post Constellation plans

[HopDavid]

Mars Direct is a highly sustainable architecture. You are again assuming that we are only doing science on Mars. My purpose for going to Mars is not science, but colonization.

Your colonists won't be landing on a continent with fertile soil, breathable air, edible flora and fauna or liquid water.

As I have mentioned every cubic centimeter of living and agricultural space will have to be enclosed in an artificial environment.

Where does this artificial environment come from? It would have to come from earth.

There is no mining, manufacturing or transportation infra structure on Mars. Establishing such an infra structure that would enable colonists to enlarge their colonies from in situ resources would be a gargantuan task.

No, a few decades would come nowhere near establishing a self sufficent colony. Nor would ten decades.

 

[halman]

Mars Direct is a highly sustainable architecture. You are again assuming that we are only doing science on Mars. My purpose for going to Mars is not science, but colonization.

Your colonists won't be landing on a continent with fertile soil, breathable air, edible flora and fauna or liquid water.

As I have mentioned every cubic centimeter of living and agricultural space will have to be enclosed in an artificial environment.

Where does this artificial environment come from? It would have to come from earth.

There is no mining, manufacturing or transportation infra structure on Mars. Establishing such an infra structure that would enable colonists to enlarge their colonies from in situ resources would be a gargantuan task.

No, a few decades would come nowhere near establishing a self sufficent colony. Nor would ten decades.

But if we wait a few decades, until industrialization of space is well advanced, then the production of needed materials could be done without incurring a sizable cost to Earth, and the materials shipped to Mars with about the same energy as is required to send them to the Moon. What is at the fringes of possibility now will be commonplace then, in terms of life support technology, advanced propulsion systems, and habitat that can be buried easily.

Mars is not going anywhere anytime soon, so insisting that all of our resources be spent merely in getting there right now does not seem very rational to me. We have much to do to become proficient at space travel, primarily in the process of getting off of Earth. Once we have mastered that problem, and can orbit mass for a fraction of the cost that it takes today, and put people in orbit on a regular, routine basis, every part of the Solar System becomes much closer.

Our choice seems to be between developing a space based industrial system, with the attendant advances in space technology, or committing all of our resources on a gamble that we can prove Mars is somehow worthwhile to invest any future growth in our off-planet capabilities in until it is self-sufficient. At least, that is the way it seems to me to be when I listen to the 'Mars First' people talking.

Mr. Zubrin has a large enough following to be able to influence national policy regarding space, although I believe that the Constellation goal of going to Mars was a smoke screen to hide a wasteful, useless, scam of a program, which resulted in the space shuttle being retired in lieu of a rocket which could barely get three people into orbit. The discord among space enthusiasts confuses those who are not particularly interested in space, giving the impression that we don't know what we are talking about.

Some of us want to go to the Moon, some say that the Lagrange points are the best destination, others insist that Near-Earth Objects offer the greatest promise, and a sizable fraction want space stations before anything else, and then there is the well-organized 'Mars First' lobby. Apparently, the field of space exploration is still too immature to know what it wants. Especially in the context of demanding passage to Mars when we can't even get off of the planet. We need to stop and think about how all of this appears to people who aren't even sure we ever landed on the Moon.

 

[neutrino78x]

Your colonists won't be landing on a continent with fertile soil, breathable air, edible flora and fauna or liquid water.

There is plenty of water on Mars, it is just not in liquid form (that we know of). The air can be generated through chemical reactions (sabitier reaction + electrolysis) with the existing atmosphere. Crops would be grown hydroponically, at first.

As I have mentioned every cubic centimeter of living and agricultural space will have to be enclosed in an artificial environment.

Where does this artificial environment come from? It would have to come from earth.

Well, initially, yes. However, once people are there, Martian soil can be made into bricks, to make buildings. You can also dig/blast underground housing and fill it with breathable air. It will naturally seal because the Martian regolith is moist. Zubrin discusses the engineering involved in his book. He has a master's in Astronautics and Aeronautics, and a doctorate in nuclear engineering.

There is no mining, manufacturing or transportation infra structure on Mars. Establishing such an infra structure that would enable colonists to enlarge their colonies from in situ resources would be a gargantuan task.

