The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base onthe moon

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
wrote:

All historical colonizations have been to places with air, water, and
growing things where one could be dropped nude and survive.

I was referring to *all* projects that surround colonization, especially
the exploration efforts. Advanced tech that gets developed for any moon
shot (literal or figurative) tends to benefit everyone.

There is a big difference between a colony and a research station.

Antarctica has lots of research stations but no colonies.

Survival on the Moon or Mars for more than a few minutes requires state
of the art technology and constant resupply.

Only if you planned your project poorly. The smarter way to proceed
would be to examine what natural resources are available for use at
your destination, and figure out new ways to get anything else you
need, or to produce it on-site.

There are essentially zero natural resources available anywhere else
in the solar system and what few natural resources there are are only
available with complex technology.

The closest thing in history is Antarctica, where there are no colonies
but only research stations.

Because the mission there is not about setting up a sustainable colony.
There are closer analogs for such habitats, such as the closed-system
Biosphere 2.

Irrelevant arm waving.

colony:

A group of people who leave their native country to form in a new land a
settlement subject to, or connected with, the parent nation.

settlement:

The act of making stable or putting on a permanent basis.

It also implies things like families and being self sustaining.

I'm all for sending swarms of robots throughout the solar system, but
sending people is a waste of resources.

Sending people without a *plan* is definitely a waste. I, too, would
expect to see robots sent to the Moon to build a structure long before
any human colony would get sent there to live in it. Until that sort
of thing happens, I can only laugh at the idea of a Moon base by 2022
for only $10 billion.

Or in other words, it won't happen until we have Star Trek level technology.


--
Jim Pennino

On 04/05/2016 02:32 PM, wrote:
In sci.physics Doc O'Leary wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
wrote:

All historical colonizations have been to places with air, water, and
growing things where one could be dropped nude and survive.

I was referring to *all* projects that surround colonization, especially
the exploration efforts. Advanced tech that gets developed for any moon
shot (literal or figurative) tends to benefit everyone.

There is a big difference between a colony and a research station.

Antarctica has lots of research stations but no colonies.

Survival on the Moon or Mars for more than a few minutes requires state
of the art technology and constant resupply.

Only if you planned your project poorly. The smarter way to proceed
would be to examine what natural resources are available for use at
your destination, and figure out new ways to get anything else you
need, or to produce it on-site.

There are essentially zero natural resources available anywhere else
in the solar system and what few natural resources there are are only
available with complex technology.

The closest thing in history is Antarctica, where there are no colonies
but only research stations.

Because the mission there is not about setting up a sustainable colony.
There are closer analogs for such habitats, such as the closed-system
Biosphere 2.

Irrelevant arm waving.

colony:

A group of people who leave their native country to form in a new land a
settlement subject to, or connected with, the parent nation.

settlement:

The act of making stable or putting on a permanent basis.

It also implies things like families and being self sustaining.

I'm all for sending swarms of robots throughout the solar system, but
sending people is a waste of resources.

Sending people without a *plan* is definitely a waste. I, too, would
expect to see robots sent to the Moon to build a structure long before
any human colony would get sent there to live in it. Until that sort
of thing happens, I can only laugh at the idea of a Moon base by 2022
for only $10 billion.

Or in other words, it won't happen until we have Star Trek level technology.

Hey a moon colony is no problem. The settlers can always sustain their
settlement by trading beads with the alien basses there. It's a PLAN
that worked the last time! HVAC will explain the details of the plan.


--

___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/

On 4/5/2016 6:14 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

All historical colonizations have been to places with air, water, and
growing things where one could be dropped nude and survive. ....




Bull****. Lots of colonies in the New World succeeded only by the
skin of their teeth and lots of them failed and they all had the best
technology available at the time.



silly boy,

the moon and mar have NO AIR, NO WATER, NO FOOD, NOTHING but sand and
rocks, and high radiation.

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Jack Ryan wrote:
In article
wrote:

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
wrote:

In sci.physics Robert Clark wrote:
Actually we could start building it as soon as the Falcon Heavy becomes
operational:

NASA scientists say we could colonise the Moon by 2022... for just $10
billion.
What are we waiting for?

$10 billion without a better purpose?

Some might argue that blowing up **** in the Middle East is not a
better purpose. A more pointed question would be whether or not that
budget and timeline is actually accurate, or if it won?t be more like
$200 billion spent and a wait until 2035.

Some rational reason to "colonise" the moon, which will never happen
as no Moon colony could ever be self supporting.

History has shown a pretty big halo effect for such projects, so I
would expect quite a bit of indirect economic value in new Moon and
Mars missions. But I would agree that NASA would do well to make a
more direct case for why a Moon colony would be a valuable resource
to have.

All historical colonizations have been to places with air, water, and
growing things where one could be dropped nude and survive. ....

Iceland? Greenland? Northern Newfundland?

Hell, for much of Europe surviving after being dropped nude in the
Winter is not likely.

If the Pilgrims had landed at Plymouth bare assed in the Winter
they would probably not have survived long.

You might want to amend your statement about all historical
colonies.


OK, dropped in with nothing more than a heavy winter coat.


Colonies with insufficient support from 'back home' tended to
disappear. You talk like all colonization attempts are easily
successful. There are enough failed colonies to prove that to be
bull****.

I never said anything like that.

However, support from 'back home' wasn't oxygen, food, water, and
repair parts for high tech equipment.

For the most part it was luxury items such as good china before such
manufacturing could be established in the colonies.

In return the colonies, depending on where they were, sent back things
like spices, precious metals, furs, and timber.

There is nothing off the Earth so valuable it would be worth the
shipping cost in fuel to send it back to Earth.

No successful colony in history required anything beyond 10th Century
technology to survive.


Bull****. Lots of colonies in the New World succeeded only by the
skin of their teeth and lots of them failed and they all had the best
technology available at the time.

And that technology, except for a very few things like muskets, dates
back to at least the 10th Century.

And, BTW, the indigious populations where most colonies where established
were surviving just fine on Stone Age technology long before the Europeans
appeared.



--
Jim Pennino

wrote:

No successful colony in history required anything beyond 10th Century
technology to survive.

Try reading "Collapse" some time. Greenland, f'rex. A fair number of
the Pacific islands.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

Some experiments suggest we might be able to grow food on Mars if we add the
organics commonly found in Earth soils:

Scientists just grew vegetables in ‘Martian’ soil — but there’s a catch.
By Rachel Feltman March 9
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...heres-a-catch/

But Mars Curiosity, finally, has shown Mars soils do contain organics.
Then we may be able to produce the needed organics from those already there.

Bob Clark


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:

Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/n...ce/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wrote in message ...

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Jack Ryan wrote:
In article
wrote:

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
wrote:

In sci.physics Robert Clark
wrote:
Actually we could start building it as soon as the Falcon Heavy
becomes
operational:

NASA scientists say we could colonise the Moon by 2022... for just
$10
billion.
What are we waiting for?

$10 billion without a better purpose?

Some might argue that blowing up **** in the Middle East is not a
better purpose. A more pointed question would be whether or not that
budget and timeline is actually accurate, or if it won?t be more like
$200 billion spent and a wait until 2035.

Some rational reason to "colonise" the moon, which will never happen
as no Moon colony could ever be self supporting.

History has shown a pretty big halo effect for such projects, so I
would expect quite a bit of indirect economic value in new Moon and
Mars missions. But I would agree that NASA would do well to make a
more direct case for why a Moon colony would be a valuable resource
to have.

All historical colonizations have been to places with air, water, and
growing things where one could be dropped nude and survive. ....

Iceland? Greenland? Northern Newfundland?

Hell, for much of Europe surviving after being dropped nude in the
Winter is not likely.

If the Pilgrims had landed at Plymouth bare assed in the Winter
they would probably not have survived long.

You might want to amend your statement about all historical
colonies.


OK, dropped in with nothing more than a heavy winter coat.


Colonies with insufficient support from 'back home' tended to
disappear. You talk like all colonization attempts are easily
successful. There are enough failed colonies to prove that to be
bull****.

I never said anything like that.

However, support from 'back home' wasn't oxygen, food, water, and
repair parts for high tech equipment.

For the most part it was luxury items such as good china before such
manufacturing could be established in the colonies.

In return the colonies, depending on where they were, sent back things
like spices, precious metals, furs, and timber.

There is nothing off the Earth so valuable it would be worth the
shipping cost in fuel to send it back to Earth.

No successful colony in history required anything beyond 10th Century
technology to survive.


Bull****. Lots of colonies in the New World succeeded only by the
skin of their teeth and lots of them failed and they all had the best
technology available at the time.

And that technology, except for a very few things like muskets, dates
back to at least the 10th Century.

And, BTW, the indigious populations where most colonies where established
were surviving just fine on Stone Age technology long before the Europeans
appeared.

--
Jim Pennino

In sci.physics Robert Clark wrote:

Some experiments suggest we might be able to grow food on Mars if we add the
organics commonly found in Earth soils:

And nitrogen for the air, nitrates for the soil and water and put them
under a heated pressure dome.

As long as they are plants that don't require a lot of sunlight, in which
case you have to add grow lights.

Don't forget the pumps to keep the dome pressurized and the huge power
source for the pumps and possible grow lights.

Of course, you will need most of that stuff anyway, except for the nitrogen
and nitrates, to keep humans alive.

--
Jim Pennino

In sci.physics Greg Goss wrote:
wrote:

No successful colony in history required anything beyond 10th Century
technology to survive.

Try reading "Collapse" some time. Greenland, f'rex. A fair number of
the Pacific islands.

Greenland has been populated to varying degrees for over 4,000 years.

All but the smallest Pacific islands were populated by people with Stone
Age technology.


--
Jim Pennino

wrote:

In sci.physics Greg Goss wrote:
wrote:

No successful colony in history required anything beyond 10th Century
technology to survive.

Try reading "Collapse" some time. Greenland, f'rex. A fair number of
the Pacific islands.

Greenland has been populated to varying degrees for over 4,000 years.

But the Viking colony failed.

All but the smallest Pacific islands were populated by people with Stone
Age technology.

And a fair number of those colonies failed.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

For your reference, records indicate that
wrote:

No successful colony in history required anything beyond 10th Century
technology to survive.

Because that’s just the nature of how time works. In a future where
humanity is looking to colonize planets around other stars, some yahoo
like you will likely crawl out of the woodwork and say something like
“No successful planetary colony in history required anything beyond
22nd Century technology to survive.�

--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly