23 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

It's just that I can't see many investors pouring billions of dollars into a project that may not start to pay back for 50 years or more.

Which is when you look around and start connecting the dots. Like when you notice how many rich business tycoons are flinging handfuls of money at aging research......

Again, assuming we survive, you can already see the building blocks of the future.

https://theconversation.com/the-rich-are-pouring-millions-into-life-extension-research-but-does-it-have-any-ethical-value-201774

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

Where have you been?

I'm talking about a permanent moon base with people living there 365 days a year, not some little hut-like habitat that crews visit periodically for a week or so.  The base would need multiple buildings for crew quarters and galley, control center and offices, labs, life support, maintenance, etc. etc.  Then you'd need a power generating station, sewage processing and recycling systems, air supply systems, etc. etc.  The base would need regular resupply ships from Earth.

I'd be willing to bet you a large sum of cash that this won't happen for many decades and likely not in the next 50 years.

Keep on dreaming.  I actually hope you're right, BTW.

Dave

Before we start colonizing Mars or planets orbiting other stars most of us speculating here will be colonizing Heaven...if it exists.

Noel

Maybe some helpful aliens will sell us anti gravity machines so our circulatory systems don't break down under gravity far removed from Earth standard. Otherwise the colonists would have to live in little pods. Therefore only criminals serving time in cells on Earth will be likely to volunteer to such downgraded living quarters and lifestyle. 

Lost in Space TV series: They all were looking for a way to get back to Earth as fast as possible.

The Tardis lands on a planet they know not where. Companion to the Doctor: "Wow, just smell the fresh air, and I'm walking normally and not bouncing along."

14 hours ago, dave2013 said:

I'm talking about a permanent moon base with people living there 365 days a year, not some little hut-like habitat that crews visit periodically for a week or so. 

 

Well. the NASA plan is a bit more sophisticated than that. It will be a permanent manned presence, so crews will be rotated, so not periodically manned. Unless NASA define "permanently manned" differently of course. 

 

14 hours ago, dave2013 said:

The base would need multiple buildings for crew quarters and galley, control center and offices, labs, life support, maintenance, etc. etc.  Then you'd need a power generating station, sewage processing and recycling systems, air supply systems, etc. etc.  The base would need regular resupply ships from Earth.

 

I recall that's the plan. Not sure about the need for "offices".  😁   Power would be via the NASA Kilopower reactor and solar. There would indeed be regular visits from Earth, hence SpaceX's Spaceship, capable of carrying 100 tons of cargo and fully reusable. With the presence of water on the Moon, far more than we previously thought, and Blue Origins system for manufacturing solar panels from the regolith, the astronauts would be far more self sufficient than you think. Metals can be extracted from the oxides in the soil, iron titanium, and aluminum are metals that can be made from the lunar soil. In fact, NASA are already working on Molten Regolith Electrolysis to extract metals and generate oxygen as a byproduct. There's lost of oxygen locked up in the regolith. NASA do seem to be thinking big, and given the interest the Chinese have in doing the same, there's plenty of motivation. 

 

14 hours ago, dave2013 said:

and likely not in the next 50 years.

 

Well you said 100 years initially, now you are down to 50 years.  The fact is, we can't predict how long, or if  a mega sized lunar colony will be a reality, but as I said, NASA are thinking big, planning a significant presence, and the materials are on the Moon to make it a reality, and yes, there's a political imperative too. But then international politics could change, will to do this could wane, so hard to estimate accurately how extensive our presence will ultimately be. 

My opinion is that given that the Moon's gravity is only 16% of Earth's, the physical toll of a human staying there very long term would be significant, so crew rotation every few months would be the norm, and that would limit the size of the base. 

 

 

Edited April 14, 20233 yr by martin-w

Forgot to mention, it's actually Icon, the 3D building company that have been given a multimillion contract to develop 3D printing tech that can be sent to the Moon. Astronauts are supposed to land in 2025, and Icon are set to demonstrate their technology there in 2026. Housing, roads and launchpads to be built. 

One thing I will say, unless the FAA get their act together and grant SpaceX the orbital license, we won't have a lander by then. But then there's always Dynetics ALPACA . Which many would say is a more logical choice for a lander than Starship, which is 50 meters tall and landing precariously on its bum and then lowering astronauts down on a lift! 😲

 

 

 

 

Edited April 14, 20233 yr by martin-w

How Far Beyond Earth Could Humanity Expand?
about 2 miles (I say Abut with a Canadian Accent) 😁

On 4/13/2023 at 4:13 AM, martin-w said:

But according to the biologists its the 50/500 rule. 50 people to combat inbreeding and 500 to combat genetic drift. So looks like you don't need a huge population. 

On the other hand, according to this article:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1708/1708.08649.pdf

“John Moore concluded that a 200 year-long mission should have an initial crew of 150 – 180 people.” 

“Cameron Smith published an estimation for a genetically viable population to endure a 5-generation space voyage under strict population genetic control. Among other results, it was found that an initial crew of 14000 – 44000 members is well-optimized to ensure healthy offspring, even in the case of a sudden disaster occurring once during the mission. According to his study, a crew of 150 people would always be on the verge of extinction in the case of a large-scale catastrophe.” 

“As a primary test, we explored three different scenarios: 1) a population that is not under a strict birth/population control, 2) a Moore-like (small crew) population, and 3) a Smith-like (large crew) population.“

“The first scenario fails to reach the destination due to overcrowding. Without birth control or population limits, the ship’s crew capacity is exceeded after two generations. Starvation and internal conflicts will lead to the failure of this scenario.” 

“The second scenario successfully reaches destination with a reduced crew (about a third of the initial crew) but inbreeding within the crew members drives about one-fifth of the settlers to be genetically unhealthy. It is also very unlikely that a Moore-like population can survive much longer space voyages.” 

“Finally, the third scenario is the only one to achieve the goal of the mission: bringing a genetically healthy crew to another distant planet, despite the fact that a small percentage (< 0.22%) of the spatial settlers have a non-zero inbreeding coefficient.”

"We ran a 500 years long simulation and found out that, on average, a Moore-like population died towards the 470th year."

10 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

On the other hand, according to this article:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1708/1708.08649.pdf

Questions occur;

500 year journey at what percentage of lightspeed? (How much does time dilation reduce the apparent journey time for the passengers)

Are the passengers even awake, or are they in some sort of induced hibernation?

When younger I had a wild idea about a field of some sort that effectively arrested all molecular/atomic motion while on.

I imagined explorers experiencing no apparent elapsed time, caught in mid-conversation with crewmates as the centuries passed....

Edited April 14, 20233 yr by HiFlyer

20 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

On the other hand, according to this article:

 

Interesting stuff. I suspect it will be one of those things that we will learn when we actually do it. 

10 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

500 year journey at what percentage of lightspeed? (How much does time dilation reduce the apparent journey time for the passengers)

The article refers to a journey to alpha-Centauri so 500 years would be at approximately 1% of lightspeed and the 200 year scenario would be at approximately 2% of lightspeed. Time dilation would be minimal.

12 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Are the passengers even awake, or are they in some sort of induced hibernation?

They are awake.

12 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

500 year journey at what percentage of lightspeed? (How much does time dilation reduce the apparent journey time for the passengers)

 

Its relative, if their journey time is 500 years, then it remains 500 years to them. Different story for an outside observer though. An observer back on Earth would see them receding into the distance at a much slower rate, dependent on the velocity. At almost light speed, they would appear almost stationary.

 

16 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

When younger I had a wild idea about a field of some sort that effectively arrested all molecular/atomic motion while on.

 

I guess that would be akin to some kind of Star Trek stasis machine. 

6 minutes ago, martin-w said:

I suspect it will be one of those things that we will learn when we actually do it.

These scenarios represent the extremes. Perhaps a population of 2,000 or 3,000 would be all that is required but for a journey such as this you would want a huge safety margin.

Edited April 14, 20233 yr by dmwalker

7 hours ago, martin-w said:

Well you said 100 years initially, now you are down to 50 years.

I said "probably" 100 years, and not likely within 50.

Plans mean nothing.  NASA can hire people to dream up ideas, make plans, and produce cool videos all day long, yet actually accomplish little, which in today's weird environment wouldn't surprise me at all. 

I'm skeptical because I'm a realist.  There isn't enough money to pay for our Social Security pensions and Medicare for the elderly, yet somehow we'll come up with hundreds of billions to spend on a non-productive moon outpost.  Sorry, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Like I said, I hope you're right.  I'd love to see more space exploration, a manned mission to Mars, and a moon base.

Dave