No more gargantuan than was doing the same thing in North America. They didn't manufacture windmills in England and ship them to North America (although there were initially things that were imported from England). Mars certainly has more abundant resources in this regard than does the Moon.

No, a few decades would come nowhere near establishing a self sufficient colony. Nor would ten decades.

A few decades would be more than sufficient to get to the point that they don't need a government subsidy. In any case, it would still be American Soil, government subsidy or not. US Citizens would own land there, and US citizens both there and on Earth would benefit from commerce between Earth and the United States Martian Territory. Children born there would be US Citizens via the 14th Amendment (everyone born on US soil is a us citizen).

We should be clear, if you want the Science Fiction future, where people are living in space routinely, you have to take the risk and send the people out there and start doing it, and most of them are going to be civilians, living as civilians in space colonies, having children and raising families.

The United States of America would not exist if men like you held the ear of the British Monarchy and told Them that they should not create The London Company, and invest in this great new frontier.

--Brian

 

[neutrino78x]

Our choice seems to be between developing a space based industrial system, with the attendant advances in space technology, or committing all of our resources on a gamble that we can prove Mars is somehow worthwhile to invest any future growth in our off-planet capabilities in until it is self-sufficient. At least, that is the way it seems to me to be when I listen to the 'Mars First' people talking.

I would argue that Mars Direct, using small habs with only the fuel to go one way, and generating return fuel on the planet, living off the land, is compatible with Flexible Path. I would want to use the same modules, with different configurations in each situation, to go to the Moon and to Mars. There should be common habitat modules. If you want to build a bigger craft, you link the habitat modules together in orbit. If you want to build a bigger base, you link habitat modules together on the planet/moon.

Mr. Zubrin has a large enough following to be able to influence national policy regarding space, although I believe that the Constellation goal of going to Mars was a smoke screen to hide a wasteful, useless, scam of a program, which resulted in the space shuttle being retired in lieu of a rocket which could barely get three people into orbit.

Indeed; Constellation has little to do with Mars Direct.

--Brian

 

[rockett]

Brian:
If the Mars colonies became self-sufficient and economically viable, within a few decades they would probably no longer be US citizins, but Martians. I use your own North America model as support for this contention.

In addition generations of colonists would also experience biological changes due to low gravity and possibly would no longer be able to return to Earth even. There is no telling how they would shake out in their psychology, but given the environment they survive in, I don't doubt it would be different. This would tend to separate them even more from Earth, in both thinking and attitude. Probably in a few decades, a century or so at most, you would have a whole new sub-species.

That is why I contend we have to look at it from a human species viewpoint, not a natural extension of what we have seen in the past. They would be Americans no more than we in the US are British. Because of the previously mentioned biological and psychology changes, they would be more distant from us than any country here on Earth.

 

[halman]

Comparing the development of North America with colonizing Mars seems a little far-fetched to me, especially considering that for that analogy to be accurate, you would have to design the ships to be used, because none existed at the time, and that you had to figure out a way to have new ships waiting for you when you arrive.

As long as it does not jeopardize the development of commercial exploitation of space, I say, "Go for it, dude!" But don't ask me for money, because I think that there are far less expensive ways of committing suicide. And why do you need fuel for the return? I thought that the plan is to stay on Mars? Or do you have to come back to convince people to spend more money on your dream?

I envision a Solar System where human life is found everywhere from Mercury to Titan, and in many places where there is no planet or moon. But I see that happening as a process, one which takes manageable steps, which do not require heroic self-sacrifice. And I see profit being the driving force behind the expansion of the human race, just as it was here on Earth. Nothing I have heard has indicated to me that Mars would be in a position to export resources for many, many years after the first landings. Especially when I consider that virtually every resource found on Mars will be found somewhere else, with less gravity, no atmosphere to get in the way, and no need to declare the source U.S. soil.

(I apologize for being sarcastic, but I firmly believe that the factional nature of the Mars Direct group is harming the chances of any of us getting off of this planet.)

 

[EarthlingX]

(I apologize for being sarcastic, but I firmly believe that the factional nature of the Mars Direct group is harming the chances of any of us getting off of this planet.)

Agree. Plus they want to start at the end, not at the beginning.

 

[neutrino78x]

Brian:
If the Mars colonies became self-sufficient and economically viable, within a few decades they would probably no longer be US citizins, but Martians. I use your own North America model as support for this contention.

Indeed, that is my intention. Still, it would initially be US soil, just as the Jamestown colony was initially British Soil.

--Brian

 

[vulture4]

The long pole in space is still getting to LEO at a practical cost.. "The best way to get anywhere ... is really invest in technologies that will reduce the cost, reduce the time, reduce the risk and so forth," Garver said.

I continue to feel that reactivating the the Reusable Launch Vehicle program is the logical first step in making human spaceflight feasible. No technologies beyond LEO can be economically feasible for human spaceflight until this is done. The cancellation of the entire RLV program under the Bush administration, in favor of the spectacular but unsustainable Constellation program, was a serious strategic error and will dog NASA for decades. Although DOD has taken the X-37 to (soon) orbital test, it has classified the technology and effectively made it unavailable for human civil spaceflight.

 

[neutrino78x]

As long as it does not jeopardize the development of commercial exploitation of space,

This is commercial exploitation of space. The whole intent is to create another home for mankind, which trades with the Earth.

I say, "Go for it, dude!" But don't ask me for money, because I think that there are far less expensive ways of committing suicide. And why do you need fuel for the return? I thought that the plan is to stay on Mars? Or do you have to come back to convince people to spend more money on your dream?

You don't send the one-way colonists until the base is established. Those people will be coming and going. The colonists will find NASA already there, with the large US flag flying.

I envision a Solar System where human life is found everywhere from Mercury to Titan, and in many places where there is no planet or moon. But I see that happening as a process, one which takes manageable steps, which do not require heroic self-sacrifice.

We do not propose self-sacrifice for colonists on Mars. At least, no more so than was involved in colonizing North America.

And I see profit being the driving force behind the expansion of the human race, just as it was here on Earth.

Indeed, and profit would be the driving force behind a Mars colony.

Nothing I have heard has indicated to me that Mars would be in a position to export resources for many, many years after the first landings.

The first landings would be NASA and the military, in a Lewis and Clarke type role. Once the base is established, then the colonists are sent, and probably 20 years after that, or sooner, I would expect Martian exports.

Especially when I consider that virtually every resource found on Mars will be found somewhere else, with less gravity, no atmosphere to get in the way, and no need to declare the source U.S. soil.

Anywhere you are going to create a colony would have to be declared US soil. Otherwise, private citizens would not be able to own property there. The Outer Space Treaty obviously has to be changed for this to happen. For people to be able to legally profit off mining asteroids, they have to be able to own the asteroid.

Note that, people living on the Moon would not be a colony, in my opinion. It would be a base, like Antarctica, but people would not own land there. The Moon belongs to all mankind.

However, people should be able to own pieces of Mars.

(I apologize for being sarcastic, but I firmly believe that the factional nature of the Mars Direct group is harming the chances of any of us getting off of this planet.)

If you think man should eventually colonize Mars, you are part of the Mars group.

--Brian

 

[neutrino78x]

The long pole in space is still getting to LEO at a practical cost..

I agree.

I continue to feel that reactivating the the Reusable Launch Vehicle program is the logical first step in making human spaceflight feasible. No technologies beyond LEO can be economically feasible for human spaceflight until this is done.

I'm not sure about this part. I like the idea of a rocketplane, but you wouldn't use a rocketplane for Heavy Lift.

Although DOD has taken the X-37 to (soon) orbital test, it has classified the technology and effectively made it unavailable for human civil spaceflight.

True, but isn't the SpaceDev DreamChaser basically the same thing?

--Brian

 

[halman]

neutrino78x,

By 'commercial exploitation of space', I am not talking about colonies. I am talking about space stations where the crew spends 4 to 6 months in space, and then rotates back to Earth. I am talking about mines on the Moon where the crew also rotates back to Earth. I am talking about asteroid mining where the asteroid is carved up into chunks, which are injected into transfer orbits, and the crew rotates back to Earth after whatever the tour length is. The objective is to find and process raw materials in a zero gravity environment using solar energy to create products which cannot be made on Earth.

The factories will be in solar orbit, to assure continuous sunlight, and to avoid cluttering up the orbits around Earth. From the Moon we will extract aluminum, iron, and silica. From the asteroids and comets we will extract carbon, light metals, and whatever else we will need. Eventually, a colony will be founded on the Moon, as miners buy shares in the mining companies, and settle down by their investments. The role that NASA will play is to develop the hardware needed to launch people into orbit cheaply, to launch large payloads into orbit, and to develop the lunar shuttle, lunar exploration equipment, and to work on closed-loop long-duration life support systems, radiation shielding, and advanced propulsion systems.

Those advances will eventually enable a private enterprise to stage a colonization effort on Mars, but I suspect that other things may happen first. Such as landing on Mercury, and learning how to dig in there quickly enough not to get fried when the Sun comes up. Mercury promises to be the source of most heavy metals for most of the future, I think, because of its high density. And Mercury is close in to the power source of the Solar System, so that raw ore can be smelted down and refined before exporting to the Earth-Moon system for use.

These are the activities which will create new wealth, these are the activities which will drive the development of new technologies, these are the activities which will make founding a colony on Mars something which can be done without large amounts of government support. These activities are the kinds of investment which government is supposed to do, those things which open the way for the private sector to make money.

Certainly people will eventually live on Mars, and certainly Mars will someday export things that other places need. But it is more likely that Mars will export technology and intellectual property than it is that Mars will export raw materials, simply because those materials will be available elsewhere at a lower cost.

I am in no way shape or form opposed to colonizing Mars. I am adamantly opposed to trying to colonize Mars when we can barely get off of our own planet, when the entire future of space exploration hangs on a thread. What happens in the next 20 years will have a major impact on the future of space exploration, and of the human race itself. If our entire space program focuses solely on sending humans to Mars, I fear that we will end up abandoning space exploration, because it will not offer any immediate, or even short-term, returns.

 

[HopDavid]

No more gargantuan than was doing the same thing in North America.

Utterly false. There is no comparison between challenges faced by Mars colonists vs American colonists.

Mars certainly has more abundant resources in this regard than does the Moon.

Well that is true. But that doesn't demonstrate the ability to build colonies there.

It's a little like saying dogs, being mammals, are closer to human than lizards. Therefore we can change dogs into humans.

Saying it's more difficult to build a self sustaining colony on the moon does nothing for your case.

The United States of America would not exist if men like you held the ear of the British Monarchy and told Them that they should not create The London Company, and invest in this great new frontier.

Yes, of course this is a valid analogy. Your furious handwaving has demonstrated that settling Mars is just like settling the Americas.

Furthermore you seem to believe that I oppose investing in space settlement efforts. This is just as false as your erroneous belief building Martian homes will be comparable to cutting down trees and making log cabins.

 

[HopDavid]

Mars is not going anywhere anytime soon, so insisting that all of our resources be spent merely in getting there right now does not seem very rational to me. We have much to do to become proficient at space travel, primarily in the process of getting off of Earth. Once we have mastered that problem, and can orbit mass for a fraction of the cost that it takes today, and put people in orbit on a regular, routine basis, every part of the Solar System becomes much closer.

Our choice seems to be between developing a space based industrial system, with the attendant advances in space technology, or committing all of our resources on a gamble that we can prove Mars is somehow worthwhile to invest any future growth in our off-planet capabilities in until it is self-sufficient. At least, that is the way it seems to me to be when I listen to the 'Mars First' people talking.

Mr. Zubrin has a large enough following to be able to influence national policy regarding space, although I believe that the Constellation goal of going to Mars was a smoke screen to hide a wasteful, useless, scam of a program, which resulted in the space shuttle being retired in lieu of a rocket which could barely get three people into orbit. The discord among space enthusiasts confuses those who are not particularly interested in space, giving the impression that we don't know what we are talking about.

Some of us want to go to the Moon, some say that the Lagrange points are the best destination, others insist that Near-Earth Objects offer the greatest promise, and a sizable fraction want space stations before anything else, and then there is the well-organized 'Mars First' lobby. Apparently, the field of space exploration is still too immature to know what it wants. Especially in the context of demanding passage to Mars when we can't even get off of the planet. We need to stop and think about how all of this appears to people who aren't even sure we ever landed on the Moon.

I believe the route to space settlement you describe is doable, while Zubrin's path is not.

Zubrin and his followers should go down in history as the faction that prevented humanity from getting past LEO.

 

[EarthlingX]

I believe the route to space settlement you describe is doable, while Zubrin's path is not.

Zubrin and his followers should go down in history as the faction that prevented humanity from getting past LEO.
http://clowder.net/hop/TMI/zubrin.jpg

Very useful and true image, thank you.

That detour could be shown much longer, but since it is very steep, ok. Image might also be better, if that detour path would be shown as steps in the air, with no physical support at all, but then it would probably look too much as the dead thing and hard to present properly in the image.
No, i have to correct myself, that was much worse..

 

[Tritium]

Mars is not going anywhere anytime soon, so insisting that all of our resources be spent merely in getting there right now does not seem very rational to me. We have much to do to become proficient at space travel, primarily in the process of getting off of Earth. Once we have mastered that problem, and can orbit mass for a fraction of the cost that it takes today, and put people in orbit on a regular, routine basis, every part of the Solar System becomes much closer.

Our choice seems to be between developing a space based industrial system, with the attendant advances in space technology, or committing all of our resources on a gamble that we can prove Mars is somehow worthwhile to invest any future growth in our off-planet capabilities in until it is self-sufficient. At least, that is the way it seems to me to be when I listen to the 'Mars First' people talking.

Mr. Zubrin has a large enough following to be able to influence national policy regarding space, although I believe that the Constellation goal of going to Mars was a smoke screen to hide a wasteful, useless, scam of a program, which resulted in the space shuttle being retired in lieu of a rocket which could barely get three people into orbit. The discord among space enthusiasts confuses those who are not particularly interested in space, giving the impression that we don't know what we are talking about.

Some of us want to go to the Moon, some say that the Lagrange points are the best destination, others insist that Near-Earth Objects offer the greatest promise, and a sizable fraction want space stations before anything else, and then there is the well-organized 'Mars First' lobby. Apparently, the field of space exploration is still too immature to know what it wants. Especially in the context of demanding passage to Mars when we can't even get off of the planet. We need to stop and think about how all of this appears to people who aren't even sure we ever landed on the Moon.

I believe the route to space settlement you describe is doable, while Zubrin's path is not.

Zubrin and his followers should go down in history as the faction that prevented humanity from getting past LEO.

Halman's approach depicts a very realistic scenario on how the entire near future inhabitation of space will occur,with rotating crews at first,just as is being done with the ISS,and then slowly,gradually leading toward permanent colonization.It all must unfold in stages,like stepping stones.And it all must happen with international cooperation,just as the ISS has been doing.So that,in the long run,history will see the establishment of the entire complex system from LEO to the Moon base,to the construction of the Mars Mission,and subsequent base ,which later became a Martian Colony, as only having been possible by a united effort of many nations.

 

[halman]

Sometimes, I have to wonder if Mr. Zubrin has a secret agenda; to prevent space exploration by human beings.

Mars represents the most storied of all the celestial bodies, and is tantalizingly close, compared to the stars. Many disaffected young men want to run away from home, and what better place to go to than to a new planet, full of adventure, with no authority to impose restrictions. By capitalizing on the energy of these young malcontents, it is possible to derail plans to make realistic progress in space exploration, thus preventing humans from leaving Earth.

Mars makes fine press, because there might be LIFE there, so it is easy to get attention, and to steer it away from the mundane, trite advancements that have been made in looking for water on the Moon, or the completely dis-interesting potential of space manufacturing. By yelling loud enough, Mr. Zubrin is able to convince some politicians that he is THE authority on space exploration, which results in strong support for his ideas in high circles. Witness the supposed goals of the Constellation program; To revisit the Moon on our way to Mars. No goals for the lunar expedition(s) are put forward, implying that it would only be a brief stop.

And talking about creating a second Earth certainly is more romantic than discussing creating room temperature super conductors.

If we all believe, nothing will happen!

 

[rockett]

halman:

I agree that your scenario is much more realistic than neutrino78x's vision.

I also agree that the real question for Mars colonization and trade, is what raw materials could they possibly export, that we cannot obtain easier and cheaper elsewhere. Your conclusion is the best idea I have heard yet.

 

[Tritium]

halman:

I agree that your scenario is much more realistic than neutrino78x's vision.

I also agree that the real question for Mars colonization and trade, is what raw materials could they possibly export, that we cannot obtain easier and cheaper elsewhere. Your conclusion is the best idea I have heard yet.

The best reason to establish a Martian Colony which attains self sufficiency is to have a secondary location for the species.To have an insurance for the continuation of our species,should a catastrophic event occur on Earth.To have both,a Lunar Colony,and a Martian Colony established is reason enough,because humanity could continue,instead of becoming extinct.Yes,I am also sure that new products and discoveries will make both colonies economically viable as well.But the real reason,the most important reason is for the preservation of our species.

 

[EarthlingX]

You have to crawl, before you walk, and walk before you fly, or how ever it goes. Zubrin should start working with Hollywood, they will make it happen, for comparable money.
It will still not be true.

 

[rockett]

The best reason to establish a Martian Colony which attains self sufficiency is to have a secondary location for the species.To have an insurance for the continuation of our species,should a catastrophic event occur on Earth.To have both,a Lunar Colony,and a Martian Colony established is reason enough,because humanity could continue,instead of becoming extinct.Yes,I am also sure that new products and discoveries will make both colonies economically viable as well.But the real reason,the most important reason is for the preservation of our species.

I agree, see my post on page 4, it's the last one on that page I believe.

 

[rockett]

You have to crawl, before you walk, and walk before you fly, or how ever it goes. Zubrin should start working with Hollywood, they will make it happen, for comparable money.
It will still not be true.

That is true. Zubrin's program would just result in another Apollo, with the resulting "been there, done that" atiitude setting in shortly afterward.

What we really need is a sustainable presence, in space, on the moon, Mars, or wherever. That means building the infrastructure to support it on an incremental basis.

 

[HopDavid]

[The best reason to establish a Martian Colony which attains self sufficiency is to have a secondary location for the species.To have an insurance for the continuation of our species,should a catastrophic event occur on Earth.To have both,a Lunar Colony,and a Martian Colony established is reason enough,because humanity could continue,instead of becoming extinct.Yes,I am also sure that new products and discoveries will make both colonies economically viable as well.But the real reason,the most important reason is for the preservation of our species.

I have been told that if I don't support Zubrin's architecture, that I'm against human settlement of space. That I'm short sighted and lack vision.

Well, I do support human settlement of space. That I support a doable route vs a wishful thinking route makes me a more authentic advocate, in my opinion.

So don't paint me as being against human settlement of space. This is a blazingly stupid and/or wilfully dishonest straw man.

 

[vulture4]

I'm all for colonizing space, but a small Mars colony simply isn't going to survive the loss of the entire Earth, so we need to protect Earth from destruction. A Mars colony would need resources on the scale of a small country on earth before it could even produce its own needs. To colonize space we need practical, inexpensive, and large-scale space commerce. That means we first need fully reusable launch vehicles that are reliable and maintainable, with low operating costs.

 

[Tritium]

I'm all for colonizing space, but a small Mars colony simply isn't going to survive the loss of the entire Earth, so we need to protect Earth from destruction. A Mars colony would need resources on the scale of a small country on earth before it could even produce its own needs. To colonize space we need practical, inexpensive, and large-scale space commerce. That means we first need fully reusable launch vehicles that are reliable and maintainable, with low operating costs.

Yes,I totally agree.We need a systematic approach which will take time to achieve the final goal of a self sustaining Martian and Lunar Colony.The time factor is what worries me the most.I also would like to see us developing an Earth defense system to protect us from incoming killer asteroids,or comets.If the impacts we witnessed on Jupiter were to have occurred on Earth,I would not be typing this,and you would not be here either.My main argument is that we need to continue to push as hard as we can for a space program which is comprehensive enough to develop a moon base,a Martian base,and an Earth defense system.I see these programs unfolding simultaneously.The nations which are currently engaged in mutual participation in the ISS,must be convinced of the urgency of the establishment of the Lunar and Martian Colonies,as well as the Earth Defense System.To raise the public awareness of the danger,and the solution,seems to be the most important immediate goal before us today.Easier said than done,since most of the population does not see any practical value in space programs.To convince them that preservation of our species is the most important goal will require a great deal of effort,given that most people doubt the facts presented to them about global warming.It seems that the general public does not trust scientific data,or scientists.How do we change these minds?