What will we do on the Moon?

[scottb50]

I still think it is more probable that the material in the asteroid belt is low in resources, basically rocks that didn't have enough mass to clump into planets. I doubt the metallic content is very high. I also question the Ort Cloud having a lot of hydrocarbons and water ice. Judging by what we have observed it may just be more debris, like the asteroid belt, but even lighter and various Elemental gasses. <br /><br />The only reason most people talk about water ice is comets and their composition and associating them with the Ort Cloud, rather than them being much more massive objects that had the momemtum when they were formed to reach orbits at that distance. In other words Comets y pass through the Ort Cloud region in their orbits of the Sun, but they are distinct objects unrelated to the Ort Cloud. Accumulation of water and hydrocarbons can occur anywhere in their orbits and can still be occuring, shedding material when near the Sun and accumulating it as they travel outbound and back towards the Sun.<br /><br />I can see Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon and other atoms existing that far from the Sun, but where is the energy required to chemically combine them coming from? Maybe the velocity of a Comet could trigger it. But maybe not.<br /><br />I still think the best chance of finding profitable asteroids is to look inward from Earth, and maybe outward a ways, but probably not even as far as Mars orbit. <br /><br />I've got the Phobos photo on my desk top now and it looks like a rock, I would think if there was a lot of various materials in it you would see streaks or variations on the surface. If this is a typical asteroid object captured by Mars gravity it doesn't look too promising. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Y'know Scott, you might consider checking "what you think" against what the evidence shows us. I find it bizarre that you base your conclusions on supposition rather than established facts. Ever hear of google?<br /><br />I'm not going to bother with the details, my experience indicates you would not listen anyway. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

I made this post up for another thread, but thought it might be useful here also. I am certain that some of my points have already been made by others, however, perhaps some of my references might present new information. At any rate, here it is:<br /><br />While I have the greatest of respect for Dr. Robert Zubrin and the people who follow his views (such as The Mars Society) I have to still differ with them in the relative importance of the moon and Mars in the future of the human expansion to the solar system. This even though I have read several of Zubrin’s books and even have them available as treasured additions to my own extensive space oriented library. <br />It is the moon NOT Mars that is the most important to the human development of space. <br /><br />There are many reasons for this position, some obvious and some not so obvious:<br /><br />The most obvious advantage to travel to the moon is the great difference in the distance from the Earth to the moon and the distance from the Earth to Mars. The moon is about 250,000 miles from the Earth, and Mars is some 60 million miles from the Earth at its closest approach to the Earth.<br />These distances then further translate into other measurements of travel. The most obvious of these being travel time. To put it into its simplest terms: travel to the moon takes a few days while travel to Mars takes many months with the currently available chemical rocket engine propulsion systems. Even if (with its own time, money and safety constraints) nuclear propulsion systems are developed for travel to Mars the travel time to Mars is still at least 10 times the travel time to the moon.<br /><br />These far greater travel times to Mars then result in other problems. One is the far greater expense of human beings traveling over such vast distances and times in space. Even the safety of such human travel over months and millions of miles becomes in itself an enormous problem in quality control (an area the I spent some 25

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Point two: The polar hydrogen may end up being too precious a resource to be frittered away on rocket fuel.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Exactly, and why waste it if alternative is readily available: aluminium.

 

[scottb50]

Exactly what evidence? One asteroid has been studied and it appeared to be a dusty rock. Information that has come back from the closest visited comet appears to dispute a lot of theory. <br /><br />Maybe we should just go back to the old days, excommunicate those who don't follow the established dogma and try to have the approved beliefs become fact. I juist wonder if it is me that would not listen anyway or you.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[halman]

frodo1008,<br /><br />Thank you for your excellent contribution to this discussion! Convincing people that the Moon is worth our time and effort is the most important activity possible at this moment. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">Exactly what evidence? One asteroid has been studied . . . </font><br /><br />You mean the study where you called up a photo of Phobos, decided it looked like a potato and then ended the study? <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br />Dude, learn about meteorites.<br /><br />Learn about Oort cloud theories.<br /><br />Learn about NEOs<br /><br />I'm done trying to educate you; if you can't figure out how to google stuff for yourself, why bother?<br /><br />Stop making stuff up as you go and getting offended when someone calls you on it. <br /><br />I might be the most "screw-the-dogma" guy you're going to find, but at least I know what the dogma is before I criticize it.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Frodo lives! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

ou mean the study where you called up a photo of Phobos, decided it looked like a potato and then ended the study? <br /><br />I was refering to the NEAR landing on an asteroid.<br /><br />I don't think Phobos looks anything like a potato. Where did I say that? What I said was if it was rich in metals and other valuable materials that I would expect to see more diverse colors and patterns on it's surface. The best I can see is areas of more recent impact that look about like what hitting a rock with a hammer would expose. Overall it looks pretty barren. It also looks like an object that was captured into Mars gravity rather than one that formed from the same materials as Mars and entered an orbit, which, I think, is one of the theories of how the Moon was formed and why it's Elemental makeup is fairly similar to Earth. <br /><br />I also understand the Ort cloud theories and have also looked at NEO theory, but until there are a few facts to plug into the theories than they are no better than what I have said.<br /><br />I'm not making things up, actually I think it fits very well with the current ideas of solar system development. I also don't recall being offended. I think that was you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[grooble]

It was me who said it looked like a potatoe.

 

[frodo1008]

I am very grateful to those who welcome my presence on these boards. We are all here to discuss one of the most important of human efforts. I also pledge myself to disagree kindly and with understanding to all those whose views I do not share. It is even possible that our efforts here will have some small influences upon those who will follow us!!<br /><br />Thanks again, and Have A Great Day!!<br />

 

[quasar2]

frm what i hear we are quite popular. that`s why i don`t tell all my ideas. some of them may be patentable. soo that`s why alot of times my posts seem half-finished. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I do agree that aluminum-fueled rockets are a good idea for lunar hoppers. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Not just that, its very conceivable that deep-space launches could be powered by clusters of lunar-produced solid rockets. Solids are problematic with earth-to-orbit launches because of lack of abort capability, once they are lit you cant stop them. With deep space missions its not that much of a factor.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Also, is it any less "wasting it" to reserve it all for a hand-full of scientists curious about isotopic ratios? Different folks have different priorties. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Screw the science, but its very likely that hydrogen will be very valuable resource for other purposes, as a source of water, and reaction agent for various chemical processes to get other lunar materials out of the dust and rocks.

 

[halman]

Scottb50,<br /><br />Statistically, it is a poor practice to make generalizations from a single sample.<br /><br />Based upon the compositions of meteorites recovered on Earth, there seems to be three primary types:<br /><br />1.) nickle-iron <br /><br />2.) stoney<br /><br />3.) carbon-hydrocarbon<br /><br />Seeing as no one KNOWS what is in the Asteroid Belt, a survey would be worthwhile. However, the probabilities indicate that almost every element can be found in some quantity there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[dan_casale]

<br />http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/lunar_space_elevator.html<br /><br />The author claims it can be built with currently commercially available materials and can be launched on a single delta IV - Heavy.<br /><br />Here is the story:<br /><br />Space Elevator? Build it on the Moon First <br /><br />Summary - (Nov 18, 2004) Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke famously predicted that we'd see space elevators 50 years after people stopped laughing at the idea. Jerome Pearson has been thinking about space elevators since the early 1970s, and he's been watching the growing enthusiasm (and fading chuckles) with great interest. But he knows there are significant challenges in engineering and materials that still need to be overcome, so he's suggesting NASA build an elevator on the Moon first. And the agency is taking the idea seriously.<br /><br />Full Story - A speech by Arthur C. Clarke in the 1960s, explaining geostationary satellites gave Pearson the inspiration for the whole concept of space elevators while he was working at the NASA Ames Research Center in California during the days of the Apollo Moon landings.<br /><br />"Clarke said that a good way to understand communications satellites in geostationary orbit was to imagine them at the top of a tall tower, perched 35,786 km (22,236 miles) above the Earth," Pearson recalls, "I figured, why not build an actual tower?"<br /><br />He realized that it was theoretically possible to park a counterweight, like a small asteroid, in geostationary orbit and then extend a cable down and affix it at the Earth's equator. In theory, elevator cars could travel up the long cable, and transfer cargo out of the Earth's gravity well and into space at a fraction of the price delivered by chemical rockets.<br /><br />... in theory. The problem then, and now, is that the material required to support even just the weight of the cable in the Earth'

 

[crix]

That's facinating. There really are so many options available to us. <br /><br />I'm still undecided as to which is more likely in the near future, an L1 docking point or a Moon-orbiting docking point. Maybe because I don't understand L1 very well. An object at L1 actually orbits a virtual center of gravity, correct? And this orbit is an unstable equilibrium and requires energy to maintain, yes?<br /><br />A moon-orbiting craft makes more sense to me.

 

[dan_casale]

L1 is the point where the moon's gravity well and the Earth's gravity well touch. It might help if you think of the elevator as passing through L1 and hanging into Earth's gravity well. I don't think you can orbit around L1 or L2. Those two points are more like balancing acts. I believe you can orbit around L3 and L4.<br /><br />200Kg is a small payload but it would only take 7320 trips to fill a shuttle ET. Then a 4 minute burn to get going towards Mars and a 4 minute burn to enter Mars orbit. Should easily move a 100 ton payload from Moon to Mars.<br /><br />

 

[scottb50]

I agree with you, generalizing from a single sample is not a good idea. The Martian Moons have previously been theorized to be captured asteroids and I was influenced by that in viewing the photo. All I meant was if the moon was rich in metals the impacts would probably show various areas of different coloring, but it seems to be fairly uniform. <br /><br /><<Seeing as no one KNOWS what is in the Asteroid Belt, a survey would be worthwhile. />><br /><br />This is the point I am trying to make. It just seems like everyone is ready to send mining missions before they know if there is anything worth mining, or anything there to begin with. Or start building Space Ships on the Moon, before we can even get there, let alone work there or mine the materials needed. Maybe we need to do a little more exploring first?<br /><br />As far as I can see the asteroid belt and Ort cloud are theories, they may or may not exist and their composition is completely unknown, in reality. No one has been there to see them and so far no-one has physically observed them. Both are used to balance the equation of Solar System dynamics, like dark matter trying to explain the dearth of mass needed to explain the Universe and the existing dynamics.<br /><br />All I'm saying is that maybe the more valuable materials may be between the Earth and the Sun, not the other way. Simply gravity pulling them to the Sun. Maybe not the most interesting, but the most profitable. <br /><br />I also agree that every common Element can be found in some quantity everywhere in the Solar System, and in the Universe as well. There doesn't appear to be much hope of finding Kryptonite though.<br /><br /> Hydrogen, and the other Elements familiar to our Solar System, appear to have formed from the same sub-atomic components to make up the same Elements in every other galactical system we have seen definitive data from. The periodic table of Elements doesn't have a lot of blank spaces and the heavier Elements we have <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[halman]

Scottb50,<br /><br />I apologize for being a bit sarcastic. If you look at a good hihg-res image of Phobos, you will notice bands of different colored material, which has the smart guys stumped. Theories abound, but, again, until we can get a close look, take samples, do spectography, it is all guess work.<br /><br />I have been championing a survey mission to the Asteroid Belt to accomplish several things in one mission, including a long-term test of a closed-loop life support system, a long term test of a radiation protection system, and a close-up view of what has been known for over a century to be an area in the Solar System where there are large numbers of planetoids, asteroids, or small bodies. This is one of the biggest mysteries of the Solar System, which can not be answered easily with a robot probe. If this area does indeed represent a boundry between the heavy materials in the Solar System and the light materials, we could find large amounts of light metals, noble gases, and all the elements in the middle of the periodic table. Or, we may just find lots of rocks. Either way, the science will be invaluable in terms of understanding the formation of the Solar System.<br /><br />There is evidence that the densest materials in the Solar System ended up the closest to the Sun. At least, this what the density of Mercury would lead us to believe. If this is indeed the case, then the planetoids which travel close to the sun may be extremely valuable. However, there is little evidence that there is a concentration of them the way the Asteroid Belt is conceived to be. We have several good reasons to chart these bodies, including surveying them for mineral resources. These objects may present the greatest danger of impact with the Earth, and yet they are extremely difficult to detect from Earth.<br /><br />I believe that a priority for the unmanned side of the space program should be the construction and launch of at least two, and preferably several, satelites <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[scottb50]

