NationStates

The Soviet Technocracy wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
Indeed.

Pretty sure a single, sustainable Mars base right now would bankrupt the global economy.

Seeing as the US has spent a trillion on war in the past decade, I doubt that spending a similar amount with additional money from the ESA, Russia, JAXA and Korea,m it could be pulled off over twice the time frame.

Grenartia wrote:

I'm so gonna sig this.

Grenartia wrote:Anyways, most of this country's problems can be solved by:
- legalizing, regulating, and taxing the sale of 'soft' drugs such as marijuana
- spending as much on education as we do on the military, and spending as much on the military as we do on education
- setting term limits on congress
- focusing our economy towards manned space flight, particularly by providing incentives to businesses

^This

Grenartia wrote:

Holerad wrote:
Lunar propellant would be exported to EML1 and Low Earth Orbit. Also lunar nitrogen, oxygen, water to drink and water for radiation shields could be exported to EML1.

A Mars bound or NEO bound ship would stop at LEO and EML1, not land on the moon. In terms of delta V, EML1 has a huge advantage over low earth orbit.

Although I must disagree with that comic. Earth->Moon->Mars is more like San Antonio->Houston->Omaha than Tucson->Houston->Omaha...

^ This

Holerad is quite right, but lifting propellant from Earth is so inefficient that even refueling on the Moon could be cheaper than carrying everything from Earth on a journey to Mars or beyond.

Refueling depots at the Earth-Moon L1 point are, of course, much much better.




I wonder just how close to Earth lunar propellant would be economic?

Probably never at LEO, but maybe geostationary orbit - its just 4.4 km/s away from Luna but more than 13 km/s from Earth. Depends as much on production costs on Luna vs Earth as on astrodynamics, I guess...

The Soviet Technocracy wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
Indeed.

Pretty sure a single, sustainable Mars base right now would bankrupt the global economy.

Sure, the economy as it currently exists...

But if we invested in the infrastructure and education, then it could definitely handle it.

Holerad wrote:

Senestrum wrote:Which is fantastic for stuff that starts out on the moon, but it still takes a lot more fuel to move a spacecraft to the moon, refuel it, and send it to its destination than it does to just send it straight there.

-snip-

must not have noticed the person i was talking to was talking about stopping at the moon

it's certainly more efficient to haul lunar ice and shit to orbit to refuel rockets, but i question if it's actually more economical in the foreseeable future since, you know, the cost of building and running an industrial-scale moon mining+water electrolysis infrastructure will be included in the cost of the fuel

besides, if you're at the point where you can pull off that sort of spaceborne infrastructure you really have no excuse for using chemical propulsion for anything beyond putting around in the earth-moon area

The Soviet Technocracy wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
Indeed.

Pretty sure a single, sustainable Mars base right now would bankrupt the global economy.

launch shit there with orion and sea dragon

o/o/o/o/o/o/o/

Sjovenia wrote:Do you think that if NASA or America had enough money to go to the moon do you think we would have been/ or are able to have a moon base on the moon. And lets be real I'm not talking star wars Sci-Fi im talking modern day moon base kind of like a station but on the moon? I just want your feedback and your thoughts on this topic. if you can find pictures to go along with them then thats cool to but no droids and light sabers or aliens...lets keep it MT.

The cost of it would be in the trillions. A moon base is definitely possible. Even crazier than that idea, if the major nations of the world all contributed we could go to Mars and literally create a new ecosystem sustainable for us live there. We have the ability to crate a new ozone, create moisture in the air for clouds to form and rain to fall, plants to grow, oxygen...You can see where this is going lol Its sad we humans only concern is the present. The millions of year it took for our brains to develop in such a way, we could do such incredible things.

Senestrum wrote:must not have noticed the person i was talking to was talking about stopping at the moon

I sure didn't notice that. I had noticed Set The Unbound saying lunar propellant could supply orbital propellant depots.

Senestrum wrote:it's certainly more efficient to haul lunar ice and shit to orbit to refuel rockets, but i question if it's actually more economical in the foreseeable future since, you know, the cost of building and running an industrial-scale moon mining+water electrolysis infrastructure will be included in the cost of the fuel

besides, if you're at the point where you can pull off that sort of spaceborne infrastructure you really have no excuse for using chemical propulsion for anything beyond putting around in the earth-moon area

No, a near term moon base using chemical propellant is plausible. See the ULA lunar architecture. On page 24 they call for 4 to 8 billion dollars per year, about the same ballpark our present human spaceflight expense.

After 3 years they have 313 tonnes of useful payload on the lunar surface along with 150 Kwatt power source.

The pdf was written before the discovery of lunar ice deposits, or they probably would have looked at ISRU propellant. ISRU propellant simplifies lunar take off. ISRU propellant shipped to EML1 would make the moon even more accessible.

A near term moon base is doable.

Senestrum wrote:

The Soviet Technocracy wrote:
Pretty sure a single, sustainable Mars base right now would bankrupt the global economy.

launch shit there with orion and sea dragon

o/o/o/o/o/o/o/

if only

._.

$60/kg launch costs would be (:

e: also, http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/novad.htm

Grenartia wrote:

Holerad wrote:

(Image)

Lunar propellant would be exported to EML1 and Low Earth Orbit. Also lunar nitrogen, oxygen, water to drink and water for radiation shields could be exported to EML1.

A Mars bound or NEO bound ship would stop at LEO and EML1, not land on the moon. In terms of delta V, EML1 has a huge advantage over low earth orbit.

Although I must disagree with that comic. Earth->Moon->Mars is more like San Antonio->Houston->Omaha than Tucson->Houston->Omaha...

You didn't get it. Those are refuelling stops along the way, and Holerad just told you the ship doesn't actually land on the moon.

Even if it did, getting off the moon is like an order of magnitude easier than getting off earth. Remember the puny little thruster on the bottom of the Apollo landers?

Ailiailia wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
Although I must disagree with that comic. Earth->Moon->Mars is more like San Antonio->Houston->Omaha than Tucson->Houston->Omaha...

You didn't get it. Those are refuelling stops along the way, and Holerad just told you the ship doesn't actually land on the moon.

Even if it did, getting off the moon is like an order of magnitude easier than getting off earth. Remember the puny little thruster on the bottom of the Apollo landers?

No, he does get it. Houston is not that big a detour from San Antonio.

Peace!

I'd be all for a moon base but... What would the men we send DO there besides totally go nuts ("OMG! We're on the moon! SCIENCE PARTY!") over being on the moon?

We have the technology and we have the knowledge. We clearly lack the funding. We may lose the space station as is. It would definitely help us to move out into space to continue the human race because the earth and our solar system may not be around forever, on top of that the earth may not be able to support the human population in a few hundred years. What is scary is what we don't know about space such as the fact that bacteria such as Salmonella tends to become deadlier when taken into space. I think a moon base would help greatly with our understanding of such matters, but it would take the effort of half of the world to do this during the limited funding time, and sadly most of the world can not get along so human greatness pales in comparison to what it could be.

Ailiailia wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
Although I must disagree with that comic. Earth->Moon->Mars is more like San Antonio->Houston->Omaha than Tucson->Houston->Omaha...

You didn't get it. Those are refuelling stops along the way, and Holerad just told you the ship doesn't actually land on the moon.

Even if it did, getting off the moon is like an order of magnitude easier than getting off earth. Remember the puny little thruster on the bottom of the Apollo landers?

Think of it this way:
San Antonio = Earth
Houston = Moon
Omaha = Mars

Urban areas are the actual bodies themselves, suburbs are the orbits thereof, rural areas are space itself.

Set the Unbound wrote:

Ailiailia wrote:
You didn't get it. Those are refuelling stops along the way, and Holerad just told you the ship doesn't actually land on the moon.

Even if it did, getting off the moon is like an order of magnitude easier than getting off earth. Remember the puny little thruster on the bottom of the Apollo landers?

No, he does get it. Houston is not that big a detour from San Antonio.

Peace!

Indeed. Its pretty analogous to the distance from the Earth to the Moon. Its (relatively) close, but the time it takes to get there is slightly inconvenient...

IU live in San antonio so you have to think about traffic too and houston is four hours away plus traffic so that is kinda far. Besides we would need a space station closer to mars and the moon so after you went to the ISS you could dock at the other station then into mars only problem would be getting out.

We already got the propaganda coup, what else does the moon have that we want or need?

Yes Sjovenia. Mars orbit. One load of fuel there to land soft and take off again, and another to get back to moon orbit or GTO.

Big Jim P wrote:We already got the propaganda coup, what else does the moon have that we want or need?

The cheese. If we get that, we don't need as many dairy cows meaning we can lower methane emissions and therefore stop global warming.

*nods*

Horsefish wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:We already got the propaganda coup, what else does the moon have that we want or need?

The cheese. If we get that, we don't need as many dairy cows meaning we can lower methane emissions and therefore stop global warming.

*nods*

Point. But we would have to send in the Marines to clear out the Nazis first.

Big Jim P wrote:Point. But we would have to send in the Marines to clear out the Nazis first.

The creatures on the moon already have. Apollo 19 was supposed to scout out the nazi bases but the secret weapon is loose.

It's all quite well documented, just go down to your local cinemia.

Set the Unbound wrote:Refueling depots at the Earth-Moon L1 point are, of course, much much better.

Nah. Better in MEO, that is slightly above LEO. Let's say a 3000 km altitude would be perfect.

To build a moonbase would produce jobs, increase GDP and could lead to new natural resources.Therefore it is an economically good idea to build a new base.

Zaineia wrote:To build a moonbase would produce jobs, increase GDP and could lead to new natural resources.Therefore it is an economically good idea to build a new base.

What resources? Better question: What resources that would economically justify attempting to extract them from the moon?

Big Jim P wrote:What resources?

Propellant close to earth orbits. Much closer than earth's surface.

Big Jim P wrote:Better question: What resources that would economically justify attempting to extract them from the moon?

According to this pdf 700 tonnes of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) propellant is used each year just to boost communication satellites to higher orbits.

Another endeavor that would consume lots of propellant: cleaning orbital debris. This needs to be done sooner or later or the Kessler syndrome will come to pass.

Propellant depots would change the way we build and maintain orbital assets. Presently our satellites are so difficult to reach that the paradigm is design, build, luanch, discard. Routine cislunar transportation would make modular, upgradeable satellites amenable to repair cost effective.

If travel between earth orbits became routine, I believe the market for orbital propellant would sky rocket just as the market for petroleum shot up after Henry Ford started mass producing cars.

Big Jim P wrote:

Zaineia wrote:To build a moonbase would produce jobs, increase GDP and could lead to new natural resources.Therefore it is an economically good idea to build a new base.

What resources? Better question: What resources that would economically justify attempting to extract them from the moon?

The moon is a chunk of the earth that was thrown into earths orbit after a meteor hit the earth millions and trillions of years ago...their could be oil or gas heck even iron or gold or any other natural resource...heck even Blue fire!!!! (Blue fire is a gas that is drilled by the Gazprom oil co. the store front is in my forums some where)

Sjovenia wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:
What resources? Better question: What resources that would economically justify attempting to extract them from the moon?

The moon is a chunk of the earth that was thrown into earths orbit after a meteor hit the earth millions and trillions of years ago...their could be oil or gas heck even iron or gold or any other natural resource...heck even Blue fire!!!! (Blue fire is a gas that is drilled by the Gazprom oil co. the store front is in my forums some where)

Umm seeing as the moon split off well before Life really took off. There's no way that you could drill for oil on the moon and find anything.

Holerad wrote:

Senestrum wrote:Which is fantastic for stuff that starts out on the moon, but it still takes a lot more fuel to move a spacecraft to the moon, refuel it, and send it to its destination than it does to just send it straight there.

Lunar propellant would be exported to EML1 and Low Earth Orbit. Also lunar nitrogen and oxygen to breathe, lunar water to drink and lunar water for radiation shields could be exported to EML1.

A Mars bound or NEO bound ship would stop at LEO and EML1, not land on the moon. In terms of delta V, EML1 has a huge advantage over low earth orbit.

that is an awesome cartoon