Endy0816

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    2795
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

400 Beacon of Hope

2 Followers

About Endy0816

  • Rank
    Primate

Profile Information

  • Location
    Orlando
  • Interests
    Artificial Life, Coding in general, nuclear physics, economics
  • Favorite Area of Science
    πr²

Recent Profile Visitors

29892 profile views
  1. Endy0816

    Lunar Tunnels and Moon Colonies:

    I think we're envisioning different things here. We'd be going after the Oxygen, Silicon, Aluminum and Iron; common in the regolith and soil. For all the technology involved, it still won't be an overly complicated operation. Multiple simple, midsize, yet hardy robots with some repair/rescue capability. Would be building upon the expertise gained with the Martian rovers and to an extent experience from past Lunar missions. Refining step poses the biggest issues. Everything will really depend on shipping costs. Earth may well prove the better option depending on how technology develops though. More interested in getting out to Mars and Jupiter, whether we develop the Moon or not is really a side issue. Gotta get out where the bulk of the resources are in the solar system, not stick around where the Sun will likely engulf. Do have to say there's quite a bit of interest in space tourism and colonization. I think many would appreciate lower gravity if given the chance. Even something as silly as shipping limited amounts of unprocessed moon rocks back could be a lucrative source of income. In general though I think further construction/maintenance of space infrastructure will be the most profitable and stable revenue stream.
  2. Endy0816

    Lunar Tunnels and Moon Colonies:

    I was thinking to start with something really basic. Surface material collection robots with an automated refining station. Could run fairly steadily and have materials waiting for pickup or used to expand local operations. Bulk of human transport between the planets will have to be done in plastic vessels. Space dock would be best for their construction. Ideally they never travel in an atmosphere, land or liftoff. Otherwise we are facing a whole host of additional concerns and costs. Tourism and repairs/refueling for satellites would probably be main business starting out though. People are definitely interested and continually replacing satellites is expensive in its own right.
  3. Yes they can. To act as a filter they trap what comes in. Ultimate safety depends on how or if regeneration occurs. Only a couple of times are recommended for home use.
  4. Endy0816

    Algebra question

    For something like 5x = 30, you would divide 25 by 5 with a result of 6. 5x = 30 -> x = 30/5
  5. Endy0816

    Lunar Tunnels and Moon Colonies:

    I'm thinking would be service based. Manufacturing and construction facilities to support and expand space industry. Tourism hub/destinations. Eventually senior living down the line. Providing economic value for the Earth that way instead. Then the Moon might start making more sense as a source of raw materials. Metals and Oxygen mainly. Could be automated eliminating the issues a colony of people would have. As time goes on older stations could be re-purposed for outward colonization efforts. Mars and the Jupiter system have the diverse resources to be self-sufficient once set-up. Trade could then be largely information and tourism based. I do think the use of space resources on Earth itself is at least a long ways off. Would take something both valuable and scarce, that we could cheaply nudge in our direction.
  6. Endy0816

    Lunar Tunnels and Moon Colonies:

    In some way shape or form they did it for the return on their investment. Trade routes, land, resources. The Virginia Company of London and Plymouth Company are probably easier to consider as models. Ongoing cost would also be high. There's an absolute lack of many things, whether due to the Moon's formation, never having surface water or absence of past lifeforms. At the same time there will be increased demands from dealing with the Moon itself. Mars has fewer environmental issues along with more abundant and diverse resources. Ideally we move a station into orbit above Mars, then proceed with ground colonization. Worst of the risks are minimized that way. You have the resources of the station overhead to draw upon and sizable pool of local talent to deal with problems as they arise. If we go with orbiting habitats around Earth first, it opens up many more doors than a Lunar colony would. In general we need more basic research. Spending at least one full day/night cycle on the Moon's surface. Exploratory drilling. Investigation of the health effects of Lunar dust. International legal framework for the land rights/purchasing would be good too. That alone might help get speculatory investments going, insulating governments from the costs.
  7. Endy0816

    Lunar Tunnels and Moon Colonies:

    We're not good at living in enclosed spaces for long periods of time and moon dust poses health and maintenance issues to making regular treks on the surface. Added to that you're still in a gravity well and the resources are limited. I have the feeling stations will be the better option in the short term. Ferrying lunar resources to them might be economical enough. What you don't want to do is land resources only to lift them off again. I foresee mainly an automated mining affair with very light tourist areas. Maybe even just the equivalent of a location for day-trips from a more substantial orbiting colony. Looking further out we need to reach Jupiter to secure our future as a species though Mars wouldn't be bad as an intermediate goal. Stations could become generational ships and make the voyage as economics allows.
  8. There is normally some rational basis for the options. Could be another case where genes behind us seeking equal treatment for ourselves(and the group) are at fault too though. Seen other case studies where people act against their own best interests in favor of maintaining parity.
  9. Endy0816

    What % should be removed?

    You're taking off a quarter of the price. 5/20 or 1/4 or 25% could also do 15/20 to get 75% and sub from 100%.
  10. Frequently read about Social media platforms doing this. Even if a member of the control group, leaves a bad taste in the mouth when you end up a test subject without any knowledge, consent or compensation. Concerned about this practice for software testing in general too. Suppose it is something more serious like your car?
  11. Endy0816

    The sea of plastic...

    Well can be good if replacing consumes less resources than repairing, but still have negative consequences. Eventually I figure there will only be bioplastics, recycling and trash dump mining(high tech mudlarking). We can definitely help by at least reducing what is all getting into the environment at large though.
  12. Endy0816

    The sea of plastic...

    A ban might work for single use plastics. Provided it doesn't need to last long we could probably swap those out easily enough. Costs and physics are the main issue with a general ban. Reason why plastic became widely used in the first place.
  13. Endy0816

    The sea of plastic...

    In many cases there would be increased cost or other issues with alternatives. They may not be as durable, require more volume to ship or increase the product weight. There some alternatives that might work. Leaves, Kelp Alginate. Mainly going to depend on what is locally available or possible to ship far enough.
  14. This is so very true.
  15. I was thinking you could do this though drag and power to change buoyancy might pose scaling issues. See submarines doing this already to a degree when blowing or flooding the ballast tanks, depending on the angles the stern and fairwater planes are at. I would think a compressor would be needed to get the change in buoyancy. Might be other options though.