Moon Base

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I could apply similar questions to the ISS:

1.) What justifies the tremendous expense?

2.) What purpose does the ISS even serve?

3.) Is there something that can be done on the ISS that can't be done on Earth or in Earth Orbit by robotic means?

When you start applying economic questions to scientific endeavour, where do you stop in your cost-benefit analysis? In the end, what is the existential purpose of our species? Would we be happier living in a cave banging rocks together? Is that where we're headed anyway?

 

[All Seeing Eye]

I have a better idea, all we need to do is get a digger to the moon. Once it's there it can start to dig vertically into the Luna surface until there's a huge vertical tubular void in the moon. Into this we can place capsules for habitation.

Another quicker idea would be to have the digger as a drill not that dissimilar the that used to create the channel tunnel. The habitation capsules would be attached to the aft of the drill and as the drill drilled down the capsules would follow on behind and into the ground.

Later on if more capsules needed adding the drill could be switched on so it can drill down even further and an extra capsules could be added.

The perk of having the capsules buried in these tubular excavations would be protection from the sun heat, protection from any possible nearby asteroid impacts and protection from solar radiation.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

This "digger" would break the mirrors covering the surface.

 

[Silvercrest]

all we need to do is get a digger to the moon

What is a digger? And what powers it? If "all we need to do" is take it to the moon, I presume it's an existing piece of equipment.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

all we need to do is get a digger to the moon

What is a digger? And what powers it? If "all we need to do" is take it to the moon, I presume it's an existing piece of equipment.

The words "get a digger to the moon" does not mean it exists. One would have to be specially designed for the task at hand and a digger is what it's called, a digger, it digs.

It would be powered by whatever power source one wished to use. I fail to understand why people get so focused on what's going to power things. What answer would you like? solar power via cable? nuclear power? Helium3 power?

The diagram pretty much explains how it works.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

Maybe it could be powered by laser sharks. I think those were discussed in another thread on things lunar...

 

[Silvercrest]

all we need to do is get a digger to the moon

What is a digger? And what powers it? If "all we need to do" is take it to the moon, I presume it's an existing piece of equipment.

The words "get a digger to the moon" does not mean it exists. One would have to be specially designed for the task at hand.

The phrase "all we need to do is get it to the moon" implies it exists. If it has to be specially designed and built first, then getting it there is not all we need to do. I asked what it does so that you'd have to state that it doesn't exist yet.

It would be powered by whatever power source one wished to use. I fail to understand why people get so focused on what's going to power things.

The reason we're focused on it is that there hasn't been too much drilling equipment designed to work in vacuum. Or drilling equipment that is nuclear- or solar-powered, for that matter. You're talking about a brand-new technology that has to be designed from scratch. It's not as simple a project as you make it sound.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

What is a digger? And what powers it? If "all we need to do" is take it to the moon, I presume it's an existing piece of equipment.

The words "get a digger to the moon" does not mean it exists. One would have to be specially designed for the task at hand.

The phrase "all we need to do is get it to the moon" implies it exists. If it has to be specially designed and built first, then getting it there is not all we need to do. I asked what it does so that you'd have to state that it doesn't exist yet.

It would be powered by whatever power source one wished to use. I fail to understand why people get so focused on what's going to power things.

The reason we're focused on it is that there hasn't been too much drilling equipment designed to work in vacuum. Or drilling equipment that is nuclear- or solar-powered, for that matter. You're talking about a brand-new technology that has to be designed from scratch. It's not as simple a project as you make it sound.

OK, take out the words "all we need to do" and everything is hunky dory then. I don't think you need to dwell so much on 5 little words.

 

[Trekker4747]

I have a better idea, all we need to do is get a digger to the moon. Once it's there it can start to dig vertically into the Luna surface until there's a huge vertical tubular void in the moon. Into this we can place capsules for habitation.

Another quicker idea would be to have the digger as a drill not that dissimilar the that used to create the channel tunnel. The habitation capsules would be attached to the aft of the drill and as the drill drilled down the capsules would follow on behind and into the ground.

Later on if more capsules needed adding the drill could be switched on so it can drill down even further and an extra capsules could be added.

The perk of having the capsules buried in these tubular excavations would be protection from the sun heat, protection from any possible nearby asteroid impacts and protection from solar radiation.

A. That's surprisingly erotic looking.

B. It also looks familiar.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

B. It also looks familiar.

Says i'm not allowed to access that page on that server.

 

[c0rnedfr0g]

What's the difference between a Digger and a Duggar?

 

[Alpha_Geek]

I think we should hire Dig-Dug to manage this project.

 

[Squiggy]

I have a better idea, all we need to do is get a digger to the moon. Once it's there it can start to dig vertically into the Luna surface until there's a huge vertical tubular void in the moon. Into this we can place capsules for habitation.

Another quicker idea would be to have the digger as a drill not that dissimilar the that used to create the channel tunnel. The habitation capsules would be attached to the aft of the drill and as the drill drilled down the capsules would follow on behind and into the ground.

Later on if more capsules needed adding the drill could be switched on so it can drill down even further and an extra capsules could be added.

The perk of having the capsules buried in these tubular excavations would be protection from the sun heat, protection from any possible nearby asteroid impacts and protection from solar radiation.

A. That's surprisingly erotic looking.

B. It also looks familiar.

If we're going to rip off a movie, could we rip one off that isn't riddled with scientific fallacies and that isn't full of suck?

 

[Trekker4747]

If we're going to rip off a movie, could we rip one off that isn't riddled with scientific fallacies and that isn't full of suck?

It's Tachy.




Trekker, kind of liked that movie.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

There may be lava tubes on the Moon that would be fit for the purpose of creating a buried habitat without the need for a "digger".

http://www.asi.org/adb/m/04/02/01/02/

 

[All Seeing Eye]

If we're going to rip off a movie, could we rip one off that isn't riddled with scientific fallacies and that isn't full of suck?

I'm not aware of any movie which involves digging a hole in to the Moons surface and then dropping habitation modules into it.

 

[Brolan]

I could apply similar questions to the ISS:

1.) What justifies the tremendous expense?

2.) What purpose does the ISS even serve?

3.) Is there something that can be done on the ISS that can't be done on Earth or in Earth Orbit by robotic means?

When you start applying economic questions to scientific endeavour, where do you stop in your cost-benefit analysis? In the end, what is the existential purpose of our species? Would we be happier living in a cave banging rocks together? Is that where we're headed anyway?

Indeed, you can apply those questions to lots of things...like the Trek BBS!

1.) What justifies the tremendous expense?

2.) What purpose does the Trek BBS even serve?

3.) Is there something that can be done on the Trek BBS that can't be done on Earth or in Earth Orbit by robotic means?

 

[All Seeing Eye]

I could apply similar questions to the ISS:

1.) What justifies the tremendous expense?

2.) What purpose does the ISS even serve?

3.) Is there something that can be done on the ISS that can't be done on Earth or in Earth Orbit by robotic means?

When you start applying economic questions to scientific endeavour, where do you stop in your cost-benefit analysis? In the end, what is the existential purpose of our species? Would we be happier living in a cave banging rocks together? Is that where we're headed anyway?

Indeed, you can apply those questions to lots of things...like the Trek BBS!

1.) What justifies the tremendous expense?

2.) What purpose does the Trek BBS even serve?

3.) Is there something that can be done on the Trek BBS that can't be done on Earth or in Earth Orbit by robotic means?

 

[shipfisher]

To tie previous references to fusion power and the cost/benefit aspect of going back to the moon together - Helium 3. There's apparently enough of it in the lunar regolith (cooked up by solar radiation in some way perhaps others here can flesh out) to make everyone's balance sheets, whether they be written up in chinese, russian or english, stay in the black. (Geez, a NuSpaceRace to go with NuTrek - Welcome Back 1960's!)

Fueling the comparatively user friendly deuterium-helium 3 fusion reaction is apparently worth the trip on its own.

Technical limits will be overcome, as always, after fiscal ones are.

 

[Brolan]

To tie previous references to fusion power and the cost/benefit aspect of going back to the moon together - Helium 3. There's apparently enough of it in the lunar regolith (cooked up by solar radiation in some way perhaps others here can flesh out) to make everyone's balance sheets, whether they be written up in chinese, russian or english, stay in the black. (Geez, a NuSpaceRace to go with NuTrek - Welcome Back 1960's!)

Fueling the comparatively user friendly deuterium-helium 3 fusion reaction is apparently worth the trip on its own.

Technical limits will be overcome, as always, after fiscal ones are.

How close is this to reality? We need an economic reason for space travel, until there is one space exploration will languish just like it has the past 30 years.