China talking with European Space Agency about moon outpost

a reply to: intrptr

So, your view would be that this is, in fact, impossible with current technology?

BT

originally posted by: olaru12
The only moon base will be Military.

While I detest all things war related I believe this to be the truth

a reply to: beetee

A moon base? Well, imagine how many trips they would have to make, and the cost of that. People got bored the last time they went after only a half dozen or so landings.

But I get the disinformation, pumping the ride for more money to go exploring, maybe bring back a big gold moon meteorite.

You weren't around the last time they campaigned for the moon. They promised the shuttle would build a space station (which it did), but stopped short of the orbital facility needed to use as a stepping stone to the moon.

Now the shuttle is gone and ISS is aging and they sure aren't planning to use it to build moon bases from.

So back to square one, without an earth orbiting 'work' station and moon ferry shuttle, the goal of moon bases shifts back out of reach.

But sounds good as a cover story to get revenue for more spy stations, lasers and nukes from orbit in order to dominate the Planet.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: intrptr

Watch some of the Apollo videos, you'll see when they drop stuff, it falls. It don't float away or act like it's in a 1/200 of 1 G

You saw the golf shot on the moon too? One handed partial swing and that ball was gone.
As far as welding plasma globs they would skitter and bounce a bunch, too.

I don't think they have even tried to weld or grind in microgravity yet, theres no point to it, way to dangerous.

Everything they do is glue, tape, velcro, fasteners, etc. Not even drilling would be practical, let alone mining, smelting, pouring, machining, etc, etc.

I could remotely envision some kind of tunneling and thermatic fuzing of tunnel walls to make tube style underground 'caves'. Even still the time it takes to do that and create a habitat would require oxygen, water, food, etc, etc.

They would have to build factories to build factories to sustain life before even beginning to make habitats.

How long would that take, how much O2, H2O, alone? Tons.

Figuring the lifting cost from earth to orbit, to moon orbit, to landing it on the moon per pound...

never mind.

a reply to: intrptr

Two things:

1) Stop calling it microgravity, because it isn't microgravity.

2) Why do you have such a defeatist attitude? And no, don't say "realistic". Because we (humans) have done quite a bit and overcome many challenges through out history. I find, however, you seem to be one of those people who not only says the glass is half empty, but that it's filled with toxins that going to kill everyone. I hope you have SOMETHING in life that actually inspires you.

sheesh.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: intrptr

Two things:

1) Stop calling it microgravity, because it isn't microgravity.

2) Why do you have such a defeatist attitude? And no, don't say "realistic". Because we (humans) have done quite a bit and overcome many challenges through out history. I find, however, you seem to be one of those people who not only says the glass is half empty, but that it's filled with toxins that going to kill everyone. I hope you have SOMETHING in life that actually inspires you.

sheesh.

I've thought a lot about how to make it possible, defeatist nothing, cost (for one) and deception (using it for ulterior motives) is the inescapable conclusion. Let alone titanic practical difficulties involved.

Maybe I've read a few more reports than most. My dad did work space and aerodynamics for Lockheed his whole life.... hmmm.

Edit: he used to gather us round the TV whenever there were launches and moon landings, always giving us the blow by blow about whats right and wrong about the missions to the moon.

H'ed draw pictures of gantries , orbiters, landings, reentries, explain all the tough design compromise decisions, the enormous amount of work and resources that would go into it, and especially the future.

At the time they were scaling back space funds and the moon landings were gonna end. The politics of that among insiders drove him crazy, he was an aerodynamic engineer, hated politics. So focused on the practicalities of further exploration, the hostility of space and the moon environment , the logistics of going further, either to establish bases or go to other planets.

Ultimately the decision to send probes further rather than men was a good decision. Instead of wasting the money mucking about on the moon, they sent probes to the outer planets, we all see the benefits of that. They still do it with mars rovers, etc.

Forget about sending humans until they develop some other tech than chemical rockets and costly, habitable space ships.

a reply to: intrptr

Several years ago I was doing CGI work for a Mars Base simulation for a company with NASA as an advisor.

I got to talk a lot to some of their people because we were trying to make the simulation as realistic as possible.

Each idea was pretty much confirmed that any kind of base located on the moon or mars would be underground, simply because of the protection it affords from micrometeorites to both cosmic and solar radiation, and you don't really need to go that deep for it.

Most of what they were talking about, they were saying 50 to 100 years from now, but based on existing tech from today, and based on lack interest, funding, etc.

Still, while that time amount depressed me, these people were bright and happy to talk about it, as if they were talking about building a dam right here on Earth.

That cheered me up some, knowing that people who are in this area, who may never see their ideas come, were still excited about it, even in the face of those who thought going in space was such a waste of time and money.

.....or seem to see boogymen under every rock.

originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

Well, talking about the possibility of doing something and actually doing it - and footing the bill for doing it - is obviously two different things.

I, for one, am excited that we are getting a new moon base initiative.

We have been slacking, as a species, in this regard for decades :-D

BT

If anyone could do it, I would put my money on China. They have been very innovative and forward-thinking.

They also put the money in to the programs, unlike NASA.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

Well, talking about the possibility of doing something and actually doing it - and footing the bill for doing it - is obviously two different things.

I, for one, am excited that we are getting a new moon base initiative.

We have been slacking, as a species, in this regard for decades :-D

BT

If anyone could do it, I would put my money on China. They have been very innovative and forward-thinking.

They also put the money in to the programs, unlike NASA.

The Chinese with a military base on the moon....

Now that's a game changer!

Yep, NASA is just a money pit for the Executive administrators, select research subcontractors and lobbyists.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

Well, talking about the possibility of doing something and actually doing it - and footing the bill for doing it - is obviously two different things.

I, for one, am excited that we are getting a new moon base initiative.

We have been slacking, as a species, in this regard for decades :-D

BT

Because any effort to go to the moon and return must be accomplished the same exact way.

Gynormous Saturn V boosters burn mega pounds of fuel, earth orbiters, lunar transition vehicles, moon orbiters, moon landers, earth return and reentry vehicles...

I don't think it should be the same way at this time. They should be able now to send all their stuff ahead with the need for personnel only as a last stage. intermediate posts, air launches to orbit, could also be part of the planned expedition..just more lateral thinking would be needed, and probably is already.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

Well, talking about the possibility of doing something and actually doing it - and footing the bill for doing it - is obviously two different things.

I, for one, am excited that we are getting a new moon base initiative.

We have been slacking, as a species, in this regard for decades :-D

BT

Because any effort to go to the moon and return must be accomplished the same exact way.

Gynormous Saturn V boosters burn mega pounds of fuel, earth orbiters, lunar transition vehicles, moon orbiters, moon landers, earth return and reentry vehicles...

I don't think it should be the same way at this time. They should be able now to send all their stuff ahead with the need for personnel only as a last stage. intermediate posts, air launches to orbit, could also be part of the planned expedition..just more lateral thinking would be needed, and probably is already.

Thats the problem Smurf, if they are going back and expect to return to earth, the engineering constraints are the same then as now. They would have to do it the only way there is to do it...

We might see some cosmetic differences, solid rocket fuel as opposed to liquid... for instance.

Tycho City and Lake Armstrong, am I moving to fast? Eventually we, the human race, will make it to Luna if we don't kill our selfs first.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

Well, talking about the possibility of doing something and actually doing it - and footing the bill for doing it - is obviously two different things.

I, for one, am excited that we are getting a new moon base initiative.

We have been slacking, as a species, in this regard for decades :-D

BT

If anyone could do it, I would put my money on China. They have been very innovative and forward-thinking.

They also put the money in to the programs, unlike NASA.

The Chinese with a military base on the moon....

Now that's a game changer!

Yep, NASA is just a money pit for the Executive administrators, select research subcontractors and lobbyists.

The Chinese are funding their programs very well and have become very good at thinking outside of the box to achieve certain goals.

Jim Oberg talks a bit about China's program on a podcast I listened to recently. Here is a link:

theunexplained.tv...

Worth a listen.

a reply to: olaru12

Meh. Chinese having a military base on the Moon.

I'd be much more worried if they had something in low orbit about the Earth.

This is due to the amount of time it takes anything to travel to and from the Moon. Days, so leaves plenty of time to see it coming, either evacuate or do something about it.

Now geosynchronous orbit, or LEO on the other hand......much shorter distance and less time to react.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

Well, talking about the possibility of doing something and actually doing it - and footing the bill for doing it - is obviously two different things.

I, for one, am excited that we are getting a new moon base initiative.

We have been slacking, as a species, in this regard for decades :-D

BT

Because any effort to go to the moon and return must be accomplished the same exact way.

Gynormous Saturn V boosters burn mega pounds of fuel, earth orbiters, lunar transition vehicles, moon orbiters, moon landers, earth return and reentry vehicles...

I don't think it should be the same way at this time. They should be able now to send all their stuff ahead with the need for personnel only as a last stage. intermediate posts, air launches to orbit, could also be part of the planned expedition..just more lateral thinking would be needed, and probably is already.

Thats the problem Smurf, if they are going back and expect to return to earth, the engineering constraints are the same then as now. They would have to do it the only way there is to do it...

We might see some cosmetic differences, solid rocket fuel as opposed to liquid... for instance.

That's fine, but what I said was I don't think it should be that way, but as it stands as of now, events are overtaking things. As it stands Dragon 2 is due to make an unmanned flight later this year, mid 2018 a manned flight, and by late 2018 a two passenger flight round the moon..that flight has been booked by the two passengers. Meanwhile NASA is considering a manned flight around the Moon for 2019...that may well be a cooperative effort, I don't know, but not likely to be Orion, or their new heavy lift rocket. Now the ESA and China have stepped in, you can be sure as hell that there is a new space race on, so no matter what they do, any long-term projects other than the Moon are going to take a beating...unless huge amounts of the readies are thrown at them, as well as Moon money. Interesting times ahead.

a reply to: smurfy

and by late 2018 a two passenger flight round the moon..that flight has been booked by the two passengers.

Moon tourists. Are people that wealthy they can burn tens of million to 'go round the moon'? Yes they are. In the land of billionaire disparity, the wealthy can afford the drop in the bucket ride to the moon 10 times over and still go meh, I was claustrophobic, it too to long to get there and back. The lift off was 'bumpy.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: intrptr

Several years ago I was doing CGI work for a Mars Base simulation for a company with NASA as an advisor.

I got to talk a lot to some of their people because we were trying to make the simulation as realistic as possible.

Each idea was pretty much confirmed that any kind of base located on the moon or mars would be underground, simply because of the protection it affords from micrometeorites to both cosmic and solar radiation, and you don't really need to go that deep for it.

Most of what they were talking about, they were saying 50 to 100 years from now, but based on existing tech from today, and based on lack interest, funding, etc.

Still, while that time amount depressed me, these people were bright and happy to talk about it, as if they were talking about building a dam right here on Earth.

That cheered me up some, knowing that people who are in this area, who may never see their ideas come, were still excited about it, even in the face of those who thought going in space was such a waste of time and money.

.....or seem to see boogymen under every rock.

Thing is, just getting the stuff for a manned base to the Moon or Mars is hard enough, but to send the equipment for digging a base underground increases the costs and complexity even more, not to mention that you'll probably need people there doing the digging in the first place.

This is really the science-fiction stuff that may not actually happen for many decades.

The most realistic thing I see happening within out lifetimes is an experimental pop-up habitat on the surface, similar to the Bigelow module on the ISS.

a reply to: wildespace

Actually, one of the things they talked about was: tractors.

You send the equipment first, have it their and waiting on the workers.

Workers arrive, unload all the equipment, using small tractors that were sent with the equipment, and you bury the habitats.

For Mars it's mostly about radiation, doesn't take much soil to cover your habitat to protect you from that.

But, the main danger is the length of time spent getting there.

That's why I'm all for going back to the Moon first: Practice. Do it on the Moon first. Technically it's harsher conditions than on Mars.....but only a few days away. Rescue if needed is a real thing in that case. Mistakes do not have to be hugely costly in equipment and lives in that case. We learn from it, and get that much needed practice first.

I believe we will see something accomplished with regards to a moon mission. However any kind of base would probably start taking shape at the end of our lives, these things take time. Mind you, the first steps will be accomplished within the next five to ten years.

However, anything larger like a base will take significantly more time. That is to say, I don't doubt the human spirit. We already have an established framework, indigenous knowledge earned through hard work with primitive systems of an early era. Perhaps, we might be able to see something within the next 20 years or so. What nation will it be is the question.

The US pioneered space, we have the knowledge and know how, we just need it to reinvent itself and this is probably happening in the form of the private sector. Whatever the case may be, as an American citizen, I want it to be us that wins this next space so-called space race.

originally posted by: wildespace
Thing is, just getting the stuff for a manned base to the Moon or Mars is hard enough, but to send the equipment for digging a base underground increases the costs and complexity even more, not to mention that you'll probably need people there doing the digging in the first place.

This is really the science-fiction stuff that may not actually happen for many decades.

They might not have to do much digging for an underground base, if they can use an old hollow lava tube. They would still have to make one or more access points to the underground facility but if nature has done the work it might be nice to take advantage of that.

Lava tubes safe enough for Moon base

Natural tunnels known as lava tubes could safely house permanent bases on the Moon, scientists have said.

The underground volcanic structures have previously been proposed as ideal sites for human settlements.

Scientists have now assessed how stable these features might be, and found that tubes of 1km in size and bigger would be structurally sound.

They could protect against the challenges posed by the lunar environment.

Details of the work were presented at the 46th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (LPSC) in Texas.