Mars vs Moon :-)

I think I have finally figured out what it is I do not like about going
to mars - the flight rate. Its a CATS type problem.

In the time it takes for one mission to mars, you could probably go
through a couple of generations of earth/moon infrastructural
development. With the order of magnitude cost reductions this probably
infers. I expect this developmental advantage would dominate.

The moon is suited to fast prototyping and on going incremental
development. Mars seems to be the province of those who believe they
can, and should, design the 747 before the DC-3.

I wonder what the correlation is between those who favour many billion
dollar government funded launch vehicle developments, and those who
favour mars missions.


Pete.

We need to commit our species to becoming space-faring.

We need to understand the core economics, economic metric, driving
space development.

We need to understand how the development of that metric creates
opportunities for wealth creation.

We need to organize markets to take advantage of that wealth in a way
that fosters the natural business development of space based assets and
resources.

COMMITMENT TO BECOME SPACE FARING SPECIES
All species exist in a range, and are shaped and constrained by that
range. Humanity is unique in the animal kingdom in that it uses
technology to extend its range. Humans are evolved from lowland apes.
Without the technology of fire, clothing, and shelter, humans could not
exist beyond the tropics. With these technologies we have expanded to
the ends of the Earth. Humans are competitive as are all other
animals. Humans are also cooperative - unlike other animals. This
cooperative instinct evolved in the last 2 million years as humanity
moved beyond Olduvai Gorge and worked cooperatively in
family/clan/tribal groups to jointly exploit the resources created at
the frontier of human settlement. This has shaped our emotional,
intellectual, and spiritual landscape. Joe Campbell speaks of the
monomyth, which is a mythic form of exploration and settlement of the
frontier. It reflects a deep seated understanding of what it takes to
survive as human beings - and this requires a frontier made available
through technical means which offer riches far beyond those in the
center. In myth the riches are spiritual and occur in a transcendent
realm. In mundane reality the riches are real and occur in the
frontier created by new technical means. Since reaching what some
historians have called the 'omega point' in human affairs (the total
filling of the earth and all its ranges by humans) our frontiers have
ceased to play a role in practical affairs. As a result, we have
become more competitive and less human. This trend will ultimately
lead to a collapse in human numbers as we expend resources on Earth,
and the rise of a post-technical, neo-human species - whose relation to
the frontier and technology are distinctly different than humanity's
current relationship. It is only by re-establishing our relationship
to the frontier that we can preserve the continued development of
technology in the classice tradition, and our human capacity for deep
and meaningful cooperation on a planetary and if lucky, an
interplanetary scale.

THE CORE ECONOMIC METRIC OF SPACE TRAVEL
Can we derive benefit from space development? The conventional wisdom
is that we cannot. The conventional wisdom has held since Eisenhower,
that space is fascinating for all the reasons outlined above, but that
fascination results in pointless spending and wasting of vast efforts
to develop an unrewarding desert that will never yeild anything near
what it costs to develop. The only President to spend more than 1% per
year of US GDP on space travel, was assasinated. Since achieving that
President's goal of landing a man on the moon, US has held spending at
or below 1% of GDP. The efforts since that time are largely for show
with no real fundamental science being done. The discussions avoid any
real discussions of the core economic metric. In fact, there has
developed a policy in the US to contain and constrain the commercial
development of rockets since such development threaten to proliferate
missile technology which is considered a threat nearly equal to that of
the proliferation of nuclear weapons. All talk of going to Mars and so
forth is within this model of space development. It is therefore
counterproductive to real development.

The core metric of space development is the cost of momentum. Momentum
is velocity times mass. The cost of attaining momentum falls with the
investment in rocket technologies. The physics of rockets indicates
the range of values possible over time. This analysis was first done
by RAND in the 1950s following Sputnik, and previous to that after
debriefing the German rocket scientists from Project Paperclip

http://www.archives.gov/iwg/research...2027%2C%201999

Generally speaking cost of momentum is inversely proportional to the
square root of the exponential of specific impulse. Specific impulse
ranges for the following rocket assemblies;

CHEMICAL
Solid Propellant 250 sec *BOOSTER ROCKET
Liquid Propellant 450 sec *SPACE SHUTTLE

NUCLEAR
Nuclear Thermal 850 sec *NERVA
Nuclear Pulse 2,000 sec *ORION
Micro-nuclear Pulse 100,000 sec

SOLAR
Laser Thermal 1,000 sec
Laser Pulse 5,000 sec
Laser Light Sail INFINITY

ORGANIZING THE MARKETS FOR SPACE DEVELOPMENT
Since the velocity to move a payload from the Earth's surface to any
point in space is well defined, we can even predict the development
path of space faring technology as the cost of momentum falls.

