Location of Moon Base - Discuss.

dan_casale · Apr 22, 2005

Some of the NASA viewpoint. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/18mar_moonfirst.htm

smradoch · Apr 25, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> But mission to Mars cann't be done with recent technology, while Lunar mission and Lunar base is feasible. I don't know how you can say that. NASA had plans to get us to Mars as far back as the 1960's and 70's. We could certainly go any time we choose. It's not a question of technology, it's a question of money. Lunar soil and Mars soil is very different, but you can get an idea how difficult it will be to get to Mars and survive. You have no idea yet how difficult it really will be. And how expensive. Huh? Since when does the Martian soil become an issue with this debate? And what do you mean, "we have no idea" regarding the difficulty and expense? Estimates can certainly be done, as they were before the Apollo program. It will undoubtedly be more expensive and difficult than the estimates, but that didn't stop us from getting to the moon. You don't seem to have much faith in American ingenuity. I, however, do! <hr /></blockquote> To have a plans and to make the plans real is something really different. (there were plans for STS or freedom too). Estimates can be done, but no people lived further than 400km from Earth for longer than several days. Sending people to Mars for several years without practising on the Moon is a suicide. Idea that practising on Earth is all you need is silly (Some has that opinion). Maybe there are similar places on Earth, but from narrow point of view. There is different atmosphere, pressure, temperature, gravity, soil composition, radiation, means of transport, psychology of astronauts etc. Earth, Moon and Mars are three different places, but setting a base on Moon is definitely easier than on Mars so it's good first step. And technology for Moon and Mars is not the same. There is a big difference. Working time and distance to the Earth for example. If you do have a faith in American ingenuity belive in NASA and see what they ach

quasar2 · Apr 25, 2005

one of the only "bad" things i can see about testing on The Moon is that the equipment used can only be used there. this due to fact equipment made for 1/6g couldn`t be used in roughly 3/8g. & perhaps also difference betweens atmospheres too. however this isn`t really a problem because if necessary this testing equipment could be melted down & recycled for Mars. even this would be easier than lifting absolutely everything needed for Mars from Earth. part of training for Mars will be a necessity of cannabilizing parts. testing of this nature includes adding of a dangerous element, this being lunar environment. there is no test without danger. Earth doesn`t doesn`t provide enough danger, unless maybe one tests underwater. & who are we to say members of a Mars colony wouldn`t wanna visit The Moon occasionally. in much of the shortsightedness concerning Mars, we assume they would be absolutely too busy w/ things there to concern themselves w/paltriness like The Moon. & alot of our estimates still are assuming what we have now in terms of how "expensive" it is to get to The Moon. this evolves w/ interaction, just as easily as interaction w/Mars will. we know The Moon is 3 days, mars is 6 mos duration/500+/-daystay trips respectively. what we don`t know is trip time between the Lunar vicinity & Mars or viceversa or L1/Mars or L1/Moon. these have hardly ever been expressed except maybe in perhaps vague terms of maybe being easier but we don`t have the equipment on either end. i think it`s entirely possible there will also be emergencies where Earth/Mars runs will need "help", perhaps from L1 &/or The Moon. if anything this would be reason enough for bases @ either. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

quasar2 · Apr 26, 2005

one of the sad things about breaking orbit itself is that most people probably wouldn`t be very excited about it. perhaps cuz it wouldn`t really accomplish anything or be a spectacular show. & it`s entirely possible many aren`t aware this simply hasn`t been done since Apollo 17. i have a question for the experts: how many times has orbit ever been broken by manned vehicles? i`m assuming the Russians never have. i think a Manned Lunar Flyby would be almost a routine deal for tourists if history had been different. the most dangerous part being Van Allen Belts. a trip to L1 would probably be boring for a tourist, unless of course there were a station there. w/ The Moon to look @ we don`t need necessarily anything there. it`s sad we hafta have these spectacular shows to garnish interest. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

najab · Apr 26, 2005

>i have a question for the experts: how many times has orbit ever been broken by manned vehicles?All of them.Okay, I assume you meant in an upward direction... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> That's easy: Apollo's 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 - 9 times.

henryhallam · Apr 26, 2005

I thought the Apollos never left Earth orbit? (although only a few tens of m/s short of escape velocity)

najab · Apr 26, 2005

Well, it all depends on what you mean by 'break orbit' - they were captured into lunar orbit, which counts as leaving LEO for me.

quasar2 · Apr 26, 2005

excellent post naja, thanks. yeh, sorry i wasn`t all that clear. i didn`t think there were any more than all the Moonshots & 8. so the Russians never did then i was right. i`ve gotten into many arguments about that. i don`t think it`s very well known to the layman. & the last time was dec 1972. 32 years. here`s another one & i think i asked this pre-crash. & i`ll start by assuming that one must go past the Van Allen belts to break orbit. if an interested party wanted to be the first since `72 to do this, that is. & it`s a coincidence that Apollo 8 was first to break orbit & to orbit The Moon. i guess there was never any reason to back then, & not really one now, except maybe just to do it. does there exist a "smaller" mission objective than a Manned Lunar Flyby which would break orbit? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mrmorris · Apr 27, 2005

"...which counts as leaving LEO for me..." They most certainly left LEO -- by any definition they made it to a High-Earth-Orbit. As you say -- the answer depends on what exactly was intended by the question. The Apollos did not reach escape velocity. They *did* change from orbiting primarily about the Earth to orbiting primarily about the moon. However -- as the moon is orbiting around the Earth -- it's arguable that they were still 'in earth orbit'. At any rate -- Apollo was the only manned vessel to orbit a celestial body other than Earth.

north_star_rising · Apr 29, 2005

flynn, the best place for a moon base, is about 100+ feet under the surface. Power for a moon base is going to be mostly nuclear anyway. The only advantage for a polar base, is for agricultural facilities, which will need sunlight for plants, or a large solar array facility for a power station to generate power and send it to other places on the moon and moon orbit by laser or microwave transmission. The very first mission to the moon should be elements of a tunneling and shaft digging machine and crew to operate and maintain this equipment. These shafts and tunnels will provide large amounts of pressurized and livable space, in a very short span of time, and nothing will have to be sent from Earth, as far as the tunnel and shaft structures that is.

quasar2 · May 2, 2005

another advantage of poles is ease of launching. as Lunar orbit is lower there. this would be a kinda "natural" space elevator. & i`m thinking there would be more possibility of Lava tubes in those So. polar mtns easing the job of tunneling. dunno what the terrain is @ No. pole though. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mental_avenger · May 3, 2005

Sending people to Mars for several years without practising on the Moon is a suicide. Rubbish. I have heard those arguments about using the Moon for “practicing”, using the Moon for "training", using the Moon for "testing", hundreds of times. However, I have yet to see a single argument that validates any of those arguments. There are many different systems that need to be tested, but they can all be tested here on Earth more easily, more thoroughly, more safely, and much less expensive. I have an open challenge to anyone to present a valid argument for testing anything on the Moon instead of selected areas here on Earth. So far that challenge has never been met. There is a great deal of training to be done, but all of that training can be done here on Earth faster, safer, and a lot cheaper. Again, I have an open challenge for anyone to present a valid argument for training on the Moon. So far, only a very few of the many training needs can be done more accurately on the Moon, but the small advantages are overwhelmingly overshadowed by cost, time, and safety. I am still waiting. To be sure, many people have made general, unsubstantiated claims, but no one has presented a valid, substantiated case. I am still waiting. One more point. The ISS is an incredible waste of time and resources. It has taught us very little of what we really need to learn for long voyages. True, we have learned some things about weightless endurance, health, and systems, but the ISS is not self-sufficient in even the smallest degree. What we need is a true space station that recycles everything, grows food, and sustains life without constant re-supply from Earth. Also, long missions to Mars will probably have artificial gravity. This is another area that has not been researched by ISS. It is amazing how very little we have received in return for such a huge investment. Bottom line, be <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · May 3, 2005

There is different atmosphere, pressure, temperature, gravity, soil composition, radiation, means of transport, psychology of astronauts etc. Atmosphere – The Moon has no usable atmosphere. Although thin, the Martian atmosphere does provide some protection, especially against smaller meteorites. On the Moon, even the smallest particle is not slowed and can kill a person, either directly or by suit puncture. Also, the Martian atmosphere can be mined for carbon and oxygen, both of which are needed for life. The difference between processing O2 out of CO2, and crushing tons of regolith for O2 is significant. In addition, the Martian atmosphere can be used to sink and transfer heat, something that is not possible on the moon. Pressure - The atmospheric pressure of Mars is about 7-9 millibars. This can be simulated on Earth, for test purposes, by practicing in the Andes mountains, where the temperature is also similar to Mars. Pressurizing the suit to about 900 millibars over ambient pressure will provide realistic simulation, without endangering the lives of the subjects. If you puncture a suit on the Moon, you will probably have a funeral. There is no need to place test subjects in mortal danger, just to work out the bugs in suit design. Temperature – The great temperature variations on the Moon will make it difficult to perform many tasks. There is a great difference between keeping people or equipment cool in 265°F or keeping them warm at -170°F. It requires different systems, and is one reason why Moon suits were, and will be, heavy, cumbersome, and expensive. Gravity – Most scientist agree that the .38G of Mars is probably sufficient for indefinite habitation. However, the low gravity of the Moon will probably cause problems fro long term exposure. Soil composition – The Moon regolith consists of: Oxygen-43% Silicon-21% Aluminum-10% Calc <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · May 3, 2005

And technology for Moon and Mars is not the same. Glad you noticed. That is one reason why the Moon is NOT a good testing ground for Mars missions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · May 3, 2005

testing of this nature includes adding of a dangerous element, this being lunar environment. there is no test without danger. Another major fallacy. Most testing of dangerous equipment and procedures on Earth is currently done in simulators or controlled environments. There is a very good reason for that. There is NO valid reason to risk the life of someone in a vain attempt to provide “realism” to the test. Add to that the fact that it would cost about 1000 times more to test the same equipment on the Moon, as well as taking many times longer, and there is simply no valid reason for such a test. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · May 3, 2005

Without considering the actual conditions, some people seem to think that just because the Moon and Mars are both “out there in space”, that they are more similar than different. Hello, the Earth is “out there in space” too. From Mars, Earth would appear a lot more similar than the Moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · May 3, 2005

The only advantage for a polar base, is for agricultural facilities, which will need sunlight for plants, or a large solar array facility Reality can ruin some of the best plans. It is rarely mentioned, but the polar regions would be inefficient for either domed agriculture or solar arrays. Think about it. At that low angle, the density of sunlight would be far less than at the equator. In addition, due to the physical restraints of the low angle, half of the time the solar arrays (or domes) would be in the shadow of the rest. The best laid plans of mice and men…….. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

smradoch · May 3, 2005

Mental_Avenger, it’s great post, but you should think more in deep. One point about testing: why do you think the repair techniques for STS orbiter are tested in space? Why do you think the Mars exploration program is successful recently? Only because testing on Earth? I have an open challenge for anyone to present a valid argument for training on the Moon. There is good analogy. Why do you think it’s quite safe now to live at ISS? It’s only because of vast experiences of Russian and US on orbit programs. It wouldn’t be possible without it. It would be a suicide. Yet you have only a slight idea about living an other planet like body thanks to information from Apollo and other space programs. You seem to think that it’s enough. Well, I’m not sure and I wouldn’t bet my life. I don’t know how do you imagine colonising Mars without vast experiences from Mars itself. There should be small exploration base on Mars at first, testing all technology. It’s clear that while testing they can’t rely on on-situ resources. To establish such base the experiences from previous base attempts will be essential. It would be great if you would have test beds on Earth, but you will never know if you know enough until you’ll be on Mars. And it will be too late then. Plane or space industry is all about testing, small steps and more testing. Everybody knows that – they already paid too much not to know that. It seems that you paid nothing yet. Maybe you hesitate to pay money for the Lunar base – but you can be sure that it will be a small fraction of money for Mars colonisation. Some points for comparing Mars and Moon: Atmosphere – there is no real significance of atmosphere for the first base except of aerobraking landing manoeuvre. Wind turbines, heat sink, heat transfer: rubbish, C+O2 production from CO2: science fiction for the fi

mental_avenger · May 3, 2005

Atmosphere – there is no real significance of atmosphere for the first base except of aerobraking landing manoeuvre. Wind turbines, heat sink, heat transfer: rubbish, C+O2 production from CO2: science fiction for the first base or for testing purposes only. You are wrong about the properties of the atmosphere. Wind turbines will be practical on Mars. Although light, the wind often blows at high velocity, up to 200mph. I have several wind turbines producing electricity here and now. I have developed wind turbines specifically for use on Mars. Mining the Martian atmosphere is very basic and easy. It will be one of the first productions on Mars, producing all the oxygen needed for breathing and for fuel. It’s not science fiction, you could do it in your kitchen with an inexpensive setup. Pressure of atmosphere – nonsignificant difference between Moon and Mars, on contrary vacuum is better because of lack of the weather and more solar power available. While the pressure is slight, it is still there. It is just another factor in favor of Mars. Gravity – less is better because of better access to orbit. Influence on human is insignificant for few months stay. Access to orbit is not the goal of a colony. Since both the Moon and Mars are proposed as permanent bases, people will be staying there year round. Due to the extremely high cost of transporting humans to and from either place, it is far more economical to keep people there for tours of duty lasting at least a year. On Mars, many colonists will probably not return to Earth. Therefore, gravity is a significant factor. Soil – Mars has advantage, but Moon is still unexplored. The Moon has had a very detailed study of the composition of the regolith and the rocks. See my list <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · May 4, 2005

another advantage of poles is ease of launching. as Lunar orbit is lower there. ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

smradoch · May 5, 2005

You are wrong about the properties of the atmosphere. Wind turbines will be practical on Mars. Well, without money from government and pressure from green nuts the wind energy wouldn’t be practical even on Earth. Mining the Martian atmosphere is very basic and easy. It will be one of the first productions on Mars, producing all the oxygen needed for breathing and for fuel. It’s not science fiction, you could do it in your kitchen with an inexpensive setup. Do you have a link how to produce carbon and oxygen from carbon dioxide in my kitchen? Photosynthesis does something similar, but it’s not easy. I would prefer regolith processing. Access to orbit is not the goal of a colony. It would be the only link to civilisation and for decades the only link how to obtain many resources. The Moon has had a very detailed study of the composition of the regolith and the rocks. See my list above. Well, I’m sure that nobody is sure enough what to expect on the Moon or Mars. It’s still unexplored. Few samples from few sites or brief orbital observations can’t change it. The background radiation on the Moon is about 20 times the US allowable rate for workers in risk fields. What kind of background radiation it is? Do you have a link? Alpha, beta, gamma? What is the particle energy and what possibility of shielding? Gamma and high energy protons are difficult to shield, but other kind of radiation not. If the radiation is coming from space, it is definitely easier to shield astronauts on Moon for few months than to Mars for few months of spacetrip and then for the rest of the life. I would expect that natural background radiation on planets is locality dependent, so you have to choose right plac

mental_avenger · May 5, 2005

Do you have a link how to produce carbon and oxygen from carbon dioxide in my kitchen? One process reacts CO2 with methane in the presence of a catalyst to produce carbon nano-fibers and water. Water is easily split into hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis. Other related processes are reacting Hydrogen with CO2 in an endothermic reaction to produce methane. Methane can be used as a fuel, and the resulting CO2 can be returned to react with Hydrogen closing the loop. There are other processes, I don’t have the links right now. In any case, CO2 can be used for a variety of things. However, a simple houseplant in your kitchen fixes carbon and releases O2. Menatal Avenger says: Access to orbit is not the goal of a colony.” smradoch replies: It would be the only link to civilisation and for decades the only link how to obtain many resources. Very little, if any, materials will be sent back to Earth from a colony. Access to orbit is not necessary for landing supplies on the planet. What kind of background radiation it is? Do you have a link? Cosmic radiation and solar radiation, find your own link. 5 meters of water wouldn’t be good news for proposals of Mars trips, but nothing terrible for Moon. How do you arrive at that? Mars has confirmed water, the Moon doesn’t. Besides, 5 meters of water is for protection on the Moon, Mars requires a lot less. And it [living conditions on Mars] will be definitely much more expensive than on Earth or Moon. More expensive than on Earth, significantly less expensive than on the Moon. Hopefully there is water ice on lunar poles. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

najab · May 5, 2005

>Please explain the condition that would allow water ice to remain on the surface of the Moon for millions of years, even in shadow.All it would take is a thin layer of dust/regolith to prevent sublimation.

mental_avenger · May 5, 2005

Can you prove that a thin layer of dust/regolith would prevent sublimation. Sublimation is merely evaporation without going through the liquid stage. If you have data to back up your statement, I would be interested in seeing it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · May 6, 2005

Well, without money from government and pressure from green nuts the wind energy wouldn’t be practical even on Earth. ” Wind power is a very economical source of power “ Glenn Cannon, Waverly (Iowa) Light & Power general manager ”Wind power has been an important source of energy in the United States for centuries. Over eight million mechanical windmills have been installed in America since the 1860s, and thousands are still in operation across the West.” Mother Earth News, Oct-Nov, 1994 by Laurie Stone, Linda Matise ” "Wind broke to a point of being economical in most parts of this country vis-a-vis the cost of electricity back when oil passed $30 per barrel, and now it's incredibly economical. I don't think there's very many places in the country where there's a cheaper way to produce energy than wind." Matthew Patsky, portfolio manager of the Winslow Green Growth fund. FYI, I have been involved with Alternative Power Production for 25 years. Although it was not my main “job”, I worked on quite a few different projects. These included a sun-tracking flash-steam generator, PV cells, and wind generators. I have built both horizontal axis and vertical axis wind turbines producing electric power. I use PV battery chargers every day. Vertical Axis wind turbines are perfect for Mars. The low atmospheric density, sudden and extreme changes in velocity, and significant vertical wind gradient, make vertical axis turbines practical for Mars. Although production of electricity is paramount, such turbines may also be useful for mechanically pumping water. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

Location of Moon Base - Discuss.

dan_casale

Guest

smradoch

Guest

quasar2

Guest

quasar2

Guest

najab

Guest

henryhallam

Guest

najab

Guest

quasar2

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

north_star_rising

Guest

quasar2

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

smradoch

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

smradoch

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

najab

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page