from the find-a-new-world-and-spoil-it dept.
Might there finally be an economic reason to go back to the moon? According to Mining the Moon becomes a serious prospect in Science Daily, two companies are taking steps to mine water on the moon and convert it to rocket fuel.
Texas-based Shackleton Energy Company (SEC) plans to mine the vast reserves of water ice and convert it into rocket propellant in the form of hydrogen and oxygen, which would then be sold to space partners in low Earth orbit. As the company's chief executive officer, Dale Tietz, explains, the plan is to build a "gas station in space" in which rocket propellant will be sold at prices significantly lower than the cost of sending fuel from Earth.
SEC plans to extract the water ice by sending humans and robots to mine the lunar poles, and then use some of the converted products to power mining hoppers, lunar rovers and life support for its own activities.
Moon Express, another privately funded lunar-resources company, is also interested in using water ice as fuel -- but in a different form. It plans to fuel its operations and spacecraft using "high-test peroxide" (HTP), which has a long and illustrious history as a propellant.
Separately, I'd read many years ago about using microwaves to fuse the lunar regolith. This would reduce issues with the extremely abrasive moon dust and also provide a means of making, say, bricks from the regolith. Here is a representative report: Microwave Sintering of Lunar Soil: Properties, Theory, and Practice. And, more recently, Another 3D-Printed Moon Base Concept Uses Sintered Regolith Bricks.
Are we finally at a point where commercial access to the moon is possible? What major roadblocks do you foresee? If they were hiring for working at a moon base, would you apply for a position?
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Wednesday February 04 2015, @12:24AM
Dare I dream?
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 04 2015, @02:47AM
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 3, Interesting) by martyb on Thursday February 05 2015, @02:56PM
*I* dare to dream.
I dream of a radio telescope along the lines of Arecibo Observatory [wikipedia.org], situated on the far side of the moon where it would be isolated from man-made electromagnetic interference.
Conceptually: find a crater on the far side that is spherically-shaped and tweak as necessary with a solar-powered bulldozer. We're in no hurry, so if this takes a while, so what? Sinter some metallic particles into the surface with a microwave magnetron mounted on the leading end of a moon buggy -- or the back end of the 'dozer which is now running in reverse. (Those metallic particles might need to be supplied from earth -- or from a captured asteroid?) Then use cables to mount a radio receiver at the parabola's focus. With the lessened pull of gravity and no terrestrial winds to worry about, the cables can be considerably smaller than what would be needed on earth. Transmit data to satellite[s] for relay to earth. May need to have a constellation of satellites to overcome line-of-sight issues. (Alternatives: Is a lunar-stationary orbit feasible? Put the relay at a Lagrange point?)
There's no need to prepare the *entire* crater before useful science could be performed. The surface preparation could start in the center and work its way out in a spiral and thus build up the collecting area incrementally. In between construction phases, radio astronomy could be performed.
That's my dream. I am not especially concerned about the implementation details — those are presented as a conceptual discussion point. If there is a better way to do it, well then, have at it! For all I care, send up a huge roll of metalized Mylar sheeting and just unroll it behind the moon buggy as it makes laps around the crater. Whatever.
Sadly, it appears that funding for continued operations at Arecibo are problematic, so I suspect that this shall remain a dream for quite a while. Still, I find it an interesting thought experiment and would welcome any input on the idea.
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Justin Case on Wednesday February 04 2015, @01:13AM
What, exactly, do you expect will be "spoiled"? There isn't any life there, so no "environment" to "damage".
Perhaps you hate your species, so you think anything we touch is contaminated? It's just one moon out of a few bazillion-trillion. And it's OUR moon. Why shouldn't we harvest its resources as soon as we figure out how?
BTW there are enough raw materials -- minerals and energy (from the sun) in space to make us all fabulously wealthy. So the sooner we start the better.
But I suppose you hate wealthy humans even more than regular ones. Even if everyone were to benefit. It just doesn't fit in with your "nothing must be allowed to change, anywhere, ever" world view.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 04 2015, @01:17AM
I think this calls for a robust environmental survey of the moon to ensure that the endangered microbial moon life is preserved should it exist.
(Score: 3, Funny) by davester666 on Wednesday February 04 2015, @06:22AM
Nah. Just start flinging chunks of it towards Earth for processing...
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by frojack on Wednesday February 04 2015, @01:30AM
Getting on your high-horse about the throw away subtitle, (which is not submitted by the submitter) is kinda wasted efforts, dontcha think?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 04 2015, @01:32AM
there are enough raw materials -- minerals and energy (from the sun) in space to make us all fabulously wealthy.
Methinks thou hast missed the point of space exploration. You cannot "own" the moon (Gru? Is that you?), or the sun, so you will be stealing these from the rest of the universe. And to what end? Wealth? If that is the only point to your existence, you might as well end it now. No, we don't hate wealthy people, we just pity them, and we pity those who want to be wealthy even more, since their minds are so small.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by anubi on Wednesday February 04 2015, @01:52AM
Well, speaking as one of the offspring of those who did not think one could own the land either, we soon found out the man with the pen won out over the man with the belief.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday February 04 2015, @03:06AM
Or the man with the gun.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 04 2015, @03:06PM
exactly. and really it was the culture with a higher population that won. anyone who thinks a moon or planet can't be owned is ripe for the owning :)
(Score: 1) by anubi on Thursday February 05 2015, @02:59AM
I believe I will see a privileged few actually owning the Earth in my lifetime. And it will be done with the pen. Backed with guns.
Done without effort by the mechanics of fractional reserve banking.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Justin Case on Wednesday February 04 2015, @02:02AM
> Wealth? If that is the only point to your existence, you might as well end it now.
Most of the people who are too good for nasty grubby wealth have, I think, never starved to death. Having resources is important. Space has abundant resources. And you don't have to club the baby seals to get them, like many of our resource extraction efforts on Earth.
Being able to improve your situation is pretty good too. And if you could have "All of X, plus poverty" or "All of X, plus wealth" why refuse wealth? OK you can be poor if you want, but don't doom the rest of the species to your lack of imagination.
(Score: 4, Touché) by mcgrew on Wednesday February 04 2015, @04:13PM
Most of the people who are too good for nasty grubby wealth have, I think, never starved to death.
That was almost humorous enough for a "funny" mod; I miss "overrated". People who have starved to death have no opinions on anything. "Too good for grubby wealth" sounds very defensive to me.
I have obviously never starved to death, but I have been hungry from poverty before and was homeless for a while in the winter of 1985-6 (fortunately had shelter with family). I lucked into a decent job that's left me comfortably retired. I have plenty of food, a house, transportation, communications, entertainment, what more does anyone need?
I'm not "too good" to grub after wealth, I'm too smart to grub after it. I don't need a Lamborghini to go to the store, I don't need a giant house, I have no use for fashion and little use for people who base a person's worth on their wealth.
There's a reason they call expensive cars "substitute penises". If you have what you need, grubbing for more is just brain-dead stupid.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 04 2015, @04:46PM
"There's a reason they call expensive cars "substitute penises"."
Yes, it's because guys with expensive cars get more chicks.
Personally, I find most people who complain about others who 'grub after wealth' have rich parents, so they don't need to.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mcgrew on Wednesday February 04 2015, @03:51PM
you will be stealing these from the rest of the universe.
Stealing from whom? AFWK, we're it.
And to what end? Wealth?
It isn't going to happen if they're right about the moon's birth, but what if we found a material on the moon that we had never before envisioned? Not the wealth of a human, but the wealth of humanity.
If that is the only point to your existence, you might as well end it now.
I couldn't agree more.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 04 2015, @07:55PM
Property, which is what wealth is, is an illusion. When you say "we're it", that is very close to the mark. I meant stealing from the Universe itself, not some entities in the Universe, and the main point is that we are part of the Universe, so we are stealing from ourselves, if we think that wealth is what is important.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by tftp on Wednesday February 04 2015, @01:43AM
Environment is not just life; it is also supplies of potentially valuable ice that may be required later on to support human habitation. But no, we must dig it up, let most of it evaporate into space, and use the 1% that we can capture today to make rocket fuel for rockets that are 99.999% waste in themselves.
Because it is not efficient to do it today; nor there is a good reason to bother.
There is far more raw materials here, on Earth, and they are much more valuable. There is no reason to use the Moon's resources except on the Moon; and there is currently no scientific or other reason to have human presence on the Moon.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 04 2015, @02:52AM
There is no reason to use the Moon's resources except on the Moon; and there is currently no scientific or other reason to have human presence on the Moon. [Emphasis added]
There are many scientific, economic and technological reasons to have a human presence on the moon. I'll throw out a few since you appear to lack any imagination. At all.
1. Near Earth (in relative terms) deep space launch facilities without that pesky 1G gravity well.
2. Astronomical/Cosmological research without that pesky thick atmosphere.
3. Fueling/life support resources for the spacecraft using (1).
4. Opportunities to create and refine life support and simulated gravity technologies to enable long-term space travel and planetary (Mars? Europa?) surveys
5. Resources to build spacecraft and other materials necessary for space research/exploration without that pesky $10,000/lb tax getting resources out of Earth's gravity well.
6. Experimental manufacturing/fabrication techniques which are infeasible in Earth's gravity well/thick atmosphere
7. Many other things I'm sure I haven't thought of but others have.
8. Many other things no one has thought of yet.
Would anyone else care to chime in with additional reasons?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tftp on Wednesday February 04 2015, @03:26AM
1. Near Earth (in relative terms) deep space launch facilities without that pesky 1G gravity well. - we have nothing to launch, and we have no engines for it. Nor we have a reason to send anything into deep space. Probes can be launched just fine without the Moon.
2. Astronomical/Cosmological research without that pesky thick atmosphere. - we have satellites for that. Why would we be better off delivering the mirror to the Moon if it can stop half-way? Astronomers are not looking into eyepieces of their telescopes for quite some time already. Astronomers want JWST - and it was already near death once, in 2011. Note also the following words from Wikipedia:
3. Fueling/life support resources for the spacecraft using (1). - We don't have those spaceships. See (1). But if we were to assemble one, it would be done first on the Earth's orbit.
4. Opportunities to create and refine life support and simulated gravity technologies to enable long-term space travel and planetary (Mars? Europa?) surveys - the LEO is far more convenient for that, and the ISS is already there, begging for things to do.
5. Resources to build spacecraft and other materials necessary for space research/exploration without that pesky $10,000/lb tax getting resources out of Earth's gravity well. - I very much doubt that the Moon has oil and all the chemical industry that processes it. Without chemistry you cannot even make steel. You need lots of oxygen, carbon and power for metallurgy. Mass production of Aluminum became possible only after building hydro power stations at major rivers in 20th century.
6. Experimental manufacturing/fabrication techniques which are infeasible in Earth's gravity well/thick atmosphere - those mythical technologies were touted since 1960's but nothing materialized so far. We have nothing to manufacture in low gravity. If you do, the ISS is already there, begging for things to manufacture.
Now let's mention the drawbacks:
I believe that research has to continue, but the primary focus should be on robots with AI. Without such robots you cannot build anything on the Moon anyway. We don't have AI yet; we don't even have a self-contained, radio-controlled robot that could dig an arbitrary tunnel in an arbitrary hillside here, on Earth. That alone would be a good start. If you can build such a robot, send it to the Moon, and it makes a long tunnel that is sufficient for the shelter, *only then* the society will be ready to discuss what this enables us to do.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 04 2015, @05:16AM
You're in good company [csufresno.edu]
Perhaps you'll be added to that list one day.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Wednesday February 04 2015, @05:28AM
I would prefer something more substantial - like, say, refutation of my statements one by one. This is a technical site, after all, and not a comedy club :-) I am always open to good ideas - for example, why we need to send a crewed mission to Jupiter, and how we are planning to return them [xkcd.com]. Or to somewhere else. Or what we can make in low gravity that is worth the cost. Or how astronomers would benefit from a Moon-based instrument, considering the expenses. Things like that.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday February 04 2015, @04:33PM
1. Near Earth (in relative terms) deep space launch facilities without that pesky 1G gravity well. - we have nothing to launch, and we have no engines for it.
Orion [nasa.gov]
Probes can be launched just fine without the Moon.
Most of a spacecraft's fuel is used getting out of the gravity well. If we could launch from the moon, building vehicles and making fuel on the moon, it would be far less wasteful. Also, there's an environmental angle: I always thought it interesting that the ozone hole appeared shortly after the space shuttles did and is gone after they are. It takes a while for freon to get to the ozone layer, but the shuttle blasted right through it, and its exhaust was an ozone killer (google it). I always questioned NASA's use of that fuel, and wonder if the ozone hole's timing was a coincidence.
At any rate, launching from the moon would be harmless to Earth's environment.
We don't have those spaceships.
We didn't have ANY spaceships when I was born. There weren't even airplanes when my grandmother was born. We had no smartphones ten years ago. Why is "we don't have it now" an argument at all? This conversation is obviously not about mining the moon RIGHT NOW, I'll be dead before it happens, perhaps long dead.
I very much doubt that the Moon has oil and all the chemical industry that processes it.
Oil? How about uranium? The moon has everything the Earth has except air, water, life, and its byproducts.
You seem to have little imagination or grasp of the pace of progress.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday February 04 2015, @07:29PM
Orion cannot be used for exploration of the Solar System. Not enough energy, not enough speed. It's a dead end, just like any other spacecraft with a chemical engine. Sure, you can play with those, but they are too expensive for the gain that they deliver. Still, I will not deny that you could build a better spaceship that has in-flight refueling capabilities.
Wikipedia does not agree:
The mass of the Moon is sufficient to eliminate any voids within the interior, so it is believed to be composed of solid rock throughout. Its low bulk density (~3346 kg*m−3) indicates a low metal abundance. Mass and moment of inertia constraints indicate that the Moon likely has an iron core that is less than about 450 km in radius. Studies of the Moon's physical librations (small perturbations to its rotation) furthermore indicate that the core is still molten.
Also see this [space.com]:
A new map of uranium on the moon has revealed the lunar surface to be a poor source of the radioactive stuff, but it could help solve mysteries as to how the moon formed.
Then perhaps we shouldn't have this conversation right now because we don't have access to necessary technologies and cannot judge what is and what is not feasible.
(Score: 2) by physicsmajor on Wednesday February 04 2015, @05:50PM
Let's change the context here a little and see how it reads.
1) Near Spain is good enough; no need to worry about anything that might or might not be across that big water to the West. And without any support, you assert that our ships aren't capable of doing something you don't know anything about - not even scope. (Incidentally, you're wrong. If you want a better rebuttal bring evidence next time - I'm not doing your homework).
2) Why does anyone need vacation? Or the need to travel at all? We have drones for that. Rent one and fly it over the grand canyon, it's just the same as being there. Hell, why leave home at all?
3) Unsupported assertions, coupled with a lovely chicken vs. egg problem. Come now, this is just pitiful. Bonus points for referencing an earlier completely unsupported assertion as if it were fact though - definitely makes it seem more legit.
4) LEO is zero gravity. Other habitable celestial bodies are fractional gravity. I'll leave the difference here as an exercise to the reader - don't think too hard.
5) Spurious oil reference. Someone doesn't understand chemistry like they think they do; hydrogen and oxygen are asking the best rocket fuel. Protip: check what water is made of. To get the gases all you need is power and water and time, and every gram of fuel available in a lower gravity well makes the rocket equation much friendlier. We can afford to wait. Carbon is in loads of rocks.
6) Chicken and egg again! Of course we don't, because we haven't ever tried. We've never been there long enough, never mind that the tools weren't availableSelf-fulfilling arguments are not arguments, your credibility would be gone here if it wasn't already.
Ever hear of the laws of thermodynamics? At no point will everything be perfect - entropy doesn't allow this. Barring progress for this reason is specious. Why build the interstate system, when we could spend all that money just fixing the crappy infrastructure already in place? Because by advancing the status quo, we all benefit.
Risk is a part of human existence. People died coming to the New World, and they'll die going to New Worlds in the future. Didn't stop them then, and it won't stop us now.
You'll pardon me for not addressing further unsupported assertions about our capabilities for intra-stellar travel and the justifications thereof, as I have better things to do and it is abundantly clear you don't know what you're talking about.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 04 2015, @11:09PM
I would prefer something more substantial - like, say, refutation of my statements one by one. This is a technical site, after all, and not a comedy club :-) I am always open to good ideas - for example, why we need to send a crewed mission to Jupiter, and how we are planning to return them [xkcd.com]. Or to somewhere else. Or what we can make in low gravity that is worth the cost. Or how astronomers would benefit from a Moon-based instrument, considering the expenses. Things like that.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and respond as if you're not a troll. I hope you prove me right, but I'm not very sanguine about that idea. Funny that.
I pointed you at that link since it's clear that, like those other folks, you apparently lack the vision or imagination to see the value in exploiting the moon's resources and position.
1. Near Earth (in relative terms) deep space launch facilities without that pesky 1G gravity well. - we have nothing to launch, and we have no engines for it. Nor we have a reason to send anything into deep space. Probes can be launched just fine without the Moon.
Since there aren't currently any spacecraft or engines for same, there never will be? I'm sure glad Archimedes, Da Vinci, Watt, Whitney, Tesla, Edison, Marconi, Goddard and Von Braun, Bardain, Brittain and Shockley didn't think the way you do.
There are many reasons (scientific and economic) to go to deep space. Advancing human knowledge, obtaining resources for use in space, refining technologies for living and working in space, Using the moon as a jumping off point makes significant sense, as there are resources which can be exploited in-situ, rather than having to move them out of the Earth's gravity well. There is also ample space for support structures and other facilities on the moon which would require minimal input from Earth's resources. In Near-Earth orbit, there is no such space or resources except that which is boosted out of the gravity well.
2. Astronomical/Cosmological research without that pesky thick atmosphere. - we have satellites for that. Why would we be better off delivering the mirror to the Moon if it can stop half-way? Astronomers are not looking into eyepieces of their telescopes for quite some time already. Astronomers want JWST - and it was already near death once, in 2011. Note also the following words from Wikipedia:
In order to make observations in the infrared spectrum, the JWST must be kept very cold (under 50 K (−220 °C; −370 °F)), otherwise infrared radiation from the telescope itself would swamp its instruments. Therefore it uses a large sunshield to block light and heat from the Sun, Earth, and Moon
Right. Because infrared observatories are the only scientific instruments that are worth anything. Ever. How insightful of you.
3. Fueling/life support resources for the spacecraft using (1). - We don't have those spaceships. See (1). But if we were to assemble one, it would be done first on the Earth's orbit.
That's probably true for the first set of ships. However, creating shipyards that can support a space-faring civilization will require off-planet resources. There are none in low Earth orbit except that which we boost from the Earth.
4. Opportunities to create and refine life support and simulated gravity technologies to enable long-term space travel and planetary (Mars? Europa?) surveys - the LEO is far more convenient for that, and the ISS is already there, begging for things to do.
Is LEO more convenient for that? I think not. Once again, there are resources on the moon which can be exploited to build infrastructure for a vast array of experimental environments that, once again, don't need to be boosted out of Earth's gravity well at $10,000/lb.
5. Resources to build spacecraft and other materials necessary for space research/exploration without that pesky $10,000/lb tax getting resources out of Earth's gravity well. - I very much doubt that the Moon has oil and all the chemical industry that processes it. Without chemistry you cannot even make steel. You need lots of oxygen, carbon and power for metallurgy. Mass production of Aluminum became possible only after building hydro power stations at major rivers in 20th century.
Absolutely. There is no source of power [google.com] which could *ever* be used on the moon, since there are no long dead dinosaurs and absolutely no way to use the energy output of hydrogen fusion [cmu.edu].
As for carbon and other materials, none have ever been found [thehindu.com].
Yeah. Okay.
6. Experimental manufacturing/fabrication techniques which are infeasible in Earth's gravity well/thick atmosphere - those mythical technologies were touted since 1960's but nothing materialized so far. We have nothing to manufacture in low gravity. If you do, the ISS is already there, begging for things to manufacture.
Of course, because no new discoveries are made, and no technological advancement ever happens. That's why we live in caves and scavenge what the top predators leave behind. As for the ISS, there are no resources there to exploit, except that which is boosted (at great expense) from the Earth.
Now let's mention the drawbacks:
Every gram of anything delivered to the Moon robs the Earth of thousands of dollars that could be spent here.
Which is exactly why we should exploit resources already on the moon. Thanks for making my point for me.
Human presence on the Moon will result in accidents and deaths. This won't be well received by the society.
An excellent point, since no one ever dies from accidents on Earth. Why didn't I think of that? There are those out there who don't suffer from your particular brand of cowardice and would *choose* to risk their lives advancing science, technology and our ability to survive off-planet.
Humans will require complex underground shelters with supplies of air, water, food, energy. This is mass and money.
Absolutely. Because building materials [lunarpedia.org] can't be found anywhere on the moon. And of course there is no water [wikipedia.org] on the moon. And without water and energy, we can't electrolyze the water to free up oxygen. So it's obviously a non-starter. Sigh.
Astronomy - the best short-term justification for the Moon habitation project - is not a top priority science. Astronomers themselves would rather use the money to build observatories (optical and radio) on Earth, and to launch probes.
Citations please. Or are you the designated spokesperson for the entire astronomical community? And who decided (aside from you) that "Astronomy - the best short-term justification for the Moon habitation project - is not a top priority science?"
Spaceflight within the system - the next best justification - is about 100 years away, both money-wise and technology-wise. We need nuclear engines for rockets - either using the nuclear reaction directly, or using electric power from a reactor. There is not much chance that such rockets will be launched in the current climate of protection of ecology. Even nuclear power stations that reside on Earth are being closed; who, do you think, will permit to launch one into space?
Spaceflight through the solar system would be greatly aided (and its ubiquity brought in much sooner) by having a base on a body with a much smaller gravity well than Earth. It would probably need to be fairly close (in astronomical terms) and have in-situ resources. Gee, where could that be? I can't think of even one place that might meet those criteria. Oh well. I guess we should just forget it.
I believe that research has to continue, but the primary focus should be on robots with AI. Without such robots you cannot build anything on the Moon anyway. We don't have AI yet; we don't even have a self-contained, radio-controlled robot that could dig an arbitrary tunnel in an arbitrary hillside here, on Earth. That alone would be a good start. If you can build such a robot, send it to the Moon, and it makes a long tunnel that is sufficient for the shelter, *only then* the society will be ready to discuss what this enables us to do.
I disagree. We have intelligent devices which can manipulate equipment, adapt to changing circumstances and make intuitive leaps right now. They're called humans. Perhaps you should try talking to one sometime?
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday February 05 2015, @02:11AM
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and respond as if you're not a troll.
Quite a few non-mainstream opinions can be seen as trolling. They do the same thing to the observer. The only difference is in the intent of the original poster. I have no interest in trolling you, or anyone else. This is simply my opinion about space exploration, and it is based on quite some time of watching the existing (and past) programs.
Since there aren't currently any spacecraft or engines for same, there never will be?
No; it only means that you need to put the horse before the cart and start inventing and building new engines. The spacecraft as a shell is not a big deal; what is big deal is an engine with large enough efficiency. For rocket engines that would be specific impulse. This is necessary to achieve sufficient speeds in reasonable time, without gravity assist from other planets. This is also necessary to have sufficient supply of fuel for the trip. The existing technologies give you 9.7 MJ/kg of exhaust, whereas a dual-stage 4-grid electrostatic ion thruster gives you 22,500 MJ/kg (but with much lower thrust.) There are quite a few technologies that need to be tested and built before there can be any sensible talk about navigation of this Solar System. The Moon has nothing to do with this science. All it can do is to distract and to burn the money that could be otherwise spent on, say, VASIMR. Here is a sad story from Wikipedia:
On December 8, 2008, Ad Astra signed an agreement with NASA to arrange the placement and testing of a flight version of the VASIMR, the VF-200, on the International Space Station (ISS).[24] In early 2009, the earliest possible launch date was reported as 2012.[25] As of April 2014, its launch is anticipated to be in 2016.[26] The reason for the delays have been attributed to funding; and in June 2014, Franklin Chang-Diaz stated that the project is unlikely to proceed unless they're able to receive a funded-SAA from NASA.[27]
As you can see, money does matter. Spend wisely.
Right. Because infrared observatories are the only scientific instruments that are worth anything. Ever.
No, you need to beat my argument with a justification for landing the observatory onto the Moon (or something else.) For example: what scientific instrument will benefit from being on the Moon (and, possibly, serviceable by humans)? Otherwise my point stands.
And who decided (aside from you) that "Astronomy - the best short-term justification for the Moon habitation project - is not a top priority science?"
I wrote my own opinion. It is based on a simple fact that astronomical observations are nearly always dealing with faraway objects, most of which cannot be reached, as far as we know, and plenty more are not even theoretically visible. Astronomy is one of most fundamental sciences, and it has a pretty low return in terms of technology and quality of life. Compare to solid state physics, for example. Not to say that fundamental sciences are worthless... it's just their worth is not immediate. Some of the 19th century math got real life application only in the next century. We learned about black holes from astronomy; perhaps one day we will learn how to use small black holes for storage of energy. But all that takes a long, long time. Organic chemistry, on the other hand, can produce a new drug within years.
Spaceflight through the solar system would be greatly aided (and its ubiquity brought in much sooner) by having a base on a body with a much smaller gravity well than Earth.
That may or may not be so; probably you are right - in the far future. But today, and in nearest time that we can reasonably discuss, the Moon is not that much of help. Look at that nice xkcd drawing [xkcd.com]. Interplanetary trips require far more energy than stepping out of Earth's gravity well requires. If you can do B then you also can do A. Sure, the Moon helps in terms of leaving the surface - but otherwise the Earth-Moon system can be treated as a single place. Passengers from Earth will simply need to fly to the Moon separately before they can depart for, say, Mars. But the trip itself will require the same energy, no matter if you launch from the Earth's orbit or from the Moon's orbit. Your argument about ease of lifting the ship's pieces (or materials) from the Moon remains valid, of course - provided that production of those materials on the Moon does not cost more than the fuel that would be needed to lift the same materials from Earth. This may put some requirements on the number of ships in question; just one or two ships may be cheaper to launch from Earth.
We have intelligent devices which can manipulate equipment, adapt to changing circumstances and make intuitive leaps right now. They're called humans.
Humans are too expensive and too fragile to be sent to the Moon to dig tunnels with pickaxes and shovels. You could have a local controller (like an operator, at the machine or remotely) but it still costs you. Digging of shelter will require some time, and there is no guarantee that the site is suitable for the purpose (it's an alien planet, after all, that we know little about.) I would think that robots should do all the digging necessary - and perhaps to seal the tunnels from the inside as well, to ensure the airtight surface. Then the arriving crew only needs to install airlocks; that can be done quickly enough.
With regard to valuable resources on the Moon... those traces of silver and carbon are just that, traces. Not a rich ore, and not pure metal. We cannot be sure what constitutes the core of the Moon, but one would expect - ignoring the regolith - that most of the Moon is composed of a stone similar to what we have on Earth. We do not mine such stone (like granite) because, despite being rich in useful atoms, these atoms are bonded into molecules that are pretty hard to pull apart. There is no technology yet to process materials of the Moon into something useful. Perhaps it should be created... and that is again money and time. This should be done before habitation of the Moon can be considered.
To summarize, there is a lot to do on Earth before the Moon or Mars can be effectively colonized. I say "effectively" because even today you can have a settlement on the Moon, technically. But it will be awfully expensive and awfully pointless, as we do not have technologies for Moon workers to be productive. I propose to start right there, as these technologies could be very useful even on Earth. We have lots of stones and sand here.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 05 2015, @02:48AM
No, you need to beat my argument...
Umm, no. I don't need to "beat" you or your arguments. If that's really important to you, I have a baseball bat here...
This isn't a competition, at least it isn't for me. If you're just arguing to win rhetorical points, you're barking up the wrong tree, friend.
You make some interesting points and I appreciate that. That's one of the thing I enjoy about SN, exchanging ideas whether or not one agrees with the arguments presented by others.
While you do make a number of valid points WRT our readiness to explore space, I disagree with your overall thesis (IIUC, that exploiting the moon's resources is not a good idea, at least not for the foreseeable future), as I mentioned, and explained my reasoning in some detail, though you chose to ignore that part of my reply, as well as most of the other points I made.
What happened to "I would prefer something more substantial - like, say, refutation of my statements one by one." I chose to actually do so, whereas you decided to cherry-pick your responses. You attempt to set some sort of standard for responses, yet you won't (or can't) meet that standard yourself. Tsk, tsk.
As I said, you make some interesting points and, yes, exploitation of resources outside the clement realm of our home planet is untried, risky and will almost certainly consume considerable blood and treasure before we get it right. However, I believe it's worth that blood and treasure, and the sooner we get started, the sooner we can reap the benefits.
Obviously, this means your arguments were not persuasive enough to change my mind -- if that was the intended result. I clearly haven't been persuasive enough to change your mind (although that never was my goal). I'll try to do better next time.
As such, I will allow my arguments to stand as they are. Feel free to agree or disagree as you choose. I have no axe (rhetorical or otherwise) to grind with you.
If you'd like to argue for argument's sake, I recommend you go to one or more of these places [wikipedia.org].
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday February 05 2015, @03:22AM
I have no burning desire to convince you :-) It's not like you, or I, are controlling resources of humankind :-) We only exchange opinions, sometimes correct and sometimes not, about things. In the end we pick worthy bits from opinions of others.
I skipped only those numbered items that either contain no food for discussion, or that are obvious. For example, take the source of power. Sure, nuclear fusion is the universal answer to everything. However there is a small catch: it does not work yet. And that "yet" is lasting about 65 years by now, if you count from first stellarators and tokamaks (both 1950.) It may be that NIF's work [wikipedia.org] will bear fruit... but what terrible complexity will that entail! You'd have to build most of the reactor on the Moon, as it will be large and heavy (especially the radiation shielding.) That may or may not require materials that are not present on the Moon (like metallic lead, for one.)
As it is obvious that a fusion reactor is an issue, one could suggest solar panels. However they also have a problem - they cannot be manufactured on the Moon, as semiconductor plants require lots of chemicals, water and air. They are awfully expensive even on Earth. So solar panels need to be sent up on a rocket, and then installed on the Moon. But then they will be bombarded with meteors, and you'd have to constantly repair broken and shorted tiles. Each impact will be pretty much explosive, given the speed that those grains of sand have. What will be the attrition? We don't actually know for a fact. Earth is visited by quite a few meteor showers [wikipedia.org] every year. On Earth they all burn up. On the Moon they all reach the surface.
But those are obvious issues, that's why I haven't spent time on them. Your response was so large that I simply couldn't afford time to respond to all the points that you raised. I think I wrote about all of them that are debatable.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 05 2015, @03:35AM
Sure, nuclear fusion is the universal answer to everything. However there is a small catch: it does not work yet. And that "yet" is lasting about 65 years by now, if you count from first stellarators and tokamaks (both 1950.) It may be that NIF's work will bear fruit... but what terrible complexity will that entail! You'd have to build most of the reactor on the Moon, as it will be large and heavy (especially the radiation shielding.) That may or may not require materials that are not present on the Moon (like metallic lead, for one.)
I guess I got too fancy for you with that one. I said "the products of nuclear fusion" and linked to a page describing nuclear fusion in *the sun*. The clear implication was solar power, but I guess I need to be more explicit in future. Sigh.
Nonetheless, I disagree again. In any case, have a nice day.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday February 04 2015, @07:32PM
Would anyone else care to chime in with additional reasons?
I heard that mining the moon is becoming a serious prospect. Maybe we should do that.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 04 2015, @12:17PM
and there is currently no scientific or other reason to have human presence on the Moon.
Because I want to. Please don't fall into the dumb trap of assuming everyone has exactly the same interests you do. Further, this is just a matter of an extremely high barrier to going to the Moon. People aren't living on the Moon now because it's a very hard, very costly problem. If it stops being that, then they'll go because they want to. At no point will your opinion of the "reasons" matter.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday February 04 2015, @07:09PM
That is fine with me. You are free to fly to the Moon and live there. Just don't ask the society to finance the trip - unless the society votes for it. I don't think you will get enough votes.
No, IMO - people aren't living on the Moon primarily because the benefits do not justify the cost and hardship. Even if cost becomes zero, would you want to live on the Moon, knowing that the low gravity will irrecoverably change your bones? Would you be happy with never seeing the blue sky again? Would you be OK with taking risks of micro-meteorites and radiation whenever you take a walk on the surface? Those issues will remain until the Moon is terraformed - and that won't happen soon.
I can imagine that when cost of travel to the Moon becomes negligible there will be teams of people who will be servicing equipment, manufacturing spaceships and fuel, and supporting the launch ... no scratch that. If the cost of travel to the Moon is low, then the cost of launching ships from Earth direct to the destination will be also low. But anyhow, there may be tasks that are best done on the Moon. Teams that do that will be working in shifts, as prolonged exposure to the low g environment is harmful. This won't be a paradise - this will be a harsh environment for hard working men. Mass migration to the Moon will be possible only if those migrants accept that it's a one-way trip, and that their children (if they will be born alive and healthy, which is an unanswered question so far) will never be able to exist in Earth's gravity. Nor would they be able to fly on spaceships, as that also involves acceleration. I cannot say why would the migrants choose such a future; I wouldn't. Not until artificial gravity is discovered, or not until the Singularity. But those would cause massive changes in how humans deal with the Universe. The Moon will not be a significant part of it; in fact, its role will diminish after those discoveries.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 04 2015, @08:16PM
Even if cost becomes zero, would you want to live on the Moon, knowing that the low gravity will irrecoverably change your bones?
Sure, until things get so crowded that I want to move on to the next zero cost destination.
Not until artificial gravity is discovered
Rotating frames of motion and their ability to induce artificial gravity were known in the 17th century.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday February 04 2015, @08:40PM
Sure, until things get so crowded that I want to move on to the next zero cost destination.
The spaceship that will carry you to the next destination will have to move very carefully, otherwise the acceleration will crush you. Also, your destination cannot have gravity much higher than 1/6 g. Migration upward is possible, considering that Lamarckism was wrong, but your children have to live at higher gravity from the day zero of their life.
Rotating frames of motion and their ability to induce artificial gravity were known in the 17th century.
This can be freely used only in space - such as in absence of other sources of gravity. Otherwise they add up - and you can easily imagine how that will work for you :-) I guess you could live on the inner surface of a carefully constructed, spinning cone if there is only one, point source of gravity.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 04 2015, @09:53PM
This can be freely used only in space - such as in absence of other sources of gravity. Otherwise they add up
The Moon is in space too. And adding up is not a problem when you already started well below one Earth gravity.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday February 04 2015, @10:12PM
And adding up is not a problem when you already started well below one Earth gravity.
In most cases it will cause vibration with the frequency of rotation. As a short-time effect, it is not a problem - people ride horses just fine. But I don't think you'd like to live all your life on a jackhammer :-) This will certainly ruin all the fine work that you may have to perform (soldering, for example, or chemical / biological research.) This is why I mentioned a carefully crafted and oriented surface.
Imagine a point mass, like the Moon's center. Then imagine that you are positioned, in a spinning cylinder, on the virtual surface of the Moon (that we replaced with a point.) To avoid the most egregious vibration you have to point the axis of the cylinder toward the Moon's center.
But that's not enough. Imagine yourself inside that cylinder, walking and living on its inner surface. Relative to you, the Moon's center will be moving! The gravity of that point will become a variable vector, adding to the fixed (in your system of coordinates) vector of simulated gravity. If you put a small sphere on a stable, flat, horizontal surface inside your cylinder, that sphere will be rolling around, attracted by the Moon. It would be pretty hard to do precision work in such conditions. In reality this effect will be lessened by the fact that the Moon is not a point; but still you can forget about doing science in such conditions, as the frequency of vibrations will be pretty high. This effect will be not perceivable far away from massive objects - such as in space. You'd still have to deal with other issues that relate to rotation - like precession.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 05 2015, @07:40AM
In most cases it will cause vibration with the frequency of rotation.
Vibration is another solved problem. There are plenty of ways to deal with that such as dampening the vibration and putting structural connections at null points so that vibration propagates poorly in your structures.
Relative to you, the Moon's center will be moving! The gravity of that point will become a variable vector, adding to the fixed (in your system of coordinates) vector of simulated gravity.
Actually, no it won't because no matter how much I rotate, the center of gravity of the moon will still remain on the axis of rotation at the same fixed distance from me.
It would be pretty hard to do precision work in such conditions.
We could always do this sort of precision work in non-rotating parts.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 04 2015, @02:55AM
What, exactly, do you expect will be "spoiled"?
Not your sense of humor, that's for sure -- sinice you apparently don't have one.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday February 04 2015, @03:06AM
Somebody said it better:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 04 2015, @12:58PM
For example, suppose that the value of an investment improves by 2% (including considerations of inflation) every year. Then there is considerable value to doing something now rather than at some distant point in the far future. In particular, say we could use use lunar resources now or choose at some future date to use those lunar resources for something with ten times the value. If that future is more than 117 years away, then it is better to do things now for that future time even with the order of magnitude inefficiency.
Second, it's horridly expensive to do stuff in Earth orbit now. There's going to be far more value to delivering oxygen and hydrogen to Earth orbit now than there will be with prevalent, extremely cheap space resources. I see little point to waiting to use resources for a future where they are less useful.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 04 2015, @01:22PM
1. What the hell is so valuable in doing something on Earth orbit?
2. if Earth orbit is expensive, how expensive would it be to move all the equipment to start building a "rocket fuel distillery" on Moon's poles (you know? The areas of Moon were sunlight, your single long term source of energy, is one of the most scarce/restrictive factors - cosine law and all that).
My point: if you plan for a meaningful presence on the Moon, better think/do it as a transit station to the Solar system. Anything else would be just wastng the resources just because is profitable now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 04 2015, @06:00PM
1. What the hell is so valuable in doing something on Earth orbit?
Value is what someone is willing to pay for it. There are already people willing to pay money, their own and other peoples' money to do all sorts of things in Earth orbit and elsewhere. There's already some demand for bulk mass in Earth orbit, such as oxygen and propellant for the ISS and propellant for satellites in Earth orbit. In addition, complex, high mass missions experience considerable economic advantage from having the last assemblyand propellent fueling steps in low Earth orbit, such as being able to use low thrust, high ISP engines to cover the last bit of delta v or proving the vehicle in vacuum before committing it to launch beyond Earth orbit.
2. if Earth orbit is expensive, how expensive would it be to move all the equipment to start building a "rocket fuel distillery" on Moon's poles (you know? The areas of Moon were sunlight, your single long term source of energy, is one of the most scarce/restrictive factors - cosine law and all that).
Depends on the output of the rocket fuel distillery and how much Earth-side economic inputs you need. That's what actually costs. In comparison, sunlight isn't much of a constraint since it is plentiful (some areas at the lunar poles have near fulltime coverage at up to the megawatt range).
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 04 2015, @06:53PM
Value is what someone is willing to pay for it.
I don't subscribe to this point of view.
At an angle of incidence barely grazing the surface, you'll need tall pylons or wide rotating platforms to set your collectors (or concentrators, whatever you choose).
Because, there's something that's called "shadow"; and, oh the horror, happens even at the Lunar poles and at grazing incidence this shadow is quite long, you know?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 04 2015, @07:19PM
Value is what someone is willing to pay for it.
I don't subscribe to this point of view.
Until you have better means of determining objective value, that's what we have.
At an angle of incidence barely grazing the surface, you'll need tall pylons or wide rotating platforms to set your collectors (or concentrators, whatever you choose). Because, there's something that's called "shadow"; and, oh the horror, happens even at the Lunar poles and at grazing incidence this shadow is quite long, you know?
This stuff has already been thought about [wordpress.com]. From that link:
Karl Hallowell [me]: [...]Second, any idea how much solar power is available at these polar sites for scaling up in the future?
Dennis Wingo: [...]There is square km of area at both polar sites, thus there is plenty of room for scaling to the megawatt level.
This is one of a series of papers that Dennis Wingo and his research group have been working over over the past few years.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 04 2015, @08:41PM
Correction: maybe that's what you have (cause I don't accept it).
Besides, you choice a value as as subjective as any other: takes the point of view of the potential buyers, doesn't consider a thing about the willingness of the owner (which can be a community) to sell - because if the owner is not willing to sell, your definition is moot.
To "demonstrate" (rhetorically): I'm willing to offer $3... hang on, I'm generous today, make it $4... for owning your totality as a person. Does this makes your value?
So, megawatt you say? The $5billion budget seems to provide only for the something around "100 kilowatt power supply". But, OK, let assume 1 MW.
The settlement is about producing hydrogen/oxygen (to be delivered on Earth orbit to be used as rocket fuel), right?
Seems like the only available method [wikipedia.org] at the Lunar poles would be electrolysis - which requires between 50 and 79 kWh per kilo of hydrogen [wikipedia.org].
Which means, 1MW would be consumed to produce... what... about 20kg of hydrogen/hour with no other human or "industrious activity" present? You sure that's worth the title of "self-sustaining economy"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday February 04 2015, @09:32PM
To "demonstrate" (rhetorically): I'm willing to offer $3... hang on, I'm generous today, make it $4... for owning your totality as a person. Does this makes your value?
And that demonstrates that I'm worth at least $4 to you objectively. I can easily outbid that, BTW.
Which means, 1MW would be consumed to produce... what... about 20kg of hydrogen/hour with no other human or "industrious activity" present?
And 160 kg per hour of oxygen. It's a fully fueled Delta IV heavy (which uses three cores, each with 173 metric tons of liquid oxygen and 29.5 metric tons of liquid hydrogen) every 123 days with 189 metric tons of oxygen left over. That's almost the propellant need of 2 Delta IV heavies every year with more than an 500 metric tons of excess oxygen left over.
The real constraint is getting it into space. In the best case, you could just launch the payload into space via some variant of electromagnetic propulsion system, like a rail gun. To propel 1 kg of water into an orbit which will pass through a bit of Earth's atmosphere, that's about 2.3 km/s (depending on the eventual orbit, it can be higher or a little bit lower) and takes 0.75 kWh per kg. That's roughly 12,000 metric tons of water per year per MW of power production which at current prices on a Falcon 9, would displace about $30-55 billion per year in costs minus the cost of whatever system you use to decelerate the payloads on the other end (mostly aerobraking plus some minor orbital circularizing and manuevering). Then you could just have a large solar power satellite on the other end do the actual electrolysis of water.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 04 2015, @11:04PM
:) Rhetorical-objectively, yes. Otherwise, no, not from my point of view. :)
:) :) So now that we've already established you are willing to sell, we’re just haggling over the price. [quoteinvestigator.com] ;)
A bit unusual for the seller to participate in the bid... but let's say (rhetorically, of course) I allow that. So, can you be more specific what exactly is your bid which beat mine?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday February 04 2015, @02:26AM
There isn't a lot you can take home from the moon. So you better have plans to use it there, building infrastructure etc.
Lifting any appreciable amount of material off the moons surface is bad enough (because you have to lift the fuel to do so off of earth first). But then landing any huge weight of materials back on earth is going to be problematic as well. It will probably take fuel.
So unless you find diamonds or something it probably will never pay to try repatriating much from the moon. Best bet is to use it there.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Wednesday February 04 2015, @02:47AM
> There isn't a lot you can take home from the moon. So you better have plans to use it there, building infrastructure etc.
I have no objection to that, if that's the best use you can find for what you mined. But others may be more creative.
> Lifting any appreciable amount of material off the moons surface is bad enough (because you have to lift the fuel to do so off of earth first).
Perhaps you missed the part about "mine the vast reserves of water ice and convert it into rocket propellant" -- I know, who reads TFS? But again, just because you are limited to things you've already seen others do (launch from earth based resources using explosive fuel) please don't hold the rest of humanity back with your small mindedness. Gawd how dismal it must be to live in a brain that can't imagine anything being different than it is now! The moon doesn't have an atmosphere. So electromagnetic launchers are much easier to build there than here. The lack of atmosphere also means solar energy beats down with much more strength than we experience on the hottest summer day -- and it is steady for two weeks straight. There's your raw energy source.
> Best bet is to use it there.
Or, ummm, as a stepping stone to, I don't know, the rest of the entire solar system? You're right, most things won't be worth shipping back to Earth. That's where we live now. It doesn't have to be a trap forever though.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by t-3 on Wednesday February 04 2015, @02:55AM
Exactly. The main point of having infrastructure and fuel production in space is to enable space travel and exploration. Without the costs of breaking through earth's atmosphere, space travel is much more economical.
Mine the moon and set up a base station
Mine asteroids for more material
Bootstrap mars without depleting the Earth's resources
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday February 04 2015, @07:45AM
Bootstrap mars without depleting the Earth's resources
Put the comic books down. Sorry, Quaid. Your whole life is just a dream.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Wednesday February 04 2015, @07:36AM
Perhaps you missed the part about "mine the vast reserves of water ice and convert it into rocket propellant"
Vast reserves?
The amount of water on the moon is in serious doubt. [ibtimes.com] In fact the whole issue is still in doubt today after all these years and all the probes we've sent. What we thought we found in 2009 is now doubted, or its buried so deep and tightly bound with the rocks that extraction would be hugely expensive, and just acquiring enough to live on the moon would be problematic, getting enough for rocket propellant is probably out of the question. (Where the hell are you going with rockets anyway? Seriously? Rockets?).
The history of the search is on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water [wikipedia.org] and its not all as rosy as you seem to think.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Wednesday February 04 2015, @02:45AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 4, Funny) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 04 2015, @09:11AM
Are you saying that the Moon can be a harsh mistress?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 04 2015, @09:46AM
(no, I do get what you're alluding to, no need for an explicit link).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 04 2015, @10:04AM
The moon can be a harsh mistress.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1182345/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 [imdb.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by sudo rm -rf on Wednesday February 04 2015, @10:59AM
^One of my favorites.
Also:
"Mr President, the Soviets painted the moon red!" - "Then send someone up to paint 'Coca-Cola' on it"
(Score: 3, Informative) by JeanCroix on Wednesday February 04 2015, @02:40PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 04 2015, @07:24AM
...still the most challenging, expensive, dangerous and unreliable part of the trip
till someone invents anti-gravity, rides into space will be limited to the wealthy and lucky few scientists
the other problem with space is that it is the strategic high ground, so its not in the interests of most nation's security to have too many private flying spaceships flying overhead
(Score: 3, Funny) by ticho on Wednesday February 04 2015, @09:09AM
...Moon is a Harsh Mistress