Easy there Lepton is my buddy. :police:
The point is we already knew there is water ice on Mars.
Want to talk radical and useful space exploration? How about one way manned missions (right up to 0.9c)? Think about it.
Don't worry, i don't mind him playing the ignorant fool, its amusing to me and the only reason i posted this from fox news.. hmmm... suprisingly enough the site i usually go to had this info after fox... a full... what 10 hours after fox... (space.com)
"We basically have found what appears to be the requirements of the nutrients to support life, past, present or future," said Kounaves.
Scientists found elements in the soil that included magnesium, potassium and sodium. "There are probably other mineral species, we are still working on data," he said.
Kounaves said the analysis results are "one more piece of evidence that there were liquid water action at some point in the history of Mars."
"It's very similar to the soil analysis results we got from some dried places on Earth -- this is the very exciting part," Kounaves said.
The 1 cubic meter (35 cubic feet) of soil was taken from about 1 inch below the surface of Mars and had a pH, or alkaline, level of 8 or 9. "We were all flabbergasted at the data we got back," Kounaves said.
It is a shame that these tests can't check from nitrogen or oxgen in the soil, which are also neccesary for plant life. Still it does bode well if we ever go there, we could grow our own food in 'green houses', though we might need to bring our own fertilizer
It is a shame that these tests can't check from nitrogen or oxgen in the soil, which are also neccesary for plant life. Still it does bode well if we ever go there, we could grow our own food in 'green houses', though we might need to bring our own fertilizer
from what i read it can't check for N2 or O2 (and a few other things) during these specific tests...
With these precise measurement capabilities, scientists will be able to determine ratios of various isotopes of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen, providing clues to origin of the volatile molecules, and possibly, biological processes that occurred in the past.
Easy there Lepton is my buddy. :police:
The point is we already knew there is water ice on Mars.
Want to talk radical and useful space exploration? How about one way manned missions (right up to 0.9c)? Think about it.
Uhhh...One Way???
Before or after Columbus? I'm not certain how fond the sailors under Columbus would have been if he told them it was a one way trip...
Before or after Columbus? I'm not certain how fond the sailors under Columbus would have been if he told them it was a one way trip...
They had no clue what they would find and were purely explorers not colonists. "Our" astronauts / scientists / colonists would have a good idea what they would be getting into.
How many of the early colonists in North America were "one way"?
the public would never let this happen. And it would be a public relations nightmare if the travellers died out there.
How many of the early colonists in North America were "one way"?
Colonists did take the "one way" option, but they knew where they were going and what was generelly there. Now how many colonists would have lined up at the boat if the sign read "Heading West, something might be there. Come along"
Perhaps, but there are risks even I would never try to take. You'll see them as well one day.
How many of the early colonists in North America were "one way"?
Colonists did take the "one way" option, but they knew where they were going and what was generelly there. Now how many colonists would have lined up at the boat if the sign read "Heading West, something might be there. Come along"
The very earliest colonists didn't know very much at all. Which helps to explain why some of the colonies failed totally. Others only survived by being helped by natives.
Given the work that it would take to set up such a "one way" mission there would be a very great understanding of the risks before it launched. Remember this would take at least another 20 years to set up if a project were announced and financed today. Even now I think a decent assessment of the risks could be made.
In addition the "colonists" would have somethings those early North American colonists didn't have. Easy swift communication with their homeland and some of the best scientific and engineering minds of the world dedicated to helping them solve problems that might arise.
Perhaps we should use criminals instead of volunteers for a mission to Mars, ones condemed to death should be used, since they'll die anyway, let them die doing something useful for humanity.
One way need not be a suicide mission.
Some have proposed the idea of sending a one way mission with the intent that the astronauts would be self supporting for the rest of their lives on Mars
intelligence!==stability is Nem's point.
Or to make a profit. You forgot that one.
I personally think mining from mars would be easier than an asteroid. Its more stable, and it does have some atmosphere to stop micrometeorites.
I personally think mining from mars would be easier than an asteroid. Its more stable, and it does have some atmosphere to stop micrometeorites.
The problem is energy costs in terms of fuel. Landing the people and mining equipment on Mars taks a lot of energy. Lifting the ores or refined materials off again takes even more. That makes mining Mars much more difficult than mining asteroids.
not if the miners can produce their own fuel
not if the miners can produce their own fuel
It still means that it takes more effort per kilo of product and that assumes that you don't use expendable launchers from Mars and that the launcher can return to the surface for reuse. If the launchers are expendable it would become ridiculously expensive in comparison to the asteroid mining scenario.
With several of the examples I gave for asteroid mining they require no fuel and when they finish a delivery (either to Earth orbit or on a deorbiting path they then return to pick up more product. They would also be useful in the Mars scenario to pick up from orbit and deliver to Earth (or wherever needed).
There are methods of getting cargos off Mars if you were to mine it that don't use up fuel. A solar powered magnetic catapult for example. This would still take extra effort but most of that effort would be up front and not ongoing unlike building launch vehicles and brewing up fuel.
I think nem was thinking robots...
I think nem was thinking robots...
Since the rest of us were talking in terms of manned mining operations, I have no reason to believe that he was speaking otherwise. The biggest problem with mars however, is that it belongs to Adam Ismail, Mustafa Khalil and Abdullah al-Umari
[url]http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9707/24/yemen.mars/[/url]
how much more expensive would mining on mars be than equipping a vehicle to mine the belt? You would need greater range, the miners would be in zero g for a longer period of time, and the gravity of the asteroids is nowhere near that of mars which means that the bone loss would be more severe. Also, an atmosphere means that miners doing eva will not have to cope with conditions that are as extreme.
Loose women with big hooters.
I think nem was thinking robots...
Since the rest of us were talking in terms of manned mining operations, I have no reason to believe that he was speaking otherwise. The biggest problem with mars however, is that it belongs to Adam Ismail, Mustafa Khalil and Abdullah al-Umari
[url]http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9707/24/yemen.mars/[/url]
Actually I wasn't thinking robots.how much more expensive would mining on mars be than equipping a vehicle to mine the belt? You would need greater range, the miners would be in zero g for a longer period of time, and the gravity of the asteroids is nowhere near that of mars which means that the bone loss would be more severe. Also, an atmosphere means that miners doing eva will not have to cope with conditions that are as extreme.
The energy cost to get to the belt is less than that to get to Mars and soft land. That landing eats up fuel.
At this point it is unknown how much effect the 1/3 gravity on Mars will have on people. All that is really known of long term effects are at 1g and 0g.
if the miners were staying for an extended period then either on Mars or in the belt they would need a large base. Large enough that spinning to simulate 1g would be practical in the belt. It could be done on Mars but would likely be more difficult toe design and maintain.
The Martian atmosphere at a little less than 1% of Earths isn't that helpful.
If the asteroid miners either stick to small asteroids or break up larger ones there is no reason they couldn't make an inflated "hangar" and bring the rock in leaving them working in more convient environments. Remember that unlike in the movies asteroids are far apart and mostly you wouldn't be able to see one asteroid from another so impacts are not that likely with anything of substantial size.
There are a whole bunch of essentials needed to found a colony or mining expedition on Mars....
Beer.
Loose women with big hooters.
Decent sanitation.
Beer.
Habitation.
Tax haven status.
For atmosphere, they could always rig it so that a couple of comets hit Mars.
1/3G is better than 0G.
A spinning base has to be absolutely massive to work, otherwise it will induce nausea.
Also, while the martian atmosphere would let alot more rocks through than earth's, it could still stop micrometeorites. Yes, the asteroids are far apart, but there are probably plenty of small fragments floating around out there, in addition to the dust which is a real issue in long term space flight.
Also, while the martian atmosphere would let alot more rocks through than earth's, it could still stop micrometeorites. Yes, the asteroids are far apart, but there are probably plenty of small fragments floating around out there, in addition to the dust which is a real issue in long term space flight.
Enough probes have flown through the asteroid belt without issue that I think it would be fairly safe. Remember these probes were crossing the belt against the "flow", how many have been lost to collisons? The mining base would be orbiting with the flow and therefore should encounter fewer particles and at a lower relative speed. You could even situate the base in the orbital shadow of one of the larger asteroids and let it "sweep" space ahead of the base in orbit to make it safer. (Similar to the failed Wakeshield enhanced vacuum experiments).
The miner could remotely operate the equipment from several light seconds away just to reduce the risk from debris thrown up by the mining operation. They don't need to be immediately on site.
Probes are only in the belt for a relatively short period of time. They are also a a lot smaller than a manned mining outpost would be.
Probes are only in the belt for a relatively short period of time. They are also a a lot smaller than a manned mining outpost would be.
The belt is quite wide and they spend a significant amount of time going across the flow which increases the relative speed and the chances of collision substantially yet they haven't destroyed a probe yet.
You can also mine asteroids that are not in the belt. There are a fair number charted already and many smaller ones (easier to take apart I would think) still to be charted. You could also go further out and mine the asteroids in Jupiter's Trojan positions. As you see there are ways to avoid or limit the dangers.
If you were to do extraterrestrial mining on a body with substantial gravity the natural location is the moon in any case.
Even at the most favourable planetary conjunction, this means a round trip to Mars would take around a year and a half.
"That's why you [should] send people there permanently," said Aldrin. "If we are not willing to do that, then I don't think we should just go once and have the expense of doing that and then stop."
He asked: "If we are going to put a few people down there and ensure their appropriate safety, would you then go through all that trouble and then bring them back immediately, after a year, a year and a half?"
NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) are sketching tentative plans for a manned mission to Mars that would take place around 2030 or 2040.
Based on experience culled from a planned return to the Moon, the mission would entail about half a dozen people, with life-support systems and other gear pre-positioned for them on the Martian surface.
Aldrin said the vanguard could be joined by others, making a colony around 30 people.
"They need to go there more with the psychology of knowing that you are a pioneering settler and you don't look forward to go back home again after a couple a years," he said.
"At age 30, they are given an opportunity. If they accept, then we train them, at age 35, we send them. At age 65, who knows what advances have taken place. They can retire there, or maybe we can bring them back."