lunar contradictions...

[John Larkin]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/the-moon-is-open-for-business-and-entrepreneurs-are-racing-to-make-billions/ar-AA1eRmxh

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-space-radiation-threatens-lunar-exploration-180981415/

I think that NASA just wants to spend money.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 1:35:09 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/the-moon-is-open-for-business-and-entrepreneurs-are-racing-to-make-billions/ar-AA1eRmxh

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-space-radiation-threatens-lunar-exploration-180981415/

I think that NASA just wants to spend money.

Or maybe they\'ve hired people who are more imaginative than you are who see ways of making money that you aren\'t aware of.

The fuss about radiation at the surface of the moon is pretty strange. Anybody who has thought about moon colonies has seen them as buried under the surface.

A couple of feet of moon rock should stop anything worth worrying about. It won\'t do anything for neutrinos but they go straight through the earth anyway.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Martin Brown]

On 06/08/2023 16:34, John Larkin wrote:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/the-moon-is-open-for-business-and-entrepreneurs-are-racing-to-make-billions/ar-AA1eRmxh

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-space-radiation-threatens-lunar-exploration-180981415/

I think that NASA just wants to spend money.

I don\'t see a contradiction here. Both statements are more or less true
but viewed through different tinted glasses. The first sees all the
business opportunities \"First Starbucks on the moon\" that sort of thing.

Whilst the second focusses exclusively on the worst possible scenario.

The private enterprise will do it all view seems highly optimistic to
me. I\'m not convinced there are any worthwhile mineable resources on the
moon - its geology never really got that far to create big ore bodies.
Living on the moon the most valuable commodities for the foreseeable
future will be water and oxygen. Just surviving will be a challenge.

The Ucrete material I mentioned elsewhere recently was considered for
manufacturing lunar habitation from the regolith and now with 3D
printing technology it could probably be done piecemeal. ISTR The
original project envisioned building a mould and spray casting it.

There might be more useful approach of snaffling iron and precious
metals from passing iron meteorites for private enterprise but the
insurance issues could be serious if they plonk one onto a major city!

The life in space is potentially dangerous is also true but class X
flares that come our way are quite rare. I\'m not sure that their claims
of the lethality are even remotely true. A few people on Earth have
suffered insane neutron flux (and died eventually) but not immediately.

I suspect that space travellers will shorten their lives by doing it but
by months or years rather than being instantly killed in a radiation
storm (unless say Betelgeuse goes supernova and then all bets are off).

--
Martin Brown

 

[Ricky]

On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 5:18:27 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

On 06/08/2023 16:34, John Larkin wrote:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/the-moon-is-open-for-business-and-entrepreneurs-are-racing-to-make-billions/ar-AA1eRmxh

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-space-radiation-threatens-lunar-exploration-180981415/

I think that NASA just wants to spend money.
I don\'t see a contradiction here. Both statements are more or less true
but viewed through different tinted glasses. The first sees all the
business opportunities \"First Starbucks on the moon\" that sort of thing.

Whilst the second focusses exclusively on the worst possible scenario.

The private enterprise will do it all view seems highly optimistic to
me. I\'m not convinced there are any worthwhile mineable resources on the
moon - its geology never really got that far to create big ore bodies.
Living on the moon the most valuable commodities for the foreseeable
future will be water and oxygen. Just surviving will be a challenge.

The Ucrete material I mentioned elsewhere recently was considered for
manufacturing lunar habitation from the regolith and now with 3D
printing technology it could probably be done piecemeal. ISTR The
original project envisioned building a mould and spray casting it.

There might be more useful approach of snaffling iron and precious
metals from passing iron meteorites for private enterprise but the
insurance issues could be serious if they plonk one onto a major city!

The life in space is potentially dangerous is also true but class X
flares that come our way are quite rare. I\'m not sure that their claims
of the lethality are even remotely true. A few people on Earth have
suffered insane neutron flux (and died eventually) but not immediately.

I suspect that space travellers will shorten their lives by doing it but
by months or years rather than being instantly killed in a radiation
storm (unless say Betelgeuse goes supernova and then all bets are off).

No one\'s life will be shortened by a few months, very likely. This is a statistical measure, where some people die much sooner than their expected life span, and others are not affected at all. In addition, dying from many of the effects of radiation can be particularly gruesome. Not fun at all. Spend some time with someone dying from cancer. I did, and it was very gruesome indeed. The last couple of weeks, I could not even enter the room anymore. My uncle was gone, but the emaciated body was still heaving, trying to breath a bit of air into the lungs.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 10:18:18 +0100, Martin Brown
<\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/08/2023 16:34, John Larkin wrote:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/the-moon-is-open-for-business-and-entrepreneurs-are-racing-to-make-billions/ar-AA1eRmxh

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-space-radiation-threatens-lunar-exploration-180981415/

I think that NASA just wants to spend money.

I don\'t see a contradiction here. Both statements are more or less true
but viewed through different tinted glasses. The first sees all the
business opportunities \"First Starbucks on the moon\" that sort of thing.

Whilst the second focusses exclusively on the worst possible scenario.

The private enterprise will do it all view seems highly optimistic to
me. I\'m not convinced there are any worthwhile mineable resources on the
moon - its geology never really got that far to create big ore bodies.
Living on the moon the most valuable commodities for the foreseeable
future will be water and oxygen. Just surviving will be a challenge.

Yes. Survival is so unlikely as to be a suicide project.
Cost per death will be unprecidented. Wars are much cheaper.

The Ucrete material I mentioned elsewhere recently was considered for
manufacturing lunar habitation from the regolith and now with 3D
printing technology it could probably be done piecemeal. ISTR The
original project envisioned building a mould and spray casting it.

Sprayed moon dirt won\'t shield coamic rays. In fact, the
walls of their hovel will create more deadly secondaries
than the original cosmic rays.

There might be more useful approach of snaffling iron and precious
metals from passing iron meteorites for private enterprise but the
insurance issues could be serious if they plonk one onto a major city!

Transporting minerals from the moon back to Earth isn\'t
going to be economical. Not even gold or diamonds.

The life in space is potentially dangerous is also true but class X
flares that come our way are quite rare. I\'m not sure that their claims
of the lethality are even remotely true. A few people on Earth have
suffered insane neutron flux (and died eventually) but not immediately.

The normal level of radiation on the surface of the moon is
dangerous. And we can\'t predict flares.

I suspect that space travellers will shorten their lives by doing it but
by months or years rather than being instantly killed in a radiation
storm (unless say Betelgeuse goes supernova and then all bets are off).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_threat_from_cosmic_rays#Spacecraft_shielding

Men on the moon is just a way to spend money.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 11:35:09 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/the-moon-is-open-for-business-and-entrepreneurs-are-racing-to-make-billions/ar-AA1eRmxh

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-space-radiation-threatens-lunar-exploration-180981415/

I think that NASA just wants to spend money.

\"It is baking in the commercial sector as part of their plans,\"...says a \"teaching fellow at Harvard Business School who focuses on the space economy.\" That\'s one word for him. There are others.

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 8/7/2023 16:54, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 10:18:18 +0100, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/08/2023 16:34, John Larkin wrote:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/the-moon-is-open-for-business-and-entrepreneurs-are-racing-to-make-billions/ar-AA1eRmxh

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-space-radiation-threatens-lunar-exploration-180981415/

I think that NASA just wants to spend money.

I don\'t see a contradiction here. Both statements are more or less true
but viewed through different tinted glasses. The first sees all the
business opportunities \"First Starbucks on the moon\" that sort of thing.

Whilst the second focusses exclusively on the worst possible scenario.

The private enterprise will do it all view seems highly optimistic to
me. I\'m not convinced there are any worthwhile mineable resources on the
moon - its geology never really got that far to create big ore bodies.
Living on the moon the most valuable commodities for the foreseeable
future will be water and oxygen. Just surviving will be a challenge.


Yes. Survival is so unlikely as to be a suicide project.
Cost per death will be unprecidented. Wars are much cheaper.



The Ucrete material I mentioned elsewhere recently was considered for
manufacturing lunar habitation from the regolith and now with 3D
printing technology it could probably be done piecemeal. ISTR The
original project envisioned building a mould and spray casting it.

Sprayed moon dirt won\'t shield coamic rays. In fact, the
walls of their hovel will create more deadly secondaries
than the original cosmic rays.


There might be more useful approach of snaffling iron and precious
metals from passing iron meteorites for private enterprise but the
insurance issues could be serious if they plonk one onto a major city!

Transporting minerals from the moon back to Earth isn\'t
going to be economical. Not even gold or diamonds.



The life in space is potentially dangerous is also true but class X
flares that come our way are quite rare. I\'m not sure that their claims
of the lethality are even remotely true. A few people on Earth have
suffered insane neutron flux (and died eventually) but not immediately.


The normal level of radiation on the surface of the moon is
dangerous. And we can\'t predict flares.



I suspect that space travellers will shorten their lives by doing it but
by months or years rather than being instantly killed in a radiation
storm (unless say Betelgeuse goes supernova and then all bets are off).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_threat_from_cosmic_rays#Spacecraft_shielding

Men on the moon is just a way to spend money.

The point of space exploration at the stage we are is to learn how to do
it.
Putting together a few pieces of wood to make a raft must have been the
beginning of sea exploration; there must have been people saying
\"go feed the goats instead of toying with that wood\" back then.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:55:00 PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 10:18:18 +0100, Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 06/08/2023 16:34, John Larkin wrote:

<snip>

Living on the moon the most valuable commodities for the foreseeable
future will be water and oxygen. Just surviving will be a challenge.

Yes. Survival is so unlikely as to be a suicide project.

I know why John Larkin thinks that - he doesn\'t know how to design a lunar environment where people could survive, and he\'s much too vain to think than anybody else could do better.

> Cost per death will be unpreciedented. Wars are much cheaper.

But less constructive.

The Ucrete material I mentioned elsewhere recently was considered for
manufacturing lunar habitation from the regolith and now with 3D
printing technology it could probably be done piecemeal. ISTR The
original project envisioned building a mould and spray casting it.

Sprayed moon dirt won\'t shield coamic rays. In fact, the walls of their hovel will create more deadly secondaries than the original cosmic rays.

Cosmic rays aren\'t the major problem - that\'s less energetic, but more numerous partiicles from the solar photosphere.

And nobody is going to live in a sprayed hovel on the surface. Long term accommodation would be buried much deeper.

The hovels on the surface would house airlocks and short term transit accommodation.

There might be more useful approach of snaffling iron and precious
metals from passing iron meteorites for private enterprise but the
insurance issues could be serious if they plonk one onto a major city!

Transporting minerals from the moon back to Earth isn\'t
going to be economical. Not even gold or diamonds.

You wouldn\'t use rockets but rather electrically power launchers. The lunar escape velocity is 2.38 km sec, 4,567 mph .

It would be a tolerably long structure. People have worked it out.

<snip>

> The normal level of radiation on the surface of the moon is dangerous.

But you wouldn\'t live on the surface, but quite a way below it.

> And we can\'t predict flares.

But you can see them coming. The photons that tell you that a flare is coming travel quite lot faster than the charged particles that do the damage.

I suspect that space travellers will shorten their lives by doing it but
by months or years rather than being instantly killed in a radiation
storm (unless say Betelgeuse goes supernova and then all bets are off).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_threat_from_cosmic_rays#Spacecraft_shielding

Men on the moon is just a way to spend money.

This is all part of the \"government can\'t do anything right\" propaganda that American big business has been circulating since Sherman anti-trust legislation of 1890.

https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/big-myth-9781635573572/

I\'m reading it at the moment. Depressing, if informative.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Martin Brown]

On 08/08/2023 15:47, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:55:00 PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 10:18:18 +0100, Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 06/08/2023 16:34, John Larkin wrote:

snip

Living on the moon the most valuable commodities for the foreseeable
future will be water and oxygen. Just surviving will be a challenge.

Yes. Survival is so unlikely as to be a suicide project.

I know why John Larkin thinks that - he doesn\'t know how to design a lunar environment where people could survive, and he\'s much too vain to think than anybody else could do better.

I\'m not convinced that anybody has a viable solution yet that will work
reliably if you wanted to colonise the moon and not have to rely almost
entirely on food parcels being sent from Earth. Lunar days are just too
long - roughly one Earth month ~ 28 days.

The Ucrete material I mentioned elsewhere recently was considered for
manufacturing lunar habitation from the regolith and now with 3D
printing technology it could probably be done piecemeal. ISTR The
original project envisioned building a mould and spray casting it.

Sprayed moon dirt won\'t shield coamic rays. In fact, the walls of their hovel will create more deadly secondaries than the original cosmic rays.

Cosmic rays aren\'t the major problem - that\'s less energetic, but more numerous partiicles from the solar photosphere.

And nobody is going to live in a sprayed hovel on the surface. Long term accommodation would be buried much deeper.

We will have to wait and see. I expect them to dig some deeper survival
hovels into the lunar surface but most of the time live as near to the
surface and free sunlight for half the time as they can get away with.

> The hovels on the surface would house airlocks and short term transit accommodation.

I think you have that wrong. Most of the nice stuff will be near the
surface where it can get sunlight. It will still be tricky growing
plants since you need insanely big batteries for the 14 day lunar night!

There might be more useful approach of snaffling iron and precious
metals from passing iron meteorites for private enterprise but the
insurance issues could be serious if they plonk one onto a major city!

Transporting minerals from the moon back to Earth isn\'t
going to be economical. Not even gold or diamonds.

You wouldn\'t use rockets but rather electrically power launchers. The lunar escape velocity is 2.38 km sec, 4,567 mph .

You are assuming there that there are worthwhile ore bodies on the moon.
That is far from certain. Most of it looks like undifferentiated basalt
lava rock which is precious little use apart from for road metal.

It would be a tolerably long structure. People have worked it out.

snip

The normal level of radiation on the surface of the moon is dangerous.

But you wouldn\'t live on the surface, but quite a way below it.

It isn\'t anything like that dangerous. Life shortening yes but perfectly
survivable apart from during relatively brief solar storms. Even in
solar storms you could probably stay within the war time emergency dose.
(not great for the individual\'s long term future but still functioning)

And we can\'t predict flares.

But you can see them coming. The photons that tell you that a flare is coming travel quite lot faster than the charged particles that do the damage.

It is actually the CMEs in the direction of Earth/Moon that you need to
worry about but they are visible to the likes of SOHO hours before the
fast particles arrive at Earth so the lunatics could take shelter in
their deep underground troglodyte hovels for the duration.

Mars trips are even more of a problem since once you are en route there
is literally nowhere to hide if a CME comes in your direction.

I suspect that space travellers will shorten their lives by doing it but
by months or years rather than being instantly killed in a radiation
storm (unless say Betelgeuse goes supernova and then all bets are off).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_threat_from_cosmic_rays#Spacecraft_shielding

Men on the moon is just a way to spend money.

This is all part of the \"government can\'t do anything right\" propaganda that American big business has been circulating since Sherman anti-trust legislation of 1890.

https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/big-myth-9781635573572/

I\'m reading it at the moment. Depressing, if informative.

I suspect it will be either US private enterprise or the Chinese who
have the first moonbase rather than NASA. I think whoever gets there
next should visit one Apollo site (not 11 though) and bring back one of
the abandoned lunar Hasselblad cameras just to annoy the naysayers.

I have sat in one of the chairs of the orbital Hilton prop from 2001 A
Space Odyssey when it was at the Stanley Kubrick exhibition in London.
He got flat screen TV and tablets almost exactly spot on - but we are
nowhere near to routine lunar flights yet and two decades beyond when
that was set. The models used for that film are incredible to behold. AI
in the Hal class has also arrived with ChatGPT (even if it makes things
up). Hal wasn\'t exactly a paragon of virtue either...

Likewise his preoccupation with extremely fast near diffraction limited
optics for available light photography (and multiple wicked candles).

--
Martin Brown

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 17:48:57 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff
<dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote:

On 8/7/2023 16:54, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 10:18:18 +0100, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/08/2023 16:34, John Larkin wrote:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/the-moon-is-open-for-business-and-entrepreneurs-are-racing-to-make-billions/ar-AA1eRmxh

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-space-radiation-threatens-lunar-exploration-180981415/

I think that NASA just wants to spend money.

I don\'t see a contradiction here. Both statements are more or less true
but viewed through different tinted glasses. The first sees all the
business opportunities \"First Starbucks on the moon\" that sort of thing.

Whilst the second focusses exclusively on the worst possible scenario.

The private enterprise will do it all view seems highly optimistic to
me. I\'m not convinced there are any worthwhile mineable resources on the
moon - its geology never really got that far to create big ore bodies.
Living on the moon the most valuable commodities for the foreseeable
future will be water and oxygen. Just surviving will be a challenge.


Yes. Survival is so unlikely as to be a suicide project.
Cost per death will be unprecidented. Wars are much cheaper.



The Ucrete material I mentioned elsewhere recently was considered for
manufacturing lunar habitation from the regolith and now with 3D
printing technology it could probably be done piecemeal. ISTR The
original project envisioned building a mould and spray casting it.

Sprayed moon dirt won\'t shield coamic rays. In fact, the
walls of their hovel will create more deadly secondaries
than the original cosmic rays.


There might be more useful approach of snaffling iron and precious
metals from passing iron meteorites for private enterprise but the
insurance issues could be serious if they plonk one onto a major city!

Transporting minerals from the moon back to Earth isn\'t
going to be economical. Not even gold or diamonds.



The life in space is potentially dangerous is also true but class X
flares that come our way are quite rare. I\'m not sure that their claims
of the lethality are even remotely true. A few people on Earth have
suffered insane neutron flux (and died eventually) but not immediately.


The normal level of radiation on the surface of the moon is
dangerous. And we can\'t predict flares.



I suspect that space travellers will shorten their lives by doing it but
by months or years rather than being instantly killed in a radiation
storm (unless say Betelgeuse goes supernova and then all bets are off).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_threat_from_cosmic_rays#Spacecraft_shielding

Men on the moon is just a way to spend money.


The point of space exploration at the stage we are is to learn how to do
it.
Putting together a few pieces of wood to make a raft must have been the
beginning of sea exploration; there must have been people saying
\"go feed the goats instead of toying with that wood\" back then.

There were places to go to, over the seas. There was air and
water and stuff to eat.

Space is empty, with a few dry, lifeless rocks. Out there is
death.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 10:56:56 +0100, Martin Brown
<\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/08/2023 15:47, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:55:00?PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 10:18:18 +0100, Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 06/08/2023 16:34, John Larkin wrote:

snip

Living on the moon the most valuable commodities for the foreseeable
future will be water and oxygen. Just surviving will be a challenge.

Yes. Survival is so unlikely as to be a suicide project.

I know why John Larkin thinks that - he doesn\'t know how to design a lunar environment where people could survive, and he\'s much too vain to think than anybody else could do better.

I\'m not convinced that anybody has a viable solution yet that will work
reliably if you wanted to colonise the moon and not have to rely almost
entirely on food parcels being sent from Earth. Lunar days are just too
long - roughly one Earth month ~ 28 days.

The Ucrete material I mentioned elsewhere recently was considered for
manufacturing lunar habitation from the regolith and now with 3D
printing technology it could probably be done piecemeal. ISTR The
original project envisioned building a mould and spray casting it.

Sprayed moon dirt won\'t shield coamic rays. In fact, the walls of their hovel will create more deadly secondaries than the original cosmic rays.

Cosmic rays aren\'t the major problem - that\'s less energetic, but more numerous partiicles from the solar photosphere.

And nobody is going to live in a sprayed hovel on the surface. Long term accommodation would be buried much deeper.

We will have to wait and see. I expect them to dig some deeper survival
hovels into the lunar surface but most of the time live as near to the
surface and free sunlight for half the time as they can get away with.

Why not lock those people into caves on Earth?

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 12:24:38 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 17:48:57 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
On 8/7/2023 16:54, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 10:18:18 +0100, Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 06/08/2023 16:34, John Larkin wrote:

<snip>

> There were places to go to, over the seas. There was air and water and stuff to eat.

Not that anybody knew much about what life was like on the other side of the sea.

> Space is empty, with a few dry, lifeless rocks. Out there is death.

The satellites of Jupiter are decidedly damp. If you\'ve got false ideas about what is out there, you can see it as a good deal more deadly than it actually is.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 12:26:24 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 10:56:56 +0100, Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 08/08/2023 15:47, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:55:00?PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 10:18:18 +0100, Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 06/08/2023 16:34, John Larkin wrote:

<snip>

We will have to wait and see. I expect them to dig some deeper survival hovels into the lunar surface but most of the time live as near to the surface and free sunlight for half the time as they can get away with.

Why not lock those people into caves on Earth?

We need that space to lock people who willfully spread misinformation about subjects they don\'t understand, or don\'t want other people to understand correctly . We might call them education camps, though the real point would be to sanitise the internet. Oubliettes for people whose contributions need to be forgotten.

https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/big-myth-9781635573572/

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 10:56:56 +0100, Martin Brown
<\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

The hovels on the surface would house airlocks and short term transit accommodation.

I think you have that wrong. Most of the nice stuff will be near the
surface where it can get sunlight. It will still be tricky growing
plants since you need insanely big batteries for the 14 day lunar night!

What is the annual average soil temperature deep under the lunar
surface ? My guess is -18 C or the temperature Earth would have if
there were no atmosphere.

That is a bit too cold for agriculture, but allow in some extra heat
during lunar day and preventing too much to escape during night would
increase the average soil temperature sufficiently.

Red/blue LEDs do not consume very much power during the lunar night,
so no huge batteries needed for agriculture under the lunar surface.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:33:31 AM UTC+10, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 10:56:56 +0100, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

The hovels on the surface would house airlocks and short term transit accommodation.

I think you have that wrong. Most of the nice stuff will be near the
surface where it can get sunlight. It will still be tricky growing
plants since you need insanely big batteries for the 14 day lunar night!
What is the annual average soil temperature deep under the lunar
surface ? My guess is -18 C or the temperature Earth would have if
there were no atmosphere.

It\'s probably higher than that. The moon does have a molten core,and it is going to have the same sorts of level of radioactive isotopes that the earth does. and it\'s the heat that they generate that keeps the core hot enough for it to be liquid.

https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-calculate-the-moons-core-and-mantle-temperature/?expand_article=1

puts the temperature at the surface of the - rather small - molten core at between 1,300 and 1,470 degrees Celsius

> That is a bit too cold for agriculture, but allow in some extra heat during lunar day and preventing too much to escape during night would increase the average soil temperature sufficiently.

Or just dig a bit deeper.,

> Red/blue LEDs do not consume very much power during the lunar night, so no huge batteries needed for agriculture under the lunar surface.

Depends how much food you need to grow.

Of course if you dig in near the poles and put you solar panels on high towers, at the poles they can stay pointed at the sun al the way through the full rotation period, and you don\'t need batteries except when the earth gets in the way (and it never eclipses the sun for very long).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 2:57:05 AM UTC-7, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 08/08/2023 15:47, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

....

The hovels on the surface would house airlocks and short term transit accommodation.
I think you have that wrong. Most of the nice stuff will be near the
surface where it can get sunlight. It will still be tricky growing
plants since you need insanely big batteries for the 14 day lunar night!

Maybe not; polar locations, and raised solariums, can benefit from zero-darkness conditions.

Eclipses you can cover with modest battery sizes.

 

[server]

On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 22:00:54 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:33:31?AM UTC+10, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 10:56:56 +0100, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

The hovels on the surface would house airlocks and short term transit accommodation.

I think you have that wrong. Most of the nice stuff will be near the
surface where it can get sunlight. It will still be tricky growing
plants since you need insanely big batteries for the 14 day lunar night!
What is the annual average soil temperature deep under the lunar
surface ? My guess is -18 C or the temperature Earth would have if
there were no atmosphere.

According to Apollo project measurement the lunar surface temperature
was -20 C.

It\'s probably higher than that. The moon does have a molten core,and it is going to have the same sorts of level of radioactive isotopes that the earth does. and it\'s the heat that they generate that keeps the core hot enough for it to be liquid.

https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-calculate-the-moons-core-and-mantle-temperature/?expand_article=1

puts the temperature at the surface of the - rather small - molten core at between 1,300 and 1,470 degrees Celsius

Which suggest a temperature gradient of 1 C/km.

In some diamond mines in South Africa the gradient is about 10 C/km
and in Iceland even higher.

With lunar surface temperature of -20 C and assuming 10 C/km gradient,
you have to dig 2 km deep to reach 0 C soil temperature.

That is a bit too cold for agriculture, but allow in some extra heat during lunar day and preventing too much to escape during night would increase the average soil temperature sufficiently.

Or just dig a bit deeper.,

With only 1 C/km gradient, you would have to dig 20 km.

Red/blue LEDs do not consume very much power during the lunar night, so no huge batteries needed for agriculture under the lunar surface.

Depends how much food you need to grow.

Reduce the water, CO2, temperature and light during the night and the
growth can be stopped for the night and resumed during the day.

Of course if you dig in near the poles and put you solar panels on high towers, at the poles they can stay pointed at the sun al the way through the full rotation period, and you don\'t need batteries except when the earth gets in the way (and it never eclipses the sun for very long).

Install solar panels on the poles and use long power cables to deliver
power to colonies closer to the equator.

Alternatively use some nuclear power plants close to the colonies.

BTW, the Russian Lunahod rowers were pressurized and used RTGs heat
inside to keep the electronics alive during the night .

 

[Martin Brown]

On 10/08/2023 08:11, whit3rd wrote:

On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 2:57:05 AM UTC-7, Martin Brown wrote:
On 08/08/2023 15:47, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

...
The hovels on the surface would house airlocks and short term transit accommodation.
I think you have that wrong. Most of the nice stuff will be near the
surface where it can get sunlight. It will still be tricky growing
plants since you need insanely big batteries for the 14 day lunar night!

Maybe not; polar locations, and raised solariums, can benefit from zero-darkness conditions.

Polar craters are also where you might hope to find decent quantities of
water ice (and also CO2 ice for that matter).

Eclipses you can cover with modest battery sizes.

The main thing is that living on the moon will not be easy or even
worthwhile. Robotics today can do a much better job so there is no need
to risk lives in clumsy space suits to explore either the moon or Mars.

--
Martin Brown

 

[Phil Hobbs]

Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 10/08/2023 08:11, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 2:57:05 AM UTC-7, Martin Brown wrote:
On 08/08/2023 15:47, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

...
The hovels on the surface would house airlocks and short term transit accommodation.
I think you have that wrong. Most of the nice stuff will be near the
surface where it can get sunlight. It will still be tricky growing
plants since you need insanely big batteries for the 14 day lunar night!

Maybe not; polar locations, and raised solariums, can benefit from
zero-darkness conditions.

Polar craters are also where you might hope to find decent quantities of
water ice (and also CO2 ice for that matter).

Eclipses you can cover with modest battery sizes.

The main thing is that living on the moon will not be easy or even
worthwhile. Robotics today can do a much better job so there is no need
to risk lives in clumsy space suits to explore either the moon or Mars.

Depends on what your concept is. For natural resources, you can probably
get a whole lot more by working out how to mine landfills efficiently.

Using nuclear power to extract metals from sea water is another option.
There is enough dissolved uranium to last for zillions of years.

For culture and stories, a thousand tedious robots can’t replace one guy in
a pressure suit.

Space travel, like most of Big Science, is a cultural and not an economic
activity.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC /
Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:31:50 PM UTC+10, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 22:00:54 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:33:31?AM UTC+10, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 10:56:56 +0100, Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

What is the annual average soil temperature deep under the lunar
surface ? My guess is -18 C or the temperature Earth would have if
there were no atmosphere.
According to Apollo project measurement the lunar surface temperature
was -20 C.

It\'s probably higher than that. The moon does have a molten core,and it is going to have the same sorts of level of radioactive isotopes that the earth does. and it\'s the heat that they generate that keeps the core hot enough for it to be liquid.

https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-calculate-the-moons-core-and-mantle-temperature/?expand_article=1

puts the temperature at the surface of the - rather small - molten core at between 1,300 and 1,470 degrees Celsius
Which suggest a temperature gradient of 1 C/km.

In some diamond mines in South Africa the gradient is about 10 C/km and in Iceland even higher.

Iceland is the tip of a magna plume. The moon doesn\'t have them

> With lunar surface temperature of -20 C and assuming 10 C/km gradient, you have to dig 2 km deep to reach 0 C soil temperature.

But you wouldn\'t bother. You\'d just use some solar power to keep your tunnels warm.

That is a bit too cold for agriculture, but allow in some extra heat during lunar day and preventing too much to escape during night would increase the average soil temperature sufficiently.

Or just dig a bit deeper.,

With only 1 C/km gradient, you would have to dig 20 km.

But you might want to dig that deep just for radiation protection

Red/blue LEDs do not consume very much power during the lunar night, so no huge batteries needed for agriculture under the lunar surface.

Depends how much food you need to grow.

Reduce the water, CO2, temperature and light during the night and the growth can be stopped for the night and resumed during the day.

It can be slowed down. The plants have to stay alive.,

Of course if you dig in near the poles and put you solar panels on high towers, at the poles they can stay pointed at the sun all the way through the full rotation period, and you don\'t need batteries except when the earth gets in the way (and it never eclipses the sun for very long).

Install solar panels on the poles and use long power cables to deliver power to colonies closer to the equator.

Why bother?

> Alternatively use some nuclear power plants close to the colonies.

Launching the nuclear power plants from earth on rockets isn\'t going to be all that popular.

> BTW, the Russian Lunahod rovers were pressurized and used RTGs heat inside to keep the electronics alive during the night .

Sounds sensible, but mainly conservative. The Russian instrument literature was full of valve/tube circuits long after even India had gone solid-state..

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney