Lots of talk lately concerning the moon

halman · Aug 6, 2004

CrossoverManiac, I believe that if something will work on the Moon, chances are it will work on Mars, an asteroid, or Ganymede. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

mental_avenger · Aug 7, 2004

Arobie says: About the Mars and Mars only people, you seem to be a Mars and Mars only person. You only seem to only want a colony on Mars. Not so. Please read all my comments. I have already repeated them more than I should have to. Arobie says: Like most I support infrastructure first. Not the kind of highway (ways to get there) infrastructure, the kind of infrasture that will create money. Mines on the moon and so on. I have yet to see any proposals the would make mining on the Moon practical or profitable in the near future. Mining is no good without processing, and processing, which is difficult on Earth, will be much more so on the Moon. Processed ore will be of no value unless it can be refined into usable materials, and those materials will be of no use if they are not needed for some specific purpose. There is no doubt that materials produced (eventually) on the Moon will be too expensive to ship to Earth. After all, the only thing Moon produce will have is that it does not have to be lifted out of Earth’s gravity well. No one is going to dump it down that well. Until there is enough traffic to warrant the expense and manpower to build the mining/processing/refining/production of materials on the Moon, it is not going to happen. Traffic will be created by missions to Mars and other places in the solar system. Even unmanned missions to the Jovian and Saturnian moons may require spacecraft built in space IF the volume and frequency warrants it. Until then, those missions will be launched from Earth or Earth orbit. Arobie says: You seem to think that we don't have the technology or methods to do it efficiently. We have the technology, most of it anyway, but we don’t have the requirement………….yet. Arobie says: We need to start to m <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Aug 7, 2004

halman says: In spite of tremendous advances in telemetry, the ability to 'sense' an environment is still a very long way off. There is not as much need to “sense” the environment as you seem to believe. Rovers on the Moon can be tele-operated from Earth with very little delay. The purpose of the rovers will be to sample the regolith, the rocks, and to drill down and take samples. As for sensing the environment, they now have a race, somewhere near Las Vegas, which is run by totally autonomous vehicles. That involves some rather sophisticated sensing and response equipment, and it is all privately funded. halman says: current generation of Martian rovers do not use full color cameras, they have cameras tuned to certain wavelengths, which reduces the band-width required to transmit video information. There are very good reasons for that. These cameras can see better than the human eye in wavelengths that are vital to the mission. There has been a lot of hue and cry from the NASA bashers about the lack of “pretty pictures”, but pretty pictures is not why the missions were sent to Mars. The fact is, the special cameras, including the infrared, allow the scientist to see things that would be missed by a human eye. halman says: I use this example to illustrate the limitations of 'telepresence', remote sensing of evironments. The scientist who operate these cameras would call it an advantage, not a limitation. halman says: When we begin to develop other worlds, having people "on the spot" will make a big difference in how succesful our attempts will be. Correct. That is why I advocate the first manned missions to Mars as the first of many missions where the colonists stay and work. First the orbiters narrow the field down to a few like <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

crossovermaniac · Aug 7, 2004

Good, that means that we don't have to use the Moon for a testbed for testing vehicles and equipment used on Mars. We're in agreement.

arobie · Aug 7, 2004

"I have yet to see any proposals the would make mining on the Moon practical or profitable in the near future." It has been only half a year since the vision has been introduced. I say that is one of the things that we should work on. We should figure that out. "Mining is no good without processing, and processing, which is difficult on Earth, will be much more so on the Moon." Will you please explain how so? Arobie says: "We need to start to make the space effort self-supporting." "That is a good idea. Ok, how can we do that?" LoL. Through tourism and mining silly. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I prefer talking as if we were talking in a conversation because it seems to keep on the main idea better. Conversing like we are now seems to get caught up on the little details and seems to just go in circles. Its just a preference of mine to talk as if we were conversing face to face.

mental_avenger · Aug 7, 2004

arobie, The devil is in the details, and the devil is a formidable opponent. Talking in broad generalities is a waste of time if it turns out that the concept is unworkable. So you think mining and tourism will make space self-supporting. Please explain the tourism you envision. Frankly, I don’t see tourism as ever being anything but a very minor side-show with very little activity. To paraphrase a famous saying, once you’ve seen one Moon rock, you’ve seen them all. Once you have “mined” some materials, what do you expect to do with that ore? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

orzek · Aug 7, 2004

Mental_avenger As for sensing the environment, they now have a race, somewhere near Las Vegas, which is run by totally autonomous vehicles. That involves some rather sophisticated sensing and response equipment, and it is all privately funded. And what a failure that was!! (Well it gave me a laugh) Though hopefully it will make them improve their machines! There are very good reasons for that. These cameras can see better than the human eye in wavelengths that are vital to the mission. There has been a lot of hue and cry from the NASA bashers about the lack of “pretty pictures”, but pretty pictures is not why the missions were sent to Mars. The fact is, the special cameras, including the infrared, allow the scientist to see things that would be missed by a human eye. True, but we still don’t know quite how mars looks like until we get there. And besides, despite the technology human eyes are still much better. Correct. That is why I advocate the first manned missions to Mars as the first of many missions where the colonists stay and work. First the orbiters narrow the field down to a few likely spots, then the robotic rovers like Big Al go in to find the best site for a base. These are followed by people who will establish a base and begin to research the planet in detail. The same would work for the Moon. The robotic rovers will search out and test possible sites for a base. Eventually, people will arrive and dig in. But don’t you think that it would be easier to start on the moon first to get some experience before setting off for Mars? halman says: Discovering that there is a problem with a piece of equipment which you do not have a back-up for means waiting several months for a replacement on Mars, a few days on the Moon. Only if there is sufficien

orzek · Aug 7, 2004

Crazyeddie I'd like to see a manned mission to Mars in my lifetime, yes. Using the moon as a stepping stone will mean it will take that much longer, and I probably wouldn't live to see it. And I don't think it's necessary, if Mars is the ultimate goal. That's not to say I'm totally against lunar exploration. I'd like to see a scientific base established on the moon, perhaps even an astronomical observatory on the Farside. But in terms of a colony, the moon is unpalatable. It can never be terraformed. The gravity is probably too low for good human health. People would have to live underground exclusively. Going to the moon will actually increase chances of going to mars as it is a lesser step. It will be difficult to convince the public to go to mars on the first step. The moon is easier, and if successful will make a trip to mars more likely. Any mars mission is still many decades away, likely in 2040 or 2050 (so unfortunately not in our lifetime), while going back to the moon can be done by 2020 if we have the will. If done correctly any lessons learnt or equipment and technology developed can be used for mars thus cutting down on equipment needed to be developed for mars. This might cut down the time to when the mars mission takes place by a decade or so. True the moon cannot be terraformed but it can still be a good place for a colony. Energy on the moon is abundant and with that you can do anything. People on mars will also have to live underground initially. Mars, on the other hand, is a real place we can live. When I look at the Spirit and Opportunity pictures, I can imagine myself standing there. It's not that much different from arid locations I've been to in the deserts of the Southwest. It has clouds, and weather. It has impressive mountains, canyons, and vistas pleasing to the human eye. It's day/night cycle is almost identical to Earth's. It has water, minerals, and every

orzek · Aug 7, 2004

Living quarters on the Moon and on Mars would be very similar, with the main difference being gravity. Due to the extremes in temperature, the higher radiation, and the hazard of micro-meteors, surface time on the Moon would be uncomfortable, expensive, and dangerous compared to Mars. I see no reason for people to be present on the Moon during the exploration phase considering that remote control from Earth is virtually real-time. It still has a few seconds delay, which still constricts on what you can do. This means it will still be easier and quicker to do it onsite even though it will be less comfortable. Anyway the point of going to the moon is to get some experience which will prove useful for mars and to prove that mankind can make a home in space. The long distance to mars cancels out any advantages mars has in the short term. Ah ha, a trick question. I am saying that humans should not be living off-Earth until it is necessary. That is why I advocate Big Al to find a suitable site for the first colony on Mars. What happens when it doesn’t? Also technically there really isn’t any need now to live off world anyway. It is clear to me that Mars is the only place we know of, off-Earth, where a viable, self-sufficient colony can be established. IMO, the establishment of such a colony is its own justification. I agree mostly to that but it still does not guarantee a viable, self-sufficient colony will be established. Mankind lacks experience and knowledge to answer that question yet. I don’t agree with the “Handy Help” philosophy. Rescue in space is probably not going to be an issue. Due to the enormous costs, “rescue spacecraft” cannot be standing by to launch. Preparing a spacecraft to perform a rescue mission to orbit would probably take 6 months, even longer to the Moon.

arobie · Aug 7, 2004

Mental_Avenger, I really don't know about how tourism will develop. I'm not envisioning how I want the future to develop, I'm more like a me quessing at how the future might happen. I agree with you though, I don't think tourism will be much more than a side-show. It could possibly be how space companies start. There will definitely be money in it. For mining materials, I figured we would most likely mine them and process them in space. Use them for our space activities. We would move the infrastructure up into space in order to make that possible. It would be Scientists, engineers, and Nasa's job to figure out how to make that work and worth-while. I heard about it from some Nasa show or something along with from the Moon to Mars vision (I'm sorry I can't remember so I don't have any links right now, I search and see), so I know its atleast been thought about. An Idea of mine would be for some of the ore mined from space to be made into little trinkets. I don't know, a souvenir type thing. Something that says "Made In Space". Those could be sold on Earth. Alot of money could be made off of something like that. An independant company would have to do it though. I would love to have something that was made on the moon or in space. I don't think we could make space self-supporting right away, but I think we should start. That's why Nasa is opening up to private industies of course. Mining and tourism, I think, are good ways to start the "Space Economy".

orzek · Aug 7, 2004

orzek says: I agree, but also to add that a Mars mission on its own carries alot of risk with it. Of course it does. But there are a lot of people willing to take that risk, not with the lives of others, but with their own. orzek says: If something goes wrong, it might end any manned human missions beyond orbit. I doubt that. The reason shuttle missions are canceled when a shuttle goes down is so that it can be determined if the problem is something that will affect the rest of the shuttles in the fleet. It does not affect any of the other space programs or launches of the US, and certainly does not affect other countries’ space programs and launches. The shuttle is not the same thing and even in that case there was some murmurings that it should be scrapped and manned space flight should be abandoned. Mars is a bigger profile and spending 50 to 150 billion dollars for it to fail will be dynamite. The public will rightly demand a cessation in space activity until it is safer. (That’s the world we live in unfortunately) BTW, you guys keep using the “Mars and Mars only” label, but I do not know of a single person who would fit that category. Since you have just referred to “Mars and Mars only advocates” as saying something, please provide some quotes or links to these mythical people so the rest of us will know who they are. You got to be joking right? So you’re thoughts on going straight to mars and saying the moon is not vital is what? And saying only mars is the best place for a colony says what about your position? If I got you wrong then would you support going back to the moon before mars, if it didn’t compromise a mission to mars? orzek says: Mental_avenger like most like him miss the point in returning to the moon, I “get” your point alright, I just don’t happen to agree with it.

orzek · Aug 7, 2004

Mental_avenger What books have you read on going to mars. Have you read zubrins book?

halman · Aug 8, 2004

Mental_Avenger, To me, the most important aspect of establishing a human presence on the Moon has nothing to do with whether or not it is 'useful' or 'economically viable'. We are at a stage in the development of space flight where the average person has little or no understanding of what is going on in space. There is only one place in space that Mr. Man On The Street can be sure he sees, and that is the Moon. Anywhere else is just a point of light in the sky, umpteen zillion miles away. If there are people living and working on the Moon, eventually even poorly educated people will understand that there are folks living on that big disc in the sky. Why is this important? Because a great many people do not think of there being anywhere but here, the Earth. To them, this place is the ONLY place there is. So spending money to send people to little lights in the sky seems like some kind of scam, or rip-off to them, because there is NO PLACE BUT HERE. But the Moon is not just a little light in the sky, it does kind of look like a place. Now, if there are people living on the Moon, then that means that the Earth is NOT the only place in the universe, because they are there, and there is not the same place as here, which means that the Earth is not the only place that there is, endless, impossible to use up, with room for all the people that there ever could be. In 1968, the first photographs of Earth with the Moon in the foreground became available. The impact on people was astonishing, because it gave some sense of the Earth as a finite place for the first time. Those of us who are fans of space flight have some knowledge of the Solar System, and understand without thinking about it that this is not the only place that there is. But that perception is not widespread. And until it is, there will always be a danger of losing spaceflight. We have to convince other people to spend their money on our dreams if <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

arobie · Aug 8, 2004

*Claps Hands* Awesome post Halman. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

mental_avenger · Aug 8, 2004

orzek says: It [tele-operating] still has a few seconds delay, which still constricts on what you can do. No, a few seconds will not restrict anything. Have you ever sailed a boat. There are a few seconds delay on virtually every move you make with a sailboat, and any sailor worth his salt can still “thread the needle” without any problem. Even on Mars, semi-autonomous tele-operated robots will be practical. orzek says: This means it will still be easier and quicker to do it onsite even though it will be less comfortable. That is quite false. Robots do not need food, air, sleep, or other human necessities. Also, it is not possible to have just one person on site, it requires many personnel and an entire support structure. If a robot runs out of power, it just stops, it does not die. Initially, the only practical way to survey the Moon will be with robotic rovers, the same as for Mars. orzek says: What happens when it doesn’t? [find a suitable site] Since in this instance the term suitable is relative, the point is moot. The rover will find a suitable site, probably several. orzek says: Also technically there really isn’t any need now to live off world anyway. Even if living on Mars was only to explore it, that would be reason enough. However, the ever present need for humanity to establish a viable colony on another planet, to prevent the possibility of mankind being eradicated from this universe forever, is always reason enough. orzek says: I agree mostly to that but it still does not guarantee a viable, self-sufficient colony will be established. Mankind lacks experience and knowledge to answer that question yet. It is not a question of “if”, it is only a question of <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Aug 8, 2004

arobie, Before any materials that are mined on the Moon can be used in “space activities”, there are many expensive steps they have to go through. Once the materials are processed, refined, and manufactured (aluminum, for instance), there has to be a need for it. What do you need aluminum for? Space craft. But in order to build spacecraft, their first has to be an origin and a destination. In addition, the spacecraft will require tens of thousands of parts that will not be made in space for a long time, parts which require thousands of different factories with hundreds of thousands of employees. This includes specialized little items such as resistors, diodes, transistors, IC’s, capacitors, chokes, connectors, electrical cables, wire, insulation, screws, nuts, bolts, washers, clips, rods, wire cables, motors, fans, solenoids, relays, and thousands of other parts made from steel, aluminum, brass, stainless steel, titanium, lead, plastic, Teflon, nylon, fiber, beryllium, silver, gold, and platinum, along with hundreds of specialized chemicals, to name a few. As for trinkets, what would you give for a keychain with piece of moon rock on it, especially if they were fairly common? (you can’t make a lot of money unless you sell a lot of them) Most people want something like that as a souvenir of someplace they have been, and that often only lasts until they get home from the trip. Someone might buy a small statue of the leaning tower of Pizza if they were there, but would you buy one from a local store if you had never gone there? That is why “souvenirs” are usually only sold at the place that they represent. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Aug 8, 2004

The shuttle is not the same thing and even in that case there was some murmurings that it should be scrapped and manned space flight should be abandoned. I don’t know what planet you were on when you heard those murmurings. Here on Earth, the talk was about scraping the STS and building more specific (and therefore more efficient) methods of getting to orbit. The STS was originally built (over the objections of many scientists) to be a general purpose do-anything vehicle. Well, it can do many things, but none of them efficiently. Sometimes it is rather like using and 18 wheeler to carry a case of beer. Mars is a bigger profile and spending 50 to 150 billion dollars for it to fail will be dynamite. The public will rightly demand a cessation in space activity until it is safer. That is a rather outrageous claim, and I have never seen anything that would agree with that. You may believe it, but I don’t know anyone else that does. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Aug 8, 2004

Mental Avenger said: BTW, you guys keep using the “Mars and Mars only” label, but I do not know of a single person who would fit that category. Since you have just referred to “Mars and Mars only advocates” as saying something, please provide some quotes or links to these mythical people so the rest of us will know who they are. You got to be joking right? So you’re thoughts on going straight to mars and saying the moon is not vital is what? I won’t go through all that again. Each time I explain my position, which has been very clear and precise all along, you come along and throw your spin on it. I have gone to a considerable trouble to explain and re-explain my views on this matter in no uncertain terms. I will say this right now. If you do not want to have a rational discussion, if you take my words out of context or twist their obvious meaning even one more time, this discussion is over. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

halman · Aug 8, 2004

Mental_Avenger, You might want to Google the "leaning tower of Pisa." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

orzek · Aug 8, 2004

Eloquently put Halman! I couldn't of said it better.

orzek · Aug 8, 2004

Boy you nitpick like an old lady mental. Do you actually know anything about going to mars, have you read anything about it or are you continuously going to answer my questions with useless waffle of the same thing. You are not clear and you still have difficulty understanding what I have wrote, what you have wrote and what others have wrote. Either give more substantial answers that make some sense or stop trolling! The two posts above this one have not answered my points at all. Either answer properly or STOP TROLLING!

radarredux · Aug 8, 2004

> Boy you nitpick like an old lady mental./i> I have only dipped in and out of this discussion. I find Mental_Avenger's responses too polemic for me, but I have read very similar points coming from others that I consider very qualified to make their arguments. But in my mind, the important issue from this discussion is that I don't think anyone in power (NASA, the Administration, Congress) has made a strong, clear, concise, and compelling argument about what we should be doing, why we should be doing it, and how we should be doing it. I think this lack of clarity is reflected in the lack of general public attention, the lack of substantial support in the polls, the lack of support by Congress, the lack of will on NASA's part to substantially change itself, and provides the fodder for discussions like this.

mental_avenger · Aug 9, 2004

orzek, I have responded to your comments with clear and definite answers. I have taken great care to express my views and opinions in a clear manner specifically to prevent misunderstandings. However, during this discussion you have repeatedly mischaracterized my comments, accused me of saying things or advocating things that are clearly refuted by my posts which preceded your false claims. I have been honest and straightforward in all my responses. You have posted blatant lies about what I said or advocate. And you call me a troll? Hypocrite! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

meteo · Aug 9, 2004

orzek says: Devon Island might look ideal for testing but I assure it won’t be. Mental_Avenger: Again, let us know what the scientists involved in Devon Island testing have to say about your misgivings. To me on Earth testing makes so much more sense than testing on the moon. I agree on Earth testing does lack that death on the otherside of the suit "real world-ness to it." However, consider this, we can test a system much more on Earth; so MANY more times in so MANY more ways, I think that this may cancel out the "realness" factor in Moon testing. Also, I look at this issue from a cost/benefit line of thought and I don't think the MUCH higher cost of Moon testing justifies the benefit. orzek says: Pressurizing 11psi in a spacesuit on earth is no substitute. It only looks that way. 11 psi isn't a substitute becuase you can't die on earth correct? And you believe we need this life or death preparedness. We could do the test system on Earth but with explosives! You scratch your suit and kaboom! Just kidding. How's that for instilling motivation. Well as suspensefull as that would be I think there are other ways of testing the equipment. Hear some thoughts 1. test the components 2. test the complete systems 3. test an activity with the systems 4. devon island type stuff 10 day mock missions 5. a six-month test. How about a six-month test with multiple teams the team that does the best goes to Mars? How would that do for instilling a motivation to take the mock mission seriously. Maybe televise it like a reality show? Other than that be creative. In short I strongly disagree with the idea that the moon is a stepping stone to Mars in terms of systems. I see the moon as a place to go in it's own right. The moon is connected to Mars through launch infrastructure and support systems. But they are very much seperate entites with different goals. I fi

mental_avenger · Aug 9, 2004

meteo, Thank you for your input. I agree that testing on Earth would be much less expensive. In fact, testing a suit on Devon Island is probably several thousand times less expensive. Of course testing in a vacuum can also be done on Earth. They have been testing suits and equipment for our aviators in high-altitude chambers for 50 years. The lives of every jet jockey that flies has depended on the validity of those tests. In addition, every astronaut that has stepped out into space is wearing a suit that was tested, not in space, but right here on Earth. In short I strongly disagree with the idea that the moon is a stepping stone to Mars in terms of systems. I see the moon as a place to go in it's own right. I agree. The Moon would make an excellent platform for large telescopes, both optical and radio. Initially, most of the activity on the Moon will probably be centered around the telescopes and the inevitable military bases. As much as I'd love to see man step foot on Mars it doesn't mean ANYTHING if he doesn't stay there. That is why I advocate allowing the men on the first mission to Mars to stay there and begin the colony. It really doesn’t make sense to bring them all back to Earth, if the plan is to eventually build a colony anyhow. There have been previous threads where the nuts and bolts of such a venture were discussed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

Lots of talk lately concerning the moon

halman

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

crossovermaniac

Guest

arobie

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

orzek

Guest

orzek

Guest

orzek

Guest

arobie

Guest

orzek

Guest

orzek

Guest

halman

Guest

arobie

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

halman

Guest

orzek

Guest

orzek

Guest

radarredux

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

meteo

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page