Moon exploration dead?

[j05h]

As far as Lunar or other ISRU demonstrations, NASA was held back from doing that kind of research for decades. Even now, Congress debates and votes on whether any moneys should go to any humans-to-Mars effort. Dan Golden had an unwritten policy of no flight/mission research beyond LEO. I agree that learning to work with those materials is important, but also see the value in Cassini, MER and DAWN. <br /><br />Some of the lunar research you mention can easily be done at the university level with NASA's (free?) Moon and Mars regolith simulants. If the goal is to build Moon-bricks or bake O2 out, these can be done at a simpler level now than starting with "first you need to land 10t of gear on the moon". I read a paper a while ago by a professor and students using Mars-1 simulant and various fertilizer/innoculation combos, starting to figure out the biological implications. The same can go for chemistry as each planet and asteroid will be somewhat unique properties, so "concrete" on one body might just powder on another. In-situ engineering (tunnelling, domes, etc.) will be somewhat different everywhere. Worthy stuff, but lab-level until you talk about exploring the lunar poles. <br /><br />Notice to that Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter is dead and gone. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

I had no intention of insulting anyone. Rather, I wanted to tell him that he was becoming unbelievable and offered advice on how to fix that. Nothing more. <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>

 

[soulseekerusa]

Interplanetary travel will more than likely be done by the private sector. NASA is pretty much dead in this area. If we could have kept up the pace from the late 60's and early 70's through now we would be all over the solar system by now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Thanks, much appreciated!<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />Some of the lunar research you mention can easily be done at the university level with NASA's (free?) Moon and Mars regolith simulants.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Absolutely, and this is being done, whitepapers about most of what is being done are on isruinfo.com website, and i have read through lots of them.<br />However, a concept is not demonstrated until its demonstrated. And demonstration is a huge barrier for awareness and acceptance, especially if you want to get private industry and investors on board.

 

[willpittenger]

Besides, those simulants are in a way poor substitutes for the real thing. Who knows in what aspects they simulate the real thing incorrectly. <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]

Please note that since you quoted the post you wanted removed, you need to remove the quote too. <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>

 

[JonClarke]

Blush! Done! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

I understand what JON was saying, and I accept your removal and apology totally. <br /><br />Actually, it is nice to discuss the various scenarios, even if we all have our own agendas and some disagreements. <br /><br />In actuality however, it is really all quite moot. NASA is already spending funding on the first part of what I was stating should be done. That is the Orion project and Ares I to develop a vehicle to replace the space shuttle after it is taken out of service by about 2010.<br /><br />NASA will then start to use the funding saved by not flying the shuttle to build the Ares V. NASA has stated its objective is not Mars as of yet, but the moon by 2017 to 2020.<br /><br />As of right now I don't believe that even Elon Musk is going to have a much larger rocket than the now planned for Falcon 9. So there are no present plans for private industry to land human beings on the moon, let alone Mars.<br /><br />IF, a permanent base (which is NASA's present plan) can be established at the southern pole of the moon, and there truly is a substantial amount of water there, as it is currently believed to be. Then, it may become possible to have provate industry make the attempt to mine that area for useful metals.<br /><br />Either way, NASA has told congress (and through congress the American taxpayer) that it wants to go back to the moon far sooner that Mars. People, accept it that is the way it is as of now, and it is unlikely that congress or the American taxpayer is going to pay for anything more at this time, and that IS the truth!<br /><br />What I was trying to do (admittedly outside of a base on the moon) was to attempt to establish a reasonable and logical progression of events to establish a true space faring civilization between the Earth and its nearest neighbor the moon.<br /><br />In the meantime we WILL be still exploring Mars with a whole lot of more and more sophisticated robotic explorers. And that is going to have to be enough for quite some time to come.

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>IF, a permanent base (which is NASA's present plan) can be established at the southern pole of the moon, and there truly is a substantial amount of water there, as it is currently believed to be. Then, it may become possible to have provate industry make the attempt to mine that area for useful metals. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Which is largely, if not completely irrelevant to actually getting started on using space resources and energy, OR going to mars.<br /><br />If one wants to make an omelette, one normally doesnt spend 20 years designing a pan and pondering what to burn in the stove. One gets some eggs and makes an omelette with what he has.

 

[halman]

bobunf,<br /><br /><br />"Retrieving a hunk of anything from some celestial body and sending it to Earth has got to be orders of magnitude more expensive and dangerous for the balance of the century than getting the same thing from somewhere in the Earth’s crust or oceans." <br /><br />The problem that I see with extracting resources from Earth lies not in scarcity, but in the energy costs. I have come to believe that using energy in the Earth's biosphere is going to become incredibly expensive, primarily because of the impact on the environment. What we are doing right now is equivalent to rebuilding an engine in the kitchen, in my opinion, (and I don't care that there are people who do it,) fouling our nest with byproducts of energy consumption. People talk blithely about living on the Moon or Mars, but we are a long way from being able to sacrifice Earth to our unsustainable practices.<br /><br />We can import or extract energy, use that energy to extract resources, transport them to a processing site, process them, and then transport the finished goods to the final user, or we can go outside to do all the energy intensive stuff, importing energy in the form of finished or ready-to-assemble goods. Of course the cost is going to be high, but we are beginning to realize the costs of maintaining high standards of living. Given a choice between sacrificing the products of advanced technology because of environmental costs or paying the price to obtain those products off planet, I believe that humans will choose to import the products, irregardless of the cost.<br /><br />Most of our technologies are primitive, because innovation tends to stop once something is found which works. So, we use converted steam engines that burn gasoline for power, instead of diesel fueled gas turbines, we build vehicles out of solid steel instead of foamed aluminum, and so forth. The innovations required to survive and thrive in the space environment will be the teacher that takes us to h <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[halman]

JO5H,<br /><br /><br />"If NASA wants to do something highly visible, they should build an Earth-Moon L1 station for tankage, astronomy and spacecraft outfitting, and help attract enough commercial clients to build the station big enough to be visible from the ground. I've seen ISS in the sky, it is impressive if you know what you're looking at. What I'm saying is build, over time, a massive storage depot at L1 that shines between the Earth and Moon. Use that as the siren call for developing everything else, including the Shackleton Crater that NASA wants. This kind of L1 Station (and NASA has talked about one) would be the "final design" of what Salyut, Mir, Skylab and ISS have begun. Build the station on a kilometer truss or something. A space "service station" or industrial-park like this would be designed to allow modular use, placed directly where it can do the most good in accessing all points of Cis-Lunar and Inner Solar System targets. If it is built large and cooperatively, we can point to it directly, visibly, in the sky. Any planned Moon development is still invisible to the naked eye."<br /><br />A great idea, but it is still going to be just a point of light in the sky to most people, no different than Mars or Rigel. The Moon is 'place' in practically every person's mind, irregardless of how well educated they are. It is more than just a visible disc, it has surface features that resemble those of where we live. It is infinitely closer in the minds of most people than even the ISS, because the ISS is just a point of light in the sky. Building a base on the Moon is the only goal that everyone will understand innately, irregardless of whether or not they support it.<br /><br />And building a base on the Moon would mean that there would be an absolutely certain need for launch capacity for 20 years or more, which would be much more encouraging to private investment than one-shot or short-term projects. The only way that we are going to bring launch costs dow <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Retrieving a hunk of anything from some celestial body and sending it to Earth has got to be orders of magnitude more expensive and dangerous <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Some potential products, based on some hunks of everything are ALREADY so expensive and dangerous that their widescale adoption is out of question, due to scarcity and cost of materials going into them. And costs have to be looked in full context, if we are to dig up every wildlife reserve to get to the last bit of remaining whatever hunks we need, i'd say costs are too huge.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The problem that I see with extracting resources from Earth lies not in scarcity, but in the energy costs.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Except that energy that you expend in space does not come from earth. Not one satellite that i know of plugs into coal-fired power plant on earth.

 

[j05h]

<i>> A great idea, but it is still going to be just a point of light in the sky to most people, no different than Mars or Rigel. The Moon is 'place' in practically every person's mind, irregardless of how well educated they are. It is more than just a visible disc, it has surface features that resemble those of where we live. It is infinitely closer in the minds of most people than even the ISS, because the ISS is just a point of light in the sky. Building a base on the Moon is the only goal that everyone will understand innately, irregardless of whether or not they support it. </i><br /><br />A kilometer-scale truss-station at L1 should be visible as a line not a point of light. <br /><br />It doesn't sound like you've talked to many normal folks about the return to the Moon. Most non-space-geeks oppose crewed return and NASA's base. They see it as ... a waste of money. They don't care that NASA's budget is 1/10th what Americans spend on booze in a year, or comparable to bubblegum and lipstick purchases. It's a waste of money, NASA burning dollars in rockets. Trust me, you don't want a majority vote in this country on the VSE. From experience talking to people, I'd put it at about 10% actively liking the idea, 40% neutral and 50% opposing the return. <br /><br />Yes, the moon is a place, and I concur that it is more 'placy' than ISS to normal people. People may understand that the Moon is a place, but they still aren't going to support returning to it. Even the ones that care about space and science are caught between it being "a waste of money" and "been there, done that". I'm not saying Joe Sixpack is going to support an L1 transfer station, either, but that would open up much more than just the Lunar south pole. Part of this is appearances, just like Apollo - people will see a massive rocket go up and a little capsule come back and wonder what the value is in that. NASA's toughest, absolute toughest, job is explaining the value of VSE to the public long enough to <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>>Some potential products, based on some hunks of everything are ALREADY so expensive and dangerous that their widescale adoption is out of question,</i><br /><br />Excellent point. Earth's biosphere is to precious to extract/make certain things here.<br /><br /><i>> Except that energy that you expend in space does not come from earth. Not one satellite that i know of plugs into coal-fired power plant on earth.</i><br /><br />I think that is Halman's point.<br /><br />J <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

If we do not go where the materials and energy of space are (and they are certainly NOT in LEO) we will NEVER develop a true space faring civilization, regardless of whether or not it is NASA or private industry doing the development! It will remain far too expensive to bring up everything needed for such a civilization from the surface of the Earth. <br /><br />Even if we presently had far more launches it would still cost at least $1,000 per pound to get anything up to LEO (and that is at least 5x less than presently)!<br /><br />Actually, Dr. Zubrin and I are of the same view point here. Although he is for Mars (which I think is just too far away at this time) and I am for using the resources of the moon, we both are at the least for using the actual resources of space itself!!<br /><br />What Joe Six pack is far to self involved to realize is that without going out and using the far richer materials and energy of the solar system, human civilization on this planet is doomed! There are no ifs, ands, or buts about that!!<br /><br />Even if we don't get destroyed by some asteroid or meteor we will (perhaps slowly, but never the less inevitably) run out of the resources to maintain any kind of reasonable standard of civilized living! Is that the kind of legacy we really want to leave our future generations?<br /><br />Joe Six Pack had better wake up and smell the roses before there are no more roses too smell!!!!!!<br /><br />In actuality, ALL of the ideas that I have seen on these boards have reasonable validity! And that includes your idea about L1 (of course, to build a space station with a km long truss is going to have to be done using materials from some where else than the Earth, of the costs are going to be truly vast).<br /><br />It IS far easier to get the materials off of the moon, which has only 0.16 g, no atmosphere, and is actually far closer to L1 that the Earth is! <br /><br />So, in actuality, I fully support not only NASA in going back to the moon, but also

 

[MannyPim]

I too agree (and put my faith on) the private sector as best suited to develop the Moon the fastest and to derive the most benefit for the most people here on Earth.<br /><br />THe phrase often used is: "If it pays, we will stay."<br /><br />I think any NASA / Governement project is ultimately unsustainable and subject to the whims and tides of the political climate. So, commercial is the way to go.<br /><br />Having said that, the best course of action is, of course, and effcient partnership between the private sector and NASA. <br /><br />What in your opinion is NASA's best way to help Lunar Settlement in partnership with the private sector ? What areas should NASA take responsibility for in fostering the best climate for rapid and significant progress and what should they NOT do under any circumstances ? <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>

 

[JonClarke]

There is a place for both commerical and government sector work in space. Government spending on space builds the technology (the government does not build anything, but pays the commerial sector to build what it wants). this develops the technology and proves the concepts that the private sector can take advantage of.<br /><br />The commercial sector will not and should not development anything unless there is obvious commerical return. If space had been left to the commerical sector we would still be stuck on the ground.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>There is a place for both commerical and government sector work in space.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Right, my gripe with government funding ( that critique is common for ESA, NASA, JAXA and RSA ) is that they are completely neglecting very important areas that should be worked on, just because huge potential payoffs.<br />At the same time spending relatively big chunks of money on things that have questionable value for immediate future and duplicating efforts or competing in areas which are clearly a job for private space ( building medium lift launchers for example )

 

[MannyPim]

<font color="yellow"> There is a place for both commerical and government sector work in space. Government spending on space builds the technology (the government does not build anything, but pays the commerial sector to build what it wants). this develops the technology and proves the concepts that the private sector can take advantage of. <br /><br />The commercial sector will not and should not development anything unless there is obvious commerical return. If space had been left to the commerical sector we would still be stuck on the ground. <br /></font><br /><br />Thanks for your answer Jon.<br />But, if we could get a bit more specific.<br /><br />Let's say that the actual goal is to create a permanent presence on the Moon (as large as possible and as soon as possible). I am not talking about a NASA base. I am talking about a commercial venture.... (even if it is speculative and there is no clear business model that takes it to profitability)<br />What should NASA be doing and what should the private sector be doing right now to make it happen ? <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>> Let's say that the actual goal is to create a permanent presence on the Moon (as large as possible and as soon as possible). I am not talking about a NASA base. I am talking about a commercial venture.... (even if it is speculative and there is no clear business model that takes it to profitability)<br />What should NASA be doing and what should the private sector be doing right now to make it happen ?</i><br /><br />A permanent presence on Luna has to be seen in the larger context of the Inner Solar System. This is what Dr. Marburger described: bringing that area, including everything inside the Main Belt into our economic sphere. The fastest way to do any of that is getting resources from multiple places and combining them. If you really want to grow a population on the Moon quickly, import your volatiles from a NEO water mine. Instead of relying on possible Shackleton water, volatiles should be planned from known sources. LEO or L1 assembly/service stations will be needed to produce the kind of Lunar growth you anticipate (ie. settlement/living instead of missions). Water pays "less" of an extraction/transport penalty if it's being used at several cis-lunar destinations. <br /><br />Developing the Moon entirely in-situ is impossible in this context anyway: the nitrogen has to come from somewhere.<br /><br />Jon Goff (www.selenianboondocks.com) used to be planning a Lunar industrial park. The company would offer power, pressure and temperature controlled facilities to other organizations. The business model relied on others filling the space, be it as hotel, bioreactors, material processing or whatever. The thing that makes the operator money is that other people have an interest in being there. This is a viable business below certain launch costs and shows how destinations count. His recent work on orbital fuel depots is compelling. <br /><br />The way NASA has presented the future moon missions is exactly why normal people regard it as "been there, done that." Wh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> If we do not go where the materials and energy of space are (and they are certainly NOT in LEO) we will NEVER develop a true space faring civilization, regardless of whether or not it is NASA or private industry doing the development! It will remain far too expensive to bring up everything needed for such a civilization from the surface of the Earth. </i><br /><br />The materials may not be in LEO, but that is one orbit that will see vast amounts of development. L1 is another good development orbit that has no inherent resources except vacuum, sunlight and location. The Moon will also need significant imported resources to grow beyond deployed platforms. <br /><br /><i>> Even if we presently had far more launches it would still cost at least $1,000 per pound to get anything up to LEO</i><br /><br />Bulk launch on Dnepr is under $1200/lb last time I checked, but not for Americans, Commerce Dept has a clause for making EELV "competitive" and Dnepr is not necessarily... reliable. The economics have changed somewhat with current robotics, but the projected "sweet spot" in launch costs is between $500 and $800/lb. That is where things like mining asteroids and developing the Moon become profitable. <br /><br /><i>> What Joe Six pack is far to self involved to realize is that without going out and using the far richer materials and energy of the solar system, human civilization on this planet is doomed! There are no ifs, ands, or buts about that!!<br />... Joe Six Pack had better wake up and smell the roses before there are no more roses too smell!!!!!!<br />... NASA and the private space interests MUST get the message out to the Joe Six Packs for the benefit of the future, or there will BE NO FUTURE! </i><br /><br />You probably lost Joe after "self involved." Definitely after the thing about smelling the roses. <br /><br />This is a common problem in the space community. We mostly understand the larger picture, such as asteroidal cataclysm, technological windows and the <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Except that energy that you expend in space does not come from earth. Not one satellite that i know of plugs <font color="yellow">directly</font>into coal-fired power plant on earth.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Please note the word that I added to your statement. I think that is what you meant. EVERY rocket made so far, regardless of propellant type, uses propellants made here on Earth. We have to put the energy they store into them somehow. That energy MUST come from somewhere. <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>

 

[no_way]

rockets and satellites are two different things, mkay ?

 

[halman]

no_way,<br /><br />I think that you might have misunderstood me. I am talking about the energy costs of extracting resources here on Earth being too high, for various reasons, including the carbon impact. Resources that we extract and process in space before importing to Earth are things that require practically no energy consumption in the biosphere to be consumed or utilized. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>