[Capt'n Midnight]

Originally Posted by goose2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ore_resources_on_Mars

It's possible that, in maybe 100 years, it'll be cheaper to send a mining rig to mars for certain elements than to mine them on earth.

The limiting factor for most minerals is the cost of the energy required to extract them from low quality ores.

in 100 years we'll probably be recycling more, and mining todays land fill and new materials like graphene and carbon nanotubes and biologicals will replace metals in the same way that plastics have replaced non structural metals like gunmetal and zinc and animal products like ivory and cow horn and bone

if you have enough energy you can extract Gold and uranium from seawater, though no point in extracting uranium if you have enough energy to do it.

[conor.hogan.2]

I hope they do it, but considering SpaceX is the only one with tangible results I see them or planetary resources doing it before them.

Well it looks like they are looking to farm out the stuff to SpaceX, but they still need funding.

The more the merrier, competition is good.

[mutley18]

A quote from that video: "This is going to be a media spectacle, Big Brother will pale in comparison"


Surely he can't be serious? This is going to top that time Nasty Nick was found out and Craig confronted him? Strap your seatbelts tight folks, we are in for one hell of a ride.

[stylie]

Has anyone talked about what effects the solar radiation will have on the astronauts junk by the time they get to Mars ?? I don't think overcrowding will be a problem

[shizz]

Originally Posted by Capt'n Midnight

To make fuel on Mars you have to land a factory
For most fuels considered you have to land an insulated tank full of hydrogen unless you land near the polar ice caps, you know the ones that expand and contract.
You need a nuclear reactor or acres of solar cells, or maybe even wind power

Lots of points of failure.
Stuff like wind borne dust

You have to land a factory? For the 4 person crew were taking here all that needs to be created propellant wise is 24 tons of Methane and 48 tons of Oxygen by using only 6 tons of Hydrogen, initially over a time of a year or so I can't remember.

Yes the fact that we have to bring hydrogen has it's problems, but because it isn't being used as a fuel, it can be gelled with another gas to prevent boil off. Also, any boil off from it while on mars goes straight into the propellant production.

I grant you that landing this large payload is with it's problems, but they are problems that can be solved with today's technology. The fact that it doesn't require much new technology, like what you are suggesting, brings down the mission risk and cost.

Originally Posted by Capt'n Midnight

Space is a harsh but predictable environment.
The surface of Mars is easier on people but harsher to mechanisms.


A space elevator is much easier to build from the top down. The L1 point is only 2.5Km above the surface of Phobos. The gravity there is less than 1/1000th that on earth so it's like building a tower 2.5m hight and then downhill the rest of the way.

On the first part, the lack of any sort of gravity during propellant production would be a huge problem on the mechanisms involved. You would need pumps everywhere, which again brings up points of failure.

Secondly, you talk about it as if the only problem was building from the ground up? We are no where near the ability of construction in space.

All of this is irrelevant anyway as I suspect I am arguing on how it can be done soon where as you are talking about the optimal situation, which lets face it is nowhere near our capabilities now. You are talking about implementing many technologies that haven't been created or demonstrated to work on that level.

[Plazaman]

Hey, I've bought a couple of acres of Land on Mars.

They better not put their fancy what-cha-ma-call-its and thing-a-ma-jiggys on my Land.

Ma, fetch me my lasergun !!!!!

[shizz]

Originally Posted by stylie

Has anyone talked about what effects the solar radiation will have on the astronauts junk by the time they get to Mars ?? I don't think overcrowding will be a problem

Solar radiation isn't the problem. Cosmic rays are. Solar rays can be predicted and shielded for where as cosmic are constant. Also, it is fine. A crew on a round trip will get an increase of less than 1% to the chance of getting cancer.

[Breasts]

Not sure if I would go to Mars.

Anyone ever see Total Recall.

I wouldn't want to piss off Quato either.

[Capt'n Midnight]

Originally Posted by Plazaman

Hey, I've bought a couple of acres of Land on Mars.

They better not put their fancy what-cha-ma-call-its and thing-a-ma-jiggys on my Land.

Ma, fetch me my lasergun !!!!!

If you want some land on earth I can meet you on Dollymount strand at low tide.

Just remember it's going to be difficult to serve notice on squatters.

[Capt'n Midnight]

Originally Posted by mutley18

A quote from that video: "This is going to be a media spectacle, Big Brother will pale in comparison"

"Nick you have been eliminated, please make your way to the airlock"

[Capt'n Midnight]

Originally Posted by shizz

You have to land a factory? For the 4 person crew were taking here all that needs to be created propellant wise is 24 tons of Methane and 48 tons of Oxygen by using only 6 tons of Hydrogen, initially over a time of a year or so I can't remember.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/marirect.htm

The point is that using materials that exist a tether could be build for a similar mass to several nuclear powered Mars based fuel factories.

On the first part, the lack of any sort of gravity during propellant production would be a huge problem on the mechanisms involved. You would need pumps everywhere, which again brings up points of failure.

even a tiny bit of gravity is enough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ullage_motor

Secondly, you talk about it as if the only problem was building from the ground up? We are no where near the ability of construction in space.

production of super tough fibres is more a chemistry problem than a construction problem, but low gravity will help.

[CKonetheonlyone]

they'll make rakes o' cash as the new owners of mars. i wonder how much rent for a 3- bed semi-D with unobstructed panoramic views of the olympus mons?

i've long wondered about ownership of space colonies

[shizz]

Originally Posted by Capt'n Midnight

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/marirect.htm

The point is that using materials that exist a tether could be build for a similar mass to several nuclear powered Mars based fuel factories.

Sorry I don't really understand this sentence. What I have been referring to all this time is Mars Direct.

Originally Posted by Capt'n Midnight

even a tiny bit of gravity is enough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ullage_motor

Not for the currently developed propellant production plants.

Originally Posted by Capt'n Midnight

production of super tough fibres is more a chemistry problem than a construction problem, but low gravity will help.

It is still a problem. Construction in space itself is a problem which hasn't been even attempted yet on a low level. Integrating sections yes, construction no.