What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-06 19:16:28

So pessimistic Dook...

I don't think that operating a small Lunar outpost for science, technology testing, and prospecting will be ruinous with the use of a reuseable lander. With that in hand, it becomes practical to put a crew or supplies for only two Stick' launches. It will take a little while and a good chunk of money to set up this base, but I think its worthwhile.

We will also be spending some ~$30Bn at least on the ISS after Shuttle is gone, perhaps more, which eats into that scare-figure you have in mind.

The big thing is though, I think "starting work in 2035" is a stupid statement you pulled out of a hat to frighten people. We will probobly be starting work in 2025 when a Lunar base is established and money going to build it tapers off, which covers about half that scare-figure you came up with. Then we can start thinking about Mars landings in 2030 or sooner, since we will have launch vehicles, engines, and Lunar base technology in hand... we might even use Mars HABs for the Moon, or vice versa, with minimum modification.

Dook · 2005-12-06 19:24:55

A little too much faith? While that is certainly a complement you have no idea how overflowing I really am with absolute faith in God. Could a bird deny the existance of the wind?

Really, we all want the same thing, a better understanding of this strange and wonderful place created for us. Many of you attempt to hike straight up the mountain, climbing over the boulders, slipping and falling, many get hurt, some die, just so a few of you can get to the cold and lifeless peak to somehow build a town to make it easier for future people to cross.

But I want to begin work on a road that goes up only as far as it needs too to get across the range because the town doesn't really need to be at the top of the mountain but down on the other side in the beautiful valley and by the river.

Which one would you take your family to?

Dook · 2005-12-06 19:55:55

Pessimistic? Sure, because they (Quasar, Grypd, Commodore) are not talking about a small lunar base to maintain an interferometer or automated PGM mining. They want a colony of hundreds on the moon, maybe even thousands! For what? The moon has limited science and resource value so why establish a colony there? It's trekkie nonsense. A colony on the moon does not open the door to the solar system, it actually shuts it, forever.

2035 a stupid statement? VSE expects to be on the moon by 2020. How long does it take to build a lunar base that supports a colony? I think fifteen years is a minimal estimate. If they can do it in that time then it will only cost $240 billion, but don't count on it. What happens if there is a 'shuttle like' problem with the CEV? Also how do you taper off money to a lunar base when you have to resupply a whole colony with food, air, water, machine parts, and act as a transport?

BWhite · 2005-12-06 21:14:16

I don't think that operating a small Lunar outpost for science, technology testing, and prospecting will be ruinous with the use of a reuseable lander. With that in hand, it becomes practical to put a crew or supplies for only two Stick' launches. It will take a little while and a good chunk of money to set up this base, but I think its worthwhile.

Yes!

A re-useable lunar lander (parked where: LEO or EML-1?) plus lunar LOX both for lunar return and export to LEO to fuel LEO-to-LLO/EML-1 will lower lunar access costs significantly even if Earth-to-LEO remains costly.

Commodore · 2005-12-06 21:24:29

Once upon a time all the land west of the Mississippi and east of the Imperial Valley was considered the Great American Desert. Upon furthur review and after a little work it was found to contain vast riches, beautiful sites, and would later become the bread basket of the country, and in a pinch, the bulk of the western world.

I would hope we wouldn't be quite so hasty this time around.

As for throwing large numbers around, I could have swore you were one those robots only people. The fact is NASAs would have roughly $425 billion ($17b x 25 years) between now and say 2030 under current budgets. What are you doing with the other $125b? Not even the porkiest of burocrats couldn't make that much evaporate.

And for that price you will get a series of self sustaining outposts capable of slowly expanding themselves with little help from Earth AND 90% of the hardware fully developed and well tested for a Mars mission or just about any other target you can imagine that makes anything currently on the table look like a toy. And not just land there by the way, but repeat the process we just did on the Moon.

I really have to ask what you intend to do on Mars once you get there? Do you really think you are going to, as you put it, discover every piece, no matter how small, of the science puzzle, with a handful of 8 man reference missions? Then what?

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-06 21:37:04

No Dook, we're going back to the Moon in 2018, which is a nontrivial 8.3% difference less than your estimate, and hence 8.3% less cost. Maybe sooner if Shuttle/ISS are scraped soon... The Lunar lander is being sized to carry 20MT loads, which is enough to carry an entire Mars DRM sized HAB module in one go sans aerobrake shield. Its not going to take that many loads to build a small "Lunar McMurdro," probobly no more than half a dozen cargo loads. If NASA kept up a launch schedule like the peak Shuttle days, they could lob it all in only one year. I don't see how a small base could take more than a few years to build.

And when we do have a base set up that can produce LOX to provide ~85% of the propellant mass for landers, breathing oxygen, and water production then the only supplies needed will be food, crew, and occasional loads of Hydrogen. With the reuseable lander available, a crew could be sent to the Moon for about half the cost of a single Shuttle flight today, or roughly as much supplies as the ESA ATV with a single "Stick" launch all the way to the Lunar surface. You wouldn't need the great big SDV-HLLV at all probobly... which could then be dedicated to Mars.

Build the big SDV, the Lunar lander, and CEV-SM between 2012 and 2018, exploration missions for two or three years with development money shifted to base building, and construction from ~2021 to 2024 or so, then wrapping up by 2025 to start looking twards' Mars in earnest... maybe have Japan work on a pocket nuke now instead of launching their ISS module.

If the CEV has a Shuttle-like problem? Well, what if a Mars ship has a Shuttle-like problem? That argument makes no sense! The CEV (or the Lunar landers) will be smaller, simpler vehicles than a Mars ship so they should be less likly to experience trouble. And if there is trouble? Then the crew comes home and puts the Moon base on "auto" for a while until the problem is fixed... its not going to fall apart/fall out of the sky like the ISS after all.

The base doesn't even have to be manned year-round!

BWhite · 2005-12-06 22:17:34

A tweak to ESAS I have proposed at other forums.

IF (notice the "if") t/space or SpaceDev can accomplish ultra-low cost crew to LEO and IF (again I say "if") SpaceX for example can ferry LH2 or CH4 to a LEO fuel depot at a favorable price, CEV should be tweaked to remain on orbit between missions.

CEV needs to be capable of Earth landing just in case SpaceDev's HL-20 doesn't work or does work and a rendevouz is missed, hence a capsule. But, if alt-space produces genuine low cost to LEO, ESAS can be modified to incorporate this idea (CEV rides "at anchor" in LEO between missions) at easily enough.

That means more missions for the same $$$

If alt-space fails? Griffin still has CEV + CLV.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-06 22:44:12

I think the chances that Kistler, Rurtan's capsule, or SpaceDev's big ol' rubber rocket suceeding are slim, they just don't have the capital and Griffin isn't going to give it to them.

VTTFSH_T · 2005-12-06 23:00:35

A little too much faith? While that is certainly a complement you have no idea how overflowing I really am with absolute faith in God. Could a bird deny the existance of the wind?
Really, we all want the same thing, a better understanding of this strange and wonderful place created for us. Many of you attempt to hike straight up the mountain, climbing over the boulders, slipping and falling, many get hurt, some die, just so a few of you can get to the cold and lifeless peak to somehow build a town to make it easier for future people to cross.
But I want to begin work on a road that goes up only as far as it needs too to get across the range because the town doesn't really need to be at the top of the mountain but down on the other side in the beautiful valley and by the river.
Which one would you take your family to?

Dook, please don't every bring religion as a debate topic on a science forum. One, there is no way to prove religion is true via scientific ways. Two, religion and science have been clashing for the past 500-600 years. Three, there is no way to prove God created the Earth and if you think the Earth is so beautiful, go to LA, Louisiana, or SE Asia and see for yourself. We are killing the Earth. Maybe that's an incentive to go find another habitable planet.

Commodore · 2005-12-06 23:37:30

What about a big disposable HLV module stuffed with all the supplies needed for a year or more. It would seem to be cheaper than launching several cargo CEVs,
Progresses, or ATVs per year, and the cost would be far less than even a shuttle launch.

Being basically a big tank, and not requiring much in the way of shielding since its not really going to lived in (it doesn't even need life support, just be pressurized, the respirators by the door). Contraction/expansion issues should be limited, its only got to last about a year. It would dock in the same manner as the shuttle. Basically a big pantry, or storage shed, garbage truck at the end of its life, and if provided with fuel its second stage could provide orbital boosting, though that could cause structural issues..

It would eventually form the basis for the horizontal hab modules needed for bases. Real ones would have much better shielding, be strengthened (so it can be buried for radiatoin protection), and landing apperadi and a rudimentary method of surface locomotion (just wheels, so they can be towed next to each other and attached), one destined Mars would have a heat shield. One destined for the ISS could be equiped with a deployable heat shield to get an idea of how a Mars entery would go.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-06 23:40:44

Blah blah "killing the Earth" yadda yadda...the Earth is a big place, and the life on Earth is quite resiliant, it hasn't been killed off despite large asteroid strikes, supervolcanos, and ice ages there really isn't much we can do to it overall. With even a little better stewardship, the amount of environmental damage is probobly perpeturally sustainable without breakthrough technology.

This business about "would YOU want to live there?" ...As far as where I want to go is irrelivent, since I am not everybody and somebody will definatly want to go. But, we shouldn't give public money to people who want to set up homes in places which aren't capable of producing either a return bennefit or at least the possibility of a self-sustaining colony. The Moon, lacking gravity, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and only small amounts of Carbon and other elements probobly doesn't qualify as a self-sustaining colony, or at least not for a very long time.

Commodore · 2005-12-06 23:44:05

Dook, please don't every bring religion as a debate topic on a science forum. One, there is no way to prove religion is true via scientific ways. Two, religion and science have been clashing for the past 500-600 years. Three, there is no way to prove God created the Earth and if you think the Earth is so beautiful, go to LA, Louisiana, or SE Asia and see for yourself. We are killing the Earth. Maybe that's an incentive to go find another habitable planet.

Now now, realistic science can't debunk God, nor can realistic theology debunk science, because they each serve one half of human curiousity, the how and the why respectively.

I believe we are talking about both the how and the why here in terms of eploration and colonisation.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-12-07 01:25:47

GCNRevenger,

I know we don't see (eye to eye ) on this subject, I know you are limited in the real possibilities of human expansion into space means. I don't hold my hope and faith in government departments building our way into space, but in private enterprises doing the building into space.

It was private explorers that found the lands across the world and explored them and built on them and expanded the human settlements on them , it wasn't the governments. They provided the right environment to move that way but not got involved.

We now why we are having issues going into space is that scentists want the material values and the knowledge value of space to be for all of humanity. We are not ready for that , we are selfish race and we need to use the selfish methodology in developing and expanding humanity into space. Use the Knowledge gained in space for all humanity but the United Nations Committee made up of the space fairing nations manage land and resources in space and prospecting and mining licensing regulations that would allow humans through themselves or businesses to own property, mineral and mining rights on planetary bodies. Once that happens the development environment will change and space advancement will change.

Dook,

NASA budget is too low for any meaningful colonization of space to occur and create a vital space based economy. NASA would need bossting its budget by eight times to meet the long term colonization of space. ( US$130 Billion per year ) That would provide a budget over 25 years = US$ 3250 Billion ( $3.25 Trillion ) and would allow the expansion in earth orbit , Moonbase /s , Mars Landing and Marsbase, and venturing beyond. It would the expansion of optical and radio telescopes technologies in space and development of new fields of science in space. I know how private enterprise could build that volume of funds per year, then the governments could piggyback on private enterprise development into space.

In Conclusion

The Lunar surface is vital because its the only place where you can build large space vehicle 100's of feet long that could have nuclear and ion drive with fusion power and large computer systems onboard. The development in orbit would be more difficult because of limiting the design and size of components. To try build the same vessel in orbit would require the development of more and more space stations. On the lunar surface some of the mineral resources required are available locally and reduces the overal cost and meets other goals.

Grypd · 2005-12-07 09:12:19

Grypd: You don't understand how important it is that we discover every piece, no matter how small, of the science puzzle. What if it took another 20 years for someone to discover how to make electricity? Everything shifts to the right and today, in December 2005, we still would not have computers. They don't come for another five years and the first ones would be less powerful than today's calculator. Don't you get it? Science is magic.

You are partly right, but science that does things for its own benefit and without tangible purpose is a dead end. And only when it has a utilisation does it become useful. You used the concept electricity that is a very good example. Electricity as a concept was around for over 3000 years. The first batteries where created by the egyptians at the same time as they where digging there famous tombs, they had no use for it as anything except a toy to amuse. As it had no applications it went no where. (They also invented spin doctoring (Ramases the great and his battle of Kadesh), but unfortunatly that concept carried on). No only when we have an application to use the science does it become important for the world in general. Science is not magic it is a set of disciplines but one where the people who do it tend to pretend they deserve great worshiping just because they are scientists. Science is there to benefit everyone not just to benefit those who like magicians of old live in Ivory towers and demand ever more worship and money.

With it we can cure genetic diseases. Have almost infinite amounts of clean power. We can completely terraform mars and have an oxygen laden atmosphere in only 100 years. Go to other solar systems in Star Trek type ships. But first we have to figure out why quantum physics differs from general physics.

You are describing aplications of science this is more engineering or practical science than actual theoretical science work. Why go to space to learn to cure genetic illness unless of course that involves work on highly dangerous and potentially world threatening germs and diseases so that a Hot lab has to be constructed where if containment fails it would not pose a threat to anyone. To terraform Mars will need a lot of people to be involved and that means infrastructure built to support them.

Infrastructure on the moon is like building a railroad across the country in the age of the airplane.

So which is cheapest to operate and to shift a lot of bulk. Yep trains win which is why a lot of countries looking at the rising price of oil are looking to rebuild there train networks. Planes are high maintenance and need incredible support to function. Train tracks when laid make it easier and easier to have other trains follow.

I guess as a European you might think that Apollo achieved nothing. Only Americans have been to the moon and we kind of have a different feeling about it.

Oh no, I found the apollo missions to be one of the greatest wonders of the 20th century and long after we are all dust and America is lost to time they will still be talking about the first men in the Moon. But the apollo was never about anything except a prestige strike against the USSR and as such had no aims except itself. It only carried one real sciencetist and his few days there where to be the most effective and productive mission ever. We know more about the Moon due to Jack Schmitt than all the apollo missions and probes that had gone before.

I wonder what that flag is doing right now?

Its alone and getting dusty probably cannot even see the colours due to the fading and gray dust covering it.

Anti-colonization, yes I am, there is no reason for it. Apocalypse? Take 1,000 people who struggle out an existence living in cramped domes on mars, hundreds die before they figure things out. Then, sure enough, a giant asteroid enters our solar system. Every can't believe it but they are pleased we have a backup human civilization somewhere else. The asteroid approaches and hits...mars. Yep, manifest destiny. Do you think God would say we were smart?
Do a little figuring. Take the cheapest rocket, add up the number of missions it will take to land all of the required materials for a moon base. Use a 5% mission loss rate (pretty good for new technology?). Now come up with a launch schedule. Remember that NASA is still committed to ISS and Space Shuttle. How much? And what do we have for it? How much just to maintain this lunar infrastructure? If we do this NASA never, ever, does anything else.

So you say we should stay on this planet forever. That is what you are asking for. Why should we go to Mars, why should we even look up at the stars and wonder, Why have NASA in the first place.

There are major differences from the ISS to a base on the Moon and as we all agree the shuttle for the most part is a dead end it has no real benefit and has been a millstone around NASA and American space. NASA has due to this let its competition gain ground and it must now get "with it" and do what should have been done in the 70s that of creating a capacity to do missions for longer terms and for further distances and at a much reduced cost. The Moon base unlike the ISS can be left to automatics it will not simply fall out of the sky. We have technology that is coming to fruitition that will allow a Moon base to still function and expand even without Human direct oversight. But if we want to learn more about the Moon and also about the Earth we will need more Jack Schmitts. But the Jack Schmits need a place they can work from and this is a base.

The Moon has more also to offer it can make some commercial sense to operate there and that is something the ISS never could do. PGMs on the Moon are an example of a commercially viable operation and with the price of PGMs skyrocketing and especially for the demand for platinum by industrial users it becomes a case for a countries well being to search for these deposits. Platinum is now going for $1000 dollars a troy ounce and this price is due to increase as platinums need only increases. (incidentally Dennis Wingos calculations where based on platinum at $820 an ounce on the world market)[/b]

Dook · 2005-12-07 09:19:25

Commodore: The old comparison that the moon and space is the new frontier for us to expand humanity into. Well if human expansion really was your goal then why don't you promote a giant human colony in Antarctica? Or Mongolia? Central Nevada? Floating cities in the seas and oceans? Greenland? You don't because it's not Trekkie enough for you. A moon outpost self sustaining? No way. Not for another 100 years at least.

GCN: What's your cost and time estimate for your lunar base that produces LOX, oxygen, and water? Also considering that a lunar space elevator is within our means now why do we need lunar LOX?

VTFISH: I absolutey did not bring religion into the discussion, you did. Religion is man's creation. Religion has it's own rules and they are not God's. God's rules are known as physics. Religion and science clash? Yep, blame ignorant leadership (religious and sometimes scientists) that bickers rather than finds commonality. God created physical laws to run the universe and now scientists are revealing the clues.

I've been to LA many times, used to live 40 miles from downtown. I lived in New Orleans during Katrina and my apartment ceiling and walls are now covered in mold. I've been all over the world and I have seen many things. But you know what, it's still better than nothing. It's still better than a lifeless blob of dirt hanging in the void, bathed in radiation. You think creating a universe is easy? Takes little effort? Humans just happen?

Disassemble an expensive watch and toss the pieces into the air until they reform into the watch. Some say if you have an infinite amount of time they will reassemble themselves into that watch but they are wrong. The pieces NEVER form that watch. And we are not killing the earth, it's changing on it's own.

Martin:
A ship hundreds of feet long would never be able to leave the surface of the moon, unless it was 100 feet of nothing. The moon's escape speed is 3,000 mph! So what you are promoting, a lunar colony, would SLOW down any real effort to expand humans into space.

Why do you think that humanity should move into space? What's good about a lunar colony and humans living on asteroids? You are so afraid. You want to find something to replace your boring life so desperately that you are willing to run flat out into a dark void to find it. But there are trees and rocks and cliffs out there. Calm down, take your time, and go get a flashlight.

Dook · 2005-12-07 09:47:27

Grypd: To terraform mars we need 100's of people? With current technology, yes. But 1,000 years from now it may just take a single incredible ship that collects ions from the solar wind and assembles them into atoms (CO2, nitrogen, oxygen) that are sent toward mars. Fantasy, yeah it is, but maybe...

In ancient times a person could make a discovery and no one would know. It would be forgotten. But now, with the internet, all newly discovered science is unlikely to be lost. It benefits humanity. Even something to simple as a way to improve a microwaves efficiency so that it heats a frozen dinner more thoroughly. On mars we may use a microwave vehicle to heat the regolith and release water vapor. Just think, we never have to relearn that again.

Aircraft easily beat train's in the cargo shipping department. A 747 can actually fly empty of passengers but full of cargo and still make money.

The flag is alone, yeah, but it's there.

Stay on this planet forever? No. What I am saying is lets be smart about this. Identify the goals, reduce the costs and risks. Just simply saying that you want as many humans into space as possible, no matter what the costs and risks are, just isn't smart.

Unless we can build a Star Trek type ship going any farther than mars is far beyond any acceptable risk/cost benefit. So then we don't need a space or moon colony. Now if you want a SMALL lunar outpost that conducts real science, then I'll support it. PGM's alone are not a reason for a lunar base because the investment (cost of rocket launch, habitats, cost of resupply, paying people...) exceeds the return but if you are already there then yeah, go ahead and pick some up as well. But don't expect it to be as easy as you think. How do you separate one part platinum from a million parts of regolith?

Now what do we do in the mean time? We build a huge interferometer on the dark side of the moon so we can (maybe?) resolve earth sized planets in other solar systems. What if we were able to detect city lights on at night there?

And, we go to mars.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-07 09:59:09

GCNRevenger,
I know we don't see (eye to eye ) on this subject, I know you are limited in the real possibilities of human expansion into space means...
...The Lunar surface is vital because its the only place where you can build large space vehicle 100's of feet long that could have nuclear and ion drive with fusion power and large computer systems onboard. The development in orbit would be more difficult because of limiting the design and size of components. To try build the same vessel in orbit would require the development of more and more space stations. On the lunar surface some of the mineral resources required are available locally and reduces the overal cost and meets other goals.

Its not so much "eye to eye" as your view is a complete fantasy and mine is actually rooted in reality, Tristar. It is a matter of opinion, but my opinion is valid, and yours is not.

You can't build very large rockets on the Moon much easier than Earth, since difference in structural strength won't save but a few percent of total dry mass in any case, which is quite worthelss. Again, the structure of a ship is not the limiting factor, we could build truely stupendous rockets here on Earth that utterly dwarf the comparitivly tiny Saturn-V or are even larger then the SeaDragon monstrosity (see NOVA concepts)... But we don't. We don't because the bigger the rocket is, the harder it is to reliably build or fly, and because past a certain point the payload is too big.

And building very large rockets on the Moon? Your grip on reality must REALLY be tenuous... have you ever seen pictures of the Michoud factory or the VAB except from the air? These are some of the largest buildings constructed by man anywhere. The VAB itself is half the height and more volume than the WTC Twin Towers that stood in New York... and even a building like it will be too small for a really stupendous rocket... Do you have the slightest clue how hard it would be to construct such a facility on the Moon? Or even one a fraction of the size? And you must, because there is just no way, no way at all, that you could do it "outdoors" in space suits in any practical fasion.

And the metal to build it with, have you ever seen a modern Aluminum factory? They are on the same scale as the big VAB or the Michoud plant, and such facilities cover like a square kilometer. They require dozens of megawatts of power, and here NASA is trying to figure out how to generate 0.1-0.3MWe. And thats with the choice high-quality aluminum ore and a supply of carbon and cryolite for the electrolosys process, without which will radically magnify the electrical demands. A facility on the Moon able to produce the hundreds of tonnes of metal anually would be a project much larger than even the Apollo project. Or maybe you were thinking of buiding your rockets out of cast iron?

And what if your competitors on Earth use the abundant carbon to make rockets out of carbon fiber? Your advantage on the Moon disapears!

The Moon does have a supply of Aluminum, but it is hard to extract & refine in quantities big enough to make a very large rocket. Here, the lack of infrastructure on the Moon is not an "issue" or a "concern," its FATAL to the idea of a Lunar rocket factory.

And why can't we build high-energy nuclear engines on Earth and simply ship them to orbit? The quality of machining and the materials required to make a reliable turbopump or vapor core reactor for a nuclear engine is extreme. Where will you get the Chromium and Vanadium to make turbine parts? Where will you get the Tungsten and Boron to make VCR parts? You don't even have a definate supply of carbon to make steel with on the Moon.

The future is not trying to build rocket factories on the Moon. It isn't. Period, end quote, full stop... The future is building medium HLLV rockets with modern manufacturing (SpaceX Falcon-IX or Boeing Delta-IV+ style, not Michoud's 60's vintage construction) for large loads and a true "no really!" Shuttle-II. With a sufficent flight rate, numerous lighter HLLVs will move payload more efficently than an occasional monster rocket, and spacecraft built from these loads would be tended by RLVs. Yes a space station would be needed, but it would be done right this time, and would be infinatly cheaper and easier than a Lunar Cape Canaveral.

And just how big of a ship do we really need? It would be better to build a fleet of ships in the ~200-300MT range then it would to build one big >1000MT giant cruiser. Don't build one ship with 500 seats, build ten with fifty, and learn to build them well. Mass production is the key, not size, because construction of super-large ships on the ground on any body or in space becomes increasingly expensive per-tonne as size increases. If the ship is kept small enough, then "kit" pieces can be fully assembled on Earth and easily mated in orbit; this is non-negotiable, it is the ONLY sane route to mass production. Its so much easier to build the parts on Earth, where we already have all the elements and the industries and a shirt-sleeve environment that it effortlessly trumps the fuel savings of Lunar launch, especially with the advent of cheap RLVs. Since reuseability is also non-negotiable, and since you'll never be able to LAND a ship that big anywhere, maintenance in space is a must too.

And with a fleet of smaller ships, you can go to more places, you can go more often, and you can tailor your transit to the need (eg trading speed for payload), or trading a fast fuel-hungry drive module for a slow fuel-sipping one, and you only fly as much ship as you need for the job. The flexibility alone of a number of small ships, reguardless of the ease of production, is itself enough to beat out mega-ships too.

Again, where are you planning on getting the fuel for these rockets? The only hydrogen (or any liquid reducing agent for that matter) that might be on the Moon is in trace quantities as snow on the bottom of craters, which will never be enough to satisfy a Lunar rocket industry. Importing the Hydrogen needed would kill any possible launch mass advantage dead too.

Your opinions to the contrary are simply nonsense

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-07 12:07:12

Grypd: To terraform mars we need 100's of people? With current technology, yes. But 1,000 years from now it may just take a single incredible ship that collects ions from the solar wind and assembles them into atoms (CO2, nitrogen, oxygen) that are sent toward mars. Fantasy, yeah it is, but maybe...
Stay on this planet forever? No. What I am saying is lets be smart about this. Identify the goals, reduce the costs and risks. Just simply saying that you want as many humans into space as possible, no matter what the costs and risks are, just isn't smart.
Unless we can build a Star Trek type ship going any farther than mars is far beyond any acceptable risk/cost benefit.
Now what do we do in the mean time? We build a huge interferometer on the dark side of the moon so we can (maybe?) resolve earth sized planets in other solar systems. What if we were able to detect city lights on at night there?

And now for you, Dook:

I think that you are getting on the hysterical/mystical side (especially your claim about your recent places of residence), and I want to counter a specific point you make:

The idea that we should wait to do anything until we have a superior technology is a flawed one; our basic technology concerning spaceflight hasn't had a major advance since Apollo, and isn't going to have a truely radical improvement for a while. And again, wihle there might be a big breakthrough with antigravity or zero point energy, delaying the start of human expansion into space is stupid, because these things may never come.

We have the technology now or close at hand to start laying the ground work for future space settlement, and since there is no magic Star Trek technology on the horizon, there is no reason to delay because we don't have it. We don't need Star Trek technology to explore beyond Mars orbit either, all we need to do is apply nuclear fission and high-temperature materials technology we already have.

We also have become good enough with biotechnology to begin designing terraforming microbes or simple plants for Mars. We could decrease the surface albeido of the poles by deorbiting C-type asteroids (which would also contribute volitiles). We could start drilling for water deposits now too (and maybe loosen/melt some of them with spare nuclear warheads) There are things we could do to start terraforming Mars in the near term with near term technology, no Star Trek required.

Dook · 2005-12-07 13:38:49

My claim? Who are you to accuse me?

LA, well I was born and raised in California so I've visited LA so many times I can't count them all and I lived in Camarillo California for 5 years (40 miles from LA), just moved from there October 2004. Had a nephew who lived down on Sepulveda BLVD who I used to visit about once a month. Also have a friend who lives in Signal Hill who I visited a few times a year.

When was the last time you drove down to Lapalco and Belle Chasse in Gretna, Louisiana? Do you know whats on the corner there? McDonalds on one side but what about the other? I'll let you search on Google for a while before telling you. A little clue (O^O).

You are the hysterical/self righteous one who constantly buds into everyone elses discussions but have you ever started one? NO! Maybe because no one would reply but probably because you don't have the guts.

You complain about Zubrin but he's talked about, debated? What are you? Just a troll.

Months ago you cry about how we can't test Mars Direct technology on the moon and now you suddenly side with it? Maybe because NASA is doing just that. Even NASA thinks you're a troll.

Your credibility just went to zero.

I didn't say or promote that we do nothing. I would say that your dyslexia is kicking in but I know you have selective reading problem. You don't see what's there but what you want to argue against. In fact what I said was that we should build an interferometer and go to mars unlike you who hasn't come up with any NEW ideas since...well never.

So what's your big plan for the expansion of humans into space and beyond the orbit of mars?

Oh, your ideas for terraforming, all stolen from reputable, and published, scientists. Can't you come up with anything new on your own?

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-07 14:11:37

You have suddenly gone from your regular "pessimistic" to downright mystical all of a sudden Dook, and now when someone mentions those two specific cities out of all the rest of the thousands in the country and tens of thousands in the world ("go to LA, Louisiana" - VTTFSH_T) you claim that you come from both places, particularly the ravaged New Orleans. This is improbable and suspicious, and with the help of GoogleMaps you could just as easily come up with a landmark (a national restaurant chain with a store locator no less) as "proof" to boot. With GoogleMaps you can even get satelite photos of major cities down to street level to find something. Also, you might think that residency in or near both cities would give you a certain "moral authority" to accompany your wishy-washy rhetorict and put-downs, which is even more suspicious. With people like Rick Dobson running around, why shouldn't I be suspicious when you claim to convienantly be from two places that other members cited as examples?

Last I checked, this was a "discussion board" that is open to all registerd members, so "butting in" and contributing is not prohibited nor discouraged and neither is this "your" conversation. (Starting to sound like Rick...) Many threads are started on some news in the space business, and since I don't read the space news sites regularly, I don't start posts very often, nor do most members for that matter.

I stated back when that we didn't NEED to test Mars hardware on the Moon, and that purpose-built hardware would probobly be more efficent for operating a Lunar base. I didn't say that it was entirely worthless to test Mars hardware on the Moon, just not nessesarry or highly effective, but that doesn't mean it isn't bennefical at all and we might save time (maybe a little money) using the same HAB for both. I wrote that when I believed we should go to Mars first and do the Moon later, but since the political imperitive is the Moon first, we ought to make the best of it.

And yes, I complain about Bob Zubrin, because he is an example of someone who wants to get to Mars too badly, and is willing to sacrifice too much to get there soonest. Up to and including lying about mission plans... Newspapers and magazines write critiques about other peoples' statements, why shouldn't I with something I am at least somewhat knowledgeable?

I read your whole posts, and the posts of the rest of the members commenting in this thread, I just don't respond to all of them, only the parts that I wish to. I made no claim that preliminary terraforming steps were my own, and infact these methods are either well known or conceptually non-specific, so I see no reason for finding citations for them.

You are getting quite wound up, Dook

Grypd · 2005-12-07 14:33:46

Grypd: To terraform mars we need 100's of people? With current technology, yes. But 1,000 years from now it may just take a single incredible ship that collects ions from the solar wind and assembles them into atoms (CO2, nitrogen, oxygen) that are sent toward mars. Fantasy, yeah it is, but maybe...

Still it will take a long time and may as well start sooner rather than later to make a habitable Mars. We have Carbon present if we can extract it from the atmosphere we use the oxygen for other purposes and drop it on the poles preferably the south this allows more heat to be absorbed and so increase atmosphere. Orbital construction of a soletta array would increase the light available to the surface again raising heat and increasing atmosphere never mind providing more power to solar panels present on the surface. We have the martian volcanoes and from Earth we learned these shield volcanoes are reds in effect they are lava producers. We should find nitrate deposits on Mars and with certain boosted bacteria delivered and the water the rovers and probes have discovered we have the capability to produce a lot of methane guite quickly, Methane is a super greenhouse gas it not only thickens the atmosphere it traps heat in too. In short we can get a greenhouse to start operating. Each iota of heat extra that we can keep in and more delivered increases mars changes. To do this needs a lot of people doing many jobs. We will change Mars but we have to observe these changes and be prepared for what is the biggest engineering job ever considered.

In ancient times a person could make a discovery and no one would know. It would be forgotten. But now, with the internet, all newly discovered science is unlikely to be lost. It benefits humanity. Even something to simple as a way to improve a microwaves efficiency so that it heats a frozen dinner more thoroughly. On mars we may use a microwave vehicle to heat the regolith and release water vapor. Just think, we never have to relearn that again.

Civilisations rise and they fall, The Romans had concrete and it was commonly known but with the collapse and the loss of life it was a forgotten technology until the late medieval age. The greatest center of knowledge in the world was the library of alexandria but it was burned accidentally by the Romans. There is a project to send a completely automated library of man to impact on the Moon and to burrow itself in. It would exist as the place man could store all its great advances so that should anything happen there would be a record of us. But more importantly it would be available for download from anyone wanting knowledge and as such a world library.

Aircraft easily beat train's in the cargo shipping department. A 747 can actually fly empty of passengers but full of cargo and still make money.
The flag is alone, yeah, but it's there.

Sure but for more mass sent and cheaper, trains are better especially as fuel prices rise but for ultimate mass transport it is down to ships, planes fly high value time dependant cargo. For your knowledge it is not only the flag of the USA on the Moon so is the USSR's. Actually the USSR has explored mor of the surface than all the apollo missions by the use of two telerobotic rovers. But it comes down to quality and Jack Schmitt wins hands down

Stay on this planet forever? No. What I am saying is lets be smart about this. Identify the goals, reduce the costs and risks. Just simply saying that you want as many humans into space as possible, no matter what the costs and risks are, just isn't smart.

Never said as many humans as possible just as many as needed to ensure the job gets done.

Unless we can build a Star Trek type ship going any farther than mars is far beyond any acceptable risk/cost benefit. So then we don't need a space or moon colony. Now if you want a SMALL lunar outpost that conducts real science, then I'll support it. PGM's alone are not a reason for a lunar base because the investment (cost of rocket launch, habitats, cost of resupply, paying people...) exceeds the return but if you are already there then yeah, go ahead and pick some up as well. But don't expect it to be as easy as you think. How do you separate one part platinum from a million parts of regolith?

We can go as far as we want as long as we can support it. PGM's may not be a reason alone to go build lunar bases but it is about a lot more than just that. National self interest and potential. I have no interest in looking for PGM's in the regolith im looking for the concentrated sources just like we have in the sudbury basin. The Moon due to atmosphere(lack of), Gravity(low) and surface conditions (broken ground) indicate it will be easier to find to find these sources. With platinum prices due to go up again this week it means that being able to find trillions of $dollars worth is of keen material and financial interest.

Now what do we do in the mean time? We build a huge interferometer on the dark side of the moon so we can (maybe?) resolve earth sized planets in other solar systems. What if we were able to detect city lights on at night there?
And, we go to mars.

Yes the massive telescope that the back or darkside of the Moon could be, if it has people and robots skilled in Moon building to not only build it but maintain it.

Dook · 2005-12-07 14:59:12

ISA: I agree with your post 100%. First time for everything, I guess.

GCN: I do claim to come from both places. I also claim to have visited 11 foreign countries, you want me to tell you about the sangria and paella in Spain? Octoberfest in Stuttgart? The bruschetta in Sicily? The orange-out sand storms in the middle east? I have driven across the USA three times and been to about 45 of the US states. You scrub, what do you know about me? Don't try and put me inside that tiny box that you live in.

Do I really care if you are suspicious? Why would I? Does where I come from have anything to do with the discussion? I guess I could have googled really quickly for the Hooters on the corner of Lapalco and Belle Chasse across from the McDonalds but Google doesn't tell you everything. Like the shitty wooden enclosures that hold the outside tv's there and the overweight assistant manager who always forgets that the early NFL games begin at 1pm eastern time which is 12 noon central time in Gretna. Google also doesn't tell you that the Hooters sits in a Kmart parking lot and that there is a Ryans buffet restuarant there as well where a pretty thai girl works.

You don't start posts EVER! You have over 4,000 posts, no discussion topics ever created by you and you rarely, if ever, support any opinion or idea. That makes you a troll.

Nice backtracking attempt on testing the mars hardware on the moon. You were absolutely against it in every way and if you weren't so blinded by your childish desire to trash every idea proposed here then maybe you would have been able to actually IMPROVE some of them, but then, that's not what you are here for.

So, why are you here?

Dook · 2005-12-07 15:15:25

Grypd: Terraforming mars might not even be possible. Mars may not have enough CO2 to even make the attempt. How does oxygen at the poles increase temperature there? Oxygen is not much, if at all, of a greenhouse gas. It's just going to freeze. Methane doesn't compare to the real super greenhouse gasses (SF6, octoflouropropane and others...) unless you can produce much, much, more of it more efficiently than the others. As far as terraforming goes, I'm all for it after we explore most of mars.

Hmm, lunar library of human knowledge? If we get wiped out and somehow the moon survives, who is then going to go dig on the moon?

For your knowledge, one of the Apollo mission astronauts drove the rover over to those russian robots and spray painted "Kilroy was here!" over the Russian flag.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-07 15:31:02

*Puts Dook in his "possibly irrational" box*

...hmmm, doesn't strike him that he might have just made up all his "facts." Pats ISA on the back just like Rick's clones too. Odd.

Just incase anyone else is curious, I like to come here and critique ideas, particularly for human spaceflight, in the hope of steering them closer to reality and productivity... And its fun to play Devil's Advocate too. I usually don't start new threads because I don't have anything new to say. Very few members start new threads on any regular basis.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-12-06 19:16:28

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#52 2005-12-06 19:24:55

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#53 2005-12-06 19:55:55

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#54 2005-12-06 21:14:16

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#55 2005-12-06 21:24:29

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#56 2005-12-06 21:37:04

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#57 2005-12-06 22:17:34

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#58 2005-12-06 22:44:12

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#59 2005-12-06 23:00:35

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#60 2005-12-06 23:37:30

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#61 2005-12-06 23:40:44

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#62 2005-12-06 23:44:05

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#63 2005-12-07 01:25:47

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#64 2005-12-07 09:12:19

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#65 2005-12-07 09:19:25

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#66 2005-12-07 09:47:27

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#67 2005-12-07 09:59:09

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#68 2005-12-07 12:07:12

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#69 2005-12-07 13:38:49

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#70 2005-12-07 14:11:37

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#71 2005-12-07 14:33:46

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#72 2005-12-07 14:59:12

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#73 2005-12-07 15:15:25

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#74 2005-12-07 15:31:02

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

Board footer