Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon

[Robert Clark]

Actually we could start building it as soon as the Falcon Heavy becomes
operational:

NASA scientists say we could colonise the Moon by 2022... for just $10
billion.
What are we waiting for?
http://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-scientists-say-we-could-colonise-the-moon-by-2022-for-just-10-billion

SpaceX designed the Dragon V2 to be able to do Moon missions so don't need
the expensive Orion capsule.
And the Falcon Heavy especially with Merlin upgrades can do 100+ tons to LEO
in two launches, sufficient for a manned
lunar flight, so we don't need the expensive SLS.

An unmanned test flight could even be done to test the capabilities of the
Falcon Heavy on its first test flight, this or next
year.

Falcon Heavy to the Moon!

Bob Clark



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:

Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"bob haller" wrote in message
news:565da13d-c2b2-4b56...@googlegroups.com...

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 1:02:54 PM UTC-4, dump...@hotmail.com wrote:
> "The European Space Agency recently announced plans for an international
> moon
> base. The agency believes they could start building the complex in 20
> years, with
> different countries focusing on their areas of expertise."
>
> See:
>
> http://www.techinsider.io/esa-international-moon-base-european-space-agency-2016-3

elon musk will have a mars base way before that.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgrego...@gmspambloackail.com> wrote:
> Actually we could start building it as soon as the Falcon Heavy becomes
> operational:
>
> NASA scientists say we could colonise the Moon by 2022... for just $10
> billion.
> What are we waiting for?

$10 billion without a better purpose?

Some rational reason to "colonise" the moon, which will never happen
as no Moon colony could ever be self supporting.



--
Jim Pennino

[Doc O'Leary]

For your reference, records indicate that

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgrego...@gmspambloackail.com> wrote:
> > Actually we could start building it as soon as the Falcon Heavy becomes
> > operational:
> >
> > NASA scientists say we could colonise the Moon by 2022... for just $10
> > billion.
> > What are we waiting for?
>
> $10 billion without a better purpose?

Some might argue that blowing up shit in the Middle East is not a
better purpose. A more pointed question would be whether or not that
budget and timeline is actually accurate, or if it won’t be more like
$200 billion spent and a wait until 2035.

> Some rational reason to "colonise" the moon, which will never happen
> as no Moon colony could ever be self supporting.

History has shown a pretty big halo effect for such projects, so I
would expect quite a bit of indirect economic value in new Moon and
Mars missions. But I would agree that NASA would do well to make a
more direct case for why a Moon colony would be a valuable resource
to have.

--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

All historical colonizations have been to places with air, water, and
growing things where one could be dropped nude and survive.

Survival on the Moon or Mars for more than a few minutes requires state
of the art technology and constant resupply.

The closest thing in history is Antarctica, where there are no colonies
but only research stations.

I'm all for sending swarms of robots throughout the solar system, but
sending people is a waste of resources.


--
Jim Pennino

[Jack Ryan]

In article <1poatc-...@mail.specsol.com>

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
> In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> > For your reference, records indicate that
> > ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >
> >> In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgrego...@gmspambloackail.com> wrote:
> >> > Actually we could start building it as soon as the Falcon Heavy becomes
> >> > operational:
> >> >
> >> > NASA scientists say we could colonise the Moon by 2022... for just $10
> >> > billion.
> >> > What are we waiting for?
> >>
> >> $10 billion without a better purpose?
> >
> > Some might argue that blowing up shit in the Middle East is not a
> > better purpose. A more pointed question would be whether or not that
> > budget and timeline is actually accurate, or if it won’t be more like
> > $200 billion spent and a wait until 2035.
> >
> >> Some rational reason to "colonise" the moon, which will never happen
> >> as no Moon colony could ever be self supporting.
> >
> > History has shown a pretty big halo effect for such projects, so I
> > would expect quite a bit of indirect economic value in new Moon and
> > Mars missions. But I would agree that NASA would do well to make a
> > more direct case for why a Moon colony would be a valuable resource
> > to have.
>
> All historical colonizations have been to places with air, water, and

> growing things where one could be dropped nude and survive. ....

Iceland? Greenland? Northern Newfundland?

Hell, for much of Europe surviving after being dropped nude in the
Winter is not likely.

If the Pilgrims had landed at Plymouth bare assed in the Winter
they would probably not have survived long.

You might want to amend your statement about all historical
colonies.

[Doc O'Leary]

For your reference, records indicate that
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> All historical colonizations have been to places with air, water, and
> growing things where one could be dropped nude and survive.

I was referring to *all* projects that surround colonization, especially
the exploration efforts. Advanced tech that gets developed for any moon
shot (literal or figurative) tends to benefit everyone.

> Survival on the Moon or Mars for more than a few minutes requires state
> of the art technology and constant resupply.

Only if you planned your project poorly. The smarter way to proceed
would be to examine what natural resources are available for use at
your destination, and figure out new ways to get anything else you
need, or to produce it on-site.

> The closest thing in history is Antarctica, where there are no colonies
> but only research stations.

Because the mission there is not about setting up a sustainable colony.
There are closer analogs for such habitats, such as the closed-system
Biosphere 2.

> I'm all for sending swarms of robots throughout the solar system, but
> sending people is a waste of resources.

Sending people without a *plan* is definitely a waste. I, too, would
expect to see robots sent to the Moon to build a structure long before
any human colony would get sent there to live in it. Until that sort
of thing happens, I can only laugh at the idea of a Moon base by 2022
for only $10 billion.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Jack Ryan <mixm...@remailer.cpunk.us> wrote:
> In article <1poatc-...@mail.specsol.com>
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>> In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>> > For your reference, records indicate that
>> > ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgrego...@gmspambloackail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Actually we could start building it as soon as the Falcon Heavy becomes
>> >> > operational:
>> >> >
>> >> > NASA scientists say we could colonise the Moon by 2022... for just $10
>> >> > billion.
>> >> > What are we waiting for?
>> >>
>> >> $10 billion without a better purpose?
>> >
>> > Some might argue that blowing up shit in the Middle East is not a
>> > better purpose. A more pointed question would be whether or not that

>> > budget and timeline is actually accurate, or if it won?t be more like

>> > $200 billion spent and a wait until 2035.
>> >
>> >> Some rational reason to "colonise" the moon, which will never happen
>> >> as no Moon colony could ever be self supporting.
>> >
>> > History has shown a pretty big halo effect for such projects, so I
>> > would expect quite a bit of indirect economic value in new Moon and
>> > Mars missions. But I would agree that NASA would do well to make a
>> > more direct case for why a Moon colony would be a valuable resource
>> > to have.
>>
>> All historical colonizations have been to places with air, water, and
>> growing things where one could be dropped nude and survive. ....
>
> Iceland? Greenland? Northern Newfundland?
>
> Hell, for much of Europe surviving after being dropped nude in the
> Winter is not likely.
>
> If the Pilgrims had landed at Plymouth bare assed in the Winter
> they would probably not have survived long.
>
> You might want to amend your statement about all historical
> colonies.

OK, dropped in with nothing more than a heavy winter coat.

No successful colony in history required anything beyond 10th Century
technology to survive.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:

> For your reference, records indicate that
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> All historical colonizations have been to places with air, water, and
>> growing things where one could be dropped nude and survive.
>
> I was referring to *all* projects that surround colonization, especially
> the exploration efforts. Advanced tech that gets developed for any moon
> shot (literal or figurative) tends to benefit everyone.

There is a big difference between a colony and a research station.

Antarctica has lots of research stations but no colonies.

>> Survival on the Moon or Mars for more than a few minutes requires state
>> of the art technology and constant resupply.
>
> Only if you planned your project poorly. The smarter way to proceed
> would be to examine what natural resources are available for use at
> your destination, and figure out new ways to get anything else you
> need, or to produce it on-site.

There are essentially zero natural resources available anywhere else
in the solar system and what few natural resources there are are only
available with complex technology.

>> The closest thing in history is Antarctica, where there are no colonies
>> but only research stations.
>
> Because the mission there is not about setting up a sustainable colony.
> There are closer analogs for such habitats, such as the closed-system
> Biosphere 2.

Irrelevant arm waving.

colony:

A group of people who leave their native country to form in a new land a
settlement subject to, or connected with, the parent nation.

settlement:

The act of making stable or putting on a permanent basis.

It also implies things like families and being self sustaining.

>> I'm all for sending swarms of robots throughout the solar system, but
>> sending people is a waste of resources.
>
> Sending people without a *plan* is definitely a waste. I, too, would
> expect to see robots sent to the Moon to build a structure long before
> any human colony would get sent there to live in it. Until that sort
> of thing happens, I can only laugh at the idea of a Moon base by 2022
> for only $10 billion.

Or in other words, it won't happen until we have Star Trek level technology.


--
Jim Pennino

[Sergio]

On 4/5/2016 6:14 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>>>> All historical colonizations have been to places with air, water, and
>>>> growing things where one could be dropped nude and survive. ....
>>>
>
>>
>

> Bullshit. Lots of colonies in the New World succeeded only by the
> skin of their teeth and lots of them failed and they all had the best
> technology available at the time.
>


silly boy,

the moon and mar have NO AIR, NO WATER, NO FOOD, NOTHING but sand and
rocks, and high radiation.

[Sergio]

On 4/5/2016 2:09 PM, benj wrote:

we are there, your salt shaker is a stun gun, just pretend it.


>
> Hey a moon colony is no problem. The settlers can always sustain their
> settlement by trading beads with the alien basses there. It's a PLAN
> that worked the last time! HVAC will explain the details of the plan.
>
>

good idea, give them alien suckers some beads for Manhatten on the moon.
(I think instead of hands they have suckers).

I think the aliens on the moon are giant Moon Mice because of the cheese.

OR Amazon Women on the moon, or Catwomen of the Moon, Woman in the moon,
or teenage Moon Zombies, there is a movie already out on what happened.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Colonies with insufficient support from 'back home' tended to
> disappear. You talk like all colonization attempts are easily
> successful. There are enough failed colonies to prove that to be
> bullshit.

I never said anything like that.

However, support from 'back home' wasn't oxygen, food, water, and
repair parts for high tech equipment.

For the most part it was luxury items such as good china before such
manufacturing could be established in the colonies.

In return the colonies, depending on where they were, sent back things
like spices, precious metals, furs, and timber.

There is nothing off the Earth so valuable it would be worth the
shipping cost in fuel to send it back to Earth.

>>No successful colony in history required anything beyond 10th Century
>>technology to survive.
>>
>

> Bullshit. Lots of colonies in the New World succeeded only by the
> skin of their teeth and lots of them failed and they all had the best
> technology available at the time.

And that technology, except for a very few things like muskets, dates
back to at least the 10th Century.

And, BTW, the indigious populations where most colonies where established
were surviving just fine on Stone Age technology long before the Europeans
appeared.



--
Jim Pennino

[Greg Goss]

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>No successful colony in history required anything beyond 10th Century
>technology to survive.

Try reading "Collapse" some time. Greenland, f'rex. A fair number of
the Pacific islands.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Greg Goss]

Sergio <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:

>good idea, give them alien suckers some beads for Manhatten on the moon.
>(I think instead of hands they have suckers).

Supposedly they bought Manhattan from the wrong natives. Mainlanders
who were visiting the island. "Sure, you can buy this island from us.
Show us the wampum."

Who were suckered?

[Robert Clark]

Some experiments suggest we might be able to grow food on Mars if we add the
organics commonly found in Earth soils:

Scientists just grew vegetables in ‘Martian’ soil — but there’s a catch.
By Rachel Feltman March 9
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/03/09/scientists-just-grew-vegetables-in-martian-soil-but-theres-a-catch/

But Mars Curiosity, finally, has shown Mars soils do contain organics.
Then we may be able to produce the needed organics from those already there.

Bob Clark


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:

Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

wrote in message news:nq1etc-...@mail.specsol.com...

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgrego...@gmspambloackail.com> wrote:
>
> Some experiments suggest we might be able to grow food on Mars if we add the
> organics commonly found in Earth soils:

And nitrogen for the air, nitrates for the soil and water and put them
under a heated pressure dome.

As long as they are plants that don't require a lot of sunlight, in which
case you have to add grow lights.

Don't forget the pumps to keep the dome pressurized and the huge power
source for the pumps and possible grow lights.

Of course, you will need most of that stuff anyway, except for the nitrogen
and nitrates, to keep humans alive.

--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>No successful colony in history required anything beyond 10th Century
>>technology to survive.
>
> Try reading "Collapse" some time. Greenland, f'rex. A fair number of
> the Pacific islands.

Greenland has been populated to varying degrees for over 4,000 years.

All but the smallest Pacific islands were populated by people with Stone
Age technology.


--
Jim Pennino

[Greg Goss]

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>No successful colony in history required anything beyond 10th Century
>>>technology to survive.
>>
>> Try reading "Collapse" some time. Greenland, f'rex. A fair number of
>> the Pacific islands.
>
>Greenland has been populated to varying degrees for over 4,000 years.

But the Viking colony failed.

>All but the smallest Pacific islands were populated by people with Stone
>Age technology.

And a fair number of those colonies failed.

[Doc O'Leary]

For your reference, records indicate that
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> No successful colony in history required anything beyond 10th Century
> technology to survive.

Because that’s just the nature of how time works. In a future where
humanity is looking to colonize planets around other stars, some yahoo
like you will likely crawl out of the woodwork and say something like
“No successful planetary colony in history required anything beyond
22nd Century technology to survive.”

--

[Doc O'Leary]

For your reference, records indicate that
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> > For your reference, records indicate that
> > ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >
> >> All historical colonizations have been to places with air, water, and
> >> growing things where one could be dropped nude and survive.
> >
> > I was referring to *all* projects that surround colonization, especially
> > the exploration efforts. Advanced tech that gets developed for any moon
> > shot (literal or figurative) tends to benefit everyone.
>
> There is a big difference between a colony and a research station.
>
> Antarctica has lots of research stations but no colonies.

I just pointed that out in the message you’re replying to. Your claim
is that it is irrelevant!

> There are essentially zero natural resources available anywhere else
> in the solar system and what few natural resources there are are only
> available with complex technology.

Just because *you* don’t know how to make use of the available resources
doesn’t mean they don’t exist and doesn’t mean they have no value. Is
it going to be a greater challenge than Earth life living on Earth? Of
course. Doesn’t mean we can’t come up with a nice boot-strappy plan to
make it work. By “we”, of course, I clearly don’t mean you.

> >> I'm all for sending swarms of robots throughout the solar system, but
> >> sending people is a waste of resources.
> >
> > Sending people without a *plan* is definitely a waste. I, too, would
> > expect to see robots sent to the Moon to build a structure long before
> > any human colony would get sent there to live in it. Until that sort
> > of thing happens, I can only laugh at the idea of a Moon base by 2022
> > for only $10 billion.
>
> Or in other words, it won't happen until we have Star Trek level technology.

I don’t expect the ability to turn Moon rocks into Moon huts is going to
be that advanced. It *is* likely farther off that 2022, though.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>No successful colony in history required anything beyond 10th Century
>>>>technology to survive.
>>>
>>> Try reading "Collapse" some time. Greenland, f'rex. A fair number of
>>> the Pacific islands.
>>
>>Greenland has been populated to varying degrees for over 4,000 years.
>
> But the Viking colony failed.

Which one over the over 4,000 years of habitation?

>>All but the smallest Pacific islands were populated by people with Stone
>>Age technology.
>
> And a fair number of those colonies failed.

No colony on Earth ever failed for lack of oxygen.

Very few failed for lack of water.

A fair number in less warm climates failed for lack of storing food for
the winter.

A few failed due to hostile indigenous people.

All this is irrelevant.

Attempting to compare any colony on the Earth to a colony off the Earth
is starry eyed nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:

> For your reference, records indicate that
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> No successful colony in history required anything beyond 10th Century
>> technology to survive.
>

> Because thats just the nature of how time works. In a future where

> humanity is looking to colonize planets around other stars, some yahoo
> like you will likely crawl out of the woodwork and say something like
> No successful planetary colony in history required anything beyond
> 22nd Century technology to survive.”

If Star Trek technology were available, then off Earth colonization
would be possible, but Star Trek technology doesn't exist.

And if Star Trek technology did exist, people wouldn't bother attempting
to colonize airless, barren rocks.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>> > For your reference, records indicate that
>> > ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> All historical colonizations have been to places with air, water, and
>> >> growing things where one could be dropped nude and survive.
>> >
>> > I was referring to *all* projects that surround colonization, especially
>> > the exploration efforts. Advanced tech that gets developed for any moon
>> > shot (literal or figurative) tends to benefit everyone.
>>
>> There is a big difference between a colony and a research station.
>>
>> Antarctica has lots of research stations but no colonies.
>

> I just pointed that out in the message youre replying to. Your claim

> is that it is irrelevant!

As Antarctica has never had any colonies, Antarctica is irrelevant to
a discussion of colonies.

>
>> There are essentially zero natural resources available anywhere else
>> in the solar system and what few natural resources there are are only
>> available with complex technology.
>

> Just because *you* dont know how to make use of the available resources
> doesnt mean they dont exist and doesnt mean they have no value. Is

> it going to be a greater challenge than Earth life living on Earth? Of

> course. Doesnt mean we can come up with a nice boot-strappy plan to
> make it work. Bywe of course, I clearly dont mean you.

So just what are the natural resources available on Mars?

There are no forests, no lakes, no rivers, no life and no air.

I would say the odds of finding limestone deposits to make cement
highly unlikely. You do know limestone is organically created, don't
you?

You may find bauxite or iron ore, but unless it is really close to
where you set up your colony, you would have no way to transport it.

If you setup your colony next to some ore deposit, you need a refinary
and power for it, which could only come from a fair sized reactor.

You need a lot of raw material and the ability to process it into
something usefull to build the domed and pressurized buildings
required to survive and do anything.

You will be lacking just about all usefull chemicals as most of
them come from petroleum, so no plastics.

>> >> I'm all for sending swarms of robots throughout the solar system, but
>> >> sending people is a waste of resources.
>> >
>> > Sending people without a *plan* is definitely a waste. I, too, would
>> > expect to see robots sent to the Moon to build a structure long before
>> > any human colony would get sent there to live in it. Until that sort
>> > of thing happens, I can only laugh at the idea of a Moon base by 2022
>> > for only $10 billion.
>>
>> Or in other words, it won't happen until we have Star Trek level technology.
>

> I dont expect the ability to turn Moon rocks into Moon huts is going to

> be that advanced. It *is* likely farther off that 2022, though.

You miss the point, it would take Star Trek technology to make it affordable.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics benj <no...@gmail.com> wrote:

> jimp, everyone here believes Star Trek technology is real!

It seems so as well as Star Trek economics where everything is free.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>

>>I would say the odds of finding limestone deposits to make cement
>>highly unlikely. You do know limestone is organically created, don't
>>you?
>>
>

> You do know that we can make concrete and cement out of lunar rock,
> don't you?

Sure, one can make concrete out of just about anything. It is making
the cement that is the problem, which requires limestone.

>>You may find bauxite or iron ore, but unless it is really close to
>>where you set up your colony, you would have no way to transport it.
>>
>

> This is presumably because the colony was planned by you and you
> didn't allow any supplies but stone axes and bear skins.

That is both childish and stupid.

Care to detail how you would transport raw ore over just a hundred
miles on Mars and what would power that transport?

>>If you setup your colony next to some ore deposit, you need a refinary
>>and power for it, which could only come from a fair sized reactor.
>>
>

> Certainly one way to do it (and probably easiest for the initial
> colony), but long term production of power isn't that hard.

Really, where do you propose to get that power?

Certainly not from solar power as the solar irradiance on the surface
of Mars is less than 100 W/m^2.

Certainly not from wind power as the atmosphere is so thin there
is no energy to speak of in the wind, no matter what you saw in
"The Martian".

>>You need a lot of raw material and the ability to process it into
>>something usefull to build the domed and pressurized buildings
>>required to survive and do anything.
>>
>

> You need to be able to dig a hole.

Dig it with what and then what do you do with it?

Line it and cover it with something shipped from Earth in pieces
at huge expense?

>>You will be lacking just about all usefull chemicals as most of
>>them come from petroleum, so no plastics.
>>
>

> Jimp, you just make them a different way. Unlikely on the Moon, but
> not difficult at all on Mars. Educate yourself. People have examined
> all your 'impossible' problems and there are solutions to all of them.

No, not difficult at all on Mars for someone that isn't going to be
doing it or paying for it.

The issue is not whether or not it is theoretically possible to do
something on Mars, the issue is that doing anything on Mars, including
gettting there in the first place is horrendously expensive.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>

> You're posting to 'sci' groups, Chimp. Handwavium and bullshit are
> not the currency here.

So you agree that actually doing all those theoretically possible things
on Mars are far too expensive to actually happen?


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> So you just make shit up and pretend people have agreed to it? How
> intellectually dishonest of you!

Have you ever responded with anything other than bile and name calling
to posts you don't agree with?

How about YOUR outline to colonize Mars, what it would cost, and how it
would be financed.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I would say the odds of finding limestone deposits to make cement
>>>>highly unlikely. You do know limestone is organically created, don't
>>>>you?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You do know that we can make concrete and cement out of lunar rock,
>>> don't you?
>>
>>Sure, one can make concrete out of just about anything. It is making
>>the cement that is the problem, which requires limestone.
>>
>

> You need to research before you run your mouth. They actually tested
> the suitability of lunar rocks for making construction materials and
> they could do everything they needed to do. We use limestone as the
> calcium source here on Earth because it's easily gotten, but a lack of
> limestone really doesn't mean shit as long as you have rocks with
> calcium in them.

Are there extensive calcium deposits on the Moon?

>>>>You may find bauxite or iron ore, but unless it is really close to
>>>>where you set up your colony, you would have no way to transport it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is presumably because the colony was planned by you and you
>>> didn't allow any supplies but stone axes and bear skins.
>>>
>>
>>That is both childish and stupid.
>>
>

> Oh, look whose talking, Mr "They all believe Star Trek science and
> economics are real" who does nothing but wave hands and make strawman
> arguments.

Like pointing out facts?

>>Care to detail how you would transport raw ore over just a hundred
>>miles on Mars and what would power that transport?
>>
>

> Truck. Hydrogen works. Yes, you have to plan on needing the truck.
> You could crush and smelt to rough ingots (solar furnace works for
> that) to lower the volume you need to drag to your factory.

Where do you get the hydrogen and what do you do with it then?

> Yes, that's not how we do it here on Earth, but we're not talking
> about here on Earth anymore.

Right, we are talking about a place with zero infrastructure, a thin
atmosphere that is 95% CO2, and easily obtainable source of either
oxygen or water.

>>>>If you setup your colony next to some ore deposit, you need a refinary
>>>>and power for it, which could only come from a fair sized reactor.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Certainly one way to do it (and probably easiest for the initial
>>> colony), but long term production of power isn't that hard.
>>>
>>
>>Really, where do you propose to get that power?
>>
>

> The same place all power comes from; the Sun. Crack water to get
> hydrogen if you need a portable power source, take a bunch of small
> reactors, RTGs, or whatever with you (along with a couple of big
> reactors to get you started).

With a solar irradiance of less than 100 W/m^2 you are going to get
very little power from solar sources unless your array is measured
in kilometers.

There is no known readily available source of water to crack.

If you get the water somehow, you need to store both the hydrogen
and the oxygen.

Sure, all of this is theoretically posible.

The current cost to build a reactor on Earth is about $9 billion.

So what is the total cost to haul a reactor in pieces along with all
the needed to put it together on Mars?

What is the tranportation cost for the kilometers of solar panels?

What is the tranportation cost for the machinery to dig out the ice
we THINK is buried beneath the surface?

What is the tranportation cost for the machinery crack water?

The point is that all this crap is just too expensive for it to ever
happen.

> Go read the Mars Reference Mission, Chimp.

Which is to establish a research station, not a colony.

>>
>>Certainly not from solar power as the solar irradiance on the surface
>>of Mars is less than 100 W/m^2.
>>
>

> Check your math. Your number is wrong.

Not my math, The Univerity of Colorado's math.

That was an average number adjusting for the presence of haze in the
atmosphere.

>>
>>Certainly not from wind power as the atmosphere is so thin there
>>is no energy to speak of in the wind, no matter what you saw in
>>"The Martian".
>>
>

> Wrong again. Once again, please educate yourself on the issues before
> flapping your arms and squawking. Again, let me help.
>
> http://www.marspapers.org/papers/MAR98058.pdf

It appears that this paper pretty much agrees with what I said.

>>>>You need a lot of raw material and the ability to process it into
>>>>something usefull to build the domed and pressurized buildings
>>>>required to survive and do anything.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You need to be able to dig a hole.
>>>
>>
>>Dig it with what and then what do you do with it?
>>
>

> Dig it with tools (they're this marvelous thing we've invented since
> you looked at colonization of anywhere) and then seal it up and live
> in it.

How much to transport all those tools to Mars?

Where do you get stuff to seal it unless you send it from Earth and
what does that cost?

>>
>>Line it and cover it with something shipped from Earth in pieces
>>at huge expense?
>>
>

> Or instead you can pull your head out of your ass and seal it with
> locally produced plastics. What you suggest will probably be how a
> base would do it initially, but again this is a problem people have
> thought about. You need to study up.

Again, you would need massive infrastructure already in place to make
plastic on Mars.

>>>>
>>>>You will be lacking just about all usefull chemicals as most of
>>>>them come from petroleum, so no plastics.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Jimp, you just make them a different way. Unlikely on the Moon, but
>>> not difficult at all on Mars. Educate yourself. People have examined
>>> all your 'impossible' problems and there are solutions to all of them.
>>>
>>
>>No, not difficult at all on Mars for someone that isn't going to be
>>doing it or paying for it.
>>
>

> Chimp, better people than you have thought about all the problems you
> raise as things that are 'impossible' and it turns out they're just
> not that hard if you plan for them.

I never said anything about hard, I am talking about the cost.

Again, the cost for all this pie in the sky is so horrendous it will
never happen.

>>
>>The issue is not whether or not it is theoretically possible to do
>>something on Mars, the issue is that doing anything on Mars, including
>>gettting there in the first place is horrendously expensive.
>>
>

> Initially getting to North America was "horrendously expensive", too.
> Just look at what those expeditions cost and adjust them for
> inflation.

And most of them were done at a profit from all the stuff the expeditions
returned.

There is nothing on Mars that is anywhere near the value of the transportation
costs.

> You keep arguing how things "aren't possible". If you want to argue
> that it's not worth the money, that's a different issue.

I have never said "aren't possible", that is the voices in your head.

What I have said over and over again is that the cost of a colony on
Mars is so horrendously expensive with zero economic return it will
never happen absent the invention of techology that reduces the costs
many orders of magnitude.



--
Jim Pennino

[Jeff Findley]

In article <ne1iqr$mb$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, inv...@invalid.com says...

Both the moon and Mars have water. Mars has a very thin atmosphere of
CO2. Other chemicals, such as oxygen on the moon, can be extracted from
the local "soil". No, there are no animals or plants to eat, but the
raw materials are definitely there to make them.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <nq1etc-...@mail.specsol.com>, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
says...

> > Colonies with insufficient support from 'back home' tended to
> > disappear. You talk like all colonization attempts are easily
> > successful. There are enough failed colonies to prove that to be
> > bullshit.
>
> I never said anything like that.
>
> However, support from 'back home' wasn't oxygen, food, water, and
> repair parts for high tech equipment.

Water is available on both the moon and Mars at at least one of the
poles on each. Oxygen is also available on both the moon and Mars; it
just needs to be extracted. Food can therefore be grown.

Repair parts for high tech equipment is exactly the sort of thing that
Fred is talking about when he says "support". For early earth colonies,
things which are difficult to manufacture locally, like anything made of
metal, had to be shipped in, unless there was a readily available source
of metal at the colony and all of the tools to smelt and then process
and work with it.

> For the most part it was luxury items such as good china before such
> manufacturing could be established in the colonies.
>
> In return the colonies, depending on where they were, sent back things
> like spices, precious metals, furs, and timber.
>

Agreed that this pattern would often continue with even well established
colonies. The colony would mostly ship back raw materials, or goods
easily manufactured locally, and the "old world" would send the colony
finished "hard" goods.

> There is nothing off the Earth so valuable it would be worth the
> shipping cost in fuel to send it back to Earth.

Depends. If the fuel is largely made locally (on the moon or Mars), the
cost is local too. It may be more difficult to extract, but the supply
(the entire planet or moon) versus demand (a fledgling colony) would be
quite favorable.

> >>No successful colony in history required anything beyond 10th Century
> >>technology to survive.
> >>
> >
> > Bullshit. Lots of colonies in the New World succeeded only by the
> > skin of their teeth and lots of them failed and they all had the best
> > technology available at the time.
>
> And that technology, except for a very few things like muskets, dates
> back to at least the 10th Century.

Most certainly, but even that early tech (e.g. metal knives, axes, and
etc) would be quite difficult to manufacture at many early colonies
which may lack readily available raw materials (e.g. iron ore right on
the surface).

> And, BTW, the indigious populations where most colonies where established
> were surviving just fine on Stone Age technology long before the Europeans
> appeared.

"Just fine" is a stretch, depending on the technological level of the
indigenous populations. (Primitive) technologies like farming and
domestication and selective breeding of animals *greatly* increased the
potential population density of even indigenous populations.

[Robert Clark]

Times like these Pat Flannery on sci.space.history is missed even more.

Bob Clark



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:

Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Sergio" wrote in message news:ne1j80$1aa$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

---

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> Yes, I have. For example, I've posted links to research and resources
> that explode most of your claims. Do you ever read them? You only
> get "bile and name calling" when you act like a lying dishonest dick.
> Of course, you do that a lot, so that might be why you get slapped
> around so often.

OK, so you mix your bile and name calling with off topic links about
research stations when the topic is colonies.

>>
>>How about YOUR outline to colonize Mars, what it would cost, and how it
>>would be financed.
>>
>

> The world hardly needs my outline. Several different groups have put
> together workable plans. See the Mars Reference Mission from NASA, or
> Zubrin's "Mars Direct", or any of a number of others. Why don't you
> go through those and explain why all the experts are wrong and you're
> right?

None of the things you reference talk about a colony on Mars, they
talk about research stations.

A colony, other than a penal colony, has families raising kids.

> The big driver on cost for most of them is launch costs and those are
> dropping pretty damned quickly these days. Yes, a large, fully
> independent colony on Mars will take a long time. But then, such
> colonies have always taken a long time here on Earth, too.

Nope, most all successful colonies were survivable without outside resupply
in a time frame measured in months, i.e. how long it took to erect basic
shelter, find water, and get the crops planted.

The big driver on cost in getting to Mars is the cost per pound of getting
stuff off the Earth, to Mars, and landing it softly on Mars.

And to establish a colony, not just a research station, takes so many
pounds of stuff just to survive on Mars, it just isn't going to happen ever
without astounding new technology.


--
Jim Pennino

[Doc O'Leary]

Stupid people will always try to inhabit stupid places for stupid reasons.
Access to technology that makes it easier to do so only makes the problem
*worse*.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl

[Doc O'Leary]

For your reference, records indicate that
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> As Antarctica has never had any colonies, Antarctica is irrelevant to
> a discussion of colonies.

And yet *you* were the one who brought it up. It’s always fun to see
people attacking their own straw man arguments! :-)

> So just what are the natural resources available on Mars?

All the ones we know about, and all the ones we *don’t yet* know about.
The main problem with your thinking is that you seem to use Earth-
centric thinking when evaluating the resources that are available.

> There are no forests, no lakes, no rivers, no life and no air.

You seem to have more knowledge than NASA on those things. How is that?

> I would say the odds of finding limestone deposits to make cement
> highly unlikely. You do know limestone is organically created, don't
> you?

You do know that civilizations have been built without relying on
limestone, don’t you?

[blathering about industrial mining snipped]

> something usefull to build the domed and pressurized buildings
> required to survive and do anything.

If that’s how you think about what is *required* to survive, you clearly
haven’t thought much about the problem. These are *your* straw men.

> You will be lacking just about all usefull chemicals as most of
> them come from petroleum, so no plastics.

You do know that civilizations have been built without relying on
plastics, don’t you?

> You miss the point, it would take Star Trek technology to make it affordable.

I don’t miss that point at all. I *made* that point when I questioned
the proposed budget. But I am also making the point that it does *not*
require magical technology if you don’t make the assumption that you’re
going to live an Earth-styled life on such an inhospitable landscape.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfin...@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
> In article <ne1iqr$mb$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, inv...@invalid.com says...
>>
>> On 4/5/2016 6:14 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> > ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>> >>>> All historical colonizations have been to places with air, water, and
>> >>>> growing things where one could be dropped nude and survive. ....
>> >>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> > Bullshit. Lots of colonies in the New World succeeded only by the
>> > skin of their teeth and lots of them failed and they all had the best
>> > technology available at the time.
>> >
>>
>>
>> silly boy,
>>
>> the moon and mar have NO AIR, NO WATER, NO FOOD, NOTHING but sand and
>> rocks, and high radiation.
>
> Both the moon and Mars have water. Mars has a very thin atmosphere of
> CO2. Other chemicals, such as oxygen on the moon, can be extracted from
> the local "soil". No, there are no animals or plants to eat, but the
> raw materials are definitely there to make them.
>
> Jeff

There are no raw materials off the Earth to make Jello.

Sure you can theoretically do all that, all it takes is very large, very
sophisticated, very heavy, very expensive, and very expensive to transport
equipment along with a very expensive power system to make it all work.

The key here is the horrendous cost of getting things to the Moon or Mars
in the first place and that any equipment used there will likely be a
one off custom design that will come at another huge expense.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfin...@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:

> In article <nq1etc-...@mail.specsol.com>, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> says...
>> > Colonies with insufficient support from 'back home' tended to
>> > disappear. You talk like all colonization attempts are easily
>> > successful. There are enough failed colonies to prove that to be
>> > bullshit.
>>
>> I never said anything like that.
>>
>> However, support from 'back home' wasn't oxygen, food, water, and
>> repair parts for high tech equipment.
>
> Water is available on both the moon and Mars at at least one of the
> poles on each. Oxygen is also available on both the moon and Mars; it
> just needs to be extracted. Food can therefore be grown.

Sure, all this is theoretically posible at a horrendous cost that no
one will ever want to finance.

> Repair parts for high tech equipment is exactly the sort of thing that
> Fred is talking about when he says "support". For early earth colonies,
> things which are difficult to manufacture locally, like anything made of
> metal, had to be shipped in, unless there was a readily available source
> of metal at the colony and all of the tools to smelt and then process
> and work with it.

Repair parts take more than metal. Concider all the bits and pieces
needed to make something as simple as a relay to control a blower
motor. You need several different kinds of metal and alloys as well
as wire and insulators.

>> For the most part it was luxury items such as good china before such
>> manufacturing could be established in the colonies.
>>
>> In return the colonies, depending on where they were, sent back things
>> like spices, precious metals, furs, and timber.
>>
>
> Agreed that this pattern would often continue with even well established
> colonies. The colony would mostly ship back raw materials, or goods
> easily manufactured locally, and the "old world" would send the colony
> finished "hard" goods.
>
>> There is nothing off the Earth so valuable it would be worth the
>> shipping cost in fuel to send it back to Earth.
>
> Depends. If the fuel is largely made locally (on the moon or Mars), the
> cost is local too. It may be more difficult to extract, but the supply
> (the entire planet or moon) versus demand (a fledgling colony) would be
> quite favorable.

Cost is cost no matter where it comes from and again, there is nothing
off the Earth so valuable it would be worth the shipping cost.

>> >>No successful colony in history required anything beyond 10th Century
>> >>technology to survive.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Bullshit. Lots of colonies in the New World succeeded only by the
>> > skin of their teeth and lots of them failed and they all had the best
>> > technology available at the time.
>>
>> And that technology, except for a very few things like muskets, dates
>> back to at least the 10th Century.
>
> Most certainly, but even that early tech (e.g. metal knives, axes, and
> etc) would be quite difficult to manufacture at many early colonies
> which may lack readily available raw materials (e.g. iron ore right on
> the surface).

Totally misses the point; the colonies could buy such things until
local production was establishe with things like timber, fur, and
spices.

>> And, BTW, the indigious populations where most colonies where established
>> were surviving just fine on Stone Age technology long before the Europeans
>> appeared.
>
> "Just fine" is a stretch, depending on the technological level of the
> indigenous populations. (Primitive) technologies like farming and
> domestication and selective breeding of animals *greatly* increased the
> potential population density of even indigenous populations.

Point missed yet again. The indigenous populations were able to live,
in some cases for thousands of years, without any resupply from Europe.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>

>>In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>>> For your reference, records indicate that
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> No successful colony in history required anything beyond 10th Century
>>>> technology to survive.
>>>
>>> Because thats just the nature of how time works. In a future where
>>> humanity is looking to colonize planets around other stars, some yahoo
>>> like you will likely crawl out of the woodwork and say something like
>>> No successful planetary colony in history required anything beyond

>>> 22nd Century technology to survive.?

>>>
>>
>>If Star Trek technology were available, then off Earth colonization
>>would be possible, but Star Trek technology doesn't exist.
>>
>

> And apparently neither does logic in your world. If magic existed,
> then the colonization of North America would have been possible, but
> magic doesn't exist.

Non sequitur; you are grasping at straws trying to be insulting and
ignoring the economics of doing anything off planet as well as the
realities of what motivates people to colonize a new place.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:

> For your reference, records indicate that
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> And if Star Trek technology did exist, people wouldn't bother attempting
>> to colonize airless, barren rocks.
>
> Stupid people will always try to inhabit stupid places for stupid reasons.
> Access to technology that makes it easier to do so only makes the problem
> *worse*.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl

Perhaps I should have said the vast majority of people wouldn't bother

attempting to colonize airless, barren rocks.

There will always be hermits in one form or another, but a colony implies
a community with families and kids.

If Star Trek technology did exist, there are currently several million
refugees in Europe that would jump at the chance to colonize somewhere
else, but not an airless, barren rock.


--
Jim Pennino

[Thomas Koenig]

Fred J McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> schrieb:

> Colonies always need supply and support initially. Colonies off the
> Earth will be no different.

The main problem I see for space coloies is the complexity of the
technology that is needed for survival, if spare parts cannot be
imported.

Take a simple O-ring used as a seal as as an example.

Currently, this is made from an elastomer. If it needs to
withstand oil, you will probably need NBR, a rubber made from
1-3-Butadiene and Acrylonitrile.

So, you need 1-3-Butadiene.

You can get that from a C4 stream coming from a steam cracker, which
needs a hydrocarbon feedstock and is an enormously complex chemical
plant, requiring catalysts and dozens of distillation columns.
To separate it from the other C4 products, you usually use a sulfuric
acid extraction. A steam cracker also produces dozens of other
products, which you will have to dispose of (wasteful) or
use (for what?)

Hmm... maybe not that, dehydrogenation of n-Butane may be better.
Dehydrogenation catalyst needed, typically Platinum. To get
n-Butane, you need a steam cracker.

Or maybe dehydrogenate Ethanol (a catalytic reaction, of course).

OK, let's assume we have Butadiene. Next, we need acrylonitrile,
which is made from Propylene and Ammonia.

Propylene you get from that steam cracker (see above). Ammonia
manufacture is a high-pressure process requiring nitrogen and
hydrogen. Nitrogen on the Moon will be hard to get, on Mars
it could be done.

Because NBR is made by emulsion polymerization, you need emulsifiers
(and water). Emulsifiers are basically soap, so please set up
your soap factory somewhere.

Now you've got the basic polymer, please also set up your plants for
making all the additives which make it into a usable rubber.

And set up the plants for making the catalysts that the different
processes above require.

You can't really use the latex produced in the polymerizaion, so
please use your ready-made plant for precipitation and washing of
the latex and drying (which could involve both a screw and a dryer).
Think of a way to deal with the huge amount of waste water this
will generate, and don't forget the Polyethylene film to wrap
it in.

Now you've got your rubber bale, but it is not yet an O-Ring.
You need to compound and vulcanize it.

Just grabbing a random recipe from the net, please also have
ready your Zinc Oxide, Magnesium oxide, Stearic acid, Styrenated
Phenol, Benzothiazol Disulfide (an accelerator), Tetramethyl
Thiuram Disulfide (another accelerator), Carbon Black, Sulfur and
Dioctyl phtalate. Also put some old motor oil in, and Add a few
anti-aging and anti-oxydizing chemicals while you're at it.

And this is just to make one simple everyday part that you
could order for a few cents on Earth.

So, is there a way around this? You can try to restrict yourself
to the materials that you really, really need. This will mean
that your solutions will be much worse than what you could get on
Earth by just ordering the products you needed. I am not sure
that this will be easy given the harshness of your environment,
where your solutions should be good if you want to survive.

So, a self-sufficient space colony would have to be quite
large to support something like our technological base.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would say the odds of finding limestone deposits to make cement
>>>>>>highly unlikely. You do know limestone is organically created, don't
>>>>>>you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You do know that we can make concrete and cement out of lunar rock,
>>>>> don't you?
>>>>
>>>>Sure, one can make concrete out of just about anything. It is making
>>>>the cement that is the problem, which requires limestone.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You need to research before you run your mouth. They actually tested
>>> the suitability of lunar rocks for making construction materials and
>>> they could do everything they needed to do. We use limestone as the
>>> calcium source here on Earth because it's easily gotten, but a lack of
>>> limestone really doesn't mean shit as long as you have rocks with
>>> calcium in them.
>>
>>Are there extensive calcium deposits on the Moon?
>>
>

> Extensive enough. Is Google broken on your machine or what?

Are there cement factories on the Moon?

What would it cost to build a cement factory on the Moon?

>
> http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol3/lunacem1.htm

>
>>>>>>You may find bauxite or iron ore, but unless it is really close to
>>>>>>where you set up your colony, you would have no way to transport it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is presumably because the colony was planned by you and you
>>>>> didn't allow any supplies but stone axes and bear skins.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That is both childish and stupid.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, look whose talking, Mr "They all believe Star Trek science and
>>> economics are real" who does nothing but wave hands and make strawman
>>> arguments.
>>>
>>
>>Like pointing out facts?
>>
>

> You have yet to point out any 'facts'. I've posted links to papers
> and studies that explode any number of the falsehoods that seem to be
> your stock in trade, though.

>
>>>>Care to detail how you would transport raw ore over just a hundred
>>>>miles on Mars and what would power that transport?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Truck. Hydrogen works. Yes, you have to plan on needing the truck.
>>> You could crush and smelt to rough ingots (solar furnace works for
>>> that) to lower the volume you need to drag to your factory.
>>
>>Where do you get the hydrogen and what do you do with it then?
>>
>

> I posted a link to a paper about this. Perhaps you should bother to
> actually read things people point you to instead of insisting on
> remaining ignorant?

Unable to give a simple answer and prefer to be insulting?

> Let's try again. READ IT THIS TIME, YAMMERHEAD!
>
> http://chapters.marssociety.org/winnipeg/plastics.html

>
>>> Yes, that's not how we do it here on Earth, but we're not talking
>>> about here on Earth anymore.
>>
>>Right, we are talking about a place with zero infrastructure, a thin
>>atmosphere that is 95% CO2, and easily obtainable source of either
>>oxygen or water.
>>
>

> You really haven't kept up, have you? Turns out there's all sorts of
> available water on Mars and there's even adequate amounts on the Moon.
> That's why we send those probe things, you know.

Is there a water plant on the Moon or Mars?

How much would it cost to build a water plant on the Moon or Mars?

>>>>>>If you setup your colony next to some ore deposit, you need a refinary
>>>>>>and power for it, which could only come from a fair sized reactor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly one way to do it (and probably easiest for the initial
>>>>> colony), but long term production of power isn't that hard.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Really, where do you propose to get that power?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The same place all power comes from; the Sun. Crack water to get
>>> hydrogen if you need a portable power source, take a bunch of small
>>> reactors, RTGs, or whatever with you (along with a couple of big
>>> reactors to get you started).
>>
>>With a solar irradiance of less than 100 W/m^2 you are going to get
>>very little power from solar sources unless your array is measured
>>in kilometers.
>>
>

> Your number is low. Did you read the paper on power on Mars that I
> pointed you to? Or did you just dishonestly delete the link?

I read several articles on the available irradiance on the surface
of Mars, all with wildly varying numbers from less than 100 W/m^2
average to as much as 500 W/m^2 average. The 100 W/m^2 number came
from a paper taking great care to include atmospheric diffusion.

>>
>>There is no known readily available source of water to crack.
>>
>

> Of course there is. Pull your head out of your ass and update your
> knowledge.

So you are saying there is a water plant on Mars all ready to go?

Or would water plants have to be first built and at what cost?

>>
>>If you get the water somehow, you need to store both the hydrogen
>>and the oxygen.
>>
>

> Well, gee, no shit! You know, we sort of know how to do that.

So what does it cost to build the water plant, the oxygen/hydrogen
generation plant, and the power source for all of it?

What does it cost to ship oxygen and hydrogen tanks to Mars?

>>
>>Sure, all of this is theoretically posible.
>>
>>The current cost to build a reactor on Earth is about $9 billion.
>>
>

> You're talking about a multi-hundred megawatt power reactor that we'd
> never build on Mars. A big chunk of that cost is environmental
> studies and other bureaucratic bullshit that won't need to take place
> on Mars.

Most all the environmental savings will be offset by the one off cost
of designing a reactor that will work on Mars.

Also, there is a chicken and egg problem. Massive amounts of water
will be required for you oxygen/hydrogen fuel and reactor cooling
but you can't get that until you have a reactor.

If you are talking about a real colony, then you do need that hundred
megawatt reactor.

If you are talking about a research station, you don't need any of
that expensive infrastructure, you just need resupply.

>>
>>So what is the total cost to haul a reactor in pieces along with all
>>the needed to put it together on Mars?
>>
>

> Why haul it in pieces? Again, we're not talking about the sort of
> power reactor we build here on Earth.

We are if you are taling about a real colony with families and kids.

>>
>>What is the tranportation cost for the kilometers of solar panels?
>>
>

> In situ resource.

Last I heard the Chinese didn't have any solar panel plants on Mars,
so there is yet another thing that would have to be built for a
real colony.

>>
>>What is the tranportation cost for the machinery to dig out the ice
>>we THINK is buried beneath the surface?
>>
>

> You 'think'. The rest of us are more current and 'know', because that
> free flowing water NASA probes have found evidence of has to come from
> somewhere and I'm pretty sure little green men aren't shipping the
> stuff in.

Good way to ignore the question about the costs and throw in a gratuitous
insult.

>>
>>What is the tranportation cost for the machinery crack water?
>>
>>The point is that all this crap is just too expensive for it to ever
>>happen.
>>
>

> Well, nobody is going to throw a dart at a map of Mars and drop
> Pittsburgh somewhere, true enough. Again (I don't know why I'm
> bothering; you won't listen), you might want to read up on exploration
> and colonization back in the 15th century or so and adjust the costs
> by 600 years of inflation.

Wrong answer.

In the 15th century or so all you had to transport was basic hand tools,
seeds, clothes and a few other things.

There was no requirement for things like pressure suits, oxygen, water,
food and repair parts for high tech equiment just to stay alive for
more than a few minutes.

>>> Go read the Mars Reference Mission, Chimp.
>>
>>Which is to establish a research station, not a colony.
>>
>

> Everything starts somewhere, Chimp. If you're waiting for us to be
> able to drop Pittsburgh on Mars, you should just toddle back to your
> Intel 8008-based computer. From the Mars Reference Mission "Goals and
> Objectives":
>
> "Goal IV+: Preparation for sustained human presence. MEPAG (2006) uses
> the term ?Goal IV? to describe preparation for the first human
> explorers. By definition, this cannot be a goal for the first human
> missions; by then the preparation would have to have been complete.
> However, a goal of the first human missions is to prepare for the
> subsequent future after that."
>
> In case you don't get it yet, "sustained human presence" is the start
> of a colony.

No, it is not.

We have had "sustained human presence" in Antartica for a long time,
but not a colony.

>>>>Certainly not from solar power as the solar irradiance on the surface
>>>>of Mars is less than 100 W/m^2.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Check your math. Your number is wrong.
>>
>>Not my math, The Univerity of Colorado's math.
>>
>>That was an average number adjusting for the presence of haze in the
>>atmosphere.
>>
>

> And counting hours of darkness and averaged over latitude, no doubt.
> In other words, if you're STUPID that's the number you plan to and put
> forward.

Nope, mid latitudes, ass hole.

>>>>Certainly not from wind power as the atmosphere is so thin there
>>>>is no energy to speak of in the wind, no matter what you saw in
>>>>"The Martian".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong again. Once again, please educate yourself on the issues before
>>> flapping your arms and squawking. Again, let me help.
>>>
>>> http://www.marspapers.org/papers/MAR98058.pdf
>>
>>It appears that this paper pretty much agrees with what I said.
>>
>

> Then English isn't your first language.
>
> You: Solar power is a non-starter.
> Paper: "Solar power is readily available on Mars,..."

In small amounts; great for a research station, not so much so for an
actual colony.

>
> You: Wind power is a non-starter.
> Paper: "Although the atmospheric density is about 100 times less than
> the Earth, Mars has several advantages for successful wind power
> applications..."

In small amounts; great for a research station, not so much so for an
actual colony.

>>>>>>You need a lot of raw material and the ability to process it into
>>>>>>something usefull to build the domed and pressurized buildings
>>>>>>required to survive and do anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to be able to dig a hole.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dig it with what and then what do you do with it?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Dig it with tools (they're this marvelous thing we've invented since
>>> you looked at colonization of anywhere) and then seal it up and live
>>> in it.
>>
>>How much to transport all those tools to Mars?
>>
>

> As a percentage of mission cost, not much. And that's not how mission
> costing for these things works anyway. You're sending the vehicle.
> Cost is opportunity cost. Dollar cost once you are going to launch
> the vehicle is irrelevant, since it doesn't cost you much less if you
> leave out a few tons of stuff.

Dollar cost is always relevant as someone has to come up with the dollars.

Given a transport of some fixed size, the cost of transport is in how
much fuel is required per pound to get the cargo somewhere.

>>
>>Where do you get stuff to seal it unless you send it from Earth and
>>what does that cost?
>>
>

> Which part of 'in situ plastics' is it that you missed?

Which part of there are no plastic plants on Mars or the Moon have
you missed?

>>>>
>>>>Line it and cover it with something shipped from Earth in pieces
>>>>at huge expense?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Or instead you can pull your head out of your ass and seal it with
>>> locally produced plastics. What you suggest will probably be how a
>>> base would do it initially, but again this is a problem people have
>>> thought about. You need to study up.
>>
>>Again, you would need massive infrastructure already in place to make
>>plastic on Mars.
>>
>

> Not as massive as you seem to think, but in any case you build up to
> it. First missions you do with inflatables that you bury. Digging
> holes and throwing dirt on top of something is pretty low tech stuff.
> Each mission brings more stuff and leaves it behind for the next
> group. Eventually you're staying full time and you start getting that
> critical mass of 'infrastructure'. Nobody sane thinks we're going to
> up and put Pittsburgh somewhere on Mars as the first 'colonization'
> mission and nobody sane thinks we have to.

The needs of a research station and a colony with families and kids
are so horrendously different that you will never, even slowly,
get to that critical mass of 'infrastructure'. Resupply would be
far cheaper.

>>>>>>You will be lacking just about all usefull chemicals as most of
>>>>>>them come from petroleum, so no plastics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jimp, you just make them a different way. Unlikely on the Moon, but
>>>>> not difficult at all on Mars. Educate yourself. People have examined
>>>>> all your 'impossible' problems and there are solutions to all of them.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, not difficult at all on Mars for someone that isn't going to be
>>>>doing it or paying for it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Chimp, better people than you have thought about all the problems you
>>> raise as things that are 'impossible' and it turns out they're just
>>> not that hard if you plan for them.
>>
>>I never said anything about hard, I am talking about the cost.
>>
>

> No, you were talking about solar being impossible and wind being
> impossible and everything else being impossible until you got swatted
> back on that and NOW you want to raise cost.

You are listening to the voices in your head again.

I never said ANYTHING was impossible, I said it was so horrendously
expensive no one will be willing to pay for it.

>>
>>Again, the cost for all this pie in the sky is so horrendous it will
>>never happen.
>>
>

> Good Lord, man, Isabella had to hock her jewels to pay for it! This
> whole 'new world' pie in the sky has such horrendous costs that it
> will never happen!

And Isabella got a huge return on her investment.

There is no conceivable ROI for going to the Moon or Mars.

>>>>The issue is not whether or not it is theoretically possible to do
>>>>something on Mars, the issue is that doing anything on Mars, including
>>>>gettting there in the first place is horrendously expensive.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Initially getting to North America was "horrendously expensive", too.
>>> Just look at what those expeditions cost and adjust them for
>>> inflation.
>>
>>And most of them were done at a profit from all the stuff the expeditions
>>returned.
>>
>

> Go study some more.

Lke your example of Isabella which resulted in enormous wealth for Spain?

>>
>>There is nothing on Mars that is anywhere near the value of the transportation
>>costs.
>>
>

> Not the argument you've been trying to make, Chimp.

Nope, not the arguement I am making but my response to why anyone would
attempt to establish a real colony off the Earth.

>>> You keep arguing how things "aren't possible". If you want to argue
>>> that it's not worth the money, that's a different issue.
>>
>>I have never said "aren't possible", that is the voices in your head.
>>
>

> And there's the Chimp that wonders why he gets bile and insults.

You mean because you keep saying I said things I never said?

>>
>>What I have said over and over again is that the cost of a colony on
>>Mars is so horrendously expensive with zero economic return it will
>>never happen absent the invention of techology that reduces the costs
>>many orders of magnitude.
>>
>

> Yeah, the New World wasn't worth it for a long time, either.

Right, it took a year or two from the time Columbus sailed until Isabella
started seeing profits.

> Trudge back to your cave, Chimp...

Go back to your space cadet movies, dreamer.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:

> For your reference, records indicate that
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> As Antarctica has never had any colonies, Antarctica is irrelevant to
>> a discussion of colonies.
>
> And yet *you* were the one who brought it up. It’s always fun to see
> people attacking their own straw man arguments! :-)
>
>> So just what are the natural resources available on Mars?
>

> All the ones we know about, and all the ones we *dont yet* know about.

> The main problem with your thinking is that you seem to use Earth-
> centric thinking when evaluating the resources that are available.

I use economic thinking.

It is well known that there is lots of gold in sea water but it costs
far more to extract than the gold is worth.

>> There are no forests, no lakes, no rivers, no life and no air.
>
> You seem to have more knowledge than NASA on those things. How is that?

When did NASA announce there are forests, lakes, rivers, life, and
air anywhere else than Earth?

>
>> I would say the odds of finding limestone deposits to make cement
>> highly unlikely. You do know limestone is organically created, don't
>> you?
>
> You do know that civilizations have been built without relying on

> limestone, dont you?

Yep, but modern civilizations are built with concrete and steel; before
that it was wood.

> [blathering about industrial mining snipped]
>
>> something usefull to build the domed and pressurized buildings
>> required to survive and do anything.
>

> If thats how you think about what is *required* to survive, you clearly
> havent thought much about the problem. These are *your* straw men.

So you think you can survive on the Moon or Mars without a presurized
building? Are you going to live in a pressure suit 24/7?

>> You will be lacking just about all usefull chemicals as most of
>> them come from petroleum, so no plastics.
>
> You do know that civilizations have been built without relying on

> plastics, dont you?

Not modern ones with the advanced technology required to survive off
the Earth.

>
>> You miss the point, it would take Star Trek technology to make it affordable.
>

> I dont miss that point at all. I *made* that point when I questioned

> the proposed budget. But I am also making the point that it does *not*

> require magical technology if you dont make the assumption that you’re

> going to live an Earth-styled life on such an inhospitable landscape.
>

I have been talking about colonies, i.e. families and kids.

A research station requires very little in terms of infrastructure, just
constant resupply.

It is my opinion that an off Earth true colony would cost far too much
for anyone to ever try it and few people would be willing to permanently
move to one.

It is my opinion that off Earth research stations are of limited value
and the cost and rewards of doing them should be balanced against sending
swarms of robots throughout the solar system.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

McCall will never get the point and has obviously never had to make
something on a budget.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>>>>> For your reference, records indicate that
>>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No successful colony in history required anything beyond 10th Century
>>>>>> technology to survive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because thats just the nature of how time works. In a future where
>>>>> humanity is looking to colonize planets around other stars, some yahoo
>>>>> like you will likely crawl out of the woodwork and say something like
>>>>> No successful planetary colony in history required anything beyond
>>>>> 22nd Century technology to survive.?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If Star Trek technology were available, then off Earth colonization
>>>>would be possible, but Star Trek technology doesn't exist.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And apparently neither does logic in your world. If magic existed,
>>> then the colonization of North America would have been possible, but
>>> magic doesn't exist.
>>
>>Non sequitur;
>>
>

> Glad you got my point, which was mocking your original remark as being
> a non sequitur (and a violation of the rules of basic logic).


Don't you really mean I have gored your ox of space cadets hanging
out in Martian bars?

--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>Have you ever responded with anything other than bile and name calling
>>>>to posts you don't agree with?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I have. For example, I've posted links to research and resources
>>> that explode most of your claims. Do you ever read them? You only
>>> get "bile and name calling" when you act like a lying dishonest dick.
>>> Of course, you do that a lot, so that might be why you get slapped
>>> around so often.
>>
>>OK, so you mix your bile and name calling with off topic links about
>>research stations when the topic is colonies.
>>
>

> And you think there's no relationship? Wow, we need to feed you nitro
> and see if we can blow your head loose from being lodged so far up
> your ass.

Fuck off and die, space cadet.

>>>>
>>>>How about YOUR outline to colonize Mars, what it would cost, and how it
>>>>would be financed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The world hardly needs my outline. Several different groups have put
>>> together workable plans. See the Mars Reference Mission from NASA, or
>>> Zubrin's "Mars Direct", or any of a number of others. Why don't you
>>> go through those and explain why all the experts are wrong and you're
>>> right?
>>
>>None of the things you reference talk about a colony on Mars, they
>>talk about research stations.
>>
>>A colony, other than a penal colony, has families raising kids.
>>
>

> And you think those are totally different things with totally
> different needs? Wow, talk about being a maroon!

Yes, a true colony is totally different than a penal colony or a
research station.

>>> The big driver on cost for most of them is launch costs and those are
>>> dropping pretty damned quickly these days. Yes, a large, fully
>>> independent colony on Mars will take a long time. But then, such
>>> colonies have always taken a long time here on Earth, too.
>>
>>Nope, most all successful colonies were survivable without outside resupply
>>in a time frame measured in months, i.e. how long it took to erect basic
>>shelter, find water, and get the crops planted.
>>
>

> You're ignorant about colonies here on Earth so I suppose I shouldn't
> be surprised that you're so ignorant about colonies off it.

I see you are in denial, space cadet.

Probaly never been camping either.

>>The big driver on cost in getting to Mars is the cost per pound of getting
>>stuff off the Earth, to Mars, and landing it softly on Mars.
>>
>

> And that cost is currently around 100 times higher than it needs to
> be.

Wishfull thinking space cadet, the cost is what it is.

>
>>
>>And to establish a colony, not just a research station, takes so many
>>pounds of stuff just to survive on Mars, it just isn't going to happen ever
>>without astounding new technology.
>>
>

> No 'astounding new technology' required unless you're insisting we
> have to be able to instantaneously drop Pittsburgh on Mars. We're
> already on the road to dropping launch costs by orders of magnitude.

I never said instantaneously, space cadet, that is those voices in
your head again.

> Back to your cave, Chimp...

Back to your well worn Heinlein novel, space cadet.


--
Jim Pennino

[Thomas Koenig]

Fred J McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> schrieb:

> Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> wrote:
>
>>Take a simple O-ring used as a seal as as an example.
>>
>>Currently, this is made from an elastomer. If it needs to
>>withstand oil, you will probably need NBR, a rubber made from
>>1-3-Butadiene and Acrylonitrile.
>>
>>So, you need 1-3-Butadiene.

><snip petrochemical description>
>
> Or instead of cracking down complex hydrocarbons you don't have, you
> build up what you need out of the pieces. Please read up on in situ
> resource utilization.

What in situ resources could I use on the Moon (or Mars) to make an
O-ring capable of withstanding oil?

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I would say the odds of finding limestone deposits to make cement
>>>>>>>>highly unlikely. You do know limestone is organically created, don't
>>>>>>>>you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You do know that we can make concrete and cement out of lunar rock,
>>>>>>> don't you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sure, one can make concrete out of just about anything. It is making
>>>>>>the cement that is the problem, which requires limestone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to research before you run your mouth. They actually tested
>>>>> the suitability of lunar rocks for making construction materials and
>>>>> they could do everything they needed to do. We use limestone as the
>>>>> calcium source here on Earth because it's easily gotten, but a lack of
>>>>> limestone really doesn't mean shit as long as you have rocks with
>>>>> calcium in them.
>>>>
>>>>Are there extensive calcium deposits on the Moon?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Extensive enough. Is Google broken on your machine or what?
>>
>>Are there cement factories on the Moon?
>>
>

> So colonization is impossible unless Pittsburgh already exists on
> Mars?

Once again the voices in your head are telling you I said something
that I never said.

>>
>>What would it cost to build a cement factory on the Moon?
>>
>

> A lot less than you apparently think. You don't need a huge factory
> right off, after all. The Macedonians and Romans made and used
> cement, after all.

Yep, on Earth with food, air, charcol, and water, but no pressure suits.

Have you ever seen an actual cement plant?

>>> http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol3/lunacem1.htm
>>>
>>>>>>>>You may find bauxite or iron ore, but unless it is really close to
>>>>>>>>where you set up your colony, you would have no way to transport it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is presumably because the colony was planned by you and you
>>>>>>> didn't allow any supplies but stone axes and bear skins.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is both childish and stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, look whose talking, Mr "They all believe Star Trek science and
>>>>> economics are real" who does nothing but wave hands and make strawman
>>>>> arguments.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Like pointing out facts?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You have yet to point out any 'facts'. I've posted links to papers
>>> and studies that explode any number of the falsehoods that seem to be
>>> your stock in trade, though.
>>>
>>>>>>Care to detail how you would transport raw ore over just a hundred
>>>>>>miles on Mars and what would power that transport?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Truck. Hydrogen works. Yes, you have to plan on needing the truck.
>>>>> You could crush and smelt to rough ingots (solar furnace works for
>>>>> that) to lower the volume you need to drag to your factory.
>>>>
>>>>Where do you get the hydrogen and what do you do with it then?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I posted a link to a paper about this. Perhaps you should bother to
>>> actually read things people point you to instead of insisting on
>>> remaining ignorant?
>>
>>Unable to give a simple answer and prefer to be insulting?
>>
>

> Unable to read a cite and prefer to remain an ignorant shite?

Pefer to remain an insulting asshole?

>>> Let's try again. READ IT THIS TIME, YAMMERHEAD!
>>>
>>> http://chapters.marssociety.org/winnipeg/plastics.html
>>>
>>>>> Yes, that's not how we do it here on Earth, but we're not talking
>>>>> about here on Earth anymore.
>>>>
>>>>Right, we are talking about a place with zero infrastructure, a thin
>>>>atmosphere that is 95% CO2, and easily obtainable source of either
>>>>oxygen or water.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You really haven't kept up, have you? Turns out there's all sorts of
>>> available water on Mars and there's even adequate amounts on the Moon.
>>> That's why we send those probe things, you know.
>>
>>Is there a water plant on the Moon or Mars?
>>
>

> Again you insist that Pittsburgh must already exist on Mars before
> colonization is possible?

Again that is the voices in your head telling you I said something I did
not say.

>>
>>How much would it cost to build a water plant on the Moon or Mars?
>>
>

> Easy peasy. Lots of free vacuum and power.

Nope, no power until you build a power plant and you still have to
have machinery and power for the machinery to dig.

Or, in other words, a huge amount of money.

>>>>>>>>If you setup your colony next to some ore deposit, you need a refinary
>>>>>>>>and power for it, which could only come from a fair sized reactor.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Certainly one way to do it (and probably easiest for the initial
>>>>>>> colony), but long term production of power isn't that hard.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Really, where do you propose to get that power?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The same place all power comes from; the Sun. Crack water to get
>>>>> hydrogen if you need a portable power source, take a bunch of small
>>>>> reactors, RTGs, or whatever with you (along with a couple of big
>>>>> reactors to get you started).
>>>>
>>>>With a solar irradiance of less than 100 W/m^2 you are going to get
>>>>very little power from solar sources unless your array is measured
>>>>in kilometers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your number is low. Did you read the paper on power on Mars that I
>>> pointed you to? Or did you just dishonestly delete the link?
>>
>>I read several articles on the available irradiance on the surface
>>of Mars, all with wildly varying numbers from less than 100 W/m^2
>>average to as much as 500 W/m^2 average. The 100 W/m^2 number came
>>from a paper taking great care to include atmospheric diffusion.
>>
>

> No, it takes a lot more into account than that to get numbers that
> low. Depending on what you take into account (like the day/night
> cycle) you get numbers for Earth as low as 250 W/m^2 or so, so I guess
> solar power won't work here, either.

And it doesn't is a lot of places.

>>>>
>>>>There is no known readily available source of water to crack.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course there is. Pull your head out of your ass and update your
>>> knowledge.
>>
>>So you are saying there is a water plant on Mars all ready to go?
>>
>

> Still insisting Pittsburgh must have already been dropped on Mars
> before colonization is possible?

What is it with the voices in your head that keep telling you I am
using the words "possible" and "impossible" when I am not?

>>
>>Or would water plants have to be first built and at what cost?
>>
>

> Asked and answered. Water is the EASY part.

I could care less about easy, how much would it COST?

>
>>>>
>>>>If you get the water somehow, you need to store both the hydrogen
>>>>and the oxygen.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, gee, no shit! You know, we sort of know how to do that.
>>
>>So what does it cost to build the water plant, the oxygen/hydrogen
>>generation plant, and the power source for all of it?
>>
>

> Look it up. All that stuff is included in all those studies you
> refuse to look at because they don't describe dropping Pittsburgh on
> Mars.

None of the stuff you refered to has anything to do with establishing
a real colony, with families and kids.

And it would take a LOT more than just Pittsburgh.

>>
>>What does it cost to ship oxygen and hydrogen tanks to Mars?
>>
>

> Unnecessary. What does it cost to get you to pull your head out of
> your ass and actually think?

So you do not need tanks to hold the generated oxygen and hydrogen?

Are all your machines going to run on long rubber hoses?

>>>>Sure, all of this is theoretically posible.
>>>>
>>>>The current cost to build a reactor on Earth is about $9 billion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're talking about a multi-hundred megawatt power reactor that we'd
>>> never build on Mars. A big chunk of that cost is environmental
>>> studies and other bureaucratic bullshit that won't need to take place
>>> on Mars.
>>
>>Most all the environmental savings will be offset by the one off cost
>>of designing a reactor that will work on Mars.
>>
>

> You don't just build one, you stupid shit. Incremental growth and all
> that.

I see you know nothing about economies of scale or manufacturing actual
things.

>>
>>Also, there is a chicken and egg problem. Massive amounts of water
>>will be required for you oxygen/hydrogen fuel and reactor cooling
>>but you can't get that until you have a reactor.
>>
>>If you are talking about a real colony, then you do need that hundred
>>megawatt reactor.
>>
>

> No, what I need is a bunch of smaller ones that are gradually added.
> We're not talking about instantly dropping a few million people on
> Mars, after all. Well, perhaps YOU are in order to raise all the
> objections you raise.

You don't have a real colony until you can accept and support migration
in numbers much bigger than 2 or 3 per year.

All you are talkiing about is a bigger and better research station.

>>If you are talking about a research station, you don't need any of
>>that expensive infrastructure, you just need resupply.
>>
>

> And you're wrong about that, too. Perhaps you should actually READ
> some of those studies I pointed you to rather than blindly insisting
> they don't apply.

I did.

None of them talk about a real colony, just a bigger and better research
station.

>>>>So what is the total cost to haul a reactor in pieces along with all
>>>>the needed to put it together on Mars?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why haul it in pieces? Again, we're not talking about the sort of
>>> power reactor we build here on Earth.
>>
>>We are if you are taling about a real colony with families and kids.
>>
>

> Well, I'll agree that YOU are talking about that, but then you're
> apparently not very smart. No one with sense is talking about
> instantaneously needing to drop Pittsburgh on Mars.

There go those voice in your head again. I said nothing about instantaneously
but I have said a lot about total cost.

And it would take a lot more than just Pittsburgh.

>>>>
>>>>What is the tranportation cost for the kilometers of solar panels?
>>>>
>>>
>>> In situ resource.
>>
>>Last I heard the Chinese didn't have any solar panel plants on Mars,
>>so there is yet another thing that would have to be built for a
>>real colony.
>>
>

> Yes, Chimp, colonies have to BUILD THINGS. Wow, I guess that's
> impossible. Again, go read some of those papers I pointed you to.

There go those voice in your head again. I said nothing about impossible.

And again, none of them talk about a real colony, just a bigger and better
research station.

>>>>
>>>>What is the tranportation cost for the machinery to dig out the ice
>>>>we THINK is buried beneath the surface?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You 'think'. The rest of us are more current and 'know', because that
>>> free flowing water NASA probes have found evidence of has to come from
>>> somewhere and I'm pretty sure little green men aren't shipping the
>>> stuff in.
>>
>>Good way to ignore the question about the costs and throw in a gratuitous
>>insult.
>>
>

> I 'ignored the question' because it's a stupid question. It's a
> stupid question because we KNOW there is water on Mars. It's not a
> gratuitous insult when you hop up and down acting like a stupid shit
> and begging for it.

Still ignoring the cost questions?

I guess you have to, otherwise you would realize your starry eyed dream
of space colonies is not economical.

>>>>
>>>>What is the tranportation cost for the machinery crack water?
>>>>
>>>>The point is that all this crap is just too expensive for it to ever
>>>>happen.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, nobody is going to throw a dart at a map of Mars and drop
>>> Pittsburgh somewhere, true enough. Again (I don't know why I'm
>>> bothering; you won't listen), you might want to read up on exploration
>>> and colonization back in the 15th century or so and adjust the costs
>>> by 600 years of inflation.
>>
>>Wrong answer.
>>
>

> Go run the costs.

>
>>
>>In the 15th century or so all you had to transport was basic hand tools,
>>seeds, clothes and a few other things.
>>
>>There was no requirement for things like pressure suits, oxygen, water,
>>food and repair parts for high tech equiment just to stay alive for
>>more than a few minutes.
>>
>

> Irrelevant. That was the high tech stuff of the time.

Irrelevant. There was no need for high tech stuff.

>>>>> Go read the Mars Reference Mission, Chimp.
>>>>
>>>>Which is to establish a research station, not a colony.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Everything starts somewhere, Chimp. If you're waiting for us to be
>>> able to drop Pittsburgh on Mars, you should just toddle back to your
>>> Intel 8008-based computer. From the Mars Reference Mission "Goals and
>>> Objectives":
>>>
>>> "Goal IV+: Preparation for sustained human presence. MEPAG (2006) uses
>>> the term ?Goal IV? to describe preparation for the first human
>>> explorers. By definition, this cannot be a goal for the first human
>>> missions; by then the preparation would have to have been complete.
>>> However, a goal of the first human missions is to prepare for the
>>> subsequent future after that."
>>>
>>> In case you don't get it yet, "sustained human presence" is the start
>>> of a colony.
>>
>>No, it is not.
>>
>

> Yes it is too. Read the papers, you fucking idiot.

You mean the papers that talk about bigger and better research stations,
space cadet?

>>
>>We have had "sustained human presence" in Antartica for a long time,
>>but not a colony.
>>
>

> Because colonies are prohibited by treaty.

Only since 1959 yet in the nearly 500 years between 1492 and 1959 no
interest in colonies.

>>>>>>Certainly not from solar power as the solar irradiance on the surface
>>>>>>of Mars is less than 100 W/m^2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Check your math. Your number is wrong.
>>>>
>>>>Not my math, The Univerity of Colorado's math.
>>>>
>>>>That was an average number adjusting for the presence of haze in the
>>>>atmosphere.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And counting hours of darkness and averaged over latitude, no doubt.
>>> In other words, if you're STUPID that's the number you plan to and put
>>> forward.
>>
>>Nope, mid latitudes, ass hole.
>>
>

> Wrong, dipshit.

Bite me, ass hole.

>>>>>>Certainly not from wind power as the atmosphere is so thin there
>>>>>>is no energy to speak of in the wind, no matter what you saw in
>>>>>>"The Martian".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong again. Once again, please educate yourself on the issues before
>>>>> flapping your arms and squawking. Again, let me help.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.marspapers.org/papers/MAR98058.pdf
>>>>
>>>>It appears that this paper pretty much agrees with what I said.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then English isn't your first language.
>>>
>>> You: Solar power is a non-starter.
>>> Paper: "Solar power is readily available on Mars,..."
>>
>>In small amounts; great for a research station, not so much so for an
>>actual colony.
>>
>

> Not what it says.

Yes, exactly what it says.

>>>
>>> You: Wind power is a non-starter.
>>> Paper: "Although the atmospheric density is about 100 times less than
>>> the Earth, Mars has several advantages for successful wind power
>>> applications..."
>>
>>In small amounts; great for a research station, not so much so for an
>>actual colony.
>>
>

> Not what it says.

Yes, exactly what it says.

>
>>>>>>>>You need a lot of raw material and the ability to process it into
>>>>>>>>something usefull to build the domed and pressurized buildings
>>>>>>>>required to survive and do anything.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You need to be able to dig a hole.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dig it with what and then what do you do with it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dig it with tools (they're this marvelous thing we've invented since
>>>>> you looked at colonization of anywhere) and then seal it up and live
>>>>> in it.
>>>>
>>>>How much to transport all those tools to Mars?
>>>>
>>>
>>> As a percentage of mission cost, not much. And that's not how mission
>>> costing for these things works anyway. You're sending the vehicle.
>>> Cost is opportunity cost. Dollar cost once you are going to launch
>>> the vehicle is irrelevant, since it doesn't cost you much less if you
>>> leave out a few tons of stuff.
>>
>>Dollar cost is always relevant as someone has to come up with the dollars.
>>
>

> But it's not relevant the way you're trying to use it. Dollar cost is
> relevant FOR THE ENTIRE PAYLOAD but not relevant FOR THE INDIVIDUAL
> PIECES because removing a piece doesn't change your cost.

There go those voice in your head again. I did not say anything about
payload.

>>Given a transport of some fixed size, the cost of transport is in how
>>much fuel is required per pound to get the cargo somewhere.
>>
>

> But the cost doesn't change if you delete part of the cargo because
> the cost is PER LAUNCH, not PER POUND.

The cost is the cost of the vehicle, which may be amortized if it is
reusable, the cost of the cargo and crew, and the cost of the fuel to
get from point A to point B.

>>>>
>>>>Where do you get stuff to seal it unless you send it from Earth and
>>>>what does that cost?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which part of 'in situ plastics' is it that you missed?
>>
>>Which part of there are no plastic plants on Mars or the Moon have
>>you missed?
>>
>

> Which part of having to build shit instead of just moving in have you
> missed?

Which part of having to pay for something have you missed?

It doesn't matter if it is an O-ring or an O-ring manufacturing plant.

It has to be payed for to be acquired and payed for to be transported.

You may including building costs in the acquistion cost for the plant
if you so desire.

>>>>>>Line it and cover it with something shipped from Earth in pieces
>>>>>>at huge expense?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or instead you can pull your head out of your ass and seal it with
>>>>> locally produced plastics. What you suggest will probably be how a
>>>>> base would do it initially, but again this is a problem people have
>>>>> thought about. You need to study up.
>>>>
>>>>Again, you would need massive infrastructure already in place to make
>>>>plastic on Mars.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not as massive as you seem to think, but in any case you build up to
>>> it. First missions you do with inflatables that you bury. Digging
>>> holes and throwing dirt on top of something is pretty low tech stuff.
>>> Each mission brings more stuff and leaves it behind for the next
>>> group. Eventually you're staying full time and you start getting that
>>> critical mass of 'infrastructure'. Nobody sane thinks we're going to
>>> up and put Pittsburgh somewhere on Mars as the first 'colonization'
>>> mission and nobody sane thinks we have to.
>>
>>The needs of a research station and a colony with families and kids
>>are so horrendously different that you will never, even slowly,
>>get to that critical mass of 'infrastructure'. Resupply would be
>>far cheaper.
>>
>

> Wrong. Both ways.

Really?

Does a research station need schools, playgrounds, toys, diaper production
facilities, matenity wards, nipples and bottles for infants?

>>>>>>>>You will be lacking just about all usefull chemicals as most of
>>>>>>>>them come from petroleum, so no plastics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jimp, you just make them a different way. Unlikely on the Moon, but
>>>>>>> not difficult at all on Mars. Educate yourself. People have examined
>>>>>>> all your 'impossible' problems and there are solutions to all of them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, not difficult at all on Mars for someone that isn't going to be
>>>>>>doing it or paying for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Chimp, better people than you have thought about all the problems you
>>>>> raise as things that are 'impossible' and it turns out they're just
>>>>> not that hard if you plan for them.
>>>>
>>>>I never said anything about hard, I am talking about the cost.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, you were talking about solar being impossible and wind being
>>> impossible and everything else being impossible until you got swatted
>>> back on that and NOW you want to raise cost.
>>
>>You are listening to the voices in your head again.
>>
>

> You are listening to the rumbling of your bowels around your head
> again.

You are dreaming of plots in sifi novels again.

>>
>>I never said ANYTHING was impossible, I said it was so horrendously
>>expensive no one will be willing to pay for it.
>>
>

> You vacillate. What is your threshold of unacceptable cost?

In the low tens of billions per year for the US, like maybe $20 billion
for the ENTIRE space program.

Budget you colony building accordingly.

I could care less what anyone else cares to kick in as it isn't my
tax money.

>
>>>>
>>>>Again, the cost for all this pie in the sky is so horrendous it will
>>>>never happen.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good Lord, man, Isabella had to hock her jewels to pay for it! This
>>> whole 'new world' pie in the sky has such horrendous costs that it
>>> will never happen!
>>
>>And Isabella got a huge return on her investment.
>>
>

> Eventually.

Yep, shortly after Columbus returned.

>>There is no conceivable ROI for going to the Moon or Mars.
>>
>

> Wrong again. Your lack of imagination is your problem, not mine.

So demonstrate your imagination, what could possibly have a ROI?

Most things are valuable because they are rare. If you, for example,
find a huge deposit of platinum, the price will drop because of increased
supply and there goes the ROI.

>>>>>>The issue is not whether or not it is theoretically possible to do
>>>>>>something on Mars, the issue is that doing anything on Mars, including
>>>>>>gettting there in the first place is horrendously expensive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Initially getting to North America was "horrendously expensive", too.
>>>>> Just look at what those expeditions cost and adjust them for
>>>>> inflation.
>>>>
>>>>And most of them were done at a profit from all the stuff the expeditions
>>>>returned.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Go study some more.
>>
>>Lke your example of Isabella which resulted in enormous wealth for Spain?
>>
>

> Eventually.

Yep, almost right after Columbus got back.

>>>>
>>>>There is nothing on Mars that is anywhere near the value of the transportation
>>>>costs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not the argument you've been trying to make, Chimp.
>>
>>Nope, not the arguement I am making but my response to why anyone would
>>attempt to establish a real colony off the Earth.
>>
>

> So your head is up and locked and you're just wasting everyone's time.
> Got it.

And you are a starry eyed space cadet raised on scifi novels that has
never built anything, does not understand what it takes to build things.
and has no concept of cost and ROI.

>>
>>>>> You keep arguing how things "aren't possible". If you want to argue
>>>>> that it's not worth the money, that's a different issue.
>>>>
>>>>I have never said "aren't possible", that is the voices in your head.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And there's the Chimp that wonders why he gets bile and insults.
>>
>>You mean because you keep saying I said things I never said?
>>
>

> I mean because you keep spewing bile and insults and then are

Only when YOU start it, ass hole.

> surprised when they're returned to you. Please visit your
> psychiatrist, as that sort of thinking is symptomatic of many types of
> mental illness. Perhaps they can help you with appropriate medication
> so you recognize your own behaviour.

>
>>>>
>>>>What I have said over and over again is that the cost of a colony on
>>>>Mars is so horrendously expensive with zero economic return it will
>>>>never happen absent the invention of techology that reduces the costs
>>>>many orders of magnitude.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, the New World wasn't worth it for a long time, either.
>>
>>Right, it took a year or two from the time Columbus sailed until Isabella
>>started seeing profits.
>>
>

> Bullshit. Go read up on the history of failed colonies, mutiny, etc.

Irrelevant to YOUR example of Columbus.

>>> Trudge back to your cave, Chimp...
>>
>>Go back to your space cadet movies, dreamer.
>>
>

> Go back to your cave and stop making up lies, Chimp.

Fuck off and die, space cadet.

--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>

>>In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>>> For your reference, records indicate that
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> As Antarctica has never had any colonies, Antarctica is irrelevant to
>>>> a discussion of colonies.
>>>

>>> And yet *you* were the one who brought it up. It?s always fun to see

>>> people attacking their own straw man arguments! :-)
>>>
>>>> So just what are the natural resources available on Mars?
>>>
>>> All the ones we know about, and all the ones we *dont yet* know about.
>>> The main problem with your thinking is that you seem to use Earth-
>>> centric thinking when evaluating the resources that are available.
>>
>>I use economic thinking.
>>
>

> No, you don't. Where did you get your degree in economics. They
> should take it back.

>
>>
>>It is well known that there is lots of gold in sea water but it costs
>>far more to extract than the gold is worth.
>>
>

> Wrong. It's just that the same amount of money applied elsewhere gets
> you more gold. And you claim to be engaging in 'economic thinking'?
> You don't know the meaning of the phrase!

Nope, the extraction cost exceeds the value.

>>>> There are no forests, no lakes, no rivers, no life and no air.
>>>
>>> You seem to have more knowledge than NASA on those things. How is that?
>>
>>When did NASA announce there are forests, lakes, rivers, life, and
>>air anywhere else than Earth?
>>
>

> They've announced there's free flowing water on Mars, water vapour in
> the atmosphere, underground ices. You insist there aren't.

That is not the same thing as forests, lakes and rivers, i.e. things
you can stick a bucket in and fill it with drinkable water.

>>>> I would say the odds of finding limestone deposits to make cement
>>>> highly unlikely. You do know limestone is organically created, don't
>>>> you?
>>>
>>> You do know that civilizations have been built without relying on
>>> limestone, dont you?
>>
>>Yep, but modern civilizations are built with concrete and steel; before
>>that it was wood.
>>
>

> Haven't heard of 'rocks', 'caves', and 'holes' in your neck of the
> woods?

Sure but on Earth they don't need airlocks.

>>> [blathering about industrial mining snipped]
>>>
>>>> something usefull to build the domed and pressurized buildings
>>>> required to survive and do anything.
>>>
>>> If thats how you think about what is *required* to survive, you clearly
>>> havent thought much about the problem. These are *your* straw men.
>>
>>So you think you can survive on the Moon or Mars without a presurized
>>building? Are you going to live in a pressure suit 24/7?
>>
>

> So you think you can't survive on the Moon with Pittsburgh?

There go those voices in your head again. You really should see
someone about that.

>>>> You will be lacking just about all usefull chemicals as most of
>>>> them come from petroleum, so no plastics.
>>>
>>> You do know that civilizations have been built without relying on
>>> plastics, dont you?
>>
>>Not modern ones with the advanced technology required to survive off
>>the Earth.
>>
>

> Gee, something hasn't been done yet, so it is forever impossible. Back
> to your cave, Chimp.

There go those voices in your head again. You really should see
someone about that.

>>>
>>>> You miss the point, it would take Star Trek technology to make it affordable.
>>>
>>> I dont miss that point at all. I *made* that point when I questioned
>>> the proposed budget. But I am also making the point that it does *not*

>>> require magical technology if you dont make the assumption that you?re

>>> going to live an Earth-styled life on such an inhospitable landscape.
>>>
>>
>>I have been talking about colonies, i.e. families and kids.
>>
>>A research station requires very little in terms of infrastructure, just
>>constant resupply.
>>
>

> Wrong. You see, this is the kind of error you make when you misapply
> 'economic thinking' from ignorance. First example, it's cheaper to
> ship an automated rocket fuel factory to Mars to make fuel for the
> return trip than it is to ship the fuel.

Which has nothing to do with supplying those kids with diapers and
baby bottles.

> You really ought to read some of those papers I keep pointing you to.
> It would keep you from sounding so stupidly ignorant.

>
>>
>>It is my opinion that an off Earth true colony would cost far too much
>>for anyone to ever try it and few people would be willing to permanently
>>move to one.
>>
>>It is my opinion that off Earth research stations are of limited value
>>and the cost and rewards of doing them should be balanced against sending
>>swarms of robots throughout the solar system.
>>
>

> If people aren't going, there's no point to "swarms of robots" so the
> cost there is zero.

The point to swarms of robots is scientific research.

Your point seems to be you want to cozy up to a three titted hooker
in a Martian bar just like in the movies.


--
Jim Pennino

[Sergio]

On 4/7/2016 4:26 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>

>> In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>>> For your reference, records indicate that
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>

>>>
>>>> So just what are the natural resources available on Mars?

rocks, dust, no air.

>>>> There are no forests, no lakes, no rivers, no life and no air.
>>>
>>> You seem to have more knowledge than NASA on those things. How is that?

that is what NASA says...

>>
>
> They've announced there's free flowing water on Mars, water vapour in
> the atmosphere, underground ices.

no, not free flowing water.

>>
>> So you think you can survive on the Moon or Mars without a presurized
>> building? Are you going to live in a pressure suit 24/7?

how you gonna poop ?

>
>> I have been talking about colonies, i.e. families and kids.

you want your kids on Mars ? so do a lot of other parents.

>>
>> A research station requires very little in terms of infrastructure, just
>> constant resupply.
>>
>

> Wrong. You see, this is the kind of error you make when you misapply
> 'economic thinking' from ignorance. First example, it's cheaper to
> ship an automated rocket fuel factory to Mars to make fuel for the
> return trip than it is to ship the fuel.

so, how do you make fuel from dust and rocks ?

>>
>> It is my opinion that an off Earth true colony would cost far too much
>> for anyone to ever try it and few people would be willing to permanently
>> move to one.

agree, it will be worse than being in prison.

>>
>> It is my opinion that off Earth research stations are of limited value
>> and the cost and rewards of doing them should be balanced against sending
>> swarms of robots throughout the solar system.
>>

how do you wash clothes in space ? use how much water, then purify the
water, how ? be specific.

You will find washing clothes is one of the key restraints on space travel.

what do they do now? not washing, the ship new clothes up with the shuttle.

you will find that Man is specifically designed to exist on Earth.
(water, air, food, cleaning, poop, etc)

not Mars, Not the moon.

>
> If people aren't going, there's no point to "swarms of robots" so the
> cost there is zero.

robot probes will work

[Thomas Koenig]

Fred J McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> schrieb:
> Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> wrote:
>
>>Fred J McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> schrieb:

[Making an NBR O-ring]

>>> Or instead of cracking down complex hydrocarbons you don't have, you
>>> build up what you need out of the pieces. Please read up on in situ
>>> resource utilization.
>>
>>What in situ resources could I use on the Moon (or Mars) to make an
>>O-ring capable of withstanding oil?
>>

> Chemistry is chemistry.

I agree with you there.

> Please go follow the link on in situ organic chemicals I gave the Chimp.

I'm not sure what link you refer to.

Can you give a quick outline how to do all the chemicals I mentioned
in my article?

We don't have to do this the exact way we do it on Earth. However,
the complexidy will not be less with a different raw material base.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>

>>McCall will never get the point and has obviously never had to make
>>something on a budget.
>>
>

> Jimp will never get the point and has obviously never had to make
> anything, period.

Yeah, right, says the starry eyed space cadet that thinks an off planet
real colony with families and kids that is anywhere near survivable
without constant resupply will cost less than many trillions of dollars
and that anyone would ever be billing to pony up the money to build one.

On top of that, the space cadet likely believes that sane people, including
female sane people, would want to migrate to one.

People migrate to better their lives, not to live in a pressurized tin can.

Could you offer Martian colonists their own plot of land?

Nope.

Could you offer Martian colonists high pay?

Possibly, but what would they do with it? They can't buy a bigger house,
a luxury car, a boat, a plane, a RV, a OHV, a beach house, a mountain
cabin, or likely not even a swimming pool. They can't take trips to Paris
or Hawaii. The could do none of the things people normally do with wealth.

Most everyone that was foolish enough to go would screaming to get off
the lifeless, airless rock before very long. The gays and the anti-social
types might stay.

The only thing that is going to ever exist off the Earth is military
outposts and research stations.

Some larger installations may have a small number of civilians around
to provide bars and hookers and such, but no regular families and no
kids playing in what would pass for a street.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> No, I'm not responsible for your silly and ignorant delusions.
>
> Take a logic course, Chimp. You're saying "If A then we could B" and
> trying to parlay that into "We cannot B without A", which is a totally
> different proposition and a basic logical fallacy.

No, I am saying no one is going to pony up the many trillions of dollars
required to even begin to build a real colony off the Earth.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Have you ever responded with anything other than bile and name calling
>>>>>>to posts you don't agree with?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I have. For example, I've posted links to research and resources
>>>>> that explode most of your claims. Do you ever read them? You only
>>>>> get "bile and name calling" when you act like a lying dishonest dick.
>>>>> Of course, you do that a lot, so that might be why you get slapped
>>>>> around so often.
>>>>
>>>>OK, so you mix your bile and name calling with off topic links about
>>>>research stations when the topic is colonies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And you think there's no relationship? Wow, we need to feed you nitro
>>> and see if we can blow your head loose from being lodged so far up
>>> your ass.
>>>
>>
>>Fuck off and die, space cadet.
>>
>

> Kiss my ass, mindless parasite.

>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How about YOUR outline to colonize Mars, what it would cost, and how it
>>>>>>would be financed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The world hardly needs my outline. Several different groups have put
>>>>> together workable plans. See the Mars Reference Mission from NASA, or
>>>>> Zubrin's "Mars Direct", or any of a number of others. Why don't you
>>>>> go through those and explain why all the experts are wrong and you're
>>>>> right?
>>>>
>>>>None of the things you reference talk about a colony on Mars, they
>>>>talk about research stations.
>>>>
>>>>A colony, other than a penal colony, has families raising kids.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And you think those are totally different things with totally
>>> different needs? Wow, talk about being a maroon!
>>
>>Yes, a true colony is totally different than a penal colony or a
>>research station.
>>
>

> No, a true colony is not totally different than a penal colony or a
> research station. Much of what you need is the same stuff. You
> apparently think that researchers and prisoners wouldn't require
> oxygen, water, living space, power, etc. You're apparently an idiot.

Yes, a true colony is totally different.

It has families and kids and people growing old and living their entire
life there, generation after generation.

Here is a very small list of things a real colony needs:

diapers
training pants
baby wipes
diaper pails
diaper cream
diaper bags
potty training seats
baby shampoo
baby powder
jumpers, walkers, strollers
baby formula
bsby food
sippy cups
teething rings
baby bottles, nipples, and retaining rings
clothes and shoes
breast pumps
nursing bras
baby beds
baby blankets and sheets
crutches
wheel chairs
hearing aids
walkers
adult diapers
bifocals
dentures
play grounds and equipment


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> Once again you don't even understand the gist of your own arguments.

Once again you don't understand the magnitude of either the endeavor or
the cost.

You talk of dropping Pittsburgh on Mars, but Pittsburgh is a drop in the
bucket to what would be required to be anywhere near self sustaining
for a "colony" requiring 21st Century technology just to survive.

Of the first 92 elements of the periodic table, you need mines for almost
all of those elements.

Then you need refiners for them.

Then you need foundaries to produce all the various alloys and raw stock.

Then you need factories to convert raw stock into piece parts.

Then you need...

And the same plants that make stainless steel 8-32 screws is not going to
be making phosphor bronze relay contacts.

What you need to drop in is most of the Earth.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>>>>> For your reference, records indicate that
>>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As Antarctica has never had any colonies, Antarctica is irrelevant to
>>>>>> a discussion of colonies.
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet *you* were the one who brought it up. It?s always fun to see
>>>>> people attacking their own straw man arguments! :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>> So just what are the natural resources available on Mars?
>>>>>
>>>>> All the ones we know about, and all the ones we *dont yet* know about.
>>>>> The main problem with your thinking is that you seem to use Earth-
>>>>> centric thinking when evaluating the resources that are available.
>>>>
>>>>I use economic thinking.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, you don't. Where did you get your degree in economics. They
>>> should take it back.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>It is well known that there is lots of gold in sea water but it costs
>>>>far more to extract than the gold is worth.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong. It's just that the same amount of money applied elsewhere gets
>>> you more gold. And you claim to be engaging in 'economic thinking'?
>>> You don't know the meaning of the phrase!
>>
>>Nope, the extraction cost exceeds the value.
>>
>

> OK, I'll give you that one (at current prices).

And if you do find something of great value off planet, the increased
supply will depress the market so that is no magic bullet either.


--
Jim Pennino

[Sergio]

take O2, how do you extract that from rocks ? What is needed rate of
production? What does it take ? how much does the O2 plant weigh ?

now, where do you get the N2 ? not from rocks...

what is the rate of water you can get from the vaccuum of moon/mars
surface ? 100 grams per day ?

[Thomas Koenig]

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> schrieb:

> And the same plants that make stainless steel 8-32 screws is not going to
> be making phosphor bronze relay contacts.

3D printing can actually offset a lot of that, to manufacture the actual
parts.

It'll actually be more versatile on Mars (because you have less
gravity to drag down the metal drops).

Any Mars colony will have to import specialities from Earth for
a loooooooong time before becoming more or less self-sufficient.

I actually liked the "Firefly" scenario. Terraforming and then
turning settlers loose with a minimum of technology sounds
doable, provided you can do the terrarforming part easily :-)

[Thomas Koenig]

Fred J McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> schrieb:

> This will be more complicated and more 'expensive' than on Earth,
> since you don't have the complex hydrocarbon feedstock on Mars. But,
> as the link points out, "You can make every plastic available on Earth
> from resources on Mars.

Sure.

The main question is how much complexity this entails, and how
many people and what sort of technological organization this needs
for a colony to work.

Suppose that the US could (at least in principle) be self-sufficient
in chemical goods.

Look at

http://selectusa.commerce.gov/industry-snapshots/chemical-industry-united-states

The industry’s more than 10,000 firms produce more than 70,000 products.
In 2012, the U.S. chemicals industry had sales of $769.4 billion and
directly employed more than 784,000 workers, with additional indirect
employment by industry suppliers of more than 2.7 million.

Here are some employment figures from http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag325.htm :

Chemical equipment operators and tenders 54,020

Chemical technicians 20,350

Chemists 27,350

Mixing and blending machine setters, operators, and tenders 55,330

Packaging and filling machine operators and tenders 49,710

So, divide this by a factor of 10 or 50 for making fewer products
and for having no competition. This would still mean that
several thousand of people would be needed.

So, a few thousand people would be required at least for this.

Pharmaceutical industry in the US employs a few more people than
chemical industy (which, of course, they heavily rely on).

And so on...

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>McCall will never get the point and has obviously never had to make
>>>>something on a budget.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Jimp will never get the point and has obviously never had to make
>>> anything, period.
>>
>>Yeah, right, says the starry eyed space cadet that thinks an off planet
>>real colony with families and kids that is anywhere near survivable
>>without constant resupply will cost less than many trillions of dollars
>>and that anyone would ever be billing to pony up the money to build one.
>>
>

> Ever heard of Elon Musk? He's another one of us 'space cadets' who
> thinks he can colonize Mars. But he's never actually built anything
> or met a schedule. Well, nothing but ZIP2, Paypal, SpaceX, Tesla,
> SolarCity...

Perhaps if Tesla ever starts making a profit, Musk could pay for it all.

>>
>>On top of that, the space cadet likely believes that sane people, including
>>female sane people, would want to migrate to one.
>>
>>People migrate to better their lives, not to live in a pressurized tin can.
>>
>

> No colony ever has better living than home, so I guess you just
> 'proved' that no one will ever colonize anywhere, at any time.

Total utter, and complete nonsense showing no understanding of history
at all.

In fact it is so blazingly stupid I'm not going to bother with a rebuttal.

>>Most everyone that was foolish enough to go would screaming to get off
>>the lifeless, airless rock before very long. The gays and the anti-social
>>types might stay.
>>
>

> So you'd stay, then.

I would never go to such a place.

FYI I was offered, and turned down, a stint at the DEW line for huge
bucks way back when, and that was for less than two years, including
travel time.

>>The only thing that is going to ever exist off the Earth is military
>>outposts and research stations.
>>
>>Some larger installations may have a small number of civilians around
>>to provide bars and hookers and such, but no regular families and no
>>kids playing in what would pass for a street.
>>
>

> Elon Musk disagrees with you and he's spending his own money on
> initial designs. But he's just another space cadet who's never done
> anything real, right?

I could care less what someone else does with their money.

And establishing a real colony on Mars would require many years of the
worlds total gross domestic product.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> Not what you said at all. Where'd you get your cost (other than out
> of your ass, I mean)? Never heard of Elon Musk? His numbers don't
> agree with yours and when it comes to that sort of thing, I think I'm
> going to believe him over you.

Yeah, I've heard of Elon Musk; he's that guy that makes cars that don't
make a profit.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>>Yes, a true colony is totally different.
>>
>

> Bullshit.

>
>>
>>It has families and kids and people growing old and living their entire
>>life there, generation after generation.
>>
>>Here is a very small list of things a real colony needs:
>>
>

> <snip silly list>

You mean all the silly things needed for babies and the elderly?

> So we've never colonized anywhere on Earth, since no colony ever had
> any of the items on your silly list?

Sure they did, all the way back to the first settlers on the American
continent. All of them can be made with 17th Century technology in
a place that has trees and can grow cotton.

Most of those things were made from wood or locally grown and produced
cloth.

I will admit that until the US was well settled, bifocals were only
available to the rich and ear trumpets came mostly from London until
the mid 18th Century.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>>What you need to drop in is most of the Earth.
>>
>

> Utter bullshit. By your 'definitions' there has never been a 'colony'
> anywhere on Earth at any time.


Wrong again, space cadet.

That sort of infrastructure is not needed in a place where cotton and
trees will grow, i.e. a place where you don't need 21st Century techonology
just to survive for more than a few minutes.

Also your we can get all the raw materials we need on Mars is siplistic
nonsese.

Likely you can, but like Earth, they are probably spread all over the
planet so now you also need a huge transportation system to gather
them.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> wrote:

> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> schrieb:
>
>> And the same plants that make stainless steel 8-32 screws is not going to
>> be making phosphor bronze relay contacts.
>
> 3D printing can actually offset a lot of that, to manufacture the actual
> parts.

3D printing makes parts from raw stock.

You still have to get the raw stock and there are few things that could
be 3D printed.

Look around your house, starting with the cloths you are wearing, and
ask yourself how much of this stuff could be 3D printed.

> It'll actually be more versatile on Mars (because you have less
> gravity to drag down the metal drops).

> Any Mars colony will have to import specialities from Earth for
> a loooooooong time before becoming more or less self-sufficient.

Like until we can figure out how to terraform Mars.

> I actually liked the "Firefly" scenario. Terraforming and then
> turning settlers loose with a minimum of technology sounds
> doable, provided you can do the terrarforming part easily :-)

And proven to work as shown by the settling of the American Continents.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> So the only source of ROI so far as you're concerned is raw materials?
> That's just a little stupid, Chimp.

Nope, there is also raw stock and finished goods but I doubt Mars could
compete with China.

I know for sure they won't be able to compete with Japan on plywood.

Martian mink fur?

Martian saffron?

Martian woven rugs?

Don't forget shipping costs.


--
Jim Pennino

[Uncle Steve]

Fred is more of a "what happens on Mars, stays on Mars" sort of fella.
He would love an environment free from the all the stupid rules he has
to follow. No lawyers, no courts, no oversight, just a wide-open
horizon of possibilities as far as he can see.



--
These retarded Potemkin Village newsgroups with their population of
corrupt police-state collaborators and useful idiots loudly calls for
a sharp neo-stalinist pogrom to rid the world of all those who
knowingly participate and as well to deal with those who are
ultimately responsible for creating it.

[Greg Goss]

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>>>On top of that, the space cadet likely believes that sane people, including
>>>female sane people, would want to migrate to one.

...

>>>Most everyone that was foolish enough to go would screaming to get off
>>>the lifeless, airless rock before very long. The gays and the anti-social
>>>types might stay.
>>>
>>
>> So you'd stay, then.
>
>I would never go to such a place.
>
>FYI I was offered, and turned down, a stint at the DEW line for huge
>bucks way back when, and that was for less than two years, including
>travel time.

I was offered big bucks to work as the in-house computer geek for a
minesite in the islands halfway to the North Pole from North America.
I accepted the job, then the job disappeared in a re-org. For complex
reasons I couldn't get back to my original job. The job was
"permanent" but I was thinking of it as a two-to-three year run. But,
a two to three year run at a mine is closer to a "research station"
than to a "colony" in the context of this argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris_mine

--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Thomas Womack]

In article <vj9ltc-...@mail.specsol.com>,

<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>Could you offer Martian colonists high pay?
>
>Possibly, but what would they do with it?

They'd do what people working for high pay in unfriendly environments
have always done: they'll remit it to their family at home. You don't
go out to build skyscrapers in Sharjah or care for entitled brats in
Riyadh in order to spend money in Sharjah or Riyadh; you do it to get
the money that builds your family a nice concrete house and sends your
kids to university back in Kerala or Sumatra.

Tom

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>McCall will never get the point and has obviously never had to make
>>>>>>something on a budget.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jimp will never get the point and has obviously never had to make
>>>>> anything, period.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, right, says the starry eyed space cadet that thinks an off planet
>>>>real colony with families and kids that is anywhere near survivable
>>>>without constant resupply will cost less than many trillions of dollars
>>>>and that anyone would ever be billing to pony up the money to build one.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ever heard of Elon Musk? He's another one of us 'space cadets' who
>>> thinks he can colonize Mars. But he's never actually built anything
>>> or met a schedule. Well, nothing but ZIP2, Paypal, SpaceX, Tesla,
>>> SolarCity...
>>
>>Perhaps if Tesla ever starts making a profit, Musk could pay for it all.
>>
>

> And so we should assume that you are more successful than Elon Musk?

That would be a blazingly stupid assumption.

>>>>On top of that, the space cadet likely believes that sane people, including
>>>>female sane people, would want to migrate to one.
>>>>
>>>>People migrate to better their lives, not to live in a pressurized tin can.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No colony ever has better living than home, so I guess you just
>>> 'proved' that no one will ever colonize anywhere, at any time.
>>
>>Total utter, and complete nonsense showing no understanding of history
>>at all.
>>
>>In fact it is so blazingly stupid I'm not going to bother with a rebuttal.
>>
>

> In other words, your position has blown up in your face (again).

Nope, in other words your statements are just too ridiculous to bother
with.

>>>>Most everyone that was foolish enough to go would screaming to get off
>>>>the lifeless, airless rock before very long. The gays and the anti-social
>>>>types might stay.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you'd stay, then.
>>
>>I would never go to such a place.
>>
>>FYI I was offered, and turned down, a stint at the DEW line for huge
>>bucks way back when, and that was for less than two years, including
>>travel time.
>>
>

> So how many million dollars are you ahead right now, given your
> decision making?

Yet another blazingly stupid question.

Economically the decision meant I had to work while getting a degree
as opposed to living off the DEW line money.

>>>>The only thing that is going to ever exist off the Earth is military
>>>>outposts and research stations.
>>>>
>>>>Some larger installations may have a small number of civilians around
>>>>to provide bars and hookers and such, but no regular families and no
>>>>kids playing in what would pass for a street.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Elon Musk disagrees with you and he's spending his own money on
>>> initial designs. But he's just another space cadet who's never done
>>> anything real, right?
>>
>>I could care less what someone else does with their money.
>>
>>And establishing a real colony on Mars would require many years of the
>>worlds total gross domestic product.
>>
>

> What utter bullshit.

It is actually irrelevant as there will hardly be anyone willing to live
their life in a pressurized tin can breathing recycled air and drinking
recycled water, especially female ones.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> Yeah, he only has a net worth of $13B. How are YOU doing?

Just fine, thanks for asking, but I don't see what my economic status
has to do with a Martian colony other than I think it would be a waste
of tax dollars.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>>Yes, a true colony is totally different.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>It has families and kids and people growing old and living their entire
>>>>life there, generation after generation.
>>>>
>>>>Here is a very small list of things a real colony needs:
>>>>
>>>
>>> <snip silly list>
>>
>>You mean all the silly things needed for babies and the elderly?
>>
>

> I mean all the shit that every other colony on Earth has managed to do
> without.

Except they didn't do without them, they made them from local resources
like trees.

>>> So we've never colonized anywhere on Earth, since no colony ever had
>>> any of the items on your silly list?
>>
>>Sure they did, all the way back to the first settlers on the American
>>continent. All of them can be made with 17th Century technology in
>>a place that has trees and can grow cotton.
>>
>

> But they didn't have any of the shite on your silly list.

Sure they did, just not made of plastic.

The most technologically advanced item on the list waa hearing aids,
which in colonial times was the ear trumpet, invented in the 17th
Century.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>>What you need to drop in is most of the Earth.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Utter bullshit. By your 'definitions' there has never been a 'colony'
>>> anywhere on Earth at any time.
>> >
>>
>>Wrong again, space cadet.
>>
>

> Yeah, me and Elon Musk. So how are you doing, Chimp?

I'm doing just fine, starry eyed ass hole.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In a setting where a multitude of high tech systems needs to be constantly
monitored and maintained to survive more than a few minutes, I think the
societal structure would be more like a miltary post than a hippy love in.


--
Jim Pennino

[Thomas Koenig]

Fred J McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> schrieb:

> Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> wrote:
>
>>Fred J McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>
>>> This will be more complicated and more 'expensive' than on Earth,
>>> since you don't have the complex hydrocarbon feedstock on Mars. But,
>>> as the link points out, "You can make every plastic available on Earth
>>> from resources on Mars.
>>
>>Sure.
>>
>>The main question is how much complexity this entails, and how
>>many people and what sort of technological organization this needs
>>for a colony to work.
>>
>

><snip irrelevancies>

Not quite irrelevant, it shows that you need thousands of people
working in the proposed Mars chemical industry alone to be able
to make simple parts we take for granted here.

> So what you've shown is that it's exactly what I claim; incremental
> growth as you go. You're not independent on Day 1. You get that way
> as you grow and add capability. If it's cheaper to ship, you ship. If
> it's cheaper to make, you make. Industry makes these decisions all
> the time here on Earth. Why would Mars be different?

I would tend to concur in principle. In practice, the size of
population you need to be even approach self-sustainability is
quite large.

The example above is for the chemical industry only. Multiply this
by a none-too-small factor for other relevant industries (metals,
electrical, computers etc). Other people will have to grow food,
repair habitats, build machine tools, make drugs, mine resources,
make (pharmaceutical) drugs, be doctors, teachers, nurses,
hairdressers, make implements for daily life, ...

You'll need a at least few hundred thousand people to get a mostly
self-sufficient colony going, and you will need to supply them
while the aren't yet self-sufficient.

[Sergio]

On 4/8/2016 3:25 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> Sergio <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>

>>>>>
>>>>> silly boy,
>>>>>
>>>>> the moon and mar have NO AIR, NO WATER, NO FOOD, NOTHING but sand and
>>>>> rocks, and high radiation.
>>>>

>>>

>>> The key here is the horrendous cost of getting things to the Moon or Mars
>>> in the first place and that any equipment used there will likely be a
>>> one off custom design that will come at another huge expense.
>>>
>>
>> take O2, how do you extract that from rocks ? What is needed rate of
>> production? What does it take ? how much does the O2 plant weigh ?
>>
>

> Oven. Whatever is needed. Oven. Whatever it needs to.

no answer ? try to think it through.

man needs 500 liters of O2 per day
there are 10 men up there, 2 are needed to run the O2 plant, and 2 are
needed to run the Water plant, and 2 are needed to run the N2 plant.

so your O2 flow rate is 5,000 liters per day,
your N2 flow rate is 15,000 liters per day (assume a 25% O2)
and about 7.5 liters of water per day per person

so how many tons rocks do you cook per day ?
How much energy is needed to run the rock cooking plant?
What type of rocks work for O2 that are on the surface ?

where do you get 24 liters of water per day ? (assume a 25% recapture rate)

Biofilm questions: where does the lost water go? will the biofilm cause
dammage to the electronics? How much energy is used to keep the
Humidity down to below 70% ?

how do you reprocess the salt bath used for cooking the rocks ?

What rocks do you cook to get N2 ???

>
>>
>> now, where do you get the N2 ? not from rocks...
>>
>

> Why not? Does Google not work on your machine, either?

you cannot find any common rocks with N in them, right ?

you have not thought this through have you?

go look on the NASA site, you wont see answers to the hard problems
either, although there are lots of studies on these issues.

Radiation! requires men on either moon or mars to live below ground 20
feet, and only go to surface 5% of the time. 95% of the time they must
be in the underground shelter, large tin can, to keep the radiation from
making them all go blind.

>
>>
>> what is the rate of water you can get from the vaccuum of moon/mars
>> surface ? 100 grams per day ?
>>
>

> As much as you need. Both have lots of ice deposits

dream on, tell your moon men to go suck on ice cubes at the poles.

[Doc O'Leary]

For your reference, records indicate that
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> Perhaps I should have said the vast majority of people wouldn't bother
> attempting to colonize airless, barren rocks.

That’s another non-statement. Whether settling new frontiers is easy or
difficult, it has never been something the “vast majority” did. All it
takes is enough of them to do it, and survive, and spread.

> If Star Trek technology did exist, there are currently several million
> refugees in Europe that would jump at the chance to colonize somewhere
> else, but not an airless, barren rock.

Nonsense. If you have Trek tech, it won’t be airless and barren for
long. Or, hell, the whole habitat could be nothing but a holodeck!

Your solutions lack imagination.

--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

[Sergio]

Air, Water ??

[Sergio]

On 4/9/2016 9:52 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>

>> In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> Well, apparently not...

>
>
> Oven. Whatever is needed. Oven. Whatever it needs to.

no answer ? try to think it through.

[Doc O'Leary]

For your reference, records indicate that
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> I use economic thinking.

Think about thinking more rationally. Think about thinking about
not finance and banking, but survival.

> It is well known that there is lots of gold in sea water but it costs
> far more to extract than the gold is worth.

What the hell does that have to do with anything? First you bring up
Antartica and then say it’s irrelevant, and now you do the same with
gold. Nobody on a planet other than Earth is going to give a *shit*
about gold. Unless it relates to survival, everything you’re thinking
about is irrelevant.

> >> There are no forests, no lakes, no rivers, no life and no air.
> >
> > You seem to have more knowledge than NASA on those things. How is that?
>
> When did NASA announce there are forests, lakes, rivers, life, and
> air anywhere else than Earth?

You again demonstrate a lack of logical thinking. You set out to prove
a negative; that’s *your* burden, not mine.

But, of course, it is entirely irrelevant. A moon/planet can be devoid
of those resources and yet still have many other ones to work with. It
just becomes a different problem to solve. Perhaps more complex, from
a “let’s see if we can transplant Earthlings there” standpoint, but
there is nothing a priori that says it couldn’t be done.

> >> something usefull to build the domed and pressurized buildings
> >> required to survive and do anything.
> >
> > If thats how you think about what is *required* to survive, you clearly
> > havent thought much about the problem. These are *your* straw men.
>
> So you think you can survive on the Moon or Mars without a presurized
> building? Are you going to live in a pressure suit 24/7?

Maybe. The point is to solve the problems that *actually* exist, not
dream up straw men like the “need” to build domed cities.

> It is my opinion that an off Earth true colony would cost far too much
> for anyone to ever try it and few people would be willing to permanently
> move to one.

“Ever” is a mighty long time. The only real question is *how much* would
it cost at any particular time, and how might those costs be reduced
until it *does* become something that some impossibly stupid billionaire
is willing to try it in order to stake a claim on an entire new world.

[Doc O'Leary]

For your reference, records indicate that

Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> wrote:

> Fred J McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> schrieb:
>

> > Colonies always need supply and support initially. Colonies off the
> > Earth will be no different.
>
> The main problem I see for space coloies is the complexity of the
> technology that is needed for survival, if spare parts cannot be
> imported.
>
> Take a simple O-ring used as a seal as as an example.

No, don’t! The entire problem here is that people are coming at the
challenge from an Earth-based perspective. Yes, it is absolutely true
that everything that comes from Earth is going to have Earth-optimized
production and Earth-centric uses. But you need to immediately shift
your thinking to the location you’re at, whether it’s the Moon or Mars
or elsewhere, and begin thinking about what you can do with the r
esources you have at hand. It might mean thinking up an entirely new
solution to the problem than using something from Earth.

> So, is there a way around this? You can try to restrict yourself
> to the materials that you really, really need. This will mean
> that your solutions will be much worse than what you could get on
> Earth by just ordering the products you needed. I am not sure
> that this will be easy given the harshness of your environment,
> where your solutions should be good if you want to survive.

This may be true. There must be some minimum mix of resources that allow
a human-level colony to self-sustainingly survive on a world. We’ll find
it by exploring the problem, not by dismissing it out of hand just because
our thinking is limited by some “irreducible complexity” argument.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> And just how 'self sufficient' does a colony have to be in order to be
> a 'colony'? Remember, we used to ship shirts to China to have them
> laundered and still ship scrap (plastic and steel) there to get it
> recycled and shipped back to us. Jimp the Chimp insists that it's not
> a colony unless it is totally self-sufficient at a quality of life
> similar to a rich suburb in Connecticut with a population of billions.
> I think the bar is much lower both in quality of life and numbers; a
> relatively small population (hundreds) that can manage survival
> through an extended interruption in resupply is a 'colony' for me. My
> definition is closer to the classical Earthbound definition, where
> colonies failed due to interruptions in supplies from back home.

There go those voices in your head again, space cadet.

A colony is not a true colony unless it has families with kids that
voluntarily joined the colony and intend to spend their lives there.

A colony is not self sufficient until the members can survive without
resupply.

Survival in the New World meant you had to build shelter, find water,
and plant crops.

The things that usually caused failure in the New World were lack of proper
attention to the above, disease, attacks by indigenous people, who by the
way were not resupplied by Europe, and attacks from other European nation
states.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>McCall will never get the point and has obviously never had to make
>>>>>>>>something on a budget.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jimp will never get the point and has obviously never had to make
>>>>>>> anything, period.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yeah, right, says the starry eyed space cadet that thinks an off planet
>>>>>>real colony with families and kids that is anywhere near survivable
>>>>>>without constant resupply will cost less than many trillions of dollars
>>>>>>and that anyone would ever be billing to pony up the money to build one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ever heard of Elon Musk? He's another one of us 'space cadets' who
>>>>> thinks he can colonize Mars. But he's never actually built anything
>>>>> or met a schedule. Well, nothing but ZIP2, Paypal, SpaceX, Tesla,
>>>>> SolarCity...
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps if Tesla ever starts making a profit, Musk could pay for it all.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And so we should assume that you are more successful than Elon Musk?
>>>
>>
>>That would be a blazingly stupid assumption.
>>
>

> Yeah, I thought so, too, which is why I listen to him rather than you.

Do you get all your thougths from celebrities?

>
>>>>>>On top of that, the space cadet likely believes that sane people, including
>>>>>>female sane people, would want to migrate to one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>People migrate to better their lives, not to live in a pressurized tin can.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No colony ever has better living than home, so I guess you just
>>>>> 'proved' that no one will ever colonize anywhere, at any time.
>>>>
>>>>Total utter, and complete nonsense showing no understanding of history
>>>>at all.
>>>>
>>>>In fact it is so blazingly stupid I'm not going to bother with a rebuttal.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In other words, your position has blown up in your face (again).
>>>
>>
>>Nope, in other words your statements are just too ridiculous to bother
>>with.
>>
>
> In other words, your position has blown up in your face (again).

Does the phrase "escape religious persecution" mean anything to you?

Does the phrase "own your own farm and not be a serf" mean anything to you?

>>>>>>Most everyone that was foolish enough to go would screaming to get off
>>>>>>the lifeless, airless rock before very long. The gays and the anti-social
>>>>>>types might stay.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So you'd stay, then.
>>>>
>>>>I would never go to such a place.
>>>>
>>>>FYI I was offered, and turned down, a stint at the DEW line for huge
>>>>bucks way back when, and that was for less than two years, including
>>>>travel time.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So how many million dollars are you ahead right now, given your
>>> decision making?
>>>
>>
>>Yet another blazingly stupid question.
>>
>

> So you're not only not doing as well as Elon Musk, but you're not
> doing as well as I am. We both disagree with you.

You have no clue as to my economic status, space cadet.

>>Economically the decision meant I had to work while getting a degree
>>as opposed to living off the DEW line money.
>>
>

> See why I believe Elon Musk before I believe you? Sounds like you
> make a lot of sub-optimal decisions based on you thinking you know
> things you don't know.

I still concider it the correct decision.

You however, may prefer to spend months in an isolated, barren location
in all male company.

>>>>>>The only thing that is going to ever exist off the Earth is military
>>>>>>outposts and research stations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Some larger installations may have a small number of civilians around
>>>>>>to provide bars and hookers and such, but no regular families and no
>>>>>>kids playing in what would pass for a street.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Elon Musk disagrees with you and he's spending his own money on
>>>>> initial designs. But he's just another space cadet who's never done
>>>>> anything real, right?
>>>>
>>>>I could care less what someone else does with their money.
>>>>
>>>>And establishing a real colony on Mars would require many years of the
>>>>worlds total gross domestic product.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What utter bullshit.
>>>
>>
>>It is actually irrelevant as there will hardly be anyone willing to live
>>their life in a pressurized tin can breathing recycled air and drinking
>>recycled water, especially female ones.
>>
>

> So we have you insisting it's just not possible without 'Star Trek'
> technology (for no known reason other than you say so), that maybe it
> is possible but it will take all the money in the world (for no known
> reason other than you say so), or that maybe it's both possible and
> affordable but nobody would go (for no known reason other than you say
> so).

There is a diffenece between not possible and no one wanting to do it,
space cadet.

> What we really know from your interminable expositions is that YOU
> can't figure out how to make it work, that YOU can't afford it, and
> that YOU wouldn't go.

Live my life on a barren, airless rock with nothing to do other than
look out a port hole at a landscape that hasn't changed in millions
of years?

No thank you.

> Back to your cave, Chimp, while better men than you build the future
> for you.

The closest thing I have to a cave is the hanger where my airplane is
kept, space cadet.

And there is yet another reason for not wanting to live on a barren,
lifeless rock; no chance to spend $200 in fuel just to fly to an
airport to eat a hamburger, see other airpanes and talk airplanes with
new people.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Those are basically refugees, not colonists. Colonists take their families
with them.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> Why, Elon is one of those 'space cadets' you denigrate as never having
> done anything or built anything. Surely someone like you, a
> non-'space cadet' with all that world experience would be doing better
> than us 'space cadets', right?

Nope, there go the voices in you head again.

All I said about Elon Musk is that he is the guy that builds the cars
that have never made a profit, which is a statement of fact.

What I did say was that it is obvious YOU have never built anything
or have the slightest clue what doing so takes.

> Well, apparently not...

If net worth is your standard, then you REALLY must be in love with the
Kardashians.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:

> For your reference, records indicate that
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> Perhaps I should have said the vast majority of people wouldn't bother
>> attempting to colonize airless, barren rocks.
>

> Thats another non-statement. Whether settling new frontiers is easy or

> difficult, it has never been something the vast majority”did. All it
> takes is enough of them to do it, and survive, and spread.
>
>> If Star Trek technology did exist, there are currently several million
>> refugees in Europe that would jump at the chance to colonize somewhere
>> else, but not an airless, barren rock.
>

> Nonsense. If you have Trek tech, it wont be airless and barren for

> long. Or, hell, the whole habitat could be nothing but a holodeck!
>
> Your solutions lack imagination.

Note that even in Star Trek, the coloies were agrarian, they did very
little in the way of terraforming, and when they did, they didn't
start with airless rocks.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, a true colony is totally different.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It has families and kids and people growing old and living their entire
>>>>>>life there, generation after generation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Here is a very small list of things a real colony needs:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip silly list>
>>>>
>>>>You mean all the silly things needed for babies and the elderly?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I mean all the shit that every other colony on Earth has managed to do
>>> without.
>>
>>Except they didn't do without them, they made them from local resources
>>like trees.
>>
>

> Except they didn't, now did they? They simply did without them.

No, they did not do without them.

They started making those things after the shelter was built, the well
dug, and the crops planted.

>
>>>>> So we've never colonized anywhere on Earth, since no colony ever had
>>>>> any of the items on your silly list?
>>>>
>>>>Sure they did, all the way back to the first settlers on the American
>>>>continent. All of them can be made with 17th Century technology in
>>>>a place that has trees and can grow cotton.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But they didn't have any of the shite on your silly list.
>>
>>Sure they did, just not made of plastic.
>>
>

> Or made at all. Do you know ANYTHING?

Apparently a lot more than you.

Have you ever been to a museum?

>>
>>The most technologically advanced item on the list waa hearing aids,
>>which in colonial times was the ear trumpet, invented in the 17th
>>Century.
>>
>

> So it was invented a couple of centuries AFTER a lot of
> colonization...

The 17th Century was the 1600's, i.e. very early in colonization.

The 16th Century was mostly exploration, mapping, and plundering the
idiginous poplulations.

The first permanent European colony in North America wasn't until 1565.

Note that the idiginous poplulations were able to survive without resupply
from Europe.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> Just toddle on back to your cave, Chimp, while us "starry-eyed ass
> holes" build the future for you.

And again, the closest thing I have to a cave is the hangar where I keep
my airplane, space cadet.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>

> So you think our current society, where a multitude of high tech

> systems needs to be constantly monitored and maintained to survive

> more than a few minutes, has a societal structure like a military
> post? Wow. Just wow.

Last I looked there was a more than adequate supply of air on Earth,
space cadet.

Or are you one of those people that can't survive more than a few minutes
without their iPhone?

> It's funny that a known lunatic like Uncle Steve (and I mean that just
> like it sounds; he actually is mentally ill) spews some delusion and
> you pick right up on it and act like it's fact, but when confronted
> with facts you insist they're not true.

I never heard of Uncle Steve unless you are talking about the character
Steve Martin plays in his comedy act.

> Trudge on back to your cave, Chimp...

Again, hangar, no cave space cadet.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:

> For your reference, records indicate that
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> I use economic thinking.
>
> Think about thinking more rationally. Think about thinking about
> not finance and banking, but survival.

And it will take a LOT of finance to get to and survive on Mars.

>> It is well known that there is lots of gold in sea water but it costs
>> far more to extract than the gold is worth.
>
> What the hell does that have to do with anything? First you bring up

> Antartica and then say its irrelevant, and now you do the same with

> gold. Nobody on a planet other than Earth is going to give a *shit*
> about gold. Unless it relates to survival, everything you’re thinking
> about is irrelevant.

Pay attention; it was about the economics of going to other places, i.e.
getting a return on investment, which was a big motivator for the
colonizaton of the Americas.

>> >> There are no forests, no lakes, no rivers, no life and no air.
>> >
>> > You seem to have more knowledge than NASA on those things. How is that?
>>
>> When did NASA announce there are forests, lakes, rivers, life, and
>> air anywhere else than Earth?
>
> You again demonstrate a lack of logical thinking. You set out to prove

> a negative; thats *your* burden, not mine.

Nope, it is your delusiong there are forests, lakes, rivers, life, and air
anywhere other than Earth.

> But, of course, it is entirely irrelevant. A moon/planet can be devoid
> of those resources and yet still have many other ones to work with. It
> just becomes a different problem to solve. Perhaps more complex, from

> aet’s see if we can transplant Earthlings there” standpoint, but
> there is nothing a priori that says it couldnt be done.

Be done is not the same thing as ROI.

>> >> something usefull to build the domed and pressurized buildings
>> >> required to survive and do anything.
>> >
>> > If thats how you think about what is *required* to survive, you clearly
>> > havent thought much about the problem. These are *your* straw men.
>>
>> So you think you can survive on the Moon or Mars without a presurized
>> building? Are you going to live in a pressure suit 24/7?
>
> Maybe. The point is to solve the problems that *actually* exist, not
> dream up straw men like the need” to builddomed cities.

The need to build pressurized work and living areas does exist.

>> It is my opinion that an off Earth true colony would cost far too much
>> for anyone to ever try it and few people would be willing to permanently
>> move to one.
>
> “Ever” is a mighty long time. The only real question is *how much* would
> it cost at any particular time, and how might those costs be reduced
> until it *does* become something that some impossibly stupid billionaire
> is willing to try it in order to stake a claim on an entire new world.

And do what with it?

Spain conquered a big part of the New World for the easily gotten wealth.

There is nothing off the Earth valuable enough to turn a profit after
acquistion and shipping costs.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>

>>For your reference, records indicate that
>>Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Fred J McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>>
>>> > Colonies always need supply and support initially. Colonies off the
>>> > Earth will be no different.
>>>
>>> The main problem I see for space coloies is the complexity of the
>>> technology that is needed for survival, if spare parts cannot be
>>> imported.
>>>
>>> Take a simple O-ring used as a seal as as an example.
>>

>>No, don?t! The entire problem here is that people are coming at the

>>challenge from an Earth-based perspective. Yes, it is absolutely true
>>that everything that comes from Earth is going to have Earth-optimized
>>production and Earth-centric uses. But you need to immediately shift

>>your thinking to the location you?re at, whether it?s the Moon or Mars

>>or elsewhere, and begin thinking about what you can do with the r
>>esources you have at hand. It might mean thinking up an entirely new
>>solution to the problem than using something from Earth.
>>
>

> Exactly. Most things will get done different in an off-world colony
> than they are here. The best example of that is Chimp's insisting
> that a colony needs a multi-hundred megawatt PWR with a river or lake
> for cooling. You'd never go down the path to build such a thing
> somewhere that you didn't have free flowing water. You'll solve the
> 'power problem' some other way. For example, start with
> self-contained reactors of much smaller size (a few hundred thousand
> kWe) that don't require rivers to cool. Keep adding those and
> bootstrap to large solar arrays produced from in situ resources.

>
>>> So, is there a way around this? You can try to restrict yourself
>>> to the materials that you really, really need. This will mean
>>> that your solutions will be much worse than what you could get on
>>> Earth by just ordering the products you needed. I am not sure
>>> that this will be easy given the harshness of your environment,
>>> where your solutions should be good if you want to survive.
>>
>>This may be true. There must be some minimum mix of resources that allow

>>a human-level colony to self-sustainingly survive on a world. We?ll find

>>it by exploring the problem, not by dismissing it out of hand just because

>>our thinking is limited by some ?irreducible complexity? argument.
>>
>
> Look at Musk's "Mars Colony Transporter" plan. He's talking about 90
> TONS of supply per colonist and eventually sending them in batches of
> 100 (9 cargo launches per colonist launch). He thinks he can run that
> 'break even' at $5 million per launch ($50 million for 100 colonists
> and all their supplies). I think he's a little optimistic, but...

Now all he needs to do is find people without dicks that are willng to go.

As $50 million is chump change to his net worth, why hasn't he started?


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And just how 'self sufficient' does a colony have to be in order to be
>>> a 'colony'? Remember, we used to ship shirts to China to have them
>>> laundered and still ship scrap (plastic and steel) there to get it
>>> recycled and shipped back to us. Jimp the Chimp insists that it's not
>>> a colony unless it is totally self-sufficient at a quality of life
>>> similar to a rich suburb in Connecticut with a population of billions.
>>> I think the bar is much lower both in quality of life and numbers; a
>>> relatively small population (hundreds) that can manage survival
>>> through an extended interruption in resupply is a 'colony' for me. My
>>> definition is closer to the classical Earthbound definition, where
>>> colonies failed due to interruptions in supplies from back home.
>>
>>There go those voices in your head again, space cadet.
>>
>

> Yeah, but the problem is one of those voices is you saying all sorts
> of stupid shite.

You mean stupid things like you can breath on Earth but not on Mars
and that mothers put diapers on babbies long before Pampers were invented?

You really bought in hard on that Rocket to the Moon ride at Disneyland,
didn't you?



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> I get them from experts. Musk is one. You are not.

So where is Musk's space port?

At a projected cost of $50 million that would be chump change for him.

>>>
>>>>>>>>On top of that, the space cadet likely believes that sane people, including
>>>>>>>>female sane people, would want to migrate to one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>People migrate to better their lives, not to live in a pressurized tin can.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No colony ever has better living than home, so I guess you just
>>>>>>> 'proved' that no one will ever colonize anywhere, at any time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Total utter, and complete nonsense showing no understanding of history
>>>>>>at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In fact it is so blazingly stupid I'm not going to bother with a rebuttal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, your position has blown up in your face (again).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nope, in other words your statements are just too ridiculous to bother
>>>>with.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In other words, your position has blown up in your face (again).
>>>
>>
>>Does the phrase "escape religious persecution" mean anything to you?
>>
>>Does the phrase "own your own farm and not be a serf" mean anything to you?
>>
>

> Does the phrase "your position has blown up in your face (again)" mean
> anything to you?

Only that you are too blind to understand human motivations.

So you are denying that escaping religious persecution and owning your own
farm as opposed to being a serf wasn't a better life goal for colonists?

>>>>>>>>Most everyone that was foolish enough to go would screaming to get off
>>>>>>>>the lifeless, airless rock before very long. The gays and the anti-social
>>>>>>>>types might stay.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you'd stay, then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would never go to such a place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>FYI I was offered, and turned down, a stint at the DEW line for huge
>>>>>>bucks way back when, and that was for less than two years, including
>>>>>>travel time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So how many million dollars are you ahead right now, given your
>>>>> decision making?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yet another blazingly stupid question.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you're not only not doing as well as Elon Musk, but you're not
>>> doing as well as I am. We both disagree with you.
>>
>>You have no clue as to my economic status, space cadet.
>>
>

> You've already said that asking you how many billion dollars or how
> many million dollars you have are stupid questions. That seems to
> take you down to hundreds of thousands, then, at best.

Non sequitur.

How much money I have has nothing to do with anything space related other
than the tax dollers I pay as I would not willingly finance it no matter
how much I had.

>>>>Economically the decision meant I had to work while getting a degree
>>>>as opposed to living off the DEW line money.
>>>>
>>>
>>> See why I believe Elon Musk before I believe you? Sounds like you
>>> make a lot of sub-optimal decisions based on you thinking you know
>>> things you don't know.
>>
>>I still concider it the correct decision.
>>
>

> Of course you do. But then, you obviously think you're infallible, so
> your opinion here is no surprise.

Non sequitur yet again.

>>You however, may prefer to spend months in an isolated, barren location
>>in all male company.
>>
>

> That rather depends on the pay and duration. You know, you seem
> fixated on the whole 'presence of women' thing. Do you always think
> with your penis?

For Mars, that duration would be lifes and for the DEW line it was a bit
short of two years, and no, I am not willing to spend years without female
company.

You on the other hand seem to have no clue that roughly half the population
is women or that women have been putting diapers on babies since long
before Pampers were invented.

>>>>>>>>The only thing that is going to ever exist off the Earth is military
>>>>>>>>outposts and research stations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Some larger installations may have a small number of civilians around
>>>>>>>>to provide bars and hookers and such, but no regular families and no
>>>>>>>>kids playing in what would pass for a street.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Elon Musk disagrees with you and he's spending his own money on
>>>>>>> initial designs. But he's just another space cadet who's never done
>>>>>>> anything real, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I could care less what someone else does with their money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And establishing a real colony on Mars would require many years of the
>>>>>>worlds total gross domestic product.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What utter bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It is actually irrelevant as there will hardly be anyone willing to live
>>>>their life in a pressurized tin can breathing recycled air and drinking
>>>>recycled water, especially female ones.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So we have you insisting it's just not possible without 'Star Trek'
>>> technology (for no known reason other than you say so), that maybe it
>>> is possible but it will take all the money in the world (for no known
>>> reason other than you say so), or that maybe it's both possible and
>>> affordable but nobody would go (for no known reason other than you say
>>> so).
>>
>>There is a diffenece between not possible and no one wanting to do it,
>>space cadet.
>>
>

> Yes, there is, chimp. I'm pleased that you recognize that at the end
> here.

Seems I have been telling you that from the start, but it doesn't seem
to get past the swarm of space ships buzzing around your head.

>
>>> What we really know from your interminable expositions is that YOU
>>> can't figure out how to make it work, that YOU can't afford it, and
>>> that YOU wouldn't go.
>>
>>Live my life on a barren, airless rock with nothing to do other than
>>look out a port hole at a landscape that hasn't changed in millions
>>of years?
>>
>>No thank you.
>>
>

> By all means you should stay in your cave, Chimp. You'll be happier
> that way.

Again, no cave, only a hangar, space cadet.

>
>>> Back to your cave, Chimp, while better men than you build the future
>>> for you.
>>
>>The closest thing I have to a cave is the hanger where my airplane is
>>kept, space cadet.
>>
>>And there is yet another reason for not wanting to live on a barren,
>>lifeless rock; no chance to spend $200 in fuel just to fly to an
>>airport to eat a hamburger, see other airpanes and talk airplanes with
>>new people.
>>
>

> And a century ago you'd have been railing against airplanes as a total
> waste of money and talking about how they'd never catch on.

Nope, I would have been building them, space cadet.

If it were possible to build my own space ship, I would be doing that
too, but that is a childish dream and I grew up and figured out most
of the stuff in those movies is make believe.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Yeah, I've heard of Elon Musk; he's that guy that makes cars that don't
>>>>>>make a profit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, he only has a net worth of $13B. How are YOU doing?
>>>>
>>>>Just fine, thanks for asking, but I don't see what my economic status
>>>>has to do with a Martian colony other than I think it would be a waste
>>>>of tax dollars.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why, Elon is one of those 'space cadets' you denigrate as never having
>>> done anything or built anything. Surely someone like you, a
>>> non-'space cadet' with all that world experience would be doing better
>>> than us 'space cadets', right?
>>
>>Nope, there go the voices in you head again.
>>
>

> Well, if you'd STFU the most annoying one would go away.

No, I'm afraid it would take far more than that.

>>All I said about Elon Musk is that he is the guy that builds the cars
>>that have never made a profit, which is a statement of fact.
>>
>

> But he's a 'space cadet' and you've characterized them as "have never

> built anything or have the slightest clue what doing so takes".

Those voices again.

Nope, see below.

>>
>>What I did say was that it is obvious YOU have never built anything
>>or have the slightest clue what doing so takes.
>>
>

> I'm sure many egregiously stupid things are 'obvious' to you.

So what thing, i.e. something tangible, have you built that you are
most proud of?

Putting an IKEA bookcase together doesn't count.

>>> Well, apparently not...
>>
>>If net worth is your standard, then you REALLY must be in love with the
>>Kardashians.
>>
>

> They've done more than you have. Which is a really sad commentary on
> you...

Well they do have a lot more arrests than I do, but I'm nod jealous.

So you are gaga over celebrities.

How long did you cry when Princess Di died?


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>

>>In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>>> For your reference, records indicate that
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Perhaps I should have said the vast majority of people wouldn't bother
>>>> attempting to colonize airless, barren rocks.
>>>
>>> Thats another non-statement. Whether settling new frontiers is easy or

>>> difficult, it has never been something the vast majority?did. All it

>>> takes is enough of them to do it, and survive, and spread.
>>>
>>>> If Star Trek technology did exist, there are currently several million
>>>> refugees in Europe that would jump at the chance to colonize somewhere
>>>> else, but not an airless, barren rock.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. If you have Trek tech, it wont be airless and barren for
>>> long. Or, hell, the whole habitat could be nothing but a holodeck!
>>>
>>> Your solutions lack imagination.
>>
>>Note that even in Star Trek, the coloies were agrarian, they did very
>>little in the way of terraforming, and when they did, they didn't
>>start with airless rocks.
>>
>

> Note that you're the only one whose head is up and locked about Star
> Trek.

Note that even in science fiction your ideas are childish.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Not that hard.

I meant other than crack whores promised an endless supply of crack.

You now, normal women that want families and kids and grandkids.

Or maybe you don't know of such things.

>>
>>As $50 million is chump change to his net worth, why hasn't he started?
>>
>

> He has. However, unlike you, he recognizes that there is no 'instant'
> colony solution.

So where is this space port, assembly line for the rockets, warehouses
for the supplies and training facilities for the volunteers needed to get
started?

There is no development required for warehouses and training facilities
so why isn't it started?


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes, a true colony is totally different.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It has families and kids and people growing old and living their entire
>>>>>>>>life there, generation after generation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Here is a very small list of things a real colony needs:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip silly list>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You mean all the silly things needed for babies and the elderly?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean all the shit that every other colony on Earth has managed to do
>>>>> without.
>>>>
>>>>Except they didn't do without them, they made them from local resources
>>>>like trees.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Except they didn't, now did they? They simply did without them.
>>
>>No, they did not do without them.
>>
>>They started making those things after the shelter was built, the well
>>dug, and the crops planted.
>>
>

> You really don't know shit about any of this, do you? No, they didn't
> do that at all. Most of the things on your list are MODERN
> CONVENIENCES that people simply did without in the 15th Century.

First, colonization didn't take off until late in the 16th Century and
mothers were putting diapers on babies long before that.

>>>>>>> So we've never colonized anywhere on Earth, since no colony ever had
>>>>>>> any of the items on your silly list?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sure they did, all the way back to the first settlers on the American
>>>>>>continent. All of them can be made with 17th Century technology in
>>>>>>a place that has trees and can grow cotton.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But they didn't have any of the shite on your silly list.
>>>>
>>>>Sure they did, just not made of plastic.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Or made at all. Do you know ANYTHING?
>>
>>Apparently a lot more than you.
>>
>

> Apparently not.

>
>>
>>Have you ever been to a museum?
>>
>

> Have you ever looked at the dates on things?

Diapers go back to antiquity as do most of the things on the list.

>>>>The most technologically advanced item on the list waa hearing aids,
>>>>which in colonial times was the ear trumpet, invented in the 17th
>>>>Century.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So it was invented a couple of centuries AFTER a lot of
>>> colonization...
>>
>>The 17th Century was the 1600's, i.e. very early in colonization.
>>
>>The 16th Century was mostly exploration, mapping, and plundering the
>>idiginous poplulations.
>>
>>The first permanent European colony in North America wasn't until 1565.
>>
>

> So what continent do you consider the Caribbean to be in? How about
> South and Central America?

What about them?

The Southern regions were mostly Spanish who were more interested in
plunder than colonization.

However 17th century politics has little to do when mothers started
putting diapers on babies.

>>Note that the idiginous poplulations were able to survive without resupply
>>from Europe.
>>
>

> Well, DOH!

Did the light just come on?

Do you finally realize that you do NOT absolutely need resupply from
Europe to survive on the American continents?


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> Once again, if it was a century ago you would be railing against
> airplanes and explaining how they would never catch on.

Once again, if it was a century ago I would be building airplanes.

BTW, aviation took off (pun intended) when people realized there was
a ROI to be had in building them.

There is no ROI for a Martian colony.

--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>In sci.physics Uncle Steve <stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 10:43:48PM -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Your point seems to be you want to cozy up to a three titted hooker
>>>>>> in a Martian bar just like in the movies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fred is more of a "what happens on Mars, stays on Mars" sort of fella.
>>>>> He would love an environment free from the all the stupid rules he has
>>>>> to follow. No lawyers, no courts, no oversight, just a wide-open
>>>>> horizon of possibilities as far as he can see.
>>>>
>>>>In a setting where a multitude of high tech systems needs to be constantly
>>>>monitored and maintained to survive more than a few minutes, I think the
>>>>societal structure would be more like a miltary post than a hippy love in.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you think our current society, where a multitude of high tech
>>> systems needs to be constantly monitored and maintained to survive
>>> more than a few minutes, has a societal structure like a military
>>> post? Wow. Just wow.
>>
>>Last I looked there was a more than adequate supply of air on Earth,
>>space cadet.
>>
>>Or are you one of those people that can't survive more than a few minutes
>>without their iPhone?
>>
>

> Water goes down. What do you do? Without outside supply you have
> less than a day before you die of dehydration.

Nope.

I see you also know nothing about human survival.

The rule of thumb is 3,3,3.

That is the normal healthy adult under average conditions dies after 3
minutes without air, 3 days without water and 3 months without food.

> Food into New York City goes down. What do you do? Without resupply
> you have a week before you starve to death.

Nope, a couple of months.

> Rule of thumb, bucko. Six minutes without air, six hours without
> water, six days without food...

Absolutely wrong; see above.

Like I have said before, you know little about the human condition.

How long could a farmer in colonial America go without utilities and
resupply?

Years.


> [You can last longer under specialized conditions.]

>
>>> It's funny that a known lunatic like Uncle Steve (and I mean that just
>>> like it sounds; he actually is mentally ill) spews some delusion and
>>> you pick right up on it and act like it's fact, but when confronted
>>> with facts you insist they're not true.
>>
>>I never heard of Uncle Steve unless you are talking about the character
>>Steve Martin plays in his comedy act.
>>
>>> Trudge on back to your cave, Chimp...
>>
>>Again, hangar, no cave space cadet.
>>
>

> Again, a century ago you'd be railing against airplanes, Chimp.

Again, a century ago I'd be building airplanes and making a profit at it.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>

>>In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <drol...@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>>> For your reference, records indicate that
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> I use economic thinking.
>>>
>>> Think about thinking more rationally. Think about thinking about
>>> not finance and banking, but survival.
>>
>>And it will take a LOT of finance to get to and survive on Mars.
>>
>

> Musk thinks he can make it work at $500,000 per colonist and include a
> free trip back to Earth for those who decide it's not their cup of
> tea. There are a lot of people who can afford that. Hell, *I* can
> afford that.

So can I and the wife.

However if I were to tell her we were going to to live on Mars, the
best I could expect is a divorce as opposed to being shot.

>>>> It is well known that there is lots of gold in sea water but it costs
>>>> far more to extract than the gold is worth.
>>>
>>> What the hell does that have to do with anything? First you bring up
>>> Antartica and then say its irrelevant, and now you do the same with
>>> gold. Nobody on a planet other than Earth is going to give a *shit*

>>> about gold. Unless it relates to survival, everything you?re thinking

>>> about is irrelevant.
>>
>>Pay attention; it was about the economics of going to other places, i.e.
>>getting a return on investment, which was a big motivator for the
>>colonizaton of the Americas.
>>
>

> Weren't you just raving about "freedom from religious persecution"? So
> which is it?

Some of both, but mostly ROI for those that put the colonies together.

Ever heard of the London Company, established 1606, with the purpose of
establishing colonial settlements in North America?

>>>> >> There are no forests, no lakes, no rivers, no life and no air.
>>>> >
>>>> > You seem to have more knowledge than NASA on those things. How is that?
>>>>
>>>> When did NASA announce there are forests, lakes, rivers, life, and
>>>> air anywhere else than Earth?
>>>
>>> You again demonstrate a lack of logical thinking. You set out to prove
>>> a negative; thats *your* burden, not mine.
>>
>>Nope, it is your delusiong there are forests, lakes, rivers, life, and air
>>anywhere other than Earth.
>>
>

> <yawn>

>
>>> But, of course, it is entirely irrelevant. A moon/planet can be devoid
>>> of those resources and yet still have many other ones to work with. It
>>> just becomes a different problem to solve. Perhaps more complex, from

>>> aet?s see if we can transplant Earthlings there? standpoint, but

>>> there is nothing a priori that says it couldnt be done.
>>
>>Be done is not the same thing as ROI.
>>
>

> Religious persecution is not the same thing as ROI. Care to choose
> one?

Are you so single minded you can not see the existance of both?

>>>> >> something usefull to build the domed and pressurized buildings
>>>> >> required to survive and do anything.
>>>> >
>>>> > If thats how you think about what is *required* to survive, you clearly
>>>> > havent thought much about the problem. These are *your* straw men.
>>>>
>>>> So you think you can survive on the Moon or Mars without a presurized
>>>> building? Are you going to live in a pressure suit 24/7?
>>>
>>> Maybe. The point is to solve the problems that *actually* exist, not

>>> dream up straw men like the need? to builddomed cities.

>>
>>The need to build pressurized work and living areas does exist.
>>
>

> And is easy.

And expensive and absolutely needed to survive more than 3 minutes, unlike
anywhere in the Americas.

>>>> It is my opinion that an off Earth true colony would cost far too much
>>>> for anyone to ever try it and few people would be willing to permanently
>>>> move to one.
>>>

>>> ?Ever? is a mighty long time. The only real question is *how much* would

>>> it cost at any particular time, and how might those costs be reduced
>>> until it *does* become something that some impossibly stupid billionaire
>>> is willing to try it in order to stake a claim on an entire new world.
>>
>>And do what with it?
>>
>>Spain conquered a big part of the New World for the easily gotten wealth.
>>
>>There is nothing off the Earth valuable enough to turn a profit after
>>acquistion and shipping costs.
>>
>

> Your intellectual myopia is not 'proof'.

Name something then.

Your historical ignorance, single minded fixations, and lack of understanding
of human motivations are astounding.


--
Jim Pennino

[Greg Goss]

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>Note that even in Star Trek, the coloies were agrarian, they did very
>little in the way of terraforming, and when they did, they didn't
>start with airless rocks.

Well, except for movie two. Did they ever reuse that tech after that?
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>Note that even in Star Trek, the coloies were agrarian, they did very
>>little in the way of terraforming, and when they did, they didn't
>>start with airless rocks.
>
> Well, except for movie two. Did they ever reuse that tech after that?

Nope, in movie three the crew was ordered to never talk about the device
and it was implied that part of the device was made with something either
illegal or unethical and anything made with it would be unstable.

--
Jim Pennino

[Thomas Koenig]

Fred J McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> schrieb:
> Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> wrote:
>
>>Fred J McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>> Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Fred J McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>>>

>>>>> This will be more complicated and more 'expensive' than on Earth,
>>>>> since you don't have the complex hydrocarbon feedstock on Mars. But,
>>>>> as the link points out, "You can make every plastic available on Earth
>>>>> from resources on Mars.
>>>>
>>>>Sure.
>>>>
>>>>The main question is how much complexity this entails, and how
>>>>many people and what sort of technological organization this needs
>>>>for a colony to work.
>>>>
>>>
>>><snip irrelevancies>
>>
>>Not quite irrelevant, it shows that you need thousands of people
>>working in the proposed Mars chemical industry alone to be able
>>to make simple parts we take for granted here.
>>
>

> Or you'd have more automated equipment because people are more
> expensive.

Current chemical industry is already automated to a very high
degree. Also, automation is expensive in equipment. When equipment
fails, you need somebody to repair it. And so on...

If you only have a few thousand people, the best you can hope
for is technology of around hundread years ago. They didn't have
all the complicated, interconnected stuff. The only rubber they
could use was natural rubber. Synthetic fabrics were unknown, as
were plastics except for Bakelite.

So, bring on those cotton plants.

> Or you teleoperate. But yes, TOTAL self-sufficiency
> (which we don't have in the United States, by the way) takes more than
> a dozen people. Incremental steps...

To do anything really useful, you need quite a big first step.

>>You'll need a at least few hundred thousand people to get a mostly
>>self-sufficient colony going, and you will need to supply them
>>while the aren't yet self-sufficient.
>>
>

> How did you arrive at that number of people? How much did you assume
> was automated and/or being produced by something like a 3D printer?

I was talking about chemicals, which are the raw material for 3D
printers. Automated is already done.

> None of this is magical technology. We use more people-intensive
> processes here because people are cheaper.

Not really. We (in the West) already automate to the point where
it is unrealistic to expect more at the current level of
technology.

The problem is not only running the processes smoothly on a
day-to-day basis. The problem is that you need people for
process upsets, for mechanical failures and for maintenance.

Mechanical seals fail. Solid gets into pumps and plugs them.
Heat exchangers foul. Pumps wear out. Pipes corrode. Insulation
of electrical motors degrades over time. And so on...

And every five years or so, you have a big turnaround to inspect
everything and replace or repair worn or damaged parts.

Currently, we do not have the technology to avoid this kind of
thing, and automation is not going to help there. If we had the
technology, we would be using it now.

[As you may have guessed, I work in the chemical industry, so
I know a little about the issues involved].

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

> So one of the items on your list is now 'cloth' or something similar.
> You realize that most colonies weren't doing a lot of weaving of cloth
> right away, right?

Right, they had to wait for the first cotton crop to come in before the
women could make cloth or they would use animal skins from the readily
available game.


--
Jim Pennino