Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SirLoin on March 04, 2004, 12:39:46 PM
-
Why?
-
Simple physics.
-
Pie in the sky.
-
Cause you shouldnt pay attention to what is going on down here.
-
Well, taking in Physics, it would be a lot easier to get to Mars. However, your window will be a lot smaller.
Plus to go from the moon, you'd need to get everything up there first.
-
we could ship all the welfare suck butts up to the moonbase and finally get something for our tax dollar - think of the size of that workforce - problem is it'd be a efficient as the average drivers license bureau, maybe the lower gravity would help them move faster :)
-
The reason the moon might be a logical part of a Mars expedition is fuel.
There is some inconclusive evidence that the martian poles may have ice within a few feet of the surface. Ice can be melted, then split through electrolysis to form hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen and oxygen can be seperately compressed and cooled to make fuel. Additionally, liquid oxygen can be stored as part of supplies for reinvigorating air.
Liquid Hydrogen and Liquid Oxygen are bulky, difficult things to launch into orbit as payload from earth, not to mention expensive to dedicate rockets to.
Since fuel and oxidizer would account for a significant number of the launches, mining them on the moon would be logical.
-
BTW, a followup. The International Space Station is not a good place to launch a mission from. It is in a bad orbit for it. The ISS orbit is a compromise orbit that would allow both Florida and Baikonour launches to reach it, but both sites pay a penalty in weight to get to it. The original Space Station Freedom design from the 80s was supposed to be in a 28 degree orbit that would allow a Florida launch to get the maximum amount of equatorial boost possible, maximizing payload. Instead, it is at 56 degrees (or close to).
-
Dont forget there is talk about Hydrogen 5 on the moon which is an excellent source for fuel too!
-
Didn't Martin Landau teach us anything about the dangers of moon bases?
-
Yes gofaster,..never send an actor to the moon.
Colonizing the moon, with the idea of going to Mars is a good idea. The Moon is too close to Earth, so when Earth goes, it probably will take the Moon with it.
Mars is far enough away to survive it.
-
kerry said he wants the next moon landing to be on earth , whatever that means , but hey , he's a "war hero", so he must be right.
-
the whole mars thing is just a distraction.
set a goal with a date so far ahead that you couldn't possibly still be in office when it comes time to live up to it.
get all the space exploration nuts excited over the new 'project' to distract them cuts in space programs already in place.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
the whole mars thing is just a distraction.
set a goal with a date so far ahead that you couldn't possibly still be in office when it comes time to live up to it.
get all the space exploration nuts excited over the new 'project' to distract them cuts in space programs already in place.
hey , you talking about JFK right?.."we will send a man to the moon in this decade"
-
did Kenedy cut spending to the space program after setting that goal or step the process?
there is jsut one way to tell a honest goal from a political distraction.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Why?
I answered this question months ago but maybe you weren't paying attention? ;)
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001842876_moonmine24.html
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Why?
forget physics....MONEY and lots of it the costleier the better matter of fact lets have 2 bases for the price of.....2 bases why build one when 2 would be twice as much?
seriously im in favor of a moon base then a mars base cause when earth goes who knows if the U.S.S. Enterprise will be built yet sooo i wanna be on mars, maybe they got some hot martian chicks that will still fall for my lame one liners:aok
-
Originally posted by gofaster
Didn't Martin Landau teach us anything about the dangers of moon bases?
I thought it was never store nuclear waste on the moon, and the Eagle was a crappy spacecraft.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
I thought it was never store nuclear waste on the moon, and the Eagle was a crappy spacecraft.
Must be a different Eagle....
"Tranquility base here... the Eagle has landed."
-
I think he's talking about a different Eagle:
(http://www.starshipmodeler.com/1999/js_rueagle_Fin1_lil.JPG)
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Yes gofaster,..never send an actor to the moon.
Colonizing the moon, with the idea of going to Mars is a good idea. The Moon is too close to Earth, so when Earth goes, it probably will take the Moon with it.
Mars is far enough away to survive it.
Why is the Earth gonna 'go'? Are you implying that global warming and pollution and overmining are going to cause it to explode?
They pumping Nitrous Oxide into the airducts over at HTC?
