New Mars

I am new on this forum, and am getting the impression that many people here are negative to a possible lunar colony. I am certainly not an expert, but will outline why I believe a lunar colony is necessary for the future of space travel.

You have probably all seen the massive space ships in movies like Star Trek and Star Wars, where the ships are more like modern cruise ships than current space vessels. In real life, we will probably never find it economically viable to lift such space ships from Earth and into orbit, because that would require almost unbelievable amounts of energy.

However, huge space ships the size of cities are not entirely impossible. At least not if we build them in a low gravity environment with the necessary natural resources. The Moon is such a perfect place, and Apollo astronauts proved to the whole world how little energy you need to get off the ground up there. Huge space ships can certainly be made of carbon fibers, titanium or other fancy materials. However, steel is much cheaper and the moon has huge iron ores just waiting to be used.

If we succeed on the Moon then a lot of the technology can be used on other planets and moons as well, and there are plenty of similar rocky places even in our own solar system. Mars is one of them, but there are certainly other places as well - for instance the rockiest moons spinning around the huge planets further away from the sun. How about a colony in a deep crater on Mercury?

A permanent base on the moon is exactly what we need to conquer space. Such a base would naturally start off as a research base, but should eventually be developed into a place where we build cheap and efficient space ships and extract the stuff necessary to fuel them.

Let's go to the Moon!

Not really

The Moon's gravity is only 1/6th of the Earth's, but it is still an awful lot compared to the energy contained in practical rocket fuels. It also requires alot of fuel to reach the Moon.

The Moon also lacks one obvious advantage: no massive million-man industrial base to draw from.

Second most important however, the Moon lacks certain key elements (Hydrogen, Carbon, Nitrogen, Halogens), which means most of these materials will have to be imported at great expense. Hydrogen imparticularly, since without it, you can't make rocket fuel.

Conquer space? Colonies on Mercury or the Jovian moons?

Why would we attempt something like that? Because you like Star Trek and think it would be just like that. It won't.

If we do establish a moon base it will be like living in a double wide mobile home. Sorry, no holodeck included. Constant supply ships to the moon would drain our ability to conduct any other exploration of the universe.

It may be possible to create an atmosphere with weather and large oceans on mars in only one hundred years with forests following them. Compared to this an outpost on some far place that consumes a hundred times more resources than it produces is nothing. Nothing.

Ships of that scale will likely be way to expensive to build in the near future whether they are built on earth or the moon. The moon has the advantage of low gravity but on earth there are many more resources and a much greater amount of infrastructure. Although, it would not be practical to build a conventional rocket the size of a city on earth an alternative for large rockets is project Orion. Although project Orion faces many challenges both economically and political so does building a massive star ship on the moon. Also the bigger the ship the better an Orion type spaceship works.

If you consider "massive" to be much larger than we have now, then absolutely. Several empty modules roughly the size of shuttle ETs could be built, launched from the moon, and assembled in Lunar in less time than its taking us to get back to the moon. If we take the time to build outposts with permenent residences, then we could probably have craft capable of going anywhere in the solar system within 50 years.

The Enterprise is much farthur out.

I just want one good nuclear reactor on the moon--and you will have the power for a foundry.

For a foundry you dont need a reactor, sunlight focused through mirrors would be enough but for initial bases then yes a reactor to provide the power to the base is essential when it goes dark.

I believe that we should both build a space ship yard on the moon, build nuclear power plants and put foundries with accompanied by factories to get a finished product out of it. Needless to say, we would have to have a fair size population on the Moon to be able to do all this, but these are the things that I would like to see done on the Moon over the next twenty to thirty years or so. The Lunar shuttle would be for getting people up and down to the Moon. But to get the big space ships off the Moon that we would be using to go between the Earth, Moon or Mars would have to have a special levitated rail system that would be 3 to 5 mile long to catapult that space ship off the Moon and into space. So we would have to have some serious infrastructure being built on the Moon to be able to use it for our deep space ship building yard. But, once we have it in place, then our Moon base, ship yard, Manufacturing facilities, etc. would be invaluable to us and future space goals that we might have in mind. We may have to have several thousand people to put something like this together and run it, which means there will probably be a tourist industry not too far behind it that will be plugging into the infrastructure that has already been built for other purposes.

Larry,

Find a large enough chunk of nickel-iron asteroid and you don't really need a foundry. Digest the metallic nickel with CO (carbonyl) and deposit it via nickel vapor deposition. Heat the mandrels with sunlight to induce the nickel carbonyl gas to let go of the nickel and you can make pretty much anything out of pure metallic nickel.

No nuclear plant necessary.

And what ahppens when you are in Lunar night (which you will be almost beyond doubt) at your mining site, Bill?

Mining free-floating asteroids that haven't crashed on the Moon is basically impossible thanks to the lack of gravity. It really does make all the diference in the world.

I'm gonna laugh when Roberts' silly rocket peitons bounce off the rock too often to make them reliable.

To be clear, nuclear reactors would be nice. But lacking reactors, nickel can be digested and vapor deposited on a 14 days on and 14 days off schedule.

Rest and perform facility maintenance during the lunar night.

But a power grid of solar panels would solve this problem and work could continue.

Of course.

My question is whether such things (nuclear reactors, Luna circling power grids) are a necessary condition BEFORE we start doing useful (profitable) work on the Moon. Personally, I hope to see lots and lots of nuke plants and a huge power grid sooner rather than later.

But, must we postpone commercial plans until that happens?

Alot will depend on where Nasa lands and how soon after each mission does what is left behind gets reused as well as interconnected for other uses.

Private creative oportunities are there but how does one get the ride needed and the supplies to continue to stay if one can and wants to go to the next step of colonization or a full time manned base.

This quote is from another not on subject article that really implies that Nasa is slow to listen:


Article link:
Scientists pitch far-out plans to explore space

Extracting metals from the moon would require huge amounts of energy, and the most efficient available technology is nuclear power. Solar power is fine for running life-support systems, but making materials like glass and steel (or even aluminum and titanium) takes a lot of energy. Fusion power could be a good alternative in the future, but progress so far has been slow.

If we manage to build settlements on the moon that are self-sufficient in low-tech materials and foods then we can succeed almost anywhere in our solar system, not just on Mars. Even locations like Pluto could be within reach of human settlements, although getting there would take many years and sustaining a small colony would require as much power as a current big city on earth.

We do not need space ships built on the Moon to reach Mars, but I think it could make traveling to the red planet a lot cheaper once we eventually start doing some real colonizing there. People could for instance get from earth to low orbit cramped together literally on top of each other, and then dock into a huge space ships that would carry them for the rest of their journey to Mars. These huge space ships would in many ways be similar to the great ships that shipped millions of people from Europe to the Americas between 1800 and 1900.

How do we know this for sure? I haven't even seen any good pictures of the lunar surface, and this must be a clear indication on how little we know about our Moon. I am sure these elements can be found if we start looking for them with the same kind of equipment we are using to find stuff on Mars. If am wrong, then there are still lots of alternatives that can be used for chemical reactions. This includes alternative rocket fuels.

No there isn't, there are no viable alternative rocket fuels.

Its really pretty simple, combustion of rocket fuels requires both an oxidizer and a reducer which are liquids, and while there is plenty of oxidizer on the Moon (oxygen in the dust) there probobly isn't a whole lot of a practical liquid reducer.

Not really when you see how easy it is to focus the light and the less need for smelting equipment when we can just focus the heat from the sun and process the materials. Still we plan to go for one of the poles and there has been discovered areas where there is more or less permanent light.



We can make solar cells reasonably easily from the common materials found on the Moon just having a robot go west making and emplacing cells and one going east will give you a grid sooner than anything else. And the power levels available are very good. It is the one advantage the Moon has its availability of cheap and plentiful electrical power. It does though not have enough Carbon and Hydrogen.



I agree if we want to colonize Mars we will need a big transport infrastructure or as many have theorized what is called Cyclers where we have a permanent series of stations moving between the Earth and Mars and our new colonists jump on the first heading towards Mars and jump off when they get close.

resupplying these cylers with oxygen and there construction would be a lot easier if they where to be from the Moon. That is as long as there is no incredible change to the current economic situation with cheaper spaceflights. Still there is no way that this construction site Moon would ever make money it only just reduces the cost.

We talked about this sometime before. On the moon where there is no atmosphere to reduce the sun's power and the potential for 24 hour light near the pools, solar power can be quite competitive. In terms of electrical energy generation Solar Thermal plants can be quite competitive with Nuclear Power. If you have constant access to sunlight a Solar-Thermal-Electric conversion system could hit 40W/kg which is competitive with most nuclear options. In terms of thermal performance solar power is pretty much unbeatable, heavy-optical quality mirrors mass around 15kg/m^2 give you 90W/kg, which is realy good. But the moon's gravity enables you to use even lighter mirrors, possibly inflatible which could mass as little as 1kg/m^2, could get 1.4kW/kg! Which is pretty much unbeatable by any nuclear power system (or any other power source for that matter). So for any refinment process that relies primarily upon thermal energy, solar power is the way to go.

Anyway's the old thread is here

>>>

I agree if we want to colonize Mars we will need a big transport infrastructure or as many have theorized what is called Cyclers where we have a permanent series of stations moving between the Earth and Mars and our new colonists jump on the first heading towards Mars and jump off when they get close.

resupplying these cylers with oxygen and there construction would be a lot easier if they where to be from the Moon. That is as long as there is no incredible change to the current economic situation with cheaper spaceflights. Still there is no way that this construction site Moon would ever make money it only just reduces the cost.<<<



If you mean that we can run the moon like it business, then your right. But, that same premise also hold true for the Planet Mars too. You can't run it like a business or it can't make a profit either. Matter of fact, if you choose to run NASA like a business, it not going to make a profit either in the business sense of the term profit.

But, we set up a government in both places based on the General Welfare Concept of government and they both have a sufficiently large enough population with an industrial base to match with control over there own banking system, then we could have a thriving economy in both places, but not according to business concept though.

The right kind of government that committed to the right things policies which control there own money supply can do things that would even make an economy on the Moon and the people living there to became prosperous. That what most people on this board don’t understand about government and how it should be used.

Larry,