…by a supposed “conservative.” Charles Krauthammer continues his (unusually, for him) ill-informed hysteria over the new space policy:
…the administration presents the abdication as a great leap forward: Launching humans will be turned over to the private sector, while NASA’s efforts will be directed toward landing on Mars.
This is nonsense. It would be swell for private companies to take over launching astronauts. But they cannot do it. It’s too expensive. It’s too experimental. And the safety standards for getting people up and down reliably are just unreachably high.
Sure, decades from now there will be a robust private space-travel industry. But that is a long time. In the interim, space will be owned by Russia and then China. The president waxes seriously nationalist at the thought of China or India surpassing us in speculative “clean energy.” Yet he is quite prepared to gratuitously give up our spectacular lead in human space exploration.
As for Mars, more nonsense. Mars is just too far away. And how do you get there without the stepping stones of Ares and Orion? If we can’t afford an Ares rocket to get us into orbit and to the moon, how long will it take to develop a revolutionary new propulsion system that will take us not a quarter-million miles but 35 million miles?
I just read that second paragraph, and shake my head in sorrow at the ignorance, not to mention the double standard. NASA has killed fourteen astronauts in the past quarter of a century. On what basis can he claim that private industry (which is highly motivated not to kill people, because it might put them out of business, whereas NASA is rewarded when it fails), will do worse?
And even ignoring their horrific cost, in what way are Ares and Orion “stepping stones” to anywhere, let alone Mars? No one has ever put forth a plausible scenario in which Orion is utilized for a Mars mission.
Meanwhile, a much more sensible piece can be found over at the Asia Times, which points out how ridiculous it is to worry about the Chinese (with quotes from Charles Lurio and Jeff Foust).
[Update a few minutes later]
Keith Cowing points out more historical ignorance on the part of the good doctor:
Um, check your facts next time. We had a 6 year gap between Apollo-Soyuz in 1975 and STS-1 in 1981. We had no way to send humans into space during that time. And, FWIW, between the end of Mercury and the beginning of Gemini, we had no access, and between Gemini 12 and Apollo 7 we had no access to space. Between STS-107 and STS-114 … and so on. Gaps are not a new thing.
And a continuation of the Program of Record would have guaranteed that the upcoming one would be the longest yet.
[Morning update]
Krauthammer link is fixed now, sorry.
[Update a few minutes later]
Jeff Foust has a report on Lori Garver’s speech at the FAA meeting yesterday. It won’t satisfy the die-hard Apollo/Ares huggers of course, but it should appeal to more sensible people, including conservatives.
Thomas,
Somehow I missed your post about Antarctica. Let me respond now.
Antarctica competes with other sites right here on Earth and suffers by the comparison. I imagine if profitable resources were found there some might find a way to mine it. Ice has limited structural uses. Antarctica is one g. Giving no launch advantage (being away from the equator doesn’t help much either.)
Mars allows operation of fuel and go SSTO RLV with on site production of fuel considering we can almost do it at one g now. While it may be a while before Mars could produce such locally, there’s no question they could be produced here on Earth and assuming we could get it into Earth orbit it would be no big deal transferring them to Mars. That gives a huge orbital development advantage to Mars over the Earth because it will be much easier to put mass in Mars orbit than we can to Earth orbit.
Perhaps a heavier, less efficient SSTO RLV may eventually be produced on Mars itself which never-the-less is just as capable of getting payloads to Mars orbit.
We’ve been exploiting the resources of the Earth for thousands of years. The exploitation of Mars would start at year one. It is very probable we will find very rich deposits on the surface of Mars that hasn’t been seen on Earth in a long time.
The environmentalist are doing there best to ruin this planet. Mars may be able to keep itself free from such nonsense. Nuclear power may find itself set free. The radiation environment on Mars would make any fear of nuclear radiation seem silly. Both will be mitigated and nuclear propulsion will finally become normal for spaceships.
Mars will need abundant energy which only nuclear will provide. If you’re a nuclear engineer you’ll want to go to Mars because Earth is going to be a backwater thanks to the envirowackos.
Mars has advantages over space as well. Spaceships are limited in size because you will want to move them. This limits their population. Regardless what we do with robots you still need engineers and technicians for industry. Mars will support the large population that most space colonies would not. Construction is much easier in a gravity environment verses zero g as well. Martians will be able to work much longer than spacemen working underground protected from radiation where spacemen would be exposed. Gravity may also make extraction of resources easier. We really don’t know how difficult mining in zero g might be.
A magnetic bubble may eventually mitigate the radiation environment working equally well in space or the surface of Mars.
I could probably think of more.
Ken,
It seems likely that we could seed an industrial civilisation on Mars a la von Neumann, even with current technology, provided we are willing to use brute force. The question is how much mass you would have to land. We’re probably talking hopelessly unaffordable amounts of mass, off by several orders of magnitude.
Another limitation would be finding enough volunteers to go. If you filter out the idiots, you may not be able to find hundreds to thousands of volunteers. And even the idiots would probably change their minds very quickly once there, which means we’d have to repatriate their sorry asses. Mars is an excellent place for a vacation, but a truly horrible place to live and raise children. You’d also have to persuade sufficient numbers of women-folk to come along and make babies. Good luck with that.
The bottleneck for large scale activity in space is launch costs. If you want large scale activity, you should focus on promoting having as many propellant launches as possible as soon as possible, on freely competing commercial launchers of unrestricted size. Keeping the lower bound as low as possible would be crucial.
We still don’t know enough about Mars vs. the moon to know which will be economically more attractive. PGMs are unpromising in the near term because very heavy and finicky chemical equipment is needed to extract the parts-per-million PGMs from the iron. (If you just throw the raw iron rocks at earth, you’ve just created the ultimate range safety hazard).
Mars has a geology that is (or at least was) far more earth-like than the moon. So it’s far more likely we’ll find things like gold and diamonds there. Of course that is sheer speculation, but the point is we don’t know — we have to do far more detailed but affordable (i.e. robotic) exploration to find out.
Kelly,
The impact speed depends greatly on the direction of the NEO’s vector relative to the Moon. A NEO overtaking the Moon in its orbit, versus head on, will have a much lower impact speed then one hitting head on. Dennis covers all this in his book in detail.
Mobile platforms will be the only practical way for mining NEOs, Isaac Asimov discussed the idea in a great essay in 1967 in which he called them “Spomes” (SPace hOMES). Basically a Spome is an “O’Neil” habitat with a propulsion system (although his essay was written a few years before the more publicize work of Dr. O’Neil…). Asimov points out that the advantages of Spomes would be so great that humans living on planetary surfaces would be only a primitive transition state to true space settlement since the true home of a space civilization is in space. In his essay Asimov shows how Spomes will be used to first settle/develop the Solar System, then follow the Oort Cloud to the stars over the next several thousands of years…
Here is the reference:
Asimov, Issac, (1965), “Spomelife: The Universe and The Future”, Atmosphere in Space Cabins and Closed Environments, ed. Karl Kammermeyer, Meredith 1966; originally presented as a paper to the American Chemical Society on September 13, 1965.
The essay was later reprinted in Asimov’s collection of essays
“”Is anyone there?”, 1967 by Doubleday, Ash.
And in
Skylife, ed. Gregory Benford & George Zebrowski, Harcourt 2000
This is why I keep focused on lunar industrialization. Lunar resources will be critical to building the first generation of Spomes at Earth-Moon L2. These Spomes will get then go out to develop first the resources of the NEOs, then the rest of the Solar System leading to the expansion of the human econsphere to include all of its resources.
Mars, with its heavy gravity and atmosphere will simply be by passed as unsuitable for settlement as will most of the other planets and large moons. They may be studied by Spomes specializing in research (think of a mobile focused university community) but little value will be seen in settling on such harsh environments just as we see little value in settling Antarctica.
I am actually working on a book along these lines, linking Dr. John Lewis work, “Mining the Sky: Untold Riches from the Asteroid Belt, Comets and Planets” [(1997) Basic Books.] with the historical trend of human industrial development since the 1500’s through the perspective of our current understanding of complexity economics to show its the next logical extension of the trend of that industrial development.
Ken,
[[[Antarctica competes with other sites right here on Earth and suffers by the comparison. I imagine if profitable resources were found there some might find a way to mine it.]]]
Which would then create a business model based on mining for settlement. That is why the Antarctic is uncompetitive with other locations on Earth, the economics are not there for settlement. That is the key point I am making about Mars.
Humans will settle the Solar System, as I noted in the above post. Mars is just not on the critical path, or any practical path to achieving that goal. Its too far (year + of travel, 20 minutes + time lag for communication), its gravity well too deep, its atmosphere requires specialize SSTO (i.e. heavy heat shields and streamlining, and ways to compensate for its high winds) that will no be suitable to any other planet. Like Earth you will have weather to deal with (ugh!) By contrast a SSTO designed for lunar operations will work on several other moons in the Solar System. No streamlining needed, no heat shield, no control system to compensate for high winds.
So Mars will simply be bypassed and the only settlements you will see will be some small science outposts at the mercy of government funding. Mars advocates may call for settlement all they want, but it Doesn’t matter, the economic and social forces that drive human expansion will just by pass it as they have Antarctica.
“The Case for Mars” is just a dead end as there is no case for Mars.
Why would you need a heat shield for a Mars SSTO?
> ken anthony Says:
> February 14th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
>> you can’t use the folks on earth to … teleconference train someone
>
> Correct, but you can share written instructions that a competent
> recipient can use to produce a needed item or determine a substitute.
It takes years to get good enough to be competent at something’s you need. (And why would they want to teach you?) Its like handing a how to build a nuclear sub Manual, and expect your folks can learn all the skills, make all the tools, learn to make all teh parts after developing those skills, mine refine, mill and forge all the raw materials (ignoring the ones where the raw materials aren’t no Mars)
>> Yeah, you have.
> I did not at any time say it would be easier. I simply asserted they could
> do what others have done.
When did anyone (outside of 20,000 leagues by J.V.) build and service a nuclear submarine in a remote area with no infrastructure and parts supplies? A early nuclear sub would actually be to primitive to support your colony – but its at least in the ball park.
>> and you keep saying, no they can do with out.
> Which is absolutely true for non-essential things. They would have to:
> a) Do without.
> b) Import
> c) Wait until they grow to the point where they can produce it.
> If essential they’d have to find a way to get it or find a suitable
> substitute. Most things are not essential.
Like air processors? Power systms? sensors?
===
> Humans may not be able to adapt to 0.38g and that’s
> a complete showstopper (you can spin up to one g in space but
> not generally on a planet.)
I suppose you could build you colonies on giant turntables, or on circular tracks in tunnels – but yeah it starts getting wacky.
==
>> You on another world. Working in high radiation, sick and
>> weak from low grav, in a world with no air – in a heavy space suit.
== So from the habitats they bring with them they would perhaps
> move to cliff dwellings. If they can’t find caves to seal they
> dig out caverns. So they would not be working in high radiation.
> They would have air, they would not be working in space suits
> (most of the time) because they would be mole people generally
> (because of the surface radiation.) They would have to adapt to
> the low gravity. This doesn’t mean sick or weak. ==
Low grav does mean sick and weak.
Yes, underground structures shelter you from Radiation, but what’s the point of going to Mars if your going to do everything underground? We have underground no Earth.
And how do yuo provide the air?
>> Ok, your off in fantasy land.
> History of steel making goes back thousands of years although
> again it is basically a gas light tech item. What is it about melting
> iron that you find to be a fantasy?
Asuming you can mine the ore, build a steel mill, find fuel for it, find new refining processes that don’t need coke, extra oxegen, etc. Then you have to work the steel, roll it/cast it/etc.
On earth those things need the nifastructure of thousands to hundreds of thousands of folks. That can be reduced a lot – but then you don’t have the raw materials, adn your staffs busy..
>> AND YOU DON”T THINK THEY NEED THE GEAR AND
>> SUPPORTON A CONSTRUCTION SITE HERE
> Since you shouted this point I suppose I should carefully and
> thoughtfully respond. I believe they need what they need. ==
;/
Are you trying to be annoying?
Is this backing off from your we can do it all from Victorian tech?
What they need is infrastructure and a supply chain shipping them everything from parts to processed material (I beams, wall board, electrical and data cables.
Just like every town and city here gets supplies from others, so will colonies in space. Its the whole concept of trying to make everything from local materials adn suplies – in a area with virtually no local supplies that’s the point of argument.
>==
>>…figures you can make a victorian era, steam punk space suit,
>> out of rocks next to the base
> Currently we make things out of Earth plants and minerals. You
> claim we CAN’T make thing from plants and minerals that happen
> not to come from the Earth?
Much you can’t make because their are materials unavailable on Mars. Others the materials are there, but it would require huge amounts of work and resources to recover and use it (better to ship thousands of tons of milled steel then a million tons of mining gear. Better hundreds of tons of electric systems then trying to export electronics manufacturing industry. Medicine, etc etc.
Yes in theory a civilization could make much of this out of Mars materials – but no colony on nation founded now could possibly do it.
> Dive suits worked fine for the navy before scuba became available.
Theres little difference between them from a technology standpoint. The point here is yuo might or might not be able to build one of them – but neithers good enough to be a space suits, and no I’m not just talking about the pressure suit – though thats a big issue.
> Rand Simberg Says:
> February 14th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
>> Millions is less then a years worth of passengers
>> at a major airport.
> So? It’s many orders off magnitude more than current
> space activities, putting it far along the asymptote of
> lower costs.
Given you need to pay off as much overhead as a similar complexity aircraft, being a few orders of magnitude smaller in market size might not move you far down the thousadn fold increase no the cost curve yuor stuck at now?
Martijn,
Atmospheric heating.
All the Mars landers have had one. Its one of the extra costs of going there and one of the possible points of failure for a Mars mission.
I was wondering if that might be your reason. There is no reason in principle why a Mars lander would have to have a heat shield, since EDL could be done fully propulsively and will have to be substantially propulsive anyway for large payloads such as habs and manned landers. My enthusiasm for this approach stems from a belief that heat shields would in all likelihood require an HLV. To counter the high IMLEO of a naive approach, you’d have to focus on SEP, NTR and ISRU to keep IMLEO down. Not everybody will agree with that approach of course, but I was wondering if you might know of an additional complication I wasn’t aware of.
If you are willing to go with Zubrin’s concept for an NTR Mars RLV using Martian CO2 or CH4 as working mass, then heat shields are not necessary at all.
> ken anthony Says:
> February 15th, 2010 at 2:02 am
> Antarctica competes with other sites right here on Earth and
> suffers by the comparison. I imagine if profitable resources were
> found there some might find a way to mine it. ==
Actually there are a lot of them, but for political reasons, adn transoprtation issues, they don’t.
>== Mars allows operation of fuel and go SSTO RLV with on site
> production of fuel considering we can almost do it at one g now. ==
As a nit, given we can’t use areobraking to slow down from reentry (bigger ships can’t find enough drag in the thin air.) you might need a lot more fueled delta-V then a Earth shuttle.
Nuclear shuttles no the other hand wouldn’t run into political walls like no Earth.
>== That gives a huge orbital development advantage to Mars
> over the Earth because it will be much easier to put mass in Mars
> orbit than we can to Earth orbit.
Actually likely not. Easier likely won’t equal cheaper – in the same way materials from the moon always seem to look cost uncompetitive from materials shipped up from Earth, since Earth launches in most scenarios stay cheaper then lunar launch.
>= Mars has advantages over space as well. Spaceships are
> limited in size because you will want to move them. ==
You can move counties in space. Low thrust needs and high available power is a big plus.
For example it might be more economical to tow a complete NEO to a harvesting city in LeGrange or something, rather then have the mine chase the ore.
>== Mars will support the large population that most space colonies
> would not. Construction is much easier in a gravity environment
> verses zero g as well. Martians will be able to work much longer
> than spacemen working underground protected from radiation
> where spacemen would be exposed. Gravity may also make extraction
> of resources easier.
All these seem backwards. Why couldn’t a space colony grow faster? It has less transport costs for supplies and products, much richer ore. More diverse resources. You can shield a big space colony as easily – or easier then a Mars City.
> Thomas Matula Says:
> February 15th, 2010 at 8:26 am
> Kelly,
>
> The impact speed depends greatly on the direction of the NEO’s
> vector relative to the Moon. A NEO overtaking the Moon in its orbit,
> versus head on, will have a much lower impact speed then one hitting
> head on. Dennis covers all this in his book in detail.
Have to look for the book.
> Mobile platforms will be the only practical way for mining NEOs,
> Isaac Asimov discussed the idea in a great essay in 1967 in which
> he called them “Spomes” (SPace hOMES). Basically a Spome is
> an “O’Neil” habitat with a propulsion system (although his essay
> was written a few years before the more publicize work of Dr. O’Neil…). ==
I wonder about the trade offs between movnig the NEOs to Earth for disassembly, or movnig the mining platform to the NEO?
I’m doing a paper and such related to the idea of harvesting oil from NEOs and shipping it to Earth. A couple NEOs have been sited with the equivalent of 10 times OPECs best year worth of crude. They are 1/3rd crude (hydrocarbon sludge is the astronautical term) 1/3rd water ice, 1/3rd rocky metallic ores. Sop using the water ice for reaction mass for steam rockets, you could tow them. Though towing a billion ton NEO into LeGrange (I really don’t want to think of them near LEO!!) and harvesting the metal and such for space based uses. (Melt Nickel iron chunk and directly form it into hull plates for colonies?) Sell the oil, use the water for reaction mass for ships. etc
> Asimov points out that the advantages of Spomes would be so great that
> humans living on planetary surfaces would be only a primitive transition
> state to true space settlement ==
\
O’Neil’s students came to a similar conclusion. The space colonies are so much more suitable for a industrial civilization it really looks like it has the edge.
Course technology could change that. Nano-tech or Star Trek replicators? Krell Machines?
😉
>== first settle/develop the Solar System, then follow the Oort Cloud
> to the stars over the next several thousands of years…
To slow. Interstellar space is pretty empty. It would make more sense to boost faster and skip the desert.
> Here is the reference:
I think I have those back home.
> This is why I keep focused on lunar industrialization. Lunar
> resources will be critical to building the first generation of
> Spomes at Earth-Moon L2. ===
That’s debatable. The economics of Earth launched prefabricaetd parts might be very decisive.
Why take the side trip to the moon, spend all the time and effort developing it, when they are slowing you down, increasing your program risk – and possibly increasing your start up costs.
>== Mars, with its heavy gravity and atmosphere will simply
> be by passed as unsuitable for settlement as will most of the
> other planets and large moons. ==
Seems likely. Though their could be things no Moons that aren’t available easily in space – but then I can’t think of what that could be that isn’t available cheaply no Earth?
> I am actually working on a book along these lines, linking
> Dr. John Lewis work, “Mining the Sky: Untold Riches from
> the Asteroid Belt, Comets and Planets” [(1997) Basic Books.]
> with the historical trend of human industrial development since
> the 1500’s through the perspective of our current understanding
> of complexity economics to show its the next logical extension
> of the trend of that industrial development.
Interesting. I was working no a book outlining the mining from heavy “downloader” Ore freighters, to in space transport, etc.
> Thomas Matula Says:
>
> February 15th, 2010 at 9:55 am
>> Why would Mars landers need heat shields?
>Atmospheric heating.
>
> All the Mars landers have had one. ==
Might not be possible for bigger ships. The biggest Mars landers were little bigger then a couple desks, adn that might be as big as Mars Atmospher can slow down acceptably. Bigger ones wuold eiather need huge wings, or they wuold plow nito the ground before aerobreaking could help you much.
If you filter out the idiots, you may not be able to find hundreds to thousands of volunteers. And even the idiots would probably change their minds very quickly once there, which means we’d have to repatriate their sorry asses.
Martijn, you’ve found another plus for Mars I hadn’t thought of. Mars could definitely use the labor force. There will be plenty of unskilled labor needs even if only excavation of caverns. Repatriation is on their own dime. That’s life.
The bottleneck for large scale activity in space is launch costs
Seems obvious except nothing can really be done about that without raising launch rates. Even if I’m wrong about absolutely everything else, this is THE reason for colonizing Mars. Supporting the startup of a colony will involve lot’s of supply launches. Many more than immigration launches which will also be significant. If I’m right that a colony can grow and thrive, that increases launch rate even more. The companies will focus on lowering their own launch costs. It’s mostly unproductive for anyone else to worry about it.
Mars, with its heavy gravity and atmosphere
Both gravity and atmosphere are useful things to have. They create challenges but also provide benefits. You might be able to work in shirtsleeve in a bubble in space, but that’s likely to be the minority where most work will be done in suits. Most work on Mars will be excavation in sealed caverns without spacesuits. Zero G is a very exhausting work environment. The 0.38g of Mars will make work less exhausting than here on Earth but still provide enough to avoid the problems of working in zero g. Mars atmosphere is a fuel source.
economics are not there for settlement
People focus on the material resources (which Mars has in abundance) but overlook labor resources which is just as great a need for economic success. Mars has local resources to support life in abundance. Processing air on a large scale is even easier than small scale because you don’t have to worry as much about tolerances… you overbuild which is easy on a planet surface but problematic in a space ship. We may eventually live in space but near term (this century) will mostly just visit. Mars is a place people will live (this century and beyond and tourists may visit.)
Like Earth you will have weather to deal
But unlike Earth it is thin enough that you can create a lander and have a landing profile that pretty much ignores the atmosphere. There will probably be no problem landing in the proverbial Martian dust storm.
It takes years to get good enough to be competent at something’s you need.
Yes, and they’ve already spent those years becoming good machinists. Which is why they can build a part they’ve never seen before from a blueprint (or often even less) usually in very efficient ways due to their experience and talent.
(And why would they want to teach you?)
It is expected that many of the colonists would be quite wealthy with much more net worth than the price of passage and would continue to have working assets back on Earth (if only a stock portfolio.) They would do what people do. Pay for it.
Its like handing a how to build a nuclear sub Manual, and expect your folks can learn all the skills, make all the tools, learn to make all teh parts after developing those skills, mine refine, mill and forge all the raw materials (ignoring the ones where the raw materials aren’t no Mars)
Not much need for a sub on Mars (AFAIK.) And you continue to go to the finish line with skyscrapers when mud huts are where you start. Mining and refining starts at the scale they are capable of and ramps up depending on labor and equipment. It’s a boot strap operation. It’s faster than linear growth as well (starts out slower, ends up much, much faster.) If a raw material doesn’t exist they find a substitute, import or do without. Everybody lives with limitations but don’t for a second think those limitations are show stoppers. They are not.
you don’t have the raw materials, adn your staffs busy
These are problems common to life. Not exactly a show stopper either.
We have underground no Earth.
Which we mostly don’t use because it’s so pleasant on the surface. Mars is a different circumstance. Working underground makes sense their because it allows a shirt sleeve working environment.
Is this backing off from your we can do it all from Victorian tech?
No. Even allowing for your characterizing.
What they need is infrastructure and a supply chain
Which they will have, just not on the scale that focusing on the finish line requires. Those working to mine raw materials will provide them to those that do the refining. Those that do the refining will provide it to the craftsmen. There’s your supply chain. Just in time even (which in the 80’s did not refer to compiling Java.)
whole concept of trying to make everything from local materials
You seem to have a problem with this concept but that’s what you do on a planet. That’s the advantage of a planet. That’s what we do on Earth. We can do it on Mars as well. But you don’t start at the finish line.
Much you can’t make because their are materials unavailable on Mars
Ok. I’ll bite. What?
better to ship thousands of tons of milled steel then a million tons of mining gear
Then that’s what they’ll do. However, processing local resources even if less efficient may have the economic advantage. In which case, that’s what they’ll do. Martian managers are likely to be just as smart (or not) as anywhere else.
no colony on nation founded now could possibly do it
Exactly right, but notice you are at the finish line again. Why is it you can’t enjoy the beginning and middle of the race?
Easier likely won’t equal cheaper
Correct, but the advantage is there and likely will be exploited in time.
You can move counties in space. Low thrust needs and high available power is a big plus.
Absolutely. My contention is that is many years off, where we almost have the capability to exploit Mars now… possibly in 3 to 5 years and certainly within a decade (not the way the government wants to do it, but that’s their problem.)
If 5 years seems too soon consider: We currently have access to orbit (even if Russian but soon others here.) Funding is the only thing preventing us from putting a permanent high internal volume space ship in orbit (I’m thinking a dozen Bigelow modules… a scale up of his cislunar concept.) Will Bezos DC-X redux, New Shepard work as a Mars lander? Perhaps not, but something similar certainly would. Lastly, if we can put rovers on Mars, we could certainly send supplies to the surface in anticipation of colonists and we could start doing that now. The only thing missing is the financial angel… the. only. thing. (and he/she could already be out there reading this post.)
Why couldn’t a space colony grow faster?
It could. I’m not one of those that says something can’t happen when it obviously could. If people agree that Mars is a bad idea, then by default it will. However, once a colony is established on Mars growth is much easier because raising capacity is much easier. It’s a planet. A whole world. Individuals can grow it’s capacity by individual decision and action. That’s not going to happen on a space colony any time soon.
It has less transport costs for supplies and products
Which will require a committee to exploit. The whole colony has to choose which resource to exploit next. Individuals will be able to exploit Mars resources on their own initiative.
You can shield a big space colony as easily – or easier then a Mars City.
Yes you can, but certainly not as easily. Mars cities are built underground and start off shielded. That’s an add on to a space colony and diverts from the exploitation of other resources. Martians can work in as many directions as there are people. Which is why they will have a labor shortage for long into the future. That’s a good thing. Almost unlimited growth potential (not as much as space but good enough for the next few centuries.)
Martijn,
You will need some type of TPS. That is the curse of the martian atmosphere. Its so thin you need a pressure suit to get around and have to worry about building pressurized habitats, but still thick enough to create enough atmospheric friction to be a problem on launch and landing no matter what type of vehicle you design. Its also thick enough to have winds that are an additional problem. Many people don’t realize how close the martian rovers came to having their chutes shredded by it when they arrived.
So the martian atmosphere is actually one of the curses of Mars that makes the case for settlement difficult to support.
Why couldn’t you solve that with fully propulsive EDL? For an existence proof, consider braking to a dead stop above the Martian atmosphere, then descending vertically. The slower you do this, the higher the gravity losses of course. With an NTR uncrasher stage and propellant transfer in Mars orbit this shouldn’t be too much of a problem. There are various ways of optimising this basic approach and an obvious one would be to use aerodynamic deceleration to the maximum extent possible. But without an HLV that probably means no large heat shield.
Kelly,
Ultimately it will come down to the economics and safety when looking at the business case of moving a NEO to high Earth orbit or taking the mining spome to it.
The advantages I see for taking the spome to the NEO is that the spome was designed to be moved and has the necessary control systems and thrusters built into it as part of a standard design.
NEOs on the other vary from be solid rocks to rubble piles with all kinds of weird tumbling rates. So you would have to custom design your system for moving them with all the risks involved of doing something right the first time. Also you end up moving a lot of useless mass as well.
Let’s take your Oil bearing NEO for example. Only 1/3 of it is really paydirt. A spome out fitted as a petrochemical plant could much more effectively match orbits with it, process the oil into high value petrochemicals and then just ship those products to Earth or other customers in the Solar System. Much more profitable. And less risk when shipping to Earth as it would be a steady stream of small shipments versus one very large one.
The reason I select the EM L2 is not only because its the easiest point (lowest Delta V) for leaving the Earth-Moon System, but because it would also make it easy to combine the best of the Earth (Complex -Hi Tech components) with the best of the Moon (high mass structural components and shielding) when building the first spomes.
In terms of Interstellar flight, Asimov’s point was it would not be so much deliberate travel to the next star system as much as just a natural progression of following the resources in the Oort Cloud.
He argued that basically at some point the spomes on the front wave of human expansion would find themselves in the Oort Cloud of the neighboring star, just as the first group of Asian hunter gathers in the Ice Age found themselves one day in North America while following the big game animals. Yes, there are faster ways, but this is one way that would require no radical breakthroughs in propulsion, just the normal steady pressure of market economics on the development of technology to spread humanity throughout the Galaxy.
Martijn,
Anything is possible, but the slower you go the more of a problem the winds will be, as well as the amount of fuel burned. So its a trade-off between the mass of a TPS versus the mass of fuel for launch and the attitude control system. And the mass of the ship needed to carry the fuel. I expect the TPS will win out the trade studies.
Of course on the Moon you don’t have to worry about those trade studies as there is no frictional heating and no wind 🙂
Plus half as much gravity to fight against…
High winds during descent are something I hadn’t thought of, thanks for pointing that out.
I expect the TPS will win out the trade studies.
Perhaps, but I’m not convinced of this, provided you preposition the propellant with SEP. In any event, if you don’t have an HLV the point is moot since your heat shield probably won’t fit and you’re going to have to go for a fully propulsive EDL.
So the real question in my mind is if not having an HLV will lead to marginal solutions for Mars exploration. Jeff Greason seems to think it very well might. I’d be happy to accept suboptimal solutions if it did away with the need for HLV, as long as they still were still good solutions, not marginal ones. I don’t consider fully propulsive EDL marginal, but Jeff Greason might. He and I would probably agree not having an HLV implies fully propulsive descent but we could disagree on whether that would be a marginal solution.
…fully propulsive EDL? For an existence proof, consider braking to a dead stop above the Martian atmosphere
Why dead stop? Why not just under the threshold where friction becomes a problem?
Also, if we expect to have New Shepard land in Earth’s thicker atmosphere would that not work in Mars thinner (assuming air braking is not part of the equation.)
Would you not build a Mars lander with whatever heat shield requirements it needs? How heavy is the shield on the dragon?
Just had an amusing thought. Putting supplies on Mars in anticipation of colonists is sort of an x-prize in itself. Someone other than the intended recipient might choose to exploit them.
Also, a New Shepard style Mars lander is not essential, just nice to have. We can certainly land colonists by lesser means since it’s really a one way trip.
Mars has local resources to support life in abundance.
The relative extent of the terrestrial and Martian biospheres strongly suggest otherwise.
> ken anthony Says:
> February 15th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
>=
>> The bottleneck for large scale activity in space is launch costs
> Seems obvious except nothing can really be done about that
> without raising launch rates. Even if I’m wrong about absolutely
> everything else, this is THE reason for colonizing Mars. Supporting
> the startup of a colony will involve lot’s of supply launches. ==
Ah… Ok, any significant sized project in space will need huge amounts of launch, which will lower costs; but how does that justify doing a mars colony?!! I mean if your that desperate to lower launch costs, just offer a grant to absorb the fixed costs all those flights are to be absorbing.
> Zero G is a very exhausting work environment. ==
Not if you have some foot holds – and space suits with better gloves and arm joints. Same issues no Mars, but you have to carry the heavy back pack.
>> economics are not there for settlement
> People focus on the material resources (which Mars
> has in abundance) but overlook labor resources which
> is just as great a need for economic success. Mars has
> local resources to support life in abundance. ==
Mars – and most any planet- is very resource pour compared to space.
And again, economics means what can you sell to pay back your start up adn ongonig costs. Extra people are a extra cost you need to cover. WHAT IS YOUR PRODUCT?!
Follow the economics – don’t expect it to follow you.
>== We may eventually live in space but near term (this century)
> will mostly just visit. ==
No one including you has shown a reasno to assume that.
>> Like Earth you will have weather to deal
> But unlike Earth it is thin enough that you can create a lander
> and have a landing profile that pretty much ignores the atmosphere. ==
Which means your fuel consumption is huge since you must boost up to orbital speed and down to zero V without much aerobraking help.
>> It takes years to get good enough to be competent at something’s you need.
> Yes, and they’ve already spent those years becoming good machinists. =
machinists are noly noe of a very very long line of skil sets you need.
>> (And why would they want to teach you?)
> It is expected that many of the colonists would be quite wealthy ==
By who? Why would someone that rick want to chuck it all for a harsh life no Mars with no rewards?
You can’t assume charity as a economic basis.
>> Its like handing a “how to build a nuclear sub” Manual, and
>> expect your folks can learn all the skills, make all the tools,
>> learn to make all teh parts after developing those skills, mine
>> refine, mill and forge all the raw materials (ignoring the ones
>> where the raw materials aren’t on Mars)
> Not much need for a sub on Mars
The nuclear sub is cruder then the minimal stat up colony. That table stakes for your concept. If you workshop folks arn’t good enough to build and continuously maintain a nuclear sub with whatever parts and materials you want to assume, they certainly can’t build colonies and bases.
This is not a “finish line” level of technology for a mythic centuries away Mars colony. This is your first Mars base camp level of technology.
>> you don’t have the raw materials, adn your staffs busy
> These are problems common to life. Not exactly a show stopper either.
It is if you die waiting for your staff to each train for the hundreds of skill sets they need to maintain the colony.
>> We have underground on Earth.
> Which we mostly don’t use because it’s so pleasant on the surface. ==
So why go to Mars to build a underground civilization? Its easier adn cheaper to do here.
>> What they need is infrastructure and a supply chain
> Which they will have, just not on the scale that focusing on the finish line requires. ==
I’ve never been focused no the finish line. I’m telling you what the real starting line for life on Mars is.
> == Those working to mine raw materials will provide them
> to those that do the refining. Those that do the refining will provide
> it to the craftsmen. ==
Sorry. Thats the finish line centuryies away. You can’t wait that long.
>> whole concept of trying to make everything from local materials
> You seem to have a problem with this concept but that’s what you do on a planet.
No its not. You import stuff from other places. Especially when you don’t have the resources and personnel to do it yourself.
Again, you jumping ahead centuries and assuming that’s the start. The Americas were colonized for centuries before they could equip their own factories, steel mills, etc.
>==
>> no colony on nation founded now could possibly do it
> exactly right, but notice you are at the finish line again. ==
Agni notice i said founded now. I.E. starting now. I am discussing what the starting line is – not the finish line.
>> You can move counties in space. Low thrust needs and
>> high available power is a big plus.
> Absolutely. My contention is that is many years off, ==
No that’s now. Mars colonies are far more in the distance due to their greater technical challenges.
> == If 5 years seems too soon consider: We currently have access
> to orbit ==
Not really, adn not no the scale a colony would need. (After shuttle retires we won’t even be able to build up keep up the ISS.) You’ld need to order a fleet of RLVs.
>== Lastly, if we can put rovers on Mars, we could certainly send
> supplies to the surface in anticipation of colonists and we
> could start doing that now. ==
No we don’t have a way to land heavy landers no Mars.
>> Why couldn’t a space colony grow faster?
>It could. I’m not one of those that says something can’t happen
> when it obviously could. ==
> However, once a colony is established on Mars growth is much
> easier because raising capacity is much easier. ==
You just contradicted yourself, adn your logic about it benig easier to build no a planet is wrong.
=
>> It has less transport costs for supplies and products
> Which will require a committee to exploit.==
no.
> Individuals will be able to exploit Mars resources on their own initiative.
Oh hell no. One person starting a mine?
>> You can shield a big space colony as easily – or easier then a Mars City.
> Yes you can, but certainly not as easily. Mars cities
> are built underground and start off shielded. ==
Yuoi thnik thats easier?!
Why dead stop? Why not just under the threshold where friction becomes a problem?
Just for simplifying the discussion. No need to do that in real life. If size (volume) of your descent stage is a problem, you could offload as much delta-v to an uncrasher stage as necessary. The limiting case would be a dead stop. A more realistic case would be to take as much advantage of aerodynamic deceleration as you could. With an HLV, that could include a large heat shield, without one you’d have to settle for more propulsion.
Would you not build a Mars lander with whatever heat shield requirements it needs? How heavy is the shield on the dragon?
The problem is not so much burning up, but smashing into the ground. The Martian atmosphere is thick enough to cause heating (not insurmountable), but not enough to do all the deceleration work. Even parachutes aren’t enough, you still need propulsion for final descent. A capsule designed for Earth reentry would survive Mars entry, but smash into the ground. The question is how much propulsion you need. For heavy payloads you would need a very large heat shield to “catch enough wind”. With 5m or 6.5m EELV-fairings you probably can’t get as much aerodynamic delta-v as with an SDLV or EELV Phase 2 or higher.
There is certainly no such uncertainty among the millions who want to.
The uncertainty rears its ugly head when the hat is passed. There may be millions who want to fly in space but they weren’t enough to fully fund the relatively modest $10 million X-Prize back in the day.
Not if you have some foot holds – and space suits with better gloves and arm joints. Same issues no Mars, but you have to carry the heavy back pack
Perhaps I’m wrong, but I believe the exhaustion of working in zero g is pretty well documented if only anecdotal. In space, they will almost always be working in zero g. This doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t be done, just that it’s not very productive. Tightening a bolt is a major effort. You don’t have to worry about your tools or bolts floating away from you on Mars. And I’m a big advocate of industry in space.
It is not the same issue on Mars. It’s not the same on Mars because you will not generally be doing heavy labor in a suit. On the surface you will be in a sealed vehicle in a shirt sleeve environment. Once you find a location you want to work you dig a trench not by hand but with heavy equipment, still in a sealed cabin shirt sleeve environment. The trench leads to digging a cave. You seal the cave and continue working. All of which can be done in a suit as a backup but not as your primary way of working. But even if you don’t have the heavy equipment (because of breakdown, not enough to go around or whatever) you still end up doing the vast majority of your work in a sealed cavern shirt sleeve environment.
All of your manufacturing and production is going to be in environmentally controlled caverns in a shirt sleeve environment, including mining itself. It’s only initially producing those caverns themselves where you might not, but even then only in the case of massive equipment breakdown.
And again, economics means what can you sell to pay back your start up adn ongonig costs. Extra people are a extra cost you need to cover. WHAT IS YOUR PRODUCT?!
Only if you go into debt to do it. The colonists may choose to finance it themselves. Extra people can pay there own way to Mars. However…
Let me provisionally accept your proposition. What product would you like? Does the Earth export products? Mars can compete to produce many of those same products. They have the resources of an entire planet. 0.38g suggests they may be very effective in that competition. Think made in Japan. Once a joke. Then serious. Later Korea. That’s how things work. Free enterprise baby.
Mars – and most any planet- is very resource pour compared to space
Agreed. In a few thousand years Mars may be depleted of resources assuming they don’t develop trade to compensate in that time.
By who? Why would someone that rick want to chuck it all for a harsh life no Mars with no rewards?
Well, there are three classes of people. Those that can’t afford the trip. Those that just barely can. Those with more than the ticket price. Who said no rewards? Isn’t that something people choose for themselves?
machinists are noly noe of a very very long line of skil sets you need.
Why do you assume the colonists will have no skills? That’s kind of bizarre. If you’re saying they will not have ALL the skills they need, well that’s an issue to be mitigated. I really can’t understand why you keep insisting they can’t. It’s what people do. BTW, there’s no such thing as having ALL the skills you need. Even here on Earth. The only real question is can they have enough skills to survive and thrive. I’m absolutely certain of that. You’re absolutely certain they won’t. That’s an impasse but I would suggest that applies everywhere, not just Mars.
Ok, let’s talk about building a sub. You need raw material. You need blueprints. You need skilled labor. You need time. People adapt to the job. I’ve never built an electric motor. I guarantee I can be taught. I’ve never bent much sheet metal. I’ve never done much welding. All teachable skills, but I don’t need to learn them because others have. Some Martians will be skilled welders. Not me. Some will be skilled fabricators. Not me. But let suppose among all the colonists, no body has a skill they absolutely need. Then they better find someone and give them an incentive to migrate.
There’s a huge difference between a designer and a builder. Most designers will continue living on Earth. A builder that may never have any hope of designing what the designer can, can never-the-less build it from blueprints.
So why go to Mars to build a underground civilization?
I may not persuade you to become a Martian, but I don’t need to. Others are already persuaded. Let’s generalize. Why colonize any planet? Why go to the stars? It. Just. Makes. No. Sense. Well, except to those that are going to do it and thank god for them. You realize the same thing is said about using any of the solar systems resources beyond the Earth. Many people would agree that living in SD (especially during the winter) is a huge mistake. Funny how some people do anyway. Buying Alaska from Russia. Another huge mistake. How can people keep doing these things. But thankfully they do.
Oh hell no. One person starting a mine?
Yes. They do it here on Earth all the time. Some, not all, eventually become huge companies you would recognize on the stock exchange. Why does everything have to be a billion dollar project with you?
I used to date a gal that owned a gold mine. It was often shut down because of gold prices (this was back in the day.) No she didn’t mine it herself. She hired people. But she was just one person. Most people are just one person. What’s wrong with one person?
Yuoi thnik thats easier
Yes, digging is pretty basic. You do have to be aware of structural issues but they would have that skill set for sure.
When will you stop More Bashing Of Private Enterprise? Just because you find no business case doesn’t mean others can’t for themselves.
Martijn, very well explained. I remember reading something about a balut (some kind of inflatable heat shield?) which I may be spelling wrong. What about that?
> Thomas Matula Says:
> February 15th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
> Kelly,
>
> Ultimately it will come down to the economics and safety when
> looking at the business case of moving a NEO to high Earth
> orbit or taking the mining spome to it.
Agreed
> The advantages I see for taking the spome to the NEO is that
> the spome was designed to be moved and has the necessary
> control systems and thrusters built into it as part of a standard design.
Well its not like you’re going to need to manuver it into docking with something.
😉
> NEOs on the other vary from be solid rocks to rubble piles with
> all kinds of weird tumbling rates. So you would have to custom
> design your system for moving them with all the risks involved
> of doing something right the first time. Also you end up moving
> a lot of useless mass as well.
Eiather way your going to need to de spin it. Past that, bag it and drag it.
Course different types of neos would use different systems. A old comet core that could be spraying off volitals could supply reaction mas — and need a tough bag to keep the crude from flying apart.
> Let’s take your Oil bearing NEO for example. Only 1/3 of it is
> really paydirt. A spome out fitted as a petrochemical plant could
> much more effectively match orbits with it, process the oil into
> high value petrochemicals and then just ship those products
> to Earth or other customers in the Solar System. Much more
> profitable. And less risk when shipping to Earth as it would
> be a steady stream of small shipments versus one very large one.
Tranports not likely to be a cost factor. Being closer to your supply chain adn market would be more important I’ld expect. Especially given that cuts the transport issues of staff, and communication delays.
Oil especially is used to it taking yeras for fields to come on line — course coming into harborcould be another thing.
😉
Also really the water would be critical to landing the oil or shiping it around as a reaction mass.
> The reason I select the EM L2 is not only because its the easiest
> point (lowest Delta V) for leaving the Earth-Moon System, but
> because it would also make it easy to combine the best of the
> Earth (Complex -Hi Tech components) with the best of the Moon
> (high mass structural components and shielding) when building
> the first spomes.
L5 or somethings only a split secound more time delay from Earh, adn its a stable orbit — important when you jocking megatons of junk around near Earth.
I don’t think Luna would be a cost competative source of materals compared to Earth.
> In terms of Interstellar flight, Asimov’s point was it would
> not be so much deliberate travel to the next star system
> as much as just a natural progression of following the
> resources in the Oort Cloud.
Oort cloud doesn’t go across interstelar space, adn they are not real rich in accessible none volitals. They would get passed by, by faster shups going to the rich core stuff of the other star system
Well assuming they ever found a reason to leave the inner Sol solar system!
> Jim Davis Says:
> February 15th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
>> There is certainly no such uncertainty among the millions who want to.
> The uncertainty rears its ugly head when the hat is passed. There
> may be millions who want to fly in space but they weren’t enough
> to fully fund the relatively modest $10 million X-Prize back in the day
😉
Yeah, everyones a enthusiastic potential customer — until you ask them to sign a check to you.
> ken anthony Says:
> February 15th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
>> Not if you have some foot holds – and space suits with better
>> gloves and arm joints. Same issues no Mars, but you have to
>> carry the heavy back pack
> Perhaps I’m wrong, but I believe the exhaustion of working in
> zero g is pretty well documented ==
Yeah, due to alack of leverage (hence the footholds to secure you) adn fighting the presure suit. The gloves are killers. Astrounauts come in with near frost bite and bruises on fingers from fighting the gloves.
Better gloves are available – but not adopted by NASA.
;/
>== It’s not the same on Mars because you will not generally be doing
> heavy labor in a suit. On the surface you will be in a sealed vehicle
> in a shirt sleeve environment. ==
Well then you could assume in space you pul everything into a hanger or telerobitic so there is no strain from being in zero /g — nore reason to be in zero g in space.
>== You seal the cave and continue working. ==
And how do you seal the rock wallaway from the air?
> All of your manufacturing and production is going to be in
> environmentally controlled caverns in a shirt sleeve environment,
> including mining itself.==
Not minning. Your going to be all over the planet, doing everything from strip mines to hard rocktunneling. You cant presurize a tunnel your going to do blasting and such in — nor assume shirtsleeve atmospher.
For that mater how could you flush all the bad air out?
>> And again, economics means what can you sell to pay back
>> your start up adn ongonig costs. Extra people are a extra
>> cost you need to cover. WHAT IS YOUR PRODUCT?!
> Only if you go into debt to do it. ==
Thats unavoidable
>== What product would you like? ==
Name soimething Mars could produce and deliver to market on Earth at a big profit.
>> Mars – and most any planet- is very resource pour compared to space
> Agreed. In a few thousand years Mars may==
No, I mean your colony starting on Mars will have vastly harder time accessing resources then a colony floating in L-5 say.
>> By who? Why would someone that rick want to chuck it all for
>> a harsh life no Mars with no rewards?
> Well, there are three classes of people. Those that can’t afford
> the trip. Those that just barely can. Those with more than
> the ticket price.==
Your not answering.
>> machinists are only one of a very very long line of skil sets you need.
> Why do you assume the colonists will have no skills? ==
The question is why do you assume they don’t need any? Of the tens of thousands to millions of careers needed to maintain adn build something complex like a sub, spacecraft, city – you just assume some machinists with instruction books donated out of charity will be up to all of it.
>== I really can’t understand why you keep insisting they can’t.==
because no one has ever been able to.
> == Ok, let’s talk about building a sub. You need raw material.
> You need blueprints. You need skilled labor. You need time.
> People adapt to the job. ==
God I give up. You expect a couple folks with no trainnig or expereince will just sit down and piuck up all the skills it takes years to decades to aquire. Each person just absorbing and producing the skills real folks take years to aquire right off demand.
Roll out of the ships, start diging and in a year they what built said nuclear sub equively base? Its like assuming the office working from Sears could build the sears tower with a couple months study. After learning to mine mill roll everything from Ibeams to windows. learn to be a high steel rigger, then learn to be electricians, make the electrical components from raw ore. run a chip factory.
Its in sane. AND THATS YOUR STARTING POINT FOR THE COLONY!!
>> So why go to Mars to build a underground civilization?
> I may not persuade you to become a Martian, but I don’t need
> to. Others are already persuaded. Let’s generalize. Why colonize
> any planet? Why go to the stars? It. Just. Makes. No. Sense. ==
In other words you can’t answer again and are hand waving. Your just hoping Mars will be different from every other colony or settlement in human history.
>==
>> Oh hell no. One person starting a mine?
> Yes. They do it here on Earth all the time.==
No they don’t. Litle hobby mines adn such, occasionally je,s. Deapiron mining? Hard rock minierals? All in stunningly isolated areas.
There may be millions who want to fly in space but they weren’t enough to fully fund the relatively modest $10 million X-Prize back in the day.
That’s because most people with such interest were a) unaware of the X-Prize and b) wouldn’t have known how to contribute to it a c) wouldn’t necessarily have understood how it would contribute to their own goal. Nonetheless, if rides were available at prices they could afford, and were competently marketed, they would buy a ticket.
But this is drifting off topic from Kelly’s market, economic and accounting foolishness.
Given you need to pay off as much overhead as a similar complexity aircraft, being a few orders of magnitude smaller in market size might not move you far down the thousadn fold increase no the cost curve yuor stuck at now?
I can’t figure out from this comment whether you’re innumerate, illiterate, or both.
I remember reading something about a balut (some kind of inflatable heat shield?) which I may be spelling wrong. What about that?
Inflatable parachutes I think, a portmanteau of balloon and parachute. Don’t know much about those. Maybe they will help you decelerate to subsonic velocities even without needing large payload fairings. As always, you still need propulsive final descent, unless you’re prepared to bounce with airbags.
One thing to keep in mind with heat shields: heat shield separation is crucial, since the heat shield is so heavy you don’t want to have to decelerate it too during final descent. This adds failure modes. Dropping your heat shield on something or failing to drop your heat shield would mean a bad day on Mars.
> Rand Simberg Says:
>> Given you need to pay off as much overhead as a
>> similar complexity aircraft, being a few orders of
>> magnitude smaller in market size might not move
>> you far down the thousand fold increase on the
>> cost curve your stuck at now?
> I can’t figure out from this comment whether you’re
> innumerate, illiterate, or both.
Sounds like you’re in avoid the question, attack the questioner mode.
😉
No, I’m in “force the questioner to ask sensible questions, and think about what he’s writing” mode.
Kelly, you seem to have an unending supply of straw…
The question is why do you assume they don’t need any [skills]?
I don’t. I assume they will be very highly skilled and highly motivated.
…millions of careers needed to maintain and build something complex…
As if it something complex can only come from millions of people. I write code, some very complex, all by myself. Including the maintenance of over a million lines of code… one person.
…no one has ever been able to…
By that standard, nothing is possible. The fact is people do things they never have all the time… right now all over the world at this very moment as a matter of fact.
And how do you seal the rock wallaway from the air?
You have got to be kidding? Managing environments is a defining quality of what it means to be human. Not being an expert myself I would say what are the conditions? The cavern is going to be pressurized. There is going to be leakage. There will be an equilibrium. Too much leakage? How about spraying water on the cold walls? If that doesn’t work, somebody not as ignorant as I am will surely figure it out. It’s what humans do. Mainly you need enough power and bring the proper equipment. Equipment that can be maintained which is not the huge requirement you seem to think it is. Again, I refer you to any ranch in the midwest. If a dumb farmer can do it (I’m kidding, most are quite outspoken) an engineer with the support of millions of well-wishers can figure it out.
Not minning. Your going to be all over the planet, doing everything from strip mines to hard rocktunneling. You cant presurize a tunnel your going to do blasting and such in — nor assume shirtsleeve atmospher.
Yes. Mining. Assuming they blast (not a requirement, simply more efficient than other options) they do it properly; on a schedule and with people safely out of the blast area… just like they do here on Earth. If they need to do open air strip mining, they do it at night when the whole planet shields them from solar radiation. They only need to be able to mine. How they do it is something they can figure out and will.
For that mater how could you flush all the bad air out?
With a bad air flusher outer of course. 🙂 Really. You’ve got to be kidding. Environmental control is a given.
Thats unavoidable
Debt is avoidable but not any kind of show stopper either way. You can finance with or without debt. Have an accountant explain it to you.
Name something Mars could produce and deliver to market on Earth at a big profit.
Why? Earth is not the only market. They will have an internal market as well as competition with Luna and NEO for other markets. Yes, the Earth is a huge market and it would be nice to have access to it. Your premise that no market exists and Mars can’t compete for it is simply false. Living people create markets or perhaps I should say they are markets. The question is do they have the resources to survive which brings us to your next point…
No, I mean your colony starting on Mars will have vastly harder time accessing resources then a colony floating in L-5 say.
So what? They will have resources in abundance. So what if the solar system has more resources in more abundance. That’s true relative to the Earth as well. Hasn’t been much of a problem for thousands of years (regardless of any current resources pressures you might point out exist today.)
Your not answering.
You just didn’t like my answer, but to be more direct. Rich guys can make their own choices, often different from what you might choose. Branson is a good example. Weird guy. Rich. I like him.
Swinging that pitchfork again…
a couple folks with no trainnig or expereince
You meant highly skilled with years of experience right? As well as highly motivated and adaptable to new situations.
Roll out of the ships, start diging and in a year they what built said nuclear sub equively base?
So if they don’t build a nuclear sub equivalent they are failures? Is that the straw man you’re trying to sell? They will build what they build in the time it takes to build it.
THATS YOUR STARTING POINT FOR THE COLONY!!
How’s that? Rome was built in a day??? I never knew.
Your just hoping Mars will be different from every other colony or settlement in human history.
Oh absolutely and the word is historic. You argue that it’s different and I whole-heartedly agree with you. It’s sort of the point.
No they don’t.
Everything starts with one person. Then they get people to go along with them. They never get everything they want but that doesn’t prevent them from being successful.
You believe they need some rare valuable export found nowhere else in the universe… the ultimate strawman.
>ken anthony Says:
> February 16th, 2010 at 11:06 am
>Kelly, you seem to have an unending supply of straw…
No, I just have more questions then you have answers.
>>The question is why do you assume they don’t need any [skills]?
> I don’t. I assume they will be very highly skilled and highly motivated.
Not good enough. WHERE DOTHEY GET THE INHUMAN NUMBER OF SKILS YOUR ASSUMING?
>>…millions of careers needed to maintain and build something complex…
> As if it something complex can only come from millions of people==
No your assuming things that take millions of people, can be done by your initial handful.
>>…no one has ever been able to…
> By that standard, nothing is possible.
NO, what your sayingis impossible. I’m not saying this is something they never did before. I’m saying your demanding what has been tried and fail at for – ever. Your assuming your ay 100 people will have the expertise and practiced skill to do everything required in the colony. To build, maintain, rebuild from scratch, etc. Its like your assuming the average person will AT THE SAME TIME be a deep rock miner, mill refiner, caster, skilled high steel rigger,, electrician, biotechnician, geologiost, doctor. It takes time to do all these, or even to learn and practice enough to do this acceptably well.
>> And how do you seal the rock wallaway from the air?
> == The cavern is going to be pressurized. There is going to be leakage.
> There will be an equilibrium. Too much leakage? How about spraying
> water on the cold walls? ==
No I didn’t mean seal the air in the cave, I mean seel thre air away from touching the rock. The rock will not only give off toxic fumes, it will absorb oxegen.
Oh, and the walls wouldn’t likely be cold, and you can’t afford to waste that much water.
>== Equipment that can be maintained which is not the huge
> requirement you seem to think it is. ==
Excluding sonar, weapons, and maneuvering in water. What is there in a nuclear submarine that’s unnecessary on a Mars colony? Reactor for power, air synthesizers and scrubbers, water purification, communication, pressure control, lock out chambers (air locks), control systems to run all this, housing, kitchens, etc.
Actually your base mars colony will require more.
>> Not minning. Your going to be all over the planet, doing everything
>> from strip mines to hard rocktunneling. You cant presurize a
>> tunnel your going to do blasting and such in — nor assume
>> shirtsleeve atmospher.
> Yes. Mining. Assuming they blast (not a requirement, simply
> more efficient than other options) they do it properly; on a schedule
> and with people safely out of the blast area… just like they do here =
Here we don’t live in the mine and seel it. To blast you would need to evacuate the entire area and vent it so the blast wouldn’t blow open your air locks.
> == on Earth. If they need to do open air strip mining, they do it at
> night when the whole planet shields them from solar radiation. ==
The rad isn’t just solar. Cosmic rays are a similar level problem.
>> For that mater how could you flush all the bad air out?
> With a bad air flusher outer of course. Really. You’ve got to be kidding.
No, I’m not. Yould have to vent the mine.
==
>> Thats unavoidable
> Debt is avoidable but not any kind of show stopper either way. ==
>> Name something Mars could produce and deliver to market on Earth at a big profit.
> Why? Earth is not the only market. ==
Where else do people live now?.
>= They will have an internal market ==
Doesn’t help pay your bills at all.
>== as well as competition with Luna and NEO for other markets. ==
That means they will be truing to undercut your access to the Earth market.
> Your premise that no market exists and Mars can’t compete for it is simply false. =
My premis was a question. How does the colony pay its way and pay off its debt? What do they sell to folks (or Earth effectively) that makes enough profit to pay off the bills?
You tend tohandwave at this point.
>> No, I mean your colony starting on Mars will have vastly harder
>> time accessing resources then a colony floating in L-5 say.
> So what? They will have resources in abundance. ==
It dioesn’t mater if you can’t get it – or get it at a cost you can afford.
>> Your not answering.
> You just didn’t like my answer, but to be more direct. Rich
> guys can make their own choices, often different from what
> you might choose. Branson is a good example. =
Still avoiding the question. A hundred Bransons couldn’t pay to start the colony.
>> a couple folks with no trainnig or expereince
> You meant highly skilled with years of experience right? ==
No, I mean the folks your saying, with virtually no experence of training in the vast numbers of fields your assuming they’ll just pick up.
>>Roll out of the ships, start diging and in a year they what built
>> said nuclear sub equively base?
> So if they don’t build a nuclear sub equivalent they are failures?
No they are dead. Or have to evacuate. They couldn’t build the starter colony your assuming. So they have no where to live and breath. The ship that brought them is out of supplies.
So you either drop your idea, and don’t try to be self sufficent, fast growing, “skilled people will make do” “we don’t need no complex stuff (like life support” to start out, they’ll get by..” – or your colony failed and had to be abandoned, or died.
>> THATS YOUR STARTING POINT FOR THE COLONY!!
> How’s that?
Because that nuclear sub is the absolute minimum you need to stay alive, and its only enough if you have huge supply freighters brining you food and whatever your willing to admit can’t be supplied locally.
>> Your just hoping Mars will be different from every other
>> colony or settlement in human history.
> Oh absolutely and the word is historic. You argue that it’s different
> and I whole-heartedly agree with you. It’s sort of the point.
So what no humans have ever not failed to do in history, your colony can? All the things humans forever have needed to survive, much less survive outside Earths biosphere, your colonists can do without?
All the limits humans have in what they can do, produce, require – doesn’t count on your colony?
Way to far out in fantasy land.
No, I just have more questions then you have answers
It doesn’t take a genius to have more questions than answers. But you are using strawman arguments which means you are not serious about the answers. When you say…
The question is why do you assume they don’t need any [skills]?
That’s a strawman and not the only example. You bring up cosmic radiation probably knowing full well it’s a slightly elevated cancer risk on par with smoking and not a show stopper. The show stopper would be if they couldn’t mitigate solar flairs which I have amply demonstrated they could. You talk about toxins from the walls. The same toxins every home in America produces. It’s scrubbed for free on Earth but will have to be scrubbed with intention on Mars. Again, not a show stopper. You demand they build a sub when the reality is they only need elements of some things found on the sub to survive. Elements they know they will need and the maintenance of which some members of the colony would be fully trained on before ever leaving the Earth.
It sad because you do make some good arguments worth discussing, but you make it not worth discussing by your tactics. I’m done.
> ken anthony Says:
>February 17th, 2010 at 6:22 am
>> No, I just have more questions then you have answers
> It doesn’t take a genius to have more questions than answers.
> But you are using strawman arguments which means you are
> not serious about the answers. When you say…
I’m not using straw man arguments. Living on Mars really does require the technology of at least a functioning nuclear submarine. I used that example to try to get you to connect with the idea that this is not something you can just put together with a few guys and a machine shop. But you keep ignoring that and talking about midwest farmers, and doing without luxuries.
>>The question is why do you assume they don’t need any [skills]?
> That’s a strawman ==
No, you keep talking about your colony not needing all the huge skill bases it takes to build adnoperate things like this. You keep talking about with some instructions reasonably skilled people can pick it up and do everything. Instead in the real world it takes years of practice and experience to do a lot of the nessisary things. But you just brush that of as menot understanding how resourceful “real people” (unlike the professionals I work with in these industries) are.
>== You bring up cosmic radiation probably knowing full well
> it’s a slightly elevated cancer risk on par with smoking and
> not a show stopper. ==
Oh come on. A couple days fight to the moon is a slight cancer risk (though given how many Apollo astrounauts got cancer, and they way they saw flashes in their eyes from the cosmic rays — I wonder if they weer a bit optimistic on that one.
>== You talk about toxins from the walls. The same toxins every
> home in America produces. ==
No, matian soil and rock breaks down organic molecules pretty rapidly. And even normal rock on Earth reacts to the oxygen in the air — course on Earth your not short of oxygen to supply the reactions with the rocks.
>== You demand they build a sub when the reality is they only
> need elements of some things found on the sub to survive.==
Elements? Those elements constitute the bulk of the complex systems in the sub.
Mars really isn’t a DIY colony effort. Nor has any major colonization or real estate development project on Earth. Why you insist it will be so much easier on Mars absolutely baffles me.