Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #152998 > unrolled thread
| Started by | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-16 15:29 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-10-18 13:25 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 93 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
Moon Farmers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-16 15:29 +0000
Re: Moon Farmers jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-17 13:22 +0000
Re: Moon Farmers "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 05:06 +1100
Re: Moon Farmers Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-18 11:20 -0400
Re: Moon Farmers Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-18 11:48 -0500
Re: Moon Farmers Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-18 19:08 +0000
Re: Moon Farmers Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-17 12:23 -0700
Re: Moon Farmers Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-18 11:20 -0400
Re: Moon Farmers Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-18 17:38 +0100
Re: Moon Farmers Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-18 13:20 -0400
Re: Moon Farmers Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-18 11:53 -0700
Re: Moon Farmers Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-19 07:12 -0400
Re: Moon Farmers Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-10-19 09:37 -0400
Re: Moon Farmers Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-10-19 09:42 -0400
Re: Moon Farmers Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-19 11:54 -0400
Re: Moon Farmers "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-20 10:12 +1100
Re: Moon Farmers David Jones <djones60@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 07:47 -0700
Re: Moon Farmers Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-19 10:58 -0400
Re: Moon Farmers JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 10:10 -0500
Re: Moon Farmers Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-19 11:26 -0400
Re: Moon Farmers JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 13:52 -0500
Re: Moon Farmers Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-19 15:09 -0400
Re: Moon Farmers JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 14:53 -0500
Re: Moon Farmers Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-19 16:06 -0400
Re: Moon Farmers JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 18:46 -0500
Re: Moon Farmers Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-19 16:54 -0700
Re: Moon Farmers JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 21:02 -0500
Re: Moon Farmers Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-20 11:25 -0500
Re: Moon Farmers Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-20 07:25 -0400
Re: Moon Farmers Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-20 10:32 -0500
Re: Moon Farmers JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 11:55 -0500
Re: Moon Farmers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-20 17:01 +0000
Re: Moon Farmers Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-20 10:23 -0700
Re: Moon Farmers Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-20 13:25 -0500
Re: Moon Farmers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-20 19:43 +0000
Re: Moon Farmers Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-10-20 16:51 -0500
Re: Moon Farmers Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-21 03:08 -0700
Re: Moon Farmers JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 09:54 -0500
Re: Moon Farmers Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-19 20:14 +0100
Re: Moon Farmers Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-19 11:40 -0400
Re: Moon Farmers JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 13:53 -0500
Re: Moon Farmers "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-20 10:11 +1100
Re: Moon Farmers Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-19 11:54 -0400
Re: Moon Farmers Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-19 12:07 -0400
Re: Moon Farmers Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-19 12:41 -0700
Re: Moon Farmers Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-19 12:35 -0700
Re: Moon Farmers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-19 16:08 +0000
Re: Moon Farmers Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-19 13:22 -0400
Re: Moon Farmers Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-19 18:53 +0100
Re: Moon Farmers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-19 18:54 +0000
Re: Moon Farmers Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-19 15:20 -0400
Re: Moon Farmers JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 14:54 -0500
Re: Moon Farmers Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-19 16:07 -0400
Re: Moon Farmers Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-19 21:14 +0100
Re: Moon Farmers Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-19 17:51 -0400
Re: Moon Farmers Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-20 09:35 +0100
Re: Moon Farmers Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-19 20:22 +0100
Re: Moon Farmers Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-10-19 15:40 -0400
Re: Moon Farmers Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-19 12:43 -0700
Re: Moon Farmers Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-19 15:59 -0400
Re: Moon Farmers Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-20 07:25 -0400
Re: Moon Farmers Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-10-20 12:13 +0000
Re: Moon Farmers Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-20 18:04 +0000
Re: Moon Farmers Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-21 14:21 -0400
Re: Moon Farmers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-21 19:52 +0000
Re: Moon Farmers Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-10-21 15:13 -0500
Re: Moon Farmers Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-21 17:19 -0700
Re: Moon Farmers Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-22 10:03 +0100
Re: Moon Farmers Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-22 11:53 -0400
Re: Moon Farmers Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-23 06:29 +0100
Re: Moon Farmers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-22 17:46 +0000
Re: Moon Farmers Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-23 05:57 -0400
Re: Moon Farmers Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-10-22 09:39 -0700
Re: Moon Farmers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-22 17:48 +0000
Re: Moon Farmers Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-22 17:45 -0700
Re: Moon Farmers "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-23 05:57 +1100
Re: Moon Farmers Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-10-22 17:56 -0700
Re: Moon Farmers "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-23 13:10 +1100
Re: Moon Farmers Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-22 23:32 -0400
Re: Moon Farmers Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-10-21 20:07 +0000
Re: Moon Farmers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-22 17:50 +0000
Re: Moon Farmers Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-20 14:10 +0100
Re: Moon Farmers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-20 15:42 +0000
Re: Moon Farmers Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-20 19:07 +0100
Re: Moon Farmers Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-20 21:20 -0500
Re: Moon Farmers Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-19 15:56 -0400
Re: Moon Farmers JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 18:43 -0500
Re: Moon Farmers Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-10-19 18:00 -0400
Re: Moon Farmers "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-20 10:08 +1100
Re: Moon Farmers Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-18 19:10 +0000
Re: Moon Farmers "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-19 15:30 +1100
Re: Moon Farmers scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-19 13:15 +0000
Re: Moon Farmers Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-18 13:25 -0400
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 13:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <c0fa2bl66hgqucmfv0sse46f0ktpuosrq5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #153074 |
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:40:51 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >On Mon, 19 Oct 2015, JimP wrote: > >> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:58:18 -0400, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: >>> >>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 9:20:06 AM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I did too. I'm very disappointed. Has anyone analyzed moon rock and soil >>>>>> to see what it lacks to be able to grow crops (other than water)? >>>>> >>>>> I remember that some lunar material was tested through an attempt to grow plants >>>>> in it, and they did very well. This was a news report shortly after the Apollo 11 >>>>> astronauts returned to Earth, I believe. >>>>> >>>>> John Savard >>>> >>>> Now I see the ESA is going in with the Russians to build a manned Moon base >>>> by 2030. Bye-bye US lead in space. >>> >>> Pointless competition. >>> >>> Besides that, given the formula: >>> >>> ESA + Russia > USA >>> >>> I say, so what? Are we now expecting Europe to launch missiles at us? >>> >>> As far as the moon, we've been there, there is nothing there worth going >>> back to. We've also been to Mars (with robots), and there's nothing there either. >>> >>> It's a time for astronomy and some targeted interstellar launches. >>> Yes, I know interstellar surveys take 1000s of years. So what. >> >> So, some of your ancestors told Columbus to not waste his time ? > >Well the Vikings had already made the trip. > > Michael Probably some of my ancestors. We came over after that anyway. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 10:11 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <d8lbl8Fu91aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153074 |
"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1510191140350.13722@darkstar.example.org... > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015, JimP wrote: > >> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:58:18 -0400, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: >>> >>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 9:20:06 AM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I did too. I'm very disappointed. Has anyone analyzed moon rock and >>>>>> soil >>>>>> to see what it lacks to be able to grow crops (other than water)? >>>>> >>>>> I remember that some lunar material was tested through an attempt to >>>>> grow plants >>>>> in it, and they did very well. This was a news report shortly after >>>>> the Apollo 11 >>>>> astronauts returned to Earth, I believe. >>>>> >>>>> John Savard >>>> >>>> Now I see the ESA is going in with the Russians to build a manned Moon >>>> base >>>> by 2030. Bye-bye US lead in space. >>> >>> Pointless competition. >>> >>> Besides that, given the formula: >>> >>> ESA + Russia > USA >>> >>> I say, so what? Are we now expecting Europe to launch missiles at us? >>> >>> As far as the moon, we've been there, there is nothing there worth going >>> back to. We've also been to Mars (with robots), and there's nothing >>> there either. >>> >>> It's a time for astronomy and some targeted interstellar launches. >>> Yes, I know interstellar surveys take 1000s of years. So what. >> >> So, some of your ancestors told Columbus to not waste his time ? > > Well the Vikings had already made the trip. But Columbus never got to hear about that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 11:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1211985321.466962469.693114.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #153070 |
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > >> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >>> On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 9:20:06 AM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote: >>> >>>> I did too. I'm very disappointed. Has anyone analyzed moon rock and soil >>>> to see what it lacks to be able to grow crops (other than water)? >>> >>> I remember that some lunar material was tested through an attempt to grow plants >>> in it, and they did very well. This was a news report shortly after the Apollo 11 >>> astronauts returned to Earth, I believe. >>> >>> John Savard >> >> Now I see the ESA is going in with the Russians to build a manned Moon base >> by 2030. Bye-bye US lead in space. > > Pointless competition. > > Besides that, given the formula: > > ESA + Russia > USA > > I say, so what? Are we now expecting Europe to launch missiles at us? > > As far as the moon, we've been there, there is nothing there worth going > back to. You can't say that, because *we don't know*. It's as if Columbus had gotten to the Dry Tortugas, said "just barren desert islands, nothing to see here" and sailed home. We've also been to Mars (with robots), and there's nothing there either. Actually there's quite a bit there. What are you expecting, Martians with canals and cities? It's a *whole world*, nearly as big as Earth, and I don't think we've explored the equivalent of Manhattan. Satellite mapping is fine, but it can only tell you so much. > > It's a time for astronomy and some targeted interstellar launches. > Yes, I know interstellar surveys take 1000s of years. So what. > Now this talk of a possible megastructure has me scared. I imagine it will turn out to be some natural phenomenon, but if it _is_ aliens, how far ahead of us are they? We might seem to be the equivalent of squirrels to them. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 12:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n034bt$7ad$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153076 |
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: >> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: >> >>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >>>> On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 9:20:06 AM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote: >>>> >>>>> I did too. I'm very disappointed. Has anyone analyzed moon rock and soil >>>>> to see what it lacks to be able to grow crops (other than water)? >>>> >>>> I remember that some lunar material was tested through an attempt to grow plants >>>> in it, and they did very well. This was a news report shortly after the Apollo 11 >>>> astronauts returned to Earth, I believe. >>>> >>>> John Savard >>> >>> Now I see the ESA is going in with the Russians to build a manned Moon base >>> by 2030. Bye-bye US lead in space. >> >> Pointless competition. >> >> Besides that, given the formula: >> >> ESA + Russia > USA >> >> I say, so what? Are we now expecting Europe to launch missiles at us? >> >> As far as the moon, we've been there, there is nothing there worth going >> back to. > > You can't say that, because *we don't know*. It's as if Columbus had > gotten to the Dry Tortugas, said "just barren desert islands, nothing to > see here" and sailed home. > > We've also been to Mars (with robots), and there's nothing there either. > > Actually there's quite a bit there. What are you expecting, Martians with > canals and cities? It's a *whole world*, nearly as big as Earth, and I > don't think we've explored the equivalent of Manhattan. Satellite mapping > is fine, but it can only tell you so much. I'm all for further robotic exploration of Mars. The moon? Not so much. Manned missions to either, a huge waste of money. It's clear Mars can't support human life no matter where we look. The best we could do is dig a big hole, add a reactor, hope for a source of air and water, generate our own light. We could do that anywhere on Earth. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 12:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <352c5a6a-77f3-4334-91bf-47d1ab424f4f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153077 |
On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 10:07:26 AM UTC-6, D_J_E wrote: > The best we could do is dig a big hole, add a reactor, hope for a source > of air and water, generate our own light. > We could do that anywhere on Earth. 1) Finding water on Mars, at least, is not iffy. One of its two polar caps is made from water ice, and there's plenty of permafrost there as well. 2) Real estate on Earth... is cheap compared to getting to Mars, but it isn't free in unlimited quantities either. On Earth, it's much easier to dig the _first_ hole. On Mars, once you've dug the first hole, there's nobody else to stop you from later digging two more holes, and then four more after that... until, for the price of one trip to Mars, you've got a whole planet's worth of habitats for your descendants. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 12:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5aff33af-5585-48ce-a563-6fe3cc631e5d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153076 |
On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 9:54:26 AM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote: > Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: > > We've also been to Mars (with robots), and there's nothing there either. > Actually there's quite a bit there. What are you expecting, Martians with > canals and cities? Well, what else could there be on Mars *besides* Martians with canals and cities that would be of any real interest to anyone but a scientist? I'm serious. If there are no Martians about to invade us, no Martian civilization with technology for us to copy, or land for us to settle or resources to mine, to a great many people studying the geology of Mars to get clues to how the Solar System formed... is a) of no practical use, and b) corrupts the morals of children, by contradicting what everybody knows, that the whole Universe originated by Divine fiat sometime in 4,004 B.C.. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 16:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Mz8Vx.123283$%c.82106@fx26.iad> |
| In reply to | #153070 |
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: >> Now I see the ESA is going in with the Russians to build a manned Moon base >> by 2030. Bye-bye US lead in space. > >As far as the moon, we've been there, there is nothing there worth going >back to. We've also been to Mars (with robots), and there's nothing there either. I would disagree with your characterization. The gravity alone makes it worth going back to (as a fueling station for missions elsewhere in the solar system)[*]. Not to mention the potential utility of an observatory on the dark side (granted it need not be manned). [*] LOX & LH3 today, HE3 tomorrow
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 13:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n038pa$qm6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153078 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >>Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > >>> Now I see the ESA is going in with the Russians to build a manned Moon base >>> by 2030. Bye-bye US lead in space. >> > >>As far as the moon, we've been there, there is nothing there worth going >>back to. We've also been to Mars (with robots), and there's nothing there either. > > I would disagree with your characterization. The gravity alone makes it > worth going back to (as a fueling station for missions elsewhere in the > solar system)[*]. Not to mention the potential utility of an observatory > on the dark side (granted it need not be manned). There is, of course, no fuel on the moon. (Unless HE3 becomes a fuel. Even then, we don't know that recovery on the moon is economic.) The ISS makes a lot more sense for a staging area. > [*] LOX & LH3 today, HE3 tomorrow What is LOX and LH3? Maybe LOX and LH? Not on the moon in any abundance. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 18:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <LvOdnTJV1fdDsLjLnZ2dnUU78KednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #153079 |
On 19/10/2015 18:22, Dan Espen wrote: > scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > >> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: >> >>>> Now I see the ESA is going in with the Russians to build a manned Moon base >>>> by 2030. Bye-bye US lead in space. >>> >> >>> As far as the moon, we've been there, there is nothing there worth going >>> back to. We've also been to Mars (with robots), and there's nothing there either. >> >> I would disagree with your characterization. The gravity alone makes it >> worth going back to (as a fueling station for missions elsewhere in the >> solar system)[*]. Not to mention the potential utility of an observatory >> on the dark side (granted it need not be manned). > > There is, of course, no fuel on the moon. > (Unless HE3 becomes a fuel. Even then, we don't know that recovery on > the moon is economic.) > > The ISS makes a lot more sense for a staging area. > >> [*] LOX & LH3 today, HE3 tomorrow > > What is LOX and LH3? > Maybe LOX and LH? > Not on the moon in any abundance. > There may be hydrogen at the lunar poles. There are more exotic fuels on the Moon such as aluminium, which can be burn in liquid oxygen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 18:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n%aVx.60338$yI3.436@fx28.iad> |
| In reply to | #153079 |
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > >> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >>>Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: >> >>>> Now I see the ESA is going in with the Russians to build a manned Moon base >>>> by 2030. Bye-bye US lead in space. >>> >> >>>As far as the moon, we've been there, there is nothing there worth going >>>back to. We've also been to Mars (with robots), and there's nothing there either. >> >> I would disagree with your characterization. The gravity alone makes it >> worth going back to (as a fueling station for missions elsewhere in the >> solar system)[*]. Not to mention the potential utility of an observatory >> on the dark side (granted it need not be manned). > >There is, of course, no fuel on the moon. >(Unless HE3 becomes a fuel. Even then, we don't know that recovery on >the moon is economic.) Won't know until we try. > >The ISS makes a lot more sense for a staging area. > >> [*] LOX & LH3 today, HE3 tomorrow > >What is LOX and LH3? >Maybe LOX and LH? >Not on the moon in any abundance. There is believed to be considerable amounts of water ice on the moon, from which LOX/LH can be derived; absent that, moving an icy object from the asteroid/kuiper belt to lunar orbit (or a lagrangian point) would seem to make sense. http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 15:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n03flr$qm1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153083 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >> >>> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >>>>Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: >>> >>>>> Now I see the ESA is going in with the Russians to build a manned Moon base >>>>> by 2030. Bye-bye US lead in space. >>>> >>> >>>>As far as the moon, we've been there, there is nothing there worth going >>>>back to. We've also been to Mars (with robots), and there's nothing there either. >>> >>> I would disagree with your characterization. The gravity alone makes it >>> worth going back to (as a fueling station for missions elsewhere in the >>> solar system)[*]. Not to mention the potential utility of an observatory >>> on the dark side (granted it need not be manned). >> >>There is, of course, no fuel on the moon. >>(Unless HE3 becomes a fuel. Even then, we don't know that recovery on >>the moon is economic.) > > Won't know until we try. Actually, we already know a lot of what's on the moon. We don't need to go there to fill in the gaps. >>The ISS makes a lot more sense for a staging area. >> >>> [*] LOX & LH3 today, HE3 tomorrow >> >>What is LOX and LH3? >>Maybe LOX and LH? >>Not on the moon in any abundance. > > There is believed to be considerable amounts of water ice on > the moon, from which LOX/LH can be derived; absent that, > moving an icy object from the asteroid/kuiper belt to lunar orbit > (or a lagrangian point) would seem to make sense. > > http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon.html > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water From water ice to fuel. Not really practical. The asteroid bit can be done at the ISS or L4. I read a lot of SciFi, so I've seen a lot of possibilities. I just think we're decades away from having a reasonable plan for the moon or Mars manned missions. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 14:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <riia2blp0kvq3ib0hdf490v9hs63prnrce@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #153088 |
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:20:25 -0400, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: >scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > >> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >>> >>>> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >>>>>Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: >>>> >>>>>> Now I see the ESA is going in with the Russians to build a manned Moon base >>>>>> by 2030. Bye-bye US lead in space. >>>>> >>>> >>>>>As far as the moon, we've been there, there is nothing there worth going >>>>>back to. We've also been to Mars (with robots), and there's nothing there either. >>>> >>>> I would disagree with your characterization. The gravity alone makes it >>>> worth going back to (as a fueling station for missions elsewhere in the >>>> solar system)[*]. Not to mention the potential utility of an observatory >>>> on the dark side (granted it need not be manned). >>> >>>There is, of course, no fuel on the moon. >>>(Unless HE3 becomes a fuel. Even then, we don't know that recovery on >>>the moon is economic.) >> >> Won't know until we try. > >Actually, we already know a lot of what's on the moon. >We don't need to go there to fill in the gaps. > >>>The ISS makes a lot more sense for a staging area. >>> >>>> [*] LOX & LH3 today, HE3 tomorrow >>> >>>What is LOX and LH3? >>>Maybe LOX and LH? >>>Not on the moon in any abundance. >> >> There is believed to be considerable amounts of water ice on >> the moon, from which LOX/LH can be derived; absent that, >> moving an icy object from the asteroid/kuiper belt to lunar orbit >> (or a lagrangian point) would seem to make sense. >> >> http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon.html >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water > >From water ice to fuel. >Not really practical. > >The asteroid bit can be done at the ISS or L4. > >I read a lot of SciFi, so I've seen a lot of possibilities. >I just think we're decades away from having a reasonable plan >for the moon or Mars manned missions. I've read lots of that to. Obviously different authors. But I've read fact articles to. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 16:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n03idt$o6$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153096 |
JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:20:25 -0400, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> > wrote: >>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >> >>> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >>>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >>>> >>>>> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >>>>>>Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>>> Now I see the ESA is going in with the Russians to build a manned Moon base >>>>>>> by 2030. Bye-bye US lead in space. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>As far as the moon, we've been there, there is nothing there worth going >>>>>>back to. We've also been to Mars (with robots), and there's nothing there either. >>>>> >>>>> I would disagree with your characterization. The gravity alone makes it >>>>> worth going back to (as a fueling station for missions elsewhere in the >>>>> solar system)[*]. Not to mention the potential utility of an observatory >>>>> on the dark side (granted it need not be manned). >>>> >>>>There is, of course, no fuel on the moon. >>>>(Unless HE3 becomes a fuel. Even then, we don't know that recovery on >>>>the moon is economic.) >>> >>> Won't know until we try. >> >>Actually, we already know a lot of what's on the moon. >>We don't need to go there to fill in the gaps. >> >>>>The ISS makes a lot more sense for a staging area. >>>> >>>>> [*] LOX & LH3 today, HE3 tomorrow >>>> >>>>What is LOX and LH3? >>>>Maybe LOX and LH? >>>>Not on the moon in any abundance. >>> >>> There is believed to be considerable amounts of water ice on >>> the moon, from which LOX/LH can be derived; absent that, >>> moving an icy object from the asteroid/kuiper belt to lunar orbit >>> (or a lagrangian point) would seem to make sense. >>> >>> http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon.html >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water >> >>From water ice to fuel. >>Not really practical. >> >>The asteroid bit can be done at the ISS or L4. >> >>I read a lot of SciFi, so I've seen a lot of possibilities. >>I just think we're decades away from having a reasonable plan >>for the moon or Mars manned missions. > > I've read lots of that to. Obviously different authors. > > But I've read fact articles to. As have I. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 21:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20151019211437.503bf864f3219052f66b32c9@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #153088 |
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:20:25 -0400 Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: > From water ice to fuel. Not really practical. It's an iffy proposition, OTOH lifting fuel is expensive so it's probably worth investigating ways of making it work. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 17:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n03oh5$ufd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153103 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes: > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:20:25 -0400 > Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: > >> From water ice to fuel. Not really practical. > > It's an iffy proposition, OTOH lifting fuel is expensive so it's > probably worth investigating ways of making it work. Investigation is almost always a good idea. Consider the tonnage of equipment you need to get to the moon to mine for fuel. Especially if you decide to have humans there. Then convert that tonnage to fuel that's stockpiled in LEO. You'd need an incredible demand for fuel for a human colony to pay for itself. I wonder if it would be feasible to store a large amount of water at the ISS. Then use solar energy to transform some of the water to H and O as needed. Shield it from the sun to store it in liquid form. The ISS could use the water as radiation shielding as a side benefit. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 09:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20151020093559.3c6c6d7e2499c4a0497a6a8d@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #153105 |
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:51:31 -0400 Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: > Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes: > > > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:20:25 -0400 > > Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: > > > >> From water ice to fuel. Not really practical. > > > > It's an iffy proposition, OTOH lifting fuel is expensive so it's > > probably worth investigating ways of making it work. > > Investigation is almost always a good idea. > > Consider the tonnage of equipment you need to get to the moon > to mine for fuel. I think the tonnage required depends very greatly on where the water ice is and what sort of rate you want to mine and process it at. It would be an interesting design challenge to see just how small modular ice mining equipment could be made. > Especially if you decide to have humans there. > Then convert that tonnage to fuel that's stockpiled in LEO. > You'd need an incredible demand for fuel for a human colony to > pay for itself. For every tonne of automated maining gear launched there would need to be four or five tonnes of fuel in LEO in order that the mined fuel be significantly cheaper than lifted fuel. A human colony would indeed do horrible things to this fairly reasonable requirement. > I wonder if it would be feasible to store a large amount of water > at the ISS. Then use solar energy to transform some of the water > to H and O as needed. How would you get the water to the ISS ? I'd be inclined to look to earth crossing asteroids rather than the moon as a source for that. > Shield it from the sun to store it in liquid form. Is that enough to liquify hydrogen and oxygen I wonder. > The ISS could use the water as radiation shielding as a side benefit. That is indeed a side benefit. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 20:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20151019202208.0dc15b139f5fa3ae66f73c3d@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #153083 |
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 18:54:11 GMT scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: > There is believed to be considerable amounts of water ice on > the moon, from which LOX/LH can be derived; absent that, There may well be - although it's still at the bottom of a not inconsiderable gravity well. > moving an icy object from the asteroid/kuiper belt to lunar orbit Asteroid belt perhaps - especially those whose orbits cross ours or come close. The Kuiper belt is a bit far away, minimum fuel transfer orbits from there to here are going to be somewhat time consuming. > (or a lagrangian point) would seem to make sense. It might make more sense to send the refining gear to the asteroid and ship the fuel to wherever it's needed. Why waste the precious fuel moving the slag. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 15:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <proto-628985.15403719102015@news.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #153070 |
In article <n030ab$lle$1@dont-email.me>, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: > It's a time for astronomy and some targeted interstellar launches. > Yes, I know interstellar surveys take 1000s of years. So what. > > -- We have no machines that will last hundreds much less thousands of years. -- Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 12:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <087a4e1b-9832-49a1-887b-07c9c4358ddc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153092 |
On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 1:40:52 PM UTC-6, Walter Bushell wrote: > We have no machines that will last hundreds much less thousands > of years. It's true that, due to insufficient demand, such machines cannot be ordered from stock at this time. Does that mean current technology is inadequate to the challenge of making such machines? That is by no means certain. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 15:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n03hvp$o6$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153094 |
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes: > On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 1:40:52 PM UTC-6, Walter Bushell wrote: > >> We have no machines that will last hundreds much less thousands >> of years. > > It's true that, due to insufficient demand, such machines cannot be ordered from > stock at this time. Does that mean current technology is inadequate to the > challenge of making such machines? That is by no means certain. I think a lot of mechanical devices can operate a long time if built to last. With the right equipment on board, some equipment could be repaired. No matter what though, you need power. Generating power for 1000s of years seems to be a problem with current technology. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web