The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

Grypd · 2005-06-20 10:40:52

I have to say this there is a lot of pressure to start oil mining and even mineral mining in antartica. One of the reasons that it has not is that have you seen the areas that each country has claimed as theres. They tend to overlap and usually in the interesting bits.

There is also a lot of pressure groups that really dont want the last vestiges of a wild planet to become a bastion of human consumerism. And im with them.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-20 10:46:58

There are lots of very difficult areas on Earth to exploit but man does not tend to want to do what is difficult though normal living. So anyone willing to go is not going with thoughts of joy or of pleasure but of tough work and the expectation of exploration of being the first...

Fledi · 2005-06-20 11:05:25

Yes Grypd, you're right, it would not be really desirable to exploit Antarctica, why not leave some untouched places here on Earth, even more with all the possibilities up in space.
But that doesn't mean noone would go and live there if it were not a protected area. For places like Mars I'm strictly against setting up comparable restrictions for the near future.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-20 11:52:07

I have to say this there is a lot of pressure to start oil mining and even mineral mining in antartica. One of the reasons that it has not is that have you seen the areas that each country has claimed as theres. They tend to overlap and usually in the interesting bits.
There is also a lot of pressure groups that really dont want the last vestiges of a wild planet to become a bastion of human consumerism. And im with them.

Antarctica is a big place... just how big of an "untouched" place is worth the very real economic loss of not exploiting what is there?

Grypd · 2005-06-20 12:34:20

I have to say this there is a lot of pressure to start oil mining and even mineral mining in antartica. One of the reasons that it has not is that have you seen the areas that each country has claimed as theres. They tend to overlap and usually in the interesting bits.
There is also a lot of pressure groups that really dont want the last vestiges of a wild planet to become a bastion of human consumerism. And im with them.
Antarctica is a big place... just how big of an "untouched" place is worth the very real economic loss of not exploiting what is there?

It is also a very fragile place that is suffering from the global warming. And it is shrinking.

To get to the minerals and oil requires very invasive and harmful techniques. Even the prescence of the staff needed to operate would cause an incredible amount of harm.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-20 12:38:07

Ya huh. You'd say that about any undeveloped place on Earth, classic environmentalist propoganda talking points.

Again, Antarctica is a big place. A continent even. Putting few dozen a square miles of mines and oil derricks consumes a trivial percentage of this land area.

Grypd · 2005-06-20 12:58:49

Well I have seen the wreckage and debris and sheer junk around Mcmurdo base and what ever you do dont consume the snow near the base. It is heavy with PCBs

So just how do you think these derricks are going to work. Quess what the ice moves. The only way to operate is to heat the ice and keep it away. I have yet to find an oil operation that does not leak and in an enviroment that basicly stores up the pollution this is a problem.

And what economic loss. the only trade there is tourism and it is growing. It also relies on the area being reasonably untouched apart from the factory site that is Mcmurdo sound.

And there wont be any industrial activity too many fingers in the pies and the 1961 treaty sure resembles the law of the sea except its a lot tighter and the law of the sea has more or less cancelled undersea mines.

Austin Stanley · 2005-06-20 15:53:23

Well I think that key element missing in this discussion is the aspect of time. I agree 100% with Dook that massive moon/space/mars colonisation programs do not make any sense in the short run, say the next hundread years or so.

But if we take a longer ranged look at things, they begin to make a lot more sense, and become alot more plausible. Columbus discovered America in 1492, but it took over a century for mature self-sufficent colonys to become plentiful, and several more centurys for America to reach the high level of civilisation that it currently enjoy's.

So I agree that Mars, the moon, Asteriods whatever are not going to be the savior of our civilisation. In the Mars Trilogy KSR points this out quite clearly. There are simply way to many people on Earth to ever move a signifigant percentage off of it. We are going to have to solve our problems (population and otherwise) here.

But that doesn't mean that we can't expand our civilisation out beyond earth for other reasons. Given enough time we (hopefuly) will develope the technology and the wealth required to make this possible.

Commodore · 2005-06-20 17:48:04

I have a realistic view, your's is based on childish fantasy.
Why do you argue so for humans to risk so much to go to the asteroids when there is nothing there that we need? You call that advancement or evolution when it would simply be a waste of lives, money, and resources. All of that for what, more rocks.
Why don't humans live in antarctica? Because it would be stupid. But still you argue for it.
It's a good thing you trekkies never get what you want or a lot of people would die needlessly.

You know Dook you would make a excellent King of Portugal.

Fledi · 2005-06-20 18:00:31

Going down with launch costs is one of the biggest issues for now, efficient small scale production another. As for the time when large scale colonization will begin to happen, it can range from as soon as a few decades to one or two centuries.
If you look at the settlement in America, the Spanish were there almost from the beginning, with other developed countries following 100 years later. It is not a linear thing, as it wasn't in previous comparable events like the greek colonies for example.
The question for us is if we can pull this off now or will have to wait for another space movement in a 100 years or more to do it.
Only this time it is much more risky for the world to go through a destabilized phase.

Grypd · 2005-06-21 04:57:16

Taking it a bit off key for now.

http://www.spacedaily.com/2005/05061713 … Spacedaily article

An agreement has been reached as to who pays for the cost of any enviromental damage done and if cleared up by another country then it will be "charged" to the one responsible.

Grypd · 2005-06-21 05:02:48

I agree the cost of any thoughts of colonisation mean it is totally out of the question if sent from Earth. Using lunar minerals and the possibility of cheaper access to space could bring it to possibly within a financial possibility.

Still this is many years in the future and technology advances should allow some of the restrictions we face to be reduced or even negated.

Heres to an interesting future, I hope, but then again we have to start somewhere.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-21 05:19:05

So in wrapping up why we will have a slow but possibly steady process to colonize space.

Cost to space must be lowered and in order to do so we must have a mixed variety of ships to fit the needs. Everything from the LEO transport, medium and Heavy lift to reusuable lunar landers, ERV and so much more. But to get the mixed bag of all of what we will need is not just all a cash flow problem.

It is a shake up of the old ways of doing things by the cost plus contracts, the pork barrel inflations of ship supply and of jobs as a workfare program to make work that must all go away. We must somehow trim out all the fat to get back to a lean and mean muscled low cost system if we are to suceed.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-06-21 07:31:10

I enjoyed most of the comments I read from my last comment, except Austin Stanley. We need to work towards the long term approach and not keep doing the short unconnected missions like in the past.

The road for progress in this field will be generational and require long term strategies that the western culture hasn't been acustomed too before. For the Private Sector to move into space, we need to develop training centers and new methodologies to help current business adapt like they have started to adapt to the internet but taken 12 years to get there. The same will happen to the space industry as well, it will take longer to training and qualify personnel for space business affairs.

We need to develop large training centers to slimulate all forms of space operations / activities in variety environments this could be done through adding the facilities as part of Universities, associates with various scientific groups and government support. Once you have the business training and knowledge infrastrcuture in place then you move to off-world activities and streamline the risks for various tasks associated to various space based activities. ( where telerobotics can do it , it should be done ) Limits the risk to human lives and decreases the budgetary costs, Also it boosts the development of robotic assistance systems.

These are just two methods that we can get ready for space and not go into space by humans but it changes the fabric of the space industry bringing new participants and 100% private funding on projects that could develop massive benefits.

The cost of the scramjet technologies from NASA is about US$300 Million in funding the Australian Team Highshot funded their scramjet by US$20 million and had success before NASA. We can go into space but we need a larger volume of business entrepreneurs getting into space research and technology activities and find better ways at a lower cost to get into space safely and with a low risk to our lives.

Austin Stanley · 2005-06-25 21:01:04

I belive I have been a little bit misinterpreted, I don't mean to say that we should be working towards all the things you are talking about but a little realisim in terms of how quickly these things can happen. Dook is right to say that 1000+ person colonys anywhere in the next 25-50 years or so is both foolish and probably technicaly impossible. Mars, and to a lesser extent other orbital bodies are a long way away and very difficult to get to. Futhermore the requirments for self-sufficency are incredibly massive. This makes our project incredibly difficult.

But time heals all hurts, and solves this problem. Over the long hall, colonisation is possible. Thats all I realy ment to say. Colonisation is a project for the next century-millenium, not the next 20 years.

Loughman · 2005-06-26 16:12:01

Going back a little... the reason we are not going to Mars Directly or even it's moons, is because that is not the plan. We have a plan set out in front of us...to go to the Moon, then to Mars and then beyond.

Whether we like it or not, that is the path that we've got. There will be challenges to overcome on the Moon and those challenges will lead to skills and technology that will allow us to remain there (and other locations) longer and with greater enterprise.

Colonization is possilbe although unlikely in the next 20 years. We could have sustained human presence on the Moon and even on Mars by then. But we won't because there is no follow-through. Also, we don't all have our books out calculating the delta-v savings, costs, masses, and times that everything takes. Instead we have our popular science out reading what some fringe science reporter thinks.

Grypd · 2005-06-28 14:26:56

Well the Indian Moon probe and ESA have joined forces. For India it gets European cash and hi tech instruments. For Europe the access to the data and to have even more advanced access to the Moon. Not to mention the goodwill of an up and coming space nation.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050628/a … asp]Indian Telegraph article

SpaceNut · 2005-06-29 10:20:54

Many of the india rocket and lunar probe are in the space fairing nations thread. Which last I knew included an item from USA for this launch as well.

Now onto a repeat story on a force shield or the means to protect the astronauts on the lunar surface. Force fields may shield astronauts from radiation

So far astronauts have avoided radiation damage through a combination of luck and design. The Earth's radiation belts shield the International Space Station and the shuttle. And fortunately no powerful solar flares erupted when the Apollo astronauts made their brief visits to the Moon three decades ago.

Not so lucky with launching though.

The design involves an array of separate spheres with either positive or negative charges, which could be arranged to bend charged particles away from a lunar base.

Several spheres charged to -50 megavolts could surround others charged to +150 megavolts to form a canopy that could protect a lunar base from overhead radiation.

What a bug zapper, ouch!!!

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-29 12:34:08

No air though, so there is nothing to cause an arc, as long as you did't get tooooo close...

My concern though is, that the shield is an active measure, one that can fail if power is cut off for some reason. Did I mention that solar flares tend to interfere with power supply systems? Murphies' Law...

...Whatever happend to putting the thing under a meter or two of Lunar soil? Operating a mini-bulldozer telerobotically from Earth shouldn't be hard.

Grypd · 2005-06-29 12:46:57

It could also be used for vessels on there way to Mars and if light enough probably better than any shielding made. And not depending on having a lot of water as a barrier. Anything to make the mission lighter.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-29 13:07:45

*Hears alarm bells going off*

Whooooa there, now wait just one second... Again, the first reflex seems to be to cut corners; to cut corners with the safety the mission in order to save some mass and make it easier to get to Mars, and increasing complexity in the process.

This is the kind of thinking that got MarsDirect into such a terrible condition, that it refuses to accept that getting to Mars is anything but quick and easy, its just a matter of "out smarting" the problem with clever but complicated tricks.

No no no! Effective, simple, dependable... THEN talk about mass, in that order. You develop a Mars ship from the payload down, unlike Bob's plan of building from the launcher up, in order to save a buck and some time.

Develop your Mars ship, make the thing sturdy, reliable, and effective... THEN figure out how to get the thing to Mars. If it takes more mass then you'd like for your launch vehicle, too bad, thats the price of doing business.

Radiation shielding is a great example... active systems fail, even though they may be lighter, but they fail and the crew suffers the consequences. Instead, bring along an extra few hundred kilos of shielding (like water, which would be good in case water recycling failed), and leave it at that. Yes it weighs more, but thats the way it is.

clark · 2005-06-29 14:25:38

Guys, this is one of those “advanced” research programs NASA undertakes. Similar to the antimatter propulsion research they conduct.

Something like this has a long way to go, and if you delve into it, you will see that.

This is meant to be a high risk- high pay-off research program (DARPA does stuff like this too). No one is seriously considering planning around this as is. However, one day, creating an energy shield may make dealing with radiation that much easier. But that day is a long way off, and this is just an advanced research idea.

Grypd · 2005-06-29 15:15:39

*Hears alarm bells going off*
Whooooa there, now wait just one second... Again, the first reflex seems to be to cut corners; to cut corners with the safety the mission in order to save some mass and make it easier to get to Mars, and increasing complexity in the process.
This is the kind of thinking that got MarsDirect into such a terrible condition, that it refuses to accept that getting to Mars is anything but quick and easy, its just a matter of "out smarting" the problem with clever but complicated tricks.
No no no! Effective, simple, dependable... THEN talk about mass, in that order. You develop a Mars ship from the payload down, unlike Bob's plan of building from the launcher up, in order to save a buck and some time.
Develop your Mars ship, make the thing sturdy, reliable, and effective... THEN figure out how to get the thing to Mars. If it takes more mass then you'd like for your launch vehicle, too bad, thats the price of doing business.
Radiation shielding is a great example... active systems fail, even though they may be lighter, but they fail and the crew suffers the consequences. Instead, bring along an extra few hundred kilos of shielding (like water, which would be good in case water recycling failed), and leave it at that. Yes it weighs more, but thats the way it is.

But anything that reduces risk should be taken up and something that reduces the radiation count that the astronauts take is definitly worth it. I always understood that it is not ready now but it is a worthwhile technology to develop. If only to keep a protective cover over the people we need to work on the surface of a medium term Lunar base.

We have discussed this technology before and it is a good idea was the general consensus but it is one for the longer term and frankly probably will never be ready for the first missions to Mars. But if we ever start to send large contingents to Mars it will be necassary as using mass to protect larger contingents makes for extremely expensive to use cyclers.

still who knows.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-30 05:15:07

While I am all for the research it to such devices, there comes a time thou when one must build it and actually use it in order find all the pitfalls within its design.
The better way to go about this is to design it in the environment that it will be used within.

edit
NASA Funds Space Radiation Research Proposals

NASA selected 21 space radiation research proposals for funding. Approximately $19 million will be spent on the research to support the Vision for Space Exploration.
The goal of NASA's Space Radiation Program is to ensure humans can safely live and work in space. Safely means acceptable risks are not exceeded during crews' lifetime. Acceptable risks include limits on post and multi-mission consequences, such as excess lifetime fatal cancer vulnerability.

Lots of entries:

NASA received 115 responses to the request for proposals issued on August 24, 2004. Proposals were peer-reviewed by scientific and technical experts from academia, government, and industry. The 21 proposals will seek to reduce the uncertainties in risk predictions, including cancer, degenerative tissue damage, cataracts, hereditary, fertility, and sterility. They also cover acute risks and development of effective shielding or biological countermeasures for them.

Accepted NASA Space Radiation Research Proposals list.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-07-05 03:58:07

I think that you all have lost the overall reason why we should go into space , go to the moon, go to mars and beyond. I think that Mars direct and the research they are doing are valuable but needs more in terms that the public and entrenpreurs can grab hold, and could use for technology investment as well as a short-term tax write-off. We need to determine new business markets for resources, technology , society or transport that would bring increased value back to business sponsors in a near term or medium term ( 5-25 years ) , this will grow the private sector space industry and bring space into the public sector in everyday terms.

I see the Mars Society similar in thoughts of NASA for Research only and many of your members are pushing that line. What about the Business People for Space, I have been thinking they need this access to information, projects and more.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-06-20 10:40:52

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#52 2005-06-20 10:46:58

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#53 2005-06-20 11:05:25

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#54 2005-06-20 11:52:07

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#55 2005-06-20 12:34:20

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#56 2005-06-20 12:38:07

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#57 2005-06-20 12:58:49

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#58 2005-06-20 15:53:23

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#59 2005-06-20 17:48:04

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#60 2005-06-20 18:00:31

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#61 2005-06-21 04:57:16

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#62 2005-06-21 05:02:48

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#63 2005-06-21 05:19:05

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#64 2005-06-21 07:31:10

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#65 2005-06-25 21:01:04

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#66 2005-06-26 16:12:01

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#67 2005-06-28 14:26:56

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#68 2005-06-29 10:20:54

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#69 2005-06-29 12:34:08

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#70 2005-06-29 12:46:57

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#71 2005-06-29 13:07:45

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#72 2005-06-29 14:25:38

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#73 2005-06-29 15:15:39

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#74 2005-06-30 05:15:07

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

#75 2005-07-05 03:58:07

Re: The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

Board footer

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 3 - ...continue here.