XPost: sci.space.tech
From: ulrich.schreglmann@t-online.de
"Manfred Bartz" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:m2brpadepi.fsf@logi.cc...
> "Ool" writes:
> > Yeah! All these "Close Encounters" type missions, and in all
> > this time, when was the last time we had a rover roam the Moon?
> > That's a place whose resources could actually help us on Earth--
> > solve our energy problems and all that.
> Nonsense.
Now, now! There is no reason to get emotional and all negative in
your reply after the objective and dispassionate way in which I've
made my point!
> If you are after resources you don't go down another gravity well.
> You'd be much better off exploiting NEOs, especially the Ni-Fe ones.
Granted, that's an alternative. But I don't see us doing that, ei-
ther.
(Even if a Moon base were the priority, hauling in volatiles from
NEOs for life support would probably be cheaper than getting them
from Earth. So that could be the next target anyway...)
> > And it would be the ideal jumping board to the rest of the Solar
> > System, if we were able to build and launch rockets from up there.
> Nonsense again.
> Assembling inter-planetary ships in free-fall makes a lot more sense
> than at the bottom of a gravity well.
It's a shallow well. Look at the spindly LEM! And if you got mass
accelerators working you wouldn't even need any fuel to shoot stuff
into orbit. Once the raw material were there you could assemble it
in free fall, if that is really easier. (Maybe it is, maybe not. I
really couldn't say.)
The problem with deep space is just that there's nothing to assemble
anything from. (But we were talking NEOs, so maybe there is.)
The other problem I see is radiation. On the Moon you can dig your-
self in and work in polar craters providing natural shielding that
you don't have to bring with you from Earth. Would NEOs provide
shielding? They probably have quite a spin, most of them, with no
places where the Sun don't shine...
> > ("Aluminum, silicon, oxygen, low gravity and lots of solar ener-
> > gy to be had..." *That's* music to my ears!
> Lets talk about exploiting NEOs then. I am all for it.
> Same with solar power satellites.
For which you need material.
> And space based, solar powered antimatter factories.
That's a little too deep into science fiction for me. Meaning I
haven't heard that we can do that, so I'm assuming we can't. Same
with space elevators. Maybe as soon as ten years from now the ma-
terials can be made at the required length, but as of now they can-
not.
Technology and know-how for mining the Moon (or NEOs for that mat-
ter) exists today, though. And for building SPSs.
> > What's the deal with Mars if we haven't even built a base on the
> > Moon yet?
> What would a base on the Moon achieve?
If it were just another ISS, only more expensive, not much. But if
the goal of mining the place were achieved, for rocket fuel and so-
lar panels--whether you leave them on the lunar surface or launch
them into GEO--it could really get us somewhere.
> About the only thing I can
> think of is to learn how to build a base on Mars.
Not just Mars. Anywhere. Mars is a much more useless place in my
opinion, though, even if it were closer. It has an atmosphere, so
you couldn't launch anything into space with mass accelerators.
> And as you rightly
> ask "what's the deal?" The answer might be "tourism", but probably not
> much else.
Tourists would grow tired of the monotony of the Moon soon. It
would be just a fad. After the novelty is gone no one would shell
out the millions any more to go there. (I think. My understand-
ing of human nature is poor, though.)
> > Why do I get the feeling space exploration is funded by people who
> > get their idea of what's important from the head- lines of the
> > National Enquirer?
> Hmm, maybe space exploration *is* funded by people who get their idea
> of what's important from the headlines of the National Enquirer? ;)
It's all a conspiracy by the Men in Black, I tell you!
> > What's the deal with trying to find life out there?
> Big deal or not, I am not *that* much focused on life on Mars. My
> comment reflects more of a resentment that the science package on the
> current rovers will not produce science commensurate with the expense.
> All we'll get in the end is another IMAX movie and some more evidence
> (probably still inconclusive) of past water. IMHO, that isn't
> ambitious enough for 800M$.
Well, that was my point, too--that people have no sense of priori-
ties.
Water on the Moon interests me more. But I don't count on it. The
point is, if an industry on the Moon could be sustained, (which is a
big "if," granted) it could send probes to Mars every week. With
tiny rockets, compared to what you have to launch from Earth.
Of course no industry can work these days without human beings, and
keeping them alive and working is the expensive part. The one argu-
ment I can think of against Lunar mining today is, why do it now
when it's hard if in a few decades it will be easy, through the mir-
acles of robotics and cybernetics.
But then, if everyone thought like that we'd never even *get* to the
stage of versatile robots. Think of the Mars rovers not so much as
a science mission but a technological challenge mastered.
And *now* let's build rovers that can withstand lunar temperature
extremes and survive the night there!
> > I mean, it still doesn't mean that *we* could live there, and that's
> > all that counts!
> Humans now have the ability to live nearly anywhere thanks to our
> technology. The only thing missing at this stage is the will to do
> this on a large scale.
> AFAICS, about the only good reason to build bases on the Moon and on
> Mars would be if it is done with the long term intention of creating
> self-sufficient human colonies. And why would we want to do that?
> -- As a contingency against a doomsday event I suggest.
Solar power stations would be an elegant solution to energy problems,
and if they're ever to be built, Lunar material would be a cheap sup-
ply. There's probably no rush to insure us against Armageddon, and
maybe it'll happen all by itself in a few years anyway... (Like fly-
ing.)
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
