Time for the U.S. to Colonize the Moon and Mars.

Be we have already done that, in massive amounts. Those "Bases" happened to be mobile, and we loaded them with weapons...


Yes, it did create allot of the tech we will need to go to the Moon, but the environment and its challenges is enough different, that at this point, it won't really help much with a Moon Colony or space exploration.

The ocean is extremely high pressure, with corrosive saltwater, all of the water you want, too much biological matter and organisms, and only modest cold and next to no radiation, and very close and easy to call for help.

The Moon is Vacuum, very little water, no biomass, bitter cold to extreme heat... in seconds, silly high radiation, and the fastest help is small and a week away.

-

 

Building a mobile base in a more convenient environment is much different than building the same on the ocean floor. We still don't build mobile bases at non-mobile bases on the ocean floor, yet.

 

As I hear it, it's just proof-of-concept now. It'll be scaled up.

 

Many technologies face immense difficulties when scaled up too much.

 

Not until we pay off some of our debt - the costs would be astronomical

 

Right. And if the US ignores this law who is going to stop us. International laws are like pie crusts, made to be broken.

As for colonize space. It better be done by private industry. Because we have seen in the past few weeks the federal government can't even get a web page up and running.

 

Yeah mankind, not "wusskind" - that means America (not Europe) has sole rights to space colonization

No we should just pillage their resources for the good ol' US of A = and leave everyone else the scraps. Finders keepers...

 

Um, except even Private industry can't get large websites to work right some times. Electronic Arts had massive difficulty with their launch of SimCity this past January, and Rockstar Games had further difficulties with their Grand Theft Auto: Online. If you think computer games aren't similar enough to the ACA website, let me remind you that video games necessitate uploading and downloading more information in roughly ten seconds than the entire ACA process transfers in the entirety of the process.

As I pointed out, private industry has the ingenuity to easily develop the needed technology. However, without public investment, they will not act to develop said technology, because it is going to be much costlier.

As far as the cursory research for another book project, I have looked into the technology of spaceflight. To make launches feasible enough to make the early stages of manned Martian exploration and colonization cost-effective enough to justify the costs of the missions, the launches would need to be done with a platform that can be turned around much more rapidly than the Space Shuttle was ever initially envisioned to be capable of.

What I determined was that one of the best options for an outer-space launch platform for future economical launch would need to be an SSTO. The SSTO idea I have would have six engines, each of which would be a three-stage engie. The first stage would be a high-bypass turbofan, the second stage would be a scramjet, and the third stage would be a liquid-fueled rocket. To lower the amount of fuel the vehicle would need, it would run on RP-1, which is essentially ultra-pure jet fuel used as a rocket propellant, and the rocket oxidizer would be liquid oxygen (LOX).

The launcher would take off from a place on the West Coast like a conventional aircraft with its fuel tanks roughly a quarter full. The aircraft would be met inflight by a trio of tankers, two with RP-1, and one with LOX. The launch aircraft, once detached from the last tanker, would then increase throttle to maximum and take an up-angle of 45 degrees. Once past Mach 2, the engine would switch from turbofan mode into scramjet mode. Some time later, the vehicle would fire its rockets for orbital insertion. Upon reaching orbit, the fuel tank could be detached and used as a component shell for a space station.

I actually have a conceptualized idea of how the aircraft would look, and to give my idea a proper 3D look I plan on putting a model together using K-Nex....yeah I know it's a kid's toy, but if you think about it, it's a sort of an ideal modeling medium if it's available. The way I see it, it'd look like a cross between the B-2, the Space Shuttle and External tank combo, the An-225 and the An-72 Coaler.

In order for this to be feasible, however, engine technology would have to become somewhat more fuel-efficient.

'Murica!!! HELL YEA!!!! *Beats chest like a Silverback ape*

.....

Patriotism is fine, when it extends to the level you're advocating, it's no longer good, and does nothing for our national image but make us look like a bunch of retarded baboons.

See folks, this is why we are looked down on by a majority of the world.

 

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I think we should colonize with robotics first. I want to see us growing a garden with only robots before sending any human. At least. We also have a lot farther to go, imo, to master propulsion and our telescopes. These 3 areas should be mastered before risking humans going to Mars.

Btw, the moon may be good practice for all 3. No reentry costs, and obviously closer. Anything we are going to do on Mars, should be done on the Moon first, imo.

 

A single NASA Space Shuttle could haul a Payload to LEO....Low Earth Orbit of 24,400 kg (53,600 lb or 26.8 TONS OF PAYLOAD.

That difference of 11.8 Tons or 23,600 lbs.

That is a HUGE DIFFERENCE.

AboveAlpha

 

I say we send back every Chinese Manufactured Fork, Spoon, Knife, Screwdriver,Wrench or Hammer that after first use either bends, breaks or snaps.

Way I figure it China owes us $50.

AboveAlpha

 

I think price per kg is a lot more important than how much can be launched in one launch. Shuttle was one of the most expensive launchers. Skylon promises an airplane like operation. That could push costs down dramatically and ultimately allow us to cheaply launch a lot more mass than Shuttle or any other rocket (maybe except reusable SpaceX Falcon).

 

Your right about the shuttle cost it was huge!

But Skylon has to use jets to cut through atmosphere slowly with a relatively large payload which just breeds instability.

U.S. Military R&D has best method using Nuclear Pulse Detonation but it is still Highly Classified.

AboveAlpha

 

I'll go with building a Moon base for a further 'convenient' study of its history in relation to earth, as well as investigating minerals, H2O lying under the surface, etc.

The Mars base only if there is sufficient reason to such continue further exploration pending more proof of 'probable' life in its history.

