• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Newt promises a permanent moonbase by the end of his second term

Undesired Walrus said:
Not even in the future? It could alleviate overcrowding here on Earth.
Click to expand...

The amount of fuel burned to ship a significant percentage of the earth's population off planet would leave the atmosphere unbreathable for those remaining here. Which, I guess, would achieve your stated goal quite handily.
 
Didn't someone want to make a permanent advertisement on the moon? That could be the source of funding. Free market! Maybe we should put some nukes up there to. For the lulz.
 
Mike! said:
I'm wondering, did Kennedy have a serious clue how we'd get to the moon in less than a decade when he proposed it?
Click to expand...

The known physics and technology meant it was viable, although a risk. How we would keep 13,000 people on the moon self supporting is not known. What the international implications are of those people applying to be the 51st state if they even got that many living there are also unknown. How people would live in low gravity permanently is also very dubious.
 
Considering that the mere image of the Mooninites was enough to spark a terrorism alert, actually visiting them on their home ground would be terrifying indeed. The innocent would suffer. Big time.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Recent experiments have proven that there is water on the moon. We can gather it there. It will be an enormously useful resource for creating fuel and oxygen.
Click to expand...
Fuel and oxygen can be obtained everywhere on the Moon. Oxygen is the most common element on the Moon and aluminum oxide is common. So those would cover fuel and oxygen (and oxygen is 90% of the mass of water).
Cleon said:
Also, if we're going the "lunar industry" route, it's worth keeping in mind that air/water/food recycling needs to be implemented on a much larger scale than the Biosphere projects.
Click to expand...
Not really. Biosphere II had spurious goals relating to creating a complete biosphere. If you focus solely on growing food the most straightforward way possible then a lot of problems go away.
fishbob said:
The amount of fuel burned to ship a significant percentage of the earth's population off planet would leave the atmosphere unbreathable for those remaining here. Which, I guess, would achieve your stated goal quite handily.
Click to expand...
Doubtful. A lot of people on Earth go on multiple air trips in their lives and spend an awful lot of time driving cars. Even with todays rockets I'd find it doubtful that shipping a person off the planet once compares to an entire lifetime. And ultimately our rockets have a lot of room for improvement, it should be possible to get launch energy costs for a single person down to something less than a typical American's energy consumption for a week.
 
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy said:
Doubtful. A lot of people on Earth go on multiple air trips in their lives and spend an awful lot of time driving cars. Even with todays rockets I'd find it doubtful that shipping a person off the planet once compares to an entire lifetime.
Click to expand...

I don't know about in terms of air pollution, but in terms of cost I'll bet it's close*.

At any rate, I stand by my response to that proposal: it'd be easier to populate Antarctica and Greenland to alleviate overcrowding than it would be to put enough of our population on the Moon for that purpose.

Aside from the huge cost of getting a billion or so bodies and everything necessary to sustain them out of our gravity well as compared to getting people and supplies to Antarctica (which can be done by boat for orders of magnitude less cost), the fact is that even as harsh as Antarctica is, it is way more human friendly than the Moon! There is abundant water (not just the relatively small and hard to access amounts available on the Moon), breathable atmosphere at a convenient ~1 atm pressure, soil (not just regolith), etc. Plus no issue with the negative effects of 1/6 gravity (muscle atrophy and so on).

*In the tunnel connecting the planetarium to the main building of the St. Louis Science Center, there's a nifty little display. It asks how much it would cost to get you into space, and then you step on a scale to find out. I'm sure some folks here have an idea of what the cost per kg or per pound is. The only word I can think of to describe that cost (especially if we're considering moving a couple of billion people) is astronomical!
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I don't know about in terms of air pollution, but in terms of cost I'll bet it's close*
Click to expand...

Well, if we're talking about sending a billion people in to space then using todays costs isn't at all meaningful. We haven't even gotten to the point where we've ever mass produced a manned rocket. If we're talking launching a billion people then we'd be in a completely different realm where mass production would be a given and even more exotic technology than rockets would be a consideration.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Fuel and oxygen can be obtained everywhere on the Moon. Oxygen is the most common element on the Moon and aluminum oxide is common. So those would cover fuel and oxygen (and oxygen is 90% of the mass of water).
Click to expand...

Is creating fuel out of aluminum oxide as easy as dipping as dipping a wire powered by solar into a jar of water?

I honestly don't know. Chemistry ain't my thing. ;)
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Well, if we're talking about sending a billion people in to space then using todays costs isn't at all meaningful. We haven't even gotten to the point where we've ever mass produced a manned rocket. If we're talking launching a billion people then we'd be in a completely different realm where mass production would be a given and even more exotic technology than rockets would be a consideration.
Click to expand...

I want a space elevator. Why won't a presidential candidate propose one?
 
steve s said:
Thar be titanium in them thar maria.
http://www.space.com/13247-moon-map-lunar-titanium.html

And a map of its distribution...
http://www.moon.com.co/atlas/titan_map.shtml

Of course, you've got to get a factory up there to get the titanium out and build a spaceship with it.

Steve S
Click to expand...

I think the goal would be to assemble a space ship there that doesn't need to be designed for the enormous forces necessary for leaving the earth's atmosphere. The parts themselves can come from Earth.
 
From a live blog of the debate:

“The idea that corporate America wants to go off to the moon and build a colony there – it may be a big idea, but it’s not a good idea,” Romney says to loud applause.
. . .
“We’ve got to say no to this kind of spending,” Romney says.

Gingrich retorts that it’s important for candidates to “be responsive to the needs of the states they campaigned in.”
Click to expand...

Hey! Look at me! I'm pandering!

When he goes to Iowa, he promises ethanol subsidies. In Florida he promises a moon base. Pork for every state!
 
Puppycow said:
When he goes to Iowa, he promises ethanol subsidies. In Florida he promises a moon base. Pork for every state!
Click to expand...

How about a moon base built entirely of pork, where people will live while they labor to grow corn on the moon? That would be cost effective and stylish, and earn us the envy of all the other nations and/or moons!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom