Russian, American and European space agencies are in talks to create a human colony on the Moon, according to Russian news source Rianovosti. MOON_STATION Artist's impression of the Moon station from Nasa's Global Exploration Roadmap Russia wants to build either a space base on the surface of the Moon itself or a space …
I'm not holding my breath
I'm also going to hold onto my copies of Galaxy and If. Its as close to space travel as I'm going to get without recreational pharmaceuticals....pity.
Strikes me that the far side of the moon would be an ideal place to dump spent nuclear fuel as well.
I like the Space 1999 reference, I also utterly agree. But luckly we dont have space flight utterly perfected enough to start doing that seriously, but when that day comes. Be interesting times.
If you get it into space
Why wouldn't you just fire it into the sun?
You know guys, I'm not sure Jubs was being entirely serious...
Don't forget you will also need an unlimited supply of Eagle spacecraft.
The Sun's very expensive to reach. Once in orbit you need about 29 km/s delta-v to get down there. Could be easy with Solar-electric or -sail, though.
A better plan for "spent" nuclear fuel
would be to convert into energy the 99.3% (for CANDU reactors) or 99.5% (for light-water reactors) of the fuel which remains behind, by burning it in a thorium reactor. http://energyfromthorium.com/
I mean, really? Taking 600,000 tons of fuel (just counting the US supply) to THE FAR SIDE OF THE MOON? Seriously, that is a terrible idea.
Expensive, difficult and dangerous
Because that would be expensive, difficult and dangerous.
The following courtesy of the gorgeous RobotRollCall of Reddit fame.
"The Earth is in orbit around the sun. That means the Earth, and everything on it, is moving through space at about seventy thousand miles an hour. In order to drop something into the sun, you'd have to bring it to what is effectively a dead stop in space, which means accelerating it from rest to seventy thousand miles an hour going in the direction opposite the Earth's orbital motion.
That's twice the velocity necessary to fling something out of the solar system entirely. Now, we have launched a rocket to solar escape velocity before, about 35,000 miles an hour … but only once in all of human history, and doing so required a custom-assembled rocket and more than two hundred million US dollars, and the total payload was still only about a thousand pounds. And that's half of what we'd have to do, in terms of total velocity, to fire a payload of the same size into the sun … and rockets don't scale linearly with final velocity but rather exponentially, meaning the cost of putting a thousand-pound payload into the sun would probably be on the order of a billion US dollars, not counting the up-front R&D costs.
And did I mention that spent nuclear fuel is among the densest stuff on our planet? A cubic foot of the stuff weights more than a thousand pounds — 1,189 pounds, to be precise.
"Purely financial" doesn't even begin to cover it. To put any useful amount of the stuff into the sun would literally cost more than the total amount of money in the whole world."
space, you wont be going there for a long time.
Good job . Sadly people aint interested in the cold hard facts judging by the various references to holywood drivel.
Now, if only they used the Eagles as their design - coolest ships ever!
I think this is incorrect
"In order to drop something into the sun, you'd have to bring it to what is effectively a dead stop in space"
I think "dead stop" is not required. It would drop, eventually, if the speed is below Sun's escape velocity, so it's just enough to "throw it behind" in Earth orbit. No?
Apart from that I agree that would be quite silly and expensive endeavour.
You really think it's a good idea to place nuclear waste on top of a big rocket and fire it into the air, on route to the moon?
Cos there's nothing that could go horribly, catastrophically wrong with that idea, is there?
I'm afraid not.
"It would drop, eventually, if the speed is below Sun's escape velocity, so it's just enough to "throw it behind" in Earth orbit. No?"
No. That would simply be a different orbit. An orbit known to intersect Earth's orbit.
Personally I think I wouldn't be too embarrassed if I rocked up next to an orbiting Eagle in the Liberator. That was a damn cool ship.
Once you've got it into Space, why would you dump it onto our own moon, rather than out into the universe, or maybe into the sun?
Sorry, that one's taken.
Moonbase Beta. :)
Interesting, but one detail overlooked
Now given the history of the International Space Station and the objections that prevented China from joining in and going of to build there own space station. This along with China's announced plans to build a moon base. I have to ask, are we seeing the very early stages of a new `cold` war America+Russian and chums vs China. Still, it'd competition as they say and if they end up playing each other at a game of football, then I realy can't see this ending badly.
Moral being you can have a butterfly flap it's wings and cause a tornado the otherside of the World. But you can build a massive moon base and have absolutly no impact on the moons orbit,rotation and as such no effect at all upon the tides of the planet below.
All I want to know now is will we get epic TV days watching a moon base being built, just like the early day veiwing enthusiasim of the early space flight. I think we might.
watching a moon base being built
Now THAT would be a webcam worth watching :)
Moving the Mountain .....
Create a modern population for planetary seeding on Earth, in a Mirror Base Station for Lunar Operations.
What would you build on the Moon ....... a temporary structure or a work of future art. And when built on Earth, would it be a Universal Progress Model
Lunar Industries base "Sarang" staffing manifest...
...first occupant: Sam Bell
...second occupant: Sam Bell
...third occupant: Sam Bell
...fourth occupant: Sam Bell
...fifth occupant: Sam Bell
...sixth occupant: Sam Bell
Come in number six, your three-year contract is over.
More importantly, can we please hold "Celebrity Big Brother" or "I'm a (C-List) celebrity, get me out of here" in this new base, with the weekly loser(s) being cast outside the base (without protection, of course). That might just get me to watch.
Just unilaterally throw the tabloid-cover celebrities into outer space, skip the reality TV show, and I won't worry about it.
When does the first
Starbucks and MacD's open?
I'm pretty sure it'll be a Domino's: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/02/pizza_chain_plans_restaurant_on_the_moon/
Pan Am will be doing the flying when the base opens.
(need a black monolith icon, not just X Files stuff)
Give the Russians a break
You keep on rubbing it into their noses the Phobos grunt (not sure of the spelling) failure, but the fact is that Russia has done pretty good with space craft. Soyuz is considered the most reliable means of space travel. Look it up! Give them some breathing room, everybody messes up every once in a while and in space travel, the mess ups tend to either cost a lot money or people die. That's how it was when people started to explore the earth by sea.
'the mess ups tend to either cost a lot money or people die. That's how it was when people started to explore the earth by sea' ...
Sadly that's still the case in certain parts of Italy.
Aircraft occasionally have a sudden tendency to stop defying gravity too.
And cars can occasionally collide.
Even horses have been known to squash people and don't get me started on skateboards!
(broken arm 1977)
broken arm 1977...
No way - me too!
Those were the days...
I took an arrow in the knee...
(ducks to avoid a further arrow in the eye)
Give the Russians credit, but...
It is impossible to ignore Russia's commitment to space travel. It is quite a source of pride for those people. The biggest issue with the spacecraft is that there have only-been incremental improvements over such a long time period. Soyuz has cut a unique niche in the manned-transfer-to-LEO market. No one has their numbers in successful launches.
In comparison, look at the changes in interplanetary robotic exploration. It has grown more-advanced in leaps-and-bounds. Although the failure of Fobos-Grunt has yet to complete a root-cause-analysis, the French pictures of a 180-degree-off-axis craft paints a picture of internal failure. Along with the recent issues with ISS supply craft, this could be a sign of transition from the proud Russian attention-to-detail in their spacecraft business.
I hope that they 'fix' whatever is broken in Roscosmos. It is a unique asset to the world.
About bloomin' time.
Here we are in the year 2012, and nary a moonbase to be seen! Sci-fi writes throughout the 20th Century must've been tutting over mankind's sluggishness in this oft-predicted area.
"tutting over mankind's sluggishness in this oft-predicted area."
Just tut them back! A few months ago I reread the A C Clarke story "Earthlight" from 1955 where at one point an astronomer on a moon-based observatory (about 150 years from now) watches a colleague developing photographic plates, and muses that photography will always involve such chemical magic. Later in the story we visit the observatory's computer, which is room-sized and still gets its data via punched cards....
"muses that photography will always involve such chemical magic"
Really? What an odd mistake to make, considering that television was already well established by 1955.
Making CMOS and CCD chips for digital cameras still does
Chemical magic is still needed, but not the way Arthur C. Clarke knew it.
I will still raise a pint to him. He has more imagination than most of us.
Water and free electricity
...at the lunar poles; constant sunshine, and huge temperature gradients for thermoelectric too, so long as you turn the equipment slowly...
Sounds like a BBC article...
...as in we will all be dead by the time they get round to it but we're going to report it anyway for clicks.
The US and Russian colonists will be able to just pop across the crater for a Chinese Take-away or something from Musk's Cheese Shop.
Or if they prefer Sushi...
Considering the cost, what's the return?
What is on the moon that makes it worth inhabiting?
Might allow fusion energy from this source to eventually take off
Apart from that it could just make sense as a "space port" for launching rockets for further endeavors, with much less fuel spent to escape Moons gravity. Especially if said fuel could be mined locally.
telescope arrays on the dark side of the moon, and launching points for mars and mining the asteroids would be a good start.
I'd certainly agree with the building and launching of rockets from the moon due to it's lowered gravity but not the mining.
The Moon is too important to Earth to start mining it, however as a launch platform for other mining vessels.
The main thing would be the NEW research that could be done in laboratories on the moon in low gravity or perhaps in zero-g lab orbiting the moon?
We could finally work on intergalactic space travel drive systems
"The dark side"?
The "dark side" of the moon is no darker than the other side, it simply faces away from Earth. That would be advantageous for radio astronomy, but that's it. OTOH, having zero atmosphere means the most you need to do to eliminate the interference of the sun is to use a shade or occlusion disc, and you would have no need for fancy adaptive optics. OTOOH, you would still need vibration isolation that an orbiting 'scope would not.
An infinite supply of free cheese?
the moon is *not* infinite!
I think you mean *only* if both payload and fuel are mined (harvested, whatever) locally.
No other people.
What do you mean, the Moon is too important to mine? I mean, I can think of a half dozen reasons behind that assertion, and all of them make me laugh, but I'd like to know which one is yours.
Go on then, you tell me your reasons that "make you laugh" and i'll tell you if they match my objections