View Full Version : Moon/Mars - just go !
Greetings !
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/lunar-04c.html
O.K. I remember there was talk of a speech for manned
Mars exploration last year, but this time it seems
more likely according to the story, at least. And, because
it's the Moon - a more modest target. Besides, the US
presedential ellections are closer. [:D] Hopefully,
SOMEONE with finally GO SOMEWHERE ! Even if it's
seemingly just in our "back yard".
Live long and prosper.
Lord Flasheart
Jan9-04, 04:34 PM
Yes. Apparently Ralph Hall has convinced Bush the benefits of colonizing the moon. By actually taking ahold of the first lunar material from the moon, space stations could get supplies in a much cheaper and effecient way, develop larger spacecraft, and allow him to be an election-ready simulacrum of the great-late-JFK.
There will be an expedition to Mars. See you there.
pallidin
Jan13-04, 05:21 PM
Having been born and raised 69 miles south of Cape Kennedy(at that time)in Florida, I suppose I might be somewhat biased, given the awe of looking in the sky and seeing the Apollo rockets racing towards the moon and, later, the shuttle missions.(I was born in 1960 and lived in Ft.Pierce, Florida for 21 years and have revisited numerous times since)
Now I live in Montana, far away from the spectacular sights afforded every few months or so in Florida.
I fully support an aggressive space program as I know that we must, at some point, leave this home and venture outwards in order to survive, and to thrive.
One has to question how sincere Bush is about the Moon and Mars missions. He didn't even mention them in his State of the Union address, although he took the time to talk about a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriages.
The admin is concerned about the fact that the Chinese recently put people in space and said that they wish to go to the Moon by 2010, a story that the mainstream media in the U.S. practically ignored ( too busy talking about Scott Peterson).
They are also concerned about the fact that Russia and the European union are working together to build new boosters and are also interested in going to the Moon. Those plans are seen by some in the admin as putting the U.S. in a tactical military disadvantage.
The Bush plan calls for ending the U.S. involvement in the ISS at 2010 and using the money for a Moon/Mars mission along with technology borrowed from the Pentagon.
Overall, the spirit of international cooperation that has been dominant in the past ten years doesn't appear in the Bush plan and seems to be taking a back burner to a Pentagon type approach. One has to wonder where the money and other needed resources are going to come from.
Integral
Feb14-04, 04:15 PM
This is of course totally ignoring the fact that there is no sound scientific reason for sending men into space. There is no science that could not be done better by robotic probes and remote sensing. The fact that science can be done much cheaper and better seems to go over the head of politicians and even the general public. The goal seems to be just have man set foot on the surface of Mars, irregardless of the fact that he would be there as a tourist unable to learn or do anything of significance.
If that is the goal then let private industry fund the missions, with the goal of building a lunar resort for low gravity golf and love making.
Nice coder
Feb14-04, 07:42 PM
I agree, but what can one do?
Nobody said anything about mining asteroids yet, so- is it economical to build a gold-seeking probe, to land on an asteroid, collect gold/silver/? and fly it back to earth/earths' moon/mars colony?
de Nice codre
Originally posted by Integral
This is of course totally ignoring the fact that there is no sound scientific reason for sending men into space. There is no science that could not be done better by robotic probes and remote sensing. The fact that science can be done much cheaper and better seems to go over the head of politicians and even the general public. The goal seems to be just have man set foot on the surface of Mars, irregardless of the fact that he would be there as a tourist unable to learn or do anything of significance.
Hmm... why live at all ? Let's put our brains in jars
connect them to a computer and let robots do all the work. [;)]
Peace and long life.
Originally posted by Nice coder
I agree, but what can one do?
Nobody said anything about mining asteroids yet, so- is it economical to build a gold-seeking probe, to land on an asteroid, collect gold/silver/? and fly it back to earth/earths' moon/mars colony?
Not one bit, for now.
garagegraphyx
Feb17-04, 08:36 AM
We are definitely running out of space on earth. Wherever humans wish to colonize, go for it...after all, its part of the plan in reaching civilization type I.. we try harness the energy and sources needed from another location alien to earth. Personally, i think its a very good idea...think of all the sapce and experience we can gain from this expeditions...
From what i have heard...our moon is an empty hollow mass...
Please prove me wrong cos if its true, it might be unstable for an actual colony living on it...
Nice coder
Feb18-04, 12:29 AM
The moon is neither empty nor hollow,
it is desolate, unless you want to mine bauxite!
It has a mantle layer and a solid crust, with no atmosphere.
Hopefully that is cleared up.
Originally posted by Nice coder
I agree, but what can one do?
Nobody said anything about mining asteroids yet, so- is it economical to build a gold-seeking probe, to land on an asteroid, collect gold/silver/? and fly it back to earth/earths' moon/mars colony?
de Nice codre
It won't be economical until you have a need for those minerals in space. It costs ~$6,000 - $10,000 /kg to send stuff into space. It will cost a good deal in addition to that go bring stuff from an asteroid back home. It isn't economical to mine an asteroid just to bring it back to Earth... even gold is only a few hundred per ounce. If you need it in space (manufacturing, for example), then it may be worth the expense.
Integral
Feb19-04, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by drag
Hmm... why live at all ? Let's put our brains in jars
connect them to a computer and let robots do all the work. [;)]
Peace and long life.
Not sure what you mean by this or what it has to do with what I wrote. Evidently you have no clue of what a modern robot is. Guess I have a different view of a robot, since I make my living working with them.
I believe that there are some fundamental facts of life that we must learn to live with. The quicker we catch on to these facts the better off we will be in the long run.
1. We will never leave the solar system, in the sense of colonizing, sure we can send robotic probes but MANKIND will never leave the solar system.
2. Mankind Will never leave the surface of the earth in large enough numbers to have any impact on the population in general.
The message here is that we had better learn to live with what we have got. We had better learn to live with what we have SOON. We cannot error in this or we doom our descendent's to a stone age life style. There is no magic rescue by jumping off the surface of the earth into space. We have much basic science to be done before there is any hope of finding a real reason for a man to travel to another planet. If we do not do the basic science, and instead spend money and effort to send more tourists (like the ones we sent in the late '60s) to the moon or Mars we may well blow the only chance we have of ever exploiting the resources of the solar system. By devoting huge amounts of resources to sending tourists into space we well have to neglect the pure science of the solar system and the sciences of how to survive with what we now have. Thus endangering our very existence as a species. To me the whole idea of sending men into space is a waste of time and resources. We have much better ways of spending both.
I am not saying that we should not explore the solar system, I just say that there is no need, and indeed, it is counter productive, to send men.
Originally posted by Integral
Not sure what you mean by this or what it has to do with what I wrote. Evidently you have no clue of what a modern robot is. Guess I have a different view of a robot, since I make my living working with them.
I believe that there are some fundamental facts of life that we must learn to live with. The quicker we catch on to these facts the better off we will be in the long run.
1. We will never leave the solar system, in the sense of colonizing, sure we can send robotic probes but MANKIND will never leave the solar system.
2. Mankind Will never leave the surface of the earth in large enough numbers to have any impact on the population in general.
The message here is that we had better learn to live with what we have got. We had better learn to live with what we have SOON. We cannot error in this or we doom our descendent's to a stone age life style. There is no magic rescue by jumping off the surface of the earth into space. We have much basic science to be done before there is any hope of finding a real reason for a man to travel to another planet. If we do not do the basic science, and instead spend money and effort to send more tourists (like the ones we sent in the late '60s) to the moon or Mars we may well blow the only chance we have of ever exploiting the resources of the solar system. By devoting huge amounts of resources to sending tourists into space we well have to neglect the pure science of the solar system and the sciences of how to survive with what we now have. Thus endangering our very existence as a species. To me the whole idea of sending men into space is a waste of time and resources. We have much better ways of spending both.
I am not saying that we should not explore the solar system, I just say that there is no need, and indeed, it is counter productive, to send men.
hmm... At first, as I read this I was certain I'm gon'na
write a long message against ALL of the above. But, you
know, who am I to fortell history ? [;)] I just sincerely
hope you're wrong, both about where technology and where
human spirit will lead us. Guess blind optimists make
the best explorers...[:D]
Peace and long life.
russ_watters
Feb19-04, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by drag
[B]But, you
know, who am I to fortell history ? [;)] I just sincerely
hope you're wrong, both about where technology and where
human spirit will lead us. Unfortunately, drag, it has nothing to do with technology(except insofar as the laws of physics put solid boundaries on technology). These are scientific realities. Gravity. F=ma. E=mc^2. The laws of physics make it pretty much impossible for Integral's #1 and #2 to be wrong.
Guess blind optimists make the best explorers... Maybe, but maybe its just that you never remember the names of the ones who failed and died because of it.
Originally posted by russ_watters
Unfortunately, drag, it has nothing to do with technology(except insofar as the laws of physics put solid boundaries on technology). These are scientific realities. Gravity. F=ma. E=mc^2. The laws of physics make it pretty much impossible for Integral's #1 and #2 to be wrong.
Just a century ago the "laws" of physics made MOST modern
technology impossible. And just ten years ago I played
single color PC games from 350K diskettes using a box
ten of which ain't worth a 3rd generation mobile phone.
Besides, except ingenuity we have more powerful stuff
to keep us running - like greed.[;)]
Live long and prosper.
russ_watters
Feb20-04, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by drag
Just a century ago the "laws" of physics made MOST modern
technology impossible. Not true at all. Very common misconception. The laws of physics are unchanging (by definition). How much we know about them is all that changes. But nothing in technology today is against the known laws of physics from 100 years ago. The known laws of physics just didn't cover as much as they cover today. Despite the common belief, very little of accepted science gets thrown out because to become accepted, a theory has to match observation. And just ten years ago I played
single color PC games from 350K diskettes using a box
ten of which ain't worth a 3rd generation mobile phone.
And none of those technologies are contrary to what was known about physics 100 years ago.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/03/04/glenn.space.reut/index.html
I didn't continue the little argument we
had above, because it looks like a general
theoretical and partly even philosophical
discussion that won't lead anywhere. We'll
just have to wait and see.
(Besides, I know I'm right...[;)] [:D])
Originally posted by paults2
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/03/04/glenn.space.reut/index.html]
Why read the article after you see the picture ? [;)]
It tells you ahead what you're about to read.
This has nothing what so ever to do with space exploration
programs and I see no reason to adress any meaning to this
irrelevant "critisizm".
Peace and long life.
pallidin
Mar6-04, 05:58 PM
Jeeze, and I thought I was in a thread with forward thinking.
Look, if the U.S. does not continue manned mission to space, does that mean that no other country will?
Think again.
Are "robotic" missions, however technologically advanced, even anywhere near the socio-political(and YES, technological) impact of human exploration?
Not EVEN CLOSE. A human with instruments can do more in one day than Spirit and Opportunity having the same instruments could hope for in 5-months.
And, if we, as the U.S., fail to achieve a dominant posture in space, other contries have ALREADY declared their intention to do so.
Should we just send our robots around while other countries colonize the moon and Mars?
Bad call. And very, very dangerous to the national security of the United States. Hello!!!!!!!!!!!
Imagine you were born in China (Russia, India, ...) and live in Beijing (Moscow, Delhi, ...) ... why do economic and national security concerns look different to you than they do to someone born in the US and living in Redmond?enigma wrote: It costs ~$6,000 - $10,000 /kg to send stuff into space. How low could we make it go (in constant$)? What are the key factors which drive up the cost?
Looking into the costs involved in getting into orbit ...
Leave aside capital costs for the moment, how much of the cost of getting into orbit, per launch, is just the rocket (propellant, motors, containers, electronics)? and how much is the per-launch infrastructure?
I am going to guess the rocket is ~>80% of the cost, and the propellants are ~>80% of the rocket's cost.
The shuttle used liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, and aluminium powder and ammonium perchlorate. In terms of getting 100kg to 100 tonnes into LEO, and assuming a 'perfect' rocket design, are there propellants which are most cost-effective than these? To what extent does the answer to this question depend on as-yet-unknown manufacturing, storage, etc cost (in volume) economies?
Actually, propellants are such a small percentage of the cost, that they can be more or less neglected.
The costs for a single launch vehicle stage can be approximated like so:
Nonrecurring (development) costs:
7.125*mass^.55 [$M]
first unit production costs:
.1693*mass^.662 [$M]
The cost per kilo of LH2 or LOX runs on the order of $1/kg when purchased in bulk quantities.
So, for the first stage of a Delta IV Medium (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/deledium.htm) which has a mass of 26,760kg you can make the approximation that it cost around $1.9 Billion to develop and $144 Million to make the first one. Compare that with around $200,000 for the propellants. Each additional one you construct will cost less than the previous (learning curve effects). It's usually that the 2nd costs between 85% and 95% of the first, the 4th costs 85% to 95% of the 2nd, etc.
One way which you can bring down costs (which I am currently doing research in for a space tourism design project) is to use a modular design. Instead of having a different design for each stage, optimizing each for the region of the atmosphere it's flying in, have a single type of module with mediocre performance in any region, but strap a bunch of them together and blow them off in 4 or 5 stages. You need to build more of them, yes, but the cost to develop them goes down because they're smaller, and the cost per stage drops off quicker than a traditional launch because you're firing 10 or 12 (or more) of them for the first stage instead of 1 to 3.
Thanks enigma.
What makes a rocket (stage) so expensive to produce? I guess it's not the materials (metal for tanks, insulation, etc) nor electronics nor assembly, so is it manufacture of motors and other components?
Your mention of first unit, second unit etc suggests 'master craftsman' (oops, not PC 'mastercraftsperson') production techniques rather than mass production.
Lastly, are the per-launch infrastructure costs - such as people costs of the launch crew - small (very small?) cf the per-launch rocket cost?
Originally posted by Nereid
What makes a rocket (stage) so expensive to produce? I guess it's not the materials (metal for tanks, insulation, etc) nor electronics nor assembly, so is it manufacture of motors and other components?
It's a combination. Manufacturing and testing of components isn't negligible. Remember that the construction of these things is, for the most part, done by engineers, each of whom make at least $50,000 per year. Also, there is the rediculous beaurocracy in any large company working off of government contracts.
Your mention of first unit, second unit etc suggests 'master craftsman' (oops, not PC 'mastercraftsperson') production techniques rather than mass production.
Yep. There isn't enough demand for them to get mass produced, and there won't be enough demand for them until they get mass produced. Catch-22.
Lastly, are the per-launch infrastructure costs - such as people costs of the launch crew - small (very small?) cf the per-launch rocket cost?
To be honest, I'm not sure.
I wouldn't be surprised if the costs ran into the 10s of millions to construct the facilities and in the millions per launch. That's noise level compared to the development costs unless it's to the high end of my guess or if my guess is low to begin with.
russ_watters
Mar8-04, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by pallidin
Not EVEN CLOSE. A human with instruments can do more in one day than Spirit and Opportunity having the same instruments could hope for in 5-months. I think you seriously overestimate the capabilities of humans (not to mention other demands on their time such as survival) and seriously underestimate the capabilities of robots.
Also, at less than a billion dollars a pair, you could send up several hundred rovers for the cost of one manned mission.Should we just send our robots around while other countries colonize the moon and Mars? Not to worry: no one (not us, not anyone else) is going to colonize the moon or Mars.
Originally posted by enigma
Actually, propellants are such a small percentage of the cost, that they can be more or less neglected.
*SNIP
The cost per kilo of LH2 or LOX runs on the order of $1/kg when purchased in bulk quantities.
So, for the first stage of a [...] which has a mass of 26,760kg you can make the approximation that it cost around $1.9 Billion to develop and $144 Million to make the first one. Compare that with around $200,000 for the propellants. That's around 10kg of propellant per 1kg of first stage.
Materials? Let's assume $10/kg and, being generous, another $10/kg for assembly.
Electronics? Likely but a fraction of the cost of the propellants; $100k tops.
That leaves the complex machinery (rocket engine, pumps), assembly, and overheads; overheads should be able to be brought down to ~<20%.
This toy calculation suggests that enigma is right to focus on getting to 'mass production'; a not unrealistic target per-launch cost of getting to LEO is $100 to $1,000/kg.
You may be interrested in this (http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/academics/483F03/483L11.cost_anal/11_costing_2003B.pdf), Nereid.
It is the lecture notes from a spacecraft design course on vehicle costing.
pallidin
Mar10-04, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by russ_watters
Not to worry: no one (not us, not anyone else) is going to colonize the moon or Mars.
Curious. That's a very bold statement! Perhaps you would be willing to share your thoughts on this, as I cannot see how a single individual could ever make such a prediction of future events!
russ_watters
Mar11-04, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by pallidin
Curious. That's a very bold statement! Perhaps you would be willing to share your thoughts on this, as I cannot see how a single individual could ever make such a prediction of future events! Well, save for limiting that statement to my lifetime, I'm sticking to it. Space travel is so fabulously expensive that without a compelling reason to do it, we won't. With the technology likely to be available in the next 50 years, not a whole lot will change as far as the engineering limits on space travel. Even with the volume discount Nereid and Enigma are discussing, even just putting a colony (a colony means a semi-permanent base with at least a couple dozen people) on the moon would requie a substantial fraction of our GDP, indefinitely.
Want another prediction? China won't be putting a man on the moon.
Originally posted by enigma
You may be interrested in this (http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/academics/483F03/483L11.cost_anal/11_costing_2003B.pdf), Nereid.
It is the lecture notes from a spacecraft design course on vehicle costing. Thanks.
Seems to me we need some left-field thinking.
Do similar sorts of heuristic formulae apply for other large, complex machines (e.g. large commercial aeroplanes)? How have other industries managed to get the costs of unit production down? Is there anything that gives us a clue as to what the long-term unit cost of production could be (based on some general principles)?
paults2
Mar16-04, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by drag
I didn't continue the little argument we
had above, because it looks like a general
theoretical and partly even philosophical
discussion that won't lead anywhere. We'll
just have to wait and see.
(Besides, I know I'm right...[;)] [:D])
Why read the article after you see the picture ? [;)]
It tells you ahead what you're about to read.
This has nothing what so ever to do with space exploration
programs and I see no reason to adress any meaning to this
irrelevant "critisizm".
Peace and long life.
Drag, you won't understand much if you draw conclusions based on one picture and are not willing to listen to other people's views.
What Bush is proposing is a farce. We can't go to Mars on a 1% a year incease in the NASA budget and by trying to save some bucks by abandoning the ISS and other research projects.
One of the purposes of the ISS was to learn to live and work in space long term so that we could go to Mars.
What Bush is proposing is short-sighted and unplanned. It suffers from the go-it-alone approach that has plagued the Bush administration from the start. The cost of a single country doing this on its own is staggering. It was difficult to even get the ISS running with the help of other countries.
One has to at least look at what the return is on a human Mars mission compared with the science and research that is going to be lost to pay for it.
