Moon Colonization

[domesticated om]

Just watched a television show proposing a method of colonizing the moon. I have an idea about another way to do it...... by the way, I think I've read similar ideas being proposed elsewhere.

Instead of worrying about sending people for the time being, put all our efforts into sending machines (robots & remote controlled vehicles). We then use these machines to build significant infrastructure BEFORE we get there.

They talk about it being another 10 years before we can send more capsules with humans in them - but we clearly have the technology to build rovers and whatnot yesterday. I say lets build a bunch of R/C excavators, dumptrucks, soil processors, refineries, and whatever else can be used for building things, and send them up.

I think it would ultimately be cheaper since you only have to send them one way (they don't need to come back to earth), and less complicated since they don't need life support.
When the astronauts finally start making trips to the moon, it will be cheaper because they wont need as much payload (they don't have to bring the base with them). There would be less limitations on the format of the base itself Maybe the machines could build a huge outpost for us? No more cramped modules.

I think the only problem with this idea is the machines breaking. I'm sure we could come up with a solution to this problem (IE - machines that fix the machines.....and other machines that fix the machines that fix the machines)

Do you think this would work?

[Super Dominican]

How did you learn the mochines to fix the other mochines?
Domesticated om also learn them to beat mans at dominoes?

[Norsefire]

Domesticated that is a good idea, but here's an even better:

We keep focusing on adapting the environment to suit our needs, in space; why not adapt humans to be able to live in space? Alter human beings to run on different energy sources, not require water, and not require respiration. Pressure would likely still be needed but that is actually not that big an issue.

[orcot]

sounds bloody insane.
Besides it's probably easier to make artificial enviroments that to change ourselfs, that way we also keep the ability to live on the planets

[DMan83]

yes it is a good idea with we can get a livable environment on the moon that can grow fruits and vegetables then we could do the same to deserts giving us much more crops, and the moon would be a place to test that stuff, it would also be good because it could give us a better view of some planets and the sun

[Enmos]

yes it is a good idea with we can get a livable environment on the moon that can grow fruits and vegetables then we could do the same to deserts giving us much more crops, and the moon would be a place to test that stuff, it would also be good because it could give us a better view of some planets and the sun

OR.. we could test it out in the desert :bugeye:

Better view ? We already have telescopes in orbit.

[DMan83]

OR.. we could test it out in the desert :bugeye:

Better view ? We already have telescopes in orbit.


true on both of those things but if you did it on the moon we could do more research and if we created a bio dome on the moon then there would be no reason why we could use it on any other planets while if you just tested it in the desert then the conditions might be different, if we colonize on the moon we can study it and we would most likely be able to get a different view on planets and the sun then the telescopes in orbit


plus we could start moving people out to the moon to just plain live there

[Enmos]

plus we could start moving people out to the moon to just plain live there

Well, I'll second that one :D

[Xylene]

If somebody takes up domesticated om's idea to send out robots et. al. to the moon on a one-way trip, why not do the same thing with Mars? ie robots could be sent out to set up bases on Mars, Phobos and Deimos, dump food supplies, and create stores of fuel from the materials available on Mars. Then whenever people get out to those worlds, they have a huge amount of material available for them to use immediately, plus they have bases to live in.

[Norsefire]

And they could continue to be dependent heavily on fragile life support systems. I stand by what I said, altering ourselves is the ultimate next step.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

-=-

Obviously, the former can be done easier, cheaper & much sooner than the latter & as far as we currently know, has much more chance of success.

[phlogistician]

You know what? When there is a commercially available vacuum cleaner that can clean my house, get the fluff behind the sofa, and empty it's own dustbag, and stuff, then maybe robotics will have advanced in autonomy enough to make it feasible the top of the range stuff could be sent to the Moon, and start building things.

I await my smart vacuum cleaner eagerly.

[PieAreSquared]

I say lets build a bunch of R/C excavators, dumptrucks, soil processors, refineries, and whatever else can be used for building things, and send them up.

I think it would ultimately be cheaper


You're concerned about price ?? ;)

[Norsefire]

-=-

Obviously, the former can be done easier, cheaper & much sooner than the latter & as far as we currently know, has much more chance of success.

Doubt it, A.I. is still a long, long way off.

[Nasor]

Just watched a television show proposing a method of colonizing the moon. I have an idea about another way to do it...... by the way, I think I've read similar ideas being proposed elsewhere.
The most ambitious version of this that I have heard is to send self-replicating machines that can make solar panels from lunar materials (apparently lunar dust has everything you need to make solar panels, if you process it correctly). Hypothetically you could send a few of them up there and let them just keep going until most of the surface is covered, basically giving you unlimited free power.

[domesticated om]

Domesticated that is a good idea, but here's an even better:

We keep focusing on adapting the environment to suit our needs, in space; why not adapt humans to be able to live in space? Alter human beings to run on different energy sources, not require water, and not require respiration. Pressure would likely still be needed but that is actually not that big an issue.

That's an awesome idea, but a bit of a technological stretch. I'm with StrangerInAStrangeLand.
Personally, I prefer discussions that have no dependencies on "things we can't do yet".
Highly theoretical stuff like faster than light travel, wormholes, and futuristic bio-engineering tends to "move the goalpost" as it were.......albeit wonderful if humans successfully pull it off.
This moon-machine idea simply involves lots of money and QA testing. We have the technology today to build it and put it up there.

If somebody takes up domesticated om's idea to send out robots et. al. to the moon on a one-way trip, why not do the same thing with Mars? ie robots could be sent out to set up bases on Mars, Phobos and Deimos, dump food supplies, and create stores of fuel from the materials available on Mars. Then whenever people get out to those worlds, they have a huge amount of material available for them to use immediately, plus they have bases to live in.

I'm thinking the moon would be an excellent acid test for future endeavors.


You know what? When there is a commercially available vacuum cleaner that can clean my house, get the fluff behind the sofa, and empty it's own dustbag, and stuff, then maybe robotics will have advanced in autonomy enough to make it feasible the top of the range stuff could be sent to the Moon, and start building things.

I await my smart vacuum cleaner eagerly.

Joe six pack's domestic-task-bot and a space agencies "lunar-construction-rover" are entirely different things.

The vacuum bot is targeted at consumers. About the only thing you can do with it is turn it on, and occasionally change the batteries. Maybe it has a few settings (IE - don't vacuum between 10 pm and 6 am).....but it's not like Joe Six Pack is going to want to learn 'vacuumscript' spend hours programming subroutines into it . The manufacturers would inevitably design them with that in mind.
The consumer is also not going to want to spend a jillion dollars on that kind of thing either - and that's how much it will cost once you start giving it articulating arms and cameras and all that other jazz using today's technology. That being said - I don't think the problem is the availability of "sophistication". The problem is the public can't buy them neatly packaged at Walmart prices.

The space agency's machines would have more similarities to satellites or UAVs than anything. It would have its own "mission control" crew to monitor it and reprogram on the fly when needed. It may even be closer to pure "remote control" via joystick....er.......with a bit of latency.

I say lets build a bunch of R/C excavators, dumptrucks, soil processors, refineries, and whatever else can be used for building things, and send them up.

I think it would ultimately be cheaper


You're concerned about price ?? ;)

Cheaper means there's a higher probability that somebody will actually do it LOL.

[Pete]

Domesticated that is a good idea, but here's an even better:

We keep focusing on adapting the environment to suit our needs, in space; why not adapt humans to be able to live in space? Alter human beings to run on different energy sources, not require water, and not require respiration. Pressure would likely still be needed but that is actually not that big an issue.

Interesting thought. Why not redesign humans altogether? Perhaps our descendants will be made of metal and plastic, not flesh and blood?

[Asguard]

here is a question, would YOU trust a machine to have hooked up the O2 correctly?

On your point about increased payload it SOUNDS like you would actually be increasing overall payload because you arnt just flying the modules and a couple of people to set them up but sending all these heavy robots as well. Where as if you send humans they can work out what they NEED and get it and organise it to start with rather than guessing and finding you got it wrong

[phlogistician]

Joe six pack's domestic-task-bot and a space agencies "lunar-construction-rover" are entirely different things.

It used to be the case that space technology lead the domestic market, during the Apollo program, and that was due to immense funding. Now, we have some very large players in the field of electronics (who are contracted to NASA sometimes anyway), a huge skilled population able to share designs and software over the Internet, and fairly complex toy robots available to consumers (Sony Aibo, RoboSapien etc).

Domestic cameras have facial recognition software, and can even tell if the subjects are smiling, and can delay taking a photograph until they are, if you have that setting turned on.

And the thing spoiling all of this? Autonomy. We have robots that build things on Earth, but they take parts from a conveyor that are arranged just so, and put them into a place on a part at a known orientation, or weld a seam on a car in a known position, ...

So the problem is just software autonomy. Software that is as likely to get written by some Internet Egghead for a robot made out of Lego for fun, or his PhD, than anyone in Industry, or NASA. Either of the former could lead to a shift in the power and usefulness of a domestic robot.

I don't see NASA inventing and innovating things at the rate they were during the Apollo missions, and with the focus on OTS items to reduce costs, I don't think NASA are going to develop autonomous construction robots, but rather BUY them from someone who has already created them, and by that time, some of that technology will have filtered into the domestic market.

[domesticated om]

here is a question, would YOU trust a machine to have hooked up the O2 correctly?

On your point about increased payload it SOUNDS like you would actually be increasing overall payload because you arnt just flying the modules and a couple of people to set them up but sending all these heavy robots as well. Where as if you send humans they can work out what they NEED and get it and organise it to start with rather than guessing and finding you got it wrong

[/QUOTE]

I don't think anybody would ever assume it just works. They would certainly put sensors/guages/etc in place that would confirm the things they needed to know. The day the lunar-construction-rover connects the oxygen hose (or whatever) to the outpost, mission control would watch the sensors. If they aren't detecting oxygen or the pressurization doesn't behave as expected or if some other gas thay DON'T want is detected, then they know there's a problem.

The machines are creating a lot of this stuff by converting lunar regulate. You're sending a machines that weigh 50 tons themselves, but do countless tons of work when they get there.





And the thing spoiling all of this? Autonomy. We have robots that build things on Earth, but they take parts from a conveyor that are arranged just so, and put them into a place on a part at a known orientation, or weld a seam on a car in a known position, ...

So the problem is just software autonomy. Software that is as likely to get written by some Internet Egghead for a robot made out of Lego for fun, or his PhD, than anyone in Industry, or NASA. Either of the former could lead to a shift in the power and usefulness of a domestic robot.

I don't see NASA inventing and innovating things at the rate they were during the Apollo missions, and with the focus on OTS items to reduce costs, I don't think NASA are going to develop autonomous construction robots, but rather BUY them from someone who has already created them, and by that time, some of that technology will have filtered into the domestic market.

These machines may not need full autonomy. Some may rely on direct remote control similar to UAV's or ROV's. The "robotic" portion of these machines may be relegated to things like automation of a stabilization system, or power management. It could be certain automated behaviors which correct things due to the 7 second delay between joystick movements/dial toggles/instructions from the mission control staff.

[cosmictraveler]

Interesting thought. Why not redesign humans altogether? Perhaps our descendants will be made of metal and plastic, not flesh and blood?

Or genetically altered to "fit" the environment in which they will live.

[The Esotericist]

Interesting thought. Why not redesign humans altogether? Perhaps our descendants will be made of metal and plastic, not flesh and blood?
Yes, that sounds so warm and fuzzy. Romance will be so delightful, won't it? I can see so many advantages, we will be so much more. . . more. . . human in the future.
http://www.mactonnies.com/dodson.jpg

[cosmictraveler]

Hey babe, want to get well oiled! :D

http://z.about.com/d/animatedtv/1/7/o/2/bender.jpg

[Asguard]

I don't think anybody would ever assume it just works. They would certainly put sensors/guages/etc in place that would confirm the things they needed to know. The day the lunar-construction-rover connects the oxygen hose (or whatever) to the outpost, mission control would watch the sensors. If they aren't detecting oxygen or the pressurization doesn't behave as expected or if some other gas thay DON'T want is detected, then they know there's a problem.

.[/QUOTE]

because guages never fuck up right? (like when they are put on backwards by stupid robots for instance). Hang on wasnt a guage malfuntion one of the problems which caused the apolo 13 emergency? (i REFUSE to call it a disaster when no one died). There have also been innumerable cases of planes going down because of guage malfuntions. As they tell us in health care, treat the pt, not the equiptment because equiptment can be wrong. Hell there are innumberable cases of automated difibs wanting to shock live, walking talking people in a normal heart rythum simply because the machine screwed up

[Pete]

because guages never fuck up right? (like when they are put on backwards by stupid robots for instance). Hang on wasnt a guage malfuntion one of the problems which caused the apolo 13 emergency? (i REFUSE to call it a disaster when no one died). There have also been innumerable cases of planes going down because of guage malfuntions. As they tell us in health care, treat the pt, not the equiptment because equiptment can be wrong. Hell there are innumberable cases of automated difibs wanting to shock live, walking talking people in a normal heart rythum simply because the machine screwed up

How many more cases are there of humans fucking up? :rolleyes:

[Asguard]

at least humans can try to think themselves out of the situation even if the answer is "hit it hard with a hammer":p

tell me honestly, do YOU think that if apolo 13 was manned by robots they would have had a hope in hell of reprograming them to do what was needed to bring it back? forget that they WOULDNT have brought it back and just look at the problem solving skills they required in that situation and how you could possably compare that to the capabilities of ANY computer less than HAL (MAYBE:p)

[cosmictraveler]

do YOU think that if apolo 13 was manned by robots they would have had a hope in hell of reprograming them to do what was needed to bring it back?

But the main problem was they were running out of oxygen, a robotic spacecraft wouldn't need oxygen.

[Diode-Man]

If I can bring America's next top models for procreation purposes... I'll consider this proposal more closely.

[Stryder]

You just need a mergence of a number of fields. For instance take Virtual Reality and apply it to robotics and you could have the ability to manoeuvre a robot. Doesn't sound much of a feat... well no it isn't, however if the robot is built to have the capacity to weld, cut or do surgery, then you have the capacity to use the robot to mend/repair damage or build things from scratch.

Thats the simplest route, human operators on earth and robots being puppeteered in space or on a planet surface. The only problem however is the delay in communication, the only thing that can be done to deal with this is programming rudimentary artificial intelligence to "guess" a course of action rather than waiting for the response after a delay.

[ripleofdeath]

I'm sure we could come up with a solution to this problem (IE - machines that fix the machines.....and other machines that fix the machines that fix the machines) Do you think this would work?


the machines need to be able to operate in an air tight environment while having moving parts that do not attract the dust and then grind them out like cutting paste on the moving bits.
the SARG is a good example of the complications you get in space with probable EM feild generation though torque and kinetic energy build up making it a magnet.

i was theorising some time back when they were replacing it that they may well be able to electrify it to give it an oscillating current/charge to repel the dust.

the really odd thing that needs to be considered is that it is space and we are from matter and space is both matter and anti matter.
soo positive may well be just as bad as negative etc etc...

a sacrificial anode would probably be an easy fix for extending the life of it though.

[ripleofdeath]

The only problem however is the delay in communication, the only thing that can be done to deal with this is programming rudimentary artificial intelligence to "guess" a course of action rather than waiting for the response after a delay.

yeah what he said only before he said it and better

probably need to develop an artificial brain that can manage certain tasks and then set a task and then give review procedure to it.

obviousely one ion storm and its all scrap metal which would be kinda frustrating

hence force fields.
force fields need to be invented first i think to protect from ion storms and miniature meteorites.
however...
that level of technology is tricky because of the ingrained level of corruption and sadism in most countrys governmental systems.

if i had such technology i doubt i would give it to the usa as they have no social welfare system and still have the death penalty.

unlikely i would give it to the UK as they have a class system that is cannibalistic along with a great deal of separatist racism(pronounced for a civilised country).

who does that leave ?
iran ? hahahahahahahahahahahahahhaa (north korea ?) hahahahahahahahahahahahaha (china ? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA)

seriously though...
germans are quite good in spite of having a potential christian fundamentalist government.
swiss
canadians
french im not sure about given their sudden swing toward the right wing.

there is actually a pronounced swing towards the right wing in europe which is a bit of a concern... but anywho...

thing is once we become moon residents we no longer remain Americans or any other such nationalized name or culture.
we become "earth residents" and represent the species.

on the upside i think NASA people are pretty damn cool and if anyone is going to represent us then it is good to know that the space coalition is a bunch of very smart people who are less likely to believe in the death penalty and capital punishment(sharia law etc) and such like things which would otherwise open our species up to predation by another on a basic fundermental philosophical self actualization.

[Pete]

force fields need to be invented first i think to protect from ion storms and miniature meteorites.

A physical barrier is sufficient.

I don't think there's any doubt that a moon colony will be primarily a mining colony, with some tourism and science tacked on. It follows (and is sensible for other reasons) that most construction will be underground, where meteorites and ion storms will not be a concern.
The above ground infrastructure will need protection, of course, but I don't think that any exotic technology is required.

Interestingly, with Earth-based mining colonies the usual process (as I understand it) is the reverse of that in the OP - you start with craploads of people to build the infrastructure, then drop back to a much smaller workforce when things get operational. Most of the operational work is does by machines.

[ripleofdeath]

A physical barrier is sufficient.

I don't think there's any doubt that a moon colony will be primarily a mining colony, with some tourism and science tacked on. It follows (and is sensible for other reasons) that most construction will be underground, where meteorites and ion storms will not be a concern.
The above ground infrastructure will need protection, of course, but I don't think that any exotic technology is required.

Interestingly, with Earth-based mining colonies the usual process (as I understand it) is the reverse of that in the OP - you start with craploads of people to build the infrastructure, then drop back to a much smaller workforce when things get operational. Most of the operational work is does by machines.

hhmmm...
the ability to
a deliver materials
b construct and assemble on the spot as required.

time has no meaning on earth but on the moon everything is quantified.

lets see if they can launch the drilling rig and then land it on the moon surface with fuel to do the job.
can electric servo's drive a drilling rig that needs to burrow through rock ?

is the moon made of rock ?

they have not yet dug down past a foot or two as far as i am aware IF THAT.

who knows what consistency it is under the first few meters.

[Nasor]

But the main problem was they were running out of oxygen, a robotic spacecraft wouldn't need oxygen.
The main problem was that the command module was powered by hydrogen/oxygen fuel cells, so it lost power when the oxygen tank blew. They had plenty of oxygen to breath from the lunar lander's stores, but no way to get it to the fuel cells.

[ripleofdeath]

The main problem was that the command module was powered by hydrogen/oxygen fuel cells, so it lost power when the oxygen tank blew. They had plenty of oxygen to breath from the lunar lander's stores, but no way to get it to the fuel cells.

Apollo 13 ?

they built a Co2 scrubber out of a roll of toilet paper and an electric toothbrush :D
not exactly but it was probably one of the most astounding moments of nasa history where hundreds of millions of dollars worth of human resources were saved using second hand parts.

[orcot]

Would any robot realy be harmed by the apollo 13 incident? Looks to me the robot would have the ability to go to the lunar lander module something it should have been capable to and use that to land on the moon, without to much hinder.

But I do agree with sending robot's to the moon some ASIMO like robot's controlled from earth could do infinitly more work in constructing a base then any human could do. Especialy if you consider that they will probably send up pilots not scientists and the fact that the robot's will probably operate far longer then the duration of a mannend mission. The what? 3 seconds delay could probably be dealth with easy

[Asguard]

it seems only ripleofdeath got the point and only barly. My point had nothing to do with that exact situation but the ability of humans to adap where as robots would keep running into the same wall. We dont have AI yet (if ever) and until we do robots will never be able to think outside the square and problem solve like humans will. Thats the main difference between a computer and a human

[DMan83]

we should colonize on the moon because when we just went to the moon thousands of inventions were made

[mike47]

No one cares about the moon as the big musles are interested mainly in oil and ressources .

[orcot]

Computers might not have any advance AI yet but they do keep in touch with the crew back on earth and they can aid significatly. A human controlled machine will most likly out perform any human under almost all conditions.

[D H]

Computers might not have any advance AI yet but they do keep in touch with the crew back on earth and they can aid significatly. A human controlled machine will most likly out perform any human under almost all conditions.
That's not what Steve Squyres, the Principal Investigator of the Mars rover project, thinks. http://www.space.com/news/090715-apollo11-40th-squyres.html
You know, I'm a robot guy, that's what I have spent most of my career doing, but I'm actually a very strong supporter of human spaceflight. I believe that the most successful exploration is going to be carried out by humans, not by robots.

What Spirit and Opportunity have done in 5 1/2 years on Mars, you and I could have done in a good week. Humans have a way to deal with surprises, to improvise, to change their plans on the spot. All you've got to do is look at the latest Hubble mission to see that.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa

Obviously, the former can be done easier, cheaper & much sooner than the latter & as far as we currently know, has much more chance of success. ”


Doubt it, A.I. is still a long, long way off.


AI isn't required for it.
AI is probably much less of a long long way off than your proposal.

[ripleofdeath]

it seems only ripleofdeath got the point and only barly. My point had nothing to do with that exact situation but the ability of humans to adap where as robots would keep running into the same wall. We dont have AI yet (if ever) and until we do robots will never be able to think outside the square and problem solve like humans will. Thats the main difference between a computer and a human

i did get the point re the set of programmed functions "pre set" and downloading to a set range.
they would have to do certain jobs and only have a stop function when encountering anything different to what they should thus prolonging the process to a completely unknown completion date.

not only that, what seems to have been missed is the power source.

people take for granted the diesel power engines we have on earth.
we cant run such an engine on the moon.

[Asguard]

it goes further than that. say you send a building and a digging robot. one gets hit by a rock and is damaged. even IF you could reprogram the other to fix the first COULD IT? after all a human can change the tools used as well as using tools in different ways from what they were designed for. a robot on the other hand CANT adapt because they dont have hands, they have tools. if its arms are a shovel then shovel is what they can do, they cant pick up a knife and use it to undo a screw no matter what program you write for them

[ripleofdeath]

it goes further than that. say you send a building and a digging robot. one gets hit by a rock and is damaged. even IF you could reprogram the other to fix the first COULD IT? after all a human can change the tools used as well as using tools in different ways from what they were designed for. a robot on the other hand CANT adapt because they dont have hands, they have tools. if its arms are a shovel then shovel is what they can do, they cant pick up a knife and use it to undo a screw no matter what program you write for them

indeed
a robot cant learn to think in any other way than it is told to think already.
thus with all pre set programming you have a built in limit.
unlike a human which has no real limit apart from the obvious fatal environmentals.

IF and i do mean "if" it were possible to have direct control through a simulator (probably need to develop biological computers and use quantum duality through cloning) then it would be possible to do a heck of a lot more.

although the companion science that comes with discovering the mechanics of quantum duality is probably outside the moral conscience of most world leaders if not their staff and associated organisations that would have access to it.

example africa and why we cant get tribal/local market gardens and water wells working.

the weirdness of this whole topic is how far apart the moral base is to most.

we have some of the cream of our crop from several countries seeking collective facilitation on non violent terms.
they are not forced together through threat.
they choose to be there and choose to seek higher learning.

going from that to those who follow law of the gun/sword/knife is quite a jump in reality.

a robot cant misinterpret data to mean the other robot doesn't like it and then not interact worth the same quality or procedure.
IMAGINE THE LOST PRODUCTIVITY AND PROFIT from peoples interpersonal issues in the work place.

we are talking some HUGE numbers.
if a company employed me as a consultant i could probable turn 5% base line from a perceived high functional team.

[orcot]

What Spirit and Opportunity have done in 5 1/2 years on Mars, you and I could have done in a good week
I do get what you mean but you couldn't for the basic reason that the 2 rovers are at opposite sides of the planet. No matter what you do you wouldn't be able to reach both sides.
Also let's assume development on the first rover costed 450 million and the following up rover costs 370 million, Now assume that your mannend mission would have cost a minimum 40 billion dollars.

40 000 million -450(1)=39550/370= 106+that first more expensive one meaning 107 martian rovers,Also because you make that many you probably could lower the price even further so let's say you have 130 of these rovers.

Now realisticly you would need to outperform the scientific value of these 130 martian rovers spread over the entire equator of Mars... correct?

[orcot]

a additional benefit would be that the price of rocket would plummet. Making overall cheaper space acces and reducing the price of the rovers even more

[ripleofdeath]

because you make that many you probably could lower the price even further so let's say you have 130 of these rovers.


a additional benefit would be that the price of rocket would plummet. Making overall cheaper space acces and reducing the price of the rovers even more

while i am in no way shape or form anti profit or anti private ownership(i feel i need to make such a comment for the retard right winger nutbars)

the idea of profit margins being defined for sending some of our most talented minds into space is not one that fits too comfortably with me.

i want them to make it the best it can be and not skimp and save on profit margins.

how do you claim 10 billion in insurance cover against someone who makes a faulty $50,000.00 part for 30k instead ?

are you ever going to get the insurance company to pay out for the 3, 1 billion dollar each crew members or the 500 million dollar mission ?


we are not talking gold toilet seats and caviar casarole

[orcot]

...To make something you always have to make a costs mainly you have 3types of costs the steady costs, those involve the factories and in this case most the people who work there, electricity bills taxes basicly all the costs that the compagny has to make even if they are not producing.
The second type for NASA is also relativly big it's the design costs mock models have to be made, designs have to be revieuwed and paid for etc.
The third type of the variable costs, costs, so when the compagny actionaly decides to build something they need materials and hardware to actualy make the rocket and lander (they subcontract so they don't actualy make the rocket and possible even the lander but somebody has to and they send the bill)

So yust looking at this afther making the initial one your design costs are prety much reduced to zero.

Also let's say that particulair rocket usualy sends up 10 types of that rocket then it's steady costs /rocket is around 10% each send up a 110 and those costs fall back below 1% (decimating that cost)

and abouth the third costs yes you can save a couple of bucks with using a assembly line.

The problem with NASA isn't enough brainpower it's cash.
So you realy can't compare a mannend mission with something like those 2 rovers, you have to compare what a ?6? month mannend mission who can explore in a 50 km radius can do versus a minimum of 130 little rovers at all of the primary and secondairy landing spots (in the equator region) and observe them for +5 years

[ripleofdeath]

...To make something you always have to make a costs mainly you have 3types of costs the steady costs, those involve the factories and in this case most the people who work there, electricity bills taxes basicly all the costs that the compagny has to make even if they are not producing.
The second type for NASA is also relativly big it's the design costs mock models have to be made, designs have to be revieuwed and paid for etc.
The third type of the variable costs, costs, so when the compagny actionaly decides to build something they need materials and hardware to actualy make the rocket and lander (they subcontract so they don't actualy make the rocket and possible even the lander but somebody has to and they send the bill)

So yust looking at this afther making the initial one your design costs are prety much reduced to zero.

Also let's say that particulair rocket usualy sends up 10 types of that rocket then it's steady costs /rocket is around 10% each send up a 110 and those costs fall back below 1% (decimating that cost)

and abouth the third costs yes you can save a couple of bucks with using a assembly line.

The problem with NASA isn't enough brainpower it's cash.
So you realy can't compare a mannend mission with something like those 2 rovers, you have to compare what a ?6? month mannend mission who can explore in a 50 km radius can do versus a minimum of 130 little rovers at all of the primary and secondairy landing spots (in the equator region) and observe them for +5 years

couple of points
i understand what your saying RE cost based analysis on the capital cost Vs cost recovery.

can nasa dictate price ?

relatively speaking i have a bit of an issue with the privatisation of nasa in general.
why you ask ?
several core reasons.
first and foremost security, ownership, control and retention of intellect and technology being not only design literature and patents but human resources which develop over time.

given the last issue with the change over the shuttle program is costing jobs.
the reason it is costing jobs is because the employees have no employer once the government changes its mind.
this type of gesticulative third person disregard for employment and technology is just proxy miss management and blame passing.

lets say iran come along and offer employment for a few years to this group of people ?
then what ?

how would you feel about some of the most highly skilled tech specialists going to work for iran for a few years ?

what could they build ?
as yo can see privatisation has its drawn backs.

what about the retraining costs ?

surely it is better to retrain all the technical staff from the shuttle program to work in the new program ?

anywho....futile discussion as it does not change anything.

you know the irony of the situation in how these sort of things run is purely on public trend.

this new goal to seek the moon is a new frontier for our species and hopefully it will help refocus and invigorate the public like an employer would a lazy overweight ignorant staff member in its company.

shocking wake up call speaking of over weight news and sedentary minds and bodys...
new zealand was listed as 3rd fattest the other day.
for a country heralded as an outdoors nation of adrenalin sports and farming it sure is a sad reality.

the cost of exploration is a factor of our ability to sustain society.
if we stop moving forward we go backwards.
the species is on a conveyor belt, if we all stop then everything goes backwards (i.e climate charge and pollution population control health/disease etc...)

some may think space exploration is a waste of money but they are in no different position to when Columbus and the likes set out to try and discover new lands.

the species NEEDS space exploration !

if i do not aspire to "become" god then when will i know i have stopped being godly ?

the process of human evolution is an intrinsic self definition of the human animal and the human experience, not only on a physical level from childhood to adult life but intellectually from the bumbling self aware adolescent to the speculative professor.
all need a goal and a dream and desire.

[cosmictraveler]

Going back to the moon is a waste of time and money for humans to go there. The money should be spent on Mars for that is going to cost hundred of billions of dollars and to waste all of the resources on the moon is just plain foolish. IMHO.

[Asguard]

indeed
a robot cant learn to think in any other way than it is told to think already.
thus with all pre set programming you have a built in limit.
unlike a human which has no real limit apart from the obvious fatal environmentals.

IF and i do mean "if" it were possible to have direct control through a simulator (probably need to develop biological computers and use quantum duality through cloning) then it would be possible to do a heck of a lot more.

although the companion science that comes with discovering the mechanics of quantum duality is probably outside the moral conscience of most world leaders if not their staff and associated organisations that would have access to it.

example africa and why we cant get tribal/local market gardens and water wells working.

the weirdness of this whole topic is how far apart the moral base is to most.

we have some of the cream of our crop from several countries seeking collective facilitation on non violent terms.
they are not forced together through threat.
they choose to be there and choose to seek higher learning.

going from that to those who follow law of the gun/sword/knife is quite a jump in reality.

a robot cant misinterpret data to mean the other robot doesn't like it and then not interact worth the same quality or procedure.
IMAGINE THE LOST PRODUCTIVITY AND PROFIT from peoples interpersonal issues in the work place.

we are talking some HUGE numbers.
if a company employed me as a consultant i could probable turn 5% base line from a perceived high functional team.


thats not my point, you can give thr robot whatever you like, you can make them as intelligent as you want but you cant replicate the human thumb, deterity and andaptability. if a robot has to shovel you give it a shovel, if you want to screw you give it a screwdriver, if you want it to handle big things you design it that way and the same with small. what you cant do is change the design once its on the moon

[ripleofdeath]

Going back to the moon is a waste of time and money for humans to go there. The money should be spent on Mars for that is going to cost hundred of billions of dollars and to waste all of the resources on the moon is just plain foolish. IMHO.

interesting.
problem is the bulk of the public is monkey see monkey do.

same reason diets dont work and people are becoming fat and lazy.
they lack the ability to plan for the future and hold a coarse of actions to bring about a long term goal.
the age of individualism has down graded our intellectual stock in the main stream and now has the bulk of society being quite selfish and hedonistic as a default.
big business has been allowed to run free in the market place using mind altering psychology in adverts to stylise public will into a consumer disposable dispensing machine.

look at the nature of friendships.
work culture and entertainment culture define the nature of the public, more soo when you have too much religion dictating a rule of guilt shame and punishment underneath as a motivator because it is designing them to fail.

never haven been given the skills to over come these things they know nothing else BUT to give in to the will of something greater than them and seek to be the victim worth saving by god etc...

anywho...
im sick of talking about how people annoy me in their small minded thinking and inability to just get on
with everyone else.

the reality is that it is a game and one that must be played for the betterment of the species.

to sum up my point on that one-
how many people would willingly pay tax and if soo how much would they pay ?

[orcot]

thats not my point, you can give thr robot whatever you like, you can make them as intelligent as you want but you cant replicate the human thumb, deterity and andaptability. if a robot has to shovel you give it a shovel, if you want to screw you give it a screwdriver, if you want it to handle big things you design it that way and the same with small. what you cant do is change the design once its on the moon
Humans are more adapt...
Yust make a couple of versions, and also send something resembling a ASIMO with it, it's not going to be easy and take a lot of time but something resembling a ASIMO can do some minor repairs on heavy machinery.

Also if you go for a great number of relativly small launch packages (let say +100) you could actualy send spare robots and adapted versions

[cosmictraveler]

to sum up my point on that one-
how many people would willingly pay tax and if soo how much would they pay ?

It should be a joint effort for any nation to get onboard with to help defray the expenses.

[ripleofdeath]

It should be a joint effort for any nation to get onboard with to help defray the expenses.

i want to see a kiwi astronaut in the space station in the next 5 years.