| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > My subsequent question about the monstrous expense of building on the Moon is
> > likewise largely grounded in the physical realities of such a construction
> > project. Building off-world in that fashion *would* be very expensive, whether
> > Burt Rutan is at the helm or not.
>
> Well, there's expensive and there's *VERY expensive*, in terms of dollars per
> unit of work on task. Asserting that NASA falls into the latter camp (as I do)
> is debate fodder, so if you want to stay out of .debate, as you seem to, we
> won't get into that part of it, much.
I don't have any problem with pursuing that end of the discussion, but I wasn't
trying to kick of a debate with my original question. If it winds up there,
though, I say groovy! I enjoyed that previous debate re: cost-value of space
exploration, and I'm willing to examine it again.
> But in the long term, anything boosted out of the earth's atmosphere complicated
> gravity well is the thing thats' "horrifically expensive" on a per pound basis,
> no matter what you do to reduce costs, compared to boosting things you obtained
> locally from a smaller well with no atmosphere to complicate matters.
Now that's what interests me. I suppose the most fuel-efficient way to do it,
hypothetically, would be to have some kind of smallish and self-contained
apparatus that could land on the Moon and lay the groundwork for a base, or
maybe a series of basic pre-fab modules (again, 48x48?) that would be waiting
for astronauts to inhabit them. I imagine there's a critical mass, so to speak,
at which point the lunar base would become self-sufficient and thereafter able
to undertake permanent industrial operation off-Earth.
> I'll reassert without proof my assertion that given to the right person(2) with
> the right incentives, 12B is plenty of seed money to get a moonbase and a
> permanent manned presence on both the Moon and Mars.
Out of curiosity, would the 12B figure include the terrestrial launch vehicle,
or just the construction of the base?
> 1 - while I share your distaste for jargon laden prose, I submit that bootstrap
> is precisely the right word to use here, and my only regret is that it's been
> overused elsewhere/elsewhence, not that I used it here.
Maybe I've just become hypersensitized to it.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: We're here to go
|
| (...) I'm not sure you need to develop a new launch vehicle per se, remember the assumption that the person heading this had just won the X prize.... but certainly some of the 12B cost figure is for launching things... Now the X prize vehicle (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: We're here to go
|
| (...) Well, there's expensive and there's *VERY expensive*, in terms of dollars per unit of work on task. Asserting that NASA falls into the latter camp (as I do) is debate fodder, so if you want to stay out of .debate, as you seem to, we won't get (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
