The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

quasar777 · 2004-09-08 18:14:18

I think plenty of investors would stepup to the plate. That is if there were a viable plan for permanent residents of Space. Things would have to be done alot differently than they are now, though. nodoubt everything would be televised. ISS & Shuttle probably wouldn`t be used. I doubt there wouldn`t be much of anything done in LEO. I think more Earth launches would be from Equator, straight to higher orbits. A station @ higher orbit doesn`t need as much station-keeping, & The Moon is apparently "easier" to reach too.

Dook · 2004-09-08 18:14:42

A city for 10,000 people on the moon? Better bring a lot of body bags.

John Creighton · 2004-09-08 18:37:59

I think 10,000 is a little ambitious until there is a lot of spare water stored at the lunar colony along with suitable recycling operations. That is one advantage of mars. The water can be pulled right out of the air.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-08 18:53:39

I think 10,000 is a little ambitious until there is a lot of spare water stored at the lunar colony along with suitable recycling operations. That is one advantage of mars. The water can be pulled right out of the air.

I wanted something that is worth shooting for to accomplish. As far as not having the technologies to do it or the infrastructure I have two question to ask them.

What kind of technology do you have to develop to be able to do it?

What kind of infrastructure do we have to build to do it?

I want you to issue the contracts to develop the technology.

And I want you to start building the infrastructure to do it like the second generation shuttle, nuclear powered space ship, lunar shuttle, nuclear power plants, plasma steel plants, possibly another space station, ect.

Larry,

comstar03 · 2004-09-08 19:12:28

Gennaro,

I realized you answered me, I see you are in your little sandbox, not understanding the larger environment. Look at the cost of doing the space station NASA's way extremely exensive and not use long term. profitable methods and long term approaches for space colonization and expansion.

The reason for a spacedock facilities on the moon is where large scale vessels can be build effectively. Larger components can be moved without weight / gravity factor is higher than earth. The spacedock is a century or more facility not like the ISS max of 30 years.

It comes down to a short term approach Vs long term approach for humanity in space. I take the long term approach because once the facilities / infrastructure is in place then you just keep expanding and expanding with little infrastructure development until your demand excess supply. That won't be within the first space exploration century of humans in space.

I see the moon as the industrial processing complex for earth and humanity for the next few centuries and then for the Inner Sphere of humanity until we need to move from this solar system.

I am looking at Mars and the first colonization point for humanity not a purely industrial and manufacturing location. So, I think you have the moon and mars mixed up in terms of the functions and uses for each body.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-09 10:04:56

Part of what I think the sustanablity portion of the equation is being discussed under the topic NDSS National Department of Space Settlement, We've explored, now let's occupy! and another part of this is making it affordable under How to lower launch costs, Calling our techie gurus. . ., Space Initive Launch Vehicle, Delta IV Heavy and Beyond , and Post central for information on CEV 2.
All these topics are inter-twined with Nasa's new vision of space exploration but with the strings of budgetary concern and the burden of the past as a hinderance going forward.

Grypd · 2004-09-10 03:25:29

Part of what I think the sustanablity portion of the equation is being discussed under the topic NDSS National Department of Space Settlement, We've explored, now let's occupy! and another part of this is making it affordable under How to lower launch costs, Calling our techie gurus. . ., Space Initive Launch Vehicle, Delta IV Heavy and Beyond , and Post central for information on CEV 2.
All these topics are inter-twined with Nasa's new vision of space exploration but with the strings of budgetary concern and the burden of the past as a hinderance going forward.

Well we have not really explored more like we photographed from distance and set foot on the beach. But you are right we need a base to start doing the real exploration.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-10 07:44:23

Any long term sustainable program will also mean long term stay is space and with the disruption of our bodies internal clocks.

Sleeping problems could be a barrier to space exploration
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medical … wsid=13150

deagleninja · 2004-09-10 09:21:23

I believe the Moon is a great place for opening up space tourism. I'm just against the government doing it unless they are going to leave behind a usable base for would be tourists/settlers.

I honestly hope that when we return to the Moon we plan on leaving something useful for the private sector to use. Otherwise, it's just a bigger waste of government money that could be better spent sending people to Mars.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-10 09:37:07

Well that also assumes lawfull ownership by nations to all hardware ever brought there by that particular nation. Russia mught not like it if we were to play salvage with ther stuff and I am sure the same would hold true for Nasa with all the apollo flags and foot prints, ect... However possesion out there would probably 9 tenths of the law but when and if you returned you might face charges if laws were passed against it. What is ownership? In space is a very tricky issue that needs better definitions IMO....

deagleninja · 2004-09-10 09:51:51

I believe that dead space hardware is fair game under any laws. When stop funding a program and it isn't producing scientific data anymore it's junk right? Anyone can use junk, I get furniture from curbside trash piles all the time.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-10 10:02:35

Most towns and city have a theft law since it is considered the individuals until hauled by the removal service and only at that point if not a town service it is the companies that provided the pickup.

Some one leaving clothes at a salvation army bin if another picks up those from near or in the bin is charge with theft since it is on the salvation armies property once placed.

deagleninja · 2004-09-10 10:12:27

Oops, I guess I've been stealing garbage!!

The great thing about junk left on the Moon or Mars, is that if someone uses, who will know?

John Creighton · 2004-09-10 10:21:08

In my home town we have a week were everyone puts all the stuff they don't want and random people come around and pick it up. My dad says it is kind of neat to watch the junk slowly disappear.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-10 11:13:32

One mans garbage is another mans treasure. It is all based on need or sometimes greed but not to mention resourcefulness of the would be treasure trove hunter to create something that can be sold for cash from another mans trash.

deagleninja · 2004-09-10 13:48:54

Hey, like my dad used to say...
"Son, nothing beats free! Don't ever let anyone make you feel bad for using something you got or found for free."

And no he wasnt a trash truck driver....

Gennaro · 2004-09-10 14:08:49

Gennaro,
I realized you answered me, I see you are in your little sandbox, not understanding the larger environment. Look at the cost of doing the space station NASA's way extremely exensive and not use long term. profitable methods and long term approaches for space colonization and expansion.
The reason for a spacedock facilities on the moon is where large scale vessels can be build effectively. Larger components can be moved without weight / gravity factor is higher than earth. The spacedock is a century or more facility not like the ISS max of 30 years.
It comes down to a short term approach Vs long term approach for humanity in space. I take the long term approach because once the facilities / infrastructure is in place then you just keep expanding and expanding with little infrastructure development until your demand excess supply. That won't be within the first space exploration century of humans in space.
I see the moon as the industrial processing complex for earth and humanity for the next few centuries and then for the Inner Sphere of humanity until we need to move from this solar system.
I am looking at Mars and the first colonization point for humanity not a purely industrial and manufacturing location. So, I think you have the moon and mars mixed up in terms of the functions and uses for each body.

Having it mixed up I think not. Truth is the moon offers potential industrial prospects and zero prospects for colonization (by which I mean elementary self-sufficiency), while Mars offers both.
And the ISS, why do you bring up such junk? I've never included it in my plans nor do I think orbital space stations have any practical use in a space transportation sense. The moon is also superior to orbital stations as a shipyard because the platform is already there and the body has many raw materials in place, but its only advantage over earth is the gravity well, everything else constitute logistical and infrastructural nightmares.

You don't need a huge cargo bay switchboard in the sky or on the moon since spaceships in orbit can dock and you won't need oceanliner tonnage anytime soon because of the fledging state of human space presence and terran demand.

So what do you need for an actual integrated interplanetary transport system? I suggest the following:

1) You need heavy booster capacity for putting supposedly unmanned interplanetary cargo cyclers in place, going from LEO to any other orbit you may desire.

2) You need terran, supposedly unmanned, transgravity craft (SSTO/VTOVL) to dock with, exchange cargo and refuel your interplanetary cyclers.

3) You need more heavy boosters to ship entire SSTO's/VTOVL's to Mars, perhaps in easy to assemble kits, to do the same thing from Mars surface to MLO.
Note that you can refuel these ships entirely in situ on Mars, which isn't possible on the moon and probably have an easier time in continually developing servicing facilities.

4) You need custom-made, artificial gravity passenger cyclers for your personell and colonists.

It could be the moon will be a splendid location for shipyards in the future, but we're not there yet. You must learn how to crawl before you run. It could also be that the moon offers great mining opportunities, but neither in that case will you need the moon to get to Mars, since from a delta V point of view it's another destination entirely. If you want to go to Mars, go to Mars; if you want to go to the moon go to the moon. Or as Napoleon would have it, "if you want to take Vienna, take Vienna!".

SpaceNut wrote:

So when will the real moon rush begin. When Nasa does not rely on contracts to get vehicles for the job. Factories could be turning out just what Nasa needs like clock work if it were not for the pork barrel process.

Couldn't agree more. When I take over and impose the new order upon Europe, guess what mistakes of "corporate management" I will entirely avoid!

RobS wrote:

One argument he misses is the utilization of platinum-group metals (PGMs). The lunar regolith is up to 1% nickel-iron, which can easily be concentrated magnetically, and higher concentrations should be easy to find via magnetic anomalies. Nickel-iron is an excellent source of PGMs; higher than most terrestrial ores (which are usually a mix of terrestrial materials with nickel-iron from ancient impacts). PGMs are worth about 20 million per tonne, and the hydrogen economy, if it kicks in, will push up the demand because right now fuel cells need platinum catalysts. It may be possible to mine PGMs on the moon and on Mars more cheaply than on Earth. It will also be possible to mine it on near-earth asteroids, but they won't have the human infrastructure of a moon base (robotic repair is still a long way away). The moon will probably be the place where the technology to mine PGMs is developed and first used, and near earth asteroid mining will then have to compete with an existing industry; it will be a while before that is economic.
Dennis Wingo's new book, Moonrush, by the way, makes this argument about PGMs. It's a well thought out work.

Well, I say. As you might have noted I've made the argument about possible lunar PGM's above, in this as well as in other threads.

Well, ain't I clever? :laugh:

Now NASA is going to steal my ideas! :;):

comstar03 · 2004-09-10 19:03:16

Gennaro,

To settle in space for humanity it will require a large scale development not just infrastructure and logistics but to create a economy for all concerned.

I think you are missing the point, you can't just " send you little wagon forth" it won't work this time. you need to build a economic environment as well, a life support environment as well, transport and other infrastructures.

Especially, if we want rapid expansion into space, you can't do it in little pieces here and there from earth. We need to build the platforms and ground support infrastructure for long term development into space - at the same time develop the economy of scale for support income derived activities for continue space development and expansion.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-10 19:33:45

The problem with individuals or medium sized corporations is not whether they can achieve success in actually getting into space or for even staying a short while, It is paying for what is needed for them to survive once they are there. Self suffieciency is the only answer to that senerio for those that I have discribed. But for Governments that is not the case at all, what is needed for that is continual funding and a belief that the money has been spent wisely.

Gennaro · 2004-09-11 00:23:28

Private enterprise will never take the lead into space. There are naturally practical limits to the amounts a state can put up as well, yet this route does make things possible. Tourism won't pay, it's a minor bonus at best, like fitting terminals with railroad restaurants.

comstar, you should begin by asking yourself how much taxpayer expenditure is enough for how long and where's the profit! Flooding the terran market with PGM's won't help you know.
NASA will spend something like 15 billion dollars on space for the upcoming year and that barely manages to keep two people circling in LEO. Go figure.

comstar03 · 2004-09-11 02:38:02

Gennaro,

I must be in a rare bred of private enterprise, because I know that development of space isn't a national goal for a country unless it is made into a national goal. But a private enterprise comprising of talented and committed individual that want to develop space will succeed.

remember this, Microsoft the corporation didn't exist until Bill Gates took control founded it and managed it. Dell Corporation was founded by michael dell and did the same.

Both corporations are just examples of the desire to innovate and grow, when you see a private corporation do that in space its different because that means they might get ahead of governments.

If you believe that every problem has a solution then private enterprise could beat government and lead them into space, Gennaro. Firstly , you need to believe in your heart and mind that could happen, then move it from could to would and see the issues to overcome and work on solutions. ( A Simple explanation to understand that private enterprise can be there and move beyond government )

It doesn't mean that it can't evolve into something like a government / family corporation hybrid structure with various sub-entities that are geared to act in a similar manner to government or private enterprise bodies for their locations.

Also, it will give a whole new dimension to space activities for all countries and private enterprise throughout the world.

deagleninja · 2004-09-11 09:05:56

Well all I can add to this is that it is already happening. Oppertunists have been salivating for years over the prospect of making money in space. Now we have people like Rutan, Bigelow, and that Falcon guy (what's his name again?) taking a stab at making money in space.

Remember an important fact, space need not make a profit, just break even. Companies that aren't going to lose their butt in a space investment will do so because it is good PR and advertising.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-11 09:34:08

Gennaro,
To settle in space for humanity it will require a large scale development not just infrastructure and logistics but to create a economy for all concerned.
I think you are missing the point, you can't just " send you little wagon forth" it won't work this time. you need to build a economic environment as well, a life support environment as well, transport and other infrastructures.
Especially, if we want rapid expansion into space, you can't do it in little pieces here and there from earth. We need to build the platforms and ground support infrastructure for long term development into space - at the same time develop the economy of scale for support income derived activities for continue space development and expansion.

I agree with this.

Any serious attempt to colonize space is going to have to be big and massive project that sped out over forty to sixty year time frame. It going to have to be an across planning and building, developing new technologies, manufacturing, mining, farming, city building, subways, new generation space shuttle, fission & fusion powered deep space rockets, etc.

You are correct, you not going to piece meal this operation and be able to build a space economy or have it function. It just will not work.

Larry,

deagleninja · 2004-09-11 10:42:57

Or we could send a basic package and let the colonist do this themselves. America wasn't built with subways, deep space rockets, or next generation space shuttles. It was a slow step-by-step process. Mars offers us the chance to send a small number of ships and build a civilization from there. In short, you don't need this mass exodus of supplies.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-11 11:42:47

Or we could send a basic package and let the colonist do this themselves. America wasn't built with subways, deep space rockets, or next generation space shuttles. It was a slow step-by-step process. Mars offers us the chance to send a small number of ships and build a civilization from there. In short, you don't need this mass exodus of supplies.

You don't know the real American history or real economics or how this nation was built up. I am speaking to some one who is speaking out of there own ignorance on this matter. I hate to sound nasty about this, but truth is truth and your opinion was based on a lie. Now I am not accusing you of lying, but of being ignorant of the truth and taking something that you think is true, but was based on a lie to defend a your position that can not work. You may be on the up and up and trying to do what right to the best of your ability, but if it based on faulty model of economics then what you say will also be faulty, because it foundations flawed and non workable.

I am going to give you two web sites to look at. The first one is about Mars and what it would take to terraform Mars and who would have to do it.

http://www.transhumanist.com/volume4/sp … /space.htm

The second web link is a two to two and have hour web cast on the subject of the American government building up infrastructure inside the United States and then turning around and letting that infrastructure collapse. They show from a period of 1926 to about 1965 where the U.S. Government was deliberately building up the infrastructure of America to be an industrial power with dams and locks on the major rivers to make them navigational for commerce, power station, rail roads, healthcare, etc. Then from about 1965 to today with the dismantling of the American system and reducing it into a piece crap. Like with the shutting down of factories or exporting them overseas, the destruction of the family farmer, the destruction of healthcare, our dams are in disrepair and those locks are old and need to be replace to keep our rivers navigable and our rail roads are in a final stag of collapse, etc. These things that you keep defending and say will work in space, don’t work down here and never did work down here and never could work down here. So stop using mis understanding of what really happen down here to defend your view of what we should do in space.

All three of these links are the same web cast, but the first one is in video form so you can see the graphics and the second one is in sound only, so you will only be able to hear the presentation. The third one is in high speed format so if you have a link that support that one, it would be the best link to use.

http://www.larouchepub.com/eirtoc/confp … ...vid.asx

http://www.larouchepub.com/eirtoc/confp … ..._lo.asx

http://www.larouchepub.com/eirtoc/confp … ..._hi.asx

Look at both of these links and then come back and we will have a discussion after that. Otherwise, there no point in us having a discussion with you, because you will continue to defend what you think is true, but is not true.

Larry,

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2004-09-08 18:14:18

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#177 2004-09-08 18:14:42

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#178 2004-09-08 18:37:59

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#179 2004-09-08 18:53:39

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#180 2004-09-08 19:12:28

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#181 2004-09-09 10:04:56

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#182 2004-09-10 03:25:29

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#183 2004-09-10 07:44:23

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#184 2004-09-10 09:21:23

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#185 2004-09-10 09:37:07

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#186 2004-09-10 09:51:51

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#187 2004-09-10 10:02:35

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#188 2004-09-10 10:12:27

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#189 2004-09-10 10:21:08

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#190 2004-09-10 11:13:32

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#191 2004-09-10 13:48:54

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#192 2004-09-10 14:08:49

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#193 2004-09-10 19:03:16

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#194 2004-09-10 19:33:45

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#195 2004-09-11 00:23:28

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#196 2004-09-11 02:38:02

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#197 2004-09-11 09:05:56

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#198 2004-09-11 09:34:08

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#199 2004-09-11 10:42:57

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#200 2004-09-11 11:42:47

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

Board footer