1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




Space Habitation

Home Forums Community General Chat Space Habitation

This topic contains 108 replies, has 19 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of Ken Sims Ken Sims 3 years ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 109 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #14622
    Avatar of HopDavid
    HopDavid
    Participant

    Before we do anything in space it would probably be a adequate first step to settle our inner space – the ocean – not only on the surface but also below surface. This would be a perfect training ground.

    Agreed. There’s still a lot of untapped resources/real estate right here on earth. And these are far more accessible than space resources/real estate.

    ellmer - http://yook3.com wrote:
    As long as there is no space elevator available – any settlement plans in space will have to wait

    Space elevators, launch loops etc. are not a prerequisite to space settlement.

    We can start developing the moon with ordinary chemical rockets and propellant depots.

    #14624
    Avatar of Sickor
    Sickor
    Participant

    i’m not sure how good the moon would be for space habitation, as there is substancial evidence that the moon is hollow!

    #14628
    Avatar of Shouri
    Shouri
    Participant

    I don’t think we need to focus on space habitation atm, instead we should focus on basic sciences and find better ways to harness solar power and to preserve anti-matter, far(or maybe not) in the future we will have so much renewable energy that we will able spare vast amounts of energy for space programs, we’ll just process our excess energy+some mass into anti matter and lift off, rocket boosters? hydrogen boosters? solar sails? let’s get real, future of space travel depends on advanced ionic thrusters and later into future it will be antimatter. It is just a waste to colonize Mars or any other planet at our point. Though establishing Lunar and orbital stations with 20-30 ppl might be affordable even now, we should focus on satellites first, we should be able to repair and reuse them otherwise our orbit will become a junkyard so a research&waste disposal&sattelite repair station at orbit might be a good start for a global space program. Everything said, i really think spending resources on space programs with current technology is still a waste though, i don’t understand the mentality of cold war America and Russia how wasteful… All we have to do is to harness enough energy and use it efficiently in a closed loop system when we achieve this on global scale then it is time look at night sky, at least this is what i think.

    #14640
    Avatar of HopDavid
    HopDavid
    Participant

    Shouri wrote:

    I don’t think we need to focus on space habitation atm, instead we should focus on basic sciences and find better ways to harness solar power and to preserve anti-matter, far(or maybe not) in the future we will have so much renewable energy that we will able spare vast amounts of energy for space programs, we’ll just process our excess energy+some mass into anti matter and lift off, rocket boosters? hydrogen boosters? solar sails? let’s get real, future of space travel depends on advanced ionic thrusters and later into future it will be antimatter.

    Cislunar Fuel Depot

    Am reposting my delta V map.

    Round trip delta V from Moon to EML1 and back: 5 km/sec.

    Round trip delta V from EML1 to LEO and back: 4.5 km/sec

    Given a 5 km/sec delta V budget and no need for extremely abusive atmospheric re-entry, single stage reusable chemical rocket ships are doable.

    It’s on oft repeated meme that we need something better than chemical to get beyond LEO. But an erroneous meme, nevertheless.

    Shouri wrote:
    It is just a waste to colonize Mars or any other planet at our point.

    Agreed.

    Shouri wrote:
    Though establishing Lunar and orbital stations with 20-30 ppl might be affordable even now, we should focus on satellites first, we should be able to repair and reuse them otherwise our orbit will become a junkyard so a research&waste disposal&sattelite repair station

    Maintaining and upgrading satellites, clearing orbital debris takes propellant.

    The moon has ice deposits which can be made into propellant. And this propellant is much closer to Low Earth Orbit (see graphic above). It is even closer to Geosynchronous Earth Orbit.

    #14643
    Avatar of HopDavid
    HopDavid
    Participant

    Ellmer has pointed to this video: Exploring The Oceans

    Where, among other things, Bob Ballard talks about ROVs. ROVs have been very enabling for ocean exploration.

    Telepresence and teleoperated equipment can also enable Lunar exploration and development.

    The moon is the only body of extraterrestrial resources with acceptable communication light lag (about 3 seconds). And its proximity also allows high bandwidth.

    The best investment for enabling the exploitation of oceanic or space resources is developing these teleoperated devices.

    In my view, funding NOAA to advance the state of the art for ROVs is a far better space investment than the BFRs Zubrin advocates for Martian sortie trips.

    #14789
    Avatar of Dervogel707
    Dervogel707
    Participant

    No way we’re colonizing the moon.

    #14792
    Avatar of SimianAngel
    SimianAngel
    Participant

    The Moon is deficient in many elements that would be required for settlement. Carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and others would need to be imported. There’s water at the poles, but once we expand beyond small bases there I think there’s going to be need for a vast amount of volatiles that will likely come from near Earth asteroids. I personally favor settlement of some of them before large scale development of the Moon.

    Earth orbit is a great space for development. There’s good opportunity for solar power and communications, not to mention the view can’t be beat. If I could live anywhere, I would librate around the fourth or fifth Earth-Moon Lagrange points, probably with resources gotten from an asteroid with some maybe from our Moon.

    #14793
    Avatar of shredder7753
    shredder7753
    Participant

    Simian – u say that Earth orbit is good. is that better than an Earth trailing orbit around the sun? i think quadrillions of people could live in such an orbit. the habitats would not need to be heated or cooled at all, because at the right distance from the sun the temp is a perfect 70 deg all the time. maybe it costs a lot more to get there?

    ____________

    My Work II

    “Leadership and do-ership are not the same thing”

    #14794
    Avatar of Dervogel707
    Dervogel707
    Participant

    The moon is already taken by ETs.

    #14831
    Avatar of HopDavid
    HopDavid
    Participant

    SimianAngel wrote:
    The Moon is deficient in many elements that would be required for settlement.

    Wrong

    SimianAngel wrote:
    Carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and others would need to be imported. There’s water at the poles, but once we expand beyond small bases there I think there’s going to be need for a vast amount of volatiles

    There’s thought to be 600 million tonnes of volatiles at the lunar north pole. In sheets of ice at least two meters thick.

    If these ice sheets have volatiles in the same proportions as the volatiles in the LCROSS ejecta, there is plenty of water, carbon and nitrogen for many generations of heavy use.

    SimianAngel wrote:
    that will likely come from near Earth asteroids.

    The “water rich” carbonaceous chondrites are water rich in the same fashion concrete is water rich. The cement in your sidewalk 20 percent water in the form of hydrated clays. Such volatiles would take some infrastructure to mine.

    There are thought to be “extinct comet” NEOs that still have volatile ices in their core. However, this is still speculation.

    While it’s possible there rich, exploitable volatile deposits in some NEOs, we still haven’t done any prospecting. On the other hand, we have a great deal of data on the volatiles in the lunar poles.

    Further, trip times can easily be six months. Launch windows for an asteroid can be years or even decades apart.

    Regarding the use of teleoperated devices, Light lag can easily be 40 minutes. Distances of 1 to 2 astronomical units make heavy bandwidth difficult

    In contrast, launch windows to the moon open each two weeks from a given low earth orbit. Trip time is less than a week.

    Regarding teleoperation, lunar light lag is less than 3 seconds. LRO has already demonstrated 1000 Mbps from the moon.

    The possibility of teleoperation is the biggest lunar advantage. If we could build infrastructure without canned meat (aka humans in habs) it could be enormously less expensive.

    #14832
    Avatar of Dervogel707
    Dervogel707
    Participant

    Please lets stop with the moon its taken.

    #14833
    Avatar of shredder7753
    shredder7753
    Participant

    Dervogel707 wrote:

    Please lets stop with the moon its taken.

    what, is there a troll on it?

    ____________

    My Work II

    “Leadership and do-ership are not the same thing”

    #14845
    Avatar of Dervogel707
    Dervogel707
    Participant

    No ETs and Im not joking.

    #14848
    Avatar of Renny
    Renny
    Participant

    The moon is taken… when the race there gets hot most ‘space faring’ countries will bail from the current treaty… particularly the Chinese. Mars is too big.

    I’m waiting to see what the Dawn verifies regarding Ceres. If the news is as good as expected most insitu resource problems will be solved.

    A few Bigelow habitats, robotics, and and a pioneering spirit will do the rest from the ‘start up’ point of view. Most have no idea how those and some other recent advances will impact the whole ‘insitu’ situation once an easily exploited resource point is acquired… even if it is a bit distant. We have drives now (space only) that can do Mars/Ceres trips in under six weeks, for instance.

    The truth is that only when operations can retain a high degree of independence from a variety of political, regulatory, and social constraints will they truly take on a life of their own… just as has been historically true of all frontiers and ‘new worlds’. Distance relative to direct control will ultimately be the deciding factor. Truth is the moon is just too damn close. There will always be those who can and will acquire the means and have the motivation. We simply haven’t identified the ‘perfect target’ yet. It is rapidly coming to a decision point, however.

    Near earth operations will be transfer points and mercantile opportunities… infrastructure and enablement for the serious stuff further out. They will provide nothing more regarding financial opportunity, freedom, and survival than current earthbound pursuits. They will be conduits… nothing more. The real future is not buzzing around the earth like a fly on a turd.

    #14856
    Avatar of HopDavid
    HopDavid
    Participant

    Renny wrote:

    A few Bigelow habitats, robotics, and and a pioneering spirit will do the rest from the ‘start up’ point of view. Most have no idea how those and some other recent advances will impact the whole ‘insitu’ situation once an easily exploited resource point is acquired… even if it is a bit distant.

    Hohmann trip to Ceres is about 1.3 years. Well beyond our present state of art to send humans.

    Delta V from low earth orbit is around 10 km/sec.

    So any resources on Ceres are not easily exploited.

    The insitu resources on the moon are much more easily exploited.

    Renny wrote:
    We have drives now (space only) that can do Mars/Ceres trips in under six weeks, for instance.

    Cite, please.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 109 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate