Straight to Mars?

"John Thingstad" wrote in message

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 07:45:18 -0600, Jon S. Berndt wrote:

I disagree completely with this. The moon, IMHO, should be used as a
testbed
only, and for science that can only be done there. Nobody has convinced
me
yet that materials for a Mars mission can be economically extracted from
the
moon - at least anytime soon.

Jon


This surprises me. Remember that the moon has 1/6'th earths gravity and no
atmosphere. That is where the great savings are. It's a order of
magnitude cheaper to send material from the moon to space than
from earth to space. As you indicate real factories on the moon
are quite a bit in the future.

1. find water
2. break water down into oxygen and hydrogen (sun power)
3. We have rocket fuel.
4. Go for metals and minerals
5. send rocket to mars
6. use lessons leaned to extract fuel on mars for return fuel

Nevertheless this was the essence of Bush's space initiative.
I think it is doable. Though the engineering is challenging.

Read this:

http://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/reports/MM...r_10-25-04.doc

It's the "Findings of the Moon?Mars Science Linkage Science Steering Group".
There is a key idea in the report that I think is important:

"Most recent architectures for the human exploration of Mars have included
the principle of using martian resources to produce propellant for the
return trip. A long-term human outpost on Mars and on the Moon can also
benefit from applying local resources to outpost support in areas that
include construction of facilities to providing reservoirs of important
consumables (water, oxygen, nitrogen, etc.) from local resources. The Moon
is viewed as a place where the basic principles can be tested for the first
time."

Ask the question: Is it going to be cheaper to launch to Mars from
near-earth orbit, or is it going to be cheaper to send raw supplies to the
moon so we can build machines to try and extract resource from the moon so
we can launch them towards our awaiting spacecraft so we can fly to Mars? Do
we have to launch four pounds to the moon to get one pound of a commodity
back? Think about this a bit...

Jon

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 22:03:07 -0600, Jon S. Berndt jsb.at.hal-pc-dot.org
wrote:



Ask the question: Is it going to be cheaper to launch to Mars from
near-earth orbit, or is it going to be cheaper to send raw supplies to
the
moon so we can build machines to try and extract resource from the moon
so
we can launch them towards our awaiting spacecraft so we can fly to
Mars? Do
we have to launch four pounds to the moon to get one pound of a commodity
back? Think about this a bit...

Jon



A moon base would obviously cost a considerable amount of money to set up.
Once set up it would be the starting point to exploration all over
the solar system. This is the idea behind 'continued presence' in space.
The moon colony would be made as self sufficient as far as possible.
In the long run it is much cheaper to assemble fuel and launch
from the moon.

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

"John Thingstad" wrote in message

A moon base would obviously cost a considerable amount of money to set up.
Once set up it would be the starting point to exploration all over
the solar system. This is the idea behind 'continued presence' in space.
The moon colony would be made as self sufficient as far as possible.
In the long run it is much cheaper to assemble fuel and launch
from the moon.

I'm aware of the lower energy require to launch from the moon - that's not
the concern I have.

Jon

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 06:04:08 -0600, Jon S. Berndt jsb.at.hal-pc-dot.org
wrote:

"John Thingstad" wrote in message

A moon base would obviously cost a considerable amount of money to set
up.
Once set up it would be the starting point to exploration all over
the solar system. This is the idea behind 'continued presence' in space.
The moon colony would be made as self sufficient as far as possible.
In the long run it is much cheaper to assemble fuel and launch
from the moon.

I'm aware of the lower energy require to launch from the moon - that's
not
the concern I have.

Jon



Of cource you are. What exactly is your concern?


--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Actually, any expedition class mission as final-outfitted and
re-launched away from the LSE-CM/ISS is about as good as space travel
gets, thereby avoiding altogether the relatively nasty aspects of
landing upon the moon, thus also becoming a serious impact target for
just about anything that happens along, plus otherwise being
thoroughly TBI from all the secondary radiation isn't exactly
improving the outcome on behalf of human DNA/RNA. However, anything
Mars still sucks real bad.

Venus on the other hand is certainly without question humanly hot and
nasty, though it's not technically excessively hot, at least not
outside of what applied physics can accommodate.

Their extended season of nighttime offers some areas at least 10% less
hot and thereby less nasty, with even greater thermal differentials
transpiring at such good elevations as Istar Terra that's offering
10+km and more than 100°K worth of becoming less hot than by day,
although 550°~600°K is still damn hot.

Nasty is somewhat relative to how much free O2 and H2O there is, and
since there's not a whole lot of either of that floating about, thus
it's actually not all that nasty.

Heat is actually a darn good thing (certainly beats being easily
pulverised, sub-frozen and summarily TBI to death), whereas heat is
especially good for the likes miniature vacuum tube circuitry, as
well as on behalf of processing CO2--CO/O2 and for assisting in
creating as much basalt/silica fiber and micro-balloons that you
could possibly use.

Numerous electro-mechanical items have already existed as for their
operating within 1000°F (811°K).

Structural materials of good insulation value are easily fabricated
from local composites that can be created on location, as from the
likes of basalt and perhaps even a little silica, as to accommodating
a structural insulation factor of R-1024/m, and even affording better
insulation value yet if it's merely of buoyant fill material.

Besides all of that melted lead and hot zinc that's supposedly flowing
all over the place, I don't know why on Venus there shouldn't be
numerous metallic alloys of good old iron and steal.

Extracting whatever tonnage of pure H2O or perhaps as such being
re-processed into the likes of H2O2 is merely starting off with a
little vacuum distillation process of obtaining whatever tonnage
you'll need from them relatively cool though acidic clouds.

Vertical atmospheric density and thermal offsets are already offering
way more than what's necessary for kinetic energy extractions, in
terms of obtaining KW, MW and even multi-GW is doable.

Thermopiles of Chromel/Alumel alloy and subsequently taking advantage
of a little process thermal differential makes for portable resources
of electrons. Whereas upon Venus you shouldn't require all that many
joules to get by.

A perfectly darn good replacement for refrigeration freon is CO2, and
I do believe Venus already has way more than it's fair share of CO2.

Less than 0.25% O2 is good enough for humans, although as little as
0.01% O2 might be sufficient for some of the locals. Even so, I would
not plan upon visiting without a darn good thermal suit and some nifty
form of built-in heat-exchanging.

Transporting about and mostly within the extended season of nighttime
is easily and efficiently doable for Venus, via rigid airships.
Although for Mars remains as purely a fly-by-rocket or otherwise
crawling about the sub-frozen surface is about as good as it gets.

Thus far there's no accessible geothermals on Mars that'll help to
sustain life as we know it, whereas Venus offers a newish planet like
environment of absolute loads of geothermals, thus as is offers more
raw elements and surplus energy than we can shake a flaming stick
at.

In at least one of the surrounding Venus terrains of what appears as
hosting a community like environment, that's inclusive of numerous
artificial structural looking items, there's also somewhat of a fluid
arch like consideration going on, and otherwise there are multiple
reservoirs nearby as containing something that's highly signal
absorbing, perhaps mud like or conceivably even petroleum like,
though I'd also accept such substances as being somewhat acid like.
Plus there are a few other unusually circular with vertical
attributes, as well as a few spherical storage tank like
considerations.

Perhaps I should stop until we've each have the exact same image to
review, as otherwise I could go on and on for several pages without
realizing that you're still looking at the Sunday comics.

BTW; if we ever did goto Venus, we would not have to bring along
hardly any spare energy, and whatever be our shuttle/lander would
most likely settle to a full stop in as little as four times it's
length, although a rigid airship/lander has 65+kg/m3 to start off
with, and as such is absolutely a vertical consideration that's
operating within it's own length and beam. Another factor of one's
survival is there's probably less solar/cosmic radiation on the
surface of Venus than Earth.

A Mars expedition requires that absolutely everything be imported from
Earth, all 10+ tonnes per soul per month after month, and that's only
if absolutely nothing goes wrong on the surface or anywhere to/from.
WE simply can't just launch a blob of water towards Mars, expecting
it to arrive, reenter and become usable as is. I'm thinking that for
every 10 tonnes of overall package that manages to arrive into Mars
orbit, at best one usable tonne of whatever can be delivered to the
surface, whereas 1000 kg of supplies as intended per soul of whatever
equipment, energy, O2, food and water (meaning beer and pizza), plus
more of your banked bone marrow, is perhaps going to last a month.
Thus you've got to be absolutely kidding about going to Mars.

More often than Mars, and certainly by way of getting much closer to
Earth (105 times the distance to our moon), making as for the
transporting of whatever to/from Venus as actually a whole lot more
doable within nearly whatever we've got to work with. Although, why
bother going there and chance getting roasted, and then perhaps eaten
alive, especially if we can somehow manage to establish interplanetary
communications?

BTW; I can communicate quite nicely with my dog using a mere pocket
penlight, and I'm fairly certain my dog is a whole lot smarter than I
am. Give me pocket laser pointer and I'll communicate over a mile on
as little as a 5 mw beam. A full laser watt and we're way more than
good for horizon to horizon. On Venus where nighttime is relatively
dark to human sight, but otherwise extremely crystal clear is where
the 5 mw laser beams could accommodate horizon to horizon as good
enough for any decent nocturnal sort of heathen (though again,
probably a whole lot more survival smarter than you and myself
combined). Biologically powered illuminations of delivering a full
watt per individual should become downright bright.

Thus I'm not persay anti-Mars so much as I'm anti-flushing hundreds of
those hard earned billions down another spendy space-toilet, and I'm
otherwise somewhat anti-polluting of mother Earth as per whatever
it'll require as to deliver and sustain folks upon Mars, and I'm
really anti-plague with regard to the humanity that's stuck here upon
Earth avoiding whatever robust microbes managed to survive on Mars, as
they certainly don't need a second chance at running amuck upon Earth.
Of course, the one and only biological failsafe alternative (short of
a moon based safe-house) is for issuing one-way tickets, which in of
itself could cut the cost per delivered individual down to 25% of
what it might otherwise require.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA~IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com

*-----------------------*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 14:07:53 +0100, John Thingstad
wrote:

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 06:04:08 -0600, Jon S. Berndt jsb.at.hal-pc-dot.org
wrote:

"John Thingstad" wrote in message

A moon base would obviously cost a considerable amount of money to set
up.
Once set up it would be the starting point to exploration all over
the solar system. This is the idea behind 'continued presence' in
space.
The moon colony would be made as self sufficient as far as possible.
In the long run it is much cheaper to assemble fuel and launch
from the moon.

I'm aware of the lower energy require to launch from the moon - that's
not
the concern I have.

Jon



Of cource you are. What exactly is your concern?


I read MSSG_white_paper_12_24_04.doc.


--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

"John Thingstad" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 22:03:07 -0600, Jon S. Berndt jsb.at.hal-pc-dot.org
wrote:



Ask the question: Is it going to be cheaper to launch to Mars from
near-earth orbit, or is it going to be cheaper to send raw supplies to
the
moon so we can build machines to try and extract resource from the moon
so
we can launch them towards our awaiting spacecraft so we can fly to
Mars? Do
we have to launch four pounds to the moon to get one pound of a commodity
back? Think about this a bit...

That sounds like a better payback than you can get from Mars.


A moon base would obviously cost a considerable amount of money to set up.
Once set up it would be the starting point to exploration all over
the solar system. This is the idea behind 'continued presence' in space.
The moon colony would be made as self sufficient as far as possible.
In the long run it is much cheaper to assemble fuel and launch
from the moon.

Yes but once we get to the moon, we may find more interesting and
useful things to do than to go to Mars, which is not that much bigger
anyway than the moon.

That is why many of the Mars advocates are against a return to the
moon.

November 9, 2004

Alex Terrell wrote:

Yes but once we get to the moon, we may find more interesting and
useful things to do than to go to Mars, which is not that much bigger
anyway than the moon.

More interesting than driving around and looking for fossils?

I don't think so. Well, moonsex, maybe.

That is why many of the Mars advocates are against a return to the
moon.

Phobos and Deimos are where the action is. From there you can teleoperate rovers, retrieve and analyze
samples, etc.

I agree, though, the moon has silicon and sun, and Mars has too deep a gravity well and horrific
logistical problems, that no amount of driving around in four wheelers on Devon Island can solve. And
propulsion and energy conversion and life support work here on Earth is woefully incomplete, so even the
whole moon thing is just fantasy for the next 20 years. I would be surprised if NASA is even capable of
the simplest lunar rover mission landing without aerobraking. It will be billions, and the Mars Laboratory
will be billions, and will only tell us what we already know, that Mars is alive.

There has to be more Earth synchronous asteroids out there. We need to find them.

I vote for more rocket science, energy conversion research and CELSS research. I consider the Moon, the
moons of Mars, Mars, and the asteroids, just to be fortuitous stops on the way to the stars, with great
difficulty. What makes me mad is that we are making a journey that is already very difficult, into a
journey far more difficult than it has to be, through human folly, vanity and greed.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

"Alex Terrell" wrote in message

That sounds like a better payback than you can get from Mars.

If the idea is to _go_ to Mars, it's a bad deal.

Yes but once we get to the moon, we may find more interesting and
useful things to do than to go to Mars, which is not that much bigger
anyway than the moon.

Mars has slightly more surface area than the dry land on earth - and almost
four times more surface area than the moon. It also has a day of nearly the
same length as earth, and has a slight atmosphere.

That is why many of the Mars advocates are against a return to the
moon.

I think the ones who have a level head on their shoulders realize the
benefits of going to the moon for the right reasons. Zubrin's got blinders
on.

Jon

"John Thingstad" wrote in message

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 06:04:08 -0600, Jon S. Berndt wrote:

I'm aware of the lower energy require to launch from the moon - that's
not the concern I have.

Jon

Of cource you are. What exactly is your concern?

You alluded to it earlier. I will admit that if a useful *fuel* can be
produced on the moon in large quantities perhaps that would be useful. But
factories and metal works I think are a long, long ways off and not relevant
to the next couple decades. I'm simply skeptical of the idea of economically
extracting fuel from lunar resources for a Mars mission, compared with earth
orbit assembly and supply. Maybe I'm wrong.

Jon