Moonbase: Yes, or No?

dobbins · Oct 17, 2005

Public support for NASA started drying up when it became nothing more than a playground for scientists after Apollo 11. It won't come back as long as NASA's focus is on things like the effects of microgravity on nematodes and the chemical compostion of Uranus.

gsuschrist · Oct 17, 2005

A good way to put a nail in the coffin is to turn NASA into an anachronism living in the cold War. Despite your beliefs, science isn't boring and doesn't have to presented as boring. You might find the chemical composition of Uranus tedious. I don't. The more 'science' is promoted the less ignorance there is and kids and the public gets excited. You'd find the more you learn about a subject the more fascinating it becomes. You aren't unique in this. The kid in Grade 2, the boy scout, the undergraduate is college, etc. are no different.

dobbins · Oct 17, 2005

What you or I may think about the chemical composition of Uranus is irrelevant. What matters is what the general public thinks of the subject, and the vast majority could care less. The general public isn't interested in a science only NASA. They won't get interested again until NASA broadens it's horizons. They will support developing new technology, and humans exploring new worlds. Only a very narrow segment is interested in things like the remnants of magnetic fields on Mars. If NASA doesn't offer anything to people who aren't science buffs, then the non science buffs won't care if NASA dries up and blows away. The surest way to kill NASA is keeping it as an exclusive playground for scientists. The pattern has been consistent ever since Apollo 11, the more NASA emphsizes science the less public support it has.

barrykirk · Oct 17, 2005

Let's see we've turned this debate into interest of the public in science versus a tribal mentality. Well, let's see now. What is the comparitive spending on pure science versus the military. Remember that a lot of science is funded for military purposes. Sad to say, but I think the tribal mentality is alive and well. When people feel threatned they spend a lot on defense. If NASA was considered to fulfill a vital national security interest, the funding would be huge compared to what it is now. So, learn the rules of how people think and act and use those rules to our advantage. I want the US to go to the moon and mars and explore space for science reasons. Also, for race survival reasons. If I can convince the common man that that serves a vital national security interest, than the funding is assured.

radarredux · Oct 17, 2005

> Good grief. Break out of this 'us vs them' mentality./i> It worked for "You are either with us or against us" Bush. And don't forget that Congress talked about changing the name "french fries" to "freedom fries" in the local cafeteria because the French would not support the invasion of Iraq. Also, in one of the recent issues of AW&ST some Congress person wanted to accelerate our Moon plans because he had access to classified information indicating that China would beat us back. Never underestimate pettiness, ego, or national pride.

dobbins · Oct 17, 2005

You aren't going to win much popular support using phrases like "tribal mentality", all that does is turn off the people who's support you need. Remember that old Star Trek phrase "To boldly go where no man has gone before"? That idea of exploration appeals to people. Note that it says man, and NOT where no robot has gone before. In the 60s most people thought that phrase applied to NASA, now they don't. Support for the space program imploded after Apollo 11 when John Q Public tuned in to the broadcasts and didn't see Astronauts doing anything but pick up rocks and set up gizmos for scientists to play with. If the public precives that NASA is only doing science then the public quickly loses intrest. That means the funding starts drying up for everything. The old adage "No Buck Rodgers, No Bucks" is just as true today as it was in 1965.

barrykirk · Oct 17, 2005

Don't get me wrong, I used the "tribal mentality" verbiage for a reason. Most people wouldn't consider their own thinking as tribal, but few realize how close they really are to that sort of thinking. As for Star Trek, I was and still am a huge fan. My son is named Patrick Kirk. Patrick was named after Patrick Stewart.

j05h · Oct 17, 2005

You couldn't do "Jean Kirk", could you? 8) Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

serak_the_preparer · Oct 22, 2005

If NASA was considered to fulfill a vital national security interest, the funding would be huge compared to what it is now. Space is considered vital to America's national security. Rumsfeld is the original advocate of Reagan's 'Star Wars' and remains committed to increasing the presence of the military in space. Neither China, Russia, the European Union, India nor any other power on the globe is blind to this. And NASA often works closely with the military. So I agree with you that as the importance of space increases with respect to our military activities and our national security, NASA's supportive role will be recognized and utilized. China's ostensibly peaceful intentions in space will never be accepted as such. This, many believe, is why the Bush administration chose to advance its Vision for Space Exploration shortly after China put her first man into orbit. America's adventures in the Middle East have drained the treasury. There is now a desire to rein in spending everywhere except at the Pentagon. Were it not for the record deficit the US is now running, I believe you're right and we'd be seeing budget increases awarded to NASA so the agency could better meet the goals set by Bush's VSE. Every advocate of space exploration and colonization wants it to happen as quickly as possible. Including me. But the reality is that we have only just begun our slow journey out into space. It will take us centuries to establish our presence firmly and permanently on the Moon and Mars. Space potentially opens up a whole new era of human history. If we're ambitious and successful, that era will be long and fruitful, dwarfing everything which has gone before it. If not, then we will remain Earthbound and the balance of human history will play out right here.

gsuschrist · Oct 22, 2005

The Moon has nothing to do with LEO missile defense technology. Silly reasons for a base on the Moon just sound 'silly'. The science and technology derived from a Moon mission have to stand on their own merit. If we're concerned about the Chinese going to attack us in some James Bond fantasy scenario, we have a deterrent called a couple thousand nuclear missiles.

serak_the_preparer · Oct 23, 2005

The Moon has nothing to do with LEO missile defense technology. I must disagree. The nation whose capabilities for space operations are most extensive and wide-ranging is the dominant player in space. That dominant player holds the high ground and is in charge. Such capabilities will have a great deal to say about how successful a missile defense effort actually is. No, the Moon itself does not make a good home for missiles aimed at enemies on Earth. You are absolutely correct that the science and technology produced for a long-term Moon program will have to stand on its own. And it will. The superpower which is able to maintain an essentially continuous human presence beyond Earth orbit and on the Moon will unquestionably be able to do things in space other nations can't. The US intends to remain the big dog. If we're concerned about the Chinese going to attack us in some James Bond fantasy scenario... That is a ridiculous scenario. So why consider it? That's obviously not what the leadership at the Pentagon or the Project for a New American Century fears. The real concern is that a peer-competitor will emerge whose power rivals that of the United States. The challenge now comes from two directions: as the EU's euro comes to look more and more attractive as the world's reserve currency, and as China rises to become the next superpower. The economic preeminence of the US may now have an expiration date. China will continue to challenge America in all arenas. Space is but one. The US, in the interests of its own security, will have no choice but to meet each challenge as best it can. Initially, America will prevail - of that there is no question. But will the 21st really be a New American Century? Or will Chinese power overtake and eventually eclipse American power?

serak_the_preparer · Oct 23, 2005

Besides Europe, Russia, China and the US, India and Japan also have a strong interest in expanding their space capabilities. America is certainly not playing this game alone. Where space is concerned, the rewards can be less tangible - but nevertheless invaluable. They derive from the symbolism and prestige which go with space exploration. While other rewards can be more tangible, as space-faring nations take the lead in science, industry and technology. The benefits of space exploration, especially manned space exploration, are often difficult to weigh. Yet they are very real, and no nation hoping to remain a major force on the world stage can long afford to ignore them. UK should 'reverse astronaut ban' (BBC) 18 October 2005 The UK should rethink its policy ban on astronauts, a report written for the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS) says. The report warns Britain risks being isolated on the international stage if it continues its longstanding refusal to fund the human exploration of space. The RAS expert panel says the cost of joining other nations with astronaut programmes could be some £150m a year. But the scientific, educational and economic benefits would be worth it, it argues...

dobbins · Oct 23, 2005

I'm not the least bit concerned with the Moon being used for some Starwars crap. I'm concerned with the USA not getting a piece of the natural resources of space that will become more and more important over time. China is not a party to the Space Treaty of 1967 that bans territorial claims on the Moon and nobody except a handful of can not and will not nations were dumb enough to sign and ratify the UN's 1979 Moon treaty. The future will belong to the nations that can make use of the resources of space and the Moon is not only a source of those resources, it's also the key to gaining access to those resources throughout the solar system. Establishing a permanent presence via a Moonbase will be the next step after initial exploration towards gaining access to those resources. The question is not if this is going to happen, it's who will be gaining control over the vast resources that lay beyond the Earth. Future generations will look upon those who argued against gaining the foothold of a Moonbase as being as quaint as the people who argued against exploring the Earth because the ship might fall off the edge of the world. The nations that listen to these quaint people will fall behind, and I don't want the United States to be one of the nations that are left out. The future belongs to the bold, this is not the time to be timid.

serak_the_preparer · Oct 25, 2005

Necessity will force some expermentation... Two links to the same article from NewScientist: Space elevators stuck on the first floor Space elevators stuck on the first floor Despite the article's title, NASA was encouraged by the results of the competition. At least NASA is doing something to support the technology. Perhaps if China gets behind similar research, the ensuing competition could spur the kind of development you're hoping to see. Competition is always good for space.

serak_the_preparer · Oct 25, 2005

Also, in one of the recent issues of AW&ST some Congress person wanted to accelerate our Moon plans because he had access to classified information indicating that China would beat us back. Never underestimate pettiness, ego, or national pride. Radar, you'll like this: Six-seat spacecraft top of Russian space plan by Maggie McKee (NewScientist) Its 10-year plan also includes preparation for a crewed mission to Mars and the completion of Russian parts of the International Space Station (Alternate link: Six-seat spacecraft top of Russian space plan) Might help the US keep eyes on the ball. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Competition is good for space.

serak_the_preparer · Nov 30, 2005

BarryKirk, Maybe this is good news? Yale Engineers Make Standardized Bulk Synthesis of Nanowires Possible by Janet Rettig Emanuel (Yale University) November 23, 2005 New Haven, Conn. - A team of Yale scientists have demonstrated a method to understand effective synthesis of semiconductor nanowires (NWs) for both their quality and quantity, according to a report published in the journal Nanotechnology.... Development of reliable NW fabrication will allow the exploration of the next steps in semiconductor miniaturization. This reported technology produces ten-times the number of NWs as previous technology and sets parameters for standardization of NWs. "This brings nanowires to an interface with the rest of the world of semiconductor research," said Stern. "Until this point, the greatest hurdle for the technology has been the inability to produce more than individual nanowires and to have statistically reproducible synthesis so that the properties of nanowires can be explored...." Also some news which is less good when it comes to prospects for Moon missions and/or a Moonbase: Bush's space plan said in danger (UPI) November 24, 2005 A large deficit in NASA's troubled shuttle program threatens President Bush's space exploration plan, it was reported Thursday. The deficit could seriously delay or cripple the ambitious program unless the number of planned flights is cut virtually in half or the White House agrees to add billions of dollars to the U.S. space flight budget, the Washington Post said. Sources familiar with ongoing negotiations between NASA and the White House say the administration has no intention of spending extra money to deal with a shortfall. Some space experts say the deficit could excee

okool · Jan 31, 2006

I believe a moonbase will be established but y dosen't the US govt do it at an international level like the ISS, tht way there is a lot of cost savings and each country can be assigned a specific task and there is a lot more ideas put forth. Anyway the UN has established that any mining,etc ventures is not to be limited to one country but must benefit all so international co-operation is the best

josh_simonson · Jan 31, 2006

Only if the moonbase is for the purpose of ISRU research and implementation.

wdobner · Jan 31, 2006

IMHO I'd rather see the US and whoever will cough up some money and launchers build up a permanent base on the Moon rather than rush off to Mars and plant a flag there. However, I'd also argue against setting up what is little more than a slightly improved Antarctic research base. The research base at our south pole is considerably less hostile than the environment our astronauts would find in a moon base. If the Antarctic research stations need air they only need to open the door and expend the energy to heat that air. In a pinch water can simply be melted out of the surrounding snow, and it's a hell of a lot cheaper to fly an LC-130 down to the South Pole from South America than it is to fire tons of supplies off to lunar orbit. We'd need more than a little in-situ resource utilization to keep a lunar base from overwhelming our budgetary or even space launch capabilities. The potential access to a very large quantity of resources and energy would likely more than pay for the initial investment in flights of equipment. Initially we can just land a few flights close to each other, these wouldn't even have to be connected to the VSE manned landings. If we can put a fairly large Manned lander on the planet then we should be able to put a pretty big excavator or drill rig on the planet as well. We're only a few light seconds away, so remote operation with some basic automation is likely entirely possible. Have the excavators start digging, then send up some living quarters to be buried in the holes dug by the excavators and during that time Manned crews can come and go as needed. Send up some automated tanker trucks, a drill rig and something that can act as a lunar regolith/water separator and land them at the poles. Have a manned crew land at the future moon base to both survey the future road between the ice mine and the base, and then prospect for water in the one pole. All this earthmoving and mining preparation would eventually allow us to

wdobner · Feb 1, 2006

would it not be simpler and better to put the first moon base at the pole where the ice mines and the farms are? This would eliminate the need to build transportation systems for humans, water and air. Of course. Last night I was unfortunately under the impression that we'd want to avoid the polar regions because we'd face the same problems we do on earth in those areas. Fortunately this morning I remembered that the moon most notably is a nearly perfect vacuum, so all we have to do is stick a solar array up perpendicular to the suns rays and we'd have power undiminished by what otherwise would be a long trek through the atmosphere. The polar region has other advantages. We could possibly install massive thermocouples to power our settlements from the temperature differences resulting from the craters hidden almost permanently in shadow and the sun baked surfaces just feet away. Even if that's impossible then we could at least place solar arrays on both the near and far sides of the moon (relative to earth), such that there would be no two week period of darkness. Admittedly we're likely to favor the near side of the moon, so there'd probably be a transmission loss between the far side solar array and the nearside colony, but it'd still beat trying to store two weeks of energy or fly a nuke up there. We could have perhaps two, three, or even four very large solar arrays placed more or less equilaterally around the very top or bottom of the polar region which would maintain a fairly constant power supply to the colony. I'm assuming the excavating machines would run on solar power, working steady for 2 weeks then sitting dormant during the 2 week lunar night. This might seem wasteful to some (a machine that only works half the time!) but it would eliminate the necessity of constantly shipping some kind of fuel to the moon for the things to run on. It's entirely possible that they'd work on fuel cells rather th

barf9 · Feb 1, 2006

good way to put a nail in the coffin is to turn NASA into an anachronism living in the cold War. Anachronism? I think your way off base, what with all the outsourcing to China and India... This is truely a new day, in the coldwar the "enemy" was a vaguely defined threat to "Joe Sixpack's" way of life... Today "They" are a Direct Threat to his job... and by the way the kids in "grade 2" all the way up to the "undergraduate is college, etc." are probably much more interested in that secret code for GTA San Andreas than the chemical composition of Uranus (although they'll probably have a good long laugh at that statemant).

wdobner · Feb 3, 2006

Why wouldn't a lower thrust to weight ratio engine work? If it is capable of safely landing the cargo and crew then it should also be capable of lifting back off again, Therin lies the rub. It's likely you're not going to make a safe landing with an Ion engine to begin with. The thrust for any moderately sized drive is measured in fractions of newtons and this spacecraft likely will weigh on the order of a few metric tons. Even the DS4G's quadrupling of thrust would still require an inordinate amount of power to develop enough thrust to keep the thrust to weight ratio in the region of 0.9. Also I don't know if the moon has a supply of Xenon or other working materials used in Ion thrusters. A chemical or nuclear thermal rocket would be able to use the water or hydrogen found on the moon for its fuel, while an Ion drive vehicle may well have to carry its fuel to the moon and back. Also, the moon does have gravity. Would it be necessary to lift straight up? Might a rolling take-off give the lower thrust engines a chance to gain some momentum before going up a ramp and gone? (I know there is no air to provide lift) A rolling takeoff only works if you are traveling through a medium in which an airfoil will develop lift in proportion to forward motion, such as an airplane wing. Yes the moon has gravity, but unfortunately it lacks an atmosphere, so an airfoil does you little good and a rolling takeoff is just a waste of energy. Your craft would roll a ways, then say hit a 90 degree ramp, vault vertically into the air, but if the thrust to weight ratio was less than 1 and the velocity too low you'd just fall back to the moon. You'd have to go very fast and have a rather large ramp to get to the point where a vehicle with a thrust to weight ratio of say .9 could achieve orbit. To that end what could be done would be to fire a vehicle into orbit with a rail gun, such that the high muzzle velocity (so to speak) would be greate

alonzofyfe · Feb 3, 2006

First, the main reason that people lost interest in a moon base after Apollo is because the game was over. At the end of the game, when the winner has been determined, people get out of their seat and go home, or they switch channels on their TV sets. We are not going to have an Apollo-like mission to the moon without a competitor, any more than we can fill a basketball stadium with just one team on the court. The total size of the sports industry is $213 billion per year. Which is why I would suggest that, if you want to see lunar development, I would argue for a series of space prizes, as opposed to government funded mission. (1) A lunar sample return prize. The lunar sample return mission is expected to cost NASA about $650 million. NASA offers a series of prizes -- for whomever can bring back 1 kg of lunar material from each of 10 landing sites. Each team gets a minimum $25 million for a successful mission. Additional prize money: 1st place (first team to return with a usable sample): $100 million 2nd place: $80 million 3rd place: $60 million 4th place: $40 million 5th place: $20 million The money goes to the successful team -- no team can be eligable to win more than one of the "place" prizes. However, any team can also collect no more than two of the additional prizes. Total cost: $550 million What we would see happen is that the competing teams would pick up additional revenue from sponsors and other organizations. In addition, we will see teams seriously looking at using some of the technologies that the individuals here write about. We get 10 lunar sample return missions for the tax-payer cost of 1 mission, and we get a public keenly interested in the results. We build the essential infrastructure for lunar development. Not only the technological and engineering infrastructur

Moonbase: Yes, or No?

dobbins

Guest

gsuschrist

Guest

dobbins

Guest

barrykirk

Guest

radarredux

Guest

dobbins

Guest

barrykirk

Guest

j05h

Guest

serak_the_preparer

Guest

gsuschrist

Guest

serak_the_preparer

Guest

serak_the_preparer

Guest

dobbins

Guest

serak_the_preparer

Guest

serak_the_preparer

Guest

serak_the_preparer

Guest

okool

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

wdobner

Guest

wdobner

Guest

barf9

Guest

wdobner

Guest

alonzofyfe

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page