Bigelow Aerospace Investigating Feasibility of Moon Base for NASA

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bigelow Aerospace Investigating Feasibility of Moon Base for NASA

Posted by Unknown on Monday April 22, 2013 @09:03PM from the tea-time-on-the-moon dept.

littlesparkvt writes in with a bit from Space Industry News about Bigelow Aerospace's plans for the moon: "NASA and Bigelow Aerospace are in the initial planning phases for a moon base. 'As part of our broader commercial space strategy, NASA signed a Space Act Agreement with Bigelow Aerospace to foster ideas about how the private sector can contribute to future human missions,' Said David Weaver NASA Associate Administrator for the Office of Communications." Bigelow will be performing the study for free too. Robert Bigelow chatted with a radio host a few weeks ago about Bigelow's long-term space plans. They include refueling depots and a commercial moon base, since NASA isn't planning to go there.

140 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

TAILS OS (w/ Tor) - Anonymous needs your help! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-22 21:08 · Score: -1

TAILS OS - do you use it? Anon needs help to improve it.
New Anonymous project to curb Tails privacy/security issues!
Tails - new unofficial project to nip the buds
(Please see the .onion link at the bottom of this article for where to respond and help this project with your suggestions. Please do not post at the Tails forums, Tor mailing lists, or in IRC - we are only checking the existing thread at the .onion location below, which requires Tor to access.)
In a few areas of the Tails Forums, (one example below) Tails users have posted about certain 'data collection, logging, debugging, Whisperback', and other issues a distro such as Tails should not include!
I am working on a project which will stop this type of collection and it will be free and released with each new version of Tails (it won't be included with the Tails distro or worked on by Tails/Tor developers) â" matching any changes the Tails team may make to try and obscure these data logging/collection activities between versions.
Here is one example post from a concerned user (post exists now, could be deleted later!):
Why does Tails log too much? .recently-used.xbel
https://tails.boum.org/forum/Why_does_Tails_log_too_much__63___.recen%E2%80%8Btly-used.xbel/
#
An example of this is this hidden file: .recently-used.xbel located in amnesia folder. To see, open Home/amnesia, press Cntrl+h, look for that file. The contents of that file logs recently used programs and files with names and timestamps.
There are many other logs for different activities and events, a simple look around can locate these.
Caching thumbnails, recent documents, terminal command history and the similar..
Why would Tails need to log all these things during the session?
Some are useful for bug reporting, but many other arent and are widely revealing of system activities.
Yes, a restart will wipe everything, but what about while in the session?
Can an option be made for Tails to be log free or normal where the user can choose between the two? Like run log free and if a problem occurs to re-run tails with logs to identify the problem.â
#
There are debugging scripts, Whisperback, a script to drop all firewall protection, and much more in Tails.
I need more information from Tails users (Tails developers and those pretending not to be Tails developers posting against this will be ignored) before the first release is announced.
Boot into Tails and examine every nook and cranny and post about any file(s) with full path, which contain anything related to logging (excluding /var/log directories â" those will be dealt with) and/or sending of individual personal data.
On their mailing list they even had the balls to discuss whether or not they should add the package 'popcon'!
This project will be developed by an anonymous user (not included in the well known 'Anonymous' group). I will not reveal usernames from posters here, but I may credit this forum with each release with thanks for the help.
So boot into the most recent release of Tails, sniff around as much as possible, and post back juicy information to the thread in 'NEWS': http://clsvtzwzdgzkjda7.onion/
Thank you.
WMD by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-22 21:08 · Score: -1

Here's some cognitive dissonance for you douchebags.
According to the criminal code (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921) Obama's relying on, the bombs these Chechen mozzie nutjobs were using are considered "weapons of mass destruction."
By Obama's own definition, then, we found plenty of WMDs by invading Iraq.
There ya go.
1. Re:WMD by Cenan · 2013-04-22 21:34 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  Strawman. Obama is not the supreme authority that attaches meaning to words or acronyms. Two extra moron points for being both offtopic and racist, and a bonus point for an opening sentence that immediately loses the audience' attention. Good job.
  
  --
  ... whatever ...
2. Re:WMD by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-22 21:50 · Score: -1
  
  No strawman whatsoever douchebag, just making a comparison.
  And, racist? Really? In what sense? What are you even talking about?
3. Re:WMD by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 00:06 · Score: 0
  
  And an 'Ad Hominum' for the 'counter-punch'. Whether or not you think that the first comment for this thread was a good example for a strawman argument, one must admit that reading comments from 'the conservative movement' is practically a test in figuring out exactly which logical or informal fallacy they are making. In the end it's sort of a fifth column attack on sane, 'on topic' conversations, which actually further discredits the GOP.
4. Re:WMD by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 00:15 · Score: 0
  
  Ad Hominum? Fuck off doucebag.
  "which actually further discredits the GOP"
  You're welcome.
  And I am still waiting for anyone to point out the racism which of course did not exist.
  Crickets....
  MSM Breaking news: Mozzie Jihadis kill infidels for fun, smoke weed and fuck goats.
5. Re:WMD by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 00:21 · Score: -1
  
  And worth further noting, you all conveniently ignore the fact that I am right, you cannot complain that no WMD's were found in Iraq when the place is just lousy with IEDs and then call the Marathon bombs WMDs. You socialists don't seem to have the whole logic thing quite together there do you? Of course those of us with our eyes open have known this all along.
  Facts... troublesome things.
6. Re:WMD by morgauxo · 2013-04-23 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm... GP is either a bigot, a troll or both and his statement is assinine but I don't see the racism. Is it because he writes about the president? He doesn't say anything about his race. He could just not like that one person for all we know. Is it because he mentions Chechens? Again, he doesn't say anything to imply they are all like the bombers. Or maybe it's because he refers to muslims as 'mozzie'. Sorry, Islam isn't a race it's a religion. He may be bigoted but that does not imply racism. Let's not bring out the 'r' card where it doesn't belong. It only serves to dilute it's meaning.
7. Re:WMD by tehcyder · 2013-04-23 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  And, racist? Really? In what sense? What are you even talking about?
  Technically, "Muslim" isn't a race, so your use of the word "mozzie" is not racist, it's just offensive, bigoted, xenophobic and puerile.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
8. Re:WMD by tehcyder · 2013-04-23 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  And worth further noting, you all conveniently ignore the fact that I am right, you cannot complain that no WMD's were found in Iraq when the place is just lousy with IEDs and then call the Marathon bombs WMDs. You socialists don't seem to have the whole logic thing quite together there do you? Of course those of us with our eyes open have known this all along.
  Facts... troublesome things.
  I don't know any socialists who would agree that the Marathon bombs were WMDs. That's a rightwing US word choice.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
wow.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-22 21:21 · Score: 0

NASA is so poor they need handouts?
1. Re:wow.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-22 22:08 · Score: 0
  
  Considering their operating budget is severely underfunded and less than a lot of other government subsidized groups, and that the technologies NASA develops are released as open source/patent, AND that their technologies have improved and saved millions of lives; the least we as a society can do is give them a handout.
  We're paying Russia to fly our people and equipment to space. What does that say for the great American economy when we've got to carpool to go anywhere?
2. Re:wow.... by WindBourne · 2013-04-23 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  Worst yet, the house republicans are actively working to kill private space and keep paying Russia .5b/year so that SLS is funded.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
QOS by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-22 21:27 · Score: -1

Be honest. Would you, a Christian or a Jew, expect the same quality of service in an Islamic hospital that #Jahar receives at Beth Israel?
1. Re:QOS by VortexCortex · 2013-04-22 21:45 · Score: -1, Offtopic
  
  Be honest. Would you, a Christian or a Jew
  Hell yeah I would. Would you a pasty basement nerd? Call me for a time.
2. Re:QOS by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-22 21:53 · Score: -1
  
  The question is what English speaking people like to call rhetorical. Language, words, sentence structure, learn them and be happy.
3. Re:QOS by tehcyder · 2013-04-23 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  The question is what English speaking people like to call rhetorical. Language, words, sentence structure, learn them and be happy.
  It's a pretty fucking stupid rhetorical question when the answer any sane person would give is "yes" rather than the "no" that your feeble-minded, bigoted, xenophobic, paranoid phrasing suggests.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Wow by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-22 21:28 · Score: -1

So now NASA needs handouts....
Bring on Moonbase Alpha by maroberts · 2013-04-22 21:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

Space:1999 a few decades late?

--
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
1. Re:Bring on Moonbase Alpha by dkleinsc · 2013-04-22 23:29 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I was thinking the personnel from this moon base should be organized into two elite moon unit divisions: Moon Unit Alpha and Moon Unit Zappa.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
2. Re:Bring on Moonbase Alpha by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 03:10 · Score: 0
  
  I'm hoping for Alpha Complex, myself.
What's the catch? Will they get to name it? by VortexCortex · 2013-04-22 21:51 · Score: 2, Funny

Does NASA need alternate funding avenues?
Space Base Bigelow's Gigolos -- A Sugar Cougar's One Stop Shop for Moon Poon Pleasure. Ask about our Zero-G Whoopee for Free!
Feasibility - in terms of what ? by Taco+Cowboy · 2013-04-22 21:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

Unlike planet Earth, the moon does not have a lot of water to be wasted
Sure, it got water (ice) but the amount is miniscule when compared to what we got right here on Earth
What I need to know more is the exact definition of "feasibility" in that study
If it means "can live on the moon for quite a while", of course, the amount of water on the moon is enough to support some people on the moon for some time
We need to understand this --- it's like archeology --- what we do today might affect the future generations --- if we dig up the ancient grave today we might get X number of discoveries
But if we leave that ancient grave untouched, and leave it to future generations who may have even better equipments and technologies to excavate that ancient grave, they may yield EVEN MORE INFORMATION than what we can obtain
Same thing on the moon
We can build moon base today, it's entirely feasible to get enough water to let some people survive there for some time
But if we do that, we are, inevitably, going to pollute the water, and diminish the amount of the already limited amount of water on the moon
In doing so, we might negatively affect the future of the future generations for their own moon explorations
That is why I am interested to know how they are going to define "feasibility" in their "feasibility study"

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
1. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by mcgrew · 2013-04-22 22:44 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  We need to understand this --- it's like archeology --- what we do today might affect the future generations --- if we dig up the ancient grave today we might get X number of discoveries But if we leave that ancient grave untouched, and leave it to future generations who may have even better equipments and technologies to excavate that ancient grave, they may yield EVEN MORE INFORMATION than what we can obtain
  Tomorrow will always have better tech than today no matter what "today" you're talking about. If you always wait for tomorrow's tech, you'll wait forever; tomorrow never comes.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
2. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-22 22:45 · Score: 0
  
  probably the most sensible thing i've read all day!
3. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-22 23:08 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  A) Future generations can only get better at moon colonisation if we try, and learn, and maybe fail and learn some more. Just like today's archaeologists only got to be so good at archaeology because they stood on the shoulders of their less sophisticated predecessors.
  B) There is a HELL of a lot more water on the moon than you think. Yes, only a tiny fraction of the Earth's but still way more than we can deplete in a thousand years of missions/ bases on the scale being discussed here.
  C) The moon water will not be "polluted" or wasted away. Most of it will be recycled, ready to be re-used. Any sensible long-term moon plan will have water recycling as a core requirement. OK, some may end up scattered to the interplanetary void after being used as reaction mass or hydrogen fuel but again, not enough to be worried about.
  D) By the time we deplete the moon's water, we should be more than capable of picking up more from asteroids/ comets/ elsewhere in space and transporting it to the moon.
  Here's a classic sci-fi short story that deals with water as a (supposedly) limited resource for space travel and colonisation. It has hard numbers to help put the scale of the issue in context. Worth a read, and won't take too long: http://archive.org/details/TheMartianWay
4. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by khallow · 2013-04-22 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  It's also worth remembering that the "ancient grave" of water on the Moon is far more use to us in the near future than it would be to a future generation. After all, if they need water on the Moon, they would just be able to ship it to the Moon (due to all that fancy future tech and knowledge they'll have) while we don't have that luxury.
  
  And there is, of course, time value where things are worth more today than they are in some distant future.
5. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by Yomers · 2013-04-22 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  How exactly water will be wasted? Moon colony, if there will ever be one, will operate as closed system - all water will be recycled, same as it is now recycled on ISS.
6. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 00:09 · Score: 0
  
  You do realise tat after the fall of Rome, people forgot how to make/use cement. It was quite a number of centuries until we re-learnt that tech.
  Now I would consider cement to be a fairly easy to use hard to forget tech. But there you go it happened.
  When you then think that we've been around for ~200,000 years and we only remember that last 10,000 or so one begins to wonder what else we've forgotten.
7. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by TWiTfan · 2013-04-23 00:46 · Score: 2
  
  I really don't think many of you appreciate how hard it will be to actually get to the water on the moon (in any usable form, anyway). IIRC, it's scattered in tiny amounts and mixed in with regolith. Getting to it will be less like digging a well and more like industrial gold mining. Hell, we have a hard enough time doing desalinization in large quantities on earth, and that's a LOT easier.
  
  --
  The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
8. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 01:47 · Score: 0
  
  When you then think that we've been around for ~200,000 years and we only remember that last 10,000 or so one begins to wonder what else we've forgotten.
  You seem to be conflating human existence with technology such as writing. One can't overstate what a game-changer being able to make words tangible really was; in evolutionary terms, it's up there with starting to walk upright.
9. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 01:49 · Score: 0
  
  It's hard, but it can be done, and will be a fundamental part of any future moon mission that lasts longer than "plant a flag and run". However hard it is, it will certainly be preferable to shipping cubic tons of water from Earth.
10. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by dywolf · 2013-04-23 01:58 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No they didn't. What, you think it was a secret, or the knowledge just mysteriously vanished from peoples minds? The fall of Rome wasn't over night, it was over decades. And the people didn't just vanish, nor did the knowledge. The "Dark Ages" following the "fall" of Rome, wasnt really dark. Really the only thing lacking was this huge overarching unification and relative stability granted by being part of the roman empire, and even that was only in europe.
  Farmers have been making crude cement for thousands of years. You think they never noticed that when sandy/gravelly soil and clay soil mix (effort to loosen up the clay soil so it drains/grows better), it only gets worse, such that you can't farm? Then somoene got thebright idea...whoa...this stuff is hard...we can't grow with it...but we can cut it into blocks and make walls and homes from it!
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
11. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by dywolf · 2013-04-23 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  this is actually one of the arguments for why we shouldnt wait for sometime in the future to make colony ships for interstellar exploration, but should instead start now.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
12. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by IndustrialComplex · 2013-04-23 02:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  One of the oddities that people overlook in spaceflight, is that people with excess fat would make ideal colonists.
  I don't think there is a more cost effective means in terms of payload to transport 'food and water' in a form usable to humans than fat people. I'm not talking morbidly obese, but an astronaut with 20kg extra weight is carrying pre-processed nutrients/energy/water in a form that requires the least amount of energy to turn back into work. As the astronaut burns off the excess fat, the wastes produced can be collected and reprocessed into useful water and fertilizers.
  Consider the two options:
  A healthy astronaut with 20kg of fat
  A healthy astronaut with 0kg of excess and 20kg of food/water.
  kg for kg, the stored fat will be much more efficient than 20kg of extra food/water.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
13. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  So you are sending your wifes eggs, and your sperm to the moon? That would cost less then sending something that could be utilized when it got there?
14. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by OolimPhon · 2013-04-23 02:37 · Score: 0
  
  You do realize that you produce water every time you breathe out? With a decent enough size colony it might be that water is less a scarce resource than a nuisance.
  Even now they have to carefully control the humidity levels on the ISS since too much water make mold grow on the equipment.
15. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by Jeremi · 2013-04-23 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  But if we do that, we are, inevitably, going to pollute the water, and diminish the amount of the already limited amount of water on the moon
  Any moon water we pollute can be purified again; we have the technology
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
16. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by Jeremi · 2013-04-23 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm, I suppose this explains the crew in the WALL-E movie.
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
17. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by Penguinisto · 2013-04-23 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  I think GP meant concrete (as opposed to mortar or simple cement).
  There were a lot of technologies that were lost, though - mostly because once things did finally grind into the dirt, there wasn't enough of a societal structure left in the Western Empire to support learning or continuing such technologies, and literacy dropped to the point where re-learning from what little writings survived to that point was hit-or-miss at best.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
18. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by morgauxo · 2013-04-23 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  The Romans had writing.
19. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  No one is a bigger proponent of manned spaceflight than me but let me be brutally honest here: There will be no manned bases on the moon ... ever. Oh, we'll go and study every interesting spot on the moon. We'll spend upwards of a month or more in certain areas of enormous interest. But humanity will not build a moonbase for permanent occupation. The technology and logistics are not insurmountable but the degree of difficulty will run smack into 'Why?'.
  The ISS is going to cost 150 billion dollars over its lifetime. It took 13 years to build and it was a relatively easy task at 250 miles up. Try to build anything on the moon and that task just became exponentially more difficult, expensive and dangerous in ways we are only just beginning to get a handle on. It will cost north of a trillion dollars and when you're done building it ... now what?
  The reasons for a base are vapid bordering on nonsensical. Harvest helium 3? How? For what fusion reactor that will exist in a distant future? and then, how do you get a viable quantity back to Earth without pricing yourself right out of the market? You'd be better off to extract the little bit that exists here on Earth than go to the moon for your source ... and that's IF it's a viable fusion fuel. No one has demonstrated a viable design or established a preferred fuel. So, you're going to build trillion dollar moon base on a hunch that hellium 3 will be the 'go-to' fuel of the future?
  Here's an eye opener: The Orion space capsule has 691 cubic feet of interior space. Orion and its variants are going to be our ride into space for the forseeable future. You discover a solid 24k gold asteroid and you send an Orion to 'harvest' your gold. You manage to get 691 cubic feet of gold into your Orion. At $1600 an ounce you'll see roughly $22 billion for your efforts. That won't even come close to covering your costs. Oh, yeah, and it'll weigh over 400 tons. You ain't bringing that back to Earth. And, even if you could get it back to Earth, what would 400 tons of gold do to the market? Would you even get $1600 an ounce if you could get it to Earth intact?
  Back to the moon base: Just for one example of the enormous difficulty the planners are dealing with, let's look at harvesting the regolith for oxygen & hydrogen for rocket fuel. The very notion of this task is silly to the point of inanity.
  Assuming you can build a liquifaction facility on the moon where do you put the liquid? Even on the moon it will require a dewars flask to keep it liquid. How do you build an insulated flask that would be similar to the storage tanks at KSC? Do you bury it to protect it from the inevitable meteor impacts? What kind of uniquely designed construction equipment would it require to do that? How many SLS flights will it take to get the construction equipment, tank components and other support hardware there? At 130 metric tons of throw weight to LEO you might be lucky to get 20-30 tons of actual hardware on the surface of the moon and a large portion of that is going to be the lander mass, quite useless to your construction after it lands. Again, how many flights to build one tank? You'll need at least 2 for hydrogen and oxygen. You can be sure it will take a lot of flights -- and successful flights, at that ... don't have even one failure.
  When the landers arrive you're going to have to space them out so an accident doesn't impact the construction site. Now we're a safe and long distance from the construction site. How many truck-like vehicles will you need to get all of the usable hardware to the construction site? Did I mention all of these lunar vehicles will be running on electricity? Ponder those implications.
  As more and more landers arrive over time you're going to be further and further out. If your solution is to remove the old lander to make way for a new one as you would on a dedicated landing pad, what do you use to remove the dead tonn
20. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by morgauxo · 2013-04-23 03:27 · Score: 2
  
  I can imagine how that could work out.
  Generational colony ship leaves.
  Several generations later some form of FTL is invented. Colony ship is still generations away from any star system.
  People on Earth remember the colony ship from their history books. there is a huge public concern over their fate. The people of Earth regret having sent those poor people on this now 'pointless' mission. One of the first FTL ships is sent to 'rescue' their descendants.
  The descendants are happy to have visitors, see some new faces, get news of Earth. However, much to everyone else's surprise they have adapted. The ship is their home and they have their own way of life. Few return.
  In the very long run the colony ships (yes plural now) colonize more worlds than the Earthlings with their FTL. When they finally arrive at a star system with a usable planet they orbit for some generations. They gather supplies, repair and upgrade their ship. They allow their population to grow. They build more ships. A fraction do stay behind on the new planet but since ship life is now their nature many more fly on to the next worlds.
  Pointless mission indeed!
21. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by morgauxo · 2013-04-23 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I bet a sperm bank will be a huge part of the first self-sustaining multi-generational colonies or colony ships. It will probably be needed in order to have wide enough of a gene pool.
  I say sperm banks because eggs don't keep so well.
22. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by tehcyder · 2013-04-23 03:38 · Score: 2
  
  this is actually one of the arguments for why we shouldnt wait for sometime in the future to make colony ships for interstellar exploration, but should instead start now.
  My problem with the idea of colony ships is that the only sort of people who are prepared to go on a voyage in a cramped, windowless tin box until they die, and their children, and their grandchildren and...die are essentially insane and shouldn't be allowed anywhere outside of a padded cell.
  The idea of being on a ship where everyone knew they were never going home frankly terrifies me.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
23. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by tehcyder · 2013-04-23 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  Not surprised you posted as AC, the only people more rabid than the space nutters on slashdot are ...oh wait, no there's simply no one more rabid. Even libertarian Apple users of emacs are moderate by comparison.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
24. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by tehcyder · 2013-04-23 03:42 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Future generations can only get better at moon colonisation if we try, and learn, and maybe fail and learn some more.
  That is begging the question of whether having a moon colony serves any useful purpose in the first place.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
25. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by Teancum · 2013-04-23 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the Romans had writing. For some time it was a popular game and exercise to go over the writings of ancient Rome and Greece to see if there might be some sort of technology or concept that hasn't been implemented in "modern society" (whatever that was). There certainly were things like aqueducts and even very sophisticated machines like the Antikythera device that spoke of incredible engineering and design skills that existed in the past but were lost.
  I agree with the original parent post by AC that sometimes technologies can be forgotten either through neglect or failure to pass that information onto the next generation. Nuclear engineering is one of those fields I'm currently very concerned about in terms of hard won knowledge is not being passed onto the next generation, and there are some other similar kinds of things like that where it does appear we are in a civilization in decline. None the less, I really doubt there are exotic technologies like how to build spacecraft, teleporting machines, or ancient "stargates" to other worlds that have yet to be found. Really doubt as in I think there is a higher likelihood that the flying spaghetti monster is real.
  I suppose you can claim that the 1960's Apollo Project effort was ancient knowledge that has to be rediscovered (another example of technology being forgotten), as the ability to go to the Moon has been lost in America and the rest of the world. None the less, that isn't anything close to 100 thousand year old technology that needs to be rediscovered in an archeological dig. It is digging through warehouses of government records though, so I suppose it might as well be the same thing.
26. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  both wrong. romans made hydraulic cement with ash from a volcano. this is cement that would set under water. this art was lost until the early 19th century, when some british buy (using the scientific method) rediscovered it.
27. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 04:09 · Score: 0
  
  So, what did I say that was wrong? What part of 'expensive and foolish boondoggle' are you having a problem with?
28. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by Teancum · 2013-04-23 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  No one is a bigger proponent of manned spaceflight than me but let me be brutally honest here: There will be no manned bases on the moon ... ever. Oh, we'll go and study every interesting spot on the moon. We'll spend upwards of a month or more in certain areas of enormous interest. But humanity will not build a moonbase for permanent occupation. The technology and logistics are not insurmountable but the degree of difficulty will run smack into 'Why?'.
  In terms of a huge government scientific research station similar to Amundsen-Scott Research Base in Antarctica being placed on the Moon with the current fiscal climate and the need for constant resupply from the Earth to sustain every possible need like it was some sort of submarine permanently stationed at a particular longitude/latitude? Yeah, I would have to agree with you that kind of activity will never happen on the Moon or for that matter anywhere else in the Solar System other than the current fiscal black hole that is called the International Space Station.
  That isn't how human civilization has been able to spread around the world though. Can you imagine if everything people used in Virginia was still being supplied by ships coming from England? There might be a colony of a few hundred British living and working in the Jamestown area, but it would still be something operated by the Royal Navy and not a state of eight million people.
  The key to making things work in space and advancing the frontier of humanity is to "live off the land" and obtain the resources needed to stay there from the resources which are found there. How that is done will be a complex task, and even something "simple" like trying to establish an independent biosphere that can sustain itself is something I'm not sure is possible.
  Regardless, I'd like to see people at least given the chance to find out. There are enough people who would be willing to either voluntarily contribute money or even put themselves and their lives on the line to find out that I think it is important that those who think this is a foolish endeavor to at least step aside and let those who want to find out to do just that. I'm not sure colonization of the Solar System is something which should be financed at gunpoint by those who are opposed to the idea (aka paid for by taxpayers), and there are a number of reasons why I think making government projects in space is a total waste of money in many cases. Regardless, there is a role that even government agencies can play in either encouraging or developing these resources and moving humanity beyond the Earth.
  The largest advantage that the Moon offers is its proximity to the Earth. If something goes wrong on the Moon, resupply can happen in the time frame of weeks rather than months or years. Communication back to the Earth can be done in about a second or so, rather than minutes or hours. You can hold down a conversation with somebody on the Moon and the 2nd party on the Earth... something that is much harder to do on Mars. As such, if there is going to be something to humanity moving off of the Earth, the Moon is likely going to be one of if not the first place where such expansion of humanity will happen.
  I am aware of Robert Zurbin and his philosophies over skipping the Moon and going to Mars first. He even makes some valid points to the idea that are very much worthy of merit. For myself, I think Mars and the Moon are about equal in difficulty in terms of trying to get a colony established, with strengths and weaknesses to both worlds and challenges were technology developed for building human settlements on one of those worlds can be adapted for use on the other world as well. They aren't identical though, so there will be some unique challenges as well. It also is far from inevitable that human settlement will happen on either world for that matter, even though in the long term (10k years or more) I think it will eventually happen even if it isn't in my lifetime.
29. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by Teancum · 2013-04-23 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Water is going to need to be a recycled resource. The point of the parent post is that obtaining that water is going to be a difficult task akin to extracting gold from low-grade ore on the Earth right now, and I'd have to agree with him. You are used to sticking a bucket above your house and gathering water, or tossing a hose into a passing stream where water is literally rushing to your house or at least nearby. That simply doesn't happen on the Moon at all. You are more likely to get water in a bucket sitting on your roof by living in the Sahara than anything you might find on the Moon where water is much less plentiful.
  I should point out that the ISS gets most of its water from the Earth in the form of regular shipments in the resupply capsules. While the ISS is certainly developing recycling processes that will be valuable for a place like the Moon, they are hardly self-sufficient. That water needs to come from somewhere, and bringing it from the Earth at $100k per liter (about the price to put a kilogram of stuff on the Moon from the Earth) is not a cost-effective way to supply a lunar colony.
30. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by dywolf · 2013-04-23 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  this is what I wanted. The Wait Calculation.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wait_Calculation
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
31. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by SleazyRidr · 2013-04-23 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  So... we wait until society's about to collapse, then do everything we've been waiting to do. I think that if you tried that, the waiting around would be one of the major contributors to the collapse.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
32. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by lgw · 2013-04-23 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Heck, that's about 20% of SciFi writing right there.
  
  When they finally arrive at a star system with a usable planet they orbit for some generations. They gather supplies, repair and upgrade their ship. They allow their population to grow. They build more ships.
  Vinge's A Deepness in the Sky is one of the best 10 SciFi books, IMO, for it's somewhat reasonable idea of how that would turn out. If you're a trading ship that takes years or decades between stops, what do you trade?
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
33. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by lgw · 2013-04-23 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  A moon base makes sense as a place to do industry(mostly fuel production) in support of other space operations, but really only after we're capturing asteroids to use as raw materials. While the Moon still has an annoyingly deep gravity well, light gravity is far easier than no gravity for manufacturing.
  If we can capture a CHON asteroid or two, then fuel becomes much cheaper, volatiles to keep a moon base going become practical (they'll never be practical to boost from Earth at any scale), and the benefit for turning a big rock into rocket fuel at industrial scale becomes quite large.
  A fast Mars mission with lots of delta-V will require both really high ISP engines and lots of cheap fuel, but it's not dependent on some technological breakthrough that may never happen, only on resource allocation.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
34. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by IndustrialComplex · 2013-04-23 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  In terms of mass for a single transport to the moon, that would be the minimum required to get humans there. If you look at just a single flight. If you considered the overal cost of supporting the humans you grew from those sperm and eggs, you would need to send massive amounts of food and water as well.
  What I'm saying, is that when launching something into space costs about $2000/kg, and you need to send MANY people to this protocolony to get it started, it actually makes logistical sense to consider 'bulking up' the people here on Earth before launching them to the moon. Assume it takes about 7kg of grain to produce 1kg of beef (yes, we aren't bovines, but this is as accurate as I care got get for a slashdot post). If you are trying to get 100 people on this colony, having the colonists 'bulk up' by 10kg before leaving Earth would save you from sending (7kg of grain * 10extra kg * 100 people) = 7000kg of 'food' to ship. At $2000/kg, you are looking at $14,000,000 in food. If instead, you sent up bulked up colonists, you would spend only ($2000*10kg*100) = $2,000,000.
  Right off the top, you will have saved $12 million dollars. That ignores the fact that if you had them pack on only fat, rather than lean muscle, that fat would be storing some water, and also important nutrients which would normally have to be shipped up as well (our digestive system is also not very good at absorbing nutrients as supplements, so a lot would be wasted there too).
  It might even be very useful to have 'prebulked' colonists if there were some sort of crop failure/famine on the colony. While modern earthbound humans may not always like the fact that our ancestors evolved the tendency to store fats for times of famine, we might consider using it to our advantage in establishing a lunar colony.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
35. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by IndustrialComplex · 2013-04-23 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not so sure. The only reason you would have to be concerned about a limited gene pool over a long time period is if you never planned to add 'new blood' to the colony over time. In addition, while our current morals may consider it 'icky' once you reach the distance of second cousins, there risk of genetic problems is very diminished.
  We might even want to be careful about trying to 'downselect' genetic disorders as well. Aside from some screening to ensure that there isn't some lethal combination you are sending up, we probably don't want to outguess evolution too much. (ie: certainly check to ensure that you aren't sending anyone up with hemophilia, but we might want to avoid going too GATTACA)
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
36. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by mcgrew · 2013-04-23 23:00 · Score: 1
  
  Today's technology isn't anywhere near advanced enough for interstellar travel, getting to Alpha Proxima is as impossible for us as getting to the moon was two hundred years ago.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
37. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-24 15:31 · Score: 0
  
  One case of second cousins is one thing. When the whole population is close like that the variety of genes will start narrowing and second cousins will start sharing genes more like first cousins or sibblings.
38. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by cheesybagel · 2013-04-25 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like the old tales about Hyperborea or Atlantis? As far as we know Atlantis was actually a tale about the decline of the Minoan civilization after the explosion of the volcano in Crete. However I never heard any good explanation for the tales about Hyperborea. Then there are the tales of flying chariots in ancient Hindu literature, and others, which seem to indicate the existence for spacecraft in ancient times. I think it is not far fetched to conceive that alternative civilizations of higher technological level, or even alien visits to Earth occurred in ancient times considering the timespan of written records (4000 years) is a lot shorter than the existence of Homo Sapiens (20000 years) or the existence of life on Earth itself (millions of years).
39. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by Teancum · 2013-04-25 22:35 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't far fetched to conceive in fiction of some sort of spacecraft that existed anciently, but seriously..... are you saying that there was a civilization that existed anciently that was capable of spaceflight thousands of years ago?
  There would be evidence in geological records as well as considerable archeological evidence that these civilizations existed... and that simply doesn't happen. You also have the time spans wrong as there are written records that go back 10,000 years and if you use the term loosely you can go at least back 20,000 years on some written records that used pictograms or at least drawings that can be considered "art". If there was a sentient species of dinosaurs that used tools and could travel into space, we would certainly be finding piles of metal and other strong evidence that such civilizations existed.
  Yes, in theory such a civilization may have existed over the billions of years that the Earth has been around, but fanciful stories that have been reinterpreted in a modern context by people who are embellishing those stories so much that they might as well be modern fiction really don't count.
Oooh, just like before? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-22 22:27 · Score: 1, Interesting

How is this different from, oh I don't know, the last five decades? We use computers now to generate the "real estate brochure" artwork? And didn't Bigelow lay off half its work force a few years ago? Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the commercial value of a vacuum.
Gravity? by RivenAleem · 2013-04-22 22:35 · Score: 2

Is the gravity on the moon sufficient to prevent the bone de-calcification and muscle atrophy in humans there for a prolonged period of time? I know that people who go up to the ISS for a few months are irreparably damaged, though the idea of making a spinning station would counter most (if not all) of that. At 1/6 earth gravity, would humans suffer the same fate as they do in micro? Can they build a spinning habitat on the moon?
1. Re:Gravity? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-22 22:56 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Is the atmosphere on the moon sufficient to prevent the de-oxygenation and breathing atrophy of humans there for a few seconds? How about the lack of a magnetoshpere? What is this obsession with sci-fi golly-gee Tom Swift fantasies about space? It's a hostile radiation-blasted vacuum with nothing in it. You have to bring the world's most advanced technology just to breathe. And what is so important on the Moon? It's the same periodic table of elements as on Earth. Plus here you have every specialist and every industry right here to solve any problem you might have.
  This space stuff is just an extension of America's history of expansion and the "wild west", translated into the modern era with WWII technology and German engineers.
2. Re:Gravity? by Cenan · 2013-04-22 22:57 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  According to NASA it has yet to be determined what causes the bone degradation. The damage is also not "irreparable", though bone mass is not fully recovered. From the link:
  
  The exact mechanism that causes the loss of calcium in microgravity is unknown. Many scientists believe that microgravity somehow causes bone to break down at a much faster rate than it is built up. However, the exact trigger for this rate change has not been found. Researchers are currently pursuing multiple lines of research, including hormone level, diet, and exercise, in order to determine exactly what causes -- and may control or prevent -- osteoporosis during space flight.
  On Earth we see the same thing happen from time to time (my mother used to have it). Bones suddenly become weak to the point of breaking at the faintest impact. Doctor's orders were to drink lots of milk and other high-calcium foodstuffs, and it apparently went away to a degree that she was declared "cured". If (the lack of) gravity was the sole cause, we would not see this on Earth.
  
  --
  ... whatever ...
3. Re:Gravity? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-22 23:20 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  "The damage is also not "irreparable", though bone mass is not fully recovered."
  The mental process of the Space Nutter, ladies and gentlemen.
4. Re:Gravity? by RaceProUK · 2013-04-22 23:26 · Score: 1
  
  It's a hostile radiation-blasted vacuum with nothing in it
  Apart from a few million billion gigantic balls of fire often surrounded by massive rocks.
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
5. Re:Gravity? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-22 23:32 · Score: 0
  
  We can see these fireballs just fine from the Earth, I fail to see how getting a few hundred kilometers closer will change anything? Or are you suggesting that we somehow have access to them? When you're drowning alone in the middle of the Pacific, with no one around for thousands of kilometers, does the presence of the coast 5000 kilometers away help in any way? Can you swim there?
6. Re:Gravity? by RaceProUK · 2013-04-22 23:36 · Score: 1
  
  Party pooper :(
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
7. Re:Gravity? by BasilBrush · 2013-04-22 23:44 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I can repair a china cup. But it isn't fully recovered. As grandma will clearly notice.
8. Re:Gravity? by Urban+Garlic · 2013-04-22 23:57 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Robert Zubrin, the "case for Mars" guy who seems to have thought a lot about months-long space journeys, believes that low-gravity bone loss can be mitigated by exercise. His data point is Shannon Lucid, who spent 179 days on the Mir space station, rigorously followed the prescribed exercise regime, and came back in significantly better physical condition than other members of her crew, who weren't as disciplined with their exercise regimes.
  Even if he's wrong, this is a problem to be solved, rather than a reason not to try.
  
  --
  2*3*3*3*3*11*251
9. Re:Gravity? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 00:23 · Score: 0
  
  I prefer the term "reality bringer". Seriously, time to grow up. Space isn't at all like in the movies.
10. Re:Gravity? by RaceProUK · 2013-04-23 00:28 · Score: 2
  
  True. I mean, it's not like we ever got anything from space travel after all.
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
11. Re:Gravity? by Skythe · 2013-04-23 00:30 · Score: 2
  
  Here is the "official" Mars One answer to bone issues (site seems to be down now so copy and paste from Google Cache):
  Prolonged weightlessness causes osteoporosis, which can be reduced by exercise and medicine. Research onboard the International Space Station has led to even better and more effective training programs being drawn up, and new machines being made specifically for astronauts. Conjointly, there have been major leaps forward in medications capable of partially preventing declining calcium levels.
  
  Recent study about 14 ISS astronauts, who were 4-6 month in space, showed a maximum bone loss of 1.5% / month in the most vulnerable (from bone loss point of view) region - the hip. Therefore the bone loss after arriving on Mars, after a 7 month flight, would be in the worst case scenario 10.5%.
  
  When they arrive on a planet with 62% less gravity, they would have 100% more bone density compared to humans under earth gravity.
  
  Google Cache link: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YS4BxMBdYy4J:mars-one.com/en/faq-en/19-faq-health/193-will-the-astronauts-develop-osteoporosis+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au
12. Re: Gravity? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 00:33 · Score: 1
  
  What's on the moon is sunshine, real estate, and a relatively small escape velocity. Put a machine there to convert sun heat and moon dirt into silicon crystal boules. Then add a machine to make solar cells. Then add a machine to place them across the land. People will probably have to visit to get it all working. Having a place for them to stay would be nice. After a while you have enough power to do anything you want. Eg, make materials needed to build a rail launcher. Then you could, eg, send rocket fuel (made from moon dirt) to earth orbit. All this would probably take a long time, but the investment would be low.
13. Re:Gravity? by RivenAleem · 2013-04-23 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  Even if he's wrong, this is a problem to be solved, rather than a reason not to try.
  100% agree, and as another poster commented, the reason for de-calcification and atrophy is not 100% understood, so the spinning habitat may not be the solution.
  Shielding against the radiation, recycling of water (closed loop) and growing of suitable flora (mushrooms) for food etc have already got numerous ideas for how to overcome them, the gravity differential, though, seems to me to be the big hurdle to keeping a person healthy on the moon, if it's the gravity that's the cause of the bone problem.
  She may have some back in significantly better shape, but Shannon Lucid did not come back unaffected. One may hope that 1/6th gravity + rigorous exercise is enough to prevent any and all degradation.
14. Re: Gravity? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 00:49 · Score: 0
  
  Barring the fact that none of your magical machines exist, but if they did, why can't we use them right here on Earth?
15. Re:Gravity? by RivenAleem · 2013-04-23 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  The life raft 1km away is worth closer inspection. And is that an island with a few trees on it over yonder? I wonder if I got into the life raft, could I possibly reach the island and then see where that leaves me.
16. Re:Gravity? by dpilot · 2013-04-23 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  Have fun with your front-row seat watching the next asteroid impact on Earth. You're right in that there is no short or medium term justification for manned space exploration. In the long term, simply having some of our eggs in a second basket is sufficient justification.
  Another long-term justification for a space program is protecting the one basket of eggs we've got now better. If that can be done with robots, fine. If it requires men, let's do it.
  
  --
  The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
17. Re:Gravity? by Cenan · 2013-04-23 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I wouldn't put too much faith into that organisation, seems to be much more of a hoax than an actual genuine attempt at a mission. a link that's not down
  
  The Mars One project has received quite a bit of press lately. This project plans to establish a human colony on Mars in 2023 with four people. The project is the brainchild of Bas Lansdorp, a Dutch businessman. You must give him credit for creativeness. Much of the financing will come from a 24-hour television reality show that will follow every step of the project, including watching the new “Martians” as they adapt to the harsh Mars environment.
  They conclude that because the colonists will be on Mars, they will have more density. This is outright wrong, density is defined as p=m/V, on Mars neither your volume nor your mass is going to change, your weight (W=m*g) will but that is not the term "m" in the equation.
  I can understand why they wouldn't care, since they don't plan on bringing their colonists back. However, that does not solve the problem OP pointed out. Nor does it address the fact that we don't fully know what is causing the bone loss in the first place. Lack of gravity is thought to be the main culprit, but it is not known for certain.
  
  --
  ... whatever ...
18. Re:Gravity? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 01:36 · Score: 0
  
  Except that in this case, we're already living on the island, the moon might be the life raft, and we can only reach sea from there.
19. Re: Gravity? by SuricouRaven · 2013-04-23 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  Because we have:
  1. Atmosphere. Good for humans, but not for solar power.
  2. Clouds.
  3. A nasty gravity well that makes getting off the planet a very expensive matter.
20. Re:Gravity? by dywolf · 2013-04-23 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  repairable doesnt mean 100% recovery. ever had a scar that never fully healed, leaving a small pock mark? It's repaired...but not 100% as some of the tissue is still missing compared to before. same concept.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
21. Re: Gravity? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 02:13 · Score: 0
  
  Barring the fact that none of your magical machines exist, but if they did, why can't we use them right here on Earth?
  Because:
  
  What's on the moon is sunshine, real estate, and a relatively small escape velocity.
22. Re: Gravity? by IndustrialComplex · 2013-04-23 02:13 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  A HUGE problem for solar energy is not necessarily atmosphere, but dust. A massive array of panels/mirrors on Earth must be continually protected against sandstorms and dust accumulation. (This is because many of the massive mirror/panel arrays are placed in desert like environments, much like the moon).
  Without rain to wash the panels and plants to keep the dust storms down, solar panels must be protected/maintained.
  However, while the moon seems like it would be terrible due to the fact that it is basically one giant dusty (and sharp dust at that) desert, the lack of an atmosphere means that any panel placed will not accumulate any dust or suffer sandstorms absent nearby impacts with meteors.
  Long winded post short: I'd add that the moon has lots of open land that doesn't produce sandstorms in your positive category for solar power generation.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
23. Re:Gravity? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  Is the gravity on the moon sufficient to prevent the bone de-calcification and muscle atrophy in humans there for a prolonged period of time?
  Put simply, we don't know. We have two data points, 1g (Earth) and micro-g (Mir & ISS). That's it. Apollo stays weren't long enough to provide data either way. And in the fifty years since - fifty years - we haven't done a single study, not even an animal study, to provide a single data point in between 0 and 1. But, you know, we're for sure definitely totally serious about space travel. [sigh]
24. Re:Gravity? by IndustrialComplex · 2013-04-23 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  growing of suitable flora (mushrooms) for food
  Honest question: How well does that turn out? We eat the fruiting body of most edible fungi (the mushroom). Do mushrooms sprout towards the light? Or do they rely on gravity to know which way is 'up'? Or is it simply that the cells nearest to the surface react with the increased oxygen and grow in 'that direction'?
  How do you keep the spores controlled? On a short term timescale, I could see working in a mostly sealed area, but those spores are very (not volatile) but mobile and easily float free in the air. I don't want to be one of those guys who tries to point out 'obvious' issues that have already been considered, I'm honestly curious about how mushrooms grow in space.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
25. Re: Gravity? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 02:31 · Score: -1
  
  Sorry to dispel your illusion, but there is dust in space. Just the same as the "dust" falling into our atmosphere. There is also "wind", remember there is pressure created by the waveicle actions against a "sail", ohh,now class where does this come from???
26. Re:Gravity? by rossdee · 2013-04-23 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Luna is 10 kilometres / second closer to anywhere than the earth is, that makes a big difference if you only have chemical propulsion.
27. Re: Gravity? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 02:40 · Score: 0
  
  You're insane.
28. Re:Gravity? by RivenAleem · 2013-04-23 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2008/11/mushrooms-in-sp/
  (accidental mushrooms)
  http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/2139421
  (deliberately grown mushrooms)
  Sorry for my poor google-fu, but the information is somewhat scant on the topic. The original PDF appears to be gone (someone with better skills than me might find it) but they did grow Mushrooms on the SpaceLab D2, and they grew fine.
29. Re:Gravity? by Thud457 · 2013-04-23 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Smuggle up a little Psilocybe cubensis and we can have Matango in space! But only if Guillermo del Toro directs, that would ROCK .
  
  --
  the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
30. Re:Gravity? by morgauxo · 2013-04-23 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  How does the fact that it happens on Earth prove that microgravity isn't the only reason it happens to astronauts in space? Sure, maybe microgravity accelerates the natural process which also happens on Earth. I hope so because that would imply that research on preventing one might prevent both! But.. why couldn't it also be a totally unique mechanism that just has the same effect.
31. Re:Gravity? by tehcyder · 2013-04-23 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  This space stuff is just an extension of America's history of expansion and the "wild west", translated into the modern era with WWII technology and German engineers.
  I think your invitation to the Space Nutter Society Annual Xmas Ball just got cancelled.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
32. Re:Gravity? by morgauxo · 2013-04-23 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  Even if it is gravity that causes the bone loss (seems likely) I don't think we can have any idea what 1/6th gravity will do over long term until we actually try it. One might think that 1/6th gravity would mean 5/6ths of the boneloss that occurs in 0g but that assumes the relationship is linear. For all we know there could be no extra bone loss at all until gravity gets quite close to 0 or maybe anything less than Earth gravity is just unlivable over the long term for humans.
  With a dataset of only 2 values of gravity we can do nothing but guess. Now, the question I think is, is it better to go try it by sending people far away to moon(s) or planet(s) with different masses or build a rotating space station which we can rotate at different speeds to try different levels of gravity.
  I think the station makes more sense but given our rate of progress I vote to just go to the Moon and Mars. If they start on another space station most of us alive today will be dead before anyone gets back to actually exploring any other world in person.
33. Re:Gravity? by tehcyder · 2013-04-23 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  Have fun with your front-row seat watching the next asteroid impact on Earth. You're right in that there is no short or medium term justification for manned space exploration. In the long term, simply having some of our eggs in a second basket is sufficient justification.
  Another long-term justification for a space program is protecting the one basket of eggs we've got now better. If that can be done with robots, fine. If it requires men, let's do it.
  So basically this moon colony would have to be able to accommodate most of the world's population? Or would it just be the usual heads of state and their girlfriends that were lucky enough to be evacuated and carry on the glorious destiny of mankind?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
34. Re: Gravity? by tehcyder · 2013-04-23 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  What's on the moon is sunshine, real estate
  Holy crap, moon spam!
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
35. Re:Gravity? by morgauxo · 2013-04-23 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  >> How do you keep the spores controlled?
  First, you chose species that have spores which humans are most unlikely to be allergic to. And.. you test this on your astronauts before launch.
  Second, air filters. The spores aren't allowed to just build up concentration in the enclosed area unchecked. Like everything else that is small and suspended in the air they would eventually end up in the air filters.
  I'm guessing that the same species of mushroom which are good to eat are the ones with safe spores for breathing? f so then I don't see the problem. Surely the air is getting filtered on any mission greater than a few orbits mushrooms on board or not!
36. Re:Gravity? by tnk1 · 2013-04-23 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Considering that a moon base would probably the the crowning achievement of humanity to that point, if those leaders could actually make it happen, perhaps they deserve to be safe from an asteroid.
  Chances are good, however, that if there were leaders, there would also need to be servants, so I'd say that leadership would not be the only group saved, even if you take the most negative view of Those In Power possible.
  And really, not even the powerful are evil or selfish just because they are powerful. Some leaders of a certain age or wisdom might well understand that the fate of humanity would rest on providing the best specimens the ability to escape. This might mean that they would decide it was best to leave their old decrepit selves to meet the fate of the rest of humanity in order to let people with a better survival chance escape.
  Realistically, though, the real point of a Moon base is the get to work on building a true space-based infrastructure. Right now, space is very difficult because we have to launch from Earth's gravity well to do anything at all. With an infrastructure in space, habitats can be built, and much more efficient resource exploitation is possible, making it a better value proposition. Obviously, the more infrastructure in space, the better chance that we can survive, and even deflect, incoming threats.
  Earth is doomed, one way or another. Sooner or later, it will end up uninhabitable for humans. We may or may not be able to discover a way out of that fate if we never leave the planet, but space is the obvious course to take, even if it is difficult.
37. Re:Gravity? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  "Considering that a moon base would probably the the crowning achievement of humanity to that point,"
  And not, say, electrification, physics, germ theory, antibiotics, the internet? No, a stunt for billionaires, that's your "crowning achievement" for humanity? Way to set the bar low. The Pyramids were a great achievement, but achieved nothing for the people in the long term, except as a pile of rocks with touristic value. And even then, how many people have actually gone to see the Pyramids? But we'll go in droves to a smelly tin can on the moon?
38. Re:Gravity? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  Space Nutters couldn't invite away their virginity, and I doubt that any location would allow so many smelly losers on psychiatric meds together in one room.
39. Re:Gravity? by tnk1 · 2013-04-23 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. All those other things are great, and currently have a lot of application, but nothing at all would compare with the ability to have a permanent presence on another planet, even a satellite like the moon. And to be clear, such a place would not be able to exist without the many of the other things you mention, but it would be one of the ultimate applications of that technology.
  Every one of the achievements you mention ends up being ephemeral unless humanity's survival in the long term is assured.
  And let's be clear, if this was only a "stunt for billionaires", it really would be not very useful. If it was turned into a real basis for actual off world colonization and exploration, then it's no longer a stunt. Characterizing it as that is essentially using the current apathy towards exploration as the reason to have apathy to begin with. Almost nothing becomes useful for general consumption until a few people have done it first. That doesn't mean it will never progress from that point.
  As for "smelly tin cans", I imagine you probably never had the opportunity to sniff the holds of exploration ships from the 15th to 19th Centuries. They stunk too. People got over it because it got them where they wanted to go. Now it is a lot more comfortable to get from one place to another, but if you wait for things to be comfortable before you go anywhere, then you frequently don't go at all.
40. Re: Gravity? by Yomers · 2013-04-23 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  In addition to GP's points moon is not in my backyard - we can try unsafe propulsion methods from there, like nuclear.
41. Re: Gravity? by Necron69 · 2013-04-23 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Solar power on the moon is only practical at the poles, as day and night last two weeks long each. Nuclear power or some good fuel cells are really the only ways to go at this point.
  Necron69
42. Re:Gravity? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 09:32 · Score: 0
  
  More so with the help of weights strapped to your limbs.
43. Re:Gravity? by GumphMaster · 2013-04-23 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  We can see these fireballs just fine from the Earth, I fail to see how getting a few hundred kilometers closer will change anything?
  
  No, actually, we can't. The atmosphere interferes greatly with our ability to see: through distortion and complete blockage at a whole range of wavelengths. This is precisely why the Hubble Space telescope, which was typically around 500 km "closer", was such a stunning success.
  
  --
  Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
44. Re:Gravity? by IndustrialComplex · 2013-04-23 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  I wasn't necessarily concerned about people breathing them, obviously air can be kept to a certain particulate count. What I was curious about was how it could eventually build up on equipment over time. I've designed avionics, and one of the things you have to account for is fungal growth. While these spores wouldn't be the kind which like to colonize rubber gaskets, I could certainly see it becoming a problem of buildup over the years. I'm not saying it can't be solved, but mushrooms just seemed a bit of an odd crop to try to grow.
  Personally, I'd think one of the scarier prospects is the lunar regolith. That stuff is jaggy. Given how asbestos type fibers can cause mesothelioma, I'd be very worried about the long term effects of such dust entering the lungs of colonists. Even though there wouldn't be germs to worry about, decontamination after lunar surface excursions would have to be a pretty serious thing.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
45. Re: Gravity? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-25 12:06 · Score: 0
  
  Not necessarily. You could make some rather 'extreme' energy storage devices given the amount of land you have available. Take a massive solar concentrator and heat up an extremely large mass. Extract the heat energy over the two weeks of darkness.
  It might actually be pretty easy to do (compared to doing it on earth) given the fact that the mass would not have to worry about energy loss to the atmosphere.
What? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-22 22:42 · Score: 0

When I see comments like these I tend to shift closer to the opinion that the world has gone crazy.....
Real Estate by puddingebola · 2013-04-22 23:33 · Score: 1

Who owns the land on the moon where the base will be built?
1. Re:Real Estate by BasilBrush · 2013-04-22 23:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Whoever can get there and defend it from invaders.
2. Re:Real Estate by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 00:04 · Score: 0
  
  Getting there isn't necessary if you have a big enough laser.
Why Settle For Eventual Extinction? by rmdingler · 2013-04-23 00:11 · Score: 1

How exactly are we to continue to grow as a species if we confine ourselves to this life of luxurious ease, squandering the finite resources of our home planet? We are on the cusp of the technology necessary for off-planet adventure, settlements, and discovery. Generations of men/women before us have sacrificed personal comforts to better our understanding of science, the World, the Solar System, etc. We are approaching understanding of the origin of the Universe and, indeed, life itself. Get up and do something, even if the support of future endeavors is all you have in you. Sitters are quitters.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
1. Re:Why Settle For Eventual Extinction? by TWiTfan · 2013-04-23 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  It will be several orders of magnitude easier to save this planet, and survive almost any conceivable disaster, than it will ever be to colonize any other body in this solar system (or likely any other system within any possible reach).
  
  --
  The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
2. Re:Why Settle For Eventual Extinction? by rmdingler · 2013-04-23 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  Memo from the Dept Of Redundancy: a backup plan that you may never use is not necessarily a waste of time or resources.
  
  --
  Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
  Ernest Hemingway
3. Re:Why Settle For Eventual Extinction? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 04:06 · Score: 0
  
  "The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space--each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision."
  
  The world currently spends 0.057% of its GDP on space. It doesn't take much to start making serious space exploration possible, half a percent of world GDP could have people on mars, a moon base, probes to all planets and moons, asteroid capture, and more. Most "space nutters" aren't even asking for that much, most would be more than ecstatic with just a NASA budget of 1% of The US budget (an increase of 0.01% worldwide GDP).
Hands off! by A10Mechanic · 2013-04-23 00:30 · Score: 1

If you do go to the moon, please stay away from the original moon landing sites. You may take pictures and live video of them (to shut up the nutters), but please don't trample those footprints. I may want to gaze on them myself some day.
1. Re:Hands off! by TWiTfan · 2013-04-23 00:38 · Score: 2
  
  please don't trample those footprints. I may want to gaze on them myself some day.
  I doubt you need to worry about either possibility.
  
  --
  The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
2. Re:Hands off! by FatLittleMonkey · 2013-04-23 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  but please don't trample those footprints. I may want to gaze on them myself some day.
  Thermal cycling in the top two inches of regolith means that the footprints are likely already softened to mere depressions, and by the time you get there, they won't be recognisable. Sorry. But the hardware should be good for a few thousand years, decals will be bleached white or irradiated black, but it'll take a long time for micro-meteorites to erode the big pieces down to something unrecognisable to even an amateur visitor. Of course, we'll need to return the ascent modules first or the tourists will be inevitably disappointed. At that point, they'll probably also be "maintaining" the footprints every decade or so, so you may get your wish.
  
