We're going to Mars

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Why Mars and not the more realistic Moon? It seems to me that in tackling the Moon we'd learn more about colonization and such that could be used for something like Mars later.

-TG

[MegaProphet]

Why Mars and not the more realistic Moon? It seems to me that in tackling the Moon we'd learn more about colonization and such that could be used for something like Mars later.

-TG

Buzz Aldrin wrote a book about why Mars and not the moon and I think it boiled down to the fact that it'll be easier to establish a base on Mars than on the moon

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Why Mars and not the more realistic Moon? It seems to me that in tackling the Moon we'd learn more about colonization and such that could be used for something like Mars later.

-TG

Buzz Aldrin wrote a book about why Mars and not the moon and I think it boiled down to the fact that it'll be easier to establish a base on Mars than on the moon

Hm I'll have to check that out. It seems to me the energy expenditure would be far greater and with much less pay off. If we were to colonize the moon, we could more easily transport materials from drilling and mining operations back as it's a fall to earth (only energy being liftoff from the moon surface). The Moon is rich in iron iirc and has water-ice.

-TG

[crispybits]

Once you get there though I'd imagine (without actually doing any research) that Mars offers greater potential for further expansion. Things like wider varieties of mineral deposits, etc, and there is water ice on Mars too. The more "normal" (compared to Earth) gravity may well be a positive factor too in that current equipment designs wouldn't need any modification, whereas lunar equipment may need to be adapted significantly due to the lower gravity. That's just off the top of my head though, and basically I do kinda agree that the moon should be step 1 and then look to move outwards from there.

[Haggis_McMutton]

My money would be on a space elevator being step 1.

Since it would reduce the cost of taking stuff up to space something like 1000X it would not only make the Moon/Mars colonization much more feasible, but would also completely open up the space tourism market.

Keeping in mind that there are currently people paying millions to go for a little while in orbit, I think a couple more advances in the technology will make the building of a space elevator quite economically feasible. Put a hotel at the top and you're set.

[NoSurvivors]

Just saw this on TV here.... wonder what speed internet they will have...

LOL Damn right, I wonder what my flag would be if I played CC from mars..

[Lootifer]

My money would be on a space elevator being step 1.

Since it would reduce the cost of taking stuff up to space something like 1000X it would not only make the Moon/Mars colonization much more feasible, but would also completely open up the space tourism market.

Keeping in mind that there are currently people paying millions to go for a little while in orbit, I think a couple more advances in the technology will make the building of a space elevator quite economically feasible. Put a hotel at the top and you're set.

Your mums a geostationary orbiting platform tethered to the earth.

[Woodruff]

Why Mars and not the more realistic Moon? It seems to me that in tackling the Moon we'd learn more about colonization and such that could be used for something like Mars later.

Here's my somewhat uneducated (but I'm a space-geek!) view of things:

We SHOULD establish a base on the Moon first, but ONLY for production. The Moon has vast resources that we could use as aid to manufacturing/launching capabilities, and since the Moon's gravity is significantly less than that of the Earth, we gain a tremendous amount in that regard as well.

So yes to a base on the Moon, but no to colonization on the Moon. Send that to Mars. Why Mars? Because it's fucking Mars, and I wanna be John Carter, dammit! (My absolute favorite series as a kid) Seriously, though...the gravity on Mars is much closer to the Earth, so you mitigate a lot of the health problems that will arise on the moon (kidney stones, osteoporosis, etc...).

[Woodruff]

My money would be on a space elevator being step 1.

Since it would reduce the cost of taking stuff up to space something like 1000X it would not only make the Moon/Mars colonization much more feasible, but would also completely open up the space tourism market.

Keeping in mind that there are currently people paying millions to go for a little while in orbit, I think a couple more advances in the technology will make the building of a space elevator quite economically feasible. Put a hotel at the top and you're set.

A space elevator to the Moon is, in my opinion, not worth the expense. Yes, it would definitely reduce what we need to take up by a massive amount, yet we can manufacture on the Moon (of course, we have to transport that initial equipment there). So I think the expense of the elevator doesn't pay off even with that massive initial savings.

Now, the idea of space tourism...I think that will be a reality in the not-too-distant future (it's already sort of started for the ultra-rich).

[tzor]

The fact that it has not returned to the moon probably is due to a reason.

Yes there was never a reason to do so. We only went to the Moon for two reasons; to really prove ICBM technology and to keep the Soviets from getting there first and doing nuclear testing on the dark side of the moon. Real space exploration was never an issue. Real space exploration wanted to build an orbiting station first and go from there.

Besides there was only one person in the entire history of US space flight; George M Lowe. Before him we had the disaster that was Apollo 1, After he left to become President of R.P.I. NASA slowly went to hell in a hand basket. We settled on near orbit stations that could be supplied by a shuttle that could only get to near earth orbit.

[tzor]

My money would be on a space elevator being step 1.

My money is not on that. The implications would be massive and significant. We are talking about a major increase in tech levels that would probably filter down to all sorts of things (you are talking about industrial grade carbon nanotube or boron nitride nanotube technology). Yes we can spin a carbon nanotube into the thickness of a human hair but we have to go orders of magnitude thicker to get the elevator cable.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

What is a space elevator exactly? Is it any different than building constructs at the Lagrangian points?

edit: checked wiki, seems... weird.

-TG

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Why Mars and not the more realistic Moon? It seems to me that in tackling the Moon we'd learn more about colonization and such that could be used for something like Mars later.

Here's my somewhat uneducated (but I'm a space-geek!) view of things:

We SHOULD establish a base on the Moon first, but ONLY for production. The Moon has vast resources that we could use as aid to manufacturing/launching capabilities, and since the Moon's gravity is significantly less than that of the Earth, we gain a tremendous amount in that regard as well.

So yes to a base on the Moon, but no to colonization on the Moon. Send that to Mars. Why Mars? Because it's fucking Mars, and I wanna be John Carter, dammit! (My absolute favorite series as a kid) Seriously, though...the gravity on Mars is much closer to the Earth, so you mitigate a lot of the health problems that will arise on the moon (kidney stones, osteoporosis, etc...).

Not only resources but you could have better radio relays on the Moon that wouldn't be subject to atmospheric noise of Earth.

-TG

[Dukasaur]

I'm concerned about the type of people that would be willing to take a one-way trip to Mars.

"Hey, smart scientist guy. Want to go to Mars?"
"Can I come back?"
"Nope"
"f*ck no!"

"Hey, crazy loner guy. Want to go to Mars?"
"Can I say there forever?"
"Yes."
"f*ck yes!"

John Galt will go.

[Lootifer]

What is a space elevator exactly? Is it any different than building constructs at the Lagrangian points?

edit: checked wiki, seems... weird.

-TG

Me too, though I think it sounds FUCKING AWESOME!

[Nobunaga]

http://applicants.mars-one.com/

Apply within.

Unfortunately, it will never take off. I am sadly completely convinced that this is either a scam (as they take in funding) or a very misguided plan (as their timeline and such is not very sound).

That being said, my wife and I have applied.

Hope you win, Woody! I'll see you off!

[Nobunaga]

Three necessary reads to make this trip:



...



...

[BigBallinStalin]

What about something like Heinlein's catapult from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress?

[Lootifer]

Old Mans War is amazaballs (and really easy to read/light sci-fi - unlike PK Dick, good luck with that haha)

(I do love PK Dick though).

[BigBallinStalin]

Why would anyone want to go to Mars?

I'd let the first 1000 people try, see how many survive, and then maybe go.

[tzor]

What is a space elevator exactly? Is it any different than building constructs at the Lagrangian points?

Note that if you really want to go overboard you locate the -1 G point on the elevator and start building sideways. With a few elevators in place you could easily build a habitation ring around the earth with the earth always being directly above you in the habitation ring. It would be interesting to see where that point would like in relation to the magnetic lines of the earth.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

What about something like Heinlein's catapult from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress?

Yeah I thought that was a pretty cool idea. Don't know of its actual feasibility, but it sounded plausible to me.

For those who don't know, one of the characters in the book proposes building long catapults on a tall mountain range where stuff is launched horizontally at escape velocity (think like shooting it from a rifle), since you don't actually have to shoot things straight up. Something at escape velocity in any direction will escape provided nothing is in the way. I don't remember the propulsive methods in the book. After that it's just a matter of timing the launches such that they intercept the moon orbital path.

-TG

[TA1LGUNN3R]

What is a space elevator exactly? Is it any different than building constructs at the Lagrangian points?

Note that if you really want to go overboard you locate the -1 G point on the elevator and start building sideways. With a few elevators in place you could easily build a habitation ring around the earth with the earth always being directly above you in the habitation ring. It would be interesting to see where that point would like in relation to the magnetic lines of the earth.

Somehow that picture doesn't look right. How far out is the counterweight that its CoM is so far away from the Earth? The Moon-Earth CoM is something like 1000 miles below Earth's surface (and I assume that we can't build anything rivaling the Moon's mass).

-TG

[john9blue]

not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but i recall hearing that the candidates will be chosen by an online vote.

if this is true then the project will almost definitely fail.

sometimes *gasp* democracy is NOT the answer!

[2dimes]

The fact that it has not returned to the moon probably is due to a reason.

Yes there was never a reason to do so. We only went to the Moon for two reasons; to really prove ICBM technology and to keep the Soviets from getting there first and doing nuclear testing on the dark side of the moon. Real space exploration was never an issue. Real space exploration wanted to build an orbiting station first and go from there.

Besides there was only one person in the entire history of US space flight; George M Lowe. Before him we had the disaster that was Apollo 1, After he left to become President of R.P.I. NASA slowly went to hell in a hand basket. We settled on near orbit stations that could be supplied by a shuttle that could only get to near earth orbit.

Or it's too expensive.