Moonbase, straight to Mars,or experimental tech?

[willpittenger]

Well, trespassing comes to mind real quick. If no trespassing is allowed, does the owner get to force those in trouble to remain outside? You have to provide some sort of emergency shelter for those in need. It would not matter if they are just low on consumables, are exhausted, or have equipment problems. <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]

Just do not expect to put your station in geostationary orbit around the moon. That would put it very close to the center of the Earth. <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>

 

[ldyaidan]

Lunar propery rights are definitely going to be an issue, once we get there. I think we will probably see leases before ownership, with the proceeds going to perhaps the "Lunar Development Corps" or something, that would be a combination of those countries/businesses who have made the colony possible. Smaller companies and individuals would lease their sites. Maybe as time goes on there might be other colonies that are funded by individual countries or companies that have "bought" that real estate, but not for awhile. We have to get one settlement viable before we spread to others.<br /><br />The infrastructure necessary to support a lunar colony, ie: life support, radiation shielding, food, water, and so on is going to be way too expensive for indivduals to afford. It's going to take big bucks to provide that. Individuals and small groups will have to rent those facilities from those with the money. <br /><br /><br />Rae

 

[danwoodard]

>>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.<br /><br />There are currently very early studies for a reactor in the 100MW class for use on the lunar surface. If we send it there to use at night, it willof course be used during the day as well.<br /><br />Nevertheless I am skeptical about the chances for a permanent lunar base. Since the entire Shuttle infrastructure (VAB, MLPs crawlers, LC-39) will have to be maintained, costs per launch will be similar to Shuttle, while payload delivered to the lunar surface will be limited. Absent a significant increase in NASA budget, it's hard to see how a permanent base can be maintained. Only a series of Apollo-like sorties are in the current budget.<br />

 

[lbiderman]

I completely agree with you. It is not that i'm saying "the will never be private property on the Moon", but just not for a long time. Due to it's caracteristics, the Moon will probably be the home for scientists WELL before "civilians" start to settle there.

 

[baktothemoon]

"the Moon will probably be the home for scientists WELL before "civilians" start to settle there.'<br /><br />True, but if NASA is going to keep going to mars, which I believe it should in the future, the building of a moonbase will be up to civilians and scientists' transport to the moon will be through private industry. NASA should establish at least a base on the moon, but private industry will have to go to the moon for colonists to get there, since NASA will never ferry colonists to the moon. Scientists will need more than one way to get to the moon, so private industry getting to the moon is necessary. I think that people should be allowed to own parts of the moon, but only if they intend on colonizing it. Since various nations are going to end up on the moon, the resources on it are going to be contested. We can't have the moon be like Antartica because there is nothing useful in Antartica and no one wants to live there. The moon can't be some sort of scientific reserve that is shared by all nations if people want to live there because if the bases are controlled by multiple nations then settlers could be delayed in being able to stay there or eventually kicked out if the scientific community does not want them there. Owning private property would allow colonists more security in their habitation and competition for land and resources always drives colonization. Just look at what happened when the New World was discovered, people invaded it.<br />So what if we signed some treaty saying that we can't own land on the moon. One, the UN has no real power to begin with and two, who gave the UN authority over every object in the solar system?<br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy

 

[frodo1008]

Please do not take this as being critical of yourself. You impress me as a very well meaning person, and I like most of your posts and ideas!<br /><br />However, could I make one possible suggestion? Please get yourself some kind of general astronomy or space books and read them. As an example your post is very confusing, and if what you mean is what you apparently mean, then you don't really understand what a geostationary orbit is. Or perhaps if you do know, you (like I sometimes do also) misspoke yourself.<br /><br />A geostationary orbit is an orbit far enough out from a planet, moon or other substantial spherical body (one which has a reasonable gravity field) such that the velocity of the objects (satellite, space station, spacecraft, or other object much smaller than the orbited body), keeps the orbiting body at a stationary spot over the orbited body. This is a Very Important Orbit, as it allows orbiting objects such as communications satellites to “Hover" above one spot over the equator of the orbited body.<br /><br />Now, this orbit for the Earth is some 25,000 miles or 36,000 kilometers (approx) in altitude above the Earth's surface. Then for the moon with 1/6 th the gravitational force of the Earth, such a geostationary orbit would be 0.16 times 36,000 kilometers or some 6,000 kilometers above the moon's surface. Which would place the orbit's nearest approach to the Earth at about 385,000 kilometers minus 6,000 kilometers (average distances) or about 380,000 kilometers!<br /><br />Now this obviously would not place such an orbit into the center of the Earth. Am I clear here?<br /><br />Please understand that I am not being pedantic to an obviously intelligent poster such as yourself. What I am attempting to do is to perhaps clear up some confusion on your part here.<br /><br />It is my belief that these boards (particularly some forums such as M&L) are not just for debating subjects. These forums can also be used as a learning area. And I have also l

 

[wdobner]

<i>Nevertheless I am skeptical about the chances for a permanent lunar base. Since the entire Shuttle infrastructure (VAB, MLPs crawlers, LC-39) will have to be maintained, costs per launch will be similar to Shuttle, while payload delivered to the lunar surface will be limited. Absent a significant increase in NASA budget, it's hard to see how a permanent base can be maintained. Only a series of Apollo-like sorties are in the current budget. </i><br /><br />I agree with you that a moonbase is likely completely impossible to support with the current lauch vehicles and mission architecture being proposed for our flags and footprints portion of the program. I guess the trick will be in making a transition from the flags and footprints to the extended stay moonbase. <br /><br />I would argue that anything like direct ascent with an expendible booster will just be too expensive for long-term use. Even a semi-reusable booster like the Falcon models or the SRBs used on the Shuttle Derived Heavy Launch Cargo Vehicle (or whatever the name is this week) likely will not provide a great enough economy to accomodate the demanding launch schedule required by the equipping of a moonbase. At this point we could launch into another discussion of the economies of scale involved building rockets like sausages and the Sea Dragon type ideas. But I just dont think any vehicle requiring a complete rebuilding of whatever form between flights is going to be efficient enough for that kind of launch schedule. <br /><br />Instead I'd like to see work advance on a fully resuable shuttle system running from the earth's surface to the lunar surface as a follow-on to CEV. This wouldn't neccesarily have to be one vehicle, and it'd probably be best if it was comprised of multiple vehicles. We might have an SSTO of some form to lift light payloads to LEO and then another spacebound vehicle, perhaps capable of landing on the moon to shuttle them between LEO and the moon. It's likely that even if w

 

[henryhallam]

<font color="yellow"><br />Now, this orbit for the Earth is some 25,000 miles or 36,000 kilometers (approx) in altitude above the Earth's surface. Then for the moon with 1/6 th the gravitational force of the Earth, such a geostationary orbit would be 0.16 times 36,000 kilometers or some 6,000 kilometers above the moon's surface.</font><br /><br />Sorry Frodo but this is really not correct at all. I agree that willpittenger's posts are often confusing and a bit hard to make sense of, but if you're going to call him on it then you should get your facts straight! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />The geostationary orbit altitude depends on the rate at which the body is rotating. The moon rotates much more slowly than the Earth (a [siderial] month is 27 days). To work out the geostationary altitude for an object orbiting the moon you can solve the following equation:<br /><br />T=2*pi*sqrt(r^3/(GM))<br /><br />where T is the orbital period, i.e. 27 days to match the rate at which the moon rotates, G is the universal gravitational constant, M is the mass of the moon and r is the orbital radius.<br /><br />r works out to be approx 90000km. However this is well outside the moon's Hill Sphere therefore such an orbit would be unstable due to perturbations by the Earth and the Sun. So a geostationary orbit around the moon, i.e. remaining over one spot on its equator, is not possible.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I think we will probably see leases before ownership</font>/i><br /><br />But someone (including corporations) will have to own "it" in order to lease "it". I can see large multi-national corporations, or maybe even partially state-owned corporations being the first to "acquire" property rights. Some of these companies can approach $1 billion in profits a quarter today! Imagine what might be possible by 2025-2030.</i>

 

[lampblack]

What about the notion of putting a satellite at the earth-moon Lagrange point? Seems that have the same effect, given that the moon always presents the same face to the earth.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[henryhallam]

Yes that will do the job although it only lets you stay stationary over two spots on the moon (the middle of the near side for L1 and the middle of the far side for L2). Anybody remember the distance of L1 and L2 from the moon?<br /><br />(I'm not sure how necessary it really is to have satellites there anyway, you can use a constellation of lower satellites for both communications and navigation)

 

[frodo1008]

OK, I was incorrect, however it doesn't end up in the middle of the Earth either (or does it, see below). I see your point, thank you for the correction, I had admittedly forgotten about the rotational aspects. I must be getting older!<br /><br />This would then mean that it would not be possible to have a geostationary type of space elevator for the moon. What I DO know is that the moon swings around the Earth always keeping the same face to the Earth. I understand that the moon does this in 28 days, but in keeping its face to the Earth at all times does it actually rotate? Or is the reason that the moon keeps the same face to the Earth at all times because it rotates at the same angular velocity that it travels around the Earth? <br /><br />However, perhaps willpittinger is correct in a way. After all, if we can only see one side of the moon from the Earth then in essense the Earth is hovering above the moon at the distance that the Earth is from the moon. <br /><br />Of course, that should then be only for an object with the mass of the Earth. So it would then indeed be impossible to hover over one single spot on the unseen side of the moon!<br /><br />

 

[willpittenger]

Back in the 90's, I think NASA talked about replacing the boosters and tank system with boosters and tanks that fly back. I suspect the main thing that kill it would be that the tank would have to pretty much be a second orbiter in most regards. If built though, I would prefer to have the SSMEs moved to the tank to reduce the mass of the orbiters. That would have the STS resemble the Buran more than they do today.<br /><br />Perhaps Shuttle_Guy has the details on what happened to the fly-back idea. <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]

*** Spoiler Warning ***<br /><br />Did you read Kim Stanley Robinson's book <i>Red Mars</i>? He likes to have a theme (which is also present in another of his books whose name I can not remember) in which Earth rules the solar system with an iron fist. In <i>Red Mars</i>, mega-corporations control the UN. These corporations are bigger than any country can control. You may have seen ordinary corporations make demands on local governments that they provide tax breaks, road improvements, rail access, etc before they locate their job-producing facility in their locality. In the book, mega-corporations were big enough to do that to the UN. They even start destroying Martian settlements. When the UN finally limits access to Mars to corporations with their headquarters on Mars, they move to Mars.<br /><br />The sequels <i>Green Mars</i> and <i>Blue Mars</i> continue the theme. (Note the RGB pattern to the titles. That is how you know which order the books are set in.) However, since the good guys always win, by the time <i>Blue Mars</i> is set, Mars is independent. <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]

I was just using common sense. Look up and you always see the same part of the moon. (Well, that is not quite correct as the moon swings around a bit. However, for the most part, it is true.) Sorry if I am hard to understand. I tend to be that way in person to. Please attempt to bear with me. <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]

An independent nation, yes. However, it would need to be like US territories. They get a special type of government until they (or part of the territory) become states. The President chooses the governors from what I recall. <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>

 

[ldyaidan]

re: "I too did not get the "Lease" post. Before anyone can lease it, someone has to own it. If a corp can own land why can't I?" <br /><br />Sorry for the confusion. What I was trying to say was that individuals and smaller groups won't be able to afford the infrastructure needed, and will have to lease their lunar homes/business sites from the companies/countries, etc that can afford the structures, life support and so on. There may be a few very wealthy people that can do this on their own, but not many. It may well be a sort of lunar land run, where those with the means to do so stake out their lunar property, to establish first ownership rights. <br /><br />Hope that clarifies. That's what happens when I'm trying to do too many things at once.<br /><br />Rae<br />

 

[4p0110]

In that case, why don't we just use a Fusion based drive? I mean, sure if we can burn grams or ounces, why not make it something that is more abundant than the standard fission isotopes (ie Uranium, Plutonium, things like this), say hydrogen. A fusion drive is a relatively simple concept, all you have is a fusion reactor with half the containment field missing. The thrust is then directed to the missing half, and depending on how the containment field is produced (ie electromagnets or really thick walls and strict fuel regulation), you could have a highly manuverable craft. Hydrogen is common here on Earth, its just locked up, and they think that there is a fusible form of helium on the moon, so why not use that?

 

[lbiderman]

Because you have to find how to make actual nuclear fusion work first!!

 

[baktothemoon]

"why don't we just use a Fusion based drive?"<br /><br />We're not going to get fusion to work for a while, not until we build ITER. Besides, you would need an extremely large reactor to get an amount of thrust practical for a space craft, I got this from when I read an article that said that our current form of fusion does not have a high power density, the plasma is very dispersed in the reactor. That is why we need to have such a large reactor. Also, a fusion reactor would be far too heavy to launch in one piece and way too complex to assemble in orbit. I would see if we could advance our use of fission. I would try to accelerate the speed of the reaction to a point closer to a bomb than a reactor. A bomb uses up it's fissionable mass in a few microseconds, too fast to do anything other than an Orion-like system, which would require too many bombs to be practical. A reactor takes years to use it's material, far to slow and would provide almost no thrust. I would try to use mechanical pressure to simulate the conditions that a bomb uses, a bomb uses explosives to compress the core to a critical mass and then starts the reaction. The mechanical pressure would compress the core slightly, not as much as a bomb but enough to accelerate the reaction to a point where the material is used in around 7-8 minutes. Provided that the engine can take the heat, the vehicle would gain thrust by having the core open on one end and having the plasma push against a thick plate that would give the vehicle thrust. Fission produces unbelievable energy, it would only have taken a few dozen pounds of plutonium to launch the Saturn V, and it is extremely simple. It would be perfect for a future craft. Obviously this engine would only be used in space.<br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy<br />

 

[cdr6]

Looking ahead...<br /><br />The big problem NASA faces in establishing a base on the moon is that it's going to built and staffed by persons above the rank of Major (air force/navy or equal...(Army? what's that?) Plus or minus the occasional gratitious GS civilian for political correctness sake. (True Apollo did send "the geologist", under protest, at last.) <br /><br />Do qualified technicians need not apply? (Hum-m, NASA did dump all the WGs on the street. So there are no technicians on staff anymore to do the real work... swell field grade officers and upper management doing technical manual labor. (Gasp! No wonder the space station is such a mess.)

 

[4p0110]

Here, here! But we still need someone to fly things into orbit. I am not 100% sure, but I don't think that they teach that sort of thing at commercial flight school, but then again, I don't think they teach that at combat flight school either. Perhaps either could be adapted, without atmosphere to hold a space craft back, the only real concerns are gravity wells (aka planets, black holes, maybe sigularities, maybe) and inertia.