By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Discovery of water on moon boosts prospects for permanent lunar base

mrstickball on 28 September 2009

It takes 3-4 days to fly to the moon via a conventional rocket. What the heck are you talking about?

Let's go over Apollo 11, shall we?

July 16th - Apollo 11 launches via a Saturn V at 1332 UTC
July 20th - Lunar Module separates from the command module in prep to land on the moon.
July 20th - 2013 UTC, the Lunar Module lands on the moon
July 21st - 0259 UTC, Neil Armstrong comes out of the hatch, and we hear 'One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind'
July 24th - Astronauts splash down near Johnson Atoll

So I think your greatly mistaken on the time it takes to get to the moon.

Now, aboard a space elevator, it would ascend at a rate of 400-600 KMH. This would mean that it would take between 7-10 days to get to the end of the tether, at 100,000 KM above the earth.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network
dtewi on 28 September 2009
mrstickball said:
It takes 3-4 days to fly to the moon via a conventional rocket. What the heck are you talking about?

Let's go over Apollo 11, shall we?

July 16th - Apollo 11 launches via a Saturn V at 1332 UTC
July 20th - Lunar Module separates from the command module in prep to land on the moon.
July 20th - 2013 UTC, the Lunar Module lands on the moon
July 21st - 0259 UTC, Neil Armstrong comes out of the hatch, and we hear 'One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind'
July 24th - Astronauts splash down near Johnson Atoll

So I think your greatly mistaken on the time it takes to get to the moon.

Now, aboard a space elevator, it would ascend at a rate of 400-600 KMH. This would mean that it would take between 7-10 days to get to the end of the tether, at 100,000 KM above the earth.

It only takes 8 days?

Why did I think months?

*stops being stoopid*



Kimi wa ne tashika ni ano toki watashi no soba ni ita

Itsudatte itsudatte itsudatte

Sugu yoko de waratteita

Nakushitemo torimodosu kimi wo

I will never leave you

mrstickball on 28 September 2009

Correction:

We launched and RETURNED in 8 days. It was 4 days from launch to land on the moon, and 4 days from landing on the moon to splashdown in the pacific ocean

Remember: The chemical rockets we currently use to escape earth's gravity accelerate to >20,000 KM/H. We have to use something that quick to escape, so we've done a great job at building stuff that can go fast. Unfortunately, the costs are close to insanity ($11,000 per kilogram launched into geosynchronous orbit) which is why we're willing to sacrifice some time for a 90-95% reduction in payload cost via elevator.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

coolestguyever on 28 September 2009

sounds like a good way to spend taxpayer money. Building a permanent residence on the moon



Sqrl on 29 September 2009
mrstickball said:
Sqrl said:
mrstickball said:
Given the horrible spending practices of the US, we could.

The real key to colonization is to reduce the costs of launching payload to orbit. Currently, it costs the US between $5,000-$10,000 per KG of material launched into orbit. However, if we built a space elevator (Cost <$250 billion), the cost would reduce to $200-$400 per KG. Such a reduction would easily pay for itself by the country that did this - At such cut-rate prices, space agencies and private firms would flock to the country that had the elevator, as it could easily beat any other offers to launch satellites into space.

From there, the cost to colonize the moon, or anywhere, would be a fraction of the ~$1 trillion of current projections for a basic lunar base.

I agree that the elevator needs to be built but I have to be honest in saying I'm skeptical that it would come in anywhere near budget.  The engineering challenges are pretty immense and the scale of the project is really on a whole new level beyond anything humanity has done before.  None of that is a reason not to try, but they are damn good reasons to be very sure we can commit to the project (both politically and financially) before we start.

To me a space elevator would be the first truly space-age structure built by humanity.  What I mean by this is sort of tiered building capacity for a society...it starts at building fires working its way up to make-shift tents, adobe houses, large public structures of increasing craftmanship, and then a big leap to skyscrapers.  From skyscrapers we move to monolith structures like man-made islands (which we've already done), and now we are looking at building the first structure (term used loosely) that would simultaneously be...and not be... on the earth. 

It really is a whole new step akin to the leap to skyscrapers some 125 years ago.  Granted I don't think we will be seeing a space elevator in every medium sized city in the next 125 years.....but the potential impact to the human race could go far beyond that of skyscrapers.

I did some reading on the elevator:

The current cost to build an elevator using current materials is $6.2 billion USD. I hate to say it, but for the potential it brings, that's absolutely peanuts. The engineering challenges are large, but the fact is that we have the technology to do it.

I don't think you'd need a space elevator in every medium sized city to be useful - just in the same way you don't need a big airport in every medium sized city.

The advantages of an elevator, and the impact it'd have on humanity would be every bit as large as the skyscraper has been for expanding the commercial abilities of cities. With payload pricing dropping by 90-95%, we would find space travel, and utilization of space-based resources to become commonplace.

I really think that, out of any possible project America could embark on in the next 50 years, this one is the most critical to our survival as a superpower. Having the ability to reach out and explore the moon, and space at cheap fares would bolster our economy, create millions of new jobs, and usher in the next real phase of space travel. The biggest problem has never been going places, but overcoming our own gravity. Once that's done, we'll find so many reasons to go to space, we won't want to return to earth :-p

I'm not sure if you missunderstood me actually.  I am in favor of building it...I just don't think we have the political or financial means to do it at the moment.

Although, I would point out that material costs are never the real cost...its labor costs that can add up.
To Each Man, Responsibility
Around the Network
Reasonable on 29 September 2009
Sqrl said:
mrstickball said:
Sqrl said:
mrstickball said:
Given the horrible spending practices of the US, we could.

The real key to colonization is to reduce the costs of launching payload to orbit. Currently, it costs the US between $5,000-$10,000 per KG of material launched into orbit. However, if we built a space elevator (Cost <$250 billion), the cost would reduce to $200-$400 per KG. Such a reduction would easily pay for itself by the country that did this - At such cut-rate prices, space agencies and private firms would flock to the country that had the elevator, as it could easily beat any other offers to launch satellites into space.

From there, the cost to colonize the moon, or anywhere, would be a fraction of the ~$1 trillion of current projections for a basic lunar base.

I agree that the elevator needs to be built but I have to be honest in saying I'm skeptical that it would come in anywhere near budget.  The engineering challenges are pretty immense and the scale of the project is really on a whole new level beyond anything humanity has done before.  None of that is a reason not to try, but they are damn good reasons to be very sure we can commit to the project (both politically and financially) before we start.

To me a space elevator would be the first truly space-age structure built by humanity.  What I mean by this is sort of tiered building capacity for a society...it starts at building fires working its way up to make-shift tents, adobe houses, large public structures of increasing craftmanship, and then a big leap to skyscrapers.  From skyscrapers we move to monolith structures like man-made islands (which we've already done), and now we are looking at building the first structure (term used loosely) that would simultaneously be...and not be... on the earth. 

It really is a whole new step akin to the leap to skyscrapers some 125 years ago.  Granted I don't think we will be seeing a space elevator in every medium sized city in the next 125 years.....but the potential impact to the human race could go far beyond that of skyscrapers.

I did some reading on the elevator:

The current cost to build an elevator using current materials is $6.2 billion USD. I hate to say it, but for the potential it brings, that's absolutely peanuts. The engineering challenges are large, but the fact is that we have the technology to do it.

I don't think you'd need a space elevator in every medium sized city to be useful - just in the same way you don't need a big airport in every medium sized city.

The advantages of an elevator, and the impact it'd have on humanity would be every bit as large as the skyscraper has been for expanding the commercial abilities of cities. With payload pricing dropping by 90-95%, we would find space travel, and utilization of space-based resources to become commonplace.

I really think that, out of any possible project America could embark on in the next 50 years, this one is the most critical to our survival as a superpower. Having the ability to reach out and explore the moon, and space at cheap fares would bolster our economy, create millions of new jobs, and usher in the next real phase of space travel. The biggest problem has never been going places, but overcoming our own gravity. Once that's done, we'll find so many reasons to go to space, we won't want to return to earth :-p

I'm not sure if you missunderstood me actually.  I am in favor of building it...I just don't think we have the political or financial means to do it at the moment.

Although, I would point out that material costs are never the real cost...its labor costs that can add up.

I agree, I'm in favour of a space elevator, too, but the tech isn't quite there, nor is the ability to build it safely.  Politically there would be a lot to work out too.

Still, I'm hopefully that it will arrive a lot sooner than initially thought.

 



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...