Mars colonization versus Stanford Torus

The cost of trying to colonize Mars has to be prorated over more than a
hundred years of costs. The cost of constructing a Stanford Torus near Earth
in orbit of an L-point is all up front in two to three decades probably,
putting about ten thousand colonists in a central facility anchoring a going
city-state complex in space.

To really see the difference, one has to look to Athens or Carthage, or
England, or Zanzibar even, in the maritime history of the world. Seafaring
states and their powers, abilities, capabilities and reaches out of all
proportion to their sizes versus such huge states as the Persian Empire, the
Chinese Empire and so on, which were not [on the sea, tied to the sea]
seafaring powers or states as such.

The very first colony state we have to have in space will have to be a
spacefaring city-state colony tied to space. We haven't the time to mess
around for a hundred years and more on the surface of Mars while events
change the face of this world. At which point in time would a Mars colony
reach take off point, become self-generating, versus near-Earth in-space
colonies? Which would be the spacefaring state tied to all space itself?
Which would be dedicated to permanency in space, permanency period, first?
Which could handle any changing face of events on Earth regarding time?
Which could be home to millions the quickest without sweating cut off of
contact with the homeland due to awesome cataclysmic events requiring
abandonment or recall of all colonists? Which would not have to sweat any
cut off of contact? Which (due to its location with regard to Earth and
Earth's moon, and due to its city-state complex of in-space industries and
facilities (including industries that will transfer themselves to space
either in whole or in part to escape increasing environmental restrictions
among other Earthside restrictions), including large ship and station -- and
smaller Earth shuttle transport -- building industries and facilities; being
practically in control of space to Earth, and Earth to space, transit
systems) would be an internal-integral part of Earth's necessary economy,
rather than being external and superfluous to it, within just two to three
decades of colony establishment?

I realize I'm asking really loaded questions that aren't really questions
at all. I mean to do just that. In-space near Earth colonization simply
extends Earth's economy and people into the space environment within short
decades. Mars colonization doesn't do any such thing. In-space colonization,
transportation systems, and industrialization, would have so many tendrils
into Earth's own internal economy so soon as to be almost painful to Earth's
economic health if cut. Not even the worst tyranny, sane that is, would even
wish it (within decades of establishment of the first colony and colonies
and surrounding industrial complexes).

The end result of Mars colonization would be Mars colonization. The end
result of space colonization would be the colonization of the entire solar
system. Indirectly, every planetary system whatsoever, the asteroid belt,
and on out into interstellar space. There is too much resource mass in the
masses out to bring to the surfaces of either Earth or Mars: Too much energy
to direct either to Earth or Mars. Useful resource mass and energy, but only
to in-space colonies and networked in-space infrastructure. Colonization of
Mars colonizes dimensionality virtually the same as Earth's....in other
words far too little. Colonization of space goes nova into hyper-dimensional
[beginning] immediately with the first Stanford Torus....or even before that
with establishment in space of the industrial complex that will build one in
the natural order of things out there.

What made Athens and England and their like so strong with so great a
reach and power out of all proportion to size was that they were effectively
[on] the sea, tied inextricably to the sea. Space colonization of course
will be effectively [in] space, tied inextricably to space. The surface of
Mars is no where near to being [in] space. Mars is no where near to being as
accessible from Earth, or Earth as accessible from it, as will be space
colonies. And it will be infinitely easier, and immediately faster, to
terra-form mass into livable space colony interiors than to terra-form the
surface of Mars (if the surface of Mars can be terra-formed at all).

Last but not least, Mars' industrial complex, Mars' economy itself, when
and if established some time in the distant future, would never have the
[worth] of the space industrial complex and economy [at any time whatsoever]
either to mankind on Earth or to mankind at large. Not even at its greatest
extent in worth in the future -- if there is ever such a worth to Mars in
the first place -- would it even begin to approach the worth of a space
industrial complex and economy with gateway access to all space and just
about everywhere and everything in it, including...Mars.

Producing a space industry and colony complex first gets to the high
ground of space and holds it, immediately! There's no price you can put on
that. No value greater.