The problem is that the asteroid belt is still theory. Is there actually a lot of matter between Mars and Jupiter? The Ort Cloud is a theory, no concrete evidence exists for either. <br /><br />Not that I don't think they exist, I just haven't seen enough proof that they do. <br /><br />I also suspect that most of the debris left between the Earth an Venus woul explain the craters on the Moon and the evidence of impacts on Earth. The fact only smaller objects have been recorded in historical times would seem to say that most of the debris has past us. Just looking at the Moon seems to indicate that a lot of s*** was around at some point and abated, which led to life developing. <br /><br />I would like to see a survey mission inward from the Earth to the Sun. The meteors, or debris, that missed Mars, it's moons, the Earth and it's moon and Venus and Mercury are still there, slowly increasing the mass of the Sun as they spiral into it, increasing it's mass until it expands and pulls in all the matter it can and becomes a Blackhole. Which explodes again into a solar system. Groundhog Day, Deja Vue all over again. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[halman]

Scottb50,<br /><br />I had always assumed that since several thousand objects have been charted in orbits between Mars and Jupiter that the Asteroid Belt exists. But I am not very good about keeping up with the latest theory, and I know that the structure of the Solar System is constantly being revised. The only reason that I have postulated a survey mission to the Asteroid Belt is that there are enough objects in that area that it should not require much delta V to move between them.<br /><br />Operating in closer to the Sun, the amount of energy required to change orbits goes up quite a bit, if I understand the gravity well concept correctly. Until we have a good track on a large number of objects close to the Sun, we probably would not be rewarded with a sizable sampling of what lies in that area.<br /><br />This is one of the reasons that I am so excited about the idea of building passive radar probes to map the inner Solar System. Using the Sun as our transmitter, we can detect the radiation which is reflected by even fairly small objects at a great distance, with little expenditure of energy. By establishing at least three of these satellites in solar orbit, inside the orbit of Venus, say, we could develop a detailed picture of what is floating around beteen the orbit of Earth and the Sun. This is the only concept which we could act upon any time in the near future, I believe. Survey missions lasting several years are still likely to be a couple of decades away, unless the funding levels of the manned space program are substantially increased. There is just too much to learn before we can shove off in a ship that will keep us alive for several years. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[alokmohan]

What you mean to say enough proof?

 

[najab]

><i>The problem is that the asteroid belt is still theory. Is there actually a lot of matter between Mars and Jupiter?</i><p>Yes. There actually <b>is</b> a lot of matter between Mars and Jupiter. As halman points out, many thousands of asteriods have been found orbiting between Mars and Juipter. I guess there is evidence for it after all.><i>The meteors, or debris, that missed Mars, it's moons, the Earth and it's moon and Venus and Mercury are still there, slowly increasing the mass of the Sun as they spiral into it, increasing it's mass until it expands and pulls in all the matter it can and becomes a Blackhole.</i><p>The Sun contains about 98% of the matter in the Solar System. Even if it were to consume <b>all</b> the remaining matter in the Solar System it would be about 1/5th the mass required to become a black hole.</p></p>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>As halman points out, many thousands of asteriods have been found orbiting between Mars and Juipter.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I wonder how much a <i>per unit</i> cost would be, if someone built like ten SMART1-like electric propulsion probes to examine the asteroid belt up close ?<br />Such project could give us statistically significant sample of whats actually out there.<br /><br />

 

[Astrosag]

Maybe your trying to get at the whole issue about space exploration and why we put forth so much money. To be honest, the only things people can list that we have directly benefited from space are things like jacket insulation for cold weather. But the way I see it is that, even with all those reasons posted by numerous people (which are very valid), is that space exploration is more of a luxury than a necessity in today's world. Especially manned exploration. But there are benefits from it and its a luxury we can afford. The way I see it is that what we're gathering and learning may not be applicable directly today but in tens to hundreds of years, it will matter. The issues of colonization or at least getting materials from exterrristrial bodies will be pertinent. I believe that we have to keep progressing in space b/c I fear if we stop, it'll be detrimental to acheiving the knowledge and technology that we can use years down the road. I don't know, its kind of hard to explain but hopefully I'm making some sense. yes for now space exploratino USES technology already developed for industry or military, but I think in the end, its the only way to go, we WILL see some direct benefits down the road.