses from the ISS for the given crew size. Scale to size that to which would be sent to Mars for more exact numbers for each.

I suppose that I need to explain what infrastructure is and the term infrastructure means different things to different people.

Infrastructure covers a whole range of things and even break down into different categories as hard and soft infrastructure.

The hard infrastructure are basically physical assets like houses, car, buses, subway, farms, factory, mining, power plant and power line grid, water & sewer system, a communication grid and things like that.

The soft infrastructure would be things like education so people can work in factory, farming and other business. It would be the knowledge of these people who work in these business that were either trained for job or have had years of experience on the job, would be consider soft infrastructure. Companies that are training there employee are working on improving there soft infrastructure so there employee can do better job.

And of course your infrastructure is always changing as individuals invent new things or the government finance building infrastructure like subways or road or develops new technology itself and infuses it into the U.S. Economy. So the types of infrastructure is always changing. Like when we had a wood burning based infrastructure to a coal burning based infrastructure and one gas and then nuclear. While hard infrastructure is changing the soft infrastructure has to change with it. So we have both a changing and increasing infrastructure being developed inside the United States and it basically powers the U.S. Economy. It is the building of this infrastructure first by the government and then by business that we want to implement on Mars to power the Martian economy with.

Larry,

comstar03 · 2004-09-12 22:32:22

In order to create a viable colony or large outpost on mars you need a large resource base to be placed there in the first or second voyage.

I would use a massive cargo transporters that would delivery cargo in containers that are similar to the "viking one lander design" with a shell and parachutes. Cargo transports are unmanned and are strut-based designed vessels - simple vessels to build and control.

Each cargo transport would drop upto 12 or 16 large containers per voyage then return to earth. Some cargo modules could be colony living quarters and based components other transport vehicles, scientific instruments, other cargo food , water , medical and farming supplies. In order to build that rapid colony construction you would need in the first voyage - 1-2 human transport vessels and 2 cargo transports , then second voyage - 1-2 human transport vessels and 3-5 cargo transports.

RobS · 2004-09-13 00:37:02

Gennaro, thank you for the questions.

Yes, a shuttle from the surface of the Earth would only go as far as low Earth orbit. To get from there to either a cycler in an interplanetary orbit or a semicycler in a high earth orbit/lagrange point, one would either need to refuel the shuttle or transfer the passengers to a ferry. In either case, we're talking about a delta-v of 3.2 to 4.5 kilometers per second and a flight time of several days. In the case of the cycler, you're heading out of the Earth's gravity field in chase of a vehicle in an interplanetary orbit. If any sort of error occurs--the engines on the ferry shut down prematurely, the life support systems have problems--a large number of people are in severe danger and rescue is very difficult because they are moving out into interplanetary space. But if the launch is to a semicycler, located on the fringe of the Earth's gravitational field, the passengers are in a much safer situation. They won't escape from Earth, and the semicycler, having an engine on board, could go to the rescue.

If we have access to a gas-core nuclear engine, the situation changes quite a bit. The total delta-v that's possible is tripled or quadrupled. However, under those circumstances, why use a cycler at all? Why not use a semicycler? The "cycler" could fly to Mars in two or three months, but once it gets to Mars you have to fire the engine so much to send the vehicle back to Earth, you might as well not call it a cycler. After all, cyclers use natural orbits around the sun. A cycler that flies from Earth to Mars in 2 or 3 months is on an orbit that will carry it to Neptune on Pluto; its natural return time is many years or decades. You will also need several gas core engines, one on the ferry and one on the cycler, and maybe a backup. If these engines are 50 to 100 tonne monstrosities, as is currently predicted, and they cost billions of dollars each, they won't save any money and possibly any mass.

For that matter, if we are talking about sending colonists to Mars cheaply, all-chemical is the way to go. Nukes will add billions. If we want to send cargo to Mars, I'd use solar sails. We can already design a 10-tonne solar sail able to send 5 tonnes to Mars in about a year and a half. We can probably improve such designs until a 5-tonne sail can send 10 tonnes to Mars in a year and a half (this is a sail of the same size, but half the mass).

Martian Republic, I see your plan for spending hundreds of billions on a Mars city to be even less likely than any alternative. Such a plan would not need a John Kennedy; it would need a miracle worker. Congress will never go along with such a huge, multi-decade-long commitment. That's why I favor what one might call a "creeping colony"; start with a scientific outpost, grow it slowly, and convert it into a small colony over time. I don't think the infrastructure is as massive as you think. It would develop incrementally. I think one could find a place with evaporites, copper, water, and nickel-iron within a hundred-kilometer radius of a single point. The water is already there almost everywhere if you drill down half a kilometer. Low grade copper ores are very commonly associated with basalt flows, and Mars has lots of them. The Martian regolith is probably close to 1% nickel-iron fragments anyway. They can be obtained from dirt using a magnetic separator. We already know several regions with a lot of evaporites, and small deposits are probably ubiquitous.

Yes, a small population does not have much staffing to spare. I assume we start with a crew of six, three people for maintenance and three for exploration. All six people will be doing both tasks, of course, but some will do more of one and some more of the other. If the crew grows to eight, perhaps you have 3 for maintenance, 3.5 for exploration, 1 for agriculture, and 0.5 for manufacturing experiments. If it grows to ten, maybe you have 4 each for exploration and maintenance and 2 for agriculture and mining/manufacturing. If the outpost has 50 people, the numbers might be 15 for exploration and science, 15 for maintenance, and 20 for other tasks. At that point you'll have a spaceport maintenance crew, an agriculture team, a food preparation team, a person to cut hair and wash clothes and keep the outpost clean (coordinating robots), a construction crew, etc. As the outpost grows in size, the proportion involved in science would shrink and the proportion involved in maintenance one hopes will shrink as well, even as the outpost imports less and assumes greater responsibility for raising its food, manufacturing its clothing, making some spare parts, etc. Automation, robotics, and other new technologies will be key.

I would never introduce a subway or even a train; not until the population gets quite large. Too much infrastructure to make rails and power systems would be required. Robotic trucks and busses would be simpler. We already have the technology for a truck to use gps to drive down a road fifty kilometers. It isn't practical on Earth because of other vehicles, children on bicycles, deer, tumbleweeds, stoplights, etc. Those will not be problems on Mars if the road from the mine to the base is laid out for such vehicles.

I also wouldn't use standard terrestrial technology for making iron and steel from iron oxide deposits (hematite and magnetite). I'd use carbonyl technology to separate iron and nickel from meteoritic material instead and pour the liquid carbonyl into molds. It's less energy intensive; the temperatures needed are a few hundred centigrade, rather than thousands of degrees. Carbon monoxide should be plentiful and cheap on Mars.

In order to get to the step of building a colony of even 1,000 people, we need a scientific outpost first to try out prototype technologies. A small carbonyl fractionator on Mars able to turn out a tonne of metal products a year using one person's time might mass only a few tonnes from Earth. Running it on Mars would tell us how to make a much bigger one that would use human time much more efficiently. We can't easily figure that out using simulations on Earth.

We also need a scientific outpost to pioneer the transportation technologies. It's easier and cheaper to send 1,000 people to Mars if you've already been sending 10, then 25, then 50, then 100 to Mars over a decade or two. To some extent you can scale up your transportation system. And as the technology matures, the cost comes down.

-- RobS

comstar03 · 2004-09-13 01:17:40

RobS,

Long term we need to spend trillions of dolars , not billions of dollars on space exploration and colonization to bring the space economy into a critical mass position. In order to get benefit the population must pay for the space development without feeling the space funding is coming out of their pockets and their taxes pockets.

when I mean trillions it works this way 120US$B x 40 years = 4.8 US$T or ( 4800 US$B ) That would be all the necessary infrastructure in earth orbit ( permanent space stations ) and also a moon industrial complex, lunar space dock, asteroid mining ships, and a dozen plus cargo transports , two or three human exploration ships , a mars colony, and martian industrial complex. The human race would be heavily into space by the second half of the century.

RobS, you think so, therefore you don't come up with solutions, and the solution about is an active plan for a single private enterprise, it know how to generate the income stream listed above and then can devote that income stream into space development and all those assets are part of the corporation. That corporation would have the same asset base to US in space and on earth.

With the industrial infrastructure in place the corporate could then tackle things like solar power platforms and have the resources to build them, without the need for governments and provide the excess energy to earth for the population.

Alot of things are need to get the necessary infrastructure in place for the income stream to work and that will take time and development but it can happen. When it does, the space race will be private enterprise and government agencies across the world.

Rxke · 2004-09-13 03:08:59

comstar, you can't blame anyone thinking 120B/yr sounds huge.

Today all combined agencies spend some 50B/yr, that's not only manned, but commsats etc...

So a prvate corp more than doubling that sounds quite... impressive. You say you know how to come up with such an income stream *and* divert it to space development. I hope you're right, really do... Most people here do, I'm sure. But it's hard to believe w/o proof.

That's why 'everybody' comes up with 'cheap' scenario's... extrapolating from the budgets that are in play today... Hoping those budgets grow, but not betting on it, heck, budgets get slashed... And a lot of private corps in spaceindustry are dependant on the market NASA et al 'create,' for now...

BTW: has it anything to do with this?
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/219/1]The Space Review about Spacesetlement.org's ideas for making settlement profitable

You don't *have* to answer, but we're all quite curious, heehee.

Cheers, Rik.

comstar03 · 2004-09-13 03:34:04

Rxxke,

I know, I am a long way to go yet to bring the income stream operational but when ready to go live, I will invite the mars society members - a preview to the event that will change the space future of humanity in space.

comstar03 · 2004-09-13 03:41:08

Rxxke,

It was a ten ( 10 ) year process of formation and development for the processes and structures to create the right components to get the infrastructure vehicles that when combined will produce the desire effect ( that is the income stream for space development )

Now off the paper into the implementation phase and on a strict timeline to meet my objectives / goals. from now til landing on Mars - 20-25 years. Its a journey of new solutions and innovation and industrial evolution but it will get there.

Rxke · 2004-09-13 03:58:04

Teaser!

20-25 years... I'll be 54-59 by then.... Any chance old geezers can make themselves useful there?

Only half kidding. Read several times older people would be the preferred crew initially, but i guess they mean very early 50's, not end 50's...
Mainly because of the radiation: old geezers have less worries to become infertile etc. IMO quite a lame reason, but whatever.
More worthwile would be their long-time experience: I'd hire an engineer-building expert-whatever with wrinkes above a young kid, fresh from school, if that older guy is fit enough to do long hours... The younger people are welcome, too, of course, if they wanted to stay for extended periods and learn the ropes from the older hands. *they* will become the experts in no time that way.

Of course, being realistic: older people tend to die more often or get debilitating afflictions, and an old-people-home (what do you call it in English?) will probably not score very high on the priority-list for some years...

Let's make a deal: when I become too much of a liability, throw me in the recyclers, ok?

Gennaro · 2004-09-13 05:49:39

RobS, allright. I'm not sure but it seems our definitions for "cycler" differs somewhat. By that word I simply mean an interplanetary 'commuter' of any kind, using any sort of trajectory from any orbit to another, being able to refuel, return and start out again, more or less indefinitely.
For example, to place itself in orbit if coming in from a 'fast' angle, an advanced, versatile high ISP 'cycler' could supposedly turn around and use its rocket engines as brakes or even deploy a magsail if that would be possible.

Hum, so from your viewpoint, what's a cycler and how would you define a "semi-cycler"?

It could also be my understanding of astronautics is at fault, but I simply don't understand why a spaceship that starts off from an orbit (LEO, MLO) would have to round Neptune in order to return.

Yes, a shuttle from the surface of the Earth would only go as far as low Earth orbit. To get from there to either a cycler in an interplanetary orbit or a semicycler in a high earth orbit/lagrange point, one would either need to refuel the shuttle or transfer the passengers to a ferry.

So in that case we'd have to launch several more 'shuttles' just in order to refuel the original 'shuttle' or 'ferry' so it could continue to high earth orbit or a Lagrange Point?
Also, how do we refuel the cycler when it's out of reach from the 'shuttles' going to LEO? By launching more shuttles that will tank up and load out even more shuttles/ferries to get fuel to the cycler?
Seems like an awful lot of launches and cargo exchanges just to get one single interplanetary mission on the way.

Finally, solar sails would be a cheap and commendable way to haul cargo, but settling for that aren't we again restricted to very tight launch windows with long lulls in between if we are planning to go to Mars?
The restricted launch windows could serve as an obvious advantage for the moon as a destination considering we can reach it anytime of the year for a transit of only 3 days.

Rxke · 2004-09-13 06:03:53

Cyclers are big ships that go around in interplanetary orbits w/o using much fuel... Because most of their mass is dedicated to storage, rather than engines. their ability to change orbits etc is fairly limited, but their cargo-capacity makes good. Mainly a lot of empty space and docking compartments, when they zip past earth, or Mars, Luna... you rendezvous w them, offload your cargo, and return. The cyclers don't stop, so you've got to be punctual.
that way you can use fairly lightweight shuttles, tugs etc... and still get a lot of stuff out. At least that's the idea... IIRC Aldrin is a big fan of the idea.

Something like a big, big sealiner that does *not* goes into port, because it doesnt have the required "delta-v" to stop and start efficiently, but passes the ports, small boats chase it, and do their stuff...

Gennaro · 2004-09-13 06:21:36

Gennaro,
I think you have a different understand to wealth that we have. The principle we work off - is that wealth and income are based on the resources, opportunities and control in a given marketplace and the evolution of that marketplace.
In simple terms for you, gennaro - Space is a vast store of resources, opportunities and control of that marketplace - thus who can control through building the infrastructure, coonies and administration framework in turn can then determine the cost recovery of the investment and profit margin.
Because the world nations can not enter the marketplace as controllers as they are on earth , the dynamics of this economic marketplace have changed. The governments think that they are the only one's capable of getting to the planets, So the other legal issues, moral, and cutlural issues that will not occur because they will be extensions of their nations.
But, " murphy's law " or "chaos principle" comes into it and can put a spanner into the designers of the outer space treaty. This means that a a group of individuals do what a nation can't take control over a section or planetary body, and you then going to that body you will need to follow the rules (constitution) of that body or you can be casted out.
---
Gennaro, just think a bit more below coming to the conclusions things can't happen because they can - I will give you this clue - think of a method from earth a private corporation could mass a continuous income stream of 120-150 US$B per annum then you will know how it can fund space infrastructure !!!. ( because I have, and working on the implementation !!!! )

Well comstar, you had better have something very special up your sleeve (won't say I'm not curious!!!) because when it comes to products supplied from space that could alternatively be supplied from earth, like more or less everything anyone has yet thought about apart from micro gravity manufacturing in LEO, the problem of profitability for free enterprise should be obvious.
Thing is with all these investments, infrastructure and spaceships, the profit margin shrinks by a corresponding amount in relation to earth produced alternatives. If you slice it up in shares, which will be necessary considering the capital size, the responsibility of the management is to get profit for the shareholders, otherwise they'll sell off and invest in something more lucrative and the value of your company will sink like stone.
Easily put, space isn't competitive compared to terran investment opportunities.
However, a state organization can disregard this fact and sell the merchandise on the market for what it's worth provided there is still a marginal net profit. That's why governments can engage in interplanetary commerce and lead the way while free market forces are essentially off.

Then I simply don't see why so many people are infatuated with this idea that space entreprenuers will somehow cast off the yoke of terran legislation and control in order to found some renegade state in the skies. Is it that strange 1776 American mythos up and running again? If so the rest of the world are kind of a miss here and doesn't understand the obviously profound role it plays in the American mind.

Unless of course, you are planning on a virtual exodus of the chosen in order to create an all cislunar economy...

Gennaro · 2004-09-13 06:42:17

Cyclers are big ships that go around in interplanetary orbits w/o using much fuel... Because most of their mass is dedicated to storage, rather than engines. their ability to change orbits etc is fairly limited, but their cargo-capacity makes good. Mainly a lot of empty space and docking compartments, when they zip past earth, or Mars, Luna... you rendezvous w them, offload your cargo, and return. The cyclers don't stop, so you've got to be punctual.
that way you can use fairly lightweight shuttles, tugs etc... and still get a lot of stuff out. At least that's the idea... IIRC Aldrin is a big fan of the idea.
Something like a big, big sealiner that does *not* goes into port, because it doesnt have the required "delta-v" to stop and start efficiently, but passes the ports, small boats chase it, and do their stuff...

Ah, thanks Rxke! Now I see I was obviously using the term inappropriately all along. I was thinking more in terms interplanetary longships pioneering the solar system in terms of cargo capacity and versatility. Ships that would indeed 'stop' by performing orbital injection.

Rxke · 2004-09-13 06:56:55

You're welcome.

I forgot to add that my description was a bit rusty and vague, and there's more to it than what I was mumbling....

Like the cyclers can't go on indefinitely w/o orbital manouvring etc...
The idea has a lot of fans but a lot of opponents, too. (Sounds familiar...)

comstar03 · 2004-09-13 08:05:48

Gennaro,

I like your attitude, Its doesn't understand that the rules for space are not the same rules we have on earth, because the rules are changed by the outer space treaty. Firstly, I know that the US and other nations that signed the treaty well dissolve the treaty when they realise that private enterprise can do things they can't.

Remember, it comes done to size, infrastructure , personnel and resources, will determine the control of colonies, bases, ships and platforms near earth and throughout the solar system.

Say a private enterprise get to the size that we are displaying in real terms, that would mean they would have the same abilities as a country in means of resources. Then the countries would then must change the way they approach with this corporation, for trade, human resources including colonists and other legal frameworks.

Gennaro, you have issues with a corporation of that size, I don't, it depends on how wheels the power of that corporation similar who wheels the power of the United States Resources. This is where new forms of structures will be created and delivered in space, new borders and boundaries are drawn and humanity expands and changes into something different.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-13 08:10:31

In order to create a viable colony or large outpost on mars you need a large resource base to be placed there in the first or second voyage.
I would use a massive cargo transporters that would delivery cargo in containers that are similar to the "viking one lander design" with a shell and parachutes. Cargo transports are unmanned and are strut-based designed vessels - simple vessels to build and control.
Each cargo transport would drop upto 12 or 16 large containers per voyage then return to earth. Some cargo modules could be colony living quarters and based components other transport vehicles, scientific instruments, other cargo food , water , medical and farming supplies. In order to build that rapid colony construction you would need in the first voyage - 1-2 human transport vessels and 2 cargo transports , then second voyage - 1-2 human transport vessels and 3-5 cargo transports.

I attack a problem like this from an entirely vantage point.

Let look at this thing in a forty or sixty or even eighty year time frame and what should this project look like at that time. in the forty to sixty year time frame we want one city on Mars of a hundred thousand people and in the sixty to eighty year time frame we want to build four or five other city hundred to two hundred miles away from the first, but connected to the first city by a rail road system. To accomplish this feat we going to have to have around two ships of various types and function going between the Earth, Mars, Moon and maybe even the asteroid belt even. Of that fleet of two hundred ships, some of them will be owned and operated, but most of them will be privately owned and operated, but most would probably have been government financed. This would be our stated goal before we even get started on the project and everybody know what our intention are and where we are going with this thing. Not only do you have the U.S. Government stated goal and strategies, but you will also have both private individual and corporation planning there strategies too so the can take advantage of the new market and business opportunities that will soon be on the horizon.

As the first opening volley to colonizing Mars past just having a scientific research center that is, would be a NASA contract to build three to six deep space space ship with a crew capacity of 50 people. They would also be designed to carry cargo and we also may build three to six unmanned cargo ship too. This will probably take us twenty years to do this. At this point, government credit will be opened up to the private sector to build the balance of that 200 deep space space ship that we say we need to have to support our Mars goal. A system of tax credit, low interest 1% or 2% simple interest, tax right off, government contracts, etc. to insure that it happens. It will probably take another forty years build those ship and build the infrastructure to service those 200 with fuel, be able to repair them. Those 200 hundred ship will be a mixture of manned and unmanned space ship. Some of them will be freighter and other may be mining ship and such. With this kind infrastructure in place or projected to be in place, we can now concentrate our efforts on Mars to develop it.

Larry,

SpaceNut · 2004-09-13 08:26:29

Property rights an article on space review as always very informative.

Races, beauty contests, franchises, and build-out requirements for lunar property
Lunar property rights are a critical ingredient to successful governance of the Moon. Sam Dinkin makes the case for using auctions, rather than races or lotteries, to assign those rights.
Monday, September 13, 2004

quasar777 · 2004-09-13 08:29:31

I agree. None of this can be achieved by Mars first. infrastructure can mean many things including people. during the construction of this, people will be needing to return to a gravity environment occasionally. & it wouldn`t make sense to constantly return them to Earth to rest from MicroG. & i don`t think this will be entirely govt funded. As i`ve said once there is actually a viable plan in place, funds will come. not only funds but some of the investors themselves will wanna come along. & quite frankly once they start doing that, no doubt they would wanna bring assets with them. & i don`t mean hard cash as i wouldn`t mean as much there. i`m glad someone explained the economics of this so i don`t have to, hehe. & i`m glad the homeless were mentioned too. @ this point in the development of Outerspace, anyone can become "rich" if they`re intending on becoming a permanent resident. & being "rich" would mean "owning" a salvaged Lunar Rover (Russian or American). or a GEO artifact. see the thread:clunking our way to Mars. or holding a patent on the 1/6-1/3g retrofit kit.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-13 08:29:43

We have heard all of these same old arguments for not doing space but they are wrong...

Marketing space to the general public
Efforts to win greater support for space exploration among the general public have largely failed. Jeff Krukin believes that advocates can do a better job making space relevant to the average person.
Monday, September 13, 2004

Instead, they fight against our tired and dated pro-space arguments with their tired and dated anti-space arguments, such as:

We need to solve our problems here first
Space is too dangerous and expensive
Space is a pristine environment and humans will only ruin it
No nuclear power in space
No property ownership in space

Why has this happened, and what must we understand to effectively market space to the general public?

RobS · 2004-09-13 09:07:42

As Rik says, a cycler is in some sort of permanent orbit around the sun. One type of cycler would be in a 24-month orbit around the sun, which would bring it back to the Earth's orbit to the exact same spot every two years. That particular orbit also takes the vehicle across the orbit of Mars in about six months, so the vehicle could go from Earth to Mars in 6 months, then sail out into the inner asteroid belt and return to the Earth in 18 months. This "free return trajectory" is a good one for a Mars missin to take, because if they have to abort they automatically return to Earth.

The problem is that when the vehicle returns to Earth after 24 months, the earth is not in the right place to send the vehicle back to Mars. Mars and Earth line up every 26 months, on average. When Mars is at aphelion in its orbit, the Earth-Mars realignment occurs every 25 months or so; when it is at perihelion, the realignment occurs every 27 or 28 months. Mars has a strong enough gravitational field to rotate the line of apsides (the line connecting perihelion and aphelion) of the cycler's orbit so that its return to Earth is delayed by one month or so, so when Mars is at aphelion Mars can be used to realign the cycler to reencounter Earth when Earth is more or less in the right place to send the cycler back to Mars. But when Mars is at perihelion, a small engine burn is needed when the cycler is flying past Mars to supplement the gravity assist.

This cycler is convenient to fly Earth to Mars, but not back; the return trip takes 20 months. But another cycler can be on the opposite type of orbit: it passes Mars, crosses the orbit of Earth six months later, then uses the stronger gravitational field of Earth to shift the line of apsides so that the vehicle reencounters Mars 20 months later. It is also a one-way vehicle, unless someone wants to endure a 20-month trip through the inner asteroid belt on their way to Mars. Possibly if the radiation hazard is manageable, a "half price" passage could be sold for this much longer leg.

Other cyclers are on other orbits. They encounter the Earth and Mars less often; twice every five Earth years, for example. Sometimes they cross the Earth's orbit and Earth isn't there, so no one can ride them that time. There are a variety of orbits one can use for cyclers and research on the optimal orbit(s) is still ongoing. There may even be orbits that involve Venus as well, because Venus and Mars encounter each other in a very nifty periodicity; it takes 230 days to fly between the planets minimum energy, but Venus's orbit is 225 days. One could imagine a cycler flying Venus to Mars in 225 days, then flying straight back to Venus in 225 days, reencountering it in exactly the same spot in its orbit. The cycler then needs to wait about half a Venus year before flying back to Mars, so the cycler would use Venus's gravity to put it in the same orbit as Venus but with a high inclination; it would then reencounter Venus half a Venus year later and use a Venus gravity assist to send it to Mars. Possibly there is a combination that involves Venus, Earth, and Mars. But the one way from Earth to Mars via Venus or back would be somewhere around 12 to 15 months.

Now, semicyclers: I think the definition of a semicycler is a vehicle that stops at one planet and flies by the other. Thus a semicycler would fly to Mars, brake and wait in a very high orbit, be used by the astronauts to fly back to Earth 18 months later, then it would just fly past the Earth and use its gravity to send it to Mars. The next Mars-bound crew would have to use a ferry vehicle to rendezvous and dock with it. The advantage of a semicycler is that when the astronauts are at Mars, and don't have access to rescue capacity, you don't want a one-day mechanical problem when in Mars orbit cause you to miss your return cycler.

I was misusing the term in my posting. I actually prefer a "noncycler"; what the International Academy of Aeronautics report calls an "interplanetary transit vehicle." It would stay in a high orbit around Earth and fly to a high orbit around Mars. Crew would use other vehicles at each end to reach the planets.

But after a decade or so of use of an interplanetary transit vehicle (ITV), if it proved to be highly reliable, and if the ferry vehicles at each end proved to be highly reliable, and if rescue capability develops at Mars--say, a small fuel making facility on Phobos or Deimos with a tug and a shelter on the surface--then an ITV could be put on a cycler orbit and gradually developed. Possibly spent fuel stages could be converted into additional housing. Possibly some tens of tonnes of water from Phobos and Deimos could be added--that would be the easiest source, in terms of delta-v--to provide radiation shielding and, with the addition of a small solar thermal engine, they could provide emergency delta-v as well. At that point a cycler would make sense.

Comsat03: I am afraid I don't have any expertise to add to an effort to figure out how to get $120 billion per year for Mars colonization, so I wish you best wishes with your efforts.

- RobS

SpaceNut · 2004-09-13 09:13:38

Well neither will Nasa first was the senate and now the House Appropriators Slash FY 05 NASA Budget, H Rpt 108-674 - VA/HUD Subcommittee's report on HR 5041

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=13921

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Fiscal year 2005 recommendation $15,149,369,000
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation 15,378,032,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 16,244,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2004 appropriation -228,663,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2005 request -1,094,631,000

Here is the house link
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin....450324&

SpaceNut · 2004-09-13 09:29:57

Here is some of the work needed on the side of space suits as part of the needs of infrastucture.

The Right Stuff

The best materials and mechanical design savvy help spacesuit makers balance conflicting engineering goals.
NASA's plans to send astronauts back to the Moon and, ultimately, to Mars raises an important sartorial question: What ever will they wear?

http://www.designnews.com/article/CA450993.html

Grypd · 2004-09-13 09:48:00

Those suits will likely have a form of coverall over them as it reduces the damage done by Abrasive dust. I have read it somewhere that NASA planned to do this.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#226 2004-09-12 18:18:20

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

#227 2004-09-12 20:23:08

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

#228 2004-09-12 20:28:24

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

#229 2004-09-12 21:22:01

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

#230 2004-09-12 22:32:22

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

#231 2004-09-13 00:37:02

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

#232 2004-09-13 01:17:40

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

#233 2004-09-13 03:08:59

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

#234 2004-09-13 03:34:04

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

#235 2004-09-13 03:41:08

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

#236 2004-09-13 03:58:04

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

#237 2004-09-13 05:49:39

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

#238 2004-09-13 06:03:53

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

#239 2004-09-13 06:21:36

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

#240 2004-09-13 06:42:17

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

#241 2004-09-13 06:56:55

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

#242 2004-09-13 08:05:48

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

#243 2004-09-13 08:10:31

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

#244 2004-09-13 08:26:29

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

#245 2004-09-13 08:29:31

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

#246 2004-09-13 08:29:43

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

#247 2004-09-13 09:07:42

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

#248 2004-09-13 09:13:38

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

#249 2004-09-13 09:29:57

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

#250 2004-09-13 09:48:00

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

Board footer