What do you think is more important

[Eagle]

Personally I feel having the focus on waiting until self supporting environments reach X efficiency or the same argument for any other spacecraft system is counter productive.

Is 30 days between 1 ton resupply enough? 60? 100? 1,000? 1,000,000? If you're floating free in space (and don't have a ramscoop) you WILL run out of something. The only question is when.

On a surface base you have a chance to be self sufficient(from in situ resources), but that won't happen until the colony becomes large enough to produce everything it needs. (Read: several hundred to thousand people)

Waiting for an arbitrary technology to be invented is to work at that technology's pace. Be prepared to wait a long time, especially if this technology has very little applications other than yours.

We already have everything we need, technology-wise, to colonize the Moon, Mars, and other moons. Will lots of food, water and air need to be trucked out? Yes. But now the technology of self supporting environments will be developing at our pace, not its own.[/rant]

 

[ryan]

Personally I feel having the focus on waiting until self supporting environments reach X efficiency or the same argument for any other spacecraft system is counter productive.

Is 30 days between 1 ton resupply enough? 60? 100? 1,000? 1,000,000? If you're floating free in space (and don't have a ramscoop) you WILL run out of something. The only question is when.

On a surface base you have a chance to be self sufficient(from in situ resources), but that won't happen until the colony becomes large enough to produce everything it needs. (Read: several hundred to thousand people)

Waiting for an arbitrary technology to be invented is to work at that technology's pace. Be prepared to wait a long time, especially if this technology has very little applications other than yours.

We already have everything we need, technology-wise, to colonize the Moon, Mars, and other moons. Will lots of food, water and air need to be trucked out? Yes. But now the technology of self supporting environments will be developing at our pace, not its own.[/rant]

Your right.

 

[Eagle]

Your right.

Making it awful difficult for me to be antagonistic if you keep agreeing with me. :lol:


The main problem I see (and the reason for the X efficiency required argument) is that none of it is cheap. Colonizing another world may likely be the most expensive endevour of mankind to date.

Increasing efficiency reduces this cost, a little. Or at least it does so theoretically. The point of doing so is to convince others that its worth going, and that the sacrifice is worth the gain. This is especially important if they don't get to go themselves.

Colonization is for the ages. In the short term it is ALWAYS more economical to do things the old way when compared to trying something new. This is why we haven't done it.

 

[ryan]

Making it awful difficult for me to be antagonistic if you keep agreeing with me. :lol:


The main problem I see (and the reason for the X efficiency required argument) is that none of it is cheap. Colonizing another world may likely be the most expensive endevour of mankind to date.

Increasing efficiency reduces this cost, a little. Or at least it does so theoretically. The point of doing so is to convince others that its worth going, and that the sacrifice is worth the gain. This is especially important if they don't get to go themselves.

Colonization is for the ages. In the short term it is ALWAYS more economical to do things the old way when compared to trying something new. This is why we haven't done it.

Meh our children can worry about doing those sort of stuff, we just have to make a moon base no big deal.

 

[n0mad23]

Eagle's right, and colonization is the key term. Until there is self-sufficiency, time outside the Earth's atmosphere can only be an economic drain.

It takes the combined imaginings of many, and a real commitment to putting some sort of infrastructure in place. Consider the semi-success of the Pilgrims to the fiasco at Jamestown. You have to be willing to put down roots.

That's why finding a cheaper, more accessible way to achieving LEO's so important - getting that far is far more than half the step.

 

[Eagle]

One problem is we don't know what the tobacco or furs of the moon and mars will be.

Oh, and the nation(s) that founded the colony have an additional problem. Once a colony becomes large enough they'll need their own local government. If the colony is self-sufficient enough it may decide to become wholly independent.

 

[Brad]

Oh, and the nation(s) that founded the colony have an additional problem. Once a colony becomes large enough they'll need their own local government. If the colony is self-sufficient enough it may decide to become wholly independent.

I would think of the distances involved, it will be much like it was during the establishments of the American continent. These were not backed by countries per se more than corporations looking for a profit.
Each colony has it own "governor" that ensured that the corporation interests where first being met.

 

[thomasantony]

Confederate/United States of Luna? Or many United States Of Tranquility

 

[Ghostrider]

Let's call it Selenian Confederation. That's because "Principality of Zion" is reserved for O'Neill colonies.

 

[MJR]

Eagle's right, and colonization is the key term. Until there is self-sufficiency, time outside the Earth's atmosphere can only be an economic drain.

It takes the combined imaginings of many, and a real commitment to putting some sort of infrastructure in place. Consider the semi-success of the Pilgrims to the fiasco at Jamestown. You have to be willing to put down roots.

That's why finding a cheaper, more accessible way to achieving LEO's so important - getting that far is far more than half the step.

Explained perfectly N0mad23. Money is also another factor in the category of manned and unmanned spaceflight. If you have no money, what can you do these days? I find that everyday money is being drained out of the United States and not to be self-fish, but that is cutting down on NASA.

 

[ryan]

Hey guys, im curious, why should going back to the Moon be so important, when we first went there we had a big purpose i think we went there first off is to save the whole world from the iron fist of communism, also to finish the dream of JFK may be rest in peace. Now weve been there, there is really no point for going there except to build a base. Yes i think it's pretty big but it's not the first time we stepped on the moon.
That's my point of view.
Ryan.

 

[Brad]

Hey guys, im curious, why should going back to the Moon be so ...........

According to Griffin, NASA Administrator - The purpose of going back to the moon is to "test" those systems that are developed nearby before pressing on to Mars. (please see the 60 Minutes interview on the CBS.COM site if you want to see the full interview.)

 

[ryan]

According to Griffin, NASA Administrator - The purpose of going back to the moon is to "test" those systems that are developed nearby before pressing on to Mars. (please see the 60 Minutes interview on the CBS.COM site if you want to see the full interview.)

Thanks Brad,
It looks like NASA said in a way there waiting for the technoligy to catch up to the idea. Strange:huh:

 

[Brad]

It looks like NASA said in a way there waiting for the technoligy to catch up to the idea. Strange:huh:

Sad isn't it. What really concerns me is the percentage of money compaired to the Apollo program that is being put the space effort. Just a mere 0.4%. In the Apollo days it was about 4%.

 

[ryan]

We should make a animal documentry about NASA "Here the NASA is now approaching the water hole, oh wait here comes Grumman, here we have a rival gang fighting eachother to earn sumpremcy of the water hole'' Thats the sort of show animal planet should air.