I was talking to a friend about this fuel discussion we are having when he stated that the movie ‘Gravity’ was a very accurate depiction of how earth orbit works. After I stopped laughing as saying ‘are you serious’ in a very high falsetto voice he suggested that I open a new thread on the topic. Personally, I think most people could care less despite the fact that I find the subject of space travel supremely fascinating.
How far have we sunk for a movie without a story to have such an exposure 
But that’s why I originally started this thread - many of us DO find the concept fascinating.
This is why I’m also for a Moon colony. 3 days to delivery also means three days to rescue and safety if something goes wrong. The human teams could have proper safety measures in place to allow them to hold out for a week if needed. A rescue mission to Mars would just be a shipment of body bags.
By prepping a Lunar colony, all sort of new development opportunities will become apparent. He3 is just one that we already know about. And with the probability of large lava tube caverns under the surface, we could also simplify the radiation shielding issues for inhabitants while providing a great laboratory environment for developing better shielding technologies for actual long range travel.
Take the politics out of things and we’ll be heading into space much more quickly. My sig on one of the space settlement blogs I frequent:
True space exploration will become a reality when the governments get out of it and corporate greed takes contol!
What they should do is change “Mars-One” to “Lunar-One”
Prove it is feasible to have a sustained habitat off-planet, but near enough to effect emergency response as Tim suggested.
If a Lunar colony fails, then a Mars one could not possibly succeed … but perhaps the lessons learned by applying the situation to the Moon, would then be extendable to Mars and beyond. Don’t waste the time on suspended-animation etc. Learn to survive, THEN learn how to travel the distance.
If I were 20 again… I might contemplate going to the Moon… but not to Mars… not with current technology.
[quote=176095:@Tim Jones]
Take the politics out of things and we’ll be heading into space much more quickly. My sig on one of the space settlement blogs I frequent:
True space exploration will become a reality when the governments get out of it and corporate greed takes contol!
[/quote]
If corporations get a whiff of a profit to be had we’ll end up with “Love Canal” on the moon or the equivalent of it in space where a complete disregard for safety in pursuit of corporate profits is highly likely.
Something in between pure gov’t and pure corporate greed maybe ?
[quote=176098:@Dave S]What they should do is change “Mars-One” to “Lunar-One”
Prove it is feasible to have a sustained habitat off-planet, but near enough to effect emergency response as Tim suggested.
If a Lunar colony fails, then a Mars one could not possibly succeed … but perhaps the lessons learned by applying the situation to the Moon, would then be extendable to Mars and beyond. Don’t waste the time on suspended-animation etc. Learn to survive, THEN learn how to travel the distance.
If I were 20 again… I might contemplate going to the Moon… but not to Mars… not with current technology.[/quote]
+1
Go to the moon. Show its possible to live off world and use that as a stepping stone.
We can barely keep the ISS supplied - there’s no way a Mars mission is anything but a fancy suicide mission.
68 days doesn’t let you prove anything works as expected for the long term that’s needed.
That is partially what happens with SpaceX. Problem is Elon Musk must have taken too much of his favorite substance, and after barely succeeding in orbit, he got grandiose and now wants to go to Mars.
Meade Lewis is right. There is nothing of value on the moon, neither is there on Mars BTW. For corporate greed to power a venture it needs to have returns. Earth orbit is profitable because it is useful. Mainly communication satellites, some imagery, meteorological data/crops/industrial intelligence, all that is highly valuable. On the military side that powers so well the industry with tons of taxpayer money, use the same technology for surveillance and big ears.
The Moon and Mars unfortunately require completely bottomless money with no possible return. For the time being it looks like only very big countries will be able to afford that. Europe is going through motions. The US has other concerns. Maybe China…It is not exactly Star Trek philosophy, but history has seen stranger turns…
[quote=176109:@Michel Bujardet]That is partially what happens with SpaceX. Problem is Elon Musk must have taken too much of his favorite substance, and after barely succeeding in orbit, he got grandiose and now wants to go to Mars.
Meade Lewis is right. There is nothing of value on the moon, neither is there on Mars BTW. For corporate greed to power a venture it needs to have returns. Earth orbit is profitable because it is useful. Mainly communication satellites, some imagery, meteorological data/crops/industrial intelligence, all that is highly valuable. On the military side that powers so well the industry with tons of taxpayer money, use the same technology for surveillance and big ears.
The Moon and Mars unfortunately require completely bottomless money with no possible return. For the time being it looks like only very big countries will be able to afford that. Europe is going through motions. The US has other concerns. Maybe China…It is not exactly Star Trek philosophy, but history has seen stranger turns…[/quote]
The only reason why we got into the original Space Race was to shove it to Russia and the rest of the world. There were financial benefits for any company who helped as the .gov would fund you endlessly with their post Vietnam money. Now, the .gov has no money, near-by space is barren and has no fiscal benefit for any party to get involved (.gov or corporate). The only people who would be interested in such a venture is the dreamers and the sociopaths who have grandiose, misrepresented visions of themselves. Sad, yes. Blunt, perhaps. It is very true though.
There are some weird exceptions to this. Telecommunication companies could benefit with satellites, military could benefit with geolocation satellites and near-orbit based weaponry, and Green Energy companies that dabble in solar could benefit from solar research outside of the atmosphere, but notice the common factor… All of these are “close” to earth.
Space is too vast and ever expanding, so it continuously becomes even less feasible to try to go to space for profit. Until there is a profit to be earned or a necessity based reason, we are not going outside of earths gravitational pull.
September 12, 1962
I watched this… I was 6 years old at the time
Water for California 
Mine a few asteroids / comets that are mostly water & plop them in the middle of the central valley in CA
Of course that assumes that this is less costly than just invading Canada to pipe all of the Fraser, McKenzie & Columbia rivers down south (optimistic aint I?)
Or that we eventually get our collective poop in a scoop & do “something” about global warming & weather patterns there return to historical norms (HA !!!)
[quote=176123:@Dave S]September 12, 1962
I watched this… I was 6 years old at the time[/quote]
He left out “To stick it to the Russians since they beat us into Earth orbit”
Great speech though
[quote=176128:@Norman Palardy]He left out “To stick it to the Russians since they beat us into Earth orbit”
Great speech though[/quote]
That was in the sublimial sub-text… even at 6 years old I got that 
What was never answered was… .Why DOES Rice play Texas?
And are you a “Historical” Norm? 
I could never figure out why grains & states played whatever that game is.
I mean next you’ll tell me that your army & navy fight each other from time to time or other silly stuff
Am I a historical norm - or THE historical norm
[quote=176126:@Norman Palardy]Water for California
Mine a few asteroids / comets that are mostly water & plop them in the middle of the central valley in CA
Of course that assumes that this is less costly than just invading Canada to pipe all of the Fraser, McKenzie & Columbia rivers down south (optimistic aint I?)
Or that we eventually get our collective poop in a scoop & do “something” about global warming & weather patterns there return to historical norms (HA !!!)[/quote]
I’m sure the market will find a solution, perhaps buying up all the Canadian low IBU beers you make up there and piping them down here for HOPS RE-EDUCATION
Down here in the land of HOPS CIVIL WAR, we have decided to trade our water for quality beer, so I’ve just sampled one of these: http://beerstreetjournal.com/stone-chai-spiced-imperial-russian-stout/
(Actually not that hoppy, but tasty!)