What is it that you cant get on planet Earth but will get on Mars?
Is it for sake of Science or just a costly example of basic human restlessness ?
What is so special about space that we should be reluctant to use nuclear power? Seems like they were made for each other to me. You are aware that almost every submarine and many large naval vessels run on nuclear power? A Nimitz class carrier is the size of a small city with a two 500+ MW nuclear power plants. The one NASA has tested is dinky in comparison, but it should be enough for a start.
Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?
Ok,
1. To get away from closed minded politics.
2. To get away from religious fundamentalist purists.
3. To get away from flat earthers.
4. To get away from gun-nuts.
5. To get away from ultra self centered people.
6. To get away from those deliberately self set ultra low IQ people.
7. To get away from those who fall for all that cheap marketing must have useless crap.
At least, this may be the case in the beginning, hopefully for a good first century, however, eventually, if I know humanity, one by one these problems will eventually migrate to Mars as well.
Would you rather abandon the fragrances, the flowers, the rainbows, beautiful faces and head for Mars regardless for, we cannot resurrect these alluring scenes there despite all the advances.
Quotewe mostly rely on down on earth: the sun.Big difference. The power of the sun has been stored and concentrated on Earth for hundreds of millions of years through organic carbon based life. We don't use this up just to run cars and lawn mowers. Without it, we work hard just to make clothing and shelter and to harvest and process food. Food that grows all by itself on Earth. Now add all the extra things you need to survive on the Moon. Pressurized atmosphere, oxygen, and water recycling. Burning enough energy/fuel, anything is possible. But you aren't going to have some self-sustaining habitat in such terrible conditions to human life without a huge input of energy. Even after you put up your little biodome or w/e, you don't have no Amazon to deforest, no coal mines or oil wells, no nothin to power the repairs and maintenance and to produce and shape any engineering/construction materials. And an extension cord doesn't quite reach that far. Solar won't cut it, at all, unless you keep it going with resources from the Earth. Spend all that energy on Earth to get the final products to ship to the Moon. The structural stuff, the replacement stuff, the maintenance things, the fuel. A colony would be 100% dependent on Earth to survive at all, let alone even think about growing/expanding.
As far as I know, the safety record on nuclear subs is pretty good compared to the commercial nuclear power industry.
If you cover about a few percent of the Sahara desert with solar panels it would in theory produce enough energy for the entire worlds electricity usage. In space solar is even more efficient since you don't have the atmosphere blocking some of the light. The problem with solar is that it doesn't produce electricity when the sun doesn't shine.
The problem with solar is that it doesn't produce electricity when the sun doesn't shine.
(We already have the technology for basic life support, it's been used at the ISS for decades and they use only solar power).
I can see solar power maybe working for a Mars base despite the weaker strength of sunlight there, but I think the two week long nights on the Moon might mean nuclear is the better option.
QuoteIf you cover about a few percent of the Sahara desert with solar panels it would in theory produce enough energy for the entire worlds electricity usage. In space solar is even more efficient since you don't have the atmosphere blocking some of the light. The problem with solar is that it doesn't produce electricity when the sun doesn't shine.How much energy was put into making those solar cells to begin with? They don't last forever and need to be replaced.
Quote(We already have the technology for basic life support, it's been used at the ISS for decades and they use only solar power).Without resupply, the ISS is dead. This is not self-sustaining. The best we can do is make a fish tank for humans that can keep them alive only so long as we supply it.
Humans don't belong on Mars or the Moon. Not now, not in the near future. While Earth has been storing energy for hundred million years, the other planets in our solar system have been subject to only entropy. They are dead and lifeless, and there's nothing there to sustain a colony.
There is only one reason to go to the moon or Mars, and that is to take the first step towards being a space based species. We may never become one. The evidence looking out at the stars is that space based civilizations are rare at best. But if we don't start we will never get there. It may not happen by 2030. If we don't get our act together here on earth it may not happen for thousands of years. But those are not reasons not to take the first steps. At whatever pace we can manage.
Developing the technology for an independent moon colony could probably teach us a lot about sustainable living, better recycling and utilisation of resources. It might also make more people realise how precious the earths ecosystem really is.
...
And both NASA and Roscosmos has been working on different space fission reactors:
...
Your profile picture is a nuclear power plant, is that one of the ones at Three Mile Island? (PA)
QuoteWhat is it that you cant get on planet Earth but will get on Mars?
Is it for sake of Science or just a costly example of basic human restlessness ?Getting unimaginable moneys from potential prospect for the beginning, if you don't have the longevity cure for now!
Also after milking the early customers, the end would be somehow useful for other "Human beings" in the quote in the next 100 years.
Your profile picture is a nuclear power plant, is that one of the ones at Three Mile Island?