The answer to everything is not 42, its the moon

[bdewoody]

It is the moon.

How do we save the planet from a hit from a comet or asteroid?
The moon!

How do we learn to survive long term on a place without an atmosphere?

The moon!

How do we figure out how to make a fusion power station?

Helium3 on the moon.

How do we find a way to detect smaller earth size extrasolar planets?

Telescopes built on the far side of the moon

How can we build less costly space vehicles?

Launch them from the moon.

Where will the first space vacations occur?

On the moon.

Need I go further.

We (meaning the masses) have not been to the moon, only 12 lucky men whom I envy.

 

[Polishguy]

Re: The answer to everything is not 42

It sounds good right up until you reach 'building cheaper space vehicles.' To build space vehicles on the moon that are cheaper than earth-built ones, you'd need to build up a massive industry base on the moon that would build its own spacecraft out of lunar materials. This sort of industry could take decades, perhaps a century, to develop.

 

[neutrino78x]

Re: The answer to everything is not 42

How do we save the planet from a hit from a comet or asteroid?
The moon!

Hmm....I think it is more likely that you would travel to it, study it, and find a way to either blow it up or deflect it. Thus, we need the astroid mission instead of the moon.

How do we learn to survive long term on a place without an atmosphere?

Earth orbit.

How do we figure out how to make a fusion power station?

By doing engineering research here on Earth.

How do we find a way to detect smaller earth size extrasolar planets?

Telescopes built on the far side of the moon

Built by robots, though. I agree that the far side of the moon is a good place for telescopes, but you don't need humans there to do it.

Where will the first space vacations occur?

On the moon.

This part I agree with, but that wouldn't be a NASA mission.

We (meaning the masses) have not been to the moon, only 12 lucky men whom I envy.

I agree with this too.

--Brian

 

[rockett]

Re: The answer to everything is not 42

Hmm....I think it is more likely that you would travel to it, study it, and find a way to either blow it up or deflect it. Thus, we need the astroid mission instead of the moon.

Earth orbit.

By doing engineering research here on Earth.

Built by robots, though. I agree that the far side of the moon is a good place for telescopes, but you don't need humans there to do it.

You are missing a very important and practical point though. It's a three day trip...

 

[IOsilveraway]

Re: The answer to everything is not 42

bdewoody expressed himself well. I also think that the moon is a more logical choice for exploration than Mars, for the simple reason that it is much closer. I'm not saying don't prepare for Mars etc. (we'll learn useful things) but let's get it right on the moon first!

A 3-day trip - you're right. Initially, it's going to be tough but eventually as in the ISS there will be crews staying weeks or months, possibly even years on our satellite. It seems to be a good idea to have a team up there rather than one individual who'll possibly go a little bonkers (as Sam Rockwell's character did in the movie 'Moon').

Robots to control telescopes on the far side of the moon - why not? but machines break down and parts may need replacing (compare Hubble space telescope) so supervising humans seem necessary.

The answer to everything is not 42, I agree, but whatever it is if it were expressed in the many volumes of the Encyclopaedia Galactica, it would probably still be the same as saying: the answer to everything is 42.

 

[bdewoody]

Re: The answer to everything is not 42

Well I admit I was using the 42 answer as gimic to attract readers. My point though is that the eventual conquest of space will start with a firm foothold on the moon.

 

[rockett]

Re: The answer to everything is not 42

Well I admit I was using the 42 answer as gimic to attract readers. My point though is that the eventual conquest of space will start with a firm foothold on the moon.

Seems to be working. I must agree with you too. We don't need to be traipsing around asteroids or Mars if we don't know how to sustain a colony only 3 days away. There, at least, a rescue mission could be launched if need be. And the resources to get there are much more affordable. We simply have far too much to learn...

 

[scottb50]

Re: The answer to everything is not 42

Well I admit I was using the 42 answer as gimic to attract readers. My point though is that the eventual conquest of space will start with a firm foothold on the moon.

Seems to be working. I must agree with you too. We don't need to be traipsing around asteroids or Mars if we don't know how to sustain a colony only 3 days away. There, at least, a rescue mission could be launched if need be. And the resources to get there are much more affordable. We simply have far too much to learn...

A defeatist, we can't possibly cross that desert. In LEO you could have hope of rescue, but anywhere else you would be toast with a major problem. So it doesn't matter, people die or get killed every day, does it really matter if it happened years from Earth? Long-term individual Pods would be a good idea, lifeboats, but rescue would probably not come.

I happen to like 42 also.

 

[rockett]

Re: The answer to everything is not 42

A defeatist, we can't possibly cross that desert. In LEO you could have hope of rescue, but anywhere else you would be toast with a major problem. So it doesn't matter, people die or get killed every day, does it really matter if it happened years from Earth? Long-term individual Pods would be a good idea, lifeboats, but rescue would probably not come

I realize that. However, we have a bunch of rabid safety enthusiasts out there chanting "Kill the shuttle! Kill the shuttle! It's a deathtrap!" about events that happened years ago, and have long since been addressed. The reality is, they are only doing so to further their own agendas. But the media, American public, and politicians still get caught up in it. All we would need is a deep space mission crew that was killed for a major setback, if not complete cancellation. If we go "out there" without our technology fully developed, either through ignorance, or premature, the odds of that happening are very high.

That's why we need to learn and develop our technology in a comparatively safe place, instead of months or years away. Once it is solid and proven, then we move out. There will be drama and discoveries enough, just doing that...

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: The answer to everything is not 42

Personally, bdewoody, I think this topic is poorly named, and would (as a user) suggest you change it to something that more clearly indicates the subject you are discussing.

{MW deposits 2c}

 

[HopDavid]

Re: The answer to everything is not 42

How do we find a way to detect smaller earth size extrasolar planets?

Telescopes built on the far side of the moon

The lunar poles are the coldest places (that we know of) in the solar system. These would be great places for infra red scopes.

The far side of the moon could be a good place for radio astronomy in that the considerable noise from earth is blocked.

 

[orienteer]

Re: The answer to everything is not 42

How do we find a way to detect smaller earth size extrasolar planets?

Telescopes built on the far side of the moon



I have heard this suggestion before, but I don't understand it. The far side of the moon has a two week daytime just like the near side, so I don't see a darkness advantage. The far side of the moon has no radio connection to Earth, so we can not program the telescope without a series of receivers and transmitters on the moon. Niether side has an atmosphere, so distortion is not an issue.

I would put the telescope towards a pole , allowing communications and the ability to see 'over' the moon and away from Earth.

 

[rockett]

Re: The answer to everything is not 42

How do we find a way to detect smaller earth size extrasolar planets?

Telescopes built on the far side of the moon

I have heard this suggestion before, but I don't understand it. The far side of the moon has a two week daytime just like the near side, so I don't see a darkness advantage. The far side of the moon has no radio connection to Earth, so we can not program the telescope without a series of receivers and transmitters on the moon. Niether side has an atmosphere, so distortion is not an issue.

I would put the telescope towards a pole , allowing communications and the ability to see 'over' the moon and away from Earth.

Believe it or not, there is a very good reason for the far side of the moon location:
Have you ever looked at the night sky in a big city vs far from any civilization? If you have, the most immediate thing you notice is, there are FAR more stars visible in wilderness, far away from cities.

In a similar way, the far side of the moon shields telescopes from "earthlight", and radio telescopes from our billions of radio transmissions.

As for communications, you could just have communications satellites like we do here on Earth, so it's really not a big deal technologically.

 

[scottb50]

Re: The answer to everything is not 42

How do we find a way to detect smaller earth size extrasolar planets?

Telescopes built on the far side of the moon



I have heard this suggestion before, but I don't understand it. The far side of the moon has a two week daytime just like the near side, so I don't see a darkness advantage. The far side of the moon has no radio connection to Earth, so we can not program the telescope without a series of receivers and transmitters on the moon. Niether side has an atmosphere, so distortion is not an issue.

I would put the telescope towards a pole , allowing communications and the ability to see 'over' the moon and away from Earth.

I think it's more the far-side of the moon is in Earths shadow, pretty much all interference from Earth would be negated. Might be just the right place. Could be done easier remotely, to begin with. Even bigger facillities could be built needing manned capabilities, but not right away.

 

[rockett]

Re: The answer to everything is not 42

I think it's more the far-side of the moon is in Earths shadow

How can that be? (see my previous post) Moon orbits the Earth, so the only time it is in the Earth's shadow is once a month...

 

[orionrider]

Re: The answer to everything is not 42

I think you are right. The first stop to the Solar System is the Moon.

Medium term (30+ years) destination should be the Moon, to stay and use, not to just visit.
Long term (50+ years) should be Mars, from the Moon. Visit and explore.
Short term (15+ years) out of Earth orbit: asteroid or just outer space. To learn how to do the rest.

BTW, the title may not be informative but it is a nice catch

 

[orienteer]

Re: The answer to everything is not 42

Rockett Wrote

Believe it or not, there is a very good reason for the far side of the moon location:
Have you ever looked at the night sky in a big city vs far from any civilization? If you have, the most immediate thing you notice is, there are FAR more stars visible in wilderness, far away from cities.

In a similar way, the far side of the moon shields telescopes from "earthlight", and radio telescopes from our billions of radio transmissions.

As for communications, you could just have communications satellites like we do here on Earth, so it's really not a big deal technologically.




I'll buy the radio interference argument, but the communications satellites would cause new interference to be dealt with. As for visible light pollution, I think sunshine is a bigger problem than Earth shine. Remember, light pollution is caused by the reflections of city lights bouncing off of the clouds and the upper atmosphere. Removing the water from the atmosphere, i.e. going to the moon, would stop the earth shine and man-made lighting from dissipating. You would just have to put up a shield, like a chronograph does, and the universe would be visible for two whole weeks

 

[bdewoody]

Re: The answer to everything is not 42

So connect the equipment on the far side of the moon to transmitters on the earth facing side with some old technology, land lines. No need for satellites orbiting the moon. I guess to keep MW happy I will modify the title.

 

[bdewoody]

Re: The answer to everything is not 42

It sounds good right up until you reach 'building cheaper space vehicles.' To build space vehicles on the moon that are cheaper than earth-built ones, you'd need to build up a massive industry base on the moon that would build its own spacecraft out of lunar materials. This sort of industry could take decades, perhaps a century, to develop.

Of course it wouldn't be immediately and I never meant to imply any of the things I cited would be able to happen right a way.

We need to be considering what's best for long range planning and not one shot headline grabbing stunts. The original Apollo missions should have followed on by larger more complex missions and had that happened we would be so much better off now.

 

[rockett]

Re: The answer to everything is not 42

I'll buy the radio interference argument, but the communications satellites would cause new interference to be dealt with.

That is easily taken care of by either of a couple of very simple solutions:
1. Modulate a tightly focused beam to and from the sattelites on an off-band very specific frequency. This is easily filtered out as "noise".
2. Use infrared lasers.

In either case, interference would be negligible and identifiable.

 

[scottb50]

Re: The answer to everything is not 42

I think it's more the far-side of the moon is in Earths shadow

How can that be? (see my previous post) Moon orbits the Earth, so the only time it is in the Earth's shadow is once a month...

It wouldn't last long.

Seriously if you are considering using the moon to further deeper Space exploration and exploitation I will go with 42, thank you.

 

[bdewoody]

Rockett, your seem to be flipping on this issue. Is or is not the moon in your opinion our most immediate goal in manned space exploration?

 

[rockett]

Rockett, your seem to be flipping on this issue. Is or is not the moon in your opinion our most immediate goal in manned space exploration?

Not sure why you got that impression...

My position is the moon should be our immediate goal.
1. All the technology we need to develop for future missions elsewhere can be matured there. This includes:
-ISU of resources (in particular, water, air, fuel, metals, and shelter)
-Long term habitation
-Radiation shielding
-Production of food and other sustainance on site
2. A huge fuel depot for future missions. It's far cheaper lofting fuel up from the moon than earth.
3. It's only 3 days away.
4. It's in a stable location for crew rotation.
5. If we can't colonize the moon in a sustainable way, we can't do so anywhere else.
6. If we have a failure (and we will given the complexity and time required), it doesn't take months or years to recover. (Imagine if Apollo 13 had been enroute to Mars or an asteriod!)
7. It is relatively easy to reach with acceptable cost as opposed to the other destinations at this time, given our current most advanced technology.
8. Any missions to anywhere else would just be boots and flags, because that would be all we could afford.

Everything else in the way of benefits (including ones we have not even discovered yet), I consider a bonus.

It seems that all the other nations that have announced moon programs seem to be looking at it the way I do, which makes me question the sanity of our politicians...

 

[SteveCNC]

I will agree with the moon being our next main goal , but I think one of the first abilities we need to develop as part of that goal is the ability to self sustain a base on the moon or at least minimize the need for supplies . We would need some manner of extracting things from the moon itself (mainly fuel but other compounds also) so the technology to do that halfway efficiently is a big deal right now in my opinion .

Also robotics , AI or remotely controlled for different aspects of base development need to be developed , these things should be fairly easy given 3d camera systems and such that are common place now at least from a control standpoint . Changing a bobcat over to work on the moon shouldn't be that difficult though what's the lag time from earth to moon ? My son has a friend (we were neighbors when he was growing up) that fly's a Predator drone and they have about a 5 second lag from US to Iraq , he tells me you get used to it but to the moon might be a little harder maybe . There are definatly interesting times ahead .

edit* just so I don't have to hear about speed of light etc. what I mean by lag is the time it takes from what you do to what you see , or time for your signal to reach the plane and the video you see to reflect what you did .

 

[HopDavid]

Rockett, your seem to be flipping on this issue. Is or is not the moon in your opinion our most immediate goal in manned space exploration?

Not sure why you got that impression...

My position is the moon should be our immediate goal.
1. All the technology we need to develop for future missions elsewhere can be matured there. This includes:
-ISU of resources (in particular, water, air, fuel, metals, and shelter)
-Long term habitation
-Radiation shielding
-Production of food and other sustainance on site
2. A huge fuel depot for future missions. It's far cheaper lofting fuel up from the moon than earth.

I would like to elaborate on this point. Zubrin and other Mars Direct advocates claim to "explode the myth" of the moon being a fuel source. They use what I call the Tucson to Omaha by way of Austin argument:

They correctly point out departing for Mars from the moon is harder than leaving LEO for Mars.

What they ignore is that the moon is a propellent source quite close to EML1 as well as LEO. Propellent depots in LEO and EML1 would make trips to Mars as well as asteroids and other destinations vastly less difficult.

I fear their bogus argument has made it's way into the popular psyche and that this erroneous meme will continue to harvest advocates for Mars Direct, Let's Skip The Moon.

3. It's only 3 days away.
4. It's in a stable location for crew rotation.
5. If we can't colonize the moon in a sustainable way, we can't do so anywhere else.
6. If we have a failure (and we will given the complexity and time required), it doesn't take months or years to recover. (Imagine if Apollo 13 had been enroute to Mars or an asteriod!)
7. It is relatively easy to reach with acceptable cost as opposed to the other destinations at this time, given our current most advanced technology.
8. Any missions to anywhere else would just be boots and flags, because that would be all we could afford.

Everything else in the way of benefits (including ones we have not even discovered yet), I consider a bonus.

It seems that all the other nations that have announced moon programs seem to be looking at it the way I do, which makes me question the sanity of our politicians...

Everything you say is spot on. I would also add SteveCNC's point:
9. The 2.6 second light round trip enables near real time teleoperation of lunar robots from earth.