What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

VTTFSH_V · 2005-11-28 21:20:35

First off, would it be to much of a pain for all you guys, VTTFSH_T,V and whoever else may be out there to pick more unique identifires? It can be a real pain to tell you apart.

Sorry. I’ll change my picture!
Edit: There. Now I am the 2 bright stars guy.

While I don't think SSPS, be they Lunar or orbit based are totaly impossible or implausible, they certianly have high hurdles to overcome. First off the price you quote, $1000/kW is only marginaly supperior to conventional power options, which range around $1200/kw-$1500/kW. But I find it highly dubious that you could achive even this price. Power storage for the night hours alone is probably going to cover the diffrence, so even if you could achive the price, (which I doubt) you could beat conventional options untill you had a whole fleet of them up there.
Which leads to my secound point. I don't think a SPS system is reasonable in the short term because of the incredibly huge capital investment necessary. You must build a very large mining, refining, and factory operation on the moon, as well as a large rail-gun to ship it all in to space. The capital cost is GARGANTUAN. No way private industry could do it, heck the cost of a single satilite alone HALF a TRILLION dollars by you numbers, would be a strech even for the US Goverment. If a SPS is ever going to be possible, it is going to have to wait untill a presense on the moon brings its capital costs down and new launch technologies bring prices to space down.

The $500 billion refers to launching all materials from Earth. (Read more carefully.) The lunar approach brings the cost down to roughly the cost of the Apollo program, with a proper plan, and furthermore, private operations usually cost less than government equivalents.

Many areas of Earth lack fertile soil? HA! How much fertile soil are you going to find in SPACE? Or any other non-terrestial location for that matter. (Please do not think too hard about this).

Like Dook, you must do research before making arguments. There is this concept called “Terrafoming.” I thought it was well known around this forum, but I was apparently wrong. You can create attractive environments from hostile ones. Of course, you would not attempt to terraform Antarctica because you would risk ruining the ecology of the entire planet.

Not even population pressure can change this fact. There are simply to many people here on Earth to every more a signifigant fraction of them off planet. There are 6.1 BILLION people on the Earth, thats a huge number. Even if you could move people off the planet at some insane rate like say 10,000 people a day, it would take you over 250 years to move just 1 of those billions. But in fact you wouldn't even cut into the growth rate. In 2000 the Earth population was growing by 1.4%, that's over 230,000 people a day. Even with some far-out stuff like space elevators and what not you simply couldn't move this many people off planet at this rate, it's not possible. Which is just as well, as it's unlikely you could manufacture living space for them in a colony at this rate either. If population problems are going to be solved, they are going to be solved here on Earth by using more land and reducing the birth rate, not by off world colonies.
Now I still love the idea, but again it's something far off, which I unfortuantly will not live to see.

Your defeatist's attitude fails you. To sit there and dismiss things as far off is pitiful. You could try to RESEARCH and examine how space colonization and ultimately humanization can be done in a logical time frame, which is well in this century. Population is way down on the list of justifications for space colonization, if on the list at all. It was my sidekick, VTTFSH_T, who made that assertion, and knowing him personally, he is definitely not the best debater. (Again, I apologize for the confusion between us.)

To RESEARCH, like my suggestion to Dook, read Robert Zubrin’s “Entering Space” and too “The Case for Mars.” Zubrin discusses the justifications for space colonization and also discusses why the attitude that you possess, that of sitting there and giving up, will cause humankind to shrivel up and die out. And Dook, this is not apocalyptic hysteria. It is simply recognizing threats to humankind. Need it not be said that those who ignore such threats are foolish.

We've talked about this many times before in other threads. Even if you could harvest helium3 from a gas gaint (and Jupiters huge gravity field and intense radiation belts by no means make this a sure thing), why would you? He3 power generation is going to have a very hard time competing with other Fusion alternatives. D-D fusion is only margianly more difficult, produces slighly more neutrons, is slightly less power dense, but most importantly Deutrium is basicly Free. You can buy it right now, over the web, for less that $1/L, tank included! He3 will never be able to beat that price, and it's margianl advantages aren't worth the cost which is going to be several million times as much. I personly think that He3 production by bombarding lithium with neutrons is probably more cost effective than imporing it from off world.

Again, I would not directly agree with VTTFSH_T on this matter. He3 harvesting may be desirable by space colonies in the outer solar system in the future, but not now. I was simply saying that it is rather simple to put a harvesting colony out there.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-28 22:42:55

$500Bn or $150Bn or whatever is irrelivent, none of these costs will ever be economical. It will easily cost over $350Bn to build up a Moon base capable of manufacturing and launching such a structure, and then there is the cost of the reciever arrays... and what do you do when the array is in Earth's shadow?

It would cost less then even the revised figure to build brand new multimegawatt nuclear fission plants on Earth, which will last much longer then the solar array will as its bombarded by solar/cosmic radiation, and its easier to fix a nuclear plant as opposed to a giant solar array in medium orbit that takes even more fuel than LEO. And what about orbital decay maintenance?

Terraforming? Centuries away, if its possible at all. And may not be nessesarry at all, if the population simply doesn't grow fast enough to need it on other worlds.

Bob Zubrin isn't exactly the most lucid of sources either, frankly he's kind of a fanatic... but I digress, his views aren't the kind of thing you'd "research" because they are just that, views. His view, although relevent, is not some kind of holy text.

Its not relativly simple to put an industrial-scale He3 extraction plant in the outter solar system.

Austin Stanley · 2005-11-28 22:55:46

Sorry. I’ll change my picture!
Edit: There. Now I am the 2 bright stars guy.

I appreciate your effort, but frankly, I'm still going to have trouble telling the two VTTFSH_? with two stars pictures appart.

The $500 billion refers to launching all materials from Earth. (Read more carefully.) The lunar approach brings the cost down to roughly the cost of the Apollo program, with a proper plan, and furthermore, private operations usually cost less than government equivalents.

Ah, my mistake. In this case the figure of $500 Billion for 5 GW ($1000/kw) is completely loony. I'll do some quick math to prove it. Launch costs right now might get down to about $5,000/kg for unmanned cargo launches to LEO. Your SPS needs to by higher than that, but lets assume you have a fleet of them or what not, or some fancy LEO-GEO tug and so can avoid this cost. Advanced solar panels might be able to get 75 W/kg, but lets call it a nice even 100 W/kg to make the math easier and to provide some room for further advancment. So at $5000/kg to LEO and 100W/kg we get an astonishing cost of $50,000/kW. 50 times greater than your figure, which was only just barely supperior to nuclear and coal fuel already (and inferior to Gas I might add). And this is with some VERY generous estimations in your favor. Since lots of costs, such as the support structure for the SPS, or the recivers on Earth, or the design and construction of this massive behmoth are omitted. Far from the ~$100 Billion dollar Apollo Program, you couldn't fit such a program inside the capital budget of the US, period.

Many areas of Earth lack fertile soil? HA! How much fertile soil are you going to find in SPACE? Or any other non-terrestial location for that matter. (Please do not think too hard about this).
Like Dook, you must do research before making arguments. There is this concept called “Terrafoming.” I thought it was well known around this forum, but I was apparently wrong. You can create attractive environments from hostile ones. Of course, you would not attempt to terraform Antarctica because you would risk ruining the ecology of the entire planet.

This comment was made in jest in reply to your "friends" point that "Many areas of Earth lack fertile soil." Making empty space look attractive in the alternative I suppose. My point (which you do not quote, but I elaborate on further down) was that reclaiming currently unproductive land on Earth will ALWAYS be more cost effective than manufacturing it or "Terraforming" it elseware. Period, end of story. There is no NEED to "Terraform" Antarctica, because it is ALREADY part of the Earth.

Your defeatist's attitude fails you. To sit there and dismiss things as far off is pitiful. You could try to RESEARCH and examine how space colonization and ultimately humanization can be done in a logical time frame, which is well in this century. Population is way down on the list of justifications for space colonization, if on the list at all.

Again, as was the main theme of my arguments here is that we (and Dook as well I susspect) are not realy in disagrement on these issues, except on the point of time frame. Since Colonization can never be cost effective in the traditional sense, it must return some non-montary justification. And while I (and most others I suspect) agree on the benifit of these other justifactions, we don't see them as being worth there extravigant cost in the short term. Right now it simply costs to much and the ephemeral returns it gives are not enough to justify it.

I STILL favor expaditions to Mars and a permanate presence there. But colonization, especialy the many 10,000 people models people fantisise about. Will have to wait untill technology advances, and our civilisation gets richer, making these things affordable. I think that is all Dook has ever realy tried to say.

To RESEARCH, like my suggestion to Dook, read Robert Zubrin’s “Entering Space” and too “The Case for Mars.” Zubrin discusses the justifications for space colonization and also discusses why the attitude that you possess, that of sitting there and giving up, will cause humankind to shrivel up and die out. And Dook, this is not apocalyptic hysteria. It is simply recognizing threats to humankind. Need it not be said that those who ignore such threats are foolish.

Again we are not so much in direct disagrment. I agree with the point of an extra-terrestrial colony serving as a shield against disaster, I just do not see it as a something we can realisticly accomplish very soon. But even then preventing the disaster (I'm assuming you mean an asteroid impact or something) is still far more cost effective than colonisation. And even if we DO colonise Mars, does this mean we just sit there and let Earth get hit? Of course not. We do both. This is an example of a "false dilemma." Our options are not simply colonise or die, with or without Mars as a safety net, saving the Earth is the most attractive.

Also, I dislike appeal to authority because it tends to lead people to make claims and arguments backed up by the weight of there supposed authority, that these authorities never realy made. I can do my own RESEARCH and math just fine on my own thanks. In this case however, I just happen to have a copy of Entering Space at hand, and I will compare it to your arguments.

The $500 billion refers to launching all materials from Earth. (in refrence to SPS)

"So, just the launch costs of the SPS would be about $3,300/W or $3.3 trillion for a 1,000-megawatt (MW) unit suitable for providing the power needs of a city the size of Denver.
- Entering Space, pg. 71 - emphysis in the orginal

"The lunar approach brings the cost down to roughly the cost of the Apollo program"

"In Short, solar power satellites and O'Neill colonies, based on their business plans, are completely implausible for the forseeable future"
- Entering Space pg. 74

A do not wish to compound my "appeal to authority" with an "ad homium" attack, but perhapce it is you who should do further study on these issues.

Again, I would not directly agree with VTTFSH_T on this matter. He3 harvesting may be desirable by space colonies in the outer solar system in the future, but not now. I was simply saying that it is rather simple to put a harvesting colony out there.

While I still can't see any conceivable reason to need to use He3, I'm glad we can at least somewhat agree on this matter.

------

::EDIT -- Correct some quote errors::
I come of a little bit hotter here than I usualy do, but some of your little digs get to me. I like and respect the majority of the people here. You can be pretty much assured that we have all probably read the same books and papers, or else we wouldn't be here. I usualy don't go for personal attacks or respond in kind, but this was little much for me, you got my old debaters blood rolling . I'll try and keep it clean if you will.
::EDIT again, not enough sleep lot more spelling/grammer errors than usual, even for me.

sdc1 · 2005-11-29 14:30:36

Evil In Sheeps Clothing!

http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic … 4226#84226

Attack and destroy what you do not understand!

Defame and slander what you cannot control or manipulate!

Spread lies and propaganda to manipulate the unsuspecting!

Same People! Same Evil! Sad! Very Sad Indeed!

This is why humans will always kill and destroy each other!

The only way to pry the aristocrats and secrete societies off the back of good in this world, is they need to be exposed and destroyed!

The forefathers of America knew this, and had no choice but to fight against this evil of privileged aristocrats and secrete societies.

Anywhere on the internet where large numbers of people come or gather to talk about new ideas and a new and better future for humanity, like here on NewMars, this evil will come and influence the thinking and minds of those who are unaware of their presence or not savvy enough to identify these evil wolves hiding in sheep’s cloths.

True space activist are very few anymore, and today are replaced by propaganda agents and front organizations acting for the interests of Government & Mega-Corporations!

The internet, and indeed space message boards like NewMars, is supposed to be a forum to explore new ideas and options in the public conscience. However, these are ever more controlled and manipulated by powerful Government & Mega-Corporations and their agents who hide out in these places to attack any idea, person, or organization, which poses a threat to their control and power.

We need more space activists, and less secrete agents!

Don't be fooled and deceived by propaganda and lies!

Wake up! Learn to think, and try to ignore those who seek to deceive and use you for evil purposes.

Evil never likes to be exposed!

RobS · 2005-11-29 15:03:42

Sad.

sdc4 · 2005-11-29 15:11:45

Yes, Indeed! Very Sad!

sdc3 · 2005-11-29 15:22:22

Another Example!

Same People! Different Place! Same Lies & Slander!

That is until it is again CENSORED!

http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Ca … o=0&fpart=

Grypd · 2005-11-29 15:27:35

Will the Moon supply Earth with power or even with materials to build the great solar power satelites. Not when most European countries are seriously going to look at building new Nuclear stations. Choice between Nuclear and SPS or Moon microwave easily supports nuclear.

PGMs are a different matter they are a resource the Earth needs that may pay for some of the costs of missions to the Moon. Helium 3 sorry folks we have to get fusion to work first.

In short there is no financial reason or desperate Earth need to make missions to the Moon and Mars an immediate necessity. But as noted before in other threads we will do there and we will eventually start doing something that will make a fiscal return, but its not the reason to go.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-29 16:39:22

He links to one of the original threads with Rick/Eric's crazy talk and a Space.com board he got banned from... again ... facinating.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-11-29 23:21:53

The principles about International Space Agency are good but the application of these principles requires funding at a private sector or public sector manner that eventually change the focus of the ISA and will eventually develop national boundaries in space. If you don't think we have that right now , you are kidding, we have national borders in space and control of space for private sector use is also tightly controlled and it shouldn't be either. After we get through all the issues with government, we might be able to ready expand space.

Well,

Firstly after the above government issues is the infrastructure on earth to sustain a launch program using liquid based fuels are achieved. Then the running costs are the costs associated with the vehicles in production, fuelling them for launch and managing them while in service.

I think you are not looking outside the box for the costs associated with the infrastructure and the costs for the production of the rockets based on the cargo and cev model for example. Secondly, the development of space based robotic system could reduce the construction costs in orbit and eventually on the lunar and martian surfaces as well.

Once completed infrastructure and production facilities then you move into space (LEO) and develop methods to develop income from orbitial facilities then you move beyond earth. We need to build assets in space to expand the human race into long term presence including permanent stations and planetary bases.

conclusion:

We use clever design of space vehicles we could meet the changes in orbit and beyond at the same time reduce the overall production costs for vehicles, stations, and planetary bases.

Rxke · 2005-11-30 03:55:40

@sdc1-4:

Look, .... (counts to ten...)

You invite us for discussion, in this thread, and after no time there are two pages with quite lenghty discussion, and in those two pages there is only 4-5 lines of critique to R.D.

Quite a good signal/noise ratio, I'd say.

Yet your only answer is yelling: "look evoooool" "conspiracy"

And you link to older threads where one of your supporters 'reveals' my 'true' identity as a Clark minion.

I am offended by this. And not a little bit.

I went out of my way to set up an entry to ISA at the wiki; I even went back there and uploaded the thumbnail so it would display correctly, and this is what I get? This is what WE get?

Ok, I read the other thread, much trolling etc, but THIS one seems ok, no?

Yet you resort to screaming bloody murder nonthelsess.

Now what will it be, discussion or yelling at anybody that does not agree 100% with the goals of ISA?

Think before you reply, you're running out of credit here.

Commodore · 2005-11-30 15:25:06

The Moon isn't as good of a jumping-off point as most make it out to be. The "Lunar reasources" are limited only to rocket fuel, which will be difficult to extract in any quantity, and Hydrogen may not be available at all. I remind that high-energy nuclear drives require hydrogen as a working fluid, and no other gas is an acceptable substitute.
The Earth also has one edge that the Moon won't have for many decades or a century: an industrial base. All our manufacturing ability (rockets, fuel, food, colony equipment) is currently on Earth, and putting this capability on the Moon will require a completly, totally mind-boggling trillion-dollar investment to make the Moon's cheif advantage (low gravity) worthwhile - IF the Moon has Hydrogen - for a fairly small bennefit. It doesn't make alot of sense to put rocket factories and supply bases and colony kit builders there. Its fairly questionable if its worthwhile to put only put fuel depots there or in orbit if there is a little snow in the soil.
We don't need a base that is truely self-sustaining on the Moon any time soon, think of it as a drilling rig or antarctic research station, except producing at least a majority of the fuel needed to operate it. The food, hardware, and crew will be shuttled to and from Earth.

I think you underestimate how much can be done with the mineral resources that were going to haul around just to get oxygen. Keep in mind that the goal is to build things out local materials. Launch the right set of tools and they not only be able to build much of what they need, but build replacement tools as well.

How is a Antartica-style base any less of a dead end than the ISS?

publiusr · 2005-12-02 12:34:28

I don't have a problem with a pilot SPS. With new carbon nanosheets the huge structures of the past can be overcome with films. The only way its impossible is if it isn't tried. Atlas also cost a good deal of money. It just comes down to what you think is important. If nothing else, a huge 100 ton sheet of mylar would be a REAL solar sail. Imagine its size!

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-05 13:20:15

The Moon isn't as good of a jumping-off point as most make it out to be. The "Lunar reasources" are limited only to rocket fuel, which will be difficult to extract in any quantity, and Hydrogen may not be available at all. I remind that high-energy nuclear drives require hydrogen as a working fluid, and no other gas is an acceptable substitute.
The Earth also has one edge that the Moon won't have for many decades or a century: an industrial base. All our manufacturing ability (rockets, fuel, food, colony equipment) is currently on Earth, and putting this capability on the Moon will require a completly, totally mind-boggling trillion-dollar investment to make the Moon's cheif advantage (low gravity) worthwhile - IF the Moon has Hydrogen - for a fairly small bennefit. It doesn't make alot of sense to put rocket factories and supply bases and colony kit builders there. Its fairly questionable if its worthwhile to put only put fuel depots there or in orbit if there is a little snow in the soil.
We don't need a base that is truely self-sustaining on the Moon any time soon, think of it as a drilling rig or antarctic research station, except producing at least a majority of the fuel needed to operate it. The food, hardware, and crew will be shuttled to and from Earth.
I think you underestimate how much can be done with the mineral resources that were going to haul around just to get oxygen. Keep in mind that the goal is to build things out local materials. Launch the right set of tools and they not only be able to build much of what they need, but build replacement tools as well.
How is a Antartica-style base any less of a dead end than the ISS?

No. The cost of sending all the special tools will be literally astronomical compared to the ease of manufacture on Earth and shipment. Building things out of local materials except the simplest of structural componets makes no sense, since if you have a mining operation you are going to have regular trips to and from Earth anyway.

A base on the Moon will be quite unlike the ISS, primarily because it won't be a piece of junk that needs vast quantities of materials to keep operational. A base that could produce its own oxygen and doesn't need extensive, continuous repair should not be ruinously expensive to run. It might not even need to be manned year-round.

As for why, the one that should be obvious is astronomy, and the tending of telescopes on the Moon. With the gravity field and solar flares (no Van Allen belts), they will probobly need low-level maintenance now and then. There is also quite a bit of geology to do on the Moon, which is worthwhile to do from a scientific and economic prespective. And, of course, test Mars colony hardware somewhere closer to home before shipping it all the way to Mars.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-12-06 03:28:54

The Moon is a vital infrastructure for the long term vitability of humanity into space. The only place in space to build and launch larger scale space vehicles and the testing of large scale drive systems without the risk of our planet.

Added material resources of the moon into expanding into space, the scientific outposts for astronomy, astrophysics, and the training of crews for long term space environmental conditions are additional reasons.

We will expand into space using the Lpoints in the earth-moon system, the lunar surface to expand the human presence into space, then expand our human colonization onto Mars, Jupiter's Moons and Saturn's Moons before going interstellar. We need to have places to build, research and experiment in new technologies that is the moon.

So, if you don't see the vital nature of the moon then I can not explain it any better then I have, GCNRevenger.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-06 06:34:35

"The only place in space to build and launch larger scale space vehicles"

No. Orbital assembly is the only practical place to build rockets that big, and you don't need the Moon for that.

As far as testing nuclear propulsion systems, all but the dirtiest drives could be tested here on Earth if not for unfounded environmental hysteria. The really bad ones could be tested in high Earth orbit, where if they were to fail, they would stay there until the fission daughter particles decay.

And why the Lagrange points? It is unlikly the Moon has any large supply of hydrogen, which is the only fuel compatible with high-energy nuclear drives. The only fuel on the Moon we know is there is oxygen, which is only good for chemical engines.

The reason you can't explain it any better, Tristar, is because your reasoning is not in tune with the reality of what is and isn't on the Moon. We will probobly maintain a small-scale science presence there, and very well may mine the Moon for rare elements on a small scale, but anything more then that doesn't make any sense.

quasar777 · 2005-12-06 15:22:29

To me, one of the most important aspect of OuterSpace endeavors is having the largest number of people living there. We`ll never get anything done, not what we really need, until this happens. There`s a limit to what remotes can do.

Dook · 2005-12-06 15:49:20

Martin: The moon is not vital infrastructure. Any human effort there, other than science, is a waste of time and money. NASA has limited resources so whatever is wasted on moon infrastructure just means less real science and an even longer delay (maybe 20 yrs) for a human mars mission.

Why launch into space, using huge amounts of fuel, just to go and land on the moon (use more fuel-more mission risk) just so you can refuel again and try to escape the moon's 3,000 mph gravity well?

The moon is the only place to build large scale drive systems? Uh, what are you talking about? Huge ion engines? Giant solar sails? It's still much more cost effective to build and launch them from the earth where all of the infrastructure already is AND there is less mission risk.

Nobody would train crews for a long duration space missions on the moon!

Quasar: People living in space? Hmm, lets see. God creates an incredibly beautiful planet with everything that humans need to prosper and what do they do? They abandon it for the cold black void of space. Sigh...trekkies.

Commodore · 2005-12-06 17:05:54

Quasar: People living in space? Hmm, lets see. God creates an incredibly beautiful planet with everything that humans need to prosper and what do they do? They abandon it for the cold black void of space. Sigh...trekkies.

So why did he make all the other incredibly beautiful places with everything humans need to prosper? So we can make pretty screensavers?

Grypd · 2005-12-06 17:43:56

Martin: The moon is not vital infrastructure. Any human effort there, other than science, is a waste of time and money. NASA has limited resources so whatever is wasted on moon infrastructure just means less real science and an even longer delay (maybe 20 yrs) for a human mars mission.

Dook what is the purpose of going to space. To go to space we must have a purpose and this should be able to be something credible for as many people as possible. Apollo was a more or less science mission it achieved little and as such it made space a lot less credible. You say we go for science, why. The science you want to do is Ivory tower material. It without increased human prescence and utilisation of space is in effect worthless to the majority.

I know you are very anti colonisation and space industrialisation. But this is the only way that we can get the financial and public support to go further. If we tell the public we want to go to mars so we can do science and it will cost $billions this will not fly. Quite simply that amount of money would be better used to do science that is relevant like biological cures for cancer or decreasing carbon production. We already have seen what doing science for its own sake as a destination leads us the ISS is a scientific station though worthless for anything else.

Why launch into space, using huge amounts of fuel, just to go and land on the moon (use more fuel-more mission risk) just so you can refuel again and try to escape the moon's 3,000 mph gravity well?

So that in the future as your capacity to do more increases on the Moon and beyond it becomes much cheaper in the long run to operate from the Moon etc.

Quasar: People living in space? Hmm, lets see. God creates an incredibly beautiful planet with everything that humans need to prosper and what do they do? They abandon it for the cold black void of space. Sigh...trekkies.

Eden was a great place but we had to move on. We live on the one world you know. This is the simple syndrome of all our eggs in the one basket. It does make sense to be able to do more in space if only so that one of the most dangerous threats we face roque asteroids and extensive global warming can be combated. Could call it biological imperative, manifest destiny but in the end it comes down to common sense.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-06 17:47:45

Parts of the Earth are pretty inhospitable too, like the Eskimo in the artic, but they live there anyway. Without non-natural reasources (metalurgy) they would be unlikly to survive. The population of the Earth would probobly not be unsustainable if we did not resort to non-natural farming practices (pesticide, synthetic fertilizer). Crossing oceans to spread to new land isn't possible without non-natural boats and ships... Why is settling space any different, except by a matter of degree?

However, baring the invention of a method to get from Earth's surface to the Lunar surface (not orbit to orbit) without using rockets, jets, or other reaction-mass means, the Moon does not make sense as an industrial base except for rare elements not available on Earth (eg Platinum). Its just too hard to get mass from here to there and back to extract base, bulk materials.

The Moon doesn't make much sense as a jumping off point to the rest of the solar system either, since its gravity is strong enough to require a large expenditure of fuel to launch or land from it. The chances that large amounts of hydrogen are present are small, and the oxygen there is will be energy-intensive to extract, and LOX doesn't work in high-Isp nuclear engines. Nor can you use high-Isp/low-thrust engines to make Lunar launch/landing more favorable. Low Lunar orbits and the nearer Lagrange points aren't all that stable either.

Dook · 2005-12-06 18:20:26

Commodore: Not sure what other incredibly beautiful places you are referring to. Nebula's? By the time we get there we won't even be humans anymore. If you mean the moon and mars, well I think God expects us to be smart about things. There really is nothing we need on the moon or mars so going there has to be for pure reasons, the long term benefit of humanity, and it must be done only with the least amount of risk (and cost) as possible otherwise it's just plain stupid. It's like using a Mercedes instead of a Buick to jump the Grand Canyon.

Grypd: You don't understand how important it is that we discover every piece, no matter how small, of the science puzzle. What if it took another 20 years for someone to discover how to make electricity? Everything shifts to the right and today, in December 2005, we still would not have computers. They don't come for another five years and the first ones would be less powerful than today's calculator. Don't you get it? Science is magic.

With it we can cure genetic diseases. Have almost infinite amounts of clean power. We can completely terraform mars and have an oxygen laden atmosphere in only 100 years. Go to other solar systems in Star Trek type ships. But first we have to figure out why quantum physics differs from general physics.

Infrastructure on the moon is like building a railroad across the country in the age of the airplane.

I guess as a European you might think that Apollo achieved nothing. Only Americans have been to the moon and we kind of have a different feeling about it. I wonder what that flag is doing right now?

Anti-colonization, yes I am, there is no reason for it. Apocalypse? Take 1,000 people who struggle out an existence living in cramped domes on mars, hundreds die before they figure things out. Then, sure enough, a giant asteroid enters our solar system. Every can't believe it but they are pleased we have a backup human civilization somewhere else. The asteroid approaches and hits...mars. Yep, manifest destiny. Do you think God would say we were smart?

Do a little figuring. Take the cheapest rocket, add up the number of missions it will take to land all of the required materials for a moon base. Use a 5% mission loss rate (pretty good for new technology?). Now come up with a launch schedule. Remember that NASA is still committed to ISS and Space Shuttle. How much? And what do we have for it? How much just to maintain this lunar infrastructure? If we do this NASA never, ever, does anything else.

Commodore · 2005-12-06 18:34:56

Commodore: Not sure what other incredibly beautiful places you are referring to. Nebula's? By the time we get there we won't even be humans anymore. If you mean the moon and mars, well I think God expects us to be smart about things. There really is nothing we need on the moon or mars so going there has to be for pure reasons, the long term benefit of humanity, and it must be done only with the least amount of risk (and cost) as possible otherwise it's just plain stupid. It's like using a Mercedes instead of a Buick to jump the Grand Canyon.

And having NASA and partner countries set up scientific and industrial "colonies" on either in the next 50 to 100 years isn't pure enough for you?

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-06 19:02:59

Other than a fairly small set of ventures (PGMs, specialty chemicals in zero-g, maybe solar satelites, specialty research) there isn't anything worth doing in space that requires humans and bennefits Earth materially, so there aren't ever going to be self-contained industrial "colonies" for the bennefit of the mother planet.

Neither do you need a colony for science, a self-sustaining base isn't nessesarry, a small base regularly supplied/crewed from Earth is the only type and scale of emplacement that is justifiable.

That said, if people want to expand into space, then why not? Since people will expand into space will form independant communities of their own, if for no other reason than distance and radio lag, then it is in our national interest to try and imprint our culture if we can. And, the reasources that there are in space, while small, are not entirely trivial and so national interest dictates that some measure of control or influence is a desireable thing... So at least some national investment in colonization is justifiable.

But I think Dook might have a little too much faith and not enough understanding of science... that as far as we know, there is no way to cheat gravity, and assuming that there will be some magic breakthrough that justifies putting off any settlement is unscientific and unsound. Until we know the rules can be changed, we must assume we are stuck with them, even if a different set of rules might exsist.

Oh, and I'd like to comment that pre-civilization cave men are really basically a different race then ours today, and we are a better race, and I am glad of it. The fact that colonists won't be humans like we are today anymore is not a bad thing just because we can't invision and relate to them.

Dook · 2005-12-06 19:03:49

No, it's a complete waste with barely any use whatsoever. Lunar infrastructure?

You want to waste $300 billion and 20 years worth of NASA funding so in the year 2035 when we finally start work on a human mission to mars it will be 10% less than going there now?

Do you know what kind of Mars Mission we can have with $300 billion?

This is common sense. I can only guess at whatever motives you all have but they are not in the interest of the future exploration of space. Any sizable moon base means NASA sacrifices EVERYTHING else.

You don't even attempt to send humans farther out than mars with anything other than Star Trek ships.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-11-28 21:20:35

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#27 2005-11-28 22:42:55

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#28 2005-11-28 22:55:46

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#29 2005-11-29 14:30:36

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#30 2005-11-29 15:03:42

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#31 2005-11-29 15:11:45

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#32 2005-11-29 15:22:22

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#33 2005-11-29 15:27:35

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#34 2005-11-29 16:39:22

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#35 2005-11-29 23:21:53

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#36 2005-11-30 03:55:40

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#37 2005-11-30 15:25:06

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#38 2005-12-02 12:34:28

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#39 2005-12-05 13:20:15

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#40 2005-12-06 03:28:54

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#41 2005-12-06 06:34:35

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#42 2005-12-06 15:22:29

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#43 2005-12-06 15:49:20

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#44 2005-12-06 17:05:54

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#45 2005-12-06 17:43:56

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#46 2005-12-06 17:47:45

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#47 2005-12-06 18:20:26

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#48 2005-12-06 18:34:56

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#49 2005-12-06 19:02:59

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#50 2005-12-06 19:03:49

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

Board footer