Why we don't have a base on the Moon.

Post Reply New Topic

The eco-phreaks have done an excellent job of stopping or retarding the use of nuclear fission.

Fission and geothermal are good ways to go. Neither fouls up the atmosphere.

By the way if we increase the efficiency of already existing electric motors and lights by 30 percent (over its current efficiency) this would be the equivalent of find a brand new oil field the size of Texas.

ruveyn

Ever hear of Moore's Law? Technology increases at an exponential rate. 30% is negligible long-term. We should've gone to nuclear after WWII. Oil should already be obsolete for decades in favor of more efficient options, and instead we have politicians arguing over how much to invest in new fossil fuel technology. At this point, we should be pushing solar. It has by far the most potential to be the cleanest, cheapest and most efficient form of energy. I mean, just look how much of it there is, and we don't even have to create it or extract it or do anything besides collecting it. Unfortunately it will require the most research, so we're gonna get some BS like wind instead.

guess we had a subject change.

first , moon base,
We still think we need to take everything with us and the cost per lb/kg is outrageous. There is so much out there that we can use on other planets and moons such as liquid methane, hydrogen, metals, etc.

second, alternative energy
We have some crap stuff when it comes to solar cells, solar farms(mirror/thermal) are a little better.
Wind, hydro, and geothermal are better but still a little difficult to capture

My thoughts
I wonder how much more energy we could obtain from "hydro farms". Utilizing ocean currents with either fan type or turbines.

The problem with hydro farms in that manner is the major initial start up cost.

Too many in one area also completely destroys the ecosystem.

lighting, sure.

But, half of the Electric Grid's consumption is electric motor's over 100Hp.
i make that as a blanket statement, but because we've lost a lot of manufacturing it may not be true anymore. It was true for Kentucky a few years ago.
those motors are a minimum of 97% efficient.. there is no "30% efficiency" gains to be made.

Grid losses nationwide are 7%.
yeah, if you cut the losses 30% (by convincing business owners to think beyond next quarters profit) by switching to HVDC grids or high efficiency electric motors you can save a lot of "carbon" but its a Drop in the bucket as far as total energy consumption or total CO2 produced.
------------

we haven't gone back to the moon because there's nothing there. Its too far away to drag asteroids to, for purposes of mining.

So, the justification for not trying to develop solar energy technology is that our current technology is sh***y? Am I the only one who's getting this? Bottom line is that nuclear and solar energy have the most potential, by orders of magnitude. It's not even a close race. And of those two, when fully developed, solar energy will likely be much, much cheaper and more efficient. If we use lack of development as a reason not to pursue a new technology, we'll never get anything new

The inefficiency is mostly at the point of end use, not in transmission of electrical power.

We have inefficient street lighting. We are still using too many incandescent glow lamps.

ruveyn

The two are related.

We don't have a moon base because there is no economic gain to be realized. If the Net Present Value of your revenue stream is less than your capital cost, then there is no business case to be made. End of story.

So while one might suppose that there are energy sources on the moon that would permit its exploitation for profit, the reality is that there will be no significant energy sources--because there is no free carbon to fix, and no possibility of significant organic molecules with large quantities of retained energy. There might be valuable minerals of other types--but their retrieval is cost prohibitive without energy sources to make the establishment of a base feasible.

I was actually just thinking about this. As much as I dislike Newt Gingrich, the one thing that I can truly say I agree with him on, and respect him for, is his plan to build a base on the moon by 2020. Is it feasible? I couldn't say, but at least it is an idea that would dramatically increase our presence in space, and at the very least gets the dialog started. You really don't see any talk of space exploration nowadays. I think that not only is it due to the lack of immediate profit potential, as mentioned multiple times in this thread, but also due to public perception. I think a very significant portion of the general public sees it as "cooky" and a complete waste of resources. With all that space up there to explore...we better get started soon if we ever hope to see it all

Five days before a very tight race in Florida he promises Floridians an accelerated space program. Don't count on cashing that check. To get a moon base by 2020 would require a huge amount of additional money for NASA. And any hypothetical accelerated work schedule could not begin before 2014, when his first budget would kick in.... assuming Congress went along. They did not give Obama the increases he asked for.

Oh, so that's why he's promising the moon.

Let's start by sending Gingrich there, first!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

If you believe that there will be a US base operating on the moon by January 20, 2021, I have some property on the shores of the Sea of Tranquility that you might be interested in.

The USA is in no position to go space-exploring. The government might have to raise taxes on the rich, and you know that ain't gonna happen. Not in my lifetime.

If the Chinese get ambitious, they can go space-exploring.

Oh, no; not with the 40% of us paying no income tax who can be squeezed!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

That is still not enough to fund a manned space program. We to afford a manned space program we would have to cut back on our military spending. That is unlikely.

ruveyn