Moon exploration dead?

MeteorWayne · Dec 12, 2007

"This is true. But all you have to do is to take out the word "lightweight" and it becomes a false statement. " No, as long as the word economical is in there, the same problem exists. If it ain't lightweight, it ain't economical to put into space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

tanstaafl76 · Dec 12, 2007

A heavier shield for cosmic rays could be assembled in LEO months ahead of time in pieces before being attached to the crew module as we send them off to the moon. Certainly it wouldn't be cheap, but if it was part of a semi-permanent moon base, you can spread the cost/benefit across a longer period of time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Dec 12, 2007

You still have to launch the same mass into LEO to assemble, so I don't really see the cost savings. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

MannyPim · Dec 12, 2007

"This is true. But all you have to do is to take out the word "lightweight" and it becomes a false statement. " No, as long as the word economical is in there, the same problem exists. If it ain't lightweight, it ain't economical to put into space. That is a valid point, although I had interpreted the adjective "economical" as applying to the material used for shielding. I also wrote that the radiation problem is with launch costs and not with technology or materials. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible. </div>

bdewoody · Dec 12, 2007

I wrote a reply to this when there were 2 threads, unfortunately the one I responded in was deleted. After watching a program last night about the moon I see where it will be very profitable to return to the moon. That is if a commercially viable fusion reactor can be demonstrated. This is due to the fact that the only fuel source that doesn't end up destroying the reaction chamber is Helium3. The only source of this element that can provide commercial quantities of He3 is the moon. That fact that so little of it can provide enormous amounts of energy makes it profitable to go to the moon, mine it and return it to the earth. The side benefit will be the use of the moon as a base for exploration of the rest of the solar system. A much larger spacecraft can be built and launched from the moon than we can ever launch from earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Bob DeWoody </div>

MeteorWayne · Dec 12, 2007

Actually, the other thread was locked, not deleted. If you wish, you can still copy and paste your original reply....it's toward the bottom of page 1 with the lock symbol on the left. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

bdewoody · Dec 12, 2007

Well I think I managed to say pretty much the same thing in less space so I will leave it be. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Bob DeWoody </div>

scottb50 · Dec 12, 2007

I'm not disputing there may be commercially available sources of HE3 or that it may be possible to build spacecraft on the moon from mostly local resources. What I dispute is this having any bearing on simply getting to Mars. Once we have determined the value of being on Mars we can start filling in the blanks, mining the moon and major construction is not a near term prospect and to limit other exploration by fixating on one area would be a waqste or resources. We may find an asteroid that contains exponentially more HE3 then the moon and recovering it could be simpler and more economical. We may identify resources on Mars that are much more valuable or useful then those on the moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bdewoody · Dec 12, 2007

Since needing a reason to be there is very important to those who provide the funds I believe that establishing a moon base prior to going elsewhere in the solar system is the most likely scenario. I am not opposed to a manned Mars mission but I would hate to see us repeat the Apollo missions at Mars, ie. just going there to prove we can do it. As for He3 mining, since the moon is nearest to us and the sun(the source of the He3) I doubt that we will discover an asteroid with a greater concentration. I also hate to see the Mars 1st proponents and the Moon 1st advocates beat each other up so badly that congress ends up funding neither. But not to worry, when it becomes painfully evident that the Chinese and Russians have established bases on the moon to mine He3 the USA will get it's carcass in gear. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Bob DeWoody </div>

MannyPim · Dec 12, 2007

After watching a program last night about the moon I see where it will be very profitable to return to the moon. That is if a commercially viable fusion reactor can be demonstrated. This is due to the fact that the only fuel source that doesn't end up destroying the reaction chamber is Helium3. The only source of this element that can provide commercial quantities of He3 is the moon. That fact that so little of it can provide enormous amounts of energy makes it profitable to go to the moon, mine it and return it to the earth. Helium 3 has some possibilities but it would require a major breakthrough in fusion technoloy. We have been working for such breakthroughs for the last 50 years at least. Of course, we hope very much that this will happen and if it does it will certainly become a powerful driver for Lunar Settlement, but if it does not materialize soon, there are many other reasons to establish a permanent and productive presence on the Moon. A single revenue stream Lunar economy would be a fragile thing indeed. The best approach and the one that makes most sense is to create as many profitable Lunar ventures as possible so that the long term viability of a Lunar Settlement is assured. The Moon is useful of course for construction materials such as raw regolith, sintered regolith bricks and plates, metals (steel, aluminum, titanium), silicon for solar cells, and so on. There is also a high probability that we can find large concentrations of PGMs (Platinum Group Metals) which of course would be vital to a hydrogen based economy. The Moon also has a natural vacuum many thousands of times better than the best vaccuums we can produce on Earth. So large scale vacuum manufacturing is another potential commercial niche. Of course, there are many other profitable enterprises. Many of those we will not know until they are invented. The one (and in my opini <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible. </div>

scottb50 · Dec 12, 2007

Maybe so. I just wonder if it would be better to invent the technology needed to use HE3 before we get too involved with collecting it. HE3 is available now and would be a practical step on doing away with weapons altogether. It would be fitting that all the research and expense we have invested could come back to us as a peaceful way to solve our energy needs. Fusion has been just around the corner for forty years and still remains elusive. The technology to go to Mars has been around for forty years also and is well proven. Who knows we may actually need to thwart an asteroid bearing down on us, or we may need to establish a colony somewhere else to assure human survival. I would look to what has a higher priority not what puts dreams of $$$ in our minds. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

willpittenger · Dec 12, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I don't think we should send manned missions to the Moon nor to Mars at the expense of other, more fruitful scientific missions. Too many important scientific endeavors have been canceled or delayed already because of it. The macho, Buck Rogers syndrome to get men on the Moon and Mars is just that, show-off and "just so we can say we did it" nonsense.<hr /></blockquote> I doubt that many of the VSE planners have only "just so we can say we did it" in mind. Bush? Maybe. Politicians tend to work that way. But then again, he might have been convinced of the advantages. Eventually, both the Moon and Mars may support colonies. Mere exploration will be the first step. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />But what is the all-fired rush to get people on the Moon and Mars.<hr /></blockquote> Rush? We will need 15 years (from when Bush announced the project to our "first" landing) to return to the Moon compared to just 10. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />We did that (to the Moon) with Apollo. People got bored with it and saw no really scientific payoff so it was canceled.<hr /></blockquote> That was a major problem with the Apollo program. Kennedy didn't specify any scientific goals. Just "put a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth." So when Apollo 11 succeeded with that, all the Apollo goals that the public saw were met. Never mind that the lander used was capable of landing in many more spots than they actually landed at. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />And I certainly don't buy the "Because it's there!" or "So we can say we did it."<hr /></blockquote> I don't either. But the scientific and colonization goals are another matter. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Let's send more robots. They're doing a wonderful job. We don't need to squander res</blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

willpittenger · Dec 12, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />NASA took the mandate and instead of starting by building the Moon hardware and flying it on existing rockets, they are stumbling over building redundant launch capability. The could already be building the LSAM if they wanted, but are blinded by the false "need" for Heavy Lift.<hr /></blockquote> So we already have the ability to land 20+ ton habitats and bulldozers on the Moon? I don't believe we already have a launch vehicle capable of launching that much and the needed lander. BTW: Someone suggested using lunar regolith as radiation protection for our lunar habitats. But how do you do that without something like a bulldozer or excavator? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

jsmoody · Dec 12, 2007

That brings up another point that I've been thinking about..... We now have a race of sorts for private enterprise to get into the space business. Even with going to the Moon. In the past, when private enterprise starts working on something, it seems to get done a lot quicker and better than when the government tries to do it. If there's a profit to be made, someone will get it done and get it done quickly. So why not let private industry solve the problems? Burt Rutan has taken a great first step although he's had some recent setbacks. Other companies are following suit. Any thoughts on that? Also, as for fusion technology, I agree, they've been trying for a breakthrough for 50 years and so far no luck. I'll believe it when it happens. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> No amount of belief makes something a fact" - James Randi </div>

jsmoody · Dec 12, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> "The rovers and orbiters have their advantages. However, many of the scientists studying what the robots tell them would prefer to be right there and do everything themselves. They can't always do what they need to do remotely. In an older thread, one person said that what a MER could do in a week, a person could do in a few hours. " <hr /></blockquote> Yes but the rovers have been there for years and it costs a tiny amount to get them there compared to humans. They have a LOT of time to do whatever needs to be done. What's the rush? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> No amount of belief makes something a fact" - James Randi </div>

arkady · Dec 12, 2007

Wouldn't any kind of protection on a spacecraft have to be lightweight and portable??? Well, we'll have to bring quite a lot of water with us, lightweight or not. Might aswell use it for shielding. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "The choice is the Universe, or nothing ... " - H.G Wells </div>

3488 · Dec 12, 2007

Hi willpittenger, In reply to: That was a major problem with the Apollo program. Kennedy didn't specify any scientific goals. Just "put a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth." So when Apollo 11 succeeded with that, all the Apollo goals that the public saw were met. Never mind that the lander used was capable of landing in many more spots than they actually landed at I agree completely. true Apollo 11 was a flags & footprints mission, that did achieve some good science, but really was a technology demonstrator & saying to the Soviet Union, "we beat you to the Moon" Really the aim of Apollo was achieved in that one mossion, to land a man on the Moon & return him safely to the Earth before this decade (1960's) is out. Fortunately NASA DID have more vision than that & from Apollo 14 onwards, Lunar Science did appear to take precedence over Flags & Footprints, particularly Apollos, 15, 16 & 17. Real meaningful Lunar Science was achieved, the quality & diversity of the landing sites, images & samples returned. Apollo was heading in the right direction, no question about that, when it was cancelled. Apollo 19 to Copernicus & Apollo 20 to the northern flanks of Crater Tycho & Surveyor 7 (like Apollo 12 did with Surveyor 3). A shame, a real bloody shame it was cancelled. With just minor incremental changes over time, Polar Landings & with lagrangian comsats Far Side landings too would have been possible. Perhaps even a parallel unmanned program like Lunokhod & Surveyor, to maximise lunar surface science to complement Apollo, was doable. It was not to be. Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

tanstaafl76 · Dec 12, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />You still have to launch the same mass into LEO to assemble, so I don't really see the cost savings.<hr /></blockquote> The cost savings is your astronauts don't die on the moon from extended periods of cosmic ray exposure. Sounds like a bargain to me! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> My point was just that it may be a bit easier to put the stuff in orbit in pieces, it could be done with cheaper and less complicated rockets, and with less risk since if something goes wrong you only lose one piece and not the whole shebang. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

willpittenger · Dec 12, 2007

I don't see it as a rush. I do see but two MERs on Mars with one MSL to come. One of the MERs (Spirit) is nearly dead and might not survive the next few days. I doubt Opportunity will last more than another Martian year. It is hard to say how long MSL will last. Humans will readily cover more ground faster than even MSL will. If you look only at the ground covered per dollar, it doesn't make sense. However, more ground covered also means far more science completed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

willpittenger · Dec 12, 2007

Calling it merely "labor intensive" is a dramatic understatement. Try filling a sandbag with densely packed regolith while wearing a stiff spacesuit in 1/6 of a G. Now do that another 20,000 times and lift all those sandbags up well over your head onto the top of the habitat. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

j05h · Dec 12, 2007

> So we already have the ability to land 20+ ton habitats and bulldozers on the Moon? I don't believe we already have a launch vehicle capable of launching that much and the needed lander. BTW: Someone suggested using lunar regolith as radiation protection for our lunar habitats. But how do you do that without something like a bulldozer or excavator? We don't have the ability to put anything large on the Moon, so that is a complete nonsequitor. The question is what is a way to land large payloads on the Moon without loosing political support? The architecture was decided upon before the end goals were defined, and is now being modified, cut, sliced and diced to oblivion. The lack of landers is irrelevant if the project is scrapped because it is so obviously bass-ackwards to anyone that looks at it. Collectively, billions have been put into modern rocket designs, but they aren't good enough for the new moon hardware? Put another way, you take $5G and follow the HLV route to the Moon, I'll take $5G and do the same with existing ELVs. Since one of them already exists, I'll be beating you to the Moon. No proposed Lunar components are out of the mass range of existing ELVs - no one is proposing 120t dry mass moon landers or giant base modules. Most of the mass of these flights is fuel, and no components I'm aware of need to be more than 20-25t dry. Even the proposed LSAM is only 32t, at least 19 of which is fuel! This can all be handled with ELVs, docking and a LEO propellant depot. Instead of worrying about getting to LEO (since even Ares/ESAS uses some orbital assembly) they should have focused on getting from LEO to the Moon, and what to do on the surface. They have wasted 3 years and a lot of "political capital" on Ares while pushing off the dates for first landing, or even Orion first flight. VSE/ESAS/Ares are seeing slipping support because they are proposing to do the same-old same-old. It doesn't promise to change <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

no_way · Dec 12, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />. Most of the mass of these flights is fuel,<hr /></blockquote> Just to put this statement in perspective, from LEO to lunar surface, roughly 5/6ths of the stack mass is propellant. So for every ton landed on moon, you need five tons of propellant on LEO.

holmec · Dec 12, 2007

Dude, your link is messed up. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Dec 12, 2007

I agree with Will. What is the point of sending more robots to Mars and Moon? Its "been there, done that" for us. Mars and the Moon are the closest bodies out there to Earth that humans can land on and colonize. And for me colonizing is the point. Learning to be self sufficient on those bodies is the point. What is the point of Science if it does not benefit society? Learning about planets and stars is great but how does it affect society if we don't go there? There is risk in manned space programs. There is also risk on Earth. And more and more scientists have been uncovering reminance of asteroid impacts with Earth. Where before we thought we hardly ever get an impact. Scientists have also found and are tracking Near Earth Objects, life killers for Earth. So it is possible that our attempt in colonizing the Moon and Mars may be the very survival of humankind because we wouldn't be "all in one basket". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Dec 12, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />But how do you do that without something like a bulldozer or excavator? <hr /></blockquote> You have a good point. But the solution to that problem is two fold. Mass and time. The answer could be small digging robots that work in a swarm. That way they can work continuously and you can add to the swarm to make it bigger with several launches. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

Moon exploration dead?

MeteorWayne

Guest

tanstaafl76

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

MannyPim

Guest

bdewoody

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

bdewoody

Guest

scottb50

Guest

bdewoody

Guest

MannyPim

Guest

scottb50

Guest

willpittenger

Guest

willpittenger

Guest

jsmoody

Guest

jsmoody

Guest

arkady

Guest

3488

Guest

tanstaafl76

Guest

willpittenger

Guest

willpittenger

Guest

j05h

Guest

no_way

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page