  --
  Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
A space plan was already done. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 00:41 · Score: 0

http://www.metafilter.com/119922/The-Rockwell-International-Integrated-Space-Plan
http://blog.makezine.com/2012/09/13/the-rockwell-international-integrated-space-plan/
1. Re:A space plan was already done. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 01:50 · Score: 0
  
  I don't have the patience to look at that drawing because it's a bitmap PNG, but thanks anyway and check out this comment in that discussion:
  http://blog.makezine.com/2012/09/13/the-rockwell-international-integrated-space-plan/#comment-720128
  :-)
Deuce Bigalow by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 01:17 · Score: 0

Male Gigolo, LIKE THE MOVIE?
Space Act Agreement---In kind services by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 01:32 · Score: 0

Space Act Agreements may be negotiated without money exchange, but still cost NASA some money to support. Frequently in SAAs NASA assigns folks to monitor the work and provide technical support, and they may also provide access to expert advice or facilities.
Space:1999 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 02:10 · Score: 0

You might be interested in the Eagle lander's great grandfather: Masten are doing a study for Lockheed Martin on the Dual thrust axis moon lander (DTAL). [pdf, 19 pages] Which has led to their Xeus concept.
First rule of flight club by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 02:26 · Score: 0

IT guy says: Always keep a back up your important data at a second site. Ideally more than one.
EMS guy says: Never centralise your emergency/disaster response units.
Manager says: But look how much money we saved!
WARNING : virus! 8-p by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 02:46 · Score: 0

crashed my browser.
wow, talk about overstretching a metaphor... by Thud457 · 2013-04-23 03:04 · Score: 1

not if grandma likes to drink bourbon from the cup while watching Honey Booboo. Then you can sell the rest of her china on ebay to finance you space program.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I'm pretty sure by BenSchuarmer · 2013-04-23 03:12 · Score: 1

the moon isn't a good place to grow tea. Maybe they're hoping to get some cheese to put on the crackers that people will eat with tea.
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by tehcyder · 2013-04-23 03:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

And I don't want a bunch of whacko libertarian might-is-right corporate yahoos in control of it.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
1. Re:The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 07:31 · Score: 0
  
  Corporate yahoos are the ones in charge now and libertarians are among those who don't like what the ones in charge now are doing. I suppose you're far from alone in confusing the corporatism we have now for the free markets that libertarians support, but that doesn't mean you're right to do so. They're nothing alike.
2. Re:The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 10:20 · Score: 0
  
  Even if everyone else declines? That's a serious case of spite you have. Nobidy else seems to want it, I say let them have it.
3. Re:The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by tehcyder · 2013-04-23 20:07 · Score: 1
  
  Corporate yahoos are the ones in charge now and libertarians are among those who don't like what the ones in charge now are doing. I suppose you're far from alone in confusing the corporatism we have now for the free markets that libertarians support, but that doesn't mean you're right to do so. They're nothing alike.
  Sorry, but if you have unrestrained free markets, those seeking to maximise their wealth (and power) will inevitably band together into corporations, however you choose to name them. Bigger trading organisations have economies of scale for distribution, increased purchasing power, shared overhead expenses and so on. There is a reason that capitalism ended up with large corporations, they didn't magically appear out of nowhere to do evil.
  Someone like Walmart makes huge profits because it is a huge organisation. If you split it up into thousands of small sole traders, then another group of small traders would see the opportunity to band together and form a new corporation.
  What are you going to do? Have a law that forbids people from trading in groups of more than one? Two? A thousand?
  You need government to control the power of corporations: libertarians would remove any check on their power.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
4. Re:The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by tehcyder · 2013-04-23 20:08 · Score: 1
  
  In case you missed the reference to slashdot's Robert A Heinlein, having a group of people on the moon would put them in a position to cause a lot of damage to those of us on Earth.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Moon Basing - Need Reason to be there by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 03:31 · Score: 0

I am a Manned Spaceflight supporter. Moon is close by place to visit, but thing about is..Why go? Commerical Space needs a leg up, hopefully Bigelow can get other parties interested in his Moon Base plan. Problem is that, moon is poor with resources. It has some, but not enough to draw enough attention from Corps who would have the capital to go there and have people work there. Likely it would end up being automated operation. Unless you have crazy colonist who are sick of Earth and way things are going down here, your not going get many people up there unless there darn good reason. Relying on world governments will be just unstable arrangements, since the organizations vulernable to political interferrence and politically motivated budget shifts.
Like the idea, but i think you need commerical means to go up there. Good Luck Bigelow.
Q: was Mabel a real monkey? by Thud457 · 2013-04-23 04:06 · Score: 1

wisdom of the ancients: always mount a scratch monkey

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The future of space is private! by BlueCoder · 2013-04-23 04:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

I can't care about the nay sayers. The problem with NASA is funding and politics. Space projects take decades and commitment. And for at least a few decades you can think of private space companies as nonprofits.
It's better to just have NASA raise funds, devise national policy and sign contracts; an extension to what they were doing anyway. They just won't be micromanaging anymore. It also allows other governments or even individuals or corporations to contract with the same people and get it on the act.
Having private companies allows more insulation from political influence. It allows them to better focus on achieving something rather than making politicians happy. The same people that would have worked at JPL will instead be working for private equivalents. It's the same people, just a different letterhead.
Spoiler by DarthVain · 2013-04-23 05:47 · Score: 1

Feasibility: Not good.
The real problem is A) Harshness of the Moon environment and B) Earth's gravity well and the difficulty to get things out of it.
If we are really serious about starting a moon colony, the very first technology we need to look at is autonomous (by way of robots, or other similar devices) that would be able to remotely manufacture, construct, and build things using local resources. Sending "stuff" from Earth to the Moon will simply be too cost prohibitive, and human construction and resource extraction not really viable. Once the basics are down, perhaps then at some point human workers might be involved producing more complex things in situ. However the key is remote atonomous manufacturing and resource extraction, for use in power, material, water, etc... Most of that research can be done without physically going to the moon (but will have to take certain environmental things into consideration of course). When we are able to say set up a remote resource extraction and manufacturing base on Earth, we can then send a package to the Moon and see how things go. Realistically however this is a LONG way off I think given our current abilities. There is also the fact that no matter which way you spin it, there has to be political will to do it and a LOT of money. I can't see this as something being sponsored by "commercial" interests, no matter what people might say, this is a national, or more likely an international endeavor of great magnitude. Proof of concept first here on earth however.
Moon based lasers? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 06:21 · Score: 0

Once a permanent moon base is established a space based laser could be constructed. It would be a big project. It could be called the Alan Parson's Project.
Assumptions are being made by Firethorn · 2013-04-23 06:51 · Score: 1

My problem with the idea of colony ships is that the only sort of people who are prepared to go on a voyage in a cramped, windowless tin box until they die, and their children, and their grandchildren and...die are essentially insane and shouldn't be allowed anywhere outside of a padded cell.
You're assuming that they'll be cramped, windowless, and metallic. This is Bigelow Aerospace here - the biggest modern developer of inflatable space structures. Heck, you're assuming that 'windowless' will be a bad thing, and that 'cramped' can't be handled.

The idea of being on a ship where everyone knew they were never going home frankly terrifies me.
That's the thing though. What is 'home'? I've moved over 10 times. I've spent the better part of a continuous year sleeping in a tent. I'm probably closer to a cumulative 5 years. Our ancestors used to be wandering hunter-gatherers.
Who's to say that Morgauxo isn't right, that the ship would become their home? If it's going to be a true generational ship, it's going to have to be the size of a small town - at least 5k individuals, probably quite a bit larger. I'm sure we'd find it claustrophobic, but I'm sure those that grow up in it would be just fine. Humans are adaptable that way.

--
I don't read AC A human right