|
mdemone posted:On the other hand, the moon definitely is. At about a centimeter a year!
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2022 04:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:03 |
|
|
ashpanash posted:I think the only reason not to do the moon first is because there's probably more fruitful geological science (and definitely more fruitful organic science) on Mars. But that's kind of it for upsides. Plus, it's not like there's a rush. Mars isn't going anywhere. Zubrin laid out an interesting argument that it depends on our goals. If the goal is to go to Mars in the most effiacious route, then a Moon base is outrageously expensive and wasteful for that goal*. If we have an unlimited budget and are doing everything at once because we can then obviously we should do both things because it'd be awesome and the Moon maybe has resources useful for nuclear fusion research. *There are people who think a Moon base is essential in order to travel to Mars; but strictly speaking is unnecessary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2022 05:05
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Yeah, there are actual practical reasons to want a presence on the moon. Putting telescopes up there in craters is a big one. Even optical telescopes would get way better results without an atmosphere. Also it will tell us if we’ll ever want to try putting outposts anywhere else, or if it fucks people up too horribly to be worth the trouble. I can't think of any compelling reasons why you'd want to put optical telescopes on the moon instead of in space, except maybe if you've gotten around to building a mostly self-sufficient moon base but not any equivalent space stations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2022 05:24
|
|
|
eXXon posted:I can't think of any compelling reasons why you'd want to put optical telescopes on the moon instead of in space, except maybe if you've gotten around to building a mostly self-sufficient moon base but not any equivalent space stations. There's a lot of highly intensive image processing and stuff that you could maybe do right then and there, if you had like big supercomputers there on the moon, instead of having to send it back to Earth via radio transmission. Maybe? I actually have no idea, I might be just spouting ignorant bullshit.  Mainly what I'm thinking of is being able to assemble a really huge telescope in Moon-G, which would be otherwise pretty hard to do in orbit, and also too big to package all in one go in a rocket. JWST sounded like it was really pushing the limit as to how big you could send up a telescope as a single launch piece, but we might need even bigger telescopes to make out details of really faraway things or really small things like exoplanets. DrSunshine fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Aug 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2022 05:29
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Mainly what I'm thinking of is being able to assemble a really huge telescope in Moon-G, which would be otherwise pretty hard to do in orbit, and also too big to package all in one go in a rocket. JWST sounded like it was really pushing the limit as to how big you could send up a telescope as a single launch piece, but we might need even bigger telescopes to make out details of really faraway things or really small things like exoplanets. JWST only pushes the limits of what kind of telescope you can send with existing, flying rockets. If Saturn Vs, SLSes, N1s, Sea Dragons, Starships, etc. were in service when JWST was being developed, you could have made a much larger device. I saw a proposal for LUVOIR that designs its mirror around Starship's proposed fairing size, for example.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2022 07:09
|
|
|
Based on some of the recent articles (which feature modelling of course), the James Webb will probably be able to give us a list of good candidates of exoplanets with life signs, but for a more definitive answer you'd need a bigger 'scope. Having a base on the Moon would generally have the up-side that there would be people around to do whatever. If we did telescopize portions of the lunar surface, I'm guessing not every scientist who receives instrument time would be willing or able to travel on-site, but having a bunch of engineers and computer touchers there to fix stuff and handle the data pipe-line back to Earth sounds like a reasonable idea. The logistics of a moon base (I doubt we'd have anything you'd call a 'colony' any time soon, even if we diverted the entire western MIC to moon stuff) are still a pain. Insane billionaires aside, there'd have to be some pretty tempting industrial applications to get enough angel investors on board. I'm skeptical any major governments of the world would be keen on tackling the Moon any time soon, since we're getting to the part of man-made climate change that is tangibly disruptive to civilization, requiring more effort and resources.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2022 07:09
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:The logistics of a moon base (I doubt we'd have anything you'd call a 'colony' any time soon, even if we diverted the entire western MIC to moon stuff) are still a pain. Insane billionaires aside, there'd have to be some pretty tempting industrial applications to get enough angel investors on board. I'm skeptical any major governments of the world would be keen on tackling the Moon any time soon, since we're getting to the part of man-made climate change that is tangibly disruptive to civilization, requiring more effort and resources. Question is how much more expensive than the ISS a lunar base would be. It wouldn't need to maintain an orbit so in that sense it would be a little simpler but other than that it seems like it could largely be like the ISS on the lunar surface. Supply and crew capsules would need different designs and we need the rockets that are currently being developed but other than that operational costs would be largely the same. And I definitely would not classify the ISS on the moon as a colony.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2022 07:47
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:Based on some of the recent articles (which feature modelling of course), the James Webb will probably be able to give us a list of good candidates of exoplanets with life signs, but for a more definitive answer you'd need a bigger 'scope. Good point about having people on-site to repair it. Given JWST has already had problems due to micrometeorites, and the issue with Hubble's lens early on, having to repair things remotely is a huge problem and if there were people at a lunar observatory they could take care of a lot of issues immediately. I don't think there'd be much immediate lure for industrial ventures associated with a moon base. The private involvement might solely be in terms of shipping and resupply.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2022 14:51
|
|
|
I don't think any argument that goes "we can't do X because we haven't accomplished climate change yet" makes a lot of sense. To quote the age old joke, "if there was oil on the moon the US would have invaded it yesterday". It merely needs to be of sufficient national interest for nations to prioritize it over "climate change" which let us be frank, is not a very high bar to clear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2022 15:09
|
|
|
I know heat exchange in LEO isn't as straight forward because of vacuum, but with a lunar base we'd have more options to work with, though they may all end up being just as impractical. If we could figure out something workable we could use that super cooling for pushing silicon chips to crazy levels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
Watch us go maximum hellworld and turn the moon into solar panels and radiators for bitcoin mining. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2022 18:53
|
|
|
The real blockchain are the series of borg cubes we have strung across the solar system to more efficiently mine and issue coins.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2022 19:08
|
|
|
Thread is converging onto the plot of Accelerando
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2022 19:24
|
|
|
When it comes to optical/UV/IR telescopes, there's not a whole lot that being on the Moon does for them that couldn't be accomplished by simply being in orbit. Staff on-site for repair is certainly a plus, but it probably would not be worth the costs unless you're building the telescope near an already-established outpost (e.g. the South Pole Telescope at Amundsen-Scott in Antarctica). Lunar dust is also a gigantic pain in the rear end and likely to be a significant problem both mechanically and electrically due to static charge buildup. There is an interest in radio astronomy on the far side of the Moon, however, because the Moon would block all the radio interference from Earth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2022 02:16
|
|
|
Having a lunar base also allows you to test technologies and techniques for Martian expansion, while still being relatively close to home for resupply.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2022 15:11
|
|
|
Frank Drake has died, age 92 so a very good innings. Next Drake equation derail is dedicated to him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 19:23
|
|
|
Quoting myself from a GBS thread.DrSunshine posted:We're presuming intelligent, space-faring aliens, I take it? It got me thinking about the Speculative Biology genre on Youtube. It's pretty interesting stuff out there, and fun for listening to while working or commuting. Curious Archive is one of my favorite channels. Definitely a Spacethread adjacent recommend!
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2022 17:09
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Quoting myself from a GBS thread. Although a while back I read Golem XIV by Stanislaw Lem, where instead hyperintelligences draw inward and pretty much become catatonic. https://rtraba.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/golem-xiv.pdf
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2022 01:55
|
|
|
Wouldn't moon dust itself a big sticking point for the viability of a long-term presence on the moon? I seem to recall reading somewhere that they're having difficulty preserving the spacesuits worn by the Apollo landing astronauts, due to the moon dust stuck in the fabric cutting through it when even slightly disturbed. I also recall one of the crew members becoming seriously ill for weeks after inhaling a tiny amount of the stuff. It sounds like it's basically turbo-asbestos that is probably also irradiated by unfiltered cosmic ray bombardment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2022 02:44
|
|
|
There is no erosion to smooth it out so the lunar regolith is super abrasive, but we have designs to address that. Things like static charge (if I remember right, someone else can confirm that) for the suit skin and air locked rear entry into the suits themselves to reduce the introduction of the regolith into the habitats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2022 03:43
|
|
|
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20160005317/downloads/20160005317.pdf here's a nasa slide deck showing off shmancy dust-repellent glass... according to this paper https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lunardust2020/pdf/5027.pdf it's only been used on camera lenses and laser apertures so far as well as the ISS materials testbed; fabric is still a theoretical application the apollo space suits are really difficult to conserve, but not because of regolith; just b/c they're super fragile machines made of all kinds of jank 60s synthetic fibers and a dozen different foil layers all decomposing at different rates. here's a really thorough article from the smithsonian on the subject: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/a-moonwalk-did-not-destroy-neil-armstrong-spacesuit-now-time-wont-either-180964598/
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2022 05:43
|
|
|
It's true that on the moon (and Mars!) the dust is both toxic and abrasive, which is bad for people and machines. It's not an insurmountable problem, there are a number of ways to deal with it, but it's also another challenge that would need to be overcome for longterm habitation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2022 06:19
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Although a while back I read Golem XIV by Stanislaw Lem, where instead hyperintelligences draw inward and pretty much become catatonic. Mister Lem was very pessimistic when it came to all things Fermi paradox, and a good chunk of his work revolves around the futility of even trying to contact anybody else. As our civilization turns away from a technology race around the cold war and instead a technology race towards better particle effects for block matching games for individuals to play while defecating, I'm beginning to share his attitudes towards ever meeting any cool space dudes 
Rappaport fucked around with this message at 07:46 on Sep 13, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2022 07:44
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Quoting myself from a GBS thread. I love watching the Alien Biosphere's series myself. I am waiting for the alien spider monsters to grow sentience
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 21:58
|
|
|
If there isn’t a betting pool on what lineage gains sentience in the Alien Biospheres series, we need to open one. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6xPxnYMQpquNuaEffJzjGjMsr6VktCYl E: Still waiting for the return of the Shoggoths on Serina, the ant colony that decided to become a macro-predator Triskelli fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Sep 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 22:19
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I love watching the Alien Biosphere's series myself. I am waiting for the alien spider monsters to grow sentience The Serina one is my favourite, I remember following that project a bit some years ago so it was cool to see how its developed in a surprisingly poignant direction, albeit also more fantastical. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDtpEiMyGT4
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2022 22:31
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:The Serina one is my favourite,  Excellent post/avatar combo
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2022 20:15
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:The Serina one is my favourite, I remember following that project a bit some years ago so it was cool to see how its developed in a surprisingly poignant direction, albeit also more fantastical.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2022 19:38
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Zubrin laid out an interesting argument no he did not and never has and never will
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
DEEP STATE PLOT posted:no he did not and never has and never will Care to elaborate?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2022 20:17
|
|
|
DEEP STATE PLOT posted:no he did not and never has and never will I'm not sure if you know what his argument is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2022 21:25
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Wow, that was an amazing read, are there many others like it? Can't go wrong with All Tomorrows, probably the ur- spec bio project online!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2022 21:37
|
|
|
Dameius posted:Care to elaborate? robert zubrin is a colossal loving moron, simple as. the only relatively significant figure in space science deserving of less respect is avi loeb. as far as futurists go, zubrin probably the single most harmful of them to serious discussion of colonizing, or even exploring, other bodies in our solar system beyond the moon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2022 23:24
|
|
|
Ok but why though specifically Like I know who Zubrin is and that he's been advocating for a mars mission for decades but I'm not familiar with the details of his plan beyond the idea to produce fuel in situ
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2022 23:34
|
|
|
I would also like to hear more about the ideas of this Zubrin and why exactly he is a fool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2022 23:52
|
|
|
Effortposts dunking on idiots is the original raison d'être of SA, let's have some fun! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2022 23:55
|
|
|
I remember reading The Case For Mars many years ago, and I don’t recall any aspect of it being too outlandish. If you saw The Martian, they used a fundamentally similar plan: a first unmanned mission that includes a return launch vehicle and manufactures fuel on site on Mars, then a second mission that’s manned but also includes a second fuel-manufacturing and return launch vehicle, so the crew has two escape vehicles if anything goes to poo poo. Future missions can use the spare vehicle left over by previous mission, so all of them have two escape vehicles, unless one breaks down or explodes or something. It was a fairly constrained concept, not intended to create permanent habitation, and focused on the specifics of a short scientific mission; none of it seemed wild. Did he go down the crazy hole lately? His Wikipedia page seems pretty boring. I mean, if you really want to point at any single public figure who’s created a bubble of terrible ideas re: Mars colonization, you need look no further than Elon Musk, who’s been vomiting out half-assed ideas about Mars any time he needs to pump his share prices and millions of idiots treat him like the Messiah for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 00:14
|
|
|
The only thing that comes to mind is that if you're leaving a number of fuel manufacturing machines on Mars, you could eventually use them for something else after a few missions. Bring along some big balloons to fill with oxygen or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 00:17
|
|
|
Yeah Zubrin's book, which I have also read, and had cited in this thread previously; makes several particularly interesting arguments that might not occur to people into space travel but aren't y'know, astrophysicists. Like that there's actually two ways of getting to Mars, I don't remember the exact names for the routes, it's in Mars Direct, but there's (IIRC, don't take these numbers as gospel, they're my best guess at remembering) a 90 day trip and a 180 day trip, the former trip is usually the main path considered, because well, it's shorter! But requires higher deltaV to make the trip because you're coming in much faster and thus need more deltaV to slowdown before landing on Mars; but the longer route requires much lower deltaV, meaning you can actually use the Martian atmosphere to aerobrake. One can argue which path might be better for which kind of mission, but the idea this has been damaging doesn't seem well supported. I don't think one can look at the fact that NASA is in fact considering Zubrin's ideas (I believe "Semi-Direct" is the main NASA focus of research atm) on their merits and conclude "probably the single most harmful of them to serious discussion of colonizing, or even exploring, other bodies in our solar system", when Musk or your average internet twitter anti-technology leftist exists (and SpaceX has done good work!). Like it seems to me that NASA's budget has been on a shoe string for most of the adult lives of the average something awful user has done more damage than Zubrin's lobbying. Or the green lobby and nuclear power honestly has done more damage to space colonization because it's made us less interested in exploring nuclear powered rockets. Zubrin has a book and the only person who ever brought up Zubrin positively in this thread for the entire history of its existence has been me afaik, so the idea Zubrin has had some kind of popcultural reach that has warped the debate of space travel to the point of damaging its prospects seems silly if it can't even permeate this dead gay comedy forum beyond one single tedious user. Coldbird posted:I remember reading The Case For Mars many years ago, and I don’t recall any aspect of it being too outlandish. If you saw The Martian, they used a fundamentally similar plan: a first unmanned mission that includes a return launch vehicle and manufactures fuel on site on Mars, then a second mission that’s manned but also includes a second fuel-manufacturing and return launch vehicle, so the crew has two escape vehicles if anything goes to poo poo. Future missions can use the spare vehicle left over by previous mission, so all of them have two escape vehicles, unless one breaks down or explodes or something. Yeah Zubrin's argument is that a Mars Mission is just categorically is not going to happen as envisioned by the Werner von Braun NASA faction who want a moonbase, a big space station, and a big spaceship before we can set foot on Mars. Zubrin goes through the arguments one by one that this wishlist is absurdly too expensive and unnecessary. Instead using the analogy of arctic exploration he argues NASA's best shot is by using mostly off the shelf existing proven technologies, proven heavy lift launch vehicles (Saturn V for example), and building up gradually in a 10-12 year window (pointing out a 20 year+ plan is simply not happening and will get cancelled by a future US administration) like the moon program, on a vastly cheaper budget that actually gets you a vastly longer, and vastly safer and more reliable, 600 day mission (instead of a 60 day mission). It's a very reasonable and practical argument and he's just frankly right on all the main (political) points at a minimum.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 03:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:03 |
|
|
Zubrin is presumably a competent engineer since he worked at NASA and part of his proposals are still taken seriously. However, I suspect him of crankiness given that he shares lovely opinions about the ethics of space exploration on the National Review, retweets garbage like this: https://twitter.com/JunkScience/status/1570964795091984393?cxt=HHwWkoDR4YyKmM0rAAAA ... and apparently has been shitposting about Ukraine more than anything else for the last couple of years. He wrote an inane article about JWST that ironically argues against crewed space missions (as planned by NASA, anyway) as being expensive and lacking clear science goals. Actually, I mostly agree with that, just not for the same reasons. I'm sure a crewed mission to Mars would get some interesting science done but probably not nearly as much (to the extent that you can quantify scientific output) as NASA's more successful and cheaper space observatory programs. Of course, his perspective is that the purpose should be to establish permanent bases and settlements on Mars and, well, we've been over than before. His criticism of JWST not being serviceable is mostly moot given that the unexpectedly successful launch means it has enough consumables for 20 years and could well last that long without needing to replace anything. I'm pretty sure NASA wanted it to be serviceable and if there were a reasonable way to service it at L2 it would have been pursued. Anyway, while I considered reading his more recent book, I haven't found it at available in libraries and refuse to give him money for it. I suppose I could pirate it if I really cared but I can't see how he'd change my mind that humans would have a lovely time living on Mars, especially in private colonies built for resource management (historically not a thing you'd expect "humanists" to espouse). Raenir Salazar posted:Yeah Zubrin's book, which I have also read, and had cited in this thread previously; makes several particularly interesting arguments that might not occur to people into space travel but aren't y'know, astrophysicists. Like that there's actually two ways of getting to Mars, I don't remember the exact names for the routes, it's in Mars Direct, but there's (IIRC, don't take these numbers as gospel, they're my best guess at remembering) a 90 day trip and a 180 day trip, the former trip is usually the main path considered, because well, it's shorter! But requires higher deltaV to make the trip because you're coming in much faster and thus need more deltaV to slowdown before landing on Mars; but the longer route requires much lower deltaV, meaning you can actually use the Martian atmosphere to aerobrake. One can argue which path might be better for which kind of mission, but the idea this has been damaging doesn't seem well supported. From that same JWST article: quote:The JWST program stands as a very useful contrast to other NASA enterprises that are not as well conceived. For example, NASA’s directorate in charge of developing plans for human Mars missions recently advanced the idea that NASA embrace the concept of minimum-duration surface-stay missions. This makes no sense. There are two basic flight plans for human Mars exploration. The short-stay plan, known for reasons that derive from ancient astrological terminology as the “Opposition Class” mission, involved spending two years in flight between Earth and Mars on unequal outbound and inbound legs, and 30 days at Mars. The long-stay plan, known as the “Conjunction Class” mission, involves taking six-month voyages each way to Mars and back but spending 18 months on the Martian surface. The NASA Mars planners argue that, by adopting the Opposition plan which minimizes surface-stay time, they are minimizing risk and cost. In fact, if one takes into account that the purpose of the mission is exploration, it should be apparent that exactly the opposite is true. The right figure of merit for Mars mission designs is person-days on Mars divided by unit cost. The Opposition Class mission requires higher energy trajectories, and thus more propellant and higher launch costs, than Conjunction missions. To accomplish the same amount of Mars exploration as a single Conjunction Class mission, 18 Opposition Class missions would be required, each costing more than a Conjunction mission, with vastly greater cost and risk for the total effort. Is this gap between six-month and 90 day trips based on not-currently-existent rockets or what?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 05:54
|
|