New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#176 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Russia plan to build orbtial spacecraft construction yard? » 2008-04-20 15:38:11
The Russians don't even have Angara yet... they seem to be arranging their future spaceflight program over assembling a bunch of light-to-medium payloads in LEO.
Not a bad idea since they have that tech atm and it doesn't require any new inventions.
#177 Re: Human missions » New Moon Direct » 2008-04-20 15:36:19
No I don't accept that. Obviously designers will plan for that. One of the key factors in operating on the moon or Mars will be the need for dust control. There are ways of dealing with that. But the fact that a particle is abrasive does not of itself means that tears will result. There are ways round this which we will be able to investigate. We might oil the fabric for instance. But I 'd prefer to leave it to the experts in companies like Bigelow.
They will result and the plan will be to patch and repair. Dust shards will fly around everywhere and stick to things. I'd prefer to leave it to the experts at NASA.
A tunnel carved into rock will be much sturdier and better for a permanent base and manufacturing facility.
#178 Re: Human missions » Venus First » 2008-04-20 14:55:37
The overriding aim, and generally only use, for Mars and Venus is Terraformation. They don't really have any other use. Venus has the advantage of greater gravity and the fact that it's closer with more launch windows. The're equally difficult to colonize, Venus maybe less, so Venus is the obvious choice if you're so intent on colonizing a planet.
Why? Terraforming would be an enormous waste of energy and time with little return.
Adapting technology so that its possible to survive on the planets and exploit their resources in the most efficient manner possible is much better. Something more like paraterraforming.
#179 Re: Human missions » New Moon Direct » 2008-04-20 14:44:10
Gregori -
You say: "any inflatable material is going to wear down and tear and leak air".
Well where's the evidence for that. If you are talking about microscopic leakage, well that's not a problem since we are not talking about self-contained biosphere: we will be manufacturing air.
But wear and tear? How quickly? If the inflatable is in a covered trench and the surrounding regolith takes most of the pressure strain on the material, I really don't see a great deal of scope for wear and tear, given we will be using state of the art materials.
What is your view of the Bigelow enterprise? Are you saying their structures will quickly deflate? My understanding is that the one in space is still doing fine after (some? a couple of?) years.
My hunch tells me that al materials, esp elastic materials tear and break down producing loads of leaks that will have to be constantly repaired. Lunar enviroment is full of sharp electrostatic dust that will get inside the facility and cause abrasion. This will means constantly repairing leaks.
#180 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Saltwater Combustion » 2008-04-20 07:42:11
Why are you so Optimistic about energy levels on Mars? If we had tech like that we wouldn't be worrying about energy.
Unless you mean nuclear, which would be a very tricky politcal obstacle.
If energy is going to be so abundant, lots more places suddenly become more attractive than Mars.
Exactly! the question must always be asked "why don't we currently do this on Earth?"
#181 Re: Human missions » Venus First » 2008-04-20 07:36:08
I have been reading the post about going to Venus. My question is Why? If I understand it right the sun is only going to get hotter and hotter. I thing we should be heading out.
Vincent
Yeah, but what happens in a Billion years is hardly relevant to a colony now.
Venus has a shitload of useful energy and a habitable zone now.
It's true that most consumables in Antarctic research stations are not produced from ISRU (although I believe they do use solar and wind power).
However, the only reason is that the earth based cost of flying in or shipping consumables to the Antarctic is far cheaper than would be using ISRU.
But these expenses would need to be seen, in relation to Mars, in the context of perhaps a $40billion project over ten years. It would NOT cost a billion dollars to to provide the ISRU structure for a small colony of up to 20 people. It wouldn't cost even 100 million dollars I think. Probably somewhere between 10 and 100 million dollars. Essentially all the machines are in existence. They just need to be adapted to Mars conditions and made as light as possible to reduce the mass we are carrying to Mars. Particular attention will need to be paid to those machines that will be operating in the outside environment e.g. the digger. However, we know from the Mars Rovers that such machines can be produced. Remember also that with humans around these machines can be made a lot less sophisticated.
It WILL cause Billions, make no mistake about that. Just look at the history of space exploration. The Apollo program didn't use any very advanced robotics but it cost bllions.
It requires lifting loads of very heavy machines all the way to Mars and landing them without damaging them.
That doesn't mean it can't be done but don't underestimate the task at hand. It can't be done on the cheap. If we want a good ISRU infrastructure it will cost us.
#182 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Saltwater Combustion » 2008-04-20 07:27:57
Why are we worried? Per capita energy will be abundant on Mars. There will be more than enough to spare for splitting water if that is what is required.
No it won't.
The Solar Flux near Mars is considerably lower than Earth. To get enough energy to electrolysis useful amounts of fuel will require very large array of solar panels and a pretty hefty battery to store the energy at night.
It can be done, but it will be no easy task and will require a large investment.
#183 Re: Human missions » New Moon Direct » 2008-04-20 07:20:46
Why are they fragile? I'd say they could last for a long, long time. The only weathering they will be subject to will be frost damage.
Fine for a small research habitat, but questionable if we want to create a industrial facility there. Any inflatable materials is going to wear down and tear and leak air.
If we want a large facility suitable for heavy industries, Bore huge tunnels in to the Moon near the peaks of eternal light. These will be a lot sturdier, spacier, suitable for a large amount of people. they could also provide a good transport solution
#184 Re: Human missions » Venus First » 2008-04-20 07:04:29
Gregori -
"But living on Mars will also be very difficult."
Let's assume we can get to Mars. What then is the great difficulty in living on Mars? I don't really see it myself. Is it in principle so very different from living in Antarctica over winter given there is also no soil, no natural vegetation, no running water, and extreme cold? An Antarctic winter has the added disadvantage of no natural light of course.
And yet, crops are now being grown at Antarctic bases. I haven't actually heard of any base workers actually dying because of the extreme conditions.
We have lived on the Moon for several days. People have lived in the ISS for a year or more. People have survived in Antarctica.
What is it about Mars that makes it impossible to set up a colony in the next say 10 years (leaving aside the difficulties of getting there, which I accept are a challenge).
When you say "colony" are you thinking of some grand metropolis? I can understand why that will not be viable for some time. But a modest colony focussed on research is well within our grasp I would say. Essentially that is because we now have an energy solution (solar), a food solution (hydroponic farming), and a habitat solution (entrenched inflatables with aerogel insulation). Added to that we have the ability to import industrial capability in the shape of a range of small scale machines: oxygen and other gas extractors, smelters, automated glass blowing, computer controlled lathes etc etc which will give us the products of an industrial society from a tiny, tiny mass.
I think we can go rapidly from the landing to a colony of 20 people - maybe within 10 years. In the ten years after that I think we could go to 100. Once we are able to construct domes using ISRU, we can think in terms of 1000s of colony residents.
What is stopping us?
I think the only serious brake on colony development will be the cost of interplanetary travel. That is still a big unknown. But development of a lunar base does hold out the promise of reducing space travel costs through LEO refuelling.
its looks easy on paper, when you don't consider the practicalities.
We could do a research station on Mars. It's difficult but feasible. A self sustaining colony is a different matter altogether. Antartica bases aren't built from insitu resources, its' all shipped to Antartica. Most of its residents are not permanent. The Same will be true of Mars for a long long time. It will be a research base that mainly subsists from Earth supplies.
If it where easy, it would have been done by now. However its hasn't. We aren't even sure of all the difficulties that will face us as research on this planet is still a young field.
#185 Re: Human missions » New Moon Direct » 2008-04-20 06:49:35
Well we could bore tunnels and we could cinterise the regolith to layer over metal habitats.
But if we want a quick, cheap, safe and effective solution to creating habitat nothing to my mind beats an inflatable placed inside a trench and covered in a large mound of regolith. This only requires a mini digger to achieve. Depending on the condition of the regolith, some cintering might be desirable.
That should be possible using solar reflectors. However, if it can be avoided, all the better.I am not sure, but I have a feeling trench digging may actually be easier on Mars than on the Moon.
You get very small and fragile facilities with that. Thats fine for an intial landing.
#186 Re: Human missions » New Moon Direct » 2008-04-20 05:24:36
A tunnel boring machine also takes an incredible amount of manpower and spare parts to operate on Earth. It will be a long time before one is functioning on the moon.
With a minimal of equipment, we could melt lunar silica in to masonry and build regolith structures for or over our habs for the same effect.
With a little bit of preplanning, we can robotically cannibalize our Altairs decent tanks into a mini base after we go, and have them covered with bricks when we return.
Maybe so..
We could design an advanced automated/or semi automated version that requires less maintenance, or simply ship it with the spare parts.
Making masonry bricks and covering the settlement with bricks will also take a lot of time and manpower.
The advantage of TBM is the large size of facility you can create in a relatively short amount of time. While it might not be used for initial outpost, it could be a model for future lunar settlements and basic manufacturing facilities.
