Getting us to the moon.

[Lundgren]

Alright this is about getting us to the moon. My plan and what world goverments should be doing.

First off this isn't about whether or not, making us a two planet species is a worthy goal lets just assume that is what were suppose to be doing.

Second off we need to privatise all space like has been done already. However we still need World goverments to finance the mega project.

Launch costs can easily be reduced to 1mil for every metric ton launched into space it's already down to about 3mil at this time.

We need to make nuclear tugboats for when we get into space, to ferry what ever that needs to be brought to the moon. We also use nuclear for when we get there. So no need to drag solar panels.

We need to do this one a massive scale of about 10-20 thousand people. Sound insane but for a cost of about 1trillion, that would amount to about 50 mil per person. Sounds insane but this was the estimate cost of the apollo program considering this will be funded by multiple goverment this wont' be too extreme.

Sending people on a scale like this will get the person cost down by a factor of 100. Meaning with this method it's 50 mil a person, with nasa's current system its about  5 bil per person.

[SAMSON123]

Alright this is about getting us to the moon. My plan and what world goverments should be doing.

First off this isn't about whether or not, making us a two planet species is a worthy goal lets just assume that is what were suppose to be doing.

Second off we need to privatise all space like has been done already. However we still need World goverments to finance the mega project.

Launch costs can easily be reduced to 1mil for every metric ton launched into space it's already down to about 3mil at this time.

We need to make nuclear tugboats for when we get into space, to ferry what ever that needs to be brought to the moon. We also use nuclear for when we get there. So no need to drag solar panels.

We need to do this one a massive scale of about 10-20 thousand people. Sound insane but for a cost of about 1trillion, that would amount to about 50 mil per person. Sounds insane but this was the estimate cost of the apollo program considering this will be funded by multiple goverment this wont' be too extreme.

Sending people on a scale like this will get the person cost down by a factor of 100. Meaning with this method it's 50 mil a person, with nasa's current system its about  5 bil per person.

I am waiting until there is air, water and internet on the moon before going...

[Lundgren]

I am waiting until there is air, water and internet on the moon before going...

Well there is water on the moon we just have to collect it. This base with have to be on the northern pole where it is located. Oxygen can be extracted from the soil as well.

This is would creates the need for the massive scale. Say an oxygen exstractor costs about 10 billion. It can service 1000 people just as easily as it can serve 10.

This is what creates the need for such a massive scale. Economies of scale applied to the moon is the only way this will ever work.

[OzmO]

Why?

What's the point?

Shouldn't we be striving to solve the problems on one planet before we take on another?

[Lundgren]

Why?

What's the point?

Shouldn't we be striving to solve the problems on one planet before we take on another?

Well if we fuck up there's a back up. Besides what problems, economic? this is a good way to help. Enviroment well atleast we know humans can't get wiped out by a comet.
Wars well best way to reduce warfare is to spend less money on weapons.

This is for first world countries thrid world countries can't be helped by us. Are meddling is half the problem.

[OzmO]

Well if we fuck up there's a back up. Besides what problems, economic? this is a good way to help. Enviroment well atleast we know humans can't get wiped out by a comet.
Wars well best way to reduce warfare is to spend less money on weapons.

This is for first world countries thrid world countries can't be helped by us. Are meddling is half the problem.

The moon is a back up

What problems?  Education, starvation and poverty for starters.

Billions times billions go into colonizing the moon; a place with no atmosphere or water.  brilliant.

[Lundgren]

The moon is a back up

What problems?  Education, starvation and poverty for starters.

Billions times billions go into colonizing the moon; a place with no atmosphere or water.  brilliant.

These aren't first world problems. So as I said isn't relavent in the thread.

No atmosphere is needed, it's an much overated problem. It's comparable with survival in extreme cold like say the artic. You don't build your homes out imported wood you use the snow that is already there. Same on the moon. Use pressurized kelvar tent strutures and cover them in moon rocks for radiation protection.

You mine the water that is found in the nothern poles for oxygen and air.

