Topic: Russian roadmap to Solar System colonisation. Moon is the first step. - page 6. (Read 6233 times)

I think you're underestimating the accuracy to which aeronautics people can decide where a projectile is going to land. Getting something to/from the moon in the first place is hitting a piece of driftwood in a vast ocean - what's a couple more decimal places of accuracy after that? Missions to the moon and the recent ones to Mars decided exactly which area would be most interesting to study, and landed there, with no human pilot present and most of the thrust used at T=0.

As for heat problems on atmospheric entry, heat shielding systems have long been tried and tested and are perfectly capable of delivering groups of humans back to the planet's surface unharmed - cargo-only vessels would be capable of enduring much higher temperatures and G-forces.

not necessarily....

http://www.lampsacus.com/documents/MARSDIRECTSPACEEXPLORATION.pdf

It takes 18 months for a rocket to reach Mars. In an economic sense, the Martian colonization will be prohibitively expensive, at the same time a gigantic waste of the financial resources. 

This is basically impossible.  Everything in space that we put there is extremely fragile and expensive so "war" is uneconomic.  Just something like taking ammo for a tank gun off the Earth and to the Moon is a fantastically difficult and expensive proposition. 

"War" can't exist on the Moon or other planets.  More importantly there is no reason for it.  The Moon is somewhat homogenous in it's top ten meters composition.  Lots of room there for anyone that wants to stake a claim.  There will be breakthroughs, but not through enemy lines - they will be technical breakthroughs and achievements through vision and application of science and engineering.

Well, FYI, that is roughly the plot of one of the best of Heinlien's book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".

The technical question is of two parts (A) trajectory verification during the orbital transfer from the Moon and (B) issues of unanticipated and improper heatshield breakup in-atmosphere causing unanticipated deviations during re entry. 

There are people called engineers that routinely work and solve these types of questions, lol...

Let them have the moon, let's go for mars - which makes waaaay more sense for a first colony.

I don't know. What will happen if these projectiles land in some inhabited locality and cause casualties?

Like that?
http://youtu.be/Py_IndUbcxc

No.  This is a simple matter of selecting the projectile shape, then coating it with the proper ablative material.  For return from Moon, re entry would be some 36,000 mph.  Coating would be done with fused moon dust, four inches should be adequate.  We are talking here about "unguided projectiles" that have no navigational or computer system, literally just a titanium cylinder coated with the ablative.  Or for helium3, a simple pressure vessel holding say 1 kg of the helium.

In the case of the h3, it would definitely be cost efficient to use robotic return to earth spacecraft.

But manned lunar bases to do the work would not be cost efficient.

I don't know. By the time they finally reach the earth's surface, 99% of the material will be vaporized. The earth's atmosphere is quite thick and even travelling at 180 mph can cause a lot of friction, enough to vaporize the material.

Imagine the future wars, fighting over parts of the moon and other planets.

Ah, okay... Robotic Missions will make that whole thing alot cheaper indeed.

Still, the challenge this generation will soon face (IMHO) won't be spacebound - but rather a far earthlier issue.
It will become a legitimate challenge as soon as there is sufficient incentive (or need) to go there. I do hope they'll make it sooner than later, but being the realistic type - I just don't see them picking up that challenge in my lifetime.

PS.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of the developments for the engines heavier than air... came from military applications, its interest in its destructive potential and its ensuing financial investments once convinced.
For the better of mankind was the vision - always ending up first as "most bang for the buck" for the generals. That must be kept in mind.

The whole thing can be computerized. No need for big human crew.
The thing is every generation faces a challenge and that challenge, once conquered makes the next generation say "D'uh! What was the big deal anyway! My plane is late again! Damn you engine heavier than air that should not fly!"

I agree on that basically, but in a nutshell these are babysteps and peanuts projects in comparison, projects that individuals could fund to realize. What they built is basically the cost of an average-sized airport, not more (not even a big one nowadays).

The project costs for a moon base would easily dwarf the space budgets of many modern nations - combined.

That's something no rich person or a small group could ever fund - it's simply out of even their league, and big time so.

But if you can find a visionary trillionaire willing to invest his wealth into a such project - you'd have my full support

PS.
And forget Facebook a.k.a. Faceplant, it's already headed downhill since it produces nothing of value (except for the intelligence services harvesting the freely provided data by the mindless zombies that use it).
Google is about earning money (and gathering intelligence), not about space travel. Should they find a source of revenue there however, at least their cash would provide a good firestarter (better than nothing).
Basically we're living in a bizarro economy, centrally planned and manipulated not much different than in the USSR in some respects and many countries. Alot of things people believe have value to them will in a very few years crumble to the dust they actually are. When that happens, space travel will be the least of mankind's issues for a number of decades (outside military use). But that's just my opinion...

When there's enough money to be made - they'll be all over it. But since there isn't.... Well...

We are in an economy were Elon Musk, selling Paypal, made Tesla and SpaceX. Facebook bought some apps for multiple billions. Google said space exploration is on their agenda.

People with the will, the vision and the cash will make it happen. nothing special people. The same happened with transatlantic communication cables, The Washington Bridge, the Eurotunnel, etc.

While alot of nations have said similar things, no action in that direction has ever been taken - and likely won't be in the near future.

And for as long as the costs far outweigh the potential resources, nothing will happen.
Remember, as we speak global trade is slowing down every year and several of the mines lifting to surface similar minerals as found on the moon are already limiting ops or shutting down; some even are at the verge of bankruptcy and only survive from credit-to-credit.
Definitely no chance of any moon mining operations anytime soon, rather the opposite.

In its current economic condition, the planet doesn't need moon-supplied 12000$/ton iron ore or 90000$/ton titanium (and these are extremely conservative estimates).

Who said it was useful or necessary to transport it back to earth?

If that was useful, you'd do it by using a railgun to shoot projectiles at earth, and recover them after they hit the ground at ~ 180 mph.  Or the ocean.  This is extremely cheap.  On the Moon there is all the power one wants from solar, 4x more intense than Earth.  Available for some 300 hours continuous, then twilight or dark for 420 hours or so.

The details on lunar railgun have been mostly worked out.  Building that railgun would be a fairly big job.  I am not familiar with the details, but assume it would use superconducting magnets.

The largest market for lunar raw materials would be off earth applications.  Satellites at higher orbits, possibly the L4 and L5 points, equipment and structures for asteroid exploration and or capture, etc.  Which in turn clearly shows that the opportunity for profitable off earth commercial activity is the Moon, and in turn that is enabling to further presence in the Solar System.

Almost all lunar "raw materials" can be conceptualized as 3d printer output these days.  We're not talking traditional sheet or rod metal or traditional metal forming techniques.  They are not practical for space or the Moon or Mars.  In turn this leads to a plausible conclusion:  Our exploration of the solar systems rests on a foundation of adequate materials technology - nanotech, 3d printing are examples - to enable the building of machinery, supplies and equipment off planet largely by robots.  This is only now moving into the realm of what we can envision.  

The techy term for this has been ISRU, in situ resource utilization.

Yes, I remember that, but the greatest chunk of cost is associated with getting out of Earth's gravity well, ditto space elevator.


China already thinks it to be worthwhile.

Absolutely noone will set foot on the moon (let alone live/work there) until it either becomes a) profitable to do so or b) offers another tremendous advantage (i.e. military or geopolitical).

As both scenarios are long stretches away, there's simply no actual and real incentive to toss hundreds of Billions of Dollars at such a project. It just doesn't pay off and no individual nation has the pockets deep enough and the tech to pull it off alone.

The technology is mostly there - but the profitable outcome (of whatever nature) is not, especially not for a project of this magnitude.

PS.
The mineral composition of the moon's surface (as discovered so far) makes it rather uninteresting. Reserves of all identified minerals are still more than plentyful here on earth.

You need to remember that the average distance from Earth to the Moon is 384,400 km. I don't know whether in future technology will ma e that much travel viable for metal extraction.