Back to the Moon?
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
unclehobart
New Member
I wonder what would possibly be on mars that could be considered a cost effective article to mine and process? Even shipping the rarest of gems and radioactive isotopes would still cost 100 times thier equivalent as from Earth sources ... unless it is all just under sheer human determination to homestead and spread and take the first baby steps towards a Star Trek universe.
unclehobart
New Member
I know... I know... I just don't like the trillions in up front costs paid by the general largess for something that won't pay off for several generations to come. We need more research into cost effective transport methods before we end up spending the whole cash kitty upon old fashioned liquid and solid thruster methods. I would like to see some kind of efficient hydrogen impeller, nuclear, or solar sail technique perfected... or a least made SOP first.
I think the most expensive element is getting payload into initial orbit. We need to find some way of flinging the solid equipment into space by some means other than heavy fuels. I'm thinking of something done by a Canadian research team beased upon either magnetics or a supergun.
I think the most expensive element is getting payload into initial orbit. We need to find some way of flinging the solid equipment into space by some means other than heavy fuels. I'm thinking of something done by a Canadian research team beased upon either magnetics or a supergun.
I think the idea of space stations on the moon and mars is an excellent idea. Now the profitablility of such a venture is precarious at best, capitalism or no, but the prestige of having one there, plus the endless research possibilities make it well worth it, in my opinion. I do worry about us doing mining on the other planets though. Most of the materials we would want to mine for are the materials we have exhuasted our own planet of already. Is it really a good idea to exhaust another planet of them as well? What effect will this have in the long run?
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
unclehobart said:
I was thinking the same kind of thing, but mostly a space-elevator type of thing. Off hand, I'd say that the metals found on Mars etc... would be used to propell us beyond Mars. If you can use what you find to create fuel, oxygen etc first, then you're halfway to further exploration. It'll be more than one or two generations before we can see good financial reasons to import materials from Mars.
If you like this idea BTW...may I suggest the Mars series of books (Red Mars, Blue Mars, Green Mars etc..) as an excellent series of books dealing with the science and sociology of Martian exploration and terraforming.
chcr
Too cute for words
unclehobart said:
I think if you look at results, the spin-offs from the space program far out weigh the costs so far (this would in fact include the technology that led to the computer you're using right now). I agree that the cost is firghtening by itself, but the way space spin-offs have improved our quality of life...
Here's a link
Oh, BTW, the first place I ever read about using a magnetic accelerator to toss things into orbit was in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert A. Heinlein. About 35 years ago. Why hasn't anyone ever tried to build one? I personally favor a hydrogen ramjet (empty space not being in fact "empty") for interplanetary use, but that's just because the technology already exists.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
PuterTutor said:
No, no...rather if nothing does or can live there, then it's not an issue. I'm not talking about planets here, but rather planetisimals and small moons. A planetisimal 1/10th the size of Luna would more than provide enough materials for our needs, and the microgravity would make it easier to mine and export materials found there. Imagine if you will, aa asteroid 20kms wide and almost globular, made entirely of iron and crystelized methans, or hard-water, or silicates, or impure gold. We could even redirect one closer to earth for easier mining.
I'm not thinking huge here...no planet-busting or strip-mining on Mars and Venus, but taking a few of the hundreds of thousands of asteroids in the belt between Mars and Jupiter.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
chcr said:
Electro magnitic fields needed to accelerate objects into low-earth orbit are huge and can't be used to shoot anything electronic into space. Magnetics will seriously mess up electronic components as you might have read about during the last solar storm.
Problem #2... once it's in orbit, you still have to slow it down enough to catch, or rendezvous with, which would mean solid-fuel use.
Problem #3... you can't shoot stright up...you have to angle it, which means clearing huge portions of land and removign all people living in the path of the missile because of the high chances of physical problems associated with high levels of magnetics.
It'd be good for accelerating sections but you'd still have a lot of work ahead of you.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
PuterTutor said:As for re-directing one of them mineroids closer to earth, they best know what they're doing first.
They have more worries than that, I'm afraid. They can barely send probes safely to Mars...more than 70% failure rate thus far, and they want to send humans?
unclehobart
New Member
I do understand that the public windfall from government and military technologies are almost without measure and have advanced the overall human condition many times over within the last 100 years alone. Its not that I desire to nix any form of exploration and expansion. Its just that it currently takes something like 100 pounds of fuel to place 1 pound of payload in orbit. The current fuel delivery systems are pushing 40 years of age. Its merely their computer control components and metallic outer skins that have kept up with the times. The overall fuel efficiency may be getting better and better... but it still takes 100+ million dollars to place a single sattelite into orbit. Future tech varaints have been theorized for the better part of the last 25 years, but never allowed proper testing into practical use. The startup costs for an entire new way of thinking would be insanely costly... but the long term payoff would be immense. Sattelites could be put into orbit for something like 1/20 the cost. It would also increase the speed at which material could be placed up into orbit. The stuff we send up wouldn't have to be made of featherweight foil layers anymore. It could be made of cheaper, stronger stuff that would be oh so much more cooperative to assemble and maintain. The program could be accelerated to a matter of 2 or 3 decades instead of 5 to 10.
Its just a matter of where the money would be best spent. I think that a great deal of the resistance is from entrenched industries making obscene profits and protected by lobbyists trained by the lawyers of hell. Abandoning old paths are hard... even when its the most obvious thing to do.
Its just a matter of where the money would be best spent. I think that a great deal of the resistance is from entrenched industries making obscene profits and protected by lobbyists trained by the lawyers of hell. Abandoning old paths are hard... even when its the most obvious thing to do.
unclehobart
New Member
I wouldn't object to keeping solid/liquid fuel systems if a way could be found to make the cost of the fuel cheap cheap cheap. A true hydrogen modded system would make the costs plummet and allow for the continued use of existing facilities and systems.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
We're talking about a trillion$ here, surely some of it would go towards R&D for new feuls and projection techniques.
http://www.androidpubs.com/space_book.htm
In case that you need a headache...here's one guy's idea for getting to Mars and beyond. Don't let the numbers throw you off...it's the words in between that make sence...all except the cyborg and robot explorers stuff..
http://www.androidpubs.com/space_book.htm
In case that you need a headache...here's one guy's idea for getting to Mars and beyond. Don't let the numbers throw you off...it's the words in between that make sence...all except the cyborg and robot explorers stuff..
chcr
Too cute for words
Well, that's the whoel idea. You send the stuff, and assemble in space (zero-g construction needs some practice though). Electronics can be sufficiently shielded. The technology already exists to build one too, just modify a mag-lev train system.
Of course, if the old story about Boeing and antigravity turns out to be true, the point becomes moot.