The same thing happened it the 60's. It was a great sensational thing to go to the Moon, but many other projects got scrapped in the process. We would likely have single stage to orbit vehicles today if projects like the x-15 in the 60s didn't get scrapped because of the Moon mission.
I agree with pretty much everything you just said, but single stage to orbit is a bad idea. The physics behind them simply don't work out...
paults2
Mar16-04, 04:56 AM
Yes, SSTO is not easy. Trying to add a significant amount of enthalphy to the gases with an airbreathing engine at hypersonic speeds is tough.
Nonetheless, there was a great deal of progress made during the X-15 program. It would have been great if that project and ones similar to it had been active from the 60s to the present.
The scrapped X33 program is another example of poor planning, They were essentially trying to build a space plane with technology that hadn't yet been proven out. It ended up as a waste of money. It shows what happens in a poorly planned project where the science and research aren't thought out first.
NASA is a space exploration agency not a space construction agency. Whomever decided to begin building ISS did not understand the fundamental purpose of NASA because ISS is draining NASA. Therefore, I say COMMERCIALIZE ISS now. (Yes, commercialize you socialists. The government cannot continue to monopolize outerspace and space travel will not become popular until space is commercialized. Why do you think there is so much excitement about the X-prize? Why do think there is even an X-prize?)
Someone said that man will NEVER leave the solar system. True, with current propulsion, we won't. Voyager has not left the solar system and that was like 30 yrs ago. However, with wormholes and/or warp drive it would be difficult not to leave the solar system.
Current feasible propulsion designs (that I know of) are momentum transfer, inertial force deviation and project ORION. Momentum transfer is when a projectile is fired from a moon-based rail launcher and caught by the ship. The basic principle is conservation of momentum. Inertial force deviation is where there are a bunch of wheels that create a wicked centipetal force. Project Orion is probably the best, but the environmental NAZIS would never allow us to use it. :cry:
Others have expressed doubts about the mission to Mars. These people are defeatists who continually whine about something ...cost...Bush...ISS...BLAH, BLAH, BLAH and before that it was SDI ...bullet hit a bullet...starwars...laser beams... :zzz: . These people don't have a basic grasp on human history and how humans have always risen to a challenge.
After mars, the next horizon is asteriod mining. I am personally anxious to get my hands on some of those exotic ferrites. :biggrin:
I also read somewhere that the moon has some weird compound (Fe23Cr)? from asteriod impacts. :smile:
BTW Russ Watters, there are things today that did NOT behave according to the laws of Physics a century ago. A magnet balancing an object in midair was considered near heresy a while ago; yet, today there is the levitron. All quantum mechanics would defy the laws of physics a century ago, IT DEFIES THEM EVEN TODAY. Objects passing through walls, going faster than the speed of light, parallel universes. WERE YOU BORN IN A BARN?
Greetings !
Drag, you won't understand much if you draw conclusions based on one picture and are not willing to listen to other people's views.
What Bush is proposing is a farce. We can't go to Mars on a 1% a year incease in the NASA budget and by trying to save some bucks by abandoning the ISS and other research projects.
First of all, I'm all for the ISS.
Second, well... what can I say... Just give Burt
Rutan, for example, NASA's budget and he'll have
people on the Moon in a few years, ignoring
for the moment the fact that beyond being a visionary,
an inventor and an engineer, he's also a bussiness man
and there's no short range gain here.
Maybe, some of them won't make it. Maybe it'll be
a lot riskier, but hell, I'd go if I could and so would
others.
NASA acts in a completely different manner,
and it also has much greater responsibilities being
a government organization. A LOT of what they do
could be skipped and filled in later. Many plans
and programs could be changed or cancelled if
the objective was not overall incremental development
of the entire field, but rather a type of garage-style
competative thinking when you use the things
you already got and know. Of course, there's no
reason to act like that if you're just developing
the field and creating new technologies, but when
yuor mission is to go somewhere - actually implement
this stuff, no matter what the reason is, then that's the way you should act.
Take the X-33 program, for example, how many billions
did it cost ? Yeah, they learned many new things
(amongst the fact that it's a bad idea :biggrin:),
but the mission was to build a simpler - cheaper
and safer large surface to orbit reusable transport,
and that mission failed. Why ? Because they tried
to build something based on knowledge and
technologies they didn't have yet. Maybe if
they took much less money and built a simple
orbital freighter with a cargo hold and cheap
multistaged rockets, they would not feel as proud
as they would had they succeeded, but they
would accomplish their mission, greatly increase
practical capabilities in space and save a lot
of money for reseach of the same things they
tried to develop on the X-33, without the risk
associated with their actual implementation before
it's abvious that they'll work.
But, anyway, if the question is merely one of
exploration and development, of course it should
continue in any way possible, and I'm SURE there're
great new possibilities.
Live long and prosper.
griffin
Jun16-04, 09:25 AM
It is a terrible comentary on the state of our race to see educated people putting such hard limits on such unknown areas.
1. I happen to agree that physical Laws are not to be bended, but look at what you are calling a law. F=ma is a law (Newton's first if I am not mistaken), but E=mc^2 is not a law it is the THEORY of relativity. Why would one put them in the same category. The existance of gravity, and its relationship to mass is a Law, but we have no Law that keeps us from escaping the earths atmosphere.
A. as a side note : there is some doubt as to wether or not the law
of conservation of mass is actually true, but some experiments
with high energy collitions have hinted at matter converting to
energy. (which would make the law of conservation of energy
incorrect as well). There is no conclusive evidence, so I will not
say that it proves or disproves anything, but it dose lead one to
wonder, dose it not?
2. There are absolutly no physical laws that keep us from colonizing any planet we can reach (Moon (which I know isn't a planet, but it is a celestial body so it will work for my example), mars, even pluto if we really wanted to waste those resorses. the big barriors lay in another set of laws and an terribly annoying feild, Economics. The great thing about that feild is that it is not based on anything more than greed, so it is lible to change in the next 50 years (for better or worse I do not know) so it may or may not become more fesable then. Annother feild that is limiting colonization is the Technological feild. I know that a lot of people say that we have the technology to do it right now, but I would not agree with theim whole heartedly. I do beleive that the technologies we lack are not at all outside of our reach.
Waste resources going to other planets? How many resources would we waste by going to Titan (a moon with a natural gas atmosphere and oceans)?
How many resources did we waste by going to the moon? You're life would be vastly different if it were not for the technologies developed in the space program.
F=ma is newton's second law
The first law is an object in motion says in motion and an object at rest remains at rest.
And anyone who has ever watched star trek knows that mass and energy are interchangeable. Regardless of whether the boson is found or not.
A farce paul? People like you have criticized GWB for everything. Remember a while back GW said that America would give billions of dollars to fight aids in Africa. Did he? YES. Remember when GW said he would enforce the UN resolutions on Iraq? Did he? YES. The point is that GW does what he says and says what he means. What a difference from BC who said a lot, but did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. I remember after terrorists attacked us in Mog, Somalia he said something like don't worry we are going to get these guys. Yet HE DID NOTHING. In fact he always said I am working harder on <fill in the blank> then I have ever done in my life. Yet he did nothing and look at where we are now.
griffin
Jun16-04, 12:32 PM
First of all I was saying that pluto was probably a bad choice of planets to visit. the resorses were not and would not be wasted on a moon mission, and they would also not be wasted on a mars mission. (secondly Titan is a very interesting topic. First of all the oceans are theorized to be made up of methel-ethane, which is not exactly natural gass, but it would still be a valuable resourse. However, I must also stress that it has not been proven. the atmosphere is so thick that the only reason that they beleive there to be oceans is because of large discolorations in the photos taken by one of our probes as it passed by. the Cassini probe has been launched and will be arriving in this very summer, and it's purpos, among other things, is to determine if there are oceans and what they are made of if they do exist. you can learn more about that at the NASA website.)
Thank you for correction my mis-quote of the order of newtons laws, I didn't have a refferance with me at the time.
I realize that Sci-Fi shows use a lot of real science to intigrate into there entertaining and stimulating plots, but they do tend to exadurate from time to time, or say things as fact that is now only theory. And I stress theory!! that means that it can be proven wrong still. we as men and women of science mus always keep an open mind to what the universe will through us next.
russ_watters
Jun17-04, 12:37 PM
BTW Russ Watters, there are things today that did NOT behave according to the laws of Physics a century ago. A magnet balancing an object in midair was considered near heresy a while ago; yet, today there is the levitron. All quantum mechanics would defy the laws of physics a century ago, IT DEFIES THEM EVEN TODAY. Objects passing through walls, going faster than the speed of light, parallel universes. WERE YOU BORN IN A BARN? Could you be more specific? A magnet balancing an object in midair doesn't seem that impressive - maybe a technology thing, but I can't think of what theory that existed 100 years ago it would have violated.
Also, objects passing through walls? What do you mean and what theory?
Objects going faster than the speed of light? Not possible under today's theories - can you be more specific?
After mars, the next horizon is asteriod mining. I am personally anxious to get my hands on some of those exotic ferrites. Quick question: how much, per pound or kg, do you think an exotic ferrite need to be worth to make mining it economically viable with technology likely to exist in the next 50 years? $10,000 / lb? $100,000 / lb? Sorry, asteroid mining isn't happening in our lifetime.
And can the political talk - not the place for it.
Could you be more specific? A magnet balancing an object in midair doesn't seem that impressive - maybe a technology thing, but I can't think of what theory that existed 100 years ago it would have violated.
Also, objects passing through walls? What do you mean and what theory?
I suppose Allah meant superconductors and stable magnetic
levitation. And abviously QM with that second remark.
But, that's all besides the point. Even today, as we speak, there
are new discoveries in physics. And yes, it doesn't seem like it
could make much of a difference, but people didn't think they'd
need a telephone at first, either.
Like I said this is not something that I believe we can discuss
in any productive manner, we just don't know what'll happen.
But, for one thing, if we let history be our guide, I think technology
will go very far, and in space as well. And, many of the REAL limmits
we recognize today may very well dissappear tomorrow.
Peace and long life.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,12543,577754,00.html
EARNSHAW'S THEOREM--stable magnetic levitation was thought impossible for 150 YEARS, until the 1990's.
Most of QM defies the laws of physics.
but in particular,
Particles under QUANTUM TUNNELING have been know to go faster than the speed of light and frequently pass through walls and other objects.
http://www.comcity.com/distance-time/The%20Speed%20of%20Quantum%20tunneling.html#4.3%20 The%20speed%20of%20quantum%20tunneling
http://www.physicspost.com/articles.php?articleId=173&page=1
Bell's Theorem developed like 40 years ago challenges most preconcieved notions about the universe. http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/BellsTheorem/BellsTheorem.html
As for AM, most of those asteroids have more iron in them then all the iron that has ever been mined from the Earth. All you would need is ONE! Technology-wise, Necessity is the mother of all invention, i.e. if we want we will get to it.
As for the political talk, I was simply defending my president against that flaming liberal paul.
Integral
Jun17-04, 08:37 PM
As for AM, most of those asteroids have more iron in them then all the iron that has ever been mined from the Earth. All you would need is ONE! Technology-wise, Necessity is the mother of all invention, i.e. if we want we will get to it.
Humm... Let's see.... Just what is the core of the Earth composed of... iron? Now why in the world would we want to spend a nation into poverty to bring a small iron rock to a HUGE iron rock????
But even if you could find an economically sound method and had a use for (leo manufacturing?) Why would you have to send a man on the trip?
For all of the rhetoric in this thread there has not been a single viable reason presented why a man must to sent any further then LEO.
We can explore the solar system and even venture into deep space without a man ever leaving the surface of the earth. Any mission that includes a man changes the very nature of the mission. If the intent is gathering of scientific information, that will become secondary to keeping the men on the mission alive. Vital instrumentation will be left behind because men need air, food, and water. Then when the mission with men is safely on the surface of Mars, or where ever, sooner then later a situation will arise that the is NOT in the expertise of the small group sent. It will be necessary to communicate with the earth, where a committee of scientist will meet, they will analyze the transmitted data, and relay to the on site humans their decisions....
Does this process sound familiar? Is not this EXACTLY what is happening with the current Mars Rovers? So we have gained NOTHING by sending men, we have only spend huge sums of money to guarantee the safety of men who have no real purpose to begin with.
You must consider that in order to gain the expertise necessary to evaluate such data as will be gathered on these missions requires years of schooling. Who will be sent? Most NASA astronauts are pilots first and scientists ....
YIKES! Look at the time.... Gotta go!
aeroegnr
Jun17-04, 09:09 PM
Robots are nice and all, but the real interesting thing about mars missions would be the permanence of it all.
If we can keep people alive on Mars for a year with some margin allowed for problems, why not push it and see how we inhabit other planets?
Either we go or we don't. If people don't go, humans at some point will cease to exist.
If we do go and we learn from it, humans will continue to exist as long as there is a star within reach.
We may even get to the point that we don't necessarily need power from stars to survive unaided.
Robots can't procreate. Humans can and enjoy it. If there is a way for people to live somewhere other than earth, people will compete for the opportunity.
By not going further than low earth orbit we are imprisoning our own species. I personally don't think that's a good thing.
Integral
Jun17-04, 09:46 PM
There can be no permanence for humans on Mars as long as there is no viable economic reason for being there. The expense of maintaining a permanent colony of tourists would be huge, how do you propose to pay for it?
Do you not think that it is wise to figure out how to make the journey with 100% confidence before committing huge amounts of money on a single shot mission. This is what is planned, there is no permanent colony in the works so why is that even mentioned. We can make many flights with robotic equipment, and gather more data then can be analyzed in the next decade without a man leaving the surface of the earth. When we can sent a robot to Mars with certaintly of its safe landing on the surface then perhaps we will have the knowledge and expreiance to send humans. Meanwhile, Robotics can discover if there is something of value out there and robotics can harvest anything of value that is found. A man in space can only consume air and food which must be sent with him, he can not do a single thing that cannot be done remotely. A sense of adventure or because it is there is simply not a good enough reason to waste piles of resources for a man in space.
I think it is completely foolish to dream of man in the stars as a solution to the problems we have here on earth when Physics is very clear....MAN WILL NOT JOURNEY to the stars.
Sure there could be some huge breakthrough that will change that, but until that breakthrough happens we MUST plan on being stuck on this rock till the sun novas. If a break through occurs it will not be done on a Martian colony but right here on earth in the office at some university.
True, robots can send data back to earth better than a human could and men do consume resources and there are bigger problems back home... Similar arguments were made 400 years ago when America was discovered save robots of course. Why not simply send slaves? We would force them to consume almost nothing and they can report as well as any European can. The slaves can do anything that a European can do so why not send them?
I will continue to say that necessity is the mother of all invention. Since the dawn of man, if there was a river, sea, or ocean that we needed to cross then we built ships to do it. Space is the ultimate ocean and when we begin to understand the nuances of space travel, then space travel will become cheaper and easier. For example, I think it would be good to know how exactly radiation builds up on different hulls when a craft has been in space for years. However, I agree with you that a major breakthrough in propulsion will occur in a lab not in space. Still, the opposite seemed to occur in seafaring.
Man in the stars is a solution. It seems like there are a couple people here saying "omg, oil will be gone in 50 years and other bs," but Titan has an atmosphere and literally oceans made up of a compound very close to natural gas.
True the Earth has a molten iron core, but we do not want that iron. We want the exotic ferrites like Fe23Cr(?). Metals that do not exist on Earth would be extremely valuable to study and may lead to more breakthroughs.
The theme of your post is that we should not waste our time with space travel. Do you think that going to the moon was exciting? Do you think that a trip to Mars would be exciting? Well, many did and do (including me) and that influenced many to learn about space travel and the whole aerospace industry. In fact, technology has come out of the apollo space program that has been beneficial to society. http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/apollo.htm And face it man, Robot exploration is not exciting. If we did as you suggested, then fewer people would care about space exploration and we would indeed be doomed to existence on one planet.
I do not agree with you that we need 100% confidence for a mission because you can never have 100% confidence. There is always something to create uncertainty, like the weather at high altitudes is estimated not measured. However, I do agree with the notion that we need a very high level of confidence, which we have.
Again, I am going back to the 17th century. Jamestown was not economically viable for decades, but it was a starting point. A starting point is exactly what we need if we want to inhabit Mars.
aeroegnr
Jun18-04, 08:39 AM
Aha, a starting point. Necessity is the mother of invention, huh?
As for mars, we've had the ability to go there for quite some time, its just the engineering of the details that improved over the time that we have had since the apollo program.
Mars is interesting because of the resources on the planet. Just about every scheme I've seen or heard of for landing there relies on self-sufficiency and living off the planet. Of course, a huge amount of equipment would need to be sent at first. However, if we design the martian craft right, we could go there cheaply (relatively) and continually.
What I personally think has going for it is this particular project: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5025388/
This idea is radical and useful because it strays from the conventional notions that we have to use multiple stage rockets to get to space. This blimp gently floats as high as its buoyancy will take it, then takes over a week to get to orbital velocity using an ion engine.
What's even better is the cost to go to orbit. I saw predictions of the cost in another article as low as ONE dollar per TON per MILE. That means 1 ton of equipment orbiting at 200 miles LEO would cost $200 dollars by that prediction.
Of course, predictions can be particularly quirky and are known to be wrong, but even if the cost were 10, or 100, or 1000 times more than they predict, that is still the cheapest launch vehicle ever.
Another nice note from the article: "Powell intends to conduct an ion engine test at an altitude of 100,000 feet by the end of this year."
It seems like this is going to happen.
SpaceshipOne is proving that a lot of people DO have interest in putting money toward space. Mojave is booked up, and Paul Allen (Is that the right guy?) dumped something like 20 million dollars on the project. With the large amount of capital concentrated in the hands of a few people instead of smeared out across the whole population, large business owners could fund over a billion dollars for a PRIVATE mars program. The problem is the drive to do it, and the support of the rest of the population to encourage such a thing.
As the price to launch continues to fall, and with platforms such as the blimp that could potentially massively reduce the dangers of getting to LEO, we’re on the base of a wave moving toward martian shore. IT WILL HAPPEN. Unless people lose the dream and will to do such things, and as long as the USA continues to have large amounts of money concentrated into the hands of the capable, it will be our future.
Greetings !
What I personally think has going for it is this particular project: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5025388/
Don'no... that dude sounds totally out there to me. You got'ta
bring your huge airship with cargo there - that is remotely possible,
but ion engines ? Sounds like a bad joke to me. The scale of
ion engines one would need... and where would all those many
MWatts and more come from. Nah... ain't gon'na happen.
As for LM's high altitude airship design, they're actually not the first
to think of it and design it, but they do have a financial advantage
over the Israelis for example. In the past few years the development
and cost reduction of solar panels, accumulators, helium containing
materials and other technologies enabled such designs. It seems very
likely at this time that rather sooner than later such high altitude
airships, carrying several tons of cargo in addition to their own
weight and cruising at high altitudes around 65-70,000 feet with
a huge cover radius would replace many if not most communication
settelites as well as fulfill many other purposes like navigation,
observation and more while reducing the need for settelites and
aircraft to do the same.
So basicly, if we wan'na see more space activity - we should
round up all of'em airship lovers and burn'em at the stake
before the slow businessmen realize the apparent advantages...:biggrin:
Live long and prosper.
aeroegnr
Jun18-04, 11:18 AM
If he's trying an engine run before the end of the year, there must be something to it. As far as energy consumption goes, I'm looking up some facts now...
Another article:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/deepspace_propulsion_000816.html
"Easy on xenon
Yet Deep Space 1's engine only consumes 3.5 ounces (100 grams) of xenon per day, taking about four days to use up just 1 pound (0.4 kilogram). Its solar panels generate just 2.5 kilowatts of power, the equivalent of 25 100-watt light bulbs."
From the Deep space 1 press kit:
Weight of 1080 pounds (490kg)
Power: 2400 watts
I dunno, it doesn't seem like it would take "megawatts" to power something to orbit. Sure, it'll take more time the less energy is used until a small amount atmospheric friction overcomes the power of the ion thruster, but it can be done.
Also, that DS1 was powered with solar energy. If the blimps use some kind of alternative power source, more thrust could be had along with a faster time to orbit.
But what is the respective mass of the blimp with payload? I doubt we're talking about a 1000 fold difference in power requirements.
What I personally think has going for it is this particular project: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5025388/
This idea is radical and useful because it strays from the conventional notions that we have to use multiple stage rockets to get to space. This blimp gently floats as high as its buoyancy will take it, then takes over a week to get to orbital velocity using an ion engine.
I didn't see how they were planning on dealing with aerodynamic heating in the later stages of the ascent. You start hitting enough atmosphere to slow down a spacecraft at ~140 km. That thing flies at 35-45 km. What are they planning on doing to deal with the ~2K degree heat?
Greetings !
If he's trying an engine run before the end of the year, there must be something to it. As far as energy consumption goes, I'm looking up some facts now...
Another article:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/deepspace_propulsion_000816.html
"Easy on xenon
Yet Deep Space 1's engine only consumes 3.5 ounces (100 grams) of xenon per day, taking about four days to use up just 1 pound (0.4 kilogram). Its solar panels generate just 2.5 kilowatts of power, the equivalent of 25 100-watt light bulbs."
From the Deep space 1 press kit:
Weight of 1080 pounds (490kg)
Power: 2400 watts
I dunno, it doesn't seem like it would take "megawatts" to power something to orbit. Sure, it'll take more time the less energy is used until a small amount atmospheric friction overcomes the power of the ion thruster, but it can be done.
Also, that DS1 was powered with solar energy. If the blimps use some kind of alternative power source, more thrust could be had along with a faster time to orbit.
But what is the respective mass of the blimp with payload? I doubt we're talking about a 1000 fold difference in power requirements.
:smile: Yep, I'm a bit familiar with the IBT on DS1.
For full power mode at nearly 2.5 KW it produced a maximum thrust
of 0.092 N at exhaust velocities of about 32 km/sec with 70% power efficiency.
Now, Enigma mentioned here just one of the MANY other apparent
problems. You have drag, power sourse, mass of power source/collector/
transformers, propellant and thruster mass, cargo mass, drag and
size and strutural integrity of such a system and more.
But, just sticking to one small aspect of ion propulsion power:
Suppose you have exhaust velocity of 20 km/sec and you need
thrust of 10,000 N (which is a joke of course compared to
what you'll really need as a minimum for something of that
size even at such altitudes for ascent). Assume 70% efficiency.
Power is : 10,000 * 20,000 / 2 / 0.7 = 143 MW.
Now that should take some pedalling. :wink:
(Propellant mass flow is then: m = 10,000/20,000 = 0.5 kg
which gives you 1,800 kg per hour - 17.6 tons of weight. )
This JP Aerospace site has a PDF on this which is just full
of pretty pictures (what are NASA's high altitude research
baloon pics doing there ?) and zero information. Now, I'm
always for space initiatives and technologies - but I prefer
the real thing. :wink:
Peace and long life.
aeroegnr
Jun18-04, 03:38 PM
Aha!
So I guess there are a plentitude of problems that aren't addressed, at least in the public.
I wonder what will happen to the test run later on...
Aside from that, couldn't this be used almost like a really high launch platform to a realm with much lower drag than sea level? Or are the effects of low altitude drag on current launch vehicles not a significant fraction of energy used?
I'm curious and open on all of this, I start getting into the real details of this stuff next spring semester.
Greetings aeroegnr !
So you're studying AE too, what semester are you ?
(I'm just finishing my second right now. It'll take a few
more before I can get into this stuff too. :grumpy: )
Anyway, launching from high up does allow to reduce propellant
mass and may allow to skip a rocket stage - have
two instead of three for example, and use smaller engines.
As far as I remember there are at least two X-Prize teams -
a UK and Isreali, that designed baloon based launch concepts.
But, even if they make it work, these are just for small sub-orbital
craft, or micro and nano settelite launchers, like the Hercules
dropped rocket launcher for very small settelites designed by
Israeli students.
Other than that, it doesn't seem very practical to get something
really big up there. You'll need enormous helium volume and
if something goes wrong before egnition or after there's lesser
overall safety, and there's probably more. Anyway, the advantage
probably isn't that big here if any, and it would require whole new
designs to implement.
Now, a jet powered first stage is a much better idea, I think.
You can fly any size of payload from a standard airfield to high
altitude right along the equator, if you wish, where you gain
about 1.5 Mach due to Earth's rotation plus 1-2 Mach from the
jet engines. You then ignite your rocket engines and separate.
The jet engine stage flies back and lands and is totally reusable.
(There're also ideas of parachuting the jet engines, but that
doesn't seem very practical - they could get damaged, you need
to recover them, and besides you'll need wing and other sections
as part of this first stage anyway.) Why this hasn't been
implemented so far, I don't know. It's safe, cheap by comparisson,
reusable and highly configurable for different launcher sizes/masses/
orbits/launch locations. I guess that NASA just aimed too high
in the past 15 years, and hopefully that'll change now.
Live long and prosper.
aeroegnr
Jun18-04, 07:25 PM
Hey there!
I'm entering my junior year this fall. I've had all of the basics. I'm actually ahead of most everyone that entered the same time I did. So, I'm taking control theory in the fall, a couple of labs, and finishing a physics minor. They combined the mechanical and aerospace program here, so I haven't seen really much anything geared toward aerospace in particular. Another thing is I would already be taking aerodynamics, astrodynamics, and maybe a couple others in the fall, but due to courses only being offered once a year or worse I can't do that.
Anyway, yeah jet engines seem like a good idea for a first stage. NASA did look at this, along with a bazillion other launch designs. ( I have a full color book containing information and pictures on all of the designs leading to the shuttle, it's interesting but after awhile it just starts to get into tedium)
Personally I think a design of the shuttle without a lifting body design would be better. Why bring up all that extra weight when you can just plunk it down in the water or land a different way, delta V style? I guess predictability with landing sites can be bad, but if some control method for parachutes were implemented...
Integral
Jun18-04, 08:05 PM
The theme of your post is that we should not waste our time with space travel.
Nonsense! I am all for space exploration. But it needs to be done with intelligence. For all of your words you still have not explained to me why a HUMAN must journey into space. We can learn everything we need, we can can harvest any resources discovered with out the necessity of wasting fuel and space on catering to the needs of a human.
If all that travels into space is hardware we lose nothing and gain much. We gain more missions for the same money, we gain flexibility. If something unexpected is encountered a earth side team can be gathered to deal with it. This is EXACTLY what any space tourists would have to do. The difference is that there would not be any emergency in which human lives would be at risk. (Not counting driving to and from work!)
To compare this exploration to the journeys taken by the Europeans of the 15th and 16th century's is simply ludicrous and really does not even deserve response.
russ_watters
Jun18-04, 11:52 PM
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,12543,577754,00.html
EARNSHAW'S THEOREM--stable magnetic levitation was thought impossible for 150 YEARS, until the 1990's. There is a difference between 'we don't know yet' and theoretically impossible. There is a difference between 'wrong' and 'incomplete.' From your own link:It turns out that Earnshaw's theorem is absolutely correct, but it has a couple of loopholes large enough to drive all sorts of stable magnetic levitation devices through... Same goes for QM.
All new theories must at least in part incorporated existing ones as special cases. They must: existing theories wouldn't be accepted unless experimental data supported them.
Greetings !
Personally I think a design of the shuttle without a lifting body design would be better. Why bring up all that extra weight when you can just plunk it down in the water or land a different way, delta V style? I guess predictability with landing sites can be bad, but if some control method for parachutes were implemented...
Well, personally I doubt that it's a good idea. I do not believe
that the shape of the SS greatly affects it's mass. Besides,
without actually being able to maneuver and get some considrable
lift, the whole reentry process would be different. Right now the
SS slows down along some 8,000 kms and it can manuever right
to the landing strip. Them manned space capsules just drop
and you never know where they might end up, like that Russian
capsule recently - blew the predicted landing site by a few hundred
miles. It's also far from safe, both due to the way you land and
the possible misses I've mentioned above. And then you have to go
there and perform a rescue of all that equipment and people every
time, so it doesn't end up very cost effective either, I suppose.
Physics - that's great ! My second or third (with EE) choice after AE.
Nonsense! I am all for space exploration. But it needs to be done with intelligence. For all of your words you still have not explained to me why a HUMAN must journey into space. We can learn everything we need, we can can harvest any resources discovered with out the necessity of wasting fuel and space on catering to the needs of a human.
If all that travels into space is hardware we lose nothing and gain much. We gain more missions for the same money, we gain flexibility. If something unexpected is encountered a earth side team can be gathered to deal with it. This is EXACTLY what any space tourists would have to do. The difference is that there would not be any emergency in which human lives would be at risk. (Not counting driving to and from work!)
You know, I believe I said that before too, you're absolutely right.
Same can go for deep underwater exploration. But what can
we do if the dumb general public just loves them fine dressed
astranauts, who wan'na go too, running out there. Dumb, isn't it ?
Maybe we should move to Vulcan with'em logical dudes... :biggrin:
And another thing, NASA is not a private company and it's purpose
is not just purely exploration, but also development of related technologies. You know much better than I do that unless you actually build something very sophisticated like a manned spacecraft and see it perform, you can't move on and design new and better ones. You can't just put your new and untried technologies and theories in a very long list and one day wake up and say - "hey, let's build a spaceship out of all of that".
Live long and prosper.
Just to lighten-up the depressing atmosphere around here... :biggrin:
Just 3 days left now:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/xprize-04h.html
Space will never be the same. :wink:
Adriaan Steenkamp
Jul4-04, 04:12 PM
Mining space is not strictly profitable for the first time you do it. The reasons for this is manifold but mainly since it is extremely expensive (energy wise) to send vehicles from the Earth's surface to Low Earth Orbit, from there on the cost decrease substantially. The idea is to actually mine a Near-Earth Object for ice and use the available solar energy to make fuel from the water ice. Even a few tons of fuel will make further mining a very lucrative prospect since no fuel needs to be sent up from Earth. Once a fuel base has been established in Earth's orbit one can start looking at mining metals, forget about gold and silver those are practically useless, the real prize is almost pure iron, nickel and aluminium in large quantities. There will also be no mining involved since the ateriods are made up of these metals.
Being from South Africa, one of the world's leading metals producers I know that the main costs in forge's like ISCOR's is electricity to actually melt and work the metal or to produce alloys. Energy is free in space, you have a constant high-density energy source in the form of solar power and the zero-G conditions will allow manufacturers to produce cheap, high-grade alloys with much less imperfections and impurities than those produced on Earth. In fact the zero G consitions will allow the manufacture of very rare steel alloys in bulk. The first country to reap the benifits will be the next superpower. I personally believe that it will not be the US since the very fact that they have NASA precludes them from starting a program that will need the rerouting and cancellations of mission that were planned a decade ago.
Cheers
You know, off-world colonization isn't totally out of the question...as y'all might think via the laws of physics. 1:cryogenics. If we successfully froze a population of about 100,000, I'd say colonization would be much closer to our grasp. 2: identifying a 'second Earth' this could be done through deep-space probes (as long as they have an accurate telemetry) 3:building a large craft. this would have to be done in orbital docks, and the craft would need a large, sustainable powersource. people could be awaken every few years for maintenance, but in general, the thing needs to propel itself and not need too much help to find where it's going. a few hundred years doesn't sound so bad to establish a first colony. (assuming we can find a planet that close)
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.