 

I've read the theory but the fact that Mars doesn't have a magnetic field to keep the solar wind from blowing any livable atmosphere away that might be created makes it very problematic. Remember that without our magnetic field the Earth wouldn't have a livable atmosphere either. Mars, even with an atmosphere made up predominately of CO2 that is heavier, only has about 2/3rds of the density of the Earth's atmosphere. At best an atmosphere of similar nitrogen/oxygen content on Mars at low lying planetary surfaces would be like an atmosphere well above 10,000 ft in elevation on Earth which barely sustains life on Earth.

Some people have evolved to live above 10,000 ft., such as the Incas of Peru and others have trained to live above this elevation for extended periods, but for most of us that is about the limit for a normal person over an extended period of time. The FAA requires a pilot to be on oxygen or in a pressurized cabin if they fly above 10,000 ft. for over 30 minutes for example.

 

Why bother trying to Terraform the entire planet?

Just pick out one of the gigantic trenches or canyons which has its rim at a relatively low altitude, and cover a large piece of the canyon with a multi-layer mylar film over suspension cables TENT, and pump it full of air.

Such a structure could easily provide hundreds of square miles of habitat, enough for thousands of "Martians".

In the near term, this is the only reasonable option, and such a facility, or more likely many of them, would be required to pursue any more ambitious terraforming effort.

 

Where is the Mylar going to come from? It's a polyethylene plastic product made from crude oil and there in no known crude oil on Mars. We sure as hell couldn't afford to ship it from Earth. It costs about $100,000/kilogram to ship anything to Mars from Earth. The cost of living on Mars would be outrageous where enough spaghetti to feed four people a single meal would be over $50,000 and that doesn't include any sauce.

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/life/cost-livingon-mars

 

You synthesize it from matter pulled from martian air and soil of coarse.

There is nothing very exotic about mylar, it is composed of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Oxygen.

View attachment 23756

If you can't setup the equipment to manufacture a few hundred thousand pounds of plastic, you sure as hell can't terraform the planet.

-

 

The equipment to synthesize anything is extremely expensive in it's own right and to cover a canyon doesn't require a few thousand pounds but instead requires thousands of tons of mylar to cover a canyon of any significant size and itty-bitty meteorites that won't burn up in the thin Martian atmosphere are going to burning holes through it on a regular basis allowing all of the air inside to escape.

 

That probably happens over millions of years. If we can terraform Mars, then replenishing a bit of lost atmosphere should be trivial.

 

The magnetic field that is necessary to act as a barrier to the solar winds requires a liquid (molten) core of the planet and there simply aren't the gravitational forces like the Earth has that would melt the Martian core which is why it solidified in the past and so much of the atmosphere escaped. I don't think we have the capability to melt the core of Mars so any atmosphere we create with still be blown away by the solar winds.

Remember that a nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere (like Earth) is lighter than a CO2 atmosphere and more easily blown away and it is speculated that Mars once did have a nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere that has been blown away by the solar winds in the past.

 

It is notorious that you have no experience at all even making a trip to the beach...

Lets start again.

The astronauts suffer of lots of health problems because lack of earth's gravity.

At their return, they must to be in recovery up to two years.

Tell me now, after "six months" traveling throughout space" and arriving to Mars, who will pick up the astronauts to put them in wheelchairs in order to be carried to the recovery rooms?

Hello?

We have not yet the technology to send astronauts to Mars, to say the contrary is peanuts.

Find first the proper vehicle that will allow astronauts an environment earth's alike gravity, so they at least will arrive without bad health conditions to Mars.

After this "astronaut friendly" vehicle is made, then you can add the 2x4s to built their houses, the 4x4 SUV to make trips to the "canals", coaxial cable so they can call Dish TV in order to subscribe and watch the game, etc. etc...

 

READ what I said...

I do believe I said a few hundred thousand pounds.

Expensive!? Get Real!

What, do you think the equipment needed to Terraform a planet will be cheaper than the gear needed to make some plastic out of Thin CO2 air and Hydrogen bound in water and/or rock?

That's a laughable argument, made clearly just for the sake of being argumentative!

Yes, any shelter made on the surface of mars will have to have emergency plans and periodic repairs. Its not like a small hole shot through a tent causes a Hindenburg type of explosion. You loose some air for a few hours / days until a repair crew gets to the hole(s).

Worst case, every few decades, a big shower drives everyone into shelters built all around the floor space, interconnected by tunnels, and after the storm the tent has to be completely rebuilt. The frost killed plants are biomass recycled. In the mean time, you live on the stored rations grown in previous seasons.

People on Earth do much the same thing in Alaskan and Siberian green house farming today.

This kind of threat is just part of the charm of living in such places, keeps out the fat, dumb and lazy.


(P.S. It still makes allot more sense to build a Moon Base FIRST, and then look at Mars. What we learn from the Moon will be of immense value in any Mars effort, and the resources of a Moon Colony would go a long, long way, to reducing the costs of setting up equipment like plastics factory modules on the surface of Mars. Said Modules might cost $40/kg to ship from EARTH to Mars, but a fraction of that to ship by Solar-Maglev-Rail-Launch from the Moon to Mars.)

-

 

Natural caverns may be better.

 

Or Un-Natural ones...

I don't think Martians would want all their eggs in one basket in any case.

I saw an interesting concept on a forum dedicated just to the topic of space colonies, where mirror arrays would focus intense light into cavern ceiling periscope type light guides, which would re-scatter the light around the inside of the cavern, from a much larger area collection field on the surface.

This means that sunlight of radiation selective filtered wavelengths, just that useful for terrestrial organisms, is let into the cavern, and can be up to terrestrial intensity, even when the light levels on the surface of the planet are not.

The hard solar ionizing particle radiation and meteorites are completely blocked by the thick rock roof.

That's one helluva attractive option.

-