Russia will begin Moon colonization in 2030 - draft space program - Polidicks

ALL OF EASTERN EUROPE JUST WASN'T ENOUGH FOR THEM. Now they gotta take the moon too.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;44773700]To satisfy our innate curiosity and explore the universe? Mining for resources, establishing a base and launching spacecraft from the moon would be a lot better than launching them from earth, [B]since there's no gravity.[/B][/QUOTE] I hope you meant "no atmosphere" because there sure as hell is gravity on the moon.

how exactly would colonizing outer space solve overpopulation population growth is exponential

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44776195]how exactly would colonizing outer space solve overpopulation population growth is exponential[/QUOTE] I never mentioned overpopulation, I'm talking more on the matter of natural resources.

[QUOTE=Cone;44775116]colonization mostly isn't really a very good solution for overpopulation, because being born in low gravity, as far as we know, really messes up the human body. you get lower bone density, rickets, eye problems, you can't balance very well due to the inner ear forming strangely, your heart becomes significantly more spherical (which reduces its pumping efficiency), and you would basically die if you tried to live on Earth. anyone born on the moon is going to have a tough time being the future of the human race.[/QUOTE]We need to develop some way of creating artificial gravity like Earth's if we're ever going to live on another celestial body.

[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;44775354]I'm not saying we're going to have generations of people raised on the moon. I just think we need to practice having people colonize on the moon before we find and set out toward a more habitable, earthlike planet[/QUOTE] colonizing an interstellar planet is risky business. not only does it take at least most of a lifetime to get there, but even with an earthlike climate there's no guarantee that it'll necessarily be livable. both flora and fauna could be extremely poisonous to humans if it even exists, the atmosphere could be toxic, the ground could be arid and impossible to live off of, the gravity could be slightly too high or slightly too low for generations to survive unmutated, any number of things could go wrong. you need to keep in mind the sheer amount of time it'll take before an extrasolar voyage becomes practical. we haven't even glimpsed the bare edge of the Oort Cloud yet, much less thought about going [I]past[/I] it. i can virtually guarantee that by the time we can even think about doing that, we'll have some far more efficient resources at our disposal than we do now.

[QUOTE=Cone;44776947]colonizing an interstellar planet is risky business. not only does it take at least most of a lifetime to get there, but even with an earthlike climate there's no guarantee that it'll necessarily be livable. both flora and fauna could be extremely poisonous to humans if it even exists, the atmosphere could be toxic, the ground could be arid and impossible to live off of, the gravity could be slightly too high or slightly too low for generations to survive unmutated, any number of things could go wrong. you need to keep in mind the sheer amount of time it'll take before an extrasolar voyage becomes practical. we haven't even glimpsed the bare edge of the Oort Cloud yet, much less thought about going [I]past[/I] it. i can virtually guarantee that by the time we can even think about doing that, we'll have some far more efficient resources at our disposal than we do now.[/QUOTE] Plus, when you land on a different planet, you won't know the hazardous phenomenon particular to that one planet. Because humans have been living on Earth for thousands of years, we know about hazardous things such as earthquakes in the Mediterranean or cockroaches. But when you get to a different planet, yes you can observe some obvious hazards like a poisonous atmosphere, but there might be other hazards you would only know about after studying the planet for centuries. You don't know things about this planet like you do about Earth because humans had thousands of years to gain experience and knowledge of how Earth works. I can see colonizing other planets being possible is you send enough initial resources from Earth to you chosen colony. Like maybe you build a ship with enough with enough flora/fauna for one hundred generations of humans. You eat the food and drink the water. Then you use the bathroom and waste is processed into fertalizer or purified water. You sweat water, but it just evaporates into the atmosphere which is circulated through vents processed back into clean air, but with the water taken away to be purified. You see? That's a completely self contained system. All the matter that was put into the system stays there, only energy is expended. But presumably, you put enough uranium on the ship to last you til you reach a different planet. Once you land on the planet, you could start mining for more uranium or other fuels. The key is to start of with enough resources. Once you get to the distant planet, you can use whatever machines you have to process the matter from the planet into whatever you need for your colony to expand.

Well that's a helluva lot smarter than trying to colonize Mars. Turn the moon into a giant base, we could use it as a orbital defense platform!

[QUOTE=laserguided;44768533]How come every thread about the Russian space program always has you posting some stupid bullshit. "Russia hasn't built a new booster since the USSR" Well, actually they have. Angara.[/QUOTE] i'll stop mentioning it when they actually build it, so far the russian space program consists of building existing hardware, talk about new hardware, and consistently cancel or ship around designs in hope someone else will pay russia to develope it [editline]10th May 2014[/editline] soyuz 5, angara, kippler, ect... at least commercial space actually has gotten something done

[QUOTE=FlandersNed;44768832]I don't see why people think this is going to make a new space race. If anything, the entire Ukraine debacle will cause congress to remove funding from 'unimportant services' like NASA in order to give Defense more money. Remember, the success of a nation isn't decided on who builds the best rockets anymore.[/QUOTE] US defence already has plenty of money, if anything I'd hope it would see *more* money going to NASA and ESA since I imagine the US would go full jingoism to try and beat Russia to every punch. That is of course a rather optimistic "let's go the moon" outlook, more likely the US and Russia will just fling mud at each other and run everything.

actually if things hadn't conspired to remove Khrushchev and kill kenedy there might have been 2 flags planted on the moon instead. kennedy was going to meet with kruschev again about bringing them into the apollo program but he was assassinated before that happened, and Khrushchev was pushed out of power shortly after that, only long after the cold war ended did it come to light that krushchev would have accepted kennedy's offer

[QUOTE=paul simon;44775524]I hope you meant "no atmosphere" because there sure as hell is gravity on the moon.[/QUOTE] Oh shit, yes, no atmosphere and less gravity, fuck :v

[QUOTE=Cone;44775116]colonization mostly isn't really a very good solution for overpopulation, because being born in low gravity, as far as we know, really messes up the human body. you get lower bone density, rickets, eye problems, you can't balance very well due to the inner ear forming strangely, your heart becomes significantly more spherical (which reduces its pumping efficiency), and you would basically die if you tried to live on Earth. anyone born on the moon is going to have a tough time being the future of the human race.[/QUOTE] Well, we are evolving to couch potatoes, so it wouldn't really mean much would it ?

[QUOTE=paul simon;44775524]I hope you meant "no atmosphere" because there sure as hell is gravity on the moon.[/QUOTE] You're both wrong, there is actually a [I]very[/I] thin atmosphere surrounding the moon.

[QUOTE=Cone;44775116]colonization mostly isn't really a very good solution for overpopulation, because being born in low gravity, as far as we know, really messes up the human body. you get lower bone density, rickets, eye problems, you can't balance very well due to the inner ear forming strangely, your heart becomes significantly more spherical (which reduces its pumping efficiency), and you would basically die if you tried to live on Earth. anyone born on the moon is going to have a tough time being the future of the human race.[/QUOTE] not really true, ya the moon is a problem but we really don't know what living on places like mars will do to humanity, the thing is though that we've learned enough of living in 0g in the space station to solve the bone loss problem, but we could easily spin up asteroids to generate 1g for future space stations or colony ships

[QUOTE=Sableye;44777853]i'll stop mentioning it when they actually build it, so far the russian space program consists of building existing hardware, talk about new hardware, and consistently cancel or ship around designs in hope someone else will pay russia to develope it [editline]10th May 2014[/editline] soyuz 5, angara, kippler, ect... at least commercial space actually has gotten something done[/QUOTE] Uh you're completely wrong. They have built a functional Angara 1.2

[QUOTE=laserguided;44781550]Uh you're completely wrong. They have built a functional Angara 1.2[/QUOTE] [quote]The Angara 1.1 version was expected to be completed first; its first launch was scheduled to take place in 2013[8] from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome.[9] This version of the rocket was cancelled.[10] The Angara 1.2 prototype is scheduled to launch in 2014.[/quote] continuing the legacy of canceling it before its delivered... [url]http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara.html[/url] they haven't built production models yet, just bits and pieces, and a test article for systems integrating.

[QUOTE=Cone;44775116]colonization mostly isn't really a very good solution for overpopulation, because being born in low gravity, as far as we know, really messes up the human body. you get lower bone density, rickets, eye problems, you can't balance very well due to the inner ear forming strangely, your heart becomes significantly more spherical (which reduces its pumping efficiency), and you would basically die if you tried to live on Earth. anyone born on the moon is going to have a tough time being the future of the human race.[/QUOTE] They could be born, live and die inside a series of centrifuges.

Russia will colonize the moon like a crowd of feminists have a camping trip. its gonna be an expensive, inefficient and smelly affair. And if you think nasa had corruption issues, wait till you see putins russia.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;44788226]They could be born, live and die inside a series of centrifuges.[/QUOTE] Not worth building on the surface, balancing it all against already present gravity on the Moon, which is quite a lot stronger than totally absent. With capability to build centrifuges on the moon, you might as well be better off just hanging out in big space station like in sci-fi movies, with nuclear power generators and shit. And yeah, I kinda don't see much sense here. So, by 2030-th we'll colonize the moon, but still with nothing close to roads back at home? Yeah no, let's have roads first.