Slashdot Mirror
Moon Mining Gets a Closer Look
happylucky writes "There are many obstacles to creating a space colony on the moon, primarily food, water, and oxygen. Since it is so expensive to bring supplies from the earth, some scientists have suggested that we mine the moon. In an article in the Toronto Star, Dale Boucher suggests the best way to do this would be to develop a mining colony. To that end, the Sudbury-based Northern Center for Advanced Technology has linked Canada's mining industry with some of the top minds on space.Mining the moon was considered earlier this month at the Planetary and Terrestrial Mining Sciences Symposium which attracted some 100 delegates, including experts from the Canadian Space Agency, NASA and the European Space Agency. There are other hurdles of course that need to be figured out. The moon's gravity is one sixth that on Earth. New research, however, may lead to a solution to this problem as well. It may be possible to develop a sticky compound that can be adjusted by UV light to help adhere boots and objects to the floor."
... how would this affect our tides over many many years? Don't we have enough rocks already? :-)
The ONLY way that we're going into space permanently is if we forget about government taking the lead, and focus on capitalism. The moment someone figures out how to make a buck out of this, The "Belters" of Larry Niven's future history will become a reality.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
They have a space agency?
ncluding experts from the Canadian Space Agency
Since they built the CanadaArm and CanadaArm2, can we look foward to the CanadaShovel and CanadaShovel2.
Ultimately it will have to be some sort of economic incentive to push towards colonization. M.U.L.E. was a prophecy!
"It may be possible to develop a sticky compound that can be adjusted by UV light to help adhere boots and objects to the floor." If you fall over and can't hit the UV switch, and your mouth is stuck to the floor, will you suffocate?
I regret spilling a glass of ginger ale on an achritect!
I can't wait until they start mining all that green cheese. The Food Network will never be the same again once that exotic item hits the market. Hmmm... cheese...
Anyone hear anything about mining Moon Saphires? We need them as a prize for the person who solves the global warming problem.
Put management offices in the tunnels.
Anyone been watching the news recently? Congress is
on the verge of outlawing mining just to avoid the
bad press when a few minors endure the result of bad
or under funded engineering.
The solution? Put the bosses in the mines.
As a deep ecologist, I believe it would be inheriently wrong from an environmental standpoint. But I am curious to know what other people here think... is there an "environmental" issue involved?
Having worked on the 'Mission to Mars' program several years back, everything is doable but, the Wi-Fi sucked due to minimal towers.
Turns out the air down underground mixed up with the ore processors... perfect recipe for Bowden's. Everybody gets it. Miners, dumpers. Hell, I got it, and I ain't ever set foot in a mine!
What is the point of having a permenant manned colony on the moon? We'll never terraform it. It will never be self-sufficient. The cost will never justify the science we could get out of it. We could do the same science with unmanned robots. We would learn more about robot design by building 'bots, and that's more likely to help us here and on Mars.
And then there are all the reasons NOT to go. There isn't enough gravity; humans may be harmed by prolonged living in 1/6 g. The lunar dust is as dangerous as the worst lung hazardous mining dust on Earth, and apparently it gets everywhere. There will never be an atmosphere to shield from cosmic rays. The moon is sterile (except for our junk up there) so there's not much exo-biology interest.
Oh wait, now I know why: it's a great opportunity for someone to spend billions of dollars on playing around with fun toys!
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/47977
some scientists have suggested that we mine the moon.
the best way to do this would be to develop a mining colony
It's nice to know the scientists put their degrees to good use.
If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards... Checkmate.
It will be a frightening day when we start mining the moon. Rather than spreading out and destroying other planets/moons/celestial bodies, how about first learning, as a species, how to preserve the planet we are already on? Birth control, conservation, not driving those damned H3 SUVs with one person in it going to the grocery store. If we die out, well, we deserve it. It's extreme conceit to think we should to expand to other planets just because we haven't learned to take care of this one. If a child ruins a toy, Mom and Dad say that it's tought luck, shoudl have taken care of it. Where did that mindset go to take care of what we have?
It's a girl!
Something tells me it's a dumbass idea to start digging up other planets just yet. If we start mining the moon we may screw it up in some way we have no way of predicting or start a B-movie style plot involving aliens off.
Why don't people understand that you don't fuck with stuff you don't understand? We need to find a way to export stuff from Earth to the Moon cheaply, not how we can mine it and drop huge ass rocks on Earth from it.
I like muppets.
I suppose any mass taken from the moon should be replaced from earth.
We already have enough cheese here on earth.
Even if we were taking perfect care of the planet, it's in the best long-term interests of our species that we become a spacefaring race. We've got some pretty solid historical evidence that Earth has suffered occasional events which wiped out all dominant life forms on the planet. It doesn't make much sense to "keep all our eggs in one basket" so-to-speak if we have the ability to protect ourselves (and whatever other species we want to preserve).
a mining colony is arguably the best way to mine. just like a scientist should be doing scientisting which is how the human species has found out that a mining colony should no longer be used for other things except mining.
Uh, it might just be me, but when is this going to be energy efficient? Last time I checked, the moon had a quite significant gravity well. Not as deep as Earth's, but still we're speaking tons of minerals to be transported...
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
...we need to get a working biosphere on Earth. The last one ran dangerously low on O2 and that problem needs to be understood, fixed and thoroughly tested before we even think about setting up a colony on the moon.
In some ways it'd be a good test to have a biosphere at the bottom of the ocean. You'd have the same combination of a harsh external environment and pressure differential (albeit reversed) as you would in space. You could be entirely reliant on a local source of power such as a deep sea thermal vent but emergency assistance would be much easier
One of these days I'm moving to Theory - everything works there
No problem, you can stay behind, I don't mind. My descendents will live among the stars and yours can have what's left down here.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
a use for my old nickelodeon moon shoes
And your descendents will destroy other celestial bodies that are out there as well. If we humans destroy this planet, it's what we deserve.
Or perhaps those who have demonstrated actual effort in preservation should be allowed to go while those who didn't care get left behind.
It's a girl!
I call dibs on the Amazons!
It will be a frightening day when we start mining the moon. Rather than spreading out and destroying other planets/moons/celestial bodies, how about first learning, as a species, how to preserve the planet we are already on?
Oh give me a fucking break.
If we die out, well, we deserve it.
Tell you what - you stay here and die out, since you believe that you deserve it. The rest of us will go figure out how to reach for the stars.
However, do you not think it in the best interest for the survival of ALL species that we also learn to take care of this planet before inhabiting other planets and moons? The biggest threat to our survival is none other than ourselves. We can't outrun ourselves or escape the damage we cause simply by moving somewhere else.
It's a girl!
Aye, and chickens that stay in the eggshell end up as omelettes. Amnniosis is only healthy when it's temporary. Only albumen idiot would think the earth is more than a temporary home for us.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Okay, you go reach for, and ultimately destroy, what's out there instead of taking responsibility for learning how to take care of what you already have. Instead of, you know, something called being a grown-up.
It's a girl!
Destroy what, exactly? The habitats of the incredibly cute native lunar fawns?
What can we possibly do to the Moon to make it worse than it already is?
Worst case scenario is "it doesn't look the same". Thinking that changing the appearance of things is some kind of crime is just arrogance, though; well obscured and wrapped in feel-good holiness, but it just boils down to I don't want it to change, so it shouldn't change.
There are two jewels on earth, life, and sentient life. Preserving some life at the expense of humanity is probably ok, but why not hedge our bets a bit and preserve both?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
You seriously can't see how we could end up destroying other planets and moons, despite there being so little there? Stripping them of any resources already there, dumping on them?
It's a girl!
Do not confuse moon mining with minor mooning. While the former is admirable, the latter can get you arrested, especially when "sticky compounds" are involved.
Does the Canada Arm ring a bell?
What about the ISS Canada Arm?
As I mentioned, we could be taking _perfect_ care of the planet & have all our efforts be for naught if a big-enough asteroid wipes out everything down to the cockroach level.
Granted, we should at least make sure that we have _something_ to save before we make big plans to spread throughout the solar system, but it is in our own (and the rest of the life forms on Earth)'s interest that we eventually end up living on more than one planet.
In the extreme long-term, it would be even better to live on more than one solar system (so that we don't get wiped out by a passing star), but since we don't really have any remotely-possible technical way of doing that right now, I'd settle for just colonizing any area of the Solar System that could be made habitable.
Yep, another one for the omelette.
I destroy life forms daily, both plant and animal, in order to stay alive. My only remaining question is whether your attitude is Emo (life sucks, I want to die) or Goth (life sucks, I want you to die). Are you living on pure sunshine?
Life is pain, Princess. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
While humanity needs to be preserved, so do the resources and places we live. We can't keep running from our problems, especially when we cause the problems. They must be tackled first. Otherwise the problem will remain. We'll go to one body, then another, and another, leaving little, if anything, but destruction in our wake. A balance needs to be reached rather that deciding to take, take, take to preserve humans. That's selfish, greedy. The question needs to be how to reach that balance before moving on to other planets and moons.
It's a girl!
Plankton and other various types of biological creatures in the open oceans account for more than 80% of all oxygen production on this planet. There should be more study on raising them in closed environments with all the necessary equipment to prevent a biological "meltdown" in such a system. I can think of a good purpose for genetically-modified plankton, that produce an exponentiantly-greater amount of oxygen than the original species. Think of grabbing an "oxygen tank" that is nothing more than a closed-environment aquarium (like those miniature-ecosystems sealed in a glass bottle and sold to children), only it is full of oxygen-producing sea creatures that are regulated to their capacity depending on how much catalyst food/chemical is provided to entice them to self-regulate their oxygen-producing capabilities. Then again, oxygen isn't primarily what a man breathes to survive; so think of a multiple-chambered "breathing apparatus" that contains all the necessary stages of production of genetically-modified organisms.
without prejudice
Want diamonds? Let's do a controlled meteor impact with the earth... the resulting crater should yield billions in diamonds that we can harvest!
I suggest you read Slashdot
One word - Praxis. (Ref. Undiscovered Country)
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Plant and animal are renewable. New plants grow as the old are eaten, new animals are born as others are slaughtered. Not taking more than we need while respecting what we did take helps reach a balance. Some take is neccessary for all life, but there is such a thing as too much. This planet still has the space to grow the food, both plant and animal, neccessary for all humans to have enough to eat. Drilling everywhere neccessary for the fuel to feed to gas-guzzling SUVs while dumping chemicals into the land and water, sending so much smog into the air we breath, throwing away plastic and paper and metals - this is where we have control. The industrious Victorians went as far as to cut down old garments into new ones, or into rag strips to sew and weave into rugs. This prevented more land from being needed to grow more cotton for that fabric. There is so much we can do that most people choose not to do out of laziness, thinking that someone else will do it, or just because they think they're entitled to not do their share for whatever reason.
It's a girl!
Science & Technology / Private spaceflight
Rocket renaissance
May 11th 2006 | LOS ANGELES
From The Economist print edition
The era of private spaceflight is about to dawn
IMAGE (Mary Evans)
TWO years ago next month space travel underwent its Wright-brothers moment with the first flight of SpaceShipOne. The roles of Orville and Wilbur were played by Burt Rutan, who designed the craft, and Mike Melvill, who flew it—although they were ably assisted by Paul Allen, one of the founders of Microsoft, who paid for it. Of course, history never repeats itself exactly. Unlike the brothers Wright, who were heirs to a series of heroic failures when it came to powered heavier-than-air flight, Messrs Rutan and Melvill knew that manned spaceflight was possible. What they showed was that it is not just a game for governments. Private individuals can play, too.
Now, lots of people want to join in, and most of them have just met up at the International Space Development Conference in Los Angeles, to engage in that mixture of camaraderie and competition that characterises the beginnings of a new technology. And, as might be expected, they are brimming with two of the necessary ingredients of success: ideas and money.
First, the money. So far, more than $1 billion is known to have been committed to building private spaceships and the infrastructure to support them. For example, Mr Rutan’s follow-up vehicle, SpaceShipTwo, is expected to cost its backers, Virgin Galactic, $240m for a fleet of five. The spaceport in New Mexico from which these are intended to fly will account for another $225m, although New Mexico’s government is planning to raise this money itself.
These are not small sums, of course. On the other hand, Virgin Galactic has already banked $14m of deposits towards the $200,000 fare from people who want to travel on SpaceShipTwo, even though it has yet to be built, let alone flown.
All this suggests that spaceflight, if not exactly entering the age of the common man, is at least entering the age of the moderately prosperous enthusiast. For entrepreneurs, it is no longer necessary to have billions of dollars to get into space; millions will now do. And for those who merely wish to travel there, and have a few hundred thousand in the bank, reality beckons—provided that at least one of the ideas actually works.
Chocks away
As with aircraft a century ago, a plethora of designs are competing with each other, and there is no certainty about which will prevail. The initial goal is to build a “suborbital” vehicle. This will not have to develop the tremendous speed needed to go into orbit around the Earth. Instead, it will travel briefly into space, offering a short thrilling ride out of the atmosphere, a few minutes of weightlessness, and a spectacular view of the planet from about 100km. Four important criteria are how you take off, what fuel you use, what your craft is made of, and how you come back.
Most people’s vision of a rocket launch is straight up from the ground. But, of the five vehicles most likely to be developed (see table), two will actually be launched from the air. SpaceShipTwo will be carried to high altitude by a purpose-built aircraft known as Eve before its rocket motor is ignited. And Explorer, a vehicle being designed by Space Adventures, will be launched from the top of a high-altitude Russian research plane called the M-55X, according to Eric Anderson, the firm’s president and chief executive.
As Dennis Jenkins, a consultant engineer at NASA, America’s space agency, points out, this is similar to using a two-stage rocket to get into space, with the aircraft acting as the first stage. However, a plane offers several advantages over a throw-away boos
The extreme centre is the paper's historical position. --Geoffrey Crowther
and? it's a *lifeless rock*. Who cares if it's a lifeless rock covered in garbage, a lifeless rock that no longer has iron in it, or a lifeless rock that's just a lifeless rock?
What, it should be protected because it's there?
Earth at least has some stuff worth preserving. Which we would probably find a bit easier if it weren't the only source of resources and living space we have available to us.
I'm a green kid, and you even lost me.
"Rather than spreading out and destroying other planets/moons/celestial bodies, how about first learning, as a species, how to preserve the planet we are already on?"
Give me a break.
How about this instead: Rather than you traveling out and destroying other rooms/streets/cities, how about you first learning, as an individual, to preserve the room you're already in.
http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist .htm
You can see it. But think about it - without the help of so-called "experts", how do you really know what you're looking at? It could be a hologram, projected from various government installations throughout the world. It could be a large, crudely painted balloon, held in place by helium and propelled by tiny sails and rudders (which is why it moves across the sky so slowly). Or, most likely, it could have been different things at different times and different places, depending on the technology available to the conspirators and the culture and beliefs of the population being deceived.
The hoax could easily have been imposed on a gullible world at many points in human history. Perhaps it began as a collective hallucination or a religious myth, or perhaps an especially bright star that came to be exaggerated over time. However the moon story started, early proponents of the hoax were swift to recognize how it could be exploited for their benefit, and shrewdly devised a scheme to use it to their advantage.
They began to spread rumors, falsify scientific observations, and invent new gods to represent this fictional celestial body. They ingeniously concocted the idea of "cycles of the moon", and as their resources increased, were able to create the illusion that this object in the sky actually went through such changes. To make their hoax more plausible to early, superstitious societies, they arranged for these cycles to coincide with the months of the year.
But don't all qualified scientists and astronomers agree that there is a moon? Indeed, but shouldn't one be suspicious of such unanimity, when universities are supposed to be forums for open debate of controversial issues. Even a layperson like myself knows that scientists are not supposed to approach issues with preconceived notions. Yet this principle is cast aside when the moon is at stake. You will never see the revisionist perspective on the moon being taught in institutions of higher learning, even as a controversial opposing view. In fact, in order to even become a recognized scientist in the current atmosphere of academic repression, one must pay lip service to the establishment's orthodoxy. Could you imagine a student who argued the revisionist viewpoint on the question of the moon being awarded a degree? He would be hounded out of the university in an instant! How can one explain such behavior from institutions that are supposed to serve as forums for the free exchange of ideas, except to conclude that the establishment has something to hide?
But who could or would perpetrate such a hoax? Although it is impossible to fully fathom the depth of the deception without further research, the primary culprits are easy to spot. First of all, the various secret societies and religious orders to which the scientists responsible for propagating the moon hoax have belonged from the beginning. One can easily trace the history of this deception through the Templars, the Rosicrucians, the Illuminati and the Masons, by way of the various scientists - from Ptolmy to Copernicus to Newton - whose "observations" have been vital toward putting a scholarly veneer to the moon myth. To this day, universities and government agencies such as NASA are full of "scientists" of this kind.
However, responsibility cannot go solely to academic scientists who initiated the hoax, nor to the organizations to which they belong which have sought to use this deception in their struggle for world domination. Many other governments and institutions have been co-opted over the years, to the point where, today, belief in the moon is so nearly universal that it holds incredible sway over public opinion in our country.
We must make preparations to leave the Earth now! There's a giant mutant space-goat headed this way right now. I think we have room for you on the third ship, if you hurry.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
"Moon mining"..... Isn't that some kind of homosexual term? I wonder what it means.....
While it's true that an astroid could destroy us all in an instant, and it's true that to ensure we survive should something beyond our control happen to any planet we inhabit, would you not agree that we need to learn to take care of what we have? Be it one planet or many, should each planet's people not learn to preserve and not destroy? A better reason to move out would indeed be to prevent total extinction should an asteroid hit, or something like that occur, that to move out because we are a whole are making the choices that are leading to this planet's ruin, but that doesn't negate the fact that people need to learn to take care of what we have.
It's a girl!
LOL, never fear, I'm sure the Ninja Turtles can find some way of battling a space mutant. They didn't do too bad at keeping Craing from ruining the world, and he had a gigantic technodrome that I doubt that goat has. :)
It's a girl!
Parent makes a good point except that this can't always be the answer. That would mean that war is something that humans need to expand as well since it's how we've always done it. True that the existance of capitalism makes it almost impossible for any other way to get into space to work but it still seems kinda sad.
Any other ideas anyone?
Tides are a result of the gravitational pull of the moon. Gravity is directly proportional to mass. To alter the gravitational pull of the moon by one hundredth of a percent you'd have to remove a hundredth of a percent of its mass. Thats 7.36 * 10^18 kg, or 7.36 * 10^15 metric tonnes*. Thats, lets see, substantially more than a million times the combined weight of every human on the planet. The space shuttle has a payload of 22 metric tonnes (/flex). Supposing we were to send one shuttle to the moon every second, it would take more than ten million years to move that much mass.
There is no reason to mine the moon, and there are plenty of good reasons not to, but "Oh no the tides will be thrown out of whack" is not one of them.
* Incidentally: try Googling "mass of the moon". Freaky, isn't it.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
Just think of the recent weight gain trends... By the time everything else is ready for the moon colony, I have a feeling that moon would become the only place where one half of our population would feel comfortable. I can already imagine "lose 5/6th of your weight in 3 hours!" commercials.
"You mortals are so obtuse." -Q
How do we know some corporation won't find some reason to go to the Moon, such as a rare mineral or something, and using the techniques discussed in the article set up a private planet? Unless some guidelines are set up about how the colonization of space will work, we could end up with entire planets owned by a single entity.
Of course, this could be a good thing, if it goes the way the colonization of America did, with planets instead of large chunks of land. But if I remember correctly, that was more religious groups than corporations, which wouldn't happen now due to the huge expense of space travel, and the obstacles they will find in space.
This is not a sig. This is a llama-duck. Quack.
Conservation. There's still plenty of life here that is more worthy of being saved than we are. The deer and rabbits didn't rape this "lifeless rock" almost past use and use up all they could because they felt entitled to it, above other species, as humans have done.
It's a girl!
Ummm I was with you until this. Earth is important to preserve; it has a biosphere and life. I have no desire to see the ice caps melt and have all of this prime realestate destroyed in the Netherlands and Florida (and no, I'm not being sarcastic). The Moon is a lifeless ball of rock; we could put a three foot layer of mercury on it and it wouldn't be harmed in any meaningful way.
The Universe is so incomprehensibly huge it is foolish to ever think that we could consume enough resources to even put a dent in it. The point of life is to live and survive that is the way every species works. Hug your tree, I will aim for the stars.
I mean, I've always heard space described as the final frontier. Our first forays into space colonization should be concentrated on putting a man on the Moon, but this time to stay. It's true that a lot of work needs to be done on finding economical ways to get from the Earth to the Moon, but these problems are solveable if we are willing to put forth the effort. I think that setting up a lunar base will be remembered as one giant leap for mankind. Even though, admittedly, the Moon is a harsh mistress, who wouldn't want a chance to be one of the first men in the Moon? As those brave individuals gaze up at the Earth, illuminated by the light of the Moon, we will look up at them and and wish them a good night.
Why don't people understand that you don't fuck with stuff you don't understand?
With this attitude, we wouldn't have invented many of the fantastic things we got today. Many of today's great inventions came to life because people messed around with things no-one had previously messed around with.
Think about the word destroy.
If you mean change drastically, then too bad sinbad, it's already happened a thousand times on this planet.
If you realy want to save the EARTH then kill all life. The earth is dirt. Life is life. Who cares what happens to dirt? Not me... it's something to use. If I can use it that's all I care about.
I say mine the moon and take no prisoners. It'll probably be a while before we grow trees in space so you'll have to stay here if you want to hug them.
-John Fenley
Now, where did I leave that coon-skin hat and my flintlock.
Disclaimer: I have in my possession an autographed photo of Fess Parker dressed as Davy Crockett. I got it when I was five years old and impressionable.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
What the HELL does that have to do with going to other planets? If anything, in the long run, that would help those species survive (we'll need something to eat, and they'll need something to eat, and there will need to be a stable ecosystem).
EARTH is not the lifeless rock that was being referred to, and you are the only person to suggest it was. The moon is a lifeless rock, and has neither deer nor rabbits, and last I heard, neither deer nor rabbits had any plans of moving in.
As for worthy of being saved, what gives you the right to judge what life is more worthy than any other? Rabbits do rape the Earth with alarming regularity. Leave rabbits on an island without predators, and soon you have a lifeless island -- ask the Hawaiians about that one.
Honestly -- you are being absurd, twisting everybody's arguments into something they are not. Nobody besides you said anything about running away from a ruined planet.
We can maybe preserve deer and rabbits. Why the hell should that keep us from mining the moon?
If humans destroy our capability of living on Earth -- well, then that was a shitty thing for humans to do. What does that have to do with anything else?
The moon -- why should we preserve it? It's a ROCK. We can take other rocks from it, and dump our garbage there instead of the Earth. BING! One Earthly problem solved (or postponed, or whatever)
And...again I'm an AC. That account should pass through tomorrow.
Coincidentally, just a few minutes ago I submitted a slashdot story about a telerobotic construction challenge which NASA is funding, which could spawn technologies which would be quite useful for a lunar mining facility. In case the submission gets rejected, here's the text of it (hopefully my posting it here doesn't somehow lead to an auto-rejection):
The non-profit Spaceward Foundation has released a rules draft for a telerobotic construction competition. Competitors will have 24 hours to use their robots to construct a water-tight pipeline at least 25m long through Mars-like terrain, with a control latency of 20 minutes. The foundation is seeking feedback on the rules draft until July 15, as well as ideas for contest names and logos. NASA will provide $250K in prize money to competition winners, as part of their Centennial Challenges program for space technology competitions.
Actually, you are wrong wrong wrong. A long time ago in precambrian times, Earth was a lush world of sulfuric acid seas and skys. Then, the native life forms (various forms of single celled organisms) started belching forth toxic oxygen that forever changed the lush world. This gas, Oxygen, was incredibly toxic to the existing forms of life, and the original organisms all went away, victims of their own folly.
For the record, I agree with conservation, but that is not because deer and rabbits are innocent and we are not. I just don't want to end up extinct like the extremeophiles that once dominated this planet and are not relegated to living in geysers.
Excuse me for misreading and reading that as Earth being the lifeless rock. Under what natural circumstance would rabbits be left alone on an island without predators? AC...I have a suspicion of who this could be, aside from "just about anybody."
It's a girl!
That's *here*. Yes, I'm with you "here*. You're going out on a limb as to how horrible it would be for us to plunder the moon or other lifeless rocks out there though.
Conservation is not a virtue for conservation's sake. It's a virtue when you are *saving something*. I don't put much of a value on rock. Frankly I think we can put the materials in asteroids and the moon to better use than they do currently.
And actually, animals do ravage their own ecosystems regularly.. they don't understand convservation or carrying capacities any better than we do. The deer populations up here in maine breed themselves into starvation on a regular basis, even in massively undeveloped woodlands. It takes a growth in predator populations to take them back down, or simple overpopulation.
We have lessons to learn. Doesn't mean we should just sit around either. Obviously you agree, sitting there on your mass fabricated computer filled with toxic substances, using your fossil fuel power and buying at least a few products that support the rape of our planet. So how about dropping the high horse routine?
I suggest looking into practical sustainability instead of radical ideology.
I know there's a bunch of space enthusiasts on /. but hear the guy out. He's correct: the moon does not mass enough to hold more than a trivial atmosphere, so for our entire stay there we'll be one meteor impact away from catastrophe. Our current cost of flying stuff just to orbit is over $7k a pound, and even decreasing that by a factor of a thousand you'll never get commercial mining of the moon because its just the same old rock that we can dig up terrestrially for far, far cheaper and at less risk. One shuttle flight, with a payload of 22 metric tonnes, costs in excess of $900 million (operational expenditure + cost of shuttle program divided by number of flights). Thats, somebody check my math, $40,000 a kilogram just in transportation costs. Can anyone name *any* economic activity on the moon which would be viable at $40,000 per kilogram of product transmitted back to earth? Even if the moon were pure, solid gold you can't turn a profit mining at that cost. And even if you improve the efficiency ("Space elevator! Space elevator!" yeah I know, I've heard the sales pitch before) you come back to the original problem -- its just a really big rock after all.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
Lunar mining would also create a demand for the vastly abundant solar energy at the Lunar surface (1.3KW:m^2). Scaling that production for Earth consumption would also produce a demand for the technologies developed for corporate welfare^W^WStar Wars (SDI) to deliver high energy to Earth's surface. Without having to grow the military applications. While reducing the energy shortage that makes military options so attractive to some Earthlings.
--
make install -not war
Animals have been moved from on habitat to another by humans. If we hadn't come to be, I have doubts that the ecosystem would have tipped in the direction it has. Conservation and preservation.
I do hate that the computer I am on pollutes, but I also recycle what I can, don't use more lights than neccessary, more energy than neccessary, and when I had a car, one that got high mileage per gallon, oil was recycled rather than just dumped, though now I take public transportation or walk, among other things, rather than taking, taking, taking, just because I can. Oh, I still have my car, but why use it when there are better alternatives? That's the problem, most people do nothing but take all they can.
It's a girl!
The day all our problems end is the same day we go extinct. And in any case, since when were unsolved problems a barrier to a parallel approach? Should kids live at home and not move out until they have settled every major and minor conflict they had with their parents over the course of their about 20 years? Maybe moving out can be the solution?
Problem solving is really just a question of setting priorities. If someone solved global hunger and thirst, poverty, the fossil fuel dilemma, overpopulation, global warming, and whatnot by tomorrow, then the day after the obligatory binge we could (and would) instantly come up with the next dozen problems on the list that supposedly should keep us shackled to Earth. Then another dozen and then some more. Has it ever occurred to you that space exploration and the required technological/economical/political progress might be a big part of the solution to problems on our homeworld? If nothing else, colonizing space should give everyone a fresh perspective (figuratively) on Earth and its problems.
The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
Just don't destroy them while you're at it.
It's a girl!
Anyone care to fill me in? I know it's wicked cool and all, but lets do Mars!
Seeing the reference to an "optically switched glue" for the boots, reminds me of Daedalus, a column which used to appear at the back of New Scientist (and elsewhere). The author and his ficticious company, DREADCO, came up with a large number of semi-plausible inventions, including a certain "Dreadhesive" which was a liquid crystal glue, useful for catching burglars in the same manner as fly paper. This adhesive was electrically switched, and the police could free the unfortunate captive by turning on or off a distant master switch :-)
Amazing the way things which seemed far fetched, have a habit of becoming (nearly!) reality, isn't it?
They need a new name for what you are. You have some form of Eco Religion. What do you call yourself? If it doesn't happen without man's intervention, then it is wrong? Why is man's intervention "wrong?" It is just the next step in evolution. You've already stated (in a subpost) you believe man is not as worthy as deer or rabbits, and should be wiped out in preference to them, but what I don't understand is why you think man should act any less in his self interest than any other animal.
But don't worry too much about it. Man is approaching the omega step. It might even happen this century. Then what will happen is man will send out robots with tiny replicators in them that will replicate whatever man looks like, and it won't just be the moon that will be colonized, it will be the entire galaxy.
I hope you don't have much influence on people around you, but I'm almost certain you will use any lever you can to pursuade people of your disgusting ideas. Oh, that's ironic isn't it? You who say man is evil should stop influencing the planet and its species, but its OK for you to try to influence people. Let me help you out: start with yourself. Stop eating.
P.S. if you think this post is harsh, note that this person believes people should be wiped out in preference to deer, or some such.
Moron or troll? You decide.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I believe that if you read my responses carefully, you will see that I am not disagreeing with you re: taking care of the existing planet.
It is certainly possible, however, that humans can pursue more than one goal at a time. It is not necessary to ignore the possibility of expanding into space just because we are trying to improve our treatment of the planet.
No, it wouldn't have tipped in the direction it has. It also wouldn't be sunshine and roses for all the little bunnies out there all the time either. We're not the only force of nature out there that doesn't give a shit about them. We're one of many. We are just the only one that could possibly CHOOSE to give a shit. But how far do you want to take it? If you want a place to live, something else might have to move for you. Is that ok? If you want food, something has to die. That's ok, right? So that stuff is ok, but wanting to get out onto other planets, which ultimately IS necessary for our survival.. why is that NOT ok?
We need to look at this stuff rationally to arrive at a solution to a practical problem. Condemning us all to death because we have not yet reached enlightenment, especially when you yourself are seduced by the things society offers you when you KNOW the price it extolls, is a bit elitist, rude, hypocritical, short sighted and boorish, frankly. And not particularly helpful either.
I stuggle with this every day myself. But the technology and methods we use today are the only tools we have to take it to the next level, and that includes our cognititive and social developement. You're in a hurry.. that's great, push, that's necessary.. but you might want to consider your methods, cause these aren't particular effective. A reasoned response might hold some more weight than rambling about bunny rabbits and claiming we all deserve to die.
Just a thought.. probably sounds worse than I intend it. Hopefully you don't take it that way.
The same industrious Victorians responsible for the sulferous coal burning that caused the Yellow Fogs that decimated the lungs of Londoners? Look, I don't want you to think I'm not a believer in ecological balance, I am. I also believe in thrift, and responsibility, and a future for my two teenaged daughters and their kids. I hate plastic bags as much as I think you do. But I want a future, and I don't want my descendants to die because we've run out of resources, fuel, and options. If you do want to die out, don't take me with you. I'll find some like-minded heroes and Sky Captain all over your world of tomorrow.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Your weight on the moon is approximately 1/6th of your weight on earth.
So a 200 lb man weighs roughly 33 lbs on the moon.
So while it may seem necessary to use a sticky material to adhere one's boots
to the floor -- its probably easier to carry 1000 lbs (Earthweight) of weights
which would add an additional 166 lbs of Moonweight, making a 200lb earth person
weigh 200 lbs on the moon.
The sticky stuff isn't requred. Just some evenly distributed body weights would
do the trick. Although... no defense contractor gets rich with the simple
solution.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
They were looking for a quick passage to India. India had spices, and spices were valuable enough that getting a ship full of them back home safely was worth an enormous amount of risk to your treasury and personal safety. This contrasts to the moon: we know there is nothing of value there, and even if it is a stepping stone to, say, a colony on Mars (dubious) there is nothing to profitably exploit there, either.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
If mining on the moon becomes profitable, who knows how much material we'll be able to shift off the moon. How about in 200 years. 1000 years?
You can use Luna as a starting point to get to Mars. It's much easier to launch from the moon than from Earth to Mars.
Napalm is nature's toothpaste
My computer is powered by fossil fuels. My car runs on the blood of furry mammals.
The 'third arc' (but the first to launch) was the one they put all the useless people on in a subplot of the 'Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy' (or perhaps a sequel)
You have just been burned. I on the other hand have read your sig. You are not useless by definition. (burned again)
Rather than spreading out and destroying other planets/moons/celestial bodies, how about first learning, as a species, how to preserve the planet we are already on?
I'm not sure I follow your logic here. It's kind of like saying that people shouldn't leave their hometown until everybody in the town is living in peace and harmony with nature. Of course, now that I think about it, I have known people who would argue precisely that...
I would be impressed with us if we could do that at this stage. Even if we fired all of our nukes, we could not destroy the planet. We may wipe out much if not all of the upper life forms, but there will be plenty of life to replace us. Keep in mind that since life started on this plane, nothing has wiped it out completely. Comet hits have done quite a number on life, but never wiped it out entirely.
BTW, we may find lots of interesting ideas to take care of the planet if we go to others. It is only during a growing economy that a group of ppl will care about such things as the environment. Otherwise, they are busy trying to subsiste. A little bit ago, I got into it with another person about need for the US gov. to spend billions of dollars on HIV research. As I pointed out, it would be better for us to spend the money on creating an economy via going to the moon, or better yet developing a high speed maglev. Developing the maglev would create jobs for eons (similar to what the highway system has done for us), increase the speed with which we move, lower the cost and pollution of transportation (which is one of our biggest polluters), and allow America/Europe to move off of oil and over to nukes/alternative (we would then not need to depend on Iran/Venezuela/other potential enemies). The key here is showing that growing an economy wether by doing maglev or by going to the moon, it will ultimately improve the planet.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
And your descendents will destroy other celestial bodies that are out there as well.
What are your thoughts on all the countless celestial bodies which get destroyed whenever a supernova goes off?
Perfect for all your life support and fuel needs. Closest water ice to earth orbit ('distance' being measured in Delta-V).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
But how about mining in Arctica/Antarctica first? There's tons of oil and other natural resources under the ice. I can't believe it's cheaper to mine on the Moon than in Arctica/Antarctica.
I really don't understand the use of a lunar colony. I'm all for Mars and the asteroids, but the Moon? What's there that's useful?
If I understand correctly, you can get oxygen from lunar regolith, and hydrogen from water ice. Combine that with energy (from either solar or nuclear sources) to properly process it, and you've got what you need to generate rocket fuel on the moon. This would be useful not only for lunar operations, but also to provide refueling for operations to Mars and elsewhere.
If you think this is new, you weren't paying attention in the 1970's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_O'Neill
That'd be awesome.
In the movie (and I think the book) few years from now, powerful explosions from the Moon's mining colony cause the Moon to split in two pieces which fall in Earth.
Civilisation is gone and what's left after a million or so years is monkey-like people that eat other people who live in houses attached on the side of cliffs. The cliff people are extremely dumb so they don't mind beating eaten too.
Alright, if you want some rough estimations: we'll consider the effect of a mass change on the earth to be "substantial" if it affects the tides more than having me 1 meter from the ocean* (feel the massive force of my gravitational pull, you pitiful waves!). The average distance to the moon is 382500 km, or 3.825 * 10^8 m. Gravity is inversely proportional to the square of distance, and my mass is about 66 kg (/flex). So, to have as much effect on the tides as I do, you need to have 9.66 * 10^18 kg of mass in a lunar orbit (hey, thats the same order of magnitude of the amount of rock we already calculated about moving -- fancy that!). Conclusion: it would take a couple of million years of one shuttle flight per second to screw up the tides as much from the moon as I screw them up when I go swimming.
Now, I admit, its pretty darn difficult to model the behavior of the entire ocean. Its entirely possible that the next time I go swimming I could cause global catastrophe. I guess I'll just have to take that risk!
* Yeah, I know, technically I'd have to be one meter from the center of the mass of the ocean. Work with me here. The answer is still "distance to the moon squared dwarfs any amount of mass humanity can ever hope to shift".
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
You are wrong on that. Moon dust is a hazard. It has microscopic sharp edges and filaments all over it so it sticks to everything, including the outside of space suits. So when the lunar miner comes in, closes the airlock, turns on the air pressure, and then takes his suit off, he spreads this moon dust all over the inside of the airlock, all over his clothing and himself and his lungs, and then it probably gets carried into the rest of the habitation. Solving that is a very very difficult problem.
This whole thing is so stupid.
Mars makes sense because people could actually live there and do useful things there. The moon is just a rock which happens to be orbiting around our planet. There are no materials there (except H3, which we have no current use for) that we can't get on our planet at, say, one millionth of the cost.
white power worth more than gold
1. It's easier than building a true space station. It has gravity, and resources we can build upon while doing many functions of a space station, (observing, solar wind, etc)
2. Helium-3, fusion catalyst that's only found on earth as a by product of nuclear reactions and is about 50,000 a pound. That alone makes it worth it moneywise.
3. Possible water ice in craters, let alone if caves of some sort exist with regolith protecting ice in other locations.
4. Abundant Solar that doesn't have the atmosphere blocking it.
5. Titanium mining, high power use aids the refining.
6. Catapult, ala Heinlein. Makes it possible not only just to throw it to orbit and allow assembly of more space infrastructure, as well as sending it back to Earth for pennies on the pound. Or sending probes to space via em only.
I'd say more, but my guild is raiding.
Why don't they use the stuff movie theatres have?
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
And start a total national race among other nations to try and get their and stake their claims. Then, claim Mars, and repeat. You'll never get to space if no one can own it.
This is my sig.
Reminds me of a sig quote seen somewhere a long time ago.
"
Earth First!
We'll strip mine the other planets later.
"
You can read the full United Nations General Assembly Resolution at United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA)
\
God, am I SICK of that argument. Bush and his cronies started that to justify going to the moon, but it a total joke.
Assume that you are really going to do that. Now, you have to build another rocket base that is designed to send to Mars (add about 20 years). In addition, assume that you are going to send stuff to mars (skip humans for the moment). First thing, you want to send items of value (after all mars is suppose to have raw material) such as robots, computers, nuclear reactors, etc. Well, you are not going to build them on the moon. That means they have to come from earth. That also means that you will have to send them from earth to the moon. It is actually more expensive to send to things to the moon than to mars directly from earth. Why? Because when we get there, we have to stop. On mars, there is enough of an atmosphere that we can make use of it. On the moon, nothing. That means that we have to have total fuel for landing. And then you are going to launch to mars? We will never make it to mars.
All in all, they idea of using the moon to go to mars is about the craziest of all ideas
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The problem with this is the Moon is predominantly very light material. Things such as silicates, aluminium, etc. In other words, things we have an abundance here on earth. I can't see how this is worth the enormous energy cost of such an endeavouT
The moon is not consisted of titanium and U-235.
what was found on the moon was high concentrations of hydrogen. It is possibly bound as water (with the O2), but we do not know at this time. But it has not been confirmed. BTW, most likely the ice is of better use as water for humans and plants. If you want to get things off the moon, then use an electrical launcher or a elevator. Unlike with the earth, the elevator is doable.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Yeah, but Mars is closer than the Moon, measured in properly accounted delta-V (aerobrake at Mars and bring some LH2, converted on site into LOX / Methane with the aid of the Martian CO2 atmosphere). Taking a detour to the Moon adds complexity and delta-V, and making rocket fuel there is harder than doing it on Mars. If we had a Lunar fuel depot already, sure it would be cheaper to get to Mars from there than from Earth. But if you're building a fuel depot, it's cheaper to build it on Mars. And then there's only one step.
Have you been taking your lithium? I didn't think so.
Life is Darwinian. When the time comes, people like me and others from Slashdot will be the Klingons moving into outer space to rape, plunder, and pillage. Deal with it, moron.
The great thing is that timid folks like you don't have the balls to stand in the way, so your attitude is a non-issue.
"The meek shall inherit nothing.." - Frank Zappa
2. Helium-3, fusion catalyst that's only found on earth as a by product of nuclear reactions and is about 50,000 a pound. That alone makes it worth it moneywise.
In his book "Moonrush," Dennis Wingo argues that besides Helium-3, platinum-group metals would also be a critical resource. From a review:
In the first part of Moonrush, Wingo makes the case for how lunar resources are critical for meeting the increasing energy demands of terrestrial civilization. Most people are aware of the fact that the quantity of fossil fuels, notably petroleum, is finite, and will run out sooner or later. Wingo discusses this in detail in the book, noting that even the most optimistic assessments of petroleum reserves--ones that make assumptions unlikely to be borne out in practice--would be insufficient to get the world through the 21st century. One alternative to gasoline-burning engines currently under active development is the hydrogen-powered fuel cell. Even these, though, have a resources problem that Wingo describes in the book: they rely on expensive, scarce platinum-group metals (PGMs). If the world tries to make the transition from gasoline engines to fuel cells, it could exhaust the supply of PGM elements on the Earth.
Of course, there is no shortage of such metals in space, particularly in asteroids. The Moon, on the other hand, would seem to be an unlikely place to find PGMs: the collisional process that formed from the Moon left it mostly devoid of heavy metals. However, Wingo makes an ingenious case for finding PGMs on or near the lunar surface, in the form of debris from asteroid impacts. While conventional wisdom has argued that impacts of large asteroids would vaporize most of the impactor, modern computer modeling has shown that a significant fraction of an asteroid impacting the Earth would survive in some form. In fact, some major sources of PGMs on Earth, such as Sudbury in Canada and sites in South Africa, have been linked to asteroid impacts. The Moon's lower gravity would mean slower impacts, making it more likely that significant portions of asteroids could survive. PGMs mined from those impacts could meet the fuel-cell needs of the Earth for centuries; the mining process would, in turn, also generate other metals like iron and nickel that could be used for settlements on the Moon and beyond.
we'll mine the other planets later.
...and yours can have what's left down here.
Unless we get bored and decide to start shelling them with rocks from orbit.
I can see it now:
Mike: "Man, I think we should stop hitting Cheyenne Mountain."
Mannie: "Why?"
Mike: "It's not there any more."
Is it really that useful for fusion? I thought the closest to break-even reactors were running deuterium/tritium mixes and considered He3 a waste product. I don't keep up with this stuff; got a good primer on it somewhere? Also, I think Titanium is only interesting as an on-site resource, not for shipping back -- titanium dioxide, aka titanium ore, is so cheap it's used as a white paint pigment. The refining is expensive, though, and only gets more so if you try it on the moon. Obviously it would be useful in building a colony, but I'm pretty sure it's not a reason to do so.
Yeah, but Mars is closer than the Moon, measured in properly accounted delta-V (aerobrake at Mars and bring some LH2, converted on site into LOX / Methane with the aid of the Martian CO2 atmosphere). Taking a detour to the Moon adds complexity and delta-V, and making rocket fuel there is harder than doing it on Mars.
I think the idea is not to refuel directly on the moon, but to launch the fuel from the moon to something like one of the Lagrange points, which is where the refueling would occur.
In summary, you got me this time! Reason may have been the winner today, but tomorrow is a new day!
There are other hurdles of course that need to be figured out. The moon's gravity is one sixth that on Earth. New research, however, may lead to a solution to this problem as well.
Good, I'm glad they have a solution to the moon's gravity problem. Now if they can just fix that no atmosphere problem too, they'll be in great shape.
God, am I SICK of that argument. Bush and his cronies started that to justify going to the moon, but it a total joke.
I agree, launching directly from the moon to Mars is a joke. However, using the moon as a source for refueling stations in Earth orbit or a lagrange point seems somewhat more reasonable.
Well, yes, that's true. But if you're building a fuel depot, it's cheaper to build it on Mars -- landing on Mars takes less delta-V, thanks to aerobraking, and the fuel is easier to make since there's abundant CO2. Also, if people like SpaceX really get cheap launch going, then bulk goods to orbit are cheap enough that it's likely not worth building a fuel plant on the moon, given the cost of setting it up and running it. And all this ignores the fact that there's demonstrated technology out there that can do single shot lift + throw to Mars from the ground. A vehicle that was performance-equivalent to the Shuttle stack, but with a cargo pod instead of the orbiter, is sufficient to put a useful payload on a Mars insertion trajectory without any complex refueling operations.
"linked Canada's mining industry with some of the top minds.."
So canadas top minds, Cream of the Crop; are miners..?
1. This is a biggie. Right now, the ISS is a good first step for getting nations to work together as well as testing equipment. But it really has not been useful other than basic research. Once we are on the moon, we can build further and test more.
6.The catapult/electric launcher is a big one. Many of our probes are sent on long trips but have to undergo sling shots around a number of planets to build up speed. In addition, these are limited in size due to the size of our rockets. OTH, if we can send several parts via several trips to the moon, assemble it into 1 large probe and then launch it at high speed, we can send direct fast probes. Good example is the mission to mercury is something like a 7 year trip due to the slingshot need. A direct shot would have been a half year. Likewise, the current mission to pluto will take a number of years due to a indirect shot.
One last item is as use of electrical propulsion. In particular, we can build a large solar array on the moon and then use that to shoot a laser at a recently launched probe. IOW, use the moon as a power base for sending to a probe so that early in the mission you can get lots of power. For sending out of the solar system, combine this with the electric launcher and we may be able to get real speed.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Since the news agencies seem to spend at least two weeks of round the clock coverage on miners getting trapped under the Earth's surface can you imagine the media hooplah over people getting trapped inside a damn moon mine? Make the coverage of Hurricane Katrina look like one of those "suspicious package" filler stories they cut to five times a day.
The few surviving samurai survey the battlefield. Count the arms the legs and heads and then divide by five.
Part 1 is the return vehicle, some life support stuff, the rover, the return fuel plant, and the LH2 for said plant. After it fuels up the return vehicle, you launch part 2, which is the people and the rest of the life support, science stuff, etc. Hang out for a year and change till the return window comes around and fly back.
The mass budgets work out for single step lift + throw profiles with Shuttle stack performance equivalent rockets (orbiter replaced with smaller lighter thing that's mostly cargo, as opposed to 80% spaceplane).
Meant to point out that most of what I've been saying in this thread is straight from the Mars Direct plan. Google will tell you lots more, or pick up a copy of 'The Case for Mars' by Zubrin. It's a bit dated (ie doesn't have the latest Mars mission data), but none of the physics or economics have changed much.
Well, yes, that's true. But if you're building a fuel depot, it's cheaper to build it on Mars -- landing on Mars takes less delta-V, thanks to aerobraking, and the fuel is easier to make since there's abundant CO2.
But why not have fuel depots both around/on Mars and Earth-Luna space?
Also, if people like SpaceX really get cheap launch going, then bulk goods to orbit are cheap enough that it's likely not worth building a fuel plant on the moon, given the cost of setting it up and running it.
This is quite possible. I'd love it if somebody with more expertise (and time) than me actually tried doing a thorough economic analysis of it, to see where the balance point is between fuel costs and construction costs.
And all this ignores the fact that there's demonstrated technology out there that can do single shot lift + throw to Mars from the ground. A vehicle that was performance-equivalent to the Shuttle stack, but with a cargo pod instead of the orbiter, is sufficient to put a useful payload on a Mars insertion trajectory without any complex refueling operations.
True, but what solution is most cost-effective in the long-term?
Also, I should probably note that I think having lunar-supplied fuel depots around Earth isn't as useful for Earth-Mars transportation as it would be for transit around Earth and cislunar space.
(Actually, that fact is somewhat old... might be wrong these days.)
"The Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot eternally live in a cradle."
- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky
The purpose of life is to spread.
If you think we should stay on this rock until a meteor wipes us out, you are complicit in a crime worse than genocide: the extermination of life as we know it in the universe.
As the only life forms with the ability to travel to other planets, it is our responsibility to bring life to other planets! This is far more important than trying to maintain some "balance" of nature. There never has been and never will be such a balance, anyway.
Space travel is the most important persuit in the history of Earth. Without it, there will eventually be no life.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
* Incidentally: try Googling "mass of the moon". Freaky, isn't it.
Even better, google "mass of the earth divided by mass of the moon"
The biggest reason not to like that plan is that there's just no need for refueling. A two-part lift and throw to Mars will produce a very real mission.
I should clarify a little: You're absolutely right that it's silly to think that a lunar mine is a necessity for a human Mars mission. However, it seems like it would be more economical to, say, have Falcon 9's send up fuel to an orbital fuel depot (maybe a modified Bigelow space station module?). You could then use a couple more Falcon 9's (or maybe something slightly larger) to send up parts 1 and 2 from Zubrin's plan, and refuel them in orbit to send off to Mars. I haven't really worked it out, but I suspect it would cost substantially less (even in the short term) than trying to send up a couple of shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicles. In the long-term, you can reuse a lot of the infrastructure (maybe even the return vehicle) to reduce costs further.
Note that this is totally off-the-cuff, so I might be making some faulty assumptions.
200 comments and nobody mentioned that already China intends to mine the Moon.
The rest of your post makes about as much sense.
Why would a non-economic energy solution (solar cells) become economic on the moon? You'll lose more then atmospheric loses sending the power anywhere but the moon. Local solars duty cycle would at least match the demand (vs 14 days on 14 days off with lunar solar).
Please think before you post.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You people got it all wrong! The proposed mining operation on the moon is for setting up a moon colony; just so that the transport costs you people are talking about can be minimised or avoided. That is, mine the moon for materials to build a colony on the moon.
My gut reaction, though, is that you can break near-Earth ops into two categories: things leaving Earth orbit, for which ground-launched lift and throw wins, and station keeping / orbit change manuevers, for which low thrust, high performance things like ion drives are the win.
I guess what I'm saying is I think it's premature to start trying to cost near-Earth propellant until you've figured out why you want it. And so far we don't have that much use for it.
Also, I'm guessing that LOX + kerosene from Earth is cheaper than trying to mine lunar ice. A grand a pound sounds cheap relative to anything from the moon, and it probably won't be long until that's the Earth-launch price.
And for non-manned bulk delivery missions, there are oddball proposals to cut it even further. A quick example: LOX-LH2 SSTO using conventional non-LOX-rated composites everywhere, H2 pressurization for (both!) tanks, and no redundancy in sight. Use the GH2 pressurant for thrusters, and the GH2 left at burnout is dumped out the main nozzle for deorbit (assuming you don't have a better use for the empty tank...). Total moving parts count: two main valves plus 4-6 thruster valves depending on config. A GPS, a laser gyro, a computer, and you're almost done. And there's even pretty good evidence the tanks won't go boom too often, but if it does on occasion, it was cheap anyway. Getting composite tanks that work with LOX is actually pretty easy if you don't need reuse and aren't overly worried about the inside of your tank catching fire. And the odds of that go way down when you decide you don't care about things like fuel guages or other electric bits inside the tank.
Earth orbit is where the real interesting industrial processes will happen.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Speaking of SpaceX... a reporter once asked Musk if he was doing this to get a ride into space. He replied that it would have been cheaper to buy a Russian ticket. Smart people have commented that the reporter should have asked about the ticket to Mars. Note that they seem to have all the major pieces in the works.
I agree, Shuttle derived things are far from the cheapest heavy lift vehicles imaginable. Zubrin likes them because the R&D cost is low, both in dollars and time.
The big reason against on-orbit refueling I see is simple... it's complicated, and complicated in space means expensive and risky. It can be a fair bit less efficient to use lift + throw and still be noticeably cheaper. Also, lift + throw has a lower R&D budget in all probability.
My gut reaction, though, is that you can break near-Earth ops into two categories: things leaving Earth orbit, for which ground-launched lift and throw wins, and station keeping / orbit change manuevers, for which low thrust, high performance things like ion drives are the win.
This sounds reasonable, although I'm not convinced that launching everything in one go (including launching your high-reliability crew with much of your cargo and fuel, which doesn't need as high reliability) necessarily beats in-orbit assembly.
Also, I'm guessing that LOX + kerosene from Earth is cheaper than trying to mine lunar ice. A grand a pound sounds cheap relative to anything from the moon, and it probably won't be long until that's the Earth-launch price.
I'm not sure I follow. If/when launch costs are reduced, the cost of shipping mining machinery will just get lower. I don't see how the cost of the machinery itself would be more than $1000 per pound of fuel produced.
Trying to stay on this crowded planet could be the worst thing for the environment.
They also claim no one can claim the sea floor. That will fall first. Just as soon as some one figures out how to get rich off the ocean floor.
But you should'nt listen to me. I use a blue helmet for target practice (while ignoring the equally meaningless small arms convention).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I am the last person to disagree with (sane) environmentalists on just about anything, but this is absurd.
A) There is no biosphere on the Moon to disturb, silly.
B) Suppose that to learn how to take care of the Earth properly, we first need to explore and understand how processes on other planets work? Suppose that a source of virtually unlimited offplanet resources (like the Moon and asteroid belt) would give us the "buffer" we need to learn how to exist in a state of environmental peace with this planet?
+++ATH0
Stagnation is the death of man kind.
The "bright side" is the side getting the sunlight, as well as the "positive aspect" of the plan we're talking about - a little pun.
The demand for lots of energy for mining on the Moon will drive further development of solar power collection beyond its already quite economical use. Note that lots of NASA equipment already uses the pentiful solar energy in space. More innovation will make it even cheaper. Especially if combined with manufacturing the solar collectors on the Moon, from Lunar materials, in vacuum/minigravity, as has already been demonstrated in Earthbound simulations.
I didn't say that solar collectors had to be stationary, or even grounded. There's plenty of room for innovation there, like orbital collectors, if doubling the area isn't sufficient to compensate for the Lunar night.
There's practically zero loss of power in a laser from the Moon to the top of the Earth's atmosphere, and much less than the 25% loss of Sunlight to its coherent beam. Even those losses can be compensated by increasing the power of the beam.
To complete your post's useless, totally wrong criticism, you misspelled "than".
You got everything wrong. Try thinking about the post you're reading before you shoot off your mouth with obnoxious, wrong comments. You might learn something more than the fact that you're obnoxious and wrong about the subject.
--
make install -not war
Everyone knows whaling on the moon is the next big thing.
Were whalers on the moon. We carry a harpoon..
Rather than spreading out and destroying other planets/moons/celestial bodies, how about first learning, as a species, how to preserve the planet we are already on?
And your descendents will destroy other celestial bodies that are out there as well. If we humans destroy this planet, it's what we deserve.
And which office did you say you are running for this year?
haven't these folks seen Space 1999? Loosing the moon will be bad for earth ecology...
Steve Hawking said that for the human species to survive, we will have to colonize other planets (or moons or even solar systems)... Hopefully we don't end up chewing up half the moon. Then again, it is "just" a rock...
Lumilux (http://lumilux.org/) - Heptaweekly photography.
Yeah.. because meteor impacts ONLY hit the moon.. there are NEVER meteors to worry about around the ISS or the space shuttle.
Also, the article said nothing of making a profit, nothing about mining gold and nothing about bringing stuff back to earth.
They just want cheaper access to water, air, and fuel so that having a moon base is cheaper and can perhaps provide us with experience before going on to mars some day.
I read a book a while back, "Mining the Sky" It was really good. Finding water pockets for Hydrogen generation seems to be a key to mining the moon. Without water it is a lot harder to stay there, work there, or ship stuff out of there.
Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
And you plan to make solar cells on the moon expecting they'll be cheap? You realize that perfect crystals will be usefull for silicon with small feature size but no better for solar cells?
How much per kWH do you think NASA spends for solar arrays? (which degrade rapidly on orbit)
You're so far out their you are not even wrong. You don't even understand the problem.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I really don't understand the use of an American colony. I'm all for Asia, Africa and the Indies, but America? What's there that's useful? I can see it as a shorter route to the Indies, but it's not very close to Europe and I don't think we want to do Africa quite yet. It's also a heck of a lot less hospitable than Asia, and takes more time to get to (assuming in situ ship building in Gibraltar). As far as I can tell, the only useful things in America is tobacco, safe haven for religous zealots, lots of sunlight, and a nice spot for singles(ie dark-skinned natives). Oh, and many (but not all) of the raw materials for things like timber and furs. And some oil, but no one really knows if that's useful or not.
Anyone care to fill me in? I know it's wicked cool and all, but lets do Asia!
http://cincyboys.blogspot.com/ Everything Cincinnati. Including the word 'Finnih'
>I didn't get the whole "sticky floor" suggestion.
You make sound points about the drawbacks. It does, however, address a real need.
Remember from the Apollo footage how the astronauts spent most of their time -- OK, not "airborne", but off the ground? If every step means a second or two before you can use the ground for a platform again, productivity will go down. Other options to solve that problem would be teaching everyone a shuffling gait, or ankle weights (which would suck because of the inerita problem).
Great, all the First World nations getting even richer by dividing other planets between themselves. Just what we need to further improve the standard of living of your average U.S. citizen.
>2. Helium-3, fusion catalyst that's only found on earth as a by product of nuclear reactions and is about 50,000 a pound. That alone makes it worth it moneywise.
[quibble]Not a catalyst, a reactant.[\quibble]
Moon mining would have to compete with making tritium and letting it decay, and there's already industrial-scale production of tritium.
I'm looking forward to the fusion reactors too. For those of you wondering why 3He matters, a deuterium-helium 3 reaction burns way more cleanly and opens up better options for generating electricity than deuterium-tritium does. Unfortunately the D-3He reaciton is even harder to start.
And what would be the benefits for the entire Earth if a corporation owns and mines the moon? current experience with corporations is negative, to say the least: they exploit and destroy the environment, while their profits skyrocket and there is no benefit for most of the people.
You must also remember that the moon is not a property of US or Russia or China. It belongs to all humanity, equally.
(the most successful commentary of human greed related to space was the Ferengi from Star Trek, by the way.)
In Situ propellant manufacture for the moon is not impossible. It relies on solid phase - gas phase engines. Magnesium/Oxygen would be one possibility.
Wouldn't the effect be squared as you are bringing the material to Earth. Add in the rotation, the wobble, and the sun's gravity as well.
I reserve the write to mangle english.
mining colony?
no no no.
whaling colony.
sing it with me people.
The change wouldn't be that large for a sufficiently large Moonbase, either. Since the angular velocity is the same at all radii out from the axis of rotation, acceleration due to rotation is simply proportional to the radius of rotation. So, using metres as our units, if your base has a perpendicular radius (from axis of rotation to feet of worker) of r, then you'll get a lower gravitational acceleration at the head than at the feet by a maximum of about 2/r. I'm not a biodynamicist, but that doesn't sound too unhealthy for r about 20m or greater. I'd be more worried about Coriolis forces and motion sickness.
Animals have been moved from on habitat to another by humans. If we hadn't come to be, I have doubts that the ecosystem would have tipped in the direction it has.
I hate to burst your bubble, but every single animal that you can see today is going to die regardless if humans are here or not. Yes, every single one. Droughts, volcanism, and comets, are going just about everything at one point or another. It has happened in the past and it will happen again. A comet is going to smack into Earth and make humanities little footprint look like ant tracks. New things will rise to take its place. The Earth (much to the horror of pseudo religious naturalist everywhere) is not a static unchanging place. Hell, if you simply wait around long enough EVERYTHING is going to die its final death when the sun goes nova and turns the Earth into a ball of ash.
"Nature" is not some grand anthropomorphized entity that gives a damn about life. Nature doesn't have an objective. If nature did have an objective, it would be to crush life by the powerful and impersonal forces of the universe that can easily swat Earth (and humanity) flat.
Conservation is only of value when it betters humanity. Now, do not take from this that I advocate burning the rainforest and BBQing California condors. My point is that "nature" is not a virtue in it of itself unless you hold some sort of pseudo religious beliefs around the environment. We conserve and preserve the environment for humanity's sake, not because it is a mortal sin for humans to destroy the environment.
The environment WILL be completely destroyed by natural forces. We should seek to preserve it in ways that benefit us.
Guys, this is clearly +1 funny. Take a joke.
Once again busytech and the scientific-industrial-complex lie about the need and possibility in order to squeeze money from science illiterates.
A colony is an expansion into unused resources of water, arable land, animal and plant life, and ECONOMICALLY recoverable minerals. None of these things exist on the moon. The moon has little metal. We don't need building stone. As for He3, we wouldn't be able to afford the cost--assuming we can get sustainable fusion to work.
And the men who do go there in the delusion that it means something to do so will have the most miserable lives you can possibly imagine, grubbing their daily water requirements out of the moon dirt-if possible at all-at great effort and risk under a weak gravitational field that destroys their muscle and bone and inevitably, their lives.
There will be no moon "colonies."
P.S. Play in their world, live in ours.
E Proelio Veritas.
No problem, you can stay behind, I don't mind. My descendents will live among the stars and yours can have what's left down here.
Sure. And your granddaughters will kiss magical space frogs that transform into princes for them to conveniently marry. And you grandsons will carry tridents, live under the sea and make it with mermaids.
Last I heard most of the moon was mainly made up of silica. It's not like earth where there are vast deposits of a wide variety of reasonably pure materials. There is oxygen trapped there, (silica oxide iirc?) but it's difficult to extract. We are certainly not getting food or water from the moon.
I once read a quote from a nasa engineer, saying something about a pile of dog droppings found on the moon would be the richest source of carbon for miles around. Us being carbon-based life, require carbon in pretty much all our food. There is very little hydrogen on the moon, and that nicely rules out the production of water.
For now I think the astronauts had better pack a lunch.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I'll agree that if you have the normal American slackass desk-job, losing muscle mass might be a problem. But keep in mind that mining is still a very physical job, and so loss of muscle mass may not be as big of a problem.
The biggest danger to humans, imo wouls be silica dust -- either clogging and destroying needed equipment or giving miners the moon equivelent of "black lung". I'm not sure how mines on earth solved this, but it seems to me that the troublem would be harder to control in 1/6th earth gravity.
Actually, the tides are a differential gravitational force, which means they fall off as 1/r^3.
But I'm not worried about mining the Moon enough to change things.
False analogy. The earth is not an egg shell - it's the chook yard, the feeder, and the jungle from whence came our ancestors. The person who wants to leave earth then, is equivalent to a hen who wants to leave the yard and live on a desolate rock in the middle of the ocean, and pretends that's better. And expects the other hens will pay for her to go.
Only albumen idiot would think the earth is more than a temporary home for us.
Only an idiot fails to realise there are no stars within reach of a human lifetime. Only an idiot thinks that consigning their children to die of old age in a tin can in the darkness and vacuum of interstellar space is glorious and that their descendents will thank them for granting them a life of boredom, scarcity and fear. Only an idiot thinks that a dozen humans shivering under a dome on some frigid, dead rock in space is adventure, freedom and the ultimate expression of human destiny.
... mentioning the Zhou Enlai mass driver. Truely an unmatched outstanding engineering achievement by the Chinese government!
I think mining the moon is a great idea. Though, I do think most of the moons surface should be turned into a preserve. We don't want foot prints all over the surface. The surface is like a historical record. But digging under the surface there should have no restrictions.
It might be a nice experiment for the ISS to test mining equipment in space. All of the particles produced by the drill might fly all over the place. How do you put ore on a conveyor belt? How do you melt ore in a furnace in zero gravity? Apply zero gravity to any industrial product. I think ISS has more uses than people are aware of. After all, its going to be built and we might as well use it.
Still, being under ground at the moon would solve many solar flare issues and high velocity micro meteorite strike issues.
Space needs to be more ambitious. Get the cargo hauler made and put up some big stuff. Once you separate cargo from people then we can take more risks and be cheaper -- a major difference from shuttle.
Um, sticky shit on the floor is not gonna help bone and muscle atrophy.....
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
The problem with your statement is that people disagree with the "and ultimately destroy" part. Define "destruction".
So what you're basically saying is that we are not allowed to advance until we've created a utopia on earth. That's impossible, face it.
But it happens _all the time_. It is estimated that the earth has an influx of meteorites and extraterrestrial dust in the order of millions of tons per year.
So I doubt it would change anything.
Meme of the day: I browse "Disable Sigs: Checked". So should you.
Because it's expensive to operate and breaks a lot. That means you either need a truly massive (and horrendously expensive, even if long term economical) on-site repair facility, or you need to ship lots of replacement parts from Earth. The process of mining the ice / regolith and cracking it is equipment intensive. If you have people there are non-trivial life support expenses. If you don't then the machinery is larger, more expensive, and more failure-prone. All this adds up to large R&D costs and equally large operating costs.
Put another way, each kg of machinery shipped has to buy you a bunch of kg of fuel delivered to be economical. And that machinery has to be shipped from Earth surface. It's the kg fuel delivered per kg machinery shipped ratio I'm questioning.
One reason it's so hard to operate is that Moon dust is nasty stuff: highly abrasive (sharp edges thanks to no erosion), statically charged so it sticks to everything, tiny enough to get into every join in sight, causes silicosis and other lung problems...
The deer and rabbits didn't rape this "lifeless rock" almost past use
Bullshit. Obviously you have never seen the devastating results of deer or rabbit overpopulation. Rabbits in particular are hugely destructive. All animals compete to the limit of their ability, and they don't care at all about the damage they may do to their environment. Where I live there's a problem with the recent explosive growth of the elk population, stripping the hills of fodder and driving out the deer. I suppose at some point there will be a disease or something that knocks the elk back and gives the deer a chance again -- or, more likely, the Dept of Wildlife Resources will increase elk hunting to cull the herds back to a balance point.
Most city-living, hardly-ever-been-in-the-wilderness-except-for-brie f-visits enviro-wackos like you perceive "nature's delicate balance" as a perfect, static sort of thing. In fact it's more like a vicious, n-way tug-of-war, and the center of the rope gets yanked all over the place. The balance is not only dynamic, but populations have huge standard deviations, and sometimes some of them get driven entirely out -- of the area or even of existence.
Humans are unique only in our much greater ability to do damage, and in the fact that we are capable of understanding the issue and caring about it. The reason that we care, and should care, is that we don't want to make the world an unpleasant place for us to live. The moon is already an unpleasant place for us to live. In fact, it's a place we *can't* live, at present. If mining it can help create a situation where we can maintain a self-sufficient population, that's an improvement to the moon. If mining it doesn't help render it habitable, well, it's already uninhabitable, so who cares?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
"When all is said and done, there will always be more said than done."
Talk. More talk. Conference rooms sloshing full with talk. Interminable oceans of talk.
Not one damned drop of do.
I've been waiting since the 60's for some do. Instead, it's all been nothing but empty, worthless talk. Talk, talk, talk, talk....
Do us all a favor: STFU and do.
Regards;
loose = tight
lose = win
"It may be possible to develop a sticky compound that can be adjusted by UV light to help adhere boots and objects to the floor."
Steps to make Moon Glue:
1) Create atmosphere for the moon
2) Create water for the moon
3) Plant grass
4) Raise race horses
5) Race the horses
6) Turn losing horses into Moon Glue
Nothing could be easier...
I have no problem with mining Earth's moon... that is, if it had one. It does have a satellite, so I guess we can mine the hell out of that. After all, most of it probably used to be part of Earth anyway.
"I've spent my whole life figuring out crazy ways to do things. It'll work." -- Montgomery Scott, "Relics"
Conservation is not a virtue for conservation's sake.
:)
Ah, there's the phrase I'm looking for. Thanks. I plan to steal it.
In the words of Eric Cartman, SCREW YOU HIPPIE!
OTOH, without the government doing it, much of the 'infrastructure" of today's world would not exist. Simply stated, when has building roads ever been a money-making proposition taken on by private enterprise?
Fuck you, asshole. Here's your last clue about producing solar power from lunar materials.
I understand the problem: you're so goddamn stupid that you're projecting your major malfunction onto me, when all I'm doing is citing the established research, and looking at continuing gains. While you're spouting bullshit with in unending obnoxious posts.
I'm pulling the plug on this useless waste of free education on your sorry ass.
PS: this time you spelled "there" wrong. Stupid shit. Probably voted for Bush.
--
make install -not war
So, they want to build a colony on the moon. But to do that, they have to build a colony. Wha? No, Im not really that dumb.
I saw a documentary that proved that it was Stilton. But beware the robot!
Wow. A Ptolomaic worldview this long after Kepler and Galileo. (shakes head). Oh, and there is only The One.
I already have a sticky compound adjusted by light (dimmer switch), although it requires a few more components as well like soft saxaphone music and a little friction.
A "hen" isn't capable of building a new city on that desolate rock, complete with gardens & living areas. Your so-called analogy is even worse than the one you were criticising.
You've got a really limited imagination, don't you? Do you really think that a mass space expansion is going to involve tiny little colonies on the scale of the current Space Station? There are a lot of people right now who live their entire lives within one city on the ground - their lives wouldn't be much different if they were living in a Los Angeles metro area (+ surrounding farmland)-sized space station, and there's nothing that says you can't have regular shuttle flights between the Earth & other space-stations/colonies
Even if we never figure out how to leave the solar system, it's not in our (Earth-based biological life forms) best interests to sit around waiting for an asteroid or comet to wipe out all life on the planet.
There's a _lot_ of building material out there in the solar system, especially if you figure out how to use the material from the Oort Cloud (outside of the planetary part of the system, but still within gravitational area of the Sun). Once we have a solid presence in space, instead of having to use the Earth as a base, then there are all kinds of things that are possible.
Great, all the First World nations getting even richer by dividing other planets between themselves. Just what we need to further improve the standard of living of your average U.S. citizen.
Frankly, I like the alternative where objects like the Moon are sold off in parcels and the proceeds sent to the citizens of the world.RAH was talking about doing this many moons ago. Seemed to me that he had it all worked out. What I don't understand is why we don't have better, more flexible space suits yet. I'll go in the second round after the initial bugs are worked out.
--Somewhere there is a village missing an idiot.
Well, it's not that clever, as the idea has been proposed before.
You don't need hinged system, though, because the carousel will be spinning at a constant rate, so once it's up to speed, "down" will always be at the same angle.
Prior to that, and during times of maintenance (or emergency) when the thing is spun down, everything can be stacked against the lower wall.
Since the thing is spinning in a near vacuum, it needs very little energy to maintain its spin, especially if it's sitting on a magnetic bearing.
Balance can be maintained by pumping water or other fluid around to compensate for movement of humans, etc., similar to what has been proposed for wheeled space stations.
The main difficulty with a rotating carousel system is entry and egress, both of persons and supplies/waste.
One solution would be an elevator to the hub from above that also spins up and down to match the carousel.
Another would be an ordinary elevator to a platform at the hub that spins up and down.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Well, you are not going to build them on the moon.
Why not?
And I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but this idea was around long before he was.
This sounds like the classic American fix for a pen that can be used in low gravity/free fall. $1M researching the Space Pen when the USSR used a pencil.
The answer to this problem might be in 2001: A Space Odyssey in which a very Russian approach was used.
Velcro. To turn it off - slip on covers.
Ok so it'll make for noisy steps. No ninjas in space. But like the pencil that effectively "leaks" graphite dust, the flaw hardly rules it out when the costly research hardly produces anything much improved.
Oriental Hero "I want to live in a city where the Police don't shoot you" Jean Charles de Menezes
What did the Stargate Program ever do to you????
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
False analogy. The earth is not an egg shell - it's the chook yard, the feeder, and the jungle from whence came our ancestors. The person who wants to leave earth then, is equivalent to a hen who wants to leave the yard and live on a desolate rock in the middle of the ocean, and pretends that's better. And expects the other hens will pay for her to go.
I expect that we'll see "hens" willing to go and able to pay for themselves to go. Then I don't see the problem. And that looks to be how it will occur too since space travel on Other Peoples' Money just doesn't seem to be working out.
Only an idiot fails to realise there are no stars within reach of a human lifetime. Only an idiot thinks that consigning their children to die of old age in a tin can in the darkness and vacuum of interstellar space is glorious and that their descendents will thank them for granting them a life of boredom, scarcity and fear. Only an idiot thinks that a dozen humans shivering under a dome on some frigid, dead rock in space is adventure, freedom and the ultimate expression of human destiny.
As another poster noted, we already orbit a star so yes, a star is within reach of a human lifetime. And we have some ideas for how to make that rock a lot more attractive. If your criteria for a human life is on some scale of "boredom, scarcity, and fear", then interstellar travel isn't that bad. We're bored, some of us seem keen on imposing artificial scarcity (eg, consumer materialism or sacraficial environmentalism), and fear never went away. So how would that be worse, if say we were at the same time heading to another solar system and doing something?I'm just a humble Humanoid, but but I've always wanted to send M.U.L.E.s up to some of those promising-looking mountainous areas. I just hope there's not a Planetquake or Acid Rain storm.
Maybe I'll even find the Wampus!
Cool funny t-shirts for geeks, gamers and everyone else
Send a seed factory that is controlled on earth that doews nothing more than lay out some solar cells and starts building infrastructure, send a few more factories that make parts for robot and solar cells, then make the fctory essentially "replicate" itself and move over a few hundred meters and repeat the process, even if it takes a year for the first factory to replicate itself, that would be a growth pattern like this:
Year 1: 1 Factory
Year 2: 2 Factories
Year 3: 4 Factories
Year 4: 8 Factories
Year 5: 16 Factories
Year 6: 32 Factories
Year 7: 64 Factories
Year 8: 128 Factories
Year 9: 256 Factories
Year 10: 512 Factories
Year 11: 1024 Factories
And so on and so forth until a large section of the moon is covered by factories. And gee, you now have thousands of Factories that can build solar cells and structures and electronics, tell them to make a moon base and they can build the damned thing in a week and have LARGE infrastructure there so when humans to come to the moon the next batch of astronauts will feel like they are taking a vacation.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
You obviously haven't been to Australia recently...
Or Oregon, for that matter, where deer overpopulation is a frequent problem.
In fact, of all species, humans are the only ones we know of that have made a conscious effort to preserve something of the environment, rather than just use as much as possible until famine and disease reduce our population.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
It will be a frightening day when we start mining the moon. Rather than spreading out and destroying other planets/moons/celestial bodies, how about first learning, as a species, how to preserve the planet we are already on? Birth control, conservation, not driving those damned H3 SUVs with one person in it going to the grocery store. If we die out, well, we deserve it. It's extreme conceit to think we should to expand to other planets just because we haven't learned to take care of this one. If a child ruins a toy, Mom and Dad say that it's tought luck, shoudl have taken care of it. Where did that mindset go to take care of what we have?
My, this drew a lot of comments. Assuming you're for real, I first have a couple of questions. What planets in the Solar System have the ecological value of Earth? For example, if the human race were living on the Moon instead of on Earth, would that be any different ecologically? My take is that it would. And if we didn't live on Earth, then it wouldn't matter if we had "learned" (a euphenism for comply with certain environmentalists' demands) how to live on Earth or not.Second, space encourages conservation. There, you don't have an existing planetary ecosystem that you can exploit for dumping your toxins or to cover for waste. You have to maintain that system. That requires greater knowledge of ecosystems and how to maintain them than we currently have. My take here is that space colonization is a *boon* to environmentalism because it demands a high level of recycling and conservation and developes useful technologies that can easily be applied to Earthside. It is a demonstration of extreme environmentalism in action.
Third, thinking longterm here, what's going to protect the Earth's ecosystem in the future from beings like us? Even if we destroy ourselves, there's a good chance that a new rapacious species evolves either on Earth or elsewhere in the Galaxy which eventually will harm if not destroy Earth's ecosystem. Intelligent defenders are the best counter. And they best be space-based.
Finally, my understand is that if we move into space and thereby survive some Earth based catastrophe, then we will be "extremely conceited" but alive. That's a pretty good trade, if you ask me. I don't see a valid counterargument to space colonization here.His granddaughters can kiss and marry my grandsons (skip the frogs -- some are poisonous). I'm sure my grandsons will be more than willing to make it with his granddaughters. Plus some mermaids, if they're available, of course. I'm not a fan of tridents, but my grandsons can figure that out for themselves.
Good thing you weren't around when the first explorers from Europe found the Americas. Or when some hominid was thinking about maybe seeing what was outside that big valley in Africa.
Pioneering isn't easy, it's hard. The hard the pioneers put up with leads to easier for those who follow. Why should space be any different? Maybe we'll build habitats, terraform, eventually reach other stars, whatever. If we don't, then we'll have tried and we'll KNOW.
Your attitude is basically: looks hard, better stay home.
Learn not to damage Earth yes. But not as a precondition to exploring. Do you think maybe if a bunch of us end up living in tiny little self-contained biospheres out in space we might learn the odd thing about having less of an impact on this great big biosphere we live in now?
There's value to unspoiled areas even if they're devoid of life, though... The empty desert has a beauty to it that I would be sad to see go. Similarily, I would be somewhat unhappy if the entire moon were ravaged and I never got to see the Sea of Tranquility for myself, when I went up as a space tourist.
Think about if Coca-Cola decided to make the moon one big ad, or we decided to remove the moon entirely (ignoring the catastrophic effects on earth...) Wouldn't you miss it?
I'm not saying that the entire moon needs to remain unspoiled, but I also think that just because it's a lifeless rock doesn't mean there's something there to conserve.
I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
You're hitting a lot of issues there. You might be sad you didn't get to see the sea of tranquility... well, I'm sorry. That's just sentimentalism which may have some place and some value, but ultimately, you don't get much more low-impact than gluttonously ravaging an already uninhabited, lifeless rock. You just miss out on some tourism opportunities. I don't think you have a "right" to go to the moon or anything, do you? Especially since we'd only get there using technology that requires lots of resources... a desert, slightly different... deserts aren't lifeless. Also they effect climates around them. pollution left there can drift.. all kinds of things. All non-issues on the moon. Well, unless we terra-form it ;)
I'm sure we'll have parks and such in space someday, but I don't think we need to start worrying about that just yet.
As far as making it an ad, or removing it entirely, those are pretty far outside the scope of what we're talking about here and would involved much longer conversations I think.
... because private industry has done such a bang-up job of space exploration so far. The fact is that the costs of space explorations are humongous, and the (monetary) payoffs are non-existent, at least so far. This is not a great recipe for the ultimate triumph of capitalism in space. Sean
The problem isn't that the government is holding back private industry - the government is mostly in the pocket of private industry anyway. The real issue is that no one can figure out how to make any MONEY by going into space. And until the dreaded government figures out how to solve the problems involved in getting to and from space, and working there, at a reasonable cost (I'm not holding my breath that this will happen in my lifetime), private industry is going to continue to pass on space exploration. Sean
Actually that happens all the time in nature; there were tons of mass extinctions when the isthsmus of Panama formed. All of a sudden there was a huge exchange of animals between the two continents; particularly from North America to South America, the latter of which was isolated since the breakup of Gondwanaland.
From a relevant link:
Yes, we are talking geological time, which is must faster than human time. That said, this process is 100% natural. People that have this worship of nature without understanding nature give environmentalists and conservationalists a bad name; it just makes those of us that actually understand why we are trying to preserve nature look bad.The space shuttle is only an EXAMPLE. Obviously it's not capable of performing the mission discussed here, but you can use it to get an idea of what it would cost to transport stuff to and from space. To do mining, you'd have to design an entirely new space transport system. You think that'd be cheap?
The point was that ANYTHING you mine on the moon would to humongously expensive to transport back to earth. Your choices are a) send back raw material for processing on earth or b) build processing facilities in space/on the moon. Either would be tremendously expensive - even if you were to build in place, there'd be expenses involved in sending up the capital equipment you'd require. Presumably you'd need workers, who'd want really, really big compensation in return for the high level of risk, spartan conditions, and rarity of home visits. The workers would require life support. So you'd have to bring water, etc, or mine THAT in place and do hydroponics. Think about what it would take to build a manufacturing plant in the middle of the Sahara desert. Then imagine having to lift everything needed to do this straight up for 250K miles.
But it's the only system we actually HAVE. See above for costs to design/build a "more efficient" system.
Exactly right. But if you want your returning materials to actually SURVIVE the return trip without burning up or getting smashed to pieces, gravity won't do the job. You'll need a re-entering spacecraft.
So all we'd need to do is bring/make railguns and massive solar arrays on the lunar surface. See above for the enormous cost of doing this. Not economically feasible even for titanium.
You obviously have a different definition of "need" than I do. We might "want" to do these things, but how do you figure we need to? Who would want to pay the gigantic costs for this stuff? The fact is, the only reason we would "need" any of this is to support the aforementioned space activities! Your reasoning is circular.
I could go on, but you get the idea. I'm definitely down with the idea that space exploration is valuable enough to do just for the scientific benefits. Maybe in the process we'll figure out enough about how to do it that economic activity becomes viable (I'm not holding my breath). But I'm not in favor of spending truly ludicrous amounts of money on space-based manufacturing just for the sake of space-based manufacturing.
Sean
Worst case scenario, we blow it out of Earth orbit, screwing up our tides, and having our intrepid astronauts ... oh wait, that's what happened in 1999 ...
The Grand Canyon - it's a lifeless rock. Who cares if it's a lifeless rock covered in garbage... etc.
The point is that unspoiled places have a value besides what we can extract from them. While I'm not saying we should never mine anything, we ought to be sure that we don't spoil something that's of greater value as scenery, a destination, etc, than we can get out of it by mining, farming, and so forth. I happen to think that mining the moon is more likely to burn money than make it, so I'm not too keen on the idea of mining it.
Sean
The earth is a lovely prison, but a prison nonetheless. We are trapped here.
Our lifespan as a species is limited. At the extreme end is the drop-dead date - the death of our sun.
That's pretty optimistic, though. Really, the planet likely puts a much greater restriction on our lifespan. After all, as a species we can exist in a pretty narrow set of conditions, ecologically speaking.
In order to survive as long as possible, we need a prison break. We have to be prepared to jump ship when things go south, and be enroute to other stars and other homes. Otherwise we'll blink out like a bad light bulb.
We have another limitation, however - and perhaps one that is far more threatening. We have to get off the planet while we still have the resources to accomplish it. We don't know what kind of demands we will have to place on the resources of the earth.
Environmentalism is a grand idea, but if it comes down to getting off the planet or saving the whales, well... screw the whales.
Strip mine the whole damn Earth, if that's what it takes. Decimate every ecosystem if need be. Dig out every scrap of fuel, every molecule of uranium, burn down every tree. There are bound to be more trees in the universe.
People cry bloody murder when a species goes extinct, but that's what species do, eventually. All of them. Sadly, that includes mankind. We, however, are in the unique position of being the one species on this planet that is aware of it, and we can try to extend our stay in the universe.
I love nature as much as the next guy, but sacrificing the collective life of mankind to save a few owls isn't smart.
In fact, if it turns out that to facilitate space travel we have to make bonfires of live baby otters, I'll chip in for the lighter fluid. (Taken from my site, June 2005)
Says who? Why does life have to have a purpose?
Oh, please. Being "complicit in a crime" would entail an actual crime being committed. A meteor wiping out human life would be an act of nature. Godwin's Law, anyone?
First of all, our ability to travel to other planets is very marginal. We've done it only a handful of times, over 20 years ago, and only to our own satellite. There is no evidence that we would EVER be able to travel fast enough to make colonizing other solar systems a realistic possibility, at least at a cost anyone would be willing to pay. And where do you get the idea that it's our responsibility to spread life? Who's going to hold us responsible?
Unless space travel can help us violate the laws of thermodynamics, eventually there'll be no life anyway.
Look, I'm in favor of space travel. But all these arguments essentially boil down to "we have to move into space, well, because we just have to!". If you're going to advocate colonizing outer space, you won't get anywhere unless you can figure out how it helps us NOW (or at least in the near future). Otherwise no one is going to be interested in the tremendous sacrifices involved in doing so.
Sean
Yes, I understand that there are critters living in the Grand Canyon. But let's say, just for the sake of argument, that it was totally barren. The Grand Canyon would still be of more value as a tourist destination than a garbage dump, or iron mine.
The same thing is probably true of the moon.
Sean
By your logic, reversing entropy is the most important pursuit ever. Again, without it, there will eventually be no life.
In the next billion years, who knows? A meteor impact could happen at any time. That is urgent. Avoiding heat-death is a problem we have plenty of time to look at.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
They already have: Gathering Minerals
Whoa there! We don't have the ability to travel to other planets yet! Robots don't count! Besides, I wouldn't say "only". Instead, I would say, "As the only life forms that we are aware of with the potential to travel to other planets". For all we know, there could be a fully colonized solar system "just off of the radar."
Granted, if we wait for them to find us, we'll probably get struck by a meteor!
No, I will not work for your startup
We can send life to other planets. In fact, we go to great pains to make sure we don't mistakenly send microbes out on our spacecraft.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
But the primary "problem" still exists - it's still a desolate rock, and no pretence on the part of deluded hens will make it otherwise. So the original analogy is still false.
And that looks to be how it will occur too since space travel on Other Peoples' Money just doesn't seem to be working out.
The basic reason it is not working out is because there is no reason for humans to travel in space. IF there were some resource we needed from space, we could collect it remotely. We are experiencing some liebensraum issues on earth, but that's not a problem solved by sending humans into space due to the basic physics of space travel/colony supply.
As another poster noted, we already orbit a star so yes, a star is within reach of a human lifetime.
Good point - Mars orbits the same star as the earth, so we are already effectively amongst the stars by being on earth. Making statements like "my descendents will live amongst the stars" seem pretty foolish.
And we have some ideas for how to make that rock a lot more attractive.
Great! Get back to us when it's done. Looks like you forgot to mention that it will take tens of thousands of years, and even then the Mars will not be as liveable as earth, since it lacks the basics that make earth liveable - exposure to solar energy, tectonic activity, huge amounts of h20, a big spinning core of iron.
If your criteria for a human life is on some scale of "boredom, scarcity, and fear",
It's not
then interstellar travel isn't that bad.
N/A
We're bored,
No, we're not - if we are non developed world, we are hungry, if we are developed world, we are scared, more like
some of us seem keen on imposing artificial scarcity (eg, consumer materialism or sacraficial environmentalism), and fear never went away. So how would that be worse, if say we were at the same time heading to another solar system and doing something?
You've inadvertently hit the nail on the head there by disclosing the oft discussed attraction of interstellar space for it's slashdot based fanbase. Escapism. As you say, there are real problems here on earth, like coping with climate change, and we implicitly recognise as responsible adults that we need to change our behaviour to ensure the earth is liveable for our earth bound descendents. We'd rather not think about that, rather, we like to pretend we are on the verge of some great leap forward in human history. As a child, I liked to pretend I was Doctor Who with a TARDIS. But now, I'm an adult and I face up to my responsibilities, even when it is unpleasant.
LOX / Aluminum (better performance than Mg, easier to refine, and more abundant IIRC) optimizes at 2.4 O:F ratio -- way lean of stoichiometric, because Al2O3 is a crappy exhaust product -- you need a certain amount of O2 in the exhaust to make the nozzle work at all. It's also only 224s Isp. (All this at standard conditions, frozen equilibrium calculation). Compare to Lox / kerosene, which optimizes at 2.5 O:F (mildly rich because H2 in the exhaust is better than H2O / CO2 / CO) at 273s Isp -- substantially better performance.
Add to this that burning aluminum requires either a powdered metal pump / injector, which is hard, or burning in a hybrid mode. The hybrid requires a hydrocarbon binder and powdered aluminum -- pure metal conducts heat too well, it will all melt before you finish the burn. That kinda defeats the point since you need to ship the binder from earth.
Also, alumina particulates in the exhaust (which accounts for 25 mol % of the the exhaust) are hell on nozzles. You probably can't build a cooled nozzle that will withstand that abuse. That implies ablative nozzles, which are a continuing expense that has to be shipped from Earth (pesky hydrocarbons or graphite again...). Also, the *highly* reactive oxidizing exhaust of this engine is much nastier on any conceivable nozzle than a fuel rich exhaust. In an oxidizer-rich metal fire, anything you could make a nozzle out of looks a lot like more fuel.
Not to say it can't be done... But it would be hard, expensive, and require a large R&D budget just to make the motor work. Add to that ongoing lunar ops costs and non-reusable motors made on Earth. Lift+throw from the ground looks a lot more attractive at that point...
Nuclear powered rockets would make all this consternation over supplies irrelevant. A decent nuclear rocket could haul hundreds of tons of supplies in a single mission. Here is a great article about a hypothetical design for a 100% reusable nuclear rocket based on the Saturn V form factor, that could not only lift 1000 tons of payload into Earth orbit (for comparison, the Space Shuttle can handle 32-tons), but also return an equal size cargo to a powered landing. Such a ship could haul enough food, water, air and equipment to the moon in one flight to keep a lunar colony going for several years, not to mention returning with an unprecedented quantity of lunar samples. No disposable fuel tank, no retrieving boosters from the ocean, no tiles falling off, just a big single-stage rocket doing an old fashioned Buck Rogers takeoff and tail-down landing.
Now let's talk Mars. Because of their enormous load-carrying capacity, nuclear rockets would be able to haul double-hulled interplanetary ships jacketed with a full foot of water, and get there in less than 3 months. The short transit time would decrease the crew's radiation exposure. The water would provide radiation shielding as well as self-sealing micrometeorite protection. (The outer few inches would freeze, and if a micrometeorite punctured the hull the leak would instantly refreeze and seal the hole.) The water/ice jacket would also function as a passive cooling system, eliminating one more major system. If only NASA would put serious money into building nuclear engines instead of into workarounds for the problems that they would solve.
Ya know, I'm getting pretty tired of hearing about "new" technical ideas which I remember hearing, studying and discussing in depth 30 years ago!
We've known for decades that:
1) Lunar subsoil contains water.
2) Lunar ores contain Oxygen
3) Lunar soils can grow food crops--better than some Earth soils!
4) That 1/6 g is a slight problem--compared to zero-g. At least in 1/6 g things tend to stay put.
Lunar mining was first seriously proposed in the 1950's, and studied extensively after we had lunar material samples to work with in the early 1970's.
