Asteroid use

Bill,

All of the answers to your questions can be found in the books "The Case For Mars" and "Entering Space" by Dr. Robert Zubrin. For about 50 billion we can send several teams to Mars over a ten year period and this would result in the identification resources, sites, etc. Fuel for the return journey would be manufactured from the atmosphere's CO2 using H2 from local water or from about 10 tens of LH2 brought from Earth.

We should all share the key books that we believe represent the shoulders that we must stand upon if we are to make progress. Re-inventing the wheel will merely spin our wheels uselessly.

Cheers,

Tom
From: bill t
To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 8:50 AM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Asteroid use

Those same chemicals can be found in C-type asteroids can be mined
just as easily, and can be transported to HEO or the moon easier.

I agree that it will be easier to industrilze the moon rather than
mars. NEOS will be harder than the moon but no where near as hard as
Mars.

If you are convinced of Mars as the platform of industrialization, try
to explain it to us, rather than giving generalities. How do you plan
to move the infrastructure to mars, where on mars will you settle, how
do you plan to build the infrastructure on mars, where will the
resources be found, who will do the prospecting, the mining, the
process, the fabrication. What equipment will be needed, where will
that equipment come from. How will you move finished products back to
earth?

These are all questions that has to be answered to make a case for
mars. You will notice that these questions have been answered for
space industrialization near earth.

Bill

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, Marcel Williams
wrote:
>
> MW: The difference between building structures in
> space and building structures on Mars is that on Mars
> you can live off the land. There is soil and carbon,
> hydrogen, nitrogen, and chlorine on Mars but all of
> these have to be imported for a large space facility.
> And Mars will probably export these chemicals to the
> moon for the lunar industries. The industrialization
> of the Moon and Mars are the first steps towards the
> future affordible construction of space islands, IMO.
>
> Marcel F. Williams
> 1/5/01
> --- bill t wrote:
> >
> > The same breakthroughs are nened for any mars
> > mission. Where do you
> > think the mars habitat is going to come from. Its
> > will be shipped with
> > the mars colonists. Do you think people are going to
> > walk out witha
> > wheel barrel and pick on the surface of mars?
> >
> > To get to mars you would have to build a starship
> > the size of the
> > international space station at a minimum, develop
> > space agriculture,
> > build power satellites, design and build low
> > acceleration engines.
> >
> > In fact you would have to build a large section of
> > the space
> > infrastructure you need for space settlements before
> > you even think of
> > starting to move it towards mars.
> >
> > If we could go to mars today, we can start building
> > space settlements
> > today.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> > > It may be wise not to shut-out any colonization
> > effort (i.e. planet
> > vs. colony vs star) since the economics and
> > political will in the
> > future will make the final decision. You see, Mike,
> > we could send a
> > mission to Mars with current technology and around
> > 50 billion
> > dollars. We could do marvelous things on Mars for
> > only 10% of the
> > defense budget, but what could we do in space
> > colonization for the
> > same amount? Two major technological breakthroughs
> > are needed IMO:
> > > 1) Much lower launch costs, and
> > > 2) Advanced telerobotics to mine, manufacture and
> > assemble
> > fabrications in space remotely from a space station
> > or from a planet
> > such as Earth or Mars. Mars, with it's closer
> > proximity to the
> > asteroid belt, may be better suited part of time
> > when Earth is on the
> > far side of the sun from the asteroid in question.
> > Naturally, if you
> > can transport the asteroid to orbit around Earth,
> > then this would only
> > leave the issue of huge rockets to transport the
> > asteroid.
> > >
> > > So, you see, we are technologically ready for
> > Mars, and to colonize
> > Mars, but we lack technology for a massive space
> > colony.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Tom
>

All of the answers to your questions can be found in the books "The Case For Mars" and "Entering Space" by Dr. Robert Zubrin. For about 50 billion we can send several teams to Mars over a ten year period and this would result in the identification resources, sites, etc. Fuel for the return journey would be manufactured from the atmosphere's CO2 using H2 from local water or from about 10 tens of LH2 brought from Earth.

We should all share the key books that we believe represent the shoulders that we must stand upon if we are to make progress. Re-inventing the wheel will merely spin our wheels uselessly.

Cheers,

Tom

From:
bill t
To:
spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent:
Saturday, January 06, 2001 8:50 AM
Subject:
[spacesettlers] Re: Asteroid use
Those same chemicals can be found in C-type asteroids can be mined
just as easily, and can be transported to HEO or the moon easier.
I agree that it will be easier to industrilze the moon rather than
mars. NEOS will be harder than the moon but no where near as hard as
Mars.
If you are convinced of Mars as the platform of industrialization, try
to explain it to us, rather than giving generalities. How do you plan
to move the infrastructure to mars, where on mars will you settle, how
do you plan to build the infrastructure on mars, where will the
resources be found, who will do the prospecting, the mining, the
process, the fabrication. What equipment will be needed, where will
that equipment come from. How will you move finished products back to
earth?
These are all questions that has to be answered to make a case for
mars. You will notice that these questions have been answered for
space industrialization near earth.
Bill
--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, Marcel Williams
>
> MW: The difference between building structures in
> space and building structures on Mars is that on Mars
> you can live off the land. There is soil and carbon,
> hydrogen, nitrogen, and chlorine on Mars but all of
> these have to be imported for a large space facility.
> And Mars will probably export these chemicals to the
> moon for the lunar industries. The industrialization
> of the Moon and Mars are the first steps towards the
> future affordible construction of space islands, IMO.

> Marcel F. Williams
> 1/5/01
> --- bill t
> >
> > The same breakthroughs are nened for any mars
> > mission. Where do you
> > think the mars habitat is going to come from. Its
> > will be shipped with
> > the mars colonists. Do you think people are going to
> > walk out witha
> > wheel barrel and pick on the surface of mars?
> >
> > To get to mars you would have to build a starship
> > the size of the
> > international space station at a minimum, develop
> > space agriculture,
> > build power satellites, design and build low
> acceleration engines.
> >
> > In fact you would have to build a large section of
> > the space
> > infrastructure you need for space settlements before
> > you even think of
> > starting to move it towards mars.
> >
> If we could go to mars today, we can start building
> space settlements
> > today.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > > It may be wise not to shut-out any colonization
> > effort (i.e. planet
> > vs. colony vs star) since the economics and
> > political will in the
> > future will make the final decision. You see, Mike,
> > we could send a
> > mission to Mars with current technology and around
> > 50 billion
> > dollars. We could do marvelous things on Mars for
> > only 10% of the
> > defense budget, but what could we do in space
> > colonization for the
> > same amount? Two major technological breakthroughs
> > are needed IMO:
> > > 1) Much lower launch costs, and
> > > 2) Advanced telerobotics to mine, manufacture and
> > assemble
> > fabrications in space remotely from a space station
> > or from a planet
> such as Earth or Mars. Mars, with it's closer