Home » General Chat » Circular File » Going to the moon
| |
| Re: Going to the moon |
Thu, 15 January 2004 15:14   |
|
| Hetzer |
 | |
Messages: 139
Registered: November 2002
Location: Hollywood | 
|
|
(costs are from 20 years ago for this)
90,000,000,000 spacefleet, reusable.
4,000,000,000 automated solar cell factory on the moon (some soil samples came back as 80% silicon) cost to ship solar cells
from the moon 1/36 the cost of sending them from the earth.
6,000,000,000 solar power satilite capable of generating 1.5% of the total current electrical consumption of the US. Microwave radiation isn't Ionizing so no damage to ozone layer.
Drawback, adds to global warming.
If we can get to Mars the same tech will get us to the asteroid belt. Some asteroids are 95% nickle iron. One asteroid 1 US mile long and 1/3 of a mile thick equals more metal than we've mined from the planet since day one. Reaction motor drives asteroid to a stable trojan orbit (10 yrs or so). If we hollow the Asteroid out we have a space station capable of holding 250K workers with 4-5 meters of nickle iron to cut down on radiation from solar flares.
With no gravity, cooling metal holds its shape. If you blow bubbles through molten steel when it cools you have a sponge (all arches, natures strongest structure) made out of steel. 1/8th the weight, 30 times the load bearing capability.
Who says there ain't no money to be made from space "exploitation".
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Going to the moon |
Thu, 15 January 2004 23:53 |
|
 alexdstewart |
 | Chief Warrant Officer 2 |
Messages: 164
Registered: July 2003
Location: Brisbane, QLD. | |
|
The timetable is too slow IMO. By 2010's oil reserves will pass their peak production, by 2020's oil shortages will make chemical rocket exploration unaffordable by anyone and everyone.
Oil is the basic resource of our civilization, synthetic materials are made largely from oil. Although, we have vast reserves of coal, it is a dirty source. Smog problems can be solved but sulphiric acid problem will be difficult to resolve. IMO we won't be able to use coal for anything but syntheric materials production.
The estimated resource deplition timetables do not fall well with the proposed space exploration program. The peak of this program fall precisely on the peak of increased economic fallout of oil depletion. At that time the US won't be able to afford any chemical rocket space transportation.
There is a way out of this, but it call for radical change to the concept of space travel. You guys whould call for massive reseach in alternative propulsion systems.
The criteria is:
*10$/kg to Low Earth Orbit max
*Totally reusable spacecraft (preferably one stage to orbit- probaly impossible given the present inefficiency of current reactors).
*Mastery of fussion is highly desirable (Uranium supplies are limited and breeder reactors are how shall I say "unstable" and way to bulky to fit on spacecraft.
*Superconductor incorporation in space tech- this is the single most critical component. Without superconductors U can forget about any meaningful space exploration. Superconductors could be used anywhere: radiation protection, reentry shield, weapons, power transmission and generation etc at nauseum.
*Self-replicating intellegent robots - you need a large workforce in "extrimely" hostile enviroment, that only bots can provide.
So what do we have of those? We do already have superconductors and with a strech we can use 'em nicely. Fussion reaction mastery is predicted by 2040, with experimental ready by 2020- way to slow and if you want your kids to have a "bright"
...
In the Future there is only WAR...
Therefore our extinction is assured, it is just a matter of where and when.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| Re: Going to the moon |
Wed, 21 January 2004 18:54 |
|
| alexdstewart |
| Chief Warrant Officer 2 |
Messages: 164
Registered: July 2003
Location: Brisbane, QLD. | |
|
Reminds me of one sad fact. For all of you's opposed to nuke plants. You see Uranium is everywhere- in the soil in the rocks in the water, air- everywhere. So when coal/oil powerplants burn their fuel, all that residual Uranium is released into the atmosphere  . So there was this guy that calculated that conventional powerplant releases about the same amount of Uranium into the atmostphere as a nuke plant of the same size consumes. Must I remind you that radioactive waste is then stored, not disperced into the atmosphere? (Well, usually it is- If Italians get their hads on it, they'll just dump it in the Mediterranian)
But really there ain't enough Uranium deposits around to satisfy our needs. There is enough fuel for conventional nukes for less than 10 years for a whole world. Breeder reactors can use that supply for hundreds of years but they are... unstable. 
Besides, if you start to build breeder reactors, US and Co will just brand you as an "axis of evil" and bomb you to Stone Age. 
In the Future there is only WAR...
Therefore our extinction is assured, it is just a matter of where and when.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Going to the moon |
Sun, 01 February 2004 17:00 |
|
|
|
I'm not sure (fission) neclear power is the answer to fossil fuel shortages. The JET fusion power plant is already a net power producer, although low efficency means that the facility as a whole is still a net power consumer I believe.
Plans for the next generation (ITER) are well underway and that facility will be a net power producer. After that is a prototype power station which will generate real commercial electricity.
And all of these basically use lakewater as fuel.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Going to the moon |
Sat, 17 April 2004 12:07 |
|
|
|
I think this "energy shortage without oil" thing is a beast of our own making.
With residential electrical needs it is fairly easy to reduce our needs by up to 75% and still be comfortable.
For transportation, veg oil can be made to work in a diesel, just preheat it with a webasto heater or other similar device for a few minutes before you start your car (after which engine heat will do).
Combine that with drastically reducing fuel needs. We currently have an average of around 1.5 people per vehicle on the road and drive fuel wasters. Increase things like car pooling, fuel efficent engines, and increased bicycle usage for short trips and other changes and you may reduce residential fuel needs by 75%.
Reduce travel including by airplane, including using video conferencing and remote control improvements of modern tech, etc and you may reduce consumption some more.
As well, having a more decentralised civilization may improve resistance to things like terrorists and disease outbreaks.
...
For the moon or anywheres else, having the abillity to create a nearly self-sufficiant tiny eccosystem would be most useful. IMO learn to build something on earth that can mostly take care of itself such as a habitat under water or in the artic is easier than going to the moon and more long term useful for outer space.
If you can construct a cost effective nearly self-enclosed system, you can have people stay in space nearly forever rather than the huge expense of shipping stuff up constantly. Supply lines are the biggest limitations to long trips like to Mars.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
 Re: Going to the moon |
Mon, 03 May 2004 00:46 |
|
| Hyena |
 | Master Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 109
Registered: January 2004 | |
|
Off-topic...
Okay, I know that by "establishing a base on the moon" he's not suggesting that private citizens would be living there, but it only makes me think.
I've always sort of toyed with the thought of living on the moon in some way.
I'm not the travelling type, I usually prefer to stay put and have heavily resisted every decision to move all my life. However, if my family could live on the moon, I would probably jump at the chance. Sure, the idea is probably so beyond what is currently possible that it's barely worth considering, and there would have to be some sort of solution to all sorts of issues from oxygen and food to electricity, but I can dream, can't I?
The way I see it:
Pros:
1. Low gravity  . I would love it for so many different reasons.
2. No annoying insects or dangerous animals.
Cons:
1. Everything would be expensive.
2. Unless something extremely elaborate is put in place, a few mistakes or purposeful sabotage could easily be dangerous for many people. (Assuming we live in airtight domes and not magically create air out on the moon's surface)
A few things bother me though.
Does anyone know what sort of weather the moon has? Are there commonly earthquakes or anything like that?
Is there much harmful radiation?
Exactly how cold does it get? (Obviously the domes would have some form of heating, but how difficult would it be to keep it running?)
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Going to the moon |
Mon, 03 May 2004 06:40 |
|
| Carn |
 | Officer Cadet 4th Year |
Messages: 284
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
| Hyena wrote on Mon, 03 May 2004 06:46 |
A few things bother me though.
1.Does anyone know what sort of weather the moon has?
2.Are there commonly earthquakes or anything like that?
3.Is there much harmful radiation?
4.Exactly how cold does it get? (Obviously the domes would have some form of heating, but how difficult would it be to keep it running?)
|
1.Moon has no atmosphere, so no weather.
2.Moon is (nearly?) rock solid, no tectonic activity, therefore no volcanoes and earthquakes. But because of no atmosphere even small meteorites hit ground, though i think i remember, that the side of moon facing earth gets only few hits.
3. The two main natural radiation sources on earth are from material that earth is composed of(Uran,...) and cosmic rays. I don't know if material moon is made of is less or more radioactive, but from comic rays main protections are magnetic field(i think caused by liquid material in 1000+ miles beneath surface) and atmosphere(less important). As moon has no atmosphere and no magnetic field radiation is a lot stronger, but might be still dependent on which side of the moon you are, since side facing earth is protected in one direction by earth and in other direction by rest of moon.(In 50s there was even fear that travelling to moon is impossible due to lack of protection from magnetic field)
4. As one moon "day" last a month, so between sunup and sundown there are around 15 days, temperature differences are high. I think on day its up to 200 degree Celsius and on night its down to -150 degree Celsius. This is not so much a problem of heating , more of cooling(which is more difficult, you can't just open windows), but far greater problem is that heating expands and cooling compresses matter. This size changes are very small on earth due to temperatures changing between -50 and +70 at most, so they have little effect, but for a permanent station on moon this might cause more problems, because at sunrise or sundown the temperature changes very quickly(few hours at most). I
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| Re: Going to the moon |
Tue, 04 May 2004 13:35 |
|
| EDog |
 | Lt. Junior Grade |
Messages: 417
Registered: November 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA | |
|
| Hyena wrote on Mon, 03 May 2004 23:44 |
| Kotk wrote on Mon, 03 May 2004 16:55 |
Most people would prefer a year in a jail to year on a moon.
|
I don't see why. I find Earth's gravity rather annoying and that alone would be enough motivation for me to stay on the moon for quite a long time. And it'd be one place where I know I wouldn't have to worry about mosquitoes (I hate those things like no other creature.)
Okay, I'm rehashing my earlier argument, but man am I getting sick of all this gravity. 
|
"There is no gravity. The earth just sucks."
(I don't really believe that. Earth doesn't suck. People do.)
((I don't actually believe people suck either. Only mean people suck.))
(((Actually, most mean people don't suck either. At least, not without cash in hand.)))*
Philosophical EDog
*Somebody ought to report me to a moderator for that one...
http://ianthealy.com
Born, grew up, became an adventurer
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat May 04 19:10:46 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
) the ambient level on earth.
