You are not logged in.
I wonder if it would help reduce consumable supplies if we could put humans into hibernation or a state of torpor?
The Ares lunar transportation system will be much safer, more reliable, cheaper and provide more than double the capability of Saturn V.
Ares I can also be used to service ISS.
Okay!
How much cheaper?
Why is it more reliable?
To make any colonization effort practical or even plausible, I think you would need a dedicated method to transport lots of people from one location to the next - kinda like a space bus
I imagine that in the future there will be dedicated cargo carriers and dedicated ferries from tranporting people. ATM, one craft carries a limited amount of cargo, scientific instruments and 2-7 astronauts. Obviously that not a runner for space colonization.
On Earth, Cargo and Public Transport tend to seperated!
I'd like to throw open this thread to wild speculation as what could acheive that!
I'd like to know what are the difficulites?
How do we transport 20 or 100 people across space?
Forgive me, but I know nothing about these things but:
What are the big advantages of Ares I+V over the Saturn V?
depressing
there is no contact yet because well, there has been no contact yet.
We don't know if there is other intelligent life out there and we won't really know until we've found it. keep searching!
Perhaps we can build a mosque in geostationary orbit over Mecca!
A Fusion reactor could power VASIMIR type engines or high powered ion thrusters
Or there is always the possiblity of a fusion rocket of some kind.
I just want to clear something up:Fusion IS NOT high thrust.
No one really said what type of fusion powered craft.
There are several possible ways to do a fusion powered craft.
Science, exploration, and even R&D will not lower the cost of access to space and as you spoke of commerical satelites as being expensive it is those launch vehicles that are being used that have no manned capability that makes for a higher cost to space.
Manned space flight and the launch vehicles involved are much much more expensive than commercial satelites! Without a breakthrough technology even the best attempts by the private sector will not make it much cheaper.
Science and exploration allows us locate and exploit useful resources.
Enough R&D would allow would allow the creation of manufacturing and mining facilites off-earth. The less stuff we need to launch from Earth, the cheaper it will be in the long run.
When the time comes to colonize large amounts of the Solar system, I think we'll want a pretty integrated approach to the manufacture of electronics, lighting, computer parts etc
Most of these technologies are based upon sillicon semi-conducters and photolithographic printing techniques, so the same facilty could be utilized to produce them
A large factory in a location where its easy to obtain the materials in bulk and produce all these parts could supply ALL the colonies.
As long as the first colonies/bases are very small, Its very likely that all hi-tech supplies will come from Earth. It just makes no sense to locally produce LEDs/Lightbulbs for only 100-1000 people. They don't do things this way anywhere on Earth.
The idea of the Clean Slate society is such a cop out.
Its obviously going to be highly influenced and a spin off of what came before. Only a mind tainted by current society would come up with such an idea and its usually a big grab for power.
My idea would be to face up to the problems of this cilivization and take responsibility for fixing this society in a practical manner instead of indulging escapist fantasies.
Actually none of this is needed other than to get there faster, to give higher levels of power, and to get more supplies there.
A nasa sized budget is not needed when it is the bloated cost plus contracts that are causing the high expense to go to space.
Thats bullshit. Even when you take out the factor of NASA using cost plus contracts and generally wasting money - going into space is still insanely expensive. Putting just about any commerical satelite into orbit costs a fortune.
If you want to do space realistically and economically, there needs to be an economy of scale to offset the high price or breakthrough in energy and propulsion. There also needs to be something in space that can be obtained cheaper and in greater bulk than here on Earth.
This could be done, but there has to be an infrastructure for it based mostly in space. This is an area that needs massive R&D and funding.
The first people to land on Mars will inevitably draw pictures. All that would be needed is to work out who is most talented and give them a short art course.
Why? They'll have digital cameras! We're not going back to the 18th century explorations, where drawings were an invaluable tool.
I'd totally like to draw on Mars, in the sand
The scientific approach Vs the colonisation approach with respect to Nasa is why man is still stuck in LEO and it is the Space tourist business that shows the way out of it. It is the sake of doing science for science answers that never is utilized by Nasa as it is private businesses that must make use of it.
Space tourist buisness hasn't taken anybody ever out of low earth orbit....
Putting anything into space for time being is just inherently very expensive. There is no "colonization aproach" because its just not a practical prospect for time being. If it were, it would have been done years ago. The ISS has done very little in the way of science, but maintaining that space colony has been insanely expensive.
There is nothing out there that couldn't be obtained more easily on Earth in this century.
If you think putting stuff into orbit is expensive, think about how expensive maintaining even a small colony will be! They will be dependent on Earth for decades, probably even centuries.
Some day , we'll put a man on Mars and Beyond but I think it's better to get to know the Solar system in depth before we piss all over it
Robotic missions have been very successful at that, and they will be insanely sophisticated in 2-3 decades. Improvments in AI, Nano-Tech, Photonics, CPUs etc etc
A practical effort at space colonization will need either:
1) A Breakthrough in energy+propulsion, like Fusion Power, Mass Drivers..
2)A massive goverment financed infrastuctural program to transport and exploit space resources, by moving the manufacturing base off Earth.
Thats an interesting idea, and perhaps something that might plausibly happen in the future - like in 200 or 300 years.
To make that happen, I think we would need a solarized trade and infrastructure set up already, so that we can trade useful resource constantly across the system and mitigate the disadvantages of different locations.
I think automated mining of moons and asteroids may be the way to go.
The overall inspiration for this thread was the fact that humans can live in most locations on Earth with a relatively decent standard of living because we trade useful resources. All the other destinations in the solar system have serious problems, but these can be evened out.
Most strategies for settling outerspace tend to be single minded and focused on one location, one method.
I think people that go to live in space will need more than a medievil standard of living. I know people have romantic visions of farming on mars and the country life syle, but I think thats not realistic. Most of the worlds population is either in cities, or moving into them. Most of us live a large distance away from the resources that sustain us.
We're all super-dependent on each other!
This is just my ridiculous over the top idea, but how bout we use a type of catapult?
Drop a very very heavy weight a short distance and use hydraulics to transfer its energy upwards into a smaller craft.
There is also the logistics on the planet to think about.
Where the Gold desposits are may not be where water or solar power is. This will mean importing loads of materials etc
There are no roads for transporting.
All this mining will have to be done in space suits and air sealed vehicles which are very awkward.
Because you working with heavy machines on rocks, stuff will get broken and punctured, which will be constant danger. On earth, punctures on a factory don't depressurize the facility and kill everyone inside.
The risk of fatality or serioous injury on Mars would be much higher, so health&saftety + insurance costs will go through the roof
Desposits of Radon Gas could also be a huge problem
Honestly, I think automated mining of asteroids will happen first. Manned space flight is just too expensive. People are not so bothered about a robot dying.
I think Gregori has brought in sharp relief the difference between the scientific approach and the colonisation approach - and I think he's given us a clue as to why NASA, who I believe is really dedicated to the scientific approach - keeps coming up with these way off estimates.
I don't believe the estimates. I've never believed them since I read they included provision for taking 2 tonnes of medical equipment with them. Someone's obviously said "go away and think of the most expensive mission you possibly can".
I say: Let's start with the minimal mission idea and work back from that.
As far as I can see the rocketry and the ISRU are essentially there. The main development effort would be required with the lander which needs to be radiation safe and capable of safe landing.
NASA is not allowed to kill people.
WOT may not go away for a long time, but it's unlikely to be so expensive. Once Iraq is stabalized the cost will drop very quickly.
Hopefully the US will need not need to invade another country, with the possible exception of Iran. If it becomes necessary to remove the Mullahs there's a far more unified population to take over.
It didn't need to invade a country...
sounds horrendous
a wierd corporate monopoly over an entire planet
we have enough of this shit on earth, we don't want to compound the original error.
I Voted Fusion because it very likely that it will be achieved by the mid point of 21st century.
If Fusion is achieved, it will be like a second industrial revoltion.
A rather misanthopic view using the term "vandalise it". Is there anyway Mars is "supposed" to be? I doubt there is alot we could do to Mars that would seriously degrade it right now, we can barely afford to "scratch the surface" as it is.
Post Apollo was a time of cutbacks. During the Apollo years we had plenty of money to spend of space science. The reason why we did science missions in the late 1970s was because it was all we could afford due to all the cutbacks and the Austerity measures embraced by Jimmy Carter, plenty of money for wasting on welfare though. Taxes were high in those years, and the economy was on the ropes because of them, and the government's response was to squeeze the economy even harder, while at the same time pumping up money supply to create inflation.
There is nothing Misanthropic about it. If the only intention to go to Mars is to cynically exploit it, that begs the question - Why bother?
Mars is a planet with a seperate history that we should learn about first before embarking upon any "terraforming" projects. It deserves a degree of respect and patience. It has great stuff to teach us.
If the planet has any form of life on it - this puts a great question over human colonization. We would have to deal with this.
Gregori,
5-8 years is impossible without a national crash program like Apollo - and that only gets us back to the Moon. Mars will take longer. More than 8 years automatically means a change of president and probably two, that makes it harder but not impossible. ISS has taken 20 years and its still not compete, yet it's survived (only just) several administrations.
I'm not saying that its very likely or practical. We probably won't see anybody going there before 2030's
If there was a crash program like Apollo or the Manhattan Project to get this done, with enough funding it could be done in 5-8 years .
Unlike Apollo and the A-Bomb, It wouldn't necessarily require any revolutionary new technology to do it. The only factors against this are that its very risky and very very expensive.
I've to agree with what c1clops has said.
The public support is just not there.
If the people in the goverment wanted to make it happen, they could probably drum up public support but those in goverment are not interested.
They would have to set a goal like going there in 5-8 years. If its too far away the public will loose interest. THe only way the public will get behind it is if its now.
I would certainly prefer that the money that was wasted over the last couple of years on invading Iraq was spent on Mars colonization and human exploration. It was nearly a TRILLION. Thats enough to do a Mars Direct style mission nearly 50 times over!!
The people in goverment won't get behind that idea because there is not much money to be made from Mars and it doesn't give the US a millitary advantage. There is also no rival nation for the US to get into a pissing contest with like the former USSR.