MarsFund - Nonprofit fund

joshua · 2002-10-16 17:22:49

Hey,

I was looking at the Xprize Foundation's website today and started thinking about this. They are using contest to stimulate commercial and private passenger space flight for the average person by signing up groups to design and build working space shuttles. The part that got my attention was all the people who are sponsoring them. Maybe a similiar organization could be form to collect money to pay for a mars mission. Nonprofits from what I read can start and own a for-profit corporation as long as it doesn't take away from their original mission. The organization could collect the money to fund the startup of the company to do the mars mission well at the same time education the public on the benefits of space exploration. Come on look at all the technology and development that have resulted from the space industry. Any ideas.

nebob2 · 2002-10-16 17:58:56

You would need a prize 2-3000 times as large to make it worth the risk. I remember reading a book where someone did this. I don't think that this is possible in the next 30 years. Look how long it has taken to try to earn the x prize. Getting to Mars is a thousand times more difficult then a suborbital flight. It may be used as an encouragement for all the national space programs to get their acts together.

Phobos · 2002-10-16 18:55:44

Getting to Mars is a thousand times more difficult then a suborbital flight. It may be used as an encouragement for all the national space programs to get their acts together.

I don't think governments would really be encouraged much by a prize since their way of doing things is to inflate the cost about 2-3000 times what it could have been. ??? If we can get a space elevator built, I think there's a slight possibility that a non-profit organization might be able to rack up enough funds to send a few people to Mars. It just depends on how advanced our technology becomes in the next few decades if they do get an s.e. built.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-10-16 22:01:03

I guess this is a bit of a digression from the topic, but I just wanted to express my support for a space elevator, too!

I've noticed Phobos keeps coming back to the elevator in his posts, and I think his enthusiasm for it is very well founded.
If we can erect a half dozen of these things at intervals around the equator, all the other discussions of heavy-lift vehicles and riding to Mars in small dangerous 'tuna cans' will be moot.
The difference it will make to humanity's spacefaring capability will be enormous.

I think maybe we should just drop everything else and make a concerted global push to get the first 'beanstalk' up there as soon as possible!

nebob2 · 2002-10-17 00:23:03

Do we even have the capibility of building an elevator capible of lifting from the Earth's surface to geosyncrinous orbit, everthing I have read has stated that modern material science is incapible of building a strong enough teather, even from pro-elevator sources. An elevator capible of moving payload from a low to a higher altitude is quite possible, and would be a good investment.

A HLV is needed to build an elevator anyways, so we need to concentarte on step one first. A cheep HLV would change everything.

Phobos · 2002-10-17 16:52:24

I guess this is a bit of a digression from the topic, but I just wanted to express my support for a space elevator, too!
I've noticed Phobos keeps coming back to the elevator in his posts, and I think his enthusiasm for it is very well founded.
If we can erect a half dozen of these things at intervals around the equator, all the other discussions of heavy-lift vehicles and riding to Mars in small dangerous 'tuna cans' will be moot.
The difference it will make to humanity's spacefaring capability will be enormous.
I think maybe we should just drop everything else and make a concerted global push to get the first 'beanstalk' up there as soon as possible!

Yeah, you can probably count me an official space elevator nut. It would provide enormous benefits to spaceflight. Not only would it be vastly cheaper than putting payloads into orbit using old fashioned methods, it can also throw payloads on trajectories to the Moon, Mars, etc. You'd only need to take enough fuel to make minor trajectory corrections and landings. Personally, I'd have no problem with dropping practically everything and working full blast on a space elevator. I think space elevators will be way more likely to open space to the masses than heavy lift rockets.

Do we even have the capibility of building an elevator capible of lifting from the Earth's surface to geosyncrinous orbit, everthing I have read has stated that modern material science is incapible of building a strong enough teather, even from pro-elevator sources. An elevator capible of moving payload from a low to a higher altitude is quite possible, and would be a good investment.
A HLV is needed to build an elevator anyways, so we need to concentarte on step one first. A cheep HLV would change everything.

If Highlift System's concept for a space elevator is valid, the only component we're missing is a strong enough tether, a target which isn't too far off. Right now they've been able to make carbon nano-tube doped materials that have a strength over 1/4 of the that needed for a space elevator. It's only a matter of time before they get the strenght that's needed. And also the counterweight in geosync orbit would have to be about 700 tons, so you'd only need a handful of launches with existing boosters to get it up there. Brad Edwards thinks he can get the elevator up there in less than 20 years. His ideas seem solidly founded in physics with no miracle technologies needed and his resume points to him being anything other than a crackpot, so I think there's at least a fair chance he'll be able to pull it off. I certainly hope so.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-10-17 18:03:06

Phobos writes:-

Yeah, you can probably count me an official space elevator nut.

That makes two of us .... three if you count Brad Edwards!!!

Just recently, on the cover of one of the 'big glossy' science magazines, they showed a very exciting artist's impression of a full-scale elevator with all the trimmings.
This was no thin 'ribbon'. This was a thick strong column with the ability to carry two lanes of traffic ... one going up and one coming down. This latter point is important because Arthur C. Clarke's concept (and maybe that of others too) included the neat idea that, using superconducting technology, the potential energy given up by the descending vehicle is used to power the ascending vehicle on the other side of the cable.
That way, ground-based lasers beaming energy to the ascending vehicle are no longer required. With minimal energy losses in the system, the cost per kilogram of putting mass into geostationary orbit becomes almost trivial.

I love it, I tell you!! I just LOVE it!!!

Phobos · 2002-10-18 17:53:24

Just recently, on the cover of one of the 'big glossy' science magazines, they showed a very exciting artist's impression of a full-scale elevator with all the trimmings.
This was no thin 'ribbon'. This was a thick strong column with the ability to carry two lanes of traffic ... one going up and one coming down. This latter point is important because Arthur C. Clarke's concept (and maybe that of others too) included the neat idea that, using superconducting technology, the potential energy given up by the descending vehicle is used to power the ascending vehicle on the other side of the cable.
That way, ground-based lasers beaming energy to the ascending vehicle are no longer required. With minimal energy losses in the system, the cost per kilogram of putting mass into geostationary orbit becomes almost trivial.
I love it, I tell you!! I just LOVE it!!!

Imagine that, getting into space for practically nothing!
Now I'm really pumped to see Brad get that elevator built. Once a space elevator is shown to be practical, it's only a matter of engineering to beef the concept up with the technology you mentioned. Who knows, in fifty years we might be able to lift thousands of tons into space for what it costs to put a microsatellite into orbit now, perhaps even cheaper than that. Have you read that one novel by Arthur C. Clarke that's about a guy trying to build an s.e. by any chance? I plan to get around to reading it one of these days.

Gibbon · 2002-10-19 01:55:46

Something you may have overlooked in the pricing of the elevator. The actual cost to use the elevator would be close to nil, but there is still and investment of 10-20 billion dollars. I suspect that for the first few decades it will still be rather costly to send objects into space. It will no doubt be cheaper than by rocket, but expensive none the less.

On the topic of a 700 tonne counter weight, perhaps the US and/or Russia could follow the idea in Red Mars where small boosters are attached to the BIG space shuttle boosters to lift them into orbit. (a booster booster???)

Phobos · 2002-10-19 17:31:57

On the topic of a 700 tonne counter weight, perhaps the US and/or Russia could follow the idea in Red Mars where small boosters are attached to the BIG space shuttle boosters to lift them into orbit. (a booster booster???)

Did you propose this idea in the spirit of carrying the whole thing up in one shot or just reducing the number of launches required to lift the counterweight? I'm not sure how big the counterweight would be volume wise. Anyways, I agree theres a good possibility the first space elevator might not be as cheap to use as its being made out to be, but even if they go five or ten times over their target cost of $100 per kg to orbit, it'll still be a deal particularly if you want to put something into a high orbit.

soph · 2002-12-28 08:09:31

if we used a space station as a counterweight, wouldnt it be kind of really easy to expand the station as much as we wanted? it would be like a permanent life line, if anything needed to be fixed, we could send up help right away.

and is there any maximum size to the counterweight?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-10-16 17:22:49

Re: MarsFund - Nonprofit fund

#2 2002-10-16 17:58:56

Re: MarsFund - Nonprofit fund

#3 2002-10-16 18:55:44

Re: MarsFund - Nonprofit fund

#4 2002-10-16 22:01:03

Re: MarsFund - Nonprofit fund

#5 2002-10-17 00:23:03

Re: MarsFund - Nonprofit fund

#6 2002-10-17 16:52:24

Re: MarsFund - Nonprofit fund

#7 2002-10-17 18:03:06

Re: MarsFund - Nonprofit fund

#8 2002-10-18 17:53:24

Re: MarsFund - Nonprofit fund

#9 2002-10-19 01:55:46

Re: MarsFund - Nonprofit fund

#10 2002-10-19 17:31:57

Re: MarsFund - Nonprofit fund

#11 2002-12-28 08:09:31

Re: MarsFund - Nonprofit fund

Board footer