What's the Moon good for?

j05h · Aug 9, 2006

> If you pepose to open factories in vacuum,moon is best place. Except for the caustic, abrasive dust. And the gravity well. Much of what has been proposed for the moon consists of resource extraction and launch for manufacturer in freefall. Lunar dust is going to be a huge issue, at least Mars has some weather. For vaccuum manufacturing, freefall offers the purest environment. We've discussed blowing glass on an industrial scale (bubble worlds), in freefall this is fairly straightforward. In a gravity well the glass bubbles deform. The Moon is not a perfect vacuum, there is still a trace atmosphere and plenty of static-suspended dust. It's not a perfect environment for manufacturing, far from it. O'Neill Cylinders weren't forged on the moon, they would be smelted and built in freefall at L1 from lunar resources. The third industrial revolution will take place largely in freefall. While more complex, resource extraction in freefall has scaling advantages over planets. Shipping is far simpler in freefall and manufacturing environments can be tailored to exact needs. Truly particle-free vacuum manufacturing really requires a "wake shield" structure, and be in freefall. No lunar dust need apply. I'm not saying that Lunar or Mars won't see development, far from it. I think that anything beyond small bases will only happen if there is industrial infrastructure in freefall to build the planetary cities. Oh, and re-read TheShadow's long post, what he said, especially about spacesuits. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

yoda9999 · Aug 9, 2006

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. Me: I think another use of the moon is dangerous biological or nanotechnology experiments. We can do all the dangerous viral research, like ebola, anthrax, smallpox on the moon. Runaway nano molecular machines could also pose a danger to the environment like in Eric Drexler's "grey goo" scenario. We can also use the moon as a prison world like Salusa Secundus. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

dreada5 · Aug 10, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Nope, no idea. And you don't know either. It's speculation on anyone's part. I actually refuse to go through the exercise of developing a parametric model that derives some arbitrary number built on presumptions and assumptions. As an investment banker I understand the value of these types of analyses, and also when such things provide no real value because the inputs aren't credible or reliable, but in the end rarely are they the deciding factor in a serious decision. <hr /></blockquote> Agreed.

alokmohan · Aug 10, 2006

True .Getting Investors will be problem

mental_avenger · Aug 10, 2006

kadetken says: Nope, no idea. And you don't know either.[ how difficult and expensive it would be to manufacture anything on the Moon ] Actually I do have a pretty good idea on how difficult and expensive it would be, especially at first. Getting each person to the Moon would be very expensive, perhaps $30 million per person for one-way fare, even 10 years after we establish a base. Living expenses would be very high, since everything including all food would have to be sent from Earth for a long time. It isn’t necessary to analyze it item by item to understand it would be orders of magnitude over manufacturing cost here on Earth. Yes, I pulled that 1000 times more expensive out of the air, but it is based on the certainty that the costs would be prohibitively expensive for a long time. Maybe 1000 times was too low? kadetken says: Nope. Do your homework before spouting off. Spouting off? What is your problem, Jack? How does information at your link refute what I said? Actually it rather supports it. From the above table, Mars soil contains between 48%-56% Oxygen. That isn’t too far different than the soil on Earth. But of course it would probably vary, and since we haven’t taken samples at very many sites, we don’t have enough data on Mars yet to determine an average value. Too few data samples means we don’t know. Yet. kadetken says: but in the end rarely are they the deciding factor in a serious decision. But they will be when the time comes where the equipment is built and being used to ferry people to and from the Moon on a regular basis. Then the costs will be able to be calculated very accurately, and they will be the deciding factors. It is unlikely that there will be any manufacturing on the Moon for use off the Moon for at least 20-30 years after a base is es <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

j05h · Aug 10, 2006

> If there is one thing that Moon dust is not, it is caustic, whereas Martian dust almost certainly meets the criteria for caustic, as noted above. Good point about non-caustics, but Lunar dust is still going to be a major issue for machinery and people. I really like the sinter-microwave idea and think it does have long term application, but dust is still going to cover everything on the moon. That's really interesting about Martian soil burning skin. I don't see how Lunar regolith is going to be that much different from Martian regolith from growing crops - they both need hummus materials from Earth and would both need some kind of processing to work (composting or removing the toxins). I'm not familiar with hexavalent chromium but it sounds nasty as chromium by itself can be quite toxic. I still think exporting lunar regolith for Martian farms is unlikely. There is plenty of regolith across the solar system, it's the bacterium and other life that is missing. Even if Mars regolith had toxins the moon didn't, it's still going to be cheaper/easier to process it locally into something usable. I like regolithology. It's my favorite new subject! 8) Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

