Re: Mars Viewmaster

On Apr 3, 2:49 am, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Apr 2, 8:29 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.
. -BradGuth- 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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mars Direct could be done for $35 billion by NASA in less than 10
years. Of course, doing that would excite the public to spend even
more money following up to colonize Mars. So, in that sense it will
cost the American taxpayer perhaps a trillion dollars or more before
they see a return..

That's why NASA went out of its way to sideline and marginalize Mars
Direct - after it made the cover of Newsweek. By issuing their
Reference Mission study which said it would cost $55 billion they
called into question whether any of the numbers were right. OF course
the costs were different because the Refernce Mission wanted to send 3
spacecraft rather than 2 spacecraft to Mars - but that detail was lost
on those who circulated the fact that Lockheed missed some of the
details.

A private company looking at this seeking to go to Mars for whatever
reason would easily conclude on the make/buy continuum, that they
should make their mars landing rather than buy it. So, when one looks
at the space travel assets of the major aerospace firms we find that
they are likely for sale. Reading the notes at various board meetings
that are available, its easy to see that there are a vocal groups of
shareholders that are asking these companies, why are they supporting
the money losing space travel assets? This was part of the reason
following Challenger, that United Space Alliance was formed.

NASA is very vulnerable. If there is an unfortunate confluence of
events - such as cost over-runs traced back to kickbacks in the
agency, followed by a filled space shuttle External Tank crashing into
Miami after being prematurely ejected by the astronauts. When the
shuttle crew is recovered it is found that both pilots were drunk or
high at the time - - the agency is toast.

The agency came very close to a scenario like this with the loss of
the Mars Polar Explorer. It was reported that a programmer for the
lost craft, made an error in converting from foot-pound-seconds to
meter-kilogram-seconds. Unreported was that the programmer had been
arrested for drug use. It just didn't get picked up widely, and it
failed to gain any traction.

But, someday, it will. On that day NASA will cease to exist in its
present form.

Those assets in on that day will likely be available at Bear-Sterns
discounts to a buyer.

To a company that has acquired the space travel assets of Boeing,
Lockheed, United Technologies - a Mars Expedition would have an
internal out-of-pocket cost, again internally managed - of about $18
billion - assuming the original Mars Direct approach. This plus the
acquisition costs will be LESS than the original Mars Direct budget of
$35 billion - so the reductions pay for the acquisition.

Now, why would someone pay between $25 and $30 billion to create a
Mars travel capablity?

Well, the answer will be because there's money made by promising
someone that it will get done.

How would that work?

Land speculation. This has a long history. Explorers discover a new
territory. Speculators raise money for ships, supplies and crew to
colonize the new territory in hopes of earning a return. Its how New
York City got built. Its how Ohio got settled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holland_Land_Companyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Company

It will be how Mars gets settled in the 21st century.

A private company buys up the space travel assets of NASA, Boeing,
Lockheed, United Technologies. It arranges a long-term lease of the
Canaveral facilities from NASA. It then petitions for a variance in
the Outer Space Treaty - permitting it to develop the resources of
Mars. It can now open for business.

It ...

read more »

Whatever you say lord Willie. I'm glad to hear that future Earth w/o
fossil fuel and with insufficient thorium reactors or much less of
ever having that spare/surplus tonne of Mook H2 or much less LH2 is
somehow going to be energy rich and powerful enough, and having
sufficient spare public loot for you wizards to get a great many folks
surviving on Mars, where there's hardly any local energy or even
sufficient mineral resources to spare to start off with, unless most
all of the required energy for surviving and processing whatever comes
from Earth.

Apparently, if it's of inert eye-candy and based upon those
conditional laws of physics and of subjective science, as such it's
more than good enough for the likes of William Mook, even though
Clarke had tried most every other trick in the known books of regular
physics and of replicated objective science as an honest basis in
order to establish the likes of Clarke Station, whereas somehow our
Willie.Moo and brown-nosed company isn't going to have those same
problems of getting public support, all because you and others of your
all-knowing kind have no intentions of ever using our physically dark
but otherwise extremely massive and nearby moon for squat.
. - Brad Guth
.

Quantcast