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

[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). 

[1715234177]

1715234177

[1715234177]

1715234177

[1715234177]

1715234177

[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