A Stake In The Sand

[MA-Caver]

This 18 minute long video is (I think so anyway) worth watching for the potential our species as a whole to achieve and basically catch up with Space Exploration as it should've been, once we've succeeded in breaking Earth's gravitational pull and landed men on the moon.
Bill Stone who is one of the premier explorers on this planet gives a talk about the future and the nearness of it's actuality.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bill_stone_explores_the_earth_and_space.html
What he speaks about isn't science fiction but science fact that can be achieved if we put our minds (and wallets) to the task.
The phrase "Stake In The Sand" comes from Mr. Stone himself where he challenges the listeners and everyone else to put together the re$ource$ needed to reach this goal.

My observation is that if we, as a species, weren't too busy trying to kill each other for the petty and dwindling resources that this planet has to offer... all the technological advancements envisioned by Arthur C. Clark in his landmark novel 2001 would already be a part of our day to day lives ever since we lifted off from Earth's gravitational pull and landed men on the moon.

Maybe I might've missed something but what problems do you see after watching the video in this man's vision??

 

[elder999]

Maybe I might've missed something but what problems do you see after watching the video in this man's vision??

I admire his vision as you do, but it seems he's missed one key sticking point. This sort of undertaking isn't going to occur without Manhattan Project scale advancements in materials technology and possibly, propulsion. Why? Radiation.

Exposure to cosmic rays and high energy particles emitted by the sun quickly leads to astronauts reaching their lifetime allotment for radiation dose-we've seen several repeats of shuttle flights, and long-term stays at the space station, but we've also been somewhat lucky in that regard, in that we haven't seen any significant solar flare induced increases in dosage-something NASA gambled on every time they sent men to the Moon. In any case, the length of travel required, that $10,000/kilogram allotment he spoke of, and our present inability to sufficiently harden adequate craft for such a mission, all impose pretty strict limits on what we can do in space, what we can bring to do it with, and how long it will take. In order to mine the moon, we'd need to build underground habitats, or well-shielded ones, or some combination thereof. In order to have the habitats ability to attain shielding from the lunar surface, we have to bring more stuff-in order to do that, we need an advance in propulsion systems: more stuff+more space+more mass for shielding.

So, without an advance in materials, and/or some luck on the lunar surface (maybe they'll find a nice big cave!) it's going to be really, really, really hard to do in seven years.

 

[MA-Caver]

So, without an advance in materials, and/or some luck on the lunar surface (maybe they'll find a nice big cave!) it's going to be really, really, really hard to do in seven years.

Yes, but the question begs to be asked: Why should difficulty be the deciding factor in our need to expand ourselves? Was building the pyramids or (ancient) Rome any more difficult as far as the scale of the project? We are developing new alloys of metal all the time. Seeking to better our Steel and Aluminum and so forth.
While wars do help speed up the process/progress of technology it also delays/hinders progress because there's a war on and it must be fought to the finish.
If safely inside a shielded ship I don't think radiation (any "known" type) should be that big of a consideration. But then I'm not a nuclear scientist so I might be just talking out of my **** on the subject.
But the vision I think is obtainable just there are those too greedy to reach out and grab it... unless there's huge dollar signs indicating a big pay off at the end.

 

[elder999]

If safely inside a shielded ship I don't think radiation (any "known" type) should be that big of a consideration. But then I'm not a nuclear scientist so I might be just talking out of my **** on the subject. .

Well, yeah-that's what I was trying to say: our current ships aren't "safely shielded" for solar flares, and long-term stays on the moon would require more shielding-it's just going to be tough to do safely.It's not all hopeless, though-the interior of Shackleton crater is perpetually in shadow, so all they'd really have to worry about are those pesky cosmic rays-and maybe there is a cave.....

 

[MA-Caver]

Well, yeah-that's what I was trying to say: our current ships aren't "safely shielded" for solar flares, and long-term stays on the moon would require more shielding-it's just going to be tough to do safely.It's not all hopeless, though-the interior of Shackleton crater is perpetually in shadow, so all they'd really have to worry about are those pesky cosmic rays-and maybe there is a cave.....

:lol: stop trying to bait me will ya? :lol:
Well considering the (probable) geologic make up of the moon any portions of the rock (which essentially all it really is) that are hollow are breakage from asteroid impacts over the long centuries. By definition they'd be caves and probably inhabitable considering and a very good shield against those pesky rays. But as far as actual caves formed by hydrological means... no.
Clark's vision (followed up and expanded upon by others) did entail that a good portion of the moon base was underground, most likely because he realized that the moon was still getting pelted by floating space debris and didn't have an atmosphere to burn up the more smaller pieces.
I wonder if any of the Apollo moon landing missions ever had that problem or at least observed it during their stay?
Either way, the moon would be a far better place to begin deep space exploration since lifting off from lunar gravity is a lot easier.
It's the snail's pace that drives me nuts considering the progress of our push into space. By now the world has brighter and smarter minds than ever before, the computer can crunch data much faster now than the old crays and models can be computed out to help solve the potential problems that are likely to come up.
We really have no excuse IMO to move at the pace we're going at now.

 

[elder999]

We really have no excuse IMO to move at the pace we're going at now.

$$$$$$$$! :lol:

 

[elder999]

In all seriousness, we went from coal and oil to the atom in five years.

I've been saying-for my entire career, it seems-that we need a Manhattan Project for AIDS. That we need a "space race" for alternative, clean energy. I'm not so sure what's in it for us-other than "because it's there"-for space exploration, though I'll admit the potential should be tempting. In any case, there's not profit in coming up with cheaper, lighter shielding for radiation-yet. There's no profit in coming up with better long-distance propulsion systems-yet. And, of course, there's no incentive or potential profit: no velcro, tang, or other unforseen spinoff of the endeavor to generate profit. There's also no real incentive: the government and private industry are heavily invested in maintaining the status quo vis a vis energy production, pharmaceuticals, disease, etc., etc., etc. There's no military incentive for going beyond earth's orbit, either, so we'll just stay here until leaving becomes a viable and unavoidable option..........sorry.