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

For your reference, records indicate that
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.

I just pointed that out in the message you’re replying to. Your claim
is that it is irrelevant!

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.

Just because *you* don’t know how to make use of the available resources
doesn’t mean they don’t exist and doesn’t mean they have no value. Is
it going to be a greater challenge than Earth life living on Earth? Of
course. Doesn’t mean we can’t come up with a nice boot-strappy plan to
make it work. By “we�, of course, I clearly don’t mean you.

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.

I don’t expect the ability to turn Moon rocks into Moon huts is going to
be that advanced. It *is* likely farther off that 2022, though.

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

In sci.physics Greg Goss wrote:
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.

Which one over the over 4,000 years of habitation?

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

And a fair number of those colonies failed.

No colony on Earth ever failed for lack of oxygen.

Very few failed for lack of water.

A fair number in less warm climates failed for lack of storing food for
the winter.

A few failed due to hostile indigenous people.

All this is irrelevant.

Attempting to compare any colony on the Earth to a colony off the Earth
is starry eyed nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

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

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

Because thats 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.�

If Star Trek technology were available, then off Earth colonization
would be possible, but Star Trek technology doesn't exist.

And if Star Trek technology did exist, people wouldn't bother attempting
to colonize airless, barren rocks.


--
Jim Pennino

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

I just pointed that out in the message youre replying to. Your claim
is that it is irrelevant!

As Antarctica has never had any colonies, Antarctica is irrelevant to
a discussion of colonies.


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.

Just because *you* dont know how to make use of the available resources
doesnt mean they dont exist and doesnt mean they have no value. Is
it going to be a greater challenge than Earth life living on Earth? Of
course. Doesnt mean we can come up with a nice boot-strappy plan to
make it work. Bywe of course, I clearly dont mean you.

So just what are the natural resources available on Mars?

There are no forests, no lakes, no rivers, no life and no air.

I would say the odds of finding limestone deposits to make cement
highly unlikely. You do know limestone is organically created, don't
you?

You may find bauxite or iron ore, but unless it is really close to
where you set up your colony, you would have no way to transport it.

If you setup your colony next to some ore deposit, you need a refinary
and power for it, which could only come from a fair sized reactor.

You need a lot of raw material and the ability to process it into
something usefull to build the domed and pressurized buildings
required to survive and do anything.

You will be lacking just about all usefull chemicals as most of
them come from petroleum, so no plastics.


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.

I dont expect the ability to turn Moon rocks into Moon huts is going to
be that advanced. It *is* likely farther off that 2022, though.

You miss the point, it would take Star Trek technology to make it affordable.


--
Jim Pennino

On 04/06/2016 02:35 PM, wrote:
In sci.physics Doc O'Leary wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
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.

I just pointed that out in the message youre replying to. Your claim
is that it is irrelevant!

As Antarctica has never had any colonies, Antarctica is irrelevant to
a discussion of colonies.


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.

Just because *you* dont know how to make use of the available resources
doesnt mean they dont exist and doesnt mean they have no value. Is
it going to be a greater challenge than Earth life living on Earth? Of
course. Doesnt mean we can come up with a nice boot-strappy plan to
make it work. Bywe of course, I clearly dont mean you.

So just what are the natural resources available on Mars?

There are no forests, no lakes, no rivers, no life and no air.

I would say the odds of finding limestone deposits to make cement
highly unlikely. You do know limestone is organically created, don't
you?

You may find bauxite or iron ore, but unless it is really close to
where you set up your colony, you would have no way to transport it.

If you setup your colony next to some ore deposit, you need a refinary
and power for it, which could only come from a fair sized reactor.

You need a lot of raw material and the ability to process it into
something usefull to build the domed and pressurized buildings
required to survive and do anything.

You will be lacking just about all usefull chemicals as most of
them come from petroleum, so no plastics.


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.

I dont expect the ability to turn Moon rocks into Moon huts is going to
be that advanced. It *is* likely farther off that 2022, though.

You miss the point, it would take Star Trek technology to make it affordable.

jimp, everyone here believes Star Trek technology is real!



--

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

In sci.physics benj wrote:
On 04/06/2016 02:35 PM, wrote:
In sci.physics Doc O'Leary wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
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.

I just pointed that out in the message youre replying to. Your claim
is that it is irrelevant!

As Antarctica has never had any colonies, Antarctica is irrelevant to
a discussion of colonies.


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.

Just because *you* dont know how to make use of the available resources
doesnt mean they dont exist and doesnt mean they have no value. Is
it going to be a greater challenge than Earth life living on Earth? Of
course. Doesnt mean we can come up with a nice boot-strappy plan to
make it work. Bywe of course, I clearly dont mean you.

So just what are the natural resources available on Mars?

There are no forests, no lakes, no rivers, no life and no air.

I would say the odds of finding limestone deposits to make cement
highly unlikely. You do know limestone is organically created, don't
you?

You may find bauxite or iron ore, but unless it is really close to
where you set up your colony, you would have no way to transport it.

If you setup your colony next to some ore deposit, you need a refinary
and power for it, which could only come from a fair sized reactor.

You need a lot of raw material and the ability to process it into
something usefull to build the domed and pressurized buildings
required to survive and do anything.

You will be lacking just about all usefull chemicals as most of
them come from petroleum, so no plastics.


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.

I dont expect the ability to turn Moon rocks into Moon huts is going to
be that advanced. It *is* likely farther off that 2022, though.

You miss the point, it would take Star Trek technology to make it affordable.

jimp, everyone here believes Star Trek technology is real!

It seems so as well as Star Trek economics where everything is free.


--
Jim Pennino

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


I would say the odds of finding limestone deposits to make cement
highly unlikely. You do know limestone is organically created, don't
you?


You do know that we can make concrete and cement out of lunar rock,
don't you?

Sure, one can make concrete out of just about anything. It is making
the cement that is the problem, which requires limestone.

You may find bauxite or iron ore, but unless it is really close to
where you set up your colony, you would have no way to transport it.


This is presumably because the colony was planned by you and you
didn't allow any supplies but stone axes and bear skins.

That is both childish and stupid.

Care to detail how you would transport raw ore over just a hundred
miles on Mars and what would power that transport?

If you setup your colony next to some ore deposit, you need a refinary
and power for it, which could only come from a fair sized reactor.


Certainly one way to do it (and probably easiest for the initial
colony), but long term production of power isn't that hard.

Really, where do you propose to get that power?

Certainly not from solar power as the solar irradiance on the surface
of Mars is less than 100 W/m^2.

Certainly not from wind power as the atmosphere is so thin there
is no energy to speak of in the wind, no matter what you saw in
"The Martian".

You need a lot of raw material and the ability to process it into
something usefull to build the domed and pressurized buildings
required to survive and do anything.


You need to be able to dig a hole.

Dig it with what and then what do you do with it?

Line it and cover it with something shipped from Earth in pieces
at huge expense?

You will be lacking just about all usefull chemicals as most of
them come from petroleum, so no plastics.


Jimp, you just make them a different way. Unlikely on the Moon, but
not difficult at all on Mars. Educate yourself. People have examined
all your 'impossible' problems and there are solutions to all of them.

No, not difficult at all on Mars for someone that isn't going to be
doing it or paying for it.

The issue is not whether or not it is theoretically possible to do
something on Mars, the issue is that doing anything on Mars, including
gettting there in the first place is horrendously expensive.



--
Jim Pennino

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

In sci.physics benj wrote:
On 04/06/2016 02:35 PM, wrote:
In sci.physics Doc O'Leary wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
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.

I just pointed that out in the message youre replying to. Your claim
is that it is irrelevant!

As Antarctica has never had any colonies, Antarctica is irrelevant to
a discussion of colonies.


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.

Just because *you* dont know how to make use of the available resources
doesnt mean they dont exist and doesnt mean they have no value. Is
it going to be a greater challenge than Earth life living on Earth? Of
course. Doesnt mean we can come up with a nice boot-strappy plan to
make it work. Bywe of course, I clearly dont mean you.

So just what are the natural resources available on Mars?

There are no forests, no lakes, no rivers, no life and no air.

I would say the odds of finding limestone deposits to make cement
highly unlikely. You do know limestone is organically created, don't
you?

You may find bauxite or iron ore, but unless it is really close to
where you set up your colony, you would have no way to transport it.

If you setup your colony next to some ore deposit, you need a refinary
and power for it, which could only come from a fair sized reactor.

You need a lot of raw material and the ability to process it into
something usefull to build the domed and pressurized buildings
required to survive and do anything.

You will be lacking just about all usefull chemicals as most of
them come from petroleum, so no plastics.


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.

I dont expect the ability to turn Moon rocks into Moon huts is going to
be that advanced. It *is* likely farther off that 2022, though.

You miss the point, it would take Star Trek technology to make it affordable.

jimp, everyone here believes Star Trek technology is real!

It seems so as well as Star Trek economics where everything is free.


You're posting to 'sci' groups, Chimp. Handwavium and bull**** are
not the currency here.

So you agree that actually doing all those theoretically possible things
on Mars are far too expensive to actually happen?


--
Jim Pennino

People like to spend crazy resources to do exciting and dangerous things just for the sheer thrill of it;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRqnTODwvEA

There are about 70,000 skydivers in the world today that jump 3.3 million times per year. About 21 people are killed each year doing this.

Jet powered wings are being developed, and there are rocket powered wingsuits also under development as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaNZ...&nohtml5=False
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmju...&nohtml5=False

some are built around spacesuits and hauled into space


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvbN-cWe0A0

More powerful rockets are being developed with advanced avionics - to extend their range further.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Pm8ZY0XJI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vleASILamss

Lowering the cost of space launch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSF81yjVbJE

The SpaceX Falcon Heavy can place 16,000 kg into trans lunar trajectory. Equipped with 8,000 kg of propellant, a fully loaded capsule enters lunar orbit and returns. This is sufficient to take seven astronauts to lunar orbit and back.

Once on lunar orbit, each astronaut uses a rocket belt to land on the moon, stay there for up to six hours, and return to lunar orbit. The rocket belt is refueled, and the astronauts land again at another location.

http://www.wired.com/2013/07/lunar-flying-units-1969/
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/leap.htm

A total of six rocket belts carry out a total of 28 flights allowing 7 astronauts four visists to the moon, 6 at a time, while the 7th stays on board tending the ship. There are twenty sites where landers (both manned and unmanned) are reported to have landed. Doing up to six landings per day - up to five days in lunar orbit - provides ample time to carry out the requisite number of flights.

There are 55,000 people who have more than $200 million cash assets. One flight per month with seven paid seats per flight, at $45 million per seat, generates $315 million per launch, and 12 launches per year require 84 persons to sign up at this price. This is 1/6th of a percent market penetration. In short, this is an easily achieved level of market penetration into this population. This is $3.78 billion per year in revenue for twelve flights per year costing $732 million. With $5 million per seat for things like spacesuits, and propellant, training, etc., a total cost of $1.152 billion per year - earning $2.628 billion per year. Allocating $1 billion per year for deploying robots on other planets, this provides a means to return people to the moon whilst exploring the solar system with robots.







On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 3:13:26 PM UTC+12, bob haller wrote:
On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 2:46:04 PM UTC-4, 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.

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

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

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


--
Jim Pennino

i have to agree, robots could do the entire solar system for a fraction of the costs..

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

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

In sci.physics benj wrote:
On 04/06/2016 02:35 PM, wrote:
In sci.physics Doc O'Leary wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
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.

I just pointed that out in the message youre replying to. Your claim
is that it is irrelevant!

As Antarctica has never had any colonies, Antarctica is irrelevant to
a discussion of colonies.


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.

Just because *you* dont know how to make use of the available resources
doesnt mean they dont exist and doesnt mean they have no value. Is
it going to be a greater challenge than Earth life living on Earth? Of
course. Doesnt mean we can come up with a nice boot-strappy plan to
make it work. Bywe of course, I clearly dont mean you.

So just what are the natural resources available on Mars?

There are no forests, no lakes, no rivers, no life and no air.

I would say the odds of finding limestone deposits to make cement
highly unlikely. You do know limestone is organically created, don't
you?

You may find bauxite or iron ore, but unless it is really close to
where you set up your colony, you would have no way to transport it.

If you setup your colony next to some ore deposit, you need a refinary
and power for it, which could only come from a fair sized reactor.

You need a lot of raw material and the ability to process it into
something usefull to build the domed and pressurized buildings
required to survive and do anything.

You will be lacking just about all usefull chemicals as most of
them come from petroleum, so no plastics.


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.

I dont expect the ability to turn Moon rocks into Moon huts is going to
be that advanced. It *is* likely farther off that 2022, though.

You miss the point, it would take Star Trek technology to make it affordable.

jimp, everyone here believes Star Trek technology is real!

It seems so as well as Star Trek economics where everything is free.


You're posting to 'sci' groups, Chimp. Handwavium and bull**** are
not the currency here.


So you agree that actually doing all those theoretically possible things
on Mars are far too expensive to actually happen?


So you just make **** up and pretend people have agreed to it? How
intellectually dishonest of you!

Have you ever responded with anything other than bile and name calling
to posts you don't agree with?

How about YOUR outline to colonize Mars, what it would cost, and how it
would be financed.


--
Jim Pennino