Re: Mars Viewmaster

On Apr 3, 10:58 am, American <samuelran...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 3, 10:33 am, American <samuelran...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Apr 3, 6:54 am, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Apr 3, 2:03 am, BradGuth <bradg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 2, 4:29 pm, Totorkon <aertr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 2, 7:06 am, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Apr 2, 1:17 am, Totorkon <aertr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 1, 10:00 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 1, 8:39 pm, Totorkon <aertr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 1, 8:49 pm, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Given the efficiencies of a partly reusable delivery system,
a thousand one ton landers could carry out all the preliminary
work, and it could start... well whose to say it hasn't
already started.

NASA re-studied Zubrin's Mars Direct and came up with their Mars
Reference Mission which will cost $55 billion.  Mars Direct would cost
$35 billion, and if a company bought the space assets of Martin/Boeing
(something their stockholders have been complaining about for years)
with a few asset purchases from United Technologies, you could likely
do Mars Direct for $18 billion - in house - the difference would more
than pay for the assets and organize these assets for the post Cold-
War era of space development..

The trouble now is, how to justify the $30 billion.

The answer is, power satellites.

Build terrestrial solar power on a scale unprecedented in history, at
a cost that is competitive with major oil.  Take market share from the
major oil companies, and capture something like $400 bilion per year
of the $4 trillion market.  At that point, you start building up space
launch and re-use the terrestrial solar panels as power receivers from
solar pumped laser systems in space - whose laser energy is matched to
the bandgap energy of the terrestrial panels.  This spins off $80
bilion PER YEAR for Space R&D - more money than all the space programs
of all the government agencies combined.  Enough to begin the
COLONIZATION OF MARS - as well as exploration and exploitation of the
richest of the solar systems 120,000 minor objects - and returning
them to Earth and Mars - to develop cosmic wealth for all.

,

I have read the estimate that a 5GW SPS would weigh in at 10,000
tons.  I think two or three times this mass would be closer to
reality.  At present rates for delivery to leo, that would cost well
in excess of $200B, and then it has to be hauled to geo.  Add the cost
of components and assembly and... $1M per installed Kw is twenty times
that of grounded solar, even with energy storage and four times the
required collector area.

The journey of a thousand power satellites starts with a ten fold drop
in shipping costs, an expansion of the space market and the use of
extraterrestrial resources.  This should be the central goal of NASA.

Lord Mook doesn't care, because it's never his hard earned loot or
even within his lifetime.
. - Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pollution free energy from that great fusion reactor in the sky,
collected from a place that always faces the sun, free from the
stresses of wind and gravity, available 24/7.... atleast it sounds
like a great idea.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Corrector mundo friend.

The key is reducing system mass and improving system efficiency.  A
thin *** of mylar is a very cost effective and mass effective way to
engineer sunlight to managable levels so that realistic targets may be
achieved to generate positive revenue.

I had mentioned that my ground based systems produce 180 MW per sq km
and cost $16 million per sq km to install.  So, the 6 sq km system at
the Bauxite mine I mentioned costs $100 million and produces 1.72 MWh
of electricity per year.  This is sufficient to power the mine, and
the dehydration system that purifies the Bauxite into Alumina.  The
annual cost is $51.84 million - which is a considerable savings to the
mine, while reducing carbon emissions to zero.

So, the 'ground station' is already paid for by the time the power
satellite goes up.

Adding a power satellite of my design to the mix, provides a means to
turn this mine into a primary aluminum producer, and vastly increase
the revenues to BHP Billiton.  So, while they build the smelter, I
build the satellite.  While that is going on, my sales team is out
selling additional mnes DC power and smelters.

As I said in another post, $6.6 billion per year from a system that
costs only $1 billion - is a rather lucrative investment.  Increasing
the value of their bauxite before selling it makes is worthwhile for
bauxite mines world wide to pay me.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Perhaps charging for robo-artistry should be by the hour
rather than by the area.  Assuming a max 10000 hrs out of
a martian year, $20 grand/hr would return $100M per earth
year.  It would serve as a fine experiment on wind erosion.

A manned landing is sure to cost in excess of $100B, with
no return on investment untill the first bootprint.

I started this thread hoping to lead up to something like
'the thousand payload project' to create demand for a
partially reusable LV in the ten ton to leo range.

From what I have read about solar pumped lasers, the efficiency
for energy transmission is well under 5%.  Microwave transmission
could run at better than 50%, the downside being the scale.
Given the 10cm wavelength, the transmitter and rectenna must be
miles in diameter.

A simple rough rule of thumb: overall efficiency- maybe 20% of the
energy of the sunlight makes it to the grid.  The mass per m2
around a kilogram including structure and power conditioning.
So a 5Gw sps plant would be 25 sq km in area and weigh 25000 tons.
200 satellites could supply all US electric demand with offpeak
used to synthesize supplimental liquid fuel.

You need more of Mook's numbers, and you'll need a good 10X factor of
added cost to what either of you two have in mind to accomplish.
Other than all of that it should work, eventually.
. - Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You don't know what you're talking about.  I gave you the basis for my
numbers.  If they're 10x bigger - you tell me specifically what
analysis you did to come up with that figure?  Fact is, you didn't do
any analysis - because you don't know what you're talking about.

I gave a reference a while back to aerospace costs - even cited a
recent paper.  $5.3 million per ton - of structure - is what rockets
missiles and spacecraft cost to develop and build.  Mars Direct's
costs are valid.  As are The NASA Reference Mission.  The difference
is caused by Mars Direct using 2 spacecraft to accomplish a Mars
settlement, and The Reference Mission using 3 spacecraft.

I like the Mars Direct approach not only because it is cheaper, but
because it allows the accumulation assets on Mars for early
settlers.

For every millionaire who risks 3% of his or her assets to develop
Mars, there will be dozens of less well off people who will want to
leave Earth forever and move to Mars to create a new life for himself
and herself.

This is how America was developed.

It will be how we will develop Mars.

WE can do it today.

NASA doesn't need to spend a dime. All they need do is license
technology for a commercial company to use to organize a Planetary
Development Company.

If I'm not mistaken, Robert Zubrin (Martin Marietta) proposed an
inexpensive solution to Mars using the "Mars direct" approach, that
would have to "do away" with the space station(s), moon bases, and
other expensive NASA infrastructure, and have the ability to achieve 2
or 3 manned Mars missions.

Zubrin also suggested that an unmanned robotic vessel, using a
chemical laboratory, could manufacture methane and oxygen, that could
be used for rocket fuel from the atmosphere of Mars.

I guess the space station wins in the short term, but what about the
long term?

American

Right, you already said that. - but the problem seems more a lack of
infrastructure-based, manned return-trip feasible, so I can see how
Zubrin's robotic fuel manufacturing depot would have to precede such a
venture. It's much (read: CHEAPER) that way.

-

Those that have their jobs in place already with the space station
could be evaluated based upon their experience with laboratory systems
modeling in the Martian environment: 95% CO2, 2% Ni, 1% A, 0.3% O2,
temperatures ranging from 30 degrees to -75 degrees centigrade, ~24.5
hour day, and notorious dust storms.

I'm envisioning masses of AI telerobotic androids assembling human
habitats modularly in REAL TIME, as well as the fuel depots - all of
this precursor to a manned expedition.

American
.

Quantcast