Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

Look the distinction between power generation and reaction mass is very important, okay?

[Ricky]

Thought I would share some reading material for you guys.
NASA wants to capture an asteroid For study

Now, at first this looks like it has very little to do with a colony on Mars, but this would actually be the first step towards a colony.
Highlights of the report include capturing a sufficiently large enough asteroid, where they would then tow it to the moon's orbit. All at the slim cost of ~$3 billion and 10-15 years

[mainiac]

They've been interested in it for quite a while, here's something from 1998 although the idea is much older then that: http://www.nss.org/settlement/asteroids/sonter.html

[vadia]

1 advantage to the rotating space station is that it can move from place to place

not enough energy -- go closer to the sun. 
Not enough matter go closer to sources of matter.

And in the long run it may be easier to smash apart planets rather than mine them.

[mainiac]

That's thinking rather far ahead indeed.

[10ebbor10]

In space, recycling pannels is rather hard though. First of all, micrometeroids punch holes into them, meaning that that matter is nonrecoverable. Secondly, recycling solar pannels is rather energy expensive. even nowadays solar pannels don't pay for their costs in several places. While the energy production in space is higher, the lifetime is usually halved. If you plan to add recycling (which is a hard and energy hungry process), I doubt you'd come out with an energy profit.

Thought I would share some reading material for you guys.
NASA wants to capture an asteroid For study

Now, at first this looks like it has very little to do with a colony on Mars, but this would actually be the first step towards a colony.
Highlights of the report include capturing a sufficiently large enough asteroid, where they would then tow it to the moon's orbit. All at the slim cost of ~$3 billion and 10-15 years

Did you apply the pi rule already, or are these the official estimations?

[vadia]

In space, recycling pannels is rather hard though. First of all, micrometeroids punch holes into them, meaning that that matter is nonrecoverable. Secondly, recycling solar pannels is rather energy expensive. even nowadays solar pannels don't pay for their costs in several places. While the energy production in space is higher, the lifetime is usually halved. If you plan to add recycling (which is a hard and energy hungry process), I doubt you'd come out with an energy profit.

Thought I would share some reading material for you guys.
NASA wants to capture an asteroid For study

Now, at first this looks like it has very little to do with a colony on Mars, but this would actually be the first step towards a colony.
Highlights of the report include capturing a sufficiently large enough asteroid, where they would then tow it to the moon's orbit. All at the slim cost of ~$3 billion and 10-15 years

Did you apply the pi rule already, or are these the official estimations?

6.5 x;s as much near mercury

[10ebbor10]

Those numbers don't incorporate transmission and cooling losses though. Also, we're going to Mars, not mercury.

[vadia]

the station can be anywhere it wants.

on Mars it would be about 44% of that on earth according to the mars colionization article in wiki

Sounds more or less right to me.

[woose1]

Those numbers don't incorporate transmission and cooling losses though. Also, we're going to Mars, not mercury.

This is why I love Bay12. Someone posts an official NASA report with diagrams involving space rocketry and advanced physics, and someone raises their hand in the crowd and goes "WE CAN DO IT BETTER."

[10ebbor10]

the station can be anywhere it wants.

on Mars it would be about 44% of that on earth according to the mars colionization article in wiki

Sounds more or less right to me.

That's ground level though. I'm not so sure about orbital effeciency. Probably a bit higher.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Wouldn't it be easier to smelt the ores on Luna before launching them, or better--not launch them at all?

Because rail catapults DONT USE FUEL.  I explain shit to you and then it sails right through your head without interacting with the stuff in the middle.

Railguns do use energy, though. And energy isn't free. Oh, I'm sorry, ENERGY ISN'T FREE.

FUEL freaking fuel.  Propellant.  Reaction mass.  Fucking heavy ass shit that you have to launch into space and increases your costs exponentially.
Energy costs do not invoke exponential cost the longer you use them.  If I power 1 launch a day for 1 day or for 100 days it's all the same in energy costs.  But if I'm using fuel then the second is prohibitively expensive.
This isn't brain surgery, man.

No, but two things.
1. 100 launches use 100 times the fuel and 100 times the power of 1 launch. It's only if you're launching 100 times the mass that it gets exponential (because you need to lift the fuel).
2. I wasn't arguing that railguns aren't superior to rockets for certain things, just that they aren't as free as you seemed to believe.

1 advantage to the rotating space station is that it can move from place to place

not enough energy -- go closer to the sun. 
Not enough matter go closer to sources of matter.

Not a big advantage over planetary bases, which have craptons of resources and nice Langrange points which require minimal adjustment. Put some solar panels out there for Mars, beam the power back, bam! Power crisis solved.
It's an advantage, though.

And in the long run it may be easier to smash apart planets rather than mine them.

I highly doubt this. If nothing else, the dense, ore-rich rocks would presumably sink towards the middle of the cloud of rocks. Besides, the planet would start to reform pretty fast...

Those numbers don't incorporate transmission and cooling losses though. Also, we're going to Mars, not mercury.

This is why I love Bay12. Someone posts an official NASA report with diagrams involving space rocketry and advanced physics, and someone raises their hand in the crowd and goes "WE CAN DO IT BETTER."

That's why, even with the inevitable magma floods and other global catastrophes, replacing the current world leaders with Bay12ers could only better the world.
That and because the current leaders aren't very good.

[10ebbor10]

1 advantage to the rotating space station is that it can move from place to place

not enough energy -- go closer to the sun. 
Not enough matter go closer to sources of matter.

Not a big advantage over planetary bases, which have craptons of resources and nice Langrange points which require minimal adjustment. Put some solar panels out there for Mars, beam the power back, bam! Power crisis solved.
It's an advantage, though.

Beaming back power doesn't work all the time. You'd need to set up relays for when the base is on the other side of the planet. (Because planets rotate around their axis, while the Lagrange point stays where it is.)

[GreatWyrmGold]

1 advantage to the rotating space station is that it can move from place to place

not enough energy -- go closer to the sun. 
Not enough matter go closer to sources of matter.

Not a big advantage over planetary bases, which have craptons of resources and nice Lagrange points which require minimal adjustment. Put some solar panels out there for Mars, beam the power back, bam! Power crisis solved.
It's an advantage, though.

Beaming back power doesn't work all the time. You'd need to set up relays for when the base is on the other side of the planet. (Because planets rotate around their axis, while the Lagrange point stays where it is.)

Simple. Geosynchronous satellites, beaming power to each other and the surface; or additional power stations at other Lagrange points; or multiple bases receiving power. Okay, none of those are cheap, per se, but they're effective.

[10ebbor10]

Effeciency losses do add up though. Also, I made some calculations once for orbital power plants, and they don't ever come out energy efficient. Not with current technology. You'd need hyperefficient pannels (60% or more), hyperlightweight pannels, and hyperefficient transmission. Remember that the transmission calls for 1km diameter recievers.