Print

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

[Mech#4]

I remember this picture from about 2 years ago which was of newer space suits. They were all curved and with a dome helmet or something. I think they were concept designs of suits for a mars environment. They had that sci-fi look to them rather than a realistic look, like when concept goes a bit beyond practicality.

[Max™]

Internal pressure is part of why exposure to vacuum is damaging, but I was assuming the presence of a compression suit, that won't help when the water in your lungs and mouth and on your eyes starts to boil, doesn't sound fun. I mean, obviously it isn't the same as having 373 K water dumped on you, but definitely not something I want to try either way.

Why are you not assuming a hard helmet? I mean, we do still need to breathe and the Martian atmosphere isn't, you know, breatheable. The helmet will be pressurized, but we don't have to rely on clumsy "astronaut" suits any more.

I was pointing out that there isn't a really significant difference between the equipment needed to survive on the Moon and that needed on Mars. Radiation protection is a bit less critical, but from a quick check it looks like you could stay under the suggested upper limits on exposure for astronauts if you stayed there for ~60 years, assuming you spend no more than about an hour a day on the surface of course.

Living on Mars implies something different from living in Mars, and in the end is little different from living in a Moon base, except the vastly higher energy requirements, travel time, and vastly reduced support options. We could try to mount a rescue to a lunar base.

"Hey uh, Earth, it's Hellas Base, yeah, we got a problem here, oh, you can? Great, when can we... oh, three months? Ok, we'll see what we can do here."

[andrea]

That ITS spaceship seems like a decent space station. If it is meant to hold 100 people for 3+ months, it surely has enough space for a small crew and tons of equipment. Tons of equipment which it can bring on the same launch, since it has a ridiculous payload capacity( could lift the ISS, if you include the spaceship itself in the payload, which is fair in this case). In fact it probably is volume constrained more than weight. It also has a docking port and orbit keeping thrusters built in (well, the engine may be a bit overpowered for orbit keeping)

Perhaps Elon can get some funding by renting or selling orbital real estate to nations/citizens who want a place in space but don't want to pay 100 b for another ISS.
Of course much of the cost saving is lost since they can't reause the spaceship if the spaceship itself is the payload. But the economics may still work.

If you run in volume problems, perhaps you could even try to use the fuel tanks. Methane and oxygen do not leave toxic stuff on the inside, right?

[LordBaal]

Making a proof of concept on the moon would be helpful, at least so I think. While the conditions are indeed different to that of Mars, they aren't quite that much. Constructions vehicles and techniques could be put to a test.

Also, this would allow the studies of reduced gravity on humans, that so far have been in either 1g or 0g, nothing in between for any extended period of time. If one wish to have one million people on Mars to realize a generation latter that, for say something, humans die in a couple decades, or pregnancy failures rise a 90% in reduced gravity would be a big "ups, my bad" in anyone's book.

Of course I'm not saying that is what would happen, perhaps it could even be beneficial for us, but the point is no one knows for sure. A moon base where, say, a 5 or 10 years study can be carried out could help to clear out if reduced gravity has any serious health issues for humans on the long run, just as 0 gravity has already proven to have.

It takes days to reach the moon, not hours.

Apollo 11 reached lunar orbit after only 51 hours and 49 minutes. Yes, that's a little over two days, but can still be measured comfortably in hours.

[Sheb]

What's the point of going to Mars over going to the Moon/orbit? That's the real reason.

[x2yzh9]

On the note of spacesuits;

I think that if we are to go on with colonizing space and such we will(eventually) have to design self adaptive exosuits and breathers. Of course, depending on the planet you may have to tinker or toy with it here and there, but if we can implement a 'smart suit'(sounds silly, right?) then I believe a lot of the costs can be taken away. For instance, terraforming mars in a logical and orderly pattern would eventually lead to certain geological areas being more or less habitable than the others in comparison. Therefore, we can't just do a 'winner takes all' approach when it comes to mars because then we'll just have to spend more and more money on spacesuits. That's my problem, and it's not even a problem if it can be addressed by a money thing-

Which leads me to the moon. If we setup hydrogen and helium stations on the moon, in the future(near-future really) we can use that to export to the earth for energy needs. However, we will undoubtedly need to lay in motion plans to not over-mine the place, as we've done so many times on earth. the moon is much smaller.

So, if we setup those mining facilities, use a mag-rail launcher to get it into moon low orbit, we could ferry those resources(on how to properly systemize that process I don't know as of yet) to the ISS or earth. Then, there, sell it to fusion power planets and profit. Also, save some for spaceships.

After that, you're really changing the game imho by doing these things. This would help cash generation, and this would also help pay for the repeated trips to and fro from mars. And more on terraforming;

If you could get proper satellites in place to map out mars completely as we've done with earth, you could then understand the atmosphere composition in certain places. If you could get that on a hologram and monitor it consistently, one could use that to relay to ground teams and what, when, where, and how to withstand the weathering storm, or(lol), create one. It'd basically be a lot of storms and such, growing more and more violent until and equilibrium point is reached where upon that starts to slow down and you can focus on optimizing the atmosphere.

that's my input for today.

[LordBaal]

What's the point of going to Mars over going to the Moon/orbit? That's the real reason.

Mars have somewhat better conditions than the moon, also, in the long, long, very long run might be terraformable, and there might be some resources that aren't in the moon. Also if farther from Earth which is an advantage somewhat if we want to have a backup civilization.

[mainiac]

Perhaps Elon can get some funding by renting or selling orbital real estate to nations/citizens who want a place in space but don't want to pay 100 b for another ISS.

That's the real dream.  You build real estate.  When you build real estate you are creating both demand for more orbital construction and lowering the costs of more orbital construction due to economies of scale of your larger orbital settlement.

[Gigaz]

What's the point of going to Mars over going to the Moon/orbit? That's the real reason.

Mars have somewhat better conditions than the moon, also, in the long, long, very long run might be terraformable, and there might be some resources that aren't in the moon. Also if farther from Earth which is an advantage somewhat if we want to have a backup civilization.

Advantages of the moon, on the other hand:
You can return to Earth within a few days.
You can communicate with Earth almost in real time.
You can reach space much easier and send huge amounts of material into Earth orbit.
Energy production from solar cells is not threatened by sand storms.

[mainiac]

And low gravity.  Launch into orbit without rockets!

[Reelya]

With a 1.3 second delay from the Moon to Earth it's possible we could end up using AI to predict what you're saying - sort of like predictive text, and fake real-time comms.

[LordBaal]

What's the point of going to Mars over going to the Moon/orbit? That's the real reason.

Mars have somewhat better conditions than the moon, also, in the long, long, very long run might be terraformable, and there might be some resources that aren't in the moon. Also if farther from Earth which is an advantage somewhat if we want to have a backup civilization.

Advantages of the moon, on the other hand:
You can return to Earth within a few days.
You can communicate with Earth almost in real time.
You can reach space much easier and send huge amounts of material into Earth orbit.
Energy production from solar cells is not threatened by sand storms.

Yes, nothing it haven't been already said (some points even myself a few posts ago), however the goal is to make mankind an interplanetary species. The moon, while closer and having a lot of perks over Mars, shouldn't be the ultimate goal. I think however it should be the start.

On the last point however, I quote "the long lunar nights (354 hours long) would means that reliance on solar power would be impeded in any location other than the polar regions"

[Sheb]

Why does it matter that much if the rock you're spreading mankind to orbit the sun or Earth?

[x2yzh9]

Well here are my concerns after I've thought about it today.

   The moon orbits us and controls the tidal waves among other things AFAIK. Now, I do however see a potential issue with using that for resources and putting people there as it could in turn disrupt the earth's ecosystem

[LordBaal]

Why does it matter that much if the rock you're spreading mankind to orbit the sun or Earth?

If I were a chemist working with dangerous chemicals, would you like to live right next to me or a few blocks away? Or would you rather live near or far from an atomic power plant? Basically the same reason of why mission control is far away from the lift off platform.

In case of a really massive meteorite strike or some really cataclysmic event (something really farfetched but not entirely impossible) a moon colony could be compromised, while a martian one could keep going (in theory) unaffected. Also, again, mars might potentially be terraformable, while the moon is not, at least for the foreseeable future.

Well here are my concerns after I've thought about it today.

   The moon orbits us and controls the tidal waves among other things AFAIK. Now, I do however see a potential issue with using that for resources and putting people there as it could in turn disrupt the earth's ecosystem

The amount of material to be mined must be really colossal in order to make a dent on the forces the moon have over earth and it's ecosystem. We are talking about absurdly huge amounts of material, the sort of, if we are able to mine it, then we are probably already interstellar species or something. This would be a really good question for Randall Munroe what if.