-
Spreading humanity is just good common sense. You don't put all your investments in one stock. You spread it around a little.
Lots of stuff could happen. Asteroid strike, disease, war, etc.
-
Agreed. Something can happen and probably will. However, the way he put it, the Earth was on its way out, in a dramatic fashion that is sure to take the moon with it. Seems like a scenerio better suited for a double episode of Transformers.
Basing something substantial on the moon is a good idea. As noted earlier, it decreases the size requirements for launch vehicles substantially. Just look at what it took to get the Apollo teams back verses what it took to get them there.
-
Didn't anyone watch time machine the new one if we screw around with the mooon in a million years we'll have humanoid like mutant that will hunt us because we messed with the moon and the whole sea went freaky and it destroyed life as we know it on earth. So don't mine the moon just mine asteroids :D
-
Yeah, and that wouldn't be cute and fund.
-
If the Earth is so screwed, why don't we do something about it rather than make grandiose plans with masterbatory undertones involving spreading our seeds etc. As if mankind needed to prove it is the biggest banana in the universe.
Anyway, I thought all that 'the end is nigh' environmentalism was bollocks anyway?
-
If for nothing else, we should go to the moon, Mars and beyond for the same reason Mallory climbed Everest.
-
Yes for braggin rights. " Dude we went to the Moon again, and mars!"
-
Mallory did not climb for bragging rights....
-
Originally posted by Dowding
masterbatory undertones
Been watching Beavis and Butthead re-runs, have we?
-
I say we use this place up and then find a new one.
lazs
-
Chairboy: Spreading humanity is just good common sense. You don't put all your investments in one stock. You spread it around a little.
Lots of stuff could happen. Asteroid strike, disease, war, etc.
Except that the Moon is not a suitable place for a settlement of humans. If you are there, you are stuck with wrong gravity.
Even if people magane to survive there, they will not be able to live on earth. At some point the new generation will consider itself separate from mainstream humanity, stop accepting new settlers, and the conflict will inevitably arise.
Few that "spread" to the moon will cause their children to live as isolated freaks. Those that help others spread to the moon will not gain any benefit to their progeny.
Only space habitats with earth-normal gravity and abundant energy are realistic ways of settlement.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Except that the Moon is not a suitable place for a settlement of humans.
Neither was Las Vegas, Mojave, or any other desert town founded in the 1800s, but they existed because we needed outposts for our journeys to places that WERE suitable. The same thing applies to the moon. If it can provide fuel and (looking further ahead) raw materials for building habitats, then it is necessary.
Looking far into the future, we might be building things like this:
(http://www.l5news.org/graphics/oneillinterior-250.jpg)
(http://www.l5news.org/graphics/oneillbridge-250.jpg)
If we do, then we won't be getting our materials from Earth, we'll be mining them on the moon and, eventually, from asteroids. Establishing a base on the moon is part of getting to the point where we can do stuff like shown in the pictures above. Just because it isn't the final solution doesn't mean you don't need to do it.
-
snicker...
yeah.. that'll happen.. just like jetson-cars that we're supposed to have been driving by now.
-
Chairboy: Neither was Las Vegas, Mojave, or any other desert town founded in the 1800s, but they existed because we needed outposts for our journeys to places that WERE suitable.
It's like saying "we could live in Las Wegas, we can swim in molten lead."
The same thing applies to the moon.
I did not say it would be expensive to recreate human-habitable conditions on the Moon. I said that would be impossible.
Sure, we can (relatively) easily reproduce air-pressure, lighting and temperature.
It could not look anywhere like the pictures you've posted (the first one is a space-habitat, not a Moon dome) because in the abcence of magnetic field and thick athmosphere to deflect/shield hard space radiation people would have to live underground or under the layers of led and steel. But yes, we could make the environment livable for humans for a few weeks or months.
But how about gravity? Do you know what a major effect reduced gravity has on human biology? How much it screws up the body chemistry, from intracellular to the calcification of the bones?
People would have to spend several hours a day in centrifuges to slow down the deterioration. Maybe certain genetic types will prove less suceptible to damage. If reproduction is possible in such conditions, the children raised on the Moon would never be able to walk on Earth or anywhere where Earth-normal gravity is maintained.
And they better not come to Earth - they will not be able to take a 3-4-6 G acceleration required to lift from Earth back into orbit, which for them would be 18-36 times their normal.
So you will have a separate branch of humanity. Sure, they will be tall, fat and have huge perky breasts but you would not be able to intermix with them.
Lifting stuff from the Moon will be easier but total operations may not be.
How do you return the ships back? How do you get stuff to moon in the first place? There is no athmosphere to slow down descent with wings or parachutes. Imagine the Space Shuttle having to land on it's main engine - how much fuel it would need? More than it took to lift it. Even if you only use one-way disposable launches from the moon, all the heavy stuff to build them there will have to be gently lowered there first. It will take so much fuel to lower a self-sustaining mining/heavy-industry colony to the Moon that the trip to the asteroid belt will be cheap by comparison.
The rotating space habitat like the one depicted in the first drawing, but not open to harmfull space radiation, or even simpler design, with earth-normal gravity is the only realistic option untill we can generate gravity artificially.
The resources and cheap energy are available in the asteroid belt.
miko
-
I'm guessing you didn't read my post, as I said the moon is a good place to mine the materials to build the rotating space habitats. O'Neill space habitats are of course structures that would be in orbit or at lagrange points or some other point in space, not on a surface. Perhaps I assumed too much when I said 'habitats' and should have defined it more clearly for you?
I'm sad that you wasted that much time posting a rebuttal to your misunderstanding.
-
Chairboy: I'm guessing you didn't read my post, as I said the moon is a good place to mine the materials to build the rotating space habitats.
I guess you didn't read my post, as I directly addressed your point by explaining why the moon is a very bad place to mine the materials to build the rotating space habitats.
It will take less fuel to get a mining colony to the asteroid belt than to lower it to the moon without benefit of wings or parachutes. Also, people can live there indefinitely, not just for a few months, requiring constant rotation of personell from the moon.
miko
-
Lifting stuff from the Moon will be easier but total operations may not be.
How do you return the ships back? How do you get stuff to moon in the first place? There is no athmosphere to slow down descent with wings or parachutes. Imagine the Space Shuttle having to land on it's main engine - how much fuel it would need? More than it took to lift it. Even if you only use one-way disposable launches from the moon, all the heavy stuff to build them there will have to be gently lowered there first. It will take so much fuel to lower a self-sustaining mining/heavy-industry colony to the Moon that the trip to the asteroid belt will be cheap by comparison.
1. by using some of the fuel they will "hopefully" be mining...
2. by launching it into space the same way we do sattelites then send up a final module that connects it all together and flys it to the moon...to land they simply go relativly slow so when they do enter final landing sequence they dont need nearly as much fuel. we have enough robot knowledge so we could send a couple mechanics there at the start (mining phase) when theres enough materials mined we use another robot to build more robots for the building phase...
a trip to the asteroids will cost less but actually doing anything there will cost much much more.
-
There are a ton of ways to land large masses on a low-gravity planet. Using a combination of electromagnetic land based brakes in combination with a laser excited plasma directed at a capture shield on the incoming mass would do the trick.
As the mass gets closer the opposing electromagnetic fields would dampen the landing. All depends on the mass and intertia.
You could even use a capture device to snag the mass out of orbit with a hydraulic brake pivot to bring it to the surface.
Think outside the box.
Gravity is a problem, but a short term one (depending on what your defination of short term is). It would take a generation or two to adjust to the lower gravity. Yes, they could not come to Earth at all. No problem.
They probably would be better off not being able to come here.
-
WWJD? (WhatWouldJulesDo).
-
A usable industrial/mining colony would weight several hundred thousand tonns. Considerable part of it will be dedicated to building and supplying the trucks to get stuff off the moon - probably 3/4 of the capacity.
How much fuel is needed to gently lower so much weight to the moon in the first place?
Once on the moon, where would they get energy on the moon to mine all that stuff and create fuel? It's all heavy equipment. Do we fly nuclear reactors there? Those are very heavy.
And they would not be able to operate anyway! Because where how do you get rid of excess heat? You do not have a river to to use for cooling. You cannot build a huge cooling towers because there is no air! Do you wait for teh reactor to glow red-hot so that it can radiate heat into space? Or do you build a huge (miles-wide) radiator system to transfer exess heat to the moon's rock? Where do you get energy for that? Where do you get mllions of tons of water to fill it? So the nuclear energy is out.
The only energy source on the moon is solar collectors. They would have to be huge. Moon's gravity is only 1/6 but that is high enough to prevent building of really big collectors - while in space a few pounds of aluminised mylar can be spread into a collector mirror many miles in arrea. Not on the moon.
And what will you do half the time during the moon's night? Build huge batteries to store energy for a huge industrial operation? They would have to store energy not for a day but for about two weks. Quickly, calculate the weight of batteries required to run the earth's mining complex for a couple of weeks.
A space-based solar collector of course will always be at an optimal angle to the sun, with constant, predictable output. No batteries would be required at all!
If we lift hundred of thousand tonns from Earth, why bother lowering it to the moon to have it operational at 25% capacity half the time?
Why not fly it to the Belt? Why not fly one quarter of it to the Belt for the same capacity?
The Belt is the natural stepping stone to the moon, not the other way around.
Skuzzy: It would take a generation or two to adjust to the lower gravity. Yes, they could not come to Earth at all. No problem.
They probably would be better off not being able to come here.
But why would we care to do that? We are talking about taking humans to space.
I have no intention for my descendants to stop being humans but instead a race of wealkings confined to cave life on a lifeless rock.
I do not even care to help others turn their descendants into a race of non-human freaks confined to cave life on a lifeless rock. I would not buy that even if you promise that those freaks will help my human descendants to get into space by supplying them with materials.
We already have that experience, thank you. In a couple of generations those moonies will claim disability for their terrible weakness and disfigurement - and rightly so - and require welfare and preferential treatment to compensate them. And unlike the inhabitants of the american inner cities, those moonies will have means to drop heavy objects on earth cities and space habitats if their demands are not satisfied.
We would have to pay them "reparations" forever.
The heck with that - I would rather pick my own cotton this time.
miko
-
Nano Tech looks promising, maybe even create suits that are suited for helping folks from the moon or earth coop with the different physical strains of differential gravity, i.e. a titanium threaded skeletal suit worn close to the skin and supports the body. Maybe even surgery of some sort to add support to our skeleton, thin flexible tubes filled with a "glass metal" with a certain charge, the metal can increase in strength providing more support...
Aye... I say think out side the box.. its always less cluttered outside...
-
You can stay here miko. I would be happy to volunteer to go.
Its easy to pick on the many reasons and to sight the many problems that need to be overcome. But it the precise reason why we must go. The challenge.
Some will not see the challenge or have any sense of accomplishment. Too overshadowed by shallow, short sightedness. It is a given that resistance to change is an inevitability, but just as sure and just is strong, change will come.
Some will fight it, others will welcome it. I welcome it. I detest what has happened to the spirit of man. The small minds of those who have no vision will never be happy with anything outside of what would fit in their tiny little box.
-
Skuzzy: You can stay here miko. I would be happy to volunteer to go.
You seem to be missing my point - or intentionally mis-representing my opposition to your favorite method of space settlement as opposition to space settlement in general.
I believe the latter because nobody would confuse my "let's go to the asteroid belt" statement with "let's stay on earth."
I would rather go. I just think that the diversion to the moon would cost humanity decades if not centuries wasted and we do not know if earth-bound humanity has those centuries.
If you are so narrow-minded that you cannot see the space settlement besides the settlement of the moon, then I guess your only resort is to accuse others of being "small minds ... who have no vision".
Whatever.
miko
-
You'll have to fight me to get the front seat on that ship Skuzzy ;)
Daniel
-
Did I say anything about other settlements not being viable? No, I sure did not. I did not misrepresent anything you said. I stated my thoughts on the overall topic. You chose to take them personally.
We were talking about the moon and I believe the thread is titled something to that effect. For any permanent settlement in space, it would be wise to hammer out all the issues, or as many as possible using the moon.
That is why I think the moon is a good idea. But you never asked why I thought it would be viable.
EDIT: I run pretty quick Cyrano :D
-
Skuzzy: Did I say anything about other settlements not being viable? No, I sure did not. I did not misrepresent anything you said. I stated my thoughts on the overall topic. You chose to take them personally.
You said to me "You can stay here miko." What is that supposed to mean? What does your "general though" have to do with anyhing I previously said?
I stated my thoughts on the overall topic. You chose to take them personally.
My name here is miko, so it was directed to me personally. Stating thoughts on overal topics never involves suggestion to specific people on where they can stay all of a sudden.
If I said "You can cheat on your wife, Skuzzy. I would be happy to stay faithfull to mine.", you would hardly treat it as a general statement. You would demand to know why I am implying that you would cheat on your wife. You would not swallow my excuse that I am just walking around advising everyone that they can cheat on their wives with my blessing.
We were talking about the moon and I believe the thread is titled something to that effect.
I addressed a specific person about a specific plan to use the moon as a staging point for space settlement and spread of humanity.
I have no objections to anyone confining his progeny to existance as freaks huddling in a moon cave for its one sake.
For any permanent settlement in space, it would be wise to hammer out all the issues, or as many as possible using the moon.
90% of issues that would need to be hammered on the moon would never occur in space in the first place. Wrong gravity. Energy source. Energy storage. Mineral recovery by melting the whole asteroids with huge mirrors. High-gravity (spin-induced) separation. Mineral delivery. Gravirty-free manufacturing. All those are either specific to the moon or impossible there.
That is why I think the moon is a good idea. But you never asked why I thought it would be viable.
Why should I ask? Why should you need asking?
I explained my opinion here in quite a detail why moon as a stepping stone to space - "hammering out range", if you want - is unviable and inefficient. I raised pretty specific technical and biological issues - not character slurs on anyone.
I posted my arguments and that implies an invitation to address them and refute them. Instead you accused me of wanting to stay back and implied my small-mindendess.
Anyway, Skuzzy, here it goes, easy to digest:
I really want to get to space.
I do not care about settling on a moon for it's own sake. I would not mind using the moon as a stepping stone but I think it is a very bad idea. I have listed my technical and biological arguments.
I do not mind my progeny becoming more capable but not less capable physically or mentaly than we are. Living connected to a life-support machinery is out.
Would you please examine all of them and explain what is wrong with them and why settlement of the moon would be beneficial?
I am asking you why you think it would be viable despite all the inherent technical and biological problems.
BlckMgk: Nano Tech looks promising... Maybe even surgery of some sort. I say think out side the box..
That's sounds like a plan.
Fair warning though - I am raising my children to treat any animals they would not procreate with as food. :)
miko
-
Touchy touchy.
I agree that there are hurdles to overcome. Never argued with that. A power source for the moon is not too difficult. Steam generators. Provide the water, the generators and let the sun have at it. Short term outages can be backed up by batteries, which are charged by the generators.
I agree that going to the moon for the sake of going there is wrong. It should be a stepping stone.
I disagree with the asteroid belt approach as the risks are too high. The moon is close enough to make rescue a viable option. Something, unforseen, happen at the belt, and we can kiss them all good bye.
The purpose of the Moon, in my opinion, is to get to Mars and colonize it. If we can survive on the Moon and overcome the hurdles, Mars will be a bit easier. I see the Moon as a launch platform. Not really needing to be fully manned all the time. A good place to test materials and structural design. Manned by a temporary staff which is rotated out periodically.
Better gravity at Mars, and some level of atmosphere available make it a better place to colonize.
-
Miko, to say we shouldn't do something because its too hard now is just ridiculous.
-
Skuzzy: I agree that there are hurdles to overcome. Never argued with that.
But we want to do stuff with current or shortly-available technology, not science-fiction, right?
A power source for the moon is not too difficult. Steam generators. Provide the water, the generators and let the sun have at it.
What do you do with the hot steam afterwards? Vent it like the old steam locomotives? You would lose much more water this way than it takes to manufacture water in the first place. Have you ever heard about Carnot cycle? Can you imagine how enourmous the amount of energy you would have to dissipate? Have you ever seen those huge cooling towers next to the powerplants, cooling the water by heating the surroundng air? Or the small rivers heated to uncomfortably-warm temperature even in the winter in the power-plant heat-exchangers?
