Or yeah. Just because someone has a clever name for being second doesn't mean it's better.
Quote from: The Amazing Catstronaut on 10/31/2016 01:01 pmEarth is a natural container. Mars is a natural container.NO!Good god, no. Absolutely, categorically not. Stop it, stop it, stop it, please stop.Mars is not a "natural" anything. Mars, for all practical purposes, is just another place in the universe not on the surface of the Earth. It has a little bit of gravity, but that's at least as much of a disadvantage as an advantage, if not more so.
Earth is a natural container. Mars is a natural container.
QuoteSpace is the future, but space itself is mostly worthless. Space is absence. We travel through Space in order to reach an entity of much greater objective value: Stuff.Keep the supply lines short. The success of every human settlement depends on logistics.
Space is the future, but space itself is mostly worthless. Space is absence. We travel through Space in order to reach an entity of much greater objective value: Stuff.
Build an outpost village near civilization. Industrialize the village and grow it into a town. Now use that town to As you said, space is worthless. It's what we plonk into space that creates a destination. Patiently plonking destinations into LEO, then into GEO, then points further out creates the best chances for success, instead of getting fooled by the mirage of Mars.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 11/01/2016 01:19 pmOr yeah. Just because someone has a clever name for being second doesn't mean it's better.It does not have to be. But sometimes it can be. But I digress.
Functionally speaking, there's no difference between living in a pressure vessel on Mars versus living in a pressure vessel in LEO, except that the pressure vessel in LEO is closer to help in an emergency, in addition to being easier to build and supply.
Quote from: Pipcard on 10/31/2016 04:21 amNot sure what to think; he might be right - it might take too long for a Martian colony to become practically self-sufficient and a viable "back-up" to Earth. Or, both Musk and Bezos may be correct (about backups and industrializing space, respectively); their goals would even complement each other in expanding humanity's presence in space.In the whole scheme of things, I think both efforts can exist without interfering with each other. And since both require reducing the cost to access space, both are complementary to a great degree.
Not sure what to think; he might be right - it might take too long for a Martian colony to become practically self-sufficient and a viable "back-up" to Earth. Or, both Musk and Bezos may be correct (about backups and industrializing space, respectively); their goals would even complement each other in expanding humanity's presence in space.
When I wonder what is to be done that will benefit people here, I think about what is done here:$1500B/year: oil ($0.40/kg)$ 900B/year: cellphone plans$ 420B/year: cement production ($0.10/kg)$ 100B/year: aluminum mining and refining ($1.80/kg)$ 25B/year: nickel mining and refining ($10/kg)
Quote from: daveklingler on 11/01/2016 05:27 pmQuote from: The Amazing Catstronaut on 10/31/2016 01:01 pmEarth is a natural container. Mars is a natural container.NO!Good god, no. Absolutely, categorically not. Stop it, stop it, stop it, please stop.Mars is not a "natural" anything. Mars, for all practical purposes, is just another place in the universe not on the surface of the Earth. It has a little bit of gravity, but that's at least as much of a disadvantage as an advantage, if not more so.Our choices for living away from Earth are pretty much:A. Adapt to different (i.e. initially lower) gravity environmentsB. Adapt to zero G environmentsC. Create the ability to build massive artificial gravity structures in spaceHowever we don't have enough information yet to understand which of these is achievable, and which are not.
QuoteQuoteSpace is the future, but space itself is mostly worthless. Space is absence. We travel through Space in order to reach an entity of much greater objective value: Stuff.Keep the supply lines short. The success of every human settlement depends on logistics.Sure. And in comparing Musks plans to Bezos, once you send humans to Mars with minimum viable logistics they have a whole world of local resources to rely upon to fill in the rest. In contrast, any in-space colony will never have local resources to rely upon.
Now I'm not arguing against space colonies, just pointing out that planets have an advantage in the ability to access resources, whereas with space colonies you have to ship EVERYTHING to them. There is really no chance of a space colony becoming self-sufficient, whereas there is some long-term possibility that a Mars colony could.
QuoteBuild an outpost village near civilization. Industrialize the village and grow it into a town. Now use that town to As you said, space is worthless. It's what we plonk into space that creates a destination. Patiently plonking destinations into LEO, then into GEO, then points further out creates the best chances for success, instead of getting fooled by the mirage of Mars.I tend to take an "all of the above" approach to this. I don't think it makes sense to limit humanity to only one path, especially since it will take centuries before we know which one is better (if any). And since learning how to be competent traveling around in space helps everyone, we are not yet at a point where we have to make a choice about whether Bezos has the better approach or Musk does.
Now, lets compare how LEO vs. Mars protect you from these 4 KillersKillerLEOMarsPressure/Cold Gravity Radiation Crashed Into
Recent orbital imaging of Mars has revealed new impact craters formed within the period of spacecraft observation. Beginning with discoveries by the Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) [Malin et al., 2006] and continuing with the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) cameras, over 200 new craters or crater clusters have been observed [Daubar et al., 2013].
You probably want to re-think the last parthttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JE004482/fullQuoteRecent orbital imaging of Mars has revealed new impact craters formed within the period of spacecraft observation. Beginning with discoveries by the Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) [Malin et al., 2006] and continuing with the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) cameras, over 200 new craters or crater clusters have been observed [Daubar et al., 2013].
Quote from: IainMcClatchie on 11/01/2016 07:56 pmWhen I wonder what is to be done that will benefit people here, I think about what is done here:$1500B/year: oil ($0.40/kg)$ 900B/year: cellphone plans$ 420B/year: cement production ($0.10/kg)$ 100B/year: aluminum mining and refining ($1.80/kg)$ 25B/year: nickel mining and refining ($10/kg)What if we add:$200B/year: precious metals ($35,000/kg)That and water (which presumably will quickly bootstrap to being an important in-space resource) are the first things proposed to be mined from NEOs. The idea of LEO industry is that there is much more downmass than upmass. Doesn't take much prop to de-orbit from LEO, just a heatshield.
Quote from: savuporo on 11/02/2016 05:17 amYou probably want to re-think the last parthttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JE004482/fullQuoteRecent orbital imaging of Mars has revealed new impact craters formed within the period of spacecraft observation. Beginning with discoveries by the Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) [Malin et al., 2006] and continuing with the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) cameras, over 200 new craters or crater clusters have been observed [Daubar et al., 2013]. Good point. Revised:Have a habitat (space station, hab, etc)KillerLEOMarsPressure/Cold Gravity Radiation Crashed Into Now, lets see what problems we can solve my throwing mass at them (Shielding, big spinny space stations, etc)KillerLEOMarsPressure/Cold Gravity Radiation Crashed Into Looks like a LEO space station is a better idea the whole way through now.I recommend using smiley-face tables to perform trade studies. I believe NASA has a spec for it.
Quote from: leaflion on 11/02/2016 07:17 amQuote from: savuporo on 11/02/2016 05:17 amYou probably want to re-think the last parthttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JE004482/fullQuoteRecent orbital imaging of Mars has revealed new impact craters formed within the period of spacecraft observation. Beginning with discoveries by the Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) [Malin et al., 2006] and continuing with the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) cameras, over 200 new craters or crater clusters have been observed [Daubar et al., 2013]. Good point. Revised:Have a habitat (space station, hab, etc)KillerLEOMarsPressure/Cold Gravity Radiation Crashed Into Now, lets see what problems we can solve my throwing mass at them (Shielding, big spinny space stations, etc)KillerLEOMarsPressure/Cold Gravity Radiation Crashed Into Looks like a LEO space station is a better idea the whole way through now.I recommend using smiley-face tables to perform trade studies. I believe NASA has a spec for it. Just in a spacesuit (no shielding), Mars at relevant landing sites has lower radiation dose than ISS. Please correct.
Also, gravity is an unknown. Mars may easily be good enough. And you CAN actually get to Earth gravity by "throwing mass at the problem". Mars also has the advantage that there are FAR more accessible resources than anywhere in the solar system besides the surface of Earth. And for some resources, like iron, it's even more easily accessible than Earth.
Also, WTf is "crashed into"? Mars surface relevant sites are fully protected from micrometeorites. LEO, on the other hand, will always have significant impact risk.
Bear in mind that not a single city on earth is self-sufficient, and that even our entire society isn't self-sufficient as we keep burning through mineral reserves and billions of years worth of fossil fuels. If anything, settlements become less self-sufficient as they grow, setting up satellite villages to focus on food production, and focussing themselves on producing what they already have too much of, to sell to others and pay for the things they don't have enough of. Any village that is self sufficient, will either die out because its self-sufficiency comes at a cost that is higher than the market price, or start importing luxury items and services as they build up wealth. Which at that point, they will see as a 'need'.If self-sufficiency to you only means energy, air, food, water and habitation, I posit that any space station big enough to recycle its own waste into new crops would use the same techniques as any planet with no free oxygen or local biosphere. It would, as technology matures, no longer require a lot of inputs beyond compensating for population growth.
Huh? C is a relatively straightforward engineering development process that begins with a spacecraft tethered to a spent stage.
Great! Let's say I drop you directly on top of iron, copper and bauxite deposits on the Martian surface. What riches! Now you tell me how long it will take you to do anything with them, say, return ore to a settlement (loading it how and on to what?) and build an electric motor.Oh, hey, you've got lots of silicon there. How long will it take you to refine that silicon to the point where you can build a chip or a solar panel?Take your time. No need to be more accurate than plus or minus a few decades.
Okay, first of all, they're all space colonies. That's my point. This idea that Mars is somehow an easier place to start a space colony, because it's a planet and therefore easier because it's a planet and therefore easier, is an unfounded assumption.
Regarding resources, some time soon (< 10 years) after we (humans) begin launching asteroid retrieval spacecraft, small asteroids measuring in the half-kiloton range can begin to arrive in cislunar space, ready for retrieval to wherever we place stations. A station in LEO can make a relatively rapid progression, using conventional equipment shipped from nearby, to the point where it can refine and smelt small amounts of ore.
Based on what we've learned from ISS about equatorial LEO radiation levels, guilt-free baby-making can start immediately. Al Globus says so.
It's interesting that this thread has raised several of the questions I wanted to raise on the Martian Homesteading threads.Unless a government commits to establishing an off Earth settlement regardless of cost then any such settlement must generate some kind of revenue. Blue and SX can write off the start up costs but in some ways that's the easy part. The settlement/facility must generate enough revenue somehow to cover it's operating costs, specifically to buy in all the things it needs that it is not self sufficient in. A settlement that cannot do this is effectively a corporate vanity project that will last as long as it's parents management and stockholders continue to view it as part of their corporate strategy.BTW Some people seem to think LEO is a place where everything has to be bought up from Earth but as our NEO surveillance improves I expect to see a great many more small(ish) objects that can have their orbital parameters adjusted to bring them to LEO for conversion either into living or working space (with much better radiation protection than anything you are likely to bring up from Earth) or raw material for mfg products.The question remains what can you make in LEO that is light enough yet has high enough value to justify setting up the facility?High purity specialized glasses for FO lasers and amplifiers seems to be possible. Possibly a couple of other lines. Note putting the facility into orbit is not enough. You need a)Down mass b)regular predictable resupply (where Shuttle fell down) c)Ability to swap out (or land the whole facility) sections for damage analysis, repairs or upgrade. I strongly doubt any facility, crewed or uncrewed, is going to be Anyone who can't do this is doomed to a "big bang," sending up a stocked up facility, letting it run then de-orbiting the whole thing to recover the finished product. A very clumsy ConOps.