|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Building a Base on Mars
To All Bubble gum will not work. What Mars has lots of on its surface is
sand. The best building material,and easy to get to is sand,so sand bags it is.Not burlap,but plastic(its lighter) We just might have to engineer it with a Roman arch for a dome. Bert |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
BV Water can be recycled. What I see of Mars surface there is no water.
It is NASA that can get billions of bucks looking for water on Mars. I go with dust for I know its is there. NASA gets no bucks for dust. Making a spaceship out of a Mars moon is a good idea. NASA would put wings on it so it can kill. Bert |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Building a base on Mars might not be as practical,as building a base on Mars moon that circles Mars every 8 hours. We are not going to find drinking water on Mars surface. On its surface its dust storms could be a great hazard it they blow at 125mph. My thought is we can live easier on that low orbiting moon,and see much more of Mars In about 223,000 years we will hollow our this moon,and make a huge spaceship out of it to travel to the Oort belt,and refuel there and go on to Alfa Certuri. Bert Hi Bert, 223,000 years? I hope that's a misprint. Mars should have been settled, exploited, wasted and forgotten by then.(:-)) Or maybe NASA will have more budget delays. Hollowing out Phobos & Deimos would provide a hard shell for a space station, but what do we do for gravity?,... tie the two together and spin them? Then there's not much there in the way of resources. Everything has to be freighted in at great expense. Still it might provide good sheilding from... solar flares?? I'm not sure about that. Perhaps someone who's knowledge is more current can fill that in. -- Regards Fred Remove FFFf to reply, please |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
If one wants to understand another planet--the worst choice would be a
fixed base. Forgetting about the economics, feasibility. etc. a base wuld allow one to explore mars to ones heart's content in a radius if 10 km from the base. Pretty boring after those years in transit. eyelessgame wrote: (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in message ... The best spot to build a base on Mars would be its north pole. Seems to me its dust storms would not be as bad as at the equator. While Herbert here is just playing, there are some serious things to consider regarding where to put a Mars base. First, temperature (and solar angle) make a difference. Some of your electricity, and all your food, will come from solar energy; you want near-equatorial for that. It's far easier to take off to orbit when you can use the planet's momentum (s'why we launch from southern Florida instead of, say, the Midwest); you want equatorial for that, too. You'll want water, and yes there's frozen water on the poles, but one of the exciting discoveries of the last two years is the realization of just how much water is available in the near subsurface all over the planet. That said, Martian immigrants will almost certainly remain vegetarian for decades at least, since plants take far, far less energy to grow than any animals do (with few exceptions, edible animals require you first to grow plants to feed *them*; when your habitable space is as limited as humans are likely to face for the short-to-medium term on Mars, you don't really have the luxury of feeding the middleman.) You'll want to spend a lot of your time underground -- your UV exposure, among other things, is a bit nasty on the surface -- but digging on Mars anywhere is unlikely to be a serious problem. But you want to avoid the frozen CO2 of the poles, anyway, since it sublimates in the summer. Instead, what you want to do is be near the regular soil, since Martian iron is plentiful in the soil, iron is easy to smelt, you have carbon to make steel, and iron weighs less on Mars than alumnium on Earth, making it extremely easy to work with. If it turns out there's any subsurface heat remaining on Mars -- geothermal, if you pardon the malaprop -- you'd like to place a colony near it, to try to tap it. And don't forget the reasons why you go in the first place. You want access to the unfrozen surface (and warmest surfaces) to do exobiology; you want access to the greatest range of terrain to do (ahem) exogeology; you want mobility across the planet to do exploration, mining, tourism, and other sciences; you want direct sunlight (and a 24-hour light/dark cycle) to grow crops for export to future colonies elsewhere in the solar system. So -- Herbert, or EMC2, as you prefer -- it's good that you're thinking about these things, but you'll find it's much more likely that we'll make our initial Mars bases equatorial rather than polar. We'll want, of course, to get to the poles eventually. If we can heat them just a bit -- the south pole especially, since it has more CO2 -- it's possible we can put enough CO2 into the atmosphere to produce a runaway greenhouse that will thicken and warm the Martian atmosphere to the point where humans can walk outside in a parka, breathing mask, and heavy sunscreen. (Food? Sure. The case can be made that Mars will grow cheaper-to-export food than anyplace else in the solar system, since it has most of the advantages Earth does --- gravity, 24-hour days, plentiful CO2, organic chemistry and nitrogen -- and it's enormously closer by delta-vee to the asteroids than Earth is, and has a thinner atmosphere and lower gravity than Earth's to lift out of. However, by the time we get our behinds in gear and start making /use/ of the solar system, it's quite possible most of those will be irrelevant advantages given the degree to which we'll be able to bioengineer our crops.) All this assumes, of course, that Revelations doesn't become self-fulfilling prophecy thanks to the dangerous ****wits currently ruining our country. eyelessgame |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Hi eyelessgame We do have the landings(very successful) on the moon.
My problem with todays NASA they could not even copy what Apollo did. We could use one of Mars moons as an orbiting platform(its there,and big) It could be a free stepping stone to launch the Mars lander. Since finding water is our main objective(I would think so) we should look for Mars wet lands. That means not landing in areas that look like a desert. We know hot molten lava is generated deep down. As it rises and meets cooler rocks,which contain hydrogen the magna melts these rock,releasing hydrogen to form water. To sum that thought up "is there water in the magma?" Lets land on the flat area close to that very tall volcano Bert |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Ehrlich wrote in message news:odA_a.95077$cF.29127@rwcrnsc53...
eyelessgame wrote: [something you've already read if you're following this thread] If one wants to understand another planet--the worst choice would be a fixed base. Forgetting about the economics, feasibility. etc. a base wuld allow one to explore mars to ones heart's content in a radius if 10 km from the base. Pretty boring after those years in transit. Well, yes, a base isn't something to do till you've landed several explorations first. But a base is important for staying on Mars long-term -- you need a decent amount of shielding to live under if you're going to stay for very long, and the easiest way to get shielding over you is to dig. And we won't be going to Mars just for exploration. Anyplace humans can go, humans will eventually want to settle. As for "10 km", keep in mind that humans are tool-using mammals. If you're going to bring enough material to Mars to set up a base, bring a truck -- a 1-ton two-person pressurized-cab methane-burning truck. (Every expedition should bring a truck, including the first one.) You should be able to rove 500 km at least. Operating a truck is cheap. You can make all the fuel you want with electricity, a small chemistry lab and pump, water, and carbon dioxide -- electrolyze the water, store the oxygen, heat the hydrogen and the CO2 together in the presence of palladium, making methane (and water), repeat till your methane and oxygen tanks are full. (You get the electricity either from a tiny nuclear plant -- like the one we're using on Cassini -- or with large solar panels and patience. Or, if we get lucky, from geothermal.) Is it time to mention _The Case For Mars_ at this point? http://tinyurl.com/k0s3 (takes you to Amazon) eyelessgame |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Why bother with settling on mars?
We should be creating habitat's that serve as companions rather then prisons for the long journey's ahead. Mars and bodies such as these are for AMD (auto-motivated devices) controlled in a virtual environment in the safety and comfort of the habitat as it extends it's reach to recover the vast resources they may offer on the journey by. Would a double enclosed sphere with a pressurized chamber filled with h2o say 15 to 30 feet thick provide enough protection from the harmful UV's while still transmitting enough light to satisfy min. req. for growing and sustaining life ? If these two spheres were rotating in different directions and speeds, would there be a potential for large amounts of energy to be developed as a "field" around the motion of the water. The control of direction and speed would be a multiplier for the amount of potential energy available. Similar to the current generated around the flow of gas powering a gas regulator on a water heater. Aquatic cultures, life forms and valuable oxygen can be stored in the h2o, easily sustained, harvested and transplanted to all of the faraway places in the universe! ---E -- "Believing is an action verb" |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
We can learn a lot from our base on the South Pole. It does have plenty
of ice,so water is no problem. And its air is breathable,but could be deadly at 65 below zero?? Its great advantage is people living there that have a tooth ache can be flown to a dentist the same day. Still it is a dangerous place to live. The human body needs lots of protection so it does not lose its heat. On Mars that would be just as true,and earth's air is a must. Can't live off the land on the South Pole,and can't live off the land of Mars. There is some sameness about Mars,and our Earth's South Pole,but the big difference is distance,and water Bert |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
We would have to use are space ship as our base on Mars. The only
difference from Mars surface and outer space is gravity. I would think space is safer. No sand storms. No rock slides. No static electricity. It would be nice if the space ship landed rather than a lander craft,from the space ship. I think by the time we send men to Mars we should have this technology. I find the space suits the astronauts wear at this time are much to bulky,and should be slimed down for greater flexibility. Bert |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GALACTIC FEDERATION Moon and Mars BASES | REM460 | Astronomy Misc | 3 | June 3rd 04 10:43 PM |
Space Calendar - February 27, 2004 | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 1 | February 27th 04 08:18 PM |
Color image of Mars from Mars Express. | Robert Clark | Amateur Astronomy | 8 | December 9th 03 09:27 PM |
Delta-Like Fan On Mars Suggests Ancient Rivers Were Persistent | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | November 13th 03 10:06 PM |
Incontrovertible Evidence | Cash | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 24th 03 07:22 PM |