The size of payloads increases for a buck as the cost of momentum
falls. The speed of payloads increases for a buck as the cost of
momentum falls. So, we can produce the following general development
arc;

Small suborbital payloads - HIGH COST, CHEMICAL ROCKETS
Moderate orbiting payloads
Large translunar payloads
Very large interplanetary payloads
Very very large interstellar payloads - LOW COST, LASER LIGHT SAILS

We can also develop the following practical uses for each of these
payloads;

ICBMs
Comsats, spysats, navsats
Apollo

The first has made of the US (and formerly of the Soviet Union) a
superpower. The US seeks to maintain its superpower status. The
second has been of some commercial success. The third, is considered
politically useful, but economically a waste.

Since anything that occurs beyond the surface of the Earth transcends
the Earth, it is viewed by all people of Earth in pretty much the same
way. So, we have viewed the development of ICBMs as the rise of a
global warfare capacity capable of striking anyone anywhere. We ahve
viewed the development of communications from space as a global
communication utility - the internet is in part supported by space
communications. We have viewed the development of navigation
satellites the same way - GPS. Similar systems of intelligence,
analysis, and so forth have arisen, but these have remained classified.
Together they are all 'infosats' and the create a 'noosphere' of
knowledge and information about Earth. Intelligence operations have
recently begun using the 'global information environment' to exercise
control during periods of infowar. The extent and nature of this usage
is again classified.

We can identify economically useful global utilities, the technology
needed for the development of each, and even the range of economic
values needed to achieve the creation of those global utilities. It
should be the role of government policy makers not to obstruct the
natural development of these utiltiies, but rather, to understand and
use these utilities to fulfill the proper role of governments to
maintain peace, prosperity, and unity as humanity develops.

THE WARFARE UTILITY - ICBMs - Global Peace - 1950s
THE INFORMATION UTILITY - infosats - Global knowledge - 1960s
THE ENERGY UTILITY - powersats - Global energy - 1970s*
*NOTE powersats were proposed but not developed in the 1970s.

The first was developed in competition with the former Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union by ignoring fundamental economic limits suffered
severe economic collapse basically releasing tens of thousands of
nuclear missiles from any real control. The central threat to humanity
at the present moment is control of these loose nukes. The current war
on terror can be considered setting the stage for doing whatever it
takes for the US to monitor and control these weapons no matter where
they're found. The end result will be a sustained period of peace.
Prior to the development of the Warfare Utility the world saw two
global wars. After the development of this utility, no global wars
have been fought. The post-war period following world war two is
largely one of great wealth for the US, Europe and Japan. This is due
in large part to the extended period of peace. Maintaining global
peace will continue to pay huge dividends to humanity.

The second developed commercially based on ICBM technology converted
to space travel. The global information utility is still growing along
with computer technology. We moved from point to point communications,
then on to one to many communications, and ultimately, we will have
many to many communications - all the while as broadband increases. We
will also improve sensing technology, along with our ability to record
information - to the Rayleigh limit, creating very detailed analysis of
what's occuring on Earth. Ultimately, we will be able to use
telerobotics and telepresence to work anywhere on Earth from anywhere
else on Earth using a network of laser beam connected satellites
beaming wideband cells across the Earth's surface. We will also be
able to use space sensing and space signalling to navigate with
precision and carry out tasks like crowd control, and even solving
crimes from space. (Laci Petersen's murder could have been caught on
tape with the systems that are ultimately possible)

Communications and intelligence have huge economic benefits which
easily pays for their development and creates a cohesive environment
for the natural development of a global market and global business.

Large reusable boosters lower the cost of momentum to the point where
powersats are possible. These collect sunlight in space and beam that
energy in the form of a MASER or LASER beam depending on cloud
conditions to users on Earth. In this way, unlimited amounts of power
can be delivered anywhere its needed at arbitrarily low costs. The
economic benefits of this process easily pay for its development. The
creation of a global powernet displaces our use of oil and other
chemical fuels, ending this source of pollution.

The commercial development of a large reusable Nova class booster
capable of cost-effectively putting up the elements of a powersat
network, would make manned exploration of the solar system for 1% of
GDP possible.

Once significant power is generated in space, especially solar powered
lasers, we can consider further economic development of more advanced
space faring technology.

THE TRANSPORTATION UTILITY - suborbital ballistic travel - (LSD
rockets)
THE MANUFACTURING UTILITY - captured asteroids (Orion rockets)
THE RESIDENTIAL UTILITY - orbiting homes - (O'Neil space colonies)

Laser sustained detonation rockets powered by solar pumped lasers in
orbit, permit the widespread use of ballistic missiles as everyday
transpotation devices. Their operation will be totally automatic and
safe. This means packages as well as people, can be delivered anywhere
in minutes for pennies per pound. The benefits of a quiet, safe,
secure, and low-cost global transportation system - that uses no roads
or surface infrastructure to operate are sufficient to pay for the
development of this space faring capacity.

It takes just a small amount of additional energy to put an object in
orbit. So, if the world's population could travel from one side of the
Earth to another, they could also attain orbit. But, without any
resources in orbit, there is no point.

However, nuclear pulse rockets are capable of deflecting the course of
asteroids. This can be used to safeguard the Earth from an errant
asteroid. Nuclear pulse technology can also be used to bring rich
asteroids into Earth orbit. When combined with space power and space
communication to drive telerobots from Earth - this permits the
creation of a manufacturing utility which is capable of supplying all
people of Earth, and employing all people of Earth, from space.
The value of this manufacturing operation easily pays for its
development.

Once the resources are available in abundance in orbit, and devfeloped
economically, space residences will naturally be devloped and people in
larger numbers will find themselves living on orbit.

DIASPORA
Once the bulk of humanity lives beyond the surface of Earth, the idea
of global utilities lacks any real value in organizing thoughts about
future development. Once people live in large space stations, its only
a matter of time before falling costs yeild technologies to move those
stations easily across the solar system. This will be the golden age
of interplanetary development, when people will take laser sustained
detonation rockets from planetary surfaces to their mobile homes in
space. There, they will take their personal space colonies, tended by
hordes of fully autonomous robots, planet to planet. This will set the
stage for the development of laser light sail based interstellar
travel.

This re-creates the conditions of humanity at Olduvai gorge. Small
families/clans/tribes move outward from the center toward the frontier
to make use of the tremendous resources at the frontier, leaving the
center behind In this way, humanity will spread from the Solar System
to the ends of the galaxy, in about 1 million years - the same amount
of time it took primitive humans to move from Olduvai Gorge to the ends
of the Earth.

Along the way other developments may occur to allow travel beyond the
galaxy;


SCIENCE FICTION
Beyond 'slowboat' interstellar travel (along the lines envisioned by
Bernal and others) is the potential to create really revolutionary
transportation technologies. These are conjectural right now, but they
are exciting possibilities. Objects colliding to create an implosion,
if moving greater than 1/3 light speed, have the potential to create
tiny subatomic black holes. Black holes of this type have the
potential to create the basis for a whole new class of engineered
product - one capable of affecting space and time directly.

By coordinating the resources of several star systems, via radio
telescope, several human settlements may engage in a long term program
of research - wherein material is imploded from several different
directions at 1/3 light speed and more, to create a series of
engineered black holes. Studying the results of early tests, advances
might be made. Ultimately, it might be possible to create the means of
tapping into the zeropoint energy using arrays of minature black holes
(black hole dusts) and create self replicating black hole based
machines (including computing machines of immense capacity) If zero
point energy can be tapped in this way, any possible device will become
commonly available. This might include time machines, and superluminal
travel (which is really the same thing), This would give humanity
access to all of time and space - and all dimensions of time and space
(assuming Hugh Everett is right in his interpretation of quantum
physics)

Its interesting to note that the high density of humans found on Earth
today is solely the result of our lack of progress in moving beyond
Earth. As standards of living rise beyond subsistence, population
growth rates decline. As humanity spreads across the cosmos,
population density falls. First, as humans move off world. Next, as
they travel across the solar system. Then, as they travel at sublight
speeds across the galaxy. If we should find ways to move instantly
anywhere and anywhen, and anyhistory - across creation - the number of
humans in any one spot would approximate zero. Whch would answer
Fermi's paradox quite satisfyingly.

"Pete Lynn" wrote in message
...
I think I have finally figured out what it is I do not like about going
to mars - the flight rate. Its a CATS type problem.

In the time it takes for one mission to mars, you could probably go
through a couple of generations of earth/moon infrastructural
development. With the order of magnitude cost reductions this probably
infers. I expect this developmental advantage would dominate.

The moon is suited to fast prototyping and on going incremental
development. Mars seems to be the province of those who believe they
can, and should, design the 747 before the DC-3.

I wonder what the correlation is between those who favour many billion
dollar government funded launch vehicle developments, and those who
favour mars missions.


The shorter flight times are a big advantage for the Moon.
For me though the biggest advantage for the Mon comes in comparing the
number
of probes to the Moon over the last 20 years with the number of probes to
Mars.

Pete Lynn wrote:
I think I have finally figured out what it is I do not like about
going
to mars - the flight rate. Its a CATS type problem.

In the time it takes for one mission to mars, you could probably go
through a couple of generations of earth/moon infrastructural
development. With the order of magnitude cost reductions this
probably
infers. I expect this developmental advantage would dominate.

You know, Pete, I think you just hit the nail on the head. People
almost always refer to the distance difference 'if something goes
wrong, earth is only 3 days away.' That doesn't convince anybody but
the ninnies--and the ninnies aren't going to the moon either anyway!

I've never heard a coherent, commonsense programmatic reason for going
to the moon first until now. Usually the argument is spread out among
so many possiblities that the Zubriacs (that's like a Deaniac for
Zubrin) can shoot them down with just as zany counterpoints. Some
examples I've seen:
1. moon firsters(moonies): We can refeul on the moon and then head to
Mars!
mars firsters(zubriacs): that makes zero sense from a delta v and
infrastructure perspective!
judge: zubriacs 1, moonies 0.
2. Moonies: We can test all our mars technology on the moon first!
Zubriacs: Only if you plan on spending your Mars stay on Phobos! Mars
has some air, a 24 hr day and water ice too!
judge: zubriacs 2, moonies 0
3. Moonies: If we break down we can launch back to earth in just 3
days!
Zubriacs: You're a big ninny! Try on one of your mother's skirts while
you're at it why dontcha lassie!
judge: zubriacs 2, moonies 1.
4. Moonies: We've been there before!
Zubriacs: Yeah, but we've been there already!
judge: tie. zubriacs 2, moonies 1.

That leaves the zubriacs still a bit ahead. This is the first argument
I've seen that ends the game. it's a full house.

Tom

On 15 Dec 2004 02:09:11 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Tom"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Pete Lynn wrote:
I think I have finally figured out what it is I do not like about
going
to mars - the flight rate. Its a CATS type problem.

In the time it takes for one mission to mars, you could probably go
through a couple of generations of earth/moon infrastructural
development. With the order of magnitude cost reductions this
probably
infers. I expect this developmental advantage would dominate.

You know, Pete, I think you just hit the nail on the head. People
almost always refer to the distance difference 'if something goes
wrong, earth is only 3 days away.' That doesn't convince anybody but
the ninnies--and the ninnies aren't going to the moon either anyway!

I've never heard a coherent, commonsense programmatic reason for going
to the moon first until now. Usually the argument is spread out among
so many possiblities that the Zubriacs (that's like a Deaniac for
Zubrin) can shoot them down with just as zany counterpoints. Some
examples I've seen:
1. moon firsters(moonies): We can refeul on the moon and then head to
Mars!

No one is seriously proposing that.

