Trump advisers' space plan: To moon, Mars and beyond

a reply to: ExNihiloRed

Because u need to build and base and there is hydrogen that will allow travel to Mars.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: charlyv
As much I am in favor of a Moon base for a variety of reasons, yours isn't really one of them. You are talking about an industrial level of development. While it will happen, that's a long way down the road. Until then, sending stuff to Earth orbit and working on it there, then sending it off to "out there" would be easier than working on the Moon. We'll be rounding up a space rock soon, we'll get better at it. Lots of resources.

If the goal is to establish a colony on Mars, wouldn't Phobos make more sense as a "lunar" base?

Ok, they are different endeavors, but since the industrial approach would be the overall (peaceful) main reason to go back to the moon in the first place, it should be the plan from the get-go. If we could produce fuel there and harvest the water that they say is locked up in the rocks, the base could become self sufficient, especially if we are able to grow stuff under domes. As far as Phobos, yes, it would be a great place for command and control and storage of materials for a Mars colony. I too think it will all happen, but there is so much to accomplish. They could very well be the jobs of the future for so many.

originally posted by: olaru12
I hope those rocket ships can use BS for fuel.

I believe Mythbusters classified the idea of using at least human waste as fuel was "plausible". So, bovine waste might be plausible also.

Mythbusters poop-powered rocket

.

More seriously, I am guessing that Trump is thinking about mining or otherwise commercially exploiting the Moon. Maybe this is in regards to H3, but more likely he just has no clue what that might be.

Isn't there some treaty or international accord that treats the Moon similarly to Antarctica?

And, while we're at it, if we're going to break some international agreement for commercial reasons, wouldn't Antarctica be a lot cheaper to reach and exploit?

Of course, all this assumes you're dealing with rational people in charge, so ... get ready for the gold-plated moon-base with an 18-hole golf-course with giant "Trump" sign on it!

a reply to: TerminalVelocity
Love the "Space 1999" reference. Loved that as a kid (and own the boxed-set on DVD).

But more seriously, I have heard it said that ..

"Even if there were refined gold sitting on the surface of the moon, in brick form - the expense of going to get it would be enormous compared it its value" (or something approximately that).

However, in the vein of "Space 1999", I wonder if that is true of the opposite - taking something to the moon that we don't want on Earth - such as nuclear waste.

Even that might not be financially plausible, but probably comes closer given how expensive it is to even store nuclear waste for 1,000's of years - much less deal with any Earth-side disasters (and clean-up, etc.) caused by storing it here - instead of moving it to an "inert" body like the Moon.

.

originally posted by: EnhancedInterrogator
More seriously, I am guessing that Trump is thinking about mining or otherwise commercially exploiting the Moon. Maybe this is in regards to H3, but more likely he just has no clue what that might be.

Isn't there some treaty or international accord that treats the Moon similarly to Antarctica?

And, while we're at it, if we're going to break some international agreement for commercial reasons, wouldn't Antarctica be a lot cheaper to reach and exploit?

Of course, all this assumes you're dealing with rational people in charge, so ... get ready for the gold-plated moon-base with an 18-hole golf-course with giant "Trump" sign on it!

im curious what else you think we should do if we do head back to the moon. theres not a whole lot to do other then to exploit the resources and use those to further our advancements in space travel. it also would help offset the cost of going there if there is an economic reason to do so. on top of that we will learn alot just attempting to exploit the resources.

according to the unoosa (united nations office of outer space affairs) agreement "provides that the Moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind and that an international regime should be established to govern the exploitation of such resources when such exploitation is about to become feasible."

only problem with that is that the USA, China, ESA, Russia, Japan, and India have not signed the agreement. considering they are the only countries launching missions into space then its basically pointless. the moon is a free for all

a reply to: TheScale

I'm sure there is "science" to be done there. But, I'm not convinced the people will really want to spend tax money on just "science" right now.

For anything "commercial" I would think that would require new or revised international agreements or something.

Beyond storing nuclear waste or mining H3, the only other commercial use I can think of would be - for data archiving.

An underground facility on the moon (if deep enough) would be the ultimate backup or archive for important information that we might want to protect from future natural or man-made disasters (impact events, war, zombies, etc.).

A lunar data-archive facility could be either solar or nuclear powered, and self-sufficient largely operated remotely possibly with rotating on-site crews for what little physical maintenance/repair. Personnel on-site would be needed more for what would probably be a continuous expansion of the facility's data-storage capacity - i.e. it is never really "done".

If the facility (or one of several linked facilities) on the Moon is on the Earth-facing side it should be easy to setup some combination of terrestrial and/or satellite communication links to allow remote uploading and downloading of data.

Of course, perhaps some sort of seed-bank / DNA-bank would be a good idea too.

But, again not sure who would pay for any of this? Mexico?

a reply to: EnhancedInterrogator

checkout my above post or go checkout unoosa's website. in essence, the moon is a free for all. added the edit to it with the extra info after you posted .

i like what your thinking about though. ive always considered the moon as a new ARK for us incase of a nasty event on earth. why not store our knowledge and everything else aswell. its a pretty stable place beyond the odd rock that smashes into it. far more stable then earth as far as we know.

originally posted by: charlyv

originally posted by: SaturnFX
Until there is a solid plan, and ground broke, on a space elevator, then any real space colonization/exploration plan for the common person is just a dream.

I do not agree, in that a lunar base is very important for future planetary ventures. It not only has 16% of Earth Gravity, making it much more economical to launch missions from there, but fuel's can be manufactured there from the Moon's vast resources, and most likely, vehicles can be made there as well. It will initially be expensive to get the infrastructure there to begin, but it will pay back enormously once it becomes operational.

There is also discussions of making a space elevator on the moon..much easier. That could be a nice compromise. have nice mega stations built from moon concrete that way.

a reply to: TheScale

Yeah, I read on there somewhere that mining on the Moon might be considered analogous to fishing in international waters. You can't really "own" any part of the Moon, but you could take whatever you want from it.

Of course, once there is at least 2 actors trying to do that (let's say US and China), inevitably that will lead to conflict (at least legal if not physical) - IMH(f)O. Hence, there would have to be at least bilateral operating agreements.

Regarding possible (non-military) uses, here's what I come-up with (updated):

• "Science" (does anybody do that any more?)
  
• Mining (probably H3)
  
• Nuclear and/or hazardous waste disposal (ala Space 1999)
  
• Data and/or DNA archival
  
• Penal colony? (ala The Moon is a Harsh Mistress)
  

Personally, I like the "Heinlein option"

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: charlyv
As much I am in favor of a Moon base for a variety of reasons, yours isn't really one of them. You are talking about an industrial level of development. While it will happen, that's a long way down the road. Until then, sending stuff to Earth orbit and working on it there, then sending it off to "out there" would be easier than working on the Moon. We'll be rounding up a space rock soon, we'll get better at it. Lots of resources.

If the goal is to establish a colony on Mars, wouldn't Phobos make more sense as a "lunar" base?

Consider the space elevator idea but on the moon where resources from the moon is sent up for space stations and the like. This seems pretty sensible, no?

Tapping into the google machine shows a bunch of references in agreement here. I think there should be a great number of sizable rotating stations both around earth and mars (and elsewhere in time) Good for science, rock capturing and mining, etc.

a reply to: EnhancedInterrogator

As I said before: majority of all the minerals and elements that we use can be found in large amounts right here on Earth in it's crust. Cost of mining it for use is much less then trying to bring it here via an asteroid or the Moon.

One thing that space and the Moon has that we could eventually want: Room.

Downside is: micro gravity and low gravity and it's long term effects on humans.

Of course space habitats can generate higher gravitation through artificial means, such as spinning a station. Doesn't quite work as well on the Moon though.

It's quite possible that there could be some element or compound that is only available on the Moon, or can only be manufactured in low gravity / micro gravity, that becomes a big demand down the road. Right now the only thing that fits the bill for that is He3, but again, without working fusion (cost effective fusion I should say), there is no big demand for it, and again, we'd have to mine billions of tons of Moon rock.

originally posted by: TerminalVelocity
Right now the only thing that fits the bill for that is He3, but again, without working fusion (cost effective fusion I should say), there is no big demand for it, and again, we'd have to mine billions of tons of Moon rock.

Yes, until there is some breakthrough that creates an actual demand for He3, there's no driving force to go get more of it. However, once any such breakthrough does happen, assuming it involves He3 - bang, instant demand. It will be be like the Oil boom.

Right now, it's all "forward thinking" (at best).
.

a reply to: Kali74

what are you talking about? science will involved but nasa has been corrupted by obama he had tgem on a mission to study climate change and how to are friends with our muslim friends . trump is getting them facing the right direction again and he knows the future of space is money if you can prove there is gold in them there hills people will go.

a reply to: darkbakebesides economic benifits the moonbase could have earth defense as a goal easier to try to stop or deflect a rock heading at earth if you don't have to fly through air first plus a group of moon based radio telescopes might give us early warning of possible impactor.

Underground Moon city is a definite possibility with all the old lava tubes. It's like an abandoned termite nest.
Unlike here on Earth you can dig very deep until you reach the depth where the temperature is too high.
In theory both sunlight and the molten core can provide you energy while living in a very stable upper mantle. Only the gravity prevents it from being an ultimate spaceship wandering from one planet's orbit to another. It's much more stable than Earth's geology

One small step for NASA animators...

Barring some quantum leap in propulsion, if we are going to get out into the rest of the solar system a moon base is a must. Just look at the gravity wells of Earth and the Luna respectively. If a launching and fueling base is established on the moon, the fuel needed to reach Mars is an order of magnitude less than launching from Earth. Alternatively, for the same amount of fuel, we could send a vehicle an order of magnitude larger than we could from Earth. For the foreseeable future, a moon-base is a necessity for further manned exploration of the solar system.

a reply to: seasonal

Just copy what we did on the first mission to the moon. It would be super cheap, wouldn't take much as far as technology, and would go off without a hitch. Give those guys a a "flying" tin can and a calculator, and we are good to go.

NASA is full of crap.

youtu.be...


youtu.be...

a reply to: Winstonian

At 6 min 14 sec the astronauts helmet swivels on the 1965 video.