…by a supposed “conservative.” Charles Krauthammer continues his (unusually, for him) ill-informed hysteria over the new space policy:
…the administration presents the abdication as a great leap forward: Launching humans will be turned over to the private sector, while NASA’s efforts will be directed toward landing on Mars.
This is nonsense. It would be swell for private companies to take over launching astronauts. But they cannot do it. It’s too expensive. It’s too experimental. And the safety standards for getting people up and down reliably are just unreachably high.
Sure, decades from now there will be a robust private space-travel industry. But that is a long time. In the interim, space will be owned by Russia and then China. The president waxes seriously nationalist at the thought of China or India surpassing us in speculative “clean energy.” Yet he is quite prepared to gratuitously give up our spectacular lead in human space exploration.
As for Mars, more nonsense. Mars is just too far away. And how do you get there without the stepping stones of Ares and Orion? If we can’t afford an Ares rocket to get us into orbit and to the moon, how long will it take to develop a revolutionary new propulsion system that will take us not a quarter-million miles but 35 million miles?
I just read that second paragraph, and shake my head in sorrow at the ignorance, not to mention the double standard. NASA has killed fourteen astronauts in the past quarter of a century. On what basis can he claim that private industry (which is highly motivated not to kill people, because it might put them out of business, whereas NASA is rewarded when it fails), will do worse?
And even ignoring their horrific cost, in what way are Ares and Orion “stepping stones” to anywhere, let alone Mars? No one has ever put forth a plausible scenario in which Orion is utilized for a Mars mission.
Meanwhile, a much more sensible piece can be found over at the Asia Times, which points out how ridiculous it is to worry about the Chinese (with quotes from Charles Lurio and Jeff Foust).
[Update a few minutes later]
Keith Cowing points out more historical ignorance on the part of the good doctor:
Um, check your facts next time. We had a 6 year gap between Apollo-Soyuz in 1975 and STS-1 in 1981. We had no way to send humans into space during that time. And, FWIW, between the end of Mercury and the beginning of Gemini, we had no access, and between Gemini 12 and Apollo 7 we had no access to space. Between STS-107 and STS-114 … and so on. Gaps are not a new thing.
And a continuation of the Program of Record would have guaranteed that the upcoming one would be the longest yet.
[Morning update]
Krauthammer link is fixed now, sorry.
[Update a few minutes later]
Jeff Foust has a report on Lori Garver’s speech at the FAA meeting yesterday. It won’t satisfy the die-hard Apollo/Ares huggers of course, but it should appeal to more sensible people, including conservatives.
Ken,
Columbus had good evidence of a large land mass about where the New World was. Simple things like branches he found on the Canary Islands, stories in picked up while sailing to Iceland. His mistake was thinking it was Asia. The Spanish wisemen thought there were only islands there.
Samuel Elliot Morrison covers it in detail in his famous biography of Columbus and dispels a lot of popular myths.
People go where the economics goes.
It looks that way because more than 99% of people do. However, no economics exists at all until that less than 1% say, ‘ya know what? There’s an economic opportunity here.’
Thanks for the reference Thomas. I always like a good book.
Ken,
[[[A colony could easily die on the vine. Or it could lead to the greatest economic expansion this world has ever seen. My guilt is I can’t see how expansion into the solar system could not lead to an expansion of the economy.]]]
Yep, and the key factor will be its ability to find products and goods to sell.
Yes, human space settlements will led humans to the stars and an expansion of the economy, but its that first step that is the challenge.
If its just depends on government funding, like Mars Direct, it won’t happen. You need to grew the economy of the space settlement by finding markets it could serve. In short you need to focus on the business model of it. That has been the gap so far, building the business model.
It won’t be Mars because Mars is just too far to remotely operate robots to be effective. Its the time lag issue because of the speed of light. Look at how far the Mars rovers have gone in the years they have been on the surface. Compare that with the large distance covered in mere months by the old Russian rovers on the Moon in the 1970’s. It might amaze you.
Teleoperated robots and factories are the game changer that really gives the Moon an advantage over Mars. You need the ability to import labor telebotically if you are going to build an industrial base. That is why the Moon is first.
Same with export goods. A simple mass driver, or similar externally powered launch system, on the Moon will launch PGMs or other products down the gravity well to Earth both economically on a schedule with short lead times. That is the next element of expanding the human econsphere.
The third is that its just easier to get supplies and resources to the Moon then Mars.
So the first viable economic settlement will be on the Moon, not Mars. Don’t let the water on Mars trick you into thinking its better like it has Dr. Zubrin. Or that an atmosphere is something good to have. The Moon has Oxygen so all you need is Hydrogen. There is some in the rocks. Additional supplies could be shipped from Earth and used in closed cycle systems. That is the key, closed cycle systems. Water will not be wasted on Earth, it will be reused so you just need the initial amount, plus allowance for wastage. The recent finding of lunar water is promising, although it needs to be studied with a rover to determine its value. But its not essential.
But overall, in any supply chain, time is money and the shorter the transit time the shorter the overall costs. That is another advantage of the Moon over Mars.
But again, economics will drive the process.
Ken,
[[[However, no economics exists at all until that less than 1% say, ‘ya know what? There’s an economic opportunity here.’]]]
Yes, and then they build the business model and raise the capital needed to follow it. That is what economic expansion is. You follow the economic opportunities. You follow the resources.
Thousands of years ago that was the process that led humans out of Africa – (I wonder if there are more shell fish on the other side of this body of water…)
Ken,
Samuel Elliot Morrison is a maritime historian who wrote a number of good books link exploration to economics. His Maritime History of Massachusetts details how economic expansion of maritime trade built the U.S economy after the revolutionary war.
I consider it must reading for anyone interested in space settlement and developing space commerce since it shows how industries actually develop and evolve over time.
You could be right. I strongly believe the Moon can and probably will be industrialized. That’s what I meant when I said that Mars will have a slower start. The key difference in my mind (yes, being in my mind may be considered a unique experience) is which can grow a population to support industrialization faster. I believe robots, like all machines, are a force/info multiplier. But for me, it all boils down to people.
I see the distance to Mars as its advantage over the Moon. I believe the Moon will be a place we visit while Mars is a place we live. It’s not so black and white of course.
A geologist on Earth can operate a rover on the Moon. The geologist would have to go to Mars to do the same operation there (yes, I’m aware of light speed. Did the sun go out eight minutes ago? Prove it.) Is this an advantage for the Moon or Mars? Short term: advantage Moon. Long term: huge advantage Mars. Why?
This is harder to quantify and depends a bit on your belief system. The geologist that goes to Mars is making a much greater commitment. I believe this commitment will produce better results. I also believe Mars to be more generally resource rich, even if the Moon has some things Mars doesn’t. It’s more likely Mars will have a resources the Moon doesn’t or in better abundance and obtainability. I also think it’s not debatable that Mars is the closest Earth analogy. If we went to another star and found a Mars there we would consider ourselves to have hit the jackpot. Finding a Moon would just be expected.
I also don’t think it will ever be economically feasible to mine the solar system until we actually live there. I think a colony on Mars is the fastest way (even if slower to start) to achieve that.
When the New World colonies started they mostly produced raw goods. Specialized manufacturing facilities were usually back in Europe. Sometimes manufacturing in the colonies was expressly forbidden according to the economic dictates of Mercantilism. Only in time did manufacturing grow there and the colonies got independent.
However you do not import bricks, cement, or other low cost, heavy, large materials. You manufacture them close to the site. You would probably be better off if you could survive mostly using local elements. Settlers would have imported handguns and farming utensils initially.
So while you would not manufacture complex and small items such as computers in the colonies, not initially at least, you would manufacture construction materials. People in here also often forget you do not need a McMansion to survive. Whole families lived in small one room buildings not that long ago. However the economic motive is still not there. Even if we were talking about mining precious metals the economics do not presently make sense.
Yep, and the key factor will be its ability to find products and goods to sell.
We agree that a colony with a profitable export has a better chance to survive than one that doesn’t. But it’s wrong to suggest that not having that export means it’s not viable.
Suppose we sent a colony ship to Bernard’s star and they found a nice habitable planet and set up shop. The only interaction they now have with Earth is old messages. The colony might live or die. If it lives, by definition they will have an economy. It may even thrive.
Now we develop a fast way to Bernard’s star. We can trade. Would we have anything to trade?
I would argue yes and you would ask, ‘what?’
I would say, ‘they’ll find something.’
You’re telling me, ‘that’s just not good enough.’
ok
What does Mars have to trade? Nothing at the moment (mainly ‘cuz nobody is there to do any trading.) My argument is that the history of humanity is that they’ll find things. Forgive me for not being bright enough to know what all those things are. I have faith that other people are.
If there were an existing business case (greater than other opportunity costs) we’d already be on our way. My contention is that establishing a colony will lower the threshold and make a business case easier (and to some more obvious) than what we presently have. I do not believe Mars will be as dependent on Earth supply as many believe. I believe living off the land is fully possible (with a minor cost for low mass items which can piggyback on other trips to Mars.) Once a colony is established others can go at a known cost with a good expectation of survival and often with a job waiting (because Mars will have a local economy independent of exports.) So those people that follow will have a business case (it’s called a job… perhaps not for the money, but for the experience of building a new world.)
Without a business case we just don’t go? Perhaps. I believe some will go anyway. I don’t know who they are but I will be standing and applauding when they land.
Yeah, call me naive and ignorant.
> ken anthony Says:
> February 13th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
>> There are lots of frontiers we could colonize and don’t.
> Absolutely correct. If I could tell you explicitly and exactly how
> to profit from going to Mars we wouldn’t be having this
> conversation. We’d be too busy going.
Thats why we keep looking for said explicit argument.
> == Serendipity is our real history. ===
By that logic we should try every idea suested. Colize everywhere from the floor of the ocean to the top of Everest just in case something happens to not have made it a waste of time.
A really idiotic investment stratagy. Folks who control the kind of money you need — arn’t that stupid.
> == Still it took hundreds of years for others to follow==
Actually fleets were crossing within a couple decades.
>> Its still a space ship if its in space, or on the ground on Mars. You still die away from it.
> No you don’t (well some do.) You have resource to build more
> habitats on Mars. ==
You can build more ships to. But both require the complex industry and construction infastructure a lone person wandering out won’t have. Surviving i space or on Mars is a very high tech activity.
>> Humans don’t work that way
> It remains to be seen if we can adapt to 0.38g.
No, sadly it isn’t. Though would be Mars colonists refuse to conceed that.
>> A little hard to carry around on your cars and such.
> Beep. Wrong again. ==
Your going to cover your car with say a coupe meters of dirt? You can a space sip, but a rover would have suspension problems.
>> Sorry, no, resources on Mars are no where near as rich and
>> pure as in space. Many of the riches mines on Earth are from asteroid impacts.
> Asteroids hit Mars as well.
And are less accessable after blasted into bits and buried under hundreds of yards of rock adn dirt then they are in space. And they are closer to Earth then Mars is – so its easier to get to a harvest them then on Mars.
>> Every place we settled, we settled because it profited us to do so.
> You make it sound like a simple equation. It’s not quite that simple. ==
It pretty much is.
>==Plus I must repeat… it will profit us. ==
Folks who’ve tried colonies based on your logic fail and the colonies abandoned. So history does not support your assumption.
>> We can go other places and have huge benefits now. When
>> you can define the benefits, and the return on investment
>> is near enough term – then folks with money will be interested.
> I agree we go places because of benefits. Our disagreement is
> whether Mars has any benefits. I’m not alone in saying it does. ==
What you say is you hope there are benifits – but can’t think of any.
> Looking for a specific item of benefit is short sighted. ==
No its being practical. To do otherwise is self destructive.
>>Its not really a great place to set up a long term stay at.
> No. It’s just better than any other place.
Its not even as good as other places in space – like in space.
> If you say we shouldn’t leave the Earth at all, I just have to disagree.
I’m not, I’m saying were not going to go anywhere and colonize without a solid economic reason. Not a vision of finding a economic reason, or misconception of a internal colony economy or living off the land like some little house on the red prarie. A real solid economic reason.
People follow the economics. So if you want folks to colonize – find the economics there, not the other way around.
The colony will need to be supported by and trade with Earth, and the charity won’t extend indefinitely.
>> Those are called lethal. So you want people to go to a place
>> where they will be dependant on charity from earth, they’ll get
>> sick, die young, or just go broke unless the colony is scraped out first?
> SD in the winter is lethal.
In South Dakota you can wear a coat and build a fire. Unless you expect you Mars dwellers to live their lives in underground centrifuges – you have a bigger problem.
> They will not be dependent on charity from the Earth. ==
The colony can’t generate profit. Ego It can’t pay for the suplies it needs to survive. So someone backon Earth wil need to. Thats charity
> Thomas Matula Says:
> February 13th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
> Kelly,
>> [[[Course if you recover a lot – the market price drops like
>> mad — adn given the high recovery adn transport costs of
>> small amounts – you’ld be hard pressed to make any money?]]]
> Self correcting. When prices fall below cost, mining and shipments stop, ==
And you go broke. That could drive prices back up – but not as high as before – and you’ll be in no shape to enjoy it.
😉
Also you have a transport issue. NEOs can have platinum group ore – by they wander around and – at least yet – we don’t have ship designs to bring the stuff back and down. Especially at a reduced price per once.
>=NEOs are likely to be competitive to the Moon long term, but
> the time lag will make robotic mining difficult short term.
True but its not clear the high launch costs from the moon won’t be a worse disadvantage.
> Also once you have a resource there is a tendency for value
> added process to locate near the source.==
True, but it depends on transport issues, and where the most value added part of the usage process is.
I tend to think until you can recover adn land bulk high value materials (high grade ore, oil, etc, your not going to get space industry or colonization on a large scale.
>== Being a short distance uphill from the biggest market in the Solar
> System will be why the Moon will be industrialized first, and will
> be the first to achieve economic self sufficiency.
Still, the moon doesn’t have usefull gravity adn its close enough to suggest you’ld just have mantended mines adn torist spots, with the “miners living in orbit in a full G hab area.
Or on Earth.
😉
>….Don’t let the water on Mars trick you into thinking its better like it has Dr. Zubrin.
In one of the nuttier claims Zubrin claimed – he though Mars would eventually become a farming world feeding the asteroid belt settlements. About as sensible astrying to start a fish farm in the Sahara to feed Europe main lobsters.
Ken,
[[[Suppose we sent a colony ship to Bernard’s star and they found a nice habitable planet and set up shop. ]]]
Actually Robert Heinlein and Spider Robinson in the novel “Variable Star” outlines a pretty good business model for financing interstellar settlements. But it only works thanks to relativity.
[[[Without a business case we just don’t go?]]]
Basically, because without a business case you just get another Project Apollo. Flags and footsteps for national prestige and then its shut down.
Bottom line is you need to find a way to finance your settlement. If you use investors, you have to show how to pay them out. If its a government venture its always at the mercy of the government shutting it down, as it just did with VSE.
That is why without a business model it just won’t happen. Space is not like the Old West where the cost of settling on a new frontier could be earned in a year or two of work. The technology barrier is high and that equals money.
So you only have two choices. You could hope the government will do it. But as Administrator Bolden states colonization is not NASA’s mission.
The other is to use the model used to settle North America. Create joint stock companies to fund a settlement and then the Settlement pays back the investors.
So wishing for space settlements is fun, but until you make the business case it won’t happen because government funding is just not stable enough to make it happen.
I think its possible to make a business case for lunar settlement, but to do so you need more data on the Moon and its resources. VSE could have provided that, but now it won’t because President Obama killed it, throwing the baby (VSE) out with the bath water (Constellation). So now you need to develop a business model to do the R&D needed. Unfortunately the President Obama’s new policy is also sending the New Space firms that could provide such a business model down a dead end path with the siren call of NASA funding. That is the double tragedy of the President’s new policy that will set back the creation of a space faring society at least a generation. And set back the space settlements you want to see even further…
BTW once you have lunar industrialization it will then be possible to make a business case for NEO development. Mars, at best would come after that, although I suspect it will just be bypassed since by then planets will no longer be seen as having any value for space settlement. But that is another story.
But the killing of VSE really sets the settlement of the Solar System back a generation. The only good thing I see is that New Space may get so burned on it they may, finally, give up their focus on NASA’s budget and take a path that finally moves them beyond NASA.
Thats why we keep looking for said explicit argument.
I’m not aware of any business case for going beyond orbit and none that involve sending people. Yet I still strongly believe in the idea of humans in space. Wish I could give you one. Or better yet, find an angel to finance it.
Serendipity was an observation, not part of an argument so much.
Actually fleets were crossing within a couple decades.
But not really establishing colonies.
You can build more ships too. But both require the complex industry and construction infastructure a lone person wandering out won’t have. Surviving in space or on Mars is a very high tech activity.
First we are not talking about a lone person (sneaky attempt to create a straw man… shame on ya.) Second, a habitat on Mars does not need to be high tech (is that another straw man?) You need to seal in air and heat. Bricks can do that. Very low tech.
>> Humans don’t work that way
> It remains to be seen if we can adapt to 0.38g.
No, sadly it isn’t.
I’d be interested in a definitive link. That would be a showstopper. Just losing bone mass wouldn’t.
Your going to cover your car with say a coupe meters of dirt?
I explicitly did not say that. Is there some kind of shielding that could be produced from Martian resources? I suppose I could research that.
resources on Mars are no where near as rich and pure as in space
I know that. That’s not the point. The point is that Mars has the resources.
Every place we settled, we settled because it profited us to do so.
Let me concede this point. I suppose I’ll have to come up with the business case. I’ll get back to you.
What you say is you hope there are benefits – but can’t think of any.
Not exactly. I can think and have said many benefits. But you are specifically interested in the business case. Again, will have to get back to you on that one.
Its not even as good as other places in space – like in space.
In space, you need to change orbit to get to resources perhaps months away. On Mars you drive to the resource today. Population growth is going to be faster on a planet specifically because it’s low tech than in space and population is a driving factor for industry. Unless people are obsolete, in which case, what’s the point?
The colony will need to be supported by and trade with Earth, and the charity won’t extend indefinitely.
The reason for choosing Mars is because it can be independent. Supplies are needed for space habitats because they have no local resources. Every new person puts a new strain on a space habitats resources. A new person on Mars might require building more solar panels… when you get around to it.
In South Dakota you can wear a coat and build a fire. Unless you expect you Mars dwellers to live their lives in underground centrifuges – you have a bigger problem.
Still need that definitive link.
The colony can’t generate profit. Ego It can’t pay for the supplies it needs to survive. So someone backon Earth wil need to. Thats charity
You can call startup costs charity if you like. The whole point of Mars is that it has the highest potential for independence and self reliance specifically because it can grow (population specifically) with low tech that can’t be done in space. You don’t know if the colony can generate a profit. But I admit I can’t present an indisputable case at the moment.
Kelly,
[[[Self correcting. When prices fall below cost, mining and shipments stop, ==
And you go broke. That could drive prices back up – but not as high as before – and you’ll be in no shape to enjoy it.]]]
Commodity markets set the prices for goods like PGM, and they take into account factors like supplies going down because the price is too low through the futures markets so they have the option of adjust ahead of time. Mining firms also design their mining around projected commodity prices. I teach now in a college in Elko NV near Newmont’s great Carlin mine. Because of the high gold prices they have shifted production towards the lower grade, higher cost ore they mapped out when prices were low. When prices fall they will downsize and shift to the higher grade ore. This is part of their long term strategy for managing costs. It will also be the strategy followed in lunar mining ventures.
In terms of mining, the problem with NEOs is that you are not able to effectively teleoperate the mining equipment because of the time delay. This is why the Moon works better. Also, and this surprises most people, when you figure the Delta V from the lunar service to Earth surface it is actually less then for most NEO’s. And more importantly it varies much less. This make it ideal for external power launch systems like mass drivers, slingatrons, etc. This also means your cost are more predictable. And lower because you are now using solar energy to power your launches, not rocket power. SO overall you should see a major cost saving over NEO’s in terms of transportation cost.
The proximity of the Moon to Earth also makes it easier to manage the work force since the great bulk of it will be on Earth telecommuting to work. There will be humans on the move, but each one will be supported by dozens of teleworkers on Earth. This is a leveraging you will not get on Mars or for NEOs and will be a factor in closing the business case for lunar mining, and later, lunar manufacturing.
And least you think this is science fiction they are already using this model for an iron mine in Western Australia where most of the work force (except security, maintenance and a small geology staff) telecommutes1300 kilometers from a control complex in Perth via Satellite. A signal would only have about to go five times as far to service a mine on the Moon 🙂 This is a real world prototype for a lunar mining venture, and lunar settlement.
Ken,
There is nothing low tech about surviving on Mars. It sounds like you have bought whole hog the fantasy of Dr. Zubrin and the Mars Society.
Mars as an environment is even more harsh then the Moon. You have just enough atmosphere to make life horrible from dust storms to high winds. It also makes landing on Mars much more difficult then the Moon, not to mention taking off again. The soil is toxic, both in composition and in shape, and is unsuitable for growing food in. And frost in it will make building habitats more difficult then the Moon. As it will make burying them. And even worst it may have microbial life which could create its own set of problems. I could go on, but the Mars is not the high arctic, its a hundred times worst.
You will probably see most of the inner Solar System, and some of the outer Solar System’s Moons settled long before the problem of building settlements on Mars is solved…
> ken anthony Says:
>February 13th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
>> You can build more ships too. But both require the complex industry and
>> construction infastructure a lone person wandering out won’t have.
