Next mission to the Moon should be there to establish a base

  • Thread starter Crossover_Maniac
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Crossover_Maniac

Guest
Instead of sending four people for a few months, send ten to twenty people for a stay of several years. And don't send scientists, send mineralogists, architects, construction workers, manufacturing engineers, etc. Prior to that, unmanned ships loaded with excavation equipment, machine shop equipment, concrete mixers, enough solar panels to provide the power needed for this equipment. There is also plans to convert lunar oxygen and aluminum into rocket fuel (LOX/aluminum dust) to avoid using lunar water and keep it for mixing concrete, drinking water, growing food, LOX/H2 for fuel cells to be used during lunar nights. Once that is done, it would be possible to launch single-stage landers with enough fuel to land on the surface and are refueled for a return home. Rule of thumb should be to replace all bulk material (building material, fuel, oxygen, water). What do you think?
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Pragmatically, I think it's far too expensive for what we can afford for at least the next 50 years. We still have to get back first. You are suggesting something a few steps more down the road.
 
V

venator_3000

Guest
I worry that a return to the Moon is merely another version of staying in Earth orbit. I would rather see them dust off some of the Apollo advanced applications studies from the 1960s and see about building some type of interplanetary ship that can at least take us to the asteroids or the orbits of Venus or Mars. As intended, some upgrade to Orion/Ares may have a similar ability to what was planned in the old Apollo studies, including adapting the hardware for a Venus orbit mission.

I think in terms of the Moon a visit there would be a good way to check out hardware and techniques for interplanetary missions. A permanent base does not seem a worthwhile endeavor.

V3K
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
Crossover_Maniac":3hn15h3u said:
Instead of sending four people for a few months, send ten to twenty people for a stay of several years. And don't send scientists, send mineralogists, architects, construction workers, manufacturing engineers, etc. Prior to that, unmanned ships loaded with excavation equipment, machine shop equipment, concrete mixers, enough solar panels to provide the power needed for this equipment. There is also plans to convert lunar oxygen and aluminum into rocket fuel (LOX/aluminum dust) to avoid using lunar water and keep it for mixing concrete, drinking water, growing food, LOX/H2 for fuel cells to be used during lunar nights. Once that is done, it would be possible to launch single-stage landers with enough fuel to land on the surface and are refueled for a return home. Rule of thumb should be to replace all bulk material (building material, fuel, oxygen, water). What do you think?

To do that you would first need to verify the technology, operational techniques, and resources. To do that you need to send smaller groups with scientists and engineers. Which is what is being going to be done.

BTW, mineralogists are scientists.
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
venator_3000":38mtyaw6 said:
I worry that a return to the Moon is merely another version of staying in Earth orbit. I would rather see them dust off some of the Apollo advanced applications studies from the 1960s and see about building some type of interplanetary ship that can at least take us to the asteroids or the orbits of Venus or Mars.

That is the aim of Consetllation. Orion, Altair, and ISS technology can take us not only to the Moon but also NEAs, Mars orbit (and its moons).

As intended, some upgrade to Orion/Ares may have a similar ability to what was planned in the old Apollo studies, including adapting the hardware for a Venus orbit mission.

That too.

I think in terms of the Moon a visit there would be a good way to check out hardware and techniques for interplanetary missions.

Certainly some hardware, also techniques and operational approaches.

A permanent base does not seem a worthwhile endeavor.

Maybe, maybe not. Certainly a good case can be made for man-tended and/or permanently occupied research stations (materials science, engineering R&D, astrononomy, planetary physics, etc. which will require design, construction and testing of a lot of techniques, operational skills, and technology very useful elsewhere. We need to go to the Moon to find out.
 
C

Crossover_Maniac

Guest
JonClarke":1vx8npez said:
To do that you would first need to verify the technology, operational techniques, and resources. To do that you need to send smaller groups with scientists and engineers. Which is what is being going to be done.

BTW, mineralogists are scientists.

I'm sorry, I meant to say pure science as opposed to applied science. The mineralogists are going to be there to look for resources to be utilized.
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
Crossover_Maniac":uzbnqu2t said:
Instead of sending four people for a few months, send ten to twenty people for a stay of several years. And don't send scientists, send mineralogists, architects, construction workers, manufacturing engineers, etc. Prior to that, unmanned ships loaded with excavation equipment, machine shop equipment, concrete mixers, enough solar panels to provide the power needed for this equipment. There is also plans to convert lunar oxygen and aluminum into rocket fuel (LOX/aluminum dust) to avoid using lunar water and keep it for mixing concrete, drinking water, growing food, LOX/H2 for fuel cells to be used during lunar nights. Once that is done, it would be possible to launch single-stage landers with enough fuel to land on the surface and are refueled for a return home. Rule of thumb should be to replace all bulk material (building material, fuel, oxygen, water). What do you think?

I agree with the sentiment, though it will have to happen incrementally and of course mineralogists are scientists. I assume what was really meant by that was that the focus of science should be heavily on ISRU and maintaining a base rather than expanding our view of the universe.

This isnt to say that learning about the universe should not be an important result, but it would be fantastically disappointing to me if all this effort to develop technology to land people on the moon simply resulted in a few sorties, some more interesting facts, and then the ability was abandoned again.

One way that the moon differs very much from LEO is that everything we put there stays there for no additional effort. This means the tanks of landing stages, fleets of rovers and even (or especially) sewage. This could lead to a sizable base from where rovers could be repaired and that might eventually recycle its own food and air.

Whatever our plan is it must work in both the short and long term.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts