Moonbase, straight to Mars,or experimental tech?

[baktothemoon]

What do you think we should do? Should we build a permanent moonbase with the CEV, should we push straight to Mars after we have gone back to the moon, or should we push the envelope and try out some new technology with the CEV and then possibly go to mars. By new technology I mean using nuclear power on the CEV, nuclear electric propulsion, solar sails, NTR's etc.

 

[baktothemoon]

Were kind of locked in on going to the moon. Personally, I would like to see us use some of the tech we have studied, because a lot of it looks like it has potential. I would support a permanent orbital station if private industry builds it, because then it would be way better than the iss. <br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy

 

[rocketman5000]

What things in particular? Do you have any specific favorites?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">What do you think we should do? Should we build a permanent moonbase with the CEV, should we push straight to Mars...</font>/i><br /><br />Long-term Lunar occupation; although, I am not specifying the form of that occupation.<br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">SUPPORT EMERGING ECONOMY</font>/b><br /><br />A long-term lunar occupation is much more likely to help an emerging private space economy. Crews and supplies will need to be launched to the Moon relatively frequently, but it would be launched very infrequently to Mars. Infrequent launches to Mars will hurt budding private space efforts.<br /><br />With the CEV design and the CLV requirements, there will probably be several organizations that can support crew transfer to LEO: ATK, Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX (?), ESA. Competition is good. Multiple, independent access to LEO is good. Mars will cause CEV launch needs to dry up.<br /><br />Also, owning real estate on the Moon is a real possibility, and it could open up interesting dynamics, land rushes, etc. Owning real estate on Mars is much less likely to occur for a long time because of the long turn around times and the inability for commercial sector to become major participants.<br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">SHAKEOUT TECHNOLOGY</font>/b><br /><br />ISS has demonstrated that a lot of equipment doesn't perform as expected. If you are on a multi-year mission to Mars, a failed oxygen generator would suck. On a Lunar mission, there are mutliple abort opportunities. We need many years of fielded experience with hardware before I would feel comfortable with a long-term mission with no chance of support.<br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">MOON IS BETTER FOR EARTH</font>/b><br /><br />Both China and Russia have expressed a strong desire to harvest Helium from the Moon for a fusion-based energy economy. The book "Moonrush" makes a good argument for harvesting PGMs for a hydrogen economy.<br /><br />In</b></b></b></i>

 

[lbiderman]

I think you´re right, me should first concentrate in creating a "small" economy on the Moon, but, IMO, we should make the Moon some kind of science facility, like Antartica. I don´t believe the UN (or whoever takes that subject) would accept private real estate on the Moon, but on the contrary push for a treaty like the one on Antartica.<br />I´m a real Mars enthusiastic (I manage a Mars Society chapter) but I think we should use the Moon as a test bed for technology BEFORE going to Mars. It will be safer and prevent a possible "footprints and flags" scenario.

 

[nacnud]

It's all egalitatian and stuff but once there is access available for people and companies why shouldn't they be able to own luna real estate?<br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">but once there is access available for people and companies why shouldn't they be able to own luna real estate?</font>/i><br /><br />I suspect this could be a big political brouhaha. At one level, ownership of resources will be important in order to attract private investment. This will become especially important if valuable resources are located but only in a few locations.<br /><br />But at another level, there will be a world-wide outcry, especially by poorer countries, that there is a land rush for which most of the world cannot participate. Plus, there is a widely held belief by many that the Moon is owned by all mankind. For example, see the Moon Treaty; although, technically this only applies to government and not private individuals and companies.<br /><br />Also, if there is "ownership", some organization will need to orgnize plots (or at least the rules) and there may need to be an enforcement mechanism.<br /><br /><br />Prior to Sputnik there was a lot of concern about the legality of "overflight" of other countries by satellites, and in some ways Russia flying first with Sputnik provided America with a greenlight to legally build spy satellites (especially important after Gary Powers). Similarly, Russia and China have clearly expressed economic interests for the Moon, so that may give America the greenlight to so likewise.</i>

 

[gunsandrockets]

There probably won't be a permanently occupied moon base, but NASA clearly is aimed at manned stays on the moon lasting up to six months. So a permanent moon base which accommodates periodic manned occupation seems in the cards.<br /><br />The needed technology for such prolonged lunar stays are directly applicable to Mars missions. The next logical step for exploration is more advanced propulsion for the Earth Departure Stage (EDS), either high-powered electric rockets, or Nuclear Thermal Rockets (NTR). The best choice of all could be hybrid electric/NTR propulsion for a fully reusable EDS.<br /><br />Should NASA funding remain at a fairly constant level (adjusted for inflation), all these steps are achievable over time. I could easily see a manned trip to Mars before the year 2030 that endures on the Martian surface for two years. A less ambitious mission to Deimos, the higher moon of Mars, is possible before 2025. And a risky Mars flyby space-stunt using non-nuclear technology even earlier than 2020.

 

[llivinglarge]

Is it physically possible to tow the ISS into lunar orbit?

 

[qso1]

Not with anything we currently have. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

I also ask the same question.

 

[cuddlyrocket]

They don't need to own it, they just need to have transferable rights, preferably exclusive, of occupation and exploitation. Ownership gives you that of course, but is difficult symbolically.<br /><br />There are many countries that don't allow foreigners to own land, and this is how they get round it in practice.

 

[Aetius]

You know the Golden Rule: <font color="yellow">"He who has the gold, makes the rules."</font><br /><br />Once the Chinese and others begin to see the obvious value in exploiting the Moon's apparent natural bounty, I don't think it will really matter what the leaders of poorer countries think.<br /><br />I used to view the colonization of the Moon as a bad idea, having been a hardcore Zubrinista. However, once I read books about the actual travails of space explorers in low orbit, it changed my mind. I think we need to get our feet wet in the cosmic ocean again, and keep NASA's focus on long-term lunar occupation.<br /><br />An excellent (if a little pricey) book for anyone interested is, <i>"The Moon: Resources, Future Development and Colonization"</i>, by David Schrunk, Burton Sharpe, Bonnie Cooper and Madu Thangavelu.

 

[lbiderman]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>You know the Golden Rule: "He who has the gold, makes the rules." <br /><br />Once the Chinese and others begin to see the obvious value in exploiting the Moon's apparent natural bounty, I don't think it will really matter what the leaders of poorer countries think. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Actually, it matters a lot. Maybe not for the least developed countries, but for the industrial developing countries, like Brazil, Argentina or India, their opinion is important because they have advanced technologies but lack the monetary resources, which they could gain if they break the Antartic Treaty and gets oil out of it, something the rich countries don't want. It's all a question of international politics: the US will probably create some kind of international regime for the moon, that allows the extraction of resources but gives some sort of "carrot" to smaller countries. That will open the lunar door to private industries, but gain the support of the developing world. This is my field of study, so trust me when I tell you that this has happened before (China in the late 19 Century, Africa). Actually, I think is a good idea. The question of private lunar property is, though, a more difficult subject.

 

[Aetius]

Thanks for the insights. You'd know better than me. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[willpittenger]

* Going to the moon could provide fuel for the trip to Mars.<br /><br />* I do not like the idea of using nuclear propulsion for vehicles going to the Moon. It is too close. Nuclear power for the base? Maybe. But only to deal with the lunar night. <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>

 

[radarredux]

By the way, there is a new book on issues about owning the moon, "Unreal Estate: The Men Who Sold the Moon". Today's "The Space Review" has a short review:<br /><br />http://www.thespacereview.com/article/562/1<br />

 

[baktothemoon]

"I do not like the idea of using nuclear propulsion for vehicles going to the Moon. It is too close."<br /><br />Too close? It's 250,000 miles away. Any radioactive material that our engines might expel would be dust scattered over that huge distance. Plus, space is already exposed to a great deal of radiation from the sun, which uses nuclear fusion. The ammount of radioactive material that we add to space would be trival compared to the ammount of radiation that comes from something like a solar flare. The dust would already have a fairly short half life so the radiation would fade quickly as it breaks down into more stable elements, we would not be filling up space with fallout. If any of the dust reached Earth then it would burn up in the atmosphere and no radiation would reach the surface because the atmosphere itself blocks out radiation. Most material would probably fall back to Earth so we don't have to worry about it coming down on the moon. Besides, there would probably not be that much material expeled probably less than a few pounds. We can't be afraid to go nuclear. Look at how submarine technology advanced from using nuclear power, and no one complains about that.<br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy

 

[Aetius]

Thanks for the link. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[josh_simonson]

If the lunar base is an international affair, like ISS, then I wouldn't see any problems with other countries complaining about property rights. I could easilly see parts of the lunar 'village' being built by other countries much as the ISS modules are. Note that NASA isn't really planning on funding the full scale lunar base - that leaves room for japan, ESA and russia to work with nasa. ESA or Russia could build a nuclear power module, JAXA or ESA could build an ISRU module, Italy could build lunar lander logistics modules, ect, and US HLVs and landers would place them on the moon.<br /><br />A big part of the antarctica treaty was to avoid wars over the land and resources there. Lunar resources are not significant enough for the few (powerful) countries capable of getting there to go to war over. Most likely it'd be treated as a commons, like fishing in international waters, until some sort of conflict creates the need for granting property rights.<br /><br />The moon also lacks cute penguins and seals to inspire greenpeace and other groups to throw a hissyfit over industrial activities there.

 

[willpittenger]

Actually, I was thinking more of the weight of the system. You do not need nuclear electrical power (except, as I noted, during the lunar night). You do not need nuclear propulsion as 40-year-old chemical rockets could get us there in 4-5 days. More payload? Use two engines. <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]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The moon also lacks cute penguins and seals to inspire greenpeace and other groups to throw a hissyfit over industrial activities there.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Scientists would take their place. Destroy the moonscape and you also destroy evidence. Scientists most affected would be geologists and those studying impacts. <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>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">If the lunar base is an international affair, like ISS</font>/i><br /><br />The point leading to property rights was how do we go about attracting private investments. Investors will want to see a return on their dollar, and people will complain if money is being made on the moon (i.e., the profits should be shared with all mankind).<br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">NASA isn't really planning on funding the full scale lunar base</font>/i><br /><br />A recent AW&ST article quoted Griffin saying something to the effect that eventually government funding of space exploration should be less than private funding. We aren't talking next year, and probably not even the next 10 years, but eventually.<br /><br />Why does this matter now? By the time construction of ISS is completed and fully operational in 2010, the US will have been actively trying to build a space station for 26 years. The ISS specifically, would have been under development for 17 years. To put this in perspective, 17 years from now will be 2023, and 26 years from now will be 2032 !!<br /><br />What will government and corporate sponsored space exploration and exploitation look like in 2023 and 2032? This is something people should start to think about now.</i></i>

 

[josh_simonson]

>Scientists would take their place. Destroy the moonscape and you also destroy evidence. Scientists most affected would be geologists and those studying impacts. <br /><br />Guilty feeling surburbanites can't be milked into paying millions of dollars/year to "save the geologists". We've got a long ways to go before enough of the lunar surface has been altered to get scientists to clammor for "regolith reserves". More likely a strong lunar industry would allow scientists to study the moon at an unprecidented level.

 

[lampblack]

If the moon's standing population reaches a certain critical mass, it would seem that the question of the UN's "allowing" private property rights would be moot.<br /><br />Which is to say: if the population grows to the point of becoming a permanent colony and remains such over a period of years, the folks on the moon will likely seek independence. We'll see a movement for Lunar self-government. Let's just hope it's not based on the Chinese model.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>