 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / March 2006When all the planets are explored in the solar system
I keep thinking we should go to the oort cloud, before the stars like Sirius or Procyon. Then set up a base camp there and use it to go further from the kuiper belt. If there is a 10th planet then there could be a 11th planet and a 12th planet and a 13th planet, etcetera. Then, saying that, we should get to the moon first then mars . :/) What 'appen to the old discussion on this stuff? I ain't been following these threads for a bit, but keep ponderin' > Then, saying that, we should get to the moon first then mars . :/) In many ways Mars is a much better first goal than the Moon.  SignatureSea Wasp /^\ ;;; Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/ moon is a excellent training program for mars. at our current blistering speed of exploration in 3010 we will be discussing a return to the moon, president hillary clintoi the 4th will be talking about it:( Government would be better off standing back and letting others in private industery lead the way.... > moon is a excellent training program for mars. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Government would be better off standing back and letting others in > private industery lead the way.... Anyone who has space stations in orbit able to drop space rocks on the heads of people down below will be the government, if they weren't before. Maybe that isn't quite what you wanted. >Anyone who has space stations in orbit able to drop space rocks on the >heads of people down below will be the government, if they weren't >before. Similar arguments can be applied about owning large ships, owning better transport in general, owning taller houses etc. It wasn't true then, and there's no intrinsic reason why it should be true now either. Mark McIntyre > >Anyone who has space stations in orbit able to drop space rocks on the > >heads of people down below will be the government, if they weren't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > then, and there's no intrinsic reason why it should be true now > either. (1) America has the best bombs, and rules the world. (2) Military-industrial complex. >> >Anyone who has space stations in orbit able to drop space rocks on the >> >heads of people down below will be the government, if they weren't [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >(2) Military-industrial complex. Yes, and the same argument applies to space stations too. "Dropping rocks" isn't an unstoppable ultra-doomsday attack and space stations are relatively fragile if someone chooses to shoot back at them. Besides, America doesn't rule the world. Plenty of nations freely flout its "authority," despite the theoretical possibility that America could blow them up at any moment, since America isn't _going_ to blow them up at any moment. > >> >Anyone who has space stations in orbit able to drop space rocks on the > >> >heads of people down below will be the government, if they weren't [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Yes, and the same argument applies to space stations too. "Dropping > rocks" isn't an unstoppable ultra-doomsday attack Tell that to the dinosaurs... > and space stations > are relatively fragile if someone chooses to shoot back at them. They're pretty hard to hit. > Besides, America doesn't rule the world. Plenty of nations freely > flout its "authority," despite the theoretical possibility that > America could blow them up at any moment, since America isn't _going_ > to blow them up at any moment. I grant that people in some parts of the world sometimes take actions or hold views that displease the American government. These are the rare exceptions, seemingly. And do you think George Bush has the temperament to retire without pressing the button in the magic briefcase at least once? Wasn't he over stirring up nuclear excitement this week in Asia, next to the Middle East? Isn't Iran in line for a nuclear spanking? I'd prefer to be wrong, but I have no faith in his good intentions. :> >> >Anyone who has space stations in orbit able to drop space rocks on the :> >> >heads of people down below will be the government, if they weren't [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] : :Tell that to the dinosaurs... You could drop the entire space station and not have that sort of impact. Take a look at what size the 'dinosaur killer' had to be. :> and space stations :> are relatively fragile if someone chooses to shoot back at them. : :They're pretty hard to hit. Not really. Just start tossing tons of gravel into retrograde orbits. If space stations are that hard to hit, how do you ever get a crew up to one? :> Besides, America doesn't rule the world. Plenty of nations freely :> flout its "authority," despite the theoretical possibility that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] : :I'd prefer to be wrong, but I have no faith in his good intentions. Then you'll get your preference. In your case it's good to be wrong. Signature"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn > :> >> >Anyone who has space stations in orbit able to drop space rocks on the > :> >> >heads of people down below will be the government, if they weren't [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > If space stations are that hard to hit, how do you ever get a crew up > to one? With cooperation. I think I'm looking a little further ahead. You're saying, let private enterprise do space. Well, by and by that means /they/ go to Mars and to the asteroids and so forth, even if they only send robots. And then they can weaponize, from a safe distance... government didn't build the means to go up there, only the corporations have it. There's a graphic novel by Warren Ellis, OCEAN... in some ways not especially sophisticated, but fun. A United Nations mission (I think this is Ellis's little joke) contends with the Doors Corporation satellite. Right this minute, my TV is playing anime... so consider orbital laser death rays, too. :> :> >> >Anyone who has space stations in orbit able to drop space rocks on the :> :> >> >heads of people down below will be the government, if they weren't [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] : :With cooperation. Amongst who? Cooperation from the station is only potentially necessary to dock. If you just want to hit it, that's easy and requires no cooperation at all. :I think I'm looking a little further ahead. You're saying, let private :enterprise do space. I said no such thing. I said precisely what I said. It wasn't all that complicated. Go back and read it again. In essence, it said that your "Tell that to the dinosaurs" comment in defense of an orbital station being 'the high ground' and allowing the dropping of rocks and your remark that space stations "are pretty hard to hit" are both wrong. How you get from there to "you're saying, let private enterprise do space" is anyone's guess. :There's a graphic novel by Warren Ellis, OCEAN... in some ways not :especially sophisticated, but fun. A United Nations mission (I think [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :Right this minute, my TV is playing anime... so consider orbital laser :death rays, too. In other words, you're a loon and worth no further investment of time or effort. Signature"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn > :> :> >> >Anyone who has space stations in orbit able to drop space rocks on the > :> :> >> >heads of people down below will be the government, if they weren't [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > How you get from there to "you're saying, let private enterprise do > space" is anyone's guess. Oh, that must have been someone else. Sorry. > :There's a graphic novel by Warren Ellis, OCEAN... in some ways not > :especially sophisticated, but fun. A United Nations mission (I think [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > In other words, you're a loon and worth no further investment of time > or effort. Hey, this is a widely cross-posted thread, it's /supposed/ to have half-baked contentious political positions... rja.carnegie@excite.com (rja.carnegie@excite.com) wrote on 05.03.06 in <1141574897.887295.105560@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>: > Hey, this is a widely cross-posted thread, it's /supposed/ to have > half-baked contentious political positions... No, it's *supposed* to be _relevant_ to all those groups. Loony ideas (not even half-baked) almost certainly aren't. Kai Signaturehttp://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/ "... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it." - Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) Business doesnt want to destroy the world just make a buck. to encourage making money in space, make all profits from space related industries income tax free for the next 30 years or so, that would jump start things........ a half baked dictator could take out ISS, heck before saddam was overthrown some here pondered his using a missle to destroy the station, remember its hard to reach but isnt hardened at all. even a strong microwave pointed its way could cripple it, by frying the electronics, a strong laser could puncture it, gravel in a retrograde orbit could do it in. geez lots of ways to kill iss, using rather crude means. > Business doesnt want to destroy the world just make a buck. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > a half baked dictator could take out ISS, Yes, they could. But a funny thing about dictators, they tend to avoid doing things that would most likely get them removed from power. Taking out ISS would certainly bring the full wrath of the US military down upon them. > heck before saddam was > overthrown some here pondered his using a missle to destroy the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > orbit could do it in. geez lots of ways to kill iss, using rather crude > means. > > Business doesnt want to destroy the world just make a buck. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > doing things that would most likely get them removed from power. Taking out > ISS would certainly bring the full wrath of the US military down upon them. If it was traceable. If it's just that the ISS dies for no clear reason, it just makes the U.S. and the West, and the Russians, look incompetent. Also, I'm not sure how many dictators or other crotchety nations can actually get into space. I think it's a few fewer than can build nuclear bombs, but I haven't checked and of course there are the "maybes" and "not telling". rja.carnegie@excite.com (rja.carnegie@excite.com) wrote on 05.03.06 in <1141574811.454354.233600@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>: > > > Business doesnt want to destroy the world just make a buck. > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > reason, it just makes the U.S. and the West, and the Russians, look > incompetent. And for good reason. If they *can't* trace stuff done in orbit, where there's pretty much nothing to hide behind, and where all the obvious means to get there are watched for pretty closely, then they *are* incompetent. In other words - ain't gonna happen. > Also, I'm not sure how many dictators or other crotchety nations can > actually get into space. With small stuff? Given SS1, I'd say that's entirely possible if they want to spend their energies that way. Pretty pointless in the current situation, though, unless you're Osama, and Osama isn't even a half baked dictator. >I think it's a few fewer than can build > nuclear bombs, but I haven't checked and of course there are the > "maybes" and "not telling". I'd expect more, not fewer - there's no science you need that isn't freely available for rockets, as opposed to nukes. Kai Signaturehttp://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/ "... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it." - Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) > Business doesnt want to destroy the world just make a buck. Well, not the *whole* world anyway. SignatureWilliam December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> >(1) America has the best bombs, and rules the world. And when other countries decide to emulate what America is, America calls them immoral and sanctions them. :: <rja.carnegie@excite.com> :: (1) America has the best bombs, and rules the world. : Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> : And when other countries decide to emulate what America is, America : calls them immoral and sanctions them. Well, when we got The Bomb, that was good, 'cause we love peace and motherhood. But if they got The Bomb, that's not OK, 'cause the applecart gets upset that way. Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw >:: <rja.carnegie@excite.com> >:: (1) America has the best bombs, and rules the world. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >and motherhood. But if they got The Bomb, that's not OK, 'cause the >applecart gets upset that way. We'll try to stay serene and calm when Alabama gets the bomb. Signature"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by." Stuart Adamson 1958-2001 Mad Hamish Hamish Laws newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au >>:: <rja.carnegie@excite.com> >>:: (1) America has the best bombs, and rules the world. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> > We'll try to stay serene and calm when Alabama gets the bomb. Live at Leeds. (Or was it a different album?) On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 16:56:15 GMT, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> allegedly declared to rec.arts.sf.written... >>>Well, when we got The Bomb, that was good, 'cause we love peace >>>and motherhood. But if they got The Bomb, that's not OK, 'cause the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Live at Leeds. (Or was it a different album?) 'This Was the Year That Was'. Gym "Of coure, Wayne did modify the lyrics to suit his point..." Quirk SignatureCapt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) quirk @ swcp.com Just an article detector on the Information Supercollider. Mark, You write of a superior system twice removed. If it possible to impress upon the hardcore initiatives about colonizing Mars, maybe we should investigate reverse inheritance notation with synchronized dish washing and revere aggregates with a Turing machine. That'll be bound to stik before we're around to find out otherwise. PM > >Anyone who has space stations in orbit able to drop space rocks on the > >heads of people down below will be the government, if they weren't [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- >>moon is a excellent training program for mars. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > heads of people down below will be the government, if they weren't > before. Maybe that isn't quite what you wanted. In which case a load of ball bearings is swung around the moon and returns to earth retrograde to meet that space station at 36,000 mph. It's not nice to drop rocks on mother nature. SignatureCoathanger abortion is a grossly underated and underutilized technology. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3581 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml Blame Israel http://www.ussliberty.org a10 > moon is a excellent training program for mars. > > at our current blistering speed of exploration in 3010 we will be > discussing a return to the moon, president hillary clintoi the 4th will > be talking about it:( That is under discussion earlier than that. The Chinese are looking at it seriously, and so is the US. In fact, human exploration plans are soaking up money that could be used for robot exploration, hence various recent cancelled projects. > Government would be better off standing back and letting others in > private industery lead the way.... What utter drivel. If they want to do it, they can. They would if there was money in it. : "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@gmail.com> : What utter drivel. If they want to do it, they can. They would if there : was money in it. But... but... shirly their innate drive to explore would cause them to spend gobs and gobs of money with no return, if only the government would get off their backs! And sure, they'd lose money on each launch, but they could make it up in volume. Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw >> moon is a excellent training program for mars. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >What utter drivel. If they want to do it, they can. They would if there >was money in it. I was wondering about that. From what I can tell, there's nothing that stops private industry from getting into the space race if they want to. Rebecca >moon is a excellent training program for mars. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Government would be better off standing back and letting others in >private industery lead the way.... Unless of course private industry isn't going that way. >> Then, saying that, we should get to the moon first then mars . :/) > > In many ways Mars is a much better first goal than the Moon. The moon is a useful training ground. It is also higher up the Earth's gravity well and could be a useful launch point if fuel can be acquired there. Keep searchin', Martin s.a.seti Signature---------- OS? What's that?! (Martin_285 on Mandriva) - Martin - To most people, "Operating System" is unknown & strange. - 53N 1W - Mandriva 10LE GNU Linux - An OS for Supercomputers & PCs ---------- http://www1.mandrivalinux.com/en/concept.php3 >>> Then, saying that, we should get to the moon first then mars . :/) >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > gravity well and could be a useful launch point if fuel can be acquired > there. Actually, it's not significantly "closer" than Mars in terms of energy required to reach it and return. Mars has an atmosphere which permits aerobraking -- serious savings in energy. Mars has a lot of available materials for building and manufacturing fuel on-site. The moon is a rock in vacuum that has its own gravity well and requires active landing as well as active liftoff. The extra fuel cost to get to Mars is pretty much covered by the other advantages. There just isn't much USEFUL on the Moon, and if all you want is a place to stop off, it's much better to build something in orbit that DOESN'T have a gravity well -- even the relatively small one of the Moon -- that you have to fight on both arrival and departure. SignatureSea Wasp /^\ ;;; Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/ >>>> Then, saying that, we should get to the moon first then mars . :/) >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Actually, it's not significantly "closer" than Mars in terms of energy > required to reach it and return. The Moon is certainly closer in terms of elapsed time to get there and back, which means it's much cheaper in life support. There's no way an Apollo-era spacecraft (or anything we have today) has the cargo capacity needed to get humans to Mars and back alive. > The Moon is certainly closer in terms of elapsed time to get there and > back, which means it's much cheaper in life support. Umm, not really. A whole 3 days for a 6-18 months trip. And on the way back you'd have to slow down to land at the Moon vs. re-entry at Earth, so really no closer. > There's no way an > Apollo-era spacecraft (or anything we have today) has the cargo capacity > needed to get humans to Mars and back alive. Really? I guess the NASA plans from the 1970s using basic Apollo era spacecraft were all fantasies then. >> The Moon is certainly closer in terms of elapsed time to get there and >> back, which means it's much cheaper in life support. > > Umm, not really. A whole 3 days for a 6-18 months trip. And on the way > back you'd have to slow down to land at the Moon vs. re-entry at Earth, so > really no closer. You misunderstad me; Earth to Moon vs. Earth to Mars, not Moon to Mars vs. Eath to Mars. As you say, the difference is a week or so vs. 6=18 months. >> There's no way an >> Apollo-era spacecraft (or anything we have today) has the cargo capacity >> needed to get humans to Mars and back alive. > > Really? I guess the NASA plans from the 1970s using basic Apollo era > spacecraft were all fantasies then. Apparently. Where did they store the food, water, oxygen etc. for a 6-18 month trip? > You misunderstad me; Earth to Moon vs. Earth to Mars, not Moon to Mars vs. > Eath to Mars. As you say, the difference is a week or so vs. 6=18 months. Ah, that does make much more sense. > > Really? I guess the NASA plans from the 1970s using basic Apollo era > > spacecraft were all fantasies then. > > Apparently. Where did they store the food, water, oxygen etc. for a 6-18 > month trip? In a modified Skylab type module. Among other plans. I don't recall how far along the plans really developed but at least one idea basically had them using a Skylab type module for the cruise portion of the flight. :: Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> :: The Moon is certainly closer in terms of elapsed time to get there :: and back, which means it's much cheaper in life support. : "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> : Umm, not really. A whole 3 days for a 6-18 months trip. : And on the way back you'd have to slow down to land at the Moon vs. : re-entry at Earth, so really no closer. The comparison is earth-to-moon-and-back vs earth-to-mars-and-back. So that's 3 days vs a year, not three days out of a year. :: There's no way an Apollo-era spacecraft (or anything we have today) :: has the cargo capacity needed to get humans to Mars and back alive. : Really? I guess the NASA plans from the 1970s using basic Apollo era : spacecraft were all fantasies then. NASA had plans to use an Apollo for a mars mission? Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw > NASA had plans to use an Apollo for a mars mission? Of course. Didn't you see Capricorn One? ;) -- M. Ruff ::: In many ways Mars is a much better first goal than the Moon. : Sea Wasp <seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com> : Actually, it's not significantly "closer" than Mars in terms of : energy required to reach it and return. But is considerably closer in terms of the length of the journey, hence the radiation exposure to plan for, the mass of the consumables to take, the necessary reliability of components, and so on and on. : Mars has an atmosphere which permits aerobraking -- serious savings in : energy. Mars has an escape velocity twice that of the moon, and energy goes as square of velocity, so "save" by spending only twice the energy to land on mars and take off again, as on the moon. Instead of the four times it would be if mars had no atmosphere. And that's assuming that it's zero cost in energy to lug the ablation sheidling to mars in the first place, which doesn't have to be done for the moon. ( Note: in terms of delta-v, it's the same, so rating it in "energy" may not be the best thing, but that's what the savings were expressed in terms of. ) : Mars has a lot of available materials for building and manufacturing : fuel on-site. What's mars got that the moon ain't got? Presumably volatiles of some sort, but what specifically did you have in mind? : The moon is a rock in vacuum that has its own gravity well and : requires active landing as well as active liftoff. The extra fuel : cost to get to Mars is pretty much covered by the other advantages. Um. What other advantages? So far, it's that mars isn't that much harder to get to in terms of fuel for an expedition of equal mass (but an actual expedition would be many times the mass), and has an atmosphere that allows us to spend only twice the energy in landing/takeoff instead of four times, and allegedly has some materials (presumably volatiles) that the moon lacks, which can allegedly be used to manufacture fuel, for which an initial mission would have to lug the extra mass of a fuel and oxidant distillery along to get any advantage of. So far... forgive me, but these don't sound like advantages to me. Especially not for a "first goal". : There just isn't much USEFUL on the Moon, and if all you want is a : place to stop off, it's much better to build something in orbit that : DOESN'T have a gravity well The moon has mass, which can be placed between you and solar flares and cosmic rays and suchlike. To build something in high orbit, you'd have to lug shielding along with you. Which you could get... let's see... via mass driver from the moon. Hmmm. What does mars have that's "useful"? Perhaps the fuel mentioned above? What fuel, and who are you selling it to, and what makes you sure you can't distill it from materials available on the moon? Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying "the moon is better, dagnabbit!" I'm saying "I don't see advantages to mars as a first goal", which is not quite the same thing. Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw > What does mars have that's "useful"? Perhaps the fuel mentioned above? > What fuel, and who are you selling it to, and what makes you sure you > can't distill it from materials available on the moon? As I said in the prior message, read Zubrin. He goes into all of that in rather painstaking detail, including how to make fuel and why (one point: if you can't make the fuel, you have to carry all the fuel to get you BACK, which really cuts into the payload; if you can make your fuel on-site, you can carry a LOT more stuff there), how to make building materials, how to get water, and so on. They even did some pilot studies on these processes which demonstrated how well they would work, and the technology involved is not far-out wierd crap but, for the most part, 20th century variations on 19th century tech. > Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying "the moon is better, dagnabbit!" > I'm saying "I don't see advantages to mars as a first goal", which is > not quite the same thing. I understand exactly what you're saying. I go into some fictionalized material on this in _Boundary_, but if you really want the unvarnished stuff, read _The Case For Mars_ and related stuff. There's a ton of info on this. One problem with the Moon is that it's basically just a chunk of the Earth's crust which was kicked into space. It has had no actual geological processes of its own. Indications are that Mars DID have some in at least some areas (Olympus Mons and environs), plus water-driven processes, both of which help to create and concentrate ores of various materials, salts, and a number of other useful materials for would-be settlers or visitors. SignatureSea Wasp /^\ ;;; Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/ : Sea Wasp <seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com> : Read Zubrin's _The Case For Mars_. Says it all at considerable length. 'K. ::::: In many ways Mars is a much better first goal than the Moon. :: I'm saying "I don't see advantages to mars as a first goal" : I understand exactly what you're saying. I go into some fictionalized : material on this in _Boundary_, but if you really want the unvarnished [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : ores of various materials, salts, and a number of other useful : materials for would-be settlers or visitors. Hm. I suspect I don't know what you mean by "first goal". Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw > : Sea Wasp <seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com> > : Read Zubrin's _The Case For Mars_. Says it all at considerable length. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Hm. I suspect I don't know what you mean by "first goal". First place to bother to go to for a reason other than "well, it's there". There's no practical reason to go to the Moon, aside from physical proximity and symbolism. The stuff you need to live on isn't really easily accessible. SignatureSea Wasp /^\ ;;; Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/ > >>> Then, saying that, we should get to the moon first then mars . :/) > >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > gravity well -- even the relatively small one of the Moon -- that you > have to fight on both arrival and departure. You can come home if thing's turn out bad on the moon. You can't do that from Mars :-( Yeah, moon first. Kleo > You can come home if thing's turn out bad on the moon. You can't do > that from Mars :-( Um, why do you think that you could do the one and not the other? Any expedition sent to either place would be designed for return capability. If "something went wrong", which place would be better depends on what the "something" is. Don't think of the Moon as somehow being a hop,skip, and a jump. It's still a hell of a long way away through a hell of a lot of vacuum. SignatureSea Wasp /^\ ;;; Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/ >> You can come home if thing's turn out bad on the moon. You can't do >> that from Mars :-( [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Don't think of the Moon as somehow being a hop,skip, and a jump. >It's still a hell of a long way away through a hell of a lot of vacuum. It _is_ a hop compared to Mars. If you had the means, you could at least rescue the crew if something went wrong on the Moon that didn't totally destroy the ship.. "Mission to Mars" notwithstanding, anyone on Mars is on their own. >>> You can come home if thing's turn out bad on the moon. You can't do >>> that from Mars :-( [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > went wrong on the Moon that didn't totally destroy the ship.. "Mission > to Mars" notwithstanding, anyone on Mars is on their own. Not really. In both cases the only situation in which EITHER would permit a "rescue" after "something" went wrong is if they had sufficient material to survive long enough for a rescue mission. This means sufficient reserve for them to survive being marooned for the length of time it would take for a rescue mission to be mounted. In BOTH cases, you clearly have the technology to reach the target. In BOTH cases, you clearly know the planned duration of the mission. In BOTH cases, you would have to have some reserve, X, available and planned for. In BOTH cases, the space mission would be planned using the same physics limiting assumptions. If you assume the Moon mission brings a survivable reserve, the Mars mission would too. In BOTH cases, based on prior missions, there would NOT be such a reserve, and there would NOT be anyone standing by to rescue you. See "Apollo 13". They had to either solve the problems themselves, right there, or die. You're not one of the people that thinks the Space Shuttle could have gone to the Space Station and waited for rescue, are you? SignatureSea Wasp /^\ ;;; Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/ >>>> You can come home if thing's turn out bad on the moon. You can't do >>>> that from Mars :-( >>> Um, why do you think that you could do the one and not the >>> other? Any expedition sent to either place would be designed for >>> return capability. If "something went wrong", which place would be >>> better depends on what the "something" is. >>> Don't think of the Moon as somehow being a hop,skip, and a jump. >>> It's still a hell of a long way away through a hell of a lot of vacuum. >> It _is_ a hop compared to Mars. >> If you had the means, you could at least rescue the crew if something >> went wrong on the Moon that didn't totally destroy the ship.. "Mission >> to Mars" notwithstanding, anyone on Mars is on their own. > Not really. In both cases the only situation in which EITHER would >permit a "rescue" after "something" went wrong is if they had >sufficient material to survive long enough for a rescue mission. This >means sufficient reserve for them to survive being marooned for the >length of time it would take for a rescue mission to be mounted. Which completely glosses over the *quantitative* differences between the two. Or were you thinking only qualitative differences, matter? > In BOTH cases, you clearly have the technology to reach the target. >In BOTH cases, you clearly know the planned duration of the mission. >In BOTH cases, you would have to have some reserve, X, available and >planned for. What exactly do you mean by "reserve"? If you're thinking, well, here are some oxygen tanks, and some CO2 absorber cartridges and some batteries and some fresh water and emergency rations and whatnot, then, well, here the quantitative difference *becomes* a qualitative one. For the Moon, it is trivial to provide such a reserve, sufficient to cover the expected time of a rescue mission and then some. For Mars, it is not possible. You'd need about five *tons* of "reserve" for each crew member, and that's not going to happen. > In BOTH cases, the space mission would be planned using the same >physics limiting assumptions. If you assume the Moon mission brings a >survivable reserve, the Mars mission would too. No. The Moon mission would bring enough basic supplies to keep everyone alive for the duration, if the machinery breaks down. The Mars mission, would bring machinery that had better not break down or everyone is going to die. One of these things is easier and safer than the other. > In BOTH cases, based on prior missions, there would NOT be such a >reserve, and there would NOT be anyone standing by to rescue you. See >"Apollo 13". That was space exploration as done forty years ago. And while NASA may not be able to do any better than that, well, NASA really isn't able to do even that well any more - they can just make the viewgraphs and suck up some gigabucks before they have to admit that they aren't going back to the Moon and then on to Mars. Space Exploration as done by competent people here and now, can easily do Lunar missions with actual rescue capability. Things go wrong, and inside of a week a whole 'nother spaceship shows up to bring the survivors home. Possibly a dedicated rescue craft, possibly what would have been the next scheduled mission if things hadn't gone wrong. That's for the Moon. If you can hold out for a week, you can be saved. All you need is a duffle bag of emergency supplies, and either a room that holds pressure or a spacesuit that works. Mars, it takes a year or two to arrange a rescue, and it takes a year or two to come home by your own efforts, and you're not going to have a year or two of emergency supplies. Either the machinery works, or you die. And if you are going to kludge up some self-help rescue, there's a wee bit of difference between a kludge that has to work for a week, and a kludge that has to work for a year. >They had to either solve the problems themselves, right there, or die. >You're not one of the people that thinks the Space Shuttle could have >gone to the Space Station and waited for rescue, are you? You're not one of the people that thinks the Space Shuttle represents a sensible way to engage in space exploration, are you? Signature*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, * *Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" * *Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition * *White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute * *schillin@spock.usc.edu * for success" * *661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition * >>They had to either solve the problems themselves, right there, or die. >>You're not one of the people that thinks the Space Shuttle could have >>gone to the Space Station and waited for rescue, are you? > > You're not one of the people that thinks the Space Shuttle represents > a sensible way to engage in space exploration, are you? Your argument assumes an incompetent approach to the Mars mission -- as only an idiot would go to Mars WITHOUT that emergency reserve. Sent on ahead, I would recommend. SignatureSea Wasp /^\ ;;; Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/ >>>They had to either solve the problems themselves, right there, or die. >>>You're not one of the people that thinks the Space Shuttle could have >>>gone to the Space Station and waited for rescue, are you? >> You're not one of the people that thinks the Space Shuttle represents >> a sensible way to engage in space exploration, are you? > Your argument assumes an incompetent approach to the Mars mission -- >as only an idiot would go to Mars WITHOUT that emergency reserve. Sent >on ahead, I would recommend. You still haven't answered the first question I asked: By "reserve", do you mean tanks of oxygen, water, etc sufficient to complete the trip and/or await rescue from Earth, if things go wrong? If so, you need to do the math, because any "competent" approach to the Mars mission suddenly got a *lot* harder. Harder than going to the Moon, by far, and hard enough that it's probably not going to happen in your lifetime. Your argument might as well be that wintering over at the South Pole is as easy a trip as a weekend in the local state park, for a Boy Scout troop. Because, see, only incompetents would make the trip without adequate training and equipment, therefore the Boy Scouts will have right training and equipment whether they're going to the state park or Antarctica, therefore it's just as safe and easy either way. No, it isn't. Even if we handwave the transportation costs to be the same, "training and equipment" or "adequate reserves" are so very much harder in the one case than the other, that there's no comparison. Signature*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, * *Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" * *Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition * *White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute * *schillin@spock.usc.edu * for success" * *661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition * > Your argument might as well be that wintering over at the South Pole is > as easy a trip as a weekend in the local state park, for a Boy Scout > troop. Because, see, only incompetents would make the trip without > adequate training and equipment, therefore the Boy Scouts will have > right training and equipment whether they're going to the state park > or Antarctica, therefore it's just as safe and easy either way. Not really. It does depend on the assumptions you make, true, but you exaggerate a number of issues. Mars offers opportunities to support your marooned astronauts, assuming they brought the right equipment, which the Moon does not. There are reasonable ways for them to make air and water from what's there, as opposed to the Moon, where you really CAN'T do that unless you happen to be incredibly lucky about what you bring and where you land. You can make fuel on Mars a lot more easily than you can make it on the Moon. If you assume each one starts with IDENTICAL equipment -- and that the equipment in both cases is optimized for the Moon -- then hell yeah, the Mars group is screwed. If you assume they each start out with optimal equipment for the mission in question, they should be roughly equal. If you insist on analogies on Earth, it's the difference between sending your Boy Scout troop to Antarctica from a ship anchored several miles offshore (but not reachable in any way over the ice, etc.) and sending the exact same Boy Scout troop there from New York, and the Troop in question has to be self sufficient from the time they leave until the time they return. If you assume the Troops in both cases have only the supplies for the short trip, then the long-trip one is screwed. If you assume the long-trip ones expend planning and effort to make sure additional supplies are there, they aren't screwed. If you can get people there for colonization or research or whatever, you can also send, ahead of them, an equivalent or greater mass of supplies (especially since the supplies sent to mars can (A) use aerobraking to assist in the slowing down and landing, which the Moon ones can't, and (B) don't have to return, so the entire mass only has to be able to land, not take off. Read Zubrin for the details on this process. The KEY point about BOTH of them is that it is a nontrivial effort to mount a rescue mission unless (in both cases) you have such a mission STANDING BY. To just throw together something that would reach the moon with sufficient capacity to go down, retrieve your astronauts, and come back home safely is, likely, somewhat cheaper, and certainly faster, than doing the same for Mars. However, in BOTH cases you have already established the technology to actually accomplish the objective, and if you were reasonably forward-thinking would make allowances in supplies to deal with unforeseen events that somehow (by great good fortune) left the astronauts in question alive. The only *material* difference, as far as I see, is time; if you assume they have only enough food for, say, a few weeks, yep, Mars is screwed (fastest reasonable transit, given the right tech and right orbital parameters, is about 3 months). Mars has water, and if they brought the appropriate gadgets they can manage to keep up on the water/air equation, but food isn't something you can make out of raw materials yet. SignatureSea Wasp /^\ ;;; Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/ : Sea Wasp <seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com> : If you assume each one starts with IDENTICAL equipment -- and that : the equipment in both cases is optimized for the Moon -- then hell : yeah, the Mars group is screwed. : If you assume they each start out with optimal equipment for the : mission in question, they should be roughly equal. Equally unscrewed, perhaps so. Equally bankrupt, I very much doubt. There is some vigorous handwaving in the "and then they make air and fuel from easily available martian household supplies", among other issues that provoke my skepticism. ( I note, I'm still pending your recommendatin of Zubrin's "Case for Mars", so my skepticism is conditional/tenative ) Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw > : Sea Wasp <seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com> > : If you assume each one starts with IDENTICAL equipment -- and that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ( I note, I'm still pending your recommendatin of Zubrin's "Case for Mars", > so my skepticism is conditional/tenative ) Read that and get back to me on the skepticism. They did some demos of the relevant processes using simulated martian atmosphere, and for the most part these things aren't even using 21st century technology, but late 19th -- early 20th. SignatureSea Wasp /^\ ;;; Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/ > : Sea Wasp <seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com> > : If you assume each one starts with IDENTICAL equipment -- and that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and fuel from easily available martian household supplies", among > other issues that provoke my skepticism. Some healthy skepticism is a good idea since it hasn't been done on the scale that Zubrin claims can be done. (at least not in a pure Martian environment.) But even w/o that, other things change... cooling mechanisms for your lander and space suits for one thing. What works on Mars won't work on the Moon and what works on the Moon won't work as well on Mars for example. Dealing with day/night issues are also different. Yes, some stuff will transfer between the two places but a lot won't. > ( I note, I'm still pending your recommendatin of Zubrin's "Case for Mars", > so my skepticism is conditional/tenative ) > > Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw >>: Sea Wasp <seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com> >>: If you assume each one starts with IDENTICAL equipment -- and that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > scale that Zubrin claims can be done. (at least not in a pure Martian > environment.) O'course, part of the problem with that is funding. You want to simulate Mars on a scale large enough to test a full-scale living and manufacturing module, that's BIG testing areas. I have no doubt that if they're going to actually do this stuff, that they'll have to build those testing setups eventually, of course. SignatureSea Wasp /^\ ;;; Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/ Let's assume that all the resources to get back to Earth can be made on Mars. Big deal, that breaks the trip into one-way trips to Mars and from Mars. Each of those is still over eighty times the distance of the Lunar round trip. > Not really. It does depend on the assumptions you make, true, but you > exaggerate a number of issues. Mars offers opportunities to support [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > water/air equation, but food isn't something you can make out of raw > materials yet. >> Your argument might as well be that wintering over at the South Pole is >> as easy a trip as a weekend in the local state park, for a Boy Scout [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > you exaggerate a number of issues. Mars offers opportunities to support > your marooned astronauts, assuming they brought the right equipment, Which includes a fully robotic hospital to care for the invalid humans whilst they re-adjust to Mars gravity after 300 days weightless. Sending people to Mars with our present technology is pretty futile - humans are too fragile for interplanetary travel in our crude chemical rockets. All they will do is contaminate the place and die slowly on the surface (if they manage to get there alive in the first place). > which the Moon does not. There are reasonable ways for them to make air > and water from what's there, as opposed to the Moon, where you really [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the equipment in both cases is optimized for the Moon -- then hell yeah, > the Mars group is screwed. The time to reach Mars and mount any kind of rescue is so great that you are sending them on a one way ticket to their deaths. The transfer orbits are much slower between planets and the distances immense. Going to the moon is a picnic by comparison and we haven't done that now for more than three decades. AT the moment we can't even fly the shuttle :( > If you assume they each start out with optimal equipment for the > mission in question, they should be roughly equal. Do you have any idea how much equipment and food that would be for Mars? (even allowing for subsistence rations and make/find water on planet) We do not have the lift capacity to send enough gear to Mars to allow any reasonable chance of success of a manned human mission. It might make gripping reality TV as they die slowly but that is hardly a good reason for doing it. > The KEY point about BOTH of them is that it is a nontrivial effort > to mount a rescue mission unless (in both cases) you have such a mission > STANDING BY. To just throw together something that would reach the moon > with sufficient capacity to go down, retrieve your astronauts, and come > back home safely is, likely, somewhat cheaper, and certainly faster, And faster is pretty important when you are mounting a *rescue* mission. Not much use turning up so late that they are all dead. > The only *material* difference, as far as I see, is time; if you > assume they have only enough food for, say, a few weeks, yep, Mars is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > water/air equation, but food isn't something you can make out of raw > materials yet. Work out the weights of all the food and resources they would need to subsist for the ~300 daya a Hohmann transfer orbit would take to reach them. Or are you going to have some hypothetical gofaster rescue ship? The rescue trip would have to fly with 50% more food resources than the original mission to cater for the crowded return trip. Regards, Martin Brown >>> Your argument might as well be that wintering over at the South Pole is >>> as easy a trip as a weekend in the local state park, for a Boy Scout [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Which includes a fully robotic hospital to care for the invalid humans > whilst they re-adjust to Mars gravity after 300 days weightless. No, actually. They spend most of the trip in Mars gravity. Read The Case For Mars. > Going to the moon is a picnic by comparison and we haven't done that now > for more than three decades. AT the moment we can't even fly the shuttle :( Which is irrelevant as the scenarios assume that we have, in fact, created the appropriate tech. If we can't get there, there wouldn't be any concern about how you'd do a rescue mission, would there? >> If you assume they each start out with optimal equipment for the >> mission in question, they should be roughly equal. > > Do you have any idea how much equipment and food that would be for Mars? > (even allowing for subsistence rations and make/find water on planet) Yes, I do. And so does Zubrin, who among other things worked on these sorts of things at NASA. >> The KEY point about BOTH of them is that it is a nontrivial effort >> to mount a rescue mission unless (in both cases) you have such a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And faster is pretty important when you are mounting a *rescue* mission. > Not much use turning up so late that they are all dead. Depends on what you're rescuing them FROM. If you sent them somewhere that they have limited X (food, water, etc.) and they cannot get more, then yes, time is the issue, and what time they have will be dictated by X. Which is why a prudent mission would start off with the proper survival stockpile. Again, read Zubrin. I'm not going to try to type in ~300 pages of his text, where he covers each and every objection, ranging from the radiation issues to the food/transport issues to the gravity issues and on and on and on. If you've READ it and you have cogent arguments to take apart his reasoning, that's fine, I'm interested to hear them (it won't make any difference in the Boundary universe since the book's already published, but it makes a difference in this one) but so far the most I've seen someone do is say "well, some of his assumptions may be optimistic" which is about as weak an objection as one can get. SignatureSea Wasp /^\ ;;; Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/ >>>> Your argument might as well be that wintering over at the South Pole is >>>> as easy a trip as a weekend in the local state park, for a Boy Scout [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> Which includes a fully robotic hospital to care for the invalid humans >> whilst they re-adjust to Mars gravity after 300 days weightless. > No, actually. They spend most of the trip in Mars gravity. Read The > Case For Mars. Great science fiction and wildly optimistic. You have to admire Zubrin but you do not have to swallow his Mars tale hook line and sinker... Regards, Martin Brown > Great science fiction and wildly optimistic. You have to admire Zubrin > but you do not have to swallow his Mars tale hook line and sinker... Can you point me to a cogent critique, then? There are two points I recall thinking him overly optimistic on, but those weren't really central to his argument. SignatureSea Wasp /^\ ;;; Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/ > [Mars Evacs] > The rescue trip would have to fly with 50% more food resources than the > original mission to cater for the crowded return trip. Does the rescue trip have to be crewed on the way there? Having said that... if I was going then I'd want to know there was enough return-trip fuel /before/ I left. If it's manufactured on site then by the time I get there they've probably manufactured an excess. I'd also want the space vehicle(s) to have a lot of redundant systems. I want to get home if things break. I'm assuming I'm coming home, I'm not settling. I'd take a little more persuading to settle. Internet access speed totally sucks. If we're going for some reason other than to say we did, probably sustainable development is on the agenda - a standing base. >> Your argument might as well be that wintering over at the South Pole is >> as easy a trip as a weekend in the local state park, for a Boy Scout >> troop. Because, see, only incompetents would make the trip without >> adequate training and equipment, therefore the Boy Scouts will have >> right training and equipment whether they're going to the state park >> or Antarctica, therefore it's just as safe and easy either way. > Not really. It does depend on the assumptions you make, true, but you >exaggerate a number of issues. Mars offers opportunities to support [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >what you bring and where you land. You can make fuel on Mars a lot >more easily than you can make it on the Moon. s/can/must Exploring Mars means, your e.g. water reclamation unit has to work or you die. Exploring the Moon means, your water reclamation unit should work or you have to go home and come back later. > If you assume each one starts with IDENTICAL equipment -- and that >the equipment in both cases is optimized for the Moon -- then hell >yeah, the Mars group is screwed. Aren't I entitled to assume identical, or at least similar, equipment? Your claim is that exploring Mars is roughly as easy as exploring the Moon. If exploring Mars requires, to ensure safe return, many tons of expensive, exotic equipment that must work right, whereas the Lunar case requires a duffle bag full of gear that I can buy at my local boat & dive shop, then exploring Mars is not as easy as exploring the Moon. Your hypothesis explicitly requires that exploring Mars and the Moon require similar kinds and ammounts of equipment. > If you assume they each start out with optimal equipment for the >mission in question, they should be roughly equal. Equal in probability of success, or at least survival, but very *different* in the ammount of effort required to achieve that probability of success or survival. Making the one harder than the other. > The KEY point about BOTH of them is that it is a nontrivial effort to >mount a rescue mission unless (in both cases) you have such a mission >STANDING BY. What, you're only planning to go to Mars, *once*? OK, you're a Zubrin fan, so if you go to Mars at all it will only be once, maybe twice. But if you're going to stay, there's always going to be a next mission gearing up, a ship that can be retasked for emergency rescue at need. If you're doing Apollo v2.0, as NASA is w/re the Moon and Zubrin wants to do w/re Mars, then no, you don't necessarily have a rescue ship available. But you most assuredly don't have a future, as shown by Apollo v1.0, so most of us don't really care one way or another. Signature*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, * *Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" * *Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition * *White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute * *schillin@spock.usc.edu * for success" * *661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition * There are reasonable ways for them to make >>air and water from what's there, as opposed to the Moon, where you >>really CAN'T do that unless you happen to be incredibly lucky about [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > you die. Exploring the Moon means, your water reclamation unit should > work or you have to go home and come back later. Only if THAT is the disaster you are postulating. You can't postulate "undefined disaster", and then specify one that's necessarily worse on one end than the other. What about "lose 90% of your breathing supply"? That would be lethal -- and nonrecoverable -- on the Moon, but on the postulated Mars mission it's just a PITA. >> If you assume each one starts with IDENTICAL equipment -- and that >>the equipment in both cases is optimized for the Moon -- then hell >>yeah, the Mars group is screwed. > > Aren't I entitled to assume identical, or at least similar, equipment? No, because the voyage requirements are different. > Your claim is that exploring Mars is roughly as easy as exploring the > Moon. Yes and no. My claim is that the two are relatively equally reachable. More supplies does translate to more COST, but not more technical difficulty. My other claim is that there's much more worthwhile to use/get ON Mars than there is on the Moon, such that it's not really worthwhile to GO to the Moon if your actual intent is to end up on Mars. I.e., the Moon is NOT a stepping-stone to Mars, it's a side trip with no real use. If exploring Mars requires, to ensure safe return, many tons > of expensive, exotic equipment that must work right, whereas the Lunar > case requires a duffle bag full of gear that I can buy at my local > boat & dive shop, then exploring Mars is not as easy as exploring the > Moon. Fortunate that this is not the case. The "expensive exotic equipment" is overall less technically demanding to create than most of the equipment that comes standard in the Shuttle. MORE stuff, yes. More bizarre, cutting-edge stuff, no. I would contend that exploring Hawaii is roughly as easy as exploring Antarctica (assuming, say, 1950s tech but no aircraft), if I'm starting off from Tierra Del Fuego and have to not resupply on the way, and only use either what I find when I get there, or what I sent ahead of me, or what I brought along. Hawaii is much farther away, and while I can use the same general technology to get there, I'd better bring a lot more stuff along. And if something goes badly wrong, I could die in either place. If it's something that I cannot find a solution for locally, I probably have a better chance of rescue in Antarctica, if it's not immediately lethal, as the rescue mission will get there a lot quicker. On the other hand, I'm more likely to find a solution locally on Hawaii than Antarctica. (Note that I am *NOT* saying that either of those places is in actuality equivalent to either the Moon or Mars, both of which are much more hostile) > Your hypothesis explicitly requires that exploring Mars and the Moon > require similar kinds and ammounts of equipment. Kinds. Not amounts. > Equal in probability of success, or at least survival, but very *different* > in the ammount of effort required to achieve that probability of success > or survival. > > Making the one harder than the other. Only in certain ways, and not even in all the ways one necessarily assumes. >> The KEY point about BOTH of them is that it is a nontrivial effort to >>mount a rescue mission unless (in both cases) you have such a mission [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > OK, you're a Zubrin fan, so if you go to Mars at all it will only be once, > maybe twice. Huh? You're making no sense at all here. Zubrin's goal is ongoing exploration and eventual colonization. Dozens, even hundreds of trips. But if you're going to stay, there's always going to be a > next mission gearing up, a ship that can be retasked for emergency rescue > at need. Um, not in the timeframe we're talking about. Or are you going to contend that we could have gotten another Saturn 5 set up and launched in 3 days if one of the Apollos had gone funky? They weren't set up THAT fast. If your mission is months long, and something goes wrong toward the END of those months, yeah, probably there's another mission on the way, or close to on the way. But not on average, until you get to the "interplanetary travel as routine" stage in which case we're in a very different kind of situation. SignatureSea Wasp /^\ ;;; Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/ : Sea Wasp <seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com> : My claim is that the two are relatively equally : reachable. More supplies does translate to more COST, but not more : technical difficulty. A longer coast phase *does* translate to more technical difficulty. : My other claim is that there's much more worthwhile to use/get ON Mars : than there is on the Moon, such that it's not really worthwhile to GO : to the Moon if your actual intent is to end up on Mars. I.e., the : Moon is NOT a stepping-stone to Mars, it's a side trip with no real : use. Building infrastructure on the moon (and other near-earth locations) is worthwhile if your goal is to make regular trips to mars. If you aren't going to make regular trips, I don't see the "use/get" thing. Yes, yes, I realize that you contest that infrastrucre on the moon is worthwhile, because of the 2x(2.5km/s) delta-v required to reach it, among other issues. But for a sizeable extra-atmosphere presense, it beats the alternatives, naict. Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw > Yes, yes, I realize that you contest that infrastrucre on the moon is > worthwhile, because of the 2x(2.5km/s) delta-v required to reach it, > among other issues. But for a sizeable extra-atmosphere presense, it beats > the alternatives, naict. Well, since you'll have to be building everything on the Moon completely sealed, completely self contained, etc., barring a discovery of some hidden water stash or something, what's the real advantage of building it on the Moon rather than in orbit, where it's NOT at the bottom of that gravity well? If you've got something on the moon that we actually want, then yeah, there's excellent reason to go there. But if you just want it as a landing pad, is it really worth it to have a landing pad with a noticeable gravity well? SignatureSea Wasp /^\ ;;; Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/ : Sea Wasp <seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com> : Well, since you'll have to be building everything on the Moon : completely sealed, completely self contained, etc., barring a : discovery of some hidden water stash or something, what's the real : advantage of building it on the Moon rather than in orbit, where it's : NOT at the bottom of that gravity well? Mass to hide under wrt solar flares etc, and to supply some of the heavy bits to construction projects. However, yes, if it were me, I wouldn't go to either the moon or mars as a *goal* in the near term, except insofar as the moon might have things you could catapult to construction projects elsewhere instead of lugging from earth. But that's just me. What does mars, or the moon, have that you can't get on earth easier? And as to going to mars or beyond, if you have a habitat that's been run for years stably, and you've proven it self-sufficient, lofting it on an orbit to most anywhere becomes much less risky. Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw > : Sea Wasp <seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com> > : Well, since you'll have to be building everything on the Moon [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > What does mars, or the moon, have that you can't get on earth easier? Land. According to reputable authorities, it isn't being made around here any more. (Give or take sea reclamation projects. I think the Star Trek movie novelisation established they drained the Mediterranean.) However, it mostly can be bought more cheaply than a space rocket. And there isn't much terrific farming land elsewhere in the solar system. :: What does mars, or the moon, have that you can't get on earth easier? : "rja.carnegie@excite.com" <rja.carnegie@excite.com> : Land. According to reputable authorities, it isn't being made around [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : However, it mostly can be bought more cheaply than a space rocket. And : there isn't much terrific farming land elsewhere in the solar system. Right; don't compare prices for land in manhattan, or even prime farming land. Compare prices for land in the gobi desert, or antarctica, or death valley, or subsea habs, or whatever. The notion that you can obtain land by terraforming mars much more easily than you can by terraforming the moon is fine... but it's much easier to terraform earth. One might say, "a second basket to put some of the species' eggs in". But that's so long term, it's much like "we should stop burning fossil fuels". Plus, what has the species done for me *lately*? Sure, yeah, we should. But eh, shrug. (Mind you, the "eh, shrug" is not how *I* feel about these issues; it's how they are going to be treated by most.) I used to think that I was cool, driving around on fossil fuel. Then I found what I was doin' was driving down the road to ruin. --- James Taylor (no longer as persuasive as in the 70s, but still a nifty lyric IMO) Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw > :: What does mars, or the moon, have that you can't get on earth easier? > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > we should. But eh, shrug. (Mind you, the "eh, shrug" is not how *I* > feel about these issues; it's how they are going to be treated by most.) the thing is, what happens when the earth and moon are used? for them to drain the Med, that is pretty severe, even in the 24th century a la Picard they were trying to raise a continent. Land was on a premium on earth in star trek. >> :: What does mars, or the moon, have that you can't get on earth easier? >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >they were trying to raise a continent. Land was on a premium on earth in >star trek. Was it? All the pictures we see show a green and pleasant land with a remarkably high standard of living. I've never understood why a redshirt would risk a very unpleasant end given Star Trek's social setting, either. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message