GLB

G. L. Bradford; Stanford Torus near Earth in orbit of an L-point
is all up front in two to three decades
Why not utilize the best and nearest do-everything of a sweet-spot in
town; that location being LL-1 which seems like a perfectly good and
relatively safe spot for your "Stanford Torus", whereas volume, shape
and mass are of anything you'd care to make them, and in addition to
solar energy you'd have unlimited terajoules worth of tether dipole
energy to burn.

We're talking of residing 58,000 and some odd km from the moon
(possibly 60,000 km), and all the rest is a done deal. Upon average,
that's roughly 318,000 km from the surface of Earth.

As little as one joule of energy could launch your personal pod or
unlimited tonnage towards the moon or towards Earth. Isn't that good
Isp efficiency or what?

How about establishing a 256 megatonne Torus unit that'll provide 1e9
m3 of safe abode for starters?

There's no question that life upon or even the prospects of getting
such life safely to/from Mars in the first place is going to be
extremely spendy and downright risky business, as well as decades down
the road that'll take us past if not directly through WW-III, that's of
a nasty terrestrial road that's rather quickly running itself out of
viable fossil fuels, as well as getting itself submerged and/or washed
away due to global warming that's somewhat like having poked at mother
nature with a sharp stick long enough that she's going postal on us.

I'll argue that the mutual gravity-well that's so nearby and so nicely
remaining as interactively situated between us and our moon is by far
the most efficient location for us to ship whatever tonnage, and it's
also going to remain by far the most energy efficient location for
having to station-keep whatever until the lunar side of the tether
element is anchored into that dark and nasty deck of our moon, at which
time the station-keeping energy demand becomes almost nonexistent if
not representing a energy gain. I don't think it gets any better than
that.

My question is;
Are you interested in the R&D that's LL-1, for the benefit of your
Stanford Torus or not?
If so, I have a few thousand questions plus a few good ideas.
-
Brad Guth

G. L. Bradford; Stanford Torus near Earth in orbit of an L-point
is all up front in two to three decades
Why not focus upon utilizing the best and nearest do-everything
location of a nifty station-keeping sweet-spot in town; that location
being our extremely nearby LL-1 which seems like a perfectly good and
relatively safe spot for your "Stanford Torus", whereas volume, shape
and mass are of anything you'd care to make them, and in addition to
clean solar energy you'd also have unlimited terajoules worth of tether
dipole energy to burn.

We're talking of residing this massive sucker at 58,000 and some odd km
away from the moon (possibly 60,000 km), and all the rest of the
package becomes a done deal. Upon average, that's parked roughly
318,000 km from the mostly pagan surface of Earth.

As little as one joule of energy could launch your personal pod or
unlimited tonnage towards the moon or towards Earth. Isn't that the
best ever Isp efficiency or what?

How about for starters we go into establishing a 256 megatonne Torus
unit that'll provide folks with 1e9 m3 of safe abode?

There's no question that establishing life upon or even the prospects
of getting such life safely to/from Mars in the first place is going to
be extremely spendy and downright risky business, as well as decades
down the road that'll take us past if not directly through WW-III,
that's of a nasty terrestrial road that's rather quickly running itself
out of viable fossil fuels, as well as getting itself submerged and/or
washed away due to global warming that's somewhat like having poked at
mother nature with a sharp and badly polluted stick long enough that
she's going postal on us.

I'll argue on behalf of utilizing the mutual gravity-well that's so
extremely nearby and so nicely remaining as interactively situated
between us and our moon, that this location is by far the most
efficient such location for us to transfer whatever tonnage into, and
it's also going to remain by far the most energy efficient zone for
having to station-keep whatever until the lunar side of the tether
element is anchored into that dark, nasty and somewhat salty deck of
our moon, at which time the station-keeping energy demand becomes
almost nonexistent if not representing an energy gain. I don't think
it gets any better than that.

My question is;
Are you and of those you've associated with interested in the R&D
that's LL-1, for the benefit of your Stanford Torus or not?

If so, I have a few thousand questions to ask, plus a few good ideas to
share and share alike.
-
Brad Guth

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:25:26 GMT, "G. L. Bradford"
wrote, in part:

The cost of trying to colonize Mars has to be prorated over more than a
hundred years of costs.

If, indeed, that were true, colonizing Mars would be a waste of effort.
However, there is a big difference between _colonizing_ Mars and
_terraforming_ Mars. Of course, this assumes you mean a hundred years of
costs *paid by Earth*.

It may indeed be, however, that the difficulties, in life support and
radiation shielding, of a voyage to Mars might be insuperable if the
trip there were concieved on the basis of a scaled-up Apollo model.
Perhaps the only, or at least the most reasonable, way to get to Mars is
by building an O'Neill space habitat first, and then travelling in it to
Mars.

That would certainly settle the question of Mars versus space habitats
in favor of doing the latter first.

What, other than Earthbound habits of thinking, is responsible for what
Gerard O'Neill called "planetary chauvinism"? While the idea of space
stations with artificial gravity by rotation dates back to Hermann
Oberth, we have to wait until Dandridge M. Cole came along for the first
suggestion of something resembling an O'Neill space colony. It is easy
enough, therefore, to look at a vision of a human future in space based
on the human settlement of Mars and put it down to a lack of
imagination.

Until we get to the point of harvesting materials from comets - or at
least carbonaceous asteroids - a Lunar mining colony, even one with a
closed ecology, would require most of its initial biomass to be supplied
from Earth. Oxygen could be extracted from rocks, and there might be a
limited - very limited - supply of hydrogen from polar ice. That still
leaves both carbon and nitrogen.

Mars is not a planet whose surface conditions are identical to those of
Earth. Thus, the settlement of Mars would not be the inexpensive,
low-tech, affair that the settlement of the New World, or of Australia,
had been. But on Mars, while nitrogen is scarce, it still exists in
reasonably adequate quantity, and carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen are all
readily available from its carbon dioxide atmosphere and permafrost. It
may be noted that while nitrogen is used in some rocket fuels, like
hydrazine, it is not needed for the most common liquid rocket fuel
combinations, and so Mars could produce spaceships without resorting to
the relatively exotic expedient of burning aluminum powder for fuel.

Earth has many people, and lies within a deep gravity well. Its strength
is as a source of new ideas and inventions; with a population of
billions, it can supply large reserves of manpower for science and
engineering. Certainly, Earth can launch raw materials into space, and
may have to do so to some extent in the beginning of any space
colonization venture, but that is basically expensive for it.

The Moon has abundant resources of aluminum and titanium. Extracting
oxygen from rock using concentrated sunlight may involve some
difficulties, but it clearly could be achieved in some way. The Moon's
strength is that it is a source of _some_ resources that can be reached
with relatively simple techniques available in the infancy of the Space
Age. If we are to build O'Neill space habitats, it is the obvious
jumping-off point, even if a case can be made for one or more near-Earth
asteroids being a better one.

The advantage of Mars is that it has available a relatively complete
supply of what a human settlement would require in the way of raw
materials. This appears to me to mean that a self-sustaining colony on
Mars could be established at a far lower cost to Earth than a
self-sustaining orbital colony.

Once a Martian colony had time to grow, it would be in a position to
command the resources of the entire planet long before it *needed* all
those resources for a burgeoning population.

Thus, the way *I* see humanity emerging into space is this:

1) Mining base on the Moon, supplying materials to build

2) One orbital colony, supplied with most of its biomass from Earth,
even if the structural materials and soil and rock shielding can come
from the Moon, which then is used to establish

3) A self-sustaining colony on Mars, which then becomes able to supply
the materials, other than those already available from the Moon, needed
for

4) A growing fleet of orbital colonies, which then reaches the point
where it is no longer dependent on Mars and the Moon for supply, but
instead can harvest

5) The asteroid belt, and subsequently the Kuiper Belt.

Thus, there is no _tour de force_ in this plan. Every step is a small
step, and all the available resources in the Solar System are considered
for use. Mars and the Moon, rather than Earth, supply the materials
needed for building space colonies. Later, the asteroid belt will make
the Moon redundant, and the Kuiper Belt will make Mars redundant, but
before that happens, the Moon and Mars reduce what Earth has to spend
and supply in the beginning.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

lid (John Savard) wrote:

we have to wait until Dandridge M. Cole came along for the first
suggestion of something resembling an O'Neill space colony.

If we don't read Tsiolkovsky or J.D. Bernal, anyway.

5) The asteroid belt, and subsequently the Kuiper Belt.

I think that robots in the Kuiper belt may solve most of your raw
material problems. Nitrogen exists there in the shape of NH3 and carbon
in the shape of CH4. The seas of Tital are (probably) CH4 and C2H6.
These will have been lost to the Moon and the asteroid belt.

John Savard wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:25:26 GMT, "G. L. Bradford"
wrote, in part:

The cost of trying to colonize Mars has to be prorated over more than a
hundred years of costs.


Until we get to the point of harvesting materials from comets - or at
least carbonaceous asteroids - a Lunar mining colony, even one with a
closed ecology, would require most of its initial biomass to be supplied
from Earth. Oxygen could be extracted from rocks, and there might be a
limited - very limited - supply of hydrogen from polar ice. That still
leaves both carbon and nitrogen.

In Moonrush, Dennis Wingo explores the ideas of asteroid impacts on the
moon, and the materials that these leave. With a low impact velocity,
and no weather to erode the remains, asteroid material will remain
concentrated. He proposes that precious metals would therefore be one
of the first exports from the moon.

It would therefore seem likely that carbon deposits could be found in a
similar way. CC asteroids will not breakup until they hit the surface,
and even then there is little for the carbon to react with - I suppose
some might ract with the FeO, but likely there will be a lot of carbon
around.

Water would appear to be available at the poles, in enough quantities
to supply exploration for several decades at least, until a asteroid
mining takes off.

Nitrogen is a problem. Two possibilities, apart from asteroid mining:
1. Ammonia shipments from Earth
2. Scoop it out of the upper atmosphere

1) Mining base on the Moon, supplying materials to build

2) One orbital colony, supplied with most of its biomass from Earth,
even if the structural materials and soil and rock shielding can come
from the Moon, which then is used to establish

If you can build one, you can build several.

John Savard;
Earth has many people, and lies within a deep gravity well. Its strength
is as a source of new ideas and inventions; with a population of
billions, it can supply large reserves of manpower for science and
engineering. Certainly, Earth can launch raw materials into space, and
may have to do so to some extent in the beginning of any space
colonization venture, but that is basically expensive for it.
It's not the least bit expensive if the rewards far outrun the cost,
which is the case for establishing the LSE-CM/ISS or tethered Stanford
Torus within the nearby LL-1 gravity-well.

The Moon has abundant resources of aluminum and titanium. Extracting
oxygen from rock using concentrated sunlight may involve some
difficulties, but it clearly could be achieved in some way. The Moon's
strength is that it is a source of _some_ resources that can be reached
with relatively simple techniques available in the infancy of the Space
Age. If we are to build O'Neill space habitats, it is the obvious
jumping-off point, even if a case can be made for one or more near-Earth
asteroids being a better one.
You've failed to mention as to all of that basalt that can be
efficiently convderted into those 4.8 GPa or better of continuous
fibers and of microballoons as nifty composites, or had you mentioned a
word about He3 that's soon gong to become worth $4+ billion/tonne, or
otherwise as to all of the salt and possible brines sequestered within
geode pockets or hollow rilles that remain as sealed volumes of what's
leftover from the good old days when our once upon a time icy
proto-moon arrived, as to save the day and having transferred much of
it's surface ice and life within that arrived upon and thus terraformed
a great deal of what's Earth.

Thus, there is no _tour de force_ in this plan. Every step is a small
step,
That's just dead wrong if not an oughtright lie. LL-1 is very much a
"_tour de force_" that has been doable for at least the past couple of
decades (it's actually easier than orbiting our moon) and otherwise
remains as extremely nearby, and it's also extremely efficient for our
initially getting tonnage from Earth to LL-1 and for keeping whatever
within that zone, as well as it's the one and only location for
establishing the all essential Lunar Space Elevator and of the dipole
tether element that'll become worth trillions per year. At LL-1
there's no limits as to the volumes, tonnage or shape of things to
come, and there's also no limits as to the green/renewable energy that
can be extracted and subsequently exported and/or beamed efficiently to
Earth.

Would you like another pro/yaysay list of what's entirely doable, and
of the direct and indirect benefits for establishing the LSE-CM/ISS, or
would you rather keep pretending that LL-1 doesn't exist?
-
Brad Guth

G. L. Bradford (GLB),
I happen to agree that we should "colonize space" (starting as of a
couple if not three decades ago), especially of such utilizing nearby
space, and I've also agreed with your spin-mass that's associated with
the "Stanford Torus" as being better off than passive or near-zero
resting mass when it comes down to affording the best and/or most
effective shielding potential. My CM/ISS uses a passive 50t/m2 as the
primary outer shield (as much intended for fending off and/or surviving
physical debris as well as cosmic and local radiation), although
there's really no actual limit as to creating this amount of a mostly
basalt composite shield mass/m2, nor is there hardly much extra cost or
environmental impact from the terrestrial standpoint. There's also a
few spare terajoules that's easily available for creating an artificial
magnetosphere. Can we talk LL-1?
-
Brad Guth

"John Savard" wrote in message
...

It may indeed be, however, that the difficulties, in life support and
radiation shielding, of a voyage to Mars might be insuperable if the
trip there were concieved on the basis of a scaled-up Apollo model.
Perhaps the only, or at least the most reasonable, way to get to Mars is
by building an O'Neill space habitat first, and then travelling in it to
Mars.

As big a fan of O'Neills as I am, even I would have to disagree. I can see
a point to insisting on thorough radiation shielding and perhaps even a full
1-G of centrifugal force. But both those requirements could be met with a
structure of much less mass than a Bernal Sphere. A baton structure seems
likely to me.

Now, that said, in a far future era where Bernal Spheres and/or Stanford
Toruses are being produced in significant numbers in cislunar space, and at
the same time large numbers of people are going back and forth between Earth
and Mars, will somebody get the bright idea to put one on an Aldrin cycling
orbit? I have no doubt. Travel to Mars in style.

That would certainly settle the question of Mars versus space habitats
in favor of doing the latter first.

I think a reasonable case can be made for at least a modest amount of
industrial development in orbit using space resources before trips to Mars.
Even if we reject the idea of components of the Mars-bound ship being
constucted in orbit from space materials, just the simple availability of
liquid oxygen in high orbits would dramatically improve the economics of
departures for points beyond.

The advantage of Mars is that it has available a relatively complete
supply of what a human settlement would require in the way of raw
materials. This appears to me to mean that a self-sustaining colony on
Mars could be established at a far lower cost to Earth than a
self-sustaining orbital colony.

That's the widely-accepted opinion, but I always question it. We need to
weigh easy availablity of things like carbon against the additional expenses
associated with operating at the much-greater distance of Mars.

After having it pointed out to me that a colony on Mars could simply slurp
in carbon from the surrounding environment, I got curious what percentage of
the total mass needed for an indepent human settlement such carbon might
represent. According to the Ames study which produced the Stanford Torus,
even if we leave the shielding and soil mass out of the comparison, the
biomass (which would include more than just the carbon) would only represent
a hair over 1% of the total mass needed. So much of the mass needed is
steel and glass. If the working of these materials should prove less
expensive in orbit than on the Martian surface (and given the possibilities
of flimsy solar concentrators in orbit operating 24/7, I think there's
reason to expect this), that would totally swamp the minor advantage of
being able to pump in carbon from the outside.

The numbered list you provide comes pretty close to what I would put down,
save that I'm not convinced Mars will be able to make that much of a
contribution to construction of orbital habitats due to its relatively steep
gravity well. For carbon and nitrogen, I expect NEAs to be able to
undersell Mars during that era before the Main Belt is tapped.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all that you hold dear on this good Earth
I bid you stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn