Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jester]

Yeah, mooncolonists won't revolt. They would not be like any average person, they'd be screened and vetted for the job and likely be proven to be loyal and trustworthy. They'd also need to be hardworking, anal retentive and never prone to boredom or apathy. Basically, they'd need to be as much like robots as possible. So I think they'll probably just use actual robots programed for certain tasks and/or remotely operated from earth.

Anyways, the only resource worth a damn on the moon is the H3 on the 'topsoil' there (~100 USD/ liter, atm) and demand for that will only pick up when there is practical fusion reactors that'd require it, which there isn't.  They are not going to mine iron ore there worth 115 USD/ton and whatever, export roofing nails back to earth at 5000 USD/ pound for a profit.

We have a large demand for satellites in orbit.  It's easier to get something on the moon in orbit then it is to get something on earth in orbit.

Though you have to build the thing you want in orbit first, and the moon is never going to be able to support large scale production

[jester]

to that guy that said terraforming is the way to go:

A) where will we get the gas from? gas giants in our system are hydrogen-helium, IIRC, so we'd need nuclear fusion to make carbon and oxygen. and with present day technology, it takes in more energy than it gives out.
B) think of a feasible way of getting the gasses to fill a planet from one place to the other that is cost effective.
C) most planets have no magnetic sphere, so the atmosphere would be blown away.

small scale terraforming (make a dome, fill with air etc.) is feasible, but planet wide? no.

Its a long way off but in terms of terraforming a planet, I belive altering the course of large chunks of frozen space crap/comets and shooting them into the atmosphere has been thrown up as a possible way to introduce large quantities of gasses

[mainiac]

Though you have to build the thing you want in orbit first, and the moon is never going to be able to support large scale production

Huh?

1) Build satellites out of lunar materials
2) Launch it into space with kinetic launchers
3) Move it into orbit with lunar aluminum-oxygen rockets (two of the most abundant elements in moon dust)

[jester]

Factories to build the satellite components is what im talking about, and it would be multiple factories, you are never going to have a box with a button on the side that says 'generic satellite' you can push

[mainiac]

But the vast majority of the stuff on the satellite would be relatively easy to fabricate if the launch costs didn't mean you needed to be focused on weight so much.  Replace the radiators and structure with slag iron or aluminum.  Smelt the solar panels on the moon.  Replace the control rocket fuel with lunar made of oxygen-aluminum.  This reduces the stuff you need to ship up from earth from several tons down to a few dozen choice pounds of equipment instead of several tons.  Turning several tons of earth launch costs to LEO into a few dozen pounds to geosynchronous saves you several million dollars.  We launch several thousand satellites a decade and could make use of many more then that if the launch costs were lower.  That's a pretty substantial return on investment.  It would take a long time to repay the initial costs this way but we could do it and at the end of that process we'd have a very economically useful colony.  It would also open up doorways for other economically beneficial activities (like microwave power transmission satellites) that we can't do now because of launch costs.

[jester]

But the vast majority of the stuff on the satellite would be relatively easy to fabricate if the launch costs didn't mean you needed to be focused on weight so much.  Replace the radiators and structure with slag iron or aluminum.  Smelt the solar panels on the moon.  Replace the control rocket fuel with lunar made of oxygen-aluminum.  This reduces the stuff you need to ship up from earth from several tons down to a few dozen choice pounds of equipment instead of several tons.  Turning several tons of earth launch costs to LEO into a few dozen pounds to geosynchronous saves you several million dollars.  We launch several thousand satellites a decade and could make use of many more then that if the launch costs were lower.  That's a pretty substantial return on investment.  It would take a long time to repay the initial costs this way but we could do it and at the end of that process we'd have a very economically useful colony.  It would also open up doorways for other economically beneficial activities (like microwave power transmission satellites) that we can't do now because of launch costs.

All of which requires a vast amount of infrastructure, bugger all of this stuff is 'easy' to make as well, not to mention all the materials you wont be able to substitute with stuff from the moon (highly conductive metals, lubricants etc).  Manufacturing also has a fun habit of using alot of water and energy. 

  Railgun is an easier and cheaper option for bunting satellites into space

[Starver]

Though you have to build the thing you want in orbit first, and the moon is never going to be able to support large scale production

You can never say never...  A lot of my examples are speculative, yes, but far less unlikely (assuming we don't just forget space in its entirety, in the first place) than what you just said...

"I find your lack of faith... disturbing..."

[jester]

My issue isnt that we couldnt build large stuff on the moon, its the lack of variety of resources and scarcity/complete lack of other resources that make me say it isnt viable to set up large scale manufacturing on the moon.  If you are going to be doing something like that wouldnt you be better off sending a few robots to snag some asteroids and drag em into earth orbit then use that as a base for a space dock/station, the moon is about as hostile an environment as space, why not just have most of the same issues without the hassle of having to move stuff into orbit from the moon?

[Starver]

to that guy that said terraforming is the way to go:

A) where will we get the gas from? gas giants in our system are hydrogen-helium, IIRC, so we'd need nuclear fusion to make carbon and oxygen. and with present day technology, it takes in more energy than it gives out.

In Terraforming, you work with what's there.  Release elements from the rocks of the planet, sequester other gasses from the atmosphere into the rocks, or what liquid oceans you have...  Different planets mean different methods, with some easier to handle than others.  (Non-toxic atmosphere on Titan?  There's traces of cyanide-based compounds.  And how are you going to burn the copious hydrocarbons without free oxygen?  It's basically the opposite of our oxygen-rich, fuel-sparse earthly environment, where fires would be 'reversed' mixes to fire on Earth.)  Anyway, on the whole this means that item B is moot.

C) most planets have no magnetic sphere, so the atmosphere would be blown away.

The atmospheres of planets that currently have atmospheres, just the wrong ones?  Why would the 'right' atmosphere blow away when the 'wrong ones' have not?

(Actually, there's a good answer to that if you're replacing dense gasses with lighter mixes.)

But there's other things to worry about regarding the lack of magnetosphere (assuming that's what you mean).

[Tellemurius]

to that guy that said terraforming is the way to go:

A) where will we get the gas from? gas giants in our system are hydrogen-helium, IIRC, so we'd need nuclear fusion to make carbon and oxygen. and with present day technology, it takes in more energy than it gives out.

In Terraforming, you work with what's there.  Release elements from the rocks of the planet, sequester other gasses from the atmosphere into the rocks, or what liquid oceans you have...  Different planets mean different methods, with some easier to handle than others.  (Non-toxic atmosphere on Titan?  There's traces of cyanide-based compounds.  And how are you going to burn the copious hydrocarbons without free oxygen?  It's basically the opposite of our oxygen-rich, fuel-sparse earthly environment, where fires would be 'reversed' mixes to fire on Earth.)  Anyway, on the whole this means that item B is moot.

C) most planets have no magnetic sphere, so the atmosphere would be blown away.

The atmospheres of planets that currently have atmospheres, just the wrong ones?  Why would the 'right' atmosphere blow away when the 'wrong ones' have not?

(Actually, there's a good answer to that if you're replacing dense gasses with lighter mixes.)

But there's other things to worry about regarding the lack of magnetosphere (assuming that's what you mean).

Yea radiation comes to mind.

[mainiac]

My issue isnt that we couldnt build large stuff on the moon, its the lack of variety of resources and scarcity/complete lack of other resources

It's got plenty of aluminum/iron, and silicon which is enough for roughly 99% of what we need by mass.  I keep pointing out the resources that it has and how valuable they are and you keep saying no resources.  I've told you the resources several times.

[Frelock]

If you want actual colonies on the moon, you need two things: you need to be able to live off the land, and it needs to be profitable.  Living off the land is a big "if."  Yes, we're developing the technology to make lots of stuff from moon rocks.  But there's not a lot of carbon, and you also would have to tackle the problem of making solar energy self-sustaining (which we're hopefully going to do anyways).

The biggest problem with moon colonies, though, is making them profitable.  You're certainly right, mainiac, that building satellites and such would likely be the best way to make that happen.  However, I will most fervently agree with the point that such ventures would require a lot of prohibitively expensive infrastructure.  So much so, I posit, that it would probably be cheaper to build the satellites here.  You're not going to find a company willing to invest trillions it won't make up anytime in the next century.  Same problem applies to interstellar colonization.

So, here's a table of what's likely to happen, with terrestrial examples:

	Can't live off land	Can live off land
Not profitable	One-shot adventures by | wealthy explorers           | Mount Everest               | ________________________	Long-term scientific outposts Antarctica ________________________
Profitable	Long-term stays by crews  | based elsewhere               | Oil Rigs                           |	Colonies

"The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space--each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision." -Randall Munroe

[jester]

My issue isnt that we couldnt build large stuff on the moon, its the lack of variety of resources and scarcity/complete lack of other resources

It's got plenty of aluminum/iron, and silicon which is enough for roughly 99% of what we need by mass.  I keep pointing out the resources that it has and how valuable they are and you keep saying no resources.  I've told you the resources several times.

Several times being not in the last 13 pages of the thread?  You have also ignored about 10 other things associated with the resource gathering/refining and so many other problems that im just walking away.

[Frelock]

- Transfer: How are you going to get power back to the earth. Batteries aren't an option. You could try using concentrated microwaves, but microwaving the earth's atmosphere doesn't seem to be a very good idea to me.

Just noticed this, and would like to mention that the microwaves you use to cook food are tuned to a specific frequency designed to make water molecules vibrate (hence why an empty glass will take a very long time to heat up in one).  The microwaves used for power transmission are not, and are about as harmful as some really bright sunlight.

With regard to Mainiac's thought on there being lots of resources on the moon... well, yes, technically there are.  The problem is that all the fun geology that makes mining possible, veins, partial melting, weathering of lighter elements, all that doesn't happen on the moon.  There are no ore deposits on the moon.  You've basically got basalt, and lots of it.  The immense amount of silicon in there is bound to oxygen atoms in a very happy formation that it doesn't want to break out of.  Thus, you need a ton of energy to do anything with it.  Honestly, you're better off mining landfills than you are the moon.

[mainiac]

The biggest problem with moon colonies, though, is making them profitable.  You're certainly right, mainiac, that building satellites and such would likely be the best way to make that happen.  However, I will most fervently agree with the point that such ventures would require a lot of prohibitively expensive infrastructure.  So much so, I posit, that it would probably be cheaper to build the satellites here.  You're not going to find a company willing to invest trillions it won't make up anytime in the next century.  Same problem applies to interstellar colonization.

It would hardly need to be trillions of dollars.

We need to get some equipment to the moon and you need to get people to the moon.  The equipment is taking a one way trip.  The people are going on round trips but we can make the fuel for their return trip on the moon itself.  That means that compared to the Apollo program we've got a big efficiency, we can mostly be sending gear and astronauts.  The most important things, the water, oxygen and building materials are all gathered on site.  Yes we send supplies from earth but we are sending only very specific, very valuable supplies from earth.  When the Apollo program went to the moon they had to bring everything with them, habitat, life support, equipment and return trip.  Make the habitat, return trip and most of the life support from the local materials and we can send a lot more equipment on each rocket.  Add in the fact that we aren't paying to rush stuff like the Apollo program always was and the price becomes manageable.