From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:27:41 GMT

szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:

>Lunar "colony" reality check:

>* The moon has no significant sources of hydrogen, nitrogen,
>  or carbon.  Wishful thinking about polar volatiles or
>  scrounging solar wind particles are hardly significant.

If you can experimentally prove the non-existance of polar ice, we'd all be very
greatful.  If you can't, please label the above as opinion.

>* There is no affordable way to crack oxygen out of lunar
>  rock or to recycle it.  This would cost, at bare minimum,
>  tens of millions of dollars per astronaut per year.  

There may more may not be any economical ways of doing it (because you can 
define "economical" to mean anything you want).  This doesn't mean there won't
be.

>* Because of transportation costs for recycling equipment,
>  recycling on the moon is far more expensive than recycling on 
>  earth.  Even on earth the best attempt at building a livable, 
>  working biosphere masses hundreds of thousands of tons and leaks 
>  over tens of tons of air per year.

This Biosphere was of course designed for Earth conditions.  A lunar station 
won't have plate glass windows or it's own rainforest.  Besides, using current
launch costs only proves that Moon bases aren't economical now -- something I
won't debate you on.  Assuimg that none of the current attempts to lower launch
costs will succeed is as ludicrous as auuming they all will.

>* Hydrogen is extremely innefficient to transport from
>  earth.

So get it from comets.  If we don't colonize the moon, just what do you think 
will be the market for your comet resources?

>* The annual per capita consumption of water in the
>  U.S. is over 500 tons.

Sure.  But the astronauts won't be living in the U.S.  They won't have cows that
drink water and eat irrigated corn.  They won't use ships for transportation or
water cooled engines. They won't wash their cars.  In short, they won't be 
using water for the same things we do.

>* It takes more than a rocket payload full of hydrogen
>  to make the water needed by industry.  If we're to have any 
>  significant manufacturing industry in space, we're going to need 
>  tons of volatiles.  For example, here is the water used to make 
>  a few kinds of products on earth:

Nick, they won't be making products on Earth.  Even if they had all the water
they wanted they be using different proccess due to low gravity, dust problems,
thermal conductivity etc.  Show us that it's impossible to produce goods without
water and I'll sympathize.  Tell me that we don't do it now and I'll ignore you.

>* There is no signficant economic resource on the moon. 
>  Revenues as a percentage of costs will be 0%.

Except for clean power, bulk materials off Earth and the best sites for 
telescopes in the known universe you may be right about that.

>* Calling a few astronauts huddled in a Winnebago a "base" is
>  a major exaggeration.

So what do you call it?

>Calling it a "colony" is an abominable 
>  misuse of the word.

It is indeed.  Who's called it that? 

-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

"We can lick gravity, but the paperwork's a bit tougher."  Wernher von Braun
Newsgroups: sci.space