Forum: Lost Stories

The question there is whether or not space falls under 'Admiralty Law' or not.

even if space falls under admiralty law, that doesn't mean the surface of a solid body like the moon does.

Admiralty law is the law of the open ocean. It does not cover what happens on solid land, not even on small islands.

even if space falls under admiralty law, that doesn't mean the surface of a solid body like the moon does.

That could depend on how they define the surface of a solid body like the moon. While that could use the definition for islands for those surfaces, there is an alternative definition as the bottom of the ocean.

I daresay the government of the US would argue that they did not officially abandon any of the equipment and the fight in court would be long and costly...

If I leave something on a deserted isle for fifty years, and someone else comes along and takes it, I think I would have a hard time claiming that it was still my property. After all, we are not talking about something like deeded land or physical objects tied to that land like abandoned buildings, just objects lying on the surface.

Let's look at this another way. Say someone parks a car on public land, like in a secluded part of a park, and leaves it there for several years. I happen to come across it, track down the owner and tell them if they don't come and get it I am going to claim it is abandoned and take it away. Since I notified them of my intentions and they made no effort to reclaim their property, it is abandoned and available to anyone.

I can think of two stories here on SOL which deal with this topic:

https://storiesonline.net/s/18442/the-wind-that-drives-the by Flight time, and

https://storiesonline.net/s/55694/one-small-step by Ernest Bywater.

The question there is whether or not space falls under 'Admiralty Law' or not.

I daresay the government of the US would argue that they did not officially abandon any of the equipment and the fight in court would be long and costly...

Let us suppose that a private individual had the means to travel to and for a time, occupy the moon.

They could then claim ownership and serve NASA with papers requesting they kindly remove their junk, or be sued for littering. Obviously court proceeding would be held under the jurisdiction of 'lunar law', not the US courts.

Whilst possibly humorous, the outcome would be pointless, the US cannot enforce any judgement as it can't actually get to the moon to do so, whilst the private individual would likewise be unable to force the US courts to accept a ruling made under 'lunar law'.

Obviously the entire thing is pointless for so many reasons, much like the fanciful notions of those who propose colonising the moon, etc.

Obviously the entire thing is pointless for so many reasons, much like the fanciful notions of those who propose colonising the moon, etc.

Moon colonization is "viable enough" once access to space + and demand for certain "space industry" has reached a point that might "break even" with the costs of getting up there.

But getting to "breaking even" is the current leap that nobody has a full grasp on how big of a jump it actually is.

Once "break even" has been achieved, expect ever increasing amounts of "the space economy" to exist entirely in space.

The "special challenge" with regards to the moon(but not Mars) is the matter of it being tidally locked with Earth and the weeks of darkness followed by weeks of light. That's either going to take one heck of a battery system(which hasn't been invented yet), or godawful expensive, if not both. (In terms of both weight and materials used)

Alternately it means using nuclear power, and getting THAT into orbit(unless they find some Uranium in an asteroid, or on the moon itself) is going to be a political shit-show. People already have had enough of a freak out over the nuclear power cells in the NASA probes that have been launched in the past, and that involved far less nuclear material.

I was thinking a satellite in Lunar-synchronous(rather than geosynchronous, which is Earth) orbit might work for collecting solar power and "beaming it down," but Google is telling me that due to Earth, that doesn't work, so you'd be reliant on a network of orbiting satellites (which could possibly be shared by multiple settlements) sending power down as they pass line-of-sight overheard.

Of course, their being "that close" to the moon also likely means the satellites themselves would likely have a penumbra issue of their own. In order to get to where the sat could "see" your base while it's in shadow, it too would likely need to be in the shadow as well. So basically the Moon is an expensive undertaking in terms of power generation at present.

If somebody "solves" the energy side of the equation for the moon, then the game changes entirely. Ironically enough, because of the energy problem, Mars is actually "easier" to settle because day/night cycles are much easier to manage with Solar Power + storage options.

That said, I could see both the moon and Mars being "prime

farming" territory(with Mars being the most favored by far) for a space-economy, with other select industries also happening surface side. Most space industry would likely remain outside gravity wells where possible however.

The reason I see farming as being major industries for both the moon and Mars is that Agriculture needs lots of room. The Martian day/night cycle isn't much of a problem, just build some pressurized green houses, bring the soil up to snuff, and you're good to go.

The Moon presents the additional challenge of needing to generate artificial sunlight, as well as periodically "shade" the plants from the sun(if you even bother with direct sunlight at that point). Yes, that adds complexity and cost to growing things on the moon, but the Moon has a smaller gravity well than Mars does, and it's also closer to Earth, where a lot of demand is likely to exist in near-Earth orbit. That same proximity also enables them to move certain foodstuffs with shorter shelf-lives than what would be possible in trade between Earth and Mars for example. (Fresh fruits and vegetables primarily)

Right now, the question as to when things "take off" is the point where "Rare earths" reach a demand point where space mining starts to be pursued much more aggressively. Elon Musk and company might also manage to force the issue by other means as well.

Elon Musk and company might also manage to force the issue by other means as well.

Elon Musk is an idiot. Apart from being well known for announcing deadlines he is utterly unable to meet, the moron actually announced his 'BFR' Mars rocket the number of cabins/passengers, and the payload. As New Scientist articles have pointed out, the payload is insufficient to lift the number of people and the basic provision to keep them alive.

Not to mention he added that the 'crew' would mine/extract the fuel to get back to earth.

Obviously in his world, common sense and reality are the true unknowns he should explore.

But with enough money, he might even be able to overcome both of those impediments.

Granted. But it will take more than bullshit and bucks to find 150+ people competent enough to have the necessary skills and willing enough to commit to what is highly likely to be a one way trip.

And to launch to mars (unmanned) in 2022 and (manned) in 2024

And to launch to mars (unmanned) in 2022 and (manned) in 2024

Yeah. Pretty sure that timeline is going to slip, by a lot(in particular the manned portion).

Moon is a better testbed for getting started, even with the "unqiue challenges" it presents for a stay longer than 4 weeks.

You go to the Moon to put the infrastructure in place to help you go to Mars. Which seems to be the plan that Bezos and others are working towards.

Robots can help with doing quite a lot, but the problem at that point is making them versatile enough to perform the desired and needed tasks in order to prepare for human arrivals, or to assist the humans after arrival.

As to "humans with skills" that's a little less complicated than some would care to admit, particularly with modern tech. So long as they have working communications, 99% of the time they can get away with "the expertise" being on earth. They just approach it "Appolo 13 style" where they let the experts on earth figure out what to do, and how to do it.

They had just better hope they've been properly provisioned.

So long as they have working communications, 99% of the time they can get away with "the expertise" being on earth. They just approach it "Appolo 13 style" where they let the experts on earth figure out what to do, and how to do it.

Which leaves that 1% that kills them all. Especially since any commercial venture is going to accepting the lowest bid for every single item.

Don't forget, the "Apollo 13" scenario was what needed to be done to get home, not to continue there until the next time that 1% shows up. Entirely different motivation.

Comforting thought, huh..??

Which leaves that 1% that kills them all. Especially since any commercial venture is going to accepting the lowest bid for every single item.

Don't forget, the "Apollo 13" scenario was what needed to be done to get home, not to continue there until the next time that 1% shows up. Entirely different motivation.

Comforting thought, huh..??

But when you're dealing with 150 people, rather than just 3, or 1. The "average skill level" can be much, much lower. Yes, you're going to want a "significant number" of high-skilled people as well. But for most of those 1% scenarios you're talking more generic training. Like "firefighting and damage control 101 in space" for everybody.

You just hope your "professional" firefighters/damage control guys, and the structural engineers don't get a case of dead before more people can turn up to bolster your numbers.

The "average skill level" can be much, much lower.

I wonder how many "average skill level" people are allowed to wander. around for example, a submarine's nuclear reactor..?

A nuc might actually be the closest thing we have to a space craft/lunar settlement, that has survived self-sufficient for long periods, except of course it is surrounded by water.

So, stick a sub in dry dock, remove the reactor as nobody is going to shoot one of those into space, replace with solar cells, then weld the doors shut for two years... Sound reasonable.?

I wonder how many "average skill level" people are allowed to wander. around for example, a submarine's nuclear reactor..?

The reactor is one thing, most of the crew won't be allowed down there in general. They might manage to swing a tour of parts of it, but most of it is going to be off limits to all but the Nukes onboard.

But as to the submarine at large? More than you'd think? They all had to go through rather extensive Damage Control courses the rest of the Navy doesn't(unless Damage Control is your specialty), but beyond that... No special screening that would prevent the guy helping cook the meals from having an IQ of somewhere between 93 and 100. And considering 100 is supposed to be "average intelligence" on the IQ curve, well...

Until you are watch-qaulified (at least on SSNs) you work the galley and do other menial tasks. SSNs don't have room for extra crew. So a fully-trained petty officer, who has completed basic training, 'A' school, power school, and prototype, will be a mess assistant, in addition to working on his quals, until he's qualified to stand reactor watches.