mental_avenger · Aug 12, 2006

You seem to agree with this guy that the Martian soil will burn your skin. And yet I have found several sources, such as the Planetary Science Search, which seem to show the Marian soil as very much like Earth soil, overall. So what would make one burn like acid and the other be relatively neutral? This hypothesis about the Martian soil burning your skin could be a major problem if true. It could also be a serious detriment to the push to Mars of false. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

halman · Aug 13, 2006

Mental_Avenger, et al, True, labor costs in space are going to be horrendous. However, robots are finally starting to become reliable for repetitive operations in controlled environments, and we have not even started to look at telepresence in space manufacturing. The moon will be a source of metals and chemicals, but probably not a manufacturing center for some time. The cost of making things anywhere in space means that only products that cannot be manufactured on Earth will be made off-planet. Zero gravity, coupled with unlimited, uninterrupted sunshine, will make solar orbit space stations the first large scale manufacturing centers off planet. In zero gravity, we can make parts out of aluminum/iron alloy, because the density differences won't matter. Annealed properly, even straight aluminum can be made many times stronger than any casting made on Earth. With reinforcing carbon filaments, and foam technology, super lightweight, extremely strong tools, components, and castings are possible. Products for use in space will be a major market, because the cost of lifting stuff out of Earth's gravity well probably is going to be high for a long time. Once we get the hang of making things in zero gravity, markets will appear on Earth, for things like superlight bicycle, aircraft, and automobile frames. People are already paying 3,000 U.S. dollars for bicycle frames, and I am certain would pay more for greater savings in weight And parts for spacecraft will certainly be a market. The Moon will be a major source of aluminum, titanium, and iron for many years, I believe, in part because humans living on Earth can operate some of the equipment of the Moon through remote control. Note that I said 'some'. Humans will be required on site, but once automated production facilities are established, the number of humans required plummets. The Moon may be the ideal place for strip mining, which could be highly automated. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

JonClarke · Aug 13, 2006

kadetken, quoting a news story quoting Stein Sture Yeah, really nasty, caustic dust loaded with all kinds of nasty contaminants that make some our EPA sites look like golf courses (oooh, hexavalent chromium in your Marspeas?). From the Ad Astra Online article referenced below: "Martian dust could be even worse. It is not only a mechanical irritant but also perhaps a chemical poison. Mars is red because its surface consists largely of iron oxide and oxides of other minerals. Some scientists suspect that the dusty soil on Mars may be such a strong oxidizer that it will burn any organic compound, such as plastics, rubber, or human skin, as viciously as undiluted lye or laundry bleach. "If you get Martian soil on your skin, it will leave burn marks," says University of Colorado engineering professor Stein Sture, who studies granular materials such as lunar and Martian dirt for NASA. Because no soil samples have ever been returned from Mars, "we do not know for sure how strong it is, but it could be pretty vicious," says Sture. Moreover, according to data from the Pathfinder mission, Martian dust may also contain trace amounts of toxic metals, including arsenic and hexavalent chromium—a carcinogenic toxic waste." This is about the silliest thing I have heard for a long time too. Martian dust so caustic as to cause burn marks on the skin? As far as I can tell martian dust has a peroxide content of about 38 parts per million. This is by calculation from reactivity. It would not even make your hair go blonde. Arsenic? All rocks and soils contain some traces of arsenic on earth, but somehow we manage to struggle on and even eat food grown in that soil. Chromium? Mars rocks are elevated with respect to typical terrestrial basalts but still within the range of many terrestrial rocks. There is no evidence that the chromium is in hexavalent form or, if it was, that it posesses any threat to humans wha <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

alokmohan · Aug 13, 2006

We should try moon or mars.One day we have to find alternative raw materials.

mental_avenger · Aug 13, 2006

We are sitting on a ball consisting of 1,083,206,246,123,080,894,852 m3 of raw materials. We will never be able to use a significant fraction of these materials on Earth itself. Materials for use exclusively off Earth will all eventually be produced off Earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

JonClarke · Aug 13, 2006

"Calling what someone says "silly" because you don't like what is said is usually a good indication of not having any substantive reason to disagree, but wanting to denigrate the message anyway. " I have very substatitive reasons to disagree with these statements. The Martian peroxide concentration is v~ 30 nanomoles/cm3 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc97/pdf/1776.PDF . This is 30 micromoles/L, with a dust density of 2.65 and a mole of peroxide weighing 34g, a litre of dust will contain 1.03 milligrams of peroxide and weigh 2650 grams, this is a concentration 38.5 ppm. The exposure limits for hydrogen peroxide are no more than 1.4 milligrams/m3 in the gaseous state http://www.bu.edu/es/labsafety/ESMSDSs/MSHydPeroxide.html . The main toxic risk in inhaled partioculates. Martian dust storms have 10 micron-sized particles per cm3 http://www.ee.duke.edu/~cummer/reprints/010_farrell99_jgr_marsdust.pdf this equals 10 to the 7 particles per m3. Martian dust has a density of 2.65 http://powerweb.grc.nasa.gov/pvsee/publications/mars/techn.html, with 10 to the 7th 1 micron particles of this density there is a mass 2.65 X 10 to the -5 g, which is 26.5 micrograms per m3. If, in the worst case scenario, where there is 26.5 micrograms/m3 of airborne particulates breathed by the crew (the level of a major dust storm), even if the peroxide could convert to 100% gaseous peroxide, it generate ~ 1 nanogram/m3 less than a 10-billionth of the hazardous amount. Current limits for hexavalent chromium is 0.05 milligrams/m3 PEL http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ohb/HESIS/cr6.htm#LEGAL_EXPO</safety_wrapper <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Aug 13, 2006

On the topic of what the Moon is good for, a great current source is the recent book "New views of the Moon" (ed. Jolliff et al., Mineralogical Society of America, reviews in mineralogy & geochemistry vol. 60, 2006). On page 65 Outstanding questions are listed. What is the cause of gloval assymmetry? How does a magma ocean work? What was the early thermal evolution of the Moon? What is the vertical and lateral structure of the lunar crust? What is the composition & structure of the lunar mantle? What is the size and composition of the postulated core? What was the timing and effects of the basin forming events? What is the nature of the South Pole Aitken basin? Was there a terminal cataclysm? How and why is the Moon different from other planets? Are the Apollo surface geophysical measurements representative? How does the lunar history relate to the early history of Earth? On page 600 there is a table with the main technologies for Mars that could be tested on the Moon. Highly resuable EVA suits - while lunat suits will not be suitable for mars, martian suits should be testable on the Moon. Long range teloperated rover Closed life support systems for planetary surfaces) - Moon is more hostile than Mars and therefore systems and technology that will owrk on the Moon will work on Mars. Nuclear power - reactors should be very similar, although the atmosphere of Mars will need to be taken into account (especially for waste heat disposal ISRU - detailed process will be different but components will be similar. Human health and performance - Moon harsher than mars, if people can work on the Moon for long periods they can do so on Mars. It's a great book. Ross Taylor's final chapter is the best summary of what we know and don't know about the Moon i have read. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

alokmohan · Aug 14, 2006

Spce ventures are no romance.You spend billions to get results.

JonClarke · Aug 17, 2006

As promised, here is the arsenic values for martian materials. There is no Viking, MER or Pathfinder data on As. Average of 6 SNC (Martian) meteorites in "The Planetary Scientist's Companion (1998) is 46 ppb. This compares with 121 ppb for the Earth's crust and mantle combined (same source, average of 5), 2000 ppb for terrestrial basalts and 1000 ppb for ultramafic rocks (Field Geologist's Manual, 1998), Taylor (2001) gives a value of 1000 ppb for mid-ocean basalts. Thus terrestrial rocks are much richer in As than Martian ones. Martian crustal rocks are very enriched in Cr compared to terrestrial basalts (3110 ppm compared to 200 ppm). However, the primitive terrestrial Cr levels are much closer to Mars (2247 ppm, average of 8), as are ultramafics in general (2000 ppm) and the terrestrial mantle (2890 ppm). Thjese are all avergae values, there are many areas on earth, near hydrothermal deposits, or chromite acculumations in differentiated plotons, that have much higher levels of As and Cr, respectively. There is no evidence that As and Cr are not a problem so long dust levels are kept to current OH&S limits, which should be straight forward enough. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

josh_simonson · Aug 17, 2006

The moon's biggest asset is fuel in a high energy orbit. It's relatively easy to make a re-useable lunar SSTO, or a lunar space elevator, and either can provide fuel for spacecraft departing the earth for other places. Short of a miracle in earth launch development lunar fuel is required for repeated mars trips.

mithridates · Aug 17, 2006

I agree about building a station with artificial gravity, but it would be both easier in terms of size to build one with gravity similar to that of the Moon or Mars than a full G. As of now nobody has done any studies on the long-term effects of such gravity and that might be the easiest way to go about it. Since there's a large difference between weightlessness and 0.38 G in terms of daily life (not having to bolt things down, being able to drink, take showers etc.) I would be more in favour of a less than 1 G environment. Soon there's going to be that one probe with the mice that'll investigate the effects of Mars gravity on living creatures. That'll be interesting. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----- http://mithridates.blogspot.com </div>

gunsandrockets · Aug 18, 2006

"Soon there's going to be that one probe with the mice that'll investigate the effects of Mars gravity on living creatures. That'll be interesting. " Mars Mice! http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/20jan_marsmice.htm http://www.marsgravity.org/main/ I wonder if they have survived the latest round of budget cuts. The last newsletter is from November 2005. "I agree about building a station with artificial gravity, but it would be both easier in terms of size to build one with gravity similar to that of the Moon or Mars than a full G. As of now nobody has done any studies on the long-term effects of such gravity and that might be the easiest way to go about it. Since there's a large difference between weightlessness and 0.38 G in terms of daily life (not having to bolt things down, being able to drink, take showers etc.) I would be more in favour of a less than 1 G environment. " Exactly right.

3488 · Aug 18, 2006

Even on the Moon (16.7% surface gravity), things would not have to be bolted down & showers could be taken, etc. The reasons stated in previous posts made by Jon Clarke, alokmohan, kadetken & myself, are reasons enough to return to the moon. The moon is a planetary sized & mass object, that is worthy of continued study in its own right, regardless of whether or not we choose to go back as a stepping stone to Mars, 1 Ceres, 2 Pallas, 4 Vesta, Ganymede, Callisto, Titan, etc. Nuff Said. Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

halman · Aug 19, 2006

1207, Even if the Moon were a ball of useless dirt, it is still very important, I believe. Why? What other body in the Solar System is visible to the naked eye? Well, the Sun, of course, but most people by now know that no one is going to live on the Sun. (There was a time when it was thought to be possible!) The pyschological value of the Moon may outweigh all of the commercial and scientific rewards we will find there, simply because anyone can look up and see a place somewhere else other than Earth. If there were people living and working there, and that was widely known, then the mindset that the Earth is endless, the Earth is the Universe, will come to an end. There are still many educated people today who believe that Man can never have any impact on the Earth, because they think of the Earth as being all that there is. The idea of going somewhere off of Earth is absurd to them, even though they intellectually understand that such places exist. But to look at the Moon and say to yourself "I know that there are people up there right now" forces one to accept that there are other places besides the Earth. Mental attitudes have a tremendous impact on the decisions that people make. Having people living and working on the Moon will force one of the greatest changes in mental attitude since the Sun was dethroned as the center of the Universe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

alokmohan · Aug 19, 2006

We should expand ourselves.Its in nature if mankind.Its for economical and military reasons.We have to survive in moon or mars.

3488 · Aug 20, 2006

Alokmohan is correct. We HAVE to be able to survive on the Moon & Mars. We owe to ourselves if humanity is not going to go the way of the Dinosaurs. After Mars we must push out to 1 Ceres, 2 Pallas, Ganymede, Callisto, Titan, etc if we are to survive long term. We have all of our eggs in one basket right now, what happens when that basket is 'dropped' (asteroid impact, major geological upheavals, increase in solar radiation, etc)? Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

arobie · Aug 20, 2006

halman, Very well said. The psychological aspects of the visibility of the Moon is a very important factor. The paradigm shift that will occur when we have people living and working on that place other than Earth that we can see will be of tremendous importance.

mithridates · Aug 21, 2006

I agree. Don't forget Venus though. As the next poster said as well having people on places we can actually see will be of utmost importance, especially for the average person that couldn't care less about space when the exploration is all done by robots. I wasn't born yet when the moon landing happened but I bet it changed the way people thought when they looked up at the moon at night. We need a bit more of that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----- http://mithridates.blogspot.com </div>

soulseekerusa · Aug 21, 2006

We should have built a base on the moon a long long time ago. We need it for future missions to mars and beyond the moon is a very important rock, it is a jump point we could save tons of fuel by launching from the moon. Just think how far we would have advanced by now if we had built a base on the moon many years ago. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

What's the Moon good for?

j05h

Guest

yoda9999

Guest

dreada5

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

j05h

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

halman

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

mithridates

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

3488

Guest

halman

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

3488

Guest

arobie

Guest

mithridates

Guest

soulseekerusa

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page