Futhermore this is just the first phase of space developement. The next phase would be mining resources from asteriods returning a massive amount of resources back  to the earth. Could in the end save the earth from poverty.

[sync pulse]

If history has demonstrated anything is that large scale engineering works always end up being of benefit,...this would include space exploration.

[Lundgren]

Space is the next frontier. It's a cliche but we fail to realise what it means.  I mean Eric the Red settle north america in 1000 ad, of course they bailed out. But it took 500 years to refind our way back.


The intial costs in todays dollars of finding the america's was staggering. However it was worth the intial cost in the long run.

Space in economic terms is our future. It allows us to achieve unlimited growth, more minerals power sources etc.

[Hugo Chavez]

I see nothing wrong with making it a global goal and having everyone pitch in.  Maybe that's something we need to solve some problems right here on earth.  As long as it doesn't have something to do with a one world gov or something, it sounds like a good idea.  Give us all something in common.  That kind of shit can actually help solve problems we face right here.  Doesn't even matter if it's pointless or not.

I'm not sure where you got 50 mil per person.  That's a little high lol...

[Lundgren]

I see nothing wrong with making it a global goal and having everyone pitch in.  Maybe that's something we need to solve some problems right here on earth.  As long as it doesn't have something to do with a one world gov or something, it sounds like a good idea.  Give us all something in common.  That kind of shit can actually help solve problems we face right here.  Doesn't even matter if it's pointless or not.

I'm not sure where you got 50 mil per person.  That's a little high lol...

Well living is pointless, it really is the only thing left for western countries everything else for us has been done, we live too long, buy stupid shit, got to much money, start wars out of boredom, eat too much, we'll peak if we got nowhere to grow. The fact is the american economy has no where to grow but space.

[Hugo Chavez]

Well living is pointless, it really is the only thing left for western countries everything else for us has been done, we live too long, buy stupid shit, got to much money, start wars out of boredom, eat too much, we'll peak if we got nowhere to grow. The fact is the american economy has no where to grow but space.

I thought you were making this a world mission, talking about world governments pitching in.  If we're just talking about America, we have plenty growing to do.  The only worry I have is that the growing is in the wrong direction and used for the wrong thing.  Exploration for our nation is not and should not be limited to conquest of new land.  If that's all it's about, it's the wrong message.  There are many things to explore and grow on right here.  We can keep advancing in all areas of science and humanity.

I kinda like your idea as originally stated if it's under a kind of uniting thing for humanity, something everybody can pitch in on and give all reason to look up and no doubt benefit from in the long run. The fact is that man seems to do better with a big goal.  If we were all behind a united goal, we might find we have more in common in other areas too.  Things like this can have huge benefits for the common folk.  It's not a bad idea if done right.

[24KT]

Sorry, if there's no electricity, indoor plumbing, or Holt Renfrew on the moon, ...I'm not going. 

[Lundgren]

Sorry, if there's no electricity, indoor plumbing, or Holt Renfrew on the moon, ...I'm not going. 

I'm not a plummber so I won't comment on that.  However electricity is easy we sed a nuclear power source. No solar panels, gets your shipments in half. It creates the need for a few thousand instead a few hundred.


Well It'll be a two way street. There's not a country going that wouldn't have an interest in atleast sending a few people to the planet. However Americans if they can get going will, have a monopoly, on many of the techs to get there. So alot of the research would be done in the states, while it'd be a global effort to get their.

[loco]

On January 7, 1934 Flash Gordon traveled in a rocket ship to the planet Mongo and he saved everyone of us.  Hope this helps!

[OzmO]

These aren't first world problems. So as I said isn't relavent in the thread.

No atmosphere is needed, it's an much overated problem. It's comparable with survival in extreme cold like say the artic. You don't build your homes out imported wood you use the snow that is already there. Same on the moon. Use pressurized kelvar tent strutures and cover them in moon rocks for radiation protection.

You mine the water that is found in the nothern poles for oxygen and air.

Futhermore this is just the first phase of space developement. The next phase would be mining resources from asteriods returning a massive amount of resources back  to the earth. Could in the end save the earth from poverty.

I am sure there are many solutions to the no atmosphere problems thats not my point in that.  No atmosphere = crazy expense on top of the billions upon billions just to get a basic habitat up and running for a dozen people (not to mention the expense of maintaining it).  Why not spend the billions upon billions on education, food, housing? 

Of course continue space exploration. 

Uniting the planet in a common cause is a great idea, the problem is the "common cause" is without real motivation and gain and therefore I don't see it working out. 

when the time comes that we have the technology to get to and from the moon with in a reasonable expense then the mining and colonization of the moon will happen.  Because reward will exceed the expense.   

[Lundgren]

An atmosphere is a trivial problem. It's expensive on a small scale but the more people you send the price shrinks massively. Using kevlar based imflatable tents and the problem is forgotten about.

It's basically the same physics to sink a rubber dingy 32.3 feet under water as it is to inflate habitats on the moon.

[OzmO]

An atmosphere is a trivial problem. It's expensive on a small scale but the more people you send the price shrinks massively. Using kevlar based imflatable tents and the problem is forgotten about.

It's basically the same physics to sink a rubber dingy 32.3 feet under water as it is to inflate habitats on the moon.

Except that the "rubber dingy" will cost millions for one dingy and billions to take that one dingy to the moon.


Still expense far greater than reward.

[Lundgren]

Except that the "rubber dingy" will cost millions for one dingy and billions to take that one dingy to the moon.


Still expense far greater than reward.

Lol well if you use socialist nasa's way of thinking yes.

Private enterprise however works on a different scale.  Each tent would say weight 100 kg (220pounds ) would be able to house ten people. Could easily get the cost to about 100 k per person. This is using known econmics and today tech.  that's comparable to todays modern homes.

[OzmO]

Lol well if you use socialist nasa's way of thinking yes.

Private enterprise however works on a different scale.  Each tent would say weight 100 kg (220pounds ) would be able to house ten people. Could easily get the cost to about 100 k per person. This is using known econmics and today tech.  that's comparable to todays modern homes.

I seriously doubt that.   

[Lundgren]

I seriously doubt that.  

Well maybe not kevlar but the materials exist. Point is these options are availiable. There not farflung nor magical. There not no where as expensive as you would think. The major bottle neck has been socialist NASA everything cost 10 times more than it should, high launch costs old prices of 15k per pound. Now at 1.5k per pound easy to get down to .44 per pound, and the lack of scale to pay for billions of dollars of rnd. The Rnd is about 90 percent of the cost today can be as low as 5-10 percent with increased scale.

[Lundgren]

Just thinking of reasons for such a program.

Education benefits, would cause a surge in americans studying engineering from primary schools to university, competetion just for seats on this trip would increase americans competitive edge in engineering by leaps and bounds.

Countless advantages for life sciences i.e. medicine agriculture etc.

Loads of pratical applications can be found with the vast array of techs that need to be developed.

There would be some trickle down on a project that could employ nearly a million people.

Strategic benefits of a lunar expost ensuring, it don't fall to other nations or corps.

Potential benefits of space mining.

Loads of space based research abilities.

A platform for mars mission.

Doubling the number of planetoids that humans live on.


Finally the most important reason. We are unsure were future tech is going however a good guess is space. Techs like solar satalites for power, or fusion tech using the moons helium3 are majors possibilities. Also this has the potential for a whole new trading partner for the global econmy.

[George Whorewell]

Hold on. Stop everything. Someone alert NASA to this thread.

Maybe they will take the advice of a gimmick on getbig.com who can't spell the word "computer" correctly.

[Lundgren]

Hold on. Stop everything. Someone alert NASA to this thread.

Maybe they will take the advice of a gimmick on getbig.com who can't spell the word "computer" correctly.

Lol they took advice from gw a well known dyslexic.

[OzmO]

I would think if it was that inexpensive as you imply off the top of your head some company would have already been going to the moon and making a profit.