Topic: And there was Ice

[jualdeaux]

the public would never let this happen. And it would be a public relations nightmare if the travellers died out there.

[Vipre]

the public would never let this happen. And it would be a public relations nightmare if the travellers died out there.

So true, it's the pansified NASA and America we all know and love. "No risk is too small".

[Spartan-039]

Perhaps, but there are risks even I would never try to take. You'll see them as well one day.

[Nemesis]

How many of the early colonists in North America were "one way"? 

Colonists did take the "one way" option, but they knew where they were going and what was generelly there.  Now how many colonists would have lined up at the boat if the sign read "Heading West, something might be there.  Come along"

The very earliest colonists didn't know very much at all.  Which helps to explain why some of the colonies failed totally.  Others only survived by being helped by natives. 

Given the work that it would take to set up such a "one way" mission there would be a very great understanding of the risks before it launched.   Remember this would take at least another 20 years to set up if a project were announced and financed today.  Even now I think a decent assessment of the risks could be made. 

In addition the "colonists" would have somethings those early North American colonists didn't have.  Easy swift communication with their homeland and some of the best scientific and engineering minds of the world dedicated to helping them solve problems that might arise. 

[Vipre]

Perhaps, but there are risks even I would never try to take. You'll see them as well one day.

And the decision to take that risk or not should be left up to the ones who would be taking it, not the court of public pansy opinion.

[marstone]

How many of the early colonists in North America were "one way"? 

Colonists did take the "one way" option, but they knew where they were going and what was generelly there.  Now how many colonists would have lined up at the boat if the sign read "Heading West, something might be there.  Come along"

The very earliest colonists didn't know very much at all.  Which helps to explain why some of the colonies failed totally.  Others only survived by being helped by natives. 

Given the work that it would take to set up such a "one way" mission there would be a very great understanding of the risks before it launched.   Remember this would take at least another 20 years to set up if a project were announced and financed today.  Even now I think a decent assessment of the risks could be made. 

In addition the "colonists" would have somethings those early North American colonists didn't have.  Easy swift communication with their homeland and some of the best scientific and engineering minds of the world dedicated to helping them solve problems that might arise. 

not knowing how to do all the work of setting up a settlement, I will agree.  But they did know that they were not going to a baren wasteland.   Heck even the explorers thought they were heading for known lands.

Now true we will have great communications (may take alittle while but not to much), but not much they can do to help you when you are a billion miles away.  No rescue ship can be counted on.

That all being said, I could see people signing up to get shot off into space for exploration.

[Spartan-039]

Perhaps we should use criminals instead of volunteers for a mission to Mars, ones condemed to death should be used, since they'll die anyway, let them die doing something useful for humanity.

[Nemesis]

Perhaps we should use criminals instead of volunteers for a mission to Mars, ones condemed to death should be used, since they'll die anyway, let them die doing something useful for humanity.

This would need, educated, intelligent, motivated, mentally stable and well trained people.  Its not a "botany bay".  Few death row inmates would qualify.

You may recall these lines from my earlier posting.

One way need not be a suicide mission.

Some have proposed the idea of sending a one way mission with the intent that the astronauts would be self supporting for the rest of their lives on Mars

Read the Mars trilogy by  Kim Stanley Robinson to fully understand the concept.

[Spartan-039]

There are many who qualify for that who are on death row, a few of the men at the church are prison guards who deal with these men who are praticially the Einstein's of the prison, the only reason they were caught is because of a itsy bitsy mistake they made. These guys even give advice to the guards about a varity of subjects, especially science areas such as biology and physics.

[toasty0]

intelligence!==stability is Nem's point.

[Nemesis]

intelligence!==stability is Nem's point.

Its also not training and education.

People who make "a itsy bitsy mistake" in space die.  Not the type of people to make good scientist / explorer / colonists on Mars or elsewhere in space.

[Dracho]

Yeah, ugh. actually, with the exception of religious zealots escaping persecution, most colonies were founded with the intention of actually making a profit for the backers.  That's what will drive space exploration ultimately, because it is what drives human beings:  We will either flee something or seek something better.

[Spartan-039]

Or to make a profit. You forgot that one.

[marstone]

Or to make a profit. You forgot that one.

How about make a profit while running from something looking for something better.  yeah. thats it.

[Dracho]

or running toward profits..

[Lieutenant_Q]

running towards profits is a good one.  Think of how close (relatively speaking) the wide open expanse of the Asteroid Belt is.  God knows what kind of raw materials are there just waiting to be pulled from the broken rocks.  Easier than strip mining (after you get past the whole, how do we get there thing), safer than regular mining, ecologically friendly, and you can do it in the name of science!  What better way to pacify a stupid public than to say you can get Iron, Copper, Aluminum, GOLD!  Safely and without moving the poor little caribou, and it advances science, since they are going to try to make it cheaper to haul the loads home, and develop good deep space operations rules.

Using Convicts is a bad idea, I think, they just need to let volunteers go.  Volunteers will be more dedicated, and they will know the risks before going out there.  Just keep the media out of it, and I think we'll be all right.

[knightstorm]

I personally think mining from mars would be easier than an asteroid.  Its more stable, and it does have some atmosphere to stop micrometeorites.

[Nemesis]

I personally think mining from mars would be easier than an asteroid.  Its more stable, and it does have some atmosphere to stop micrometeorites.

The problem is energy costs in terms of fuel.  Landing the people and mining equipment on Mars taks a lot of energy.  Lifting the ores or refined materials off again takes even more.  That makes mining Mars much more difficult than mining asteroids. 

Mining asteroids has certain other advantages that are only partially related to the energy costs. 

1/ More efficient propulsion systems can be used to move the cargo to Earth orbit.  Solar sails, magnetic sails, plasma sails or ion drives could be used to move cargo. 

2/ The structure of asteroids.  It was long though that asteroids were solid chunks of rock.  Now it is believed that some at least are "rock piles".  Rock pile asteroids should be possible to take apart more easily as they are already formed of discrete lumps ranging in size from dust to boulders bigger than a house.

[knightstorm]

I personally think mining from mars would be easier than an asteroid.  Its more stable, and it does have some atmosphere to stop micrometeorites.

The problem is energy costs in terms of fuel.  Landing the people and mining equipment on Mars taks a lot of energy.  Lifting the ores or refined materials off again takes even more.  That makes mining Mars much more difficult than mining asteroids. 

not if the miners can produce their own fuel

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/mars/marssurf.html

[Nemesis]

not if the miners can produce their own fuel

It still means that it takes more effort per kilo of product and that assumes that you don't use expendable launchers from Mars and that the launcher can return to the surface for reuse.  If the launchers are expendable it would become ridiculously expensive in comparison to the asteroid mining scenario.

With several of the examples I gave for asteroid mining they require no fuel and when they finish a delivery (either to Earth orbit or on a deorbiting path they then return to pick up more product.  They would also be useful in the Mars scenario to pick up from orbit and deliver to Earth (or wherever needed).

There are methods of getting cargos off Mars if you were to mine it that don't use up fuel.  A solar powered magnetic catapult for example.  This would still take extra effort but most of that effort would be up front and not ongoing unlike building launch vehicles and brewing up fuel.