Lots of talk lately concerning the moon

orzek · Aug 10, 2004

The biggest and most prevalent would be preservation of mankind in case of a global catastrophe on Earth. That could be a KT type asteroid or comet impact, or global nuclear war. It could also be what Stephen Hawking predicts, an unstoppable, global plague. If any of these events (and possibly others) occur, there will be no time to begin to establish a viable population off-Earth. Mankind will simply vanish from the Universe forever. Now, there are many people who really don’t care whether or not mankind as a species survives. Personally, I would be willing to invest a lot more in the assurance of the survival of mankind, than I would in most of the other proposed projects. I think that is probably the most stupidest idea I have ever heard. Mars will not be a good place to preserve mankind until a lot of investment in man and hardware is put on mars. Mars is too harsh of a planet to use as a second planet in the short term. It will take many decades and missions before mars will be self-sufficient. That investment is not attractive to most people you using that line will most probably delay any mars mission. It is also very unlikely that we will be hit by a KT type asteroid or a comet in the near future. You should stop watching too many Scifi movies. The most likely threat will be from a meteorite that could destroy a city or a large area. Global nuclear war if it happens will happen within this century and happen most likely before any mars mission. Global plague is also unlikely to kill us all off, maybe a lot of people but not everyone. Nature does not work in absolute terms like that! If you want to waste time and make a mars mission unattractive to the vast majority of people then keep talking about global catastrophe and then we will NEVER go to mars!!!

orzek · Aug 10, 2004

Could we find earth size planets with Earth based inferometers? The Keck Interferometer is estimated to image jupiter/uranus size images when it goes online next year. Can adaptive optics and inferometers image Earth size planets within the near future, I'm assuming they can. I think a lunar telescope would obviously be better, but how much better. I think it is possible but I think that it will be easier to find earth sized planets by having space based telescopes. The moon sounds a nice idea but I doubt it will be used for space telescopes since large telescopes will require significant infrastructure and human presence for it to pay off and if the telescopes can be prebuilt on earth then it makes sense to situate them in space at one of the langrange points.

orzek · Aug 10, 2004

I don't have any trouble understanding his points, but then he and I think a lot alike. To summarize (and correct me if I'm wrong, Mental), he's saying: let's make the colonization of Mars our primary goal, because the very survival of the human race is at stake, and the sooner we get started on this, the better, because we have no idea when a global catastrophe could strike. To this end, "testing" equipment to be used on Mars on the moon is a waste of time and money, because it could easily be tested less expensively more more easily on Earth. An observatory on the moon, however, would NOT be a waste of time and money, if it contributed to the goal of preparing against the possibility of a global catastrophy; i.e., an observatory that scans for Earth-approaching asteroids. But such an observatory should not be at the expense of a colony on Mars, it should be a compliment to it. An observatory on the moon is a goal worthy in and of itself, especially for the purpose of radio astronomy, whereas "testing" equipment for a Mars mission is not. That's my take on it, anyway. If it was easy to get to mars then his points would make sense but unfortunately getting to mars is quite tricky such that to make mars a priority is a very risky proposition. Global castastrophe as I have said above is a very silly idea indeed for going to mars. Testing equipment on earth is cheaper but the difficulty of going to mars means that testing on earth is inadequate if you want to make a mars mission successful. I still haven't heard a good reason or proof that testing on earth is all you need. The moon is nearby and as such offers a perfect place to start practising in making a manned presence on another heavenly body. Besides you need a manned presence on the moon if you want to build telescopes there. It will not be possible to do it by remote. Also why do people compartimize everything, the moon is not in competition with mars, a mission

halman · Aug 10, 2004

Orzek, I have gotten the impression that the majority of posters on this thread do not have any sense of 'urgency' regarding our immediate plans in space. If it takes 20 or 30 years to establish a manned presence on the Moon, so be it. If we decide to go to Mars first. fine. What many people are overlooking is the financial health of the United States. If some new sources of revenue are not found within 20 years, this country is very likly to be bankrupt. This country is already going into debt at a rate unprecedented in our history. The ability to support projects costing billions of dollars, year in and year out, for decades, is slipping away. Creating growth in the economy means finding new sources of raw materials, new methods of processing them, and new markets for the finished goods. Currently, we are seeing established industries shutting down, or moving production overseas, resulting in the loss of jobs. Space offers one of the few oppurtunities for the creation of new, high paying jobs. Energy is becoming a major concern, as the demand has been increasing far faster than forecasted. Energy production is becoming a limiting factor to growth, and the cost of energy is rising as demand outstrips supply. Forces which were dismissed 10 years ago are having substantial impact on the economy. If we do not begin some effort at growth soon, we are likely to be unable to grow at all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

mental_avenger · Aug 11, 2004

orzek says: I think that [establishing a viable colony on Mars in case the Earth is fatally zapped] is probably the most stupidest idea I have ever heard. Do you have a better place for such a colony? orzek says: Mars will not be a good place to preserve mankind until a lot of investment in man and hardware is put on mars. …..It will take many decades and missions before mars will be self-sufficient. I believe you are finally getting the idea. That is why I advocate starting as soon as is possible. orzek says: It is also very unlikely that we will be hit by a KT type asteroid or a comet in the near future. Really? How do you know that. It is just as likely that we will get hit by a KT sized asteroid tomorrow as 10,000 years from now. It is precisely because we have no way to predict when the big one will come that we need to begin preparations NOW! orzek says: You should stop watching too many Scifi movies. My opinion on that has nothing to do with SciFi at all. My opinion is based on the FACT that Earth has been hit numerous times with comets as big as the Chicxulub hit (including the Chicxulub hit) and larger ones. Although the average seems to be around 100 million years between impacts, the spacing is random. The Chicxulub impact occurred about 65 million years ago, the next one could be tomorrow. In addition, according to NASA, there are asteroid strikes big enough to cause global environmental changes about every 100,000 years. The last one was probably Meteor Crater near Winslow Arizona, 50,000 years ago. orzek says: Global nuclear war if it happens will happen within this century and happen most likely before any mars mission. That is only a guess, but w <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Aug 11, 2004

orzek, Eddie was merely pointing out that he easily understood my comments, something you seemed unable to do even after I explained them repeatedly. orzek says: I still haven't heard a good reason or proof that testing on earth is all you need. I have yet to hear any valid reason why testing on Earth cannot be done as thoroughly as on the Moon, only thousands of times cheaper, faster, and safer. I am still waiting to hear what those scientists on Devon Island said when you informed them that they are wasting their time. And we can also ignore the fact that all current space suits were thoroughly tested here on Earth, and all the flight suits worn by fighter pilots were tested here on Earth in high altitude testing chambers. You know the ones I am talking about, the ones that hundreds of thousands of pilots have bet their lives on. (BTW, those testing chambers can simulate the Martian atmosphere.) orzek says: The moon is nearby and as such offers a perfect place to start practising in making a manned presence on another heavenly body. “Nearby” is relative. The energy required to go to Mars from Earth is almost the same as the energy required to go to the Moon from Earth. There is a big difference in time only. orzek says: Again his views only make sense if it was easy to get to mars. I assure you it is not! Your assurances are of no practical value. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Aug 11, 2004

kadetken says: So Mental Avenger asserts that having an egg in another basket is the driving reason for going to space, and therefore Mars, as the likeliest known candidate, should take precedence over all other objectives. Not exactly. What I have advocated many times is getting the Manned Mars Missions and Colonization started as soon as possible. It never ceases to amaze me how so many people have tried to take what I have said and spin it around to suit their purpose. kadetken says: My question then is how long until a Mars colony becomes self-sufficient? Quite a while. If I had to guess, I’d say that it would take 25 years with a concerted effort, 50-100 years if we take our time. Of course, that is all dependent on so many variables that there is no way to tell at this point. However, in 25 years, if push came to shove, it is probable that the colony could become self-sufficient and viable. Not comfortable at first, but viable. kadetken says: Or parsed another way, how long does humanity have to put off the true benefits of the economic development of space for the benefit of Earth in order to subsidize Martian pioneers? Ah, we come to the crux so soon. Parsed that way, the statement becomes a Logical Fallacy of Insufficient or Suppressed Evidence. That is because the statement assumes several elements not confirmed as fact. kadetken says: 80 years from now, assuming development of cislunar space, you'd be able to implant a far more robust settlement on Mars with greater chance of success in the long run. Boy, you certainly are in love with cislunar space. Ah, well, assuming development? That is rather vague. In any case, during that 80 years (using your scenario), a great deal of development could be accomplished <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

meteo · Aug 11, 2004

Sorry, I put that post together in a hurry. Insulating against temperature swings is a problem on the moon. Unrelated to my distance limit guesses. Connecting inferometers (at least on earth) requires a lot of equipment. The Keck's 85m apart fill up an entire basement with concecting equipment. I don't know how much of this equipment is adaptive optics based. I'm guessing that connecting telescopes on the moon can not be done with just a simple extension cord. I was inquiring how much equipment it would take to connect them on the moon. If it requires a 50 mile long enclosed building this would be quite an enginering feet (as of now). If connecting telescopes is much easier on the moon and requires something like several pipes worth of infrasturcture then it could be built longer. I was wondering if anyone could make a QUANTITATIVE guess at how much easeier it is to hook up telescopes on the moon. Like what is the diameter of the neccessary enclosure 10meters, 5 meters, 1 foot? I have no idea. I was thininking the limit on the size would not be becase of physics of inferometry but the limit would be based on how much mass it takes to connect the telescopes. My limits are based on say what could we build in the next say 20 years. By which time could eath based adaptive optics advanced to the point where an OPTICAL telescope on the moon is an obsolete proposal. A moon telescope could have the ability to do infared and radio astronomy though.

mrmorris · Aug 11, 2004

"Insulating against temperature swings is a problem on the moon." Insulating against temperature swings is a problem *anywhere* in the vacuum of space. Anyplace with direct sunlight -- really hot. Anyplace in darkness -- really cold. It's probable that the scopes will a sunshield and/or an aperature cover like Hubble's to protect the optics from direct sunlight (also micrometerorites), but this has always been a given. The 14-day cycles will be a pain -- they'll have to have a system capable of storing enough energy during the 'day' to keep the scope warm during the 'night'. "Connecting inferometers (at least on earth) requires a lot of equipment. " I readily admit to being ignorant of the equipment specifics. What I have read of the subject has been theory. My understanding of that is that if you have imagery from two or more scopes of the same celestial object and the same time, *and* you know the exact distances between the scopes, it is possible to use computer processing to refine the data. I can't imagine any reason why this processing would have to be done real-time or using equipment on-site. I know that for radiotelescope-based interferometers -- they have used RTs on different continents at times. I could easily be wrong, but I'm betting the data from the moon-based scopes should be able to be transmitted to earth for processing by ground-based computers. If this is correct -- no physical connection *at all* is required. Images are stored on the scope's local memory with a time-tick and ID indicating which scope made it and when. They are then transmitted to Earth for processing. By contrast -- adaptive optics *must* be done real-time as the mirrors are adjusted constantly to account for atmospheric disturbances. I expect the equipment in question is all to do with this.

orzek · Aug 11, 2004

It is also very unlikely that we will be hit by a KT type asteroid or a comet in the near future You have absolutely no way of knowing this. Remember comet Shoemaker-Levy? It slammed into Jupiter a decade or so ago? It had a fairly normal orbit until it was altered by it's previous encounter with the big planet. The same thing could happen with Earth, and it could happen unexpectedly, and it could happen fairly quickly. Well if in the past such events occured with intervals of tens of millions of years then it is common sense that it will be slim chance of it occuring anytime soon. Jupiter is much larger and has a bigger gravity well and therefore has a much larger chance of being hit. Some say that the reason that there is life on earth is that jupiter screens us from too many impacts from comets and asteroids. The most likely threat is from a tunguska style hit since more of these events have occured in human history and also quite recently in human history. I am pretty confident we will not go extinct from such impacts any time soon. There are more immediate ways by which we can go extinct.

orzek · Aug 11, 2004

orzek says: I think that [establishing a viable colony on Mars in case the Earth is fatally zapped] is probably the most stupidest idea I have ever heard. Do you have a better place for such a colony? If the point of the colony is to preserve us from extinction then mars is no place for a colony or for that matter anywhere else. There are better reasons of going to mars which are sellable to the public. Your reason is not sellable to the vast majority of people. orzek says: Mars will not be a good place to preserve mankind until a lot of investment in man and hardware is put on mars. …..It will take many decades and missions before mars will be self-sufficient. I believe you are finally getting the idea. That is why I advocate starting as soon as is possible. I have been saying this for quite some time so I am not finally getting the idea since I already know this. It still doesn’t justifying going as soon as possible so as to “preserve mankind”. I would also like missions to start as soon as possible but I also want them to be successful! This I don’t think will be possible to achieve “by just going to mars and avoiding the moon”. I believe that going to the moon and mars is the best chance for it to last. Why do we have to split them up? Why is this difficult for people to understand? orzek says: It is also very unlikely that we will be hit by a KT type asteroid or a comet in the near future. Really? How do you know that. It is just as likely that we will get hit by a KT sized asteroid tomorrow as 10,000 years from now. It is precisely because we have no way to predict when the big one will come that we need to begin preparations NOW! Well how DO YOU know we will likely to be hit tomorrow. Do you have any statistics? Exaggerating the risk does not make it likely.

orzek · Aug 11, 2004

kadetken says: So Mental Avenger asserts that having an egg in another basket is the driving reason for going to space, and therefore Mars, as the likeliest known candidate, should take precedence over all other objectives. Not exactly. What I have advocated many times is getting the Manned Mars Missions and Colonization started as soon as possible. It never ceases to amaze me how so many people have tried to take what I have said and spin it around to suit their purpose. Yet when we suggest going to the moon first you get all defensive. I know and so do others that you want to go to mars as soon as possible, it’s just that it won’t happen! Going back to the moon at least makes the decision to go to mars easier and more sellable to the public. kadetken says: My question then is how long until a Mars colony becomes self-sufficient? Quite a while. If I had to guess, I’d say that it would take 25 years with a concerted effort, 50-100 years if we take our time. Of course, that is all dependent on so many variables that there is no way to tell at this point. However, in 25 years, if push came to shove, it is probable that the colony could become self-sufficient and viable. Not comfortable at first, but viable. I would agree with that. You could also use those numbers on a moon base as well. kadetken says: Or parsed another way, how long does humanity have to put off the true benefits of the economic development of space for the benefit of Earth in order to subsidize Martian pioneers? Ah, we come to the crux so soon. Parsed that way, the statement becomes a Logical Fallacy of Insufficient or Suppressed Evidence. That is because the statement assumes several elements not confirmed as fact. That does not make sense or I just can’t spare the time to decrypt that. Kadetkens point

mental_avenger · Aug 11, 2004

orzek says: Well how DO YOU know we will likely to be hit tomorrow. Do you have any statistics? Exaggerating the risk does not make it likely. I don’t know when we will be hit, only that it is inevitable. What I do know is that the hits are random. By definition, random means unpredictable. Establishing a colony on Mars is like buying insurance. I am betting Earth will get hit, you are betting that it will not so you want to put off buying the insurance. If I am wrong, we have spent a lot of money and all we have to show for it is an nice colony on Mars and the resulting infrastructure to back it up. If you are wrong, snuff one human race. orzek says: Yeah so what? The extinction events occur with periods of tens of millions of years, not very threatening like is it? The Since we have no way of knowing when the next one will be, it is always “threatening”. orzek says: That is not completely a guess, since the world will reach problems with its supply of resources and especially energy within this century. Yeah, I keep hearing that, even though we are sitting on a ball of resources 8,000 miles in diameter. I know, not all of what we need is right on top, but for the next several hundred years, it will be a hundred times cheaper and easier to extract than getting it from the Moon and bringing it back to Earth. The amount of actual materials that we would use in space is vanishingly insignificant compared to what we use on Earth. orzek says: That does not make him right, he is a physicist not a biologist. Just because he is brilliant doesn’t mean he is more right than others! He is not the only one who has made that prediction. Besides, contrary to your contention, there is plenty of evidence that it is possible for a biological ag <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Aug 11, 2004

orzek says: Yet when we suggest going to the moon first you get all defensive. Hello………………… kadetken specifically said should take precedence over all other objectives Please see my new “I Support” and “Do Not Support” Reference Thread in Missions and Launches to see how many other objectives I support right now and in the near future that have nothing to do with Mars. orzek says: It takes a great deal of pessimism to think earth is getting zapped in 80 years. that depends on the circumstances. That kind of pessimism would be called “foresight” by the survivors, if there were any. Do you know something we don’t? That is debatable. You don’t seem to think that it is really possible for the Earth to get whacked anytime soon. orzek says: You can’t build spaceships without materials, and depending on the earth for those materials is asking for trouble in the long term. Correct, in the long term. But building spacecraft with materials from Earth will be necessary until the traffic volume warrants the infrastructure on the Moon to mine, refine, and process the ore and manufacture that into usable building materials. orzek says: Besides learning how to capture asteroids or mining them removes one threat to earth, Now YOU are the one who is pipe-dreaming. That is the topic for a whole debate thread, not here. But, that particular dream won’t become a reality until looooooong after we are established on Mars. orzek says: True, traffic to mars will create t <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

orzek · Aug 11, 2004

orzek says: The moon is nearby and as such offers a perfect place to start practising in making a manned presence on another heavenly body. “Nearby” is relative. The energy required to go to Mars from Earth is almost the same as the energy required to go to the Moon from Earth. There is a big difference in time only. Maybe you can quantify that statement because if the energy was the same we would already be on our way to mars. The reason why we are not is that the biggest problem is getting there, ie the fuel costs are huge. Why do you think the 90 day plan envisioned a 1000 ton spacecraft? Therefore your assertion that the energy is nearly the same is laughable. Where do you get that notion from, where is your proof? This shows you do not know very much about the details of a mars mission. orzeks: Again his views only make sense if it was easy to get to mars. I assure you it is not! Your assurances are of no practical value. Then give proof that it is easy to get there!

orzek · Aug 11, 2004

No doubt. As a race, we're more likely to be extinguished by our own hands. But I think you lack a firm grasp of the true situation when it comes to the possibility of asteroidal impacts. If there is a "one in a million" chance of something happening tomorrow, it is just as likely that it could happen tomorrow as a million days from now. I disagree, i fear tunguska type impacts because they are more common and big enough to do damage over a wide area. Tomorrow I might have chance of being run over, which I am sure is less than 1 in a million chance yet do I stay home on the offchance of it happening? No of course not. The chances of an extinction event from a rock or comet is too small to worry about. These events are too rare to care about! If you are pessimistic or are a survivalist nut then I am sure that is something to concern you! I on the other hand have other things to worry about.

larper · Aug 11, 2004

Orzek, The energy required to send 1 kilogram to the Moon is about the same as to send the same kilogram to Mars. What the Mars First group always "forgets" is that you have to send MANY MANY more kilograms to Mars than you do to the moon. So, the total fuel requirements are much different. The "Mars is cheap" argument is always used, and is technically correct, but it is wrong on many levels. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Vote Libertarian </div>

orzek · Aug 11, 2004

The energy required to send 1 kilogram to the Moon is about the same as to send the same kilogram to Mars. What the Mars First group always "forgets" is that you have to send MANY MANY more kilograms to Mars than you do to the moon. So, the total fuel requirements are much different. The "Mars is cheap" argument is always used, and is technically correct, but it is wrong on many levels. Thats interesting. How do you work that out? I thought the delta V to mars is much higher than to the moon. A basic mars mission requires a delta V of 19km/s while to the moon it is less than 10km/s (i think)(both from earth orbit.) Zubrins method can put that down to nearer 11km/s but is still higher than for the moon. What is the exact delta V to the moon from earth orbit as I have been trying to find that out for sure.

orzek · Aug 11, 2004

orzek says: Besides learning how to capture asteroids or mining them removes one threat to earth, Now YOU are the one who is pipe-dreaming. That is the topic for a whole debate thread, not here. But, that particular dream won’t become a reality until looooooong after we are established on Mars. Maybe. But considering how slow it is now to get a mars mission off the ground I wouldn’t bet against it! orzek says: True, traffic to mars will create the need for infrastructure, but if we start to develop that infrastructure when we need it, how long will it take to build it. It won’t spring up overnight. Doing it when its needed will make the risk of stalling the development of the colony on mars. One more time. It will not be possible to build the infrastructure before the traffic warrants it. That type of venture will be far too expensive. Do This. Find out how much it would cost to design and build a complete stand-alone mining operation, including all the equipment, vehicles, manpower and support structure, on Earth. Find out how much it would cost to design and build a complete stand-alone ore processing plant, on Earth. Find out how much it would cost to design and build a complete stand-alone Steel mill, on Earth. Find out how much it would cost to design and build a complete stand-alone Aluminum mill, on Earth. Find out how much it would cost to design and build a complete stand-alone community and all the support services that would be required for these mills, on Earth. Now, take that figure times 1000, and take the time required to build it times 100, and you will have an idea of what it would take to build the type of infrastructure you have been advocating, if everything goes well. And that is only for two of the basic materials that will be needed. We may have to ask Uplink to increase the bandwidth to handle all the zeros.

mental_avenger · Aug 11, 2004

larper says: The energy required to send 1 kilogram to the Moon is about the same as to send the same kilogram to Mars. Quite correct. I’ll see if I have the stats somewhere, they were posted on the “Lets Design a Mission To Mars thread that was deleted. What the Mars First group always "forgets" is that you have to send MANY MANY more kilograms to Mars than you do to the moon. So, the total fuel requirements are much different. Correct again, IF (and that’s a big IF) that involves a mission that includes passengers AND IF (and that’s another big IF) the intent is to bring the passengers home again using only the included fuel and consumables. Now, colonizing Mars means that most, if not all of the passengers will stay on Mars. That alone cuts the fuel requirement to about 1/3rd . Since initially, most of the spacecraft will be robotic cargo vessels intended to be used as habitats on Mars, the fuel required for consumables will instead be used for cargo. Incidentally, this also reduces the enroute energy requirements. Bottom line, except for passenger spacecraft, the cost of sending cargo to Mars from Earth will be approximately the same as to the Moon from Earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mrmorris · Aug 11, 2004

"Wind farms are turning out to be a problem, at least until the migrating birds and the bats can figure them out. " This is BS propagated by people that think because windmills look like fans that they must act like them -- creating a rotating vortex of death for unsuspecting wildlife. In fact most production-scale windmills have a rotation rate of about two revolutions per minute. There's a word for birds and bats that run into them -- that word is ********. Studies that have been done on this show that of 10,000 bird kills, 5,500 are due to collisions with buildings (namely windows), 1,000 are due to housecats, and less than one is due to windmills. You can argue that windmills should be banned because of their effect on birds right after banning the use of windows in buildings and the keeping of cats as pets. A link to this data:

mental_avenger · Aug 12, 2004

This is BS propagated by people that think because windmills look like fans that they must act like them -- creating a rotating vortex of death for unsuspecting wildlife. You just go tell the parents of those poor dead birds at Altamont Pass that this is only BS. Look them in the eye and say, “Really, there aren’t enough of you killed to worry about.” Mercury News The bad news of the report, as Miller sees it, is that the actual number of bird deaths is higher than anyone thought. Researchers reported for the first time that 1,766 to 4,721 birds, of which 881 to 1,300 are protected raptors, are killed a year. BTW, I haven’t heard that particular BS before, where did you get that? In fact most production-scale windmills have a rotation rate of about two revolutions per minute. As I recall, most wind turbines turn at about 28 rpm. There's a word for birds and bats that run into them -- that word is ********. A wind turbine with a tip-to-tip length of 150 feet, turning at 28 rpm, produces a tip speed of 150mph. The birds get blind-sided by the blade. Raptors that are focused on prey on the other side of the turning blades don’t even see the blades. Studies that have been done on this show that of 10,000 bird kills, 5,500 are due to collisions with buildings (namely windows), 1,000 are due to housecats, and less than one is due to windmills. That sounds convincing, until you realize that there are probably 100 million times more windows in buildings in the US than there are wind turbines. Suddenly the per structure statistics shift to an extremely high percentage for wind turbines. S <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Aug 12, 2004

For clarification, under the scenario discussed Mars would have a paramount need for resources to ensure survival, and it would likely be a looooong time before the Martians got back out into space. What resources would a burgeoning Mars colony need that would be easier to get from asteroids than from Mars itself? In theory we could have the beginnings of a colony by 2030. That's a lot of one-way shipments (12?) of materials over a very short timeframe that will be coming at a time of increasingly pinched resources. Probably more like 30 shipments (depending on the size of the spacecraft), most of which would be robotic cargo vessels. Still, that is very little in actual “materials”. A great deal of the current cost of spacecraft is the amortized R&D, the technical requirements, and specialized, sometimes one-of-a-kind parts. 25-30 identical spacecraft will bring the per item cost down dramatically. Heh, heh, heh. I love this one. I ask, Mr. Mental Avenger, are you familiar with the means and methods of resource extraction, with the lovely chemicals like hydrogen cyanide used in their extraction, of the huge unfunded environmental remediation requirements in the US of A and around the world? Actually, yes. I live in an oil, coal, and coal-bed methane mining area. I have seen entire rivers and highways rerouted, hills leveled and new hills formed. We have smoldering mine shafts running hundreds of feet deep through the hills. You ought to come out and see it. It can be quite entertaining when a section of a nearby hill or road suddenly sinks 20 feet. They mine (or drill) all sorts of things around here, including Bentonite, Trona, Coal, Shale, and Shale Oil, Natural Gas, Uranium, Copper, Gold, and Sulfur. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mrmorris · Aug 12, 2004

"You just go tell the parents of those poor dead birds at Altamont Pass that this is only BS." Altamont pass is *the* worst case scenario and is the most often cited example around. The turbines there are also using old technology. Their blades are smaller and rotate faster than modern turbines, and they have open-lattice towers that attract birds to perch on them (a style no longer used by anyone, anywhere) -- in particular raptors -- since they like to sit on the highest point around. Altamonte pass has 5,400 windmills with a blade diameter of 30 feet. I can't locate the specific KW on them, but in general a 30-foot diameter windmill equates to a capacity of 25KW. A modern windmill would have a 210 foot diameter blade and have ~1,650 KW capacity. If the wind farm at Altamont Pass were built today, about eighty-one windmills would have the same KW rating (and incidently would produce *more* KWhrs, because larger/taller towers do more with the same amount of wind). The blades would rotate slower, and the towers would not attract birds to roost. Citing Altamnte Pass as a reason why we shouldn't build any more windmills is equivalent to citing the Shuttle as a reason why we shouldn't build any more spacecraft. "Studies that have been done on this show that of 10,000 bird kills, 5,500 are due to collisions with buildings (namely windows), 1,000 are due to housecats, and less than one is due to windmills." "That sounds convincing, until you realize that there are probably 100 million times more windows in buildings in the US than there are wind turbines. Suddenly the per structure statistics shift to an extremely high percentage for wind turbines. Same goes for cats. National estimates show about 73 million cats in the US as pets. That does not count feral cats." And this matters... why? You math whiz, you. Darn you f

arobie · Aug 12, 2004

Wait a second, Mr. Mental_Avenger, You seemed to have skipped all the rest of kadetken's post. What do you think about all of his valid points on recourses extracted on the moon? About his points on how cheap it would actually be? About his points on how to get electricity on the moon? About his points on how much development would actually be needed? Why do you not reply to the rest of Kadetken's post?

Lots of talk lately concerning the moon

orzek

Guest

orzek

Guest

orzek

Guest

halman

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

meteo

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

orzek

Guest

orzek

Guest

orzek

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

orzek

Guest

orzek

Guest

larper

Guest

orzek

Guest

orzek

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

arobie

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page