New Poll: Moon Yes, Mars No

serak_the_preparer · Dec 5, 2004

An old chestnut of Moon-boosters returns... Moon gas could meet earth's future energy demands: scientists (AFP) Nov 26, 2004 UDAIPUR, India - Mineral samples from the moon contained abundant quantities of helium 3, a variant of the gas used in lasers and refrigerators as well as to blow up balloons. "When compared to the earth the moon has a tremendous amount of helium 3," said Lawrence Taylor, a director of the US Planetary Geosciences Institute, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences. "When helium 3 combines with deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) the fusion reaction proceeds at a very high temperature and it can produce awesome amounts of energy," Taylor told AFP. "Just 25 tonnes of helium, which can be transported on a space shuttle, is enough to provide electricity for the US for one full year," said Taylor, who is in the north Indian city of Udaipur for a global conference on moon exploration. Helium 3 is deposited on the lunar surface by solar winds and would have to be extracted from moon soil and rocks. To extract helium 3 gas the rocks have to be heated above 1,400 degs Fdegs C). Some 200 million tonnes of lunar soil would produce one tonne of helium, Taylor said, noting that only 10 kilos of helium are available on earth. Indian President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam told the International Conference on Exploration and Utilisation of the Moon on Wednesday that the barren planet held about one million tonnes of helium 3. "The moon contains 10 times more energy in the form of Helium 3 than all the fossil fuels on the earth," Kalam said. However, planetary scientist Taylor said the reactor technology for converting helium 3 to energy was still in its infancy and could take years to develop.... "There are visionaries out there and now the question arises where the funds c

dan_casale · Dec 6, 2004

kadetken: Excellent list of economic reasons for Space. Initially, Mental_Avenger may be correct, Moon/Mars won't supply products to Earth. But I think that Jewlery, will be one of the first "high-brow" products sold on Earth. But both the Moon and Mars can do a lot to reduce the cost of being in space. As the cost of pollution gets factored into products, products made in space will become more competitive. I also agree that satellite servicing and debris removal will be very valuable services. I understand that DOD is looking for someone to provide that service now. Anything that is already in orbit should be worth $10,000/lb, even if it has to be melted down and recast. I think this is like the first copy machine, nobody realizes what can be done until we get the first one built.

mental_avenger · Dec 6, 2004

And how, pray tell, would a Mars base be far more useful to Earth? Read it again and pay attention. I merely reversed your innaccurate comparison, and that was when you compared a base with an expedition. Vacuum discipline is not invalid. Doing on the Moon is. Using your own termninology, Spending billions to send someone to die stupidly on the Moon seems far more expensive and foolhardy than exposing someone to a relatively equivalent test environment on Earth. That way if they do something stupidly in the test chambers, they can be saved, and not die needlessly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

dan_casale · Dec 6, 2004

I was able to find some information at: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LRV_OpsNAS8-25145.pdf 1.3.2.2 Drive Motor ....In addition, each motor contains a thermal swithc which closes on increaseing temperature at 400 deg F and provides an input signal to the caution and warning system to actuate the warning flag. 1.3.3 Suspension ....Wheel vertical travel and rate of travel is limited by a linear damper connected between the chassis and each traction drive. The defection of the cuspension system and tires combine to allow 14 inches of chassis ground clearance when the LRV is fully loaded and 17 inches when unloaded. Damping energy heats the fluid in the damper. The heat is conducted from the fluid to the damper walls for dissipation. 1.4.1 Batteries ....The batteries are located on the forward chassis enclosed by the thermal blanket and dust covers (figure 1-17). Battery No. 1 (on the left side) is connected thermally to the navigation Signal Processing Unit (SPU), and serves as a partial heat sink for the SPU. Battery No. 2 (on the right side) is thermally tied to the navigation Directional Gyro Unit (DGU) and serves as a heat sink for the DGU. (Dan's Note: There is a drawing on page 1-29 that indicates THERMAL RADIATOR MIRRORS NOT SHOWN) 1.4.3 Caution and Warning system ....When either battery reaches 125 Deg F or any drive motor reaches 400 Deg F, the temperature swith closes, energizing the "OR" logic element and driver. The driver sends a 10 millisecond 36V pulse to the coil of the electromagnet which releases the magnetic hold on the indicator at the top of the console and a spring loaded flag flips up. When I look at the diagram I can see that the gear box on each wheel also has at temperature sensor that can trip the flag. Another diagram on page 1-4 indicates that the traction drive, DCE, and the batt

orzek · Dec 6, 2004

There is also the question of meteorites hitting any future base that have to be taken into account. Having habitats situated underground would be the easiest and safest choice. One can still use inflatable habitats by putting them in trenches and covering them with enough regolith. Meteorites are also an unknown quantity for mars as well though I doubt it would be that much of a problem as for the moon. Radiation on Mars is still a problem though...

mah_fl · Dec 7, 2004

Hallman, funny you should say that about the Sun being a Star, my American wife who is in her 40's did not realise that either untill I pointed it out last month. She is a special ed school teacher and has 3 degrees.

mental_avenger · Dec 7, 2004

kadetken says: For a 20-50 year timeframe a base on the Moon vs. an expedition to Mars is a valid comparison, but even if we try to unfairly even it up to a base-to-base comparison the valid question still remains: Incredible. You still feel that comparing the benefits of an established base to the benefits of an expedition is a fair comparison. Now you are willing to “unfairly” compare a base with a base? And you are still yammering about ”vacuum dicipline” as if that were relevant, and overusing your cutesy buzzword ”cislunar”. Tell you what, it is not worth my time to attempt rational debate with someone who has such a myopic, illogical, tunnel vision of the situation. BTW, the “impact record” is totally irrelevant. The only thing that matters is actual detection of asteroids and comets in time to do something, and the wherewithall to stop or deflect them. Near Earth orbit is far far too close for either. do widzenia <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

eldensmith · Dec 7, 2004

A telescope in Mars orbit working with a telescope in Earth orbit can catalog inner solar system asteroids far faster than 'scopes limited to cislunar space. And think of the baseline for doing deep space interferometry!

mental_avenger · Dec 7, 2004

I agree. Mars orbit is a good place to set up telescopes. However, at least six telescopes should be placed equidistant in orbit. Dangerous asteroids can be very small and difficult to detect. Even with 6 telescopes in Mars orbit, the average distance bewtween them would be 141 million miles. An object in the ecliptic could still pass 80.5 million miles from the nearest telescope. Compare this with Mars's closest approach to Earth of 34.6 million miles in 2003. There are many very important reasons to have multiple telescopes out that far. 1. Early detection means more time to react. Many asteroids are only detected after they have passed close to the Earth. We need the ability to detect rogue asteroids as soon as possible. 2. Relative positions is important because detection depends on the ability to see the object against the background of stars. That depends on both the angle the Sunlight is reflected off the object, and how close (in angle) to the Sun the object is. 3. Triangulation could be used to provide a more accurate path for the object, and provide it much more quickly. 4. Continuous tracking of objects is necessary because the paths of small objects can be disturbed so easily. The ability to update the flight path of an asteroid which is still on the far side of the Sun will give us even more time to react. 5. The smaller the object, or the lower it's albedo, the closer it must be to be detected. There can be as much as 186 million mile difference between the position of the Earth and an object that needs to be detected. That distance can be as great as 234 million miles between the position of the Earth and a telescope in Mars orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

halman · Dec 7, 2004

ELdenSmith, Trying to detect objects which are closer to the Sun than you are is very difficult. These objects can only be seen at sunrise and sunset, and only objects which are well ahead or well behind the Earth can be seen. I think that there might be a better way of looking for inner system objects. I have read about experiments in passive radar, where a suitable radiation source, such as a commercial FM radio transmitter is used to detect aircraft by tuning into the transmitted frequency, and then changing the phase relationship of the receiver to null out the transmitter. This allows the very weak echoes on the transmitter frequency to be tracked. The Sun radiates energy in many wavelengths. Visible light is not the best for tracking dark objects against a dark background. By finding a portion of the Sun's radiation which is energetic enough to bounce off of solid objects cleanly, as well as being unique enough to avoid a lot of background noise, we could use the Sun as a radar transmitter, which will bounce energy off of practically any body. Having 3 or more receiver units inside the orbit of Venus would allow the receivers to detect objects betwen the orbits of Venus and Mars, and, using triangulation, get an accurate fix on these objects, making plotting an orbit possible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

mental_avenger · Dec 7, 2004

Trying to detect objects which are closer to the Sun than you are is very difficult. IF, you are looking Sunward for them. There is no need to do that if you catch them before they are that close in. The whole point of tracking asteroids is so that we can do something about it if it appears they are going to impact Earth. Otherwise, what is the point? Once they are in close to the Sun, they are moving much faster, and there is less time available to change their course, which is proablby the only thing we will ever be able to do to protect Earth. Having detectors at the Orbit of Venus would put you at a 66 million mile to 214 million mile disadvantage over detectors in Mars orbit. That translates to a 125-405 day additional warning time, all else being equal. In addition, the further out the object is when a deflecting force is applied, the smaller that force has to be. Bottom line, the sooner a threatening asteroid is detected, the sooner we can respond, and the less force we have to apply. I have read about experiments in passive radar, where a suitable radiation source, such as a commercial FM radio transmitter is used to detect aircraft by tuning into the transmitted frequency, and then changing the phase relationship of the receiver to null out the transmitter. ??????? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Dec 8, 2004

Continuing the list: 6. Since our asteroid detection system will eventually be out at, or just beyond, Mars orbit, it would be more practical to put the first detectors out there to start with, giving us the most warning possible. Wasting valuable time and money on trial runs, and locations destined to become obsolete, would be foolish. 7. The sooner we start a serious search, the better chance we have of preventing a disaster on Earth. Since detecting asteroids while they are in the inner Solar System will almost certainly be detecting them too late, we need to get the detectors out near Mars orbit as soon as possible. If Earth gets whacked while the lunatics are trying desperately to create a validation for Lunar support, then it will all be for nothing. We need asteroid detection, and we need it where it will do the most good. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

dan_casale · Dec 8, 2004

Detecting threatening asteroids is not a colony function. That is best done by remote sensing satellites. Eliminating the threating asteroids could be a function of a colony. Mars: Asteroid is deflected by attaching a booster to the asteroid. Mars manufactures Solid rocket motors for this function. Moon: 1) Asteroid is deflected by attaching a booster to the asteroid. Moon manufactures Solid rocket motors for this function. 2) Asteroid is deflected by launching boulders from a rail gun at the asteroid until the asteroid is deflected. Sounds like fun.

orzek · Dec 8, 2004

Mental Why stop at mars orbit? Why not put it further out like the asteroid belt or Jupiter? If such a system is implimented then it would make sense to place it around earth first. Putting it around Mars is wasting resources that can be applied elsewhere. Nevertheless talking about asteroid impacts is a bit hysterical in my mind. For the asteroids that really matter, ie the big ones you need years in advance warning, detectors around mars wont make that much extra of a difference compared to having them around earth orbit.

nacnud · Dec 8, 2004

Its not the asteroids that you need worry about, its the comets.

mental_avenger · Dec 8, 2004

Detecting threatening asteroids is not a colony function. That is best done by remote sensing satellites. I didn't mean to leave the impressiont that the operation of asteroid detection satelites would be a “colony thing”. The location was based on what I consider to be the best distance to scan from, about 1.6-1.8AU. The information the satelites acquire might best be gathered and analyzed on Earth. Eliminating the threating asteroids could be a function of a colony. That may be so. However, the best postion to attack a threatening asteroid may depend on where it is coming from, and the subsequent trajectory. Asteroid is deflected by attaching a booster to the asteroid. That may be the only practical option. Since most asteroids have some rotation, somethimes in all three axis, it will be difficult. ) Asteroid is deflected by launching boulders from a rail gun at the asteroid until the asteroid is deflected. Highly unlikely. An asteroid that close to Earth would require tens or hundreds of times more force to miss Earth than if deflected much further out. The object is to detect it early, apply a force to change the path a small amount. In addition, we should approach them much further out, so that if there is a problem, we would have time to try again. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Dec 8, 2004

Why stop at mars orbit? Why not put it further out like the asteroid belt or Jupiter? When Willie Sutton, the infamous bank robber was asked why he robbed banks, he replied, “Because that's where the money is.” I would put in in Mars orbit because that would be far enough out to detect rogue asteroids early enought to be able to do something about it, but not so far out that they would all be Sunward of the detectors. If such a system is implimented then it would make sense to place it around earth first. Good plan. It could detect asteroids just early enough to warn the people of Earth, but not early enough to do anything about it. Really good plan. Putting it around Mars is wasting resources that can be applied elsewhere. Perhaps you should read the rest of the comments. No one said anything about putting detectors around Mars, but rather out just past the orbit of Mars, spaced equally in orbit about the Sun. Nevertheless talking about asteroid impacts is a bit hysterical in my mind. Yes, we all know that is how you feel about it. For the asteroids that really matter, ie the big ones you need years in advance warning, That depends on the trajectory of the asteroid, the velocity, and what we have developed to deal with it. detectors around mars wont make that much extra of a difference compared to having them around earth orbit. Having detectors at the orbit of Earth would put you at a 65 million mile to 251 million mile disadvantage over detectors just beyond Mars orbit. That translates to a 123-475 day additional warning time for the 1.7AU detector orbit, all else being equal. In addition, the further out the o <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Dec 9, 2004

Happily, we know of many good uses for an asteroid (& Kuiper & Oort) survey, not just to appease the "Ohmigod a giant rock is going to smack us!!!" crowd, but other interests as well. Your disingenuous strawman pronouncement neither reflects the attitudes of anyone here nor addresses the acutal situation. We already know that asteroids and other bodies can and have hit the Earth. 50,000 years ago, a meteor hit the ground near what is now Winslow, Arizona. The 1 mile wide Barringer Crater is testemant to the power of the impact. More recently, less than 100 years ago, a small one exploded about 6-8 kilometers above Siberia over the Tunguska River. 2150 square kilometers were flattened, blasting down about 80 million trees. Imagine the damage that explosion would have caused had it exploded over a major city. And that was just a baby compared to what is out there. In the past 20 years, many objects, some much larger than either of those, have been detected passing close to the Earth, some as close as 1/2 the distance to the Moon. In astronomical terms, that is damn close. The point of those who advocate an asteroid watch/defense is this: As long as we have the technology, it is prudent to actually do something about it, and it is foolish to do nothing at all. The impact record is important as it allows us to characterize the past flux versus what we have now. It's sort of like ice-cores. I have yet to see any possible use such a “record” could have. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

scottb50 · Dec 9, 2004

Machholtz was discovered early this year and will be it's closest in another month. To even have a chance of seeing something that is a threat, and doing something about it is laughable. Machholtz has discovered 11 comets which leads me to think there are a lot out there left to be discovered. Even putting detection systems between Mars and Earth would not give use enough time to mount a defense and the odds of having it in the proper place at the right time would be a problem. Also I don't think it was a comet that created the crater near Winslow, it was a rather same asteroid. Not that an asteroid couldn't become a factor itself. A full blown detection system would be extremely expensive and would take years to be totally effective. Then the problem becomes what to do about a threat. I seriously doubt if someone detects an object tomorrow, that will destroy Earth in less than a year, anything could, or would be done. It's also pretty obvious that impacts are less likely than they were years ago, the Moon is a good example, obviously it has had numerous impacts, but most were a long time ago. I haven't found a record of an observed impact in modern times. But at the same time odds are odds, it could happen next week or in 10,000 years. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mental_avenger · Dec 10, 2004

To even have a chance of seeing something that is a threat, and doing something about it is laughable. Glad you think it is funny. However, the odds of us being able to do anything about it if we don't look is zero. Dedicated detectors, equally spaced in an orbit in the plane of the ecliptic, would ensure that we saw anything that is big enough to really hurt us. The only question is how many detectors and at what distance from the Sun. Even putting detection systems between Mars and Earth would not give use enough time to mount a defense That depends on what the defense is, and where that defense if launched from. If we had a system ready and waiting, how much time would we need? Enough to launch the system and catch up to the asteroid/comet. Perhaps you didn't read my earlier comments. It also depends on the orbital path of the object. Hopefully, we can detect a threat 2-3 orbits before it is due to intersect with Earth. Remember, the sooner we “nudge” it, the less force it will take. Also I don't think it was a comet that created the crater near Winslow, I didn't say it was. I don't think anybody did. A full blown detection system would be extremely expensive and would take years to be totally effective. Correct, quite a few years. That is why it should be started as soon as possible. Then the problem becomes what to do about a threat. Yes, a big problem. Half a dozen solutions have been proposed, none of them easy. The fall-back position would be to evacuate the impact area, which we could do if detector triangulation was accurate enough. I seriously doubt if someone detects an object tomorrow, that will destroy Earth in less than a year, an <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Dec 11, 2004

Depending on who you believe, between 70% and 80% of the Earth's surface is covered by water. I'll go with 75% for now. Also, there is a great deal of undeveloped wilderness area on Earth, where it is unlikely that meteorites would be readily found (due to no one being there). I will estimate that area at 50% of the land surface, although it is probably more. Since it is unlikely that any of the 4660 meteorites was recovered from an ocean or lake, that means the probable total bombardment was more like 37,280 meteorites, weighing in at 3,957,000 kg. The actual number is probably much higher. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mcbethcg · Dec 12, 2004

Diverting an object would be relatively easy. Just nuke it while it is a great distance from earth. Yes- I have heard the prognostications from people who have stated that a nuke would not destroy an asteroid or comet- they are too elastic. But even they have to admit that a nuclear explosion would give a mighty kick in a different direction.

spacester · Dec 12, 2004

The problem with a nuke is that the asteroid is poorly bound together. You would blow it into multiple fragments, each of which would still hit the Earth. I don't think I've posted the link to this white paper since the big forgetting at sdc . . . if you want to know what the experts think, here you go . . . <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mental_avenger · Dec 12, 2004

Diverting an object would be relatively easy. Just nuke it while it is a great distance from earth. That depends on how it is done. A nuclear explosion “near” an asteroid would probably have very little effect. The effects we see on Earth are in a large part due to the medium the explosion takes place in, i.e. the air, the ground, or the water. While a nuclear explosion in space would produce a lot of high velocity neurtrons, alpha particles, and beta particles, there would be little force applied to the asteroid. Of course we could send along a lot of passive mass, but 95% of that would be blown harmlessly in other directions. The only way a nuclear device would be able to provide a significant push to the asteroid is if it were landed on the surface, where it could accelerate asteroidal material away from the blast area. The best push would be obtained by drilling a hole in the asteroid, and detonating the bomb at the bottom of the hole. The problem there is, that would probably also fragment the asteroid. Then we would have hundreds of incomming chuncks instead of one. Depending on the size, the results might be more disasterous than leaving it alone. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Dec 12, 2004

Excellent paper. They touch lightly on the deflection element of mitigation. Do you have any sources that go into more detail on deflection/destruction of threatening bodies, both asteroid and comet? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

New Poll: Moon Yes, Mars No

serak_the_preparer

Guest

dan_casale

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

dan_casale

Guest

orzek

Guest

mah_fl

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

eldensmith

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

halman

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

dan_casale

Guest

orzek

Guest

nacnud

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

scottb50

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mcbethcg

Guest

spacester

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page