Once We Have A Self Sustaining Mars Colony - Then What?

William Mook wrote:

On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 2:23:33 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 6:45:28 AM UTC+13, JF Mezei wrote:
Possible Mars exports:

- Cans filled with martian air. "Fresh CO2 from Mars".
- Bottled water

AKA: novelty items.

Heck, if Coke/Pepsi can market tap water as upscale water, surely
someone will market water from mars glaciers as something that is very
desirable.

It would make for an intreresting debate on whether humans should strip
materials from one planet to bring back to earth.

Can we steal a few rocks ? Extract a few kilos of unobtainium ? Ship
tonnes and tonnes of water back to earth ? Steal a planet's atmosphere
with giant "mega maid" to bring back to replenish earth's atmosphere ?

For that matter, could be take over Mars and use it as a giant trash can
to dispose of all of earth's garbage and hazardous materials, spent
uranium ?

I paid $5 for each 500 ml bottle of Pelligrino Water at dinner the other night. Carbonated water. The perfect thing to make on Mars using martian sand for the bottle, martian glaciers for the water, and martian air for the carbon dioxide fizz... At $10 per litre, you're getting $10,000 per ton or thereabouts. Far more than steel or aluminium.


So you're only LOSING around a million dollars a tonne.


Not if you ship a tonne to Earth for $0.04


Yeah, if you've got magic everything gets easier.

This is why
shipping ANYTHING like raw resources back from Mars in the foreseeable
future is a stupid idea.

Depends on the details of how its done.

Mining and purifying the water, carbonating it, making glass bottles
all cost money.



Yes, the question is how much? That depends on technical details. In general there are the following drivers;

(1) Energy cost,
(2) Labour cost,
(3) Social cost,
(4) Environmental cost,
(5) Transport cost,

Energy cost on Mars is lower because we can use techniques outlined in the 1950s by the AEC to make energy on Mars "too cheap to meter" Look it up. Too cheap to meter means less than a fraction of a cent per kilowatt hour in today's money. We will do this on Mars because the surface of Mars is ALREADY more radioactive than an unshielded nuclear reactor.


And now more than half a century later we know that was all bull****.


Labour cost on Mars is lower because we can use AI and other techniques of automation devleoped but unused for political reasons on Earth. This makes labour about 100x more productive and labour costs 1% of what it is on Earth.


Anything that makes labor cheap on Mars will make it cheaper than that
on Earth.


Social cost on Mars is lower because there are no people as yet on Mars and there is no Martian history to deal with. So, we have a clean slate and ZERO social costs. You can't get a better dela than that.


With no people there is nothing else.


Environmental cost - there is no biosphere on Mars and here too we have ZERO environmental cost to operations on Mars. You can't get cheaper than that.


Hogwash.


Transport cost - magnetic mass drivers exist. The General Atomics Blitzer cannon is a case in point. It fires rounds at 22,000 gees (200,000 m/s/s) and achieves lunar escape velocity on Earth at sea level atmospheric pressure. It can easily achieve Trans Earth Injection on the Surface of Mars under martian conditions and continually fire 30 rounds per second 25 pounds each. Over a 92 day window a single cannon can deliver 5,961,600,000 pounds to Earth. The cost of energy is 1/1000th the cost of energy on Earth, the cost of labour is 1/100th the cost of labour on Earth, the social cost, and environmental costs are zero, the cost of this cannon is $120 million. With a 21.5 year life span this can deliver 10 rounds of 5.96 billion pounds - 59.61 billion pounds - divided into $0.12 billion obtains 2/10th of a cent capital cost per pound. All other costs bring the total to 0.5 cents per pound - and we can sell things for more than 1 cent per pound we're golden.


Magic. You have no payload left once you add rocket engines and
computers for midcourse guidance and reentry systems to get the thing
down in one piece. Hell, you probably have NEGATIVE cargo by then.


But those costs are swamped by the cost of
transporting the things from Mars to Earth.

Depends on how they're transported. If you're using chemical rockets things are pricey. If you're using nuclear powered magnetic mass drivers - even those we sell commercially today as weapons - we're already at price points that are competitive.


