For instance, at 2:00 she measures 10uSv/h. Mean natural background on Earth is below 0.3uSv/h.
perhaps you could address my points if you still think he wasn't advancing Deimos as "the perfect place" for off Earth Human settlement.
Quote from: ThereIWas3 on 06/09/2016 04:25 pmBut then his "do it first" architecture requires building spinning ONeill colonies inside Deimos!Quote from: GalacticIntruder on 06/09/2016 04:28 pmSo Mars surface living is too hard and too many unknowns to go there, but a giant rotating underground Deimos base is doable?Don't be silly. That was clearly meant to show the long term potential for permanent colonisation. It was meant to end the "downer" lecture on an upnote. "You don't have to give up the dream of space colonisation..." It wasn't meant to be his actual proposed Deimos mission.
But then his "do it first" architecture requires building spinning ONeill colonies inside Deimos!
So Mars surface living is too hard and too many unknowns to go there, but a giant rotating underground Deimos base is doable?
Quote from: Alf Fass on 06/10/2016 07:40 amWhile Paul451 didn't think his Deimos idea was intended to be taken too seriously: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40485.msg1546944#msg1546944 (Dr. Logan talks about it from the 48 minute mark) he sure seems to be presenting it as his preferred asteroidal colony location to me.His Deimos idea is to have a small hab under 7m of Deimosian regolith, teleoperating science equipment on the surface of Mars, with ISRU water for return propellant (and air/water, obviously).The depiction of Island One is meant to show the scale of resources available. He's not seriously proposing a chain of Bernal spheres tunnelled through Deimos. And he's certainly not proposing it as an alternative to a small manned base on Mars. It's just "This is a Bernal sphere next to the Empire State Building. Big isn't it? Now this is a small tunnel through Deimos, each of these small dots in the small tunnel is a full sized Bernal sphere, each can hold ten thousand people. GET IT?! That's your inspiration, your space-cadet vision. Being 'limited' to moons/asteroids is no limitation whatsoever."The form of a true colony on (or rather in) Deimos would be wildly different than an open-space structure like Island One.
While Paul451 didn't think his Deimos idea was intended to be taken too seriously: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40485.msg1546944#msg1546944 (Dr. Logan talks about it from the 48 minute mark) he sure seems to be presenting it as his preferred asteroidal colony location to me.
Quote from: gospacex on 06/10/2016 10:34 amFor instance, at 2:00 she measures 10uSv/h. Mean natural background on Earth is below 0.3uSv/h.So 0.24mSv/day? Or about a third as much as the surface of Mars. About a quarter of one percent of the levels in open space.
It would have been much better to criticise DRM 5 or the Evolvable Mars Campaign. It is not the space cadets that are suggesting 1100 days in space (transit and Phobos) for the first mission, it is NASA.
Real estate for the super-rich is the only potential reason I see for building a space colony. Hence it's going to be a rotating station in equatorial LEO with a nice view on the blue planet and low-g recreational facilities. Nobody wants to live inside Deimos.Quote from: MikeAtkinson on 06/09/2016 01:51 pmIt would have been much better to criticise DRM 5 or the Evolvable Mars Campaign. It is not the space cadets that are suggesting 1100 days in space (transit and Phobos) for the first mission, it is NASA.1100 days in space is probably ok if you raise the career radiation limit somewhat.
Medical tests while on Mars will be important on these early missions. It would settle the question if .38g is enough gravity. If the crew still suffers from bone loss and other issues, that would complicate any colonization plans to say the least.
Quote from: RonM on 06/09/2016 04:14 pmMedical tests while on Mars will be important on these early missions. It would settle the question if .38g is enough gravity. If the crew still suffers from bone loss and other issues, that would complicate any colonization plans to say the least.Randomly selected candidates for in-situ vivisection should answer the questions.
Borrowed from Doesitfloat's post here:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40464.msg1546539#newDr. Logan expresses opinions on several matters, and at the end of the video concludes that the best place for future space settlement isn't on Mars, or the Moon but rather in O'Neill colonies within Deimos, which surprised me as I would have thought smaller asteroids nearer to Earth, perhaps with some shifted into orbits about the Earth - Moon system, would have had huge advantages, especially as the high radiation exposure of longer interplanetary transit times was a major part of his presentation.Opinions?
Reflect a bit why there is a Moon/Mars debate - because Mars, while located much farther from Earth, has numerous advantages over the Moon and other airless bodies like Deimos.Mars has abundant and trivially accessible source of CO2. You can make oxygen from it. You can make carbon from it. You can make CO from it (and thus, fuel/oxidizer pair for rockets and power generation).It's possible extracting water vapor from Mars atmosphere will be economical too. If not, Mars has permafrost on much of its surface, and maybe even everywhere.Mars dust is much less mechanically aggressive than Moon dust - it's weathered.
Quote from: gospacex on 06/10/2016 12:38 pmReflect a bit why there is a Moon/Mars debate - because Mars, while located much farther from Earth, has numerous advantages over the Moon and other airless bodies like Deimos.Mars has abundant and trivially accessible source of CO2. You can make oxygen from it. You can make carbon from it. You can make CO from it (and thus, fuel/oxidizer pair for rockets and power generation).It's possible extracting water vapor from Mars atmosphere will be economical too. If not, Mars has permafrost on much of its surface, and maybe even everywhere.Mars dust is much less mechanically aggressive than Moon dust - it's weathered.Mars dust presents the equally challenging problem of being so fine that it is difficult to keep out of mechanisms such as suit bearings...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 06/11/2016 12:42 amQuote from: gospacex on 06/10/2016 12:38 pmReflect a bit why there is a Moon/Mars debate - because Mars, while located much farther from Earth, has numerous advantages over the Moon and other airless bodies like Deimos.Mars has abundant and trivially accessible source of CO2. You can make oxygen from it. You can make carbon from it. You can make CO from it (and thus, fuel/oxidizer pair for rockets and power generation).It's possible extracting water vapor from Mars atmosphere will be economical too. If not, Mars has permafrost on much of its surface, and maybe even everywhere.Mars dust is much less mechanically aggressive than Moon dust - it's weathered.Mars dust presents the equally challenging problem of being so fine that it is difficult to keep out of mechanisms such as suit bearings...We routinely operate equipment in environments full of fine dust on Earth. But when we get to Mars it apparently becomes an insurmountable problem.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 06/11/2016 02:58 am
However the surface radiation level will have serious implications for plant growth. That's not say you couldn't do it using mirrors to avoid direct LOS from any radiation source.
Mining is about the only directly comparable activity. Freshly ground rock is the closest thing to raw regolith. And part of my own skepticism about surface activity on the moon and Mars comes from the response I got from people with mining experience when discussing my own naive space-cadet visions back in the '80s. People with experience in mining do not handwave away dust/etc and call it a solved problem, they immediately start pointing on the problems with dust and maintenance, with dust and health, with EVA-suits and mobility/safety, etc. "Dust gets into everything" is the most repeated phrase I heard.
but the more I see of the problems the more I like the idea of capturing a NEO, coring it out and picking up a 2m rock layer
Once on the surface things look quite doable for radiation protection inside habs, while remote avatars should be able to supply operators with a very immersive experience. However the surface radiation level will have serious implications for plant growth. That's not say you couldn't do it using mirrors to avoid direct LOS from any radiation source.
Quote from: Paul451 on 06/12/2016 01:48 pmMining is about the only directly comparable activity. Freshly ground rock is the closest thing to raw regolith. And part of my own skepticism about surface activity on the moon and Mars comes from the response I got from people with mining experience when discussing my own naive space-cadet visions back in the '80s. People with experience in mining do not handwave away dust/etc and call it a solved problem, they immediately start pointing on the problems with dust and maintenance, with dust and health, with EVA-suits and mobility/safety, etc. "Dust gets into everything" is the most repeated phrase I heard.Indeed Silicosis, Asbestosis and Berylosis are all basically "fine dust from X gets into lungs" conditions.This suggests you're looking at much more than a simple air lock design. If you could make the suit surface electrostatically repel the dust then suck it away that would the most effective approach but some kind of air blast over all surfaces would seem to be needed. If it's their chemical reactivity that's an issue then perhaps adding some warm Methane into the airlock area would burn it off? A water mist system should also work but you've got multi phase flow to deal with then. The inert parts of the dust would still remain and be abrasive however.