NASA says it Will colonize the Moon by 2024 (Page 6)

Corwin: There's also tiger and treasure

kittybobo34: like treasure

Corwin: Oh, and cat

That one's a bit freaky though... a floating disembodied cat head.

kittybobo34: back to the subject though, not sure its worth colonizing the moon, each time you have to spend fuel to go down and up, be easier to colonize an ice asteroid

kittybobo34: hollow it out, move the melted ice to the outside, create a tube, then seal it and spin it, and you have internal gravity

kittybobo34: the ice will also provide fuel , air and water

kittybobo34: all we need to get this done, is AI, and drone robots, the final step in technology that will free us in space.

kittybobo34: Once we can live in space, who needs a planet, all the resources are out there, free for the taking.

Corwin: True enough. That's one of the main subjects that Science-Fiction writer Ben Bova writes about. He sees the next major step in Human Spacefaring as colonizing and mining the asteroid belt.

Although the Moon doesn't have "too" much gravity... only 1/6th of a G, so kind of in between the two concepts. Enough gravity for humans to stay healthy, but not too much pull to escape it. The thrusters on the Apollo Lunar Ascent Module didn't need to be very powerful.

kittybobo34: It might be useful for manufacturing, but not sure there wouldnt be ill effects from the 1/6 gravity

Corwin: A problem with "spinning" an asteroid to create an internal centrifuge to imitate gravity - most asteroids aren't stable enough structures to remain intact if you put that kind of a spin on it. (it would be liable to fly apart)

A better idea is to have huge colony spacecraft that merely attached itself to an asteroid, and a large portion of the spacecraft was a cylinder that was spun to create faux gravity. Then the mining operations can be carried out in a safer 0-G environment.

kittybobo34: True, it would have to be banded, and some kind of balancing mechanism would have to be invented, probably a high speed hydrolic pump, to keep it balanced.

Corwin: Far easier (and cheaper) to spin a man-made structure designed for it rather than spin the whole asteroid, and mining a spinning asteroid would be hazardous.

Also, it would be of great benefit if we "can" survive healthy in less gravity... spinning ANYTHING fast enough to create a whole G of gravity would require a very solid structure. Spinning a spacecraft only up to 1/6th of a G would be far cheaper AND safer.
Imitate Moon gravity rather than Earth gravity.

kittybobo34: I was thinking of something more inline with ice than rock, and the mining would be done elsewhere. but you are right all these things would be hurddles to overcome.

Corwin: I think the Moon would be a good place to begin. Close to home, and a good dress-rehearsal for deeper ventures into space. The far-side would be a terrific location for a deep-space telescope array.

We'd have to tunnel under the surface though. Too much cosmic radiation outside of Eath's magnetic shield to live there on a permanent basis. Tunneling under the surface would solve that problem. Even better if we could find existing tunnels (perhaps of volcanic nature? ) to simply occupy and build into.
Preferably near the South Pole where we've located giant frozen lakes of ice in permanently shaded craters... that would provide everything we'd need... water, O2, rocket fuel... once a permanent and self-sufficient base of operations was established they wouldn't even need resupplies from Earth.

I predict that we will in fact do this one day.... say by the year 2300?

I don't know who began this forum... even though it was posted 8 years ago, 2024 was ridiculously optimistic.

kittybobo34: agreed 2024, we will be so in debt we cant afford a space program. Guess it will be up to the Chinese to do it. Sad but True.

kittybobo34: I also agree it was way to optimistic. Another option would be to set off a nuclear bomb under ground , then occupy the resulting glass dome. Not sure how clean we can make a nuke, but the radiation could be shielded against.

Corwin: Hey, that's an interesting idea, apart from the resulting residual radiation.

I wonder if lining the the inner side of the sphere with that polymer they use to shield the reactors on nuclear submarines would do the trick.

kittybobo34: yes, then a layer of support, and another layer of polymer should do the trick. But again this all depends on AI, and useful drone robots to do the work.

Corwin: One of Sci-Fi novelist Ben Bova's favorite ideas on that theme are self-replicating nano-robots that harvest raw materials from the surroundings and create habitats, and even starships. Once programmed for a specific purpose you merely open up a test-tube into the Lunar regolith and come back 6 months later to a finished Moon Base.

But that kind of tech (if even possible) sounds like a long way off, and VERY dangerous technology if it got into the wrong hands and was used for more "sinister" purposes.

But our present more conventional AI and robotic tech is rapidly advancing... kind of exciting stuff, as long as they don't become TOO smart and decide that Humans are more of a nuisance than a benefit.

Open the pod bay doors, HAL!

kittybobo34: Corwin, by Drone robots I didnt mean self replicating nanobots. Drones (like the planes) have a human operator safe in a bunker somewhere, while the heavy lifting is done outside. This is close to our present level of Tech. , and the AI would be co-ordinating the whole operation.

kittybobo34: I have worked with manipulator hands on radioactive isotopes, they are very efficient, and easy to learn. with a bunch of those you could build just about anything.

getthederr: studies done have been reported but not to the mainstream public of the actual existing threat to any human in space beyond the low orbit range where protection is provided by Earth. there was never a far out orbital swing for a space capsule to test the danger theory by sending a creature as a lab experiment (or tissues samples....even garden variety fruits etc... ) to actually test the idea so it is nonsense to hear man is going to mars or to the moon ….the 3 main assumed rather quickly fatal danger for human in space is 1) anti matter deposits in the van allen radiation belts...also the amount of said radiation....2 ) the actual real danger to a earth ship on the way to the moon or returning from... if the sun has its rather regular eruptions of its own type of solar energized particles and radiation...the nasa so called moon landings are not considered verifiable proof mainly since Stanley Kubrick while alive showed an intense willingness to pose clues in movies that he was the moon films actual producer at least in the first ones seen...in the event others were there to be trained how to do the same film techniques from Kubrick....and finally...3 ) and this is all just a casual review....the lunar surface was found in later decades after the amazing or lucky Apollo LEM missions to be extremely dangerous with backscattered highly energized particles hitting the moon surface and causing all kinds of problems...this was not known to nasa when it encourage itself to believe a propaganda win with moon landings would weaken the USSR...which it kinda did....so...there,....earth lovers....

kittybobo34: I agree, space is extremely hazardous, which is why we arent going anywhere until we have the technology to do it with AI and drone robots.

briansmythe: Its funny you metion that Gethederr , I herd NASA talking about Mars and the Moon , And they said the same thing about the Radiation in the Vanhailen belts or what ever there called , How it might be finally possable to do it , Hang on I thought man went to the moon in the 60"s