- #1
@PK nd
- 25
- 2
What do you guys think about humans settling on the moon ?
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think anything like this is going to happen before we have a way to get into orbit without using rockets. Rockets expend about 99% of their fuel just lifting their fuel. If we could develop a viable method to get vehicles into orbit without them having to carry their fuel with them, we could drastically cut down on costs and maybe, just maybe, start contemplating extravagant missions like this.@PK nd said:What do you guys think about humans settling on the moon ?
@PK nd said:we WOULD NEED SOMETHING WHICH USES LESS fuel
wht about a spaceship kind of thing which uses fuel like hydrogen to move
Hydrogen is currently a common component in rocket fuel. The problem is that chemical propellants simply don't attain velocities high enough to get around this problem. Nuclear propulsion is quite a bit more efficient in terms of comparing the thrust to the mass of the fuel, but there are some pretty serious difficulties with getting large enough thrust to launch from the Earth's surface (safe nuclear propulsion has low power but lasts a very long time). There are some pretty clear radiation concerns related to increasing the power.@PK nd said:we WOULD NEED SOMETHING WHICH USES LESS fuel, cost effective and can take more people. Such kind of technology is not available but wht about a spaceship kind of thing which uses fuel like hydrogen to move . This can be use to transport astronauts to build a bio sphere in which we humans can basic needs . BUt not in near furure .
Well, we do know of a way to extract energy from the vacuum: the Casimir Effect. Unfortunately, it's only an extremely short-range effect that likely has no possibility of use for propulsion.Garth said:Let's not forget that some 68% of the universe's mass is in the form of Dark Energy, which repulses ordinary matter causing the universe to accelerate in its expansion, it is a form of 'anti-gravity'; now if we could only 'bottle it'...
Garth
Helium is one pretty major resource that's running out on Earth but pretty abundant on the moon. There are lots of others:rootone said:It would be a lot cheaper and more productive to place habitat domes (or whatever) on the currently uninhabitable parts of the Earth, such as large deserts.
There isn't as far as we know any part of the Moon which has large amounts of resources that are not obtainable on Earth.
There is also no science goal I can think of, so this would be just one hugely expensive vanity project for whichever nation decided to do it.
A moonbase would have the same kind of profitability: the people that build the required components need to be paid.rootone said:I would certainly support your view that a project of this nature, even if not very productive, is a better idea than dedicating enormous amounts of resources to wars.
I don't think wars will end any time soon though, for some people wars are a good earner unfortunately, a moon base probably not.
Fuel costs are a small fraction of the total cost of rockets. It's the structure that holds and uses the fuel that costs. Also, with ~5% payload more than 5% of the fuel is used for accelerating payload.Chalnoth said:I don't think anything like this is going to happen before we have a way to get into orbit without using rockets. Rockets expend about 99% of their fuel just lifting their fuel. If we could develop a viable method to get vehicles into orbit without them having to carry their fuel with them, we could drastically cut down on costs and maybe, just maybe, start contemplating extravagant missions like this.
There are many ideas. Personally I like the StarTram approach, but it would be a massive engineering project. Not the biggest one, however, and not the most expensive one either.There are some ideas to get around the limitation of rockets, but I don't think any have gone much beyond sketches on paper. A big issue is that some of them, such as the space elevator, are such absurdly massive engineering projects that it's going to be difficult to ever get them off the ground.
DaveC426913 said:Everybody's concentrating on HOW to go to the Moon. What about the less obvious question of WHY go to the Moon?
As a starting point, ask an even easier question: why not settle in Antarctica? It's remote, virgin, a lot like the Moon, only thousands of time cheaper, and opening a door won;t kill everyone in under a minute.
I'mot promoting moving to Antarctica, I'm simply pointing out that there got to be compelling reasons to put up with the inconvenience and danger of moving to a remote, hostile place.
Why climb mount Everest?DaveC426913 said:Everybody's concentrating on HOW to go to the Moon. What about the less obvious question of WHY go to the Moon?
As a starting point, ask an even easier question: why not settle in Antarctica? It's remote, virgin, a lot like the Moon, only thousands of time cheaper, and opening a door won;t kill everyone in under a minute.
I'mot promoting moving to Antarctica, I'm simply pointing out that there got to be compelling reasons to put up with the inconvenience and danger of moving to a remote, hostile place.
Yeah, but this is about settling - as in: making homes, jobs and futures.Chalnoth said:Why climb mount Everest?
Right, but it's a thousand times more economical to settle Antarctica, and yet we don't start colonies there.Chalnoth said:If we could make it reasonably economical to get to the moon, the moon would be an *amazing* place to do astronomy, for largely similar reasons that quite a bit of astronomy is done in Antarctica.
Because some people have more money and spare time than they know what to do with and would rather do something selfish instead of helping others.Chalnoth said:Why climb mount Everest?
Running out of room or resources will never be a reason to settle on the moon or anywhere else outside of the earth. There just won't be any way to transport enough people to make any difference. The only reason that will ever make sense is adventure.DaveC426913 said:Yeah, but this is about settling - as in: making homes, jobs and futures.
Right, but it's a thousand times more economical to settle Antarctica, and yet we don't start colonies there.
Again, I'm simply pointing out that the reasons we don't settle the Moon are the same as the reasons we don't settle any other less-than-hospitable place. We just haven't run out of room or resources here yet.
When I think of a moon base I don't think about ordinary people living and working there at all, I just think of it as the next step after the ISS , why do we go to ISS ? to do research on the effects zero of gravity etc on the human body etc and to conduct many other experiments . It can also serve a stepping stone to go to Mars. Martian geology and history is far more interesting for scientists now compared to the moon , we can learn how to manage the technical difficulties in a mission that can take years to complete, Mars might offers some unique challenges that the moon can't prepare us for , there are also discussions on the possibility of making rocket fuel on the moon using the water and other stuff available there but I don't think we have profitable methods for extracting them yet. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...n-craters-help-signal-presence-lunar-H2O.htmlDaveC426913 said:Everybody's concentrating on HOW to go to the Moon. What about the less obvious question of WHY go to the Moon?
Yes, but this thread is about reality and actually, not fictionally, colonizing the moon. What does sci-fic have to do with that?HomogenousCow said:In most sci-fi universes, the Moon is either terraformed or possesses some unique natural resource that requires a large colony for extraction.
Perhaps I'm just putting emphasis on the OP's choice of the word 'settling'. I interpreted it to mean a place ordinary people could visit, or scientists could have as a home, not just a few months' rotation, like the ISS. Perhaps marry, and have children.Monsterboy said:When I think of a moon base I don't think about ordinary people living and working there at all,
Maybe the OP was a little vague, anyway if we build an ISS on the moon (LSS) given the amount of money and resources it will take, it will be a permanent base on the moon although it's inhabitants will be moving in and out.DaveC426913 said:Perhaps I'm just putting emphasis on the OP's choice of the word 'settling'. I interpreted it to mean a place ordinary people could visit, or scientists could have as a home, not just a few months' rotation, like the ISS. Perhaps marry, and have children.
More like ILS.Monsterboy said:... if we build an ISS on the moon (LSS) ...
Monsterboy said:Maybe the OP was a little vague, anyway if we build an ISS on the moon (LSS)
Janus said:Shouldn't that be ILS for "International Lunar Station"? Or maybe even ISS-2 (where the first S stands for "Selenic")?
Hmm.. Yes ILS will sound better.DaveC426913 said:More like ILS.![]()
@PK nd said:What do you guys think about humans settling on the moon ?
Most regions and even many countries on Earth are doomed without trade with others - at least if you don't want to fall back to pre-industrial levels.DrStupid said:It would be doomed if the supply stops for some reason.
Yeah. I don't think the raw materials would be nearly as much of a challenge as all of the infrastructure required to maintain a self-sustaining environment. You'd need a huge colony to contain all of the necessary manufacturing infrastructure just to maintain the habitat.mfb said:Most regions and even many countries on Earth are doomed without trade with others - at least if you don't want to fall back to pre-industrial levels.
Lunar regolith samples show up to 100µg/g for H, C and N. Source: Lunar sourcebook, page 444 (88 in the pdf). Not much, but a moon base would certainly try to avoid losing those elements, so a small supply can be sufficient. I guess (!) simply heating the rocks sufficiently in an oxygen atmosphere would extract a significant amount of those elements.
Certainly. I still say that the OP's question takes into account our current predilection for exploration, and is asking when do we make a home?@PK nd said:BUT human nature is to explore. One day we will reach on moon and the infrastructure for now can be for 5 - 8 people right ...
@PK nd said:What do you guys think about humans settling on the moon ?
@PK nd said:THanks for ur replies and ideas ...
2 yr back i participated in NASA AMES SPACE SETTLEMENT CONTEST 2013 and got an international rank 3 on my ideas on an orbital setllement but damn thts not possible as it requires loads of money , unbelievable number of materials and some big engineering sikils
GUY ! WE are talking about a city floating in space ...
A lunar space elevator is possible with current materials. It would probably need several rocket launches to get the material up (it cannot be too thin as it needs some resistance against micrometeorites), but then it would save a lot of launches as getting to the surface and back gets easier.marcus said:Better than moon, I think. Moon too much dry rock. Too much gravity. Big deal to land and take off.