Moonbase: Yes, or No?

serak_the_preparer · Sep 21, 2005

Whither now, NASA? Some wag recently suggested on this forum that Griffin's scheme for putting men back on the Moon be christened 'Alice' in honor of The Honeymooners. 'To the Moon, Alice!' is clearly where NASA wants to go. We've been there before, done that before. Apollo has been criticized for being a 'flags and footprints' program. Pure PR. Some people are already suspicious that history is about to be repeated (see Critics say NASA's Moon plan is too costly (NewScientist) and Moon plan 'comes up short' (BBC), both recently posted to RadarRedux's Griffin's vision (a glimpse) thread). What course can Griffin map for NASA on the Moon which avoids simply going through motions already gone through over three decades ago? I suggested in another thread on this forum that a Moonbase could make all the difference. And I cited the following: The mission plan aims to leave as much equipment on the lunar surface as possible, to help build future Moon bases. It also allows access to anywhere on the Moon, unlike the Apollo missions that were restricted to equatorial regions. This means that astronauts could explore the Moon's poles, where water ice probably nestles in shadowed craters. Exploiting the Moon's natural resources is essential if NASA is to have a permanently manned base there. Once the programme is up and running, Griffin anticipates two Moon missions each year.... - from NASA presents space exploration plans by Mark Peplow (Nature), 19 September 2005 This brings us to our poll question of the da

serak_the_preparer · Sep 21, 2005

Yes, of course. U.S. Moon Program Marks Starting Point For New Space Exploration by Breffni O'Rourke (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) 21 September 2005 . . . NASA is eager to take up this new challenge, which should increase international space partnerships and eventually trips to some solar-system planets. But carrying the plan through to fruition will not be easy.... "The door is open to international cooperation when [astronauts] are on the moon. As President Bush has already said, international partners will be invited to join in, and we have already had a good experience of international cooperation on the [present] international space station project. I think we will certainly take this opportunty and do something together," [ESA spokesman] Bonacina said.... The astronauts will go into space aboard a conventional rocket, from which their capsule will detach. They will then meet up with a lunar landing craft, sent up separately. The crew will journey to the surface of the moon in the lander, the bottom section of which will stay on the moon as the basis for a permanent base.... Also: NASA Plans Return to Moon by 2018 - NASA Unveils New Crew Exploration Vehicle by Nick Greene (About.com) 9/19/05 Power and fuel for the new system will be different from ships of the past. Solar panels will provide power to the new craft while both the capsule and lunar lander use liquid methane in their engines. This is a very forward thinking part of the new design, looking towards the day when explorers will be able to convert Martian atmosphere into methane fuel.... Once a lunar outpost is established, crews could remain on the lunar surface for up to six months.

spayss · Sep 21, 2005

A moon base puts layers of complication on any return to the Moon. Perhaps a Moon base of a couple astronauts by 2050 or so. It's dicy enough leaving humans on the ISS...at least there are two independent spacecraft infrastructures to bring them home if necessary. Independent redundancies will be needed before any human is left on the Moon for any extended period of time. The certainty of a dependable infrastructure for a base and for the emergency evacuation of those humans will be quite involved. We can't be left in a situation where one spacecraft is destroyed and not knowing if the next one sent will be anymore successful (a la Shuttle).

kdavis007 · Sep 21, 2005

Of course, however, I don't mind seeing hotels on the moon.

kane007 · Sep 21, 2005

Definately YES. Hotels? Not for awhile, unless your an Eddie Murphy fan.

serak_the_preparer · Oct 3, 2005

Independent redundancies will be needed before any human is left on the Moon for any extended period of time. My impression is Griffin is more positive about a return to the Moon. While he surely understands the risks will be as great as they were for the Apollo crews, he obviously regards such risk as worthwhile. But what is worthwhile about returning to the Moon, if our only purpose is to repeat the accomplishments of Apollo without going beyond them? Congress will wonder about that, as will the public. Griffin's answer, apparently, is 'Moonbase.' That's a simplification, of course. Clearly, the return to the Moon is about a return to the manned exploration of space in general. We are supposedly warming up on the Moon for an eventual assault on Mars. But people will still be looking for more from a return to the Moon than a repetition of Apollo. So, while we're there, why not accomplish something more? KDavis007, Going to agree with Kane007. The Moon could be a nice tourist destination, but NASA may have to build its Moonbase first. Our informal poll shows over 80% support for Griffin's base on the Moon. Maybe it will happen.

kdavis007 · Oct 3, 2005

I understand that it would take time for a Hotel to be built on the moon.

gsuschrist · Oct 3, 2005

I'm not sure that American taxpayers will want to spend hundreds of billions so a few multi-millionaires can enjoy a couple days sealed in some chamber on the Moon. Joe sixpack, understandably, might just prefer an affordable prescription drug plan for grandpa or better body armor for his son in Iraq. The reality is 'the pot' of money belongs to the American people and there are some blockbuster bills to be paid.

jatslo · Oct 3, 2005

Jatslo Voted "Yes". Now get off your slacker butts and get to work on the Moon base.

holmec · Oct 4, 2005

Most definetly. The moon can be a base for mining on the moon, stage area for raw materials from asteroids and a processing plant, and also for observatories. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

barrykirk · Oct 4, 2005

Here is a use for lunar exports. The moon can export mass. Someday, hopefully sooner rather than later, we will have functioning space tethers. These tethers will make access to LEO and higher orbits really cheap. But tethers lose momentum every time they boost an object into orbit or into a higher orbit. That momentum needs to be repaid or eventually the tether will deorbit itself. There are several methods of making up the lost momentum for those tethers. 1) Put some form of high efficiency ion or plasma drive on the tether. 2) Use electric dynamic boost to boost off of the earths magnetic field. But this only works for tethers at fairly low orbits. 3) Catch and release material coming from a higher orbit or energy potential. Lunar regolith is an ideal material to boost the tethers momentum

mattblack · Oct 5, 2005

Yes, a moonbase modelled loosely on an Antarctic atation is eventually essential. The moon is like another continent, only in the sky and much more exotic. But we have to learn to walk before we can run: We've lost the art of manned interplanetary flight and it will take us more than a decade to relearn it. There is a hell of a lot of ignorance not only amongst Joe-public but the U.S. press about lunar exploration. "We've been, why do we need to go back"? Something like 99.999% percent of the lunar surface remains unexplored by man in person. To say "we've been to the Moon" is like saying for example; someone lands at 6 different U.S. airports, gets out of the plane, drives around the runways in a baggage car, gets back on the plane then says: "That's it, I've seen all of America, there's nothing more to see!" GIVE ME A BLOODY BREAK!!! Even with a well-funded, aggressive campaign, it would take DECADES to properly explore all of the moon's scientific opportunities and resources. That's the kind of ignorance we space people are up against. Mars maybe the best place, but launch windows open up only every 26 months. The Moon could be visited monthly under ideal circumstances. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

dragon04 · Oct 5, 2005

"Some wag recently suggested on this forum that Griffin's scheme for putting men back on the Moon be christened 'Alice' in honor of The Honeymooners." I was that wag. I assume since I can see the fangmarks, you wouldn't recognize humor if it jumped up and bit you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

quasar2 · Oct 5, 2005

I absolutely agree w/ the part about leaving equipment there. I`ve been saying this for years on here. Any equipment left in LEO is in danger of loss in Re-entry. This as a result of failure to maintain its orbit. No problem that w/ Lunar efforts. except of course for radiation &/or meteors. So no comparison to ISS, as some say. & there`s a stable working environment. @least more stable persay than microG. I`m still not firmly convinced the old equipment couldn`t be used. & i think MoonReturn should be located near a large amount of it. this would allow study of the degradation over the years @least. & another thing, wouldn`t we do this on Mars? use every last bit of old equipment? No matter how trivial of a use, say melting it into a shovel, hammer, or axe, would help future missions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

sirith · Oct 5, 2005

The expense does need to be understood. Hotels would need to be profitable in 5-10 years or fold and _not_ ride on government funding. Research stations need funding to be from schools and corporations unless military. And Mining and manufacturing need to happen - build parts for space infrastructure as much as possible on the moon to defray launch costs from earth. One poster commented that a tether needs to take mass down to keep inertia in the tether - so send down metals and anything else with sale value. But get NASA out of it as soon as possible, and commerce in.

barrykirk · Oct 5, 2005

Yes, that might be the biggest lunar resource there is. A source of momentum to power LEO launch tethers.

serak_the_preparer · Oct 13, 2005

Been away awhile... KDavis007 wrote: 'I understand that it would take time for a Hotel to be built on the moon.' Kevin, My apologies if I seemed to imply otherwise. My response was intended to be more general, in terms of the poll. Since one of the options favors allowing commercial forces to carry the ball, I wanted to clarify my own opinion that if we want entrepreneurial forces in space, then an infrastructure put in place by government(s) can help facilitate that. Is our future in space going to be community-driven, something supported by societies for their own benefit? Or will it not be fostered to serve society, but only to serve corporate bottom-lines? I think there's a place for both. In my opinion, if our use of space does not benefit society in general, then what good is it? On the other hand, if it confers a benefit on society, it should be hoped that some of that benefit is economic. At the very least, we know we will be able to derive scientific and technological benefits. GsusChrist wrote: 'I'm not sure that American taxpayers will want to spend hundreds of billions so a few multi-millionaires can enjoy a couple days sealed in some chamber on the Moon...' I'm sure they could be persuaded. Americans support exorbitant policies whose benefits mainly accrue to multi-millionaires all the time. They supported the space program back when NASA drew a far greater percentage of the federal budget. They could be convinced to do so again. Jatslo wrote: 'Jatslo Voted "Yes". Now get off your slacker butts and get to work on the Moon base.' A vote for 'the vision thing'? Seconded. Holmec wrote: 'The moon can be a base for mining on the moon, stage area for raw materials from asteroids and a processing plant, and also for observatories.' I wonder how much of that will ultimately prove feasible? Neve

7419 · Oct 13, 2005

Any Lunar base at this point is a reasearch facility that does basic research into materials processing and manufacturing capabilities. Given enough redundency in life support systems the base should be survivable in the event of an emergency. If fuel sources are practical then the idea of the Moon being a fuel depot makes tremendous sense ( and cents too). In addition the Moon is where we field test new hardware such as pressure suits, inflatable habitats etc.

barrykirk · Oct 13, 2005

You claim "An engineer's wet-dream. Way cool if ever built. Niven and Clarke would drool. But I have a feeling we'll be waiting a l-o-o-ong time... ".... Well, right now, we have almost all of the technology to build a tether. The big missing piece is a heavy lift launch vehicle to put one up there. Now let me put a few caveats in there. The tether I'm talking about wouldn't provide the max benefit possible. It would allow an almost orbital small cargo to get a boost. Maybe shaving a couple of KM/second off the launch velocity required. I haven't run the numbers, but I'm sure that would be enough to double the payload capacity of a falcon 1 rocket. It would also make upper stage recovery slightly easier because the TPS system would have slightly less energy to deal with. No, its not enough to make a space ship one class vehicle a true ground to LEO machine. But it would prove out the concept. Remember, even the great Werner Von Braun didn't go to the moon with his first rocket. He started with rockets that didn't even have the capability of space ship one. Once he proved out the concept, he just kept going with it till he got to the moon.

no_way · Oct 14, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I'm not sure that American taxpayers will want to spend hundreds of billions so a few multi-millionaires can enjoy a couple days sealed in some chamber on the Moon.<hr /></blockquote> Why doesnt the American taxpayer put an end to it then ? Because u c, US has already built a station on orbit for tens of billions, that has this far been visited by three multi-millionaires just for fun. And thats about the biggest ( or at least most visible ) accomplishment of the aforementioned station this far. But i dont think anyone here seriously proposes that lunar tourism should be built with tax money. Its up to Bigelow and other visionaires with fat wallets to take up that job.

rocketwatcher2001 · Oct 14, 2005

Building spacecraft on the moon, or at least out of Moonstuff is certainly the way to go if we want to really industrialize space, which I think is the best choice in the long run. The only problem is, the long run isn't going to get a lot of congressional votes, and that is something we as Americans, and other people, too, need to change. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

serak_the_preparer · Oct 14, 2005

BarryKirk wrote: 'You claim "An engineer's wet-dream. Way cool if ever built. Niven and Clarke would drool. But I have a feeling we'll be waiting a l-o-o-ong time... ".... Well, right now, we have almost all of the technology to build a tether...' Okay, maybe I'm being too dismissive. If tethers are on the way, my feeling is that (if we're lucky) they are now about where liquid-fueled rockets were when Tsiolkovsky dreamed and wrote about them. Lots of problems, lots of work yet to be done, even if - as you claim - most of the technology for them already exists. No, von Braun did not go to the Moon with his first rocket, but he did have the support of an aggressive, militaristic and expansionist power, a leader among western industrial societies. (And no, I'm not forgetting for one second that the society was a Nazi dictatorship.) When that society's aggressive militarism burned itself out after causing a great deal of misery and destruction, he then found a new sponsor: the greatest military power on the planet and in the history of the world. Is something like this happening in the world of tether technology right now? Which powerful sponsors have its proponents attracted? To be realistic, I think we need to keep our eyes on what's actually visible on the horizon. At the moment, that horizon looks to be dominated by conventional rocket technology. But, like you, I hope that will eventually change. 7419 wrote: 'If fuel sources are practical then the idea of the Moon being a fuel depot makes tremendous sense ( and cents too). In addition the Moon is where we field test new hardware such as pressure suits, inflatable habitats etc.' Yes, we need to at least try to do as you suggest. Perhaps a polar base exploiting any volatiles to be found on the Moon. However that may be, the reality is that the Moon is an enormous satellite and the closest celestial body to our planet. On

serak_the_preparer · Oct 14, 2005

RocketWatcher, Will there be spaceships stamped 'Made on the Moon'? If there are, then won't a good deal of the raw materials need to be imported from elsewhere? Not that there's anything wrong with that, since that's how it's done down here on Earth. No, American politicians contemplating 'the long run' are really thinking about what or who they'll be having for lunch. A sustained conflict with another superpower was able to change that for awhile in days gone by. But now? It seems obvious that without China's recent foray into manned spaceflight, there would probably be no Vision for Space Exploration at this time. The Moon must be pitched to Congress on these terms. Though no fan of the Bush/Cheney administration, I believe here they've got it right. A return to the Moon is not to be thought of as simply a return to the Moon in and of itself. Just as in the original Space Race, it is really about America and her allies staying ahead of the competition. By the time China sends a man up to orbit the Moon, America hopes to be looking at a manned mission to Mars. In the meantime, of course, China will continue to make progress toward her goal. How will America occupy herself in space as China advances toward the Moon? By returning to the Moon before China can get there. Yes, it's tribal thinking. But since we're humans, such 'thinking' is unavoidable. As a byproduct, however, we may get better at what Zubrin calls 'living off the land' and spending long periods of time living, working and performing science on another celestial body. The Moon may never make an attractive space colony, but it's not a bad place to start.

barrykirk · Oct 15, 2005

Sadly, I think that your right that tether technology isn't being actively pursed the same way that rocket tech is. I 'm hoping that all it takes is for one small proof of concept tether to really start to change that atitude. If we are in a space race with the chinese, and I believe that we are. Then if we start shipping hundreds of tons up there. Necessity will force some expermentation into lowering the cost to orbit. Tether technology would be part of that expermentation.

gsuschrist · Oct 17, 2005

Space race with the Chinese? When? That type of Cold War thinking would earn about 3 votes in any congressional or Senate race. Good grief. Break out of this 'us vs them' mentality. A sure way to end public support for NASA is to turn it into some type of national imperative rather than a scientific endevour. 'A need to beat the Chinese' will get laughed out of existence by editorials from the NY Times to CNN. Promote the benefits of the science and technology and maybe public support will grow. Promote it as politics and public support, rightfully, will collapse.

Moonbase: Yes, or No?

serak_the_preparer

Guest

serak_the_preparer

Guest

spayss

Guest

kdavis007

Guest

kane007

Guest

serak_the_preparer

Guest

kdavis007

Guest

gsuschrist

Guest

jatslo

Guest

holmec

Guest

barrykirk

Guest

mattblack

Guest

dragon04

Guest

quasar2

Guest

sirith

Guest

barrykirk

Guest

serak_the_preparer

Guest

7419

Guest

barrykirk

Guest

no_way

Guest

rocketwatcher2001

Guest

serak_the_preparer

Guest

serak_the_preparer

Guest

barrykirk

Guest

gsuschrist

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page