Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: sainbablo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2019, 05:17:20 pm
content: What is it that you cant get on planet Earth but will get on Mars?Is it for sake of Science or just a costly example of basic human restlessness ?

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2019, 06:00:05 pm
content: How about for 'locational diversity'. It only takes one big rock hitting the earth to wipe out all of mankind. If we are to survive, we need locational diversity. In other words, don't be here when it happens. Or at least have multiple locations.The dinosaurs were around for about 185 million years and were well adapted for their environment - right up until a big rock came through the atmosphere.Inevitably, a similar event will happen to the human race.

author: CM800
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2019, 06:05:04 pm
content: economic - not much, however Asteroid mining could benefit from having a good 'pitstop' as mars is a significant bit closer to the main asteroid belt.aspirational - humanity has a drive to explore and expandsurvival - a hypothetical planetary scale disaster wouldn't extinguish humankind if we were dispersed among planetsromantic - "a new frontier"Another point is that it drives innovation of new technology that trickles down into other products, for example many products benefit from innovations made during the space race / cold war.I'd like to see America and China competing to set up colonies on Mars. It might be expensive for now, however as technology progresses, there are many technologies & methods that, given funding, could dramatically reduce cost of space exploration & transportation.A major problem we will face trying to set up an 'Earth 2.0' colony will be bringing all the skills and equipment over. This would foster significant innovations... how do we efficiently condense a million different commercial fabrication machines (semiconductor fab equipment, mills, lathes, laser cutters, CNC plasma cutters, fabric processing equipment, injection moulding machine... etc. etc.) into fewer, more robust machines. This kind of development could prove a huge boon to the local economy.Space innovation stands to benefit humanity hugely. Semiconductor fabrication machines can be built better in zero-g environment, the vacuum in orbit is cleaner then any vacuum chamber we can create on earth. Numerous materials and crystals form differently in zero-G with better qualities that cannot be replicated when grown on the planet. ZBLANS are a great example of that.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2019, 06:29:29 pm
content: It would be something of a novelty for the human race to actually create a new habitable environment rather than destroying one.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2019, 06:40:00 pm
content: If they do pull it off I'm sure we will get some technological development out of it, although I doubt it will be as revolutionary as what came out of the Apollo program. In the end though I suspect it will be a spectacular failure. I'm sure we will succeed in getting people there, but I would be shocked if they're not all dead within a couple of years. The most habitable places on mars are far less conducive to life than the least habitable places on earth. We could more easily colonize the bottom of the ocean or the harshest most isolated desert.There have been several experiments with people living inside an isolated biodome and all have failed. Put even a carefully selected group of people into a small sealed bubble and they'll be at each others throats in no time as tribal instincts form cliques. It's pretty much the standard reality TV recipe except with no way to get out.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2019, 06:45:52 pm
content: Nothing will happen by 2030. I repeat: nothing will happen by 2030. Inhabitating Mars is not the same as going to cottage on the weekend.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2019, 06:50:16 pm
content: You're probably right. I have little doubt we could send people to Mars by then if sufficiently motivated, it's an incremental step beyond sending people to the moon which we've already done, but I don't see there being sufficient motivation unless we have another cold war with another superpower.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2019, 07:06:39 pm
content: Quote from: sainbablo on January 13, 2019, 05:17:20 pmits for Science... just to prove who we are in this big universe. they do the work we enjoy the benefit, no need to complaintQuote from: rstofer on January 13, 2019, 06:00:05 pmi'm pretty sure that wont happen (its been written). if it even is to, everything will be wiped out including Mars before we can go anything further out of the safe zone (exploding sun for example)... the decision maybe not in the right direction but i dont say its wrong, as i mentioned, human want to seek for the truth. there are much more important and financially easier to do, such as promoting safe and no war world based on indisputable text (oh yes they can do research and the hard psychological, social and economical thinking), feed and home the poor, better low and higher level thinking education etc. but its been proved for so long to be a moot attempt, maybe psychologically and socially going to Mars is much easier.btw, if by chance they find abundant amount of plutonium (or even anti matter) there, we (they) will have more resources to go further (or maybe to kill who are not in line)

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 13, 2019, 08:18:26 pm
content: Moved to general chat, why on earth was it started in "beginners" ?

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2019, 08:57:47 pm
content: QuoteBackup.QuoteYou make it sound as though either of those things is a bad thing and that they are mutually exclusive.If nothing else, there's a big ball of potential use, might as well try to make use of it. If, in the process awesome new discoveries are made and wonderful new technologies enabled (as was in all of the space exploration so far), so much the better.

author: Domagoj T
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2019, 09:30:19 pm
content: Quote from: Mechatrommer on January 13, 2019, 07:06:39 pmWhat are you talking about?Asteroid impacts are regular occurrence in Solar system. They have happened before, and there is no reason to believe they won't happen again.Quote from: Mechatrommer on January 13, 2019, 07:06:39 pmIt would take much more than an asteroid hitting Earth to destroy Mars as well.Natural evolution of the Sun will take on the order of billion years to get to the point where life on Earth will no longer be viable.Quote from: Mechatrommer on January 13, 2019, 07:06:39 pmWhat kind of text?Quote from: Mechatrommer on January 13, 2019, 07:06:39 pmWith the short halflife of plutonioum, here is no reason to think that there are any significant natural sources of it anywhere.As for antimatter, there is none on Mars.All that being said, Mars is a very difficult place to set up a colony. There is nothing on it that Moon doesn't provide just as well, except somewhat higher surface gravity, which helps with health, but is a major nuisance for a location that would depend on space travel for survival.Atmosphere is just horrible. It's way to thin to provide any protection - you still need spacesuit. For space travel, it makes aerocapture difficult - you need heavy heat shield, but get little help from itIt is also just thick enough to kick up dust that gets into everything and acts like abrasive destroying mechanical devices.There is no water except at the polar regions - a location which sucks for space travel.It's far from Earth.Moon is a better location for colony in every category. Well, day/night cycle sucks a bit.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2019, 09:55:25 pm
content: Mars gravity is likely too low to support a breathable atmosphere even if oxygen, nitrogen could be magically created in sufficient quantity there.Also, Mars would remain far too cold. Venus is too hot. Space probes that have been sent there have only lasted a very short time in its extremely inhospitable environment.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 13, 2019, 10:11:51 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on January 13, 2019, 06:00:05 pmAnd getting truly autonomous like this will take 500-1000 years minimum.If you think setting up a colony on Mars can be truly self sufficient and sustaining long term if the Earth blew up in the shorter term then you need to think about the logistics of it a lot harder.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2019, 10:16:11 pm
content: If it's for 'locational diversity' then building a moon base or a large space station would probably be both cheaper and easier.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2019, 10:27:28 pm
content: Quote from: apis on January 13, 2019, 10:16:11 pmBut if the Earth were destroyed, what would happen to the Moon. Losing Earth's gravity, it would be free to go somewhere else - perhaps the Sun?Ideally, we would relocate outside our own solar system.

author: Domagoj T
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2019, 10:44:05 pm
content: Destruction of Earth in this conversation implies an asteroid impact or other event that would make it uninhabitable, not nonexistent. An asteroid that is capable of destroying life on Earth is not going to pulverize the planet, nor significantly change its mass. There could be debris hitting Moon, but for that to happen, it would need to be averybig asteroid.If the Earth just blinked out of existence, Moon would keep on going around the Sun. Its orbit would be somewhat similar to the current orbit of Earth, depending on the moment during the lunar month when it disappeared.Relocating to somewhere outside of the Solar system is so far beyond our tech, I don't think we can even have a reasonable discussion about it. Even the technologically simplest way to do it, using what is called generation ship, is beyond our means.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2019, 11:28:32 pm
content: The earth will eventually be destroyed one way or another, but I would be willing to bet that humans will destroy themselves long before that happens. At some point non-renewable resources will diminish to the point that wars escalate over what remains, consuming much of that in the process. We can't even seem to manage to manage to exist in harmony here, what makes anyone think setting up camp on another planet is going to fix that? Humans are a destructive species, we behave much like parasites on the planet, slowly consuming our host.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2019, 12:44:19 am
content: Colonizing another planet would give them the opportunity to have a place which allows the nicer place (Earth) to be the "choice" the wealthy people get to make if they can afford to.The less hospitable real estate can become the place, as its been often in the past, where people have to go when they don't have enough money to work off their debts or perish trying. Read some history!The system must be preserved even if many people must perish. Otherwise we would have anarchy, socialized health care, and so on.As somebody here pointed out there are no promises in this world. Just as millions of native Californians whose incomes haven't kept up are being pushed out of California the same may happen to Americans and Europeans and Asians and Africans who cant afford the high prices of living in the style to which they were accustomed to with air and liquid water.

author: tpowell1830
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2019, 01:42:16 am
content: Quote from: rstofer on January 13, 2019, 06:00:05 pmUnless the zombie apocalypse happens first...There are way more things that can wipe out life than a rock hitting earth. Our atmosphere could be stripped away by solar winds, the earth's magnetic field changing polarity, a biological event that causes man to do something stupid with chemicals, nuclear war, etc.If we started making a concerted effort now, today, to invest into a strategy to colonize another planet or our moon, it would take hundreds of years to develop a sustaining habitat that could survive through the long period of revival of the planet (if it still existed) in the aftermath of a major extinction event.I am much more afraid of man destroying life on earth than much of anything else in my lifetime (which is getting shorter and shorter at 65 years old). There are no easy answers to this, either. The questions are even more difficult.But, in answer to the OPs question, we don't know what we will find that might help with life on earth, or the technology that is developed that will lead to more discoveries. We just don't know what we don't know, so that is why we, as humans, are always pushing the boundaries and exploring. We are naturally curious and will continue to push to other worlds because it is our nature. The many thousands of new materials and technology that came from the space program and the push to go to the moon has touched our lives in so many ways that we will never realize (some do). We may find a material (unobtanium?) that is not abundant on earth that could help us to develop devices that we never thought possible. I for one would be a proponent of further space exploration to Mars, to asteroids and beyond as long as we have developed a relatively safe approach to doing this. To me, the approach taken in the sixties involved men deciding to take these risks despite the fact that no one knew what would happen and whether the technology was safe enough, but we did it anyways. As I have said in past posts, there are plenty of people who would gladly take the risk (my poll showed at least 38% would do it). Whether we do this now or in the future (if we are still around), we will push out to other planets, moons, asteroids and beyond as long as there are people to dream of this and want this and the will and fortitude to do it. I don't think we will do this to expand our habitat, but mostly for curiosity, adventure and discovery.Just my 2 cents...

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2019, 01:53:28 am
content: Quote from: sainbablo on January 13, 2019, 05:17:20 pmIt's the cool factor!

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 14, 2019, 02:33:21 am
content: QuoteYou would get a distant view of Earth, and probably a longing to be back on it.

author: Tomorokoshi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2019, 04:25:30 am
content: Hey, who wouldn't want to be this guy?

author: sainbablo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2019, 02:59:52 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on January 13, 2019, 06:00:05 pmAmoeba the unicellular organism has lived for 185M, longevity period of dinosaurs+ the period till date.So have therest of multicellular species belonging to various biological divisions of zoology and botany.We can employ another set of arguments that is -Since rest of the creation with stood and survived that adverse period, humansbeing can survive an identical repeat catastrphe.Why can we not?

author: vtwin@cox.net
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2019, 03:12:36 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on January 13, 2019, 06:00:05 pmI believe humanity would survive a "big rock". Perhaps not in a significantly large number, but there would likely be pockets of humanity which would survive, because humans are an intelligent, adaptable species. Dinosaurs were notSounds like an excellent premise for a new post-apocalyptic book series... "Surviving the Rock" (starring Dwayne Johnson)

author: sainbablo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2019, 03:14:06 pm
content: There are way more things that can wipe out life than a rock hitting earth. Our atmosphere could be stripped away by solar winds, the earth's magnetic field changing polarity, a biological event that causes man to do something stupid with chemicals, nuclear war, etc.If we started making a concerted effort now, today, to invest into a strategy to colonize another planet or our moon, it would take hundreds of years to develop a sustaining habitat that could survive through the long period of revival of the planet (if it still existed) in the aftermath of a major extinction event.I am much more afraid of man destroying life on earth than much of anything else in my lifetime (which is getting shorter and shorter at 65 years old). There are no easy answers to this, either. The questions are even more difficult.post by "tpowell 1830"------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Intractable issues exist on Planet Earth which we see through different lenses and interpret the way that suits us.Can we arrive at common concensus?

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2019, 03:23:09 pm
content: Quote from: sainbablo on January 14, 2019, 02:59:52 pmI think we are supposed to be too slow to adapt to a new environment. Cockroaches are presumed to inherit the earth according to science fiction.Even modest events like the Black Plague and the 1918 Spanish Flu do enormous damage and both of these occurred before modern transportation. Remember the Ebola outbreak? We got lucky because we darn sure weren't smart. Physical separation helps and living on another planet would help a lot. The path of the Black Plague, especially, shows the benefit of separation.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Deathhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_fluThe bigger motivation is advancing science and technology. The NASA Moon project developed a lot of technology, including integrated circuits, that benefit all of us today. The program also provided jobs at all levels. I would far rather see the money spent on exploration than hand-outs.

author: sainbablo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2019, 03:46:25 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on January 14, 2019, 03:23:09 pmThe motivation being advancing science and technology to achieve physical separation by living on another planet for safe livingpresupposes nothing ever will go wrong while heading in that direction and even after end is reached.Gene mutation is one absorbing thought looming along such a futuristic adventure.

author: vtwin@cox.net
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2019, 03:50:45 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on January 14, 2019, 03:23:09 pmDeveloping a permanent base on the moon would seem to be a more logical step -- it is closer and would allow us to develop the technology necessary to be successful on Mars.However, long-term viability of off-planet colonization within our solar system is not good, since we essentially have to take our atmosphere with us where ever we go.Long-term prognosis for the human species is not good... it is far more likely we will exhaust our limited supply of natural resources on the planet before we develop the technology necessary for interstellar travel, in whatever form that ultimately takes (FTL travel, wormholes, etc.)Even if we did manage to find a suitable planet in the goldilocks zone of a suitable star, there's a whole host of other issues (microbes, bacteria, viruses, etc.) which would probably kill a huge number of colonists since we have no natural immunity. Interstellar colonization would have a very high mortality rate.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2019, 04:51:57 pm
content: Quote from: sainbablo on January 14, 2019, 03:14:06 pmIt would not only take a very long time, but investments probably several orders of magnitude higher. Then governments would have to convince people to pay gigantic taxes in order to fund something very uncertain for a solution that may only be in working order centuries from now. And many countries would have to get a common agreement on this.We don't even manage to do that for much, much simpler stuff.Another thing to consider is IMO linked to the "convincing people" part: given the likely huge costs of resources and logistics to get there, it seems kinda obvious that even if we manage to do this, and eventually need to escape the Earth, it will only be for a very small proportion of people. I don't see any way of transporting billions of people in space. When people realize this will work for only a few priviledged (whatever the selection process would be, and however defendable), I doubt they will be OK with giving away so much money. May seem like a trivial point to some, but let's just be realistic. Only a small fraction of people would be OK with that based on the idea of saving humanity as a species. Just my opinion of course, based on simple observations of human behavior. We can even imagine, in some kind of dystopian scenario, that it would eventually lead to a major world-wide revolt. Funky times ahead.

author: CM800
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2019, 08:05:07 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 13, 2019, 10:11:51 pmI respectfully disagree.Consider how far humans have got in 500 years, saying 500-1000 years is ludicrously nonsensical.in 1831, the world's first electric generator was constructed by Faraday as a scientific curiosity.Fast forward only 138 years we had the first man on the moon.That's a short enough period of time that the parent could see the first electromechanical generator, then their child see men on the moon.Sure, we hit a short stunt where we failed to progress further, however I imagine we will pick up, and indeed, it is picking up now more then ever.Consider the following:Manufacturing in Zero Gravity environments poses HUGE possibilism and benefits for humanity.Once manufacturing in orbit there is significant incentive to find resource supplies that take less energy to deliver to orbital factories then lugging it up from Earth's gravity well.A great source of materials would be the asteroid belt 'just past mars'Given how Mars is so much closer then earth is to the belt, it would make sense to build a 'maintenance depo' on mars where equipment can be repaired by people in a 'safe', gravity laden environment without having to haul the equipment such a distance. Mars' gravity is also lower then Earth's which means it's cheaper to move materials up and down.150 years tops

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2019, 08:07:26 pm
content: Quote from: vtwin@cox.net on January 14, 2019, 03:50:45 pmWell, hanging around here yields a 100% mortality rate, sooner or later.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2019, 08:32:56 pm
content: If we want to have a backup for humanity, we should build lots of such backups here on earth where its a lot cheaper, first. Incorporate them into some other project.Also, try to change the way we see our place in the universe and relationships with one another. Even in the context of creating backups for humanity, lets face it, this is the first period in humanity's existence we've been able to consider doing something like that, a relative LUXURY.We're shifting in many ways from a world characterized by a never ending struggle for survival, to a world of relativeabundance.To recognize that fact, we need to change our behavior to one another. And to animals and other living things.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2019, 08:45:33 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on January 14, 2019, 04:51:57 pmThe US has currently spent $5 billion on a government shutdown in order to build a gigant pointless monument for another $5 billions. It's not like there isn't enough money in the world. ($10 billion is a tenth of the Apollo program).Since it's about national security they can even fund it from military budgets (world total was about $1739 billion/year in 2017).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2019, 04:40:15 am
content: The short term value of sending people to Mars is to expedite exploration of it. We've had rovers on Mars for more than a decade, but the cumulative mileage of all the rovers combined is less than most people drive going back and forth to work each week. The problem we have now is that the rovers can't operate fully autonomously and instead each movement is carefully reviewed and limited to just a few meters before the loop begins again. And, with signal delays upwards of 15 minutes or more each way you don't get very far. If, OTH, the rover pilot was on Mars the signal delay would be small enough that the rover could be operated nearly continuously so long as battery power was sufficient and doing this would permit vastly greater mileage and exploration.There are many challenges to sending even a limited number of people to Mars for even a short stay and chief among the problems would be refuge if the Sun starts acting up. They'd need a pretty decent shelter, preferably under ground and covered by a water tank (hydrogen) and food, oxygen, water and energy would be required.We may see a 'there-and-back' mission within a decade or so but I think it will be a couple decades before any more prolonged visitation can happen. A lot of infrastructure is needed which will take several landings BEFORE we put people on the surface for more than the there-and-back mission.The costs to do this will be high and no company will be able to do this on there dime alone. It's hard to see any single country doing this on there own. I think for this to happen we'll need the commitment of many nations over an extended time period -- that is the even bigger challenge than going there.Brian

author: sainbablo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2019, 05:35:19 pm
content: Quote from: vtwin@cox.net on January 14, 2019, 03:50:45 pmThat "interstellar colonization will have a very high mortality rate owing to lack of natural immunity", is one of many aspects of space medicine about which more is yet to be known. I do not know what kind of pathogens space settlers body systems are likely to face. The response of their natural immunity already acquired on earth may or may not match the antigens their bodies would challenge.But again the basic question is if there are unknow antigens up there in space , a search has to be conducted to identify fauna and flora of space.(if any)Again if hypothetical antigenic molecules do manage to cross the protective barriers and gain access within bodies of would be victimsthen in what way human body responds will have to be identified ie diagnosed clinically by totally untrained medics working in hostile environments of the space, the diagnostic tests, equipment routinely at used at Earth may not be able to help identify -and if I may use the term Pathogens- because we have no previous knowledge about antigen morpholoy and its biochemistry etc. In other words new nomenclature of diseases has is to be invented, caused by poorly understood antigenic material which may not be amenable to routine terrestrial modes of therapy.Once taken ill while living in outer space one better die and get hermatically sealed and sent on onwards vovage to havenly Father's territory rather than brought back to earth for fear of spreading maladies unchecked.There are many "ifs" and "buts" in above piece and full exposition of the subject rather unmerited at this stage.

author: vtwin@cox.net
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2019, 05:53:28 pm
content: Quote from: sainbablo on January 15, 2019, 05:35:19 pmIt would likely be necessary to simply expose test subjects to alien environments and monitor their vitals. How you could do this is questionable... for example, you could attempt to replicate, on-planet, the type of research facilities the CDC has, only isolating the scientists in the "sealed environment" from which they could study test subjects exposed (unprotected) to the native environment. Of course the isolated scientists could never return either because there's no guarantee an alien agent would be stopped/hindered by our isolation protocols. The whole expedition would be expendable.Or release test subjects to the environment and monitor them from the comfort of the mother ship... but then, when they do become ill, there is no way to collect blood samples, etc., for study. I suppose scientists on the mother ship could come "home"... but would never be able to bring anything, other than information, back with them... safer to get the data from their computer system and then destroy the ship, "just in case".Introduction of Europe to North America was devastating to the local cultures as they had no natural immunity to the diseases people in Europe brought with them. The converse would be true (if there were any)... so there is no reason not to think our interaction with an alien environment could not be very deadly.All assuming we found a suitable planet to begin with, naturally.

author: mrpackethead
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2019, 05:56:45 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on January 13, 2019, 08:18:26 pmMaybe someone was goign to try to build a project....

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2019, 08:47:14 am
content: Because it is a megaproject. By deifinition it is to spend over 1 billion USD. Humanity needs megaprojects to keep on evolving and investing into technology. Projects like this are when you have blank checks, infinite spending and the best team put together to achieve something that is a technological breakthrough.

author: mrpackethead
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2019, 08:52:57 am
content: A very interesting take on this topic in Steven Hawkings last book, " Breif Answers to the big questions ". Hawking explains why such endevours are not onlyimportantbutcriticalfor the on going survial of humanity

author: sainbablo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2019, 03:52:52 pm
content: Quote from: vtwin@cox.net on January 15, 2019, 05:53:28 pmThere is lot to be done on planet Earth to achieve human progress in a safe and an assured manner. Vast areas of land and ocean beds remain to be explored and populated. The charm of being the "first one" in space has now worn off.There was some merit in the arguments the "World Government" proponents of yesteryears.The latest USA probe has yet to report finding life on its way to far off heavens. I would say let common sense prevail and same human ingenuity be used for Planet Earth development to its full potential.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2019, 05:14:05 am
content: I really doubt if they will find life on any of the other planets in our solar system. I suppose there is always a chance but -OTOH, the chance that intelligent life exists elsewhere, is pretty high. I would say, almost 100%

author: sainbablo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2019, 11:56:20 am
content: Quote from: cdev on January 17, 2019, 05:14:05 amHow would you define "intelligent life" in terms of shape, size, level of intelligence <> humans, existing elsewhere.?Where do you reckon is that "elsewhere"? These are some questions come to one's mind to be answered to justify its quest

author: vtwin@cox.net
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2019, 12:39:15 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on January 17, 2019, 05:14:05 amDepends on what you classify as life.Life as we know it? Maybe (microbes, etc.)However, would be recognize "life" in forms other than what our pre-conceived notions are (based on our current environment)? Maybe that rock sitting out in your front yard is really an alien here trying to make first contact.Even if we did find "intelligent" life, would we ever be able to communicate with it? We haven't learned to communicate with any other species on our own planet, why do we think we would be able to communicate with an off-world species? Ultimately who knows if an alien species has the same 'senses' we do, and thus can 'interpret' the universe in the same way we do. Without some form of commonality to build upon, communication would be impossible. Heck, spoken languages in our own species is difficult to master, with tonal inflections and what not. What if an alien species used vocal intonations outside of our auditory range, or, outside of our vocal range."Arrival" addressed this in some respect. There are so many aspects of communication we take for granted. At least human/human interactions have a commonality (sight, hearing, etc.) on which to build a vocabulary.First contact will not bode well for the lessor-technologically-developed species. Ask the native americans how well it went from their interaction with western europeans, or the mexican/central americans from their interaction with the spanish.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2019, 01:41:52 pm
content: Quote from: sainbablo on January 13, 2019, 05:17:20 pmIt's Elon's wet dreams, and his flock of fanboy retards.

author: GreggD
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2019, 02:49:40 pm
content: Say you have landed on Mars.How are you going to have enough cryo (liquid) oxygen for a return trip in two weeks or two years ?

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2019, 03:20:11 pm
content: If you have landed on Mars you have to either do what they did to get to the Moon,have the return vessel remain in low mars orbit, and only descend to the surface in a small landing craft, or wait for a return ride to come in a year to pick you up.One or the other.Your small landing craft would only need to get you back up into Mars orbit. Not go all the way back to Earth. It should then be parked and reused for descents to the surface and returns.So, I think it would make the most sense actually for us for the first Mars "base" we build to be a space station, like the ISS, orbiting Mars, not on its surface.Actually now that I think about it that is almost certainly how it will have to be. And doing it that way is far more doable. For the same reasons it was with the Moon.If your main presence was at an orbiting space station, your return craft docked to it, remaining in orbit the amount of fuel needed to maintain the station in and for your return craft to escape Mars's orbit and return to Earth orbit and dock with an Earth orbiting craft would be far smaller.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2019, 03:24:00 pm
content: You probobly wanna ship compressed oxygen tanks to mars along with a big ass compressor.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2019, 03:44:18 pm
content: Why did 'the dinosaurs perish' but our ancestors did not?Assuming that dinosaurs were cold blooded (like today's reptiles - not certain to be the case, last I heard) and that birds which survive to this day are not dinosaurs.(which I think they are)Here is perhaps why.The reason the dinosaurs perished but we (i.e. our small rodent-like ancestors - mammalia) did not, may have had more to do with their body temperatures and the amazing adaptive evolutionary capabilities of fungi (which was illustrated on the Mir space station where in conditions of high radioactivity and high humidity the space station's resident commensal fungi evolved the ability to eat electrical insulation and some say even plastics and metal, leading to a dangerous situation and fire.) than anything else, on a cooler planet where some temporary blip in the climate caused a sudden increase in fungal growth, which led to widespread die off or many animals, especially the large reptiles, and the same reason may be why mammals survived to rule the earth, because our own body temperatures were much hotter than ambient temperatures fungi evolved in, at that time, while reptiles's cooler bodies were not, and so we were immune to fungal infections that dinosaurs were not at that time, its possible that we survived for that reason, says a scientist, Arturo Casadevall.But all bets may be off if the average ambient temperatures here on Earth rise to near our body temps. Then fungi may likely evolve the ability to invade our bodies much more than they have now, and given a chance, they might be successful in killing us off in large numbers!Especially if a sudden die off of a great many trees (from volcanism, as it has in the past, or a meteor, or not unlikely, a combination of both, as a really large meteor may cause the Earth to ring like a bell and suddenly erupt in volcanic activity, especially at the opposite point on the Earth to where the meteor had struck, as the oblate spheroid shape of the Earth might act a bit like a lens to focus the mechanical stress on its opposite side.Suppose that happened, large numbers of plants and animals would die, and "return into dust".Indeed, it seems that this has happened almost planet wide on multiple occasions, (however each time some portions of the planet escaped the massive die off despite the fact that some huge shift seems to have killed a great many animals almost everywhere else..) Its quite possible the thing that killed them, which wouldnt survive in any way we could record now, were toxins produced in large quantities by fungi in order to kill other fungi, with ourselves and reptiles and other animals being 'collateral damage'.Spores, and toxic fungal metabolites would fill the atmosphere and all the planet, except maybe some islands, with immune system suppressing mycotoxins (dead trees = fungi to eat those dead trees, which produce a witches brew of dangerous chemicals, including hundreds of toxic mycotoxins -including abundant respirable quantities of ergot alkaloids closely related to the drug LSD- which cause symptoms best known as those which caused humans to believe themselves to be possessed by demons, leading to the witch burnings of the Middle Ages, (caused by eating ergot contaminated bread). (The ergot alkaloids are a virulence factor produced by aspergillus fumigatus, the 'most successful' pathogenic fungi in existence today, when it sporulates, its a very common fungi that eats decaying wood.) It also produces large amounts of bacterial toxins, (such as endotoxins) and also a large amount of glutathione depleting mercury vapor would be liberated from those trees by the process of decay which produces heat putting the mercury vapor into the atmosphere where it then condenses onto the next thing it can find once the temperature and water vapor pressure allows it to.) The dangerous state of toxicity created might last a very long time. Under those conditions, survival would be difficult even without the rapid evolution of fungi to contend with.Quote from: sainbablo on January 14, 2019, 02:59:52 pm

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2019, 04:30:19 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on January 17, 2019, 05:14:05 amThen can you please give us your explanation to the Fermi paradox?

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2019, 04:37:31 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on January 13, 2019, 06:00:05 pm¿Isn't it easier to build a "bunker" for that in the earth, than a colony in Mars?

author: IanMacdonald
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2019, 04:44:11 pm
content: Putting on my Zen hat for a moment, I suppose ultimately there is no actual point in doinganything.That said, living on Mars is a challenge, and some people like to take on challenges, so...

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2019, 06:21:22 pm
content: I think people will go to Mars and build a base there eventually, just because they can.But a Moon base is the next logical step, and it will be challenging enough. Mars is so much farther away and the environment on Mars is so much more hostile to humans (the soil is toxic just to name one problem). Mars is 400 - 50 million km away from Earth, while the Moon is 0.4 million km away and the Moons gravity is lower. The communication delay between the Moon and Earth is only 1.3 seconds, while to Mars it is between 23 - 3 minutes.More importantly a Moon base has lots of benefits to people down here on Earth, one being raw materials (mining) and another is cheaper satellites, and there are plenty of nice science that can be done on the moon (huge telescopes on the dark side for example). And it will also make it cheaper to set up a base on mars eventually. A mars base will send us a postcard every now and then asking for more money.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2019, 08:20:08 pm
content: Yes, with the caveat that it would likely ride out some but not all disasters. The math is probably similar to the math of other kinds of backup datacenters.Its also quite possible that some star could go supernova and the blast might even wipe out all life on nearby stars if they contained life, a strong supernova likely would. There are an average of around three in the Milky Way galaxy every century but the distribution is random. Astronomers see them in other galaxies frequently. One near Earth might cause loss of our ozone layer exposing the planet to life threatening amounts of radiation and likely causing a mass extinction. This may have happened in the past.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_supernovahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernovahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1006https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1054What could be done? Without faster than light travel? It depends on how much warning there was, I suppose.This is a good argument for being a good 'galactic citizen'.Could planets and their civilizations help one another in these situations? Would they? This danger of supernovas seems like a good motivator to be good to one another. You never know when you could be of help to others or they might be of help to you. Or the opposite too. We likely would be viewed by others as worthy of leaving Earth or of receiving help to survive some major disaster only if we were seen as being a positive thing, and not a danger to our own people and lives, as well as others.As technology might give birth to new intelligent life at some point, we need to understand that with intelligence and self awareness, also would come rights. Its only if we could adapt to that reality and be good 'parents' to that life, as well as the other life here on Earth already, that we would be able to make the next step safely.These are likely issues that all intelligent races and planets confront, stages we all go through. I think of us right now as going through our early adolescence, a very dangerous time in Nature where stupid young animals often do stupid things, and pay a high price for them. Only smarter animals play. Play is a highly useful activity and likely the best way to learn but it can be dangerous - But they (we) also need play in order to learn enough to become adults.If they can survive their often difficult adolescence they then make it to adulthood and have offspring of their own.Sometimes even perhaps creating new life forms.Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on January 17, 2019, 04:37:31 pm

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2019, 09:43:32 pm
content: A colony on the moon with a population of at least 100 persons would probably survive any extinction event that could happen on earth. The biggestnaturalthreat are volcanoes I believe. Since most of a moon base would be underground to shield it from harmful radiation and asteroids they would have a natural protection from the radiation from a supernova as well. As long as the energy producing equipment survives they should be OK (assuming they have independent food supplies and life support).

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2019, 11:30:39 pm
content: Wouldn't an underground base on the earth provide most of the same benefits, without requiring immense effort to transport needed supplies during non-disaster periods? What could possibly happen to the earth that would make it less inhabitable than a lifeless rock floating in the vacuum of space with no atmosphere at all?

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2019, 12:18:19 am
content: Absolutely (just don't loose your G.E.C.K.). But keeping such an underground base on earth staffed and maintained would be expensive and kind of pointless and it would be hard to know if it really works until it's too late to fix. Who would want to pay for that?With a moon base you get the doomsday bunker as a bonus. The inhabitants would be normal people and the main purpose of the base would be as a mining facility, providing an abundance of minerals for earth, low gravity factories, satellite launch and research facilities. It would pay for itself. The initial investment would be substantial, but probably less than what people spend on lotteries each year, or the military, or government shutdowns and walls, etc.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2019, 05:10:22 am
content: I'm highly skeptical of it paying for itself. Even if we knew that the moon had an abundance of every single element needed for manufacturing, it would still be an effort unlike mankind has ever seen to build a self contained base there. It has been discussed in the past how manufacturing on earth relies on a whole chain which has taken hundreds of years to develop. Absolutely everything would need to be shipped up there from earth, operating a mining base would be enormously expensive, I don't think you'd ever recoup even a small fraction of that. All of the Apollo missions combined wouldn't even come close to a drop in the bucket of the amount of stuff we'd need to haul to the moon.

author: sainbablo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2019, 06:06:42 am
content: Quote from: vtwin@cox.net on January 17, 2019, 12:39:15 pmHuman choclear range for auditory signal interpretation averages between 64hz/s-4096hz/s. Human larynx voice out put is with that range.Ranges beyond 1200 and up to 4096hz/s are rarely employed in normal conversation. It is mostly the string and percussion musical instrument's domain though in rare cases opera singers are known to reach the upper range.The quoted writer(above) refers to tonal inflections. These are recognized and understood in a common shared cultural milieu . As we examine these implications deeper, lot needs to be done before useful interaction with aliens is achieved (if ever we meet them).This means more time, more money, more expertise. To me this seems to be a very daunting task and if same labours are taken to ameliorate plight of terrestrially located human species the fruit of such a labour would be sweeter.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2019, 01:35:19 pm
content: If life had managed to survive on Mars as the atmosphere boiled off it likely would be underground and likely be very simple, one celled life. Not (multicelled) life like ourselves. If life exists on any of the outer planets its chemistry would be likely to be very different than our own. The same goes for Venus.Other outer planets have moons that may harborliquid waterunderneath their surfaces. That water might be able to sustain life if it contained dissolved oxygen, however I think that may be unlikely for a number of reasons. Life like us may take a long time and unusually hospitable conditions, as well asa great manynumber of steps along the way (evolution!) to develop. (However, finding large amounts of liquid water outside of earth where the cost of retrieving it once we were already there was not too high would be a boon for us, because we could utilize it to survive.)Note: I am not a scientist, just an electronics hobbyist so maybe somebody can add something I can't. But to me the possibility for life on other planets in our solar system should be framed as either very simple or very different than us, chemistry wise because we need liquidwater.Australia must be an interesting place to live because it contains some of the oldest rocks on Earth, as I understand it. Some of them can give us a glimpse into the very earliest days of life on Earth, when the chemistry was quite different than it is today.Thats as far as I feel comfortable explaining. Because I really know almost nothing about it. Maybe somebody here knows more.Also, the chemistry and life around volcanic vents on the ocean floor and in the pools around geysers is interesting for similar reasons.All life needs energy but we get it in very different ways.Lots of those ways we likely don't know about yet.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2019, 01:51:27 pm
content: I think concerns about highly competitive procurements and low profit margins and job outsourcing and offshoring in tenders for government spending is driving the space and military spending craze. Because for various reasons THAT spending may be exempt.Quote from: sainbablo on January 13, 2019, 05:17:20 pm

author: sainbablo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2019, 04:48:57 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on January 18, 2019, 01:35:19 pmQuote from: cdev on January 18, 2019, 01:35:19 pmAttempts at creating life out of existing terrestrial ingredients have been unsuccessful despite many efforts.Creation of in-vitro living cell (kind of uni-cellular organism) has deluded us . Preservation of sperms and ova and artificialinsemination has been successful, but apart from positive terrestrial spin off stemming out of such research itsspace applications have are yet to be implemented and evaluated. But the point is and ,as we all know ,outer space and especially thosesites favourable for human settlement are likely to be over crowded with other nations competing for space.Is it a case of "just because we have the technology we must press on" and what happens when all the such elligible nations thinkalike.?

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2019, 06:15:39 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on January 18, 2019, 05:10:22 amIf you are thinking off the same discussion that I can remember, that was with regard to setting up a mars colony, which I agree seems too hard to be feasible in the foreseeable future.Sending material from the earth to the moon is cheap in comparison to sending material to mars though, and there is potential to make it much cheaper in the future (that requires more infrastructure in orbit, which in turn would be cheaper to create once there was factories on the moon). Sending material back from the moon to earth is basically free.A moon colony wouldn't be nearly as isolated from earth as a mars colony. Travelling back and forth takes a few days and there is only a few seconds communications delay. It would provide lots of benefits to earth which would mean there would be a mutual interest in keeping things going.You wouldn't have to sendeverythingup there from earth. It would probably begin with a research base, then you would begin to set up small factories that can produce bulk materials, like water, oxygen, aluminium, titanium and silicon. Bulk material for buildings can be constructed with the help of lunar soil for example. The low gravity environment helps when building large structures. Once you get the ball rolling, it will only be very specialised and difficult to make parts that needs to be shipped from Earth.The raw materials you can mine on the moon (and eventually from nearby asteroids) would last for a very long time. The surface area of the moon is almost the same size as eurasia and it can all be mined.The Apollo program took place between 1960–1972 and technology has improved enormously since then. Even so, it will no doubt be very expensive to get the ball rolling, but once the basic infrastructure is in place it will provide an almost infinite supply of the raw materials which we are quickly running out of here on earth.Realistically, if we started today it might not break even in our lifetime, but I do think it would pay for itself eventually (if successful).

author: mrpackethead
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2019, 07:53:24 pm
content: Quote from: apis on January 18, 2019, 06:15:39 pmUm meh doh. If the moon has almost infinite supply of materials, which is several times smaller than the earth, why are we running out here on the earth.. Think about that.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2019, 08:02:11 pm
content: 1. The surface of the moon is about the same size as eurasia, but unlike eurasia the moon isn't covered with sensitive biotopes and habitats.2. A moon colony would provide the infrastructure needed to mine asteroids effectively.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2019, 08:06:08 pm
content: Quote from: sainbablo on January 18, 2019, 04:48:57 pmWhen the US was discovered, there was a mad rush to colonize the area. It has been that way throughout history - even as we try to populate antarctica and to some extent, the arctic. Not large populations, just enough to show possession.In the case of space exploration, it doesn't matter who comes in second, only who gets there first and plants a flag. Note that there is a US flag on the Moon! We were there first and that's all that matters. We own it, everybody else is trespassing.

author: mrpackethead
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2019, 08:26:54 pm
content: Quote from: apis on January 18, 2019, 08:02:11 pmhumanity wont' learn. I will just continue to take and take and take with no regard for the consequence.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2019, 08:34:39 pm
content: Quote from: mrpackethead on January 18, 2019, 08:26:54 pmMaybe. But that doesn't really affect the merits of building a moon base or not.Quote from: rstofer on January 18, 2019, 08:06:08 pmYou mean he same way that england owns north america?Once the Chinese build their base on the moon, that flag becomes even more meaningless than it already was. Besides there are international treaties that says no country owns the moon (outer space treaty) that the US have signed (just like most other countries).

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2019, 08:35:41 pm
content: Getting minerals back to Earth from the Moon would likely be much cheaper than bringing them back from Mars. But I would be surprised if there were any minerals there that were not on Earth to the degree that it would make more sense mining them on the Moon than here. Even if some resource was only found on Earth at the bottom of the Marianas Trench or a similarly difficult location, it still would be cheaper to extract than on the Moon or Mars.So barring discovery of the truly mythical unobtainium that solves all problems colonization of the Moon or Mars really makes no sense from the extractive industries perspective.----Also, I think people living there, occupation, residency, whatever, and their engaging in commercial activity would be the main thing to establish a legal claim under customary international law. But maybe not. The answer is probably easy to find out.----Were they mining 'unobtainium' on Pandora in Avatar?I looked it up and my memory was (almost) correct!In the movie "Avatar" the mining operation on the fictional planet Pandora was indeed extracting a fictional room temperature superconductor "unobtanium".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium#Science_fiction

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2019, 08:42:15 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on January 18, 2019, 08:35:41 pmThat is incorrect. If you could see a pot of gold on the moon in a telescope it would be profitable to go there and fetch it with current technology. And there are more valuable elements than gold. I also think you underestimate the difficulty of mining at the bottom of the Marianas Trench or e.g. Antarctica. Antarctica is covered in km deep ice for example, and there are sensitive ecosystems there that we might want to protect from large industrial mining operations (not that that is going to stop people from doing it eventually, if we are running out of alternatives).

author: SkyMaster
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2019, 02:34:40 am
content: What are they going to do when they run out of toilet paper?

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2019, 07:59:07 am
content: Quote from: apis on January 18, 2019, 08:42:15 pmI don't believe that is true, last time I did the numbers the costs would need to be 100x cheaper to break even. I guess since there are no existing vehicles which can do lunar sample return it's a paper exercise anyway.Gold is currently $40,000 / kg. If you put together a mission for a rock bottom price of $500 million, you need to bring back 12.5 tonnes of gold to break even. That's way beyond capability of any existing vehicle. You could maybe return 250kg.Whatever you get from the Moon, has to be incredibly valuable, and incredibly easy to refine. Of course, if you scale up the operation to reduce costs, you then have to dump large quantities of the stuff onto the market, and the price will crash.Even with SpaceX BFR, you will need to setup a mining operation on the Moon and process thousands of tonnes of regolith to extract the good stuff. Lunar regolith is horrible stuff, it will destroy any machinery within a week or two.There is nothing on Mars or the Moon that is worth bringing back - apart from scientific data and memories. Scientific research and tourism are going to be the only viable things to do.

author: sainbablo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2019, 08:09:13 am
content: Quote from: cdev on January 18, 2019, 08:35:41 pmIf it is proposed to divide moon into various areas and stake claim over it for mineral exploitations who is to decide who gets what in order to stem likely hood of economic wars between terrestrial claimants?

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2019, 09:45:41 am
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on January 19, 2019, 07:59:07 amI think your rock bottom price is too high to begin with. If we say $100 M, and if we use the 2012 gold price which was about $50 K / kg it would be about 2 metric ton of gold (with your price of $500 M, 10 t). One metric ton gold is about 0.05 m3, so 2 t is less than a cube with .5 m sides. (10 t would be a bit more than 0.5 m3). I.e. a decently sized pot of gold (or a chest if you prefer the less optimistic cost estimate).Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on January 19, 2019, 07:59:07 am2 metric ton on the moon is equivalent to about 333 kg on earth since the gravity is lower.Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on January 19, 2019, 07:59:07 amIndeed, which is why the assertion that it can't be profitable is sort of silly and meaningless as well.You would need a lot of gold to pay for a shipment to the moon. But the idea is that it would be very cheap to send things back to earth (gravity takes care of sample return). And with better infrastructure you could lower the price of shipping things up to the moon significantly.As I wrote before, if we started today it might not break even in our lifetime, but I do think it would pay for itself eventually (if successful). It's not a good way to make a quick buck but it would be a worthwhile endeavour for humanity.Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on January 19, 2019, 07:59:07 amI'm pretty sure that isn't true. What's in the regolith that would "destroy any machinery within a week or two"?Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on January 19, 2019, 07:59:07 amThose are two additional benefits. Others could be building and launching satellites from the moon, manufacturing that can only be done in low gravity, and so on. I'm sure there are many other benefits to having a moon colony that will be apparent once it exist (asteroid collision detection and avoidance maybe?).

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 19, 2019, 10:54:37 am
content: Quote from: apis on January 19, 2019, 09:45:41 am1. Mass does not change due to gravity. 2 metric tonnes on the moon is still 2 metric tonnes in space and 2 metric tonnes on Earth.2. The force to lift 2 metric tonnes on the moon is approximately one sixth of the force required to lift 2 metric tonnes on the surface of the Earth. (Either you have expressed yourself poorly or you have the math back to front.)

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2019, 12:22:36 pm
content: You are correct. I might have expressed myself poorly. To lift 2 ton on the moon you would need the same force as lifting 333 kg on the earth.

author: sainbablo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2019, 02:11:30 pm
content: Quote from: apis on January 19, 2019, 12:22:36 pmHow would the gold rich nations on earth react to gold import from moon?Would it affect their economic power and influence?And if they feel threatened and their global interests are adversly affected would they remain silentspectators?This is a sure prescription for introducing terrestrial chaos of various kind among nations of the world.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2019, 05:17:28 pm
content: Quote from: apis on January 18, 2019, 08:34:39 pm

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2019, 05:41:40 pm
content: Isuspectwhat would be needed for commercial exploitation of the Moon to occur -driving Western corporations interest, would be some short-term profit-seeking justification for a corporation to exploit it. Like the "unobtanium" room temperature superconductor that was discovered on the fictional Pandora."Use it or lose it" basically.Use always being seen as the most remunerative commercial activity possible. Period.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2019, 06:05:00 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on January 19, 2019, 05:41:40 pmYup! Ain't capitalism wonderful?I have always had the the belief that if a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing for money.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2019, 06:41:34 pm
content: I wonder if there are savage processing methods you can use to get rare earth elements from the moon without pollution.Big ass nuclear reactors come to mind.I mean getting any element that requires alot of energy to extract, even aluminum, titanium, etc. If you built a big reactor there maybe you can just shoot down lumps into a shallow ocean for recovery at lower environmental cost. If it occurs in like 0.001% concentration on earth but its all over the place, it means you need to mess up ALOT of soil to get it. The moon is pretty damn useless compared to ruining another ecosystem. Eventually you just end up making hazards, either by bringing up toxic elements from the earth, leaving big holes, killing desert turtles, whatever.Like if you do giant molten rock electrolysis baths or whatever.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2019, 06:46:20 pm
content: The problem is, lots of things that a governmentshould do, or which most people think they should do, they can't do any more.The current state of affairs is broken, seriously broken in certain areas.I cant really explain this any more without getting into the realm of the political.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2019, 07:01:01 pm
content: We should be thinking about our environmental footprint on the Moon too.One argument might hold we should behave with as much care or even more than we have on Earth because much of the worst pollution on Earth occurred when we didn't know any better or didn't know that things we were doing were making it unhealthy, and now we do.I think that is debatable, more so than here, BUT, I really do think that we should not allow large scale activities in an atmosphere of no regulation as happened here on Earth, which many people would see as being unfair given as those who came before as they put it, got to exploit the hell out of others, but now the door is being shut to their doing the same thing to those unfortunate enough to come after them.Someone is radiating entitlement here, but even more so I think one group, the 'haves' is trying to pretend to be two groups and engaged in this false dispute to draw attention away from the very important problem of lack of adequate regulation in the light of whats best for all of us.Conveniently, there are no poor people on the Moon, yet but there likely will soon be, as they will be the ones impressed into labor to pay their debts off in space.Consequently, decisions made will impact them. As well as reduce their wages. (See debt peonage)History shows that is what happens. So the fact that no poor people exist there today does not mean that the 'haves' positions on everything (the oft whined about division between the global south haves and global north haves for example, is a fake one, much less real than the one between the all powerful global haves and powerless have-nots, basically the other 99% of everyone. The poor and soon to be poorer are the world of today's young people, who likely would be the ones actually on the ground on the Moon or Mars in a few years having to deal with the situation.)By no means should a Wild West deregulatory trend on Earth, which is driven by the falling value of human labor and therefore, human life, be replicated with absolutely no sanity checking out into space where it then becomes customary practice..Would it be unfair to ask that we all not pollute more than the best practice that is economically feasible? The problem is, that is a moving target, how do we define it? Also, if its defined by a cost benefit analysis its basically defined by how much worth we put on an individual human life and why. A value that may shift as average wages lost due to some change decline. (as that may be based on the average amount of employment times wages which may decline, as lifespans perhaps shorten. Wages may also decline if the demand for labor falls and/or whom provides that labor shifts towards lower and lower cost providers which would be likely as profit margins fall.)Similar problems confront all other kinds of regulation, particularly those requiring that anybody observe international norms. Instead of norms that require least burdensome practices on people, they define least restrictive practices by their cost to business. Ignoring the possible costs to people for the most part.If the wrong choice was made, the effect would be in the case of radiation and nuclear pollution, to lock in changes which made living on the Moon or Mars even more dangerous.Living on the Moon or Mars is already expected to be very difficult and costly and adding additional costs would be likely to be unwise, even if then some were able to extort much more profit from the would be exploiters of its mineral resources, it might well be a very bad idea to allow them to create that situation. As the net effect would likely be to require wages fall more and more in order to allow the economic exploitation to be accomplished. This might cause a rush to say, criminalize more and more behavior attaching huge fines to it. In order to make it possible to send those guilty of these new crimes to work off their debts on the Moon, applying their wages first to the cost of the ir upkeep, then to treating the common diseases which everybody working there would end up having, and only last to reduce the debt. This is what the human race's history tells us would happen.Quote from: coppercone2 on January 19, 2019, 06:41:34 pm

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2019, 07:26:48 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on January 19, 2019, 06:05:00 pmIf anything can get a large scale Moon base built, with factories and such, it will be money. If left to the government we'll end up with less than what is currently in Antarctica.Quote from: cdev on January 19, 2019, 07:01:01 pmSay what?

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2019, 07:30:58 pm
content: I think the only advantages the moon has over earth is very clear skies and less plastic pollution, so it's not worth going.

author: Kapitonov
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: January 19, 2019, 08:03:28 pm
content: Mankind was born on Earth. It was never meant to die here. The end of Earth will not be the end of us. (Interstellar)

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2019, 08:45:17 pm
content: I'll be shocked if we don't kill ourselves off long before the planet dies. Humans are essentially parasites, we carve up the planet and consume resources at a hugely greater rate than that at which they are created.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2019, 09:31:01 pm
content: im not saying to trash the moon but i don't think the regulation will need to be as strict as something a nuclear power plant 20 miles away from a major metropolitan city.And I don't think the moon has any seismic activity etc, so you can bury it deep and you don't have earthquake hazards. You would need to bury it deep in case of asteroids anyway. It might be actually feasible to shoot nuclear waste into the sun from the moon too. Just do it from the dark side lol. Or just recycle all that shit. I am pretty sure we did not recycle more in the past in regards to radioactive materials with breeder reactors and stuff because it costs too much to license one.and there won't be weird no-income terrorists to worry about.https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/11/f4/mining_bandwidth.pdfMining energy use is 1.26quadrillionBTU per year.I think that's 220 billion barrels of crude. Same as all the car energy used in the world. Thats in the USA only.And you can use the energy to power a badass bigger lunar particle collider. Then maybe you can begin antimatter production for industrial use.Imagine that shit, you get a shipment of titanium shot down from the moon into the ocean near you.Start using more titanium, when people figure out how to use it stuff will last way longer and there will be less junk then rusty steel. You can use start to use super alloys for everything. Lunar machining would be cleaner too IMO, you can even make flat bar and stuff up there, and girders maybe. The chips would easily vacuum away.Fuck carbon fiber lol. I am sick of all the plastics engineering developments shit. We should be able to buy bananas in titanium cans. If you can get cheap metals down here then you could stop some of the plastic pollution too. Even less oil use. And imagine stuff stops being freaking plated and you can get a solid titanium shower head for cheap? Instead everything has like a 5 year life because its fucking plated. Valves too.Even if the moon is fully radioactive when its being used who cares so long there is no containment issues? You can go easy on the shielding and shit. Just stay away. I think we have enough problems here on earth. You can run absolutelyviciousfusion reactors.I mean sustainable wood sucks too, you deplete the dirt. Mining destroys the land. Fuck the moon topography. All those sustainable resources suck too, solar occupies alot of land area if you wanna meet the same requirement, its better to outsource this crap and use less here.If you have like 1 GW nuclear reactor you can use some seriously wasteful practices.Then when that's done you can eventually leapfrog to some other useless planet like Venus when the technology develops further to get all the bad shit away from earth when people are flying around in their own home made space craft. Or move it to mars and terraform it.ALso lunar workers can easily wear a ton of lead protection and be highly mobile so its safer then earth. Everything can be built like 600% heavier with existing motors for exoskeletons etc.youtube.com/watch?v=ejorQVy3m8E

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 19, 2019, 10:30:22 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on January 19, 2019, 05:41:40 pmSimple, first step is tourism.There are countless well off people who would pay hundreds of thousands for a 1-2 week trip to the moon.The same cannot be said for Mars, which is why a permanent Mars base won't be sustainable in the near future.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2019, 10:33:13 pm
content: Dave, I think you're likely right, tourism to the Moon, especially, could become a big thing, the experience of a lifetime.If I had the money I would certainly want to do that. Sounds like a really great idea for honeymooning couples too! It would probably generate big bucks.However, it might be hard to figure out a way to have that fund anything else, like science, under the current situation. I don't know. I just suspect that might be the case.coppercone2,The Moon does have some seismic activity. A fair amount, unfortunately, some of the data went missing but a fair amount of it was collected and some survived.One person is compiling it all together.Also, heavy shielding material would cost a lot to get to the Moon.Also, as far as I understand where oil comes from, there never having been large forests of biomass to turn into it, there is no oil or coal on the Moon. Nor large amounts of oxygen to allow burning it. Nor cheese, unfortunately.The observatory out of the Earth's radio din sounds like a great idea, though.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2019, 11:01:56 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on January 19, 2019, 10:30:22 pmIt would be interesting to see some actual numbers here. I suspect the cost is likely to be closer to tens of millions per passenger, once technology is developed to get the cost way down. How many people have both that kind of disposable money and a desire to vacation on the moon? Some for sure, but more than a few dozen? Even if it was a few hundred, for viable tourism you need many thousands, and you need a steady stream of them. Once a few hundred people have gone on trips to the moon will the novelty and exclusivity wear off? The first Apollo mission had a huge number of people watching it, by the final missions that had fallen way off, it had become almost routine by that point.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2019, 11:38:59 pm
content: they say there is uranium on the moon. If there is uranium on the moon you can make radiation shielding out of depleted uranium, it works better then lead IIRC. Nicer engineering material too I think because it won't gall so easily, you can machine it and it will hold up shape unlike lead and be super strong (they make tank armor out of it) and have a very high melting point. Then you use a much smaller shield to shield from the DU. And you use the radioactive part.You would make the (bulk) equivalent of heavy concrete (iron filled concrete) with depleted uranium and regolith. Reactor plates could use solid DU, which would hold up much better to any core emergencies then lead which can melt and expand and cause all sorts of issues in a hot reactor. The last thing you want is your lead lining to melt and flow out of the major containment part because something exploded and cracked the chamber.Everything needs to be sealed up for atmosphere anyway (at least nominally) so it will be much easier to clean any machining dust and stuff then it is on earth, since filters would be standard. And you can run the thing in a vacuum so it wont burn with oxygen. It should be much safer then in the atmosphere. The dust also won't be carried away by winds and stuff if it breaches.I really think it would be possible to run a really clean and safe nuclear industry there. Everything should stay on the top, the only sources of mixing I think are meteorites which are infrequent. It would be easy to get machines to gather radioactive materials if there is a spill.. those apollo footprints are still there right? 50 years later?If you use water for a coolant it will freeze instantly/quickly and there is no water table or ocean to contaminate, you would just need machines in place to collect all the garbage and process it.I think as it is, on earth right now the biggest hazards to radioactive breaches are winds, rains.. since if you spill waste it will be washed into the ground by the water or plumes get carried by the winds. Instead of sweeping it up you need to collect many feet of top soil. On the moon this should not happen so long the operation is handled carefully.Interestingly too, you can probobly put the entire coolant system into a deep freeze to 'clean' it from bacterial growth, since even the bacteria will die if they are frozen to negative alot. It would just need to be designed to handle this. Drain it into a oversized freeze tank connected to a smaller reactor, let the plumbing freeze, let the water freeze, then thaw it out electrically with the mini-reactor when the biologists say its ok.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2019, 11:43:07 pm
content: Eco-tourism is really popular. It is showing no signs of slacking off.Quote from: james_s on January 19, 2019, 11:01:56 pmThere are more millionaires now than at any time in history. All those losses to the middle class have gone to the top.I bet if some credible company started a waiting list and asked people to pony up say $100k per person for a spot on it, to show they were serious, with the price set to $5M the first year and then $2m for the next 5 and $1M thereafter, they would make hundreds of millions overnight as people ponied up the money to get on the list.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2019, 03:58:31 am
content: That still might not be enough though. We could be talking billions per flight in costs, I don't think a lot of people truly grasp how big a billion is. The Apollo program only carried 3 guys at a time, and the launch vehicles were enormously expensive.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2019, 04:58:56 am
content: Concentration of wealth means an M economy, world wide, so luxury goods will be the healthiest area of the economy. And dollar stores. The market for luxury goods may be the only market there is, everybody else may be too poor to buy new, or fly, so it may have to sustain the whole rest of the economy and the civilian aerospace industry. (Of course, the military and secrecy, etc, will be booming, though.)Also, think of it this way, Earth will be depressing, people will really want and need to put that distance between them and their problems and extended families, who will likely be dependent on them for support, for a short while, for their mental health.On the Moon everything will be cleaner (and worth keeping that way) people will be lighter, the environment will literally take the weight of the world off of their shoulders for a short while.Think about it a bit.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2019, 07:43:24 am
content: When I think about the moon, I think lonely, dusty, desolate empty rock floating in the dead vacuum of space. If money were no object I could think of a virtually limitless number of places here on earth that I would rather go visit. Places that are far enough away from anyone I'd want to be away from that it wouldn't matter, and every bit as clean and pristine as something on the moon. Places where there is far more to do, far more to see, and far less risk of dying in the process. Go to the moon and you'll be confined to what is essentially a bunker or capsule pressurized with breathable air, you'd have more room to move around in prison.

author: mrpackethead
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2019, 09:17:41 am
content: How little mass would you have to move from the moon to the earth before you messed up the very delicate balacing act that causes tides. If tides are messed up, the environmental damage to the ocean and land could be huge.

author: Domagoj T
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2019, 09:56:40 am
content: Quote from: mrpackethead on January 20, 2019, 09:17:41 amWhy do you think that the relationship between Moon and Earth that causes tides is "very delicate"?Mass of the Moon is 7.4 × 10^22 kilogramsTotal world iron ore production in 2015 was around 2 x 10^6 kg. There are quite a few orders of magnitude in between. Of course, we're not going to ship iron from Moon, or any other bulk industrial product that even comes close to that. We do produce more coal and cement, but last I've checked, coal is in short supply on the Moon.What we could find on Moon that there lacks on Earth are various isotopes that are generated by the surface being blasted by direct Sunlight and radiation, but amounts of those are negligible compared to the total mass of the Moon and are not going to change the orbital mechanics.It will take quite some time for us to develop tech to be capable of altering celestial bodies to that extent.

author: tpowell1830
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2019, 10:28:27 am
content: Quote from: mrpackethead on January 20, 2019, 09:17:41 amThe moon is moving away from earth about 25mm a year, thanks to the reflectors on the moon, we know this. Taking a few hundred kg of rocks from the moon will not have any effect.Eventually, the moon will break from earth's orbit and begin it's own orbit around the sun. Probably not in my lifetime though.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2019, 11:33:46 am
content: Quote from: james_s on January 20, 2019, 03:58:31 amWord is that it costs about $35 million if you pick up the phone an book a flight today.Quotehttps://www.inverse.com/article/28424-spacex-moon-mission-ticket-cost-elon-muskThe difficult (and thus expensive) part is getting out of the atmosphere, if that obstacle is removed, e.g. with a launch loop, then getting to LEO could cost less than 10$/kg. But that isn't so easy to do, so for a long time we will probably have to rely on rockets. That is why a moon colony is desirable, since with factories on the moon we could create orbital infrastructure that wouldn't have to be launched into space with rockets, it would already be in orbit. That would let us create things like orbital rings which in turn opens up a whole new world of possibilities. Once you're in LEO you can use momentum transfer to get mass out of earths gravity well, so ideally you wouldn't have to spend any fuel to do that (you just have to bring down as much (or more) mass as you bring up). That would mean the entire solar system (and it's resources) would be accessible.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2019, 02:39:52 pm
content: The number of wealthy people is growing rapidly.Some members of this group tend to be very 'status conscious'.The percentage of wealth spent on taxes is difficult to calculate but I think its safe to say that many of the world's wealthy people likely will see even more income increases in the coming years and likely a great manywillhave the money to spend on space tourism. especially once the bugs are worked out and it becomes comfortable and fun.Number of millionaires per country by Credit SuisseCredit Suisse's "Global Wealth in 2018" measured the number of millionaires in the world. According to the report, the US has 17.3 million millionaires, highest in the world.Rank Country Number ofMillionaires % of world total1 United States 17,350,000 41%2 China 3,480,000 8%3 Japan 2,809,000 7%4 United Kingdom 2,433,000 6%5 Germany 2,183,000 5%6 France 2,147,000 5%7 Italy 1,362,000 3%8 Canada 1,289,000 3%9 Australia 1,288,000 3%10 Spain 852,000 2%11 South Korea 754,000 2%12 Switzerland 725,000 2%13 Taiwan 521,000 1%14 Netherlands 477,000 1%15 Belgium 424,000 1%Number of millionaires per country by various sourcesRank Country Number of Millionaires SourceIndia 330,000 UAE 55,700 Finland 50,000 Bangladesh 45,000 South Africa 43,600 Pakistan 19,200 Egypt 18,000 Nigeria 15,400 Bangladesh 10,600 Number of millionaire households per country by Boston Consulting GroupThe following is a list of the countries with the most millionaire households in U.S. dollars worldwide according to the Boston Consulting Group's 2017 study.Rank Country Number ofUS$ millionairehouseholds1 United States 7,085,0002 China 2,124,0003 Japan 1,244,0004 United Kingdom 821,0005 Canada 485,0006 Germany 473,0007 Switzerland 466,0008 France 439,0009 Taiwan 370,00010 Italy 307,00011 Australia 263,00012 Belgium 240,00013 Saudi Arabia 236,00014 Hong Kong 228,00015 Netherlands 206,000Number of millionaires per cityThe following is a list of the cities with the most US$ millionaires.   Rank City Number ofUS$ millionaires(2018)1 London 357,2002 New York City 339,2003 Tokyo 279,8004 Hong Kong Hong Kong 250,7005 Singapore Singapore 239,0006 San Francisco 220,0007 Los Angeles 199,3008 Chicago 150,2009 Beijing Beijing 149,00010 Shanghai 145,80011 Frankfurt  128,30012 Osaka 117,70013 Paris 110,90014 Toronto 109,30015 Zurich 109,20016 Seoul 108,10017 Geneva 104,30018 Mexico City 86,70019 Munich 78,90020 India Mumbai 48,10021 Istanbul 27,30022 Johannesburg 18,20023 Cairo 8,90024 Cape Town 8,20025 Lagos 6,80026 Nairobi 6,80027 Casablanca 2,30028 Alexandria 1,800

author: sainbablo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2019, 04:39:17 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on January 19, 2019, 10:33:13 pmAt 1/6th gravitational pull on moon the reproductive physiology (both male and female) may no work that well as it does on earth.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2019, 06:27:32 pm
content: At least in the short term tourism context, that sounds more like a feature than a bug!Quote from: sainbablo on January 20, 2019, 04:39:17 pm

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2019, 07:04:58 pm
content: Quote from: apis on January 20, 2019, 11:33:46 amPick up the phone to book a flight on hardware that has not exist, to a destination that has not been developed? What good is it to book a flight now? Who can even say what the cost will be until all of the equipment has been developed? I've seen enough things that never delivered anything close to their promised economy that I remain skeptical.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2019, 07:29:01 pm
content: The effect on human health could be a deal breaker with regard to a permanent human colony on the moon, but there could still be factories with a temporary workforce I suppose. It probably wouldn't be very glamorous work being stuck in a moon bunker though. Living in micro gravity is pretty bad for the health. Is there any research showing the effect of living in the low gravitational field that exists on the moon?Both China and Roscosmos seems determined to build a research base on the moon. Roscosmos (together with ESA) are also sending a rover in 2023 to see how much water they can find among other things (for a moon base?). So maybe there will really be a moon research base in 2040!Quote from: james_s on January 20, 2019, 07:04:58 pmIt makes perfect sense to be sceptical. But you can book a flight to the ISS today, so that figure should be accurate. That at least gives an idea about what order of magnitude we are talking about with currently available technology. Considering how much money various countries spends on other less progressive projects it seems like it should be well within the realm of possibility. The US has spent over $1 trillion dollar on the Iraq war for example.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2019, 07:41:32 pm
content: Re: Inhabitating Mars by 2030? What for?Ok,1. To get away from closed minded politics.2. To get away from religious fundamentalist purists.3. To get away from flat earthers.4. To get away from gun-nuts.5. To get away from ultra self centered people.6. To get away from those deliberately self set ultra low IQ people.7. To get away from those who fall for all that cheap marketing must have useless crap.At least, this may be the case in the beginning, hopefully for a good first century, however, eventually, if I know humanity, one by one these problems will eventually migrate to Mars as well.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2019, 07:48:52 pm
content: Thats how the world seems to be run now.Quote from: james_s on January 20, 2019, 07:04:58 pm

author: vtwin@cox.net
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2019, 07:57:30 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on January 20, 2019, 02:39:52 pmAll things are relative. A person who lives in Manhattan has to be a millionaire to afford to live there. The cost of living drives salaries higher.Being a millionaire today is not like being a millionaire 50 years ago. I think of millionaires as being individuals who are making over $1 million per year in income... not those who hold $1m or more in tangible assets. Someone who bought a house 30 years ago could easily be a "millionaire" if you use assets as the basis to make the determination.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2019, 08:37:54 pm
content: Okay, it appears there are approximately2200billionaires on this planet currently if we use total value of assets in USD.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BillionaireThats probably a more meaningful number to space tourism.People who have that money might spend $35 million for an unforgettable experience.Amazon's Jeff Bezos makes around $210M each day. So, one sixth of that is around $35MApis, re microgravity, see this link.Resveratrol prevents the wasting disorders of mechanical unloading by acting as a physical exercise mimetic in the rat.Momken I, Stevens L, Bergouignan A, Desplanches D, Rudwill F, Chery I, Zahariev A, Zahn S, Stein TP, Sebedio JL, Pujos-Guillot E, Falempin M, Simon C, Coxam V, Andrianjafiniony T, Gauquelin-Koch G, Picquet F, Blanc S.FASEB J. 2011 Oct;25(10):3646-60. doi: 10.1096/fj.10-177295. Epub 2011 Jun 29.PMID:21715682

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2019, 08:54:43 pm
content: I do not think millionaires will be taking a trip to Mars for over a century after we first colonize except for the 2 to 10 who just must go at any price. The first ones on Mars will each need multiple skills in the scientific, mechanical, engineering at all levels, biological, medical, agricultural, management, sociological, psychological "Experience" to even attempts to go there as the actual life of everyone there is in the hands each single individual in an effort to create a functioning colony.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2019, 10:29:05 pm
content: i think if you did large scale mining with big reactors it would be more profitable then tourism. and you don't want tourists near that thing.I wonder if making it non-commercial is actually a bad idea.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2019, 11:18:59 pm
content: There may not be any choice. Its hard to say. In most cases, changes have made new non-profit activities by governments impossible.Quote from: coppercone2 on January 20, 2019, 10:29:05 pm

author: KL27x
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2019, 12:47:42 am
content: Damn, I love sci fi, but this thread is full of strange ideas.Gold and minerals? Nope.Second home in case of the destruction of the planet? Sure. To have a self sustaining home, there needs to be energy. Humans need food and water and air. No matter how many babies you make in your bubble, it will cost more energy to keep these humans breathing than their labor can provide. It's a net loss. A bubble colony is going to need to receive energy from the Earth. Through shipments or through uBeam technology, or something. The most important thing that matters is a source of energy in order to recycle the essential minerals and supplies you would bring there in the first place. This kind of life would be super eco-unfriendly. It would need a massive input of energy per human.Until we find a planet with a massive energy source that we can tap with tech that can be brought or built there, it isn't going to happen. We probably aren't going to find wood and coal and other fossil fuels (and the oxygen to burn it) on Mars no matter how many humans go looking for it. Uranium and plutonium might be the eventual ticket, when we have the ability to transport and build and maintain a nuclear reactor to such a remote and hostile environment. Energy is what we need to find, not gold. Right up there with water and oxygen.What humans are good at is taking the fat of the land, built up over millions of years of life, and burning it all at once... in order to shove entropy up nature's arse for one brief shining moment in time. What we would need to have a second home is another energy rich planet to rape. Not some hippie solar powered commune that can't even sustain itself.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2019, 01:26:36 am
content: "The mainspring of this country, wound up as tight as it is, is guaranteed for the life of the watch"Its relatively sunny all the time on Mars, except during sandstorms and the Martian night. As far as paying for their keep, air, water, food, education and health care, vouchers would be the way to go, drawn against their future profits at the Company Store.

author: KL27x
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2019, 01:37:51 am
content: With any foreseeable tech, this is still a solar railway on Mars.The reason to build a colony is what I said it is. It's the same reason the Egytians built the pyramids. It's for our own vanity. It's a F U to the universe. It's saying, look. We can keep 100 hippies alive on another planet.... at the cost of 60 tons of dead dinosaurs per person per hour.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2019, 01:49:51 am
content: Quote from: KL27x on January 21, 2019, 12:47:42 amuBeam for space, that's brilliant! :-DQuote from: KL27x on January 21, 2019, 12:47:42 amHumans doesn't really provide any energy at all, unless eaten. But yes we need a lot of energy to keep things going, but that isn't a big problem I believe. The moon has better access to the same energy source that we mostly rely on down on earth: the sun. Solar power in space is about 1400 W/m2. Need a bunch of solar panels though. The ISS has been using only solar power for many years.There is also lots of uranium on the moon. It would have to be mined and enriched before it could be used though. We could also send some initial uranium fuel if desirable, the energy density of uranium is 8.1x1013J/kg so it probably could make sense to ship some from earth initially. (Compare that to e.g. diesel with 4.8x106J/kg). Building and operating a reactor at the moon is probably no more difficult than doing it in a sub which both the US and Russia are doing already.Oxygen can be generated from oxides or water, and the Chandrayaan-1 probe found water at the moons polar regions in 2009. Roscosmos (together with ESA) are sending a rover there in 2023 to see how much water they can find among other things. If there is enough water it might also be used to generate rocket fuel on the moon.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2019, 02:33:11 am
content: I can see solar power maybe working for a Mars base despite the weaker strength of sunlight there, but I think the two week long nights on the Moon might mean nuclear is the better option.

author: KL27x
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2019, 03:27:41 am
content: QuoteBig difference. The power of the sun has been stored and concentrated on Earth for hundreds of millions of years through organic carbon based life. We don't use this up just to run cars and lawn mowers. Without it, we work hard just to make clothing and shelter and to harvest and process food. Food that grows all by itself on Earth. Now add all the extra things you need to survive on the Moon. Pressurized atmosphere, oxygen, and water recycling. Burning enough energy/fuel, anything is possible. But you aren't going to have some self-sustaining habitat in such terrible conditions to human life without a huge input of energy. Even after you put up your little biodome or w/e, you don't have no Amazon to deforest, no coal mines or oil wells, no nothin to power the repairs and maintenance and to produce and shape any engineering/construction materials. And an extension cord doesn't quite reach that far. Solar won't cut it, at all, unless you keep it going with resources from the Earth. Spend all that energy on Earth to get the final products to ship to the Moon. The structural stuff, the replacement stuff, the maintenance things, the fuel. A colony would be 100% dependent on Earth to survive at all, let alone even think about growing/expanding.QuoteThat's essentially what it would be. These colonies would need fuel, as well as supply of unrenewable resources. And the efficiency after figuring the cost of getting it there would be uBeam level, if you're lucky.There's zero chance of a self-sustaining human colony on the Moon unless/until the energy thing is figured out. Solar panels and batteries wear out. To make more of them you need a heck of a lot of energy. To refine metals from ore. To extract oxygen from moon rocks. To recycle your water. Lots and lots of energy. To use the word Eco-friendly in this thread (somewhere mentioned) is an oxymoron. Each of the humans living in this colony would have the carbon footprint of 10,000 people on earth, and it doesn't matter how many solar panels you ship up there. This would be like spending the equivalent Earth resources of a king for every space hippie living up there like a pauper. If this were a "second home," it would be a very expensive vacation home.

author: sainbablo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2019, 04:50:01 pm
content: Quote from: BrianHG on January 20, 2019, 07:41:32 pmWould you rather abandon the fragrances, the flowers, the rainbows, beautiful faces and head for Mars regardless for, we cannot resurrect these alluring scenes there despite all the advances.

author: sainbablo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2019, 05:03:28 pm
content: Quote from: apis on January 20, 2019, 07:29:01 pm

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2019, 05:11:15 pm
content: Ok guys what species is going to go out of control first on terraformed mars? Hogs? Camels? Turtles??

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2019, 05:15:46 pm
content: If you build real big reactors on the moon cant you use processing techniques that would be absurd because of energy demands?I mean we dont really need uranium for anything other then bombs and reactors. It would be best to put all those on the moon too. You cab make medical isotopes there.Are there mining methods that could be used economically if absurd sized reactors are made. Like things with plasma, refractory distillation methods etc?I assume on earth the limitations for power input into a chemical purification process is in the low medium megawattswatts based on what we have available. If you gave a mineral purifications company a multi terawatt reactor could they do some weird process for mining or purification?

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2019, 05:24:55 pm
content: Also realistically how does nuclear charge mining work out on the moon in regards to pollution? Like project plowshare.Unlike the earth, is it actually feasible to clean up all the debris from a nuclear blast unlike on earth since there are no water tables or winds. It almost seems like you can vacuum it up.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2019, 05:33:32 pm
content: Nuclear fission power system for space exploration:https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/kilopower

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2019, 05:45:39 pm
content: Quote from: apis on January 21, 2019, 01:49:51 amhttp://ubeam.comIn space the efficiency of uBeam only drops by about 0.3%.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2019, 05:57:36 pm
content: Just because its 'possible' to do something doesn't mean its always or even often a smart thing to do.Quote from: rdl on January 21, 2019, 05:33:32 pmWe may never know the full story of the small Russian fission reactors they at one time used for unattended scientific outposts of various kinds.But what we do know is pretty scary.That is not to say that some uses of nuclear fission in space might make sense - when there weren't any other solutions. The farther from the Sun that a space probe goes the less solar energy is available.Some planets have atmospheres that block out most of the sunlight. Also, what if a dust storm on Mars covers up the solar panels on a rover or base.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2019, 06:20:05 pm
content: What is so special about space that we should be reluctant to use nuclear power? Seems like they were made for each other to me. You are aware that almost every submarine and many large naval vessels run on nuclear power? A Nimitz class carrier is the size of a small city with a two 500+ MW nuclear power plants. The one NASA has tested is dinky in comparison, but it should be enough for a start.

author: KL27x
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2019, 06:44:13 pm
content: ^ Yeah, this. But the nuclear sub/carrier is the tip of an iceberg. The system to service it is a long way from being even thinkable on the Moon. And on the Moon the base of this pyramid is the tip of another exponentially larger pyramid. The output of solar panels would hopefully be able to sustain itself, alone. You'd need an automated self-replicating/self-maintaining system to hopefully support itself with a smidge leftover to have the entire surface of the moon supporting a few people.In the event of the doomsday collision of earth, there's nothing that mars or the moon or any planet we can reach will do to save humanity that will be any benefit over loading people on free-space vessels that are designed to keep people alive as long as possible... giving them no provision to land anywhere... certain inevitable death traps. Same thing as a Mars base, but way more practical and cheap and efficient. You still get the best seat in the house to witness the destruction of the earth. Then you have some years of life left to hopefully be discovered and taken on as pets by aliens.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2019, 07:09:29 pm
content: As far as I know, the safety record on nuclear subs is pretty good compared to the commercial nuclear power industry. But subs if the unthinkable happened, likely would go down to the bottom of the ocean and more likely than not, keep the accident fairly contained.The worry with reactors in space has been that an accident would cause contamination of the Earth or some other planet or be dangerous to the crew. The risks of that happening, although small have been significantly worrisome to prevent the US's use of them except for exceptional purposes.Seehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10ANote what happened to it and the fact that there is debris of it in space orbiting the Earth now.The Russians have used small nuclear power plants in space more than the US.Nothing has changed. No magical new technology has suddenly emerged. Also, because of the ready availability of solar energy, most of the needs of space based hardware are met perfectly well by solar cells. Keep in mind that as radio signals travel line of sight, a quite low power transmitter on a satellite can be received over large portions of the Earth.Since RF spectrum in space is a finite resource it makes more sense to use highly directional antennas and low power.But when we leave the Earth - especially go farther away from the Sun the amount of solar power available declines. Also, as you go towards the poles in a place like Mars the same things happen there that happen here, less solar power is available. Mars also has dust storms.

author: ali_asadzadeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2019, 07:29:19 pm
content: QuoteGetting unimaginable moneys from potential prospect for the beginning, if you don't have the longevity cure for now!Also after milking the early customers, the end would be somehow useful for other "Human beings" in the quote in the next 100 years.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2019, 07:50:08 pm
content: keep in mind what your producing. If you wanna melt giant pools of rock or make boron nitride or something on the moon you need ALOT of power. Nuclear is cheap and space efficient compared to solar.If you figure out how to make ceramics there that are expensive to make, like boron nitride, you can also make heat shields for reentry delivery vehicles that can crash into shallow oceans and hopefully retain structural integrity enough not to damage the cargo.I just wonder if you can get dolphins and other stuff to clear out of a impact area some how. Like with ultrasonic area denial that makes them leave a few min prior to likely point of impact. You can put a grid of transducers in a likely cargo retrieval area to save fish.Say you can get em to hit within 0.5 square km of ocean fired electromagnetically from the moon. Then a ROV puts some inflatable bags on it and strait into the cargo ship it goes. Save money on complicated parachute systems or UPS or whatever. Or maybe bombard greenland/Antarctica/siberia with this stuff. Then pull it out of the ice. If you can get them to hit reliably near the coast then maybe you can patch the holes with desalinated water (with all the money you are saving on the minerals, metals and ceramics industry with whatever you can get from the moon).

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2019, 09:08:26 pm
content: Anything in a high enough orbit, reactor or not, isn't going to "fall back" to the Earth. A reactor on the Moon poses no threat whatsoever just sitting there running.Anyway, NASA has apparently tested the Kilopower reactor thoroughly, and a system like that probably has more applications than just powering a Moon base. The test reactor had a U-235 core the size of a roll of paper towels and the test chamber they put it in didn't look much bigger around than a trash can. It's not quite Mr. Fusion, but it's still pretty cool.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilopower

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2019, 09:26:04 pm
content: Anything thats in an orbit is in a state where technically it has a potential if hit by some other piece of debris of falling out of earth orbit. Also over time orbits decay.Anyway, the concern over the use of nuclear power in space is a reasonable one and its prudent to, whenever the sun is available to use that.One can make a far better case for the use of nuclear power in some Mars missions, for example, at the poles where sunlight is much dimmer.Similarly for a Moon base near the poles (or for use during the long lunar night, perhaps, especially if near the poles).

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2019, 10:18:22 pm
content: Your profile picture is a nuclear power plant, is that one of the ones at Three Mile Island? (PA)Quote from: rdl on January 21, 2019, 06:20:05 pm

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2019, 11:00:24 pm
content: Quote from: sainbablo on January 21, 2019, 04:50:01 pmIf we are not capable of replicating, more like transporting and creating large enough domed or underground environments with such plant life and room to relax, we are not yet ready to create a properly functional colony on Mars and we shouldn't yet think about going there. Without such multiple massive such facilities, within a few years, all humans on mars will go insane.Do not count this movie BS or Elon Musk small domed structures as our true future on Mars. They will all fail and be abandoned very quick until we are serious about sending the people and equipment to create multiple structures each larger than the biggest football stadiums we have today and we have compact (say the size of 8-24 cargo freights containers) fusion reactors for a steady flow of power. Except for the fusion, we already have materials made in mass today which can accomplish all of this for above ground, and we have mining and tunneling equipment capable of doing this below ground.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2019, 12:35:39 am
content: Quote from: KL27x on January 21, 2019, 03:27:41 amYou are absolutely right that it will take a lot of power to run a moon colony. But you underestimate solar power. If you cover a few percent of the Sahara desert with solar panels it would in theory produce enough energy for the entire worlds electricity usage. In space solar is even more efficient since you don't have the atmosphere blocking some of the light. The problem with solar is that it doesn't produce electricity when the sun doesn't shine.If you don't like solar then there is nuclear. Uranium contains millions of more energy per unit of mass than oil does, so it would even be possible to ship some of it to the moon from earth. But there is also a lot of uranium on the moon, so in the long term, energy isn't going to be a problem for a moon colony. Nuclear isn't as hard as most people think, both Russia and the US have been using it in their subs for decades.It's true we on earth have been relying on fossil fuels for our industrial revolution, but there is enough energy to be had from uranium and solar that if we had known of those technologies before we started using coal, we could have produced the same amount of energy and industrial revolution without using a single piece of coal.A moon colony would indeed be 100% dependent on earth for a very long time. But once the basic infrastructure is there it could definitely be self sustaining. It would be hard and it would be expensive, but in the long run it would pay off if it was successful.(We already have the technology for basic life support, it's been used at the ISS for decades and they use only solar power).

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2019, 12:57:27 am
content: Quote from: cdev on January 21, 2019, 07:09:29 pmEhrm, no.

author: KL27x
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2019, 01:06:25 am
content: QuoteHow much energy was put into making those solar cells to begin with? They don't last forever and need to be replaced.QuoteThis is a major problem. Maybe the solar cell is more efficient than chlorophyll based life. But the solar cells don't replicate and replenish themselves, and the resulting power doesn't store itself. You need batteries that degrade. Until the solar plant produces enough power to replicate itself, down to building the factories that make solar cells and the robots or humans etc, then it's not enough to sustain itself. On earth, the battery builds itself. The tree grows for 100's of years. The algae get eaten by larger animals, and that stored energy gets concentrated and collected on up the food chain. Until humans come along and consume that energy which is nearly free for the taking. If you had to enclose the Amazon forest in a plexiglass bubble and provide the atmosphere and water and climate/temperature, you aren't going to get a net positive out of your biosphere.QuoteWithout resupply, the ISS is dead. This is not self-sustaining. The best we can do is make a fish tank for humans that can keep them alive only so long as we supply it.Humans don't belong on Mars or the Moon. Not now, not in the near future. While Earth has been storing energy for hundred million years, the other planets in our solar system have been subject to only entropy. They are dead and lifeless, and there's nothing there to sustain a colony.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2019, 01:26:57 am
content: Quote from: rdl on January 21, 2019, 02:33:11 amI suspect so too. And both NASA and Roscosmos has been working on different space fission reactors:https://www.technologyreview.com/s/414770/a-lunar-nuclear-reactor/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_affordable_fission_engineBut there are also supposed to be so called peaks of eternal light on the moon:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_of_eternal_light#On_the_MoonSo solar might be useful in some locations.You could also imagine having fission for the base load and machines that require a lot of energy could be turned on only when the sun hits the PV arrays.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2019, 01:33:35 am
content: There is only one reason to go to the moon or Mars, and that is to take the first step towards being a space based species. We may never become one. The evidence looking out at the stars is that space based civilizations are rare at best. But if we don't start we will never get there. It may not happen by 2030. If we don't get our act together here on earth it may not happen for thousands of years. But those are not reasons not to take the first steps. At whatever pace we can manage.

author: KL27x
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2019, 01:46:19 am
content: If we were serious about living on other planets, not just making an expensive visit, I would consider a long-term approach. Finding and being able to reach planets or moons where single cell organisms can thrive. Maybe a bio-engineered bacterium. Shoot a rockets over. Then wait a few million years and hope something took on one of these locations. Yeah, that's a long wait, but the sooner you start, the sooner you're done.Or develop Mr. Fusion, the zero maintenance fusion reactor, and do w/e the hell we want. Consuming the universe, itself, wherever we go. Once banana peel or moon rock at a time, to power and maintain our interstellar fish tanks.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2019, 01:50:18 am
content: Quote from: KL27x on January 22, 2019, 01:06:25 amA lot less than what the PV panels produce during their lifetime, so you can use solar power to produce new solar panels. Solars power's only (big) drawback is that it only produce energy when the sun shines.Quote from: KL27x on January 22, 2019, 01:06:25 amDon't belong? According to who?Even if you don't believe solar could provide enough power then there are lots of uranium on the moon that could sustain a colony. (The moon is believed to be made from a large chunk of the earth, so you can ultimately expect to find the same composition of elements up there as down here. I.e. there are plenty of uranium on the moon.) A moon colony would be completely dependent on earth for a long time (maybe over 100 years) but you have to start somewhere. We crawl before we can walk, walk before we run. Progress will seem very slow in the start, but it can grow exponentially.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2019, 02:09:04 am
content: The solar system is full of resources that we can not use currently, because the cost of getting into space is way to high. If we cold get cheap access to the solar system it would be a great benefit to humanity. A moon colony have the potential to provide cheap access to space in the future, and in turn allow us to reach an almost infinite supply of resources (by today's standard).We probably won't make it though, as someone once said, the hardest part about going to the moon is to convince people it's worth the effort. I mentioned a moon base to someone I know a while ago, and his response was just "why should I care, I will never go there". Same as many people argue about climate change, "why should I care, I will be dead before the shit hits the fan". With that kind of selfish attitude humanity will never achieve anything.What is probably going to happen is there will be a small lunar research base that will be kept running for a few decades and then funding will stop and it will be decommissioned again.A lot of people think humans are going to kill themselves by destroying the ecosystem here on earth that we depend on for survival. And if not, a large volcano or meteor strike probably will, as that have killed off and reset complex life on earth many times already.

author: KL27x
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2019, 02:26:48 am
content: I have to tap out. I way underestimated what I'm up against.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2019, 04:03:01 am
content: I agree with you with the caveat that I do not think we are ready to go out into real space now. (The Moon is close enough to be more inner than outer space.)And Mars is cold and lifeless and the atmosphere lacks the oxygen we need and is too thin. There are no elements on Mars we cant get here. So really little point to building anything there.That said, if we survive this century (I would say our odds are around 50/50) then maybe we will be ready for real space travel.When we have learned how to live in harmony with one another and the planet. Right now we're like children. You wouldn't want us playing in traffic.Quote from: CatalinaWOW on January 22, 2019, 01:33:35 am

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2019, 04:28:11 am
content: Developing the technology for an independent moon colony could probably teach us a lot about sustainable living, better recycling and utilisation of resources. It might also make more people realise how precious the earths ecosystem really is.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2019, 04:34:02 am
content: Look at us here in the US, we can't even pay our civil servants.Quote from: apis on January 22, 2019, 04:28:11 am

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2019, 09:06:59 am
content: Quote from: apis on January 22, 2019, 01:26:57 amRight. I think that's evolved into theKilopowerproject which I have mentioned previously in this thread. I'm not some kind of nuclear power zealot. I'm all for whatever will do the job best. The Kilopower reactors look like amazing technology to me and I was unaware of them until yesterday.Quote from: cdev on January 21, 2019, 10:18:22 pmGrand Gulf Nuclear Power StationThat's from a photo I took years ago. It's about 50 miles from where I live.

author: sainbablo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2019, 04:11:47 pm
content: Quote from: ali_asadzadeh on January 21, 2019, 07:29:19 pmPresently number of terrestrial powers have the capability to reach out there. So the yesteryears thinking about a single terrestrial power domination has to be revised. Again "space for all " may not go well with powers that be. What future holds for the mankind who are innocent and helpless hostages of super technology hopefully will not go unnoticed.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2019, 06:16:13 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on January 21, 2019, 10:18:22 pmIt's a picture of a cooling tower, they are not characteristic of nuclear power stations. Coal and gas plants also use them, as do other industries that need cooling. Anti nuclear people like to use pictures of cooling towers when they talk about nuclear in order to scare people since they look ominous and emit a lot of "smoke", but it's actually not smoke at all but clean water vapour.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooling_towerHere's a picture of a coal power plant in the UK, the air pollution comes out of the high chimney to the left of the cooling towers:Here's a picture of Three mile iland, the reactors are inside the much smaller cylindrical buildings:Here is a picture of a Swedish nuclear power plant, it doesn't use any cooling towers at all:

author: Yansi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2019, 06:45:59 pm
content: So how do they cool it then? I don't think Swedish people have invented any magical way of converting heat to electricity directly, to bypass the steam engine cycle.

author: glarsson
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2019, 06:57:06 pm
content: We let cold sea water in and warm sea water out.

author: Yansi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2019, 07:18:27 pm
content: So you just like to get pipes corroded, okay then

author: glarsson
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2019, 07:25:09 pm
content: Swedish engineering. Still works after 50 years...

author: Domagoj T
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2019, 07:38:14 pm
content: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Krško+Nuclear+Power+Plant/@45.9368288,15.5155644,930m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x4765baedd80efa8d:0xa59aa45b4d5134d7!8m2!3d45.9380375!4d15.5157897It's Krško nuclear powerplant. It uses a river to cool down. Both intake and outflow can be seen on google maps link above.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2019, 07:41:38 pm
content: Here's the Loviisa reactor in Finland:

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2019, 08:34:31 pm
content: Quote from: apis on January 22, 2019, 06:16:13 pmWell, to be fair he said power plant, not reactor. I think the rest of the plant is there, just hiding behind the trees.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2019, 09:13:16 pm
content: Quote from: rdl on January 22, 2019, 08:34:31 pmHe did saynuclearpower plant, based only on the picture of a cooling tower and he didn't know which power plant it was since he initially asked if it was Three Mile Iland, i.e. he couldn't have known it was a nuclear plant even if it turned out to be one. That suggest he believed that a cooling tower equals nuclear power plant.I wasn't criticising him for that mistake, I was just trying to correct a common misconception about cooling towers since they are often used dishonestly in propaganda. Now he will hopefully be a little bit better att spotting BS.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2019, 09:33:00 pm
content: how do you run a big ass titanium mining operation from solar?you need to look at profitable elements. its 4% titanium.you can also get uranium there.If you had the extra power then you can get iron, aluminum and silicon from there, and do the refining thats power hungry too. If you use processes like heat-drag purification (zone crystalization) you can just use the lunar power.I wonder if you can do direct electrolysis of molten oxides. Then you can get Ca, Al, Fe, Ti.No carbon there so you can't really make steels. Not sure what kind of structural alloys you can make.silica SiO2 45.4% 45.5%alumina Al2O3 14.9% 24.0%lime CaO 11.8% 15.9%iron(II) oxide FeO 14.1% 5.9%magnesia MgO 9.2% 7.5%titanium dioxide TiO2 3.9% 0.6%sodium oxide Na2O 0.6% 0.6%Maybe you can make propellant from elemental sodium powder that is burned with an oxidizer to make rockets.If you do electrolysis you can accumulate oxygen for fuel in tanks.You can make very high temperature kilns from uranium oxide (2700C). I think its up there as one of the most refractory oxides.Not sure if you can melt other oxides in uranium oxide. Maybe you can heat up Uranium oxide rods in a nuclear reactor and then submerge them in other metal oxides to melt em and then take over with electrolysis?

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2019, 09:51:28 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on January 22, 2019, 09:33:00 pmThat is the common way of making aluminium on earth, which is why it is rather electricity intensive. You could imagine doing the aluminium electrolysis only during the moon day which means you could use electricity from solar. As a bonus you produce oxygen at the same time.

author: Domagoj T
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2019, 09:53:06 pm
content: You don't need carbon for steel.For example, maraging steel has no carbon (primary alloying elements are nickel and cobalt) and has some very nice characteristics.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2019, 10:18:09 pm
content: There is carbon in many asteroids, so eventually you might be able to bring a C-type (carbon rich) asteroid over to the moon. Such asteroids might already have crashed into the moon (very likely), so you might also be able to find coal in craters.NASA have been working on at least two methods ofextracting metals from lunar regolith:Molten Regolith ElectrolysisCarbothermic Reduction of RegolithThe first one is just what it sounds like.The second one uses carbon as a reducing agent. While most of the carbon used can be recycled some small fraction of it will be consumed so there has to be a carbon source for it to be sustainable.

author: sainbablo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2019, 04:15:06 pm
content: Quote from: KL27x on January 21, 2019, 06:44:13 pmWhat percentage of terrestrial inhabitants must be settled on Mars to give human species a chance for continuity in outer space in case of dooms day scenario smashing planet Earth. What is the guarantee for success? Who takes the lead? Who is to be left behind to fend forthemselves? Will other nations of Earth accept their fate submissively ? Many questions come up like break up of the social order withina nation when it comes to making choices and selection of individuals wanting to leave head for Mars.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2019, 06:35:32 pm
content: Quote from: sainbablo on January 23, 2019, 04:15:06 pmThese questions become pertinent if the doomsday event is present when you start the colonization attempt. Which is another good reason to start now. Odds are that such an event won't happen in the next 100 years, which is enough time to get a self sustaining colony going.Once the colony is going it doesn't really matter how much wailing and moaning goes on on the doomed planet. At least if it is going well enough to fend off too many people trying to climb over the gunwales of the lifeboat.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2019, 08:01:41 pm
content: i dont want any colony known as some kind of salvation or you will get weird ass Jehovahs and other cults forming on them. I think its bad PR.'christian homesteaders' (with biological weapons included).

author: sainbablo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2019, 02:52:07 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on January 23, 2019, 06:35:32 pmTime period of 100 years or so is enough to render many terrestrial nations space capable. With history of last 250 years or so of colonization on Earth, vying for space up there is going to be a tricky proposition for adversaries to handle their future amicably.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2019, 06:03:18 pm
content: Quote from: sainbablo on January 24, 2019, 02:52:07 pmWhile costs of space will come down, hopefully a lot, it will be an expensive operation for a long time. There will be a few nations or alliances competing at the colonization scale, but I doubt that many will be the appropriate description.If you are looking for historical parallels I suspect you should compare the next 100-200 years in space with the period of exploration from 1400-1500 which had relatively little colonial impact. Or perhaps even further back to the settlement of the Mediterranean by the Greeks and Romans. The 1400-1600 period has another event which may have a current analogy. The Chinese abdication from the oceans after great exploratory efforts may well be an analogy for the US step back from space.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2019, 09:37:16 pm
content: I feel that speculating about the technical aspects are hard enough, speculating about what will happen politically/socially is too difficult. I think easy access to space (i.e. a moon colony, not a mars colony) will be technically/economically beneficial to the people on earth in the very very long term, if we make it. But if wealth is distributed like it is today it would probably only benefit the 1%.

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2019, 10:54:10 pm
content: Quote from: apis on January 24, 2019, 09:37:16 pmThose1%insane asylum dodgers, sporting suits with fat asses parked on Chesterfields in secure ivory towers, will work out a way to abuse the Moon and Mars too,for fast, lazy, easy big dollars.That's what happens when the apathetic 99%have faith in their twisted intelligence,and allow them to control the money shipNo thanks, I'm sticking to what still works on this nice rock called EarthFools that want to blow -other peoples money- and take risks in order to realise the obvious 'no go zone MEANSno go zone' reality at the end,can keep their wet dream, and all the fun and misery following it up

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2019, 11:30:39 pm
content: Quote from: Electro Detective on January 24, 2019, 10:54:10 pmHmm, by "other peoples money" I presume you mean tax money. Those are not "other peoples money" they are the governments money. Like all money they used to be someone else's money. What's different about tax money is, if you live in a democracy, you get a say in how they are being spent. There's a limited set of resources and they are distributed among people and organisations in a certain way which is determined by the law, some of it ends up in the government, most of it ends up with the 1%. This notion of money being hard earned and well deserved just nonsense, although it's is very common. How hard you work and how deserving you are has literally zero to do with how much money you get to own.But that is a political issue that affects everything the same. I don't think space is just a plaything for the 1% (although it would be that too). Better space access would benefit everyone, but as usual, most of the benefits will go to the 1%, the rest of us will just get to feast on the scraps.If one worry about the money it's more a question of it being future generations that will reap the benefits of what current generations will be funding. Since it would be such a long term investment people living today will probably not be seeing any benefits from it. It's the same with climate change. People living today will probably not suffer very much, it will be future generations that will have to deal with the bulk of the problems. It's not a particularly nice heritage we leave for future generations though.

author: sainbablo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2019, 03:53:21 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on January 24, 2019, 06:03:18 pmBriefly keeping with in the spirit of the board, following the adage "likes must be compared with likes", comparing the capabilities ,now , of those nations preparing for space explorations, are at far superior platform than those in 1500 century. How ever comparing the intentions of the competing nations and the subsequent terrible outcome affecting the geopolitics of the world till end of WWII is before us if we seek guidance. Many wars were raged along with consequences suffered by humanity at large.Within next decade or so other space capable nations will emerge on the scene each armed with nukes etc, racing to space so as not to be left behind. In fact training of astronauts and acquisition of related paraphernalia is going on.All this is going on while Earth continues to suffer. Some thing to be said for renaissance of Pugwash spirit.