Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 11/21/07 03:56 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 11/20/07 10:51 PM, Euroc wrote: Yeah, imagine a terrorist invasion of a moon base... then again, what the hell good would a moon base colony do anyway?

Easier access to space travel. No need for gazillions of gallons of fuel to be used to break away from the earths atmosphere and gravity. If we'd been serious about space exploration we'd have built a moon base instead of the international space station.

Thats true... but in order for it to be viable don't you think it needs to be self sufficient? I mean, it we have to launch every six months to deliver supplies then wouldnt it defeat the purpose?

---

Communism would work for the initial phase when all of the people there would be researchers and engineers.

Once the first McDonalds opens up though, you're screwed.

---

At 11/17/07 06:34 PM, LordJaric wrote: I think before we even come close to colonising the moon and mars, the governments of the world need to come together and put their differenes aside, and that is not going to happen in the near future.

That would be nice, problem is it's impossible, especially with the trend towards huge nations going on now, they're trying to make hundreds of millions and eventually billions of people all follow the same set of rules, it doesn't work that way, people really are too different in their beliefs for that to work.

Besides that we have to get to the moon first.

---

At 11/21/07 11:55 AM, JerkClock wrote:

At 11/21/07 02:54 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:
All colonies are initially a resource drain. It takes years before a new colony will be able to pay for it self. However, given the nature of such an environment it's extremely likely that any off world colony would be almost completely self-sustaining in terms of food, water, and O2. The only things that would need to be shipped are mechanical components and the like. After a few decades even these would be reduce in number.

Dude, ok, like explain how the colony would be capable of sustaining itself. We need to get oxygen sources, food sources, and soil for food sources to grow in, all the way to the moon without the solar radiation killing them(space shuttles don't filter it as well as our atmosphere.

The three parts that would need to be self sustaining are oxygen, water, and food. These three things can be taken care of by creating to gardening systems. One set up for the porpoise of making oxygen, and filtering water, and a second for growing food stuffs. Both would likely be primarily hydroponics in nature (no soil).

Anything else would likely come from earth, at lest initially and it wouldn't be all that much. All we would need to send once the base if up and running are spare parts, until they are able to build factories and the like.

The protection doesn't have to be as good as our atmosphere; it just has to be good enough. Once they've got there base setup radiation would be much less of an issue. Remember we did send people to the moon and they survived. Also what makes you think we'd send anything like the shuttle there?

Do you know how much that would cost? And that's neglecting the fact that we would have to also keep them alive long enough to erect a green zone that they could survive in.

The base would be built in at lest two stages. The first would be done via sending a minimum support and habitat environment. When the people got there they would already have the minimum needed to survive. After this, construction would take place on building a better more permanent under ground facility. The cost estimate that I've seen show cost of between 10 Billon and 30 Billion USD, which is about 2 to 6 time more then most earth based mining operations cost.

And on that note, since we don't have the ability to block solar radiation like our atmosphere does, what makes you think they'd survive all that long on the moon?

Blocking radiation isn't hard. Two to three feet of moon rock would suffice well enough.

Well what do you define as essential?

Stuff that isn't moon rock?

Do you know what the average composition is of a moon rock, and its worth? There are many valuable minerals on the moon just waiting to be exploited. As I said look He3, which is very, very hard to obtain on earth, is extremely plentiful on the moon. The average cost of a kilo of He3 is about 19k USD.

The moon has resources that we don't have on earth. Hell mining He3 would make a small base more then worth wild, not to mention the significant concentrations of rare, and precious mettles, like gold, silver, yttrium, etc... Lastly the lower gravity, and effectively vacuous atmosphere would allow for far cheaper construction and launching of various probes, and space based vehicles.

And what of the expense in getting it all back to earth?

Seeing how the moon's escape velocity is significantly less then earth's, and the earth capture velocity is even lower then that, not much. Look at the titan II rocket system, it's capable to sending about 2700kg to the moon at a cost of about 3 million per rocket. That's about 1100 USD per kilo. If you take into account that you only need about an tenth the fuel to leave the moon and reach earth you could easily lift a kilo for 110 USD. When you consider the cost of He3 is about 19000USD per kilo, it suddenly looks quite appealing, There are of course other elements and minerals of value. Like gold, silver, yttrium, etc...

There are a lot of people who would love to live off world. Why; because it's adventurous, new, and a challenge. If any one were to setup a colony or outpost there would be no shortage of volunteers.

Pretty sure that 99% of them are willing to put up with this world for the time being instead of being irradiated by solar winds and struggling to keep from dying every single day on the moon.

You really have no idea how many people would gladly take those risks (which aren't as great as your insinuating them to be). Hell, why do you think so many people want to be astronauts in the first place?

---

I think there is going be a set level of politeness different from ours on any moon colony. Think who the first people to colonize the moon are going to be. It's going to be scientist and entrepenors who will agree to some very strict rules and regulations. These expectations are going to be ingrain in the generation that will be accepting immigration. Taking a bath would be as rude as enjoying a turkey dinner in starving portions of africa. Sure there's going to be a few glutons that won't listen, but it would be so few between considering the type of person likely to imigrate it makes itself into a non-issue. I would think at that point any form of government would be suitable.

---

At 11/21/07 03:33 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

The three parts that would need to be self sustaining are oxygen, water, and food. These three things can be taken care of by creating to gardening systems. One set up for the porpoise of making oxygen, and filtering water, and a second for growing food stuffs. Both would likely be primarily hydroponics in nature (no soil).

Okay firstly, only quote what I said, not what you said before it.

Secondly, this still doesn't answer the question of how you're going to block all the solar radiation you'd need to in order to keep the plants living.

Anything else would likely come from earth, at lest initially and it wouldn't be all that much. All we would need to send once the base if up and running are spare parts, until they are able to build factories and the like.

Uh no. Astro science is way too precise for a moon base to be practically built with "spare parts." You need a calculated, well built base that can create and sustain its own atmosphere. It would take more than you think to do that. Spare parts would not be enough.

The protection doesn't have to be as good as our atmosphere; it just has to be good enough.

Do you even know what "good enough" is? We're not talking a round orbit over the earth here. We need the vegetation to survive a prolonged existence. "Good enough" would have to be pretty damn close to our atmosphere's protection.

Once they've got there base setup radiation would be much less of an issue.

No it wouldn't. Even assuming that the base has sufficient protection for prolonged stays, which is unlikely with our current technology, they still have to walk outside sometimes. Disposing of waste, getting into the ship, going to the mine(you know, to mine that He3).

Remember we did send people to the moon and they survived.

They survived for 3 fucking days dude. That's not the same as living there for months and years. And your argument about wether or not it's a shuttle is irrelevant. Shuttle or rocket, we do not have sufficient blockage of solar radiation, period. Whether or not it's a shuttle doesn't matter.

The base would be built in at lest two stages. The first would be done via sending a minimum support and habitat environment. When the people got there they would already have the minimum needed to survive. After this, construction would take place on building a better more permanent under ground facility. The cost estimate that I've seen show cost of between 10 Billon and 30 Billion USD, which is about 2 to 6 time more then most earth based mining operations cost.

For the record, it costs millions of dollars just to send someone in orbit, not to go to the moon and build the base.

So firstly, I'm going to have to ask where you got your "estimate" from. Secondly, it so obviously does not factor in the following:

-Maintenance

-Rotation of miners(You don't seriously think a bunch of miners are gonna go there for good, do you?)

-Safety measures(for one thing, meteor protection of the base will be a bitch with no atmosphere to burn those giant rocks up, less gravity helps, but it's not necessarily enough)

Blocking radiation isn't hard.

Yes it is. Much of the solar radiation is gamma, which is extremely difficult to block

Well what do you define as essential?

Stuff that isn't moon rock?

Note that this is what made you respond with the following moronic statement:

Do you know what the average composition is of a moon rock, and its worth? There are many valuable minerals on the moon just waiting to be exploited. As I said look He3, which is very, very hard to obtain on earth, is extremely plentiful on the moon. The average cost of a kilo of He3 is about 19k USD.

You're kidding me right? I'm talking about basic human need, and you respond by rambling about the monetary value of moon rock? You can't eat moonrock dumbass, I'm not talking about its value.

Seeing how the moon's escape velocity is significantly less then earth's, and the earth capture velocity is even lower then that, not much. Look at the titan II rocket system, it's capable to sending about 2700kg to the moon at a cost of about 3 million per rocket. That's about 1100 USD per kilo. If you take into account that you only need about an tenth the fuel to leave the moon and reach earth you could easily lift a kilo for 110 USD. When you consider the cost of He3 is about 19000USD per kilo, it suddenly looks quite appealing, There are of course other elements and minerals of value. Like gold, silver, yttrium, etc...

But again, you're neglecting maintenance, safety, and miner rotation costs.

You really have no idea how many people would gladly take those risks (which aren't as great as your insinuating them to be). Hell, why do you think so many people want to be astronauts in the first place?

Pretty sure NASA, setting up an expensive moonbase, will not get them there. You have to go through hell to be an astronaut, they're not going to take along crazy fucks who are desperate to leave the planet.

---

The only purpose of building a colony on the moon would to study effects of the moon. What other purpose would a colony on the moon serve?

---

blue, it would depend as of when a moon colony is actually created. If it is done in a few years, it probably won't have so many people. But if it is decades or centuries in the future, who knows, maybe some technology is actually created to make the moon livable with oxygen and everything (known as terraforming by Sci-Fi fans).

---

At 11/21/07 10:35 PM, InnerChild548 wrote: The only purpose of building a colony on the moon would to study effects of the moon. What other purpose would a colony on the moon serve?

If the earth really starts geting over populated, then we have the moon to reduce the population on earth.

---

At 11/22/07 12:23 AM, LordJaric wrote: If the earth really starts geting over populated, then we have the moon to reduce the population on earth.

heh. replacing "earth" with "prisons" makes more sense.

---

At 11/21/07 10:19 PM, JerkClock wrote:
Okay firstly, only quote what I said, not what you said before it.

As you wish.

Secondly, this still doesn't answer the question of how you're going to block all the solar radiation you'd need to in order to keep the plants living.

As I said, blocking radiation wont be that hard. one to two meters of moon rock, half a meter of water, and another half meter plastic like compound would be more then sufficient.

Uh no. Astro science is way too precise for a moon base to be practically built with "spare parts."

Ha ha, oh that's funny. These are the same people who think tin foil and duck tape are solutions for every thing. The only things that need to be of high precision are instrumentation relating to experiments. Every thing else just has to be good enough, which is pretty damn low.

*sigh* it might just be easer if you'd just say what you think needs a high degree of precision, and why, rather then have me try to explain every possible part of a theoretical space habitat and the given tolerance for each component.

You need a calculated, well built base that can create and sustain its own atmosphere. It would take more than you think to do that. Spare parts would not be enough.

A well built base needs the following things, O2, water, and food. That's all they need for survival. Anything else would be spare parts.

O2 would come from one of two sources (there are more, but only two are practical), ether from the moon's soil which has a lot of oxygen trapped in it, or from green house system, which would likely consist of algee.

Do you even know what "good enough" is?

Yes, good enough, as defined by NASA, is about 400 mrems of space cause radiation in a life time. Under a decent shield system, radiation exposer can be limited to about 40 to 75 mrems per year, giving each astronaut about five to nine years total living time on the moon.

We're not talking a round orbit over the earth here. We need the vegetation to survive a prolonged existence.

Which you can have quite easily. I said algae for four reason, it's very low maintenance, has a very high O2 generation rate, can provide a very good nutrient, high calorie source, and has a low negative susceptibility to radiation (due mostly to it's high reproduction rate).

"Good enough" would have to be pretty damn close to our atmosphere's protection.

Um, no. First off the earth magnetic field protects us more from radiation the the atmosphere dose.

No it wouldn't. Even assuming that the base has sufficient protection for prolonged stays, which is unlikely with our current technology, they still have to walk outside sometimes.

For a few minutes to an hour or so. Except for peak solar events radiation isn't that high, sure you'd have to consider it when building the base, but that's all. When the radiation is to high then you don't go out side, it's that simple. If radiation was as big of a threat as you make it out to be we could never send people into space at all.

Disposing of waste, getting into the ship, going to the mine(you know, to mine that He3).

Actually people wont be physically mining He3. Most if not all the mining would be done with automated machines and equipment. The most that people will do is sit in a control station and ether teleoperate the machinery or guide it. Beyond the point though, like I said the radiation most days won't kill or even hurt you as more often then not, it's not very high.

Also, waste wouldn't be a big issue as a well built base wont generate much in the way of waste, due to massive well integrated recycling.

They survived for 3 fucking days dude.

Actually it was about two weeks for each mission, about 5 days there, 2-4 days surface time, and another 5 days back.

That's not the same as living there for months and years. And your argument about wether or not it's a shuttle is irrelevant.

Then why did you bring it up?

Shuttle or rocket, we do not have sufficient blockage of solar radiation, period. Whether or not it's a shuttle doesn't matter.

Clearly we do, other wise we could never have sent any one to the moon in the first place. I think your under the impression that they'll be on the ship for more then a few weeks at most. They wont be. Once they land they will move into ether a temporary habitat that was sent there before them or into a more permanent base which was constructed remotely.

For the record, it costs millions of dollars just to send someone in orbit, not to go to the moon and build the base.

Hence why I said billion.

So firstly, I'm going to have to ask where you got your "estimate" from. Secondly, it so obviously does not factor in the following:

Your right it doesn't, the estate is the start up cost of a small mining operation as quote from a paper in "Space Technology and Applications International Forum, STAIF 2004: 2nd Symposium on Space Colonization." Sorry, if you want the paper name you'll have give me till tomorrow as I don't have it in front of me.

-Maintenance

Maintenance cost can be minimize by using simpler, and lower powered equipment, both of which are viable option in a low g, near zero atmosphere environment.

-Rotation of miners(You don't seriously think a bunch of miners are gonna go there for good, do you?)

I don't think we're going to send miners at all. As for rotation of the people stationed there, it would probably occur every year to year and a half.

-Safety measures(for one thing, meteor protection of the base will be a bitch with no atmosphere to burn those giant rocks up, less gravity helps, but it's not necessarily enough)

Meteor impacts aren't likely to be a problem. Yes they do occur, but there very small, basically micro meteorites. If you bury the base under even a meter of soil they wont be a problem.

Yes it is. Much of the solar radiation is gamma, which is extremely difficult to block

No it's not. Most of the radiation from the sun are particles and soft x-rays with the occasional hard x-ray. There's actually very few gamma rays.

Now then let me also say that you have no idea what your talking about as the biggest radiation threat isn't from our sun, but from galactic cosmic rays, which account for about 10-15% of the radiation exposer on earth, 35-45% for astronauts in the ISS, and about 75-85% for those traveling between earth and the moon. They're also easily shield by hydrogen. Curiously enough, during times of high solar activity there are less galactic cosmic rays.

Note that this is what made you respond with the following moronic statement:

Given the way you where asking the question I don't think it's moronic at all, however calling some moronic when he's trying to have a conversation with you is.

You're kidding me right? I'm talking about basic human need,

No you weren't, you where insinuating the value of a moon rock is negligible, you made no indication that you where talking about value as related to agriculture or the like, which is it self a stupid question, seeing how a green house would likely be hydroponic in nature, and even if it wasn't the all the base chemicals needed to grow plants exist in the moon's soil, of course some processing would need to be done, but it's all there.

and you respond by rambling about the monetary value of moon rock? You can't eat moonrock dumbass, I'm not talking about its value.

Basic human need like food could be easily supplied by green houses, just like I said. Hell, if you don't like the idea of green houses you can always send prepackaged food, of course this would be more costly it's still an option. O2 and water could be easily extracted from the moon's regolith.

---

[Continued]

At 11/21/07 10:19 PM, JerkClock wrote:

But again, you're neglecting maintenance, safety, and miner rotation costs.

No, I'm not. Of course there will always be replacement and repair cost, how ever there cost can be very easily minimized. Maintenance can be minimized by using smaller simple systems and equipment. Given the low gravity and lack of both an atmosphere and the erosive components of it smaller, and cheaper equipment becomes an option. For take those huge dump trucks that run inside of mines, they put out about 1800 horse power; You could move the same amount with a 300 horse power engine on the moon (actually you could do it with even less, but I'll give you the six to one ratio). Now which do you think would cost more to both run and operate, the 300 hp, or the 1800 hp, and which do you think would be more complicated and harder to repair?

Besides the point all you need to make a mining operation profitable is to make more then your taking.

Pretty sure NASA, setting up an expensive moonbase, will not get them there. You have to go through hell to be an astronaut, they're not going to take along crazy fucks who are desperate to leave the planet.

I was talk about astronauts, there are a shit load of potential candidates for NASA's astronaut program, most of them don't get in because the number of astronauts needed is small, and why do you think you'd have to be a crazy fuck to want to leave the plant? Your really tying to straw man my argument aren't you?

---

A moon colony would most likely be an international effort. Besides, moon colony is a poor idea. The moon protects us from space debris. You bild something there, it could get hit.

---

At 11/22/07 06:34 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:
Hi I'm stupid

That won't block the gamma rays, and it would have to be perfectly solid(ie. no cracks)

I'm too stupid to know about the outgassing process

You can not use water to block solar radiation. Even if water were a good insulater(which it isn't), you'd still lose it all in the outgassing process.

I'm making this up as I go, so umm, plastic.

You'd need reinforcement to protect it from meteors too. It isn't like on earth where most of them burn up in the atmosphere.

These are the same people who think tin foil and duck tape are solutions for every thing.

This unsubstantiated claim is erroneous.

You don't need to be precise because I say so.

No I'm afraid that isn't the case. The spacesuits, ship, buildings, everything needs to be precise. What? You think you'll just fly right up there and slap together a moon colony? It doesn't work that way. For one, everything needs to be absolutely sealed off from the vacuum. "Good enough" sealing will get your crew killed.

Stuff about O2 that comes from me own ignorance.

See the thing you miss here is that the O2 trapped in the moon's soil isn't the problem. It's sealing off everything inside the buildings so that their internal atmosphere isn't destroyed by the vacuum. That is hard enough to do as it is, but you also have to do this while simultaneously blocking solar winds and protecting against huge meteors. You can't just slap something together and hope it works.

mrem stuff

You're talking about their space suits, the problem is they'd have to wear them 24/7. Even if they do though, they aren't going to be staying 5-9 years at a time. Being in space has other ill effects, such as muscular decline and stuff. So they'd still need a rotation.

stuff about algae

Okay but even assuming that is the case, there are still other problems with maintaining an atmosphere inside a building on a place that has no natural atmosphere.

magnetic field stuff.

K, fine, it's the "magnetic field" instead of the atmosphere, who gives a fuck? The point is you get zero protection from the solar winds on the moon.

stuff about radiation

Err no not really, we're talking about long stays, not short trips.

The most that people will do is sit in a control station and ether teleoperate the machinery or guide it.

two weeks

Well yeah, because of travel time to and away from the moon, but the point is it wasn't the same as spending years up there.

Clearly we do, other wise we could never have sent any one to the moon in the first place.

See, you're assuming that having enough blockage for short missions, is the same as having enough for long missions, and it is not.

Your right it doesn't, the estate is the start up cost of a small mining operation as quote from a paper in "Space Technology and Applications International Forum, STAIF 2004: 2nd Symposium on Space Colonization." Sorry, if you want the paper name you'll have give me till tomorrow as I don't have it in front of me.

Dude, some rogue news paper does not count as a valid source, give me a NASA quote amd I'll consider it valid. What you have is not.

I don't think we're going to send miners at all. As for rotation of the people stationed there, it would probably occur every year to year and a half.

And it would cost money to bring them in and out.

stuff about meteors

The meteors would not necessarily be small. The borying the base under moonsoil thing might work, but it isn't as easy as you might think. You have to dig a hole big enough to fit the base in, dig even deeper by a set amount(depending on how deep you want the base to be), build the base in it, then pile the moonsoil on it. All the while making sure there's an entrance/exit that's safe.

Stuff about gamma rays

Actually, there are both gamma and x-rays, copy and paste this to see for yourself:

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:Gvw 6GcBCluEJ:www.eoearth.org/article/Solar_
radiation+%2B%22solar+radiation%22+%2B%2 2gamma%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&clien t=firefox-a

you where insinuating the value of a moon rock is negligible,

Oh I where? Seriously dumb fuck, show where I said that. Oh that's right, I never did, you were just too stupid to comprehend what I said.

Basic human need like food could be easily supplied by green houses, just like I said.

Not as easy to build them as you insinuate.

No, I'm not.

Err, you rather are. And you're assuming that lower gravity = low maintenance. Well admittedly it's a factor, but not as much of one as you might think. A drill bit is just as worn in a zero gravity environent as a high gravity one because it's still impacting against a surface just as rapidly.

Of course, knowing you, you are going to take that example and assume that I am saying all space maintenance applies to drill bits or something(which I am not), but oh well.

potential candidates

Er no the reason so few get through is because surviving in space is difficult, even with good equipment. It's not like life on earth, you fuck up in space, you literally die(tearing your space suit open is one good example). Sure they may find the needed candidates, but it would take a while and cost a lot of money.

why do you think you'd have to be a crazy fuck to want to leave the plant

You'd have to be a crazy fuck to live inside a plant to begin with. As for leaving the planet, no I didn't say that, you are twisting my words. I'm saying you have to crazy to wanna leave struggle not to die of radiation, being exposed to a vacuum, making sure meteors don't crush your home, and maintaining the vegetation and food sources that your life eagerly depends upon. Didn't say you'd have to be crazy to wanna leave at all.

---

Building a colony on the moon is the same as building a colony in the middle of the ocean. The colony would need to have usefull resources that it could send back to earth, otherwise earth would just have to forcefeed it to survive and maintain itself which is a waste of money.

---

At 11/17/07 06:24 PM, bluedemonspeedracer wrote: If we were to build a moon colony, what type of government do you think would work best for it?

I think this topic is really interesting! But I have nothing good to say. D=

---

At 11/22/07 08:24 PM, JerkClock wrote:

Hi I'm stupid

Can you stop stupid comments. I'm trying to be civil whit you, but if you can't return the favor then I'm done with this conversation.

That won't block the gamma rays, and it would have to be perfectly solid(ie. no cracks)

No it wouldn't. As I've said gamma rays aren't that big of a concern. As for being solid, why would the radiation shielding need to be solid? Note I'm not talking about the base's walls, merely the layer(s) of shielding.

You can not use water to block solar radiation. Even if water were a good insulater(which it isn't), you'd still lose it all in the outgassing process.

You claim I'm stupid yet you don't even know that water is better at blocking radiation, especially heavy particle radiation (i.e. neutrons, protons, nucleus, and GCRs). I mean hell the thermal neutron reflecting cross section for water is 17.10, where as for lead it 7.15, and for iron it's only, 6.4. You have no idea what your talking about. Reference: http://www.sciencedirect.com/

As for outgassing, why do you think we'd leave the stuff exposed to the vacuum? It's not hard to wrap it up in some kind of container, or hell even large aluminum coated bags would work.

I'm making this up as I go, so umm, plastic.

Plastic has high concentrations of hydrogen and carbon, both of which slow, absorb, and generally reduce high energy radiation better then most other materials, yes that includes things like lead and concrete.

You'd need reinforcement to protect it from meteors too. It isn't like on earth where most of them burn up in the atmosphere.

As I said, meteors are not a big concern. Most are the size of dust grains.

These are the same people who think tin foil and duck tape are solutions for every thing.

This unsubstantiated claim is erroneous.

No it's not. We use duck tape and tin to fix most problems in our laboratories, I know from my professors who have worked both with and in NASA that it's no different over there. When something brakes or needs to be patched up you use duct tape, and tin foil. Why? because it works, and it's cheap.

You don't need to be precise because I say so.

No, you don't need to be precise because you just don't need to. Except for very sensitive instrumentation you don't need high levels of precision, it just doesn't matter if a plate of aluminum's thickness is know to the 12th desmale place or not.

No I'm afraid that isn't the case. The spacesuits, ship, buildings, everything needs to be precise. What? You think you'll just fly right up there and slap together a moon colony? It doesn't work that way. For one, everything needs to be absolutely sealed off from the vacuum. "Good enough" sealing will get your crew killed.

First off that's not precise, or what precise means. Precise means accurate (in a round about way at lest), i.e. knowing something down to the micrometer is more accurate then down to the millimeter. You don't need high precision to make an air tight seal.

Stuff about O2 that comes from me own ignorance.

See the thing you miss here is that the O2 trapped in the moon's soil isn't the problem. It's sealing off everything inside the buildings so that their internal atmosphere isn't destroyed by the vacuum. That is hard enough to do as it is, but you also have to do this while simultaneously blocking solar winds and protecting against huge meteors. You can't just slap something together and hope it works.

It's not that hard. Making a vacuum seal is rather easy. Hell we could do it at the turn of the last century with out a problem. As for solar winds, like I've been trying to tell you they aren't as big of a problem as your making them out to be. Hell, times of higher solar winds are marked by lower levels of radiation exposure.

mrem stuff

You're talking about their space suits, the problem is they'd have to wear them 24/7.

No I'm talking about radiation in general. As Per NASA safety guide lines the maximum radiation exposer permitted for each astronaut during there life time is 400 mrems.

Side question why the hell would you think relitvly thin space suits would be capable of blocking radiation well when we can't even make a half way decent radiation shield out of 2 meters of rock, water and plastic?

Even if they do though, they aren't going to be staying 5-9 years at a time.

Didn't say they would, only that as far as radiation goes they'd be safe.

Being in space has other ill effects, such as muscular decline and stuff.

Which occurs mostly in zero g. On the moon, which has 1/6 earth gravity that wouldn't be as much of a problem, if at all. Hell, they can minimize is in zero g by working out for an hour.

So they'd still need a rotation.

And? The cost of rotation wouldn't be excessive, sure it's there but it wont cost more then maybe a few million to transfer the crew every years or so.

stuff about algae

Okay but even assuming that is the case, there are still other problems with maintaining an atmosphere inside a building on a place that has no natural atmosphere.

Yeah, and? The problems are not unsolvable, your saying they are.

magnetic field stuff.

K, fine, it's the "magnetic field" instead of the atmosphere, who gives a fuck?

I do. Your going on as if you know more about space, and space travle then the fucking experts at NASA, and my self.

The point is you get zero protection from the solar winds on the moon.

One, the biggest problem for extra planet travel isn't solar winds but galactic cosmic ray, as I have mentioned and to which NASA agrees. Reference: "Preliminary estimates of galactic cosmic ray exposures for manned interplanetary missions", John W. Wilson, Lawrence W. Townsend, and William Atwell. Published by: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center , (C) 1987. ISBN/ISSN: 0830-D (MF).

If you can't get access to the publication perhaps this site will suffice: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/
17feb_radiation.htm

stuff about radiation

Err no not really, we're talking about long stays, not short trips.

The most that people will do is sit in a control station and ether teleoperate the machinery or guide it.

two weeks

Well yeah, because of travel time to and away from the moon, but the point is it wasn't the same as spending years up there.

Clearly we do, other wise we could never have sent any one to the moon in the first place.

See, you're assuming that having enough blockage for short missions, is the same as having enough for long missions, and it is not.

No, I'm assuming that the minamale radiation protection would be enough to set up a prefabbed habitat, and push enough moon dirt and water on it so that radiation is no longer a big issue.

Your right it doesn't, the estate is the start up cost of a small mining operation as quote from a paper in "Space Technology and Applications International Forum, STAIF 2004: 2nd Symposium on Space Colonization." Sorry, if you want the paper name you'll have give me till tomorrow as I don't have it in front of me.

Dude, some rogue news paper does not count as a valid source, give me a NASA quote amd I'll consider it valid. What you have is not.

Actually what I have is from an international symposium which to which many researchers at NASA participate. Here's there website: http://www.unm.edu/~isnps/conferences/co nferences.html

These are actual research papers, not just some run of the mill news paper, and a peer review research paper ranks higher on my list then just some quote from someone at NASA.

---

[Continued]

And it would cost money to bring them in and out.

Yes it would. Again I didn't say there wouldn't be cost, just that the rewards would out way them, and that they aren't going to be red neck hick miners as you seem to be insinuating.

The meteors would not necessarily be small.

The vast, vast, vast majority of those that hit the moon are.

The borying the base under moonsoil thing might work, but it isn't as easy as you might think. You have to dig a hole big enough to fit the base in, dig even deeper by a set amount(depending on how deep you want the base to be), build the base in it, then pile the moonsoil on it.

Or you could build it and push dirt on top of it.

All the while making sure there's an entrance/exit that's safe.

Actually, there are both gamma and x-rays, copy and paste this to see for yourself:

There are, but again the gamma ray flux is almost negligible. Except for during large solar flares the gamma ray flux on the moon is less then 1 photon per square meter per 100 seconds. (4.7E-7 cm^-2 s^-1) as per: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1997/97 JA01045.shtml

Even during peak storm activity, solar flares only produce about 20 to 45 low energy gamma rays (1-10MeV) for the same flux cross section (Note: 98% are about 1 MeV and could easily be stopped with a small amount potassium iodine salt). And Since they reduce the number of GCR by a very, very significant amount they're actually a good thing.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:Gvw 6GcBCluEJ:www.eoearth.org/article/Solar_
radiation+%2B%22solar+radiation%22+%2B%2 2gamma%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&clien t=firefox-a

you where insinuating the value of a moon rock is negligible,

Oh I where? Seriously dumb fuck, show where I said that. Oh that's right, I never did, you were just too stupid to comprehend what I said.

You originally said "There are none of essential things that humans need on the moon, except solid ground. ". As per your words there is nothing essential on the moon, I asked you to clarified what you consider essential and you replied that moon rock is not essential. By that same logic things like aluminum, steel, wood, hell anything that isn't food, water, or air must be non-essential. I tried to show you how you where in error by showing you that there is some value to moon rock and must there for have some uses and be essential in some way to our society. You refuse to ether see that or to quote you are just a "dumb fuck".

Not as easy to build them as you insinuate.

It's really not that hard.

Err, you rather are.

Again no I'm not. The fundamental point I made was "Besides the point all you need to make a mining operation profitable is to make more then your taking.".

And you're assuming that lower gravity = low maintenance. Well admittedly it's a factor, but not as much of one as you might think.

For a good majority of the equipment, it is. Also lets not for get that the equipment it self can be cheaper and lighter simply because it doesn't need to be as powerful.

A drill bit is just as worn in a zero gravity environent as a high gravity one because it's still impacting against a surface just as rapidly.

Yes, and? Stuff like drill bits are disposable. Note that I never said there wouldn't be any cost, just that a moon base could potentially turn a profit.

Of course, knowing you, you are going to take that example and assume that I am saying all space maintenance applies to drill bits or something(which I am not), but oh well.

No, but I do think your really stretching to prove your point. Hell, depending on what where mining there may not even be drills, or similar equipment. It's very likely that the first mining base will be mining He3, due to the large selling price and potential huge market. Most of the He3 is locked in the moon's soil and can be removed by heating a sifting of it. Both of which are very easy and cheap to do, and the equipment need to do this has very low maintenance costs.

potential candidates

Er no the reason so few get through is because surviving in space is difficult, even with good equipment. It's not like life on earth, you fuck up in space, you literally die(tearing your space suit open is one good example). Sure they may find the needed candidates, but it would take a while and cost a lot of money.

NASA has more viable potential candidates then they know what to do with. Why do you think there's been a hiring freeze for the last seven years?

why do you think you'd have to be a crazy fuck to want to leave the plant

You'd have to be a crazy fuck to live inside a plant to begin with.

Nice, point out my spelling error rather then my argument.

As for leaving the planet, no I didn't say that, you are twisting my words. I'm saying you have to crazy to wanna leave struggle not to die of radiation, being exposed to a vacuum, making sure meteors don't crush your home, and maintaining the vegetation and food sources that your life eagerly depends upon. Didn't say you'd have to be crazy to wanna leave at all.

I haven't twisted any thing, you said as much with out actually saying it. Just like you've done here. What your doing is way over exaggerating the problems associated with a potential moon base.

---

At 11/21/07 12:23 AM, KemCab wrote:

At 11/20/07 11:29 PM, JudgeDredd wrote: Air will be very expensive and heavily taxed. (not that tax exactly a capitalist mechanism, but you'd kinda expect the government would spend it on some nice weapons to keep the flood of earth immigrants out).

Air has to be free. You can't deny someone air, that would be killing them. It could come out of higher taxes- but you needn't worry about immigrants since it should be relatively easy to keep them out.

Just seal the airlock.

But yet we still would have to purchase supplimental oxygen supplies, because NASA scientists have tried to create oxygen systems that work entirely under an ecosystem but failed, it takes too long for plants to produce oxygen, the reason why it works on earth is because it took millions of years for phytoplankton to produce enough oxygen for it to balence out to a point of being consistant in our atmosphere. But when creating a moon colony we would not want to wait millions of years before inhabiting it. So along with having an ecosystem for some oxygen, we would still need oxygen from external sources to suppliment it. Since oxygen used externally would cost money, we would have to tax it in order for the moon colony's government to continue replenishing oxygen whenever the CO2 balence gets too high were plants alone won't produce it fast enough. The oxygen tax will only be a part of the reguler tax citicens pay annually. But plant inside the moon colony will be used to maintain the oxygen for a reletivly long period so imported oxygen will only need to be resupplied occasionaly rather then consistantly.

---

Also a free market economy is not going to work in a biosphere. The government would need the power to control population and development so it would need the power to tell how many trees are ok to chop down to build a building without compramising the life support, it would have to control the rate at which rations are consumed so that farmers can maintain supplies of agriculture, it would also need to have the power to tell how much children people can have so that overpopulation won't deplete air and resources, and what type of jobs people would have so that there is no labor shortage that can understaff jobs needed to maintain life support on the moon colony. So unfortunatly a moon colonies economy would be like china's. But yet, we don't want to restrict free speech, press, religion, and assembly because an atmosphere of political freedom and free thought is essentual for making sure that all citicens needs are being met as well as allow unorthadox, contraversial, but yet possibly innovative ideas in the colonies politics. So we would need a government that is democratic but yet have a command economy at the same time. Is such a government possible?

---

At 11/23/07 04:35 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

Stuff about civility

You're right, however it help if you didn't draw radical conclusions from what I say. Admittedly, I was wrong and I apologize.

Stuff about gamma rays

The problem is, gamma rays can do massive damage. Most of them go right through a person and do little damage if any, but when they don't go through you, it's pretty harmful.

As for being solid, why would the radiation shielding need to be solid?

Well it helps if it's going to block all the radiation it can.

stuff about water

Hmm, I did look this up and it seems that is true. However that's rather interesting as electric currents, a form of radiation, conduct very well through water. Of course, it is true that electric currents and cosmic radiation are not one and the same.

stuff about plastic

I looked this up also, and from what I gather, what you said is mostly correct, however it requires fusion with other materials and the mixture has to be pretty precise. So while it's true that plastic blocks radiation, the kind they would need is probably expensive.

stuff about meteors

While that's true, that's like saying that most earthquakes are so small that you couldn't even feel them if you stood right on top the epicenter. Because that's also true. It doesn't mean that California should neglect building codes that could prevent collapse in case of an earthquake though.

stuff about duct tape

LOL, I actually thought you were saying I was a paranoid schizophrenic who wears tin foil hats made with duct tape, nevermind.

stuff about precision

Not necessarily that precise no. There's no such thing as exct science, and I'm not saying there is.

stuff about air tight seals

I mean precise in that it has to be completely sealed off from the vacuum.

stuff about vacuum seals

It's not that hard with a small cannister, no. But making a vacuum sealed jar of peanuts isn't exactly the same as making an air-tight building.

radiation in general

I was referring to your comment about the things that can block all but 45-70 mrem a year.

Side question

Well the suits are made of special materials specifically made for blocking radiation(and other things). Whereas ordinary moonrock, water, and plastic, are just moonrock, water, and plastic. Not that they don't insulate, just that they don't do it as well as a radiation suit.

stuff about the moon's gravity

While it's true that this is due to the 0-g thing, having less gravity than earth's will still have a negative effect, especially over a long stay. Also, while exercising does reduce the effect, they say that even with rigorous exercise they lose roughly 30% muscle mass on trips lasting merely weeks. Prolonged stays on the moon could reasonably be assumed to have a major effect of some sort.

stuff about rotation

The problem with the cost of rotation is it involves all the fuel costs(which are high as fuck nowadays) and maintenance of the shuttles sent back and forth between the moon.

The problems are not unsolvable, your saying they are.

Not exactly. I'm saying that while they're solvable it's probably expensive and impractical.

I do.

The point, was simply that the moon has no protection from solar winds like the Earth does. I was right about that, the fact that I named the atmosphere instead of the magnetic field(which I had heard it was before, merely forgotten) is irrelevant because the context I was presenting was correct. The moon gets not solar wind protection and you agree.

stuff about cosmic rays

Well they're both a threat but regardless of which one is the bigger threat, the point remains the radiation threat is there.

minimal protection

But in a way that's kind of the point. I don't really think minimal protection is a good thing when we're talking about long stays in space.

http://www.unm.edu/~isnps/conferences/co nferences.html

That's a very interesting link. While it does support some of your points, note that they are projecting this can be done in 13 years, not right now. To be honest, that's kindof what I was thinking. That we can do this eventually, but not as of yet.

red neck hick miners

Well no I'm not saying that.

The vast, vast, vast majority of those that hit the moon are

True but again, the vast, vast majority of earthquakes that hit California are very small.

Or you could build it and push dirt on top of it.

It's more practical to build it in a dug up pit, then push dirt on it. You could do it the other way, but that's a lot harder.

more stuff about gamma rays

Still, because of the massive damage they can do to a person, it's reasonable to have high protection against it for long stays in space. I could see your point if it was 2 weeks or so.

stuff about essentials

Well, I meant basic survival needs. I suppose I should have been more clear, but indeed, moonrock is not a basic survival need.

It's really not that hard.

Not per se, but what my whole point, we have to build all our essentials on the moon from scratch and it would indeed be a lot of trouble and take a bit of work to set it all up. The troubles of making them air-tight and radiation resistant just make it worse.

Again no I'm not. The fundamental point I made was "Besides the point all you need to make a mining operation profitable is to make more then your taking.".

That doesn't means I was saying money was a basic human need though, cus I certainly wasn't.

For a good majority of the equipment, it is.

It's one factor yes, and it certainly helps, I'm not saying it doesn't. But it's only one factor.

moon base could potentially turn a profit

And I'm saying it could, just not right now. We just need to make sure we're fully prepared for it and not just jump in at the moment, that's all I'm saying.

NASA has more viable potential candidates then they know what to do with.

If you say so, but they still have to run all the tests and stuff before sending them.

spelling error

It was a joke dude. I wasn't being serious.

I haven't twisted any thing

Perhaps misunderstood then. But I certainly didn't say a person has to be crazy to simply wanna leave the planet.

---

Most likely the first colonists on the Moon would be a mixture of Military (Air Force/Navy) and scientists. In all seriousness, it would be something akin to the few episodes of Stargate Atlantis I've seen...basically minus the alien civilizations.

Hierarchy, Uniform Code of Military Justice and Chain of Command.

---

At 11/17/07 06:48 PM, PyroflameProductions wrote: I think it could be somewhat of a free market society... But with a hint of communism. Like there would only be able to be like maybe one "birth" per person, the other babies would have to be aborted.

Huh? Birth limitations doesn't have anything to do with communism.

---

In a moon colony, it would not be the rich or priveliged that go up, it would be the elite humans of society at first. As for a government, it would probably be a council with supreme power but the size of the colony has not been completely clear in the question. Also, a new order of ethics and social standards and practices would have to be created and life would have to be controlled to a large.

---

At 11/17/07 06:27 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: bluemod quit spaming the board with stupid ass topics and what does this one have to do with politics

I told you this in another thread: go suck a cock.

Step off your high horse and let other people talk about government. This is just him seeing what people's opinions are on government by using a situation that people would have little or no bias on.

---

the best government for it? NONE.

---

At 11/21/07 01:28 PM, Elfer wrote: Communism would work for the initial phase when all of the people there would be researchers and engineers.

Once the first McDonalds opens up though, you're screwed.

Well quite true, because the only examples of communism in real life that actually work as Marx predicted are Hippy Communes, Jewish Israeli Kibbutzes, and experimental communities outside of L.A. The only reason they work is because they are small and people voluntarily choose to be a part of them. The people also can leave volentarily, and even if they become corrupt, the immense governmental power of the sovereign democracy their commune is located can easily shut it down. So I think a moon colony may be one of the few places were communism works but only if its scientists and engineers. That colony could also be a commonwealth of one of earth's democratic nations to insure it works properly without corruption. Only upon the later stages when life support has been perfected can we have capitalism in it. Also another think, moon rock does actually have value. They are rich in minerals that are extremely rare on earth. Such minerals including iridium, platinum, rhodium, yttrium, and lanthenum. Such metals are not only metals used in jewlery but also are important in supporting a hydrogen economy. As for an oil economy those metals are needed for spark plugs, or for making zeolots for manufacturing synthetic gasoline, as well as being catylists for the cracking of hydrocarbons in petroleum, and catylitic converters.

---

At 11/17/07 11:36 PM, Boke wrote: Socialism

I've decided to go more along the conservative lines of Corporatism.

---

That would be pretty cool. Who wants to plan one secretly with me.