NationStates Jolt Archive

I have just been struck with the most revolutionary peice of inspiration since Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
I have found a way to put a permanent human settlement on the moon for no more than $250 billion in taxpayer money and create at least 450,000 jobs for americans in the process.
I am in the process of contacting my freinds in Congress to try and get funding.
The project will need astronomers, engineers, pilots, truck drivers, geologists, miners, legal professionals, mineralogists, and security personnel to keep order. We will also be needing botanists, gardners, people with farming experience, and cattle ranchers.
This project will be huge if we can get Congress to approve it.
Imagine what it will do to America's self image to be the first nation on earth to put a permanent human settlement on a foreign body.

$250 billion is what you estimate. $10 trillion over 30 years is what it would cost

I think you should consult your PR department before you refer to this enterprise again using the words "a permanent human settlement on a foreign body", because it makes it sound more like a bizarre surgical procedure than a great adventure in space.

I have just been struck with the most revolutionary peice of inspiration since Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
I have found a way to put a permanent human settlement on the moon for no more than $250 billion in taxpayer money and create at least 450,000 jobs for americans in the process.
I am in the process of contacting my freinds in Congress to try and get funding.
The project will need astronomers, engineers, pilots, truck drivers, geologists, miners, legal professionals, mineralogists, and security personnel to keep order. We will also be needing botanists, gardners, people with farming experience, and cattle ranchers.
This project will be huge if we can get Congress to approve it.
Imagine what it will do to America's self image to be the first nation on earth to put a permanent human settlement on a foreign body.

NASA's budget is only going to increase each year by 1 billion dollars under the current plan. Putting a colony on the moon's supposed to take 20 years, plus equipment, which would be 20 billion dollars, plus around 150 billion in equipment, I'd guess. So, 250 billion wouldn't be a big savings, would it? Plus the salaries of all those extra gardeners, truck drivers, etc.? :wink:

I have just been struck with the most revolutionary peice of inspiration since Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
I have found a way to put a permanent human settlement on the moon for no more than $250 billion in taxpayer money and create at least 450,000 jobs for americans in the process.
I am in the process of contacting my freinds in Congress to try and get funding.
The project will need astronomers, engineers, pilots, truck drivers, geologists, miners, legal professionals, mineralogists, and security personnel to keep order. We will also be needing botanists, gardners, people with farming experience, and cattle ranchers.
This project will be huge if we can get Congress to approve it.
Imagine what it will do to America's self image to be the first nation on earth to put a permanent human settlement on a foreign body.
My primary concern is that it can't be done, but rather, how you guys plan to get it into space. Will it be assembled in space? If it's assembled on the moon, it may require astronauts, and that may be hard to shuttle to and from the moon. Orbital platforms to build on are a better idea, but they're expensive. The best hope, it seems like, would be to hope and pray for a huge rocket propulsion breakthrough.

$250 billion is what you estimate. $10 trillion over 30 years is what it would cost
No, it can be done in less time for less money.

I have just been struck with the most revolutionary peice of inspiration since Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
I have found a way to put a permanent human settlement on the moon for no more than $250 billion in taxpayer money and create at least 450,000 jobs for americans in the process.
I am in the process of contacting my freinds in Congress to try and get funding.
The project will need astronomers, engineers, pilots, truck drivers, geologists, miners, legal professionals, mineralogists, and security personnel to keep order. We will also be needing botanists, gardners, people with farming experience, and cattle ranchers.
This project will be huge if we can get Congress to approve it.
Imagine what it will do to America's self image to be the first nation on earth to put a permanent human settlement on a foreign body.

NASA's budget is only going to increase each year by 1 billion dollars under the current plan. Putting a colony on the moon's supposed to take 20 years, plus equipment, which would be 20 billion dollars, plus around 150 billion in equipment, I'd guess. So, 250 billion wouldn't be a big savings, would it? Plus the salaries of all those extra gardeners, truck drivers, etc.? :wink:
I said 250 billion was the maximum, it could be done for much less. And in less time than 20 years. Try ten years max.

I have just been struck with the most revolutionary peice of inspiration since Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
I have found a way to put a permanent human settlement on the moon for no more than $250 billion in taxpayer money and create at least 450,000 jobs for americans in the process.
I am in the process of contacting my freinds in Congress to try and get funding.
The project will need astronomers, engineers, pilots, truck drivers, geologists, miners, legal professionals, mineralogists, and security personnel to keep order. We will also be needing botanists, gardners, people with farming experience, and cattle ranchers.
This project will be huge if we can get Congress to approve it.
Imagine what it will do to America's self image to be the first nation on earth to put a permanent human settlement on a foreign body.
My primary concern is that it can't be done, but rather, how you guys plan to get it into space. Will it be assembled in space? If it's assembled on the moon, it may require astronauts, and that may be hard to shuttle to and from the moon. Orbital platforms to build on are a better idea, but they're expensive. The best hope, it seems like, would be to hope and pray for a huge rocket propulsion breakthrough.
It would require astronaughts, engineers and (miners to make the artificial caverns).
The settlement will be built on the moon. The question is getting the manpower and materials up there. The water is already there, so we would only need a way to get food there until the botanical farms are fully functional. I am also envisioning having a place for a small cattle ranch. So that eventually a settlement of not more than 100 people will have become self sufficient in many areas.

I have just been struck with the most revolutionary peice of inspiration since Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
I have found a way to put a permanent human settlement on the moon for no more than $250 billion in taxpayer money and create at least 450,000 jobs for americans in the process.
I am in the process of contacting my freinds in Congress to try and get funding.
The project will need astronomers, engineers, pilots, truck drivers, geologists, miners, legal professionals, mineralogists, and security personnel to keep order. We will also be needing botanists, gardners, people with farming experience, and cattle ranchers.
This project will be huge if we can get Congress to approve it.
Imagine what it will do to America's self image to be the first nation on earth to put a permanent human settlement on a foreign body.
My primary concern is that it can't be done, but rather, how you guys plan to get it into space. Will it be assembled in space? If it's assembled on the moon, it may require astronauts, and that may be hard to shuttle to and from the moon. Orbital platforms to build on are a better idea, but they're expensive. The best hope, it seems like, would be to hope and pray for a huge rocket propulsion breakthrough.
It would require astronaughts, engineers and (miners to make the artificial caverns).
The settlement will be built on the moon. The question is getting the manpower and materials up there. The water is already there, so we would only need a way to get food there until the botanical farms are fully functional. I am also envisioning having a place for a small cattle ranch. So that eventually a settlement of not more than 100 people will have become self sufficient in many areas.
Find 100 educated volunteers that will build, farm, and melt water from the ice all on their own. It'd be a small miracle. I still think, however, that it's best to pursue a propulsion breakthrough before establishing a pernament settlement on the moon. Then again, it's more practical than, say, a mission to Mars.

Water on the Moon? I think there's a theory of groundwater, if you can drill for it, but it's not a scientific fact... is it? :?

Using nanomachines you can make water from anything.

Read Moonbase by Ben Bova.

Water on the Moon? I think there's a theory of groundwater, if you can drill for it, but it's not a scientific fact... is it? :?
It is. There's water at the poles according to some sattelites that have been there.

And the vast majority of that water is at the north pole. And its locked up in ice.

Using nanomachines you can make water from anything.


True in theory, but we haven't managed to make a working nanomachine yet, which kind of causes a kink in your plan.

Water on the Moon? I think there's a theory of groundwater, if you can drill for it, but it's not a scientific fact... is it? :?
It is. There's water at the poles according to some sattelites that have been there.

They figure there's ice on the poles, possibly. But if there were ever a settlement, it wouldn't be on the poles, so you'd have to transport it, melt it, and purify it... probably cheaper than transporting clean water from Earth, but still an ordeal. :wink:

I have just been struck with the most revolutionary peice of inspiration since Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
I have found a way to put a permanent human settlement on the moon for no more than $250 billion in taxpayer money and create at least 450,000 jobs for americans in the process.
I am in the process of contacting my freinds in Congress to try and get funding.
The project will need astronomers, engineers, pilots, truck drivers, geologists, miners, legal professionals, mineralogists, and security personnel to keep order. We will also be needing botanists, gardners, people with farming experience, and cattle ranchers.
This project will be huge if we can get Congress to approve it.
Imagine what it will do to America's self image to be the first nation on earth to put a permanent human settlement on a foreign body.
My primary concern is that it can't be done, but rather, how you guys plan to get it into space. Will it be assembled in space? If it's assembled on the moon, it may require astronauts, and that may be hard to shuttle to and from the moon. Orbital platforms to build on are a better idea, but they're expensive. The best hope, it seems like, would be to hope and pray for a huge rocket propulsion breakthrough.
It would require astronaughts, engineers and (miners to make the artificial caverns).
The settlement will be built on the moon. The question is getting the manpower and materials up there. The water is already there, so we would only need a way to get food there until the botanical farms are fully functional. I am also envisioning having a place for a small cattle ranch. So that eventually a settlement of not more than 100 people will have become self sufficient in many areas.
Find 100 educated volunteers that will build, farm, and melt water from the ice all on their own. It'd be a small miracle. I still think, however, that it's best to pursue a propulsion breakthrough before establishing a pernament settlement on the moon. Then again, it's more practical than, say, a mission to Mars.
That is why we will train these people. And as propulsion, it is not my intention to bring them back except in emergency. They will go up there, and they will stay. They will be the colonists.

And the vast majority of that water is at the north pole. And its locked up in ice.
Still, during their two week daytime, the temperature reaches 250 degrees farenheit. In the summer, one may be able to get some, and definitly be able to melt a little over the course of the year. Of course, that'd require a power source, and no matter what it is, it'll be tricky to get it onto the moon. Solar won't work because of two week nightimes. Nuclear might be your best shot, but how the hell are you gonna get a reactor safely up there?

Water on the Moon? I think there's a theory of groundwater, if you can drill for it, but it's not a scientific fact... is it? :?
It is. There's water at the poles according to some sattelites that have been there.

They figure there's ice on the poles, possibly. But if there were ever a settlement, it wouldn't be on the poles, so you'd have to transport it, melt it, and purify it... probably cheaper than transporting clean water from Earth, but still an ordeal. :wink:
No. It's a confirmed fact that there is water at the poles. Plus the north pole is the best location for a colony. The temperature extremes at the equator are too much for living beings and modern technology. But the temperatures at the north pole are pretty temperate.

And the vast majority of that water is at the north pole. And its locked up in ice.
Still, during their two week daytime, the temperature reaches 250 degrees farenheit. In the summer, one may be able to get some, and definitly be able to melt a little over the course of the year. Of course, that'd require a power source, and no matter what it is, it'll be tricky to get it onto the moon. Solar won't work because of two week nightimes. Nuclear might be your best shot, but how the hell are you gonna get a reactor safely up there?

Why no solar power? Can't we store the excess in batteries for use during the 2-week dark period? It'd be safer than bringing nuclear fuel, and cheaper in the long-run, no? :wink:

I have just been struck with the most revolutionary peice of inspiration since Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
I have found a way to put a permanent human settlement on the moon for no more than $250 billion in taxpayer money and create at least 450,000 jobs for americans in the process.
I am in the process of contacting my freinds in Congress to try and get funding.
The project will need astronomers, engineers, pilots, truck drivers, geologists, miners, legal professionals, mineralogists, and security personnel to keep order. We will also be needing botanists, gardners, people with farming experience, and cattle ranchers.
This project will be huge if we can get Congress to approve it.
Imagine what it will do to America's self image to be the first nation on earth to put a permanent human settlement on a foreign body.
My primary concern is that it can't be done, but rather, how you guys plan to get it into space. Will it be assembled in space? If it's assembled on the moon, it may require astronauts, and that may be hard to shuttle to and from the moon. Orbital platforms to build on are a better idea, but they're expensive. The best hope, it seems like, would be to hope and pray for a huge rocket propulsion breakthrough.
It would require astronaughts, engineers and (miners to make the artificial caverns).
The settlement will be built on the moon. The question is getting the manpower and materials up there. The water is already there, so we would only need a way to get food there until the botanical farms are fully functional. I am also envisioning having a place for a small cattle ranch. So that eventually a settlement of not more than 100 people will have become self sufficient in many areas.
Find 100 educated volunteers that will build, farm, and melt water from the ice all on their own. It'd be a small miracle. I still think, however, that it's best to pursue a propulsion breakthrough before establishing a pernament settlement on the moon. Then again, it's more practical than, say, a mission to Mars.
That is why we will train these people. And as propulsion, it is not my intention to bring them back except in emergency. They will go up there, and they will stay. They will be the colonists.
Ok, this plan is starting to sound really wacky. If 100 people will stay up forever, they'll need a lot more supplies than what they can produce, like medicines and special medical equipment. Such will be extremely costly, and may amount to about $2 billion a person. I hate to say this, but it won't work.
What will work, however, is slow steps. With China having a rising space program, and things like the X-prize putting private businesses involved, we are on the precipe of a second space revolution. However, most of it will be done in low-orbit, and be more practical for the near future (better research stations, space hotels, rocket advancesetc.). Then, the moon should be a goal, and I hope they can colonize it by the time I die. But, it won't be practical for a pernament settlement to be established there for at least another thirty years. But it is possible that man will go there before then.

And the vast majority of that water is at the north pole. And its locked up in ice.
Still, during their two week daytime, the temperature reaches 250 degrees farenheit. In the summer, one may be able to get some, and definitly be able to melt a little over the course of the year. Of course, that'd require a power source, and no matter what it is, it'll be tricky to get it onto the moon. Solar won't work because of two week nightimes. Nuclear might be your best shot, but how the hell are you gonna get a reactor safely up there?

Why no solar power? Can't we store the excess in batteries for use during the 2-week dark period? It'd be safer than bringing nuclear fuel, and cheaper in the long-run, no? :wink:
Well, at current advancements of solar panels, it'd have to be one helluva giant solar plant to support 100 people, and the batteries they'd need. I'd say it'd be at least enough to fill one Saturn V rocket, and maybe a Jupiter IV. Nuclear fuel is easier to ship to space, albiet a bit more dangerous.

And the vast majority of that water is at the north pole. And its locked up in ice.
Still, during their two week daytime, the temperature reaches 250 degrees farenheit. In the summer, one may be able to get some, and definitly be able to melt a little over the course of the year. Of course, that'd require a power source, and no matter what it is, it'll be tricky to get it onto the moon. Solar won't work because of two week nightimes. Nuclear might be your best shot, but how the hell are you gonna get a reactor safely up there?

Why no solar power? Can't we store the excess in batteries for use during the 2-week dark period? It'd be safer than bringing nuclear fuel, and cheaper in the long-run, no? :wink:
Well, at current advancements of solar panels, it'd have to be one helluva giant solar plant to support 100 people, and the batteries they'd need. I'd say it'd be at least enough to fill one Saturn V rocket, and maybe a Jupiter IV. Nuclear fuel is easier to ship to space, albiet a bit more dangerous.

Yeah, it'd have to be massive. Probably half the size as the KJC Solar Farm, near here in LA. It could be delivered and assembled by a few dozen people over a few months, and brought up in one space-shuttle-sized load.. maybe 2. This would probably have to be one of the first things done on the surface, before the mining and hydroponic engineering teams arrived. :wink:

Still, if that fails, there's always Wind-power! :wink:

I have just been struck with the most revolutionary peice of inspiration since Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
I have found a way to put a permanent human settlement on the moon for no more than $250 billion in taxpayer money and create at least 450,000 jobs for americans in the process.
I am in the process of contacting my freinds in Congress to try and get funding.
The project will need astronomers, engineers, pilots, truck drivers, geologists, miners, legal professionals, mineralogists, and security personnel to keep order. We will also be needing botanists, gardners, people with farming experience, and cattle ranchers.
This project will be huge if we can get Congress to approve it.
Imagine what it will do to America's self image to be the first nation on earth to put a permanent human settlement on a foreign body.
My primary concern is that it can't be done, but rather, how you guys plan to get it into space. Will it be assembled in space? If it's assembled on the moon, it may require astronauts, and that may be hard to shuttle to and from the moon. Orbital platforms to build on are a better idea, but they're expensive. The best hope, it seems like, would be to hope and pray for a huge rocket propulsion breakthrough.
It would require astronaughts, engineers and (miners to make the artificial caverns).
The settlement will be built on the moon. The question is getting the manpower and materials up there. The water is already there, so we would only need a way to get food there until the botanical farms are fully functional. I am also envisioning having a place for a small cattle ranch. So that eventually a settlement of not more than 100 people will have become self sufficient in many areas.
Find 100 educated volunteers that will build, farm, and melt water from the ice all on their own. It'd be a small miracle. I still think, however, that it's best to pursue a propulsion breakthrough before establishing a pernament settlement on the moon. Then again, it's more practical than, say, a mission to Mars.
That is why we will train these people. And as propulsion, it is not my intention to bring them back except in emergency. They will go up there, and they will stay. They will be the colonists.
Ok, this plan is starting to sound really wacky. If 100 people will stay up forever, they'll need a lot more supplies than what they can produce, like medicines and special medical equipment. Such will be extremely costly, and may amount to about $2 billion a person. I hate to say this, but it won't work.
What will work, however, is slow steps. With China having a rising space program, and things like the X-prize putting private businesses involved, we are on the precipe of a second space revolution. However, most of it will be done in low-orbit, and be more practical for the near future (better research stations, space hotels, rocket advancesetc.). Then, the moon should be a goal, and I hope they can colonize it by the time I die. But, it won't be practical for a pernament settlement to be established there for at least another thirty years. But it is possible that man will go there before then.
They will get power from nuclear energy and the power plant won't built here, but there.
Every society has to import medicine, even here on earth. We can't get into low earth orbit cause we are not aiming high enough. A space hotel would be as costly as putting a colony on the moon cause it has zero means of supporting itself, even the water would have to be imported either way you look at it.
We have the capability of embarking on this today. To wait until we have ion drives or what ever is equivalent to people telling Columbus he should wait until man developed the modern cruise ship before attempting his journey westward.
My proposal is more complex than I am allowed to post here.

And the vast majority of that water is at the north pole. And its locked up in ice.
Still, during their two week daytime, the temperature reaches 250 degrees farenheit. In the summer, one may be able to get some, and definitly be able to melt a little over the course of the year. Of course, that'd require a power source, and no matter what it is, it'll be tricky to get it onto the moon. Solar won't work because of two week nightimes. Nuclear might be your best shot, but how the hell are you gonna get a reactor safely up there?

Why no solar power? Can't we store the excess in batteries for use during the 2-week dark period? It'd be safer than bringing nuclear fuel, and cheaper in the long-run, no? :wink:
Well, at current advancements of solar panels, it'd have to be one helluva giant solar plant to support 100 people, and the batteries they'd need. I'd say it'd be at least enough to fill one Saturn V rocket, and maybe a Jupiter IV. Nuclear fuel is easier to ship to space, albiet a bit more dangerous.

Yeah, it'd have to be massive. Probably half the size as the KJC Solar Farm, near here in LA. It could be delivered and assembled by a few dozen people over a few months, and brought up in one space-shuttle-sized load.. maybe 2. This would probably have to be one of the first things done on the surface, before the mining and hydroponic engineering teams arrived. :wink:

Still, if that fails, there's always Wind-power! :wink:
The solar wind is far too weak.
And solar power exactly be reliable due to the moon's rotation around the earth. The earth would end up blocking much of the sun light. Not to mention that the region I have in mind spends a lot of time out of the sun.

The other reason why the north pole and not the equator is that most of the near side is far too thin. It is only around 10 to 15 km thick at most. IN most areas of the nearside the thickness of the crust is a bare 5 km.

were you tripping when came up with this?

were you tripping when came up with this?
No, I was reading a science magazine.

were you tripping when came up with this?
No, I was reading a science magazine.
Popular Science? I know they recently published an article on moon colonies.

I have just been struck with the most revolutionary peice of inspiration since Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
I have found a way to put a permanent human settlement on the moon for no more than $250 billion in taxpayer money and create at least 450,000 jobs for americans in the process.
I am in the process of contacting my freinds in Congress to try and get funding.
The project will need astronomers, engineers, pilots, truck drivers, geologists, miners, legal professionals, mineralogists, and security personnel to keep order. We will also be needing botanists, gardners, people with farming experience, and cattle ranchers.
This project will be huge if we can get Congress to approve it.
Imagine what it will do to America's self image to be the first nation on earth to put a permanent human settlement on a foreign body.
My primary concern is that it can't be done, but rather, how you guys plan to get it into space. Will it be assembled in space? If it's assembled on the moon, it may require astronauts, and that may be hard to shuttle to and from the moon. Orbital platforms to build on are a better idea, but they're expensive. The best hope, it seems like, would be to hope and pray for a huge rocket propulsion breakthrough.
It would require astronaughts, engineers and (miners to make the artificial caverns).
The settlement will be built on the moon. The question is getting the manpower and materials up there. The water is already there, so we would only need a way to get food there until the botanical farms are fully functional. I am also envisioning having a place for a small cattle ranch. So that eventually a settlement of not more than 100 people will have become self sufficient in many areas.
Find 100 educated volunteers that will build, farm, and melt water from the ice all on their own. It'd be a small miracle. I still think, however, that it's best to pursue a propulsion breakthrough before establishing a pernament settlement on the moon. Then again, it's more practical than, say, a mission to Mars.
That is why we will train these people. And as propulsion, it is not my intention to bring them back except in emergency. They will go up there, and they will stay. They will be the colonists.
Ok, this plan is starting to sound really wacky. If 100 people will stay up forever, they'll need a lot more supplies than what they can produce, like medicines and special medical equipment. Such will be extremely costly, and may amount to about $2 billion a person. I hate to say this, but it won't work.
What will work, however, is slow steps. With China having a rising space program, and things like the X-prize putting private businesses involved, we are on the precipe of a second space revolution. However, most of it will be done in low-orbit, and be more practical for the near future (better research stations, space hotels, rocket advancesetc.). Then, the moon should be a goal, and I hope they can colonize it by the time I die. But, it won't be practical for a pernament settlement to be established there for at least another thirty years. But it is possible that man will go there before then.
They will get power from nuclear energy and the power plant won't built here, but there.
Every society has to import medicine, even here on earth. We can't get into low earth orbit cause we are not aiming high enough. A space hotel would be as costly as putting a colony on the moon cause it has zero means of supporting itself, even the water would have to be imported either way you look at it.
We have the capability of embarking on this today. To wait until we have ion drives or what ever is equivalent to people telling Columbus he should wait until man developed the modern cruise ship before attempting his journey westward.
My proposal is more complex than I am allowed to post here.
Actually, a space hotel in low earth orbit would be cheaper, as supplies could be shipped to and fro in a matter of hours, not days. But still, space travel would be infinitly easier with a propulsion advance. I say we should give a few billions to NASA's Jet propulsion lab in Pasedena, and encourage private aerospace companies to do the same.
And btw, in the latest issue of Popular Science I recieved today (I subscribe to it), they predicted that, if we converted the ISS into a hotel in twenty years, and charge space tourists $2 million a night, it may actually make $900 million a year.

were you tripping when came up with this?
No, I was reading a science magazine.
Popular Science? I know they recently published an article on moon colonies.
Which issue? I would be interested in reading the article.
The one I was reading was on exploration and the human need to explore and expand outward.

were you tripping when came up with this?
No, I was reading a science magazine.
Popular Science? I know they recently published an article on moon colonies.
Which issue? I would be interested in reading the article.
The one I was reading was on exploration and the human need to explore and expand outward.
The April issue. Also discusses about the next space revolution we're entering, and the three space exploration philosophies: Saganites, O'Reilians, and von Braunians.

I have just been struck with the most revolutionary peice of inspiration since Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
I have found a way to put a permanent human settlement on the moon for no more than $250 billion in taxpayer money and create at least 450,000 jobs for americans in the process.
I am in the process of contacting my freinds in Congress to try and get funding.
The project will need astronomers, engineers, pilots, truck drivers, geologists, miners, legal professionals, mineralogists, and security personnel to keep order. We will also be needing botanists, gardners, people with farming experience, and cattle ranchers.
This project will be huge if we can get Congress to approve it.
Imagine what it will do to America's self image to be the first nation on earth to put a permanent human settlement on a foreign body.
My primary concern is that it can't be done, but rather, how you guys plan to get it into space. Will it be assembled in space? If it's assembled on the moon, it may require astronauts, and that may be hard to shuttle to and from the moon. Orbital platforms to build on are a better idea, but they're expensive. The best hope, it seems like, would be to hope and pray for a huge rocket propulsion breakthrough.
It would require astronaughts, engineers and (miners to make the artificial caverns).
The settlement will be built on the moon. The question is getting the manpower and materials up there. The water is already there, so we would only need a way to get food there until the botanical farms are fully functional. I am also envisioning having a place for a small cattle ranch. So that eventually a settlement of not more than 100 people will have become self sufficient in many areas.
Find 100 educated volunteers that will build, farm, and melt water from the ice all on their own. It'd be a small miracle. I still think, however, that it's best to pursue a propulsion breakthrough before establishing a pernament settlement on the moon. Then again, it's more practical than, say, a mission to Mars.
That is why we will train these people. And as propulsion, it is not my intention to bring them back except in emergency. They will go up there, and they will stay. They will be the colonists.
Ok, this plan is starting to sound really wacky. If 100 people will stay up forever, they'll need a lot more supplies than what they can produce, like medicines and special medical equipment. Such will be extremely costly, and may amount to about $2 billion a person. I hate to say this, but it won't work.
What will work, however, is slow steps. With China having a rising space program, and things like the X-prize putting private businesses involved, we are on the precipe of a second space revolution. However, most of it will be done in low-orbit, and be more practical for the near future (better research stations, space hotels, rocket advancesetc.). Then, the moon should be a goal, and I hope they can colonize it by the time I die. But, it won't be practical for a pernament settlement to be established there for at least another thirty years. But it is possible that man will go there before then.
They will get power from nuclear energy and the power plant won't built here, but there.
Every society has to import medicine, even here on earth. We can't get into low earth orbit cause we are not aiming high enough. A space hotel would be as costly as putting a colony on the moon cause it has zero means of supporting itself, even the water would have to be imported either way you look at it.
We have the capability of embarking on this today. To wait until we have ion drives or what ever is equivalent to people telling Columbus he should wait until man developed the modern cruise ship before attempting his journey westward.
My proposal is more complex than I am allowed to post here.
Actually, a space hotel in low earth orbit would be cheaper, as supplies could be shipped to and fro in a matter of hours, not days. But still, space travel would be infinitly easier with a propulsion advance. I say we should give a few billions to NASA's Jet propulsion lab in Pasedena, and encourage private aerospace companies to do the same.
And btw, in the latest issue of Popular Science I recieved today (I subscribe to it), they predicted that, if we converted the ISS into a hotel in twenty years, and charge space tourists $2 million a night, it may actually make $900 million a year.
That's the difference between my proposal and theirs. In their proposal, space is only for the elite rich. I intend to open space up to everyone. Not just the billionaires.
My project isn't concerned about making a big profit. It's about expanding the human race's habitat to include the moon.
Mine is more populist. Hence, it would include giving people joy rides into space to tantalize their taste buds so to speak.

were you tripping when came up with this?
No, I was reading a science magazine.
Popular Science? I know they recently published an article on moon colonies.
Which issue? I would be interested in reading the article.
The one I was reading was on exploration and the human need to explore and expand outward.
The April issue. Also discusses about the next space revolution we're entering, and the three space exploration philosophies: Saganites, O'Reilians, and von Braunians.
what's their web url?

And the vast majority of that water is at the north pole. And its locked up in ice.
Still, during their two week daytime, the temperature reaches 250 degrees farenheit. In the summer, one may be able to get some, and definitly be able to melt a little over the course of the year. Of course, that'd require a power source, and no matter what it is, it'll be tricky to get it onto the moon. Solar won't work because of two week nightimes. Nuclear might be your best shot, but how the hell are you gonna get a reactor safely up there?

Why no solar power? Can't we store the excess in batteries for use during the 2-week dark period? It'd be safer than bringing nuclear fuel, and cheaper in the long-run, no? :wink:
Well, at current advancements of solar panels, it'd have to be one helluva giant solar plant to support 100 people, and the batteries they'd need. I'd say it'd be at least enough to fill one Saturn V rocket, and maybe a Jupiter IV. Nuclear fuel is easier to ship to space, albiet a bit more dangerous.

Yeah, it'd have to be massive. Probably half the size as the KJC Solar Farm, near here in LA. It could be delivered and assembled by a few dozen people over a few months, and brought up in one space-shuttle-sized load.. maybe 2. This would probably have to be one of the first things done on the surface, before the mining and hydroponic engineering teams arrived. :wink:

Still, if that fails, there's always Wind-power! :wink:
The solar wind is far too weak.
And solar power exactly be reliable due to the moon's rotation around the earth. The earth would end up blocking much of the sun light. Not to mention that the region I have in mind spends a lot of time out of the sun.

I was joking about the Wind-power. (I always thought there wasn't any wind on the Moon.) :wink:

were you tripping when came up with this?
No, I was reading a science magazine.
Popular Science? I know they recently published an article on moon colonies.
Which issue? I would be interested in reading the article.
The one I was reading was on exploration and the human need to explore and expand outward.
The April issue. Also discusses about the next space revolution we're entering, and the three space exploration philosophies: Saganites, O'Reilians, and von Braunians.
what's their web url?
It's in here somewhere.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/