What Mars really needs is more gravity. A magnetic field would be nice too.
"Well, see here we keep on making atmosphere, and it just keeps on escaping."
Space Colonization Options (Orbiting Stations, planets/moons)
- Thread starter valkyrie013
- Start date
"Well, see here we keep on making atmosphere, and it just keeps on escaping."
Earth, it provides a nice comfortable place to live, unlike other planets, moons, and outer space, which, if we want to live elsewhere, requires the expense of carrying Earth's protection with us. So I say, if machines fare better in space, we should stop being biology and become machine.
I thought Mars needs moms
which is why we should focus on building large orbital habitats if we're doing to settle the solar system. I really can't find a good reason for settlements on Mars when it does not appear to have anything of value
There really isn't any Pro's when it comes to mars vs a large space colony.
You'd live in a gravity well
Atmospheric preasure is practically nill, and have to deal with dust storms.
Temperature isn't any better than space
Don't know if people born in low gravity situations would turn out okay, maybe even won't be able to go to Earth, the gravity would kill them.
You'd live in a gravity well
Atmospheric preasure is practically nill, and have to deal with dust storms.
Temperature isn't any better than space
Don't know if people born in low gravity situations would turn out okay, maybe even won't be able to go to Earth, the gravity would kill them.
Not so much colonization but I wonder if it would be worth it to setup some kind of ODY (orbital disassembly yard) in high orbit to take in space junk and retrieve anything of value like materials or parts, or spent boosters, things like that.
Something definitely needs to be done about it... It's getting crowded up there!
https://www.businessinsider.com/chi...rocket-piece-may-have-crashed-in-space-2021-8
Stage fall out of party favor...collide with fellow traveler on way down...
Interstellar travel
https://www.wired.com/story/travelers-guide-to-the-stars-interstellar-travel/
Asteroids
https://www.space.com/asteroid-phaethon-comet-like-sodium-tail
https://www.space.com/asteroid-mining-bring-space-rocks-to-earth
https://gizmodo.com/bizarre-bone-asteroid-is-even-weirder-than-we-imagined-1847638453
In terms of ammonia for aviation
https://www.ammoniaenergy.org/articles/zero-emission-aircraft-ammonia-for-aviation/
The study combines Reaction Engines’ heat exchanger technology with the ammonia cracking technology being developed by the UK’s Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC). By partially cracking green ammonia to hydrogen, the resulting ammonia fuel mix “mimics jet fuel,” making it possible to adapt existing engines and aircraft to use zero-emission fuels. “This means a fast transition to a sustainable aviation future is possible at low cost.”
Our study showed that an ammonia-fuelled jet engine could be adapted from currently available engines, and ammonia as a fuel doesn’t require a complete re-think of the design of civil aircraft as we know them today.”
That was a year ago...and now we have this:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/08/210830140251.htm
Ammonia, a carbon-free resource can be split into nitrogen and hydrogen gas with the help of metal catalysts like Nickel (Ni). However, these reactions often require very high operating temperatures. Now scientists have developed a highly efficient calcium imide (CaNH)-supported Ni catalyst that can decompose ammonia at temperatures 100°C lower than what conventional Ni catalysts require. This promising new catalyst can get us closer to sustainably producing hydrogen fuel.
To turn CO2 to sugar
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2021/09...etition-to-convert-carbon-dioxide-into-sugar/
AB360
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=54591.0
Winged Saturns
They can never make rockets too big
https://www.reddit.com/r/FunnerHistory/comments/e73yob/4_july_2024_spacex_announces_to_the_world_a/
https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXMasterrace/comments/gtak4c/bigger_version_tickets_out_for_sale/
Chemistry boost
https://phys.org/news/2021-09-electricity-chemistry-boost.html
https://phys.org/news/2021-09-tool-polymer-properties.html
https://phys.org/news/2021-09-metamorphosis-materials-shape-shifting-architecture.html
https://phys.org/news/2021-09-spider-silk-material-extraordinary-mechanical.html
L. Neil Smith struck down:
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=47223
Interstellar travel
https://www.wired.com/story/travelers-guide-to-the-stars-interstellar-travel/
Asteroids
https://www.space.com/asteroid-phaethon-comet-like-sodium-tail
https://www.space.com/asteroid-mining-bring-space-rocks-to-earth
https://gizmodo.com/bizarre-bone-asteroid-is-even-weirder-than-we-imagined-1847638453
In terms of ammonia for aviation
https://www.ammoniaenergy.org/articles/zero-emission-aircraft-ammonia-for-aviation/
The study combines Reaction Engines’ heat exchanger technology with the ammonia cracking technology being developed by the UK’s Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC). By partially cracking green ammonia to hydrogen, the resulting ammonia fuel mix “mimics jet fuel,” making it possible to adapt existing engines and aircraft to use zero-emission fuels. “This means a fast transition to a sustainable aviation future is possible at low cost.”
Our study showed that an ammonia-fuelled jet engine could be adapted from currently available engines, and ammonia as a fuel doesn’t require a complete re-think of the design of civil aircraft as we know them today.”
That was a year ago...and now we have this:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/08/210830140251.htm
Ammonia, a carbon-free resource can be split into nitrogen and hydrogen gas with the help of metal catalysts like Nickel (Ni). However, these reactions often require very high operating temperatures. Now scientists have developed a highly efficient calcium imide (CaNH)-supported Ni catalyst that can decompose ammonia at temperatures 100°C lower than what conventional Ni catalysts require. This promising new catalyst can get us closer to sustainably producing hydrogen fuel.
To turn CO2 to sugar
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2021/09...etition-to-convert-carbon-dioxide-into-sugar/
AB360
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=54591.0
Winged Saturns
They can never make rockets too big
https://www.reddit.com/r/FunnerHistory/comments/e73yob/4_july_2024_spacex_announces_to_the_world_a/
https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXMasterrace/comments/gtak4c/bigger_version_tickets_out_for_sale/
Chemistry boost
https://phys.org/news/2021-09-electricity-chemistry-boost.html
https://phys.org/news/2021-09-tool-polymer-properties.html
https://phys.org/news/2021-09-metamorphosis-materials-shape-shifting-architecture.html
https://phys.org/news/2021-09-spider-silk-material-extraordinary-mechanical.html
L. Neil Smith struck down:
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=47223
Last edited:
The new rocket fleet
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/09/spacex-rocket-labs-and-relativity-labs.html
Atlas was to be bigger
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=54468.0;attach=2052150;image
JARVIS
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/first-images-of-blue-origins-project-jarvis-test-tank/
Some thoughts on Jarvis from NSF:
I'm hoping that Jarvis is hydrolox even if for no other reason that so see multiple technologies being used.
There are many reasons for Blue Origin to make a different choice than SpaceX:
* No interest in refueling on Mars.
* Raptor was being designed for both ship and boosters, choosing hydrolox for SpaceX would have likely meant an entirely new booster engine.
* Interest in refueling on the Moon. This was mentioned in the HLS open letter.
* Lots of experience with hydrolox including operational vehicles.
If they want to focus on getting something to fly as soon as possible the obvious path is to borrow engines and avionics from New Shepard.
Intuitively it seems that larger tanks required for hydrolox would be an advantage for re-entry because of a bigger surface area without dedicated wings. Does this make any sense? It's also possible that additional TPS for a bigger surface kills this advantage....
The Skylon or SSTO studies are exemplary here, in those cases the body surface temperatures were in the region of 700-1000c on the lower surfaces.
Ergo with some structural materials (super alloys) you may need no TPS at all (though you may have some issues with differential thermal growth) or you can have a heat shield that consists of a foil gauge outer shingle and that's it.
Either way it could be very light, you are going to need tiles around the wings but you need that around Elonerons.
Now nothing is more fluffy or has light wing-loading like Bono's saucer:
http://www.astronautix.com/b/bonosaucer.html
Kehlet argued that a lenticular vehicle, as a manned spacecraft launched into orbit by a conventional booster, had clear advantages over ballistic, lifting body, and winged designs. At hypersonic re-entry speeds it would undergo lower heating and require less shielding. At the same time it was more maneuverable at subsonic speeds than a winged design, and could land at sea or on land without undercarriage. The symmetrical shape meant it would integrate easily into conventional booster designs, without creating excessive drag or asymmetric loads during ascent to orbit.
Now some think 304 stainless is enough for a TPS
To Mars in a decade?
https://twitter.com/ErcXspace/status/1433934231353413633/photo/1
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/09/elon-musk-talks-about-going-to-mars-in-ten-years.html
Small propulsion packages
https://www.phasefour.io/maxwell/
Artificial gravity Starship concept
CELT system
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=54665.0
For you SPACE 1999 fans--a New Manual
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...base-alpha-technical-operations-manual.37866/
I like SPACE: 1959 better
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=54288.0
A flexible shell may have a use in space
https://phys.org/news/2021-09-mystery-flexible-shell.html
Heat transmuted to power
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-09-extreme-exchanger-metal-3d.html
https://phys.org/news/2021-08-thermoelectric-ink-car-exhaust-pipes.html
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/09/spacex-rocket-labs-and-relativity-labs.html
Atlas was to be bigger
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=54468.0;attach=2052150;image
JARVIS
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/first-images-of-blue-origins-project-jarvis-test-tank/
Some thoughts on Jarvis from NSF:
I'm hoping that Jarvis is hydrolox even if for no other reason that so see multiple technologies being used.
There are many reasons for Blue Origin to make a different choice than SpaceX:
* No interest in refueling on Mars.
* Raptor was being designed for both ship and boosters, choosing hydrolox for SpaceX would have likely meant an entirely new booster engine.
* Interest in refueling on the Moon. This was mentioned in the HLS open letter.
* Lots of experience with hydrolox including operational vehicles.
If they want to focus on getting something to fly as soon as possible the obvious path is to borrow engines and avionics from New Shepard.
Intuitively it seems that larger tanks required for hydrolox would be an advantage for re-entry because of a bigger surface area without dedicated wings. Does this make any sense? It's also possible that additional TPS for a bigger surface kills this advantage....
The Skylon or SSTO studies are exemplary here, in those cases the body surface temperatures were in the region of 700-1000c on the lower surfaces.
Ergo with some structural materials (super alloys) you may need no TPS at all (though you may have some issues with differential thermal growth) or you can have a heat shield that consists of a foil gauge outer shingle and that's it.
Either way it could be very light, you are going to need tiles around the wings but you need that around Elonerons.
Now nothing is more fluffy or has light wing-loading like Bono's saucer:
http://www.astronautix.com/b/bonosaucer.html
Kehlet argued that a lenticular vehicle, as a manned spacecraft launched into orbit by a conventional booster, had clear advantages over ballistic, lifting body, and winged designs. At hypersonic re-entry speeds it would undergo lower heating and require less shielding. At the same time it was more maneuverable at subsonic speeds than a winged design, and could land at sea or on land without undercarriage. The symmetrical shape meant it would integrate easily into conventional booster designs, without creating excessive drag or asymmetric loads during ascent to orbit.
Now some think 304 stainless is enough for a TPS
To Mars in a decade?
https://twitter.com/ErcXspace/status/1433934231353413633/photo/1
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/09/elon-musk-talks-about-going-to-mars-in-ten-years.html
Small propulsion packages
https://www.phasefour.io/maxwell/
Artificial gravity Starship concept
CELT system
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=54665.0
For you SPACE 1999 fans--a New Manual
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...base-alpha-technical-operations-manual.37866/
I like SPACE: 1959 better
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=54288.0
A flexible shell may have a use in space
https://phys.org/news/2021-09-mystery-flexible-shell.html
Heat transmuted to power
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-09-extreme-exchanger-metal-3d.html
https://phys.org/news/2021-08-thermoelectric-ink-car-exhaust-pipes.html
Last edited:
I think that becomes part of a very imporatant and not easily answered question that will have to start being dealt with soon. Humanity is on the cusp of asking itself what it wants to be. We could let AI and machines utilize space and provide all we need so that we can be pampered in an idyllic Earth. It's a nice idea. But Earth also has shown it's generally ready to outstrip any supply available to satiate demand.
Not going to settle space habitats and other planets strikes me as the point that humanity as a species loses any aspiration but simple comfort. The greater question of should humanity itself evolve into AI is probably outside the context of this, but the basic reason is why would we want to be something we are not? Currently AI's are developed out of defense needs and profit margins, the usual motivators. Once it reaches a point where it can change the identity of us as a species it's long past time to ask if we should do this. We don't need to do it.
My suspicion is there is room for all eventual desires in this regard. Post-humans will necessarily leave Earth. Their only other option is to take it over, as I don't see any real peaceful coexistance between the new and the old. Root Stock humanity may even have an arguable moral obligation to struggle with anything attempting to supercede them.
I'm not really interested as much in people jumping into AI shells or Earth homebodies as much as humans willing and interested in settling the solar system on their own terms. This does not mean there would be no genetic changes, of course. The needs of a Martian won't be the same as a belter, whereas the a cloud-colony Venusian would be more or less fine as-is.
I'd like to be augmented with AI stuff and be able to learn new things rapidly
engineering on the grand scale: https://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/48473a892041c
The Mckendree Cylinder shares a lot in common with the O'Neill cylinder but is much much larger owing to modern building materials (carbon nanotube). These could provide homes for millions of individuals per cylinder. Surface area of them could equal that of Russia, but as living space would be on multiple levels much of that could be water and countryside. Separate colonies would be set up for automated farming.
The Mckendree Cylinder shares a lot in common with the O'Neill cylinder but is much much larger owing to modern building materials (carbon nanotube). These could provide homes for millions of individuals per cylinder. Surface area of them could equal that of Russia, but as living space would be on multiple levels much of that could be water and countryside. Separate colonies would be set up for automated farming.
I still think AeroSpike engines should get continual research and be a viable Rocket Engine option moving forward into the future.
As for O'Neill Cylinder type space habitats, has anybody ever thought of a multi-layered O'Neil Cylinder where each layer spins at the necessary speed to maintain 1g for it's relative radial distance from the center?
I was thinking of a O'Neill Cylinder designed with multiple nested layers.
The specs for the overall cylinder volume would be:
36 km Cylinder length/height
11 km for final Diameter of said Cylinder
From my research of O'Neill cylinders, you need a minimum radius of 224m radius before rotation for 1g is comfortable for us average humans, with a overall Cylinder Diameter of 11km, that creates many layers for you to work with.
Each layer has a Height/Altitude budget of 50m
within that 50m budget, I reserve 10m for structural floor/cylinder
That leaves 40m for Altitude / Height
e.g. Boeing Everett Airplane Manufacturing is 114', 2" (35 meters) tall and they can even have micro climates inside their Factory facility due to the height.
Each Layer would be spinning in the opposite direction of the layer above and below it due to the gearing/rolling mechanism needed to move all that mass.
I would seperate each part of the cylinder into 0.25km long Ring bands and have them be isolated from each other, just incase there's a medical outbreak or some sort of need to isolate a section, you want the capability to isolate portions of your Orbital facility.
That means I would establish 14 meter thick walls to help seperate each section of the ring band from each other and house whatever machinery necessary to help spin all the layers along with allowing a easy way of traversing to other layers by having methods of transitioning from layer to layer via the Ring Band structure.
In the end, I did some calculations on my O'Neill Cylinder idea and came up with up to 85 Concentric Layers of habitable land space with a grand total land area of 48,325.074 km²
Frame of Reference: Manhattan has 59.1 km² of land
In the end, my version of Nested Concentric Layers allows for land area of somewhere between the state of Alabama & North Carolina.
Which should up the number of useful land area, if you're willing to accept a 40 meter altitude / height limit.
As for O'Neill Cylinder type space habitats, has anybody ever thought of a multi-layered O'Neil Cylinder where each layer spins at the necessary speed to maintain 1g for it's relative radial distance from the center?
I was thinking of a O'Neill Cylinder designed with multiple nested layers.
The specs for the overall cylinder volume would be:
36 km Cylinder length/height
11 km for final Diameter of said Cylinder
From my research of O'Neill cylinders, you need a minimum radius of 224m radius before rotation for 1g is comfortable for us average humans, with a overall Cylinder Diameter of 11km, that creates many layers for you to work with.
Each layer has a Height/Altitude budget of 50m
within that 50m budget, I reserve 10m for structural floor/cylinder
That leaves 40m for Altitude / Height
e.g. Boeing Everett Airplane Manufacturing is 114', 2" (35 meters) tall and they can even have micro climates inside their Factory facility due to the height.
Each Layer would be spinning in the opposite direction of the layer above and below it due to the gearing/rolling mechanism needed to move all that mass.
I would seperate each part of the cylinder into 0.25km long Ring bands and have them be isolated from each other, just incase there's a medical outbreak or some sort of need to isolate a section, you want the capability to isolate portions of your Orbital facility.
That means I would establish 14 meter thick walls to help seperate each section of the ring band from each other and house whatever machinery necessary to help spin all the layers along with allowing a easy way of traversing to other layers by having methods of transitioning from layer to layer via the Ring Band structure.
In the end, I did some calculations on my O'Neill Cylinder idea and came up with up to 85 Concentric Layers of habitable land space with a grand total land area of 48,325.074 km²
Frame of Reference: Manhattan has 59.1 km² of land
In the end, my version of Nested Concentric Layers allows for land area of somewhere between the state of Alabama & North Carolina.
Which should up the number of useful land area, if you're willing to accept a 40 meter altitude / height limit.
That's REALLY long: 10,000 km.
What do you think of my Nested Cylinder Habitat idea with MANY layers?
The only down-side is the Altitude/Height limit of each layer at 40 meters.
Well 40 meters is OK how much of a gap would you want between layers? The only downside is anyone looking up sees metal unless you project fake sky images or something onto the surface above.
40 meters is the gap, so you don't build anything that touches the 40 meters, your building has to be < 40 meters along with any object you want to erect up from the surface.
I was assuming curved UHD Flat Panel Displays could works as TV panels to project a fake sky.
I love the whole layered cylinders idea... And transit tunnels or elevators between layers. I like this idea a lot.
