One way ticket to Mars?

cosmictraveler · Nov 4, 2010

Stryder said: ↑

Indeed, however it's best to start with uncompressed full figures before whittling it down via recycling efficiency. I doubt most people would want to start on a cyclic intravenous feed straight away.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I'd say at least 3 months worth of real water will be available to whoever goes.

Adopt the pace of nature: her secret is patience.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Shadow1 · Nov 4, 2010

why not send robots, to preaper water, and other things, like energy, then send humans later, and maybe wait little bit more?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

fedr808 · Nov 4, 2010

Shadow1 said: ↑

why not send robots, to preaper water, and other things, like energy, then send humans later, and maybe wait little bit more?
Click to expand...

Its a lot more complicated than that.

First off, the processing center would easily be the largest unmanned...thing to be landed on mars.

What happens when servo 'x' that is a few grams in size inside some obscure little robotic arm malfunctions and does not work?

Who repairs it?

colonization is completely idiotic.

Especially the arguement to colonize mars or the moon to reduce the population on earth. In order for it to work you'd need to send 500 million to 1 billion people to the moon/mars. How do you expect to move that many people?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Omega133 · Nov 4, 2010

I think it's an interesting idea.

As Fed pointed out, using this to deal with population problems is unrealistic(at least for now), but it might be a great oppurtunity for research and in the future, exploration.

Stryder · Nov 5, 2010

fedr808 said: ↑

colonization is completely idiotic.

Especially the arguement to colonize mars or the moon to reduce the population on earth. In order for it to work you'd need to send 500 million to 1 billion people to the moon/mars. How do you expect to move that many people?
Click to expand...

Forget the "To reduce the population" argument, and consider the fact that eventually those supermarkets you forage around will one day start having less and less in stock as the numbers of people becomes as large (if not larger) than available food source's.

If the planet is taxed then the smallest upset (strikes, Tsunami's, Hurricanes, Droughts) are enough to potentially force mass food shortages. Potential starvation is actually more of a concern in regards to the population. Some might state starvation is the best answer to over population, however if Mar's was colonised and farms were growing food sources, when it looks like there is going to be a food shortage it would be possible to send some in advance.

phlogistician · Nov 5, 2010

cosmictraveler said: ↑

I made certain I stated "REASONABLY SAFE" for just that reason. They experimented allot before they sent anyone into orbit for the first time. All my point is that we wait until we can protect people better that we can now, which isn't much protection at all.
Click to expand...

I don't think you'd get in your automobile if the chance of it killing you were anywhere near the same as riding on a rocket.

What you consider 'reasonable', and what someone with 'the right stuff' do, vary. And by quite a few orders of magnitude.

fedr808 · Nov 5, 2010

phlogistician said: ↑

I don't think you'd get in your automobile if the chance of it killing you were anywhere near the same as riding on a rocket.

What you consider 'reasonable', and what someone with 'the right stuff' do, vary. And by quite a few orders of magnitude.
Click to expand...

I suppose that by 'kilometer per accident' which is a common way to rate accident potential rocketry would probably be the safest way to travel.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And now, I am going to post a really long message. After getting into several dozen threads debating the merits of colonization of the moon/mars/asteroid I just copied and pasted many of my points into one very long passage. For the sole point that I don't have to rewrite it every time.

But there are a few points in it that are answers to questions that you guys haven't brought up but were brought up in other forums I wrote it for.

A common argument for space colonization is to relate it to early aviators whom were just learning to fly. The problem is that for us to attempt colonization with the technology that we have right now would be like the early aviators trying to fly with a steam engine. We do not have the technology to even attempt large scale colonization of the moon let alone colonization of mars.
While the early attempts at flight ended with failure, a failed attempt for the pioneers of aviation meant maybe a few broken bones or a bad boo-boo. At worst maybe the death of the pilot or an innocent bystander, but those were far in between. Would you find it humorous if it happened in space? Several thousand miles from earth; a "failure" means that your blood boils in a few seconds, that the oxygen is sucked right out of your lungs and when your out of oxygen your very blood gets sucked out. A failure isn't a broken bone in this case, a failure is the agonizing deaths of six to twelve people.

We should not be funding NASA for colonization or mining, because the second the tax payers realize that not even their grandchildren will receive any payoff from it they are going to stop the funding. We are creating a fantasy dream and in ten years when it pops it can threaten the future of space exploration for decades to come.
You know, one of the reasons the great depression started is everyone started buying stocks like crazy and their prices went up, but the prices weren't supported by how well the company was doing but rather they were supported by how much money the people thought they could be making. When they finally figured it out, the bubble popped it messed up our economy for years. That is a nightmare for me, yah sure, for now NASA's funding will skyrocket and things would be great, but sometime, someone's going to figure out that what NASA said it was doing, and that the public fantasy of NASA setting up a mining operation are two such totally different things they will refuse to fund NASA at all. And NASA will be crippled for years to come.

The fact is that people think its as simple as scaling up things like the current engines used in order to power the space craft. The fact is, we need to entirely reinvent the space engine, we'd probably have to use a nuclear engine to make it work (and yes, there is such a thing.). Were not spending money on making the technology, were spending the money trying to piece together current technology to make it work. It is just not as simple as it sounds.

And than there is the private industry. People seem to think that if NASA fails than good old capitalism will make it happen. This is just as equally unfounded. The fact is that the private industry won't be interested for decades upon decades because it is not economically feasible to do mining on the moon. Lets say a company really wants to obtain iron. They have two options for obtaining the iron:

1. Mine several tons of iron from the moon for several billion dollars worth of expenses.

2. Go to the recycling center and buy a ton of iron for 80 dollars to 400 dollars.

We should be funding NASA because we want to achieve short term goals, like 40, 50 years. The fact is the idea that NASA can realistically colonize anything in 100 to 200 years is absurd. Look at the Ares V, the largest rocket to make it this far in design. And it could not even come close to being able to start a colony on the moon, it would take dozens of missions to ferry supplies and cargo, and while it is larger than anything else, it is tiny for the mission at hand. We could establish a temporary base, as in a base that is only populated when a scientific team is on the moon for short periods of time, but the idea that we could keep it going indefinitely with the Ares program is pretty silly.

We don't even have the concept for a rocket able to colonize the moon.

The first flaw is that the moon is a hellish place. The fact is that the astronauts will be facing two week long lunar winters and two week long winter summers, each one at their own extremes of the scale. And what about an emergency plan? There is no escape plan for a colony. The only way to leave the moon is to have an Orion space ship in orbit to pick up the return ship from the lunar lander. You cannot keep an Orion capsule orbiting indefinitely to operate as an escape ship, namely because you need someone in their to pilot it while it is orbiting and the most their supplies will last is a week or two.

Secondly, why in the world would we mine the moon? That seems to be a pretty silly waste of money. The only things that cost a lot of money to mine or drill for and that are efficient to extract and process and that would make it worthwhile is oil, coal, natural gas, or any sort of fuel. And I hate to be a downer, but there's never been anything alive on the moon so none of those things exist in any amount. The only thing that would make sense are precious metals and the fact is they are such a pain to process; it takes a ton of gold ore to make an ounce of gold. Besides the fact that doesn't anyone see it as somewhat silly that a space organization whose dedication is to space exploration is forced to mine for precious metals just to survive? They wouldn't so that leaves the private industry.

Third, the only realistic way metals would be mined is by private industries. And the fact is that the private industry's space solutions are terrible. The current designs can barely make it to the space station. The idea that in twenty years they could be out there mining minerals is an illusion.

Fourth, the only realistic way to transport people and materials to and from the "colony" is through a massive dedicated spaceship. It would need to be at least twice to three times as large as the international space station, be many times more massive, have the biggest engines, the biggest cargo bays, the largest interior space, and the largest of everything ever to be put into space. It could not be launched from the ground because the sheer idea of that being remotely possible is silly. It would need to dock with the international space station, the problem is that the ISS would need to be equipped with massive fuel pumps, living quarters, storage areas, it would need to at least quadruple in size, function, and life support ability. It took twelve years to get the ISS to the place it is in right now and it's not even quite finished yet. Imagine how long it would take to build this space ship and than upgrade the ISS, I would guess twenty years at least. Besides the fact that nobody has ever even designed a space ship that is to be built in space, that will dock at a space station, fly to the moon, stay in orbit for the necessary months at a time, and come back to do it all over again and do it for decades.

Fifth, in order to resupply and unload this space ship we would need to design an all new rocket, it would have to be a new space shuttle because the fact is it would take Orion dozens of launches and landings to unload it. It would still take a space shuttle like craft more than a dozen launches to unload let alone resupply the thing.

Sixth, the economics of the whole thing make zero sense. For example, if they were to mine for say… iron the fact is that scrap iron (which would be of similar value to the iron ore they mine) trades for eighty dollars to four hundred dollars PER TON. The cost for six Apollo missions ended up being 83 billion dollars ADJUSTED for modern day inflation. Considering we'd be building a much more massive rocket, space station, lunar lander, space ship, and enclosures, we can probably guess just the cost of BUILDING these things would be in the hundreds of billions let alone just researching the technology to do it. Probably 500 billion dollars would be the total cost of the entire project before it even set foot on the moon. So can somebody explain to how it is realistic to spend 500 billion dollars to mine something that is worth only 80 dollars to 400 dollars per ton?

Seventh, the argument that we are overpopulating the earth and need to expand to space is pretty silly if not completely arrogant. Our population is what? 6 billion people? How many people would have to be moved to a colony on the moon in order to actually make a dent in our total population. I would say a billion people, or at the least 750 million people. That would mean making an enclosed bubble the size of a country. And lets remember that we would have to bring everything, even the dirt! The lunar soil never had anything organic in it, it would have near zero nutritional content for crops and plants. That means for all the necessary farms we would need to transport tens of millions of tons of soil to the moon.

If we were willing to do these things, we don't even have the technology ready to attempt them in any way.

Anyone that tells you it is realistic to colonize the moon in less than 100-200 years is either a chronic liar or trying to sell you something.

Here are some of the BASIC REQUIREMENTS that we don't have.

A small nuclear reactor that ways a few tons at most- needed for power generation during the lunar winters

More efficient solar panels- for lunar summer

Vastly Improved hydroponics for food

Improved electronics for obvious reasons

A life raft to escape the moon in case of dangers or emergencies

A very light radiation and impact resistant dense thread- to create the outer shell for the prefabricated structures.

A ship large enough to support a group of more than 6 permanent people while supplying new materials for construction. And if we intend to make a colony the space ship will have to do both those things at the same time.

Improved batteries.

A way to transport hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen in sufficient quantities because the moon does not have them in easily accessible forms in significant numbers.

A way to protect the colony from meteorites, sure you can block ones the size of pebbles, but a meteorite six inches in diameter could destroy the colony in seconds.

We should go to the moon with the ideas we have now. In the hopes of research and science. But to go to the moon with the immediate intention to colonize it is at best immature and at worst entirely dangerous. If you had a teenage son or daughter and they had just finished driving school would you as a parent let them drive in NASCAR? No you wouldn't, while we have learned how to land on the moon it doesn't mean we should be doing things that are outright dangerous even if we were experienced in them.
Click to expand...

Fraggle Rocker · Nov 5, 2010

Stryder said: ↑

Forget the "To reduce the population" argument, and consider the fact that eventually those supermarkets you forage around will one day start having less and less in stock as the numbers of people becomes as large (if not larger) than available food source's.
Click to expand...

A couple of you who are posting on this thread do not keep up with what's going on around you. The second derivative of population went negative about twenty years ago. It's predicted that the population will peak, while still being expressed in ten digits, by the end of this century. Then it will begin to decrease. The most effective contraceptive has proven to be prosperity. People in a successful economy don't need to have twelve children to make sure someone will be there to take over their business, or to take care of them in their old age. And people with leisure time, education and disposable income find other things to do than stay home and raise children.

phlogistician · Nov 6, 2010

fedr808 said: ↑

I suppose that by 'kilometer per accident' which is a common way to rate accident potential rocketry would probably be the safest way to travel.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Click to expand...

You what? It's 250,000 miles to the Moon, and what, two crews orbited, so six guys, 12 have walked on it, with one remaining in orbit each time, so another 6, plus Apollo 13, another three in Orbit, unintentionally. 27 guys travelled half a million miles. Then we have missions to orbit, ~500 people to what, 220miles, so 13,610,000 miles, ish, total.

There were 21million VW Beetles manufactured. If each one was driven only a mile, it would be more miles than manned rocketry had managed. How many of those do you expect to die?

Log in or Sign up

One way ticket to Mars?

cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Shadow1 Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

phlogistician Banned Banned

fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

phlogistician Banned Banned

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

One way ticket to Mars?

cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Shadow1 Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

phlogistician Banned Banned

fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

phlogistician Banned Banned

Share This Page

Useful Searches