Maybe we should try something more useful than flag planting

[Shadowslayer81]

I see a lot of posts on the need for us to do something in space other than run laps in LEO or plant flags on moons and planets then go home. It seems all the politicians think is that space is a place to go and pull a few stunts for national prestige. But otherwise not do anything really significant. Obama’s new plan of having us land on an asteroid pegged my interest a bit. Not because it’s a great opportunity to plant a flag on a rock take a few samples then high tail it home. But an opportunity to find a near Earth asteroid land on it add some rockets and try to actually capture it into Earth orbit. Obviously I’d say we try this with one orbiting in the same direction as earth so you would want to slow it a bit so Earth can capture it. That way if anything goes wrong earth won’t capture it and it goes sailing off into space, vs landing on our heads.
So why go to all the trouble to capture and asteroid other than to make other countries look bad. Well to do anything good in space we need people in space, living in space doing research that sort of thing. I think Instead of trying to pop a few people on the moon, or mars where gravities low and the air or lack thereof is not breathable. We should focus on a space colony of some sort. Probably an O’Neil island 3 would be nice. Stick it in one of the Lagrange points and you have basically a home for 30 million people that’s not in a huge gravity well and they can live comfortably, and that’s if we just build one.
With that you would have real industry in space. They would have an asteroid to mine for raw materials. They could build things in zero G that we can’t and probably do it on a large scale. Also did I mention asteroids are full of precious metals? With 30 million people in a couple of cities up there they would have an actual economy and probably be able to trade with earth for things we can’t make here. The best part is if we want to explore other places you don’t have to crawl out of Earth’s gravity well as the colony will be mostly out of it, less need for heavy boosters when they can just launch from the colony. Also we don’t have to worry about the extinction of the race as if anything bad happens to earth than the colony should be self sufficient.
It’s like the colonies of the new world; you can’t do anything useful if you just have 6 people running around. You need lots of people of all professions to make it worth wild. Also you need them in a non hostile environment. I just don’t see use building cities as easily on the moon and mars as the gravities low and by the time you’re done with the city so people can walk around without a space suit then you’ve gone to all the trouble you would have for a colony in space.
Basically instead of saying “Hey in 30 years we’ll put 3 people on mars then bring them home.” We should do something that actually gets people into space. But if we fail well then we have a nice asteroid in LEO that we can plant flags on

 

[samkent]

From you post count it appears that you haven’t been around here for very long. This topic has been posted about hundreds if not thousands of times.

Consider this:
Soyuz launch – 3 men – No hardware - 50 million dollars.
Launch 1000 people with Soyuz = 333 launches – 17 trillion dollars.

Who’s going to pay for it?
Where’s the profit?

 

[samkent]

P.S.

An asteroid in Earth orbit would screw with the orbits of other sats. Assuming you don’t take out a couple sats just getting the thing into orbit.

So much for satellite TV.

 

[Shadowslayer81]

Well initially you wouldn't need lots of people, and hopefully once things start looking economically viable then i'm sure we'd figure a good way of getting alot of people into space.

This is hypothetical and very off the cuff, but say look at the shuttle. you can get 20 tons to leo. 20tons divided by 200lbs people is 200 people. Thats unrealistic because the shuttles not getting outta leo anytime soon. basically people dont weight much and were always talking about large launchers to get lots of stuff into orbit. But if you have financial incentive they would make it happen.

After all you have an asteroid worth billions and the potential for other forms of revenue.

 

[Shadowslayer81]

I was thinking due to safety you would want the asteroid above the geo sats and close to the nearest Lagrange point but not too close to the moon. After all dropping an asteroid on earths not gonna get you reelected

 

[DarkenedOne]

From you post count it appears that you haven’t been around here for very long. This topic has been posted about hundreds if not thousands of times.

Consider this:
Soyuz launch – 3 men – No hardware - 50 million dollars.
Launch 1000 people with Soyuz = 333 launches – 17 trillion dollars.

Who’s going to pay for it?
Where’s the profit?

Hum.

The Russians are currently charging NASA $50 per person for transport to the space station as well as a few supplies.

$50,000,000 x 1000 people = $50,000,000,000

Where does 17 trillion dollars come from?

In any case it does not cost the Russians that much as indicated by the fact that they offer to do it for space tourists at a cost of only $31 million.

However I could imagine that if we really were going to put 1000 people in space it would make sense to build a rocket and accompanying spacecraft with greater capacity than 3 people.

 

[Valcan]

From you post count it appears that you haven’t been around here for very long. This topic has been posted about hundreds if not thousands of times.

Consider this:
Soyuz launch – 3 men – No hardware - 50 million dollars.
Launch 1000 people with Soyuz = 333 launches – 17 trillion dollars.

Who’s going to pay for it?
Where’s the profit?

Hum.

The Russians are currently charging NASA $50 per person for transport to the space station as well as a few supplies.

$50,000,000 x 1000 people = $50,000,000,000

Where does 17 trillion dollars come from?

In any case it does not cost the Russians that much as indicated by the fact that they offer to do it for space tourists at a cost of only $31 million.

However I could imagine that if we really were going to put 1000 people in space it would make sense to build a rocket and accompanying spacecraft with greater capacity than 3 people.

Dam your logical post!!!

Also as more launches occured the price per launch would go down it wouldnt be really CHEAP but cheaper. And like you said a larger more reliable and cheaper vehicle would be developed. Plus why make it get to high orbit on its own why not use a tug?

 

[aaron38]

30 million? And I thought I was dreaming big. Forget launching them, you'll never feed 30 million people on a single asteroid. You'd have to set the rotation to 24 hours and dome it all for farmland. And then there's no g, and I am just not convinced that we'll be able to reproduce without a gravity field.
So you can hollow it out and spin it, and get a fusion reactor for light. But that's a colony ship. Why go to all the effort?

Just use the Moon. It's there already with water and gravity, and it'll be a lot easier to farm than an asteroid. And yes the population needs to be big enough for division of labor. But think more like Alaska. The Moon will always be a frontier world, a mining settlement. Now 30 million on Mars? That may be doable. Although 99.9% of that would be born there.

For zero g manufacturing there's the L1 station, which would be a combination factory/drydock/waypoint. It's where an outboard transport would boost out of to catch a passing Earth-Mars cycler.

Now that's where you put your asteroid. You want an asteroid mission? Push a small one into a ballistic cycler orbit and let it be something usefull. I could see semi-permanent residents of a hollow asteroid cycler, if such an orbit was posilbe.

 

[vulture4]

Why not use a small, unmanned probe to divert a small asteroid (~50m diameter) into an earth return trajectory. Use the Hayabusa approach; choose a path that just misses the earth, with the impact zone at the edge of the earth's disk, then just nudge the approaching asteroid to a path that will hit the imapct zone. It never goes through a trajectory that would cause damage.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

... We should do something that actually gets people into space. But if we fail well then we have a nice asteroid in LEO that we can plant flags on

Every human colonization effort has always started with sending people there... IOW, we have always used Explorers to seek out new places for colonization, new opportunities and to investigate, observe and report back with information regarding the feasibility for colonization.

There have been cases where people simply showed up and established a colony. But, those were generally not voluntary. Pitcairn Island, where the survivors of the Bounty Mutiny, is one such place. They got lucky.. extremely lucky.

We have an Explorer model in regards to colonization because it works. It's as simple as that. We send specialists who are trained observers and who know the needs of an ongoing colony. They investigate the area and report back on whether or not it is habitable and worth colonizing.

Before we start grand efforts in colonizing and establishing asteroid mining bases, we have to send people there with the skills to examine the feasibility of doing so. That is the job of our space agencies. In my case that is NASA, who is tasked with being a Vanguard agency - an Explorer, exploring space, investigating it and reporting back its findings to the public. After that, it's the job of the private sector to exploit space.

Our first and most likely colonization efforts will take place on the Moon. That's likely the first spot available for offworld manufacture as well, unless there is discovered unique opportunities in Earth Orbit.. which is probably not something we will do before we go to the Moon. (Unfortunate since I think that LEO biomedical facilities would be an excellent choice for an initial orbiting industry.)

In short, before we take the big leaps, we have to take the first steps.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Why not use a small, unmanned probe to divert a small asteroid (~50m diameter) into an earth return trajectory. Use the Hayabusa approach; choose a path that just misses the earth, with the impact zone at the edge of the earth's disk, then just nudge the approaching asteroid to a path that will hit the imapct zone. It never goes through a trajectory that would cause damage.

What would be the purpose of doing so?

 

[samkent]

Where does 17 trillion dollars come from?

Opps! It was late in the day. A misplaced comma. I claim clockoutitus!

Basically we cannot afford the costs of shipping 1000 people there. Never mind the cost of shipping the infrastructure. Not for the common reasons given. Any colony you create in space would be a welfare state for decades if not centuries.

The whole thing is just a dream. You will wake up and everything will be fine.



I wonder how long it would take 1000 people to procreate to 1 million?

 

[Shadowslayer81]

30 million? And I thought I was dreaming big. Forget launching them, you'll never feed 30 million people on a single asteroid. You'd have to set the rotation to 24 hours and dome it all for farmland. And then there's no g, and I am just not convinced that we'll be able to reproduce without a gravity field.
So you can hollow it out and spin it, and get a fusion reactor for light. But that's a colony ship. Why go to all the effort?

Just use the Moon. It's there already with water and gravity, and it'll be a lot easier to farm than an asteroid. And yes the population needs to be big enough for division of labor. But think more like Alaska. The Moon will always be a frontier world, a mining settlement. Now 30 million on Mars? That may be doable. Although 99.9% of that would be born there.

For zero g manufacturing there's the L1 station, which would be a combination factory/drydock/waypoint. It's where an outboard transport would boost out of to catch a passing Earth-Mars cycler.

Now that's where you put your asteroid. You want an asteroid mission? Push a small one into a ballistic cycler orbit and let it be something usefull. I could see semi-permanent residents of a hollow asteroid cycler, if such an orbit was posilbe.

I think your misunderstanding you don't want 30 million people living on the asteroid. Thats why you build the Oneil cylinder. Its got the space for ~30 million and with the farming ring it should be self sufficient. I doubt it would be completely closed loop so yes getting water from the moon would be easier than getting it from earth. But you don't want a lot of people living on the moon as the gravities too low and theres no atmosphere. In the colony you would have gravity of 1g and a normal earth like atmosphere. The cylinder is also big enough to supposedly have it own weather too.

From what I've read they actually did studies and talked about building these things in the 70's as unlike other large scale projects you actually don't need any super materials to build one like you do for a space elevator. The problem was they were projecting 30 years to get it finished and congress didn't want to wait 30+ years for a return on their investment.

Anyway if anybodys not familiar with O' neil colonies then heres some linkage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spacecolony3edit.jpeg
http://www.nss.org/settlement/space/oneillcylinder.htm
http://www.amazon.com/High-Frontier-Human-Colonies-Apogee/dp/189652267X

 

[kelvinzero]

... We should do something that actually gets people into space. But if we fail well then we have a nice asteroid in LEO that we can plant flags on

Every human colonization effort has always started with sending people there...

...In short, before we take the big leaps, we have to take the first steps.

Just inserting my own hobby horse:
I see colonization as consisting of two goals, both of which can be begun right now.
# The first is gathering information, as NASA is doing. Could be robots, people, or both. I would love a base on the moon, but a base is very different from a colony. Its focus is gathering information to feed into the second project.
# The second is to solve the problems of living in a totally managed, recycling environment. Not just producing your own food and air, but also repairing and even duplicating all the technology used to maintain your environment.

My key point is that the second project does not wait for the first. It is not one monolithic problem but thousands of small ones, 99% of which are going to be the same wherever in the solar system we decide to set up. Also the project of learning to live in an managed, recycling environment is very relevant everyone, since the major issues facing us today are exactly that: The middle east, learning to live without oil, learning to recycle fresh water, learning to manage CO2 levels in our atmosphere. Only 1% of the problem is domain specific: the nature of the ice on the moon, the atmosphere of mars and the perchlorates in its soil.

It will be fantastically expensive to move any tonnage to the moon or mars for the forseeable future. Any realistic progress needs scale. In short, we should begin developing our moon and mars bases right here on earth, right now.

A good candidate could be a ocean floor colony, or simply a domed area in some god-forsaken spot. I think such a project is deserving of an Apollo scale investment. It is not just for space freaks. It goes right to the heart of the question of how we can continue to live on earth also.

 

[samkent]

Thats why you build the Oneil cylinder. Its got the space for ~30 million and with the farming ring it should be self sufficient.

You still have to deal with solar events and the every day nasties our atmosphere protects us from.

A good candidate could be a ocean floor colony, or simply a domed area in some god-forsaken spot. I think such a project is deserving of an Apollo scale investment.

An Apollo investment requires a return to the public that paid for it. Why should we pay billions for 1000 people to live under water when they could live on the surface with the rest of us for free?

For anything like this to get funding you will have to prove its value to the people who will be paying the tab. You need a billion dollar reason to go with your billion dollar idea. Think of it as a business plan needing funding.

 

[Shadowslayer81]

You still have to deal with solar events and the every day nasties our atmosphere protects us from.

From the info on them with its 3 meter thick walls and the thick atmosphere inside radiation isn't a problem. You could also generate a magnetic field around it to block some of the more energetic outburst from the sun. Electricity should be a problem for some thing with 3 30 mile reflective surfaces point at the sun constantly. If you use solar panels instead of just a reflective surface you would still have light coming in and more power than you could probably use.


They do need to do more research into closed loop environments. Even to the point of said habitats manufacturing their own goods. maybe they should do some Seaquest style undersea habs. After all they could do undersea mining or research. Surely they can figure out a way to make it viable. Even non self sufficient habs might be good for country's without alot of land, like say Japan.

But more importantly the country need an ambitious long range goal meeting all of these things. They need to say Ok were going to work toward having space colonies with in a given time frame. Probably 30 to 50 years. Good reasons abound for such a project. Curbing over population of the earth is one. Also if something bad happened to the earth like a comet impact then humanities not dead. Legislate it so it can't get scrapped when we elect a new president. It seems like all we do now is declare were going to do something then not do it. Get private industry involved to because gov waste is ludicrous. I read somewhere that the constellation capsule had a 1000 engineers working on it. How do they see that as a good thing? Space X maybe has a 100 employees and they've built 2 types of rockets and developed engines for alot less than NASA spent building the Aries X boilerplate rocket.
But i'm not going to rant about gov inefficiency as thats another thread.

 

[EarthlingX]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEEMO

NEEMO, an acronym for NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations, is a NASA program for studying human survival in the Aquarius underwater laboratory in preparation for future space exploration.[1]

http://www.nasa.gov : NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations

NEEMO -- the NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations project -- sends groups of NASA employees and contractors to live in Aquarius for up to three weeks at a time. For NASA, Aquarius provides a convincing analog to space exploration, and NEEMO crewmembers experience some of the same tasks and challenges underwater as they would in space

A NEEMO 14 aquanaut practices shoveling underwater, just as an astronaut would shovel to collect soil samples on another planet. Credit: NASA

SDC : NASA to Go Boldly to the Bottom of the Sea

By SPACE.com Staff

posted: 04 May 2010
11:01 am ET



Two astronauts, a veteran undersea engineer and an experienced scientist will soon find themselves in the ocean depths off the east coast of Florida in a mock space mission to test exploration concepts and learn more about working in an unforgiving, treacherous environment.

NASA on Tuesday announced the 14th expedition, which is part of NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations, or NEEMO. The 14-day undersea mission is scheduled to begin May 10.

SDC : NASA Practices Astronaut Rescue on Sea Floor

By Denise Chow
SPACE.com Staff Writer
posted: 22 May 2010
07:31 am ET



It's a scenario NASA hopes to never to face: An astronaut in distress in a hostile environment in need of a rescue. But in this emergency, the victims are mannequins and the rescuers are professional divers and astronauts on the ocean floor practicing exactly how such a scene might play out on the moon or asteroid.

The mock space rescue is just one of several simulations performed this week on the by the 14th expedition of the NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations, or NEEMO. The divers and astronauts are midway through a two-week mission that began May 10.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=CC1D1C7EFC27CE05&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&v=q1NAqyT5tlY
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1NAqyT5tlY[/youtube]

 

[a_lost_packet_]

..My key point is that the second project does not wait for the first. It is not one monolithic problem but thousands of small ones, 99% of which are going to be the same wherever in the solar system we decide to set up. Also the project of learning to live in an managed, recycling environment is very relevant everyone, since the major issues facing us today are exactly that: The middle east, learning to live without oil, learning to recycle fresh water, learning to manage CO2 levels in our atmosphere. ..

I agree that parallel development of technologies and techniques is completely necessary. We don't have to wait to get on the Moon to conquer some of the difficult challenges we will have to face regardless of the conditions there.

It will be fantastically expensive to move any tonnage to the moon or mars for the forseeable future. Any realistic progress needs scale. In short, we should begin developing our moon and mars bases right here on earth, right now.

I agree, to a certain extent. I think we must begin developing the technology, the "guts" of the habitat, so to speak. But, for its overall design and construction I think we're going to have to wait until we get location specific information. Creating a modular, trailer park might be a great idea but, it may not fit where we want it to go.

A good candidate could be a ocean floor colony, or simply a domed area in some god-forsaken spot. I think such a project is deserving of an Apollo scale investment. It is not just for space freaks. It goes right to the heart of the question of how we can continue to live on earth also.

Biodome projects are under way all over the place. We haven't yet figured out how to do it. It seems that "self sustaining" is a bit out of our reach right now. We definitely need to work on that.

But, we don't need to build a colony on the ocean floor to learn how to build one on the Moon or Mars. It's pretty simple really -

Here is a box.
You live in the box.
Everything you will ever need must come from things inside the box with only base elements available, and in limited quantities and qualities, from outside sources.
Figure it out.

IMO, we won't have to go to extremes on Earth to model an offworld colony. At least, not in the sense that we'll have to develop colonies on the floor of the ocean. But, I think developing renewable resources is a critical step we have to take. So, some of the tech we develop for offworld colonies and habitats will be applicable to Earth based living.

What if your home could recycle its own water supply? What if new insulation provided efficiency that was an order of magnitude greater than current methods? Solar polar cells that were durable, efficient and came with long-term storage that allowed one, for the first time, to adequately and efficiently store surplus energy for later use? Air conditioning at premium efficiency with self-cleaning filters that removed all contaminants and particulates? Grass that mowed itself!!

All kinds of spinoff tech could make its way into common use on Earth.

..Only 1% of the problem is domain specific: the nature of the ice on the moon, the atmosphere of mars and the perchlorates in its soil...

Well, in some ways yes, in some ways no. For instance, part of the proposed strategy for a moon habitat would be using local resources. That might count for much bigger critical piece of the picture. Extracting water, oxygen and hydrogen, for instance, could be a major function of much of the habitat and its equipment. Dealing with the Moon's abrasive dust might be another one.. nobody fancies developing something like silicosis from breathing Moondust that escaped from the "mud-room" of the habitat. Gravity is a big issue as well. The Moon has it but, not a great deal of it. How will that effect long-term survival? We're simply not built for low-G work and that's a fact. Our systems go bonkers and there are severe health risks. How efficient is it that a Moon colonist must spend 25% of their day exercising only to achieve the minimum level of fitness necessary to survive for a short while while STILL at risk to have a heart attack? (Note: Even low amounts of g have a positive impact so, it's not quite as desperate a situation as those in microgravity like aboard the ISS. But, it's worth noting.)

 

[samkent]

Curbing over population of the earth is one.

What does over population have to do with space?
Are you suggesting a country should send a certain percentage of its population into orbit?
Who goes? Their scientists? Their cream of the crop over all?
Who gets left behind? The common man who’s paying the tab for decades?
Talk about a major shift in demographics!
What happens to enlightened countries that have a two tiered societies? Tell an American he will never get to go up there but he has to pay much higher taxes to support it, and see what happens.
What happens when a respected/needed scientist divorces his common wife? Does she get kicked out of paradise?

Also if something bad happened to the earth like a comet impact then humanities not dead.

No They are dead also. They will need the rare Earth minerals dug and processed by the thousands of common workers down here.

You can’t take a civilization that took thousands of years and millions of people to build and clone it in space or some barren rock.

It’s all a dream caused by too much Star Trek. It can’t happen. Technically, socially or financially.

Space X maybe has a 100 employees and they've built 2 types of rockets and developed engines for alot less than NASA spent building the Aries X boilerplate rocket.

Way out of touch.
Spacex has nearly 1000 employees already.