Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LordBaal]

@LordBaal: Who's this Abrahams guy?

Oh well, I didn't meant to derail the thread and try it to give the focus on the USA options and opinions. I meant Elliott Abrams.

Double edit, it was the right thread after all. I genuinely thought it was the space thread.

[Folly]

Seriously?  You know better. Stop with that nonsense at once.

You're suggesting that we should take seriously the continued practice of spending absurd amounts of time and money and risking human lives to visit an orbiting ball of space-dirt?

[Egan_BW]

While it is space woo, getting routine transport to the moon is required if humanity intends to ever use it as a springboard to other planets or objects.

What does the moon offer as a springboard that we can't just build in orbit and save ourselves the ΔV of landing and taking off? Gravity assist, I guess, but that doesn't involve landing on the thing.

[wierd]

While it is space woo, getting routine transport to the moon is required if humanity intends to ever use it as a springboard to other planets or objects.

What does the moon offer as a springboard that we can't just build in orbit and save ourselves the ΔV of landing and taking off? Gravity assist, I guess, but that doesn't involve landing on the thing.

High concentrations of aluminum ore, with a very low launch cost?

Harvestable quantities of water, with a low launch cost?

Seriously?  You know better. Stop with that nonsense at once.

You're suggesting that we should take seriously the continued practice of spending absurd amounts of time and money and risking human lives to visit an orbiting ball of space-dirt?

Since we have yet to make 100% automated factories, that means having human workers. The point of using the moon as a springboard is to use it as a material processing and manufacturing complex for equipment that would otherwise be too costly to launch from Earth.  That means "yes."

Instead of sending something with a max size of a dune buggy to mars, we could send something the size of an SUV, or larger, with MUCH more science equipment, and a much longer service life, once a reliable lunar fabrication presence is established.  The "We have nothing to learn there, so no reason to go!" rhetoric is tired, and simply not applicable. The reason to go is not for science of the object in question, but resource utility of the object in question.

[Dunamisdeos]

Do we not have vast quantities of aluminum and water available one way or another here on Earth, though? Isn't it super easy to nab aluminum from various naturally-occurring compounds?

[Kagus]

Do we not have vast quantities of aluminum and water available one way or another here on Earth, though? Isn't it super easy to nab aluminum from various naturally-occurring compounds?

No, we need to save bauxite for our magma floodgates.

[wierd]

Oh yes.  For a launch cost of several thousand dollars per pound, from earth.


The cost to place in lunar orbit from lunar surface would be SIGNIFICANTLY less.

(the goal is to send objects elsewhere in the solar system FROM THE MOON, instead of FROM EARTH.  Water is a very useful shielding material, and also essential to human life-- so assuming we wanted to send manned missions elsewhere in the solar system, launching epic fucktons of it would be necessary.  Getting off the moon instead of earth would be a no brainer.  Likewise with sending lunar fabricated aluminum; You assemble that huge ass space ship in lunar orbit from materials harvested on the moon, rather than materials harvested from earth, because the total cost of the huge ass space ship will be substantially less that way.)


(re: bauxite)

Silly man.  There is no bauxite on the moon.  There is anorthite instead. Read the linked article.

[Rolan7]

There's a situational value to water (and aluminum) which is already pretty much in space.  A lazy google estimates the price to launch one kilogram of material is about $10,000.  If we want to build stuff with aluminum or support lifeforms with water (even if we heavily reuse the water) having a lunar source avoids a lot of that cost.

I don't have an opinion about lunar missions at this moment, but I like Kerbal Space Program (;
ninja'd

[Kagus]

(re: bauxite)

Silly man.  There is no bauxite on the moon.  There is anorthite instead. Read the linked article.

That's the point. You're applying pee kid mathematics again.

We can't use bauxite as an earth-aluminum source because we need it for magma floodgates, so we have to go to space to get alumoonum.

[wierd]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget

NO, we get it from space to avoid having to process and burn epic fucktons of fuel to get it into a useful transfer orbit.

See the handy chart.  Note the difference in the bars for pounds of fuel required to achieve orbital delta-v between the earth's and the moon's surfaces.

THAT is the reason.

[bloop_bleep]

Do we not have vast quantities of aluminum and water available one way or another here on Earth, though? Isn't it super easy to nab aluminum from various naturally-occurring compounds?

No, actually. Napoleon actually gave aluminum spoons to his favorite guests. The less prestigious ones had to settle for gold.

Until the modern Bayer process for smelting aluminum was invented in 1888, the only way to get aluminum was through nearly pure pockets of the metal underground. As aluminum is a rather reactive substance, these were very rare. Even now, aluminum smelting uses up vast amounts of energy, which is why aluminum is one of the more expensive metals.

[Il Palazzo]

@wierd
But where's the investment and maintenance cost for the lunar manufacturing base in all of that? I.e. how many tons would one have to send from the Moon vs from Earth to justify the initial cost of the base? How many tons per year to justify its maintenance? Because that might prove to be such a huge number, that it's not going to be even needed in any sort of a foreseeable future.

[Kagus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget

NO, we get it from space to avoid having to process and burn epic fucktons of fuel to get it into a useful transfer orbit.

See the handy chart.  Note the difference in the bars for pounds of fuel required to achieve orbital delta-v between the earth's and the moon's surfaces.

THAT is the reason.

That's what they want you to think.

[Dunamisdeos]

Ya but like, what is the end game here? Like I understand the concept of grabbing material from space to build things in space, but what are we after in space that makes all this worth it? Is the cure for cancer on Neptune?

What are we actually after aside from settling another planet for funsies? If it's a resource thing, why not invest in sustainable things here on Earth instead? We will need that stuff anyway if we settle elsewhere.

[wierd]

"Golden space parachute for 1%ers after they ruin the earth" is floated as one, but that does not pan out numbers wise. (Surviving on a blasted earth would still be easier.)

similar story with "Solve overpopulation by forced space migration!", since humans seem incapable of understanding how exponential growth works.

Really, the best reason is "Because humans dont always do what is logistically or logically sound, and do things for the cool factor."