>> Surviving in space or on Mars is a very high tech activity.
> a habitat on Mars does not need to be high tech (is that another straw man?)
> You need to seal in air and heat. Bricks can do that. Very low tech.
By that definition a spaceship isn’t high tech. Just need to seel in air in a bubble of metal.
;/
Yes. A base on another planet is like a space ship. It needs al the complex systems for power, life support, data systems, etc. Any of them fail – you die.
You talk about just seeling yourself in a brick shelter to keep in the air. Didn’t you realize you need a complex life support systems to make the air and keep it breathable?
I worked on the life support system for Orion. You’ld be amazed at the long list of complex toxic chemicals you have to filter out – and the gasses and other factors you need to maintain.
>>>> Humans don’t work that way
>>> It remains to be seen if we can adapt to 0.38g.
>> No, sadly it isn’t.
> I’d be interested in a definitive link. That would be a showstopper.
> Just losing bone mass wouldn’t.
Its not just bone mass. It’s a general degradation to the cardiovascular and immune systems as well.
They can duplicate medical effects of zero G in bed rest studies (Its mainly lack od exersize and fluid redistribution due to no – or less gravity pulling the blood down to your toes. I think they figured you’ld get a lot more exercize sitting watching TV then going out and about exerting yourself in lower G.
>> Your going to cover your car with say a coupe meters of dirt?
> I explicitly did not say that. Is there some kind of shielding that
> could be produced from Martian resources? I suppose I could research that.
That is the shielding – thick mass.
>> resources on Mars are no where near as rich and pure as in space
> I know that. That’s not the point. The point is that Mars has the resources.
So does space, but they are more accessable in space.
>> Its not even as good as other places in space – like in space.
> In space, you need to change orbit to get to resources perhaps
> months away. ==
Or on Mars you need to drive to areas and dig for months to get to them.
>=== Population growth is going to be faster on a planet specifically
> because it’s low tech than in =
That’s a fantasy. It is NOT low tech building a place to live on a alien planet. Its not like folks settling in a sod hut in Kansas.
>> The colony will need to be supported by and trade with Earth, and
>> the charity won’t extend indefinitely.
> The reason for choosing Mars is because it can be independent.
> Supplies are needed for space habitats because they have no local resources.==
No even nations need supplies from one another. Given a space platform is a very high tech systems – as high tech as it coes pretty much, the bulk of you facilities systems are imported. So if you can’t pay for the new life support systems or reactor core – – time to pack up and head home.
=
>> The colony can’t generate profit. Ego It can’t pay for the supplie
>>s it needs to survive. So someone backon Earth wil need to. Thats charity
> ==The whole point of Mars is that it has the highest potential for
> independence and self reliance specifically because it can grow (population
> specifically) with low tech that can’t be done in space. ==
That seems to be one of the central falicies.
>Thomas Matula Says:
>February 13th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Kelly,
[[[Self correcting. When prices fall below cost, mining and shipments stop, ==
And you go broke. That could drive prices back up – but not as high as before – and you’ll be in no shape to enjoy it.]]]
>== Because of the high gold prices they have shifted production towards
> the lower grade, higher cost ore they mapped out when prices were low.
> When prices fall they will downsize and shift to the higher grade ore. ==
I wouldn’t think ore quality would be the big issue in space – but then how do you get any ore out?
> In terms of mining, the problem with NEOs is that you are not able to
> effectively teleoperate the mining equipment because of the time delay.
> This is why the Moon works better.
If you do it obotically –I’ld agree assuming you could find similarly accessable ore. I would thing the NEOS would be easier to mine.
>Also, and this surprises most people, when you figure the Delta V from
> the lunar service to Earth surface it is actually less then for most NEO’s.
> And more importantly it varies much less. ===
But you need big high power boost thrusters, not light low long burn thriusters like ion thrusters or something?
> This make it ideal for external power launch systems like mass drivers, slingatrons, etc.
Those are pretty big high power launch systems. That’s a big up in infastructure. You still need the in space catcher ships to ferry it back to Earth, and landers, but you’ld need those from a NEO to.
>== you are now using solar energy to power your launches, not rocket power. ==
You can do that back from a NEO as well.
>==
> And least you think this is science fiction they are already using this model
> for an iron mine in Western Australia where most of the work force (except
> security, maintenance and a small geology staff) telecommutes1300 kilometers
> from a control complex in Perth via Satellite.
Intersting. Neverheard of that.
> Thomas Matula Says:
> February 13th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
>
> == You will probably see most of the inner Solar System, and
> some of the outer Solar System’s Moons settled long before
> the problem of building settlements on Mars is solved…
I tend to agree. The planets may be the least valuble places to settle in the solar system.
I’m really not a whole hog type of guy. So far, the only potential show stopper we’ve discussed is if humans can adapt to 0.38g I’d like to find out more about that. You say Mars is worse than the Moon because Mars shares many traits with the Earth. We have dust storms and other violent winds here on Earth. We have toxic soil here on Earth. Permafrost is a pain, but also a good source of materials needed for survival. I hear we’ve got microbes here on Earth as well. You’ve convinced me… we should all leave this Earth as soon as possible and take up residence on an airless moon somewhere.
Getting back to that show stopper… all those moons that are going to be first have lower gravity.
I’m afraid you’ll need better than that to convince me.
Yes, digging in permafrost is a pain… but it also provides an air seal for free. Ever hear of an igloo. I hear it’s quite toasty inside. Of course, other options are possible.
Humans are can do. I do not buy the argument that the Moon is less harsh just because it has a less varied environment. Well, except for temperature which is quite extreme and abrupt.
You talk about just seeling yourself in a brick shelter to keep in the air. Didn’t you realize you need a complex life support systems to make the air and keep it breathable?
Why would you assume otherwise? Just because I was terse? The complexity of a life support system can vary. You’d want redundant different systems that are as low maintenance and reliable as possible. Mostly you’d want something you can maintain with local resources. You need life support no matter where you go.
By that definition a spaceship isn’t high tech. Just need to seel in air in a bubble of metal.
You’re right. It depends on the alloy and how easy it is to work with. The tech level could be low or high. Iron is pretty low tech but probably more useful on a planet than on a spaceship because of its density.
That is the shielding – thick mass.
No. Shielding is a particle trap. Some materials are both light and effective. Of course, whatever material you use, more is generally better.
Or on Mars you need to drive to areas and dig for months to get to them.
The advantage is the resources on a planet have the same velocity as you do. No matching of orbit required. They stay put. Digging for months is not the problem. Taking months to get to a necessary resource is.
even nations need supplies from one another
I’m not quite sure I’m following your logic here. So it’s not possible to survive in a nation on Earth if not for trade? Yes, trade is pervasive… but required?
It is NOT low tech building a place to live on a alien planet.
It is both high and low. The trick is to choose high tech that is locally reproducible. Most chemistry can be done pretty low tech.
In South Dakota you can wear a coat and build a fire.
…and still die. I’m telling you… Lethal; Walking between buildings in a snow suit during a storm can get you killed.
Oh, and as for radiation. It’s pervasive. It has to be mitigated any place you go. Having lot’s of dirt is still a big advantage.
Kelly,
The core part of Dennis Wingo’s thesis is you don’t have to go chasing NEO’s, the Moon has been collecting them for billions of years. Some are low speed impacters that create boulder fields like the one Apollo 11 had to dodge on landing. A percentage of these will be NEO’s with high amounts of PGM.
Bill White outlines Dennis’ argument here in his review of his book.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/479/1
So you don’t need to go chasing NEOs just yet, the Moon will have done the work for you. You just need to locate the impact sites and create the infrastructure needed to export them to Earth 🙂
Thats not many
Millions is not many?
…and none are coming up with big industrial uses or huge contracts to do anything.
So?
Mainly you have millions saying they might like to go to space, maybe – but its not like they can outline busness plans to investors about it.
Why do they have to outline business plans to go to space? I didn’t have to do so to visit the Grand Canyon.
The Grand Canyon is an excellent comparison! Sometimes naysayers complain that space tourism will never happen because long stays in large orbital structures would be unaffordable. I don’t buy that argument, but even if it were true the Grand Canyon example shows you don’t necessarily have to stay somewhere for long in order to make it an interesting tourist destination. The view itself could be enough, and what better view than seeing our home planet from space?
>ken anthony Says:
>
>> You talk about just sealing yourself in a brick shelter to keep in
>>the air. Didn’t you realize you need a complex life support systems
>> to make the air and keep it breathable?
> Why would you assume otherwise>
No because you talk about the idea that after the start up resources you can build everything you need to survive on mars. Since life support systems are effectively complex chemical processing systems with precise control –they are reasonably high tech.
> == Iron is pretty low tech but probably more useful on a planet than on a spaceship because of its density.
Inersting factoid: Irion in asteroids can be of such high quality 98% + purity nickel Irion, that it’s a usable grade of something like stainless steel asis.
>> That is the shielding – thick mass.
> No. Shielding is a particle trap. Some materials are both light and
> effective. –
If that were true we could shield our space ships.
>> Or on Mars you need to drive to areas and dig for months to get to them.
> The advantage is the resources on a planet have the same velocity as you do.==
That’s not a huge issue given its easier to do that get around on a planet with no transport infastructure.
>== Digging for months is not the problem. Taking months to get to a necessary resource is.
Its still months to get it to you.
>> even nations need supplies from one another
> So it’s not possible to survive in a nation on Earth if not for trade?
> Yes, trade is pervasive… but required?
Pretty much if you want to live in a first world technical civilization. Obviously on Mars you need to be well above that on technological
In theory a very large nation (tens to hundreds of millions of people) COULD do it all on their own – but none has.
> Thomas Matula Says:
> February 13th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
> Kelly,
>
> The core part of Dennis Wingo’s thesis is you don’t have
> to go chasing NEO’s, the Moon has been collecting them
> for billions of years. ==
So’s Earth, and its a lot easier to get to transport the ore to Market here?
😉
> Rand Simberg Says:
> February 13th, 2010 at 11:29 pm
>>Thats not many
> Millions is not many?
No, and if your talking folks who say they might want to go to space – its been much higher then that in many polls.
Hell millions saying they want to do something would hardly justify building a modern cruise ship.
>>…and none are coming up with big industrial uses or huge contracts to do anything.
> So?
So, you don’t found a civilization in space, or even a tourist industry, without them.
> Why do they have to outline business plans to go to space? I
> didn’t have to do so to visit the Grand Canyon.
You didn’t because others already had for you adn built what you needed.
No, and if your talking folks who say they might want to go to space – its been much higher then that in many polls.
OK, over on Planet Kelly, millions is “not many.” Gotcha.
And you can’t have space tourism without unknown “big industrial uses,” or “huge contracts.” Gotcha.
Things are different in this universe.
> Rand Simberg Says:
> February 14th, 2010 at 8:25 am
>> No, and if your talking folks who say they might want to go
>>to space – its been much higher then that in many polls.
> OK, over on Planet Kelly, millions is “not many.” Gotcha.
You used to be in aerospace Rand. Millions is less then a years worth of passengers at a major airport. Hell it might be less then a years worth of airline passengers per day. That wouldn’t be enough to justify a new airliner, and spaceships and orbital “resorts” aren’t much cheaper. [Hell that’s less then a years worth of sales of Ford pick ups!]
Ergo, its not enough to raise the money needed.
In theory a very large nation (tens to hundreds of millions of people) COULD do it all on their own – but none has.
So your thesis is that humans can not survive without outside trade? So how is it the Earth survives? We have no outside trade. Ok, perhaps a few LGM in Wyoming.
Humans actually need very little to survive and thrive. Having these essentials they do very well. These essentials exist on Earth and with a bit more challenge off the Earth (and quite abundantly on Mars.)
Since life support systems are effectively complex chemical processing systems with precise control –they are reasonably high tech.
Again, Earth has a life support system or we’d all be dead. On Mars we could use the same one (plants) as well machinery that you might find on a space ship. On a space ship that machinery has to be light and compact. A planet does not have that restriction. Are you seriously telling me we can’t come up with a life support system the colonists could not maintain with local resources? That is an amazing claim. I seem to remember the Apollo 13 astronauts building a CO2 scrubber under less than ideal conditions (freezing and having there minds compromised by the air they were breathing) and this was just three guys.
Do you realize that your claim that trade with Earth is required for survival essentially means no space-faring civilization anywhere? That’s absurd.
If that were true we could shield our space ships.
They use Styrofoam to shield atom bomb radiation. I hear water works pretty well too. It’s not the mass so much that shields but the way the chemical bonds of the material are formed. I do not believe shielding is the insurmountable problem you suggest it is.
Its still months to get it to you.
Not quite. It’s a pipeline. Once you discover a source and start mining it has a daily production. Much of which could be automated and you don’t need the latest and greatest CPU to do that. If the automation breaks down you have manual labor as a backup. The problem is you need a lot of ore to produce the refined materials you need. But what humans did hundreds and thousands of years ago they can certainly do tomorrow.
What I am saying is Jules Verne and friends during the gas light age had the technology to live on Mars. But today Martians would have the added advantage of modern telecommunications and knowledge to help them survive. To say they can’t do it is ridiculous and is essentially a claim that we will never be a space-faring civilization. Or are you claiming that living in zero G makes you smarter and less reliant on trade?
That’s not a huge issue given its easier to do that get around on a planet with no transport infrastructure.
Why do you assume no infrastructure? They can’t build roads (mainly produced simply by driving over the same path repetitively?) They can produce their own vehicles. I hear the inventor of the wheel didn’t have a lot of technology available (he got his women by dragging them by the hair to his cave.)
We went to the Moon with vaccuum tube tech. Obviously the whole thing is a hoax.
Pretty much if you want to live in a first world technical civilization. Obviously on Mars you need to be well above that on technological
Not so obvious. You should try living is a small town in the midwest a hundred miles from the nearest sizable town. Then you might appreciate how well people can thrive without every bit of the latest and greatest.
How does tech and infrastructure come about anyway? People. They work to improve their lives. Put a thousand people on Mars (this would take about twenty years after the first landing if we got serious about it) and watch them thrive. It’s not linear; the first year we might only send ten people. In the twentieth we’d be sending more than a hundred.
even nations need supplies from one another
That’s a choice and some say one that compromises national security in some cases.
I’ve said it before, but another advantage to Mars is we need to build a lander. Assuming that lander does not need atmosphere to land we now have a vehicle for opening up most of the rest of the solar system. I think Bezos is building it right now.
We live in an amazing age. While there are more companies than these, just three are required to put colonists on Mars…
To and from Earth orbit.
In transit (scaled up a bit from the cislunar concept.)
Land on Mars.
Add the resources of the whole Earth and it should be a snap.
Who pays for it? The colonists themselves.
> ken anthony Says:
> February 14th, 2010 at 10:20 am
>> In theory a very large nation (tens to hundreds of millions of
>> people) COULD do it all on their own – but none has.
> So your thesis is that humans can not survive without outside trade? ==
More specifically that no modern nation/community does, and theres god reason to assume that would have the abilty to try to without huge numbers of folks to fill in all the specialized niches. Given a mars colony require dramatically higher levels of technology and complex systems. You would have a dramatically high problem with becoming self-sufficient. Especially with the extremely low populations. Your talking more like living in huge submarines and expecting them to be self sufficient.
>> ==Since life support systems are effectively complex chemical processing
>> systems with precise control –they are reasonably high tech.
> Again, Earth has a life support system or we’d all be dead. ==
Earth has a planet wide ecology, and global geological processes to tune the atmosphere.
If your talking something like a legrande colony, perhaps you can make a stable system – but even there it’s a high tech system the size of cities.
>== Are you seriously telling me we can’t come up with a life support system
> the colonists could not maintain with local resources? ==
I’m not sure you could build plumbing and power systems out of avalible resources.
>== That is an amazing claim. I seem to remember the Apollo 13
> astronauts building a CO2 scrubber under less than ideal conditions ==
No, they adapted they taped up plastic sheets and paper from instruction books into ducts so the lEM fans could blow air through the bigger command module prepackaged CO2 absorber packs, rather then the little LEM absorber packs.
Not exactly manufacturing life support systems with local materials (unless you consider disposable prepacked CO2 packs a local resource.
> Do you realize that your claim that trade with Earth is required for survival
> essentially means no space-faring civilization anywhere? That’s absurd.
By your logic then no nation can survive on Earth because they do it with extensive trade.
It means that spacefaring civilization requires a massive industrial infastructure. So settlements in space are not going to be like the wild west where you can head out with a ax and a couple draft animals and build a log cabin or sod house and you can survive. They are going to be more like building and maintaining cruse liners or modern small cities with extensive trade for supplies and spare parts.
When whole nations or huge LaGrange platforms are out there in numbers its likely virtually all your major parts manufacturers will have factories there to. But that’s a long way away.
>> If that were true we could shield our space ships.
> They use Styrofoam to shield atom bomb radiation. I hear water works pretty well too.
Yeah, a swimming pool sized block of water would shield a car pretty well. Need to be meters thick if you want to be out long term or during a solar flare.
Shielding is generally about huge amounts of mass. Like 10 foot thick concrete radiation shields around reactors.
>> Its still months to get it to you.
> Not quite. It’s a pipeline. Once you discover a source and start mining
> it has a daily production. ==
So why not mine it in space, or ship it from Earth for that mater?
>=
> What I am saying is Jules Verne and friends during the gas
> light age had the technology to live on Mars. ==
Oh hell no. NO more then Jules could build a nuclear submarine.
>== Or are you claiming that living in zero G makes you smarter and less reliant on trade?
No, butin zero g you can morecheaply and easily get raw materials and build cities shielded and spun for 1G.
They need as much trade, its just easier to ship it to them.
>> That’s not a huge issue given its easier to do that then get around on a
>> planet with no transport infrastructure.
> Why do you assume no infrastructure?
Roads (especially continent wide ones), trucks, etc are major industrial producs – way beyond the scale of a simple colony
>
> We went to the Moon with vaccuum tube tech. ==
Transisotor actually. And it took the industrial resources of the biggestindustrial and economic power – and they could only last there for a couple days – with no solar storms.
>> Pretty much if you want to live in a first world technical civilization.
>> Obviously on Mars you need to be well above that on technological
> Not so obvious. You should try living is a small town in the midwest a
> hundred miles from the nearest sizable town. ==
Obviously not the same as living on mars.
Try living in a nuclear submarine underwater for months. It’s a closer anology. But your assuming the crew can build and maintain the sub from material they run across in the shallows or something. I’m saying it need a lot of resupply, and a shipyard and industrial nation to build new ones.
You seem to in effect be saying put a few hundred or few thousand folks on mars with start up equipment and in a couple decades they’ll be building space ships and techno skyscrapers out of local ore!
Kelly,
[[[So’s Earth, and its a lot easier to get to transport the ore to Market here?]]]
Which is why Dennis is focusing on PGM. Today most of the PGM resources on Earth are in South Africa and Canada. Both ores bodies are associated with ancient (1 billion + year old) impact events. So the Earth’s resources is limited. The Moon is the next logical place to find Platinum rich impacters. Yes, it would be nice to go to the NEO;s themselves, but that is a longer step.
Ken,
[[[You should try living is a small town in the midwest a hundred miles from the nearest sizable town.]]]
I live in a small in Nevada 230 miles from a decent size city, but Wal-Mart provides 🙂
Seriously, I appreciate your enthusiasm for Mars, but 50 years from now Mars advocates will still be making the same arguments, but no one will be living on Mars. The environment is just too harsh and too different from any of the other bodies of the Solar System to make going there worthwhile for anyone but scientists, just as in the Antarctic. However, by then, there could be a thriving settlements on the Moon providing goods and services to Earth and the emerging NEO mining ventures. And independent of the space policy whims of governments and presidents.
Really you could apply all the arguments you made to settlement of the Antarctic, but you see no rush to settle it. Yes, some will bring up the Antarctic Treaty System, but the only reason the nations exploring Antarctic agreed to the Treaty System was that there was no business case for building settlements there. Any mineral resources are locked up under thousands of feet of ice, with harsh weather conditions, although compared to weather conditions on Mars, Antarctica is a tropical paradise 🙂
But since there is no business case for Antarctica exists all you have are Outposts. Outposts for scientists that exist at the whim of the governments that fund them. You also have tourists, about 30,000 a year, but none stay more then a few days, just long enough to stare at the ice, have their photos taken with the Penguins and then go home to brag about it…. If your arguments were valid Antarctica would be filled with human settlements. Its not and it unlikely to ever be, unless of course global warming melts the ice releasing its mineral resources… 🙂
You seem to in effect be saying put a few hundred or few thousand folks on mars with start up equipment and in a couple decades they’ll be building space ships and techno skyscrapers out of local ore!
And you seem to be saying nothing can be done until you reach the finish line. The start of the race can’t happen and they will certainly all die in the middle.
Where do you think space ships and skyscrapers come from? People. One rivet at a time. Give me a good chemist, machinist and engineer and the tools I can fit in a garage and I could build 99% of what modern society exists on. Including very complex stuff. My machinist can follow a blueprint. My chemist can identify the materials I need. My engineer can put it into production. You think technology is some kind of magic that only the high mage is capable of? You really should spend some time on a ranch.
So yes, in a couple decades they’ll be building space ships and techno skyscrapers out of local ore! Or at least have a good start on it. The more skilled people available the faster it will go. You seem to have a very limited appreciation for what motivated people like colonists are capable of. You can tell me how hard it is and tell me all the details I’m leaving out, but I assure you, the colonists will be very aware of the details.
Another example. I know a publisher in NY. They are a little bit different from most publishers. They have the machinery that most publishers have for printing books and they do buy there supplies from outside sources. The difference is they have a machine shop. Where most publishers would pay an outside source when a machine breaks down, they make the part (without blueprints, they use the broken part as their blueprint.)
This is highly unusual. But there’s no reason in principle they couldn’t also make there own paper and mine and refine metal. They don’t do it because it’s available by trade, but there is absolutely no reason in principle they couldn’t do that as well.
Have you ever seen a rancher build a tractor part? Many are very skilled at manufacturing. A ranch is very self sufficient. They only buy things because it’s easier; make it harder and they continue along just fine building what they need themselves.
You really need to believe in people. Just because you or I can’t do something doesn’t mean it can’t be done. Especially when we know it is being done… by regular old people.
I once worked with a half million dollar Japanese CNC turning center. My machinist friend had a hand built lathe he’d done himself. The only difference between the two? The CNC was a bit faster and had a ten tool turrent and needed to be programmed. The machinist had to select his own tools (more than ten) but he could make anything that half million dollar machine could make.
Give a machinist a lathe, a mill, a slicer, a surface grinder and a block of metal… Do you know what he can make? A lathe, a mill, a slicer, a grinder, and just about anything else.
Yes, he bought the electric motor he used to build his lathe. Which brings me to another friend in SD that builds electric motors. He needs wire. Everything else the machinist could make for the motors including bearings.
I don’t personally know anyone that makes wire, but I’m sure there’s a guy and I bet my machinist could make him the machines he needs.
It’s all about people.
> Thomas Matula Says:
> February 14th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
> Kelly,
>
> [[[So’s Earth, and its a lot easier to get to transport the ore to Market here?]]]
> Which is why Dennis is focusing on PGM. Today most of the
> PGM resources on Earth are in South Africa and Canada. Both
> ores bodies are associated with ancient (1 billion + year old)
> impact events. So the Earth’s resources is limited.
> The Moon is the next logical place to find Platinum rich impacters. =
Humm.. That’s a good point – but how hard is it going to be to find it on the moon? If only two useful sites were ever found on Earth, whats the odds of finding a site on the moon that can be mined with equipment you can send there?
Kelly,
That is why Dennis is working with NASA Ames on the old Lunar Orbiter images, as well as the new LRO ones. He’s looking for likely targets. One good thing, unlike Mars or the Earth, the lack of atmosphere, weathering and geotechnic should make them easier to find from orbit.
> ken anthony Says:
> February 14th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
>> You seem to in effect be saying put a few hundred or
>> few thousand folks on mars with start up equipment
>> and in a couple decades they’ll be building space ships
>> and techno skyscrapers out of local ore!
> And you seem to be saying nothing can be done until you reach the finish line. ==
No I’m saying this isn’t a do it yourself project, or a episode of survivorman on Mars. Its like building and operating a base in the arctic or a liner in the ocean — or a city anywhere on Earth frankly.. Your going to need a lot of parts and systems you can’t make with a small shop or the expertice a couple hundred people can have.
Why do you think its going to be so much easier to build and operate a colony on Mars, then a resort or town on Earth? Small towns in Kansas can’t do it all on their own. No way one on Mars is going to get by so much easier.
>== Give me a good chemist, machinist and engineer and the
> tools I can fit in a garage and I could build 99% of what modern
> society exists on. ==
No you can’t.
Can your machinist make a steel mill? A lightbulb? A nuclear reactor? And atmospheric composition sensor? An LCD screen? A pillow? Paper? Towels? Medical suplies?
Walk around a grocery store or a drug store – much less a industrial suply house and figure out how your going to make all that yourself.
And of course – do you have the time? After all you got work to do to pay the bills adn do whatever the colony was built to do.
> Thomas Matula Says:
> February 14th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
>Kelly,
>
> That is why Dennis is working with NASA Ames on the old
> Lunar Orbiter images, as well as the new LRO ones. He’s looking
> for likely targets. One good thing, unlike Mars or the Earth, the
> lack of atmosphere, weathering and geotechnic should make
> them easier to find from orbit.
Wonder if it will make them any closer to the surface?
😉
Need a damn good Earth orbit to Lunar surface shuttle.
Your going to need a lot of parts and systems you can’t make with a small shop
You don’t have a clue about how industrialization works do you? It all starts with a design engineer. First you figure out how to make something. Then you figure out how to mass produce it. People do this. I’ve seen it done by engineers from start to finish. No magic involved.
The few, and I mean very few, items they can’t make for themselves because they haven’t developed the tech to that point they can import. Mostly very small mass items which can piggyback on regular colonist migration.
or the expertise a couple hundred people can have.
Actually, they will have the expertise of millions back on Earth. There will be a labor shortage on Mars for hundreds of years but that doesn’t mean the people they have won’t do an adequate job until someone with more skills comes along. This will help drive migration. The Martians will be making great offers to get skilled people to join them.
Why do you think its going to be so much easier to build and operate a colony on Mars, then a resort or town on Earth?
I never said that. What I do assert is in most cases it will be no harder. In some case, 0.38g will allow them to construct things with less structure than required on Earth.
Small towns in Kansas can’t do it all on their own.
There’s a huge difference between don’t and can’t. They choose not to.
Can your machinist make a steel mill?
Yes. Which reminds me, the machinist would probably not make electric motor casings. That would be easier as a casting. Something I did in shop class as a dumb kid. They’d have the skills.
A lightbulb?
Glass and a filament in a vacuum? Yes. A glass blower might be a highly valued skill.
A nuclear reactor?
You mean refine radioactive material to heat water to drive a turbine to generate electricity? Uh, yeah.
And atmospheric composition sensor?
Now you’re just making stuff up. Is this something you need? It’s a sensor? Can’t be very big. If we need it. We import it. Miners used to have an atmospheric sensor. It was yellow and sat in a cage. They called it a canary.
But seriously. You really think they can’t build a sensor if they had to? The knowledge exists. The materials exist. They can build it if they need it. I don’t imagine they’d have that much need for it. But suppose I’m wrong. Suppose it’s a critical item. They will bring an oversupply early and will identify any need to resupply early. They will find creative ways to compensate for what they don’t have. The chemist may have something to say about that.
An LCD screen?
Probably an import for quite a while. I bet they produce cathode ray tubes to take up the slack. But then, an engineer that knows might explain to me why an LCD is easier to make.
A pillow?
Cloth and stuffy. No problem.
Paper? Towels?
You mean like the Chinese thousands of years ago.
Medical supplies?
You won’t have all the drugs a modern industrial nation produces. You don’t need them either. You will have medicinal plants.
Walk around a grocery store or a drug store – much less a industrial supply house and figure out how your going to make all that yourself.
Somebody made it and most of it is not essential. You can live a good life without most of it.
And of course – do you have the time?
For priorities: Yes. For essentials: Yes. For everything else? No, do you have the time for everything? Are you able to survive?
You might want to reconsider if the items you mentioned are essential. I use a candle for light when the power goes off.
Kelly,
Actually the models for low impact events indicate that most of the NEO impacter would be scattered over the surface, not buried by natural forces (water, sediment, wind, etc…) as on Earth (and Mars). So should be able to identify the chunks of NEO from orbit if you have a good spectrometer with enough resolution. That is why Dennis is working with the lunar images.
Kelly,
I would give up on Ken, like most of Dr. Zubrin’s followers he thinks settling Mars will be like “Little House on the Prairie” with space suits.
> ken anthony Says:
> February 14th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
>> Your going to need a lot of parts and systems you can’t make with a small shop
> You don’t have a clue about how industrialization works do you?
I out to, I’m a senior systems engineer contractor.
> or the expertise a couple hundred people can have.
> Actually, they will have the expertise of millions back on Earth. =
Sorry. Unless you ship it from Earth, you can’t use the folks on earth to build it, or teleconference train someone with a – what half hour time delay.
>> Why do you think its going to be so much easier to build and operate a
>> colony on Mars, then a resort or town on Earth?
>I never said that.
Yeah, you have. All the stuff folks need to build a building, or aircraft or something here – and you keep saying, no they can do with out. All your really need is people. They could live on Mars with 1800’s tech and a handful of focused colonists.
Don’t need no economics – just do it and figure out how to pay your way.
Everything can be built with stuff right next to you on Mars.
>What I do assert is in most cases it will be no harder. ==
You on another world. Working in high radiation, sick and weak from low grav, in a world with no air – in a heavy space suit. AND YOU DON”T THINK THEY NEED THE GEAR AND SUPPORTON A CONSTRUCTION SITE HERE.
>> Small towns in Kansas can’t do it all on their own.
> There’s a huge difference between don’t and can’t. They choose not to.
No they can’t. No one can.
>> Can your machinist make a steel mill?
> Yes
Ok, your off in fantasy land.
> Thomas Matula Says:
> February 14th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
> Actually the models for low impact events indicate that most of the
> NEO impacter would be scattered over the surface, not buried by
> natural forces (water, sediment, wind, etc…) as on Earth (and Mars).
> So should be able to identify the chunks of NEO from orbit if you
> have a good spectrometer with enough resolution. That is why
> Dennis is working with the lunar images.==
Define low impact? NEOs can come in at 40,000 mph.
😉
Be very intersting though if they could find the stuff.
Wonder if you could recover it and get it back economically? What it would take?
>==
> # Thomas Matula Says:
> February 14th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
> I would give up on Ken, like most of Dr. Zubrin’s followers he thinks
> settling Mars will be like “Little House on the Prairie” with space suits.
Thats the damn truth. And figures you can make a victorian era, steam punk space suit, out of rocks next to the base.
This is one of the things that freaks me out about Zubrin and the case for mars folks. They really do see it as little house on the mars prairie.
Not even well thought out enough to make a decent SciFi movie.
Worked with someone who knew about Zubrin back when he was in Martin. Said he was a great brainstormer, coming out with tons of out of the box ideas no one else would have thought of. BUT he really needed adult supervision to weed out the obviously stupid ideas from the few that actually are worth looking into.
Another thought Tom. Meteorites can sell for more then their weight in gold sometimes. Might be a market on its own.
Also thinking longer range, the standard space dev platform is assembled in orbit in modules and moving toward where the resources are to be recovered. Even if its in orbit around a planet being used. Telerobotic ops out to the astroid, planet, etc. Assemble them around Earth or maybe l-5, move them to the worksite fully equiped. When the sites played out – boost the mining camp. Like a really big floating oil rig.
you can’t use the folks on earth to … teleconference train someone
Correct, but you can share written instructions that a competent recipient can use to produce a needed item or determine a substitute.
Yeah, you have.
I did not at any time say it would be easier. I simply asserted they could do what others have done.
and you keep saying, no they can do with out.
Which is absolutely true for non-essential things. They would have to:
a) Do without.
b) Import
c) Wait until they grow to the point where they can produce it.
If essential they’d have to find a way to get it or find a suitable substitute. Most things are not essential.
All the stuff folks need to build a building, or aircraft or something here … All your really need is people. They could live on Mars with 1800’s tech and a handful of focused colonists.
Obviously I need to clarify, because I’m not communicating my point well. Let me start by saying, although I’ve read ‘The case for Mars’ I am not [one] of Dr. Zubrin’s followers (I haven’t given up on you Thomas)
Obviously, a few hundred or even a few thousand people on Mars are not equal to the industrial capacity of the Earth. But they don’t have to be. They’d have a lot of challenges and limitations. Humans may not be able to adapt to 0.38g and that’s a complete showstopper (you can spin up to one g in space but not generally on a planet.) Beyond that humans have specific needs to survive.
The year is 2010 and that doesn’t change for Martians even if they light a room with candles. If they can be self sufficient and survive they still will not be alone in the solar system and will still have access to the latest and greatest technology even if only as a rumor of it’s existence. Saying they could survive with gas light technology is not to say they are ‘little house on the prarie.’ Not by a long shot.
Mars has challenges for survival. No doubt. Some really big ones.
You on another world. Working in high radiation, sick and weak from low grav, in a world with no air – in a heavy space suit.
Yes, Mars and I propose they work in a shirt sleeve environment perhaps on the rim of the Valles Marineris Canyon which gives them access to Martian strata. So from the habitats they bring with them they would perhaps move to cliff dwellings. If they can’t find caves to seal they dig out caverns. So they would not be working in high radiation. They would have air, they would not be working in space suits (most of the time) because they would be mole people generally (because of the surface radiation.) They would have to adapt to the low gravity. This doesn’t mean sick or weak. I’m sick and weak, but I survive and they would as well.
High radiation is a problem to be mitigated everywhere. It’s a lot easier to work in 0.38g than zero g where you have to brace yourself at all times. Working in zero g is a lot harder.
Ok, your off in fantasy land.
History of steel making goes back thousands of years although again it is basically a gas light tech item. What is it about melting iron that you find to be a fantasy? Will Mars equal Pennsyvania. That’s not my claim. Can they make steel? Yes, if they had to.
AND YOU DON”T THINK THEY NEED THE GEAR AND SUPPORTON A CONSTRUCTION SITE HERE
Since you shouted this point I suppose I should carefully and thoughtfully respond. I believe they need what they need. You can’t disagree with that. I propose that much of what the colonists need should be sent ahead and waiting for the colonists before they even launch. That would include heavy equipment that would be more capable than anything the colonists could be expected to produce. If it breaks down, they should be able to make replacement parts. If it really breaks down, they’d have to live with whatever less capable substitute they could come up with until it could be replaced if ever.
The point is you start the colony and they grow in both population and capabilities making it much easier for the colonists that follow (who in turn bring their own benefits to the colony.) Whatever support Mars gets from Earth is a bonus. A journey starts with the first step.
…figures you can make a victorian era, steam punk space suit, out of rocks next to the base
Currently we make things out of Earth plants and minerals. You claim we CAN’T make thing from plants and minerals that happen not to come from the Earth? Dive suits worked fine for the navy before scuba became available. If you can not manufacture scuba but could make dive suits… would that make dive suit any less capable than when they were first produced. Doesn’t it make sense to do what you can do rather than moaning about what you can’t. Or worse, claiming you can’t when you can?
…and a computer programmer has no business making rockets.
Millions is less then a years worth of passengers at a major airport.
So? It’s many orders off magnitude more than current space activities, putting it far along the asymptote of lower costs.