What will we do on the Moon?

[crix]

The more I think about it, and the more I see that NASA can't make up it's mind, the more I question my enthusiasm for the project. Why do we want to go to the Moon and what do we want to get done there?<br /><br />The personal conclusion I've come to revolves around robotically deployed ISRU infrastructure. Yes, robotically deployed ISRU infrastructure! It's really the first thing that needs to get done. We're not going to do anything glorious on the moon if our astronauts are limited to a cramped little buggy/base combo with minimum power, low shielding, and barely any resources. It's not safe and not robust.<br /><br />We should deploy teleoperated/semi-autonomous (evolved MER type technology) robots that can be deployed in mass quantities to the Moon to perform ISRU infrastructure operations. I think most people see justification of the space program as a direct product vs. cost relationship... just as they view everything else they spend money on. They weigh the value of what they get for a certain amount of money and decide if it's worth it. I think that a LOT of visible-to-the-public work can be accomplished using robots and relatively inexpensively compared to an initial manned operation. As soon as you add a human to the equation all your costs go through the roof. Ultimately we will go there of course but there is so much work that can and should be done by robots first because of the harsh conditions and magnitude of work that should be done to create a safe and long-lasting place for humans to live and work.<br /><br />To really set up a proper infrastructure, we'll need mobiles robotics (semi-autonomous) such as bulldozers, backhoes, and dumptrucks for creating the holes that we'll want to set our habitats in and for moving the regolith around to cover habitats up and for general landscaping purposes. Part of the infrastructure should involve creating roads and established routes from base (equitorial, cuz it's cheaper, safer for emergency return) t

 

[thermionic]

Golf!<br /><br />Sorry, I couldn't resist! ;^}

 

[grooble]

Why get out of bed in the morning? Why build a life for yourself when its gonna end someday and all you do will be forgotten as the earth dies in billions of years, and no one knows we ever existed. Everything is meaningless.<br /><br />But yeah, Golf is probably what its all about!

 

[quasar2]

salvage the old equipment. park something @ Lagrange Point 1 in preparation for a manned station there. checkout the ice of course. build a farside observatory. make movies. build another station in a higher earth orbit. build a maglev Lunar Launcher. i`m sure other things would crop up, so i`m gonna let these be good enuff fer awhile. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[aaron38]

Mine helium3 once the oil runs out.

 

[no_way]

Well, lets be honest for once here ... we all want to see womens breasts bounce in 1/6 gravity, right ?<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> j/k

 

[crix]

Jesus, what did I do to deserve this? haha. (although right on about the breasts <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />)<br /><br />Guys, how do we justify the costs associated with this stuff? That's the whole thing I was getting at and my reason to push robotics and In-situ Resource Utilization. Yeah, it would be cool to have space bases with frickin' laser beams at every Langrangian point but this stuff needs to be justified. What the hell are we going to be doing on the Moon? Is it just for the cool feeling we get for having some American citizens there? The manufacturing of LOX or H2 sound the most tangible to me. Although nuclear thermal propulsion is likely to be implemented for the first human trip to Mars, I suppose H2 and LOX will still be used for cis-lunar propulsion. Right?

 

[crix]

Is was more of a practical question than an existential one. But I suppose the desire to acheive could be enough? That would be fine with me but generally it doesn't sell with the population when billions are being spent. People like to know that it'll actually show them something tangible.

 

[crix]

Wrong.

 

[arobie]

<font color="yellow">"Wrong."</font><br /><br />Why?

 

[no_way]

On a more serious note, i think lunar mass-produced photovoltaics have a big role play in our future. <br />First as increasing power available in-situ, then increasing the available power in all the cislunar space ( think commsats with all the power they could want ) and finally perhaps also earth itself.<br />

 

[crix]

Re: Helium 3<br /><br />I said 'wrong' because transporting anything from the moon safely to the earth is incredibly expensive and so the plan seems unrealistic. It's not like NASA can sell this stuff anyway, right?<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium_3 leads me to believe that the primary benefit of He-3 is the lack of energetic neutron release. I'm guessing that building additional sheilding in future terrestrial fusion power plants would be cheaper than setting up a He-3 mining and shipping operation on the Moon.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Re: Helium 3"</font><br /><br />There are other reasons as well. The primary one is that we haven't even achieved breakeven on Deuterium-Tritium fusion yet. That occurs at temperatures an order of magnitude below the Deuterium-He3 reaction (meaning an order of magnitude greater containment is required for D-He3). We <b>already</b> need at least an order of magnitude greater containment before current fusion tech becomes commercially feasible. They're near breakeven now -- about 10x more energy output than input *might* be enough to make a fusion reactor reasonable. Therefore -- we need two orders of magnitude increase in containment tech before He3 can even be considered useful. Given a reasonable estimate of 25-30 years (at least) for that to happen -- advances in renewable energy sources will likely have made He3 fusion irrelevant -- especially when given the costs of shipping (not to mention the infrastructure and operations costs of mining it in the first place).<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"...leads me to believe that the primary benefit of He-3 is the lack of energetic neutron release."</font><br /><br />There's more than that. The reaction also produces a great deal more energy (18MeV vs 2Mev -- if my memory serves -- which it probably doesn't). Also -- it spits out a proton. Since the proton is positively charged -- it's assumed that this can be directly harnessed and turned into current (BTW -- heckifIknow how they think they're going to do this). The D-T reaction throws off neutrons -- which eventually irradiate the lining of the reactor, and can't be used in the same way because they have no charge. The only energy usable from the D-T reaction is heat -- used to boil water and run steam turbines (imposing about a 60% energy loss immediately in generating electricity)

 

[bushuser]

A maglev lunar sled could make it cheap to launch products from the moon back to earth. Initially, until the market is flooded, trinkets from the Moon would sell for for high dollars. <br />The advantages of placing radio telescopes and other astronomical gear on the far side, to shield them from earth, has previously been discussed and could justify a human presence. <br />If some limited manufacturing/salvage capability is established, then most of your planetary probes could be built on the Moon & launched off the Maglev sled, probably at higher velocities than shooting them out of Cape Canaveral on chemical rockets. [ I guess they'd still have to import plutonium electric generators for spacecraft]

 

[cdr6]

Our first expeditions will be doing much the same as our last. Finding out more about the place and how to live and work there. (Not as easy as it sounds.) <br /><br />Take space suits for example, the Apollo suits had a useful life numbered in hours. (largely because of the lunar soil which is very abrasive, and clingly) <br /><br />It got into all sorts of places and abraided connectors and fasteners on all the missions. Clean up is going to be a real issue, and especially inside habitats and vehicles.<br /><br />The basics are going to need the majority of our attention in the first years.

 

[crix]

So what you are really saying (I'm trying to think of this Moon venture in terms of the products it will generate that can be "sold" to the public) is that we will develop tools, space suits, and knowledge that will allow humans to live and work on the Moon.<br /><br />Hmm. A bit of a circular argument but not bad. <br /><br />I would like to see NASA put out RFPs for developing the new Moon suits. I think having comfortable, mobile suits will be very important for the success of human operation up there. Plus, they need to look good on TV.

 

[mousebot]

Once you get tourists in orbit, how long do you think it's going to be before they want to fly past the moon? Once they start flying past the moon how long do you think it's going to be before they start pointing and saying I want to go down there, I have a golf ball? Tourists are like locusts and they bring McDonalds with them.

 

[crix]

Heh, you mean I'll want to send the little buggers to the Moon?

 

[crix]

Anyone know what deltaV an object on the surface of the moon would need to be shot into a stable orbit? What angle? Perhaps just with some shading from the sun and conductive isolation you would keep your super-conductors at a steady 3-5K without additional cooling hardware? Dunno if this is realistic.<br /><br />With interferrometry and adaptive optics it seems like terrestrial telescopes are rivaling and surpassing the ability of orbiting telescopes. I suppose there would be benefits for an infrared telescope on the far side of the moon though. Although if we get our DART technology working well it might be cheaper to assemble large telescopes piece by piece in earth-trailing orbits. I'm assuming this would be a calibration/alignment nightmare but it might be easier than landing 10 meter mirrors on the moon. Then again, if we set up a mirror manufacturing facility on the moon to build something like OWL in the Moons microgravity or something even larger to image other earth sized planets that could be cool! <br /><br />

 

[spayss]

Crix. you make some excellent points. <br /><br /> What you're finding is no one can really provide an answer. Lots of maybes and what ifs but not any substance. This is where we need a leader (the President?) to go to the Senate, Congress, etc. and sell the idea with some nitty-gritty details of why we should return to the Moon.<br /><br /> Tens of Billions aren't going to be spent instead of more money in Health, Education, etc. so someone can hit a golf ball or rich tourists need a thrill. I think the ISS has put up red warning flags when the answer is 'science' and some elusive technological breakthroughs. And the 'because it's our destiny' answer won't fly when the pen hits the Congressional checkbook. <br /><br />

 

[crix]

Thanks. Yeah, no one really has said anything that seems to hit me with that Eureka effect that suddenly obviates the need or market angle that would convince most people of the new VSE and particularly what business humans have back on the Moon's surface. That's why I started this thread. I was actually hoping I would get some inspiration so that I could write to NASA or congress or somebody and tell them "We've figured it out!!"<br /><br />I'm still not convinced we should be sending people to the moon.

 

[spacester]

crix, I believe you are discovering the irony of posting on uplink.space.com.<br /><br />You should not expect to get actual discussion on actual future plans here. Between the nay-sayers and the egoists and the sexual innuendo, nothing you propose will be met with a positive, in-context response.<br /><br />IOW, all you are likely to get is a variation of either "It'll never happen" or "That's not the way I think it will happen, so it's stupid" or "That's kinda cool, but here's what I think"<br /><br />For my part, I like your ideas very much and would like to suggest a way to get it done. But I've just about given up on this place as far as having any possibility of constructive discussion and right now I simply don't have the energy to write it up.<br /><br />Why post cool ideas when all you get is ridicule or apathy?<br /><br />Before anyone answers, consider that it just might be the case that an actual answer to the dilemma of developing space flight will sound a bit outrageous at first, and so the only way to develop such an answer is to give the idea a chance.<br /><br />Maybe I'll be in a better mood this weekend and maybe I'll convince myself yet again that there is a point to posting ideas here. But it gets harder each time.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thecolonel]

How about: simply show that humankind has what it takes to leave the cradle... get all of our eggs out of one basket... and lengthen the lifetime of our species?

 

[bushuser]

Eventually, we may create a haven on the moon for those people who are crippled by Earth's gravity. People with severe arthritis, certain types of heart disease, or paralysis, could find a more fulfilling life in 1/6 G. Many would find it to be a one-way trip.<br /><br />This is not an idea which is going to sell in Congress, and it would only happen after a viable lunar tourism business was established.

 

[halman]

crix,<br /><br />When the Louisana Purchase was being contemplated by the United States government, many intelligent people thought that it would be a waste of money. I believe that it was Thomas Jefferson who stated that the U.S. would have no use for the land until about 2600. Similiar remarks were made concerning Seward's Folly, better known as Alaska. To be able to say that a certain technology or resource will make it worthwhile to return to the Moon is to ignore history, because history indicates that use is always found for new resources.<br /><br />The era of cheap energy on Earth seems to be drawing to a close, with ramifications which still are unknown. However, it is likely that reducing weight will become a priority for designers of all kinds of transport. Lunar materials, processed in the zero gravity environment of space stations, offer the potential to create lightweight, but immensely strong alloys, through processes such as foaming metals, annealing, and alloying in an environment where oil and water will stay mixed.<br /><br />Although robots are certain to play a major role in developing the Moon, I think that humans should be there from the first, for a couple of reasons. Designing automation requires the ability to analyze what went wrong, which is much easier when the engineers can look at every aspect of the problem. I realize that telepresence is capable of many things, and I acknowledge that eventually working systems would be developed, but I think that the progress would justify having a few people on hand to oversee the automation.<br /><br />But there is a much greater motivation to have people on the Moon. A bunch of robots toiling away is certainly going to excite some individuals, but nothing like a few folks who face the dangers of exploration for all of us. I have said this before, but I think that it is worth repeating. The Moon is the only object in the heavens that looks like a 'place'. Most people are unaware that there are t <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>