Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon.

Void · 2017-01-17 15:08:34

We have to work with what can be done. This means getting along with human types we don't particularly like. We need to find strategies to do that that don't expose us to exploitation by them.

Yes, rotating space habitats in orbit could be vulnerable in the case of a war, but the point is to not develop the Moon in such a way that such a war is more likely. If it comes to war, then it is war. You kill the enemy or get rid of their power. But in times of war, wealth disappears, and so disappears the method to spread humanity from the Earth.

SpaceNut · 2017-01-17 19:10:39

Tom I copied the entire post #25 as it was to far off topic for Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon. To which I have left what might be closer to what really needs to be said in this topic.

All space colonies are vulnerable and not by an attack persay. With a below ground it is that much harder for that natural disaster to distroy it. Space Junk is a real problem for the ISS and that will not change anytime soon.

Space colonies should be open to all that can afford to go and thrive in peace with one another.

There are many reasons to build space colonies to save man kind is just 1 such noble reason.

So lets keep it to the topic please Tom....

SpaceNut · 2017-01-17 19:20:43

We currently have the ISS for a foundation for international cooperation in space even when times were tough as no nation wants a dead crew man due to any of the nations involved.

In fact once the ISS is gone and no replacement is in sight we will not be in the same favorable condition that we have now to foster peace....

Now what makes an economy thrive is people and right now we are people limited as well as for places to let these people go to. So when prices drop and we have more places we will have the beginnings of a space economy.... Yes the moon is a destination that many dream of going to but it has to be in reach of those that want to go....

Void · 2017-01-17 20:35:10

Spacenut said:

We currently have the ISS for a foundation for international cooperation in space even when times were tough as no nation wants a dead crew man due to any of the nations involved.
In fact once the ISS is gone and no replacement is in sight we will not be in the same favorable condition that we have now to foster peace....
Now what makes an economy thrive is people and right now we are people limited as well as for places to let these people go to. So when prices drop and we have more places we will have the beginnings of a space economy.... Yes the moon is a destination that many dream of going to but it has to be in reach of those that want to go....

I would think that international missions to the Moon with sharing of costs between the participating entities, could be a good continuation of the political utility of the ISS, when it is closed down.

Obviously if that is done, we are not yet talking about putting children and families on the Moon. Such a thing would have to precede any colonization of the Moon after all. But as you might have noted, I am against establishing families and raising children on the Moon. It could be that the future would unfold in a manner that would change my mind, but for now, I would like the Moon to be a place for telepresence, and highly trained and very mature and moral adults from various nations on the Earth.

One reason to not establish a colony on the Moon is the finite resource of water on the Moon. A colony on the Moon could be in competition with the use of that water for fuel for space travel. But perhaps major propulsion down the line will not involve Hydrogen/Oxygen. So, it is very hard to predict what pattern will ultimately hold as the final major one.

The pattern I would try for just now knowing the probable technological future would be initially building some significant habitats in Earth Orbit. I don't think they have to be were the major space junk is.

Thereafter, once sufficient housing exists for the people who teleoperate machines on the Moon, and for their families, and for the people who actually go on missions to the Moon to preform work, then build dry habitats. That is build housing but do not fill them with volatile substances. Sail them with automation or a skeleton crew to the Trojan asteroids. Sail them on the solar wind. There would be no particular hurry. 20 years to get there? It might be a reasonable business method. Maybe a shorter time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_trojan

Actually the Trojans or Greeks. There are supposed to be about as many of them as there are asteroids in the Asteroid belt.

The total number of Jupiter trojans larger than 1 km in diameter is believed to be about 1 million, approximately equal to the number of asteroids larger than 1 km in the asteroid belt.[1] Like main-belt asteroids, Jupiter trojans form families.[4]
Jupiter trojans are dark bodies with reddish, featureless spectra. No firm evidence of the presence of water, or any other specific compound on their surface has been obtained, but it is thought that they are coated in tholins, organic polymers formed by the Sun's radiation.[5] The Jupiter trojans' densities (as measured by studying binaries or rotational lightcurves) vary from 0.8 to 2.5 g·cm−3.[4] Jupiter trojans are thought to have been captured into their orbits during the early stages of the Solar System's formation or slightly later, during the migration of giant planets.[4]

So, yes we don't know for sure that they contain a lot off water, but of course you would not send a dry habitat there to be filled up unless you had confirmed that they were. If they are somehow dry, then Jupiter's Moon Calisto will have to do. But then you would have a much larger lifting job to do.

This is a bit like O'Neils vision, but one criticism of that was that if humans replicated like a virus with expanding populations to the limits, within 10,000 years all of the volitiles of the solar system would have been used and leaked out into space to be swept out of the solar system, by the solar wind.

So, I see a limit to how many of these habitats would be built, but quite a few would be built.

OK, so they are built relatively dry, and then go to some place to tank up, likely the Trojans and Greeks. What then?

Well if you don't mind a slow trip, then they can travel to outer planemos, such as Saturn, or Planet 9 (If it exists). A slow trip on the solar wind. Actually likely a group of self contained worlds traveling together to such a destination. Perhaps 100,000 people traveling to such planets. And of course the objective to people those sub systems.

Or technology will trick us and such notions will be viewed as obsolete relative to a new better idea

It happens all the time.

Not only Greeks and Trojans, but Hilda's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilda_family

I would like to remind everyone that I am not the owner of the Moon. So, if the people of the future want to put families on the Moon and raise children on the Moon, that will be their business.

I am the Emperor of IO however. But I am afraid I left my Emperor license on my dresser there, so you will just have to take my word for it.

Last edited by Void (2017-01-17 21:10:07)

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-01-18 09:26:00

I think the whole point of telepresence is to build homes in the Moon where people can live, the point is to get people off the Earth, and the Moon is the nearest place. Instead of using precious water as rocket fuel I would use it to sustain life, water is more abundant elsewhere in the Solar System, it can e brought to the Moon to expand our colonies there. The reason we would want to go to the Moon is to reduce our vulnerability to people like this:

xi152way-9f982065a7a69bfc73bead94e07e336ce5639ee6-s6-c30.jpg

So long as all of humanity lives on planet Earth, they are vulnerable to some of these stupid people they tend to put in charge of our affairs. the lack of living space limits our ability to seek freedom from those who would oppress us, and everything depends on who I leaders of these various nations, sometimes men like these just grab power, and various organs run by people seek to justify their undemocratic rule. Being stuck on one planet under one of these person's rule is very unappealing, that is why we need to get out into space as fast as we can. Telepresence on the Moon is to facilitate that, in order to build those structures and mine those resources that we will need to live on the Moon and other places, it is the biggest object that is closest to Earth, and is fairly easy to colonize compared to other bodies in the Solar System, including most of the asteroids.

Void · 2017-01-18 13:38:53

Topic here being "Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon".
The reason I made that topic is;
1) I wanted to discuss reflecting photons off of the Moon, to control sea levels, if there is global warming or cooling issues.
2) Generate extra fresh water for when the aquifers begin to run dry in the future.
3) Ward off some early frosts, to protect crops.

I reasoned that for these services rendered, we would have more favorable acceptance of our interpretation of the "Outer Space Treaty", and that capital from the Earth would be invested in that project, and that as an offshoot, of that activity, mining would be possible, and that some of that mining would be for water, and that could facilitate humans moving to more distant situations.

The signal propagation time for communications with the Moon from Earth is favorable for some kind of telepresence, but I fear that it is no help in allowing a potential Moon culture of humans to explore freedom. The enemy will still be able to take an action, and then almost immediately understand what occurred, and then so quickly take an additional action.

Material goods available in remote but reachable areas of space-time are the most valuable asset.
The Moon is not the best example of it.

Under the circumstances where humans establish a population on the Moon, then I would recommend against establishing a weather/climate control system of heliostats on the Moon. It would be too dangerous. And sadly that then violates the entire intention for which I created this topic.

But go ahead. It's your turn now.

1) Your bearings are huge, rotating habitats in craters, with a fluid of water or mercury to float on and to allow for spin. I did not see that you mentioned that their then needs to be outer containment that the habitat is "Nested" in in the case of water, but perhaps not in the case of mercury. So, now that you demanded to take the water, how much "Land" can you create on the Moon?

2) What is your economic argument. My plan hoped to protect a massive amount of real estate on Earth. What economic process will your plan offer?

3) How will your plan comply with the "Outer Space Treaty"?

4) Why all of the sudden are you against spinning orbital habitats, when typically it is all you talk about?

Some answers please.

Last edited by Void (2017-01-18 13:59:21)

SpaceNut · 2017-01-18 20:50:24

We also need to remember that if we mine the moon and remove it materials for use anywhere but on the moon we will in time have no moon to even claim a treaty against....So we will want to maintain a counter balance mass sheet for all that is exported as we will want equal quantity of mass of use for a moon population to make use of.....
I am also wondering if the back side of the moon is favorable for telescopes for deep space exploration as well.

Back to creation with solar the moon is ideal for energy capture but its what do we do with it that seems to be a stumbling block other than for use locally its one of those not in my back yard issues of export via light concentrated beams, laser light, microwave ect....

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-01-18 23:12:31

if we could change the reflectance of the Moon to affect the climate of the Earth, then we can also affect the reflectance of the Earth itself more directly and we wouldn't need to do anything on the Moon to change climate I don't know how reflecting more light off the Moon toward Earth would be something that we'd want.

Void · 2017-01-19 10:02:27

Open the pod bay doors HAL!

Last edited by Void (2017-01-19 10:08:31)

Void · 2017-01-19 10:09:53

Spacenut said:

We also need to remember that if we mine the moon and remove it materials for use anywhere but on the moon we will in time have no moon to even claim a treaty against....So we will want to maintain a counter balance mass sheet for all that is exported as we will want equal quantity of mass of use for a moon population to make use of.....
I am also wondering if the back side of the moon is favorable for telescopes for deep space exploration as well.

Alright Spacenut, lets not be silly. We are not going to turn the Moon into a giant spaceship and fly it away with it's water for Tom.

Back to creation with solar the moon is ideal for energy capture but its what do we do with it that seems to be a stumbling block other than for use locally its one of those not in my back yard issues of export via light concentrated beams, laser light, microwave ect...

If we believe in the greenhouse effect and we understand that we have no ability to stop it, can only slow it down, then your little problem with light is something I choose to have very little concern for actually. If sea levels are destroying major cities on the coast line, and I want to talk about a possible solution, I don't like the idea that you will not review it but try to shut it down as a discussion. This is conversation, not actually doing something.

If on the other hand, there is no greenhouse effect, but most people still think there is one, then we can use that to get the human race on to the Moon, and into further space.

I consider what Tom has done here to be vandalism, but I will work with him.

Last edited by Void (2017-01-19 10:17:20)

Void · 2017-01-19 10:18:02

Tom said:

if we could change the reflectance of the Moon to affect the climate of the Earth, then we can also affect the reflectance of the Earth itself more directly and we wouldn't need to do anything on the Moon to change climate I don't know how reflecting more light off the Moon toward Earth would be something that we'd want.

I willing to consider this a opportunity. Either you choose to read the materials I present and then purposely try to annoy me by acting like you don't, or you don't even bother to read what I present.

You certainly did not answer my questions, even though you vandalized and tried to take over my topic by overwriting it with a completely different thought experiment.

But fine, I will just keep putting this back where it belongs.

The topic:
Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon.
Specifically:
This idea will cross over into Terraforming, Heliostats, Economics, Ecology, and Security, and likely other things, so with the moderators permission I will put it here......
Please read post #1, if you want to know what I was thinking!!!

Tom:

if we could change the reflectance of the Moon to affect the climate of the Earth,

Void:
Yes Tom, we absolutely could. It is just a question of magnitude of effect and the economics of it, the effectiveness of it. The results.
Tom:

then we can also affect the reflectance of the Earth itself more directly and we wouldn't need to do anything on the Moon to change climate

Void:
That was discussed as a supplemental thing to do later, orbital mirrors. However just because you can think of something existing does not produce the means to make it actual. If you put heliostats on the Moon, then you don't need to use rocket fuel from the Moon or Earth to put them into orbit, and you don't need rocket fuel from the Earth or Moon to maintain their position and to point them. If you establish telepresence on the Moon in fact you may not thereafter actually need rockets at all. (But of course you would have them).
Tom:

I don't know how reflecting more light off the Moon toward Earth would be something that we'd want.

Void:
Now, I have explained this over and over again, and you try to flop a sentence like that on top of the details, and not really have a conversation about what was said.

If you can't know how, that's not my fault, I have tried over and over again. Here it is again.

If it works technologically, and can produce:
1) Fresh water without adding to the heat budget of the planet, or perhaps even cooling the planet.
2) Ward off frosts for crops at high latitudes or altitudes.
3) Regulate the sea level, protecting costal property of value especially major cities.
Then:
It is a value added service.

If it is a value added service, then there can be support for building heliostats on the Moon to do it.
Then:
Since there will be economic activity on the Moon, including telepresence, robots, and some well trained humans, mining can be implemented as a side activity. In fact mining will be necessary to build heliostats on the Moon.

Now I have another supplemental project to describe, so I will make a new post.

Last edited by Void (2017-01-19 10:45:33)

Void · 2017-01-19 10:48:58

If a solar economy did develop, where the items of post #36 were more or less made real, then I can see another thing that might be done, which would not consume much water on the Moon.

Many ideas of how to use Moon materials have been proposed. One would use a mass driver to launch rocks into orbit, and then there process that material into space equipment including habitats.

I think a better way is to construct them on the surface of the Moon, and then launch them by solid or hybrid rocket method, not using the water resources of the Moon.

The Moon is composed of partially or totally Oxidized materials, so, you can reduce the materials, and collect the Oxygen as a liquid.

Some of the reduced materials will be suitable to make a solid rocket shell from, some of the reduced materials will be suitable to burn. Some will be suitable to contain liquid Oxygen? I presume.

As far as protection of humans, these can be made to a much larger and more dangerous size, since there should be few (Only professional), humans aground to hurt, if something goes wrong with the launch. Toxic exhaust will also not be nearly as big a concern.

Of course I have been vague on the design. I will specify that most likely it will be hybrid, large, and preheated with solar energy prior to launch.

So, the propulsion method employs both stored chemical energy, and stored thermal energy.

Although it would not be a firm requirement, I would like to see things built with compartments where you could put solar sailing equipment. I don't care if it is to sail with photons or the solar wind. Or if something better then exists, of course that.

Size and shape? OK, Cylinders? Toroid? Spherical?

On the Moon a shape is not mandated by atmosphere.

Size? Big, very big. Big enough to be space habitats with synthetic gravity of course.

And so the major construction of these devices occurs in the Moons gravity field which might be quite ideal relative to 1 Gee or Microgravity.

So, you construct and then launch these "Shells" into an orbit, and then a propulsion system takes them somewhere where their are Volitiles to be had at a reasonable cost.

A likely destination being asteroids bearing the materials desired, but also icy Moons might be a possibility. There are a lot of them but they are far away, or deep in gravity wells. (Jupiter sub system).

And No.... We do not have to replace mass that we take from the Moon.

Last edited by Void (2017-01-19 11:12:06)

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-01-19 11:44:41

I guess the point is, anything sitting on the surface of the Moon is actually in space. Something does not have to be in orbit to be in space. the same Sun beats down on whatever is sitting on the Moon as anything that is orbiting the Earth or is orbiting the Sun at Earth's distance from it. he big problem with orbital space, as Bob Zubrin pointed out in his book Entering Space, is that you start out with nothing. The first step to any construction project in orbit is you begin by lifting materials to the construction site. The Moon already has materials from which things could be built. the only thing that needs to be imported to the Moon to make water is hydrogen. To make a liter of water out of lunar oxygen, you need 200 grams of hydrogen. 1 kilogram of hydrogen makes 5 liters of water. Luclily, there is a lot of hydrogen elsewhere in the Solar System, the nearest source of extra solar hydrogen besides the Moon is Mars., one can also go to the asteroid belt to get some, and there are short period comets. There are some asteroids that are in elliptical orbits that originally were in the outer asteroid belt and got flung sunward by Jupiter. And of course there is Solar Wind. the Moon is mostly out of the Earth's magnetic field, so those Solar proton hit lunar soil. They can be combined with lunar oxygen to make water!

SpaceNut · 2017-01-19 18:51:15

Moon Cheese Swiss most likely....being full of holes....
Or maybe sort of like space 1999 where the lunar base is blown out of orbit by a nuclear dump melt down.....

Keep the balance of materials that are losts to relocation to not on the moon to one of getting something in exchange to make the economy sustainable as when we process all the aluminum the dance the Earth and moon do will be out of step.

Void · 2017-01-19 22:34:09

That was our plan all along, to get all the Moon cheese, and aluminum, so the Earth will dance badly forever!
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=me … ORM=VDQVAP

And more importantly!
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=me … ORM=VRDGAR

Last edited by Void (2017-01-19 22:45:06)

Void · 2017-01-20 22:11:52

Alright I've seen this so it entered my mind, a question.

Could the Mars colonial transport, set down on the Moon, to both deliver supplies, and to be refueled at least with liquid oxygen.

Here is the article.
https://sputniknews.com/europe/20170120 … lage-soon/

European Space Chief Claims Moon Villages to Be Established ‘Rather Soon’

While the ISS is only accessible to the five public space agencies that built it (ESA, NASA, and the space agencies of Canada, Russia, and Japan), Wörner foresees that a Moon village to be available to anyone.
"It's not like the International Space Station, which is more or less restricted to the club [of public agencies]. The Moon village idea is an open idea, free and open access," he said in the Paris press conference.

Spacenut had linked this in his post #22
http://news.mit.edu/2015/mars-mission-s … -moon-1015

Previous studies have suggested that lunar soil and water ice in certain craters of the moon may be mined and converted to fuel. Assuming that such technologies are established at the time of a mission to Mars, the MIT group has found that taking a detour to the moon to refuel would reduce the mass of a mission upon launch by 68 percent.

So, if the big ship had add on tanks on the exterior that it only used for landing and assent dealing with the Moon, could it take off from LEO, get the strap on tanks from an "L" location perhaps, and land on the Moon, and tank up, then leave the add on tanks in a spot like a "L" location, and then go to Mars?

Perhaps it could drop off lunar specific materials, and pick up fuel, Oxidizer, and even perhaps some things manufactured on the Moon (Think 3D printing???). Take off and head to Mars? I believe that if you leave the Moons gravity well in the proper manner, you might get an advantage as well?

Last edited by Void (2017-01-20 22:25:48)

Terraformer · 2017-01-21 05:22:24

Why would you detour to Luna? Let the fuel come to you, with depots in LEO and at L1. Fill up in LEO, head to L1, fill up again, and go on your way, using a gravity assist to get you to Mars in 3 months.

Void · 2017-01-21 08:16:25

That is a possibility terraformer. It should be considered. But now I must argue towards what I proposed, because I would want several alternatives deeply considered, and this is the one I suggested. Please do make counterargument in support of what you proposed.

I have chosen to build my argument around the Mars Colonial Transporter (I don't like the word Colonial, but oh well), because it is plausible that it might be built in a best case scenario, and it's capabilities might support what I suggested, (And what you suggested).

If I understand Elon Musk's stated plans for the M.C.T., it will first make repeated excursions between the Earth Surface, and LEO, until sufficient material goods are in LEO.

Maybe there is some advantage to not tanking up completely in LEO. I am not sure about that I know that it take a lot of propulsion to get to the Moon and land, or to go to L1. I know that there is some thinking that it is easier to just go to Mars and aerobrake.

This however suggests that the Moon could become a market for delivered goods.
https://sputniknews.com/europe/20170120 … lage-soon/
That international money could pay for those goods.

So, I am forced to argue economics to justify the idea. The point of that linked article, is that we may no longer be talking about this Obama era argument "Its the Moon or Mars". No, it looks more likely that it is "The Moon and some other thing". (Depending on how much we get played by the "You can't land there, there might be life on Mars!).

Now back to our little controversy....

I will argue bootstrapping.
Yes, it may well be great to fly the M.C.T. to L1 and re-tank, but that pre-supposes that the infrastructure to do that exists. We know that it does not exist yet.

Therefore in order to consider re-tanking anywhere on or near the Moon, the infrastructure has to be built.

A piece of good news, is that there may be some interest in having Moon missions fill the political and imaginative, spaces that the International Space Station now fills.

So, if there is international interest, Russia, China, India, Europe/UK?, Nafta/UK?, Etc. Then does Elon Musk of Jeff Bezos or someone else, have a paying customer?

So then, if they have transport that can deliver materials to the Moons, surface, why should they not consider if they could make a buck doing it? Even if the M.T.C is intended for Earth/Mars transport?

Whoever may be on the Moon, I would expect they would be for the most part adult productive highly trained and responsible people. But they still need to breath.

Insitu #1: So of course the first Insitu productive capability would likely be to procure Oxygen from Lunar materials. Maybe Oxygen and Hydrogen, if the mined materials are water ice.

Insitu #2: I presume that the next Lunar Insitu priority will be to manufacture shelter from relatively crude materials for the most part.

Insitu #3: Then the next Insitu priority would be to manufacture hardware goods of significant quality as to be reliable and useful, and from local materials.

So if we suppose that indeed due to international interest money will be available to pay for it, then a ship like the M.C.T. could deliver Earth goods to the surface of the Moon. Those goods of a nature to bootstrap a surface Lunar economic activity involving #1, #2, and #3 Insitu.

Such a ship upon delivering goods needed on the Moon, might then pick up fuel, Oxygen, and hardware goods to bring to Mars.

After that level of development, then you can consider a depot in "L1", or even in a 50 mile high orbit above the Moon surface.

That would be an economic decision, and also a technological decision: The question being if you are going to not land the ~M.C.T. on the Lunar surface, then what is the cost and practicality of building another ship that communicates material goods between the Lunar surface and "L1", or a 50 mile high orbit?

Where do you service that Machine? The M.C.T. spends some time on the Earths surface, so if you need to do routine maintenance it is relatively easy. How do you get a "Shirtsleve" maintenance environment to do maintenance on your Lunar transport? (Is it actually a problem?).

And then the other question. The M.T.C. has a propulsion system already. Do you want to put it to work, or let it loaf in "L1" or a 50 mile orbit? Do you want to pay for another propulsion system that specializes in moving goods from the Lunar surface to "L1" or 50 mile orbit?

The counter question is do you want to put extra wear on that system by landing on the Lunar surface.

Finally if you are handling cargo, is it easier to do it on the Moons surface or microgravity. Not to mention that using a specialized Lunar transport rocket, then you must move the cargo twice.

And what about relative radiation hazards? Can the use of telepresence be implemented easier on the Lunar surface to reduce hazards to humans?

Anyway to summarize, what I proposed, could come earlier, what you proposed could come later. And might happen later.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2017-01-21 09:01:39)

GW Johnson · 2017-01-21 15:53:55

You can only do things and produce stuff where there is the infrastructure available to do, and the life support for the people who do it. We have both down here on Earth. That's the only place where those things are true right now, so that's where it all has to start. Changing that picture will be a slow bootstrapping process, because of the expenses involved. No way around that. Not at this time in history with the technologies that we have ready-to-apply.

The problem with Earth from this perspective is its gravity well. Escaping that gravity well drives the bulk of the expenses. Because gravity wells drive expenses so strongly, if you can emplace infrastructure and life support on asteroids or space stations not buried in gravity wells, then you get the most bang for your bucks producing stuff. Doesn't matter what stuff, or which prices, gravity wells raise costs.

That second paragraph is why generalizable stuff needs to be produced floating in space, not down in gravity wells on Mars, the moon, or even Mercury. In this context, "generalizable" means stuff you could make anywhere, such as oxygen and hydrogen from water. Admittedly, the gravity wells of Mars, the moon, and Mercury are weaker, but you still have to fight them to export stuff from those places. Asteroidal gravity wells are reasonably ignorable, even at Ceres.

There will always be some sort of "specialty stuff" unique to each world that can be produced no where else in practical amounts. That's the stuff you export from places like Mars, the moon, and Mercury. No, I cannot tell you what such "specialty stuff" is, because nobody yet knows. We'll have to go to all those places, stay a while, and poke around like old time prospectors to find out.

But I do have some suggestions for utilizing the moon, because of all those places, it is close by (days away) and fairly easily reachable in comparison.

The far side would make a good place for deep space radio astronomy, being in the radio shadow of the entire moon, as viewed from Earth (source of all the radio noise).

On the near side, down in deep craters that are relatively small, would be a good place to test nuclear propulsion items of all types. No air and water to pollute, no neighbors to annoy with your radiation fallout and your debris from the inevitable disasters.

Also on the near side, but not close to the nuclear facilities, would be a good place to establish research stations for all sorts of stuff. Medicine, life support, planetary space suit developments, you name it.

I don't think it matters all that much where we go first. What matters a lot more is that we go to all those places and get started bootstrapping the infrastructures and life support to enable these future economies.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-01-21 15:57:54)

Void · 2017-01-21 18:31:26

Let me start by expressing respect GW Johnson. I understand your words, and like some of them. Have a few problems with some of it.
This topic of course includes the Moon, so of course I am going to be a bit biased towards being pro-Moon in this topic. Just to see how far I can get away with it.

Space Market Forces: ($$$$????)
https://sputniknews.com/europe/20170120 … lage-soon/
There is a claim by a European Space Chief who I really don't have an awareness of beyond this article, that the Moon will be the thing.
Quote:

The European Space Agency (ESA) director called a human colony on the Moon ‘more or less fact’ in a Wednesday press conference in Paris due to the enormous amount of work being poured into a Moon village by numerous space agencies.
Johann-Dietrich Wörner, who became the ESA director-general in 2015, foresees that a Moon base is inevitable after the International Space Station (ISS) is allowed to plummet from the sky and into the Pacific Ocean in 2024.
While the ISS is only accessible to the five public space agencies that built it (ESA, NASA, and the space agencies of Canada, Russia, and Japan), Wörner foresees that a Moon village to be available to anyone.

So, then if that were at all true, then Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos or others might want to adapt their equipment to be hired out to deliver and retrieve materials, for a Moon boot-strap process.

Politically I think that their could be an alignment suitable on the international stage, as if the space station were to be disposed of, then the Moon could fill it's current political purpose. Many nations are actually interested in doing research related to the Moon as well.

I am afraid I might have a problem with the logic of the following quote as it stands. I don't think you intended to say it the way I am reading it:

The problem with Earth from this perspective is its gravity well. Escaping that gravity well drives the bulk of the expenses. Because gravity wells drive expenses so strongly, if you can emplace infrastructure and life support on asteroids or space stations not buried in gravity wells, then you get the most bang for your bucks producing stuff. Doesn't matter what stuff, or which prices, gravity wells raise costs.

Yes, if you can get to an asteroid and make a manufacturing method produce water and metals, then perhaps you have avoided major gravity wells, but the sun is a gravity well also, so you have to overcome that.

As for space stations, you cannot have mass to produce things cheaply on a space station unless you transfer that mass at expense from a different location in a gravity well.

So, in reality we have the choices of getting mass from:
Earth
Moon
Asteroid
(At least in this upcoming era)
Spacenut provided this in post #22
http://news.mit.edu/2015/mars-mission-s … -moon-1015

Last edited by Void (2017-01-21 18:50:56)

SpaceNut · 2017-01-21 18:49:20

The moon is a stable destination for partner building to continue outward from Earth and that it needs to stay going in LEO not dropped as well to make it so that we have a commercial market to aid in building infrastructure on the moon.
As you put it there is a step process to getting any lunar economy going and it does start from Earth for the moment providing the necessary equipment to make each step possible with the help of the commercial market providing the launch systems at an economical price to allow growth..

Void · 2017-01-21 18:54:27

I can live with that Spacenut.

At the same time, I can understand that people here would have liked to zoom strait off to Mars, and be guaranteed success. But although there are endless amounts of good work here, reality falls short of success.

Perhaps some kind of Mars exploration will happen?
Perhaps automated harvesting of asteroids will happen?
Maybe Elon Musk and Zubrin will get together and figure out how to do a BFR and just go to Mars?

But....

In the meantime I don't see any reason not to offer at least spiritual support for those who have the objective of developing the Moon.

I also am curious what a modified BFR could do for such an effort.

And could Moon effort servicing help to pay for the costs of a BFR that would also at times go to Mars?

As a source of hardware to go to Mars, I am wondering if useful things for the Moon habitation can be made from less valuable materials, and if the high quality metals and glass type materials could be manufactured into hardware to deliver to a Mars settlement. I am thinking 3D Printer (Easy to say, maybe not so easy to do), and of course any industrial process as well that could do that.

Where I can agree that for exploring Mars perhaps the Moon will not be of that much use, except for experience, but where you linked to that MIT article it said savings of 68% by using Moon materials.

Of course the Moon has to be bootstrapped up to speed for that to be an actual capability, but perhaps the Moon could provide material support for moving many people to Mars later on.

What if the price tag for a trip to Mars could be cut by 68% from Elon Musk's speculated price tag?

Last edited by Void (2017-01-21 19:01:03)

SpaceNut · 2017-01-21 19:00:17

Like the MCT, the SLS is a BFR as well which when they cost to much to launch and build they fail for the cost to payload numbers.
To make a commercial market possible beyond just Space X we need the likes of Boeing, Lockheed and Orbital/ATK plus Bigelow inflateables to step up to the plate and start providing to others not just NASA for launch of cargo or manned flight or the living space to be used any where in LEO or on the moon or Mars.
So how do we get these companies to start...is it possible to piggyback a project on these or do we really need funding drives to make it happen....

Void · 2017-01-21 19:05:22

This is either true or hot air. If it is true, then companies will be hired to deliver. It certainly will not be affected by us as to how real it is.
https://sputniknews.com/europe/20170120 … lage-soon/

The European Space Agency (ESA) director called a human colony on the Moon ‘more or less fact’ in a Wednesday press conference in Paris due to the enormous amount of work being poured into a Moon village by numerous space agencies.
Johann-Dietrich Wörner, who became the ESA director-general in 2015, foresees that a Moon base is inevitable after the International Space Station (ISS) is allowed to plummet from the sky and into the Pacific Ocean in 2024.
While the ISS is only accessible to the five public space agencies that built it (ESA, NASA, and the space agencies of Canada, Russia, and Japan), Wörner foresees that a Moon village to be available to anyone.

Last edited by Void (2017-01-21 19:06:52)

SpaceNut · 2017-01-21 19:22:03

The key is in the

ESA director-general in 2015, foresees that a Moon base is inevitable after the International Space Station (ISS) is allowed to plummet from the sky and into the Pacific Ocean in 2024.

Of which the time to end was extended to possibly 2028 before pieces need changing out due to life expectatancy being met....of which I say inspect and certify for continual use, hand the keys over to international commercial efforts and keep it going, plus if we do get another station put into orbit by a commercial venture then we are making the path outward even more stable....

I forgot in my other post the European nations with launch and other services as well as the other partners that could also provide what we need if we only had the funds to purchase these services....for making the path the the moon achievable to all.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2017-01-17 15:08:34

Re: Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon.

#27 2017-01-17 19:10:39

Re: Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon.

#28 2017-01-17 19:20:43

Re: Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon.

#29 2017-01-17 20:35:10

Re: Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon.

#30 2017-01-18 09:26:00

Re: Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon.

#31 2017-01-18 13:38:53

Re: Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon.

#32 2017-01-18 20:50:24

Re: Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon.

#33 2017-01-18 23:12:31

Re: Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon.

#34 2017-01-19 10:02:27

Re: Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon.

#35 2017-01-19 10:09:53

Re: Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon.

#36 2017-01-19 10:18:02

Re: Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon.

#37 2017-01-19 10:48:58

Re: Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon.

#38 2017-01-19 11:44:41

Re: Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon.

#39 2017-01-19 18:51:15

Re: Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon.

#40 2017-01-19 22:34:09

Re: Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon.

#41 2017-01-20 22:11:52

Re: Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon.

#42 2017-01-21 05:22:24

Re: Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon.

#43 2017-01-21 08:16:25

Re: Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon.

#44 2017-01-21 15:53:55

Re: Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon.

#45 2017-01-21 18:31:26

Re: Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon.

#46 2017-01-21 18:49:20

Re: Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon.

#47 2017-01-21 18:54:27

Re: Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon.

#48 2017-01-21 19:00:17

Re: Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon.

#49 2017-01-21 19:05:22

Re: Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon.

#50 2017-01-21 19:22:03

Re: Space Solar Economy Involving the Moon.

Board footer