2. Moonies: We can test all our mars technology on the moon first!

Another strawman. Some technology can be tested, but the issue is
learning how to do things on another world only three days away
instead of months away.

Not clear who said:
You know, Pete, I think you just hit the nail on the head. People
almost always refer to the distance difference 'if something goes
wrong, earth is only 3 days away.' That doesn't convince anybody but
the ninnies--and the ninnies aren't going to the moon either anyway!

I live on an island in the Caribbean. I often think this is good
practice for understanding the issues for living on the moon. With a
population of about 12,000 we don't have a CompUSA, Frys, Computer
World, etc. Paying high FedEx rates I can get something in 3 days
sometimes (1 or 2 for FedEx and 1 or 2 for customs) but most of the
time it takes about 2 weeks from when I order something to when I get
it. This means you always:
1) Have on hand a backup for everything
2) If your primary fails you order a new backup right away

As long as your backup does not fail in the first 2 weeks, you are ok.
In practice have very high reliability with this kind of strategy.

On the moon you can do a similar thing. On Mars you can not. If it
is going to take more than a year for spare parts, you just can't count
on any. The level of Engineering paranoia and faith it takes to design
for that is deadly.

The other big reasons the moon will be settled first a
1) You can amortize the cost of your tether over many
more flights per year
2) Can use a tether to the surface since no atmosphere and low
deltaV
3) Easy to setup 2-way tether traffic so much less energy input
-- Vince
spacetethers.com

wrote:

On the moon you can do a similar thing. On Mars you can not. If it
is going to take more than a year for spare parts, you just can't count
on any. The level of Engineering paranoia and faith it takes to design
for that is deadly.

No. You design your systems for reliability and maintainability.

Ask the USN, they've been working on it for decades.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

h (Rand Simberg) :

On 15 Dec 2004 02:09:11 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Tom"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Pete Lynn wrote:

1. moon firsters(moonies): We can refeul on the moon and then head
to Mars!

No one is seriously proposing that.

Oh yes they do. We are not talking about people who want to go to the moon
first because they have sat down and though carefully about it. We are
talking the moon nuts who look at the moon the same way Zubrin looks at Mars.
In both cases we are talking about people who may be smarter than us but
have a mental block when it comes to thier key issue.

2. Moonies: We can test all our mars technology on the moon first!

Another strawman. Some technology can be tested, but the issue is
learning how to do things on another world only three days away
instead of months away.

But still it is the claim given by the moon fanatics. It is important to
remember we are not talking about most of the pro-space population. We are
talking about the fanatics in both the Mars-First and Moon-First camps.
Neither side wants to look at the good arguements given by the other side and
while thier both represent a small percentage of the pro-space they tend to
be the loudest and push thier ideas where ever possible.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:41:34 -0600, in a place far, far away, Earl
Colby Pottinger made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

1. moon firsters(moonies): We can refeul on the moon and then head
to Mars!

No one is seriously proposing that.

Oh yes they do. We are not talking about people who want to go to the moon
first because they have sat down and though carefully about it. We are
talking the moon nuts who look at the moon the same way Zubrin looks at Mars.

One can always find nuts proposing nutty stuff. Regardless, there are
no serious proposals for that (including the President's Vision for
Space Exploration).

2. Moonies: We can test all our mars technology on the moon first!

Another strawman. Some technology can be tested, but the issue is
learning how to do things on another world only three days away
instead of months away.

But still it is the claim given by the moon fanatics.

"Moon fanatics" (whatever that means) are irrelevant. All that
matters is serious policy proposals, and policy.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in
:

On 15 Dec 2004 02:09:11 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Tom"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

I've never heard a coherent, commonsense programmatic reason for going
to the moon first until now. Usually the argument is spread out among
so many possiblities that the Zubriacs (that's like a Deaniac for
Zubrin) can shoot them down with just as zany counterpoints. Some
examples I've seen:
1. moon firsters(moonies): We can refeul on the moon and then head to
Mars!

No one is seriously proposing that.

Perhaps not exactly that, but Bush proposed something similar in his speech
announcing the new program:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/54868main_bush_trans.pdf

"Spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon could escape its far-
lower gravity using far less energy and thus far less cost."