Yeah, if you're using magic everything gets easy.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

William Mook wrote:

On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 2:27:58 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 2:06:33 PM UTC+13, Jonathan wrote:
On 12/20/2016 6:37 PM, William Mook wrote:
On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 10:32:18 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 2:27:33 PM UTC+13, Jonathan wrote:
On 12/18/2016 9:17 PM, William Mook wrote:

There are insufficient resources on Earth today to sustain everyone
at a high living standard. So, we must either establish a repressive
governance world wide to allocate those limited resources in a
sustainable way, or we must reduce populations, or we must reduce living
standards to do as you say. All three avenues are being pursued at the
present time.

I've been hearing that for a long time, it's a myth.

Its not a myth. You've heard it for a long time because its true.




No it isn't, every reputable institution agrees
world poverty has plummeted in the last 30 years

Cite?

Are you too lazy to Google? Googling "world poverty over time graph"
brings up *many* hits, including this:

https://ourworldindata.org/world-poverty/

Funny how there are multiple graphs there which back up Johnathan's
assertion. Where are the data that back up your original assertion?


Mookie still believes in Malthusian gloom and doom, despite that
having been pretty much exploded by experience since Malthus.

Thomas Malthus observed after Captain Cook's circumnavigation of the world, that the world was a finite place.


Which we'd known since Magellan, so Malthus must have been a bit of a
thickie to come to it so late.


He predicted in his book "On Population" that by 1950 the world would have 3 billion people. He predicted that is the limit to growth.


So Malthus was very, very wrong.

snip whackjob MookLunacy conspiracy theory


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 5:40:32 PM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
As usual Jeff you have revealed yourself to be a mindless idiot troll.

Classy Mook. Really classy. Way to make friends and influence people.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

Jonathan said I had a short attentoin span. So... you get what you give.

On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 4:25:01 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 2:23:33 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 6:45:28 AM UTC+13, JF Mezei wrote:
Possible Mars exports:

- Cans filled with martian air. "Fresh CO2 from Mars".
- Bottled water

AKA: novelty items.

Heck, if Coke/Pepsi can market tap water as upscale water, surely
someone will market water from mars glaciers as something that is very
desirable.

It would make for an intreresting debate on whether humans should strip
materials from one planet to bring back to earth.

Can we steal a few rocks ? Extract a few kilos of unobtainium ? Ship
tonnes and tonnes of water back to earth ? Steal a planet's atmosphere
with giant "mega maid" to bring back to replenish earth's atmosphere ?

For that matter, could be take over Mars and use it as a giant trash can
to dispose of all of earth's garbage and hazardous materials, spent
uranium ?

I paid $5 for each 500 ml bottle of Pelligrino Water at dinner the other night. Carbonated water. The perfect thing to make on Mars using martian sand for the bottle, martian glaciers for the water, and martian air for the carbon dioxide fizz... At $10 per litre, you're getting $10,000 per ton or thereabouts. Far more than steel or aluminium.


So you're only LOSING around a million dollars a tonne.


Not if you ship a tonne to Earth for $0.04


Yeah, if you've got magic everything gets easier.

Magnetic mass drivers that achieve trans-Earth trajectory speeds from Mars' surface aren't magic, they're science.


This is why
shipping ANYTHING like raw resources back from Mars in the foreseeable
future is a stupid idea.

Depends on the details of how its done.

Mining and purifying the water, carbonating it, making glass bottles
all cost money.



Yes, the question is how much? That depends on technical details. In general there are the following drivers;

(1) Energy cost,
(2) Labour cost,
(3) Social cost,
(4) Environmental cost,
(5) Transport cost,

Energy cost on Mars is lower because we can use techniques outlined in the 1950s by the AEC to make energy on Mars "too cheap to meter" Look it up.. Too cheap to meter means less than a fraction of a cent per kilowatt hour in today's money. We will do this on Mars because the surface of Mars is ALREADY more radioactive than an unshielded nuclear reactor.


And now more than half a century later we know that was all bull****.

Your analysis is shallow as always. Today we appreciate that Earth's biosphere and people's use of that biosphere constrain the use of nuclear power making it higher cost than experts thought possible. Those constraints don't apply on Mars, so the cost of energy on Mars will be vastly less expensive than the cost of the same amount of energy on Earth.


Labour cost on Mars is lower because we can use AI and other techniques of automation devleoped but unused for political reasons on Earth. This makes labour about 100x more productive and labour costs 1% of what it is on Earth.


Anything that makes labor cheap on Mars will make it cheaper than that
on Earth.

Not if its opposed by labour unions and bears huge stigma besides. Already we can see that AI, self-replicating machine systems, and automated systems that displace large numbers of workers are receiving pushback. This will only grow more urgent as we proceed forward. Such political drag on innovation will not be present on Mars. Anyone there will welcome the help advanced robotics AI and self-replicating machinery provides.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlidB40aoTI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HlAlSEge0w




Social cost on Mars is lower because there are no people as yet on Mars and there is no Martian history to deal with. So, we have a clean slate and ZERO social costs. You can't get a better dela than that.


With no people there is nothing else.

You're confused about what I'm saying. Arriving populations will not have to deal with populations that are already there as we do here on Earth. There is no spot on Earth that doesn't already have a history of occupation associated with it. Not so on Mars. This reduces social cost of any changes new arrivals wish to make to zero.



Environmental cost - there is no biosphere on Mars and here too we have ZERO environmental cost to operations on Mars. You can't get cheaper than that.


Hogwash.

Easy to say. Not logical. But easy to say. There is no biosphere on Mars that humans depend upon. So, there is no environmental cost to any sort of development we wish to do on Mars. Those costs are zero on Mars. Not so on Earth which has a well-established biosphere that humans rely upon at present.


Transport cost - magnetic mass drivers exist. The General Atomics Blitzer cannon is a case in point. It fires rounds at 22,000 gees (200,000 m/s/s) and achieves lunar escape velocity on Earth at sea level atmospheric pressure. It can easily achieve Trans Earth Injection on the Surface of Mars under martian conditions and continually fire 30 rounds per second 25 pounds each. Over a 92 day window a single cannon can deliver 5,961,600,000 pounds to Earth. The cost of energy is 1/1000th the cost of energy on Earth, the cost of labour is 1/100th the cost of labour on Earth, the social cost, and environmental costs are zero, the cost of this cannon is $120 million. With a 21.5 year life span this can deliver 10 rounds of 5.96 billion pounds - 59.61 billion pounds - divided into $0.12 billion obtains 2/10th of a cent capital cost per pound. All other costs bring the total to 0.5 cents per pound - and we can sell things for more than 1 cent per pound we're golden.


Magic.

Not magic science. Magnetic mass drivers already exist on Earth. General Atomics builds them and they already achieve velocities that permit the projection of payloads from the Moon to the Earth - if located on the Moon. Similar systems located on Mars easily project 25 pound objects at 30 rounds per second at speeds that carry those objects from Mars to Earth - for 92 days every 2.135 years.

You have no payload left once you add rocket engines and
computers for midcourse guidance and reentry systems to get the thing
down in one piece.

Cite?

Hell, you probably have NEGATIVE cargo by then.

The key word in your statement is 'probably' - you don't know because you haven't done the engineering and math. I have. Rounds fired by the General Atomics device already have guidance in the rounds. Technology is getting more refined and compact and robust and capable every day. As part of a Mars mission in five to seven years, capabilities are well within what I'm talking about here.

Let's go into the details.

Consider a 25 pound payload that contains a fifteen bottles of water 750 ml each similar to this.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...hps_bw_c_x_2_w

Worth nearly $200 with shipping! So, deliver 25 pounds for that price anywhere on Earth, and you have a competitive business price wise.

Now, DARPA's EXACTO rounds stuff a guidance system with rocket propellant into a 50 cal round

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW2DwQun95s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoOaJclkSZg

A 42 gram bullet that is fired at 923 m/sec and has a capacity to change its speed by up to 200 m/sec burning 4 grams of solid propellant using MEMS based rockets and sensors.

Our Martians can do as well.

We have 302 mm tall by 84 mm diameter bottles containing 750 mm of sparkling water.

The 25 pound (11,400 gram) payload for the shell proposed here consists of 2 layers of 7 HCP array of bottles inside a 252 mm diameter circular cross section cylinder 604 mm long topped by a single bottle inside a cylinder 302 mm long and 84 mm in diameter - all housed an ogive nose section. They have aerogel filling the voids between them to take the stresses. The void volume for the 15 bottles within the 1 meter long ogive nose shell is 10,000 cc - 10 litres. Sufficient room to house 3.4 kg of LOX/LH2 propellant in ZBO tanks. Stainless steel, silicon, and silica construction masses 2.2 kg - 50x larger than the EXACTO round, so the electronics sensors and computing platform fits easily in the mass budget.

11.4 kg - payload (made from water and sand)
3.4 kg - LOX/LH2 (made from water)
2.2 kg - Steel, silicon, silica (made from sand)

17.0 kg - TOTAL

Propellant mass is 20% and specific impulse in vacuo for the MEMS rocket array is 458 seconds. total delta vee is 1,002.2 m/sec. Interesting to note that according to NASA course correction budget for a transfer between Mars and Earth is 150 m/sec. Less than 15% of this total. Aerobraking at Earth to slow the shell to subsonic speeds above the stratosphere, you must slow from sound speed at 40 km to zero speed to a specific spot on Earth (like the bullet arriving at the spot designated regardless of firing point)

A delta vee of 340 m/sec is required to bring the round in for a soft touchdown. With 160 m/sec used during interplanetary cruise, this leaves 502.2 m/sec for cross range. Running hydrogen rich to modulate thrust conserves LOX, a small portion of which is vented from the shell to cool it to 1C throughout while landing.



But those costs are swamped by the cost of
transporting the things from Mars to Earth.

Depends on how they're transported. If you're using chemical rockets things are pricey. If you're using nuclear powered magnetic mass drivers - even those we sell commercially today as weapons - we're already at price points that are competitive.


Yeah, if you're using magic everything gets easy.


Science isn't magic. You don't get that. A small collection of the appropriate equipment makes everything cheaply easily at low cost and in great abundance.




--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

William Mook wrote:

On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 5:40:32 PM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
As usual Jeff you have revealed yourself to be a mindless idiot troll.

Classy Mook. Really classy. Way to make friends and influence people.


Jonathan said I had a short attentoin span. So... you get what you give.


Jonathan said you have a short attention span so you attacked Jeff?
One more time, Mookie, we're not all the same person (and Jonathan is
an idiot who already ran out of here crying once).


--
You are
What you do
When it counts.

William Mook wrote:

On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 4:25:01 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 2:23:33 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 6:45:28 AM UTC+13, JF Mezei wrote:
Possible Mars exports:

- Cans filled with martian air. "Fresh CO2 from Mars".
- Bottled water

AKA: novelty items.

Heck, if Coke/Pepsi can market tap water as upscale water, surely
someone will market water from mars glaciers as something that is very
desirable.

It would make for an intreresting debate on whether humans should strip
materials from one planet to bring back to earth.

Can we steal a few rocks ? Extract a few kilos of unobtainium ? Ship
tonnes and tonnes of water back to earth ? Steal a planet's atmosphere
with giant "mega maid" to bring back to replenish earth's atmosphere ?

For that matter, could be take over Mars and use it as a giant trash can
to dispose of all of earth's garbage and hazardous materials, spent
uranium ?

I paid $5 for each 500 ml bottle of Pelligrino Water at dinner the other night. Carbonated water. The perfect thing to make on Mars using martian sand for the bottle, martian glaciers for the water, and martian air for the carbon dioxide fizz... At $10 per litre, you're getting $10,000 per ton or thereabouts. Far more than steel or aluminium.


So you're only LOSING around a million dollars a tonne.


Not if you ship a tonne to Earth for $0.04


Yeah, if you've got magic everything gets easier.

Magnetic mass drivers that achieve trans-Earth trajectory speeds from Mars' surface aren't magic, they're science.


Magnetic mass drivers that achieve trans-Earth trajectory speeds from
Mars' surface don't exist and will certainly never be able to send a
tonne for four cents. That's not science; it's magic.



This is why
shipping ANYTHING like raw resources back from Mars in the foreseeable
future is a stupid idea.

Depends on the details of how its done.

Mining and purifying the water, carbonating it, making glass bottles
all cost money.



Yes, the question is how much? That depends on technical details. In general there are the following drivers;

(1) Energy cost,
(2) Labour cost,
(3) Social cost,
(4) Environmental cost,
(5) Transport cost,

Energy cost on Mars is lower because we can use techniques outlined in the 1950s by the AEC to make energy on Mars "too cheap to meter" Look it up. Too cheap to meter means less than a fraction of a cent per kilowatt hour in today's money. We will do this on Mars because the surface of Mars is ALREADY more radioactive than an unshielded nuclear reactor.


And now more than half a century later we know that was all bull****.

Your analysis is shallow as always. Today we appreciate that Earth's biosphere and people's use of that biosphere constrain the use of nuclear power making it higher cost than experts thought possible. Those constraints don't apply on Mars, so the cost of energy on Mars will be vastly less expensive than the cost of the same amount of energy on Earth.


Your analysis is nonexistent, as always.


Labour cost on Mars is lower because we can use AI and other techniques of automation devleoped but unused for political reasons on Earth. This makes labour about 100x more productive and labour costs 1% of what it is on Earth.


Anything that makes labor cheap on Mars will make it cheaper than that
on Earth.

Not if its opposed by labour unions and bears huge stigma besides. Already we can see that AI, self-replicating machine systems, and automated systems that displace large numbers of workers are receiving pushback. This will only grow more urgent as we proceed forward. Such political drag on innovation will not be present on Mars. Anyone there will welcome the help advanced robotics AI and self-replicating machinery provides.


If you're getting rid of labour, who gives a **** what labour unions
think? Your magical self-reproducing AI is, well, magic. Everything
is easier once you stop using the facts and resort to magic.




Social cost on Mars is lower because there are no people as yet on Mars and there is no Martian history to deal with. So, we have a clean slate and ZERO social costs. You can't get a better dela than that.


With no people there is nothing else.


You're confused about what I'm saying. Arriving populations will not have to deal with populations that are already there as we do here on Earth. There is no spot on Earth that doesn't already have a history of occupation associated with it. Not so on Mars. This reduces social cost of any changes new arrivals wish to make to zero.


YOU are confused about what you are saying. And would you please
follow standard Usenet NEWS usage and put a line break in every 72
characters or so? One of the many annoying things about you is having
to play games in order to see your entire comment when replying
because it runs off the right side of the screen when quoted.




Environmental cost - there is no biosphere on Mars and here too we have ZERO environmental cost to operations on Mars. You can't get cheaper than that.


Hogwash.


Easy to say. Not logical. But easy to say. There is no biosphere on Mars that humans depend upon. So, there is no environmental cost to any sort of development we wish to do on Mars. Those costs are zero on Mars. Not so on Earth which has a well-established biosphere that humans rely upon at present.


It's particularly easy to say given how much of what you spew out is
hogwash. If we're going to USE Martian resources (and we are if we
ever expect to live there) we can't go junking the place up.



Transport cost - magnetic mass drivers exist. The General Atomics Blitzer cannon is a case in point. It fires rounds at 22,000 gees (200,000 m/s/s) and achieves lunar escape velocity on Earth at sea level atmospheric pressure. It can easily achieve Trans Earth Injection on the Surface of Mars under martian conditions and continually fire 30 rounds per second 25 pounds each. Over a 92 day window a single cannon can deliver 5,961,600,000 pounds to Earth. The cost of energy is 1/1000th the cost of energy on Earth, the cost of labour is 1/100th the cost of labour on Earth, the social cost, and environmental costs are zero, the cost of this cannon is $120 million. With a 21.5 year life span this can deliver 10 rounds of 5.96 billion pounds - 59.61 billion pounds - divided into $0.12 billion obtains 2/10th of a cent capital cost per pound. All other costs bring the total to 0.5 cents per pound - and we can sell things for more than 1 cent per pound we're golden.


Magic.

Not magic science. Magnetic mass drivers already exist on Earth. General Atomics builds them and they already achieve velocities that permit the projection of payloads from the Moon to the Earth - if located on the Moon. Similar systems located on Mars easily project 25 pound objects at 30 rounds per second at speeds that carry those objects from Mars to Earth - for 92 days every 2.135 years.


Very small payloads. The round weighs around 40 pounds. Unless
you're just going to fling projectiles in the general direction of
Earth and hope some of them get there and survive reentry, figure out
how little actual payload you get once you add rockets for midcourse
guidance, the guidance computer itself, some sort of heat shielding
for reentry and some reasonable way to slow the things down before
they hit.


You have no payload left once you add rocket engines and
computers for midcourse guidance and reentry systems to get the thing
down in one piece.

Cite?


Cite? It's ****ing magic, you havering loon. There are no 'cites'
for that. You claim you can do it. Do the bloody work and prove it.

Hell, you probably have NEGATIVE cargo by then.

The key word in your statement is 'probably' - you don't know because you haven't done the engineering and math. I have. Rounds fired by the General Atomics device already have guidance in the rounds. Technology is getting more refined and compact and robust and capable every day. As part of a Mars mission in five to seven years, capabilities are well within what I'm talking about here.


Yes, the current rounds have guidance. They rely on AIR. Very little
of that stuff in outer space when you need your midcourse corrections.
You haven't 'done the math' because you're relying on magic.


Let's go into the details.

Consider a 25 pound payload that contains a fifteen bottles of water 750 ml each similar to this.


And when you smack them with 150,000 g at launch you have some broken
glass and a wet round.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...hps_bw_c_x_2_w

Worth nearly $200 with shipping! So, deliver 25 pounds for that price anywhere on Earth, and you have a competitive business price wise.

Now, DARPA's EXACTO rounds stuff a guidance system with rocket propellant into a 50 cal round

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW2DwQun95s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoOaJclkSZg

A 42 gram bullet that is fired at 923 m/sec and has a capacity to change its speed by up to 200 m/sec burning 4 grams of solid propellant using MEMS based rockets and sensors.

Our Martians can do as well.

We have 302 mm tall by 84 mm diameter bottles containing 750 mm of sparkling water.

The 25 pound (11,400 gram) payload for the shell proposed here consists of 2 layers of 7 HCP array of bottles inside a 252 mm diameter circular cross section cylinder 604 mm long topped by a single bottle inside a cylinder 302 mm long and 84 mm in diameter - all housed an ogive nose section. They have aerogel filling the voids between them to take the stresses. The void volume for the 15 bottles within the 1 meter long ogive nose shell is 10,000 cc - 10 litres. Sufficient room to house 3.4 kg of LOX/LH2 propellant in ZBO tanks. Stainless steel, silicon, and silica construction masses 2.2 kg - 50x larger than the EXACTO round, so the electronics sensors and computing platform fits easily in the mass budget.

11.4 kg - payload (made from water and sand)
3.4 kg - LOX/LH2 (made from water)
2.2 kg - Steel, silicon, silica (made from sand)

17.0 kg - TOTAL

Propellant mass is 20% and specific impulse in vacuo for the MEMS rocket array is 458 seconds. total delta vee is 1,002.2 m/sec. Interesting to note that according to NASA course correction budget for a transfer between Mars and Earth is 150 m/sec. Less than 15% of this total. Aerobraking at Earth to slow the shell to subsonic speeds above the stratosphere, you must slow from sound speed at 40 km to zero speed to a specific spot on Earth (like the bullet arriving at the spot designated regardless of firing point)


At which point any bottles that didn't break on launch or freeze and
break in transit now boil and explode.


A delta vee of 340 m/sec is required to bring the round in for a soft touchdown. With 160 m/sec used during interplanetary cruise, this leaves 502.2 m/sec for cross range. Running hydrogen rich to modulate thrust conserves LOX, a small portion of which is vented from the shell to cool it to 1C throughout while landing.


I'll just note that aerobraking isn't magical, either.



But those costs are swamped by the cost of
transporting the things from Mars to Earth.

Depends on how they're transported. If you're using chemical rockets things are pricey. If you're using nuclear powered magnetic mass drivers - even those we sell commercially today as weapons - we're already at price points that are competitive.


Yeah, if you're using magic everything gets easy.


Science isn't magic. You don't get that. A small collection of the appropriate equipment makes everything cheaply easily at low cost and in great abundance.


And there will be oomphel in the sky by and by...


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 2:23:43 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 5:40:32 PM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
As usual Jeff you have revealed yourself to be a mindless idiot troll.

Classy Mook. Really classy. Way to make friends and influence people.


Jonathan said I had a short attentoin span. So... you get what you give.


Jonathan said you have a short attention span so you attacked Jeff?

I didn't attack anyone. Quite the reverse despite your lies.

Jonathan preferred to make an ad hominem attack against me personally rather than deal with the substance of what I said about the difficulties with his citations. When Johnathan began mindless trolling later in the same piece I pointed it out.

One more time, Mookie, we're not all the same person

You are making absolutely no sense here.

(and Jonathan is
an idiot who already ran out of here crying once).

So why are you attacking Johnathan because of what I said about his citations and his trolling?



--
You are
What you do
When it counts.

William Mook wrote:

On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 2:23:43 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 5:40:32 PM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
As usual Jeff you have revealed yourself to be a mindless idiot troll.

Classy Mook. Really classy. Way to make friends and influence people.


Jonathan said I had a short attentoin span. So... you get what you give.


Jonathan said you have a short attention span so you attacked Jeff?

I didn't attack anyone. Quite the reverse despite your lies.


And now you attack me for pointing it out? You said "As usual Jeff
you have revealed yourself to be a mindless idiot troll." If that's
not an attack, I don't know what is.


Jonathan preferred to make an ad hominem attack against me personally rather than deal with the substance of what I said about the difficulties with his citations. When Johnathan began mindless trolling later in the same piece I pointed it out.


What Jonathan did is irrelevant, since you were replying to Jeff and
not to Jonathan.


One more time, Mookie, we're not all the same person

You are making absolutely no sense here.


You are being absolutely thick here. You complain about Jonathan
doing something as a defense of a response you made to Jeff. Jeff is
not Jonathan and vice versa.


(and Jonathan is
an idiot who already ran out of here crying once).

So why are you attacking Johnathan because of what I said about his citations and his trolling?


I'm not.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

On 12/23/2016 12:56 AM, William Mook wrote:



1974?

Yes, look at the data. The moment Ford and Rockefellar got their hands on the power, the working folks were ever more productive, but they made no share in the gain they help create. Only oligarchies make long-term plans and carry them out. Politicians and families don't do that in the modern world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzyq4BXTkhQ



Your tactic of conflating a discussion into a
debate spanning the entire globe and all
of human history using half-truths and
self-serving anecdotes all wrapped in shadowy
conspiracy theories wouldn't get a passing
grade in a ninth grade debate class.

Your logic is twisted by glaring bias and
your world view driven by paranoia and
deep seated hate of authority.

You see only the negative and ignore anything
else.

Instead of being merely a critic, which is
the easiest thing to do, tearing down and
complaining about what's wrong with the world
and how everyone is out to get you.

Try doing something adult for a change
and is far more difficult than a simple
critic, suggest how to make the world
a better place.

Offer a vision of what the world...should
become and how to get there. Look forward
instead of staying mired in the messy past.

Nature shows us the way and in very simple
terms if only we would listen and take
those lessons to heart.

There are only two variables to reality.

There are the forces for order, and the
forces for chaos.

When one, or the other, rules, the world
declines into barbarism with a slash and burn
mentality.

When the two are entangled, so that one
can't tell which dominates, then the
world can and will self-organize and
evolve.

Creating a world with the adaptability,
resilience, creativity and beauty we
normally ascribe to something like
an untouched old growth forest.

The world can become such a wonder
if and only if we balance the opposing
forces.

The rules of operation (forces for order)
and freedom of interaction (forces for disorder)
must be intractably entangled, or critically
interaction. Those are the two golden variables
to reality.

For instance our constitution (rules of operation)
and our Bill of Rights (freedom of interaction)
must be exalted above all and in balance so the
no one can tell which of the two dominates.
If one can't tell if say America is a police state
or a state of anarchy, then we've found the natural
balance, and the rest will take care of itself.

Just as with Darwinian evolution where
genetics (rules of operation) and natural
selection (freedom of interaction) produce
all the natural wonders of nature.

Just as where facts (rules of operation) and
imagination (freedom of interaction) produce
all the wonders of better ideas.

Just as where gravity (subcritical behavior)
and cosmic expansion (supracritical behavior)
in balance produces a universe where evolution
is an inherent property.



Jonathan





s

The Earth is 149.5 million km radius orbit and it takes 1 year (31.56 million seconds) means that the average speed of 2 * Pi * 149.5 / 31.56 = 29.77 km/sec. Now Earths escape velocity is 11.19 km/sec. So an object projected from Earths surface at SQRT( 11.19^2 + 29.77^2 ) = 31.81 km/sec. Add 1.19 km/sec for air drag and gravity losses gives a total 33.00 km/sec. This occurs at sunset firing straight up subtracting 29.77 km/sec from the Earths motion letting the payload falling into the sun. It takes 64 days for the object to fall into the sun.

To shoot an object to Jupiter and then let it fly past Jupiter to let it fall into the sun reduced delta vee to 14.36 kms/sec. Add 1.21 km/sec obtain 15.57 km/sec.