New Poll: Moon Yes, Mars No

orzek · Nov 18, 2004

Well I don't know about you but that does seem a bit obsessed to me. Interesting observation. I perfer to think of it as practical. Like most insurance we buy...etc Insurance is only practical if you do not have to spend too much money or resources for it. To use a Mars Colony as an "insurance" against Asteroid impact is not a really good reason for a Mars colony. I see the worry about an asteroid impact as an unnecessary diversion from the job at hand; space exploration and colonisation. No one knows for sure how to do mining, processing and manufacturing on the moon since no one has actually tried it. That depends on which of my arguments you are referring to. As far as I'm concerned, there is no doubt about the enormous cost of building mining, processing facilities on the Moon. We know how much it costs here..... etc My original point still stands, mining on the moon will not be the same as on Earth, so trying to estimate what is involved by equating to Earth and arbitrarilarly multiplying the cost is deceiving. How can you be so sure what it takes to do mining and manufacturing on the Moon and what parts can be possibly produced or not? Being pessimistic is not helpful to the discussion. I also still don't buy the argument that the moon will be more expensive to live on than on Mars since equally all this manufacturing etc and colonisation of Mars will also require people, and as you say the people will require food and lodging. All of that, including all the material for the habitats, will still have to be lifted to Mars before any work can be done or a viable colony created. No Mars Colony will be self sustaining in the short term and you do have to contend with the distance involved. Just like there is no proof that mars can be a viable colony either. Actually there is proof. Test have shown that

orzek · Nov 18, 2004

I have consistently asked you where you get your "info", and you never want to tell me. Several times I have listed the most prominent books I have read. If it is really that important to you, I will compile another list, just for you. However, I don't really see the relevence. It's not like you are considering changing your mind. Generally, when people ask for such references, it is so they can attempt to use isolated passages in those references to attack the lister's position. Life is tough enough without supplying ammunition to the enemy. I haven't seen you list anything so please tell me so i'd know where you are coming from. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

mental_avenger · Nov 19, 2004

How can you be so sure what it takes to do mining and manufacturing on the Moon and what parts can be possibly produced or not? OK, here is a way to look at that problem. Suppose I told you that I would supply you with the funds to build an ordinary hand calculator, the kind that normally sells for $4.00 Only one catch, you have to build it on the Moon, and you have to do it entirely with resources from the Moon. Starting from scratch. OK, I know that is extreme, but you get my point. Let's make it a spacecraft instead, with the normal tens of thousands of different parts. Which of the materials would you build on the Moon, and which would you import from Earth? You see, that makes it rather easy to determine what you can produce on the Moon (sheet metal parts, machined parts, glass, plastic, fiberglass etc.), and what you cannot (transistors, resistors, capacitors, IC's, LCD's, wiring, and the thousands of other products that take highly specialized manufacturing processes.) Being pessimistic is not helpful to the discussion. I perfer to think of it as practical. Again. I also still don't buy the argument that the moon will be more expensive to live on than on Mars since equally all this manufacturing etc and colonisation of Mars will also require people, and as you say the people will require food and lodging. All of that, including all the material for the habitats, will still have to be lifted to Mars before any work can be done or a viable colony created. Correct. But once created, the Mars colony can be self sufficient, a Moon colony could not. No Mars Colony will be self sustaining in the short term and you do have to contend with the distance involved. The distance is essentially irrelevant to the Mars colony <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Nov 19, 2004

I haven't seen you list anything so please tell me so i'd know where you are coming from. I thought that “where I am coming from” was rather obvious. I've taken ideas from many sources, but those ideas rarely remain intact. However, if it pleases you, I will provide a list when I get some free time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

najab · Nov 19, 2004

>Suppose I told you that I would supply you with the funds to build an ordinary hand calculator, the kind that normally sells for $4.00 Only one catch, you have to build it on the Moon, and you have to do it entirely with resources from the Moon. Starting from scratch.Now do it on Mars. You want your colony to be self-sufficient in calculators (and everything else) don't you?

nacnud · Nov 19, 2004

If you could do that then perhaps it would be possible to design a machine that eats moon/mars regolith and spews out amorphous silicon photovoltaic panels

dan_casale · Nov 19, 2004

Mental: />The main difference would be that the equipment on Mars would be owned and opoerated by the colonists.< Why can't the moon have a colony? The moon may have very little carbon but it isn't completely carbon free. You are way ahead of us by already having a colony set up on Mars. Walk us through the steps on how you got the colony setup. />Are you suggesting that materials mined an manufactured on the Moon would be sold on Earth? Just checking, because that's what it sounds like. < I hope that you aren't proposing that a Mars colony will be completely selfsustained? Yes the moon colony will be selling propellents, silicon, and electricty to Earth, Earth orbiting space stations and Mars colonies. Moon and Mars colonies have resources available. The only resources available to Orbital space stations is radiation, free fall and vaccume. That means that all materials must be imported.

mental_avenger · Nov 20, 2004

You are way ahead of us by already having a colony set up on Mars. Walk us through the steps on how you got the colony setup. I posted a breif overview in subsequent posts. Which parts were unclear? I hope that you aren't proposing that a Mars colony will be completely selfsustained? Not completely, not for a good while. But that is the goal, after all. In the meantime, they should become self-sufficient for basic needs, such as food, breathable air, water, energy, and building materials. Yes the moon colony will be selling propellents, silicon, and electricty to Earth, Earth orbiting space stations and Mars colonies. I have yet to see any plan that would allow bases on the Moon to sell anything to Earth at anywhere nearly as cheap as it could be produced on Earth. I agree that propellent would be marketable in Earth orbit, but to Earth itself? No way. And shipping it to Mars would be prohibitively expensive. Earth has plenty of ways to make electricity, and so do stations in Earth orbit, and Mars is too far away. Earth has plenty of silicon, and the sands of Mars are silicon dioxide. None of that makes any sense. Perhaps you were referring to fabricated PV cells. Moon and Mars colonies have resources available. The only resources available to Orbital space stations is radiation, free fall and vaccume. That means that all materials must be imported. Like I said, plenty of electricty. But everything else will have to be imported. Eventually, however, if large spinning space stations like the one featured in 2001: A Space Odyssey become practical and useful (and I think they will), then they will become relatively self-sufficient for consumables through recycling and greenhouses, etc. That will take a lot longer. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

orzek · Nov 20, 2004

OK, here is a way to look at that problem. Suppose I told you that I would supply you with the funds to build an ordinary hand calculator, the kind that normally sells for $4.00 Only one catch, you have to build it on the Moon, and you have to do it entirely with resources from the Moon. Starting from scratch. OK, I know that is extreme, but you get my point. Let's make it a spacecraft instead, with the normal tens of thousands of different parts. Which of the materials would you build on the Moon, and which would you import from Earth? You see, that makes it rather easy to determine what you can produce on the Moon (sheet metal parts, machined parts, glass, plastic, fiberglass etc.), and what you cannot (transistors, resistors, capacitors, IC's, LCD's, wiring, and the thousands of other products that take highly specialized manufacturing processes.) Well this is a problem for mars or anywhere else for that matter. Your point is correct only if you take Earth as a starting point of comparison for size, capability and personnel requirements. Any new colony whether on the moon or mars will require the development of new ways of manufacturing utilizing more compact general purpose factories that are self-autonomous that are also capable of producing a variety of goods. Presently I don’t see any barrier for such developments. For example developing factories that are able to produce the electronic components from basic silicon, the circuit boards and the whole electronic appliance in the same place. These factories can be made smaller and also created in kit form so that it can be shipped outward and reassembled onsite. Factories on Earth are for large scale production of goods, factories on the moon or mars will be used initially to supply the needs of the colony which is much smaller. I prefer to think of it as practical. Again. Too much pessimism is no

mental_avenger · Nov 21, 2004

Distance is very relevant, any supplies for the mars colony will take months to arrive so slowing the growth of any colony. Irrelevant. Take the time delay into account, start out ahead, stay ahead. Saying that the moon requires recycling workers, elements and food is a pessimistic assumption without any proof so as to make the moon look bad and mars look good. Not so. I don't say that “so as to make the moon look bad “. It happens to be what I beleive, that 1/6th gravity is just too light for long term health. In addition, unless an acutal colony was built on the Moon, and I can't imagine that, workers would be job-site temporaries. This is only necessarily true if you are suicidal or reckless. So was sending men to the Moon. In the 30 years since then, the relevant technologies have progress very rapidly, in some cases, by many orders of magnitude. Properly prepared, with the landing site thuroughly anylyzed by Big Al, and with robotic cargo vessels waiting for them on the surface, Mars colonist might well be safer than in many sections of LA. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Whatever your dreams or fantasies there are no plans for a colonization from the get go. Too bad, that. Any missions to Mars WILL BE return trips Let's hope not. Going to Mars would be SO much more difficult and expensive that way. No such cargo vessels are on the drawing board or being developed. They are on MY drawing boards, er....ah.......CAD system files. Any cargo vessels sent to mars will have to be numerous in quantity thus increasing the cost if you want success through that route <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

scottb50 · Nov 21, 2004

I think we have to get there and then figure out how to stay there, or even if it is worth staying. This applies equally to the Moon and Mars. To require staying from the beginning would be ridiculous. I, for one, wouldn't want to live on Mars, or the Moon, unless there were numerous independant habitates that could be quickly reached in an emergency. Even if you built your $4.00 calculator on the Moon the shipping and handling would make it a $40,000 calculator back on Earth, where we make $4.00 calculators by the gazzillion. Unless we find a source of power a whole lot cheaper than what we have today, and nuclear isn't it by the way. Getting from LEO to lunar orbit, or even to Mars orbit doesn't require nearly as much propellant as getting to LEO in the first place. We need a cheaper means of access to LEO. The RL-10 has been around for nearly fifty years, Russian engines are at least as old and the SSME has existed for nearly thirty years. We have the technology to do it right now and the hardware can be relatively simple. The cheaper we do it the sooner the market develops and we can afford to do more. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mental_avenger · Nov 22, 2004

I think we have to get there and then figure out how to stay there, or even if it is worth staying. That is the job of Big Al. Big Al would be set down in an area predetermined by other probes. His job would be to analyze the area to determine the suitability for human habitats. This would include seismic studies, 10 meter core drills, and terrain (marrain?) mapping. The rest is simply a matter of applying our technologies to the Martian environment. To require staying from the beginning would be ridiculous. Why so? Although many people have made that claim, I have yet to see, other than a pronouncement, any scientific reasons why we could not stay there from the get go. I, for one, wouldn't want to live on Mars, or the Moon, unless there were numerous independant habitates that could be quickly reached in an emergency. That was essentially the idea behind sending numerous cargo vessels in advance, prefitted for use as habitats, work stations, atmospheric mining, etc. Such a plan would automatically supply the numerous, independent habitats that would address the safety issue. Even if you built your $4.00 calculator on the Moon the shipping and handling would make it a $40,000 calculator back on Earth, where we make $4.00 calculators by the gazzillion. That has been my point all along. Making technically sophisticated products on the Moon, for export to Earth, is not feasible. I don't see such a plan as being feasible for hundreds of years, if ever. Getting from LEO to lunar orbit, or even to Mars orbit doesn't require nearly as much propellant as getting to LEO in the first place. Exactly. That is the reason, currently, that the cost from Earth to either Mars or the Mo <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

najab · Nov 22, 2004

To require staying from the beginning would be ridiculous. Why so? Although many people have made that claim, I have yet to see, other than a pronouncement, any scientific reasons why we could not stay there from the get go. The reason you haven't heard a scientific reason is because there isn't one. However, it still isn't going to happen. The logistics of settlement on the first mission are simply mind boggling. It would require that all the materials and equipment required to support the colony be prepositioned - that's several hundred to thousands of tons of launched over the course of years before the first manned mission. Try getting politicians to fund that.Also, you would have to send multiple copies of equipment (for redunancy) and spare parts and the machines to make the parts (and parts for the machines that make the parts for the machines).How much food do you send? How long will it take (assuming it's possible) to establish a self-sufficient food supply? Send too much food and you've wasted upmass, send too little and your colonists starve waiting for planetary alignment.And so on....there's a whole boatload of reasons why, even though it is possible, I don't think it is likely that the first man on Mars will be staying there.

mental_avenger · Nov 22, 2004

This is my own scenario (AFAIK), not an idea that I borrowed from someone else. It is the result of looking at the big picture and figuring out the fastest, most efficient, safest way of colonizing Mars, with the highest chance of success. As you have already figured out, it is a package deal. It must be done all the way, or not at all. Consider the problems of establishing a colony, one returnable seven-man mission at a time. Each round-trip mission would take about 2 years. Of that, 1 year will be spent in transit. How many such missions would be required to establish a colony that would allow people to stay? Six? Eight? Ten? So that puts it out to 15-20 years after the first mission, before people can even stay. Also, the cost of each mission would be more than double a one way misison, because of the necessity of carrying all of the fuel and supplies for the return trip, on the outward leg. Making the trip one-way would accomplish at least two things. It would add 6 months of usable work time to the schedule, and it give the colonists a sense of building something for their own future, not just workning for someone else. Don't underestimate the importance of the men working on their own home. In addition, there is security in numbers, and that will be especially true on Mars. Sending at least two dozen colonists on the first transport will provide them with enough people to work in shifts if necessary, allow a greater pool of skills and abilities, and provide a larger work force in the event of emergency repairs. Also, it is going to be very lonely on Mars, so three or four times as many people is going to be important. As each new colonial vessel arrives with new people, that will help with the overall spirits of the group, as well as with the pool of available skills and ingenuity. If the colony grows by 10 people a year, in 20 years there would be about 224 people on Mars, established in a well rounded, working col <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

najab · Nov 22, 2004

>Consider the problems of establishing a colony, one returnable seven-man mission at a time. Each round-trip mission would take about 2 years. Of that, 1 year will be spent in transit.What happens if we let the missions overlap - launch a new mission every launch window? That way we have a continuously manned outpost: not the same thing as a colony, but close to it, a continuous supply line: by the time the first crew lands, the second crew is already in launch preps and can bring any needed supplies and what's more, not everyone from a given mission has to come back. I suspect that most members of the first few crews would probably come back to do the whole "tour the world for propaganda purposes" thing, but by the time the third or fourth crews launch the base would probably be ready to accept mainly long term (permanent?) residents.All your arguments of building a community still apply in this scenario, just starting from the second or third mission, rather than the first. The advantage of this staggered start is that it would reduce the requirements for prepositioning of supplies.>Also, the cost of each mission would be more than double a one way misison, because of the necessity of carrying all of the fuel and supplies for the return trip, on the outward leg.In the scenario I'm proposing, only the first crew would launch with their return propellant. One of their main tasks would be setting up and operating the IRSU machinery. If, for some reason, they are unable to produce enough propellant then the second mission would be postponed and the first crew would return.

scottb50 · Nov 22, 2004

The same way it is done on ISS would work just fine. Put Earth return capability in Mars orbit and a means of accessing it on the surface on the first mission, the next mission brings newer vehicles and the older ones are used for a return mission. After a few surface to orbit vehicles are on site they could be serviced in orbit and re-used. Instead of bringing new landers replacement parts would be brought and broken parts returned to Earth for repair. Using a cycler system the first LEO to LMO vehicle would return when it's replacement arrives, leaving a vehicle in LMO at all times. I would think at least four transfer vehicles and four landers would be sufficient at any one time. I have no problem with having people stay on Mars for extended periods, if they want to, but that should be an option not a pre-requisite. Though it seems simple, I just don't see producing return propellant on Mars during the first missions, there is a lot more to be done than concentrating on that. At some point it might be possible but initially we will have to take return propellant with us. The upside is that's not the big problem everyone seems to think it is. We need water to provide protection for the crew during transit anyway and there is more than enough electrical power available in LEO, LMO and between to hydrolize the water. We already have numerous engines available that can use LH2 and LOX and could get underway immediately, not 20 years from now. Mission 1: Multiple, identical Modules, with various internal configurations and contents are put into LEO and assembled into a Transfer Vehicle. The Transfer Vehicle is boosted to Mars and establishes an orbit. Modules, designated for surface habitates are separated, sent to the surface and assembled remotely. Crews are then landed using two or three descent/ascent vehicles. Modules left in orbit would form a permanent remotely operated station and provide a means of r <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

najab · Nov 22, 2004

>Though it seems simple, I just don't see producing return propellant on Mars during the first missions, there is a lot more to be done than concentrating on that. At some point it might be possible but initially we will have to take return propellant with us.Well in the modified M_A plan (MMAP?) we would be taking return propellent with us on at least the first mission. If needs be we could take it on the second or third mission too.>The upside is that's not the big problem everyone seems to think it is. We need water to provide protection for the crew during transit anyway and there is more than enough electrical power available in LEO, LMO and between to hydrolize the water.And, if the science results are correct, there is plenty of water on Mars - why bother bringing the water and the hydrolysis equipment? Just bring the equipment, or better still, send it on ahead of us.

mental_avenger · Nov 22, 2004

What happens if we let the missions overlap - launch a new mission every launch window? That way we have a continuously manned outpost: not the same thing as a colony, but close to it, a continuous supply line: That is better than the current plans, but still does not provide the larger work crew which would be required for many things. Consider a construction site here on Earth, even for something as small as a single house. Of course the Mars crews would be more highly trained and versitile, but there is no substitute for numbers on many jobs. Personally, if I were to go, I would want a minumum of two dozen people with me on the job. Remember, many very different, time intensive tasks will have to be done at the same time. by the time the first crew lands, the second crew is already in launch preps and can bring any needed supplies Sending supplies with the crew ships will be wastefull. Supplies should all be sent on the economy route in robotic supply ships. Not only is that cheaper, but you get another habitat with each shipment. I suspect that most members of the first few crews would probably come back to do the whole "tour the world for propaganda purposes" thing, You may have a good point there. The propaganda might be worth the extra cost and time delay. The advantage of this staggered start is that it would reduce the requirements for prepositioning of supplies. I disagree. Sending major supplies with the crew ships would increase the per-pound supply costs and reduce the number of habitats. In the scenario I'm proposing, only the first crew would launch with their return propellant. One of their main tasks would be setting up and operating the IRSU machinery. <</safety_wrapper> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

najab · Nov 22, 2004

>Sending supplies with the crew ships will be wastefull. Supplies should all be sent on the economy route in robotic supply ships. Not only is that cheaper, but you get another habitat with each shipment.I should have been more clear. I wasn't talking about bulk supplies, I meant 'emergency' supplies like spare parts or different plant seeds. You're right about bulk supplies being sent the slow route.

scottb50 · Nov 22, 2004

<<And, if the science results are correct, there is plenty of water on Mars>> I haven't seen any from the MIR results, how hard is it to get? The most efficient solar insulation is water, we need it to survive anyway and increasing the volume of soemthing we have to have anyway, and is pretty benign, from a storage point, makes more sense than developing other means of protecting the crews. If, once we get there and actually prove the availability and access to water then your right. In that case the easiest thing would probably be taking the water to LMO and converting it there anyway. It would be a lot easier to launch water than LH2 and LOX from the surface of Mars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

dan_casale · Nov 22, 2004

Mental: I think we need to start from the beginning. Proposal: Build a base on Moon/Mars. This initial crew will be 50 people and require at least a 4 year stay. Launch vehicle: Saturn V - 120 tons to LEO. Just for grins, lets say 80 tons to Mars/Moon surface. Launch Window: Mars - 2 months every 2 years. Moon - 1 per week. Task 1: Compile all existing data on Moon/Mars to select most likely 10 sites for additional study. Task 2: Launch SUV sized probe Big Al to explore the 10 sites. Lets guess this will be 3 launches w/3 Big Al's. Task 3: Select the best site based on the available resources. Launch ISRU equipment to mine water and oxygen. Lets guess that this will be 5 launches and take place 2 years after the launch of Big Al (task2). Task 4: Multiple launches for human habitats, biospheres, machine shops, mining and refining shops, dump trucks, buldozers, mining equipment, drilling equipment, electrical power sources, water, and propellents. Lets guess that this will be 10 launches and take place 2 years after task3. Task 5: Remotely assemble colony. Task 6: Send replacements for any module that failed to assemble into the colony. (This could delay task 7 by 2 years.) Task 7: Multiple Launches for Humans (50), plants, animals, additional ISRU equipment, habitats, biospheres, water, and propellents. Lets assume 5 launches with rotating habitats that maintain 1 Gee environment until arrival at Mars. Task 8: Mars colony has 18 months to assemble colony modules into habitat for 100+ people. Additional Moon colonists will be sent when assembly is complete. Task 9 - Lunar: Install Spectra 2000 Lunar elevator (sent from Earth). Elevator attaches at the Lunar equator and rises through L1 to GEO. Construct rail system from Lunar base to elevator. Task 9 - Mars: Install Spectra 2000 rotating tether system to assist with launching/landing on Mars. Constru

mental_avenger · Nov 22, 2004

After a few surface to orbit vehicles are on site they could be serviced in orbit and re-used. If the purpose is to colonize Mars, there will be very little need for either surface to orbit vehicles or return vehicles. It's not like there is going to be a two-way trade between Mars and Earth. IN addition, ”serviced in orbit and re-used” is a tall order for something that isn't needed very often. It is difficult enough to service such vehicles on Earth, with plenty of manpower and unlimited supplies. It would simply be a waste of manpower, time, and valuable resources to maintian a fleet of surface to orbit vehicles. Using a cycler system the first LEO to LMO vehicle would return when it's replacement arrives, leaving a vehicle in LMO at all times. I would think at least four transfer vehicles and four landers would be sufficient at any one time. Again, you are assuming some sort of constant Earth-Mars-Earth interchange. That is neither practical nor necessary. Not only would such a “cycler” be extremely expensive, it would probably not be practical until larger numbers of colonist would be emmigrating to Mars. We need water to provide protection for the crew during transit Do you have some figures to support this? On the trip to Mars, the bulk of the ship, including the propellant and engines, would be between the crew and the Sun. The leaves only cosimic radiation to contend with. All the rest of your “transfer vehicles” and “modules” would not be required, at least not for a long time. Someday, when a self-sufficient colony is up and running, and consists of perhaps 10,000 individuals, then some regular interplanetary exchange might become practical. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Nov 22, 2004

Dan, Actually, that was a pretty good schedule, all things considered. Nice job. There are only a few points that I would change/discuss/consider. Launch Window: Mars - 2 months every 2 years. Moon - 1 per week. The Mars economy route is not restricted to such a narrow window. Since robotic cargo vessels are not worried about consumables, the extra time and distance is not an issue. Cargo vessels to Mars can be launced as often as Moon cargo vessels. Remember, there is no penaly in fuel, only in time, and that is not an issue once the cargo vessels are all sent on schedule. Task 4: Multiple launches for human habitats, biospheres, machine shops, mining and refining shops, dump trucks, buldozers, mining equipment, drilling equipment, electrical power sources, water, and propellents Habitats can be prefitted robotic cargo vessels. The first colonist will not need a lot of heavy equipment. Their primary conscerns will be ensuring the integrity of the habitats, mining the atmosphere, and producing food. Big Al and his pals will be able to hanlde the repositioning of habitats, hauling (with trailers) etc. Task 5: Remotely assemble colony. No way. The only practical way to assmble the colony is with the colonist themselves. Having prefittd cargo modules to use as habitats will allow colonists to begin keeping house from the get go. I don't see any of those “elevators” as being practical. I won't include any in my plans. 1) Construct solar farms to beam electricity back to Earth. I have never seen any plan for “beaming” energy to Earth that is practical, or ever will be. Even under it's thin skin of atmosphere, the Earth has plenty of much more practical ways to get energy. “Beaming” energy to Earth will never be all <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

scottb50 · Nov 22, 2004

<<If the purpose is to colonize Mars, there will be very little need for either surface to orbit vehicles or return vehicles.>> With the conditions on Mars there has to be a way get off. You can't survive outside. Once multiple bases exist then it becomes a lesser problem, but until then it is the same as having a Soyus vehicle at the ISS. I have been saying the purpose is not to colonize Mars, at least at first. Perhaps that would happpen, but initially it would be exploration. Have we colonized the Antarctic in the more than forty years we have had facilities there. Why do you think it would be any different? I,m also not talking about a fleet, just like ISS enough capability to evacuate everyone if needed. <<Again, you are assuming some sort of constant Earth-Mars-Earth interchange. That is neither practical nor necessary. Not only would such a “cycler” be extremely expensive, it would probably not be practical until larger numbers of colonist would be emmigrating to Mars. />> I would see it as being less expensive, if at every opportunity a vehicle is sent. If the only expense is propellant then it is not that big of a deal. Having a constant transfer system would reduce costs. A cycler vehicle would only make sense, launch every two years from Earth and return, if you want to have a colony it would be manditory. How many C-130's take supplies to Antartica every year, if every Module carries the same as a C-130 and goes every two years how many would you need? Dedicated vehicles would make a lot of sense as well as lowering the costs by spreading them out over many missions. The largest expense is getting the basic vehicle into LEO. Once there you are dealing with payload and propellant. <<Do you have some figures to support this? />> No, but most evrybody here seems to think it is a big deal. My main point is water supplies both our biological needs and our energy <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mental_avenger · Nov 22, 2004

With the conditions on Mars there has to be a way get off. Why? Unlike the ISS (which you bring up), the colonists on Mars will have many resources available. Any failure that would require getting a significant number of colonists off Mars would probably not be surviable anyhow. Any less severe failure would be handled on site. It would be impractical to maintain escape facilities that essentially equal the colony facilities. The difficulty in getting “survivors” back to Earth makes “escape” a non-option. The supplies sent ahead will be calculated to be sufficient to cover all contingencies, they would have to be. I have been saying the purpose is not to colonize Mars, at least at first. Perhaps that would happpen, but initially it would be exploration. Impractical. If we are to expend that kind of time and resources, then the only practical thing to do with them is settle. If exploration is the only goal, that can be done cheaper and more safely with appropriately sophisticated robotic explorers. I would see it as being less expensive, if at every opportunity a vehicle is sent. If the only expense is propellant then it is not that big of a deal. Creating the ability to recycle/produce food and breathable air on Mars will be challenging. At least on Mars, there are available resources to make the task much easier, not to mention the room requied. That would be extremely difficult on a “cycler” of any practical size. But that is not the only expense. In order to make such a “cycler” work, it would have to be manned. While I can see colonists working for themselves on Mars, duty aboard a “cycler” would be both boring and expensive. In addition, your plan does not allow for new habitats, doubly used as supply vessels, to be continually added to the Martian colony. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

New Poll: Moon Yes, Mars No

orzek

Guest

orzek

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

najab

Guest

nacnud

Guest

dan_casale

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

orzek

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

scottb50

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

najab

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

najab

Guest

scottb50

Guest

najab

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

najab

Guest

scottb50

Guest

dan_casale

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

scottb50

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page