What's the Moon good for?

[BReif]

In reply to"<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. "<br /><br />I would agree with this assesment of the political landscape. The VSE has received broad bi-partisan support in both houses of Congress, and they overwhelmingly passed a NASA authorization bill that makes the VSE national policy. <br /><br />Also, every time Dr. Griffin appears before a Congressional hearing, he is praised by both Repubicans and Democrats. I think that both sides of the isle support this goal for the American Space Program,<br /><br />There is too, momentum building in the program as well.<br /><br />

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>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. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Hi TheShadow, yeah I know what the context was for that post. I was actually copied it over here to provide info on the differences between the two.<br /><br />I actually disagree with what you say about moon being of no value to Mars. I understand what you are saying and logically and technically speaking the Moon IS NOT required to go to Mars... BUT (and I think this is the point you're missing), unless NASA can show the US Gov't and the public that it is capable of send astronauts to our local neighbour "five minutes away" to carry out activities, we will most definitely not commiting our astronauts to hundreds of millions of miles and a remote planet in the depths of space. <br /><br />Mars training will involve simulation here on earth but also indirectly will require demonstration of systems capable of deep space human missions.<br /><br />Hence the moon IS a "non-technical" stepping stone to mars.

 

[3488]

In response to the brilliant post made by kadetken:<br /><br />kadetken:<br />"Use the silicates to make PV cells. These can be used on the Moon or in cislunar space. Use the metals, titanium, aluminum and iron, to make strcuctural elements, be they for solar power satellites or interplanetary spacecraft (i.e. to Mars). <br /><br />Study the impact record on the Moon and see what it tells us about: <br /><br />a) periodicity in the cratering record <br />b) changing composition of the impactors <br />c) changes in solar wind over time <br />d) changes in galactic cosmic radiation over time as we orbit the Milky Way <br /><br />These records are going to tell us a lot of things about the history of Earth as it has orbited the Sun and the Milky Way. We just have to go there and study it."<br /><br />ME:<br />You said it for me, I could not agree more. The reasons stated above are more than justification nfor further luner exploration.<br /><br />I would ADD to the above, that the moon as a planetary body is worthy of extensive exploration in its own right. <br /><br />Where did the moon REALLY come from?<br /><br />How many selenological episodes have there been?<br /><br />Has the moon ALWAYS kept the same side turned towards us?<br /><br />Creating high resolution mineral maps?<br /><br />I could go on & on & on.<br /><br />We must go back. Stuff the expense. <br /> <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>

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>What's the Moon good for? That's easy: <br /><br />http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive06/MurphySide_041706.html <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I think it still ultimately boils down to tourism and mining/construction.

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>We must go back. Stuff the expense. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Yes thats true and we are going back with NASA for scientific/exploration capability reasons. But this topic is really more about the commercial benefits and whether private industry will be motivated to do so and IMO, as stated above, there are probably only two reasons that MAY motivate them sufficiently.

 

[alokmohan]

Ver nice and relevant reply.It was much discussed topic after successful appllos.

 

[TheShadow]

<font color="yellow"> I actually disagree with what you say about moon being of no value to Mars. I understand what you are saying and logically and technically speaking the Moon IS NOT required to go to Mars... </font><br /><br />I actually didn’t say that. I said it was of no value as a training area for Mars equipment or procedures. That is quite true. But, eventually, the Moon will probably be useful as a source for off-Earth materials for spacecraft headed out to Mars and other planets. Not having to boost all that mass up through Earth’s gravity well will be a big advantage. However, it will be a long time before materials (steel, aluminum, silicone etc.) will be practical to produce on the Moon. It certainly won’t be in time for the first 20-25 Mars missions.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> BUT (and I think this is the point you're missing), unless NASA can show the US Gov't and the public that it is capable of send astronauts to our local neighbour "five minutes away" to carry out activities, we will most definitely not commiting our astronauts to hundreds of millions of miles and a remote planet in the depths of space. </font><br /><br />And I think that the point you are missing (don’t feel bad, everyone seems to be missing this one) is that people in general are not stupid. If it is explained to them, they will understand. I have heard members here say “sure, I understand it, but the voters and politicians won’t.” People are smarter and more capable of understanding things like this than they are generally given credit for.<br /><br />The misconception is that all the places that are “out there, in space, away from Earth” have something in common that they don’t share with Earth. Hello, Earth is “out there, in space” too. The only things we have to look at is the actual conditions we will face in each location. As pointed out above, there are many places here on Earth that are far more similar to Mars than anywhere on the Moon. <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>

 

[josh_simonson]

The moon will always be easier to launch from than the earth, and spacecraft in cis-lunar space have a 2.5km/s delta-v advantage over LEO for going anywhere in the solar system. This makes lunar orbit resources about twice as valuable as LEO resources for missions to Mars or other locations. <br /><br />Furthermore, LL1 is a very important point because it is the closest unstable lagrange point to earth. Timed correctly a flight from LL1 to EL2 costs only 14m/s delta-v. A similar low energy window exists from EL2 to MarsL1/2. This would take too long for a human crew, but a cargo craft could deliver durable goods from LL1 to mars (and back) for very little delta-v. <br /><br />With such a low energy path available from cis-lunar space to Mars, it makes a lot of sense to use it in conjunction with nearby lunar resources to ensure that Mars missions are sustainable. A Mars mission without lunar resources requires 6-8 HLV flights, which is clearly unsustainable. <br />

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Luna gets better with every post! It is a great place for mining & manufacturing. A base for sample returns that absolutely cannot harm the Earth. LL1 is the best place for interplanetary ships to anywhere in the Solar System. When do we start.<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <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>

 

[j05h]

Export regolith from Luna to Mars? That's the silliest thing I've read on this board. Mars has plenty of regolith of it's own. Orbital greenhouses might need Lunar exports, they'll probably be hydroponic, but Mars greenhouses surely won't. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[mental_avenger]

kadetken says: <font color="yellow"> That's fine, then you invest in that and I'll invest in other things like trade goods and consumer items and hopefully we'll both be right. </font><br /><br />Any idea how difficult and expensive it would be to manufacture anything on the Moon? Even after we have established a base on the Moon, labor costs would be about 1000 times what they are on Earth for many years. Labor would probably never get below 25-50 times the labor rates on Earth for the next 100 years.<br /><br />All the manufacturing equipment would have to be carried to the Moon. All the raw materials would have to be mined, refined, and then processed. Many of these processes use large amounts of power and large amounts of water.<br /><br />kadetken says: <font color="yellow"> In what may be the ultimate irony, it's likely that Martian greenhouses will need terrestrial and lunar dirt in which to grow plants (humus as the seed dirt from Earth and regolith as neutral bulking material from the Moon). </font><br /><br />?<table><br /><table border="1"><br /><caption><em>Crust Composition</em></caption><br /><tr><th rowspan="2"><th colspan="1">Element<th rowspan="1">Earth<th rowspan="1">Moon<th rowspan="1">Mars</th><br /><tr><br /><tr><th><td> Oxygen <td>46.6%<td>43% <td>?<br /><tr><th><td> Silicon <td>27.8%<td>21%<td>20%<br /><tr><th><td> Aluminum <td>8.1%<td>10%<td>3.9-5%<br /><tr><th><td> Iron <td>5.0%<td>9%<td>12.9-9%<br /><tr><th><td> Calcium <td>3.6%<td>9% <td>4.2%<br /><tr><th><td> Sodium <td>2.8%<td>.3%<td>2.6%<br /><tr><th><td> Potassium <td>2.6%<td>.1%<td>.12-.3%<br /><tr><th><td> Magnesium <td>2.0%<td>5%<td>3.6-6%<br /><tr><th><td> Titanium <td>.05<td>2%<td>.4-1%<br />

 

[bojanm]

for posting a large telescopes.since i doubt any of us here will be alive when humans start launching probes to another stars these telescopes are only chance for us to see whats out there.

 

[vulture2]

The only end applications for humans in space so far are research, tourism, and maintenance. All are very sensitive to launch cost. There is, remarkably, a very small market for tourism in LEO at $20 million per person, but for the Shuttle or CEV the cost to LEO is ~$70 million per seat; and at that price there is so far no commercial market. It's no accident that the commercial entrepreneurs are looking for something more practical, and IMO NASA sould be doing the same.

 

[henryhallam]

I think that having a permanent human presence in LEO is an important step towards space colonisation and industrialising the solar system. In my view, this is a better justification for ISS than the science performed on the station.<br /><br />In a similar way I think that a permanently manned moonbase is a definite step forward and we ought to have an outpost there as well as on Mars.

 

[scottb50]

I said it was of no value as a training area for Mars equipment or procedures. <br /><br />I think the reduced gravity and even lower atmospheric pressure makes the moon an ideal place to test Mars equipment. If it works there it will work everywhere. You can only simulate so much and by testing something that will absolutely have to survive on Mars in the obviously worse conditions on the moon a lot could be learned.<br /><br />I would think anything that could be used on the moon would be more than suited for Mars, not a lot more benign environment, but more acceptable than the moon and a lot harsher than Earth. To put equipment tested in theory on a mission that would last for extended periods is just asking for problems. I would much rather find the problems, after Earth testing, on the moon where help is weeks away and not months. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[TheShadow]

<font color="yellow"> I think that having a permanent human presence in LEO is an important step towards space colonisation and industrialising the solar system. </font><br /><br />I agree. It is one of the most important steps.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> In my view, this is a better justification for ISS than the science performed on the station. </font><br /><br />I strongly disagree. The ISS is an incredible waste of money. It should never have been built. The only thing the ISS has done is waste money, delay the building of a real space station, and turn public sentiment against space stations. We need a REAL space station up there.<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>

 

[bojanm]

i forgot to say its also great place to study a concept of living out of earth for future missions to mars and beyond beacuse its close...

 

[qso1]

TheShadow:<br />I strongly disagree. The ISS is an incredible waste of money. It should never have been built.<br /><br />Me:<br />If I had to say anything, I'd say built the way it was. It was simply built in a wasteful way. One part of that was it was way to ambitious for the shuttle we had. It was built for the shuttle as planned circa 1970. A shuttle making plenty of inexpensive routine flights.<br /><br />By the late 1980s, NASA knew this but went on to build ISS as designed in the early 1980s. Some of the problem could have been eased by launching ISS elements to orbit aboard shuttle "C". Despite shuttle "C" reportedly being as expensive as the shuttle, there would have been significantly fewer "C" flights.<br /><br />Despite all that, we have gained our own experience base with permanent human presence in space, and a better understanding of how long humans should be allowed to be in space.<br /><br />Considering where and how government wastes our tax dollars, ISS is small potatoes. Its better to have ISS than not to IMO. <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>

 

[scottb50]

It's ther so we should get as much use out of it as we can. true it was based on a much cheaper and less problamatic Shuttle program, but that's the way it goes.<br /><br />I reality is it's there and NASA is hel bent on finishing it, so we might as well use it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[TheShadow]

Scottb50 says: <font color="yellow"> I think the reduced gravity and even lower atmospheric pressure makes the moon an ideal place to test Mars equipment. If it works there it will work everywhere. You can only simulate so much and by testing something that will absolutely have to survive on Mars in the obviously worse conditions on the moon a lot could be learned. </font><br /><br />A common misconception. It wouldn’t be just testing in a harsher environment, it would be testing in the <i>wrong</i> environment. Since indoor/below ground activities would be the same except for gravity, the best place to test for that is in LEO. There is no reason to spend 10 times as much to do indoor testing on the Moon. .38 can easily be simulated on a space station.<br /><br />Did you see the list of differences I posted? Some of them are not just different, but radically different. Example, the required space suit. The MKIII semi-rigid space suit weighs about 58 Kg or 127 lbs. The AX5 rigid suit weighs about 82 Kg or about 180 lbs, and that is without the LSS (Life Support System) The typical Apollo suit weighed about 180lbs with LSS, but was designed for a single mission and short duration excursions. The Shuttle EV suit weighs about 310lbs. The LSS on those suits contains breathing air, cooling coils, heating coils, and heat exchange systems. Now compare that with a suit that is suitable for surface excursions on Mars. That suit would be a skin-tight pressure suit, similar to the suits skiers wear in modern Olympic events. It would have a collar and a helmet. The LSS would consist of breathing air. The entire suit and LSS would weigh about 30lbs.<br /><br />In addition, there is no atmosphere on the Moon. Although thin, the Martian atmosphere can blow up to 200 mph. The action of that wind has turned the dirt on the surface into very fine dust, known as “fines”. This dust is as fine as cigarette smoke. These fines are carried into the thin Martian atmo <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>

 

[TheShadow]

qso1 says: <font color="yellow"> If I had to say anything, I'd say built the way it was. It was simply built in a wasteful way. </font><br />IMO it was far more than that. Spending all that money for a station that must remain at zero G and cannot be spun up to provide various levels of artificial gravity was a waste. IMO, the only practical space station is a wheel with spokes. The outside rim can provide Earth normal gravity for most activities. Closer to the center, partial gravity can be utilized for many different kinds of experiments, including simulating both Moon and Mars gravity. At the center, facilities can provide an environment for studies requiring zero G. It would be so practical.<br /><br />qso1 says: <font color="yellow"> Despite all that, we have gained our own experience base with permanent human presence in space, and a better understanding of how long humans should be allowed to be in space. </font><br /><br />And that is the other point. With such a space station, there would be no limit to how long a person could stay in space.<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>

 

[qso1]

I would agree that we should build a station with artificial "G". Unfortunately, politicians are short term when it comes to money and a 1 "G" station the size of the one portrayed in 2001 would require a much larger up front investment than even ISS would have. Such a station could have zero "G" modules as free flyers for tasks requiring a zero "G" environment.<br /><br />One can only hope that ISS will lead to a 1 "G" station, and I think it will eventually. Whether that station is developed by NASA or private enterprise. P.E. probably has a good chance of developing a 1 G station for less money that traditional government contratctor tax payed arrangements. <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>

 

[alokmohan]

If you pepose to open factories in vacuum,moon is best place.

 

[qso1]

Thats true, although initially, LEO will probably be the location of choice until private enterprise sees profit potential for locating industrial operations on 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>

 

[alokmohan]

Once it starts ,medicines which canot be done proprly on earth(you can never have perfect vacuum on earth)can be done there.Mankind will be benifitted immensely.