You are not logged in.
I think the first nation that figures out how to combine
Scramjet tech with Near Equatorial Sled Launch facilities will win the
Space race.
Boeing's Sea-Launch System can launch I believe 35% more mass into
LOE compared with Higher latitude launches. Do not sneer at 35%, because it conversly means that it requires 35% less fuel for the mass
launch.
All you need is an island near the equator where you can lay 6 miles of
Track. If you can run up your Sled/booster to 5.000 mph on the rail a
scramjet becomes much more efficient. (and if you can't make such a booster reusable, then you're fired) With a take off angle of
20 degrees Most of that orbital energy will really help things.
The Space Elevator Reminds me of fusion reactors, theoretically possible
but darn the engineering is getting in the way. (did anyone notice that
it is very easy to create space debris to cripple anything up there in LEO
including a tenous tether)
The main issue this in this thread I Started was the
Usuitability of the Moon for Colonization. And the
superiority of Mars for colonization. I still stand by that
analysis. So yes there will solar power on the moon, even deep space
probes sent from Luna via MagLaunchers. But the Support Bases will
be small with few human crew. There will a huge incentive to use Teleoperated machines or Well programed robots.
100 years from now my guess is we wil have
60,000 Martian colonists in a few expansive colony bases, average of
10,000 per colony bases
9,000 Lunar Colonists. Scattered over the moon with bases
no larger than 300 persons. there will alot
of sencond tier powers who will be able to afford
supplying a prestige venture similar to Antarctic
programs.
150 years from now.
1 million Martians
15,000 Selenians (being posted there will be considered a hardship)
I might add that having Phobos in a tight orbit offers intriguing posibilities
the #1 is Producding/placing reflectors on it's surface to create a very bright Night time. Eventually the Atmopheric temperature will begin to
rise constantly above 0 degrees, unfreezing alot of atmosphere. I dont
think you would ever get a shirt sleve enviroment, but with you will
probably be able to get GM plants to grow unprotected.
It's true that it's cheaper to create a small base 4-6 persons
on the moon. But for larger scale Operations over time Mars has the
edge. Having to port over food and fuel for 80 crew on the moon.
would involve high cost. And what about that 29 day Darkness.
(I know you could build a base on the polar rim, but landing there is
a mite bit more costly in terms of fuel & risk)
Your point of the cost of Landing and aquiring an orbit from the surface of
mars are genuine concerns.
But All equipment and Supplies sent to Mars
Never has to lift off again. With AeroBraking and
A large Parachute, and Small Retros, a mars landing is no more energy
consuming than a Lunar descent and Landing, for an unmmned
cargo pod that is. Even sending an Unmanned Return vehicle is
an inviting proposition, instead of sending a Full Mission Return ship.
What is really needed for a mars mission is the development of
a Stable Solid fuel that will burn in space with the right mix of and
an on demand release of an oxidant. Messing with Large Engines &
pumps & cryo tanks and expecting it to work over span of 18 months
or even 5 years is asking for trouble. They change out the Soyuz craft
every 4-5 months on the ISS, and Maintaining reliability is one of
the reasons.
I disagree, the Advantages of the Moon are Illusory.
The Fuel needed to go to LEO and perform
Trans_Lunar Impluse & Orbit Insertion.
is not tremedously Lower than sending a
similar sized ship into Mars Orbit using a low
energy transfer orbit. That's a bene courtesy of
the Martian Atmosphere.
The most expensive/dangerous part of a creating base/science outposton mars life support duration/reliability DURING TRANSIT
This is the only Lunar Advantage I see.
You could send Equipment, Supplies, Habitat. to mars to last years
If you sent it Unmanned to a carefully selected site. Critical equipment
could be sent in multiple redundant systems, all of this sent Months Ahead
of the Crew Arrival. The crew could assemble the pieces. (It's a long
duratiion posting, they'll have plenty of time.
Not having to send H20 & Carbon Will save TONS of Weight & $$$.
I would propose a 12 person crew with a mission duration of 5 years,
as a first mission. Their Mission to explore and Expand the Base
to quadruple it's size. (once again Aerobraking Makes Equipment shipments manageable in cost.
Once you've got the capacity house 50 persons. Self Suffiency I would
Imagine be their top prority.
Since this is the LAST hubble servicing mission, perhaps there
should be an attempt to give it the maximum amount of orbital energy
possible. Maybe via a very small ion engine.
We should try to make sure The hubble should not threaten to come down for at least 50 years. For 3 reasons.
1) it would make a nice Space Monument, a proper retirement.
2) it would remove the chance of some numbskulls proposing to create
a "repair Module" craft out of the Ares I. Just cause they can't stand the
idea of the Hubble coming down.
3) in 50 years, there would still be an option of retreiving it. A sort of
of Space Relic, just as we all know that the Viking Landers & rovers will become.
Radar reflections do not pan out
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/s … 01013.html
Unfortunate, Like I said monetarily 1Gal H20 > 1lb of AL, on the moon.
If the H20 is Lying deeper within the Powdery stuff it would still be plenty usefull for Lunar Bases. If it's found deeper bound to big blocks, then it's a Show stopper.
Are there enough Metals on the Moon to make Ship hulls, Magnetic Rail launchers?
We could still use Extensive Robotics to keep the Human life support costs down.
Well even if there is that monetary unit known as a gallon of Moon Water
in the regolith that can be mined. Here are practical questions.
1) How big a solar Array would you need to run a mining operation
2) Will you need reactors to power the H20 extraction process
3) Yields? crush 100 tons of rock to get 1 Gallon of H20?
Well, I can see that the smart thing to do is to set up the mining outpost
first and build cisterns to hold their H20 product.
Once you've got 100,000 gallons. Then you can talk about buillding a larger
base there: The real challenge will then be to get the H20 Recyling to 95%+
efficiency.
P.S. I bet those colonists would tear their hair out when a visitng LOX-H2 powered lander arrived (talk about conspiquous consumption)
I don't mean moving mars, I mean a colonial migration there.
The Lack of Nitrogen and Cosmic rays, Will hinder fast developement
there, But in 200 years I expect 100 million Humans to be living on
Mars. There wont be more than 5 million on the moon.
The newest Telemetry(From Horizon) reveals those signs of Ice Craters are
Wrong. It was a Fool's Dowser.
Prediction 1) on the moon, H20 by weight will be more valuable than most
metals mined there. 1 ton or water or 1 ton Iron. you make the call.
Prediction 2) Lunar Settlements, Will always remain Small in this century. Think how manyProgress Cargo ships are sent to the ISS, Now triple the price for trans-lunar voyage and landing.
Prediction 3) Lunar Occupation will be driven equaly by Military & Scientific
ambitions.
Prediciton 4) It will not succeed as a Tourist destination either. LEO Tourism
will thrive.
Summary: the Moon is like having a backyard with a very steep slope.
Yeah sure It can be used, but at what cost and why not move (mars) instead.
The ISS has a limited Life expentancy simply due to the Wearing of
components by hard vaccum /day/night heat stress.
Now I assume that the ISS modules have a redundant inner shell,
that helps, but even that 2nd meta hulll will be weakened by the pressure
differentials & cosmic Rays.
Unless you "reupolster" the older modules somehow the Hotel Idea would
only last 10 years or so.
And On the subject of Bigelow, His modules would have to be replaced too
eventually, difference is obcourse his would cost a fraction of what One
ISS module might cost to replace.
Griffin needs to smart about this, The Hubble maybe on his back for 10 years
or more if he doesn't plan this out. Along with the sevicing mission, they should include a Decommision to High Orbit module.
When the next serice mission needs to ocurr in 2 years, the public needs
to be informed that the Hubble will turned into Permanent Space Monument, when
a fixed date of deommissioning is is announced. It should be kicked up to a 7,000 mile high orbit at that date. END OF STORY.
This is kind of like Taxidermy on a beloved pet of US Public.
Russia is a dying state literally. See life expectancy, abortion rates, sterily rates.
Do not count on them being there in the long haul.
Russia is not going to make propulsion systems breakthoughs
Russia is not going to make Lifesupport breakthoughs
They are living off past space glories & experience (a true asset)
Russia is backed solely by Oil prices & comododity prices
Their industrial output is still moribund watch as they get in
trouble as Oil Prices start receeding somewhat.
Unlike some here, I don't consider Russia a Threat anymore.
Morelikely the threat is more from the possibility of fraud, not just waste, when
dealing with joint projects.
This is not Russia bashing, the USA itself has coasted & lived off past space glories, the difference is the
USA has the industrial/techincal might to create new glories.
The Chinese are going too slow to be a threat to US dominance.
If they were to pull off the following within 4 Years THEN it's time to
Kick it into high gear.
Space Walk
Develop Tools/skills for space assembly
Docking
Develop automated Cargo Craft
Orbit in a shenzou for 75% of max rated duration w/o incident
Test larger Booster.
Nurture a Cadre of Experienced Taikonauts (12 with at least 2 missions of experience)
As it stands It looks like they May Accomplish 2 of them.
And as someone previously mentioned, The Russians are sure to slow down
substantially any techincal assistance, if they see China potentially leaping
too far ahead of them in space tech.
Well I'm sure with advances Materials Science some smart
engineers will figure out how to use all that solar raidiation
and put the energy into higher energy launches from mercury.
I have heard speculation that Mercury was a gas giant at one time and that
the core we seee only remains. If this is even partially true, and it turns
out that Mercury contains highly dense veins of Vanadium, Platinum, URANIUM,
, plus water at the poles, And more of those somewhat rare but essential materials.
Does not that indicate that Mercury is the place to future raw materials for
the future of Solar System development.
I know that many people claim that the Asteroid belt is the best and most easily
obtainable source of precious raw materials. (Assuming the moon is just
so much silica and not much else.) It seems most of the materials available in
the the asteroids: Nickel, Iron, Carbon & Hydrocarbons, H20: is stuff
that while desireable is not rare on the Earth.
Yes, Mercury is one hell of a challenge. But I am willing to be it will be
the colonized for industrial mining, Before any of the Trans-Mars, Planets & Moons
are.
I know 1080mb is alot of pressure but I wonder.
A light bulb is in a near or total vacuum.
Is there a solid material light enough such that if it were
molded into a sphere in a vacuum, It would
have sufficent buoyancy to rise to, say where
the atmopshere is 100 mb. AFAIK carbon based
latittces are not imperpeable to the gases in our atmosphere so
the answer does not lie there.
It would not have to be large. Even if it were
small in size, you could dump a bunch of the little
hollow spheres into a rigid holding envelope to get lift.
Actually the first nation to able to get a launch vehicle to 2 mi/Sec
before engaging it's own engines will win the space lottery.
Which way would have been more efficient launch vehicle
1) Sled Launched into & out of a deep valley?
2) Carrier Jet/rocket hybrid
These two methods plus an equatorial launch latitude would
come close to halving the actual launch vehicle fuel/mass requirements for
orbital flights. Unfortunatetly Many of the semi-moutainous equatorial areas
of the world are either too Seizmically unstable or Politically Unstable, more's
the pity.
Great Probing, by Sprizter.
Their Theree Neptune Find however continues to errode away the
Idea that Our Solar System is the Norm.
It seems there is wide variability in solar system organization.
Since this find seems to comfirm that gas giants can form close to stars
it puts a damper on Terrestrial Type Planets in the Habitability zones.
It is speculated that alot of these upclose giants must have moons, just as they
do in the Solar system. But as far as I can see there seem to be only Two in
our solar system that are Rocky Worlds. Our moon and Io. All the others
seem to contain Water-Ice as their main components. Seems to me Gas
giants closer than 1AU that are near the Suns Size will have a difficult time
gaining moons unless they capture one. I suspect their gravitational force
along with the parent star will prevent too many Larger Planitesimals from forming
in their neighborhood
In reading some scientific literature on Anti-Matter creation, some calibration
on the subject is indicated.
Currently the capacity of the best Accelerator produces some fraction of
1x10^7 anti-hydrogen atoms per year. This means that that faciltiy would take 2 billion years to produce 1 KG of anti-matter.
Even asuming you built 25 installations and maybe quadruple their efficiency output Using only twice as much energy, that is still only 1KG of anti-matter / 20 million years. The energy required to run these Facillties 24/7 would probably approach the output of a 30MW a medium sized Generating plant.
Even if your are looking to create enough fuel for a mars trip, the figure i've
heard is 10-15 milligrams of fuel. Assuming the lower threshold. that is
still takes 200,000 years to produce.
It's clear to me that producing Anti-matter fuel will not feasable until at the
very least Fusion power comes along, and at that point you design fusion
powered ships, not Anti-matter powered ones, for Solar system travel.
Fusion however has turned out to be the perpetual motion machine of the modern age. Institutions come very close every year, but not are able to create more energy than they consume with their gizmos.
The more I think of it, the more I think that any Fast Interstellar probe will have
to journey inward toward the sun to redezvouz with a Anti-matter fueling facility
just inside the orbit of mercury.
I you were to try to scoop out Anti-Protons from the Upper layers of the
Solar Corona, Your Gathering Systems would have to be:
1) A mutiple set objects, since you could loose one easily to a major
flare at just the right/Wrong Place.
2) Wishtand repeated encounters with 5,000K temperatues
3) Not Dependent on Electronics for guidance, It would have to
be in a dipping Eliptical Orbit.
4) The magnetic elements would have to be solids.
5) It would take many orbits
6) You would have to rendezvous with this gathering vesel, to decant it's
contents.
7) All robotic rendezvous ships obcourse.
8) would it really cost less than Accelerators??
That's 4.09 x 10^16 joules for the taking.
Sure For Interplanetary Travel you would only need a couple of grams, and
could be produced on earth.
But since EMC still applies, this means that any manned interstellar
ship will require a few pounds, which means the amount of energy
extracted from the Anti-Matter was the same as the amount of energy needed
to create it on earth. For ten pounds of the stuff that's
4.09 x 10 ^17 Joules. Which is Approximately the Entire output of all
the Energy Generated by the USA in 3.5 days, assuming total conversion
which is fantasy.
The avegage Solar Flare Produces 1 lb of Anti-matter, This includes
Positrons & Anti-Protons. How much Power is that?
E=MC^2 1LB = 454 Grams of Anti-matter
That's 4.09 x 10^16 joules for the taking.
Energy of 1 gram of antimatter 9 x 10^13 joules
Energy of 1 ton of TNT 4.26 x 10^ 9 joules
Heat value of 100 gallons of fuel oil 1.6 x 10^10 joules
Heat value of 20,000 cu ft natural gas 2.1 x 10^10 joules
United States Energy Consumption 10^ 20 joules/year
So What fool can design a sundiver that can survive 5,000K,
By the way the anti-matter exists way up in the chromospehere too not
just in the densest hottest regions of the flares.
Your ARC SHIP need not be the size of Monaco to be an effective lifeboat
for humanity unless the Earth was Doomed and it din't matter what you did
to it once you left.
Your ship would be 50% Push Plate because you probably need to use
hydrogen bombs, Fission would to too clumsy at the size and quantities neeeded
Assuming it's your arc is 1sq mi.
that's .5 cubic miles of Iron-carbon matrix derived pusher plate (I don't think you can use lead, there aren't enough lead mines & processed Lead to provide even a tenth of that.)
You don't need something this big unless your talking about
a ship for a hundred thousand people or more.
I believe there was a study that for humans to have thriving society
there must be the potential for interaction with at least 5,000 other
non-related humans of both sexes.
That is close to the completement of a Nimitz class Carrier.
Assume you want ample Elbow room say 5x Liviing space
Also Space to store basic raw supplies for an endurance of 100 year, bring this
up to 10X Nimitz Volume.
The most effficient centrifugal gravity design would probably be a dumbell
[]------[] style design which means two launches, for each half.
You could create a Toroid shaped Spaceship, But you will find that the
Pusher plate size required for earth launch
would be formidable compared to the two launch dumbell.
For Taxing service between LUNA and it's surface.
I have always been amazed at how small the Upper Section of the LM was
especially it's engine/fuel complex.
Here are some parameters to throw out there, to help reduce weight.
1) no pressurized crew cabin.
2) lander is pure transportation only, assume it's a taxi to lunar base.
3) Lighter Space suit modest breathing pack(8 hours only)
what was the estimate, Lunar Space suits weighed what? 200 lbs.
surely we can trim loads off of there?
4) On-orbit & Lunar re-fueling available. That's right Fuel requirements
are reduced by 45%.
5) Egress hatch. (looked pretty heavy on the LM) Without a pressurized cabin, something weighing about as much as cardboard would do.
6) Computer, Avaionics, Huge weight savings here with modern equiment.
7) Three Legs
Here are some additions that would be prudent for a regular taxi service.
1) two engine design. Just in case
2) slight charge applied to exterior of Lander while exposed to keep Dust off.
In my mind I come up with something that:
Weighs 45% of a LM
And is 66% it's size in Volume.
Is water really the best shielding Liquid substance by weight??
What about a really viscous fluid like Petroleum. I have actually
tried to plunge a 3 inch rod into a vat. (La Brea Tar Pits) it takes real effort,
It sure seems to me that a 1 foot thick layer if that stuff would absorb an awfull lot of kinetic energy.
But If you want to get sillier you could use Honey.
However after a long while the Carbon bond breaking would result
in a inedible mix of Sugars + Methane + Etane + butane.
Which drives to the second point, wont some food stores become unedible
(or lose all nutritional value) eventually due to cosmic ray damage? I would think so.