Let's get off our collective asses and do some practical testing!
If we had setup an orbital manufacturing facility in the late 1970's when it was proven to be feasible, we could have:
1) A large-scale manufacturing/transshipment facility in L4/L5
2) A Lunar mining facility which not only supported itself, but provided materials for other orbital facilities, such as
3) Orbital power generation satellites capable of generating 120% of the current US electrical power usage.
Instead, we killed the manned space program, destroyed all of the working drawings and engineering specifications for the Saturn V and other functional systems, and put ourselves out of the space business by "settling" (by budgetary force from above) for the inadequate, cranky and more than moderately dangerous experimental vehicle known as the shuttle.
We canceled all development of true "space trucks" (i.e. reliable, durable, reusable, cost-effective transports capable of reaching at least LEO.
Instead, we destroy our environment with coal mines and pollution generating fossil fuel power generation facilities and nuclear waste generating fission power facilities.
Lets get out there and DO SOMETHING, we've spent decades studying this stuff like Aristotelian scholars when we need some practical engineering experience.
Best in-a-nutshell all day.
Not only that, but sooner or later we're going to meet those Little Green Men From Alpha Centauri, and it would behoove us to be in a position approaching equal footing, or at least not looking like something that belongs in a zoo for quaint cultures.
The notion that other spacegoing species will be "peaceful" is sheer bunkum -- exploration is by its very nature a function of aggression (that is, the desire to spread one's own species) and as such will run roughshod over any noncompetitive species.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
So when you say "we", you mean all life on earth, including non-human?
No, I will not work for your startup
But we can't either, since we, as much as hens, are completely reliant on nature for provisions. Witness our addiction to oil, as a good example.
You've got a really limited imagination, don't you?
There's nothing wrong with my imagination - it's just that I have thought through the practicalities/implications of what you are proposing, and you (as you have amply demonstrated), have not.
Do you really think that a mass space expansion is going to involve tiny little colonies on the scale of the current Space Station?
Since the parent was speaking of interstellar travel, and not extra orbital space stations, then yes, that is what we are speaking of - interstellar travel is 2 or three human lifetimes spent in the darkness of interstellar space, inside a capsule.
There are a lot of people right now who live their entire lives within one city on the ground - their lives wouldn't be much different if they were living in a Los Angeles metro area (+ surrounding farmland)-sized space station, and there's nothing that says you can't have regular shuttle flights between the Earth & other space-stations/colonies
Wellll yes there is, because, like the current space station, there is no reason for those proposed space stations to exist - owing to your admittance that there is no practical way to travel outside the solar system, and just as the general population is unmoved by the presence of an orbital space station, they are likely to become quickly bored with any extra orbital station or quasi colony. And begin to wonder why, given there is no practical reason for those stations to exist, we should be wasting our precious resources maintaining them.
Even if we never figure out how to leave the solar system, it's not in our (Earth-based biological life forms) best interests to sit around waiting for an asteroid or comet to wipe out all life on the planet.
It's not for you to dictate to us what is in our best interests and what is not. Wiping out 6 billion plus people, plus every other species in its entirety, but preserving the life of a few thousand humans is not a successful outcome. Particularly in comparison with a system that gives early detection of objects on a collision course and diverts the object away. Entirely possible, and with the advantage of being ethical and not monstrous in cynically condemning billions of people/species to death. And - it doesn't require the stupidity of having humans in space, where they don't belong.
There's a _lot_ of building material out there in the solar system, especially if you figure out how to use the material from the Oort Cloud (outside of the planetary part of the system, but still within gravitational area of the Sun). Once we have a solid presence in space, instead of having to use the Earth as a base, then there are all kinds of things that are possible.
All sorts of things are possible - it's possible to keep a bear alive in a cage for years, while your tap its bile to make medicine. Because it's possible to do so doesn't mean we should do it.
Good thing you weren't around when the first explorers from Europe found the Americas.
When the Europeans arrived in the Americas, it was already populated by humans living the high life. Are humans already in interstellar space or on mars, living the high life?
Or when some hominid was thinking about maybe seeing what was outside that big valley in Africa.
When the hominid left the valley, the world outside was already filled with other species living the high life - is interstellar space already filled with goodies for us to eat, and other species, living the life of luxury?
No?
Well gee. Looks like your silly analogy just rolled over and showed me it's oh! So yummy, soft, underbelly. Once again, when it was vital for you to present a reason for us to support a mars colony/space station/interstellar expedition of humans, you've failed to give us ANY reason, ANY reason at all why this proposal should get any focus.
Apparently, the ones you've been licking were, anyway....
I'm not sure the first settlers in North America would have called it the high life -- seeing as how the first colonies failed due to starvation, massacre and freezing to death in the winter. Undeveloped North America was pretty hostile to people used to nice warm, cultivated Europe.
Try this one -- how about the first settlers in North America who came here during an ice age? Crossing the Bearing land bridge during an ice age must have been quite the high life for a bunch of people to whom animal skins were the cutting edge in protective garments.
Yes, going into space is different than anything we've done before. We're going where Mommy Nature hasn't already checked things out and made sure they're safe for us. Welcome to the adolescence of your species. I know it's tempting never to let go of mommy's hand, but eventually you really should. It's better.
Ultimately it doesn't matter though. As others have pointed out, if you win and we sit huddled on this rock eventually an asteroid or comet will come along, pound us into extinction and give another species a chance.
It helps to understand the story that Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, is the site of the Sudbury Basin, the second largest impact site on the earth, where a comet struck a bit less then 2 billion years ago. The main business of Sudbury is mining out the ore left by that impact, the largest deposit of nickel on Earth, as well as high concentrations of other valuable metals.
Combining the region's extra-terrestrial economic base, it's concentration of engineering & science-types, 3 post-secondary institutions, and the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, leads to lots of interesting ideas. For example Sudbury was a pioneer of high-speed public networks with their fiber optic one first lighting up over a decade ago.
Finally, Sudbury for many years was regarded as looking very moon-like. Deforestation of the surrounding Canadian Shield and acid rain from ore smelting had killed off much of the greenery, leaving large swaths of pitted black rock. It didn't help that Apollo astronauts trained nearby, though not for the general appearance of the area but for some specific meteor-impact features. It's gotten much greener in recent years, but "like the moon" isn't an unusual comment.
So, already mining extra-terrestrial origin ore, in an isolated moon-like community, with a high concentration of geologists, mining engineers, and physicists; a lunar mining colony suggestion is hardly surprising.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
No, you've pretty much demonstrated your lack of imagination (and as is usual with such an attitude, you are completely oblivious to your own deficiency). You seem to be stuck thinking that any successful space-going colony is going to be just like an ISS-on-steroids.
What part of "city" are you having trouble understanding the scale of? A successful long-term space-colony is going to have upwards of _millions_ of people, not just thousands.
Whoa, I seem to have gotten an implicit upgrade in social status to "Dictator of the World". Since when does expressing a strong opinion suddenly mean I am capable of dictating anything to anyone?
Yeah, I think we should be doing that too as a first step into space (more achievable, and would help us work out the kinks in the technology & build the infrastructure).
However, just implementing that kind of system wouldn't help with any other potential global catastrophes like a worldwide plague, or complete environmental collapse, or nuclear war. But hey, it's not like we're cynically condemning all the life on Earth by not trying to establish off-planet "backups".
To sum up your entire response(s): "It's too tough, so we shouldn't do it." I'd guess that you're at no risk of ever been accused of having too much "vision".
Hot damn, you're a douchebag.
What on earth does this mean? I'm I just totally missing the cleverness of your "u"/"you" wordplay? Are you pointing your finger at the reader for not being "honorable?" Or are you just a die-hard, silent-letter-hoarding anglophile?
I can't believe it. No Uranus joke anywhere in this thread?
Libertas in infinitum
However, just implementing that kind of system wouldn't help with any other potential global catastrophes like a worldwide plague, or complete environmental collapse, or nuclear war. But hey, it's not like we're cynically condemning all the life on Earth by not trying to establish off-planet "backups".
If you are worried about plagues, let your kids play outside, contribute to medicines sans frontieres, and marry an asian person. Genetic diversity, combating poverty and third world disease, good health and immune systems are a killer for diseaes - literally. As for the other supposedly scary disasters, they aren't probable enough to scare me - if you are afraid, see a therapist or get a little squeeze ball, I'm sure it will help enormously. And learn the principles of risk management - that will help your distorted view of reality. And, and if we DID need an offsite backup the solution is easy - a big barrel of frozen embryos planted in space. When the earth recovers from disaster, the barrel automatically thaws and gestates the embryos, and releases them onto the earth. Bingo. We're back baby! None of the stupidity of trying to keep humans alive on an airless planet/puny space station for tens of thousands of years, whilst the earth recovers from disaster.
Thanks for proving my point.
Guess you didn't know, but when the pasty faced Europeans arrived in the americas, it was already successfully populated by other people. You must have been away when they covered that at school.
Try this one -- how about the first settlers in North America who came here during an ice age? Crossing the Bearing land bridge during an ice age must have been quite the high life for a bunch of people to whom animal skins were the cutting edge in protective garments.
But those people were following the game, and hunted and fished as they went along. Did you imagine they just woke up one day and said "say! let's trudge across the ice in that direction for months and months - for no reason?" Because that's not what happened.
Yes, going into space is different than anything we've done before. We're going where Mommy Nature hasn't already checked things out and made sure they're safe for us. Welcome to the adolescence of your species. I know it's tempting never to let go of mommy's hand, but eventually you really should. It's better
You chaps are good at putting forward false analogies aren't you? Pity you can't make a reasoned argument to support your position.
Ultimately it doesn't matter though. As others have pointed out, if you win and we sit huddled on this rock eventually an asteroid or comet will come along, pound us into extinction and give another species a chance.
I've already dealt fully with that one - go read the other posts.
Gee, I don't remember saying there were no people in North America when Europeans arrived. Anyway, have a good time with your life. I hope that attitude thing works out for you.
But the primary "problem" still exists - it's still a desolate rock, and no pretence on the part of deluded hens will make it otherwise. So the original analogy is still false.
Engineering can go a lot further than pretense. The Moon isn't going to become livable just because I spin the right phrases. But it's quite feasible to build stuff on the Moon that makes it livable.
There are a number of Earth-based analogies. Cities where swamps or deserts used to be, huge portions of land on Earth changed through effort. It's a lot more work, but we can repeat that in space. And it has the advantage that we're not first displacing a valuable ecosystem.
Why do some people want to live in rural or even wild areas rather than the big cities, cities that have evolved to serve as a great environment for people to live in? Answer, because there are serious problems associated with living in a city. You have higher crime, more interruptions and noise, more infectious disease, smaller living quarters, ie, problems associated with having a high density of people. In a similar fashion, someone now will find it more desireable to live or at least visit a barren rock than to stay on Earth.
The basic reason it is not working out is because there is no reason for humans to travel in space. IF there were some resource we needed from space, we could collect it remotely. We are experiencing some liebensraum issues on earth, but that's not a problem solved by sending humans into space due to the basic physics of space travel/colony supply.
I don't see this. Managing the throughput of the two largest airports in the world would depopulate the Earth in time at today's high birthrate. It would be an impressive enterprize, but you just need to move more people into space than the excess births over deaths on Earth. Given that the population growth rate is slowing on Earth and trends seem to indicate zero population growth for a time, a century from now. It seems feasible to me. Course there has to be something interesting in space first.
You've inadvertently hit the nail on the head there by disclosing the oft discussed attraction of interstellar space for it's slashdot based fanbase. Escapism. As you say, there are real problems here on earth, like coping with climate change, and we implicitly recognise as responsible adults that we need to change our behaviour to ensure the earth is liveable for our earth bound descendents. We'd rather not think about that, rather, we like to pretend we are on the verge of some great leap forward in human history. As a child, I liked to pretend I was Doctor Who with a TARDIS. But now, I'm an adult and I face up to my responsibilities, even when it is unpleasant.
Well argued, but it does bring up some counterarguments. Escapism isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are genuine problems you can leave behind. If you are in a disfunctional relationship (eg, bad marriage) with someone, seperation does end many of the problems. You may still want that relationship or you may have the propensity to form disfunctional relationships, but it does solve some problems.
As pointed out before, in space there isn't an ecosystem to break. It makes little sense ecologically to keep an industrial civilization on Earth when it could be in space doing far less harm. There's a good case to be made that the developed world has in part reduced it's internal pollution by exporting pollution causing industries to the developing world. A natural future move is to export those industries to space.
"Having responsibilities" can also be the outcome of living in a disfunctional society. How many burdens are placed on modern society because some ideologue or politician felt the need to do something for the environment, to fight crime, or to create jobs? In other words, responsibilities are often things imposed irrationally without reflecting the underlying needs of society.
For example, in considerable parts of the developed world there are man
In an amusing twist, malnourished skinny people will be the only ones who can afford the immense cost per pound to ship themselves to the moon.
WTF??? NO THEY DON'T. omelettes are made from unfertilized eggs you dipshit.