In fact the heat generated by human bodies and internal equiplent of the cave-dvellers would be a huge problem. Can't use air-conditioner, can't open windows to let the fresh breeze in....
What is the heat-conductivity of the lunar soil? You would not be able to dump heat anywhere else.
In space you will be able to spread a miles-wide metallic screens in the shadow of the main solar-collector to radiate the excess heat. Not on the moon.
Short term outages can be backed up by batteries, which are charged by the generators.
Right. The short-term outage on the moon lasts about two weeks, since the moon rotates around its axes once every 28 days or so.
Would you care to estimate how many thousands tons of batteries you would need to store energy requirement of a small industrial city and artificial farm for about two weeks?
I disagree with the asteroid belt approach as the risks are too high. The moon is close enough to make rescue a viable option. Something, unforseen, happen at the belt, and we can kiss them all good bye.
Moon is small. Mars is bigger. There will be scarcity of resources. Tehre will be geographically-based states, there will be conflict and war. Forever.
The belt is huge, the mineral and energy resources are unlimited for all practical purposes. The surface area for human habitation can be manufactured almost indefinitely.
The political conflict is impossible because any group that disagrees with another or believes itself oppressed would just disconnect their private habitat modules from the rest and go attach to those who's values they share.
Only belt and further settlements (Kuiper belt, Saturn rings) would guarantee the humanity prosperous existence free from conflicts.
Of course the people staying on Earth and Mars and Moon will be set in their old, political, oppressive ways, not being able to resolve conflicts without oppression, not sharing the concepts of freedom. They will certainly try to exert their influence on the belt settlements with force.
So we would have to nuke all them cave-dvellers at the first opportunity. :)
hawker238: Miko, to say we shouldn't do something because its too hard now is just ridiculous.
No. I am saying we shouldn't do "something" because it's stupid and useless.
Going to space via moon is like going from New York to Boston via China.
miko
-
But we want to do stuff with current or shortly-available technology, not science-fiction, right?
Of course technology needs to be developed for an endeavor of this magnitude. I had pretty much thought that would be a safe assumption.
In fact the heat generated by human bodies and internal equiplent of the cave-dvellers would be a huge problem. Can't use air-conditioner, can't open windows to let the fresh breeze in....
What is the heat-conductivity of the lunar soil? You would not be able to dump heat anywhere else.
Same as the generators. Use the dark side of the moon to dissipate the heat. Pump the coolant back to the structures. As a matter of fact, placing the structures on the periphery of the dark side would help mediate the temperatures.
Right. The short-term outage on the moon lasts about two weeks, since the moon rotates around its axes once every 28 days or so.
Would you care to estimate how many thousands tons of batteries you would need to store energy requirement of a small industrial city and artificial farm for about two weeks?
Two generator stations. One for each side of the Moon.
Moon is small. Mars is bigger. There will be scarcity of resources. Tehre will be geographically-based states, there will be conflict and war. Forever.
I am not going to play the 'what if' political game. You can plug variables into that equation all day long and come up with widely varied results.
-
Missed one:
The power generation system can be consisted of two opposing systems with one on each side of the Moon.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
You would not be able to dump heat anywhere else.
You could use the heat to extract some of the valuable minerals on the Moon, such as Titanium! :)
-
Protecting the power generation system would be more difficult than the generation of power. That could be offset with redundant systems located a good distance apart.
Planning to be able to run with only one power generation system, while others could be repaired should do the trick.
Dissipation of heat is not an issue. The dark side of the Moon has temperatures ranging from -153C to -233C. It would be more difficult to control the loss of heat to keep systems from suffering extreme temperature changes.
-
Going to space via moon is like going from New York to Boston via China.
yes going further than mars using the moon is like that...but getting to mars will be much easier from the moon...once we get to mars and set up shop there then we can look at your asteroid thing...
colonizing the belt before the moon is like using oil from the alberta tar sands before oil from the middle east...while the tar sands have a much longer carrying capacity (2.5 trillion barrels) the cost of extraction and processing makes its cost much higher than middle east oil but by using the middle east oil first we allow the scientific know how needed to actually use the tar sands...
