Russian roadmap to Solar System colonisation. Moon is the first step.

[Nemo1024]

Vice-president of the Russian government listed strategic objectives of Russia in space. They are:
 - Expansion of Russian presence in the low-orbit space.
 - Exploration and subsequent colonisation of the Moon and near-Moon space.
 - Preparation for colonisation of Mars and other objects of the Solar System, using Moon as the starting pad.

http://lenta.ru/news/2014/04/11/moon/

Last year, China announced that it plans to established a manned colony on the Moon as well. I wonder if the two nations would collaborate in this endeavour.

[1715343207]

1715343207

[1715343207]

1715343207

[1715343207]

1715343207

[Elwar]

You can't build a road to the moon.

Crazy ruskies.

[Nemo1024]

Ok, updated the title to make you Yanks (or possibly greengos) more comfortable

[bryant.coleman]

You can't build a road to the moon.
Crazy ruskies.

The current technology doesn't permit that. But that doesn't mean that in the future that might be impossible. Russian space technology, as of now is much more advanced than the American one.

[Nemo1024]

You can't build a road to the moon.
Crazy ruskies.

The current technology doesn't permit that. But that doesn't mean that in the future that might be impossible. Russian space technology, as of now is much more advanced than the American one.

Actually, current technology does permit building of a small (ISS-sized) manned base on the Moon. All the building blocks exist already and have been extensively tested both on Earth and in space flights.

[harkonnen]

There were plans like this since 60s.
No news here.

Send some permanent residents to moon. That will be the news!

[Nemo1024]

Yes, in the 60-s there was a Soviet Moon base/landing program. Thus the Moon rovers that the Soviet Union sent over there.
Then Americans announced their Moon program, and Soviet had to trump it, so more resources were diverted to the Mars program. Add to that mix internal political rope tugging between the constructor bureau and the government and then end result was neither Moon nor Mars.

[TheButterZone]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/japan-launches-net-into-space-to-help-with-orbital-debris/

Let's clean our shitty orbit up first, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome was depicted before Gravity.

[bryant.coleman]

Send some permanent residents to moon. That will be the news!

Financials will be a problem, even if technology isn't one. I am sure that any such program will be prohibitively expensive, that neither of the two sides (US and Russia) can think about it right now.

[Nemo1024]

Send some permanent residents to moon. That will be the news!

Financials will be a problem, even if technology isn't one. I am sure that any such program will be prohibitively expensive, that neither of the two sides (US and Russia) can think about it right now.

What about Russia + China?

@TheButterZone: Fully agree with you. Cleaning up should be number 1 priority, not colonisation. ISS has to dodge debris quite often as it is now.

[TheButterZone]

I wonder if ISS could have a moonbase platform and landing kit added on, except then they'd need to play http://chrome.atari.com/missilecommand/

[bryant.coleman]

What about Russia + China?

No. That would be a bad idea. The Chinese are notorious for stealing technology from others. If Russia co-operates with them, then the Chinese will first steal the Russian technology, and then dump the Russians.

[IIOII]

It's well possible that with the reactivation of the Cold War due to Crimea we will also see a reactivation of the space race. This time however I think Russians and Chinese will lie ahead. It will be interesting to see if Europeans will intensify space partnership with Russia.

What about Russia + China?

No. That would be a bad idea. The Chinese are notorious for stealing technology from others. If Russia co-operates with them, then the Chinese will first steal the Russian technology, and then dump the Russians.

I think that's too much of a stereotype. The Chinese are beginning to innovate themselves. They are eager to learn. And with so many people, rest assured that they have enough qualified staff.

[bryant.coleman]

It will be interesting to see if Europeans will intensify space partnership with Russia.

I don't think that will happen in near future. The NASA has already stopped all the co-operation it had with Roscosmos. The European space agencies will soon follow suit.

[Spendulus]

It will be interesting to see if Europeans will intensify space partnership with Russia.

I don't think that will happen in near future. The NASA has already stopped all the co-operation it had with Roscosmos. The European space agencies will soon follow suit.

There's enough room on the Moon, Mars, the asteroids, and the rest of the Solar System for more than one puny little Earth country to go exploring and or settling.

[Spendulus]

You can't build a road to the moon.
Crazy ruskies.

The current technology doesn't permit that. But that doesn't mean that in the future that might be impossible. Russian space technology, as of now is much more advanced than the American one.

Bolded part, nyet.  One reliable 3-4 decade old launch system.

[bryant.coleman]

Bolded part, nyet.  One reliable 3-4 decade old launch system.

People are free to disagree. The NASA doesn't even have a space shuttle program now. They depend on the Russian rockets to get the American crew to the ISS. And for the last two decades, they haven't done anything worthwhile.

[Spendulus]

Bolded part, nyet.  One reliable 3-4 decade old launch system.

People are free to disagree. The NASA doesn't even have a space shuttle program now. They depend on the Russian rockets to get the American crew to the ISS. And for the last two decades, they haven't done anything worthwhile.

Really?

[Sithara007]

Really?

Have they done anything notable? ISS was mostly Russian and European technology.

[bryant.coleman]

Have they done anything notable? ISS was mostly Russian and European technology.

Russians were brought in because NASA didn't had the necessary technological advantage.

[supernovax]

The engines of the Saturn V heavy lift rockets are russian made. It would take 3-6 years for the americans go to space with out the help of the russians if they start now creating the vehicles and engines and need to spend billions of dollar.

[bryant.coleman]

The engines of the Saturn V heavy lift rockets are russian made. It would take 3-6 years for the americans go to space with out the help of the russians if they start now creating the vehicles and engines and need to spend billions of dollar.

As far as I know, Saturn V was last used many many years ago. Which one was the last American space shuttle?

[supernovax]

The engines of the Saturn V heavy lift rockets are russian made. It would take 3-6 years for the americans go to space with out the help of the russians if they start now creating the vehicles and engines and need to spend billions of dollar.

As far as I know, Saturn V was last used many many years ago. Which one was the last American space shuttle?

I mean not just Saturn V, most other heavy lift rockets use russian engine.

[harkonnen]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/japan-launches-net-into-space-to-help-with-orbital-debris/

Let's clean our shitty orbit up first, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome was depicted before Gravity.

What are you smoking? We need more debris out there.
Those are for the protection from impending alien invasions.

[TheButterZone]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/japan-launches-net-into-space-to-help-with-orbital-debris/

Let's clean our shitty orbit up first, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome was depicted before Gravity.

What are you smoking? We need more debris out there.
Those are for the protection from impending alien invasions.

Haha, if aliens can manage to fold space to overcome the vast distances they'd have to travel to get here, I'm sure they can let our crap bounce off their shields.

[bryant.coleman]

What are you smoking? We need more debris out there.
Those are for the protection from impending alien invasions.

Yeah more debris... so that all the telecommunication systems will collapse. No television, no mobile phones and no internet. The Japanese are doing a great job in cleaning it, and the Chinese are trying to create new problems.

[Sithara007]

How Russia could strangle the US space program

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/140324/nasa-russia-sanctions-rocket-rd-180-atlas-v

The US relies heavily on Russia to furnish the engines that power rockets that deliver both military and civil payloads into space. This includes GPS systems in cars and cellphones, and even systems that allow ATMs to function. Weather satellites are launched into space via Russian-powered rockets, and military systems such as early missile detection also depend on our friends in Moscow. In addition, since NASA scrapped the space shuttle program in 2011, the US has to rely on Russian Soyuz capsules to get its astronauts to the space station and to bring them back home.

One of the things Americans may dislike very much indeed is a possible ban on the sale of RD-180 engines to the US under a contract with Russian manufacturer NPO Energomash. The RD-180 powers the Atlas V rocket, the main launch vehicle used to get US military and civil payloads into space.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2602291/We-coming-Moon-FOREVER-Russia-sets-plans-conquer-colonise-space-including-permanent-manned-moon-base.html

The West fears Russia is poised to invade Ukraine, but it seems the Kremlin has a bigger conquest in its sights - the Moon. Moscow today set out plans to conquer and colonise space, including a permanent manned moon base. Deputy premier Dmitry Rogozin said: 'We are coming to the moon forever.'

[Lethn]

premier Dmitry Rogozin said: 'We are coming to the moon forever.'

That quote makes sense not, stupid daily mail.

p.s. I love the pic of the children shying away from Putin

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/04/11/article-2602291-1D070F8400000578-838_634x417.jpg

[Wipeout2097]

Russian space technology, as of now is much more advanced than the American public one.

[Spendulus]

The engines of the Saturn V heavy lift rockets are russian made. It would take 3-6 years for the americans go to space with out the help of the russians if they start now creating the vehicles and engines and need to spend billions of dollar.

As far as I know, Saturn V was last used many many years ago. Which one was the last American space shuttle?

I mean not just Saturn V, most other heavy lift rockets use russian engine.

No, of course they do not. 

Chinese rockets don't, and US rockets don't, and French rockets don't....

[bryant.coleman]

Chinese rockets don't, and US rockets don't, and French rockets don't....

The RD-180 powers the Atlas V rocket, the main launch vehicle used to get US military and civil payloads into space.

[Spendulus]

Chinese rockets don't, and US rockets don't, and French rockets don't....

The RD-180 powers the Atlas V rocket, the main launch vehicle used to get US military and civil payloads into space.

That's true at the moment, although not in the past and quite likely not in the future.  As the referenced article states:

One of the things Americans may dislike very much indeed is a possible ban on the sale of RD-180 engines to the US under a contract with Russian manufacturer NPO Energomash. The RD-180 powers the Atlas V rocket, the main launch vehicle used to get US military and civil payloads into space.

In other words, Congress is likely to require compliance with law previously enacted which means the Russian motor and launch services are not legal.

The RD180 is a very nice engine due to it's burning two fuels:  hydrogen and kerosene.  This means it's efficiency is higher over the first stage boost, and in particular the first stage boost can be prolonged.  It would be a major effort to create from scratch a two fuel motor.  But there are many existing very fine motors in the US inventory for which tooling and contractor support exists, and there are many of these already warehoused.

That said, that statement I objected to is not sustainable.

[Wilikon]

http://youtu.be/fQTJUfqNJts

[bryant.coleman]

http://youtu.be/fQTJUfqNJts

I haven't watched that movie yet. Is it in 3D?

[Spendulus]

http://youtu.be/fQTJUfqNJts

I haven't watched that movie yet. Is it in 3D?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RGhKzUUaME

[Wilikon]

http://youtu.be/fQTJUfqNJts

I haven't watched that movie yet. Is it in 3D?

Not that I remember. The story does not need 3D though, IMO.

[bryant.coleman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RGhKzUUaME

No. That one is a different movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1772240/

[Wilikon]

http://youtu.be/fQTJUfqNJts

I haven't watched that movie yet. Is it in 3D?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RGhKzUUaME

"The reason why we never went back"... For Americans...


The reason why the Russians never went back to the Moon... Their Vodka Moonshining Bucket On Wheels Program... Way Scarier!  




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

[Nemo1024]

Well, those "buckets on wheels" are still serving humanity. Scientists managed to locate them and use their reflectors to triangulate and measure precise distance shifts between Moon and Earth.

[Wilikon]

Well, those "buckets on wheels" are still serving humanity. Scientists managed to locate them and use their reflectors to triangulate and measure precise distance shifts between Moon and Earth.

I have nothing against good Vodka, especially chilled down to -233 Celsius while looking up at the blue planet, laying down on my lunar sofa...
http://www.stellarworks.com/lunar-sofa
 

[Spendulus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RGhKzUUaME

No. That one is a different movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1772240/

Apollo 18 is a pretty good movie.

Moon, about the guy that gets replaced every three years, not so good.

But hey, don't forget the classics - Destination Moon rocks, and it's on youtube.

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

[bryant.coleman]

Apollo 18 is a pretty good movie.
Moon, about the guy that gets replaced every three years, not so good.

Hmm.... I used to like the horror movies in the past. But now I have lost my taste for them. Don't know.... if I feel like I want to watch, then I'll buy either the DVD or the Blu-Ray.  

[Wilikon]

Sorry people!

Nothing can touch this true classic Moon movie...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JDaOOw0MEE

[Nemo1024]

Sorry people!

Nothing can touch this true classic Moon movie...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JDaOOw0MEE

Ah, the memories. But you need to watch it in HD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FrdVdKlxUk

[Wilikon]

Sorry people!

Nothing can touch this true classic Moon movie...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JDaOOw0MEE

Ah, the memories. But you need to watch it in HD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FrdVdKlxUk

Nice. Now we need to go beyond the Moon... Russian style
http://youtu.be/16rktAcZ0AE

[nicked]

The reason that it seems like the US has abandoned its space program is not because they actually abandoned it. It's because they now have something better that they want to keep secret.

[bythesea]

I would rather chose to go to the Mars then Moon. I know the view from Moon is better but Mars is a better choice.

[bryant.coleman]

I would rather chose to go to the Mars then Moon. I know the view from Moon is better but Mars is a better choice.

That will not happen in the near future. Even the most efficient rocket takes 1.5 years to reach Mars. And every trip costs around $100 billion. No country is having that much money right now. 

[supernovax]

If half of the military defense spending is use in space program there will be human settlements in mars right now and we already mining asteroids.

[Wilikon]

So how of that stuff can we extract before the lunar to Earth weight ratio makes the Moon spin out into space?

[Nemo1024]

I remember some SciFi author had a story, where the Lunar colony declares independence and decides to leave Earth orbit (was it Clarke).
To make transport of minerals from the Moon cost-efficient, the system must be balanced - rockets won't do, space lift will. And as they say, what goes down, must come up (or do they). There is always something Earth needs to dump somewhere...

[bryant.coleman]

So how of that stuff can we extract before the lunar to Earth weight ratio makes the Moon spin out into space?

What is there in the moon to extract? Any mining in the moon will be a million times more expensive than doing the same on earth. And none of the major metals are going to run out any time soon.

[Wilikon]

So how of that stuff can we extract before the lunar to Earth weight ratio makes the Moon spin out into space?

What is there in the moon to extract? Any mining in the moon will be a million times more expensive than doing the same on earth. And none of the major metals are going to run out any time soon.

Mining Helium-3 On the Moon
http://youtu.be/94rEqHP9dOQ

[bryant.coleman]

Mining Helium-3 On the Moon
http://youtu.be/94rEqHP9dOQ

Why we need Helium-3, when we have millions of tons of Uranium available on the earth? Considering the difficulty in storing Helium, and the cost of conducting lunar missions, I can't understand the logic.

[Spendulus]

Mining Helium-3 On the Moon
http://youtu.be/94rEqHP9dOQ

Why we need Helium-3, when we have millions of tons of Uranium available on the earth? Considering the difficulty in storing Helium, and the cost of conducting lunar missions, I can't understand the logic.

Helium 3 is now used as a cyro refrigerant, and has a value way way WAY higher than say gold.   It could now be mined on the moon and shot back to Earth and be profitable.   It's future value is in fuel for fusion reactors.  This mining process would have to be automated and robotic to be practical.

There is more titanium OR aluminum in the top several meters of depth of an average square kilometer of the Moon's surface than is mined on the entire Earth each year currently.  Also of course iron.

These surface metals are relatively easy to purify, although the process is very different than what is used on Earth.    They are in oxide form typically.  Many other useful elements and materials.  However the Moon is very poor in C, N, and "volatiles".  As an example, it would be difficult to make plastics on the Moon.

Really the best way to think of the Moon is as one gigantic materials mine....also as a place where operations that have to be done in vacuum, would be extremely easy.  examples, vapor deposition or ion sputtering.

[bryant.coleman]

There is more titanium OR aluminum in the top several meters of depth of an average square kilometer of the Moon's surface than is mined on the entire Earth each year currently.  Also of course iron.

Even if there is a lot of Titanium and Aluminium out there, how will you transport all this back to earth? Do you know the cost of a lunar mission? It runs in to tens of millions of USD.

[Nemo1024]

There is more titanium OR aluminum in the top several meters of depth of an average square kilometer of the Moon's surface than is mined on the entire Earth each year currently.  Also of course iron.

Even if there is a lot of Titanium and Aluminium out there, how will you transport all this back to earth? Do you know the cost of a lunar mission? It runs in to tens of millions of USD.

At the present. The initial step is always the most expensive one. Once a space elevator (or space bolas) is in place, the cost will be minimal.

[Wilikon]

If you guys watched the video the Russians and pretty much every state that can send people into space see Helium 3 mining on the Moon to be cost effective, even with today's technology

[bryant.coleman]

At the present. The initial step is always the most expensive one. Once a space elevator (or space bolas) is in place, the cost will be minimal.

You need to remember that the average distance from Earth to the Moon is 384,400 km. I don't know whether in future technology will ma e that much travel viable for metal extraction.

[FalconFly]

Absolutely noone will set foot on the moon (let alone live/work there) until it either becomes a) profitable to do so or b) offers another tremendous advantage (i.e. military or geopolitical).

As both scenarios are long stretches away, there's simply no actual and real incentive to toss hundreds of Billions of Dollars at such a project. It just doesn't pay off and no individual nation has the pockets deep enough and the tech to pull it off alone.

The technology is mostly there - but the profitable outcome (of whatever nature) is not, especially not for a project of this magnitude.

PS.
The mineral composition of the moon's surface (as discovered so far) makes it rather uninteresting. Reserves of all identified minerals are still more than plentyful here on earth.

[Nemo1024]

At the present. The initial step is always the most expensive one. Once a space elevator (or space bolas) is in place, the cost will be minimal.

You need to remember that the average distance from Earth to the Moon is 384,400 km. I don't know whether in future technology will ma e that much travel viable for metal extraction.

Yes, I remember that, but the greatest chunk of cost is associated with getting out of Earth's gravity well, ditto space elevator.

Absolutely noone will set foot on the moon (let alone live/work there) until it either becomes a) profitable to do so or b) offers another tremendous advantage (i.e. military or geopolitical).

China already thinks it to be worthwhile.

[Spendulus]

There is more titanium OR aluminum in the top several meters of depth of an average square kilometer of the Moon's surface than is mined on the entire Earth each year currently.  Also of course iron.

Even if there is a lot of Titanium and Aluminium out there, how will you transport all this back to earth? Do you know the cost of a lunar mission? It runs in to tens of millions of USD.

Who said it was useful or necessary to transport it back to earth?

If that was useful, you'd do it by using a railgun to shoot projectiles at earth, and recover them after they hit the ground at ~ 180 mph.  Or the ocean.  This is extremely cheap.  On the Moon there is all the power one wants from solar, 4x more intense than Earth.  Available for some 300 hours continuous, then twilight or dark for 420 hours or so.

The details on lunar railgun have been mostly worked out.  Building that railgun would be a fairly big job.  I am not familiar with the details, but assume it would use superconducting magnets.

The largest market for lunar raw materials would be off earth applications.  Satellites at higher orbits, possibly the L4 and L5 points, equipment and structures for asteroid exploration and or capture, etc.  Which in turn clearly shows that the opportunity for profitable off earth commercial activity is the Moon, and in turn that is enabling to further presence in the Solar System.

Almost all lunar "raw materials" can be conceptualized as 3d printer output these days.  We're not talking traditional sheet or rod metal or traditional metal forming techniques.  They are not practical for space or the Moon or Mars.  In turn this leads to a plausible conclusion:  Our exploration of the solar systems rests on a foundation of adequate materials technology - nanotech, 3d printing are examples - to enable the building of machinery, supplies and equipment off planet largely by robots.  This is only now moving into the realm of what we can envision.  

The techy term for this has been ISRU, in situ resource utilization.

[FalconFly]

China already thinks it to be worthwhile.

While alot of nations have said similar things, no action in that direction has ever been taken - and likely won't be in the near future.

And for as long as the costs far outweigh the potential resources, nothing will happen.
Remember, as we speak global trade is slowing down every year and several of the mines lifting to surface similar minerals as found on the moon are already limiting ops or shutting down; some even are at the verge of bankruptcy and only survive from credit-to-credit.
Definitely no chance of any moon mining operations anytime soon, rather the opposite.

In its current economic condition, the planet doesn't need moon-supplied 12000$/ton iron ore or 90000$/ton titanium (and these are extremely conservative estimates).

[Wilikon]

China already thinks it to be worthwhile.

While alot of nations have said similar things, no action in that direction has ever been taken - and likely won't be in the near future.

And for as long as the costs far outweigh the potential resources, nothing will happen.
Remember, as we speak global trade is slowing down every year and several of the mines lifting to surface similar minerals as found on the moon are already limiting ops or shutting down; some even are at the verge of bankruptcy and only survive from credit-to-credit.
Definitely no chance of any moon mining operations anytime soon, rather the opposite.

In its current economic condition, the planet doesn't need moon-supplied 12000$/ton iron ore or 90000$/ton titanium (and these are extremely conservative estimates).

We are in an economy were Elon Musk, selling Paypal, made Tesla and SpaceX. Facebook bought some apps for multiple billions. Google said space exploration is on their agenda.

People with the will, the vision and the cash will make it happen. nothing special people. The same happened with transatlantic communication cables, The Washington Bridge, the Eurotunnel, etc.

[FalconFly]

We are in an economy were Elon Musk, selling Paypal, made Tesla and SpaceX. Facebook bought some apps for multiple billions. Google said space exploration is on their agenda.

People with the will, the vision and the cash will make it happen. nothing special people. The same happened with transatlantic communication cables, The Washington Bridge, the Eurotunnel, etc.

I agree on that basically, but in a nutshell these are babysteps and peanuts projects in comparison, projects that individuals could fund to realize. What they built is basically the cost of an average-sized airport, not more (not even a big one nowadays).

The project costs for a moon base would easily dwarf the space budgets of many modern nations - combined.

That's something no rich person or a small group could ever fund - it's simply out of even their league, and big time so.

But if you can find a visionary trillionaire willing to invest his wealth into a such project - you'd have my full support

PS.
And forget Facebook a.k.a. Faceplant, it's already headed downhill since it produces nothing of value (except for the intelligence services harvesting the freely provided data by the mindless zombies that use it).
Google is about earning money (and gathering intelligence), not about space travel. Should they find a source of revenue there however, at least their cash would provide a good firestarter (better than nothing).
Basically we're living in a bizarro economy, centrally planned and manipulated not much different than in the USSR in some respects and many countries. Alot of things people believe have value to them will in a very few years crumble to the dust they actually are. When that happens, space travel will be the least of mankind's issues for a number of decades (outside military use). But that's just my opinion...

When there's enough money to be made - they'll be all over it. But since there isn't.... Well...

[Wilikon]

We are in an economy were Elon Musk, selling Paypal, made Tesla and SpaceX. Facebook bought some apps for multiple billions. Google said space exploration is on their agenda.

People with the will, the vision and the cash will make it happen. nothing special people. The same happened with transatlantic communication cables, The Washington Bridge, the Eurotunnel, etc.

I agree on that basically, but in a nutshell these are babysteps and peanuts projects in comparison, projects that individuals could fund to realize. What they built is basically the cost of an average-sized airport, not more (not even a big one nowadays).

The project costs for a moon base would easily dwarf the space budgets of many modern nations - combined.

That's something no rich person or a small group could ever fund - it's simply out of even their league, and big time so.

But if you can find a visionary trillionaire willing to invest his wealth into a such project - you'd have my full support

PS.
And forget Facebook a.k.a. Faceplant, it's already headed downhill since it produces nothing of value (except for the intelligence services harvesting the freely provided data by the mindless zombies that use it).
Google is about earning money (and gathering intelligence), not about space travel. Should they find a source of revenue there however, at least their cash would provide a good firestarter (better than nothing).
Basically we're living in a bizarro economy, centrally planned and manipulated not much different than in the USSR in some respects and many countries. Alot of things people believe have value to them will in a very few years crumble to the dust they actually are. When that happens, space travel will be the least of mankind's issues for a number of decades (outside military use). But that's just my opinion...

When there's enough money to be made - they'll be all over it. But since there isn't.... Well...

The whole thing can be computerized. No need for big human crew.
The thing is every generation faces a challenge and that challenge, once conquered makes the next generation say "D'uh! What was the big deal anyway! My plane is late again! Damn you engine heavier than air that should not fly!"

[FalconFly]

The whole thing can be computerized. No need for big human crew.
The thing is every generation faces a challenge and that challenge, once conquered makes the next generation say "D'uh! What was the big deal anyway! My plane is late again! Damn you engine heavier than air that should not fly!"

Ah, okay... Robotic Missions will make that whole thing alot cheaper indeed.

Still, the challenge this generation will soon face (IMHO) won't be spacebound - but rather a far earthlier issue.
It will become a legitimate challenge as soon as there is sufficient incentive (or need) to go there. I do hope they'll make it sooner than later, but being the realistic type - I just don't see them picking up that challenge in my lifetime.

PS.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of the developments for the engines heavier than air... came from military applications, its interest in its destructive potential and its ensuing financial investments once convinced.
For the better of mankind was the vision - always ending up first as "most bang for the buck" for the generals. That must be kept in mind.

[reginalkri]

Imagine the future wars, fighting over parts of the moon and other planets.

[bryant.coleman]

If that was useful, you'd do it by using a railgun to shoot projectiles at earth, and recover them after they hit the ground at ~ 180 mph.  Or the ocean.  This is extremely cheap.  On the Moon there is all the power one wants from solar, 4x more intense than Earth.  Available for some 300 hours continuous, then twilight or dark for 420 hours or so.

I don't know. By the time they finally reach the earth's surface, 99% of the material will be vaporized. The earth's atmosphere is quite thick and even travelling at 180 mph can cause a lot of friction, enough to vaporize the material.

[Spendulus]

If that was useful, you'd do it by using a railgun to shoot projectiles at earth, and recover them after they hit the ground at ~ 180 mph.  Or the ocean.  This is extremely cheap.  On the Moon there is all the power one wants from solar, 4x more intense than Earth.  Available for some 300 hours continuous, then twilight or dark for 420 hours or so.

I don't know. By the time they finally reach the earth's surface, 99% of the material will be vaporized. The earth's atmosphere is quite thick and even travelling at 180 mph can cause a lot of friction, enough to vaporize the material.

No.  This is a simple matter of selecting the projectile shape, then coating it with the proper ablative material.  For return from Moon, re entry would be some 36,000 mph.  Coating would be done with fused moon dust, four inches should be adequate.  We are talking here about "unguided projectiles" that have no navigational or computer system, literally just a titanium cylinder coated with the ablative.  Or for helium3, a simple pressure vessel holding say 1 kg of the helium.

In the case of the h3, it would definitely be cost efficient to use robotic return to earth spacecraft.

But manned lunar bases to do the work would not be cost efficient.

[Wilikon]

Imagine the future wars, fighting over parts of the moon and other planets.

Like that?
http://youtu.be/Py_IndUbcxc

[bryant.coleman]

I don't know. By the time they finally reach the earth's surface, 99% of the material will be vaporized. The earth's atmosphere is quite thick and even travelling at 180 mph can cause a lot of friction, enough to vaporize the material.

I don't know. What will happen if these projectiles land in some inhabited locality and cause casualties?

[dogechode]

Let them have the moon, let's go for mars - which makes waaaay more sense for a first colony.

[Spendulus]

I don't know. By the time they finally reach the earth's surface, 99% of the material will be vaporized. The earth's atmosphere is quite thick and even travelling at 180 mph can cause a lot of friction, enough to vaporize the material.

I don't know. What will happen if these projectiles land in some inhabited locality and cause casualties?

Well, FYI, that is roughly the plot of one of the best of Heinlien's book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".

The technical question is of two parts (A) trajectory verification during the orbital transfer from the Moon and (B) issues of unanticipated and improper heatshield breakup in-atmosphere causing unanticipated deviations during re entry. 

There are people called engineers that routinely work and solve these types of questions, lol...

[Spendulus]

I don't know. By the time they finally reach the earth's surface, 99% of the material will be vaporized. The earth's atmosphere is quite thick and even travelling at 180 mph can cause a lot of friction, enough to vaporize the material.

I don't know. What will happen if these projectiles land in some inhabited locality and cause casualties?

Well, FYI, that is roughly the plot of one of the best of Heinlien's book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".

The technical question is of two parts (A) trajectory verification during the orbital transfer from the Moon and (B) issues of unanticipated and improper heatshield breakup in-atmosphere causing unanticipated deviations during re entry. 

There are people called engineers that routinely work and solve these types of questions, lol...

Imagine the future wars, fighting over parts of the moon and other planets.

This is basically impossible.  Everything in space that we put there is extremely fragile and expensive so "war" is uneconomic.  Just something like taking ammo for a tank gun off the Earth and to the Moon is a fantastically difficult and expensive proposition. 

"War" can't exist on the Moon or other planets.  More importantly there is no reason for it.  The Moon is somewhat homogenous in it's top ten meters composition.  Lots of room there for anyone that wants to stake a claim.  There will be breakthroughs, but not through enemy lines - they will be technical breakthroughs and achievements through vision and application of science and engineering.

[bryant.coleman]

Let them have the moon, let's go for mars - which makes waaaay more sense for a first colony.

It takes 18 months for a rocket to reach Mars. In an economic sense, the Martian colonization will be prohibitively expensive, at the same time a gigantic waste of the financial resources. 

[Spendulus]

Let them have the moon, let's go for mars - which makes waaaay more sense for a first colony.

It takes 18 months for a rocket to reach Mars. In an economic sense, the Martian colonization will be prohibitively expensive, at the same time a gigantic waste of the financial resources. 

not necessarily....

http://www.lampsacus.com/documents/MARSDIRECTSPACEEXPLORATION.pdf

[Spendulus]

I don't know. What will happen if these projectiles land in some inhabited locality and cause casualties?

I think you're underestimating the accuracy to which aeronautics people can decide where a projectile is going to land. Getting something to/from the moon in the first place is hitting a piece of driftwood in a vast ocean - what's a couple more decimal places of accuracy after that? Missions to the moon and the recent ones to Mars decided exactly which area would be most interesting to study, and landed there, with no human pilot present and most of the thrust used at T=0.

As for heat problems on atmospheric entry, heat shielding systems have long been tried and tested and are perfectly capable of delivering groups of humans back to the planet's surface unharmed - cargo-only vessels would be capable of enduring much higher temperatures and G-forces.

without going  into the details, we can design a shape that will impact the earth at no higher than about 180mph...so "this is not a meteor" is the short answer...

[bryant.coleman]

All this means is 36 months added onto your payback period. You're certainly right that the initial capital investment is a massive sunk cost, but when the colony is established and sending back regular shipments, the operational expense could be significantly lower than for the moon, because current study suggests that life support would be much easier than on the moon - Mars has an atmosphere and much richer soil.

Also, there is a problem with Cosmic radiation. The radiation is at extremely high levels between the Earth and the Mars. 18 months of exposure (and probably another 18 from the return trip) will be really bad for the cosmonauts.

[Nemo1024]

What about water shields?

[dogechode]

The moon is a dead rock. Mars is a PLANET with WATER. A base on the moon probably couldn't be self-sufficient for a long time, a base on mars could be the start of an entire secondary planet. They could terraform the planet, access the water supply, grow plants, turn it into a second earth more or less... the moon is mainly just strategic value.

Once a colony was established on Mars after some initial setup and supply periods it could easily become self-sustaining and even profitable. You wouldn't have to harvest materials and send them back to earth to make a return on the investment and please let's NOT DO THAT anyhow. What, we strip this planet dry and then rape another planet? That's not a good plan and then what happens when we strip mars dry? Better to learn how to make do with what we have, improve recycling and environmental cleanup technologies, etc.

A colony on Mars could do all kinds of other work that don't require delivery of a physical product in order to pay back the setup costs. They could write code, do research, etc... think a little wider than just "we take shiny metal from ground!"

[Nemo1024]

Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy is an interesting read in that regard.

[dogechode]

Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy is an interesting read in that regard.

I read the first one (Red Mars) but it was really hard to get through. It's like hundreds and hundreds of pages and about 80% of it is description... he will go on for like 3 pages about how rough and craggly the wall of a cliff is.

[Nemo1024]

Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy is an interesting read in that regard.

I read the first one (Red Mars) but it was really hard to get through. It's like hundreds and hundreds of pages and about 80% of it is description... he will go on for like 3 pages about how rough and craggly the wall of a cliff is.

I listened to all three as audiobooks. Works much better for this type of narrative. What I found fascinating is that in the first and the second book he covered most of what would be needed to a colonisation of Mars, and which hurdles would need to be overcome. And it all was plausible, using for the large part already-existing technology or derivatives of it.

[dogechode]

To his credit, he did also bring up some very real issues that will likely be encountered by colonists on Mars. Eventually there's bound to be some tension between people who grow up on Mars or have spent more of their life there than on Earth, and who never intend to return to Earth, and the people of Earth. Earth starts to run low on something and decides to take it from Mars; Mars says go to hell... etc.

[Nemo1024]

Which in essence happens now on a smaller scale all over the world with colonial powers and transnats (I like this term he coined).

[counter]

I think using the moon as a building block is an excellent ideal.  Don't know how these different countries will get along when they all have the same goals and can't even get along on earth..  Something tells me there will be more tension in the future over the ownership of land in the solar system mainly mars and saturn.

[Kiki112]

To his credit, he did also bring up some very real issues that will likely be encountered by colonists on Mars. Eventually there's bound to be some tension between people who grow up on Mars or have spent more of their life there than on Earth, and who never intend to return to Earth, and the people of Earth. Earth starts to run low on something and decides to take it from Mars; Mars says go to hell... etc.

that would be interesting and quite true

Mars would probably become an independent planet sooner or later but it is not impossible that dictator countries from here could keep the Mars to themselves with an iron fist

[dogechode]

If memory serves, the gravity on mars is also much greater than that on the moon. This is a major factor that shouldn't be ignored. It affects people both physically and psychologically and makes a big difference in construction, safety, etc.

[dogechode]

A colony on Mars could do all kinds of other work that don't require delivery of a physical product in order to pay back the setup costs. They could write code, do research, etc... think a little wider than just "we take shiny metal from ground!"

This is true, but tertiary activities like this would only be sustainable if substantial primary (agriculture) and secondary (manufacturing etc.) economies already exist on the colony. If they don't, then either the vast majority of a colonist's time must be spent on subsistence, making them inefficient coders/scientists, or they must live off supplies sent from Earth. For people doing Mars research, the latter is a viable option because the colonists would be in a unique position, but are you going to hire a programmer or consultant etc. if you have to pay the transport cost for their food?

Lol naturally I did mean after substantial facilities were already in place. I'm saying like once the farms and power and air supply systems are all up and running smoothly, they could start to add colonists who do other functions to generate income for the colony, that don't require a physical product to be sent back to Earth.

There has also been a lot of support for a project to create a reality TV show about the first colonists on Mars, and the profits from that would be used to fund the colony.

They could also create art, I'm sure National Geographic and similar companies would pay a fortune for photos and videos of the martian landscape/terrain, etc the possibilities are definitely there if you think hard enough.

[Spendulus]

The moon is a dead rock. Mars is a PLANET with WATER. A base on the moon probably couldn't be self-sufficient for a long time, a base on mars could be the start of an entire secondary planet. They could terraform the planet, access the water supply, grow plants, turn it into a second earth more or less... the moon is mainly just strategic value.

Once a colony was established on Mars after some initial setup and supply periods it could easily become self-sustaining and even profitable. You wouldn't have to harvest materials and send them back to earth to make a return on the investment and please let's NOT DO THAT anyhow. What, we strip this planet dry and then rape another planet? That's not a good plan and then what happens when we strip mars dry? Better to learn how to make do with what we have, improve recycling and environmental cleanup technologies, etc.

A colony on Mars could do all kinds of other work that don't require delivery of a physical product in order to pay back the setup costs. They could write code, do research, etc... think a little wider than just "we take shiny metal from ground!"

What the hell are you talking about? The moon IS a dead rock, all it is good for is taking shiny metal from the ground.  That's 1/6 G, meaning the moon is where you get materials for outward bound, including your vision of Mars colonization.

Therefore, I can show how the Moon industry is profitable, while by nature of your comments about Mars becoming self sufficient and "Not sending materials back"....

I'm not seeing at all how Mars pays for itself...

Oh, final comment, Mars cannot become "Earth like" through terraforming.  No radiation belts to deflect solar wind, so no long term O2 buildup in the air.

[bryant.coleman]

Gravity on Mars is ~1/3g, compared to ~1/6g on the moon. Thus humans do better physiologically and psychologically on Mars, but construction and manufacturing are easier on the moon.

It also means that it's much cheaper to get into space from the moon than from Mars.

Because of the dangers from Cosmic radiation, the would-be settlers to Mars and Moon would be forced to wear space-suits all the time. How they are going to do better physiologically, when they are forced to wear the suits 24*7, continuously for many years?

[TheButterZone]

After listening to http://www.startalkradio.net/show/cosmic-queries-science-in-movies-and-tv/ I wondered, what would be the butter zone for moon reflectivity in relation to the earth, if it could be finely adjusted? For example, how reflective at full phase would it need to be, to provide sufficient light at night for most people to not need artificial illumination outside, but also not harm all life on earth?

[Wilikon]

The moon is a dead rock. Mars is a PLANET with WATER. A base on the moon probably couldn't be self-sufficient for a long time, a base on mars could be the start of an entire secondary planet. They could terraform the planet, access the water supply, grow plants, turn it into a second earth more or less... the moon is mainly just strategic value.

Once a colony was established on Mars after some initial setup and supply periods it could easily become self-sustaining and even profitable. You wouldn't have to harvest materials and send them back to earth to make a return on the investment and please let's NOT DO THAT anyhow. What, we strip this planet dry and then rape another planet? That's not a good plan and then what happens when we strip mars dry? Better to learn how to make do with what we have, improve recycling and environmental cleanup technologies, etc.

A colony on Mars could do all kinds of other work that don't require delivery of a physical product in order to pay back the setup costs. They could write code, do research, etc... think a little wider than just "we take shiny metal from ground!"

NASA-Funded Scientists Detect Water on Moon's Surface that Hints at Water Below


PASADENA - NASA-funded lunar research has yielded evidence of water locked in mineral grains on the surface of the moon from an unknown source deep beneath the surface. Using data from NASA's Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) instrument aboard the Indian Space Research Organization's Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft, scientists remotely detected magmatic water, or water that originates from deep within the moon's interior, on the surface of the moon.

The findings, published Aug. 25 in Nature Geoscience, represent the first detection of this form of water from lunar orbit. Earlier studies had shown the existence of magmatic water in lunar samples returned during NASA's Apollo program.

M3 imaged the lunar impact crater Bullialdus, which lies near the lunar equator. Scientists were interested in studying this area because they could better quantify the amount of water inside the rocks due to the crater's location and the type of rocks it held. The central peak of the crater is made up of a type of rock that forms deep within the lunar crust and mantle when magma is trapped underground.

"This rock, which normally resides deep beneath the surface, was excavated from the lunar depths by the impact that formed Bullialdus crater," said Rachel Klima, a planetary geologist at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) in Laurel, Md.

"Compared to its surroundings, we found that the central portion of this crater contains a significant amount of hydroxyl - a molecule consisting of one oxygen atom and one hydrogen atom -- which is evidence that the rocks in this crater contain water that originated beneath the lunar surface," Klima said.

In 2009, M3 provided the first mineralogical map of the lunar surface and discovered water molecules in the polar regions of the moon. This water is thought to be a thin layer formed from solar wind hitting the moon's surface. Bullialdus crater is in a region with an unfavorable environment for solar wind to produce significant amounts of water on the surface.

"NASA missions like Lunar Prospector and the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite and instruments like M3 have gathered crucial data that fundamentally changed our understanding of whether water exists on the surface of the moon," said S. Pete Worden, center director at NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif. "Similarly, we hope that upcoming NASA missions such as the Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer, or LADEE, will change our understanding of the lunar sky."

The detection of internal water from orbit means scientists can begin to test some of the findings from sample studies in a broader context, including in regions that are far from where the Apollo sites are clustered on the near side of the moon. For many years, researchers believed that the rocks from the moon were bone-dry and any water detected in the Apollo samples had to be contamination from Earth.

"Now that we have detected water that is likely from the interior of the moon, we can start to compare this water with other characteristics of the lunar surface," said Klima. "This internal magmatic water also provides clues about the moon's volcanic processes and internal composition, which helps us address questions about how the moon formed, and how magmatic processes changed as it cooled."

The Moon Mineralogy Mapper was selected as a Mission of Opportunity through the NASA Discovery Program. NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., designed and built the Moon Mineralogy Mapper and is home to its project manager, Mary White. JPL managed the program for NASA's Science Mission Directorate, Washington. Carle Pieters of Brown University, Providence, R.I., was the principal investigator. Joshua Cahill and David Lawrence of APL and Justin Hagerty of the U.S. Geological Survey's Astrogeology Science Center in Flagstaff, Ariz., co-authored the paper. The Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft was constructed, launched, and is operated by the Indian Space Research Organisation.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-262

[bryant.coleman]

Who is having this sort of money?

After discussions with potential suppliers for each component and close examination, Mars One estimates the cost of putting the first four people on Mars at six billion US$. The six billion figure is the cost of all the hardware combined, plus the operational expenditures, plus margins. For every next manned mission, Mars One estimates the costs at four billion US$.

[bryant.coleman]

This is a disadvantage of the moon. Mars has a persistent (albeit thin) atmosphere, the radiation dose on the surface is not significant. They would only need shielding on the outward trip.

As I have already stated, a one-way trip to Mars will take 18 months. I don't know whether the human body can endure that much cosmic radiation. No one has ever been exposed for that long.

[Nemo1024]

So why not just call it a HUMAN roadmap? All this nationalistic pride is getting on my nerves.

What if China decides to annex Vladivostok in retaliation for Russia's refusal to allow them to put "Made in China" stickers on the Russian rockets? How can scientists and mathematicians work in such a tense environment?

Mine as well. We are in complete agreement there. I see the future of space exploration only as a joint human venture.

The title of the thread comes from the nature of news announcement in the OP. I am glad that the discussion evolved to cover a much wider aspect.

[dogechode]

This is a disadvantage of the moon. Mars has a persistent (albeit thin) atmosphere, the radiation dose on the surface is not significant. They would only need shielding on the outward trip.

As I have already stated, a one-way trip to Mars will take 18 months. I don't know whether the human body can endure that much cosmic radiation. No one has ever been exposed for that long.

I don't know where you keep getting these ideas. First, they aren't going to send them across the galaxy in a plastic bubble, whatever ship they use would obviously be shielded. You keep saying they're going to get exposed to radiation like that hasn't been thoroughly discussed and addressed. The point is there would be MORE of a radiation problem on the moon.

Because of the dangers from Cosmic radiation, the would-be settlers to Mars and Moon would be forced to wear space-suits all the time. How they are going to do better physiologically, when they are forced to wear the suits 24*7, continuously for many years?

They would do better (psychologically and physiologically) on Mars than they would on the moon. Living in low gravity is not fun. Imagine eating, drinking, moving around, getting exercise, working in an environment where everything has to be strapped down, even taking a dump - in almost no gravity. Yeah not fun.

[Wilikon]

Last year, China announced that it plans to established a manned colony on the Moon as well. I wonder if the two nations would collaborate in this endeavour.

So why not just call it a HUMAN roadmap? All this nationalistic pride is getting on my nerves.

What if China decides to annex Vladivostok in retaliation for Russia's refusal to allow them to put "Made in China" stickers on the Russian rockets? How can scientists and mathematicians work in such a tense environment?

The HUMAN Olympiad? The HUMAN World Cup? The HUMAN Eurovision? All examples nationalistic pride.

[dogechode]

If it was a joint project they could call it the "International -----" like they did with the space station.

We tend to call things like this by the country that is behind it because we are all still at each others' throats and countries distrust each other (sadly, with good reason.) Everyone is paranoid that if the Russians or Chinese or Americans build a base on the moon they will use it as a military installation.

[FalconFly]

The current record for time spent in space on a single mission is 15 months - the astronaut in question is still alive at age 71 with no health problems.

The current record for cumulative time spent in space over multiple missions is 2.2 years. Sergei Krikalev is now 55, also with no health problems.

18 months isn't much of a stretch by comparison.

Bare in mind none of these long missions ever left earth magnetic field, which provided for the vast majority of radiation protection. The health of these persons (after returning to earth) was everything but stellar despite daily training - and required months of recovery (most credited to the effects of zero gravity).

Leave the earth magnetic protection and you're in entirely different waters, requiring massive shielding which noone has ever sent to space so far (not even anything close to it).
Everything in existence concerning this issue are mere design concepts not even proven to reliably work as desired. Whatever it will be, will require modular assembly in space due to the hefty mass we're talking.

PS.
That MarsOne design study image posted on the previous page wouldn't even afford safe passage to the moon in terms of radiation protection. An 18 months trip in that little critter would resemble a death sentence, in case of intensive solar flares likely to occur even during time-of-flight.

There are good reasons space-used computers are powered by old-gen, especially hardened and manufactured ICs and RAM components, which need to be built using old nanometer masks for robustness.
The radiation would easily and quickly interfere with and/or destroy the modern 22nm chip designs we're used to. The hardened designs are the only ones tough enough to withstand the radiation for a limited time, and even these need external shielding packages and redundancy to achieve their mission.
Not a smart plan trying all that on a human...

PPS.
That 6 Billion $ that I found mentioned somewhere in the thread are downright bizarre for a manned mars mission. Multiply it by at least 100x and you're getting into more realistic regions.

[dogechode]

That 6 Billion $ that I found mentioned somewhere in the thread are downright bizarre for a manned mars mission. Multiply it by at least 100x and you're getting into more realistic regions.

I think the one they are referring to was a plan to send like 4 or 6 people with very limited equipment and totally dependent on receiving continuous supplies from Earth. Then they would keep sending a few more people with additional equipment on subsequent trips and build up slowly. 6 billion could easily do the first leg of that. The only problem is I think they'd rape and kill each other about 2 months into the mission.

As far as the radiation - why can't we create shielding to prevent this? Why not construct a massive (and well shielded) ship IN SPACE, use a smaller ship to fly up to it (so you dont have to worry about getting the massive heavy ship out of the earth's gravity) then fly the giant ship to Mars orbit, and land in the smaller ship? It could be done.

[Spendulus]

That 6 Billion $ that I found mentioned somewhere in the thread are downright bizarre for a manned mars mission. Multiply it by at least 100x and you're getting into more realistic regions.

I think the one they are referring to was a plan to send like 4 or 6 people with very limited equipment and totally dependent on receiving continuous supplies from Earth. Then they would keep sending a few more people with additional equipment on subsequent trips and build up slowly. 6 billion could easily do the first leg of that. The only problem is I think they'd rape and kill each other about 2 months into the mission.

As far as the radiation - why can't we create shielding to prevent this? Why not construct a massive (and well shielded) ship IN SPACE, use a smaller ship to fly up to it (so you dont have to worry about getting the massive heavy ship out of the earth's gravity) then fly the giant ship to Mars orbit, and land in the smaller ship? It could be done.

Sure you can do that.  You just need to get the materials for the 'massive ship' from the moon.  And that puts you right back at robotic lunar exploitation as the primary and first goal necessary for solar system exploration and colonization.

But this is a self reinforcing cycle - as soon as you think in terms of "massive ships" then you need off-Earth fuel and oxygen generation systems.  That is only possible by decomposing lunar water deposits into h2 and o2.  We don't KNOW HOW to do that.  But the deposits are there, deep in craters within craters where the sun has never shined.   Crater Hermites, by the N. Lunar Pole.

Of course for ANY solar system exploration, if manned, these fuel and oxidizer supplies would be virtually necessary as opposed to lifting them off Earth in rockets.  But for trips of 8-18 months (Mars is 8 months, not 18, if the optimal orbital transfer is chosen) systems like
The Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR) are much preferred.

There has also been development recently of what is best dubbed a "force field" that would surround a spacecraft and protect it from the solar blasts.  Sort of like a miniature Van Allen belt.  

So we can learn to do these things in smart ways, if the research continues.  But we are not really there yet.  From my point of view there is nothing wrong with thinking in terms of 50-100 years for serious Mars exploration.  But that is so long a period of time for computer tech, that we may find our brains in machines on mars and the idea of capsules supporting meatspace being laughed at, long before the capabilities exist to easily get to such places. 

Mars, incidentally cannot support terraforming without first building some kind of planetary radiation shield like the Van Allen belts.  In their absence, O2 strips to ions recombines and is carried off into space.  If Mars were given a 3 psi atmosphere mostly O2, in ten thousand years it would be lost to space.  Very interesting place, for sure, but if we humans go there, we go there with our meatspace cans and suits.

[dogechode]

Well initially they would have to build structures to live and work in, and use suits any time they go outside. Clearly they aren't going to be able to terraform it in a matter of months; it would take decades at least. But also it would be a big step to just get started already.

[bryant.coleman]

Well initially they would have to build structures to live and work in, and use suits any time they go outside. Clearly they aren't going to be able to terraform it in a matter of months; it would take decades at least. But also it would be a big step to just get started already.

Not only it will take months of time, but also it will take tens of thousands of workers as well. The cost of transporting 3 astronauts to Mars stands at $100 billion. Imagine the cost of transporting tens of thousands of them. 

[Balthazar]

This is a disadvantage of the moon. Mars has a persistent (albeit thin) atmosphere, the radiation dose on the surface is not significant. They would only need shielding on the outward trip.

As I have already stated, a one-way trip to Mars will take 18 months. I don't know whether the human body can endure that much cosmic radiation. No one has ever been exposed for that long.

There are combinations of genes which have enhanced resistance to ionizing radiation. If radiation level in your environment is greater than average, then natural selection of resistant combinations will happen.

There are many examples... Citizens of northern Iran (Ramsar city) are constantly exposed with gamma radiation at level ~4 mR/h which is ~4 times higher that average level of gamma radiation on the Chernobyl NPP (~1.2 mR/h on the roof of the sarcophagus over a former 4th reactor building). These people are resistant to these levels of radiation, their blood demonstrates an absence of pathologic changes even at much higher levels of exposition dose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Mazandaran
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Ramsar_radiation.jpg

According to the results of the experiment on voles in Chernobyl, ~26 generations is required for adaptation of regular population. So it seems that it would be cheaper to find resistant combinations and use them for this mission.

[dogechode]

Reproduction in space or on the moon/Mars may also be a problem. They have done experiments at the space station (obviously not with humans) that have shown that the lack of gravity in space appears to cause some real problems for a developing fetus. It isn't clear yet whether low gravity will have the same issues.

[supernovax]

Reproduction in space or on the moon/Mars may also be a problem. They have done experiments at the space station (obviously not with humans) that have shown that the lack of gravity in space appears to cause some real problems for a developing fetus. It isn't clear yet whether low gravity will have the same issues.

Why not use artificial gravity? The gravity in moon is 1/6th of earth and in mars 2/3rd. I think 2/3 is not a problem.

[bryant.coleman]

Why not use artificial gravity? The gravity in moon is 1/6th of earth and in mars 2/3rd. I think 2/3 is not a problem.

Artificial gravity is achieved through either using the centripetal force or the linear acceleration. Both have their own disadvantages and both can cause health issues in the long term.

[Schleicher]

spin at the right speed and your body would have no way of telling that it wasn't on Earth

Yeah, but that's only true for big structures, like 1km diameter.
Otherwise your head will feel a different gravity that your feet.
Or you will fall over if you try to lace your shoes.
Something like this would be nice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_torus

[Spendulus]

spin at the right speed and your body would have no way of telling that it wasn't on Earth

Yeah, but that's only true for big structures, like 1km diameter.
Otherwise your head will feel a different gravity that your feet.
Or you will fall over if you try to lace your shoes.
Something like this would be nice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_torus

Yes, this is quite possible.  First the Lunar robot exploitation systems.  From your link.



The torus would require nearly 10 million tons of mass. Construction would use materials extracted from the Moon and sent to space using a mass driver. A mass catcher at L2 would collect the materials, transporting them to L5 where they could be processed in an industrial facility to construct the torus. Only materials that could not be obtained from the Moon would have to be imported from Earth. Asteroid mining was an alternative source of materials.[10]
General characteristics

    Location: Earth–Moon L5 Lagrangian point
    Total mass: 10 million tons (including radiation shield (95%), habitat, and atmosphere)...

[bryant.coleman]

Can you expand on the disadvantages? (apart from all the disadvantages associated with large mechanical systems)
And health problems? An accelerating reference frame is physically (not just biologically) indistinguishable from a gravitational field - spin at the right speed and your body would have no way of telling that it wasn't on Earth, so no long term health effects.

Here:

Yeah, but that's only true for big structures, like 1km diameter.
Otherwise your head will feel a different gravity that your feet.

I don't think that a space shuttle with 1 km diameter can be ever constructed. Even if such as structure is some how constructed, it will be near impossible to take it to the Mars.

[Balthazar]

It's obvious that such structures should be built directly in the space... Using parts delivered from the earth.

[supernovax]

You only need the rotate where the astronaut stays. And you don't need to create a 1km circumference structure, only part of it. The only important is its 1km from the center of rotation to the other end where the astronauts stays and have it attached to the main spacecraft and have it rotate. The main spacecraft will not rotate only the living module. With this design you can even make 10km from the center of rotation to the living module with way less material.

[bryant.coleman]

You only need the rotate where the astronaut stays. And you don't need to create a 1km circumference structure, only part of it. The only important is its 1km from the center of rotation to the other end where the astronauts stays and have it attached to the main spacecraft and have it rotate. The main spacecraft will not rotate only the living module. With this design you can even make 10km from the center of rotation to the living module with way less material.

But still it will be a huge structure, unlike anything which has been built so far. And also, how to make it rotate? It will be a hell of a task to get this giant structure rotate at the right pace!

[dogechode]

What's funny to me is all the moon nuts that keep trying to respond to every single idea by saying "See! that's why you need a moon base!" We wouldn't HAVE to use the moon to build things in space, you just want a damn excuse to build a colony up there. The problem is everyone there would go freaking nuts and want to go back to earth and that's going to be a problem after their bodies have atrophied and lost bone mass from being in extremely low gravity for months/years.

[Spendulus]

What's funny to me is all the moon nuts that keep trying to respond to every single idea by saying "See! that's why you need a moon base!" We wouldn't HAVE to use the moon to build things in space, you just want a damn excuse to build a colony up there. The problem is everyone there would go freaking nuts and want to go back to earth and that's going to be a problem after their bodies have atrophied and lost bone mass from being in extremely low gravity for months/years.

Actually, you missed my point.  I've used the phrase "robotic moon exploitation" and see little use in a human presence on the moon.

[supernovax]

Manned mars mission or asteroid mining is very hard and very expensive without moon exploitation or space elevator.

[Kiki112]

Manned mars mission or asteroid mining is very hard and very expensive without moon exploitation or space elevator.

but couldn't it pay itself out?

[dogechode]

Manned mars mission or asteroid mining is very hard and very expensive without moon exploitation or space elevator.

I don't see how they're related. A few people keep trying to force the argument that like the moon is some necessary precursor to a mars mission. It isn't. Whatever it would cost to get some kind of moon base, whether manned or completely automatic (which I seriously doubt could be possible any time soon, it would break down all the time and need people to fix things) anyways whatever it would cost, it must be cheaper to just go straight to mars. I think given the right planning, they could build a lot of what they need on site. Sure we'd need to send some very complex things and starter supplies but I still see no reason why some moon base needs to come first.

[bryant.coleman]

but couldn't it pay itself out?

Even if they are mining the most expensive metal on earth, the trip would be uneconomical (it will cost around $100 billion, equivalent to some 5,000 tonnes of gold). 

[dogechode]

but couldn't it pay itself out?

Even if they are mining the most expensive metal on earth, the trip would be uneconomical (it will cost around $100 billion, equivalent to some 5,000 tonnes of gold). 

Another point I haven't mentioned is that I don't view Mars colonization as only worthwhile if it produces a return in terms of financial gain. Frankly I think colonizing Mars is a necessary and urgent step for the human race. We are going to run out of room on Earth sooner than later and the risk of an extinction level event (asteroid hit, nuclear war, virus, who knows??) means we really need to expand and not keep the entire race in one basket so to speak.

[newbegin]

Hm... I think a one way ticket to mars is possible right now.  But I think mars is in worst condition than earth.

[bryant.coleman]

We are going to run out of room on Earth sooner than later and the risk of an extinction level event (asteroid hit, nuclear war, virus, who knows??) means we really need to expand and not keep the entire race in one basket so to speak.

I don't think that there is an immediate threat to human existence. There are a large number of scarcely populated nations around the world, such as Russia and Brazil. Even China can sustain a lot more people than it is having right now. Also, the world population will stabilize sometime in 2050, and will start declining after that.

[Spendulus]

but couldn't it pay itself out?

Even if they are mining the most expensive metal on earth, the trip would be uneconomical (it will cost around $100 billion, equivalent to some 5,000 tonnes of gold). 

Another point I haven't mentioned is that I don't view Mars colonization as only worthwhile if it produces a return in terms of financial gain. Frankly I think colonizing Mars is a necessary and urgent step for the human race. We are going to run out of room on Earth sooner than later and the risk of an extinction level event (asteroid hit, nuclear war, virus, who knows??) means we really need to expand and not keep the entire race in one basket so to speak.

Creating a human presence off Earth does not necessarily mean and should not necessarily mean Mars, read up on O'Neil colonies. 

Creating a human presence off Earth means having ... somewhere ... serious building capabilities, like the ability to build spaceships, motors and tanks.

[dogechode]

I don't think that there is an immediate threat to human existence. There are a large number of scarcely populated nations around the world, such as Russia and Brazil. Even China can sustain a lot more people than it is having right now. Also, the world population will stabilize sometime in 2050, and will start declining after that.

There are many scarcely populated ares in Russian and China where people don't want to live. Yes those countries are huge but much of their land is tundra, desert, etc and not desirable.

I don't buy that the population is going to start declining any time soon. Life expectancy keeps going up and the classes that have more children per family seem to be growing faster than the classes that have 0-2 children per family. Medicine is advancing at an alarming rate and we are already having problems paying for medical care because people just aren't dying like they used to.

Creating a human presence off Earth does not necessarily mean and should not necessarily mean Mars, read up on O'Neil colonies. 

Creating a human presence off Earth means having ... somewhere ... serious building capabilities, like the ability to build spaceships, motors and tanks.

That is a valid point though I am not sure if I have heard of O'Neil colonies. Can you post a link or two and/or a basic explanation of O'Neil colonies?

[supernovax]

We are going to run out of room on Earth sooner than later and the risk of an extinction level event (asteroid hit, nuclear war, virus, who knows??) means we really need to expand and not keep the entire race in one basket so to speak.

I don't think that there is an immediate threat to human existence. There are a large number of scarcely populated nations around the world, such as Russia and Brazil. Even China can sustain a lot more people than it is having right now. Also, the world population will stabilize sometime in 2050, and will start declining after that.

You don't know for sure. Like a super volcano eruption, nuclear war, based on scientist experiments a 100 nuclear explosions in one day can make enough dust to block the sun and cause nuclear winter for ten years, and the reflected light can destroy the ozone, imagine thousands of nuclear bombs it will kill us all. Don't forget asteroids and comets and many other calamities that make the humans instinct in an instant.

[Balthazar]

but couldn't it pay itself out?

Even if they are mining the most expensive metal on earth, the trip would be uneconomical (it will cost around $100 billion, equivalent to some 5,000 tonnes of gold). 

Uranium and thorium are pretty costly, so mining of these metals could be economical. But transportation of uranium and thorium will be costly too, due to high density... So it seems that gauss guns should be used as a part of transportation system. And of course, some work is  required to lower the cost of transportation.

[bryant.coleman]

I don't buy that the population is going to start declining any time soon. Life expectancy keeps going up and the classes that have more children per family seem to be growing faster than the classes that have 0-2 children per family.

I disagree with this. The life expectancy in many of the European nations have reached a saturation point. It is no longer possible to raise it significantly. And the past decade had seen birth rates declining everywhere on earth, be it Africa, Asia, Europe or America. Almost all the continents (with the exception of Africa) has attained sub-replacement level fertility.

[supernovax]

but couldn't it pay itself out?

Even if they are mining the most expensive metal on earth, the trip would be uneconomical (it will cost around $100 billion, equivalent to some 5,000 tonnes of gold). 

Uneconomical at first but once we started mining asteroids, we will be using those asteroids to build spacecrafts, robots, machines, orbiting cities, space elevator and for fuels.That would cut the cost drastically to very minimum. Most of that $100 billion cost is for bringing that needed parts to orbit.

[Spendulus]

I don't think that there is an immediate threat to human existence. There are a large number of scarcely populated nations around the world, such as Russia and Brazil. Even China can sustain a lot more people than it is having right now. Also, the world population will stabilize sometime in 2050, and will start declining after that.

There are many scarcely populated ares in Russian and China where people don't want to live. Yes those countries are huge but much of their land is tundra, desert, etc and not desirable.

I don't buy that the population is going to start declining any time soon. Life expectancy keeps going up and the classes that have more children per family seem to be growing faster than the classes that have 0-2 children per family. Medicine is advancing at an alarming rate and we are already having problems paying for medical care because people just aren't dying like they used to.

Creating a human presence off Earth does not necessarily mean and should not necessarily mean Mars, read up on O'Neil colonies.  

Creating a human presence off Earth means having ... somewhere ... serious building capabilities, like the ability to build spaceships, motors and tanks.

That is a valid point though I am not sure if I have heard of O'Neil colonies. Can you post a link or two and/or a basic explanation of O'Neil colonies?

yeah it is basically a self sustaining artificial world built and placed at the L4 or L5 lagrange points in lunar orbit.  

http://www.nss.org/settlement/space/oneillcylinder.htm

The basic method here is to use a lunar railgun to lob materials to the L4 or L5 point.  These are unique locations in the Earth Moon system which are truly gravity neutral, so anything there, stays there forever.  A projectile shot off the Moon at the right velocity will reach the L4 point, continually losing velocity due to the lunar gravity, and will reach zero velocity at the L4 point.  Thus, a very large amount of building material could be accumulated there.  Think Legos.

That's not the whole solution, though.  O2, N2, C2, H2 and other elements which are the stuff of life, but which are extremely scarce on the Moon, would need to be also accumulated.   These are believed to be at the lunar poles in some few areas and to be possibly recoverable.

Think along the lines of a hundred year project.  A 100kg projectile shot each hour for ten years is 8,640 tons.

By contrast the total mass of equipment from Earth on the Moon after what, 50 some years? 

Between 20 and 30 tons.

[general lee]

Russians should repair roads first

[bryant.coleman]

Russians should repair roads first

Have you ever been to Russia? The Russian roads are in a much better state, compared to those in your home state (Alabama).

Here is a pic from Alabama:

[jinjuro]

Russians should repair roads first

No need they have powerful trucks and brave drivers. They can even cross a flooded river without using a bridge.

[Nemo1024]

Something new cropped up on this topic!

Russia will begin Moon colonization in 2030 - draft space program
http://rt.com/news/157800-russia-moon-colonization-plan/

“We are going to the Moon forever,” the Russian Deputy PM said in April, and it was not just empty words. It appears Russia does plan to colonize the Moon by 2030 and the first stage of the ambitious project may start as soon as two years from now.

“Moon is a space object of the future reclamation by Earth civilization, and in XXI century there might be a geopolitical competition for lunar natural resources,” the authors of the draft project state in the opening line.

[Spendulus]

Something new cropped up on this topic!

Russia will begin Moon colonization in 2030 - draft space program
http://rt.com/news/157800-russia-moon-colonization-plan/

“We are going to the Moon forever,” the Russian Deputy PM said in April, and it was not just empty words. It appears Russia does plan to colonize the Moon by 2030 and the first stage of the ambitious project may start as soon as two years from now.

“Moon is a space object of the future reclamation by Earth civilization, and in XXI century there might be a geopolitical competition for lunar natural resources,” the authors of the draft project state in the opening line.

What this is basically all about is deposits of water and possibly other volatiles deep in craters at the Lunar N and S Pole.  Think in terms of places that are colder than any other measured location in the Solar System, and which have never seen sunlight - direct or reflected!

A national entity could attempt to claim these deposits.  We don't know how extensive they are, so someone going and making three or four claims could possibly grab the largest part of the deposits.  Maybe.

What water means is rocket fuel - the ability to create H2 and O2.  It also means help in supporting humans but mainly it's the fuel.  Stepping stone to Mars sound good but isn't really logical, easier to go direct.  Delta V to Mars is actually less than to the Moon, because for the Moon you need rocket braking to land.

[Littleshop]

Well, those "buckets on wheels" are still serving humanity. Scientists managed to locate them and use their reflectors to triangulate and measure precise distance shifts between Moon and Earth.

Why not use the reflectors put out there on purpose by Apollo?  Oh yea, that is what they used to measure the distance!

[Littleshop]

How Russia could strangle the US space program

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/140324/nasa-russia-sanctions-rocket-rd-180-atlas-v

The US relies heavily on Russia to furnish the engines that power rockets that deliver both military and civil payloads into space. This includes GPS systems in cars and cellphones, and even systems that allow ATMs to function. Weather satellites are launched into space via Russian-powered rockets, and military systems such as early missile detection also depend on our friends in Moscow. In addition, since NASA scrapped the space shuttle program in 2011, the US has to rely on Russian Soyuz capsules to get its astronauts to the space station and to bring them back home.

One of the things Americans may dislike very much indeed is a possible ban on the sale of RD-180 engines to the US under a contract with Russian manufacturer NPO Energomash. The RD-180 powers the Atlas V rocket, the main launch vehicle used to get US military and civil payloads into space.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2602291/We-coming-Moon-FOREVER-Russia-sets-plans-conquer-colonise-space-including-permanent-manned-moon-base.html

The West fears Russia is poised to invade Ukraine, but it seems the Kremlin has a bigger conquest in its sights - the Moon. Moscow today set out plans to conquer and colonise space, including a permanent manned moon base. Deputy premier Dmitry Rogozin said: 'We are coming to the moon forever.'

US companies can build the RD-180 and the companies that use it have a two year supply already.  The problem is that it COSTS MORE to make it locally then the Russians charge for it.  It is a cost issue only.  Russia has no magic technology in the RD-180 that the west does not understand. 

The Atlas V is a political rocket.  SpaceX can replace it for less money but is blocked mostly for political reasons.   The biggest weakness in the US space program is politics not technology or know how.

[Spendulus]

...
US companies can build the RD-180 and the companies that use it have a two year supply already.  The problem is that it COSTS MORE to make it locally then the Russians charge for it.  It is a cost issue only.  Russia has no magic technology in the RD-180 that the west does not understand. 

The Atlas V is a political rocket.  SpaceX can replace it for less money but is blocked mostly for political reasons.   The biggest weakness in the US space program is politics not technology or know how.

This is correct.  Building a rocket motor is simply advanced machine shop work.  We have those.  And the RD-180 is not anywhere near some really advanced motor.  The SpaceX motors have significant advantages and are far cheaper.  But that is likely because SpaceX motors are not built in a government program.

RD-180 motors are built in a government program (Russian) and are cheaper because of lower labor costs and lower taxes.

[niothor]

Russians should repair roads first

Have you ever been to Russia? The Russian roads are in a much better state, compared to those in your home state (Alabama).

Here is a pic from Alabama:

You mean like this one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3-r22od-zI

[dogechode]

As soon as commercial space companies pick up steam the US should easily surpass Russia in terms of space technology. Frankly I think we are still ahead but it won't even be close. American private corporations will be far more effective than Russian government bodies that are rife with corruption and quality control issues (Those last two items are not my opinions, those are facts. Russia has a serious problem with corruption in military technology and development and they struggle with quality issues.)

Now, American government-funded programs do suffer from the same issues but American corporations suffer less than Russian ones do in that respect. Russian corps are far more interwoven with the government than their American counterparts are.

[Nemo1024]

As soon as commercial space companies pick up steam the US should easily surpass Russia in terms of space technology. Frankly I think we are still ahead but it won't even be close. American private corporations will be far more effective than Russian government bodies that are rife with corruption and quality control issues (Those last two items are not my opinions, those are facts. Russia has a serious problem with corruption in military technology and development and they struggle with quality issues.)

Now, American government-funded programs do suffer from the same issues but American corporations suffer less than Russian ones do in that respect. Russian corps are far more interwoven with the government than their American counterparts are.

dogechode, I agree with your entire post, save for the last sentence. You could say that American corps are the government acting through a series of middlemen.

[FalconFly]

As soon as commercial space companies pick up steam the US should easily surpass Russia in terms of space technology. Frankly I think we are still ahead but it won't even be close. American private corporations will be far more effective than Russian government bodies that are rife with corruption and quality control issues (Those last two items are not my opinions, those are facts. Russia has a serious problem with corruption in military technology and development and they struggle with quality issues.)

Now, American government-funded programs do suffer from the same issues but American corporations suffer less than Russian ones do in that respect. Russian corps are far more interwoven with the government than their American counterparts are.

Right now commercial space companies face the same problem as almost all companies - global economy is slowing down, credit is drying up and the whole debt wall is in danger of eventually collapsing.
That means things will not pick up steam - they'll rather grind to a complete halt instead, unless they find a way to become profitable.

Money is hard to come by these days and it will only get harder in the forseeable future. The US lost the technology race about 1-2 decades ago in many respects with only isolated lighttower projects that still stand out (as a direct result of the ill-fated US policy priorities). Today, the US is doomed as a comsumer nation either of eastern/european technology (hightech) or going the cheap route with sub-par equipment. Some domestic products are availble but those either carry an extreme price tag or lack the technology (direct result of vastly insufficient funding during the last decades).
These handicaps could be countered but that would need lots of money and even more time... and that's something money can't buy in unlimited amounts.

Oh, and btw. the US military industrial complex with its strong government collusion is about the most corrupt entity besides its even larger energy and financial complex. All of them are struggling with severe quality issues (albeit with the military still standing the most effective to this date, except their quality equipment is extremely expensive and nearly impossible to operate & maintain financially over the next decade). But again, that's a government policy issue. And that policy is of a very classic and earthly nature, in a mentally sick kind of way.

When it comes to big bucks, only the US government supported companies would still have the ability for large-scale operations in space (industrial sized) within the United States - however, US government doesn't care about space for as long as it isn't a) extremely lucrative or of b) strategic military benefit in order to accept the financial risks of entering large projects.
In short : if it can't deliver a strategic resource or effectively bomb other nations - they won't invest a single penny in it outside some symbolic PR stunts.

[Littleshop]

As soon as commercial space companies pick up steam the US should easily surpass Russia in terms of space technology. Frankly I think we are still ahead but it won't even be close. American private corporations will be far more effective than Russian government bodies that are rife with corruption and quality control issues (Those last two items are not my opinions, those are facts. Russia has a serious problem with corruption in military technology and development and they struggle with quality issues.)

Now, American government-funded programs do suffer from the same issues but American corporations suffer less than Russian ones do in that respect. Russian corps are far more interwoven with the government than their American counterparts are.

Right now commercial space companies face the same problem as almost all companies - global economy is slowing down, credit is drying up and the whole debt wall is in danger of eventually collapsing.
That means things will not pick up steam - they'll rather grind to a complete halt instead, unless they find a way to become profitable.

Money is hard to come by these days and it will only get harder in the forseeable future. The US lost the technology race about 1-2 decades ago in many respects with only isolated lighttower projects that still stand out (as a direct result of the ill-fated US policy priorities). Today, the US is doomed as a comsumer nation either of eastern/european technology (hightech) or going the cheap route with sub-par equipment. Some domestic products are availble but those either carry an extreme price tag or lack the technology (direct result of vastly insufficient funding during the last decades).
These handicaps could be countered but that would need lots of money and even more time... and that's something money can't buy in unlimited amounts.

Oh, and btw. the US military industrial complex with its strong government collusion is about the most corrupt entity besides its even larger energy and financial complex. All of them are struggling with severe quality issues (albeit with the military still standing the most effective to this date, except their quality equipment is extremely expensive and nearly impossible to operate & maintain financially over the next decade). But again, that's a government policy issue. And that policy is of a very classic and earthly nature, in a mentally sick kind of way.

When it comes to big bucks, only the US government supported companies would still have the ability for large-scale operations in space (industrial sized) within the United States - however, US government doesn't care about space for as long as it isn't a) extremely lucrative or of b) strategic military benefit in order to accept the financial risks of entering large projects.
In short : if it can't deliver a strategic resource or effectively bomb other nations - they won't invest a single penny in it outside some symbolic PR stunts.

SpaceX is profitable right now without any reuse of rocket parts.  Most people think SpaceX is on the verge of being able to reuse the first stage of their rocket which will cut the cost of flight down (for them) nearly 50%.  9 out of 10 rocket engines are in the first stage.

As SpaceX increases its launch rate and gets re-use going it will have the highest profit in the rocket industry bar none.  SpaceX will also have the highest operational payload to orbit with the Falcon Heavy which is not much more then a ganged version of a rocket they are already flying.  This is possible because they have mastered LOW COST liquid propulsion and have gone away from lower tech solid rockets. 

[Nemo1024]

Hmm... Freeing resources?

Permanently manned ISS could end in 2020
http://rt.com/news/161632-iss-rogozin-effective-output/

Man in orbit might become history after 2020, as Russia sees no need to keep the ISS operating, announced Vice Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin. Manned flights make little profit for Russia’s space agency, which might focus on other projects.

Russia’s Roskosmos space corporation gets little commercial payback from the International Space Station despite spending up to 30 percent of its annual budget on the project, said Rogozin, who is also responsible for the defence industry.

“Our profit is flat low… so we see no business interest in it [going on with the ISS]. Would there be other commercial proposals [we’d consider them],” Rogozin said.

Also, there is an interesting sideline in the article:

If there is no reaction from the US by May 31, the GPS stations will suspend operation for the next three months. If that does not help either, the operation of GSM stations in Russia will cease to exist by August 31, Rogozin promised, adding that this will not interfere with ordinary users of the system in Russia, because the information collected by these stations is being used primarily by the US military and national security agencies.

“These [GSM] stations are situated primarily alongside the Northern Sea Route and it is a big question why they were deployed on our territory in the mid-1990s and for what purpose,” the Deputy PM said, stressing that once the stations are gone, “the American military would feel the difference, whereas Russian GSM users would not.”

[commandrix]

These are the guys who lost the race to the Moon and then denied that they were ever involved in the Space Race. These are the guys who want to "recycle" their part of the International Space Station into their own orbital station so they can turn it into the same kind of junkyard that Mir turned into. Actually, colonizing the Moon could be done if you wanted to reach back into the NASA files for the Apollo technology, modernize it, and basically do what they wanted to do with Apollo Applications with an eye towards colonization. Does anybody with a few billion dollars to spare want to fill out a Freedom of Information Act request?

[Nemo1024]

Mir was actually a brilliant station - far ahead of its time (and NASA acknowledges it http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4225/mir/mir.htm ), and based on Saljut stations research.
Space race. The Moon was there as a target, but at the same time Soviet Union was very heavily investing into rover technology - ahead of US, with the sights set on Martian exploration. That was the initial objective. SU accepted the Lunar challenge after the Apollo program was announced, diverting engineering resources from the Martian program. The result was that neither program got gull attention and both dwindled.

And more interesting reading here:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/spacecraft_manned_salyut.html

[kuroman]

too bad the article is in Russian so I'll just make my assumption here, I think that this is a study and draft plan like you can find at any big space agency. I think Russia is on a good road when it comes to space program their space agency budget is increasing dramatically every year, as well as the chinese program, so we are bound to see some interesting stuff happening in the next decade or so

[commandrix]

Yeah, Mir sure lasted a long time. But ask Jerry M. Linenger, an astronaut who served on Mir, and he would probably tell you about the time there was a fire on board. The place was full of trash because the Russians basically weren't providing garbage hauling service. I don't think too many people cried when it finally came down.

[Nemo1024]

ISS saw it's fair share of accidents as well. This stuff does happen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station_maintenance

[kuroman]

SpaceX is profitable right now without any reuse of rocket parts.  Most people think SpaceX is on the verge of being able to reuse the first stage of their rocket which will cut the cost of flight down (for them) nearly 50%.  9 out of 10 rocket engines are in the first stage.

As SpaceX increases its launch rate and gets re-use going it will have the highest profit in the rocket industry bar none.  SpaceX will also have the highest operational payload to orbit with the Falcon Heavy which is not much more then a ganged version of a rocket they are already flying.  This is possible because they have mastered LOW COST liquid propulsion and have gone away from lower tech solid rockets.  

50% is not a realistic figure, not to mention how previous american programs that were based on reusing parts failled hard so what would make SpaceX any different (usually the parts are either lost, are way too damaged to be resused...? also spaceX program is very limited in terms of capacity right now, maybe things will change when the Falcom Heavy rocket is operational.

But I like the principal of the Falcom rocket, simplifying things make them cheaper and more reliable, hence cost efficient

[Spendulus]

ISS saw it's fair share of accidents as well. This stuff does happen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station_maintenance

Regarding the Moon, though, it is ripe for nations to exploit with fully robotic machines in large numbers.  The development and deployment of such equipment would enormously accelerate AI and robotics.

However at present we have no clue how to operate through the heat of a lunar day or the cold of a lunar night.  From this aspect Mars is much, much friendlier.

[sana8410]

The problem is that if anyone starts messing with the Moon, drilling/fracking, storing nuclear waste, etc. this could damage the moon in such away that it could severely damage the earth. Remember, the moon is not like the earth and does not have the ability to repair itself.

[Spendulus]

The problem is that if anyone starts messing with the Moon, drilling/fracking, storing nuclear waste, etc. this could damage the moon in such away that it could severely damage the earth. Remember, the moon is not like the earth and does not have the ability to repair itself.

I have no idea what you might be talking about or if you are joking.

The Moon is really nothing more than one big mining pit, if you look at the actual minerals and their geographical dispersion.

It's not even pretty.

[dogechode]

The problem is that if anyone starts messing with the Moon, drilling/fracking, storing nuclear waste, etc. this could damage the moon in such away that it could severely damage the earth. Remember, the moon is not like the earth and does not have the ability to repair itself.

I have no idea what you might be talking about or if you are joking.

The Moon is really nothing more than one big mining pit, if you look at the actual minerals and their geographical dispersion.

It's not even pretty.

I think he is referring to the fact that the moon has many documented effects on the earth. If I recall correctly it affects ocean tides quite a bit, and the amount of light it reflects impacts a lot of plant and animals at night. So yes, 'messing with' the moon could have a very real impact on the earth.

[bryant.coleman]

I think he is referring to the fact that the moon has many documented effects on the earth. If I recall correctly it affects ocean tides quite a bit, and the amount of light it reflects impacts a lot of plant and animals at night. So yes, 'messing with' the moon could have a very real impact on the earth.

Unless the moon changes its shape or changes its rotation path around the earth, there will be no additional impact on the earth. And right now, with the current technology, humans are unable to do something as drastic as that. Putting up a settlement on the lunar surface will not impact the life on earth in any big way. 

[stompix]

I think he is referring to the fact that the moon has many documented effects on the earth. If I recall correctly it affects ocean tides quite a bit, and the amount of light it reflects impacts a lot of plant and animals at night. So yes, 'messing with' the moon could have a very real impact on the earth.

Unless the moon changes its shape or changes its rotation path around the earth, there will be no additional impact on the earth. And right now, with the current technology, humans are unable to do something as drastic as that. Putting up a settlement on the lunar surface will not impact the life on earth in any big way. 

A settlement maybe , but what if we go back on testing things on the moon?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_A119

If something bigger would go out of control , probably we would end u with half a moon all the year.

[Spendulus]

I think he is referring to the fact that the moon has many documented effects on the earth. If I recall correctly it affects ocean tides quite a bit, and the amount of light it reflects impacts a lot of plant and animals at night. So yes, 'messing with' the moon could have a very real impact on the earth.

Unless the moon changes its shape or changes its rotation path around the earth, there will be no additional impact on the earth. And right now, with the current technology, humans are unable to do something as drastic as that. Putting up a settlement on the lunar surface will not impact the life on earth in any big way. 

A settlement maybe , but what if we go back on testing things on the moon?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_A119

If something bigger would go out of control , probably we would end u with half a moon all the year.

Atomic bombs are puny nanoscale things compared to something the size of the Earth or the Moon. 

To give an idea of the scale of things, mining one square kilometer of the moon's surface and extracting from the first couple meters aluminum and titanium would give us more of these two metals than is produced over the entire Earth in a year. 

[stompix]

I think he is referring to the fact that the moon has many documented effects on the earth. If I recall correctly it affects ocean tides quite a bit, and the amount of light it reflects impacts a lot of plant and animals at night. So yes, 'messing with' the moon could have a very real impact on the earth.

Unless the moon changes its shape or changes its rotation path around the earth, there will be no additional impact on the earth. And right now, with the current technology, humans are unable to do something as drastic as that. Putting up a settlement on the lunar surface will not impact the life on earth in any big way. 

A settlement maybe , but what if we go back on testing things on the moon?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_A119

If something bigger would go out of control , probably we would end u with half a moon all the year.

Atomic bombs are puny nanoscale things compared to something the size of the Earth or the Moon. 

To give an idea of the scale of things, mining one square kilometer of the moon's surface and extracting from the first couple meters aluminum and titanium would give us more of these two metals than is produced over the entire Earth in a year. 

By the time we reach the moon , atomic bombs might be nanoscale things compared to weapons the army is hiding.

Maybe the next generation "terrorist" will ram the moon to the earth instead of flying a plane into a building

[Nemo1024]

Maybe the next generation "terrorist" will ram the moon to the earth instead of flying a plane into a building

Now, now, don't you start giving "them" any ideas..

[stompix]

Maybe the next generation "terrorist" will ram the moon to the earth instead of flying a plane into a building

Now, now, don't you start giving "them" any ideas..

Did my best on google searching for a conspiracy about ramming the moon into the earth plan but didn't find anything.
I've thought people already had an idea who this might be possible.

Something about nibiru but nothing about the moon itself.

[Nemo1024]

Long ago I read a science fiction novel, where Moon colony proclains independence and leaves Earth orbit. Don't remember what's it called and who the author was, though. Reminds of some of the current events.

[Schleicher]

Long ago I read a science fiction novel, where Moon colony proclains independence and leaves Earth orbit. Don't remember what's it called and who the author was, though.

I can only remember this:
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
But they are not leaving earth orbit there
Other story where the moon is leaving earth orbit:
Mutineer's Moon

[Spendulus]

Long ago I read a science fiction novel, where Moon colony proclains independence and leaves Earth orbit. Don't remember what's it called and who the author was, though.

I can only remember this:
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
But they are not leaving earth orbit there
Other story where the moon is leaving earth orbit:
Mutineer's Moon

I guess we could first grab a magnetic 100Km size rock, ram it into the Moon to give it a magnetic pole, then motor on down close to the Earth to scoop up some of that very useful air, water, dirt, ice, fish, birds and maybe a few humanoids, then cruise on off to a selected orbit.  

[kuroman]

the Moon can't hold an atmosphere because of the lack of gravity, you need to artificially put a container for that, having a magnetic field helps against solar winds that erodes higher part of atmosphere into space, I think that before thinking too far, a first step would be getting there and doing it on a consistant basis to do scientific research and study the potentiel of our rocky neighbour

[stompix]

the Moon can't hold an atmosphere because of the lack of gravity, you need to artificially put a container for that, having a magnetic field helps against solar winds that erodes higher part of atmosphere into space, I think that before thinking too far, a first step would be getting there and doing it on a consistant basis to do scientific research and study the potentiel of our rocky neighbour

Lack of gravity?
Before posting anything else you should check your sources better. The moon has it's own gravity roughly 16% compared to earth.

[Spendulus]

the Moon can't hold an atmosphere because of the lack of gravity, you need to artificially put a container for that, having a magnetic field helps against solar winds that erodes higher part of atmosphere into space, I think that before thinking too far, a first step would be getting there and doing it on a consistant basis to do scientific research and study the potentiel of our rocky neighbour

Lack of gravity?
Before posting anything else you should check your sources better. The moon has it's own gravity roughly 16% compared to earth.

It'd be kind of interesting to send all of our unwanted rejects there.  Criminals, political undesirables, cryptogrpahic anarkrists, those nutcases who believe in religion, all those people that just don't row the official boat.  Snowden of course.

[Nemo1024]

Long ago I read a science fiction novel, where Moon colony proclains independence and leaves Earth orbit. Don't remember what's it called and who the author was, though.

I can only remember this:
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
But they are not leaving earth orbit there
Other story where the moon is leaving earth orbit:
Mutineer's Moon

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress sounds actually closer to what I remember. There was talk there about leaving the orbit. I don't remember if they ever did... I read that novel about 25 years ago...

[Spendulus]

Long ago I read a science fiction novel, where Moon colony proclains independence and leaves Earth orbit. Don't remember what's it called and who the author was, though.

I can only remember this:
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
But they are not leaving earth orbit there
Other story where the moon is leaving earth orbit:
Mutineer's Moon

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress sounds actually closer to what I remember. There was talk there about leaving the orbit. I don't remember if they ever did... I read that novel about 25 years ago...

no leaving orbit.  that's the book where Heinlein depicts his view of a lunar railgun, robotic body parts, first AI, lunar rebellion and independence, and a crude Ayn Randian lunar capitalism.