Communists on the moon !

Cipher7071 · #1 December 14th, 2003, 12:54 AM

I did not mean to suggest that robots would be be better observers than actual astronauts. Nor is it likely that any particular robot will even approach that level of awareness any time soon. Still, perhaps using a variety of different kinds of robots working together, we can achieve better results than we now do. The point is not whether people are better. There is no question about that. But, during times when money for such projects is scarse, it may well be a matter of sending robots or nothing at all.

Narrew · #2 December 16th, 2003, 10:01 PM

You know those large machines that make tunnels (chunnel and other tunnels), we need to get one of those babies up to the moon, then start boreing, of course we wont have an easy access to water to make the cement, but I am sure we can think of something to stengthen and seal the walls.

One of the things I wonder about is who owns what. I think it is whoever gets there first and is occupying it. Ohh I am sure there is some LAW on the books, but that law don't mean squat till more than one person/country is up there actually going places.

I would like to see a post on the moon, though some of the books I have read say that the moon is just another gravity well. If there was a Base in one of the Lagrange points, that makes more sense (to the authors).

I have read one of the big things would be to build at the pole's and make a large solar array so it could always face the sun as the moon rotates around the earth, that way they would get the max amount of energy, then I thought if the solar panels acted like a sail then we would have to have a twin at the south pole otherwise the moon would start to spin, BUT if you have a panels on the north and south, then is would be a sail then perhaps it might wobble a bit as it rotates around the earth.

JurijD · #3 December 18th, 2003, 05:18 PM

hehe, Its really interesting to see how discussions can get derailed

I read the whole post again and I saw it go from life on Mars to Europa to a discussion on Communism to the Middle east (yeah, that has to come up sometime

)

Back to the Moon... I think space tourism could really open up space. I mean if we can make going to space profitable and fun for everyone we can eventually start channeling funds to exploration/development and colonize the moon.

Hope those Xprize guys do it soon... does anyone know when the first launch is planned for?
(better star saving up those 100 grand

lol

Loser · #4 December 18th, 2003, 05:55 PM

Sure L4 and L5 are great places to put stuff if you want to send it somewhere else on the cheap, but they're not such great places to work.

Microgravity is very inconvenient. Not only is it difficult to keep humans healthy in microgravity, but it's hard to work, to move things around (inertia and torque messing with you), and many machines must be built very differently to work without gravity.

The lower gravity on the moon would still be troublesome, certainly, but it would help.

Before someone brings up the spinning-wheel space station concept I'll point out that it is very difficult to do right. The problem is that as people move through the station, the station itself will move around in space. A great deal of fuel will be needed to keep it at it's intended location.

You might remember seeing pictures of American Astronauts running around the inside of Skylab, no? Yeah, they were knocking that like box all of the place while they did that, and Skylab was not properly fitted to keep it's orbit anyway.

Since an object near either the L4 or L5 positions will be gently pulled toward the actual specific Lagrange Points, you might be able to put a spinner up there and just let it go, depending on the attraction of Luna's Trojan points to keep your station where you want it. I don't think that's such a good idea, myself, and every damn thing in the station would have to hold real still when time comes for anything to dock with it.

geoschmo · #5 December 18th, 2003, 06:14 PM

Skylab was a relativly small space craft. Anything we are likely to put at an L4 L5 point is going to be much bigger. Especially if we build something with roational motion for internal gravity. That would have to be a pretty sizeable craft with a big enough radius to eliminate the detrimental physical effects on the human body of the difference in gravity along the length of your body. So we are talking about a large station with probably a multinational effort with room for dozens if not hundreds of full time occupants. Such a station will have pretty significant mass and so will not be as affected nearly as much by people moving around inside it.

Geoschmo

[ December 18, 2003, 16:16: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Loser · #6 December 18th, 2003, 06:21 PM

The problem is that it will be affected. There is no friction to keep all the little bumps and jars from building up. And this isn't just about human bodies, every piece of equipment, inventory, and even the circulation of water and air will move that baby around. Sure when compared to the mass of the relatively stationary architecture of the station they seem small, but they're always moving and it will add up.

But, as I said, the great thing about Lagrange Four and Five is that an object with an orbit close that Luna's Trojan orbit will be pulled to that specific velocity/trajectory over time. I'm just not sure this balancing force will be sufficient.

geoschmo · #7 December 18th, 2003, 06:27 PM

That's the point, they are very small, and they don't add up. Unless all the vectors are the same they don't. Equipment would be planned and balanced in such a way that the majority of their forces cancel out, and the random movements of a bunch of people going in different directions about the interior of the station will for the most part cancel each other out. The result will be a small net change in whichever direction has the largest amount of force being applied. But the net change will be well within the tolerance allowable by ordinary station keeping thrusters. Docking equipment has tolerances and extra reinforcment to allow for minicule variations, and if a particularly delicate manuver were neccesary, you could always broadcast a warning on the intercom, but I don't think it would be neccesary at all. The computers and thrusters ought to be able to easily handle it.

Geoschmo