-
Skuzzy: You use a closed loop system, you can dissipate the heat on the dark side of the Moon, quite rapidly. Water was a suggestion. We have other inert cooling liquids available today that would be more efficient.
Water is fine. Any liquid would have to be manufactured there of brought from Earth anyway.
How would you build the pipeline from the one side of the moon to the other - around the moon (3300 miles pipeline) or through the center (2100 miles tunnel)? Multiply by two for the two-way trip. That's a major undertaking. Where would you get energy for it? You would need to manufacture all the pipes and pumps, dig and lift all that rock.
Oh, yeat - even if built somehow, that scheme of yours would not work anyway! Do you have an idea how much energy it takes to pump water/steam either 2100 or 3300 miles and back? I bet it would be much more than the energy you would need to dissipate in the first place.
As a matter of fact, placing the structures on the periphery of the dark side would help mediate the temperatures.
The dark side is not really dark it is lighted half the time. There is no permanent "periphery".
I guess you could build the solar collectors at the poles where the sun is always on the horison, but that would mean they have to be vertical. They will be much heavier than those on the surface. They will also have to rotate to follow the sun around horizon. So it cannot be so big. You would have multiple rotating collectors interfering with each other. Or you would have to build stationary vertical collectors facing in all directions, each working part of the time.
We could easily calculate the highest structure we could build on the moon with modern materials (where will we get them?). They would be nowhere close to miles-wide paper-thin collectors you could have lying on the surface around the equator. You would have fraction of power at probably ten thousand times material expenditure.
Besides that, the poles are the worst places to locate the stations. They lose the equatorial speed addition, so launching from there would be more expensive.
Any cargo launched from earth will arrive to the moon's equatorial orbit, so it will be a heck of fuel expense to shift to the polar orbit. Any cargo launched from the moon polar area would have to use a lot of extra fuel to adjust to to the proper earth's orbit or Lagrange points (where construction will be taking place).
vorticon: while the tar sands have a much longer carrying capacity (2.5 trillion barrels) the cost of extraction and processing makes its cost much higher than middle east oil but by using the middle east oil first we allow the scientific know how needed to actually use the tar sands...
I am arguing with Scuzzy how goinmg to the belt will be cheap and using moon not just expensive but impossible. Feel free to start readng our arguments and join discussion any time.
Anywat, the moon is more like Alberta tar sands and the Belt is like Middle East - a bit further but much easier to exploit.
miko
-
I thought the moon was simply a satellite and ceased to rotate thousands of years ago? Therefore the darkside will always remain the darkside and hence when they investigated it they saw how much more cratered it is.
-
Anywat, the moon is more like Alberta tar sands and the Belt is like Middle East - a bit further but much easier to exploit.
its a LOT farther...we cant even get people to mars...
take a look at what we know about mars...its really not much...what we know about the asteroids is half that...with what it will take to get there, find a suitable asteroid, set up production and get back we could easily set up a colony on the moon...
the power issue is simple...use a big mirror in orbit around the moon directly above a solar power array...and put another mirror and solar power array on the opposite side of the moon...
then just run a power line to wherever the colony is going to be...
gravity is a bit of a pickle but since most of the work can be done by robots you just need to rotate a crew once a month or so...
-
Replicant, it stopped rotating to us only one side faces us all the time.
A solar eclipse is when the moon passes between the Sun and the Earth. At that point, the "dark side" would in fact be the bright side.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Replicant, it stopped rotating to us only one side faces us all the time.
A solar eclipse is when the moon passes between the Sun and the Earth. At that point, the "dark side" would in fact be the bright side.
-SW
Doh, makes sense now! I got confused by what Miko wrote below about it rotating, I thought he was on about rotating on its axis but he must mean orbiting the Earth and Sun so that the dark side gets light.
Miko2d wrote: Right. The short-term outage on the moon lasts about two weeks, since the moon rotates around its axes once every 28 days or so.
-
Actually the Moon rotates around it's axis once every 27.32166 days and it orbits the Earth once every 27.32166 days. This is why only once side of the Moon faces Earth at all times.
A lunar day lasts an average of 29.53059 days.
The orbit inclination is 5.1454 degrees.
The off axis inclination is 1.5424 degrees.
The Moon's escape velocity at the equator is 2.38km/sec.
-----
Miko, nothing is impossible until you accept it is. Up to that point things are only improbable. It was not too long ago people thought it impossble to circumnavigate the Earth in a ship. They were just as tenacious in their beliefs as you are.
Fortunately, there were others who took that as a challenge and proved them wrong. I would hate to think what this world would be like if we succumbed to every 'doubting Thomas' that came along.
-
What about the aliens at the dark side of the Moon? :D
I don't think they like noisy neighbors :)
-
You folks are making it way too complicated if it is not complicated enough anyway.
In a heat engine, all you need is differential temperature. On the moon, as well as on the ISS, temperature in direct sunlight is like 100C and in shade it is like -170C. Plenty dT for a steam cycle, better if with another working fluid.
Water is available in ice near the poles of the moon, and other elements are available so manufacture of fluids may be possible.
You don't have to go around the moon to find shade, just behind a ridge will do. Build a sunshade and you could have a decent dT.
Heat can be radiated to space with radiators like the panels on the cargo bay doors of the shuttle. All they need is to be in the shade.
-
i agree the moon would be easier to colonize, and mine from. Its already been said, we know very very little about asteroids, they are so far away we can study them very well.
The moon is right there, we've mapped it out and everything, we know alot more about it and where possible sources would be.
I also agree with skuzzy that anythings possible until proven impossible. Look at how much we have done already, rightnow as we speak we have got 2 working rovers running around mars taking pictures and drilling rocks, If you woulda told someone 50 or so years ago that was gonna happen, theyd prob laugh at you.
But, i do like the Asteroid idea, after we've learnd more about them. I think both ideas would be possible, its just gonna take alota money, hardwork, and time. Sure would be neat lol to live on an asteroid near Saturn, crazy stuff.
I think its pretty easy to see, its just a matter of time before we are on Mars and have it colonized, with alot of time my guess is slowly it will be turnd back into a liveable planet.
Of course all this stuff is quite aways away, i doubt the only thing we'll see in our life time is, some Manned missions to mars,and the first steps to making the moon a "base".
Interesting stuff anyhow:aok :D
-
You are back to the discussion of my character flaws... Your analogy are totally false and blame on me exactly what you are doing.
I was not discussing your character flaws. However, since you brought it up, you play that card everytime someone disagrees with you.
It is you who is doubting that humanity can truly expand - to the Belt and beyong, not just huddle on planets.
Again, putting words in my mouth instead of just asking if I had any doubts. You see, you specifically said it was 'impossible' to colonize the Moon. I did not.
People like you thought it impossible to sail open seas and only travelled along the shorelines - even though the compass and solar navigation had been known for centuries. You cannot circumnavigate the Earth while sticking to the shorelines, as you propose. You cannot expand into space by sticking to the planets.
Again putting words in my mouth. I did not say anything about sticking to the shoreline in reference to circumnavigating the globe. People believed that the world was flat, and if sailed to the Sun over the ocean, you would fall off the Earth. Adding more to my analogy does not make it any less valid.
Going to the Moon is a baby step in the grand scheme of things.
Last note: You continue to put words in my mouth which wastes time in attempting to have a discussion with you. Personally, I do not believe you can have a discussion without resorting to that tactic.
As such, I am out of this thread.
-
Think of the exposure to debris at and on a trip to the belt. I know a real asteroid field has rocks every mile or so apart, far from those depicted in movies, but there would undoubtedly be small particles that could easily damage any operation sent there.
A paint chip cracked a shuttle's window. Imagine what a pebble would do.
The moon offers much greater safety than inter-planetary travel. Its close, cheaper/faster to reach, and has the benefit of gravity (you could send crews for longer rotations than those on the space station since they suffer less no-gravity illnesses).
-
Does anyone know what percentage of photons are being harnessed by current solar panels? I wouldn't doubt a huge advance in that technology in the next two centuries, since its one of the few constants we have (for the next few hundred eras, anyways).
We have to expand. New signature:
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
...... laser excited plasma directed at a capture shield on the incoming mass....
Hey there are kids around here!