A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 19th 12, 07:48 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Hop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 88
Default How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon?

On Monday, February 13, 2012 9:52:04 AM UTC-7, David Spain wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote:
What do they get in the way of new science for the cost of making a moon
base work and trucking all that carbon and hydrogen up there to keep it
going?


Carbon and hydrogen is already up there.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Mi..._deposits.html
http://moonmapper.wordpress.com/2010...e-lcross-brew/

Yeah, this has been my issue with this idea ever since W's VSE / Constellation
was announced.

It seems high cost / low payoff.


As indicated by the links above, there is a huge amount of potential propellant very close to EML1 and EML2. Propellant high on the slopes of earth's gravity well would revolutionize space travel.

The payoff would be making space travel routine and inexpensive.

Paul Spudis isn't the only person advocating extra terrestrial propellant sources. Water is also the first resource Space Resources hopes park in high lunar orbit.
http://www.planetaryresources.com/asteroids/usage/
  #2  
Old May 20th 12, 09:12 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon?

On May 19, 11:48*am, Hop wrote:
On Monday, February 13, 2012 9:52:04 AM UTC-7, David Spain wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote:
What do they get in the way of new science for the cost of making a moon
base work and trucking all that carbon and hydrogen up there to keep it
going?


Carbon and hydrogen is already up there. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Mi...ature_ice_like... http://moonmapper.wordpress.com/2010...e-lcross-brew/

Yeah, this has been my issue with this idea ever since W's VSE / Constellation
was announced.


It seems high cost / low payoff.


As indicated by the links above, there is a huge amount of potential propellant very close to EML1 and EML2. Propellant high on the slopes of earth's gravity well would revolutionize space travel.

The payoff would be making space travel routine and inexpensive.

Paul Spudis isn't the only person advocating extra terrestrial propellant sources. Water is also the first resource Space Resources hopes park in high lunar orbit.http://www.planetaryresources.com/asteroids/usage/


Exactly, EML1 represents a terrific zero delta-V gateway or OASIS from
which any amount of mass could be sent on its way with the push-off
from a pinky finger, using the moon or Earth gravity as the initial
propulsion (aka free of charge), not to mention dipole tether energy
of teravolts and the farads represented by the moon itself.

From within the moon should be considerable hydrogen, helium and
oxygen, not to mention heavy metals and most of everything in between.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”


  #3  
Old May 21st 12, 04:17 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon?

On May 19, 11:48*am, Hop wrote:
On Monday, February 13, 2012 9:52:04 AM UTC-7, David Spain wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote:
What do they get in the way of new science for the cost of making a moon
base work and trucking all that carbon and hydrogen up there to keep it
going?


Carbon and hydrogen is already up there.http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Mi...e-lcross-brew/

Yeah, this has been my issue with this idea ever since W's VSE / Constellation
was announced.


It seems high cost / low payoff.


As indicated by the links above, there is a huge amount of potential propellant very close to EML1 and EML2. Propellant high on the slopes of earth's gravity well would revolutionize space travel.

The payoff would be making space travel routine and inexpensive.

Paul Spudis isn't the only person advocating extra terrestrial propellant sources. Water is also the first resource Space Resources hopes park in high lunar orbit.http://www.planetaryresources.com/asteroids/usage/


Exactly, EML1 represents an absolutely terrific zero delta-V gateway
or OASIS from which any amount of mass could be sent on its way with
the push-off from a pinky finger, using the moon or Earth gravity as
the initial propulsion (aka free of charge), not to mention dipole
tether energy of teravolts and the farads easily represented by the
moon itself.

From within the moon should be considerable hydrogen, helium and
oxygen, not to mention 3He and those heavy metals plus most of
everything in between. Sodium isn't exactly in short supply.

On May 21, 6:25 am, Dean wrote:
: You have no idea what you are talking about regarding He and O3.
Why
: do you keep making this up?

Are you suggesting that 4He doesn't ionize?

Are you suggesting that O3 isn't highly charged O2s?

Are you suggesting that Earth isn't losing its 4He as fast as nature
and us humans assist?

Are you suggesting that 4He can't manage to get through the ozone
layer?

What objective physics tells us that 4He can't possibly interact with
nor otherwise affect ozone/O3?

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #4  
Old May 21st 12, 11:48 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Wayne Throop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,062
Default How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon?

: Brad Guth
: Are you suggesting that 4He doesn't ionize?

Of course not. You can ionize most anything if you get it hot enough.
Helium is nothing special in that regard; if you're concerned about
helium ions, you'd have to be orders of magnitude *more* concerned
about nitrogen ions and the such.

: Are you suggesting that O3 isn't highly charged O2s?

Yes. For values of "suggesting" equal to "it is a fact".
O3 is electrically neutral. It's chemically very reactive, but
electrically neutral, and in no way "highly charged".

: Are you suggesting that Earth isn't losing its 4He as fast as nature
: and us humans assist?

Sure it is.

: Are you suggesting that 4He can't manage to get through the ozone
: layer?

Sure it can.

: What objective physics tells us that 4He can't possibly interact with
: nor otherwise affect ozone/O3?

It can interact with it. It just won't chemically combine with it.
The objective physics is that He is a noble gas, and doesn't chemically
react with *anything*, aside from conceivably fluorine, and even then,
not as a catalyst. And it's only things that act as catalysts that
have a chance of substantially affecting the ozone layer by contaminants
on the scale of human activity.

  #5  
Old May 24th 12, 01:48 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon?

On May 21, 3:48*pm, (Wayne Throop) wrote:
: Brad Guth
: Are you suggesting that 4He doesn't ionize?

Of course not. You can ionize most anything if you get it hot enough.
Helium is nothing special in that regard; if you're concerned about
helium ions, you'd have to be orders of magnitude *more* concerned
about nitrogen ions and the such.

: Are you suggesting that O3 isn't highly charged O2s?

Yes. *For values of "suggesting" equal to "it is a fact".
O3 is electrically neutral. *It's chemically very reactive, but
electrically neutral, and in no way "highly charged".

: Are you suggesting that Earth isn't losing its 4He as fast as nature
: and us humans assist?

Sure it is.

: Are you suggesting that 4He can't manage to get through the ozone
: layer?

Sure it can.

: What objective physics tells us that 4He can't possibly interact with
: nor otherwise affect ozone/O3?

It can interact with it. *It just won't chemically combine with it.
The objective physics is that He is a noble gas, and doesn't chemically
react with *anything*, aside from conceivably fluorine, *and even then,
not as a catalyst. *And it's only things that act as catalysts that
have a chance of substantially affecting the ozone layer by contaminants
on the scale of human activity.


As the 4He migrates through the 30 km layer of O3s, it tends to
lubricate or liberate O3s as the UV interacts with O1, O2, O3+4He,
because the aerosol of 4He gets to come in direct contact with
anything in its path.

As 4He comes in direct contact with O1+O2 (O3) as the threesome or tri-
atomic of big oxygen atoms, the molecular binding process that makes
O3 can be disrupted and even neutralized by the much smaller 4He atom
passing through.

When 4He is not ionized it acts as a perfect nonconductive insulator
(molecular lubricant), and if excited or ionized is when it highly
conducts between other molicules. Because 4He doesn’t directly bind
with anything, makes it an ideal molecular independent or freelance
agent that gets to do (act/react) as it pleases. This kind of aerosol
freelance or nomadic ability is not a good thing for the threesome of
ozone, and the more of it that we release the more disruptive it is
for sustaining the O3/ozone layer that some of us believe is highly is
beneficial to life as we know it, because it filters out or attenuates
the bad amounts of UV and a bit of other radiation from our sun, moon
and the other stars. In other words, without the O3 layer we’d become
extensively blind and suffer many other debilitating skin cancer
issues that obviously Big Oil and other Big Energy could care less
about because they honestly don’t consider 4He as anything than a
nearly worthless inert aerosol gas, unless you’re in the balloon,
blimp or LHC industry.

Well the good news is that it will not be a terrestrial resource issue
for very long, because natural geology pockets or geode reservoirs of
natural gas containing roughly 1% 4He are about to run out, and
supposedly the ongoing fission within Earth only regenerates at most
3.65e6 kg/year (ten tonnes/day), of which with advanced technology
we’ll be lucky to recapture 0.1% of that, or just 10 kg/day (roughly
10% of current needs and perhaps only 1% of future needs), and that
form of terrestrial 4He recovery is going to be extremely spendy
compared to current methods. This means the artificial leakage or
release of the 4He aerosol will become so infrequent that its affect
on O3/ozone will become limited as to only what 4He naturally diffuses
and gets away from Earth. By 2050 those polar ozone holes should
vanish, and our highly protective layer of O3 should stabilize, as
well as the loss of mass from our planet should subside to a level
which we can live with, because as is if our planet receives only 2 kg/
sec of mass influx and we continually lose 2 t/sec of mostly our
precious helium and always hydrogen is not a good thing, especially
when it keeps making those big holes in our protective ozone layer.

The implications of mass loss are truly numerous, but then only those
of us that are not sufficiently rich and powerful need to concern
ourselves with the consequences of this ongoing trend, because the
Oligarchs and Rothschilds could care less.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #6  
Old May 24th 12, 02:54 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon?

On May 21, 3:48*pm, (Wayne Throop) wrote:
: Brad Guth
: Are you suggesting that 4He doesn't ionize?

Of course not. You can ionize most anything if you get it hot enough.
Helium is nothing special in that regard; if you're concerned about
helium ions, you'd have to be orders of magnitude *more* concerned
about nitrogen ions and the such.

: Are you suggesting that O3 isn't highly charged O2s?

Yes. *For values of "suggesting" equal to "it is a fact".
O3 is electrically neutral. *It's chemically very reactive, but
electrically neutral, and in no way "highly charged".

: Are you suggesting that Earth isn't losing its 4He as fast as nature
: and us humans assist?

Sure it is.

: Are you suggesting that 4He can't manage to get through the ozone
: layer?

Sure it can.

: What objective physics tells us that 4He can't possibly interact with
: nor otherwise affect ozone/O3?

It can interact with it. *It just won't chemically combine with it.
The objective physics is that He is a noble gas, and doesn't chemically
react with *anything*, aside from conceivably fluorine, *and even then,
not as a catalyst. *And it's only things that act as catalysts that
have a chance of substantially affecting the ozone layer by contaminants
on the scale of human activity.


As 4He migrates through the 30 km layer of O3s, it tends to lubricate
or liberate O3s as the UV interacts with O1, O2, O3+4He, because the
aerosol of 4He gets to come in direct contact with anything in its
path.

As 4He comes in direct contact with O1+O2 (O3) as the threesome or tri-
atomic of big oxygen atoms, the molecular binding process that makes
O3 can be disrupted and even neutralized by the much smaller 4He atom
passing through.

When 4He is not ionized it acts as a perfect nonconductive insulator
(molecular lubricant), and if excited or ionized is when it highly
conducts between other molicules. Because 4He doesn’t directly bind
with anything, makes it an ideal molecular independent or freelance
agent that gets to do (act/react) as it pleases. This kind of aerosol
freelance or nomadic ability is not a good thing for the threesome of
ozone, and the more of it that we release the more disruptive it is
for sustaining the O3/ozone layer that some of us believe is highly is
beneficial to life as we know it, because it filters out or attenuates
the bad amounts of UV and a bit of other radiation from our sun, moon
and the other stars. In other words, without the O3 layer we’d become
extensively blind and suffer many other debilitating skin cancer
issues that obviously Big Oil and other Big Energy could care less
about because they honestly don’t consider 4He as anything than a
nearly worthless inert aerosol gas, unless you’re in the balloon,
blimp or LHC industry.

(math corrections):
Well the good news is that this 4He will not be a terrestrial resource
issue for very long, because natural geology pockets or geode
reservoirs of natural gas containing roughly 1% 4He are about to run
out, and supposedly the ongoing fission within Earth only regenerates
at most 3.65e6 kg/year (10 t/day) and globally we’re taking out 100 t/
day(116 kg/sec), of which with advanced technology we’ll be lucky to
recapture 0.1% of that, or just 10 kg/day (roughly .01% of current
needs and perhaps only .001% of future needs), and that form of
terrestrial 4He recovery is going to become extremely spendy compared
to current methods. This means the artificial leakage or release of
the 4He aerosol will become so infrequent that its affect on O3/ozone
will become limited as to only what 4He naturally diffuses and gets
away from Earth. By 2050 those polar ozone holes should vanish, and
our highly protective layer of O3 should stabilize, as well as the
loss of mass from our planet should subside to a level which we can
live with, because as is if our planet receives only 2 kg/sec of mass
influx and we continually lose perhaps 2 t/sec of mostly our precious
helium and always hydrogen is not a good thing, especially when the
loss of helium in addition to other artificial contributions keeps
making those big holes in our protective ozone layer.

The implications of mass loss are truly numerous, but then only those
of us that are not sufficiently rich and powerful need to concern
ourselves with the consequences of this ongoing trend, because the
Oligarchs and Rothschilds could care less.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon? Koobee Wublee Astronomy Misc 270 March 11th 12 12:14 AM
BUZZ on Howard Stern.."No to the Moon"...Denies wanting to be"First"! [email protected] | History 0 April 16th 10 03:44 PM
might Odissey-Moon be the Google's expected, preferred, designed,"chosen" and (maybe) "funded" GLXP team to WIN the prize? with ALL otherteams that just play the "sparring partners" role? gaetanomarano Policy 3 September 27th 08 06:47 PM
NatGeo's "Space Race - The Untold Story"...And you thought "Moon Shot" was bad, kids... OM History 21 July 5th 06 06:40 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.