Because of shrunken areas remaining undetected, even if ice is found in
these yet unknowns' darkest of the darkest of crater walls, it will not be
enough for any long term moon projects or envisioned moon colonies.

Dependency on water supplied from other sources is therefore unavoidable.

How long will taxpayers tolerate such a curious predicament?

George
cygo.com

--- In spacesettlers, cygonaut wrote:

> Because of shrunken areas remaining undetected, even if ice is found
> in these yet unknowns' darkest of the darkest of crater walls, it
> will not be enough for any long term moon projects or envisioned
> moon colonies.

This brings up a question: how much water is needed?

> Dependency on water supplied from other sources is therefore
> unavoidable.

Depends on what you want to do. For instance, suppose that there are
ten tons of water. That's it: ten tons. Well, you could support
quite a moonbase with ten tons of water, though a full-blown "colony"
of many thousands wouldn't be able to get by with that.

> How long will taxpayers tolerate such a curious predicament?

Considering the scale of current lunar operations, I'd say not long,
as in not at all.

>
> On Jan 21, 2007, at 10:17 AM, cygonaut wrote:
>
> Because of shrunken areas remaining undetected, even if ice is
> found in
> these yet unknowns' darkest of the darkest of crater walls, it will
> not be
> enough for any long term moon projects or envisioned moon colonies.
>
> Dependency on water supplied from other sources is therefore
> unavoidable.
>
> How long will taxpayers tolerate such a curious predicament?
>
> George
> cygo.com
>

I think the prospect of lunar ice has always been over-hyped. It was
guessed that some lunar ice "could" be hidden on the moon, but it was
clear that 99% of the Moon is hundreds of times drier than the driest
desert on Earth. The odds of finding large amounts of lunar ice on
the Moon are so remote that it would be hard to justify an expensive
expedition just to find it. If it would cost just a few million
dollars, then I say go for it, but an expedition that costs hundreds
of millions of dollars would need to have other missions involved as
well. I also feel people are clinging to a tiny ray of hope when they
talk about finding usable amounts of ice on Mars. The poles on Mars
should have plentiful ice, but the rest of Mars will have, at best,
trace amounts of ice. The best source of ice will be comets, I
believe, and a good function for a 3rd or 4th generation space colony
would be to mine water from passing comets. Hopefully we will find
enough water on asteroids to be able to mine the asteroid belt past
Mars. The development of a cheap water mining industry to bring water
in from the outer solar system is going to be essential for space
colonization. The only other alternative is to somehow manufacture
water from other materials. I also have my doubts that this would be
able to keep up with potential demand. Long story short: I see
neither Lunar ice nor Martian ice as being of much long term aid
towards settlement of space stations or planetary colonization.
Orbiting space stations in the asteroid belt and beyond have a much
better prospect of gathering large amounts of ice.

On a related note, if we just "grab" a comet and drag it back towards
earth, it will begin to evaporate and form a tail once it gets close
to us. The Ice will have to be protected from the sun before it can
be brought back to space colonies at this altitude from the sun.
What sort of "barge" could we use to haul it back? We could use solar
wind sails to go outbound. The solar winds would push on a large
sail, pushing the barge out. But the winds only blow outwards. How
could we cheaply bring the ice back to this altitude? Would we be
better off just placing all the colonies out there where all the ice is?

doug

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, cygonaut wrote:
>
> Because of shrunken areas remaining undetected, even if ice is found in
> these yet unknowns' darkest of the darkest of crater walls, it will
not be
> enough for any long term moon projects or envisioned moon colonies.
>
> Dependency on water supplied from other sources is therefore
unavoidable.
>
> How long will taxpayers tolerate such a curious predicament?
>
> George
> cygo.com
>

I don't think ice is the only value to lunar bases... Mined mineral
materials, processing and fabrication plants, and launching
platforms.. All in low G and all closer to anything we want or need to
do in space.. I think it's really the only thing that will ever make
space a viable solution to many of our problems.. Water will obviously
be important factor in us being there, but with maximum efficiency and
recycling, it may not take as much as one might think.. Even if the
demand had to be met by supply ships, it would still be worth while..

From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Douglas May

> The best source of ice will be comets, I
> believe, and a good function for a 3rd or 4th generation space colony
> would be to mine water from passing comets.

I hope you've had a chance to see "L5: First City in Space".
http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/links.htm#L5-FCiS

> Long story short: I see
> neither Lunar ice nor Martian ice as being of much long term aid
> towards settlement of space stations or planetary colonization.

I think the water resources of the moon, limited as they are, might be
enough to "prime the pump" industrially and economically until we are
far enough along to begin tapping into NEOs.

Where Mars is concerned, I think the relative steepness of the gravity
well is more the showstopper than the scarceness of the ice (although I
had someone argue this point with me once).

> Orbiting space stations in the asteroid belt and beyond have a much
> better prospect of gathering large amounts of ice.

Which is why I think in the long term, the parts of the solar system
from the Belt outward will be where most of the action is happening.

> But the winds only blow outwards. How
> could we cheaply bring the ice back to this altitude?

Solar sails can angle to bounce sunlight in the direction of orbit, thus
slowing and dropping inward. Thus a kind of "tacking" maneuver should
be possible.

> Would we be
> better off just placing all the colonies out there where all the ice
is?

My prediction: In the near-term, habitats will be built close to Earth
because at the start, Earth is the only customer in existence, and one
should be close to the market being served. But in the longer term,
Earth will become a smaller and smaller part of the overall economic
picture, and then the availability of hydrogen and other volatiles will
make building settlements in the Belt and outward more economical.

Regards,

Mike Combs

I don't think the moon's going to get anywhere colonization wise, so
I'm not really all that concerned about the water.

Take a few gallons with you and get back to earth is all - and that's
all anyone can expect.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike"
>
> From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Douglas May
>
> > The best source of ice will be comets, I
> > believe, and a good function for a 3rd or 4th generation space
colony
> > would be to mine water from passing comets.
>
> I hope you've had a chance to see "L5: First City in Space".
> http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/links.htm#L5-FCiS
>
> > Long story short: I see
> > neither Lunar ice nor Martian ice as being of much long term aid
> > towards settlement of space stations or planetary colonization.
>
> I think the water resources of the moon, limited as they are, might
be
> enough to "prime the pump" industrially and economically until we
are
> far enough along to begin tapping into NEOs.
>
> Where Mars is concerned, I think the relative steepness of the
gravity
> well is more the showstopper than the scarceness of the ice
(although I
> had someone argue this point with me once).
>
> > Orbiting space stations in the asteroid belt and beyond have a
much
> > better prospect of gathering large amounts of ice.
>
> Which is why I think in the long term, the parts of the solar system
> from the Belt outward will be where most of the action is happening.
>
> > But the winds only blow outwards. How
> > could we cheaply bring the ice back to this altitude?
>
> Solar sails can angle to bounce sunlight in the direction of orbit,
thus
> slowing and dropping inward. Thus a kind of "tacking" maneuver
should
> be possible.
>
> > Would we be
> > better off just placing all the colonies out there where all the
ice
> is?
>
> My prediction: In the near-term, habitats will be built close to
Earth
> because at the start, Earth is the only customer in existence, and
one
> should be close to the market being served. But in the longer term,
> Earth will become a smaller and smaller part of the overall economic
> picture, and then the availability of hydrogen and other volatiles
will

On 1/21/07, Xenophile wrote:
(...)
> Depends on what you want to do. For instance, suppose that there are
> ten tons of water. That's it: ten tons. Well, you could support
> quite a moonbase with ten tons of water, though a full-blown "colony"
> of many thousands wouldn't be able to get by with that.
(...)

Of course those ten tons of lunar water may not be of much help if
they are some sort of ice powder diluted in thousands of tons of
regolith...

--- In spacesettlers, "Lucio de Souza Coelho" wrote:

> On 1/21/07, Xenophile wrote:

> (...)
>> Depends on what you want to do. For instance, suppose that there
>> are ten tons of water. That's it: ten tons. Well, you could support
>> quite a moonbase with ten tons of water, though a full-blown
>> "colony" of many thousands wouldn't be able to get by with that.

> Of course those ten tons of lunar water may not be of much help if
> they are some sort of ice powder diluted in thousands of tons of
> regolith...

Depends. Were you going to be processing thousands of tons of
regolith anyway? If not, then no, it probably isn't worth it just to
get at the water. If you were, why NOT use the water?

On 1/23/07, Xenophile wrote:
(...)
> Depends. Were you going to be processing thousands of tons of
> regolith anyway? If not, then no, it probably isn't worth it just to
> get at the water. If you were, why NOT use the water?
(...)

Ok, you won. :)