#187 Re: Human missions » New Moon Direct » 2008-04-19 20:55:44
If we use a tunnel boring machine, we could build a much bigger facility than either a resused rocket core or a ISS module. It would also be shielded from radiation.
#188 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Russia plan to build orbtial spacecraft construction yard? » 2008-04-19 20:51:54
Russia says lots of things, but that rarely results in functional hardware. All that oil revenue does seem to be doing them any good.
Anything assembled in pieces small enough to be lofted by a Russian rocket is going to be too small to go beyond lunar space, and too many of them will flex too much on interplanetary trips from acceleration and aerobreaking.
The future is in converting the large diameter spent heavy lift stages like skylab was. Depending on how these are put together on prior to launch, I don't think this will require much in the way of external orbital assembly that can not be supported by the craft itself.
I can't claim any expertise in the field but I suspect the Russians know more about it than you or I. They've had a very long history of very successful space exploration and operations in LEO.
The funding could disappear in the future, but I hope they can make it work.
#189 Re: Human missions » New Moon Direct » 2008-04-19 20:07:40
I think much of a Large Lunar settlement can be probably built by robots, controlled from Earth.
If we could get a Tunnel Boring Machine to the Lunar Surface, A Large Hole could be Drilled into the Side of a Mountain/Crater and serve as a the start of a base. This way, we don't have to look for potential Lava Tubes for Protection - we create the Ideal Space for ourselves.
The Base would be constructed inside by reinforcing the Tunnel and Sealing it off.
More and More Tunnels could be built and possibly interconnected.
Manufacturing facilities could potentially be built in such tunnels, Tunnel Boring Machines can have diametres of 20m.
I think the current plans for the Lunar Habitat is something like the small modules used for ISS?
#190 Re: Human missions » Xenon as an Anesthetic? » 2008-04-19 18:43:43
cool!
#191 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Russia plan to build orbtial spacecraft construction yard? » 2008-04-19 18:38:26
We've assembled Space Stations in Orbit and even fixed the Hubble Space Telescope. This can be done, its not insane. Russians lack the equivalent of Ares V/Saturn V rocket. They can do multiple launches carrying smaller parts for orbital assembly. If it all works out fine, fair fucks to them!
I reckon some spacecraft that would be useful for tugging large amounts of cargo around the solar system (like asteroids minerals) could only be assembled in orbit, they would be to big to get off the ground.
#192 Re: Human missions » Venus First » 2008-04-19 18:32:25
I think people are vastly overestimating the difficulty of constructing a floating city in Venus's atmosphere.
Ohhh It will be very very difficult! It will take some amazing engineering and trillions of dollars to make it work. But living on Mars will also be very difficult. We probably won't see a viable colony on Mars for 50-100 years time
The important point is that its not impossible.
When we do settle outer space, I don't think we should put all our eggs in one basket. Settling in several locations and trading useful good between them would be a much better idea.
An infrastructure should be built up to facilitate this.
I think the first step is designing a machine to extract useful amounts of oxygen from the Lunar Regolith for refueling spacecraft and providing breathable air.
#193 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Russia plan to build orbtial spacecraft construction yard? » 2008-04-19 08:35:10
#194 Re: Human missions » Venus First » 2008-04-19 07:25:07
Ok, what do we do about the acid?
Presumably your going to want to use as much carbon in your structures as possible, how does it react with acid, and what can we use to protect it and other materials?
Bottle it and use it!
Apart from that, there will be some material that can resist sulphuric acid. Use that as the outer coating on the installation. It doesn't have to be a carbon outer layer. A useful material for the protective coating could come from elsewhere in the solar system.
Living on Venus doesn't mean that all the necessary materials need to come from Venus. Asteroids, The Moon, Mars could provide useful minerals
#195 Re: Human missions » Venus First » 2008-04-18 12:55:05
Oh, that's what you mean. But seriously: How often do planes fall out the sky? People still fly on Planes.
not very.
Mars has equally bad problem for those proposing a 'dome'. Its thin atmosphere will be crap at screening even small meteors. A meteor could quickly depressurize a settlement and kill everybody in it. Even regular a mechanical failure could destroy a settlement. The temperature fluxes very quickly between extremes on Mars so mechanical failure will happen more often.
#196 Re: Human missions » Venus First » 2008-04-18 04:43:11
I think he's referring to atmospheric turbulence that could cause catastrophic levels of mechanical stress on large rigid structures.
The question remains, what is it about the Venusian atmosphere that makes it an attractive residential target for colonization?
Combination of air pressure, temperature and normal gravity. On Venus, these are right conditions for humans in the upper atmosphere.
Also, the abundance of Solar energy gives it an advantage compared to Earth and Mars. There are a few useful chemicals in abundance in its atmosphere like sulphuric acid, nitrogen (useful for making Earth like breathable air).
The thickness of the atmosphere will also give limited protection against solar radiation and meteorites.
Admittedly, you have to import a lot materials to live here but once they're there put in the right location - it can become a very good place to live. Asteroids and various moons have a lot of the right materials, but they lack the gravity, atmosphere and closeness to the sun to be useful places for supporting human life.
Eventually, The materials on the surface of the planet will become exploitable but we don't have to live on the surface to do that.
Terraformer -
All fluids can have vortices can they not? And all "light fluids" like air can experience sudden pressure drops where aircraft can fall tens of thousands of feet in a few seconds. I doubt we know enough about the Venusian atmosphere to say how difficult it would be to live in.
Aircraft don't fall tens of thousands of feet in seconds during turbulence. Its a small small fraction of that. The air doesn't experience a sudden pressure drop, the aircraft flies in to an area of lower pressure.
#197 Re: Human missions » Venus First » 2008-04-16 16:07:39
If you're going to export sulfur from venus, you might as well export it from earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyanhydrides polyanhydrides
Why? There is vast clouds of Sulphuric Acid on Venus that could be directly tapped. On Earth, you need to create sulphuric acid in chemical plant from other minerals. The escape velocity of Venus is slightly lower than Earth. woot!
Sulphuric acid is one of the most useful and produced chemicals in the industry. The ability to produce large amounts of it is often cited as a indicator of a countries economic power.
And it will useful to us how. Why would we transport it anywhere at hideous expense when most of the places we are planning to go have stocks enough for use. And so why go to Venus to mine it from the atmosphere then build somehow an infrastructure to launch it around the solar system.
Especially as we will likely be going to Saturn just so we can get at the Helium 3 there so there is Sulphur there too and a willingness for us to develop infrastructure there.
It can be obtained in bulk on Venus, whereas all those othe locations require finding the components in scattered mineral deposits and using expensive chemical factories to produce it. On Venus it can be refined straight out of the clouds.
Its extremely useful stuff. Even the Venus colony could make great use of it. We don't need to use the surface on Venus to make it habitable, we just need to bring materials from other locations in space and transport them so people can live above Venus taking advantage of its pressure, temperature and gravity at that altitude.
Nobody has fused D-T, never mind He3, so I wouldn't worry about that right now.
If we go to Saturn, It should be Titan, because of its vast hydrocarbon, water and nitrogen reserves plus the low low gravity. Large automated cargo ships built in space could transport material from this moon to the Earth, Mars, The Moon and Venus.
Titan would do wonders for bulk production of plastics, fertilizers and composite materials in space. 
#198 Re: Human missions » Venus First » 2008-04-16 15:19:17
If you're going to export sulfur from venus, you might as well export it from earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyanhydrides polyanhydrides
Why? There is vast clouds of Sulphuric Acid on Venus that could be directly tapped. On Earth, you need to create sulphuric acid in chemical plant from other minerals. The escape velocity of Venus is slightly lower than Earth. woot!
Sulphuric acid is one of the most useful and produced chemicals in the industry. The ability to produce large amounts of it is often cited as a indicator of a countries economic power.
#199 Re: Human missions » Venus First » 2008-04-16 09:56:49
It is quite possible that, within the next 50 years, carbon fiber and CNT fiber composites will become the predominant building material in developed nations. They are very strong, and will eventually become very cheap.
They still have their limits so a mixed approach is a lot better. Some stuff donee with Carbon Fibre, some with Metals. As soon as asteroid mining becomes possible, Metals will probably become a lot cheaper.
The machinery required to make CNTs and Carbon Fiber is a lot more complicated than those required for Metals.
#200 Re: Human missions » Venus First » 2008-04-16 09:02:05
Why would we be building a floating colony out of Iron when there's perfectly good Carbon and Energy in abundance?
Because nearly everything on Earth is built out of the stuff. Very little structural stuff is built from carbon. If turning C02 into structural materials was easy with sunlight as a the power source, there would be no global warming problem 
It may useful for building some stuff in the colony, but given that most structures on Earth are made from metals and industry is very good at them, It makes sense to keep with what you know best.
Don't worry, the Carbon will be useful for making steel.
Before suggesting anymore bare elemental approaches to colonies, I would suggest finding what everything single thing in your home is made from. You would be suprised how much shit goes into the simplest products!