Author
|
Topic: Article on Mars Colonization
|
DA_Champion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9958
|
posted 11 August 2005 01:50 PM
This was hugely interesting. quote: Finally, Mars will be an integral part of an inter-solar system economy that the group believes will develop within the next century, one based on the convergence of four frontiers: Earth, the Moon, asteroids, and Mars—including its own rocky satellites, Phobos and Deimos.Mars will catalyze the development of the other frontiers, said Homnick, acting as a supply house for vital resources like nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water for the moon and asteroids, places where such things are scarce or nonexistent. Many of the technologies developed for use on Mars will also have applications for the other frontiers, the group said. For example, life support systems and mining equipment developed for use on Mars could also be used on the moon. The group strongly supports President Bush’s Moon, Mars and Beyond vision and said they are not trying to compete with NASA or any other space organization. "We kind of look at NASA and the European Space Agency as analogous to Lewis and Clark in the old west," Homnick said. "They blaze the trail, go out to explore and do the science. Well, we are analogous to the pioneers—we follow the trail that they blazed, and we make the new frontier home and we add value."
Mars Colonization Link
From: montreal | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842
|
posted 11 August 2005 08:24 PM
quote: "We kind of look at NASA and the European Space Agency as analogous to Lewis and Clark in the old west," Homnick said.
This may come as a bit of a shock, but Lewis and Clark weren't going into unexplored territory. There were already people living there. There is no comparison between Europeans coming to North America and earthlings going to Mars. North America already had a population, and was more than capable of supporting life. In fact, until Europeans showed up, West coast aboriginals had a pretty easy life. Plenty of food, room, mild weather, all the necessities of life, and a bunch of perks besides. When they Europeans showed up there was already someone there to tell them what was good to eat, what the hazards were, etc. The environment of space does not support life. The environment of Mars does not support life. Every necesstiy of life will have to be brought from earth. And what's the reason for all this effort? 'Because we can' according to the 30 member group that is proposing Mars colonization. This sounds like a good project for the private sector.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
DA_Champion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9958
|
posted 11 August 2005 09:48 PM
Come on left-wingers, dream a little! Analogy: Montreal recently hosted the world aquatics championships, bringing world class athletes to the city. Was a good time, a lot of economic spinoffs, and good for the city's confidence since it was a job well done. It is leaving behind a legacy of economic spinoffs, good venues for future spinoffs and more urban confidence. A fellow who was obviously left-of-center said in a letter to the editor (Gazette) that the world aquatics championships were a waste because we could have spent the money fighting homelessness.
From: montreal | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
DA_Champion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9958
|
posted 11 August 2005 09:52 PM
Now to discuss the science,I'm sure, though no numbers are available as far as I am aware, that the economic drain of colonizing the Americas on the europeen powers was far more difficult for them to handle than the economic hardships of colonizing Mars would be to the world these days. The europeens on Columbus' crew had to carry supplies for a naval trip that lasted many months. When they got there there were diseases that they had never encountered before, nutritional issues they had never encountered before, and the cold they had never encountered before. The only issue with the analogy is that we in the present would have an easier time colonizing space. quote: Harvesting water on Mars and transporting it to the moon would have the same cost/benefit ratio as draining Lake Superior with teaspoons and sending the water to the Sahara on jetskis.
There's already plenty of water on the moon. I think that particular piece of information was in reference to the asteroids. quote: This sounds like a good project for the private sector.
It's a private group!
From: montreal | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chubbybear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10025
|
posted 11 August 2005 10:08 PM
quote: Originally posted by DA_Champion: Now to discuss the science, The europeens on Columbus' crew had to carry supplies for a naval trip that lasted many months. When they got there there were diseases that they had never encountered before, nutritional issues they had never encountered before, and the cold they had never encountered before.
...Actually, Columbus never came to North America, but merely wandered around the Caribbean, thinking it was India (he was originally aiming for Japan). I don't think it was terribly cold. While it's true that the "Indians" didn't have the diseases that Europeans were familier with, such as plague, this did not prevent him from capturing 1200 Taino people from the island of Hispanolia as slaves to bring back to spain. I imagine with plenty of fruit, veg and game, they somehow managed to whip up and sandwich or two. I do hope the mars explorers do a little better.
From: nowhere | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 12 August 2005 02:49 AM
Hydrogen has only three known isotopes.However, it DOES strike me that you may mean the rare helium isotope, Helium-3, which is stable and is the product of the beta decay of tritium. Helium-4 is by far the dominant stable isotope because its major source of production is the alpha decay of radioactives in the Earth's crust (primarily uranium and thorium). I'm not sure how useful helium-3 would be in fusion reactions, since to make helium-4 you'd need a neutron source. Lithium-4 is stable against beta decay and goes by proton emission, so helium-3 is a dead-end for proton fusion. Helium-3 fusion with itself produces beryllium-6 as the intermediate, which is again stable against beta decay but not proton emission, which in turn goes to lithium-5 which goes by alpha decay (or proton emission, depending on how you look at it; the end result either way is a proton and helium-4). Helium-3 may not have nuclear-energy properties but I suspect it may have weird condensed-matter properties. I wonder if you can use it to make a fermionic condensate.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050
|
posted 12 August 2005 03:08 AM
quote: Originally posted by DrConway: Hydrogen has only three known isotopes.However, it DOES strike me that you may mean the rare helium isotope, Helium-3, which is stable and is the product of the beta decay of tritium. Helium-4 is by far the dominant stable isotope because its major source of production is the alpha decay of radioactives in the Earth's crust (primarily uranium and thorium). I'm not sure how useful helium-3 would be in fusion reactions, since to make helium-4 you'd need a neutron source. Lithium-4 is stable against beta decay and goes by proton emission, so helium-3 is a dead-end for proton fusion. Helium-3 fusion with itself produces beryllium-6 as the intermediate, which is again stable against beta decay but not proton emission, which in turn goes to lithium-5 which goes by alpha decay (or proton emission, depending on how you look at it; the end result either way is a proton and helium-4). Helium-3 may not have nuclear-energy properties but I suspect it may have weird condensed-matter properties. I wonder if you can use it to make a fermionic condensate.
...Kittens?
From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842
|
posted 12 August 2005 04:29 AM
quote: Originally posted by Mandos: Umm, ice has been discovered on the moon but whether it is in sufficient concentration and quantity to be recoverable is another matter. You might reach peak ice quickly.
I have searched diligently for evidence of water or ice on the moon. The only thing I found was some evidence of hydrogen in the extremely cold areas of the moon. There is some speculation that the hydrogen is there in ice which is trapped in craters that are permanently in shade. So far there is no direct evidence of ice on the moon. NASA plans to send an orbiter to the moon in 2008 (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) which should settle the question. However, even if there is ice, retrieving it in useful quantities might require something on the scale of the oil sands machinery. A radar scan of the moon's poles didn't reveal any ice within 20 feet of the surface. As I looked over the issue of moon ice, I tripped over another problem I hadn't thought of, dust. quote: "Dust is the No. 1 environmental problem on the moon," said Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who reported having a severe allergic reaction to moon dust during his mission in 1972. "We need to understand what the (biological) effects are, because there's always the possibility that engineering might fail."...The Apollo astronauts couldn't help but get covered in the stuff as they struggled to stay upright on the moon's surface, where the force of gravity is one-sixth of that on Earth. Later, they tracked the dust back into their space capsules and inhaled it when they took off their helmets. ...Though no astronauts have reported coming down with any illnesses due to their contact with lunar dust -- save for Schmitt's brief allergic reaction -- samples brought back to Earth have some peculiar properties that worry researchers. ...the dust is littered with bonded shards of glass and minerals known as agglutinates, which were formed in the heat of meteorite impacts. Agglutinates have not been found on Earth, and scientists worry that the human body may not be able to expel them efficiently if inhaled. "They have sharp angles, with arms that stick out and little hooks," said David McKay, chief scientist for astrobiology at NASA's Johnson Space Center. "It's like Velcro."
Mars dust: quote: Martian dust could be even worse. It's not only a mechanical irritant but also perhaps a chemical poison. Mars is red because its surface is largely composed of iron oxide (rust) and oxides of other minerals. Some scientists suspect that the dusty soil on Mars may be such a strong oxidizer that it burns any organic compound such as plastics, rubber or human skin as viciously as undiluted lye or laundry bleach. "If you get Martian soil on your skin, it will leave burn marks," believes University of Colorado engineering professor Stein Sture, who studies granular materials like Moon - and Mars-dirt for NASA. Because no soil samples have ever been returned from Mars, "we don't know for sure how strong it is, but it could be pretty vicious."
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842
|
posted 12 August 2005 07:48 AM
quote: The europeens on Columbus' crew had to carry supplies for a naval trip that lasted many months. When they got there there were diseases that they had never encountered before, nutritional issues they had never encountered before, and the cold they had never encountered before. The only issue with the analogy is that we in the present would have an easier time colonizing space.
Cold? The Caribbean is cold? Musta changed quite a bit over the last while. When I was there it was a pretty solid 85F every day. I'm not sure where you get this idea that colonizing North and Central America is difficult. As I've pointed out, there were people already living there. Besides, Portugese fisherman had been going to the Grand Banks since the 1400's. Obviously no great level of technology was required. Space is totally different. It is deadly to humans. There is no food, water, or air. There are no people living there to advise on how to stay alive. Everything required to stay alive in space has to come from earth. You want to dream, that's fine. I do too. My dream is that we can use robots and other high tech devices to probe the universe, and perhaps learn something about it's origins. Sticking to manned exploration is like running a race with an anchor tied to your ankle. You got to do ten times as much work to get a tenth of the result.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851
|
posted 14 August 2005 03:08 PM
I am surprised no one has raised philosophical objections to Martian colonization. What right do we have to colonize another planet, contaminate it with Terran organisms, and probably ruin it like we have our homeworld?I believe each planet has the right to its own evolutionary processes, undisturbed by the civilizations of ther worlds. Life or no life should not matter. The Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson discusses all the various positions on colonization at lengths. Awesome series from every standpoint -- story, technology, politics, ecology, geology! You have the Reds who want to preserve Mars in its pristine state, the Greens who want to terraform it, the UN as a puppet of the corporations who want to exploit it, and the variations nations of the Earth who want to join in, or settle Mars with excess population.
From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842
|
posted 16 August 2005 04:13 AM
quote: Originally posted by Policywonk:
Uh, there is plenty of water ice in comets (essentially dirty snowballs) and on some moons other than Earth's (and in the case of Europa at least, very possibly liquid oceans under the ice). You forgot energy sources (solar certainly, and if there are liquid oceans on Europa and other moons, perhaps thermoelectricity). If you have water and energy, or carbon dioxide and energy you can make oxygen. There are other survival issues, but getting to Earth orbit cheaply is a much larger problem than finding many of the resources required for survival.
If you have energy you can do a lot of things. Like flying off to the nearest comet to get some water. Then zipping over to the Mars 7/11 for some doughnuts and coffee. Let's put it this way, they can't make anything in that space station. Any processing facility that will be capable of providing energy, nourishment and water to people is going to have to be a lot more sophisticated that that, and a lot bigger. The idea that somehow a colony on Mars or elsewhere can be self sustaining is a romantic thought, but that's all it is, romance. The resources we have here on earth will be gone long before any colony on even Mars will be established.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474
|
posted 16 August 2005 04:48 AM
You know it's interesting that some are lamenting the amount of energy and resources it would take to get to space in the first place. This seems to be tied in with the prediction that the Earth will run out of any and all possible resources to get into orbit first; therefore the possibility for realistic space travel won't even exist. Yet humans are resourceful creatures, and it's not as if we as a species take things lying down once things get really bad. Regardless of how misanthropic, or cynical, one is I think we have a knack for overcoming problems. I think space travel, including colonization, is inevitable. Simply because the demand for new resources will push the human race into the direction of said resources, spread thought the solar system not to mention the insatiable human demand to explore the unknown (sorry, if I've been watching too much Star Trek et al. ). While this was already said, the point can't be repeated enough. Getting into space is largely the big difficulty right now. Once one is in the vacuum of space let's not forget that they only need to fire the engines up a few times, and voila that'll be enough to get to wherever the destination is (so long as an obstacle doesn't get in the way). Besides, I find it highly unlikely that'll space travel will continue to rely on simple rocket technology for launches. And of course as time goes on, the efficiency of various space vehicles will go up.
From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842
|
posted 16 August 2005 05:44 PM
quote: Once one is in the vacuum of space let's not forget that they only need to fire the engines up a few times, and voila that'll be enough to get to wherever the destination is (so long as an obstacle doesn't get in the way).
Space may be a vacuum, but it's not free of gravitational pulls. It's not simply a matter of shooting yourself off towards your destination. You have to account for the gravitational fields which you pass through on your way. To say nothing of the radiation which will pass through you. Then there is the distance. If the sun was 75 feet distant, the next nearest star would be about 2000 miles. That's why all science fiction depends upon some device such as 'warp drive, 'worm hole' etc. Without it, space travel is impossible. Lest I be accused of lacking imagination, I'll point out that I was, and still am, a great fan of science fiction, as well as science fact. I love reading the books about such things, but I recognize the difference between romance and possibility. I am completely in favour of exploring 'space'. I think it can be done relatively easily and cheaply if we stick to sending sensing devices and robots to explore for us. If it turns out a equally safe and inexpensive means of sending humans into space is found, fine. For the time being, we will learn a lot more from sending technology than we will from sending humans.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474
|
posted 16 August 2005 07:21 PM
quote: Originally posted by DrConway: Holy crow. For a bunch of us who regularly dump on right-wingers for having too little imagination as to what a better society can be, a fair number of us also seem to be willing to dump on anybody with too much imagination.
Word. quote: Then there is the distance. If the sun was 75 feet distant, the next nearest star would be about 2000 miles. That's why all science fiction depends upon some device such as 'warp drive, 'worm hole' etc. Without it, space travel is impossible.Lest I be accused of lacking imagination, I'll point out that I was, and still am, a great fan of science fiction, as well as science fact.
While I'd love hyperdrives, warpdrives etc to all be real and thus cut down on the vast distances and times involved in interstellar travel, I know such things don't exist (or for those of us with more imagination we're nowhere near discovering them). Besides, the original topic of this thread was only referring to travel between Earth and Mars, hardly an interstellar journey. quote: If it turns out a equally safe and inexpensive means of sending humans into space is found, fine. For the time being, we will learn a lot more from sending technology than we will from sending humans.
Well essentially that's what's being done right now, for deep-space missions (essentially anything outside of Earth Orbit). But again, Mars really isn't a deep space mission. You don't get anywhere without trying things, and making mistakes. And if all the various space agencies of this planet decided to completely abandon sticking humans into space, that would be a big step back for space exploration. One can only rely so much upon theory and history, without practice (yeah I know your not quite saying that we should just stick to our little planet, so I don't mean to insinuate that you are). Robots can only do so much. quote: Space may be a vacuum, but it's not free of gravitational pulls. It's not simply a matter of shooting yourself off towards your destination. You have to account for the gravitational fields which you pass through on your way. To say nothing of the radiation which will pass through you.
True. But how many obstacles are in between Earth and Mars with a properly planned course? Yes one would need to land on Mars, and then get back up into orbit. But really now, a little firing of the thrusters every now and then on whatever ship is used to get to the red planet is very unlikely to deplete the entire fuel reserves of a space ship. Besides considering how large space is in the first place, chances are pretty good that one wouldn't run into anything that would cause great difficulty on a relatively short jaunt, in astronomical terms, from Earth to Mars. [ 16 August 2005: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]
From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290
|
posted 17 August 2005 03:37 AM
I feel that maestro is right about almost everything but I disagree with his conclusions.I agree that Nixon's Space Bus is a complete white elephant and should be retired before more lives are lost. I agree that LEO, while a staggering technological feat, is just a stop off point to actually going someplace. It's astounding to me that in 30 years no one has decided to actually go someplace. I agree that space is inhospitable to human life, particularly the high radiation flux and the debilitating effects of long term weightlessness. And I agree that if you can't find ways to 'live off the land' then the human future in space is not viable. However I don't see any of these problems as inherently unsolvable. To me the living off the land is the acid test. If that barrier can be breached nothing will stop humans from moving into space. I don't think trying to make a living on the Moon or Mars is the way to go. Carbonaceous chondrites are asteroids with almost everything a space colony would need, if we were clever enough to be able to mine and process it. The big advantage of asteroids over planetary size bodies is you need very little delta-v to land and take off. To overcome the radiation just dig in. To overcome the weightlessness . . . well I'm sure they'll come up with a pill or something. Edited because I originally abbreviated Low Orth Erbit. [ 18 August 2005: Message edited by: JimmyBrogan ]
From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 17 August 2005 04:59 AM
Once you're on the Moon, acheiving escape velocity is way less of a problem. It's whether you can build the ships and put the fuel in them on the moon that will let you take advantage of this to the full rather than obviating the advantage by having to import all the fuel from Earth.On space stations the situation is the same. You simply don't have to climb out of a huge gravity well anymore. Say you're on a space station at geostationary orbit, which is about 42,000 kilometers above the Earth's surface. Earth's radius is about 6400 kilometers, so adding the two together yields 48400 kilometers total. mg = GMm / r^2 , cancel off masses g = GM / r^2 Plug in big G, Earth Mass, the radius in meters. Acceleration due to gravity (or the field strength, if you care to think of it that way) is therefore 0.17 m/s^2. A space station would not impose an appreciable local gravitational field gradient, and so almost nil force is required to depart the station and shoot your ship off into space. Addendum: The real problem isn't the gravitational field, it's the fact that mass retains its inertia even in outer space. It still takes just as much momentum to transfer whether you're trying to shove a ship forwards in space or in the atmosphere. It's just that in outer space you don't have to also overcome the force of gravity from some big-ass planet nearby. Incidentally, y'all should research something called equipotential lines. In electromagnetism they're very well-known, but in gravitation they're fairly poorly understood. The essential point is this: Objects at the same radial distance away from the earth require almost no expenditure of energy to go from one to the other, and the reason for this is because the potential (and thus the potential energy) doesn't change. What this means is that if space stations are carefully laid out in well-thought-out orbits the overall energy expenditure in transporting goods and people from one to another can be minimized as far as possible by taking advantage of these things. Hey, look at that! Earth-bound physics really does help us work out how to not bugger ourselves up in outer space! (Look at the way we do things here on planet Earth. In countless ways we waste energy because we don't think about such things as optimal paths - why? Because we tend to forget about the three-dimensionality of the planet and treat it as essentially flat.) [ 17 August 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842
|
posted 18 August 2005 03:01 AM
In any case, zipping about the cosmos in search of weird stuff is what happens on tv.As we should know now, the real world ain't like that. By the way, mass is still mass, is it not? no matter where you are. In the vacuum of space, when you want to move mass, you require x amont of energy to accelerate it, and when you want to stop mass from moving you require an equal amount of energy to decelerate. The greater the mass the greater the amount of energy required to accelerate/decelerate it. Seems to me I read that somewhere.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 18 August 2005 09:46 PM
Mass times velocity is the key, that's momentum.It doesn't matter if you throw away one metric ton of fuel at 100 meters per second or a hundred kilograms at 1000 meters per second, you get the same momentum transferred. This means you make rocket nozzles narrow and fuel velocities very high (which, in terms of starting and stopping things, is of assistance if you want to conserve your fuel). [ 18 August 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|