Mars Settlement precursor thread

[scottb50]

we have the technolgy to do it today. We know enough about human capibities in Space to do it today. It would be presumptuous to say there are no unknowns, but so far I don't see any. If we start today, or tomorrow, it's time to go go to bed, it would still take 5 years or so. Actually 2010 is a good time to go to Mars. Right Spacester? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mental_avenger]

<font color="yellow"> A colony has enough trade goods to offer to lay out a strategy for self-sustainability. </font><br /><br />Therein lies one of the biggest (in my opinion) mistakes made by those who discuss Mars colonization. Trading for required goods is not really “Self-sustaining” I think that we should find another term for that condition, such as “viable”, or “trade-balanced”, or “Zero-debt”. Self-sufficient should be reserved for a colony that can subsist on it’s own use of natural resources, technology, and manpower, without outside intervention.<br /><br />In addition, I have yet to see a proposal that would support “trade goods” that would be sufficiently competitive with Earth producers to create a significantly positive economic advantage for Mars. Sorry, I don’t buy the notion that “Made on Mars” trinkets or “Mars Rock Jewelry” would have a market significant enough to overcome the incredible shipping costs. IMO, the only viable “product” of a Martian colony would be intellectual property such as fiction, non-fiction, computer programs and art.<br /><br />IMO, true “self-sufficiency” should be the goal of a Martian colony. That should be achievable within the first 100 years. After that, the only thing Martians would have to import would be luxury items and intellectual property from Earth. In the area of material goods, I stress the difference between what is “needed” and what is desired. I try to never forget that one of the reasons (certainly not the only one) for establishing a Martian colony is to provide at least one other isolated, self-sufficient community of mankind in the rare event that Earth suffers another K-T impact, global epedemic, or worse.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> If you want to go home, you've gotta make your own propellant. If you want to hop to the other side of Mars, you gotta make your own propellant. </font><br /><br />Agree 100%. Propellant production will be one of Mars’ mainstay industries.<b></b> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[spacester]

200 would be great, but my finance strategy cannot support that. I like the 24-30 figure with an option to go to 48. The number needs to be decided early in the design process.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Actually 2010 is a good time to go to Mars. Right Spacester? </font><br /><br />2010 is about average, 2014, 2016 and 2018 are the best.<br /><br />Here's some data for 200 day trips<br /><br />Data Fields are<br />Departure date and time<br />Departure deltaV, km/s<br />Arrival date and time<br />Arrival deltaV, km/s<br /><br />The data is in sets of two: Earth to Mars and then Mars to Earth<br /><br />2003-08-12 10:39:21 5.0775 2004-02-28 10:39:21 1.4646<br />2005-07-18 22:53:45 2.6614 2006-02-03 22:53:45 2.6614<br /><br />2005-10-15 03:30:14 6.6167 2006-05-03 03:30:14 1.2151<br />2007-09-14 07:06:14 3.6621 2008-04-01 07:06:14 3.6621<br /><br />2007-11-20 01:23:31 6.76 2008-06-07 01:23:31 1.2043<br />2009-10-22 09:18:43 4.2679 2010-05-10 09:18:43 4.2679<br /><br />2009-12-15 01:26:24 6.0382 2010-07-03 01:26:24 1.3706<br />2011-11-25 18:14:24 4.1681 2012-06-12 18:14:24 4.1681<br /><br />2012-01-06 18:46:04 4.9971 2012-07-24 18:46:04 1.5684<br />2013-12-30 00:31:40 3.4608 2014-07-18 00:31:40 3.4608<br /><br />2014-01-31 05:36:57 4.0834 2014-08-19 05:36:57 1.611<br />2016-02-09 08:15:21 2.4672 2016-08-27 08:15:21 2.4672<br /><br />2016-03-13 06:37:26 3.5856 2016-09-29 06:37:26 1.3727<br />2018-04-05 02:47:02 1.9986 2018-10-22 02:47:02 1.9986<br /><br />2018-07-02 12:54:43 4.246 2019-01-18 12:54:43 1.5039<br />2020-06-21 00:54:43 2.418 2021-01-07 00:54:43 2.418<br /><br />2020-09-25 06:14:23 6.2026 2021-04-13 06:14:23 1.2898<br />2022-08-26 03:35:59 3.2679 2023-03-14 03:35:59 3.2679<br /><br />2022-11-07 07:58:04 6.8387 2023-05-26 07:58:04 1.1807<br />2024-10-07 16:50:52 4.1126 2025-04-25 16:50:52 4.1126<br /><br />2024-12-05 05:31:11 6.3888 2025-06-23 05:31:11 1.2924<br />2026-11-12 01:40:47 4.2887 2027-05-31 01:40:47 4.2887<br /><br />2026-12-28 14:26:52 5.413 2027-07-16 14:26:52 1.4979<br />2028-12 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[quasar2]

One of my favorite scenarios for a mars mission has been starting from an L-point, & sling-shotting around The Moon. Firstly this establishes viability of whatever L-point is finally decided on. L-points can be used for The Moon or Mars. Then on Lunar SlingShot, something can be deposited in the lunar vicinity. & if i understand this correctly, doesn`t a vehicle get an added boost when mass is dropped? On the otherhand this adds complications to orbital maneuvers. But if this can be worked out it would help pay for Mars. those parties manned or unmanned wishing transport to L-point or Lunar Vicinity would imho co-opt this venture. I don`t think OuterSpace ventures should be strictly Mars, especially larger ones. there should be redundant goals too. & mind you i`m not talking large Lunar operations there may never be. if nothing else, just bombard the surface w/ camera-equipped mass. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Hmm . . .<br /><br />Very interesting. I know about a trick called lunar assisted capture that can save you about 1.5 km.s dV max on an Earth return trip. So I would expect that you would get about the same amount from a lunar assisted departure. Certainly it can be done, but it will always be just an assist.<br /><br />So you'll always need rocket engines and tanks full of propellant. You might as well design the ship to do the job without much help from the moon's gravity, so I opt for the operational flexibility of LEO assembly. Also, I think conventional wisdom worships the idea of fly-bys and weak stability boundries and LaGrange points overmuch.<br /><br />I'm a deltaV guy. Build your ship, build big tanks, have excess capability. Get that rocket propellant up there and USE it.<br /><br />Dropping mass on the moon, hmmm . . . you would have to "throw" it away or it would just stay on the same path you're on. Oh wait, you're saying drop it while you're firing your engines. Interesting. Yeah, I think conservation of momentum would cause higher velocity due to loss of mass. I'm not sure.<br /><br />I also do not think space ventures should be strictly about Mars. Far from it. Wait til you see my lunar settlement plan. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[quasar2]

the latest Moon thread is in Space Business & Technology: Mining the Moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

I'm starting a new thread on the financing plan, so I wanted to bump this one for folks who might have missed it.<br /><br />In real life, activities got partially rained out yesterday, so I had time to write up a "quick" summary of this thread, and I know I saved the stuff I wrote up, but . . . there was a power outage and it's gone! I KNOW I saved it . . . microsquish, grrrrr . . . <br /><br />There were several issues that came up on this thread that strongly impact the settlement design, and I wanted to go through them and transfer those concepts to the main thread. But I guess that'll have to wait.<br /><br />If I had to pick one line out of this entire thread it would be:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Enough Joes working together can do anything.</font>/safety_wrapper> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

This is a shameless bump for the benefit of folks just joining us who have the time to kill to read it.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>