Category Archives: Moon Colonization

Minecraft Tekkit Gameplay: Part 7 "Jedi #39;s Castle"
Another day, another challenge. This time we are building complex tekkit stuff to help on our quest for moon colonization. Also, We (Jedi21) are building new...

By: Gaming Sanitarium

See more here:
Minecraft Tekkit Gameplay: Part 7 "Jedi's Castle" - Video

Jan 27 2014 / 10:13 pm

Review by Edward S. Herman

(Maximilian Forte Slouching Towards Sirte: NATOs War on Libya and AfricaBaraka. Books: Montreal CA 2012, 341 pp.)

Maximilian Fortes book on the Libyan war, Slouching Towards Sirte, is another powerful (and hence marginalized) study of the imperial powers in violent action, and with painful results, but supported by the UN, media, NGOs and a significant body of liberals and leftists who had persuaded themselves that this was a humanitarian enterprise. Forte shows compellingly that it wasnt the least little bit humanitarian, either in the intent of its principals (the United States, France, and Great Britain) or in its results. As in the earlier cases of humanitarian intervention the Libyan program rested intellectually and ideologically on a set of supposedly justifying events and threats that were fabricated, selective, and/or otherwise misleading, but which were quickly institutionalized within the Western propaganda system. (For the deceptive model applied in the war on Yugoslavia, see Herman and Peterson, The Dismantling of Yugoslavia, Monthly Review, October 2007; for the propaganda model applied to Rwanda, see Herman, Rwanda and the New Scramble for Africa, Z Magazine, Jan. 2014)

The key elements in the war-on-Libya model were the alleged acute threat that Gaddafi was about to massacre large numbers of civilians (in early 2011), his supposed use of mercenaries imported from the south (black Africans!) to do his dirty work, and his dictatorial rule. The first provided the core and urgent rationale for Security Council Resolution 1973 [R-1973], passed on March 17, 2011, which authorized member states to take all necessary measuresto protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahirija, including Benghazi , while excluding a foreign occupation force in any form Its fraudulently benign and limited character was shown by this exclusion of an occupation force, as presumably any actions under this resolution would be limited to aircraft and missile operations protecting civilians. Its deep bias is shown by its attributing the threat to civilians solely to Libyan government forces, not to the rebels as well, who turned out to greatly surpass the government forces as civilian killers, and with a racist twist.

As Forte spells out in detail, the imperial powers violated R-1973 from day 1 and clearly never intended to abide by its words. That resolution called for the immediate establishment of a cease-fire and a complete end to violence, and the need to intensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis and to facilitate a dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution. Both Gaddafi and the African Union called for a cease fire and dialogue, but the rebels and imperial powers were not interested, and the bombing to protect civilians began within two days of the war-sanctioning resolution, without the slightest move toward obtaining a cease fire or starting negotiations.

Forte also shows that it was clear from the start that the imperial-power-warriors were using civilian protection as a figleaf cover for their real objectiveregime change and the removal of Gaddafi (with substantial evidence that his death was part of the program and carried out with U.S. participation). The war that followed was one in which the imperial powers worked in close collaboration with the rebel forces, serving as their air arm, but also providing them with arms, training and propaganda support. The imperial powers, and Dubai, also had hundreds of operatives on the ground in Libya, training the rebels and giving them intelligence and other support, hence violating R-1973s prohibition of an occupation force in any form.

Forte shows that the factual base for Gaddafis alleged threat to civilians, his treatment of protesters in mid-February 2011, was more than dubious. The claimed striking at protesters by aerial attacks, and the Viagra-based rape surge, were straightforward disinformation, and the number killed was small24 protesters in the three days, February 15-17, according to Human Rights Watchfewer than the number of alleged black mercenaries executed by the rebels in Derna in mid-February (50), and fewer than the early protester deaths in Tunis or Egypt that elicited no Security Council effort to protect civilians. There were claims of several thousand killed in February 2011, but Forte shows that this also was disinformation supplied by the rebels and their allies, but swallowed by many Western officials, media and other gullibles. That the actual evidence would induce the urgent and massive response by the NATO powers is implausible, and the rush to arms demands a different rationale than protecting civilians in a small North African state. Forte provides it, compellinglyObama and company were seizing the window of opportunity for regime change.

Forte demonstrates throughout his book that from the beginning of the regime-change-war the bombing powers were not confining themselves to protecting civilians, but were very often targeting civilians. He shows that, as in Pakistan, they used double-tapping, with lagged bombings that were sure civilian killers. They were also bombing military vehicles, troops and living quarters that were not attacking or threatening civilians. They also bombed ferociously anywhere their intelligence sources indicated that Gaddafi might be present. Forte also shows that the rebels were merciless in brutalizing and slaughtering people viewed as Gaddafi supporters, and in the substantial parts of the country where Gaddafi was supported, the rebels air-force (i.e., NATO) was regularly called upon to bomb, and it did so, ruthlessly.

Fortes book title, Slouching Towards Sirte, and his front cover which shows devastated civilian apartment buildings in that city, focus attention on the essence of the NATO-rebel war. Sirte was Gaddafis headquarters, and its populace and army remnants resisted the rebel advance for months, so it was eventually bombed into submission with a large number of civilians killed and injured. Forte notes that when NATO finally caught up with Gaddafi and bombed and decimated the small entourage that was with him on the outskirts of Sirte, this was justified by NATO because this group could still threaten civilians! This was a town that had to be destroyed to save itfor the rebels, who Forte shows (citing Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and UN and other observers) executed substantial numbers of captured Gaddafi supporters. This was a major war crimes scene. The civilians in Sirte needed protection, from NATO and the rebels.

Here is the original post:
Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa – Book Review

Published on January 24, 2014

I dont like mid-winter melts. Photo by Paul Smith/Special to The Telegram

Published on January 24, 2014

Snowshoes on snowshoes off. Photo by Paul Smith/Special to The Telegram

Published on January 24, 2014

The first thing a setter does is build a good comfortable outhouse. This is mine. Photo by Paul Smith/Special to The Telegram

Is it possible that my descendants might live on Mars? Will they fly fish in summer and snowshoe in winter like I do here on Earth?

They might build cabins in the Martian forest or own sailboats on lovely glacier-fed lakes. Who knows what the future holds?

I think it is inevitable that humans will eventually fly to Mars. Its our nature to explore. There will always be the few amongst us who crave the ultimate adventure. The green grass on the other side of the hill is today, and always has been, irresistible to the spirited adventurous human soul.

It is why Columbus set sail in the Santa Maria, in spite of more reserved folks telling him and his crew that they would sail to their deaths off the edge of the world.

Read the original:
Facilities first, and fly fishing on Mars

We should not send people to Mars until we create sufficient technology to get them home by Jared Fogel | Jan 23 2014

Mars: The Next Giant Leap for Mankind:http://www.mars-one.com. The Mars One website, which promotes its mission to colonize Mars through phrases like this, is doing everything it can to get the message out, and so far it has worked.

Less than a month ago, the Mars One project, which received more than 200,00 applicants to go on the mission, narrowed down the applicant pool to 1,058 men and women. Over the course of the next two years the program will narrow down the pool until there are six groups of four individuals remaining. From there, the future inter-planet explorers will undergo around eight years of training until the launch of their seven- to eight-month journey in 2024.

But theres a catch. The final 24 astronauts will be given only a one-way ticket to Mars. They will never return home.

This is uncharacteristic of any space missions to date. Historically speaking, whenever astronauts have been sent into space or to the moon, the intent has been for them to return home safely. However, this has not always been the case. Think of the Challenger, Columbia, and other space missions that suffered astronaut fatalities. This difference between the round trip always featured with NASA and the Mars Ones one-way ticket is likely because the Mars project is not funded by NASA or any other country but rather by a Netherlands non-profit organization.

Nevertheless, I dont think it is in anyones power to make the decision to send astronauts to their imminent deaths. I understand that these potential astronauts are signing up and agreeing to take part in this program under their own free will, but the program should not have been created in the first place because of this one-way trip aspect. Additionally, sometimes free will can be misinterpreted. For example, one man from Utah has decided that he would prefer to abandon his wife and four kids for the opportunity to journey to Mars. Thus, the Mars One would not only send people to live on Mars but would also potentially tear up families in the process.

Although there appear to be thousands of perfectly willing volunteers that will offer their lives on Earth for the chance to possibly live and die on Mars, this does not mean it is the right thing to do to send them there. Some may argue otherwise, but I believe an individual human life is more valuable than the knowledge gained from this expedition, especially since we could have the proper technology to bring them home 20 or 30 years down the road.

Even when the United States was first exploring potential moon exploration, the trip did not take place until we had sufficient technology to make a round trip: to the moon and back. Im sure there were plenty of individuals who would have offered their lives for the eternal fame that comes with exploration, but that doesnt mean it was right to offer up their lives for the sake of research and advancement. My point is that there was never any publicity involving one-way trips to the moon, and the trip did not take place until we knew that we could manage a round trip.

I understand that the moon is different than Mars, largely because Mars, after Earth, is the most habitable planet in the solar system thanks to its thin atmosphere and signs of water. Because there are no such conditions on the moon, there was never any mobilization to colonize there, but that doesnt change the fact that we decided that human exploration comes before colonization. Mars also lies much farther a seven- to eight-month journey away from Earth than the moon. Moreover, much like the moon, to our knowledge there are no signs of current life on Mars. Even with all of the potential research possibilities, the distance and lack of life presents a tough case to consider colonization a worthy trip.

Technological feasibility aside, I believe that the ultimate aim of the Mars One project is to stimulate new research on a planet with which we dont yet have much familiarity, and this is a very noble cause. On the other hand, it is not worth sacrificing lives, because no non-profit organization or any other organization should have the ability to offer up lives for the sake of research.

See more here:
FOGEL: One giant leap of faith

Every student has stories of their professors unique personalities but one has been to the moon and back, at least metaphorically.

A Penn State alumnus and currently an instructional designer for the Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Nahks TrEhnl is the artistic astronomer or the astronomic artist, whatever you want to call him.

He has finally found a way to mix his pallet with his two favorite interests, only to arrive back at Penn State, where he first realized his passion for them.

Long ago in time and space

TrEhnl got into space, robots and aliens some 30 years ago like many kids his age.

He grew up during the Voyager probe era with the mindset: Soon we'll get to see even more incredible things no one has ever seen before.

TrEhnl owned many astronomy books at the time, but one in particular had an effect on him that would solidify his interest in astrobiology to this day.

One of these had a particularly profound effect on me, containing a passage something to the effect of . . . and just think what if, on a planet around that star you see in your telescope, there's another creature with its own telescope, looking back at you? TrEhnl said via email. My interests in astrobiology, life elsewhere in the universe, and all that lit up big time, and its just stuck ever since.

When he was young, TrEhnl said he found a relief in Star Trek and the idea of life on other planets as he moved around the country every few years.

His fathers job with the United Way allowed him to travel to Tennessee, Mississippi , Georgia , Iowa and Texas before staying in Pennsylvania for the second half of high school.

View post:
Penn State alumnus turns art into science and vice versa

Add to guns and prosthetic hands something much bigger and heavier forming from the nozzle of a 3D printer buildings printed out of concrete.

Partially funded by the Office of Naval Research and the National Science Foundation Countour Crafting is trying to develop 3D printed buildings using concrete. Company founder Behrokh Khoshnevis is a professor and director of Manufacturing Engineering Graduate Program at the University of Southern California.

Concrete printers would be able to build a 2,500-square-foot building within a single day, according to Khoshnevis.

For the military, that means soldiers deploying to a remote location with little or no infrastructure could be operating out of permanent structures pretty soon after a combat engineer unit arrived with printers and material aboard a C-17.

Related: Navy Rail Gun Showing Promise

Essentially, building via printer would work just like any computer assisted manufacturing program. But instead of a robotic tap and die machine turning out parts according to a program, it would be an oversized printer following programmed schematics to lay down, layer by layer, a building, including outside and interior walls, spaces for doors and windows and all electrical, plumbing and air-conditioning conduits, according to Khoshnevis website.

In avideo of a presentation he made last yearKhoshnevis says the machines he is working with now are capable of printing out concrete walls able to bear a compressive stress of 10,000 pounds per square inch. According to the Portland Concrete Association, which represents concrete manufacturers nationwide, conventional concrete has a psi of 7,000 or less.

Anything above that, up to 14,500 psi, is considered high strength.

Building construction is about the only thing that is not automated today, Khoshnevis says. At the same time it kills about 10,000 people a year and injures about 400,000.

Given the history of U.S. military and related missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, Khoshnevis observations on other aspects of conventional construction should also have meaning to the Pentagon.

Go here to see the original:
Navy reveals next big project

to Colonize-the-Moon!

This website is an effort to translate vast amounts of technical jargon into easily understandable terms. The concept is to express the ideas of space advocates in language that is not difficult to grasp. There are some very exciting things, but often the long winded explanations dampen the excitement. Here the effort is to make the words palatable.

More explanation

The bounds are pretty simple. What can humans do in space? Not traveling to other stars, but what we know can be done in our lifetimes. Taking the time and patience to read a space resource or technical book about Mars, Asteroids, or the Moon is a difficult task. Fiction in this realm does not exist. There is a huge gap between the fiction, and reality.

This website is neither science nor science fiction. It does not fit in either category. The term hard science fiction might apply. However, the genre still implies science rather than engineering or communication.

Science fiction leaves huge gaps in understanding what outer-space is. Science itself relies on very long detailed and exact explanations. Here the highly complicated verbiage is reduced to ideas that dont take so much to explain. The term fiction still applies, but the strategy is to cut out as much fiction as possible.

Possible simple terms for this place:

Engineering Fiction

Hard Science Fiction

Near Earth Space Fiction

Visit link:
Colonize The Moon

The colonization of the Moon is the proposed establishment of permanent human communities on the Moon. Science fiction writers and advocates of space exploration have seen settlement of the Moon as a logical step in the expansion of humanity beyond the Earth.

Permanent human habitation on a planetary body other than the Earth is one of science fiction's central themes. As technology has advanced, and concerns about the future of humanity on Earth have increased, the argument that space colonization is an achievable and worthwhile goal has gained momentum. Because of its proximity to Earth, the Moon has been seen as a prime candidate for the location of humanity's first permanently occupied extraterrestrial base.

Should attempts at colonization go ahead, economic concerns are likely to lead to settlements being created near mines and processing centers, or near the poles where a continuous source of solar energy can be harnessed. While it would be relatively easy to resupply a lunar base from Earth, in comparison to a Martian base, the Moon is likely to play a large role in the development of long-duration closed-loop life support systems. Duplicating the ecology of Earth so that wastes can be recycled is essential to any long term effort of space exploration. The wealth of knowledge gained by extracting and refining resources on the Moon would positively affect efforts to build colonies elsewhere in the Solar System.

Putting aside the general questions of whether a human colony beyond the Earth is feasible or scientifically desirable in light of cost-efficiency, proponents of space colonization point out that the Moon offers both advantages and disadvantages as a site for such a colony.

Placing a colony on a natural body would provide an ample source of material for construction and other uses, including shielding from radiation. The energy required to send objects from the Moon to space is much less than from Earth to space. This could allow the Moon to serve as a construction site or fueling station for spacecraft. Some proposals include using electric acceleration devices (mass drivers) to propel objects off the Moon without building rockets. Others have proposed momentum exchange tethers. Furthermore, the Moon does have some gravity, which, experience to date indicates, may be vital for fetal development and long-term human health. Whether the Moon's gravity (roughly one sixth of Earth's) is adequate for this purpose, however, is uncertain.

In addition, the Moon is the closest large body in the solar system to Earth. While some Earth-crosser asteroids occasionally pass closer, the Moon's distance is consistently within a small range close to 384,400 km. This proximity has several benefits:

There are several disadvantages to the Moon as a colony site:

Excerpt from:
Colonization of the Moon - Space Colonization Wiki

DISCLAIMER: This web site is not a policy statement. It is intended to be an accessible introduction to the ideas developed in the Stanford/NASA Ames space settlement studies of the 1970s to support the annual NASA Ames Student Space Settlement Design Contest. You. Or at least people a lot like you. Space settlements will be a place for ordinary people.

Presently, with few exceptions, only highly trained and carefully selected astronauts go to space. Space settlement needs inexpensive, safe launch systems to deliver thousands, perhaps millions, of people into orbit. If this seems unrealistic, note that a hundred and fifty years ago nobody had ever flown in an airplane, but today nearly 500 million people fly each year.

Some special groups might find space settlement particularly attractive: The handicapped could keep a settlement at zero-g to make wheelchairs and walkers unnecessary. Penal colonies might be created in orbit as they should be fairly escape proof. People who wish to experiment with very different social and political forms could get away from restrictive social norms.

Although some colonies may follow this model, it's reasonable to expect that the vast majority of space colonists will be ordinary people. Indeed, eventually most people in space settlements will be born there, and some day they may vastly exceed Earth's population. Based on the materials available, the human population in orbit could one day exceed ten trillion living in millions of space colonies with a combined living space hundreds of times the surface of the Earth.

For an alternate view, see Robert Zubrin's powerful case for Mars exploration and colonization. Mars' biggest advantage is that all the materials necessary for life may be found on Mars. While materials for orbital colonies must be imported from the Moon or Near Earth Objects (NEO's -- asteroids and comets), there are many advantages to orbital colonies. Advantages include:

By contrast, orbital colonies can rotate to provide any g level desired, although it's not true gravity. Spinning the colony creates a force called pseudo-gravity, that feels a lot like gravity. Pseudo-gravity is much like what you feel when a car takes a sharp turn at high speed. Your body is pressed up against the door. Simillarly, as an orbital space colony turns, the inside of the colony pushes on the inhabitants forcing them to go around. The amount of this force can be controlled and for reasonable colony sizes and rotation rates the force can be about 1g. For example, a colony with an 895 meter (a bit less than 1000 yards) radius rotating at one rpm (rotations per minute) provides 1g at the hull. Children raised on orbital colonies should have no trouble visiting Earth for extended periods.

Mars and the Moon have one big advantage over most orbits: there's plenty of materials. However, this advantage is eliminated by simply building orbital settlements next to asteroids. It may even be easier to mine asteroids for materials than the Mars or the Moon as there is much less gravity. Fortunately, there are tens of thousands of suitable asteroids in orbits near that of Earth alone, and far more in the asteroid belt. Early settlements can be expected to orbit the Earth.

Later settlements can spread out across the solar system, taking advantage of the water in Jupiter's moons or exploiting the easily available materials of the asteroid belt. Eventually the solar system will become too crowded, and some settlements will head for nearby stars.

Interstellar travel seems impractical due to long travel times. But what if you lived in space settlements for fifty generations? Do you really care if your settlement is near our Sun or in transit to Alpha Centuri? So what if the trip takes a few generations? If energy and make up materials for the trip can be stored, a stable population can migrate to nearby stars. At the new star, local materials and energy can be used to build new settlements and resume population growth.

With great difficulty. Fortunately, although building space colonies will be very difficult, it's not impossible. Building cities in space will require materials, energy, transportation, communications, life support, and radiation protection.

Read more:
Space Colonization Basics

Moon colonization. The very idea whips up images of interconnected biodomes, hovercrafts cruising the pockmarked surface, and ships darting to Earth and back again. The moon is the only planetary object whose features can be seen without the aid of a telescope. It's also the closest object to our planet large enough for humans to inhabit. When considering long-term space exploration and living, building a moon colony seems like the next logical step. We have the technology to get there and the innovative thinking to be successful. But what are the benefits of a moon colony? Do the risks outweigh the gains? How is such an expensive undertaking feasible in uncertain economic climates? Will we build on the moon in the next decade, or will the dream of a moon colony continue to hang on the horizon, just out of reach?

Let's take a look at some of the pros -- and cons -- of colonizing the moon.

Humans have been fascinated with the moon for millennia. From the discoveries of Aristotle and Galileo to modern science explorations, the moon has held profound mysteries and endless possibilities. In recent decades, the desire to tackle this new frontier, and to travel through the galaxy in search of sentient life, has prompted scientists and entrepreneurs alike to tackle head-on what many believe to be the first step in interstellar travel: a colony on the moon.

Many feel a moon outpost -- not a full-fledged colony -- will be built within the next 10 years. Human spirit alone, however, can't meet the considerable barriers that stand in the way. The costs associated with building a colony are prohibitive, but the private sector may be able to pay for what governments can't afford. Safety is a paramount concern, and state-of-the-art technologies -- including nanostructures -- are creating viable solutions for life in space. Although public attitude and the willingness to support expensive space programs waxes and wanes, the human desire to explore is constant.

In 1835, John Herschel wrote a series of six articles claiming the discovery of life on the moon. It later became known as the Great Moon Hoax [source: Gizmodo].

That a moon colony would need to be self-sufficient is perhaps stating the obvious. When you're 238,855 miles (384,400 kilometers) away from Earth, you would want to have the upper hand when it comes to necessities like food and water.

Dehydrated food is one option. Although it's not the freshest, it's compact, comes in minimal packaging and stores for years. But is it a realistic expectation that colonists would be satisfied with such fare for months on end? If the taste factor alone isn't enough of a turnoff, limited choices may make it less than ideal. Hydroponic farming] is a smart alternative to freeze-dried space food. NASA has been experimenting with it for more than 20 years as a way to provide fresh fruits and vegetables for astronauts. It's efficient -- a must considering the limited supply of water -- and food would be fresh. Transportation costs would disappear. And there's another perk: Farming in space can also supplement another precious resource: oxygen.

When we believed that the moon was just a dusty mass, the lack of water was a huge argument against colonization. The weight alone would make transporting water from Earth prohibitively expensive. However, scientists have recently discovered approximately one billion gallons (3.8 billion liters) of water ice in one moon crater [source: Potter]. Conceivably, colonies built near ice deposits would have a natural supply of water. There would have to be purifying systems for removing toxins like mercury, as well as systems for reclaiming gray water. When melted and broken down into its components, water ice could also be used as fuel for rockets.

Astronauts, leave the shakers at home: In space, salt and pepper come in liquid form only.

Why buy an around-the-world ticket when a few million dollars will take you to the moon? Entrepreneurs are banking on space as the next wave in travel. With the expectation that it will amount to billions of dollars in revenue, companies like Virgin, with its prototype space plane Virgin Galactic, are leading the way in private space travel. Space Adventures is developing what it hopes will be the first private lunar expedition. They anticipate ferrying thousands of travelers to the moon and eventually beyond. Hotel chains, such as Hilton Hotels, are looking into the feasibility of providing travelers with accommodations on the moon that feature all the comforts of home.

The rest is here:
10 Pros (and Cons) of Colonizing the Moon : Discovery Channel