Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX Wants To Go To Mars — and Has a Plan To Get There
mknewman writes with an article at NASA SpaceFlight which lays out the details of a plan from SpaceX to send a craft to Mars, using an in-development engine ("Raptor") along with the company's Super Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle. "Additionally, Mr. Musk also introduced the mysterious MCT project, which he later revealed to be an acronym for Mars Colonial Transport. This system would be capable of transporting 100 colonists at a time to Mars, and would be fully reusable. Article is technically dense but he does seem to follow through on his promises!"
This is an endeavor that's been on Elon Musk's mind for a while.
I'm wondering if the Mars One project hasn't had a more complex working relationship than previously thought. For all we know, Mars One could just be a separatist marketing arm of Elon Musk.
Sig: I stole this sig.
Elon Musk = D.D. Harriman, only with bigger dreams.
And not a fictional character.
It's about time America started acting like America again.
Article is technically dense but
But?? No but, that's actually what we want here on Slashdot!
he does seem to follow through on his promises!
I wouldn't go that far.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
SpaceX, more than any other of the "private" space companies, has shown a compentencey for building rockets.
My Ass Is Blue, or whatever the pipe dream that Jeff Bezos is dumping money into, is not a player, not just for Mars, but for any real space flight.
Orbital Sciences and SpaceX are the real players.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Groovy ... but before I care, SpaceX needs to first have humans in space.
Then I'll give a quid about their plans for space travel.
I mean, if they haven't done a manned space flight to outside the atmosphere, it is far-fetched to be running before you can walk or even stand.
The end.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
Why?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
(in this case that humans can live for long periods beyond everything that we take for granted on Earth).
Are you sure that's delusional? Incredibly difficult, sure I'll grant you that. Not going to happen this decade, certainly. We'd need at least two successful Biosphere2 experiments before that will happen, and that's going to take a long time to test.
But completely delusional, would you really go that far? Because to me it seems like something possible, at least. Especially if you can get regular shipments from earth for a while.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It's just you.
Glad that yoy liked it. That engine is an enabler. Methane/oxygen works incredibly well in gas-gas cycle. It's unbeatable for that.
What I can tell is that Elon is serious in his desires. But you have to understand that the reason for that is that he has the vision and he's actually doing an ambitious but realistic plan. Next week flight will have legs on the first stage. And they'll try to pin point land it on the sea. If they do, the guys at the Cape with the big red button might let them try to land it in US soild next. But if not, that's still the cheapest rocket in its category in the world. Their modus operandi is realistic and bold. We'd better follow him because we might be watching history in the making.
If he invents warp drive the Vulcans will take us there.
No space x isn't doing anything Nasa wasn't already doing in the 60's. You are mistaking that sense of nostalgia for deja vi.
A new plane doesn't make a new engine possible. A new engine makes a new plane possible.
It's great that there Elon Musk is pushing out gains in performance, reusability and most importantly cost in chemical engine design! Kudos to him (and his company).
Of course for the real exploration of the solar system to begin, we'll need nuclear (fusion!) or other such unrealized technologies. Still it's a good start!
Is anyone making sense of this? I know what all the terms are but the facts are more or less jumbled up together in ways that don't lend themselves to meaningful comparison.
Light match. Its the same plan we all have.
Howard Hughes had plenty of successful aeronautical and electronics companies, but still went mad.
(Not saying that EM will...)
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
So your argument is that because we are evolving and won't be the same in millions of years we should just give up on progress and the preservation of the species? It must suck to live with that bleak outlook.
Are you sure that's delusional?
Yes, because I've researched:
(a) how difficult it is for humans to work in space suits, and
(b) how much the human body does not like ionizing radiation, and
(c) how fucking cold it is on Mars.
We'd need at least two successful Biosphere2 experiments before that will happen,
Hah.
Who builds those biospheres? Lots of people with lots of trucks and cranes. Trucks and cranes... just don't run on Mars. No oxygen.
Where do they build them? In Arizona. Nice, warm, sunny, near-to-civilization Arizona.
Not only build it in deep, frozen Antarctica, but have it succeed in deep, frozen Antarctica and then I'll be relatively impressed.
But still it won't protect people from radiation.
What, you say? Live in caves?
Digging caves is hard. It takes lots and lots of heavy machinery. Which must be transported to Mars, along with fuel and spare parts, and machine shops, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
We will see a spike in human evolution once we have children on Mars too. Should prove interesting, less gravity, different radiation levels, different food, even different bacteria. Taller, skinner, different skin color...each new generation will be further from the "Baseline" until eventually it becomes it's own species, unable to reproduce with Earthers.
Well, that without a doubt is a better comment than your previous one.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You know, if you're going to talk about the explosion of 1 (out of 9) rockets on one launch, you really should also mention the fact that they were able to complete the primary mission anyhow... they lost one nozzle, it shut down automatically, the fuel was diverted to the other nozzles, and they burned a little longer. They successfully rendezvoused with the ISS anyhow, despite a moderately explosive engine failure during launch. Let that sink in for a moment. Many rockets wouldn't even have been able to reach orbit in the case of a nozzle simply shutting down, much less blowing up.
In fairness to your complaint, though, the secondary goal of the mission was not attempted. SpaceX said they could give 95% assurance that the satellite would reach its safe orbit (not putting the ISS at risk), but NASA required over 99% assurance. Due to the extra fuel they'd had to burn, this could not be guaranteed. Still, it was highly likely they could have pulled it off, and likely would have tried under different circumstances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
I see 3d printers and pre-built assembly pods building what we need before we actually send the colonists. I really think though our best bet for colonizing is inside the Trench...we could seal off part of it, one of the branches, and start terraforming..
Maybe, but why? There's nothing on Mars but... dust and rock. Who the hell wants to live in Antarctica-meets-Atacama-meets-115,000_foot_mountain (not that puny 35,000 foot Everest)?
Really, that's the bottom line.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Call me when their engines stop exploding.
Ring! Ring! The engine didn't explode. Let me quote directly from the youtube link you posted:
Approximately one minute and 19 seconds into last night's launch, the Falcon 9 rocket detected an anomaly on one first stage engine. Initial data suggests that one of the rocket's nine Merlin engines, Engine 1, lost pressure suddenly and an engine shutdown command was issued. We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it. Panels designed to relieve pressure within the engine bay were ejected to protect the stage and other engines. Our review of flight data indicates that neither the rocket stage nor any of the other eight engines were negatively affected by this event.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Yes, because I've researched:
(a) how difficult it is for humans to work in space suits, and
It's certanly more difficult than working in regular clothes without a breathing apparatus. You won't find anyone arguing that it isn't. That's not the same as impossible. Also, remember that working in a spacesuit in freefall isn't going to be the same thing as working in a spacesuit on a planet with gravity that's on the same order of magnitude as Earth gravity. Restrictive yes, but better spacesuit designs and better tools for compensating for the limited mobility can help with that.
(b) how much the human body does not like ionizing radiation, and
It doesn't, but it's not much worse on the surface of Mars than on the ISS. Unlike on the ISS, there's the option of being covered by large amounts of shielding most of the time, whether you're indoors in a shelter or driving around in a vehicle.
(c) how fucking cold it is on Mars.
That's just silly. It can get very cold on Mars at the poles and in winter. Most of the time, at moderate latitudes, temperatures on Mars are within typical Earth ranges. Since no-one will be outside without an insulated spacesuit, that shouldn't be a problem. Not to mention the fact that we're talking about an atmosphere 1% as thick as the atmosphere of Earth. So, even if the temperature is -150 degrees celcius, the actual amount of heat that the air can absorb is far, far less than -150 degrees celcius air on Earth. There's a reason that a vacuum flask can keep hot liquids hot or cold liquids cold for extended periods of time. There are still convection currents of course, but, once again, you would be in an insulated space suit.
Who builds those biospheres? Lots of people with lots of trucks and cranes. Trucks and cranes... just don't run on Mars. No oxygen.
Uhhh... Yeah. Because Mars colonists would totatally just buy regular trucks and cranes from some local vendor, fly them to Mars, then scratch their heads when the motors won't start. Or, maybe instead of something that idiotic, they could actually use something that works on Mars? There's electrically powered equipment powered via umbilicals to a power plant, batteries, maybe even RTGs. Alternately, they actually could use construction equipment off the lot powered by locally generated methane and oxygen (generated using the sabatier reaction and electrolysis, respectively). The oxygen tank would need to be four times as big as the fuel tank and fed through a regulator into a modified air intake. It might need a modified radiator, modified logic on the engine computer, maybe a regulator on the exhaust itself, but otherwise wouldn't need much modification.
Where do they build them? In Arizona. Nice, warm, sunny, near-to-civilization Arizona.
Not only build it in deep, frozen Antarctica, but have it succeed in deep, frozen Antarctica and then I'll be relatively impressed.
Mars is always sunny and, in any location we might colonize early, there's never any precipitation. Antarctica, not so much. Frankly, Arizona seems closer to the environment of Mars than Antarctica. Maybe the Atacama desert would be better?
But still it won't protect people from radiation.
What, you say? Live in caves?
Digging caves is hard. It takes lots and lots of heavy machinery. Which must be transported to Mars, along with fuel and spare parts, and machine shops, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
You don't dig caves. Caves are, technically speaking, Karst formations. Caves are pre-existing geological features that you locate and move in to. Ditto for lava tubes.
The things you mention are challenges, certainly, but not exactly surprises. Also not impossible obstacles.
While I think your comments are leaning towards sarcastic, I'll try to be nice, so you have no problem wasting money and time, to fly to a dead planet for what? Is it going to cure disease? Is it going to cause the entire human race to stop with foolish wars over religion, patriotism, or ego?
Those are A FEW problems, out of many I have with it!
When I was younger I was all into this stuff, I have at least need to admit to that. In some ways I still am with astronomy. But it is a tremendous waste of time and money that could be put to better use. Like a planet called earth, and if you think you could escape the flaws of mankind on earth by living on Mars without your mates going insane and it turning to complete chaos, you should remember humans are animals, even with are 'advanced brain' there are things you will not control.
That seems bold. Everybody else so far has practiced their aim on the moon first.
maybe even RTGs
I wouldn't get my hopes up...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Efficiency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Terrestrial
Maybe the Atacama desert would be better?
If the construction crews wore the kind of suits that someone would wear at 115,000 ft altitude.
generated using the sabatier reaction and electrolysis, respectively
Where will all of the feed stock come from?
I've got the sneaking suspicion that lots and lots of people don't realize what a really, really deep chain of industry is required to build something as simple as a one-speed bicycle.
You don't dig caves.
My fault. Should have said "tunnels", because maybe there aren't Martian caves where we think it's best (or even "ok") to live.
And even if there are, what if they have to be extended, enlarged, strengthened, etc?
Bottom line: why would anyone live in a place that's drier and colder than the Atacama, has much less atmosphere, and is a minimum of 34M miles from everyone else? (Because of the distance and gravity, "Because it's there" is a Very Nonsensical Reason.)
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
This system would be capable of transporting 100 colonists at a time to Mars, and would be fully reusable.
I initially misread that as saying that the 100 colonists would be reusable.
Well, they need something to eat!
I recommend checking out Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars (and the rest of his Mars Trilogy). He clearly put a lot of thought into what would be necessary to colonize (and terraform) Mars. Of course, it would be really, really expensive (and the fact that colonizing Mars is super-expensive is significant to the plot), but people have thought through things like how to run construction machines without oxygen. Red Mars was published in 1993, so the science/technology is relatively up to date. It's set in 2026 and the technology is more advanced than today's but still looks perfectly reasonable for 2026. That doesn't mean it's going to happen, just that technology does not seem to be an issue given a reasonable amount of funding---the larger issue is that a "reasonable amount of funding" for getting to Mars is a lot of money. I wish SpaceX luck, but I'm not sure they'll make it.
I thought he was South African?
Bottom line: why would anyone live in a place that's drier and colder than the Atacama, has much less atmosphere, and is a minimum of 34M miles from everyone else? (Because of the distance and gravity, "Because it's there" is a Very Nonsensical Reason.)
Well for one thing, there's a heck of a lot of geologists and biologists who would love to be able to detailed analysis of as much of Mars as they want, whenever they want.
A long term habitation mission which was focused on answering whether there was previously life on mars, and is life today, would be a huge scientific boon.
There are other questions we can tackle too: for one thing, where all the alien civilizations? Exploring the solar system's body's is one way to try and answer that - we've lived on Earth long enough to possibly have wiped out incidental probes or debris that landed, but relatively stable geological surfaces elsewhere could have preserved things.
Not to mention, determining what the requirements and experiences of off-world human habitation are is pretty important - depending on your perspective. Strictly speaking there's no reason for us to figure out how to live underwater, but we've conducted a number of scientific missions involving long term pressurization doing exactly that (the important lesson learned: don't give the scientists carte blanche to demand whatever tests they want, whenever they want. Biopsy's aren't fun at the best of times).
There's also biosphere questions that are worth answering: missions that demand we improve our ability to manage artificial environments mean we can improve the way we do it on Earth well ahead of any immediate need, and hopefully with enough lead time to bring the costs down. At the end of the day though, fundamental science is well - fundamental. Technology is not a straight line, nor is the path even obvious and the only way you make progress is by advancing as many fields as you can all at the same time.
Still waiting to hear why I should trust your opinion over Musk's.
Or are you just someone who spends their time tearing down people who actually go out and accomplish something.
Silly me, this is Slashdot. Carry on.
What you describe are science missions, which is kinda reasonable, since humans are much more flexible than robots.
But why not spend the money and mass required to keep humans alive on even larger and more complicated robots?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
To advance rocket know how with a nice ambitious goal so we can go more interesting but less glamorous places more easilly after.
To just advance rocket tech, why send people? Why not bigger (or multiple) robots?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
a really, really deep chain of industry is required to build something as simple as a one-speed bicycle.
We have such a supply chain right here on Earth. For the rest: In-Situ Resource Utilization.
Why dig a tunnel when you can blow up an inflatable hab module and pile a bunch of regolith on top? In 1/3rd gravity, you wouldn't even need heavy equipment, just bring a couple of shovels (or better yet, make them from local materials with the 3D-printer you brought from home).
There are lots of people studying every aspect of living and working on Mars. For example, one guy has figured out how to make cement with all-Martian materials. Others are working on sintering techniques for brick and glass, or extracting water, aluminum, etc..
No one is suggesting that it will be "easy", but if you think it's "delusional" you haven't been keeping up with the latest research.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Deja emacs, you troll.
Mars is always sunny and, in any location we might colonize early, there's never any precipitation. Antarctica, not so much.
Antarctica gets far less precipitation than Arizona.
This space intentionally left blank
You will be able to in a few years when the Model E comes out!
zero chance. Mars one is talking about putting individual dragons connecting together, on the surface. There is little chance of that really working for ppl and dealing with the constant radiation.
In addition, Mars one talks about sending 6 ppl at a time. SpaceX is doing 100 at a time.
What Mars one is, is a back-up plan IFF SpaceX fails. Otherwise, SpaceX will be on mars BEFORE Mars-one launches a mission with the robots (though they MIGHT be able to launch one or two exploratory missions.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
OSC being a real player? Not even close. They own NO ip related to launching. And even in sats, they are only SO-SO.
To even think that they are a real player is a total joke.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I imagine it has something to do with the fact that It takes considerably less energy to escape Earth entirely than to go into even a low orbit, and what is to be gained by stopping in orbit? The craft you transfer to will have had to already make the trip up itself, you may as well just put your passengers in it and save the stop. Our rocket technology is mostly not terribly dependent on whether it's operating in air or vacuum, and for a reusable craft you have to be able to land on Mars and take off again with minimal planet-side infrastructure anyway, so any potential strength and weight reductions for an craft unsuitable for an Earth launch would be severely limited - most of the benefit could likely be gained from a breakaway 1st stage that just handles getting the rocket to a Mars-surface equivalent gravity-well "depth".
Moreover, the vast majority of the craft weight is fuel and tanks which will need to be landed to refuel anyway - no sense adding a bunch of fuel-hauling longboats if you can gracefully land the gas tanks rocket on their tail. The reason the moon missions used a lander were probably twofold: control systems were not yet advanced enough to land a full rocket on it's tail, and fuel for the entire mission had to be carried from Earth. If you could refuel on the Moon then it might well have made more sense to land the whole, potentially much smaller, EarthMoon rocket and refuel it.
Where space-only vessels become useful is once you have multiple "ports" with their own "longboat" / space elevator infrastructure already in place to allow cargo/passenger transfer and refueling. After all surface-to-orbit is the most expensive part of the trip, and much can be gained by not needing to include the capacity to handle that, but only if it doesn't mean hauling along a completely second vessel for the ride.
Alternately if ion drives were mature enough to propel the interplanetary stage, but not yet powerful enough for a surface launch, then the massive efficiency boost might make it worth having it a separate landing vehicle - no sense dropping a large useless ion drive into a gravity well and hauling it up again. Since most of the weight is the drive rather than the fuel as with rockets it changes the dynamics of the situation.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I like how you think I'm a nihilist because I think space is empty. But you're not a nihilist because you think our planet is a "rock", and the species is doomed if we don't do what you want us to do?
On the one hand you have me, who advocates stopping wasting time on obvious non-starters, and we have you, who is so lost in imagination and sci-fi you really think you speak for the species.
What's this "we", white man? Nobody asked you to do shit. And you're not doing shit. So quit whining about the shit you're not doing.
On the one hand, we have you, who claims something that has been started and will be continued is an "obvious non-starter", and then we have the rest of us, who don't have a problem watching some guy spend his money.
And you just keep posting your drivel...
Here's a visualization of the MCT Heavy Lift Vehicles, to scale with the existing Falcon 9 and the under-construction Falcon 9 Heavy. (Rocket designation is fictional, of course.) The visualization includes possible cargo shrouds.
Yes, this monster will have a larger lift capacity than the Saturn V. Each individual Raptor is less capable than an F-1 engine, but there will be nine of them, rather than five.
We have such a supply chain right here on Earth.
Under a *deep* -- and therefore very expensive -- gravity well.
For the rest: In-Situ Resource Utilization.
Mine it and process it?
1/3rd gravity
3/8g is a much better approximation, but that's just a quibble.
just bring a couple of shovels
*Really*?? Sigh.... :(
So, 200 wheelbarrows full of rock on Earth would be like 600 wheelbarrows of rock on Mars? Get back to me when you've moved 10 wheelbarrowfulls(sp?) of rock 100 yards.
make them from local materials with the 3D-printer you brought from home
And the buttload of infrastructure to convert the local material into something usable by the 3D printer?
one guy has figured out how to make cement with all-Martian materials.
Go see how he made it. I guarantee you that there's a huge load of complex Earth infrastructure behind it which would have to be replicated on Mars.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Yeah, they went someplace else STILL ON EARTH.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I think it is a stretch to even suggest that Mars One is a backup plan to SpaceX. At best I would put Inspiration Mars (Dennis Tito's project) in that realm, assuming Mr. Tito goes anywhere with his project as well.
I saw a Reddit conversation with the guys of Mars One that showed they really knew almost nothing about the technical side of things, and sort of thought they could magically buy anything they needed to get the job done. That might work for something such as an Antarctic expedition where the tools and experience of going there has already been done and is in large scale production for other purposes, but it doesn't work for going well beyond the frontier of human experience.
At least SpaceX has put stuff into space, where photos like this are something that their equipment has actually taken. The guys with Mars One have been no higher than what you can get with a commercial jetliner, and that is as a passenger as well. I like big dreams, but either company needs to unfortunately produce much of the equipment needed for going to Mars in-house as nobody else is even making the stuff necessary. SpaceX knows how to make stuff that works in space and has stuff in space right now to show it can get the job done. What does Mars One even have?
I suspect that you're a bit confused about how evolution works. It's not the case that traits that best suit the environment will magically become more frequently expressed in future populations. No, among modern humans, it basically works like this: The people who are most willing to produce children, or most careless about producing them by accident, whose genes are overrepresented in subsequent generations. There is no reason to think that this will be any different on Mars, and there is no reason to think that the "child-wanting" trait will have any sort of overlap with anatomical traits that are well-suited to Martian life. The only thing that could block this would be a serious failure of our medical capacities, so that children that are better suited for Mars life are more likely to survive to child-bearing age. If this effect is sufficiently small, then it will be swamped by other factors that support human fertility, like being born to Mormons or failing to finish high school. Among US Caucasians, those are the traits that evolution is currently selecting for.
I wouldn't get my hopes up...
I was including more modern designs like SRGs under the blanket term RTGs. The more modern designs get at least 20% efficiency. So, with 1 kilogram of plutonium 238 producing 500 Watts of heat, you would get 100 Watts and still at least 75 Watts after 30 years. The terrestrial section you linked to is mostly for obsolete equipment. The space section is more representative of what you could expect of anything sent to Mars. It includes a design that masses 35 kilograms total, and produces 140 Watts from 500 Watts of heat from 1 kg of fuel.
A piece of construction equipment like a Komatsu 300 uses about 5 gallons of gas per hour. 5 gallons of gasoline is about 661.2 MJ, so 5 gallons per hour is a rate of about 183.667 kilowatts. Exactly how to equate that to the power efficiency of radiothermal generation depends on a few factors. The most "efficient" (in terms of energy conversion) way to operate heavy equipment from a radiothermal source, ignoring all other considerations, is to run it off a stirling engine directly powered by the heat of the radioactive fuel. In that case, you can pretty much directly equate the 500 thermal Watts from 1 kg of pu-238 to thermal Watts from gasoline and say that a radiothermal-powered Komatsu 300 would need about 368 kgs of pu-238, or about 490 kgs to have that power level 30 years out. The actual engine would obviously need to mass more than 35 kg, but would also obviously not need to be in excess of 17 metric tons as I'm pretty certain the Stirling engine design would scale a bit more gracefully than that. Of course, you won't be running that piece of equipment 24/7. Most likely, it would sit idle nearly all the time, except for short periods of intense use. Not to mention that, for a Mars mission, you will want equipment with a modular, interchangeable design to reduce weight. So, you'll probably have a power plant somewhere and distrubute power either as electrical power over cables or by using the power to generate fuel that you can store for later use (methane and oxygen again).
Maybe the Atacama desert would be better?
If the construction crews wore the kind of suits that someone would wear at 115,000 ft altitude.
That very well might be a better test. On the other hand, it wouldn't simulate the different gravity on Mars at all. Also, performing all of the constuction under such conditions wouldn't be practical. Experimentally, it should be sufficient to have part of the construction crew working under those conditions for long enough to adapt to them and then guage their effectiveness in various tasks and extrapolate from there.
Where will all of the feed stock come from?
I've got the sneaking suspicion that lots and lots of people don't realize what a really, really deep chain of industry is required to build something as simple as a one-speed bicycle.
From the atmosphere and the ground, respectively. Zubrin's plan for generating methane fuel on Mars didn't even call for using electrolysis on in situ water, but rather for bringing a relatively small amount of initial hydrogen. There's no reason, however, that we can't use in situ water as a resource as well. As for other materials you might need for various processes, you would bring them with you initially.
Same thing for the tools required. There's no reason you need to build everything locally to begin with. A bicycle, for example. It may take a very deep chain of industry to build a bicycle but, if you bring 5 bicycles and a supply of replacement parts and repair tools, there's no reason you can't still have three servicable bicycles thirty years later.
My fault. Should have said "tunnels", because maybe there aren't Martian caves where we think it's best (or even "ok") to live.
There are Martian caves/lava tubes. As long as you find one the right size, there's no reason you can't make use of
a radiothermal-powered Komatsu 300 would need about 368 kgs of pu-238, or about 490 kgs to have that power level 30 years out.
You'd better reopen Hanford PDQ.
why would anyone want to live in the Atacama desert? Or any desert?
I've wondered that many times, and have never come up with a good reason for why people live (as opposed to "endure in mining camps") in deserts.
Why would anyone ever need to build a boat or domesticate a horse, or cross a river, or build roads, or invent trains, or start mining for ores?
To make life less precarious, less of a drudge. Let me rephrase that: to make life easier.
Your question seems nihilistic to me.
To leap from "it's stupid to live on Mars" to "it's stupid to live at all" is... too absurd for words.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Because nobody cares if we send yet another robot?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Because nobody cares if we send yet another robot?
Eh? Really?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Efficiency.
Space X is doing little that's truly revolutionary, they're just busy trying to make space flight ever more profitable using refinements of existing technology. And it's not like NASA was exactly bad for corporate profits - they didn't build all those rocket pieces themselves after all.
There are places where government run operations seems to be the natural solution: unprofitable "blue sky" research and natural monopolies that are prone to exploitation being a couple obvious cases. But when that R&D begins to stagnate with a workable but severely sub-optimal solution (the Shuttle? Really? Could you design a less efficient vehicle?)... well perhaps there's room for let some profit-driven initiative in.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Oh, I'm sure the scientists will appreciate it, but I imagine they'd also rather have adaptable humans in place than deal with the clunkiness and pre-limited capabilities of a robot. After all a human can cobble together brand new purpose-built lab equipment out of all sorts of random trash - it won't be as good as something manufactured for the purpose, but it'll be a bajillion times better than waiting another 10-20 years to get the right equipment onto a probe. Why, for example, has no probe since the first included any equipment to try to detect more than the most circumstantial evidence of life? Sure, it could be that it's a conspiracy, but more likely it's that trying to detect something when you don't know what you're actually looking for is *complicated*. A single human can easily run a cobbled-together lab with hundreds or thousands of samples subjected to different conditions looking for anomalies. A robot, not so much. There's also the matter of exploratory range - Opportunity has been on Mars for 10 years and covered about 22 miles. A human could easily walk that far in a couple days. Okay, so granted current space suites would reduce that dramatically, but having only about 1/3 gravity would increase it, and there are several far more mobile space suits being developed.
Meanwhile, for PR purposes, when is the last time any notable portion of the population even noticed when a robot launched or landed? Establishing a manned Martian outpost on the other hand could potentially rival, or even exceed, the popular enthusiasm of the moon landing. And while it would no doubt lose mind-share fast, it would still be an ongoing project with drama and tragedy to seize the public imagination - people *like* stories about adventurers risking their life for a dream, they sell tickets (or in this case justify tax dollars).
It might not be the most financially efficient plan, but if we can get stuff to mars as cheaply as we currently get stuff to orbit, it may very well be the most politically appealing.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Under a *deep* -- and therefore very expensive -- gravity well.
It's all going to be expensive. The point is that you don't have to build an industrial chain on Mars from scratch. You take along the supplies you need to start and bootstrap it from there. You use in situ resources, but you don't use them to make everything from scratch, you use them as a multiplier for what you do bring along with you. For example, an entire lifetime (obviously not a lifetime of luxury) of supplies for an astronaut would be about 150 tons. That's food/water/oxygen/clothing/sanitary supplies/medicine. At current launch costs, that's about $4 billion per astronaut for the launch costs to get it off Earth.
75% or so of that mass, however, is just water. Even if you ignore in situ resources entirely, you can recycle water used for human consumption. There are consumables involved in the filtration that require a significant industrial chain to actually make, but you can recycle thousands of kilograms of water for every kilogram of consumables you bring. If you're using local water, you also need consumables. But you can bring those along with you and use a small amount to use a large amount of in situ water.
Oxygen is a bit trickier since we don't have a good process for cracking CO2 yet, but this is where we stop ignoring the in situ resources and acknowledge that, with some basic equipment, you can get oxygen from water (or from perchlorates, or from other materials) on Mars. There are consumables that you can't reproduce on Mars without an industrial base for that as well such as filters and electrolyte/catalyst membranes but, once again, you can bring along a relatively small mass of consumables and use them to generate a lifetime supply of oxygen from local resources.
Mine it and process it?
That is the way such things work, yes. Although, rather than mining and processing, you'll be extracting material from the air and processing in some cases. Did you think that anyone was suggesting heading down to the local Martian department store?
*Really*?? Sigh.... :(
So, 200 wheelbarrows full of rock on Earth would be like 600 wheelbarrows of rock on Mars? Get back to me when you've moved 10 wheelbarrowfulls(sp?) of rock 100 yards.
Mass would be the same, weight would be less. So, without frequent stops and starts, it would be easier. I'm not sure why you think it would be otherwise (except of course for the obvious fact that you'd have to do it in a spacesuit).
Also I'm not sure about taiwanjohn, but I've moved a lot more than 10 loads of rock, soil, compost, whatever over my lifetime. On decent ground, without much of a slope, it's pretty easy. Even when I was 10 years old or so. That's the whole point behind a wheelbarrow. Loading the wheelbarrow has always been the hard part.
Obviously "a couple of shovels" is a bit of an understatement.
And the buttload of infrastructure to convert the local material into something usable by the 3D printer?
Not sure about metal sintering 3D printers. I gather you need powdered metal, iron or some alloy thereof along with a wax binder. Presumably you can recycle the wax to a certain degree. For the metal, you have various materials readily available on Mars. Iron is clearly widely available on Mars either as iron oxide in the soil or as fairly pure iron from meteorites. Overall though, I would think that it would be best to save the 3d printer for complex metal parts. For something like a shovel it would be better to use relatively traditional blacksmithing methods.
Go see how he made it. I guarantee you that there's a huge load of complex Earth infrastructure behind it which would have to be replicated on Mars.
The experiments in that article were about getting it to set under Martian conditions. A commercial Sorel cement product was used. It didn't look into what ki
Antarctica gets far less precipitation than Arizona.
In the interior, yes. Coastal areas tend to get a decent amount, however. Either way, both Arizona and Antarctica get a lot more precipitation than anywhere we would initially colonize on Mars.
A single human can easily run a cobbled-together lab
Only if the relevant "stuff" has been sent up with him.
Remember that Spock didn't actually create a tricorder interface from stone knives and bearskins. (Not that Spock actually exists, but I hope you get the point.)
the clunkiness and pre-limited capabilities of a robot.
Every rover has had more features.
In the place of the mass of water, food, fuel, etc, etc needed to keep humans alive... what' to stop us from sending multi-robot systems with even more complicated gear, with maybe a static "home base" laboratory.
The rovers would then just be collecting devices with a bunch of little boxes. Once a rover fulls all of the specimen trays, it drives back to "base", swaps it's full trays for empty trays and goes back out.
In the meantime, the laboratory system analyzes samples from multiple rovers.
when is the last time any notable portion of the population even noticed when a robot launched or landed?
Opportunity, Spirit & Rover got significant Big 5 (ABC/CBS/NBC/FNC/CNN) air time when they got to and touched down on Mars.
if we can get stuff to mars as cheaply as we currently get stuff to orbit
If "if" were a skiff, I'd be fishing. But it's not, so I'm not.
Even though it doesn't cost that much more to get a projectile whizzing towards Mars than it does to get it in LEO, that's pretty useless, and still damned expensive!
You've got to actually get something useful orbiting the planet and then successfully ease it down the Martian gravity well.
That is the hard, expensive part.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
you can bring along a relatively small mass of consumables and use them to generate a lifetime supply of oxygen from local resources.
This is the crux of the disagreement between us. You say it's hard but doable, whereas I think you're Mars mission relies on Handwavium to convert chemical transformation formulas into actual non-laboratory processes.
(This is similar to -- but on a much larger scale than -- why we don't have supersonic passenger aircraft: some problems' only solutions are sooo expensive that the problem isn't worth solving.)
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
You'd better reopen Hanford PDQ.
If you want plutonium-238, certainly you would need nuclear power plants to make it. I don't insist on RTGs, they're just one option with certain advantages when you're shipping equipment to far off location and need to power it reliably for a long time.
I've wondered that many times, and have never come up with a good reason for why people live (as opposed to "endure in mining camps") in deserts.
That's the point I was making about your argument. Just because you personally don't get it, or it's outside your comfort zone, doesn't make it pointless.
To make life less precarious, less of a drudge. Let me rephrase that: to make life easier.
In retrospect, those things obviously made life easier and better. Beforehand, you can be assured that there were plenty of naysayers like yourself who demanded to know why you would want to have anything to do with fire, or horses, or putting things on wheels when you can build a perfectly good travois.
To leap from "it's stupid to live on Mars" to "it's stupid to live at all" is... too absurd for words.
I think I said that because you said:
"Because it's there" is a Very Nonsensical Reason
And it simply isn't. If that's not a good reason, what is?
Life fills all niches and space is just another niche to fill.
I'm curious, which part of electrolysis requires handwavium? That's how the oxygen is generated on the ISS. All that's required is water, and Mars has water. The fact that it takes some effort to extract it doesn't make doing it somehow impossible. To my mind, that's the crux of the disagreement between us, you believe that things that are difficult shouldn't and possibly can't be done.
(This is similar to -- but on a much larger scale than -- why we don't have supersonic passenger aircraft: some problems' only solutions are sooo expensive that the problem isn't worth solving.)
Except that the Concorde wasn't that expensive compared to a regular passenger jet. It was killed by noise concerns and irrational safety concerns and the fallout from the events of September 11th 2001.
Beforehand, you can be assured that there were plenty of naysayers like yourself who demanded to know why you would want to have anything to do with ...
That's a good thing, because otherwise society would be pulled hither and yon with every new idea, whether good, bad or indifferent.
For example, racism and the Electric Universe.
Once it was demonstrated that racism is Bad, most whites have switched -- slowly, over time -- to varying points along the spectrum from tolerance to acceptance.
Not so much on the Electric Universe theory, which is still fringe no matter how vociferous it's supporters are.
And it simply isn't. If that's not a good reason, what is?
I don't understand that response.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
It's really hard to read what you wrote there without coming to the conclusion that you're arguing that racism is a good thing. Or, at least that racism is a good default position and you should only switch with extraordinary proof that it's bad. I don't think I like that.
I don't understand that response.
I was saying that "Because it's there" is not a Very Nonsensical Reason. At least, if it's not a good reason, then most of the motivations for all the great things the human race has accomplished are also not good reasons.
and Mars has water.
It's the getting the Martian water which I think is much more difficult than you do.
the Concorde wasn't that expensive compared to a regular passenger jet
That's not my recollection.
It was killed by noise concerns
Silly fly-over hayseeds not wanting their windows rattling multiple times per day!
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
The lab technician who can't cobble together an serviceable lab mostly from tin cans and chewing gum is barely worthy of the name. Sure, you probably can't build an electron microscope or mass spectrometer that way, but even century-old equivalent equipment can get a *lot* done, and most of that is not terribly difficult to make. Couple that with a few choice pieces of compact, versatile high-tech equipment and you can get an immense amount of work done. Heck, cannibalize Opportunity for equipment, or even just bring it pre-prepared samples for analysis and you'd increase the speed of research by an order of magnitude or two. Add a halfway decent 3d printer and recycler for convenience and you've got a lab that would Edison weep with jealousy.
As for the various landers, sure they got a little air time, but how may non-geeks did you hear actually talking about them?
As for the expense of landing stuff once you get it to Mars (I'm presuming you're being facetious about the difficulty of orbital capture, it's the same basic maneuver as engaged to leave Earth's orbit), that's not actually that bad, we've got a lot of practice and are pulling it off fully autonomously with increasingly few resources. Mars has plenty of atmosphere for aerobraking from orbital velocities to virtually eliminate fuel consumption, and if Musk and crew can get the Falcon XX landing reliably here it shouldn't be any more difficult to do the same on Mars. And if you presume an automated cargo flight that lands with equipment before the crew arrives then you can increase the cargo drastically at the same cost by using the interplanetary transport network, building supplies mostly don't care if they get radiation bombarded for a couple extra years in transit, and getting to Mars is only slightly more energy-intensive than getting to orbit.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
It's really hard to read what you wrote there without coming to the conclusion that you're arguing that racism is a good thing.
Which part of what I wrote gave you that impression?
Or, at least that racism is a good default position
Ditto.
and you should only switch with extraordinary proof that it's bad. I don't think I like that.
Racism was not a good default position, but you can't deny that it was the default position.
And given your low 5-digit /. id, you must be old enough to remember that the vast majority of whites who lived near blacks did have to be convinced that racism is Wrong. (I won't comment on those whites from places like Minnesota where it's easy to not be racist because there aren't any blacks to be racist against.)
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
and most of that is not terribly difficult to make.
Please give examples, remembering that it will be made on Mars, not Earth.
I'm presuming you're being facetious about the difficulty of orbital capture
More the landing phase.
Lots of things are easy in theory but hard in practice. We're getting better at it, but still some craft fail.
increasingly few
Is that like "5x less"?
if Musk and crew can get the Falcon XX landing reliably here it shouldn't be any more difficult to do the same on Mars.
Engineering is harder and more expensive than I think you think it is.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
In reality, that will never happen. There is no a biosphere on Mars, and even if you terraformed the planet, it it's sustainable without artificial support. You can thank the weak magnetic field for that. No shield = atmosphere gets stripped away into space by the sun. So the moment this new emergent species gets thrown back into the stone age, they will die off as would the rest of the planet.
And I'll leave you with one final thought. You can take man from nature, but you can't remove the nature from man. War happens. It's what we are good at.
Life is not for the lazy.
It's the way that you wrote:
That's a good thing... for example...
It suggests that your examples were of good, proper attitudes.
Anyway, that misunderstanding aside, I have to agree with you that we shouldn't be pulled in the direction of every new idea "just because". But the crank Electric Universe theory is not the same thing as the drive for exploration. Among other details, the drive for exploration is not new. It's ancient. If we didn't have it, chances are pretty good we would have gone extinct ages ago. It drives us to develop new technologies and new science and just generally try new things. I've seen you argue that we don't have the technology to do various things a Mars colony would require, with the implication that we shouldn't try for a Mars colony because we don't have those things. But why would we even develop those things if we weren't going to colonize another world? Necessity being the mother of invention and all that.
You wondered why I thought of your attitude as nihilistic. It's because your answer to the general question of "if not now, when" seems to be "never!". To me, that just seems like a total surrender.
It's the getting the Martian water which I think is much more difficult than you do.
There are plenty of deposits of water ice all over Mars. If you want pure water ice you might need to truck it from the poles but, otherwise, you can get water from the ground from locations all over the planet.
Well, in order to get enough water to make oxygen for one astronaut for one year, you need 366 kilograms of water. For them to drink and possibly rehydrate freeze-dried food for an entire year with no water recycling, you need about 1464 kilograms of water. So, for a whole year (ignoring things like washing water, etc. which you can continuously recycle even if you aren't recycling drinking water), a single astronaut needs maybe 1830 kgs of water to live. which is about how much water you can get out of an average 13 cubic meters of Martian soil. Unless you're in a poorly chosen area, that's not going to be very hard to obtain. That's not going to be a year's worth of work to obtain. Anywhere from a day to maybe a month at worst depending on what equipment you're using and how well chosen your source is.
That's not my recollection.
Then your recollection is incorrect. The Concorde had trouble recouping development and safety testing costs, to be sure. If you try amortizing those costs over only twenty units, you're obviously going to struggle. The operating costs themselves, are all we need to consider here, and they were modest for what the Concorde actually was. A more modern big passenger jet gets about three times the fuel economy per passenger, tops and other costs are comparable. That's not really "sooo expensive". It's first class prices, sure, but it's not astonomical. If we'd continued with supersonic passenger jet design, the fuel consumption per passenger would have gone down just like it did for the jumbo jets. It certainly would have always required more fuel per passenger, but not that much more. The Concorde was basically killed by beancounting and politics. It wasn't some impossible thing.
Silly fly-over hayseeds not wanting their windows rattling multiple times per day!
The concerns about sonic booms were greatly magnified by military tests producing much more powerful sonic booms. It led to lots of politically motivated rules about where the Concorde could fly or even land, completely ignoring the fact that the Concorde could also fly at subsonic speed and, in fact, had to for takeoff and landing.
It's because your answer to the general question of "if not now, when" seems to be "never!".
Really? No.
I'm not saying, "Don't explore Mars." Use robots -- multiple large and complicated ones, with the mass budget saved by not having to keep humans alive.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Then your recollection is incorrect.
I'll disagree until you show me some evidence. Presumably you think the same way.
The Concorde was basically killed by beancounting and politics. It wasn't some impossible thing.
You agree with me, but seem to be fighting anyway.
Go back and read my original post on cost:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4874589&cid=46442899
some problems' only solutions are sooo expensive that the problem isn't worth solving.
See, we agree!!
OTOH, technology marches on.
Now that Pratt & Whitney has developed a supercruise engine for the F-22, if Boeing demonstrates that the 787's carbon fiber body is durable, then combining those technologies with NASA's boom reduction research the concept of supersonic passenger aircraft could be brought out of mothballs (especially for long Asian and Pacific routes).
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
At the end of the day robots can't self-diagnose or self-repair, and are not smart enough to be left to their own devices. All our robots are basically very advanced remote control cars.
People are still much better - we heal ourselves, we can problem solve, and we're faster moving and more capable with basic tools.
But the problem is to sides of the same coin - moving 100 people to Mars requires the same advancements as sending 10 Curiousitys.
moving 100 people to Mars requires the same advancements as sending 10 Curiousitys.
You're saying that right now we can send 10 people to Mars?
Or that we need some advance in technology to simultaneously send 10 Curiosity rovers?
Or something else?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
When I was in the Service and my time was almost up in the Air Force and I pissed off my First Sargent in Anchorage AK, he sent me to a place 50 miles south of the arctic Circle on the Yukon River called Galena Air Force Base. The average Temperature was 45 below 0 F. It got down to -80 one day. I hated it more than anything. Now at least it had ice fishing, snow-mobiling, plenty of Indians to hang out with get get drunk with, none of that will be found on MARS. Now MARS will Make Galena AK in the Winter look like a tropical paradise. There is a reason people don't live on MARS today. That reason is that it's no inhabitable and it's to fucking cold and the atmosphere is not heavy enough with enough O2 to support human life. So why do I want to go to MARS, oh yeah I fuck don't want to go to MARS. I'm very fucking happy living here on earth riding my Harley's all over God creation. You can ride a Harley around Galena AK but you would never be able to on MARS cause MARS Sucks Dick
Paul E. Bahre
Well, gee. It should be obvious that the man KNOWS a great deal more than you do. Have you noticed the fact that nearly all those that want to go to the moon, or push the SLS, are those that are NOT rocket scientists, or even work in the field? In spite of the logic that has been argued over and over, you and others ignore it.
BUT, the good news for you is that Bigelow wants to go and more importantly, many nations want to go there, preferably before China. As such, NASA, along with other nations and private space, are going to go to the moon around 2020. And no doubt, SpaceX will be a part of it because they will be the cheapest choice. BUT, they are not going to front the money for it. Their money is focused on Mars.
BTW, this is no different than BA. BA is focused on the moon, BUT, BA units WILL be going to mars. But BA is not going to fund it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I'll disagree until you show me some evidence. Presumably you think the same way.
The evidence is that the Concorde put in nearly three decades of service. Things that are impractical to the point of impossibility aren't kept in service that long. That's actually a decently ripe old age for an international passenger jet. During that lifetime, people wanted to fly on it, paid their money and flew on it. It successfully filled the niche it lived in.
You agree with me, but seem to be fighting anyway.
We obviously have a different definition of what a beancounter is. I go by the fairly standard definition of a penny pinching accountant who is incapable of grasping the big picture. For example someone who eleminates a bunch of neccessary $20/hr jobs and compensates by dumping the duties of those jobs onto $80 an hour employees. Or someone who eliminates a less-profitable division because their definition of profit doesn't discern between less-profitable and unprofitable.
Go back and read my original post on cost:
I obviously read it since I quoted it in my last post. You provided the Concorde of something that was "sooo expensive that the problem isn't worth solving" and were basically implying that a working supersonic passenger is basically an impossibility. The history of the Concord seems to prove otherwise.
Also, I realize now that I should have pointed out that, for the Concorde itself, what really killed it was old age. The other things I mentioned were contributing factors. They were more central to the death of the supersonic passenger plane in general than the Concorde specifically.
See, we agree!!
Not really.
OTOH, technology marches on.
Now that Pratt & Whitney has developed a supercruise engine for the F-22, if Boeing demonstrates that the 787's carbon fiber body is durable, then combining those technologies with NASA's boom reduction research the concept of supersonic passenger aircraft could be brought out of mothballs (especially for long Asian and Pacific routes).
Interesting. I have my doubts about the carbon fiber body being able to withstand the heating/cooling cycles of supersonic flight, but it certainly is possible that supersonic passenger flight could re-emerge.
Anyway, you never did answer my question of what handwavium is required to make electrolysis work as an oxygen generation mechanism. It can't be the technique itself, it's known to work and there are commercially available units. The water can't be the obstacle, since we now know of numerous spots on Mars where you can just dig under the dirt a little and hit a layer of pure water ice. So what part requires the handwavium?
Believe me, I'm as thrilled as anyone that we now have an interplanetary giant robot vaporizing an alien landscape with lasers! That fact is though, unless you have a plan for large, near autonomous swarms of exploratory robots, a decent sized human exploration mission has the potential to get more bang for the buck. A human, even stuck in a space suit, is just so much better at going out to a site, then excavating, bagging and tagging, then analyzing a bunch of samples than any existing robot. It doesn't even seem to matter that we're technically reliant on machines of one kind or another for pretty much every stage of the process, we're still better at it for the moment.
Things that are impractical to the point of impossibility aren't kept in service that long.
National Pride and bureaucratic inertia are two factors which can keep some big project going well past it's Sell By date.
The history of the Concord seems to prove otherwise.
Why did Boeing cancel it's 2027 project? Why have there been no other SSTs (either European or American) since then?
Because they aren't economical.
So what part requires the handwavium?
This is the Handwavium:
you can just dig under the dirt a little and hit a layer of pure water ice
A few shovel digs and up comes potable water?
In reality, it'll be akin to strip mining.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
National Pride and bureaucratic inertia are two factors which can keep some big project going well past it's Sell By date.
Except of course that British Airways was a private operation for more than 2/3rds of the life of the Concorde, and they flew it at a profit.
Why did Boeing cancel it's 2027 project? Why have there been no other SSTs (either European or American) since then?
Because they aren't economical.
More because people who are worried that they might not be economical and the companies behind this sort of development are risk averse (when they aren't on a government contract, anyway).
Anyway, why are we even discussing the blasted Concord? Can we just stop. It's a real thing, it operated for nearly three decades. You think it somehow proves something, I don't agree. We won't see eye to eye but who cares because the remaining Concordes are museum pieces now. I'd rather discuss the topic at hand.
This is the Handwavium:
you can just dig under the dirt a little and hit a layer of pure water ice
But what you wrote was:
This is the crux of the disagreement between us. You say it's hard but doable, whereas I think you're Mars mission relies on Handwavium to convert chemical transformation formulas into actual non-laboratory processes.
How is the availability of water on Mars therefore the handwavium? That's not what you meant when you wrote that and you know it. I'm going to have to assume that your information about extant efficient electrolysis systems was very out of date, but you finally looked it up and now you're trying to claim you were talking about water in that last sentence. It doesn't even make any sense for water to be what you were talking about.
A few shovel digs and up comes potable water?
You can't just keep misrepresenting what I'm saying. I didn't say shovel digs, although there are certainly places where you could reach the ice with a shovel, or maybe just a broom to sweep off some of the soil. The use of powered equipment would only make sense, even if only to haul it. I'm also not saying that you could just do it anywhere. Clearly you have to choose your location so that you have access to a usable source of water if you want it to be this easy. I'm also not saying "up comes potable water" which implies that the water will be liquid and have nothing dissolved in it.
What I'm saying is that we've already found spots, within range of areas that are suitable for a base, that have, at the very least, millions of kilograms of concentrated water ice. We've been able to identify these spots specifically because the ground over the ice in these spots is thin. That means it can be dug up, cut it into blocks, thrown into the back of a truck and driven back to the base. Then it can be melted, purified as needed (using the consumable supplies I mentioned way, way back) and used to make oxygen, as raw material for fuel-making or concrete or other chemical processes or just used for drinking, re-hydrating food, growing food, brushing teeth, etc.
There just isn't that much mystery about how you would do it. We're still not as sure about all the ideal sites for it, but we know some already (and remember, this is only if you want to do it the really easy way, there's water in plenty of other places too, it's just not in the form of almost pure ice. The exact equipment and techniques you would use are still up for debate and experiment as well. Traditional ice cutting techniques probably wouldn't be up to snuff because the ice could be so cold it's as hard as rock or even steel. On the other hand, you can melt a cut through the ice pretty trivially with some sort of hot wire or heated blade. Or it might be more efficient to just blow it into fragments with explosives. Heck, for a Mars mission, a laser cutter might not actually be far fetched. Or maybe it would t
How is the availability of water on Mars therefore the handwavium? That's not what you meant when you wrote that and you know it.
I know what I meant. Apparently I didn't do as good a job of explaining it as I thought I did.
It appears that you think I know that I meant something like "chemistry will be different on Mars".
This is the crucial sentence: Handwavium to convert chemical transformation formulas into actual non-laboratory processes.
Electrolysis systems for 6 people on the ISS are going to be radically different in scale than those for a bunch of colonists.
That's the key word: scale.
The Handwavium comes in the paragraphs in and around this sentence:
The exact equipment and techniques you would use are still up for debate and experiment as well.
The equipment (and spare parts, and maintenance, and assembly and repair, etc) needed to do all that stuff will be much more complicated on Mars than you think.
On Earth, we can send out some geologists or a surveying crew, rent or buy heavy machinery, parts, drilling mud, explosives, etc of a variety of forms from a jillion different sources.
OTOH, every bit of every kind of stuff needed on Mars will have to be sent at the beginning (whether on one ship or multiple doesn't matter), and that will drive up the cost of the expedition to absurd heights.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Curiousity is about a ton or 2. 100 people are about 10 Curiousity's, give or take mass for life support etc.
Curiousity is about a ton or 2. 100 people are about 10 Curiousity's, give or take mass for life support etc.
Details, details, details... (The ISS is 495 short tons, for just 6 people.)
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
I know what I meant. Apparently I didn't do as good a job of explaining it as I thought I did.
I know what you meant as well. You meant: " I think you're Mars mission relies on Handwavium to convert chemical transformation formulas into actual non-laboratory processes." It's pretty clear. It clearly does _not_ mean: "you won't be able to get the water".
Electrolysis systems for 6 people on the ISS are going to be radically different in scale than those for a bunch of colonists.
That's the key word: scale.
Uh, yeah. No kidding? You mean you can't use the same resources you would for 6 people to maintain 12, or 24, or 48? Well gee, shucks, you've really shown me the error of my thinking there!
Seriously, what are you thinking? If anything, the efficiency and redundancy of these systems is going to go up with scale, if anything. At worst, you still only have to scale the amount of support equipment linearly with the number of people you intend to support. How is "scale", some sort of smoking gun?
Now, you claim that I must have thought that, by handwavium, I thought you meant something like "chemistry will be different on Mars". I didn't, and I thought that should have been obvious, but then you go and write things like:
The equipment (and spare parts, and maintenance, and assembly and repair, etc) needed to do all that stuff will be much more complicated on Mars than you think.
When it's already clear that we're talking about equipment that already exists and is already in use terrestrially and in space. Which seems to suggest that maybe you really do believe that chemistry is somehow different on Mars.
On Earth, we can send out some geologists or a surveying crew, rent or buy heavy machinery, parts, drilling mud, explosives, etc of a variety of forms from a jillion different sources.
Sometimes. Other times we have to plan things out very carefully or there's no chance of salvaging the endeavor and thousands of tons of expensive equipment gets left behind to become a playground for penguins. Other times, things go wrong enough that everyone dies. Even here on Earth.
OTOH, every bit of every kind of stuff needed on Mars will have to be sent at the beginning (whether on one ship or multiple doesn't matter), and that will drive up the cost of the expedition to absurd heights.
Yes, plenty of stuff will need to be sent at the beginning. That's no surprise. I'm pretty sure I've said as much myself elsewhere on this thread. If you're really trying to bootstrap a viable colony on Mars, you spend extra to send both the supplies the astronauts will need to survive without in situ resources and you also send the equipment they can use to try to live without using those supplies. Since the technologies are pretty proven by now, however, it's pretty clear that you can recycle every drop of water at least a few times. So you can get by with about a ton of consumable supplies per astronaut per year (which includes the water, food and oxygen that they need to consume). Right now, the Falcon heavy looks like it can realistically get a kg to Mars for around $11,000. We'll triple that and say 33,000 per kg. So that's $33 million per year, per astronaut of consumable living supplies. A lot of money, to be sure. Relatively speaking, however it's not that bad viewed in the context of a manned mission to another planet.