1 of 2
1
Caverns on Moon
Posted: 29 October 2017 01:08 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2794
Joined  2007-07-05

Scientists Detect Massive Caverns on Moon That Could House Colony

Wait, that should be IN Moon.  Holes in Moon cheese?

A massive space like this could serve as a location to study the internal structure of the moon, as well as build a colony. Without an atmosphere or magnetic field, the moon’s surface doesn’t offer any protection from radiation. Any extended stay on the moon (or Mars, for that matter) would require heavy shielding to prevent excessive radiation exposure, but you don’t need to build something on the surface to do that when the moon’s regolith does the job fine when you’re underground. There’s a lot of hype about colonizing Mars, but the moon is looking like an even more attractive place to start.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/257708-scientists-detect-massive-caverns-moon-house-colony

 Signature 

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2017 09:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1625
Joined  2016-12-24
psikeyhackr - 29 October 2017 01:08 PM

Scientists Detect Massive Caverns on Moon That Could House Colony

Wait, that should be IN Moon.  Holes in Moon cheese?

A massive space like this could serve as a location to study the internal structure of the moon, as well as build a colony. Without an atmosphere or magnetic field, the moon’s surface doesn’t offer any protection from radiation. Any extended stay on the moon (or Mars, for that matter) would require heavy shielding to prevent excessive radiation exposure, but you don’t need to build something on the surface to do that when the moon’s regolith does the job fine when you’re underground. There’s a lot of hype about colonizing Mars, but the moon is looking like an even more attractive place to start.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/257708-scientists-detect-massive-caverns-moon-house-colony

That’s some amazing stuff.  I didn’t know about all that.  Caves on the moon, okay huge lava tubes but still, who’d a thud it.\

thanks psik

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2017 10:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2794
Joined  2007-07-05

We should have drones on the Moon prospecting for materials.

Now we need something to make spray on foam that can vacuum seal and serve as insulation in the caverns.

psik

 Signature 

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2017 08:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1625
Joined  2016-12-24

Then what would you do?


Then what would you do?


cheese

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2017 05:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  113
Joined  2017-10-26

....A little chiuahua here. (LOL).

.....
I read a while back that the reason why Nasa never went back to the moon is because they found a hostile aliens living there already.

It makes one wonder if this is bull, then why did they not go back?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2017 09:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2794
Joined  2007-07-05
InBetween - 31 October 2017 05:23 PM

.
It makes one wonder if this is bull, then why did they not go back?

Beat the Russians, cost too much money, didn’t advance political careers.

Politicians aren’t too bright.  Nixon shut down thorium molten salt reactors. 

That might be more important than going back to Moon, but we don’t know because 30 years of research was not done.

psik

[ Edited: 01 November 2017 06:52 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 November 2017 03:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  113
Joined  2017-10-26

It’s not the money. it could be the other reasons, but it’s not the money. Not long ago, it was exposed that they (NASA) proceeded to build this tower, half way through, they found out it was not going to work but they kept on finishing it anyway. Guess what the price tag was?!?!? 350 million dollars!!!! Google it. And there are other instances where they carelessly blow money to the left and to the right while veterans are living under the bridges.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 November 2017 05:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2794
Joined  2007-07-05
InBetween - 01 November 2017 03:46 PM

Guess what the price tag was?!?!? 350 million dollars!!!!


You specified the amount.

Provide the link.

 Signature 

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 November 2017 05:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2794
Joined  2007-07-05
InBetween - 01 November 2017 03:46 PM

I Not long ago, it was exposed that they (NASA) proceeded to build this tower, half way through, they found out it was not going to work but they kept on finishing it anyway. Guess what the price tag was?!?!? 350 million dollars!!!! Google it. And there are other instances where they carelessly blow money to the left and to the right while veterans are living under the bridges.

Found it!

We seem to have a problem here regarding why this happened.

The rocket program it was designed for had been canceled in 2010.

But, at first, cautious NASA bureaucrats didn’t want to stop the construction on their own authority. And then Congress — at the urging of a senator from Mississippi — swooped in and ordered the agency to finish the tower, no matter what.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/12/15/nasas-349-million-monument-to-its-drift/?utm_term=.5fcb6181fc93

The question was why they did not go back to the Moon.  So that has to be explained by things that happened before 2000, not something that you say wasted money in 2010.

[ Edited: 01 November 2017 05:51 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 November 2017 09:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1580
Joined  2010-04-22

From what I understand, the reason why we didn’t keep going to the moon was because the original political reason to go there, to develop ICBM tech, became less and less relevant. Politicians generally don’t give a crap about furthering science or tech except where it impacts their power.

However, nowadays it’s becoming more and more clear that whoever starts truly mining the moon and other astronomical objects for resources will be hugely powerful - we just haven’t had the right politician with enough foresight to get on board, and the private industry still has a fair bit of catching up to do.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 November 2017 01:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  113
Joined  2017-10-26
psikeyhackr - 01 November 2017 05:29 PM
InBetween - 01 November 2017 03:46 PM

Guess what the price tag was?!?!? 350 million dollars!!!!


You specified the amount.

Provide the link.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-01-09/in-mississippi-nasas-350-million-tower-of-pork

I typed this: “NASA 350 million tower” and I got I think no less than 420k results. But we only need the first page really. Thanks for asking :smile:

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 November 2017 01:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  113
Joined  2017-10-26
psikeyhackr - 01 November 2017 05:44 PM
InBetween - 01 November 2017 03:46 PM

I Not long ago, it was exposed that they (NASA) proceeded to build this tower, half way through, they found out it was not going to work but they kept on finishing it anyway. Guess what the price tag was?!?!? 350 million dollars!!!! Google it. And there are other instances where they carelessly blow money to the left and to the right while veterans are living under the bridges.

Found it!

We seem to have a problem here regarding why this happened.

The rocket program it was designed for had been canceled in 2010.

But, at first, cautious NASA bureaucrats didn’t want to stop the construction on their own authority. And then Congress — at the urging of a senator from Mississippi — swooped in and ordered the agency to finish the tower, no matter what.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/12/15/nasas-349-million-monument-to-its-drift/?utm_term=.5fcb6181fc93

The question was why they did not go back to the Moon.  So that has to be explained by things that happened before 2000, not something that you say wasted money in 2010.

didn’t see this til I got you the link in response to your first reply. Just so you know. As to wasting money is concerned. I am sorry but I think it’s a waste of money nonetheless. Whether TPTB acknowledge it or not.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 November 2017 01:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  113
Joined  2017-10-26
TromboneAndrew - 03 November 2017 09:20 AM

From what I understand, the reason why we didn’t keep going to the moon was because the original political reason to go there, to develop ICBM tech, became less and less relevant. Politicians generally don’t give a crap about furthering science or tech except where it impacts their power.

However, nowadays it’s becoming more and more clear that whoever starts truly mining the moon and other astronomical objects for resources will be hugely powerful - we just haven’t had the right politician with enough foresight to get on board, and the private industry still has a fair bit of catching up to do.

With aaaaaaall money it gets, it STILL needs “the right politician”? common. I have a better suggestion: How about we kick all of them out and bring in news crews to do the job for half or quarter the price? And we get them to create jobs for those who have none, with the rest of the left over money?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2017 07:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1580
Joined  2010-04-22
InBetween - 03 November 2017 01:44 PM

With aaaaaaall money it gets, it STILL needs “the right politician”? common. I have a better suggestion: How about we kick all of them out and bring in news crews to do the job for half or quarter the price? And we get them to create jobs for those who have none, with the rest of the left over money?

By “it” do you mean NASA? I suggest you go find some estimates on how much it would cost to build a moon base, and look at NASA’s current annual budget.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2017 08:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1625
Joined  2016-12-24
TromboneAndrew - 04 November 2017 07:33 AM
InBetween - 03 November 2017 01:44 PM

With aaaaaaall money it gets, it STILL needs “the right politician”? common. I have a better suggestion: How about we kick all of them out and bring in news crews to do the job for half or quarter the price? And we get them to create jobs for those who have none, with the rest of the left over money?

By “it” do you mean NASA? I suggest you go find some estimates on how much it would cost to build a moon base, and look at NASA’s current annual budget.

      LOL
The devil is in the details.


Then cost estimates on a realistic functioning mining complex.
Seems to me it would be more realistic to figure out how to make do with what we have on this Earth.
But it ain’t going to go that way, is it?

The love of ravenous consumption until there’s nothing left to consume but ourselves.
Think I’ll have a swiss cheese sandwich for lunch, and dream of the days when there was a man in the moon.      smile

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 November 2017 10:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1580
Joined  2010-04-22
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 04 November 2017 08:01 AM

Then cost estimates on a realistic functioning mining complex.
Seems to me it would be more realistic to figure out how to make do with what we have on this Earth.
But it ain’t going to go that way, is it?

The love of ravenous consumption until there’s nothing left to consume but ourselves.
Think I’ll have a swiss cheese sandwich for lunch, and dream of the days when there was a man in the moon.      smile

There are mineral reserves in space that simply aren’t easily available here on Earth. One notable one on the Moon is tritium. Plus, on the Moon the lack of atmosphere means that whoever mines there doesn’t have to deal with atmospheric/water pressure in the same way we do here on Earth when it comes to deep mining.

Besides, I’m sure there are critics in every economy: why would Rome bother with the expense of importing Egyptian grains when they can grow their own crops? The “let’s take care of our own first” view is just not productive, historically or now. Countries that “take care of their own first” get overrun by those who explore.

[ Edited: 04 November 2017 11:03 AM by TromboneAndrew ]
 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1