Moon exploration dead?

[BReif]

"If we really want to see humans get off of this rock, we are going to have to convince large numbers of people that it is worthwhile to spend money learning how. If they can see the objective, the goal, with their own eyes, they are more likely to be interested in it. If they believe that they will benefit in some way from people attaining the goal, they will be more inclined to support it. Asking someone to give you money so that you can leave town doesn't usually work very well, which is, in effect, what we are saying when we talk about going to Mars. We want other people to pay the price required to let us leave. Getting off of this rock will only happen if it is profitable, no matter how much we emphasize long term survival of the species. "<br /><br />I agree totally.

 

[MeteorWayne]

"live there and exploit it the best we can"<br /><br />What do you mean by exploit? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

>> <i>"live there and exploit it the best we can"</i><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">What do you mean by exploit?</font>/i><br /><br />I don't know what dagas was referring to, but here is my $0.02.<br /><br />President Bush's science advisor described the Moon as something within the Earth's economic sphere of interest, and others have described the value of the Moon as making life better here on Earth, while Mars is for making life better out there.<br /><br />There have been a number of speculative suggestions for making money on the Moon. These include the usual suspects: PGM for the hydrogen economy on Earth, fuel for nuclear fusion here on Earth, oxygen for rocket fuel in space, material for solar panels on Earth or in orbit, maybe other raw materials for building large spacecraft for space-only travel.<br /><br />Then there is scientific exploitation. Earth's moon is one of the best locations for recording the history of the solar system; lunar core samples could be incredibly useful for understanding our solar system's history. The far side of the moon could be a great location for radio astronomy. There is some potential for optical astronomy. There is also lots of opportunity to learn about the history of the moon itself and the history of the moon-earth system. NASA has put together large charts on the type of scientific investigations that can be carried out on the Moon.</i>

 

[BReif]

My .02 cents: Using the resources that are to be found on the Moon to economic advantage. Also, using the Moon as a platform for Astronomy and other scientific endeavors. I do see validity to the point that the Moon is in the Earth's economic sphere of influence.

 

[dragon04]

If it means decades and hundreds of millions of dollars between Apollo 18 and Mars 1, my money is on Mars 1. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[MannyPim]

<font color="yellow"> There have been a number of speculative suggestions for making money on the Moon. These include the usual suspects: PGM for the hydrogen economy on Earth, fuel for nuclear fusion here on Earth, oxygen for rocket fuel in space, material for solar panels on Earth or in orbit, maybe other raw materials for building large spacecraft for space-only travel. <br /></font><br /><br />Don't forget Lunar Tourism. It will become one of the largest / most profitable commercial enterprises on the Moon. Also, large scale vaccum manufacturing.<br /><br />As far as oxygen for rocket fuel, I am not so sure it will be of great economic significance. Here's the problem: the ONLY way we will get to the Moon on a large scale (500 people or more living and working on the Moon) is if we can make access to LEO cheap and reliable. <br />That would remove or undercut the case for fuel supply as a significant economic profit center for Lunar operations.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible.</em></font> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

I think you have a leading question here. I think you are looking at humanity exploiting the mood to an extent that we pollute the moon itself.<br /><br />However, mining and manufacturing on the mood will never be as polluting as it has been on the Earth for several reasons.<br /><br />The first is that polluting the atmosphere of the moon is a total impossibility,as the moon has NO atmosphere to pollute!<br /><br />Further, to dig up the moon to such an extent in mining that it would even be visible from very powerful telescopes on the Earth would mean mining operations that positively dwarf all such mining operations in the total history of man on this planet! <br /><br />And If this could ever even begin to be a problem, there is an entire side of the moon that is NEVER seen at all from the Earth!<br /><br />So there is every reason for humanity to exploit the resources of the moon, and no real environmental reason not to do so!

 

[frodo1008]

Manny, aside from the very possible lunar water available in deep craters at the lunar poles that can be easily converted to both oxygen and hydrogen by the use of electrical energy in electrolysis (energy fully obtainable by round the clock very heavy sunlight also at the lunar poles), all of the metals and other useful materials are wrapped up in oxides of those metals, and a by product of the mining and smelting of those materials is the oxygen so locked up! <br /><br />The moon is the near term key to humanity developing a true space faring civilization!<br /><br />Of course, the space tourism that you point out will also be a by product of that very civilization!

 

[no_way]

Lunar resource "overexploitation" or pollution would definitely be of a nice problem to have category.<br /><br />Tangentially, every time i see the title of this thread, im reminded of this<br />- the moon exploration is dead, its an ex-exploration, it has ceased to be, gone on to meet his maker !<br />- no no, its just stunned. see it moved<br />

 

[MannyPim]

<font color="yellow"> Manny, aside from the very possible lunar water available in deep craters at the lunar poles that can be easily converted to both oxygen and hydrogen by the use of electrical energy in electrolysis (energy fully obtainable by round the clock very heavy sunlight also at the lunar poles), all of the metals and other useful materials are wrapped up in oxides of those metals, and a by product of the mining and smelting of those materials is the oxygen so locked up! </font><br /><br />Oh I agree that we will be extracting oxygen from the regolith or from polar ice. But mostly it would be for local consumption or for convenience.<br />Some people have postulated that mining Lunar oxygen would be a viable early Lunar commercial enterprise.<br /><br />I am saying syaing that this may be true for a short period of time. For truly large scale Lunar Settlement, cheap and reliable access to LEO is an absolute pre-requisit. And once we have cheap / reliable access to LEO the commerical case for Lunar oxygen pretty much disappears. We will still mine oxygen though but not as a primary source of revenue.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> The moon is the near term key to humanity developing a true space faring civilization! </font><br /><br />Amen Frodo !<br />If we confine our discussions to settling the Moon we will soon become the best of friends. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible.</em></font> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

We can terra form mars easily in hundred years or so ,we can build second earh.Zubrin is tring to convince lot of people.

 

[BReif]

Perhaps we can Terra-form Mars in a hundred years or so, but first we have to get there, and if the Vision for Space Exploration is dead in the water, as some seem to think it is, especially the Lunar part of the plan, Mars may never be reached by humans at all.

 

[frodo1008]

We are steadily failing at Terra forming Terra itself! What on Earth (or Mars for that matter) makes people think that we have the knowledge (or will ever have the knowledge) to successfully change the entire climate of a planet?<br /><br />We would be far better off to attempt Gerard K. O'Neill's ideas on building habitats in space, where we can at least experiment on slowly and carefully building up a true space faring civilization!<br /><br />Why make all this effort to climb up out of the gravity well of Earth, only to go back down another one (even if it is smaller, Mars is still 0.38g, with an atmosphere)?<br /><br />Note, that this does not preclude far more further exploration of Mars, or even some colonization of that planet. It is true that we could gain about the land area of Earth in the planet Mars, but there are enough materials in the asteroid belt alone to build space faring habitats with more than 3,000 time the entire Earth's entire area (including oceans and seas).<br /><br />Isn't it somewhat obvious which will give humanity a far more expansive future?<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

<font color="yellow"> If we confine our discussions to settling the Moon we will soon become the best of friends. </font><br /><br />Manny, what we need to do is to attempt to truly find out which viable presidential candidate would do the most for an increase in both NASA and the governments help to alt.space private efforts. Then vote for that person!!<br /><br />I know that many will say that is being too narrow, but that opinion is Bull, and anybody that truly supports the future of mankind (and the US lead in getting to that future) knows that IS the ONLY truly important issue!<br /><br />Otherwise our decedents are going to be chained to a steadily declining standard of living, along with having to adopt a truly horrifying dictatorship just to survive. And all this is assuming that some space rock NEO does not just wipe humanity from existence!<br /><br />Compared to this ALL the other issues are nothing!<br /><br />So as far as I am concerned this already puts Obama out of the race!

 

[j05h]

<i>> Isn't it somewhat obvious which will give humanity a far more expansive future? </i><br /><br />Both/all of the above. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[vulture2]

>>For truly large scale Lunar Settlement, cheap and reliable access to LEO is an absolute pre-requisit. <br /><br />I could not agree more. I want to see space settled. But just as the Moon is the first step to Mars, so LEO is the first step to the moon. <br /><br />The cost of the fuel to get into orbit is ~1% of current mission costs. There is no physical law that prevents cheap and reliable access to space, even with conventional rocket propulsion. We simply need the the technology. <br /><br />This from the recent DOD SPS study:<br /><br />FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that in order to costâ€effectively build much larger SBSP systems, the U.S. needs Lowâ€Cost and Reliable Access to Space (LCRATS).<br /><br />• Reusable spaceplanes — which deliver aircraftâ€like safety, reliability, operability, maintainability, rapid turn around, high flight rates, and very low cost per flight — are the most likely nearâ€term approach to achieving LCRATS.<br />• At this time, private industry is unable to justify the very large and financially risky investments necessary to develop LCRATS, or commercial ubiquitous onâ€orbit space operations, without significantly increased assistance of the federal government.<br /><br />

 

[azorean5000]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Manny, what we need to do is to attempt to truly find out which viable presidential candidate would do the most for an increase in both NASA and the governments help to alt.space private efforts. Then vote for that person!!<br /><br />I know that many will say that is being too narrow, but that opinion is Bull, and anybody that truly supports the future of mankind (and the US lead in getting to that future) knows that IS the ONLY truly important issue! <br /><br />Otherwise our decedents are going to be chained to a steadily declining standard of living, along with having to adopt a truly horrifying dictatorship just to survive. And all this is assuming that some space rock NEO does not just wipe humanity from existence! <br /><br />Compared to this ALL the other issues are nothing! <br /><br />So as far as I am concerned this already puts Obama out of the race!<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br /><br /><br />Whoa...<br /><br />Listen, iam an space advocate (altough more of a space science one) and im all for it. However...<br /><br />There ARE things more important than space:<br /><br />Education - absolutly vital for any nation, even space. Without future scientists, managers, qualified workers, etc. what will become of us??? ;<br /><br />Healthcare - absolutly vital for the well being and continuation of our society, and no, not just for the wealthy...;<br /><br />Poverty fighting - poverty fighting will be incresingly important in the world, giving the ever-increasing gap betwen the growing have-nots and the ageing have´s. There will be serious instability (with serious repercutions) if this problem isnt tackled;<br /><br />Environment - Absolutly vital for the continuation of the world, and where all the humanity resides NOW, not talking about centuries or even thousands of years in the future about mars terraforming or other colonization visions. I even sugest that most of the research efforts should go to environment-friendly te <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MannyPim]

Greetings Azorean ! Haven't heard from you in a while...<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Whoa... <br /><br />Listen, iam an space advocate (altough more of a space science one) and im all for it. However... <br /><br />There ARE things more important than space: <br /><br /></font>I agree wiht Frodo. The things you list are all important but not MORE important than Space. <br />Conquering Space is the ONLY way to secure our long term survival. Is there anything more important than the long term survival of the human species ?<br />The things you list below, are really only important in the measure that they contribute to a stable enough society so that technological progress can continue and that they support our advance towards a full fledged Space Faring Civilization.<br />Also, a full out effort to conquer Space will benefit every single one of those issues that you feel are more important.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Education - absolutly vital for any nation, even space. Without future scientists, managers, qualified workers, etc. what will become of us??? ; </font><br /><br />Education will benefit greatly from a comp-rehensive and robust planetary effort to move out into Space.<br />Kids imaginations will be fired and they will want to contribute and be part of the history and adventure of the next great epoch of the Human civilization.<font color="yellow"><br /><br />Healthcare - absolutly vital for the well being and continuation of our society, and no, not just for the wealthy...; </font><br /><br />Not really that critical. <br />It's important from each individual's perspective but not really from a collective point of view.<br />But, as in every other case, healthcare will benefit greatly from research on how to help human beings adapt to new environements.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Poverty fighting - poverty fighting will be incresingly important in the world, giving the ever-increasing gap betwen the growing have-nots and the ag</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible.</em></font> </div>

 

[BReif]

Well said MannyPim. I agreed totally. Space is much more important than far too many people realize, and there needs to be a wholesale education effort done to inform the people about just how important it is for the long-term.

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />:: The mineral resources of space may be important, but only many decades away, and we need to tackle the problems above today.<br />....<br />The shift to using materials and resources from Space is the Big Prize for the environment.<br />And it is not "many" decades away.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Right. I saw the same argument against space solar power being a "small niche technology" at the moment, many decades away, not worth the investment.<br />Well, guess what, if there is no investment of research/resources/money into it, it will remain decades away.<br />There are no guarantees even with investment, but if we DONT invest its guaranteed to remain decades away. Compare this with fusion power research for example, it has gotten fairly constant attention throughout the decades, and its still "decades away", but the goals and limitations have become far clearer than they were.<br /><br />However, poverty will be here to stay for decades and centuries. Entire human history is a proof to that.<br />

 

[azorean5000]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Education will benefit greatly from a comp-rehensive and robust planetary effort to move out into Space. <br />Kids imaginations will be fired and they will want to contribute and be part of the history and adventure of the next great epoch of the Human civilization.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Kids imagination may be fired, but it will lead to nothing because, before they choose space-oriented fields of expertise, they will find out that there is no large comercial/industrial activity in the area that rewards them big compared to other areas. They may even find no jobs in the area.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Not really that critical. <br />It's important from each individual's perspective but not really from a collective point of view.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />OH, NOT THAT CRITICAL?<br />"just from each individual perspective"? how selfish are you?... Do we (the people in this forum inclusive) want people (and that may include the people in this forum) to suffer and/or die from heath complications, disease, acident victims being unable to treat their wounds etc ???? and from a "colective point of view" acept the huge economical losses of that, which would make america a third word country???<br />Specially when the baby boom generation (people born betwen 1946 and 1964)retires, the USA will have a lot of need for healthcare (hey thats not a few decades away, the first babyboomer has already retire this month, think about it)...which by the way will make it one of the most important techological/industrial/comercial fields of the 21 century, far above space (unfortunatly, by the way)<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>THe way to expand our econmies is to create NEW economies and expand the market. Space Settlement will do that and it will allow for the Human population to continue growing in numbers indefinitely.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MannyPim]

<font color="yellow"> Kids imagination may be fired, but it will lead to nothing because, before they choose space-oriented fields of expertise, they will find out that there is no large comercial/industrial activity in the area that rewards them big compared to other areas. They may even find no jobs in the area. <br /></font><br /><br />That is why I said that: "Education will benefit greatly from a comp-rehensive and robust planetary effort to move out into Space. "<br /><br />That presupposes there will be many jobs and great opportunities for high end carears in space technology, engineering, entrepreneurship, science, and so on....<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow"> OH, NOT THAT CRITICAL? [Healthcare in relation to Space Exploration and settlement]<br />"just from each individual perspective"? how selfish are you?... </font><br /><br />Now, now, Azorean.... there is no need to get personal here. I may or may not be selfish but you have no way of knowing that from my previous post.<br /><br />We are talking about the relative importance of Space Exploration and Settlement.<br />I stated that Space is the MOST IMPORTANT issue in the context of the long term survival of the Human Race.<br />And I also stated that the long term survival of the Human Race is (or should be) our highest priority.<br />If this is not true, then the entire world is misguided in our concern about Global Warming.<br /><br />Now, you may not agree that our long term survival as a species is the highest priority goal, and that's fine if you don't agree. <br />But you really should not assume that I am selfish.<br /><br />A case could be made that people who get sick and require a lot of resources for their care are being selfish in demanding that care because, those resources will be needed for future generations. I am NOT making that case, just to be clear. But such a case could be made.<br /><br />What I want to ask you is if YOU believe that long term survival is the most importan <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible.</em></font> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> Kids imagination may be fired, but it will lead to nothing because, before they choose space-oriented fields of expertise, they will find out that there is no large comercial/industrial activity in the area that rewards them big compared to other areas. They may even find no jobs in the area. </i><br /><br />There is already a huge aerospace industry, what are you talking about? Any industry has local concentrations. If we're talking about new types of space enterprise and products, there is a certain flexibility to location, but it sure helps to be in California's sphere or Florida.<br /><br /><i>> well, im no expert, but i think that the way to expand the economy is though productivity and inovation. It may very well be done on earth, not necessarily space settlement. Besides where will humanity settle?????...in the barren and life-impossible moon and mars???? better to colonize anctartida...but you dont see that dont you...unless you think "mars terraforming", but thats really thousands of years away (if ever, probably it cannot be done sustenably). Besides human population is slowing its grow, not only in the developed world; it could even start diminishing in the end of the 21 century. So much for new colonization. </i><br /><br />Innovation and creativity are the new, new economy. The arguments for space development in that context are the return of resources, creation of new opportunities and backing up the biosphere. For the forseeable future all space hardware will be built on Earth so the more payloads, the more high-tech jobs. A few people on a planet like Mars are a huge leverage using robotics as the labor. Colonizing space is not about Earth population reduction (education and birht control do that) but about creating new ways of living in new places. Antarctica is not far enough away and is an International zone, you can't build a city there. Nothing says that about a Phobos, Mars, Moon or Ceres base.<br /><br /><i>> First - how many people have</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

All of the things that you point out as important are indeed important, nobody here would argue against that. However, the relative amount of funding that either the government or private industry already expends in these areas is already totally vast in comparison with the amount of funding for both NASA and the private enterprises for space expenditures.<br /><br />Heck, NASA's budget in comparison to just the deficit is nothing at all, let alone the entire federal budget.<br /><br />When we accomplished the amazing things that we did back in the 1960's (things that people on this site are still rightly in awe of) we expended only an average of 2% of the federal budget, and a high of some 4% in 1965. You can believe me when I say these things as I was one of the some 400,000 people that actually helped to put men on the moon (an accomplishment that many are not even certain can even be done today at all, although I would love to see such pessimism proved wrong)!<br /><br />Now, NASA's budget is at only some 0.5 % of the federal budget. Are we therefore doing all these things that you think are so important as we are now spending far less on space exploration than ever before? You know the answer to that is no, just as I do!<br /><br />Poverty for instance is alsways relative, if the average wage in the US was $1 million per year, a person making (what would be a very good wage at this time) some $300,000 per year would be poverty stricken!<br /><br />In fact, I don't personally believe that a very large and immediate increase in NASA funding would even be very good for NASA itself. What is needed is a constant 5 to 10 % increase each year over inflation. Over time this would bring NASA up to a far more reasonable level of some 1% of federal spending.<br /><br />The spending on NASA is NOT an expense of the federal government, it IS an investment in the future of both this great nation, and the future of mankind!<br /><br />And just because we have not been hit by even a sm

 

[halman]

MeteorWayne,<br /><br />We need to exploit the Moon to the utmost, because we are exploiting the Earth to the utmost right now. We have dug holes big enough to be seen from space, (the Berkley Pit, in Butte, Montana, which is filled with water that has a ph rating of 2.5), we are dumping hundreds of millions of tons of chemicals into the Earth's atmosphere every year, and using cyanide to leach minute amounts of gold from tons of rock. Exploiting the Earth reduces the quality of life for its inhabitants, lowers the total number of species inhabiting the Earth, and increases the chance that some unforeseen factor will have a severe effect on the biosphere.<br /><br />The Moon is an incredible stroke of luck, a satellite made up of something other than ice and light metals, right on our doorstep. It can be the source of raw materials of all kinds, high enough in our gravity well that those materials can be used here on Earth, in orbit, or anywhere in the Solar System. If we ruin the natural beauty of the Moon while saving the Earth, I think that we will be further ahead than if we destroy the Earth to save the natural beauty of the Moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>