You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Hello and welcome keithconto
The issue with orbital assembly and of using space stations as platforms for going to other places comes back to the question of where do you get fuel for the rocket once built and of the increased levels of need required by the use of a station.
That will depend on the type of propulsion. The scenario I was describing would not be carried out with conventional rockets. Alot of it depends on the inventory of resources on the moon. If available, the cost of resources from the moon, in terms of ease of launch, would be far cheaper. The system would depnd on the ability to " live off the land" get your fuel and other resources where your going, or where you are. Better environmental systems are needed. As I said, this would be a long term plan. But would ensure our continued presence in space.
The question of government will be answered by who colonizes Mars. If it is a governmental enterprise, I would expect those governements to want to retain control until such time as the "Martains" feel they are self suficient enough to declare their indpendance. Hopefully, there wont be enough military power on Earth to project that far.
If Mars is colonized by private companies, it is very much in the air as to what will happen. Those companies will see Mars as a large captial investment that they will not easily surrender.
As far as the Form of government, I would hope they opt for a "Planetary" government. This would decrease the chances for conflict since they are all under the same rule. Hopefully they well choose a form of representative government.
That government will have very different responsabilities such as controlling resources, population growth management, and educating thier population in a far more technical manner then we do here on Earth.
,l
I'm appalled at the lack of interest or even conversation ANYWHERE that I can find about possible manned missions to the gas giants.
Aside from the HOPE site, there appears to be not even talk about such missions.
I think the trouble is no one seems willing to make the commitment in life support technologies needed for the jump to the multiyear transits. All the buzz surrounds get to Mars with the least amount of effort as possible, which I fear will have disasterous results. We are fighting tooth and nail to get out of LEO for what most is hoping to be a short detour to the moon, followed by more downtime for a very limited mission to Mars. Anything beyond that would require more downtime to invent entirely new architecture for anything beyond.
I favor a long term build up on the moon to develop all the long term quasi self sufficent LSS needed for the decade long voyages long before we go to Mars. There should only be one jump, from near Earth Space to interplanetary space, and it should be done on the Moon. And while we are there we can do all the surface activities that we will do anywhere else.
I believe your right. One shot missions, in the long run, are just too expensive. A comprehensive system is needed. It will have to be among all the space faring natiions and will require long term commitment.
The first phase should be reliable, low cost boosters to haul the initial equipment to Geostationary orbit to build a space complex, from this station, going off to the moon or the planets will be much easier.
The second phase should be a detailed examination of the moon to determine what raw materials there can be used for fuel, building materials and the like.
If the material is available, a permanent base would be built. Other small spacraft would be built to shuttle crew, finished "moon products" and other resources between the moon and the GSO station. An additional benifits would be an observatory on the far side of the moon.
The final stage of the project would be the interplanatry vehicles themselves. With out having to fly out of the earth gravity well, travel will be much easier, and cheaper. More than one craft can be built to carry out multiple missions or large missions.
The vessel detailed in the broadcast and book does indeed use a fusion engine and prepositioned fuel stocks around the solar system.
IIRC, the Venus manned lander is built alot like a deep sea submarine while the lone astronaut to venture out wears a spacasuit similiar to a deep sea divers suit to withstand the heat and pressure.
Also, the Io lander does have superconducting magnets to help shield the astronauts from the intense radiation.
One must consider that the mission outlined had to be made so it would look good on television. Perhaps that is the reason for the short stay times on each world and the relatively small crew.
A vessel as large and sophisticated as the Pegasus shown in "Voyage To The Planets" could probably support a crew of at least a dozen and stay times of months rather than days at each target planet.l
I've wondered if maybe we're thinking about manned space exploration to the planets the wrong way. Instead of constantly trying to reduce mass, cut costs everwhere possible, perhaps a large "Battlestar:Galactica" approach might be better.
I think your right with the Battlestar Galactica approach. The proper way to approach exploration of the solar system seems to be to build the ships in orbit.
While it provides some complex challanges are far as construction, it provides much more freedom in design. It also makes them reuseable and available for other missions as needed. In the long run, it may also keep costs down after the initial infrastructure it in place. It will also foster a continued heavy presence in space.
Pages: 1