What's the Moon good for?

[dreada5]

I've been thinking about what real, immediate commercial benefits can missions to the moon offer mankind, other than gaining experience for missions to mars and increasing our scientific knowledge. <br /><br />Which commercial activities (eg tourism, He3 mining, low-grav manufacturing etc) will be the first to attract the private industry in their numbers and how soon?<br /><br />What discoveries and achievements could and would drive and motivate private industry on earth to RUSH to the moon and start a lunar economy?! ie. Helium-3 and Hydrogen mining(?)<br /><br />Its been said that Mars is a much better destination to go than the Moon, because it has so much more resources for ISRU (of course there is some benefit in first regaining our "space legs" for living on alien worlds on our relatively, local moon), but will a mission to Mars really be that much easier than a mission the Moon???<br /><br />Probably another one of the big questions is what will we do if the hydrogen (Arecibo's huge radar scope didn't find any!) at the Lunar poles proves impossible to extract via ISRU? <br /><br />If that is the case, what will we end up transporting from elsewhere in the solar system (including earth) to support a moonbase and how frequently... or possibly, will we be able to create a closed-loop cycle with plants, waste-recycling etc??<br /><br />Opinons welcome! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon#endnote_www.news.cornell.edu.626

 

[henryhallam]

IMHO:<br />He3 is a gimmick and a dead end.<br />Science (both lunar and farside radio astronomy) and tourism are the most promising prospects for semi-private/commercial lunar missions. In any event they are a long way off (considerably longer than private manned LEO spaceflight).

 

[yoda9999]

Except for tourism, I don't know why you would need humans on the moon. Almost everything that needs to be done on the moon can probably be done cheaper by robots. I would really like to know, though, why humans would be needed on the moon.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

I believe water mining at the poles & platinum group mineral mining will be very profitable on Luna. There is a $hitload of PMG’s on Luna. They could be used to start the first true off Earth industrial manufacturing centers. Imagine all the neat stuff you could build in 1/6 gravity. Prefab sections for space stations or interplanetary ships, & just rail gun them into lunar orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[qso1]

dreada5:<br />Which commercial activities (eg tourism, He3 mining, low-grav manufacturing etc) will be the first to attract the private industry in their numbers and how soon?<br /><br />Me:<br />No way to know that now. Thats almost entirely up to private industry. If they see a profit making reason to set up shop on the moon, they will have to develop the technology to get their but they could start operations in as little as 25 years. They first have to get inexpensive access to low earth orbit nailed down.<br /><br />dreada5:<br />but will a mission to Mars really be that much easier than a mission the Moon?<br /><br />Me:<br />I havn't seen anyone say a mission to mars would be easier than going to the moon. One reason for the VSE is to gain the experience for the much more difficult journeys to mars. If industrial purposes are the reason we go to the moon. We won't need to go to mars anytime soon as there will be plenty of resource to exploit on the moon for awhile. By the time we might deplete the moon of useable resource, we should already be going to mars. If for no other reason, lunar operations would know they are running low on resource and would target mars of the asteroids for further exploitation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Almost everything that needs to be done on the moon can probably be done cheaper by robots.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Yes, that's the age-old argument. And if we're talking mining and industrial processing, I think you're probably right. Whatever elements are of value (eg. PGMs), robotic mining is most likely the only way to go!<br /><br /><br />Sounds like a highly detailed lunar mapping activity would be required to precisely locate where valuable element/mineral concentrations are? Surprised this hasn't been done yet!!

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Except for tourism, I don't know why you would need humans on the moon. Almost everything that needs to be done on the moon can probably be done cheaper by robots. I would really like to know, though, why humans would be needed on the moon. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Tourism, mars mission training and the occasional maintenance mission to repair automated mining equipment seems like the only reason for having humans on the moon.

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>dreada5: <br />but will a mission to Mars really be that much easier than a mission the Moon? <br /><br />Me: <br />I havn't seen anyone say a mission to mars would be easier than going to the moon. One reason for the VSE is to gain the experience for the much more difficult journeys to mars. If industrial purposes are the reason we go to the moon. We won't need to go to mars anytime soon as there will be plenty of resource to exploit on the moon for awhile. By the time we might deplete the moon of useable resource, we should already be going to mars. If for no other reason, lunar operations would know they are running low on resource and would target mars of the asteroids for further exploitation. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />What I meant was, will it really be easier to "live off the land" on mars compared to the moon? <br /><br />If living on mars is easier and more industrially-profitable, then I seriously think we should spend as little time at the moon as possible, get the training over and done with and move on!!

 

[qso1]

dreada5:<br />What I meant was, will it really be easier to "live off the land"...<br /><br />Me:<br />I'd have to say yes on that one, especially compared to the moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[dreada5]

yeah. i just came across some interesting stats mental_avenger mentioned over in the thread: <i>Newbie Mars Question -- one person, one way</i><br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Mars: Gravity is .38 of Earth's, Moon: is .17 of Earth's <br />Mars: thin atmosphere of CO2, Moon: none <br />Mars: Massive amounts of water at poles, Moon: May be small amounts <br />Mars: Plenty of Carbon and Nitrogen for growing food, Moon: virtually zero. <br />Mars: 44% of radiation of the Moon: <br />Mars: usable wind for wind power, Moon: none <br />Mars: Day 23 hours, Moon: two weeks <br />Mars: has two moons, Moon: none <br /><br />Gravity. Most scientist agree that the .38G of Mars is probably sufficient for indefinite habitation. However, the low gravity of the moon will probably cause problems for long term exposure. This has yet to be tested, but it is reasonable to assume that a gravity greater than 1/3 our own should be <br /><br />Atmosphere. . Although thin, the Martian atmosphere does provide some protection, especially against smaller meteorites. On the moon, even the smallest particle is not slowed and can kill a person, either directly or by suit puncture. Also, the Martian atmosphere can be mined for carbon and oxygen, both of which are needed for life. The difference between processing O2 out of CO2, and crushing tons of regolith for O2 is significant. In addition, the Martian atmosphere can be used to sink and transfer heat, something that is not possible on the moon. <br /><br /><br />Water. We now know that there is sufficient water on Mars for habitation. The moon has virtually none. If there is sufficient water on Mars, we can also extract oxygen from that. <br /><br />Radiation. Mars is 1 1/2 times further from the Sun than Earth is, and therefore receives 44% of the solar radiation per square unit or about 20% overall due to its smaller diameter. The good news is, that means there is also only 20% of the harmful radiation that the moon has. The</p></blockquote>

 

[webtaz99]

There's one thing the Moon can provide that Mars never will:<br />cheap rocket fuel for getting <b>to</b> Mars.<br /><br />Also, if we ever want to build big stuff in Earth orbit, like spinning 1-g space stations, solar power satellites, or whatever, we will have to use mostly Lunar materials. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spayss]

"...and the occasional maintenance mission to repair automated mining equipment seems like the only reason for having humans on the moon.'<br /><br />Occasional maintenance? You've never been involved in any mining activity. Try 24 hours a day ( multi trade crews, machine shops, etc.) and that's for equipment on Earth that is proven technology and has been modified for maximum efficiency.

 

[cuddlyrocket]

"Almost everything that needs to be done on the moon can probably be done cheaper by robots."<br /><br />Based on results per dollar, geology done by humans would be much cheaper than robots. Same would be true for any serious manufacturing.<br /><br />"I would really like to know, though, why humans would be needed on the moon."<br /><br />Why are humans needed on the Earth? Humans will go to the Moon because it is there. While they're on the Moon, they'll think of things to do. As it's so hard to get there, they'll want to stay as long as possible. Eventually there'll be a permanent presence, and most people on the Moon then will be engaged in maintaining human life and comfort (just as they are on Earth).

 

[yoda9999]

The problem is that robots are improving over time. Right now they are clunky and unreliable. But we are building more and more human-like robots. Robots are already being used in hazardous environments, hospitals and in combat. In the future, robots need less maintenance, and can take care of each other. Robots won't need life support on the moon.

 

[spayss]

Why are human-like robots needed? The value of a robot is their function and efficiency and not how human-like they are.

 

[rogers_buck]

Advertising. Coke would pay good money to turn the thing into a giant logo in the sky.<br />

 

[yoda9999]

By human-like, I was mainly refering to dexterity. Robots are stronger, but they're clunky now. Also, robots would be able to think more like humans, have intuition, make decisions, etc. They think faster, but they're not that smart right now.

 

[qso1]

That came from a discussion we were having about using the moon to simulate mars missions and the moon in general as being a way station to mars. I don't believe we absolutely have to have the moon before mars so to speak. But realistically, the play it safe view will prevail as it already did when Bush proposed the VSE as being, the moon by 2020, mars sometime after. <br /><br />Of course, the Bush proposal may be scrapped after the 2008 elections but thats another matter.<br /><br />When the moon and mars are discussed in the context of practicallity, the moon as an exploitable resource is much more practical to reach than mars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[3488]

Lets see what the results of the LRO will be first.<br /><br />The moon is not a dead end, but the long list provided by dreada5 unfortunately makes any long term ambitions for the moon seem less attractive than for Mars.<br /><br />The moon should be thoroughly explored, & is a window to our solar system's distant past. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

And its also a window to the solar system and beyond by way of astronomy. Imagine a telescope system on a stable platform such as the moon. Two weeks darkness if the scope is on the farside where Earthshine is not a factor. And an interferometer baseline the size of Earths orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[BReif]

I think that a large radio astronomy installation on the lunar far side, sheilded from the earth's radio noise is probably a very compelling reason to for humans to be on the moon. Certainly, the observatory would not have to be permanently staffed, but human tended, just like on earth.<br /><br />A lunar optical observatory would be a positive development as well. The moon would give a stable platform for a very large array of optical telescopes, perhaps capable of finding terrestrial extra-solar planets.

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Of course, the Bush proposal may be scrapped after the 2008 elections but thats another matter.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I'm no expert on american politics, but I've followed VSE from day 0 and with all the thought thats gone into to it from almost everyone you could imagine I'd be very surprised if it is dropped at the next elections. VSE isn't "Bush's idea", its something everyone acknowledged NASA needed. If it didn't have VSE, it might as well curl up and die! So I don't think VSE will get cancelled theres too much support for it.

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Lets see what the results of the LRO will be first.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />But will LRO be capable of providing detailed answers to these big questions we've asked here? I have doubts.<br /><br />I think it'll take at least 2 maybe 3 such missions in orbit and on the surface to build on the results data of the previous mission and hone in on the specific areas of the moon that answer those questions with some certainty!

 

[dreada5]

In any case I'm now pretty convinced now that the following will be the key reasons for humans going to the moon:<br /><br />1) Regaining the capability to visit other worlds and train for Mars<br /><br />2) Tourism (think Bigelow, Space Adventures, Virgin Galactic etc)<br /><br />3) Maintainence on complex automated mining machines

 

[TheShadow]

The original purpose of this post was to show that, due to the differences between the Moon and Mars, that the Moon would not be used for training for Mars missions.<br /><br />The moon is too different from Mars to be used as a “basic training site” for a Mars colony. The Mars Society is doing the smart thing by developing Mars technologies right here in appropriate places on Earth. The moon is not a “stepping stone” to anywhere. However, it might make a handy observatory. <br /><br />There would be no advantage to testing on the Moon. All materials can be tested on Earth, which would be 10,000 times cheaper than testing on the Moon, orders of magnitude safer, and many many times less time consuming. In addition, changes and modifications can be done here in a matter of hours, not weeks or months.<br /><br />Any testing that requires reduced gravity, i.e. .38G, can be done in Earth orbit in a rotating space station cheaper, faster, and safer. That cannot be done on the Moon at all.<br /><br />And the conditions on the Moon are so vastly different from Mars that simulations on the Moon would be useless. Did you know that most of the bulk of the space suits used on the Moon are the result of the need for extreme cooling and heat removal? On Mars, a skin-tight pressure suit and helmet would suffice. That is the same type of suit that can be tested on Earth, but definitely not on the Moon.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><font size="1" color="#808080">Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </font></p> </div>