Q: Lunar sorties versus outposts

[radarredux]

Early in the Constellation efforts there were discussions about sending a number of robotic landers to the Moon and the benefits provided by architecture of landing anywhere (that is safe) on the Moon. Frequently it was mentioned how little of the surface the Apollo missions actually visited. (Call this the sortie strategy)<br /><br />More recently, the discussions have shifted to the outpost at Moon's pole, with every mission extending the capabilities of the previous one, eventually leading to a mature outpost there. (Call this the outpost strategy).<br /><br />Given fixed budget constraints, which do you think is better: the Sortie strategy of visiting many different sites for short periods of time or the Outpost strategy of establishing a long-term presence at one site?

 

[docm]

Outposts. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[summoner]

I'd like to see 1 or more main bases. That way you could send out expeditions to other places to explore them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> <br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>

 

[ctrlaltdel]

I think that the initial missions should be sorties so that they can prove the basic hardware is sound. Since the first landings would be more about getting used to lunar landings again and not about building bases, there's no reason why they can't land at science rich sites, either.<br />This is all assuming the program gets that far...

 

[bdewoody]

Like summoner said, once we have an outpost local inexpensive sorties can be sent to different interesting site on the moon for additional scientific investigation.<br /><br />So build the outpost first. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>

 

[spacester]

Both.<br /><br />NASA should concentrate on establishing a permanent base of operations with the goal of producing water and oxygen and a means of transporting those resources to other lunar locations.<br /><br />NASA should enable the other agencies, and private concerns of all types, to conduct sorties and/or establish other bases anywhere else on the globe. Having access to O2 and H2O will make that much easier.<br /><br />Private concerns should do what seems best to them, and not wait around for NASA to do anything. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Given fixed budget constraints, which do you think is better"</font><br /><br />Combined. Create a Lunar Rover based loosely on proven aspects of the MER platform, but with much higher/faster mobility -- likely using large-diameter 'bicycle-style' wheels. Drop these in several locations about the moon and have them start science investigations. As the investigation progresses, the path of the rovers should always be in the direction of the intended outpost. If they reach the outpost site before it has been put in place and are still fully functional -- they should start spiraling out from it, doing more detailed research to refine plans for the landing/construction of the outpost itself. At any sign of imminent failure, any rover should make a beeline for the base location.<br /><br />Once the outpost is in place and manned, hopefully there will be several rovers in the area. Astronauts on-site can perform maintenance on them -- possibly cannibalizing non-functional rovers to repair partially or near-functional ones. They then become additional assets the base can use to perform science operations.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Combined. Create a Lunar Rover based loosely on proven aspects of the MER platform, but with much higher/faster mobility -- likely using large-diameter 'bicycle-style' wheels. Drop these in several locations about the moon and have them start science investigations.</font>/i><br /><br />Although, as of right now, NASA doesn't have a budget for robotic missions. NASA doesn't even have a budget for a substantiall manned rover for the outpost, so unless new money materializes, excursions won't be much further than Apollo 17 class excursions.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <font color="yellow"><i>I'd like to see 1 or more main bases. That way you could send out expeditions to other places to explore them.</i></font>/i><br /><br />There is currently no budget for any means of moving around to other locations on the Moon other than Apollo 17 type excursions.

 

[pathfinder_01]

I think outposts are the only way to go if NASA is serious about staying on the moon. Although I wonder how far will the astronauts be able to travel given the need for life support and limited fuel/power for travel and the danger of solar flares. Somehow I think they might be spending a whole lot of time indoors.

 

[Aetius]

Waystations partly made from local materials, stocked with food, oxygen, and other necessities, would greatly enhance the expeditions mobility from the main base.

 

[holmec]

Sortie? I thought sorties were flights...aka USAF.<br /><br />Visiting different sites is ok, but I agree with Spaceter that NASA needs to do long term studies on one site and establish a "base", more like a camp at the beginning, Studying both geology and material processing for practical use.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[scottb50]

I agree, the primary focus should be establishing a permanent base. Maybe you could send out robotic probes and follow them up with manned teams if something interesting is found. <br /><br />The biggest problem I see is it's probably a waste of time on the Moon, on Mars it makes sense. True there are probably useful things on the moon, but the focus should be on using the moon as a stable research platform rather than a resource. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[webtaz99]

Let NASA sortie - better for science.<br /><br />Let private industry outpost - better for commerce. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Sortie? I thought sorties were flights...aka USAF</font>/i><br /><br />It comes from the French, I believe. It means to "go out"; it can also mean an excursion, and I believe I have seen it used as exit signs in France.<br /><br />Back to the topic... One potential advantage to an outpost strategy is that it might be harder for Congress to cut funding once an infrastructure is in place and occupied. I could see the sortie strategy being more vulnerable to budget cuts.</i>

 

[josh_simonson]

Most ISRU science requires an outpost, and ISRU is the most important thing to study on the moon because of it's ability to transform the logistics of space. <br /><br />Also there is a lot of research that can be done in partial gravity. We know how people, plants and animals behave and change in 1g and 0g, but not in-between. Long duration experiments on the moon will allow us to see the curvature of the effects of bone loss over gravity, ect. Perhaps wearing 800lbs of lead in a suit would negate bone loss by stressing the bones as much as they are in 1g. Who knows, gotta go and find out.

 

[jimfromnsf]

However, NASA is going to do sorties at least for a few years

 

[gunsandrockets]

Exactly right!

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Waystations partly made from local materials, stocked with food, oxygen, and other necessities, would greatly enhance the expeditions mobility from the main base. "<br /><br />Good idea. And a good way to exploit a human-robotic partnership for exploration. Remote controlled robots could make the waystations.

 

[holmec]

You know, with today's technology, and that of 2025, we could have an outpost and a rover that collects samples when the astronauts are not there and have it come back to base with samples so to be collected by Astronauts.<br /><br />Something like that. Which would make this a win win situation and the question of sortie or base is moot. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

Astronauts could tele-operate robots from a lunar outpost with much better dexterity than folks on earth with a 7 second delay.

 

[solarspot]

"7 second delay."<br /><br />7 seconds??? From what I've heard at NASA's (and other's) website it is a 1.3 second delay one way. Unfortunately I don't have the time to look up a refrence just at this moment; hopefully it isn't that hard to find with a simple internet search lol

 

[MeteorWayne]

The ~ 1.3 seconds is light travel time.<br /><br />As of this moment it is 1.4 seconds each direction.<br /><br />Processing time adds a few seconds. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Processing time adds a few seconds.</font>/i><br /><br />I few seconds ?!</i>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Yes a few seconds. Audio processing takes time. It is in general more intensive than video, since the ear-brain perception is much more sensitive than the eye-brain if there are disruptions. Vision smooths things over, sound detects every click. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>