Well, your analogies are interesting, but I don't see them as being an effective argument. Columbus didn't stop and the Canary Islands to build a new ship. All he did was load fuel. If we found it necessary to refuel in space we certainly could do that. The thing about our satellites is that they are built in clean rooms with a crazy range of materials and highly complex equipment. Once built (which can take years), they go through testing that involves all sorts of test equipment to verify that the vehicle will survive liftoff and work properly. This is why the Hubble replacement hasn't launched yet - it's been an incredibly difficult task to do on EARTH, let alone the Moon. The Moon is NOT a clean room. It is COVERED in incredibly tiny charged particles like talcum powder that are difficult to remove. There is actually a haze near the surface where the vacuum of the Moon still has particles that rise from the surface due to electrostatic charge. Also, spacesuits aren't adequate to allow humans to be on the surface for any extended time - many feet of Moon regolith (or several feet of water) is required for protection. The habitats we see in the movies or even in artists renditions of Moon colonies are a total joke. And, the necessities for survival are not all present. We'll need to build out some lava tubes. Or, we're going to need to bring along a backhoe! And, we're going to need the ability to remove and replace workers before the probability of cancer goes too high. There is no possibility of mistaking the Moon for the Canary Islands - in any way.
And, that is happening. All major countries have space programs and for the most part there is cooperation. There are details, like China not initing us along, but we didn't invite them to the joint space labs we've been part of. The issue here is that the directive for NASA to go to the Moon with humans is stupendously expensive and doesn't have any sinificant scientific value. It's an engineering project. Maybe you're suggesting we should invite other nations, and I'd be fine with that. But it's not part of the current plan I'm commenting on - a plan that has every opportunity to eat NASA science projects for lunch as they are not required by congressional dirrective, and moonmen is.
Cool vid!! You find the best vids on this board, imho. Most scientists seem to believe humans will be in lava tubes - on the moon and on Mars as humans could be protected from cosmic radiation as well as the lower requirement for energy used for heating. A lot of the work that will need to be done involves building structures that are not in the lava tubes. Launch capability, ice harvesting/processing, etc. That work will either be done by robots or will require humans to be exposed to cosmic radiaion. I've not heard of a third choice. This video includes above ground structures that would need to be built (requiring human exposure?) and appear to be less than what is required to protect humans inside of them, though it's hard to tell what they are actually trying to depict.
Sorry, I completely lost all interest after reading only that far in your response. Really, to load fuel? What, did his shops have some kind of magical container for storing wind aboard? Sorry, when I read something that fundamentally flawed and lacking in comprehension, there is really no reason to read any further. Load fuel in the Canary Islands indeed! Yea, I guess he was a long wait, since the first steam powered ships would not even be built for another 300 or so years.
The first part which is the LOP-G is being built by the US, Russia, Japan, Canada, and the EU. However, the DST is at this time entirely a NASA program.
The first part which is the LOP-G is being built by the US, Russia, Japan, Canada, and the EU. However, the DST is at this time entirely a NASA program.
In my opinion, resource collection and production will be robotic wherever we play in space...we already have the tech to do so with a few tweaks. I would also anticipate either inflatable or robotic (or both) habitats built INSIDE of lava tubes:
Technically using the moon as a staging point for travelling to Mars just INCREASES the overall cost because everything will need to be landed on the moon and then blasted off again. Both the landing and the lift off from the moon require fuel. It would actually be cheaper and more efficient to just put everything into orbit around the Earth where it could be assembled in near zero gravity and then use thrusters to alter the orbit to reach Mars.
No, where did myself or anybody else say it was being built on the moon? It is being built in orbit over the moon. And once you have a permanent orbiting platform over the moon, then landing and recovering people and things from orbit is rather simple. The mass required to achieve orbit from the lunar surface is child's play compared to achieving it from the surface of the Earth. And having a second base on the surface also alleviates many issues with living in space. Specifically the health issues associated with life in zero G. Being able to rotate individuals to and from the surface will both allow for larger habitation areas (which are easier to build on a surface), and allow the astronauts to spend at least some time living under gravity. Long term, the solution to achieving manned exploration will require a base over and on the moon. In orbit as the assembly and working area, on the surface for long term living area. Why do you think so much research has been made into harvesting oxygen and hydrogen from the surface? So we can built habitation areas on the surface, then create fuel to power a reusable rocket to take people to and from the surface to the orbiting platform. We already know that living long term in space is not good for the human body. Even living in 1/4 gravity like on the Moon is better than that for us. And with an escape velocity 1/5 of that of leaving the Earth and no atmosphere, a small reusable rocket can then be used to take people to and from the surface as needed. And if the extraction of fuels from the surface is possible, that means you have to lift even less mass from the Earth. And the ability to then create a "supply dump" means you can hold things on the surface for later use instead of having to be dependent upon a flight from Earth for a replacement should it break. There is a large difference between simply lifting a supply pod to LEO, and sending one in a lunar injection operation.
Food. Water. Those ships required the energy of a crew to keep the ship moving in the correct direction, to not get destroyed by wind, to not get flipped by storms at sea, to remain in working order. It was hard work. Those on the ship were not tourists. Why do you think they stopped at those islands on the way out across the Atlantic?
Good points. That robot coud probably build walls and roofs that are substatially thicker - or maybe the structure could be buried by backhoe robot. (I recently bought a backhoe - so everything looks like a backhoe problem!) Somewhere out there is a video of a spider-like robot that can build structures in space. I think it uses parts (beams, or whatever) that are launched to space, but could come from anywhere - rather than the strategy of extruding material like the structure builder in this video. Maybe parts could be extruded from asteroid material and then assembled by this robot. Obviously, a lot of what we want in space is simply too large to launch. As I understand it, the main problem slowing the James Webb telescope is the complex way it must be folded to fit the launch vehicle. So, it seems logical that we'll start building stuff off earth. Think of a robot in space spending its life churning out huge telescopes!
To get water, and as a final navigation waypoint prior to heading into the unknown. Certainly not food, that was not until much later. Yes, the Canary Islands did become an important waypoint for food in the 1500's, as ships would drop off cargos there for transit to and from the New World. But at that point, it was more for transit to and from Europe and Africa. And because of the location, it was more of an emergency point for crews that ran into trouble but did not want to make repairs on Africa itself. Ships move in the correct direction based on the sails, wind direction and current. Where a ship ports has nothing to do with those. And they have tools like the compass and sextant to verify those things. Not get flipped in storms? Really? Well, for one ships of this size simply do not "get flipped", storms or not. And once again, landing at any port would have nothing to do with that. But as to why they stopped there, it is freaking obvious. Every single voyage of Columbus really started at the Canary islands. The destination for his exploration was all the islands of the West Indies, which are just south of there (compared to going due West from Spain, which would have landed him around New York). The only voyage that did not use the Canary Islands as the final jumping off point is the Third, which used the Cape Verde Islands farther south. At the Canary Islands you had a favorable westward wind, the same winds that propel hurricanes towards North America. Columbus knew of those wind currents, and he traveled to the Canary islands to pick them up. Later explorers then used the returning northern current to return home (old Chris simply never explored enough to discover those so had to make it home the hard way). Well, I am sorry that you can not comprehend most of what I have been saying. I have been rather clear about it, and I have not been simply throwing out a bunch of nonsense that I simply made up as I went along. But if you want an alaogy, maybe this will help. Instead of wind and currents, here we are talking about gravity. Before you can leave the Earth, you have to escape the impact of it's gravity. Now, is this easier to send a large vessel from the surface of the Earth, or from orbit around it's moon? Do we use 20 Saturn V engines to life a single large vessel, or simply ferry bits and pieces that are smaller and put them together outside of the gravity well? Or as the early explorers did, why not go ahead and start to colonize that smaller translocation point to provide some of the things needed? We know plants do not grow well without gravity, and that the amount of space available in a space station is small. But a base on the moon is rather simple. No worry about balance, or how adding affects the ship in orbit, you just expand as needed. Inflatable domes with a foam applied after is all that is needed. And we know many needed materials (oxygen especially) are available there, they simply have to be extracted from the environment. If that is workable, that means the requirements needed to be shipped from Earth go down. Iron, oxygen, hydrogen, all are available on the moon (as is silicon, magnesium, and titanium). There is even a possability of a "circular route" if mining becomes possible. Things like titanium and silicon) collected as "slag" can be sent to the Earth with returning crew as ballast. That is actually how much of the early iron trade started. Crews would load up with pig iron balast, then sell it in ports where it was needed and instead load up with rocks.
Great! Thanks for finding that. I think there is one somewhere that actually shows the robot moving pieces. But, who cares - just knowing we're progressing this rapidly is the deal. Several times the narrator mentions humans in space, and of course I'm more excited about what this can mean for exploration of our universe. But, that's no big deal. When the construction capability exists people will figure out how to use it for all sorts of stuff.
Well...NASA reports to the president and Congress, both of which supposedly report to the citizenry, so NASA is low man on the totem pole. Will it be NASA or SpaceForce going to the Moon? Can't imagine this administration caring about space exploration so I'll guess the root goals are to satisfy some needs for the SpaceForce. Yes...I am saying if it's so important to mankind to further explore the Moon and go to Mars, then let it be a mission of all mankind and not just the USA...
Capitalism and private industry have taken over large parts of the NASA mandate, which can only be a good thing financially and technically for everyone involved. SLS will be a big deal as will a lunar orbit station but they will not be alone in this.
Well...NASA reports to the president and Congress, both of which supposedly report to the citizenry, so NASA is low man on the totem pole. Will it be NASA or SpaceForce going to the Moon? Can't imagine this administration caring about space exploration so I'll guess the root goals are to satisfy some needs for the SpaceForce. Yes...I am saying if it's so important to mankind to further explore the Moon and go to Mars, then let it be a mission of all mankind and not just the USA...
NASA has a mandate that includes scientific exploration. They study everything from Earth to the cosmos. Administrations have consistently shown interest in the scietific exploration portion of NASA's mission. There have been at leat 48 launches to Mars for scientific exploration by all nations. None of them was manned. (imho, there isn't much justification for manned missions.) While there certainly is cooperation and data sharing, let's remember that the instrumentation is significantly guided by the specfic study being done. So, the efforts to build the various explorers are relatively singular efforts. The previous and current space labs have show how much cooperation we've achieved when the mission allows. As we advance to having space based technology for relaying communications, construction, telescopes, or science labs, and with private industry advancing, etc. it becomes easier to cooperate in more ways even than we do today.
Sorry, this is an absolutely idiotic statement, and if all you are going to do is make silly contradictions and think that proves your point, just stop it. Any ship can be sunk in a storm, period. Even modern warships and huge bulk ore carriers, dozens of times larger than the 3 ships of Columbus. You are simply being contradictory without even saying or proving anything.
