Mars Trip

[Morat20]

Re: Space elevators.

K9: Actually, the bulk of the transit is within the Van Allen belts, making radiation really not a problem. I believe the geosynchornous orbit point is outside the belts, but I'd have to look that up. However, with crawler lifting capacity being several tons, shielding for organics isn't that much of a problem. I suspect the real cost for "people" movement would be automated safety mechanisms in case of ribbon collapse or crawler failure. Then again, since we're looking at a three-day journey from bottom-to-top, it's likely only to be used for heavy cargo.

Lifting people alone via rocket is probably more likely, just from that standpoint. One reason earth-to-orbit shuttle costs are so high is that the Shuttle works as both a heavy-lifter (60 tons) and is man-rated. Man-rating is expensive. Man-rating a heavy cargo ship is an order of magnitude more expensive. NASA is being damn smart with it's next-gen design (it looks like actual engineers told Congressman to go suck it) -- eliminating debris problems, seperating manned from heavy-lift, and reusing existing and proven technology all over the place. Much lower developmental costs, lower launch costs, faster and tighter turnaround, FAR more flexibility, and considerable gains in safety.

Bhodi: Actually, the "glue" isn't necessary. The nanotubes are embedded in the carbon ribbon -- it's really not all that complex, and the ribbon weighs surprisingly little. (Even all 26,000 miles of it). The cost is....surprisingly cheap. The Space Elevator folks are estimating about NASA's yearly budget for construction (10 billion) and even assuming that balloons by an order of magnitude -- you're talking the cost of a year in Iraq. It's cheap.

People are very serious about this -- the movers behind the project spent four or five years basically giving demonstrations and lectures at universities (and getting the shit grilled out of them by highly skeptical engineers), and they've actually got a solid proposal that's been vetted by a lot of people who didn't believe it was possible. Like I said, they have major engineering hurdles to pass -- but they've managed to convince a lot of people, and secure significant funding, for further research. Almost all from people who arrived highly hostile to the idea that it was possible.

One of my coworker's company (it's a mess of various contractors here) is doing some of the material research on the nanotubes and ribbon construction, and he happened to attend a presentation on it. (Part of an annual "What we're doing" sort of thing for higher-up company folks). It's much further along than I'd ever imagined, and the Space Elevator folks are aiming to do it with mostly private money.

And they made one good point -- the FIRST elevator costs the most. (You have to fire a tiny ribbon into space, and then slowly build onto it over a significant period of time, using heavier and heavier crawlers). The ribbons after that are, basically, free. You transport the material up the first ribbon, and just lower the next one down from geosynchronous orbit as a complete entity. Five years after the first one goes up, there'll be several more up and running all along the equator. And they're hoping to start construction on the first within the decade.

[bhodi]

But why not the loop? I mean the elevator is nice and all, but we could build the loop now. Plus, it has a lot more benefits and none of the downsides. It's a hell of a lot better for actual tourism, it's faster, and can handle more tonnage. It's also cheaper.

RE: actual construction, within the decade, as soon as we can get the material out of the lab and into the real world, AND the ability to mass produce it. There's no ETA on that, as far as I know.

[Teleku]

No, you're right. Radiation is a huge issue. As is mission length in zero G. And medical treatments, you will need a genius of an ER doc who can handle everything up to complex surgery...in zero G.

It's a thorny prospect, goddamned cowboy president moron.

However, I'm overall in favor of the attempt, because a lot of good research should come of it. I do mourn the loss of the scientific missions scrapped to pay for it, I wish cowboy had ponied the cash so NASA didn't have to cut other stuff.

That really sums up a lot of the issues I have with the current "plan".

Going back to the moon first, setting up a staging base + more stuff there, and then going to Mars would be a better idea. Plus, the less expensive and less technically challenging robotic missions should not have been cut just for a single "hey well we went to mars first" mission.

Uh, what are you guys talking about?  From what I can see, The current plan that was initiated by Bush calls for exactly that.  Getting back to the moon first, setting up shop there, then jumping on to mars eventually, while continuing to send robots in the meantime.

In a position paper issued by the National Space Society (NSS), a return to the Moon should be considered a high space program priority, in order to begin development of the knowledge and identification of the industries unique to the Moon. The NSS believes that the Moon may be a repository of the history and possible future of our planet, and that the six Apollo landings only scratched the surface of that treasure.

According to NSS, the Moon's far side, permanently shielded from the noisy Earth, is an ideal site for future radio astronomy. Unique products may be producible in the nearly limitless extreme vacuum of the lunar surface, and the Moon's remoteness is the ultimate isolation for biologically hazardous experiments.

Lunar resources include most if not all raw materials available on Earth. The Moon can serve as a proving ground for a wide range of space operations and processes, including developments toward In-Situ Resource Utilization or "living off the land" (i.e., self-sufficiency) for permanent human outposts. This has various benefits.

So that is more or less what NASA see's as well.  I see alot more useful research coming out of trying to set up permanent habitation on the moon and perfecting better earth to moon transportation than building up for a mission to mars.

[SnakeCharmer]

This thread, while easily the most interesting thread I've read anywhere in a long time, makes my brain hurt.

[HaemishM]

But in a good way.

[Morat20]

But why not the loop? I mean the elevator is nice and all, but we could build the loop now. Plus, it has a lot more benefits and none of the downsides. It's a hell of a lot better for actual tourism, it's faster, and can handle more tonnage. It's also cheaper.

RE: actual construction, within the decade, as soon as we can get the material out of the lab and into the real world, AND the ability to mass produce it. There's no ETA on that, as far as I know.

I'd have to look at the requirements of a loop, but you're pegging actual construction of a loop starting in a decade -- it's about even with the elevator, and I think the elevator is safer. (It's necessarily isolated from everying, out in the middle of the ocean).

[sidereal]

I'm not sure a loop could be built today

And technology aside there will be significant issues stringing a line for a few thousand kilometers along the ocean and then raising it into the sky with a sufficiently negligible chance of hitting a ship and/or plane.

The plane issues remain for an elevator, but at least that's all in one place.  It'd be harder to cut off 30,000 square kilometers of airspace permanently.

[K9]

Re: Space elevators.

K9: Actually, the bulk of the transit is within the Van Allen belts, making radiation really not a problem. I believe the geosynchornous orbit point is outside the belts, but I'd have to look that up. However, with crawler lifting capacity being several tons, shielding for organics isn't that much of a problem. I suspect the real cost for "people" movement would be automated safety mechanisms in case of ribbon collapse or crawler failure. Then again, since we're looking at a three-day journey from bottom-to-top, it's likely only to be used for heavy cargo.

Lifting people alone via rocket is probably more likely, just from that standpoint. One reason earth-to-orbit shuttle costs are so high is that the Shuttle works as both a heavy-lifter (60 tons) and is man-rated. Man-rating is expensive. Man-rating a heavy cargo ship is an order of magnitude more expensive. NASA is being damn smart with it's next-gen design (it looks like actual engineers told Congressman to go suck it) -- eliminating debris problems, seperating manned from heavy-lift, and reusing existing and proven technology all over the place. Much lower developmental costs, lower launch costs, faster and tighter turnaround, FAR more flexibility, and considerable gains in safety.

When you say the bulk of the transit is within the Van Allen belts, isn't that bad? I was pretty sure the belts were the radiation zones and we survive in the gaps between them, but then I'm no astrophysicist. Or do you mean the bulk of the transit is outside the belts? Either way, I had no idea that the transit was as slow as 3 days.

Space elevators are possibly one of the most remarkable things ever, I hope one is built in my lifetime.

[Morat20]

When you say the bulk of the transit is within the Van Allen belts, isn't that bad? I was pretty sure the belts were the radiation zones and we survive in the gaps between them, but then I'm no astrophysicist. Or do you mean the bulk of the transit is outside the belts? Either way, I had no idea that the transit was as slow as 3 days.

Space elevators are possibly one of the most remarkable things ever, I hope one is built in my lifetime.

By "inside" I meant "between the outer belt and the earth" not like actually inside the belt -- it was phrased badly. Being IN the Van Allen belts sort of suck, and I think the endpoint or station point (depending on which way they did it) of a space elevator would be between the inner and outer belts. You'd have to go through the lower belt for damn sure, and if you want people to live through that (well, and not die of cancer at the very least) you have to shield them.

However, the outer and inner belts both offer a good deal of protection from things like solar wind and flares.

[Venkman]

I like the launch loop idea, but feel like the elevator requires little more than mass production of something on the edge being able to be mass produced (which you'd do on site, not shipping 1km length spools out there ), particularly if something like this takes off. I don't know enough to guess though. For example, how much power is required for station-keeping? 

As to why we'd go to Mars? Well, the Moon is to Mars as Mars is to Jupiter, particularly the moons. There's only so much you can learn by continually looking inward.

[Bungee]

Pff, NASA's out privately operated space missions are in!

Oh, and I'm sure someone could be able to get some guys like Gates and thelike interested in the vast quantities of dense Velspar that are awaiting being refined to pure MONEY!.

[Obo]

Pfft... Carmacks sub-orbital plans look much more interesting!

[sidereal]

Oh, and I'm sure someone could be able to get some guys like Gates and thelike interested in the vast quantities of dense Velspar that are awaiting being refined to pure MONEY!.

Meh, there's not that much cash in mining, unless they get corp members to front them a good mining rig.  Otherwise it's a better use of their time to just run agent missions.

[Bungee]

Oh, and I'm sure someone could be able to get some guys like Gates and thelike interested in the vast quantities of dense Velspar that are awaiting being refined to pure MONEY!.

Meh, there's not that much cash in mining, unless they get corp members to front them a good mining rig.  Otherwise it's a better use of their time to just run agent missions.

I'd be surprised if there were any agent missions left in Sol 3 and its moon for said people.
They seem to have pretty much exalted their reputation with everybody they can get money from.