"maristgrad" (maristgrad)
12/27/2014 at 12:56 • Filed to: None
1
3|
"maristgrad" (maristgrad)
12/27/2014 at 12:56 • Filed to: None | 1
| 3 |
Excerpt from my thousands of pages of random journal entries pertaining to technology and travel. I need to know if constantly thinking about this stuff is unhealthy haha
Brain purge one
I'll start with saying I'm by no means an expert in space travel. I'm just a poor geek obsessed with space exploration. I have however done a tad bit of extensive reading in regards to every segment of space travel. What seems to be the hardest part of space travel from the earth is escape velocity and reentry through the atmosphere at 5000° without blowing up. We completed this feat 60 years ago and it creates interesting dilemmas. While the technology is proven and sound, the actual rockets and equipment is so old they probably aren't safe to use today, an example being the recent launch failure of an Orbital Sciences resupply rocket. It had updated parts added to a 50+ year old Russian launch system to save money. Well that disaster lost them 10x more. Why are we depending on old equipment to get into space? We landed on the moon over 50 years ago using a computer the equivalent of a T1 Graphing calculator. What in the fucking fuck goddammit we should have moon bases by now. But that's unfortunately not how the economics of space exploration works. Currently there would need to be some sort of financial benefit to go back to the moon.
My idea is simple. Create mineral extracting moon dust drones, extract frozen water/methane and enhance solar energy as natural commodities to build a colony with a space port. The space port would have both a launching pad and landing strip. The colony would have 5 outposts, a new site created every 5 years with a goal of completion by 2050. The colonies or structures themselves would be built partially underneath the surface with an advanced reinforced roof to mitigate asteroid damage and radiation. Building underground structures using drones is unproven technology however building underground bases using humans is proven in several aspects of this field. We can create sprawling layouts several stories deep into mountainous formations. And we're close to creating drones to do so on their own.
.. ... . For short term building and overseeing the drones we can send 4 man teams rotating every 3-6 months with rations. Agriculture would be the most important factor to long term survival therefore a more technical landing near frozen moon sites would be necessary. If we send a nuclear powered drone we can not only melt the ice, we can power the entire base. We can also use much cheaper means like focusing solar energy on ice patches and pumping the liquid back up for processing into drinkable water and methane fuel. The site will pay for itself in launching deep space missions, providing a launch pad towards mars and a resupply base with supplies as well as fuel and if it can safely be done, tourism. We could simulate a protective shield from radiation and create habitable spaces under the surface of the moon, it would be a safe location for future generations should the earth become uninhabitable due to rampant pollution. Wouldn't that be something? Looking up at the night sky during a crescent moon and seeing the twinkling lights of humanity thriving on another heavenly body would be breathtaking, for some at least. I guess there will be others who think of a moon settlement as blasphemy and destruction. But what it would be is expansion of our understanding of the universe. The fear of many is if we send a manned mission to Mars
1. The safety of our best and brightest able-bodied physicist biologist chemist engineers roboticis archeologists and pilots would be needed for this mission, their safety well being and eventually ride home is critical so we can digest the data they find.
2. How will the public react if we uncover artifacts or even bones of some long extinct species let alone life? Microbial life, while amazing if found, Fossils and remnants of any kind of large multicellular beings, would freak people the fuck out. Probably burn down religious institutions in some weak economics. How long would it take for humans to adapt to such concepts? That's the wild part if you ask me
DoYouEvenShift
> maristgrad
12/27/2014 at 13:10 |
|
Your not alone. Everything you just said, I think about every single day.
Also the fact that the technologies that we create for space travel trickle down to uses here on Earth.
GhostZ
> maristgrad
12/27/2014 at 13:27 |
|
If we found intelligent life outside of earth, religion would not stop, there would be no riots, no one would burn down anything . The realization that the earth is not in the center of the universe, that the earth is round, that matter is comprised of atoms, that human thought is in the brain (and we can mess with it) and that life existed before humans were around all carry significantly more impact on the veracity of religion.
The problem is often not what can we do, but how we can do it and what happens if it goes wrong. Moreover, how much of the world's resources are you going to utilize to do this? Is that enough?
Aya, Almost Has A Cosmo With Toyota Engine Owned by a BMW.
> maristgrad
12/27/2014 at 13:31 |
|
Well, for starters, you'll need a robot building all the shit you need for a moon base.
But the problem is, NASA has no monies. They only has 17 Billions US bucks right now, In the past they had about 40 Billion bucks each year.
For life samples, yes they will freak people out, but that means NASA might get more monies to explore that life samples.