NEWS HEADLINE DISCUSSIONS

Moon Base!

POSTED BY: CALHOUN
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 19:44
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5615
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, January 12, 2004 3:04 AM

CALHOUN


Hey hey! I just saw in the news - George Bush has given the go ahead for a permanently manned moon base.

Big step in the right direction i'd say.

~Keep Flying~

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 12, 2004 3:20 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


If done correctly, a base on the moon could be a step in the right direction. There are resources on the moon yet to be tapped, and its low gravity makes for a good location from which to launch spacecraft deeper into space.

I wonder though if Bush's plan comes now because the Chinese are talking about having a man on the moon soon, and having a permanent moon base by 2012.

Bush is said to also have his eyes on a base on Mars in the future.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 12, 2004 5:20 AM

NOOCYTE


Trouble with the Moon Base idea (apart from its being a cynical election-year ploy to give an illusion of vision, and cash in on a successful Mars landing) is that, in the near-to-mid-term, there really is no way to make a Moon base truly self-sustaining, and thus it will always be a resource hog.

Apart from the possibility of cometary water ice locked in south polar craters, dear old Luna is a dead rock, geologically (Selenologically?) inert. the lack of any significant history of vulcanism over the last several billion years means that mineral ores will be difficult to extract, since they won't be concentrated and differentiated as they would be on a more active body. The amount of energy required to unlock oxygen from its regolith (dirt) and rock would be so intensive as to be prohibitive for quite some time. Thus we lose the benefit of a shallower gravity well, since everything will have to be hauled up from the bottom of ours. Also, with a 28-day circadian cycle, plants won't grow without artificial light (more energy). The complete lack of an atmosphere means no radiation protection (so look out for solar flares!), and absolutely no protection from meteoroids (a grain of sand can ruin your whole day!).

Mars, by contrast, has an atmosphere (not much of one, mind you, but enough for our purposes). This gives us some radiation shielding (still have to pile sand bags on the roof of the Hab and such, though), protection from the smaller meteoroids, and a source of oxygen (~99% CO2, easily cracked). Also, you can make methane rocket fuel from the Martian atmosphere and a little bit of hydrogen (which can be obtained from what appears to be an ocean of water in the form of pure ice at the poles and permafrost just about everywhere else), using tech which dates back to the 19th century.

In addition to the atmosphere, Mars has a gee field a good third higher than the moon's, so the effects of low-grav on the human body will be even lower. It also has a 24-hour day-night cycle, so plants could grow normally in a simple greenhouse. Mars' axial tilt provides seasonal variations in sunlight (albeit around double the length of the Earth's). Mars also has a much more recent history of significant vulcanism, which increases the chances of obtainable minerals in handy veins.

In short, Mars has everything one would need to set up a self-sustaining colony, whose inhabitants could live off the land to a MUCH greater degree than they could on the Moon. This presents the very real possibility of a truly independent branch of human civilization (one wonders if this is one of the sources of resistance from governments whose hegemony would be, for the first time in this century, limited by real barriers of time and distance [sound familiar?]). A lunar base would forever be a colony, where a Mars outpost stands the real chance of becoming a sovereign, independent civilization, a test bed for true novelty (which is becoming all-but impossible on this planet, with its increasingly solipsistic preoccupation with legalistic minutiae)

In essense, we do NOT need to go to the Moon to "prepare" us for Mars. It would, at best, be an expensive and unneccesary detour. At worst, it would become another pork-barrell-padding white elephant like the ISS, miring the project of human exploration and the establishment of a truly 2-planet human species in another endless bog.

We are more prepared to go to Mars today than we were to go to the Moon in 1961...and approximately as ready as we are to go to the Moon today. Given that, I would opt for the project with the brightest future! A lunar jaunt would still be possible with spin-off tech from a Mars mission, mind you, so we needn't abandon the obvious scientific appeal of a lunar base (a Darkside observatory, for instance, in a nice radio shadow). But to go at it the other way around would be a needless waste of momentum.

If anyone is interested in following up on these themes, I HEARTILY recommend the book, The Case For Mars by Robert Zubrin. While I'm at it, you might also want to check out his other big book, Entering Space. Both lay out these arguments much better than I have. Also check out www.marsociety.org.

Pardon the missionary zeal here. It's just that the "we need to go to the Moon to prepare for Mars" schtick is pure obfuscation borne of inertia and timidity, and it vexes me mightily!

Keep flyin'!!




Department of Redundancy Department

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 12, 2004 2:48 PM

NOOCYTE


Pardon the bumpage, but I had another thought.

Mars shows strong signs of once having had lots of liquid water and a climate suitable for the emergence of life. Then something happened. Understanding what went down could help us squeeze some more time out of Earth-That-Is.

The Moon has never possessed such conditions, and so, from a planetological perspective, is FAR less interesting.

Gee, can you tell where I stand on this?!

Keep flyin!



Department of Redundancy Department

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 12, 2004 3:10 PM

SHINY


Thanks for the very informative overview, Noocyte! Mars it is!!!

RIVER
Purple elephants are flying.
MAL
Good. Thanks for the update.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 12, 2004 3:14 PM

LADYJAYNE


Yes, Noocyte, great comments. Thanks for sharing.

--Kala

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 12, 2004 3:27 PM

JASONZZZ


So, while there is no argument that a human mission to Mars to a worthwhile goal. The problem is whether establishing a Moon Base, or simply sending humans to the Moon is anything worthwhile at all.

I think taking the mission to Mars as an Engineering problem on top of being a Scientific endeavor will yield light. Taking the original Moon shots as an example, there were a tremendous number of Engineering type problems that needed to be solved: how to get people in space, how to sustain life in space for several weeks at a time, how to deliver a manned spacecraft into moon's orbit, how to get them onto the moon and then back up and all the way back to earth again, then how to get them safely from earth orbit back to terra firma. All of these problems and hundreds more needed to be solved one at a time over dozens of separate missions in orbit and roundtrips to the Moon before an actual Moon landing could happen.

The same could have been said about all of these extraneous missions simply into orbit... "what did they actually yield?", "The mission isn't into earth's orbit, the mission is to the Moon!" Just like the original moon shot, there are many many many more Engineering problems that needs to be conquered before we can have humans journey 6 months one way to a planet where the nearest help is by radio relay 40 minutes away.

Even the Mars Society's own webpage's content point to advocating a few practice Moon Shots before the actual Mars Mission:

http://www.marssociety.org/opcongress


Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 12, 2004 4:11 PM

TEELABROWN


Don't know about you, but if I can't get to Mars, the Moon is fine with me. Either way, it's OFF THIS ROCK!!!

Anyway, Keep flyin'!

............................................................................................
"Freedom is the Freedom to say that 2+2 makes 4. If that is granted, all else follws"-Winston, 1984
Keep flyin', and remember, THEY can't take the sky from US!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 12, 2004 4:39 PM

ZAPHODB


I'm cool with it as long as they don't named the base "Alpha"....

Industrial Looniee & Madness - http://www3.telus.net/vchrusch

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 12, 2004 4:48 PM

TEELABROWN


How about "Moon Base Pi: Furthering Mathematical Research."

Very sorry about that. An urge came over me.

............................................................................................
"Freedom is the Freedom to say that 2+2 makes 4. If that is granted, all else follws"-Winston, 1984
Keep flyin', and remember, THEY can't take the sky from US!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 12, 2004 5:27 PM

NOOCYTE


First off...I just re-read my earlier post. GADS, I'm long-winded! Sorry 'bout that, gang!

Now, as for the engineering project: I quite agree that a milestone mission to the moon could be useful for the Mars Project (I like the sound of that!), and could set the stage for some really useful problem-solving (and science!) on Luna. But it should be just that: A milestone.

The trouble I have is with NASA's track record of developing tech for one thing, with a murky goal down the road (say, the Shuttle for the ISS), then having it become bloated and increasingly distant from that goal as contractors try to justify more and more funding. This happened to the Shuttle, which was supposed to be a cheap, re-useable...well...shuttle to service a future space station.

Similarly (I fear), the buzz from the administration is about establishing a "permanent moon base," which threatens to be replete with tech which simply is not scaleable to a Mars mission, due to the fundamentally different mission architectures and environments.

Now, imagine some kind of modular architecture with, say, a standard Crew Hab, transit and return vehicles, life support, etc. Such a design could be tooled up at an interim phase to achieve a lunar installation, an L1 outpost, etc., without significantly digressing from the core goal. In this case, it would be a milestone, in that it would contribute materially to the engineering (not to mention the P.R.) problems of a Mars mission.

And yes, please don't let them call it Alpha! Even if the Eagles did win (har-har).

Okay, now who's up for some Moon pi?

Keep Flyin'!




Department of Redundancy Department

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 13, 2004 3:31 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


I agree that the moon is a shortsighted goal, but it is a step in the right direction. The monumental feat to get a craft spaceworthy of the long manned trip to Mars may be a bit more than NASA is cut out for right now.

I have not really understood the need for all the orbital flights of the shuttles myself. Other than producing some great photos, and occasionally launching or repairing a satellite, there seems to be no real goal with these short flights.

I wonder how much of the zeal behind the administrations push for a permanent moon base has to do with the fact that the Chinese are claiming they will have a moon base by 2012. Is our pride in danger of being damaged if another country beats us to it? Are we that foolish that we have to say we are the first and best at everything that we are blowing money on goals that are not raising the bar?

What are the pros & cons of establishing a permanent moon base? Could it be a stepping stone for space exploration, or are we spinning our wheels and blowing tax payers dollars?

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:50 PM

DRAKON


Quote:

Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
I agree that the moon is a shortsighted goal, but it is a step in the right direction. The monumental feat to get a craft spaceworthy of the long manned trip to Mars may be a bit more than NASA is cut out for right now.



However, the way to get NASA up to snuff enough to do it, is to do it. Perhaps you are right, NASA ain't cut out for it now. The challenge of doing it would force the agency to get their act together, to get to the point where they can.

Does this make any sense?

Quote:

I have not really understood the need for all the orbital flights of the shuttles myself. Other than producing some great photos, and occasionally launching or repairing a satellite, there seems to be no real goal with these short flights.


Sigh, true, sadly. Its all practice, and part of running a space launch system needed for Mars or beyond. There does not seem to be any grand vision, like Apollo. And the shuttle seems woefully inadequet for the task that it was designed for in the first place.

But you also got a problem of political will. Space flight is expensive today. Any grand vision is going to be expensive. I don't know that the American taxpayers will see the benefits of space flight being greater than the costs.

Quote:

I wonder how much of the zeal behind the administrations push for a permanent moon base has to do with the fact that the Chinese are claiming they will have a moon base by 2012. Is our pride in danger of being damaged if another country beats us to it? Are we that foolish that we have to say we are the first and best at everything that we are blowing money on goals that are not raising the bar?


I would not dismiss "pride" so quickly. One of the reasons why governments go in for space flight is to prove themselves to the rest of the world. A moon colony would be a mark of a highly advanced technical civilization. Part of that civilization is the political structure and philosophy behind the culture. The US and China have radically different ideas on such issues as human rights, liberty, etc.

Which is right, or more right than the other? Traditionally, such conflicts were decided militarily. This is not a good idea in this day and age. So a space race becomes a better alternative. It may be just as expensive as a war, but it kills far fewer people.

Quote:

What are the pros & cons of establishing a permanent moon base? Could it be a stepping stone for space exploration, or are we spinning our wheels and blowing tax payers dollars?


Yes. Unfortunately, both. A lunar base could be a stepping stone, and a construction facility for larger vessels to tackle Mars and beyond. Or it could be a giant boondoggle. As boondoggles go, I can think of worst ways to waste taxpayer dollars. But then, I really want off this rock.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 15, 2004 2:43 PM

FREEFORMER



Quote:


I would not dismiss "pride" so quickly. One of the reasons why governments go in for space flight is to prove themselves to the rest of the world. A moon colony would be a mark of a highly advanced technical civilization. Part of that civilization is the political structure and philosophy behind the culture. The US and China have radically different ideas on such issues as human rights, liberty, etc.


I agree, pride (national or personal pride) is an excellent reason to go to the moon or Mars.

Quote:

Originally posted by Drakon:
Traditionally, such conflicts were decided militarily. This is not a good idea in this day and age. So a space race becomes a better alternative. It may be just as expensive as a war, but it kills far fewer people.


I love this idea, it sounds beautiful. However, the space race will always benefit the military arsenal, just from the new technologies developed. I am cynical enough to believe that keeping a good military may always be a necessary thing, because there will likely always be people who think their mission is to force their opinions on others.

Quote:


But you also got a problem of political will. Space flight is expensive today. Any grand vision is going to be expensive. I don't know that the American taxpayers will see the benefits of space flight being greater than the costs.


Perhaps the taxpayers will see the worth when they realize it is also an issue of national security. The moon is high ground. Attacking from the moon can be as simple as launching rocks large enough to survive reentry. (Targeting is somewhat of a problem, but the intimidation factor would be immense. Not to mention the difficulty in retaliating against a moon base.)
A base on the moon is a good military decision, especially when another military power is also looking to go there.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 15, 2004 2:54 PM

HUMBLE


I wonder if Bush realizes moon is not made of cheese. But seriously, the U.S. doesn't have health care for it's citizens and GW wants to put colony on moon? Does this seem right to you? Two-thirds of unmanned missions to Mars fail now. How will sending a manned mission there be a better idea. From what I'm seeing on tv, even the eggheads don't think mission to Mars a good idea. This is all just pre-election fodder and hype for Bush reelection platform!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 15, 2004 8:52 PM

NOOCYTE


Not much time/energy to reply at length, but I did want to speak to this point:

Quote:


Two-thirds of unmanned missions to Mars fail now. How will sending a manned mission there be a better idea.



Had Apollo 11 been an unmanned lander, all other things being equal, it is very likely that it would have failed. Eagle's original trajectory to the surface of Mare Tranquilitatis would have brought it right smack into a field of uncharted, lander-cracking boulders. It was Neil Armstrong's human judgment which allowed him to look out the window, size up that situation, take the stick, and translate over to a more favorable patch of ground (with only a few seconds of fuel left...thus embodying the term, "steely-eyed missile-man").

The lack of such real-time judgment is what has doomed several other missions (e.g., a simple pre-insertion checklist would have caught the whole 'foot-meters' debacle which crisped the poor Climate Orbiter!). Having thinking, reacting, decision-making, problem-solving, improvising, glitch-fixing, pigu-saving humans on board actually significantly increases the chances of success (not to mention exponentially increasing the amount and quality of science that can be done once there).

Submitted for your approval.

Keep flyin' (and switch to manual control, please)!




Department of Redundancy Department

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 16, 2004 2:31 AM

DRAKON


Quote:

Originally posted by HUMBLE:
I wonder if Bush realizes moon is not made of cheese. But seriously, the U.S. doesn't have health care for it's citizens and GW wants to put colony on moon? Does this seem right to you? Two-thirds of unmanned missions to Mars fail now. How will sending a manned mission there be a better idea. From what I'm seeing on tv, even the eggheads don't think mission to Mars a good idea. This is all just pre-election fodder and hype for Bush reelection platform!



Yes.
Contrary to popular belief, we do have health care out here in the colonies. It just ain't free. But then nothing is. And because it is run more by free market forces instead of bureaucrats, it is more flexible to what the folks need, vice what some Washington politician tells us we need.

Whether it is pre-election fodder or not, well, I don't know, nor really care. Serenity ain't lifting off for real until we at least get back to the Moon, then on to Mars and beyond. If you want to stay on this rock, fine. I don't.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 16, 2004 3:38 AM

TEELABROWN


Just remeberd something while reading this. My dad tells me that when we tried to get a man on the moon, that was just a step towards the other 4-letter M word: MARS. So, hopefully, we will get ther soon.

Keep flyin'! We should make it there someday!

............................................................................................
"Freedom is the Freedom to say that 2+2 makes 4. If that is granted, all else follws"-Winston, 1984
Keep flyin', and remember, THEY can't take the sky from US!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 16, 2004 4:21 AM

CREESO


Been readin' this site for awhile, helpin' out when I can (hsx being the newest venture), but this is my first post (just created an actual logon today). So forgive me if somethin's a little astray.

The way I see, don't much care where we go, as long as we're flying.

Seems people are always wondering about wasting tax payers money when it comes to space exploration. Even after we went to the moon, people said it was all a big waste. Seems to me someone once said that necessity is the mother of all invention. Well it looks necessarily necessary to come up with some new stuff if we're going to try to go anywhere and stay. And that new stuff, well, it just might be some sweet stuff for all those tax payers to have and to hold. Might even be some sweet stuff for old mother nature by the time it's all said and done. Most people don't seem to realize that the moon mission brought a great deal down to us lowly tax payers. From improving computers, to handheld battery operated tools, to velcro (just to name a few off the top of me head).

As far as the political side, well I ain't going to go there. Let's just say I'm pretty anti-Bush, and this is all just tearing me up inside.

Side Note and quite off topic: I love this site, I love what all you browncoats have done to keep the faith, and of course I LOVE firefly.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 16, 2004 6:02 AM

JASONZZZ


Oh boy, the shuttle missions might have lost their aim and the true original purpose as the "workhorse of the space exploration fleet", but by no means have they been a complete drain on cash either. Just a quick short list of very important things have been done:

Launching and repairing the Hubble. There are no other launch platforms that are capable of lifting the hubble into that kind of orbit. There are no other platform that could have allowed the repairing of satellites. Without which we wouldn't have the type of astronomical breakthru we've been having.

studies on effects of microgravity of aging.

studies on microgravity of manufacturing materials , medicine...

Continuous high attitude high resolution photography. Flight recorded images of the shuttles are continually being used by a wide range of industries and scientists: looking at deforestation trends, ocean current patterns, atmostpheric/environment trends, urban growth, etc, etc.

Creeso, love this site? Check out my sig...

Quote:

Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
I agree that the moon is a shortsighted goal, but it is a step in the right direction. The monumental feat to get a craft spaceworthy of the long manned trip to Mars may be a bit more than NASA is cut out for right now.

I have not really understood the need for all the orbital flights of the shuttles myself. Other than producing some great photos, and occasionally launching or repairing a satellite, there seems to be no real goal with these short flights.

I wonder how much of the zeal behind the administrations push for a permanent moon base has to do with the fact that the Chinese are claiming they will have a moon base by 2012. Is our pride in danger of being damaged if another country beats us to it? Are we that foolish that we have to say we are the first and best at everything that we are blowing money on goals that are not raising the bar?

What are the pros & cons of establishing a permanent moon base? Could it be a stepping stone for space exploration, or are we spinning our wheels and blowing tax payers dollars?

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."




Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 16, 2004 6:55 AM

HERO


Well, I've read all the musings and thoughts. My favorite was that this is an election ploy. HA! Good one. To some people everything Bush does is about getting reelected. They labor under the theory that a Republican President can take no action that benefits anyone. They can enact no policy that does anything, because simply doing the job of being President might make people inclined to vote for Bush in 2004.

This is nothing new. It is simply an outgrowth of the liberal refusal to accept the outcome of the 2000 election. My view is, right or wrong the issue is settled. Bush is the President. The mere fact that I and my state voted him into office is not relevant. Sure, everyone obsesses about Florida, but its Ohio that put him over the top. And West Virginia. Don't forget Tennessee. Oh, and New Hamphshire. Many states who haven't gone Republican since the end of Reconstruction.

Now, about space. The new commitment to space is a direct result of the shuttle disaster one year ago. In addition to the review of the accident, the President asked the Vice-President to do a review of NASA to answer several questions:

1. What the hell are we doing?
2. What COULD we do?
3. What should we do?
4. And how much will it cost?

NASA has now dusted off all those plans they had in the '70s. Turns out they had all these plans: Space Shuttle, space station, Moon, Mars. Only the Space Shuttle was built after Carter slashed the budget. Given the economic and political situation it was probably the right thing to do. Now we can afford to throw a billion dollars around here and there so when the new costs came out Bush jumped on the plan.

Everything else aside we need to go back to the moon. For cheap offworld mining, industry, solar power and a big assed rock covered space station that we don't have to cart up in pieces on our twenty year old shuttles.

Mars is still a big unknown. But putting a man (call me sexist and ethnocentric) and I mean a red blooded all-American MAN (ok, I'd settle for an American woman and ethnic origin is not relevant to one's 'Americanness, but the red blood is a deal breaker) on Mars is a great work. Great nations have the responsibilty to engage in great works. History demands it.

There. Its all settled. Now lets all get busy lobbying NASA to name one of its new space planes "Serenity". We probably can't get the first one, the Star Trek lobby has us outgunned.

But maybe a "Serenity Valley" on the moon...

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 17, 2004 7:50 PM

DITHER


So should I buy my Mars acreage now and beat the rush?

http://www.moonestates.com/cat_Nov01.asp

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 17, 2004 9:10 PM

WULFHAWK


To those doubters above...

The sun shines on the lunar surface unimpeded by atmosphere, for 2 weeks continuously. The amount of energy you could capture with some simple mirrors and heat cycle engines is stupendous...not to mention silicon based solar cells that could likely get made right there from lunar dust.

Orbital construction materials don't need to be hugely expensive stuff, it just is because the expense of shipping it up there from Earth makes the cost of the item a non-issue. Lunar concrete, lunar glass, solar-forged dust bricks, and refined metals would be fine for a spacestation. Or even for a large scale spaceship.

So, a base on the lunar surface would have all the cheap electricity, vacuum, heat, refrigeration, and rock you could EVER need. Earth's burgeoning space economy will need cheap construction materials, and lots of it. Sounds like someone could make a real fortune with a little investment, doesn't it? Re-invest that in large scale solar power 'generating stations', and you'd be SELLING SUNSHINE to Earth orbit and Earth herself pretty soon.

Watch for laws allowing corporate management of extraterrestrial resources very soon.

Take my love
Take my land

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 18, 2004 4:05 AM

TEELABROWN


Quote:

Everything else aside we need to go back to the moon. For cheap offworld mining, industry, solar power and a big assed rock covered space station that we don't have to cart up in pieces on our twenty year old shuttles.


BELTERS!

............................................................................................
"Freedom is the Freedom to say that 2+2 makes 4. If that is granted, all else follws"-Winston, 1984
Keep flyin', and remember, THEY can't take the sky from US!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 18, 2004 4:09 AM

TEELABROWN


Quote:

The sun shines on the lunar surface unimpeded by atmosphere, for 2 weeks continuously. The amount of energy you could capture with some simple mirrors and heat cycle engines is stupendous...not to mention silicon based solar cells that could likely get made right there from lunar dust.

Orbital construction materials don't need to be hugely expensive stuff, it just is because the expense of shipping it up there from Earth makes the cost of the item a non-issue. Lunar concrete, lunar glass, solar-forged dust bricks, and refined metals would be fine for a spacestation. Or even for a large scale spaceship.

So, a base on the lunar surface would have all the cheap electricity, vacuum, heat, refrigeration, and rock you could EVER need. Earth's burgeoning space economy will need cheap construction materials, and lots of it. Sounds like someone could make a real fortune with a little investment, doesn't it? Re-invest that in large scale solar power 'generating stations', and you'd be SELLING SUNSHINE to Earth orbit and Earth herself pretty soon.

Watch for laws allowing corporate management of extraterrestrial resources very soon.



Well, nothing is ever safe from money. And the good buisness men, who know how to use that money. And, sooner or later, you would be selling sunlight and Earth back to ourselves. So should we all invest early, so we make that small fortune?

............................................................................................
"Freedom is the Freedom to say that 2+2 makes 4. If that is granted, all else follws"-Winston, 1984
Keep flyin', and remember, THEY can't take the sky from US!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 19, 2004 8:51 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by TeelaBrown:
Well, nothing is ever safe from money. And the good buisness men, who know how to use that money. And, sooner or later, you would be selling sunlight and Earth back to ourselves. So should we all invest early, so we make that small fortune?



Well the alternative is to allow the UN to manage the exploration and subsequent exploitation of offworld resources. Call me a Browncoat but it don't seem right to expect the US and a few other nations bear the cost and risk then expect to give Micronesia, Ghana, and Costa Rica the same access and rights. If they want to join us, then fine, but as minority shareholders not equal partners.

Besides UN management does not work. Otherwise we'd all be getting our oil from Antartica.

Overegulation of resources causes stupid skewed results. For example, I live less then 100 miles from one of the world's largest natural gas reserves (the largest being FOX Television). Yet I can't afford to turn my heat above 68 because of my high gas bills and Federal laws against drilling in that area.

So buy that land on the moon. Oh, btw, as an attorney I reviewed the legality of the guy who is selling lots on the moon and Mars. Under the Outer Space Treaty and the prperty laws of the various countries he is correct in what he is saying. Legally he owns and can exploit the moon and Mars. However, despite the fact he is correct no court will enforce his ownership rights because of public interest concerns (unless he files in California).

JEC
ALD

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 6, 2004 6:07 PM

TRAVELINGTHEBLACK


No offense Hero, but there is no oil in the south pole. Oil comes from the dead, and their ain't enough life on that massive iceberg to sustain a shack in Alabama.

Regulation does work 'cause without it Enron would of bled California dry. Exxon wouldn't be paying for the Valdez disaster and so on. Without regulation, our solar system would become a corpie playground. I dunno about the rest of you, but a browncoat would rather have the U.N. over the corpies anyday. At least the U.N. has no profit margin.

Anyway, that's my opinion. The lesser of two evils is the U.N.

Mercy is the mark of a great man... *stab*

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 6, 2004 9:21 PM

ROCKETJOCK


One lunar resource no one has mentioned on this thread yet is helium-3. It's more than just a buzz-word from "Space, Above and Beyond", He3 is quite possibly the key to clean, sustainable fusion reactions, and the nearest source is Luna.

"It's raining soup out there, and the bean counters are telling us we can't afford soup bowls." --Dr. Jerry Pournelle "A Step Farther Out", Galaxy Magazine 1975

"There was a great land rush coming a quarter of a million miles away from earth across the Armstrong Sea." --Homer H. Hickam Jr., "Back to The Moon", Dell, 1999

RocketJock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 7, 2004 2:51 PM

FLAMETREE


I have found the disussion interesting.

I didn't see if anyone mentioned it but
one way of providing a safer moon habitat is to di down.

This would provide protection from radiation and minor metorites at least.

Also if you want more space you just dig more.

Given that the moon is not an active body it should be pretty easy to do.

No its not a new idea but that doesn't mean it wrong :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 7, 2004 2:56 PM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by TravelingTheBlack:
No offense Hero, but there is no oil in the south pole. Oil comes from the dead, and their ain't enough life on that massive iceberg to sustain a shack in Alabama.



You inspired me to look up oil futures on the net. Guess what? You are correct. The south pole is very cold. Nothing lives there. No oil comes from the south pole. Antarctica is a different story.

Once upon a time all the continents upon which we now live were all mushed together. Over time they broke apart and drifted into their present locations. One continent, which we call Antarctica was teeming with prehistoric life. One day it awoke to find itself sitting on the south pole. Bad luck. Everything died and was buried in the ice.

Add a few hundred million years of pressure and presto: an oil field, natural gas field, probably a little coal, not to mention metals. I refer everyone to: < http://minerals.er.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/country/1995/9501095.pdf>

Quote:

Regulation does work 'cause without it Enron would of bled California dry. Exxon wouldn't be paying for the Valdez disaster and so on. Without regulation, our solar system would become a corpie playground. I dunno about the rest of you, but a browncoat would rather have the U.N. over the corpies anyday. At least the U.N. has no profit margin.



ENRON is a good example. Ingoring the whole accounting scandal and looking back to the price gouging during the California energy crisis its easy to blame the greedy corporations.

California itself caused the crisis in the first place. First they kept growing, thus increasing demand for energy. Then they regulated their domestic power industry to prevent the construction of new power plants. Then they noticed that increasing demand and static supply was causing the price to go up, so they regulated the consumer prices. Then all their power companies went bankrupt and they lacked domestic power resources to meet needs ( a double whammy). Then they had to pay premium prices to out of state companies who in true corporate fashion sought the best price they could get (corporations being responsible to the shareholders before the public...much less the public of a foriegn state that had just regualted its own companies out of business).

So you conclude that government regulation (from an agency like the UN) is preferable to corporate greed. The lesser of two evils. You believe a Browncoat would make the same choice.

A Browncoat would find a third choice. A choice that minimizes govt intrusion and corporate dominiation. In other words true Browncoats strike off in a third direction, towards independance. Its a notion that drives a man to start his own business, put himself through college, to do a job and get paid, volunteer to defend freedom or oppose tyranny, and maybe carve off a little piece of the 'verse to call his own. Thats a Browncoat.


H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 6:42 PM

TRAVELINGTHEBLACK


I know THAT'S a browncoat, but in a our globalized society, you really think one person could build a working spaceship, or buy one, and find his or her own colony? Heh, yeah, right. As of now, it's either the corperations or the UN.

Mercy is the mark of a great man... *stab*

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 7:36 PM

WULFHAWK


Before you occupy your final dirt apartment, we will see kit-built spacecraft, built by amateurs, launched by amateurs, orbited by amateurs. If you happen to be rated for multi-engine jets, you may soon be in demand for piggyback in-flight launch platform pilot jobs.

I don't say this because I have a crystal ball...no, historically speaking, just find a guy saying something is impossible, can't be done, never happen, then contradict him. The odds are HUGELY in my favor.

Super-efficient detonation thrusters are on the way soon, able to breathe air or vacuum, enabling a single stage to orbit vehicle. Ultra-hot plasma rockets may become feasible before Bush's moonbase is finished, allowing long-burn, high-thrust craft to appear.

See you fellas at Luna City...the first round is on me, browncoats.

Take my love
Take my land

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 6:45 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by TravelingTheBlack:
I know THAT'S a browncoat, but in a our globalized society, you really think one person could build a working spaceship, or buy one, and find his or her own colony? Heh, yeah, right. As of now, it's either the corperations or the UN.

Mercy is the mark of a great man... *stab*



A man finding his own way to do things. Why thats impossible. I was just telling my good friends Wilbur and Orville that man can't fly. They seem to think that bicycle makers can change the laws of physics.

Seriously, you seem to think the corporations are a bad thing. Why? Corporations are merely entities that facilitate the combination of capital, technology, and labor in a reflection of modern economic realities. Goverment serves the same role. A fundamental American idea, however, is that the individual lies at the center of it all. Corporations and govts jealously guard against the power of individuals, but it is always human failings that drive govt or corporate tyranny.

So tell you what. I'll go home tonight and invent a safe and reliable means of space travel. Tomorrow I'll patent it. The next day I'll form my own corporation to bring in capital and labor. Then I'll build me that spaceship you say I can't build. The only difficult thing about this scenario is the invention part, and if I can't do it somebody else will.

Unless some stupid goverment regulation stops them.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 9:01 AM

WERESPAZ


Before I start my rant, I'd like to say that I think it's great that so many people seem to support more space exploration. I think it's way cool. I'd be one of the first people to sign up for a one-way ticket to a colony on the moon or Mars or even some space-station type place. I think one of the largest obstacles are the shuttles themselves. It seems to me like the first order of business is to make something that does what the shuttles were meant to: cheap, easy and frequents trips to orbit. If we find that, anything we want to do from there would be so much easier.

Okay, in response to Hero:
Quote:


Seriously, you seem to think the corporations are a bad thing. Why? Corporations are merely entities that facilitate the combination of capital, technology, and labor in a reflection of modern economic realities. Goverment serves the same role.


I understand how lots of people can think of corparations as a bad thing, I sorta feel that way myself, but the real problem with corporations are when they either choose to completely screw their employees/environment/locals/ect. over for a few percentage drops in thier bottom line. Corporations, like people (and even government) still need to have some kind of a conscience. The other problem is when their lobby monies mean they get a much louder voice than the voters, and I believe campaign finance reform is the first step in a healthier goverment/populace/corporate world.

I think that if we're gonna get to space, it's going to be the corporations who put us there, once they understand that people are willing to spend money to get there. There's no motivator like profit. However, if it is indeed corps that get us there, I would really like to see it be a corporation that does the right way, as in: not using slave/child/cheap-foreign labor. I think that a space corp program thingy could do wonders for our current economy and create a ton of jobs both blue and white collar. And regulation is not neccessarily the problem, the problem is not regulation but incentives for corps to move their HQ somewhere outside the US to dodge paying taxes, or when Wal-Mart dictates prices to manufacturers forcing them to move their jobs to foreign locations causing more unemployment in the US. That's also long-term badness for Wal-Mart, how are jobless people supposed to spend money there? I'm just using Wal-Mart as an example (although they are the evil empire) here. My point is, if done right by either government or private industry, exploring space could be great for the US if it's done right, and there's no reason why we all can't win (except Bush, I don't like him, his eyes are too close together).

-The SpAz

(edit to add: Steven Notley (apparently a friend or something of Joss) summed up so common feelings on his webpage angryflower.com. About halfway down, look for the title "BUSH ON MARS". There's also some funny comic strips there too).

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:57 PM

SAMURAIX47


If you're interested in future space exploration to the moon you should check out the X-Prize and the competitors involved. Burt Rutan has been testing his SpaceShipOne out in California.

Also the Artemis Project, www.asi.org, a private venture to put man back on the moon.

Space-Frontier.org has a Return-to-the-Moon project and a conference in Las Vegas this summer.

Read Gerald K. O'Neill's The High Frontier. you can read about this also at www.space-frontier.org/HighFrontier/

Try reading Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy for what colonizing Mars could be like.

James

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 6:51 PM

JASONZZZ



KSR also has another fantastic book named "The years of Rice and Salt". It's a SciFi alternative history on what would have happened if Europe was wiped out during the plague and the world had an Asian spin to it where Buddhism and Islamism ruled. Would there still be technology? How would philosophy and critical thinking be? Questions whether eurocentrism and amerocentrism is in the right place...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553580078/qid=107716632
5


Quote:

Originally posted by SamuraiX47:
If you're interested in future space exploration to the moon you should check out the X-Prize and the competitors involved. Burt Rutan has been testing his SpaceShipOne out in California.

Also the Artemis Project, www.asi.org, a private venture to put man back on the moon.

Space-Frontier.org has a Return-to-the-Moon project and a conference in Las Vegas this summer.

Read Gerald K. O'Neill's The High Frontier. you can read about this also at www.space-frontier.org/HighFrontier/

Try reading Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy for what colonizing Mars could be like.

James



Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 7:44 PM

CUDA


Obviously NASA will be extremely wasteful however they decide to get to the moon, but I'd rather see them be wasteful than not to do anything at all. It all lays the groundwork for further space travel and discovery, and I'd like to see that now rather than later.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
What "They've" Done To Us, And Is It The Same As G-32 Paxilon Hydrochlorate?
Mon, July 27, 2020 18:12 - 58 posts
Making a Murderer (II)
Tue, February 25, 2020 19:57 - 7 posts
Self-Driving Uber Car Racks Up First Kill
Tue, February 25, 2020 19:45 - 59 posts
What "THEY'VE" done to us and it's worse than Paxilon Hydrochlorate (HA, I'M RIGHT, YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST...SULFUR AND AUTISM ARE LINKED)
Mon, February 3, 2020 19:07 - 97 posts
Rebooting Firefly?
Sun, January 12, 2020 21:55 - 2 posts
‘Firefly’ Alums Nathan Fillion, Alan Tudyk Shatter Indiegogo Record by Raising $1 Million in Less Than 24 Hours
Sat, December 28, 2019 17:40 - 19 posts
Captain Sorta Marvel
Sat, December 28, 2019 13:03 - 48 posts
Joss Whedon returning to TV with epic HBO sci-fi series
Tue, May 7, 2019 17:13 - 16 posts
Nathan Auctioned Himself Off For His Birthday
Mon, April 1, 2019 15:23 - 1 posts
15 Years after Firefly ended, see Serenity fly again in this new reel from the original VFX team
Fri, March 8, 2019 16:36 - 10 posts
Patton Oswald on Colbert Now
Thu, January 10, 2019 00:58 - 15 posts
Check out #5
Fri, November 16, 2018 08:41 - 2 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL