NASA Plans Lunar Outpost
__________________________
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
__________________________
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Submitted by Ender on Mon, 2006-12-04 22:46
Tags:

Comments :
A lunar colony would be hard...
...but not impossible. Going beyond the moon though is just not feasible unless some incredible breakthrough is made as far as propulsion. Rockets are terribly inefficient. Solar sails are slow. Neither is a viable means of moving the kind of mass required to support human beings outside of our immediate solar vicinity.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
well beyond the moon
there is Mars which is feasible with current propulsion system but you are right - we need to make some serious breakthroughs if we don't want to go bankrupt paying for the current crap.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Mars really isn't possible...
...consider the mars rover Sojourner. It was launched Dec 4th 1996. It got to mars July 4th 1997. And it didn't have to carry food, water, and air much less living space for human beings. There's simply no way for us to get the kind of mass you need for a manned mission all the way to mars in a timeframe that is reasonably survivable.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
By the way...
...if you want to understand why rockets are so bad for actually getting anywhere look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket
Scroll down to the section about net thrust and you'll find this equation:
F=(dm/dt)V
the force the rocket feels is equal to the change in mass multiplied by the velocity of the exhaust. Makes sense right? The more fuel you throw out the back and the faster that fuel goes out the back the great thrust you get. We are neglecting the second term in the equation having to do with the difference in exhaust and ambient pressure at the exhaust plane.
Okay now consider Newton's second law:
F= dp/dt usually written as F=ma
Force equals the change in momentum per unit time, or force equals mass times acceleration.
so (dm/dt)V=ma
Careful the two m's are different so I'm going to change the second m to m(rocket)
(dm/dt)V=m(rocket)a
rearrange the equation a little and it is
[(dm/dt)V]/m(rocket)=a
in other words the acceleration is equal to the mass of exhaust times the velocity of the exhaust all divided by the mass of the rocket.
But we know something about the relation of m and m(rocket), namely we know that the mass of the fuel used in any given moment has to be less than the mass of the rocket (which had just contained the fuel). Furthermore it has to be MUCH less unless we are burning the entirety of the rocket's fuel in one burst. So we can think of the rocket equation in these terms:
[(mass burned each instant)/(total mass of rocket)] V=a
where the ratio of mass burned to mass rocket is <<1
Now there is no way to improve that ratio because physically a rocket cannot burn more mass of fuel than it holds.
There's another form of this equation here:
Vf = Ve ln(M0 / Mf)
The final velocity of the rocket is equal to the velocity of the exhaust times the natural log of the total mass of the rocket divided by the final mass (with no fuel). This is if there are no other forces operating (like air resistance pseudoforce, or gravity). A typical rocket is 90% fuel. This means the equation becomes
Vf=Ve ln (10)= 2.3Ve
So if we had no other problems (like breaking orbit) we could still only ever get a rocket that is 90% fuel going 2.3x the exhaust velocity (and we'd have no way to stop it if we did).
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
nice calc lesson.
Why the moon?
What's it got besides gravity?
I'm all for building a space station, just like the SciFi shows, but why should it be on land?
btw, who saw the article yesterday that talked about lunar metor/meteroid hits? Basically it said that the moon gets hit more than our scientists had thought it would. Since anything coming in doesn't get burned up (no atmosphere) like here on earth, small meteroids have impact forces registering int the hundred of lbs TNT.
If you build a moon station, until we know how to make force fields, I'd probably be best to dig them into the ground. Mind you, that's going to up the cost.
Why the moon...
First off it is relatively close to us. That's a requirement for the reasons I detailed above.
It does have a very weak gravity but that can be as much of a drawback as a draw. It has some raw materials in the way of the rock that makes up the moon. According to the article they are hoping to be able to extract oxygen and hydrogen from the lunar surface to help keep the place self sustaining. The ability to build on land is somewhat nice since it gives you a ready made superstructure in a way meaning you don't have as much concern for having to reinforce the overall structure.
We can put a space station in orbit but it isn't alwasy trivial to keep it there, remember skylab?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Personal side note...
...these topics are very much on my mind of late as I've gotten into freelance writing for RPGs and I'm currently basically designing realistic technology for a near future space setting game. I love getting paid to combine my favorite hobbies :)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
damn you are getting paid for that?
I want to get paid for watching tv and reading :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Notice I didn't say...
...that I was getting paid a lot for it. But still a little extra holiday cash for doing stuff I'd likely do anyway is pretty sweet.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I want a personal force field
myself... For stuff like accidents and such. :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
FF is nice
but it won't help you with blunt force trauma, like in a car accident when you go from 70 to 0 Mph in fraction of a second though - unless it's some gravity compensation field at the same time.
Sic semper tyrannis
it would have to be perfect
and be able to protect against things like buildings falling on you, and nuclear blasts.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
LOL
It would need a pretty powerful battery. I'd settle now even for something that just stops a bullet, but can be penetrated with a slow blade.
Sic semper tyrannis
well obviously
it would draw the energy straight from the atmosphere, and also would be intelligent enough to be able to switch on and off in a fraction of a second - like while you are having sex it would be off, but if a nuke exploded nearby while you were doing it, it would turn on in a flash. Then of course it would protect you from radiation and supply you with purified air and all that stuff.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
If it was intelligent...
...why not just have it let female flesh through?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
that is a better solution
but it would still have to quickly be able to block it, if the female in question tried to kill you. :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Just power it with your fusion cell wristwatch.....
It might be enough
unless you installed optional yottabyte storage crystals on your quantum computer ring - then you might have to go with micro black hole power earring studs.
Sic semper tyrannis