New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: This forum is accepting new registrations via email. Please see Recruiting Topic for additional information. Write newmarsmember[at_symbol]gmail.com.
  1. Index
  2. » Search
  3. » Posts by Gregori

#101 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Mass People Transport » 2008-05-15 08:48:38

ISS orbits within the Earth's magnetosphere and has significant protection from the solar wind and GCR. In an emergency, ISS crew can use their Soyuz lifeboat and be safely on Earth within about an hour. They are also in almost continuous real time communication with people on Earth, as well as seeing the planet in great detail just below them. Crew in transit to Mars and back will be in a far more stressing and dangerous environment.

Undoubtedly its dangerous, but we don't exactly have a lot of options here.

I don't think we're going to sea a nuclear ship in space (Unless it was a fusion based craft) An accident would have pretty bad consequences.

If space radiation turns out to be not as big a threat as predicted or if the crew can be shielded from it, I think the lenght of the journey is not that problematic.

People have went on long ocean journeys with NO communication with home and NO lifeboats!!

I'm rather fond of the idea of putting people into a hibernation state for such journeys to cut down on food supplies and avoid cabin fever etc etc

We don't have the drugs and machines to do that yet however.

#102 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Mass People Transport » 2008-05-15 08:22:06

If we're thinking colonization, no "big dumb booster" launch vehicle will be cheap or safe enough. A true RLV like the Saenger-II or X-30 NASP is the only current option.

Don't gloss over propulsion when we do get the people up there, simple chemical rockets don't have the efficiency to keep transit times low enough for an average person to stay in good shape physically or mentally. A gas core nuclear rocket would be a nice option, with high efficiency and high thrust with a minimum of radically new technology. It would also give abort-to-port capabilities in the event of trouble.

People are generally pretty scared of being irradiated, nuclear accidents etc.

If my figures are correct on this, It takes around 5-6 months to get to Mars with current chemical rocket technology. People have stayed on the ISS for that long, so it can be done without too much mental or physical damage.

#103 Re: Space Policy » President of India calls for joint - US/Indian habitat on Mars by 2050 » 2008-05-15 07:57:30

So would theirs.

And so would yours... etc etc

So... We just need to hope that the Politburo never decides to commit economic suicide.

Actually we just need to use our technology to mass produce everything cheaper than the Chinese can.

If you could produce it cheaper than China, you would already be doing so. However its very clear that you can't.

I don't support how the chinese goverment run their state, but I think that going to change over the next couple of decades. If there is already economic co-operation with China, you aren't proving anything by freezing them out of space. It hypocrtical and just plain silly!!

China is going to get into space exploration and they probably will have the resources to do it on a massive scale. They are probably going to become the most powerful country in the world in a few decades. I'd prefer to do a deal with them in the meantime.

You can be very influential through co-operation and by not being hostile all the time.

#104 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Solar Federal Republic » 2008-05-15 07:20:02

About making robots our slaves -

With increasingly advanced AI, If there were ever a possibilty for Robots or Computer Programs to achieve sentience and self awareness - you can bet it will happen.

Regulations to forbid this will last all of two seconds! Just like there are computer viruses, bot nets, piracy and all forms of digitial crimes - somebody will become curious and lets the machines out of their boundaries.

#105 Re: Space Policy » President of India calls for joint - US/Indian habitat on Mars by 2050 » 2008-05-14 06:46:11

If China stopped trading with the US tomorrow, your entire economy would collapse. Kablaam!

So would theirs.

And so would yours... etc etc


Undoubtfully it would have very very bad effects for both parties. Thats what co-operation is for!

I think they could take it better from a natural resources point of view. They produce practically everything.

#106 Re: Space Policy » President of India calls for joint - US/Indian habitat on Mars by 2050 » 2008-05-14 06:30:02

If China stopped trading with the US tomorrow, your entire economy would collapse. Kablaam! I say quit the bullshit and big moral high horse about China. Most of your goods are already from over there so I fail to see what you're proving through space.

I don't approve of the Chinese government and how that place is run, but I don't see how freezing them out of space co-operation will achieve anything.

I think that democratic reform can happen in China by taking away the hostility and co-operating. We can have more of an influence on the populous by being non threatening. It is becoming more open and that trend is likely to continue.

It will be a big mistake not to co-operate with China in space, because one way or another they are going to get there. They have the resources and soon enough they'll will have the expertise. China will do a deal with the Russians over space, thats very likely. ESA is very likely to co-operate with  Russia also. In the far future, its not that unlikely that ESA will co-operate with China on a space program. If US limits its potential partners in space, It might get its ass kicked when it comes to colonization and economics in space.


I think its really positive that India wants to co-operate in Space exploration. I can only hope for more co-operation.

We can all get there together!!

#107 Re: Not So Free Chat » Perspective » 2008-05-14 06:12:13

Getting one Trillion from people is next to expensive. They have it but the chances of everyone giving it particularly to something related to Space is very low.  People are happier wasting half a trillion every year on bad coffee.

Yeah, but everybody gets a cup!


Ofcourse a Trillion is a lot of money! But it might be worth spending on space. I think Hubble brought both images that capture the imagination and provided good science. I think the MER rovers did a fantastic job. The Huygens-Cassini mission was also pretty awesome.

If we are serious about colonizing space, I think it will take an investment of a couple of trillion! We could do it on a smaller scale, but I doubt that will amount to much more than an outpost.

If we really want it to take off, it should be highly organized with rapid industrialisation of space. An economy of scale so to speak. We need to make colonies by sending 10 000's of people. There needs to be an infrastructure set in place with vehicles doing regular cargo and passenger transport between worlds and settlements.

#108 Re: Not So Free Chat » Did Iran become a player in space ? » 2008-05-14 05:57:39

Well, yeah. The same Xenophobic bullshit as yester year.
You can't tar everybody with one brush!

I'm not entirely blind to what goes on in many Islamic countries but I don't think thats a reason to freeze them out of buisness, trade, science and exploration.

The more we co-operate with them, the more chance we have of being a positive influence on them and their public. The more we threaten them and spread anti-islamic hysteria about, the more those people are likely to rally behind a dictator or a religious extremist.

People in those situations get terrified and are likely to rally behind any crazy cause. After 9/11, the american public was pretty scared so they rallied behind Bush and The Iraq war - even though the pretexts were totally absurd and untruthful.

#109 Re: Not So Free Chat » The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear » 2008-05-14 05:30:09

I've never seen a thread that is so much in favour of Hitler in my life!


If the attitude is that you can use war to take anything you want and fuck everybody else who gets in your way, then I have no sympathy for anything that comes your way. You deserve all of it.


In the modern era, using millitary force to kick indiginous people out of their lands is slightly frowned upon. Actually, what Israel is doing is illegal. Its been warned repeatedly, but its a rogue state.

Its not okay to just knock down people's houses and build a settlement over them. The statement about rocket attacks is a farce since settlements are going to incite more violence and be good targets for rocket attacks since they're building in the danger zone. We all know its Israeli expansionism, not security that drives the seettlements.

The Israeli state allows for Jews from anywhere in the world to become citizens. Tell me you don't blush with embarrasment when complaining about the right to return for Palestinians!

The Israeli have no more claim to be in that place than anybody else (probably less since they have only been there for a few decades)

Very simply, the state of Israel has to make all those within its borders and the occupied territories full legal citizens and become a non-denominational  democratic state or two states will have to be recognized.

#110 Re: Not So Free Chat » Did Iran become a player in space ? » 2008-05-13 11:28:31

The situation in most Muslim countries is a lack of tollerance for non-muslims. If Muslims want tollerance for their own religion, they ought to start practicing tollerance in their own majority religion countries, and so far I don't see much tollerance in the Muslim World. I keep on hearing stories of people getting stoned for converting to another religion, and of Islamic Law being enforced, sometime brutally, by the state. I hear stories of people being handed the death sentence for verbally insulting various important figures in the Islamic religion, and violence often ensues at disparaging cartoons of Islamic figures or icons. I'd be very suspicious of muslims and with good reason, especially an influx of them, they have a tendency to want to control societies, they are very intrusive of individual liberties when they do get in power and Muslim democracies need much proping up as in Iraq and Turkey, as they Muslim public does not support them, instead they retreat to the nearest bearded holy man whom they agree with and follow him often to their deaths.

Until Islam shows itself to be a more tollerant religion and society, I'd have trouble tollerating it, its a "two-way street" in otherwords. I don't have problems with individual muslims, but when they all start gathering in one place and begin demanding to run things, that's when I begin to worry.

apparently you have troubles with democracy. you would rather a Tomocracy!

apart from the whacky xenophobic whinging, I'd rather not drag politics into space. What ever country has the expertise I would co-operate with.

#111 Re: Not So Free Chat » The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear » 2008-05-13 07:47:28

Oh sure, its not about land to live on to these people, it's about that particular patch of dirt. Never mind that fact that despite officially being a Jewish state, 20% of the population is Muslim Arab, and despite 60 years of existence, and 40 years after capturing Jerusalem, theres still a Mosque on the Temple mount, you still can't get it through these peoples heads that Israel isn't just sticking it to the Muslims and denying them access to holy sites.

But its not about the amount, or even the quality of the land. The Palestinians could prosper on the land they have. Its not the Israelis that are holding them back.

As for Barack Hussein Obama, he recently jettisoned an adviser with links to Hamas, refused to fault Jimmy Carter for meeting with them, and proudly proclaims willingness to meet with their Iranian and Syrian allies.


Actually, The state of Israel carried out very specific policies to make sure that its still a Jewish state. Its refered to as the 'Demographic' problem. In other words, if too many of the arabs and muslims were allowed to be full citizens of the state,  it would be democratically impossible for it to be a 'jewish' state anymore.

The solution for this dilemma was of course just using lots of force and depriving people of rights, turning the palestinians into one of the worlds biggest refugee populations.

I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't like to have my home bulldozed and the land seized so people of a preferred ethnicity or nationality can live there.

I'm pretty sure you could prosper on any given land. Doesn't mean I have the right to destroy your home and kick you off the land. If the Palestinians can live on any patch of dirt, so can the Israeli's. 

Obviously thats not a fair or acceptable solution to either group, so there will have to be an acommodation. The Israeli state will either have to accept all those within its borders and the occupied territories as full and equal citizens without preference (this could be a federal state) or a two state solution will have to be worked out that doesn't make either state unworkable and chopped up.

#112 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Mass People Transport » 2008-05-13 06:43:04

How about a dedicated Big Dumb Booster Rocket to get them into space in the first place?  Let me see: for a 1000tonne-to-LEO rocket:

Mass of person = 100kg, mass of cabin structure = 100kg/person, mass of  life support = 50kg/person:

A BDB with 1000tonne to LEO lift capacity could life 4000 people in space.  Lift cost = $500/kg x 250kg = $125,000.

Average wages in Solar Satellite Construction Industry are $250,000/year, so the transport to orbit could be payed off by a mortage of $150,000 spread over 3 years.


I can see how that would work on paper, but nobody has yet built such a rocket yet. It hasn't been proven. NASA is struggling to build something that can even lift 125 tonnes into LEO. If such a tech is developed that can lift a 1000 tonnes, cool!!! I'm for doing this on a big industrial scale.

For the time being, I'm thinking more about how the current Ares tech could be modified to launch people like cargo into LEO, on a kinda space bus. These people caspules would all dock with a ship that ferries 100's of people to Mars but never lands.

#113 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Solar Federal Republic » 2008-05-13 05:07:25

What is really at the heart of these state's actions is money. Buisness interests call the shots in so-called 'democratic' countries. The common thread betwen such states are multi-national corporations, not democracy big_smile

Free countries mean free markets.

Not really. By that measure there are no free countries because every single last one enforces a measure of protectionism to protect its buisness interests.
Don't worry, there is plenty of interference in the market in support of big buisness.

My issue is not with any notion of 'free' countries or markets, it's with how democratic these states are.

#114 Re: Life support systems » Light bulbs » 2008-05-12 18:04:03

Gregori -

You say:

"There wouldn't be INSITU production of lighting and electronic devices for colonies smaller than 10 000 residents. It doesn't make practical or economic sense. "

I think you may be applying earth economics here rather than Mars economics. In terms of Mars economics the aim is to reduce the mass of supplies to Mars, since that is where all the real costs are.  We will have the machines, the materials and the energy to manufacture electrical devices such as electric motors, light bulbs, cable and so on. It will make economic sense to do so. The initial colonists won't have many needs. They won't be jetting off on holiday, or wearing a wide range of clothing, or driving personal cars...But among their simple needs will be electrical equipment.

The colonist will expect more than a medievil standard of living, or they will not go! Even basic colonies will have a lot of needs. 'Mars Economics' will not justify what you are suggesting practically or economically.

Economies of scale are needed, regardless of planet. I'm not sure you grasp how much energy, materials and trade it requires to make even these basic products - but its fairly considerable.

To justify such a huge energy and material expense, you will need several colonies of over 10 000 people. 

The trend of migration in world has tended to be people moving into cities and away from rural areas - not the otherway around.

They will never use lightbulbs on Mars because its going to be a dead technology and it makes more sense to ship and produce LEDs...

EDIT: I roughly worked it out and an Ares V type ship could deliver around 400 000 LED Bulbs to Mars. Each these bulbs last around 5-6 years and uses a meager 3W.

If you want to use Solar Power on Mars, Incandecsent bulbs are really bad because they consume 95% of their electricity producing heat. They're really wasteful.

#115 Re: Life support systems » Light bulbs » 2008-05-12 08:09:46

Well we have to get into definitions, don't we. 

I tend to think of the "Initial Colony" as being that phase of its development from initial landing to about 100 residents.

I would agree that for the initial landing and maybe for one or two after that we would simply import light bulbs.  But beyond that we are going to have glass blowing and  metal working capabilities. Given that there seems no reason why we shouldn't programme our machines to produce a few light bulbs.

There wouldn't be INSITU production of lighting and electronic devices for colonies smaller than 10 000 residents. It doesn't make practical or economic sense. 

When we do ship, We'll be shipping LEDs! They are much sturdier, much more energy effiencient, have longer lifetimes and are easier to transport.

I'm sure glass and ceramics will be used at some point on Mars, but its just not going to be used for lighting.

Semi-conductors is where its at!!

For colonization, we should develop large integrated facilities to supply ALL the colonies!

#116 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Solar Federal Republic » 2008-05-12 08:01:38

'Democratic' nations don't launch wars on each other these days mostly due to the fact that the means of destruction are so great they would cause mutually assured destruction aswell as destroying trade and economy..

'Democratic' nations however have no problem with picking on third world countires who don't really have the means to fight back.

What is really at the heart of these state's actions is money. Buisness interests call the shots in so-called 'democratic' countries. The common thread betwen such states are multi-national corporations, not democracy big_smile

#117 Re: Not So Free Chat » Did Iran become a player in space ? » 2008-05-12 06:36:49

How do you think the local mosque will react if I build a tower over it as a Church? big_smile

NASAs return to the moon will definately piss them off then. No doubt at least one, probably more of the astronauts on the surface will be Christian. Unless there's a Moslem on board as well. big_smile

No it won't.

Look at what's happening in Dubai, A 1km building. Plus they operate airports and airlines in that region taking plenty of non-muslims wll above the height of any muslim building. They're very pragmatic people...

I'd rather see the Middle Eastern countries co-operating with the West in space exploration. Saudi Arabia Irrigated large part of the desert with their oil wealth. I think that could be valuable experience in any 'terraforming' attempts!

#118 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Mass People Transport » 2008-05-12 06:17:08

I blieve an atmosphere 80% xenon, 20 % oxygen would be anaestetic.

would that lower the metabolism of the passengers?

Like putting them into a deep sleep could avoid some of the problems of 'cabin fever' in a six month + journey through mostly featureless space but we're trying to lower their food consumption to an absolute minmal - like hibernating animals do on Earth.


Another idea I have been toying a round with is a Large Modular Vehicle that does regular trips between Mars and Earth Orbit, but doesn't land on either planet.

Smaller craft launched of Ares type rockets would bring people up to it over a period of a few days from the surface of either planet.

These small people carrying craft would not need to bring many supplies up, just the people.

A seperate supplies craft would stock up the ship for a six month journey.

The smaller craft would serve would be used to depart and land on the surface of either planet (like Soyuz capsule)

The smaller craft would also be used to extend the living space of the over all vehicle.

This ship

#119 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Mass People Transport » 2008-05-11 09:14:23

Seeing the large payloads capable by the Ares I+V, I don't think propulsion is that much of an issue. Its keeping all those people alive for the transit. That requires a lot of consumables.

A single Ares I will only be able to launch six people into orbit and two Ares V are needed to transport them to Mars! It would be a one way trip as even two Ares V cannot transport the return vehicle. So 24 people, one way to Mars would effectively require 4 x Ares I and 8 x Ares V. When they arrived at Mars there would be nowhere for them to live and nothing to breathe, drink or eat unless Habitats and supplies had been established. Each six person Habitat would require 2 more Ares V launches, this would provide supplies for about 18 months.

With currently planned crew vehicles, thats true.

If we could effectively treat the crew like cargo, a vehicle could be designed to carry far more people than the current limits. This would require a closed cycle for water and air and sometype of induced hiberation state to lower metabolism.


The whole gist of the idea is for vehicles that can easily deliver lots of people to an already established colony with supplies already set up there.

#120 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Mass People Transport » 2008-05-10 17:40:46

We'll need a craft with the ability to launch atleast 20 humans off the Earth's surface in one go, probably more though.

Seeing the large payloads capable by the Ares I+V, I don't think propulsion is that much of an issue. Its keeping all those people alive for the transit. That requires a lot of consumables.

If we could find a way to put these people into hibernation-like state for the journey, it could reduce the amount of food needed. Water and Oxygen can probably by recycled. I think we would need some very powerful drugs and life support machines to achieve this.

Putting the crew into an extended deep sleep might mitigate some of the psychological problems of the journey.

I think producing some rocket fuel and supplies on the moon could help.

#121 Re: Life support systems » Light bulbs » 2008-05-10 16:54:06

I'm looking at this from the point of view of an initial colony where we want to minimise the manufacturing base. I don't think there's much point in leaping on to solar system wide industrial production.

For intinial colony, there won't be much point in producing lightbulbs. Really almost zero. A single shipment of LED Lights from Earth would probably keep the whole colony lit for atleast a decade!

When there is a drive for establishing huge colonies, It would make sense to supply all electronics from centralized facilites manufacturing in bulk quantities.

#122 Re: Not So Free Chat » Did Iran become a player in space ? » 2008-05-10 16:44:25

Gregori -

Don't show your ignorance of Islam.  Shariah law is based on the idea of extrapolating from previous practice when confronted with new circumstances or new technology.

Would Muslims tolerate a Christian evangelist balloon over Mecca? No - of course not, even though balloons did not exist when Shariah was first formulated.  Would Muslims be happy with a geo stationary Christian evangelist radio satellite directly over Mecca? - I very much doubt it.

While my question may seem absurd, be assured it is NOT absurd for Muslim scholars. They will find very troubling the idea that a Christian "Church" could be above Muslim buildings in this way.

Oh please!

Look, I've plenty off muslim friends. They happen to have a thing called common sense.

If the example you used were true, Muslim countries couldn't have airports. Oddly enough, they're quite pragmatic people.

#123 Re: Not So Free Chat » Did Iran become a player in space ? » 2008-05-10 15:40:58

Stormrage -

Since on earth according to Shariah law no building of a non-Muslim religion can be taller than a Mosque, do you think only Muslim space craft should be allowed to fly in the highest orbits?

lol

Boooooooooooooh

Spacecraft are not buildings

  1. Index
  2. » Search
  3. » Posts by Gregori

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB