J
Johnfoss
Guest
gerblefranklin wrote:
> *Actually, if you hollowed out the moon evenly, the
> gravity on the inside would cancell and you'd be
> waitlessa, so yes, you could fly under your own power, but
> it'd kinda be cheating. *
The premise here was that building lunar habitations would
be easier underground, using rock as your building material.
Protection from temperature extremes and radiation. Crappy
view, though. I think the story I was reading assumed some
naturally-formed caves also. People would not hollow out
such a huge area and use it only for recreation. But it does
make sense to live underground when you have a shortage of
building supplies.
> *Also, Bush's plan for the moon is a load of bullsh**.*
Probably true. Especially if he was talking about any kind
of permanent base (I didn't hear the details). If you're
going to build a base, especially if you plan to use it as
a launching point for longer-distance trips, the only
sensible place is orbit. Doing it on the ground assumes
there are enough resources there to live on. The moon
doesn't have much.
But if Bush wants us to do more manned exploration, I'm all
for it. We can spend all of eternity trying to cure all the
world's ills, or we can work on multiple things at the same
time. It's like paying off your credit card bills. You
really should do that first, but some of us buy more
unicycles anyway because it improves our lives.
The United States gives out billions of dollars of relief
money each year through the government, and American
corporations and people give out many billions more than
that. Possibly even more than we spend on our pets (though I
kind of doubt it). We're not ignoring the rest of the world.
> *Also, by the time we're established enough on the moon to
> go for unicycle trials and the like people like Ryan
> Atkins and me will have been dead for about 30 years.*
Though this may sadly be true, I do hope to orbit the
earth and experience zero gravity (real, not simulated) in
my lifetime.
> Really, humanity has much more pressing concerns than
unicycling on
> the moon or Mars, and those won't happen for at least
> another century and a half.
>
> Also, someone post a counterpoint to this, and correct me
> if I'm wrong about anything.
Though it may be a century and a half on the unicycling
part, hopefully it will be much sooner for further
exploration and possible permanent or semi-permanent
habitation.
Of course we're fantasizing about the unicycle part, but
it's something I've thought about many times over the years.
Zero gravity=not much fun with a unicycle. Lunar
gravity=lots of new possibilities!
--
johnfoss - IUF Director
John Foss, the Uni-Cyclone
"jfoss" at "unicycling.com"
www.unicycling.com
"I went to the Liberace Museum and the Elvis-A-Rama Museum on the same
day! This is not for everyone."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
johnfoss's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/832
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/29871
> *Actually, if you hollowed out the moon evenly, the
> gravity on the inside would cancell and you'd be
> waitlessa, so yes, you could fly under your own power, but
> it'd kinda be cheating. *
The premise here was that building lunar habitations would
be easier underground, using rock as your building material.
Protection from temperature extremes and radiation. Crappy
view, though. I think the story I was reading assumed some
naturally-formed caves also. People would not hollow out
such a huge area and use it only for recreation. But it does
make sense to live underground when you have a shortage of
building supplies.
> *Also, Bush's plan for the moon is a load of bullsh**.*
Probably true. Especially if he was talking about any kind
of permanent base (I didn't hear the details). If you're
going to build a base, especially if you plan to use it as
a launching point for longer-distance trips, the only
sensible place is orbit. Doing it on the ground assumes
there are enough resources there to live on. The moon
doesn't have much.
But if Bush wants us to do more manned exploration, I'm all
for it. We can spend all of eternity trying to cure all the
world's ills, or we can work on multiple things at the same
time. It's like paying off your credit card bills. You
really should do that first, but some of us buy more
unicycles anyway because it improves our lives.
The United States gives out billions of dollars of relief
money each year through the government, and American
corporations and people give out many billions more than
that. Possibly even more than we spend on our pets (though I
kind of doubt it). We're not ignoring the rest of the world.
> *Also, by the time we're established enough on the moon to
> go for unicycle trials and the like people like Ryan
> Atkins and me will have been dead for about 30 years.*
Though this may sadly be true, I do hope to orbit the
earth and experience zero gravity (real, not simulated) in
my lifetime.
> Really, humanity has much more pressing concerns than
unicycling on
> the moon or Mars, and those won't happen for at least
> another century and a half.
>
> Also, someone post a counterpoint to this, and correct me
> if I'm wrong about anything.
Though it may be a century and a half on the unicycling
part, hopefully it will be much sooner for further
exploration and possible permanent or semi-permanent
habitation.
Of course we're fantasizing about the unicycle part, but
it's something I've thought about many times over the years.
Zero gravity=not much fun with a unicycle. Lunar
gravity=lots of new possibilities!
--
johnfoss - IUF Director
John Foss, the Uni-Cyclone
"jfoss" at "unicycling.com"
www.unicycling.com
"I went to the Liberace Museum and the Elvis-A-Rama Museum on the same
day! This is not for everyone."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
johnfoss's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/832
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/29871