I said helping cook the meals, not serve the meals or do the cleanup.

"Mess duty" is a thing, or at least used to be, a thing on surface ships as well. Everybody among the Junior Enlisted did tours on the mess decks.

Only way to reliably avoid getting put back on the rotation was to either get promoted past a certain point(rank has it privileges, and shit rolls downhill), or get your "qualifications." (Warfare pin, and/or other things)

Nuke navy was particularly brutal about warfare pin qualifications long before Surface Navy followed suit.

But you're also ignoring the thing about not everyone on the submarine is working on the Reactor. Navy Corpsmen are still Navy Corpsmen, just with an extra code attached. Sonar Techs are still Sonar Techs, the kind of power plant they're running doesn't mean a whole lot to them beyond what acoustic signal belongs to their own sub.

Electricians(non-nuclear) are still running around the submarine, electrical wiring is electrical wiring, and you don't need the guy trained to work on the reactor chasing down wiring problems in the 1MC in the forward berthing compartment. That's an inefficient use of manpower(and training). Could they do it? Yes. Were they the one's doing that? Probably not, unless it was in the Reactor area.

In general, I'd agree the Bubblehead Navy in particular had little use for dangerous idiots in their ranks. But that isn't to say the guy with an IQ of 95 couldn't function perfectly fine on a sub and serve for 20 years, while the guy with an IQ of 156 was kicked off the sub the first time they made a port call after he reported on board.

As to "humans with skills" that's a little less complicated than some would care to admit, particularly with modern tech. So long as they have working communications, 99% of the time they can get away with "the expertise" being on earth. They just approach it "Appolo 13 style" where they let the experts on earth figure out what to do, and how to do it.

Due to eccentricities and positioning, round-trip communications Mars-Earth-Mars can take up to forty minutes just for message transit time. That translates to several hours for a couple of rounds of question/answer before any solving even begins. Hopefully they will schedule any of the early trips when Earth and Mars are closest. But with a more permanent schedule remember that there will be a significant amount of time when the sun gets in the way of any direct communications. And stationing relay satellites at Mars' Lagrange points might keep communication open, but the lag will be terrible. If an emergency happens, the people on Mars are on their own for the first hour or so.

Due to eccentricities and positioning, round-trip communications Mars-Earth-Mars can take up to forty minutes just for message transit time. That translates to several hours for a couple of rounds of question/answer before any solving even begins

That's why you have skill sets on scene to deal with the "right now" type problems, and some certain other skill sets that do much better with eyes at the scene. Aside from those people, everybody else just needs to be trained in regards to how to respond to emergency situations and things not to do. Demonstrated competency at being able to follow instructions is useful though.

With those measures in place, even a 45 minute (one-way) time lag shouldn't be too much of a problem, so long as the "right now" response groups can get things triaged. Then they "call home/earth" with a status report and wait for advice on how to proceed.

But with a more permanent schedule remember that there will be a significant amount of time when the sun gets in the way of any direct communications. And stationing relay satellites at Mars' Lagrange points might keep communication open, but the lag will be terrible. If an emergency happens, the people on Mars are on their own for the first hour or so.

"First hour" response is where you carefully pick the people that go. You need people on scene with skills for that. After that.. Well, getting off the broken record. More likely the relays would be located in the Earth-Sun Lagrange points as that offers enough deflection to both sides to go around the Sun, and its a shorter distance than bouncing things along the Martian orbit.

The reason I see farming as being major industries for both the moon and Mars is that Agriculture needs lots of room. The Martian day/night cycle isn't much of a problem, just build some pressurized green houses, bring the soil up to snuff, and you're good to go.

Farming. Have you ever actually worked on a farm? Have you ever considered why there is no life on the moon? Maybe because it won't support life?

As for "bring the soil up to snuff" it would take vastly more than Matt Damon's turds to manage that. Try researching how many tonnes per acre of fertiliser etc it would take to accomplish? Divide that by payload per trip and the cost alone gets stupid.

Farming. Have you ever actually worked on a farm? Have you ever considered why there is no life on the moon? Maybe because it won't support life?

I have cousins who farm several hundred acres? I have a family friend who owns the (long since fallow) farm land he used to farm not too far from where I live. My Brother-in-laws father did a fair bit of farming too.

As for "bring the soil up to snuff" it would take vastly more than Matt Damon's turds to manage that. Try researching how many tonnes per acre of fertiliser etc it would take to accomplish? Divide that by payload per trip and the cost alone gets stupid.

Yes, I'm aware the soil would be sterile to start with. Getting things started would take years, or as you said, "stupid" amounts of material being moved into orbit(and beyond) from Earth.

But they're going to have move a lot of "organic material" into orbit and beyond anyhow, those humans in space are going to need to eat. So we're eventually back to space-man turds. :)

But "This could take a decade before even moderate food self-sufficiency happens" for the first project is a far cry from "this cannot be done."

Hardest part is that first step, once you have have some (non-sterile) soil to work with, you're likely to start hitting a pretty fast growth curve. In the interim they're likely to be doing a lot of hydroponics(with its own issues), and likely will continue to do so well into the future. Because hydroponics is still cheaper than boosting it into orbit from earth.

Because hydroponics is still cheaper than boosting it into orbit from earth.

Awfully expensive to bolt a rocket motor to a water tank. The hydro part requires a lot of water.

Awfully expensive to bolt a rocket motor to a water tank. The hydro part requires a lot of water.

Moving water from the Earth to the Moon may not be necessary. There is water already on the Moon.

https://www.space.com/41554-water-ice-moon-surface-confirmed.html

There is water already on the Moon.

IF the reading are correct (the last lot were found to be 'shiny' moon dust) It remains to be seen how much, not to mention how to collect it from the bottom of those deep craters and transport it.

I did like the bit about them finding 'ice' in the coldest part of the moon's surface. Presumably they'd already checked the hottest parts..?

IF the reading are correct (the last lot were found to be 'shiny' moon dust) It remains to be seen how much, not to mention how to collect it from the bottom of those deep craters and transport it.

I did like the bit about them finding 'ice' in the coldest part of the moon's surface. Presumably they'd already checked the hottest parts..?

Don't forget that Mars does have polar ice caps. While a non-trivial exercise, it still beats hauling dihydrogen monoxide out of the Earth-Moon gravity wells.

Don't forget that Mars does have polar ice caps.

So you have ice in the cold bit and a farm in the warmer bit. So, melt it, pump it down a pipeline, problem solved... Has anyone shown California a map of Antarctica..?

If you live in a desert here on earth it's not enough to know where water is, you need the means to get it to where you need it.

At some point a group of people are going to have to stick a pin and agree that's where we are going to live. Given that landing/take-off sites, agricultural, mineral, etc interests are going to have to compromise, the likelihood is that the site would not be ideal for all, if indeed for any.

Don't forget that Mars does have polar ice caps. While a non-trivial exercise, it still beats hauling dihydrogen monoxide out of the Earth-Moon gravity wells.

I think there would likely be an effort to find an ice asteroid and determine if capture/"towing" is more viable once you start talking about much larger quantities. At least until we're using propulsion systems that make gravity wells essentially meaningless. But then, that depends on the quantity of water involved. If we're talking a settlement for a "few hundred people" they'll probably transport a lot from earth. But if we're talking a full fledged colony with a population in tens/hundreds of thousands, they're going to find an ice asteroid and figure out how to harvest that. It'll probably be cheaper(because gravity wells are expensive to climb out of).

Moving water from the Earth to the Moon may not be necessary. There is water already on the Moon.

https://www.space.com/41554-water-ice-moon-surface-confirmed.html

Or they setup some solar powered arc-furnaces and extract it from lunar rock. Which they'll probably be doing anyway in order to get to more oxygen in the first place.

Farming. Have you ever actually worked on a farm? Have you ever considered why there is no life on the moon? Maybe because it won't support life?

Have you ever considered hydroponics? On earth, it's not competitive with traditional farming, but on the Moon or Mars, it would be a different issue.

And I worked so hard to come up with that theory, too. Oh well, established compact trumps theory any day or the week.

I think that answers the question. Most people are not aware of the other provisions/articles in that treaty.

It would only be enforceable against a state that is a signatory of the treaty.

The OP suggested a private individual reclaiming abandoned junk. Besides which, at the present time no state is capable of putting a man on the moon to recover the stuff, so an individual who can get to the moon can pretty much do as he/she pleases.

It would fall back on the citizenship of the private individual. There are reams of precedence for anyone to research on that one.

ETA:

You're going to be hard pressed to find a country not on the signatory list;

https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm#signatory

You're going to be hard pressed to find a country not on the signatory list;

There are 193 countries that are member states of the United Nations, the list in your link includes only 126 so not too hard pressed to find one of the remaining 67 countries.

There are 193 countries that are member states of the United Nations, the list in your link includes only 126 so not too hard pressed to find one of the remaining 67 countries.

You're apparently being deliberately obtuse here. There are several requirements to pull this off. Not least of which is the ability to get there and back with the aforementioned objects.

Every country with either or both the ability to get there and back, privately or publically, plus the funds to do so is a signatory.

Drilling down a bit further, any private individual who developed the ability would definitely have enough intelligence to not pass up a ton of gold to pick up an ounce of tin. That ounce of tin being the lunar objects. Moon rocks as Earnest mentioned would dwarf the sale price of those objects, that is assuming you ever got out of court or jail to sale the objects.

For that matter, just the ability to make orbit around the earth would put you under some serious cross hairs from multiple countries, much less making it to the moon. Without the express approval/sanction by one or more of the world's major polities, you're more likely to get shot down for the effort.

You're apparently being deliberately obtuse here.

No. You made a comment about about being hard pressed to find a country not a signatory, I simply pointed out that there are a large number to choose from. It is NOT obtuse to point out an error.

How governments would react to a private individual being able to operate a space craft capable of a moon landing has been explored rather competently in Island Mine which, whilst fiction, is about as feasible as the OP's scenario.

As EB pointed out, there would be far more commercially viable options, BUT, they are not addressed in the OP's post.

Which could lead to an interesting situation where the US Congress grants letters of marque or reprisal to sanctioned companies which then can (at least under US law) legally capture or shoot down their competitors. (See US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11).

Possible, but very unlikely. There currently is no precedence for the situation. As for invoking the War Powers Clause and issuing letters of marque (effectively creating/sanctioning privateers), that would be political suicide for whomever did that.

I put no stupid idea for which some color of law may be found past our 'leaders'.

Can't argue with that. They do appear to thrive on stupidity.

It would fall back on the citizenship of the private individual. There are reams of precedence for anyone to research on that one.

It would also depend on what jurisdiction the "salvage operation" was launched into space from. Even without the additional layer of what your(MC) national citizenship is.

That said, the other "fun" thing about that treaty is part of why they retain ownership of those items is so they can be held liable for any environmental damage they cause. So in that respect, you could possibly setup shop next to a moon landing site, and send the United States a bill for "relocation and remediation services" even if they do still own the lander itself. (Think unauthorized vehicle parked on private property)

But until somebody does something like that, we don't know what the legal findings on such an event would be.

Edit: As part of the legal headache specific to the lunar landers in particular is the fact that some guys wandered around those locations during the 1960's/1970's and planted flags means there is a credible claim that those landing sites are "claimed" by the United States insofar as current international law allows for such claims to exist(it doesn't). Which in turn means "get your stuff off my lawn" doesn't hold legal weight either at present, because international law doesn't allow for YOU to own that land either.

I did not know there was a Treaty for that...learned something new. I guess that is why the nations with space capabilities guard it and don't really want other nations/people playing in the sandbox.

It proves you would have a hard and costly time keeping/selling the objects.

I also believe that if a private person/group had the abilities and means to recover the stuff they would have bigger problems. Each government would want the technology or people under their control and unless they had means to protect themselves lots of things would happen to them.

India and China are very likely to be the first nations to lay claim to territory off this planet. China is focused on the moon, while India appears to be focused on Mars.

The EU is struggling with focus and vision. The same can be said for the US. Russia doesn't care about anything past earth's orbit anymore. Japan is of the same mindset as Russia in this regards.

One thing you can count on for all of them. None will react favorably to any group or person outside the signatories grasping for that particular ring.

Assuming he can even get into space if his intentions are known.

Presumably you are suggesting his launch would be intercepted..?

It would be interesting to see the US Government justify shooting down a publicised private launch from a location outside the US.

I doubt that the world would count jealousy or 'because it's not in our control' as valid reasons for such a temper tantrum.

Presumably you are suggesting his launch would be intercepted..?

More likely the head of the project would be "incapacitated" by some means, the launch would be sabotaged, and/or any combination of other nefarious things. It also likely wouldn't be just the United States "getting their hands dirty" stopping the guy.

At least operating under the "sanction"/blessing of one of the (large) national powers also gives you a degree of protection against "outside actors" inserting themselves.

It would be interesting to see the US Government justify shooting down a publicised private launch from a location outside the US.

The assumption of the US shooting it down excludes Russia, China, EU, India, and proxies thereof. It further assumes no sabotage, assassination, or other nefarious means of stopping it.

Not only could any of them do it, they'd could easily do so while either framing a third party for it, or simply leave no explanation. It would be exceptionally naive of anyone to think it couldn't when the world is rift with examples of just that happening in history.

Water has been found in the Moon and in/on Mars. The estimated volume in either place is too little to support multiple millions of people, however it is enough to support a few hundred thousand.

Assuming you are correct. A few hundred thousand for how long?

But more practically, the reality is that the shear cost of transporting and maintaining even five hundred people on the moon is, excuse the pun, lunacy.

Even if a commercial venture was set up to mine 'unobtainium' on the moon, the cost would make it so expensive that the market for it would be far too small to make it viable.

It would be far cheaper to find an alternative than to extract, process and transport it back to earth.

Diamonds are expensive, so make cubic zirconia instead.

Those who argue against space exploration/colonization, are in effect arguing that the race of humans would be better off extinct.

Given the known lifespan of planets etc earth has a finite life, therefore if mankind survives that long, yes, we will become extinct, or burnt to a crisp as the earth approaches the sun, whichever description you prefer.

I think your argument is rooted in the throwaway mindset. Whilst some of us think that if we can't look after the planet we are on now, why would we ever think it possible for us to move on and succeed elsewhere?

If you think a colony on the moon mars or wherever could survive, you must already have solved all the multiple social issues that occur within any society. Or are you intent on an authoritarian culture where anyone not conforming is 'spaced'..? If you envisage multi generational settlement, have you solved the myriad requirements for childbirth, and kids, everything from nappies to how to deal with a teenager who looks at their computer, sees life on earth, contrasts it with a hermetic life eating kibble and decides they'd rather be on earth.

If you can't solve social issues here on earth, how long would a colony last given that it would only take a single act to cause a catastrophic failure.?

The "one giant leap for mankind" didn't survive budget cuts and administration changes. Given that any real attempt would take decades if not generations, does anyone really think that successive budgets and administrations would consistently 'stick with the plan' ??

Or course given the global economy forecasts, it might happen, but if you wanted to take part, you may need to learn Mandarin.

Assuming you are correct. A few hundred thousand for how long?

Biological processes do not destroy water. In theory it is infinitely recyclable with minimal system losses over time.

Biological processes do not destroy water. In theory it is infinitely recyclable with minimal system losses over time.

In theory you could build filtration plants and ensure the water is drinkable, presuming of course that the water you find is drinkable in the first place, best calculate the weight of equipment you'll need to both recycle and power it all, because you only have around 150 tonnes (Claimed by Musk for his BFR) payload per trip to get it there, best add spares as well...

But more practically, the reality is that the shear cost of transporting and maintaining even five hundred people on the moon is, excuse the pun, lunacy.

Even if a commercial venture was set up to mine 'unobtainium' on the moon, the cost would make it so expensive that the market for it would be far too small to make it viable.

You've made it abundantly clear you don't agree with the idea. As I was told as a child, "can't never did a damn thing."

We can discuss it until hell freezes over, but no solutions will be forthcoming when one party firmly believes it can't be done, with or without logical reason.

ETA: Current science is there and viable. Just as it was prior to the Wright brothers first flight. Most of their peers considered their work a waste of money and lunacy as well.

The Wright brothers were exceptional engineers, arguably genius level engineers. However it was the genius behind the following people in history that gave them the pre-existing science I spoke of to apply the engineering.

Leonardo da Vinci 1485,

Galileo 1639,

Émilie du Châtelet 1722/1749,

Daniel and Johann Bernoulli 1738,

Leonhard Euler 1752,

James Prescott Joule 1842.

The Wright brothers discovered none of the science behind flight.

I had dual majors in mechanical and materials engineering with a minor in aeronautical engineering. One of the key differences between scientist and engineers is that application is usually left to the engineers.

As such, good engineers must be aware of the potential applications for the science. In that, the Wright brothers were genius imo.

Most of my peers recognize the basic science for this subject is now available.

We can discuss it until hell freezes over, but no solutions will be forthcoming when one party firmly believes it can't be done, with or without logical reason.

It's not that I think it isn't possible. My point is that unless ALL the factors involved are considered and accounted for, it cannot be considered viable.

You added that current scene is there and viable. WRONG current science is there, but it's not sufficient to call it viable just because some factors are possible.

The moon, mars etc have no lifeforms for a reason, they can't support life. If anyone considers it sane to spend the trillions necessary to attempt to colonise such a place, they had best be absolutely sure EVERY factor has been considered. Glossing over the less 'sexy' stuff isn't going to make it go away.

So yes, you are correct, "can't never did a damn thing." BUT "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride" is also applicable.

I'd rather not see a quantum version of Challenger or Columbia, wouldn't you..? Yes we now know why they happened, more importantly, especially in the case of Challenger, we know that a primary cause was a factor that was simply not considered/accounted for.

Details matter. Even the unglamorous non 'sexy ones.

For example:

Recent data from ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter showed that on a six-month journey to the Red Planet an astronaut could be exposed to at least 60% of the total radiation dose limit recommended for their entire career.

"As it stands today, we can't go to Mars due to radiation. It would be impossible to meet acceptable dose limits," reminds Marco.

Source

My problem with that line of thought is that trillions of (insert currency units) are not leaving earth. What's leaving is a few humans and a load of metal and rocket fuel. The money stays on Earth and gets recycled by the economy.

Indeed, the Apollo Program cost a lot of money, but the American Taxpayer has probably seen returns that are truly mind boggling at this point. Because of the economic benefits that came from the technology applications that were developed as a consequence.

You can't call out a tow-truck when flying to Mars!

The AA would like you to believe otherwise

For example:

Recent data from ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter showed that on a six-month journey to the Red Planet an astronaut could be exposed to at least 60% of the total radiation dose limit recommended for their entire career.

"As it stands today, we can't go to Mars due to radiation. It would be impossible to meet acceptable dose limits," reminds Marco.

Well, I guess it's a "good thing" that there seems to be a strong case for the numbers used to generate that "lifetime dose" number are both arbitrary(that's a given), and more importantly, excessively conservative.

Well, I guess it's a "good thing" that there seems to be a strong case for the numbers used to generate that "lifetime dose" number are both arbitrary(that's a given), and more importantly, excessively conservative.

From the same source;

An astronaut on a mission to Mars could receive radiation doses up to 700 times higher than on our planet

A higher percentage of early-onset cataracts have been reported in astronauts.

"One day in space is equivalent to the radiation received on Earth for a whole year," explains physicist Marco Durante, who studies cosmic radiation on Earth.

Radiation is in the Space Station's spotlight every day. A console at NASA's mission control in Houston, Texas, is constantly showing space weather information.

If a burst of space radiation is detected, teams on Earth can abort a spacewalk, instruct astronauts to move to more shielded areas and even change the altitude of the Station to minimise impact.

Rather pointless to travel to Mars only to die of cancer on arrival, wouldn't you say?

It's not that I think it isn't possible. My point is that unless ALL the factors involved are considered and accounted for, it cannot be considered viable.

You added that current science is there and viable. WRONG current science is there, but it's not sufficient to call it viable just because some factors are possible.

The moon, mars etc have no lifeforms for a reason, they can't support life. If anyone considers it sane to spend the trillions necessary to attempt to colonise such a place, they had best be absolutely sure EVERY factor has been considered. Glossing over the less 'sexy' stuff isn't going to make it go away.

This is an engineering and life issue in general. You will never account for all factors in a design. It's literally impossible, and even if it was, it isn't economical to do so.

The best you can do is account for as many factors as possible, verify to the best of your abilities that the measures in place work as intended, and implement.

If you wait for perfection, you're never getting off the drawing board. At some point somebody has to say "it's good enough" and go with it.

That said, Musk's plan is crazy. I wouldn't want to be part of his first Mars Mission. It'd probably be one way(at least until/unless somebody else comes to help bring you back), and a possibly a death sentence.

Not so much because we lack the technical capability. But because we lack to technical experience for pulling something like that off.

You go to the moon first, you get your "proof of concept" work done there. If various experts are right, you then leverage that Moon base to build out your Mars mission. But before you go to Mars, you might want to look at some manned trips out to either Earth-Sun L4 and/or L5 just to test "how these longer duration ship excursions work" or go visit some other Asteroids in the neighborhood that are much closer than Mars. Those trips may not be as exciting as going for Mars, but they're likely to help develop the expertise needed for making a round trip likely to succeed.

Because while a moon base has to have everything to support life as part of it, a moon base still isn't a spaceship. Even if most of the parts are the same.

But as it stands, the "science" has likely been present to pull off a Martian Mission since the Apollo Moon landings. What has been lacking is the application of said science, the economics to make it "make sense" rather than a very obscenely expensive undertaking. And the budgets needed to put the pieces together into a coherent whole.

Sadly a lot of the expertise that also existed back in the 1970's has also since atrophied so we're having to re-create it again. Which adds to the challenges. On the flip side, modern computer processors help make a lot of other things much easier by comparison.

"Foothold in space" (rather than the toe-hold that is the ISS) have always been the most expensive and challenging part of this endeavor. It's high risk, at obscene cost, but with a potentially exponential reward growth once achieved.

You added that current scene is there and viable. WRONG current science is there, but it's not sufficient to call it viable just because some factors are possible.

I'd like you to point out where I said 'scene'. As for not bring sufficient, on what technical basis do you make that claim?

ETA:

On average, Americans receive a radiation dose of about 0.62 rem (620 millirem) each year. Half of this dose comes from natural background radiation. Most of this background exposure comes from radon in the air, with smaller amounts from cosmic rays and the Earth itself. (The chart to the right shows these radiation doses in perspective.) The other half (0.31 rem or 310 mrem) comes from man-made sources of radiation, including medical, commercial, and industrial sources. In general, a yearly dose of 620 millirem from all radiation sources has not been shown to cause humans any harm.

https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/around-us/doses-daily-lives.html

From your link;

"One day in space is equivalent to the radiation received on Earth for a whole year," explains physicist Marco Durante, who studies cosmic radiation on Earth.

That is straight bullshit. Between the Apollo missions and other missions to Mars and beyond, the dose rates and dose is already known. According to Durante's claim, the Apollo Astronauts should have keeled over dead upon getting back.
Even the very thinly shielded Apollo missions were enough to keep them safe. There are three variables in Dose received. Time, distance, shielding. Time in the radiation field, distance from the radiation source, and the amount/type of shielding between the person and the source. Changing any or all them will change the received dose. For a manned mission to mars, changing the shielding is the key. Durante and his peers in the ESA know this. However they are pushing the ESA party line playing on the general publics ignorance on the subject.

The EU is currently incapable of a manned mission and as a result have been pushing robotic missions.

I'd like you to point out where I said 'scene'.

Typo, for scene read science

As for not bring sufficient, on what technical basis do you make that claim?

What proof do you have to make the claim that current science is there and viable. ?? You made the claim, you back it up.

What proof do you have to make the claim that current science is there and viable. ?? You made the claim, you back it up.

Redirection because you can't back up what you're saying. How lovely.

OK I'm game.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs21grc.html

https://www.dartmouth.edu/~sshepherd/research/Shielding/

https://www.agriculture.com/technology/crop-management/farming-in-space

https://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/nov/HQ_04372_water_recycling.html

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/adma.201802201

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/234925-the-state-of-the-art-in-applied-materials-in-space-explained

That is just a very few sources. Hopefully you have enough technical background to understand it all because it would take a few decades to catch you up to my background level. Let me know when you're ready for more.

Redirection because you can't back up what you're saying. How lovely.

OK I'm game.

Condescending. Much?

Game you may be, right you are not. From your own sources...

While being at the core of such ambitious projects as Mars One, a self‐sustained colony of any size on Mars is hardly feasible in the foreseeable future. Indeed, sustaining even a small number of colonists would require a continuous supply of food, oxygen, water and basic materials.

It is evident that at present any potential revenue derived from the mission centers on selling the unique historic experience of sending humans to Mars, rather than from discovery and extraction of resources. There have been speculations by Mars colonization enthusiasts, such as Walker and Zubrin that it may be possible for Mars colony to become profitable by exploiting vast domestic resources of deuterium, which can be used as fuel for fusion reactors.69 Yet others, including Musk, argue that it is unlikely that Mars would offer anything material that would be financially viable to export to Earth

The question was "is the science there" followed by is it viable.
I am right on both counts.

As for condescending, when deserved, yes. You asked me to prove the point. Which btw I did, and judging by the bits you keyed on, demonstrate you don't know enough to comprehend it. The links are just a few out of a thousand that demonstrate the 'facts' that the science and the viability thereof are there. Continued redirection on your part doesn't change that fact.

With the viable science now known, it has become an engineering problem now. Which btw does not include fusion. Solving the fusion science would speed the process up, but it is not a drop dead necessity. The engineering will take another decade or two, but it is in progress.

The engineering will take another decade or two, but it is in progress.

So it's not actually viable now, is it..

As for the rest, it's obvious you have not actually comprehended any of the points I've made.

You're conflating science and engineering. They have never been, nor will they ever be the same thing.

https://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/15885/The-Difference-Between-Science-and-Engineering.aspx

Holy Shit did this thread just evolve into a bunch of children screaming that they are right? I'm smarter than anyone else and la de da.... LMFAO

Thanks :)

Does using bold for the occasional word count as screaming..??

Yes, you could well be the smartest poster to this thread... :)

Does using bold for the occasional word count as screaming..??

No, that's the domain of CAPSLOCK last I checked. :)

No, that's the domain of CAPSLOCK last I checked. :)

Are you sure...??

I thought CAPSLOCK was reserved for stroke authors to emphasise orgasms..??

:)