What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

John Creighton · 2005-12-12 00:10:30

I missed the earlier part of the conversation but if you are building a truly massive starship then there are clearly advantages to building in a lower gravity environment be it in space or on the moon. Of course there would be no reason for such a massive undertaking anytime this century.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-12 08:56:54

I missed the earlier part of the conversation but if you are building a truly massive starship then there are clearly advantages to building in a lower gravity environment be it in space or on the moon. Of course there would be no reason for such a massive undertaking anytime this century.

I don't think there is a signifigant advantage from the reduced Lunar gravity. It will permit you to make lighter structures and smaller engines since they don't have to withstand 1G gravity, but this isn't that big of a savings, and if the ship is built to only handle 1/6th-G accelerations then the whole ship will be awfully flimsy... chemical/nuclear rocket burns, rapid attitude changes, artifical gravity via spinning, and aerobraking all require signifigant structural strength, which you won't have if the ship is only designed for Lunar gravity to save mass.

Furthermore, you must build ships on the Moon out of Aluminum or Titanium, which are heavier than Carbon composites and inflatable polymer structures (TransHAB). Bulk polymer also makes the best radiation shielding, because its Hydrogen-rich... But the Moon doesn't have any Hydrogen. I doubt there is much Lithium on the Moon to make Al/Li alloy that reduced so much mass from the Space Shuttle main tank. The list goes on, that since the Moon lacks so many elements, that a Lunar ship will probobly be inferior to one built on Earth.

Then there is the trouble of actually building the thing on the Moon. A Lunar VAB would be a massive undertaking, since its walls would have to be thick enough to hold in air pressure yet large enough to accomodate ~10m sized pieces. And the heating/cooling bill?... There is no way that such vessels could be built by robot or suited astronaut. And then you have to actually refine the metals, which while plentiful on the Moon, are energy intensive to extract in quantity, with even the little dinky Delta-IV first stage weighing 20,000kg without engine.

The simple fact of the matter is, that there is no possible way to build a rocket factory on the Moon without cheap launch from Earth, and if you have cheap launch from Earth, the cheif reason to have the Lunar rocket factory (reduced cost launch) is destroyed. Its a lose-lose situation for the Moon.

And it gets worse... a large fraction (min 1/6th) of the propellant used on the Moon has to be imported, and even more has to be spent to soft-land it on the Moon. And this is on top of the materials you'll have to import from Earth (computers/avionics, certain engine parts, LSS boxes, etc). A great deal of mass will have to be imported from Earth to build and launch every Lunar-made ship... so does that make it really a Lunar made ship anymore? Does it make sense to have to launch so much from Earth just to save some of the trouble of launching the whole thing from Earth? You would have to burn more fuel just to import everything from Earth then you would save by Lunar launch!

Dook · 2005-12-12 13:33:18

This idea that we should attempt to buid giant ships full of humans and send them out into the solar system is ridiculous.

Where would they go? Pluto? Why? Another solar system? Yeah after a 20 year voyage where their bodies would atrophy into skeletons and not be able to handle any gravity at all.

There is no benefit to this.

Instead of crying about us to open our minds why don't you solve the problems Martin.

RobS · 2005-12-12 18:34:32

I quite agree with GCN. The moon will be a mining site if we can find suitable platinum group metals, which we probably can. I am a bit less pessimistic about the light elements, though, because (1) I think the evidence does favor usable deposits of ice at the poles, and (2) a byproduct of some PGM mining (chondrite-enstatite bodies for example) will be light elements (carbon, for sure; probably some water from hydrated minerals).

But we won't be sure of the polar ice deposits for a few years, and we won't have any light elements as a byproduct of PGM refining for some time.

I completely agree about the uselessness of rail systems. Robotic trucks can drive themselves on unimproved dirt roads at 30 km/hour already. With a suitable supply of hydrogen and oxygen for their fuel cells, they could go from the lunar south pole to the equator (1500 miles/2500 km) in three days, day or night, and the water they arrived with would be a valuable cargo in itself.

I suppose the moon might eventually go into space vehicle repair and manufacture of some parts, then entire vehicles. But that will require a series of stages: (1) cheap transport to the moon; (2) PGMs or another compelling economic resource on the moon; (3) the creation of a substantial lunar facility around that resource supply; (4) development of ancillary capabilities, like repair of very large and complex mining machines leading naturally to repair of space vehicles, and production of some complex mining equipment parts leading to production of certain spece vehicle parts; and finally (5) a reason to site that new rocket factory in Mare Humorum rather than in Cincinnati or Rio de Janiero (which may have more to do with the political pull of lunar politicians, if there are any, or the role of political corruption, than economic sense).

Frankly, Mars may have a better chance of building space vehicles than the moon, for these reasons:

1. It has all the necessary elements.
2. Because of isolation it will have to develop some repair and manufacturing capacity, and once that capacity exists Marsian leaders will want to expand and develop it.
3. Launch to Martian orbit should rival terrestrial launch in costs, the decreased delta-v being matched by the lower demand for launches and thus less of an economy of scale. However, whereas resable shuttles for launching stuff into low earth orbit may be cheap only for relatively small payloads (20 tonnes or less), Marsian launches may be able to handle larger payloads, so they may have advantages with launching large units. (I'm not talking about early in the settlement of Mars, obviously).
4. Mars has Phobos and Deimos, which can provide fuel and might eventually (when Mars gets very large) house large space drydocks (where one can assemble large things in a radiation-free environment). I am envisoning here surface habitats that rotate, so the inhabitants live in a gravitied environment; that are buried, so they live in a low-radiation environment; and where they can carry out whatever orbital production, manufacturing, and assembly that proves economical (we don't know of anything yet, but perhaps things will be found).

-- RobS

P.S.: As for the current "explore versus settle" debate, I find it an unfortunate distraction, because right now space travel is so expensive, dangerous, and inefficient that no one will fund settlement of anything. But exploration will develop the technologies that make space travel cheaper and easier, and settlement will then follow naturally once economic factors allow (of they ever do).

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-12 20:39:49

The evidence favors some quantities of "snow" in the dust, very likly not Lunar glaciers, which I think will be sufficently sparse and difficult to extract that it will only be useful to partially offset a Lunar RLV's acent fuel bill. It will probobly take a few tonnes of Hydrogen to get an RLV back into orbit empty, much less with a payload or propellant to return to Earth orbit or the surface. It won't ever be plentiful without an unreasonably large strip-mining operation.

However I doubt that there are ever going to be large mining operations. The trouble of mining on the Moon will ensure that any PGMs will be pretty expensive, and will probobly supress demand on Earth such that its only used where its really nessesarry. There isn't ever going to be any "substantial facilities" nor "large and complex mining machines."

Even small-scale science and PGM mining bases are going to require signifigant lift from Earth to be productive, and so if there is any water to be had it will probobly all be used to provide Hydrogen for RLV launch, and there won't be tonnes and tonnes of it left over for polymer synthesis. Infact, the current NASA scheme for a LOX generator uses Hydrogen to chemically reduce Ilmenite, and some will probobly be needed to make up for recycling losses. Direct thermal cracking of Aluminum, Titanium, and Iron oxides is extremely energy-intensive.

The carbonyl PGM refining process will result in lots and lots of leftover Nickel and Iron metal in convienant vapor-deposition ready form, so I could see some of the simpler & heavier componets for mining equipment and LOX/LH2 storage tanks... but thats really about it. Even making plates to weld together into a "garage" would be an awful lot of work.

"a reason to site that new rocket factory in Mare Humorum rather than in Cincinnati or Rio de Janiero"

There isn't one. If you've got cheap lift from Earth, and we'll have to go to the Moon regularly anyway, what do need a Lunar rocket factory for?
___________________________________________

I agree with you largely on Mars though, access to the lighter elements and the distance from Earth are compelling for building at least some of their own rockets.

Martian launchers won't nessesarrily have a big edge in payload capacity however. It will be hard to build anything big on Mars, particularly out of the best materials (Aluminum and high end polymers will be at a premium) and they don't have the advantage of aerodynamic lift, which dictates a somewhat less efficient DC-X style RLV. So, Martians will probobly stick to small/medium sized vehicles since they will be cheaper to operate.

Phobos and Deimos are both really just asteroids, and subject to the same very difficult problems with mining them. It might make sense to put a fuel depot there in the long term, but not "dry docks" nor spinning HABs. It will be so much easier to ferry crews or repair ships from the surface (especially since ships will be modular due to small/medium payloads), that aproximatly zero-G stays should not be a problem. In any event, the gravity isn't quite zero, which will make a spinning habitat difficult to design.

I am a little annoyed with the "YOU HATE COLONIZATION" sentiments too around here (not by you Rob), I'm just being realistic.

RobS · 2005-12-13 13:17:39

Thank God you are realistic, as others are excessively optimistic.

I am a bit more optimistic about lunar water than you, though. Ice is definitely out in the sense of layers, but regolith mixed with five percent frost by weight is not. The folks at the Colorado School of Mines figure one could mine regolith for water if it is 1-2% ice, and that strikes me as possible.

-- RobS

Martin_Tristar · 2005-12-13 18:56:03

Well,

I think you are both a bit conversative in your views (RobS, GCNRevenger), of course the moon and mars are not ideal locations for humanity but the vast amounts of resources required can be justified for the greater benefit of the human race.

Yes this undertaking will be the greatest undertaking of humanity since we moved across the world and created the cultures on our little planet. We need to have the same colonist spirit to move into space. We need to tie the exploration of a planet or moon to the settlement of that planet or moon. This means we go back to the lunar surface we are going to colonize the surface, because we shouldn't " PLAY ROCKETS " to the moon and not meet medium to long term objectives of colonization in space.

To seriously going to the Moon we need to have proper plan for use of the lunar surface before building and expanding across the surface. I can see the development of several multi-building settlements specific for different sciences and activities and a few large colonies on the moon. Then we are colonizing Moon we can use the surface in a productive manner that benefits the medium or long term objectives of humanity. ( Meaning - Multi-buildings upwards to 25-50 people and colonies of 100+ people on the surface. )

Then go out to the other planets beyond :

To seriously colonize Mars we need to have a several single building outposts , several multi-building settlements and a few large colonies on the planet. Then we are colonizing Mars. ( Meaning - Single buildings - 6 people, Multi-buildings upwards to 50-75 people and Colonies of 100+ people on the surface. )

It doesn't look that NASA or any other space fairing nation has a comprehensive plan for moving into space.

Dook · 2005-12-13 20:44:41

Lunar waste again...

Lunar buildings for different sciences? Yeah, like what different sciences?

What manner would a lunar colony benefit humanity? You've obviously ignored the repeated facts that the moon is not a good source for rocket fuel and it is a gravity well that your 'giant' ships will not be able to escape from.

Go to other planets and beyond? Uh, we've been doing that already for a very long time. Having humans out there improves nothing.

NASA or any other space agency does not have a plan for moving into space because that would be a huge waste of money and human life. You are stuck in Star Trek fantasy.

At our current level of technology human exploration of the solar system will be motorhome, propane tank, and tv dinner style.

Commodore · 2005-12-13 21:24:44

At our current level of technology human exploration of the solar system will be motorhome, propane tank, and tv dinner style.

Assuming for the sake of arguement that this were actually true, without a bunch of people out there munching on their proverbial TV dinners in their proverbial RVs (and happy to do it I might add), what reason would we have to improve our current level of manned space flight technology?

Martin_Tristar · 2005-12-13 22:01:21

Dook,

I take offence to your statement regarding what I said , and dismissed it as a Star trek fantasy. I don't mind you believing that exploration in the solar system as long the don't try to get in the road of the colonists.

I am sick and tried of the crap that you say the moon can't be used for anything, We will taken you comments ---- then if that's true no nation wants to go there but ever nations does, its possible to land a remote laser on a droid powered by solar energy and that could be a weapons platform then stop all nations landing on the moon and have no access to the HE3 or any other minerals / elements on the moon ---- because you claimed that nations on the don't require it. ( Don't think it can't be done it can ) ---- It doesn't have to be just the Moon , the scenerio could be mars as well placed on the moons or in orbit.

With the above scenerio the moon or mars would be off limits to all nations that would start development of armed space vessels --- wouldn't allow this to happen to its space vessels and the action of the various fairing nations against the individual or grow of individuals doing this act would be swift.

They want things from the moon or mars and don't think they just want to go for scientific reasons because people don't spend 100's of Billions to play with there rockets, collect rock samples and do nothing, If going to the moon or mars is just that then get out of the way and move over because other people have different ideas / goals/ objectives and they won't stop with the sightseeing and tourist samples and go home.

Dook, When I am talking about larger vessels we are talking about those design with David Robinson website http://www.bambam131.com. We don't have any star trek technologies do you see any or do you know of any then tell us, if not then keep your crap in your head because you just get people angry and and feel insulted by your comments.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-13 22:43:02

Well,
I think you are both a bit conversative in your views (RobS, GCNRevenger), of course the moon and mars are not ideal locations for humanity but the vast amounts of resources required can be justified for the greater benefit of the human race.
Yes this undertaking will be the greatest undertaking of humanity since we moved across the world and created the cultures on our little planet. We need to have the same colonist spirit to move into space. We need to tie the exploration of a planet or moon to the settlement of that planet or moon. This means we go back to the lunar surface we are going to colonize the surface, because we shouldn't " PLAY ROCKETS " to the moon and not meet medium to long term objectives of colonization in space.
To seriously going to the Moon we need to have proper plan for use of the lunar surface before building and expanding across the surface. I can see the development of several multi-building settlements specific for different sciences and activities and a few large colonies on the moon. Then we are colonizing Moon we can use the surface in a productive manner that benefits the medium or long term objectives of humanity. ( Meaning - Multi-buildings upwards to 25-50 people and colonies of 100+ people on the surface. )
Then go out to the other planets beyond :
To seriously colonize Mars we need to have a several single building outposts , several multi-building settlements and a few large colonies on the planet. Then we are colonizing Mars. ( Meaning - Single buildings - 6 people, Multi-buildings upwards to 50-75 people and Colonies of 100+ people on the surface. )
It doesn't look that NASA or any other space fairing nation has a comprehensive plan for moving into space.

Perhaps you are having some difficulty here Tristar...

"Colonization" is only possible on worlds that have all elements needed for life available and all bulk elements for industry, the world must also not have chemicals in its environment that are readily dangerous, and also have physical conditions that humans can live in indefinatly without excessive artifical support.

Basically, to have a colony there must be sufficent reasources for essentially unlimited population and industrial growth without overwhelming demands for the average colonist: health, economic, and so on.

The Moon...:

-Does not have a ready supply of any of the elements of life in large quantities except Oxygen. There are no lakes of ice or hills of nitrates, Carbon will be in sparse bits of meteors, and these elements will always have to be imported with great difficulty from space.

-Does not have large supplies of Carbon and probobly not Hydrogen either needed for industry, without these elements in quantity, plastics and rocket fuel will always be at a premium, which will simply prevent a Moon colony from being remotely economically self-sufficent. Ever.

-The Moon's complete lack of an atmosphere dictates that no colony can be built without thick walls able to block large amounts of radiation, retain pressure despite minor meteor impacts, and withstand the extreme 400 degree temperature swings.

-The Moon's lack of gravity means that no one born or who has lived on the Moon for extended periods can ever leave and go to any other heavier body (Earth, Mars, Ganymede, etc) without special physical training, perhaps drugs and even surgical modification. It is also possible that children cannot be birthed properly on the Moon at all, Martian gravity is bad enough.

-The Moon also has psychological issues, that "cabin fever" will always be a problem that can't be easily cured since pressurized volume will always be at a premium, space walks will be much less tactile then Mars MCP suits (mainly thermal management), and transparent-domed cities/greenhouses are not ever going to be practical on the Moon. (radiation/impact shielded domes are too heavy to be inflatable and transparent)

So, adding all these together, and what do you get? That the Moon is just not a practical place for people to live. Work? Sure, its just a three day hop from the homeworld, but no viable colony will ever be sucessfully established on the Moon.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-13 23:35:19

"I am sick and tried of the crap that you say the moon can't be used for anything"

The Moon has its uses, just none of them will ever be on the scale you are thinking of.

"When I am talking about larger vessels we are talking about those design with David Robinson website http://www.bambam131.com."

Um. Mr Robinson's ships are all, like, just for show. They are just to be pretty, and not anything remotely resembling a functioning, useful spacecraft.

clark · 2005-12-14 06:17:19

Well, I can't fault the conservative view. Colonizing space is a challenge. Which in my feeble mind, is kind of the draw.

But I just got a post card from Vegas, and it says they made the desert green. Go figure.

I can't say I am surprised, given my experience living in an equally greened and artificial man-made environment... Los Angeles (and I'm not talking just culturaly devoid).

Go ask the Dutch if living beneath sea level is possible.

Moral of the story? Yeah, remember that living in places where the environment does not freely support living in that place is a problem. Just remember, mankind is pretty ingenous in figuring out how to make it otherwise.

Meanwhile, 6 billion (and climbing!) human souls continue the unimpeded progress of altering their environment, localy and globaly, to suit their needs.

Cheers!

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-14 08:25:31

There is a fundimental difference though Clark, of the scale and magnetude of effort required to support life on the Moon. Sure you could build an underground "cavern" and grow plants in it with nuclear energy using imported hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen, but the expense would be too great for a practical number of people. There is a cutoff, a threshold, which the Moon surpasses.

You just can't have a large scale self-sustaining "indoor" ecosystem, a functioning open-ended economy, or anything resembling a self-sufficent civilization on the Moon. The need to import so much material to the Moon and so much hardship means there is never going to be a colony there. This is not like greening a desert, here on Earth you already have copius water and such in the same gravity well, and brining in stuff by rocket is a non-starter.

Antarctica is a Carribian beach compared to the Moon, yet nobody lives there besides a few half-crazy scientists. The great deserts of Earth are not settled despite their huge wilderness regions. The vast lands filled with mineral, energy, and food riches under the sea aren't settled on Earth... Why not? There is no reason to that justifies the cost. Its too hard to live there, and with the Earth so close, nobody ever will.

clark · 2005-12-14 09:12:44

There is a fundimental difference though Clark, of the scale and magnetude of effort required to support life on the Moon. Sure you could build an underground "cavern" and grow plants in it with nuclear energy using imported hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen, but the expense would be too great for a practical number of people.

I'm sure a bunch of people from the 18th century would balk at the places we now inhabit. You yourself easily imagine some semblance of an environment carved out of the moon rock

There is a cutoff, a threshold, which the Moon surpasses.

Okay, what is the cutoff? What is the threshold? What is this imaginary line that we cannot cross? Will we never be able to? Is it merely a function of technology? If, as I suspect you will at least grudingly agree, it is a matter of technology, then it simply a matter of time.

We conduct economic processes that are enabled by technology development. Given our current state of technology, sure, the economics are not there. Yet you would be a fool if you discounted the historical evidence that demonstrates mankind utilizes technology to enable new ways of working and living that were previously impossible.

Antarctica is a Carribian beach compared to the Moon, yet nobody lives there besides a few half-crazy scientists. The great deserts of Earth are not settled despite their huge wilderness regions. The vast lands filled with mineral, energy, and food riches under the sea aren't settled on Earth... Why not? There is no reason to that justifies the cost. Its too hard to live there, and with the Earth so close, nobody ever will.

People live in better places because it is easier to live in those places, but that doesn't mean we are not capable of living in harsher places.

And so, the nut-jobs will lead the way, as they ever have. Some choose hardship over leisure. To eahc their own, but you really shouldn't say it isn't possible- and if you do, qualify it.

Commodore · 2005-12-14 12:25:39

"Colonization" is only possible on worlds that have all elements needed for life available and all bulk elements for industry, the world must also not have chemicals in its environment that are readily dangerous, and also have physical conditions that humans can live in indefinatly without excessive artifical support.
Basically, to have a colony there must be sufficent reasources for essentially unlimited population and industrial growth without overwhelming demands for the average colonist: health, economic, and so on.
The Moon...:

By that standard the Earth itself would not be suitable for human colonization.

Just as resources are not neatly and evenly distrbuted on Earth, nor are they in space. Sometimes you got to travel a little and sweat a little to get them.

We need to start thinking of space as a place, instead of little peices of it as place.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-14 12:27:54

No, not really. People in the 18th century lived in the about the worst climate conditions that people do today. Vikings in the cold, Aztec in the jungle, Bedouins in the dry and hot, and so on.

"Okay, what is the cutoff? What is the threshold? What is this imaginary line that we cannot cross?"

It is really a very simple matter... that there must be several conditions and elements present in quantity to make a viable colony. The Moon does not have them, and so, it isn't. Unless you do have these things, there can be no self-suffcent colony, it will always be dependant - life or death dependant - on large scale supply from other worlds. And thats why there will never be a real colony.

This is not a matter of technology, this is a matter of economics. Why live somewhere that doesn't have the elements and import them, when you can live where the elements are to begin with?

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-14 12:42:40

"Colonization" is only possible on worlds that have all elements needed for life available and all bulk elements for industry, the world must also not have chemicals in its environment that are readily dangerous, and also have physical conditions that humans can live in indefinatly without excessive artifical support.
Basically, to have a colony there must be sufficent reasources for essentially unlimited population and industrial growth without overwhelming demands for the average colonist: health, economic, and so on.
The Moon...:

By that standard the Earth itself would not be suitable for human colonization.
Just as resources are not neatly and evenly distrbuted on Earth, nor are they in space. Sometimes you got to travel a little and sweat a little to get them.
We need to start thinking of space as a place, instead of little peices of it as place.

But space isn't one singular place, it is a vast expanse with many different worlds in it that have different elements and different physical conditions.

To have a self-sustaining colony, the elements needed for life and industry must not be unattainable, importation from space is not an option.

BWhite · 2005-12-14 13:26:22

And all of this is why MARS is the second safest place in the solar system to raise a family. Nitrogen may be an issue but the other stuff is there, CO2 and H2O.

The Moon is a potential mine and potential site for certain industrial processes we do not want to perform on Earth. Potentially, maybe, perhaps.

The Moon may be a terrific place for some telescopes although some people say free flyers are better.

Its also a place to practice for Mars because if your life support develops a flaw that will take 10 days to kill you off, you can come home.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-12-14 17:37:40

We need to gather resources from different location in our solar system to have the ability to expand into space in a meaningful way. We need materials / resources from the asteroid belt , the outer planets and moons to sustain the growth for humanity in space. It doen't worry me or other that all the locations are not ideal but that the movement of resources can be achieved.

We need to build custom vessels for gathering these resources and ferrying them back to the surface bases, and orbital stations. As we develop newer technologies this will improve the movement of resources thus reduce the waste. We also need larger and more complex explorer vessels that can stay out longer in deep space to explore the frontier, pushing our frontier further and further out.

I know that some or most of you have issues about the time or why we need to go to the moon or why not start to mars but we need major space based infrastucture to keep supplying people in orbit, on mars and on the moon. We need to acknowledge the costs and fund the resources required for our next step to humanity's future -----> Permanent presence in space for humanity.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-14 18:54:40

If you always have to import bulk elements from space for basic everyday life support and industry, then your settlement will never be more than a way station, it will not be a true new home for humans.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-12-14 19:07:24

Thank you for agreeing with me , GCNRevenger, about Mars as well, needing things to be supplied for settlements on that planet. The only true new home will be another earth planet around another yellow type star.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-14 19:10:26

Before you pat yourself on the back too hard for co-opting my statement Tristar, you do know that such a philosophy about colony site selection means that the Moon and most of the other bodies in the Solar System are not acceptable sites, right?

Edit: in fact, there appears to be only two worlds where humans could probobly expand open-ended in the solar system:

-Earth
-Mars

Other possibilities include Titan, Callisto, and Ganymede, but only with the discovery of fusion power, and the latter two may or may not have all four elements of life. (Ganymede nor Callisto may have nitrogen, and Ganymede may lack carbon too).

Dook · 2005-12-14 20:02:30

Commodore: Are you suggesting that at our current level of technology human exploration of the solar system would not be motorhome, propane tank, and tv dinner style? Could you go into more detail?

Martin: We've been trying for many posts now to get you to understand that the moon is not a resource hub. You don't go into a gravity well unless you really need or want to. And I didn't say the moon couldn't be used for anything.

I think we should test our mars mission hardware on the moon and leave behind habitats and rovers that can then be used to build a giant interferometer on the dark side. With that we may be able to actually see planets. This is real science and something that actually would benefit humanity.

Remote laser powered by solar energy? Sigh...right back to Star Trek again. Solar panels are pretty darned inefficient, 30% is about the most you are going to get so in order to power a decent sized laser you would probably need a solar farm the size of a football field.

Exactly what resources do we need from the asteroid belt? Is there something there that we can't get on the earth?

Humans on mars don't need rocks, the place is full of them.

BWhite · 2005-12-14 21:02:57

Heh! If we are to get wild, could we drop a floating mining facility onto the atmosphere of Venus and mine the nitrogen?

Build sealed tanks filled with vacuum and build an oil rig like platform and then set it down into the atmosphere and let it float.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2005-12-12 00:10:30

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#152 2005-12-12 08:56:54

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#153 2005-12-12 13:33:18

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#154 2005-12-12 18:34:32

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#155 2005-12-12 20:39:49

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#156 2005-12-13 13:17:39

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#157 2005-12-13 18:56:03

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#158 2005-12-13 20:44:41

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#159 2005-12-13 21:24:44

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#160 2005-12-13 22:01:21

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#161 2005-12-13 22:43:02

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#162 2005-12-13 23:35:19

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#163 2005-12-14 06:17:19

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#164 2005-12-14 08:25:31

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#165 2005-12-14 09:12:44

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#166 2005-12-14 12:25:39

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#167 2005-12-14 12:27:54

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#168 2005-12-14 12:42:40

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#169 2005-12-14 13:26:22

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#170 2005-12-14 17:37:40

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#171 2005-12-14 18:54:40

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#172 2005-12-14 19:07:24

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#173 2005-12-14 19:10:26

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#174 2005-12-14 20:02:30

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#175 2005-12-14 21:02:57

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

Board footer