Space versus politics

Post Reply New Topic

Its a good read, and it was written in 1993, so basically it provided that tech from 18 years ago was good enough for the mission. In the intervening years Dr Zubrin as well as others in his field have added many innovations to the Mars Direct program so its even better then the book originally outlines

Well, for a solitary colony - such as an initial colony - redundancy of fail-safes must be a required design element. Each compartment needs to be able to be sealed off from the other. Tanks for O2 and other gases need to be in multiple locations so as to decrease the probability of them being destroy in a single event. CO2 scrubbers also need to be located at intervals (perhaps two per each compartment). Environmental suits need to be readily available and dispersed throughout. Et cetera. Much of the potential emergencies can be hedged against if just a little thinking is done ahead of time as to methods of preventing and responding to such crises.

A good method for protection from micro meteoroids:
Some kind of ballistic gel layer sandwiched in the craft's out shell. When pierced, it fills in the hole and hardens by freezing. Additionally having a liquid/gel layer provides protection from radiation

Hey, if pulverized lead were interspersed within the ballistics gel it would increase the density of material a projectile would need to pass through as well as increase protection against x-ray and gamma ray light.

Okay, how are you going to get it to the moon even, let alone Mars. The larger the payload, the more fuel you need to use for thrust, and the added fuel then has to be taken into account.

Could we make it back to the moon, maybe. Put a colony there, at this juncture probably not.

Make it to Mars, not after Obama trashed the Constellation Program. Even then, it would be iffy because the crew would be outside Earth's magnetic field, heck going to the moon could be argued as dangerous.

If you build in orbit much of the weight issue is negated. Additionally if infrastructure for fuel manufacture is built on the Moon, Mars or perhaps even Ceres (places with water) then the whole issue of bring fuel for the return trip becomes moot. Something else to consider is that spent booster stages could be used as they are now to build structures in space without having to come up with any new type of technology. Also, Bigelow Aerospace was licensed NASA patents on rigid-inflatable station designs. They weigh very little and require only atmosphere to inflate. They can be connected together in different ways (very modular) to create space stations, space craft, lunar bases, perhaps even Mars bases.

Hopefully after Obama's voted out next election whoever the next president is might seek to focus on improving our economy rather than making expensive and non-nonsensical moves such as inventing bureaucratic work which doesn't improve the economy but instead acts as a leach upon it. Hopefully after the recession's over space will become a higher priority. We could create a lot of jobs immediately by allowing the natural gas reserves and oil reserves of the US to be mined. The oil supply in America could last for over 30 years - without providing anymore financing to OPEC nations during that time which would also cut down upon our military expenses. And the natural gas reserves could last for a century. During that time period a lot of action to transition away from fossil fuels would be necessary, and as such I consider developing the near earth infrastructure to be one method of doing just that. On the surface mass transit systems running off of power plant electricity would be a good move, and having all networks interlinked so as to allow for as much individual mobility as possible.

Now, the heavy spacecraft there would, specifically be built either in orbit of Earth at a shipyard station and built piecemeal as the materials and fuel for it would currently need to be shipped up from Earth in relatively small amounts of its total mass. The ISS is an example of an object in space that has been built piece by piece, even by the hyperslow process of networking between the incompetent bureaucracies of the nations of Earth, which is more than enough of a proof of concept that spacecraft and stations can be built piecemeal ( - which was actually a notion of Von Braun who was responsible for America's Apollo series and the coordination of the ground crew to assist the Apollo 13 crew in getting home safely.)

One cannot ship hyper massive spacecraft from the surface of the Earth in one piece if they are heavier than air. However, the spacecraft in question need not be shipped up in one piece, they need not be heavier than air, and they need not be sent up from Earth (eventually). Actually, the larger the spacecraft, the more of the volume within can be occupied with helium so as to decrease total density. If made large enough and with valves for venting excess pressure as the spacecraft ascends with buoyancy, a helium filled spacecraft could gain a fair bit of potential energy due to the force of buoyancy and have less force of drag to fight the force from the thrusters.

Then what about the radiation shielding, you would have little to no warning in the advent of a solar flare. This isn't an issue in low earth orbit, but the moon has no magnetic field (or if it does it is negligible). Mars doesn't have much of a magnetic field either, which is one of the main defenses for life here on Earth. Additionally the Moon does have seismic activity and Mars has sandstorms.

Much of the initial infrastructure for a spacebased economy can be developed in low earth orbit. It does cost in fuel though, since there's enough of a density of atmosphere to require occasional boosting of orbit. After that base of infrastructure is built it can then be expanded upon and allow for heavier craft and stations to be built for traveling outside the protection of the Earth's effective magnetic field.

On the moon and mars a relatively simple method of providing protection could be used: digging and building underground. Seismic activity on the moon does sound like a problem for bunkers, however it is a quantitative problem. How bad are the quakes? You determine the highest possible value for seismic activity and you overbuild your bunkers in expectation that the estimate may eventually be proven incorrect.

The amount of fuel you need to use to get to the moon is pretty constant. It isn't one long burn. That's just getting off the ground.. and we could easily sidestep that by building in space. Not to mention, if we can build a submarine that doesn't have to stop for 25 years to refuel, I see no reason why we can't build a similarly powered engine for space travel.

And just because Obama doesn't like space, don't assume that we (as a species) can't get there. There are plenty of other people aiming upwards, and I for one have no problem with the USA getting sidelined whilst other nations take the lead. From what I can gather here, people are talking about Humanity doing this, not any particular secular authority.

You mean ion drives, which provide a sustained thrust but it takes a while to get up to speed? A nuclear sub uses propellers to move through water, this isn't possible in space.

Moon and Mars quakes exist, of course, but I mean, look at LA, that is right on a fault that creates quakes much more dangerous then those on Mars or the Moon. Earlier in the thread I actually mentioned the two STEREO satellites that currently orbit the sun. They specifically are designed to study the sun and they see solar flares as they happen. The way solar flares work, the light obviously takes ~8 minutes to reach Earth, but the actual particle radiation takes much more time, you have days at least to be prepared.
Thank you for mentioning the dust storms. This is often overlooked but the problems involved aren't the wind speed but rather the fines that compose them. There is some worry that the fines (smaller then dust) are toxic. The wind on Mars is quite intense but the atmospheric pressure is ~ 1/100th that of Earth so 300 km winds might howl around you but their actual physical impact is negligible.
Though the Moon has a very weak field, the problem of radiation can be circumvented by burying shelters in lunar regolith. In the early days of Martian colonization, I expect the same will be done there. As we make Mars' atmosphere thicker, the radiation impact decreases.

A thicker atmosphere may be blown away in solar winds, you need a magnetic field to deflect solar winds.

Dear god, please spare me from the imbecility of the perpetually ignorant. Amen.

Are you so very very dim that you cannot differentiate between a FUEL, an ENGINE, and the MEANS OF PROPULSION? An engine with wheels is a car, and with a screw is a submarine, and with blades its a helicopter. OF COURSE I'm not suggesting a direct translation of a submarine to space. I'm pointing out that a nuclear engine can happily run for decades without using up the resources a rocket does. It isn't relevant how that potential is transferred to motion for this point. Are we on the same page now? In fact nuclear-powered spaceships have been a staple of this whole area for decades. It isn't an unknown idea so I have no idea why you have drifted into the ludicrous concept that anyone would use a f*****g submarine propulsion system in space.....

It takes thousands of years to blow away, and if we are actively working to replenish it, then this will also be negligible. There is also the possibility of some kind of mega-engineering project to create an artificial magnetic field

For trips to the moon, an ion propulsion drive would be foolish at best with the current technology. For a trip to Mars, it would in theory be more reliable. However, you end up with all kinds of issues if you launch a nuclear powered spacecraft into space, not least of which it would violate treaties involving nuclear weapons and environmental groups would go bananas.