Talk:Colonization of the Moon/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Poorly worded

re" Within the colony it will be difficult to set up a public transport system. However a system of escalators, moving walkways and elevator can be used to quickly transport people and cargo around."

The above paragraph is very poorly written. 99.141.193.155 (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Can't you fix it ? StuRat (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That bit was added by CCHIPSS at 23:46 hours on the 11th of December 2009. It gives no specific information. Getting up in the morning is difficult. Just how is setting up public transport on Luna supposed to be difficult as compared to doing it on Earth? How is it difficult as compared to doing anything else on Luna? Why are escalators, moving walkways and elevator pertinent to Luna? The statements are irrelevant. There is no source given. I will remove them. Fartherred (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Poorly worded

re" Within the colony it will be difficult to set up a public transport system. However a system of escalators, moving walkways and elevator can be used to quickly transport people and cargo around."

The above paragraph is very poorly written. 99.141.193.155 (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Can't you fix it ? StuRat (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That bit was added by CCHIPSS at 23:46 hours on the 11th of December 2009. It gives no specific information. Getting up in the morning is difficult. Just how is setting up public transport on Luna supposed to be difficult as compared to doing it on Earth? How is it difficult as compared to doing anything else on Luna? Why are escalators, moving walkways and elevator pertinent to Luna? The statements are irrelevant. There is no source given. I will remove them. Fartherred (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Which ark is the wrong one?

Knowledge was recently substituted for Noah's in the article. In the National Geographic News web page referred to in the article, Jim Burke of the International Space University in France is quoted indirectly referring to "a space age Noah's ark". The phrase "knowledge ark" does not appear on that web page. Apparently some editors want to promote the use of the phrase "knowledge ark". The Knowledge ark article uses the Svalbard Global Seed Vault as an example of the meaning of the phrase. However the Svalbard Global Seed Vault article does not use that phrase. Any editor who wants to support the use of "knowledge ark" in an article with an in line citation should choose a reference that actually supports that usage. I will make the text of the article comply with the reference cited. This will make the affected link take readers to an article with 45 in line citations rather than an article with no in line citations.Fartherred (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The metaphorical use of the phrase Noah's Ark more aptly describes the project that Jim Burke and the Space University are promoting. That is why Jim Burke used the phrase. Noah's Ark should be understood by both atheists and fundamentalist Christians since the story of Noah is widely known. Fartherred (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Noah's ark i think refers to the giant space craft found on the moon. It is a civilization which lived during rama's time 1.7 million years ago. This civilization tried to escape earth 870,000 years ago during a great pole shift and failed. They looked very japanese and most of their race was female. Its a hive colony run by an aristocracy much like the brave new world book, now-a-days you will see 1984 model civilizations. Before your time the earth was cleaner, its well...more advanced as well. The cities underwater and stuff are just remnance of the primitive aramaic language. That language can be invented by pre-schoolers. Its soo simple. The moon was taken out of orbit by venus and froze when it passed earlier, thats why the occupants look frozen. However the occupants died because of a lack of food. Their bodies were preserved because that is how it was back then, and today you see the bodies of some nuns still preserved after 100 years of death. These beings crystallized and did not die. However their ship was shot down. This could range over a million years ago. During minor poleshifts the sumerian civilization tended to hide this computer age through its stupidity of non-progression and minor polar shifts (eg the sun and solar planets changed 870k years ago, the moons are all synchonizing now and do not rotate like they did before). Before they were rotating like the planets. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asfd666 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

-btw if the moon's tempature ranges from the hundreds at night time, my facts are right. The occupant with the head fallen off could only mean a pole-shift 3127 bce. Because the moon must have departed from the earth when venus passed. This is all relative, because the planets were all in a tilted position. The crash event happened over 1.7 million years ago because they new the pole shift was coming and went to war early on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asfd666 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

some tech that could help

some tech that could help, with a price of the spudis demo of water processing on the moon,($ 900 millions) toward the end of doc inside the ppt http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/01/space-technologies-that-would-help.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaucouplusneutre (talk • contribs) 10:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

re: "Advantages and disadvantages"

This section doesn't make any sense... advantages and disadvantages of what? Going to the moon at all? Soon? Before 2020? Instead of mars? I would like your permission to create a section the proposes the advantages and disadvantages of going to the moon vs. mars... Are these advantages of creating a permanent self sustainable moon colony, or just a moon base that is Seldom used at first... How is it that the cost of going to the moon or mars is not even mentioned? Would it cost twice as much to make it to mars, but cost less per year on the planet?

It would be nice to discuss costs, but reliable sources of such information take some effort to find. Fartherred (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Also we need to discuss the advantages of manned flight vs. unmanned flight... Right now the advantages and disadvantages don't make any sense... myclob (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

All economic use of space so far has been with remotely controlled devices in space. It would not make sense to use direct human labor on the moon for the same reason it makes no sense to use direct human labor on the ocean bottom to lay trans-oceanic cables. These two environments are both hostile to human life and they both interfere with direct human labor. The reason that this is not in the article is that most experts on the topic who could be reliable sources are beholden to political interests that want to preserve a manned space program. They do not point out the inefficiency of sending men to do what remotely controlled machines could do more economically because it is not in the best interest of advancing their careers to do so. Fartherred (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The first items should be moved to a section that compares the advantages of going to the moon vs. mars.

This item doesn't make any sense: "A Lunar base would provide an excellent site for any kind of observatory." There is no reason to believe we need a "a permanent self sustainable moon colony" to run an observatory. What are these photos for? How much better would they be than Hubble? What is wrong with Hubble? Why would it be better to put a telescope "observatory" on the moon, instead of just in orbit around the Earth?

Hubble, and any satellite, has a rather limited life. This is due to orbital decay, exposure to the extremes in temperature in space (hot in the sunlight, cold on the opposite side), radiation, space debris, etc. Much of that could be avoided if the "guts" were underground on the Moon, with only the necessary components on the surface. StuRat (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As the article states: "Building observatory facilities on the Moon from Lunar materials allows many of the benefits of space based facilities without the need to launch these into space." This could potentially save money if the manufacturing and operating costs are brought low enough. As is supported by references, research is being done on the potential to manufacture telescopes on Luna. There is no particular reason to put optics for a telescope underground on Luna. The bearings of pointing mechanisms require special attention to operate in a vacuum. Encasing the bearings in a gas tight housing is a possibility since the telescopes would move back and forth rather than turning round and round like wheels. Fartherred (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

re: "A Lunar base could also hold a future site for launching rockets, to distant planets such as Mars. There is no reason to believe we need a "a permanent self sustainable moon colony" to have a rocket launching site... don't you just need dirt to launch rockets off of? How does this make sense. Shouldn't the concept be explained better for it to be used as a reason to move people to the moon?

You need a lot more than that. You need refueling facilities, repair facilities, housing for personnel to maintain it all, etc. Cape Kennedy is far more than just dirt, after all. StuRat (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

re: "A farm at the Lunar North Pole could provide eight hours of sunlight per day during the local summer by rotating crops in and out of the sunlight which is continuous for the entire summer. A beneficial temperature, radiation protection, insects for pollination, and all other plant needs could be artificially provided during the local summer for a cost. One estimate suggested a 0.5 hectare space farm could feed 100 people." How is this an advantage to going to the moon? We have farms on earth? We could have better farms on Mars. myclob (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's not an advantage, but more of a lessening of the disadvantage of having to send all food up from Earth. StuRat (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly we can have much better farms on Earth than on Mars. Farms on Luna could provide food for the small number of workers who might someday support mass drivers launching exports into cis-lunar space, such as oxygen for rocket fuel, metals and fiber glass for building materials and shielding. Farms on Mars only support colonists who can export nothing of value sufficient to be worth exporting. Therefore farms on Mars are worthless now. After Mars is lunaformed to remove the atmosphere, mass drivers can economically export products to free space. Then farms under glass on Mars will make sense. Fartherred (talk) 08:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding permission to start a section on the advantages and disadvantages of going to the moon vs. mars: It is not absolutely necessary to ask permission to start such a section but in this circumstance it is well advised. I do not grant such permission for the following reasons: It would tend to demoralize the proponents of a black hole of a money sink like a beggars' refuge on Mars to have it so unfavorably compared to the potential economic and industrial powerhouse that a lunar colony could become. It would damage the tender spirit of collegial assistance and brotherly love that typically exists between Mars colony enthusiasts and the proponents of a rational lunar colony program. More importantly the published sources of such comparison tend to be blatantly partisan screeds which do not belong in Wikipedia articles. If, contrary to my expectation, you find a wealth of published dispassionate comparative comment written from a neutral point of view, then you might just start an article on such a comparison. Be warned that Wikipedia has not often done a good job of documenting the state of debate on controversial subjects. There is some sentiment that it would be better to ban the initiators of such troublesome articles, ban the participants, and delete the articles. Any other Wikipedian might grant permission to start the section that you suggest. If the section is started in any case, keeping it would be subject to discussion. Fartherred (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Another reason that colonizing the moon and colonizing Mars should not be compared as competing ideas is that they can be complementary. If a colony on Mars developed a full modern industrial infrastructure, it could colonize Luna more economically than Earth can now, because access to space from Mars is technically easier than from Earth. If a colony is first established on Luna, it could provide structural material for a large fully shielded space ship that would cycle between Earth and Mars using only a small amount of maneuvering fuel to stay on the continually repeating trajectory. Then colonists would only need to match velocity with the cycler is near Earth and get on board to colonize Mars.

Besides colonizing one from the other, Mars could help Luna by supplying carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, chlorine and argon to Luna more cheaply than Earth could. (Ceres has no argon.) Luna could help Earth by supplying the materials for orbiting solar power plants and orbiting aids to the Earth to low-Earth-orbit transport market. Earth could help Mars by supplying numerous complex manufactured goods such as integrated circuits and scientific equipment that Mars will not be able to manufacture for quite some time. Thus there is the basis for a three way trade of profit to all.

Some people are fond of claiming that transportation from either Earth or Mars to space can never be cheap enough to make interplanetary trade possible and transportation cheap enough for mass migration from Earth is inconceivable. They should merely admit that they themselves cannot conceive of such. There is an article on Lunarpedia about a new(?) means of launching to orbit cheaply that does not involve switching large electrical currents to accelerate spacecraft. I know a guy who described this thing but does not claim originality. I think I got it posted on Lunarpedia correctly. See if it does not indicate a possibility for future interplanetary trade. - Fartherred (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Surely nothing got to Luna from an unknown Earth.

If an artificial object gets to an extraterrestrial body, it does not get there by accident. The size of the effort insures that people know about it. So, calling Luna 1 the first known rather than the first artificial object on an extraterrestrial body is unnecessary. Unless there is an extraterrestrial civilization that we do not know about, artificial objects originate on Earth. Taking into account such unknown circumstances is silly and irrelevant. So, calling Luna 1 "Earth originating" is unnecessary. I will revert the edit by Technovative that put these things into the article. Fartherred (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Addition of name, Sergey Markarov

What is the point of adding the name Sergey Makarov to the LunarHouse image? Is the lava tube supposed to be named after Sergey Makarov? - Fartherred (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Since there is no response explaining the addition of the name, Sergey Markarov, to the LunarHouse image; I will revert the addition. - Fartherred (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of dubious statements, editorialiszing, and redundant material

One of the statements that I removed from the article was, "Adding or removing several kilometers per second of velocity to a human is what is involved in traveling from Earth into space and back, and is probably the most challenging aspect of space exploration at this time." While David Schrunk et al. in THE MOON: Resources, Future Development, and Settlement state that the main labor used on a moon colony will be tele-operated robots for the foreseeable future.(second edition, page43) I consider the greatest difficulty in colonizing space to be contractor employees interested in continuing spending on existing unproductive programs, technically uninformed politicians and space enthusiasts who together influence programs to make putting men in orbit the central feature of the enterprise. I plan to put the opinions of David Schrunk et al. into the article eventually, but my own analysis obviously does not belong. Meanwhile it seems reasonable to remove opposing opinions that are not referenced. - Fartherred (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Artificial Magnetic Fields - references

I tried to add some references for artificial magnetic fields, but my syntax must be a bit wonky, cause it doesn't look right. Could someone look it over and see what I'm doing wrong? Also there are plenty more scholarly papers on active shielding here: https://engineering.dartmouth.edu/~d76205x/research/Shielding/index.html I haven't had time to look through them all. Nydoc1 (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Nydoc1

Controlled life support information needed

Even if most of the work on a lunar colony can be done by remote control, there will need to be life support for any people physically present to work on the moon. How will this life support work? Has there been any example of recycling waste to make fertilizer in a way that would work for plants that might grow at the lunar north pole farm mentioned in the text? Has anything like that been tested on Earth to know that it will work? - Fartherred (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Catapults to move nomadic habitation

Use a catapult to transfer astronauts along three points on the moon that are 9 days apart and the crews move every 9 days to stay in the dark side, away from the horrible radiation. Landings need retro rockets but the getting from point a to point b can be initiated with a maglev catapult (mass driver?). It may pay off to consider this in future.

This thread was started at 19:54 hours on the 22nd of January 2008 by an IP address user, Special:Contributions/89.54.4.57.

What is wrong with MiszaBot that it Archives other more recent threads but leaves this unwanted suggestion for using catapults for transportation that includes no reference. This thread is like the walking dead. Can I get rid of it by just deleting it? I have read a suggestion for using electromagnetic catapults for transportation. It was in a reliable source but I do not think it belongs in the article because even reliable sources publish ideas that do not make economic sense. This is an instance. There is enough silly stuff in the article already. - Fartherred (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Image Date

The date on the very first image says it was made in 1986, but in the bottom right of the image itself, it is dated 1985. I do not watch to alter it without any foreknowledge on the subject, does anyone know whether it was actually made in 1986? 2myname1 (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Energy storage

My last edit may have been too hasty. I think I confused the space shuttle with the ISS in the situation of charge/discharge cycles of fuel cells. I will revert my edit until I can get it right. - Fartherred (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This article does not...

...include any information about the Chinese plans for a lunar colony, which, although they have not been officially revealed to my knowledge, are almost certainly in the works. Nor does it mention plans by private enterprise which might establish a colony before the Chinese. 72.182.33.219 (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Eric

An off-topic link

In the section, Economic development, there is a link to Economics of extraterrestrial resource extraction which at first sounds pertinent to colonization of the moon, but when one follows the link it leads by redirect to the asteroid mining article which is only indirectly related to moon colonization. This link is particularly distracting because it is attached to the words "self-sufficient" which it does not elaborate in any way. - Fartherred (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It's slightly more relevant than the Mars article, but not by enough. It was also phrased as an WP:EGG, since it wasn't obvious where the link went. I've removed it. Grayfell (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive links to the above redirect have been removed from "Colonization of the Moon", Colonization of Mars, and Space habitat. I have suggested to the author of the redirect that the redirect itself should be deleted but he would not cooperate making that process more difficult. So instead I would like to convert the redirect into a DAB page in which readers can choose an article as they wish for information about the economics of extraterrestrial resource extraction; "Colonization of the Moon#Economic development", Colonization of Mars#Economics, or Asteroid mining#Economics. I offer a link to my concept of the page at Talk:Economics of extraterrestrial resource extraction. Check it out and comment if you like. - Fartherred (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Industrial Development?

Three times this article mentions that "costs will vary if the Moon is industrially developed (see above)", yet there is no section on lunar industrialization to refer to. Either the references should be removed, the referenced material relabeled properly, or the missing material should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slappy4227 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

There is industrial development referred to in the Economic development section. It just is not labeled "industrial development". A pertinent reference to economic development is in the launch costs section where the cost of launching from the moon with rockets built and fueled on Earth is compared to the cost of using a mass driver. Perhaps there is some way to direct readers to the proper place. - Fartherred (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I made an attempt. Does that solve the problem? - Fartherred (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate insertion of text

The reinsertion of text from one part of the article to another was more extensive then I had noticed at first. It occurred in an edit at 20:59 hours on the 29th of April. This should be removed as redundant. Fartherred (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Dead Link

"At the north pole, the rim of Peary Crater has been proposed as a favorable location for a base.[62] " Sadly, the link No 62 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon#cite_note-astronomy-62) is dead and i did not find another, working one. However, the subject sounds interesting and maybe another person is luckier than me in finding further information/ a aworking verification link. Would be cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.5.2.42 (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

ESA Moon Base by 2030

A couple of days ago there was an article that said that the ESA had plans to build a Moon Base by 2030. It said that they were going to use 3d printers. here's a link to the article europe-plans-to-build-a-moon-village-by-2030-space-agency-announcesJoeloliv8 (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Colonization of the Moon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060213061216/http://www.space.com:80/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/moon_mountain_020326.html to http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/moon_mountain_020326.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Colonization of the Moon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.marssociety.org/portal/ZubrinStatementLCROSS/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130606151729/http://mynasa.nasa.gov/worldbook/moon_worldbook.html to http://mynasa.nasa.gov/worldbook/moon_worldbook.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)