Pages:
Author

Topic: Russian roadmap to Solar System colonisation. Moon is the first step. - page 5. (Read 6176 times)

legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
The moon is a dead rock. Mars is a PLANET with WATER. A base on the moon probably couldn't be self-sufficient for a long time, a base on mars could be the start of an entire secondary planet. They could terraform the planet, access the water supply, grow plants, turn it into a second earth more or less... the moon is mainly just strategic value.

Once a colony was established on Mars after some initial setup and supply periods it could easily become self-sustaining and even profitable. You wouldn't have to harvest materials and send them back to earth to make a return on the investment and please let's NOT DO THAT anyhow. What, we strip this planet dry and then rape another planet? That's not a good plan and then what happens when we strip mars dry? Better to learn how to make do with what we have, improve recycling and environmental cleanup technologies, etc.

A colony on Mars could do all kinds of other work that don't require delivery of a physical product in order to pay back the setup costs. They could write code, do research, etc... think a little wider than just "we take shiny metal from ground!"



NASA-Funded Scientists Detect Water on Moon's Surface that Hints at Water Below


PASADENA - NASA-funded lunar research has yielded evidence of water locked in mineral grains on the surface of the moon from an unknown source deep beneath the surface. Using data from NASA's Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) instrument aboard the Indian Space Research Organization's Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft, scientists remotely detected magmatic water, or water that originates from deep within the moon's interior, on the surface of the moon.

The findings, published Aug. 25 in Nature Geoscience, represent the first detection of this form of water from lunar orbit. Earlier studies had shown the existence of magmatic water in lunar samples returned during NASA's Apollo program.

M3 imaged the lunar impact crater Bullialdus, which lies near the lunar equator. Scientists were interested in studying this area because they could better quantify the amount of water inside the rocks due to the crater's location and the type of rocks it held. The central peak of the crater is made up of a type of rock that forms deep within the lunar crust and mantle when magma is trapped underground.

"This rock, which normally resides deep beneath the surface, was excavated from the lunar depths by the impact that formed Bullialdus crater," said Rachel Klima, a planetary geologist at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) in Laurel, Md.

"Compared to its surroundings, we found that the central portion of this crater contains a significant amount of hydroxyl - a molecule consisting of one oxygen atom and one hydrogen atom -- which is evidence that the rocks in this crater contain water that originated beneath the lunar surface," Klima said.

In 2009, M3 provided the first mineralogical map of the lunar surface and discovered water molecules in the polar regions of the moon. This water is thought to be a thin layer formed from solar wind hitting the moon's surface. Bullialdus crater is in a region with an unfavorable environment for solar wind to produce significant amounts of water on the surface.

"NASA missions like Lunar Prospector and the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite and instruments like M3 have gathered crucial data that fundamentally changed our understanding of whether water exists on the surface of the moon," said S. Pete Worden, center director at NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif. "Similarly, we hope that upcoming NASA missions such as the Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer, or LADEE, will change our understanding of the lunar sky."

The detection of internal water from orbit means scientists can begin to test some of the findings from sample studies in a broader context, including in regions that are far from where the Apollo sites are clustered on the near side of the moon. For many years, researchers believed that the rocks from the moon were bone-dry and any water detected in the Apollo samples had to be contamination from Earth.

"Now that we have detected water that is likely from the interior of the moon, we can start to compare this water with other characteristics of the lunar surface," said Klima. "This internal magmatic water also provides clues about the moon's volcanic processes and internal composition, which helps us address questions about how the moon formed, and how magmatic processes changed as it cooled."

The Moon Mineralogy Mapper was selected as a Mission of Opportunity through the NASA Discovery Program. NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., designed and built the Moon Mineralogy Mapper and is home to its project manager, Mary White. JPL managed the program for NASA's Science Mission Directorate, Washington. Carle Pieters of Brown University, Providence, R.I., was the principal investigator. Joshua Cahill and David Lawrence of APL and Justin Hagerty of the U.S. Geological Survey's Astrogeology Science Center in Flagstaff, Ariz., co-authored the paper. The Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft was constructed, launched, and is operated by the Indian Space Research Organisation.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-262
newbie
Activity: 4
Merit: 100
The moon is mainly just strategic value.

I see the moon as a valuable site for low-G, low energy manufacturing. Aside from being the ideal dry-dock for interplanetary 'motherships' that don't have to be able to enter atmosphere, whole new manufacturing, metallurgy, chemical engineering techniques will be possible in low or 0-G.

A colony on Mars could do all kinds of other work that don't require delivery of a physical product in order to pay back the setup costs. They could write code, do research, etc... think a little wider than just "we take shiny metal from ground!"

This is true, but tertiary activities like this would only be sustainable if substantial primary (agriculture) and secondary (manufacturing etc.) economies already exist on the colony. If they don't, then either the vast majority of a colonist's time must be spent on subsistence, making them inefficient coders/scientists, or they must live off supplies sent from Earth. For people doing Mars research, the latter is a viable option because the colonists would be in a unique position, but are you going to hire a programmer or consultant etc. if you have to pay the transport cost for their food?
legendary
Activity: 3052
Merit: 1031
RIP Mommy
After listening to http://www.startalkradio.net/show/cosmic-queries-science-in-movies-and-tv/ I wondered, what would be the butter zone for moon reflectivity in relation to the earth, if it could be finely adjusted? For example, how reflective at full phase would it need to be, to provide sufficient light at night for most people to not need artificial illumination outside, but also not harm all life on earth?

legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 1217
Gravity on Mars is ~1/3g, compared to ~1/6g on the moon. Thus humans do better physiologically and psychologically on Mars, but construction and manufacturing are easier on the moon.

It also means that it's much cheaper to get into space from the moon than from Mars.

Because of the dangers from Cosmic radiation, the would-be settlers to Mars and Moon would be forced to wear space-suits all the time. How they are going to do better physiologically, when they are forced to wear the suits 24*7, continuously for many years?
newbie
Activity: 4
Merit: 100
Also, there is a problem with Cosmic radiation. The radiation is at extremely high levels between the Earth and the Mars. 18 months of exposure (and probably another 18 from the return trip) will be really bad for the cosmonauts.

I'm not up to date with the research on radiation shielding, but nothing I've read indicates that radiation is the biggest concern for engineers working on this problem. Also, the people who found the first successful colonies on Mars will probably not return for decades, so only the trip out will be a problem in terms of exposure. The radiation exposure when actually on Mars is nil (unlike the moon).
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
The moon is a dead rock. Mars is a PLANET with WATER. A base on the moon probably couldn't be self-sufficient for a long time, a base on mars could be the start of an entire secondary planet. They could terraform the planet, access the water supply, grow plants, turn it into a second earth more or less... the moon is mainly just strategic value.

Once a colony was established on Mars after some initial setup and supply periods it could easily become self-sustaining and even profitable. You wouldn't have to harvest materials and send them back to earth to make a return on the investment and please let's NOT DO THAT anyhow. What, we strip this planet dry and then rape another planet? That's not a good plan and then what happens when we strip mars dry? Better to learn how to make do with what we have, improve recycling and environmental cleanup technologies, etc.

A colony on Mars could do all kinds of other work that don't require delivery of a physical product in order to pay back the setup costs. They could write code, do research, etc... think a little wider than just "we take shiny metal from ground!"
What the hell are you talking about? The moon IS a dead rock, all it is good for is taking shiny metal from the ground.  That's 1/6 G, meaning the moon is where you get materials for outward bound, including your vision of Mars colonization.

Therefore, I can show how the Moon industry is profitable, while by nature of your comments about Mars becoming self sufficient and "Not sending materials back"....

I'm not seeing at all how Mars pays for itself...

Oh, final comment, Mars cannot become "Earth like" through terraforming.  No radiation belts to deflect solar wind, so no long term O2 buildup in the air.
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
A colony on Mars could do all kinds of other work that don't require delivery of a physical product in order to pay back the setup costs. They could write code, do research, etc... think a little wider than just "we take shiny metal from ground!"

This is true, but tertiary activities like this would only be sustainable if substantial primary (agriculture) and secondary (manufacturing etc.) economies already exist on the colony. If they don't, then either the vast majority of a colonist's time must be spent on subsistence, making them inefficient coders/scientists, or they must live off supplies sent from Earth. For people doing Mars research, the latter is a viable option because the colonists would be in a unique position, but are you going to hire a programmer or consultant etc. if you have to pay the transport cost for their food?

Lol naturally I did mean after substantial facilities were already in place. I'm saying like once the farms and power and air supply systems are all up and running smoothly, they could start to add colonists who do other functions to generate income for the colony, that don't require a physical product to be sent back to Earth.

There has also been a lot of support for a project to create a reality TV show about the first colonists on Mars, and the profits from that would be used to fund the colony.

They could also create art, I'm sure National Geographic and similar companies would pay a fortune for photos and videos of the martian landscape/terrain, etc the possibilities are definitely there if you think hard enough.
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
If memory serves, the gravity on mars is also much greater than that on the moon. This is a major factor that shouldn't be ignored. It affects people both physically and psychologically and makes a big difference in construction, safety, etc.
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 101
To his credit, he did also bring up some very real issues that will likely be encountered by colonists on Mars. Eventually there's bound to be some tension between people who grow up on Mars or have spent more of their life there than on Earth, and who never intend to return to Earth, and the people of Earth. Earth starts to run low on something and decides to take it from Mars; Mars says go to hell... etc.

that would be interesting and quite true

Mars would probably become an independent planet sooner or later but it is not impossible that dictator countries from here could keep the Mars to themselves with an iron fist Cheesy
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 500
Time is on our side, yes it is!
I think using the moon as a building block is an excellent ideal.  Don't know how these different countries will get along when they all have the same goals and can't even get along on earth..  Something tells me there will be more tension in the future over the ownership of land in the solar system mainly mars and saturn. Sad
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1014
Which in essence happens now on a smaller scale all over the world with colonial powers and transnats (I like this term he coined).
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
To his credit, he did also bring up some very real issues that will likely be encountered by colonists on Mars. Eventually there's bound to be some tension between people who grow up on Mars or have spent more of their life there than on Earth, and who never intend to return to Earth, and the people of Earth. Earth starts to run low on something and decides to take it from Mars; Mars says go to hell... etc.
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1014
Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy is an interesting read in that regard.


I read the first one (Red Mars) but it was really hard to get through. It's like hundreds and hundreds of pages and about 80% of it is description... he will go on for like 3 pages about how rough and craggly the wall of a cliff is.

I listened to all three as audiobooks. Works much better for this type of narrative. What I found fascinating is that in the first and the second book he covered most of what would be needed to a colonisation of Mars, and which hurdles would need to be overcome. And it all was plausible, using for the large part already-existing technology or derivatives of it.
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy is an interesting read in that regard.


I read the first one (Red Mars) but it was really hard to get through. It's like hundreds and hundreds of pages and about 80% of it is description... he will go on for like 3 pages about how rough and craggly the wall of a cliff is.
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1014
Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy is an interesting read in that regard.
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
The moon is a dead rock. Mars is a PLANET with WATER. A base on the moon probably couldn't be self-sufficient for a long time, a base on mars could be the start of an entire secondary planet. They could terraform the planet, access the water supply, grow plants, turn it into a second earth more or less... the moon is mainly just strategic value.

Once a colony was established on Mars after some initial setup and supply periods it could easily become self-sustaining and even profitable. You wouldn't have to harvest materials and send them back to earth to make a return on the investment and please let's NOT DO THAT anyhow. What, we strip this planet dry and then rape another planet? That's not a good plan and then what happens when we strip mars dry? Better to learn how to make do with what we have, improve recycling and environmental cleanup technologies, etc.

A colony on Mars could do all kinds of other work that don't require delivery of a physical product in order to pay back the setup costs. They could write code, do research, etc... think a little wider than just "we take shiny metal from ground!"
newbie
Activity: 4
Merit: 100
It takes 18 months for a rocket to reach Mars. In an economic sense, the Martian colonization will be prohibitively expensive, at the same time a gigantic waste of the financial resources. 

All this means is 36 months added onto your payback period. You're certainly right that the initial capital investment is a massive sunk cost, but when the colony is established and sending back regular shipments, the operational expense could be significantly lower than for the moon, because current study suggests that life support would be much easier than on the moon - Mars has an atmosphere and much richer soil.

without going  into the details, we can design a shape that will impact the earth at no higher than about 180mph...so "this is not a meteor" is the short answer...

Err... To put it simply, if you smash a cargo vessel into the earth at 180mph, you will have a bad day. Put a few parachutes and drag fins on it, maybe a small reverse thruster, and it will impact the earth at maybe 10-20 mph.
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1014
What about water shields?
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 1217
All this means is 36 months added onto your payback period. You're certainly right that the initial capital investment is a massive sunk cost, but when the colony is established and sending back regular shipments, the operational expense could be significantly lower than for the moon, because current study suggests that life support would be much easier than on the moon - Mars has an atmosphere and much richer soil.

Also, there is a problem with Cosmic radiation. The radiation is at extremely high levels between the Earth and the Mars. 18 months of exposure (and probably another 18 from the return trip) will be really bad for the cosmonauts.
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
I don't know. What will happen if these projectiles land in some inhabited locality and cause casualties?

I think you're underestimating the accuracy to which aeronautics people can decide where a projectile is going to land. Getting something to/from the moon in the first place is hitting a piece of driftwood in a vast ocean - what's a couple more decimal places of accuracy after that? Missions to the moon and the recent ones to Mars decided exactly which area would be most interesting to study, and landed there, with no human pilot present and most of the thrust used at T=0.

As for heat problems on atmospheric entry, heat shielding systems have long been tried and tested and are perfectly capable of delivering groups of humans back to the planet's surface unharmed - cargo-only vessels would be capable of enduring much higher temperatures and G-forces.
without going  into the details, we can design a shape that will impact the earth at no higher than about 180mph...so "this is not a meteor" is the short answer...
Pages:
Jump to: